does CN get a bad rap?

[BroccoliRage]

Any non-good alignment is pretty much a waste in my opinion. If evil alignments are played properly, the group will disintegrate (the definitions of alignment are cut and dried in all editions of D&D) and not be able to achieve any long term goals. And nuetral alignments are just boring.

Disagree if you like. That's how I see it.

 

[ruleslawyer]

This is what annoys me by these alignment threads... unraveling the framing issues takes work that could be devoted to doing something *useful* as opposed to hobbying...

As you point out (quite rightly!), 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.

I see. And protecting your friends, even when doing so means risking your own skin and skipping out on material reward, is non-good behavior.

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.

Actually, Han comes back to save Luke from Vader... why? He's done his job, he's been paid, he's wished his friend good luck. It is at *least* a good act to fly into the face of the Empire's mighty battlestation to pull out his friend.

Likewise, Han sticks around in Hoth *despite* the fact that he's been paid and that the risks of not heading back to Jabba (remember "that bounty hunter on Ord Mantell"?) are substantial.

Finally, Han volunteers for the super-dangerous mission to Endor. Without telling Leia, or Luke, or anyone. Hmm.

Oh, but it's because he's in love with Leia, you say. Oh, it's because he has friends on Hoth, you say. Your frame necessarily implies that anything done out of enlightened self-interest, or out of concern for the beings, or out of a basic empathy for the things one loves, is not good unless it's for some abstract ideal. That's nonsensical.

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.

To repeat, they don't need to be idealists.

And "personally pissed at Darth Vader?" Why? What do Han and Chewie have to do with Vader until all the way at the end? Certainly, they don't have a personal enmity (or relationship of any kind) with him the way Luke does. The analogy is to a GI who signed on to WW1 must have done so because he was "pissed off" at Bismarck.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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

I'm sorry, since when was a character I spend four hours a week pretending to be supposed to have a more cohesive belief system then TV's Dee Snyder?

I mean, don't get me wrong, I *like* to challenge character's beliefs, but these are fictional characters. Genuine belief systems aren't even consistent, let alone something worth pondering for hours for a lot of players.

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

That's semantics. A rose is a rose by any other name. CN is CN, whatever label you decide to choose. It's not the first time "freedom fighter" and "anarchist" refer to the same thing, there's hundreds of real-world examples of it.

I'm not defining anything, I'm just giving some examples of valid CN character archetypes that I'd play as characters or allow into my games.

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.

It was intentional. The links between Crowley and classic punk music (and archetypes of that scene) aren't the most obvious of links, but they certainly exist.

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

TN characters, by definition, take something of a middle ground of convenience. They do what seems best for them at the moment, which includes following orders if they can see the reward in it.

Holding Chaos as an ethical ideal close to one's soul can produce idiotic loner syndrome, just as holding Law as an ethical ideal close to one's soul can produce idiotic follower syndrome. Both are entirely understandable human thoughts. To do horrible things "just because you're told to," or to want to do things your own way, no matter how hard it is, just to have ownership of doing it your way, are both feelings that rational, intelligent human beings have.

Think of the instinct for independence of moving out of your parent's house. Suddenly, you have to pay for food and rent and fun on a job that is likely an entry-level bootlicker, but you do it on *your* terms. That independence, at a price. It's stupid, on the face of it: why would you give up the luxury of living on someone else's dollar? Independence. CN can take that instinct and run more with it, adhering to it as a valuable ideal in all aspects of life.

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.

Yeah, CN has been plagued with problems from the game system itself, which has lead it to be adopted by many disruptive players, but it's not hard to see how CN characters can make sense. Check out some Planescape stuff on the Anarchists or Xaositects or Doomguard or Fated for a few philosophical examples close to the heart of CN.

 

[hong]

Well, Freyar, I HOPE YOU'RE SATISFIED.

 

[William drake]

I just get's played wrong, CN doesn't mean your evil, it means that you may go from good to acting as if you dont care, that you dont want to get involved from time to time. Netural people worry about themselves, the Chaos allows them to shift into action, but not to evil. Your actions shouldn never be evil, as in a clear evil act, and if they are seen to be so, then it should be becuse of your lack of cooperation with the group's wishes.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I see. And protecting your friends, even when doing so means risking your own skin and skipping out on material reward, is non-good behavior.

Hitler had friends. Would you like to make the argument that Hitler was actually Lawful Good?

Sticking your neck out for friends isn't enough to make an alignment assessment off of, IMO. It's how you deal with strangers who can neither help you nor harm you that we see one's true colors.

Oh, but it's because he's in love with Leia, you say. Oh, it's because he has friends on Hoth, you say. Your frame necessarily implies that anything done out of enlightened self-interest, or out of concern for the beings, or out of a basic empathy for the things one loves, is not good unless it's for some abstract ideal. That's nonsensical.

But less so than the contrary notion that non-good characters don't have friends and won't take risks for those they call friends.

And "personally pissed at Darth Vader?" Why? What do Han and Chewie have to do with Vader until all the way at the end?

Well, there's this stuff that happens in the Empire Strikes Back that I'm guessing pissed them off.

 

[The Great Bear King]

To me Chaotic Neutral would be best represented by two real life figures, Alistair Crowley and Ayn Rand. Both reflect individualism untainted by cruelty and malice and uninfluenced by mercy and compassion.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I'm sorry, since when was a character I spend four hours a week pretending to be supposed to have a more cohesive belief system then TV's Dee Snyder?

You're misunderstanding me: I'm saying that Dee Snyder isn't Chaotic Neutral, even if he pretends to be a few hours a week. It's like saying that YOU are Chaotic Neutral because your character is.

Yeah, CN has been plagued with problems from the game system itself, which has lead it to be adopted by many disruptive players, but it's not hard to see how CN characters can make sense. Check out some Planescape stuff on the Anarchists or Xaositects or Doomguard or Fated for a few philosophical examples close to the heart of CN.

The original question was "Does Chaotic Neutral get a bad rap?" The answer, I think everyone seems to be pretty much agreeing on, is that while it can theoretically be used to create a number of cool characters, for the most part, it's not.

Yes, there are great NPCs that have their Alignment As A Cause thing going on. There are arguably some popular fiction characters that are CN.

But at the end of the day, when you see CN written on a character sheet, most of the time, it's the guy who doesn't want to roleplay or, even worse, actively enjoys disrupting the game or the group and has discovered a loophole that will let him get away with it longer than he would otherwise.

 

[I'm A Banana]

You're misunderstanding me: I'm saying that Dee Snyder isn't Chaotic Neutral, even if he pretends to be a few hours a week. It's like saying that YOU are Chaotic Neutral because your character is.

Maybe I'm still misunderstanding, because the counterpoint I've been trying to make is that it doesn't matter if it's him or his character, because all a player has to do is pretend like he's that way for a few hours a week....

The original question was "Does Chaotic Neutral get a bad rap?" The answer, I think everyone seems to be pretty much agreeing on, is that while it can theoretically be used to create a number of cool characters, for the most part, it's not.

Which is why I take the position that CN does get a bad rap: because the most infamous players ruin it for its legitimate uses by using it as an excuse to be disruptive.

But at the end of the day, when you see CN written on a character sheet, most of the time, it's the guy who doesn't want to roleplay or, even worse, actively enjoys disrupting the game or the group and has discovered a loophole that will let him get away with it longer than he would otherwise.

And this is the bad rap that it gets. It's not the alignment that causes this behavior, so CN and those who want to play it sometimes get judged disruptive, when it's really some players who are disruptive and use CN as an attempt to justify it.

...if that makes sense?

 

[freyar]

Well, Freyar, I HOPE YOU'RE SATISFIED.

Yup, definitely satisfied. Not entirely answered, though I doubt it's worth stirring up this can of worms again. A lot of discussion about particular fictional examples, about whether CN PCs work well in parties (and some nice examples from games, which is great!), etc. But I'm still not sure why I feel that I see more CN than N or LN villains in adventures. Maybe it's just because it's such a contentious alignment.