Chaotic Good Is The Most Popular Alignment! - Page 8
Page 8 of 31 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415161718 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 307
  1. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by Oofta View Post
    I think CN gets a bad rap. <...> For example I may have a CN barbarian who's ideals include finding stalwart companions to seek out adventure and gain fame and fortune. Who's bonds are to those in his group and who's flaw is that he's brutally honest to a fault because he believes deceiving others is a sign of weakness. He's chaotic because he thinks people should make their own rules, he's neutral because he doesn't really believe in concepts of good and evil. An inveterate gambler, he's in it because he enjoys combat and loves gold. He finds no joy in harming others, but he believes people should be responsible for their own lives.
    This is a very good example of a playable-in-a-party Chaotic Neutral character.

    Similarly, a current character I have is Lawful Neutral: A samurai who's very bound to the code of (pseudo-) Bushido. I could argue for chaotic because I'm going against the dictates of family at the moment. However, that's really more of a temporary thing and I've played very consistent to "the proper social order and, in particular, the chain of command needs to be maintained." I've negotiated with clear enemies according to protocol as well because, well, that's just how things are done. That same party has a Neutral Evil bard. He's on our side---it helps that the enemy involves an invasion from the elemental planes with the ultimate goal being reduction of our plane to the elemental ones so there's really no place for him in that particular order---but he is always looking out for his own advantage.
    Last edited by Jay Verkuilen; Saturday, 15th June, 2019 at 03:54 PM.

  2. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by Hexmage-EN View Post
    My biggest questions at the moment are "what would be the alignment of someone who is willing to do evil for the greater good"
    Neutral Good.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hexmage-EN View Post
    and "what would be the alignment of someone unwilling to do evil for the greater good, even if it is likely refusal to do so will result in greater evil".
    Chaotic Good.

    Im going off the older definition of alignment which is a little more clear to me. And these are two that players mistake for each frequently in classic D&D.

    Neutral Goods primary drive is the greater good. Chaotic good believes in the importance, freedom, and sanctity of the individual.

    In my experience, many players that desire to play a more Neutral Good character choose Chaotic Good by mistake/not understanding the difference.

  3. #73
    Pathfinder subscriber COPPER SUBSCRIBER
    Orcus on an Off-Day (Lvl 22)

    billd91's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Verona, WI
    Posts
    10,781
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Verkuilen View Post
    Yeah, that's the problem I often have with CN and CE alignments in practice. There are interesting characters one could play with those alignments and I've seen it done, but... but... all too often players seem to end up using the excuse "but it's on my character sheet!" as a way to legitimate acting out. If the contract of the table is that that's what people are up for, then fine, but it usually really isn't. Ditto with written down flaws.
    The players who make CN into a problem are simply problem players. Theyre going to try to be problematic whether they have CN on the sheet or NG, CG, LG, etc.

    Get rid of the problem players, you get rid of the CN problem.
    XP Oofta, N/A gave XP for this post

  4. #74
    Member
    Time Agent (Lvl 24)



    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Twin Cities, MN
    Posts
    4,182
    Quote Originally Posted by billd91 View Post
    The players who make CN into a problem are simply problem players. Theyre going to try to be problematic whether they have CN on the sheet or NG, CG, LG, etc.

    Get rid of the problem players, you get rid of the CN problem.
    One of my basic rules: don't play a jerk, play someone who will play well with others because this is a team effort. It doesn't have to be all hugs and kum-ba-ya, but the group has the right to eject you if you don't want to play along.

  5. #75
    Member
    Waghalter (Lvl 7)



    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    MD
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by WaterRabbit View Post
    douchebags. These are the players that steal from the party, get other party members killed, etc. When called on it they claim they were just playing their alignment.
    I really wish I played in a party with a Chaotic Douchebag (CDB).


    1. Show the party that I'm generous with friends and kind to civilians.
    2. Upon first sign of CDB, interrupt to explain the importance of trust & good will.
    3. Find an ally who agrees, quietly make plans, and watch for a second sign.
    4. After it happens, at the next available down time, we flank & kill the CDB.
    5. Look, it's nothing personal. I'm just playing my alignment: Chaotic Good.

  6. #76
    Member
    Acolyte (Lvl 2)



    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    44
    Wow, not that most DMs didn't know this by 1980...

  7. #77
    Immortal Sun
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Oofta View Post
    One of my basic rules: don't play a jerk, play someone who will play well with others because this is a team effort. It doesn't have to be all hugs and kum-ba-ya, but the group has the right to eject you if you don't want to play along.
    This is why, while I don't have alignment restrictions at my table, I do have "You must make a party friendly character who is interested in adventuring."

    I don't care if you're chaotic, evil, or both; you can be all those things and still move the adventure and party forward.
    XP Jay Verkuilen, Radaceus gave XP for this post

  8. #78
    Member
    Acolyte (Lvl 2)



    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by Hussar View Post
    I disagree. Observable behaviour is the only determinant of alignment. Intention means nothing in an objective alignment system.
    So, if a lawful person thought the law said X and so DID X when the law was really Y, you'd call him NOT Lawful because YOU could only observe unlawful actions.

    Mkay.
    Last edited by Bobble; Saturday, 15th June, 2019 at 11:11 PM. Reason: missing part of sentence
    XP Oofta gave XP for this post

  9. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by billd91 View Post
    The players who make CN into a problem are simply problem players. Theyre going to try to be problematic whether they have CN on the sheet or NG, CG, LG, etc.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oofta View Post
    One of my basic rules: don't play a jerk, play someone who will play well with others because this is a team effort. It doesn't have to be all hugs and kum-ba-ya, but the group has the right to eject you if you don't want to play along.
    I agree overall about the issue of jerks, but in my experience it's often not so cut and dried. I know certain character types can bring out the worst in some people. These players may be totally fine with one kind of character but become really problematic with others. I can think of a few good examples from my own personal experience, but a classic one is a character that really doesn't "play nice" with the rest of the group can be quite difficult.

    People can also be going through bad times in their lives (relationship stress, divorce, unemployment, etc.) and act out. Furthermore, there can be social dynamics that can make it hard to just kick a player out. I also think that there can be valid reasons to say "No CN" or whatever, if the intended story doesn't line up with it. I'm not saying these issues all line up with the choice of alignment or some character issue on paper and thus can be headed off by banning a particular alignment or flaw because a real problem player will find a way, but saying "this is explicitly a heroic campaign" or "don't make an Edgelord or total loner" may be necessary.
    Last edited by Jay Verkuilen; Sunday, 16th June, 2019 at 12:20 AM.

  10. #80
    Member
    Time Agent (Lvl 24)



    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Twin Cities, MN
    Posts
    4,182
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Verkuilen View Post
    I agree overall about the issue of jerks, but in my experience it's often not so cut and dried. I know certain character types can bring out the worst in some people. These players may be totally fine with one kind of character but become really problematic with others. I can think of a few good examples from my own personal experience, but a classic one is a character that really doesn't "play nice" with the rest of the group can be quite difficult.

    People can also be going through bad times in their lives (relationship stress, divorce, unemployment, etc.) and act out. Furthermore, there can be social dynamics that can make it hard to just kick a player out. I also think that there can be valid reasons to say "No CN" or whatever, if the intended story doesn't line up with it. I'm not saying these issues all line up with the choice of alignment or some character issue on paper and thus can be headed off by banning a particular alignment or flaw because a real problem player will find a way, but saying "this is explicitly a heroic campaign" or "don't make an Edgelord or total loner" may be necessary.

    If I have a campaign theme, I'll tell people to write up a character that makes sense for that campaign and we'll try to work something out. If we can't, I'll discuss the issue with the player. Ultimately though, I've never seen alignment really be that big of a deal on whether or not a player is going to cause problems for the group. Some people just love playing the nihilistic anti-hero loner no matter what they put on their character sheet. Try as you might to explain that what makes good drama on their favorite Anime doesn't translate into a good member of an adventuring team some people just don't get it.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 16
    Last Post: Wednesday, 15th May, 2019, 03:13 PM
  2. Alignment Question - Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Evil?
    By Arthur Redwyne in forum *Pathfinder & Starfinder
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: Sunday, 9th October, 2011, 02:48 PM
  3. The warlock alignment requirement of being Evil or Chaotic, a good or bad thing?
    By frankthedm in forum *General Roleplaying Games Discussion
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: Wednesday, 16th August, 2006, 03:26 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •