How do I write a good chaotic neutral character?

[Naruzeldamaster]

My understanding (as far as the DND alignments go) is that Chaotic Neutral characters tend to just do whatever with zero fucks given, can be mischievous/devious at times but aren't out and out evil.(or rather, can be SEEN as evil at points but not holding a candle to actual villains) The examples I've seen seem to side with whoever side is the strongest at the time. Some of them even do a full heel turn of the bad guy team (as in betraying the bad guys) after they get their teeth kicked in. Typically with a 'fuck, I'm on the losing team huh? uh, hey, where can I sign up?' type of reaction.

Even with that basic understanding, I'm not sure how to write a 'good' Chaotic Neutral.

One of my character ideas I have right now is screaming that she's chaotic neutral but I'm not sure how to write that effectively.

 

[Queshire]

The D&D alignment system generally isn't that useful when it comes to writing characters. Honestly having the character as someone who always joins the strongest side is probably better than relying on how D&D would describe it.

 

[pmmg]

Yeah, no one is ever really wholly any alignment as DnD would define them.

But...I think they would approach things as 'is it good for me' first, and 'is it good for you' second. If they start to feel like something is not what they want, they'd probably leave it, and maybe not even give their reasons. The kind of employee who just stops showing up one day, and you dont know why. They would most likely be undependable, and not agree to anything that binds them to anything for too long. 'Whats in it for me' might be a motto of theirs.

 

[skip.knox]

Have you tried writing such a character yet?

 

[BearBear]

I've had it the other way, a hero type chaotic neutral where they side with the underdog then when they succeed, turn on them.

From what I remember you have, lawful, neutral and chaotic on the laws side and good, neutral, evil on the other side.

A true neutral would be neutral-neutral they would only care about the laws that they align with and outside observers who are good would see them as more evil while evil characters would see them as inconveniently good.

Chaotic neutral would be completely against laws, and any laws followed would be purely coincidental. They are typically seen as mental and unable to take a side if at all, not for long. Loners, master-minds that are both capable of Robbinhood and Lex Luthor. They can be hedonistic or occultish esoteric. Remember that their laefulness is by behavior and their alignment is subjective based on the beholder.

They can be heros, anti-heros, anti-villians or villians all at the same time depending on who you ask. They're frequently misunderstood.

It's my favorite type because it is based 100% they really seem to care but they can have something that drives them like:

A character that will do anything to fight for or against a certain issue even if that issue is deemed evil by some, accepted by others, normalized even. They're more real and balanced otherwise and basically all my protagonists are this as I consider myself this as well.

To me lawful good characters are unnecessarily rigid to the point of dogmatic fascism. Chaotic evil characters are unnecessarily unreasonable. True Neutral characters are too conflicted, say too concerned with the balance of forces.

My latest protagonist is chaotic neutral, able to accept all types of allies from all sides if they have just one common belief, her major driving force, to stop depravity and out the depraved. She wouldn't care if you're a thief or thug or priest or paladine as long as you're not doing what she considers depraved. In thus world there's so much sexual deviance and untoward acts that it seems a noble endeavor. However, she won't stop at laws or alignment (good or evil) to achieve her ends.

 

[Naruzeldamaster]

Have you tried writing such a character yet?

I'm currently writing one who considers themselves a bundle of chaos/trouble maker, but even she has morals to live by. (granted, they're 'dodgy' morals motivated by self preservation but still) She's one of the types that will be all for causing chaos if it means personal amusement, but if anyone she actually gives a shit about is in danger the person responsible for said danger is on her shit list.

 

[ThinkerX]

'Chaotic Neutral' = 'attention deficit disorder'

The character is continually distracted by everything and acts without regard for consequences.

 

[skip.knox]

OK, great! I would encourage you to develop the character as seems fitting, both to your own preferences and to the needs of the story. And to pay no attention whatsoever to DnD alignment types.

Once the story is done and is being read by others, let *them* see parallels. Let them spot the chaotic neutral aspects. Let them post their thoughts and share them over coffee with friends. This will make them feel clever and insightful, and will give reviewers something to say.

 

[pmmg]

Once the story is done and is being read by others, let *them* see parallels. Let them spot the chaotic neutral aspects. Let them post their thoughts and share them over coffee with friends. This will make them feel clever and insightful, and will give reviewers something to say.

That's all I ever wanted

 

[Queshire]

Just for some context, the guy behind the D&D alignment system said that it would be a Lawful Good act for a Paladin to kill an enemy that has surrendered and renounced their previous evil ways. Like, not just as a trick. He said it would be okay if they honestly repented. That way they would be then sent on to their reward before they backslide.

Nooooooooooooot exactly what most people would consider Lawful Good behavior, no? Goes to show that people have been arguing over the alignment system back to the beginning.

 

[Finchbearer]

Chaotic neutral is basically the psychopath or the sociopath. Remember, psychopaths can appear to be charismatic, nice people…to begin with, and are capable of not being ‘evil’. Villanelle comes to mind. If you have a character who leaves a trail of destruction without a care, then that is a psychopath.

 

[Queshire]

Luna Lovegood was chaotic neutral. Fite me. >=0

 

[pmmg]

How can you say that, she loved good? Fite taken.

 

[BearBear]

'Chaotic Neutral' = 'attention deficit disorder'

The character is continually distracted by everything and acts without regard for consequences.

I fundamentally disagree here

 

[BearBear]

Chaotic neutral is basically the psychopath or the sociopath. Remember, psychopaths can appear to be charismatic, nice people…to begin with, and are capable of not being ‘evil’. Villanelle comes to mind. If you have a character who leaves a trail of destruction without a care, then that is a psychopath.

I also disagree with having to pigeonhole as sociopath or psychopath though they are sometimes perceived that way by some. It's a connotation. I think anyone can be apathetic and sociopathic as they strictly follow their ideals.

These are very limiting traits that would basically ignore the bredth and depth of a chaotic neutral character potential.

 

[Finchbearer]

A psychopath lacks empathy, some think it is a lack of oxytocin in the body, which is the love hormone, so it’s really biological. Sociopaths however, are f**ked.

 

[skip.knox]

>These are very limiting traits that would basically ignore the bredth and depth of a chaotic neutral character potential.

Pretty much any use of labels limits character potential. Actual human beings are one thing; characters in a story are another sort of thing. When inventing characters, I much prefer to drop them into situations and work through how they would behave. Over time, I start to get a feel for consistency, for aspects of the character that should be present throughout the story. I don't think at all about categories or traits or whatever one might call pre-set aspects.

That's not to say this is the only or even the best way to work. For example, in a classic tragedy story, certain characters absolutely are pre-set to be arrogant or humble or whatever. They serve the story the author intends to tell. In that setting, a "lawful good" character might be entirely appropriate.

I do, however, draw a line between real people and made up characters. What applies in the one arena overlaps but is not identical with the other arena. Something like the notion and definition of sociopath is serviceable (arguably) when dealing with real human beings. I don't find it especially helpful (and usually distracting) when talking about elves or orcs or even fantasy-based humans.

Same goes for a concept like "chaotic neutral". I see it as almost the opposite of potential. The categories were invented to set limits, to distinguish between characters in a player setting, to set limits on what such a character type could and could not do. It's one reason why other game systems threw out those character types--to give players more freedom in character creation and development.

 

[BJ Swabb]

A neutral chaotic character to me is really someone who is a vigilante sorts. Someone who does something for their own welling being. Someone who not actually does good but doesn't mean to be bad either. They just do it because they want to, and it benefits them in a long ways. A lot I compare this too are vigilante superheroes like Green Arrow, or even Robin Hood could be one. Both are not really evil they just do things their own way. For instance Robin Hood steals from the rich in which is actually a crime, but he does it to help the poor and probably himself at times.

Someone else I thought of who is chaotic but not really evil is Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. Though Hyde is really the bad guy in the story, he is really just the chaotic side of Jekyll someone who can get away with things that Jekyll can't really do. Or atleast that is how I see them. I never actually read the book, which at some point I will. But What I am trying to get at is having multi personality disorder in which the character has an "chaotic side" to them and a innocent side. I would call that also a neutral character in a way.

 

[Naruzeldamaster]

'Chaotic Neutral' = 'attention deficit disorder'

The character is continually distracted by everything and acts without regard for consequences.

Funny you mention that, the particular character I'm considering writing may or may not end up having that.
She's easily swayed by her own personal interest in a subject (when it comes to liking/disliking it, and that includes being a 'goodie two shoes' or not) and is easily distracted by the newest shiny thing that catches her interest. Her being a parody of both King midas, who desires the ability to turn things into gold, and the dragon who hoards their golden treasures that they find, could lend itself well to ADD. Also due to being a dragon species she's incredibly powerful.

 

[ABearsGarden]

My take: Chaotic neutral outside of a D&D context could easily ascribe qualities of one who look out for themselves. They will actively participate in whatever piques their own interests. Albeit, that is merely the stereotypical depiction for someone who is chaotic neutral. Now, I'd define it as an odd catch-all term for those that, yes, keep themselves unaligned maybe out of disinterest, for greater benefits ( can't get dragged into other groups' issues if you are not a part of their team in the first place ), and what say you. I also think, that, focusing solely on the chaotic aspect, this "alignment" entails a character absolutely willing to go above and beyond. That is, if we assume it is a characteristic of their own to seek out adrenaline-rushing activties. Whether they're truly doing it for themselves or another if they did wind up joining someone's organization, depening on how seriously a character with those qualities should be taken, I can definitly see a character who "gives it their all" in the most absurd ways fathomable fitting its description.

Hmm, that does lead us back to the alignment stereotype, doesn'it it? Ah, well. Overall: A character whose moral alignment can be debatable if not made clear from the start, might or might not lack self preservation, etc. is what I suggest to give a try. Honestly, to me, chaotic neutral reads as "average person with eccentric qualities". Like with people, "chaotic neutral" can work as avague descriptor that, when actually applied, could be given to those with varying personalities and reasonings for what they are doing.

As someone else commented, they can act essentially like how vigilante are depicted. Then again, in the media I'm familiar with they are more or less "illegal" law-enforcement seeing as the real authorities in the majority of fiction are useless. No one to my knowledge said chaotic neutral citizens can't abide by law, however; frankly, their world would be many times hard to navigate if they did not at least feign interest in the law. Unless, we're talking "epic" escape artists. Hm, jokes aside, I agree with using Robin Hood as an example.

Relating to your character specifically: I like the idea so far. I think you are on the right track.