I hate Chaotic Neutral

[Melkor Lord Of ALL!]

I think CN and CE are alignments for mature players.

But can't CN has a sense of honor?

 

[Menexenus]

Guilty as charged

I created a Chaotic Neutral character precisely because I wanted to be able to justify any action my character might choose to take. Basically, I was running from the LG and NG characters that I usually play. I wanted to try playing someone who could turn away from the cries of the helpless without violating alignment. I didn't want to actively seek to hurt anyone, but I didn't want to be a goody two-shoes, either. So CN is what I chose.

In the end, though, the character was much more responsible than even I expected he'd be. I guess I played him as more of a true neutral (without all the druidic "balance" garbage) than a chaotic neutral.

In any case, I do see your original point, Psion. Many DMs have no problem banning certain evil alignments because such characters tend not to contribute to a cooperative story line. I think the same reasoning could be used to ban CN as well.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

You guys are letting alignment define how a character acts.

You need to do it the other way around. Alignment is defined by how your character acts.

In my games players don't even usually choose an alignment starting off (unless they're a cleric or paladin) but after a few sessions they pick what they and I think fits their character best. And every few sessions we might revaluate the PCs alignment and possibly change it.

If characters in up being evil or chaotic (as long as it's not EVIL or CHAOTIC in all caps) then its fine. Evil people can have a sense of duty, chaotic people have things they care about.

 

[fusangite]

I think there's a lot of misunderstanding of a lot of the alignments.

Not to troll but the fact that everyone reads the descriptions and consequences of alignments differently is, in my view, not best described as "misunderstanding." Rather, I would suggest that this points to ambiguous, conflicted and contradictory definitions. Just ask someone whether the Declaration of Independence is a lawful or chaotic document.

I think that this problem in definitions does give Psion an escape valve here, though. Perhaps the solution is to find those parts of the rules that emphasize different aspects of the Chaotic Neutral alignment and create a campaign-specific codified definition of CN. People make classes and races more restrictive in their campaigns than in the rules all the time; why not do the same with alignment?

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

In the past I've been tempted to say "good-only PCs" as part of my table rules. I've done it, especially with new players I don't know yet, just to cut down on these sorts of issues. It flows into the "evil PC" problem, I think.

To me, it's more important to have a few ground rules about what the party dynamic is going to be before people get into making their PCs "interesting" or "a challenge to roleplay" or whatever it is that motivates the CN crowd. I want a group that works together, that moves together, that makes decisions together ...

From my own roleplaying, I think that you can effectively role-play any alignment AND work well with a party ... it's all fine to role-play an engagement and "say" that "You're not the boss of ME, Mr. Paladin Man, I'll do as I please!" but find a perfectly in-character reason to do what the rest of the group has decided to do, instead of bringing the entire game up short.

I have to build a new group, here, so I'll probably start by running a few adventures with pre-genned characters (with pre-genned alignments!) and if I start a full-fledged campaign (have the Shackled City book here next to me) I'm thinking of having people create characters WITHOUT alignment and put them in place after they've played for a while, with some ground rules about party togetherness and all of that.

--fje

 

[Shallown]

I always let that problem take care of itself. If 5 player/characters choose to run with a plot hook and # 6 doesn't then fine don't. If I am entertaining the then as GM I am doing my job.

As a player it is my job to include myself to some extent. We had a player for a few sessions that played an overly lawful dwarf always questioning the group as to what we were doing it and why and we would show our legal documents as to why we were doing things but his paranioa was annoying so eventually we had no reason to include him since all he did was suspect us of wrong doing. Which is maybe okay if we were doing something illegal. Luckily the player quit gaming with us before we had to tell him his character was not compatible with our party.

I guess what I am saying is the players have to meet you half way regardless of their alignement or choose an AL that works for the group.

Later

 

[Mercule]

Not to troll but the fact that everyone reads the descriptions and consequences of alignments differently is, in my view, not best described as "misunderstanding."

I can't disagree that that wasn't the most precise word. I think a lot of the trouble comes from people using alignments as proscriptive rather than descriptive. They choose an alignment, then try to "play" that alignment. A better, IMO, way to handle alignment to to actually create a personality for your character, then decide which alignment best describes that personality.

 

[Psion]

You guys are letting alignment define how a character acts.

"You guys" who?

I certainly don't.

I take the alignment on the character sheet as a statement of intent. If I decide that the CN characters are CG or CE, then I'll change it.

My earlier point about duty and altruism is where the problem lies. If you make a character with a good or lawful alignment on the character sheet, you are telling me you intend to play a character who has qualities that I find can work into adventures I run. But CN alone, without specific statement of further motivation, does not give me confidence that you are going to run a character who belongs in the party.

 

[Psionicist]

In AD&D Chaotic Neutral was a kind of lunatic alignment, it even said so in the description. In 3e it's not and the only reason people play CN like that is because they either simply don't "get" CN (political reasons or whatever) or they like the old version better (nothing wrong with that). If you want to play a character without values whatsoever it's very convenient to take the alignment AD&D players joke about sometimes and then ignore it completely, roleplaying the madman of your dreams.

There's nothing wrong with CN, only the players.

 

[fusangite]

I can't disagree that that wasn't the most precise word. I think a lot of the trouble comes from people using alignments as proscriptive rather than descriptive. They choose an alignment, then try to "play" that alignment. A better, IMO, way to handle alignment to to actually create a personality for your character, then decide which alignment best describes that personality.

That's fine if you are playing a fighter or some other class without alignment restrictions but for druids, paladins, bards, barbarians, monks, etc. in all meaningful ways alignment does function proscriptively at the operational level.

Furthermore, the definitions still aren't stable because there is no goal-strategy distinction. I usually haul out the example of the drow elf NPC I ran who had to govern the city he was ruling well enough that nobody revolted and deposed him while he worked in the catacombs to open the gates to hell. If alignment were purely descriptive, he would have been lawful good right up until the moment the gates to hell opened. In a pure descriptive alignment scheme, alignment would only describe behaviours and not motivations; this too is an obvious, related problem.