[Cosmology] Law vs. Chaos main planar conflict?

[Snapdragyn]

I'm currently working on the cosmology for my homebrew. I have had one player quite emphatically state that she does NOT want to see the standard good vs. evil Outer Wheel cosmology. Since I'm working on removing the Outer Wheel entirely, that's fine by me. However, I do need someplace to stick the celestials & fiends (well -- would like to have a place, rather than just removing them).

One idea I've been toying with is doing something along the lines of Steven Brust's "To Reign in Hell", as applied to D&D. It's been some time since I read the book, so my obvious first step is to reread it; however, I'm jumping ahead a bit to get input here based on what I remember.

In that book, the story of the fall of the angels is reworked, with 'good' actually being somewhat sneaky & definitely into the idea that 'the good of the many justifies coercing free will' vs. 'evil' being more 'we simply can't usurp free will'. This could probably be worked into LN vs. CN fairly well.
I'm really bent on NOT going to 4 alignment-based planes; I'm working at having only 2, with neutral on the L/C scale either evenly split or just hanging around a non-aligned plane between the two sides.

My main problem is how to explain good working alongside evil in either of these two forces. I have to balance the ideas that Law really does see itself as working for the greater good (though being tyrannical at times), while Chaos sees itself as working for individual freedom (even if that freedom means the freedom to refuse to do good). That makes it not _too_ hard to mix good & evil guys on the Chaos 'team', but I think the LE outsiders are going to be tough.

I'm sure someone has done something similar, or at least could toss out some fresh thoughts about it, & I'd greatly appreciate the input. Note that I will probably only be placing significantly less importance on alignment for non-outsiders (liked some of the ideas in that thread), but still want to have at least two alignment-based planes for outsiders.

 

[Shemeska]

First of all, "To Reign in Hell" was a damn fine book. You get points in my mind for having read it.

That said, it'll probably be difficult to use the NG and NE outsider races unless you really take an axe to their motivations and ethos. Yugoloths for instance may profess to exemplify only a want for perfection in the universe, but perfection devoid of mercy. They only want what's 'good' from a certain perspective. However order and chaos is meaningless to them and they'll use it as their own interests see fit at any given moment. It's probably easier to just remove them entirely rather than rewrite them. The same can be said of the Guardinals who take individual compassion and selflessness as paramount, but while self sacrifice for the greater good is part of their thing, it's never coerced or obligated.

Just some random ideas from me at first look.

 

[Nifft]

I'm not familiar with that book, so I'll just pimp what I do for my campaign.

One way to work the Law vs. Chaos idea is to make it Fey vs. Devils. (Fey being Chaotic, Devils being more Lawful than Evil -- but still very Evil!), or Demons vs. Devils as the major powers with the forces of Goodness only surviving because Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil are more interested in killing each other... for the moment.

One additional idea: Evil is universal (Asmodeus rules EVERY Devil, and Grazzt benefits from ANY corruption of a certain type), while Good is local (the Sun God is literally the god of one sun). If you travel, your gods aren't easily available, or are less powerful, but fiends are still at full power.

-- N

 

[Davelozzi]

I would think it'd be the other way around. In other words, I can more easily see LE & LG working together (all following orders/rules as part of the same army, bureaucracy, or other regimented heirarchy) than CE & CG. Believing in freedom and being willing to fight for it is one thing, but it gets pretty hard if you're good hearted and fighting to support the freedom of others to be abusive.

 

[Spatula]

but it gets pretty hard if you're good hearted and fighting to support the freedom of others to be abusive.

The good-hearted person is fighting for freedom, period. How that freedom is used is up to each individual. Someone who is uncomfortable with that idea would probably be closer to NG than CG.

 

[Spatula]

My main problem is how to explain good working alongside evil in either of these two forces. I have to balance the ideas that Law really does see itself as working for the greater good (though being tyrannical at times), while Chaos sees itself as working for individual freedom (even if that freedom means the freedom to refuse to do good). That makes it not _too_ hard to mix good & evil guys on the Chaos 'team', but I think the LE outsiders are going to be tough.

Good & evil on both sides work together because they seek to defend their shared principles (order or freedom) from the other side, which wants to destroy those principles. Think of the inhabitants of a city-state banding together to fight off a barbarian invasion. Or, on the flip side, the barbarian tribes banding together to fight off the encroaching forces of civilization. Good and evil become less important when you're defending your way of life.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I've said before that the D&D derived ideas of law and chaos are incoherent concepts. So, using them instead of good and evil in a game is unlikely to work if you insist on basing it philosophically.

Spatula's post, however, suggests one way that it could be accomplished. If the overall conflict is not philosophical but is rather us vs. them survival between beings whose existence is mutually exclusive (ie. compromise is not possible), you could approximate a conflict between lawful and chaotic foes. Note that this also requires an evil--or at best neutral--order of the cosmos. If a good god is in charge of everything, it becomes difficult to understand why he puts up with the LEs and may be difficult to understand why the CGs are rebelling (or why he's trying to impose his will upon the CGs if the rebellion trope is not used).

 

[Snapdragyn]

If a good god is in charge of everything, it becomes difficult to understand why he puts up with the LEs and may be difficult to understand why the CGs are rebelling (or why he's trying to impose his will upon the CGs if the rebellion trope is not used).

Well, a few points:

a) A good god is not in charge lawful plane, a lawful being is (maybe divine, maybe not). The CGs rebelled (this was all millenia ago as I see it) against the tyranny of the L's, who believed that the ends (order) justified the means (coercion of free will).

b) Gods IMC are independant of the two alignment-based planes; some may choose to reside in them, but it isn't required. Likewise, some gods may share the concerns of the outsiders & join with them in common cause, but many will not.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

May want to check out some of the Elric books (and, if you can get your hands on it, Chaosium's d20 book Dragonlords of Melniboné) for a classic example of a mythos based on Law vs Chaos (or we can wait for Diaglo to show up so he can tell us all about how Good and Evil weren't part of the original game but were added later through one of the "imitations" ). Great little system in the DLoM book called "Allegiance and Apotheosis" in which you gain Law, Chaos or Balance points based on your actions, permitting you to gain a position akin to a "Champion of Law", or Chaos, or Balance...

 

[Dogbrain]

How about the premise that both this "law" and this "chaos" are, at the very best, essentially uncaring about what mortals would consider "good". Order wants order, period. Chaos wants chaos, period. The mortals are their victims, puppets, possibly servants, but ultimately they are irrelevant to the great goal. Mortals only matter to the Great Powers inasmuch as they are useful to the goal of "law" or of "chaos". Vorlons and Shadows, essentially.

Since most mortals tend to be rather feeble beings as individuals, most of them will tend to see the "law" side as being mostly "good". "Law" exploits this to the hilt, but ultimately, the "good of all" is irrelevant to their ultimate goal of total order, total system. Likewise, those mortals who are firm proponents of "individual liberty" may see the "chaos" side as representing "good"--especially in regions the "law" side has ended up supporting tyranny, but ultimately, "liberty" as we understand it is also irrelevant, since even the most individualistic mortal must have some sort of biological "order" within it to survive. That set of systems and process must ultimately be disposed of. Indeed, since so much of matter adheres to natural order, matter is to be disposed of.

Thus, should either side actually win, it will mean extinction for mortal life. That doesn't matter to the Great Powers, who see this mortality as horribly infected with elements of the other side. They might be temporarily useful, but ultimately, those nasty corruptions would have to go.

Corruption according to "law": Free will; learning (a type of change, after all); creativity; love, etc.

Corruption according to "chaos": Material existence; family, friendship, honor, music, etc.

Of course, the Great Powers do not bother to tell their mortal pawns of their ultimate goals.

Perhaps there are rebellious Powers: Lords of Law infected with chaotic traits like love; Lords of Chaos infected with lawful traits like friendship. Maybe that's the one defense mortals ultimately have. They partake so fully of both natures that they can change the natures of the Great Powers (or lesser Great Powers), probably accidentally.

It's a cold, unpleasant, and inhuman cosmology, but think of the shivers up your players' spines when they discover what the real deal is.