does CN get a bad rap?

[Raloc]

Yeah, I started in 2e myself so the description there fueled a lot of the characters of that alignment in my time. I think a lot of players gravitate towards the alignment though because IMO humans tend towards neutrality (IMO this can be demonstrated to the common answers to the question of "What would you do if you knew there were no consequences and you couldn't fail?") and chaos (in a social context).

In my games alignment takes a back seat. "Evil" can be done by good aligned characters for instance, but only if they continue down that path of evil acts will they shift (first to N then to E). "Vile" evil is a different sort of thing in my game (and tends to have Lovecraftian aspects).

 

[smootrk]

The problem with most CN's is that they are typically played as Chaotic Evil, tempered with the occasional balancing act of almost goodness... and this act is typically centered around the group's or party's objectives, rather than their own personal actions. Basically behaving as some sort of anti-hero, justified by having some greater good overlying their behavior.

That does not fly with me... if you act personally as a sadistic nut, then you will acquire an evil alignment from me... but it is always argued.

 

[Nightfall]

Vile evil and regular evil are about the same. Just regular evil is humans being driven by the flaws, vile evil are demons, devils and other evil outsiders.

 

[Raloc]

Demons/devils don't really qualify fully in my games. They're evil exemplars and such, but not "vile" unless they really strive beyond their ken.

 

[Nightfall]

Exemplars of evil to me seem more "vile" than just those that are "evil/flawed" humans. At least to me Ral.

To each their own.

 

[Chimera]

My problem with CN is that it is the default choice of people who lack any kind of social skills and just want an excuse to screw with everyone and everything at any time.

"But I'm just playing my alignment!" as an excuse to be a serious expletive at the game table.

 

[I'm A Banana]

My take on CN has always been the kind of anti-establishment quintessential rebellion kind of person. The kind of person who just "has a problem with authority," who hates cops for simply being cops, who likes sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll, who will never, ever do what you tell him just because you tell him to do it (and often won't do it just because you tell him to do it).

Think punk rock, think Jim Morrison, think some of the edgier rap...anything that says "society's screwed up, and I'm not gonna just shut up and take it!"

And I ask that those who play CN do it *right*.

Mostly I do this by giving people alignments based on how they play, instead of letting them choose for themselves, but eh...

 

[Steel_Wind]

I blame the idiotic 2E defintion of CN, which basically called it the insane alignment.

It was insane and reviled long before 2E.

CN is the refuge of those who hate the alignment system and want to opt out of it and justify all their actions of any sort with "I'm CN".

CN, CE and NE are not permissible PC alignments at my table.

 

[Deuce Traveler]

I like to play chaotic neutral rogues. Usually I play them as characters that like to act outside the law and are also against the heroic ideal of helping everyone in need. They usually are in it for personal profit, but have strong family and friendship relationships that they would be willing to risk their lives for. Hence, my criminal brothel-going halfling was willing to listen to the advice of the party paladin since he was a 'decent chap' and always treated him well.

 

[Alzrius]

CN is the refuge of those who hate the alignment system and want to opt out of it and justify all their actions of any sort with "I'm CN".

True that. I ban all of the evil alignments, and CN, in my game as acceptable PC alignments.