Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elder-Basilisk" data-source="post: 1606244" data-attributes="member: 3146">A few remarks will make an admittedly incomplete response but it's what I've got time for:Quite so. That is the planescape hell version of law and chaos. However, the stereotypical D&D barbarian is either CG (noble savage) or CN (ordinary savage) or CE (wicked savage). The stereotypical D&D barbarian will talk about honor and the expectations of his tribe and will toss off a few one-liners about the civilized world and how law is simply a trick by dishonest men to make breaking one's word acceptable. The lawful nobles can be expected to betray, lie, backstab, and politic. The chaotic barbarians can be expected to live by their own code of honor--a code that usually involves physical challenges and trial by combat or some such thing. The noble paladin is lawful because he lives by a strict, unyielding personal code of honor that may sometimes conflict with that of the society he finds himself in and yet the noble barbarian is chaotic because he lives by a strict, unyielding personal code of honor that usually conflicts with that of the society he finds himself in.I could go on with examples but it's probably clearer to point out several of the distinct threads of law vs. chaos in D&D tradition:Civilization vs. TribalismLaw vs. TraditionTradition vs. Free SpiritCommunal identity focus vs. individual identity focusRule of Law vs. Despotism/Judging on a case by case basisDiscipline vs. free spiritLetter of the law vs. spirit of the lawTruth-telling vs. lyingProperty rights vs. theftElves (who kill outsiders who enter their forest because of the sovereign law of their ancestor who is still alive) vs. Dwarves (who kill outsiders who try to enter their mines because of the sovereign law of their ancestor who is dead)The problem with these is that half of the things they've identified as being lawful conflict with the other half and a significant number are generally included under the basic moral principles of most moral philosophers (which makes them as good candidates for good and evil as there are). Truth-telling would be an example of the last case. Kant, Mill, and others made some of their strongest cases about morality on this subject.For instance, individual identity focus is clearly identified with free spirits and chaos but it is almost exclusively produced in rules, law, and property rights oriented cultures who tend toward individualism rather than collectivism. Chaotic cultures tend to be governed by the traditions of their ancestors rather than positive law yet chaotic people are supposed to defy their families and traditions in order to follow their own path.</blockquote>

Verification