Law and Chaos gone? Good Riddance!

[Lurks-no-More]

I have to admit that I like the idea of a primordial Law-Chaos struggle as in Planescape... but I also admit that PS is the only (A)D&D setting, where it was presented as a meaningful and important part of the world (universe, multiversum, whatever). I've used to be more supportive of the L-C parts of alignments, but my opinions have been slowly changing.

In practice, almost everyone can agree to a rough description of the Good-Evil axis. Good is altruistic, seeks to lessen suffering, protects the helpless and the innocent, etc., while Evil is selfish, ignores or actively increases suffering, cares not a whit for the innocents, and so on.

Law-Chaos-axis... it's a lot more troublesome, because the descriptions of either end combine both external (respect / disrespect of tradition and external authority) and internal (strong personal code of conduct / flexibility, adaptation and fluidity of conduct) aspects, leading to tons of arguments.

As Wyrmshadows has pointed out, the original Moorcockian L-C axis had both ends as destructive, with a dynamic balance between order and change as the desirable state. Combining this with the G-E axis, where most beings will consider one end as the desirable state (which end varies), and the neutral position in between is one of passivity, leads to difficulties.

 

[bonethug0108]

I do agree that tying mechanics to alignment is not a good idea unless the players and DM have generally similar definitions or are willing to broaden their definition to embrace (or at least accept) each other's.

For what it's worth, however, I tend to view the law/chaos divide as one of whether the PC looks to an external or internal source as a guide to his behavior. If the PC looks to an external source such as the laws of his country, the tenets of his religion, the norms of his culture, the teachings of his philosophy, the rules of his organization, etc., I would consider him Lawful. If he tends to make up his own mind, I would consider him Chaotic.

You know what, I pretty much exactly view law and chaos as such.

Law follows outside principles(the world) and chaos follows inside principles(the self), so to say.

There is alot more to it, but that is the underlying principle of it.

But this is my own personal adaptation and does not try to follow what the book says(we don't use alignment, really).

 

[xechnao]

IMO, Law and Chaos should be adventure choices or paths that may lead to different say rewards as treasure - magical items.

Good and Evil, should be assigned not to persons but rather to places and happenings. Getting exposed to evil should attract negative choices to characters till they could detect and recognize evil and thus be able to face it by following the right choices of good and in the case evil has touched them enough to cause or threaten "damage" they will have to make over it by taking specific quests.

A character class should be choosen along the quest choice and upon accomplishment Experience Points to such a class should be given.

On solo and not party adventures a high wisdom could give a bonus to experience points so that your cleric should face less combats than a fighter to gain a level.

 

[Mirtek]

I much prefer the Chaos vs. Law struggle to the Good vs. Evil struggle.

They says they want to create an unique D&D ID and yet they abolish anything that was unique about D&D and replace it with the plainest run of the mill generic fantasy stuff one can think off.

Come on, good vs. evil? How more non unique and stereotypical can we get? Angels fighting fiends, how refreshing, how surprising, how unique D&D ID

But an archon army stopped from marching to their crusade against the Abyss by an army of eladrins blocking their way because they don't want to stand by while the archons do a crusade that's just as much a crusade against Chaos as a crusade against evil, that's D&D.

When you add the cosmic descriptors of law vs. chaos you can get freakish situations like lawful good knights teaming up with lawful evil devils to crush the chaotic good elves who have teamed up with chaotic evil demons!?!?! I have had conversations like this over the years with folks who actually thought a paladin would prefer a devil's company to that of a pixie because the former was LE and the latter was CG. Insane.

Why? Because it's something new that drastically differs from the other 0815 RPG-Systems out there? Isn't that what it's all about if you want an unique D&D feel?

I have seen a few very good depictions of a struggle between Order and Chaos in fiction (I saw one of the best very recently, actually), but those good depictions have always been "too much ether way is bad, a balance is good", or have utilized other factors to show "in this case Order is bad" or "in this case Chaos is bad".

That's not different with good and evil. Too much good is just as bad to the cosmos as too much evil, the answer is also in the balance (the fanatical LG paladins are as blind to this truth as the lunatic CE destroyers)

Are you seriously telling me that too much love, trust, cooperation, joy, health, happiness, prosperity, generosity and enlightenment is something a sane person would fight against? Are you telling me that someone other than a complete lunatic would work to bring hate, cruelty, ignorance, depravity, suffering, sorrow, pain, greed, etc. to this situation?

YES

What fantasy or mythic archetype exists who is this righteous servant of balance? I would argue that none exist.

So it's a unique D&D thing? Perfect, mission accomplished!!!

In High Fantasy evil is always seen as aberration, as utterly unnatural a corruption of the natural order that is permitted by te powers that be as a natual consequence of free will.

So we should do away with what's unique D&D and turn it into plain old boring standard fantasy? I though the goal was the exact opposite?

Your argument is a D&Dism that can be found in no other context

I forgot, we want to completly slay D&D and then skin it and put something entirely different in it's hide to fool people into thinking they buy D&D and only too late realize that they aren't

In Christianity there is always used an oft spoken statement "You cannot believe in God without believing in the devil." Nonsense. To say this is to make them equivalent cosmic forces when one (Satan/evil) is infinitely inferior to the other (God/good).

And the great and refreshing thing about D&D is that in D&D they are equally valid cosmic forces. Tharizdhun arose at the same time out of the same primordial forces than the good guys. He is not an inferior latecommer who corrupted the rightfull order, he is just as much part of the rightfull order than any of the good guys. As far as the cosmos is concerned the teachings of Good are no more valid than the teachings of evil.

 

[JohnRTroy]

The Law and Chaos axis of D&D is nothing more than Gygax's misinterpretation of Michael Moorcock's "alignment" system. In Moorcock's work there is no cosmological good or evil, there is onlhy law and chaos which, when in balance work out toward the good of all but when out of balance are destructive. Its just the personification of order vs. entropy in Moorcock's vision.

First of, "mis-interpretation" implies that Gygax wasn't trying to put his own spin on things. Did he ever say he was trying to copy that alignment exactly.

Second, before you post with that type of authoritative tone, keep in mind that Gary has written both an Elric story and a Gord story in Moorcock's Multiverse, all approved by Moorcock, so I would think he has a better handle on those stories than you would think.

 

[Spell]

You missed an important part: orcs aren't listed as always evil.

that's a game information that a character wouldn't have access to.
and even if he would, all the better: it reinforces the dilemma, rather than solving it.

 

[Spell]

I have to admit that I like the idea of a primordial Law-Chaos struggle as in Planescape... but I also admit that PS is the only (A)D&D setting, where it was presented as a meaningful and important part of the world

you are forgetting mystara. there was no G-E axis in BECMI

 

[Rel]

I would urge everybody in this thread to remain friendly and steer well clear of discussion of real world religion. I don't wanna have to go all Lawful Neutral on y'all's asses.

 

[Piratecat]

Wyrmshadows, KM - please stay away from personal attacks, religious references, and political references. You guys can discuss this without it turning ugly.

Edit: Woot! Simul-mod!

 

[Dausuul]

The problem with the Lawful and Chaotic alignments has always been that they conflate three different axes of behavior/ideology:

1. Community versus Individual. The Lawful character believes in working within the community and adhering to social norms, even if it means sacrificing one's independence. The Chaotic character believes in maintaining independence and freedom of action, even if it means violating the rules of the community. 3E example: Devils adhere rigidly to the rules of their community and so are Lawful, even though some lack the intelligence to plan ahead and none has any personal code of behavior.

2. Methodical versus Spontaneous. The Lawful character acts in a methodical, organized fashion, trying to have a plan of action for every eventuality. The Chaotic character acts in an improvised, spontaneous fashion, trying to maintain flexibility at all times. 3E example: Barbarians tend to act spontaneously and so cannot be Lawful, even though they may work within their communities and may have clearly defined codes of behavior.

3. Principled versus Adaptive. The Lawful character has a clearly defined code of behavior and tries to uphold it regardless of the situation. The Chaotic character dislikes hard-and-fast rules and believes in adapting one's behavior to the needs of the moment. 3E example: Paladins follow a clearly defined code of behavior and so must be Lawful, even though they may work outside the community and may act in a spontaneous way.

Any one of these three is a perfectly good definition for the Law/Chaos axis and would work quite well in most D&D games. The problem is that D&D tries to use all three at once, which is the cause of most of the arguments as different players (and game designers, for that matter) seize on different aspects of the definitions.

For example, someone who thinks the Law/Chaos axis is about Community versus Individual will conclude that Batman is Chaotic Good, because he acts outside the established order and violates both social norms and the rules of the community. But someone who thinks the Law/Chaos axis is about Principled versus Adaptive will conclude that Batman is Lawful Good, because he has a definite code of behavior and sticks to it. If one of those people is playing a Batman-like character, and the other is the DM, there's going to be some difficulty.

I kind of like the Law/Chaos axis. I think having an extra dimension to alignment produces more variety in the game's cosmology, and I'd really like to see 4E pick one of the above definitions and run with it. Failing that, however, I'd get rid of it entirely. No Law/Chaos axis at all is preferable to the mess we've been stuck with up till now.