Law and Chaos - the predictable and not so predictable
- Thread starter No Name
- Start date
Voadam
Legend
No Name said:
You need a little more depth of info to tell that a selfless martyr devoted to evil is evil?
Isn't the point here that anything done at the expense of the welfare of others is evil.
Selfishness doesn't enter into it unless it is at the expense of others. Selfishness leading to pareto optimal transactions where there is a net gain from the transaction and both parties benefit seems like a vehicle for good.
Selfish good is not an oxymoron nor is selfless evil IMV.
Angel of Adventure
First Post
Per lawful, I don't think that it always means that you tell the (complete) truth, or that you would follow the letter of the law to its fullest. I think lawful characters will use laws, codes of conduct, etc. per their alignment. (Ex: a lawful evil being might be vague, mysterious, and omit info to get their way, but are ever mindful of being caught. LG will stick to the law unless they find it reprehensible for whatever reason, and would definately start with legal means to resolve the problem.)
Per Chaotic, I think a lot revolves around personal freedom and the willingness to go outside normal laws, codes, agreements, etc. to get what you want. A CE type will always seek to use (directly, discreetly, or otherwise) others and aren't afraid to break kneecaps when that solution seems quicker or more likely to succeed (or they are just plain sadistic). CG value their freedom and want it for others to some degree. They will be easier to work with, but won't fret too much about breaking agreements to do the right thing.
Law vs. Chaos = Order vs. Freedom, but you need to consider the positive and negative connotations of each.
-AoA
Per Chaotic, I think a lot revolves around personal freedom and the willingness to go outside normal laws, codes, agreements, etc. to get what you want. A CE type will always seek to use (directly, discreetly, or otherwise) others and aren't afraid to break kneecaps when that solution seems quicker or more likely to succeed (or they are just plain sadistic). CG value their freedom and want it for others to some degree. They will be easier to work with, but won't fret too much about breaking agreements to do the right thing.
Law vs. Chaos = Order vs. Freedom, but you need to consider the positive and negative connotations of each.
-AoA
IMHO the difficulty with alignment is that the axes are reified. The outer planes are REAL embodiments of Law, Chaos, Good, and Evil.
Evil is not a lack of Good, it has real, independent existence. In the same way Chaos is not lack of Law.
Given this, the shades of gray and relative morality we are used to in this world don't (necessarily) apply.
Demons and Devils ARE evil, Archons ARE good, Modrons ARE lawful, and Slaadi ARE chaotic (and since such beings exemplify alignments, are they capable of redemption/fall?)
Detect ____ reveals the reality of the entity's soul (mind? essence?). I suspect the Detect Alignment spells used in the real world would come back blank for most of us, given that we do not embody REAL alignments.
Does any of this make sense?
Evil is not a lack of Good, it has real, independent existence. In the same way Chaos is not lack of Law.
Given this, the shades of gray and relative morality we are used to in this world don't (necessarily) apply.
Demons and Devils ARE evil, Archons ARE good, Modrons ARE lawful, and Slaadi ARE chaotic (and since such beings exemplify alignments, are they capable of redemption/fall?)
Detect ____ reveals the reality of the entity's soul (mind? essence?). I suspect the Detect Alignment spells used in the real world would come back blank for most of us, given that we do not embody REAL alignments.
Does any of this make sense?
Merlion
First Post
I dont think "Law" or "Chaos" should be part of alignment. Of course I guess that depends on how you define "alignment". But to me, the things D&D defines as the "Law" and "Chaos" aspects of alignment are actually just personality traits that should simply be a part of roleplaying a character. Wether you respect authority or dont, or wether you believe in abiding by tradition or not are not to me things that should have mechanical bearing. I guess some would say then thats true of Good and Evil as well, but from a fantasy perspective, and the perspective of most belief systems, those things are of great importance.
Now on a cosmic scale, *Order* and Chaos are powerful fundemental forces, that to me are almost physical...the interactions of matter and energy, entropy all that stuff. I dont really see them as something that plays a great deal of importance in people's behavior or what have you. People may behave in ways that are organized or disorganized predictable or unpredictable, but thats just a matter of personality to me.
This kind of silliness (the fact that in D&D it would be an oxymoron, not your post) are why I dislike the Law/Chaos thing and especially alignment restrictions involving them. Partially because I think you should be able to play any character any way you want, and partially because these things are so silly...take the Monk as another example. Many of the traits atributed to the Monk class could be considered, within the context of how these things are described in D&D, to be either "Lawful" *or* "Chaotic" in many ways. Law and Chaos as D&D defines them, unlike Good and Evil , tend to bleed into each other. Just like, as mentioned by an earlier poster, anarchy among people will generally eventually lead to tyranny.
I dont think theres much point trying to define them in terms of "alignment". Order and Chaos are not really "alignment" concepts.
Now on a cosmic scale, *Order* and Chaos are powerful fundemental forces, that to me are almost physical...the interactions of matter and energy, entropy all that stuff. I dont really see them as something that plays a great deal of importance in people's behavior or what have you. People may behave in ways that are organized or disorganized predictable or unpredictable, but thats just a matter of personality to me.
This kind of silliness (the fact that in D&D it would be an oxymoron, not your post) are why I dislike the Law/Chaos thing and especially alignment restrictions involving them. Partially because I think you should be able to play any character any way you want, and partially because these things are so silly...take the Monk as another example. Many of the traits atributed to the Monk class could be considered, within the context of how these things are described in D&D, to be either "Lawful" *or* "Chaotic" in many ways. Law and Chaos as D&D defines them, unlike Good and Evil , tend to bleed into each other. Just like, as mentioned by an earlier poster, anarchy among people will generally eventually lead to tyranny.
I dont think theres much point trying to define them in terms of "alignment". Order and Chaos are not really "alignment" concepts.
Ogre Mage
Hero
The Law v. Chaos axis has always been a source of confusion and contradiction in D&D. This is one of the reasons I don't like the alignment system. In general, however, I agree with Trickstergod -- the difference between Law and Chaos is "Trusting authority and institutions" and "Distrusting authority and institutions."
No Name, however, also makes a very point -- what does a LG or CG character do when his/her preference for trusting/not trusting authority and institutions (law/chaos) is in conflict with their desire to better the lives of people (good)? The classic example is the LG knight who discovers the laws and rule of the kingdom she has sworn to uphold are in many ways a tyranny. When bedrock principles collide, the PC will have to make some tough choices based on the particular situation and you could justify it either way. One character might maintain her belief that the system works (even if the current ruler and laws don't) and try to work within the system to achieve justice. Another might decide that the current rule of law is a corruption and violation of everything she ever believed and work to overthrow it. I actually think that when LG becomes convinced that the institutions they so cherish are irredeemably corrupted, they can sometimes become the most zealous resistance fighters around.
No Name, however, also makes a very point -- what does a LG or CG character do when his/her preference for trusting/not trusting authority and institutions (law/chaos) is in conflict with their desire to better the lives of people (good)? The classic example is the LG knight who discovers the laws and rule of the kingdom she has sworn to uphold are in many ways a tyranny. When bedrock principles collide, the PC will have to make some tough choices based on the particular situation and you could justify it either way. One character might maintain her belief that the system works (even if the current ruler and laws don't) and try to work within the system to achieve justice. Another might decide that the current rule of law is a corruption and violation of everything she ever believed and work to overthrow it. I actually think that when LG becomes convinced that the institutions they so cherish are irredeemably corrupted, they can sometimes become the most zealous resistance fighters around.
Nifft
Penguin Herder
IMHO:
Law is organized. Lawful people are focused on organizations. LG people serve them, LN people work for them, LE people rule them with an iron fist.
Chaos is individualistic. Chaotic people act based on judgements about individuals. CG people help individuals, CN people look out for themselves, CE people bully others on a case-by-case basis.
A LG Paladin might sacrifice his life for an idea. A CG Ranger might not understand this. However, the CG Ranger might gladly sacrifice his own life to save the life of someone he knew.
If you love "people": LG.
If you love each person: CG.
-- N
Law is organized. Lawful people are focused on organizations. LG people serve them, LN people work for them, LE people rule them with an iron fist.
Chaos is individualistic. Chaotic people act based on judgements about individuals. CG people help individuals, CN people look out for themselves, CE people bully others on a case-by-case basis.
A LG Paladin might sacrifice his life for an idea. A CG Ranger might not understand this. However, the CG Ranger might gladly sacrifice his own life to save the life of someone he knew.
If you love "people": LG.
If you love each person: CG.
-- N
What originally compelled me to post this is my method of character creation. Instead of choosing an alignment and playing to it, I decide how my character will behave and then try to figure out what alignment fits best.
The good/neutral/evil part is pretty easy. Sometimes I'll make a character with an extreme moral alignment and give them a "special interest group" which gets preferential treatment in the opposite direction (like I'm sure everyone else has done at some point). For example, the "good" guy who absolutely hates orcs, and will go to great lengths to get rid of them. Or the "evil" guy who has a soft spot for children, and would do them no harm under any condition.
The issue came up with a new character and his behavior. New campaign, starting at 5th level. I wanted a level of rogue to signify growing up on the streets, and then 4 levels of monk. The city he grew up in would be rife with corruption, unscrupulous merchants, lawmen, nobility and such at every turn. Because of this, he would have a deep distrust for those in power. But then I wondered how I could justify that as lawful. He could learn honor, discipline, and honesty from the monks, but is that enough?
So I thought I could blend lawful with a little chaos similar to the way I do the moral alignments. But isn't that neutral? I came to the conclusion that alignment doesn't really matter, and then remembered spells and how they affect certain alignments.
Of course, this is just a game. Maybe I shouldn't put so much thought into it. But it's also a fun hobby and a big interest of mine. I've listened to friends talk for hours about football strategy and so on, so my interest in this really isn't any different.
Perhaps the wise ones at ENWorld could point me to enlightenment.
The good/neutral/evil part is pretty easy. Sometimes I'll make a character with an extreme moral alignment and give them a "special interest group" which gets preferential treatment in the opposite direction (like I'm sure everyone else has done at some point). For example, the "good" guy who absolutely hates orcs, and will go to great lengths to get rid of them. Or the "evil" guy who has a soft spot for children, and would do them no harm under any condition.
The issue came up with a new character and his behavior. New campaign, starting at 5th level. I wanted a level of rogue to signify growing up on the streets, and then 4 levels of monk. The city he grew up in would be rife with corruption, unscrupulous merchants, lawmen, nobility and such at every turn. Because of this, he would have a deep distrust for those in power. But then I wondered how I could justify that as lawful. He could learn honor, discipline, and honesty from the monks, but is that enough?
So I thought I could blend lawful with a little chaos similar to the way I do the moral alignments. But isn't that neutral? I came to the conclusion that alignment doesn't really matter, and then remembered spells and how they affect certain alignments.
Of course, this is just a game. Maybe I shouldn't put so much thought into it. But it's also a fun hobby and a big interest of mine. I've listened to friends talk for hours about football strategy and so on, so my interest in this really isn't any different.
Perhaps the wise ones at ENWorld could point me to enlightenment.
Similar Threads
