PDA

View Full Version : My take on the law/chaos axis



Zaydos
2009-12-30, 01:28 PM
It is not necessarily the best reasoned, nor the most authoritative. It uses only one character as an example of Chaotic Good, simply because he has been the example always (Robin Hood), and does end with a mention of a fairly widely held example of Chaotic Evil (the Joker) and mostly addresses that both of these do have personal codes and consistent actions. It also notes how more recently popular aspects of Robin Hood (the idea that he was sending money to King Richard) would change his alignment, but the parts stated as making him Chaotic Good have stayed the same and so have parts from before he was even good (in the oldest stories he didn't bother with the poor). It is mostly a rant so you are hereby forewarned.

Look at Robin Hood:
In the earliest stories he stole from legitimate authority because he was wanted for killing one of the king's deer and gave to the poor if at all to keep them on his side.

Later, and most commonly refered to, he fought against what he saw as an abusive and tyrannical authority and gave to the poor because they needed it. He had a strong moral code (no killing, always accept a challenge) partially just to show he was better than his enemies. He disliked the idea that any man had power to control others.

Even later he is only rebelling because Prince John is not the legitimate ruler and he's sending a portion to ransom the rightful king. This is well known now because of certain movies, but in some of the old ballads he was killed by the king as an outlaw and the ransom never comes up.

One of the latter two is the only example of Chaotic Good behaviour that has spanned every edition that I know of, it is the first one and it is still used now. This says chaotic characters can have moral codes and be consistent. In none is Robin willing to cheat, he tries to avoid lying (although if he needs to he'll bend the truth rather than outright lie), he respects human life and dignity (having only killed one man who pointed a bow at him), he has a personal code, and he defies authority. It might be a little unclear what is lawful and chaotic but "has a personal code" is not lawful and most of this uncertainty came from using it as an excuse for paladins and monks. Or using Chaotic alignment as an excuse to randomly hack at whatever you want (which is chaotic at its worse), but to say chaotic has to be random action is the same as saying Lawful has to be strict and unwavering routine in which you do everything by the clock, you wake up at 6:50, bathe and finish at exactly 7:05, eat 2 eggs followed by 6 and 3/4ths pieces of bacon at 7:18... Only modrons go to that extreme on law and even slaad don't go to the extremes of chaos that it seems to be thought of as now.

Personally I'd say the first was Chaotic Neutral with Chaotic Good tendencies, or even True Neutral (he had no wish to oppose the law on the ground that it was the law only that he was already outlawed so he had to). This one was also never common and is only brought up when someone is trying to prove Robin was a bad guy.

The second is Chaotic Good, it is the definition of Chaotic Good. Note that it involves a respect for anything that does good, but anarchistic beliefs. It has strong personal codes but they remain personal. Why do people have a problem with paladins? Because they by alignment have to want others to follow their code, so much that they can't even interact peacefully with those who offend it greatly (no evil associates).

The third one, which wasn't common when these definitions were made as it was popularized later, might be Lawful Good. He is disobeying a false king to restore a true king and thus actually propigating the Law. Note the difference though here he is propigating the law, before he is defying and weakening it. He is still willing to lie, to cheat, to steal, but does so in support of authority and tradition.

This is not to say that only respects authority and honors tradition matters but just because a character will tell the truth whenever possible doesn't make them lawful (fairies do that, it's more fun), just a character who lies whenever convenient isn't lawful even lawful evil. A character who constantly breaks his word isn't lawful, but one who keeps it can be chaotic (Robin Hood in all incarnations kept his word, didn't stop him from flicking off the Sheriff every chance he could). A character who doesn't have such a code cannot be lawful, but having the code doesn't make them lawful. A chaotic code is chaotic. The difference is that a lawful character follows some code which functions along with 1) society and 2) has strict rules.

A chaotic character's code might be: Don't lie, cheat, or break your word; don't kill needlessly; and don't betray friends.

A lawful character's code would be: We shall not lie, cheat or break our word. We will not murder, nor allow others to die for our acts. We will not betray.

Noticeable differences you may wonder. We, a chaotic character's code doesn't necessarily apply to others, he will not try and force them to live it although he will not necessarily associate with them if they don't. Don't kill needlessly and murder are also different as one is simply don't kill things you don't have to and the other is don't kill things that you don't have the right to.

I can even give a chaotic evil code:
Do it in style, my style not someone else's. Kill the Bat myself, don't let someone else. If they get in my way they die.

Yes it's the Joker and he does have a personal code he sticks to, even if it is evil and insane, and a consistent series of actions. I have seen so often those two things listed as the be all end all for Lawful alignments and they are not. If they were then there would be no neutral or chaotic alignments as every alignment represents a code of some sort and consistency in actions.

jmbrown
2009-12-30, 01:40 PM
Law is specifically in respect with society. People seem to have the wrong idea that a personal philosophy or moral code makes you lawful. It doesn't. Being lawful means you conform to standards set by others, not by yourself. A murderer who always cuts off the index finger of his victim isn't lawful. An assassin who's a member of a guild and follows the guild's tenants is lawful; he's a murderer like in the first example but he conforms to the rules of his organization above all others.

A chaotic person can be honest, forthright, and moral. A lawful person can be a liar and dishonorable (a banker who embezzles funds through his firm is essentially lawful because he uses his bank as a front to protect his dishonest actions).

So Robin Hood is chaotic good because he rejected Prince John the Usurper and humiliated greedy nobles; he wants to bring the good hearted king back not because he likes the idea of the feudal system but because King Richard was kind and didn't allow people to suffer. He's not lawful because a lawful person would accept Prince John as king simply by blood right. If Robin Hood were chaotic neutral or even true neutral he likely wouldn't go through the trouble of giving money to the poor; after all, he could use the money more to help King Richard than he could feed a couple of worthless peasants. The Joker is chaotic evil because he rejects society completely and believes that life is cruel and unpredictable.

hamishspence
2009-12-30, 01:44 PM
The PHB does stress that Good beings, including Chaotic ones- have a moral code- it's just a little different from the moral code of Lawful Good beings.

However, at least in some sourcebooks, not everyone who is evil thinks they are evil and are trying to uphold a "moral code of Evilness".

You could have a Chaotic Evil guy who is a bit like Robin Hood, but far more ruthless, a guy who cruelly tortures anyone who betrays him, or any of his enemies that fall into his hands, and in general is far more willing to sacrifice innocents to his goal of "fighting tyranny"

Some of the more recent Robin Hood novels have Robin himself being very like this, a "Godfather of Sherwood" so to speak.

Zaydos
2009-12-30, 02:17 PM
The PHB does stress that Good beings, including Chaotic ones- have a moral code- it's just a little different from the moral code of Lawful Good beings.

However, at least in some sourcebooks, not everyone who is evil thinks they are evil and are trying to uphold a "moral code of Evilness".

You could have a Chaotic Evil guy who is a bit like Robin Hood, but far more ruthless, a guy who cruelly tortures anyone who betrays him, or any of his enemies that fall into his hands, and in general is far more willing to sacrifice innocents to his goal of "fighting tyranny"

Some of the more recent Robin Hood novels have Robin himself being very like this, a "Godfather of Sherwood" so to speak.

I'll agree that not all evil creatures have a moral code of evil, or even most. I was mainly making the point that even Chaotic Evil creatures could have one.

I do now want to make a Chaotic Evil Robin Hood... that would be fun.

hamishspence
2009-12-30, 02:21 PM
You could go with:

"Rob from the rich (no matter how deserving) and give to the poor (no matter how undeserving)"

Combine this with a hatred of authority in general, and you could have a pretty scary character who is "the dark side of the Robin Hood ideal" so to speak.

Devils_Advocate
2009-12-31, 01:30 AM
I just recently tried to organize all of the stuff that the SRD associates with the Law/Chaos axis, as it happens. Here's what I came up with:

Honor vs. (Dishonor)
-Honesty vs. (Dishonesty)
-(Being controlled) vs. Freedom
--Respect for authority vs. Resentment of authority
---(Compulsion to Obey) vs. (Compulsion to Rebel)
---Obedience vs. (Rebellion)
--Tradition vs. New ideas
--(Responsibility) vs. Irresponsibility
Judgment vs. (Acceptance)
(Systematic/methodical choice of action) vs. Arbitrary actions
-(Code of ethics) vs. Conscience
-(Cautiousness) vs. Recklessness
Inflexibility vs. Adaptability
-Reliability vs. (Unpredictability)
-Close-mindedness vs. (Open-mindedness)

The parenthetical things are generally only associated with one side by implication, because the opposite thing is associated with the other side. Note that there are a lot of these.

The major recurring theme seems to be that a Lawful character consistently adheres to particular standards of behavior, and a Chaotic character does what he feels like doing. (But what if you feel like consistently adhering to particular standards of behavior?)

"I'm chaotic. So I can do whatever I want including lawful things."
- Xaralynn Dlardrageth, Sigil Prep (http://www.sigilprep.com/) student

hamishspence
2009-12-31, 06:20 AM
Then, we open up the Good vs Evil question.

A person who is Chaotic in most respects, but fairly consistantly behaves in an Evil fashion, is Chaotic evil. He might occasionally do something benevolent (some CE dragons, like Klauth in the Forgotten Realms Campaign setting, do this) but most of the time, hence, consistantly- his behaviour is Evil.

"Being inconsistant" is, I feel, a very minor part of Chaos.

If a character exhibits many Chaotic traits and few Lawful traits, they are probably Chaotic in alignment.

While the list below is fairly good for the PHB, some other sources expanded on it. For example, Exemplars of Evil lists a wide range of traits that are commonly Lawful, Chaotic, or Evil.