Law vs. Chaos

[noparlpf]

Yeah I know these come up all the time. I think I've even seen one since I joined the forum last year. Anyway.

I don't get the Law vs. Chaos axis of alignment. And I've spent more time thinking about this than studying for Orgo or Cell Bio. I'm confused because I have both strongly lawful and strongly chaotic qualities. I think in general I could be considered CG because many of the things I'm "lawful" about relate to what I think is right morally, so that would be folded into "good", and the things I'm "chaotic" about relate to outside rules that I disagree with either morally or logically. Does that make sense? This entire axis is very confusing.

And yeah I don't even know if this is in the right part of the forum for this.

[Emperor Ing]

It's pretty much agreed upon that morality is far too complex to be narrowed down into nine categories. Generally, Law vs Chaos can probably (emphasis: probably) be best explained as Order vs Freedom, though many, including myself, could argue that they aren't mutually exclusive.

[Luka]

I think Law VS Chaos refers more into "Following rules" Vs "Not Following rules", I think most people find it easier than Good vs Evil.

Lawful would mean following them zealously, like they're really important cuz they make order or just cuz they're rules.
Neutral would be following them, but breaking them when necesary, they can think of them as tools that may help at some times and annoy at other times (think Kyle Katarn using both Light/Dark force powers), or be a bit like "meh" about it.
Chaotic would be not following them all the time, either not liking "getting bossed around" or just ignoring them like they're not big deal.

[tyckspoon]

IIRC, 'Law' and 'Chaos' in D&D were originally stand-ins for basically Good and Evil, based on fantasy books of the era that used those names for the Great Powers What Be In Opposition. When they actually started using Good and Evil as well, they had to make up something for Law and Chaos to stand for.. and they pretty much failed. Every 'lawful' trait can be sincerely argued to be chaotic, and vice-versa, so yeah. You're not alone in not getting Law & Chaos; most people don't, because there isn't really a well-thought-out difference there to get.

(If it helps, there are some fictions that represent Law and Chaos without the distraction of good and evil- Megami Tensei, for example, has victory of Law being an absolute hierarchy, where everybody takes their orders from their assigned superior, while Chaos is an absolute might-makes-right anarchy where you can live however and do whatever you want so long as you're strong enough to secure whatever it is you want.)

[TheSummoner]

Not Order vs Freedom. One can still be orderly and be free. But Order vs Chaos or perhaps Order vs Disorder.

A lawful person prefers order and consistency. Things are the way they are for a reason and (in most cases,) they should be that way.

A chaotic person prefers variety and choice. Things may be a certain way, but that doesn't mean they have to be.

In regards to actual human laws...

A lawful person tends to follow them unless there is a very good reason to do otherwise (Don't drive over 55mph. But my wife is about to give birth, I have to get her to the hospital!)

A neutral person also tends to follow them, but is more willing to bend or break them when they see reason to. (Speed limit? I'm running late for work!)

A chaotic person - and this is the part that I think most people trip up about - will still follow laws if it suits their purpose, but don't particularly care about them. A chaotic person will not break the rules just to "stick it to the man" but if he/she finds it to be in his/her own interest to ignore a rule, then he/she won't think twice about doing it. A chaotic person won't jump into a clearly filthy and toxic lake (complete with floating garbage, belly-up dead fish, and radioactive green glow) just because he/she sees a sign that says "no swimming" but he/she might gleefully ignore a sign that says "do not walk on the grass" if it's the fastest way to get somewhere he/she wants to go.

There is, of course, variation within these three groups (law/chaos is a sliding scale and there are more than three points where any particular person might fall), but that's a general view of it.

[Hecuba]

“Chaos was the law of nature; Order was the dream of man.”







~Henry Adams

Law, in the alignment sense, is the belief that order is - of itself - desirable. A lawful person follows the rules, not because they particularly agree with them nor out of fear of punishment, but because order is desirable and rules should be followed. For a lawful person, undermining the rule of law is (at best) a necessary evil(small e).

Chaos, then, is the view that rules represent sacrificing individuality, freedom, and personal responsibility. They represent, piece by piece, the abrogation of self. The goal behind the rules may be laudable (or not), but the method is repugnant. For a chaotic person, rules are (at best) a necessary evil(small e).

[factotum]

I think Law VS Chaos refers more into "Following rules" Vs "Not Following rules", I think most people find it easier than Good vs Evil.

No, that isn't what Law and Chaos mean at all. If the local rules say you have to eat a baby for breakfast every day, no exceptions, a Lawful Good character is not going to follow that rule no matter what.

The way I always see it is: a Lawful character tends to be more of a team player (provided the objectives of the team don't clash with their own beliefs), while a Chaotic one will do what they darn well like. The demons and devils in the traditional D&D multiverse show this behaviour--the devils have a strict hierarchy which they all obey, thanks to being Lawful Evil, while the demons are much more "the strongest guy around calls the shots".

[Brother Oni]

No, that isn't what Law and Chaos mean at all. If the local rules say you have to eat a baby for breakfast every day, no exceptions, a Lawful Good character is not going to follow that rule no matter what.


It depends. Robin Hood is the archetype for Chaotic Good, but he clearly follows a code and set of rules (rob from the rich, give to the poor which then lead into upholding justice against tyranny).

The issue is that D&D alignment system is measured up against an external set of absolutes; you follow the legitimate law of the land, you're lawful, you don't, you're Chaotic.
However most character interpret their alignment as a personal code, rather than an external scale, thus giving rise to conflicts like your Lawful characters being forced to eat a baby for breakfast because it's the law of the land.

As another example of how confusing it is, take Batman. As a vigilante, he's clearly Chaotic, but anybody who's read a comic book will know he's extremely disciplined and has a very strong moral code thus making him Lawful.

[Baka Nikujaga]

A minor article about Shin Megami Tensei (http://www.gamespite.net/toastywiki/index.php/Games/LawChaosAndTheAmericanWay)'s alignment system.

[JCarter426]

I agree that it's less clear cut than good and evil, but I don't think that makes it any less valid. I think it's a well thought out effort to. Yes, morality and personality are more nuanced, but the nine alignments are a good representation of many key aspects of these. The law/chaos axis adds a lot of complexity... in fact, because it's less clear cut, it's quite possibly more interesting than simply good and evil. The alignment descriptions are often taken too literally, and people assume that every character of a specific alignment combination will act the same way; it's supposed to be the reverse, and it works in broader strokes.

However, I do want to point out one thing with which I take issue: the "personal code" justification. For one thing, everyone has a personal code in some form; it's just how we function. But more importantly, people who lean more towards the chaotic side aren't necessarily anarchists; most people do believe laws are necessary and many laws are good - so long as everyone else follows the law. Someone with a chaotic mentality might rationalize their actions under the belief that everything will be fine if they break the law, because not everyone is going to do it. They think they're the exception to every rule. On a related note, you don't have to follow every law to have a lawful alignment; a lawful good person who genuinely believes a law is evil will fight it, they'll work within the system to have the law changed, in order to preserve the sanctity of law and to stop the spread of evil and tyranny and such and such. A chaotic good person will simply ignore it and might actively try to bring down the government. Likewise, a lawful evil person is likely breaking the law regularly in order to carry out their evil schemes, unless they're already in complete control of their domain and their will is the law. In short, the only requirement for a lawful alignment is the belief in an absolute system of law that exists beyond your actions, to which even you are subject. You don't have to agree with every law, because laws are written by people and are imperfect representations and are subject to change. But you believe that a Platonic form of Law exists.

So I don't believe having a "personal code" is congruous to being lawful. It may be an aspect of good/evil, or it could be the rationalization of someone truly chaotic, or something else entirely. If anything it's a sign of neutrality. And if the person in question only follows their "personal code", they're more likely chaotic than anything else, in my opinion.

[Luka]

No, that isn't what Law and Chaos mean at all. If the local rules say you have to eat a baby for breakfast every day, no exceptions, a Lawful Good character is not going to follow that rule no matter what.

Probably because it's a rule normally seen as "Evil" and Lawful Good people believe in "good" laws. But a Lawful Neutral would do it anyways, I think.

But yeah, IMO Law is more of following rules and personal codes, and chaos is more about change and doing what they feel like

So a lawful person would follow rules and personal codes strictly, though it depends on the Good vs Evil alignment too.
Neutral is following them mostly but breaking them if necesary or just not caring that much about following them.
Chaotic is not following them that much or ignoring them, prefering personal freedom a LOT more than being bossed around.

[hamishspence]

Probably because it's a rule normally seen as "Evil" and Lawful Good people believe in "good" laws. But a Lawful Neutral would do it anyways, I think.

Most Neutral people tend to be "OK people" without being overtly altruistic. And some are altruistic- but with a ruthless streak that stops them being Good.

eating babies for breakfast "because local laws demand it" is a bit inappropriate for any kind of Neutral.

EDIT:
From the sig of a fellow poster (Porthos)- a link to the WOTC article discussing Law & Chaos:

Being Lawful doesn't mean you have to follow the law (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a)

[pendell]

I can best describe law and chaos by looking at their extremes.

I would describe extreme chaos as an anarchy , where everyone does whatever they wish without regard to anyone else or any common goal.

Extreme lawfulness, on the other hand, would be a jackbooted tyranny like 1984. Where there is a system, and everyone must be made to be a part of that system whether they like it or not.

My understanding is that such extremes are rarely found, because neither works. A system that doesn't allow for square pegs in round holes means there's no room for genius like Einstein or Edison. Likewise, with complete anarchy you can't build pyramids or moon rockets. So most cultures, in fiction and in real life, try to find some happy balance between the two.

It occurs to me that, in a fantasy world, the more high-magic the world the more chaotic it will be. There's no reason to build pyramids with an army of workers if you can just wish them into existence with enough XP. Likewise, law depends on a common framework that everyone agrees to, and that's very difficult to achieve when the very laws of physics themselves are subject to whim. A high magic world would be something like a shared dream, where the person with the strongest personality could literally bend the world to their design. If the world's high magic enough that everyone has this ability , I would expect it to fracture into a myriad of demiplanes.

Thus, it seems to me that law only really makes sense either in a low-magic world or in a world where magic can be monopolized by a wizard's college or priesthood in the service of the state. Where the power to bend reality is denied to ordinary, everyday individuals. If the state doesn't have a monopoly of magic as well as armed force, how can it govern people who can make the world disappear by waving their hands?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Heliomance]

I tend to run that Lawful types value the many over the individual, and Chaotic types value the individual over the many.

That said, the campaign I'm running at the moment, the central conflict is not Good vs Evil, but Anarchy vs Totalitarianism.

[Cobra_Ikari]

From my understanding, law vs. chaos is more a scale of how willing you are to work outside the bounds of what society deems acceptable to achieve your goals.

[Luka]

From the sig of a fellow poster (Porthos)- a link to the WOTC article discussing Law & Chaos:

Being Lawful doesn't mean you have to follow the law (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a)

Just done reading it and it just confuses me.... seems more like a Lawful/Neutral hybrid :smallconfused:...Though it seems they ignored Neutral exist too :smallbiggrin:

Dunno much of it anyways only played Neutral Good

[Ravens_cry]

Personally, I see Law as a personal code and how well you follow it. This code can be external, based on the laws of the land and cultural expectations, or an internally worked out system of ethics.
These are not mutually exclusive.
Personally, I try, try mind you, to follow a Lawful Good paradigm that can be summed up as "Follow just laws."