Law vs. Chaos - the forgotten conflict

[Lord Zardoz]

My own thoughts on this

Good and Evil are very 'elemental' concepts to people. They are very easily understood and conveyed. Law and Chaos, on the other hand, are much harder to convey, for one specific reason:

In a Good vs Evil fight, no one wants evil to win. In Law vs Chaos, it really can vary. Here are my own explanations, and as a disclaimer, I am not a Philosopher.

First Chaos.

Chaos is usually defined in D&D as preferring disorder over order, preferring change over keeping things the same. Following impulse rather than discipline, a distrust for authority and breaking rules rather than following them. And it often means failing to worry about consequences. These are obvious, but not exactly too helpful. I would also say that within the context of D&D, choosing Chaos over Law means choosing ones self over society at large. It means determining right and wrong for yourself, rather then letting someone else tell you what is right and what is wrong. It means considering the situation at hand in its own context, and only in its own context. I would also say that a Chaotic type is probably not going to be punctual. The matter at hand is always going to be more important than what will happen later.

A Chaotic villain is one who is likely to be impulsive, and selfish. They will go ahead and eat the last bit of food because they are hungry, and to hell with everyone else. Impatience is not always a given, but they are likely to make a snap decision and act on it immediately. They are also going to be very direct in their actions. If you wrong him, he wont spend a day figuring out how to get back at you. He will attack immediately. If he wants something, he will take it, unless you make him unable to do so. He will obey orders that he agrees with, but that is about it.

A Chaotic hero is one who will not let the rules get in the way of doing what is right. If they can help, they will do so immediately. They are confident in their cause because they are confident in themselves. They do not keep score. If they help you, you do not owe them. They are also the sort who will attend protests, and are going to be very, very vocal. They will also be very forgiving. If you can convince them you have given up your wicked ways, they will vouch for you.

And now Law.

In D&D, Law is all about order, authority, discipline, and tradition. It is the rules that individuals submit themselves to to create a society. You either feel an obligation to the one who leads you or to the ones who follow you. You might be submitting to the general will of society, but could also be more narrowly defined. Whatever it is, it is something you will hold as being more important than you yourself are. Generally, you will not take it upon yourself to determine right and wrong. When making a decision, you will consider what was done before, and what the effects on the long term will be. You will hold your self to a set of laws and rules because of your belief that those laws and rules are righteous.

A Lawful villain is one that that exploits the laws of their society to suit their aims. The tyrant dictator is a classic archetype. A judge following the dictates of a law that clearly should not be applied is another. If a Lawful villain is wronged, they are likely to plan out their revenge. They will hold a grudge. Despite this, they will typically obey orders. They feel justified in what their doing because either the rules they play by allow for it, or they are outright ordered to do it. They will take great glee when the rules are on their side, but they will be greatly dismayed when their own rules work against them.

A Lawful hero is one that will try to do things within the rules. They have a personal sense of honor, and will do the right thing even when it causes them great harm. Their worst enemy could be endangered, and they will risk their life trying to save theirs. They do not have to like what they are doing in order to do their duty. If he owes you, he will repay you. If he makes a promise, he will keep it.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[marune]

Renaming Law to Order would probably help a lot.

I've run a LARP during 5 years where the two only religions* were law-based and chaos-based (the real alignements of both gods was a un-solved mystery).

It's was pretty fun to see good and bad followers of the same deity "dealing" with each others.

I have to try it in a D&D homebrew one day.

*A neutral one was discovered later.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Ah, so your problem isn't that it presented the Shadows as bad, but that it didn't also present the Vorlons as bad? I can get behind that.

Yeah, I thought the big reveal as mutual bad guys was pretty much brushed under the rug because it was easier, and that disapointed me.

However, this leads me back to the main topic...

I think it's almost impossible to have a pure LvC storyline, because neither Law nor Chaos are innately harmful. Unlike good and evil, there's no inherent reason to support one over the other.

Law and chaos become problematic only when they pursue their nature to a harmful degree. Law stifles growth and creativity; chaos causes destruction and violence. But guess what? In both cases, those problems arise because the methods of the law or chaos in question become evil--and thus we're back to at least a partly GvE conflict, rather than a pure LvC one.

The only real way for a story to focus on LvC, without bringing GvE into it, is to pit Lawful Evil vs Chaotic Evil (such as the Shadows vs Vorlons was, at least at one point). Anything else will, by definition, eventually return, at least in part, to GvE.

I agree that this is the case in terms of human (and living in general) storylines. Which is why if I wanted to play up a LvC world it would be on a cosmological level. My theory is this - the fundemental differences between good and evil are differences related to living, feeling beings. It's about suffering, helping, hurting, loving, healing, etc. In a universe with no "life" there is no possibility of discussing GvE, it has nothing to demonstrate itself on. However, LvC can exist at a cosmological level before anything sentient even exists. They are capable of being the primal forces of a universe, with forces of structure and entropy fighting each other.

And what do we call the neutral margin between a plane of law and a plane of chaos? We call that the material plane, the balance of both that is capable of supporting life. Also the front line of the fundemental cosmic struggle.

Then we have some mechanics fun representing it. (well, fun from my perspective.)

 

[MerricB]

My favourite Law vs. Chaos books are the Time Master Trilogy by Louise Cooper, and the other books in the same world. In Moorcock, you often get the feeling that Law=good and Chaos=bad; in Cooper, you get that reversed to excellent effect.

Cheers!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

On Moorcock:

If you read the entire Eternal Champion Cycle (Elric, Hawkmoon, Corum, Jerry Cornelius, etc.), you get a FEAST of Law vs Chaos...AND you see that it isn't Law=Good, Chaos=Bad, either.

At the extremes, you find that Law's ultimate goal is unchanging order. No more creativity, no more innovation. The obliteration of time. Utter stagnation in a single, unchanging now. Meanwhile, Chaos embraces change for change's sake, so there can be no stability, no meaningful planning for the future. Uncertainty in all things.

Neither sounds particularly appetizing.

Part of why the first take on Law vs Chaos in Moorcock's work seems to be Law=Good, Chaos=Bad is that the classic series that nearly everyone reads- the Elric stories- is centered around one of Chaos' strongest diciples...but he's rebelling against the faith of his upbringing because Chaos is taking everything he loves away from him. His society is so thoroughly inured in the most corrupting forms of Chaos (as is the chief human rival state of Pan Tang) that of course Law seems Good in comparison. It isn't until later stories that the bad side of Law is revealed.

 

[Felix]

My favorite beings of Law are the Auditors of Reality from Terry Pratchett's Discworld series. The idea that these villains are malicious because life is messy and creates messy paperwork is a priceless part of the Discworld cannon.

It makes sense then that Death usually works against the Auditors as death is representative of change.

So for literary Law v Chaos, perhaps this works for you?

Although Death is usually upholding THE RULES, so perhaps you're looking at a LE v LN fight here. Perhaps because change and chaos are part of THE RULES, a LN type would defend Chaos from a LE who wanted to wipe change out?

 

[Bad Paper]

When was the last time we saw a published product primarily devoted to Law vs. Chaos?

Bastion of Broken Souls was published in 2002. That makes it five years. The entire thing, from the MacGuffin driving the plot to the meeting with part 1's jailer, is easily viewed through Law (or absence of chaos) =bad, Chaos (or absence of law) =better. Heck, this is going to be the core conflict in one or two of my RP dialogues.

please refrain from posting spoilers for BoBS

My party has just finished wiping out the first creature's lair, hasn't even gone for a chat at the Guild of S____. One of the players surfs ENWorld regularly, and I fully expect him to show up in this thread.

I think it's almost impossible to have a pure LvC storyline, because neither Law nor Chaos are innately harmful. Unlike good and evil, there's no inherent reason to support one over the other.

whaaa?? um. I take it you are a staunch advocate of the lawful-good Nanny State? Not everyone would agree with you, and sadly, politics are forbidden fruit around here.

oh, and I think Bab5 did just fine in drawing out that the Vorlons weren't any "better" than the Shadows. What was Sheridan's get-out-of-our-galaxy speech about, anyway?

 

[The Lost Muse]

The law vs. chaos conflict is present in a good deal of Monte cooks work - I'm thinking particularly of Chaositech and Ptolus, although there is certainly a bit of chaos=bad in there as well.

 

[TheCrazyMuffinMan]

The law vs. chaos conflict is present in a good deal of Monte cooks work - I'm thinking particularly of Chaositech and Ptolus, although there is certainly a bit of chaos=bad in there as well.

If any of you want, I MIGHT (big might) start a lawful campaign in the future, where unlikely allies try to put down an uprising that may collapse whatever region I decide to put it in.

Edit: Or a chaotic campaign where the party is part of a major rebellion.

We honestly could use more of those.

 

[Mouseferatu]

whaaa?? um. I take it you are a staunch advocate of the lawful-good Nanny State? Not everyone would agree with you, and sadly, politics are forbidden fruit around here.

Um, what? No, not at all.

What I said is that neither is innately harmful. Law is not inherently good or bad; chaos is not inherently good or bad. Too much law or bad laws--or too much chaos and disorder--are bad. Yes, there's some disagreement on what "too much" means, but that doesn't change the truth of the underlying statement.

"Too much" law or "too much" chaos, however, invariably results in the discovery that they have crossed the line into "evil." Oppressive laws are evil, not just "excessively lawful." Wanton destruction is evil, not just chaotic. Thus, once either law or chaos becomes something that must be fought, it is has crossed the line into a "good vs. evil" conflict.