As a chaotic-anything, how does he justify trying to enslave someone, when one of the highest values of a chaotic character is freedom?Because he doesn't think about others wellbeing?
I don't think Demons would value mortal freedoms very much, nor would the proteans, despide both being chaotic and the latter being the epitome of chaotic neutral.
Actually, it's basically impossible for proteans to have slaves. They are pure Chaos, they will not commit lawful acts, and slavery, being an act of tyranny, is lawful.
They'll probably go out of their way to free slaves. They might kill them afterwards because they hate their guts, but they'll free them nonetheless. Because that's what you do.
Which then brings back to the traditional alignment problems, as I pulled that point right out of the alignment section of the book. If chaotic creatures value freedom but don't respect the freedom of others, what do we get (besides a headache)?As a chaotic-anything, how does he justify trying to enslave someone, when one of the highest values of a chaotic character is freedom?Because he doesn't think about others wellbeing?
I don't think Demons would value mortal freedoms very much, nor would the proteans, despide both being chaotic and the latter being the epitome of chaotic neutral.
In the case of demons, you must remember that their lust for freedom is coupled with weapons-grade selfishness (hence CE). They want their own freedom, but consider others worthless, not worthy of getting any values.
I wonder...
Is DnD or PF trhe only thing you DM?
Have you ever run a GURPS game? Or another game that has no aligments?
How do you motivate those players?
Good question.
I have ran MERP/RM and Cyberpunk 2020 in addition to Pathfinder/DnD. MERP/RM has a more free form alignment system. You can choose anything as your alignment i.e. Good, Evil, Self-Interest, Nature, etc. and it actually has a sub-alignment section for motivation.
Cyberpunk 2020 has no alignment but all of the characters seem to conform to standard cyberpunk archetypes and if you have ever played it the system basically ensures that your character will not be around long enough to develop an ideology. Also since it is more cinematic than D&D teams are often constructed with a particular goal in mind before gameplay begins.
The point that I was trying to make is that in a structured alignment-based game like Pathfinder/DnD it is more difficult to motivate characters whose alignment dictates that they act as unpredictable free spirits.
And just to beat a dead horse...
What irritates me about the CN alignment is that some players simplys see it as the best choice of alignment since they can justify doing just about anything. Every other alignment has some built in motivation.
A CN PC can justify just about anything with that alignment. They get all of the benefits of being unscrupulous without any of the ill effects that evil PCs have to deal with.
The next campaign I run I am going to go back to the old 2nd ed. interpretation of CN which is just plain bat-sh*t crazy.
Sounds to me like the discussion is off-point. I don't think the real issue is the PC and its alignment.
I think the issue is whether you have a selfish, disruptive player on your hands, and whether you feel he is ruining it for the other players, and for yourself.
Personally, I don't believe it is the job of the GM to spend 90% of his brainpower in accommodating the whims of a single player at the table, and I think it is bad advice to tell you to do so. I did that for nearly ten years and it ended so badly I could novelize it.
You must have come here for a reason, right? So, honestly, how disruptive is this player to the game, and what is your prediction if he is left unchecked?
Is this friendship endangering behavior, or just a smart alec at the table?
Sounds to me like the discussion is off-point. I don't think the real issue is the PC and its alignment.
I think the issue is whether you have a selfish, disruptive player on your hands, and whether you feel he is ruining it for the other players, and for yourself.
Personally, I don't believe it is the job of the GM to spend 90% of his brainpower in accommodating the whims of a single player at the table, and I think it is bad advice to tell you to do so. I did that for nearly ten years and it ended so badly I could novelize it.
You must have come here for a reason, right? So, honestly, how disruptive is this player to the game, and what is your prediction if he is left unchecked?
Is this friendship endangering behavior, or just a smart alec at the table?
It is not all that dire, really. We did not have any disruptions last session. I just became irritated that he tried to get a stronghold/cohort out of a situation where he could not have reasonably expected to get a either of those out of. He is not disrespectful, though he does make more arguments than the average player.
For instance, one of my peeves is that he tries to fit half a dozen actions into a single round. Last session he wanted to throw a flask of oil at a door, light a torch, and then light the door on fire. I just informed him that it would take far too long and that he would need two rounds to execute that course of action. He accepted my logic without question and acquiesced.
He seems to want to run a stronghold-based campaign and so do the other PCs so I am including a plot hook that will eventually deliver a stronghold into their hands around 10th level.
I seem to be the only person whose RP groups have frequently had CN characters and had no problems?
grats
We have CN characters without many problems but we generally try and make sure that there is story and plot and stuff they care about... people, treasure, revenge, rescue, power pursuits, etc.
I had a thought once that worked pretty decently:
I asked my players for backgrounds with some hooks and explicitedly told them that these backgrounds would be used both to help motivate the character, to get in the character's way at different points, and to reward the character. I asked for 4 hooks from each player one that was easily good for them, one that was bad for them, one that they didn't really know if it was good or bad, and one that was both good and bad.
So they had:
Good hook, Bad Hook, Unknown hook, and mixed hook.
*******
I got something from 4 of the 5 players -- I was prepared for this though:
That last character without his hooks I gave a "GM present" too -- he was INCREDIBLY LUCKY... but it wasn't always good luck. I explained this to him -- once per session he could have a reroll of any dice of his choice -- no matter who rolled it. If I had a random roll however (say to see who was attacked or who was given something at random etc) he was given two numbers on the dice instead of everyone else's 1. I also told him to expect odd/flukes on his character fairly frequently.
It honestly worked well. The other players enjoyed their hooks and stories and he enjoyed watching the havoc unfold around and to him.
And just to beat a dead horse...
What irritates me about the CN alignment is that some players simplys see it as the best choice of alignment since they can justify doing just about anything. Every other alignment has some built in motivation.
A CN PC can justify just about anything with that alignment. They get all of the benefits of being unscrupulous without any of the ill effects that evil PCs have to deal with.
The next campaign I run I am going to go back to the old 2nd ed. interpretation of CN which is just plain bat-sh*t crazy.
Fight fire with fire, eh? And with fire, I mean BS, of course.
That interpretation makes no sense at all. Mental illness is not an alignment.
If you start that, you need to completely revamp the alignment.
I'll play a SM wizard (SM = sarcastic misunderstood).
I seem to be the only person whose RP groups have frequently had CN characters and had no problems?
Yes and no. I saw some awesome CN characters, and lots of OK ones.
But I also had problem cases.
BUT: The reason for these problems wasn't the CN alignment, it was people being a%%+%**s.
Hence my table rule suggestion: Don't ban CN, ban a*$~$@~s.
I'm playing a CN Oracle of Pelor in a game atm.
He skirts the line in almost everything he does...how is he motivated?
Pelor "motivates" him.
I made him at level 7, but I figure he probably started NG...then slowly moved to CN over 7 levels, as being the unwilling pawn of a god can wear on a person, and he began to value his own personal freedom more and more, and care less about morality, since it didn't matter what he wants, he does what Pelor wants. Pelor says "go here". If he doesn't there are consequences...
Now he's flippant and irreverant, tells people openly that he can't stand Pelor, but will still do what Pelor asks/tells him.
Why is he still an oracle of Pelor? Who knows...maybe Pelor sees something in him that he himself can not...
|
I have to say that all of this hate of the Chaotic Neutral alignment makes me a little sad. I'm currently playing a CN Sorcerer in the Pathfinder Society, and I think most of the people I regularly play with would agree that he doesn't fall into the "I'm Chaotic Neutral so I can be one step closer to evil!" stereotype. He basically adventures for the money and prestige and doesn't care much about the greater good, but he treats his companions well (although not really NPCs). Chaotic Neutral isn't Chaotic Stupid; CN characters should probably recognize that the party is their source of income, and, as annoying and preachy as Paladins and other Lawful and Good characters can be at times, they do help in the acquisition of money. Hell, my Sorcerer once pitched in about a fourth of his money for a Raise Dead for a Lawful Good character in the party because he liked the character even if he thought the guy was too moral. The problem isn't with the alignment, it's with how players play it.
I'm playing a CN Oracle of Pelor
I thought that Oracles didn't have a single patron deity, did I miss something? Sorry for going off topic.
...Chaotic Neutral isn't Chaotic Stupid...
The problem isn't with the alignment, it's with how players play it.
I think I disagree here. I have never seen a Chaotic Neutral character who I liked or felt brought anything to the game either with there build or way they were played that made me like them in or out of character. I can't even think of any NPCs with this alignment from fiction that I enjoyed. It seems like even people who are other wise good role players (both in and out of the groups I often play with) have decided that this group represents disorganized jerks who are True Stupid.
I have seen very few players play the alignment in a unique and interesting way.
I do have one player who was pigeon holed into playing a CN alignment since he wanted to play a Barbarian/Druid. To his credit he plays it pretty well. He plays the character as having reverence for nature, his home forest in particular, and he makes him just a little crazy but not completely insane. Just about as crazy as anyone would be if they lived in the forest among wolves with no human contact whatsoever.
Whenever anyone stats out Conan they always make his alignment CN. Which I think makes sense. In one short story I think he killed an entire tribe of people that he was allied with just so he could bang some hot chick that they were holding prisoner. That seems like CN to me. However, if Robert E. Howard was DMing a campaign instead of writing a short story then his immediate reaction would probably be "You do what!?!?"
I'm playing a CN Oracle of PelorI thought that Oracles didn't have a single patron deity, did I miss something? Sorry for going off topic.
It says that in the flavor text, yes. But in the case of my character, he was chosen by Pelor.
CN - Good. Bad. I'm the guy with the gun.
|
I can't even think of any NPCs with this alignment from fiction that I enjoyed.
Conan
Captain Jack SparrowHan Solo early on
Lupin III
The Hulk
Catwoman
Tank Girl
Chiana
Tallahassee
Ashley J. Williams
CN can be done well. It's a disservice to yourself to write off an entire alignment because some players are herp derp lol random.
I do have one player who was pigeon holed into playing a CN alignment since he wanted to play a Barbarian/Druid.
Couldn't he have been true neutral?
Whenever anyone stats out Conan they always make his alignment CN. Which I think makes sense. In one short story I think he killed an entire tribe of people that he was allied with just so he could bang some hot chick that they were holding prisoner.
Is that in a Howard story?
Conan
Captain Jack Sparrow
Han Solo early on
Lupin III
The Hulk
Catwoman
Tank Girl
Chiana
Tallahassee
Ashley J. WilliamsCN can be done well. It's a disservice to yourself to write off an entire alignment because some players are herp derp lol random.
I meant offical D&D or Pathfinder fiction were the characters had specific in game world alignments, sorry. However except for a few I disagree with you on (Conan, Tallahassee, Han Solo) I hate that list of characters.
I do have one player who was pigeon holed into playing a CN alignment since he wanted to play a Barbarian/Druid.Couldn't he have been true neutral?
Whenever anyone stats out Conan they always make his alignment CN. Which I think makes sense. In one short story I think he killed an entire tribe of people that he was allied with just so he could bang some hot chick that they were holding prisoner.Is that in a Howard story?
I meant offical D&D or Pathfinder fiction were the characters had specific in game world alignments, sorry. However except for a few I disagree with you on (Conan, Tallahassee, Han Solo) I hate that list of characters.Conan
Captain Jack Sparrow
Han Solo early on
Lupin III
The Hulk
Catwoman
Tank Girl
Chiana
Tallahassee
Ashley J. WilliamsCN can be done well. It's a disservice to yourself to write off an entire alignment because some players are herp derp lol random.
Yes, I suppose he could have been true neutral. When we created the character we were under the impression that barbarians had to be chaotic.
The Conan story that I was referring to is "The Vale of Lost Women," which was posthumously published in 2003 in "The Coming of Conan The Cimmerian," and was written by Robert E. Howard.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Vale_of_Lost_Women
To reiterate the rieteration of my point about my qualms with the Chaotic Neutral alignment...I do think that CN can be done well. My qualm arises from the fact that there are very few restrictions placed on it and it often gets abused. I think that in 2nd edition D&D they saw this coming which is why they wrote their rules to read that CN characters were basically insane. Play at your own risk.
I think I disagree here. I have never seen a Chaotic Neutral character who I liked or felt brought anything to the game either...Chaotic Neutral isn't Chaotic Stupid...
The problem isn't with the alignment, it's with how players play it.
Just because you never saw one doesn't mean that they don't exist. It just means you seem to be playing with bad roleplayers, or at least people who fail at CN.
It's a fact that great CN PCs exist. I have seen some of them.
with there build
What does their (<-- that's the right word, by the way) "build" have to do with anything?
All this proves is that the people you saw playing CN characters are not only bad at roleplaying, but also bad at power-gaming, since their "builds" sucked.
Because even if it were true that you cannot create a CN character that isn't a pain in the arse, that would not mean you couldn't create a CN character that is a pain in the arse, but very effective.
My qualm arises from the fact that there are very few restrictions placed on it
No more than the other alignments really, unless you have lopsided definitions.
No more than the other alignments really, unless you have lopsided definitions.My qualm arises from the fact that there are very few restrictions placed on it
I am really not trying to be a contrarian, but I disagree. The only thing that a CN character would not typically do would be to do something that is outright morbidly evil. Even then he might be able to get away with some evil acts. I dont think a CN character would lose any sleep over stabbing someone over a card game for instance and as stated above slavery would probably not lie outside of a CN character's moral paradigm.
Furthermore, I personally think it is in bad taste to critique someone's grammar on an internet message board. Some of us are quickly rattling off posts while we work and dont (see I made one right there) have time to ensure that our posts are MLA compliant. Please lighten up.
Frankly I no longer let people choose their alignment. I'm tired of seeing people try to play an alignment rather than play a character. I tall them to play the character how they want to and simply assign their allignment based on how they RP the character.
I did have a character end up as CN. He wasn't evil, but he wasn't all that good and he was definately chaotic. He was a pretty interesting character actaully.
I seem to be the only person whose RP groups have frequently had CN characters and had no problems?
Never had a problem to date with any of the groups I've played with either, but as already mentioned, the problem in this particular case runs deeper than all that.
Frankly I no longer let people choose their alignment. I'm tired of seeing people try to play an alignment rather than play a character. I tall them to play the character how they want to and simply assign their allignment based on how they RP the character.
I did have a character end up as CN. He wasn't evil, but he wasn't all that good and he was definately chaotic. He was a pretty interesting character actaully.
This is actually a really good idea. I will use this method going forward for non-restricted classes. Thanks!
Frankly I no longer let people choose their alignment. I'm tired of seeing people try to play an alignment rather than play a character. I tall them to play the character how they want to and simply assign their allignment based on how they RP the character.
I did have a character end up as CN. He wasn't evil, but he wasn't all that good and he was definately chaotic. He was a pretty interesting character actaully.
One dm I play under got rid of the lawful and chaotic aspects of alignment.
Making true neutral someone interested in the balance of good and evil.
Frankly I no longer let people choose their alignment. I'm tired of seeing people try to play an alignment rather than play a character. I tall them to play the character how they want to and simply assign their allignment based on how they RP the character.
I did have a character end up as CN. He wasn't evil, but he wasn't all that good and he was definately chaotic. He was a pretty interesting character actaully.
One dm I play under got rid of the lawful and chaotic aspects of alignment.
Making true neutral someone interested in the balance of good and evil.
That is simmilar to the MERP/RM interpretation of alignment.
|
|
I meant offical D&D or Pathfinder fiction were the characters had specific in game world alignments, sorry. However except for a few I disagree with you on (Conan, Tallahassee, Han Solo) I hate that list of characters.Conan
Captain Jack Sparrow
Han Solo early on
Lupin III
The Hulk
Catwoman
Tank Girl
Chiana
Tallahassee
Ashley J. WilliamsCN can be done well. It's a disservice to yourself to write off an entire alignment because some players are herp derp lol random.
This kind of seems like self-fulfilling prophecy here.
"I have never seen CN done well, therefore it cannot. Any CN characters I like, I question their CN-ness."
You don't think you're going a tad overboard with such an absolute shutout of the alignment?
I am really not trying to be a contrarian, but I disagree. The only thing that a CN character would not typically do would be to do something that is outright morbidly evil.No more than the other alignments really, unless you have lopsided definitions.My qualm arises from the fact that there are very few restrictions placed on it
Well, if there's something so evil that you're automatically evil if you do it, then there must be something that is so nauseatingly good that you can't do it and not be good.
So that's two things the CN character won't do (or can't do while staying CN).
And there's more: While they can do some good and evil, they must be real careful with lawful acts, or they slide towards true neutral or even lawful neutral!
So we have some example things they won't do/ can't do without alignment change:
If we think of enough stuff, we can find lots of things.
It's just as free as lawful neutral (who can do moderately good and evil stuff but must take care with chaotic stuff), neutral good (doesn't care too much about order or chaos, but will shy away from evil), and neutral evil (again, order and chaos is unimportant to them, but they won't be caught doing good)
Even then he might be able to get away with some evil acts. I dont think a CN character would lose any sleep over stabbing someone over a card game for instance
Depends. If they just kill someone because they're winning, it's quite an evil act, and definitely out of character for a non-evil character. If it's in rage after finding out they cheated, it would fit CN, but then I would let a CG character get away with that with "only" a very stern warning (they need to feel remorse afterwards, and it needs to be a one-time deal).
as stated above slavery would probably not lie outside of a CN character's moral paradigm.
That depends on your definition of slavery, and how the character is CN.
Someone who is actively chaotic neutral would never enslave someone. Someone who just doesn't care too much would probably, but they would not treat their slaves too bad (no beatings, no real deprivation, no slaying)
Furthermore, I personally think it is in bad taste to critique someone's grammar on an internet message board.
I was not criticising. I was correcting. If I had said something like "damn, your grammar sucks", I would have been criticising. I didn't.
Some of us are quickly rattling off posts while we work and dont (see I made one right there) have time to ensure that our posts are MLA compliant.
Yeah, but some just don't know better, and I thought I'd be helpful and point out what's right, so they might learn something.
Plus, I felt like it. I'm CN. I'm allowed. :P
This is actually a really good idea. I will use this method going forward for non-restricted classes. Thanks!Frankly I no longer let people choose their alignment. I'm tired of seeing people try to play an alignment rather than play a character. I tall them to play the character how they want to and simply assign their allignment based on how they RP the character.
I did have a character end up as CN. He wasn't evil, but he wasn't all that good and he was definately chaotic. He was a pretty interesting character actaully.
I do something similar. While I do let them choose an alignment, I won't look too closely at it. If I do feel something is out of the current alignment, I'll inform the player and tell him that he can rethink his actions or just roll with it and get his alignment fixed.
Since there are no real alignment restrictions in my games and there is no penalty for changing alignment, this alignment shift will have no other consequences than wear and tear on a rubber and a pencil.
Of course, if there are alignment restrictions in place because of the player's class and/or patron, I do get a bit more strict. But then again, I don't enforce those restrictions too strictly (telling a white lie won't mean the Paladin will immediately fall from grace and lose all abilities, and the monk restriction is more that they need to have a certain discipline, not that they need to follow all laws and orders to the letter. A priest's actions need to fit with their patron deities and respective portfolios, not necessarily a certain alignment range).
One dm I play under got rid of the lawful and chaotic aspects of alignment.
Boo! Hiss! Those are actually the most important aspects of alignment. This good/evil nonsense is just window dressing!
I meant offical D&D or Pathfinder fiction were the characters had specific in game world alignments, sorry. However except for a few I disagree with you on (Conan, Tallahassee, Han Solo) I hate that list of characters.Conan
Captain Jack Sparrow
Han Solo early on
Lupin III
The Hulk
Catwoman
Tank Girl
Chiana
Tallahassee
Ashley J. WilliamsCN can be done well. It's a disservice to yourself to write off an entire alignment because some players are herp derp lol random.
This kind of seems like self-fulfilling prophecy here.
"I have never seen CN done well, therefore it cannot. Any CN characters I like, I question their CN-ness."
You don't think you're going a tad overboard with such an absolute shutout of the alignment?
Typical law-fanatics' behaviour. "Pound things into shape to fit our pigeon holes!" ;-P
First a basic idea - I hate meta-gaming/author intervention; more so when it's forced by one character. Often times CN characters bring that. By meta-gaming I am referring to PCs acting differently then they really would if played as intended such as hanging out with someone who isn't a good person and isn't dedicated to their them/their cause; not using out of game knowledge to gain befit in game.
Look at Bat-Man and Cat-Woman (although she isn't officially CN since she isn't a D&D/Pathfinder character I agree with Mikaze that Cat-Woman is very much CN). "Oh wow I'm dedicated enough to spend a huge part of my fortune and 15 years so I can risk my life as a crime fighter. But how can I pass up this really hot woman? I'm all conflicted!" Does that flow with the character? Not even a little, but they liked the story so they ignored that and went for it. And who made that needed? A CN character.
The Conan story that I was referring to is "The Vale of Lost Women,"
Conan...
...Han Solo early on...
...Tallahassee...
Robert E. Howard died in 1936, and thus never did a official Conan character sheet. I'd call him True Neutral if pressed but he doesn't really fit neatly into the alignment system. I went back did a quick reread "The Vale of Lost Women". He saves her from being raped by the tribe he is having talks with, not an ally because the girl shares his race (white) while the chief is black. He does seem to violate a truce (chaotic), to further a Good cause (rape prevention), for a Lawful Evil reason (racism). Also he generally place a high value on honor, loyalty, and keeping his word all Lawful concepts. If you want to call him something else fine but I disagree.
Han Solo I guess can't really see the argument, he was just trying not to die. He even tried to avoid killing Greedo; despite Han shooting first. He doesn't do anything that isn't in line with a CG honestly. He even attempts to give the young Luke the best advice he can. If you go to the expanded universe at this point he has already saved Choobakka at great personal risk. Rifts even used him as the example of there version of CG.
Tallahassee? Are you referring to Tallahassee from Zombieland? If not sorry for the confussion, if so he is the best exsample of a Good character outside of D&D/Pathfinder Fiction I have seen in YEARS. It's like he is a damned check list of Lawful Good.
d20pfsrd.com/alignment-description/additional-rulesA lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act.I don't think he seriously hurts one person in the whole movie. Further he adopts and defends the younger people he comes across, doing expected acts such as teaching them how to stay sane in a Zombie filled America, Drive, etc.
She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly.Fights the evil undead, and I think the term relentlessly is more then fair.
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.Hates to see the Zombies evil go free doesn't he?
Lawful good combines honor with compassion.
He did he honorable thing with compassion many a time - offering to take people with him, speaking well of rednecks when he found the Yellow Hummer, offering to shoot the girl for her sister.
He did exactly three non-lawful good acts I can think of - hitting Colubmus (which I see as part of his commitment to justice since he felt Colubmus had it coming), hesitating to go after the girls, and lying about the his son's death. MAYBE you could strech that in to NG, but I don't see it. Four if you count breaking stuff, but honestly he knew the others needed it to stay sane so I don't count that.
I think that in 2nd edition D&D they saw this coming which is why they wrote their rules to read that CN characters were basically insane. Play at your own risk.Honestly I HATED 2nd edition, but looking back I miss this.
Just because you never saw one doesn't mean that they don't exist.It does not absolutely prove it. However while lack of evidence is not proof, it is however evidence that something is not there. If you don't concede this then you have to consider that just because no one has evidence of Unicorns with wings in real life doesn't show they aren't there. The questions is at what point has enough searching been done to make a determination?
www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/evidence
evidence
1
a : an outward sign : indicationwww.merriam-webster.com/netdict/proof
http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/proof
proof
1
a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact
b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning
It just means you seem to be playing with bad role players, or at least people who fail at CN.
This kind of seems like self-fulfilling prophecy here.
"I have never seen CN done well, therefore it cannot. Any CN characters I like, I question their CN-ness."
You don't think you're going a tad overboard with such an absolute shutout of the alignment?
As I said before I feel I've seen enough to know I don't care for CN. After playing for 13 years, reading a fair amount of official fiction (characters that really do have a official right up and thus an alignment), I've seen a wide variety of gamers - my main group, a few new main groups, coming back to new groups I haven't played with in years, one night games, short terms games, etc. In those games I've never seen a character (PC or NPC) who was ACTUALLY CN that I liked. Closest I got was indifference. I consider this evidence that I don't like them. Often when I don't like a character and don't know his alignment I'll find out later it was CN. When others say they are having issues with CN I think that they might have similar tastes in this matter, and suggested so. I consider this a better/more logical conclusion then players of various ages, experience, backgrounds, races, nations of origins, and genders that I played with because I am friends with, play with because of random semi-public sign ups, read fiction of, played with online, and so on all played/NPCed/wrote CN "wrong". If you think I'm lying or wrong that's fine but I don't think it's something worth discussing.
Yes I have tried playing them before, on several occasions. I have tried to come at it with a "open mind". If anything I feel like I have waited to long and wasted too much time with this conclusion; so no I don't think I'm going overboard.
What does their (<-- that's the right word, by the way) "build" have to do with anything?...Because even if it were true that you cannot create a CN character that isn't a pain in the arse, that would not mean you couldn't create a CN character that is a pain in the arse, but very effective.
With what I have brought up so far that is a fair conclusion (if you grant that powerful builds don't require Lawful and Neutral alignments, which of course I do). I could have done a better job explaining this. My point here was that no player, including people who at other times had done made characters other alignments who had powerful and/or interesting builds has
A) Made a CN character so powerful relative to the rest of the party that my PC (or none party NPC if I was running) could in character reasonably look over him being a DB because they are very much needed more then the rest of the party to stay alive/accomplish our goals or they were afraid.
B) Done in a interesting way so that I could have some out of character joy interesting concept.
It's a fact that great CN PCs exist. I have seen some of them.
That isn't a fact, the right word is opinion. Facts can be proven with empirical evidence. Opinions can not be proven by empirical evidence. And yeah correcting people's grammar typo when you know they meant and they haven't done that to you kind of makes you sound like being "that guy".
Has, "Man I really wish someone here was CN," been asked in a game any of you were in?
At the end of the day the real question is, "What kind of game are you playing". If it's one about heroes and villains I don't think CN fits. They are not fighting for Good, Law, order, balance, nation, or anything. They just aren't heroes. They aren't trying to bring about tyranny or self interest to the point of being a villain. Even if they do at times act like a hero or a villain they don't have a reason to stick with it. They might but it's not who they are. In a game that is about heroes VS. villains a free sprite has no place. If you are having fun with games like that, knock yourself out. If you are having fun with all CE Goblin bards focused on climbing go for it. But don't expect me to show up for the game, or not point out that others might agree with me.
Look at Bat-Man and Cat-Woman (although she isn't officially CN since she isn't a D&D/Pathfinder character I agree with Mikaze that Cat-Woman is very much CN). "Oh wow I'm dedicated enough to spend a huge part of my fortune and 15 years so I can risk my life as a crime fighter. But how can I pass up this really hot woman? I'm all conflicted!" Does that flow with the character? Not even a little, but they liked the story so they ignored that and went for it. And who made that needed? A CN character.
In other words: It took a CN character to make things interesting.
Would be a short comic book if Catwoman was actually Dogwoman, was very loyal and stuff and closer to what Bat-Man wants to see in people. They'd have liked each other, they'd have connected, they'd go to a Museum together, have married properly, got several children, and lived happily ever after. The End. And some poor kids would lie in bed, with a torch light under the pillow, going "WTF? What a lame comic! Plus, a Dogwoman is lame!"
Conflicts is what makes lots of stories interesting. Especially Batman stories. You can't have Batman without a big helping of internal conflict and dark thoughts. Cos if you do that, you get Batman & Robin.
It does not absolutely prove it. However while lack of evidence is not proof, it is however evidence that something is not there. If you don't concede this then you have to consider that just because no one has evidence of Unicorns with wings in real life doesn't show they aren't there. The questions is at what point has enough searching been done to make a determination?
Except that there are documented cases of this winged unicorn, and witness testimonies made by several respected people.
Denying great CN characters after is more like denying evolution, and for much the same reasons.
As I said before I feel I've seen enough to know I don't care for CN. After playing for 13 years, reading a fair amount of official fiction (characters that really do have a official right up and thus an alignment), I've seen a wide variety of gamers - my main group, a few new main groups, coming back to new groups I haven't played with in years, one night games, short terms games, etc. In those games I've never seen a character (PC or NPC) who was ACTUALLY CN that I liked.
You know that I don't like 4e? I wouldn't play it if I was paid (well, okay, maybe then, but it would have to be a lot of cash.). Nobody I personally know likes the game, and I know a few roleplayers.
Doesn't mean there are no people at all who like the game.
That isn't a fact, the right word is opinion.
So it's your opinion that CN sucks? You sound an awful lot like it was a fact, you go on all about how you can prove it by its absence and all that, like CN is right up there with the Loch Ness Monster, the Mothman, the Jersey Devil, and so on, and insinuating that everyone who believes in CN is bonkers.
And yeah correcting people's grammar typo when you know they meant and they haven't done that to you kind of makes you sound like being "that guy".
You forgot a "what" between what and meant there.
Plus, how can you correct someone AFTER they corrected you if doing it first is so bad? Someone has to start.
Has, "Man I really wish someone here was CN," been asked in a game any of you were in?
Not any less than "Man I really wish someone here was ANY OTHER ALIGNMENT". It's not a question that comes up.
We had "How I hate that (character) is CN", but we also had that with most other alignments.
I like Chaotic Neutral. If I don't watch myself, it's the alignment most of my characters fall into by default.
And none of my CN characters have been chaotic stupid.
For examples:
1. A raised-by-wolves savage ranger that has great difficulty in civilisation to the point of seeing thinking beings as little different from animals morally, and often resorts to cannibalism and wearing preserved body parts of her 'prey' on her clothes. She treats the rest of the party like her pack and is loyal and protective but has problems telling right from wrong.
2. A fey-blooded sorceress constantly at war with her own bloodline and the flighty urges it gives her. She hates all of the gods, including the good ones, for using mortals as unwitting pawns. And despite being a completely horrible person does her best to prevent the party from killing unnecessarily, even if the targets are undead or monsters since she believes alignment is just the unbidden opinion of the gods being forced on mortals (this plays with the idea of alignment being a detectable and measurable thing). She also planned to sever the material plane from the rest of existence but didn't get very far with that.
Chaotic, not truly good or evil, and not stupid. Although the first one is incredibly naive and not very smart.
Tallahassee? Are you referring to Tallahassee from Zombieland? If not sorry for the confussion, if so he is the best exsample of a Good character outside of D&D/Pathfinder Fiction I have seen in YEARS. It's like he is a damned check list of Lawful Good.
You and I obviously saw two different movies. Columbus was the only one who wasn't in it for himself.
You and I obviously saw two different movies. Columbus was the only one who wasn't in it for himself.
I think a LG character is allowed to want to eat his favorite food.