D&D 5E Would You Rather Have a LE or CN party member?

[CleverNickName]

In my experience, CN is player shorthand for "I don't want an alignment, I just want to do whatever I want without having to worry about roleplaying or moral dilemmas."

So I'd rather have a LE character at the table; they make a better story. One Javert is worth a dozen Thenardiers any day (or Valjeans, for that matter.)

 

[gyor]

It depends entirely on what is the personality trait that makes the character CN, CE, or LE.

Is the character a pyscho, that could be a problem, but it could lead to any of those alignments.

But say a LE alignment might have nothing to do with blood thirst or treachery, the character might just support slavery for example, or extreme bigitry against say Elves or Halflings.

Or maybe the CE or CN party member uses magic to get what they want, like money or sex from innocent by standards using magic (charm person is CN, because at least free will is mostly retained, Dominate person is CE because free will is wiped out by the spell. Do not cast on fellow players willout their permission).

Maybe the alignment is guilt by association, you pray say to Asmodeaus, and do acts to make him more powerful and while you are perfectly nice, your actions that strengthen the God of Sin make it easier for him to commit atrocities. Just an example.

Maybe the thing that makes your character CN or CE is that they are a, drug dealer.

 

[Ancalagon]

Huh? That makes no sense. If LE always followed the law we'd never have gangsters. LE opponents that are in a lawful country would never do anything illegal. Vampires would have to turn themselves over for trial after every

Perhaps we are saying the same thing. Your example of a LE killing a fellow PC "because it's the law" seemed ridiculous to me. I pointed out that it probably *wasn't * the law and the player was being a jerk.

Now you are agreeing that LE people don't always follow the law...

Problem players will be problem players. But CN gives them more leeway for mayhem.

 

[Oofta]

Perhaps we are saying the same thing. Your example of a LE killing a fellow PC "because it's the law" seemed ridiculous to me. I pointed out that it probably *wasn't * the law and the player was being a jerk.

Now you are agreeing that LE people don't always follow the law...

Problem players will be problem players. But CN gives them more leeway for mayhem.

I'm saying that if a player wants to cause mayhem and disruption they'll do it no matter what. What people describe as an issue with the alignment is an issue with the player. I'm sure someone who enjoys causing grief will find a way to do it. After all, is there really that much difference between stabbing that important NPC because they felt like or because "my code demanded it".

I also think alignment is one of the least important aspects of describing a character. Or at least no more important than ideals/bonds/flaws. I've played or played with CN run by players that were in no way disruptive. I've played with players of LN characters that were a pain in the ass that aggravated everyone else at the table on a regular basis.

As far as the LE character killing someone because "it's the law", doesn't it depend on what law they decides to follow? Darth Vader was LE but he had no hesitation about blowing up a planet.


EDIT: I guess all I'm really saying is that, yes, some people play jerks. In my experience they're going to play a jerk no matter what. Saying that CN is basically the same as an insane terrorist but a LE person will never go against the will of the party is what I have a problem with.

I think it's silly to say if someone was correctly playing a neutral character they could never be a trusted ally while an evil character can automatically be trusted because they're "lawful". Only the player really knows what code they follow, that code may include "kill everyone in the party once they've served their purpose".

 

[Ancalagon]

I'm saying that if a player wants to cause mayhem and disruption they'll do it no matter what. What people describe as an issue with the alignment is an issue with the player. I'm sure someone who enjoys causing grief will find a way to do it. After all, is there really that much difference between stabbing that important NPC because they felt like or because "my code demanded it".

I also think alignment is one of the least important aspects of describing a character. Or at least no more important than ideals/bonds/flaws. I've played or played with CN run by players that were in no way disruptive. I've played with players of LN characters that were a pain in the ass that aggravated everyone else at the table on a regular basis.

As far as the LE character killing someone because "it's the law", doesn't it depend on what law they decides to follow? Darth Vader was LE but he had no hesitation about blowing up a planet.


EDIT: I guess all I'm really saying is that, yes, some people play jerks. In my experience they're going to play a jerk no matter what. Saying that CN is basically the same as an insane terrorist but a LE person will never go against the will of the party is what I have a problem with.

I think it's silly to say if someone was correctly playing a neutral character they could never be a trusted ally while an evil character can automatically be trusted because they're "lawful". Only the player really knows what code they follow, that code may include "kill everyone in the party once they've served their purpose".

I agree with you that jerks will be jerks. But CN makes it easier.

 

[Oofta]

I agree with you that jerks will be jerks. But CN makes it easier.

Meh. I would say CN makes no difference. And to assume that all people playing CN are jerks is incredibly biased.

 

[Baldurs_Underdark]

Good players: It does not matter, because CN can still be a great addition to the team and be the comedy relief, and LE and other Good/Neutral characters can share a common goal.

Bad players: Be the LE yourself and stab the CN before he stabs you.

 

[Zardnaar]

Meh. I would say CN makes no difference. And to assume that all people playing CN are jerks is incredibly biased.

Seems to be fairly coomon though. CN can also be a mercenary type (see Han Solo at cantina in Star Wars).

 

[Oofta]

Seems to be fairly coomon though. CN can also be a mercenary type (see Han Solo at cantina in Star Wars).

I had a player who was annoying playing a CN in a campaign and considered booting them. The campaign ended and I decided to give them a second shot because the next character was going to be LG. You know what? Just as annoying and disruptive. Alignment on the character sheet doesn't matter, the player does.

In my experience there is little or no correlation between the two. It takes a "unique" individual who wants to play a jerk or a disruptive character. Which they justify because they're just like their favorite anime character or because "it's realistic to hold a grudge over a long-forgotten minor slight".

In other words...

• LN: "I do not care that the lord is sacrificing slaves. He is the rightful ruler of this land and he is within his rights. In fact, you are all now under arrest."
• LG: "My order says that it is so, we shall not lie or deceive to get our way. The entire party must abide by my rules."
• CG: "I don't care if the laws are just, I shall do what I want when I want for the greater good. The peace may be broken, war may erupt, but these peasants suffer under the bondage of law!"
• CN: "Me? Evil? No, of course not. I'm just stealing from the party for the fun of it."
• N: "Why should I care, it's all part of the balance. For too long this has been a good and peaceful land. Evil deserves it's turn."

 

[Zardnaar]

I had a player who was annoying playing a CN in a campaign and considered booting them. The campaign ended and I decided to give them a second shot because the next character was going to be LG. You know what? Just as annoying and disruptive. Alignment on the character sheet doesn't matter, the player does.

In my experience there is little or no correlation between the two. It takes a "unique" individual who wants to play a jerk or a disruptive character. Which they justify because they're just like their favorite anime character or because "it's realistic to hold a grudge over a long-forgotten minor slight".

In other words...

• LN: "I do not care that the lord is sacrificing slaves. He is the rightful ruler of this land and he is within his rights. In fact, you are all now under arrest."
• LG: "My order says that it is so, we shall not lie or deceive to get our way. The entire party must abide by my rules."
• CG: "I don't care if the laws are just, I shall do what I want when I want for the greater good. The peace may be broken, war may erupt, but these peasants suffer under the bondage of law!"
• CN: "Me? Evil? No, of course not. I'm just stealing from the party for the fun of it."
• N: "Why should I care, it's all part of the balance. For too long this has been a good and peaceful land. Evil deserves it's turn."

That is true but CN gives them more of an excuse or someone who is not normally annoying and disruptive plays that way because that is what CN does right?

Modern D&D has also removed the repercussions of acting against your alignment, a LG character acting CN in 1E I think gets changed to CN and loses a level, cosmic karma and all. IN effects its the no dickhead rule. Well at least punish the dickhead.