True enough, but "Chaotic Neutral" should not be the crutch to support such type of characters:
It isn't meant to represent a degree of mental illness...
(7 WIS & Chaotic Aligment, that one needs their meds...)
"Chaotic Stupid" is not an actual alignment option in D&D.It's absolutely astounding how often it's played like it was, though. I usually see it with "CN" as the recorded alignment, but Chaotic Stupid characters seem to crop up in all three Chaotic alignments.
Heh, just last weekend I put the smack down on my youngest player (another player's son, I think he's 14) when he showed up with a CN character to replace the one who'd fallen in the previous session. We're running Council of Thieves, which (no meaningful spoiler here) initially revolves around what amounts to a concerned citizens' political action group. Ironically enough, a well-played CN would fit in just fine; but his answer to "What does that alignment mean?" was, "I don't care."
There followed a brief lecture, punctuated with references to Han Solo. With luck, it will stick.
There's Lawful Stupid, too.
Stupid is universal.
There's Lawful Stupid, too.
Stupid is universal.
There's also True Stupid (the wishy-washy "must preserve the balance at all costs, even betraying my party members mid fight because we're winning too well!" true neutral hogwash).
All three are banned alignments in my games.
A vow to take vengeance upon a group of nobles that killed you kid brother no matter the cost, is definitely a vow that will put you in confrontation with laws...is that chaotic? or is it lawful because the justice is vengeance based.
Justice is lawful. Vengeance isn't.
How will they take vengeance? Bring them down and deliver them to the law, so they will get the lawful punishment for their crimes? Or just kill them?
If it is the former, it is lawful. A citizen's arrest. If it's the latter, you're a vigilante. A chaotic person.
There's Lawful Stupid, too.
Stupid is universal.
There's also True Stupid (the wishy-washy "must preserve the balance at all costs, even betraying my party members mid fight because we're winning too well!" true neutral hogwash).
All three are banned alignments in my games.
I heard about that crap. In a story I've read (I think it was here actually), a GM forced a TN character to watch how some innocents were killed, and only after they were dead, he was forced to attack the marauders.
A good example of a chaotic character with a strong sense of honor might be Conan. Yeah, I know he wouldn't be considered a Cavalier. Still, though, he has no use for laws or civilization but holds honesty and duty in high regard.
I myself play a barbarian/rogue who will steal and kill when he has to, but refuses to go against his word when he has given it. (Yeah, rip off, I know :) Just saying a love for personal freedom doesn't always mean a penchant for dishonesty or oathbreaking.
Ahh, vengeance... the underpinning that common paladin alignment, Not Even Remotely Lawful Good.
I'll honestly be happy if the cavalier turns out to step all over the paladin's toes on offense, because it'll give the players who want to be the Mighty Smiter a mechanical option which isn't completely at odds fluffwise with their actual character concept. Paladins will remain beacons of protection, healing and benevolence, perfectly viable in their own niche and no longer constantly shoehorned into another.
A vow to take vengeance upon a group of nobles that killed you kid brother no matter the cost, is definitely a vow that will put you in confrontation with laws...is that chaotic? or is it lawful because the justice is vengeance based.
Justice is lawful. Vengeance isn't.
How will they take vengeance? Bring them down and deliver them to the law, so they will get the lawful punishment for their crimes? Or just kill them?
If it is the former, it is lawful. A citizen's arrest. If it's the latter, you're a vigilante. A chaotic person.
That's a statement that always bothers me. A vigilante is not always chaotic. They can be neutral. They don't hate the law, they just don't see it as something that is the begin and end all. I've always thought of Batman as Neutral Good myself. He has personal convictions he won't break (no guns, don't kill), but he also doesn't mind breaking every other law in the book (violation of privacy, assault and battery, resisting arrest). He's not chaotic, he enforces his own version of the law. But he doesn't follow the laws of others either. So.. neutral.
That's a statement that always bothers me. A vigilante is not always chaotic. They can be neutral. They don't hate the law, they just don't see it as something that is the begin and end all. I've always thought of Batman as Neutral Good myself. He has personal convictions he won't break (no guns, don't kill), but he also doesn't mind breaking every other law in the book (violation of privacy, assault and battery, resisting arrest). He's not chaotic, he enforces his own version of the law. But he doesn't follow the laws of others either. So.. neutral.
I've always seen Bats as Lawful Good, he follows a strict moral code that parallels the laws of where he lives (except where those laws are corrupt, hence the emphasis on good). If he were given a badge, no one would argue that here is a paladin.
He's a paladin without a portfolio.
A Gray Guard, maybe, even LG I can see, but definitely not a Paladin. Remember, Paladins aren't even supposed to lie.
I've always seen Bats as Lawful Good, he follows a strict moral code that parallels the laws of where he lives (except where those laws are corrupt, hence the emphasis on good). If he were given a badge, no one would argue that here is a paladin.He's a paladin without a portfolio.
Uhm... no.
Sorry. A Paladin does not work against just laws, and Bats always acknowledges that the laws are just, he just thinks they are too limiting to the cops, so he bypasses all those pesky civil liberty things. He could easily be a Templar who worships Justice (also supposed to have rules in the AGP for that).
Actually I'd consider Batman to be a variety of LG Monk - he has a personal code of ethics, he tries to work within the law to the extent that it gets results - remember, he takes down criminals and leaves them / delivers them to the authorities, he doesn't dispatch them himself (which a NG character very well might). Essentially Batman doesn't consider himself to have the authority or right to personally take a life.
On top of that, classic comic-book Batman doesn't wear armor and his fighting style is definitely monkish - flurry of blows in particular.
Actually I'd consider Batman to be a variety of LG Monk - he has a personal code of ethics, he tries to work within the law to the extent that it gets results - remember, he takes down criminals and leaves them / delivers them to the authorities, he doesn't dispatch them himself (which a NG character very well might). Essentially Batman doesn't consider himself to have the authority or right to personally take a life.
On top of that, classic comic-book Batman doesn't wear armor and his fighting style is definitely monkish - flurry of blows in particular.
I'll give you pugilist (hand to hand expert). But lawful, by D&D definition, doesn't break laws it believes in, and Batman does. Not even for the greater good. Because? Law believes that breaking the law is never for the greater good, because it undermines the belief in law.
Look at it this way, nobody argues Bats isn't good. So, that means lawful good.
Lawful Good: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.Lawful good combines honor with compassion.
Very close, very close, but notice that 'Tells the truth' and 'speaks otu against injustice'. Bats doesn't do either. He lies daily, to his friends, to himself, to his enemies, to his allies. And, as Bruce Wayne, he intentionally ignores things and doesn't speak out against injustice, in fact, he plays very CG or CN as Wayne.
Bat's is a very hard, very hard, character to fit into D&D alignments, but I think Nuetral Good is the best fit.
Neutral Good: A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them.Neutral good means doing what is good and right without bias for or against order.
See? Specifically it states he does what is good, without bias for or against order. Bats has let criminals go because he felt they had a good reason for breaking the law. A paladin wouldn't, he would stand up for them at trial, but he'd insist they go to trial. Bats has even let female criminals go when he could have caught them because of romantic entanglements. I think NG is a much better fit.
Look at it this way, nobody argues Bats isn't good.
For reference: I do. Alignment is a result of action, not the motive for it. Batman holds good as a theoretical ideal but frequently fails to uphold it.
Altruistic, and allied with both Law and Good, but ultimately Neutral in personal practice.
I had deeply considered a "non-chaotic" alignment restriction for the cavalier, but left it out to keep things flexible. I could easily see an order of the dragon cavalier not being particularly lawful, the question is whether or not he is chaotic.
Thoughts?
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
My thoughts are PLEASE continue this line of reasoning.
There are a lot of ways to consider and play the various alignments. Pigeonholing classes to particular alignments prevents some interesting character concepts, and instead forces players to choose a character concept pre-selected for them that fits the stereotype.
It is perfectly reasonable for example, to say that a Cavalier could be a Chaotic Good freedom fighter in a land oppressed by a Lawful Evil tyrannical government. Such a character could still take vows and follow a code of honour, yet still be Chaotic by his "freedom over opression" ways.
Flavour text along with the Vows section ensures that the Cavalier class will tend towards non-chaotic characters. You could even go so far as to say that Chaotic Cavaliers are extremely rare.
However forbidding them outlaws potentially interesting character concepts!
(Says the obviously Chaotic "Don't tie me down with your rules!" Treantmonk ;) )
The thing is Good and Evil is very well writen and several examples come to mind, easy.
The Law and Chaos Axis is very poorly done, there are very few books that give some real info on them, I would say Planescape has some pretty good ideas on it, but then again, it makes you confuse sometimes.
For the sake of furthering the conversation, I'll acknowledge that chaotic organizations can persist for an extended amount of time. The question at this point becomes: "Would any of the long running chaotic organizations that have been mentioned above spawn something akin to a cavalier?" My answer is no, a biker gang or orcish horde (like there is a difference) would not include an oath making, order joining knight in its ranks. This is not to say orcs could not be cavaliers, they would just be NE lackeys of a more powerful evil cavalier.
Repeat: Cavalier "Order" =/= Game-world Organization.
It is a game mechanic that MAY so correspond, but you may just as easily say the Feat "Step Up" is only known by Fighters who attended the same Fighting School and pledged their loyalty to their cohort, or that all Necromancers are members of a certain Cult.
Have you seen this movie about the life of Genghis Khan filmed in Mongolia?
He and his rivals seemed well capable of making oaths to destroy their enemies.
Why couldn't an Orc Cavalier exist?
Are Orcs un-moved by battle standards that all other Humanoid races apparently are roused/led by?
Also, is this not a Banner? (Hell's Angel Flag)
Stuff about batman
Do not walk down the dark path of the batman alignment argument. Only evil lies that way (and im not talking bats' alignment here). For the sake of your souls and all future meaningful discussion about the cavlier, just accept you will not agree, and batman is really like 4 alignments at once.
i think the problem with all of the arguments is we are building a group of rules to help judge a game. if all paladins are lawful good, all barbarians are non-lawful, ect., it is not unreasonable to say all cavaliers as oath swearers are non-chaotic.
but i'm a fan of few alignment restrictions, because morality for actions is a long difficult discussion, one that has been going on for as long as humanity has been around. so if we are voting i say no restriction, but i can see the rule being applied and some changing it.
It's hard to find solid examples of a person who (espcially CN) who holds their personal freedom above all else but is also team player. Personally I've come use the character Monkey D. Luffy as my example of a boarder line CG and CN. I know not everyone likes amine and One Piece is a rather tripe example but Luffy seems fit the bill. His ultimate goal is to be King if the Pirates, not for the gold or the glory persay but for the ulitmate freedom and independace it represents. He's more CN the CG because he isn't going out of his way to right every wrong against other peoples liberties, just when it happens to intersect with goals or beliefs (such as sticking by his friends and crew). He also has very little interest in established and 'legitiment' athourty, not because he's intionally rebelling, he just simply doesn't care. Such things are not part of his world view.
My applogoies for the digression. Just trying to find a example you can wrap the attiuded of Chaotic Neutral cavalier around. Something like "'I'm going to be the worlds greatest houseman." But without really defining it the way socitey at large does. He can be dedicated to with a focus to goal but without using a proscribed structure that is normally used to obtain it.
He's not chaotic, he enforces his own version of the law.
To me, that screams chaotic.
It's true that chaotic characters don't have to be disorganized or irrational, but it IS harder to believe that a chaotic ......A chaotic character would be very tempted to bend the rules of his or her Oath and Order. That's what chaotic characters do. :)
Yea. what you said. I wonder if they did that just to get us talking.
He's not chaotic, he enforces his own version of the law.To me, that screams chaotic.
What could be less lawful than vigilante justice?
Of course, if I had my way, alignment restrictions for character classes would all go out the window ;)
All the debate/questions over "Cavalier Orders" vis-a-vis Aligment made me come to this conclusion:
The term "Order" needs to be removed as descriptor of Cavalier Class Abilities.
It's hugely confusing to readers, because the word inherently implies a game-world organization, which doesn't correspond to the apparent intent (i.e. Cavaliers DON'T necessarily need to be members of organizations correllating to the Orders). It's a 'game-world' term that player's will naturally extend to using in-character (i.e. 'You think a Knight of the Star would fail such a mission?'). I get why it was used, to be 'evocative' of the flavor of the Class (and that it many cases they DO correspond to social organizations), but it's just too confusing, not to mention it apparently makes people think Chaotic Orcs could not be Cavaliers, which I think is certainly in-line with the class (horse warrior, charismatic leader of military force: sounds like a successful Orc General to me)
It may well be good to add some fluff explaining that game-world organizations centered around these Cavalier Class Features DO exist and Cavaliers are COMMONLY members of them, but it just seems like too much blending of game-world fluff and rule mechanics, which may work for certain setttings, but don't with others.
What else to call it?
"Vows"? ...means the same thing as Oath pretty much, but could work...?
I guess the term itself could be kept, but it needs a clearer explanation that it CAN just be a game mechanic, not a 1:1 corellation with a game-world organization.
|
Quandary, I believe what you're looking for is "Code".
They follow certain codes, similar to the chivalric ideal. Each would be like the Paladin's Code of Conduct, which could easily be elaborated upon to build different alignment versions of a Paladin.
Unfortunately, I think that Cavalier has too much of a non-chaotic feel to allow that alignment at present. Perhaps if he was described more as a gentleman warrior than as a knightly type I could buy it. A fluff change would be really easy.
Edit: On 2nd thought, Creed might be as appropriate or moreso.
Being obviously lawful (no really, I have chaotic moments, but they're a minor thing to me) I have to admit that while I like the idea of non-chaotic for Cavaliers, it's not how they should be.
The Cavalier is lawful, yes. But the Cavalier is just as chaotic. It is not neccesarily closely bound to staying with the Order at all times, which makes an Order-based alignment restriction seem stupid to me. Also such would be far too complex.
My reasoning goes like: As a character type fx. the CG Cavalier who fights for freedom, hope and so on is a brilliant concept, one that I have been missing.
I have always been opposed to alignment restrictions that did not have a clear reasoning. Why is the Monk Lawful-Only: The Discipline required. Why is the Paladin LG only: They are the warriors of justice, valor, honor, good, law and faith. They do not compromise their ideals.
As I see it, making the Cavalier Non-chaotic only, would be similar to that (to me) hated bard non-lawful only from 3.5. I never had a seconds problem seeing a LE enchantment bard. And thanks for making it possible. Please, not for me so much as for others, do not put the same restriction on the Cavalier.
There's always the possibilities of:
A player running a character very strictly on one alignment. Can be done without restrictions. Often it's funnier, because you're thinking concept, not I'll loose my clas if I don't.
A GM can always houserule that a specific campaign/cavalier/situation/game/etc. requires a specific alignment. Better to leave the option open though.
There's not 100% sureness on the Cavalier being non-chaotic. I'd say that alignment restrictions belongs only where they feel like the exactly right thing to do. As with all restrictions, it's better to leave them to the individual situation.
@Studpuffin: Yeah, "Code" is more or less along the lines of what I'm thinking of...
I also agree with Lathira on this, all the different Orders/Codes are clearly showing that there's LOTS of ways to approach Cavaliers, and certainly I don't see a solid reason (like Paladins/Monks/Barbarians) to restrict them to an alignment. On the whole, Cavs certainly seem... "in the mileu" of Law, even if just social norms of an Orcish Horde, but as seen from the # of Orders/Codes, there's many RESPONSES a Cavalier may have TO that milieu.
BTW, thinking about this topic makes me envision Cavaliers running "amok" in Galt, essentially the popular leaders in a society with the rug pulled out from under it - Certainly some have met the Guillotine (that's what you get for sticking your head out), but those smart (or lucky) enough to go with the flow, rally their friends and don't try to take the crown for themselves, they may well flourish in such a setting - and many a new Cavalier that may have been just a street rat, a baker, or a junk man, may ride the wave with their flag held high in the chaos of Galt.
I basically think Alignment restrictions would RESTRICT alof the cool possibilities with this class, which I'm sure even the folks on the Golarion "side of the fence" would appreciate being able to play with. Like I said, a Cavalier seems THE perfect class for an Orcish General/ King, probably with some Barb levels mixed in of course.
Actually, if something like the 'allegiance' system from d20 modern was tied into the orders, I think that would work much better with the concept than alignment restrictions.
It would also free up much of this poignant alignment discussion to be put towards distilling the motivations of the individual orders.
|
|
Really, I'm starting to like the idea of these guys as gentleman warriors fighting for matters of honor in a more formal setting (ala Assassin's Creed 2, Romeo and Juliet, the Three Musketeers, and The Patriot). Gentleman/woman could easily fill the Hussar role. That would allow a full alignment sweep, and not leave them as the paladin's younger brother.
|
He's not chaotic, he enforces his own version of the law.To me, that screams chaotic.Have to agree with KaeYoss. Enforcing your version of the law is to me one of the heights of Chaotic alignment. It is saying: "I know better than the lawmakers what justice is."
-Weylin
Personally I'm in agreement with MDT on this and his analogy of Batman is a very stong case for how to play a Neutral character.If you find yourself in a situation that has you questioning the law in a given environment then you are neutral because you are applying logic and reasoning (the main principles behind the construction of law and order)
If you watch alot of programs like law and order or criminal intent you will see that many of the "investigators" follow a neutral approach to a given case like MDT has highlighted. Take L&O SVU: The two main investigators, Elliot Stabler and Olivia Benson often have moral issues where the law becomes blurred. Often they will illegaly interrogate someone without a representative present or threaten/beat someone up to get a confession, yet the District Atterney and Judges within the show always advocate within the restrictions of the word of the law, throwing out cases they cannot win within the lawful confines. Now Chaos however falls clearly on the victims and criminals of the show. thats not to say all are chaotic but most are.
Chaos typically means a state lacking order or predictability.
For me the defining act of chaotic is unpredicability. a man with a gun walks down the street and sees a cat stuck up a tree, he climbs the tree and helps the cat get down; 2 blocks away he sees another cat up a tree but instead shoots the cat. THAT is chaotic. There is no application by a chaotic person of the restrictions of law on his actions.
Personally I think its harder for people to play chaotic than it is to play any other alignment, simply because 90% of people have morals that define and restrict our actions like its our own personal suit of laws.Chaotic Neutral is the most volatile and dangerous alignment in the game and probably the hardest one to roleplay.
As for the thieves guild analogy some people wonder how a chaotic group could ever form a guild or order that others follow but I try to remember that FEAR is a much stronger emotion than ANY alignment and Chaotic individuals often use fear to manipulate and control others. Just think: If a LG paladin was to leave his allies fighting and leave the dungeon you would say he has violated his alignment and commited a CE act (leaving his comrades to die for no reason) however a simple FEAR spell compells the paladin to commit this CE act :) its a good thing they become immune to it at 3rd.
As a DM I generally ignore the Law/Chaos Axis outside of cities. For me Good vs Evil defines a game as heroic or villainous, Law vs Chaos only applies when moral issues and drama comes into play.
Chaos typically means a state lacking order or predictability.For me the defining act of chaotic is unpredicability.
Perhaps for you it does. Though a definition of "Chaos" in Wikipedia isn't really a valid representation of the requirements of being Chaotic alignment in the rules.
By the rules, a Libertarian for example, would be Chaotic. However, I don't think the average Libertarian is a danger of shooting cats out of trees 50% of the time, out of complete entropy.
The definition of Chaotic we should use in regards to Character Alignment is the one in the rules:
Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
Now of course, not every chaotic character will embody all these attributes. Not every character is a cardboard cutout of their alignment. The character's values define the alignment, not the other way around.
So if a Cavalier embody's the following "chaotic" values:
- Values personal Freedom for himself and others
- Adaptability
- Flexibility
- Resentment toward legitimate authority
Then "Chaotic" is the right alignment for him, even if he's not the epitome.
I feel that going without an alignment restriction is the way to go... not only does it fit with the spirit of "Order of the Dragon", as many people have already mentioned, but wouldn't people also agree that it could fit with something like "Order of the Shield"?
Not every single time, of course, but I'm sure there would be plenty of times where a "Cavalier for the Little Guy" could bang heads with a Local Baron's tax collectors, or when an army needs to Quarter soldiers in villagers homes? Lawful-wise, those two examples are not totally demanding, but both require putting country before self, and in this instance, a Cavalier of the Shield might feel that both are too demanding of those under his charge.
I can totally see how people would expect the Cavalier to be either Lawful or Neutral, though, especially with the Oaths and Orders.
But that's just my view.
The character's values define the alignment, not the other way around.
On this subject, let's consider the kittens in the tree one more time, and let's play a game.
Imagine a character who rescues every kitten from every tree. It's a predictable action, and probably a good one too.
Does that mean this character has Lawful Good values? Maybe not. It's up to the DM to check intentions if they don't think a character is following their alignment.
Here's the game: The DM asks the player why his character rescues every single kitten out of every tree. You tell me by the responses what alignment you think the character is.
DM: "Why do you rescue every kitten out of every tree?"
Player: "Because those kittens feel gratitude to me, for every kitten out of every tree, my plans towards a kitten legion that will force all to bow before me comes ever closer. Those who displease me will be severely scratched by my feline slaves."
DM: "Why do you rescue every kitten out of every tree?"
Player: "Because the kittens are trapped in a vegatable prison. All creatures deserve to live their lives in liberty and freedom, free from opression, including from phyallic wooden opression. Run kitty! Run to freedom!"
DM: "Why do you rescue every kitten out of every tree?"
Player: "Because there is a serious infestation problem of cats in this city, the more they breed, and the more they breed, the worse the infestation. The anarchy and suffering will be pleasurable to me to witness."
DM: "Why do you rescue every kitten out of every tree?"
Player: "Because I like cats."
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
The character's values define the alignment, not the other way around.On this subject, let's consider the kittens in the tree one more time, and let's play a game.
Imagine a character who rescues every kitten from every tree. It's a predictable action, and probably a good one too.
Does that mean this character has Lawful Good values? Maybe not. It's up to the DM to check intentions if they don't think a character is following their alignment.
Here's the game: The DM asks the player why his character rescues every single kitten out of every tree. You tell me by the responses what alignment you think the character is.
DM: "Why do you rescue every kitten out of every tree?"
Player: "Because those kittens feel gratitude to me, for every kitten out of every tree, my plans towards a kitten legion that will force all to bow before me comes ever closer. Those who displease me will be severely scratched by my feline slaves."
DM: "Why do you rescue every kitten out of every tree?"
Player: "Because the kittens are trapped in a vegatable prison. All creatures deserve to live their lives in liberty and freedom, free from opression, including from phyallic wooden opression. Run kitty! Run to freedom!"
DM: "Why do you rescue every kitten out of every tree?"
Player: "Because there is a serious infestation problem of cats in this city, the more they breed, and the more they breed, the worse the infestation. The anarchy and suffering will be pleasurable to me to witness."
DM: "Why do you rescue every kitten out of every tree?"
Player: "Because I like cats."
The first is obviously LE
Second is CG
The third is CE
and the last is LG
I know this is probably a retorical question but seeing as I called him professor Treantmonk I really have no choice but to answer his questions just ask my business Law Prof.
Wrong on the last one. The correct answer is any alignment. Not every action a person takes is based solely on their overall worldview (i.e. alignment), and personal likes or dislikes are completely separate. Even the most CE butcher who slaughters most creatures he meets can still like cats and rescue kittens.
ooohhhh....JoelF847 got the trick question. Nice.
Yep - personal preference regarding an opinion based like/dislike wouldn't be alignment based at all.
Anyways...I think I've made my point the best I'm going to make it.
My request would be to do away with Alignment Restrictions for base classes (PrC's are different - they are intended to be less flexible) entirely unless they need to be there for some kind of balance reason. Even then...there has to be a better way to gain class balance than restricting character concept...
Chaos typically means a state lacking order or predictability.For me the defining act of chaotic is unpredicability.
Not for me. Or for Pathfinder.
It's one quality of chaos. In D&D, the freedom and individualism parts are more important, especially since we're talking about people, not a system.
a man with a gun walks down the street and sees a cat stuck up a tree, he climbs the tree and helps the cat get down; 2 blocks away he sees another cat up a tree but instead shoots the cat. THAT is chaotic.
That is kicked from my game.
Personally I think its harder for people to play chaotic than it is to play any other alignment, simply because 90% of people have morals that define and restrict our actions like its our own personal suit of laws.
I think the actual problem is people not understanding the alignment. Chaotic doesn't require rolling dice to determine your actions. That's not chaotic alignment, that's a serious mental disorder. Most people assume those characters are sane.
Note that chaotic is not the opposite of good. Morals do not counteract chaos.
Chaotic in D&D means you follow your own guidelines instead of what others want of you, think of you, expect of you, or tell you to. It doesn't mean you don't have any outlook or code.
Chaotic Neutral is the most volatile and dangerous alignment in the game and probably the hardest one to roleplay.
No, it's not. The most volatile and dangerous thing is people misunderstanding the alignments, or maybe trying to abuse it by throwing a monkey wrench into the game.
Just think: If a LG paladin was to leave his allies fighting and leave the dungeon you would say he has violated his alignment and commited a CE act (leaving his comrades to die for no reason) however a simple FEAR spell compells the paladin to commit this CE act :) its a good thing they become immune to it at 3rd.
It's not a CE act to act on your fears. Especially if they're supernatural.
Remind me never to play a paladin in your game. Or anything else. If you think you can break someone's alignment by making him fail a save, people's alignment must jump all over the place in your games.
As a DM I generally ignore the Law/Chaos Axis outside of cities. For me Good vs Evil defines a game as heroic or villainous, Law vs Chaos only applies when moral issues and drama comes into play.
Everyone can be lawful within a city. The true test of order comes in the wild, when no one is there to help and control you.
My request would be to do away with Alignment Restrictions for base classes
I kinda agree to them in some cases:
The paladin class assumes a lawful good character. They could create variations for other alignments, but they'd need different powers to fit.
Monks... I think this still fits. They thrive on personal discipline. It's what gives them power. Remember that for them, the lawful part refers to strict adherence of a personal code which restricts their behaviour. Some of the rules they follow might be rules for rules sake, like "do not dye your hair" or "don't eat after sundown". They draw power from this self discipline. It doesn't mean that they're all justicators.
Barbarians make sense as non-lawful. They are wild by definition.
Druids... I wouldn't mind if that went away. You can be CE and worship nature for its pure destructive power and so on.
Clerics should keep the "stay near your god's alignment", though in some cases, the gods should make exceptions. Some gods don't care about alignment at all, and so on.
Kaeyoss [..] what you just mentioned reminded me of something ID and Super Ego, also Ego. The ID being the part of your subconscious mind that goes after the animal needs as well as in General what do you want. This is usually falling around food, sex, and violence. Still it is going after what you want. The Super Ego is what society wants from you (now then remember this is highly dependent on the society you grew up in as that is usually the society it draws from) Ego is the neutrality acting as the water gate to allow the too to flow out at times that hurt you the least.
Yes, the way I understand it, the ID is the basic subconscious collection of urges and drives, acting on the pleasure principle. It seeks pleasure and avoids pain.
Super-Ego is the whole "nurture" part, again subconscious (or at least mainly so), and is what defines morality and so on - all the cultural and social values and definitions you have been taught. What actions are considered good, bad, proper, naughty, etc.
And the Ego is mostly conscious. All the thinking we actively do is done by the Ego. It does indeed mediate between super-ego and ID - and the outside world. This is the part that allows us to apply our own thoughts to ID and Super-Ego to explore them, double-check them against reality, and, especially in the case of ID, steer it towards constructive behaviour.
Personally, I always maintain that good is better at repressing the ID, and that order has a weak Ego, because it lets the Super-Ego run rampant. This means that LE has no personality at all. It's just acting on base urges and expectations of others, following other people's rules to seek pleasure and avoid pain.
Chaos, on the other hand, has enough ego to make its Super-Ego work for the Ego, instead of the other way around.
Which is why chaotic alignments are the best for you, while lawful ones are the best for your ruler.
My request would be to do away with Alignment Restrictions for base classesI kinda agree to them in some cases:
The paladin class assumes a lawful good character. They could create variations for other alignments, but they'd need different powers to fit.
Monks... I think this still fits. They thrive on personal discipline. It's what gives them power. Remember that for them, the lawful part refers to strict adherence of a personal code which restricts their behaviour. Some of the rules they follow might be rules for rules sake, like "do not dye your hair" or "don't eat after sundown". They draw power from this self discipline. It doesn't mean that they're all justicators.
Barbarians make sense as non-lawful. They are wild by definition.
Druids... I wouldn't mind if that went away. You can be CE and worship nature for its pure destructive power and so on.
Clerics should keep the "stay near your god's alignment", though in some cases, the gods should make exceptions. Some gods don't care about alignment at all, and so on.
Well, I'll go so far as to partially agree.
Discipline is certainly a Lawful trait, but it's not the only lawful trait, so I don't think discipline alone should mean a Monk is necessarily Lawful.
The Paladin ablities do assume a good character, but couldn't there be a Chaotic or Neutral Good Paladin? The abilities would all still work I think.
As for Clerics, I would say that there isn't an alignment restriction on Clerics so much as there is a deity choice restriction based on alignment. I guess my point is that Clerics can be any alignment.
The Druid one is just stupid. That is all.
As for Barbarians, certainly the stereotypical Barbarian isn't going to be Lawful - Rage isn't an ability that screams "LAW AND ORDER" to me. However, again, we're discussing pigeonholing here.
I just think that the flavor recommendations for Character Classes should be just that, recommendations, not limitations.