Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Prom 07-14-07, 10:16 PM	Hi All, I have a little problem. Currently I play a CN fighter, now I know how to roleplay CN. But how do I achieve it without disadvantaging the party or hurting other characters in the party? I have been trying to do little things like; chop the head of my enemy off and collect them, cook up the bodies of the parties causalties. Not very good examples. And not really CN behaviour, as people have already pointed out to me (added 19/7/2007). But recently I had my character jumped the store counter and tryed to spank the store keeper with the flat of his sword. This was because the store owner had given them poison potions. This resulted in the cleric heating up his armour and weapons, burning him. The Paladin Pinned him down and he got thrown in jail. The real problem was that my character caused the rest of the party to get -2 penalty to diplomacy check's when talking to people in the town. Any suggestions. Prom
JulesCARV 07-14-07, 10:35 PM	Well, possibly by being independent of other people's opinions, suspicious of authorities and "experts," pursuing your own self-interest over more collective pursuits, and preferring to relate to people on a arms-length, ad-hoc basis than getting into deep relationships or becoming a boss or subordinate, but at the same time keeping the consequences of your actions in mind and not being a completely sociopathic idiot.
danielinthewolvesden 07-14-07, 10:46 PM	CN's are not insane or a sociopath, so- apparently you do NOT know how to roleplay a CN.
Von_Harbringer 07-14-07, 11:09 PM	CN's are not insane or a sociopath, so- apparently you do NOT know how to roleplay a CN. They call it Chaotic Stupid. I have a half-orc rogue and he's CN. With a intelligence of 12, wisdom of 8, and charisma of 6. :D I play him as being obnoxious, rude, and annoying.
StevenO 07-14-07, 11:16 PM	On playing CN: "I pretty much do what I want and when I want. I don't intentionally harm those who don't deserve it (this includes making my party crazy) but I also don't go out of my way to do nice things for people without expectation of a reward."
Salla 07-14-07, 11:20 PM	The last time I played CN, I did it by continually doing the second thing that sprang into my head at any given situation. The first would usually be suicidal. The thing to remember about CN is that you live by your whims ... but just because you have a whim doesn't mean you can't realize that you're about to do something stupid.
Zaver 07-14-07, 11:25 PM	So many problems could have been avoided if WotC managed to describe CN with out inexplicably making people think it was the "act like a deranged fool" alignment. You want to be CN and not get in the way of the party, just do what ever you feel like doing with out making problems for the party. It's not hard.
Prom 07-14-07, 11:29 PM	Hi JulesCARV, Well, yes I do have the character suspicious of just about everyone apart from party members. This is mostly because the party is always getting ambushed. I have the character not always agree with the rest of the party, regarding interactions with NPC's. It was my character that suggested taking a Hobgoblin Prisoner rather than trying to torture it, as it was not talking. As for the store owner selling poison potions, I was right about that situation, she was guilty. The rest of the party would have just walked off and let the store keeper be. Possibly asked questions around town, but the store keeper would have just disappeared, if not confronted. After all you can't expect an NPC who gives you poison to tell the truth. I am also trying to shift the alignment to CG. danielinthewolvesden, how about some assistance then. CN are unpredictable, Individualistic, Free-spirited, challenge tradition and authority. How would you play it without just having the LG and NG characters make all the moves. Prom
Board_Rider 07-14-07, 11:57 PM	Usually when I play a CN (and you don't have to play it this way) PC he tends to be a bit self absorbed and looks out for himself first. That is not to say he actively seeks to screw over party members (w/o a party he is without adventure) nor is he always there to help, unless it helps his goals. To me Jayne(? - from Firefly) represents CN. I don't think what you did in the shop was wrong but I would recommend setting some PC goals and centering yourself around those goals.
DarkflameX 07-15-07, 12:08 AM	do what you want, to hell with the rest. you can still have friends and people you like and stuff but you do things for yourself over society.
Blackhound 07-15-07, 12:39 AM	CN's are not insane or a sociopath, so- apparently you do NOT know how to roleplay a CN. Apparently you lack an understanding of individuality. If his CN character is this way then he's doing his job of being himself just fine. The alignment doesn't define the character, the character defines their alignment. Learn this, you seem to need to. Usually when I play a CN (and you don't have to play it this way) PC he tends to be a bit self absorbed and looks out for himself first. That is not to say he actively seeks to screw over party members (w/o a party he is without adventure) nor is he always there to help, unless it helps his goals. To me Jayne(? - from Firefly) represents CN. I don't think what you did in the shop was wrong but I would recommend setting some PC goals and centering yourself around those goals. I'd consider this the most on-track advice/opinion in the thread. It encourages you to play your character how you like, which is key. It then gives you a modern day example in media that one can easily draw similarities from to confirm you are indeed doing things in a fairly CN manner. Ultimately, your character should decide his own alignment through his own free will and actions. Part of the excitement of having multiple alignments in a party is the interactions they bring up, and you may notice this was done quite well in the Baldur's Gate series (which had a uniquely difficult time DMing). Often, depending on the main character's actions, the other party members would have something to say, changing the way they felt about party members, and sometimes would even leave the party or become outright hostile if things rubbed too badly against their grain. Obviously, if your DM hasn't said anything negative about your character's behavior he is finding it perfectly acceptable for the campaign your group is currently playing. If your fellow players also have not complained, I believe it is safe to assume they also enjoy it - perhaps your character appeals to a voice of reason in the players that their characters may not be able to reflect.
Candin 07-15-07, 12:45 AM	Have you tried, well, not assaulting people? (: You could try to be subtle (:
Prom 07-15-07, 12:51 AM	Hi Von_Harbringer, I could play my character as rude to annoying/aggressive NPC's or strangers not members of the party. Although this can be trick, if the NPC has something the party needs. Salla, now that is an interesting method, do the second thing that comes to mind not the first, but consider the consequences. Board_Rider, Now that is a good idea. Set goals for my character. I do have some like; follow the old wizard's suggestions, as he does share similar idea's to my character. Fight alongside the Paladin in a competative manner trying to kill more enemies then him. Avoid and ignore the snobby cleric's who dislikes my character for his history. Is this what you mean? The House rule in my group is that characters cannot hurt characters in the party or disadvantage the party. It's not so easy if you play CN, LG and LN are much easier. So I cannot just do what I like, DarkflameX.Not that I want to play like that anyway. Thanks everyone Prom
Zaver 07-15-07, 01:06 AM	Apparently you lack an understanding of individuality. If his CN character is this way then he's doing his job of being himself just fine. The alignment doesn't define the character, the character defines their alignment. Learn this, you seem to need to. That's overly simplistic. Just because we pick our alignments doesn't mean that we can pick which ever one we want and have it be how ever we want it. The problem here is Prom has a character that is causing problems for the party because he is taking CN to mean he has no self control and acts on what ever whim he has. I mean just look at his comment to Salla, he thinks it's "interestng" to think about what he's doing.
Kouk 07-15-07, 01:06 AM	In the PC game EDIT: Neverwinter Nights 2, there is a female sorcerer character who, to me, seemed to epitomize her alignment of CN. Every time she opened her mouth, I thought, "Holy cow, that is really Chaotic Neutral". She is very self absorbed, the world revolves around her. If she gets the idea she wants to do something, you have to talk her out of it by manipulating her - like suggesting an alternate course would be more satisfying or beneficial. Very short fuse, takes offense at little things and might lash out verbally or sometimes with magic. She holds grudges, but also forgives them at whim. You might consider a character that has mood swings, sometimes does things extraordinarily beneficial and self sacrificing for the party but other times not, and possibly look down on others openly. You seem to have been playing CN as a sociopath/psychotic, which I suppose might very well technically be CN. The problem is, that version of CN obviously causes problems with the rest of the group, and does little to encourage them to not kill you off or abandon you the first chance they get. CN does not mean you are necessarily insane. Re-read the alignment descriptions and try to think of alternate ways you could interpret it. Just because someone is unpredictable doesn't mean he is dangerously insane. A CN might be very tempted to attack someone who sold him poison, but only if he could get away with it cleanly. You might consider making RP signals to the party in instances like that, such as "Bob starts shaking and he glares at the shopkeeper. He looks like he might attack him". This way you can get the point across that your character is mad, but the other party members have a chance to mollify or restrain you before you actually end up causing serious trouble (and without you rampaging and needing to be knocked out). Then you can RP that you are nearly foaming at the mouth trying to jump across the counter, but the Fighter is holding you in place and drag you outside the store. Maybe the party can even use this as an RP way to threaten the shop keeper "Make reparations for selling us poison, or we sic this crazy guy on you. You don't want to know what he did to the last guy who cheated him...". This way, even though you are unpredictable, you can still be beneficial to the party when perhaps your character was not trying to be. The key is really not causing too many problems for the other players with your character's actions. If the party is in town and splits up to do their own thing, perhaps you do some weird stuff "off-camera" in ways that won't be drawn back to the party as a whole, like you use a fireball on a banana peel you slipped on.
danielinthewolvesden 07-15-07, 02:09 AM	. As for the store owner selling poison potions, I was right about that situation, she was guilty. The rest of the party would have just walked off and let the store keeper be. Possibly asked questions around town, but the store keeper would have just disappeared, if not confronted. After all you can't expect an NPC who gives you poison to tell the truth. I am also trying to shift the alignment to CG. danielinthewolvesden, how about some assistance then. CN are unpredictable, Individualistic, Free-spirited, challenge tradition and authority. How would you play it without just having the LG and NG characters make all the moves. Prom Well, if someone tries to kill you, even LG folks can strike back. If I was playing a CN PC and someone sold me a poison potion, here's is what I would do: go back and buy a few potions, then force her to drink them.:evillaugh (My LN PC would call the Law out on her, to show the difference, and my NG PC would try to convert her to the path of Good) I play a CN as loyal to his group (freinds) and family, and not wanting to do stuff that hurts them OR puts HIM in jail, seriously hurt or dead. After all, it is all fun until someone you care about gets hurt. But pretty much anything else. CN's like to gamble, take risks, but are not foolish unless they have a very low WIS score. They are not sociopaths, nor are they insane. Do you have any freinds who are of the "OK, why not, what the heck, I'll try anything once" variety? That is CN. Now, sure, your PC COULD be an insane sociopath. Mostly we call that CE, but some far-fringies CN may qualify. But those folks do not join groups, they go solo, so generally you never find them as part of a adventuring party- except maybe for one day. I was rather harsh on you, but these boards are full of DM's and players complaining about disruptive players who play their CN characters as insane sociopaths. Or, sometimes we find folks here bragging about their CN sociopathic PCs'. These tend to be very disruptive, make extra work for the DM, and lower everyone ELSES fun. Often they are not invited back, get a bad rep as a player, or even get kicked out. Sure, you need to have fun, D&D is a GAME. But not at the expense of the other players fun- no matter if you are a sociopathic CN, a "theif" who steals from the party, a PKer, or even a "detect and smite" Paladin. No matter what personality you assign your PC, it is not fair to ruin the game for the other players. To gve you some perspective, I have been there and done that myself. I have played such a PC, played with such a PC, and DMed with such a PC (the first was fun, the other two were not). I am a retired Federal Agent, over 50 yo, and have been DMing for well over 30 years. A real Grognard. So, I have lots of good advice but sometimes a git a mite cranky, so forgive me.:P
Comus 07-15-07, 02:19 AM	You know, the one game I was in (and is currently on hold), the other player was playing CN and did it quite well. The character was totally in it for herself, only taking plot hooks when she was bored, needed money, or thought they were related to her own personal quest. She occasionally got angry at my character for killing NPCs she didn't think of as enemies (though they were, note, quite evil people) and almost never did anything 'because it was the right thing to do'. A shopkeep swindled her? That'd be one dead shopkeeper. And my CG character wasn't much better, though he did have a large stroke of responsibility through him, and he had a tiny bit of honor... and was also the biggest liar in the campaign setting, but let's not get into that.
buzzsawl 07-15-07, 02:38 AM	Board_Rider, Now that is a good idea. Set goals for my character. I do have some like; follow the old wizard's suggestions, as he does share similar idea's to my character. Fight alongside the Paladin in a competative manner trying to kill more enemies then him. Avoid and ignore the snobby cleric's who dislikes my character for his history. Is this what you mean? This is probably the best way to tackle playing CN. But go for more over-arching things. Things the character likes or dislikes, as opposed to lists of goals and accomplishments that he wants to do. To me, chaotic represents a more emotionally/instinct driven character...someone who hates to do lists. That said...a character can be CN without being most-chaotic-person-alive. He still lives in a real world, with real consequences. He knows that pestering random people on the street might land him in jail (thus prevent him from having fun). And that harassing barmaids might get him tossed out (thus preventing him from getting as drunk as he wanted). Or that annoying a noble the party is talking to might screw up the party's chances of getting a reward the noble seems to be talking about (thus preventing a payday). The House rule in my group is that characters cannot hurt characters in the party or disadvantage the party. It's not so easy if you play CN, LG and LN are much easier. So I cannot just do what I like, DarkflameX.Not that I want to play like that anyway. Selfish is easy in regards to staying w/ and helping a party. You can't watch your own back 24/7 now can you? ;)
Jungingen 07-15-07, 02:51 AM	That whole "traveling with a Paladin" thing will give you fits. If you want to keep the character and be your usual irrational self, then perhaps the party just needs to keep a tighter leash on you. They can probably be encouraged, perhaps OOC, to help moderate your character's behavior when it's inconvenient for him to have psychotic breaks and start thrashing NPCs. That doesn't have to mean Heat Metal or chucking you in the hoosegow. Just play Good Cop/Bad Cop a little bit more and have that big, noble pally hold you back when you get out of hand. The party's reputation shouldn't suffer as long as they can control you around civilized folk and make it clear that you do good work when you're not beating up shopkeepers. Or, for a more individualistic approach, if your character wants to keep traveling with the party he might have to become more surreptitious. Paladins and Clerics of similar bent are humongous party poopers and doormats. If they're not willing to deal with situations like a swindling snake oil salesman properly, you might just have to resolve matters more discreetly in the future. What they never know won't hurt you. They're lucky to have you to claim restitution on their behalf when they're too obsequious to do it themselves. Of course, the first interpretation is better-suited to a CG alignment. You still have the violent and irrational impulses, but having learned the consequences of your actions, you are man enough to tell the party to hold you back when you might harm innocents or defenseless folk. Just a few thoughts. That silly test said I'm a Chaotic Neutral Dwarven Fighter, so perhaps I'm qualified to respond. ;)
Potato Weasel 07-15-07, 08:46 AM	Just remember theres a reason your not dead or in jail. Your not chaotic evil, you dont do evil things, because its usually out of your way, and messes up your clothes, also, you dont want the law on you or paladins trying to hunt you down. Your not chaotic good, you dont do good things for their own sake. You do them for money, or because if your famous you'll have lots of friends you can mooch off of, also, being famous is good in itself. You change your mind about things, you dont always do the same thing in every situation. Your fickle. You might be a bit fashionable, tossing something away if you see others wearing it. You dont do bad things or go against your party, because they're pretty strong, and at least you can depend on them to watch your back while you sleep. Everyone needs a friend right? Chaotic doesnt mean your crazy. It doesnt even have to mean your that out there. Neutral means you look out for yourself, that involves not upsetting the law (even if its evil law) and not upsetting the party.
Prom 07-15-07, 09:07 AM	Hi All, It's clear to me that CN characters in roleplaying are a touchy subject for some people. Whatever people have experienced on the boards or in their own games, how about giving me a break! The character tryed to spank the shop keeper not kill them, and all other avenues of diplomacy, threats, etc had been exhausted first. danielinthewolvesden, I did try to get the shop keeper to drink the potion, but it didn't work. And why would they agree to drink a potion they know is poisoned anyway. This is the first time I have had my character do anything like this. I am personally against players being disruptive to the party. But I don't want to let NPC's get away with attempted murder either. danielinthewolvesden, actually my character does have a low wisdom score (9), and as we play with a 36 point build, it's pretty low. I have based my character on the drug addict's and criminals I work with in my job. I have a fair idea of CN, it can be very board. I also know I need to have limit's when playing it, if I don't want to ruin it for everyone. Otherwise why did I post this question? Blackhound, as it happen's, I check with the DM and players if what I had done was going to cause problem's. None of the players had anything negative to say to me, one of them was very surprised. The DM had no problem with it, although did comment he was surprised I had my character jump over the counter, etc; as he knows I dislike party conflict. What the DM did say was that it was going to affect the rest of the parties diplomacy check's in the town, I had not considered that possibility. So this is were I stuffed up, as I didn't want to disadvantge the party. Board_Rider and Blackhound, I have a copy of the Firefly series so, I will re-watch Jane again. Thank you for your advice, Jungingen, Board_Rider , Blackhound, buzzsawl, Comus. Prom
Caelic 07-15-07, 11:39 AM	Character first, alignment second--always. The character dictates the alignment, not the other way around. I had a long-running Chaotic Neutral character--a first-edition Rhenee bard. He had a fairly straightforward (if xenophobic) philosophy of life: 1. I am responsible for myself and my family. 2. The world is a cold and uncaring place, and those who are not like me will lie to me, cheat me, and steal from me at every opportunity. It's nothing personal; that's just how the world is. 3. Therefore, it is my responsibility to beat them to the punch. This is just self-defense, and I feel no guilt for it. The person I swindled should have been looking out for himself; it's not my job to do so. For the most part, he steered clear of stealing from party members--not because he thought it was wrong, but because it would have been a bad idea and dangerous to him personally if they caught him. Self-preservation makes total sense to most CN characters. In fact, there were certain members of the party who totally confirmed his belief that non-Rhenee would cheat him at every opportunity. In the first adventure they ever played, the party of seven came back with seven magic items. After every other player had selected one, I took what was left--a spear +1. Four of the six other players declared that since I wasn't proficient with it, I couldn't choose it, and decided to sell it and split the gold evenly instead. From that point forward, while the character did not directly steal from those party members, he went out of his way to line his own pockets and the pockets of those party members he considered "family" while not doing the same for the four who had cheated him.
BW0222 07-15-07, 12:16 PM	Prom, The chaotic stupid annology is bang on. Chaotic neutral is not stupid, irrational, or insane. A chaotic person may be selfish, self-centered, and do what is best for them, but anyone with a wisdom of 6 or higher can likely figure out that the easiest way of depriving yourself of your freedoms is to act stupidly. A chaotic person may not like the law, guard, nobles, etc. but he realizes that punching a guard in the face is the easiest way to end up in jail. Stealing from your own party is rarely beneficial in the long run. A chaotic person can make reasonable decisions based on logic. So... the best thing from me is to not be stupid. Don't p-off other party members, don't steal, don't cause problems, don't act insane, etc. Cost-benefit analysis says that I'll do better with these folks as friends than as enemies. But how do I achieve it without disadvantaging the party or hurting other characters in the party? Easy. Ask yourself, how does hurting another party member help me? How does being kicked out of the group, not being trusted, or having one of them hostile help me? I have been trying to do little things like; chop the head of my enemy off and collect them, cook up the bodies of the parties causalties. That isn't chaotic neutral. That is just insane -- not to mention sick. How does chopping heads off enemies help you? How does disgusting your fellow party members to the point where they must want to put you in a sanitarium, jail, or at least leave you at the next city, help you? But recently I had my character jumped the store counter and tryed to spank the store keeper with the flat of his sword. This was because the store owner had given them poison potions. This resulted in the cleric heating up his armour and weapons, burning him. The Paladin Pinned him down and he got thrown in jail. The real problem was that my character caused the rest of the party to get -2 penalty to diplomacy check's when talking to people in the town. And how does jumping the store owner in public (and the resulting issues) help you? Is there any reason why any of the following courses of actions wouldn't be better for you... a) calling the guard, b) talking with your fellow party members, c) going after the shopkeeper when he was alone, etc., etc. Chaotic does not mean impulsive.
Forfeit 07-15-07, 12:19 PM	Just because you´re CN doesnt mean you have to be crazy, god dammit.
CaoSlayer 07-15-07, 12:34 PM	At least keep your character sanity to the level of jack sparrow.
Zaver 07-15-07, 01:21 PM	Am I the only one who thinks alot of people are playing Chaotic in a very Lawful way?
Board_Rider 07-15-07, 01:31 PM	At least keep your character sanity to the level of jack sparrow. Another great CN character to draw upon.
Khazan 07-15-07, 02:05 PM	Prom, The chaotic stupid annology is bang on. Chaotic neutral is not stupid, irrational, or insane. A chaotic person may be selfish, self-centered, and do what is best for them, but anyone with a wisdom of 6 or higher can likely figure out that the easiest way of depriving yourself of your freedoms is to act stupidly.............. Chaotic does not mean impulsive. Well...I agree and disagree with you there. Respectfully, of course ;) Chaotic could be extrapolated to mean a sensitive dependence on initial conditions (as it does in mathematical systems) and therefore, the CN character's actions might be dictated by such a dependence, which would lead to some impulsive actions, at least as far as the rest of the group perceived them. I think the self-centered aspect of CN springs from this sort of dependence, which causes the character to behave 'oddly'. For example, a player in our game runs a CN barbarian who will often times simply wander off from the group, becoming interested in some mundane part of the surroundings, or often times sit down in a passageway and begin eating his rations while the rest of us are knee deep in some difficulty. He isn't so much concerned with events in the moment, but rather concerned with some inner need or curiousity which is usually at odds with external events. Now, he doesn't put himself in peril or ignore threats to his well-being when he does this; as you say, CN characters know enough to preserve their freedom of action to respond to outside influences when those influences are threatening. I agree completely that stupidity is not a part of Chaotic alignment; the player would be better served looking at the character's Intelligence and Wisdom scores - good point.
Caelic 07-15-07, 02:18 PM	Am I the only one who thinks alot of people are playing Chaotic in a very Lawful way? Not at all. Chaotic doesn't mean "insane," and it doesn't mean "totally random." If I'm chaotic, that doesn't mean I love strawberries today and hate them tomorrow. It simply means that I prefer to make my own decisions about what's right and wrong--screw what society thinks. Once I've decided that slavery is wrong, I'm probably going to keep thinking that slavery is wrong. Once I've decided that it's okay to steal from people who are dishonest, I'm probably going to continue thinking that unless something happens to change my mind. "Chaotic" does not equal "inconsistent."
Zaver 07-15-07, 02:37 PM	Not at all. Chaotic doesn't mean "insane," and it doesn't mean "totally random." If I'm chaotic, that doesn't mean I love strawberries today and hate them tomorrow. It simply means that I prefer to make my own decisions about what's right and wrong--screw what society thinks. Once I've decided that slavery is wrong, I'm probably going to keep thinking that slavery is wrong. Once I've decided that it's okay to steal from people who are dishonest, I'm probably going to continue thinking that unless something happens to change my mind. "Chaotic" does not equal "inconsistent." I wasn't trying to say it did, but it seems alot of people are very methodical and predicitible in how they aproach Chaotic.
Caelic 07-15-07, 02:45 PM	I wasn't trying to say it did, but it seems alot of people are very methodical and predicitible in how they aproach Chaotic. Why not? A lot of Chaotic folks are predictable. "Hey, see Bubba over there? You want to get punched in the face? Try giving him an order. Sets him off every time." "Hey, you want to get Karra to come along on this mission? Talk about the peasants Overlord Borron is oppressing. She hates tyrants."
bloodtalon 07-15-07, 02:47 PM	think of a manic/depressive one minute happy go lucky the next brooding and almost suicidal that way he is completley random and have a good excuse why
Von_Harbringer 07-15-07, 03:07 PM	Chaotic does not mean impulsive. Yes and No; usually PCs with a low wisdom (decision stat), that are chaotic in alignment, tend to be impulsive. I usually see chaotic characters acting on emotion. Chaotic neutral will do what is best for themselves without actively benefiting or harming others for their gain. That's my :twocents:
danielinthewolvesden 07-15-07, 03:15 PM	danielinthewolvesden, I did try to get the shop keeper to drink the potion, but it didn't work. And why would they agree to drink a potion they know is poisoned anyway. danielinthewolvesden, actually my character does have a low wisdom score (9), and as we play with a 36 point build, it's pretty low. You would have to force them, with a dagger at their throat. Or if you had great crowd skills, you could buy the potions and in front of the Consables, dare her to crink them, as after all, if they are not poisoned why shouldn't she? What can she say? Admit they are poisoned? Well, that is your fault, now, is it not? With a 36 point build I would run a Fighter with a WIS of 14, for that all critical +2 to Will saves, instead of the -1 you have now. (And why a 9, not an 8?) Str16 Dex14 or 16 (one of these two can be 16) Con14 or 16 Int 12 wis14 Cha8
Morits 07-15-07, 03:22 PM	Be Chaotic. Too many PCs use CN as a dump-stat to get around the no Evil rule. Evil PCs murder villagers and get offended when the Militia chase them, "Moi? But I only murdered NPCs and stole their stuff. Surely killing NPCs don't count?"
CaptainPicard 07-15-07, 03:26 PM	Chaotic characters tend to act on their impulses, meaning that they don't bottle up emotions and generally, if you annoy them you're going to hear about it. They don't tend to care for societal standards so being polite isn't too much of an issue with them. That doesn't mean they're going to attack random people or even be unpleasant in general, but they might come off that way to others. For example, while the Lord of a region was explaining the requirements of a quest he had hired them to complete, my CN Fighter took out a beer and started drinking it in front of everyone. Needless to say, most present took extreme offense to this, but she was honestly confused because in her mind, she had agreed to help this guy, and she was listening anyway, so why can't she have a drink? Another good way to contrast a Chaotic character from a Lawful one is to be particularly loud and spirited. Again, you don't have to be rude or an ass, but while the Paladin will think carefully before he speaks, you might be more likely to call the guy a ****ing idiot or tell the shopkeeper to do something unmentionable with the potion bottle or whatever. In general, that doesn't upset the party's goals, so it's a good thing to do. Plus, when it does upset the party's goals, such as at the royal banquet, it's fun to roleplay the Chaotic character trying to keep his mouth under control. Since you're Neutral, you don't want to necessarily upset the party, since these people probably include some good friends of yours and you'd be a jackass if you messed them up for no reason. However, you're also probably not an idealist and you're looking out for yourself. Good motivations I've seen for Chaotic characters sticking with a group are friendship and mutual profit. It's also fun to make a CN Fighter who just loves swinging her fullblade around at things (I speak from experience), but if you do that just make sure that you're still sane. Some good CN characters I'd recommend thinking about are: - Captain Jack Sparrow from Pirates - Jayne Cobb from Firefly - Mugen from Samurai Champloo - Han Solo from Star Wars (at the start) - Every rock star ever
Zaver 07-15-07, 03:40 PM	Why not? A lot of Chaotic folks are predictable. Yes, but that's just one of those things that happens. My thing is that alot of players seem to set up a code of cunduct like this: 1. I am responsible for myself and my family. 2. The world is a cold and uncaring place, and those who are not like me will lie to me, cheat me, and steal from me at every opportunity. It's nothing personal; that's just how the world is. 3. Therefore, it is my responsibility to beat them to the punch. This is just self-defense, and I feel no guilt for it. The person I swindled should have been looking out for himself; it's not my job to do so. Having a code is a very Lawful thing. Chaotic characters might respond the same way to the same situation but they don't set out to do so, it just happens. They really should just be the kind of people who respond to what's going on around them in accordance with the other aspect of their alignment. Good trying to make the outcome fit their idea of right, Evil making it suit what they want and Neutral trying to make themselves happy without stepping on to many toes.
ShinoAburame 07-15-07, 03:47 PM	Do you watch South Park? Saddam Hussein=Chaotic evil. You don't want to be a reckless, self-serving douche. Kenny=Chaotic good. You don't want to be a hotheaded rebel. What you want to be is the long forgotten character Dr. Mephisto from the older episodes. "Pa-chomp chomp! Pa-chewey chewy chomp!" "Perhaps the world isn't ready for seven asses! I was a fool to try and play God! *gets out revolver and shoots the Stan clone*" Stan's clone could work too if he has horrideous mental scores. He was very unstable emotionaly which causeed him to go into a frenzy.
Caelic 07-15-07, 03:59 PM	Yes, but that's just one of those things that happens. My thing is that alot of players seem to set up a code of cunduct like this. Having a code is a very Lawful thing. No, it's a very human thing. I don't believe you can find me a single person in real life who doesn't have some kind of guidelines by which he conducts his life. Such a person would not be "chaotic"; he'd be insane beyond the ability to function. Chaotic characters might respond the same way to the same situation but they don't set out to do so, it just happens. So saying "I don't stick my hand in fire because it burns" is inherently lawful to you? Chaotic characters are not Pavlovian dogs, responding to stimuli and the environment without any kind of epistemology. I note that you immediately contradict the notion that Chaotic characters should not have a code by saying: They really should just be the kind of people who respond to what's going on around them in accordance with the other aspect of their alignment. Good trying to make the outcome fit their idea of right, Evil making it suit what they want and Neutral trying to make themselves happy without stepping on to many toes. All of these are "codes of conduct," no different than "Swindle others before they have the chance to swindle you."
DrMorganes 07-15-07, 04:08 PM	Whenever folks start tossing around examples of Chaotic Neutral, I immediately bring up one of my favorite movie characters: Han Solo. Think back to when we first met Han in the canteen in Mos Eisley: he's a smuggler, a criminal, who looks out for his own skin first. He's loyal to Chewbacca, but only because there's some serious history between the two. He takes the job to ferry Luke and Ben to Alderaan for one reason, and one reason only: to make enough money to pay off his debt to Jabba the Hutt - itself incurred when he dumped his smuggled (and very illegal) cargo to avoid trouble with the Imperial authorities that had boarded his ship. At his core, Han dislikes any authority except his own. He breaks rules as he feels necessary, goes where he feels his skills will give him the best advantage, and doesn't truly care about anyone other than himself and his very best friend. That, to me, is a quintessential example of Chaotic Neutral. (Han is also a great character study in alignment shift, as he becomes Chaotic Good over the course of the trilogy, but that's a discussion for another topic.)
Zaver 07-15-07, 05:02 PM	No, it's a very human thing. I don't believe you can find me a single person in real life who doesn't have some kind of guidelines by which he conducts his life. Such a person would not be "chaotic"; he'd be insane beyond the ability to function. So saying "I don't stick my hand in fire because it burns" is inherently lawful to you? Chaotic characters are not Pavlovian dogs, responding to stimuli and the environment without any kind of epistemology. I note that you immediately contradict the notion that Chaotic characters should not have a code by saying: All of these are "codes of conduct," no different than "Swindle others before they have the chance to swindle you." Not sticking your hand in fire is just self preservation, it's not a code. You're also wrong to say they aren't the people that just respond to stimuli, Chaotic characters are instictive where as Lawful are the methodical ones who go into a situation with the idea of how it should be handled. Like you're points of screw them before they screw you.
Von_Harbringer 07-15-07, 06:09 PM	To better define Chaotic Stupid, the best way for me is to use an episode of Futurama. It's suppose to be funny and comical but many people play chaotic neutral character much like the following example. The episode is from Tales of Interest, where Frye asks the WhatIf machine what if he wasn't frozen. A temporal tear opened up and closed which got the attention or Steven Hawking, Nichelle Nichols (Lt. Uhura), Albert Gore, and Gary Gygax. When Gary Gygax was determining how he felt about meeting Frye he rolled some dice and came up with "pleasure" (Sorry if I might have missed represented the scene). Too many people determine the best way to play a chaotic neutral character is to open up the PHB to the confusion spell and roll on the chart to see what their character should do. That is being chaotic stupid :pbbbtt: In that some people like that because they can be a pain to fellow players (so they can bring attention to themselves). :banghead: :headexplo
calvinNhobbes 07-15-07, 06:47 PM	For example, a player in our game runs a CN barbarian who will often times simply wander off from the group, becoming interested in some mundane part of the surroundings, or often times sit down in a passageway and begin eating his rations while the rest of us are knee deep in some difficulty. He isn't so much concerned with events in the moment, but rather concerned with some inner need or curiousity which is usually at odds with external events. Now, he doesn't put himself in peril or ignore threats to his well-being when he does this; as you say, CN characters know enough to preserve their freedom of action to respond to outside influences when those influences are threatening. This description really has less to do with alignment and more to do with wisdom. Giving that example without knowing the context of the discussion, I would think you were describing how to play a low wisdom PC, not a CN one. Being chaotic does not mean you have a short attention span.
TimelordSimone 07-15-07, 07:09 PM	Okay, just gonna throw my example in... My CN bard abandoned his family (who wanted him to build boats) and ran off with gypsies. He would go back and protect his family from danger, but he wants to be able to do his own thing. He adventures for fame and fortune (and is he gets a few guys into bed along the way, well, all the better :P ) He doesn't tend to plan much, and he can be a bit self-involved and arrogant. However, he gets on well with most people that he meets. Everybody's second best friend. :D EDIT Gary Gygax says: I'm *rolls* delighted to meet you. I love that episode...
Prom 07-15-07, 07:32 PM	Hi I think, This thread has turned into a real monster. Clearly asking people for help on how to play CN, without being a pain to the party may not have been a good idea. There is a lot to respond to, but I will also make my characters history more clear. I am only going to respond to Caelic first, as he has been the least aggressive. Ivan Keel (CN trying to slowly move to CG) Ivan is an orphan, who became a ward of the Lion's of Brindol. In his teens he has broken the law to survive, stealing, killed one man in self defence, but was still sent to jail for a year. Ivan a little crazy at times, because of the time sent in the Brindol Dungeon's and the job's he has done have been isolating. So I play him antisocial at times, to indicate that he has not had good role models. Caelic, this is what I was looking for, thank you. I actually built the character history first then, built the alignment and mechanics around that. So if the character comes off as crazy, that's because sometimes he is. My understanding of CN is based on the people I work with criminals and drug addicts; (1) Person does not take responsibility for their actions. (2) Avoids and dislikes the law, would never actively seek out the law for help. Would take matter's into their own hand's if all other avenues are not working. (3) Think's only of their own well-being first and second come family and friends. No one else matter's. (4) Is not concerned about lying or stealing, as this is considered normal (my character does not need to steal anymore to survive, so does not). (5) No one can be trusted but family and friend's usually. (6) Violence is a part of life, you fight if you get angry , are insulted or are threatened. Enjoys fighting, as it is a sign of prestige among the social circle that is familar. (7) Person's behaviour is consistent to themselves, but others see inconsistency. (8) Has the ability to think though the consequences of their behaviour, but fails to do this more often then most other people. These are the guidelines I have for the character Ivan and CN seemed to be the closest match. Prom
Zaver 07-15-07, 07:51 PM	(8) Has the ability to think though the consequences of their behaviour, but fails to do this more often then most other people. You just need to focus more on that to avoid party conflict. As per the PHB CN characters follow their whims. Follow being the key word as opposed to act indesicreminantly upon them. If you don't want to be a problem for the party it's like I said from the start, just don't be.
Lionhearted 07-15-07, 09:11 PM	perfect examples of CN: Jack sparrow Perfect examples of CStupid: Zaphod Beeblebrox
calronmoonflower 07-15-07, 09:19 PM	Hi I think, This thread has turned into a real monster. Clearly asking people for help on how to play CN, without being a pain to the party may not have been a good idea. There is a lot to respond to, but I will also make my characters history more clear. I am only going to respond to Caelic first, as he has been the least aggressive. A chaotic neutral person will generally be guided by their emotions and self-interest. (Example: If you don't want to go to jail, don't get caught doing things that will get you thrown in jail.) As they become more chaotic good they should develop empathy for others and start putting their own interests aside and help others out of sympathy. In time they will start helping other because they feel it is the right thing to do.
Prom 07-15-07, 09:39 PM	Hi CaoSlayer and Board_Rider, Yes I would agree that Jack sparrow is CN, but he's a bit of a coward too. Jack Sparrow appears a bit crazy at times in what he does, but he has a reason or motive. Thanks for the suggestion. But I have no intention of playing my character, as cowardly as Jack, lol. Von_Harbringer and CaptainPicard, I do try to have my character react on emotions, thanks for the pointer. CaptainPicard, the list of CN characters should also be helpful. DrMorganes, your comments about Han Solo are useful, thanks. I also remember Han Solo shooting into the garbage compactor, getting told-off by the Princess and alerting the stormtroopers to their location. Or running down the hallway after a squad of stormtroopers shooting wildly at them. Now that sort of sounds crazy/implusive to me. But the context was that he walked right into a storm-trooper patrol and saw the sewer monster as a threat. The shift of alignment that you mention is great, as I hope to move more to CG over time, so it is on topic. TimelordSimone, so what specifically do you have your character do, to distinguish your bard from the rest of the party? Calronmoonflower, good points. I am having my character do this with party members first, as the rest of the world would be a huge shift for my character. My character respects the Wizard and is surprise by the Paladin's tolerance in particular. I think the relationship with the cleric, might be getting worse though. Prom
Caelic 07-15-07, 10:56 PM	Ivan Keel (CN trying to slowly move to CG) Ivan is an orphan, who became a ward of the Lion's of Brindol. In his teens he has broken the law to survive, stealing, killed one man in self defence, but was still sent to jail for a year. Ivan a little crazy at times, because of the time sent in the Brindol Dungeon's and the job's he has done have been isolating. So I play him antisocial at times, to indicate that he has not had good role models. Not necessarily a bad thing. Chaotic Neutral doesn't equal crazy, but neither are they mutually exclusive. I do think boiling up your enemies and serving them with Fava beans and a nice Chianti is a bit much, personally. I guess my question would be: why does he do that? What's in it for him? That, to me, is the central defining question of Chaotic Neutral: "What's in it for me?" (1) Person does not take responsibility for their actions. I'm not sure I agree with this. Some Chaotic Neutrals might well do this, but others might be more than willing to take responsibility for their actions. What they're not willing to do is let anyone else tell them their responsibilities. (2) Avoids and dislikes the law, would never actively seek out the law for help. Would take matter's into their own hand's if all other avenues are not working. Probably true. In general, Chaotic characters are probably going to have a reflexive dislike for authority, regardless of whether the authority is just or unjust. (3) Think's only of their own well-being first and second come family and friends. No one else matter's. Essentially correct, though there might be variations for individual characters. (4) Is not concerned about lying or stealing, as this is considered normal (my character does not need to steal anymore to survive, so does not). Again, agreed. A given CN character might not go out of his way to steal, or take particular pleasure in doing so, but I don't think he'd lose sleep over it if he thought it was necessary, either. (5) No one can be trusted but family and friend's usually. With the "usually" proviso, I agree with this. (6) Violence is a part of life, you fight if you get angry , are insulted or are threatened. Enjoys fighting, as it is a sign of prestige among the social circle that is familar. Now, this, I think, is independent of alignment. You could easily have a Chaotic Neutral character who's an abject coward, and will do anything, no matter how underhanded or contemptible, to avoid physical harm to his own tender skin. (7) Person's behaviour is consistent to themselves, but others see inconsistency. A very important point. No character, regardless of alignment, simply acts for no reason; all characters have internal guidelines governing their behavior. The difference between a Lawful and a Chaotic character is that the Lawful character bases his guidelines on what some external source says is appropriate--be it society or his church or what have you--and a Chaotic character's guidelines are those which he, personally, decides are appropriate. (8) Has the ability to think though the consequences of their behaviour, but fails to do this more often then most other people. Or, perhaps, simply care less about some of the consequences. "If I do this, I will be shunned by respectable society. Oh, well!"
calronmoonflower 07-15-07, 11:10 PM	Calronmoonflower, good points. I am having my character do this with party members first, as the rest of the world would be a huge shift for my character. My character respects the Wizard and is surprise by the Paladin's tolerance in particular. I think the relationship with the cleric, might be getting worse though. Alignment shifts are rarely quick. They should be slow enough that the character might not recognize that it was happening at all.
olshanski_home 07-15-07, 11:58 PM	If your character is so CN that he is a liability to a party, he would not travel with a party. The fact that he is with a party is just because the other players are suspending disbelief and assuming that the players are working together. You should automatically dismiss any CN character that can't play well with others. Those characters would certainly exist in the game world, but they would not be adventuring with a party. They are suitable for 1 on 1 games. If you want to play a non-annoying CN character, think of him this way: He puts his own desires first. This could be for amassing wealth, amassing fame, seeking revenge, whatever. He understands that he can best achieve those ends by having a good reputation and by having loyal friends that he can count on. He might let his friends down if it was a matter of life and death, but short of that he'd be trustworthy enough that he'd engender feelings of loyalty among anyone foolish enough to actually be truly loyal. A CN character might appear to be LN or LG for an entire campaign, and only reveal his true nature if he is in a position where he could achieve his ends. For example: if the party just vanquished a dragon, and the remaining 3 members of the party are all in negative HP and disabled. A LG character might find a way to nurse everyone back to health and share the wealth evenly. A CN person might actually leave the friends to die or finish them off just to assure himself of the full share of the treasure. Of course the character would have to balance the possibility of acquiring more wealth later with those same friends, who would be even more loyal after he saved thier lives... not to mention how his reputation would be much better served by being the one man that saved his party rather than the one man that survived and left his friends behind.
bob_the_great 07-16-07, 12:10 AM	(6) Violence is a part of life, you fight if you get angry , are insulted or are threatened. Enjoys fighting, as it is a sign of prestige among the social circle that is familar. I just want to note that this is a character trait and has nothing to do with alignment. It's also one of those annoying outlooks that causes me to sigh and know that a party member is going to be more trouble than he's worth. On the topic of chaotic stupid, I joined a 2e game once where my wife tried playing a CN character. She was told by the DM and other players that she couldn't, because CN characters were essentially psychotic (she wrote down an alignment of N but played chaotic neutral and no one ever said a thing). I often see the notion on these boards that chaotic stupid is to blame on the 3.x description of alignment, which it apparently is not. Problem players have always and will continue to flock to it.
UltimateReality 07-16-07, 12:17 AM	Prom, just a thought...have you considered NE for the character? (And you did give a very good description of addicts & criminals.) Unfortunately real world people do not often fall neatly into alignments and we have to generalize a lot. :(
Lotusblossom 07-16-07, 12:30 AM	imo, Lawful ppl tend to say things like Always and Never, and Chaotic ppl say things like If I feel like it and If it affects me or my friends. Edit: Friends are really important to Chaotic people. A natural disaster that kills many people will have an emotional impact on a Lawful char proportional to the number of people killed, and on a Chaotic char dependent on how close a relationship he had with them.
ChaiGuy 07-16-07, 12:56 AM	Hi I think, This thread has turned into a real monster. Clearly asking people for help on how to play CN, without being a pain to the party may not have been a good idea. There is a lot to respond to, but I will also make my characters history more clear. I am only going to respond to Caelic first, as he has been the least aggressive. Ivan Keel (CN trying to slowly move to CG) Ivan is an orphan, who became a ward of the Lion's of Brindol. In his teens he has broken the law to survive, stealing, killed one man in self defence, but was still sent to jail for a year. Ivan a little crazy at times, because of the time sent in the Brindol Dungeon's and the job's he has done have been isolating. So I play him antisocial at times, to indicate that he has not had good role models. Caelic, this is what I was looking for, thank you. I actually built the character history first then, built the alignment and mechanics around that. So if the character comes off as crazy, that's because sometimes he is. My understanding of CN is based on the people I work with criminals and drug addicts; (1) Person does not take responsibility for their actions. (2) Avoids and dislikes the law, would never actively seek out the law for help. Would take matter's into their own hand's if all other avenues are not working. (3) Think's only of their own well-being first and second come family and friends. No one else matter's. (4) Is not concerned about lying or stealing, as this is considered normal (my character does not need to steal anymore to survive, so does not). (5) No one can be trusted but family and friend's usually. (6) Violence is a part of life, you fight if you get angry , are insulted or are threatened. Enjoys fighting, as it is a sign of prestige among the social circle that is familar. (7) Person's behaviour is consistent to themselves, but others see inconsistency. (8) Has the ability to think though the consequences of their behaviour, but fails to do this more often then most other people. These are the guidelines I have for the character Ivan and CN seemed to be the closest match. Prom It seems that you have put a lot of effort into analyzing your characters CN alignment! I kinda wish that players in my current campaing took such matters as seriously. I'm not dissing my players, they just prefer hack/slash to complex roleplaying. It is true that this is not the only form of CN, but if it is what you were wanting to play AND the other players/DM did not have a problem with it, then everything should be OK. By the way when this character becomes CG, what part of his outlook will change? I find this to be an intersecting character and was wondering how his outlook was going to change.
Lionhearted 07-16-07, 01:23 AM	Prom, just a thought...have you considered NE for the character? (And you did give a very good description of addicts & criminals.) Unfortunately real world people do not often fall neatly into alignments and we have to generalize a lot. :( hey! addicts do bad stuff, they dont turn bad.. i think
yellowdingo 07-16-07, 02:31 AM	Why not? A lot of Chaotic folks are predictable. "Hey, see Bubba over there? You want to get punched in the face? Try giving him an order. Sets him off every time." "Hey, you want to get Karra to come along on this mission? Talk about the peasants Overlord Borron is oppressing. She hates tyrants." All wrong...play him like a soccer hooligan. Hangs with his buds, he's the loudmouth in your face type who goes to tournament with you, gets drunk, and picks fights. They poured out of the jousting Arena in a small drunken group, more ejected than willing. From the far end of the street a band of Black knight supporters heckled them. Durl turned to face them grabbing at his crotch. "You want some? You want some? Come on." Durl dropped one of his two inch diameter steel balls onto his leather workboot and hurled it the one hundred and twenty feet distance down the road at the band of drunks smashing one in the skull and a second with the riccochet. It downed the first drunk instantly and the second grabbed at his head and screamed. The enraged band of Black Knight Supporters turned and charged up the lane screaming. HOBSHOT (ranged) Damage: 1d6+1 Range: 150' Strength Bonus adds to damage Dexterity Bonus adds to hit Description: Steel Ball 1/4lb 2 inch diameter Cost: 4gp Feats ExoticWeapon (hobshot) Weaponfocus(hobshot)
Jungingen 07-16-07, 04:07 AM	I too worked with a lot of substance abusers and criminals in my last job in the Army. They were my coworkers, though I'm not sure if the people you've described are likewise. They all adapted to one extent or another, made friends and contributed to the team, but that doesn't mean that they stopped abusing drugs or selling them or getting into all manner of problems related to their habits. But unlike in an adventuring party, they didn't have the choice to leave. Your character sounds well-thought out and thoroughly developed, and I'd hate to see you alter him. Knowing that personality, however, it's going to be an uphill battle to keep him in the group. I can't really imagine why he would even attempt to satisfy them unless he respects the authority of the LG members of the party or has some other, powerful reason to want to stay with the group. What are his reasons for remaining? Why doesn't he leave that gang of tools and find a group that is easier for him to work with? He needs to have some sort of motivation to stay, even if it's completely selfish, conniving and ulterior, or I'd guess that he would settle his score with the Paladin and Cleric and then take off.
italycopp911 07-16-07, 04:47 AM	My favorite character is a 2nd Ed drow mage/priest who ive been playing for years. Hes gone thru an alignment change (CE to NE to CN) and i think hes the quintessential CN. Hes helped a dwarven kingdom (because he likes them), hes raised an orc horde to attack a group of villages (they were in the spot he wanted to build his tower), he has traveled with a paladin (same goal at the time. As a side note, while my character did cause the fall of said paladin, said paladin gave him a decent shove in the CG direction.) CN is not crazy or sociopathic unless you want to play them that way, tho toeing the line between CN and CE can be dicey. I think CN is reacting to situations in a way that takes into account how your PC is feeling at the moment. A LG character may just have found out his wife was cheating on him, but odds are hes not going to track down the lover, break into his house, beat him up, eat his food, and kick his dog. A CN probably would. A CN can have goals, but odds are hell change his mind about them or wont put in the effort to make sure they happen, especially if they are long term. My drow character tried to start a noble house in Waterdeep (in disguise of course). He bought a forged charter of nobility from Cormyr, built a house and started to try to get a business going. The first party he went to he ended up punching out the sons of 2 major houses because they were badmouthing elves. 1 year of planning and building, 45 second fight and he was out the door of Waterdeep. (the fight messed up his disguise. He sadly had to kill over 100 members of the party to escape.) I think that CN looks out for himself in the long run, tries to get the better or everything hes involved in, and is occassionly distracted by shiny objects (especially if low WIS)
Ayra 07-16-07, 07:30 AM	CN doesn't mean your character is or has to be stupid. If his intelligence his high enough, he should realize the consequences of his actions. If his diplomacy is high, he will be able to talk perfectly fine with others. Alignment is something independent from that. For example, you could look at it in other ways. If you want an object from an NPC, you could try to bargain for it. If you don't get the item through this, a lawful character would either give up, or try to bargain a bit more to come to a settlement. The chaotic character would probably try to find a way that is more or less frowned upon (i.e. steal it). The lawful neutral character wouldn't even think of doing such a thing. Maybe if the object was needed to save many people, but it's an object of personal desire and breaking the law for that isn't really a good thing. Your character would then *think* about stealing it, but not necessarily act upon that thought. He could ask the rest of his party first, because as chaotic neutral as he is, he relies on his party and probably understands he'd get them in trouble too. If you character is chaotic, it doesn't mean he doesn't care for the wellbeing of his party. After all D&D is a party-based game. Rather than making yourself individually stronger, you make the party stronger. Anyway, that being said I think danielinthewolvesden is right, your character is playing chaotic stupid. If he has a low intelligence or wisdom and is chaotic neutral, he might be awfully troublesome to deal with but that's not due to his alignment alone.
UltimateReality 07-16-07, 12:11 PM	hey! addicts do bad stuff, they dont turn bad.. i thinkDepends how much they care...someone who's a crack addict breaking into your house to pawn its contents for drug money knows that breaking into your house is against the law -- he doesn't care. He may even think it's wrong -- and not care. The addiction is just that strong. Surviving on the streets is not easy and not pretty. Most people have to do at least a little non-lawful and a little evil to survive.
Caelic 07-16-07, 12:23 PM	Interestingly enough, one of the components of an addiction-prone personality type is the tendency to form strong habits--a potential addict is likely to have a daily routine from which he does not like to deviate, for example. That's a characteristic that most wouldn't think of when considering "chaotic" behavior.
Clawhound 07-16-07, 01:57 PM	When I played a chaotic fighter, his basic attitude was, "Hey, Paladin, tell me what to kill and I'll kill it." He did not believe in the party's goal. He just went along for the ride. When the party was busy in town, he just went down and hung out with the Norse priests, drank beer, and wrestled bears. My idea of chaotic is that you have some principal that you hold dear. That principal is more important than law.
Kursk 07-16-07, 05:19 PM	How do you roleplay a CN Fighter without disadvantaging the party? Yes. Know the difference between CN & Chaotic Stupid.
Voran 07-16-07, 06:58 PM	They call it Chaotic Stupid. I have a half-orc rogue and he's CN. With a intelligence of 12, wisdom of 8, and charisma of 6. :D I play him as being obnoxious, rude, and annoying. What part of alignment requires you to be CN to be obnoxious, rude and annoying? Seriously tho, while I appreciate the OP's concern for his party about not screwing it up, it makes me ask, "What part of your character design requires you to be CN?"
Prom 07-16-07, 07:13 PM	Hi Zaver, Kursk, Ayra, bob_the_great, olshanski_home, Well it's time to answer the critic's. You know I made this character because one of the players in the group was neutral, and was doing all sorts of annoying things. This guy had his character hide during a battle and not help, shoot PC's in the back of the head, had to be bribed to help, dropped spells on the group that weren't helpful, etc. I created a character based on people trying to quit drugs, and CN was the most troublesome alignment the house rules allowed and fit the character the best. So I thought I will prove this can be done without being a pest. I have never played CN till now. danielinthewolvesden, the 36 build is not based on sellecting all 6 characteristics. Three characteristics are rolled, and the other three are purchased. I rolled, 9, 10, 15. CHA and WIS got the lowest scores, as it looked like it fit the character. I will give everyone a clear idea of the encounter jumping situation later, you might see thing's differently, or not. Prom
Masonictribe 07-16-07, 07:32 PM	IMO:I interpret chaotic neutral as being an alignment which let's you choose whatever you think will benefit yourself at the moment, regardless of the morality of the action. edited
Prom 07-16-07, 11:26 PM	Hello, Ok, here is what my character (Ivan) did that has upset so many people. The Situation The party had been given five potions of healing from the store keeper, which turned out to be poison. We were lucky no characters were killed or poisoned. A spell was cast by the Cleric to confirm that they were poison. The party after adventuring returned to the town, to deal with the Shop keeper. The Paladin wanted to quietly ask questions around town, first. But my character and the wizard's played by another guy, convinced the Paladin to go straight to the shop. This was because the party was constantly getting ambushed and we suspected a spy was at work. The wizard's and Ivan didn't want the shop keeper to escape. Diplomacy with Shop Keeper The Paladin confronted the Shop Keeper about the poison potions, diplomacy was used. The Shop Keeper acted shocked, dumb and cagey. I then had my character be very nice, and suggest the potions might have used up expire dates. I then told the Shop Keeper that we knew they were poison and placed them on the counter, as the Cleric had checked them. The Paladin talked a bit more, and the Shop Keeper blamed some other NPC, for asking her to give them to the party. Not one of use believed the Shop Keeper was telling the whole truth. The Paladin used detect evil and thoughts, but nothing registered. The Wizard (LG) cast charm person on the Shop Keeper two times and it had no effect. This made the Shop Keeper very angery. Everyone's unsure what to do next The whole party was convinced that the Shop Keeper was trouble, and was magically jamming them. Nothing much happened then, I could see what was going to happen next. The party was going to leave the store and the Shop Keeper was going to escape. Not one of the lawful or good characters suggested getting the authorities. And I don't see a CN character like Ivan, getting the town guards. No one suggested talking to the NPC the Shop Keeper had blamed, no one believed the Shop Keeper. My Character Acts For those of you who think my character should wait till he is alone, sorry but the Cleric (NG) sticks to him like glue. At this point threats seemed to be the only option, and the Paladin, Cleric and one of the Wizards were not going to do it. I then had my character tell the Shop Keeper to drink a potion or tell the truth, the Shop Keeper refused. My character placed his sword on the counter and asked for the truth, nothing. Ivan picked up the sword and pointed it at the Shop Keeper and asks for the truth again, who is almost crying then get's angry. The Shop Keeper threatens to have my character arrested. At no time did any party member try to stop my character up till this point. Thing's get messy It was pretty clear to me that we had found a spy, or a baddy for the adventure. Now my character already knew an army was coming to destroy the town in about one week, so he would not be locked up for very long. Plus my character had a set of boots that could teleport him out of a jail cell. As soon as the NPC threated Ivan with arrest, he jumped over the counter with the sword and grabbed the Shop Keeper. Ivan said "I'm going to give you a good spanking for giving us poisoned potions." This lead to the Shop Keeper hitting Ivan, breaking free, and running off into the warehouse. The Cleric (NG) heated up Ivan's weapons and burned him, then ran up calling for the city guards. The Paladin tryed jumping over the counter and fell, then went around and pinned my character to the ground. The young wizard (LG) became invisible and chased the Shop Keeper, but lost the Shop Keeper when she turned invisible aswell. The Oldest Wizard (N), closed the shop door and stood outside so no one could see what was happening. The city guard arrived and arrested my character. The final result was as follow's. My character spent a night in jail, fined 200 gp, had to help the town evacuate for two days, was bailled to the Paladin while in town. This was because the Shop Keeper had disappeared, so charges were minimal. And the poison potions were evidence that helped support my character's release. There was no evidence to indicate that the NPC that the Shop Keeper had blamed was even involved. One of the Wizard character's were killed while sleeping during the night, probably by the Shop Keeper. The party suffered a -2 penalty to diplomacy while talking to people in the town. So did I do wrong by the party? Was I CN without being a complete pest? Prom
Lady_Dragon 07-17-07, 07:23 AM	So did I do wrong by the party? Was I CN without being a complete pest? No and Yes. Playing a CN character, I would have done something similar to what you did. Maybe not try to make her drink the poison, but doing non-lethal damage to extract an answer seems fine to me. The party messed up, and it turned out okay except for the death of one of the wizards. At least you tried to do something about it but didn't go overboard and do something like cut her head off. THAT would have been wrong.
Eridrau 07-17-07, 01:55 PM	In my party, we have a CN swordsage. He's Neutral because he doesn't give a damn one way or another about good and evil. He's Chaotic because he's too emotional to be true neutral and has no respect for 'authority'. He gladly helps his fellow friends (party members) will lend them money, not expecting repayment, and even worked for the military at one point. If he just sat aside, his home could be overrun by the advancing army. His friends are no use to him dead, and he hates talking heads barking orders at people. He worked as an assissin for awhile. He'll steal if it's necessary, but understands the paperwork involved in both, so generally avoids doing so. He's chaotic Neutral simply by virtue of NOT being any other alignment. I find that's the easiest way to play Chaotic neutral. Act as you see fit for your character (Honorable, random, jerk) But come up with a reason why he's not another alignment. (too cruel to be good, doesn't enjoy suffering enough to be evil, loathes autority, not detached enough to be neutral, etc.)
ravenshrike 07-17-07, 01:58 PM	But recently I had my character jumped the store counter and tryed to spank the store keeper with the flat of his sword. This was because the store owner had given them poison potions. This resulted in the cleric heating up his armour and weapons, burning him. The Paladin Pinned him down and he got thrown in jail. The real problem was that my character caused the rest of the party to get -2 penalty to diplomacy check's when talking to people in the town. Y'know, a true CN fighter would just have killed the shopkeeper or perhaps just nailed his ass to the wall while "questioning" him.
bob_the_great 07-17-07, 02:01 PM	Wow. Letting you hang yourself is one thing. Subduing you and turning you into the guard is another. If that's how it actually happened then your character should definitely begrudge them for it. Unless he has a good reason to adventure with them he'd probably start looking for a new party. If you want to make it work, you'll have to become more careful. When the situation favors them don't act out because they'll win. In a dungeon setting, on the other hand, they need your sword and don't have the town guard to go running to. Don't take any active actions against any party members. That solves nothing and only makes your life more difficult (that's a big difference between chaotic stupid and chaotic neautral. CN characters will try to avoid conflict which is not in their best interest). What you should do is not get yourself killed trying to save those who would so easily turn on you. Sure if the party wizard is nice to you throw yourself between him and a baddie (being on the wizard's good side is most definitely in your best interest). If the paladin finds himself in such a situation you need to weigh the threat to yourself without thought to any threat to the paladin. Getting yourself killed to help him accomplishes nothing. Basically, don't actively grief the party. Actions do have consequences though and the paladin and any other that turned on you lost an ally. As long as things go well all is fine and dandy. When things go bad all you need to do is keep the paladin between you and death.
ravenshrike 07-17-07, 02:05 PM	At least keep your character sanity to the level of jack sparrow. Pre or Post Worlds End?
pukunui 07-17-07, 06:51 PM	Hi all, I'm Prom's DM. I just thought I'd pop in and try to clarify a few things. Firstly, I noticed that some people seemed quite revolted and put off by Prom's "cutting off the heads of my enemies, cooking their bodies and feeding them to my mates" comment. I think he slightly misrepresented the facts there. He's only ever cut off the heads of two enemies - one was a bugbear warlock (and one of the main bad guys, too), the other was a young green dragon. The dragon's body got cooked and served to the other PCs, none of whom complained and all of whom ate some of the meat. So he's not cooking up humans and elves or anything like that. Not even any of the many hobgoblins they've encountered. Just one "little" green dragon. Secondly, I thought I'd run through the party members quickly: 1) LG male aasimar paladin (Corellon Larethian) 7 2) CG old male elan transmuter 1 / egoist 6 3) CN male human fighter 6 (Prom's PC) 4) CG male halfling rogue 5 (new guy) 5) NG female aasimar cleric 6 / radiant servant (Pelor) 1 Now the cleric is actually an NPC ally who's been traveling with the party for a while. The LG wizard who was murdered two sessions ago was the PC of a guy who left the group and I was looking for a way to write him out of the story. Last session, the cleric tried to raise him from the dead but he appeared as ghost and told her he was going to try undeath for a while (I'm using the ghost template class on him, so he can't do much as a ghost yet). The cleric is now having a crisis of faith (what with her religion being violently opposed to undead) and is suffering from massive feelings of failure since she'd been assigned to protect the wizard ... Anyway, she hasn't been following Ivan around all that much. I think she's only done it once, and it was when he wanted to hang back in the jail just after they'd captured a hobgoblin. She was suspicious Ivan (who had only recently joined the group so she didn't know him very well) was going to try to kill the hobgoblin or something. What else can I add to the discussion? I don't have a problem with the way Prom roleplays his character. I don't think any of the others do, either. I just hadn't anticipated Prom's choice of reaction to the shopkeeper, so I had to think fast. I think I did pretty well under the circumstances ... and I think most people were simply surprised because Prom has been very vocal about not wanting any interparty conflict. One more thing: last session, Prom had Ivan restrain himself from smacking some other NPCs and described it in such a way that the others were able to respond to his warning signs appropriately. That was certainly good. He also did not have Ivan use his dimension stride boots to teleport out of the prison cell, which I thought was interesting. So perhaps Ivan is learning about consequences ... ;) That's all from me for now. Cheers, Jonny p.s. if you want to get the full story, check out my recap thread. There's a link in my sig.
Mock26 07-17-07, 07:05 PM	Chaotic does not mean stupid. Just because you can do something chaotic does not mean that you have to. Unless your character is monumentally stupid he would know that jumping over the counter and sword-spanking the shopkeeper would more than likely get the group in trouble. He didn't HAVE to do what he did because he was chaotic. You can still be chaotic and follow the local laws. How do you roleplay a CN fighter without disadvantaging the party? Easy, just don't do anything that will disadvantage the party.
Khadmus 07-17-07, 07:10 PM	Am I the only one who thinks alot of people are playing Chaotic in a very Lawful way? I am Lawful in a very, very Chaotic way. (LN says the test, Chaotic says my intuition.)
Zaver 07-17-07, 07:18 PM	I am Lawful in a very, very Chaotic way. (LN says the test, Chaotic says my intuition.) I ended up lawful good dwarf paladin. Didn't see that one coming, I'm rather opposed to authority. At least over my self.:king:
Mock26 07-17-07, 07:21 PM	Am I the only one who thinks alot of people are playing Chaotic in a very Lawful way? As I said in my above post, you can still be chaotic and obey the laws. A chaotic person is chaotic because he will ignore and break those laws when he sees fit to do so. But, unless he is monumentally stupid, he also knows that a lot of the time breaking those laws will result in a world of legal hurt coming his way. Also, it doesn't have to be just about laws. A chaotic character could feel that, for the sake of party unity and to avoid needless confrontation with his fellow adventurers, that it is best to act to sometimes act in a lawful manner while out adventuring. Sure, he may want to chop off the heads of his opponents, but he might also realize that to do so might cause someone in the group to have a serious fit and while he might not want to deal with such a fit. So, he doens't chop off the heads of his opponents. Just because a chaotic person isn't running around spreading chaos all the time does not mean that he isn't chaotic or that he is lawful. Chaotic does NOT mean stupid. And, a chaotic person can, in some ways, act in a seemingly lawful manner yet still be chaotic.
pukunui 07-17-07, 07:23 PM	I ended up lawful good dwarf paladin. Didn't see that one coming, I'm rather opposed to authority. At least over my self.:king: I don't remember what the test (http://www.angelfire.com/dragon/terragf/) said I was, but in real life, I'd say I'm a pretty even mix of LG and CN. EDIT: Do you think one could argue that LG/CN = NG? Just a comment about how I view alignments: I see them as guidelines. I also see them as being more a representation of who the character is or would like to be rather than how the character acts. Actions are the only way by which we can judge other people, so it's easy to think that alignment = actions, but it doesn't have to be that way. A CE person could theoretically live a lawful and peaceful life in the middle of a city by repressing his desires to maim and kill or by only doing it when he knows he can get away with it. Just because he forces himself to act lawfully while in the city for the sake of keeping himself alive and not drawing undue attention to himself does not mean he is lawful. I think alignment has more to do with intent than actions but I'm not saying actions have nothing to do with it at all.
Zaver 07-17-07, 07:32 PM	As I said in my above post, you can still be chaotic and obey the laws. A chaotic person is chaotic because he will ignore and break those laws when he sees fit to do so. But, unless he is monumentally stupid, he also knows that a lot of the time breaking those laws will result in a world of legal hurt coming his way. Also, it doesn't have to be just about laws. A chaotic character could feel that, for the sake of party unity and to avoid needless confrontation with his fellow adventurers, that it is best to act to sometimes act in a lawful manner while out adventuring. Sure, he may want to chop off the heads of his opponents, but he might also realize that to do so might cause someone in the group to have a serious fit and while he might not want to deal with such a fit. So, he doens't chop off the heads of his opponents. Just because a chaotic person isn't running around spreading chaos all the time does not mean that he isn't chaotic or that he is lawful. Chaotic does NOT mean stupid. And, a chaotic person can, in some ways, act in a seemingly lawful manner yet still be chaotic. I wasn't clear enough about my point because you aren't really disagreeing with me, or rather I don't disagree with you. First off, I don't think Lawful can mean that the player follows the laws because it just makes too many stupid rules, like the fact that barbarians who are a culture more then a class can't be Lawful and thus have to live in a lawless society or the fact that monks have to be Lawful but can't learn new skills if they loose that despite the fact that it says evil monk monastaries often work as assassins. "Sorry Timmy, we trained you for fifteen years to be the best assassin in the world but you broke the law when you assassinated that guy we sent you to kill so we're not going to be training you any more. Oh and we sent out a memo so no one else will either." Just stupid. For me Lawful just means that they're either very methodical and will think out their actions, the kind of people that won't act with out a plan, and/or they have a code like Druss from the Drenai series by David Gemmell. Doesn't really matter what the code is so long as they hold to it as much as they possibly can. As Chaotic is the opposite, they shouldn't have something like a code. Just having guidelines is one thing, like you try and help your friends out or at the very least pull your share of the work in a group. Course that's only a guideline and if you don't feel like you won't do it. But I don't see that very much. Instead I see codes like what Caelic had or the guy in my group that was supposed to be CN and always, no matter what, cut the heads off dead orcs and put them on poles.
pukunui 07-17-07, 08:02 PM	Zaver - I agree with your sentiments. I think "Lawful" in terms of alignment is somewhat slightly misleading. I would say that "Lawful alignment" does not necessarily equal "law-abiding". A better definition would be "lawful-minded". Anyone of any alignment can be law-abiding. Lawful people, however, are organized, methodical, logical, left-brain dominant types who follow a code, whether it be personal, spiritual, moral, ethical, civil, etc. Chaotic people are probably right-brain dominant types but there's nothing that says they can't obey the law and still be chaotic ...
Zaver 07-17-07, 08:20 PM	Yeah. Main problem I've had with the alignments in D&D is that while Good and Evil can actually be philisophical views, Lawful and Chaotic always seemed more like personality types.
Caelic 07-17-07, 08:39 PM	As Chaotic is the opposite, they shouldn't have something like a code. Just having guidelines is one thing, like you try and help your friends out or at the very least pull your share of the work in a group. Course that's only a guideline and if you don't feel like you won't do it. But I don't see that very much. Instead I see codes like what Caelic had or the guy in my group that was supposed to be CN and always, no matter what, cut the heads off dead orcs and put them on poles. I find it interesting that you consider "Try to help your friends out" to be a "guideline," but "Try to look after your family" to be a "code." I'm also curious as to where, exactly, the "Always, no matter what" came in, because I don't believe the OP said it and I certainly didn't. I stand by my position: by your definition, there is no such thing as a Chaotic person, because there is not a single person on the planet who does not function according to an internal philosophy and a set of internal guidelines--some of which are pretty darned strict. Every character has things he almost always does or almost never does...regardless of alignment.
Zaver 07-17-07, 09:06 PM	I find it interesting that you consider "Try to help your friends out" to be a "guideline," but "Try to look after your family" to be a "code." I'm also curious as to where, exactly, the "Always, no matter what" came in, because I don't believe the OP said it and I certainly didn't. I stand by my position: by your definition, there is no such thing as a Chaotic person, because there is not a single person on the planet who does not function according to an internal philosophy and a set of internal guidelines--some of which are pretty darned strict. Every character has things he almost always does or almost never does...regardless of alignment. The "always no matter what" part was from my group, you should have read that if you were paying enough attention. After that we're just not on the same page for what consitutes guidelines and a code and I don't want to derail the thread further debating it with you when I don't think you're even reading what I post.
Caelic 07-17-07, 09:22 PM	The "always no matter what" part was from my group, you should have read that if you were paying enough attention. I did. You'd be surprised at how good my reading comprehension is. I just dislike the dishonesty of lumping that together with my character's general philosophy, and the implication that they're somehow the same. I also think it's pretty silly to say that a character isn't chaotic because he has a victory celebration he likes to practice. I suppose, by the same token, the historical berserkers weren't chaotic, because they would consistently chew on the rim of their shield before battle. Gotta love those lawful berserkers. After that we're just not on the same page for what consitutes guidelines and a code Obviously. and I don't want to derail the thread further debating it with you when I don't think you're even reading what I post. You are, of course, entitled to think whatever you want, whether or not your perceptions are accurate.
pukunui 07-17-07, 09:48 PM	Yeah. Main problem I've had with the alignments in D&D is that while Good and Evil can actually be philisophical views, Lawful and Chaotic always seemed more like personality types. I won't argue with that. Like I was saying, I kind of see Lawful people as being left-brained people and Chaotic people as right-brained. I guess Neutral people are "balanced" in that regard.
Caelic 07-17-07, 11:14 PM	I would be interested to discover what people (particularly Zaver, but also in general) think about a character with the following qualities: 1. Has a certain favorite object he carries with him always. 2. Has a routine he carries out the same way, at the same time, every day without fail. 3. Has a specific code of behavior he does not violate. Can this be a Chaotic character?
Drausktanchache 07-17-07, 11:18 PM	At least keep your character sanity to the level of jack sparrow. I want to throw a bone to the dogs here, Jack Sparrow is classified as a CHAOTIC NEUTRAL SCOUNDRAL....(complete scoundral) He is essentially the epitome of CN
Von_Harbringer 07-18-07, 12:16 AM	I would be interested to discover what people (particularly Zaver, but also in general) think about a character with the following qualities: 1. Has a certain favorite object he carries with him always. 2. Has a routine he carries out the same way, at the same time, every day without fail. 3. Has a specific code of behavior he does not violate. Can this be a Chaotic character? Chaotic? maybe... Possibly compulsive.
Zaver 07-18-07, 12:20 AM	I would be interested to discover what people (particularly Zaver, but also in general) think about a character with the following qualities: 1. Has a certain favorite object he carries with him always. 2. Has a routine he carries out the same way, at the same time, every day without fail. 3. Has a specific code of behavior he does not violate. Can this be a Chaotic character? This is why I said you aren't paying attention. I'll say it once more. I am not debating this further with you.
Caelic 07-18-07, 04:20 PM	This is why I said you aren't paying attention. ...and you were wrong, of course; I just figured it was courteous to extend the invitation. I'll say it once more. I am not debating this further with you. Pretty darned silly to continue posting about how you're not going to continue posting. If you were going to do that, you might as well have contributed something productive. But oh, well. Anyone else have an opinion on the matter at hand?
Caelic 07-18-07, 04:29 PM	Chaotic? maybe... Possibly compulsive. ...or a cleric of pretty much any deity on the planet...including the Chaotic ones. Consider: a Chaotic Neutral cleric is still going to carry his holy symbol. He's still, by the rules, going to pray at a certain time every day. He's still going to have certain religious tenets and commandments he follows. (I suppose there might be one or two Chaotic Neutral deities out there whose entire religious canon consists of "Go with the flow," but I think most of them are going to have at least a few things they want their priests to do in exchange for all those spells.) So, to recap: 1. There has been a claim made that having "a code" or sticking to a routine of any kind is inherently lawful and that Chaotic Neutral characters should not do so. 2. Clerics, by definition, have a code and stick to a routine. 3. Clerics can (in some cases must) be Chaotic Neutral. 4. Therefore, I submit, the rules demonstrate that having a code and a routine are not antithetical to being Chaotic Neutral. Indeed, submitting to a higher authority is not antithetical to being Chaotic Neutral, because otherwise, there would be no Chaotic Neutral clerics.
pukunui 07-18-07, 05:41 PM	The thing to remember about alignments is that they're supposed to represent your character's predominant traits ... so there's no reason why a Chaotic person couldn't have some Lawful characteristics (having a personal "code" or rituals that they practice regularly). So long as the latter don't overshadow the more "spontaneous" aspects of their personality, then it doesn't really matter. By the rules, a Lawful Good paladin is allowed to behave Chaotically on occasion. He might have certain impulses that he gives in to every once in a while ... perhaps he was a wild, uncontrolled person early in life and learned discipline through rigorous training, and he uses that training to control his more Chaotic desires. So long as the Chaotic side doesn't get the better of him, he's cool.
Aucturos 07-18-07, 05:41 PM	Hi All, I have a little problem. Currently I play a CN fighter, now I know how to roleplay CN. But how do I achieve it without disadvantaging the party or hurting other characters in the party? I have been trying to do little things like; chop the head of my enemy off and collect them, cook up the bodies of the parties causalties. But recently I had my character jumped the store counter and tryed to spank the store keeper with the flat of his sword. This was because the store owner had given them poison potions. This resulted in the cleric heating up his armour and weapons, burning him. The Paladin Pinned him down and he got thrown in jail. The real problem was that my character caused the rest of the party to get -2 penalty to diplomacy check's when talking to people in the town. Any suggestions. Prom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dean Try James Dean. Basically: You're you, you don't care about right or wrong because conventional definitions don't fit your definitions. You decide for yourself what's right, what's wrong, and how you go about enforcing it. Perhaps you start beating up a beggar while the party is distracted because you think that laziness is a root of evil, or maybe you scoff at the offer the magistrate put before you because you think he's a pompous windbag. I wouldn't say that you're particularly impulsive (though that is one option), I'd just say that you believe in "your way or the highway" and exert your influence to the extent you can in that. Good? Evil? Who cares? You just want to get things done. No loyalties. No alliances but to those you travel with.
Holy_Beholder 07-18-07, 06:31 PM	Consider it this way: A very lawful character would have a schedule worked out. For instance, they might always eat breakfast at 8:00 sharp, lunch at 1:00 sharp, and dinner at 6:00 sharp, every day, except for on weekends they move all of them back two hours. A chaotic character would eat when they get hungry. An extremely lawful character may try to avoid jaywalking because the law is in there for some reason, and they don't want to damage society. An extremely chaotic character would be infuriated that people are telling him how to cross the street. A neutral character would just sort of ignore the law, because it isn't enforced and is pretty much pointless. With the breakfast thing, a neutral character might eat breakfast between 8-9, lunch at 1-2, and dinner at 6-7, and might occasionally break out of schedule.
Mock26 07-18-07, 06:46 PM	Consider it this way: A very lawful character would have a schedule worked out. For instance, they might always eat breakfast at 8:00 sharp, lunch at 1:00 sharp, and dinner at 6:00 sharp, every day, except for on weekends they move all of them back two hours. A chaotic character would eat when they get hungry. An extremely lawful character may try to avoid jaywalking because the law is in there for some reason, and they don't want to damage society. An extremely chaotic character would be infuriated that people are telling him how to cross the street. A neutral character would just sort of ignore the law, because it isn't enforced and is pretty much pointless. With the breakfast thing, a neutral character might eat breakfast between 8-9, lunch at 1-2, and dinner at 6-7, and might occasionally break out of schedule. A chaotic character is just as likely to eat on a schedule as is a lawful person. And, a lawful charcter is just as likely to eat whenever he gets hungray as is a choatic person.
Caelic 07-18-07, 06:50 PM	I have to agree with Mock on that; what we're talking about here are habits. To think that a chaotic character wouldn't have habits is, I think, a bit silly.
Prom 07-18-07, 07:16 PM	Hi All, I just want to say that Caelic and Zaver, can you please stop arguing with each other on this thread. After considering what everyone has said, I think the two examples I gave of my characters behaviour aren't really CN actions specifically (chopping the head of a bugbear and green dragon off, cooking a green dragon). The Characters history has probably had more impact on those actions. Infact I think I have not really played CN that much till recently, as my character has generally followed the Paladin's or Wizard's actions. He has also stayed with the party because his dead/reincarnated best friend who was a member of the party, thought it was important. Whatever makes up CN, I have never met a person who didn't have a pattern of behaviour or reasons behind them (misguided or the social norm). I don't make this statement lightly, as I have studied and worked with a huge range of people for many years; active criminals, ex-criminals, recovering drug addicts, drug addicts, intelligently handicapped, physically handicapped, pschiatric, murders. I don't know if DnD CN alignment is trying to represent what people can be like in the real world or some fantasy person who does not exist. What I do think is that the spirit of CN from the PHB's pages sounds like it is trying to create a person who lives outside societies norm. I could be wrong. Aucturos, thanks for the example. Clearly you know how to keep to the question. Can people just stick with the title question, and aviod the rambling debate of CN definitions. How do you roleplay a CN Fighter without disadvantaging the party? Specific action's, examples or statement's are more useful I think. Prom
Caelic 07-18-07, 08:36 PM	Hi All, I just want to say that Caelic and Zaver, can you please stop arguing with each other on this thread. Done and done. Whatever makes up CN, I have never met a person who didn't have a pattern of behaviour or reasons behind them (misguided or the social norm). I don't make this statement lightly, as I have studied and worked with a huge range of people for many years; active criminals, ex-criminals, recovering drug addicts, drug addicts, intelligently handicapped, physically handicapped, pschiatric, murders. I don't know if DnD CN alignment is trying to represent what people can be like in the real world or some fantasy person who does not exist. What I do think is that the spirit of CN from the PHB's pages sounds like it is trying to create a person who lives outside societies norm. I could be wrong. This is largely what I've been getting at; believe it or not, I wasn't debating codes of behavior just for the satisfaction of doing so. Before we can really answer the question "How can I play a CN fighter without disadvantaging the party?" we must first agree on what does and doesn't constitute "playing CN"--at least in your specific campaign and circumstances. Can people just stick with the title question, and aviod the rambling debate of CN definitions. How do you roleplay a CN Fighter without disadvantaging the party? That's easier said than done, and to be honest, I think you've already gotten the best and most useful answers you're going to get. To sum up: 1. Decide what matters to your character and what he wants. 2. This includes things he does NOT want to happen, and consequences he wants to avoid. For example, "I don't want to go to jail." "I don't want my party to hate me." These are important, because this is where we differentiate between a Chaotic Neutral character and a psychopath. The Chaotic Neutral (but sane) character is going to have restraints of this kind; the psychopath is not. 3. With those points in mind, evaluate the situation, and do what it takes to get what you want without bringing on consequences you don't want.
pukunui 07-18-07, 08:54 PM	To sum up: 1. Decide what matters to your character and what he wants. 2. This includes things he does NOT want to happen, and consequences he wants to avoid. For example, "I don't want to go to jail." "I don't want my party to hate me." These are important, because this is where we differentiate between a Chaotic Neutral character and a psychopath. The Chaotic Neutral (but sane) character is going to have restraints of this kind; the psychopath is not. 3. With those points in mind, evaluate the situation, and do what it takes to get what you want without bringing on consequences you don't want.Well done. It doesn't say anywhere that a CN character can't have and, consequently, exercise some self-restraint. ;) Remember - Chaotic people can be law-abiding, they would just do it for different reasons than Lawful people would. Chaotic people are more likely to obey laws because they happen to agree with them or because they don't like the consequences (or perhaps because they're just indifferent), but Lawful people are more likely to obey laws because it's the right thing to do, it's what everyone ought to do, it's their duty to do so, etc etc. I can just picture the following conversation: LG: Wait, you're breaking the law! CN: That law doesn't apply to me. It's just for losers. LG: That doesn't matter. It's the law! You must obey it! CN: Pshaw! LG: Besides, even if it doesn't apply to you, you should obey so as to set a good example for those people for whom it does apply, otherwise they will feel they can get away with disobeying as well ... CN: Do you need some help removing that huge as stick someone shoved up your bum? ;)
Caelic 07-18-07, 09:00 PM	Well done. It doesn't say anywhere that a CN character can't have and, consequently, exercise some self-restraint. ;) Here's another attempt at distinguishing Chaotic and Lawful. Both types of characters can obey civil laws, but they would most likely do so for different reasons. The Chaotic person would choose to obey whatever law because he doesn't like the consequences of breaking it or because he just so happens to agree with it. The Lawful person would obey the law because it's the right thing to do; because it's what he (and everyone else) should do/ought to do/must do; because it's his duty; etc etc etc. Excellent point. Likewise, a Chaotic Neutral fighter in a party full of Good characters would probably lean more towards good in his actions than he might have otherwise done--not because he really cares about doing good, but because his friends do, and he doesn't want to irritate them or get in fights with them. Lawful Good cleric: "I refrain from kicking orphans and puppies because it is the good and righteous thing to do." Chaotic Neutral fighter: "I refrain from kicking orphans and puppies because it doesn't really cost me anything and the cleric gets all weepy and preachy if I don't. 'Course, if they get underfoot, I can't guarantee that they won't get kicked..."
Mock26 07-18-07, 09:44 PM	Can people just stick with the title question, and aviod the rambling debate of CN definitions. But, how can someone give good examples of roleplaying chaotic neutral if they don't know what it means to be chaotic neutral? There is no single definition of what it means to be chaotic neutral. Sure, there is something in one of the core books, but that is just a set of guidelines. So, if someone says, "A chaotic neutral person would do this," or, "A chaotic neutral person would never do this," and if someone thinks differently, they should say it. And when someone is expressing an opinion but is trying to pass it off as fact, then I think that other people are kind of obligated to call that person out on it. And, that leads to the discussions on the definition of what it means to be chaotic neutral. I think the first step in trying to figure out how to play a Chaotic Neutral character without disadvantaging the party is to sit down with the DM and the other players and discuss how you and everyone else looks at chaotic neutral and what it would entail to be that particular alignment. My personal opinion is that most of the arguments that arise between a player and a DM over alignment come up because each of them views that particular alignment differently.
Prom 07-19-07, 01:03 AM	Hi Mock26, Quoted by Mock26, There is no single definition of what it means to be chaotic neutral. Sure, there is something in one of the core books, but that is just a set of guidelines. I agree with your statements, I think everyone here has made that point clear. But if this thread looked at the definition of CN first, it would never get any further. I don't think this is the first time the CN alignment has been discussed. I've had some great input from people, including you. Quoted by Mock26, I think the first step in trying to figure out how to play a Chaotic Neutral character without disadvantaging the party is to sit down with the DM and the other players and discuss how you and everyone else looks at chaotic neutral. This is a great idea, or check how players feel about the CN characters actions. What I'm really looking for is people who have played CN characters before without causing problems and their examples. Tangible things I can do during the game, or outside of the game. Caelic, your contribution is welcome, I find what you have to say very interesting. Quoted by Caelic, I think you've already gotten the best and most useful answers you're going to get. You might be right about that. Prom
Zaver 07-19-07, 01:38 AM	What I'm really looking for is people who have played CN characters before without causing problems and their examples. Tangible things I can do during the game, or outside of the game. Pretty much every body in my current game is CN and it poses no problems at all. They just go about the business at hand and do things because they want to rather then feeling they need to or should do it. It's been said enough that I don't see why this thread needs to keep going, CN doesn't mean you can't think about what you're doing and that means you can just stop your self from doing things that are bad for the party.
Mock26 07-19-07, 01:44 AM	Just remember to constantly ask yourself, "Will what my character is about to do upset the other players or cause undue problems for the rest of the characters?" You then have to ask if said problems are forgivable or not. Yes, it is metagaming, but good players have to keep in mind the importance of party unity, be it the party of characters or the party of players. You can still act chaotic and kill prisoners on the sly or burn down the rude merchant or chop off the head of your slain opponents, but you, the player, do need to worry about group harmony.
Lady_Dragon 07-19-07, 03:33 AM	What I'm really looking for is people who have played CN characters before without causing problems and their examples. Tangible things I can do during the game, or outside of the game. I'm not great at understanding alignments and portraying that in roleplaying, just so you know. However, if you'd like an example, I recently played a CN character and never had any problems with the party. Generally she was more than happy to let the rest of party put themselves in danger first. She always let them open doors or chests and stayed well away from them when they did. She let the meat shields rush into fights and engaged at range, often with cover, until she was certain the enemy was weak enough to engage in melee or if the need was dire enough. Out of combat she had no hesitation to cooperating with the ambiguously aligned paladin as long as his terms were fair and did not adversely affect the party. She was also systematically assassinating members of her family so she could take control of it (think The Godfather). Of course, she did do things that would seem very un-chaotic like going to the city guard to report a wizard she suspected was summoning demons. Why? Because demons aren't good for anybody and she wasn't stupid enough to try and take on a powerful wizard (at that level anyway). Then later she nearly killed herself defending the captain of the guard who the wizard later framed for the summoning. The situation was complicated, but my reasoning was not only to spite the evil wizard but also help herself by removing some of the irrational fear of spellcasters. Okay, so maybe she had good tendencies. Told you I'm not good at this, but I tried. :hides:
Caelic 07-19-07, 10:32 AM	What I'm really looking for is people who have played CN characters before without causing problems and their examples. Tangible things I can do during the game, or outside of the game. Out of all the various alignments, I think CN is the one where this is going to be least useful...because two different CN characters might act in completely different ways. One might screw over the party at every opportunity; the other might be fiercely loyal to his friends (to the point of going out and taking revenge on people who wrong them, even though he knows they wouldn't do so themselves.) One might be very greedy; another might find the whole concept of money ridiculous. ("So we're gonna go down in the ground and risk our lives for some shiny pieces of metal?") Just because my Chaotic Neutral bard believes in "Screw the other guy before he screws you" doesn't mean your Chaotic Neutral fighter will believe the same. Heck, if they met, he might very well decide that my bard's a selfish jerk who needs to be taken down a peg or two. :)
calvinNhobbes 07-19-07, 12:51 PM	She was also systematically assassinating members of her family so she could take control of it (think The Godfather). That statement just screams evil to me. In fact, your entire description sounds more like Lawful Evil than Choatic Neutral.
Lady_Dragon 07-19-07, 01:39 PM	That statement just screams evil to me. In fact, your entire description sounds more like Lawful Evil than Choatic Neutral. Oh darn, I knew I was bad at this. Would it help if I said her family was, for the most part, very bad people? And the The Godfather reference was more appropriate in the vein that her family was in that sort of business. It's more in the aim of reform. Also, one of the people she "assassinated" happened to be the BBEG, who was an extremely powerful wizard that was cooperating with the demons and the previously mentioned other evil wizard and killed her and the party once already (we escaped from hell...long story). I see where you're getting the lawful thing though. -.- (it's because I'm LN at heart I guess...hard to break the habit)
calvinNhobbes 07-19-07, 02:02 PM	Oh darn, I knew I was bad at this. Would it help if I said her family was, for the most part, very bad people? And the The Godfather reference was more appropriate in the vein that her family was in that sort of business. It's more in the aim of reform. Also, one of the people she "assassinated" happened to be the BBEG, who was an extremely powerful wizard that was cooperating with the demons and the previously mentioned other evil wizard and killed her and the party once already (we escaped from hell...long story). Once you explain it, it sounds a little less evil, since you weren't in fact trying to take over the family. But assassination (which I assume is sneaking in and killing someone while they are defenseless) is hard to consider anything but evil. Effective? Yes. Necessary? Debatable. But still pretty evil. Now if you were just confronting them and giving them a choice to reform or pay the consequences, and they attack and you kill in self defense, then I would consider that neutral. But your character's desire to make her family pay for their crimes definitely sounds more lawful than chaotic to me.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 07-19-07, 02:08 PM	I have a little problem. Currently I play a CN fighter, now I know how to roleplay CN. But how do I achieve it without disadvantaging the party or hurting other characters in the party? If you believe that CN means compulsively doing things that are disadvantageous to the party then I do not believe you actually know how to roleplay CN in the slightest. Indeed there is nothing intrinsic to any alignment that necessitates a character behaving in any set or preordained manner, certainly not one that is both insane and self-destructive. Chaotic neutral ≠ sociopath.
Prom 07-19-07, 08:10 PM	Hi All, I'm cutting my losses with this thread and will not be checking it anymore. I have enough to work with now, thanks. Prom
remoray 07-19-07, 08:37 PM	One thing to keep in mind is the difference between action and motivation. As long as you can dream up a good reason for doing something (motivation) then you have great flexibility in what you do (action). So, make sure your actions are reasonable, don't get you into too much trouble, and are compatible with the rest of the party. But put your roleplaying effort into creating chaotic neutral reasons for doing what you do. This happens all the time with all alignments. If the adventure is to break into an evil temple and rescue the princess, then; the lawful good paladin will go to rescue the innocent the neutral evil cleric will go to disrupt the rival temple's plans for domination and the chaotic neutral rogue will go for the loot. but they all still end up doing the same thing, just for different reasons.
calronmoonflower 07-20-07, 03:56 AM	Once you explain it, it sounds a little less evil, since you weren't in fact trying to take over the family. But assassination (which I assume is sneaking in and killing someone while they are defenseless) is hard to consider anything but evil. Effective? Yes. Necessary? Debatable. But still pretty evil. Now if you were just confronting them and giving them a choice to reform or pay the consequences, and they attack and you kill in self defense, then I would consider that neutral. But your character's desire to make her family pay for their crimes definitely sounds more lawful than chaotic to me. Actually the Book of Exalted Deeds has a lawful good assassin within. If you don't think that is a good enough source for the possibility of assassinations being non-evil the assassin class was retooled with new prerequisites into the avenger for April Fool's Day. It needs only to no non-chaotic is my memory holds out. Also note the article said the joke was rehashing an already existing prestige class. Further classes the are good at assassination by themselves have no alignment requirement and the Coup De Grace action has no alignment component under the rules as written.
Optimator 07-20-07, 07:02 AM	I wouldn't cite the BoED for any alignment argument.
calvinNhobbes 07-20-07, 09:29 AM	Actually the Book of Exalted Deeds has a lawful good assassin within. If you don't think that is a good enough source for the possibility of assassinations being non-evil the assassin class was retooled with new prerequisites into the avenger for April Fool's Day. It needs only to no non-chaotic is my memory holds out. Also note the article said the joke was rehashing an already existing prestige class. Ditto Optimator. In addition, WOTC likes to publish contradictory and inconsistent material. It just needs an audience to sell, not to make sense with the rest of the rules. Some people want to think their bloodthirsty killing machine is "good", so WOTC gave them a class. Further classes the are good at assassination by themselves have no alignment requirement and the Coup De Grace action has no alignment component under the rules as written. That is in fact incorrect. The namesake core prestige class is in fact restricted to evil. In addition, the coup de grace action is just a tool. It does not need an alignment. It is how it is used that determines its ethical and moral ramifications.
Clawhound 07-20-07, 11:26 AM	There are two aspects to this: - How do I RP a CN without disadvantaging the party? - How do I RP a LG without disadvantaging the party? Sit down with the other players and talk about how you want your characters to interact and work together. Work out a conflict routine that works for everyone. Part of their routine can be letting you do your thing for your own good. You get into trouble, then suffer the consequences. They now have a good reason to let you do things! You can't learn your lessons if you don't suffer the consequences. How about you? What excuse do you have to work with the party? Did you set yourself up a game where you would have fun interacting with the party, or did you just want a character that could do whatever he wanted for whatever reason? My CN fighter admired the party's paladin. The gods were with that paladin! Yet, because of his CE upbringing, the CN never quite got his morals right. The paladin was forever explaining things, and he was forever applying his lessons "technically" right but essentially wrong. We had great fun. How about some example CNs? The Revolutionary is a good one. Talk about the inherent corruption of law, the oppression of the oligarchy, and that kind of thing. BELIEVE IN SOMETHING. Another CN is the Wanderer. You go where adventure take you. Laws are things to tolerate, like taxes. To you, laws are very arbitrary. Another example is the Morally Ignorant, who just grew up around bad people and doesn't know better.
Holy_Beholder 07-20-07, 07:42 PM	Another example is the Morally Ignorant, who just grew up around bad people and doesn't know better. Of course, for this case it is important that they still have some morals, otherwise they slip into evil. For instance a CN character brought up among a bunch of CE murdering thieves wont have any problem stealing or doing other illegal things, but probably can't bring himself to do anything too awful(rob an orphanage, mug somebody, murder somebody, etc.) but stuff like stealing is fine in general.
Clawhound 07-20-07, 08:29 PM	Of course, for this case it is important that they still have some morals, otherwise they slip into evil. For instance a CN character brought up among a bunch of CE murdering thieves wont have any problem stealing or doing other illegal things, but probably can't bring himself to do anything too awful(rob an orphanage, mug somebody, murder somebody, etc.) but stuff like stealing is fine in general. I always played that part as "talk a good game." "Hey, couldn't we just ..." His evil upbringing showed in his suggestions, rather than his actions.
calronmoonflower 07-21-07, 04:26 AM	That is in fact incorrect. The namesake core prestige class is in fact restricted to evil. In addition, the coup de grace action is just a tool. It does not need an alignment. It is how it is used that determines its ethical and moral ramifications. There is a difference between an assassin and a character with the assassin prestige class. Rogues and ninjas both make good assassins without any prestige classes. Lurk is another good one. None of these require an evil alignment to play.
calvinNhobbes 07-21-07, 10:42 AM	There is a difference between an assassin and a character with the assassin prestige class. Yes there is, but your broad statement that being an assassin has nothing to do with alignment is not correct since the namesake class has an alignment restriction. Rogues and ninjas both make good assassins without any prestige classes. Lurk is another good one. But nothing in those classes requires them to be an assassin. It is but one career path any class can take. None of these require an evil alignment to play. True, but that is not the point. I would argue that playing any class as an assassin is evil. If you play a rogue assassin then it is an evil rogue. Why? Because the precendence is set by the assassin prestige class that assassination is evil. I have no desire to argue the semantics of whether assassination is evil by RAW because if you don't believe that I probably can't convince you. But if you feel the need to quote passages from BOED or BOVD or whatever, go ahead. Arguing over the alignment system using strict readings of the RAW is pointless given how inconsistent and contradictory the sources are. Have a good day.
calronmoonflower 07-21-07, 04:35 PM	Yes there is, but your broad statement that being an assassin has nothing to do with alignment is not correct since the namesake class has an alignment restriction. I believe that you have misread my post. I didn't say that. I said that several classes that are good at the act of assassination are not required to be evil.
calvinNhobbes 07-21-07, 05:02 PM	I said that several classes that are good at the act of assassination are not required to be evil. I agree, but I still don't see what point you are trying to make. It sounds to me like you are trying to justify an evil act as being non-evil just because classes not restricted to an evil alignment can commit said acts. All it means to me is that some classes are more flexible and give more options on how they can be roleplayed. In my opinion, regardless of what class you are, assassination is evil.
calronmoonflower 07-21-07, 05:22 PM	I agree, but I still don't see what point you are trying to make. It sounds to me like you are trying to justify an evil act as being non-evil just because classes not restricted to an evil alignment can commit said acts. All it means to me is that some classes are more flexible and give more options on how they can be roleplayed. In my opinion, regardless of what class you are, assassination is evil. I can see how you would think that, but is killing the evil overload in their sleep evil? The rules as written do include a lawful good assassin. To exclude it based on the book it is in isn't valid. Instead base the argument on the prestige class itself. Besides the avenger is a non-evil assassin prestige class. Both point toward assassination in and of itself as having no evil component. I agree that an assassination is more likely to be evil, but the possibility for non-evil assassination is supported be the rules as written.
calvinNhobbes 07-21-07, 05:33 PM	I can see how you would think that, but is killing the evil overload in their sleep evil? In my games, absolutely. The rules as written do include a lawful good assassin. To exclude it based on the book it is in isn't valid. Instead base the argument on the prestige class itself. Besides the avenger is a non-evil assassin prestige class. Both point toward assassination in and of itself as having no evil component. I agree that an assassination is more likely to be evil, but the possibility for non-evil assassination is supported be the rules as written. Using ALL the RAW to discuss alignment is worthless and pointless, which is why I said I would not bother to get into such a debate. The only conclusion that can be made using ALL the RAW to discuss alignment is that alignment means nothing. At some point, some book has justifed any scenario as both good and evil as well as lawful and chaotic. I don't even use the PHB for alignment because even CORE is inconsistent and hypocritical on alignment. I stick to the SRD, the only pure form of alignment description in 3.5 in my opinion.
calronmoonflower 07-21-07, 06:13 PM	In my games, absolutely. That's perfectly valid in your campaign. Using ALL the RAW to discuss alignment is worthless and pointless, which is why I said I would not bother to get into such a debate. The only conclusion that can be made using ALL the RAW to discuss alignment is that alignment means nothing. At some point, some book has justifed any scenario as both good and evil as well as lawful and chaotic. I don't even use the PHB for alignment because even CORE is inconsistent and hypocritical on alignment. I stick to the SRD, the only pure form of alignment description in 3.5 in my opinion. Alright from the alignment description from the SRD does not point toward assassination as inherently evil. From what I can gather intent and action both work together to determine if an act if evil. Coup De Grace/sneak attack/sudden attack are all actions that can be used to assassinate. All have no inherent alignment component. So it comes down to motive. If you preform the deed to protect innocents from an evil overload then it can be good. Not that it will always be good.
calvinNhobbes 07-21-07, 06:44 PM	That's perfectly valid in your campaign. I would add that any discussion on alignment is campaign specific. Alright from the alignment description from the SRD does not point toward assassination as inherently evil. Yes, if you want to play semantics, then assassination is not listed as an example in the evil description. "Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. That being said, I would consider assassinations as hurting and killing people, as well as killing without qualms when convenient. Assassinations, if anything, are killings of convenience. In addition: She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. If you can give me an example of an assassination that is not for profit, sport, or convenience, then I will concede that assassinations are not evil. From what I can gather intent and action both work together to determine if an act if evil. Agreed. I am not saying that killing is necessarily evil. I am saying that assassinations are because they involve killing for profit and/or convenience. Coup De Grace/sneak attack/sudden attack are all actions that can be used to assassinate. All have no inherent alignment component. A fireball can be used as an assassination as well and it doesn't have an alignment component either. What's your point? So it comes down to motive. If you preform the deed to protect innocents from an evil overload then it can be good. And here is where we disagree and where bringing in additional sources mucks up the alignment debate. Assassinating the overlord is evil, EVEN if it protects innocents. Why? Because you are killing for convenience. Not that it will always be good. I would say assassinations can never be good. Good requires a "respect for life". Premeditated murder (which is what assassination is) is never a good act. The most you could possible stretch it is neutral if you consider executions as a form of assassionation (which is an entire other debate).
Khadmus 07-21-07, 07:06 PM	I don't remember what the test (http://www.angelfire.com/dragon/terragf/) said I was, but in real life, I'd say I'm a pretty even mix of LG and CN. EDIT: Do you think one could argue that LG/CN = NG? Just a comment about how I view alignments: I see them as guidelines. I also see them as being more a representation of who the character is or would like to be rather than how the character acts. Actions are the only way by which we can judge other people, so it's easy to think that alignment = actions, but it doesn't have to be that way. A CE person could theoretically live a lawful and peaceful life in the middle of a city by repressing his desires to maim and kill or by only doing it when he knows he can get away with it. Just because he forces himself to act lawfully while in the city for the sake of keeping himself alive and not drawing undue attention to himself does not mean he is lawful. I think alignment has more to do with intent than actions but I'm not saying actions have nothing to do with it at all. What I would like to be... (sorry for dragging it off-topic) though my intent and actions are not lawful (neither of them), I desire justice. This is why I worship Christ: his promise of salvation to those few worthy and hell to the wicked. I know that whatever I do will get what it deserves, whether I taste of paradise or burn in the fiery lake forever.
Holy_Beholder 07-21-07, 08:40 PM	If you can give me an example of an assassination that is not for profit, sport, or convenience, then I will concede that assassinations are not evil. A tyrant warlord is approaching a small village. In this village are four rogues, who have befriended the population, and settled down. The warlord has far too many troops to ever be defeated normally, and the rogues don't want him to kill the villagers, their friends, and in some cases family. They sneak into his camp, get into his tent, and all four Coup De Gras the warlord. They then repeat the act on various sub commanders, leaving the army in disarray. They also poison the food and water, since they know that the army will still attack the village. The guards eat the food, drink the water, and most of them die from the poison. They still attack the village, but they are in disarray, and the village is able to hold them off. Because of the rogues, all the innocents in the village are still alive. Now tell me those four rogues who saved the village are evil. The act was not evil, neither were the intentions, and it helped the innocents. Sure, they could have done it the inconvenient way, by attacking with lots of troops, but they would probably have lost, and the village and the troops are now dead, resulting in much more needless bloodshed. The assassination wasn't convenient either, it was dangerous and they could have been caught. Its only convenience if the hard way works.
calvinNhobbes 07-21-07, 10:33 PM	AThey sneak into his camp, get into his tent, and all four Coup De Gras the warlord. They have commited an evil act. The have killed out of convenience. They are murderers They then repeat the act on various sub commanders, leaving the army in disarray. An army without commanders is even more dangerous. The rogues obviously all have low wisdom and intelligence scores, and most likely charisma as well since they did not attempt diplomacy and a peaceful resolution. They also poison the food and water, since they know that the army will still attack the village. The guards eat the food, drink the water, and most of them die from the poison. Poisoning food and water. So now they are killing for the sake of killing. Sounds like killing for sport to me. Definitely an evil act. They still attack the village, but they are in disarray, and the village is able to hold them off. Because of the rogues, all the innocents in the village are still alive. Good for the rogues, they still committed evil acts. Now tell me those four rogues who saved the village are evil. They might not be evil. They commited evil acts. They could be evil, maybe neutral, definitely not good. The act was not evil, Yes it was. They murdered for convenience and sport. neither were the intentions, and it helped the innocents. The end does NOT justify the means, EVER. Sure, they could have done it the inconvenient way, by attacking with lots of troops, but they would probably have lost, and the village and the troops are now dead, resulting in much more needless bloodshed. Hence why being good means self sacrifice. The easy path is often the evil one. A necessary evil is still evil. The assassination wasn't convenient either, it was dangerous and they could have been caught. Its only convenience if the hard way works. A difficult and dangerous assassination does not mean it is inconvenient. Killing a helpless person is the MOST convenient method possible. You example was a poor one. The rogues commited evil acts. A good person would have exhausted every possible option BEFORE resorting to physical violence, and then only in self defence. A good person would have led their people honorably to their deaths or sacrified themselves to allow an escape if possible. Dropping a nuclear bomb saves time and money in war. Time and money that could be spent helping many more people than the bomb kills. Dropping a nuke is not a good act.
calronmoonflower 07-22-07, 01:39 AM	That being said, I would consider assassinations as hurting and killing people, as well as killing without qualms when convenient. Assassinations, if anything, are killings of convenience. If you use the convenience as the standard of whether kill is evil then players would be require to always deal non-lethal damage and take prisoner or continually commit evil acts. If you can give me an example of an assassination that is not for profit, sport, or convenience, then I will concede that assassinations are not evil. I can try but I'm not very good at it. Assassination can be defined as killing for an idealogical motive. Hound Archorn Champions destroy evil in all it's forms. The motive for this is idealogical. A better example would be a rogue that sneaks into the temple of a truly foul cleric that destroys or corrupts all they touch and using the Coup De Grace on them. They have commited an evil act. The have killed out of convenience. They are murderers Perhaps it was necessary. Would that still make it evil? An army without commanders is even more dangerous. The rogues obviously all have low wisdom and intelligence scores, and most likely charisma as well since they did not attempt diplomacy and a peaceful resolution. Rogue: I'm hear to negotiate for peace. Evil Commander: *stab* We will have peace when are enemies are all dead. Poisoning food and water. So now they are killing for the sake of killing. Sounds like killing for sport to me. Definitely an evil act. They did so to save the village. Poisoning is listed as an evil act in the Book of Exalted Deeds, but I've never seen it anywhere else. I really think that this could go either way. They might not be evil. They commited evil acts. They could be evil, maybe neutral, definitely not good. Chaotic good might fit into the actions. The end does NOT justify the means, EVER. I agree. Evil acts with good intent are still evil. Hence why being good means self sacrifice. The easy path is often the evil one. A necessary evil is still evil. By doing it the hard way they endanger the village and all those in it. Protecting innocents is a good act. Endangering them not so much. A difficult and dangerous assassination does not mean it is inconvenient. Killing a helpless person is the MOST convenient method possible. Convenient is not the standard of evil. You example was a poor one. The rogues commited evil acts. A good person would have exhausted every possible option BEFORE resorting to physical violence, and then only in self defence. A good person would have led their people honorably to their deaths or sacrified themselves to allow an escape if possible. 1. Defense of the innocent is a valid reason to kill. 2. Honor =/= good Generally all the acts except for the poison in the argument all are possible for a chaotic good rogue.
calvinNhobbes 07-22-07, 02:24 AM	If you use the convenience as the standard of whether kill is evil then players would be require to always deal non-lethal damage and take prisoner or continually commit evil acts. Yes, I agree. If you want to be a good PC then that means having mercy, compassion, and respect for life, even for the now sleeping orcs that 6 seconds ago were trying to cleave you in two. Being good is a struggle. I don't recommend PCs in my campaign be good. They can try but they end up switching to neutral. Most people, even in a game, are incapable of living up to a good alignment. It involves too much sacrifice. Assassination can be defined as killing for an idealogical motive. I'm not exactly sure where you are going with this, so please elaborate. Hound Archorn Champions destroy evil in all it's forms. I know, I HATE that sentence. Whatever designer wrote that line is a dimwit and doesn't understand alignment. This kind of inconsistent crap is why I use the SRD alignment section instead of the PHB one. Nothing like defining good as having mercy and compassion, and then giving an example of lawful good as a paladin that kills without mercy. :rolleyes: A better example would be a rogue that sneaks into the temple of a truly foul cleric that destroys or corrupts all they touch and using the Coup De Grace on them. The rogue can, but that is an evil act. Like I said, a necesary evil is still evil. Perhaps it was necessary. Would that still make it evil? Yes, a necessary evil is still evil. Rogue: I'm hear to negotiate for peace. Evil Commander: *stab* We will have peace when are enemies are all dead. Good does not equal stupid. There are many other political things the rogues can do. Disguises and impersonations to confuse orders and create divisions in the army. Most of the soldiers are probably not even evil. They are probably forced concripts. The army could be on the brink of rebellion. They could bribe certain lower rank officers to their cause. So many options that are not evil. Like I said, assassionation is evil because it is the easiest and most convenient way to remove a problem. They did so to save the village. Poisoning is listed as an evil act in the Book of Exalted Deeds, but I've never seen it anywhere else. I really think that this could go either way. Let me flip it back on you. What if the "evil" army posioned the food and water of the town and all the villagers in order to perserve the lives of its soldiers? Would that be a good act? Chaotic good might fit into the actions. Only if you can explain how premeditated murder and mass murdering of thousands with posion can be considered "kind and benevolent". I agree. Evil acts with good intent are still evil. And I think assassinations are evil acts. By doing it the hard way they endanger the village and all those in it. Ya, being good can suck. It can often get you into no win situations. I'm sure Jesus and Martin Luther King Jr can relate. Protecting innocents is a good act. Endangering them not so much. The rogues can help them however they want. But they need to accept the fact that certain methods are evil. Convenient is not the standard of evil. I never said it was the standard. However, it often is a factor. 1. Defense of the innocent is a valid reason to kill. Yes, but that does not make it non-evil. An evil act with good intentions is still evil. Or, a necessary evil is still evil. In addition, defending yourself when attacked is much different that planning and executing a plan to murder someone. 2. Honor =/= good Agreed, got caught in the moment and couldn't think of the right word. :D How about righteous instead. Generally all the acts except for the poison in the argument all are possible for a chaotic good rogue. These acts are possible for any alignment, but they are still evil. Alignment does not dictate action, action determines alignment. If a chaotic good rogue in my campaign got tired of this tyrant pushing his friends around and responded by murdering the tyrant, killing all his officers, and poisoning his soldiers then that rogue is no longer "kind and benevolent", he is no longer good. I think an alignment shift to CN would be in order. If the rogue then continued with a personal mission to commit genocide against the entire population of the opposing nation, well then he would shift to CE.
calronmoonflower 07-22-07, 04:31 AM	If you use the convenience as the standard of whether kill is evil then players would be require to always deal non-lethal damage and take prisoner or continually commit evil acts. Yes, I agree. If you want to be a good PC then that means having mercy, compassion, and respect for life, even for the now sleeping orcs that 6 seconds ago were trying to cleave you in two. Being good is a struggle. I don't recommend PCs in my campaign be good. They can try but they end up switching to neutral. Most people, even in a game, are incapable of living up to a good alignment. It involves too much sacrifice. That is a very high standard that you are using. It would prevent a paladin from killing ever without falling. Unless you include an exception for fiends, undead, and other abominations. As the standard is so high it would be impossible to prove that assassination could be non-evil by it. It could even be said by the standard of convenience that killing in self defense is an evil act.
Nidair 07-22-07, 10:25 AM	What I would say is to play your character just the way you want to play him. Don't let those 2 symbols on your character sheet dictate every move your character makes. By following just your alignment, you are only needlessly cornering yourself (and the party) into getting stuck in the same situation (in the OP's example - everyone tries their best and the fighter ruins it just because he's CN), but you are also making very static characters. I mean, there are a lot more than 9 different characters you can make by just being creative and thinking about what your character would do, not what he should do according to his alignment. Also, do not see my comment as a negative remark directed at anyone. I just offer my advice. Be free to use this advice for good use.
Zaver 07-22-07, 02:13 PM	The Assassin prestige class doesn't make all assassination evil. It's a prestige class so it's more then just a skill set, it's like an guild, they probably even have raffles for pie but because they're evil it's not very good pie. The kind of pie no one likes but is always around and you wonder how it keeps getting made because surely, since no one ever eats it the method of creating the foul thing would have been losts in the mists of time. More to the point and less about pie, to be an Assassin you have to kill someone for no other reason then to be an Assassin. No matter what, that says their is some RP point supposed to be used to show you're joining up with a group of twisted bad pie loving loonatics. Other wise you could just learn the skill set. Saying that assassination is evil because sneaking in and killing them when they don't know you are there is evil is just a sad delusion that the open fight is some how honorable and glorius. If you go after someone with the intent to kill them, which we all tend to do when it comes time to take out the BBEG, it doesn't matter if you do it upright in a swords at dawn duel or slip into his chamber and lace his undies in contact poison, you're still an assassin. It's already been said that the coup de grace isn't evil because it's just a tool and the why is more important then the how. That goes for every thing.
Caelic 07-22-07, 05:03 PM	They did so to save the village. Poisoning is listed as an evil act in the Book of Exalted Deeds, but I've never seen it anywhere else. I really think that this could go either way. ...and by doing so, killed many, many soldiers, some of whom were simply following orders. The families of those soldiers, who may well be every bit as innocent as the villagers, are now without a means of support, and may well starve. Their action has had good consequences, yes--but it will also have bad ones.
calvinNhobbes 07-22-07, 05:17 PM	That is a very high standard that you are using. I do not think so, but I can see how others might. I like to think of good being more than just nice. If there is no real ethical or moral difference between the alignments then they just become labels. You might as well just get rid of them and assign colors and give protection and detect colors (like magic the gathering). It would prevent a paladin from killing ever without falling. Unless you include an exception for fiends, undead, and other abominations. Pretty much, although giving exceptions for fiends and the like is even questionable. I have read your posts on alignment, and I respect your logic and ability to reason, so I have a thought to bounce off you. I have seen posts on these boards asking "why doesn't good ever defeat evil". Evil fights with itself and has more enemies than good. Why can't the celestials gather up the neutral beings and destroy the fiends? In my opinion, it is because to completely destroy evil would mean to become evil yourself. Imagine the scenario where the celestials and allies battle the fiends to a point of surrender in the lower planes. Now what? Do the good celestials invade and start murdering all the fiends? Wiping them out in a massive genocide? They could, but now the celestials are evil. Evil wasn't detroyed, it has merely changed faces. This quandry also opens up a reason why celestials need mortals in the battle against evil. A celestial being must be merciful and compassionate even to fiends. But mortals are flexible. Even a good mortal can commit evil acts on occassion. Obviously these ideas are not directly supported by the RAW, but I think they logically explain some of the interesting dynamics of the multiverse. It could even be said by the standard of convenience that killing in self defense is an evil act. Possibly, especially in the world of D&D where death can be reversed. However, killing in self defense is something even animals and vermin do. Hence I would say self-preservation is a Neutral act. Like I said, you can either make good and evil actually mean something in game and result in most players being neutral (or evil if an evil campaign, humans have less difficulty pretedning to be evil than good although I think both are equally difficulty to treuly be in real life), or you can just think of alignment being a label that affects certain game mechanics. Either way is fine as long as you are consistent. I like ethical and moral dilemmas in my games. Many people do not.
calvinNhobbes 07-22-07, 05:23 PM	Saying that assassination is evil because sneaking in and killing them when they don't know you are there is evil is just a sad delusion that the open fight is some how honorable and glorius. You are welcome to your opinion of course, but saying anyone that disagrees with you is delusionally is arrogant. If you go after someone with the intent to kill them, which we all tend to do when it comes time to take out the BBEG, it doesn't matter if you do it upright in a swords at dawn duel or slip into his chamber and lace his undies in contact poison, you're still an assassin. That is incorrect. The definition of assassinate includes the qualifier of being a "surprise" attack. That is the difference. It's already been said that the coup de grace isn't evil because it's just a tool and the why is more important then the how. That goes for every thing. Exactly. It is just a tool, like a sword. That still does nothing to prove assassination can be a good act. EDIT: As an addition Caelic's point. Using war as an example for anything related to ethics and morality is difficult. Why? Because war involves two sides. Both sides think the are good and the other side is evil. Hence, the very nature of war is really more neutral. However, the methods war is carried out, whether with mercy and respect, or will cruelty and hatred, is very important. It is the reason we have laws in modern times for what is "legal" in war.
Zaver 07-22-07, 07:45 PM	You are welcome to your opinion of course, but saying anyone that disagrees with you is delusionally is arrogant. Perhaps, but that doesn't invalidate my point nor do I think people who disagree with me are delusional. The entire idea that killing someone in a 'fair' fight is honorable and right isn't your idea, it's an old concept thought up for no other reason then to justify things we had trouble dealing with. "I may have killed a man but at least I didn't stab him in the back." That is the sad delusion. That is incorrect. The definition of assassinate includes the qualifier of being a "surprise" attack. That is the difference. That is only half true. Most definitions also have to destroy or injure treachrously. It's also nothing more then semantics. You can't rightfully say something is evil based soley on method. Exactly. It is just a tool, like a sword. That still does nothing to prove assassination can be a good act. It was not my intent to prove that assassination was or even could be good as that is imaterial to my concerns. Just that it was not, by method, evil. You have already stated that an action is not in and of itself evil but the reasoning behind it that makes an act evil. Besides by what you say the Fellowship from LotR is evil. They sought to destroy the Ring and by destroying it, Sauron. The quest was secret so you cannot argue that it doesn't qualify under your definition of assassination. Further more they would be, under your reasoning, more evil then a man who tracks a kidnapper, who to date, has never harmed his victims and slays him in an open fight with out offering surrender. Does that make sense? If you want to say that assassins are evil and want to use narrow definitions, then use what assassins are generally percieved as by the public. Highered killers. Killing for no other reason then for money is evil.
calronmoonflower 07-22-07, 08:27 PM	I do not think so, but I can see how others might. Why did you have to go and be reasonable like that? :D I like to think of good being more than just nice. It is more than being nice. it is making sacrifices to help others. So I guess we both agree here. If there is no real ethical or moral difference between the alignments then they just become labels. You might as well just get rid of them and assign colors and give protection and detect colors (like magic the gathering). Yes a line moral line exists between good and evil. My assertion still has that line, just not at the same place. Pretty much, although giving exceptions for fiends and the like is even questionable. Questionable? That is indeed a very high standard. I recognize that it is allowed, I just don't agree that it should be that high for all. I have read your posts on alignment, and I respect your logic and ability to reason, It nice to here that. so I have a thought to bounce off you. I'll bite. I have seen posts on these boards asking "why doesn't good ever defeat evil". Evil fights with itself and has more enemies than good. Why can't the celestials gather up the neutral beings and destroy the fiends? Good and evil exist within every sentient being (this even include celestials and fiends). There for it cannot be completely eliminated without killing every sentient being. In my opinion, it is because to completely destroy evil would mean to become evil yourself. Huh... Well the attempt in under the banner I used above would be evil. [snip] Obviously these ideas are not directly supported by the RAW, Actually it is not only unsupported it goes against the rules as written for some celestials. but I think they logically explain some of the interesting dynamics of the multiverse. I guess it could. [snip] However, killing in self defense is something even animals and vermin do. Hence I would say self-preservation is a Neutral act. They kill for survival. Self defense is included, but other behaviors are included as well like killing (even sentient beings) for food. The lack of the ability to comprehend morality is what makes them neutral instead of the motivation. [snip] Either way is fine as long as you are consistent. I like ethical and moral dilemmas in my games. Many people do not. I agree consistency on what defines good/evil in extremely important. The definition of both can also very widely from campaign to campaign and still fall into the rules as written.
calvinNhobbes 07-22-07, 10:30 PM	Perhaps, but that doesn't invalidate my point nor do I think people who disagree with me are delusional. The entire idea that killing someone in a 'fair' fight is honorable and right isn't your idea, it's an old concept thought up for no other reason then to justify things we had trouble dealing with. "I may have killed a man but at least I didn't stab him in the back." I would say killing someone in a fair fight is honorable (ie lawful), but not right (ie. good). I completely agree with you on the idea that many societies want to think they are good and make up justifications for their actions to make them seem less evil. That is the sad delusion. Thanks for clarifying. I apologize if my assertions of arrogance on your part. That is only half true. Most definitions also have to destroy or injure treachrously. It's also nothing more then semantics. You can't rightfully say something is evil based soley on method. Of course there are other definitions, but as with any word, you have to use the applicable. The definition involving surprise attacks is obviously the situation we are describing here. If you want to argue semantics, I concede since it is boring and futile. And yes, I agree you can't base is solely on method, but it is an important element. It was not my intent to prove that assassination was or even could be good as that is imaterial to my concerns. Just that it was not, by method, evil. You have already stated that an action is not in and of itself evil but the reasoning behind it that makes an act evil. The key factor is that assassination is not just another action for killing someone. It is the action of killing someone by surprise. In addition, assassination is convenient and often for profit. These last justifiers are within the game definition of evil. I think that is substantial enough to show assassination is evil. You obviously disagree, that is fine. Besides by what you say the Fellowship from LotR is evil. They sought to destroy the Ring and by destroying it, Sauron. The quest was secret so you cannot argue that it doesn't qualify under your definition of assassination. Like I have said before, a necessary evil is still evil. Yes killing Sauron was an evil act. The story tries to justify it as good by showing how evil Sauron was, but as you have pointed up, trying to justify something does not make it right. That does not make the fellowship evil though. One act does not an alignment shift make. If Middle Earth then decided to hunt down and slay all of Sauron's allies for revenge, well then we are heading for an evil alignment. Further more they would be, under your reasoning, more evil then a man who tracks a kidnapper, who to date, has never harmed his victims and slays him in an open fight with out offering surrender. Does that make sense? No that doesn't make sense to me. You've given no intent. Intent and action are needed. For example, note that I have only said assassination is evil. I've never said that killing helpless people is necessarily evil. Something like an execution could be considered neutral. I personally can not think of a scenario where killing a helpless person would be good though. If you want to say that assassins are evil and want to use narrow definitions, then use what assassins are generally percieved as by the public. Highered killers. Killing for no other reason then for money is evil. Money is one. It falls under profit. But there are many forms of profit besides money. Political power for example. calronmoonflower Excellent post! It has been a pleasure philosophizing with you. :D
Mock26 07-22-07, 10:40 PM	Killing is an evil act only if your interpretation of the various parts of alignment view it that way. The so-called "definitions" of alignment are, according the the DMG, guidelines. If one person deems that killing is evil, that is that person's opinion. That doesn't mean that it is evil for any other player out there. Yes, others may have the same opinion, but they are all still just opinions. Those opinions do not invalidate someone else's right to view killing as a non-evil act. Believing that killing does NOT constitute an evil act is just as valid as believing it is an evil act. Remember, according the the RAW, the definitions of the various alignments are merely guidelines. Everyone is free to interpret them as they see fit, and all interpretations are valid.
Zaver 07-22-07, 10:58 PM	Like I have said before, a necessary evil is still evil. Yes killing Sauron was an evil act. The story tries to justify it as good by showing how evil Sauron was, but as you have pointed up, trying to justify something does not make it right. That does not make the fellowship evil though. One act does not an alignment shift make. If Middle Earth then decided to hunt down and slay all of Sauron's allies for revenge, well then we are heading for an evil alignment. I wouldn't really consider killing something like Sauron a necessary evil so much as self defense as he was an unimaginably evil extraplanar creature bent on destruction and enslavement of all things. Not really important though I guess.:rolleyes: No that doesn't make sense to me. You've given no intent. Intent and action are needed. For example, note that I have only said assassination is evil. I've never said that killing helpless people is necessarily evil. Something like an execution could be considered neutral. I personally can not think of a scenario where killing a helpless person would be good though. Let's say the killers intent was to ensure no future kidnappings. The justice system in the region is flawed and the kidnapper will walk free as surely as flowers bloom in spring. Or we can go with the killer desires to give the kidnapper, who is his brother a chance to defeat him and walk free or at least die by the hands a family member with his diginity rather then face certain death and humilation at the hands of his victims familes. It is however the killing of the helpless person that brings my attention here. I am confused, though less so after reading this post, with how you can say a coup de grace has no alignment when they can only be performed on a helpless openent, is not evil while sneaking in and killing someone with out warning is. Money is one. It falls under profit. But there are many forms of profit besides money. Political power for example. Indeed and perhaps I should have been less specific and used any form of personal gain. Killing for profit, what ever form it takes, as a primary motivation is rather evil. It does help to understand your point though that this is all included in your view of assassination. Though I do not think that convienent should be part of evil unless the situation could have been resolved in a peacful, albiet harder to achieve, fashion. Like with Sauron, if I were to agree that killing him was evil I would still have to say that the quest to destroy the ring was the easiest and most convienent way to achieve this and any other method would have been foolish and doomed to fail. As there were no other ways out, taking the convient path does don't add to the evil.
calvinNhobbes 07-22-07, 10:59 PM	Killing is an evil act only if your interpretation of the various parts of alignment view it that way. The so-called "definitions" of alignment are, according the the DMG, guidelines. If one person deems that killing is evil, that is that person's opinion. That doesn't mean that it is evil for any other player out there. Yes, others may have the same opinion, but they are all still just opinions. Those opinions do not invalidate someone else's right to view killing as a non-evil act. Believing that killing does NOT constitute an evil act is just as valid as believing it is an evil act. Remember, according the the RAW, the definitions of the various alignments are merely guidelines. Everyone is free to interpret them as they see fit, and all interpretations are valid. Absolutely, I have tried to be very careful in stating these were my opinions. In addition, most of the discussion has been focusing on a specific type of killing, namely assassination.
Optimator 07-23-07, 04:00 AM	The rules as written do include a lawful good assassin. To exclude it based on the book it is in isn't valid. I dunno, in the case of the BoED it just might be valid... Besides, you are confusing "assassinating" with "being an assassin". "Being an assassin" implies that is is done often enough to define someone, maybe even by trade. You mean to tell us that, in the black & white D&D universe, a celestial wouldn't have some sort of problem with that?
calronmoonflower 07-23-07, 04:44 AM	I dunno, in the case of the BoED it just might be valid... Actually that is known as a genetic fallacy. If you have a problem with the prestige class base your argument on the prestige class itself. As for the Book of Exalted Deeds I agree that it has major problems. Besides, you are confusing "assassinating" with "being an assassin". Not really. "Being an assassin" implies that is is done often enough to define someone, maybe even by trade. You mean to tell us that, in the black & white D&D universe, a celestial wouldn't have some sort of problem with that? Not on its face. If you use such tactics exclusively on evil beings that cannot reasonable neutralized by other means then why would they have a problem?
Clawhound 07-23-07, 09:13 AM	Killing is an evil act only if your interpretation of the various parts of alignment view it that way. The so-called "definitions" of alignment are, according the the DMG, guidelines. If one person deems that killing is evil, that is that person's opinion. That doesn't mean that it is evil for any other player out there. Yes, others may have the same opinion, but they are all still just opinions. Those opinions do not invalidate someone else's right to view killing as a non-evil act. Believing that killing does NOT constitute an evil act is just as valid as believing it is an evil act. Remember, according the the RAW, the definitions of the various alignments are merely guidelines. Everyone is free to interpret them as they see fit, and all interpretations are valid. I will add "within reason". I've seen bizzarro interpretations out there. Not all interpretations are valid, or equally valid. Rules-lawyering alignments and finding semantic or logical loopholes in them to get a contrary results are not valid interprtations. There's a "spirit" behind each alignment description. That's the key part. All interpretations that reasonably fit the "spirit" of the alignment are valid. The alignments themselves are silent on many issue. This means that lawful good character are not required to be uptight dinks.
PeteRR 07-28-07, 10:32 AM	I have mercenary captain I play in Traveller. He is fiercely loyal to his men to the point of paying for things that no military org would(surgery for relatives as an example). Occasionally I would take contracts that would pay poorly(ala The Seven Samurai), but would increase my public reputation. He is completely disdainful of authority, but that is generally his source for well paying jobs, so he fakes it when necessary. When he feels he can get away with something that won't ruin his reputation, he commits what we would call evil acts. One example: He was tasked with attacking an airfield with his troops equipped as commandos. Flying over the base, he noticed that the guard contingent had been reinforced with a platoon of grav tanks. Attacking with the original plan would have been suicide. Instead he dropped a micro-yield nuke grenade on them. This had the unintended consequence of disabling the plane he was riding in. The rest of the guard contingent soon fell to the assault by his commandos. In the aftermath, the military that was guarding the airfield was blamed for the nuke detonation. Noone could believe that a champion of the poor would use nukes. My previous reputation as the underdog remained intact and my rep as a ruthless merc captain who got things done was increased. My DM, who also DM'd for our D+D campaign, said my character was the epitome of Chaotic Neutral.