D&D General Alignment: the problem is Chaos

[Cadence]

In early editions, there was no Good. Just Law and Chaos.

It feels like in the early edition Law was good and Chaos was evil -- until they get to Eldritch Wizardry. Then they wallow for a bit before AD&D/Holmes go one way and Moldvay goes the other.

In the first three books of OD&D they don't seem to even define the the three (L/N/C). Men and Magic just gives a table with things classified into groups. [Evil High Priests are under Chaos, Patriarchs are under Law, Men are under all three, Elves are under Law and Neutrality]. Monsters and Treasure doesn't either. Underworld & Wilderness Adventures merely restates about Evil High Priests and Patriarchs.

In Greyhawk they add Paladins to the Law list. They also note "Chaotic Alignment by a player generally betokens chaotic action on the player's part without any rule to stress this aspect, i.e. a chaotic player is usually more prone to stab even his lawless budy in the back for some desired gain. However, chaos is just that - chaotic. Evil monsters are as likely to turn on their supposed confederates in order to have all the loot as they are to attack a lawful party in the first place. While there is no rule to apply to groups of chaotic players operating in concert, referees are urged to formulate some rules against continuing co-operation as fits their particular situation, but consideration for concerted action against chaotic players by lawful ones should be given."- It also notes that Paladins lose all of their powers if they do a chaotic act. The "Book of Exalted Deeds" is lawful, and the "Book of Vile Darkness" is chaotic. The Lammasu is lawful (and helpful). The "Libram of Silver Magic" is a monograph on good magic and helps lawful magic users.

Blackmoor doesn't have much. Eldritch Wizardry says a monster can be" anything from a Balrog to a kindly good/lawful cleric". But then you get the calling out of Good and Evil from Chaos and Law for what might be the first time:

It still feels like the reader is supposed to know what lawful/chaotic and good/evil are without being told.

Gods, Demi-Gods, and Heroes feels at some points like it wants Law to be the opposite of Evil and at others like Evil and Chaos are different things. Swords and spells doesn't seem to mention it.

Holmes Basic separates them (below), as does AD&D 1e:

But then Moldvay Basic reverts (with some clarification?) and "usually" matches Law with Good and Chaos with Evil:

 

[Doug McCrae]

Does anyone have a favorite essay on the difference in how Law and Chaos are portrayed in Anderson's 3H&3L and in Moorcock's works? Am I misremembering that Moorcock's (at least in the first few books he wrote) is much more extreme? Does M's fit much more with the classic aligned cosmic entities while A's fits much more with the everyday folks?

[ @Doug McCrae ? ]

I believe in Moorcock's Eternal Champion series most human beings are aligned neither with Law nor Chaos, in fact they are probably ignorant of their existence. In Anderson's 3H&3L Law and Chaos is largely, though not exclusively, a racial and geographic divide, much like in D&D.

Three Hearts and Three Lions (1953) Poul Anderson

Holger got the impression that there was a perpetual struggle between primeval forces of Law and Chaos. Humans, except for occasional witches and such-like, were, consciously or unconsciously, on the side of Law; the Middle World, which seemed to include such realms as Faerie, Trollheim, and the Giants, was with Chaos… under Law, all men would live in peace and order, but this was so alien to the Middle Worlders that they were forever working and scheming to prevent it and to extend their own shadowy dominion.

This business of Chaos versus Law, now, it seemed to be more than just a religious belief. It reminded him [Holger] vaguely of the second law of thermodynamics, the tendency toward disorder and level entropy. Perhaps here the struggle between the two forces was basic to the universe. The wild folk of the Middle World would be doing what they could to break down order and restore some primeval state where anything could happen. Ordinary humanity would want to strengthen and extend Law, safety, predictability; that was doubtless why Christianity and Mohammedanism alike frowned on sorcery, which derived from Chaos forces rather than the unvarying principles of physical nature.

This is the chaos sorceress Morgan Le Fay speaking:

What is there about dull and stodgy Law that drives you to defend it? Why, Holger, my darling bear, you’re but bulwarking loutish peasants and fat-gutted burghers, when the laughter and thunder and swirling stars of Chaos could be yours for the asking. When were you ever one for a safe and narrow life, locked in its own smugness, roofed with a sour gray sky and stinking of smoke, you who drove armies from the field? You could hurl suns and shape worlds if you chose!

While the Gods Laugh (1961) Michael Moorcock

"It is believed by many sorcerers and philosophers that two forces govern the universe—fighting an eternal battle," Elric replied. "These two forces are termed Law and Chaos. These are values supposedly set above the qualities men call Good and Evil. The upholders of Chaos state that in such a world as they rule, all things are possible. Opponents of Chaos—those who ally themselves with the forces of Law—say that without Law nothing material is possible."

"I, like most sorcerers, stand apart, believing that a balance between the two is the proper state of things..."

The Knight of the Swords (1971) Michael Moorcock

The wall of fire was now so close that Corum could feel its direct heat burning his face. He heard it rumble and crackle and it seemed to feed on nothing but the air itself.
"Such a thing defies nature!" he gasped.
"Is that not a fair definition of all sorcery?" Hanafax said. "This is [the] Chaos [Lords'] work. The disruption of the natural harmony is, after all, their pleasure."
"Ah, this sorcery. It wearies my mind. I cannot grasp its logic."
"That is because it has none. It is arbitrary. The Lords of Chaos are the enemies of Logic, the jugglers of Truth, the moulders of Beauty. I should be surprised if they had not created these Flamelands out of some aesthetic impulse. Beauty—an ever-changing beauty—is all they live for."
"An evil beauty."
"I believe that such notions as 'good' and 'evil' do not exist for the Chaos Lords."

The Queen of the Swords (1971) Michael Moorcock

The Cosmic Balance requires equilibrium – something of Chaos, something of Law – so that each stabilizes the other. The difference is that Law acknowledges the authority of the Balance, while Chaos would deny it.

Moorcock’s Miscellany interview (2000)

I've developed the ideas of Law and Chaos from an early age because they seemed better to describe the two chief warring temperaments both in ourselves as well as in society -- and to describe such elements in terms of Good and Evil seems (as I hope I demonstrate) a rather useless way of looking at our problems. Poul Anderson influenced me in this, with his The Broken Sword, the first edition of which I heartily recommend, and also, to a degree, with his Three Hearts and Three Lions. In a sense he used them, as I tended to more in the very early stories, as substitutes for Good and Evil, but even there I was beginning to realise how much better terms Law and Chaos were. That way, for instance, we don't get to demonize those we disagree with!

Playing at the World (2014) Jon Peterson

[Moorcock’s conception of Law and Chaos] represents something of a departure from the cosmology of Poul Anderson, wherein Chaos is a necessarily negative and destructive force that is put to rest by the agents of Law. Moorcock instead shows us world where an excess of either force is undesirable, almost like vital humors of medieval medicine; a surfeit of Law leads to a sterile world, an overabundance of Chaos to an unstable one

Michael Moorcock: Fiction, Fantasy and the World’s Pain (2016) Mark Scroggins

Law and Chaos... cannot be simply equated with good and evil. Chaos is disorder, but it is also life-giving change, evolution; Law is boundary and regularity, but it is also enforced conformity, the suppression of vitality and creativity. The ideal state, both for the individual and for society as a whole, lies in a mean between the two extremes. The Law versus Chaos opposition can be expressed as Realism versus Romanticism, Reason versus Emotion–perhaps its ultimate Freudian resolution is Thanatos versus Eros.

 

[Yaarel]

It feels like in the early edition Law was good and Chaos was evil -- until they get to Eldritch Wizardry.

In the first three books of OD&D they don't seem to even define the the three. Men and Magic just gives a table with things classified into groups. [Evil High Priests are under Chaos, Patriarchs are under Law, Men are under all three, Elves are under Law and Neutrality]. Monsters and Treasure doesn't either. Underworld & Wilderness Adventures merely restates about Evil High Priests and Patriarchs.

In Greyhawk they add Paladins to the Law list. They also note "Chaotic Alingment by a player generally betokens chaotic action on the player's part without any rule to stress this aspect, i.e. a chaotic player is usually more prone to stab even his lawless budy in the back for some desired gain. However, chaos is just that - chaotic. Evil monsters are as likely to turn on their supposed confederates in order to have all the loot as they are to attack a lawful party in the first place. While there is no rule to apply to groups of chaotic players operating in concert, referees are urged to formulate some rules against continuing co-operation as fits their particular situation, but consideration for concerted actaion against chaotic players by lawful ones should be given."- It also notes that Paladins lose all of their powers if they do a chaotic act. The "Book of Exalted Deeds" is lawful, and the "Book of Vile Darkness" is chaotic. The Llamasu is lawful (and helpful). The "Libram of Silver Magic" is a monograph on good magic and helps lasful magic users.

Blackmoor doesn't have much. Eldritch Wizardry says a monster can be"anything from a Balrog to a kindly good/lawful cleric". But then you get the calling out of Good and Evil from Chaos and Law for what might be the first time:

View attachment 137769

It still feels like the reader is supposed to know what lawful/chaotic and good/evil are without being told.

Gods, Demi-Gods, and Heroes feels at some points like it wants Law to be the opposite of Evil and at others like Evil and Chaos are different things. Swords and spells doesn't seem to mention it.

Holmes Basic separates them (below), as does AD&D:
View attachment 137771


But then Moldvay Basic reverts and "usually" matches Law with Good and Chaos with Evil:

View attachment 137770

Thanks for that summary, analysis, of the D&D tradition.

L = "predictably Good"
C = "unpredictably Evil"

The 4e 7-point alignment system is terrible (omitting CG and LE), but now I have a better understanding of why 4e did what it did.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I believe in Moorcock's Eternal Champion series most human beings are aligned neither with Law nor Chaos, in fact they are probably ignorant of their existence.

This passage, from The Queen of the Swords, suggests the neutrality of ordinary people in Moorcock's Eternal Champion series (though they do know that Law and Chaos exist):

The villagers glanced suspiciously at Corum and then bestowed the same suspicious looks upon Verenak [a priest of Chaos]. One of them stepped forward. 'We have no particular interest in either Law or Chaos,' he said. 'We wish only to live our lives as we have always lived them...'​

 

[MoonSong]

Lawful Characters are Deontologists. They hold that there are certain rules that you hold to and breaking them is wrong. Laws may not always reflect those rules, but in a just society they should. Even when the law isn't entirely appropriate, you may try to follow it until it can be appropriately altered through societal channels, rather than ignoring your inclinations. You're also more likely to recognize and accept social divisions, even when they're uncomfortable.

Chaotic Characters are Consequentialists. Rather than having a strict series of laws to cover each situation, you focus in on doing what feels right in the moment to achieve your goals in a moral manner. Rules aren't automatically "Made to be Broken" and you'll follow them if they're not onerous. But you're more likely to break those same rules than a Deontologist to achieve what you believe to be right. And those social divisions? You recognize them, you just don't -care-.

Piggybacking on this, I've just remembered about an old series of books. (The Fredbooks, I read some of them because my Dad had them) One part of the world building was like this:

In Fredland, there are two parties in the Parliament: The Practical Party and the Theoretical Party. The Practicals believe in taking action, even if the action has unintended consequences or is ineffective. The Theoreticals believe that all actions should be carefully planed to make sure they do what they intend to do and avoid unforeseen consequences, even if nothing is actually done.

I find the coincidences very interesting. Considering these books are more or less contemporaneous with the first D&D.

 

[Steampunkette]

@MoonSong

Fred Learns Book-Keeping. By an anonymous author who calls themself "Chronicler" Results for 'au:Chronicler.' [WorldCat.org]

The "Fred Books" are a new thing that started in 2012 that are heavily christian.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Alignment: Too many threads discussing the same system is the problem.

What? Should we create a new thread to consolidate all existing threads?

 

[Cadence]

What? Should we create a new thread to consolidate all existing threads?

So... we've created an alignment test by reaction to multiple threads?

 

[MoonSong]

@MoonSong

Fred Learns Book-Keeping. By an anonymous author who calls themself "Chronicler" Results for 'au:Chronicler.' [WorldCat.org]

The "Fred Books" are a new thing that started in 2012 that are heavily christian.

I'm more familiar with "Fred learns about Computers" and "Fred learns the New Mathematics", I know these books aren't registered as "Fredbooks" in catalogues, but the books themselves refer to each other as "Fredbooks". Not that it matters much, since they have been out of print for so long and any trademark on them has lapsed ever since. But these books were great, because they were didactic, informative and even a fun read if you didn't care about the book subject. To me they were closer to fantasy books masquerading as text books.

My theory is that "the Chronicler" is a collective pseudonym common to a group of ghostwriters.

 

[Steampunkette]

I'm more familiar with "Fred learns about Computers" and "Fred learns the New Mathematics", I know these books aren't registered as "Fredbooks" in catalogues, but the books themselves refer to each other as "Fredbooks". Not that it matters much, since they have been out of print for so long and any trademark on them has lapsed ever since. But these books were great, because they were didactic, informative and even a fun read if you didn't care about the book subject. To me they were closer to fantasy books masquerading as text books.

My theory is that "the Chronicler" is a collective pseudonym common to a group of ghostwriters.

That last part is -very- probable!

Just thought it might be nice for you to have a link to all the Chronicler's works so you can get digital copies or used copies if you wanted to!