The Chaotic Stupid PC

[Hail Tempus]

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".

When I think of a CN character, I think of Han Solo when we first meet him in A New Hope. Or Bronn in Game of Thrones. They aren't guys running around doing random, stupid things. They just have no particular interest in the law or authority, are willing to do good or evil things, depending on the money, and only care about themselves, and maybe a friend or two.

[Sigreid]

When I think of a CN character, I think of Han Solo when we first meet him in A New Hope. Or Bronn in Game of Thrones. They aren't guys running around doing random, stupid things. They just have no particular interest in the law or authority, are willing to do good or evil things, depending on the money, and only care about themselves, and maybe a friend or two.

Han is a good analogy. No idea about the other one.

[Beleriphon]

For CN outlook I like Dutch's philosphy in RDR2. Dutch himself is probably NE, he's opportunistic and as the game goes on his worst tendencies come out.

At the core though the philosophy is they're not criminals, they are outlaws: free of the bonds of civilization to live as they please, no rules but their own to follow.

[KorvinStarmast]

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.

Nicely done

[Magicspook]

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.

I swear I've read this before. Did you post this in the past? Anyway, have a mental like because this forum doesn't have actual likes.

[BloodOgre]

If the characters get themselves into a sticky situation, it is not up to the DM to get them out, particularly when they do something stupid. If you ensure that actions have consequences, most players will (eventually) figure that out and correct their ways.

OTOH, there are ways to play chaotic stupid well, and that should be rewarded. We had player play a half-orc with low INT and WIS scores. We were going through one of the adventures in Yawning Portal. During an encounter where we got ambushed by a group of goblins, the half-orc rolled a crit fail on an attack and busted his weapon. So he picked up a dead goblin and started swinging it. His next several attack rolls all hit including a nat 19 and a nat 20 (both crits for his subclass) so he assumed that dead goblin should be his weapon of choice. The next day, we encountered a room filled with goblins and the half-orc realized he didn't have a dead goblin to fight with... "Oh no!, Me no have dead goblin! I go get one!" He turned and ran all the way back to where we had left the dead goblins the day before and came back with one. Of course, by the time he got back, combat was over, but still, it was good for a laugh, and totally in character.

Later in the campaign, another player (a chaotic stupid player) decides his character will rob a noble's house because he wants to buy a hell hound and doesn't have enough money. For some reason, he burns the nobles house to the ground after robbing it and stands in the street bragging about burning the house down to passers-by.

In the meantime, the half-orc has been going to school, trying to learn to read and write and count in his downtime. Later that day, when the guard show up to arrest the PC that burned down the noble's house, all the other PCs let the guards arrest him. As the guards are leaving, the half-orc blurts out, "Ten! There are ten guards! I can count to ten!"

[MadBear]

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.

.... that would be CE, not CN. If you commit murder because someone stole something, and then put that persons head on a pike, you're not neutral. Your evil. Sure you used your evil to help someone (I mean the kid did get their toy back), but that's not really neutrality.

[HappyDaze]

I have seen (just once) a CN character that was played as selfish and anti-authority but actually thoughtful and considerate of the consequences of her actions. She wasn't out to do good or evil for their own sake, just what felt best for her and her friends (mostly fellow PCs but a few NPCs too), but she wasn't stupid about it. I really wish I could see such a character again.

[Yakmala]

Actions have consequences, pure and simple. Some examples:

Situation: The character has gone on a murder-hobo, property damage or theft spree in a town or city.
Solution: If there are witnesses, the word gets out who the town/city watch is looking for. Law enforcement quickly arrives. If they prove incapable of handling the PC, the call goes out to brave adventurers to stop the menace. Your problem player is now the quest for a party of higher level NPC adventurers.

Situation: The character likes harassing/stealing from/murdering shopkeepers that don't give into their demands.
Solution: What do adventurers do after they hit level 20 and have all the best gear? In this case, they've settled down and opened a shop or tavern. Your problem player is about to enter a world of hurt.

Situation: The character likes to split from the party and go off on their own.
Solution: Everyone at the table gets equal time. If you have a party of 6 players and one of those players defies party consensus and goes off on their own, then they get 10 minutes of DM's attention out of every hour while the rest of the party get 50 minutes of DM's attention every hour. If they are content only playing their character for 10 minutes out of every hour, then by all means, split the party.

Situation: The character is attempting to harm or kill other members of the party.
Solution: Inform the player that Player vs Player combat of any form can only occur by mutual consent from all players involved. Any attempts to circumvent this will result in the players removal from the game.

[sithlordnergal]

See, I'm an unintentional Chaotic Stupid... I try to make well thought out plans that seem great in my head, but they tend to fail spectacularly. My characters usually end up getting into trouble, either with whoever I accidentally angered or whatever government there is. A few good examples:

1) At the start of Out of the Abyss, you start out as prisoners of the Drow. You're up in a little stronghold high above the ground, with a ton of spider webs being used to help provide a safe landing if you fall, or a way to catch runaway slaves. Thinking it would make a good distraction as we escaped, I set that web layer on fire...then I destroyed the elevator we used to get to the ground...and I had made sure to set the Temple of Lloth on fire to try and make all the Drow converge on the temple to save it.

Instead the Drow went right to the elevators, and floated down with Levitate, unhindered by my plans.


2) I tried to calm and befriend an angry ghost as a Bard using music...I was thrown out of the house with enough force to actually k.o. me. I woke up with the wheels to our wagon having been stolen. It should be known we had made a semi-shaky peace with said Ghost...so we weren't fighting it.


3) We were being chased by some fire wizard in Barovia that loved alcohol...this one was less thought out then the others, but I decided to get rid of the alcohol by burning it and blowing it up like a mini molotov cocktail. I ended up causing a forest fire that consumed most of Barovia.


4) During one really unlucky stealth mission, my Lore Bard/Wild Magic Sorcerer got a wild Magic Surge on the last round of combat against a shambling Mound and I rolled a 1...which meant I had to roll on the table 10 times. I accidentally hit the cleric with Magic Missile, Confusion, began glowing brighter than a torch, had music ringing around me, and grew a beard of feathers. The Cleric was hit cause the Magic Missile targets a random creature in range. Then later on I had to roll on the Wild Magic Table again and cast fireball on myself...in a 15 by 15 foot room. The cleric didn't heal me after that...


5) We were in the Tomb of the Nine Gods, and everything was going well...Well, first we found a random treasure chest under some kind of barrier. I went down to take a look, woke up a stone golem, accidentally destroyed the chest, and released a curse that destroyed any metallic object within the area with the chest. Then I was looking for a key, and accidentally triggered a trap that caused a Madness effect on everyone in the room. And later on I accidentally fell prey to a curse that forced me to attack the party, and nearly killed the Cleric.


All of those things seemed reasonable at the time, but ended up going horribly wrong. As a result I have the reputation of the chaotic player of the group, and they know I don't do it on purpose. Either way, the DM allows it, with natural in game penalties.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

.... that would be CE, not CN. If you commit murder because someone stole something, and then put that persons head on a pike, you're not neutral. Your evil. Sure you used your evil to help someone (I mean the kid did get their toy back), but that's not really neutrality.

N is not not E.
N can be good and evil.

And it is not murder if it is just. In this situation it was a fight after trying to reason, there was an attempt to act nicely/goodly.
Making an example from people is something common. Look at all the cross using by the Roman empire. Dead body where on display, it was socially accepted.

I don't know about your game but most of mine are not in the modern world. Morale is different, duals was accepted, people killed eachother because of different opinions.

An evil person have no reason to help the child or bring him his toy.

If I was writing that a demon was the man who took the child toy, will you still say it was an evil act?

Because I don't think the CN character care if it was a demon or a human or fay or celestial. The CN character saw something that need to be fixed and fixed it in his own way(trying to talk and if it doesn't work trying to use force).

[Laserlight]

In SKT we had a party full of nutcases. The worst one had a character progression which started sort of CG and went full on CE by then end of the campaign. When he unintentionally summoned a couple of demons, my wizard (who spoke the language) told them "I'm a summoner, and if you threaten anyone except that guy, you'll be my errand boy for the next hundred years. But if you only want him, none of us will lift a finger to stop you. Bon appetit."

Well, not "full on" CE, because he never attacked a PC (although he did kill a couple of allied NPCs). If you're a whack job but you're loyal to your buddies, I can probably work with that.

[da newt]

I think the folks in CHEESEGEAR's tale handled the situation well - the best bit in my opinion is that the other party members took an active roll so that the DM didn't have to be the only one ensuring there were consequences for bad actions.

(but I may be a little biased here as I believe this is a common failure of our society - too many folks enabling crap behavior by turning a blind eye)

[Cheesegear]

I think the folks in CHEESEGEAR's tale handled the situation well - the best bit in my opinion is that the other party members took an active roll so that the DM didn't have to be the only one ensuring there were consequences for bad actions.

I've always maintained that if a player 'Is only doing what their character would do!!1!', other players, are perfectly capable of doing what their characters would do, too. Which includes not enabling and/or allowing people that they associate with to do stupid and/or illegal things. Obviously, there's the Lawful Stupid Paladin extreme end of this. But that's a difference conversation.

[ezekielraiden]

See, I'm an unintentional Chaotic Stupid...

Without having read any more of your post than this, I am skeptical such a thing exists. Though I don't think most people intend to be annoying etc., I am of the opinion that any Alignment Stupidity requires bad intent at some level. So I'm going into this assuming you are being too harsh on yourself!

1) At the start of Out of the Abyss....

That doesn't at all strike me as Chaotic Stupid. You knew webs were flammable; you knew a fire would draw attention. You assumed, incorrectly, that those two things were good things. Anyone with a similar level of information could easily make the same mistake. Having imperfect judgment is not the same as Chaotic Stupid.

2) I tried to calm and befriend an angry ghost as a Bard using music...I was thrown out of the house with enough force to actually k.o. me. I woke up with the wheels to our wagon having been stolen. It should be known we had made a semi-shaky peace with said Ghost...so we weren't fighting it.

...I have no idea why you would receive such a harsh response. This is deeply confusing and doesn't at all sound Chaotic Stupid to me. "Music hath charms to soothe the savage breast," after all. You were working on-theme, especially for a diplomatic Bard character, and you were not in a fight nor expecting violence in response.

3) We were being chased by some fire wizard in Barovia that loved alcohol...this one was less thought out then the others, but I decided to get rid of the alcohol by burning it and blowing it up like a mini molotov cocktail. I ended up causing a forest fire that consumed most of Barovia.

Okay, this is...not the greatest, and if I were a player in that party I would have been more than a little upset. Wantonly throwing fire around is a foolish thing to do. This event alone wouldn't qualify for "Chaotic Stupid," especially if you understood the consequences, regretted them, and (importantly) would behave differently if you knew. But it does mean you're a Very Impulsive Person, and that is something to discuss with your fellow-players any time you join a new group.

4) During one really unlucky stealth mission, my Lore Bard/Wild Magic Sorcerer got a wild Magic Surge(...)

That's not Chaotic Stupid. That's your choice to play a Wild Magic Sorcerer. Anyone playing with a Wild Magic Sorcerer has to be prepared for this sort of thing if the DM is really that much of a richard-head about it. Wild Magic by default is not supposed to be particularly dangerous to the party in 5e--for example, the magic missile doesn't specify that it must attack someone random, so properly speaking, you should have cast it exactly as you normally would, including picking a target. Likewise, confusion is a Concentration spell, so you could end those effects at any time. It sounds very much like your DM takes an unusually harsh perspective on Wild Magic.

5) We were in the Tomb of the Nine Gods, and everything was going well...

Again, no Chaotic Stupid here. Pitfalls, pratfalls, and really unfortunate situations, no bad intent. It sounds like you tend to be the person in the party who takes risks, and are often "on point." You should not be unduly punished, and certainly not censured, for a willingness to take risks. (Heck, I would almost welcome that in my current game, all my players are scaredy cats despite the fact that not one of them has so much as dropped to 0 health.)

All of those things seemed reasonable at the time, but ended up going horribly wrong. As a result I have the reputation of the chaotic player of the group, and they know I don't do it on purpose. Either way, the DM allows it, with natural in game penalties.

As long as they know you're being a positive player, you aren't being the key aspect of any Alignment Stupidity character: you aren't being a nuisance. You're contributing to group fun with reasonable choices that just happen to have negative consequences more often than not. You aren't petulant or egregious, you don't do things "for the lulz," and though you're sometimes dangerously impulsive, there's always an actually reasonable (albeit often incorrect) line of reasoning behind what you did.

So yeah. You're correct that you are not intentionally being Chaotic Stupid, because you aren't being Chaotic Stupid at all.

[sithlordnergal]

-snip-

Thinking about it, you might be correct...I do tend to be the one who enters the room first and I'm far more willing to take a risk. Though with the Wild Magic bit, you can't actually end spells if you cast them. An errata was put out that states "If a Wild Magic effect is a spell, it’s too wild to be affected by Metamagic. If it normally requires concentration, it doesn’t require concentration in this case; the spell lasts for its full duration." As for Magic Missile we have a homebrew rule that, with the exception of the an effect that specifically states that I choose the target, like 65-66 does, if the effect of a Wild Magic Surge can target a different creature then it is rolled randomly.

This has occasionally been helpful, like I have granted Fly to an ally. And sometimes it's not so good...like when the Cleric was hit with a 5th level Magic Missile, or when the Stone Giant had Fly cast on it.

That said, I don't really regret the Barovia mishap...as my party had left me to die on a few occasions and I was starting to run out of "Dark Gifts" that could be given to me as a result of death. >_>

[Kurt Kurageous]

As players or DMs how do you handle these individuals?

As DM, I insist in session zero that players build characters that can work well with others. C-Stupid doesn't work well with others, it generally creates more problems that will need fixing.

A player who forgets this and starts running their character in ways that doesn't work well with others gets reminded by me ONCE. When it happens again, I dismiss them from table until the return with a different character. I've done it once. Usually the person quits after the first warning, which again works out for eveyone, including them.

Look, not everyone fits at every table. C-stupid is great for laughs if you're playing in a world that's a joke. Most DMs don't like to run joke games, but I'm sure they exist.

[Sigreid]

Really, it's up to the party to say "what we are doing is dangerous enough. I'm not doing it with this idiot/prick/lunatic". That applys to refusing to take an NPC with you too.

[FrancisBean]

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."

What I would have given for a DM like this.... For my own character, not someone else's! It's still my worst gaming experience. This was the "evil character in a good party" problem.

We were doing very narrative-driven gaming, and my character was supposed to be a bad guy on a redemption path. Well, that means he has to be a bad guy first. I polled the group first, and they said they were OK with it, so I built him downright evil. And then it turned out this didn't work with the rest of the group, not even a little bit. (Their version of "bad guy" was "Pony Sparkles put Koolaid Packets in the village well without asking!" and mine was "Take a contract on kids? Sure, kids are easier to kill than adults, half price!") I finally offered to trade him out for a new character, and even sent a new character to the DM, complete with a carefully worked out backstory which made swapping easy. After all, my character was the problem, and it needed to go.

He wouldn't hear of it. In fact, he accused me of trying to change out for power-gaming. (The new character was actually weaker than the old one.) I sent him a long explanation of the party problems I was seeing and why I thought a character change was the best option, and he basically responded with "Well, I didn't read all that, but I'm glad you see the light, that your character is the problem and you should play him better."

I probably should have walked away. But I was fond of the rest of the group, so I gritted my teeth and played him fairly lobotomized and flavorless thenceforth. I used to spend the whole drive over to the game griping in my head and bracing myself for the evening. The campaign ended early when the DM finally pissed off other players enough that they walked away from him. I'm not sure that swapping him out would have solved things, but it's reassuring to know that some DMs would have been cool with it.

[Wizard_Lizard]

the partytht I dm only has one lawful character -a classic devotion palafin that happens to have low perception and insight. He thibks that everyone is being lawfuland good, whist the chaotic neitral bard, rogue, sorcerer and wizard do what they like. At this point I've just let them have their fun

[ezekielraiden]

What I would have given for a DM like this.... For my own character, not someone else's! It's still my worst gaming experience. This was the "evil character in a good party" problem.

Ouch! Sorry to hear that. But yeah I'm cool with an "ex-villain" wanting to reform, though your original vision might've been a little darker than I'm comfortable with. Like, I could work with "contract killer who got out of the business when a client deceived me into trying to kill a child"--that shows there's that well-hidden moral center that needs time and patience to grow. I actually have a (non-campaign) story in my head of a Paladin working to slowly redeem a Barbarian that had literally been on the chopping block (because the city conducting the execution had no way to keep him in prison), by demonstrating what "real strength is" and what an unfailingly supportive friend feels like. Sorta-kinda something between the redemption arcs for Zuko and Vegeta: a slow, halting, even painful process that starts with external support, but culminates with an internal desire for something different.

Edit: And as a similar example, I played that sort of Paladin in one game. Actually managed to build up to redeeming not one but two party members, converting a flinty hardbitten CN Fighter to a liberty-loving lunatic-hero CG Fighter, and a cunning but patient NE Wizard to a genuinely life-affirming and protective NG Wizard. I didn't have to act to roleplay telling either of them how proud I was, and it was awesome.

[FrancisBean]

Ouch! Sorry to hear that. But yeah I'm cool with an "ex-villain" wanting to reform, though your original vision might've been a little darker than I'm comfortable with. Like, I could work with "contract killer who got out of the business when a client deceived me into trying to kill a child"--that shows there's that well-hidden moral center that needs time and patience to grow.

Oh, he wasn't looking to reform! He was a male drow on mission, and the core of his world was fear. He knew the penalty for defying the matriarchy, and never stepped one toe out of line. He was there as muscle, a hired killer for the mission. His own personal morality, well, that was totally irrelevant.

What I was after was the rip-tide redemption, something like betraying the party and only afterward realizing that it tasted like ashes. That's when he'd recklessly throw every resource he had into salvaging the situation, and hopefully discover along the way that he was strong enough not to need fear anymore. And then grovel for a long time trying to make it up to the group. And meanwhile, he'd become something of a free-wheeling good guy in euphoric lurches as he tried to learn about this whole "freedom" thing.

He was a fun character to play: vicious and brutal, but fearful of women. He'd stop speaking instantly the moment a female interrupted him, but he'd routinely talk over male characters. It made for an interesting gaming experience I wish I could have finished. It sounds like you had a good one with your Paladin, and I'm a little jealous!

Getting back on the rails, we've got a guy out here with whom we sometimes game, and he has a love of CN characters. The thing is, his way of doing that is to set some vague probabilities in his head and roll dice any time his character needs to make a decision. It drives me nuts, but since we all know to expect it from him it works out.

[Keravath]

..

He was a fun character to play: vicious and brutal, but fearful of women. He'd stop speaking instantly the moment a female interrupted him, but he'd routinely talk over male characters. It made for an interesting gaming experience I wish I could have finished. It sounds like you had a good one with your Paladin, and I'm a little jealous!
..

I'd just like to point out that this type of character trait isn't going to work well in most cooperative role playing games. I'll admit it sounds very in-character for an arrogant drow male but as a player, you'd talk over the other male character players as they try to express their ideas and then turn around and say "I'm just playing in character".

This might be true but for most players the explanation won't fly since playing the game means expressing their ideas and having another player constantly talk over them claiming it was in-character would be a recipe for a non-functional group since the meta game requires each player to be able to express their ideas to the DM and other players.

Choosing character traits that a player chooses to use to fundamentally interfere with the in-group communication between players is a problem that either the player or DM has to address if the player decides to play the character that way all the time rather than just the occasional in-character moment. (e.g. interrupting NPCs and role playing is likely fine, talking over PCs trying to interact with other players likely isn't going to work).