Law vs. Chaos - the forgotten conflict

[Mouseferatu]

Spoken like a true Neutral Good believer.

Why thank you.

Seriously, I don't know if I'd say I'm personally NG--I've never gotten that result on any alignment quizzes, for what little they're worth. But NG is the alignment to which I would aspire, were I to truly break down the world into alignment terms.

 

[s.j. bagley]

well, 'law vs. chaos' is much more interesting to me.
'evil' and 'good' tend to get boring real quick, as do discussions about them.

 

[Kaodi]

For the record, why compare law vs. chaos to right vs. left (which is a terrible comparison, even when only symbolic) when we have the much underused (coincidence?) second political axis, authoritarian vs. libertarian? Authoritarianism leans towards law, and libertarianism leans towards chaos, though in my opinion it would be a terribly incorrect simplification to equate any of them to their natural counterpart, because, as philosophical positions, there is a lot of wiggle room for why one might adopt them.

We all know that too much authoritarianism can lead to evil in a big way (Hitler and Stalin), and it is pretty clear that too much libertarianism (pure law of the jungle, do whatever the hell you have the strength to do) would be pretty nasty and barbaric too.

In this context, I think a LG vs. CG showdown would very much focus on differing opinions on what could deliver the best and most reliable amount of goodness, consistently, with the least chance of sliding towards neutral, and then evil.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

And, I think it should be said, chaotic does not mean random. Setting the loaf on fire, for example, would just be stupid and make no sense. Chaos isn't stupid, and it usually makes sense. It just has different priorities than Law. A lawful character might do what he feels is the correct thing to do, whether it be to withhold the bread or give it away, and a chaotic character will also do what he feels is correct. But they'll have different reasons for acting. I usually divide law and chaos into deontology versus intuition. The lawful character will generally do what he thinks is his duty or obligation, while the chaotic character will do what he feels will be the best course of action. No specific course of action is implied by the alignment, just a basis for making a decision.

 

[green slime]

From my campaign blurb:

Even more ancient than the struggle betwixt Good and Evil is the one of Law vs Chaos. It runs far deeper through the fabric of the multiverse, and upon these two combatants the very existance of everything is pinned. Law struggles for order, hierarchy, stability, stagnation, and the logical. Whereas Chaos strives for change, growth, disorder, confusion, the illogical, and the emotional.

 

[Thurbane]

Exactly! IMHO, Law vs Chaos is a much more primordial divergance than Good vs Evil.

 

[green slime]

And this is because, if the forces of Good won a complete victory over Evil, the multiverse would continue to exist. Likewise, if Evil vanquished Good.

But if Law were to win over Chaos, Time would stand still. Nothing would change, move, or live. Absolute zero (-273 degrees). If Chaos wins, then there is no order. Just Nothingness. Flashes of being, which then melt away. Random existance. Things existing everywhere and nowhere, continuously, and simultaneously. Like Schrödinger's cat, both dead and alive. Neither place is particularly conducive to mere mortal life.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Schrödinger's Cat, huh? Quantum physics must be giving lawful entities headaches. "Nope, sorry, we can't pinpoint that electron with a 100% accuracy...we can give you a VERY good probability where it might be, but there is still a chance that it is somewhere completely different."

 

[Phlebas]

Schrödinger's Cat, huh? Quantum physics must be giving lawful entities headaches. "Nope, sorry, we can't pinpoint that electron with a 100% accuracy...we can give you a VERY good probability where it might be, but there is still a chance that it is somewhere completely different."

I remember reading a Mage modern setting (forget the name) which has the premise that modern 'science' is just the consensus of renaissance magicians who decide to 'improve' and standardise the world. MIB's are there descendants, keeping the status quo intact

Here quantum mechanics is the invention of the rebel mages trying to open possibilities, and in extreme cases trying to 'break' the consensus on science so you return to a time when magic could change the world

Law v chaos again. you can see how good and evil would exist on both sides

 

[Jhaelen]

I remember reading a Mage modern setting (forget the name) which has the premise that modern 'science' is just the consensus of renaissance magicians who decide to 'improve' and standardise the world. MIB's are there descendants, keeping the status quo intact

Here quantum mechanics is the invention of the rebel mages trying to open possibilities, and in extreme cases trying to 'break' the consensus on science so you return to a time when magic could change the world

Law v chaos again. you can see how good and evil would exist on both sides

The whole world of darkness setting had three primal forces at work in the background. Here's the terms from Werewolf and the representative groups from Mage:
- Weaver (order), represented in Mage by the Technocracy
- Wyld (chaos), represented in Mage by the Marauders
- Wyrm (entropy), represented in Mage by the Nephandi
IIRC, the meta-plot was that the weaver had been corrupted by the wyrm, thus causing the world to go down the drain...

It's a bit hazy right now, but I believe the player mages were supposed to be a group representing a fourth power: Primordialism or something similar...