D&D 5E Chaos Gifts...

[Lyxen]

You suggest my view of Law (group identity) and Chaos (individual identity) are closer to Neutral.

That is probably true because the extremes are uninhabitable − nothing can live there. Genuine possibilities and patterns only happen near Neutral.

I agree (and as I wrote, so did Moorcock), ultimate chaos or law precludes life. The thing is that D&D is supernatural and that there are things that can be closer to Law and Chaos than humans with feelings. Not easy to roleplay, but Slaadi and Modrons are fun, for example. There is another thread where someone recently mentioned Fall-from-grace, but Nordrom is another fantastic character from Planescape: Torment, and he is not even a true Modron.

 

[Yaarel]

Old School alignments (0e, 1e, 2e) are problematic because they confuse Lawful with Good. As if "obeying the law" is inherently good.

New School (3e) begins to think more carefully about what Lawful means and why it isnt necessarily Good. But it still confuses things like "personal code" as if Lawful when in fact its individualism is Chaotic.

4e actually went back to Old School by deleting CG and LE, thus make LG "extra good". Yuck.

5e probably has the best alignment descriptions so far, more nuanced and more useful.

 

[Yaarel]

I agree (and as I wrote, so did Moorcock), ultimate chaos or law precludes life. The thing is that D&D is supernatural and that there are things that can be closer to Law and Chaos than humans with feelings. Not easy to roleplay, but Slaadi and Modrons are fun, for example. There is another thread where someone recently mentioned Fall-from-grace, but Nordrom is another fantastic character from Planescape: Torment, and he is not even a true Modron.

I think D&D gets the slaadi wrong by assuming randomness and surprise.

What the slaadi should be about − as personifications of Chaos − is: being incapable of cooperation.

The modrons are a bit better. Each modron is incapable of an individual identity. Each is the whole group. It is the clock, not the gear.

 

[Yaarel]

By the way, in Yang-Yin, it is impossible to reach such extremes because too much Yang becomes Yin, and too much Yin becomes Yang. It is somewhat like a mobius strip rather than an axis.

 

[Lyxen]

Old School alignments (0e, 1e, 2e) are problematic because they confuse Lawful with Good. As if "obeying the law" is inherently good.

Are you sure about your list ? For me it should be OD&D, Basic, BECMI...

New School (3e) begins to think more carefully about what Lawful means and why it isnt necessarily Good. But it still confuses things like "personal code" as if Lawful when in fact its individualism is Chaotic.

It's still a code, it's rules that you follow. For me individualism is just neutral, it's not chaotic.

4e actually went back to Old School by deleting CG and LE, thus make LG "extra good". Yuck.

I agree, that was a poor choice, I really love these two alignments, both as a player and as a DM.

5e probably has the best alignment descriptions so far, more nuanced and more useful.

There we will have to disagree. I find the one-liners in the PH really poor and bizarrely worded.

In the end, it's the 3e that I probably like best. And in terms of Chaos, it's not bad at all: "“Chaos” implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them."

 

[Yaarel]

It's still a code, it's rules that you follow.

Law ≠ laws

The assumption of legalism and predictability is why D&D keeps get confusing about alignment.

If "laws" protect personal freedoms, it is NG.

A unique personal code − ones own way of life − is Chaotic individualism.



Law ≠ crime
Chaos ≠ order

Coupling the terms Law and Chaos together is a misnomer. It causes confusion.

If "legitimate authority" interferes with "personal wellbeing", then legitimate authority is the problem.

Law and Chaos are strictly ethical neutral and can be used for either Good or Evil.

Lawful Good is a group activity to help a disadvantaged group.

Chaotic Good is a personal activity to help a disadvantaged person.

For me individualism is just neutral, it's not chaotic.

Hmmm ...

Heh. Perhaps you are very Chaotic and assume it is normal?

I agree, that was a poor choice, I really love these two alignments, both as a player and as a DM.

Me too. When the alignment is disambiguated, clear and practicable, it is useful and convenient.

I am glad 5e keeps alignment narrative and avoids mechanics.

Alignment belongs in the Personality Section of the Character Sheet, along with Ideal, Flaw, and Bond.

 

[Yaarel]

Extreme Chaotic can help an individual or can harm an individual, and can be Good or Evil, but is unable to coordinate as a member of a team.

There is no "I" in "team". Chaos is an "I".

Probably the pronoun "we" is meaningless and doesnt exist within extreme Chaos.

Oppositely the pronoun "I" doesnt exist within extreme Law.

 

[Yaarel]

Are you sure about your list ? For me it should be OD&D, Basic, BECMI...

I use "0e" broadly to include both Original D&D and Basic (BECMI).

 

[Casimir Liber]

Wow - I can see both @Lyxen and @Yaarel POV - I hated 4e and also disliked OD&D Law/Chaos only. My views probably align more with Lyxen - only extreme mad chaos would be incapable of cooperating with anyone. Most would be milder and maybe have temporary (and extremely fickle) alliances..but there are also bonds like love and family.

In my world - the Lords of Chaos are CN/E - a la Pandemonium - generally fickle, selfish and malign but if anything slightly less evil than demons.

 

[Casimir Liber]

To the OP, since you're obviously referring to Chaos more as the Moorcock/Gloranthan force than D&D chaos, here are some musings.

1. The gift must be "worth it". Why would one go to Chaos if the rejection outweigh the benefit of the chaotic gift? I can see someone drowning acepting gills and fins, but that's not something you'd seek just to win the swimming contest. Chaos is not necessarily repulsive. Arioch is good-looking and most chaos lord have high charisma anyway (but that's a gaming artefact). I'd say that the benefit should be guaranteed but the drawback be variable. It could be another benefit (ok, you've gills and webbed feet... but you've the face of the devil and it more than outweigh the rejection to your odd physical appearance. Have +2 CHA. Or something neutral. Or something even worse (a third eye just popped on your forehead... keep it or burn it -- it will leave marks, have -2 CHA or a third eyes that people will question and -1 to CA because you can't parry very well with the sensory input of your third eye). I'd say some of the mechanical benefits you offer are very mild for a -3 CHA penalty on social interactions. I'd push them up, or reduce the risk of drawback.

2. There might not be simultaneity between the gift and the mark that cause the social rejection. Sure, your leg become stronger right now... but two levels down the road, they will be so modified that you will no longer be able to stand up, always crouching and jumping (at the same speed...) and your gait will cause the drawback.

3. I like the idea of the social rejection being a common result, even if avoidable as it would push people to embrace Chaos after taking a "first sip" of it, while others will think they can get away with it.

4. For bonus horror, have some of the traits become inherited, as chaos tainted their very being. That's how you can "corrupt" whole races. Melniboneans got a lot of inherited bonus and the drawback of lack of empathy, they won the lottery. Tolkien elves corrupted by err... Melkor? inherited STR and CON bonus, but hefty penalties as well.

great ideas...I guess ultimately most NPCs wanting chaos gifts are somewhat insane....will muse on this