Law and Chaos - the predictable and not so predictable

[Snapdragyn]

Yet when I imagine barbarian tribes, steeped in traditions handed down over generations, working together for survival, I can't apply the general chaotic definition. The same applies to elves, who are often referred to as mildly chaotic.

Well, part of this is the fun terminology of D&D, where a class bears a term more properly used for certain cultures. Replace 'barbarian' (the class) with 'berserker', & 'barbarian' (the culture) with 'primitive', 'nature-based', 'nomadic', or any of a host of other terms, & there's much less difficulty in considering the chaotic raging berserker who hails from a lawful, tradition-bound, tribe of nomads.

For elves, I would guess that D&D originally slapped the chaotic label on them to match historical myths & stories, then went barreling along its own path of cultural tradition headlong into conceptual dissonance.

 

[Nifft]

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?

Here's how I'd play it: he's ABSOLUTELY loyal to his order. He knows that greater society is flawed, and he gives 'em the finger. He has found a home he's willing to kill to defend, and people who are honorable and treat him well. He loves his organization. He's LN.

(If he's actively seeking to increase his organization's influence for Good reasons, like to police the streets in place of corrupt watchmen, he may be tending towards LG. If he's actively seeking to increase his organization's influence for Evil reasons, well, then more towards LE.)

-- N

 

[Zappo]

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.

He doesn't really mix good and evil into it. I think he says that a balance between Law and Chaos is a good thing, and that preponderance of either is bad (and can eventually cause the end of the world as we know it). In Elric's saga, the world is very heavily tilted towards Chaos. So Chaos looks evil and law looks good, in the sense that a Good person would favor Law because that improves the balance and an Evil person would favor Chaos because it has more power. But there are other worlds where Law rules, and they aren't much better; Elric even visits a couple IIRC and they are stagnant places. They aren't just boring, they are outright dead. I bet that the people in those lifeless geometric plains, if there were any and they were sane, would really like to have Arioch come down for a visit.

 

[Aeric]

Many people make the assumption that to be Lawful means to be law-abiding, an understandable mistake since that's what the definition of the word is. It all goes back to Moorcock and his terminology. A better name for Law would be Order. Orderly Good just doesn't have the same ring to it, though.... Methodic Good? Systematic Good? Hrm.

In any case, you're right in your assessment of the alignment. Lawful people are simply more likely to be law-abiding, since they are naturally organized and a code of laws provides the framework which they need for their lives. Unless they are LN, however, they will be more influenced by their morals than their ethics. A Lawful Evil person should have no problem breaking the law to achieve his goals--just look at how many LE crime lords there are! The same holds true for a Lawful Good person, the only difference being their goals (selfish vs. selfless).

Lawful characters are less likely to try a different approach to problem solving, however, since that involves leaving their comfort zone. "Thinking outside the box" shouldn't come easy to Lawful characters.

In a Lawful Good or Lawful Neutral society, the laws are in place to protect the people from themselves. In a Lawful Evil society, the laws are in place to make the overlords rich and powerful at the expense of the people (although it could be argued that the progenitors of a LE society honestly believed that harsh rules were the best way to protect the people from themselves). A Lawful character of a moral alignment opposite of a society's moral alignment chafes at the regulations and would be more likely to break the law while there.

 

[CronoDekar]

Personally I think it's important to consider that lawfulness require "lawfulness" to institutions they think are important, not all institutions. Often this is actual law, but it can also be something like a knight order, family, a code of ethics, or even an isolated, but clearly devoted and organized rebel group with its own system of codes that hates everything and everyone else. There's also no reason they can't consider one more significant than the other (LG people will probably find "good" more important than "the kingdom").

Not that chaotic people can't find institutions important, just IMO that they have a different mindset. They may truely respect their chosen institution and still be devoted to the people in it, but they tend to view the others not as "a group they consider important" so much as "individuals who happen to act as a group who they consider important." It's hard to really say in words -- it's one of those understandings I have that's more intuitive to me than explicit.

I say there needs to be discussion about other traits listed on the sheet! Say my character is 5'1", what does that really mean?

 

[fusangite]

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?

This last bit certainly does.

I think another significant problem is that the Law-Chaos alignment chart posits the idea that the rule of law and individual liberty vary inversely with one another. But we know from real world experience that the reverse is true. Countries where the rule of law is most consistent and valued are those that have the most personal freedom not the least. The problem with D&D alignment is that it can't reliably register whether enshrining a bill of rights is a lawful or chaotic act.

 

[ARandomGod]

Law and Chaos.

One thing I think is important when considering this axis is that Law is an aspect of Chaos. Chaos, in it's infinite complexity created Law.

There are many different *types* of Law, many different rules-sets. This is a difficult concept to encompas if you're OF Law, because each Law likes to think that it's the only one.

Law is stability. Law without chaos leads to stagnation and eventual death.

Chaos is creativity and change. Chaos without Law leads to dissolution and death.

Chaos routinely spawns different law-sets within itself (IE people think up new laws), and some of those live, some of those die. Law has a survival instinct. The Chaos that spawned it will eventually tear it apart, so in order to live the Law has to fight off Chaos. The stronger ones live on, the weaker ones are quickly torn apart and made into something different.

Therefore I see the Law and Chaos axis as really about variable amounts of Chaos. The very Lawful have only one bit of (usually older) chaos that has formed into a rigid structure, Law. Law is needed to survive, it's stability is comforting. It's strength supports life.

Chaotics hold a LOT of chaos. They change often, or as the whim strikes them. Even they, however, must cling to Lawful support structures, for without those there is nothing to define them, nothing but dissolution. Every living thing is a function of Law. But in order for it to grow, to change, to excell it needs to incorporate some of the fires of chaos. Indeed, simple reproduction is a tiny bit of chaos introduced (and almost always accomodated for) in Law.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The problem with D&D alignment is that it can't reliably register whether enshrining a bill of rights is a lawful or chaotic act.

Actually, it does that very well. It's called Neutrality.

Lawful people want it because it codifies exactly what liberties are allowed - and, importantly, also designates those which are not. A better bill of rights would likely be far-reaching, much more detailed, and less subject to individual whim (like, say, that of judges who interpret it), but they'll take what they can get.

Chaotic people want it because it expressly limits what outside interference is allowed in their lives. A better bill of rights would likely be more general and up to the interpretation of individuals so entrusted, but they'll take what they can get.

Active Neutral people want it because there are rights that they value, and those which they don't, and they realize that there's a healthy balance between codifying exactly how something must work and leaving certain things up to individual interpretation. That way, future generations are not entirely bound by the writings of people hundreds, if not thousands, of years in the past, and individual interpretation has some healthy limits on it. A better bill of rights would be one that more actively promotes the rights they value and leaves aside those they don't, but they'll take what they can get.

Passively Neutral people don't care so long as whatever bill of rights gets enacted doesn't bother them too much, while keeping the neighbors in check.

 

[Voadam]

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?


Perhaps the wise ones at ENWorld could point me to enlightenment.

That is enough. Honor, discipline, and honesty are enough to plausibly justify a lawful alignment. Now go meditate.

Of course the answer actually depends on your particular DM and his interpretation of alignment and its place in his game. But a character who was a street rogue and then found discipline and puspose in a monastery but still distrusts political authority seems like a fine character concept.

 

[fusangite]

Actually, it does that very well. It's called Neutrality...

So, people who fight effectively for freedom (ie. seek freedom for their society and get it) are neutral whereas people who fight ineffectually for freedom (ie. seek freedom for their society but cannot impose governance structures that guarantee it) are chaotic? Furthermore, you're only able to actually offer this "fix" to the alignment system by adding a third (passive-active) axis to the system. Sorry but your attempt to make the system appear clear and sensible here just makes it look more obviously broken and in need of house-ruling.