Every time someone claims to have "discovered" the definitive theory of alignment, all posters with a modicum of sense ought be cautious. So I won't present this as a definitive theory of law and chaos, but, rather, merely the start of a discussion.
Conventional theories on law and chaos have been a bit restricted in the great alignment debate. Law, in particular, has forced itself into the dichotomy between Legality (whereby obeying the law per se is the most significant aspect) and Order (where the law as such is largely secondary to a stable code of conduct). Both theories of Law have hit major problems: the first is the question of whether one follows a tyrant, and the second the counter-example of the character traditionally seen as "chaotic" whilst following a distinct code or set of rules. A better synthesis is required for Law, and from that will hopefully follow corresponding theories of Neutrality and Chaos.
What follows isn't truly original: in particular my theories have been greatly influenced by the philosopher of jurisprudence Ronald Dworkin and the late libertarian philosopher Bob Nozick, but I'm sure that they hadn't planned on their theories being transposed to D&D
. In essence, I would argue that Law, Neutrality and Chaos are to be determined in relation to their attitudes to Legislative Rights and Personal Conscience, particularly where the two come into conflict. Under my new notion of Law and Chaos, Law believes that Legislative Rights exist and supersede Personal Conscience, Chaos believes that Legislative Rights do not exist at all (since no government or other authority has any validity stemming from itself) and Neutrals accept the existence of Legislative Rights but believe them to be secondary to Personal Conscience.
How does this pan out in practice? It doesn't mean that Joe Lawful-Good will follow the tyrant simply because he's the law. A sufficiently tyrannical regime will lose its Legislative Rights altogether since it is not a valid authority: it is illegitimate. This does not mean that Legislative Rights don't exist as such; just because I recognise the laws of one government does not mean that I recognise the laws of all. Yet it does mean that if I recognise the legitimacy of the tyrannical regime, I have a duty to follow it since its Legislative Rights are superior to my Personal Conscience. Conversely, a Lawful Evil character, whose Personal Conscience is based upon his advancement, accepts that the maintenance of a stable society is paramount, and hence will follow the law.
Let's take a worked example. A LN regime passes a new law, calling for a capital levy on adventurers. Adventurers of all alignments are aghast. What do they do? By this theory, the following:
LG: Pay the levy. He may personally disagree with it, but the Legislative Rights trump his Personal Conscience.
LN: Pay the levy, for the same reason.
LE: Pay the levy. The most important determinant of long-term personal good is a stable society, so short-term goals must be deferred and Legislative Rights accepted.
NG: Refuse to pay the levy, but accept its validity. If arrested, he will gladly go to prison etc.
TN: Refuse to pay the levy, but accept its validity. Likewise, though he might be more prone to resist arrest.
NE: Refuse to pay the levy, but accept its validity in general. The government has a Legislative Right to levy, but I have a right to refuse since it clashes with my Personal Conscience. Moreover, I have a right to injure those trying to arrest me, resist arrrest by whatever means etc. BUT I acknowledge that if captured the levy is legitimate. I protest at *my*imprisonment, but I dont' feel that the levy is illegitimate as such.
CG: Refuse to pay the levy. If confronted by guards, will try to flee and will only submit to arrest if resisting arrest would cause net harm to the law enforcers.
CN: Refuse to pay the levy. Resist arrest and perhaps injure the law enforcers, but try not to injure them unnecessarily.
CE: Refuse to pay the levy. Resist arrest, kill the guards and do whatever is in my ultimate interest.
Phew! Apologies for the long post, but hopefully this will get an interesting discussion going.
Conventional theories on law and chaos have been a bit restricted in the great alignment debate. Law, in particular, has forced itself into the dichotomy between Legality (whereby obeying the law per se is the most significant aspect) and Order (where the law as such is largely secondary to a stable code of conduct). Both theories of Law have hit major problems: the first is the question of whether one follows a tyrant, and the second the counter-example of the character traditionally seen as "chaotic" whilst following a distinct code or set of rules. A better synthesis is required for Law, and from that will hopefully follow corresponding theories of Neutrality and Chaos.
What follows isn't truly original: in particular my theories have been greatly influenced by the philosopher of jurisprudence Ronald Dworkin and the late libertarian philosopher Bob Nozick, but I'm sure that they hadn't planned on their theories being transposed to D&D
. In essence, I would argue that Law, Neutrality and Chaos are to be determined in relation to their attitudes to Legislative Rights and Personal Conscience, particularly where the two come into conflict. Under my new notion of Law and Chaos, Law believes that Legislative Rights exist and supersede Personal Conscience, Chaos believes that Legislative Rights do not exist at all (since no government or other authority has any validity stemming from itself) and Neutrals accept the existence of Legislative Rights but believe them to be secondary to Personal Conscience.How does this pan out in practice? It doesn't mean that Joe Lawful-Good will follow the tyrant simply because he's the law. A sufficiently tyrannical regime will lose its Legislative Rights altogether since it is not a valid authority: it is illegitimate. This does not mean that Legislative Rights don't exist as such; just because I recognise the laws of one government does not mean that I recognise the laws of all. Yet it does mean that if I recognise the legitimacy of the tyrannical regime, I have a duty to follow it since its Legislative Rights are superior to my Personal Conscience. Conversely, a Lawful Evil character, whose Personal Conscience is based upon his advancement, accepts that the maintenance of a stable society is paramount, and hence will follow the law.
Let's take a worked example. A LN regime passes a new law, calling for a capital levy on adventurers. Adventurers of all alignments are aghast. What do they do? By this theory, the following:
LG: Pay the levy. He may personally disagree with it, but the Legislative Rights trump his Personal Conscience.
LN: Pay the levy, for the same reason.
LE: Pay the levy. The most important determinant of long-term personal good is a stable society, so short-term goals must be deferred and Legislative Rights accepted.
NG: Refuse to pay the levy, but accept its validity. If arrested, he will gladly go to prison etc.
TN: Refuse to pay the levy, but accept its validity. Likewise, though he might be more prone to resist arrest.
NE: Refuse to pay the levy, but accept its validity in general. The government has a Legislative Right to levy, but I have a right to refuse since it clashes with my Personal Conscience. Moreover, I have a right to injure those trying to arrest me, resist arrrest by whatever means etc. BUT I acknowledge that if captured the levy is legitimate. I protest at *my*imprisonment, but I dont' feel that the levy is illegitimate as such.
CG: Refuse to pay the levy. If confronted by guards, will try to flee and will only submit to arrest if resisting arrest would cause net harm to the law enforcers.
CN: Refuse to pay the levy. Resist arrest and perhaps injure the law enforcers, but try not to injure them unnecessarily.
CE: Refuse to pay the levy. Resist arrest, kill the guards and do whatever is in my ultimate interest.
Phew! Apologies for the long post, but hopefully this will get an interesting discussion going.
Last edited:
