Societies: Lawful and Chaotic; What Are They?

[mkletch]

Re: Re: Re: Re: hrm

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.

I was not referring to your decision in any way. That you have found something that works for you, and communicate it to your players would be more than enough to make me happy as a player in your campaign.

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?

I had never played a bard before, and was unfamiliar with the non-lawful requirement for a bard (which is absurd in any case). It completely shattered my idea for a swashbuckling paladin-bard (in FR, so I could multiclass the paladin) that was a master of languages and diplomacy. I had even considered going weaponless, or improved unarmed strike. Oh well. Sometimes (more often than I like to recall), the rules get in the way of good roleplaying.

-Fletch!

 

[ogre]

In my campaign I take a different spin on the whole alignment issue regarding nations. Here it is.
I view nation alignments as how they interact with eachother, as a nation. So, the Lawful Good nation is benevolent, seeks peace and unity among all the nations and tries to help nations that are being oppressed. The chaotic good nation, though it's intensions are good, tends to make rash decisions and will be more concerned with what is happening within it's own borders.
The neutral nations will generally be indifferent or flip flop allegance whenever it suits them. The evil nations... well just evil versions of the lawful and chaotic ones.
Anyway, my point here is: I run the entire nations as if it were a single PC and make broad assumptions about its actions based on that. The nation alignment in no way influences the culture, traditions or anything like that. Those aspects could fit in any nation alignment.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Well, I've already adapted the "It's not an alignment, it's just a PHILOSOPHY!" idea from my upcoming product, Philosophies and Falsehoods...

O'course, it not being out yet, i just continue to taunt you with it!

HAHAHAHAHA!

 

[GuardianLurker]

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.

Ah, but see, in some sense 3e *does* posit these Absolutes. The fact that the sapient races of the game world may (or may not) be able to fully manifest them, or function in their environments is, to some degree meaningless.

(Before I go to much further, let me emphasize that this is only ONE point of view, and it's not even the only point of view *I* have.)

Ditto, in some sense for us as players. Heck, it's not even a new thing in human thought - a number of religions and philosophies posit just such an incomprehensible absolute.

A sapient race that fully exhibits/manifests these absolutes would work EXTREMELY well as a fully alien opponent, as an ally/betrayer.

The Law - Chaos can be expressed in a number of different dichotomies :
society vs. individual
constraint vs. freedom (and related form vs. formless)
tradition vs. whimsy
elitism vs. egalitarianism
etc.

It's *all* of these and more, and I'd hate to limit myself to just one level artificially. Especially when I can mix-n-match and really play with my player's minds. BWAHH-HA-HA! Errr. Ahem.

Originally posted by mkletch
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.

Agreed, and I hope I didn't imply otherwise. Of course, then the question becomes "how much?" a specific act influences ones alignment.

Is it possible, for instance, for a paragon of Law to perform an act that would yank him/her/it into the depths of Chaos? (I'm not even going to try to address what such an act might be.) How far would a minor act (like leaving one's shoelaces untied) move one along the L-C axis? Would it move you at all?

 

[Chrisling]

Re: Re: Re: Re: hrm

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.

LMFAO. Canis levels a good argument, here, I must admit.

BUT, if one applies my current standard of lawfulness, it works! Monks are lawful because their options for social mobility are controlled by the monastery to which they belong; to be a monk, one must internalize the monastic structure. Wizards can be of any alignment because their feelings about social mobility are irrelevant to the discipline they put forth towards their magic. Bards must be non-lawful because . . . well, I can't really figure that one out, unless one sort of assumes the paradigm of the traveling fantasy bard who is a sketchy figure.

About the barbarian class, one must remember that not all "barbarians" ever touched this class. I'm having trouble seeing a Mongol horse archer barbarian -- and an easy time seeing a Mongol horse archer ranger. The barbarian class presupposes the character is deeply in tune with a virtually superhuman fury that allows them to do incredible feats of battle-prowess.

 

[Chrisling]

Ah, but see, in some sense 3e *does* posit these Absolutes. The fact that the sapient races of the game world may (or may not) be able to fully manifest them, or function in their environments is, to some degree meaningless.

D&D also gives us reason to try to imagine these absolutes.

For instance, I'm playing a Planescape game. Like I said, elsewhere, normally I mostly ignore the finer meaning of all this alignment stuff. It's not important to the game. But in Planescape, it is important, because lots of the characters in the game -- all the outsiders, of which they are many -- are the <i>living embodiments</i> of law and chaos, good and evil. So I'm in the position of having to figure out what is the difference in worldviews between, y'know, a lawful good solar and a chaotic evil balor. To be a good DM, I've <i>got</i> to imagine what the ideal lawful society is, and chaotic one, too.

Heck, I'll even give it a shot.

The epitome of lawful society is that of a perfect, mechanical hierarchy, there tradition and law are identical, codified, and absolutely adhered to. It is society as a computer program. Perhaps a very complex computer program, maybe even one capable of giving simulations of chaos when required, but nevertheless a fundamentally hierarchial system. For a creature to change its place in the hierarchy requires complete revision of the system.

The epitome of a chaotic society is one of total anarchy. People act entirely on the whims of the individual. Associations only extend to the extent that they are desireable to the individual, and are dropped at will. Nothing restrains one's actions towards another save the strength of the other and possibilities of retribution -- or one's aesthetic preferences.

Sound OK?

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hrm

...The barbarian class presupposes the character is deeply in tune with a virtually superhuman fury that allows them to do incredible feats of battle-prowess.

But fury can be cold. Fury can even be controlled and directed. As can rage. Powerful emotions are only chaotic if they are allowed to rule you. Does a paladin who becomes furious upon seeing a fiend slaughter an innocent start edging toward Chaotic? No, he directs that fury to a good and lawful end. Namely, smiting demon.

I guess it comes down to their choice of terms in this case. If they had called them "Berserkers", and called the ability "Battle Frenzy" I'd say, Chaotic all the way. But barbarians, in the larger sense, often had tight-knit, Lawful communities. And their incredible battle prowess came out of a) big muscles and b) notions of individual honor and valor. Heck, that sounds kinda like a paladin's MO.

 

[Chrisling]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hrm

I guess it comes down to their choice of terms in this case. If they had called them "Berserkers", and called the ability "Battle Frenzy" I'd say, Chaotic all the way. But barbarians, in the larger sense, often had tight-knit, Lawful communities. And their incredible battle prowess came out of a) big muscles and b) notions of individual honor and valor. Heck, that sounds kinda like a paladin's MO.

My players have a similar problem, frequently. They conflate class with a lot of things, such as profession or attitude towards the world. So when I say "barbarian" they frequently think the stereotypical Viking sort of figure, when a lot of the time I'm visualizing a Tibetian tribesman or what-have-you. I mean, my players are all clever people; they know that "barbarian" mostly refers a level of civilization as distinct from the class in the PHB. But it's still there, in the mind.

In my current game, too, I have a player who plays a ranger-courtier (like, the class from the Rokugan book -- serious politicians). Virtually <I>everyone</i> who hears this concept goes, "What a strange combination." To which my player says, "Get real. It's common as rainwater. All through history aristocrats have loved hunting." But the words have all these associations with them!

The names of the classes is actually my least favorite part of D&D, because they do bring real particular associations.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hrm

Oh well. Sometimes (more often than I like to recall), the rules get in the way of good roleplaying.

No kidding. I had a Paladin-Bard idea bouncing around in my head for a while, but it just won't work unless I can find a DM willing to Rule Zero it for me.

There are some ways around the rules limitation. Someone on these boards pointed out that a Bard doesn't lose his powers for becoming Lawful, he just can't progress further as a Bard. So I realized I could do a Bard who becomes Lawful (perhaps by embracing a LG god of justice after losing someone important to him). But that would necessitate starting as a Bard, becoming Lawful, taking a level or two of something else while I RP the transition from bard to Paladin ('cause I just couldn't justify going right to it), then becoming a Paladin. It just seems so inorganic... Planning out the whole life of a character before you even roll a die. Not what I was looking for (and it doesn't even come CLOSE to the character I had in my head...)

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: hrm

In my current game, too, I have a player who plays a ranger-courtier (like, the class from the Rokugan book -- serious politicians). Virtually <I>everyone</i> who hears this concept goes, "What a strange combination." To which my player says, "Get real. It's common as rainwater. All through history aristocrats have loved hunting." But the words have all these associations with them!

The names of the classes is actually my least favorite part of D&D, because they do bring real particular associations.

Ack. Rangers are a LOT more than mere hunters. See, there's one of my associations. "Ranger-courtier" that actually hurt my eyes to read.