Often the problem CN players are people who are themselves arbitrary and don't want be stuck with consistent characterization determining their actions.
To use a stereotype I hate, it comes from dumb video game morality systems (which are somehow more gamey than alignment), where only 50% of the stuff you do actually matters for roleplaying consequences.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the topic of the thread. I don't see CN as the "lazy gamer's" choice. Anything can be played in a lazy fashion.
What the truly Lazy gamer does, however, is picks something... the does whatever they want anyway, then whines with the GM makes the results of their actions clear.
Any Good can become Stupid Good
Any Evil can become Stupid Evil
Any Lawful can become Lawful Stupid
Any Chaotic can be Chaotic Stupid.
On the topic of the thread. I don't see CN as the "lazy gamer's" choice. Anything can be played in a lazy fashion.
What the truly Lazy gamer does, however, is picks something... the does whatever they want anyway, then whines with the GM makes the results of their actions clear.
Any Good can become Stupid Good
Any Evil can become Stupid Evil
Any Lawful can become Lawful Stupid
Any Chaotic can be Chaotic Stupid.
To supplement this: The lazy gamer also relies on that alignment to take the place of characterization, and as a substitute for consistent reasoning in their decision-making.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand the appeal of a character that disrupts the narrative. That's... not really how you make a good story. It seems like something that would tire out quickly.
It's much more fun to play characters that shouldn't cooperate with the party but do it anyways. I'd rather play a Chaotic Evil who sticks around with the party because she thinks that their attempt at facing challenges indescribably bigger than them to be HILARIOUS and wants to see where this crazy train ends up than a Chaotic Neutral that blows things up because reasons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand the appeal of a character that disrupts the narrative. That's... not really how you make a good story. It seems like something that would tire out quickly.
It's much more fun to play characters that shouldn't cooperate with the party but do it anyways. I'd rather play a Chaotic Evil who sticks around with the party because she thinks that their attempt at facing challenges indescribably bigger than them to be HILARIOUS and wants to see where this crazy train ends up than a Chaotic Neutral that blows things up because reasons.
Some people are just that person, the ones who get pleasure from ticking everyone else off. They're possibly more likely to be CN just because they believe it gives them an in-game reason to be idiots. That being said, those people are gonna be those people regardless of the alignment on their sheet.
|
No one can act against biology any more than someone can not be human.I disagree profoundly. If this were true, well, I'd probably be some sort of monster.
Scientific evidence also tends to disagree that biology is the be-all, end-all of human behavior (twin studies come to mind...)
"Don't succumb to pointless nihilism" is not a directive that anyone can truly follow.Sure they can. Nihilism is a philosophy, or a way of looking at the world. Avoiding it is as simple (or as complicated) as changing the way you look at things.
We all age and die.Sure do. It's what we do between now and then that matters.
The poet who told people to rage against the dying of the light is dead.Sure, but the message lives on. He didn't go quiet...which is the whole point.
Actually, dying too young from being piss drunk all the time is pretty much the opposite of what he was saying in the poem to his gather.
|
|
Actually, dying too young from being piss drunk all the time is pretty much the opposite of what he was saying in the poem to his gather.
He died of pneumonia, actually. Granted, the drinking didn't help...but that's really not the point. The point of the poem is clearly to try to live as long as you can, not that anyone can ever, y'know, actually manage to put off death forever.
|
|
Actually, dying too young from being piss drunk all the time is pretty much the opposite of what he was saying in the poem to his gather.He died of pneumonia, actually. Granted, the drinking didn't help...but that's really not the point. The point of the poem is clearly to try to live as long as you can, not that anyone can ever, y'know, actually manage to put off death forever.
Not even a powerful Litch, some pesky adventurers will completely destroy you one day.
I actually stumbled into chaotic neutral the first time I played it. I hadn't really picked an alignment and focused more on his personality. After a while, I looked back on his decisions and attitudes and realized "Holy Crap! He's chaotic neutral!"
I've since discovered that if I play a lawful good paladin that I will invariably slip into chaotic neutral. It's some weird reaction to the alignment plus the code of conduct. I can play LG knights and monks without problems.
Avoiding the poor attempt at philosophy, CN is as easy as any other alignment. Which means it varies person to person. Some players have different comfort zones, while one might be chaotic stupid with most characters another might enjoy being NG and playing the hero.
Chaotic Neutral is a perfectly valid alignment choice; unfortunately, it's also one of the easiest for bad players to use as an excuse for bad behavior. In short, it's a "jerk magnet"--nothing inherently wrong with it except that it attracts and enables the kind of players you don't want in your game.
Right. There are two ways people often (mis)play CN that can be very disruptive.
The first are those players who justify their PCs' impulsive or nonsensical actions by saying, "It's his/her alignment to act that way," as if Chaotic people could not be disciplined and sensible in accomplishing their personal goals or as if Lawful people could not be scatterbrained or whimsical in many ways. Chaos, in the alignment sense, is about the exaltation of the individual and the rejection of the primacy of societal rules over individual conscience. There are many, many ways that could be played that do not come close to involving a PC flipping a coin to make important life decisions because "he's CN." That's only good roleplaying if you happen to be roleplaying Twoface.
The second are those players, usually fairly young, who think that playing a CN character means license to play strong evil, so long as it is balanced by actions that are "equally" good. It really doesn't matter how many orphanages a PC donates to or how many townsfolk menaced by evil dragons she saves--if she also has the habit of torturing prisoners for the location of their treasure or killing guardsmen solely because they "represent the Law," then she's an evil person who happens to like kids.
Both types of supposedly Chaotic Neutral PC can wreak havoc on a campaign.
All too often it's short hand for "I'm evil, but I can't admit it to myself." There's one of these at my table right now.
The best chaotic neutral RP I ever saw cast the character as, essentially, a libertarian. Freedom of choice was paramount; any and all external restrictions were unacceptable. More often than not, the character behaved in a chaotic good manner; but that was NOT guaranteed.
Many people would say that evil behavior matters more than good behavior. For instance, you may spend most of your life behaving in accordance with the consensus about good behavior and if you murder one person, especially a child, in cold blood then you are considered an evil person.
Also, freedom of choice without restrictions is impossible since people are the sum of their socialization. No person is a sphere existing alone, coming into existence fully-formed and capable of being immune to social molding. People who think they have such total freedom are considered manic and are put on Lithium. Society is a group and governance is inescapable.
|
While no single volume can answer every question on Alignment, a pretty in-depth discussion of it and its consequences can be found in This Book.
While no single volume can answer every question on Alignment, a pretty in-depth discussion of it and its consequences can be found in This Book.
Is it a single page with the words "toss it"? : D
|
|
While no single volume can answer every question on Alignment, a pretty in-depth discussion of it and its consequences can be found in This Book.Is it a single page with the words "toss it"? : D
It's a very earnest and forthright attempt to make the alignment rules more useful, fun, and conducive to better role-play. You might be surprised.
|
|
I would say don't argue with the company running the forums you are on.
As to the topic at hand, I suppose I'm a fortunate DM in that younger players for me tend to play good alignments.
I've seen young players botch up Good Alignments. Saw someone playing a Lawful I-don't-know-what-because-it-wasn't-quite-"stupid" paladin that made MY paladin want to smack him over the head and tell him to grow up.
Lots of people consider Chaotic Neutral to be the alignment of 'crazy people'.. which I find interesting.
Personally, I would say that crazy people - as in, actual sufferers of insanity, don't have an alignment because they are not truly in control of their actions.
But then, that kinda puts them on the same boat as True Neutral animals or mindless undead..
hmm.. I think this turned into a topic for another thread. Never mind.. carry on.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone else laugh when they saw the person who claimed that we're all going nowhere complaining about having better things to do with their time?
I can't decide if that's the best example of Chaotic Neutral that I've ever seen in real life, or the worst...
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
OK, I hate to be nitpicky, but one thing that sort of gets my goat is when people say, "Neutral just does whatever is most expedient/easiest."
When you really break down that standard, 'whatever is the most expedient' is Evil. Some examples:
You're alone with a wealthy benefactor in poor health. Upon his death, you will receive a large sum of money that you are counting on to repay a serious debt. You know you can smother the benefactor while nobody is in the room and it will be assumed he died of natural causes.
You're in charge of building a bridge. You know you could save a week's worth of work (and some serious coin) by doing a slap-dash job, even though there is a very strong likelihood that the bridge's collapse could result in serious injury or somebody's death. By the time these flaws become apparent, you'll be long-gone and beyond the reach of the law.
You're married and away on a very long business trip. After weeks of loneliness, you go out for a night of drunken debauchery, during which a very attractive person of the same/opposite gender (take your pick) comes onto you. Passions inflamed, you can easily spend the night with them.
Although these are varying degrees (murder isn't the same as infidelity, after all) nobody would call those actions 'neutral'. They all involve some sort of betrayal, maliciousness, or recklessness and in every case the easiest or most personally beneficial option would hurt somebody else.
Evil loves the easy way out. Neutrality is simply maintaining a level of common human decency - which can itself even be difficult at times - while good is exceeding it.
If you want to play Chaotic Neutral, just base your character on Jayne Cobb from Firefly. He is an exemplar of the alignment.
|
|
Theconiel is an anarchist. She loathes structure and authority in all its forms. Some oppose slavery on the grounds that it is evil; Theconiel opposes slavery because it is the ultimate imposition of authority. Although the CRB says that a CN person is not equally likely to jump off the bridge as cross the bridge, she would likely walk across balancing on the handrail.
She would not steal from a blind beggar - the rich merchant probably has better stuff. She might give the beggar a few coppers, or a few gold pieces.
While no single volume can answer every question on Alignment, a pretty in-depth discussion of it and its consequences can be found in This Book.Is it a single page with the words "toss it"? : D
Oh, I like it! I'll use that for all my alignment issues! :)
|
|
Restrictions for a CN character ?
Well, you're not Lawful, you're not True Neutral, you're not Good and you're not even Evil.
That list should help you find many many ways to show why CN is usually not a good alignment for a PC (as opposed to a player).
In other words, allow the world (i.e. the GM) and his mates (i.e., the other PCs) to take actions that are logical consequences of being a shifty untrustworthy and unreliable creature that cares for noone and nothing ;-)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
All too often it's short hand for "I'm evil, but I can't admit it to myself." There's one of these at my table right now.
The best chaotic neutral RP I ever saw cast the character as, essentially, a libertarian. Freedom of choice was paramount; any and all external restrictions were unacceptable. More often than not, the character behaved in a chaotic good manner; but that was NOT guaranteed.
Many people would say that evil behavior matters more than good behavior. For instance, you may spend most of your life behaving in accordance with the consensus about good behavior and if you murder one person, especially a child, in cold blood then you are considered an evil person.
Also, freedom of choice without restrictions is impossible since people are the sum of their socialization. No person is a sphere existing alone, coming into existence fully-formed and capable of being immune to social molding. People who think they have such total freedom are considered manic and are put on Lithium. Society is a group and governance is inescapable.
Only the Sith deal in absolutes.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Many people would say that evil behavior matters more than good behavior. For instance, you may spend most of your life behaving in accordance with the consensus about good behavior and if you murder one person, especially a child, in cold blood then you are considered an evil person.All too often it's short hand for "I'm evil, but I can't admit it to myself." There's one of these at my table right now.
The best chaotic neutral RP I ever saw cast the character as, essentially, a libertarian. Freedom of choice was paramount; any and all external restrictions were unacceptable. More often than not, the character behaved in a chaotic good manner; but that was NOT guaranteed.
That's a really poor example, because of the extremity of the act. Not all Good acts are equal, ditto with all Evil acts. Yes, a single act of great Evil (cold-blooded child murder, for example) can make a person who's otherwise vaguely Good now Evil, but a single act of great Good (sacrificing one's life to save a child, for example) can also make up for a life of low-key unpleasantness and vague Evil.
It's about the degree of the act outweighing lesser acts, not that a single Evil act outweighs equivalent Good ones.
Also, freedom of choice without restrictions is impossible since people are the sum of their socialization. No person is a sphere existing alone, coming into existence fully-formed and capable of being immune to social molding.
It's true that we're all a product of the environment we were raised in. For example, I was raised by libertarian parents to question authority and ignore peer pressure (the latter was aided immensely by my Aspergers syndrome, admittedly). Not caring about the prevailing social structure and believing strongly in personal freedom is very doable. Which is what he's talking about.
People who think they have such total freedom are considered manic and are put on Lithium. Society is a group and governance is inescapable.
Uh...not caring about social convention and ignoring it are different things. Only stupid people, or the legitimately mentally ill, utterly ignore social convention in certain direct and obvious fashions...because anyone with a sense of pattern recognition knows that will get you locked up, and almost nobody wants that. Not giving a damn about social convention is another matter, and pretty easy to do in such a way as to not get in trouble.
I was raised by libertarian parents to question authority and ignore peer pressure
This is actually a pretty good example of how the Alignment system confuses some people. Alignment really has nothing to do with principals or personal beliefs. Lots of people across various alignments can have the same principals.
Like you, I was raised to question authority and ignore peer pressure. My parents are extremely liberal. Our principals are clearly similar even though our political leanings are different.
In the United States, where questioning authority and ignoring peer pressure is pretty much what got us to rebel against England in the first place, its likely that a lot of people across every conceivable political ideology will share that principal. You and I even share that particular principal with our Nihilistic pal in this thread, which shows that principals can even be shared across philosophic and moral stances.
What Alignment deals with is the ethics behind what we do for our principals.
Principals are what we want. Alignment is the path we take to get it.
In terms of alignment, questioning authority and ignoring peer pressure could be a tenants of pretty much every alignment except Lawful Evil.
Here's a little case study-
Question authority and ignore peer pressure:
Lawful Good version: "Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: the requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world — "No, you move."
- Captain America
Chaotic Good version: "You're scared because you can't control me. You can't, and you never will. But that doesn't mean I'm your enemy."
- Superman
Neutral Good version: "I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."
— Robert A. Heinlein
True Neutral version: "How others choose to categorize themselves concerns me only where local customs are concerned. Individualism is a path fraught with obstacles and sometimes, angry mobs, but for all its hardships, it is the only one worth taking."
- Beckett, Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines
Chaotic Neutral version: "Luckily for me, I've never trusted authority figures, be they kings, presidents, or party leaders. Give a man enough power, and he's bound to abuse it, no matter how noble he thinks he is."
— Girard Draketooth, The Order of the Stick
Neutral Evil version: "A man may fight for many things: his country, his principles, his friends, the glistening tear on the cheek of a golden child. But personally, I'd mud-wrestle my own mother for a ton of cash, an amusing clock and a stack of French porn."
—Edmund Blackadder
Chaotic Evil Version: "Chaos isn’t a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some are given a chance to climb, but they refuse. They cling to the realm, or the gods, or love. Illusions. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is."
— Littlefinger, Game of Thrones
|
|
This is actually a pretty good example of how the Alignment system confuses some people. The alignment really has nothing to do with principals or personal beliefs. Lots of people across various alignments can have the same principals.
Like you, I was raised to question authority and ignore peer pressure. My parents are extremely liberal. Our principals are clearly similar even though our political leanings are different.
Entirely true. Though I don't tend to think political parties and alignments have much in common, for the record. ;)
In the United States, where questioning authority and ignoring peer pressure is pretty much what got us to rebel against England in the first place, its likely that a lot of people across every conceivable political ideology will share that principal. You and I even share that particular principal with our Nihilistic pal in this thread, which shows that principals can even be shared across philosophic and moral stances.
They certainly can. But certain philosophical stances are generally more likely to result in certain Alignments than others, IMO. A person who values personal freedom above all things is likelier to be Chaotic than Lawful. A person who believes in the absolute value of one's given word is more likely to be Lawful than Chaotic.
But...as you note with captain America, the first is very possible on a Lawful person, and the second is demonstrated by Chaotic Barbarian societies pretty regularly. It's by no means absolute, but I'd still argue that there are certain tendencies.
What Alignment deals with is the ethics behind what we do for our principals.
Principals are what we want. Alignment is the path we take to get it.
I agree entirely. Alignment is primarily action based. It's what you do and what you're willing to do more than it is why you do it.
In terms of alignment, questioning authority and ignoring peer pressure could be a tenants of pretty much every alignment except Lawful Evil.
This is true, but some Alignments are more likely to espouse certain principles than others (Chaotic alignments valuing freedom, for example).
Here's a little case study-
Excellent examples. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Glad you liked them.
It sounds like you and I have pretty close ideas of how Alignment works. The idea that Alignment is more of a loose net than a straightjacket is a hard concept for some people to grasp.
This discussion is exactly why I find Alignment easier to codify by using people as examples rather than principals. If I say "Chaotic Evil people tend to cast of the law for the sake of their own benefit, regardless of how it effects others" someone might argue that Neutral Evil, Chaotic Neutral and even occasionally True Neutral people do the same thing. If I say "The Joker is Chaotic Evil, and is a great example of how a Chaotic Evil person might behave and think" I get a whole lot less semantic arguments.
What restrictions are there for a CN character? I'd like to hear what folks think Chaotic Neutral should truly be all about.
Not everyone has fun playing an alignment. I'm fine with players using CN as a dumping ground for unaligned PCs.
Glad you liked them.
It sounds like you and I have pretty close ideas of how Alignment works. The idea that Alignment is more of a loose net than a straightjacket is a hard concept for some people to grasp.
I agree. I prefer to think of a character's personality and motivations, and then decide what alignment best fits.
Usually I play good guys (my last character was a pure LG aasimar paladin), but I've been having a blast playing my first CN character in decades, a pyromaniac gnome fire sorcerer who was born as a Chelaxian slave. She's not philosophical... she doesn't give much thought to ideals and principles, she simply resents being told what to do after an entire life spent in slavery. She's not cruel (despite basically being a fire elemental in the making) and doesn't burn down orphanages for kicks or burn people who don't deserve it. She's not particularly nice either, except to her friends, who she's risked her life to save. In the last session the group captured some kobolds that were working for the BBEG. After we obtained the information the group needed, she casually incinerated the lot of the helpless prisoners.
I had already created a background and personality for the character (something the GM strongly encourages). The character's real motivation has always been to live in freedom, see the world, and to stop being afraid. After the background was done, it was clear that CN was the only alignment that fit.