Good/Evil vs. Law/Chaos

[redwing]

I'm actually a decently experienced roleplayer. I've played several game systems, but as far as this topic is concerned the two of note are D&D 3.x and D&D 4.0. I've also ready quite a bit of D&D 1e and 2e material (the writing quality was just amazing...). I feel like this may be a "noob" question, but I have to ask it.

What exactly is the difference between Good and Law (and Evil and chaos)?

I'm used to just randomly picking a mix of the terms and throwing them on my character sheet. To me those were more focused on 3.x spells. I usually just left the roleplaying to dictate the character's personality.

And I've re-read the entries over and over before posting. The third edition PHB does the best of differentiating. But to me Chaos (lying, cheating, stealing) sounds alot like Evil. Especially since in the Book of Vile Darkness, Monte defines Evil with those exact phrases. The same goes for Good and Law (referencing the Book of Exalted Deeds).

So what exactly is the difference? I used to think about it as Morality (Good/Evil) being a way the character looks at individuals (and respects their right to live) and Ethically (Law/Chaos) being the way the character looks at society and its laws (the right to own property, etc.). So under this outlook, murder and oppression are evil while stealing and cheating are considered chaotic. The reverse is true for good/law.

I understand this question delves into the realms of philosophy and ethics. Maybe Utilitarianism or Skepticism would be a better approach... But aside from that, I'm just looking at how D&D defines them.

Can anyone elaborate on this for me?

 

[Sammael]

The simplest answer I can provide is this:

On the axis of ethics, Law implies that a person places society before individual rights. Chaos implies that a person places individual rights before society as a whole.

On the axis of morality, Good implies that a person places others before himself. Evil implies that a person places himself above others.

 

[Aus_Snow]

In more recent times, I've come to look at these things (when looking at them at all) like this: Good/Neutral/Evil = what you do (and, well, what you don't do, for that matter); and Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic = how you do whatever it is that you do (and, I guess, how you approach those things that are out of bounds).

So, for example, a Lawful Neutral being will (most often) be most concerned with the way that things are done, making sure that they conform to the 'correct' protocol/tradition/system/law, etc.

 

[Wootz]

lawful or chaotic is basically how much you really care about order.

Say you find and subdue the man who killed your best friend. A lawful good character would take him in to be tried and sentenced. A chaotic good character would hack him to tiny bits, in his own sense of justice.

 

[Spatula]

The simplest answer I can provide is this:

On the axis of ethics, Law implies that a person places society before individual rights. Chaos implies that a person places individual rights before society as a whole.

On the axis of morality, Good implies that a person places others before himself. Evil implies that a person places himself above others.

This is how I see the alignments as well.

 

[maddman75]

Alignment is one of those areas that its best not to think too hard about. I mean clearly, Evil creatures like orcs are evil because they raid the good elves' town and steal from them, while good elves rid the world of darkness by raiding the orc cave and reclaiming their treasures for the light.

Law & chaos? In D&D I have a hard enough time telling between good and evil. Mostly, I just ignore it. Alignment effects work against 'the bad guys' and player can write whatever alignment they want, I never worry about. If someone wants to put lawful good on his sheet and the start randomly killing people, that's fine with me.

There are exceptions - paladins must follow the tenets of their faith. So only nonrandom killings of people his god doesn't like (ie "evil" ones)

Alignment is more about sides than moral judgement. Trying to use it for that will only lead to confusion. IMO

 

[Nightson]

Alignment is a way of making yourself feel better when you kill the orc women and children in their homes.

 

[Derren]

In more recent times, I've come to look at these things (when looking at them at all) like this: Good/Neutral/Evil = what you do (and, well, what you don't do, for that matter); and Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic = how you do whatever it is that you do (and, I guess, how you approach those things that are out of bounds).

So, for example, a Lawful Neutral being will (most often) be most concerned with the way that things are done, making sure that they conform to the 'correct' protocol/tradition/system/law, etc.

Seconded.
Good/Evil = What you do.
Law/Chaos = How you do it.

 

[phloog]

And now, your Honor, I'd like to make a speech....

For me, the biggest issue with alignment since somewhere around the Dawn of Time is the words used to describe the concepts. The second biggest problem was caused when writers for D&D decided to 'clarify' very specific ideas about alignments in some books.

In terms of my understanding, it is as others have noted. Lawful = order/society over the individual and their freedoms, with Chaos being the opposite. The problem is that the words chosen are 'loaded'...people outside of RPGs are used to phrases like "She is a good, law-abiding citizen', which creates an incorrect mental link between Law and Good.

Chaos is the worst choice of words for a similar reason - they chose two words - Law which has a fairly positive connotation, and Chaos which has a normally negative. Not sure what would be better, but using Individuality is probably not much better...ANY word will likely have positive/negative baggage.

Good and Evil have traditionally been concerned with life and its preservation.

So there's that issue...then some knuckleheads decided to interpret the alignments for us, and explain each one. Which leads to my biggest issue for many years: Chaotic Neutral as defined by a prior text. Basically the book said this (seriously paraphrasing but hopefully you'll get my point):

Chaotic Good: Freedom and Individuality above the tyranny of governments or societies laws, but with an overall desire to preserve life.

Chaotic Evil: Freedom and individuality with a desire to kill.

Lawful Neutrai: Life and death are meaningless - the Law is all.

Chaotic Neutral: The character is insane.

That drives me nuts....WHY is Chaotic Neutral equivalent to madness? I've always seen it just like all the other alignments - - CN would mean that life and death are secondary to the individual freedom. The people who misinterpret CN are using the incorrect 'loaded' definition of Chaos....and saying that the only thing that CN characters desire is chaos.

Sorry...soapbox removed...and the 3.5 book has a pretty good description.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

A lot of alignment problems - especially with CN - came about from 1) stupid players, and 2) Stupid things being written in second edition. I believe it was the 2e book that listed a CN person as being "just as likely to jump off a bridge then to walk across."

I agree with what someone stated earlier - good and evil is where you put yourself in respect to others, chaos and evil is where you put individual rights in respect to society as a whole. Neutral doesn't have to mean "IT MUST BE BALANCED." Neutral could also mean "I can't be arsed." That's why non-magic animals are neutral; not because they have this inner drive to balance out good and evil, but because they're animals, what do they know or care? Neutral Good doesn't neccissarily mean that they balance out society and individual rights, it could also mean that, quite frankly, to them, neither of those are really big deals. Chaotic neutral doesn't mean they're one step away from good, or one step away from evil, it could mean that they really don't pay attention to "good" or "evil" and are far more concerned with their own day to day lives.

You can't "think too much about alignment." You can think stupidly about alignment, when you equate Lawful Good with "Lawful Stupid," or you decide that "chaotic good can't exist because who's dang side are they on anyways?" The problem with saying "IT'S ALL ABOUT TEAMS!" is that good and evil characters can and DO adventure just fine together. It's not evil characters that cause problems. It's jerk players.