|
And Pathfinder is sufficiently different from older editions of D&D, which were in fact sufficiently different from each other that talking about a version of a system in a previous edition doesn't really hold up.
Just so I understand, are you saying that Pathfinder has completely redefined the alignment of Chaotic Neutral? Is so, please provide a link to this new definition.
And you say that CN isn't a problem...right before going back to blaming CN for player behavior. Whether you mean to or not, you're doing it.
No, that is incorrect. As per my comment, there is a significant difference between the alignment and players characters of that alignment. They are two separate concepts.
|
Just so I understand, are you saying that Pathfinder has completely redefined the alignment of Chaotic Neutral? Is so, please provide a link to this new definition.
Apparently they did it in 3.5.
A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn’t strive to protect others’ freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it.
|
And Pathfinder is sufficiently different from older editions of D&D, which were in fact sufficiently different from each other that talking about a version of a system in a previous edition doesn't really hold up.
I'd say that that pretty open to debate, particularly on Alignment.
And you say that CN isn't a problem...right before going back to blaming CN for player behavior. Whether you mean to or not, you're doing it.
Think about it like this. Some people, and some play styles gravitate towards certain alignments. CN tends to (not sure if this is true, or that I agree with it), tends to appeal to people that are less interested in the team or group experience, particularly when it comes to their own fun.
|
|
To me, (2E stands out, obviously, but that kind of goes for all of them), the biggest change is that in 1E and 2E, each of the Alignments where active. They had a goal or belief that they aimed for. In 3E, most of the Neutral Alignments become passive, and are basically only defined by what they are not, (which basically leads people to pick CN so they can do whatever they want and not have any pesky repercussions or roadbumps like morality, not because they want to actually play CN). Chaotic Neutral for instance, isn't it's own thing as much as it is not this, and not that.
Another example is that True Neutral use to be a very active Alignment, believing that the best way was a perfect balance, and that if any one Alignment got too strong, it would start to harm everyone. So they actively struggled to keep the various forces from getting to powerful, joining forces with Devils if good was getting to powerful, and the instant the tides turned would start aiding the paladins they had been fighting against. Now, Neutral (can't even be cool enough to be True Neutral), is just not Good, not Evil, not Lawful, and not Chaotic. Not because they care about anything, just they can't really find the umph to even pick.
|
|
It might be worth noting that CAndrew originally quoted the 1E description.Above respect for life and good, or disregard for life and promotion of evil, the chaotic neutral places randomness and disorder.Active promotion of randomness and disorder is certainly different than "does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy" and would be a problem in most games. But it's not the current alignment definition and hasn't been for more than a decade. And that's probably why they changed it.
Nah, they originally changed it because the original game, being based off of war games only had Law and Chaos. The players where just kind of assumed to be Goodish. That's also why Paladins became LG instead of NG later on. The original idea was that the two predominate forces of the universe, in constant struggle. One was Lawful, Chaotic, or unaligned/neutral, and that's about where it ended. Later, (and this is a big reason that 4E is sometimes seen as going back to it's roots), the Algnment spectrum became Law Good, Good, Neutral, Chaotic, and Chaotic Evil, with LG and CE becoming the two extremes, and sort of best/worst of.
|
|
I'd say that that pretty open to debate, particularly on Alignment...
This breakdown of alignment is excellent, and I admit my bad, the current PF definition has addressed some of my concerns. I guess my opinion has been formed from years of gaming, and dealing with such players who have exploited this option.
Now the most recent event of that was this past Monday in an actual PFS session (where a CN character took off on the party for a significant portion of the adventure as "they didn't feel like following the group") but again, this is a player whose natural inclination was to do that, exploiting alignment as an excuse to do so (He had actually just changed his alignment from CG to CN, so I think the switch was very much motivated to allow such actions).
Think about it like this. Some people, and some play styles gravitate towards certain alignments. CN tends to (not sure if this is true, or that I agree with it), tends to appeal to people that are less interested in the team or group experience, particularly when it comes to their own fun.
Thank you, this is my point. Well said.
The existence of the alignment itself, and perhaps even it's inclusion as a PC choice, is not an issue in itself. It is the actions to which a willing player will use this alignment as an in-game, mechanical, justification to disrupt things.
That said however, I believe this current definition does give the GM, and the party involved, some lee-way to call BS on such actions. Not that will likely change the player, but as previously said, a player set on being a problem-player will be that no matter what alignment they choose.
I guess the biggest problem, as mentioned by DM Beckett, is the cross-purposes a individualist/loner character leaves a party-based game in, and this is a classic, age-old problem. In highly individualized games (Vampire; Don't Rest Your Head; etc) a focus on individualized storytelling is awesome. In Pathfinder, especially PFS play, a focus on the group is needed for successful sessions.
The existence of the alignment itself, and perhaps even it's inclusion as a PC choice, is not an issue in itself. It is the actions to which a willing player will use this alignment as an in-game, mechanical, justification to disrupt things.
Debatable. Alignment causes plenty of fuss just by existing, and it might be better to phrase it as your personal problem is with players who use it as an excuse to act disruptive.
|
|
Except that the CN change was really between 2E & 3rd, by which point the 9 alignment system, with LG paladins and all was over 20 years old. And everything you're talking about was before CN even existed, so that motivation doesn't even make sense.
1E had CN as actively promoting the alignment, randomness and disorder. 2E changed that to a more passive, lunatic and madman version, which may fit with a general shift of moving away from constant struggle of underlying forces.
3E changed from you're crazy to whimsical, but not crazy or completely random. That's the change I assume was because the 2E (and 1st really) were disruptive and close to unplayable.
I would say that the big change is actually more from 1E to 2E. 2E is obviously the odd one out, but 1E, 3E/PF are not all that different, outside of 3E going into a bit more length to describe it, and the game has shifted away from the Alignments indicating that you where a champion of the forces of that Alignment (war game roots).
3E also went away from the Planescape sort of metasetting connections, which has a lot to do with the description of CN (most of the Neutrals really) went from being active philosophies, beliefs, or characteristics to the more undefined ones in 3E/PF.
|
If you have a CN character that you cannot ever predict what they will do in a given situation, you don't actually have a CN character. What you have is an insane character.
You say that like its a bad thing!
Me, I like putting up 2 or three shield others on my party members, so I can experience what they're experiencing. I've been hit in body parts i don't even have! Then jump down the hole face first into the monster, you really should see these things from the inside! I also find people spend way too much time worrying about what might be behind the next door when they could be experiencing whats behind the next door, and the trap thats on it!
|
|
Overall, players need to be trusted to understand that they are part of a collection of people trying to enjoy a game. CN however is an exclusionary, highly individualist, alignment that tends not to encourage characters who are "team players". Ergo, this is why CN behavior can be difficult to deal with. This was what the original post was responding to (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qlgl&page=5?Why-does-PFS-punish-the-good# 242).
There is a decent argument to be made that Han Solo was CN,at least at the beginning of the story.
The problem is that some players like to trend toward "Being a Jerk," which lowers everyone's fun. It's not the alignment that is an issue.