I have seen some things recently in other threads (in the house rule threads) and they have been saying no chaotic neutrals in their games.
Could someone please explain this to me???
Thanks
the DH
Many players mistakenly believe that CN = "crazy," or "I can do anything I want without any regard for the consequences of my actions."
Rather than argue with such players or attempt to educate them about the D&D alignment system, some DMs choose to simply ban the alignment. (Most players who don't understand what CN is seem to be capable of grasping the basics of other alignments just fine, so this ruling usually solves the problem.)
|
i too have seen this trend...although i do not think it's too much of a problem with our group
i typically play a CN character (1/2 the time...other 1/2 would be LN), and there's no conflict with the group as a whole.
that being said, i would say i have a good grasp on what alignment means and what each would espouse, so that may be it.
i would be more likely to ban LG characters, however, as they seem to be even more likely to cause interparty grief and problems.
paladins, sheesh!
-the hamster
Contributor
|
I have a player in my game who showed up with a Chaotic Neutral character.
He is an awesome player and the character is truely enjoyable, one of the best and most interesting characters I've had on the table in the last couple of years. Rather than get into details (and because its his character and he might not appreciate me describing it, I just wanted to point out that if I'd instilled a no Chaotic Neutral clause, he'd not have brought such a cool character to the table.
I think the inherent dilema is with problem players, and they might be drawn to alignments like CN to try to justify their disruptiveness. If such is the case, get rid of the player not the alignment. Disruptive players are no fun no matter what alignment they are.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Fortunately, the vast majority of my players know what CN REALLY means, but I'm always a bit suspicious when I meet someone new and their first character in my presence is CN. I've noticed that a lot of people treat CN alignment as 'diet evil.' What I mean by this is that they think since they are CN, killing an innocent person for no apparent reason is 'okay' because they're 'chaotic neutral.' This is not the case. Killing innocent people for no good reason is chaotic EVIL. They think that as long as they donate to a temple at random every couple of weeks, they can get away with burning down an orphanage full of children every now and then. CN is not a balancing act of good and evil. It's an active decision to remain morally ambiguous. CN, in my opinion, would not donate to the temple (unless it was THEIR deity's temple) NOR burn the orphanage because those are morally significant acts. CN helps their allies because they expect that their allies will help them in turn. It's the golden rule in effect. CN will also abandon the party if they believe it is in their own best interest, but they would not WILLINGLY BETRAY the party for a few extra gold pieces. Willful betrayal is an EVIL act.
So, Halfling, in response to your question, many DMs disallow chaotic neutrals in their games because they are suspicious that people who choose that alignment intend to abuse it.
Thanks all for your answers...I was just wondering because I seem to have a habit of playing chaotic neutral players (all my characters) because it seems to fitmy style of play (I like rougish spellcasting types).
Thanks
The DH
Fortunately, the vast majority of my players know what CN REALLY means, but I'm always a bit suspicious when I meet someone new and their first character in my presence is CN. I've noticed that a lot of people treat CN alignment as 'diet evil.' What I mean by this is that they think since they are CN, killing an innocent person for no apparent reason is 'okay' because they're 'chaotic neutral.' This is not the case. Killing innocent people for no good reason is chaotic EVIL. They think that as long as they donate to a temple at random every couple of weeks, they can get away with burning down an orphanage full of children every now and then. CN is not a balancing act of good and evil. It's an active decision to remain morally ambiguous. CN, in my opinion, would not donate to the temple (unless it was THEIR deity's temple) NOR burn the orphanage because those are morally significant acts. CN helps their allies because they expect that their allies will help them in turn. It's the golden rule in effect. CN will also abandon the party if they believe it is in their own best interest, but they would not WILLINGLY BETRAY the party for a few extra gold pieces. Willful betrayal is an EVIL act.
So, Halfling, in response to your question, many DMs disallow chaotic neutrals in their games because they are suspicious that people who choose that alignment intend to abuse it.
This was a great post Fatespinner. You succinctly put the entire argument into a few paragraphs. the problem with CN is not the alignment itself, but the people who sometimes abuse it.
For what it's worth, I don't see any reason that a Chaotic Neutral character couldn't "balance" Good and Evil, if they actually had an approximately even split. After all, Neutral Good characters will often accept law and tradition inasmuch as they further the character's goals, and spurn them as necessary. It seems only reasonable that a Chaotic Neutral character might have a similar approach -- using good means toward their ends when they are apparently the superior approach, and evil means when they seem appropriate.
The problem with this approach is, as has been mentioned, with the players who take the bipolar mentality of that side of the alignment as permission to play evil characters without getting the paladins after them. It's really no more a case of bad roleplaying than the Neutral Good characters who suffer from Paladin Syndrome, it just is more likely to cause tension between players.
If CN=bipolar then CN=disrupted game.
If by Bipolar you are referring to the mental disorder, then yes. In my case I was using it in the more literal sense of "encompassing both extremes." Not imbalanced, just variable. If you're playing a character who suffers bipolar disorder, you'll likely be disruptive regardless of your alignment, unless the cycle of the mood swings takes long enough to be a gradual thing over the course of a session or so. If you're playing a character who views good and evil as being equally acceptable means to an end, that's only disruptive if you fail to take into account the fact that offending the remainder of your party with your methods will almost invariably slow you down in reaching your goal.
|
I have a big problem with the idea of Neutality as 'balance', back from the days of 1st Ed, when all druids HAD to be True Neutral, and there were legions of players (and more than a few DMs) who would insist that this entailed them changing sides at a moment's notice 'to ensure the balance'.
Eg. "Hey, good teamwork everybody! We showed those cultists who's boss!"
"Let's get healed up; I took some close calls then (slice...) (cough, gag, splutter....)"
"Behold, I bring balance to the multiverse, lest it tip one way or the other. Let not Good or Evil gain preeminence in the Great Scheme..Blah, Blabbity, blah...."
"You just killed Kenny! You...Bastard!!!"
"What the frig are you playing at, you d++@!ead?"
Etc, etc.
Session ended in acrimony, DM tears up adventure...
That viewpoint is complete and utter b&~+!*++.
Acting this way does NOT make you a 'level-headed proponent of the status quo' (as True Neutrality would imply); it makes you a totally untrustworthy backstabbing C&&$. Who should be hunted down and killed. Preferably slowly, and painfully, as an example to others.
That viewpoint is complete and utter bulls*@~.
Acting this way does NOT make you a 'level-headed proponent of the status quo' (as True Neutrality would imply); it makes you a totally untrustworthy backstabbing c*~@. Who should be hunted down and killed. Preferably slowly, and painfully, as an example to others.
I will never let those wicked wicked druids hurt you again.
Mercy?! You want mercy?! I'm chaotic neutral!
It seems to me that Chaotic Neutral, to the extent that the alignment can even embrace some sort of steady principle, is all about freedom--both from arbitrary codes of laws or rules (i.e. Law), and from the moral obligation to consistently work for the benefit of "society" or "others." In its most extreme form (perhaps symbolized by the Chaos Beast, or the entropic state of the plane of Limbo), it rejects even the steady physical forms and natural laws that keep the universe from being a place of utter entropy. A chaotic neutral person would probably tend to reject societies conventions for the sake of being non-conformist.
So where's the difference between CN and CE?
I think a CN person might kill a captured, helpless enemy after interrogating him, if it's inconvenient or unprofitable to keep prisoners, or might cut loose and kill someone who angered him (serious insult, jealous argument over a member of the opposite sex, theft of the CN person's goods, etc.), whether or not such revenge killing were justified by the law or customs of the society he lives in. However, a CN person on some level recognizes the principle of reciprocity--that if you want something from someone, the best way to get it is to give that person what they want. It's a voluntary relationship, rather than a duty, and you enter it for instrumental rather than moral reasons, but reciprocity has benefits in the mind of a CN person. A CN person is likely not too scrupulous about keeping his oaths to the letter, but probably places some kind of value on his promises to others. E.g. he might not come to the aid of someone he promised to help if it's dangerous or inconvenient, but probably won't stab them in the back either. Many of the great characters in the Norse sagas are good exemplars of CN. They are anti-social, do not recognize the authority of anyone over their person, and occasionally kill someone in a vengeful rage, but they don't deliberately kill or harm others just for the sake of doing harm.
A CE person is more likely deliberately cruel and abusive. He doesn't need any excuse whatsoever to kill people and take their goods--and it is his natural tendency to do so. Occasionally he sees the value in promising something to get something, but will break his promise as soon as he believes such an act will help him get something for nothing. (This kind of behavior is actually more NE than CE, but CE can act this way without altering his basic moral approach.) The only freedom a CE person values is his own--when in charge of others, he is abusive and despotic, and doesn't bother to make any show of having or following rules. You never know when your CE boss will turn on you. Good examples of CE: A serial killer; a rapacious bandit or pirate who randomly rapes, kills, or plunders whoever he wants to, without regard to any sort of principle (as opposed to raiding other societies, like the Vikings, or robbing from the rich to give to the poor, like Robin Hood, or extorting protection money but protecting the villages or merchants who pay up); a sadistic, decadent and self-absorbed monarch who has his subjects tortured or killed just for entertainment.
I've noticed that LG and LN tend to run together in many portrayals. This is reinforced by deities like Cuthbert and Pholtus, who seem to equate order to goodness. So it shouldn't be surprising if CN and CE on the opposite quarter of the alignment diagram also tend to run together.
(In the last campaign I played in, CN was banned for all the same reasons mentioned above--basically a couple of players had taken it as a license to perform evil acts that were supposedly "in character." The result was that these players played N or CG characters, but played as though they were actually CN, or worse. No outright murders, but definitely a disregard for the principle of reciprocity. My CG transmuter regularly had to threaten to turn party members into toads if they didn't cough up the loot they had appropriated so it could be divided fairly among the whole party. (I suppose I was playing a tad "lawful" for CG, but it had to be done to keep the party from imploding).
That was a good read, Peruhain. Very well conceived and articulated. Thanks.
I think there may be a small number of principled neutrals in the world, but I think most people tend to fall into N or CN by default. To me, those alignments are basically about not being particularly interested in involvement in other people's lives.
I think that there are some people, probably not too many, who dedicate themselves to doing good works, or to hurting people.
But most people don't dedicate themselves to good or evil. Most people are basically interested in living their own lives: going to work, watching TV, raising family, etc. I think most people are also opportunistic, meaning that, if they could provide assistance to someone (at little risk or cost to themselves), they would do it, and if they could profit from bank oversight (at little or no risk to themselves), they would do that. I think CNs are just a bit more free-spirited/anti-establishment than Ns.
|
|
I will never let those wicked wicked druids hurt you again.
You are my hero.
I'm sorry if I went off on one there; but it happened far too often to be remotely amusing.
I actually enjoy playing druids, in all editions of the game. My problem was not just other players, who'd slaughter their own party without a qualm, but DMs, who would complain that I wasn't playing my druid correctly, if I had any sort of loyalty/gratitude/friendship for my companions.
They would even try to force me into that path, using all the tools at their disposal (loss of spells, xp penalties, grudge monsters, etc).
We had to agree to disagree, in the end, and I had to find other groups, but at one point it got so bad, that virtually the entire gaming community in the area had an unspoken 'no druids' policy, since they were seen as more trouble than they were worth to play one, or have one in your group.
I am glad that 3rd Edition allowed druids to expand their list of possible alignments, since it opens up the possibility of rival faiths, but that is beside the point.
Even an old-school, traditional, True Neutral druid should sooner work with good allies than evil. Maybe he doesn't agree with all their views (the good people, he finds a tad soppy and sentimental, the lawful types too fond of debating everything to death), but at least he knows they can be trusted, far more than some demon-worshipping murderer, who'd slit his throat for a copper piece.
The problem seems to hinge on the absurd idea that all alignments are equally valid, and subscribed to in equal numbers (which they most definitely are not), and should be given 'equal time', in some Politically Correct touchy-feely New-Age smug-fest.
This is a 20th/21st century hallucination; witness the bookshelves heaving with 'true-life gangster confessions' ("I Was a Bad Lad, But I Loved My Mam, So That Makes Me a Saint", by Driller McNutter), the newspaper 'exposes' (aka PR press releases), eg ("My Drink and Drug Hell (or, How I intend to get public sympathy for being a crack whore, so I can plug my new modelling contract." by K**e M**s).
Our modern perceptions are skewed by the fact that numerous people (often D-list celebrities, with no earthly justification for immunity) appear to be above the law of the land, and shove their criminal behaviour down our throats with no consequences.
This fools the public into thinking that such behaviour is more common than it actually is, or even that it is the norm. Add to that sensationalist TV dramas and documentaries, and it's not long before the message sinks in that 'Everybody's doing it, why aren't you?', or 'Everybody's doing it, so you're wasting your time reporting it', or 'Everybody's doing it, so you'd better get with the program, or else. Sit Down. Shut Up. Pay up your protection money, and turn a blind eye.'.
The fact is, even in my most cynical moments, I still believe the majority of people to be basically good, and/or basically law-abiding. Maybe some of the readers on the front line (like F2K) could comment on the schism between actual crime figures and public fear of crime.
The criminal world need the public to buy into that flawed perception of hopelessness, so they can go about their business unchecked. Otherwise, the public would realise that they vastly outnumber the criminals, and can make a difference.
Back to main topic (ahem...)
Forget everything you know about modern legal procedure, imagine you are an inhabitant of an untamed frontier, and someone is known to be harming innocents. You don't 'get inside his head to understand his motives', you don't 'see where he's coming from', you don't try to find out if he had 'a difficult childhood', you don't shrug and say "Well, all actions are equally valid, and balance out in the Big Picture...", you don't offer him 'mediation' or 'conflict resolution role-play'. You don't offer him free bed and board at the local five-star hotel (sorry, I mean prison...).
You form a posse. You catch the bastard. You kill him.
And it's the same in-game. Don't waste time arguing about whether such-and-such an action fits a clumsy and subjective alignment system, or whether a NG should be allowed to act against a CN (again, highly subjective and context-driven).
Ask yourself, 'Has this character offended, abused or betrayed the generally-agreed public standards of morality or ethics?', and 'What would the locals do about it?'.
I had 2 players waste a session on a pointless burglary. I played everything fair, all residents were low-level NPCs, but it still went wrong, the 'brave' PCs were beaten up by a fat merchant in his nightshirt, armed with a candlestick. I had their characters publicly disembowelled before a jeering crowd. The other PCs witnessed this, and also saw that not a single member of the crowd seemed remotely sympathetic. I didn't waste half the session debating 'What would be the LN attitude to armed robbery with violence?'. They did what they did, because That is What the People of That Town Do.
And that is the final litmus test. I despise the players of CN characters, who try to get some kind of 'diplomatic immunity', on the grounds that 'I'm CN! I'm not evil! You're only 1 or 2 steps away, so you've got to let me off!'.
You can write whatever you like on your character sheet; I rarely ask (or care) what it says. Your character will be judged on his actions, not 2 stupid letters.
I think there may be a small number of principled neutrals in the world, but I think most people tend to fall into N or CN by default. To me, those alignments are basically about not being particularly interested in involvement in other people's lives.
I think that there are some people, probably not too many, who dedicate themselves to doing good works, or to hurting people.
But most people don't dedicate themselves to good or evil. Most people are basically interested in living their own lives: going to work, watching TV, raising family, etc. I think most people are also opportunistic, meaning that, if they could provide assistance to someone (at little risk or cost to themselves), they would do it, and if they could profit from bank oversight (at little or no risk to themselves), they would do that. I think CNs are just a bit more free-spirited/anti-establishment than Ns.
Well said! Despite what the PHB says, Neutral is the 'typical alignment' of humans.
As to the original post: the friend who taught me D&D was one of the reasons that DMs ban CN characters. He always played CN elves who were 'crazy'.
Part of the problem of people relating CN to CS (Chaotic Stupid) is that they don't realize that normal people aren't that dramatic. A CN person won't go out of his way to donate to charities and such, but neither will he commit murder. That's evil, you know, and few people walk around going, "I happen to know the mechanical component of my alignment and I'm only one step from evil." Most people don't choose neutrality. Each alignment is a broad, broad category that mixes actual actions with intents and outlooks to determine what any one person's alignment is at a given moment. These can also change as part of natural development of views.
And yes, alignments can blur here and there. That's fine. It's part of the game. The designers never claimed this system was perfect and related directly to all aspects of real life (although it can do a good job sometimes). Unless your group has a lot of fun with it, never antogonize over whether or not an act is NG or CG, NG or LG, LG or LN, and so on. It's not worth it. And if it's a question of whether it's good or evil, lawful or chaotic, those are typically easy to answer and not much time is needed. The only thing that can really get messy sometimes is considering if something should be quantified on the good/evil continuum or lawful/chaotic continuum, but keep in mind that the context and intent play huge parts, and this is a two-dimensional chart, not one, so attempting to isolate something to just a single line might not always work.
Sorry for the long, semi-rambling post. Good thread though. I don't get out of the general D&D section too much.
well, I am always suspicious of the CN alignment; this is the I dont care about anything and will do whatever i want like, whenever I like, to whomever I like and its all a big laugh alignment. I think it is really hard to play as when I graph this alignment is people they usualy figure out that they can't really play CN; there are exceptions; I have one player who is the epitome of chaos and can do this very very well. Face it; most of us are very rule abiding lawful type people and being as random as a CN person is hard; being as selfish as a CN person is hard especially in a setting that you got into for some socialization with fellow real life peeps. I think this is the hardest alignment to play well and can really only be approached by a player from one of two perspectives. I get the feeling that most gm's dont really care about alignments, but they figure very heavily in my game and I follow rules for graphing alignments; meaning; I give out 100 pts for each alignment you pick; ie if you are CN; you get 100 Chaos; 100 Nuetral. As your character does things I make notes if that is good; evil; nuetral; chaos or law; you get points on your chart; if some other axis catches up with your chosen alignment they you are in alignment trouble and there are reprecusions; mostly exps; if a new alignment doubles the stated alignment or exceeds it by 100 then you change alignments. This doesn't happen very often; but it does happen; moslty to CN's and LG because they are so difficult to play.
Basically it is for the reasons others have described.. people play Chaotic Neutral to play a character with no morals who has no qualms about sticking the beggar with his sword or refusing to save the princess unless they're paid a vast amount of money. Sometimes you get a good one (i.e. Han Solo type), but most of the time it's just an excuse to play borderline psychopathic evil.
My group sadly has CN as its favoured alignment.. the games we play routinely are "not evil, just not good" with selfish characters who take quests not because they're heroes but because of the money they'll get from it.
The alignment you describe is CE not CN; a CN might bully or harass threaten or kidnap and certainly take advantage, but should still have a basic love of life; especailly his own. CE is might makes right; that seems more like you describe. Only graphing will tell in the long run; Peruthains post is a good descriptor of the problem.
The only alignment I have seen banned by several gm's is true neutral; they let druids be any nuetral alignment. For myself as gm; I ban people from playing ne and ce in any good aligned game. If its an evil game setting; play what you want. A lot of alignment really has to do with intent and how active a player is; for example; i have one player with 1434 evil points; 2327 law points, 237 good points; 4 chaos points and 134 nuetral points; needless to say this character has been in my game a long long time; like a decade or more; another character in the game the same length of time meaning their characters started together; 132 good points; 176 chaos points; 72 law points (he was party leader for a long time)63 nuetral points, 15 evil points. This guy just hung in the back and didn't really get involved until there was a battle; not much real roleplaying; the first guy was involved with everything and into everything and tried all kinds of stuff.; keep in mind you get 100 points toward you chosen alignment.
so if a guy is cn and only get frustrated or kills mobs for fun upon occasion but is not really committed to that way of life and does a lot of other stuff that is both choas and nuetral; he may be in alignment with no trouble. I think graphing alignment really solves any alignment issues especially if you keep notes about why they have the points they have; I keep a notebook with each persons characters sheets and any notes and stuff for each character in it.
I may try graphing an alignment...I'm going to start DMing soon (in a week or two) and I think that is very interesting because we have an assassin in our party but the whole campaign/adventure is extremely good based (as in the characters have to be good to get the full effect...or at least not evil).
Do you have any sort of system or key that you could give me, Valegrim. It seems like a lot of experimentation (lol) for that too work and this will be my first time DMing...so if you could post it then that owuld be great.
Thanks
The DH
I have a player who's character is a CN Sorcerer, and he does a great job. The character's actions are very much driven by "what's in it for me?", meaning that while most of the party (generally NG) happily agree to the usual heroic quest opportunities, the CN guy always makes sure he can leverage some benefit out of it - be it monetary gain, a favour owed, a promise kept, etc.
Towards those he has learnt to trust, he is generally 'good'. Anyone he doesn't know or hasn't yet 'got a handle on', he acts either stand-offish, overly suspicious, or extremely charming depending on the circumstances. When something stands in the way of his goals - i.e. a captive with-holding information - he tends to be extremely...pragmatic. When he can get away with it, he uses his intimidate skill to the fore with threats of torture (which he occassionally carries out if other party members aren't present.
The player in question handles his alignment very well, and makes a nice counterpoint to the CN bard who (equally well) plays the alignment as reckless, selfish and incautious.
|
I may try graphing an alignment...I'm going to start DMing soon (in a week or two) and I think that is very interesting because we have an assassin in our party but the whole campaign/adventure is extremely good based (as in the characters have to be good to get the full effect...or at least not evil).
Do you have any sort of system or key that you could give me, Valegrim. It seems like a lot of experimentation (lol) for that too work and this will be my first time DMing...so if you could post it then that owuld be great.
Thanks
The DH
I wouldn't encourage adopting a point system. You'll find the majority of players do nothing of the sort. Quantifying alignment via a points system, in my opinion, cheapens the roleplaying aspect of the game. It also encourages metagame thinking (if I tithe some money to the church, that means I should be able to kill this orphan, and it will all come out even).
Alignment is a tool to aid in roleplaying and contribute to the heroic nature of the game by defining the "good guys" and the "bad guys". Alignments should not be an end to themselves, and should not be another consequence/reward system for the game.
Others may feel differently, and there's nothing wrong with them playing the game their way; but I wouldn't recommend such a system, especially for a DM who is just starting out.
I blame Gary Gygax.
Basically time was that Chaotic Neutral read:
"Chaotic Neutral characters believe that there is no order to anything, including their own actions. With this as a guiding principle, they tend to follow whatever whim strikes them at the moment. Good and evil are irrevent when making a decision. Chaotic Neutral characters are extremely hard to deal with. Such characters have been know to cheerfully and for no apparent reason gamble away everything they have on the roll of a single die. They are almost totally unreliable. In fact, the only reliable thing about them is that they cannot be relied upon! This alignment is perhaps the most difficult to play. Lunatics and madmen tend toward chaotic neutral behavior."
Argh!
Yeah, you read it right, the "misinterpretation" of CN was actually the CORRECT one. Warrant for all the weirdo deviant behavior people have been complaining about is right there.
Why? Because characters are supposed to be GOOD and so everything else was made to be as repellent as humanly possible. Honestly it makes me wonder why good and evil was even given as a character option back in those days since the bias was so strong.
Fortunately nowadays in D&D things make a fair bit more sense. Evil people are all not snarling maniacs--they just aren't compassionate or squeamish at all and are perhaps ruthless to boot. That doesn't mean they can't love people or have friends. It doesn't mean they randomly drown puppies because they are ideologically opposed to cute things. It just means you cross them at your peril. That could be said of a town guard, an innkeeper or a merchant as easily as it could a lich or a mindflayer.
Likewise chaotic neutral people aren't crazy idiots who do innane and stupid things because they're just wacky--they're people who have no particular inclination toward good or evil and favor freedom and the little guy over security and the good of the many. Self interested and pragmatic.
Frankly I'm glad for the more "equal lovin'" attitude that the game has taken on. Why? Because if only an idiot would ever play a character who wasn't somewhere on the CG to LN axis then why even bother having the system at all. If you can't define the terms in softer ways with more wiggle room then everyone ends up picking the same alignment because the others are the realm of only moon-howling baby-eating demon worshippers. At that point, what's the point?
Now granted the PHB II has introduced a ton of Personality Archetypes and Traits that go a long way to providing an suppliment (or alternative) to the old alignment compass so hopefully as more people start using these the old alignment issues may be put to rest at least for those who want variety but hate having "loonies" in their group.
ok if you are going to graph alignment; you might want to read the 1st ed dmg section on it. Always keep in mind that most actions a pc does has no bearing on their alignment so you shouldnt be adding but maybe a point or two to a couple players each game night and maybe none. Most alignment check type things come from deals and conversations and how the pcs respond to moral situations. Fight the temptation to get to crazy with it; you will find for example that battles are really to be won or lost and dont often have much to do with alignment but rather winning as a team. In most dungeons; alignment rarely comes up. Dividing treasure it certainly can if someone is obsessed with an item or something like that; but really; I would recommend that you start out checking the 10 or so things in the Palladium section on alignments for Principled; Unprincipled; Scrupulous; etc. and consider how devoted to the act the pc was. Take for example this situation; the party has caught a bad guy and he is trying to trade information that may or may not be the truth for his life and letting him go, the reprecussions of the party not having the information could cause many death and untold harm. how the party handles this situation is critical to alignment. now I have made sure that all my players have the same information as I do about the 10 basic acts that a person of a given alignment will or will not be willing to commit. The problem here is that you may never know the players intent for acting in this situation as they do; well, unless they write up how there character handled this, to me this is mostly an exp situation where various charactes would get bonus exps for roleplaying if they exemplify their pc. If anyone actually tortures the bad guy; they get an evil point depending on what they do and how committed they are to it; beleive me; some people get very elaborate and you will know if they deserve one. If someone guard the bad guy with his life and insures no harm after various threats or whatnot; then he may deserve a good point, if someone gets the party to roll a die or some such to let chance determine the guys output; this may be a chaos point; but probably not, guy might just be a peace maker offering a deal though chance is involved; true chaos would make sure one or more of the random chance is in the bad guys favor; also, the guy might just be following his characters cultural or religious bias. Try to keep in mind that alignments should not really change often but should show a long term pattern of behavior unless changed by magic or corrupt deals with say the Old Ones for power or whatnot. Keep in mind that alignments are a tool that are not useful for many classes; but really required for others.
I hope you can find or read a copy of the Palladium section on alignment; it is in several of their books for both the fantasy and the Rifts stuff. Very clear; very consise; with only one or two of the D&D alignments missing which are of course the ones most people argue about; like true nuetral. I would write them out; but it probably is not permitted. The other stuff is personal opinion and you will of course interpret alignments differently than anyone else; just make sure you write them out and you and your players understand the alignment they choose; also; you may; as many gms i know do, opt to not have most of your pc's choose an alignment until they get to something like 5th level; this gives them a chance to determine how they want to play their character and feel him out so to speak. many pcs like this and it really is not a problem; then you two just agree on what alignment is appropriate; this works very well for almost everyone.
I agree that games where pcs play good heroic characters are the best, though having a LE assassin in the mix who is devoted to the party can make it fun and interesting. LE is the only alignment in my opinion that can work with a good party or nuetral party than contains lawful charactes, because a LE well always keep his word of honor; getting it out of him may be very difficult and interepting it may be amusing; but a clever player can make this work and do things for the party without their knowledge that they would find repugnant and can be a good source of information about stuff. The LE assassin in my party has over the years convinced the LG paladin that he is wicked but seeks his guidance and fellowship to change; after seveal years; even became the paladins squire; still does evil stuff but has never been caught and yes the good guy is really good; not stupid and has had to, ahem; correct, his squire several times.
[evil] doesn't mean they randomly drown puppies because they are ideologically opposed to cute things.
It doesn't!?! hmmmm, might need to work a little bit more on that evil character I was planning to play...
honestly yah, jumping around randomly doing whatever pops into you head randomly does not equal chaotic neutral, it equals dangerous mental condition. I can attest to this, having worked in a phychiatric facility for three years.
One of the best examples of CN I have encounterd was Thorin's daugter Shaunali (read "deciphering the mirror" and "ultracannon experiment" in the campaing journals section for more details.) She was interested in seeing people for who they were, not for the lables people put on them and was constantly reminding her father Thorin (a LG hardliner) that everybody deserved a chance to be understood. If anything, she was the voice of reason, not a raving loon. Just one example of a CN person that feels like someone who you might actually meet outside of an asylum.
|
|
I have a player who's character is a CN Sorcerer, and he does a great job. The character's actions are very much driven by "what's in it for me?", meaning that while most of the party (generally NG) happily agree to the usual heroic quest opportunities, the CN guy always makes sure he can leverage some benefit out of it - be it monetary gain, a favour owed, a promise kept, etc.
What's Chaotic about that?
That's just good business sense! LOLSeriously, if you're going to make that a Chaotic act, then you're going to include every person who ever held down a job.
The idea that someone should blindly dive into suicidal danger for the sheer fun of it is an odd one. Even if the situation is critical, heroes still have mortgages, utility bills and family dependants. You pay cops, paramedics & firefighters, don't you? Are they any less heroic for drawing a wage?
If my PC is going to risk his life, and expend hundreds of gp worth of scrolls, potions and wand charges, I'd be rather miffed if our only recompense was 100 copper pieces and a rat on a stick.
That's not to say I won't take a job out of the goodness of my heart; I DM as well as play, so I try not to be disruptive. I come to the session to play the adventure, not spend half the time haggling with the patron. To that end, I will often suggest ways in which taking the job would help with our existing aims (You remember weeks ago, we heard that the archmage went missing in those caves? If he was taken prisoner by those kuo-toa, you might just find his spellbook, with his unique spells...?). However, I do expect the DM to meet the PCs halfway, and either put some treasure in the boss' hoard, or have the occasional rich patron offer us a good deal now and then.
If the DM constantly has the players working for nothing, or, worse, has the patron stiff the PCs, then he shouldn't be surprised if the campaign gets de-railed, with the PCs spending half their time following and scrying on every person who offers them a job...
|
|
Further to that last post;
While I believe that all PCs would want some sort of reward for their labour (time spent, plus 'danger money'), I believe the difference between the alignments would express itself in the amounts and the type of recompense they would accept.
An evil PC would likely install himself as the ruler of any village he helped, draining the inhabitants of all their assets, starving them, mistreating them, forcing himself on their womenfolk, until they wondered whether they had simply swapped one tyrant for another...
A good person may not work totally for free (he would not want a reputation as a 'soft touch'), but may temper his demands based on the righteousness of the task, and the patron's ability to pay.
Peasants may be penniless, but can still provide food and lodging, care for his horse, mend his equipment, act as guides, and spread word of his deeds to the local ruler (who may decide to sponsor such a worthy individual).
If however, a fat bishop came to call, with jewelled rings on every podgy finger, and strings of pearls buried in the rolls of fat round each of his chins, there should be no hesitation in demanding a king's ransom, plus free healing, a raise dead fund, and canonisation on completion.
A chaotic PC would likely ask for the first thing that came into his head, or for some frivolous item (a decanter of endless beer...?). He would be looking to satisfy his immediate needs (If you've got a magic sword, it's a deal!), or cravings (That barmaid's giving me the eye! If I slay the troll, I'll be in up to my nuts...!).
A lawful PC would likely see the advantage of a long-term benefit (access to rare spells, guild membership, letters of marque, land deeds, knighthood, having a loyal village within his rival's lands...). Something mere money could not buy.
That is the approach of my wizard in Shackled City; as an initiate of Al-Akbar, there is no local church to that deity, but he is quite willing to help the Lawful church of St Cuthbert, whose aims are agreeable to him, in exchange for a formidable reputation as 'the man who gets things done'.
Membership of the nobles' club, sponsorship from the Taskerhill family, a place on the board of the new Church of Heironeous (run by a fellow PC), all these things are stepping stones to the campaign for Mayor.
And if the building plans get changed, and the church of Heironeous gains an extension, complete with a dome and minaret, then maybe, just maybe, we can start bringing some civilisation to these bloody ignorant heathens...LOL
Not every adventure has to rely on "You are offered X-thousand gp to do Y..."
This of course assumes a world where everyone is as extreme in their alignment as humanly possible--which few people are. Likely the evil guy would be as interested in putting the work of the others in his party to his own benefit, watching for slipups by the goodguys to serve as blackmail if he needs it, doing his bit here and there to help out so the others don't lynch him but offering his own jaded and cynical perspectives on things where he feels he might get away with it.
The chaotic guy is likely to do things based on his emotions more likely than his whims. While the decanter of endless beer thing is good for yuks, he might help out a village for free if he was treated nicely by the people there and the guys coming to oppress them hobble funny from the sticks up their neithers. "Putting down a haughty sod in a fluffy hat is recreation, not work--I should be paying you!"
There's a ton of room between the bwah-hah-hah school of evil (known as anti-good) where you do whatever is opposite of what a good person would do, ie. good guy helps old lady across the street/evil guy pushes her in front of car and characters with heart and soul who are evil, but still have their own agendas and motivations beyond wagging their tongue and stabbing people.
|
|
This of course assumes a world where everyone is as extreme in their alignment as humanly possible--which few people are.
True, and if we were playing in a low-magic, or realistic setting, I would go along with all the previous posters, who state that evil characters do not have to be Evil (with a capital E), but can just be regular folks, who occasionally do some bad things.
In a previous post, you said:-
Fortunately nowadays in D&D things make a fair bit more sense. Evil people are all not snarling maniacs--they just aren't compassionate or squeamish at all and are perhaps ruthless to boot. That doesn't mean they can't love people or have friends. It doesn't mean they randomly drown puppies because they are ideologically opposed to cute things. It just means you cross them at your peril. That could be said of a town guard, an innkeeper or a merchant as easily as it could a lich or a mindflayer.
And that, to me, describes a neutral person. Keep yourself to yourself, but if anyone messes with you or your family, you'll make them suffer...Hell, it could be used to describe any alignment at all, even the archetypal Dudley Do-Right Paladin...."Evildoers; you cross me at your peril!".
The D&D cosmology pre-supposes a world where good and evil are not abstract concepts, to be debated by musty old sages with time on their hands...they are real, living, breathing forces, which manifest themselves upon the Prime Material Planes.
Heaven (aka Celestia) is Real.
Hell is Real.
Arborea is Real.
The Abyss is Real.
Solars are Real.
Demons are Real.
Eladrin are Real.
Devils are Real.
Given that reality, everyone knows that, if you commit evil acts, you risk going to Hell/Carceri/The Abyss, etc when you die, and you will be reborn as a Baatezu/Yugoloth/Tanar'ri.
And an evil person is one who says to himself..."Cool! I'm OK with that! Bring it on!".
Little petty acts of spite wouldn't even register on the Good/Evil axis at all; that is reserved for those people who make a conscious choice to serve the dark side, whether that be a demon, a devil, a god, or an abstract concept.
Another thing I've been meaning to post is that the terms "Exalted" and "Vile" really should be used more often than simply in the names of two books. They are extremely good terms.
There is a difference between someone who gives of themselves for no tangible benefit to charities here and there, and someone who walks amongst the plague victims, caring nothing for his own safety, lending whatever healing he can.
There is a difference between the miller who cheats and steals some grain, possibly going to the length of murder to conceal his secret and maintain his practice, and the living fiend who razes a village to the ground, hiring mercenaries to make sure none survive, all so he can build an army of zombies dedicated to his foul god and do the same to countless other settlements.
The term Exalted should be used to describe someone who goes beyond the kin of normal, mundane goodness; a term for one who approaches near- or actually achieves angellic goodness.
Similarly, vile should be a connotation for someone whose very existence is a bane to the world, and if he ever did have a "change of heart" would realize that his sins were more than worthy of death, and redemption is forever beyond his soul.
Similar terms of "anarchist" and "axiomist" might be developed for the Law/Chaos axis, but that struggle rarely features as largely in stories or evokes the powerful emotions of the struggle between good and evil, as that is more central to the culture we live in, it seems.
This of course assumes a world where everyone is as extreme in their alignment as humanly possible--which few people are.True, and if we were playing in a low-magic, or realistic setting, I would go along with all the previous posters, who state that evil characters do not have to be Evil (with a capital E), but can just be regular folks, who occasionally do some bad things.
In a previous post, you said:-
Fortunately nowadays in D&D things make a fair bit more sense. Evil people are all not snarling maniacs--they just aren't compassionate or squeamish at all and are perhaps ruthless to boot. That doesn't mean they can't love people or have friends. It doesn't mean they randomly drown puppies because they are ideologically opposed to cute things. It just means you cross them at your peril. That could be said of a town guard, an innkeeper or a merchant as easily as it could a lich or a mindflayer.And that, to me, describes a neutral person...
No. No, that is certainly not a neutral person in my book. I may be wrong, and I don't mean to be overly argumentative, but I had a player try to do neutral in that style once, and it came off most deffinately evil. Neutral is the average man. How many people actually give to charities on a regular basis? How many people will actually commit of themselves for little or no reward simply for the chance to better the world around them? Very few. But they do exist, and I have met them (and like to think I can measure up to them some day), and they are Good people.
Given that reality, everyone knows that, if you commit evil acts, you risk going to Hell/Carceri/The Abyss, etc when you die, and you will be reborn as a Baatezu/Yugoloth/Tanar'ri.
Again, all due respect and I don't want to be overly argumentative, but no, they don't know that. I'm Average Joe Commoner from the frontier. Have I read the Player's Handbook that governs my very existence? Probably not. Now the preacher in town talks about the rewards of Celestia and preaches of the dangers of the Abyss and Carceri, but I don't buy all that fanatical clap-trap. Hell, my neighbor is a fellow right in his mind, and he gives praise to some Hextor fellow or the other. Teachings help raise the kids right, he says. Keeps the farm hands in line, too. The preacher says he'll pay for that in the end, but you can't tell me Jim is gonna' burn forever. I know him better than that.
Now, in the above situation, Jim the Hextor-worshipping farmer IS in fact likely to go to Hell. He is in fact evil. Jim doesn't know that. Joe Commoner doesn't know that. And Jiim's a right nice guy... most of the time. But he also beats his wife, cheats on his payments to his employees, and maybe that "accident" that took poor Billy Cowhand's life last year wasn't so accidental afterall.
Hitler thought he was right. Neo-Nazis think they are right. They think what they are doing is good.
I'm a huge proponent of the alignment system and am not moving in favor of a more morally ambiguous system, but the thought that everyone in the world knows the rules and facts of the game they exist in is a conception that can lead to many of the misinterpretations of the alignment system, and thus has to be carefully avoided.
Now, if you want to build a world where that's not the case, go ahead. But for the general gaming population, that's not quite what we're talking about.
Totally. I mean I guess I'd have a different perspective on it if Evil was an aspect of the world that was "NPC only" rather than something that encompasses a third of the possible player character alignment choices. I have to imagine it's something playable. At least it should be or don't offer it.
Granted there's a lot of bad places people can go when they die in D&D, but then I don't know that anyone's okay with going there--except for the extremely devout to evil gods. Mostly I have to figure people justify themselves and lie to themselves, or else plot ways to wriggle out of their doom by becoming liches or the like. I guess the thing is I see there being both evil and Evil (or Vile) and both are things that I can enjoy in a character--as long as its a real flesh and blood character and not a hollow sterotype.
I guess that's what puts the R in RPG for me.
One of the more interesting characters I have witness being played was a CN who rolled a die or flipped a coin or some such random act to decide a choice of actions. No matter the roll, he stuck to it; was pretty interesting.
|
|
Those are 3 very good posts from Saern & Grimcleaver; thank you for taking the time to think about the issue.
And Saern? Don't worry about being seen as argumentative. I love a good argument...in the true sense of the word, of exchange of ideas and testing of theories, as opposed to the modern definition, of a screaming row.
You have proved in your other posts that you have a good grasp of the game, and the meta-game thinking behind it.
I still maintain that the game rules reflect the in-game 'reality' that all PCs and NPCs live under. It's going to become common knowledge that the priest of Heironeous always has a cure to hand, but his Hextorian counterpart doesn't, and people are going to question why. When the orcs attacked the harvest, the priest summoned a ball of glowing light that appeared, shooting beams of silver, to the sound of a heavenly choir, but his rival summoned spiked, horned, flaming creatures that all had a whiff of brimstone about them.
It's fair to say that neither priest has their alignment tattoed on their forehead, but it wouldn't take long for the villagers to put two and two together, and decide that they really don't want that Hextor guy around them no more...
So (assuming he survives the torch and pitchfork wielding mob), he gets exiled to the fringes of civilisation, where he broods on his humiliation, and vows to show them; he'll show them all!
Even if he started out lawful neutral(with evil tendencies), it won't be long before he graduates to full-blown Lawful Evil. He has a divine patron who will nudge him toward the dark side. What's the point of granting mortals spells, if they won't use them properly? If you want power, you'll have to prove your worthy of it...That priest of Heironeous is laughing at us; what are you going to do about it?
He's not forced to dress in a black cloak and a spiked helmet, like a comedy villain; he may even sneak back into the village, posing as a traveller. But every day he stays, he plots the downfall of the priest who 'usurped' him, who was 'jealous' of his power. Every villager who gives a cheerful smile and a wave to the Heironean priest will be like a stab in his heart. Their jolly church bells mock him, singing of his defeat. They have to pay, too!
I guess the crux is this. It's not that I don't think that servant of Hextor guy could exist--or even the guy who takes over the village and turns the milk maids into his harem. They're both interesting ideas for characters (though definitely more slant toward the NPCish than PC types). It's more that I'd like to see a spectrum of evil and good and neutral with some wiggle room to accomodate both the most moderate and most excessive members of each group. If they grow more evil over time, or gravitate toward true redemption then great. Not only do I see that kind of thing as possible, I see it as the heart of some interesting storytelling.
Our group of geekoid friends have established that The Koga is chaotic neutral, here's an example of chaotic neutral done perfectly. (As most often they teeter between chaotic evil and chaotic good.) Two examples actually, and this stuff ACTUALLY happend. Life's too loony to makeup..
Josh: Koga, you go on and on about how you're "an anarchist". Have you even heard of the Anarchist Cookbook?
Koga: Why would The Koga waste his time reading a cookbook?! The Koga wishes to smash the state! Not bake you a pie!
Shanna: OMG you're an idiot..
Pete: I've been telling you two that for months now..
Josh: Well, the book be right up your alley, it talks about bombs, fraud, stuff like that. Don't know how you'll find it though, it's banned in most countries.
Koga: THE KOGA WILL GOOGLE IT!
Shanna: Let me kill him.. please..
--Later after The Koga googles (and succesfuly finds!) The Anarchist Cookbook--
Koga: Upon further research.
Pete: He skimmed through it.
Koga: Shutup. Upon further research, The Koga has concluded that these matireals are both tedius and expensive. And go against The Koga's idea of a libertated society.
Pete: Another words he's lazy and doesn't want to be jailbait.
Koga: SHUTUP! The Koga could just as easily send his message across by using this here crowbar to eradicate the Earth destroying machines you conformists call automobiles, and use this spraypaint can to vandalize federal walls with (A)narchy symbols. Think in the longterm, doing this will cost the state millions of dollars. The best way to start a revolution is to hit them where it hurts, the bank account.
Josh: This idea is stupid. For one, like they wouldn't see a guy with a crowbar and a spraypaint can coming a mile away?! Second emotion, you talk about cars destroying the Earth. What do you think those toxins in the spraypaint can do? Isn't that, oh I don't know, HYPOCRITICAL?
Koga: Yes, but it's The Koga doing it, not them, so that makes it okay.
Josh: ...
Shanna: I'm going to kill him I swear.
Pete: Koga for 2008. Oh wait, you have to have a DIPLOMA to run for president.
Koga: Shutup Pete!
|
|
I agree that games where pcs play good heroic characters are the best, though having a LE assassin in the mix who is devoted to the party can make it fun and interesting. LE is the only alignment in my opinion that can work with a good party or nuetral party than contains lawful charactes, because a LE well always keep his word of honor; getting it out of him may be very difficult and interepting it may be amusing; but a clever player can make this work and do things for the party without their knowledge that they would find repugnant and can be a good source of information about stuff. The LE assassin in my party has over the years convinced the LG paladin that he is wicked but seeks his guidance and fellowship to change; after seveal years; even became the paladins squire; still does evil stuff but has never been caught and yes the good guy is really good; not stupid and has had to, ahem; correct, his squire several times.
I once had a LE cleric as a character, and he worked pretty well as a character. The only problem, ironically, was that there was also a CG cleric, a LN cleric, and a CN cleric, and our DM solved the problem by KILLING ALL FOUR CHARACTERS.
Also, my original AoW character, a CG human fighter who 'snapped' during the Whispering Cairn adventure, necessitating an alignment change to CN. THe interesting thing was that it was the DM's choice to change the character's alignment, not mine. We didn't have any chance to discover the effect of a slightly unhinged character on the game play, however, because my fighter was killed by one of the Wind Warriors.-The Eldritch Mr. Shiny
A good example of a Chaotic Neutral or just plain Neutral character in fiction is Lemuel Pigeon from China Mieville's Perdido Street Station. He's called "Pigeon" because he acts primarily as an underworld liason for anyone looking for some underhanded tasks that won't look for themselves. Always concerned about profit, never gives anything away for free. Intimidation, bribery and theft are par for the course, but he doesn't make a habit of killing (bad for profits, draws unwanted attention). Several times he's extremely useful to the main characters in the novel through his intimate knowledge of the underworld, but always points out that he expects compensation. If things get more dicey than he's comfortable with, he jumps ship with no thoughts to previous loyalties. And readily points out that he does not have friends; he has clients. If a client is valuable enough, he extends credit. But only if he thinks he can turn a profit.
