I hate Chaotic Neutral

[Crothian]

Instead of saying no to it, I chose not to cater to it. If someone is CN and then doesn't want to jion the group on their dungeon crawl then that person gets left behind. It is not my job as DM to motivate the characters. Its the players job to create a character that can go along with the group. So, if someone wants a CN character and then can't agree with the rest of the party to go on an adventure, then that player can enjoy watching the rest of us have fun playing the game.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Honestly I consider not having the players pick an alignment for their character and have me assign it later to them based on their actions and motivations. I want players to play their character, not play alignment first and character second.

You can't go wrong with this. "You come up with the reason your character is interested. I'll tell you where that fits in the world's cosmology."

 

[painandgreed]

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.

I've found that getting players to do anything without personal gain is near impossible no matter what alignment. Evil, good or neutral, players are motivated by bettering their characters. I've seen very few players that had alturistic goals that wasn't arm twisting created by the DM, basically saying "you're good, you have to do this." Such adventures are much like seeing "chick flicks". i may go see one with my girlfriend evey now and then just to make her happy, but it's not like I'm really enjoying it.

Getting players to give their characters motivations is hard no matter what alignment they choose. I ask for players to supply both short term and long term goals for their characters, bascially provide your own side adventures, yet getting them to actually do so is like pulling teeth even if you give large rewards for such. While some players can do that most seem to only be capable of being led by the nose by their DM. I think this is a learned behavior because if I start a person new to RPGs off with developing their own motivations, they seem to do it much easier than those who have been playing for many years.

As other have pointed out, in 3.x, neutral means still having compassion for your fellow creatures. Compassion for those who deserve compassion and none for those who don't. Once they lose that compassion for their fellow beigns, then they are technically evil even if they don't activly wish others harm.

 

[Mystery Man]

Instead of saying no to it, I chose not to cater to it. If someone is CN and then doesn't want to jion the group on their dungeon crawl then that person gets left behind. It is not my job as DM to motivate the characters. Its the players job to create a character that can go along with the group. So, if someone wants a CN character and then can't agree with the rest of the party to go on an adventure, then that player can enjoy watching the rest of us have fun playing the game.

I agree with you completely. Kind of funny: I have a friend who's been playing dnd forever who runs a GH game. Anyway, he wanted to learn 3E so he asked me to sit in my game for a few sessions to familiarize himself with the new rules. I was OK with me, but after a time my players just couldn't stand him. He would always seek motivation from me or the other PC's. Until one day everyone went "off to fight the bad guy" and he said he didn't have any motivation to go. One by one in character they all made their goodbyes... It was amazing how fast he found that motivation.

For me as a DM, creating and running a campaign is enough work (enjoyable though it may be) by itself let alone expending the mental energy it takes to provide some sort of motivation for each and every player. This is my game, this is the plot you have your history and alignment. Figure it out.

 

[Psion]

Neither is being LG much of a motivation either.

I disagree.

A lawful character has a sense of duty to somebody.
A good character has a sense of concern for others.

Anything beyond that is gravy IMO/E.

 

[Psion]

I've found that getting players to do anything without personal gain is near impossible no matter what alignment. Evil, good or neutral, players are motivated by bettering their characters.

This is true, but in-game, I am a lot more free to not make the motivations for going explicitly in terms of potential power gain. I really have an intense distaste for promising money up front, and at high levels, the kind of wages PCs consider reasonable are mindbogglingly huge fore peasants. Yeah, that vampire may have an ancient item of power, but I don't like that to be the central emphasis every game.

 

[Crothian]

I think it might also come down more to players then alignment. Some players are cooperative and some are not. I've found that rewarding the coopertaive players more then the uncooperative ones also helps. But usually players learn what is expected from them fast and get in line themselves.

 

[Janx]

They choose an alignment, then try to "play" that alignment. A better, IMO, way to handle alignment to to actually create a personality for your character, then decide which alignment best describes that personality.

I would disagree. Or more accurately, I'd would suggest that perhaps both methods are accurate.

Method 1: pick an alignment, play that alignment
Method 2: play your PC, determine his alignment

Neither one is wrong. If you define roleplaying as creating a personality, then acting as that personality is defined, then method 1 is a means to that end.

Method 2 seems to imply a method of creating the personality through game play.

 

[Jack of Shadows]

Well,

You can try a little experiment. Don't let the players pick their alignments. Observe their actions throughout the first adventure and then assign an alignment to them that best suits the way the character acted. You can take this even further and not tell the players what you decided. If their character seems to be straying significantly over time change the alignment. This gets a little difficult when you come to divine users however as they have alignment restrictions. This is best handled through guidance. For example if you think a Paladin is going to do something outside their alignment say something like "Do you think that action is in line with the Paladinic code/ teachings of Wee Jas/ balance of the natural world?". And always pose it as a question and not a statement. That way the player is asking themselves and they doen't feel they are being dictated to. This way alignment will reflect the character rather than the character reflecting the alignment.

N.B. I've never tried this and, in fact, only just thought of the idea just before posting this. If anyone tries it let me know how it went.

Jack

 

[rowport]

CN is also a very good descriptive value for laissez faire capitalists. Unfettered, self-regulating markets driven only by the needs, goals, and ambitions of individuals. Any self-deterministic philosophy is very much in tune with the Chaotic alignments. Meanwhile, any group-oriented philosophy, from Socialism to NeoConservatism (semi-inflamitory terms chosen to try to represent a pole, not disparage anyone) are going to be better described as Lawful.

I love this description, Mercule, and frankly it makes me feel a bit better with all the hate in this thread for CN- since I routinely *play* that alignment, and in fact score either CN or CG in all of those self-rate your personal alignment tests on-line! I would identify myself as an Objectivist (or Randian, if that makes it more clear for folks) which is essentially a conservative libertarian. CN does not have to be random jerkishness (although, admittedly, that is a valid interpretation of the alignment) but could also be a genuine belief in freedom of action.

I can see how CN characters may be disruptive, particularly in a LG party, but no more so that an Evil character or *especially* a CE character.

As usually is the case, when I hear problems in play like this blamed on alignment, I see the problem being the *player* rather than the game-choice (in this case: alignment).