law & chaos: in search of a definition

[Zombimode]

1. Point of this thread
For me the difference between "Good" and "Evil" is simple enough to grasp*, but I have problems to come up with a satisfying definition of "lawfull" and "chaotic".
My hopes and goals for this thread are either to collaboratively build up such a definition, or to come to the conclusion that there is no (meaningfull) difference between lawfull and chaotic.

Yes, this is an aligment thread. If you cant stand them, are bored of them or whatever, thats fine but please dont intefere with the discussion :)

* even if it wasnt, or you would think its not that simple, it wouldnt matter, since its not the point of this thread. If someone would like to discuss this, feel free to open a new thread.


2. Requirements and asumptions
The D&D aligment system has a number of basic premises, that from my view are the following:

A. Aligment is objective.
Its neither a measure of what the creature thinks of itself ]i]nor[/i] what the its environment think of it.

B. Aligment is independent of mental ability scores.
Especialy wisdom.

The definition may not violate those premises, and they can work as a measure of evaluation.

3. The problem unfold
I analized different defintions of "lawfull" and "chaotic" and as I preformulated this posting some days ago I coverd most of them. But it seems my current state of illness doesnt let me focus on things enough, so I will just mention the core problem (mostly the SRD definition):

It is often stated that lawfull beeings value tradition and orderd structures and chaotic beeings on the other hand value freedom. I suspect a false dichotomy here, but "freedom" might be a ill-defined term in this regard so I will not go into this.
But a conflict with premise B arises: if a beeing makes its decision just because of tradition or of its preception of a structures order, it would be dumb as hell. The same goes if a beeing maks its decisions just because of its unfamilarity or of its lacking preception of a structures order (because there is no such thing as an "unordered structure").
Decisionmaking without own reflection is unwise per definition. While I wont argue that people with such character traits exist, this can not be the final difference between lawfull and chaos.


So, whats your take on this specific axis in the aligment system? :)
Oh, and feel free to criticize my points if necessary.

[hamishspence]

the assumptions seem valid.

Drow society, elven society, diaboli society (Dragon magazine) all very chaotic, all rely heavily on traditions rather than laws, to hold the societies together.

This suggests that, in D&D, people who value tradition are not, in fact, Lawful by default.

There is a source listing various forms of "lawful behaviour"- Fiendish Codex 2, but some people claim its ideas to be stupid.

examples given included-

following orders from people you do not personally respect,
aiding superiors to your own detriment,
swearing an oath of fealty,
following rules you consider stupid,
quietly accepting legal judgements against you.

I would be inclined to say that, from this, the suggestion is that Chaotic guys who lose respect for their leaders, commanders, etc will stop obeying them, that Chaotic guys will not swear oaths that subject them to "lifetime loyalty" but grant their loyalty based on respect rather than fealty. And that they place their personal opinion above obedience- given an order that makes no sense to them, they will not obey it.

In short, they are individualistic, and obey rules when the rules make sense to them, and not, when they don't.

[Yora]

My simple Chaos and Law definition:

Chaos: A chaotic character is a person who is generally willing to reevaluate old customs and traditions, takes life as it comes and adopts accordingly, and is more likely to listen to his guts, even though his mind tells him another solution would be more reasonable.
Law: A lawful character is a person who generally prefers a certain amound of order and structure in all aspects of his life. He will try to plan ahead for the future and evaluate the facts carefully before making a rational descision. If he does not like a rule, he usually sucks it up and learns to live with it.

And that about is it.
When a chaotic character follows rules, it's because he thinks the rule is a good one, or because he does not like the consequences of ignoring them.
When a lawful character breaks the rules, it's mostly because he thinks its completely wrong, or he's in an extreme situation that requires stepping out of order, but regrets having to do so.
I don't see how there can ever be any problems with this. Unlike good and evil, there are no such things as chaotic or lawful acts, though.

[deuxhero]

I don't think Wizards knows either. Doesn't one iconic say they are lawful because they are devoted to something I forget and another (a bard) say they are chaotic because they are devoted to their art?

[Riffington]

My simple Chaos and Law definition:

Chaos: A chaotic character is a person who is generally willing to reevaluate old customs and traditions, takes life as it comes and adopts accordingly, and is more likely to listen to his guts, even though his mind tells him another solution would be more reasonable.
Law: A lawful character is a person who generally prefers a certain amound of order and structure in all aspects of his life. He will try to plan ahead for the future and evaluate the facts carefully before making a rational descision. If he does not like a rule, he usually sucks it up and learns to live with it.

And that about is it.
When a chaotic character follows rules, it's because he thinks the rule is a good one, or because he does not like the consequences of ignoring them.
When a lawful character breaks the rules, it's mostly because he thinks its completely wrong, or he's in an extreme situation that requires stepping out of order, but regrets having to do so.
I don't see how there can ever be any problems with this. Unlike good and evil, there are no such things as chaotic or lawful acts, though.

I agree with this, except the last sentence. Why can't an act be chaotic or lawful?

[hamishspence]

Indeed, in 2nd ed, it states explicitly that a paladin Falls (nonpermanently) for any Chaotic act, suggesting that they certainly can exist.

FC2 lists "Obesiant" acts, which might be considered markers of a Lawful personality.

To obey, is possibly the foundation of lawfulness, since FC2 stresses obedience in the face of stupid orders, or of people you don't respect, as leading to Lawful alignment.

Kipling:

"Now these are the Laws of the Jungle, and many and mighty are they,
But the head and the hoof of the Law and the haunch and the hump is- Obey!"

[Telonius]

A lawful character will generally find "It's the law" or "It's tradition" to be good enough explanations on their own. A chaotic character generally won't care what the law or traditions are, though they may end up following the law or tradition - but they'll be doing it for other reasons. (Ex: female stays home to raise the kids because she enjoys it, and doesn't care what "traditional society" says about it).

A stereotypical Elf might (or might not) follow whatever laws they have, because the laws are logical - not because it's "The Law." A stereotypical Dwarf might follow the laws because it's The Law, That's How It's Always Been Done, and Who are You to Question It, Mister Fancy-Pants Whipper-Snapper.

[Fishy]

The legendary FrankTrollman touches on this in his excellent Tome of Fiends (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=28828). Basically, Law and Chaos make perfect sense when you consider that Giant Frog. The whole Giant Frog arises from an inability to Giant Frog.

[Paulus]

Valuing something and following it are two different things. And by following I mean basing your decisions upon it.


But a conflict with premise B arises: if a beeing makes its decision just because of tradition or of its preception of a structures order, it would be dumb as hell. The same goes if a beeing maks its decisions just because of its unfamilarity or of its lacking preception of a structures order (because there is no such thing as an "unordered structure").
Decisionmaking without own reflection is unwise per definition. While I wont argue that people with such character traits exist, this can not be the final difference between lawfull and chaos.

This is sadly where your argument takes a slight sad turn, you assume this is dumb and wrong, however it is exactly what it means to be lawful. To judge your decision making on things you know, learned, from tradition or a perception of structured order. How would one keep a balance if one did not consider that balance? How could one honor one's family if one did not follow what defined family honor? How could one follow a code, justly, rightly, if one had no code to follow? Lawful people fully burden themselves with outside influences of structure and order, possibly taught or self inferred, because they see it as the right thing to do. Whether or not outside forces or even inside forces see it as 'dumb' or 'foolish' or 'wrong', they follow it because they see it as right. Those who favor Chaos are inherently different, for though they can be presented with the same codes, traditions, structures, they can instead choose not to follow them and or to follow them by going against them. In other words they have to know the code in order to do it's opposite.

Even then, if they have a code honed by their own experiences and follow it, this does not make them lawful. Because you take into account and assume one follows only THEIR OWN presented code. But it is instead how one interacts with others that most defines their alignment. A lawful person who follows their own code, or honor, or tradition or structure, respects other people's codes, honors, traditions, etc. Whereas Chaos may or may not. Hence, "freedom".

Does this make one better than the other? No. Actually. Because each has it's pros and cons. Those who follow a code are well respected by others, and others can possibly follow the code presented by that one, thus creating a power structure and order that is widespread. Wheres Chaos dose not, or chooses not to, or at the least can one day simply choose not to and bee seen as unreliable by those others who would follow chaos or law and thus is not very likely to create any powerful structure or order. Meaning, while they are free, they will lack the apparent trust and full strength of others- unless proven that they follow a chaotic range which for a better good or evil. But I digress.

There is a big difference between them. And it fully is defined by how they act and interact with others. Everyone has their own code by which they live, Chaotic people change it adapt to survive, to become more free. Where as it takes a really good reasons for a Lawful person to change his code, simply because if they do already have a defined code from outside influence or internal thought, it is usually based off of well known and learned truths which have served them well.

You see, that is also the inherent problem with law, accepting order, and structure, leaves little room for movement yet it always serves for stability. Whereas Chaos has an infinite amount of room for change and movement, but in doing so, finds it self unstable. Neither are better or worse, just as Ice is no better than water. They are indeed the same thing, but, on opposite sides of a spectrum which have real and tangible consequences and are NOT changed so easily.

Hmm I'm not sure if I helped to actually 'define' anything for you, but perhaps I explained a bit more. Hope I helped somehow anyway. Assuming of course this is for a D&D definition of Law and Chaos and not a real life definition... because if not, well that's a whole 'nother bag.

[Yora]

But a conflict with premise B arises: if a beeing makes its decision just because of tradition or of its preception of a structures order, it would be dumb as hell. The same goes if a beeing maks its decisions just because of its unfamilarity or of its lacking preception of a structures order (because there is no such thing as an "unordered structure").
Let's get to this with a very simple and harmless example.
Character Of Uncertain Alignment is at a bus stop with his girlfriend and wants to kiss her until the buss arives in 3 minutes or so, but at that place, it's generally considered improper to do that in public places. He really really wants to and really doesn't care if anyone looks at them, but he's unsure if he should break this rule, which would incur no punishment at all. All the people who might see them and think of them as acting improper are just strangers, they never have to talk to again.
If COUA is lawful, his descision will likely be: "Nah, let's wait until we got home. It would not be nice to the people who might feel a bit uncomfortable with us kissing here standing right next to him."
If COUA is chaotic, his discesion would more probably be: "Their problem. If they don't like us kissing in public, they don't have to stare at us and just have to learn to accept, that not everyone has the same ideas about being proper as them."

[hamishspence]

this is an example of "breaking tradition" rather than "breaking the law"

More common among Chaotic beings, but even Chaotic societies can be built on a layer of traditions. Conversely, Lawful beings might feel the need to break the law or tradition (because, for example, it is extremely evil in effects, and they are Good)

Though it is a fair example of behaviour "More likely to be Chaotic than Lawful"

[taltamir]

a lawful person has his own code of conduct that is unchanging, LIKES to work with established authority within a system (unless it is obviously wrong), and is inflexible in his beleifs. Also less likely to break a promise he INTENDED to keep. (aka, if he honestly gave it without coercion).

a chaotic person has a changing and growing code of conduct, if any. Prefers to avoid the law (but not necessarily unable to work with them), has a flexible belief system. And will not at all feel guilty about breaking a promise he originally intended to keep.

Also, for lawful said code of conduct is more likely to be influenced by their upbringing, aka, they obey what they were taught. While the chaotic more likely to break away and rebel.

[Yora]

I agree with this, except the last sentence. Why can't an act be chaotic or lawful?
Name one! :smallbiggrin:
I can't really think of a god example to show that something does not exist in a situation that I made up myself.

this is an example of "breaking tradition" rather than "breaking the law"

More common among Chaotic beings, but even Chaotic societies can be built on a layer of traditions. Conversely, Lawful beings might feel the need to break the law or tradition (because, for example, it is extremely evil in effects, and they are Good)

Though it is a fair example of behaviour "More likely to be Chaotic than Lawful"

I think braking tradition is a better example. Because if you break a law, you'll probably have to face some form of punishment. So did you refrain from breaking the law because you accept its tradition, or because you want to prevent the punishment?

Though I don't think you're contradicting me here. A lawful person might for example demand that a homosexual cupple is allowed to get a single bed room in a hotel, because it's evil to deprive them of that right, only because some people think it's icky.
But on the other hand a chaotic person might object if a bunch of half-naked teenagers are talking about their latest orgies on an elementary schools front lawn.

I think Law and Chaos are highly dependent on the situation.

[hamishspence]

Breaking a tradition that is not a law can lead to social rather than legal punishment- ostracism of various kinds- so both are subject to this caveat.

Acts are difficult to define. Some people believe there is not such thing as an evil or good act in itself- acts are defined solely by their motives and consequences,

and that torture, murder, etc can all be Good acts if both the motive was good, and the good consequences outweigh the bad.

This does not fit well with D&D though- numerous books contradict this, stressing that there are moral absolutes, and that it is only outside of these absolutes, that the rule is "the greatest good of the greatest number"

Defining things this way for Law and Chaos is tricky, but, if FC2 can be taken as a guideline, the rule is probably:

just as there are no Always Good acts but plenty of Always Evil ones, so, there are no Always Chaotic, but plenty of Always Lawful ones.

In short, "For the Greater Chaos" is, like "For the Greater Good" an excuse, and that a person acting lawful in the hope of achieving a Chaotic end, is in great danger of becoming Lawful.

This is only taking FC2 as a guideline though- its not entirely clear if Law and Chaos really do work the same way as Good and Evil.

[Paulus]

I think Law and Chaos are highly dependent on the situation.


Every decision is based on what needs to be decided. Law and Chaos are simply part of what helps you decide. Neither are slaves to situation, nor are situations slaves to them. As it's been said A character should not 'play his alignment' because this usually leads to extremes. One should not decide to burn the town because it is unlawfull, one should not decided to slay the criminals because it is lawful. So you see Situation aside, the different between law and Chaos has more to do with how a person thinks which DRIVES how he acts, as opposed to how one acts which drives how he thinks.

[Indon]

I would start with a D&D-oriented metaphysical view of law and chaos and work inwards from there.

Law (as exemplified by Mechanus) is about heirarchy and rigidity. Where there is flexibility, it is strictly determinable because it is itself on a rigid framework. Thus, things humans do to emulate this state - devising permanent systems, enforcing framework upon flexibility when it is found, are lawful actions.

Chaos (as exemplified by various chaotic outsiders or abberations) is about boundless flexibility and unpredictibility. It's about breaking down barriers and perpetually, unpredictably changing systems. Things humans do to emulate this state include unmaking permanent systems in favor of ad hoc ones, and promoting flexibility without restriction.

Obeying or breaking the law, or respecting or denying tradition, are thus not necessarily lawful or chaotic actions - being lawful or chaotic is about what you to do the system about you, not what you do with it.

The man who obeys a set of laws is not necessarily lawful. The man who creates a set of laws, however, has performed a lawful act.

A man who disobeys an order is not necessarily chaotic. A man who overthrows a kingdom in favor of anarchy (or simply with no thought to replace the law with a different law) is being chaotic.

[hamishspence]

Every decision is based on what needs to be decided. Law and Chaos are simply part of what helps you decide. Neither are slaves to situation, nor are situations slaves to them. As it's been said A character should not 'play his alignment' because this usually leads to extremes. One should not decide to burn the town because it is unlawfull, one should not decided to slay the criminals because it is lawful. So you see Situation aside, the different between law and Chaos has more to do with how a person thinks which DRIVES how he acts, as opposed to how one acts which drives how he thinks.

True. Though there is a Chaotic Only prestige class (pyrokinetist) whose requirements include:

Must have set fire to a structure of any size simply to watch it burn.

Maybe assessing all the classes and prestige classes with a Chaotics only requirement, (or Lawfuls Only) might provide a clue as to the overarching theme.

For example: Samurai and Knights- Lawful only. Samurai are very keen on fealty, Knights have a battle code of honor.

or DMG2: Empires are Always Lawful- if they become Chaotic, they fall apart.

EDIT:
Also, vis: "Founding a legal code"- that does make sense. PHB suggests that creativity is one of the beneficial traits of Chaos, however- maybe they mean in an artistic sense?

[Armoury99]

The legendary FrankTrollman touches on this in his excellent Tome of Fiends (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=28828).

Skipping Giant Frog for the moment, this really is the best resource for you to start getting your head around the D&D alignment system and more specifically/usefully, what you want it to mean in your game.


I don't think Wizards knows either. Doesn't one iconic say they are lawful because they are devoted to something I forget and another (a bard) say they are chaotic because they are devoted to their art?

Yup. This is also from the Tome of Fiends. Ember is Lawful because she “follows her discipline”, while Mialee is not Lawful because she is
“devoted to her art” (these words are actually in the PHB).

[Samurai Jill]

For my own purposes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95858), I basically defined Law as 'sticking to your beliefs', which first requires that the player define what their beliefs are in an explicit and concrete form. Chaos is their violation. And that's about it.

[hamishspence]

it does seem odd that Discipline, in the case of Monks, is Lawful, whereas focus on one's magical skills, in the case of Wizards, isn't.

However, according to FC2, administering discipline on others is associated with Law, so it may be feasible that being self-disciplined is also somehow different from just being "focussed"

It may be Mialee's "indifference" to issues of alignment, that makes have non-lawful- a focus on her skills, is not enough.

[Paulus]

Yup. This is also from the Tome of Fiends. Ember is Lawful because she “follows her discipline”, while Mialee is not Lawful because she is “devoted to her art” (these words are actually in the PHB).

Discipline is inherently lawful, art is inherently chaotic. One follows a set order and failure to meet that order with emotional consequences, shame, pride, joy, etc. The other follows a free path of expression driven by emotional consequences, shame, pride, joy etc. So you see, basically it's the same thing again or rather on different sides of the same coin. And though being the same coin, which side you are on means a world of difference!

[Samurai Jill]

Discipline is inherently lawful, art is inherently chaotic. One follows a set order and failure to meet that order with emotional consequences, shame, pride, joy, etc. The other follows a free path of expression driven by emotional consequences, shame, pride, joy etc.
This argument might hold water except that mastering and applying a given art can actually take tremendous personal discipline. You think the Sistine Chapel was a product of pure whimsy?

[hamishspence]

And maybe Mialee is Neutral because she is both disciplined (working hard at her magic even when its a grind) and creative (she experiments with new ideas and ways, and is artistic)


It's just a hypothesis, but it would be one way of explaining why she is Neutral, and how a bard is "Must be nonlawful".

I don't say that always "discipline + creativity = neutral" but its a starting point.

[Paulus]

This argument might hold water except that mastering and applying a given art can actually take tremendous personal discipline. You think the Sistine Chapel was a product of pure whimsy?

Ah, i suffer a lack of clarity: Mastering an art does indeed take great discipline, but an art itself must first be found into which a discipline can be applied. Yet when you speak of Discipline alone, it can have nothing to do with an art but merely a set standard of how one would go about finding an art. Therefore they are not the same thing, but are both not really productive -or at least rarely productive- in finding each other as we know them.

Depending entirely upon which 'art' you choose the 'discipline' applied can be lawful or chaotic. A martial art vs. a painting art. And even then, a painting art, of pointism vs. expressionism. And even then, karate vs. Jeet kun do. The distinctions are endless and definable, yet in that, they can not seen as 'the same thing' unless as a generalization. Pointism and Expressionism are both painting, but one is a set order of ridged forms and patient practice while the other can be an explosive and furious exercise.

So to for karate a ridged set of moment and actions set upon practice and probability, while jeet kun do a free flowing form of adaptation and centered expression, yet both are "fighting styles".

SO. Any and all can be spliced and diced to fit the bill, thus the same coin, but there are distinctions which set them apart most assuredly and thus, different sides of the coin.

Does that help?

[hamishspence]

how about my suggestion that the two combine to produce the results?

Using this, aside from bards, most great artists (whatever their form of art- music, dance, painting, martial) would be default Neutral, with other factors deciding whether they are Lawful or Chaotic.

[quick_comment]

Chaos = log (number of microstates)

[deuxhero]

Remind me:What good does alignment do? Is there any reason to keep the system that (if the regular discussions on it mean anything) is very vague?

[lord_khaine]

this is the best definition of the Law/chaos aksis i have found so far.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a

[Paulus]

how about my suggestion that the two combine to produce the results?

Using this, aside from bards, most great artists (whatever their form of art- music, dance, painting, martial) would be default Neutral, with other factors deciding whether they are Lawful or Chaotic.

A combination of elements is always the case for any case, as no one or two beings are exactly alike, which preferred method of elements experienced is used to deal with further methods or experience is what defines one as lawful or chaotic: or rather, you are correct in the assumption that a combination of law and chaos can create neutrality as one can see both sides and choose not to follow one more than the others and thus reach a middle ground, but I don't think it is correct to theorize that being both lawful and Chaotic equates to being neutral itself. Again it's a question of what drives to what ends: rather not a being driven by law and chaos into being neutral, or, neutral in that they combine law and chaos. But a being driven by neutrality to combine law and chaos. ... bah I'm turning in circles.

In answer, yes. It is a combination of elements, but not one which is defined as an absolute. Or formulaic in any case.



Remind me:What good does alignment do? Is there any reason to keep the system that (if the regular discussions on it mean anything) is very vague?

It helps D&D define power structures and therefore flesh out a world with real and interactive gods and thereby also avoid theological debate of consequence in the world. In other words "this is how it is because we made it so." But again I am assuming this entire discussion is based solely on D&D world (and 3.5 at that mostly) because alignment itself is purely a descriptive term for D&D and has NO real barring on the REAL world, nor should be discussed as such aside from means of reference and relation for understanding as I have done previously.

In this we are basically discussing how to best understand the rules which are given us, in convoluted means and ideals, in which there is much needed clarity. SO we are basically talking about what was intended or what is inferred based on our own interpretations and the interpretations of others. At least I hope so. I sincerely hope I have not been sitting here telling people how to live lawfully and chaotically as opposed to telling them what I think it means for your character to do so...

[hamishspence]

It's a guideline.

Not a very intuituive guideline, but it can help DMs who want a place to strat when describing character behaviour- He is LG- which suggests he likes law and order, is normally honest, and is also nice to others.

Beings which are "driven by Neutrality" are rare even in D&D- Mordenkainen, the rilmani, and originally (but not anymore) druids.

the "True Neutral means actively furthering all sides, at any point where there is an imbalance- picking the side that is out of balance at the moment" idea was IMO one of the flaws in 2nd ed and earlier.

[taltamir]

For my own purposes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95858), I basically defined Law as 'sticking to your beliefs', which first requires that the player define what their beliefs are in an explicit and concrete form. Chaos is their violation. And that's about it.

basically that...
anything else doesn't really work.. besides this most closely fits the "intention" (I think) of the rules.

[Paulus]

It's a guideline.

Not a very intuituive guideline, but it can help DMs who want a place to strat when describing character behaviour- He is LG- which suggests he likes law and order, is normally honest, and is also nice to others.

Beings which are "driven by Neutrality" are rare even in D&D- Mordenkainen, the rilmani, and originally (but not anymore) druids.

the "True Neutral means actively furthering all sides, at any point where there is an imbalance- picking the side that is out of balance at the moment" idea was IMO one of the flaws in 2nd ed and earlier.

But a flaw which could make quite an interesting character! :3

[Riffington]

Name one! :smallbiggrin:

Ok: John has been married for two years. He meets a woman who he finds extremely attractive, while on a consulting job in another city. He could have a brief fling with her, in contradiction of his wedding vows. To do so would be a Chaotic act.

Shauna is at a protest. She thinks of a hilarious piece of grafitti to write on a local store window. Doing so would be Chaotic (and probably mildly evil; plausibly mildly Good, depending on the details).

Dave finds $10,000 in his floorboards, three years after buying a house. He tries to find the house's previous owner to return the money to him, a Lawful and Good act. He can't find her. He reports the found money to the government in order to pay the appropriate taxes. This is a Lawful Act.

[Tiktakkat]

Chaos is primarily the spontaneous creation of new "stuff", wth said "stuff" being anything and everything from energy to physical matter to mental "matter". Secondarily, it is the continued regeneration of "stuff" previously defined by Law as follows. This "stuff" is typically undefined when created until some external forces acts upon it to give it permanent definition.

Law is the defining of the "stuff" created by Chaos. In a sense this is an inherent tautology, as Law is functionally spontaneously generating new "stuff" itself, in the form of the generations. That does not get in the way of the metaphysics.

Law and Chaos are mutually opposed yet mutually dependent. Law cannot exist with Chaos, Chaos cannot exist without law.

A Lawful being is primarily concerned with defining things, including discovering the definition of things, and then acting within those definitions.

A Chaotic being is, if it can be properly called that, primarily concerned with generating new "stuff", which may include definitions, and then acting accordingly, at least until such time as he redefines things. This should not be confused with pure randomness. A Chaotic being will not flip a coin to decide its every action. Nor will a Chaotic being casually betray its relationships just to do something different. Well, it might if it is a demon, which is a Chaotic Evil being, but a Chaotic Good being would not. Of course, neither of those is purely Chaotic. The baseline should be "What provides new possibilities?"" then modified by considerations of Good and Evil, if applicable. A Chaotic Neutral being might betray its relationships, but only because such an act would directly create new possibilities, not because it was suddenly the time on Sprockets when we dance.

Generally, it is easier to define Law than Chaos for most people as most people do in fact operate on a level of defining things. Even something as simple as language is inherently an act of seeking to define things. Note though how this takes the tautological nature of Law as what defines rather than what creates and turns it on its head. Now we see that it can be Chaotic to create new words to redefine language and create new possibilities even though language is in and of itself a Lawful act of defining things.
So then, Law is defining things to define them, while Chaos is defining things to create new potential, which leads lots of people to wind up Neutral in respect to the both of them, defining what they feel needs to be defined, and redefining things as they feel necessary to the particular situation.

Aside:

So to for karate a ridged set of moment and actions set upon practice and probability, while jeet kun do a free flowing form of adaptation and centered expression, yet both are "fighting styles".

Except that relies on purely a surface understanding of karate.
In practice, no fighting is ever an art of science, but is rather an interaction. It is an expression of two conflicting desires, each seeking to impose itself on the other, and it varies and changes from moment to moment from the variable starting points defined by the initial desires. (Which is a paraphrase of Clausewitz of course.)
Someone who understand karate understands this, and adapts their performance as needed.

[Zombimode]

My simple Chaos and Law definition:

Chaos: A chaotic character is a person who is generally willing to reevaluate old customs and traditions, takes life as it comes and adopts accordingly, and is more likely to listen to his guts, even though his mind tells him another solution would be more reasonable.
Law: A lawful character is a person who generally prefers a certain amound of order and structure in all aspects of his life. He will try to plan ahead for the future and evaluate the facts carefully before making a rational descision. If he does not like a rule, he usually sucks it up and learns to live with it.

And that about is it.
When a chaotic character follows rules, it's because he thinks the rule is a good one, or because he does not like the consequences of ignoring them.
When a lawful character breaks the rules, it's mostly because he thinks its completely wrong, or he's in an extreme situation that requires stepping out of order, but regrets having to do so.
I don't see how there can ever be any problems with this. Unlike good and evil, there are no such things as chaotic or lawful acts, though.

You state why a chaotic character may follow a rule: he has reason to do so.
Now the question arises, why a lawful character follows a rule. If the answer is "because he has a reason to do so" then how is he different from a chaotic character?
If the answer is "because it is a rule" then lawful characters are pretty studip per definition.

Lets analize the hypothetical situation where a character stand before the decision to follow a rule(/law/tradition) or reject it, and said rule is precieved as stupid(/bad/unnecessary/wrong) by the character.
If the character is chaotic, he either will reject the rule (because its stupid) or follow it (because regardless of its stupidy the consequences for rejecting would be worse then following).
If the character is lawful, if he
- reject the rule, he does so because he think its stupid
- follows the rule, he does so because (A) its a rule (this is dumb) or (B) because the consequences for rejecting would be worse then following

This is the problem of most of the answers in this thread: chaotic allows decisionmaking based on own reflection (this is the core concept of a rational person), lawful prohibits that.
In this case lawful beeing can never have a positive wisdom modifier.

(as I wrote my response, new posts apeared)



This is sadly where your argument takes a slight sad turn, you assume this is dumb and wrong, however it is exactly what it means to be lawful. To judge your decision making on things you know, learned, from tradition or a perception of structured order.

In this case your decision is based on a reflection taking information into account that you have aquired in some way. The origins of this knowledge is meaningless. How is this different from a chaotic character?


Those who favor Chaos are inherently different, for though they can be presented with the same codes, traditions, structures, they can instead choose not to follow them and or to follow them by going against them. In other words they have to know the code in order to do it's opposite.

This, again, implies that chaotic characters can base their decisions on own reflection, while lawful characters cant.


Even then, if they have a code honed by their own experiences and follow it, this does not make them lawful. Because you take into account and assume one follows only THEIR OWN presented code. But it is instead how one interacts with others that most defines their alignment. A lawful person who follows their own code, or honor, or tradition or structure, respects other people's codes, honors, traditions, etc. Whereas Chaos may or may not. Hence, "freedom".

What do you mean by "respects"? The way you phrased it, implies that lawful characters are subjectivsts at heart: they never evaluate someone others rules, even if they contradict their own believes.
I certainly misunderstood you, because with this understanding, paladins wouldnt do anything.


There is a big difference between them. And it fully is defined by how they act and interact with others. Everyone has their own code by which they live, Chaotic people change it adapt to survive, to become more free. Where as it takes a really good reasons for a Lawful person to change his code, simply because if they do already have a defined code from outside influence or internal thought, it is usually based off of well known and learned truths which have served them well.

Sorry, I just dont see the difference in here. You say: people (lawful and chaotic) change their minds when presented with good reasons.


You see, that is also the inherent problem with law, accepting order, and structure, leaves little room for movement yet it always serves for stability. Whereas Chaos has an infinite amount of room for change and movement, but in doing so, finds it self unstable. Neither are better or worse, just as Ice is no better than water. They are indeed the same thing, but, on opposite sides of a spectrum which have real and tangible consequences and are NOT changed so easily.

This doesent make sense. The ability to change to the exact needs would produce the greatest stability in a given system, since no mistakes would be made that could destroy said system.


Hmm I'm not sure if I helped to actually 'define' anything for you, but perhaps I explained a bit more. Hope I helped somehow anyway. Assuming of course this is for a D&D definition of Law and Chaos and not a real life definition... because if not, well that's a whole 'nother bag.

Im not sure what you mean by "D&D definition" and "real life definition".


[example]

I read:
lawful = care for other peoples feelings
chaotic = doesnt care for other peoples feelings (= is selfish)

Somehow, I thought this distinction would fit more to the good-evil axis.


I would start with a D&D-oriented metaphysical view of law and chaos and work inwards from there.

Law (as exemplified by Mechanus) is about heirarchy and rigidity. Where there is flexibility, it is strictly determinable because it is itself on a rigid framework. Thus, things humans do to emulate this state - devising permanent systems, enforcing framework upon flexibility when it is found, are lawful actions.

Chaos (as exemplified by various chaotic outsiders or abberations) is about boundless flexibility and unpredictibility. It's about breaking down barriers and perpetually, unpredictably changing systems. Things humans do to emulate this state include unmaking permanent systems in favor of ad hoc ones, and promoting flexibility without restriction.

Obeying or breaking the law, or respecting or denying tradition, are thus not necessarily lawful or chaotic actions - being lawful or chaotic is about what you to do the system about you, not what you do with it.

The man who obeys a set of laws is not necessarily lawful. The man who creates a set of laws, however, has performed a lawful act.

A man who disobeys an order is not necessarily chaotic. A man who overthrows a kingdom in favor of anarchy (or simply with no thought to replace the law with a different law) is being chaotic.

Hm, this has some merit.
Defining two metaphysical categories with a set list of properties.
Then evaluating each given action if and how it approach these properties.
In this way you can put each action in one of the two categories or, if there is no decisive tendency towards one categorie, you label it as neutral.
Hmhm, yup, I think I can see this work.
Ofcourse the categories are purely arbitrary, you could easily change the list of properties (and with that the meaning of the categories), and invent and arbitrarily large number of other categories.
Not that this is a bad thing per se.

Edit: too many responses to answer
If you dont mind, I will cherypick some of them
I really thought I would be in a better condition... this illness makes me sick! :smallfurious:
;)

[Samurai Jill]

Ah, i suffer a lack of clarity: Mastering an art does indeed take great discipline, but an art itself must first be found into which a discipline can be applied. Yet when you speak of Discipline alone, it can have nothing to do with an art but merely a set standard of how one would go about finding an art. Therefore they are not the same thing, but are both not really productive -or at least rarely productive- in finding each other as we know them.
Discipline is involved at every stage. It took discipline for Michaelangelo to learn how to paint, discipline during the design process (which is full of painstakingly proportioned anatomical rendering,) and discipline to actually execute the design over many months in what were often physically painful position. Accomplishing any long-term commitment or goal is inevitably going to demand a healthy helping of not-straying-from-that-idea: i.e, discipline.

So to for karate a ridged set of moment and actions set upon practice and probability, while jeet kun do a free flowing form of adaptation and centered expression, yet both are "fighting styles".
Jeet Kune Do does indeed emphasise the rejection of all set patterns, but there's nothing chaotic about it either- it emphasises finding and using the set of techniques that maximise effectiveness and self-expression, for which there is presumably exactly one (or at most a small range) of optimal solutions at any time.

SO. Any and all can be spliced and diced to fit the bill, thus the same coin, but there are distinctions which set them apart most assuredly and thus, different sides of the coin.

Does that help?
If both sides of the coin are involved in accomplishing a given task, not really. You've still got things that can be called law and things that can be called chaos here, and no useful method of disentangling or quantifying them.

[quick_comment]

Chaos and law have to do with methods, not results.

Take for instance, trying to compute some large complicated integral.

The "lawful" way to do it is to do it by numerical methods such as gaussian quadrature where you slowly converge on the correct answer.

The "chaotic" way to do it is to do a monte carlo simulation, where you basically just take random chunks of the domain and do the integral there and assert that the average is equal to the true value.

[hamishspence]

But a flaw which could make quite an interesting character! :3

True- it was the 2nd ed implication in decriptions of the alignments, that all Neutral characters were like that- which was irritating- 3rd ed making Neutral closer to "unaligned" than "balance-obsessed" for the majority of characters, was an improvement.

A few balance-obsessed Neutrals is OK- having the majority of them be balanced-obsessed, seems silly.

[Crafty Cultist]

Lawful:has a steadfast opinion of how things should be (ranging from a benevolent world where order keeps things running smoothly to a tyranical dictatorship where they are in charge)

Chaotic:does whatever seems right at the time (ranging from the defense of a village threatened by orcs to slaghtering anyone in their way)

[Paulus]

Except that relies on purely a surface understanding of karate. In practice, no fighting is ever an art of science, but is rather an interaction. It is an expression of two conflicting desires, each seeking to impose itself on the other, and it varies and changes from moment to moment from the variable starting points defined by the initial desires. (Which is a paraphrase of Clausewitz of course.)
Someone who understand karate understands this, and adapts their performance as needed.

Well of course, but the training for one is different than the training of the other, and as in any situation a person always falls to the level of their training, it is done so for two different modes of thought. These different modes of though, one in ridgy the other in free flow, are part of what define the styles. Therefore applicable to the comparison.


In this case your decision is based on a reflection taking information into account that you have aquired in some way. The origins of this knowledge is meaningless. How is this different from a chaotic character?

Because the origins of the knowledge is not meaningless. Especially for a lawful character whom follows tradition, code, etc. And to some extent to a chaotic character who follows his own code based on experience etc. But like I said, it also has more to do with interaction of outsides influences and views upon them.


This, again, implies that chaotic characters can base their decisions on own reflection, while lawful characters cant.

No, it implies that Lawful characters usually don't see a need to while chaotic character do.


What do you mean by "respects"? The way you phrased it, implies that lawful characters are subjectivsts at heart: they never evaluate someone others rules, even if they contradict their own believes.
I certainly misunderstood you, because with this understanding, paladins wouldnt do anything.

It means a lawful character takes into account cultural influences and life experiences out side of their own which, while not structurally following their own code, is a product of a different experience from their own and therefore worthy of allowing to exist an or something to consider following in turn IF it does not automatically collide with their own in the extreme of ways.

Where as a chaotic character would trust no system above their own predefined because they believe all systems to be outside their range of experience and thus lacking influence on them. This is not to say they couldn't adapt or hold the same respect to follow it, but at the worst comes to worst, the chaotic character will always default to his own code made from his own experiences where a lawful would default to his own code from his own experiences. The sources of those experiences and total of them factor in, very heavily, depending on what the background of the character is. Making there decision based upon lawful or chaotic influences, and therefore which to follow making their own decisions of those types.


Sorry, I just dont see the difference in here. You say: people (lawful and chaotic) change their minds when presented with good reasons.

Because they do. No alignment is set in stone. However, this dose not mean they are all the same nor their decision making process the same. EDIT: nor their acceptance or reluctance to do so the same.


This doesent make sense. The ability to change to the exact needs would produce the greatest stability in a given system, since no mistakes would be made that could destroy said system.

Needs are different. Weighing the needs of the many against the few is a factor and a most lawful one, especially if the consideration is more for the many. Whereas the needs of the few would be considered for the chaotic point of view, mostly owning to self. But AGAIN, there are no absolutes, and alignment's CAN change.


Im not sure what you mean by "D&D definition" and "real life definition".

I hope we are still defining this for D&D and not life, because life itself can not be broken down into alignments, nor rules made for or against, and even if it could to argue such would be folly. Especially on these forums.


I read:
lawful = care for other peoples feelings
chaotic = doesnt care for other peoples feelings (= is selfish)

Somehow, I thought this distinction would fit more to the good-evil axis.

No because Law can be evil, and Chaos can be good. But how one goes about it, structurally, is what splits the law and chaos spectrum.



Edit: to o many responses to answer
If you dont mind, I will cherypick some of them
I really thought I would be in a better condition... this illness makes me sick! :smallfurious:
;)

No worries I juts hope it helps!


Discipline is involved at every stage. It took discipline for Michaelangelo to learn how to paint, discipline during the design process (which is full of painstakingly proportioned anatomical rendering,) and discipline to actually execute the design over many months in what were often physically painful position. Accomplishing any long-term commitment or goal is inevitably going to demand a healthy helping of not-straying-from-that-idea: i.e, discipline.

Indeed it did. But did it specify which set discipline? Was it self enforced, self created, and self forged? Or was it from outside sources, taught in a class, by an instructor, or book? Same coin, different sides. Either way it affects his actions, and both can have the same outcome, but by definition, they are not the same nor should be considered as such in comparison to better understand the different sources and thus ways of following sed Discipline.


Jeet Kune Do does indeed emphasise the rejection of all set patterns, but there's nothing chaotic about it either- it emphasises finding and using the set of techniques that maximise effectiveness and self-expression, for which there is presumably exactly one (or at most a small range) of optimal solutions at any time.
But it still DOES do so. It is to chaos as to water, and law as to a block of ice. It scorns the block of ice for it’s inability to fit into any “cup” or situation lacking versatility and ingenuity, where as the block of ice scorns the water for being to malleable and therefore lacking stability and strength. Yet as has been pointed out, being both water, are both subject to change with the proper outside sources of influence.


If both sides of the coin are involved in accomplishing a given task, not really. You've still got things that can be called law and things that can be called chaos here, and no useful method of disentangling or quantifying them.

Again it becomes situational, which is why they are not as many indepth official answers (yet also why those that try become so confusing, in other books) therefore it is generally assumed to include the good and evil side as well as relying on the DM and players own interpretations with a few well defined boundaries. Again in the sense of “This is how it is because we made it so.” I would happily go through examples and give my (limited) opinion if you like!


True- it was the 2nd ed implication in decriptions of the alignments, that all Neutral characters were like that- which was irritating- 3rd ed making Neutral closer to "unaligned" than "balance-obsessed" for the majority of characters, was an improvement.

A few balance-obsessed Neutrals is OK- having the majority of them be balanced-obsessed, seems silly.

This is why I never did enjoy Alignment Lock classes. And probably why they removed alignment as being so important in 4e. But that is probably another discussion.

[Zombimode]

It helps D&D define power structures and therefore flesh out a world with real and interactive gods and thereby also avoid theological debate of consequence in the world. In other words "this is how it is because we made it so." But again I am assuming this entire discussion is based solely on D&D world (and 3.5 at that mostly) because alignment itself is purely a descriptive term for D&D and has NO real barring on the REAL world, nor should be discussed as such aside from means of reference and relation for understanding as I have done previously.

Do I intepret you correctly that you say, in real life the difference between lawful and chaotic is nonexistent?

If yes, then would you agree that the law-chaos axis doesnt only makes sense if there are corresponding in-world metaphysical categories (which are arbitrary)?


[aristotelian stuff]

Interessting.
Chaos as Matter, Law as Form.

Now lets see how this translates to lawful and chaotic:


A Lawful being is primarily concerned with defining things, including discovering the definition of things, and then acting within those definitions.

A Chaotic being is, if it can be properly called that, primarily concerned with generating new "stuff", which may include definitions, and then acting accordingly, at least until such time as he redefines things. This should not be confused with pure randomness. A Chaotic being will not flip a coin to decide its every action. Nor will a Chaotic being casually betray its relationships just to do something different. Well, it might if it is a demon, which is a Chaotic Evil being, but a Chaotic Good being would not. Of course, neither of those is purely Chaotic. The baseline should be "What provides new possibilities?"" then modified by considerations of Good and Evil, if applicable. A Chaotic Neutral being might betray its relationships, but only because such an act would directly create new possibilities, not because it was suddenly the time on Sprockets when we dance.

This seem plausible for beeings who are more tied to worlds metaphysics like demons and modrons.
But I dont think humans and similar have those motivations. To the contrary, humans are motivated to still hunger, to procreate, to fullfill any other need. All of them highly defined and thus obtainable through rational reflection. Lawfull would be the only possible and efficient aligment for living beeings.

[Wulfram]

Lawful people are those who keep the Law/Chaos axis in their games despite their being no agreed on definition of them, because they're in the rule book.


For my own purposes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95858), I basically defined Law as 'sticking to your beliefs', which first requires that the player define what their beliefs are in an explicit and concrete form. Chaos is their violation. And that's about it.

What if I believe in not sticking to my beliefs?

[Paulus]

Lawful people are those who keep the Law/Chaos axis in their games despite their being no agreed on definition of them, because they're in the rule book.

What if I believe in not sticking to my beliefs?

Then you are sticking to a belief in not sticking to a belief?

In which case we all sit about and twiddle our thumbs while recounting the days of old where arguments and debates had different shapes aside from circular! Or we throw things at each other. Whichever.

>:3


Do I intepret you correctly that you say, in real life the difference between lawful and chaotic is nonexistent?

If yes, then would you agree that the law-chaos axis doesnt only makes sense if there are corresponding in-world metaphysical categories (which are arbitrary)?

Nonexistent? no. Folly to try and define and debate on this forum? yes.

It makes sense in D&D because they built a part of the system around it. In other words you have to default to: "It is this way because we did it this way."
Which of course is up to DMs and Players to interpret in their own game, but also a solid foundation for others to argue for or against, as we are now, and defining such based upon that and therefore the consequences of it.

[hamishspence]

A LE person may believe kindness is weakness, that the strong should rule over the weak, and that freedom must be sacrificed in favour of security, and that cruelty is the only way to deter crime.

If he then became LG- it logically follows, that his beliefs will have undergone a serious change.

Yet he is still Lawful.

Suggesting that "sticking to beliefs" might not be that fundemental to Law.

[BRC]

The key to making this (and alignments in general) work, is to remember that Alignments are not absolutes, but tendencies.

Whenever we have to make a decision, we start adding up reasons why or why not to do it. A lawful person is somebody who ascribes more value to the reason "there is a rule concerning this".
Example, John Q Lawful finds a wallet in the street. In this wallet is the owners ID and $200 cash.
John then starts weighing whether or not he should return the money. Because he's lawful, he will put more value to the fact that the Law says he should. This does not mean John will return the cash, there are a whole slew of other factors, it just means he's more likely to.


Another Misconception concerning the Lawful alignment is the idea that being lawful means respecting all laws. For example, a cat burglar who never physically attacks anybody, will give himself up if caught in the act, and only steals from those who can afford to lose the money is actually incredibly lawful. Sure he's a criminal, but that's just because he doesn't respect society's laws, or feel they apply to him, but he sticks strongly to his own code of conduct.

[hamishspence]

Similarly, a tyrannical master of a thieves guild- would be LE- not through having a code of conduct, so much as ruthlessly maintaining order among his minions, and valuing obedience and punishing those who do not obey, and so on.

tyranny doesn't always imply extreme Lawfulness (an orc warlord like Obould is a CE tyrant) but there is a general trend of it being more usual than not.

[Pigkappa]

One possibility is to answer in terms of the metaphysics of D&D, and I think it works, more or less. However, I think we can try to define things in another way. The definitions are not equivalent, of course.


Lawful: We say that person A is Lawful if there exists a set of rules, which are strict enough to influence his actions with a certain frequency, that person A will (nearly) always obey to. These rules can't change.

Neutral: We say that person A is Neutral if there exists a set of rules, which are strict enough to influence his actions with a certain frequency, that person A will usually obey to.

Chaotic: We say that person A is Chaotic if doesn't exist any set of rules, which are strict enough to influence his actions with a certain frequency, that person A will obey to most of the times.


The definitions are not perfect: for example, they should be adjusted by saying that the set of rules can't say anything as "always do what you want to do!" or "never obey any rule!".

I'm sorry for not having answered quoting those who said something similar to me, I'm probably gonna do that tomorrow. I'm really sleepy now, and I just wanted to write this down before the discussione went too far, because I think that we should try to find some short definitions to make things simpler (as in mathematics, long and complicated definitions are more likely to be flawed).

[Paulus]

I'm sorry for not having answered quoting those who said something similar to me, I'm probably gonna do that tomorrow. I'm really sleepy now, and I just wanted to write this down before the discussione went too far, because I think that we should try to find some short definitions to make things simpler (as in mathematics, long and complicated definitions are more likely to be flawed).

As are all definitions, because really there are no absolutes. Also something that was already said, but worth repeating so we remember not to get too serious or heated here. :3

[Agrippa]

Law is puting the interests and goals of the group above the desires and even the happiness of individuals. Chaos is the inverse. It's that simple in my opinion.

[Zombimode]

Because the origins of the knowledge is not meaningless. Especially for a lawful character whom follows tradition, code, etc. And to some extent to a chaotic character who follows his own code based on experience etc. But like I said, it also has more to do with interaction of outsides influences and views upon them.

Ok, we established that people have prejudices about the sources of information. If we would take this to defining the law-chaos axis, this would leave us with two possibilities:

1. lawfuls prefered sources of information (laws, rules, traditions, codes) vs. everything else
1. lawfuls prefered sources of information (laws, rules, traditions, codes) vs. arbitrarily defined sources of information (labeld as "chaotic")

In the frist we get one sided definition.
In the second we get two arbitrarily picked sources of information as the definition of lawful and chaotic, while ignoring the others. In this senario we could finde people who dont fit in one of the categories at all.


No, it implies that Lawful characters usually don't see a need to while chaotic character do.

Thats hardly a difference. Taking your statment, lawful people live without reflection, not requesting what they know, while chaotic people do.
Thats pretty much what I said.


It means a lawful character takes into account cultural influences and life experiences out side of their own which, while not structurally following their own code, is a product of a different experience from their own and therefore worthy of allowing to exist an or something to consider following in turn IF it does not automatically collide with their own in the extreme of ways.

Where as a chaotic character would trust no system above their own predefined because they believe all systems to be outside their range of experience and thus lacking influence on them. This is not to say they couldn't adapt or hold the same respect to follow it, but at the worst comes to worst, the chaotic character will always default to his own code made from his own experiences where a lawful would default to his own code from his own experiences. The sources of those experiences and total of them factor in, very heavily, depending on what the background of the character is. Making there decision based upon lawful or chaotic influences, and therefore which to follow making their own decisions of those types.

I think I understand, but again this would render lawful and chaotic as two arbitrarily defined "worldviews" (for the lack of a better word), which other worldviews totally unconnected possible. Lawful and chaotic would becom pretty meaningless pieces of information (since I precieve them as such, your explanation is probably spot on).


Because they do. No alignment is set in stone. However, this dose not mean they are all the same nor their decision making process the same. EDIT: nor their acceptance or reluctance to do so the same.

Of course. But this is based either on prejudieces on sources of information or the mental (in)ability to process the presented reasoning (the other alternative would be accepting the conlusion of the reasoning but acting in contradiction; this would be irrational and as such impossible). Both strike me as inadequat definitions of aligment.


I hope we are still defining this for D&D and not life, because life itself can not be broken down into alignments, nor rules made for or against, and even if it could to argue such would be folly. Especially on these forums.


I dont make a difference between D&D "truths" and real life "truths" if this distinction is not neccesitated by D&D beeing a fantasy PnP game. Concerning the characterisations of humans I dont see why it should differ from real life characterisation if not for specific setting metaphysics.


No because Law can be evil, and Chaos can be good. But how one goes about it, structurally, is what splits the law and chaos spectrum.

My point was: you dont need the categories of lawfull and chaotic to characterize the action alternatives. Good and evil are sufficient.
As of yet I havent ecountered a situation where I couldnt characterize actions with only "good" & "evil" and mental abilities.

[Paulus]

Ok, we established that people have prejudices about the sources of information. If we would take this to defining the law-chaos axis, this would leave us with two possibilities:

1. lawfuls prefered sources of information (laws, rules, traditions, codes) vs. everything else
1. lawfuls prefered sources of information (laws, rules, traditions, codes) vs. arbitrarily defined sources of information (labeld as "chaotic")

In the frist we get one sided definition.
In the second we get two arbitrarily picked sources of information as the definition of lawful and chaotic, while ignoring the others. In this senario we could finde people who dont fit in one of the categories at all.

That's not exactly what I meant, but if you wish to follow that then by all means do so. Also, those people who don't the categories would be neutral.



Thats hardly a difference. Taking your statment, lawful people live without reflection, not requesting what they know, while chaotic people do.
Thats pretty much what I said.

Again, not seeing a need to and NEVER doing so are different things. Where one fits upon a scale of having a preset disposition to do so vs not would be more accurate. Keeping in mind again that there are no absolutes, especially concerning values and actions.


I think I understand, but again this would render lawful and chaotic as two arbitrarily defined "worldviews" (for the lack of a better word), which other worldviews totally unconnected possible. Lawful and chaotic would becom pretty meaningless pieces of information (since I precieve them as such, your explanation is probably spot on).

Not exactly. Afterall, where you go when you die has a lot to do with it, and what spells can and can not hurt you have a lot to do with it. At least up to 3.5 as I understand it.



Of course. But this is based either on prejudieces on sources of information or the mental (in)ability to process the presented reasoning (the other alternative would be accepting the conlusion of the reasoning but acting in contradiction; this would be irrational and as such impossible). Both strike me as inadequat definitions of aligment.

Irrationality =/= impossibility. Afterall, not everyone follows logic nor rationality. As such you do have character who follow laws and such that can inevitably and arbitrarily get them killed, such as a Samurai following his Lords order to commit suicide. And chaotic characters doing the same, refusing to ask a god for help the face of certain death because they bow to no one!


I dont make a difference between D&D "truths" and real life "truths" if this distinction is not neccesitated by D&D beeing a fantasy PnP game. Concerning the characterisations of humans I dont see why it should differ from real life characterisation if not for specific setting metaphysics.

oi. This opens up a whole can of worms. You should not be comparing D&D to real life or applying real life truths, philosophies of alignment, etc to D&D. Mainly because they simply don't apply, alignment is a tangible force just like the gods are in D&D as opposed to real life, but again, such discussion leads to dangerous territory and risks thread lock.


My point was: you dont need the categories of lawfull and chaotic to characterize the action alternatives. Good and evil are sufficient.
As of yet I havent ecountered a situation where I couldnt characterize actions with only "good" & "evil" and mental abilities.

Yes you do, because there is a plane of law and a plane of chaos and they have beings upon them which can affect the mortal world with various forces. As well as gods whom share this power and effect the mortal world and life itself with such concepts. It was simply how it was designed.

[Harperfan7]

Is the alignment section in the PHB somehow not clear? What am I missing?

[The Big Dice]

I tend to go with the original source for the Law/Chaos concepts in D&D, which is Michael Moorcock. His ideas strongly influenced first generation RPGs, giving rise to a lot of things that are taken for granted now. Alignment was one of them, though AD&D took things a step further by adding the Good/Evil axis and the Neutral alignment at the centre of both axes.

And if I can ramble incoherently for a little bit...

Chaos is random and unpredictable. Chaos claims to be the source of unlimited possibility, and makes or unmakes on a whim, with no desires past the immediate gratification of the moment. In general, I think Chaotic types are individualistic and driven mainly by instinct and impulse. They may mean well, may be selfish or may be actively destructive. Whichever path they choose, they deal with consequences as they arise, but don't necessarily plan for them.

So a Chaotic Good character would try to help out as best they could in a given situation, but their methods might be haphazard and run counter to the methods favoured by the society the character is in. Most adventurers are Chaotic Good if you look closely at how they operate. THe Doctor from Doctor Who is a good example of a CG character.

Chaotic Neutral characters are in it for themselves. "What do I get out of this?" is the question I ask a lot when I play CN. More mercenary adventurer types seem to act this way, helping out the good guys in exchange for some Phat Lewt. Han Solo in the original Star Wars seems to fit the bill as a CN character.

Chaotic Evil is quite often played as Chaotic Stupid, or used as an excuse for excess of all kinds in games. But that doesn't have to be the case. Random destruction and mayhem for the pure joy of it are hallmarks of this alignment. The Joker in The Dark Knight fits the bill for an example of CE in action. Some people just want to see the world burn. But that doesn't mean they are stupid.

Law can be seen as the opposite of Chaos. Law is about order and progress, and the good of the society over the good of the individual. That's not to say that Law is all nobility and self sacrifice. Law can be harsh and uncaring, even cruel, depending on the Good/Evil aspect of things. In a lot of ways, an extremely Lawful society is even worse than an extremely Chaotic one.

The archetypical Lawful Good characters in D&D are Paladins. They uphold the laws of the land and their gods, protect the weak and are bound by a strict code of honour. But they can also be harsh, judgemental and quite brutal about enforcing their ways on the people around them. But on the whole, LG types tend to put the needs of the many before their own needs.

Lawful Neutral is a difficult one to pin down. I think most real people are LN. They don't actively break the law, but they are primarily concerned with looking after themselves and the people they care for. Modern judicial systems would seem to strive to be LN, interpreting and applying the law as written in a fair and impartial manner.

Possibly the hardest alignment to get to grips with is Lawful Evil. At the level of a society, it's fairly easy to pin down. Order is to be maintained with an iron fist and punishments for people getting out of line are brutal and often fatal. At a personal level, it's harder to pin down what makes someone Lawful and Evil. In my experience, a lot of people play Paladins in a way that I'd consider Evil. They act like armoured enforcers, killing because of philosophical differences. However, I'd hold up Judge Death from the Judge Dredd comics as the ultimate example of LE. The crime isss life, the ssssentence isss death...

The thing with Law and Chaos is, there's no right or wrong answer. I've rambled away giving my take on things. Or a part of them anyway. It's a complicated issue that tends to get clouded by a view that Law = good and Chaos = evil. But it's not that simple. Because if it was simple, there's no reason to debate and give ideas after so many years of basically the same system being in place.

And to be honest, I'm glad there's no clear cut right and wrong answers involved with alignment.

[JonestheSpy]

One of the more interesting alignment/philosophy discussions. I have a few points to throw in here.

There are of course the philosophical and metaphysical foundations of law and chaos - change vs. stasis, randomness vs unpredictability, etc. But I think in human terms, what it boils down too most often is the individual vs. society. For example:



Dave finds $10,000 in his floorboards, three years after buying a house. He tries to find the house's previous owner to return the money to him, a Lawful and Good act. He can't find her. He reports the found money to the government in order to pay the appropriate taxes. This is a Lawful Act.

Riffington is clearly displaying bias toward chaos - he thinks the right thing to would be to make a personal track down the individual who the house belonged to before. A lawful person would very likely say that the best thing ot do would be report the money to the authorities, because they have rules and procedures dealing with such situations and would do the correct thing.

I don't at all think that a chaotic person is less likely to keep their word, or not stay true to a code of honor- but it would be the chaotic person's personal code, not necessarily one they share with their peers.

Say a lawful person and a chaotic person make an oath to do something. conventional DnD wisdom holds that the lawful person is going to be more likely to fulfill that oath. But suppose they were given instructions by some authority figure - duke, high priest, captain, whatever - that condradicted that oath? The lawful person would probably act as their superior required because they believed in the importance of duty and not disrupting the established order, while a chaotic person would be likely to consider their personal word more important than any outside factor.

Likewise personal loyalty, lawful characters are usually thought to be more likely to stay loyal and whatnot, but in my opinion a lwaful person will be more likely to stay loyal to an organization, while chaotic characters would follow individuals. Think of, say, an Roman army unit vs a band of Viking raiders. If the commander of the Romans dies, there will be a clear succession and nothing much will change, while if the Viking captain died the band might well disperse altogether, or the most charismatic/strongest member might take over and the warriors might stay or go depending on how much they liked him.

Lots more examples to think of, I'm sure...

EDIT: As for the relation of goo/evil vs law/chaos, I think of it in the same way Moorcock and many other philosophers of the fantastic do: balance is good, imbalance is evil. Think of the whole alignment grid as a diamond. Law and chaos are on the equator, as it were, balancing each other out. A Purely good society will be one that does its best to balance the needs of the individual vs. the needs of society. CG and LG types will favor one over the other, and thus be slightly lower down on the slope of the diamond. Pure evil will use law or chaos as tools, because they know that too much of either is equally destructive - it will throw it's weight on whatever side is more likely to throw its enemies further toward imbalance.

[Tequila Sunrise]

So, whats your take on this specific axis in the aligment system? :)
Oh, and feel free to criticize my points if necessary.
Chaos = "There's no universal underlying order to everything, there's no TRUTH {tm} and your way of living your life isn't better than mine!"

Law = "There is an order and a truth to everything and there are BETTER ways of living! I might not smite miscreants, but I will proselytize!"

Neutral = "Whatever dudes, I go to church on most Sundays because it gives me a chance to gossip, because connects me to my community, and just because I've been doing it for years."

[Je dit Viola]

Likewise personal loyalty, lawful characters are usually thought to be more likely to stay loyal and whatnot, but in my opinion a lwaful person will be more likely to stay loyal to an organization, while chaotic characters would follow individuals. Think of, say, an Roman army unit vs a band of Viking raiders. If the commander of the Romans dies, there will be a clear succession and nothing much will change, while if the Viking captain died the band might well disperse altogether, or the most charismatic/strongest member might take over and the warriors might stay or go depending on how much they liked him.
I really like this example, it just fits so well with my idea. Lawful, loyal to the whole. Chaotic, loyal to the person. Extrapolating...Lawful, good of the whole. Chaotic, good of the person. Lawful, plans for the whole thing. Chaotic, 'plans' on each individual encounter.

I actually would judge each action of a character individually about whether its Chaotic or Lawful, because circumstances entirely dictate which side will do what. You can have a Chaotic person save an orphanage from fire, or you can have a Lawful person save an orphanage from fire. You could also have a Chaotic refuse to save them from the fire, or a Lawful refuse to save them. Entierly dependant on the circumstances. Which, there are so many, with so many details that have to be taken in context, that there's little point going in further.

[Tiktakkat]

Interessting.
Chaos as Matter, Law as Form.

Yes, but more than just Aristotlean. You will find the same essential construction in Babylonian/Mesopotamian and Norse mythology, and close enough to it in Greek and Egyptian mythology. There is a "source" of "stuff" and some force comes along and begins to divide and define that "stuff".


This seem plausible for beeings who are more tied to worlds metaphysics like demons and modrons.
But I dont think humans and similar have those motivations. To the contrary, humans are motivated to still hunger, to procreate, to fullfill any other need. All of them highly defined and thus obtainable through rational reflection. Lawfull would be the only possible and efficient aligment for living beeings.

Basically. And thus my point that it tends to be easier to define Law than Chaos. And why the extreme alignments are more accessible to definition and understanding than the partly Neutral alignments. (In general of course.)


Well of course, but the training for one is different than the training of the other, and as in any situation a person always falls to the level of their training, it is done so for two different modes of thought.

Except the training is not different.
It is given different names, but developing any skill requires constant practice and repetition. Whether you combine those skills in formal exercises that you call "kata" or you perform separate moves as "drills" does not in any way change that you are practicing by repetiton.

And of course, that assumes that karate practice is nothing but endless repetitions of kata with nothing else, or that kata is performed as a general fight and not the exercise that it is.

Karate is far from a static system in and of itself.

[Paulus]

Except the training is not different.
It is given different names, but developing any skill requires constant practice and repetition. Whether you combine those skills in formal exercises that you call "kata" or you perform separate moves as "drills" does not in any way change that you are practicing by repetiton.

And of course, that assumes that karate practice is nothing but endless repetitions of kata with nothing else, or that kata is performed as a general fight and not the exercise that it is.

Karate is far from a static system in and of itself.

Martial arts are not just about training the body, as I mentioned, modes of thought. Which drives the action, which drives choice, which ties into the comparison. Never said either were static, but I would say they are predictable. Seeing as how masters attach to a certain style and teach it, for tradition, for use, for enjoyment. What-have you. Especially in Karate, which as I assume you are aware sine you seem to wish to beat me over the head with it ( >:3 ) was a part of teaching the military and a very wide spread system of martial arts, if not the first pop cultural excursion of it in many countries. Therefore there were certain modes, methods, and training of both mind and body toward a specific 'way' and therefore adhered to a lawful ideal of description.

Whereas, in comparison, for my purposes, the relatively new Jeet Kun Do was deliberate in it's rejection of adherence to these specifically because it's creator, you know who, disliked the far to strict mode of though and means of teaching. In that, he disliked the 'law' of the style specifically when it said one could not teach it to 'outsiders' and I don't mean archons. Therefore, for our purposes of this discussion, Jeet Kun Do is to Chaos as Law is to Karate, in that both being martial arts and therefore of teh same coin, yet from different and often counterpoint existence of nature and thus different sides. But basically only for perspective and point of view exemplar.

Nowadays of course Both karate and Jeet Kun Do, if not all Martial arts systems allow for creativity, adaptation, and ingenuity. Because it was long ago discovered and realized -what with so many branching styles and interpretations- just one was not enough. Which naturally would put BOTH or rather ANY Martial art outside of the Law and Chaos spectrum in real life, but that only is in reference to the fact such things can not or at least should not be quantified in D&D terms. Regardless, the books themselves list what is and what is not, and to them, any martial arts is ordered. Though I'm sure chaotic ones do apply (hence feats that let you use your fists as chaotic weapons), but are described as such and lastly thusly, need not be discussed here further.

There, have I now successfully justified my use of karate and Jeet Kun do as an passing example? :3

[Riffington]

Riffington is clearly displaying bias toward chaos - he thinks the right thing to would be to make a personal track down the individual who the house belonged to before. A lawful person would very likely say that the best thing ot do would be report the money to the authorities, because they have rules and procedures dealing with such situations and would do the correct thing.

That's kinda fair. I'm actually not sure which is the lawful thing. Certainly keeping it without any attempts to disclose it or find the owners is chaotic. But my family always taught me to look for the owner first rather than to ask the authorities; my parents are both CG, and I'm following their tradition, which is interesting in terms of law/chaos.



I don't at all think that a chaotic person is less likely to keep their word, or not stay true to a code of honor- but it would be the chaotic person's personal code, not necessarily one they share with their peers.
They can follow a code of honor or keep their word, but I'd say they're less likely. Keeping your word is a lawful tendency; albeit one that many chaotic characters do follow.



Say a lawful person and a chaotic person make an oath to do something. conventional DnD wisdom holds that the lawful person is going to be more likely to fulfill that oath. But suppose they were given instructions by some authority figure - duke, high priest, captain, whatever - that condradicted that oath? The lawful person would probably act as their superior required because they believed in the importance of duty and not disrupting the established order, while a chaotic person would be likely to consider their personal word more important than any outside factor.

I see where you're going with this. And it's partly true. Except that the lawful person is unlikely to make an oath that their boss might potentially contradict. And they're less likely to work for a boss who's likely to contradict an oath. When they do, they have a big dilemma, of course. You're right that the chaotic person with a strong sense of oathkeeping is more likely to consider their personal word more important than an authority- but there are so many chaotic people who don't have that strong sense of oathkeeping.



Likewise personal loyalty, lawful characters are usually thought to be more likely to stay loyal and whatnot, but in my opinion a lwaful person will be more likely to stay loyal to an organization, while chaotic characters would follow individuals. Think of, say, an Roman army unit vs a band of Viking raiders. If the commander of the Romans dies, there will be a clear succession and nothing much will change, while if the Viking captain died the band might well disperse altogether, or the most charismatic/strongest member might take over and the warriors might stay or go depending on how much they liked him.
Definitely agree.

[Tiktakkat]

There, have I now successfully justified my use of karate and Jeet Kun do as an passing example? :3

Well, no. It still requires using an incorrect assumption of how karate functions. (And overlooks that jeet kune do is more a method of instruction and tactical analysis than a system, and more properly compared to chuan fa than karate.)
As for whether the rule books are wrong that martial arts must be defined as Lawful via the monk class is another issue.
If you want to start a thread, I'll be happy to go over it with you, but comparing the two to Law and Chaos simply does not hold up.

[Paulus]

Well, no. It still requires using an incorrect assumption of how karate functions. (And overlooks that jeet kune do is more a method of instruction and tactical analysis than a system, and more properly compared to chuan fa than karate.)
As for whether the rule books are wrong that martial arts must be defined as Lawful via the monk class is another issue.
If you want to start a thread, I'll be happy to go over it with you, but comparing the two to Law and Chaos simply does not hold up.

I'm sorry? Saying Karate requires Order and game-logic lawful thinking is not an incorrect assumption of how karate functions. Historically speaking Karate was indeed a system which was moderated by many laws and definitely followed a code, much like the system of Judo which popularized the importance of training mind and body together. and today Karate is STILL a system that relies more on order and game-logic lawfulness because one listens and follows an authority, being taught a certain 'way' a method of action, and a process of thought. Having studied Karate myself I can genuinely say it requires a great deal of practiced tradition, order, and places importance in many values. Altogether in game terms a thoroughly Lawful system of self defense.

and based upon my knowledge of Jeet kun do which is admittedly more a study in it's creators descriptions and intentions of it as opposed to practicing the system myself, the function was to be completely versatile. "Like Water, It can flow, or Crash. If you put water into a cup it becomes the cup, if you put it in a bottle it becomes the bottle. Be Like Water my friend." Paraphrased and butchered from memory no less, I would certainly describe the -if at the very least on face value alone- system of thought and philosophy of action as very malleable and mobile in nature willing to change and flow, and hence, in game terms fits the descriptor of Chaotic.

Now what it has evolved into today, as well as Karate, in undeniably different and far above it's creation- as all arts have evolved from their days of creation- therefore the same definitions and interpretations may not hold true, but the very basis, the historical foundation, upon which BOTH were based is well known to me and therefore well worth referring to in passing. While my "assumptions" may indeed be outdated, they are not incorrect. Especially given my current knowledge, they are true as far as I know indicated an opinion, rather than an absolute, which as I have repeatedly said, there are none.

As an aside, I don't really feel this needs it's own thread, especially since there is no point in you telling me further how wrong my opinion is. As it is my opinion. I don't know exactly what it is that sparked this sudden and dogged dissection of a comment made in passing, but it is bordering on insulting, and I simply won't have that. As far as I am concerned, a "method of instruction and tactical analysis" is a system. Karate is more aptly decried via game terms as lawful than the more aptly described in game terms as chaotic Jeet Kun doe. And finally, no matter what my limited knowledge may be on any martial art, it is still folly to try and define real life via game term alignment. By way of perfect example, how one can be offended by trying to do so, even in passing. Rather than continue this "I know as I see it" vs "you know as you see it" I shall agree to disagree and bow respectively.

[Zombimode]

That's not exactly what I meant, but if you wish to follow that then by all means do so. Also, those people who don't the categories would be neutral.

What did you meant, then?



Again, not seeing a need to and NEVER doing so are different things. Where one fits upon a scale of having a preset disposition to do so vs not would be more accurate. Keeping in mind again that there are no absolutes, especially concerning values and actions.

Yeah, but that doesent change anything. Chaotic people are more reflective then lawful people.
This is a problem if aligment is meant to be independent of mental ability scores.


Irrationality =/= impossibility. Afterall, not everyone follows logic nor rationality. As such you do have character who follow laws and such that can inevitably and arbitrarily get them killed, such as a Samurai following his Lords order to commit suicide. And chaotic characters doing the same, refusing to ask a god for help the face of certain death because they bow to no one!

None of this is irrational. That you can state a reason "...because they bow to no one" confirms the rationality.
Dont confuse irrationality with faulty logic or uninformed or unwise decisions.
Irrationality means making decision not based on reason (conscious or otherwise). Such a beeing would not precieved as sentient, and it would achieve things only by coincidence. Such a beeing is practicaly impossible.


oi. This opens up a whole can of worms. You should not be comparing D&D to real life or applying real life truths, philosophies of alignment, etc to D&D. Mainly because they simply don't apply, alignment is a tangible force just like the gods are in D&D as opposed to real life, but again, such discussion leads to dangerous territory and risks thread lock.

Hm, not so sure.
Let me explain my angle. At first I have a world. Since it is a world that will be part of a game I need to translate parts of the world into a gaming terminology. D&D presents me with one translation pattern and set of terminology. If those fail to satisfy the translation needed for a game, they proved to be inadequat for my purposes.
Now, if a world doesent explicitly change things from how they work in real life, there is no reason not to assume their real life functionality.

[Samurai Jill]

Again it becomes situational, which is why they are not as many indepth official answers (yet also why those that try become so confusing, in other books) therefore it is generally assumed to include the good and evil side as well as relying on the DM and players own interpretations with a few well defined boundaries. Again in the sense of “This is how it is because we made it so.” I would happily go through examples and give my (limited) opinion if you like!
As far as I can tell, your opinion is that just about everything includes aspects of both law and chaos- on which I agree- and that the aspects of chaos can outweigh the aspects of law- on which I also agree. My point is that this is not a useful observation for telling which side is dominant, if any.

I mean, your distinction between 'original cause' and 'external imprint' is a false dichotomy. Human beings do not exist in a state of sensory deprivation, and every system is, in turn, part of a larger system. The renaissance artists believed very much in looking to nature/reality as their model of correctness and the aesthetic qualities of mathematics and geometry. These very lawful things are indisputably part of their art and are indisputably lawful, insofar as they represent rigour, consistency, and constancy. Hell, any non-abstract at form is going to have to represent things we're familiar with, and the abstract kind just exhibit a different kind of order (e.g, fractals, as was apparently the case with Jackson Pollock.)

And of course, these things also involve chaos, since originality is by definition not the mere extension of an existing trend- i.e, they are a violation of order. Chaos is inherently the source of all creation. The problem is that (short of resorting to scientific entropy theory, which would dictate that, on average, chaos ALWAYS increases,) there is no useful way to determine whether law or chaos have the more significant input here. (The concensus from, e.g, the use of genetic algorithms in AI programming is that about a 4% mutation rate is optimal- in other words, a little chaos goes a long way.)

Michaelangelo's art involves many fixed patterns, but their arrangement of parts in unique. Those arrangements of parts also have an underlying orderly theme or message (i.e, glory to God, etc,) yet their particular phrasing is unique. There are layers within layers within layers here. They're impossible to completely disentangle.

My point is that in order to have useful rules on the subject, you have to de-confuse things, and I'm not sure that simply pointing 'law and chaos are like oil and water' is really a helpful observation here. It's accurate, but doesn't say what the proportion in the mixture is.

[Yukitsu]

About karate

I think people are taking particular offense to that because karate practitioners, while disciplined, are not exactly ones that like authority traditionally.

Karate was invented by peasants to fend off the authoritarian samurai from the capitol, which had recently anexed the southern islands of Japan. This basically means it's a tool of rebellion, and that its practitioners were insurgents of a sort. Basically, when invented, a karateka was as lawful as Che.

Judo would have been a better example, as it was the common martial art of the soldiers of the state who followed Bushido as a way of life. At least in theory.

[Tiktakkat]

I'm sorry? Saying Karate requires Order and game-logic lawful thinking is not an incorrect assumption of how karate functions.

And I disagree.


Historically speaking Karate was indeed a system which was moderated by many laws and definitely followed a code, much like the system of Judo which popularized the importance of training mind and body together. and today Karate is STILL a system that relies more on order and game-logic lawfulness because one listens and follows an authority, being taught a certain 'way' a method of action, and a process of thought.

By that reasoning, no one could have any trained ability and be Chaotic.
You could have no Chaotic Wizards, no Chaotic Clerics, no Chaotic scholars, or anything similar.
Teaching =/= Law


Having studied Karate myself I can genuinely say it requires a great deal of practiced tradition, order, and places importance in many values. Altogether in game terms a thoroughly Lawful system of self defense.

And having studied and taught karate myself, I can professionally say it requires nothing of practiced tradition or order, and can functions quite well with few, if any values.
It requires instruction and repeated practice, and some modicum of recognition that someone is a teacher and someone else is not, but the same can applied to having any sort of academic teacher, sports trainer or coach, or artistic instructor.


As far as I am concerned, a "method of instruction and tactical analysis" is a system.

Of course that means it is, by the definition you wanted to present above, Lawful.


Karate is more aptly decried via game terms as lawful than the more aptly described in game terms as chaotic Jeet Kun doe.

In my professional opinion, it is not.


I think people are taking particular offense to that because karate practitioners, while disciplined, are not exactly ones that like authority traditionally.

Not exactly?


Karate was invented by peasants to fend off the authoritarian samurai from the capitol, which had recently anexed the southern islands of Japan. This basically means it's a tool of rebellion, and that its practitioners were insurgents of a sort. Basically, when invented, a karateka was as lawful as Che.

Well, no.
Karate was predominatly created by the noble families of Okinawa, including specific elements functioning as the unarmed combat adjunct to the training of the royal family guards.
It was several centuries, and the gradual lack of class-appropriate employment for said families that eventually led to it spreading to general use.
Also, as noted, karate is Okinawan in origin, not Japanese. There are significant cultural differences, as well as dialectical differences, between the two, as well as between their karate practice. (While normally grouped together, Okinawan and Japanese karate are recognized as different.)
Of course that could be taken to overlook the fact that, particularly in modern times (which for Okinawan karate starts around 1800 or so), karate systems tended to be developed individually from generation to generation. That is, a particularly instructor would study with multiple instructors and from their teaching choose those techniques that best meshed with his physical abilities and personal preferences, and teach that as a "style". When he stopped teaching, his students who were good enough to get students of their own would repeat the practice, making any continuity of a system across generations questionable at best, and essentially meaning that any new teacher was a "rebel" against the established schools.
This of course is in stark contrast to the Japanese systems. (Indeed, one might better suggest that Japanese karate is "Lawful" compared to Okinawan karate being "Chaotic" if you wanted to push that comparison far enough away from other principles of both.) Of course, as Japanese karate, or Japanized Okinawan karate, was the version primarily learned and brought to America, many people believe that in fact karate is some monolithic system stretching back centuries or somesuch. ("This kata is unchanged for five hundred years!" That sounds good for advertising, but has no evidence in reality.)

Conversely, many elements of chuan fa were developed as part of several cycles of Chinese rebellions over several centuries. This of course despite its origins as merely an exercise system to make people physically fit for the meditation and other requirements in isolated monasteries with a belief in pacifism.


Judo would have been a better example, as it was the common martial art of the soldiers of the state who followed Bushido as a way of life. At least in theory.

That would be Jiu-jitsu.
Judo was deliberately created as a sporting and physical fitness version of jiu-jitsu, with many of the more destructive techniques removed or heavily modified.

Or, as I said, comparing it to some form or other of chuan fa, particularly Wing Chun, as the creator of Jeet Kune Do did not practice karate, but rather Wing Chun chuan fa. (Which really translates to the same thing in English, but the terms are used to distinguish between the general Chinese and Okinawan/Japanese hard external arts.)

[Paulus]

What did you meant, then?[/quote

"lawfuls preferred sources of information (laws, rules, traditions, codes) vs. everything else" VS. "lawfuls prefered sources of information (laws, rules, traditions, codes) vs. arbitrarily defined sources of information (labeld as "chaotic")
In the frist we get one sided definition.
In the second we get two arbitrarily picked sources of information as the definition of lawful and chaotic, while ignoring the others. In this senario we could finde people who dont fit in one of the categories at all.

Both lawful and Chaotic have a preferred source of information, but that does not mean Lawfuls shun everything else and it does not mean that a 'chaotic' person's other sources are arbitrary. Those other sources of information are that which is happening NOW, in the game world, whereas the original source of information would be pooled most certainly from the character's past. Hence, nether is arbitrary. If one grew up with a lawful background one would tend to be lawful in their thinking. And vice versa or Chaotic. This really has become far to convoluted to particularly nail down. I find myself simply reexplaining everything I say over and over- which I admit must be to to my inability to find clarity. But I above all don't seem to be helping you in the least.



Yeah, but that doesent change anything. Chaotic people are more reflective then lawful people.
This is a problem if aligment is meant to be independent of mental ability scores.

Aptitude for reflection has nothing to do with alignment and everything to do with mental stats. HOW one reflects upon the information is more accurate. Do they reflect orderly or Chaotically?



None of this is irrational. That you can state a reason "...because they bow to no one" confirms the rationality.
Dont confuse irrationality with faulty logic or uninformed or unwise decisions.
Irrationality means making decision not based on reason (conscious or otherwise). Such a beeing would not precieved as sentient, and it would achieve things only by coincidence. Such a beeing is practicaly impossible.

Definition of Irrational: 1. part c. "Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment: an irrational dislike." Again, I seem to be only splitting hairs and helping less and less.



Hm, not so sure.
Let me explain my angle. At first I have a world. Since it is a world that will be part of a game I need to translate parts of the world into a gaming terminology. D&D presents me with one translation pattern and set of terminology. If those fail to satisfy the translation needed for a game, they proved to be inadequat for my purposes.
Now, if a world doesent explicitly change things from how they work in real life, there is no reason not to assume their real life functionality.

Well this further concretes my assumptions and finalizes the whole basis of my argument as pointless. If this a homebrewed world, then you can do whatever you like. My trying to help define or describe the Lawful and Chaotic nature of thought and reasoning behind the creators intentions for D&D (and 3.5 at that) is moot. Do what you will, find a better system, 4E does away with most alignment based consequences. And if you world has no planes of Chaos or Law, and no Gods who Follow Chaos or Law as described in the original books, then you have no need for clarification or definition.

And as an aside, I would definitely reconsider asking this is the Homebrewed section, as there you find a great deal more people with experience crating their own worlds and therefore being better able to describe law and Chaos as they used it and relate their experiences and troubles which such a thing. But in any case. I apologize if my ineffectiveness in arguing has led to any stress and shall bother you no further.



As far as I can tell, your opinion is that just about everything includes aspects of both law and chaos- on which I agree- and that the aspects of chaos can outweigh the aspects of law- on which I also agree. My point is that this is not a useful observation for telling which side is dominant, if any.

Hmm. Wasn’t aware I was sounding like one side was over the other. In any case, neither is, they are both equal. Alignment wise, as I have stated, “no better than the other.” Though ineffectively I am now coming to understand.


I mean, your distinction between 'original cause' and 'external imprint' is a false dichotomy. Human beings do not exist in a state of sensory deprivation, and every system is, in turn, part of a larger system. The renaissance artists believed very much in looking to nature/reality as their model of correctness and the aesthetic qualities of mathematics and geometry. These very lawful things are indisputably part of their art and are indisputably lawful, insofar as they represent rigour, consistency, and constancy. Hell, any non-abstract at form is going to have to represent things we're familiar with, and the abstract kind just exhibit a different kind of order (e.g, fractals, as was apparently the case with Jackson Pollock.)

I agree completely. Keep in mind I was trying to explain my opinion of such things in game term separations. Something I said from the outset, trying to apply real life to D&D, was folly. As proven through by the ineffectiveness in comparison and the general uproar it has caused. Everyone has their own opinion, and opinions vary, so my opinion on what constitutes an example of Lawful and Chaotic ‘in the game terms as I know them’ were presented. Inevitably they were met with inconsistencies, possible contradictions, and tip toes towards absolutes.

And of course, these things also involve chaos, since originality is by definition not the mere extension of an existing trend- i.e, they are a violation of order. Chaos is inherently the source of all creation. The problem is that (short of resorting to scientific entropy theory, which would dictate that, on average, chaos ALWAYS increases,) there is no useful way to determine whether law or chaos have the more significant input here. (The concensus from, e.g, the use of genetic algorithms in AI programming is that about a 4% mutation rate is optimal- in other words, a little chaos goes a long way.)

Michaelangelo's art involves many fixed patterns, but their arrangement of parts in unique. Those arrangements of parts also have an underlying orderly theme or message (i.e, glory to God, etc,) yet their particular phrasing is unique. There are layers within layers within layers here. They're impossible to completely disentangle.

My point is that in order to have useful rules on the subject, you have to de-confuse things, and I'm not sure that simply pointing 'law and chaos are like oil and water' is really a helpful observation here. It's accurate, but doesn't say what the proportion in the mixture is.

Once more: game term separation. D&D (and 3.5 at that) separates Law and Chaos. And it was my effort to try and explain how that could be applicable, in other words, trying to see from the point of view of those who created it, yet inevitably having to resort to defaulting again and again to “this is how it is because this is how we made it” which of course was solely based on my refusal to step further into try to quantify real life with D&D terms. My actual opinion on law and chaos in real life is vastly different. Human beings have both, interchangeably, much like Yin and Yang, there is always a balance. A person is not bound by either, and there are no real life consequences for acting lawful or chaotic as the game terms suggest. There is no weapon which can hurt you in real life if you think more chaotically over lawfully, basic alignment arguments will always devolve into the definitions of Good and Evil for real life comparison purposes. Which of course is illegal here. Therefore trying to avoid such inevitable distinctions and explain to the best of my abilities has led to this unfortunate outcome.

Case in point.

And I disagree.

Well. For the sake of harmony, and because I am just outright tired of trying to explain my opinion in game terms when the practice is folly as I know it. I shall simply bow out of this discussion. I was wrong, please ignore my words. Thank you for your time. And I am sorry I could not be of help.

[Samurai Jill]

Once more: game term separation. D&D (and 3.5 at that) separates Law and Chaos. And it was my effort to try and explain how that could be applicable, in other words, trying to see from the point of view of those who created it...
Okay, fine- you're just trying to explain things from the perspective of the designers.

...Both lawful and Chaotic have a preferred source of information, but that does not mean Lawfuls shun everything else and it does not mean that a 'chaotic' person's other sources are arbitrary.
Okay, so... you're defining a Chaotic individual as someone who bases significant choices, including the establishment of new beliefs for themselves, primarily on their internal compass rather than external behavioural expectations, and vice versa for Lawful. Okay... I suppose, theoretically, that could work, purely from the perspective of working definitions. So, thanks for pointing that out. I take your point. Thanks.

[HamHam]

I think defining any alignment, at least for mortals, is a matter of ideals. What things they find important, what they consider virtues.

Lawful characters consider order, structure, tradition, continuity with the past, and things of that nature to be inherent virtues.

Chaotic characters consider personal liberty, making up their own mind, change, and things of that nature to be inherent virtues.

No one person has to believe all of these things, but if you tend mostly toward the Lawful ones you are Lawful, if you have a mix you are Neutral, and if you tend mostly toward the Chaotic ones you are Chaotic. Regardless, all mortals will have elements of both in their character it's just a matter of which is expressed and is predominant.

The outsiders and planes of Chaos and Law can also give us a feeling for what separates the two. They all embody different aspects of that alignment. Limbo represents Chaos as formlessness, as constant change, as a creative and destructive force. The Slaadi represents the madness side of Chaos, where the answer to everything is Giant Frog. Mechanus is the counterpoint to this, the grand machine, order for the sake of order. Everything in it's place.

The Abyss and Demons represent crimes of passion, mindless rage, reasonless vices of all kinds, boundless lust, etc. The Nine Hells and Devils represent structural evil, evil that is petty and bureaucratic, the law twisted to serve those in power.

Ysgard is chaos as conflict. Pandemonium is chaos as mental disorder, too many voices constantly screaming in your head. Acheron is the lawful side of conflict, battle between armies and nations and systems. Arcadia is law as organization, as cooperation.

---------------

One of the most common issues people have seems to be with the class alignment restrictions on Barbarians, Bards, and Monks. I think that these are pretty easy to explain.

Barbarian's powers depend on losing control. Of going wild with rage. Not to the extent of a Frenzied Berserker, they remain ultimately in control of their actions, but initiating a Rage still requires a fundamental amount of mental surrender to your inner beast. Lawful people are not capable of this because it is not in their character.

Bards are not just people you play music. You can be an Expert and take ranks in Perform. Bards gain magic through their music, and by embracing the soul of the artist, the transient, the ephemeral. They are born wanderers, and will always seek out the next great story. It isn't in their nature to settle down, and walking the Bard's path requires that ability to simply drop everything and go off in search of a dream, which is an inherently chaotic point of view.

Monks gain spiritual powers through mastery of the self. That mastery comes from discipline and self-control, which are Lawful ideals. Anyone dedicated enough to achieve a Monk's powers is going to be Lawful. And if they aren't Lawful, they can't manage the sort of ordered state of being needed to get and use Monk powers.