D&D General Alignment: the problem is Chaos

[Aging Bard]

For me, I make "Lawful versus Chaotic", really mean: Collectivist versus Individualist. Then with my version of it, everything is useful and works fine.

This is pretty close to my view as well, though I think it understates how unusual a Chaotic stance is, just like Evil is really quite a rare stance in real life.

 

[Aging Bard]

I wonder if the problem is that Chaotic is way more than one thing at even the level of outsiders.

Exactly! It's one's "code" above all else. I think you grok it.

 

[Yaarel]

This is pretty close to my view as well, though I think it understates how unusual a Chaotic stance is, just like Evil is really quite a rare stance in real life.

The view of Law-versus-Chaos, as Collective-versus-Individual, is almost the same thing as Extrovert-versus-Introvert. Both are reasonable choices.

 

[Oofta]

Isn't that Neutral?

That could also be neutral but a chaotic individual still needs to live in a society. A chaotic person may not care about breaking the law, but they may well realize the law is there for a good reason and/or they don't want to pay fines or end up in jail. As far as respecting a title or position, that to me is one of the big differentiators between law and chaos. Someone that respects an organization (government, religious, etc.) that's lawful will likely automatically respect someone who holds higher rank. Someone that's chaotic will usually base their decision on the actions of the person.

A neutral person? It's just the middle ground on the spectrum.

 

[Aging Bard]

Isn't that Neutral?

Perhaps. I think of Neutral as downplaying one axis over the other. So it is the Neutral Good character who is more likely to protest perceived injustice than the Lawful Good character because the Lawful Good character is apprehensive of defying the law, even if they disagree with it.

 

[Cadence]

I'm really glad you posted this! Because this is what I'm trying to decouple from Evil. I think Evil wants to be the problem. I think Chaos ultimately wants to avoid being told what to do.

Evil doesn't necessarily need to be the problem. Lawful Evil needs, and you should just give it and obey.

Just ignoring the law or order when it annoys your being ambivalent about it as a goal feels like neutral, doesn't it? To be on opposition, doesn't Chaos need to be actively working against whichever you pick of law or order being opposite of it.

Don't the articles on alignment in the philosophy of D&D book say that Chaotic Good is an impossibility by any of the usual definitions?

 

[Aging Bard]

The view of Law-versus-Chaos, as Collective-versus-Individual, is almost the same thing as Extrovert-versus-Introvert. Both are reasonable choices.

Or perhaps even more as Conformist vs. Non-Conformist. But as I noted elsewhere, I consider both true Evil and Chaotic stances as very rare in human experience. Mere non-conformity is not really Chaos to me. Chaos is weirder.

 

[Aging Bard]

Don't the articles on alignment in the philosophy of D&D book say that Chaotic Good is an impossibility by any of the usual definitions?

Exactly! Chaotic Good seems completely bonkers, and I don't think large groups of humans can pull it off. Yet one of the most important demi-human groups have been canonically Chaotic Good since 1e. I think that's interesting, and I came to this definition precisely to explain the behavior of elves. The result is weird, and I like that.

 

[MarkB]

The problem is that both Law and Chaos are just too broad-brush.

Many of the characters I play will care little for conforming to social standards or following civilised codes, and will happily go against established rules or laws to accomplish their goals. But they'll also have a strong moral code of their own, being very loyal to their friends and allies, not giving their word lightly or frivolously, and never even considering betraying a trust or confidence.

To call such a character 'neutral' seems a disservice - it suggests a disinterest in considerations of morality, which would not represent the character's attitude at all. And yet, different aspects of their outlook would fall most easily into either the "Chaotic" or "Lawful" realm.

 

[Aging Bard]

That could also be neutral but a chaotic individual still needs to live in a society. A chaotic person may not care about breaking the law, but they may well realize the law is there for a good reason and/or they don't want to pay fines or end up in jail. As far as respecting a title or position, that to me is one of the big differentiators between law and chaos. Someone that respects an organization (government, religious, etc.) that's lawful will likely automatically respect someone who holds higher rank. Someone that's chaotic will usually base their decision on the actions of the person.

A neutral person? It's just the middle ground on the spectrum.

All of this is very reasonable. I prefer Neutral to mean "indifferent to" rather than middle ground. So a Neutral Good character is not kinda-Lawful or kinda-Chaotic, but rather cares much more about Good. They are the ones who will protest injustice before the Lawful Goods, because they care more about being Good. But again, your view seems fine.