does CN get a bad rap?

[Darklone]

(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.)

And he saved the girl. He's good and bad and sometimes both. Wrong. He's always both.

==> Neutral.

Chaotic neutral is a great alignment if you don't want to care about alignments.

 

[smootrk]

Jack Sparrow's wit is king when it comes to his alignment. He might do acts that seem 'evil' or bad on the surface... but these are calculated actions with far-reaching ramifications that he anticipates long in advance - much like a chess master. Calling him evil with these actions is an over-simplification of his actions (way way oversimplified). Chaotic Neutral serves him well... he might be greedy, manipulative, and self-serving, but hardly evil. An evil person tries to cause harm/woe to others (of innocent/un-involved demeanor), which I do not see him doing at all. He heaps bad events on the bad-guys.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

For me, it's difficult to label Han CG because it doesn't seem like he fights the empire to destroy the empire, to over throw oppressive law and order....he fights it to protect his girl and his friends, the people he cares about, and himself. That's pretty classic TN: "Galactic whatever, I don't want storm troopers barging in and mucking up my business!" Just because he's also something of an outlaw and scoundrel doesn't mean he's necessarily chaotic. With Robin Hood, he leans more toward CG because he actively opposes a corrupt system by becoming what it most hates. It would be like someone opposing a presidency they didn't like by becoming a terrorist, as long as they only strike at "big business" and "corrupt law offices (y'know, as few innocents and children as can get hurt)." He wants to overthrow the system because the system sucks. Folks like John Wilkes Booth would arguably be CG (if the Lincoln presidency was Evil, anyway).

By the time he becomes Robin of Loxley again, he probably shifts in alignment to more of an NG. He doesn't have to fight against order and law any more, and can even be a part of it, but he'll always be watching out for abuses of it.

 

[crazy_monkey1956]

I just had to get in on this one.

I tend to play CN characters, of which no two are alike. Not one of them can be termed "crazy," "disruptive," etc. I have been known to throw out a concept I loved because it didn't mesh with the other characters in the group and start up a new one. CN gets a bad rap because most of the people who play it either a) don't understand what it means or b) don't care about everyone's right to have a good time at the gaming table. CN is NOT inherently flawed.

It took me a while to convince my husband of that when we first started gaming together, but I managed to get him to let me try it for a couple of sessions. Kandira Quick-Fingers is still fondly remembered as a child-like kender who made Ravenloft very interesting for the party at large, and the elven archer in particular. The party took shelter for the night in an inn, but heard a baby crying. They had been warned to not open the doors after dark. Kandira couldn't help herself; she just HAD to check on that baby and rescue it. She opened the door only to discover a leucrotta on the other side of it, having dodged the archer's grab for her. She immediately slammed the door shut, exclaiming "That's NOT a baby!!!!" The archer (I can't remember his name anymore) picked her up by the scruff of her neck and made her promise that she would not open the doors again after dark. She agreed. That was a promise she kept through the rest of the campaign.

As you can see from my example, CN does NOT have to be a pain to DM for or to play. It's up to the player to decide when to curb the character's potentially disruptive tendencies in the interest of enjoyment of the game. As for the player who insists on screwing with everyone and anyone...another CN char of mine fried the CN char of a player who insisted on playing it that way, and the player was stuck making a new char.

Husband (and DM) here: I blame 2nd edition's wonky alignment descriptions as well. In 2nd ed, I was one of those "No evil or CN PCs." The above kender example was one of the first I allowed. With the advent of 3rd ed, and the more reasonable alignment descriptions, CN has become much more common in my campaigns (mostly my wife's characters, but, hey, who's keeping track )

Marie and Quentin

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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

An alignment isn't meant to be a facade, it's meant to be their genuine belief system.

Assuming freedom is inherently Good. Some fight for the freedom of evil to be evil, as well.

That's not a quintessential freedom fighter, then. That's an anarchist.

It doesn't have to be an oppressive system, just *any* system.

That's also not a quintessential freedom fighter, but an anarchist. Invoking real world terms and applying game definitions to them only works if the game definition still lines up with the real world.

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

Ironically, that brings us to Aleister Crowley, whom I think was a pretty believably CN figure. Of course, he was also arguably more than a little loony.

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.

I think you're applying personality traits that go beyond the alignment description to TN. And that CN "loner" is better termed an idiot.

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

I believe it's possible to have well-behaved CN characters. But ever since starting AD&D in the 1970s, I've just never seen it happen, on two continents or with dozens of players.

And the 2E description was only a problem in that it was describing how people were already playing it in 1E. It's worth noting that Chaos = Evil in BD&D and OD&D, which I suspect is both partially how EGG felt about CN and is probably a warning sign of the problems to come.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

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).

Chasing out the current ruler -- and actively working to undermine his agents -- is working to subvert the established order. One doesn't have to wish to throw out the baby with the bathwater here.

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.

As has been pointed out, Han fought to protect his friends. There's no evidence in the movies that he ever grew more than deciding that Leia was worth keeping alive and that Luke, despite being a drip, was OK as well. Once they were set on a seemingly suicidal path of taking on the Empire, he went along with visible chagrin. The fact that they rescued him from Jabba also provides additional motivation on a personal level -- he owes them. Han, Chewie and Lando never seem to rise to the level of idealists. At best, they're personally pissed at Darth Vader and are lashing out at him.

What I don't get of why CN characters somehow must be the most chaotic of all.

I don't think they need to be MORE chaotic than CG or CE, but stripped of caring about the G/N axis, their affinity to chaos is what distinguishes them from TN.

Take Robin Hood again. When he was wronged, he forgot about the law and formed a band of bandits; that's Chaotic.

Although he was bereft of other options. I don't think he's necessarily chaotic.

He helped the poor commoneers by stealing from the rich and giving to the poor: that's Good.

Yes.

(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.)

I think this is right. Evil can be charming or amusing and the evil can have friends they (sometimes) care about.

 

[M.L. Martin]

This thread is more evidence for my opinion that the Law/Chaos axis needs to be either radically clarified or scrapped altogether. How many different versions of 'Lawful' do we have operating?

 

[rgard]

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 agree.

 

[Someone]

There's no evidence in the movies that he ever grew more than deciding that Leia was worth keeping alive and that Luke, despite being a drip, was OK as well.

I may be wrong, but I think he was made a general for something that happened off screen.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I may be wrong, but I think he was made a general for something that happened off screen.

I took it as "he's got a ship, the Princess is hot for him, he's been helpful in key battles and we don't have the big pile of money he keeps demanding in return. Someone give him a title!" But yeah, whatever it was isn't stated in the movies.