As a DM I am generally opposed to chaotic neutral alignments, for a few reasons. I just see that it reduces role playing, and creates characters that have no motivation. Additionally, they will end up hiding from the law and actually end up becoming the bad guys. However, I was wondering what you guys thought? What do you do about Chaotic Neutral or such?
I guess your right,ill play chaotics, but i want it to be well integrated. I guess I'm trying to say that they can do whatever they want cause chaotic neutral. I'm saying what I've seen, but I'm not saying its impossible to do well. Additionally, They seem to completely destroy the existence of Lawful Good characters, which I see as invaluable in the setting.
Ignore alignment, focus on character motivations. Bad characters exist in every alignment. Better off just encouraging your players to develop genuine character motivations.
True, I just don't like to see it used to dismiss anything a character ever does that could be out of character. Thanks for the advice
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Chaotic Neutral has gotten a bad reputation because:
- Chaotic Evil players enjoy using Chaotic Neutral as a way to play re-branded Chaotic Evil (sometimes insane as well);
- in most (all?) D&D/PF editions, Chaotic Neutral has been confused with Chaotic Evil, often associated with insanity (for recent examples, look at the Great Old Ones/Outer Gods and Groetus).
For an example of a true Chaotic Neutral character concept, see Deadpool (great movie, too).
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh look, it's this can of worms again.
You're not opposed to Chaotic Neutral, Batlin. You're opposed to Chaotic Stupid. As are 99% of GMs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd also venture that most problems that people chalk up to CN are actually rooted in the player, not the character. At face-value it only means that a character strongly dislikes working within the law and has no strong leanings towards good or evil. Lawful Stupid can be just as problematic.
Ignore alignment, focus on character motivations. Bad characters exist in every alignment. Better off just encouraging your players to develop genuine character motivations.
Or this. Alignment is a silly system.
Oh look, it's this can of worms again.
You're not opposed to Chaotic Neutral, Batlin. You're opposed to Chaotic Stupid. As are 99% of GMs.
You're very right. I'm not opposed to the alignment itself, but I've seen how it is abused and I've been a little burned out by charchters just becoming a slate for random action.
I'd also venture that most problems that people chalk up to CN are actually rooted in the player, not the character. At face-value it only means that a character strongly dislikes working within the law and has no strong leanings towards good or evil. Lawful Stupid can be just as problematic.
Or this. Alignment is a silly system.
I think it is a little binding, but I find it necessary to a point. I don't like to over stress it as a DM, but I enjoy when players use it to help guide their actions and their character.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, when CN is being played "correctly", it's in the hands of someone who values freedom above everything else, and has no use for societal regulations. Such a character may very easily prefer the company of good characters and be incredibly loyal to them, despite not placing much personal value on advancing the causes of Good. Such a character may be selfish or even narcissistic, but not typically at the cost of another person's well-being. Jack Sparrow is actually a really good example of this, now that Val mentions it. Most fey are CN for similar reasons - they just value freedom above everything else, and don't really "get" morality, or why someone would be upset by being the target of a prank that resulted in them being turned into a frog temporarily. "It was just a JOKE, it's not like I would have left you like that. Jeez."
What CN isn't (and is frequently confused for):
1) CN is not Chaotic Evil. I can't *STAND* players that insist on playing CN as CE and refusing to accept that they're playing an evil character. This is probably the #1 cause of CN getting a bad name.
2) CN is not insane. Insane people can be CN, but they can just as easily be LG. People playing CN as totally destructive, random, and bonkers is not CN. And it's probably CE most of the time. This is probably the #2 cause of CN getting a bad name.
In short, CN isn't very dissimilar from Neutral, there's just a bigger emphasis on personal freedom.
EDIT: Ninja'd like a BOSS.
I think it is a little binding, but I find it necessary to a point. I don't like to over stress it as a DM, but I enjoy when players use it to help guide their actions and their character.I'd also venture that most problems that people chalk up to CN are actually rooted in the player, not the character. At face-value it only means that a character strongly dislikes working within the law and has no strong leanings towards good or evil. Lawful Stupid can be just as problematic.
Or this. Alignment is a silly system.
It's just not a good representation of morals or motivation. It also seems to cause way, way more problems than it's worth.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, and players tend to play it because they quote "Can't have any fun as a lawful good". However, whenever I have played as a lawful good i had an opposite experience. Being LG led to new opportunities, credit, fame, and respect. However an LG character doesn't have to be Lawful Hardass (pegging people for jaywalking). Superman is a great example of an LG that would have fun without being a Stickler.
It's just not a good representation of morals or motivation. It also seems to cause way, way more problems than it's worth.I think it is a little binding, but I find it necessary to a point. I don't like to over stress it as a DM, but I enjoy when players use it to help guide their actions and their character.I'd also venture that most problems that people chalk up to CN are actually rooted in the player, not the character. At face-value it only means that a character strongly dislikes working within the law and has no strong leanings towards good or evil. Lawful Stupid can be just as problematic.
Or this. Alignment is a silly system.
In the end you're probably right.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, and cowards. Cowards make surprisingly good CN characters. In fact, in many cases, their cowardice is the thing that separates or keeps them from being CG.
They may value Good and appreciate Good, and even *want* to advance the cause of Good, but their self-preservation kicks in and they book it or fold at the first sign of trouble.
It *can* be an interesting premise for a character when played correctly, particularly a character who is striving to become CG as a character development goal, and provided the player behind the steering wheel is going to do it in ways that still contribute (in hopefully hilarious ways) to party conflicts.
We had a character many years ago who was played just this way; very much a fish out of water who didn't *want* to be a great hero on an adventure, but that was the hand fate had dealt to him. He was a pickpocket that stole an adventurer's enchanted sword only to find out it was a CG intelligent weapon that decided it was going to teach this boy a lesson. The player used the sword as a prop, essentially, to force him into combat. Being intelligent, the sword denied access to most of its (quite potent) abilities.
As the character leveled, I leveled the sword (removing equivalent values of treasure from adventures, with the sword requiring the PC to accept a smaller share of party treasure - basically, he got nothing for free, and the sword was always accounted for.)
The party and the player LOVED it and their cowardly Rogue.
Oh, and cowards. Cowards make surprisingly good CN characters. In fact, in many cases, their cowardice is the thing that separates or keeps them from being CG.
They may value Good and appreciate Good, and even *want* to advance the cause of Good, but their self-preservation kicks in and they book it or fold at the first sign of trouble.
It *can* be an interesting premise for a character when played correctly, particularly a character who is striving to become CG as a character development goal, and provided the player behind the steering wheel is going to do it in ways that still contribute (in hopefully hilarious ways) to party conflicts.
We had a character many years ago who was played just this way; very much a fish out of water who didn't *want* to be a great hero on an adventure, but that was the hand fate had dealt to him. He was a pickpocket that stole an adventurer's enchanted sword only to find out it was a CG intelligent weapon that decided it was going to teach this boy a lesson. The player used the sword as a prop, essentially, to force him into combat. Being intelligent, the sword denied access to most of its (quite potent) abilities.
As the character leveled, I leveled the sword (removing equivalent values of treasure from adventures, with the sword requiring the PC to accept a smaller share of party treasure - basically, he got nothing for free, and the sword was always accounted for.)
The party and the player LOVED it and their cowardly Rogue.
Good idea, i like that. Having a cowardly character play as CN would be good, although i see them as more straight neutral. However, I like the way that could be incorporated.
Oh, and cowards. Cowards make surprisingly good CN characters. In fact, in many cases, their cowardice is the thing that separates or keeps them from being CG.
They may value Good and appreciate Good, and even *want* to advance the cause of Good, but their self-preservation kicks in and they book it or fold at the first sign of trouble.
It *can* be an interesting premise for a character when played correctly, particularly a character who is striving to become CG as a character development goal, and provided the player behind the steering wheel is going to do it in ways that still contribute (in hopefully hilarious ways) to party conflicts.
We had a character many years ago who was played just this way; very much a fish out of water who didn't *want* to be a great hero on an adventure, but that was the hand fate had dealt to him. He was a pickpocket that stole an adventurer's enchanted sword only to find out it was a CG intelligent weapon that decided it was going to teach this boy a lesson. The player used the sword as a prop, essentially, to force him into combat. Being intelligent, the sword denied access to most of its (quite potent) abilities.
As the character leveled, I leveled the sword (removing equivalent values of treasure from adventures, with the sword requiring the PC to accept a smaller share of party treasure - basically, he got nothing for free, and the sword was always accounted for.)
The party and the player LOVED it and their cowardly Rogue.
Sounds like a fun story, yeah. Glad to hear it turned out well.
I'd say watch it carefully and make sure players aren't going out of line, but it's still doable. I personally like seeing my CN barbarian interact with our LN cleric, both the few arguments they've had and a few interesting theological discussions comparing their patron deities.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had a very successful CN inquisitor of Desna. He valued freedom and travel and overall peace. He even gave enemies a chance to surrender on occasion (he was trying to swing himself more towards CG). On the other hand, he reveled in the carnage and destruction that goes along with adventuring. He could never stay in town for long, he'd grow too antsy, so it was gleefully on/back to the enemy lair for more pick murder... I mean saving the world.
|
You could try using the Unchained Loyalties system for PCs, but make GM calls as to what is reasonable or not (like not being Loyal to the concepts of Justice and Injustice at the same time). And forbid obviously evil loyalties and characters (GM has final word) when you want to ban Evil alignments. You can even preserve existing alignment mechanics by keeping regular alignment for NPCs (for things like Detect Evil) and make GM calls as to what each character would detect as if that ever comes up (you probably wouldn't even have to tell the players what they detect as).
CN is very misunderstood by both players and GMs. Chaotic doesn't mean crazy and neutral certainly doesn't mean evil.
I guess in the end it depends on how you and your players interpret and play it.
Having said that, I'm not a fan of alignment.
Well i usually play either CG or CN myself, depending on the origins of the PC and such.
Never had much problem with it mostly depends on how you run your PC more than how you name it in your sheet.
Currently playing a CG that has far more conflict than my CN :P actually, mostly i believe in going a long, long way to attempt to redeem "great" evils and turn to good, so they become "great" good forces, issue being the warpriest NG of the party thinks we should just destroy them as soon as we find them to avoid them causing more damage and so on haha. My PC is mostly based on CHA and diplomacy, his on STR and bashing heads heh.
If this PC was still CN, which he started being, there would be no conflict at all since he pretty much only cared on gathering money, power and increasing his fame while doing adventures, saving or killing would have been just fine as long as he could get to the bosses loot and people to know he did it.
My own personal viewpoint of CN vs TN vs LN is that of passive vs active.
A TN character is one that aspires towards the middle ground and does it in active manner, deliberately trying to find the middle path in everything they do. Hence an active approach.
However, a CN character is one who still aspires towards the middle ground but believes that this is achieved as an average of ones actions. They accept that they will commit deeds across the full alignment spectrum but these are not decided in any planned fashion. This is the law of chaos and hence a passive approach.
A LN character is similar to above except that they always look to 'balance the books' as they go along. A week spent curing disease and feeding the homeless demands a week of burglary and thuggery. This is the law of neutrality and thus active.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
My own personal viewpoint of CN vs TN vs LN is that of passive vs active.
A TN character is one that aspires towards the middle ground and does it in active manner, deliberately trying to find the middle path in everything they do. Hence an active approach.
However, a CN character is one who still aspires towards the middle ground but believes that this is achieved as an average of ones actions. They accept that they will commit deeds across the full alignment spectrum but these are not decided in any planned fashion. This is the law of chaos and hence a passive approach.
A LN character is similar to above except that they always look to 'balance the books' as they go along. A week spent curing disease and feeding the homeless demands a week of burglary and thuggery. This is the law of neutrality and thus active.
I don't like that idea very much. No, I'll be blunter -- I think that description pretty much epitomizes many of the issues that I have with (really bad interpretations of) "neutral" as an alignment.
1) The idea that CN means the inability to plan is basically a restatement in more technical language of the idea that "chaotic neutral must be crazy." (In particular, the inability to plan is a sign of both executive function disorder and ADHD.) Deadpool, mentioned above as a CN archetype, is actually very good at planning, and so is Jack Sparrow. They simply don't care much about social norms when they make their plans, and they tend to rely on their own capacities. A chaotic neutral person would have no issues with a detailed, complex plan, but it would probably rely almost entirely on their own capacity (possibly because they're the only ones they themselves can trust to carry it through).
2) The idea that LN means that you have to balance out the amount of good that you do with the amount of bad that you do --- "oh, I threw a brick through that window; now I have to go wash dishes at a soup kitchen for three hours...." -- is simply silly. A lawful neutral person simply believes that principles and social norms must be obeyed because they are principles and social norms, irrespective of whether they help someone or hurt someone. Burglary and thuggery are probably still bad because they are against the law, and if feeding the homeless were against the law (health code regulations, perhaps?), they'd refrain from that as well.
Aside from the mathematical impracticality of this idea -- how many hours of dishwashing equate to one brick, or as theologians have pondered for centuries, "how many teeth for an eye?" -- this simply isn't how anyone behaves.
3) The idea that TN is in search of the middle ground in everything is less implausible, but it really doesn't work outside of Le Guin's Earthsea novels, which deliberately impose Equilibrium on the universe as a state of being. Ironically, enough, "seek the middle ground in everything" is closer to a guiding principle for lawful neutral, as Le Guin herself would probably acknowledge in her writing; the ethos of her books is deliberately set up as a Taoist counterpoint to traditional Christian fantasy (e.g. Tolkien and Lewis). But as such, that's a behavior that would be expected from a traditional Asian monastic order (whether Taoist, Buddhist, or one of the less well-known traditional religions), as it explicitly puts principle ahead of everything else, including social good, personal benefit, and above all, freedom of choice. A chaotic philosophy would be much more "do what thou wilt."
{. . .} Deadpool, mentioned above as a CN archetype, is actually very good at planning {. . .}
Except that he keeps forgetting a major part of his weapons/ammunition when traveling to a fight . . . :-)
But he does plan by packing it, even if he forgets it. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But he does plan by packing it, even if he forgets it. :-)
Yeah, the ability to plan doesn't prevent making mistakes. (Especially studio-dictated mistakes due to budget cuts.) If you look at how carefully he scoped out his plan for tracking down the BBEG, that's not the sort of thing that just happens randomly.
A LN character is similar to above except that they always look to 'balance the books' as they go along. A week spent curing disease and feeding the homeless demands a week of burglary and thuggery. This is the law of neutrality and thus active.
Couldn't disagree more.
The LN you described above actually is closer to the (also misguided) description of True Neutral found in 2nd edition, where the party druid was likely to join a band of gnolls if the party outnumbered/overpowered them in order to "maintain the balance." (What? So glad they fixed that nonsense.)
No, an alignment with a Neutral aspect is simply solely focused on the one alignment component that they do have.
In the case of Lawful Neutral, that means pure, rigid, unbending adherence to the law. LN is the RAW Rules-Lawyer of the alignments: "I don't CARE if it makes no sense or makes the ability worthless/unusable, this is the Rules Forum, and that's how it's worded!"
Look at the Inevitables (the LN outsiders) or the Hellknights. Strict, draconian adherence to law - Law as its own morality. That's Lawful Neutral. If you're familiar with the MtG Ravnica setting, the Azorius guild is another excellent LN organization.
The same can be said for CN, NG, and NE. Neutral Evil is often the "playable" evil alignment because it's evil without an agenda; usually just selfish, self-serving, and opportunistic. Opportunistic enough that it's easy to see that the best path to success isn't to be fighting against the heroes, but to be fighting with them. Neutral Good is charitable and kind: again, good without an agenda. No concern about advancing the law or feeling bound by tradition, but not feeling the need to tear it down or feeling shackled by it, either. CN can be pure joy and fun. Freedom, liberation, exploration for its own sake. And so on ;)
Sorry, hope that didn't come across as too preachy, but LN in particular tends to be one of my favorite alignments.
But he does plan by packing it, even if he forgets it. :-)Yeah, the ability to plan doesn't prevent making mistakes. (Especially studio-dictated mistakes due to budget cuts.) If you look at how carefully he scoped out his plan for tracking down the BBEG, that's not the sort of thing that just happens randomly.
This s@%#'s gonna have nuts in it!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me, the CN characters are neutral in that they’re not going to go out of their way to help random people or hurt people they care about but they’re chaotic in that they don’t really care about honor, integrity, or fairness. A CN person will have no compulsions about lying, cheating, using drugs, having promiscuous sex, or whatnot in the pursuit of their other goals. A CN person isn’t random or insane.
I don't like that idea very much. No, I'll be blunter -- I think that description pretty much epitomizes many of the issues that I have with (really bad interpretations of) "neutral" as an alignment.
Allow me to clarify my points slightly....apols if I didnt communicate them properly.
I dont mean that a CN character is incapable of planning, merely that you dont pay much attention to whether each deed is 'good', 'bad' or 'somewhere in between'. Your personality makes you likely to carry out any of them at any time... hence over time, the average ends up being somewhere in the middle. A bell-shaped curve if you like. You consider yourself a balanced individual but it isnt something that youre considering everytime you make a decision. Hence the chaotic... but hence the neutral.
A LN character on the other other hand is following a code... hence the lawful. They ARE actively paying attention to the nature of what they are doing... as a lawful person you have to be. You are actively seeking the middle ground but understand the necessity of straying to the left or the right when needed as long as the overall focus remains on the middle. This contrasts with a TN character who is always actively seeking the middle ground in everything they do.
My 2 cents....
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me, the CN characters are neutral in that they’re not going to go out of their way to help random people or hurt people they care about but they’re chaotic in that they don’t really care about honor, integrity, or fairness. A CN person will have no compulsions about lying, cheating, using drugs, having promiscuous sex, or whatnot in the pursuit of their other goals. A CN person isn’t random or insane.
Lying and cheating, for me, start to get into a gray area, because they hurt other people. (Yes, there are non-physical injuries.) Swindling an old lady out of her life savings is, to me, no less evil than burglarizing her house and stealing everything portable or kidnapping her granddaughter and holding her to ransom. Of course, lying in response to a question that a person has no right or business to ask is another thing entirely; if a nosy cop wants to know where a CN person was last Wednesday night, it's easy to say that no one is hurt if you tell her something different, or nothing at all.
I had a friend back in school who would shoplift quite a bit, but made a point (for ethical reasons) of shoplifting only from large chain stores. Her reasoning was that small ma-and-pa stores were operating on tiny little profit margins and couldn't actually absorb the loss, but that Wal*Mart and Target were either insured, or effectively self-insured by setting some of their great wodges of cash against stock shrinkage.
That, to me, is very chaotic neutral. A lawful person wouldn't have stolen anything in the first place. An evil person wouldn't have cared whether the shopowner was hurt. And a chaotic good person might have stolen, but only in a very good cause that would benefit others besides herself.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A LN character on the other other hand is following a code... hence the lawful. They ARE actively paying attention to the nature of what they are doing... as a lawful person you have to be. You are actively seeking the middle ground but understand the necessity of straying to the left or the right when needed as long as the overall focus remains on the middle. This contrasts with a TN character who is always actively seeking the middle ground in everything they do.
But nothing about code-following says that you need to balance out the good with the evil. Following the code means you do what the code tells you to do, irrespective of whether it's good, evil or simply silly.
If the law says you can't drink or sell soda water on Sundays, you don't drink or sell soda water on Sundays. (Yes, this is actually the historic origin of the ice cream sundae; it's an ice cream soda without the soda.) Is that a "good" action? Is that an "evil" action? It doesn't matter -- it's what the law says you do, so you do it.
"Actively seeking out middle ground" is basically nonsense outside of Earthsea; even the monasteries on Wudang Mountain teach their monks that they should strive to make sure that goodness triumphs; there is no idea that because you refrained from killing someone yesterday, you should make a point of killing someone tomorrow. That would be horrifying -- and, in fact, evil.
"Actively seeking out middle ground" is basically nonsense
Please refrain from using such language in what is essentially a friendly opinion based discussion... or consider yourself reported!
I'm no expert but I'm fairly confident making an exaggeration isn't a violation of the community guideline.
Imminent thread derail.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A LN character is similar to above except that they always look to 'balance the books' as they go along. A week spent curing disease and feeding the homeless demands a week of burglary and thuggery. This is the law of neutrality and thus active.Couldn't disagree more.
The LN you described above actually is closer to the (also misguided) description of True Neutral found in 2nd edition, where the party druid was likely to join a band of gnolls if the party outnumbered/overpowered them in order to "maintain the balance." (What? So glad they fixed that nonsense.)
No, an alignment with a Neutral aspect is simply solely focused on the one alignment component that they do have.
In the case of Lawful Neutral, that means pure, rigid, unbending adherence to the law. LN is the RAW Rules-Lawyer of the alignments: "I don't CARE if it makes no sense or makes the ability worthless/unusable, this is the Rules Forum, and that's how it's worded!"
Look at the Inevitables (the LN outsiders) or the Hellknights. Strict, draconian adherence to law - Law as its own morality. That's Lawful Neutral. If you're familiar with the MtG Ravnica setting, the Azorius guild is another excellent LN organization.
The same can be said for CN, NG, and NE. Neutral Evil is often the "playable" evil alignment because it's evil without an agenda; usually just selfish, self-serving, and opportunistic. Opportunistic enough that it's easy to see that the best path to success isn't to be fighting against the heroes, but to be fighting with them. Neutral Good is charitable and kind: again, good without an agenda. No concern about advancing the law or feeling bound by tradition, but not feeling the need to tear it down or feeling shackled by it, either. CN can be pure joy and fun. Freedom, liberation, exploration for its own sake. And so on ;)
Sorry, hope that didn't come across as too preachy, but LN in particular tends to be one of my favorite alignments.
One good example of An LN would be the character of Javert. HE always obeys the rules, laws and codes, and has no concept of mercy over justice, and the fact that people can change. Even if the law is unfair, he follows it to the lettr, and gladly enforces it
Chaotic Neutral does not mean a character lacks motivation or the ability to plan. Their actions may seem random, and may cause others to frequently facepalm, but to the character they should make sense.
The problem is, far too many players write down chaotic neutral when what they mean is chaotic evil.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm no expert but I'm fairly confident making an exaggeration isn't a violation of the community guideline.
I didn't realize I was exaggerating; I thought I was classifying. If you want an opinion expressed in more parliamentary language, "preserve the balance" as a philosophical stance is both incoherent and ill-founded.
When we're talking about morals and ethics, we are fundamentally talking about motivations, because motivations both drive and color behavior. (For example, adopting a free-to-good-home kitten may be a good or an evil act, depending upon whether I intend to make a pet of it, or feed it to my snake. One act, two different motivations, and two different ethical judgements.)
D&D and its descendants broadly recognize four different (but nonexclusive) motivations for doing an act:
* Because it will help others
* Because it will help me
* Because I am expected to
* Because I want to
These should be immediately recognizable as Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos, respectively. A person who is lawful good tries, as far as possible, to do the things she is expected to do that will benefit society; a person who is lawful neutral (Javert was mentioned) tries to do what society expects, irrespective of whether it helps or hurts others. A person like Robin Hood tries to do what will help others because he wants to, even if society says "no," and so forth.
The problem is that "preserve the balance" or "maintain equilibrium" or however you want to phrase it, is not itself a motivation, but a description of a pattern of action. Why should I maintain the balance?
Taoism, which is probably the closest major religion to Balance-worship in the real world, suggests that by following the Tao one will help both society and the practitioner. (From the Tao Te Ching, "If we could renounce our sageness and discard our wisdom, it would be better for the people a hundredfold. If we could renounce our benevolence and discard our righteousness, the people would again become filial and kindly." -- that is to say, abandoning an explicit quest for Goodness will implicitly produce more good for society as a whole. Or, if you want it in an epigram, you will find it only by not looking for it.)
The Equilibrium in Earthsea is similar; it benefits society to be preserved. (From A Wizard of Earthsea, "[T]hat which gives us the power to work magic sets the limits of that power. [...] If it were not so, the wickedness of the powerful or the folly of the wise would long ago have sought to change what cannot be changed, and Equilibrium would fail. The unbalanced sea would overwhelm the islands where we perilously dwell, and in the old silence all voices and names would be lost.") The balance is to be preserved not for itself, but because life itself depends on its preservation. By preserving the balance, wizards are actually acting for Good, as with the Taoist beliefs.
But why -- to use Gygax's discredited example -- are TN druids expected mindfully to preserve the balance, even to the point of betraying the party when they become too powerful? It's not because the druidic order expects it (that would be lawful neutral), nor because it makes the world a better place (that would be neutral good). There's not really an answer to the question "why should the balance be preserved" that doesn't fit into one of the four categories above.
In general, the solution to true neutral is to eliminate the world "mindfully" from the paragraph above. In their natural state, many if not most people don't actually think deeply about the philosophical consequences of their actions. The cows need milking, the crops need to be harvested, and someone needs to patch the hole in the roof, and it doesn't matter if I patch the hole because I don't want to get rained on or I don't want my family to get rained on. True neutral is easily explained as a form of selfish mindlessness, where I do what I need to preserve myself, do what society wants to protect myself from repercussions, and cut corners where I can.
But that's not "preserving the balance."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
99% of the problems I've had with CNs are in games where we couldn't play Evil characters so someone made a CN as a "work around" (and was evil anyway) or did it intentionally to be disruptive.
Agreed,... while noting that those are two separate motivations.
There are some people who want to engage in sociopathy by proxy, having their fantasy avatar do things that would get them arrested and imprisoned if they did them in the real world. (Yeah, my character is a Mafia assassin.)
There are also some people who like disrupting the actual game itself by keeping the other people at the table from being able to do anything useful or have any fun. (Yeah, I just want to see how long we can play before Ted says "the hell with it, rocks fall, everyone dies.")
I've played with both types. I'm not impressed by either.
{. . .}
The problem is, far too many players write down chaotic neutral when what they is chaotic evil.
Fixed that for you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...And I've played a Chaotic Neutral character who actively supported the party, didn't engage in random evil acts against innocents, and mostly just wanted the opportunity to study and spread their faith without being accosted for it. XD It's not like the alignment can't be done in a way that works at the table, it's just... some people don't want to play nice with the rest of their group.
{. . .}
The problem is, far too many players write down chaotic neutral when what they are is chaotic evil.Fixed that for you.
Not really. The players themselves may not be chaotic evil, but the characters are. I think the original phrasing was more correct.
^If you met the players I met and have in mind, I think you'd change your mind . . . .
^If you met the players I have in mind, I think you'd change your mind . . . .
Fair enough. Which, of course, raises the question about why you game with them....