PDA

View Full Version : Chaos as self-centred, Law as selfless (3.5 and earlier)



hamishspence
2010-09-18, 02:58 AM
When reading the Manual of the Planes, I noticed that one of the defining traits of Mechanus, plane of absolute law (called Nirvana in earlier editions) and its petitioners, is that the overarching goal is the loss of individuality "the self"- and that "when the individual is completely subsumed into the whole, perfection follows"

They are trying to be "selfless" in the most literal sense.

Might that be a general characteristic of Law in D&D? Not obedience or organization primarily, but selflessness as the end goal?

Xefas
2010-09-18, 03:22 AM
Pretty much. Law has always been about the group at the expense of the one (or self), and Chaos has always been about the individual (self) above the faceless group.

Lawful Good folk sacrifice their own individual needs to preserve the sanctity and dignity of Goodness as a whole.
Lawful Neutral folk care only for the continued well-being of the group, whether that means committing some evil here and there, their goal is protect as many people as possible with an acceptable amount of losses.
Lawful Evil folk use the group as a shield - they preserve the group so that they may hide in it. When they serve up injustice, it is validated by a majority decision, and that is why they can be safe in the knowledge that they're better than you.

Chaotic Good folk would put the group at risk to save one innocent person. They would rather see 100 criminals go free than see one innocent face punishment unjustly.
Chaotic Neutral folk really don't see the point in a group at all. They take care of themselves, and don't hurt anyone that doesn't deserve it, and if everyone could just take care of themselves and not hurt anyone that didn't deserve it, then everyone would be taken care of.
Chaotic Evil folk don't care about anyone but themselves. They'd stab and loot the whole group when its back is turned if it ever seemed like not-too-large of an inconvenience to do so.

In that same vain, I would say Lawful folk are more likely to care more about the ends than the means, and Chaotic folk are more likely to care more about the means than the ends.

For instance, a Lawful Good individual might be more open to preemptively detaining someone of Evil alignment before they have the opportunity to commit evil. After all, it's one man's possible injustice versus the safety of the many innocent people around them.

A Chaotic Good individual would say that the Evil person hasn't done anything wrong yet, and the true crime would be not giving him the opportunity for individual redemption. Completely disregarding that if the potential villain were to, say, Fireball 20 innocent people to death, those peoples' families would probably not appreciate the fine moral distinction.

EDIT:
Also, under this model - Sanctify the Wicked = Unspeakably Lawful Act (rather than good or evil). You're sacrificing free will and choice for the Greater Good. The redeemed person may not have had a choice in the matter, but you can't argue with the fact that they'll no longer be Fireballing those orphanages and shanking those convalescent puppies. The group has won over the individual.

Ravens_cry
2010-09-18, 03:22 AM
Mostly in a sense of taking apart a word, not in the actually way people generally mean when they say it.

Caustic Soda
2010-09-18, 04:09 AM
I think it would work better to define law as 'group first' and chaos as 'individual first'. IMO, Good and Evil already represent self-sacrifice vs sacrificing others for one's own gain (is there a word for that?). and 'selflessness' implies (to me) such sacrifice which is more relevant on the Good-Evil axis. That said, I concur that Lawful in general attempts to incorporate and unify its members into a community, both as a tool and an end in itself. Conversely, Chaos tends to imply that people should be able to take care of themselves.

I mostly agree with Xefas interpretation of the various alignments, with one caveat. I would argue that having a closed 'in-group' that is treated nicely at the expense of others would also qualify as Lawful Evil. If they treat outsiders badly enough, i.e. assault, theft, murder, and larger-scale crimes such as (attempted) genocide/xenocide.

Examples of what i mean are groups like the mafia (especially as presented in films like The Godfather), or the elf-supremacists from FR, or an otherwise ruthless band of adventurers bound together by mutual loyalty and/or affection. The sort of group whose members cooperate, possibly sacrifice themselves for the group, and have a 'code of honor' to aid and protect one another, but not others.

FelixG
2010-09-18, 04:52 AM
Lawful Evil though can be easily self centered though.

So i would argue that ultimate law is not always the selfless actions.

(a person who finds loopholes in the written law to make their case can be considers utterly lawful could they not? In which case they would be sacrificing the justice of the many for their own purposes be that self preservation or greed.)

Snake-Aes
2010-09-18, 05:10 AM
Might that be a general characteristic of Law in D&D? Not obedience or organization primarily, but selflessness as the end goal?

Selfless is not the lack of self, but altruism, a concern towards the welfare of others. So, no. Extreme Order is not selfless.

thubby
2010-09-18, 05:14 AM
extreme order means homogeny. the loss of self isn't selfless in the normal sense of the word.

you'll notice that limbo also basically devours everything. it's natural state is just disorder instead.

hamishspence
2010-09-18, 08:30 AM
Selfless is not the lack of self, but altruism, a concern towards the welfare of others. So, no. Extreme Order is not selfless.

Depends on your definition of the word- used in its most literal sense, it does fit with Law- or at least, the Plane of Law (Nirvana/Mechanus)

"concern for the welfare of others" might be part of "respect for life"- a Good trait.

So it might work "Good has respect for life- Neutral is indifferent to life, Evil has contempt for life (at the very least, contempt for some life"

Lawful Evil and Lawful Good outsiders are not as "selfless" in the literal sense, as Lawful Neutral ones- since they are "closer"on the Great Wheel, to Chaotic Neutral.

To have respect for life (rather than indifference) implies some respect for your own life.

Snake-Aes
2010-09-18, 08:44 AM
Depends on your definition of the word- used in its most literal sense, it does fit with Law- or at least, the Plane of Law (Nirvana/Mechanus)

"concern for the welfare of others" might be part of "respect for life"- a Good trait.

So it might work "Good has respect for life- Neutral is indifferent to life, Evil has contempt for life (at the very least, contempt for some life"

Lawful Evil and Lawful Good outsiders are not as "selfless" in the literal sense, as Lawful Neutral ones- since they are "closer"on the Great Wheel, to Chaotic Neutral.

To have respect for life (rather than indifference) implies some respect for your own life.

I did use the literal meaning of the word: Having, exhibiting or motivated by no concern for oneself but for others; unselfish. (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/selfless)
As you said yourself, that is a Good trait, not a lawful trait. But it's easy to mess up I guess.
What you describe is the loss of identity, or the confusion between your identity and that of what you represent, akin to a hive mind. Sort of Dissociation, though I'm not sure that's the right word.

hamishspence
2010-09-18, 08:48 AM
It's more a "self-less" is "no-self" interpretation.

It certainly isn't compulsary for Lawful types to be that- so long as they have other Lawful traits- you can have a person that's very self-centred but organized and obedient-

but it is the definitive trait of the petitioners of the plane of Mechanus- that they seek to erase all sense of self from themselves.

Snake-Aes
2010-09-18, 08:53 AM
and what I'm saying is that the composition of "self+less" doesn't mean "lack of self" :p That's just not what the final word means.

You could also claim that a being made of Order would not have a charisma score, since Charisma - means the creature can't tell the difference between itself and what isn't itself, a creature with its "self" denied.

hamishspence
2010-09-18, 09:01 AM
True- its more of a overarching goal for beings of Mechanus than anything else.

Their self is not annihilated, but subsumed into a greater whole. Any not everything on the play seems to be out to achieve it, just the petitioners.

Just as a person who is somewhat self-centred can do good things for others- so a being which is almost perfectly the opposite, can do harmful things.

Is there a better term than "selfless" for someone with an exceptionally low sense of self? I'm pretty sure that's how the term is used in some philosophical contexts.

The "but for others" is not mentioned in at least one of the descriptions on that link- one simply says:

"Having, exhibited, or motivated by no concern for oneself"

Snake-Aes
2010-09-18, 09:03 AM
I'm trying to find it right now. It's either psychological or an eastern philosophy.

hamishspence
2010-09-18, 09:04 AM
Eastern philosophy, probably- given that Nirvana in D&D was almost a direct crib in some ways from that.

"Self-denying"?

Snake-Aes
2010-09-18, 09:08 AM
More on the lines of Collective Ecstasy. The thrill caused by knowing you are part of something grand. Nationalism appeals very strongly to that.

hamishspence
2010-09-18, 10:12 AM
Might explain why D&D monks are Lawful- they practice a philosophy of trying to achieve enlightenment by becoming less and less concerned with the self.

LG monks might see the best way to achieve it as "concern for helping others"

LE monks? Concern for harming others, maybe.

If Evil is simply about harming others without justification, rather than "harming others to exalt the self"- maybe LE monks might believe they can achieve a state of perfect "non-self" through harming others?

Snake-Aes
2010-09-18, 10:17 AM
Monk fluff goes otherwise. They are incredibly busy with their own personal development.

hamishspence
2010-09-18, 10:50 AM
True- but if their definition of "personal development" is "erasure of a sense of self" it might fit.

If Chaos+Good basically means "they love life- and themselves + others, are part of all life" what would Law+Evil be?

Maybe "they hate life- both themselves, and others"? Since hatred of self can only go so far without suiciding, they turn their own self-hatred to hatred of others.