Allignment Problems in my Campaign: Chaotic Neutral or just Annoying...

Warrior Psychic · Mar 12, 2002

A player who plays a CN character that does things like burn down inns because they refuse to serve him and screw over his friends because they don't do what he wants isn't really playing the alignment right.

In the first instance, that PC would be CE (destroying someone's way of life and possibly killing other people on a capricious whim is rather evil). The second example would be Chaotic Bastard.

CN need not be immoral pricks who constantly try to screw over the party. Even CN people value friends, and since the CN is less likely to give their dedication to anything or anyone.. those people in his party that actually have managed to win the CN PC's trust would probably have a friend that would be willing to do anything to help them.

CN is the Free Spirit, someone who is not good.. but not evil either. Most wouldn't go out of their way to hurt someone, or help someone they didn't know either. Since the character is an adventurer, I actually see this kind of character being the least problematic in a party.

After all, who cares if the person that hired them is a shady wizard with possible infernal ties? There is adventure, riches, and fame to be had! Let the moral dilemnas be sorted out by the Paladin and the Cleric.. no matter what, there is still going to be the same outcome that leads to something other than a dull night at the tavern.

Kurtz Tote · Mar 12, 2002

I'm not in favor of any alignment banning. All lot of these posts are really restricting the roleplaying aspect of alignment. I've played with a CN characters that have been a blast. Randomness was dictated by the flip of a coin. The need to get paid to do something is not a CN trait - they are just as likely to do it for free as need to get paid - as it is an evil trait.

But evil isn't all that bad either to have in a group. CE is playable. They look out for their own hide. They will try to bully others. But they can still have friends. They are willing to go to the temple to destroy evil in hopes of making off with the treasure. The hooks for them might be different, but they can still be hooked.

The key for evil, or CN, or whatever, is the willingness of the players, and DMs, to live with the consequences. You play an evil character and do evil actions, don't be surprised if the NPCs and/or the PCs turn against you. Getting beat up, stripped down, and thrown in jail might be the easy way out. Do something evil and stupid enough, and you could get killed for it. As a player you have to be ok with this and a DM you have to go through with it.

Shaele · Mar 12, 2002

<snip>
I'm not in favor of any alignment banning. All lot of these posts are really restricting the roleplaying aspect of alignment. I've played with a CN characters that have been a blast. Randomness was dictated by the flip of a coin.
</snip>

Flipping a coin to determine a character's actions is exactly the _opposite_ of roleplaying: instead of determining your characters actions based on his motivations or desires, you're basing his course on a totally random element.

Turn the argument around: if you truly believe a CN character should act "randomly", then write down a huge list of all possible actions, and number them. Every round that passes in the game, roll a die to see what he does. So... how plausible is it now?

[edit: Kurtz, this wasn't meant as a personal attack, but I too have suffered through a few CE^hN characters, and it ain't been pretty!]

--shaele

Kurtz Tote · Mar 12, 2002

I'm not sure which one it was, possibly the third one, but remember Two-Face (or was it Scarface) from the Batman movies. He was definetly evil. But also chaotic. And he, at more then one point in the movie, decided what action to take by flipping a coin.

Now I know that using characters from Batman movies might not be the best defense, seeing as they weren't always the most developed characters. But why not a very whimsical character? Just loves being alive, and doesn't much care about good or evil. Out to have a good time. This NPC just insulted me, shrug it off or take offense? Doesn't much matter, so I'll flip a coin. Then, I'll have to roleplay the result. The character doesn't have strong beliefs or values to play out, but that doesn't mean there is no roleplay value.

I'm not saying all CN has to be a flip of a coin. What about a Dwarven Evocer that just loves setting things on fire. Boom boom boom. Not out to hurt anybody, just a good old-fashioned pyro. Attack the big bad guys just try out a new fireball spell - you betcha. Doesn't care about the bad guys, or the treasure, just wants to have fun blowing stuff up. Seems pretty CN and could be a lot of fun to roleplay without screwing up a party.

adndgamer · Mar 12, 2002

I think that in most cases, CN is an evil alignment.

Neutral = You do whatever seems best at the time.

Chaotic = You like chaos more than law

And so, it seems to me that a chaotic neutral individual would like to cause lots of chaos etc, which is seen by most people as evil.

However, there's always the harmless old crazy guy routine...

-Paul

Wolfspider · Mar 12, 2002

I'm not sure which one it was, possibly the third one, but remember Two-Face (or was it Scarface) from the Batman movies. He was definetly evil. But also chaotic. And he, at more then one point in the movie, decided what action to take by flipping a coin.

Two Face was also hopelessly insane, and he only flipped the coin when faced with an important decision, NOT to decide on trivial things.

Ridley's Cohort · Mar 12, 2002

adndgamer said:
I think that in most cases, CN is an evil alignment.

Neutral = You do whatever seems best at the time.

Chaotic = You like chaos more than law

And so, it seems to me that a chaotic neutral individual would like to cause lots of chaos etc, which is seen by most people as evil.

However, there's always the harmless old crazy guy routine...

I think you touched on an important point: an "abusive" CN personality would be judged evil by society simply because he is openly antisocial. That was, more or less, why Socrates was condemned to die.

Paladins and many Good aligned PCs and NPCs could easily feel morally obliged to make an example of them. If an Inn mysteriously burned down this ornery individualistic character would likely be fingered as the culprit even if he didn't do it.

Good, honest folk are very careful about "drifters" because of suspicions they might have been kicked out or forced to flee their home community. If his own relatives can trust him, why should we?

LostSoul · Mar 12, 2002

Ridley's Cohort said:
Good, honest folk are very careful about "drifters" because of suspicions they might have been kicked out or forced to flee their home community. If his own relatives can trust him, why should we?

That's why most people you meet are Neutral, not Good. Just like our Chaotic friend.

Sir Osis of Liver · Mar 13, 2002

Really i think the best advice for creamsteak, is talk to your players, try to come up with an interpitation of the alignments you can all agree on , and don't be too heavy handed. If you start straight up outlaw things, especiaLLY THINGS PERTAINING TO ROLEPLAY you risk alianating your players, and that might be worse than the CN alignment.

OT: have you dmed FFT yet? if so how did work out, i haven't had a chance to give it a whirle yet.

Chimera · Mar 13, 2002

I don't see any problem with outright banning *anything* as long as it's consistent with your world and your vision of what it should be. My next campaign will have a severely shortened list of races and some restrictions on class. So you could say that a Half-Orc Sorcerer would be banned, because I plain wouldn't allow it. If that alienates a player, then OH WELL. You gotta work with me and fit into the World Vision, not make up some odd combination and then be upset because it's unworkable IMC.