I hate Chaotic Neutral

[Psion]

Ah yes, a moratorium on personalities. Brilliant. It ensures mandatory roleplyaing. Genius.

Why not nerf LN too? That's just a refuge for fascists masquerading as something legitimate. Nerf the hell out of TN. That's just the ultimate copout on roleplaying. I guess evil alignments are out altogether; if I can't just do whatever I please as CN, then what's the point of allowing me to be CE? So some paladin can whack me for being a free spirit?

Then everyone's got a "G" in their alignment, and when they fail to be good little cat's-paws, they have no alignment that would capture their alignment accurately. Sounds like fun.

Again with the hostility and sarcasm.

Felon, you really aren't required to play the way anyone else does; poking fun at them isn't going to let you "win". I feel that some personalities and character choices run counter to some campaign styles.

 

[Mystery Man]

Ah yes, a moratorium on personalities. Brilliant. It ensures mandatory roleplyaing. Genius.

Why not nerf LN too? That's just a refuge for fascists masquerading as something legitimate. Nerf the hell out of TN. That's just the ultimate copout on roleplaying. I guess evil alignments are out altogether; if I can't just do whatever I please as CN, then what's the point of allowing me to be CE? So some paladin can whack me for being a free spirit?

Then everyone's got a "G" in their alignment, and when they fail to be good little cat's-paws, they have no alignment that would capture their alignment accurately. Sounds like fun.

What would someones alignment be for being a jackass because they disagree with another person's playing style?

 

[Arnwyn]

Ah yes, a moratorium on personalities. Brilliant. It ensures mandatory roleplyaing. Genius.

Especially when it worked for him and his group. Good stuff.

No idea about the other wacky stuff you've just went on and on about...

 

[Dinkeldog]

I put a moratorium on characters that wouldn't play along with the other characters.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Ah, but here's the rub: beleiving you are not evil is most explicitly NOT the same as not being evil. Alignment is not a subjective thing.

Well, how about instead of "believing you are not evil", "believing you are good". And it turns out that, objectively, you are at best neutral. I could enjoy playing a kind of semi-antihero who really thinks he's a champion of goodness but uses the most expedient methods to achieve his goals, regardless of the consequences (as long as evil is vanquished), and keep him entirely within the CN auspices.

 

[Psion]

Well, how about instead of "believing you are not evil", "believing you are good". And it turns out that, objectively, you are at best neutral. I could enjoy playing a kind of semi-antihero who really thinks he's a champion of goodness but uses the most expedient methods to achieve his goals, regardless of the consequences (as long as evil is vanquished), and keep him entirely within the CN auspices.

And that would work so well in a game its not even funny.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

So if you are focused on the collective but think it is oppresive you are lawful? So someone who always rails against society is lawful?

If you consider the collective to be intrinsically oppressive, you are not lawful because you are concerned with your individual needs more than the needs of society. This is independent of the moral axis when I say 'intrinsically".

The anarchist who wants only to tear down society is lawful?

No, I don't think you can stretch the anarchist to being lawful, not unless they succeeded in their mission & reforged society so that their ideology was dominant. In fact if you look at non-violent anarchist theorists such as Bakunin, he is wanting to tear down an oppressive social system & build a new society based on individual freedom & free associations. His emphasis was upon 'building' & he recognised the need for collective associations to safeguard individual rights (paradoxically!!). Given this balance during the rebuilding stage I would consider the pacifistic anarchist to be neutral along the law/chaos axis.

And someone who thinks individuals can get out of control so laws should be there to keep individuals in line is chaotic?

The part of your sentence "individuals can get out of control" clearly indicates a lawful point of view where the wellbeing of the collective needs to be protected over the rights of any individual.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

On topic I no longer have any issues with CN with any of my players. I run the simulationist aspect of d&d in quite a heavy-handed & even manner; heavy-handed in that I will not look too hard to find a reason to save a character from the logical consequenses of their actions. So if a CN character, like any character, decides to frivolously break laws & tear away from the party they could find themselves:

- outside the protection of the law (very bad)
- being wanted by the law (just a nuisance)
- less game time than they could otherwise expect because their fair % gets eroded by the fact that what they do is less fun for me as the dm (bad)
- abandoned by the pcs for the logical reason they wouldn't want to associate with bad news (extremely bad)

The recent most example is a NE character that assasinated a helpful cleric due to wounded pride. This was fine within the campaign but the pcs no longer have easy access to clerical help, & have a suspectful report gathering dust in the official files which could provide strong leads if the NE character ever draws silly attention to himself again. The other pcs would likely dob him in if ever they found out, they know it would advance their social standing & curry favour to solve that crime (& they wouldn't feel comfortable with an assassin in their midst).

Finally, newly introduced characters come in 1 level lower than if they had died & been raised; so 2 levels lower than their previous character. This rewards sensible characters & punishes silly play because nothing hurts a player more than being the party gimp.

 

[Voadam]

If you consider the collective to be intrinsically oppressive, you are not lawful because you are concerned with your individual needs more than the needs of society. This is independent of the moral axis when I say 'intrinsically".


The part of your sentence "individuals can get out of control" clearly indicates a lawful point of view where the wellbeing of the collective needs to be protected over the rights of any individual.

1) It is possible to think the society you are in is oppresive and think that if it is torn down then society would be better. It is possible to think that as nice as your personal needs are taken care of by your society, it is overall unjust and should be overthrown. Since the emphasis is fully on the collective and not personal needs of any individual wouldn't that be lawful under your definition?

2) If your view is that individuals given freedom will be bad and that laws are simply a tool for the betterment of individuals "for their own good" then the primary emphasis is on the individual and laws and restrictions are only a means to the end of dealing with individuals. Collective needs do not need to be part of the equation. So focusing on individuals but using laws to better individuals, wouldn't that be chaotic under your definition?


Alignment definitions can be turned to support almost any position. Therefore I don't sweat them as far as PC behaviour in my games. PCs self identify and then that is good enough for me. For magic and outsiders and cosmic elements it is a different matter that can allow for good story and thematics, but I don't really care how my PCs see themselves in alignment.

It may also be how I have no problem in my group with the CN arcane trickster going along with the exalted druid, the paladin, and NG cleric on heroic adventures. Alignment comes into play for supernatural effects, but otherwise no big deal IMC.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

1) It is possible to think the society you are in is oppresive and think that if it is torn down then society would be better. It is possible to think that as nice as your personal needs are taken care of by your society, it is overall unjust and should be overthrown. Since the emphasis is fully on the collective and not personal needs of any individual wouldn't that be lawful under your definition?

When you say "oppressive", to whom is it oppressing? If you say that it is oppressive to your character then you would be chaotic, whilst if you thought it was oppressive to social groupings then your character would be lawful. If indeed you, along with the collective, thought that the society was unjust & needed to be overthrown, then you along with all else would be lawful. If on the otherhand you are an individual that thinks the very same but society does not, then you would be chaotic. The social order can be attacked by popular insurrections of lawful people & rebellious individuals; the rebellious individual may even join forces with a mass movement but they are not necessarily made lawful by temporary association.
The term "unjust" is an interesting point to note; it implies lawfulness but on closer inspection seems a better trait of altruism (good). It appears to be more a case of the means rather than method; something is perceived as unjust before a method is taken to remedy it, e.g. self determination or the passage of laws. Perhaps this springs from the altruistic belief in the good of man & the reciprocal expectation; & the feeling of injustice when it is not.

2) If your view is that individuals given freedom will be bad and that laws are simply a tool for the betterment of individuals "for their own good" then the primary emphasis is on the individual and laws and restrictions are only a means to the end of dealing with individuals. Collective needs do not need to be part of the equation. So focusing on individuals but using laws to better individuals, wouldn't that be chaotic under your definition?

No the primary emphasis is not on the individual; they are being put second to the need of social cohesion. Merely identifying the threat of individualism to society does not make someone chaotic at all, on the contrary using the language "threat to society" clearly states a lawful pov.
I think a central theme to my interpretation of the chaotic alignment (borrowed wholesale from anarchism) is that the individual is naturally at their best when without laws governing their freedom; in purist terms, there is no such thing as bettering the individual via imposed laws. The closest a chaotic would get to a law is the concept of associations which can be freely entered into or left as the individual saw fit; with the caveat that the association is free to exclude the benefit of their association to anyone they wish to deny. Obviously such associations are by nature fluid & likely temporary.