I hate Chaotic Neutral

Psion · Aug 15, 2005

I hate CN as an alignment choice. But it seems to be the most popular choice these days. But just like many players hate elves as a popular choice, I hate CN.

I am considering declaring a moratorium on it. Seriously. I hate kibitzing with player choice, but I find that the attitude behind the alignment choice of CN is at odds with my GMing style.

Basically, it says to me that the PC will not get involved in the adventure unless there is personal gain involved. I find that very limiting and get tired of twisting the player's arms or bribing them.

I tried to provide for it by simply requiring that, if the PC is CN, required to come up with a strong character motivation that would explain their presence on some of my adventures without twisting their arm. But this has met with limited success, primarily because I find the players' efforts in this vein uninspiring. Which just tends to confirm my thought that CN is a lazy character design choice.

Am I alone here? Any strategy in dealing with this?

GlassJaw · Aug 15, 2005

I hate CN as well. I call it the Daffy Duck alignment. It essentially allows a player to justify their actions, however disruptive they may be.

The DM who is running our current Age of Worms campaign banned CN along with CE and NE but he allows LE. I think it was a good call.

Warrior Psychic · Aug 15, 2005

For the most part, I feel the same way. It gets even worse when the rest of the party has good alignments, and the sole CN character is the resident sociopath. I find it hard to believe that folks can't understand that all because a character is CN it doesn't necessarily mean that they are the biggest jerk ever. Sadly, that is how is everyone seems to play them.

I had one player who did a really good job at playing a CN character. She played her character as a thrillseeker who really didn't care much for ethics that were forcibly imposed on her. However, she believed strongly in friendship and adventured not for some sorta altruistic goal, but rather out of a sense of responsibility to her childhood friends (the other members of the party).

She wasn't good by any means, but she also wasn't stupid. I miss that player.

Belen · Aug 15, 2005

Nope. In my old group, we always had one guy who had to play CN. He was the player who would make the character that was the antithesis of the rest of the party. He loved to play those loner types that were angry at the world and why should he help anyone if they could not do something for them.

In the end, I got a new group.

However, I usually have a rule that only good-aligned PCs are allowed in my games. I also allow Lawful Neutral PCs. Any other alignment and the player needs to discuss the concept with me. I may not bar a CN alignment, but if we cannot come to an agreement before the campaign on how things will fit together, then the player will need to choose something else.

With a CN character, you have to have a strong motivation to be part of the party, such as a sibling in the group etc.

Henry · Aug 15, 2005

One thought: Impose an XP penalty on it. The justification? The character, always retreating from society, always acting individualistic, and out for himself, never really learns anything, and never experiences personal growth. Hence, his spiritual and personal skill development suffers. You'll have players flocking away from CN like cockroaches from bright light.

Or, you can apply this motivation to ALL alignments: As DM, unless each player can give you a compelling reason for undertaking tasks for something other than personal profit, then there's an XP penalty. But they have to give you SOMETHING -- a plot hook of some sort -- and they avoid the penalty.

EVEN BETTER: Borrow Spycraft's Backgrounds system: They sacrifice skill points, they give you a background for your to use, and THEY get XP from it, and you've got a hook. If you don't use the hooks for X number of session, they cash it in for even MORE XP.

Alternatively, you can learn not to fight it (Robin Laws theory). If someone gets their "emotional kick" out of power accumulation & advancement, and they don't like to do lots of roleplaying or personal involvement, come up with a hook that suits them. Leave the involvement and plot hooks to the players that live for that kind of stuff.

Finally, you could go with my "invasion of the plot snatchers" philosophy: If you don't GIVE me plot hooks, they will be provided FOR you. Nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles, old mentors, etc. will come out when needed, and I don't care if you said you're an orphan with no friendships, you had your chance to give me something, and if you didn't then they will come to you, and unless they're willing to risk an alignment shift to evil to turn away friends and family, then there's something to tie them to the world.

Psion · Aug 15, 2005

Henry said:
Alternatively, you can learn not to fight it (Robin Laws theory). If someone gets their "emotional kick" out of power accumulation & advancement, and they don't like to do lots of roleplaying or personal involvement, come up with a hook that suits them. Leave the involvement and plot hooks to the players that live for that kind of stuff.

That is something I consider; I sort of like to give players a lot of latitude in character design.

The problem here is that my emotional kick is hampered by the need for arm-twisting and having to hear player complaints about lack of loot because I feel I have to limit how much I give opponents because everything they do has a price tag attached to it.

Berandor · Aug 15, 2005

I think CN is the opposite of LG - both are misunderstood, but while LG is often perceived as too restricting, CN is thought of as too liberating.

I recently played a CN sorceress. However, I gave her a very strong reason for adventuring (she was out to prove her family that she was at least as able as her wizardly brother), and the CN mostly came from her being a spoiled brat

She took the way of all CN beings, it seems, by being prosecuted for attacking the city guards.

Li Shenron · Aug 15, 2005

Psion said:
Basically, it says to me that the PC will not get involved in the adventure unless there is personal gain involved.

...

Am I alone here? Any strategy in dealing with this?

I'm afraid I cannot help, because your idea that CN = lack of motivation is very alien to me, and IMHO personal gain has nothing to do with it. In fact, I consider CN and CG the correct representation of RL ecology activists, animal rights activists, pacifist protesters, revolutionaries (when they side with the poor) and others, which isn't at all about personal gain!

Mercule · Aug 15, 2005

I think there's a lot of misunderstanding of a lot of the alignments. CN is, basically, just someone who is not overly altruistic and doesn't like too many rules. It is neither random nor disinterested.

I've played a CN character who was a motivator for the group. He was very, very curious about things, wanted to accumulate toys and treasure, and had no qualms about volunteering his "friends" for things.

My wife is about to play a character that I see as CN (she hasn't picked an alignment, yet). It's a bounty-hunter with no real loyalties, except to whomever is paying her at the moment. She is both aggressive and proactive.

I don't think the problem is with the CN alignment. I think it's with a player who is looking for a way to be disruptively lazy.

VirgilCaine · Aug 15, 2005

Henry said:
One thought: Impose an XP penalty on it. The justification? The character, always retreating from society, always acting individualistic, and out for himself, never really learns anything, and never experiences personal growth. Hence, his spiritual and personal skill development suffers. You'll have players flocking away from CN like cockroaches from bright light.

That actually makes sense. The retreating from society, shunning social connections, becoming set in their ways, never really learns anything, at least not easily. And CN adventurers never really do anything...at least nothing really different or new to them--they just keep taking the same kind of jobs.