The (exalted/vile) equivalient of lawful/chaotic

[Particle_Man]

What stuff is there out there that would make someone as deep into being Lawful (or as deep into being Chaotic) as Exalted people are deep into being Good or Vile people are deep into being Evil? I know there are not books devoted to Lawfulness or Chaos, but what is out there (maybe feats, prestige classes, etc.)?

[Angelalex242]

There used to be an artifact called the Rod of 7 parts. Fully assembled, it forced you to be Exalted class Lawful. It's all I can think of...

[theIrkin]

I've never run across them, but you might describe them as Axiomatic and Free. I think there are a few feats that have axiomatic in their name, that might help if you have one of the pdf's that list tons of feats. It might come down to homebrew if you want something like that. DnD seems to not be all that concerned with the conflict between Law and Chaos. It seems to want to be more morally binary than that (whether that's good or bad is up to you).

[Mr Adventurer]

Template wise...

Celestial = Good
Fiendish = Evil
Axiomatic = Lawful
Anarchic = Chaotic

So, hmm.

Good = Exalted
Evil = Vile
Lawful = Rigorous
Chaotic = Boundless?

[ddude987]

So, hmm.

Good = Exalted
Evil = Vile
Lawful = Rigorous
Chaotic = Boundless?

How about the book of Rigorous Obedience and the book of Boundless Possibility?

[Coidzor]

Axiomatic and Anarchic, IIRC.

I believe Dragon Magazine explored this a little bit, giving us things like Anarchic Feats such as Chaos Music, which, IIRC, permanently change one's alignment to Chaotic X upon taking it.

[mabriss lethe]

Abyssal Heritor feats are somewhat like Vile/exalted feats with a Chaos flavor. I don't know of anything that might cover the Lawful side of things.

[Vedhin]

There used to be an artifact called the Rod of 7 parts. Fully assembled, it forced you to be Exalted class Lawful. It's all I can think of...

It's in the 3.0 Arms & Equipment Guide. There was a book of the same name, about the artifact itself. I think there might also have been an andventure module about it, but I could be wrong.

[Mr Adventurer]

As I note, Anarchic and Axiomatic are as Good and Evil; we need new words.

And law isn't about obedience so much as regulation I think, you can be scrupulously obedient to a Chaotic doctrine after all.

[Angelalex242]

Well, yeah.

We're talking about Inspector Javert in a nutshell.

[Phelix-Mu]

Alright, so, as I am listening to Dr Who reruns in the background, let me take a stab at this.

For the record, IIRC, axiomatic/anarchic are as holy/unholy or celestial/fiendish, and not good/evil (but rather representing a high level thereof, such as good->holy, evil->unholy). So I'll be using Anarchic and Axiomatic. The actual term is highly irrelevant, so I don't really care if everyone prefers something else.

Axiomatic:
Law is not just your thing, it is the only thing. Rules form the basis of your existence, and logic and order are like bread and butter to you. Each moment is a matter of efficiency. Each minute is a matter of conviction. Each hour is a matter of discipline. Each day is a matter of schedule and order.

While the world doesn't always seem to play by its own rules, or have much in the way of rules at all, what might be a blatant affront to your sense of law is not so much a frustration, but a challenge to look deeper. There is a rhyme to all action and reaction, and your mind feels a sense of order even among the seeming chaos. Indeed, this order is sacred, and you want everyone to know that freedom is an illusion, and that reality is ruled by rules. By demonstrating that rules and order are built into everything and exemplifying them, you will fulfill your part in the great order. And, maybe, you can even spread (read: IMPOSE...hehe, not necessarily) this law on others, or at least influence them to see that individual sense of control is a foolish delusion. All is deterministic, and it is only by surrendering and participating in the grand order, spreading and fortifying it, that one can find meaning.


Anarchic:
Today, tomorrow. Sometimes, never. Me, you. Really, do words mean something? As a paragon of anarchy, you don't just believe in individuality. You believe that there is nothing real beyond yourself. Or, to put it a different way, the nature of reality is entirely subjective. Your feelings are as real to you as the sun on your face, and each moment can bring a change to your mood as great as the difference between black and white. Time itself is relative, so the speed of your mood swings is of no concern. Nor are the others insistence of your madness or insanity. How would they know what it's like to be you? How relevant are their thoughts? Are they real, or just a series of perceived stimuli arranged in your memory, like faceless figures in a waking dream? Truth, fiction, real, dream, the distinction is fleeting, subject to interpretation and debate.

What matters, then? Whatever you feel like. What do you feel like? Good question. Are you even sure? Being sure implies an absence of chance or doubt, a degree of truth. And you know there is no Truth, just an infinite number of truths that each are subject to titanic change as each moment passes. How should you approach this disturbing and highly morphic nature of reality? Really, it doesn't matter. Whereas law believes there is a reason, you know that all is beyond reason, that reason itself is just a delusion held by those whose minds can't bear the true nature of chaos. The swirling vortex of probabilities that flux along an infinite axis. The unending cycle of creation and destruction, of entropy eating its own tail as matter unravels. The mind-shattering numbers of random events that collide and then go spiraling off into and infinite number of possible futures. No rhyme. No reason.

You're just along for the ride.


Alright, well, that is my take. I'm still not quite feeling the Anarchic one. Proselytizing doesn't really fit with anarchy, since the sense that what you believe matters is pretty much absent (as you don't so much "believe" anything, but rather defy a fixed set of beliefs from moment to moment).

Thoughts, comments, concerns? Feedback is welcome.

[AstralFire]

It's an admirable attempt, but there are very good reasons why there were no equivalents of Exalted/Vile for Law/Chaos; they've given Law and Chaos so much flexibility for players (to prevent mandatory Lawful/Chaotic Stupid; only Modrons, Formians and Slaad are required to be that these days) that it's possible to argue a very wide variety of behaviors in both directions. It's much harder to grade who is the more Lawful or Chaotic of two people who already self-identify on the same side of the ethical axis.

There are multiple different grades of "good" and "evil" which can be broadly differentiated and still have people interested in playing them, especially in adventures. Extreme paragons of law and chaos are more likely to be simple farce, or better suited as background characters than adventurers.

[Phelix-Mu]

I agree about playability, but as much of Exalted/Vile and Law/Chaos analogues is about world flavor as is about making flavorful/playable characters. Of course, there are real problems to playing The March Hare. But he's excellent fuel for the DM's npc engine. The OP seemed to be more broadly addressing the existence of superlaw/superchaos, not whether there are usable/non-comic varieties for a player character.

Also, I would take small issue with the whole bit involving farce or comical nature of certain mindsets. I suppose that, around certain tables, pcs and npcs with certain mindsets will seem funny. I'm not sure that this being sometimes the case necessarily has any impact on whether a serious mindset of said type can be developed. Just because there is a tvtropes page for it citing numerous funny examples thereof, doesn't destroy that archetype for all eternity. Romeo and Juliet is still good literature, even if suicide pacts and bad end are much more trite in the current pop-culture.

Sorry for the mild rant. This matter of "comic" or somehow "cartoonish" came up in another thread the other day (regarding vile behavior, no less), and it seemed kind of jaded then. So I'm wondering if I'm missing some aspect that makes this non-serious nature of certain mindsets more prevalent than I am imagining.

[AstralFire]

I don't scorn TV Tropes, but I don't peruse it very much, so if you think I've made a reference to it... well, it was entirely unintentional on my part.

I think it's possible to develop mindsets based deeply around Law versus Chaos that are interesting and in-depth and nuanced. I don't think it's possible to do this and also hold them up as unusually devoted exemplars of the D&D concepts Law versus Chaos. In D&D, determining whether a given act is Lawful or Chaotic is almost entirely subjective; these are supposed to be objective axes, but they wanted to make traditional Lawful Stupid and Chaotic Stupid non-mandatory without actually articulating a coherent and discrete set of tests for determining where one falls on the ethical axis. So the outsiders are the only real exemplars we have, and...

What they show us as demonstrative of 'pure law' are ants and crazy campy robot dudes; what we have of 'pure chaos' is 'Turquoise bicycle shoe fins actualize radishes greenly.'

[Phelix-Mu]

Certainly, wasn't accusing you of anything. Just mentioned tvtropes as it often comes up as part of an internet tendency to broadly generalize archetypes, to the extent that everything seems reducible to a series of Bold Worded Cliches. You were not guilty of this at all; it merely seemed that generalizing about "comic" was part of a similar tendency. My bad if I misinterpreted.

Moreover, I think your argument about good/evil v law/chaos has merits, but I'm not sure I can entirely agree. I certainly think that, in real life, there are much less accessible examples and imagery to underpin the concept of a paragon of law than a paragon of evil. But, I think that is because, in real life, there is much less cohesion on the matter of law/chaos than there is in the game. Good/evil in real life can be broadly agreed on, whereas personal freedoms and social obligations and rules and such are so diverse as to make the discussion highly fraught, to the point of being meaningless.

But I'm not sure this irl difficulty necessarily carries over to the game. In the game, detect law/chaos do exist as spells, and in the same manner as the good/evil versions, establish a kind of objective existence of law/chaos, if only mechanically speaking.

More broadly, I don't find that the archetypes can't be purist without descending into Lawful Stupid/Chaotic Stupid. Perhaps I lack familiarity with how you are using these terms. But I tend to think that, if people can't devise and play characters along the lines of Anarchic/Axiomatic, then that is a failure of imagination, not something built into the rules. I can and do wish for the opportunity to play such characters (even if The March Hare is going to cause some DM headaches and be mildly irritating).

Anyway, honestly interested in your thoughts on this point. I, being a druid/wizard, look for a mix of balance, logic, and freedom in all things, and dislike when the rules (or books full of rules) seem to indicate some lack of balance.

[AstralFire]

I am not saying that someone can't play these sensible LNs and CNs. I've seen it done. I'm simply saying that they wouldn't be recognizably "more lawful" or "more chaotic" than a normal LN or CN, the same way that Exalted and Vile to Good and Evil. For your Axiomatic and Anarchic to work the same way, Formians/Modrons and Slaad should automatically qualify and think similarly. And they don't, not really.

[Phelix-Mu]

I guess I just don't view extremes in the same way. To me, you can always take Role Play Mechanism A and raise it to the power of X. If it isn't noticeable, then add more.

Johnny LN follows rules, thinks others should follow his rules (because his code is the best), and discourages rule-breaking while emphasizing a kind of collective spirit, to decrease disorder and promote unity.

Johnny Axiomatic doesn't care what rules everyone follows. In fact, people can't be free, because rules underlie everything, regardless of what they think or do. Johnny dislikes people that espouse chaos as a principle, but he generally feels that they are simply misguided and deluded by their failure to see the big picture. Fighting chaotic forces is a personal quest for Johnny Axiomatic; he wants to spread awareness of the peace that comes from knowing that there is meaning and truth in everything, that order is inescapable, and that freedom is an illusion.

To me, the simple distinction is
1.) Johnny LN believes that freedom is inferior to living under the code that he has chosen to espouse.

2.) Johnny Axiomatic believes that freedom doesn't exist.

I guess if this seems still just normal LN to you, then maybe you are right. To me, I can generally see extremes on both axes.

[tiercel]

"Who are you?"

"What do you want?"

For those that remember Babylon 5, the Vorlons and Shadows exemplify the Law v Chaos struggle fairly well. For one, the greatest good is careful, even ruthless, analysis, investigation, and advance planning; for the other, the greatest good is literal "survival of the fittest" as entire civilizations are thrust into war, not for the sake of annihilation but so the winners/survivors will be all the stronger for it.

Rarely,though, has D&D given the Law v Chaos opposition the spotlight in the same way as Good v Evil one, ever since the olden days when Lawful basically meant LG and Chaotic meant essentially CE. Other than that, there is the mythos of the Wind Dukes v the Wolf Spider (basically the backstory for the Rod of Seven Parts)....aaaand that's about it. Even having a weapon that can break DR/lawful or DR/chaotic just isn't as generally useful as breaking DR/evil (or DR/good).

Sure, there are some "Usually/Always CN/LN" critters to round out the collection, but many of them just aren't as iconic or common as monsters on the G/E scale.

[Spuddles]

As I note, Anarchic and Axiomatic are as Good and Evil; we need new words.

And law isn't about obedience so much as regulation I think, you can be scrupulously obedient to a Chaotic doctrine after all.

It goes vile evil neutral good exalted

Anarchic chaotic neutral lawful axiomatic.

That's what I use, anyway.

[Spore]

Isn't the race on LN planes called Inevitables/Axiomites? Same works for Proteans?

[Vedhin]

*Law/Chaos stuff with bol headers*

Thank you for the excellent take on the apotheosisis(?) of Law and Chaos.


Other than that, there is the mythos of the Wind Dukes v the Wolf Spider (basically the backstory for the Rod of Seven Parts)....aaaand that's about it.

But does Good/Evil have anything half as awesome as the Rod of Seven Parts an its backstory?

[Slug Bear]

Exalted has Words of Creation, Vile has Dark Speech. Bhu made a feat called Babel Speech, as well as a number of other Chaos-oriented stuff. I don't know of anything like that for lawful types.

[AstralFire]

The Binding Lexicon is my vote.

[illyahr]

I have always held that "Lawful" is too vague for general use. I have always used "Orderly" instead. Monks don't follow any laws. They respect laws, and will abide by them, but don't claim them as their own. They are, however, extremely disciplined. They follow their own internal code and abide by that code in everything they do. To be immutable and unchanging.

The basic fundament that makes the most sense to me for the alignment system is this:

Good = Compassion (represented by Electricity, aligns a metal)
Evil = Conceit (represented by Acid, breaks down a metal)
Law = Stasis (represented by Ice, molecules stop moving)
Chaos = Change (represented by Fire, molecules move faster)

Of course this is only my take on it. I would like to know what you think, however. :smallsmile:

[Particle_Man]

Thanks for all your comments, folks!

[Angelalex242]

I don't even know how you'd play exalted level chaotic.

"I pull my pants down and fart on the king."

"I slice a piece off of the Paladin's mount and eat it, just to see if it tastes like chicken."

"I give a random peasant all the money I stole from the noble I robbed 3 seconds ago."

[Phelix-Mu]

I don't even know how you'd play exalted level chaotic.

"I pull my pants down and fart on the king."

"I slice a piece off of the Paladin's mount and eat it, just to see if it tastes like chicken."

"I give a random peasant all the money I stole from the noble I robbed 3 seconds ago."

No, I think you clearly just demonstrated that you do know how. That said, I don't think any alignment archetype should have to be suicidal or constantly counterproductive. Occasionally counterproductive? Sure, but this is already a feature of some types of play styles. Really, just up the crazy feel, with moderate levels of crazy thought and lesser levels of crazy action.

For instance:

CCE: Normal CE sees destruction as the best solution to problems. Anarchic Evil sees destruction as the only solution to everything. Better be strong, because someone this bent on destroying things usually dies once they bump into something stronger than them.

CCN: Each day is new oyster, and only some of them have gone bad. Well, really, making sense is kind of for idiots anyway. Today, look beyond the truth and see the madness. Because you can!

CCG: Probably the hardest one to pigeon-hole. Lemme think about this.

[MonochromeTiger]

No, I think you clearly just demonstrated that you do know how. That said, I don't think any alignment archetype should have to be suicidal or constantly counterproductive. Occasionally counterproductive? Sure, but this is already a feature of some types of play styles. Really, just up the crazy feel, with moderate levels of crazy thought and lesser levels of crazy action.

For instance:

CCE: Normal CE sees destruction as the best solution to problems. Anarchic Evil sees destruction as the only solution to everything. Better be strong, because someone this bent on destroying things usually dies once they bump into something stronger than them.

CCN: Each day is new oyster, and only some of them have gone bad. Well, really, making sense is kind of for idiots anyway. Today, look beyond the truth and see the madness. Because you can!

CCG: Probably the hardest one to pigeon-hole. Lemme think about this.

"CCG: you must help people to help themselves, ignore all laws (because they just get in the way), don't directly help anyone but instead yell about how you're doing it at the top of your lungs, and if you want to give someone something throw it at their head (to teach them the valuable lesson of dodging and proper headgear). with your astounding help you shall lead them into overcoming laws and logic to a more enjoyable and better way of living *cue confetti, streamers, and pyrotechnics in the background as a bard does a guitar solo and the neon anarchic good sign lights up*"

[Phelix-Mu]

"CCG: you must help people to help themselves, ignore all laws (because they just get in the way), don't directly help anyone but instead yell about how you're doing it at the top of your lungs, and if you want to give someone something throw it at their head (to teach them the valuable lesson of dodging and proper headgear). with your astounding help you shall lead them into overcoming laws and logic to a more enjoyable and better way of living *cue confetti, streamers, and pyrotechnics in the background as a bard does a guitar solo and the neon anarchic good sign lights up*"

Oh, yes. Alright. Anarchic good is the Rock Star. Super awesome, very cool, generally friendly and helpful, but in reality, a bit of a mess. Or sometimes, a really big mess.

[MonochromeTiger]

Oh, yes. Alright. Anarchic good is the Rock Star. Super awesome, very cool, generally friendly and helpful, but in reality, a bit of a mess. Or sometimes, a really big mess.

hmm... I guess I wasn't over the top enough if the only reaction seems perfectly reasonable.

[Phelix-Mu]

I think the key to making CG into Anarchic Good is to replace spontaneity with more spontaneity. The person wants to do good, but is totally preoccupied with...well..everything. The good the person does is never a result of plans, but just from a sense of being kind...in fact, pretty much everything the person ever does is either unplanned, poorly planned, or just crazy. But things work out. Usually.