does CN get a bad rap?

[ruleslawyer]

Jack. Frickin'. Sparrow.

Or, speaking of recent Johnny Depp roles, Willy Wonka even.

Half the characters in comedy (or comedy-action) films could be called CN, from Axel Foley to Daffy Duck. It seems to me like it's a great alignment to play.

As for it being the "insane" alignment: I hate to say it, but I actually agree with the idea of CN being at least a *little* kooky. Anyone who plays things so spontaneously, contrary to conventional wisdom (or obvious logic), and disorderly as a true CN exemplar is likely to be pretty off the wall by most people's standards.

IMHO, the really difficult one to play is Neutral, at least as a PC-type.

[Oh, and I'd call Han classic CG.]

 

[Mistwell]

Yes, I definitely think Cartoon Network is getting a bad rap, unjustifiably!

 

[I'm A Banana]

Except that's what those people claim is their motivation. Unless you're under 19 years old, "I have a problem with authority" is a cover for your real motivations, IMO.

Eh. Having a problem with authority is as much a personality trait as "liking to help people." Dee Snyder is how old now? And he's still playing the role of the CN rebel-- flouting society's conventions and doing his own thing and loving every minute of it.

Some popular CN archetypes that also make for valid characters:

Rebel: The quintessential freedom fighter. Not just adhering to your own code of justice, but believing that everyone has the right to adhere to their own code of justice, even if that code of justice wants to eat babies. Society can't tell you what to do or what to think or who to respect, you can only find that in yourself, and when you do, it's right for you. Screw the rest of 'em. If someone makes a law, you challenge it, because you challenge the very *concept* of making laws.

Independent: You're a loner. You don't answer to anyone. You do your own thing, and you want to be left alone to do it. As long as no one bugs you, you're gentle enough, but the moment they start pushing you around, pushing your buttons, making unreasonable demands -- you can't be counted on for anyone else. You can count on yourself, and the rest of the world can go screw itself.

Jester: You're the subversive type. You take people's preconceptions and shatter them, just to cause trouble. You always try to find a way to twist the world to make it more fun for you. Sex, drugs, rock-n-roll, and the buzzkills that want you to stop need a pie in the face. You mock the self-important, and you revel in the mocking, because life's just a roller coaster ride anyway

I'd take any of these character ideas into my campaign, gladly. O'course, I'm the type of DM who doesn't really care what alignment you play, as long as you can find a reason to be with the party.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

That rules out as non-chaotic most, if not all, of Chaotic-anything characters widely regarded as Chaotic, starting with Robin Hood. Robin easily formed strong personal bonds (with a band of merry men, not just a wookie) and his behaviour was fairly consistent, instead of being easily convinced to rescue princesses from heavily guarded prisons and unexpectedly coming back to attack immense battle stations with a cargo ship.

Robin actively attempted to subvert the established order. Han broke the law, but not in an attempt to effect societal change, which is a standard part of many Robin Hood legends.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I suspect that the vast number of new-to-the-game players choose CN as the first alignment they ever play. I remember several new players on several different occasions ask, "what alignment should my character be?" Invariably somebody would pipe in, "Chaotic Neutral, you can do whatever you want."

So some of the bad reputation may as much be due to the playing style of new players in general.

Sounds like that's the fault of the fantastic advice they're given.

My Midwood campaign is more than half new-to-D&D players and they roleplay other alignments enthusiastically and well.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Robin actively attempted to subvert the established order. Han broke the law, but not in an attempt to effect societal change, which is a standard part of many Robin Hood legends.

Word. One of the more annoying stereotypes Chaotic-whatever gets lumped with is the "outlaw." You can be any sort of alignment and be an outlaw, even (gasp!) Lawful alignments. What are you accomplishing by breaking the law? Are you furthering a greater order (lawful)? Are you satisfying your own needs (neutral)? Or are you trying to eradicate the notion of laws (chaotic)?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Eh. Having a problem with authority is as much a personality trait as "liking to help people." Dee Snyder is how old now? And he's still playing the role of the CN rebel-- flouting society's conventions and doing his own thing and loving every minute of it.

It's an act. So's Howard Stern's act.

Rebel: The quintessential freedom fighter.

The quintessential freedom fighter is attempting to overthrow an oppressive system in order to create a new system for the benefit of the oppressed. Chaotic or Neutral Good.

Not just adhering to your own code of justice, but believing that everyone has the right to adhere to their own code of justice, even if that code of justice wants to eat babies.

That's an anarchist or an extreme libertarian (which is arguably the same thing).

Independent: You're a loner. You don't answer to anyone. You do your own thing, and you want to be left alone to do it. As long as no one bugs you, you're gentle enough, but the moment they start pushing you around, pushing your buttons, making unreasonable demands -- you can't be counted on for anyone else. You can count on yourself, and the rest of the world can go screw itself.

True Neutral.

Jester: You're the subversive type. You take people's preconceptions and shatter them, just to cause trouble.[/quote]
Those aren't jesters. Those are dead jesters.

I'd take any of these character ideas into my campaign, gladly. O'course, I'm the type of DM who doesn't really care what alignment you play, as long as you can find a reason to be with the party.

IME, folks who gravitate to CN have disrupting play as their reason for being with the party, and mysteriously become bored if they have to play a solo game where the only characters they can irritate are NPCs.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

If the alignment system weren't so hard-wired into D&D in so many ways, I'd happily go with the oWoD Nature/Demeanor system, which seems to create a lot more interesting (and believable) characters, IME.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It's an act. So's Howard Stern's act.

It's a role they play, so I'd say it's perfectly valid for a role to play during a role playing game.

The quintessential freedom fighter is attempting to overthrow an oppressive system in order to create a new system for the benefit of the oppressed. Chaotic or Neutral Good.

Assuming freedom is inherently Good. Some fight for the freedom of evil to be evil, as well. And for the freedom of people do not care. It doesn't have to be an oppressive system, just *any* system. It could even be a beneficial system, a CN character would think it could be done better without a system.

That's an anarchist or an extreme libertarian (which is arguably the same thing).

Both are pretty good archetypes for a CN character: "Do as thou wilt."

True Neutral.

True neutral characters don't mind being pushed around a little bit, especially if there's a good reason for it. If they're being lead by someone who knows what they're doing, they'll happily obey. A CN "loner" type won't accept being told what to do, even when that person might know more than them.

IME, folks who gravitate to CN have disrupting play as their reason for being with the party, and mysteriously become bored if they have to play a solo game where the only characters they can irritate are NPCs.

....which is why IMC, I removed the ability of any PC of any alignment to disrupt the party: you *have* to have a motivation and desire to adventure with the party. If you don't, you make a new character. Alignment is irrelevant.

I've had several CN characters, and none of them have disrupted the game, because they're all sane, sanctioned, motivated CN characters.

 

[Someone]

Robin actively attempted to subvert the established order. Han broke the law, but not in an attempt to effect societal change, which is a standard part of many Robin Hood legends.

First, that's not true. Robin didn't want to subvert the stablished order - he was perfectly happy with feudalism, and gladly took his rightful place as feudal lord (or would have, depending on the story). He fought against some corrupt and evil lords, something that even a paladin would have done, however using different methods.

Second, you're not addressing the gist of the matter. You said that Han was Neutral because he showed consistent behaviour and the ability to form long lasting personal relationships. The abscense of other clarification led me to think that your opinion was that this is an absolute: if your behaviour is consistent and you can form long lasting personal relationships (ever if it's with a lone wookie) then you're not chaotic.

I then pointed out another character, Robin Hood, whose behaviour is not only as consistent or more as Han's, but also formed even more long lasting personal relationships; and Robin is named as one of the archetypical Chaotic Good alingments. Addressing the later post where you said that Robin fought the stablished order, maybe he did, but only to replace a couple corrupt lords, where Han fought to overturn a galaxy-spanning empire and replace it with something else.

What I don't get of why CN characters somehow must be the most chaotic of all. Take Robin Hood again. When he was wronged, he forgot about the law and formed a band of bandits; that's Chaotic. He helped the poor commoneers by stealing from the rich and giving to the poor: that's Good. Now, take Robin and make him steal from the rich and keep it from himself. He cares about his own men, wouldn't betray them and would take pains to rescue them is neccesary. Also doesn't like to do unnecesary harm, but thinks that the poor can care for themselves. Since he's Chaotic, and shows the trais of neutrality in the evil-good axis as shown in the PHB, must be Neutral. But some think that if a CG ceases to be good, he becomes true neutral

(For the record, I don't think Jack Sparrow was CN; since he doesn't hesitate to harm, betray or sacrifice close associates or for that matter everyone for personal gains, I'd say he's CE.)