D&D 5E Chaos Gifts...

[Casimir Liber]

So I always loved the idea of the Chaos Lords from Moorcock, also RuneQuest and Warhammer - and am incorporating them into my new campaign (nice for the Slaad Lords to appear in 5e canon finally!) Hence have incorporated the Chaos Lords and Slaad lords into mine as of now and thought about Chaos Gifts - i.e like feats but at a heftier price....but musing on balance. First level....3rd level (i.e. when a person is of sufficient power to get noticed by chaos...i don't know..spitballing here)

Chaos Gifts

The gods of chaos bear gifts with a price, as chaos warps the fabric of the recipient. Aberrations that are visible incur a -3 Charisma/Reaction penalty due to the warped appearance and hatred and fear of Chaos as disruptive to the fabric of the plane. Some can be masked at expense. e.g. Duck feet will require special shoes that cost triple.

Arioch has seduced light elves (high elves) - a la Melnibone (sort of), Mabelode is patron of insane derro (yeah I know he has no face and derro have only weird eyes but I figured close enough...)

• Adept at swimming: recipient has duck feet, or webbed hands and feet
• Breath weapon: treat as per dragonborn breath weapon. Subject has unusually large mouth or discoloured lips consistent with nature of breath weapon (scorched black for fire, green for chlorine gas or acid, bluish-white and frost-encrusted for frost)
• Dark vision (or double range dark vision): recipient has unusual eyes - either large, or odd-coloured
• Chaos aura ripples: the air ripples and warps randomly around the recipient, on a roll of 1 or 2 on a d6, the ripples are large enough to result in Disadvantage on all missile weapon attacks against the target on that round (spells are unaffected).
• Keen vision: recipient has unusual eyes - either large, or odd-coloured. Advantage on perception rolls, and rolls against traps where keen vision would help.
• Keen smell: recipient has unusually large nose, snout or nostrils. Never surprised by Beasts of corporeal Undead. Can track by smell.
• Mobility: Your speed increases by 10 feet. When you use the Dash action, difficult terrain doesn’t cost you extra movement on that turn. When you make a melee attack against a creature, you don’t provoke opportunity attacks from that creature for the rest o f the turn, whether you hit or not. Recipients have an unusual loping gait, their limbs move in subtly unusual ways that others find disturbing. The recipient can concentrate to move “normally” if not overexerting, requiring a DC 10 athletics roll per hour.
• Teeth: Subject has large, prominent and very hard teeth. Can crunch bones (saves on rations - has a taste for this) and objects such as small padlocks.
• Thick-skinned: recipient gains a +1 bonus to AC due to their skin, which is either thickened or odd-coloured and looks subtly unseemly.
• Third eye: when open, this eye sees in other wavelengths, and can see ethereal and invisible creatures. However, it is disconcerting to vision of the subject's two other eyes, and the subject suffers disadvantage on dodging or casting missiles or thrown objects of any sort. A third eye is alarming to see for many normal people and will result in negative reaction rolls.

All input welcome on balance etc. (i.e CHA penalties, level of introduction etc

 

[overgeeked]

Check out the Tome of Corruption from WFRP2E. It has a 1d1000 table of mutations. And ignore balance.

 

[Casimir Liber]

Yes that is very interesting......thanks for the tip.....

 

[Yaarel]

For me, the Moorcock "chaos" is too random and evil.


For D&D, Chaos is more about individual potential at the expense of group expectations.

Chaotic Good means to help other individuals become the best version of oneself.

 

[Lyxen]

For me, the Moorcock "chaos" is too random and evil.

It was the hypothesis of the OP, though, and while I agree that it's very evil, it is not that random, or at least not that random for something that is the basic creative force of the universe through tyring all possibilities.

In the same direction is Glorantha's chaos (Runequest), which is incredibly well described, in particular in the fact that chaotic creatures gifterd with conscience are usually desperate since they are forced by their nature to act chaotic but that drive is in itself lawful and the paradox is tearing them (which goes to show that, ultimately, law and chaos are mindless, something that Moorcock describes well in particular in the plane where Law has won and nothing lives there). It is one of the great and terrible thing that beings like Nysalor and now the Red Goddess bring, an understanding of Chaos, which can bring relief to such creatures (and show that chaos in itself is not evil) at the expense of putting the world in danger as chaos cannot really be controlled, corrupts and is always at risk of exploding into a frenzy of creation and destruction that will ultimately doom the world (which can be construed as evil). And of course, the earthly conflict between cultures totally rejecting chaos and those embracing it as a creative force mirrors the cosmic conflict.

For D&D, Chaos is more about individual potential at the expense of group expectations.

For me, that is barely east of Neutral on the alignment axis, Chaos should be as militant as Law is, which is what you get in Moorcock and other sources where it is a cosmic force.

Chaotic Good means to help other individuals become the best version of oneself.

Again, for me, this is barely east of Neutral Good, if even east at all, although I agree that 5e has toned down alignments so much that the chaotic good description is really poor and your view might fit it. For me who is more old school, real chaotic good is saying that freedom is the only way to goodness, and that any rules, law or institution are by default preventing people from the real happiness of freedom, which means that it is not only one's freedom that needs to be achieved, but that one must fight for the freedom of others.

 

[Yaarel]

It was the hypothesis of the OP, though, and while I agree that it's very evil, it is not that random, or at least not that random for something that is the basic creative force of the universe through tyring all possibilities.

In the same direction is Glorantha's chaos (Runequest), which is incredibly well described, in particular in the fact that chaotic creatures gifterd with conscience are usually desperate since they are forced by their nature to act chaotic but that drive is in itself lawful and the paradox is tearing them (which goes to show that, ultimately, law and chaos are mindless, something that Moorcock describes well in particular in the plane where Law has won and nothing lives there). It is one of the great and terrible thing that beings like Nysalor and now the Red Goddess bring, an understanding of Chaos, which can bring relief to such creatures (and show that chaos in itself is not evil) at the expense of putting the world in danger as chaos cannot really be controlled, corrupts and is always at risk of exploding into a frenzy of creation and destruction that will ultimately doom the world (which can be construed as evil). And of course, the earthly conflict between cultures totally rejecting chaos and those embracing it as a creative force mirrors the cosmic conflict.



For me, that is barely east of Neutral on the alignment axis, Chaos should be as militant as Law is, which is what you get in Moorcock and other sources where it is a cosmic force.



Again, for me, this is barely east of Neutral Good, if even east at all, although I agree that 5e has toned down alignments so much that the chaotic good description is really poor and your view might fit it. For me who is more old school, real chaotic good is saying that freedom is the only way to goodness, and that any rules, law or institution are by default preventing people from the real happiness of freedom, which means that it is not only one's freedom that needs to be achieved, but that one must fight for the freedom of others.

For me,

Law = group
Chaos = individual

And it really is that simple.

Humans tend to be somewhere in between, negotiating the conflicting requirements of personal needs and social cooperation.

 

[Lyxen]

For me,

Law = group
Chaos = individual

And it really is that simple.

Humans tend to be somewhere in between, negotiating the conflicting requirements of personal needs and social cooperation.

And it's a fine view, after that it's just a matter of taste, with an epic game like D&D, I like having cosmic forces which is why I like my Law and Chaos to be stronger and supernatural. Alignment has always been diversified, as shown on one of the early charts:

So maybe your chaotics are just closer to the neutral axis, that's all.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

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.

 

[Yaarel]

And it's a fine view, after that it's just a matter of taste, with an epic game like D&D, I like having cosmic forces which is why I like my Law and Chaos to be stronger and supernatural. Alignment has always been diversified, as shown on one of the early charts:
View attachment 146045

So maybe your chaotics are just closer to the neutral axis, that's all.

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 tend to associate D&D Law with Yang, and D&D Chaos with Yin.

The Dao is the third way that optimizes between both conflicting principles.

In this sense, the Neutral point on the axis between Law and Chaos is "True": the ideal.

Thus with regard to the other D&D alignment axis, it is possible to refer to:

• True Good
• True Neutral
• True Evil

 

[Lyxen]

I completely forgot, I was thinking to make it part of my post when I spoke about Gloranthan chaos, but there are tons of tables with chaotic features for Runequest that are probably mostly applicable too.

 

[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