Law and Chaos - the predictable and not so predictable

[No Name]

Good and evil (and neutral) seem to be easily measured on a scale of selfishness. Good's blanket of concern covers almost everyone. Evil loves the self and little else (perhaps the evil one's children or spouse would garner some concern). And neutral falls in the middle with care for friends, family, possibly coworkers of some sort, but strangers usually don't make the list.

But what of law and chaos? I can't imagine lawful means following rules and traditions, especially if someone is lawful good and the laws in question are clearly detrimental. For example, a king could declare all water in his land to be owned by the nobility, making collecting rainwater an illegal act. If changing such a law within the system is not possible, and people must pay high prices for water or die of thirst, should a paladin save the common people by breaking that law? The player could defend such an action by claiming that the moral alignment comes first (Good Lawful instead of Lawful Good).

I think a better way is to define Lawful as predictability and consistency. The times I've thought of friends and wondered if this friend or that friend had a D&D alignment, what would it be; guess which friends always get chaotic. The ones with nearly unpredictable behavior. The friends I often don't want to be around because of such behavior. That does remind me of DMs who will allow LE but not CN. Just like friends that have predictable reactions. They may not always make the best decisions, but there is some comfort in knowing what to expect.

Anyway, just some random thoughts. Make use of it if you find it interesting, discard it if you don't.

 

[Beale Knight]

I look at Lawful as Orderly, people that are most comfortable with routines and established methods and fitting in. Neutrals on the Law-Chaos axis chaffe at that a little, but aren't the wild or fiercely independent types that I see as Chaotic.

Good/Neutral/Evil I like to describe with the kitten analogy:

When seeing a kitten stuck in a tree...
Good says, "we have to go and save it."
Neutral says, "sux to be him. So what were we talking about?"
Evil says, "let's throw rocks at it!"

 

[FireLance]

My personal take on Law and Chaos is simply that Law wants rules, Chaos doesn't want rules, and Neutral wants rules for some things and not for others.

A person's Good-Evil axis will determine what rules he wants or will tolerate. Lawful Good people want rules that encourage Good behavior, will respect inconvenient but non-evil rules, and will not tolerate rules that promote Evil. So yeah, a paladin should break an Evil law to save people, and shouldn't suffer any penalties for it. Of course, if he has a good chance of success, he should also attempt to change the Evil law as soon as possible through the proper legal process.

 

[Thanee]

Of course, if he has a good chance of success, he should also attempt to change the Evil law as soon as possible through the proper legal process.

Like smiting the evil king!

Bye
Thanee

 

[Hand of Evil]

For me LAW is more Structured, following a detailed set of rules/laws, such as physics, logic, etc. CHAOS is Malleable, ever-changing due to outside influences and forces.

 

[Turanil]

When I see the treatment given to Law - Chaos by Moorcock, that also mixes aspects of good vs. evil, I think that he didn't do it very well, and that indeed it's difficult to describe very well.

We could say: Chaos it's individuality as it's paroxism, with one doing whatever he wants to do beyond any constraint, including the constraints of nature (physical laws). This leads to anarchy, and then tyranny when the strongest rules. Now Moorcock also suggests it leads likewise to boredom. On the contrary, law beyond the physical laws of nature quickly run toward another sort of tyranny in the lack of freedom.

Well, this is an interesting subject that needs to be discussed. Hope there will be many posts and some arguing!

 

[fusangite]

Good and evil (and neutral) seem to be easily measured on a scale of selfishness. Good's blanket of concern covers almost everyone. Evil loves the self and little else (perhaps the evil one's children or spouse would garner some concern). And neutral falls in the middle with care for friends, family, possibly coworkers of some sort, but strangers usually don't make the list.

I agree -- this seems to be exactly the lines on which D&D organizes alignment. It makes the alignment system pretty incompatible with Taoism and other ideologies that suggest that political action is dangerous or hubristic.

I think a better way is to define Lawful as predictability and consistency. The times I've thought of friends and wondered if this friend or that friend had a D&D alignment, what would it be; guess which friends always get chaotic. The ones with nearly unpredictable behavior. The friends I often don't want to be around because of such behavior. That does remind me of DMs who will allow LE but not CN. Just like friends that have predictable reactions. They may not always make the best decisions, but there is some comfort in knowing what to expect.

I think this is as good a way as any of dealing with the semi-coherence of the D&D alignment system. If there is anything every D&D GM has in common, it's that we all house-rule alignment -- even those of us who don't admit we are doing so.

 

[Voadam]

Good and evil (and neutral) seem to be easily measured on a scale of selfishness. Good's blanket of concern covers almost everyone. Evil loves the self and little else (perhaps the evil one's children or spouse would garner some concern). And neutral falls in the middle with care for friends, family, possibly coworkers of some sort, but strangers usually don't make the list.

I disagree that selfishness is a good basis for viewing good and evil.

A selfless martyr who is willing devote everything including his life and soul for his evil master is not good because his values place others and his cause over himself. He is still evil even though he is not selfish.

On the other side merchants seeking profits are not evil because they seek profits.

 

[Trickstergod]

I generally chalk up Law and Chaos as a matter of "Trusting authority and institutions" and "Distrusting authority and institutions."

Chaotic individuals can have codes, discipline, and even predictability.

What sets them apart, though, is that they have little trust in groups. They'll form personal bonds, but are reticent about forming impersonal ones - they might trust a specific knight, but hold nobility on the whole in suspicion. A chaotic individual can work within or support government and organizations, but strongly believe in accountability.

Conversely, a lawful individual firmly believes in authority and the system. They might not like certain policies or trust certain leaders but, in general, believe that things would be far worse without the institutions in place. A lawful individual can engage in a revolution, but it will be orchestrated by already having people ready to step into leadership positions once it's finished.

I also see that tying into stability and change; lawfulness prefers stability and won't risk a change for the better unless it's nearly guaranteed, whereas chaotic, err..ness...is more willing to risk change, even when there's a good chance it might be a change for the worse.

As I see it, that makes for a more reasonable model of law and chaos than some presentations. It allows for the blindly lawful or the impulsively whacked out chaotic while letting in more believable presentations of both.

 

[Orius]

Hope there will be many posts and some arguing!

It's an alignment thread. Many posts and arguing is a given.