PDA

View Full Version : The Law-Chaos Axis



Ulzgoroth
2007-03-11, 11:32 PM
The good-evil axis can carry some contradictions and logical challenges (not to mention differences of opinion), but the Law-Chaos axis is a mystery. To me, anyway.

What I'm most inclined to load onto the Law-Chaos indicator is adherence to a code. What code isn't important, so long as it's self-consistent and faithfully followed. As an associated property, willingness to work through potentially complex but internally consistent structures. This makes defining chaotic and neutral a bit hard, though.

The PHB 'Law and Chaos' passage seems to describe the axis as mostly about acceptance of hierarchy. Lawful persons accept subordination, to other people or to abstract rules, while Chaotic persons reject both. Then the three Lawful alignment examples seem to center on straightforwardness for the Good, rigid codes for the Neutral, and a mix of subordination and rigidity for the Evil. All three of the Chaotics seem to about to refusing to be subordinate to anything.

What do you think? How do you cope? Why isn't there a law-chaos book pair to correspond to BoVD/BoED?

Assassinfox
2007-03-11, 11:36 PM
What do you think? How do you cope? Why isn't there a law-chaos book pair to correspond to BoVD/BoED?

Yeah, I was kinda wondering that too.

Book of Total Craziness!
Book of Sticks up Butts!

:smallwink:

JaronK
2007-03-11, 11:47 PM
How I do it:

A Lawful character has a specific code that dominates their behavior. Thus, though you may want to do something, your code may disallow it. A Lawful Good paladin may want to help that starving beggar who just stole some bread, but his code prevents him from allowing the theft to go unanswered.

A Chaotic character is guided more by goals than specific codes. A Chaotic Good character would have no trouble looking the other way on the theft of some bread, and help out the peasant in question, for example.

In both cases, the goals of the characters were the same (help the greater good, generally), but in the case of the Lawful character, his code was more important than the goal.

JaronK

The Extinguisher
2007-03-12, 12:02 AM
I hate the word Law. Order is a much better word for it. We need to change the lawful alignment to orderly.

Anyway, unlike Good and Evil which is based on actions, the ethical axis is based on intent. At least that's what I think.

Turcano
2007-03-12, 12:03 AM
The problem with a code-based interpretation of the ethical axis is what counts as a code. Given a sufficiently broad definition of a code, it would be difficult to find any chaotic people, as almost no one is truly spontaneous in their behavior.

A better interpretation is how one views the place of the individual within society. Law places the good of society over the good of the individual, while Chaos places the individual over society. This, I feel, is closely analogous to the division in the moral axis (i.e., the value of life and dignity over one's own desires vs. the contrary).

Assassinfox
2007-03-12, 12:08 AM
I hate the word Law. Order is a much better word for it. We need to change the lawful alignment to orderly.

On the flip side of that, Chaos should be changed to Freedom.

Duke Malagigi
2007-03-12, 12:54 AM
I see the differences between Chaos and Law as having more to do with personal freedom versus societal/group/government control.

Chaotics value independence, personal responsibility (if not evil), honest and constructive competition, the idea of private property (unless you hold other sentient creatures as property. Note, Chaotic Evils could be convinced that slavery is acceptable) and individual initiative. Chaotics also believe that the individual is the most basic unit of society.

Lawfuls value obedience, group responsibility, often times mandated cooperation, the idea of group/government property (not always, but it happens on occasion), and centralized authority. Lawfuls believe that the community is the most basic unit of society.

Wehrkind
2007-03-12, 01:05 AM
The only problem with your analysis Duke is that those that think community is the most basic unit of society tend to be those that have the least structured minds/actions. That is to say, they are the least internally consistent in professed values and deeds, mainly because of the flaws in their world view, precisely that community is the most basic unit of society.

I think your analysis is fairly accurate in regards to D&D alignment. I think however it also highlights another problem of the D&D alignment system. In this case that problem is that many people who value individuals above groups are extremely "orderly" and in favor of law as such.

Essentially, I think it is what happens when non-philosophers attempt to build a system based on ideas even philosophers disagree on. Not that they shouldn't have tried, but it perhaps was a bad idea to hinge large parts of the game's mechanics on that sort of thing. It might have been better to assign colors instead of alignments, saying "My character is blue/green" and thus being affected by spells etc that do that, and leave personality seperate.

Closet_Skeleton
2007-03-12, 03:38 AM
At least 1 edition had an artifact called the Book of Silver Magic that had the same Effect as the Book of Exalted Deeds or the Book of Vile Darkness, but it benifited neutral characters.

That seems odd, good and evil, even neutral, get more stuff before law and chaos.

Dhavaer
2007-03-12, 03:47 AM
There was a Libram of Silver Magic, I think in the Epic Level Handbook.

Khantalas
2007-03-12, 04:54 AM
In my campaign setting (...and there we go...), Evil and Good are simply how one follows Law and Chaos. There are two gods, or rather, divines, Harmony and Entropy, that are lawful and chaotic, respectively. However, in this setting, Lawful also implies adherence to the Universal Law of Things (yes, that's the actual name of the law), written by Harmony at the beginning of time. Adherence to a personal code doesn't make you truly lawful. Chaotic implies the will to defy and fight against that code to empower Entropy.

For example, a Paladin may be chaotic. Yes, they can be. Shut up. They still need to be good, so they still have to respect life and all that, but their goals are different from that of a core paladin's: to free others from unjust laws set down by an abstract being no one can even prove the existence of countless years ago. They do so by proving the laws wrong, and by showing them that Entropy can be merciful (how you can show that a being that is out to destroy existence completely is merciful, I'm still thinking about it). An evil follower of Entropy, however, will force others to see his truth, slaughtering those who are too weak to do so.

Make sense? No? Then wait until you hear my "undead are chaotic" theory, that will blow your mind.

Demented
2007-03-12, 05:21 AM
Of no necessary purpose...


The only problem with your analysis Duke is that those that think community is the most basic unit of society tend to be those that have the least structured minds/actions. That is to say, they are the least internally consistent in professed values and deeds, mainly because of the flaws in their world view, precisely that community is the most basic unit of society.

Not necessarily. This is much like the question of "When a tree falls, does it make a sound?" The question itself is virtually meaningless in its apparent simplicity, until you understand what the other side is arguing. That is, that determining whether an object makes a sound can only be done by hearing the tree fall. Once you know this, the question morphs from useless solipsism into a frustrating illogic puzzle.

As far as the community being the most basic unit of society, it can be questioned whether an individual is a complete unit, in terms of a society. Can one person really constitute a society? How many people do you need to make a society? Thus would it begin.
Putting that aside....


D&D asigns absolutes fairly simply to the Good/Evil axis. Good cherishes and seeks to protect life, while Evil sees life as having no value.

With the Law/Chaos axis, the D&D description isn't as clear. It describes various traits, but it doesn't have an absolute indicator as convenient as for the Good/Evil axis. The ideal course would just be to choose a polarizing aspect for the Law/Chaos axis and use that as the standard. Otherwise, there is always room for the Law/Chaos axis to contradict itself.

...Depending on how ludicrous one gets. After all, it's questionable that there is a relationship between a belief in personal freedom, and a willingness to lie. On the other hand, one might accuse that all pieces of expressive art are lies made manifest, with no truth but their own existence. Which would have interesting implications for law versus chaos...

Saph
2007-03-12, 08:03 AM
What do you think? How do you cope? Why isn't there a law-chaos book pair to correspond to BoVD/BoED?

Short answer: Because no-one cares that much. To most people, whether you're Good or Evil matters much more than whether you're Lawful or Chaotic. Lots of people like the idea of an epic campaign fighting against Evil, not that many are interested in fighting against Law/Chaos.

As for definitions, I've always seen Law and Chaos in simple terms: lawful people are ordered, chaotic people are disordered. The businessman who works a 9-5 job is more lawful, the guy who takes random jobs and travels from city to city is more chaotic.

I've never paid that much attention to the 'acceptance of a hierarchy' part, because that's so dependent on where you live. A Lawful person who strongly dislikes a hierarchy won't support it, and a Chaotic person may idealise a hierarchy that he doesn't happen to live in.

- Saph

headwarpage
2007-03-12, 08:30 AM
I'm with Saph on this. Lawful doesn't necessarily have anything to do with laws, and maybe not even adherence to a code. But a lawful character likes order. He thinks that there is, or at least ought to be, a pattern and structure to things, from the unwritten laws of the multiverse to the society he lives in to how he lives his own life. But he's not necessarily bound to abide by the structure that's already in place, or to accept a code that somebody else imposes on him. A lawful good character, faced with a corrupt social structure, can overthrow it. But he'll do so in order to install what he sees as a better structure, and he might not overthrow it unless he can see that he'll be able to install that better structure afterwards. A chaotic good character, in the same situation, might simply overthrow the existing structure, tell the people, "You're free," and call it good.

Chaotic characters, conversely, have no need for order and structure. They don't necessarily crave disorder, but they don't think that order plays an important role in the world. They're more likely to be impulsive, and to act with no long-term plan. They don't necessarily chafe under strict rule, but they're more likely to, unless the nature of the rule is such that they're doing pretty much what they want to anyway. My general impression is that they'll see society as a collection of individuals, where a lawful character would see society as sort of an entity unto itself, somewhat divorced from the individual people who make it up.

Orzel
2007-03-12, 09:10 AM
I always went for:

Lawful people will obey and enforce rules, traditions, routines, and codes that are restrictive, difficult, and/or inconvenient as long as possible.

Neutral people will obey rules, traditions, routines and codes that are restrictive, difficult,and/or inconvenient as long as breaking them has a worse consequence.

Chaotic people will not obey rules, traditions, routines, and codes that are restrictive, difficult, and/or inconvenient unless forced to.

My example is a guild states you must to kill a certain beast to join.
A lawful person would kill the beast as long as it wasn't suicide.
A neutral person would kill the beast as long as the beast was an easy kill.
A chaotic person would kill the beast only if you couldn't find another way in the guild.

Maglor_Grubb
2007-03-12, 09:39 AM
A lawful person will avoid doing something he personally has no problems with because it's a rule. A chaotic person will listen only to his inner moral compass, and will strongly resist any attempt to force him into acting according to external rules.

Every genius that realizes a new idea better but very unlike the old one is chaotic, because he works with what-could-be, the ideal idea in his head, unlike the lawful person that has the idea most common in his society in his head.

Lawful persons are very influenced by external factors in their opinions, but ones they have made them, they will stick to them even if society changes.
Chaotic persons are less influenced by external factors, but will change their opinion more quickly.

Chaotic is a dreamer, lawful is disciplined. Chaotic has an idea, lawful works it out. Lawful is hard to separate from his idea of reality and finds it hard to work with other models of reality, chaotic jumps from model to model, often leading to inconsistent results.

It's always more clearer if you go to the extremes.

In the lawful utopia everyone follows all rules, everyone knows his place and does what he is expected to do. Theory=practise here. It worked in theory and here it works in the real world too because everyone follows the theory to the letter. Society is a well oiled machine and the individuals are parts of it. While an individual could do his job better by thinking for himself what the best course of action would be any time he has a task, he won't, he will follow the procedure every time to the letter - and that is good, because even if it makes him do his job better, it will make it harder for the other parts to depend on him and ultimately that's bad for the whole machine. Sure, geniusses are forced to do less than they can, but because everyone does something production is higher.

In the chaotic utopia everyone does what he is most talented to do. Everyone lives his life to the most potential, develops any hidden talents he might have for the maximum result. If everyone tries find the job he's most fitted to do and tries to do this the best he can, the individual will be happy and everyone will prosper. Judgements are made on a case-by-case basis for every situation is different, so if you would apply 1 rule, made without knowing where it will be applied, to 10 cases, it would at best be avarage for all. In every case the circumstances are different, so the best course of action is different, so in this chaotic utopia the action taken will be different every time, but every time the best action for the individual deciding. Sure, some people won't be able to get along, but because every talent is used to it's full potential, any potential Great Idea is realized and progress is much faster.

lumberofdabeast
2007-03-12, 09:46 AM
You know what?

I was thinking about this earlier, but now it's concrete. The next campaign that I run will be centered on the Law vs. Chaos conflict, rather than Good vs. Evil. It should make for an interesting play experience.

On topic, I see the two as such:
Law values the whole.
Chaos values the individual.

Fixer
2007-03-12, 09:49 AM
The closest to how my campaigns tend to interpret Law and Chaos is how Maglor Grubb defined his.

Lawful individuals tend to focus more on those around them and working as part of a collective. "Strength in numbers," and, "It worked before it can work again," would be commonplace statements for a person with a lawful mindset.

Chaotic individuals tend to focus more on themselves and their own thoughts than the thoughts of those around them. "Maybe it will work this time," and, "If I have to do it alone, I'll do it alone," would be more commonplace statement for a person with a chaotic mindset.

My challenge has always been the true neutrals. There appear to be two manners in which they are portrayed in D&D: The apathetic or the balancers. I believe another portrayal would be the justifier (i.e. The ends justify the means). They care, but their behavior is solely dictated by their goal and not the moral or ethical concerns of their behavior.

Fixer
2007-03-12, 09:51 AM
You know what?

I was thinking about this earlier, but now it's concrete. The next campaign that I run will be centered on the Law vs. Chaos conflict, rather than Good vs. Evil. It should make for an interesting play experience.

On topic, I see the two as such:
Law values the whole.
Chaos values the individual.
I did this in a campaign once. The players thought it was good vs evil at first, but then they had a chance to meet both sides (Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral) and they has such a moral quandry as to who they should side with it was great to watch.

Orzel
2007-03-12, 10:04 AM
I do not agree with this lawful loves the group and chaotic loves themself thing.

These are the most common sights but not common enough for the rule. The lawful tend to favor the society because the society makes the rules. The choatic tend to think inward and not based on the society's vision because the society makes the rules.

My example the monk.
Monks must be lawful.
Why?
Because being a monk is hard. The amount of training and routines required in their personal codes is great. A Nonlawful person would quit before learning much because the training is so hard/restrictive/long. "**** this! I'm not sitting under that waterfall for another 2 hours. Hand me a sword!"


Babarians must be chaotic to keep his rage.
Why? Because rage require the person to let go of his/her codes and views inorder to go crazy and feral. A lawful person would never do that.

Baalzebub
2007-03-12, 10:12 AM
I see it the way outsiders see it.

Outsiders from Mechanus simply follow the rules from the plane and, according to the big system, they work.

Outsiders from Limbo do as they please, no rules, no order.

Iudex Fatarum
2007-03-12, 10:15 AM
Discipline is a huge part of law, and lack of it is chaos.
The way I see it, if the person views the ends as justifying the means then they are chaotic.
If they say this is never the case then that is true.
Monks are lawful because they will never break the teaching of their master's to achieve some goal. They see things as moral absolutes and very black and white. I find that this is true even in modern martial arts, the respect and higherarchy is integral to what is taught.

Clementx
2007-03-12, 11:02 AM
The distinction is the conflict between Restriction and Freedom. This manifests in many different ways

-Personal Code vs Choice: A Lawful person holds their ideals and rules above what is most convenient or desirable. In fact, they are willing to make sacrifices for something larger than themselves. It can be altruism for the sake of good, or it can be cold-hearted justification of evil deeds. A Chaotic person holds their individual and momentary desires over "the way things should be done". They will break their ideals when something competes. It can be flagrant disregard for the law, or it can be the willingness to act despite the consequences.

-Societal Order vs Liberty: A Lawful person holds society and law over personal freedoms. This is dedication to something greater than the individual. It can be tyrannical disregard for personal rights, or it can be deep desire for stability and equity. A Chaotic person holds individual rights above the demands of others. When push comes to shove, life matters more than words. It can be a deep dedication and respect for life, or it can be self-indulgent priorities.

And it goes on. Each aspect varies in application based on Good vs Evil. A real life example of the flexibility: the death penalty. A Lawful person could support it because the demands of social order can overwrite the right to life of an irredeemable person. A Lawful person could also oppose it, because the state must rise above human desire for revenge and blood, no matter the social convenience. A Chaotic person could support it, because vengeance is deeply satisfying. A Chaotic person could also oppose it because the right to life cannot be taken away from a person, no matter what he does.

Law and Chaos can agree for completely different reasons. On the same issue, law can be slightly more tyrannical than it should be, and chaos can be too short-sighted for its own good.

LotharBot
2007-03-12, 02:47 PM
For a good example of Chaotic Neutral, watch the TV Show "House" (or "House, M.D."). The title character is pure chaos.

He doesn't merely value "individuality"... he values getting under people's skin. He values throwing people for a loop. Like many of us as teens, his goal is to annoy and frustrate and generally interfere.

I'd say "lawful" values doing things according to tradition, social norms, and doing things the comfortable way. "Chaotic" values breaking tradition and social norms, and making people uncomfortable. "Neutral" sees tradition and social norms as sometimes useful, but definitely bendable.

Sardia
2007-03-12, 08:36 PM
My campaign cosmology started with pure, immobile order...forces and matter held immobile in a state of absolute, crystalline perfection. And then something moved, which was for all intents and purposes the beginning of time as the universe knew it.
Unfortunately, it also means that the universe lost its perfect state and is literally (if slowly) falling apart into pure chaos.
Law opposes chaos because chaos is quite simply the ultimate end of all things. Eventually. Law takes the long view, and tries to get things back to the state of primordial perfection.
Chaos considers the personal freedom to be had before the end as a positive good. Be personally fulfilled before the end comes, basically.
Neutral doesn't really care, or doesn't know. It's going to be countless eons, anyhow.

Aximili
2007-03-12, 09:34 PM
The only problem with your analysis Duke is that those that think community is the most basic unit of society tend to be those that have the least structured minds/actions. That is to say, they are the least internally consistent in professed values and deeds, mainly because of the flaws in their world view, precisely that community is the most basic unit of society.

That's just a Chaotic character's point of view.
A lawfull character could say exactly the same, just switching "cummunity" with "individual".

They're all point of views. Maybe in our society one of them is viewed as right, or as more "internally consistent in professed values and deeds". But D&D world is different, and the most structured minds diverge on what the right attitudes are.

Krellen
2007-03-12, 11:52 PM
There are a lot of opinions here that seem to fit with my view of Law and Chaos, which is very complex. I built my campaign world concentrating more on Chaos vs. Law - Change vs. Order, Creation vs. Structure, Individual vs. Community - and have devoted a lot of thought to differentiating Law and Chaos.

It's not simple, just like Good and Evil aren't exactly simple. Law is discipline, society, tradition, honour, structure, refinement, heirarchy, stagnation - "Everything has its place". Chaos is creativity, freedom, individual, progress, change, equality, expediency, decay - "There's got to be a better way".

It's a bit of means: Chaotic people are willing to use the best/most efficient means to accomplish their ends, while the Lawful feel that the manner they use to reach their end is as important as the end itself.

It's a bit societal: Chaotics believe that individual freedoms are sacrosanct, while Lawfuls believe the common weal (which isn't the same as "Good") trumps individual choice.

It's a bit universal: Chaos seeks to shape the world into a "better" shape, Law seeks to maintain the statis quo.

Roy and Elan are excellent examples of Law and Chaos; Roy is stodgy, steady, dependible, stoic; Elan is rambucntions, joyful, carefree, passionate. Neither one is really "best", but individuals will often prefer one to the other.

TheOOB
2007-03-13, 12:09 AM
I have never had law or chaos be that important to my games, in fact i think it's silly that there are spells based on them.

Generally speaking, I consider lawful people to be stable and predictable, while chaotic people are erratic and unpredictable.

Sardia
2007-03-13, 12:11 AM
I have never had law or chaos be that important to my games, in fact i think it's silly that there are spells based on them.


I suppose your gaming world could theoretically go either way-- take the Moorcock route and have the major division be Law vs. Chaos. Which would make for fascinating party composition, certainly.

Ulzgoroth
2007-03-13, 12:20 AM
I think the allocation of 'individual freedoms' to chaos is at best tempting misinterpretation.

Certainly in any sense resembling the real-world history of individual freedoms, they've always been an artifact of law, not lawlessness. The concept of 'rights' makes no real sense from a social chaotic outlook...they're just the least objectionable possible rules passed down by some bossy type. At best, they're Law turned against itself to keep it out of the way. (Of course from the perspective of Law they're adding the virtues of a chaotic approach to their own by incorporating them into the legal structure.)

Compare:
L: Don't do that!
C: You promised not to interfere with me doing this.
L: Oh... *pages through ordinances* ...Quite. Sorry about that.

vs.

L: Don't do that!
C: Why shouldn't I? I don't see what business it is of yours.
L: *pulls out law book* It says right here...
C: *ignores L*

Dhavaer
2007-03-13, 12:36 AM
Not necessarily. This is much like the question of "When a tree falls, does it make a sound?" The question itself is virtually meaningless in its apparent simplicity, until you understand what the other side is arguing. That is, that determining whether an object makes a sound can only be done by hearing the tree fall. Once you know this, the question morphs from useless solipsism into a frustrating illogic puzzle.
If there's nothing nearby to hear it, the tree does not make a sound. It makes vibration, which only becomes sound in the presence of an ear.

I read part of the second Fiendish Codex today, and something I got out of it was relavent to the topic:
Law: Communal Wisdom>Individual Will
Chaos: Individual Will>Communal Wisdom

Sardia
2007-03-13, 12:37 AM
I think the allocation of 'individual freedoms' to chaos is at best tempting misinterpretation.


There's a distinction here-- concern for everyone's individual freedom may well be lawful, but a singleminded concern for your own freedom as an individual is surely chaotic.
The chaotic approach to freedom involves doing what you think is (depending on the Good-evil axis) an intrinsically good idea, whatever seems like a good notion at the moment, or whatever serves to best exalt you and smash others.
Concern for how this all works within a group and implied reciprocal obligations to maximize everyone's freedom is a matter for Law.

Take a chaotic evil character for an example-- he is deeply concerned with his own freedom- try telling him "no" when he wants to do something and see the reaction. He merely doesn't care about anyone else's freedom.

Wehrkind
2007-03-13, 12:40 AM
That's just a Chaotic character's point of view.
A lawfull character could say exactly the same, just switching "cummunity" with "individual".

They're all point of views. Maybe in our society one of them is viewed as right, or as more "internally consistent in professed values and deeds". But D&D world is different, and the most structured minds diverge on what the right attitudes are.

To wit: What makes up a community? No definition of community can exist without individuals who make it up. No aspect of a community or society can apply only to groups and not individuals. Laws affect individuals, perhaps groups of them at a time, but never groups without individuals.

What you are suggesting is that somehow a box of eggs has any meaning if it does not actually contain eggs.

To answer your question Demented, one individual is not a society, however it is the smallest undivisible part there of. One person is not sufficient to make a society, but a person is necessary. Now, where you want to set the lines between group (x>=2 people) and community (2<=x<=y) and society (y<=infinity) is up to you. I suppose it lies somewhere between a raw number and requirements of interaction. However, even a definition purely based on interaction can not remove at the individual, as interactions only occur between individuals at their basic level. Interactions between groups are merely the sum of the interactions between individuals.

And yes, a tree falling in a forrest makes a sound. Reality exists whether anyone is aware of it or not. Every time.
Edit: Dhaever: A vibration does not become "sound" because someone hears it. It does not change any of it's properties, only what we call it. The tree produces said vibrations, and thus changes the world around it. J

TheOOB
2007-03-13, 01:06 AM
The problum with law/chaos being a major concept is that there is no clear definition of law/chaos. There may be some similar problums with good/evil, but generally speaking it's pretty easy to tell if someone is good evil or neutral, it's not always the case with law/chaos.

Dhavaer
2007-03-13, 01:17 AM
Edit: Dhaever: A vibration does not become "sound" because someone hears it. It does not change any of it's properties, only what we call it. The tree produces said vibrations, and thus changes the world around it. J

Yes, the hearing doesn't change the vibrations' properties. They still don't create sound without a mind to interpret them as such.
Also, *stab* for mispelling my name.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-03-13, 01:24 AM
I think the biggest chunk of proof to disprove most of the theories of RAW chaos/law here I can come up with is elves. They're all about communities and rules and traditions and blah blah blah, and yet they're listed as primarily chaotic. Why?

(for the remainder of this thought exercise, we will pretend non-standard elves simply do not exist, as their variance is inconsequential to this argument)

Clearly, a code means nothing in RAW as it relates to your alignment. Neither does adherence to traditions, rules, or society. It's an odd precedent, huh?

I mean, what does that make law, then? What about chaos? You can't simply say "for the good of your community", since such a person could consistantly break laws, steal, and hide like a common criminal and still be doing it for the good of the community (Robin Hood, anyone?). That's more of a good/evil argument.

So what is it that makes a paladin lawful and elves chaotic? Both follow the rules of their society, often to the letter. Both are likely to seek retribution and justice. So why the difference?

It can't be a community thing and it can't be a code thing. It can't be any argument that could be instantly viewed as good or evil, since it could land anywhere on the axis. So what is the difference?!

Human society.

Yes, human society. D&D's morality system is clearly centered around humans. Crazy elves and their nature/magic obsession are pretty chaotic compared to human civilization, with their byzantine rules and traditions. Meanwhile, the dwarves are pretty mechanical and neatly structured per human evaluation, so they're clearly lawful.

What I'm saying is that D&D is inherently species-ist.

Demented
2007-03-13, 01:41 AM
Interesting theory, Viscount. Well, not theory. Proposition, more-like.
It's true that everything is judged by human standards.... But the question isn't the standard they're judged by, but the definition of the axis.

Druids are explicitly Neutral, so why would the naturalistic tendencies of Elves make them Chaotic?


Okay, I underestimated humanity once again, when I brought up the "Tree makes a sound" debate.: smallannoyed:

The question itself is relatively simple.
The argument about it has been made a million times before.
And yet there has been no accepted conclusion.
If there is a right answer, why is there still a debate?

LotharBot
2007-03-13, 01:49 AM
WRT sound: all parties seem to agree that the falling tree does in fact result in mechanical energy propagating as a longitudinal wave through the air and ground. If we choose to call that particular phenomenon "sound", then the falling tree makes a sound. If we define sound as the sensation produced by vibrations as percieved by the ear, then the falling tree does not make a sound. The dispute is immaterial -- the facts are agreed upon; the only dispute is whether one arbitrary definition for "sound" is more right than another. Arguing about it isn't profound, and it doesn't make you a l33t l0g1c n1nj4. It just makes you someone who's overly concerned with the label. (EDIT: to answer demented: there isn't a "right answer" in the sense that there's no authority on which to say "my definition is better than your definition". But there is a "right answer" in the sense that we know what happens when a tree falls, and we know that some people call that process sound and others do not.)

IMO the same is true regarding Law and Chaos. The book describes both from a particular standpoint. You can choose to accept that definition, or you can choose an alternate one. Within any given game, whatever definition the group agrees upon is right... and between games, nobody's definition is right or wrong, they're merely differing forms of shorthand for the more complex concepts people have stated here.

In my games, law is about upholding tradition, following social norms, and comfort, while chaos is about breaking tradition, subverting social norms, and getting under people's skin. So, to answer the OP's question, the way I cope with the lack of a good RAW definition is to provide my own. And the way I cope with the fact that others disagree is to recognize that definitions are just, essentially, a form of shorthand. If I find I'm in a context where everyone shares the same shorthand, I'll use it. If I'm in a context where people have differing definitions, I'll use a more detailed description.

(This is a good habit to have in general. A lot of people have different ideas about what various words mean, especially on sensitive topics. So be aware of that, and be willing to drop the term entirely in favor of a detailed description if need be.)

Turcano
2007-03-13, 03:52 AM
I think the biggest chunk of proof to disprove most of the theories of RAW chaos/law here I can come up with is elves. They're all about communities and rules and traditions and blah blah blah, and yet they're listed as primarily chaotic. Why?

That's pretty much a relic from the original incarnation of D&D, back when the moral axis didn't exist (and Gygax was apparently reading a lot of Moorcock).

Wehrkind
2007-03-13, 03:54 AM
Lothar: Yes. You are correct. Well said.

Demented: People argue about it because extreme semantic contortions and verbal smoke screen can make it seem less than clear cut. People argue about lots of things that are objective fact, yet some people have an investment in the question one way or another, and so will attempt extremely convoluted reasons as to why they are not wrong. Usually the result is simply muddying the waters to the point that one is no longer certain what is even being asked anymore, and so a real answer becomes impossible.

Dhavaer: Sorry about the misspelled name. I must admit I am tempted to call you De Beers, since as far as I can see, that sounds a lot like your name, which I am pretty certain I spell differently in every thread in which I refer to you anyway :)

Dhavaer
2007-03-13, 04:39 AM
Dhavaer: Sorry about the misspelled name. I must admit I am tempted to call you De Beers, since as far as I can see, that sounds a lot like your name, which I am pretty certain I spell differently in every thread in which I refer to you anyway :)

I don't know how you pronounce De Beers, but you pronounce my name Dar (rhymes with bar) Vay (rhymes with ray) Ear (like the thing on the side of your head. The spelling is only distantly related to the pronounciation.

kamikasei
2007-03-13, 04:48 AM
IMO the same is true regarding Law and Chaos. The book describes both from a particular standpoint. You can choose to accept that definition, or you can choose an alternate one. Within any given game, whatever definition the group agrees upon is right... and between games, nobody's definition is right or wrong, they're merely differing forms of shorthand for the more complex concepts people have stated here.

This becomes problematic when you're dealing with a large number of things all drawn from the same source, each labeled as one or the other, according to inconsistent standards. It avails a gaming group little to say "this is what law means and this is what chaos means, in our group" if their definition splits two entities from Wizards books who are both listed as the same alignment.

Wehrkind
2007-03-13, 04:50 AM
Yea, that was pretty much precisely my point. When the sounds of the letters used to spell the word and the actual sound of the word have next to nothing in common, it leads to wild misspellings.
I look at your name and expect it to sound D-ha-VA-er, sort of like "Da bear", which is sort of like De Beers. (Or Da Bears if you are from a certain city that starts with a C, ends with an O, and has hicag in the middle.)

Looks to me like you have one too few r's, at the least :)

Renegade Paladin
2007-03-13, 04:54 AM
On the flip side of that, Chaos should be changed to Freedom.
Not necessarily. You do bring order from chaos, after all, not from freedom. Besides, there are a lot of people (myself included, I might add) who would resent the implications of order being opposed to freedom. :smallamused: More to the point, I'm fairly certain such an arguably false dichotomy wouldn't be accepted by many WotC writers, given that they write at least one of their campaign settings so that oppressed peoples pray to lawful good deities for succour and justice (Tyr and Ilmater, specifically), not to any chaotic god.

Zincorium
2007-03-13, 05:19 AM
I don't know how you pronounce De Beers, but you pronounce my name Dar (rhymes with bar) Vay (rhymes with ray) Ear (like the thing on the side of your head. The spelling is only distantly related to the pronounciation.

Thus it is wonderful indeed that we are on the internet, with it's copy and paste goodness and no need to actually pronounce things.

Otherwise, I'd probably be pretty screwed.

Dhavaer
2007-03-13, 05:23 AM
Thus it is wonderful indeed that we are on the internet, with it's copy and paste goodness and no need to actually pronounce things.

Otherwise, I'd probably be pretty screwed.

When I take over the world, I'll never actually say my own name, just have it written on banners. It should give me breathing room while the renegade factions work out exactly how to call for my deposal.

Charity
2007-03-13, 06:59 AM
I see law as orderly, logical and planning individuals
and Chaos as dis-orderly, sensory, and spontanious individuals
It is an approach thing in my mind cold and clinical, law, Warm and fuzzy chaos.

kamikasei
2007-03-13, 07:36 AM
I see law as orderly, logical and planning individuals
and Chaos as dis-orderly, sensory, and spontanious individuals
It is an approach thing in my mind cold and clinical, law, Warm and fuzzy chaos.

Warm and fuzzy chaotic evil?

I think part of the problem with law-chaos is that some of the good-evil idea creeps in. People talk about law being about society and chaos individuality, but then good is about caring about others and evil about caring only for yourself... But what then of the lawful evil person who is utterly self-abnegating in his pursuit of an evil end? The evil monk or cultist who doesn't care what happens to himself, but wants to wipe out all halflings for the sake of his clan (or whatever)?

How about, instead of each posting our "take" on the law-chaos and good-evil axes, we try to compile a list of problem areas in distinguishing between them? Then, coming up with answers to each problem will result in a more robust definition overall.

To start with: the tension between law-as-authority and law-as-orderliness. A hardcore individualist may still be extremely disciplined. Such a person may recognize no external authority or hierarchy and follow no code of conduct, yet be orderly in personal habits and methodical in action. Is he chaotic or lawful?

Talya
2007-03-13, 07:40 AM
I think the biggest chunk of proof to disprove most of the theories of RAW chaos/law here I can come up with is elves. They're all about communities and rules and traditions and blah blah blah, and yet they're listed as primarily chaotic. Why?

Errr, because elves aren't like that?

In the forgotten realms, at least, they are highly unstructured in their societies. Their societies can be quite exclusive of non-elves at times, but the elves themselves are about as windblown, carefree, and chaotic as can be... You can't even tell the king from the vassal half the time.

Saph
2007-03-13, 08:00 AM
Errr, because elves aren't like that?

In the forgotten realms, at least, they are highly unstructured in their societies. Their societies can be quite exclusive of non-elves at times, but the elves themselves are about as windblown, carefree, and chaotic as can be... You can't even tell the king from the vassal half the time.

Exactly. If you read Races of the Wild, it's pretty obvious why elves are listed as chaotic. They spend most of their amazingly long lives doing what looks to outsiders like completely random stuff. Picking up an art or a craft, dropping it again, travelling, returning, etc. They value their own freedom to such a degree that their society looks completely fragmented.

Now granted, if you were able to watch them over a period of decades you'd begin to see the pattern and they wouldn't look completely chaotic after all, but every society has to have some level of order. Elven society is exactly as ordered and traditional as it needs to be to survive, and not the tiniest bit more. If elves didn't have any enemies, most of their codes and traditions wouldn't exist.

So yeah, elves are chaotic. Doesn't look particularly confusing to me.

- Saph

Charity
2007-03-13, 08:17 AM
Warm and fuzzy chaotic evil?

Who said evil? Fuzzy as in not logical, not disciplined, as opposed to fuzzy = cute and cuddly


*snip*

To start with: the tension between law-as-authority and law-as-orderliness. A hardcore individualist may still be extremely disciplined. Such a person may recognize no external authority or hierarchy and follow no code of conduct, yet be orderly in personal habits and methodical in action. Is he chaotic or lawful?
I would call such an individual Lawful, the goal being, to my mind less important than the approach, but as with all these debates it is entirely subjective.
I think the important thing with alignments is not to get too hung up on them, they are part and parcel of D&D but most RPG's get by just fine without them. The problem with defining the 9 alignments too thoroughly is you end up with Steriotypical characters which don't have any sense of being true, real rounded personalities.

Krellen
2007-03-13, 10:24 AM
I think the allocation of 'individual freedoms' to chaos is at best tempting misinterpretation.
Only if you ignore the wording.

Chaotics believe nothing trumps individual freedom. Individuals should be able to do what they wish, regardless of circumstances or outcomes. While this often means the Good can manage more good, it also means the Evils can accomplish more evil. Law is better at reining people in - Good or Evil.

ExHunterEmerald
2007-03-13, 01:01 PM
Frankly, the entire thing strikes me as a holdover from when there WAS no good-evil axis, and lawful implied good, chaos implied evil.

I understand that it seems like "generic" fantasy for me because it helped define was is generic--all the shining knights and saving maidens and killing a bunch of things because they have scales or fur instead of skin and an Evil descriptor, et cetera.
I haven't exactly defined any alignment differences for my games-to-be, since they're fairly close to how I work the current system anyhow.

Sardia
2007-03-13, 01:53 PM
It would also seem to me that most Lawful Good people would likely consider Lawfulness and Good to be almost synonymous. Same with the Chaotic Good side.

Duke Malagigi
2007-03-13, 02:11 PM
I think part of the problem with law-chaos is that some of the good-evil idea creeps in. People talk about law being about society and chaos individuality, but then good is about caring about others and evil about caring only for yourself... But what then of the lawful evil person who is utterly self-abnegating in his pursuit of an evil end? The evil monk or cultist who doesn't care what happens to himself, but wants to wipe out all halflings for the sake of his clan (or whatever)?

Lawfuls think of people as groups and like to be thought of as members of a group. Chaotics think of people as individuals and like to be thought of as individuals. Those of good alignment are merciful (except when dealing with those who harm the inocent and do not repent), compassionate, just (meaning that the guilty should be punished and the innocent must be protected), noble, temperate and humane. Those of evil alignment are merciless (willing to harm others simply for their goals), uncaring (not in the way House wouldn't care, but in the way a bully wouldn't care), wrathful (willing to punish the innocent along with the guilty), savage and brutal as well as fanatical and self-righteous.


How about, instead of each posting our "take" on the law-chaos and good-evil axes, we try to compile a list of problem areas in distinguishing between them? Then, coming up with answers to each problem will result in a more robust definition overall.

I like that idea. Lets try it.


To start with: the tension between law-as-authority and law-as-orderliness. A hardcore individualist may still be extremely disciplined. Such a person may recognize no external authority or hierarchy and follow no code of conduct, yet be orderly in personal habits and methodical in action. Is he chaotic or lawful?

He's chaotic. Law and chaos should have nothing to do with personal conduct unless that conduct violates social norms. This has no effect whatever on any Lawful Evil who happens to be in charge.

Aximili
2007-03-13, 03:59 PM
To wit: What makes up a community? No definition of community...

You can argue as much as you want. I'm not gonna argue back because that's not the point (and, frankly, because I agree with you).

The point is that neither one of us is an enlightened mind, and even if we were it would prove nothing, 'cause we were raised in conditions entirely different from those a person is exposed to in the D&D world. You're attempting to start a philosophical discussion where one is not suited. A chaotic and a lawful character could have the same discussion on and on until one of them gives up trying.

kamikasei
2007-03-13, 04:18 PM
Lawfuls think of people as groups and like to be thought of as members of a group. Chaotics think of people as individuals and like to be thought of as individuals. Those of good alignment are merciful (except when dealing with those who harm the inocent and do not repent), compassionate, just (meaning that the guilty should be punished and the innocent must be protected), noble, temperate and humane. Those of evil alignment are merciless (willing to harm others simply for their goals), uncaring (not in the way House wouldn't care, but in the way a bully wouldn't care), wrathful (willing to punish the innocent along with the guilty), savage and brutal as well as fanatical and self-righteous.

That's actually a pretty good definition. It's entirely divorced from good/evil and seems fairly free of internal contradiction.


He's chaotic. Law and chaos should have nothing to do with personal conduct unless that conduct violates social norms. This has no effect whatever on any Lawful Evil who happens to be in charge.

He's chaotic according to the definition you give above, yeah. Which is the point of the example - as Wizards describes it, he exemplifies both alignments, because they do say that being disciplined or orderly is a lawful trait. The definition you give does seem superior.

So then, what of an evil mastermind type who is part of a large organization, manipulates his allies and the heroes, has legions of underlings, is involved in intricate power structures and political games, etc - but is totally out for himself and furthering an agenda that, say, ends with him becoming lich-god of all creation? Lawful Evil or Chaotic Evil? (This is specifically opposing your definition, Malagigi, against the stereotype that would say he's lawful).

Ulzgoroth
2007-03-13, 04:43 PM
How about, instead of each posting our "take" on the law-chaos and good-evil axes, we try to compile a list of problem areas in distinguishing between them? Then, coming up with answers to each problem will result in a more robust definition overall.

To start with: the tension between law-as-authority and law-as-orderliness. A hardcore individualist may still be extremely disciplined. Such a person may recognize no external authority or hierarchy and follow no code of conduct, yet be orderly in personal habits and methodical in action. Is he chaotic or lawful?

Most likely neutral leaning chaotic, because a Lawful person, without necessarily submitting to any outside authority, would establish a code for themselves. Having routines consistently followed suggests neutral rather than chaotic, but lawful requires a higher-level structure.

A related but different edge case: A person may have a strict personal code without respecting external authority or norms. If a person follows a private manifesto utterly, but regards any other rules as unimportant, are they chaotic or lawful?

And one that's on a rather different front: A person may submit to power readily and without resentment, but add no structure to what is imposed on them. If a person willingly obeys outside strictures, but follows impulse alone in matters left to their discretion, are they chaotic or lawful?

Duke Malagigi
2007-03-13, 05:52 PM
That's actually a pretty good definition. It's entirely divorced from good/evil and seems fairly free of internal contradiction.


Thank you for the complement.


He's chaotic according to the definition you give above, yeah. Which is the point of the example - as Wizards describes it, he exemplifies both alignments, because they do say that being disciplined or orderly is a lawful trait. The definition you give does seem superior.

Thanks. Hey, two complements in one post.:smallbiggrin:


So then, what of an evil mastermind type who is part of a large organization, manipulates his allies and the heroes, has legions of underlings, is involved in intricate power structures and political games, etc - but is totally out for himself and furthering an agenda that, say, ends with him becoming lich-god of all creation? Lawful Evil or Chaotic Evil? (This is specifically opposing your definition, Malagigi, against the stereotype that would say he's lawful).

Let me think. If he wants to impose a new universal order, then he's Lawful Evil. Now if all he wants were the sheer personal satisfaction of being a god he would be Neutral Evil. On the other hand, if he wants to ascend to godhood to cause major societal collapse and preside over a universal anarchy, he would be Chaotic Evil.

Elliot Kane
2007-03-13, 06:00 PM
I'm with Saph on this. Lawful doesn't necessarily have anything to do with laws, and maybe not even adherence to a code. But a lawful character likes order. He thinks that there is, or at least ought to be, a pattern and structure to things, from the unwritten laws of the multiverse to the society he lives in to how he lives his own life. But he's not necessarily bound to abide by the structure that's already in place, or to accept a code that somebody else imposes on him. A lawful good character, faced with a corrupt social structure, can overthrow it. But he'll do so in order to install what he sees as a better structure, and he might not overthrow it unless he can see that he'll be able to install that better structure afterwards. A chaotic good character, in the same situation, might simply overthrow the existing structure, tell the people, "You're free," and call it good.

Chaotic characters, conversely, have no need for order and structure. They don't necessarily crave disorder, but they don't think that order plays an important role in the world. They're more likely to be impulsive, and to act with no long-term plan. They don't necessarily chafe under strict rule, but they're more likely to, unless the nature of the rule is such that they're doing pretty much what they want to anyway. My general impression is that they'll see society as a collection of individuals, where a lawful character would see society as sort of an entity unto itself, somewhat divorced from the individual people who make it up.

Sounds about right to me :)

Turcano
2007-03-13, 06:37 PM
He's chaotic according to the definition you give above, yeah. Which is the point of the example - as Wizards describes it, he exemplifies both alignments, because they do say that being disciplined or orderly is a lawful trait. The definition you give does seem superior.

One of the huge problems is that the writers of D&D use inconsistent and conflicting definitions for the ethical axis, and have apparently done so since the game's inception. It's one of the drawbacks of defining amoral (in the sense of being separate from morality -- in this case, the moral axis) behavior in its entirety; humans are never very consistent in their behavior. This means that a very general rubric is needed; group vs. individual mentality is a good start, but it might not end there.

Raum
2007-03-14, 12:44 AM
I see the differences between Chaos and Law as having more to do with personal freedom versus societal/group/government control.Given a cosmology based on discrete absolutes, I'm not sure I agree. Doesn't it promote more of a utilitarian point of view?


Chaotics value independence, personal responsibility (if not evil), honest and constructive competition, the idea of private property (unless you hold other sentient creatures as property. Note, Chaotic Evils could be convinced that slavery is acceptable) and individual initiative. Chaotics also believe that the individual is the most basic unit of society.I'd rephrase slightly...Those of Chaos equate freedom with life. Anything infringing on freedom is anathema because it is infringing on life itself. Codifying or ordering the multiverse as the followers of Order desire would cause it to ossify into the stasis of death.


Lawfuls value obedience, group responsibility, often times mandated cooperation, the idea of group/government property (not always, but it happens on occasion), and centralized authority. Lawfuls believe that the community is the most basic unit of society.I'm not sure the group is as important as simple consistency. Even a single lawful person outside of any group needs the order provided by a code of ethics or laws. So lawful individual equate Order with life. Devotees of Order or Law claim Chaos is destruction incarnate and must be controlled before the multiverse devolves into entropy. Only imposing Order will prevent dissolution.

And yes, a tree falling in a forrest makes a sound. Reality exists whether anyone is aware of it or not. Every time.That depends on whether your definition of "sound" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sound) includes hearing...or even sensation caused by stimulation of hearing organs.


When I take over the world, I'll never actually say my own name, just have it written on banners. It should give me breathing room while the renegade factions work out exactly how to call for my deposal.Dhavaer for president in 2008! :)


Lawfuls think of people as groups and like to be thought of as members of a group. Chaotics think of people as individuals and like to be thought of as individuals.Still don't really see the individual vs group orientation. I see it more as an Order vs Whatever goes mentality...whether applied to groups or individuals.

--------------------

Remember, Chaos and Order are absolutes...but they're also filtered through individual perceptions. And as for which is "better" than the other...well that's purely dependent on the situation and the point of view. Which is why Law & Chaos are separate yet equal to Good & Evil.

Wehrkind
2007-03-14, 01:46 AM
You can argue as much as you want. I'm not gonna argue back because that's not the point (and, frankly, because I agree with you).

The point is that neither one of us is an enlightened mind, and even if we were it would prove nothing, 'cause we were raised in conditions entirely different from those a person is exposed to in the D&D world. You're attempting to start a philosophical discussion where one is not suited. A chaotic and a lawful character could have the same discussion on and on until one of them gives up trying.

While I agree that D&D reality is not usually similar to actual Reality, I still don't know that they would not be able to come to an actual answer. Relativism usually just boils down to "I refuse to make a judgement" than any actual case of it in reality being different based on those that percieve it.
It is getting a little tangential to the thread though, I agree.

Raum: I would pick number 2 there, as the tree does not produce the result of the stimulation, but rather the stimulus itself.


Dhavaer for president in 2008! :) That would be an awkward campaign rally... reminiscent of the Feng Shui episode of Sea Lab. Only without the kung fu and floating and glowing. Unless it did have it, at which point you would get my vote, however you say your name.

I generally agree with your view of Law and Chaos being more "Order vs. Whatever goes." The more we look at alignments, the more I think that D&D needs a sliding scale more than a grid. I am more ordered in my thinking than my fiance, but she is definitely more ordered in her life. Would we both be neutral? Eh, who knows.

Dhavaer
2007-03-14, 01:58 AM
Dhavaer for president in 2008! :)

Sigged. qwer

Dervag
2007-03-14, 02:00 AM
On the flip side of that, Chaos should be changed to Freedom.Freedom is a loaded word in English, and therefore not a good choice.

Order and Chaos make a good pair because both of them are more or less neutral words in English. People don't like chaos, but they don't necessarily like order either... while you'll rarely find someone in a Western democracy who thinks that 'freedom' is a bad thing or that there shouldn't be any 'law.'

belboz
2007-03-14, 02:07 AM
While I agree that "lawful" and "chaotic" shouldn't be equated with "obeys the law" and "doesn't obey the law", the "lawful has nothing to do with external laws" line is, I think, a bit overplayed.

To avoid confusion with the good/evil axis, I'm going to limit this to only good characters, and just compare LG and CG (except for some brief notes at the end).

Both LG and CG characters want, essentially, the same thing: Justice, protection of the weak, a fair shot at happiness for all, and so forth ("morals" as it's sometimes called). The question is how they each think these goals are best *attained* ("ethics"--what counts as a good way to go about doing things--as it's sometimes called).

A LG character will, generally, think that a structured, ordered society with a respect for law is most likely to produce this result. That doesn't mean they'll like, or obey the laws of, a society they consider evil. They may, indeed, try to overthrow it. But their aim will never be anarchy; they'll want to replace it with a *better*, but still well structured and ordered, society with a set of strong (though more just) laws. If they don't *know* whether a society is good or evil, they're likely to give its laws the benefit of the doubt; they generally trust the laws and their agents, although they know there are terrible exceptions.

A CG character generally believes that an ordered society with strong laws is a *hindrance* to the production of a good result (fairness, justice, chance of happiness). This doesn't mean they'll always go out of their way to break laws or overthrow such societies--they can recognize that, if the society is reasonably benevolent, the harm caused by violent revolution would be worse than that caused by leaving the society in place. But they're not, generally, interested in building up such societies. If they try to overthrow an evil empire, then unlike the LG character, they won't want to replace it with an equally structured and ordered (just more fair and just) society. They'll want to get the people their freedom, and will then consider their work done. They're naturally suspicious of authority, although that doesn't mean they can't come to recognize a particular authority figure as worthy of their trust.

You can think of it as Hobbseans vs. Lockians, if you're so inclined: Do people need a strong protector and strong guidance to be the best they can be? Or is the natural state of humanity good, needing primarily to be left free of the shackles of arbitrary authority?

You can get something similar for the LE/CE distinction: All evil characters want what's personally best for *them*, period. But can they best get that through a society with a rigid structure and order (maybe not the one they live in, in which case they may be lawbreakers or even revolutionaries), or is structure and order fundamentally inimical to their plans?

Personally, I always find LN/CN characters the hardest to understand. But I imagine LN characters generally find rigid hierarchy desirable (although any number of things may cause them to chafe under a *particular* hierarchy), and CN characters generally find it undesirable (although they may be willing to work inside a particular one for a particular goal).

Stephen_E
2007-03-14, 02:34 AM
I'm not sure the group is as important as simple consistency. Even a single lawful person outside of any group needs the order provided by a code of ethics or laws. So lawful individual equate Order with life. Devotees of Order or Law claim Chaos is destruction incarnate and must be controlled before the multiverse devolves into entropy. Only imposing Order will prevent dissolution.


I agree, the important part for the Lawful person isn't been part of a group, it's that Order is imposed on the envioriment.

If we look at archtypes, toss a group of people into the Lost situation. The Chaotic as part of a group would be "hey guys, everythings cool, we can just get along", while the Lawful would be "Right! we need a set of rules/heirachy to make things work".

Either way the society will form a structure, but the latter tries to control the structure. Wild Tree/Backyard Fruit tree/Bonsai = Chaotic/Neutral/Lawful.

In derogratory terms it's your easygoing hippie who'd struggle to organise a pissup in a brewery vs the stick-up-the-butt petty facist who tries to get the Co-op assigning every tenant a day and hour to do their washing.

As for the alignment of Monks and races. Monks are lawful because they had a Good class, a non-good class, a Neutral class, a LG class, so they needed a Lawful class (back then Chaos-sort-of-equals-Evil and is was more "Heroe orientated, so no "Chaos Class"). The races alignments are campaign specific, so before you start arguing whether Elves are Chaotic or not you have to decide what campaign you're talking about. In general it's a bad idea to talk about Character classes/races when trying to define Alignment.

Stephen

Wehrkind
2007-03-14, 04:31 AM
I think they made monks lawful because their (vaugley) historic example was the Oriental monks of martial arts movies. In general extremely structured training, manuals, strict training and all that sort of thing to achieve spritual purity. Eastern culture tends to lean towards L, almost to the point of LN (or in the case of China currently, perhaps past it.)

However, even still it is a little like saying all accountants need to be Lawful, and as soon as you stop being so you lose the ability to improve your accounting skills. Even Eastern stories have their Monkey Kings and characters who are monks in the D&D sense but are obviously neutral at least, but then maybe they are just fighters specializing in unarmed combat.

It would be interesting to see a class that got supernatural powers from being chaotic though. Hmmm..