Alignment: Law Vs. Chaos

[Keith]

Tom: Sure, yes, I agree with what you say about chaos and order in a broad sense. No doubt about it. To me, though, people tend to read far too much into the alignment use of these terms than is justified. The law and chaos in D&D was firmly stated to be an adoption of the Moorcockian concept at the time (historical antecedents aside- boy, that is giving D&D too much credit), and I tend to regard it in those simple terms. When you read the material on it, it certainly comes across that way.
I think people may be agonizing over wringing complexity out of a very shallow and ill-conceived system instead of doing what is much more fun and productive from a role-playing perspective, which is giving your character personal ethics and then playing them. If you have an alignment change at some point, so be it. It is only a broad guideline, not a map for playing your character in every situation. The player provides that.

That's my perspective. I do intend it to be a constructive contribution here, not a contrary view.



Kamikaze Midget: "To give a helpful answer:"

That seems like a snide thing to say, but perhaps I miss the point.


Cheers

 

[Merlion]

.
I think people may be agonizing over wringing complexity out of a very shallow and ill-conceived system instead of doing what is much more fun and productive from a role-playing perspective, which is giving your character personal ethics and then playing them. If you have an alignment change at some point, so be it. It is only a broad guideline, not a map for playing your character in every situation. The player provides that.





Cheers

I agree with what your saying completely. only trouble is the game isnt entirly set up that way. their are classes with alignment restrictions...and they are all at least partialy law/chaos based. If your playing a paladin or monk and you deviate from the DnD conception of being "lawful" you lose the ability to progress.
I agree with whoever said that Law and Chaos are often problematic...not because of the "adultness" of any of the alignment compoents tho but because Law and Chaos frankly dont come into play in peoples lives...especialy not the lives of heroes in a fantasy setting..much where as good and evil, right and wrong, do. Law and Chaos as described in DnD are all about personality traits and to a lesser extent politics...all things that should simply been roleplayed and should not be used as requirements for base classes.
I had also forgotten about how the earliest versions of the game only had Law and Chaos...that goes a long way to explaining the skew toward Law that I find in almost all DnD products. They made the change but even now a lot of leftovers remain.
I feel that all alignment restrictions should be removed from all base classes that dont directly pertain to religion, at the very least. Truly, I would like to see the Law/Chaos thing as part of alignment done away with entirly.

 

[Tom Cashel]

Or their importance downgraded a bit. In the Alignment Situations I, II, III, etc. threads, I thought that good characters would all try to achieve the same end (good) but they would go about it in different ways (law, neutrality, chaos).

For example, take the scenario in which a bunch of murderous, (but also weak and outgunned) rogues attack the PCs at dusk outside a city. It goes without saying that all good characters should take prisoners rather than slitting the throats of men already bleeding to death, or simply letting them die. The lawful good character might want to bring the miscreants to justice, and see that they are prosecuted. The chaotic good character might want to leave the crooks with the watch and be off, or simply let them go and learn a lesson. The neutral good character might not care one way or the other. Or a hundred other outcomes, depending on the players involved!

What is important is not the way they go about things; it's the fact that they didn't respond to the attack of desperate men (not orcs, not goblins, but men) with outright slaughter. What's important is the good or the evil. The things we can all agree on. The rest of it...the law, the chaos, the neutrality... all that should be considered window dressing.

For a character whose ethos has a direct effect on their abilities, the player and the DM need to decide beforehand "what it means" to be that PC's alignment. Then the PC sticks to it, and the DM remains the arbiter of when the PC has stepped out of line.

Wow...I just read back. That was all long-winded and imperious. Just an idea is all.

 

[NoOneofConsequence]

My 2gp - (observant readers will note that I've offered this notion before)

Law vs Chaos

=

Duties vs Rights


This is how I play it. Lawful alignments are concerned with order - this also means that they believe that there is an appropriate order to things, a right and a wrong way for life to be. They are much more focussed on the "way things are meant to be" and the individual's place in the scheme of things.

Chaotic alignments are more fluid and dynamic, focussing on the rights of the individual, self fulfilment and exploration. There is no perfectly right or wrong way to live and each individual must find their own path.

Lawfuls focus on their duties and responsibilities.

Chaotics focus on their rights and freedoms.

Neither alignment requires slavish devotion to an abstract principle, just an emphasis of thinking.

 

[s/LaSH]

Perhaps in the modern world, these principles aren't as prevalent as they were in a feudal order. Consider: everyone had a place in feudalism, everyone had a boss and a bunch of underlings (except the peasants). If a peasant started bad-mouthing a duke, she was in for it.

That's Order.

But people didn't always conform to the rule of feudalism. Look at the Iceland colonies. One (set up at a place called Borg) was (according to the Saga of Egil Skallagrimsson) founded by the family of a man named Thorulf Kveldulfsson (not the nuclear family, because that was wiped out by King Harald). Thorulf was the ruler of a nice piece of land in Norway, he collected a decent chunk of tribute from the locals for his king every year, and had a large number of jarls or whatever you call them under his command.

His rivals had the king's ear and convinced Harald that Thorulf wasn't giving the king his due tribute. So Harald sailed up to Thorulf's hall, set it on fire, and killed them all.

Thorulf's father (Kveld-Ulf) took his other son (Skallagrim) and departed Norway, proclaiming that they'd never serve Harald. Previously, he'd refused Harald the use of some of his soldiers too, so he already knew he wasn't in the king's good books.

The dynasty of Kveld-Ulf was fiercely independant. They were able to serve under a king, but they didn't put up with his demands, and when he got belligerent they left. I think that's the kind of chaos you'd see in a medieval mileau. (Incidentally, this all took place around 800AD.)

Now an important note on anarchy: I've heard it said that anarchy is not nihilism. Political anarchy is about self-rule and the abandonment of heirachies and authority, not about doing whatever you want - there is still responsibility to whatever tattered remains of society survive such a form of government. (CG.) Nihilism is the punk-hair-do school that sometimes masquerades as anarchy, but is really just about smashing things because you want to (CE). That make sense?

From a metaphysical viewpoint, this is all fairly low-key. Chaos is entropy, the tendancy for things to get more complex and break down. Rotting, boiling off into space, getting cut in half... these are all chaotic actions. Law is stasis, the tendancy for things to stay as they are and get simpler if at all possible. The Auditors from the Discworld books are a good example of agents of pure Law - their agenda is frighteningly simple and is just as nasty as that of pure chaos.

Pure chaos and pure law are both evil, IMHO. That's my considered opinion. The right balance is goodness. Interestingly, that makes NG the 'goodest' alignment on a metaphysical scale... but humans don't live on a metaphysical scale. Fortunately.

 

[S'mon]

My 2gp - (observant readers will note that I've offered this notion before)

Law vs Chaos

=

Duties vs Rights


This is how I play it. Lawful alignments are concerned with order - this also means that they believe that there is an appropriate order to things, a right and a wrong way for life to be. They are much more focussed on the "way things are meant to be" and the individual's place in the scheme of things.

Chaotic alignments are more fluid and dynamic, focussing on the rights of the individual, self fulfilment and exploration. There is no perfectly right or wrong way to live and each individual must find their own path.

Lawfuls focus on their duties and responsibilities.

Chaotics focus on their rights and freedoms.

Neither alignment requires slavish devotion to an abstract principle, just an emphasis of thinking.

That's a good and thought-provoking analysis. Of course Lawfuls are concerned with the Duties of others, not just themselves, and Chaotics with the Freedoms of others - unless they're CE perhaps, and even CE probably prefers to see other beings inhabit a world of anarchy and random violence than a world of rigid oppression and mind-control.

 

[S'mon]

Pure chaos and pure law are both evil, IMHO. That's my considered opinion. The right balance is goodness. Interestingly, that makes NG the 'goodest' alignment on a metaphysical scale... but humans don't live on a metaphysical scale. Fortunately.

That's the Moorcockian analysis.

 

[apsuman]

I think I say this in a few words.

Alignment only works because we as players have (near) perfect knowledge (read meta-knowledge) and our own moral compass.

We measure character actions against our moral compass.

Players must work it out so that the DM is in agreement (or relatively close) to your moral compass. Otherwise you have these same alignment in a circle disscussions at your gaming table.

g!

 

[apsuman]

I think I say this in a few words.

Alignment only works because we as players have (near) perfect knowledge (read meta-knowledge) and our own moral compass.

We measure character actions against our moral compass.

Players must work it out so that the DM is in agreement (or relatively close) to your moral compass. Otherwise you have these same alignment in a circle disscussions at your gaming table.

g!