Elucidating Alignment - Part I: Law and Chaos

[comrade raoul]

Introduction
Ever wanted a crisp way of understanding alignments that captured most of our core intuitive views about them but integrated them into a neat, consistent system that gave players a clear guide to roleplaying the alignments and groups a clear path to resolving alignment disputes? Then this post is for you! I'm going to present some basic principles in order to help clarify what alignments can mean in D&D. In this post, I'm going to:

• Provide a basic, easily applicable standard for distinguishing Law from Neutrality and Chaos.
• Show how very different characters can each be Lawful, and that being Lawful doesn't necessarily mean following your culture's laws.
• Show that a character's intention is what really matters when deciding whether she's doing something Lawful or Chaotic.

I'm pretty happy with the analysis, and and I've found that, in play, players have a better sense of what adhering to an alignment entails (while retaining a great deal of flexibility about their individual moral choices), and alignment questions can be resolved a lot more easily.

The basic idea is that the "positive alignments"--Law and Good--each have a single characteristic, essential feature. For Law, it's commitment to a set of principles for action; for Good, it's regard for the welfare of others. Both characteristic features come in degrees, and as characters depart from the ideal, they move closer to the "negative alignments"--Chaotic and Evil. (Thus, the negative alignments can be understood as lacking the relevant feature--not by having additional, independent features of their own.) The neutral alignments have the feature in question to a limited extent--they're just points in the middle of the continuum.

I'm doing this in two chunks. This post is about law and chaos, and the next post will be a bout good and evil. I'd really be interested in questions, responses, or--especially!--counterexamples, if you have them.

Important Qualification: Obviously, what "Lawful" or "Chaotic" means in a particular game is for individual DMs to decide. That said, most of us have a rough intuitive sense of what we're trying to get across. I'm just trying to clarify that sense.

[h1]Law and Chaos[/h1]
Lawful characters are distinguished by their commitment to an external, systematic set of principles for action. Fundamentally:

• Lawful characters adhere strongly to a developed set of principles.
• Neutral characters generally act on broad principles, but treat them more as rules of thumb.
• Chaotic characters generally don't act on principle at all, but rather on impulses or strategies.

What "Lawful" Means
So what is a "systematic set of principles for action", if it's so important to what "lawful" is, and what does it mean to adhere strongly to them?

A systematic set of principles for action are basically a code of behavior. A religious doctrine or a knight's doctrine are the classic, paradigmatic sets of principles, although the laws of a country, the dictates of an organization, or even (in some cases) a character's personal philosophy of life can also serve as principles. Broadly, a set of principles have got to have a few key characteristics if they are enough to make a character who follows them Lawful.

First, principles have to be external. Here, this means they need to have a structure and content independent of a character's particular situation and feelings--they need to be rules a character can refer to when she decides what to do, and they generally need to be able to give her a set answer (whether she likes the answer or not). "Do whatever you feel like" might be a principle in some broad sense, but it's not enough to ground a Lawful alignment. "Do whatever your liege asks of you" is external in this way, because what it particular it requires depends on the liege, not the character--but if a Lawful character like this doesn't really get any instructions from her liege, she's likely to feel unhappy and confused: her principles won't give her a sufficient guide for her life.

This feature connects with the second requirement--principles have to be systematic. This means they have to actually be able to give answers, at least for most decisions a character might make, and at least most of the time. Ideally, whenever a Lawful character has to decide what to do in a particular situation, she should be able to consider her principles and find that they dictate a single result. In other words, ideally Lawful principles bear on every decision a character might make, and always give a single answer. Almost no principles are actually ideal in this sense, of course, but the closer a principle comes to this ideal, the more Lawful it enables a character who follows it to be. (Inevitables are Lawful in this ideal sense, and some angels, archons, or devils might come close.) A paladin's code, for example, has some grey areas and can leave open a good deal of room for interpretation, but most paladins find that their codes have underlying structures that provide comprehensive guides. The standards of a traditional culture or a priestly organization are similar.

Finally, Lawful characters have to adhere strongly to the principles they commit to. Again, external and systematic principles generally give a character a pretty good guide about what to do--and it might not be the guide a character wants in a particular situation. But, insofar as a character is Lawful, once she's chosen her principles, she sticks with them--basically, no matter what. Going against your principles is, after all, the fundamental Chaotic act. A genuinely Lawful character is committed to her principles in the sense that she will reject them only under situations of profound duress--perhaps under torture, or if a loved one is being threatened, or if doing so would be an intolerable violation of the other component of her alignment--and rejecting her principles will almost always cause her to experience a moral crisis.

The really important thing to emphasize (and this will come up in the Good case, too) is that you can still be Lawful without being perfect. Again, in most campaign settings, no mortal creature is going to be ideally lawful: their principles will probably be a little bit too messy to give complete, clear guides for action, and they'll probably depart from them in small ways. But if you're Lawful, you try to come close, and you generally succeed. You take your principles--whatever they are--very seriously. They're your compass, and without them you'd be lost.

What "Neutral" and "Chaotic" Mean
Once we've nailed down Lawful, the other alignments on the axis are a lot easier--again, they're just departures from the Lawful ideal.

Neutral characters, as I said before, generally act on broad principles, but treat them more as rules of thumb. For a Neutral character, "the code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules." Lots of Neutral characters think of themselves pretty strongly as pragmatists--they might believe, for example, in generally adhering to the strictures of their religion, or following the dicta of their liege, but they'd also think that once in a while, you just have to throw the rulebook out the window and do whatever the situation seems to demand. Similarly, lots of Neutral characters don't think of themselves as adhering to "codes" or "principles" at all--more likely, they just try to live by clusters of general maxims, like "be a man," or "stick by your friends," or "don't take no disrespect from nobody." These maxims differ from the kinds of principles that a Lawful character would need by being really vague and interpretable, something that a Neutral character can generally fit to whatever seems appropriate to the situation at hand.

Chaotic characters generally reject principles of any sort--in the extreme case, they reject principles altogether, acting completely on their instincts, passions, or feelings. Ideally Chaotic characters are probably as rare, and inhuman, as ideally Lawful characters are. A Chaotic character does what he or she feels like at the time, and she probably doesn't try to fit her feelings into any kind of clear structure of pattern. She might describe herself as someone who "listens to her heart," or as someone who "contains multitudes," or--especially for magical creatures--as a force unto herself, impossible and unnecessary to explain.

You can still have Chaotic evil geniuses, of course. A character can be unprincipled in the sense Chaotic characters need to be without being stupid, and intelligent Chaotic characters can still formulate and carry out intricate plans, perhaps requiring years or even (for creatures like dragons or demons) centuries to come to fruition. That is, a Chaotic character can still be aware of the way her actions fit together with each other and with the way the world is going, and she can still grasp and act on extremely complicated information. But Chaotic characters still formulate carry out their plans differently than Lawful characters: while a Lawful character tends to feel that she when she decides to do something, she should stick to it, Chaotic characters abandon their plans much more easily (generally as soon as they stop seeming like a good idea, or when the object of the plan stops being desirable). Similarly, Chaotic plans can often seem to have a touch of madness to them: a Chaotic character might strike on an idea that seems random or wild, dedicate massive amounts of effort to accomplish their goal, and then--for what can seem like no reason--give up when they've almost succeeded.

Application I: Principles and Characters
What makes a character Lawful is following some external, systematic set of principles--the individual set of principles can vary widely. Consider some examples of strongly Lawful characters, each adhering to a different set of principles.

• Abelus the human wizard is Lawful Good. Raised in a minor noble family in an orderly society, Abelus was taught to be a gentleman and takes the best ideals and expectations of his society very seriously. He helps those in need, does not lie, and is unfailingly courteous and civil. He has studied detailed theories about the ethics of magic, and, although he is not a specialist, refrains from the use of necromancy on moral grounds.
• Danako the halfling monk is Lawful Neutral. She was raised in a secluded monastery since her youth, and lives in strict adherence with a code very different than the laws of the world beyond. She believes that the fundamental unity of the cosmos teaches that egoism is folly, that duty is strength, and that laughter is sublime. To her, private property is profane and personal ambition misguided. She speaks seemingly at random, eats at bizarre hours, and will happily steal from others to assist in her tasks, but will just as happily leave priceless artifacts abandoned on the roadside. Nonetheless, Danako has a secret, deep fondness for finely-wrought weaponry and good wine, and--though she would not admit it--her aesthetic lifestyle is often a struggle, though she soldiers on admirably.
• Markus the duegar fighter is Lawful Evil. A member of his underground city's warrior caste, he has deeply internalized his culture's martial virtues, and he wants nothing more to excel in his role and take the position of power and dominance that he believes is his destiny. He obeys his orders without hesitation, takes whatever advantage he can in a fight, gives no quarter and expects none for himself, and would slay anyone who impugned his honor. Though he inevitably sees others as competition, he takes the bonds of his unit seriously and would never disgrace himself by deserting a comrade in need.

There's a lot of different ways to be Lawful--and being Lawful in no way means accepting the same rules that most people in your society do, or in following what's generally recognized as the law.

On the other hand, most Lawful characters do take the laws of their culture seriously, and do so for perfectly sensible reasons--how else are they going to get the principles that make them Lawful? Most people don't choose deep principles that structure their life at random--they have to have pretty strong reasons for them--and the way most people get their principles is by being taught them, by people they respect.

So you can be Lawful noncomformist (like Danako, above), you can be a Lawful rebel or revolutionary, you can be a Lawful jerk (like Markus, or like lots of petty authoritarians the world over), and you can even be a Lawful criminal (like the Mafia ideal). You just have different principles than other people do. But all these cases are exceptional: most Lawful characters are probably like we all imagine Lawful characters to be--forthright and law-abiding--more or less the way Abelus is.

Application II: Lawful and Chaotic Acts
On this analysis, defining Lawful and Chaotic acts is easy: acting on principle is Lawful, acting on impulse is Chaotic. On the other hand, because there are lots of possible principles that a Lawful character could obey, there are very few specific actions that are always Lawful or always Chaotic--although, as I'll explain below, lots of actions are typically Lawful or Chaotic. Instead, what matters is the intention on which a character acts: if you do something because it fits a systematic principle, you're doing something Lawful. If you do something because you feel like it, you're doing something Chaotic.

That doesn't mean, of course, that actions don't matter for a particular character--if you've already committed to a set of principles, any voluntary, intentional action contrary to your principles necessarily counts as a violation. If you believe in a knightly code that forbids stealing, and you knowingly steal, that's to imply a violation--you can't knowingly violate a principle and still intend to adhere to it.

One thing that nearly all Lawful characters have in common, though, is the way they adhere to promises. If a Lawful character sincerely makes a promise--doing so as part of her set of principles--it's nearly always the case that she's committed to keeping her promise in the same way she's committed to adhering the rest of her principles. When a Lawful character makes a promise to do X, she usually feels that what she's doing is making doing X part of her set of principles, and one of the things that dictates her actions. Thus, a Lawful character who finds out that her promise also requires that she break with some other aspect of her principles is in a real bind--as a big chunk of the venerable history of Western tragedy tends to illustrate.

Next time, if there's interest: Good and Evil.

 

[Sol.Dragonheart]

Interesting read. However, as always, defining alignment is a virtually impossible task, particularly when combining the LNC and GNE axes. Allow me to analyze and point out a few issues with your examples.

Application I: Principles and Characters
What makes a character Lawful is following some external, systematic set of principles--the individual set of principles can vary widely. Consider some examples of strongly Lawful characters, each adhering to a different set of principles.

• Abelus the human wizard is Lawful Good. Raised in a minor noble family in an orderly society, Abelus was taught to be a gentleman and takes the best ideals and expectations of his society very seriously. He helps those in need, does not lie, and is unfailingly courteous and civil. He has studied detailed theories about the ethics of magic, and, although he is not a specialist, refrains from the use of necromancy on moral grounds.

• 
  
  All of what you describe here could just as easily be applied to a NG or CG character. All of the defining traits that Abelus is noted for stem from, using your definition of Good, a regard for others. One does not lie, treats others well, and aids others in need because one cares and respects for people outside of oneself. All the issues presented and the manner in which he comports himself are directly related to moral conduct, and there is no defining Lawful influence that differentiates him from other Good characters.
  
  This, however, is one of the flaws of the alignment system. Because Law and Chaos are so ill defined, attempting to integrate them with the true alignments, Good and Evil, results in them being, at best, a mere flavor or spice to the true nature and actions a character takes.
  
  
  

  
  [*]Danako the halfling monk is Lawful Neutral. She was raised in a secluded monastery since her youth, and lives in strict adherence with a code very different than the laws of the world beyond. She believes that the fundamental unity of the cosmos teaches that egoism is folly, that duty is strength, and that laughter is sublime. To her, private property is profane and personal ambition misguided. She speaks seemingly at random, eats at bizarre hours, and will happily steal from others to assist in her tasks, but will just as happily leave priceless artifacts abandoned on the roadside. Nonetheless, Danako has a secret, deep fondness for finely-wrought weaponry and good wine, and--though she would not admit it--her aesthetic lifestyle is often a struggle, though she soldiers on admirably.

  
  
  What defines this character as Lawful by your ethos? Her actions, as you mention, have little consistency, and her actions seeem far more in line with a Neutral character, as by your standards, a character who does not weigh out personal, immediate decisions on a consistent basis by a code of action, but still has a general philosophy, would be a Neutral, not Lawful character.
  
  Again we see a character being defined here not by the Lawful or Chaotic element, but by the secondary, and much more dominant, GNE axis.
  
  

  
  [*]Markus the duegar fighter is Lawful Evil. A member of his underground city's warrior caste, he has deeply internalized his culture's martial virtues, and he wants nothing more to excel in his role and take the position of power and dominance that he believes is his destiny. He obeys his orders without hesitation, takes whatever advantage he can in a fight, gives no quarter and expects none for himself, and would slay anyone who impugned his honor. Though he inevitably sees others as competition, he takes the bonds of his unit seriously and would never disgrace himself by deserting a comrade in need.

  
  
  What element of this character truly defines him as evil? He is merciless, and expects others to respect his sense of honor, but yet shows loyalty to his fellows and honors his superiors. This character strikes me far more as a LN character rather than a LE character, due to the fact he still shows a level of regard for others who are close to him, no matter what the source may be.
  
  You see, no matter how you define alignments, there will always be debate, always be another way to look at an action, and logical reasoning why one definition is not as valid as another.
  
  I believe that the original idea behind alignments, that of creating a a tool to help further detail and define a characters personality and overall mindset, has actually become detrimental to that very purpose. Instead of really evaluating a characters mindset, personality, and history, when choosing actions or creating a psychology for a character, people always attempt to first or primarily define their alignment, and then use that as a basis for developing that character along those lines.
  
  This results in homogenized, often ill defined characters whose actions and history are defined not by who and what they are, where they came from, their land, their experiences, and more, but by the fact that this action is "what a X aligned character would do".

 

[Snapdragyn]

The basic idea is that the "positive alignments"--Law and Good--each have a single characteristic, essential feature. For Law, it's commitment to a set of principles for action; for Good, it's regard for the welfare of others. Both characteristic features come in degrees, and as characters depart from the ideal, they move closer to the "negative alignments"--Chaotic and Evil. (Thus, the negative alignments can be understood as lacking the relevant feature--not by having additional, independent features of their own.) The neutral alignments have the feature in question to a limited extent--they're just points in the middle of the continuum.

You lost me in this paragraph.

Firstly, I disagree that Law is 'commitment to a set of principles for action' while Chaos is not -- to my mind, the difference is in which principles each commits to holding. My own view of Chaotic alignment is one who advocates the importance of the individual over the group -- either for good (i.e. protecting individual freedoms from oppression, even if it is well-meaning) or for evil (i.e. the individual who is powerful enough to get what they want has earned it, even if it interferes with the plans of fellow outlaws). Contrast this with a Lawful alignment where one advocates the importance of the group over the individual -- again, either for good (i.e. working for the greater good of society over the understandable but selfish needs of individuals) or for evil (i.e. working as part of an organization to conquer or steal, & accepting that individual goals must be subservient to the greater goals of the group in order to best achieve greater power/wealth/whatever).

Secondly, calling Chaos 'negative' blurs the Law/Chaos axis into being just a synonym of the Good/Evil axis, with Chaos paired with Evil by your statement here. Note that in my limited examples above, neither Lawful nor Chaotic is inherently 'positive' or 'negative' - that plays out through the good or evil moral focus, as (IMHO) it should. If L/C is to exist as an independent axis (a point which some debate), then it must actually be an independent axis, not a parallel one; if it is to be viewed as a shadow-axis of the G/E axis then I don't really see why it needs so much analysis.

 

[EP]

Nice effort and a good concept of Law, Chaos, and Neutrality (especially since they're more ignored than Good and Evil).

The biggest problem in tackling alignment at all (and the reason why you'll never see an officially expanded version) is that it's so interpretational, it's impossible to have a concrete system nailed down to suit every group, let alone every person. Already, there are two disagreements on whether or not Lawful characters stick to a system of guidelines or act on the benefit of others. But it's things like that help others define and expand their own version of the nine alignments and gain a better understand of what more lies beyond what was written down in the PHB for us.

Looking forward to seeing the next part... and more, if you've got anything extra to add.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Very nice effort!

Firstly, I disagree that Law is 'commitment to a set of principles for action' while Chaos is not -- to my mind, the difference is in which principles each commits to holding. My own view of Chaotic alignment is one who advocates the importance of the individual over the group -- either for good (i.e. protecting individual freedoms from oppression, even if it is well-meaning) or for evil (i.e. the individual who is powerful enough to get what they want has earned it, even if it interferes with the plans of fellow outlaws). Contrast this with a Lawful alignment where one advocates the importance of the group over the individual -- again, either for good (i.e. working for the greater good of society over the understandable but selfish needs of individuals) or for evil (i.e. working as part of an organization to conquer or steal, & accepting that individual goals must be subservient to the greater goals of the group in order to best achieve greater power/wealth/whatever).

Secondly, calling Chaos 'negative' blurs the Law/Chaos axis into being just a synonym of the Good/Evil axis, with Chaos paired with Evil by your statement here. Note that in my limited examples above, neither Lawful nor Chaotic is inherently 'positive' or 'negative' - that plays out through the good or evil moral focus, as (IMHO) it should. If L/C is to exist as an independent axis (a point which some debate), then it must actually be an independent axis, not a parallel one; if it is to be viewed as a shadow-axis of the G/E axis then I don't really see why it needs so much analysis.

...I do agree with this, however. Chaos is not simply the absence of Law, but it is an agenda onto itself. Having any alignment other than Neutral is a commitment to an external ideal. For Law, you pretty much nailed it. Chaos, on the other hand, is the ideal of freedom, individuality, and change. It's not that Chaotic beings don't have an external set of ideas, it's that their external set of ideas, by the nature of those ideas, isn't necessarily consistent. They believe in fluidity; a Lawful character does not.

I think it's also important to ensure that you're not depicting any alignment as monolithic. The basic principles of Law you list are solid, but also seem to all try to achieve a certain perfection. It's certainly possible to be Lawful without striving for the perfection of the Inevitables, and it's entirely likely that two lawful people, both fully within their alignments, have disagreements as to what order is best, or how strongly to apply that order.

A Lawful character is certainly capable of making decisions on her own; those decisions will be guided by the principles of order and logic that have governed their lives, and it's always possible, if one set of standards falls, to replace them with a new one, as long as it is an ordered set of standards (the Lawful Revolution). Similarly, a Chaotic character doesn't often randomly change their actions -- they consistently follow a pattern of adherence to standards of freedom, individuality, and change.

 

[ephemeron]

It seems to me that the problem with the Law-Chaos axis is that it involves both internal and external aspects that aren't necessarily connected. That is, living by a consistent set of principles is Lawful, and respecting authority is Lawful, but what do you call someone who lives by a consistent set of principles that calls for them to disrespect authority?

 

[I'm A Banana]

It seems to me that the problem with the Law-Chaos axis is that it involves both internal and external aspects that aren't necessarily connected. That is, living by a consistent set of principles is Lawful, and respecting authority is Lawful, but what do you call someone who lives by a consistent set of principles that calls for them to disrespect authority?

Chaotic.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Do they disrespect all authority?

 

[Nahat Anoj]

Well, not much to say right now except that I'm looking forward to future installments!

 

[Wild Gazebo]

I like to think of alignment as a type of general disposition. A character will act within his/her alignment the majority of the time--over a length of time. This allows for a broader spectrum of play and interpretation that eliminates a type of pigeon-holed view of reality (or imagined reality). So, a character could be perfectly capable of causing great harm or chaos even though predominately they are good or lawful. That being said, if the character belongs to a class that encompasses a certain set of tenants, I feel, the character should strive to meet those guideline as close to 100% of the time or suffer the consequences.

I realize that you guys are looking for a more acute definition; but, I feel adding this generalization to any definition more readily facilitates playability.