D&D General Slaads are failures as exemplars of Chaotic NEUTRAL

[Mecheon]

That’s basically the math definition of chaos.

Not really. Chaos is the opposite of stagnation. Chaos is creation, art, change. However its also destruction

Slaad only have that destruction part to them and not any of the positive parts of chaos, that's their problem.

 

[Anoth]

I adore modron as LN. absolutely love them, as well as the inevitable. I agree that the Slaad just don’t cut it. I agree with an earlier poster that a creature like the hordelings from an earlier editions monster manual would be great. Their random forms would be perfect. Just remove the evil part from them. I would also add a random table for other abilities too. Some teleport. Some have clairvoyance. Some are super genius. One might have this power and another a different one.

 

[generic]

Honestly, more and more I want to just remove Chaos from the axis.

Chaos is just doing what you want, when you want, following whims, urges and desires... and doesn't that sound a lot like an animal? Do you think animals do anything except follow their whims, urges and desires, doing what they want to do?

But animals are listed as neutral. Because they aren't smart enough to be chaotic? So, chaos is only a thing if you are smart enough to not be an animal, but choose to act like one anyways? But elves are chaotic, and they are just people with funny ears and a penchant for art, poetry, and self-expression.

It all just ends up devolving into a mess of value judgements.

Animals are listed as Unaligned, not Neutral, there is a difference.

Animals simply don't have alignments because they don't understand morality.

 

[Anoth]

Animals are listed as Unaligned, not Neutral, there is a difference.

Animals simply don't have alignments because they don't understand morality.

I would so disagree with that. But I will leave it to how d&d defines it.

 

[generic]

I would so disagree with that. But I will leave it to how d&d defines it.

Well yes, I'm not saying that this applies to real-world animals and the ways they behave and, consequentially, understand morality.

But, it is how D&D defines animals.

 

[dave2008]

I would so disagree with that. But I will leave it to how d&d defines it.

I am note sure what your disagreeing with, but in 5e animals have the "beast" type. Ans all beast have the "unaligned" alignment.

For example: A giant lizard us "unaligned," but a lizardfolk is "neutral."

 

[Chaosmancer]

Animals are listed as Unaligned, not Neutral, there is a difference.

Animals simply don't have alignments because they don't understand morality.

I don't think that alters the point I was making though. For two reasons.

Behavior seems to be how we define what "chaotic" is, but all of the terms people use to describe it go back into the realm of "natural behavior" which is more animal like behavior. A character is chaotic if they follow their desires and sleeps in instead of going to work like they are supposed to.

The second is that the law vs chaos axis has nothing to do with morality. Law can be good, evil, or neutral and how we define that is because of their morality. So, saying that beasts are unaligned because they do not understand morality implies that law and chaos are moral stances. But morality has right and wrong, so one of these would have to be wrong, which would mean it becomes possible to be good and wrong and also good and right. Which elevates one of the nine alignments as being the perfect alignment, because it is morally right and right.

And that is not how DnD presents alignment.

 

[generic]

I don't think that alters the point I was making though. For two reasons.

Behavior seems to be how we define what "chaotic" is, but all of the terms people use to describe it go back into the realm of "natural behavior" which is more animal like behavior. A character is chaotic if they follow their desires and sleeps in instead of going to work like they are supposed to.

The second is that the law vs chaos axis has nothing to do with morality. Law can be good, evil, or neutral and how we define that is because of their morality. So, saying that beasts are unaligned because they do not understand morality implies that law and chaos are moral stances. But morality has right and wrong, so one of these would have to be wrong, which would mean it becomes possible to be good and wrong and also good and right. Which elevates one of the nine alignments as being the perfect alignment, because it is morally right and right.

And that is not how DnD presents alignment.

True, but is it not possible to be good and wrong? If you feel that you are doing good, and truly believe that you are doing good, but are, in fact, wrong, is that not you being "good and wrong"?

I understand what you're saying, but, in D&D, law versus chaos actually has a lot to do with morality, not just behavior.

 

[Chaosmancer]

True, but is it not possible to be good and wrong? If you feel that you are doing good, and truly believe that you are doing good, but are, in fact, wrong, is that not you being "good and wrong"?

I understand what you're saying, but, in D&D, law versus chaos actually has a lot to do with morality, not just behavior.

Yes, IRL, but this is a failure of terms in trying to explain what I am thinking. Especially since I don't use alignment myself.

Let us take a Tolkien view of the world for a second. Good and Evil are absolute.

Good is right, good is never evil. If it were evil, it would not be good. If something is labeled as good, it cannot be evil and must be right. By definition, this must be true.

Evil is wrong, evil is never good. If it were good, it would not be evil. If something is labeled as evil, it cannot be good and must be wrong. By definition, this must be true.

Now, we add a second axis in Law and Chaos. And, sticking with how Tolkien would have seen it, let us apply the same bit. Law and Chaos are absolute.

Law is right, law is never chaotic. If it were, it would not be Law. If it is labeled as Law, it must be right, by definition.

Chaos is wrong, chaos is never lawful. If it were, it would not be Chaos. If it is labeled as chaos, it must be wrong, by definition.

So, now you have Lawful Good, it is right and right, everything done by Lawful good is the most right. The definition works, it is right and right, so it is right.

Now look at Chaotic Good. It is wrong and right. If it is wrong, it cannot be good, because the definition of good means right. But, if it is right, it can't be Chaotic, because the definition of chaotic means wrong.

You end up dealing in a contradiction of terms. Lawful Evil becomes right and wrong, definitionally. But that is not what we mean by Lawful Evil or Chaotic Good.

And so, because philosophic discussion around morality, when dealing with absolutes which DnD tends to present, sets us up with one side being right and the other wrong, it cannot view Law and Chaos as moral distinctions. If it did, Elves and Unicorns would be as bad as Devils and Tyrants. Both are a mix of "bad things" and "good things" They would occupy the same position morally, because they both follow the "correct" moral path (good and law respectively) and the "incorrect" moral path (chaos and evil respectively)

This doesn't work. This is nonsense in the story that DnD presents. We can make it work. We can twist it and go subjective and make it all fit, but the far more elegant solution is just to view law and chaos as not being moral, but being exactly what they are. How orderly are you? How much do you live your life by rules and regulations?

Not that that doesn't break down immediately either, because of course following rules is normally the morally right thing to do, unless the rules are evil or tyrannical.

 

[generic]

Yes, IRL, but this is a failure of terms in trying to explain what I am thinking. Especially since I don't use alignment myself.

Let us take a Tolkien view of the world for a second. Good and Evil are absolute.

Good is right, good is never evil. If it were evil, it would not be good. If something is labeled as good, it cannot be evil and must be right. By definition, this must be true.

Evil is wrong, evil is never good. If it were good, it would not be evil. If something is labeled as evil, it cannot be good and must be wrong. By definition, this must be true.

Now, we add a second axis in Law and Chaos. And, sticking with how Tolkien would have seen it, let us apply the same bit. Law and Chaos are absolute.

Law is right, law is never chaotic. If it were, it would not be Law. If it is labeled as Law, it must be right, by definition.

Chaos is wrong, chaos is never lawful. If it were, it would not be Chaos. If it is labeled as chaos, it must be wrong, by definition.

So, now you have Lawful Good, it is right and right, everything done by Lawful good is the most right. The definition works, it is right and right, so it is right.

Now look at Chaotic Good. It is wrong and right. If it is wrong, it cannot be good, because the definition of good means right. But, if it is right, it can't be Chaotic, because the definition of chaotic means wrong.

You end up dealing in a contradiction of terms. Lawful Evil becomes right and wrong, definitionally. But that is not what we mean by Lawful Evil or Chaotic Good.

And so, because philosophic discussion around morality, when dealing with absolutes which DnD tends to present, sets us up with one side being right and the other wrong, it cannot view Law and Chaos as moral distinctions. If it did, Elves and Unicorns would be as bad as Devils and Tyrants. Both are a mix of "bad things" and "good things" They would occupy the same position morally, because they both follow the "correct" moral path (good and law respectively) and the "incorrect" moral path (chaos and evil respectively)

This doesn't work. This is nonsense in the story that DnD presents. We can make it work. We can twist it and go subjective and make it all fit, but the far more elegant solution is just to view law and chaos as not being moral, but being exactly what they are. How orderly are you? How much do you live your life by rules and regulations?

Not that that doesn't break down immediately either, because of course following rules is normally the morally right thing to do, unless the rules are evil or tyrannical.

You assume that D&D carries moral absolutism in all of its forms. I fully understand what you're saying, and I agree with you to an extent, but what you're proposing about D&D morality is simply false. There may be settings with Tolkein-esque systems of absolute morality, but this is not the core of D&D. Yes, there are moral absolutes, but, in fact, Good is not always 'right'. Not by any means. However, setting that aside (and hopefully agreeing that some D&D worlds certainly have Good = Correct systems), Chaos and Law are, in fact, moral stances in the archetypal D&D world.

Just take a look at Modrons, which abide by Law. They do not merely behave lawfully, they are morally bound to law, and the service that being a Modron requires. If you take the typical axiomatic moral system of D&D, neither Chaos nor Law needs to be 'right'.