does CN get a bad rap?

[Lonely Tylenol]

Think of the instinct for independence of moving out of your parent's house. Suddenly, you have to pay for food and rent and fun on a job that is likely an entry-level bootlicker, but you do it on *your* terms. That independence, at a price. It's stupid, on the face of it: why would you give up the luxury of living on someone else's dollar? Independence. CN can take that instinct and run more with it, adhering to it as a valuable ideal in all aspects of life.

"Live free or die."

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Which is why I take the position that CN does get a bad rap: because the most infamous players ruin it for its legitimate uses by using it as an excuse to be disruptive.

Right. Having a "bad rap" implies that you are unfairly being given that reputation. If you deserve it, it's not a "bad rap". CN doesn't really encourage playing like a jerk. It's a historical problem with the alignment that goes back to an early notion about what an ethically-neutral chaotic person would be like, and one that was grandfathered in despite the efforts made to undermine that notion.

When new players join, they're told by the local grognard, "oh Chaotic Neutral means you can be a jerk and ruin everyone's fun, and they have to let you because it says 'CN' on your character sheet." This is exactly as true as the idea that being True Neutral means you roll a die to see what alignment you're going to act like in a given situation--which is to say, entirely untrue--and so CN has a bad reputation as a source of trouble that it doesn't deserve.

 

[BroccoliRage]

Why is that one isn't allowed to take liberties with rules like combat, yet alignments, while clearly defined in every edition of D&D, (as well as being composed of dual-syllable words representing very easy to understand concepts to anyone with any sense of morality), is perfectly open to interpretation.

OBFUSCATION IS TO BE AVOIDED IN GAMING.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Combat doesn't involve different people's understandings of philosophical imperatives, morality, duty (in the moral, ethical, and legal sense), and ethics. Alignment does.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Okay, you can all stop talking already. So you want to know why CN gets such a bad rap?

It's all because of me. Yes, me! There, I said it. Happy now?

 

[BroccoliRage]

Combat doesn't involve different people's understandings of philosophical imperatives, morality, duty (in the moral, ethical, and legal sense), and ethics. Alignment does.

Somethign tells me you and I have a good and coparable understanding of what good, evil, laws, and chaos are. The concepts are pretty specific.

I would refuse to allow someone who had real confusion about these concepts in my home or near my family, much less at my gaming table.

 

[Mallus]

CN gets a bad rap the same way any and all alignments get a bad rap.

Because some people keep insisting that metagame problems between players are best seen as in-game problems between their non-existent fictional characters, which, I suppose, in a reverse-logical sense, is the best way to discuss and resolve conflict between two or more actual people.

Blaming player problems on alignment differences is more than a little like a ventriloquist blaming his dummy for all the trouble it caused with its unkind words.

 

[BroccoliRage]

Well said, Mallus.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Somethign tells me you and I have a good and coparable understanding of what good, evil, laws, and chaos are. The concepts are pretty specific.

I would refuse to allow someone who had real confusion about these concepts in my home or near my family, much less at my gaming table.

Obviously, most of the people who post on these boards are sane individuals. Obviously, they are sane individuals who have differences of opinion on what good, evil, law, and chaos represent--see the myriad and innumerable alignment threads for evidence of this. This suggests that there is more than one way of interpreting these concepts. Therefore, accusing those who do not share your opinion on these concepts of being somehow dangerous or worthy of shunning is ill-advised. You can have a difference of opinion with someone without declaring him insane.

 

[iwatt]

You can have a difference of opinion with someone without declaring him insane.

I'm not sure I agree with you, you crazy, crazy man....