I hate Chaotic Neutral

[rowport]

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.

Crothian-

FWIW, as a player of CN characters, I think this approach is totally fair and reasonable. I think there can be valid reasons for the CN to go with the party other than altruism, anyway- maybe he is smart enough to reason out what will happen to him if left by the party in a dangerous dungeon, say. So self-preservation wins. Or, perhaps he makes a bargain with the goodie-goodie Paladin, whose sense of duty will obligate him to satisfy the debt i.e. Rogue says, "I will go with you guys to rescue the Princess for now, and even search out the traps for you, but *only* if you then agree to increase my share of the take we find on the way." Or Barbarian Druid says, "Pah! I will agree to join you on this fool's errand, if you then assist me in my quest to thwart the river polluters of the nearby City!"

That way, not only does alignment become an interesting in-character motivator and roleplaying tool, but can also drive new adventures via character goals! I think it really just speaks to the willingness of the players and GM to handle inner-party conflict. Personally, I think it can be fun.

 

[rowport]

I think this is the best way of thinking about CN. It's not that they're free of morals or anything... it's that they're, essentially, anarchists. They do what they want, when they want, and if they get into trouble it's their own fault. Anyone who plays CN and then complains when their character has to suffer the consequences of their actions is not getting the concept.

I think the best fictional example of CN I've seen is Jayne Cobb from Firefly / Serenity. He's a ruthless, reckless mercenary, but he (generally) follows the orders of his employer, since that's where the money comes from. He's also none too polite.

I agree with this, too, Kesh. But Jayne might be borderline True Neutral instead of CN. Still, either way, he is a good example of a non-good character working within a Good party. I consider their inner-party conflicts entertaining, personally.

To Mystery Man: with respect, I would find playing in an 'all-good, heroic' game to be too confining. I found the Super-Friends entertaining when I was 8, but at 35 that seems a bit trite to me. I do understand your motivation- for 'heroes' to be 'heroes', but would just suggest that it is not the only valid way to play the game, nor that any other way is implicitly indicative of selfish players. :\

 

[Crothian]

To Mystery Man: with respect, I would find playing in an 'all-good, heroic' game to be too confining. I found the Super-Friends entertaining when I was 8, but at 35 that seems a bit trite to me. I do understand your motivation- for 'heroes' to be 'heroes', but would just suggest that it is not the only valid way to play the game, nor that any other way is implicitly indicative of selfish players. :\

You also don't have to be good to consider yourself good. Just becasue the alignment says something else, the character might think of himslef as doing good. He just does it a little more brutal and gets his hand dirty and doesn't mind. I've played evil characters that took the ends justify the measn to the extremes. As long as the character felt good was the end result, he didn't mind killing and breaking a few eggs to do it. Alignment is mostly a met game issue, and the character rarely knows what alingment others percieve him to be. He just knows what he believes himself to be.

 

[rowport]

You also don't have to be good to consider yourself good. Just becasue the alignment says something else, the character might think of himslef as doing good. He just does it a little more brutal and gets his hand dirty and doesn't mind. I've played evil characters that took the ends justify the measn to the extremes. As long as the character felt good was the end result, he didn't mind killing and breaking a few eggs to do it. Alignment is mostly a met game issue, and the character rarely knows what alingment others percieve him to be. He just knows what he believes himself to be.

That is another valid point, Crothian. I agree.

It makes me wonder a question for Mystery Man, Psion, and Morrus, who all advocate all-good parties or restricting CN:
Are all the opponents in your games "Evil"? Or, are they occasionally "Neutral" or even "Good" where their goals are in conflict with those of the party? I was just re-reading the Black Panther TPB where Chrisopher Priest acknowleges that Christopher Claremont taught him that the best villains were those that did not believe they were Evil. That is a *great* concept. What alignment would you folks assign to Magneto? How about Xavier?

Conflict creates interest, IMO. If D&D ignores the morality play writ large, then it really boils down to kill the monster, which strikes me as boring, personally.

 

[Arnwyn]

But it seems to be the most popular choice these days.

Am I alone here? Any strategy in dealing with this?

Really? I did not know that.

Not sure if you're alone, but I haven't seen a CN PC IMC (acronyms rock) for a very long time. Though I do consider the need for motivation to be important, and there's a certain level of motivation that I consider to be more fun to DM for than others (namely altruism, righting wrongs, or even a 'sense of adventure').

To get this result, I don't allow evil and enforce a house rule that states that at least half the party (3 out of 5) must be "good" in alignment. I'm not particularly interested in DMing a 'mercenary' campaign.

But that's just us.

 

[Psion]

Are all the opponents in your games "Evil"? Or, are they occasionally "Neutral" or even "Good" where their goals are in conflict with those of the party?

Usually evil. Almost never Good. A few thieves and pirates might not be evil... but generally, if you are truly a villain, you are sliding down the slope to evil.

I was just re-reading the Black Panther TPB where Chrisopher Priest acknowleges that Christopher Claremont taught him that the best villains were those that did not believe they were Evil.

Ah, but here's the rub: beleiving you are not evil is most explicitly NOT the same as not being evil. Alignment is not a subjective thing.

 

[kolikeos]

when i think about CN adventurer i think something on the lines of:
someone who goes out on adventures for adventures sake, bashing monsters and taking their stuff is really alot of fun, you get to go to interesting places and acquire lots of power and wealth, he just goes where he wants to instead of going where the would be 'quest givers' send him to, he doesn't give a damn about other people he just wants to find excitement wherever he goes, he wouldn't normally help people out of kindness and wouldn't normally kill people out of cruelty, he follows his own agenda which might be as simple as 'have fun and exiting adventures'.

 

[Thanee]

A lawful character has a sense of duty to somebody.

“Adventuring? Not with me, I can't leave here. These people need me.”

“No, we can't do that, he said this is his land and we have to abide by his rules. There is no reason not to believe him, unless we have a proof.”

Not very helpful.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Crothian]

“Adventuring? Not with me, I can't leave here. These people need me.”

“No, we can't do that, he said this is his land and we have to abide by his rules. There is no reason not to believe him, unless we have a proof.”

Not very helpful.

Extremely helpful. That is two great adventure seeds. The party can easily stop what they are doing and help out the town. That is a great way to earn respect and get some great contacts for later in the campaign. And the need for more proff is never a bad thing. It leads to investigating and role playing. Sure, those might take the party away from what they originally planned on doing, but that is not always a bad thing.

 

[kolikeos]

Actually, I see LE a better fit for a party than CN. Not that I like having evil chars in my group - this usually is banned - but they are at least not disruptive. They just have different goals.

i find LE the hardest alignment to role-play. how does a LE charcter act? i can role-play a NE or a LN, but just can't get it right with LE.