I hate Chaotic Neutral

[Thanee]

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

Wouldn't that be NE?

Which just tends to confirm my thought that CN is a lazy character design choice.

I play chaotic-aligned characters almost always, and while most of them are CG, some are CN, too. CE is right out, of course.

I see chaotic as free-spirited, individualistic, someone who doesn't want to be restrained by a huge amount of regulations, but rather let everyone have their own opinion (as long as it does not interfere with morale, basic human/demihuman rights, and so on).

I don't see CN as egoistic, only interested in personal gain, and stuff like that. That's NE to me.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Psychic Warrior]

Oh, I agree. The problem is that the player wishes to make a character without ethical "strings", which makes it harder to work them into a game. The symptom is "CN" is their usual first choice for alignment.

Now this seems like a player who is afraid you may use those 'ethical strings' to somehow screw their character over. They probably see this as an attempt to make a character who cannot be 'interfered' with by the DM. I am not saying you do this (I have no idea how your game is run) but I would bet dollars to donuts that going with a CN character is this players way of making their character free of any DM manipulation (which is a pretty poor choice of character backgrounds IMO).

 

[Psion]

Have you thought about retiring alignment completely, and replacing it with the allegience system in d20 Modern?

For this particular game setting, no. But I do use it when I run Second World.

For me, D&D is a game of palpable good versus evil.

It would enable you to dicatate one of the allegiances for the entire party, thereby giving them a single mandatory connection to what/whoever you choose, and reducing the amount of enticement hoops to jump through.

The river of worlds game is more about freebooters who do good when they get the chance, not about an organization or army.

But I do think it's not so bad an option, and you make a good point. If the characters need mechanics before they will define what motivates their characters, then perhaps providing those mechanics is just the thing I need to do.

 

[Morrus]

For the last 10 years or so, there has been a strict rule in my games - no Evil characters and no Chaotic Neutral characters. While I agree that is is possible for a character to run a fair, fun CN character which adds to the gaming experience for everyone, I've yet to see it happen.

 

[Enkhidu]

The palpable G vs. E thing is something that bugs me a bit about Allegiances (though I think they are in general superior to the alignment system) in that it doesn;t do a good job of modeling the "embodiment" aspect of alignment.

I've done a little bit of thinking about it, though, and think you could exand on Allegiances by stating that certain types of creatures (Undead, Outsiders - especially Outsiders - Dragons, and possible divine casters beyond a certain level) could posses a sort of uber-allegiance called an "Essesnce." An Essence would behave exactly like an Allegiance, save that it would also give the benefits/drawbacks of the alignment descriptors (granting that palpable G vs. E feel). So a Devil might have Allegiances to his Lord/Lady, a philosophy, and the heirarchy (Law) as well as the Essence of [Evil] (or if you play in a game where Law/Chaos is just as important as Good/Evil, then the Essence [Law] would either be in addition to or in place of [Evil]).

 

[Thanee]

For the last 10 years or so, there has been a strict rule in my games - no Evil characters and no Chaotic Neutral characters. While I agree that is is possible for a character to run a fair, fun CN character which adds to the gaming experience for everyone, I've yet to see it happen.

Things must be very different around here, since it's really completely the opposite for me. While I agree with Evil, I have almost never seen CN to cause any problems (in 3rd edition, the 2nd edition "flip a coin" mentality was completely stupid).

Bye
Thanee

 

[DungeonmasterCal]

Every person I've ever seen play CN just used it as an excuse to play CE in games where evil PC's weren't allowed.

the 2nd edition "flip a coin" mentality was completely stupid).

Bye
Thanee

I actually gamed with a guy when I first began playing 1e who had an Eisenhower dollar coin he used to determine his actions. He played only CN characters.

 

[Mercule]

Which is not exactly an argument that makes me think that it's not all about personal gain.

Wasn't supposed to. Just throwing in a foil to Li's post.

On the other hand, most Neutrals (LN, N, CN) really are about personal gain, in a lot of cases. The only real variable is whether they want to do it through instituting order, throwing off restrictions, or whichever is easier at the moment.

The problem is that taking the alignment is usually the first warning sign to me that the player does not understand it.

It does make sense as "free spirit" sort of character, but free spirits don't necessarily make good adventurers unless they have other reasons to stay involved. If a player does not define their personality and motivation beyond alignment, CN is typically not enough.

I can rely on appealing to the good PC's altruism.
I can rely on appealing to the lawful PC's sense of duty.
I cannot rely on anything other than money, or so it seems, when it comes to the run of the mill CN PC IME.

None of the alignments make good adventurers, unless they have other reasons. LN characters would be well served to just take orders -- whether that's as a serf, soldier, or guild lackey. LG characters will do the same, just in the service of a nicer organization. CG characters give the bird to mean people.

I see what you're saying. I think the PC is a problem. I just don't think it's a problem inherent in the CN alignment. I think it's a matter of someone designing a PC without much thought to the personality and falling back on a stereotype that they perceive as allowing them to get away with it.

IMC, I don't place alignment restrictions on the PCs. I've had too many characters of all alignments (especially LG, for some reason) who wait for a visit from the "motivation fairy". My requirement is that the PCs are able to tell me why they left their life as a farmer, guild flunky, city watch, petty thief, etc. and took up a new life as an adventurer. Or, if I'm starting at 1st level or trying to add an organic feel into the game, they have to provide me with some ideas for the sort of conditions that will motivate them. If someone makes a character that is lazy or ill-defined, I've got no issue with moving the campaign along until that character has little choice but to come up with a reason or drop out. Or, if I catch it early enough, I'll confront it at the start, but that doesn't always happen.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I have a problem with obstructionist players. The allignment tag they stick on their character is secondary.

I've had a couple of characters I would consider chaotic neutral (I usually apply the allignment lables after playing them for a while and getting a feel for their personalities) and they got involved for many reasons, from "sounds like fun" to "ooh, a challenge!" to, of course "Well, I better come along to keep you out of trouble."

I can rely on appealing to the good PC's altruism.
I can rely on appealing to the lawful PC's sense of duty.
I cannot rely on anything other than money, or so it seems, when it comes to the run of the mill CN PC IME.

see for me, I'd be just as annoyed at having to rely on alturism or duty as money. I like to just be able to rely on the characters' sense of adventure and curiosity and wanderlust, which are not strictly related to allignment but define (to me) an underlying 'adventurer' personality. If I say "the talk of the tavern is that a hunting party has return frightened by a set of tracks that they cannot identify but seem to belong to a beast three times larger than a horse, and now people are wondering if seemingly unrelated disapearances are connected" I don't care if the chaotic good type says "Oh! we must determine if this beast is evil and if so destroy it to save any future innocents," or if the nature character type says "tracks they have never see before? might be something obvious, but it might be something new and interesting," or if the greedy type says "bet I could get a months worth of free meals off being the hero of this little town, and maybe it collects valuables off its victims!" I just expect them to all say in one way or another "mysterious and possibly challenging, let's check it out!"

 

[Riggs]

I also notice that CN is used as a way to do whatever suits them without having to be 'officially' evil.

The example made earlier about the bounty hunter, wouldn't that be LE instead of CN? They may not care where their money comes from, but unless they only hunted truly awful people on behalf of good people, isn't taking money for heads=evil? And those that work under contracts are usually lawful.
But my point is not to judge that example, but to illustrate how I feel LE or just E gets brushed off when it is often the correct alignment. Do players who do not want to be "evil" and feel uncomforatble with that choose 'lazy' alignments like CN?
I feel the most disruptive or party-unfriendly alignment part is Chaotic, not Evil.
I'd much rather DM an LE character in a party of all good and even a paladin then have to wonder just why the CN is even there all the time. At least the LE can be trusted to follow whatever rules govern him. To me, CN="I don't want an alignment so here's my 'get out of alignment' card"