The Chaotic Stupid PC

[Trandir]

Well probably everyone have seen or played a chaotic stupid PC's (this varies wildly in degrees of stupidity) that does whatever he/she wants, usually without considering or even expecting consequences.

As players or DMs how do you handle these individuals?



Edit: I am a player and not a DM with a problematic player. I am litterally asking what the playgrounders deal with the usuall chaotic stupid PC.

[Sigreid]

I let my players do what they want and the world reacts. It's up to the rest of the party to control them if they choose.

[Arkhios]

I let my players do what they want and the world reacts. It's up to the rest of the party to control them if they choose.

I do the same. In fact, in most games I run, I eschew the use of alignments altogether. Players do what players want, and the world reacts accordingly. If you're acting like an ass, you're set up for appropriate response :P

[MoiMagnus]

There are three problems (often linked to one another):

1) The player is essentially acting like a jerk, hiding behind "that's how my character behave". You need to make clear with him that he, as a player, has total control on the mental state, motivations, and behavior of his character. PC free-will doesn't exist, even though we try our best to play "as if". But "not ruining the fun of others" is more important than "roleplaying exactly the character he has in mind".

2) The player doesn't expect consequences to happen. Some tables do play in a barely coherent and consequence-free universe, and have a lot of fun with it. But most don't. And it doesn't seems to be the case for yours, and you should make sure the player understand it.

3) The character is acting without caring of consequences. Just make consequences fall on him. If the character is too careless to survive in your universe, then he should probably die from the consequences of his actions. (Up to you if you consider it's the responsibility of the other characters to bail out and not suffer from the consequences of their stupid friends, or if you try to make sure the other characters don't get their life ruined by the behavior of their "friend")

[Expected]

Well probably everyone have seen or played a CN PC's that does whatever he/she wants, usually without considering or even expectin consequences.

As players or DMs how do you handle these individuals?

My favorite alignment is Chaotic Neutral but I don't play it like some seem to *cough*Chaotic Stupid*cough*. I value freedom and I think for myself and don't like following orders, so CN PC's work best for me because it reflects how I, myself, think. The issue is when CN players act like murderhobos and kleptomaniacs and sometimes it's difficult to explain why they'd be in a party with LG/LN members (fame and/or fortune is usually a reasonable explanation).

As for DMing, I've only done it for one campaign, but I allow players freedom and agency to do whatever they desire (be it murder, theft, etc.) but all actions have consequences and I make it match the severity of their crimes. I did not hesitate to kill a PC if they acted stupidly and made sure to mention that I take consequences seriously during our session 0.

[Cheesegear]

Well probably everyone have seen or played a CN PC's that does whatever he/she wants, usually without considering or even expecting consequences.

As players or DMs how do you handle these individuals?

That's on you, the DM.
If your players don't expect consequences, let alone consider them in the first place. You, the DM, are the problem. Because you have taught your players that they can, in fact, do whatever they want, and the party and/or DM will just take it. Unless the entire party is on the Chaotic spectrum, there should not be an expectation that a player is simply allowed to do whatever they want.

Player: Can I steal the princess' amulet?
DM: You can try.
Player: *Rolls dice* Yes! *Fist pump* I stole the amulet.
DM: The Princess is aware that her amulet has been stolen. The King and Queen are outraged. Guards have been doubled, and you, random adventurer that was seen eye-balling the amulet, are about to be strip-searched.
Player: No...But I stole the amulet. I rolled the dice. I got away with it.
DM: Sure. You stole the amulet. Nobody knows it was you. But the amulet has been stolen, people are aware that it's missing, and they also don't know you and don't trust you. Actions have consequences.

Players can do whatever they want. That's on them.
Players can't get away with whatever they want. That's on the DM.

Player 1: I draw my sword and attack the Lawful guards just doing their job!
Player 2: We have to make sure this idiot doesn't die.
Player 3: Why? I'm Lawful Good, and I just watched said idiot pull a knife in a barfight, kill a man, and now he's drawing a sword against the Guards. Screw it, I'll join the Guards.
Player 1: What? No. We're a party. You have to help me fight the Guards.
Player 3: I definitely don't and am actively working against this stupidity.

[Trandir]

I am not a DM and this is not a DM help thread.


I just wanted to see what y'all do when a player act in such ways.

[Spiritchaser]

If a player wants to play CN, then the other players (edit: and it has to be ALL the other players) need to understand what that means, and they have to be ok with being in “one of those” campaigns.

They also likely need some DM leniency or advice in order to spec, or to respec into more PVP friendly builds... because “accidents” happen, and if the CN player wants to push a player into a chasm because he thinks the player’s fall will be a poetic compliment to the Sunset, the other players need to be able to do something about it.

After that, have at it, and as expected, If you burn the world, it will likely burn you back.

[Cheesegear]

I just wanted to see what y'all do when a player act in such ways.

A character can act however they want - that's kind of the point of the game:

1. Be prepared to have your campaign de-railed.
2. Be prepared to have other players at your table get pretty pissed off.
3. The NPCs are essentially the DM's avatars, and are totally allowed to act however the DM wants them to. Including essentially acting as proxies for the DM, themselves.
4. Always, always, always detail the law enforcement capabilities of your setting. For some reason, CN characters players, never seem to want to do misdemeanors. Given the freedom to do anything you want...You choose to do...That. Great.
5. Very, very rarely, will That Player, actually be Chaotic Neutral. They almost always Chaotic Evil. Never be afraid to throw out alignment shifts. There are consequences to being Evil, and there are many, many NPCs whose job is to hunt down evil-doers.
"I'm doing what my character would do!" ..."Great. The other players - and NPCs - are doing what they would do, too."
6. Be prepared to have your campaign de-railed.
7. Be prepared to have other players at your table get pretty pissed off.

8. "Your character is now incompatible with the party/adventure (e.g; You're imprisoned, and I'm not interested in playing a prisonbreak). Give me your character sheet so I can use it later as an Evil NPC and roll a new character." I've actually done this one, myself. However, this only works if the player is mature enough to recognise that their character is no longer compatible with the group, and nobody else is having fun...But self-awareness like that is hard. Especially for someone who thinks playing Chaotic Neutral means that they can do anything they want without consequences.

9. Recognise if/when PvP will happen. Generally, it's not fun for anyone. Because very, very few people expecting to play a 'normal' adventure will have a character able to dunk on other party members.
9. Be prepared to have your campaign de-railed.
10. Be prepared to have other players at your table get pretty pissed off.

If a player is deliberately ruining your table, kick 'em out:

11. "You are no longer compatible with the party. Get out of my house."

[Hail Tempus]

A party of PCs need to be able to rely on and trust each other. Depending on the campaign, they're either the equivalent of a special force's team or a crew of professional criminals. What do you think either of those types of teams would do to a team member who repeatedly messed up their mission and caused them problems? At the very least, they'd kick the troublemaker to the curb and tell him never to show his face again. If the team member stepped way out of line, he would either be left to be killed by the people he pissed off, or the team would bury him in a shallow grave.

So, if you're the party cleric, why would you heal or revive the troublemaker? If you're the party fighter, why would you back him up in a fight?

[KorvinStarmast]

My favorite alignment is Chaotic Neutral but I don't play it like some seem to *cough*Chaotic Stupid*cough*. I value freedom and I think for myself and don't like following orders, so CN PC's work best for me because it reflects how I, myself, think.

I played a lot of N & CN thieves in AD&D 1e due to there being restrictions against "good" for thieves -> rogues until AD&D 2E; most DM's didn't like my attempts to choose "good" alignments for thieves. (Which is weird, because the Bilbo Baggins thief archetype was for sure good ... and the Gray Mouser wasn't evil ...) So I adapted ...

Player 1: I draw my sword and attack the Lawful guards just doing their job!
Player 2: We have to make sure this idiot doesn't die.
Player 3: Why? I'm Lawful Good, and I just watched said idiot pull a knife in a barfight, kill a man, and now he's drawing a sword against the Guards. Screw it, I'll join the Guards.
Player 1: What? No. We're a party. You have to help me fight the Guards.
Player 3: I definitely don't and am actively working against this stupidity.

For the OP: Please review this part of Cheesegear's post in light of this comment you made.

I am not a DM and this is not a DM help thread. I just wanted to see what y'all do when a player act in such ways.

If there is a player acting out like a jerkish sort, the other players need to speak up.
Don't dump this all on the DM.
I like what Player 3 does in this scenario, and IMO Player 2 needs to learn how to grapple and drag player 1 away from the guards.

Why?

Because it's a rational response to an idiot starting a fight with some cops.
Something to share with the Player 1 sorts at the table:
When's the last time IRL someone in a group of teenagers smarted off to a cop, or tried to 'start someting' with a cop, and it went well?

On the other hand, if all three party members are in the same thieve's guild or gang or cult or faction, and are of a chaotic bent and hellbound to be trouble makers ... then all three of them joining in makes sense.

[SodaQueen]

You may want to change the title of the thread to "The Chaotic Stupid PC" since that's what you're asking about. It's different than talking about a well-played Chaotic Neutral alignment

[Beleriphon]

I am not a DM and this is not a DM help thread.


I just wanted to see what y'all do when a player act in such ways.

Have a discussion before the game starts, set out expectations. Specifically that I find Deadpool a hilarious comic book, but I don't want him in my game as GM. Anybody being Deadpool doesn't get the benefit of his mutant healing abilities.

[Zhorn]

As either a player or a DM, if someone at the table is playing what they claim as Chaotic Neutral, I tend to allow them as much rope as they require to do themselves in.

As a DM, this means playing the NPCs realistically in response to their antics. Officials don't want to listen to the ravings of crazy folks. guards seek to put dangerous individuals either in jail or to the sword, victims to their antics put bounties on their heads, bad reputations spread, etc, etc. This isn't to punish the players, or adopt a stance of bad-wrong-fun, I just let the player supply the dramatic tension and challenges to their own tasks. There's a lot of story derailing allowed, but it's honestly a lot less prep for the games where the party is just trying to clean up the CN player's mess and deal with their antics.

As a player, I tend to just find a seat and avoid interfering where possible. I have a strong player presence and tend to become the centre of scenes I get involved in, so my character makes themselves just blend into the background during their "lol random" hi-jinks as to not pay the price for their poor decisions. I'm a team player when it comes to campaign goals or party plans, but if the CN player's actions are neither of those; I'm working on an airtight alibi.

[Sigreid]

If a player wants to play CN, then the other players (edit: and it has to be ALL the other players) need to understand what that means, and they have to be ok with being in “one of those” campaigns.

They also likely need some DM leniency or advice in order to spec, or to respec into more PVP friendly builds... because “accidents” happen, and if the CN player wants to push a player into a chasm because he thinks the player’s fall will be a poetic compliment to the Sunset, the other players need to be able to do something about it.

After that, have at it, and as expected, If you burn the world, it will likely burn you back.

Yeah, pushing someone off a cliff for art isn't CN. CN is much more "you're not the boss of me"

[Monster Manuel]

I agree that it's on the DM to impose consequences in-game for irrational behavior. I'll take a different tack, and give some suggestions about what responsibilities fall on the PLAYER to make a chaotic neutral character work.

As a player, you have to have a clear understanding of what "chaotic neutral" actually means to the character. Too often the furthest the player gets into the chaotic neutral mindset is "my guy is CRAZY! Everything he does is TOTALLY RANDOM!", and that's honestly no fun for anyone else at the table. But we can do better than that. Chaotic Neutral is someone who values freedom over all else, regardless of good or evil consequences, but the key to making that work within a group is not to have that be completely unpredictable. Give the character SOME basis for how they make their decisions, even if it doesn't make sense to someone else, as long as it's consistent. If the other players have some idea of where their CN friend is coming from, they can have fun with it. If the CN friend will just randomly decides to wake the group up with a fireball in the middle of camp, haha I'm so RANDOM, then he's just a jerk.

I've done two CN characters that were vastly different from each other, and both worked pretty well. I played one (he was a death cleric) as dead-serious, analytical about his choices, but who was TOTALLY COMMITTED to making his own choices, and also perfectly happy to let people deal with the consequences of theirs. Really high Wisdom, and he was really good at reading people, so he played devil's advocate in every encounter, no matter how morally clear-cut it was.
"Why are you trying to eat that man?"
"Uuuh...me hungry?"
"That's fair. Sir, do you want the troll to eat you? He says he's very hungry"
"NO! Oh, gods, PLEASE HELP!"
"Well, it looks like we have a ...oh. Apparently my friends here have chosen to help the man. Sorry, troll, you're overruled, and frankly, look at that gut. You weren't REALLY all that hungry, were you?"

The character had a -1 to his initiative...he almost always went last anyway. This was just an in-game way of playing it out.

This was a little awkward, in practice. My second CN character worked out really well. He was a CN Dwarven Barbarian, and literally every decision he made was based on how much fun it would be. All of his relationships boiled down to "how much do I like you?" This could have been a nightmare, but the key to making it work was that he liked the rest of the party very much. They were his friends, and he would break any law, kill any foe, despoil any holy sanctuary to help them.

But because I was able to boil down his unpredictability into a simple concept, the rest of the group knew how to interact with him. He would suddenly decide that guarding the Vizier's office was too boring? Quick, come up with something fun to distract him. It just added another truism to the list; never split the party, always check for traps, and don't ever let Bartok get bored. This was a tremendously fun character to play.

[jjordan]

As a player I take the pulse of the table. I have characters talk to other characters. If my character can't play with a CN character then he'll leave the group. And I'll leave the table.

[da newt]

For the OP - roll play your character. If they think the actions of one of their party are harmful to the party or just WRONG, what would they do? Would they sit back and watch? Would they join in due to peer pressure? Would they intervene right then and there? Would they gather the rest of the party and discuss holding an intervention?

I'm not a fan of putting the burden on the DM to regulate - you and your team should self regulate. If the behavior is negative, address it. It's called leadership - where else do we get to practice these various rolls without the real world consequences?

[GlenSmash!]

My favorite alignment is Chaotic Neutral but I don't play it like some seem to *cough*Chaotic Stupid*cough*. I value freedom and I think for myself and don't like following orders, so CN PC's work best for me because it reflects how I, myself, think. The issue is when CN players act like murderhobos and kleptomaniacs and sometimes it's difficult to explain why they'd be in a party with LG/LN members (fame and/or fortune is usually a reasonable explanation).

As for DMing, I've only done it for one campaign, but I allow players freedom and agency to do whatever they desire (be it murder, theft, etc.) but all actions have consequences and I make it match the severity of their crimes. I did not hesitate to kill a PC if they acted stupidly and made sure to mention that I take consequences seriously during our session 0.

Same here on all counts.

[Expected]

As a player I take the pulse of the table. I have characters talk to other characters. If my character can't play with a CN character then he'll leave the group. And I'll leave the table.

Honestly, it's harder to play in the same group as a LG PC with a player who insists on not breaking any rules and turning on the party should they do so.

In a game where I played a CN Shadow Sorcerer/Vengeance Paladin (granted, I did summon Hell Hounds and appeared evil), our LG Cleric decided I was the enemy instead of the corrupt BBEG (who happened to be a Cleric as well). He attacked me and our Paladin decided not to choose sides so I had to fight the BBEG and our Cleric at the same time. I'm not going to lie, I barely survived and knocked our non-optimized Cleric unconscious (I could've, and maybe should've, killed him) because the Paladin chose to help me with Shield of Faith--I would have died otherwise.

In my opinion, CE players give CN players a bad name because they play CE under the guise of being CN, otherwise most DM's would just say no.

[Keravath]

Actions have reasonable and logical consequences. Always. If the player doesn't plan for those consequences then events will eventually catch up with the character.

This can happen two ways. Either the world and NPCs respond to the actions of the character and stop these actions if they are a problem, or the other characters at the table respond to the actions of the character and stop these actions if they are a problem.

If the problem is the character, then "Stopping" the problem can vary from having a little in-character chat, to in game events that force or entice the character to reconsider their behavior to the character being locked up, kicked out of the party and told to go their own way, to the character dying. All depending on how the character decides to respond to the in game events.

If the problem is the player, then "stopping" the problem usually consists of an out of character chat between the DM, the problem player and the other players explaining the issue and how the behavior is negatively impacting the play experience of everyone else at the table accompanied by a request to modify the character in-game, play another character or in extreme and usually rare cases, not play at all.

[Warlush]

Edit: I am a player and not a DM with a problematic player. I am litterally asking what the playgrounders deal with the usuall chaotic stupid PC.

As a DM I would kill him.

As a player I would work with the other players to kill him.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

What do you consider a chaotic stupid?

Because a CN character can see a child crying, go to him, hug him and ask him what happened.

Then go to the ones who made him cry, talk to them about the kid toy, if they won't agree kill them, pot the heads on pools and bring the kid the toy back as he tell him the the bad men will no longer hurt him.

This story show the CN character do good and bad as they piss on the law and act in their own way.

[ezekielraiden]

I let my players do what they want and the world reacts. It's up to the rest of the party to control them if they choose.

I also do this...but I also have a firm policy: I ask them if that's what they actually do, once. You get one chance to step back and ask, "is that a good idea?" I ask this quite frequently because my players like to talk and interact out of character, so it's in part just a "are you joking around or are you serious" confirmation. But even in purely IC moments I have definitely asked, and often the player reconsiders. I see this as being a respectful compromise between welcoming player enthusiasm, and helping players really think through their choices and motives.

But if you really do a dumb thing and it bites you in the ass? You (the player) have no one to blame but yourself--because you're the one who signed off on it when I asked.

Edit:
As for what exactly happens with a PC continually doing dumb things? Consequences catch up to them. People stop dealing with them. If the PCs walk into a shop and the (notorious) Chaotic Stupid PC (from now on CSPC) is with them, the shop owner probably (=die roll) will notice and either raise prices or refuse to do business with the group. Authority figures keep tabs on them, making their quests more difficult, putting enormously frustrating red tape in their way.

And, separately, I'll probably talk with the player at least 3 times. The first time, I'll let them know, "hey, some of this stuff going on is at odds with the kind of game I want to run. Let's work together to fix this." Second time, it's more serious. "Your character is causing problems for herself and her friends. That doesn't mean you have to change who they are, but it does mean that at least you and I, and possibly the other players, need to have a conversation about acceptable behavior at both the IC and OOC level." Finally, it gets really real, and I'll lay down the law. "If things don't change, I will be asking you to create a new character, because yours will have completely broken off from the party--I'm not willing to run for this kind of PC in the long term. That doesn't mean it's bad for you to want some of these things, but it does mean that the character as you're playing him is a bad fit for my game."

And if they still persist, and make a fuss about it? I'll ask them to leave at that point. It's a fair and open process where I have given three shots, each more specific and strenuous than the last. If all opportunities to change and work with me have been ignored, I neither want nor need that player at my table.

[Zhorn]

I also do this...but I also have a firm policy: I ask them if that's what they actually do, once. You get one chance to step back and ask, "is that a good idea?" I ask this quite frequently because my players like to talk and interact out of character, so it's in part just a "are you joking around or are you serious" confirmation. But even in purely IC moments I have definitely asked, and often the player reconsiders. I see this as being a respectful compromise between welcoming player enthusiasm, and helping players really think through their choices and motives.

DM sin confession time: As a DM there have been times (very very rare) where the CN player has said something along the lines of "I attack the guard", "I light the building on fire", or "I call the ancient green dragon an {expletive} to their face" and I just push forwards with that as their choice of action without pause, knowing full well that if I asked them "are you sure?" they would back down pretty quickly. Mostly I just do this when the players are having a bit of a slow day, discussing a lot of things OOC and drawing out scenes/turns overly long. First course of action declared the the course of action enacted, no take backs.
My players know that I tolerate the loonie CN players in my games, and humour them time to time, but they also learn pretty fast that if the CN player is left unchecked, their actions will dictate the responses in the world.
This tends to be foreshadowed to the serious players first when they'll ask a question if they could do a thing during combat and I tell them the roll they are making with that action locked in, or if the players start talking to each other during RP and I'll have the NPC respond as if those things were said in character.

[Spiritchaser]

Yeah, pushing someone off a cliff for art isn't CN. CN is much more "you're not the boss of me"

I operate under the assumption that CN has most to do with a character’s belief that they should be free to do what they wish, but without a particular or consistent drive towards positive or negative outcome. This doesn’t have to be combined with a random recklessness, but At least half the time I’ve seen it done that way.

They might spend a week building a bridge because it looked pretty in front of a waterfall, then set it alight while relaxing with a drink to watch the flames from the best vantage point

They might accompany a great general on a desperate invasion of hell itself because they wanted to see the expression on his face when he realized his folly, not working to achieve that folly, quite the opposite, and then be quite disappointed when they succeed in retrieving... whatever.

They might spring a trap on themselves if they felt like it.

I’ve played in a Party with a CN and a CE character. The CE character might stab you in the back to take your boots. The CE character might cook and eat the boots.

Would he stab you to get them?

I have no idea.

And up to that moment neither did he.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I operate under the assumption that CN has most to do with a character’s belief that they should be free to do what they wish, but without a particular or consistent drive towards positive or negative outcome. This doesn’t have to be combined with a random recklessness, but At least half the time I’ve seen it done that way.

They might spend a week building a bridge because it looked pretty in front of a waterfall, then set it alight while relaxing with a drink to watch the flames from the best vantage point

They might accompany a great general on a desperate invasion of hell itself because they wanted to see the expression on his face when he realized his folly, not working to achieve that folly, quite the opposite, and then be quite disappointed when they succeed in retrieving... whatever.

They might spring a trap on themselves if they felt like it.

I’ve played in a Party with a CN and a CE character. The CE character might stab you in the back to take your boots. The CE character might cook and eat the boots.

Would he stab you to get them?

I have no idea.

And up to that moment neither did he.

I think that the CN just acting without the law in mind.

He may say hello and hug his army commander when others solutes because he have no concept of order and law.

He doesn't have to be random, just true to himself.
He care not about the law or what is good or bad, he just do what he think is right.

He may refuse to get checked in the front gate but he have no reason to attack the guards if they are not oppressive.

CN is anti law and order, not anti reason.

[Cheesegear]

For the OP: Please review this part of Cheesegear's post in light of this comment you made.

If there is a player acting out like a jerkish sort, the other players need to speak up.
Don't dump this all on the DM.
I like what Player 3 does in this scenario, and IMO Player 2 needs to learn how to grapple and drag player 1 away from the guards.

It's an adaptation of what actually happened in a game of mine a while back. I posted the story in a thread about CN characters and how the only reason that they get away with it, is because the other players and/or DM enables them to. I would link the story. But I forget what the thread was called. But it goes like this...

Spoiler: Story Time

Show

The party was looking for an audience with the Count. However, they were being sandbagged by the doorman, 'cause, y'know...Who are you, and what do you want, and why the **** should I give you an audience with the Count? Come back when you actually have business. Instead of going straight to the Count 'cause that's where you think Quests come from.

CN Rogue says 'Sod this', and leads the party to the back wall. He decides he's going to scale the wall. I - the DM - have no idea why he wants to. As we've just established, they have no actual reason to visit the Count at this point in the story, so why is he so dead-set on it? I don't know. But, y'know...Your players can try anything, right? I'll improvise if something happens, right? That's why I'm DM.

"Do you have a Grapple hook? Rope? Spiked shoes?"
- "No."
"Okay then. Roll Athletics with your bare hands, I guess."

Unsurprisingly, the Rogue fails to climb the wall.
Scratching at the wall draws a Guard 'round the back. The Guard catches the Rogue trying to trespass on the manor, and calls for extra Guards.
The Warlock, tries a Bribe. Walk away. It was a mistake. You didn't see what you thought you saw...And here's 50 silver to have a physician check out your eyesight. On us. Right? All good? If you tell your crew that you even made a mistake when they show up, we'll even throw in a round of drinks for you and your mates, and you can even say that you bought 'em. Y'know. You call your mates 'round the back wall for no reason, surely you buy the first round? Makes sense.

Rogue, once again, plays Chaotic Stupid to the hilt, and stabs the Guard for no reason at all. Why did you do that!? The Warlock had this problem solved. And you caused the problem in the first place!

Extra Guards come round the corner, they see the Rogue, with a bloody Dagger in his hand. A houseguard on the ground, bleeding out. Draw steel.

Lawful Neutral Fighter: "I'm not rolling Initiative. Trespass is one thing. I didn't sign up for homicide against house guards. I unsheathe my weapon, put it slowly on the ground, and get on my knees."
Chaotic Good Cleric: "I mean...I all for attacking people who deserve it. But I'm pretty sure **** has hit the fan at this point. I get on my knees. But I explain to the Guards that I'm a Cleric, and if they would let me, I can heal their friend before he bleeds out. We can salvage this...I think. [Warlock] can lie his ass off again and get us out of trouble."
Lawful Evil Warlock: "No. I wont. I don't kneel. But I do put my hands on my head. I'm not part of this. I mean...They don't know I'm a Warlock, right? And it's not like I'm wearing armour. I try to make myself appear as non-threatening as possible. Whatever the Guards want to do at this point to [Rogue], I'm willing to let them do whatever they need to do."

Rogue: "Oh come on! We've got this. Let's take out these scrubs. They're only random Guards."
Fighter: ...Two of us are Lawful, and the other is Good. We're not helping you, dude.

Me, the DM:
At this point, I'm not particularly interested in roleplaying the combat because this isn't how I wanted the session to go. So we'll fast forward and I'll just give you three options:
1. You can fight the guards, and die. It's not a particularly noble or memorable death. But it's realistic. And Roll a new character.
2. You can surrender now, and you [Rogue], specifically, are going to a dungeon. Your part in this adventure is over. Roll a new character.
3. You can fight the guards, and escape. Give me your character sheet so [Rogue] can show up later in the adventure. Roll a new character.

As for the rest of you...The Count wants to see you. He'll give you a Quest so you can earn your redemption from being associated with this ****head.

...And that's how I've 'handled' a Chaotic Stupid character in an actual game.

[Monster Manuel]

Something that occurred to me about this thread long after I posted and had moved on...

This issue isn't unique to Chaotic Neutral, either. We've seen plenty of similar threads bemoaning the "Lawful Stupid" end of the spectrum as well.

Really, the issue boils down to the desire, in some players, to play out some concept they have for their character regardless of how unpleasant that makes things for the rest of the group. And the solution, pretty much universally, boils down to Don't Be That Guy.

[Sigreid]

I personally maintain that completely crazy and random isn't CN, it's unaligned as you have no real grasp of reality.

CN in general wants to be left alone by authority to lead their best life. It's not the alignment for "too stupid to realize they're causing themselves unnecessary problems for no damn reason".