Defining Law and Chaos

[Stalker0]

Lately I've realized, that even though I've been playing and dming for about 3 years now I still don't exactly know what defines law and chaos as far as personality goes. So I thought I would give some examples of how I think it works, and then anyone can chip in and expand or correct me.

Lawful people are honorable. They will keep their word, although they may use rational interpretation to skew its meaning. So a LE character might be like the evil samurai from some movies, who will slaughter thousands, but if he promised to save a village that gave him a powerful item, he would keep his word.

Lawful people submit to authority. So for example, if a wizard might have better luck planar binding a LE devil than a CE demon. The devil would be more willing to submit to the orders of a very powerful wizard, but a demon might rebel just out of spite.

Lawful creatures are organized. Chaotic creatures are much more likely to be found individually, while lawful creatures will often be found in organized groups.

Lawful Creatures are predictable. A serial killer is normally a lawful creature. He has a pattern that he uses over and over. A homicidal madman would be chaotic.

Does that about cover it, or am I missing anything?

 

[Hand of Evil]

Lawful is the following of rules, those rules are dealing with a god or an idea. You define those rules as a DM, if you want to say honor is a lawful idea then it is.

Chaos is freedom unchained, you do something because you want to, no rules except that you do what you want, when and where you want to.

Now define good and evl in your game.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Sounds like as good a description of law and chaos as any other.

 

[s/LaSH]

One nitpick: I never really thought of Law as making people submit to authority, but they would recognise legitimate authority.

That said, here's what I think on the issue of order and chaos:

Order is a system that is easily predicted. Thus, a number of 'laws' and strict adherence to these laws is necessary. The fewer the laws and the stricter the adherence the more Lawful. The ideal state of Law is a singularity - its laws are reduced to a single point, unalterable, inflexible, perfect simplicity.

Chaos is a system that is not easily predicted (nor does it often consider itself a system). Either laws are not adhered to, or there are too many laws (some of which may be contradictory) for people to follow accurately (thus they don't adhere to them). Disrespect for any common framework of behaviour is Chaotic. The ideal state of Chaos is infinite diversity in infinite combinations, which (because everything eventually combines with its opposite) will anihiliate itself and largely resemble perfect Law.

Ah, the depressing nature of metaphysics...

 

[trancejeremy]

In order to really understand Law & Chaos, IMHO, you have to read some of Michael Moorcock's works. That's where alignment most comes from (also some of Poul Anderson's fantasy stuff, originally, but Mr. Moorcock fleshed it out more. )

 

[northrundicandus]

I second reading Moorcock. That's where a lot of the inspiration for Law and Chaos came from.

Plus you'll learn how to roleplay Demons Lords and Devilish Princes correctly

 

[fusangite]

I don't think the law/chaos thing is so much about your personal beliefs as it is about what "team" you're on. During the Cold War, everyone was either on the Communist or Capitalist team; you had to pick a side but it had more to do with what your broad social objectives were than your day-to-day behaviour. At least that's how the law-chaos thing works in my campaign.

 

[CCamfield]

I have some rather strong feelings about alignment, particularly law versus chaos. So take this with a hefty grain of salt.

Personality should dictate alignment, but you shouldn't allow generalizations to cause the reverse (alignment dictating personality).

One of the weakness of the alignment system, particularly with regards to Law and Chaos, is to lump a rather large number of personality traits together. As presented, there is no way for neutrality to encompass a balance of traits from both ends of the spectrum.

Take a Robin Hood-like character who is honourable and trustworthy, but disrespects authority and, as a rebel, lies when he needs to.

Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic?

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I don't think that the D&D combination of Law/Chaos and good/evil alignments actually works. In Moorcock's books, for instance, there is no good/evil axis that I could discern. As far as I could tell the absence of any kind of external moral order seemed to be a part of the underlying premise (permitting the pseudomoral law-chaos conflict to take center stage).

So, I don't think there is any law/chaos axis to "figure out." Just pick something, explain it to your players or run it past your DM, and run with it. Just realize that any consistent choice you make will force a re-evaluation of traditional alignment understanding.

For instance, law is traditionally associated with both the rule of law--the idea that people are ruled by laws rather than men--and the idea of honor. However, to the extent that there is a correspondence between the two ideas, it seems to be negative. So, if one wishes to retain the honor=law connection, one will come to the conclusion that traditional cultures tend to be more lawful than modern ones.

But even so, the only real alternative to revising traditional law/chaos associations according to a somewhat arbitrary definition is doing what I do and completely relativizing law and chaos--no magical detection of magical effects relate to it and it is solely a concept for players to hang their character concepts on.

 

[Monde]

IMHO I see Lawful as someone who follows the rules whatever they are. A Code of Honor, Rules of a Kingdom, Personal Honor / Morals.

I see Chaotic as someone who does whatever they feel like in any given situation. If the rules/Laws suit them they will obey them or use them for their own ends. If the Laws don't suit them they will break them. They do what they feel. A Rebel.