Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Prince_of_Murder_Kinghall 03-12-07, 04:49 AM	I am thinking about taking the ability of making a CN character away from my players, they seem to think it means being ether crazy or whatever alignment they want (fallowing stupidly simple and petty laws) every player seems to want to use this as an excuse for not knowing how to *make* a character.
Escef 03-12-07, 07:00 AM	I have found that many players play chaotic neutral in one of two ways. Either chaotic evil or chaotic stupid. Chaotic neutral characters are most concerned with personal freedom, especially their own. Most of them try to respect other peoples' personal freedoms as well. They are the "rebel without a cause". Though often behaving at odds with society, they are not especially evil, just mostly ambivelent in regards to morals and few ethics. This does not mean they have no problems killing the women and raping the horses (or was that the other way around?).
Steven_Arborosa 03-12-07, 07:31 AM	I made the mistake of allowing a CN player into my game. At first, he was actually good about it -- he was indeed a rebel without a cause. Then, though, he eventually went down the CE path, killing for no good reason, and such. He went through a town just murdering commoners with the excuse of "I'm chaotic neutral." The town hanged him
nickcan 03-12-07, 07:34 AM	Yea, it's the toughest one to do right. I've played in groups where they don't allow either CN or true N unless you are a druid or something. Actually I found that the only place where CN can really be played right is in planescape. IMHO
LCD2YOU 03-12-07, 07:34 AM	I agree that too many use the Alignment of CN as an excuse to commit mayhem but maintain a thin veneer of "decency". That's a crock. The best CN I've ever seen is from a fellow player. His Dwarf Beserker was CN but he had is own code. He followed those that were worthy, not those that had some "rank". He was loyal and kept his word. Granted, he'd kill in a heart beat but he did not go out of his way to kill anyone. He'd do some impulsive stuff, but only those things you'd expect. He'd follow a Paladin based on the Paladin's abilities and strengths, not because he was a Paladin. I personally think that a CN individual can easily follow a charismatic person, not a group. That means a CN individual could follow a Paladin as long as the Paladin treated them fairly, etc. But when a PC starts acting psychotic, killing things at random, etc., then they are evil. So banning CN from some people is not an unwarrented way of dealing with psychos.
Maxxim 03-12-07, 07:35 AM	I played with a DM who didn't allow CN. It worked just fine. There were some people in the group who were immature enough with CG or N to make his reasons obvious. It definitely did not hurt the campaign in any way. I really don't get why people are like that. I have a CN character right now. He prefers working for money rather than doing things out of kindness, but he certainly isn't evil.
ReaderOfPosts 03-12-07, 07:47 AM	I think that the most common effective Chaotic Neutral is a cynic. When I play Chaotic Neutral, I usually play the devil's advocate. When the paladin wants vengeance, I speak of the benefits of mercy and kindness; when he speaks of the need to chase down a hobgoblin army I point out the rumours of an ancient evil artifact that could cause more suffering. In an evil party I'd have no qualms with being "effective", but would not cause undo suffering. In general (not always), neutral on the good evil axis means pragmatic. Chaotic does not mean plus or minus an alignnment step: you can't say "I'll burn down the orphanage because I'm whimsical like that and expect to stay Chaotic Neutral.
revaar 03-12-07, 10:01 AM	i'm currently playing a CN character, and basically, he's lazy. he only really does things that are to his benifit, and he's willing to do anything to get what he needs. that being said, he won't go out of his way to get payback, and he is usually pretty loyal to his fiends (ie, he won't let them die if he can help it. he has no problems not sharing any of the gold he found in the dungeon that they don't know about). although i do constatly ask my self if he's really stright up N or maybe LN...
gullas 03-12-07, 10:09 AM	well there is a player in my group(I'm Dm'ing) wich is a CN sorcerer...........sometimes he's playing him like a CG or like CE:confused: ....... it's very "bleh'ish":P
celtredleg 03-12-07, 10:14 AM	Where I have played it has always been the most abused alignment. A way for CE players to play that way in a game that doesnt allow ce. In a mature group, it is perfectly fine. Just depends on the group.
CaoSlayer 03-12-07, 10:30 AM	A chaotic neutral character is the man who is chaotic good with his friends and chaotic evil with his enemies.
LCD2YOU 03-12-07, 10:48 AM	I don't think so there revaar. One thing that so many forget is that being Chaotic =/= Random and that Lawful =/= Laws. Even Chaotic Societies will have laws. What they really are are rules that keep those in power in power. To me, what I believe "Lawful" and "Chaotic" mean in DnD is a mindset. The chaotic mindset is not one of randomness but one of "What works right now?" The Lawful mindset is "How did others do it?" Often times, the two will be the same. The LN and CN can and often do come to the same conclusion on many things, they just got there differently. So "freedom of choice" is a big thing in the Chaotic Alignments as much as "status quo" is in the Lawful Alignments. Again, don't confuse these things with "Laws" nor "Randomness". There is no reason that a CN will not put into place a detailed plan, only to change things as the reality of the situation changes. At the same time, the LN character will try to match up the reality with what they are going through with what has worked in the past. At first it may seem chaotic, the LN pulling from several sources but it will solidify into a "grand plan". So following plans, thinking about what you're doing is neither chaotic nor lawful. How you approach your plans and think about how to implement them shows your Law or Chaos mindset. If you want to try things from a new perspective, you're acting in a chaotic fashion. If you always try to pull things from the past and modify or use them "straight out of the bow", you are showing your Lawful mindset. As such, both have their pros and cons. Lawful Pros: 1: A storehouse of knowledge and well thoughtout strategies to handle situations. 2: Pre-planned courses of action to handle unforseen contingencies. Lawful Cons: 1: Ridgid thinking. Likely not to change. 2: Any plan that does not tolerate deviation can be thwarted and have what is supposed to work well to handle a situation actually be used against it. Chaotic Pros: 1: Fluid adapts to changes as they come up. 2: Takes each emergency/disaster/whatever on an individual basis to tailor make a solution to the crisis. Chaotic Cons: 1: No planning. Just because you can think on your feet doesn't mean that you can get others to understand you. There is no defined anything so needed resources may not be available to you as they've already scattered. 2: Knee Jerk reactions that actually as they are not as well thought out for long term effects can actually cause more harm in the long term. What I think I'm showing here is that Armies are based on "Lawful" dictums. A group of soldiers in a battle with a mob of "individual warriors" of equal numbers and equipment will, with few exceptions always, win. So with large groups, the body becomes more "lawful" if it is to "survive". That is not to say that individuals will not come and go, but any large group starts forming their own "laws". The chaotic mindset functions much better in scattered or small group setting. A densly populated city state, unless controlled by powerful forces, will have more "lawful" types. A sparsly populated place would be more of a "chaotic" mindset as they have to deal with things sporadically and are unsure what help they'll get. The chaotic mindset is "self help" while the lawful midset has "agencies and groups" to handle things.
bob_the_great 03-12-07, 11:20 AM	you might want to ask yourself what your players want. if they're all going chaotic neutral and playing disruptively then they might want a free-form game where morals and purpose get forgotten. maybe you should give them that. if one or two problem players are bringing down the party then they might just want to be a nuissance. if that is the case then that person will find a way to be a nuissance regardless your actions. I can't say i've met anyone who wanted to play a clean and cooperative d&d game and didn't because they 1) chose chaotic neutral, and 2) chose to play it crazy and disruptive. anyone who has chosen to play crazy and disruptive has done so for a reason and that reason, not the CN alignment, is the issue you should be dealing with.
Lord Psilos 03-12-07, 11:36 AM	I tend to play Chaotic Neutral as manic depressive. He's fully in control of his faculties, and responds to his environment. If people are nice to him, he goes out of his way to help them. If they're bad to him, or he's depressed, he's not going to lift a finger for the people or do anything of any use...
UAMDB 03-12-07, 02:10 PM	The last CN character I played, I played him like Two-Face. When Ever I came apond a new situation i rolled a dice. Odd I leaned toward evil, even I leaned toward good. i got robbed by this kid in the streets. i really wanted to kill him, I rolled even. So I just caught him and turned him in to the police. The character finally died, but not because of alignment. The whole part got killed in a cave... doing good deeds I might add.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 03-12-07, 02:16 PM	The viability of a CN PC is directly proportionate to the maturity level of the player. A good player will not simply slap an alignment on his PC cos of what he wants to do in the game, he should look at the PC's personality and motivations and assign the alignment that best fits them.
Escef 03-12-07, 02:25 PM	The last CN character I played, I played him like Two-Face. When Ever I came apond a new situation i rolled a dice. Odd I leaned toward evil, even I leaned toward good. That's not chaotic neutral, that's insane. Insanity is not restricted to any alignment.
vjOmni 03-12-07, 02:44 PM	I'm kind of getting a bad feeling about a CN Dwarf fighter in the campaign I'm running. The PCs were on their way back from a dungeon and found that the town that they were staying in was destroyed, and most of the people taken as hostages. So after a bunch of finding out information from what's left of the dying townspeople, they go off and find where the cult that burned the town is hiding. They go through the dungeon, then when they start finding the townspeople trapped in cages, the dwarf wants money from them for him to break the locks on the cages. To put this in context, they're stripped almost naked, their town has just been destroyed, and they have had all their worldly possessions either taken or burnt. And he asks the guy how much money he can give him for freeing him. I don't like where this character's personality is going. I may just ban CN before this gets out of hand, because I'm sure it will.
Nephlite 03-12-07, 02:51 PM	I'm kind of getting a bad feeling about a CN Dwarf fighter in the campaign I'm running. The PCs were on their way back from a dungeon and found that the town that they were staying in was destroyed, and most of the people taken as hostages. So after a bunch of finding out information from what's left of the dying townspeople, they go off and find where the cult that burned the town is hiding. They go through the dungeon, then when they start finding the townspeople trapped in cages, the dwarf wants money from them for him to break the locks on the cages. To put this in context, they're stripped almost naked, their town has just been destroyed, and they have had all their worldly possessions either taken or burnt. And he asks the guy how much money he can give him for freeing him. I don't like where this character's personality is going. I may just ban CN before this gets out of hand, because I'm sure it will. Well technically, he isn't evil. Sound TN to me. Neutral so he cares a about family and friends. These townsfolk are neither. And he seems greedy: not affected by alignment (anyone can be). Ask him why he isn't TN. Sounds like it. Now if he favors freedom/willing to break laws for a cause than CN. Oh and TwoFace in 3.0 was CN (even listed him as an example).
Escef 03-12-07, 04:35 PM	To put this in context, they're stripped almost naked, their town has just been destroyed, and they have had all their worldly possessions either taken or burnt. That's borderline evil in my book. And 100% stupid. Oh and TwoFace in 3.0 was CN (even listed him as an example). Where? Book and page reference, if you can.
bobothechimp 03-12-07, 05:13 PM	The last CN character I played, I played him like Two-Face. When Ever I came apond a new situation i rolled a dice. Odd I leaned toward evil, even I leaned toward good. i got robbed by this kid in the streets. i really wanted to kill him, I rolled even. So I just caught him and turned him in to the police. The character finally died, but not because of alignment. The whole part got killed in a cave... doing good deeds I might add. I would say that's more LN, if anything. CN would flip a coin then not bother with the outcome, just say it was whatever he would prefer it to be.
UAMDB 03-12-07, 06:08 PM	I would say that's more LN, if anything. CN would flip a coin then not bother with the outcome, just say it was whatever he would prefer it to be. Maybe I did not explain myself clearly. I the player would roll a dice. The outcome would determine what my Character would do. I used it as a device to make my Characters actions seem random. So yes it the Character flipped a coin, then your statement would be true.
wrecan 03-12-07, 06:19 PM	That sounds like insanity, not alignment. Sane people of any alignment do not act randomly.
UAMDB 03-12-07, 06:31 PM	That sounds like insanity, not alignment. Sane people of any alignment do not act randomly. Its not insanity. If the CHARACTER was rolling the dice, flipping a coin, then yes. The PLAYER out of game is as a way of deteriming the CHARACTER actions. Reread my first post. The decission was do I do good, turn the kid in to the law or evil, kill the kid. NOT do I go left, or right for every action. Its for MORAL decissions.
wrecan 03-12-07, 06:33 PM	Its not insanity. If the CHARACTER was rolling the dice, flipping a coin, then yes. The PLAYER out of game is as a way of deteriming the CHARACTER actions. I read your post. Please reread mine. If the player is randomly determining the character's actions, then the character is acting randomly. Sane people do not act randomly. Ergo, the character (not the player) is insane. And insanity has nothing to do with alignment.
UAMDB 03-12-07, 06:40 PM	I read your post. Please reread mine. If the player is randomly determining the character's actions, then the character is acting randomly. Sane people do not act randomly. Ergo, the character (not the player) is insane. And insanity has nothing to do with alignment. SO murdering thousands of innocent people is a sane thing to do? The actions are random in that you do not do what you want all the time. No I kill him cause I'm CN. Its a balance thing for the neutral part. Chaotic...... that means having no order, no structure......hmm kindof random.
wrecan 03-12-07, 06:50 PM	SO murdering thousands of innocent people is a sane thing to do? It might be in D&D. D&D is not real life. It would also be evil. In D&D, evil and insanity are different phenomena. The actions are random in that you do not do what you want all the time. Which has nothing to do with chaos. In fact, chaos is all about doing what the character wants. If you have a character do something not because of the character's motivations, but randomly, that's not a motivated act. It's a random one. Chaotic...... that means having no order, no structure......hmm kindof random. That isn't what it means in an alignment sense at all. 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. Where in that description does it allow for wholly random acts? A chaotic character follows his own motives over that of society's. He isn't random. You are confusing the physics definition of chaos with the D&D-moral definition.
bobothechimp 03-12-07, 06:54 PM	Chaos implies freedom, law implies restriction. Evil implies harm, good implies aid. Chaos is not randomness, it is not stabbing commoners in the face, it is not jumping of bridges, and it is not "lol i pee on da gaurd."
Charlym_Zuardan 03-12-07, 07:04 PM	http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#lawVsChaos ""Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them. " "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 evil (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. " emphasis mine. Note, chaotic does not mean random. So far LCD2YOU has said it best in my opinion, chaotic and lawful characters will often reach the same conclusions or take the same actions, they just have different mindsets and arrive at those decisions or conclusions in a different way.
TRCEttin 03-12-07, 07:28 PM	I've played chaotic characters and run with them fine. Two problems I've seen, though: - Years ago I played with a newbie (she's better now!) who really did think that "chaotic" meant "completely random". Not in a "stab the commoner" way though, in a "stop the entire party so my character can make a big show of inspecting something by SNIFFING it, because that's chaotic, right?" way. - "All my characters are insane or chaotic, just like me."
bob_the_great 03-12-07, 07:36 PM	I'm kind of getting a bad feeling about a CN Dwarf fighter in the campaign I'm running. The PCs were on their way back from a dungeon and found that the town that they were staying in was destroyed, and most of the people taken as hostages. So after a bunch of finding out information from what's left of the dying townspeople, they go off and find where the cult that burned the town is hiding. They go through the dungeon, then when they start finding the townspeople trapped in cages, the dwarf wants money from them for him to break the locks on the cages. To put this in context, they're stripped almost naked, their town has just been destroyed, and they have had all their worldly possessions either taken or burnt. And he asks the guy how much money he can give him for freeing him. I don't like where this character's personality is going. I may just ban CN before this gets out of hand, because I'm sure it will. read my previous post. CN is not the problem, your player is.
Voran 03-12-07, 07:37 PM	I've seen a good many "Neutral" characters played the same way as the zany "oh god this is going to bog down the group as we deal with all this crap" stuff from a CN. Honestly, I've come to the opinion that unless you're playing a class with a specific alignment restriction, you should just pick "NG" since I'd say in general that's what most of you (me) and your (mine too) gamer buddies are "in real life". I don't know many "Evil" people in real life, and I sure as hell wouldn't be in a RPG group with them.
Bruunwald 03-12-07, 07:46 PM	And another DM enters the hallowed halls of the Realm of Chaotic Stupid. Welcome, friend. Just about everybody here feels your pain.
Voran 03-12-07, 07:56 PM	And another DM enters the hallowed halls of the Realm of Chaotic Stupid. Welcome, friend. Just about everybody here feels your pain. He's right. Welcome. We have shirts.
Escef 03-13-07, 02:43 AM	... i rolled a dice. I the player would roll a dice. Ok, pet peeve, and you've set it off twice. Die is singular, dice is plural. You rolled a die.
kelvinaw273 03-13-07, 10:47 AM	The player is clearly a problem player. Remember: Neutral characters do not do good one minute and evil the next: They do good to those they care about and evil to those that threaten them. Chaotic characters are those that use innovation, intuition, creativity and sometimes just plain whim to do what they feel they need to. Chaotic Neutral characters shouldn't kill people at random, but they can be very viondictive to their foes. They might not found orphanages, but they will look after theior own.
Sunic_Flames 03-13-07, 10:49 AM	Honestly, I've come to the opinion that unless you're playing a class with a specific alignment restriction, you should just pick "NG" since I'd say in general that's what most of you (me) and your (mine too) gamer buddies are "in real life". I don't know many "Evil" people in real life, and I sure as hell wouldn't be in a RPG group with them. Something tells me you aren't entirely aware what exactly constitutes evil. The average person in this universe, the D&D universe, or any other universe is going to be TN. Some selfless (good) tendencies, some selfish (evil) tendencies, some structure based (lawful) tendencies, and some freedom based (chaotic) tendencies, without a particular lean towards any of the above 4, doing what (s)he feels is the most suitable course of action in a given situation. Semi extreme alignments, those that possess only 1 neutral component (NG, LN, CN, NE) are significantly rarer due to the fact this represents a devotion to a cause or line of thinking. And the most extreme alignments, those that completely lack a neutral component? (LG, CG, LE, CE) Those are the rarest of all for the same reason as above. What you're experiencing regarding neutral alignments is tied to player intelligence, not character alignment. As for evil, it need not manifest itself in an EVVVVIL form, which is likely what you're objecting to. The selfish person who does what benefits his or herself in a situation without regard for the consquences their actions have on others is evil, although it is very possible to have it appear to be good by simply changing the wording around while keeping the though processes the same. "I love coffee" is a good example of an evil character seeming to be good but isn't. If you don't get the reference it can be explained, but that takes half the edge off of it.
High Octane 03-13-07, 12:35 PM	Chaotic Neutral in 2 words: Rules Schmules.
Witch 03-13-07, 12:43 PM	Chaotic Neutral is a fine alignment. Think Han Solo in Episode IV. Think V (from V for Vendetta). They're not random - they don't go randomly killing innocents. They have goals of their own, be it survival or something else.
LCD2YOU 03-13-07, 12:46 PM	Chaotic Neutral is a fine alignment. Think Han Solo in Episode IV. Think V (from V for Vendetta). They're not random - they don't go randomly killing innocents. They have goals of their own, be it survival or something else.Yup, but from what I've seen too many CN players play as CE but "They do good things too". No, If a player wants a CN, I'll let them, but I tell them directly, I will warn them when they are playing too close to CE. When they go CE, I'll pull their character and they can play NG-LG instead. Or leave.
Nephlite 03-13-07, 01:54 PM	That's borderline evil in my book. And 100% stupid. Where? Book and page reference, if you can. Well, it did use the flip a coin thing. It may not have directly referenced him (hard to remenber). 3.0 PHB, my brother owns the book so as I am away at college, cannot check where.
Escef 03-13-07, 01:58 PM	Well, it did use the flip a coin thing. It may not have directly referenced him (hard to remenber). 3.0 PHB, my brother owns the book so as I am away at college, cannot check where. It sounds like something from the 2e PHB, which didn't do a great job describing alignments either.
AntiDjinn 03-13-07, 02:17 PM	My group has dealt with a couple of players who thought chaotic and random were the same. A chaotic charcter still has reasons for what he does, but these reasons may be known only to himself. The thing he values most highly is his free will and the ability to determine his own fate. He does not roll dice or flip coins to make decisions because actually making choices for himself is important. A character who is random (if you can actually play one as a PC) has completely uncoupled cause and effect and his reactions happen for no reason. He may flip a coin to make a choice, but is as likely to ignore the result as follow it. If he steps into a fire he is as likely to stand there and incinerate as he is to jump out. He might give a magic item away to someone who just tried to kill him, then turn around and kill a priest who just healed him. This is not chaotic neutral; this is random, crazy, not good PC material. Even the slaad, bastions of chaos, don't behave like this.
High Octane 03-13-07, 04:11 PM	"I never wanted to hurt anybody. Or help anybody." - Bender, trying to defend himself. "The only rules that matter are these: What a man can do, and what a man cannot do. Now I could leave you out there, but I CANNOT pull into port all by me onsies now can I?" *Pulls Will back* - Jack Sparrow, explaining things to Will Turner while dangling him over the ocean. Will: You cheated. Jack: PIRATE! - Another CN moment. Chaotic Neutral means you never let rules or traditions get in the way of doing what you feel like. Now what you FEEL like doing is rarely malicious, and you do not want people to get hurt directly from your actions, but you are willing to cause some damage. Chaotic neutral is lacking in true moral fiber but not malicious. Garret from the Thief game series is pretty much chaotic neutral.
GingerbreadMan 03-13-07, 08:06 PM	I've done away with alignment. Before my players always argued amongst each other over what action they "should" do with their alignment, and everyone HATED being good or lawful because it "restricted" them. I got so sick of it I simply said play your character the way you invision him to act. If a paladin does something his diety disproves of, he still must atone, yadda yadda yadda. The main deal for me is to shift the focus of staying "in your alignment" to "doing what my character views as right or rational" after this campaign I may slowly bring it back, but it really got out of hand for a while. (Oh no! we cant go to ____ because that ruler is good. Im evil, I will have to kill him! - actual quote by player)
Witch 03-13-07, 08:48 PM	Before my players always argued amongst each other over what action they "should" do with their alignment, and everyone HATED being good or lawful because it "restricted" them. Your players have a flawed view of alignment. Actions determine alignment. Alignment doesn't determine actions. Noone has the right to say "no, you can't do that, that's not in your alignment". Such a stance generally leads to stereotyping and needless limitations. I still play with alignment, it gives a general idea of how the character thinks, but aside from that - it doesn't impact roleplay very much. Occassionally for a spell, yeah, but I think people are worrying about alignment by far, far too much.
High Octane 03-13-07, 10:29 PM	Your players have a flawed view of alignment. Actions determine alignment. Alignment doesn't determine actions. Actually its both. Alignment has a sort of inertia. Your actions cause it to swing one way, and that motion shapes your future actions to act that way.If you go against it, its hard, but it eventually goes the other way.
Witch 03-14-07, 06:33 AM	Actually its both. Alignment has a sort of inertia. Your actions cause it to swing one way, and that motion shapes your future actions to act that way.If you go against it, its hard, but it eventually goes the other way. I actually agree, but they do that ingame. Out of game, other people have no right to tell you "you're not allowed to do that because of your alignment".
GingerbreadMan 03-14-07, 12:50 PM	Noone has the right to say "no, you can't do that, that's not in your alignment" I agree which is why I got rid of the system at least for a while to let it cool off with my players
High Octane 03-14-07, 01:20 PM	I agree which is why I got rid of the system at least for a while to let it cool off with my players Thats rather extreme, your response to people showing some abuse of a system is to completely scrap it? I would just de-emphasize it.
GingerbreadMan 03-14-07, 01:32 PM	I guess I didnt clarify that the problems went on for 2 campaigns, probably spanning about 4 or 5 months During that time I tried to explain it all to them. Also it really was only a problem with 2 of them, the other 2 didnt care what their alignment was, what they thought their character would do, they did. I'm curious though, what would you do to try to de-emphasize it? I think it would be helpful for when I start bringing it back
High Octane 03-14-07, 01:47 PM	I guess I didnt clarify that the problems went on for 2 campaigns, probably spanning about 4 or 5 months During that time I tried to explain it all to them. Also it really was only a problem with 2 of them, the other 2 didnt care what their alignment was, what they thought their character would do, they did. I'm curious though, what would you do to try to de-emphasize it? I think it would be helpful for when I start bringing it back Dont pay attention to it at first, then pay minimal attention. Just having it on paper as a start makes them think about it. Dont call them on it barring extreme cases (paladin eating baby liver with fava beans and a nice chianti without using proper table manners and such) Or, you can also leave the alignments blank for the first few levels and then tell them what alignment they are after that.
CroBob 03-14-07, 01:48 PM	Ok, pet peeve, and you've set it off twice. Die is singular, dice is plural. You rolled a die. <3