does CN get a bad rap?

[Someone]

CN characters are no more chaotic or prone to random actions than Chaotic Goods, and no more evil or prone to kill people for whatever reason than Lawful Neutrals. If the alingment has a bad rep is because of the idiotic way 2e treated alingments, and the CN description in particular.

 

[hong]

... Of course, sometimes chaotic neutral can be pretty cool too.

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/guides/steves-guide-making.php

 

[Elf Witch]

I have seen CN played well a few times.

But most of the time I have seen it played as a lone wolf who refuses to be a team player who goes out of their way to cause friction and turmoil in the party.

CN does not mean crazy.

My roommate played a great CN one time. She played an elf who only cared about one thing her sister who was also in the party. She was not into helping others just because it was the right thing to do nor did she feel burdened to follow laws that made no sense to her.

She believed strongly in personal freedoms and did what she had to do to survive.

A good example was when we found some baby kobolds some of the party wanted to turn them over to the townsfolk who would have killed them. Her sister and another were for taking the kobold babies and raising them. She didn't care one way or another but she stood by her sister and voted to save the babies because it was what her sister wanted.

CN can be fun to play as long as you give yourself a reason of why you are traveling with the party. And you don't allow your character's drive for personal freedom to mean that you wantonly violate every law you come across so the end results is that the party is driven from evey town and village.

 

[RigaMortus2]

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

Bingo!

 

[Torack]

As so many others have touched upon already, the problem with CN is in its definition. (Un)fortunately CN isn't the only alignment suffering from a bad rap. LG is another alignment that seems to carry a burden with it.

Myself, I stick to the definition for alignments provided by the Dark Sun expanded boxed set. At least they tend to make sense to me.

In short, the definitions of the alignment fall into the following categories:

Law = rational thinking
Chaos = emotional thinking

Good = for the party/greater good at the expense of yourself whenever possible
Evil = selfishness/Me me me and no one else.

It basically means that a LN character will do whatever seems most rational, regardless of whether it serves him or the greater good, a CN character will use its emotions to make decisions, as in "what feels right, right now". A NG character will do whatever is best for the group/greater good regardless of whether the action is rational or emotional, and a NE character will do whatever serves him the best regardless of rationality or emotions involved.

To illustrate with an example, I can imagine seeing a NG, CG, N, CN, NE and CE character sitting outside the courthouse waiting for the BBEG to be convicted, only to off him as he leaves. A lawful character IMO wouldn't consider it, as it isn't rational.

Similarly I can see a LG, NG, LN, N, LE and NE character choose to not oppose authority in a city as it makes rational sense.

I'd see LG, NG, CG, LN, and N all go down the road of self sacrifice if it's either the rational or to the benefit of the group to do so.

I'd also imagine a N, CN, NE and CE character steal/pilfer items on a whim, if it serves them now.

 

[Harmon]

The one alignment that I forbid in my campaigns while I was GMing was CN. Only had one Player complain though.

CN characters you have to run a campaign to much on the fly, because you never know which direction they are going to go- good or evil, or just non complacient ("I don't care what happens to the village.")

 

[shilsen]

I blame a surplus of idiots giving the alignment a bad name.

I've seen real CN characters in action and know that it can work - and bring a great deal to the gaming table.

Agreed. In my Eberron game (see sig), I've currently got the most entertaining CN character I've seen in play in the shape of the shifter druid Luna. As another player put it, "She's Chaotic Chaotic. She's got so much chaos that it beat up her neutrality and took its stuff." She's highly violent, mercurial, intensely curious, has a very limited attention span, and possesses absolutely no sense of fear (this is the character who, on ending up near a tower with an insane dragon in it, promptly said, "Cool! I turn into a bird, fly over and look at it"). She's also a total team player, has consistently almost got herself killed helping the party, and is an absolute hoot to DM for.

 

[mara]

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

I became irritated by that definition and played an insane character in an attempt to show its absurdity. Unfortunately the DM thought it was the perfect CN depiction. The character attempted to barbeque a dracolich at one point, and I'm not talking about fireballs.

-Mara

 

[Harmon]

As so many others have touched upon already, the problem with CN is in its definition. (Un)fortunately CN isn't the only alignment suffering from a bad rap. LG is another alignment that seems to carry a burden with it.

Myself, I stick to the definition for alignments provided by the Dark Sun expanded boxed set. At least they tend to make sense to me.

In short, the definitions of the alignment fall into the following categories:

Law = rational thinking
Chaos = emotional thinking

Good = for the party/greater good at the expense of yourself whenever possible
Evil = selfishness/Me me me and no one else.

It basically means that a LN character will do whatever seems most rational, regardless of whether it serves him or the greater good, a CN character will use its emotions to make decisions, as in "what feels right, right now". A NG character will do whatever is best for the group/greater good regardless of whether the action is rational or emotional, and a NE character will do whatever serves him the best regardless of rationality or emotions involved.

To illustrate with an example, I can imagine seeing a NG, CG, N, CN, NE and CE character sitting outside the courthouse waiting for the BBEG to be convicted, only to off him as he leaves. A lawful character IMO wouldn't consider it, as it isn't rational.

Similarly I can see a LG, NG, LN, N, LE and NE character choose to not oppose authority in a city as it makes rational sense.

I'd see LG, NG, CG, LN, and N all go down the road of self sacrifice if it's either the rational or to the benefit of the group to do so.

I'd also imagine a N, CN, NE and CE character steal/pilfer items on a whim, if it serves them now.

Oh, so right

Sorry if my agreeing with you hurts your rep, but this description of alignments is (in my mind) right on.

 

[Stormborn]

Having never played previous editions I had no idea that CN mean "do whatever you want" nor do I think its an excuse for any kind of behavior.

To me CN means "does not conform to extertnal authority nor to rigid internalized philosophies; does not have a strong tendency toward selfless or selfish behavior." Thus when I play a CN character he tends to have his own rules and goals, but they usually are related to enlightened self interest: It is in my best intrest to protect and support the group even if it does not cause me immediate benifit or even forces me to sacrfice because I expect them to behave in the same manner toward me; nor is it in my best interest to steal, kill, or otherwise create problems for myself or the group as the consequences of those actions are likely detremental to me in the long run. To indiscemenantly harm others invites negative consequences (i.e. they or their heirs attempting to harm me and mine) while indiscremenatly helping others invites unnecesary constraints upon myself of obligation and emotion. Therefore I will judge each such act carefully. I do not betray friendships or commitments on a whim. I exercise my abilities carefully and in a manner that is in the best interst of my long term goals or those of my friends and allies. I do not act on the emotions of a moment nor on the expectations of others nor on codified rules but rather what is in the long term best interest of me and mine. I wish to be free from those restraints, but I realize that I am the one who chooses to take on or lay aside restraints and that no one can force me to do so but that I may, if I wish, take on limited restraints voluntarilly. Overall I wish to be left to my own devices and goals and will do the same for you. I do not do to others what I do not wish them to do to me. If however, you initiate conflict or otherwise seek to cause me difficulty I have the means to end it.

Basically to many people think that LG = Lawful Stuipid and CN = Chaotic Crazy. Neither is the case. In both cases I play the character intelligently and sane.