I hate Chaotic Neutral

[Melkor Lord Of ALL!]

First, Hello, Melkor!

I think chaotic evil characters would be willing to go along with a group of people for a common goal, such as crossing a dangerous mountain pass. However, it should be emphasized that chaotic alignments stress a lot on individualism and differ largely on the degree of rights that others deserve. A chaotic good character generally would insist that everyone in a society should enjoy the same rights and should act responsibly towards each other as individuals. Indeed, a chaotic good character might argue that only by allowing individuals to have rights that their choices can have meaning. By contrast, chaotic evil characters generally seem to believe that individual desires justify any actions, and talk of rights are the folly of the weak. Mind you, a chaotic evil character may serve a more powerful master, but generally out of fear or a desire for long term advancement. Perhaps a chaotic evil character might believe in a form of Social Darwinism, arguing that the individuals who are most competent rise to the top, while others sink to the bottom.

A chaotic neutral character generally is not much concerned about matters of morality, but should have some limits on what such a character considers justifiable. This is probably something for a DM and players to work on, as in the matter of all alignments. (Alignments can be impacted by such matters as faith and culture. Also, a good or lawful aligned individual can be as complex as those of chaotic alignment. I do not believe that playing CN necessarily requires a more adult individual, as I have seen some very self-willed individuals prove to not always act in their long term interests. From my observations, actions tend to have consequences in the real world. I would argue the same would be true of a good campaign. (Thanee says rightly that there are examples of mature and immature ways of playing alignments. For example, one character may follow a code because he or she is told to do so while another may agree with that code based on his observations of the world, experiences, and deeply held beliefs. I have seen people play CN, LG, and other alignments well and badly. There are paladins and there are paladims..) A chaotic neutral character would likely relate to many situations on a case by case basis. There may be some people whom such a character always responds to in a given manner because of deeply held personal beliefs. For example, a CN character may have a soft spot for those he or she considers downtrodden in his homeland. He or she may not react the same in another country. The character may not actively seek harm to people at random, but may at times seem indifferent to the plight of some people while interested in the plight of others.

Chaotic neutral is not a license that allows everything. However, a CN character may decided to obey a law if it makes sense, not just because it is a law. Many matters should be judged on a case by case basis, but there are probably at least some people to whom a CN feels an individual connection. This may make the character seem very self-interested to others, but a CN character might respond that one should make decisions on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps a good question for a player of a CN character to ask is what matters to that character and why?

Hello, William! Do you know if Serpenteye is alive and well?


But even CE person can have attachments to people, right? If his adventuring buddies accept him, and they are sucessful together, I am sure he would not easily betray them. Unless he could gain something really big, but good DM would make sure that isn't the case.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I don't buy this line of reasoning at all. You are aware that, in the game known as D&D, that all other characters besides the PCs are typically run by the DM? A DM of a lawful character merely need invoke the heirarchy that the character respects, and the character is on the adventure.

I think this is a limited veiw of the lawful/chaotic axis. A person who is lawful is not by definition tied into a heirarchy that can boss him around and a person who is chaotic is not neccassarily free of one. In Stargate Atlantis, for instance, I would say John Shepard is quite clearly chaotic in personality, and had suffered in the military because of it, but he was still in the military and in rpg terms was brought into the adventure by being ordered to fly a general to anarctica. On the other hand, the character of Caine in the old Kung Fu series could be seen as lawful due to his extreme self discipline, respect for tradition and measured approach to problem solving, but was an itinerant wanderer with no superiors to answer to.

A lawful character of an obstructionist player can have taken it upon himself to devote himself to guarding a single remote village and expect the dm and other players to bend over backwards to drag him out of it kicking and screaming just as easily as a chaotic one can 'just like it here' and put the other players through the same hassle. CN may be a symptom, but obstructionist players are the problem, and if you think lawful must come with a plot hook, I think you underestimate the allignment.

 

[William Ronald]

Hello, William! Do you know if Serpenteye is alive and well?


But even CE person can have attachments to people, right? If his adventuring buddies accept him, and they are sucessful together, I am sure he would not easily betray them. Unless he could gain something really big, but good DM would make sure that isn't the case.

Melkor, no need to quote everything. As for Serpenteye, I have not heard from him since he disappeared earlier this year. I hope he is well, and will return to the boards.

A chaotic evil character can have some attachments to people, and may even be devoted to someone. (A lover, a family member.) A chaotic evil character may work with people for a common cause, but I imagine that forming friendships might be something rare. (An example may be someone who truly respects the very different skills of a companion, and develops a liking for that person.) However, I think one issue that would come into play is long term goals. The chaotic evil character may or may not wish to go along with a party's long term goals, depending on how those goals fit into a character's interests. However, there can be some temptations for such a character. A very difficult temptation might be if the party is fighting a losing battle against a foe. In which case, a chaotic evil character may be forced to decide whether saving one's self or trying to save the party is what is most important to a character. Also, I think a chaotic evil character might SERIOUSLY object to anyone questioning his or her actions. So, I think having a chaotic evil character might be difficult as chaotic evil characters can be very unpredictable and have varying desires to pursue self-interest or cause harm to others. (Perhaps a CE character might work best in a group that is within one step of that alignment. )

 

[HellHound]

If there are long-term goal conflicts, then again the problem is that the player isn't trying.

A Chaotic character can have just about any long-term goal... and most likely will not stick to it, changing to a new long term goal when one arrives.

Again, making him a grand person to have around - "Hey Chaotic Fred, I just got this new idea for an epic adventure!" "Wow, Lawful Bob, sounds like a great new plan, I'll put my goals on hold for awhile!"

Chaotic evil characters CAN work ok as long as the PLAYER understands not to let his ideas of character motivation interfere with the fun of the game. It is vital that the players work together to help the characters work together. Gamers that don't make that attempt don't belong in my games.

 

[William Ronald]

I think this is a limited veiw of the lawful/chaotic axis. A person who is lawful is not by definition tied into a heirarchy that can boss him around and a person who is chaotic is not neccassarily free of one. In Stargate Atlantis, for instance, I would say John Shepard is quite clearly chaotic in personality, and had suffered in the military because of it, but he was still in the military and in rpg terms was brought into the adventure by being ordered to fly a general to anarctica. On the other hand, the character of Caine in the old Kung Fu series could be seen as lawful due to his extreme self discipline, respect for tradition and measured approach to problem solving, but was an itinerant wanderer with no superiors to answer to.

A lawful character of an obstructionist player can have taken it upon himself to devote himself to guarding a single remote village and expect the dm and other players to bend over backwards to drag him out of it kicking and screaming just as easily as a chaotic one can 'just like it here' and put the other players through the same hassle. CN may be a symptom, but obstructionist players are the problem, and if you think lawful must come with a plot hook, I think you underestimate the allignment.

Good points, Kahuna Burger. I think the problem we are seeing here is one of obstructionist players. I think that sometimes obstructionist players can try to pick alignments that justify any and all actions.

A lawful character may or may not provide a plot hook. I think that alignment is an aspect of character development, not the pinacle of development. I have seen obstructionist players of lawful good characters (the self-righteous paladin type) and from players of chaotic neutral characters (the I can do anything I want, don't blame me type.)

A lawful character can be a solitary figure, like a hermit. However, most people in a campaign -- even chaotic characters -- are part of a community of some sort. They may be very individualistic, but they may have some lose rules on how to interact with each other. Chaotic does not necessarily mean a complete absence of rules and standards. Even a chaotic evil character may be devoted to a cause or a person -- a family member or a lover.

I think a good DM can think of what connections a character has as a spur for adventure. For example, a character might adventure out of a set of principles, or to prove himself, or to help a community or individual. I think that perhaps something that a DM can work on with players are some things that are important to their characters. This may help define a character and create adventuring ideas. (For example, a character may have a mentor who may need some help every now and then. Or a character may chose to follow the wanderings of a famous ancestor or cultural hero.)

 

[William Ronald]

If there are long-term goal conflicts, then again the problem is that the player isn't trying.

A Chaotic character can have just about any long-term goal... and most likely will not stick to it, changing to a new long term goal when one arrives.

Again, making him a grand person to have around - "Hey Chaotic Fred, I just got this new idea for an epic adventure!" "Wow, Lawful Bob, sounds like a great new plan, I'll put my goals on hold for awhile!"

Chaotic evil characters CAN work ok as long as the PLAYER understands not to let his ideas of character motivation interfere with the fun of the game. It is vital that the players work together to help the characters work together. Gamers that don't make that attempt don't belong in my games.

I like to say that a player has to understand that everyone at the table should have fun and every character should have a chance to shine in some area. I have seen players not work together, and the fun of the game vanished. I like to say that a winner-take-all attitude does not work well in a gaming group.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Every person I've ever seen play CN just used it as an excuse to play CE in games where evil PC's weren't allowed.



I actually gamed with a guy when I first began playing 1e who had an Eisenhower dollar coin he used to determine his actions. He played only CN characters.

I've only seen this for True Neutral. Guy I used to play with 10 years ago would roll a die to see what alignment he would support in any given situation. It really started to get on my nerves.

I play a pretty good CN, based on the "I'm not interested in good or evil, just in freedom," paradigm. Oppose the forces of law, free the slaves (whether they like it or not), and generally have a lot of plot hooks involving being on the run from the law and doing your own thing. It makes for a pretty good Indiana Jones character. It's funny when they send a paladin after you and he can't figure out whether you're the guy they're after because you're not evil.

 

[Psion]

I think this is a limited veiw of the lawful/chaotic axis. A person who is lawful is not by definition tied into a heirarchy that can boss him around and a person who is chaotic is not neccassarily free of one.

I don't think I said they were. But obviously a lawful character values some sort of social order or system.

A lawful character of an obstructionist player can have taken it upon himself to devote himself to guarding a single remote village and expect the dm and other players to bend over backwards to drag him out of it kicking and screaming just as easily as a chaotic one can 'just like it here' and put the other players through the same hassle. CN may be a symptom, but obstructionist players are the problem, and if you think lawful must come with a plot hook, I think you underestimate the allignment.

Well, it is my purview to define the world as a GM, that puts the ball in my court, and I find that "responsibility dodging" players tend to avoid such attachments to a DM handle. This is a problem I don't see happening a lot, in contrast to the IME very common CN responsibility dodger problem.

 

[William Ronald]

Well, it is my purview to define the world as a GM, that puts the ball in my court, and I find that "responsibility dodging" players tend to avoid such attachments to a DM handle. This is a problem I don't see happening a lot, in contrast to the IME very common CN responsibility dodger problem.

I think that DMs and players have responsibilities to each other, and this is a problem that can really hurt a game. I think DMs have a responsibility to run fun adventures and to work with the players to help breathe life into their worlds. Similarly, I think that players must work with DMs and each others to ensure that everyone has fun, that everyone's voice matters at the gaming table, and that the characters can work together on some level. An obstructionist player, regardless of the alignment of a character, seems to be focused on avoiding these responsibilities and thinking only about one's own enjoyment of the game -- regardless of how this impacts others.. This type of selfishness can hurt a game.

Perhaps one thing that can be done with such an obstructionist player is to talk to him and show how his words and actions are affecting others -- including the DM. However, some players will not care about the opinions of a DM or the other players. In which case, there is little that a group can do except to perhaps ask the player to leave. (From my own expereiences, change is only possible if a person wants to change.)

 

[Felon]

Basically, it says to me that the PC will not get involved in the adventure unless there is personal gain involved. I find that very limiting and get tired of twisting the player's arms or bribing them.

HOLY ING !!! I mean, really! Players that actually require a personal incentive to go out and risk their lives and limbs? There oughta be a law! What player doesn't understand that they should just do all that work for the promise of a big, fat nothing? Yep, that's a campaign-buster right there. Everyone knows a good D&D campaign requires the party to a bunch of do-gooding, altruistic cat's-paws.

[/sarcasm]

OK, I assume there's some bigger problem that you're not expressly spelling out here, because most players realize that adventuring is lucrative, and it shouldn't pose an experienced DM any major obstacle to dangle some prize in front of a self-interested player Certainly, it's unrealistic to expect every character to have some intangible ideal that they prize over everything else.

Here's a thought: let actions define a player's alignment, rather than the other way around. A character's good if he actually stands up for what's right. A character's evil if he constantly acts in a selfish manner without regard for the well-being of others.

Now, it's questionable whether or not that helps you out of your CN dilemna, because your problem to be less with the letters CN than the antehero attitude.