Emphasizing Law vs. Chaos

IMC, the differences are pretty deep and fundamental.

For Evil, Law vs. Chaos is Death vs. Corruption.

For Good, Law vs. Chaos is Fate vs. Freedom.

The idea that men can use fate (Law) or fight against their fates (Chaos) is something I'd like to emphasize more.

Cheers, -- N
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I've always seen Law and Chaos as means to ends. In a Lawful society, laws serve the community and it's (presumably) shared goals and needs. In a Chaotic society, an individual's freedom to simply be takes the place of laws serving the community. The Tao Te Ching says something like 'the more laws you have, the more laws you need. Trust in people'. I think a Lawful society is afraid of the individual and fears what they might do. A Chaotic society fears the lack of trust from the society of the individual.
The Paladin is a paragon of both law and good. How often do we hear of one rushing off to fight chaos? In a world where evil is a measurable thing, a physical state that one can smite, good and evil become less an abstract and more a reality. Law and Chaos should be the same measurable reality. But just as reasonable people can disagree on ethical paths, morality is very black and white, good and evil. No room to disagree.
I do think that it should be more of an issue. But I don't know how beyong putting a lawfully inclined group in a situation they cannot control or a chaotically inclined group in a situation where their freedom is truncated. Order to impose or tyranny to escape, but these can all too quickly devlove into good vs evil situations.
I'll have to think more about this.
 

I have a setup in which Good and Evil are actually, in a way, balance between Law and Chaos (for Good) and discord between them (for Evil). The alignment chart looks more like a triangle than a cross.

Which is why all celestials are allied, while the fiends have a "blood war" going on. And this is also why paladins who overemphasize Law over Goodness falls, while those who overemphasize Goodness over Law don't.
 

Check out how Monte Cook defined Law vs. Chaos in Ptolus.
Monte Cook said:
A desire to make the law/chaos axis important led me down an interesting world-building path. The "law" aspect of Ptolus is exemplified by the Empire that rules over the city and the vast majority of the known world. Ptolus lies not at the heart of this Empire, but on its fringes. The Tarsisan Empire (based out of a distant city called Tarsis) was established long ago by a union of militaristic humans and forward-thinking dwarves. The dwarves created all manner of interesting machines. Some of these were driven by steam, some were firearms, and others were just advancements over preexisting methods and technologies.

Except that chaos is ascendant now, and the Empire is falling apart. This is interesting in Ptolus because it means that -- out on the fringes -- anything could happen politically. Ptolus could even cede from the crumbling Empire and return to the aristocracy still in place that once held supreme power, or it could form a whole new type of government. The fact that the Empire crumbles (and order crumbles) is seen clearly in the demise of the technology that was once so important. Smokestacks in the industrial part of the city stand cold and empty now. Machines are silent. Guns are few and far between, with few who remember how to manufacture them or even repair them when they break down. It would seem as if the world is on the brink of a dark age.

To make things even worse (and hammer this theme home), the forces of chaos have their own types of devices, called chaositech. These strange "machines" are powered by chaos and violate all the laws of reality to accomplish incredible things. At the same time, however, they corrupt and mutate all they come in contact with. As the technology of the Empire fades, more and more chaositech is discovered - and it comes not as a new innovation, but the remnants of an unimaginably distant past.
 


Ever played the Thief: the Dark Project computer game? In its world, the primary divine conflict was between the Builder (father of civilization, craftsmanship and technology, probably Lawful Neutral) and the Trickster (primeval nature-god, bestial in nature, clearly Chaotic, probably Chaotic Neutral). Both sides weren't good per se: the Hammerites - the Builder's followers - were not above torture and harsh punishment for those who violate their faith, and the Pagans - the Trickster's followers - were engaged in bestial acts of murder and were related with undead. But both sides were neither evil per se - the Hammerites were concerned with law, the welfare of the community, and moral integrity, and the Pagans didn't do what they did out of a joy of harming others but rather out of a bestial rage against civilization and order.

In terms of good vs. evil, Thief was a very ambiguous game, usually coloring most characters and groups in shades of grey in that regard; but Law vs. Chaos were in a very stark conflict.
 

billd91 said:
I think this is probably the way to go. No matter how you look at them, it's almost impossible to consider the difference between Lawful and Chaotic as wide as the difference between Good and Evil.
Not at all. In fact, philosophically, some have argued that chaos (demons) and evil (devils) are conceptually incompatible:

Terry Eagleton said:
The demonic...is not so much opposed to value as unable to see the point of it. What it finds offensive is not this or that value, but the whole farcical business of value as such. This resolves an apparent contradiction...: evil needs value in order to exist, but at the same time does not believe in it. [Devils] must surely be ironic, since how can you derive a frission of wickedness from contravening moral codes which you know to be purely conventional anyway? The demonic, however, derives its frission precisely from showing up value as purely conventional, not from a defiant belief in the reality of evil. Evil is the last thing it believes in, since this would involve granting credence to good. To be wicked is to share the same terms as the virtuous, whereas the demonic is infuriated by the delusion that anything could actually matter, good or bad.
 

Wayside said:
Not at all. In fact, philosophically, some have argued that chaos (demons) and evil (devils) are conceptually incompatible:

Where did you get that Terry Eagleton quote from?

Edit:

Never mind- Google came through with the following:

Terry Eagleton (2001)
Demons
New Blackfriars 82 (969), 499–513.
 
Last edited:

A setting that pits "Civilization" against "Barbarism" is prime for Law/Chaos conflict. Civilized folk in an uncivilized environment, trying to impose some sense of normalcy or at least very basic rules of conduct. This is highlighted in stories like:

- Castaways in an island (like Lost);
- Zombie Apocalypse (a la The Walking Dead);
- Any number of Post-Apocalyptic scenarions (Mad Max series, The Postman).
 

Most of the games I've been in are exactly opposite. I think the rules definitely put more focus on G/E, but I think L/C is much more interesting for role playing.
 

Remove ads

Top