| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only reason anybody wants to play chaotic neutral or evil characters in a non-evil group is to disrupt the game, that's why those alignments are often banned.
I wish that I too had the power to read the minds of everyone who has ever or will ever do a certain action.
no one ever chooses neutral evil as their alignment... >_>
The only reason anybody wants to play chaotic neutral or evil characters in a non-evil group is to disrupt the game, that's why those alignments are often banned.I wish that I too had the power to read the minds of everyone who has ever or will ever do a certain action.
It's a pretty awesome power to have, I won't lie ;)
this honestly annoys me, CE should be less evil then NE, but players who want to be as evil as possible play CE, and it just stained the alignment.Nope. I disagree. If you have 1 LG, 1 NG, 1 NG... And then a CE... There will be more than friction. I outright ban CE in all of my games. I've never seen it not end in problems and inevitably the CE will back stab his own party.
Causing friction!=not a valued member. These two are very different things.
Oh, totally agreed. I see CE as the most harmless of the evils at the end of the day. There's really no overarching agenda, and pretty much every other alignment besides CN would be against CE, except NE which would probably use CE to further its own goals. That's how ultimately benign it is. I think in one of the CotCT AP write-ups it mentions how neutral evil is probably the worst of the evils, because a devil might want your soul to use for some purpose, so at least you've got your soul. A demon just wants to torture you and eat you. But a daemon (is it DAY-mon or DIE-mon? Or just DEE-mon?) is going to kill you in a really crappy way, like through slow painful plague or starvation or depression, and then it's going to take your soul and delete it.
Totally tangential, but I'm glad there are other people out there that realize CE is just kind of a big dumb barbarian that wants to break your stuff; LE wants to rule you for eternity and NE wants your eternity to suck, just cuz.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, Jayne was valued. Which was why Mal was so infuriated with him. Jayne was part of the crew, and Mal defaulted to caring about his well-being and contribution to the ship and crew just as much as Simon and Kaylee. That doesn't mean that Mal would trust Jayne with the same sorts of tasks, but that's a matter of proper captaining: know what your crew can do, know what they can't do, and delegate what you need done to who can get it done. For example, do not trust Kaylee to stand toe-to-toe with a gun in her hand and expect her not to freeze up.
So when Jayne almost sells Simon and River out, that's the first time he shows that he isn't just a crew member with different strengths and weaknesses but someone who would actively work against a fellow crew member. Prior to that, Mal would've trusted Jayne to still have that priority. He showed he didn't, and went from CE party member who can still contribute to CE party member who couldn't. At which point, Mal was prepared to value him less (space him out the airlock).
Or to use another example, Roy values all members of the Order of the Stick. Including Belkar. He may have to be more intelligent and judicious in deploying that member of the team, but he values having that member of the team on the team.
|
***
So whenever someone thinks Chaotic evil they think acting like a total psychopath without control instead of someone who is probably just selfish and rebellious with little respect for strict protocol.While Chaotic neutral is not just a rebel and a free-thinker, but obviously someone who is raving mad and out of control.
Why do so many people let some bad actors define what alignment are allowed in their campaigns?
Well, Chaotic Evil does describe itself as
If I want something, I take it. Might is right. The strong rule the weak. Respect me or suffer. Fear me. There is only today, and today I take what I need. Anger brings out the best in me. I am the stronger one.
Core Concepts
Anarchy, anger, amorality, brutality, chaos, degeneracy, freedom, profaneness, violenceA chaotic evil character is driven entirely by her own anger and needs. She is thoughtless in her actions and acts on whims, regardless of the suffering it causes others.
In many ways, a chaotic evil character is pinned down by her inherent nature to be unpredictable. She is like a spreading fire, a coming storm, an untested sword blade.
So if you're just "someone who is probably just selfish and rebellious with little respect for strict protocol", you're not Chaotic Evil, you're chaotic neutral. Degeneracy and violence are core components of what being chaotic evil means, which is also why many GMs and scenarios ban its use.
Chaotic neutral on the other hand, should still be a viable choice for an adventurer (if not necessarily a hero), but I have literally never seen someone show up to a table with "Chaotic Neutral" listed as their alignment and play anything other than a raving psychopath or deranged schizophrenic. Literally never. So myself and most GMs I play with usually lump it together right alongside chaotic evil, since the two have always been, in our experience, indistinguishable at the table.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Causing friction!=not a valued member. These two are very different things.No alignment, including chaotic evil, prevents a character from being a valued member of an adventuring party other than the players outside of game.Wrong.
Is your CE character going to commit evil acts? Yes? Is this going to anger the Good party he is traveling with? Yes. So unless your planning to always be restrained into NOT being evil then you ARE going to cause friction. And that is NOT a valued member of the team.
I certainly don't "value" friction.
Some people might value friction within their gaming group. Who are you to tell them otherwise? Also, I think it's a little presumptuous of you to tell someone that their opinion is flat-out wrong. Especially with something as open-ended as alignment and the myriad ways to interpret it. You can disagree with that opinion, but to say it's wrong is overboard.
Also...
The only reason anybody wants to play chaotic neutral or evil characters in a non-evil group is to disrupt the game, that's why those alignments are often banned. Now, if you're playing in an evil campaign with a group of evil PCs, that's perfectly fine. But if that's not the makeup of the campaign or group, then it becomes a huge problem. My advice to the OP: recommend your group try out an evil campaign.
Really? I disagree. I have played an evil character in a group before and never had any intention of disrupting the game. He simply had his own ulterior motives that he completed while traveling with his group. Did he use the adventuring group to his own ends? Heck yes he did! Did those ever cause friction within the party? Nope.
*EDIT*
I will say this. If the GM knows ahead of time that one of the PCs is going to be a paladin, then I would suggest keeping evil off the board. Given the ability to Detect Evil at will means that, eventually, the paladin will figure out one of his companions is "evil". Now, that, will cause friction based solely off the Paladins Code of Associates.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Lawful Good on a party can be just as disruptive as a Chaotic Neutral.
Hell, two Lawful Goods on the same team who have conflicting ideas of "Lawful Good" can be the worst of all.
If one of the Lawful Goods thinks that KILL EVERYONE WHO PINGS AS EVIL PURGE THEM and the other is Lawful Good he might think "Yeah no" and they'll fight about it.
If one of the Lawful Goods thinks that KILL EVERYONE WHO PINGS AS EVIL PURGE THEM and the other is Chaotic Neutral he might think "This guy is going to get himself killed, draw attention to us, and ruin our plans" and they'll fight about it.
If one of the Lawful Goods thinks that "Follow the law, don't eat puppies, and we won't have problems" and the other is Chaotic Neutral, unless he has no sense of self preservation, no motives, and no goals, he'll say "Yeah okay. I should probably not annoy you since we're both on the same side, and as a Chaotic Neutral, I'm looking out for myself and my own interests. If we fight I won't be able to get X. I'll play be your rules because it helps me."
If you're playing an insane sowacky lel character, don't even put an alignment on your sheet. Just write "Insane".
Some people might value friction within their gaming group. Who are you to tell them otherwise? Also, I think it's a little presumptuous of you to tell someone that their opinion is flat-out wrong. Especially with something as open-ended as alignment and the myriad ways to interpret it. You can disagree with that opinion, but to say it's wrong is overboard.Causing friction!=not a valued member. These two are very different things.No alignment, including chaotic evil, prevents a character from being a valued member of an adventuring party other than the players outside of game.Wrong.
Is your CE character going to commit evil acts? Yes? Is this going to anger the Good party he is traveling with? Yes. So unless your planning to always be restrained into NOT being evil then you ARE going to cause friction. And that is NOT a valued member of the team.
I certainly don't "value" friction.
I you had bothered to read everything I said then you would see the qualifier I used. IF you want a cooperative team style game... I wasn't talking to the people who want the group full of personal agendas and lone wolves are welcome. I was talking to the other people, I made that clear. And yes in my context there IS a wrong. If you don't play that way then my experience probably isn't going to help you.
|
|
no one ever chooses neutral evil as their alignment... >_>
Neutral Evil and Lawful Evil are two of the better alignments for adventurers. You don't have the crazy compulsions of chaotic characters, and you don't lose table time arguing about the morality of a mission or what to do with the goblin babies.
Crazy compulsions of chaotic characters? My CG sorceress would vehemently disagree there is nothing crazy about being chaotic.
this honestly annoys me, CE should be less evil then NE
No, LE, NE and CE are equally Evil
The problem is that the CE by behavior is the most likely to backstab the party without a real reason, while with LE is the least likely. (Still can happen)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I you had bothered to read everything I said then you would see the qualifier I used. IF you want a cooperative team style game... I wasn't talking to the people who want the group full of personal agendas and lone wolves are welcome. I was talking to the other people, I made that clear. And yes in my context there IS a wrong. If you don't play that way then my experience probably isn't going to help you.Some people might value friction within their gaming group. Who are you to tell them otherwise? Also, I think it's a little presumptuous of you to tell someone that their opinion is flat-out wrong. Especially with something as open-ended as alignment and the myriad ways to interpret it. You can disagree with that opinion, but to say it's wrong is overboard.Causing friction!=not a valued member. These two are very different things.No alignment, including chaotic evil, prevents a character from being a valued member of an adventuring party other than the players outside of game.Wrong.
Is your CE character going to commit evil acts? Yes? Is this going to anger the Good party he is traveling with? Yes. So unless your planning to always be restrained into NOT being evil then you ARE going to cause friction. And that is NOT a valued member of the team.
I certainly don't "value" friction.
Why do you think that friction prohibits working as a team? It's actually a pretty bizarre position to take. Heck, in how many fictional parties/teams/buddy pairings/etc do you not see friction between group members? Are you saying that in none of these groups the members value each other despite their personal conflicts?
Backstab may even be overstating it. The CE character is the most likely to not want to go along with what everyone else wants to do.
NeGo says "Let's save those orphans, before they get eaten."
ChaEv says "Its their fault for being edible, what's in it for me?" While the monster eats the orphans.
I'll put these experiences of mine out there; hopefully it helps add something to the argument pool.
I've seen Chaotic Neutral being done in a very disjointed fashion; rolling to see what to do, and tossing a coin like Two-face. Usually my players who play this alignment allow their whims to completely decide their actions.
And...that's fair for this alignment; it really just marks the characters level of sanity in regards to the randomizing, but responding to your whims IS chaotic over lawful. I'd say the defining difference is whether the character has ANY conscience at all. Even loyalty to friends, and no one else is enough to separate Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Evil.
I played such a character in Skull and Shackles. I was a Rogue (Unchained), with the Pirate Archetype, and I tried to avoid some of the classic Chaotic Neutral Rogue traps:
1) Stealing from your allies
2) Randomizing your actions
3) Compulsively lying to everyone for no reason.
However, I stole from enemies when the opportunity arose, lied to the drunk and gullible when the opportunity arose, and when the opportunity rose; I'd change my plans wholesale. However, I maintained loyalty to the team, even gave to them when my schemes worked, or they were accidentally victimized.
My point is that opportunity is the lure that guides the Chaotic character; it's being willing to break away from the plan to hedge out something better, but they are still members of the team and that loyalty should be preserved. Otherwise, why adventure together.
I think other CNs played this way could help broaden our opinion of the alignment.
Backstab may even be overstating it. The CE character is the most likely to not want to go along with what everyone else wants to do.
NeGo says "Let's save those orphans, before they get eaten."
ChaEv says "Its their fault for being edible, what's in it for me?" While the monster eats the orphans.
CE might even be considering trying out cannibalism. The monster seems to be enjoying itself, and they're just orphans...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't really call cannibalism innately evil so much as just gross (and yeah, that's a cultural response). Really the "evil" part tends to come in because there is an implication that you are murdering people simply to eat them, but adventurers kill things all day every day for a variety of reasons so that's not really an issue. Your character can totally be a cannibal and not be evil (of course ignoring the moral absolutes the game forces down your throat), but said character should still be smart enough to know that since most people see cannibalism as evil they should be a bit cautious about practicing it on screen. If the player was trying to be all like, "Nah man, since I'm neutral you should all be fine with me grilling this orc leg on the campfire," then that player was an idiot."No, see, my character is allowed to eat that guy because he doesn't see other sentient beings as 'people'! He's not evil. He's True Neutral. I mean, you eat cows. Is that evil?"
Yes, I actually ran into this player. Funny enough, "Please leave this table" solves most problem a lot easier than "Please don't play an evil PC."
Bro, he was trying to kill and eat my character.
Anyways, there is no "Chaotic Evil code of conduct". People need to stop assuming all Chaotic Evil characters are alike.
I'm currently running a Chaotic Evil PC—a sort of "pure adventurer". Sadly, my partymembers are unwilling to play good people, so I don't get to contrast and show some off Corbin's more positive traits very often. That said, Corbin is extremely loyal to her teammates, and would willingly risk death on their accounts. Not because of a code, but because she has intense anxiety associated with being stuck alone and doesn't want to lose these guys.
Is she a bit dickish to NPCs? Yes, but not overtly. She's willing to do some ugly things to accomplish her goals, and certainly to tolerate other people doing worse things. She's also happy to exaggerate dangers to get the questgivers to pay more (she's obsessed with getting gold). If there were good people in the party, she'd be a bit more subtle about it. Would there be some friction? Sure, but in-character friction is good for a D&D game. The alternative tends to lead to extremely boring roleplay where everyone agrees with each other. Friction spurs character development.
Detect evil aside, I believe Corbin could easily coexist with a paladin partymember. She would annoy him sometimes with her spitefulness and greed, but would always hold up her end. And like I said, Corbin will do almost anything to keep from being alone.
Chaotic Evil PCs are fine. The problem is people who don't understand what it means and either play it wrong or ban it for bad reasons.
Why do you think that friction prohibits working as a team? It's actually a pretty bizarre position to take. Heck, in how many fictional parties/teams/buddy pairings/etc do you not see friction between group members? Are you saying that in none of these groups the members value each other despite their personal conflicts?
A team of adventurers set out to find out how to get to Sesame Dungeon. There was one issue along the way where the paladin thought the other paladin took his stuffed bear, but it turned out a monkey had it, and the monkey was very sorry.
In the end, they learn that the treasure in Sesame Dungeon was the friends they made along the way.
That's the problem though. For a CE to function in the party they have to have a constant excuse for doing good. Which is basically like having a code, just with different flavor. If a CE doesn't have that excuse, then it won't work very well.
|
|
Crazy compulsions of chaotic characters? My CG sorceress would vehemently disagree there is nothing crazy about being chaotic.
Sure there is. Even the description of chaotic good notes that its hallmarks include things like reckless benevolence or making irrational decisions like giving money to a beggar because you think he has kind eyes instead of an established charity, with no reason or research beyond that. The descriptions in the books of the chaotic alignments make it clear that hallmark of something being chaotic is irrationality. Sure, Robin Hood was a nice guy, but he was also an ignorant twit who made life worse for the people he was supposedly helping in pretty much every rendition of the story. "Here's some alms for the poor friar! No need to thank me for getting half the town imprisoned and separating men from their families, just doing what I think is right!"
These discussions always remind me that there is a Chaotic Good racist deity of tradition. So alignment is a pretty vague thing.
Pls, Robin Hood actually was LG and working to end the rule of the usurper king and his sheriff.
He didn't even break the Paladin Code as the authority he was fighting against wasn't legitimate and he was loyal to King Richard I of England that was the rightful King
Pls, Robin Hood actually was LG and working to end the rule of the usurper king and his sheriff.
He didn't even break the Paladin Code as the authority he was fighting against wasn't legitimate and he was loyal to King Richard I of England that was the rightful King
That would depend on the version. There were certainly versions that went more chaotic.
That would depend on the version. There were certainly versions that went more chaotic.
I will stick to my "Robin Hood was a Divine Hunter Paladin" headcanon
That's the problem though. For a CE to function in the party they have to have a constant excuse for doing good. Which is basically like having a code, just with different flavor. If a CE doesn't have that excuse, then it won't work very well.
Every partymember needs an "excuse" for doing good. Too often I see non-evil PCs just using their alignment as a reason and not really thinking it out. Why does my cleric of Shelyn feel this is the best application of her talents? Why does my druid feel he's the best candidate to save the mayor's kid from hill giants? It shouldn't just be, "Oh, gee, I guess I'm helping because that's the direction this campaign is going in. I mean, I'm Good, so I guess I want to do hero stuff."
We should always have a real reason why the party has gotten together. Otherwise, alignment is a crutch. At least evil PCs challenge you to really flesh them out.
These discussions always remind me that there is a Chaotic Good racist deity of tradition. So alignment is a pretty vague thing.
And Gorum is Chaotic Neutral. Golarion's gods are kind of in another ballpark. I think they just declare their alignment and, who's gonna argue with them, right?
Gorum is the god of "duking it out for the sake of it" so to me CN seems fitting.
Except he's actually the god of "war for the sake of it".
Except he's actually the god of "war for the sake of it".
Sounds chaotic neutral to me. War is almost never considered evil in fantasy.
...IIIII'm not going to derail this discussion any further.
...IIIII'm not going to derail this discussion any further.
The title of this thread is literally called "Rant on Alignment Bans". If you don't derail it, someone else will.
Bro, he was trying to kill and eat my character.
Clearly you were the problem player. Come on man, take on for the team. People gotta eat (human flesh).
Bro, he was trying to kill and eat my character.Clearly you were the problem player. Come on man, take on for the team. People gotta eat (human flesh).
Although it would at least be courteous for the other guy to pick up a scroll of Regeneration before hand.
Heck, with that they could cut themselves seconds and thirds for later.
a lot of people still misjudging chaos as just dumb people who can't hold any kind of consistency. *sigh*
chaos is specifically described as innovative among other positive terms, it's not an alignment that means you're going to be horrible as a person.
Sure there is. Even the description of chaotic good notes that its hallmarks include things like reckless benevolence or making irrational decisions like giving money to a beggar because you think he has kind eyes instead of an established charity, with no reason or research beyond that. The descriptions in the books of the chaotic alignments make it clear that hallmark of something being chaotic is irrationality. Sure, Robin Hood was a nice guy, but he was also an ignorant twit who made life worse for the people he was supposedly helping in pretty much every rendition of the story. "Here's some alms for the poor friar! No need to thank me for getting half the town imprisoned and separating men from their families, just doing what I think is right!"Crazy compulsions of chaotic characters? My CG sorceress would vehemently disagree there is nothing crazy about being chaotic.
Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
*UGH*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...IIIII'm not going to derail this discussion any further.
If we'll talk about the disparity between Nethys and Gorum are you going to index it?
|
War is almost never considered evil in fantasy.Then that's a problem. "War is organized murder. And nothing more."
You're both ignoring the sides. Whether or not it's considered evil relies *heavily* on whether you're the offender or the defender. And whether it's murder *also* depends on whether you're the killer or the self-defender.
I would not say that the people defending Helm's Deep were Evil murderers.
The thing is, Tolkien is only one style of fantasy. And really, his "(almost) no moral grays" style should not be conflated with the style of fantasy. Fantasy has no moral suppositions one way or the other. He just liked a simplistic moral system, and also liked fantasy.
A war against Sauron? Good versus evil, sure. But a war against the Starks? A lot more complicated, I think we can all agree. And ultimately, while I hesitate to call the soldiers themselves evil, someone who deliberately encourages the war, just for its own sake, is without doubt an evil person. Golarion's gods just have some kind of weird exceptions, perhaps by clerical necessity.
Take Galt, for instance. I'm sure Gorum really gets a kick out of Galt.
no one ever chooses neutral evil as their alignment... >_>I do. Almost every time I'm allowed to. NE is the best alignment.
This man has the right attitude.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fantasy rarely has modern politics. On the rare occasions that it does, things can get complicated, of course, but I've seen that happen in 30 years of gaming exactly zero times.
"modern" politics doesn't even hold a candle to Holy roman empire legalistic warfare.
There's really nothing complicated about the premise: if you try to kill someone who isn't actively harming you (starting a war), you're Evil. If you try to defend yourself against someone who initiated aggression upon you, that does not make you Evil (although you may be for other reasons).
Starting the war maybe, but what about the soldiers doing the actual fighting?
I always viewed soldiers as lawful neutral.