Buddha's New D&D Thread is Groovy, Man.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

the one good thing about this set up is no more arguing about "what is chaotic neutral anyway?"

Answer:  The alignment of every player character except Paladins and Rangers.

:LMFAO: you have obviously been a DM. :p

[crazy canuck]

:LMFAO: you have obviously been a DM. :p

[Valmy]

People were predictably chaotic eh?

[BuddhaRhubarb]

I always wanted to play an "evil game" of D&D where everyone was some kinda evil. Just to see how silly it gets. Every game I've ever played has a lot of alignment drift to start with.

I don't think 4.0 has to be such a bad thing. It's all about setting and mood for me anyways. Oh and Gnomes are back in 4.0... you just had to wait for the PHB 2.0 which has all the other core races, classes. It's that money grubbing angle I don't like. Can't have traditionally "core" races, classes, unless you buy yet another book. Twas also the curse of 3.x too I guess... a zillion books to buy. But those books are now much cheaper. and 3.5 (or 3.0 and before)  is that much more accessible now thanks to many jumping to the new books. Olde ones can be had for reasonable used prices.

[Neil]

Answer:  The alignment of every player character except Paladins and Rangers.

Was it really that popular?  Chaotic Neutral people were supposed to be mentally unstable or insane.

Well, it enabled people who wanted to do evil things to have an excuse for them, even if the DM had imposed a ban on evil PCs.

[saskganesh]

I always wanted to play an "evil game" of D&D where everyone was some kinda evil. Just to see how silly it gets. Every game I've ever played has a lot of alignment drift to start with.

I don't think 4.0 has to be such a bad thing. It's all about setting and mood for me anyways. Oh and Gnomes are back in 4.0... you just had to wait for the PHB 2.0 which has all the other core races, classes. It's that money grubbing angle I don't like. Can't have traditionally "core" races, classes, unless you buy yet another book. Twas also the curse of 3.x too I guess... a zillion books to buy. But those books are now much cheaper. and 3.5 (or 3.0 and before)  is that much more accessible now thanks to many jumping to the new books. Olde ones can be had for reasonable used prices.

I think a LE party, or LE dominated party would work well. respect for order, fear of authority, following orders, no matter how distasteful. for gameplay, the group will stay together (important) in fact, such a LE party could even do "good things", like saving a village from monsters, not because the innocents need to be protected for their own sake, but because the village gives good annual taxes and the very important droit de signeur to the evil LE overlord.

you could even have some "good" people in such a party. like a really stupid paladin or a very naive elf. that would be fun.

[Neil]

I always wanted to play an "evil game" of D&D where everyone was some kinda evil. Just to see how silly it gets. Every game I've ever played has a lot of alignment drift to start with.

I don't think 4.0 has to be such a bad thing. It's all about setting and mood for me anyways. Oh and Gnomes are back in 4.0... you just had to wait for the PHB 2.0 which has all the other core races, classes. It's that money grubbing angle I don't like. Can't have traditionally "core" races, classes, unless you buy yet another book. Twas also the curse of 3.x too I guess... a zillion books to buy. But those books are now much cheaper. and 3.5 (or 3.0 and before)  is that much more accessible now thanks to many jumping to the new books. Olde ones can be had for reasonable used prices.

I think a LE party, or LE dominated party would work well. respect for order, fear of authority, following orders, no matter how distasteful. for gameplay, the group will stay together (important) in fact, such a LE party could even do "good things", like saving a village from monsters, not because the innocents need to be protected for their own sake, but because the village gives good annual taxes and the very important droit de signeur to the evil LE overlord.

you could even have some "good" people in such a party. like a really stupid paladin or a very naive elf. that would be fun.

Lawful evil is the prince of alignments.

[ulmont]

you could even have some "good" people in such a party. like a really stupid paladin or a very naive elf. that would be fun.

Sounds like the Nodwick party.  http://nodwick.humor.gamespy.com/gamespyarchive/index.php?date=2001-04-10 and so forth.

[crazy canuck]

LE never really made much sense to me.  I had the same problem with Chaotic Good (which seemed to be the second most popular choice of alignment for players behind CN).

[Neil]

LE never really made much sense to me.  I had the same problem with Chaotic Good (which seemed to be the second most popular choice of alignment for players behind CN).

It kind of depends.  I saw a lot of Neutral Good and Lawful Neutral with Chaotic Good, not as much Chaotic Neutral.

[crazy canuck]

Nobody wanted to play LN in one of my games.  It made things awefully boring for them - not wanting to take a position that might upset the balance or that might be contrary to some code of conduct and all.

[Eddie Teach]

"what is chaotic neutral anyway?"

Jaron.

[Neil]

Nobody wanted to play LN in one of my games.  It made things awefully boring for them - not wanting to take a position that might upset the balance or that might be contrary to some code of conduct and all.

It's best not to treat alignment like handcuffs.  I've always seen LN as being concerned primarily with order, and less about morality.  The average LN character just wants a safe, orderly place to live, and doesn't care if people have to be waterboarded to do it.  Compare that to LG, who want that orderly living, but prefer to avoid torture (although LG has no problem resorting to violence when opposed), or LE, where the torture is an integral part of the orderly society.

[saskganesh]

"what is chaotic neutral anyway?"

Jaron.

very good example. a trickster, but not malign.

[Valmy]

LE never really made much sense to me.  I had the same problem with Chaotic Good (which seemed to be the second most popular choice of alignment for players behind CN).

How can LE not make sense?  That is easily the most common sort of evil.  It is legalistic evil.

How can that not make sense?  We are surrounded by it all the time.  Cynical corruption and schemes for power are LE types of behaviors.

CG are freedom fighters and people who strive for individual excellence generally.  A group who follow others because of their force of personality and not because of their rank or position would be the way a CG group would organize themselves.