Anyone consider writing a Chaotic Neutral/True Neutral MC?

[Discount_Blade]

I am, and while most of my ideas for how the character will act will come from these two links:

1) True Neutral

2) Chaotic Neutral

3) Wild Card (And this was helpful too)

Does anyone else have any tips or just simply want to point out the pro's, con's, or anything really?

I want my MC, one of several, but the main main one, to be not evil, but not necessarily good either. He will come off as Chaotic Good at times, but mostly is out for himself, those he cares for, and to hell with the rest of the world. Gray morality. The best MC's in my opinion. So this likely means my MC will do some unpleasantly dark things at times simply because he can, and for no other real reason, but then turn around be a halfway decent guy to a little girl, (like paying for her ice cream that slipped and fell or some shit, but then he might come back later that night and rob the ice cream guy because he noticed he had quite the large amount of tips in that little glass jar thingy....)

Anyway, anyrthing someone might wanna add that could also be helpful to me, or someone else who intends to write an MC like this?

Also, here's a link for Chaotic Good and the other helpful, and sometimes even useful!! Blue and Orange Morality that can be used for Morally Gray types.

 

[Greydra]

A mercenary could be both a chaotic neutral or true neutral, as long as you keep him on the right side of the law while having him care more about his own life than saving others.

 

[Discount_Blade]

A mercenary could be both a chaotic neutral or true neutral, as long as you keep him on the right side of the law while having him care more about his own life than saving others.

Yep. Wanna drop any other ideas or even some scenarios? Personally, I find morally gray character to be the most fascinating of all. They just don't fit into the typical molds of good or evil (obviously). That and from personal experience, they often make up the majority of the world's "key players" so to speak.

 

[Greydra]

Yep. Wanna drop any other ideas or even some scenarios? Personally, I find morally gray character to be the most fascinating of all. They just don't fit into the typical molds of good or evil (obviously). That and from personal experience, they often make up the majority of the world's "key players" so to speak.

Well, a merchant can also be considered moral grey, as long as you make sure they don't end up as the classic scumbag.
A hermit on a mountain would be the definition of someone that's true neutral, but they would rather be off the moral compass rather than in the grey section.
Outlaws like a gunslinger or pirates can fit Chaotic Neutral if they don't have any backstories as fallen nobles or something like that and they aren't those cliche outlaws with mohawks.
A shinobi could also qualify, as long as they don't have too strong emotions about their work.
Finally, we have an adventurer that's a little crazy but doesn't have any dramatic background information.

In the end, make sure your character doesn't have any personal reasons to act either evil or good while giving them a less-than-honorable occupation.

 

[Discount_Blade]

Well, a merchant can also be considered moral grey, as long as you make sure they don't end up as the classic scumbag.
A hermit on a mountain would be the definition of someone that's true neutral, but they would rather be off the moral compass rather than in the grey section.
Outlaws like a gunslinger or pirates can fit Chaotic Neutral if they don't have any backstories as fallen nobles or something like that and they aren't those cliche outlaws with mohawks.
A shinobi could also qualify, as long as they don't have too strong emotions about their work.
Finally, we have an adventurer that's a little crazy but doesn't have any dramatic background information.

In the end, make sure your character doesn't have any personal reasons to act either evil or good while giving them a less-than-honorable occupation.

My MC will basically just be reacting to things initially, since he's dropped into the middle of a Necromancer's war on a small nation. But one scene I like is he meets this archer who tries to get him to help these innocent civilians surrounded by zombie-like things. The archer says the MC has the power to save them, and so he should. The archer even rushes into battle thinking the MC will "be forced" to help now since they've fought several batles together recently and thus have "become comrades". Welp, MC snorts, and says "nope" and runs off leaving the archer and the innocents to live or die on their own merits. The archer survive, but innocent civilians die, and when the archer reunites with MC later, archer is very unhappy with MC and MC simply says in a nutshell, "I don't know why you're so pissed. This isn't an action cartoon. I'm no hero."

So, he had the ability to save them, but wasn't interested in the hassle of doing so.

 

[HURGMCGURG]

I wrote a chaotic neutral protagonist for a while. He was fun. Then I stopped writing the story.

Of course, the story wasn't very serious or high quality, so you may be disappointed.

 

[AliceShiki]

I honestly don't think it's very good to tie yourself to an alignment system, like...

Just try make your character's actions feel like they make sense I guess? As long as you do that, all will be well IMO~

 

[Amarathia]

I agree, neutral MCs are fun.
If anything, I see a lot of stories that make it seem like they are going to do a chaotic neutral MC, but then they end up just being an underdog hero or something else. If they are just pretending to be a 'bad guy' it's silly. If they are too evil/callous then their character is stale or just plain unpleasant. It's a balance, I guess.

Even if they are chaotic neutral, they can often choose not to do things or do things on a whim, like helping innocents or not, but it's also good to ground it in logic. For example, the innocents are just poor farmers, so even if he helped them there was no benefit for himself. Or the 'hassle' involving not helping them is the use of his own powers and energy.

Here are some random ideas.

I think it would be interesting if the MC has some sort of goal they're working towards. Revenge, position, money etc. Maybe there is only one thing he cares about at all, everything else is worthless. If he just wanders around being good/evil/indifferent on a whim, it could get old quick.

Stories that involve kingdom building/climbing in power in court/battles can be good for this, because the best characters to fulfill those higher roles are ones that make decisions based on benefit of the whole, they are indifferent, and sometimes skew over others (that could be good people) for the sake of that. In this scenario let's say the MC is the general of an army, everyone is just a pawn on the board. The 'cause' the MC fights for might not be morally righteous, or oppositely the MC is trying to amass power for him and his loyal followers while taking over other people's domains.

A wanderer/recluse mystic/wizard/etc. fits well into a full fantasy setting. In this case they are perhaps focused on their own arcane hobbies or goals, and have little connection to the real world despite how much others want them to get involved in their affairs. This is also well suited to the MC remaining solo most of the time. Maybe he hangs out with a few characters for an adventure now and then, but those he actually gets close to are next to none.

Close to mercenary is also bandit/gang of thieves. While this is usually considered more 'evil', it actually can be represented as neutral when the MC has his own group that he protects and needs to get enough resources for.

 

[Discount_Blade]

I honestly don't think it's very good to tie yourself to an alignment system, like...

Just try make your character's actions feel like they make sense I guess? As long as you do that, all will be well IMO~

I like the alignment system when it comes to Neutral characters since I don't want to write the villain, but I don't want to write the hero either. Heroes tend to "do not kill ever" too much for me and I find them unrealistic and ridiculous. And villains are just....well villains. I have no problem with an MC doing something despicable, as long as its not their only thing....like villains.

I prefer the character who like I said, will buy an ice cream for a little girl because he noticed she dropped hers and was crying, then will come back and rob the ice cream guy later on that night because he noticed the tip jar was pretty full.

 

[Discount_Blade]

I agree, neutral MCs are fun.
If anything, I see a lot of stories that make it seem like they are going to do a chaotic neutral MC, but then they end up just being an underdog hero or something else. If they are just pretending to be a 'bad guy' it's silly. If they are too evil/callous then their character is stale or just plain unpleasant. It's a balance, I guess.

Even if they are chaotic neutral, they can often choose not to do things or do things on a whim, like helping innocents or not, but it's also good to ground it in logic. For example, the innocents are just poor farmers, so even if he helped them there was no benefit for himself. Or the 'hassle' involving not helping them is the use of his own powers and energy.

Here are some random ideas.

I think it would be interesting if the MC has some sort of goal they're working towards. Revenge, position, money etc. Maybe there is only one thing he cares about at all, everything else is worthless. If he just wanders around being good/evil/indifferent on a whim, it could get old quick.

Stories that involve kingdom building/climbing in power in court/battles can be good for this, because the best characters to fulfill those higher roles are ones that make decisions based on benefit of the whole, they are indifferent, and sometimes skew over others (that could be good people) for the sake of that. In this scenario let's say the MC is the general of an army, everyone is just a pawn on the board. The 'cause' the MC fights for might not be morally righteous, or oppositely the MC is trying to amass power for him and his loyal followers while taking over other people's domains.

A wanderer/recluse mystic/wizard/etc. fits well into a full fantasy setting. In this case they are perhaps focused on their own arcane hobbies or goals, and have little connection to the real world despite how much others want them to get involved in their affairs. This is also well suited to the MC remaining solo most of the time. Maybe he hangs out with a few characters for an adventure now and then, but those he actually gets close to are next to none.

Close to mercenary is also bandit/gang of thieves. While this is usually considered more 'evil', it actually can be represented as neutral when the MC has his own group that he protects and needs to get enough resources for.

Wonderful stuff here. My favorite Skyrim example too is I was in the town of Whiterun, and someone killed my horse. I REALLY loved that horse, so I killed everyone and everything in Whiterun that could be killed (and just moved in general) . Yes I was a mass murderer....but that was MY horse yo!

 

[Kldran]

I'm not a fan of writing neutral characters, but this is heavily influenced by my frustration at how often I see neutral characters presented as good guys. Wanting to protect their family and friends doesn't make a main character good. It makes them normal.

 

[Discount_Blade]

I'm not a fan of writing neutral characters, but this is heavily influenced by my frustration at how often I see neutral characters presented as good guys. Wanting to protect their family and friends doesn't make a main character good. It makes them normal.

Yep. Which is why I have my neutral characters who while yes they protect those they care about, they will also do some very un-heroic things to anyone else. sometimes just to be a troll or for the lulz. Sometimes, my MC will be hard to distinguish from a villain when he's in one of his moods, but will then come home and play the good guy to those he cares about. Just don't ask how his day went. He wouldn't want to bore you with the retelling of how he slaughtered his way through a bandit camp, "accidentally" killing a few potentially uninvolved/innocents because he wanted the shiny medallion one of them wore and was flaunting.

If asked why he did it, "It looked nice and well...why not?".

 

[Amarathia]

My favorite Skyrim example too is I was in the town of Whiterun, and someone killed my horse. I REALLY loved that horse, so I killed everyone and everything in Whiterun that could be killed (and just moved in general) . Yes I was a mass murderer....but that was MY horse yo!

As a person who loves animals and nature, this brings me happiness

 

[Discount_Blade]

As a person who loves animals and nature, this brings me happiness

Ah yes, you must be my kinfolk.

 

[Moctemma]

My main character is Lawful Neutral, though she's perceived as True Neutral by others. I'm mostly using her curiosity, and her flexibility in morals to write her neutrality. She presents herself as good, trying to avoid fights and willing to be friends with the "enemy", but when her companions are in danger, or she is determined to help someone, she'll kill anyone. I'm also using her wife to push her more into neutrality, she's inducing her into being unaffected when she kills.

So my tip would be to consider how the other characters perceive them, if they approve or disapprove their methods; what the MC wants, and what they think of the beliefs of other characters. That way you can do a push and pull game with the characters, making the MC more interesting by how they affect others.

 

[NotaNuffian]

My MC will basically just be reacting to things initially, since he's dropped into the middle of a Necromancer's war on a small nation. But one scene I like is he meets this archer who tries to get him to help these innocent civilians surrounded by zombie-like things. The archer says the MC has the power to save them, and so he should. The archer even rushes into battle thinking the MC will "be forced" to help now since they've fought several batles together recently and thus have "become comrades". Welp, MC snorts, and says "nope" and runs off leaving the archer and the innocents to live or die on their own merits. The archer survive, but innocent civilians die, and when the archer reunites with MC later, archer is very unhappy with MC and MC simply says in a nutshell, "I don't know why you're so pissed. This isn't an action cartoon. I'm no hero."

So, he had the ability to save them, but wasn't interested in the hassle of doing so.

To be honest, the main character seems a bit cold in the sense that:
A. He has the ability but not wanting to help even if a little bit, which kind of kills off Uncle Ben for nothing. So he is basically the usual bystander in our lives, except that he has the power to be something more but refuses to.
B. The lack of background for MC is also what makes me feel off, something like being betrayed, hurt or otherwise will make me feel ok for MC's apathy, if he is being nonchalent about others' suffering just because, then he is probably a sociopath, in which case I will definitely not want to associate with the guy.

The archer on the other hand, is a bastard to me.
1. You do not play the empathy card and hope that people get dragged into your shit.
2. If someone already states that he is not joining and when he really doesn't join, you should not expect more and start to go ballistic.

Either way, both of the guys are typical Hajime and Kouki from Arifureta, pre-ending version.

 

[D4isuke]

Try to serve the good, good, while try to serve bad, bad.... unless it's right in a proper execution to give and take the purpose out of them. Every life has a purpose whether external or internal, unless it makes sense for every character to cause and affect the impact of every plot... also don't kill characters for a mere shock value.... this is why I hate most western horror movies

 

[Discount_Blade]

I

Try to serve the good, good, while try to serve bad, bad.... unless it's right in a proper execution to give and take the purpose out of them. Every life has a purpose whether external or internal, unless it makes sense for every character to cause and affect the impact of every plot... also don't kill characters for a mere shock value.... this is why I hate most western horror movies

Dont understand what your post is getting at?

 

[NotaNuffian]

Try to serve the good, good, while try to serve bad, bad.... unless it's right in a proper execution to give and take the purpose out of them. Every life has a purpose whether external or internal, unless it makes sense for every character to cause and affect the impact of every plot... also don't kill characters for a mere shock value.... this is why I hate most western horror movies

*Raise hand, or paw*

Mooks are not people, they are disposable background NPCs.

I get the term "too little death cheapens the meaning of life, too much however cheapens life itself", but sometimes the deaths of other people, be they significant to you or not, are a great motivation to keep moving in life. Also, in most horrors i watch, those that dies first are the black guy (typical), the funny guy (mood goes dark), the soldiers (to show the ferocity of the foe) and asshole victims (because even the audience wants them to die as well). I don't really get how you watch them as shock values, or you mean during the zombie apocalypse thing? To me they serves as a solemn reminder that if you want to live, go join the protag team. While all lives are born equal (ish), most lives are not lived equally, the death of a president vs a death of a common salaryman, who do you think have a greater impact in the country? In your own perspective, maybe the salaryman is someone you know, therefore you view him as important. But how many people are capable to view the same person as important?

 

[D4isuke]

I
Dont understand what your post is getting at?

Then try to imagine how you treat other people even strangers in real life situation... like how do you solve yourself from the problem? (let's say, any parental problems or classmate dramas that you really don't involve into such things) is it better for you to avoid or talk each of them for better solution?

Well... I'll leave the answer to you.