Emphasizing Law vs. Chaos

[Wayside]

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.

Weird. Google usually works for that kind of thing. It's actually from Ch. 9 of Sweet Violence: The Idea of the Tragic. It's a good book, and that chapter is probably worth a read if you really want to dig into the conceptual underpinnings of law and chaos (in literature, yeah, but also for games). I've never used the planes or any of this stuff, but I have to admit, it made me want to. "Nothingness has killed itself, creation is its wound"--that just oozes cool.

 

[shadow]

I never got the whole idea of "law vs chaos". First of all, it seems that nobody can define exactly what "law" and "chaos" are. Is law following a rigid code of honor? Is it following the laws of a society? Is chaos individualism? Is it anti-establishment? Secondly, focusing on law vs. chaos deemphasizes the struggle of good vs. evil - ethics and values are largely irrelevant in the larger struggle between law and chaos. I suppose some people dig this type of gritty moral ambiguity, but I never could get into it; it's just not my cup of tea.

 

[Sundragon2012]

In all fantasy references to "Law vs. Chaos" conflict, chaos is always representitive of evil, destruction, madness, lawlessness, barbarism, etc. while law represents that which is largely considered good ie. civilization, order, creation, reason, etc. Law and chaos are merely another way of saying Good and Evil. This doesn't work so well in D&D where law and chaos are actual things seperate from good and evil.

There is no passion to a law vs. chaos conflict in D&D. Paladins aligning with devils in order to fight elves and eladrin because they are chaotic? No way. Good and evil is a viceral, instinctive conflict. Law vs. chaos as shown in D&D is more of a cerebral exercise, a battle of philosophers perhaps but not anything most sane mortals could sink their teeth into.



Sundragon

 

[Sundragon2012]

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.

Well said.


Sundragon

 

[hong]

First, as your exemplars of unbending law, you will need something with a bit more gravitas than bug-eyed clockwork boxes.

 

[GSHamster]

The problem with Law vs Chaos is that the players need to choose a side. In Good vs Evil, we expect the players to choose good. Basically, choosing Evil is not socially acceptable.

But both Law and Chaos have good and bad points, so it's hard enough to get the party to agree on one course of action. Usually, the DM has to shade one choice in order to get the party to agree on something. Then it becomes Chaotic Good vs Lawful Evil, or Lawful Good vs Chaotic Evil.

Lawful Good vs Chaotic Good usually ends up in some form of negotiation between both sides by the PCs. Lawful Evil vs Chaotic Evil usually ends with the PCs arranging the mutual destruction of both parties.

Even personal bias plays a part. I once tried for a civilization vs nature game. Looking back, it was going nowhere until one side did something that made it more Evil than the other side. Then the PCs jumped in on the "good" side.

 

[hong]

The problem with Law vs Chaos is that the players need to choose a side. In Good vs Evil, we expect the players to choose good. Basically, choosing Evil is not socially acceptable.

But both Law and Chaos have good and bad points, so it's hard enough to get the party to agree on one course of action. Usually, the DM has to shade one choice in order to get the party to agree on something. Then it becomes Chaotic Good vs Lawful Evil, or Lawful Good vs Chaotic Evil.

Lawful Good vs Chaotic Good usually ends up in some form of negotiation between both sides by the PCs. Lawful Evil vs Chaotic Evil usually ends with the PCs arranging the mutual destruction of both parties.

Even personal bias plays a part. I once tried for a civilization vs nature game. Looking back, it was going nowhere until one side did something that made it more Evil than the other side. Then the PCs jumped in on the "good" side.

To put it another way: any campaign (story... game... plot...) needs protagonists and antagonists.

The attraction of good vs evil is that it gives you protagonists and antagonists by default. The downside is that this can become stale and predictable.

The attraction of law vs chaos (or any other opposing setup) is that there are no such defaults; you have to create them yourself. The downside is that unless you do this, the campaign (story... game... plot...) will stall.

 

[GSHamster]

To put it another way: any campaign (story... game... plot...) needs protagonists and antagonists.

The attraction of good vs evil is that it gives you protagonists and antagonists by default. The downside is that this can become stale and predictable.

The attraction of law vs chaos (or any other opposing setup) is that there are no such defaults; you have to create them yourself. The downside is that unless you do this, the campaign (story... game... plot...) will stall.

Exactly. And in my experience, players will only intervene if their personal interests are threatened, one side offers large amounts of gold, or their personal sense of right and wrong is offended.

 

[Planeswalker Maloran]

Personally, I haven't found that to be a problem. I'm just as likely to have a lawful character try to stop a chaotic character from breaking a law as I am to have a good character try to stop an evil character from hurting someone. I've had good and evil characters in the same party before, and while they don't always get along, they can work towards a common goal. I've actually had more trouble with getting lawful and chaotic characters to work together, because lawful characters want to plan everything meticulously, and chaotic characters want to just rush in and go with the flow, or else sneak in and do it all themselves. I find that good and evil characters alike can usually agree on "defeat the evil things and take their stuff."

 

[JDJblatherings]

Law is focused on stability, tradition and order.
Chaos is focused on change, innovation and freedom.

Plenty of room to approach both those areas from good and evil.

Devils have contracts, demons have promises. Both are full of lies.

Dwarves will march with you to preserve their aliance with men, Elves will march with you because it is the right thing to do, today.