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

SHARK · Mar 13, 2002

Greetings!

Hey, Black Omega, that's a good point, too. LE, depending on how one interpretes the Know Alignment spells and such, could work pretty well in many groups. LE characters, I think, if given cool personalities, can be very attractive.

As an example, in one campaign, there is an LE Wizard. This guy is an adversary of the party, and has defeated the goals of the party several times. This wizard has even saved their lives once, when--unknownst to them--keeping them alive gained the wizard an advantage over a different, and hated enemy. The group and the evil wizard have even cooperated for mutual gain at different times. The relationship is adversarial, but at the same time many in the party really like the evil wizard. They stand against his plans for dominating the continent; They are against his maniacal hatred of Deer-People; They disapprove of his general disposition that everything in life is somehow his for the taking; However, they all like his sense of style; The wizard has kept his word in dealing with them at all times; The wizard is brilliant, and is an obvious genius; The wizard stands against the typical aristocratic priveledge--he believes in Merit, for everyone. The evil wizard has built several beautiful cities, and assisted varius tribes in their struggle for freedom from foreign domination. The party often wishes that the evil wizard could join them, and then hopefully they could convert him. That hasn't happened, but it does create a very interesting relationship!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Darklone · Mar 13, 2002

Alignments...

In all these alignment debates most guys miss one point.

They start saying: I wanna play a CN guy ( or lawful good or whatever ).

Sure, alignments were included to help guys define the worldview of their characters. And to make spellcasting a bit more comlicated (I hate those alignment specific spells).

Let players create a char and let them act. Then tell them perhaps what you think their char is. It's not an alignment that causes the problems, it's the way how a player imagines his character.

If that characters "character" generates problems, let him suffer. Why caring about those IMHO unnecessary things. Why caring to say: "Hey your char shouldn't have done this!"

If you wanna do it the easy way: Let the player write a code of conduct. Let him describe how his character would act in several typical situations.

Ya know, you see someone bashing someone... how do you act...

If you got a player who wants to play an ****hole, let him do it. And let everyone act according to it.

Axiomatic Unicorn · Mar 13, 2002

Agamon said:
Those that outright ban CN probably don't understand the alignment and likely have a player exploiting that (though the player probably doesn't understand it, either).

Nope.

I also ban CN. And the reasons you state are completely wrong.
I would bet that the majority of others have a similar motive.

I have gone through player after player who wanted to be CN, then just decides they have free reign to be a wrecking ball in the game.

Sorry, I spend to much time working on the game to let some jerk ruin it.

And in my experience, the CN players ruin it for everyone else. The other players are trying to get into the game, then the CN guy does something crazy, or evil, or otherwise dispruptive and I either have to let him get away with it (not) or let the game bog down dealing with it. Thus making the CN character become the center of the universe. No fun for anyone else.

And this is not just one bad player. It is over and over.

So my attitude is: I hope you want to play in my game.
Want to play CN or evil? no dice. Play another alignment or find a different game. I hope you want to play in my game.

Tom Cashel · Mar 13, 2002

Whoa...everybody's all authoritarian in here...

First, I'd like to say that I had a great player in my campaign until just recently. He played a CN fighter, who also had a low wisdom score, and role-played it very well. He claimed to worship Tempus, god of war, but tended to run away from fights that seemed to be going badly. He volunteered to climb 100' cliffs (and was saved only by the timely intervention of the party wizard with a feather fall), but his one and only motivation for adventuring was "loot." The reason he doesn't play anymore?

Because I had to kick his supra-disruptive wife out of the group; her putative alignment was CG. When she left, he (with no hard feelings) had to quit as well.

This leads me to my second point: role-playing in a group requires a certain amount of maturity and a certain amount of meta-thinking. You might be CN or CG, but a "properly played" chaotic alignment is unlikely to share the group ethic. Since the player wants to play D&D, it is advisable that they find some reason to embrace the party.

Players have to be mature enough to want to play as a group, not "play alignment correctly" at the expense of a fun game. DMs have to be willing to explain their conception of chosen alignments when the game begins.

That said, a mix of alignments in such a group can lead to interesting personality dynamics and fun role-playing (more fun, IMO, than a pack of like-minded heroes advancing toward the goal...what fun would the X-Men be if Cyclops and Wolverine didn't have their jabs at each other?)...but the players have to be willing to keep the group together, and not let petty rivalries invade real life.

Disruptive players will disrupt your campaign, no matter what alignment they choose. The solution is not to ban a game mechanic, but (as others have said) to ban the player who consistently disrupts the game.

Or just kill a few of their offending characters first; see how they like that. Instead of "the town guard follows you around with spears," how about "a town archer gets a lucky shot--a 20!--and you're dead. Make another character while we continue the game." Perhaps a gentle reminder that they might want to avoid inanity if they'd like to see 2nd level...

Good luck!

Axiomatic Unicorn · Mar 13, 2002

I am certain that there are some great CN role-players out there.
And it is also clear that players can be disruptive under any alignment.

I would not hesitate to kick out a dispruptive player, regardless of the alignment they choose.

None of that changes my time and again experience that CN and disruptive play seem to hand and hand.

It is not authoritarian to refuse to do the work of being a DM just so that someone else can screw it up.

Tom Cashel · Mar 13, 2002

Okay, but the

meant that I was joking...having a little joke...kidding around, aye? No offense, AU...

Hand of Evil · Mar 13, 2002

Pull up my soap box

I use my world myth to list out those items I see as evil. I turn this over to my players before the game.

Now in game play if a player starts to perform those acts, I look at the reason and number of times performed. If it looks like he is leaning toward evil he will have to change alignment.

Part of this is MY belief that once people start to perform evil actions it becomes the easiest thing to do.

Sir Osis of Liver · Mar 13, 2002

T CREAMSTEAK: yes i am on your mailing list, and did recieve the pdf. At a glance i have to say it looks great, there is just some thing about the pdf. that the rtf. can't touch.

As to the alignment debate, I guess my group meets Tom Cashels definition of a matuer group. Maybe I'm tainted because i'm friends with my DM and he feals the players fun is as important as his. I don't know, that probably has coolered my opinion becuase i just can't wrap my mind around the type of game where the dm's only way of dealing with disruptions is by banning things and lumping restriction after restriction on the players.

Oh wait, yes i can, i used play with a guy like that. He didn't care about alianating his players and was only concered with his view of his game, and if someone didn't like that they could leave. Well thats exactly what happened the whole group ditched the guy.
I'm sure none of you guys are that bad,we called this guy the roleplaynazi( like soupnazi from siengfeld, heh),but based on your posts some of you guys do seem a wee bit harsh to game with.

Aside: i do think alchahol can be a huge game killer, i've been known to indulge during a game but never to excess. this is something i would not object to banning from a game though.

Mountian Dew anyone?

Kurtz Tote · Mar 13, 2002

So much banning of alignment. I would have to agree with the sentiments that it is the players, not the alignment, that are the root of the problem. With the right group of players and the right DM, ANY alignment can be played and played well. If the players are good roleplayers, they can play an alignment well. Certain alignments do pose more challenges for DMs, meaning you might not be able to go strictly by all the little boxes written in the adventure, or something might happen that you didn't expect. That doesn't mean that the alignment is bad, just that you have to flex your creative muscles more in a shorter time frame. If a chaotic character gets into a bar fight and busts down a wall fleeing from the melee, that doesn't have to be a bad thing. The chaotic character was being chaotic, and now the DM has to think quickly as to how to handle it. And the other players have to think quickly how to handle it too. One of the players in our group plays a *great* kender. Always doing and saying kender things, which is by their nature rather chaotic even if well intentioned or accidental. This keeps the DM on his toes to handle anything as well as the other players to keep him out of trouble.

Evil is also very playable. Not too long ago my group finished a massive campaign. The crown of the campaign was Return to the Tomb (great adventure). The core of the group was a CG dwarven cavalier and a half-elven rogue-wizard (N to NG at this point). However, I played a very evil Lich necromancer. I was the adventure hook. Showed up telling them about this massive evil that was building. Got them convinced that they should stop this for the good of humanity. I wanted to try and steal as much of the power as I could but I also had reason to want to destroy it if I couldn't control it, while they just wanted to destroy it. But we needed to work together, so, with a couple other great characters, as a party we marched through the adventure. Absolutely marvelous!!

Neowolf · Mar 13, 2002

I've gotta agree, I always cringe when a player tells me they want to be chaotic neutral. It's rarely a roleplaying choice so much as an excuse for doing whatever they want. The way I usually deal with it is to make sure they see the consequences of their choices (trouble with the law, etc.).