Post/Author/DateTime	Post
SailorNash 11-01-03, 02:47 AM	My DM and I had a bit of a disagreement not too long ago. Basically, I was playing a CN character and finally decided to change to being CG. It was one of my goals for him since level one, and due to the recent events in-game I felt as if I was justified in doing so. However, not two sessions after I changed to CG, the DM gives me a warning saying that I'm pretty close to being NE. Not just a friendly out-of-game reminder, but apparently it's bad enough in his eyes for the NPC's to be reacting to me differently. That makes it real important, as you can definitely understand. But, as we all know, the DM makes the rules and that's all that matters. I told him that I'd come here and try to read up on the allignment discussions that the IDRP board has always been famous for (despite my character not being a Paladin), and I've still not seen much of anything that really applies to my character. So, what I wanted to ask each of you is for your help. Please try to describe the two alignments of Chaotic Neutral and Neutral Evil as best you can. Give examples if at all possible. Try to show me the difference between the two. In my opinion, it shouldn't be hard as it is a two-step alignment shift. (I must really be missing something fundamental if I honestly think I'm playing a Chaotic Good character and the DM warn me about how he's about to change me to being Neutral Evil...) I would ask for Chaotic Good examples instead, because that is what both I and the rest of the party believes that I am playing. But if the DM wants to believe that I haven't made quite enough progress to shift from CN to CG, I can live with that. I just do not want my character to take two steps backwards. Instead of asking for CG, I'll ask about CN in order to give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm not going to list all of the things my character thinks or does or believes in, cause that would take up several pages. If you all have specific questions, however, I will do my best to answer them. I don't want anyone to claim I was giving you guys only one-half of the story or anything. In order to keep my own bias to a minimum, I think the fairest way would be to see what everyone else thinks, and then see which of the two my character is the most like. My theory is that the DM is associating Law with Good and Chaos with Evil, whereas I personally see it more like the Law/Chaos axis as the means and the Good/Evil axis as the end. My character, as a Barbarian, is definitely Chaotic and maybe that's what the DM doesn't like. From listening to the him, it sounded like he wanted me to start playing a Lawful character for some reason. Also, it seemed to me that he was suggesting that I try to suppress my emotions and not let them show. Since my character is a Barbarian (loosely based after Tasuki, for the anime fans out there that have seen Fushigi Yuugi), being as cold an calculating and emotionless as a Vulcan is just not right. I've already re-read the PHB several times. I've taken several online alignment quizzes answering as Artemis would answer, and each one lists him as being either CG or sometimes CN. The other players all agree that I was playing either CG or CN with strong Good tendencies. (I made sure to ask the one player who missed the session where the DM and I got into the argument for an unbiased opinion, as he was not there for the argument. He also said in his opinion I was playing a CG character). The only place I have left to go is here. Please, if anyone can help to explain Neutral Evil and Chaotic Neutral to me, I would greatly appreciate it. I'm pretty sure I'm right, but I wanted to see what a dozen or so other DM's had to say about their opinions on allignment. Thanks in advance.
Fridwulf 11-01-03, 04:24 AM	Here's my look on things: I see NE as a cold, unemotional alignment. A NE will have an "I don't give a damn"-attitude towards anyone he may hurt, as he's only interested in numero uno. He won't go as far as wiping out whole villages for the fun of it, but if he has to kill, he will do so without mercy or regret. A NE is quite concerned with self-preservation, so he'll cover his own ***** as much as he can, working behind the scene whenever possible. For me, examples of NE characters include merchants who rip off customers, evade taxes, harass and even kill competitors, bribe officials, etc. They will do everything to get rich, sparing no one, but will protect themselfs from getting busted. CN characters will do as they damn well please, abiding to no law or rule except their own. However, they will not willingly put anyone in harm's way. He's an individualist, not interested in helping or hurting others, somewhat of an anarchist perhaps. CN characters won't stop to help someone with a broken wagon axle, since they're more interested in reaching town before nightfall. He's a character who may help someone out because he feels like it, only to drop out in the middle of the process because he's getting bored. In television series you often see people who sold information to the enemy for money, and it always ends up with "but you promised no-one would get hurt!" This is a CN character: interested in himself, not too concerned with the consequences, but not keen on death and destruction. Hope this helps. :)
nick012000 11-01-03, 06:32 AM	For CN, see also Planescape's Xaositects (http://www.planewalker.com/index.php?secID=14&subID=30&artID=56)
SailorNash 11-01-03, 06:48 PM	Originally posted by Fridwulf I see NE as a cold, unemotional alignment. <snip> ::chuckles:: Not this character. He's about as feiry and emotional as they come. About killing folks without remorse? My character doesn't like to kill. He gets angry, of course, but he doesn't really start fights. In fact, the DM scolded me at one point, saying he had designed a bar room brawl scenerio specifically for me, and was asking why my character just shrugged and paid the situation no attention (and as such the planned brawl never happened). However, if someone raises their sword against him and starts swinging first, he'll cut them down without feeling too bad about it. So maybe this point partially applies to my character. But then again, he is a follower of Tempus, the major war god, so I'd expect him to have a very martial outlook on such things. In his defense though, I don't think I've taken a coup de grace with him *yet* - winning a battle is one thing, but slaughering a foe who you've already beaten is pointless. About self-preservation? He's usually the first one to jump out in front of the BBEG, and always tries to keep himself in position between them and the spellcasters and other weaker party members. He has even died once, sacrificing himself (and his lost level due to being raised) so that the only other remaining party member could escape. Our DM isn't big on raising the dead either, and as of yet that death was the only one from which anyone has came back from. Originally posted by Fridwulf CN characters will do as they damn well please, abiding to no law or rule except their own. <snip> Sounds almost exactly like my character. The onlt exception would be that he would certainly stop to help someone fix a broken axle. He's not as big of a do-gooder as a Paladin, but he'll certainly help folks out if he's able to do so. Originally posted by Fridwulf Hope this helps. :) It does. Accorting to your views on the allignments, I'd certainly not be NE, and would instead be somewhere between CN and CG. However, I'd *really* like as many opinions as I could if at all possible. One person agreeing with me shows that there's someone out there that thinks the same as I do. However, I'm sure there's probably people out there that must think like my DM is. And if there's not, then if ten or so people all post and all say the same thing more or less, then maybe that'll be as close to "definitive proof" as you can get with something as ambiguous as alignment. :rolleyes:
Sir Neil 11-02-03, 02:29 PM	This is what I use for my campaigns. Good-Evil Axis Dignity vs. Abasement Forgiveness vs. Intolerance Good characters embody the belief that all people are inherently deserving of dignity, and so they treat every person with respect. Evil characters base their lives on the belief that people are worth nothing, that people are things existing only to be abused and controlled. Lawful-Chaotic Axis Duty vs. Feelings Honesty vs. Dishonesty Trustworthy vs. Unreliable Lawful characters embody duty and responsibility. They are willing to sacrifice themselves for something greater than themselves. Chaotic characters live for their emotions and appetites. They recognize nothing to be greater than the individual, and are unwilling to make personal sacrifices for others.
Morka 11-03-03, 10:25 AM	The extreme of the 2 alignments: A NE character could be a pleasant guy, helpful with everyone. But each service, each mission he accepts, even if he doesn't ask "What's in for me?" each time, he is creating some twisted plan where he will personnally benefit from each situation. A CN character, follower of Tempus, will have no remorse when killing an opponent in a battle . He could as well insult a policeman or guard on sight, only because he hate someone else have some kind of dominion over him. However, if someone insult him, he could attack this one, but with his bare fists. Play your character as you would live on the plane of Ysgard: you can want to fight a foe with all what you have, for the pleasure of winning. But the next morning, you will be happy to see him alive and you will pay him a drink in the next tavern.
MalakiTyrel 11-03-03, 11:08 AM	A CG character is one who will do good to help others but won't necessarily follow the laws to do so. He might be a character like Robin Hood fighting for a specific cause or he might just be someone who travels from town to town and helps people along the way. He may not be a paragon of good like the paladin but he still has a "soft spot" for the underdog and helps when and if he can. He will break laws if he sees them getting in the way of doing good. The character who is NE is looking out for themselves. How they can benefit from the situation is their focus. They will break laws if they think they can get away with it but might follow laws if it helps them as well. They will not help someone else unless it benefits them. The key for the NE character is doing what they think they can get away with--that includes murder, robbery or whatever--but will not risk getting caught just to do evil. Just so you know, there are people (and DM's) out there who feel that allowing evil to occur is in fact evil itself. I would suggest talking to your DM about specifics regarding your alignment. How he views the characters actions could have as much to do with the disagreement as how you are playing. I would talk to him and ask him for specifics regarding why he feels you are NE. If you are killing in self-defense but he sees killing as an evil act, then there will be some disagreement as to what alignment is being played. Also, if he sees CG as the Mother Teresa alignment, and you are playing it more like Han Solo then there will also be some problems. It might just be a situation where the DM is mis-interpreting the motivations behind your characters actions. Approach him one on one and ask for his input on how he sees the alignment. Again, ask for specific things which you have done and ask why he sees those actions as being NE. Do not be confrontational (especially since you have already argued with him about it) but simply ask for his input and reasons. IF he does have some mis-conceptions about the motivation of you character, provide some "my characters thinks ..." info for him but otherwise leave it at that. If his view of CG differs from yours, explain how your character views things and then ask him what alignment he sees it being.
Mr. VanderMeer 11-03-03, 11:11 AM	I don't have many examples, just an opinion: Seems to me like your character is pretty close to CG.
Kreger 11-03-03, 01:08 PM	(note: this is my interpretation/opinion of GE & LC) G vs E is others vs self (ie the amount of self sacrafice you will do) good = plenty netural = some but not too risky evil = none (if there is more to gain by sacrificing its not a sacrafice). L vs C is how much faith you have in the community vs in individuals. law = people working together make better decisions neutral = it makes no difference whether or not in groups = or don't rock the boat / law by day/ chaos by night chaos = individuals make better decisions than groups NE/ I'm out for myself but I stay within the acceptable bounds of society. CG/ I look out for myself but will help others. One (NE) is greedy but a law abiding citizen. (i.e. a greedy merchant, or a robber who is a laborer by day, or sheriff of Nottingham (sp?)) (note: the sheriff could be LE but because he was only committing evil acts while king richard was away I see him as a "don't rock the boat" type of evil. The other (CG) is a lawbreaker with good intentions. (i.e. Robinhood). This is how I can see where your DM is quick to say NE. The aligments can appear very similar considering both are out for themselves (one because he's greedy, the other because he doesn't like authority) (ie you could be robbed by either one in the woods) However, there are 2 important differences: CG will openly break the law/ trust his own judgements over the law. NE will follow it in public. CG will make sacrifices for others. NE will help only when it serves him.
Leap 11-04-03, 06:11 AM	My own 2cp worth……….. Think of alignment shaped like a diamond, with LG at the top and CE at the bottom. Lawfuls Goods work to promote a society of mutual honesty, mutual willingness to share, mutual respect for personal involvement/agency and mutual forbearance and forgiveness of minor / occasional slights, all built upon trust developed in ongoing relationships and guided by a common code of behaviour. Chaotic Evils deeply disdain such a society, favouring instead a life of “anything goes” and “war of each against all” in the pursuit of short-term private gain. Lawful Evil and Chaotic Good lie between these two opposites, seeking to achieve part, but not all, of what Lawful Good seeks. In the case of Lawful Evil, the aim is for the reliable society that Lawful Good seeks, but where LG respects personal agency and is built on developed trust, LE distrusts “people” as a rule and seeks to create an orderly and reliable society through unforgiving imposition of invasive and explicit control structures. In the case of Chaotic Good, the aim is for honesty and forgiveness without the binding ties of “society” or reference to any such ‘bigger picture’, leading to a morality of ‘actions’ where it is immediate honesty and forgiveness that is valued rather than the place of such in creating a healthy society. Chaotic Neutral would waver between the rather childish image of goodness found in Chaotic Good (Good as specific isolated actions largely regardless of consequences) and the tantrum throwing, inconsiderate, concupiscence of Chaotic Evil. Neutral Evil would waver between the above described Chaotic Evil and the invasive, dignity-stripping mechanisation of Lawful Evil. For CG think of the child who tries to do (very simplistic) good things (don’t lie, don’t steal, don’t hit your sister, don’t talk to strangers etc) but without fully understanding why, and who is generally nice to their friends but who, like most children, changes “friends” fairly regularly. For CN think of the child who wavers between that an the tantrum throwing little me-me-me monster with the social skills of a gnat. For NE think of the a petty crim who blends fairly well into society.
SailorNash 11-04-03, 06:25 PM	Originally posted by Morka The extreme of the 2 alignments: A NE character could be a pleasant guy, helpful with everyone. But each service, each mission he accepts, even if he doesn't ask "What's in for me?" each time, he is creating some twisted plan where he will personnally benefit from each situation. Not really me. I've turned down rewards half the time, and the other half the time the other PC's toss my share into the party fund. I only take 5d6 or so gold pieces to pay for food, ale, and other trivial expenses. I actually roll, too, cause my character (being a barbarian) sees little use in "metal shinies", so he only grabs a handfull or so to pay for the occasional meal while he's in town. Most of the wealth I've earned was off of dead bodies or from treasure chests; in both cases, they were things I stumbled across and took since they were there and no one was using them. Originally posted by Morka A CN character, follower of Tempus, will have no remorse when killing an opponent in a battle . He could as well insult a policeman or guard on sight, only because he hate someone else have some kind of dominion over him. However, if someone insult him, he could attack this one, but with his bare fists. Play your character as you would live on the plane of Ysgard: you can want to fight a foe with all what you have, for the pleasure of winning. But the next morning, you will be happy to see him alive and you will pay him a drink in the next tavern. Very good advise about Ysgard. That's similar to how I've been trying to play him. I've drank beers in a bar with the BBEG of the campaign once, though I wasn't too happy to see him there (mainly since I knew he was Evil down to the core). I've spoken to an assasin (perhaps my character's biggest rival) outside of combat several times with no hard feelings. I nearly killed him once or twice on the battlefield, but when I see him in town there's surprisingly little hostility. I've even done business with him once, and traded him a necklace that he was searching for (and killed the original owner to get) for a horribly evil sword (which I melted into slag immediately, despite it being even more powerful than the sword I'm wielding now ten levels later). I was tempted to kill him and take both, but I ended up letting him ride away. I was not going to kill him outside of a battle, even if I knew he was probably going to use that magical necklace for not-so-good purposes. About hostility towards guards and killing folks in battle? That may be what the DM doesn't like about me. I'll have to ask him and see. I have no qualms about killing on a battlefield, as previously mentioned. The biggest non-combat fights I've had were all from people trying to control me, such as a Dwarf who would not allow my character to walk down a road without paying a toll. (It mainly was because he said I was not ALLOWED to go down that road. Once he finally said that he wanted some money, I tossed him two or three times what he asked for, yelling at him that if that was all he wanted then take it and leve me alone. He was kinda confused, but he let me go after that without saying much else...) When trying to "prove" how I was NE, the DM even mentioned that I had a "heart full of hatred" and brought up that example of me getting into such a huge verbal argument with the guy trying to charge me a toll. Thanks for the advice! Originally posted by MalakiTyrel A CG character is one who will do good to help others but won't necessarily follow the laws to do so. He might be a character like Robin Hood fighting for a specific cause or he might just be someone who travels from town to town and helps people along the way. He may not be a paragon of good like the paladin but he still has a "soft spot" for the underdog and helps when and if he can. He will break laws if he sees them getting in the way of doing good. My character could care less about any laws other than following his own personal beliefs. He most certainly has a soft spot for underdogs - that's one of the main things I try to play about this character. My eventual goal for him would be to make him a champion of the people, but I don't think he's quite ready to embrace that as a specific cause. At the moment, he does more wandering about and helping folks as he can. (Though one of the main reasons he ended up trying to thwart the BBEG of the campaign, Destrades, was because he saw him as a tyrant who forced people to work under him.) He is not, however, a "paragon of good like the Paladin". Maybe the DM thinks that I *do* have to be a "paragon of good" in this manner before I can be considered Good? This is likely the case, but I really do appreciate you saying that you can be Good without being a pseudo-Paladin, as that is my belief as well. Originally posted by MalakiTyrel The character who is NE is looking out for themselves. How they can benefit from the situation is their focus. They will break laws if they think they can get away with it but might follow laws if it helps them as well. They will not help someone else unless it benefits them. The key for the NE character is doing what they think they can get away with--that includes murder, robbery or whatever--but will not risk getting caught just to do evil. My character does what he feels like. He doesn't break laws to be breaking them, but he doesn't break them thinking he "can get away with it". He truly just does not care. He will obey laws that he agrees with, and he obeys laws if by doing so he won't cause a lot of trouble. (Which IMHO is because he wants to do Good, and if following a law that he's not to crazy about helps others out, then he'll reluctantly do it). He's never robbed anyone or murdered anyone. Closest thing was breaking into the BBEG's buildings once to look for proof about one of his schemes, and once because he kidnapped my baby. (The BBEG was going to sacrifice him in a demonic ceremony. Not only was I rescuing my son, but I was working to stop the Vile sorcerers as well.) The single most Evil thing this character has ever done was after an assassination attempt in the middle of the night, one thief begged for mercy after seeing me cut down his partners and he was spared. Just to be sure, though, my character cut his hamstring so that they wouldn't have to worry about him escaping and killing the PC's and the witness that they were trying to protect. This was also a year ago in real time, back when the character was level two or three. I did this deliberately to be brutal but not evil. I spared his life, which is obviously Good. But, I did hurt him after his capture when he was helpless. However, I did this for a specific reason (so he couldn't kill my friends or the witness). Plus, I made a point to do the least amount of damage possible, so that he could still live a normal life but couldn't jump from rooftop to rooftop or slink around silently in the darkness. (Plus the fact that a single Cure Light Wounds spell would heal the damage - that being the case, it was only temporary while he was there in the house with the person we were trying to protect). That was the single most Evil thing this character has done, and even that was for a Good reason, although it was a savagely brutal way to handle the situation (as was my intent). I see that action as Neutral or maybe borderline Evil, as there were better ways to handle the situation. But that was the one exception to my character so far. It was deliberately done to make the start and the end more drastic of a change. (I didn't want to start off on the path to Goodness - I wanted to start off very CN, as I've been living in the woods for years and never had to worry about anyone but myself. Then as time goes on, I planned for him to become more and more Good as he is exposed to more people, until he is finally their champion.) Originally posted by MalakiTyrel <snip about talking to the DM on a point by point basis> I have already attempted to do this, but it ended up in a huge fight. That's why I'm here on the boards, trying to get unbiased people to describe both allignments and then it will be obvious which one my character is. This was about the only way I could put an end to the argument. Originally posted by Mr. VanderMeer I don't have many examples, just an opinion: Seems to me like your character is pretty close to CG. Thanks. I've seen lots of your posts around the boards, and I respect your opinion. It's a great relief to hear that it happens to be in favor of me in this case. :D Originally posted by Kreger This is how I can see where your DM is quick to say NE. The aligments can appear very similar considering both are out for themselves (one because he's greedy, the other because he doesn't like authority) (ie you could be robbed by either one in the woods) However, there are 2 important differences: CG will openly break the law/ trust his own judgements over the law. NE will follow it in public. CG will make sacrifices for others. NE will help only when it serves him. Thanks! That really does help to see why he might just say NE off the top of his head. However, when you look deeper my character isn't really the greedy type. Only now that he has a wife and child is he concerned with money, and that's mainly to make sure that those two have enough of it. (And also he's desperate for cash after his Special Mount emphatically sensed that a demon was eating me, and charged down the center of town in a desperate attempt to help me...in order not to accidentally hurt folks again, he's looking to get a Collar of Shrinking made so that his mount can follow him around instead of accidentally trampling someone.) The differences also hold true. Artemis only obeys the law when it agrees with what he believes in, or if people would get hurt by him breaking it. He never follows the law in public only to break it when no one's looking. I think the DM might have these two backwards though. Openly breaking the law = Evil, and following it in public = Good. ::shrugs::
SailorNash 11-04-03, 06:29 PM	(bah, double post)
Lord of the Ninth 11-04-03, 07:43 PM	Have ever killed some who you knew was good (or tried to)? Have you ever committed an act that you knew would harm others more than it would benefit you (or a different group). Have you ever killed something just for fun (i.e. not because they attacked you, or they attacked someone else, or might have otherwise been evil). Have you ever enslaved, raped or tortured someone? If the answer is "no" to all of these questions, then you probably aren't NE. If you tend to not follow the conventions of society, have a problem with authority (you won't follow someone's orders simply because they are the authority), break certain laws (some types ofcriminal behavior are evil, but some are chaotic instead), or break promises, then you are probably chaotic (most likely neutral). I disagree with the notion that LG is better than CG. I think that CG is just as good (if not better), and that people only tend to think this because they live in societies that promote LG behavior (in theory), whereas chaos is often frowned upon by governmental agencies. But I'm getting off topic.
Leap 11-06-03, 10:16 AM	LOTN – To stray off path with you for a moment…… ;) I disagree with the notion that LG is better than CG. I think that CG is just as good (if not better), and that people only tend to think this because they live in societies that promote LG behaviour (in theory), whereas chaos is often frowned upon by governmental agencies. But I'm getting off topic CG tends to think in isolation (as can be seen in the PHB entry "Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it. 'Chaos' implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility." - they tend to not be connected to anything else but prefer “freedom” ) and as such, where LG holds morality to be something done to create a decent society, CG would tend to see morality as being about specific acts that are deemed “good” without regard for their wider impact (akin to the morality we teach our kids (don’t tell fibs, don’t fight, don’t talk to strangers etc) that lacks the subtly necessary for adult society (sometimes it is necessary to lie, fight and talk to strangers)). Personally, I think most of our societies have more in common with LE than LG, and that LG gets such a bad press because of our upbringing which teaches that we live in a “good” society and thus we associate LG with the wrong things, but that would be to stray even MORE off topic ;)