[3.5] Defining the boundaries between Law, Chaos, and Neutrality

[hamishspence]

This was inspired by an earlier alignment debate, where somebody argued that the primary defining point on the Law-Chaos axis, is their general reaction to authority.

Based on "Neutral characters feel neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel" in PHB, it became:

Do they feel a compulsion to obey? They are Lawful.
Do they feel a compulsion to rebel? They are Chaotic.
Do they feel neither? They are Neutral.

They might suppress the reaction, but it's their "instinctive" one, which they may or may not have to suppress.

Is this a good guideline? And does it help to resolve the general issue of people often exhibiting a few traits from both Lawful and Chaotic?

[dsmiles]

This was inspired by an earlier alignment debate, where somebody argued that the primary defining point on the Law-Chaos axis, is their general reaction to authority.

Based on "Neutral characters feel neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel" in PHB, it became:

Do they feel a compulsion to obey? They are Lawful.
Do they feel a compulsion to rebel? They are Chaotic.
Do they feel neither? They are Neutral.

They might suppress the reaction, but it's their "instinctive" one, which they may or may not have to suppress.

Is this a good guideline? And does it help to resolve the general issue of people often exhibiting a few traits from both Lawful and Chaotic?

I can see that POV, but (IMHO) Lawful doesn't necessarily mean "adherence to the laws of the land." Different countries have different laws, and without doing reasearch that would equate to "Knolwedge: National Laws and Statutes," a Lawful person could never really travel outside their own country, maybe even outside their own city without breaking some previously unknown law.
No, being lawful is also about adherence to some personal code of conduct, like our romanticized version of chivalry, that keeps the character in check from chopping off heads willy-nilly.
Also, taken another step towards neutrality on the law-chaos axis, it could mean just that the individual verges on OCD in his/her methodicalness, without any strict adherence to the laws or a code of conduct.

I'm no good at playing chaotic alignments, so I'll just say that trying to get chaotic people to agree on anything is like trying to herd angry cats. :smalltongue:

[Yora]

Do they feel a compulsion to obey? They are Lawful.
Do they feel a compulsion to rebel? They are Chaotic.
Do they feel neither? They are Neutral.
This doesn't work at all. If someone has a plan that supports everything you want, rebelling against it isn't chaotic, it's stupid.

Again (as every week), I say ou don'r define boundaries between alignments. People often try to it, and every time the alignment system falls apart.

Chaos = Trusting your intuition over reason and adjusting your plans as you go along.
Law = Solve problems through careful analyzation of the situation, and plan ahead whenever possible.
Neutral = No strong tendencies to either.

This definitions works perfectly well, but if you try to make alignment into something more, it never (seems to) work.

[Notreallyhere77]

+1 to Yora's post.
Law isn't about following laws, it's about a personal system of behavior which may or may not conform to anyone else's.
Chaos is about being harder to predict, and instinctive and emotional rather than calculating or rational.

[hamishspence]

I can see that POV, but (IMHO) Lawful doesn't necessarily mean "adherence to the laws of the land." Different countries have different laws, and without doing reasearch that would equate to "Knolwedge: National Laws and Statutes," a Lawful person could never really travel outside their own country, maybe even outside their own city without breaking some previously unknown law.

I'm not talking about law here- I'm talking about Authority.

Plus, they're not required to obey Authority to be Lawful- what they are supposed to have, is an instinctive "Obey" reaction that they may have to suppress.

Yell an order at the Lawful person in authoritative tones, and their first instinct will be to obey. If they're a Lawful Good person in Evilland, they will suppress this instinct.

Same applies in reverse to a Chaotic person- their first instinct, when authority commands them to do something, is disobey. But if they're a Chaotic Good person in Goodland, they might suppress this instinctive reaction, for their own convenience.


This doesn't work at all. If someone has a plan that supports everything you want, rebelling against it isn't chaotic, it's stupid.

true- which is why a smart Chaotic person will suppress their instinctive reaction to rebel when somebody gives them an order.

In a Chaotic Evil hierarchy, the incentive that encourages them to suppress their reaction, is fear- a CE subordinate of a powerful CE boss, knows his boss will hurt him if he disobeys, so he'll usually suppress is reaction when given an order, and obey.

[Tengu_temp]

Defining the law/chaos axis is impossible, because nobody is 100% sure what it means. Including the creators of DND.

[hamishspence]

It's difficult- but it may be possible to pick out a common factor that might, in general, unite all Chaotic beings, or all Lawful beings.

In this case, "their natural reaction to authority" might be the common factor- whether or not they suppress that reaction.

[ericgrau]

I think authority is way too narrow for law/chaos, especially when it might be illegitimate. As is reason / intuition, which is more of a mental preference than alignment. Basically law prefers ordered approaches to problems and chaos prefers freedom in their methods. This often translates into respect/disrespect for legitimate authority (but not illegitimate), textbook solutions vs. improvising (both could involve well reasoned thought, though), careful study and training vs. figuring it out as you go, etc. To confuse matters more lawful characters are rarely 100% lawful and ditto for chaotic.

[hamishspence]

I think authority is way too narrow for law/chaos, especially when it might be illegitimate.

Whether or not they suppress their reaction, might depend on the situation.

A Lawful Good person who goes to a Lawful Evil realm, knows his natural tendency to obey, risks him doing wrong- so he does his best to suppress it.

Indeed, you could even have Lawful Good people participating in a rebellion against a regime- and here, the "Authority" becomes the rebel leaders- and they will tend to obey them unless told to do something outright immoral.

For Chaotic, they know that their natural tendency to disobey, might handicap them, so they try and suppress it in circumstances when letting it loose, might cause them big problems.

The theory is more a generalization than absolute- but it might be an interesting place to start from.

[Burner28]

Whether or not they suppress their reaction, might depend on the situation.

A Lawful Good person who goes to a Lawful Evil realm, knows his natural tendency to obey, risks him doing wrong- so he does his best to suppress it.

Indeed, you could even have Lawful Good people participating in a rebellion against a regime- and here, the "Authority" becomes the rebel leaders- and they will tend to obey them unless told to do something outright immoral.

For Chaotic, they know that their natural tendency to disobey, might handicap them, so they try and suppress it in circumstances when letting it loose, might cause them big problems.

The theory is more a generalization than absolute- but it might be an interesting place to start from.

This in a way would make sense as by this, a chaotic character wouldn't have to break every single rule, but will have the urge to anyways.

[Mastikator]

That would depend on if you prioritize good over lawfulness. Someone who is more lawful than good might side with the evil dictator over the rebels. Especially if the rebels are merely chaotic neutral.

[hamishspence]

This in a way would make sense as by this, a chaotic character wouldn't have to break every single rule, but will have the urge to anyways.

This is pretty much it. A chaotic regime would tend to issue orders as little as possible- and the leaders might rely on their own personal charisma, the respect they've earned, or (for evil) their sheer powers of intimidation, to help overcome the natural tendencies of their people.

If you see a "Keep Off The Grass" sign, and you feel a little impulse to walk on the grass in response (which you suppress) you might be leaning toward Chaotic.

[Synapse]

sense of group might be a good reference. Lawful characters connect better with concepts such as "group". Such person finds the concept of "fitting the whole" agreeable.

[Agrippa]

Defining the law/chaos axis is impossible, because nobody is 100% sure what it means. Including the creators of DND.

Only if you go by 3.x's muddled descriptions. In 1st and 2nd edition Lawful characters valued the security, needs and prerogatives of the group over the rights of the individual, while Chaotics championed the opposite. Goodness values compassion, kindness, mercy (towards those who haven't caused severe pain and suffering to others), justice (those who harm others without cause should be punished and those who do good works should be praised and rewarded for their deeds) and self-restraint. At the same time Evil favors extreme ruthlessness, brutality towards one's enemies and crushing just about anyone who opposes you. This doesn't mean that Good can't be ruthless towards those who harm the innocent, nor that everyone of Evil alignment is untroubled by their own actions.

[hamishspence]

One of the complaints in Frank & K's Tome of Fiends, was that there is nothing inherently exclusive about the various Chaotic and Lawful traits described in the PHB:


Now that we're all on the same page (page XX), the reason why you've gotten into so many arguments with people as to whether their character was Lawful or Chaotic is because absolutely every action that any character ever takes could logically be argued to be both.

A character who is honorable, adaptable, trustworthy, flexible, reliable, and loves freedom is a basically stand-up fellow, and meets the check marks for being "ultimate Law" and "ultimate Chaos".

There aren't any contradictory adjectives there. While Law and Chaos are supposed to be opposed forces, there's nothing antithetical about the descriptions in the book.

Hence- if this is the case, then a character's "gut reaction to authority" could work as the deciding factor, when they have many Lawful and Chaotic traits, and a distinct lack of Neutral ones.

[Psyren]

true- which is why a smart Chaotic person will suppress their instinctive reaction to rebel when somebody gives them an order.

In a Chaotic Evil hierarchy, the incentive that encourages them to suppress their reaction, is fear- a CE subordinate of a powerful CE boss, knows his boss will hurt him if he disobeys, so he'll usually suppress is reaction when given an order, and obey.

You lost me on this one hamish. I don't think every (or even most) Chaotics go around "suppressing their instinct to rebel."

In your same CE hierarchy, they can stick with the boss simply because he has the best plans/most awesome perks. It doesn't have to be about fear. Or they can stay loosely affiliated and still free to pursue solo jobs.

[ericgrau]

For Chaotic, they know that their natural tendency to disobey, might handicap them, so they try and suppress it in circumstances when letting it loose, might cause them big problems.
Ditto for evil, really. Or good in an evil society. Just because you can slaughter villagers and take their money doesn't mean you will at every opportunity, unless you have an escape plan. Even those that do steal avoid murdering the victim, because it draws much more attention and carries a much higher penalty. Or they're still trying to appease a conscience. Someone's alignment is rarely cut and dry.

[hamishspence]

You lost me on this one hamish. I don't think every (or even most) Chaotics go around "suppressing their instinct to rebel."

In your same CE hierarchy, they can stick with the boss simply because he has the best plans/most awesome perks. It doesn't have to be about fear. Or they can stay loosely affiliated and still free to pursue solo jobs.

True- fear isn't the only reason. Respect, or greed, or even affection, might be a reason.

But there's always a reason.

Using the theory, Chaotics need a reason to obey somebody, Lawfuls need a reason not to obey- like "it would be immoral" or "it would majorly inconvenience me".


Ditto for evil, really. Or good in an evil society. Just because you can slaughter villagers and take their money doesn't mean you will at every opportunity, unless you have an escape plan. Even those that do steal avoid murdering the victim, because it draws much more attention and carries a much higher penalty. Or they're still trying to appease a conscience. Someone's alignment is rarely cut and dry.

Yup- a Chaotic Evil person with sufficient self-control, can get along just fine in a Lawful Good society.

[Synapse]

True- fear isn't the only reason. Respect, or greed, or even affection, might be a reason.

But there's always a reason.

Using the theory, Chaotics need a reason to obey somebody, Lawfuls need a reason not to obey- like "it would be immoral" or "it would majorly inconvenience me".



Yup- a Chaotic Evil person with sufficient self-control, can get along just fine in a Lawful Good society.
Correcting: there's always a reason that is not inherent to the system involved.

[Psyren]

True- fear isn't the only reason. Respect, or greed, or even affection, might be a reason.

But there's always a reason.

What about "because I feel like it?" Once you accept that as a reason (and it is,) then it ceases to be "rebellious instincts being suppressed."

[hamishspence]

It could be a reason- but I'd be surprised if it's the most common one.

[sonofzeal]

Ed, from Digger (http://www.diggercomic.com/comics/2007-11-09-wombat269-reason.gif), has some relevant words of wisdom on "having a reason" and morality.

[hamishspence]

That's for the Good/Evil axis- doesn't say much about the Law/Chaos one though :smallamused:

[Psyren]

It could be a reason- but I'd be surprised if it's the most common one.

True - the most common reason would be "I have something to gain from staying" - with the exact benefit (riches, women, battle, learning etc.) being specific to the characters in question.

The problem is - Neutrals have this mindset too. So you get right back to the problem of Chaotic X and Neutral X being blurry and indistinct from each other.

Only a Lawful would stay in a situation they are unhappy with (assuming the opportunity to leave it is present.) The most you can say for Chaotics is that they will probably leave sooner than Neutrals... but how much sooner?

[hamishspence]

I see Chaotics, as always having a reason not to stay- that for them, it's uncomfortable to be under someone else's authority- it's just that the other reasons, outweigh it.

Might vary within chaotic though, with the strongly Chaotic being really uncomfortable, and the mildly Chaotic only feeling a slight sense of discomfort.

[Psyren]

I see Chaotics, as always having a reason not to stay- that for them, it's uncomfortable to be under someone else's authority- it's just that the other reasons, outweigh it.

Might vary within chaotic though, with the strongly Chaotic being really uncomfortable, and the mildly Chaotic only feeling a slight sense of discomfort.

But if in the end they act the same as the Neutrals do, their feelings don't really matter.

From the moral axis, the neutral executioner can feel varying levels of discomfort about carrying out his evil monarch's killings, but unless he actually stops he is evil too.

The same is true for the ethical axis; it is actions that determine alignment, not feelings.

[Yora]

I think there's nothing wrong with authority for chaotic characters. As long as they consider the person in charge to do a great job and they trust him. The difference to a lawful character is, that the lawful ones probably would stay much longer and follow orders if their superioir does not do a good job and they don't have much trust in his ability.
I think a chaotic character would be much more likely to leave, or try to remove the superior from his position.

[hamishspence]

But if in the end they act the same as the Neutrals do, their feelings don't really matter.

From the moral axis, the neutral executioner can feel varying levels of discomfort about carrying out his evil monarch's killings, but unless he actually stops he is evil too.

The same is true for the ethical axis; it is actions that determine alignment, not feelings.

Is it true for both? For the moral axis it makes sense, but in the PHB "alignment is general moral and personal attitudes".

If a character "has a compulsion to rebel" how much does their denying the compulsion, matter?


As long as they consider the person in charge to do a great job and they trust him.

Which are reasons- that might outweigh a possible instinctive distrust of authority in general.

I'm not saying "compulsion to obey" for Lawful and "compulsion to rebel" for Chaotic are absolute guarantees of alignment, but they might be as important as, say:

"willing to make personal sacrifices to help strangers" for Good,
and
"willing to harm or threaten the innocent" for Evil.

That is- exceptions would be very unusual.

[supermonkeyjoe]

If anyone ever tries to claim that Lawful entails always obeying the laws of the land, point them in the direction of Lewis Carrol's Wonderland.

[Black_Zawisza]

But if in the end they act the same as the Neutrals do, their feelings don't really matter.

From the moral axis, the neutral executioner can feel varying levels of discomfort about carrying out his evil monarch's killings, but unless he actually stops he is evil too.

The same is true for the ethical axis; it is actions that determine alignment, not feelings.
According to that criteria, who is more evil – someone who accidentally trips me, or someone that tries to trip me and fails?

Doesn't make a ton of sense to me.

[Psyren]

According to that criteria, who is more evil – someone who accidentally trips me, or someone that tries to trip me and fails?

Doesn't make a ton of sense to me.

I'm not saying intent doesn't matter, but it doesn't mean a hill of beans without the corresponding action. Neither of hamish's examples actually rebel (accidentally and successfully, or intentionally and unsuccessfully) even though they have varying levels of tolerance for conformity.

In other words, I can hate my neighbor's guts, plan out his gruesome murder in my head during my idle moments, practice my alibi in the mirror etc., but none of that will change my alignment if I never actually do anything.

[Black_Zawisza]

I'm not saying intent doesn't matter, but it doesn't mean a hill of beans without the corresponding action. Neither of hamish's examples actually rebel (accidentally and successfully, or intentionally and unsuccessfully) even though they have varying levels of tolerance for conformity.

In other words, I can hate my neighbor's guts, plan out his gruesome murder in my head during my idle moments, practice my alibi in the mirror etc., but none of that will change my alignment if I never actually do anything.
If intent doesn't mean a hill of beans without the corresponding action, then it doesn't matter. I don't know what you're trying to say here. :P

Take this example, though. Suppose that unlike the homicidal neighbor, somebody desires to kill somebody in cold blood and would actually do it if given the chance, but is physically incapable of doing it somehow. It makes absolutely no sense to me to call him anything but Evil simply because he's an unsuccessful villain.

[Psyren]

I don't know what you're trying to say here. :P

I'm saying that, while both actions and intentions factor into determining alignment, actions weigh more heavily.

Reference: (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0407.html) intentions outweighed by actions.



Take this example, though. Suppose that unlike the homicidal neighbor, somebody desires to kill somebody in cold blood and would actually do it if given the chance, but is physically incapable of doing it somehow. It makes absolutely no sense to me to call him anything but Evil simply because he isn't doing anything.

And if that person dies, never having actually done anything, would you send them to Hell?

[Black_Zawisza]

I'm saying that, while both actions and intentions factor into determining alignment, actions weigh more heavily.

Reference: (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0407.html) intentions outweighed by actions. 
That's like saying bananas are outweighed by actions. According to this supremely flawed system, intentions have as much relevance as the number of bananas in one's possession.




And if that person dies, never having actually done anything, would you send them to Hell?
If they wanted to and would have, had they been anything more than an unsuccessful villain? Absolutely.

[dsmiles]

That's like saying bananas are outweighed by actions. According to this supremely flawed system, intentions have as much relevance as the number of bananas in one's possession.You have too many bananas in your posession, citizen. Report to the nearest planar gate to Avernus for processing. :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

That's like saying bananas are outweighed by actions. According to this supremely flawed system, intentions have as much relevance as the number of bananas in one's possession.


That's just the way it is. "Actions speak louder than words." "Do or do not; there is no try." etc.


If they wanted to and would have, had they been anything more than an unsuccessful villain? Absolutely.

Wanting to isn't enough. How many of us have wanted to inflict unspeakable horrors on the guy who cut us off on the highway, or the cop who pulled us over for a ticket but let the even faster speeder ahead of us fly on by? If you died right at that moment, would hell be an appropriate punishment for you?

I think we will have to agree to disagree.

[Black_Zawisza]

"By their deeds ye shall know them." It is also said “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

I ain't saying that good deeds aren't necessary to be good – I would argue that they're an inherent part of desiring to be a good person. If you help some old lady across the street just because she's the wealthiest woman in the world, you're no Boy Scout.


Wanting to isn't enough. How many of us have wanted to inflict unspeakable horrors on the guy who cut us off on the highway, or the cop who pulled us over for a ticket but let the even faster speeder ahead of us fly on by? If you died right at that moment, would hell be an appropriate punishment for you?

I think we will have to agree to disagree.
If anybody who ever did anything evil went to hell, we'd all be screwed. Morality in D&D has got be graded on a curve – that's the only way the number of Good people in the multiverse could ever make it above the ones digit.

There's an enormous difference between murder in the first and second degree. Everyone is capable of the latter, but few would be able to follow through with the former.

[Zeofar]

Defining the law/chaos axis is impossible, because nobody is 100% sure what it means. Including the creators of DND.

No, it isn't impossible. Just because people have failed in the past doesn't mean that its impossible; define it, and you're done. Simple as that. The real issue is that a certain set of all-encompassing characteristics for judging needs to be established by whoever is the DM. From there, you can judge actions pretty easily with a minimum of debate as to what is even being discussed. You might not be able to use all of the standard given alignments, but there you go.

I'll repost this here because in my mind, it works fairly smoothly and clarifies my intent.




Lawful: Explicitly or implicitly respects society
Chaotic: Explicitly or implicitly disrespects society.



A lawful conquerer can have complete contempt and disregard for the society of a community he conquers.
A chaotic hippy can admire the great society that the people in his commune have created.



I'm talking about society on a far more conceptual, basic level. A lawful conqueror still believes that the function of society is valid (dictating law, morality, customs, culture, and other things. It depends a little on your point of view) and in long-term, universal societies (everyone should abide by a certain set of rules and they should not be changed unless necessary, or at all) regardless if he despises a certain society. Whether or not he recognizes their rights to have their own society (and why) and how he goes about changing that (and why) depends on whether he is good or evil. At the same time, if he does not support their society in the least and goes about changing it brutally, he might still be good or neutral if his intent is to make it better (i.e., they believe that rape, murder, or torture is the right of the strong, other such issues). I'd argue that the hippie is neutral either way works, tbh, (if we're talking about real world hippies or at least ones with the same general characteristics) since he believes that society should be less restrictive and more changeable (especially based on an individual's beliefs) but should still exist.

[mucat]

I'm not saying "compulsion to obey" for Lawful and "compulsion to rebel" for Chaotic are absolute guarantees of alignment, but they might be as important as, say:

"willing to make personal sacrifices to help strangers" for Good,
and
"willing to harm or threaten the innocent" for Evil.

But your system still implies that "relationship to authority" is the most important factor on the Law/Chaos axis. I disagree; the character's attitude and behavior toward authority may be one symptom of a Lawful or Chaotic mindset, but it's not the defining factor, or even an overwhelmingly important one.

The most stuffily lawful character I've ever played is also one whose instinctive reaction to any order would be to stare at the alleged "authority figure" as if they were an annoying but ultimately irrelevant insect. He might override this instinct and decide that the person actually has a valid point, but his first instinct is to assume that no one holds legitimate authority over him.

Nonetheless, he's utterly Lawful, with an organized and systematic mindset and a strict system of rules and standards he holds himself to. He often (but no longer always always) looks with disdain on those who do not follow such standards.

I suppose that if he also instinctively respected authority, that would make him even more Lawful, which is kind of a scary thought (I imagine him ossifying into a rigid marble statue at that point.)

[hamishspence]

But your system still implies that "relationship to authority" is the most important factor on the Law/Chaos axis. I disagree; the character's attitude and behavior toward authority may be one symptom of a Lawful or Chaotic mindset, but it's not the defining factor, or even an overwhelmingly important one.

The most stuffily lawful character I've ever played is also one whose instinctive reaction to any order would be to stare at the alleged "authority figure" as if they were an annoying but ultimately irrelevant insect. He might override this instinct and decide that the person actually has a valid point, but his first instinct is to assume that no one holds legitimate authority over him.

Nonetheless, he's utterly Lawful, with an organized and systematic mindset and a strict system of rules and standards he holds himself to. He often (but no longer always always) looks with disdain on those who do not follow such standards.

true- the main reason for trying to find a "unifying factor" was certain persons' insistence that because alignment is an objective system, it must follow strict rules.

Something like:

Anybody willing to debase or destroy the innocent for fun or profit, is Evil. No exceptions.

AND,

Anyone not willing to harm the innocent is Non-Evil.

I was willing to go with the first, but not the second- primarily because it's not that hard to imagine someone, a little like Dexter, who doesn't harm the innocent, but does horrible things to those people that do severely harm the innocent. And he would do it out of hatred or sadism, more than merely "righteous indignation" (as someone who was victimized, and empathizes strongly with innocent victims). Such a character would IMO be much more like Evil, than Neutral.

So the first principle is good for identifying those who are evil, but the second is not so good for identifying those who are not evil.

And I wondered if a similar "hard and fast principle" about identifying people who are evil, (debases or destroys innocent for fun and profit)

applied to Law and Chaos- Anyone with a "compulsion to rebel against authority" is Chaotic, regardless of other Lawful traits, and anyone with a "compulsion to obey authority" is Lawful.

Even if they put a lot of effort into resisting these "compulsions".

It may not be a very good theory though.