Societies: Lawful and Chaotic; What Are They?

[JeffK1966]

I always considered the US to be a very lawful society. Sure, individualism and social mobility are very common here, but mobility has long been the American Dream and individualism was codified long ago as “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Individualism is part of our tradition here. Don’t we Americans just love those stories of people who were born into bad circumstances only to make themselves great? Heck, “Rocky” won an Oscar doing that 25 or so years ago. Sure, people speed on occasion, but try driving in China or India with over 2 billion people combined, and you’ll see true chaos at work.

Sure, there are some lawbreakers out there, but people generally follow the rules.

 

[mkletch]

Re: Morals and ethics

IMO, it was a pretty bad choice for D&D to bring the terms "morals" and "ethics" into discussion of alignment. In a sort of philosophical sense, morals is the body of rules society imposes on an individual and ethics is how an individual deals with those rules. <I>Cultures</i> have morals, <i>people</i> have ethics.

Of course, both words also have meaning way outside of this, too, which is where confusion sets in.

IMO, the "moral" and "ethic" division of alignment is worse than pointless; it actually muddies the waters. When people have to spend time talking about the meaning of the words rather than the concepts those words purportedly embody, some sloppy writing has gone on, alas.

Amen, brother. I posted this bit on another thread, but it makes sense to post it here. The thread was "Are lessons learned through D&D".

Originally posted by mkletch
Back to the topic, what have I leaned from playing D&D? Only this:

That without a precisely defined frame of reference, no question, or answer to that question is valid in any way.

However, the terms "morals" and "ethics" do have a meaning within the context of the history of D&D. How do other game systems deal with these. I am familiar with the system used in Palladium products, but this is very tightly defined; it hardly applies to societies.

-Fletch!

 

[herald]

Like Adam Smith? Smith teaches that by helping yourself, you help the group. Selfishness as altruism!

Actually your right, to a point.

Selfishness is good inasmuch as it is not negatively focused. I tend to think of Chaotic Good as being that sort of individual. Rugged individualism promotes independant thought and pushes advances through in many fields.

Chaotic Good individuals remind people that we have rights. We have we don't have to have a rule for every action that might come down the pike. That we should think for themselves and do what's right.

But not everyone can live with those ideals. Many people feel that they need some sort of uniformity to insure fairness. Lawful Good is not so much that they are bleeding hearts, inasmuch that we need a stable baseline to make sure that people can deal with each other fairly.

Citizenship and communal mindedness are what I think off when I think of Lawful Good. The member that is part of a whole that makes him greater. That membership could range from many things, and it might even be vague, but it exists.

Any group of people can run the spectrum of these concepts. All of these people everyday make thousands of choices every day and most will fluctuate on this scale to some degree. It what we are. We are constantly learning, growing and changing.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

No, it is a valid philosophy, regardless of one's personal views. See, that is the problem with philosphical thought in general. There can be conflicting viewpoints that are perfectly valid, and it is choice rather than some universal truth that makes a particular view 'right' in the eyes of one individual or society. And when you pick one, it does not invalidate the other(s).

-Fletch!

Well, maybe that was a bit absolute of me. Of course, I do believe that there ARE absolutes.

But, I don't want to get in another bitter debate, so we'll agree to disagree, I guess.

Chrisling, can you recommend a book where I can get a decent overview of Smith's views? Nothing too detailed, though. I've got a lot on my plate, but I can't resist a challenge. And anybody who has even that much agreement with Rand, but is being labeled as worth a look, is DEFINITELY a challenge.

 

[Urbannen]

Actually, in previous editions, the G-E axis was the character's morals, and the L-C axis reflected the character's ethics. Two completely separate considerations, but with some similarities in how they are represented as a game mechanic.

-Fletch!

Mkletch, I am aware of this distinction from 1E. I just ignore it because 3E makes no distinction between ethics and morality, and in fact refers to both the G-E and L-C axes as morals or morality, such as the statement that animals are neutral because they cannot make decisions based on morality.

I have always tried to think of G-E as being morality, and L-C as being ethics. (Not everyone I've played with gets this or agrees, so...) In a word, morality is how you treat people, either with kindness or cruelty. Ethics is how you honor your obligations - do you keep your word or do you break it? Do you follow the generally understood obligations of society, such as the idea honoring personal property? This system is pretty easy and straightforward; however, it is not how the alignments are used in D&D. I would argue that thieving is chaotic, while murder is evil. In D&D, thieving is evil. In FRCS, chaotic good characters fight against thieves and the god of thieves, Mask, is NE. His portfolio is thieves, thievery, and shadows. Nothing inherently cruel there, nor in his dogma. I've noticed that the game designers have tried to make both Law and Chaos value neutral alignment choices, but this treatment makes Chaos a "bad" choice.

As for the group v. individual question, I don't have the necessary philosophical training to enter the given debate. It seems to me that in D&D, Lawful means that individuals believe that it is preferable that they and others subsume their desire to the desires of whatever group they hold allegiance to. Chaotic characters believe that individual desires should be considered first, and that adherence to any group simply for the sake of belonging is slavishness. It isn't totally consistent with D&D products, but pretty much so. For instance, in "Tantras", the LG god Torm demanded that his followers give up their lives to give him the power to fight Bane. Torm is Good, but there wasn't much discussion about a choice involved. He was the boss, he needed their souls for a greater purpose, and he had no compunction about demanding that his followers give up their lives (even though it was their choice).

A great example of a Lawful religion in the real world is the Catholic church. Stories I have heard about Catholic schooling indicate that the Church believes that obedience to the church power structure as well as getting everyone to conform to their way of doing things is important in and of itself. A Chaotic religion would be Hinduism. Every family can choose their own god or guru. Again, this is based on the definitions that the D&D designers seem to be using.

 

[Chrisling]

Chrisling, can you recommend a book where I can get a decent overview of Smith's views? Nothing too detailed, though. I've got a lot on my plate, but I can't resist a challenge. And anybody who has even that much agreement with Rand, but is being labeled as worth a look, is DEFINITELY a challenge.

Dood! As chance would have it, I actually learned about Adam Smith by reading Adam Smith -- "detailed" is one word for it, heh. Smith's writing style is actually why people can say crazy stuff about him and get away with it; he's so hard to read only a few people ever do it.

However, I'll write a couple of letter to some Smith-heads I know and see if I can get the title to a book or two that is accessible to the layperson.

 

[herald]

would argue that thieving is chaotic, while murder is evil. In D&D, thieving is evil. In FRCS, chaotic good characters fight against thieves and the god of thieves, Mask, is NE.

FRGS isn't the default game world, Greyhawk is. (not that it makes it better or worse) There are gods of thieves there that aren't evil. And while I think that individual thieves might be chaotic a crime syndiacte is more Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil.

Lawful means that individuals believe that it is preferable that they and others subsume their desire to the desires of whatever group they hold allegiance to. Chaotic characters believe that individual desires should be considered first, and that adherence to any group simply for the sake of belonging is slavishness.

This seems biased. I would have to say that Lawfuls do have personal desires, it's just that they happen to be existing in a group that works towards common goals.

Chaotic individuals are less likely to look to a group for a solution, but will belong to groups as needs be.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

However, I'll write a couple of letter to some Smith-heads I know and see if I can get the title to a book or two that is accessible to the layperson.

Well, I'm not exactly a layperson. One of the things on my plate is a treatise on Confucian philosophy. And I am working on my Ph.D. in Neuroscience (which, unfortunately, includes as much Psych as Neurobiology).

High end concepts are fine, I just want something brief, so it doesn't grow the book stack too much.

As it stands now, the book stack threatens to swallow my apartment. There is no need to provide it more additional mass than necessary.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Selfishness is good inasmuch as it is not negatively focused. I tend to think of Chaotic Good as being that sort of individual. Rugged individualism promotes independant thought and pushes advances through in many fields.

Chaotic Good individuals remind people that we have rights. We have we don't have to have a rule for every action that might come down the pike. That we should think for themselves and do what's right.

IMO, you're describing Chaotic good.

I think the archetypal Chaotic Good person does all those things, but also goes out of his way to help other individuals.

As an example, let's say an earthquake hits a large coastal city, and the city starts falling into the ocean. There are Chaotic and Lawful Good heroes around. Both of these groups will do what's in their power to help evacuate survivors and rebuild after it passes.

In the aftermath, the Chaotic Good heroes will be focused on making sure each individual person gets the supplies he needs to rebuild, and will personally act as vigilante justice to prevent looting, etc.

The Lawful Good heroes will immediately start rebuilding infrastructure (roads, government, police force, etc) that will benefit the group of survivors as a whole.

 

[Urbannen]

In response to Herald:

And while I think that individual thieves might be chaotic a crime syndiacte is more Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil.

I think you meant "more LE than CE." I agree, if Law is defined as "organized", and Evil is defined as "bad." Crime is bad, when it's in a syndicate it's organized, thus LE.

This seems biased. I would have to say that Lawfuls do have personal desires, it's just that they happen to be existing in a group that works towards common goals.

Chaotic individuals are less likely to look to a group for a solution, but will belong to groups as needs be.

Here you're saying that Lawfuls happen to be in a group that works towards a common goal they share. Chaotics belong to groups as need be. These are essentially the same thing. Really, Lawfuls (as used in D&D) do what they have to for the group, regardless of whether that group helps their individual goals or not.

Canis, in your last post, you are defining the L-C axis pretty much as used in D&D - Lawfuls are interested in groups (i.e. society), Chaotics in individuals. Like I said, I think this definition works well with the spirit of D&D published materials. I would hesitate to associate this trait with morality, however, as the PHB does.

(Side note: I have posted a lot on another board, but the people on this board are, like, how do I say? Much smarter?)