good vs evil law vs chaos

[Jgosse]

I have had this thought many times over the years. why is it that good vs evil seems to be more important then law vs chaos? law vs chaos is totally a thing but it seems that people can get past that and work together a lot easier then they can good vs evil. The lawful good fighter and the chaotic good ranger working together to defeat the evil bandits is totally believable, but the chaotic good ranger would be far less likely to work with the chaotic evil rouge to over turn a lawful opponent.

[ericgrau]

I played in a campaign world like that, but the whole time it was really hard to believe and roleplay.

Good vs. evil tends to define your goals while law vs chaos tends to define your means towards those goals. The first is a much more sharp divide.

The whole time we were saying dood, those guys are trying to plunge the world into darkness just to get whatever they want. And the officials were saying, nah they play by the rules so they're cool. And then we just went :smallconfused:.

[pwykersotz]

There are many on these boards who played much more Planescape than I and could probably answer this better...but I believe that the law versus chaos divide is much more primal in nature. The balance of what we have today is a result of that war, and those foundations allow good vs evil to be a thing.

Think about it...if Chaos had won and the world was all like Limbo, would you be as concerned with fighting for what was right, or fighting for some structure to live by? Same with Law, we might all be modron equivalents and operating with perfectly rigid hierarchies where deserters were killed just for wanting basic freedoms.

Good vs Evil seems to be more important because we take for granted the 'balance' that is already established.

[Yora]

Alignment wasn't really a good idea to begin with. Adding good and evil to the already existing order and chaos wasn't really thought through and people are still struggling to make sense of it.

[jedipotter]

I have had this thought many times over the years. why is it that good vs evil seems to be more important then law vs chaos?

Law and Chaos is more primal. There is not much drama. Or, more to the point, there is not much room for easy-to-understand for everyone drama. Law and Chaos are just to uncommon for most folks.

Good and Evil are super easy. Beyond, super easy. Everyone knows good and evil and the drama is easy.

[ScubaGoomba]

I've tried to conceptualize campaign themes around this concept, because it's a very intriguing one, but it falls to a few important problems.

For one, no matter how much you talk about law vs. chaos, the players are still going to come in with their notions of good vs. evil and the game world will reflect this.

Secondly, if you want to play up law vs. chaos over good vs. evil, you pretty much have to include a good number of Good antagonists in order to substantiate the difference, which can be hard to justify. Yes, you can have a Lawful Good character like Miko, but the characters start to fall apart eventually. CG opponents can disagree with the LG benevolent dictator, but part of being Chaotic Good is not lethally retaliating. If they're CN, it still seems unlikely that they would pose a strong, violent threat (but possibly a political threat) then is the game really law vs. chaos, or is it a standard campaign with less malicious antagonists?

It boils down to making law vs. chaos a really cool side-theme, but good vs. evil is such an expectation that playing against it too strongly may just cause frustration for all parties. It is, however, a great thought exercise and can help develop some really compelling story ideas.

[pwykersotz]

I've tried to conceptualize campaign themes around this concept, because it's a very intriguing one, but it falls to a few important problems.

For one, no matter how much you talk about law vs. chaos, the players are still going to come in with their notions of good vs. evil and the game world will reflect this.

Secondly, if you want to play up law vs. chaos over good vs. evil, you pretty much have to include a good number of Good antagonists in order to substantiate the difference, which can be hard to justify. Yes, you can have a Lawful Good character like Miko, but the characters start to fall apart eventually. CG opponents can disagree with the LG benevolent dictator, but part of being Chaotic Good is not lethally retaliating. If they're CN, it still seems unlikely that they would pose a strong, violent threat (but possibly a political threat) then is the game really law vs. chaos, or is it a standard campaign with less malicious antagonists?

It boils down to making law vs. chaos a really cool side-theme, but good vs. evil is such an expectation that playing against it too strongly may just cause frustration for all parties. It is, however, a great thought exercise and can help develop some really compelling story ideas.

The side of good doesn't need to be lethal per se. In a law versus chaos fight, it's more about supporting 'the man' versus sticking it to 'the man'. Say, for example, that a temple of Tharizdun has been uncovered and Lawful Good and Lawful Evil alike have conspired to keep it hidden away. Unfortunately, about 10,000 nearby mortals have already witnessed it. The valley has thus been sealed off, and the lawful types are going around and purging the memory of the mortals. The chaotic types want none of this, and while recognizing the threat, don't want to lose themselves because of happenstance. Thus, the contrive to rebel and tear down the barrier.

It could happen in reverse if lack of order and free-flowing magic/psionic power in an area are slowly unlocking a gate to the far realm that was locked down eons ago. The lawful types come in to try and establish order to prevent the rampant chaos from unleashing a type of devastation that would be equally bad for good and evil, but the chaos side will not be chained and will not compromise.

Just a couple ideas.

[MonochromeTiger]

I've tried to conceptualize campaign themes around this concept, because it's a very intriguing one, but it falls to a few important problems.

For one, no matter how much you talk about law vs. chaos, the players are still going to come in with their notions of good vs. evil and the game world will reflect this.

Secondly, if you want to play up law vs. chaos over good vs. evil, you pretty much have to include a good number of Good antagonists in order to substantiate the difference, which can be hard to justify. Yes, you can have a Lawful Good character like Miko, but the characters start to fall apart eventually. CG opponents can disagree with the LG benevolent dictator, but part of being Chaotic Good is not lethally retaliating. If they're CN, it still seems unlikely that they would pose a strong, violent threat (but possibly a political threat) then is the game really law vs. chaos, or is it a standard campaign with less malicious antagonists?

It boils down to making law vs. chaos a really cool side-theme, but good vs. evil is such an expectation that playing against it too strongly may just cause frustration for all parties. It is, however, a great thought exercise and can help develop some really compelling story ideas.

I personally feel that it doesn't really fall apart over time, it just takes such a small impact in terms of logic that it doesn't COMPARE to good vs evil most of the time.

let's take the example of lawful good with chaotic good, lawful evil, and chaotic evil characters to act against. the lawful good character WILL NOT actually come into conflict with the chaotic good character until the point that chaotic good character breaks the laws and beliefs the lawful good character is attempting to protect, for instance stealing, even if it's to help the poor or save an orphanage of burn victim puppies, is against the law and a lawful good character would react to this in the manner expected of those in charge of keeping order. lawful evil doesn't come into actual conflict until one of three conditions is met, the first being that they are upholding a different system of laws and beliefs that terminally conflict with the lawful good, the second being when a sufficiently evil act that could cause harm to innocent people or lead to a tyranical group coming to power is attempted, the third being the almost inevitable moment when the lawful evil just goes "too far" in keeping the law and can be seen as a criminal themselves. chaotic evil will almost always be in conflict unless they're completely passive when in the lawful good's ability to notice, anything sufficiently evil will cause a lawful good society to sanction their death, anything sufficiently chaotic will justify them at least getting dragged into a prison or court.

over all that means while putting a bit more focus on lawful vs chaotic it remains almost exactly the same. if anything lawful characters actually have less cause to react or act against other alignments than they would've had before because by focusing on law and chaos it becomes a matter of keeping to the very letter and spirit of the law. a campaign with this as the focus will either quickly become tedious as normal player behavior automatically flags alignment issues or inevitably become focused on good vs evil anyway since that's much easier to place lasting conflict in.

[ScubaGoomba]

The side of good doesn't need to be lethal per se. In a law versus chaos fight, it's more about supporting 'the man' versus sticking it to 'the man'. Say, for example, that a temple of Tharizdun has been uncovered and Lawful Good and Lawful Evil alike have conspired to keep it hidden away. Unfortunately, about 10,000 nearby mortals have already witnessed it. The valley has thus been sealed off, and the lawful types are going around and purging the memory of the mortals. The chaotic types want none of this, and while recognizing the threat, don't want to lose themselves because of happenstance. Thus, the contrive to rebel and tear down the barrier.

It could happen in reverse if lack of order and free-flowing magic/psionic power in an area are slowly unlocking a gate to the far realm that was locked down eons ago. The lawful types come in to try and establish order to prevent the rampant chaos from unleashing a type of devastation that would be equally bad for good and evil, but the chaos side will not be chained and will not compromise.

Just a couple ideas.

But how Lawful Good is it for people to forcibly erase another person's memory? You run into Lawful Neutral at this point and, when that happens, there's really no way to distinguish it from Good vs. Evil; Neutral (with regards to Good/Evil) is always a grey area that exists in morality-driven (rather than order-driven) conflict. A Lawful Good character is very unlikely to violently oppose a group of players for simply breaking the law and, if the group is primarily Good, the conflict should be resolved easily (excepting extreme characters, bringing up the Miko example, again, but she wasn't really utilized as a Law vs. Chaos antagonist).


I personally feel that it doesn't really fall apart over time, it just takes such a small impact in terms of logic that it doesn't COMPARE to good vs evil most of the time.

let's take the example of lawful good with chaotic good, lawful evil, and chaotic evil characters to act against. the lawful good character WILL NOT actually come into conflict with the chaotic good character until the point that chaotic good character breaks the laws and beliefs the lawful good character is attempting to protect, for instance stealing, even if it's to help the poor or save an orphanage of burn victim puppies, is against the law and a lawful good character would react to this in the manner expected of those in charge of keeping order. lawful evil doesn't come into actual conflict until one of three conditions is met, the first being that they are upholding a different system of laws and beliefs that terminally conflict with the lawful good, the second being when a sufficiently evil act that could cause harm to innocent people or lead to a tyranical group coming to power is attempted, the third being the almost inevitable moment when the lawful evil just goes "too far" in keeping the law and can be seen as a criminal themselves. chaotic evil will almost always be in conflict unless they're completely passive when in the lawful good's ability to notice, anything sufficiently evil will cause a lawful good society to sanction their death, anything sufficiently chaotic will justify them at least getting dragged into a prison or court.

over all that means while putting a bit more focus on lawful vs chaotic it remains almost exactly the same. if anything lawful characters actually have less cause to react or act against other alignments than they would've had before because by focusing on law and chaos it becomes a matter of keeping to the very letter and spirit of the law. a campaign with this as the focus will either quickly become tedious as normal player behavior automatically flags alignment issues or inevitably become focused on good vs evil anyway since that's much easier to place lasting conflict in.

Right, that's mostly what I was getting at! By "falling apart over time," I meant the thought exercise rather than practice. In practice, I don't know that it would really last long at all. Everything reverts to Good vs. Evil because that's what everyone is trained to think (even outside D&D) and, in order for Law vs. Chaos to be effective, there need to be as many Good enemies as Evil just as, in a Good vs. Evil game, there are approximately as many Lawful enemies as Chaotic.

[pwykersotz]

But how Lawful Good is it for people to forcibly erase another person's memory? You run into Lawful Neutral at this point and, when that happens, there's really no way to distinguish it from Good vs. Evil; Neutral (with regards to Good/Evil) is always a grey area that exists in morality-driven (rather than order-driven) conflict.

I refer you to the myths of Pelor:
Punishment of the Undead This myth tells of the origin of vampires, said to have been cursed by Pelor after turning from his light to the pursuit of evil magic. The myth suggests that Pelor would forgive them, if only they would ask.

Yet unless you're willing to go so far as to say he's actually Pelor,the Burning Hate (http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-general/threads/1115741), that was a GOOD act. Removing the chance of Tharizdun's return? Very good. They aren't killing these people, they're removing dangerous knowledge that no mortal should possess.

Of course, as we've seen (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?335025-A-very-controversial-spell), opinions on morality will differ largely, but there IS precedent (and a lot of it) to suggest this would be fine.


A Lawful Good character is very unlikely to violently oppose a group of players for simply breaking the law and, if the group is primarily Good, the conflict should be resolved easily (excepting extreme characters, bringing up the Miko example, again, but she wasn't really utilized as a Law vs. Chaos antagonist).

As a lawful tendencied person myself, I can tell you that chaotic people, even those who are truly good, can be the bane of my existence. They can cause situations to spiral completely out of control just because they refuse to listen to reason. Do I respect them? Yes, for their goodness. Do I care about them? Yes, they are my friends. Am I willing to take a heavy hand sometimes to make sure they don't ruin everything I work for? Yes. Yes I am.

That could be easily turned around to chaos as well. Laws can walk that line between justice and goodness and fall short. Too much structure and restriction can prevent creative solutions that help countless people. Do they love their lawful brothers? Possibly so. Will they willfully be 'chained' so that goodness overall can prevail? Heck no.

And you had better believe that both sides are absolutely willing to fight for what they believe. They may not WANT to fight to the death, but if they believe they are saving the world with their viewpoint, they will not hold back.

[ScubaGoomba]

I refer you to the myths of Pelor:
Punishment of the Undead This myth tells of the origin of vampires, said to have been cursed by Pelor after turning from his light to the pursuit of evil magic. The myth suggests that Pelor would forgive them, if only they would ask.

Yet unless you're willing to go so far as to say he's actually Pelor,the Burning Hate (http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-general/threads/1115741), that was a GOOD act. Removing the chance of Tharizdun's return? Very good. They aren't killing these people, they're removing dangerous knowledge that no mortal should possess.

Of course, as we've seen (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?335025-A-very-controversial-spell), opinions on morality will differ largely, but there IS precedent (and a lot of it) to suggest this would be fine.

It's a bit different in your example, however. Cursing people for Evil acts is certainly Good behavior and, if the acts are forbidden by law, then it's a Lawful act, as well. Wiping a person's memory, however, for knowledge they never chose to acquire is definitely not a Good act. Good people can do Neutral, and even Evil, things, but such an antagonist plays more on the moral axis (Evil through Good intentions) than the orderly axis.


As a lawful tendencied person myself, I can tell you that chaotic people, even those who are truly good, can be the bane of my existence. They can cause situations to spiral completely out of control just because they refuse to listen to reason. Do I respect them? Yes, for their goodness. Do I care about them? Yes, they are my friends. Am I willing to take a heavy hand sometimes to make sure they don't ruin everything I work for? Yes. Yes I am.

That could be easily turned around to chaos as well. Laws can walk that line between justice and goodness and fall short. Too much structure and restriction can prevent creative solutions that help countless people. Do they love their lawful brothers? Possibly so. Will they willfully be 'chained' so that goodness overall can prevail? Heck no.

And you had better believe that both sides are absolutely willing to fight for what they believe. They may not WANT to fight to the death, but if they believe they are saving the world with their viewpoint, they will not hold back.

As another Lawful person, I'm absolutely with you there; my "chaotic" friends drive me nuts sometimes. But it's important to remember that, this isn't just about creating an antagonist that plays to his or her orderly alignment before his or her moral alignment; we're talking about using order as the primary alignment. So you can certainly argue that an opponent can oppose the party due to their orderly alignment, but we would have to create a full world where orderly alignment drives everything. Once you start to think about it, however, it falls apart.

If the world is divided along lines of Chaos/Law, it's hard to justify retention of separate moral alignments. City A is LG and City B is LE; both share a border. B rules its people by publicly executing dissidents daily and, if there are no dissidents to kill, minor offenders (of laws crafted to allow B to arrest pretty much anybody) are killed in order to keep the public in check. City A strongly believes in autonomy of people and has a restorative justice system for minor crimes, with criminals incarcerated and put through psychological therapy and put back into society. B doesn't interfere with A, but refugees have attempted to cross into A's borders. A might let people in, but makes no attempt to interfere with B's actions. Despite being exceedingly opposed to B's actions, A doesn't want to interfere with B's autonomy and allows them to continue wanton murder of its citizens. A, instead, uses its sizable military in order to enforce the law against its own political dissidents (C), as crimes against the state and those intended to subvert order are punishable more severely (think things like magical torture, where convicts are killed as restored or are brought near-death and healed with Cure spells). Most of C, however, are citizens of A that steal resources from the government in order to help the poor and disenfranchised citizens of B. They are distrustful of A due to their failure to use the large military presence in order to help B and are distrustful of B due to its murderous ways.

The longer this continues, the harder it becomes to justify A as being LG as opposed to LN. A has no reason to interfere with B's actions, as there's no real impact on A, but as a Lawful Good society, it must. If we play to the orderly axis, A and B are more likely to unite against C, a group of non-violent activists stealing from one government and giving to the oppressed people of another. The longer A allows B to exist, the more it slides down from Good into Neutral and, at this point, we've lost the uniqueness of the orderly axis and just have another "morally grey government that's doing the wrong thing for the right reasons," which is a dilemma unique to Good vs. Evil and not Law vs. Chaos.

[PaucaTerrorem]

But how Lawful Good is it for people to forcibly erase another person's memory?...

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

I always like to bring up the PrC Gray Guard when people talk alignments. They are LG Paladins who are allowed to be morally gray sometimes. Look at McCarthyism. They believed they were doing good within the laws, but used some really awful tactics.

These are things that can't be debated in a forum(overall meaning. not internets) like this. It's a game by game, DM by DM, players by players issue.

[atemu1234]

What we forget is that these things are constantly at odds. A lawful good paladin could be ordered to hunt down a chaotic good rebel, because the rebel, no matter what his intentions, is breaking the law. Likewise, a lawful neutral cleric will clash with a chaotic neutral rogue, because the rogue is stealing from the lawful owners of his items.

[ScubaGoomba]

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

I always like to bring up the PrC Gray Guard when people talk alignments. They are LG Paladins who are allowed to be morally gray sometimes. Look at McCarthyism. They believed they were doing good within the laws, but used some really awful tactics.

These are things that can't be debated in a forum(overall meaning. not internets) like this. It's a game by game, DM by DM, players by players issue.

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" is a pretty big way to step into "Good people doing Neutral/Evil things." This is, of course, absolutely possible, but it goes against the basis of this discussion. That said, I also like to run a game with more stark contrasts between Good and Evil.

[pwykersotz]

It's a bit different in your example, however. Cursing people for Evil acts is certainly Good behavior and, if the acts are forbidden by law, then it's a Lawful act, as well. Wiping a person's memory, however, for knowledge they never chose to acquire is definitely not a Good act. Good people can do Neutral, and even Evil, things, but such an antagonist plays more on the moral axis (Evil through Good intentions) than the orderly axis.



As another Lawful person, I'm absolutely with you there; my "chaotic" friends drive me nuts sometimes. But it's important to remember that, this isn't just about creating an antagonist that plays to his or her orderly alignment before his or her moral alignment; we're talking about using order as the primary alignment. So you can certainly argue that an opponent can oppose the party due to their orderly alignment, but we would have to create a full world where orderly alignment drives everything. Once you start to think about it, however, it falls apart.

Ah, see this is where we were arguing slightly separate points. I was justifying Law/Chaos as being important and a force that can divide just as easily as Good/Evil, not as a world where it was the 'Primary' axis. I think that good/evil can work together for a greater overarching goal, even if their opponents share the same moral beliefs. It gets even easier to accept if you just consider that not everybody knows each others alignment, and think what might happen when they begin to villainize each other as opposed to sitting down and talking about whether angels or demons have it right. Good people can accuse each other of being bad all the time due to misconceptions about values and what truly matters in life. Will both try to save a drowning baby or rescue a person from a burning building? Sure, but they might only see the 'evil' in each other.

Also, I will parse your example later when I wake up more. I still have mind fog from waking up WAY too early. :smalltongue:

[ScubaGoomba]

Ah, see this is where we were arguing slightly separate points. I was justifying Law/Chaos as being important and a force that can divide just as easily as Good/Evil, not as a world where it was the 'Primary' axis. I think that good/evil can work together for a greater overarching goal, even if their opponents share the same moral beliefs. It gets even easier to accept if you just consider that not everybody knows each others alignment, and think what might happen when they begin to villainize each other as opposed to sitting down and talking about whether angels or demons have it right. Good people can accuse each other of being bad all the time due to misconceptions about values and what truly matters in life. Will both try to save a drowning baby or rescue a person from a burning building? Sure, but they might only see the 'evil' in each other.

Also, I will parse your example later when I wake up more. I still have mind fog from waking up WAY too early. :smalltongue:

Ha, don't parse too intently; I'm in the same haze as you are! Mostly, I'm saying Law/Chaos would need to be the primary because, if the intent is to have Law/Chaos stressed as the OP suggests, there would need to be a flip on the axis, where Good and Evil would afford themselves the degree of cordiality usually present between Law and Chaos. Also, I'm speaking in extremes to emphasize my points; in any game, you'll run the gamut of exceptionalities, but the extremes are also present and are usually the best way to show a game's theme.

It's tough to really conceptualize, however, because the big problems with Law or Chaos are only present in Evil application. One anarchy may work well, with everyone obeying an assumed social contract and helping each other without a set of formal laws, whereas another may be an oppressive, violent mess, with gangs constantly at war with one another and all citizens, even those not a part of the conflict, being dragged in and hurt, killed, or worse. While I could see a Lawful society taking up against either of these, it seems like a Lawful Good city probably would priorities the CE anarchy over the CG one as opposed to treating both as an equal threat.

[pwykersotz]

It's tough to really conceptualize, however, because the big problems with Law or Chaos are only present in Evil application. One anarchy may work well, with everyone obeying an assumed social contract and helping each other without a set of formal laws, whereas another may be an oppressive, violent mess, with gangs constantly at war with one another and all citizens, even those not a part of the conflict, being dragged in and hurt, killed, or worse. While I could see a Lawful society taking up against either of these, it seems like a Lawful Good city probably would priorities the CE anarchy over the CG one as opposed to treating both as an equal threat.

I think this is more the way we all tend to play the game than the actual situation. I run/play games the same way, where CG and LG break bread together. If you're talking Roy and Elan level, or Xykon and Redcloak, then we've seen how they can tolerate each other. People seek company of like-minded friends, choosing primary traits as they see fit.

Instead of choosing a diametrically opposed foe, let's think on LG versus either CG or LE, assuming equal weight placed on both axes.

The CG city is going to have reduced rules and trade laws that allow for unsafe goods to be brought in, give rise to dissidents who think the LG city is restricting freedoms and becoming a police state, etc. On the other hand, they will be happy to support humanitarian aid and commit troops to toppling that NE necromancer who set up shop down the road.

The LE city is going to exploit loopholes in laws, be dead set against charity, and and generally undermine any generosity or kindness that is intended, but they will play ball with the actual laws of the kingdom as far as they are beholden to them, and they are reliable for trade.

It seems pretty even to me so far. Now, I am not a PoliSci major, so I'm certain I'm overlooking some things, so correct me if I've erred.

[TandemChelipeds]

I think it can be done if you think in terms of real-life ethical philosophy. If you define good as "adhering to a system of ethics"(yes, I know law/chaos is called the ethical axis, but I consider that to be in name only), it becomes much easier to write good-aligned enemies that the player characters will be inclined to oppose. After all, virtue ethics conflict with utilitarian ethics all the time, and both conflict with deontological ethics. None of these ethical systems necessarily have to be constrained to law or chaos, either; though some may consider utilitarian ethics to be lawful in nature, consider that they allow totally unfettered action in pursuit of the greater good(see also: Kiritsugu (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wyk5tGYTjY) from Fate/Zero). In this way, you could write some very scary chaotic good villains. I suppose it is much harder to argue that deontological ethics can be chaotic, but if the deontology dictates that you can never interfere with the decisions of others, it gets into pretty chaotic territory.

When your players tell you that they are good, ask them in which way they are good and give them a basic rundown of ethics. This doesn't have to take long(utilitarian=consequences matter, virtue=qualities matter, deontology=methods matter), and they don't have to choose just one. Start them off with straight-up evil villains, and once you've had the time to go over their answers, then you can write up your antivillains.

[Afgncaap5]

I ran into a law vs. chaos issue last night. I was playing a paladin and a friend was playing a barbarian. It was... crazy obvious that these six people we were fighting were under the magical control of someone or something else while fighting us. My paladin, of course, shouted that we needed to be careful and disable them without killing or permanently harming them since we were obviously superior combatants. So, some other players and I started taking the -4 to attack. The barbarian, though, didn't really care and just started swingin' his sword.

So, my next round was taken up trying (and failing) to trip the barbarian to keep him from killing these possibly innocent adversaries. The two characters had to talk through a few issues later.

[TandemChelipeds]

I ran into a law vs. chaos issue last night. I was playing a paladin and a friend was playing a barbarian. It was... crazy obvious that these six people we were fighting were under the magical control of someone or something else while fighting us. My paladin, of course, shouted that we needed to be careful and disable them without killing or permanently harming them since we were obviously superior combatants. So, some other players and I started taking the -4 to attack. The barbarian, though, didn't really care and just started swingin' his sword.

So, my next round was taken up trying (and failing) to trip the barbarian to keep him from killing these possibly innocent adversaries. The two characters had to talk through a few issues later.

Wait a sec. Since when is disregard for life chaotic? That sounds to me more like a good vs. neutral conflict.

[Vrock_Summoner]

The real problem with Law/Chaos working the same as Good/Evil is one simple doctrine Good has: Good is restricted from fighting against Good. There is very little of this in other alignments; Lawful characters can manipulate the laws against someone else to gain personal power, or they can fight against one lawful authority in the service of another, or they can straight-up oppose the only current authority on account of their own regiment, and they can remain Lawful. Chaos is by no means bound to chaos; a chaotic character can't really intentionally work towards things that limit their own personal freedoms while remaining chaotic for very long, but in terms of regular conflict, a chaotic character can crush the free under their boot into slavery, they can fight against governments that idealize chaos for personal reasons, they can conversely help put down a rebellion for their own reasons, and they can give themselves some ethical restrictions (though they can't let someone else enforce them) and they can remain chaotic. Evil... Well, nothing needs to be said about evil.

But Good isn't really allowed to oppose forces of Good except on very rare and specific occasions, most of which involve you having information the other Good force doesn't and them not listening to you. Good characters are obligated by their alignment not to harm or fight with each other over matters of Good. Ever notice how in almost every story that has two Goods who see things differently, one ends up falling from grace? Good doesn't do well with the whole intra-alignment-conflict thing. It pretty much enforces a "compromise peacefully or get out" environment.

Did I use that word right? I think it's intra... Or is it inter in this situation...?

That said, a world where this conflict is the main thing would be pretty legit. But Good would need to be a minority, and Evil things would need to be focused on their Law/Chaos sidecthan their Evil side. Lawful Evil government steals people's freedoms and controls them heavily more than being actually cruel, Chaotic Evil government officials do whatever suits their whims regardless of who gets hurt rather than specifically aiming to hurt, that sort of thing.

[TandemChelipeds]

The real problem with Law/Chaos working the same as Good/Evil is one simple doctrine Good has: Good is restricted from fighting against Good. There is very little of this in other alignments; Lawful characters can manipulate the laws against someone else to gain personal power, or they can fight against one lawful authority in the service of another, or they can straight-up oppose the only current authority on account of their own regiment, and they can remain Lawful. Chaos is by no means bound to chaos; a chaotic character can't really intentionally work towards things that limit their own personal freedoms while remaining chaotic for very long, but in terms of regular conflict, a chaotic character can crush the free under their boot into slavery, they can fight against governments that idealize chaos for personal reasons, they can conversely help put down a rebellion for their own reasons, and they can give themselves some ethical restrictions (though they can't let someone else enforce them) and they can remain chaotic. Evil... Well, nothing needs to be said about evil.

But Good isn't really allowed to oppose forces of Good except on very rare and specific occasions, most of which involve you having information the other Good force doesn't and them not listening to you. Good characters are obligated by their alignment not to harm or fight with each other over matters of Good. Ever notice how in almost every story that has two Goods who see things differently, one ends up falling from grace? Good doesn't do well with the whole intra-alignment-conflict thing. It pretty much enforces a "compromise peacefully or get out" environment.

Did I use that word right? I think it's intra... Or is it inter in this situation...?

That said, a world where this conflict is the main thing would be pretty legit. But Good would need to be a minority, and Evil things would need to be focused on their Law/Chaos sidecthan their Evil side. Lawful Evil government steals people's freedoms and controls them heavily more than being actually cruel, Chaotic Evil government officials do whatever suits their whims regardless of who gets hurt rather than specifically aiming to hurt, that sort of thing.

See my above post. Good can totally conflict with good, depending on how you interpret it.

[Vrock_Summoner]

See my above post. Good can totally conflict with good, depending on how you interpret it.

Well, the rules generally enforce that doing Evil things for Good ends is still Evil, so that butchers one philosophy. Then again, the alignment rules are the most commonly changed part of D&D anyway, so this wouldn't be too bad to use in-game.

[TandemChelipeds]

Well, the rules generally enforce that doing Evil things for Good ends is still Evil, so that butchers one philosophy. Then again, the alignment rules are the most commonly changed part of D&D anyway, so this wouldn't be too bad to use in-game.

I'm not talking about rules as written, or official fluff. I'm talking about ways that a DM could conceivably run a game. The official cosmology is irrelevant in my mind. I mean, by default, DnD runs on explicitly deontological ethics, but I've always found that rather unsatisfying.

[Larkas]

What I feel is most interesting in the Law vs. Chaos conflict is that it actually makes sense to have a third, separate side of the conflict in Balance/Neutrality, one that is active, militant, and directly against the success of both extremes. But, as said above, this conflict is much more primal than Good vs. Evil, and can only exist, and make sense, in a world without the latter. In D&D, balance is actually needed for the morality conflict to arise (see Pelor becoming NG and Nerull, NE).

[pwykersotz]

What I feel is most interesting in the Law vs. Chaos conflict is that it actually makes sense to have a third, separate side of the conflict in Balance/Neutrality, one that is active, militant, and directly against the success of both extremes. But, as said above, this conflict is much more primal than Good vs. Evil, and can only exist, and make sense, in a world without the latter. In D&D, balance is actually needed for the morality conflict to arise (see Pelor becoming NG and Nerull, NE).

Ah, militant Neutrality. Now THERE'S a concept that I find difficult to envision. Active Neutrality is one thing...but especially the true neutral types...wrapping my mind around being passionate enough to despise all four alignment extremes and going to war against them is bizarre.

[Larkas]

Ah, militant Neutrality. Now THERE'S a concept that I find difficult to envision. Active Neutrality is one thing...but especially the true neutral types...wrapping my mind around being passionate enough to despise all four alignment extremes and going to war against them is bizarre.

And that's why it only makes sense in the Law vs. Chaos conflict, specially if such conflict isn't "tainted" by Good vs. Evil :smallsmile: In this conflict, the Neutral side will not want either Law's extremely structured ways, nor Chaos' extreme lack of form. Balance can be an ideal to uphold, and people can be actively Neutral (versus merely unaligned). A more extremist, militant Neutral faction could strive to rid the multiverse of both extremes in the search of true Balance (multiversal enlightenment, nirvana, what have you).

Put in D&D's multiverse terms, if there's only Mechanus vs. Limbo, Outlands is a good ideal to live by :smallsmile:

Introduce Good and Evil as structured forces, however, and that conflict, along with a structured Neutrality, become very jeopardized. What moral "gray area" there was is gone, and they simply don't make much sense.

That's not to say there can't be good or evil in a Law vs. Chaos world. They just can't be driving forces there. A Lg (not LG, this doesn't exist in this exercise) kingdom might crush Cg rebels the same way they'd crush Ce bandits simply because that's tradition, or even because that's the most efficient way to deal with them. It could have a fairer legal system, allowing dissidents to pay time instead of life as they would in a Le kingdom (at least at first), but the Ce bandits would have access to it too.

What I mean to say, in case it's still not clear yet, is that a central Law vs. Chaos (vs. Neutrality) conflict is very possible. It just can't coexist with a Good vs. Evil conflict.

[TandemChelipeds]

And that's why it only makes sense in the Law vs. Chaos conflict, specially if such conflict isn't "tainted" by Good vs. Evil :smallsmile: In this conflict, the Neutral side will not want either Law's extremely structured ways, nor Chaos' extreme lack of form. Balance can be an ideal to uphold, and people can be actively Neutral (versus merely unaligned). A more extremist, militant Neutral faction could strive to rid the multiverse of both extremes in the search of true Balance (multiversal enlightenment, nirvana, what have you).

Put in D&D's multiverse terms, if there's only Mechanus vs. Limbo, Outlands is a good ideal to live by :smallsmile:

Introduce Good and Evil as structured forces, however, and that conflict, along with a structured Neutrality, become very jeopardized. What moral "gray area" there was is gone, and they simply don't make much sense.

That's not to say there can't be good or evil in a Law vs. Chaos world. They just can't be driving forces there. A Lg (not LG, this doesn't exist in this exercise) kingdom might crush Cg rebels the same way they'd crush Ce bandits simply because that's tradition, or even because that's the most efficient way to deal with them. It could have a fairer legal system, allowing dissidents to pay time instead of life as they would in a Le kingdom (at least at first), but the Ce bandits would have access to it too.

What I mean to say, in case it's still not clear yet, is that a central Law vs. Chaos (vs. Neutrality) conflict is very possible. It just can't coexist with a Good vs. Evil conflict.

Again, I think it totally could; you just need a little imagination. If the struggle between Good and Evil is something that has been going on for centuries or millennia with no end in sight, I could very easily see a Nietzsche-esque figure deciding that the extremes of alignment are something that need to be done away with; that the struggle for Good is something that brings more suffering than it warrants, and that ultimately it is best for the world that they reject their utopian visions and the faulty ideals on which they are founded. Perhaps they think that too many people demand control, that Good is just a nicer form of it, and that the desire for control only causes suffering that could easily be avoided if only they'd loosen their grip and compromise their ideals. Think Kreia from KOTOR 2. Or again, Kiritsugu (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wyk5tGYTjY)(he seems to fit for true neutral just as well as a ruthless variant of Chaotic Good, oddly enough).

[Shining Wrath]

Let me quote the SRD and I think OP question will be answered:


Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

Versus


Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Law and Chaos are about how you conduct yourself compared to the expectations of others. Different societies can have different laws but a Lawful person will always care about following them while a Chaotic person won't care. It's possible to be Lawful without insisting that the guy next to you in the party be Lawful as well, unless you feel that you are tasked to enforce the law - not all Lawful people feel that they must see to it that the law is upheld personally.

Now read the quoted description of Evil. To be Evil you must go beyond pursuing your own self-interest to actively harming others. You don't have to be stupid about it, but if you never hurt any innocent people you are not doing Evil correctly. And that means that anyone who is Good pretty much has to try to stop you from hurting that innocent. Again - if you never maliciously hurt innocents, you do not live up to your Evil alignment and the local Super Villain club ought to turn down your application for membership.

So the problem is Good people. They just won't leave Evil people alone to oppress innocents in peace. Good, by its nature, must seek out and oppose Evil. Law does not have to seek out and dominate Chaos.

[Larkas]

Again, I think it totally could; you just need a little imagination. If the struggle between Good and Evil is something that has been going on for centuries or millennia with no end in sight, I could very easily see a Nietzsche-esque figure deciding that the extremes of alignment are something that need to be done away with; that the struggle for Good is something that brings more suffering than it warrants, and that ultimately it is best for the world that they reject their utopian visions and the faulty ideals on which they are founded. Perhaps they think that too many people demand control, that Good is just a nicer form of it, and that the desire for control only causes suffering that could easily be avoided if only they'd loosen their grip and compromise their ideals. Think Kreia from KOTOR 2. Or again, Kiritsugu (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wyk5tGYTjY)(he seems to fit for true neutral just as well as a ruthless variant of Chaotic Good, oddly enough).

Hmmm, that makes sense. I still have a hard time picturing a cohesive force seeking that (versus a few like-minded individuals), but I won't dismiss it as a possibility. It still doesn't feel as "natural" as Balance in Law vs. Chaos to me, though.

[TandemChelipeds]

Hmmm, that makes sense. I still have a hard time picturing a cohesive force seeking that (versus a few like-minded individuals), but I won't dismiss it as a possibility. It still doesn't feel as "natural" as Balance in Law vs. Chaos to me, though.

Maybe not a conventional army, but I could certainly see it appealing to enough wizards to have an impact on the world. And considering that wizards can use necromancy, there's your army.

[Larkas]

Maybe not a conventional army, but I could certainly see it appealing to enough wizards to have an impact on the world. And considering that wizards can use necromancy, there's your army.

Hmmm... Just playing the devil's advocate here now, but would that be sustainable on a multiversal scale?

[Shining Wrath]

Hmmm... Just playing the devil's advocate here now, but would that be sustainable on a multiversal scale?

Or a multiplanar sense, as an undead army is not too effective on a positive energy plane.