Law vs. Chaos - the forgotten conflict

[rogueattorney]

Anyone who claims to be a D&D fan, really needs to read Three Hearts and Three Lions (1953) by Poul Anderson. It is the source of alignment in D&D (and the Law v. Chaos battles in Moorcock), as well as the primary inspiration for the paladin and the D&D troll.

Relevant quote:

Holger got the idea that a perpetual struggle went on between primeval forces of Law and Chaos. No, not forces exactly. Modes of existence? A terrestrial reflection of the spiritual conflict between heaven and hell? In any case, humans were the chief agents on earth of Law, though most of them were so only unconsciously and some, witches and warlocks and evildoers, had sold out to Chaos. A few nonhuman beings also stood for Law. Ranged against them were almost the whole Middle World, which seemed to include realms like Faerie, Trollheim, and the Giants--an actual creation of Chaos. Wars among men, such as the long-drawn struggle between the Saracens and the Holy Empire, aided Chaos; under Law all men would live in peace and order and that liberty which only Law could give meaning. But this was so alien to the Middle Worlders that they were forever working to prevent it and extend their own shadowy dominion.

I think the Law v. Chaos is externally civilization v. barbarism and internally the rational v. the irrational.

 

[Felix]

I think the Law v. Chaos is externally civilization v. barbarism and internally the rational v. the irrational.

Organization doesn't define Law or Chaos, so I dislike your civilization v barbarism idea. Similarly, Chaos doesn't necessitate irrational.

What is the Morality of Law? The Whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Individuals are not worth fighting for, but the society they make up is. Peace is virtuous not because it allows individuals to lead unaccosted lives, but because it allows the society to grow and develop unaccosted. The individual should sacrifice himself to protect the group.

What is the Morality of Chaos? The Individual is equal to the Whole. Society should not be protected for itself, but rather those individuals who are at risk should protect themselves, and others should help out of enlightened self-interest. Peace is virtuous because it allows the individual to be creative without interruption. The whole should not be a consideration when deciding to protect an individual.

With these mores, Barbarous lawful societies are possible; Rational Chaotic cities possible; and of course the traditional chaotic orc hordes and lawful empire armies.

Which is more interesting? Chaos pigeonholed as barbarous and irrational? Or allowing the possibility that Chaos has virtues of its own that a civilized, rational individual might choose after much forethought?

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

Someone posted an idea a while back for a game world in which the only two deities were Wee Jas and Erythnul, with Law vs. Chaos as the overarching theme. Wee Jas represents stifling civilized society, which is so stifling because as soon as things start to slip out from control, the forces of chaos and slaughter are there to tear their way in through the weak points.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

In order to do a Law vs Chaos themed campaign right, you have to be able to present it in such a way that the players end up deciding who are the villains. And while harder to pull off than a Good vs Evil campaign, it can be more rewarding. The tricky thing is to avoid setting one side up as a straw man, which just ends up being a Good vs Evil campaign with some name swapping. It is even harder to do if you set up both sides of the conflict as being legitimately Good.

Lawful Evil vs Chaotic Evil Campaign Idea:
A totalitarian regime that had been enslaving cannibalistic Orcs is attacked by the cannibalistic Orcs. Do the players end the slavery or prevent non combatants from being eaten by assisting in the enslavement of a sentient race.

Lawful Good vs Chaotic Good Idea:
An expanding but just kingdom is stricken by a disease which will cause the deaths of thousands. A cure can be made from the ashes of an immortal species of tree which is held to be sacred by a local fringe religion. These trees cannot reproduce. Do the players try to cure a dangerous but otherwise mundane plague, or do they destroy something obviously sacred and irreplacible?

it took me about 15 minutes to come up with Lawful Good vs Chaotic Good situation that did not seem like an outright strawman to me, and even the one I came up with is reasonably lame.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Bad Paper]

Law is not inherently good or bad; [C]haos is not inherently good or bad.

...and Good is not inherently good or bad, and Evil is not inherently good or bad. Seriously.

The game tends to equate Good with selflessness, and Evil with selfishness. Thus, Good does not mean good.

Example:
Dan and Ari are very hungry. Dan is holding a loaf of bread. The 100% Good thing for Dan to do is to hand the loaf to Ari. The 100% Evil thing for Dan to do is to eat the whole thing. Note that the Evil choice does not include melting the skin from Ari's face, or doing any harm to him whatsoever, and that the Good choice does not necessarily minimize the total amount of hunger, or solve any long-term problems at all.

The Lawful choice is for Dan to establish an agreement whereby Ari and Dan somehow share the resource of bread, establishing a resource-sharing agreement to mutual benefit (though each can make an intelligence check to tilt the long-term odds in each's favor, with Dan getting a hefty circumstance bonus for owning the resource at the time). The Chaotic choice is...unclear. I don't think I can state "the" Chaotic choice, since that implies a uniformity to Chaotic behavior. These choices could be a) dropping the loaf on the ground and saying, "let's wrestle," or b) throwing the loaf in the air and punching Ari in the stomach, or c) handing half of the loaf to Ari, or d) setting the loaf on fire, ....

Thus, Mouseferatu, all your post really does is argue against excess, that is, for balance. You would make an excellent druid.

Law/Chaos is a different spectrum for a reason, and yes, too much of either can be just as bad as too much Good or Evil.

"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."

There is, always has been, and always will be, a continuum of behavior across as many dimensions as legislators can invent. Laws are weapons used to demarcate criminal behavior: "this is acceptable, and that over there is not." But the line where the law is placed is arbitrary, and it also shifts over time.

Laws are not oppressive based on how many there are, or what they say, but because of whom they exclude. Since the spectrum of all behavior is continuous, the discrete placement of a law is going to unnaturally affect people's continuous, non-discrete behavior. An excessive network of laws can easily criminalize the entire populace, giving rise to selective enforcement, and all the issues (Evil/Good) that come with that, e.g. selectively busting someone because of race is generally Evil, but selectively busting Al Capone for tax evasion was generally seen as Good.

The problem of "too much law" will harry citizens into a state of constant fear and worry, just as bad as "too much chaos" or "too much good" or "too much evil." A government that steals your second-born and gives it to a childless couple is still Lawful Good, and a society that flat-out leaves you alone is still Chaotic Evil. It's all in the flavor.

 

[Felix]

Though the idea that Evil isn't necessarily bad has merit, your metaphor is entrely deficient.

Dan and Ari are very hungry. Dan is holding a loaf of bread.

Ok.

The 100% Good thing for Dan to do is to hand the loaf to Ari.

Not necessarily. Suppose Ari has just now mugged Phil for his loaf and wolfed it down; Ari now slavers looking at Dan's loaf. Giving it to him would not necessarily be 100% Good.

The 100% Evil thing for Dan to do is to eat the whole thing.

Nonsense. Think of the Little Red Hen; she does all the work; will she not in the end reap the reward? Though giving may be Good, not giving is not synonymous with Evil.

The Lawful choice is for Dan to establish an agreement whereby Ari and Dan somehow share the resource of bread, establishing a resource-sharing agreement to mutual benefit.

A Lawful reaction to "2 people, 1 loaf" would be to divide it evenly, given that both contributed to the loaf's creation. Alternatively, another Lawful solution might be for Ari to take Dan's loaf as Government Loaf Collector, give him in return a "Coupon Redeemable For 1 Loaf in the Future".

The Chaotic choice is...unclear. I don't think I can state "the" Chaotic choice, since that implies a uniformity to Chaotic behavior. These choices could be a) dropping the loaf on the ground and saying, "let's wrestle," or b) throwing the loaf in the air and punching Ari in the stomach, or c) handing half of the loaf to Ari, or d) setting the loaf on fire, ....

You left out "Dan does what he wants because it's Dan's bread and Ari has no claim to Dan's property".

But there would be as many Lawful responses to the situation as there are Chaotic; as there are Evil; as there are Good. Lawful may mean uniform and rigid, but that doesn't mean there aren't myriad ways to be rigid and uniform.

At any rate, the point was that while a metaphor is supposed to simplify a problem and refine the essence of the disagreement, yours simplified the situation beyond the point of usefulness.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

it took me about 15 minutes to come up with Lawful Good vs Chaotic Good situation that did not seem like an outright strawman to me, and even the one I came up with is reasonably lame.

Pre-crime? Lawful beliefs could favor a deterministic future stance (perfect knowlege of the present = perfect knowlege of the future, someone who is stopped before the crime is just as guilty as someone caught after), while chaotic could embrace a more fluid future (if they could be stopped before the crime by talking them out of it, or stopping the bar fight he was gonna snap in before it happened, why stop them by arresting them for something they didn't do?).

Possibly just as lame, but it would be interesting to have divinations which appeared either fixed or fluid depending on the alignment of the caster....

 

[Kahuna Burger]

You left out "Dan does what he wants because it's Dan's bread and Ari has no claim to Dan's property".

was that meant as another chaotic option? Sounds quite lawful to me.

 

[Felix]

was that meant as another chaotic option? Sounds quite lawful to me.

If Chaotic morality's fundament is Individual Over All, then Dan has no obligation to Ari as part of a society and Ari has no claim over something he did not produce, assuming property rights that supported the individual's claim to his product. In this case you have rules, laws, that are supporting a Chaotic ideal; would not the end result be Chaotic? This would allow Chaotic civilization, Chaotic philosophy, and Chaotic organizations. Chaos would become a viable alternative to an educated, intelligent, thoughtful philosopher who was choosing between Law and Chaos as a guiding star.

Or does the presence of any law whatsoever rubber-stamp something as Lawful? Because if it does, then all Chaos becomes is the absence of Rules. As most complex thoughts follow some pattern of logic (and boy does that have rules), then Chaos reduces to non-logical thinking. Instinct, maybe. Impulse. They may have their place in Chaos, but I'd hate for it to be the totality.

 

[Mouseferatu]

...and Good is not inherently good or bad, and Evil is not inherently good or bad. Seriously.

The game tends to equate Good with selflessness, and Evil with selfishness. Thus, Good does not mean good.

"Tends to." Not "universally does so."

I fundamentally, wholeheartedly, and absolutely reject any notion that there's such a thing as "too much good." If "good" becomes harmful, it is no longer "good," by definition. A certain degree of selfishness is not only not evil, but necessary for survival. Only when it crosses the line does selfishness become evil. Where that line is debatable, sure, but it exists nonetheless.

Law and chaos require a balance for goodness to thrive. Good and evil do not. Certain things are good, period. Certain things are evil, period. The former are to be sought; the latter are to be avoided or halted.

The same cannot be said, intrinsically, of law and chaos. Law and chaos must be balanced; again, where that balance lies is debatable, but the need for that balance (I believe) isn't. The proper amount of law and chaos is good; the improper amount is evil.

And no, I'd make a terrible druid (in the older edition sense, which you seem to be using). I do not believe that true evil--and I mean evil, not just "selfishness" or "not doing good"--has any right or need to exist, or should be tolerated.