I hate Chaotic Neutral

[William Ronald]

Personally, I think Thomas Covenant would be a good example of old school "crazy" CN that most DM's hate.

Conan seems to me to be more along the lines of 3.X interpretation of CN.

I tend to amuse myself by assigning alignments to characters from Steven Brust's Dragaera books. Some of those are tough, really tough. How's that for geeky?

Well, I think that Covenant was tormenting himself, and can perhaps instead of being seen as the crazy form of CN is perhaps seen as failing to take responsibility and tormenting himself. (Yes, we can be our own worst enemies until we face ourselves. )

Conan does seem to be much more in line with the 3.0 interpretation of CN.

Yes, exactly. If I'd ever seen anyone who had played CN in a way that wasn't what was being complained about by Psion and others, then I would cast a much less jaundiced eye on that alignment as an option for PCs. When playing an alignment in such a way that it disrupts the enjoyment of the game for others, it's not "good roleplaying" anymore; it's attention-whoring.

Disruptive play is the problem. I have seen selfish PCs who run to a treasure pile in the midst of an epic combat, a paladin who decided not to consult with his allies before making a rash decision, a neutral wizard who did not care where his (1st Edition) fireballs were centered, a warrior who attacked first, and negotiated later, a CN character who decided to cause as much chaos as possible to see how the party would respond to it, and people whose characters kill fellow PCs for the experience points. ColonelHardisson, much of disruptive play is attention-whoring. When people are not having fun at the gaming table -- including GMs -- there is a problem.

 

[bloodydrake]

i always saw CN as someone that had more consern with their own moral compass then what the current society says is appropriate.

Someone who's motivations are of a personal nature..friends family comrads and a protection of things he values and a loyalty to those that earn it.
But someone that doesn't consern himself with what the church's or lords of the land say is right.
So someone kills or attacks or threatens that which he cares about they are a direct threat to him and no mercy will be shown.

This type of characte would be more then happy to help his comrads protect their town from attack.but as well he wouldn't have a problem killing a helpless enemy since they crossed the line and threatened him.
he'd be the one that slits their throat in the night knowing that this person is evil and feel justified in doing it tho it maybe a loathsome act.

More of a Black and White view of the world from his personal perspective.

 

[Felon]

Again with the hostility and sarcasm.

Or "hoscasm", as I like to call it for short.

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

Well, let's take a closer look, MM. Was he just asserting a playstyle when he said: "It's an alignment refuge for those who don't want to roleplay and just want to do whatever they want without any consequences - ever." Nope. That was actually an insult directed at those who enjoy playing CN. Nothing jackassy about glittering generalizations in your book though, eh?

Moreover, I wasn't so much disagreeing with him as I was explaining the natural progression of such flawed logic. If CN is a shelter for lazy folks trying to get away with playing CE, then why not slap a similar label on all the LN fascists trying to play LE without the consequences? Why not bash all TN's as well? Isn't that the ultimate consequence-free refuge? There are things that attack chaotic creatures.

Meh. It's a game. People are there to have fun. If someone continually plays CN so they can pretty much justify any kind of behavior on the part of their PC - and like Psion and others, I've seen this happen enough over 25+ years to have have had my fill of such nonsense - to the detriment of others' enjoyment, then yeah, banning play of that alignment seems reasonable. Either that, or eject the offending player. Ya don't wanna play nice and have a good time with everyone else? Fine. Then find somewhere else to hone yer Craft, O Master Thespian.

Well, you got it in two. You deal with the player, not the alignment. Address the problem, not a symptom. Or better yet, let the players address their selfish, disruptive comrade (didn't you ever see Full Metal Jacket?). Many players contribute a lot of fun to their campaign with a CN character.

 

[William Ronald]

I also despise the CN alignment. It's basically carte blanche for PCs to be able to do whatever they want to do, with no other justification necessary.

I find that a lot of players nowadays play Neutral alignments, either to avoid spells and effects that hammer Good-aligned characters, or because they see being so Good as a way to be railroaded, but CN is the worst, since it gives them an excuse to slip any sort of structure for their characters.

I think that one way of solving this problem is to come up with a list of things that matter to each character. Mind you, a player can still say that his character does not care for anyone but himself. In which case, there are ways of motivating the character -- including having potential foes mock and slander the PC. Also, if a community sees that someone does not care about it, they may react violently. I think that someone who did nothing during a siege of a town would not be well loved by the town's residents. I believe that actions should have consequences -- including the reactions of NPCs and PCs.

I think it is one thing to wish to play a neutral for role-playing reasons, and another to worry about the mechanics. I would argue that good characters benefit from several spell effects, and often have more allies to call on than neutrals.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I think that someone who did nothing during a siege of a town would not be well loved by the town's residents. I believe that actions should have consequences -- including the reactions of NPCs and PCs.

They wouldn't tolerate feeding a worse than useless mouth; he'd be cast out or fired from a catapult.

 

[The_Gneech]

As I've been reading Dark Horse's Conan comics lately, that was the first thing that came to mind. I've yet to read the original REH material, but from what I've read the Dark Horse version of Conan is very close to the original character.

Young Conan seems to be the archetypical CN character. He has nothing but disdain for "civilization" and its laws, is a thief, but on the other hand will rescue a maiden in distress (motives possibly questionable) and most definitely will stick by friends and companions.

The utter lack of respect for authority and laws of man definitely seems to fit the "Chaotic" concept, while his career as a thief seems to rule out a "Good" alignment. Then again, Conan wasn't a murderer and would often fight against opressors.

The Dark Horse Conan is a little more brutal than REH's in my opinion, but not too far off. But yes, Conan is the perfect CN hero. I always liked his comment when he came upon the pitiable Yag-Kosha: "I'm just a thief. I won't harm you."

Conan was honorable on a personal level -- he'd never break his word once given, nor abandon a companion in need -- but he was an outlander and a thief. The big play of clashing nations or whatnot meant nothing to him. Similarly, he regularly rescued people who needed rescuing, often at considerable cost to himself in terms of loot or power, but he was hardly a do-gooder. He would kill, too, but not randomly or without reason. Generally, breaking trust with him was a death sentence, for instance ... as was having the bad luck to be on the side of the Evil Sorcerer of the Week.

Banning CN effectively bans the whole Conan-ish archetype, which IMO is a shame. In my particular case, I am suffering from that myself because this kind of rowdy adventurer character is precisely what I want to play, but my GM has effectively banned it because his own inclinations are heavily toward the "lawful" end of things and he just can't cope with the unexpected.

So his game is considerably less fun than I would like it to be; but right now it's the only game going, so I suck it up and play NG instead.

-The Gneech

 

[Voadam]

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.

They don't need to think of it as a threat to society. They can also think of individual choice as a threat to the individual.

Take a Hobbesian (or close to Hobbesian) view. Unlimited freedom leads to the strong preying on the weak in individual interactions. Unlimited freedom to partake in corrupting decadence leads to individuals being tempted into corruption. Individuals who are restricted from doing evil or being tempted by evil are themselves better off morally and are individually securer if in a society ruled by laws for the common weal of individuals. E.g. the freedom to become addicted to narcotics is not good for the individual. Laws prohibiting freedom to take narcotics or to offer them are in the interests of individuals even if they go against their choice.

So somebody believing that about individuals and focused on the best end for individuals as individuals (and not caring about society as a whole) would want specific laws or moral or social codes as a means to the end of the good of individuals. He is focused on the individuals as his ends, the collective laws are only means to that end.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

They don't need to think of it as a threat to society. They can also think of individual choice as a threat to the individual.

This is why there is a need for free associations, in recognition that untrammelled free choice can impinge on anothers free choice.

Take a Hobbesian (or close to Hobbesian) view. Unlimited freedom leads to the strong preying on the weak in individual interactions. Unlimited freedom to partake in corrupting decadence leads to individuals being tempted into corruption. Individuals who are restricted from doing evil or being tempted by evil are themselves better off morally and are individually securer if in a society ruled by laws for the common weal of individuals. E.g. the freedom to become addicted to narcotics is not good for the individual. Laws prohibiting freedom to take narcotics or to offer them are in the interests of individuals even if they go against their choice.

Well we are entering into the debate of whether man is by nature a bad, noble or calculating creature; which by my re-definition is whether the person is considered evil, good or neutral in alignment. Also we must bear in mind that in the d&d world, like in our own, the difference between the strongest individual & weakest is not so significant that the weakest cannot, through collective action or guile, bring down the strongest.

A true chaotic neutral is not an opportunistic evil doer, they will not by default exploit their freedom of will to the obvious & explicit harm to anothers free will. They calculate that it is reasonable to not do this so as to not invite this behaviour back on themselves. A chaotic evil otoh will think to quickly stuff over others to offset the inevitable getting stuffed over. Remember, my re-definition is based on rational actors with a reciprocal internal logic, for better or for ill they expect the same behaviour in return.

Your Hobbesian view is concerned with the individual yes, but it is concerned with the individuals of society not the society of individuals, which I think you & I can both distinguish the subtlety in difference. In this resepect I would consider it (back in d&d terms) a lawful alignment philosophy; while on the means axis it emphasises the evilness in individuated (wo)men while justifying the benefit in terms of security & morality, perhaps an argument for a neutral suffix in terms of good & evil? Maybe would need to be further clarified.

So somebody believing that about individuals and focused on the best end for individuals as individuals (and not caring about society as a whole) would want specific laws or moral or social codes as a means to the end of the good of individuals. He is focused on the individuals as his ends, the collective laws are only means to that end.

You may be touching here on the difference between CG & CN, the CG would want for the best not only in themself as an individual but are also concerned for the welbeing of other individuals. Also, chaotic people do not necessarily have no uses for laws but rather the freedom to enter into the rights & obligations on a case by case basis; only the most depraved, invulnerable or overconfident CE would not volunteerily enter into the law of not killing others. [Edit: the word "rule" would suit better in this sentence, a "law" implies universality]

A free community of 'chaotics' may indeed form a commune for protection & for satisfying their social needs but this is not lawful by my re-definition because the individual has ultimate right to leave at any point. The commune will have agreed rules of conduct, likely minimalist, but these are not laws as they may be opted out of, with the consequences that entail. I am reminded of exile being one of the worst forms of punishment in medieval history, albeit not from in the communal sense that I have outlined, but I think it nonetheless outlines how leaving a social grouping is not something that a social creature takes lightly.

 

[ZuulMoG]

I handle CN the way most sensible GMs do: I ban it from the PC repertoire.

Heroic fantasy roleplaying is about roleplaying a hero, not a scumbag. If someone wants to RP a scumbag, they can play a Brujah or Sabbat in someone's WoD campaign, and leave my campaign world alone.

 

[TheGM]

I handle CN the way most sensible GMs do: I ban it from the PC repertoire.

Heroic fantasy roleplaying is about roleplaying a hero, not a scumbag. If someone wants to RP a scumbag, they can play a Brujah or Sabbat in someone's WoD campaign, and leave my campaign world alone.

Well said!

I do not ban it outright - there are some valid character concepts that can use it - but I do make it "GM approval only". I ban all evil alignments outright.

My overall attitude on alignment and character heroism: I don't care what your playing style is, don't be offended by mine. You won't be happy at my table if you can't play the hero, even the reluctant hero. And I don't mind telling you that.

If you take offense at that, then I was right to show you the door.