Good/Evil vs. Law/Chaos

[Spatula]

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."

2e also gave us the wonderful definition of TN as being driven by a need to preserve "balance", to the point of switching sides in the middle of conflict. The 2e PHB is the last place that one should look when trying to understand D&D alignments.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Some of the best places to look for understanding of the dichotomies is in the source material that inspired the game's designers to include the alignment system in the first place.

Most of us already have a decent understanding of the Good/Evil split, taught to us in religion classes, by our parents, and by professional codes of ethics.

The Law/Chaos thing is harder to grasp for most people, since in most RW ethical systems, law is equated (or at least, strongly linked) with good, and chaos with evil.

However, if you look at Michael Moorcock's Eternal Champion story arcs (Elric, Hawkmoon, Corum, Cornelius, Bastable, etc.), you start to see how that might not be the case. Moorcock repeatedly refers to a universe totally dominated by the forces of Law as stagnant and unchanging, void of innovation and growth. IOW, a dose of chaos can be a good thing. Chaos, as opposed to being all about evil, lets change occur. Without the force of Chaos, the caterpillar never becomes the chrysalis from which the butterfly emerges. But too much Chaos results in eternal instability.

Neutrality, in his world, is embraced by those who want neither side to become so dominant in the world that the balance is forever tipped in favor of one side of the other, for mere mortals can only exist in a certain "sweet spot." While the classic 2Ed formulation of changing sides mid-battle would be rare, it is within the realm of possibility...if and only if to maintain one's initial alliances would result in Law or Chaos becoming eternally dominant.

 

[NN]

My take

Firstly, "Law" and "Chaos" do not exist in the Real World.

In D&D world, there are these primal universal forces of "Law" - Order and "Chaos" - Disorder. Beings can align themselves with these forces.

Lawful beings are those that
a) consciously strive to increase the amount of Order in the multiverse
or
b) by following a rigid set of rules, (unwittingly perhaps) increase the amount of Order in the multiverse.

and likewise for Chaos

Neutral beings either
a) Consciously strive to Balance Law and Chaos
or
b) Have no significant effect on the cosmic balance
or
c) Dont care about Law and Chaos

 

[Sammael]

My take

Firstly, "Law" and "Chaos" do not exist in the Real World.

Really? Are you telling me that most soldiers do not follow an incredibly rigid hierarchy and set of rules because they believe what they are doing is necessary for their country/society to prosper? And do various anarchist and libertarian groups not believe that governments are oppressing individual rights and that laws should be reduced to a minimum, allowing each individual to govern himself/herself? How about the debate on piracy and copyright?

I've met many lawful people in my life (the former and late president of my country was certainly one - we even renamed one of the alignments in his honor - "Slobful Evil"). I've also met many chaotic people. While we may not identify with the order/chaos concept as strongly as we do with the concept of good and evil, I do believe that it is possible for people to exert lawful and chaotic behavior, and that such behavior can be patterned.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

My take

Firstly, "Law" and "Chaos" do not exist in the Real World.

In D&D world, there are these primal universal forces of "Law" - Order and "Chaos" - Disorder. Beings can align themselves with these forces.

Have you never met or read the writings of an Anarchist? Or seen someone do an act just to see what would happen (IOW, not a lab experiment, with controls)? Ever made a decision based on a coin toss or other randomizer? Those are RW expressions of chaos outside of considerations of normative ethics.

Similarly, have you never heard the sayings, "My country, wrong or right," or "My way or the highway,"- both are expressions of Law rather than any sense of Good or Evil.

 

[NN]

Soldiers dont follow orders for the sake of following orders. They follow orders because they think it is right - it is for the Greater GOOD.

Anarchists dont want Chaos for the sake of Chaos. They believe that the natural right state of humanity is freedom from Government. They want to abolish government for the Greater GOOD.


So both examples, are - if sincere - Neutral Good. (If they are insincere, they may be Neutral or even Neutral Evil)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Soldiers dont follow orders for the sake of following orders. They follow orders because they think it is right - it is for the Greater GOOD.

Anarchists dont want Chaos for the sake of Chaos. They believe that the natural right state of humanity is freedom from Government. They want to abolish government for the Greater GOOD.


So both examples, are - if sincere - Neutral Good. (If they are insincere, they may be Neutral or even Neutral Evil)

The obvious example of the Nazis at Nuremburg (who "just followed orders") springs to mind. When some soldiers openly rebelled against inhumane orders, they shared the same fate as the Jews they were defending. The rest...they followed orders not for the greater good, but because, in many cases, they didn't want to be shot by a commanding officer. For them, choosing order supplanted normal concerns of good and evil.

Less charged an example are mercenaries who follow orders to fight or not based on who pays their fees. "Its just a job."

There are also studies, like the Stanford experiment ( The Stanford Prison Experiment: A Simulation Study of the Psychology of Imprisonment ) and the Milgram experiment ( Milgram experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) that show that people will follow laws and rules even though they may think that what they are doing isn't good, or will even ignore implications of good & evil.

And if you've ever been to some of the bigger political riots in the US, you'd know that some of those participating in the worst of the violence and mayhem were there just to commit acts of violence and mayhem...and then others just joined in, heedless of the consequences or implications of their acts. Impromptu lynch mobs don't act as they do because everyone in the group wants to, but because of a gradual buildup in negative attitudes towards the potential victim that eventually reaches a climax that is released in directed violence. That, my friend, is chaos.

 

[nightwyrm]

Just to muddle it further. People often just define "good" as "what I do", while "evil" is "what people I hate do", even if, objectively, it's the same action.

 

[tuxgeo]

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.

There are many different definitions for alignment; the above is one of them.

In D&D terms, part of this is due to the fact that the brand changed writers; E.G.G. had his ideas, Mentzer had his ideas, and Cook/Tweet/Williams had theirs (among others).
For Gygax (in the 1e DMG), Good was identified with the principles of Life, Liberty, and the prospect of Happiness. ("Hey, Gary -- way to crib the U.S. Declaration of Independence.") This naturally led to an identification of Good with Principles -- because, you know, there the principles are, clearly stated -- but this was largely due (IMHO) to the fact that if you don't defend the rights of others, they are unlikely to defend your rights in return. (That isn't altruism, it is thinking ahead.)

For Cook/Tweet/Williams, the identifications of Law=Order and Good=Altruism are pretty close -- but those are vastly different from Gygax's non-altruistic version of Good.

Another Gygaxism is about Evil: he was quoted somewhere as having said that, for him, the clearest expression of Evil was the old W.C. Fields line, "Never give a sucker an even break." (Sorry, I don't have a link to the quote.)
Much along the same line, Gore Vidal is quoted as saying, "It is not enough to succeed, others must fail" -- which I personally think is about as Evil as the Fields quote, because the Vidal quote subsumes the Fields quote: it states that any sucker would have to fail in order for you to succeed.

Personally, I hold that a Good person prefers Win-Win situations ("there does not have to be any loser, here"), while an Evil person prefers Win-Lose situations ("for every winner, there is always a loser"). However, I have no idea how that could be implemented in game terms.

Some other takes on alignment:
WotC, 25 March 2005
Neverwinter
Mandos' editorial revision of Neverwinter
Steelhammer's "Law=Justice, not Rules" revision
CodePoet's "Whose Law" interpretation (with lots of examples)
The "why you did it" simplification:
A variant "why you healed it" simplification:
Scorpio's "GameGrene" Experience
. . . and it gets worse: Recalculate Daily:

 

[Dausuul]

Law and Chaos have never had clear definitions. There are several different ways they can be (and often are) interpreted:

Definition 1: Law represents abiding by the rules and strictures of society, while chaos represents defiance of those rules. A Lawful character prefers to work within the system, reforming it if necessary. A Chaotic character likes to work outside the system, or even challenge it directly.

Under this definition:

• Superman is Lawful; he upholds the law and is conscientious about his role as a citizen.
• Batman (in his more recent incarnations) is Chaotic; he's a vigilante who often breaks the law in his pursuit of justice. Similarly, Jack Bauer of 24 is Chaotic, as he often goes far beyond what the law will tolerate.

Definition 2: Law represents holding to a personal code of behavior, while Chaos represents a situational morality. A Lawful character has a well-defined moral code and holds to it even when it becomes inconvenient or endangers the greater good. A Chaotic character makes judgements based on the situation, trying to weigh one factor against another.

Under this definition:

• Both Superman and Batman are Lawful; they have well-defined personal codes and stick to them.
• Jack Bauer is Chaotic; he does what he feels he has to do, but decides what's acceptable based on the situation in front of him.

Definition 3: Law represents placing the needs of society over those of the individual, while Chaos represents the opposite. A Lawful character believes that the good of the many outweighs the good of the few, and preserving the social order is paramount. A Chaotic character believes that the rights of the individual must be preserved even at the expense of society.

Under this definition, rather ironically:

• Superman is Chaotic. When criminals stand on their rights, Superman yields, even though he knows he may be putting the community at risk by doing so.
• Batman and Jack Bauer are Lawful; they disregard the rights of individuals, not hesitating to beat information out of criminals in order to protect the community.

(It may seem odd that the law-abiding character is Chaotic under this definition while the lawbreakers are Lawful; however, all three characters live in the United States, a society founded upon Chaotic principles. Hence, those who uphold those principles are Chaotic while those who violate them tend toward Lawful.)

D&D has never really nailed down which one of these definitions it wants to go with. As a result, the Law/Chaos axis has been the source of many and many a flame war, until 4E more or less scrapped the whole concept.