Post/Author/DateTime	Post
RoamingArcher 12-12-06, 07:24 PM	I'm sure we have all seen this character: plays CN as Chaotic Stupid or Evil, and when told off about their alignment or told to shift to Chaotic Evil, they say "I'm Chaotic Neutal, I can do anything I want." Basicaly, Chaotic Neutral is Chaotic Evil without the penalties. I've decided to apply those penalties with this variant. An example of how it works: A CN character registers on Detect Evil as evil, but only they only register with half of their hit dice, so an 8hd character appears as a 4HD character. If a paladin uses Smite Evil on a CN character, the Smite Evil does half damage. If Holy Smite is used, they take half damage as well. Against Holy Word, they are treated as evil, but they are also treated as having four more hit dice than they have. For Blasphemy, they are as neutral, and also are treated as having four mour hit dice. There is an exception to this rule. At the start of when a character is treated as regular Chaotic Neutral. They have one session as CN to prove that they can play the alignment well. If they can't, they become CE or Chaotic Neutral with aforementioned effect. This "new" alignment is Chaotic Evil Lite, or CEL for short.
Witch 12-12-06, 07:53 PM	...what? So, why isn't LE considered LN light? Why isn't N considered NE light? That's utter nonsense. Chaotic Neutral is not "I can do everything I want". Just change the guy's alignment, for the love of god. In no way is Chaotic Neutral "Chaotic Evil light", not in any more impressive fashion than Lawful Neutral is "Lawful Evil light".
RoamingArcher 12-12-06, 07:59 PM	I don't apply this to Lawful Neutral because there is way more abuse of Chaotic Neutral than Lawful Neutral. If you want, you can convert this so that it applies to all of the neutral alignments that aren't True Neutral.
Witch 12-12-06, 08:00 PM	I mean that if you have to apply this rule, that means that your player is misplaying Chaotic Neutral. What you need to do is correct his alignment, and actually label it Chaotic Evil. Not invent some wonky mechanic that influences people who play Chaotic Neutral properly. Rereading it, I see you have a way of doing that - but I disagree with your alternative. I suggest you either use a complete alignment matrix, or just change his alignment. (For information: this is an alignment matrix: LG - L (N) G - N (L) G - NG - N (C) G - C (N) G - CG It also goes that way in the other directions.
RoamingArcher 12-12-06, 08:33 PM	First, I must admit I did not see the alignment matrix with this variant applied to every alignment. In application, it seems to be a pointless and Byznatine process, but I find that using it only when nessacary is best. And I repeat, CN is the most abused Alignment. What you need to do is correct his alignment, and actually label it Chaotic Evil. Unfortunatley, this will lead to a time wasting arguement that the DM can't win without Rule 0. I find that is much easier to throw in a houserule at the start than to waste game time in such an arguement.
Tevish Szat 12-12-06, 10:42 PM	go with dichotomy. LN is LG light in return. that way it makes some sense, as plenty oof people already associate law with beign more good and chaos as being more evil
theotherdraxen 12-12-06, 11:17 PM	If someone is abusing the Chaotic Neutral alignment, then make them Chaotic Evil, and smite them. Then, tell them to play it right: a chaotic neutral alignment can be played well, but not by everyone. It's as hard to play right as a paladin. To illustrate (from my perspective): Chaotic=doing whatever you want. Chaotic Good=you do what you want, and you want to do good things. Chaotic Evil=you do what you want, and you want to do evil things. Chaotic Neutral=you do what you want, and you want to commit a balance of good and evil acts, treading not far into the extremes of one or the other.
CroBob 12-13-06, 05:22 AM	This is a topic that come up often in my gaming group. One of our players actually cannot distinguish between evil or good actions, or that an action is neither. To his mind, being Chaotic Neutral means doing anything you want, and those actions happening to be evil doesn't change the fact that he's simply doing whatever he wants, and he is, therefore, not evil, simply doing whatever he wants. The flaw in the argument is obvious, but he maintains it. A chaotic Evil person cares only about himself, only about his pleasures, his money, him, him, him. To hell with others. A Chaotic Good person, on the other hand, values individual freedom, and fights for both his freedoms and the freedoms of others, or at least advocates them if unable to fight. Chaotic Neutral is simply the spot in between those. Chaotic Neutral characters care about freedoms, regardless of kindness to others and helping maintaining their freedoms, but also not violating other people's freedoms on purpose or without good cause. I'll summarize the alignment aspects here for clarification; Lawful; Lawful characters prefer strict or structured lives. They enjoy tradition, pattern, and discipline. Chaotic; Chaotic characters prefer spontinaity and freedom. They enjoy change, the unexpected, and choices. Good; Good characters are gregarious and helpful. They may not spend all their time aiding others, but they do exactly that when they're able, or at least feel badly if they choose not to. Good characters are sympathetic and respectful towards and of others. Evil; Evil characters either care almost exclusively about themselves or some unwholesome cause. They do not care when other people suffer or die from their actions or course, or they care very little when they do, usually justifying it. Others are irrelevant to their goal, whether selfish directly or indirectly. Neutral on either scale simply falls inbetween the two extremes. Rarely is it a matter of principle to be neutral, though it does happen. These people are dedicated to preserving a balance of some sort between the extremes, or are simply sick of the extremes for some reason, and so avoid them. Combine these aspects for the two-dimensional fitting of each character's alignment. Made easy; LG; Strict and helpful. NG; Helpful. CG; Spontanious and helpful. LN; Strict. TN; "Meh", or "Extremes are stupid!", or "Extremes must exist in balance." CN; Spontanious. LE; Strict and selfish. NE; Selfish. CE; Spontanious and selfish. Edit; I also want to note how very few people can be pigeon-holed into a specific alignment, without any beliefs or tendancies that deviate, excluding the more bizzar ones, or planar creatures. Most characters would and should have a few unorthodox traits given his alignment, so long as they remain in the background of his personality. For example, a paladin might just, after three years of fighting evil that seems only to continue growing in quantity and force regardless what he does, take a vacation to another plane and get drunk without taking a hit to his alignment (so long as he goes back and tries to keep fighting afterwords). A Chaotic Neutral swordsman might take one hour out of every morning to practice "his art", but act spontaniously in most other ways. A Neutral Evil character might protect children, while still serving his god of greed and attaining his own massive fortune earned by the sweat of slaves.
Witch 12-13-06, 05:32 AM	A typical example of a Chaotic Neutral character: Kalen the beguiler isn't a bad guy - he's out for himself, though not extremely. He specializes in gambling and seducing women, charming them if his personality can't convince them. Aside from that, he occassionally heads out on adventures if he thinks they're going to be interesting, but not too dangerous. He's not out to risk his life for no decent reason. Yet he doesn't like taking the lives of others either - if it can be avoided, one shouldn't kill. He thinks people might be better off being saved, but he has no compulsion to take that job himself. Now, that's a Chaotic Neutral person. Not Chaotic Evil light.
Derrick 12-13-06, 01:57 PM	I tend to agree with where Witch and CroBob are coming from. Another way to make sense of those whacky Chaotic types is with the "I believe in maximal freedom" sentence. Every Chaotic character is going to assent to that - but what do they mean? Chaotic Good characters think (or hope) that if we didn't have oppressive kingdoms, theocracies, and outer planar entites messing around with good, honest, freedom-loving folk, everything would work out fine. They believe in maximal freedom for everyone. That means that they're going to stick it to "The Man" when he tries to come down on their "Sibs". (The ultimate expression of "The Man" will vary according to your cosmology. Whoever's in charge of the Nine Hells is a pretty good candidate, though.) Chaotic Evil characters, on the other hand, couldn't really give a toss about that sort of stuff. They don't like it when folks get in their way, but if their actions impact on others, it just doesn't matter. Heck, it might even be fun! So, they believe in maximal freedom for themselves. That leaves Chaotic Neutral in the middle: they're not sticking it to "The Man" (unless he's sticking it to them), but when their own actions impact adversely on others, it's as a result of short-sightedness or error, rather than apathy or malice. CN folks will probably stick up for their friends, but the 'out-group' won't attract their concern. Chaotic Neutrals believe in maximal freedom, but don't have the inclusive or exclusive notions that their good and evil peers do.
CryoSilver 12-13-06, 02:52 PM	Chaotic Evil characters are actually evil: they striveto create suffering and death by their chaotic and evil acts. Evil in D&D isn't justmean, or selfish. Evil is cosmic Evil, dedicated to the powers of Hell and the Abyss. A chaotic neutral character is best described (IMO) as an anarchist: someone who believes that there should be no restrcitions on freedom, and that everyone needs to be able to fend for themselves. While he is inherently selfish, he will not go out of his way to impinge on the freedoms of others (though he will not hesitate to do so if it serves his purposes). A chaotic good character is a libertarian: he believes in maximal freedom, but only insofar as his freedom does not reduce the freedom of another. A chaotic evil character strives to create chaos, suffering and pain wherever he goes, because he enjoys inflicting misery and bringing the universe closer to the Abyss.
Witch 12-13-06, 03:50 PM	A chaotic evil character strives to create chaos, suffering and pain wherever he goes, because he enjoys inflicting misery and bringing the universe closer to the Abyss. That's one of the options. Chaotic Evil, "Destroyer" A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him. Chaotic evil is sometimes called "demonic" because demons are the epitome of chaotic evil. Chaotic evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents the destruction not only of beauty and life but also of the order on which beauty and life depend.
memberZ 12-13-06, 05:04 PM	It's been this way for quite some time but : Lawful good (especially paladins) tends to be Lawful stupid and chaotic neutral tends to be "I can do evil and not be smited he he" stupid. It's just players trying to bend the rules or worse not smart enough to understand the concept of another's thought process and can't ACT. I have played with and Dm'ed people that can't quite grasp acting out of person. Easiest solution, figure out their alignment and make them play only that alignment. The test http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20001222b
CryoSilver 12-13-06, 05:14 PM	That's one of the options. Indeed. I'm not necessarily saying that's the be and end all of chaotic evil, but I am saying that any sentient creature is going to have to make the conscious choice to be evil, and more than likely, understand the larger ramifications of being evil. In a world where good and evil actually exist as quantifiable entities, being "bad" is not the same as being "Evil."
Witch 12-13-06, 05:32 PM	Actually, you do not need to make a conscious choice to be "evil". Your subconsciousness can handle that for you nicely. You're evil because you do evil actions, and care only about yourself, or about the spread of evil. If you don't decide you want to be evil, but you act in the exact same way, you're still evil.
CryoSilver 12-13-06, 06:04 PM	But you still know that you're evil, in which case it is in fact a choice on your part to continue to be so.
theotherdraxen 12-13-06, 07:45 PM	A typical example of a Chaotic Neutral character: Kalen the beguiler isn't a bad guy - he's out for himself, though not extremely. He specializes in gambling and seducing women, charming them if his personality can't convince them. Aside from that, he occassionally heads out on adventures if he thinks they're going to be interesting, but not too dangerous. He's not out to risk his life for no decent reason. Yet he doesn't like taking the lives of others either - if it can be avoided, one shouldn't kill. He thinks people might be better off being saved, but he has no compulsion to take that job himself. Now, that's a Chaotic Neutral person. Not Chaotic Evil light. Er, please tell me I'm reading this right, but when he uses magic to 'charm' women, he doesn't go that far, does he? Because that would be rape, which is most definitively evil. Even using magic to force a woman to kiss you would be a little much. But you still know that you're evil, in which case it is in fact a choice on your part to continue to be so. Not necessarily. Evil can be accidental. Hitler thought he was the good-guy, but in D&D terms, he was evil.
Theodoxus 12-13-06, 08:08 PM	Yes yes, we all know the various degrees of CE that can be had - the poor boy raised by Orcs who believes that only the strong should survive; the manic who's personal quest for power puts him in touch with Demons who force him to rape and kill for power; or the criminally insane, who's very mind whispers things to him, asking for objects, be they baubles or elven heads on popsickle sticks. That's not the issue. The crux of the OP's problem is lack of player knowledge of what exactly Chaotic Neutral is. That simply requires education. To whit: "Chaotic Neutral, 'Free Spirit': A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn't strive to protect others' freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or eveil (and a desire to make those different from himself suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as to cross it..." It's pretty obvious right there; A CN person would not willingly commit an evil act, because he has no compunction to, and no desire to tangle with the law, which erodes his view of personal freedom. Now there are certainly cases when a CN would commit evil - especially where ignorance is concerned. "In my country, cannibalism is a sacred right... you mean I can't eat my fallen foe here?" It sounds to me like the player in the OPs group has a case of Criminally Chaotic tendancies. "I'm going to go over to that old lady and stab her in the eye! Cuz I'm chaotic!" It may or may not constitute CE, but it certainly constitutes insanity. I wouldn't necessarily condone the OPs solution; I would probably institute the 'tendancies' option first. And definitely give that particular character an insanity, and make sure the rest of the party watched him closely whenever engaging in a social atmosphere... Theo
theotherdraxen 12-13-06, 08:28 PM	Doesn't the DMG tell you to rewrite their alignment if their character is acting out of it?
CryoSilver 12-13-06, 09:11 PM	Not necessarily. Evil can be accidental. Hitler thought he was the good-guy, but in D&D terms, he was evil. Not in D&D, when Evil is something you can measure with Detect Evil.
Witch 12-14-06, 01:28 AM	Er, please tell me I'm reading this right, but when he uses magic to 'charm' women, he doesn't go that far, does he? Because that would be rape, which is most definitively evil. Even using magic to force a woman to kiss you would be a little much. I don't play that sort of thing out that far. Secondly, charming makes people see you in the best possible light - it doesn't mentally control people.
CroBob 12-14-06, 04:40 AM	Not in D&D, when Evil is something you can measure with Detect Evil. A major Paladin of Tyranny put it this way, in my campaign's history; "How can people be complacent to call someone evil simply because of which kind of forces they manipulate for their ends? What makes the use of negative energy more wrong than the use of elemental fire or air? Just because positive energy heals you and gives you a fuzzy feeling in your belly, it doesn't mean people who manipulate it's elemental opposite are doing something innately wrong. There is a flaw in magics labelling someone a bad person based solely on elemantal alignments. How do these magics work? Do they delve through a person's histroy and form an informed, objective and rational opinion based on the person's outlook and actions? No, it's an arbitrary, magical effect that clerics, paladins, and wizards have relied upon for far too long to form half-baked, half-witted, irrational opinions. My mother never decided when a pie was done by casting a spell, she tested the pie for evidence leading to the conclusion it's done." ...Or something very similar to that. Edit; He had a high intelligence, too.
Witch 12-14-06, 08:01 AM	Not in D&D, when Evil is something you can measure with Detect Evil. He's not required to use Detect Evil on himself ;)
Sphyre 12-14-06, 08:26 AM	As another person pointed out your perception (either by how you play it or others play it) of Chaotic Neutral is more of an excuse for being CE rather than actually acting Chaotic Neutral. Oddly people know what chaotic is more than they do neutral when refering to chaotic neutral. If you have another chaotic, it's ussually the chaotic component people don't understand. A chaotic neutral person is not someone who does whatever they feel like at any given time. That's a chaotic person. They may be Good, Neutral or evil. A chaotic person is like a rebel. He beleives everyone should be free and everyone should be be unrepressed. At least in a very basic context. You can expand upon billions of different types of people who care about others and feel that there is no universal law that they should be held to. A chaotic evil person is someone beleives he should be free to do as he likes. And the evil part is that he doesn't care about hurting others, and may actually like doing it, for his own gain. This person may kill because he likes it, because he needs to, or maybe he doesn't kill at all. He could simply go about stealing from everyone to try to increase his own gain. Whatever the case he's unbound by what others may think of him, and will hurt others for his gain. A chaotic neutral person may exhibit either behaviors but for the most part stays in the middle rather than bouncing between the two. Whenever he does something, he has a reason for it. If he kills a bartender, maybe it's because he tried poisoning his drink. If he saves a peasant, maybe it wasn't really out of his way? Or if he crusades to save the town, there's probably some free enterprise gain for him. He doesn't choose to kill people simply because they are there or because dislikes them, or they ripped him off. He's neutral, as long as things work themselves out, he'll go along with it. If the guy curses at him, curses his name, tries to have him killed and kills his friends, obviously he might return full force. "Doing anything they want" is chaotic evil, because it has no regard for others. You do whatever you want whether it hurts people or not. An evil person still can do good, while a good person still can do evil. The point is that chaotic neutral isn't an excuse to do anything. If they play CE, they are CE. If they play CG they are CG. If they play CN then they get the alignment CN.
Derrick 12-14-06, 01:34 PM	I am saying that any sentient creature is going to have to make the conscious choice to be evil, and more than likely, understand the larger ramifications of being evil. In a world where good and evil actually exist as quantifiable entities, being "bad" is not the same as being "Evil." I don't see the advantage in this House Rule. Perhaps you could elaborate on what you perceive as its strengths? (Rest assured, though, that it is a House Rule. The Book of Vile Darkness explicitly contradicts you on choosing and knowing evil.)
Einvaldurinn_mikli 12-14-06, 05:58 PM	(Rest assured, though, that it is a House Rule. The Book of Vile Darkness explicitly contradicts you on choosing and knowing evil.) Bringing up BoVD or BoED in alignment discussion is like Godwin's Law, it makes you look kinda silly and invalidates your point.
theotherdraxen 12-14-06, 08:58 PM	I don't play that sort of thing out that far. Secondly, charming makes people see you in the best possible light - it doesn't mentally control people. Thank god you don't. That guy is chaotic-neutral, not evil. Paladin senses were tingling there for a sec. Bringing up BoVD or BoED in alignment discussion is like Godwin's Law, it makes you look kinda silly and invalidates your point. You shall forever know them by these names: the Book of Vile Dorkness and the Book of Exalted Cheese.
CryoSilver 12-15-06, 01:12 AM	I don't see the advantage in this House Rule. Perhaps you could elaborate on what you perceive as its strengths? (Rest assured, though, that it is a House Rule. The Book of Vile Darkness explicitly contradicts you on choosing and knowing evil.) I don't use alignment in my games. However, there are distinct and concrete ways of telling if someone or something is Evil in D&D. 1: Detect Evil. This is the most basic manner. If a creature glows on the Evil-dar, unless someone is screwing around with them (and thus invalidating the results), he is Evil. This should be the only proof needed to show that Evil is something that is not unknown. If you are Evil, then you detect as such. Denying this makes it no less true, because D&D morality is not subjective. Much like a character with 16 Str is not stronger than a character with 18 Str, an Evil character is not good. 2: Commune. Ask your god "Is this act Evil?" Your god will rarely have reason to answer falsely. This is the best way to tell if an action is evil or not. I really think it's that simple. If you're evil, then you're Evil, then you're Evil. You can argue that you aren't, but if your stat block says so, you are.
Edea 12-15-06, 01:30 AM	For me, the problem is not the concept of a "fluid" or "static" alignment, one that may be open to different interpretations. Even when you incorporate a stark, cosmic "rule" on the alignment axes, you still get into all kinds of nasty alignment arguments. And that's a good thing....on its own. Who wants to keep track of actions that fell in a certain alignment category every day? Not me. What bothers me is that WotC implies that 'alignment need not be static or permanently defined for a character,' then proceeds to make nearly half of the core base classes, numerous feats/spells/supplemental materials, and other crunchies dependant on keeping the character's alignment in a certain field. It's like, "uh, yeah, it DOES have to be static, or else I turn into a Commoner with a slightly higher BAB and a couple of extra saving throw bonus points." As an attempt to assist in solving the problem, only thing I can suggest is that you need to notify a character about the gravity of a particularly noteworthy action before the action is allowed to execute. For example, if a paladin finds some barkeep molesting a child in the backroom of his tavern, you've got to make sure and inform him that "Attacking the barkeep without notifying him of your presence first is dishonorable, and a chaotic act. It will break your CoC," when he declares that the barkeep's behind is as good as otyugh fodder (and rightfully so), and allow him the chance to perform that action first. Elsewise, you're in for NASTY arguments, such as when you just simply strip him of his class abilities after apparently doing something very, very good. Don't do that for every minutiae in the adventure, only very critical portions, such as a fight with a BBEG, or a scene with something serious on the line. Stealing an apple from a grocer's cart when it's full of apples just isn't serious enough to keep track of, unless you're a paladin. Stealing the grocer's daughter and seducing her, on the other hand, is going to need a bit of announcing if it's relevant to the character's future. (EDIT: Alignment tests seem to always give me a "neutral" result whenever I take them honestly. Happened again with Noonan's test.)
CryoSilver 12-15-06, 01:33 AM	All paladins in games where I allow them have a built in Phylactery of Faithfulness. They automatically understand the moral gravity of any action before they undertake it. This is not a real "ability" so much as it is me, as DM looking over the screen and saying "That's an evil action."
CroBob 12-15-06, 03:52 AM	1: Detect Evil. This is the most basic manner. If a creature glows on the Evil-dar, unless someone is screwing around with them (and thus invalidating the results), he is Evil. This should be the only proof needed to show that Evil is something that is not unknown. If you are Evil, then you detect as such. Denying this makes it no less true, because D&D morality is not subjective. Much like a character with 16 Str is not stronger than a character with 18 Str, an Evil character is not good. The reality of the D&D universe is that detect evil does not tell you a thing is evil unless it's evil. However, evil people who see themselves as righteous have, to their mind, damned good reason to doubt the reliability of those spells. If something says you're evil, and you're clearly not evil, you're going to doubt that thing's effectiveness. It doesn't make them in any way less evil, but they will doubt the spell. Some evil people may not care if they're evil or not, some people may attempt to justify evil, somehow, but most would deny it. Let's say an elite group of scientists unveil a device which determines if someone is good or evil (or neither) simply by pointing it at them. You happen to be in the crowd for the unveiling. They point it at you, and they determine you are evil. Now, this is fool-proof technology, and they have every reason to take the results as comepletely, factually, true. Are you going to take their word for it, or argue (or simply not believe them)? That's not how an evil person in the D&D world would react to a detect evil used on them for what reason?
CryoSilver 12-15-06, 10:31 PM	Detect Evil doesn't fail. It doesn't. That's all there is to it. They can cry "Nuh-uh!" all they want, but they're still evil, and they still go to the appropriate Lower Plane when they die. What you THINK you are in D&D doesn'tmatter worth a damn. What you ARE is all that matters. And if someone invented a machine that told me I'm evil, well, I'm evil. I'm a self-centered, hedonistic, arrogant jerk. So? I like being the way I am, and if their machine says that's bad, well, oh well.
Witch 12-16-06, 12:05 PM	Nobody is contesting that they are evil. Fact is, they don't have to know so before heading to the appropriate plane. Which is something you denied could happen.
Derrick 12-16-06, 12:48 PM	Bringing up BoVD or BoED in alignment discussion is like Godwin's Law, it makes you look kinda silly and invalidates your point. I'd let the flame go, but the irony is too impressive. When Godwin devised his Law, it was intended to curb the easy use of comparison to Hitler and/or the Nazi party. On USENET, it was far too convenient to reply to a view you disliked with the rhetorical hammer of Fascism; in addition, once this line had been crossed, there wasn't much more to say other than, "I am not a Nazi," "You would have been one in the Thirties," and so forth. It should be apparent that Einvaldurinn_mikli's use of "like Godwin's Law" is a rhetorical hammer, too. Essentially, the poster compared me to the sort of person who made Nazi comparisons as a substitute for any sort of rational argument. To put that more plainly: the ploy was lazy, ignorant and hypocritical. While I have no idea what sort of justification there is for the conclusion that bringing up the BoVD invalidates the point, it seems very strange to hold that to be true when what's being raised is the content of that book. From what theotherdraxen writes, it seems that the BoVD is considered irrelevant because of its rule content - but that's trivial to considerations of the worth of its explanation of the perspective of evil characters.