Improving the Chaotic Good Alignment Handbook

[ThinkMinty]

So, I've written one of the more (as of this posting) complete alignment guides, as can be found here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448507-Rules-are-for-Jerks-A-Chaotic-Good-Alignment-Handbook). Still, I can always do better, so what am I missing?

Input is welcome and will be considered.

[Greenish]

Well, you give Conan the Barbarian as an example of a Chaotic Good character. You may want to look into that.

[AvatarVecna]

Well, you give Conan the Barbarian as an example of a Chaotic Good character. You may want to look into that.

From what I can tell, Conan seems to hover around CN for most of his career, but spends enough time as king trying to improve things that CG wouldn't be out of the question. Of course, I'm not a huge Conan expert, so I might be completely off-base here.

[Greenish]

King Conan is on record stating it doesn't matter that his subjects hate him, since his army is loyal (and can therefore by implication put down any uprising). :smallamused:

[Zrak]

Well, you give Conan the Barbarian as an example of a Chaotic Good character. You may want to look into that.

Yeah, maaaaaaybe movie Conan could fit, but Howard's Conan is pretty soundly CN.

[Greenish]

I admit the only things about the movie I remember are someone using a very rigid snake as an arrow, and (drunken?) Conan punching out a camel.

[atemu1234]

I admit the only things about the movie I remember are someone using a very rigid snake as an arrow, and (drunken?) Conan punching out a camel.

Sounds about right.

[HoodedHero007]

You forgot the swashbuckler/dashing swordsman CG archetype
Also, the rational utilitarian like Harry in HPMOR (neutral good, except Chaos Legion)

[LTwerewolf]

The motivation section feels phoned in. I feel a CG's motivations are equally important as they are to the other alignments, and even moreso since it is one of the things that differentiates it from CN.

Also later it says under what makes chaotic good and the first note is nice to the downtrodden. Good doesn't necessarily equal nice (insert any number of gruff, prickly, but well meaning tropes here). I would say rather than nice, benevolent to the downtrodden.

[Seto]

Repost from what I said on the first page of your Handbook :


As others, I think this handbook would benefit from examining the biggest problems one can run into while playing CG. I'd have to nominate this one (that keeps me from adhering to Rousseau-style CG moral philosophies in real life) :
To CG, there are often no objective moral laws, but a powerful, internal, moral compass. Ethics often consist in : making oneself more receptive to/able to hear that compass (clearing whatever internal interference there is), and having the courage to go through with what your moral compass tells you to do.
What happens when you "are of two guts on a matter" ? When your conscience doesn't quite know what to do and refuses to be simplified into a clear message ? LG will turn to objective rules or people whose moral authority they recognize. NG will turn to traditions, or do nothing in the absence of a clear reason to disturb the statu quo. Who do you turn to ?

[Elder_Basilisk]

One thing that would be helpful is to help elucidate what common thread the various archetypes have that makes them Chaotic and that make them Good.

For example, the revolutionary and the beserker are both accepted chaotic archetypes who can be good (or not), but they have very different attributes.

The revolutionary is chaotic because "She doesn’t like the present order, and has some very specific reasons why. Depending on the context, she can be either very helpful, or very preachy." Which raises the question: if the revolutionary wins, what is it that still makes her chaotic? Is it only the context--that she is fighting the power and has not yet become the power--that makes her chaotic?

On the other hand, the beserker is chaotic because they are "full of passion and always itching to do some good, especially if it’s challenging or hands-on. While a Berserker isn’t stupid, they’ll dive right in the second they smell a problem, without planning ahead." For the beserker, it seems that it is the emphasis on feeling over thinking and a (perhaps complete) lack of forethought that makes him chaotic.

Other than game mechanics, what attributes do the revolutionary and the beserker have in common--who is A. Chaotic because of thoughts (specific reasons why) rather than feelings and B. often quite prone to thinking ahead and subtle planning in the cause of fighting the power. (Heck, the beserker probably doesn't have any particular problem with the current order and if it is a good order might actually like it. The beserker is labeled chaotic because of personality traits rather than philosophical commitments).

Like the beserker, the sunflower is labeled chaotic because of personality traits (though they are different than the beserker's personality traits) and perhaps ironically, they are nearly the opposite of the sour lemon's personality traits that are also supposed to make him chaotic according to the handbook.

Three other archetypes that should be addressed--even if they aren't really chaotic--are the elf, the noble savage barbarian, and the madman. The barbarian in the noble savage mold who wants his people to be free to follow their own traditions and superstitions and doesn't care for civilization is frequently put forward as a "Chaotic" trope. Are they really a chaotic good archetype? Likewise the monster manual tells us that elves are generally chaotic and they are frequently depicted as living in harmony with nature and being artsy and frolicy. Is that enough to make them chaotic? Sometimes they are depicted as simply alien (the discussion of this in some of the lawful handbooks is interesting) such as the sidhe in Dresden Files books or the elves of the norse sagas (in particular, I'm thinking of the king's lover from the saga of Hrolf Kraki). Does that make them chaotic? As to the madman--madness is often seen as a chaotic attribute, much like alienness. Typically, people describe nut cases as chaotic neutral, but if you have a character who is clearly not all there but also clearly a good guy, does that make him chaotic good? Walter Bishop from Fringe might be a good example of this. Agatha, Gil, Othar, and most of non-villain sparks from Girl Genius might also be examples. (On the other hand, I'm not sure being "mad" in any of those senses really should translate to chaotic despite the lazy association of chaotic neutral with madness).

[Elder_Basilisk]

As others, I think this handbook would benefit from examining the biggest problems one can run into while playing CG. I'd have to nominate this one (that keeps me from adhering to Rousseau-style CG moral philosophies in real life) :
To CG, there are often no objective moral laws, but a powerful, internal, moral compass. Ethics often consist in : making oneself more receptive to/able to hear that compass (clearing whatever internal interference there is), and having the courage to go through with what your moral compass tells you to do.
What happens when you "are of two guts on a matter" ? When your conscience doesn't quite know what to do and refuses to be simplified into a clear message ? LG will turn to objective rules or people whose moral authority they recognize. NG will turn to traditions, or do nothing in the absence of a clear reason to disturb the statu quo. Who do you turn to ?

Potential answer (assuming your premise that CG moral theory has to be intuitive): CG doesn't run into those problems and, if they do, don't think about it. If they do, they either come up with an answer and become NG or LG, or they decide they really don't care about the right thing all that much and become CN or CE.

Another potential (assuming your premise about CG moral theory): might be some kind of ideal observer theory. If the CG character is of two guts on the matter, she could assume that something is wrong with her gut and ask what the ideal person's gut would say. Last time I read up on ideal observer theory, they called the hypothetical ideal observer the archangel (or at least some philosophers did), but in D&Dland, it seems that designating Correllon or Kord as the actual ideal observer might also be a possibility.

But I don't think that CG necessarily has to hold that there are no objective moral laws. A limited set of laws or priorities that does not register all of the issues typically seen as moral is often described as chaotic. (The typical example is sex--"lawful people might think that who you have sex with is a moral issue, but chaotic characters can screw anyone they want as long as they don't use force or magic"). It may be counterintuitive, but it also seems that even a highly refined structure of moral laws and priorities that saw freedom as primary would often be described as chaotic. If a character who sees individual freedom as the primary moral lodestone is chaotic, it doesn't make sense that they suddenly become lawful (or neutral) because they filled their shelves with Robert Nozick or Ayn Rand books. That said, in individual campaigns, in order to be coherent, you might have to pick the primacy of moral intuition or the primacy of liberty as defining chaotic characteristics because intuition primary and liberty primary systems tend to come up with opposite answers on a lot of things. (Rosseau's theory of the general will is, shall we say, totalitarian friendly).

[daremetoidareyo]

For example, the revolutionary and the beserker are both accepted chaotic archetypes who can be good (or not), but they have very different attributes.

The revolutionary is chaotic because "She doesn’t like the present order, and has some very specific reasons why. Depending on the context, she can be either very helpful, or very preachy." Which raises the question: if the revolutionary wins, what is it that still makes her chaotic? Is it only the context--that she is fighting the power and has not yet become the power--that makes her chaotic?

On the other hand, the beserker is chaotic because they are "full of passion and always itching to do some good, especially if it’s challenging or hands-on. While a Berserker isn’t stupid, they’ll dive right in the second they smell a problem, without planning ahead." For the beserker, it seems that it is the emphasis on feeling over thinking and a (perhaps complete) lack of forethought that makes him chaotic.

The barbarian is chaotic because he doesn't believe that men can conquer men they haven't fought. He's a barbarian warrior that has never been tamed by civilization. In fact, the way some non barbarians act, you'd think that their fathers were whipped ponies, and not anything resembling a real human being. A barbarian is a barbarian because he's never been conquered. He still remembers what it is to sleep under the stars, sleep with whomever he wants under those stars, and wake up to enjoy a good life of a free man. The barbarian has a strong tribal identity and genuinely recognizes the uniting animal spirit that guides men. And the spirit that made man, made man care for his fellow tribesmen. The definition of tribesmen is a bit loosely defined because the barbarian is free to consort with whomever he pleases, even if it is inconvenient to others. The barbarian is the Mance Raydah. The barbarian is the wildling.

The revolutionary is the barbarian who grew up through oppression. They are molded by social structures in society to make them jaded. They disbelief that any sentient being can legitimately impose order on any other sentient being. The revolutionary needs to recruit others to stand in resistance to "order." Blind allegiance to the "order" imposed by others always turns sour and harms the weakest of society. The weakest must be cared for because in the grand scheme of things, we spend most of our time as the weakest members of society. Blind allegiance to the "order" is as compassionless as any contract that you're forced to sign. And thus, the revolutionary is robin hood. He is the resistance fighter.

[Seto]

Another potential (assuming your premise about CG moral theory): might be some kind of ideal observer theory. If the CG character is of two guts on the matter, she could assume that something is wrong with her gut and ask what the ideal person's gut would say. Last time I read up on ideal observer theory, they called the hypothetical ideal observer the archangel (or at least some philosophers did), but in D&Dland, it seems that designating Correllon or Kord as the actual ideal observer might also be a possibility.
That's a nice answer.


But I don't think that CG necessarily has to hold that there are no objective moral laws. A limited set of laws or priorities that does not register all of the issues typically seen as moral is often described as chaotic. (The typical example is sex--"lawful people might think that who you have sex with is a moral issue, but chaotic characters can screw anyone they want as long as they don't use force or magic"). It may be counterintuitive, but it also seems that even a highly refined structure of moral laws and priorities that saw freedom as primary would often be described as chaotic. If a character who sees individual freedom as the primary moral lodestone is chaotic, it doesn't make sense that they suddenly become lawful (or neutral) because they filled their shelves with Robert Nozick or Ayn Rand books. That said, in individual campaigns, in order to be coherent, you might have to pick the primacy of moral intuition or the primacy of liberty as defining chaotic characteristics because intuition primary and liberty primary systems tend to come up with opposite answers on a lot of things. (Rosseau's theory of the general will is, shall we say, totalitarian friendly).

Absolutely. I was thinking about Rousseau's moral work (L'Emile) rather than his political work. ("Conscience, conscience ! Divine instinct [...]"). While I agree with your idea that a chaotic moral theory can exist, it only fits characters that are more Chaotic than Good ; who are, so to speak, benevolently Chaotic rather than chaotically Good. Primacy of freedom is inconsistent with being aligned with an objective Good as defined in D&D. - It's not the case in real life, obviously -. If you stick to freedom's guns (especially if you have a broad definition of freedom), you're probably closer to CN than CG.
Therefore, I theorize that a solidly CG character (I mean, one that is equally Good and Chaotic) will choose Good over freedom when a conflict arises. The reasoning being that, even if you adhere to Nozick's or Rand's theories, you can deviate from them without being any less Chaotic, while you cannot turn away from Good in the name of freedom without jeopardizing your Goodness.

Besides, my CG characters tend to be intuitionist rather than suscribe to a moral system.

[Elder_Basilisk]

One other thing to consider for the handbook is making explicit the philosophical hash that is the D&D law/chaos axis and the chaotic side of the axis in particular. For the record, I don't think that it is coherent at all and I don't think that it there is a way to make it coherent without jettisoning or reversing at least some parts of the axis. Of particular importance to this handbook, more than a few of the law/chaos conflicts do not offer a real option for Chaotic Good to exist. (For example, it's next to impossible to think of a way for a character on the side of the Lovecraftian elder gods (which is usually identified as the Chaotic side) to be good).

But, if you think you can reconcile the various elements that go into D&D chaos, trying to do so might add something to the handbook. (And might even resolve the question as to whether the Joker should UMD a scroll of Chaos Hammer or Order's Wrath on Batman--at least for your campaign). Regardless of whether you try to work out some kind of overarching philosophy that incorporates all of the disparate elements, looking into the various dimensions of D&D law/chaos and their antecedents may be useful for locating individual characters and animating individual campaigns.

Feywild (Chaos) vs Christendom (natural law). This conflict reportedly animates Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions (one of the reputed primary sources of the Paladin class) and probably explains why elves have always been listed as Chaotic in D&D when their depiction in Tolkein is neutral if not lawful. (Despite his reputation, Tolkein's influence on early D&D was not as formative as a lot of people think. That's why the rules of D&D don't actually do Tolkeinian fantasy especially well). Whether or not this conflict makes sense in a multipolar cosmology is an open question that should probably lead to rethinking the now traditional fey-elves-chaos connection.

Barbarism vs Civilization. This is one of the main themes of Robert Howard's Conan stories and although law and chaos are never explicitly called out as forces or allegiances in the Howard stories (typically, civilization is identified with power, decadence, antiquity, and cruelty or evil while barbarism is identified with honesty and strength) D&D would probably describe most of the conflicts as Lawful Evil vs Chaotic Neutral.

Rationality vs emotion/intuition. I can't think of the literary antecedents identifying this with Chaos of this but it has a strong history in D&D.

Individualism vs collectivism. This is a favorite of young adult distopian fiction at the moment. This is also one of the views of the law/chaos axis that plays least well with the other law/chaos divides as most of the societies described as chaotic are traditional and conformist while the ones described as lawful in other contexts are the ones that enable atomistic individualism to survive and thrive.

Cooperation vs Competition. This was the official explanation of the Shadow/Vorlon conflict in Babylon 5 which went to great lengths to subvert the good vs evil conflict that it initially seemed they were setting up. Note that this understanding of law/chaos doesn't really work very well with any of the others except perhaps the human vs alien and that it does not really offer much space for Chaotic Good characters. Lawful Good has a little more potential (embodied by the original Kosh) but the series clearly depicts Neutral as the correct good guy option. This may also be a good way to understand the conflict of the Firefly/Serenity series but again, while Mal and the crew of the Serenity are probably poster children for Chaotic Good archetypes, it's not clear that there is really room for Chaotic Good in the axis. The side they end up on is ultimately neutrality between the aggression/competition/chaos of the Reavers and the order/cooperation of the Alliance. In the end, the "good guys" are on the middle course between Chaos and Law.

Human vs Alien/Understanding vs madness: Lovecraft is usually listed as a source for this and through his influence book series like the Dresden Files and Monster Hunters International often posit a background conflict between incomprehensible external forces (the mere knowledge of which sometimes drives men mad) and the forces of humanity. In D&D, the forces of madness have typically been chaotic. Depending on the book and/or series, the forces of humanity may be identified with law or law may be presented as equally incomprehensible and inimical to human life with neutrality being the protagonist position. (Abraham Merrit's _The Metal Monster_ is an interesting counter-example where the incomprehensible alien creatures are clearly identified with order and may be the inspiration for D&D's modrons. The human position is not given any corresponding axis though--it's us vs them rather than chaos vs law).

Private justice vs Official corruption. This is the Robin Hood and Batman (for people who think Batman is Chaotic--see a different thread if you want to argue that) axis. Robin Hood has long been an example of Chaotic Good because he opposed injustice as an outlaw and gave to the poor. It is important because it has long been a part of the official Chaotic Good description, but it is another one of the contrasts that does not play well with the other contrasts and has inherent contradictions that are highlighted by the end of the Robin Hood legend (at least in the Errol Flynn, Disney, and Kevin Costner versions--I haven't done research into the most ancient legends): when King Richard returns, Robin Hood helps him regain the throne and goes back to being a loyal baron or lord. The Chaoticness of Robin Hood is strictly contextual and does not mean he is throwing in with the feywild in opposition to Christendom (in fact, he is often portrayed as a former crusader (sometimes disillusioned, sometimes not) and at least Allan Rickman's Sheriff of Nottingham is portrayed as supported by witchcraft) and it definitely doesn't mean that he would be joining the Shadows or supporting the elder gods).

Organization vs Spontaneity. This is another law/chaos contrast from various editions of the Player's Handbook which makes sense if you interpret Law and Chaos as personality types (and supports the identification of the scamp/rascal/trickster with Chaos) but does not play very nicely with the other interpretations of Chaos. Whatever else you might say, Robin Hood's merry men were organized (in most depictions, they are more organized and less corrupt than the Sherriff of Nottingham's men) and the Shadows are certainly depicted as organized as well. The barbarian warlord who unifies the tribes under him and overruns civilization is also usually pretty organized even if it is not the organization of formal ranks and files. Batman is nothing if not organized and his personal code is nothing if not strong. (This is usually where the "Batman is really lawful" people hang their hats).

Rule of men vs rule of law. This is sometimes put forward as an explanation for why various societies are chaotic. Lawful people support a system which organized laws for dealing with things without personal bias while chaotic societies take things on a case by case basis. It works well with civilization vs barbarism (since civilized societies typically rely on written codes to some degree or another but barbarian/primitive societies typically rely on the intuition of leaders, elders, or whoever shows up at the thing) but once again does not play well with other law/chaos tropes, particularly the private justice vs official corruption trope since the official corruption being fought against is often the assertation of personal authority in conflict with official law (usurpation) in order to favor the powerful (corruption). Robin Hood is on the rule of law side in this conflict.
It also doesn't work well with the individualism/collectivism trope (as it is usually applied--it would if you decided to make collectivism chaotic and individualism lawful) since it is the rule of law is that enables atomistic individualism.

[daremetoidareyo]

...Lots of excellent analysis...

So, Consider cutting the above response apart and pasting it in where available for the handbook. Tons of the excerpts are dead on.

It is difficult to understand a chaotic society because we live under the heel of lawful ones. Very few of us grew up in nomadic villages, and none of us had to grow up in societies where men and women had to compete with other sentient races for resources, while still trying to preserve the dignity of life. So definitions of chaotic good need to be pinned to whatever the lawful paradigm of your campaign world.

Chaotic, philosophically speaking, is a manifestation of attempting to dominate a region or peoples of that region. A perfectly orderly world wouldn't oppress anything, or have life compete with other life, but we don't live in that perfect pipe dream, so we are left with what is second best. Resisting the attempts of others from using US to craft their perfectly orderly existence at our expense. Just as we are strong and smart enough to steal honey from the bees, it is the role of the bees to attempt to defend that work and effort. So chaotic is a principle of non-compromise with authority, or power. This principle needs a background of some sort of "order" or "expectation", upon which to contrast itself as the chaotic option.

[ThinkMinty]

You forgot the swashbuckler/dashing swordsman CG archetype

I will consider adding it in. I am going to explain why it wasn't there in the first place, though.

The character type exists beyond Chaotic Good, even though we do it best. It's usually Chaotic (or at least, the toykit of the archetype is most friendly to Chaotic ends), but it isn't necessarily good. Julio Scoundrél, the guy who taught Elan the Bard how to be a Dashing Swordsman, is overtly Chaotic Neutral; it isn't that he doesn't fight evil or even that his methods aren't good, he's just largely selfish and motivated more by what's best for him and his own amusement than he is with what's best for others (his repeated and deliberate abandonment of his children points towards this, for example).

Frequently in swashbuckler stories, the big bad (or at least the heavy) is also a swashbuckler. Rob Roy faces off against the deadly fop Archibald Cunningham, Inigo Montoya dashingly duels the six-fingered sadist Count Rugen, etc.

I would say Zorro is Chaotic Good and the Scarlet Pimpernel isn't, but I give SP a lot of heat for being counter-revolutionary, so make of that what you will.


Also, the rational utilitarian like Harry in HPMOR (neutral good, except Chaos Legion)

There's more than just the Chaos Legion thing to that point. His audaciousness, flippant disregard of authority (he thinks they're dumb), and his frequent sassmouth are pretty strong indicators towards chaos.

There's more to address, but I've got stuff to do so I'll get to respondin' to it at a near-future time.

[digiman619]

I just wanted to thank you for including Harry Dresden in your archetype examples. Whenever I play a CG character, I always have him in mind (especially if he's a caster-type)

[Seto]

Oh, and maybe link to the Superthread ;)