Alignment: Law Vs. Chaos

[LuYangShih]

I've been reading the abundance of alignment threads that have been appearing lately, and I noted that there seems to be far more disagreement on the difference between Law and Chaos than Good and Evil. Why is that? What is the fundamental, basic way to look at the Law and Chaos axis?

I've seen some people argue that as a long as a character has a personal code they follow, irrelevant of how independent they are of society at large, they are in essence a Lawful character. And I've seen other people argue that Chaotic characters will follow rules just as much as the Lawful character, as long as it's convient. So where's the dividing line between the two? What really makes them different? And why is there so much disagreement about how to interpet this part of the alignment axis?

 

[Keith]

I'll throw this in once, although I have little interest in discussing alignment, and find that those threads just go in circles. I think the reason is that Law and Chaos are not descriptors people are used to using in any useful model of human ethics. Alignment is a very, very poor effort at defining different approaches to living. Given that the concept itself comes from Moorcock, where there were physical beings of Law and Chaos actually fighting over control of the universe (multiverse- whatever), it is pretty easy to understand why it never translated more than shallowly to a broader context. D&D remains a game largely about fairly simple characters engaging in adventures; the alignment system remains as paper-thin of a concept as it first was when applied to the game. I think that players should focus way more on actually roleplaying a believable character, and less on trying to figure out a system that has no particular value and adds nothing to the game.
My answer, in there somewhere, is that good and evil are well -developed concepts, law and chaos are juvenile and laughable ones.

Cheers!

 

[LuYangShih]

It's neccessary to understand the alignment system because it is an integral part of the game. Several classes rely on it for qualifications, as well as several spells effecting you differently depending on what your alignment may be.

Focusing on your character and then deciding on your alignment is definitely the best course of action, but if you don't understand the alignment system, how are you going to translate your well developed character history and personality to the character sheet correctly? The alignment system is simple, and people and morality are complex, I admit. But I prefer the simple, generalized approach to a detailed approach that would take more time than it would be worth.

 

[I'm A Banana]

To give a helpful answer:

Law = Order, hierarchy, pattern, numbers, calculations, etc.
Chaos = Randomness, freedom, lack of definition, rebellion, etc.

Where the line blurs is when many people take them out of their D&D-isms and use them in the way defined by the rest of the world...same with Good and Evil. It's just a lot *easier* with Law and Chaos. *Especially* because many people who play D&D like to think of themselves as rebellious nonconformists, so Chaos usually gets accolades and desired abilities, wheras Law effectively becomes 'bad.' Like when people say Chaos = Art and Law = Oppression (which are true, to an extent, but not absolutely).

That's my semi-rant on the topic.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I always figured that people kept trying to give Chaotic characters more good stuff because so many of the good classes required either a Lawful alignment or forbade a Chaotic one.

This was especially true in 2e, when even Psionicists couldn't be Chaotic. (Which is odd for a class of loners that don't require organization or support. Especially when they're often considered heretical.)

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I use this.

 

[David Argall]

some points

"the concept itself comes from Morrcock,"

The idea of chaos vs law predates him by a century or more. Very popular with the ivory tower types of the 1800s.


"Chaos usually gets accolades and desired abilities, wheras Law effectively becomes 'bad.' "

Quite wrong. In fact the game started out without good or evil, just law & chaos, and Law was the good side. When we switched to a 4 way system, we retained a pro-law bias, so that the paladin, who should be NG, was LG and routinely the LG rather than the NG was described as the most virtuous one.

 

[Tom Cashel]

My answer, in there somewhere, is that good and evil are well -developed concepts, law and chaos are juvenile and laughable ones.

Keith, I agree with most of what you said...especially the idea that D&D alignments are not good models for real-world ethics (there was a long, heated thread on this subject a while back). But I disagree with the above quoted statement.

Good and evil are well-developed concepts, but that doesn't make them any more adult or less laughable than order (law) and chaos. In my opinion, "good" and "evil" are most often used as value judgements against others. They elicit a knee-jerk response, but they're not very descriptive. In real life, even the most good has a little evil in it, and vice versa. At least order and chaos can be observed and described by science, to some extent! And even then, none of these concepts are ever as self-contained as we would like them to be. No matter how long human beings test the universe (scientifically, philosophically, ethically, etc.) in an attempt to make it answer "Yes" or "No," it keeps coming back with "Maybe."

The most telling quote in the Player's Handbook refers to the use of alignment as a guide, not a straitjacket. In other words, there is no single alignment-based reaction to a given situation. Every character will react to a situation based on their own beliefs, experiences, and (yes) alignment. But to make alignment the single most important indicator of and limit upon PC actions is to do your players a grave disservice.

 

[I'm A Banana]

"Chaos usually gets accolades and desired abilities, wheras Law effectively becomes 'bad.' "

Quite wrong. In fact the game started out without good or evil, just law & chaos, and Law was the good side. When we switched to a 4 way system, we retained a pro-law bias, so that the paladin, who should be NG, was LG and routinely the LG rather than the NG was described as the most virtuous one.

Yeah, it's quite possible to have different experiences. This is just my experience playing with hich school and twentysomething Americans. Being a rebel is kewl, and being a stick-in-the-mud guy who 'has to obey the rules' isn't, IMXP. It's quite possible that that's not true, but I've seen it played out often.

 

[RC Hagy]

ORDER vs Chaos

ANARCHY vs Law


That is how I have that portion of my alignment set up... Now while trying to keep on the topic and discuss why the disscussion on interpretation of Law and Chaos.

LAW is a man-made thing (I believe) limited and short sighted though usful in the short term. LAW must be reviewed often or it becomes unwieldy and will not do what it was intended... securing ORDER.

CHAOS which (me again) is very large, broad and more of a concept then fact... very all encompassing. So large we have trouble understanding it since we only see the smallest results of it. Hence ANARCHY, throw down the laws rebel against order so on and so forth.


My views and very truncated at that... I get philosophical on alignment .


RCH
Vermont