Chaotic vs. Entropic

Chaotic vs. Entropic:
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Dioxide's CForum ]

Posted by Proud Blade(VIP) on September 1, 2000 at 15:32:43:

Not to interrupt the wonderful Zepachu/Ekirhal public displays of affection, and the Zepachu vs. Zepachu debate on what eye picture to use on his website, but....

A while ago, I posted a group of mini-roles (../messages/33682.html) which outlined three characters I thought could be considered chaotic nuetral, or at least true neutral with chaotic leanings. Several people responded with what alignments they thought the roles pointed towards, and a lot of decisions came up leaning towards chaos. (Out of 27 ethos calls, 3 Lawful, 11 Neutral, 13 Chaotic)

This was prompted several recent threads here on the topic of chaos, my own experience playing a character I called Chaotic Neutral (Ingvar), and the helpfile on "Chaotic Neutral".

(Helpfile: "Chaotic Neutral: There is no order to anything, even their own actions. Good and Evil are irrelevant when making a decision. They are almost totally unreliable, except for the fact that you can rely on them being like this. The true coin-flipper, they rely on fate and chance to lead them.")

It's my opinion that the helpfile describes one way to play Chaotic Neutral, but it more accurately describes how to play a Baron. To cite one of my examples from the post, what about a principled anarchist? I would think that someone who believes that any semblance of law/order in society constitutes an attack on his/her personal freedom (laws ultimately restrict one's personal choices) would be chaotic neutral. This person (who isn't far from Ingvar) could be logical, even predictable, about how they run their lives, and could well be reliable. This person more or less wants to be left alone to pursue their interests. They wouldn't necessarily believe in fate/luck any more than the next guy. They'd be a horrible Baron, but I can't think of an alignment that would better suit them.

So my question: Do the helpfiles accurately describe the chaotic alignments well? Or are they just holdovers from old D&D 'definitions'?

I think they miss the center, and fail to really embrace what chaos (in terms of personal ethos) is about. I also think they might be responsible for the number of CFers who mistake "silly" for "chaotic".

Agree? Disagree?

Follow Ups:

No, i feel the helpfiles don't (n/t) Graham 11:16:01 9/2/2000 (0)
I suppose I'll give my input on this and my personal feelings (text) Feirshay 17:01:50 9/1/2000 (1)
- feedback... Shokai(IMM) 13:35:26 9/2/2000 (0)
Why not? (warm and fuzzy text inside) Zepachu 15:53:01 9/1/2000 (2)
- I like your post, Zepachu, but I've heard that 'Why not?' story before... nt Nivek 16:55:13 9/1/2000 (1)
  - So have I, months before the exam... :-) (Like I said, I didn't care...) *wonders if he got caught* (n/t) Zepachu 17:44:35 9/1/2000 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-mail:
Subject:
Comments:	> <i>Not to interrupt the wonderful Zepachu/Ekirhal public displays of affection, and the Zepachu vs. Zepachu debate on what eye picture to use on his website, but....</i> > A while ago, I posted a group of mini-roles (../messages/33682.html) which outlined three characters I thought could be considered chaotic nuetral, or at least true neutral with chaotic leanings. Several people responded with what alignments they thought the roles pointed towards, and a lot of decisions came up leaning towards chaos. (Out of 27 ethos calls, 3 Lawful, 11 Neutral, 13 Chaotic) > This was prompted several recent threads here on the topic of chaos, my own experience playing a character I called Chaotic Neutral (Ingvar), and the helpfile on "Chaotic Neutral". > (Helpfile: "Chaotic Neutral: There is no order to anything, even their own actions. Good and Evil are irrelevant when making a decision. They are almost totally unreliable, except for the fact that you can rely on them being like this. The true coin-flipper, they rely on fate and chance to lead them.") > It's my opinion that the helpfile describes one way to play Chaotic Neutral, but it more accurately describes how to play a Baron. To cite one of my examples from the post, what about a principled anarchist? I would think that someone who believes that any semblance of law/order in society constitutes an attack on his/her personal freedom (laws ultimately restrict one's personal choices) would be chaotic neutral. This person (who isn't far from Ingvar) could be logical, even predictable, about how they run their lives, and could well be reliable. This person more or less wants to be left alone to pursue their interests. They wouldn't necessarily believe in fate/luck any more than the next guy. They'd be a horrible Baron, but I can't think of an alignment that would better suit them. > So my question: Do the helpfiles accurately describe the chaotic alignments well? Or are they just holdovers from old D&D 'definitions'? > I think they miss the center, and fail to really embrace what chaos (in terms of personal ethos) is about. I also think they might be responsible for the number of CFers who mistake "silly" for "chaotic". > Agree? Disagree?

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Dioxide's CForum ]