PDA

View Full Version : Not another alignment thread!



Thoughtbot360
2009-04-22, 03:38 PM
To anyone who think ye can answer, I ask of thee:

What is the primary distinction between a chaotic person and one that is neutral in regards to law and chaos?

streakster
2009-04-22, 03:47 PM
Bask in the wisdom of Frank and K!


Law and Chaos: Your Rules or Mine?

Let's get this out in the open: Law and Chaos do not have any meaning under the standard D&D rules.

We are aware that especially if you've been playing this game for a long time, you personally probably have an understanding of what you think Law and Chaos are supposed to mean. You possibly even believe that the rest of your group thinks that Law and Chaos mean the same thing you do. But you're probably wrong. The nature of Law and Chaos is the source of more arguments among D&D players (veteran and novice alike) than any other facet of the game. More than attacks of opportunities, more than weapon sizing, more even than spell effect inheritance. And the reason is because the "definition" of Law and Chaos in the Player's Handbook is written so confusingly that the terms are not even mutually exclusive. Look it up, this is a written document, so it's perfectly acceptable for you to stop reading at this time, flip open the Player's Handbook, and start reading the alignment descriptions. The Tome of Fiends will still be here when you get back.

There you go! Now that we're all on the same page (page XX), the reason why you've gotten into so many arguments with people as to whether their character was Lawful or Chaotic is because absolutely every action that any character ever takes could logically be argued to be both. A character who is honorable, adaptable, trustworthy, flexible, reliable, and loves freedom is a basically stand-up fellow, and meets the check marks for being "ultimate Law" and "ultimate Chaos". There aren't any contradictory adjectives there. While Law and Chaos are supposed to be opposed forces, there's nothing antithetical about the descriptions in the book.

SolkaTruesilver
2009-04-22, 03:54 PM
Amen Streakster, thank for quoting that for us!

I will SO bookmark this thread.

Thajocoth
2009-04-22, 03:59 PM
A chaotic person wishes to undermine stability and order in much the same way that a lawful person wishes to undermine anarchy and chaos. They might believe that balances need to be upset on a regular basis for things to continue to improve, for example. One who's neutral doesn't really care about the balance of order and chaos. They'll deal with the task at hand without much regard to the legality of their actions.

So, let's say a true neutral King asks a trio of good adventurers to remove the leader of some true neutral rebellious force. One adventurer is chaotic, one neutral & one lawful. The chaotic one should decline the quest. The chaotic one may even seek out an alliance with that group. The lawful one should do it no questions asked. The neutral one can make either decision, or decide to leave the conflict altogether.

That's all my understanding at least...

streakster
2009-04-22, 04:16 PM
A chaotic person wishes to undermine stability and order in much the same way that a lawful person wishes to undermine anarchy and chaos. They might believe that balances need to be upset on a regular basis for things to continue to improve, for example. One who's neutral doesn't really care about the balance of order and chaos. They'll deal with the task at hand without much regard to the legality of their actions.

So, let's say a true neutral King asks a trio of good adventurers to remove the leader of some true neutral rebellious force. One adventurer is chaotic, one neutral & one lawful. The chaotic one should decline the quest. The chaotic one may even seek out an alliance with that group. The lawful one should do it no questions asked. The neutral one can make either decision, or decide to leave the conflict altogether.

That's all my understanding at least...

Ah - but to kill the leader of that group will throw their rebellion into chaos! Perfect for the chaotic member. And the lawful one? He HAS to refuse - after all, killing is against the law. Or perhaps he recognizes the rebels as the proper authority!

Järnblomma
2009-04-22, 05:01 PM
I've kinda figured out MY view of lawful and chaotic, but the Neutral Good and Neutral Evil I do not get.

Still, I like the system.

In my highly personal view, it's not the decisions in themselves that are important but how you get there. To use the rebel example above: A Lawful (good) character might do it because thay are an abomonation to the law, a chaotic (good) character might decide the same, but because they are pursuing an oppresive regime. Both dislike killing and hurting.

Lawful neutral ONLY sees them as unlawful, and doesn't really care if the cause is righteous.

Chaotic neutral want money. And fun.

Lawful evil sees it as a way to further his own ambitions.

Chaotic evil BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAA SLAUGHTER! >=D BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! MORE SACRIFICES FOR CYRIC! (okay, maybe not THAT mad, but something the same =) )

MickJay
2009-04-22, 05:18 PM
Rule of thumb, if you have some sort of inner code you usually adhere to, in a more or less strict manner, you might be lawful. If you act on impulse, without regard for any rules, or can happily bend your rules, you might be chaotic.

In the example with the rebellion, any alignment on the Chaos-Law axis might agree to help the king or refuse, or join the rebellion, depending on the circumstances. The lawful character might be more inclined to help the king, chaotic might be more inclined to help the rebels, but ultimately, the final decision will probably have little or nothing to do with either C or L.

Let's just hope David Argall doesn't see this thread... :smalltongue:

Xenogears
2009-04-22, 06:31 PM
The way I figure it is that the Law vs Chaos alignment is basically like the Freedom vs Security debate. So someone who is chaotic will say that it is better to be in danger yet free than safe and opressed. A Lawful person will rather have the safety than the freedom. Most people don't go to either extreme (anarchy and totalitarianism) but fall somewhere along that Axis. So following that guideline the alignments would look something like:

CG: The best way to help people is by ensuring that everyone is free to do (reasonably) whatever they want.
LG: The best way to help people is to make sure they are safe even if you have to stop them from doing some things that they want to do.
CE: If everyone is free to do what they want it will be easier for me to get away with what I do.
LE: As long as I tell everyone these laws are for their own good I can do anything I want to.
CN:....Nuetrality is always harder to figure out but I guess something like CE but what they want to do is not so evil....
LN: As long as I'm safe I don't care what crazy rules I have to follow.

NecroRebel
2009-04-22, 07:00 PM
The way I think of it is to consider the normal approach to problems.

Lawful characters will approach problems in a methodical manner, planning how they are going to solve the problem as much as possible beforehand step by step and then carrying out that plan. If the plan fails, they will, again, methodically try one possible solution, then the next possible solution, then the next, in the sense that someone trying to do a crossword, for instance, will try one possible answer and see if it fits, then another, then another, until the right one is found.

Chaotic characters, on the other hand, tend to approach problems in a spontaneous fashion. They don't really plan ahead, but rather wait until difficulties have presented themselves to solve them one at a time. Basically, they're just winging it. If they get to a point where they're stuck, they'll try solutions, likely or not, essentially at random, until they happen upon one that works.

Law and chaos have nothing to do with following or breaking the law.

The ultimate expression of law is perfectly methodical; that is, B always and without fail follows A, C always and without fail follows B, and so on. So methodical that it is actually mechanical, with no room for just trying something that looks, but is not certainly, likely. Absolute ultimate law is so methodical that it stifles creativity and mind.

The ultimate expression of chaos is perfectly spontaneous; that is, giant frog giant frogs giant frog. It is so spontaneous that there is no possibility of preplanning, since the answer to every question is giant frog, whether or not it makes sense. Absolute ultimate chaos is so spontaneous that causality, and as a result humanlike mind, cannot exist.

Neutrality in respect to law and chaos is expressed by being somewhat spontaneous and somewhat methodical, largely depending on situations.



Giant frog? Get it?
:smalltongue:

Harperfan7
2009-04-22, 11:37 PM
The neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. The chaotic character does what he wants, in one way or another (which may or may not be a good idea), and may go out of his way to oppose law/create chaos.

Thoughtbot360
2009-05-04, 06:26 AM
one thing thats interesting is that in OD&D, the Law-Chaos axis were the only alignments in the game. Also, non-humans only had a 20% chance to know the common tongue, yet each alignment (including neutrality) had its own language shared by everything with the alignment.

To further expand on this, Men & Magic had a chart of various creatures dedicated to alignment, perhaps to reinforce the


Men (Humans) were the only creature that had an entry under Law, Chaos, and Neutrality. Also, different kind of Lycantrophes have different alignments

Good ("Curing") Clerics, Halfling, Treants, and variance Horse-hybrid monsters (Pegasi, Hippogriffs, etc.) were Lawful.

Dwarves, Elves, Centaurs, Rocs, and Gnomes moonlighted between Lawful and Neutral.

Normal Animals, Fey, and Monsters with Animal Intelligence like Purple Worms and Gryphons were solely Neutral

Minotaurs, Orcs, Giants, Ogres and Chimerae were dispersed between Chaos and Neutral. Dragons also fit in this line, but the Monster & Treasure book only had Chaotic Dragons and the Lawful Gold Dragon.

Chaos was the Domain of everything else, from Undead to Kobolds to Goblinoids to Evil ("Inflicting") Clerics to some other nasty things that are hard to group together.

Even OD&D though doesn't really have as much alignment based stuff (Class restrictions, spell effects) as say, 3rd edition (over half the classes in the PHB have alignment restrictions, most take away your class features for alignment changes!) the language thing is pretty notable, and likely encouraged more than a few either mono-alignment or mono-race teams back when D&D was young. (Probably why later versions of the game make learning Common much easier or more often than not, automatic.) Still, its a little interesting how they set up the different characters and alignments. Most people I've asked consider that Law and Chaos in that edition as merely stand-ins for Good and Evil, but the fact that the D&D developers decided to keep Law and Chaos alongside the inclusion of Good and Evil (Even in 4th edition, they still aren't gone...not entirely) makes me wonder if there's some hidden reasoning behind why they diveded the creatures' alignments in OD&D the way they did. (Nature spirits like Dryads and Nixies are Neutral but Treants and Unicorns are Lawful?)

Oh dear. Headaches for all.

Salt_Crow
2009-05-04, 06:57 AM
To me, a Chaotic entity is as much bound to its 'tendency' as a Lawful entity would be. He'd live and die, act and decide by his own code of conduct (degree of this 'binding' might vary from one to another, but that's not important in this case). He's branded "Chaotic" because much of the codes/rules he play by may often come into conflict with the law or traditions.

Neutral characters (in terms of Law and Chaos axis) are the grey ones. It's not like they don't have any standards but they'd be willing to adapt as need be, not feeling particularly guilty for going against one's nature in doing so.

But then again, it's simply my personal viewpoint of these troll-breeding topic of alignments, as one would be entitled to their own opinions :smallwink:

Killer Angel
2009-05-04, 07:14 AM
What is the primary distinction between a chaotic person and one that is neutral in regards to law and chaos?

Very simplified version:

I could say that a chaotic person is irritated when must confront with laws; the concept of law is restrictive and suffocating.
A neutral one doesn't care. laws are ok, but not too much, please let's have also some chaos!

imp_fireball
2009-05-04, 08:36 AM
I think the answer is obvious

- Chaos upsets the rules on a regular basis. It's like he's j***ing off; he's gotta do it... upset those rules. Question them. Violate them. Oh yes. It is his life calling. Without it, he'd be mighty bored (with it, it does not get boring for him) and clearly all people who value freedom are like this.

- Law meanwhile wishes to preserve those rules rather then sully them and he will actively seek out all whom wish to do it harm, like a paladin. Lawful people, particularly good ones, are identical to paladins, and there is absolutely NO DISTINCTION unless you want to get super semantical.

- Neutral is the in-between guy. If you're both, you're neutral, if you're neither, you're neutral. Realistically, 99% of people are neutral.

- Chaos and Law are the only ones with a real reason to go adventuring... who knows why the hell neutral's trying to ride with them.

There's clearly no depth involved with being neutral whatsoever.

Dacia Brabant
2009-05-04, 12:32 PM
Streakster makes a good point about Law vs. Chaos as-written in the book tending to overlap each other in their descriptors (especially the parts about having a personal code of ethics). This is why I, and I think many people too, look at it as Authority vs. Liberty, which I think makes a lot more sense as an analogue to real-world ethics.

Of course these are relative scales too, as you would have people who believe in liberty who are law-abiding in a city where the law respects personal freedom, and there would still be assertive people even in the most liberal egalitarian commune. But D&D assumes an absolute scale, so for basic purposes Law/Authority means the social order is more important than individual freedom, Chaos/Liberty means the opposite, and Neutrality is just the large gray area between the two.

streakster
2009-05-04, 01:05 PM
Streakster makes a good point about Law vs. Chaos as-written in the book tending to overlap each other in their descriptors (especially the parts about having a personal code of ethics). This is why I, and I think many people too, look at it as Authority vs. Liberty, which I think makes a lot more sense as an analogue to real-world ethics.


Err..just making sure here, just in case: That bit of genius is not mine, but belongs to Frank and K.

chiasaur11
2009-05-04, 01:24 PM
Jeff's Gameblog had it as who you'd throw down with, come Armageddon. Marvel comics Thor and Co. or Cthulhu.

Of course, that makes Lawful a majority alignment, as who in his right mind would go against good old Beta Ray Bill?

TheCountAlucard
2009-05-04, 01:32 PM
- Law meanwhile wishes to preserve those rules rather then sully them and he will actively seek out all whom wish to do it harm, like a paladin. Lawful people, particularly good ones, are identical to paladins, and there is absolutely NO DISTINCTION unless you want to get super semantical.(puts on my super-semantical hat)

I'm afraid I must disagree with you here. Devils are not like paladins. The reason they follow the rules so strictly is their hope that once they have been promoted enough, they can rewrite the rules for their exclusive benefit. That's hardly what I'd call preservation.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-05-04, 04:15 PM
Obligatory SRD Quotation:

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

Admittedly, this is less clear than the Good vs. Evil entry (what is a "normal" respect for authority?) but it is still intelligible.
Lawful people, by default, feel compelled to follow authority figures and respect the local laws and traditions. This does not mean blindly following authority; they give deference to authority and tradition, but if they have a compelling reason to break with either, they will.

Chaotic people, on the other hand, feel compelled to defy authority figures and flaunt local laws and traditions. By default, they will resist following an order and defy laws - provided they have no compelling personal reason to do otherwise.

Neutral people, naturally fall somewhere in between. They neither defer to authority nor defy it, nor do they respect or disrespect laws as such. If they have no compelling reason either way, they will probably follow legitimate authority (e.g. policemen) and follow the law when it doesn't matter to them one way or another. On the other hand, they will ignore legitimate authority and laws when it is convenient for them to do so.
The short version:
- Lawful people follow the law and respect authority figures unless there is an overwhelming reason to do otherwise.
- Chaotic people flaunt the law and defy authority figures unless there is an overwhelming reason to do otherwise.
- Neutral people follow the law and respect authority figures, unless there is some personal reason to do otherwise.

Personality-wise, it is much easier to tell the difference between the three alignments, of course.

Zaq
2009-05-04, 04:16 PM
If you study Japanese literature, I can basically boil it down to two words. Lawful folks care more, though not necessarily exclusively, about giri. Chaotic folks care more, though again not necessarily exclusively, about ninjō.

Now, of course, if you're unfamiliar with those terms, it'd take me the better part of an hour to explain them in a way that doesn't trivialize them beyond uselessness, but to the 1% of you who understand what I'm talking about, hey!

(And no, don't just use the dictionary. It'll do more harm than good.)

Dhavaer
2009-05-04, 04:29 PM
(puts on my super-semantical hat)

I'm afraid I must disagree with you here. Devils are not like paladins. The reason they follow the rules so strictly is their hope that once they have been promoted enough, they can rewrite the rules for their exclusive benefit. That's hardly what I'd call preservation.

I'm almost certain he was being sarcastic. Mostly because of the 'There's clearly no depth involved with being neutral whatsoever.'

Devils_Advocate
2009-05-05, 12:37 AM
I've wondered about that myself a bit. Chaos often seems to be presented as a lack of Law, when it should be the opposite of Law, with Neutrality being roughly equal measures of both. Same deal with Evil in relation to Good, really.

If you want to draw distinctions between the alignments, obviously you need to look for the places where their descriptions actually contradict each other. These are surprisingly few. Frank and K run with that and say that such spots are non-existent, which is of course bunk.

Relevant bits of the rules: Lawful characters respect authority and honor tradition. Chaotic characters resent being told what to do and favor new ideas over tradition. Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel.

OK, so by implication Chaotic characters do feel a compulsion to rebel. The Neutral part also says jack about tradition, so it looks like the Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic alignments differ from each other in attitude towards authority. Neutral characters aren't actively resistant to being controlled; Chaotic characters are. Lawful characters presumably tend to like being controlled. Kinky!

They also present the ethical axis as being about honesty, but that actually isn't a contradictory part. If your conscience tells you to always tell the truth and you always feel like following it, that makes you Chaotic Lawful. And it's dumb to treat lying as consistently one alignment if killing is treated situationally aligned, which it needs to be to have a normal standard game with non-Evil PCs who nevertheless slaughter a bunch of other sentient beings. So screw that part.