Law vs Chaos

[AvatarZero]

It's not a big theme for the comic. In fact, it's featured more prominently as a joke (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0068.html) or a subversion, to borrow vocabulary from TV Tropes (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0632.html). Nevertheless, I was reading this old strip with Belkar's immoral dilemma (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0435.html), and I realised that it works pretty well as a debate between Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil. There's a demon on his right shoulder telling him to do the evil thing he wants to do right now, but the devil on his left wants him to be more responsible and consider his long term potential to do evil.

That might have been pointed out before, and it's certainly not the only time Rich has explored the philosophy of a world running on DnD rules, but I thought it was neat and wanted to point it out.

[Procyonpi]

Rich deals with DnD philosophy all the time. It's one of the great things about this comic. Oh, and to top it all off, he makes it funny.

[Ancalagon]

It's not a big theme for the comic.

Law vs. Chaos is usually not a big theme, but morals, alignment etc is such a big theme that it pops up all the time and is even the "main topic" if the comic. What is just? What is mortally justified? Did the gods do the right things? Does Redcloak have a point and if he has, at what point does he void it due to his means?
Etc etc etc.

If you want to read a section where specifically "law vs. chaos" is spoken about, I suggest re-reading Roy's evaluation when he was dead. Starts here: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0487.html

[SadisticFishing]

Actually, long term and short term evil have NOTHING to do with law and chaos.

These are just two different forms of Chaotic Evil.

[AvatarZero]

No?

I admit neither one is concerned with obeying the law, but I don't think that's the only way an action can be "lawful". Dragons don't obey the law, even if they're LE. Would be emperors pretty much have to commit treason against legitimate authority in order to conquer anywhere, and they're normally well represented by the Lawful Evil alignment.

[Alagaesian]

Well, Law vs. Chaos is sort of played with in the first section of this comic. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0406.html) Hinjo takes his Lawful paladin stance on the whole lying-to-the-Sapphire-Guard issue, while Shojo explains why he has his Chaotic view: Law gets in the way of doing what he thinks is Good.

[Leecros]

No?

I admit neither one is concerned with obeying the law, but I don't think that's the only way an action can be "lawful". Dragons don't obey the law, even if they're LE. Would be emperors pretty much have to commit treason against legitimate authority in order to conquer anywhere, and they're normally well represented by the Lawful Evil alignment.

being Lawful has nothing to do with obeying other peoples' laws...

[Calintares]

The entire dream Belkar sequence is a serious take on the entire chaotic spectrum. That's why it don't matter that it is given from a good character to an evil characters.

[Vinyadan]

I never really got the difference between lawful and chaotic in D&D. I currently handle it as something like "I am lawful: I have a moral code" and "I am chaotic: I have myself". I assume it's not that right, because neutral people also follow themselves, or maybe "I am neutral: I have situational insight."

The alignment thing struck me with the debate between Durkon and V here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0505.html). :vaarsuvius: "Unlike yourself, I do not allow my emotional state to interfere with my--" Vaarsuvius actually allows it much more than Durkon, who is so lawful, he sometimes looks like a robot (healbot).

[Silferdrake]

My guess is that we'll witness quite a lot of Law vs. Chaos once we learn more about what happened to the Order of the Scribble, from what we've seen so far Law vs. Chaos seems to be the core conflict, at least between Girard and Soon.

Edit: Never mind, I didn't notice the thread necromancy going on here.

[LuisDantas]

I am not sure it is even possible for Law vs Chaos to make sense in D&D terms.

Order vs Chaos, as Michal Moorcock often presents the concepts, is a far more meaningful idea. Law, after all, is just a political tool, and politics is not exactly anathema to chaos.

[Domino Quartz]

I am not sure it is even possible for Law vs Chaos to make sense in D&D terms.

Order vs Chaos, as Michal Moorcock often presents the concepts, is a far more meaningful idea. Law, after all, is just a political tool, and politics is not exactly anathema to chaos.

Isn't that pretty much what Law vs Chaos means in D&D terms?

[Lvl 2 Expert]

For myself, I try to imagine asking the character the question "do you in principal like the idea of laws?" So the concept of having rules and holding everyone to set standards (although not necessarily the same standards for everybody). A LG person might like the idea because it can help people do good and help society punish the bad, a LE person might figure that to get anything done efficiently you need strong leadership, a LN character might figure laws promote fairness. All of them can have some sort of laws they apply to their own life, or not. They can have a desire to dictate the rules for others, or not. But they like the tool. Chaotic people don't like the tool. They possibly think it gets in the way of good (CG), hinders their freedom (CN) or brings up too much opposition to wildly killing and plundering wherever you like (CE). But they generally dislike the idea of laws. If you ask them what they would do if they were in charge of the nation for one they they would probably nullify some laws or simplify them to streamline the system.

I figure the giant has his own ideas though, and yes, I can see his work in scenes like the afterlife intake exam. I think his "system" works pretty well. He manages a wide range of different characters and motivations and still gets everyone into an alignment that seems fitting, even if one can poke holes in it. That will always be possible.

[Dr.Zero]

Personally, like I've said in another thread, I see alignment as compulsions.

You have an objective, let's say to kick Xykon's ass for whatever reason.
You have a direct road to it.
But then your compulsions get in the middle, forcing you to take some harder road.
Example:

1)good: compulsion to help people
2)evil: compulsion to violence and sadism
3)chaos: compulsion toward rebelling to authority and keep your total freedom (even if it creates you troubles with law and society)
4)lawful: compulsion toward keeping a code of honour or a code of conduct and so restraining yourself in someway (unrelated to the laws, and even if it creates you problem with law and society)
5)neutral: no compulsions, you do what is easist

So, ie, most of the people who respect the law to stay out of trouble are neutral/something and not lawful only because they respect the law.

On the other hand, if you have a strict self restraining code of conduct, then you can fight against the laws while still being lawful.

And someone who wants a very ordered society but doesn't restrain himself is not truly lawful (if he believes the ordered society would be a bless for humanity, it does it for the good, so he is neutral/good, for example).

Of course this is not the only way to view it.

For example I know a lot of persons who think that neutral alignments are not without compulsions, but have the compulsion to keep things in a sort of balance.

[Vinyadan]

1)good: compulsion to help people
2)evil: compulsion to violence and sadism
3)chaos: compulsion toward rebelling to authority and keep your total freedom (even if it creates you troubles with law and society)
4)lawful: compulsion toward keeping a code of honour or a code of conduct and so restraining yourself in someway (unrelated to the laws, and even if it creates you problem with law and society)
5)neutral: no compulsions, you do what is easist

There are some examples in the comic. When they need to rescue the dirt farmer:
#Haley is totally ok, and she only gave trouble because everything else they did was about Roy. Elan's opinion doesn't count and is not shown.
#The LG group (Roy, Durkon and Miko) are immediately set on the task
#Belkar wants to kill something, and kills the ogres because it's where the party is headed
#V finds the whole thing a waste of time and wants to go on, because his scales show gaining knowledge as better than tracking petty brigands (not enough of a challenge?)

When they need to save Julia:
#Elan and Haley want to help. Elan recognizes that the problem comes from a situation in which he was involved.
#V thinks that one's family must protected and offers help, once he is safe about time consumption and the grand scale of things.
#Durkon is obviously in
#Belkar wants hot girls (other motives are not revealed).

When they need to fetch the starmetal (a mission without ethical value):
#V wants components
#Durkon has nothing else to do until recalled home
#Elan is enthusiast and wants to participate
#Belkar doesn't care about Roy's sword and despises his orders, but wants to proof his strength (and kill something)
#Haley is won over by greed.
#Roy is a filthy liar :smallbiggrin:

[Keltest]

Isn't that pretty much what Law vs Chaos means in D&D terms?

Yes, but Orderly Good sounds really weird to say.

[schmunzel]

... I see alignment as compulsions.
...
1)good: compulsion to help people
2)evil: compulsion to violence and sadism
3)chaos: compulsion toward rebelling to authority and keep your total freedom (even if it creates you troubles with law and society)
4)lawful: compulsion toward keeping a code of honour or a code of conduct and so restraining yourself in someway (unrelated to the laws, and even if it creates you problem with law and society)
5)neutral: no compulsions, you do what is easist



I Violently disagree here!!!!

Being Lawful means that you accept and are convinced that the smooth workings of society (by abiding by its rules) are more important than your immediate needs.
The rules / code of conduct / morals / whatever define who you are. YOU DO NOT QUESTION THEM (or more importantly) YOU DO NOT QUESTION THE CONCEPT.

Being a chaotic person on the other side of the spectrum means that you do not have much patience with societies needs of rules.
You think that they are unnecessary, made only to annoy you and to give other people the opportunity to bully you. RULES ARE UNNECESSARY YOU USUALLY IGNORE THEM (or try to anyway). You disagree with the concept of government.

A neutral person does see the need for society and its rules because these fools do need something to abide by unless everything will drop into chaos, however they accept that there is the necessity to govern on the one hand and the necessity for personal freedom on the other one. THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME SORT OF ORDER BUT IT NEEDS TO BE AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE. Government? Yes!, but minimalistic please.

Please note that there are many many grey colors in between and that the insights to some of societies needs are also governed by ones wisdom (and experience)
So the chaotic person might rebel against the Paladin because of [Concept of who s/he is and thinks] or have enough experience and / or wisdom to perhaps disagree but abide by the rules in the Paladins town and then be about your business asap afterwards.

So a lawful person will be able to see a bad law (or a bad side effect of an otherwise good law) - but it will be much harder than for the neutral or chaotic person because the lawful person does not question the law in the same way.

Even the neutral and chaotic characters will still be bound to a personal code of conduct or a certain ethical ruleset.
It just might differ a lot to the one of the cities temples' deity or the cities ruler.


For example I know a lot of persons who think that neutral alignments are not without compulsions, but have the compulsion to keep things in a sort of balance.

Being Neutral does not necessarily mean that you are all in favor of balance.
It can for example just mean that you are sympathetic to the poor guy who is about to get his hands cut of but do not think it is your part to do something against it, because he brought it upon himself and is not able to pick pockets anymore.
A good person might think that the sentence is harsh and there should not be any form of crippeling people as part of the law; (A good person will be sympathetic)
while the evil person might either give a **** because its not his own hands or will enjoy the show (when being a sadist).

Being neutral might mean that you agrre to government and that yes in theory its nice to have law enforcement that cracks down on crime, but that in reality its probably a good thing they only have money to pay for one Paladin instead of 10 because you object to have your flat searched twice daily and you dont think that one or two more dead a day tip the scales to heavily in favor of the harassment through the Paladins.

sch

[KorvinStarmast]

I am not sure it is even possible for Law vs Chaos to make sense in D&D terms.

Order vs Chaos, as Michal Moorcock often presents the concepts, is a far more meaningful idea. Law, after all, is just a political tool, and politics is not exactly anathema to chaos.
How much Moorcock have you actually read?

Also, Law versus Chaos is well set up in Poul Anderson's "Operation chaos" and informs how Gygax saw it when the were setting up D&D as a campaign. (Note that the original game suggested using Avalon Hill's hex based "outdoor adventures" game for exploring the wilderness and taming the wilderness, setting up your own fief, and eventually building a stronghold and collecting taxes. This is a key theme from old medieval stories where forests housed non civilized spirits and towns/fields were where law ruled.

[Cool Trash]

Law vs Chaos in DnD has always felt to me like "what everyone agrees with" vs. "what an individual agrees with".

Lawful Good: Does good, in a way that everyone approves of and upholds traditional values.
Chaotic Good: Does good, but in a manner of their choosing that is in line with their values.
Lawful Neutral: Does what is expected of him.
Chaotic Neutral: Does what he wants.
Lawful Evil: Does evil, but stays within boundaries of what society allows, in ways that society approves of, or exploits loopholes in the system or in morality itself.
Chaotic Evil: Does what he wants, and what he wants is ****ed.

[Keltest]

Law vs Chaos in DnD has always felt to me like "what everyone agrees with" vs. "what an individual agrees with".

Lawful Good: Does good, in a way that everyone approves of and upholds traditional values.
Chaotic Good: Does good, but in a manner of their choosing that is in line with their values.
Lawful Neutral: Does what is expected of him.
Chaotic Neutral: Does what he wants.
Lawful Evil: Does evil, but stays within boundaries of what society allows, in ways that society approves of, or exploits loopholes in the system or in morality itself.
Chaotic Evil: Does what he wants, and what he wants is ****ed.

Ehh.... I disagree. Chaotic does put the emphasis on the individual and their personal freedoms, but that doesn't mean that Law puts the emphasis on community consensus. That would sort of mean lawful actions are popular and well liked by default, no? Because that is not how it works.

[Pyrous]

Ehh.... I disagree. Chaotic does put the emphasis on the individual and their personal freedoms, but that doesn't mean that Law puts the emphasis on community consensus. That would sort of mean lawful actions are popular and well liked by default, no? Because that is not how it works.

I agree with Keltest here.

Besides, in my interpretetion, law vs chaos has no meaning at all. They are not opposites. Order and chaos are opposites that can be "objectively"* defined. The law depends on the rulers, which makes it a circular definition (because the rulers are chosen by law and the law by the rulers).

* rigorously, meaningfully (english is not my mother language and I don't know what fits better here)

[KorvinStarmast]

I agree with Keltest here.

Besides, in my interpretetion, law vs chaos has no meaning at all. They are not opposites. Order and chaos are opposites that can be "objectively"* defined. The law depends on the rulers, which makes it a circular definition (because the rulers are chosen by law and the law by the rulers).

* rigorously, meaningfully (english is not my mother language and I don't know what fits better here)

Just to point out usage ... ever heard the term law and order? The often go as a matched set.


They are not opposites
They don't have to be opposites to be opposed forces. That is what they were used for in some of the fiction (Anderson and to some extent Moorcock) that informed Gygax in his structural approach to D&D. As an aside, he was trying to avoid the trite "good versus evil" polemic because he was making a GAME. To have FUN. It was only later, as they worked on that initial skeleton and put AD&D (first edition) together that they wrestled with what most people were familiar with, good versus evil, and their originally useful "law versus chaos" opposition model. Just a note: in the Elric series, the Lords of Chaos and the Lords of Law are in opposition to each other.

That they came up with the two axis, nine alignment system was again an attempt to provide something usable in a game. As a basis for philosophy, let's just say it's shortcomings are well known.

Suggest you go back to Men and Magic, and read up on Law and Chaos in the original conception, and then go back and review both the Elric series and Poul Anderson's "Operation Chaos" and "Three Hearts and Three Lions" for why that model was chosen.

[Haruki-kun]

The Winged Mod: Thread Necromancy.