Thread 96341137

>DM got mad because i roleplayed what my character would do and said i need to stop doing chaotic neutral characters
Why?

in order to get over my tendency to metagame, I made a simple d6 decision chart.
>1-2 completely trusting, head empty
>3-4 kinda sus, but see how this goes
>5-6 dont trust, but be VERY vocal

have you ever played a character that wasn't chaotic neutral

>>96341137 (OP)
Gotta be that your GM can't handle well written consistent characters.

No other reason

>>96341137 (OP)
>just be your character bro
Okay *kills the party* (because thats what my character would do)
>wtf you are banned!
Why are games like this?

>>96341137 (OP)
Chaotic Neutral is often the alignment of choice for That Guy. And "ThAt'S wHaT mY cHaRaCtEr WoUlD dO," is the rallying cry of many That Guys. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it probably is a duck.

Also frogposting...

>>96341137 (OP)
The fact that this is tongue-in-cheek aside, people really are approaching alignment wrong. They tend to think of it as a box that their character lives in, rather than a shorthand that loosely describes how their character already is. This rookie mistake leads people to make their characters particularly inflexible, because they see that imaginary box as a series of boundaries. It also makes people really bad at justifying what they do, because they think that any behaviors that fit in the box are correct to do. Sometimes the box is just an excuse, but it's really all a failure to prioritize things correctly kind of thing.

>>96341137 (OP)
dumb frogposter

Why did you choose to make a character who would do stupid gay frog shit given the chance?

>>96341433

To add to this, it's often the case that people struggle to understand the 'Neutral' alignments in my experience. It's easy to understand Lawful Evil is a Tyrant, and that Chaotic Good is a Robin Hood like person, but it's a lot harder to explain true neutral.

Most people look at them as being defined as not being the other options. Chaotic Neutral is especially bad for this, because how do you define behavior that's inherently Chaotic without infringing on the Good/Evil parts of the spectrum?

Failing to understand this is like half the problem with CN. The other half is that people just play CN like it's CE and try to use wackyness as a shield for being a shitty person and a terribly written character. Like Deadpool.

I dindu evil acts though.
Didnt genocide Goblins or rape women.
Just started getting into brawls at random because my orc barbarian tavern brawler likes to get into brawl constantly

>>96341712
>frogger
>constantly starts fights
>not an evil guy

>>96341137 (OP)
Maybe play a chaotic neutral that isn't chaotic stupid?

>>96341712
Starting fights is very evil, retard.

>>96341656
My experience has been that when I compare a player's stated alignment with how they actually play it, they are often one turn clockwise off.

>>96341712
Your behavior was disruptive and the DM didn't like it.
>But I was playing a CN Barbarian? It was totally in character.
That make sense. Your DM isn't punishing you for playing your character. He is asking you to change characters. So when you play again you won't do the things the DM didn't like.
You didn't do anything wrong. However the DM would prefer if it didn't happen again. Hence the new restrictions.

Alignments are stupid and should not be something the players gets to choose on character creation

>>96343470
>That make sense.
I really should have proofread my post.

>>96343098
This would be easily fixed by renaming every 'neutral' to 'true' or something similar. 'Neutral' really gives the wrong vibe.
True evil, true lawful, true chaotic, true good

>>96341656
>but it's a lot harder to explain true neutral.
Really? I've always interpreted TN as being more or less summed up as "not my problem". That description sacrifices nuance for brevity but I've never found it that hard to explain; TN is basically just describing not going out of one's way to consistently take actions that are specifically benevolent, malicious, lawful or chaotic on those principles but also not abstaining from those actions on principle. This can be either a refined, deliberate stance or (like most people IRL) simply just incidental to the character's outlook and actions.

I think the problem is that most players tend to (a) wear their alignment like a straitjacket and (b) forget that their characters can and should have motivations, values, traits and judgements beyond the boilerplate for their alignment. A TN character repeatedly making a small donation to the temple-orphanage of the local LG faith doesn't mean that their alignment is shifting, it just means that they felt like that was something that should be done for whatever reason. Maybe they have a soft spot for orphans or maybe someone from that faith treated them well once and they're paying it forward or they're donating it in memory of their parents or whatever - point is, though those actions are "good" in the karmic ledger they're not outside of the scope of a TN character acting in a TN way.

>>96344746
That's how the early settings like World of Greyhawk did it, the majority of humans being Neutral, just trying to get on with their lives, not bothering about problems outside their immediate vincinity and only dipping into the other alignments occasionally as circumstances arise. It's only the extreme alignments. religions and races (Law, Chaos, Good Evil) that go out of their way to consistantly enforce or break laws, to either help or fuck up others all the time.

>>96341433
>>96341656
To me its less about the person itself and more about his soul and the supernatural.
Good vs Evil isnt about human morals, its about if they stand with forces of light or those of darkness. Law vs Chaos isnt about human laws, its about whether you respect and uphold the cosmic and natural order or seek to transcend/destroy it.
LE isnt a tyrant, a tyrant is CE. A tyrant rules through fear and hate, so he is obviously a force of evil. But while a tyrant makes use of laws, he isnt lawful because he doesnt seek to uphold the natural order, but rather to replace it with his own vision.
A more understandable example: a LE God may fight and oppose the forces of good, but he does so as a part of the cosmic order, where light cant exist without a shadow. He doesnt seek to invade heaven or destroy all of reality, he is a part of the larger picture. On the other hand a God who runs a realm with a rigid order but seeks to enforce his will on all the cosmos is chaotic by nature.
Basically, OP is a faggot. Sage.

>>96341351
>Goes to a team game and makes a character that doesn't work in a team

Why are retards like this?

>>96345792
Quote the page of the PHB where it says it's a team game or that all characters must act cooperatively.

>>96341712
>Intentionally starts fights for the hell of it
>Told to stop acting chaotic neutral and keep getting the party bogged down in pointless fights
>"But I dindu nuffin evil"
Sad thing is I can believe this frogposter legitimately doesn't think they did anything wrong

>>96345841
Page 5 of the PHB, under the heading "The Player's Role", second sentence.

>"Your character is an adventurer, part of a team that regularly delves into dungeons and battles monsters."

Wanna move the goalposts?

>>96345910
Nowhere here does it say "team game" or that all characters must be cooperative. Try again.

>>96341137 (OP)
>>96341712
Oh okay, I am on your side then, OP.
DMs should really have the skill to accomodate a player character, who likes to get a bit rowdy. Brawls require finesse. The DM needs to offer the player character a clear ruleset, where if he stay inside of it, he can safely have an honorable brawl without it escalating into genodical bloodshed or crying for the guards. Now if you want to deviate from that and escalate it yourself, that's one you. If the DM feels like just the desire to engage in a brawl is "trolling" and doesn't offer you any feedback whether you are still in an "honorable brawl" or crime/murderhobo territory, then that's on the DM.

I would definitely let you have your brawl! If you lose, you'd only lose your coin purse, not your life.

>>96346111
"part of a team"
>team
/tēm/
noun


- a group of players forming one side in a competitive game or sport.
> "his team played well"
- two or more people working together.
> "a team of researchers"
informal
- used before another word to form the name of a real or notional group which supports or favors the person or thing indicated.
> "are you team Mac or team PC?"


please love yourself

>>96341656
>>96341433
I agree that most of the problem is just people misunderstanding, sometimes willfully. But I feel like it SHOULD be one of the easiest and most obvious alignments. Good and Evil are outwardly focused and usually actively engaging. "I will help these people" or "I will exploit these people". Neutral(when done right) is mostly passive, and almost always inwardly focused. They will wait for a situation to present itself, then ask "will it benifit me more to help these people or exploit them?" It's honestly the easiest alignment to RP or to DM for, because decisions are not filtered through a moral lense. they follow the most beneficial path for themselves and their motivations. They shouldn't generally have hang-ups about working with evil demon thrall warlocks, or goody-two-shoes paladin faggots, but I guess they can if they want to.

In many ways, it's kinda just a baby's-first alignment. But it's also kinda the justfuckmyshitup alignment, where you are leaving a lot of things in the hands of the DM. At least that's the way I play it