Law, Chaos, and Ravenloft

[avigor]

I am in a D&D group that plays the old version rules. We are currently planning on heading into Ravenloft, using the first edition boxed set. I have not personally read these documents, although I have read the 3.5 materials and was introduced to the D&D system via Neverwinter Nights 1. I seem to keep forgetting or having trouble understanding the old version rules (Thaco, AC that's backwards to 3.5, class progressions etc). If they ever let me DM, I'll force them to go 3.5 for one campaign, just because I understand that better.

Anyways, I got sidetracked there.

When we got to character alignments, me and my DM found ourselves in a conflict. He's saying that chaotic characters are in significant danger of becoming NPCs. He also disagrees with the analogy of Robin Hood being a great example of a chaotic good character (something I've heard many times, and personally agree with).

Basically, this is a question of whether or not good and evil prefer law and chaos respectively, or if one's law vs. chaos alignment really has no bearing on good vs. evil.

From what I understand, law vs. chaos works like this:

Law: You prefer to follow the laws or orders that are laid down by those that are wiser or more experienced than you are, and believe that maintaining a hierarchy is extremely important. This also infers that you like to work with others and don't like to change things any more than absolutely necessary.

Chaos: You prefer to use your own moral compass, and you don't really like to take orders, whether from your party leader or from society in general. You might follow those that have the same goal and that you personally respect and trust, but your standards for personal proof as far as leadership go are probably higher than with lawful individuals. This suggests that you don't generally get along well with groups, especially if the group and it's leadership is untested/new, and you are less rigid about change.

From what I'm seeing here, the only way that chaos could be more "evil" than law is if one's personal moral compass is skewed. Thus, chaos is in no more danger than law, as even lawful individuals need to keep their moral compass straight. The way I see it, if they prefer anything it's a neutral law vs. chaos alignment, as they focus more on their morals than on their ethical alignment, although I can also see those who focus too much on their ethics being drawn to a different moral viewpoint. This also makes me think that US politics might make great material for a primarily law vs. chaos campaign.

So, am I misguided, is my DM taking a stance that is generally disagreed with, or is this a big debate that might never see an end?

 

[WayneLigon]

Depends on how 'old stye' he is. In the Basic D&D rules, there were only three alignments: Law, Neutral and Chaos. Chaos was pretty much the same as evil, though not nessesarily so.

You're got a pretty good handle on what law and chaos are in the more modern versions of D&D, so I'd ask the GM what is his belief for this idea that Chaotic individuals will become Evil (which is what I assume by you saying they'll become NPC's). He might also be talking about Chaotic Neutral; previous to 3E, that was generally seen as the 'insane' alignment.

I don't think there's any precedence in the rules for good or evil preferring Chaos, Law or Neutrality.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

A lot of DMs see the Chaotic alignment as a big 'ol red flag saying, "I'm not going to listen to anybody and I'll do whatever I want whenever I want."

Which can be a problem.

 

[avigor]

Well, I probably won't see him for a while, but I'll try.

We do use the nine alignments system, and I do mean becoming evil by becoming NPCs.

As for good and evil preferring chaos or law, I read somewhere (can't remember where; try lookng at Exalted Deeds or the Planar Handbook, I dunno) that the alignments could be represented as a "wheel" of sorts, with neutral good at the top, neutral evil at the bottom, lawful neutral at the left, and chaotic neutral at the right, suggesting that neutral good was better than either lawful or chaotic good, and neutral evil was worse than lawful or chaotic evil.

There's also what the Evil Handbook (an AEG book) says about neutral evil being the worst evil because you can't really predict their activities very much, but they're less powerful in general because they don't generally work together, whereas chaotic evil creatures like to have others around to bully each other and lawful evil individuals like to organize themselves.

As for law or chaos being tools to change moral alignment, I could easily see someone being tricked into thinking that what was best for the majority was to control them, leading them to some lawful evil actions, or that those who try to control them are villains, possibly leading to some chaotic evil behaviour.