difference between and chaotic neutral and true neutral ?

[JOHNNY]

too be honest i still dont get the idea . like whats the difference ? i mean true neutral doesnt care but cant do evil things ? is that it ? but doesnt that make him lawful neutral ? man this hurt my head

and chaotic good . does it exist ?

[Magma Dragoon]

Escrito originalmente por DUCKI:

ok then . say a chaotic neutral and chaotic evil wanna have fun ? whats the difference if both are chaotic ?

Breaking the law, breaking the law

Escrito originalmente por DUCKI:

if i did something agaisnt my alignment , does it change the alignment .

for example a paladin kill a man because he cheat with his wife

Paladins are special because they have to adhere to their code or they lose their class. Two things from their code is never willing commit an unlawful or evil act, and respect legitimate authority.

So if killing people is against the law he can't do that. But he can take evidence of his guilt to the police if adultery is a crime.

[Tom Braider (666)]

thanks for making me understand

[White Knight]

The thing is, alignments have been misunderstood since the beginning. Many players think that neutrality is an excuse to "do whatever I want", and that is the failing of their Dungeon Master.

That's not how it works and it was never described that way in any book.

True Neutral is something that applies to Druids, almost exclusively. It's a bit like the Jedi Order (with less emphasis on doing good). They are solely preoccupied with maintaining the natural order, with "balance".

The way it is often described is that the Druid might intervene by joining a hunting group who was targeting a group of troublesome goblins, but then switch sides and defend those goblins when they were being threatened with extinction.

Who the hell wants that guy in their party? Playing "True Neutral" is probably the most difficult alignment to pull off...almost impossible to do it right (while still enjoying a game with your friends).

Chaotic Neutral, on the other hand, is far more simplistic. This person is basically a sociopath. The DC villain Two-Face could be an example of this. The Chaotic Neutral character embraces chaos by rejecting order and law. Good and Evil are irrelevant to such a person (they likely don't even believe in Good/Evil, for example). This character is solely devoted to being a monkeywrench in the the machine, to sew discord and division, and doesn't care how that is done. Good, Bad, it doesn't make any difference as long as it upsets Lawful types.

Chaotic Neutral used to be described as a person walking down the street with a coin. Every time they meet someone or face a choice, they flip the coin. Stab the person or say "hello". Chaos and confusion would follow that person wherever they went.

[////]

Escrito originalmente por Parrhesiastes:

The thing is, alignments have been misunderstood since the beginning. Many players think that neutrality is an excuse to "do whatever I want", and that is the failing of their Dungeon Master.

That's not how it works and it was never described that way in any book.

True Neutral is something that applies to Druids, almost exclusively. It's a bit like the Jedi Order (with less emphasis on doing good). They are solely preoccupied with maintaining the natural order, with "balance".

The way it is often described is that the Druid might intervene by joining a hunting group who was targeting a group of troublesome goblins, but then switch sides and defend those goblins when they were being threatened with extinction.

Who the hell wants that guy in their party? Playing "True Neutral" is probably the most difficult alignment to pull off...almost impossible to do it right (while still enjoying a game with your friends).

Chaotic Neutral, on the other hand, is far more simplistic. This person is basically a sociopath. The DC villain Two-Face could be an example of this. The Chaotic Neutral character embraces chaos by rejecting order and law. Good and Evil are irrelevant to such a person (they likely don't even believe in Good/Evil, for example). This character is solely devoted to being a monkeywrench in the the machine, to sew discord and division, and doesn't care how that is done. Good, Bad, it doesn't make any difference as long as it upsets Lawful types.

Chaotic Neutral used to be described as a person walking down the street with a coin. Every time they meet someone or face a choice, they flip the coin. Stab the person or say "hello". Chaos and confusion would follow that person wherever they went.

a typical view of someone who ♥♥♥♥♥ on druids without even trying to understand their character. they have their entire magic/abilities system based on that balance, so of course they can not be used like some pawns. if such situation you had described would occur, it would only be due to poor knowledge or wicked intents of those who sided with those druids.

and what considers your description of chaotic neutral... you know, we should always include intelligence/wisdom/charisma when judging character actions. at least actions of well thought out character.

[Commander Makara]

The "alignment" concept is utterly nonsensical and is horribly flawed at anything beyond the most basic, ultra-simplistic stereotype clich€ of templates upon which a more complex character trait can be built.

It's also incredibly badly misinterpreted at so many opportunities by players and DM's alike.

A True Neutral alignment seeks to moderate extremism whether the harsh oppression of totalitarian order compared to anarchic lawless freedom - or the selfish rampant greed at the expense of all others compared to a flagrant generosity and benevolence being exploted and weakening stances.

A Chaotic Neutral character tends towards the ideals of action unperturbed by ethical boundaries, or consideration of the legality of their motion.

For example, an activist (the purpose of their activism notwithstanding) whose actions may have positive or negative consequences for certain others.


-
The D&D alignment system does not provide sufficient detail to address philosophical queries such as:

The killing of a baby that would go on to become a mass murderer

The taking-back of something that was taken by an unlawful occupation force who has since established rule of law.

-

As always, where the D&D rulebooks are insufficient or otherwise lacking, refer to your DM whose arbitration is final.

[AustrAlien2010]

No. Good, bad. It's something they made up. Something for you to believe in that fits a story. A tool.