Societies: Lawful and Chaotic; What Are They?

[Chrisling]

Canis,

LOL. I totally concede your point. This is true. I could have things happen and point out that none of the people doing these things are even <i>remotely</i> human. But I want them to make sense, if only to me.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Canis,

LOL. I totally concede your point. This is true. I could have things happen and point out that none of the people doing these things are even <i>remotely</i> human. But I want them to make sense, if only to me.

This is the Outer Planes, right? These creatures are embodiments of extreme viewpoints. That's what they're there for. Have modrons that immolate themselves by the hundreds for some obscure benefit to their society, so that even a Lawful human being couldn't wrap their head around such a large sacrifice for an apparently small benefit. Maybe Primus has lost some small degree of power, and the Modron collective must shrink because he can no longer maintain full contact and control. Even a Lawful Good character would probably accept slight decrease in the centralization of society before sacrificing thousands or millions of individuals. But the Modrons are just walking right into the disintegration chambers (or whatever) because that will be better for the collective.

Slaadi would have utter contempt for anyone who relies upon anyone else for ANYTHING. Including companionship, division of labor, etc.

It's doable.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yeah, creamsteak, your paladin did pretty much what would be expected of a Neutral Good paladin, except I could see NG making a lot of minor gaffs in the realm of order and focus. And what champion of Pure Upright Goodness has any waverings whatsoever?

It's cool that it worked. I, myself, IMC, am VERY lenient with alignment restrictions, seeing the class as mostly a set of powers, and if you can explain it away in some way, I'm happy to let you do whatever you want. So NG paladins could probably work IMC for a while, until I either tested their non-lawfulness, or they passed such a test and became, by general tendancy, lawful.

As for rebellious monks -- that's not a big problem. Lawful types can be as rebellious as chaotic types, it's just that their rebellion is based on order and logic. They have thought out their rebellion, found a more supreme order than that which they were trained in. They have used logic to fight against logic. Lawful types don't have to obey the rules, they just have to see that the rules are more desirable for most people than being without them. There is a respect for authority, but that doesn't mean obedience by any stretch. If a monk has found Truth and those he has been training under have not, it's perfectly acceptable for them to reject their current leadership as unfocused and not logical, and become focused and reasoned in the *right* direction...

In fact, that sounds like a cool monkish plot hook.

And for a lawful rage -- for these rangers, it's probably more about emulating the pride and nobility of a lion, replacing human nature with something more divine -- the sheer potency of a lion. It's not about surrendering to a bit of chaos. It's about the thrill of the hunt, controlled to bring about a perfection. It's a focus in the moment, a use of adrenaline in a specific circumstance for a specific end, a logical and ordered tempest tapping the power of the organized and structured nature, not breaking it, but using it to it's utmost to transcend body limitations.

That's why I'm not a big fan of alignment restrictions in general -- a bit too much flavor, a bit too little flexibility. After all, something that adds some Con and Strength could be explained away as nearly anything. All you'd need to do, IMC, is explain it somehow.

Simply rejecting rules does not make one Chaotic. Being Chaotic is an entire philosophy in itself, with it's own tenents and it's own limits and it's own definitions. Being Chaotic is, in it's own way, as limiting and stringent as being Lawful (e.g.: not very).

And I still think Law got the shaft. I don't think it's just me who've seen people think of Chaos being cool and rebellious and stuff and so always flock to it.

 

[Chrisling]

Canis,

Yeah, it's doable. I just need to figure out how to actually <I>do it</i>, I suppose.

I'm sure I will. I mean, my players aren't actually very demanding, hehe. I give them a good story, some interesting NPCs, a few fights, a romance or two, and they're pretty happy.

 

[S'mon]

This depends on whether your version of Lawful includes "organized" (yours), or "resistant to change" (his).

They're not the same thing, and can vary tremendously with respect to one another, even though they are both implied to be part of a Lawful mindset.

Not to beat a deceased equine, but that's the kind of thing that drove me to the Society-focused vs. Individual-focused idea.

Neither Machiavelli nor me equated 'resistant to change' with 'lawful'. But it's correct to say that the clannish Lawful Good dwarves that started the thread would be an example of Machiavelli's French-type societies - disorganised but truculent, hard to keep down. Ie on one level they're 'chaotic' societies, at an individual level the individuals may well be of lawful bent . That could probably be equally said of real-world tribal societies like Afghanistan, also. Chaotic individuals often result in highly Ordered systems to keep them in check - the French bureaucracy or the Catholic church in Ireland, for instance. While groups of feuding Lawful groups can create a very Chaotic society, like Afghanistan perhaps.

 

[maddman75]

As a part-time Taoist and lover of kung-fu movies, I feel driven to point out that amongst the movies and literature of the martial arts guys, a lot of the best mystically powered martial artists are not particularly lawful.

Indeed, in true Taoist fashion, adherence to the rules usually becomes a limitation towards people finding their true potential. For good examples of this, I suggest (right off the top of my head) Tsui Hark's The Swordsman and Jet Li's Fist of Legend and Tai Chi (where you also get to see Michelle Yeoh, woo woo!) -- in all three movies, the hero achieves the highest levels of skill only by rejecting the traditional teachings of his school.

Furthermore, in the "real world" the (arguably) greatest martial artist of the 20th century, Bruce Lee, was contemptuous of rigid systems of martial arts. He referred to them as "organized uselessness" and repeatedly said that a really good martial artist has an open mind that reacts naturally to whatever happens. Again, now in the real world, a person reaching the highest levels of skill does so by <I>rejecting</i> traditional training. Unsurprisingly, Bruce Lee was a Taoist, too.

Also, about the barbarian rage thing, there's a PrC in Oriental Adventures, the singh rager, who <i>must</i> be lawful and can rage identically to a barbarian.

I was going to comment on the monk as well. I'm a buddhist, and much of the mystical tradition comes from sources such as the Shaolin. Buddhism is most definately NOT a lawful religion.

True neutral might be the best descriptor, as Buddha teaches to find the middle way, the option between all opposite extreme. I believe the parable is a student learning to string a musical instrument. If the string is too tight, it will snap. If it is too slack, it will not play. However, I might be tempted to move it to good because of the focus on compassion, but the religion doesn't have a concept of good and evil.

PS - I know its generally dangerous to bring up real world religions, but thought it useful to illustrate the real world traditions that the monk derives from. If this proves to be inflammatory, please mods delete it. I have respect for all faiths - not everyone walks the same path to enlightenment, and this discussion is far too entertaining to be derailed into a flame war.

 

[S'mon]

I found this post <i>way</i> more inflammatory than Canis' post about how we can reject Rand and Smith. There is an imputation that Rand's viewpoint -- which I find incoherent, non-sensical, ill-concieved, poorly considered, badly executed, and I've read both her novels and a number of her philosophical works -- "can be the only sane option." Which implies the rest of us aren't being sane. Which I find way more offensive than when Canis sort of dismissed Smith, a philosopher of whom <I>I</i> am quite fond.

Well, obviously you disagree with me. I think you need to see where Rand is coming from, though - an emigre from Stalinist Russia, not a Yankee plutocrat, Texas oilman, or whatever. In Europe (where I live) we are MUCH more collectivist than the USA, and the State has traditionally, particularly in the 20th century, DEMANDED a high degree of altruism from its citizens, up to and including throwing our lives away in the tens of millions. Romantic statist or tribalist and similar philosophies like Fascism, Comminism and Nazism have elevated this idea of self-sacrifice above all others. Even in more moderate countries like Britain, pre-World War One, the expectation that 'dulce et decorum pro patria mori' led to almost a million dead in WW1 for very little achieved. In these circumstances can't you see that unquestioning altruism might not always be an unalloyed good? The USA simply never has had to go through this experience, luckily for you.

 

[S'mon]

Social dynamics in action. Individually, human beings are wonderful creatures. Groups of human beings, however, are dim, venal, argumentative, and violent.

Typical Chaotic view of Society.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Neither Machiavelli nor me equated 'resistant to change' with 'lawful'.

Correct. I was pointing out that you (and Machiavelli) were making organization and the ability to bring all resources to bear on an invader as a Lawful trait. Herald (who you were disagreeing with) had defined Lawful as resistant to change. So your disagreement wasn't really about whether Lawful or Chaotic societies will be better able to defend themselves. It was about what defined the term "Lawful".

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Typical Chaotic view of Society.

LOL

See, I'm all manner of turned around!