The reasoning behind allowing CN but not LE


Pathfinder Society

51 to 100 of 175 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

I don't like DnD alignment system in general, and the CN "do whatever I want clause" just makes it worse. Some GMs talk tough on here, but I've never seen a PC marked evil; not even for killing NPCs who wanted to surrender.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber
David Bowles wrote:
I'm talking about how other people use CN as an excuse to do ANYTHING. I don't have any CN PCs, but I sure have to sit with them often enough.

Ah, OK. Yeah. CN should not be seen as an excuse to do anything. That's CE. (Well, "anything except true self-sacrifice".)

One oversimplified ways of looking at one version the chaotic alignments (from a "freedom" point of view rather than a "primordial chaos" point of view) is:

* CG = "I value freedom, for myself and for others, and I will experience inconvenience and perhaps even sacrifice myself to help preserve the freedoms of others. Things get very complicated when it comes to issues of the greater good, but some methods are simply not acceptable."

* CN = "I value individual freedom. Keep your hands off of my <thing I want to do>. U.S.A.! U.S.A.! As long as you do that, we don't have a problem. Other people should be free too, and I'll help them with that as long as it doesn't put me in too much danger without promise of personal reward. I won't lie, cheat, and steal on the drop of a hat (it might happen sometimes, in pursuit of a greater goal), but also I probably won't go out of my way to preserve or liberate others; leave that for those CG zealots. I won't actively cause harm, but if others are causing harm somewhere else, well, it's probably not my problem."

* CE = "It's all about me. If you're even a little bit in my way, I will stomp and kill you if I can do so without putting myself in danger of consequences. I will lie, cheat, and steal, all without remorse, if there is gain in it for me. You are only worth preserving so long as you are useful to me, or as long as I like you."

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Starfinder Superscriber
David Bowles wrote:
I don't like DnD alignment system in general, and the CN "do whatever I want clause" just makes it worse. Some GMs talk tough on here, but I've never seen a PC marked evil; not even for killing NPCs who wanted to surrender.

I go back and forth on it. It's an oversimplification for an ethical mechanic. On the other hand, it can provide a framework and shorthand for talking about these things and who's likely to get along.

Also, if you like mythic storylines (mythic as in the description, not as in the Pathfinder rules set), "Good vs. Evil" is always a great one, and "Law vs. Chaos" is a more subtle but also great one. (Babylon 5, anybody? Planescape, anybody?)

While I will occasionally play an evil PC in an "evil" game, I tend to prefer playing goody-goodies. As GM, I also much prefer it when players are good. The kinds of storylines I like are the heroes overcoming evil, rather than the sociopathic anti-hero getting more powerful at the expense of everybody around him. When the PCs are all sociopathic, I just have much less fun as a GM. The alignment system does provide some mechanics to help with that, a bit.

Liberty's Edge

Personally, I think that Pathfinder Society should allow only lawful evil, lawful neutral and neutral alignment for the Cheliax faction, since that faction is inherently lawful evil. Similarly, Silver Crusade should allow only lawful good, neutral good, and lawful neutral since that faction is inherently lawful good. Only Cheliax should be allowed to play an evil alignment;but this should also involve a charisma penalty when interacting with all non-Cheliax factions.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

Ms. Pleiades wrote:
I truly fear for the future when slavery is given such an easy pass with the current generation.

I didn't say it wasn't evil.

4/5 Venture-Agent, Minnesota—St. Louis Park aka BretI

Having an Evil character in the party hurts any Paladins in the party, requiring them to get an atonement after the scenario.

CRB pg. 64 wrote:
Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good.

Chaotic Neutral characters likely offends their moral code, but working with them does not require atonement.

It is still possible for a lesser version of this to come up in society play starting at 7th level if someone chooses an evil outsider as a familiar. Hopefully the player is sensible enough to leave it behind in any sessions where a Paladin is in the group.

Take all the worst examples of a paladin trying to force the group to follow their code, now replace the good with evil. You would have characters trying to manipulate the letter of the law to try and control the group. Add in the problems that a Lawful Evil character would consider bullying an appropriate means of getting their way -- something that organized play doesn't allow one player to do to another -- and it can get very problematic.

There also would be no way to limit the alignment to only those who are 'mature' enough to play it in a responsible way. Physical age is certainly no guarantee. Some of those players would focus on the Evil over the Lawful component of the alignment, just as current players frequently choose between the lawful and the good components of lawful good alignment when it comes to certain things.

I believe that Lawful Evil would bring more problems to organized play sessions. Every GM can decide for themselves what to do in their home games (where they likely have a lot more control over who is playing), but I think it is a good idea for Organized Play to not allow any of the evil alignments.

Sovereign Court

David Bowles wrote:
I don't like DnD alignment system in general, and the CN "do whatever I want clause" just makes it worse. Some GMs talk tough on here, but I've never seen a PC marked evil; not even for killing NPCs who wanted to surrender.

"I do whatever I want" isn't CN.. it's CE.

But that's the reason alignment threads keep reincarnating. Everyone likes to have their own definitions on what alignments mean.

I rather like how D&D 5th is doing it: they got rid of them.

Playing evil is fine per se. All that is necessary to make it work is a campaign rule that one can't be a jerk to the other players or PCs. "But it's what my character would do!" is a whine that never appropriate as justification for screwing over other players.

The constraints on a PFS GM are bandied about, especially by the rules laywers. Of even more significance are the restrictions on the players. Think about it. You HAVE to play a Pathfinder. You HAVE to work together, if not get along. You HAVE to stick to the scenario plot. You technically may tell the V-C "No, I don't like the sound of this mission, I'll pass.", but there are campaign penalties for doing so (get no loots, xp, prestige).

The reason that PFS has the no evil rule is because 95% of gamers are too immature to handle playing an alignment with "evil" in the title, even in the presence of the "Don't be a Jerk" rule.

Paizo ought to do like D&D 5th and just get rid of alignments. Ultimately all it serves to do is disallow certain classes/archetypes from working together. In PFS the necessarily personal nature of what alignments (including evil) mean results in spotty enforcement of alignment infractions. There are too many reasons working against enforcement. Will a GM have to go through an inquisition to justify his action after the player complains to a VO? Will the GM look like a jerk since "no one else enforces" it? Is it worth enforcing if the player doesn't seem to care? Etc.

Scarab Sages

BretI wrote:

Having an Evil character in the party hurts any Paladins in the party, requiring them to get an atonement after the scenario.

CRB pg. 64 wrote:
Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good.

Chaotic Neutral characters likely offends their moral code, but working with them does not require atonement.

It is still possible for a lesser version of this to come up in society play starting at 7th level if someone chooses an evil outsider as a familiar. Hopefully the player is sensible enough to leave it behind in any sessions where a Paladin is in the group.

Take all the worst examples of a paladin trying to force the group to follow their code, now replace the good with evil. You would have characters trying to manipulate the letter of the law to try and control the group. Add in the problems that a Lawful Evil character would consider bullying an appropriate means of getting their way -- something that organized play doesn't allow one player to do to another -- and it can get very problematic.

There also would be no way to limit the alignment to only those who are 'mature' enough to play it in a responsible way. Physical age is certainly no guarantee. Some of those players would focus on the Evil over the Lawful component of the alignment, just as current players frequently choose between the lawful and the good components of lawful good alignment when it comes to certain things.

I believe that Lawful Evil would bring more problems to organized play sessions. Every GM can decide for themselves what to do in their home games (where they likely have a lot more control over who is playing), but I think it is a good idea for Organized Play to not allow any of the evil alignments.

I don't disagree with your assessment, but there are several paladins in the hellknights, where they may have to associate with evil members and superiors.

The organization is LN, but it's well known there are evil members in it.

If hellknight paladins can exist with LE characters, Pathfinders should be no different.

Venture-Captain, Germany–Hannover aka Hayato Ken

Judging on the number of people i have seen playing LG characters, especially paladins (popular deity choice: Ragathiel) like total jerks who have huge difficulties cooperating, i have the opinion that for the games sake we´re better off without allowing evil alignments.

As pointed out countless times before, there are also campaign reasons for that, storywise. Same as for not allowing orcs, drow, etc. so far.

CN is a very misunderstood alignment, as it seems alignment in general.
In the meantime, many of my characters are CN, especially the N in there is like most of them would behave. None of them does "i do whatever i want to", since evil things are still evil and there are also other guidelines like cooperation etc.

Silver Crusade

" CN should not be seen as an excuse to do anything."

But in practice, it is. I know many people who have selected CN for this explicit purpose.

4/5 Venture-Agent, Minnesota—St. Louis Park aka BretI

Imbicatus wrote:


I don't disagree with your assessment, but there are several paladins in the hellknights, where they may have to associate with evil members and superiors.

The organization is LN, but it's well known there are evil members in it.

If hellknight paladins can exist with LE characters, Pathfinders should be no different.

The organization is Lawful, so it is likely that the individual squads are aligned to work together. Nothing like the random 'grab the nearest pathfinder' organization of most lodges. Even a Lawful Evil Hellknight is likely to consider it a waste of resources to put a Paladin in the same squad with an evil Hellknight.

Also, I imagine that the Hellknight organization likely has a large number of clerics supporting them. Such clerics could handle the atonements. The Silver Crusade faction might be able to compete with that, but as an organization the Pathfinder Society wouldn't.

Just to be clear, I do believe there would be problems. I just think that since the whole organization is lawful (unlike the Pathfinder Society), they would have a procedure for handling it.

Scarab Sages 4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:

" CN should not be seen as an excuse to do anything."

But in practice, it is. I know many people who have selected CN for this explicit purpose.

I agree that this is not what chaotic Neutral is. Too many people think that it is an excuse to be evil and vile and detrimental to group cohesion and put it under the catchall of 'I'm WACKY!'

CN is a person who is liberated/free/wild someone who does not think through the lens of law and order. They are not, however, evil. They are, at best, indifferent to the concept of good vs. evil.

Let's take a hypothetical barbarian who is CN. He should be free-spirited, or dislike long plans, or not particularly beholden to any one code, and not 'good.' Like a Barbarian that likes fighting and being rowdy and thinks that is fun. However, he's not going to run around axe-murdering the people that are knocked out in a bar-fight, or murdering someone who surrendered to him. Those fights are over. He might not LIKE that they surrendered, or lament that the fight is over, but he's not going to run around gleefully beheading tied up bound prisoners. He is not EVIL.

My PFS group has a few people that are CN, and they do it right, IMHO. There's a Dr. Jeckel/Mr. Hyde type alchemist who is CN, and he actually works with the party and helps them out. He's a bit crazy, and when he takes his mutagen he's gleefull at the prospect of battle, but he accepts surrender and works with the party because he knows that will keep him employed in the pathfinders. The worst he's tried to do was to get someone to take a bit of flayleaf as a joke.

And, as an aside, LE can be just as evil as NE or CE. Lawful just means that you are a very orderly person. A LE person is perfectly capable of stabbing everyone in the back and leaving them to die in a fire so long as it's all part of his plan/code and he gets his.

In the end, I think that there are multiple ways to approach any alignment, but you have to call it what it is. If you run around beheading innocent people for little-no reason, you are EVIL, no matter if you are an orderly sociopath or a nutso serial killier.

Silver Crusade

"I agree that this is not what chaotic Neutral is. Too many people think that it is an excuse to be evil and vile and detrimental to group cohesion and put it under the catchall of 'I'm WACKY!"

Quoted for truth.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It would be nice to see alignment go away. Good roleplayers don't need the crutch, and bad roleplayers use alignment as justification for absolving themselves of all social responsibility.

-Matt

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

David Bowles wrote:
I don't like DnD alignment system in general, and the CN "do whatever I want clause" just makes it worse. Some GMs talk tough on here, but I've never seen a PC marked evil; not even for killing NPCs who wanted to surrender.

Some bad guys have it comming.

Admitted ly not all of the ones pcs kill...

5/5

One good thing about a past edition of another game system: the concept of "unaligned". Or, remove alignment completely, and just keep "aura".

Demons are evil; angels are good. People are just people. The only creatures who should have an actual alignment were those who were powered by or embodied that alignment - clerics, paladins, etc.

Yes, it makes a whole lot of a few spells have problems.... now chaos hammer needs to just affect "foes" instead of those of lawful alignment. Might actually make it useful.

Silver Crusade

Chaos Hammer is totally useful in the Fortress of the Nail. But, no, my spontaneous caster would never have it.

5/5

I more meant as a SLA for a GM's creatures... For a 4th-level spell it has very little effect in most cases I've used it.


Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
The organized play campaign is not going to promote evil, tacitly or otherwise.

I love these sorts of pronouncements.

Is allowing an evil PC "tacitly promoting evil"? Will that person be more likely to go on a murderous ramapage than the Paladin who just beheaded an orc- a sentient being? Or worse, an "evil" human? Or can consenting adults be allowed to make decisions in a responsible play environment. While I agree, that it probably isn't likely that a random group of D&D players (yeah I say D&D so what) is likely to be mature enough to handle the themes of an evil campaign (or PC) and is best suited to a PG-13 game- it certainly wouldn't be "tacitly promoting evil" any more than a CoC game would be "tacitly promoting the worship of the old ones" or "tacitly promoting encroaching insanity".

Anyway, another reminder why I stay away from PFS, so thanks for that.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

Robert Carter 58 wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
The organized play campaign is not going to promote evil, tacitly or otherwise.

I love these sorts of pronouncements.

Is allowing an evil PC "tacitly promoting evil"?

The question is, does it promote evil? The way it promotes it is irrelevant, as I said earlier.

Perception is 90% of reality.

Robert Carter 58 wrote:
Anyway, another reminder why I stay away from PFS, so thanks for that.

And I wish you the best in your games.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

We have evil, it's called CN. The choice alignment of murder hobos everywhere.

5/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I just write LG and then act however I was going to otherwise.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
deusvult wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
I don't like DnD alignment system in general, and the CN "do whatever I want clause" just makes it worse. Some GMs talk tough on here, but I've never seen a PC marked evil; not even for killing NPCs who wanted to surrender.

"I do whatever I want" isn't CN.. it's CE.

No it isn't. It's evil if what you want to do, and actually do, are evil. "I do whatever I want" is really just the basis of any chaotic alignment and pretty much requires an understanding of what parameters operate around "whatever I want" to make any further judgment. "whatever I want" doesn't have to be evil at all.

Scarab Sages 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mattastrophic wrote:

It would be nice to see alignment go away. Good roleplayers don't need the crutch, and bad roleplayers use alignment as justification for absolving themselves of all social responsibility.

-Matt

While I somewhat agree with that, I don't think that's the main issue. The big issue here is that there are jerks in the world who want to have fun at the expense of others. Some of these jerks do RPGs. So Steve Murdurhobo wants to kill other PCs and be a dick, ignoring any story intrigue and steal everything in sight (including from the Dead PCs.) Giving or taking away the label 'evil alignment' is not going to change that.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Vamp,

No but it might keep the rampage down to a dull roar, which is the more likely goal

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

5 people marked this as a favorite.
David Bowles wrote:

" CN should not be seen as an excuse to do anything."

But in practice, it is. I know many people who have selected CN for this explicit purpose.

While it is true there are some people out there that do this, I find the majority of CN characters are played by people who just don't want to be hassled about alignment. (This was especially true back when we had individual faction missions as some were very questionable.)

*****

GM: That sounds questionable. What is your alignment?
Player: (Responds with a alignment that contains Good or sometimes Lawful)
GM: That doesn't sound like an act that fits your alignment.
Player: I think it does because of X.
GM: Well I am the GM and I don't. So if you do it you will be punished.
(Argument ensues.)

*****

GM: That sounds questionable. What is your alignment?
Player: Chaotic Neutral
GM: Oh, okay.
(Game continues on without any further delays or disruptions)

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:
deusvult wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
I don't like DnD alignment system in general, and the CN "do whatever I want clause" just makes it worse. Some GMs talk tough on here, but I've never seen a PC marked evil; not even for killing NPCs who wanted to surrender.

"I do whatever I want" isn't CN.. it's CE.

No it isn't. It's evil if what you want to do, and actually do, are evil. "I do whatever I want" is really just the basis of any chaotic alignment and pretty much requires an understanding of what parameters operate around "whatever I want" to make any further judgment. "whatever I want" doesn't have to be evil at all.

I'm not replying to you to quibble, I'm just pointing out that you appear to have missed my larger point of that quote (and you perhaps ironically helped me make it- alignment definitions vary from gamer to gamer)

4/5

I don't like to hang out with evil people in real life. I don't see spending 4 hours with one as a good use of my free time.

This also applies to super creepy or super annoying characters.

Silver Crusade

trollbill wrote:
David Bowles wrote:

" CN should not be seen as an excuse to do anything."

But in practice, it is. I know many people who have selected CN for this explicit purpose.

While it is true there are some people out there that do this, I find the majority of CN characters are played by people who just don't want to be hassled about alignment. (This was especially true back when we had individual faction missions as some were very questionable.)

*****

GM: That sounds questionable. What is your alignment?
Player: (Responds with a alignment that contains Good or sometimes Lawful)
GM: That doesn't sound like an act that fits your alignment.
Player: I think it does because of X.
GM: Well I am the GM and I don't. So if you do it you will be punished.
(Argument ensues.)

*****

GM: That sounds questionable. What is your alignment?
Player: Chaotic Neutral
GM: Oh, okay.
(Game continues on without any further delays or disruptions)

That's legit.

Scarab Sages 4/5

David Bowles wrote:
trollbill wrote:
David Bowles wrote:

" CN should not be seen as an excuse to do anything."

But in practice, it is. I know many people who have selected CN for this explicit purpose.

While it is true there are some people out there that do this, I find the majority of CN characters are played by people who just don't want to be hassled about alignment. (This was especially true back when we had individual faction missions as some were very questionable.)

*****

GM: That sounds questionable. What is your alignment?
Player: (Responds with a alignment that contains Good or sometimes Lawful)
GM: That doesn't sound like an act that fits your alignment.
Player: I think it does because of X.
GM: Well I am the GM and I don't. So if you do it you will be punished.
(Argument ensues.)

*****

GM: That sounds questionable. What is your alignment?
Player: Chaotic Neutral
GM: Oh, okay.
(Game continues on without any further delays or disruptions)

That's legit.

To be fair, it should work the other way. It often doesn't, but it should.

PC: no fair! He cheated! According to the third bylaw of the grand tourney, he acted in a mannor unbecoming of a true and valorous knight! And I upheld the spirit of honour! He should be disqualified!
GM: Steve, what's your alignment again?
PC: chaotic neutral.
GM: uhhh, I don't think your character cares about any of that stuff.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

2 people marked this as a favorite.

No, but messing with the paladin is its own reward

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
VampByDay wrote:


To be fair, it should work the other way. It often doesn't, but it should.

PC: no fair! He cheated! According to the third bylaw of the grand tourney, he acted in a mannor unbecoming of a true and valorous knight! And I upheld the spirit of honour! He should be disqualified!
GM: Steve, what's your alignment again?
PC: chaotic neutral.
GM: uhhh, I don't think your character cares about any of that stuff.

Actually, I could see a chaotic neutral using the laws of a tourney to make a claim like that to discredit an opponent. Being aware of the rules and respecting the rules are two different things, and twisting the rules for your own benefit is in character.


I think that VampByDay has convinced me. Those of us who know how great CN can be shouldn't be bothered to defend it.

Scarab Sages 4/5

Imbicatus wrote:
VampByDay wrote:


To be fair, it should work the other way. It often doesn't, but it should.

PC: no fair! He cheated! According to the third bylaw of the grand tourney, he acted in a mannor unbecoming of a true and valorous knight! And I upheld the spirit of honour! He should be disqualified!
GM: Steve, what's your alignment again?
PC: chaotic neutral.
GM: uhhh, I don't think your character cares about any of that stuff.

Actually, I could see a chaotic neutral using the laws of a tourney to make a claim like that to discredit an opponent. Being aware of the rules and respecting the rules are two different things, and twisting the rules for your own benefit is in character.

Sure, yes, but his argument probably wouldn't be "I I upheld the spirit of honour and he is unbecoming of knighthood," not without a bluff check.

Let me put it down in another, more obvious way.
PC (Playing Grungar, the CN axe-crazy barbarian, Dark Archive.)
GM: Okay, your faction mission is to take notes on this ancient tomb you're exploring.
PC: Okay, I'm going to take 20 on perception and log everything meticulously for the archive. Can't miss a thing!
GM: Wait, what? What's your alignment again?
PC: Chaotic Neutral.
GM: I don't think Grungar even knows what the word meticulous means. Let alone has the patience to log EVERYTHING by taking 20 times as long as normal.


Should we start imposing Will save penalties on CN characters because they can't possibly have the same self-control as a LN character of the same class?

Scarab Sages 4/5

p-sto wrote:
Should we start imposing Will save penalties on CN characters because they can't possibly have the same self-control as a LN character of the same class?

Ah, excellent jape, good sir! You have struck down my argument most eloquently. Good, we should all become CN as soon as possible, because, clearly, CN allows you to do anything you want, whenever you want, with no moral quandaries whatsoever, whereas ALL other alignments impose unnecessary restrictions. Hazzah! You have just resolved all alignment disputes forever.

See, I can be sarcastic and passive-aggressive too. It's not hard.


VampByDay wrote:
p-sto wrote:
Should we start imposing Will save penalties on CN characters because they can't possibly have the same self-control as a LN character of the same class?

Ah, excellent jape, good sir! You have struck down my argument most eloquently. Good, we should all become CN as soon as possible, because, clearly, CN allows you to do anything you want, whenever you want, with no moral quandaries whatsoever, whereas ALL other alignments impose unnecessary restrictions. Hazzah! You have just resolved all alignment disputes forever.

See, I can be sarcastic and passive-aggressive too. It's not hard.

Well I do the best I can. But really I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the position that 'doing whatever you please' is the explicit purview of CN. It seems to me the being unbounded by the expectations of others CG and CE do as they wish just as much it's just what they want is more easily defined. Neutral on the Good/Evil axis is probably the most nebulous position in the game. I can see how it can be misused but the contempt for the alignment is something I'm having a hard time grasping.

Shadow Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Northwest aka WalterGM

2 people marked this as a favorite.

In general:

If you are neutral you aren't necessarily doing whatever you want all the time, but rather have an understanding that both good actions and evil actions are required at times.

A CN PC will consider torturing a captive to get information where as a CG PC might not. A CN PC will be ok with cheating to get what they want, were as a LN PC will not. If a CN PC thinks it's funny to run around and stab people, they will likely be informed by their GM that their alignment isn't representative of that, and they are likely CE if they begin a killing spree.

There's a big difference between allowing CN versus LE. One is evil, the other is not. If CN is played in such a matter as to warrant reprisal from a GM (by acting more evil than neutral), they likely do not understand alignment very well.

This is not a fault of the CN alignment, but of the player, and perhaps the community for failing to educate them on how their alignment represents their character.

3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ultimately, what it comes down to, is PFS is trying to reign in the number of immature, disruptive players. A lot of people use "evil" as an excuse to be jerks. Easier just to nip that in the bud and do away with what is often interpreted as a built in excuse to be a jerk.

4/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Are we talkin' Neutral wishy-washy, Neutral lazy, Neutral a-hole, or Neutral metaphysical-balance? Similarly, are we talkin' Chaotic FREEEEEEDOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!, Chaotic lunatic, Chaotic justice-over-law, Chaotic metaphysical, or Chaotic a-hole?

If you're talking about Chaotic a-hole Neutral a-hole, we can surmise that the character and player are both a-holes because there's 2 a-holes there.

Sczarni 5/5 ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Ms. Pleiades wrote:
I truly fear for the future when slavery is given such an easy pass with the current generation.

Keep in mind that, throughout history, the definition of slavery has changed.

Different populations have been the slavers, and the enslaved, and for many different reasons.

Prisoners of war, debtors, women, indentured servants, modern day U.S. prisoners, the poor, entire ethnicities, and many subgroups, have all experienced varying forms of slavery (sometimes physically forced, and sometimes not).

I do not relate Golarion slavery to the history of slavery in the early United States. They are very different institutions. If I had to equate it to anything, I'd say it's closer to an amalgam of Greek and Persian slavery, with a sprinkle of indentured servitude.

But it's fantasy. It's different. It doesn't truly resemble anything our planet has seen. And so it really shouldn't be analyzed through the same lens.

My Paladin of Rowdrosh has no problem with lawful slavery. He'd be a hypocrite if he did, since his god is "The Divine Herdsman". What is a herd of goats but an enslaved population of a different species? Enslaving debtors or lawfully purchasing a slave is perfectly fine in his eyes.

Liberty's Edge

My favorite (which I've heard from 3 different players) : "I'm chaotic neutral because it's as close to evil as possible and I'm a member of the Cheliax faction!"

That said, CN is possible to play nondisruptively, and I've seen it done a lot more often than any kind of evil.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Starfinder Superscriber

Hurm. If you're Cheliax, you really outta be LN. Cheliax is all about the order. And, devils.

Silver Crusade

rknop wrote:
Hurm. If you're Cheliax, you really outta be LN. Cheliax is all about the order. And, devils.

Maybe they aren't in Cheliax and with the PFS BECAUSE they are CN.

Liberty's Edge

David Bowles wrote:
rknop wrote:
Hurm. If you're Cheliax, you really outta be LN. Cheliax is all about the order. And, devils.
Maybe they aren't in Cheliax and with the PFS BECAUSE they are CN.

Could be. Mostly just brought it up because of how absurd it is.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
David Bowles wrote:

Chaotic neutral in practice is EXACTLY being evil without being evil.

Not on my tables when I'm judging. And while there's merit to what you say, I've once had to shut down a purportedly Neutral Good Druid who did a blatantly evil act in fulfilling a mission by murdering the man who saved his life.

In PFS it's more accurate to say that playing an Andoran was evil light... much more so than Chelaxian.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Serisan wrote:

Are we talkin' Neutral wishy-washy, Neutral lazy, Neutral a-hole, or Neutral metaphysical-balance? Similarly, are we talkin' Chaotic FREEEEEEDOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!, Chaotic lunatic, Chaotic justice-over-law, Chaotic metaphysical, or Chaotic a-hole?

If you're talking about Chaotic a-hole Neutral a-hole, we can surmise that the character and player are both a-holes because there's 2 a-holes there.

THUNDERLIPS! IS ALWAYS CHAOTIC FREEDOM. THUNDERLIPS! WAS UNAWARE THERE WAS ANY OTHER VARIETY.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Chaotic gnome

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
My Paladin of Rowdrosh has no problem with lawful slavery. He'd be a hypocrite if he did, since his god is "The Divine Herdsman". What is a herd of goats but an enslaved population of a different species? Enslaving debtors or lawfully purchasing a slave is perfectly fine in his eyes.
Additional Resources wrote:

Pathfinder Player Companion: Adventurer's Armory

Only the 2nd printing of this book or the 1st printing augmented by the current errata (released 7/21/11) are legal for play in Pathfinder Society Organized Play.

Everything in this book is legal for play with the following exceptions: a pseudodragon is not legal for purchase unless you're a wizard with the Improved Familiar feat, elephants are never legal for play, and armored kilts are not legal.

Pathfinder Player Companion: Adventurer's Armory, pg 18 wrote:
Slave

Sweet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The problem seems to be that not only do people play CN as evil lite.

But they also believe that LE IS evil lite just by virtue of following the rules. It's easier to 'predict' so it's better. If an LE guy is less prone to backstabbing the good and chaotic party members than a CN guy something is seriously wrong. Backstabbing is supposed to be LEs bread and butter. Within limits sure, but just openly submitting to a paladin or whatever with no intention to put yourself back on top because serves the 'greater purpose' of their Lawful Evil organization is and excuse my language--a b$$!!ass move. LEs are there to dominate or at least make sure whoever they serve does.

And for that CN gets a lot of undeserved hate. So in the end, with this sentiment, we don't end up with more alignments to choose from, but less.

And this is coming from a guy who likes those alignments to bits.

Soon there will be people proudly claiming on this board that they only allow LG because Chaos is bad and Neutral is too close to evil.

51 to 100 of 175 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / The reasoning behind allowing CN but not LE All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.