D&D General Slaads are failures as exemplars of Chaotic NEUTRAL

[Chaosmancer]

You assume that D&D carries moral absolutism in all of its forms. I fully understand what you're saying, and I agree with you to an extent, but what you're proposing about D&D morality is simply false. There may be settings with Tolkein-esque systems of absolute morality, but this is not the core of D&D. Yes, there are moral absolutes, but, in fact, Good is not always 'right'. Not by any means. However, setting that aside (and hopefully agreeing that some D&D worlds certainly have Good = Correct systems), Chaos and Law are, in fact, moral stances in the archetypal D&D world.

I agree, some of the best DnD worlds are subjective in what good and evil means. I much prefer those.

Just take a look at Modrons, which abide by Law. They do not merely behave lawfully, they are morally bound to law, and the service that being a Modron requires. If you take the typical axiomatic moral system of D&D, neither Chaos nor Law needs to be 'right'.

Okay, what do you mean by "morally bound"?

As I understand it, Modrons are physiologically and psychologically bound to law. They literally go crazy and dangerous if they break the law or cannot follow the law. To me, saying a Modron is "morally bound to law" is like saying a human is "morally bound to breathe oxygen". It isn't a choice, it is a physical necessity.

And, think about this in the reverse. Chaotic Creatures don't have this. Not only is there never a case of a chaotic creature being harmed or going crazy from following laws, it doesn't make sense, because they could just choose to follow the laws today and not tomorrow. They are chaotic. Setting a limit on their behavior doesn't make sense, but without limits on their behavior... they just end up having no substance. A Slaad is no more chaotic than an Elf or a Human or a Wolf. They just do what they want, with no consideration of anything else. You can use that descriptor for a lot of different people, and it doesn't carry the same connotative stories as the person who is incapable of breaking a law.

 

[Bohandas]

Yes, IRL, but this is a failure of terms in trying to explain what I am thinking. Especially since I don't use alignment myself.

Let us take a Tolkien view of the world for a second. Good and Evil are absolute.

Good is right, good is never evil. If it were evil, it would not be good. If something is labeled as good, it cannot be evil and must be right. By definition, this must be true.

Evil is wrong, evil is never good. If it were good, it would not be evil. If something is labeled as evil, it cannot be good and must be wrong. By definition, this must be true.

Now, we add a second axis in Law and Chaos. And, sticking with how Tolkien would have seen it, let us apply the same bit. Law and Chaos are absolute.

Law is right, law is never chaotic. If it were, it would not be Law. If it is labeled as Law, it must be right, by definition.

Chaos is wrong, chaos is never lawful. If it were, it would not be Chaos. If it is labeled as chaos, it must be wrong, by definition.

So, now you have Lawful Good, it is right and right, everything done by Lawful good is the most right. The definition works, it is right and right, so it is right.

Now look at Chaotic Good. It is wrong and right. If it is wrong, it cannot be good, because the definition of good means right. But, if it is right, it can't be Chaotic, because the definition of chaotic means wrong.

You end up dealing in a contradiction of terms. Lawful Evil becomes right and wrong, definitionally. But that is not what we mean by Lawful Evil or Chaotic Good.

And so, because philosophic discussion around morality, when dealing with absolutes which DnD tends to present, sets us up with one side being right and the other wrong, it cannot view Law and Chaos as moral distinctions. If it did, Elves and Unicorns would be as bad as Devils and Tyrants. Both are a mix of "bad things" and "good things" They would occupy the same position morally, because they both follow the "correct" moral path (good and law respectively) and the "incorrect" moral path (chaos and evil respectively)

This doesn't work. This is nonsense in the story that DnD presents. We can make it work. We can twist it and go subjective and make it all fit, but the far more elegant solution is just to view law and chaos as not being moral, but being exactly what they are. How orderly are you? How much do you live your life by rules and regulations?

Not that that doesn't break down immediately either, because of course following rules is normally the morally right thing to do, unless the rules are evil or tyrannical.

You're treating them as the same axis reduplicated, its not. Part of the problem is that they're badly named. Here's a clearer diagram

 

[Chaosmancer]

You're treating them as the same axis reduplicated, its not. Part of the problem is that they're badly named. Here's a clearer diagram

I'm responding to the assertion that Law and Chaos are moral considerations.

While I like this diagram, neither creation/destruction or order/disorder are comparable to good/evil.

I would use this diagram, I like it better than any alignment chart I've ever seen, but it is changing the implications and moving away from what was traditionally meant.

 

[dave2008]

Yes, IRL, but this is a failure of terms in trying to explain what I am thinking. Especially since I don't use alignment myself.

Let us take a Tolkien view of the world for a second. Good and Evil are absolute.

Good is right, good is never evil. If it were evil, it would not be good. If something is labeled as good, it cannot be evil and must be right. By definition, this must be true.

Evil is wrong, evil is never good. If it were good, it would not be evil. If something is labeled as evil, it cannot be good and must be wrong. By definition, this must be true.

Now, we add a second axis in Law and Chaos. And, sticking with how Tolkien would have seen it, let us apply the same bit. Law and Chaos are absolute.

Law is right, law is never chaotic. If it were, it would not be Law. If it is labeled as Law, it must be right, by definition.

Chaos is wrong, chaos is never lawful. If it were, it would not be Chaos. If it is labeled as chaos, it must be wrong, by definition.

So, now you have Lawful Good, it is right and right, everything done by Lawful good is the most right. The definition works, it is right and right, so it is right.

Now look at Chaotic Good. It is wrong and right. If it is wrong, it cannot be good, because the definition of good means right. But, if it is right, it can't be Chaotic, because the definition of chaotic means wrong.

You end up dealing in a contradiction of terms. Lawful Evil becomes right and wrong, definitionally. But that is not what we mean by Lawful Evil or Chaotic Good.

And so, because philosophic discussion around morality, when dealing with absolutes which DnD tends to present, sets us up with one side being right and the other wrong, it cannot view Law and Chaos as moral distinctions. If it did, Elves and Unicorns would be as bad as Devils and Tyrants. Both are a mix of "bad things" and "good things" They would occupy the same position morally, because they both follow the "correct" moral path (good and law respectively) and the "incorrect" moral path (chaos and evil respectively)

This doesn't work. This is nonsense in the story that DnD presents. We can make it work. We can twist it and go subjective and make it all fit, but the far more elegant solution is just to view law and chaos as not being moral, but being exactly what they are. How orderly are you? How much do you live your life by rules and regulations?

Not that that doesn't break down immediately either, because of course following rules is normally the morally right thing to do, unless the rules are evil or tyrannical.

The issue, with this argument, in terms of AD&D and beyond, is that Law doesn't = right/correct and Chaos doesn't = wrong/bad in AD&D, 2e, 3e, & 5e (D&D & 4e were a bit different).

 

[Chaosmancer]

The issue, with this argument, in terms of AD&D and beyond, is that Law doesn't = right/correct and Chaos doesn't = wrong/bad in AD&D, 2e, 3e, & 5e (D&D & 4e were a bit different).

Yes. I know. That is why I don't see how you can say Law and Chaos are moral considerations.

Law and Chaos have never been presented as "right vs wrong", so saying they are moral considerations which requires one to be right and one to be wrong goes against the design of the alignments in DnD.

Is that point not getting across? I am not arguing they should be seen as right vs wrong, I'm saying they cannot be, and since they cannot be, they cannot be moral considerations.

 

[dave2008]

Yes. I know. That is why I don't see how you can say Law and Chaos are moral considerations.

I never said they were moral considerations. nor was I discussing morality.

I must admit that I have a hard time with these type of discussions as I don't truly believe in good, evil, and morality in RL, so I don't really worry about them in my games.

 

[pseudotsuga]

I must admit that I have a hard time with these type of discussions as I don't truly believe in good, evil, and morality in RL, so I don't really worry about them in my games.

Especially easy now since the absolute/mechanical effects of alignment have been stripped in 5e.

I feel like the alignment system is often inconsistent and CN has shifted to become far more rational (and playable for PCs!) than I remember from say 2e.

But I always associated the weirdness of the Slaad as more Moorcockian CHAOS monsters... (especially with the encased jewels in their skulls, etc) kind of a hangover from OD&D's(?) Law/Chaos binary, and so the CN pure chaos alignment followed from [edit: their allegiance] even if it didn't really mesh with their behaviour (and it differentiated them from demons which had their own hierarchies). Don't know why it doesn't bother me, since yes behaviour clearly seems more CE. I really like some of the suggestions in this thread for pulling them toward being legitimately chaotic.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I never said they were moral considerations. nor was I discussing morality.

Abier-Toril did, when they said " Animals are listed as Unaligned...Animals simply don't have alignments because they don't understand morality."

That started my discussion of how that fails to consider that if "understanding morality" is neccessary, everything falls apart because Chaos and Law then become moral considerations.

Your correction of why my argument failed missed the point entirely. I was saying that those concepts cannot work morally, and used that example to show how absurd and strange it would be if they did. You then quoted to tell me that Law and Chaos are not moral considerations in DnD.

Essentially, you quoted me to tell me my example showing "X is not 1" did not work because X is not 1... which was my entire point.

 

[Iry]

I agree that Fey make the best exemplars of Chaotic Neutral. They have oaths and rules they follow to the letter, rarely to the spirit, and each one is completely unique. They are capricious and narcissistic in the extreme, sometimes to the point of solipsism, but they are also capable of great good, incredible beauty, and staggering inhumanity.

I personally find "byzantine and complicated set of personal rules born from orange and blue morality" a far more compelling form of chaotic neutral than completely random wacky chaos. Having some form of personal logic or internal rules which can be deduced and taken advantage of makes them memorable as hell.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I agree that Fey make the best exemplars of Chaotic Neutral. They have oaths and rules they follow to the letter, rarely to the spirit, and each one is completely unique. They are capricious and narcissistic in the extreme, sometimes to the point of solipsism, but they are also capable of great good, incredible beauty, and staggering inhumanity.

I personally find "byzantine and complicated set of personal rules born from orange and blue morality" a far more compelling form of chaotic neutral than completely random wacky chaos. Having some form of personal logic or internal rules which can be deduced and taken advantage of makes them memorable as hell.

Personally, I love the Fey. Great force to bring in and get player's second guessing everything.

Especially because Fey can be as dangerous as Devils, but you can't tell if they are malicious or helpful until you deal with their BS and it can change in a minute. Makes them far more threatening in a way, because you never know where you stand with them.