Societies: Lawful and Chaotic; What Are They?

[jgbrowning]

hrm

well i think we can all agree that the current system of law-chaos, good-evil doesn't do a good job of explaining societies because the determing factor of the definition is mutable. The determining factor here being an individual's perception. Other than to say we can't come to terms with the issue since its one of perception and not objective.. well i dont have much to say.

joe b.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Re: hrm

well i think we can all agree that the current system of law-chaos, good-evil doesn't do a good job of explaining societies because the determing factor of the definition is mutable. The determining factor here being an individual's perception. Other than to say we can't come to terms with the issue since its one of perception and not objective.. well i dont have much to say.

joe b.

What bugs me the most is that I don't think the designers of the Core Rules had consistent perceptions of what they meant by Law & Chaos. It makes for what I feel are glaring inconsistencies.

I posted about this somewhere else, when I get home I'll have to try and dig it up...

 

[mkletch]

Re: Re: hrm

well i think we can all agree that the current system of law-chaos, good-evil doesn't do a good job of explaining societies because the determing factor of the definition is mutable. The determining factor here being an individual's perception. Other than to say we can't come to terms with the issue since its one of perception and not objective.. well i dont have much to say.

On another thread, we have the issue of those not willing to accept these definitions are a matter of perception. They are "divinely inspired", for lack of a better term. But I agree with what you say. Just as long as the definitions are set at the beginning of the campaign, or the default PHB definitions accepted, that is fine.

What bugs me the most is that I don't think the designers of the Core Rules had consistent perceptions of what they meant by Law & Chaos. It makes for what I feel are glaring inconsistencies.

You're assuming that there is a consistent reality that they could have 'hit' on the first (or any other) shot.

-Fletch!

 

[GuardianLurker]

Have read through the rest of this (very good) thread, I'll offer that perhaps the reason we're having problems with specifics is that the L-C axis is not a series of discrete points, but full spectrum.

There's also the problem that we (as imperfect mortals) are probably not capable of imagining (or realizing) perfect Order(Law) or Disorder(Chaos).

The other point is to realize that a Chaotic system (or individual) can still possess localized segments that are highly ordered. A perfectly random sequence of digits, for instance, may at some point contain a strict numerical sequence (moreover, it will if the random sequence is continued long enough). This does not make the overall string less than perfectly random however.

Complicating matters is the fact that some highly ordered systems, with very strict rules, can rapidly devolve into complete unpredictability given the right inputs. (No, your computer is not such a system, despite how it may appear.)

This is why the traditional Ying-Yang symbol has "eyes"; both extremes contain the seeds of the other.

For an example of a Chaotic individual in a highly regimented Lawful society, and how the conflict may be successfully resolved, check out "The Prisoner" (a 1960's TV show). The opposite (a Lawful individual against a Chaotic society) is harder for me to find, but the Arthurian legend is a possible example, though I'd welcome a better one.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

There's also the problem that we (as imperfect mortals) are probably not capable of imagining (or realizing) perfect Order(Law) or Disorder(Chaos).

Perfect Order and Disorder aren't really even candidates. I know a good bit about the human mind. We're not actually capable of either. They don't even make sense as endpoints of a spectrum for human behavior or motivations, to say nothing of the underlying physiology.

That's why I latched onto society vs. individualism.

It makes sense, and it's actually completely distinct from shades of good and evil.

 

[Umbran]

Re: Re: hrm

What bugs me the most is that I don't think the designers of the Core Rules had consistent perceptions of what they meant by Law & Chaos.

No, I think what you are seeing them purposefully trying to leave the system open to individual DM interpretation. You notice how we on these boards cannot really agree on alignments? That isn't because they are poorly written. It's because we have different ideas on how to play ethics and morality in games. The designers wanted to leave us the opportunity to easily have our differences, and so the guidelines are intentionally vague.

 

[Chrisling]

I think I'm with Umbran. Could you imagine the furor if the D&D3 guys said, "OK, we're going to include these really detailed definitions of good and evil that we'll foist off as being eternal and immutable"? They'd've been guaranteed to offend huge segments of the gaming population, and needlessly.

I think the real thing I've learned from this thread is that alignment is mostly game specific. Like, for my game, I think I am going to go with the the degree of lawfulness of a society determined by the ease of social mobility. Sure, it's shorthand, but I can make it work *for my game*. Another person might define lawfulness as rigid adherence to tradition, even if it allowed for tremendous social mobility, or even producted a chaotic seeming society. A third person might say lawfulness was following one set of eternally present moral laws. Who's right? Well, we can all be right, in the context of particular games.

I shudder to think the flame wars that would be sparked about a book that claimed to know what was really good and evil.

Normally, these alignment issues aren't that big a deal in my game, but I've chosen to do Planescape so all these people will be running around the planes and I'll want to be consistent in my portrayal of them. ;p

 

[mkletch]

Have read through the rest of this (very good) thread, I'll offer that perhaps the reason we're having problems with specifics is that the L-C axis is not a series of discrete points, but full spectrum.

It is equally true that the G-E axis is also a complete spectrum without 'points'. The trouble is that people have a harder time believing that. Remember tha alignment is a tendency, and nothing more. A neutral character that commits one or two blatantly evil acts does not become evil, any more than a neutral charcter that performs several profoundly kind and charitable acts becomes good.

The other point is to realize that a Chaotic system (or individual) can still possess localized segments that are highly ordered. A perfectly random sequence of digits, for instance, may at some point contain a strict numerical sequence (moreover, it will if the random sequence is continued long enough). This does not make the overall string less than perfectly random however.

There is a place in the expansion of Pi where there are a dozen 9's in a row. Also several where the digits 0-9 are in order forwards or backwards. There is even a place where the first eight or so digits of 'e' (base of natural logarithms) are in sequence. So you can see that, even completely random things (selecting a random digit of Pi behaves exactly like choosing a random digit from 0-9) can behave 'strangely' at times.

-Fletch!

 

[mkletch]

I think I'm with Umbran. Could you imagine the furor if the D&D3 guys said, "OK, we're going to include these really detailed definitions of good and evil that we'll foist off as being eternal and immutable"? They'd've been guaranteed to offend huge segments of the gaming population, and needlessly. [...] Who's right? Well, we can all be right, in the context of particular games.

Certainly. You will run across the occasional gamer who feels they have been blessed with Absolute Truth, though, and the more absolute their Truth, the more they feel the need to educate those around them. Such a person can be difficult to game with or discuss things with, regardless of whether or not they are a good gamer or a good or nice person.

-Fletch!

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Re: Re: Re: hrm

No, I think what you are seeing them purposefully trying to leave the system open to individual DM interpretation. You notice how we on these boards cannot really agree on alignments? That isn't because they are poorly written. It's because we have different ideas on how to play ethics and morality in games. The designers wanted to leave us the opportunity to easily have our differences, and so the guidelines are intentionally vague.

I'm not suggesting that these things are immutable, or that I've found an ABSOLUTE TRUTH. I just found a truth that works for me. If I was playing with people who believed otherwise, I would adapt.

As for my comment on the PHB. It's just that, for example, sometimes they tie a character trait of a class to Lawfulness, and sometimes they don't.

Like discipline. Supposedly, monks are Lawful because they require discipline. OK. What about wizards? They don't need discipline to spend all that time doing magical research? Trust me, doing good research REQUIRES discipline. Even more so if an error means you turn into a frog. Bards have to train their voices, or train themselves to play an instrument. Both of these things take great discipline. But they're required to be NON-Lawful. So, discipline is only a Lawful trait when applied to monks?

Don't even get me started on the barbarian...

"poorly written" No. Too many cooks? Maybe. To much need to hold onto outmoded design from earlier editions? Maybe.