Timeline for How to write a chaotic neutral protagonist and prevent my readers from thinking they are evil?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 9, 2019 at 13:21 | comment | added | Lauren-Clear-Monica-Ipsum | (And I could separately argue your example: is someone who performs an evil act for good reasons an "evil" character, or more neutral? but that's a philosophical discussion.) | |
| Mar 9, 2019 at 13:21 | comment | added | Lauren-Clear-Monica-Ipsum | @Spectrosaurus That's fine; I understood that's what you were getting at. My point is that even if this definition of the alignment system is not the original, and it adds a specific ethical system which wasn't in the original, it's still a potentially useful tool. You may not agree with it. You may choose not to use it. The OP may choose not to use it. I thought it added value to the discussion and gave the OP a different lens through which to consider his character. It is not the only lens. | |
| Mar 9, 2019 at 12:20 | comment | added | PoorYorick | @LaurenIpsum I think it's fair to say that a reductionist system will lead to bad characters and to urge people to think about their characters in a more nuanced way. My main criticism, however, was the other one - that your definition of the lawful/chaotic good/evil alignment system adds a specific ethical system to it that isn't originally there. It's therefore in itself a subversion of the alignment system, not simply an intuitive rephrasing of it. Someone who tortures war prisoners for intel is not egoistic, he's doing it for the greater good. He is still evil. It's evil altruism. | |
| Mar 8, 2019 at 20:29 | comment | added | J.G. | On this account, a chaotic neutral character elevates individuals including themselves above rules, but decides in the moment which individuals to elevate above others. The example that springs out for me is Jack Bauer. | |
| Mar 8, 2019 at 19:34 | comment | added | Lauren-Clear-Monica-Ipsum | @Spectrosaurus It's a tool. Use it or don't as you see fit. The decision to use the tool has already been made by the OP; we are discussing how best to use and apply the tool. If this philosophical framing of character doesn't work for you, you are not obliged to use it in your writing, but I don't think it's fair to say "creating and analyzing a character this way will always lead to 'bad, clichéd writing.' " | |
| Mar 8, 2019 at 12:07 | comment | added | PoorYorick | While I think this D&D-type classification is very limiting and leads to bad, clichéd writing in any case, I also think this description of the alignments is flawed. It transforms the original idea into a "postmodern" one. The original idea is that evil characters are evil. They like killing and seeing people suffer, that's it. This reinterpretation as evil people being nothing but egotists is problematic, as it basically says that egoistic people are evil. They are not. What you are doing is to superimpose a utilitarian ethical system onto the alignments. | |
| Mar 8, 2019 at 10:56 | comment | added | Lauren-Clear-Monica-Ipsum | @Flater and you're probably right about Littlefinger. I was thinking about how he makes deals and tries to spin pretty much everything he does as being beneficial for the person he's dealing with, even when it ends up going bad (c.f. Sansa). He wants people to think of him as Good. | |
| Mar 8, 2019 at 10:54 | comment | added | Lauren-Clear-Monica-Ipsum | @Flater "She won't kill" is really up to the individual character/writer. Regardless of how Chaotic she is, that might be a bright line she won't cross (as I hope it is for most people). I was using the OP's own details to make my point. It's not about whether she's a pacifist per se. Doctor Who is a Chaotic Good who is sometimes Lawful; some incarnations (Ten) are more pacifist than others. | |
| Mar 8, 2019 at 10:23 | comment | added | Flater | Also, I think Petyr Baelish is a Chaotic Evil who pretends to be Chaotic Neutral (not Good) who sometimes seems to pick your side. But he doesn't quite fit with (pretend) Good because he doesn't particularly paint himself to be an upstanding citizen, but rather someone who lives (and thrives) in the morally grey zone. | |
| Mar 8, 2019 at 10:19 | comment | added | Flater | I think "so she won't kill, because that would harm an individual" is taking it too far. Chaotic personalities are not (necessarily) extreme pacifists. Chaotics simply don't follow the "pro conformity" philosophy that is commonplace for Lawfuls. At an extreme, they never make sweeping statements, question everything, and judge it for themselves. Chaotics are people who go by their own compass above any predetermined convention. | |
| Mar 7, 2019 at 17:17 | comment | added | Joe-You-Know | Great answer! I knew I was forgetting something. I think you're right in suggesting that she needs an appealing side, otherwise she just comes across as a jerk. | |
| Mar 7, 2019 at 17:03 | history | answered | Lauren-Clear-Monica-Ipsum | CC BY-SA 4.0 |