Is Chaotic/Lawful Alignment Axis really necessary?

[Melkor Lord Of ALL!]

In vast majority of fantasy books main conflict is between Good and Evil, and concept of Chaos is usually associated with Evil, also in most real life moral concepts/religions( Divine Law/Holy Order- are there similar phrases concerning Chaos and Anarchy?), not to mention that D@D definitions of Law and Chaos are confusing- following law of the society is NOT the same as having a strict invidual code of conduct. It is obvious that Morgoth/ Emperor Palpatine or Satan are incarnations of Evil but one can argue whether they are Chaotic or Lawful. In conclusion, me and my co-players have reached a conclusion to throw Lawful-Chaotic Conflict, which never was very prominent, out of the game. Any comments ?

 

[HellHound]

But not all fantasy. I have run several campaigns where the law-chaos axis is more important than the good/evil axis.

A great example is the Elric Saga...

 

[takyris]

Modessit's Recluse saga being another decent one.

Insert obligatory line where Tacky raves about d20 Modern's Allegiance system, which is far better and whatnot.

 

[WattsHumphrey]

In vast majority of fantasy books main conflict is between Good and Evil, and concept of Chaos is usually associated with Evil, also in most real life moral concepts/religions( Divine Law/Holy Order- are there similar phrases concerning Chaos and Anarchy?), not to mention that D@D definitions of Law and Chaos are confusing- following law of the society is NOT the same as having a strict invidual code of conduct. It is obvious that Morgoth/ Emperor Palpatine or Satan are incarnations of Evil but one can argue whether they are Chaotic or Lawful. In conclusion, me and my co-players have reached a conclusion to throw Lawful-Chaotic Conflict, which never was very prominent, out of the game. Any comments ?

Though I don't feel most people think so, I'm much more inclined to say that good/evil is less important than lawful/chaotic.

Most literature does include a stunning display of the good guys versus the bad guys. But at least in my case, I prefer it when the lines are lines of friendship, loyalty, and honor instead of lines of goodness and evil. I guess the most I can say is that evil characters and good characters sometimes work together as the 'good' guys, where the 'bad' guys are merely people with different aims.

 

[Tonguez]

Law and Chaos applies to Organisations (Race, Nation, Army, Religion, The Mandrogo Gentlemens Club etc) and refers to the degree of Structure and Centralisation of Authority within that Organisation.

Law and Chaos should not define individual characters except to the extent that they have Alleigance to some Organisation or other

Also insert here my support and endorsement of Takys rant re Moderns Alleigance system...

 

[Tonguez]

Law and Chaos applies to Organisations (Race, Nation, Army, Religion, The Mandrogo Gentlemens Club etc) and refers to the degree of Structure and Centralisation of Authority within that Organisation.

Law and Chaos should not define individual characters except to the extent that they have Alleigance to some Organisation or other

Also insert here my support and endorsement of Takys rant re Moderns Alleigance system...

 

[CRGreathouse]

I wondered how long it would take before someone mentioned Elric... about one post, it seems.

following law of the society is NOT the same as having a strict invidual code of conduct.

Lawfulness is neither of these. Lawful characters respect legitimate authority (not the same as following the laws of society) and honor tradition (not the same as having a personal code of conduct).

If you use the BoHM's alignment system, having a code of honor is Law 2 (out of 9) -- a pretty weak claim. I consider anything from Chaos 2 to Law 2 neutral (as I consider anything from Good 2 to Evil 2 neutral). For an example of how much a rank of 2 means in Monte's system, Good 2 means that the character helps others occasionally, particularly friends.


As for law/chaos struggle, it's quite common -- at least in my campaign and the campaigns I've played in. The group I'm running has characters all over the good/evil spectrum, but all but one are lawful. (The last one's a N apathetic wizard.)

References: PH 104, BoHM 14-15

 

[kenjib]

I don't think they work as an axis. You can respect authority. You can seed disorder. You can look for the true beauty in the world. You can believe that power lies in faith. You can believe in personal accountability. You can believe that everyone is out to get you. There are many personal philosophies in life, and I think that D&D's focus on law-chaos in particular is very strange and out of place. In OD&D it was a substitute for good and evil and kind of synonymous. Running it alongside good and evil just makes things unecessarily vague.

 

[kenjib]

*double post*

 

[Trainz]

IIRC, law-chaos is a remnant of OD&D (boxed set). Which is probably why it stayed.

IIRC, there was no good or evil in OD&D, just law, neutrality, and chaos. Law was the good guys, chaos the bad guys. Maybe it should never have become the 9 alignments that we have right now.

Anyways, IMC (and my DM's campaign), we tend to focus on the Good-Neutral-Evil axis and pay little-to-no attention the lawful-chaos one. We do write it down, but we don't look if a player is playing his PC Lawful-Good enough compared to a Neutral-Good one.