does CN get a bad rap?

[shilsen]

I find the solution is not to ban perfectly good alignments, but to state things like, "I expect the party to have good reasons to work together, and not backstab each other."

So, if you're Jack Sparrow, you can be CN, fine, but you have to explain your reasons for being with the party, which cannot include, "Soon I will backstab them".

As long as the players are working together for each others fun, any alignment works fine. If your players are trying to screw each other, LN can do this better than CN.

I agree completely. I'd also add, as a number of posters (such as green slime below) have said, that the players shouldn't be trying to play an alignment but should play their characters instead. As the DM, I decide what alignment a character currently is, based on their past and current actions.

 

[sckeener]

CN gets a bad rap. LN can be just as bad. It all depends on the maturity of the player.

I just finished The Darkness that Comes Before (Prince of Nothing, book 1) by R. Scott Bakker and Anasûrimbor Kellhus (a monk) is as destructive as any bad CN player I've seen.

 

[pawsplay]

There are jsut some alignments that don't fit an adventuring group, and CN is one.

I disagree. I think CN is the archetypal adventuring alignment, and such characters have the greatest flexibility in what jobs to accept, what causes to defend, and what to do to who to when.

Conan, the Grey Mouser and Fafhrd, the Dread Pirate Roberts, Bilbo Baggins, the Ghostbusters, and Duke Raoul are all CN. Han Solo and Jack Sparrow are marginal cases. I don't see a problem with those characters.

Those guys at the end of a caper movie, getting away with it? Typically CN.

Living outside society, looting tombs, raiding enemies outside your home territory, stealing stuff, and smiting those who stand in your way is basically CN behavior, and definitely influences even those D&D characters of other alignments.

 

[BryonD]

Pirates of the Caribbean, Jack Sparrow, reminds me of a Chaotic Neutral character.

I'd certainly allow Jack Sparrow into one of my games. No question.

I'd certainly allow Jack Sparrow into my game as a character. No doubt.
That doesn't mean I wouldn't be very careful with what players I would let run him.

 

[Seeten]

I agree completely. I'd also add, as a number of posters (such as green slime below) have said, that the players shouldn't be trying to play an alignment but should play their characters instead. As the DM, I decide what alignment a character currently is, based on their past and current actions.

I also agree with this. In our exciting "Playing evil characters thread" I believe this was what I espoused. Living, breathing characters, with real motivations, who have no actual idea what his "alignment" is, even though the gameworld does, via know alignment, and whatnot. I mean, how can you play a character, without having real motivations/etc?

 

[Seeten]

I'd certainly allow Jack Sparrow into my game as a character. No doubt.
That doesn't mean I wouldn't be very careful with what players I would let run him.

Trusting your players is the first key to good gaming.

 

[pawsplay]

Trusting your players is the first key to good gaming.

As is so often the case, it also the first key to really bad gaming.

 

[Piratecat]

As is so often the case, it also the first key to really bad gaming.

Do you think? I'm not so sure I'd agree with this.

 

[I'm A Banana]

As is so often the case, it also the first key to really bad gaming.

I think I'm with P-kitty: how's trusting your players make bad gaming?

AFAIK, trust going both ways is usually a good thing. Even if the trust is violated (players making inappropriate characters, DMs who don't think their choices through enough, for instance), having it allows an open communication about what's going wrong.

 

[hong]

I think I'm with P-kitty: how's trusting your players make bad gaming?

When the trust is misplaced. Duh!