Law vs Chaos

[SableWyvern]

My group finished up an 18 month D&D campaign a year or so ago. It was a fairly standard good vs evil campaign, in a world where the gods had left long ago and demons walked the earth. The groups actions meant that when new gods were born, one of Lawful Good arrived first, and had the greatest influence in rebuilding the world. The party's main antagonists were Fists of Hextor, who were attempting to fulfill the same prophecy as the group, but to see a Lawful Evil god as the first.

By the end of the campaign, most of the party was strongly Lawful, and even the Knight of the Chalice PC, in discussion with me, moved to Lawful Neutral alignment at the campaign's conclusion, heading up a new, Lawful organisation that opposed Chaotic Outsiders in general, rather than demons specifically (some Slaad that had seriously angered the group at one point helped sway the character in this regard).

Now, we are planning to return to those characters for a few sessions, and I am thinking about running a Law vs Chaos adventure, rather than the typical good vs evil.

So, I was wondering if anyone had any good suggestions for how this could be done; how to create a sense of all-important opposition between chaos and law, without the more intuitive regard for good and evil disrupting the plot.

Having a good group face good opponents, and accept that doing so is ethically appropriate, will be a challenge, but one that I think will come with rewards if done well.

So, please, fire away with insightful suggestions.

 

[Silverglass]

I think that the simplest appproach is to change the alignment principles, D&D tends to stress the Good-Evil axis as being the most important in determining relationships followed by considerations on the Law-Chaos axis.

In the new campaign make the primary determinant the Law-Chaos axis, whereas before Good beings would work together against evil, now Lawful beings would work together against chaos. As an example the LE hobgoblin tribes would ally themselves with the LN humans and LG dwarves (with the full support of their respective L deities) to defeat the CE orcs. It doesn't mean that these three nations believe that the other 2 nations have the right alignment, only that LE hobgoblins are "better" than CG elves.

Also while the LE Hobgoblins would treat with Devils the LG Dwarves would take no part in such activities.

This would mean that you probably would not have to change the game mechanics too much as lawful deities cannot have chaotically aligned clerics in any case. The sort of mechanical things that you might want to change are thing such as LG paladins falling if then perform chaotic acts or associate with chaotic beings. The big impact is how people interract based on their alignments.

 

[Voadam]

Chaotic good outsiders could step in individually and say "I know you mean well but you have to be stopped." when the group is doing something big for law. That is a reason for good on good fighting.

 

[Piratecat]

You may want to read (or re-read) the Elric series. Those books do a phenomenal job of addressing law vs chaos, instead of the more traditional axis of good vs evil.

 

[SableWyvern]

Hmm...

Perhaps it is as simple as that.

I'm just wondering how easy it will be to convince the group that, as predominantly Lawful Good and Lawful Neutral characters, supporters of Chaotic Good are the enemy, while Lawful Evil are allies.

No one ever blinks an eye at Lawful Good and Chaotic Good characters teaming up. Lawful Good and Lawful evil working together? That's another issue entirely.

I suppose if the threat is grand enough, it's not really a huge stretch.

Of course, the next question is, what is that our Chaotic Good and Chaotic Evil friends are doing hand in hand that creates this threat?

I suppose that could be the erasure of organised society from the world.

Ooh, ooh, ... since Lawful took centre stage when the gods returned, perhaps the lesser forces of Chaos have decided that "each Man shall be his own nation, his own law and his own god".

There might be something there I can run with...

Also while the LE Hobgoblins would treat with Devils the LG Dwarves would take no part in such activities.

But this is the problem I have. The Lawful Good dwarves will, in most people's expectations, treat with Lawful Chaotic persons, even if they don't like their philosophies. If Law-Chaos becomes the focal axis for conflict, then said dwarves should be as prone to dealing with Devils as they are prone to dealing with Chaotic Good outsiders in a traditional setting where Good-Evil is the axis of focal conflict.

To really play up Law vs Chaos effectively as a grand conflict, I think you need to break down the traditional, skewed axis, and reskew it with Law-Chaos being stronger opposites than Good-Evil.

 

[countgray]

Imagine a conflict along the lines of Rome versus the Gauls.

You have this highly lawful civilization trying to bring order to a chaotic, nature-oriented society that does mostly what they please and is not very respectful of authority.

Rome was very good in some respects, but tyranistic and ruthless in others. Which civilization had the better quality of life? More of an aesthetic choice really.
---------
Alternatively, imagine the industrial revolution that brought radical change to a formerly agrarian and pastoral society. A lot of people fell victim to poverty and poor working conditions and pollution in the name of progress. But new science and technology brought all sorts of improvements. The bad guys of the industrial revolution were Robber Barrons and Slum Lords and Sweat Shops. The bad guys on the pastoral side were the luddites and the saboteurs--who threw their wooden shoes, or "sabots" into the gears of machinery to disrupt production.
----------
Another more modern analogy would be the Hippie movement of the 60's which advocated peace and love and freedom and which was a reaction to 50's society which was prosperous but highly ordered, conservative and constrained. On the one hand you have conventional America with lifestyles akin to Beaver Cleaver and I Love Lucy but you also have McCarthy and Vietnam and the Cold War, while on the other hand the Hippies had communes, wild and unconventional dress & hairstyles, free love, eschewing traditional jobs for experimental lifestyles, but the bad side was problems with drugs, radical movements that perpetrated terrorism, and a lot of social disruption.
-----------
The above three are examples of societies conflicting more along the Law vs. Chaos axis. In all 3 examples you have elements of good & evil on both sides, but neither side is wholly good or evil, and who is the protagonist and who is the antagonist depends entirely on your point of view and whether you identify more with the free-spirited side or the side that represents ordered society.

 

[Crothian]

A great Box Set from second edition, the Rod of Seven Parts was all about law verse chaos

 

[Soul]

I have to second Piratecat's suggestion, or read any Moorcock for that matter, Corum, Hawkmoon, and some of his other none 'mutiverse' books are ok too. The central element would be that law and chaos need balance, where good vs evil doesn't neccesarly need them. The theme to law vs chaos generally revovles around law being stagnant and unchanging, where there is order; everything seeks perfection, attains it, and stays that way perpetualy, where chaos is about constant change, time, death, decay, nothing lasts in chaos everything is on a whim, things get boring fast so there is always the search for the new, never enjoying what is.

 

[Snapdragyn]

Consider also Steven Brust's "To Reign in Hell" -- in D&D terms, it's a reworking of the tale of the fall of the revolt in Heaven with 'evil' as Chaotic & 'good' as Lawful. Chaotic comes out pretty good here, too; the concern for individual rights (even if the ends would be better with a bit of coercive means) vs. the absolute drive for a goal of maximum 'good' -- at any cost -- sets things up so that Chaos doesn't come off as 'evil by another name'. If anything, you might have to tone down the tyranny of this style of Law, unless you do want a 'better' side & a 'worse' side. Having Lawful be the 'worse' & Chaotic the 'better' make it interesting by playing against type, though, especially for characters who've been working for Law -- oops, helped the wrong team, guys!

 

[SableWyvern]

Having Lawful be the 'worse' & Chaotic the 'better' make it interesting by playing against type, though, especially for characters who've been working for Law -- oops, helped the wrong team, guys!

Heh. I've already done something along these lines in one campaign. It turned out the evil guys had some excellent reasoning for their actions, and the good guys had a lot of explaining to do about their underlying motivations. The finale of the campaign saw the PCs split into two factions: those who sided with the "good", and those who shifted their loyalties to the "evil".

Interestingly, this schism played right into the "evil" side's argument, for the PCs who remained loyal to "good" wanted terrible revenge on their erstwhile allies, while those who turned traitor wished for as little bloodshed as possible.

I don't think that sort of thing would be appropriate in this circumstance though, mainly due to the time constraints. I think that to turn the tables completely would require a lot of story-building in order to avoid a sense of contrivance.

Thanks to eveyone who's commented so far.