PDA

View Full Version : How do YOU define law and chaos?



thehothead
2007-07-01, 07:08 PM
We all generally seem to agree on what good and evil are (If you disagree, don't complain, because that's not what this thread is about.)
However, not even the DnD creators seem to be completely sure about Law and Chaos. I offer up my own personal veiw, which is infact based on things that are not abstract concepts.

Two of the guiding forces of human behavior are whim and habit. These correlate nicely with chaos and law. So, in my opinion, the good-evil axis defines the "what" and the law-chaos axis defines the "why"

Discuss.

Douglas
2007-07-01, 07:15 PM
I don't think you can separate "what" and "why" that way. When a good character seeks out and kills a powerful demon to stop its plots, he does it because he's good, not because he's lawful or chaotic.

In my opinion, "lawful" was a very poor choice of terminology for alignment. "Order" or some similar word would be much better and cause less confusion.

Saph
2007-07-01, 07:16 PM
Law is ordered, chaos is disordered. The more ordered a person you are, the more Lawful; the more disordered, the more Chaotic.

That's how I interpret it, anyway.

- Saph

Dark Knight Renee
2007-07-01, 07:26 PM
I'll just quote the person who summed it up best, as I see it:


A Lawful person is fairly methodical in his thought processes, trying (to the best of his ability, which may be limited by Int and Wis stats) to cover all possible eventualities. He doesn't like being caught off-guard, or being forced to improvise. He tends to be well-organized and well-prepared. Philosophically, he tends to favor traditional approaches over innovation, enjoys having a sense of stability, and may be uncomfortable with major change.

A Chaotic person is generally fairly spontaneous, allowing his gut instincts and his emotions to inform his decision-making, and may not have the patience to hammer out every detail of a plan before acting. This is not to say that a Chaotic character need go off half-cocked, but he is more at ease thinking on his feet, which can allow him more flexibility. He is fairly comfortable with trying new things, and strongly dislikes having his options limited. He may suffer from wanderlust, or simply be more curious than most. Philosophically, he tends to prefer personal freedom of choice, even to the extent of giving up a measure of stability and security.


Edit: Whops, my bad. Fixed.:smallbiggrin:

Gralamin
2007-07-01, 07:40 PM
I'll just quote the guy who summed it up best, as I see it:

That Is a pretty good explanation, with a big hole.

Law does not mean you are of Conservative Thinking. Indeed Law does not mean you are resistant to change.

Eg.
A devil has something unexpected happen in his plan. He would quickly think of the best way to fix this, and make it happen.

Jannex
2007-07-01, 07:52 PM
I'll just quote the guy who summed it up best, as I see it:

I'm a girl, but thanks. :smallwink: And you saved me the trouble of going back and finding the thread where I wrote that.

Gralamin, I don't see how that contradicts what I wrote. The devil in your example doesn't like having to improvise. He probably has several contingency plans already established, so he doesn't have to come up with something on the spur of the moment. He will if he has to, and he might even be good at it (depending on his Intelligence), but he's not as comfortable thinking on his feet as a comparably-intelligent demon would be in the same situation. That's the point.

Ultimately, I see Good and Evil as "what you do" and Law and Chaos as "how you do them."

Lost Outrider
2007-07-01, 07:55 PM
I agree that "Law" is an unfortunate name for what is better defined as "Order." I guess Ordered Good just doesn't have the same ring to it. I like to think of the Lawful as referencing some sort of code, creed, or set of rules that the character follows. There is a rubric already in place that will guide a Lawful Whatever person's actions. For a Chaotic person, there is no pattern or guideline to determine the same (re)actions.

For instance, if I'm playing a LN mercenary then I'll never abandon a contract unless they boss stops paying me or otherwise betrays me. I'll follow the chain of command in my squad, even if I don't agree with it. Same character as CN might jump sides in the middle of a fight if the bad guys make a high enough offer or try to frag his Captain if he starts messing up too much.

Depending on the character, Lawful could mean that I use the dominant government's laws as a guideline. . . . or I could just abandon the laws and follow my own personal code of what is right. Robin Hood as LG would be an example of that.

I'm not a big fan of playing or DM'ing Chaotics. The group I DM for is heavily weighted toward CN, though, and I think it has made me into a better DM. I have to plan for a greater variety of actions/reactions with those guys. I can't rely on altruism - or even on how they've acted in the past - as an indicator of what they'll do in the future. It can be frustrating, but so far, the players make it work.

Otto-Sieve
2007-07-01, 07:58 PM
A very simple way to describe it would be
Law=Calculated thought, while Chaos=Passionate or emotional.
Though you could find arguments against both, this is usually the case.

Gralamin
2007-07-01, 08:02 PM
I'm a girl, but thanks. :smallwink: And you saved me the trouble of going back and finding the thread where I wrote that.

Gralamin, I don't see how that contradicts what I wrote. The devil in your example doesn't like having to improvise. He probably has several contingency plans already established, so he doesn't have to come up with something on the spur of the moment. He will if he has to, and he might even be good at it (depending on his Intelligence), but he's not as comfortable thinking on his feet as a comparably-intelligent demon would be in the same situation. That's the point.

Ultimately, I see Good and Evil as "what you do" and Law and Chaos as "how you do them."

While true, In know way does a lawful person "favor traditional approaches over innovation" or is "uncomfortable with major change." This is Pure personality, that has nothing to do with Lawful behavior. A chaotic creature can quite easily show the same traits.

CockroachTeaParty
2007-07-01, 08:03 PM
For me, law, chaos, good, and evil aren't too difficult to pin down. It's neutrality that causes me problems.

What does it mean to be neutral towards law and chaos? Good and evil? What of true neutral? A true neutral person does what seems to be a good idea at the time... but that sounds like a chaotic character to me. Is neutrality apathy? Or does a neutral character actively not take sides, considering all extremes to be flawed in one way or another? Or does neutrality represent a balance of the four axis? Is a true neutral character equal parts evil, good, lawful, and chaotic? There's a lot of grey areas and wiggle room with any alignment that has a neutral component, and those are the ones that cause me a certain amount of trouble.

Sage in the Playground
2007-07-01, 08:07 PM
Law is order. Chaos is disorder. Pretty simple to me. Do you prefer to have organized books and papers, and maintain that state, or do you just leave them in the order they happen to fall in? Do you fell slightly disturbed when someone straitens up your room?

Ulzgoroth
2007-07-01, 08:08 PM
A batch of candidates I threw up before:
-Code. A lawful character has a set of rules they they regard as fundamentally right and follow. Can be external, internal, or conceivably implicit. Flaw: what divides neutral from chaotic?

-Submission. A lawful character is capable of (and probably inclined to) truly loyal service to another being, while a chaotic character is very much not. Note: this implies that chaotic clerics aren't so much following their god as heading in the same direction.

-Logic. A lawful character is analytical, rational, and probably organized. They may still have 'irrational' premises, but they think things through from their own perspective. Flaw (subjective): I can't imagine what it means to play a character who is innately non-rational.

-Social Order. Law-Chaos = Authoritarian-Libertarian

I've got a new one that I think I'm going to make into my standard, though: Lawful characters do things for outside reasons.

If a Lawful cleric heals you, it's because Pelor wills it. If a Lawful knight spares you, it's because honor demands it. If a Lawful law enforcer hangs you, it's because the law (or the public good, or the king) requires it. If a chaotic cleric heals you, it's because you needed help. If a chaotic fighter spares you, it's because you aren't worth killing, or you don't deserve it, or you might be useful later. If a chaotic law enforcer hangs you, it's because you needed killing, or you would have hurt someone.

These outside reasons, much of the time, are still all in their head, but that isn't how they look at it. Even if the person or principle they're serving is miles away, imaginary, or appalled by how they're being served.

Morrandir
2007-07-01, 08:14 PM
Law: Think before doing

Chaos: Do before thinking


Simple.

Krimm_Blackleaf
2007-07-01, 08:25 PM
I think it ranges alot, there are many things that can define law and chaos on different levels.

Chaos: Everything from the Slaad on Elan's shoulder, to the guy that just doesn't like to follow rules/have a schedual/jump through hoops.

Law: Everything from being so overly organized it's like looking forever at evenly placed white towers in the same pattern for eternity, to simply going by a code, maybe not a really really strict one, but a code none the less.

Jannex
2007-07-01, 08:42 PM
While true, In know way does a lawful person "favor traditional approaches over innovation" or is "uncomfortable with major change." This is Pure personality, that has nothing to do with Lawful behavior. A chaotic creature can quite easily show the same traits.

Then I guess that *YOU* define Law and Chaos differently than *I* do. Which, coincidentally, is the very topic of this thread. However, the fact that you disagree with me does not make me wrong. You might want to be careful of that.

Gralamin
2007-07-01, 08:55 PM
Then I guess that *YOU* define Law and Chaos differently than *I* do. Which, coincidentally, is the very topic of this thread. However, the fact that you disagree with me does not make me wrong. You might want to be careful of that.

Ah But in this case you are wrong :smalltongue:

I know that, I just find it is easier to define things when I argue.

tobian
2007-07-01, 08:57 PM
Huh...

Well, I define law as someone who has a sort of blueprint or plan that they work from and don't like to deviate from. Chaos is more free-form, where the plan could be made up and just as easily forgotten;or there could be no plan at all; or it could have been improvised to a point that it is another creation entirely.

Lawful people (I have a friend who is a perfect example) tend to follow a strict code that guides them through their life. They like to look down the road and plan for what will happen next.

Ex: Wednesday-Oh noes, I have an essay test next Tuesday! I'll schedule in study time on Saturday night.

Chaotic people (I fall closer to this end of the spectrum) tend to just do what seemed to be a good idea at the time. They (usually) do not look down the road too far, preferring to make it up as they go.

Ex: Wednesday-Oh noes, I have an essay test next Tuesday!
Tuesday morning-CRAP! Well, time to get some use out of those ranks I put in Knowledge (BS)

Those may be slightly exaggerated (well, the second one applied to me more than once), but my general viewpoint is that if you are a planned, organized person, you tend towards lawfulness. If you are disordered, spontaneous person, you tend towards chaoticness.

Jannex
2007-07-01, 08:58 PM
For me, law, chaos, good, and evil aren't too difficult to pin down. It's neutrality that causes me problems.

What does it mean to be neutral towards law and chaos? Good and evil? What of true neutral? A true neutral person does what seems to be a good idea at the time... but that sounds like a chaotic character to me. Is neutrality apathy? Or does a neutral character actively not take sides, considering all extremes to be flawed in one way or another? Or does neutrality represent a balance of the four axis? Is a true neutral character equal parts evil, good, lawful, and chaotic? There's a lot of grey areas and wiggle room with any alignment that has a neutral component, and those are the ones that cause me a certain amount of trouble.

I'd say that Neutrality on the Good-Evil axis means that the character generally believes in Good-aligned values (respect for life, compassion, etc.), but doesn't care enough about them to go out of his way or significantly inconvenience himself to uphold them. He might be somewhat selfish, but not ruthless. On the Law-Chaos axis, I envision Neutrality as sort of a goal-orientedness; the means of achieving the goal don't matter so much as long as the job gets done. I also have a bit of trouble envisioning True Neutral characters, but I suppose they would be the ultimate sort of pragmatist.

Jannex
2007-07-01, 09:00 PM
Ah But in this case you are wrong :smalltongue:

I know that, I just find it is easier to define things when I argue.

Well that's the thing; this whole discussion is about defining something.

You've said what you think the Law/Chaos distinction doesn't mean, but you haven't offered an alternative definition. I'm curious: how would you define the Law-Chaos axis?

Gralamin
2007-07-01, 09:13 PM
Well that's the thing; this whole discussion is about defining something.

You've said what you think the Law/Chaos distinction doesn't mean, but you haven't offered an alternative definition. I'm curious: how would you define the Law-Chaos axis?

Now theres my problem.

I'm the type of person who believe they have a clear idea of what it is, but has difficulty putting it into words. In short, I am not the most linguistically talented person.

If I was to put it into words, I'd say

A lawful person is someone who thinks in a methodically fashion. They tend to be more likely to use Logic, and are likely to give most situation some thought. A lawful person tends to think of the consequences of his actions, and tends to be farther sighted then a chaotic person. A lawful person is likely to be organized, and generally attempts to prepare for as many situations as possible.

A chaotic person is someone who favors his guts. Chaotic people tend to be less far-sighted as a lawful person, and frequently tries to focus on today. A chaotic person may use logic, however has a higher tendency to follow their feelings. A chaotic person tends to be more curious then a lawful one, and is more likely to break the rules to get to his or her goal.

Something is telling me That I incorrectly worded something, but I cannot think of what.

Dhavaer
2007-07-01, 09:29 PM
Something I wrote up a month or two ago on the topic:

Law: All dwarves are created equal.

The hallmark of Law is that strength comes from numbers, unity and consensus. Allowing an individual to defy this consensus will shatter its strength, and therefore must be prevented at all costs. Law generally considers all beings under its rule to be equal, and will take steps to ensure they remain so either by disadvantaging the powerful or raising up the weak. Beings outside the rule of that aspect of Law are assumed to be under the rule of another aspect, and will be treated as such. This is the reason that, for example, citizens of a Lawful human kingdom will treat all orcs as being essentially the same. They assume that orc is part of 'Orcdom', or a similar concept. Their opinion will likely be different if the orc openly displays insignia of a different, known organisation. It is because of this instinct to identify with a group instead of an individual that Law finds it difficult to deal with exceptions.
Despite what might be thought, Lawful beings are very distinct from each other in many ways. This appearance of variety and difference is mostly illusory; in Lawful societies the individual is not the base unit. Lawful beings specialise at a task, with individuals supplied by and suppling others. While they look different on an individual level, communities are all largely the same when viewed as a whole.
Law protects its weaker members, but can also exploit them. It is often bound or blinded by tradition. It can restrain its stronger members, preventing them from reaching their full potential. As power in Law comes from numbers, less numerous groups within a larger society can be oppressed.


Chaos: Might Makes Right

The hallmark of Chaos is that strength comes from personal power. In the end, the only thing you can be certain of is yourself, your own desires, abilities and convictions. Allowing yourself to be restrained or relying upon the goodwill of others is to give up your strength, and must therefore be avoided at all costs. This is not to say that Chaos rejects the kindness of others, or will not seek it, only that it does not rely on it. Chaos thinks in terms of individuals and makes few assumptions of a person it has not seen before. It is because of this tendancy to identify with individuals instead of groups that Chaos finds it difficult to deal with homogenous organisations.
Chaotic beings are surprisingly similar to one another, until a little thought is given to the matter. For the most part, all beings need food, shelter and similar amenties; Chaos is self-reliant and thus must know how to provide these things for itself. It can thus be expected that most Chaotic beings will have the skills to do this.
Chaos has the freedom to strive for its fullest potential, but no assurances are made for those whose potential is meagre. It is as often a bloody reaver as a noble renegade.

Diggorian
2007-07-01, 09:32 PM
Ultimately, I see Good and Evil as "what you do" and Law and Chaos as "how you do them."


A point of view shared by me.

Further, Lawful is a tendency towards order and organization while chaos tends towards whim and improvization. Atleast this what I portray with my characters.

I beleive some alignment confusion come from a change in it over D&D editions. It used to be that Lawful, neutral, and chaotic alignments were seen as being in descending order of nobility (not the social class :smallwink: ). LG was better than being CG somehow. Whereas now, two axises arent linked: LG is as good as CG, just different styles of moralty.

Gavin Sage
2007-07-01, 09:32 PM
I don't know if one can characterize lawful and chaotic by simple personality traits. Someone could be very personally disorganized but still like the world to be orderly as a whole. That said its not an entirely bad standard. I think that any number of alignment traits can manifest and as long as a person has few of them shouldn't have to worry as far as law and chaos go.


What does it mean to be neutral towards law and chaos? Good and evil? What of true neutral? A true neutral person does what seems to be a good idea at the time... but that sounds like a chaotic character to me. Is neutrality apathy? Or does a neutral character actively not take sides, considering all extremes to be flawed in one way or another? Or does neutrality represent a balance of the four axis? Is a true neutral character equal parts evil, good, lawful, and chaotic? There's a lot of grey areas and wiggle room with any alignment that has a neutral component, and those are the ones that cause me a certain amount of trouble.

I've always subdivided TN into a few categories on how to approach it:

1. Apathy- This is the sort who just doesn't care in a broad sense. Will take action only if forced into it somehow, will act for the moment but without that free-spirited devotion to always doing that. They are mostly concerned with the basics of life, what can I do to simply survive. Not adventurers in a normal sense.

2. Focused- Your character doesn't care about the world at large but is devoted to some smaller idea. Like knowledge, you want to know everything there is to know. Or some other personal desire.

3. Balancer- The old description about someone who tries to keep removed from the other four edges. Views good and evil, law and chaos to all be extremes to be shyed away from. Very hard to actually put into play though, since you could in theory be working against anyone else at some point after having aided them before.

Gralamin
2007-07-01, 09:35 PM
Something I wrote up a month or two ago on the topic:

Law: All dwarves are created equal.

The hallmark of Law is that strength comes from numbers, unity and consensus. Allowing an individual to defy this consensus will shatter its strength, and therefore must be prevented at all costs. Law generally considers all beings under its rule to be equal, and will take steps to ensure they remain so either by disadvantaging the powerful or raising up the weak. Beings outside the rule of that aspect of Law are assumed to be under the rule of another aspect, and will be treated as such. This is the reason that, for example, citizens of a Lawful human kingdom will treat all orcs as being essentially the same. They assume that orc is part of 'Orcdom', or a similar concept. Their opinion will likely be different if the orc openly displays insignia of a different, known organisation. It is because of this instinct to identify with a group instead of an individual that Law finds it difficult to deal with exceptions.
Despite what might be thought, Lawful beings are very distinct from each other in many ways. This appearance of variety and difference is mostly illusory; in Lawful societies the individual is not the base unit. Lawful beings specialise at a task, with individuals supplied by and suppling others. While they look different on an individual level, communities are all largely the same when viewed as a whole.
Law protects its weaker members, but can also exploit them. It is often bound or blinded by tradition. It can restrain its stronger members, preventing them from reaching their full potential. As power in Law comes from numbers, less numerous groups within a larger society can be oppressed.


Chaos: Might Makes Right

The hallmark of Chaos is that strength comes from personal power. In the end, the only thing you can be certain of is yourself, your own desires, abilities and convictions. Allowing yourself to be restrained or relying upon the goodwill of others is to give up your strength, and must therefore be avoided at all costs. This is not to say that Chaos rejects the kindness of others, or will not seek it, only that it does not rely on it. Chaos thinks in terms of individuals and makes few assumptions of a person it has not seen before. It is because of this tendancy to identify with individuals instead of groups that Chaos finds it difficult to deal with homogenous organisations.
Chaotic beings are surprisingly similar to one another, until a little thought is given to the matter. For the most part, all beings need food, shelter and similar amenties; Chaos is self-reliant and thus must know how to provide these things for itself. It can thus be expected that most Chaotic beings will have the skills to do this.
Chaos has the freedom to strive for its fullest potential, but no assurances are made for those whose potential is meagre. It is as often a bloody reaver as a noble renegade.

Okay These Definitions are better. However I still have problems with the Idea that people tend to associate lawful with Tradition, and Chaos with Change. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Callix
2007-07-01, 09:42 PM
Dhavaer: Awesome. One of the most clearly-expressed and value-bneutral evaluations I have ever seen.

In general: I object to the idea that chaotic characters act before thinking etc. They don't plan every detail of their lives. They have goals, and they try to achieve them, but they tend to ad lib the process of achieving them. This means they might not always take the best path, but in situations where someone is disrupting their plans, they are better at responding off the cuff because they have practice at it.

Duke Malagigi
2007-07-01, 09:50 PM
I would say that Law and Chaos has more do to with social order. Law would be authoritarian while Chaos would be libertarian.

Plato and Hobbes would be Lawful Good while John Locke would be Chaotic Good. Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot would be Lawful Evil while extreme anarchic nihilists would be Chaotic Evil. By "extreme anarchic nihilists" I only mean those who both belive that there is no true fundamental moral code in the universe and that there should be no authority or moral resraint placed on anyone.

So which alignments would you give to your favorite fictional characters? How about the Order of the Stick characters?

Callix
2007-07-01, 09:58 PM
Malagigi: If we look at philosophers, what about Nietzche? (sp?) Does he qualify as an extreme nihilist? Or is he Lawful? It's an interesting idea, but social order can't be the only category for this. I'm a libertarian mathematics student with a bent for logical thought and detailed advanced planning. What does that say?

Dhavaer
2007-07-01, 10:01 PM
I'm a libertarian mathematics student with a bent for logical thought and detailed advanced planning. What does that say?

You're neutral or chaotic with above average Int.

Bosh
2007-07-01, 10:05 PM
One thing that I think people get wrong is that they often view Chaotic Good as a very pragmatic "ends justifies the means" good and Lawful good as a more idealistic kind of good.

I'd look at it this way

The pragmatic side of lawful: is willing to work within the system and values the stability that systems provide, even if the system they're working in is far from perfect.
The idealistic side of lawful: has some sort of code of conduct that they stick to.

The pragmatic side of chaotic: They're willing to cut corners in order to get what they want.
The idealistic side of chaotic: Often have difficulty working within a system and can often pridefully bash their head against it even if working within the system would be more fruitful.

Duke Malagigi
2007-07-01, 11:52 PM
I second Dhaver's remark.

Alleine
2007-07-02, 12:21 AM
I agree wholeheartedly with Dhavaer.

Gralamin: If you want examples of Chaos and change, just look at the plane of Limbo, it is essentially THE chaotic plane. Everything is changing. But this by no means says that chaos = change. Chaos is more of a random, unstructured change based on whim and will which can change themselves at the drop of a hat.

Lawful societies aren't adverse to change, in fact they change quite often, but the thing is they change, laws for example, according to other laws, and not just changing freely and fluidly as a chaotic person might. When people say they see lawful as more "traditional" its because tradition continues much like a set of laws do. The Constitution is a set of laws, but at the same time can be a tradition. Or perhaps a better way to say it is there is a following of a traditional form of government or personal code that has a set of rules, a structure that is preserved(tradition) even while it changes. The basic shape is still the same. Chaos, as I said before, is a random unstructured changing that happens based on various things, such as environment. A chaotic person would be more willing to change, if only for a short time, to fit a situation. A lawful person would change, but perhaps not as much or in a different way that allows them to retain a basic structure.

I hope that made sense.

bugsysservant
2007-07-02, 12:41 AM
I tend to think that each of the three can be categorize by a single phrase.
Lawful: Allows others to think for them.
Chaotic: Doesn't think.
Neutral: Thinks without reference to an outside system of values.

Thus an ant, or a bee would be the ultimate in lawful creatures, totally obedient to the will of it's superior.

Machiavelli would be the ultimate figure in neutrality: analyze everything without worrying about the impact of external codes or internal urges.

A perfect chaotic being is a bit harder to come by, but I tend to think of the "selfish gene," randomly mutating but ultimately struggling to maintain itself. (yes I know that that was slightly wrong. But I'm not good at communicating abstract ideas, and you got my point. And I do side with Gould over Dawkins.)

edit: I probably should have clarified, but I don't mean to say that a chaotic will never think, and a lawful will never think for themselves. Only that a chaotic will only rationalize its random decisions, and a lawful will only interpret it's internalized code.

Jannex
2007-07-02, 12:47 AM
I don't think it's at all accurate to say that a Chaotic character "doesn't think." He will probably be less methodical, perhaps even less purely logical, than a Lawful character, but I would certainly not say that a Chaotic character is purely random or acts solely on whim. Even "it seemed like a good idea at the time" implies an element of thought at work.

Demented
2007-07-02, 01:02 AM
Lawful: Looks for something similar.
Chaotic: Looks for something different.

Lawful individuals will stick with tradition, convention and the status-quo. In choosing, they prefer that which is familiar to them, similar, or proven. Law appeals to them because it offers a solid and pure approach to dealing with problems. They tolerate repetition and idleness with ease, and are more likely to live steady lives where their personal condition does not change.

Chaotic individuals will stick with the unknown, the unexpected and the ever-changing. In choosing, they that which is strange, different, or unproven. Chaos appeals to them because it is always at its most ready against any particular problem. They tolerate change and transition easily, and are more likely to live dynamic lives where their personal condition continually changes.


On neutrality:
I'm a firm believer in the extremes over the opposites position. That is, I believe most individuals are Neutral, rather than Lawful or Chaotic. In general, any normal (read: NPC) person you meet is going to be Neutral with Lawful or Chaotic tendencies, rather than one of the extreme alignments. Thus, neutrality is usually a more muted sense of either, if not an actual blend.

That's not discounting the possibility for neutrality also being an extreme, in the ways Gavin Sage iterated, of course.

bugsysservant
2007-07-02, 01:09 AM
I don't think it's at all accurate to say that a Chaotic character "doesn't think." He will probably be less methodical, perhaps even less purely logical, than a Lawful character, but I would certainly not say that a Chaotic character is purely random or acts solely on whim. Even "it seemed like a good idea at the time" implies an element of thought at work.

It is an oversimplification, albeit a useful one. If someone is saying "it seemed like a good idea at the time" It generally implies that they didn't take the time to analyze all alternatives (neutral), and had no external frame of reference to guide them (lawful). While a chaotic person will think, it is mostly on the subconscious level as they allow themselves to be guided by their implulses. If forced to explain their actions later they will either rationalize their inherently random acts, or say something along the lines of "it seemed like a good idea at the time"

Jannex
2007-07-02, 01:15 AM
Lawful: Looks for something similar.
Chaotic: Looks for something different.

Lawful individuals will stick with tradition, convention and the status-quo. In choosing, they prefer that which is familiar to them, similar, or proven. Law appeals to them because it offers a solid and pure approach to dealing with problems. They tolerate repetition and idleness with ease, and are more likely to live steady lives where their personal condition does not change.

Chaotic individuals will stick with the unknown, the unexpected and the ever-changing. In choosing, they that which is strange, different, or unproven. Chaos appeals to them because it is always at its most ready against any particular problem. They tolerate change and transition easily, and are more likely to live dynamic lives where their personal condition continually changes.

So, in simplified terms, Structure vs. Innovation? I'd buy that.

Jayabalard
2007-07-02, 01:21 AM
Law vs Chaos comes down to the group vs the individual; imo, anything else really seems to be stepping into the good vs evil axis.

law puts value in the idea of the state, patriotism, in following tradition tradition, in hierarchy, control, honor, structure. Chaos puts value in the individual, innovation, tolerance, freedom.

Some of the questions that I use to figure out how a character stands on the law/chaos axis (I've got a longer list somewhere).

When is it moral for a group to do something that is not moral for an individual member of the group to do? Lawful individuals tend to have a larger list than chaotic individuals.
When is it moral for the group to put it's welfare ahead of the welfare of an individual. Lawful individuals tend to have a larger list of cases than chaotic individuals do.
What's the largest group that you are obligated to defend? family; close personal friends; Everyone you personally know; small political bodies (city/town); larger political body (country); all of mankind?. Lawful individuals tend to feel an obligation to a larger group than chaotic individuals.
Which is more dangerous: stagnation or recklessness. LAwful individuals tend to believe that it's better to deal with known problems than introduce new ones that may be worse (recklessness is worse); chaotic individuals tend to believe that it's better to try and find a solution, even if it's risky (stagnation is worse)

Jannex
2007-07-02, 01:31 AM
Some of the questions that I use to figure out how a character stands on the law/chaos axis (I've got a longer list somewhere).

When is it moral for a group to do something that is not moral for an individual member of the group to do? Lawful individuals tend to have a larger list than chaotic individuals.
When is it moral for the group to put it's welfare ahead of the welfare of an individual. Lawful individuals tend to have a larger list of cases than chaotic individuals do.
What's the largest group that you are obligated to defend? family; close personal friends; Everyone you personally know; small political bodies (city/town); larger political body (country); all of mankind?. Lawful individuals tend to feel an obligation to a larger group than chaotic individuals.
Which is more dangerous: stagnation or recklessness. LAwful individuals tend to believe that it's better to deal with known problems than introduce new ones that may be worse (recklessness is worse); chaotic individuals tend to believe that it's better to try and find a solution, even if it's risky (stagnation is worse)


I think what would actually end up happening would be that, when posed these questions, the Lawful person would answer them as you described, and the Chaotic person would say, "Well... it would really depend on the specific situation." You also might run into problems with #3, because really, who's NOT going to save the world? "It's where I keep all my stuff..." But the general idea is there, yeah.

Jayabalard
2007-07-02, 01:50 AM
character... not person; and I don't ask them, I ask the player (or myself when creating npcs). In that sort of situation you can actually get a real, honest answer for those questions.

Re #3... this one tends to get mixed up a little with the Good-evil axis, since it's only completely valid for good characters, but I still think it's a good question to look at

A chaotic individual may not actually that interested in saving mankind as a whole... just the pieces that matter to him, or even just himself (in the case of a Chaotic evil individual).

sure, a chaotic individual may whole heartedly join a quest to save the world... but they may be doing that because they have to save the whole world in order to save their family (or town, a smaller, concrete group)... whereas a lawful individual is alot more likely to actually feel an obligation obligated to a much larger abstract entity.

Jannex
2007-07-02, 01:57 AM
character... not person; and I don't ask them, I ask the player (or myself when creating npcs). In that sort of situation you can actually get a real, honest answer for those questions.

Perhaps, though I know that if I tried to answer those questions (mostly 1, 2, and 4) relating to my more Chaotic characters, every example situation I came up with would have a list of exceptions, caveats, and provisos as long as my arm--which is where the "it would depend on the specific situation" comes from. I think that, generally, part of being Lawful means being more comfortable with "general rules," and part of being Chaotic means addressing each situation independently and in context.


Re #3... this one tends to get mixed up a little with the Good-evil axis, since it's only completely valid for good characters, but I still think it's a good question to look at

A chaotic individual may not actually that interested in saving mankind as a whole... just the pieces that matter to him, or even just himself (in the case of a Chaotic evil individual).

sure, a chaotic individual may whole heartedly join a quest to save the world... but they may be doing that because they have to save the whole world in order to save their family (or town, a smaller, concrete group)... whereas a lawful individual is alot more likely to actually feel an obligation obligated to a much larger abstract entity.

That's completely fair.

Xuincherguixe
2007-07-02, 02:39 AM
I don't really like the D&D alignment system, there's been numerous times when a character could be all kinds of different things. Where do you put a person that's honourable about some things, but not others, consistently?

Furthermore, I get strong feelings of Chaotic Good ending up as 'less Good'. Meaning, it gets very hard to play any "heros" besides Lawful Good ones.


I have a very hard time with the alignment system. Lawful Good screams contradiction to me. Which actually could make for an interesting character... but there seems to be a strong Lawful Good bias in the system that makes one wonder why anyone would be anything else. Everything seems to work out just fine. "Only wrong doers ever suffer". "Good people only suffer when they choose to on behalf of others." Bleuch.

How about some fights between groups that are obviously both good, but have good reason to be fighting each other? But no, someone always has to be wrong. And in an Order vs Chaos conflict it usually ends up being Order that's right. And wins.


Law I see as systems, belonging to that system, and the system being everything. Lawful Good is probably a case of compromise so that conditions can exist where Strength isn't everything. You have knights that will crush those who would kill the artists.

With chaos, it's more of a case of leaving things in their natural state. So Chaos is not really that chaotic. But what we call chaos is usually just systems we don't fully understand. True Chaos can be completely arbitrary, pulling up things from seeming nothingness and champion this. Secondarily I think the Strength issue comes along. The power to make of chaos what you will. It doesn't happen much, but I think a Chaotic Good society would be one which did not cheat people out of the ability to face the obstacles which would allow them to be strong.


I'm also big fan of the Lawful Good hero vs Chaotic Good conflict (Paladin vs Ranger?)

Jannex
2007-07-02, 02:45 AM
Furthermore, I get strong feelings of Chaotic Good ending up as 'less Good'. Meaning, it gets very hard to play any "heros" besides Lawful Good ones.

I've never viewed it, or played it, that way--to be honest, I always end up a little suspicious of extremely Lawful types--but that might be a bias in the system that I've always managed to unconsciously avoid. Can you give examples of where you see this bias played out?

Xuincherguixe
2007-07-02, 02:58 AM
I've never viewed it, or played it, that way--to be honest, I always end up a little suspicious of extremely Lawful types--but that might be a bias in the system that I've always managed to unconsciously avoid. Can you give examples of where you see this bias played out?

Well, it comes up a bit in the forums. I think in the published material it conveniently ignores implications, but Chaotic Good has been described as more ruthless. Utterly ruthless towards it's enemies with fewer limits. Chaotic Good has no use for prisoners.


I much prefer the idea of Chaotic Good as doing what is the right thing, with little concern about what 'the rules' are. And in the end, that probably is a lot more 'Good' than 'Doing questionable things for the right reasons'.

Jannex
2007-07-02, 03:24 AM
Well, it comes up a bit in the forums. I think in the published material it conveniently ignores implications, but Chaotic Good has been described as more ruthless. Utterly ruthless towards it's enemies with fewer limits. Chaotic Good has no use for prisoners.

Hm. I can see people making that sort of argument. At the same time, though, I've also seen it argued (not saying I agree or disagree, just that I've seen it said) that mercy is an inherently chaotic idea, contrary to law and justice and what someone might "deserve."


I much prefer the idea of Chaotic Good as doing what is the right thing, with little concern about what 'the rules' are. And in the end, that probably is a lot more 'Good' than 'Doing questionable things for the right reasons'.

I strongly agree with you.

Jayabalard
2007-07-02, 07:08 AM
Furthermore, I get strong feelings of Chaotic Good ending up as 'less Good'. Meaning, it gets very hard to play any "heros" besides Lawful Good ones. Personally, I've always seen lawful good as less good. That's why you see LG people portrayed as lawful stupid, while you almost never see a CG individual portrayed as Chaotic Stupid. Lawful principles can sometimes get in the way of doing good, but the chaotic principles never do (at least, I can't think of a case)


Perhaps, though I know that if I tried to answer those questions (mostly 1, 2, and 4) relating to my more Chaotic characters, every example situation I came up with would have a list of exceptions, caveats, and provisos as long as my arm--which is where the "it would depend on the specific situation" comes from. I think that, generally, part of being Lawful means being more comfortable with "general rules," and part of being Chaotic means addressing each situation independently and in context.That's kind of the point: 1 and 2 are lists of general and specific cases. Lawful individuals generally have general cases, chaotic individuals generally have specific cases.

4 is pretty much a straightforward chaos vs law from inverting one of their principles. following Tradition blindly -> Stagnation; striving for innovation blindingly -> Recklessness. A lawful character should probably feel that the problems that come from thier principles are not as bad as the problems from the chaotic principles and vice versa.

The Prince of Cats
2007-07-02, 07:27 AM
My take has always been that lawful means a code. It is a set of rules, even if they are internal, which define your actions. They may or may not coincide with local laws, but they are the rules you live by for better or worse.

In my view, even a chaotic person has the same kind of rules. The difference is that a lawful person seeks to obey his moral alignment as best he can within the rules, while a chaotic person seeks to follow their rules as best they can within their moral alignment.

To illustrate; a CE person seeks to profit from their actions and may go against their 'normal way' of doing things to better profit. A CG person will do their best to help people, even if it goes against any oaths they swore or instructions they received. On the other hand, a LG person will do the best they can (including bending the rules) to help people without breaking their vows. Finally, a LE person will sometimes sacrifice an opportunity to make a quick gain, for the sake of following the master plan.

The CG / LG dilemma might be exemplified by the two seeing a poor child steal from a wealthy merchant. The CG person would be inclined to turn a blind eye. The LG would be inclined to stop the child and bring the crime to light. On the other hand, the LG character might choose not to tell the authorities, merely the victim, and either give the child some of their own money (which is not illegal) or pay off the merchant for the cost of the item / fine (assuming fines are a valid punishment for the crime).

Selv
2007-07-02, 07:34 AM
I award a prize to both Dhavaer. It also seems that we both think Chaos and Law are primarily attributes of societies, or at least how individuals think about society.

I tend to disagree with the Logic/Passion divide. I think the submission/pride division mentioned by Ulzgoroth is closer to the mark. For example, let's say that I and a lawful and chaotic person both come up with a plan and, subsequently, are given orders to the same effect.
Lawful person: "Phew! I must have been thinking along the right lines. Now I know I'm right."
Chaotic person: "Man, Screw you. I might modify my plan just to show you who's making the decisions here."

bugsysservant
2007-07-02, 10:14 AM
Is it just me or is there a strong bent towards chaos here?

Much of what I here described as chaotic is really neutral. The problem (for all you deconstruction fans out there) seems to be that you form a binary opposite along the law/chaos divide and priveledge the latter side.

Here is an example: You all seem to think that a chaotic character will "do whats best when the time arises." That is what a neutral character will do. A truly chaotic character will act randomly and hope everything works out for the best. A neutral character will tend to be lawful, but will have no qualms about breaking the rules when he feels it would be validated by their its outcome.

Look at Dr. Who, the greatest chaotic good individual I can think of. His plans consist largely of hoping that a plan will reveal itself. A lawful person would have a set of strategies that they subscribed to, which they would use to deal with the various situations, and a neutral character would spend time to think before jumping into a situation.

Lorthain
2007-07-02, 03:41 PM
I interpret 'alignment' as the character allying with some side in a struggle, like helping good struggle against evil. Law and chaos are words for the struggle between civilization and the wild, uncivilized, barbaric world.

Lawful: Pro-civilization.
Chaotic: Suspicious of, pessimistic about, avoids getting tangled up in, and generally against civilization.
Neutral: Ambivalent toward civilization (such as worrying about other things instead, like survival).

It should be entirely up to the player to decide why their character aligns itself as it does as well as how that character acts on its alignment, within reason (lawful shouldn't go around toppling every government they find).

I dislike many of the definitions I've seen for lawful/chaotic because they step into areas of morality, intelligence, wisdom, habits, personality, or brain chemistry. The first three are already handled elsewhere, and the rest should be entirely decided by the player. I really don't like the idea of one player (or worse, the GM) redefining and boxing-in another player's character's personality based on a differing view of alignment.

EagleWiz
2007-07-02, 04:04 PM
A Lawfull DM has the entire adventure planned out beforehand
A Choatic DM makes it up on the spot.

Jayabalard
2007-07-02, 04:29 PM
You all seem to think that a chaotic character will "do whats best when the time arises." That is what a neutral character will do. A truly chaotic character will act randomly and hope everything works out for the best. That sounds like the "chaotic stupid" alignment, which is a fairly specialized form of the chaotic alignment.

you also seem to be mixing up the way alignments and character action are related: alignment is dictated by your actions; it does not dictate your actions.

Fax Celestis
2007-07-02, 04:41 PM
Lawful people will play by the rules set down by society. Chaotic people may play by the rules set down by society if it is convenient, but have no qualms about going above them, breaking them, or exploiting a loophole.

Rasumichin
2007-07-02, 04:53 PM
I don't know why the assumption is so popular, but i do read a lot about people equating chaotic with stupid/unthinking on this board.

I must admit that i cannot agree at all with this idea.

Of course, chaotic people can be extremely stupid; but any alignment can be correlated with any level of intelligence (or wisdom, for that matter).
Chaotic people, however, might act stupid in a different way.

Lawful stupid means that you do not think for yourself, but let others do the thinking.
A lawful stupid person might be completely overwhelmed by situations that can not be handled "by the book".
A truly lawful stupid person is nothing more than a cog in the machine, incapable of independent thought.

Chaotic stupid means that you act before thinking; this has been elaborated in this thread and others before, some people even asume it to be the essence of being chaotic, so i will not elaborate on this.


As far as being clever is concerned, this, too, works with any alignment.

The capabilities of a lawful intellect have been pointed out before, so i'll just go on with what an intelligent chaotic person might be better at than a lawful one with the same mental stats :

-improvise
-adapt and improve what has been laid out before
-intuitively do what's right
-be creative
-devise thoughts that are "unthinkable" by the social norms of your time

I also have to agree with Bosch on the idea that chaotic people can be just as zealous as lawful ones and that lawful people can be entirely pragmatic.

Like intelligence, pragmatism -or the lack thereof- is not alignment-bound.


Btw :


If we look at philosophers, what about Nietzche?

Unfortunately, all the Nietzsche experts i know don't know anything about D&D.
But as far as what i have read from and heard about him is concerned, i would rather label him as chaotic, due to his tendency to reject all outside norms.
Considering how strongly he oposed the religious believes of his time, and how little he cared about what others thought of him, he definitely had a strong chaotic side to himself.
Oh, and spending the last years of your life in an insane asylum because syphilis has begun to damage your brain might sound chaotic to a lot of people, too.

Jayabalard
2007-07-02, 04:56 PM
that doesn't sound quite right to me; the "rules of society" often include things on the moral axis, not just the ethical one.

Lawful people obey the rules of society because they're the rules of society; they put value on the rules themselves.

Chaotic people obey the rules of society when they match up to his own personal beliefs. They don't break the rules because they're inconvenient (especially a CG person, who does Good even if it's not convenient.), they just don't believe that the rules in and of themselves have any value.

Fax Celestis
2007-07-02, 04:59 PM
that doesn't sound quite right to me; the "rules of society" often include things on the moral axis, not just the ethical one.

Lawful people obey the rules of society because they're the rules of society; they put value on the rules themselves.

Chaotic people obey the rules of society when they match up to his own personal beliefs. They don't break the rules because they're inconvenient (especially a CG person, who does Good even if it's not convenient.), they just don't believe that the rules in and of themselves have any value.

I'll merely state at this point that Law and Chaos are subject to change due to whichever moral alignment is attached with them. Lawful Good is a different kind of lawful than Lawful Neutral, which is in turn a different kind of lawful from Lawful Evil.

Demented
2007-07-02, 05:17 PM
Sadly though, that has all sorts of consequences.
For example, it doesn't allow for an honorable Lawful Evil villain.
(Or would it?)

Fax Celestis
2007-07-02, 06:02 PM
Sadly though, that has all sorts of consequences.
For example, it doesn't allow for an honorable Lawful Evil villain.
(Or would it?)

It does. He follows a very strict code of conduct that cares nothing about the well-being of other people, for example.

Or, he's a lawyer.

The Prince of Cats
2007-07-03, 04:50 AM
Would a high-ranking member of the Nazi party from WWII not be a perfect example of LE? I mean, they are only following orders and taking immense pleasure (as well as immense profit) from it. They are in a position to use the law to affect a change, but they don't want to.

The greatest challenge in D&D is the word 'Lawful' gets defined badly. In some books, lawful is following local laws. In other books, lawful is following a personal code.

Rasumichin
2007-07-03, 06:00 AM
Would a high-ranking member of the Nazi party from WWII not be a perfect example of LE? I mean, they are only following orders and taking immense pleasure (as well as immense profit) from it. They are in a position to use the law to affect a change, but they don't want to.

"I just followed orders" is a typical LE statement, in my opinion.
LE can also mean to construct a system that promotes evil or to use law as a tool to achieve evil ends.
But, in both cases, the Nazis where perfect examples for that.


The greatest challenge in D&D is the word 'Lawful' gets defined badly. In some books, lawful is following local laws. In other books, lawful is following a personal code.

The personal code is really problematic.
After all, chaotic or neutral persons can act according to a personal code, too.
A CG person, for example, might have a personal code centered around helping others whenever possible, fighting oppression, standing his ground, being nonconformist and so on.

A personal code alone is not lawful to me; it has to promote lawful values to be so.
However, what lawful values are might be hard to define.
IMHO, these values do not necessarily center around written law. As far as i read it law in D&D also includes issues like honour, family, country, order, structure, reliability and so on.

Some people give a thief who is evil, but wouldn't steal from the needy, as an example for LE.

I'm a bit uncertain about this, and would rather view this thief as neutral (on the good-evil-axis) with evil tendencies, but i might be wrong here.

The Prince of Cats
2007-07-03, 06:35 AM
I was trying to work out how a monk can be lawful without being law-abiding. I have it now...

A chaotic person follows an internal code of conduct, a lawful person accepts an external code of conduct.

This is usually the "laws of the land", but could also include religious law (thereby taking in paladins and clerics) and martial disciplines for monks. While this makes it hard for a cleric to be chaotic, I think it can work. Helm tells his followers "This is what you must do." and Corellon Larethian tells his followers "This is how the world should be, but you must follow your heart to make it so."

Krellen
2007-07-03, 01:06 PM
The worst things about these threads is that the SRD rather clearly defines Law and Chaos. Law tells the truth; Chaos sees no value in doing so. Law keeps its word; Chaos breaks it when convenient. Law respects authority; Chaos respects nothing.

Lawful beings are trustworthy and dependable. They will do what they say they will do, to the best of their ability. You can count on their compliance. On the downside, this means they tend to be unable to adapt to rapidly changing situations, and are often extremely judgemental to those that do not or cannot adhere to their own standards.

Chaotic beings are flexible and adaptable. They cannot be depended on to do or be what or where they say they will, but they can react quickly to changing circumstances to get results. Chaotics often resent authority simply because it's authority, and not because it disagrees with their moral code.

I maintain that the classic conflict of Law vs. Chaos, which can be recognised by most anyone familiar with American pop culture, is the disagreements often had between Batman and Superman. Superman is Lawful Good, accurately nicknamed "Boy Scout" for his sometimes annoying perfect uprighteousness. Batman is Chaotic Good, a vigiliante working outside the bounds of law and tradition to do what is right. The two men both want the best for all people - they are Good - but they differ widely in what they feel is the most acceptable and effective method of bringing the best for all people.

As far as neutrality goes, neutrality is the "norm". Adventurers are rarely neutral, because normal people - neutral people - are rarely impelled to set out on the dangerous paths adventurers take. Neutral folk don't lie, cheat and steal - unless they have to. Neutral folk don't hurt others - unless they have to. "Unless they have to" is a good general statement to sum up the alignment of "Neutral".

Fixer
2007-07-03, 02:44 PM
With regards to true neutrality, all descriptions of it I have seen thus far fit well with my philosophy on it (which I personally adhere to). My wife being Lawful Neutral and myself True Neutral, I can best try to describe those two. (Some claim we are good but I am not interested enough to argue.) I will start from explaining my view of True Neutrals to give my explanation of the dividing point.

One thing about neutrals is that they do not like things to change too much. For this reason, neutrals tend to be viewed as uninvolved, apathetic, undecided, or just downright unhelpful. The role of neutrality is to put the brakes on any other drastic swing that might occur in their environment. When the mob forms they are the ones announcing pause for caution. When events are stagnant and structured they will engage in events that liven things up. When there are no drastic dominating ethics they are content to focus on what interests them and simply monitor the situation.

Having defined my own sense of neutrality, I will now attempt to define Law and Chaos in terms of how they differ from neutrality. Lawfuls and Chaotics each want their side to 'win'. Lawfuls will fight for order, structure, and law. Chaotics will fight for freedom, individualism, and avarice. They are not interested in balance.

Lawfuls are not interested in balance as much as they are interested in order. They want to be able to predict what will happen next. Whether this is from externally enforced order or internal code, they want predictability. LG wants predictability for the common good. LE wants predictability to maintain their power.

Chaotics are also not interested in balance. They want variety, change, expression of individualism. They are not interested in things being predictable. They do not want predictability at the expense of freedom/individuality/adventure. CG demands the protection of the individual. CE demands that its own interests be preserved.

Most people are not so extreme as these examples. If you adhere to roughly 60% of a particular ethical belief, you are probably that alignment. If you sometimes adhere to a particular ethical belief but aren't very passionate about it you are more likely neutral.

Jayabalard
2007-07-03, 03:04 PM
The worst things about these threads is that the SRD rather clearly defines Law and Chaos. Law tells the truth; Chaos sees no value in doing so. Law keeps its word; Chaos breaks it when convenient. Law respects authority; Chaos respects nothing. This is backwards: If you see value in the truth, you tend toward lawful alignment; if you don't you tend toward chaotic. Alignment is dictated by the person, not the other way around.

That's how you get a chaotic individual who always keeps his word of honor. The little bit of lawfulness there isn't enough to counterbalance the rest of his chaotic tendencies.

Krellen
2007-07-03, 05:05 PM
This is backwards:
Were I describing individuals, perhaps. But I wasn't. I was describing ideals.

Matthew
2007-07-03, 07:46 PM
Lawful people will play by the rules set down by society. Chaotic people may play by the rules set down by society if it is convenient, but have no qualms about going above them, breaking them, or exploiting a loophole.
Interesting, but surely you should give the same break to Lawful Characters as Chaotic ones? [i.e. Lawful Characters have qualms about not playing by the laws set down by society, but if absolutley necessary they may do so].

Fax Celestis
2007-07-03, 07:55 PM
Interesting, but surely you should give the same break to Lawful Characters as Chaotic ones? [i.e. Lawful Characters have qualms about not playing by the laws set down by society, but if absolutley necessary they may do so].

Certainly.

Also, on a related note:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/105/305421478_32a754b69e.jpg

Neon Knight
2007-07-03, 08:18 PM
Personally, I feel law and chaos have nothing to do with society, or personality traits like being organized or messy.

Being Lawful means one has certain behaviors and beliefs that they adhere to consistently. It does not matter what those beliefs are, so long as he strictly maintains them.

Being Chaotic means that one does not have strict behaviors or beliefs. Just general guidelines, and these can be ignored at the drop of the hat.

The one problem I have with this definition is that Chaotic people are really abnormal. Human beings tend to be creatures of habit. I have a hard time imagining a real person as Chaotic, aside from a mental patient.

Jannex
2007-07-04, 01:43 AM
I think that one important general element of the Law/Chaos divide is this:

Lawful characters think in absolutes. "Under no circumstances is it acceptable to do X."

Chaotic characters treat each situation independently and in context. "X is probably not generally a good idea, but there may be times when it's acceptable/okay."

Law focuses on the rules; Chaos focuses on the exceptions.

Shadow of the Sun
2007-07-04, 02:03 AM
Well...where would you place me?

I'm one of the most random people you will ever meet; I'm known for my excessive use of made up on the spot words, I once spent an entire day doing nothing but tapdancing to move from place to place, I spent that same day speaking in nothing but rhyme, and I do things for the hell of it.

However, I follow the law and the rules in a given system fairly thoroughly, and I have a rather submissive personality.

How would you place me, hmmm?

Dhavaer
2007-07-04, 02:11 AM
How would you place me, hmmm?

Neutral. qwer

Jannex
2007-07-04, 03:19 AM
Well...where would you place me?

I'm one of the most random people you will ever meet; I'm known for my excessive use of made up on the spot words, I once spent an entire day doing nothing but tapdancing to move from place to place, I spent that same day speaking in nothing but rhyme, and I do things for the hell of it.

However, I follow the law and the rules in a given system fairly thoroughly, and I have a rather submissive personality.

How would you place me, hmmm?

That depends. Do you follow rules and laws because you genuine believe in the legitimacy of the authority behind them, or because it just makes life easier for you to go with the flow?

If the former, Neutral. If the latter, Chaotic.

Shadow of the Sun
2007-07-04, 04:17 AM
Mainly it's so I don't get the metaphorical equivalent of a half brick to the face.

I've always subscribed to the theory that the laws are there so you think before you break them.

Jannex
2007-07-04, 04:44 AM
Mainly it's so I don't get the metaphorical equivalent of a half brick to the face.

I've always subscribed to the theory that the laws are there so you think before you break them.

Then I'd be inclined to say you're Chaotic, since you follow the laws out of an awareness of the consequences, rather than out of a respect for the idea of laws in and of itself. Chaotic doesn't have to mean Chaotic Stupid, after all; consequences certainly can figure into a Chaotic person's decision-making process--it's just that the process is usually far less elaborate than a Lawful person's.

Thoughtbot360
2007-07-04, 05:04 AM
With apologies to all the earlier posters and the alignment models they've expressed here:

Who really cares? I mean, 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999% of campaigns are more interested in Good vs. Evil (even in "amoral" games, Law and Chaos get no screen time.) The only real reason to be Lawful Neutral is so you can be a Druid/Monk multi class (Think about it, you can Wildshape into a lion that adds its Wis to AC and do a stunning fist via a Rake attack).

Of course, the alignment limitations on classes are the huge issue here, so I would just abandon them.

Technically, a Paladin can become a Rogue, would it destroy the world if you had a Paladin/Barbarian or a Paladin/Assassin in your party? I mean, Death attack is just a save-or-die version of Sneak attack (Hell, I think Rogues -and possibly fighters- should get as a class ability, just to make them more smexy), and a Barbarian isn't particularly dishonorable, he's just loud. This doesn't mean getting rid of alignment (do it anyway; just make Smite Evil and other alignment-based abilities only apply versus Outsiders and maybe Divine Spell casters; even indirectly threatening players with alignment change is such a nice Ice UN-breaker.)

But talking about the alignments themselves, I can simply say that they give nothing to the game save for a chance of argument. I mean, lets say you pick up a necklace that glows with it Detects Chaos and it goes off when you next talk to your best friend- OOOOOOOOHHHHHHH:tongue:

In the above scenario with the necklace, who in the world would be scarred for life by that discovery? I actually think that necklace is useless, and if you can find a smhuck that would actually pay half-decent money for it, that person must be brain dead. And the same goes for a Detect Law item.

Besides, analyzing someone's alignment in game sounds awfully like meta-gaming to me. Anti-Evil is all you really need unless you end up pissing off the Formians.

Shadowdweller
2007-07-04, 05:15 AM
Law vs Chaos comes down to the group vs the individual; imo, anything else really seems to be stepping into the good vs evil axis.

law puts value in the idea of the state, patriotism, in following tradition tradition, in hierarchy, control, honor, structure. Chaos puts value in the individual, innovation, tolerance, freedom.

That's pretty much how I view things myself. Or, to simplify: Authoritarian versus Libertarian. And this can represent ethics, comfort zones, or merely strategies.

B!shop
2007-07-04, 05:34 AM
My view of Law-Chaos is very simple.

A lawful person is someone who usually follow a code. Laws, hierarchy, tradition.

Soldiers are the lawful example I usually give to my players.
They are used to follow rules, orders and respect hierarchy.
They sometimes break them, but these are exceptions.

Miko before the arrive in Azure city is another good example to ad extremely lawful character. Too lawful probably.

Chaotic people is someone who don't give importance to laws and rules. They still follow them, but don't hesitate to break them when have to.
Pioneers in far west are good examples.

It's true there's a huge space between the Lawful and the Chaotic, but I'm simplifying it to put the limits.
And then work starting to this simple view to think of alignment.

Rasumichin
2007-07-04, 06:00 AM
Besides, analyzing someone's alignment in game sounds awfully like meta-gaming to me.

Please keep in mind that Alignments are an objective fact in D&D and that they have great impact on religion and cosmology.
Also, they can be objectively measured by spells and spell-like abilities like detect law/chaos/good/evil- which is necessary, since there's alignment based spell effects and item enchantments.

At least the more educated people in an average D&D setting might very well be aware of alignments and, in some cases, might actually know their own.

Selv
2007-07-04, 06:47 AM
Rousseau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau#Theory_of_Natural_Man): Good people will do good, evil people will do evil: to make good people do evil you need a system. The traditional state just makes people want to keep up with the Joneses. Laws aren't special, they're just made by the people in power. We ought to all get together and agree the laws. That way, we won't be giving up our freedom.

Hobbes: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_%28book%29) People are stupid and self-centred. If we didn't have a system, we'd all murder each other over seashells or some nonsense. The state is basically there to protect us from ourselves, and giving up some freedom is worth it.

Just an thought. I'm not educated in philosophy, and I'm pretty lawful myself, so I may have misrepresented these positions somewhat.

In practice, I think any real person has aspects that could be labelled chaotic and other traits that suggest order. For example, I consider myself a social progressive, which is a chaotic trait ("I know we've always done it that way, but it would be better if we scrapped that tradition") but like Hobbes, I think that the pursuit of positive liberty starts with watching cartoons in your pyjamas all day and ends with huddling around a fire and wondering where it all went wrong.

Jayabalard
2007-07-04, 08:41 AM
Who really cares? The OP, and probably


I mean, 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 9999999999999999% of campaigns are more interested in Good vs. Evil (even in "amoral" games, Law and Chaos get no screen time.)It's probably closer to 90%. If you want an example from literature with order vs chaos being the primary axis of conflict, check out the Recluse series by Modesitt.



The one problem I have with this definition is that Chaotic people are really abnormal. Human beings tend to be creatures of habit. I have a hard time imagining a real person as Chaotic, aside from a mental patient.If you can't see people actually being chaotic, doesn't that indicate to you that your definitions of order/chaos are false?

Selv
2007-07-04, 08:51 AM
It's probably closer to 90%. If you want an example from literature with order vs chaos being the primary axis of conflict, check out the Recluse series by Modesitt.

I am coming around to the description of Serenity as sailing between the Lawful Scylla and the Chaotic Charybdis, with the twist that Miranda is both of them.

SITB
2007-07-04, 09:03 AM
[QUOTE=Jayabalard;2828672]It's probably closer to 90%. If you want an example from literature with order vs chaos being the primary axis of conflict, check out the Recluse series by Modesitt.[QUOTE]

The Recluse Saga is not mainly about "order vs chaos", it's about good and evil using the guises of "order vs chaos". Hell, Fairhaven itself is more ordered then Recluse. They just use forces termed as "chaos" and "order".

Back to the OP.

I personally think that D&D "Lawful" people will be more order centred, have every second of the day already pre-designed and determined. See Dios from Pyramids(Discworld) who has been steering the whole kingdom during 7000 years repeating the same actions over and over again to avoid all changes.

"Chaotic" on the other hand would be more prone to spontaneity, meaning that having him encounter the same situation twice wouldn't always result in the same decision. And less shackled by "forces of habit".

Rasumichin
2007-07-04, 09:03 AM
If you can't see people actually being chaotic, doesn't that indicate to you that your definitions of order/chaos are false?

Seconded.

Moreover, i reject the notion that madness is inherently chaotic.
There are, admittedly, mental dysfunctions that are easiest imaginable in a chaotic alignment (most delusional and schizophrenic stuff), or better, as an extreme and disabling version of that alignment, but there are also forms of madness that could be described as a disabling amount of lawfulness, especially anything that has to do with compulsive controllfreakishness.

However, the official alignment system does not really support this view, probably because it still carries a slight bias against chaos.

But still, it does, since 3rd Ed., say nowhere that all chaotic people are completely unpredictable lunatics or have no identifiable habits.
Such traits are explicitly stated as downsides of being chaotic.
Chaotics can be this way, but they don't have to.
Same goes for rejecting authority just for the sake of nonconformism.

Dhavaer
2007-07-04, 05:47 PM
Rather than be chaotic, wouldn't someone insane be neutral for the same reason as mindless creatures are?

Jayabalard
2007-07-04, 06:03 PM
Rather than be chaotic, wouldn't someone insane be neutral for the same reason as mindless creatures are?Being insane doesn't mean that you're mindless; nor do I personally believe that being insane is some kind of "get out of jail free card" when it comes to being responsible for your actions.

Dhavaer
2007-07-04, 06:06 PM
Being insane doesn't mean that you're mindless; nor do I personally believe that being insane is some kind of "get out of jail free card" when it comes to being responsible for your actions.

How would you define the alignment of someone insane, then? Would you go by their perception of reality, or everyone else's?

Neon Knight
2007-07-04, 06:28 PM
I never meant to imply that madness was inherently chaotic. I meant that a Chaotic character, by my definition above, would most likely be diagnosed as possessing a mental disorder.

As I stated above, I think that human beings are creatures of habit in most cases. Thus, a human who is inherently does not possess habits strikes me as a bit inhuman and abnormal, and thus likely to possess some malfunction of the brain.

So, yes, I think my definition needs a bit of work. It is not false, merely flawed; I just need a chaotic person to help me pin down where I am going wrong.

Jayabalard
2007-07-04, 06:36 PM
How would you define the alignment of someone insane, then? Would you go by their perception of reality, or everyone else's?Alignment is, by definition, objective, so their perception doesn't really figure into it.

Dhavaer
2007-07-04, 06:41 PM
Alignment is, by definition, objective, so their perception doesn't really figure into it.

Do you think a paladin should fall for killing a baby that had been disguised as a demon, then?

Selv
2007-07-04, 07:03 PM
Alignment is, by definition, objective, so their perception doesn't really figure into it.
...
Do you think a paladin should fall for killing a baby that had been disguised as a demon, then?

In other words, does effect matter more than intent?

Both Rule-Utilitarianism and what I've been bought up to recognise as Christian morality hold that a) morality is objective and b) it's intentions that matter (give or take a dash of "you should have anticipated that outcome").

But yes, I see the parallel between the situations: I do evil because I'm confused and can't tell the difference between the milkman and the Balrog. You do so because it turns out the Balrog was actually a milkman, glamered in some improbable fashion. Our intentions are both basically good, and our outcomes equally tragic.

I'd answer that, blood-stained semi-skimmed notwithstanding, that in D&D's world of absoloute objective morality, we have both performed an evil act, though not neccesarily for evil reasons. It's a net win for Cosmic Team Evil, though we need not neccesarily suffer alignment change for it. I think that's particularly so in the rules-world where mind-control magic exists.

(Of course, in my case I am no longer capable of reliably functioning as a Paladin and so there would be good reason to turn me beige, at least temporarily, whereas you're probably OK. That's a pragmatic answer that doesn't really illuminate the question, though.)

At risk of speaking it's dread name, we can bring in a bit of recursion: am I morally culpable for failing to realise that my judgement is impaired and that I ought to cool out on the smiting for a bit? Am I morally improved if I do so?

Edit: I realisied I didn't answer the question.

I guess this depends on whether someone judges alignment, and how it is earned. Perhaps an insane person (or at least, someone insane in the way I have described) is functionally neutral, in the same way as animals are, even though they are still thinking and still thinking in the way that Lawful Good people do- it's just the perceptions that are gone here. They're functionally neutral because they help along Evil about as much as Good.

Hmm. Maybe I still haven't.

Demented
2007-07-04, 07:07 PM
So, yes, I think my definition needs a bit of work. It is not false, merely flawed; I just need a chaotic person to help me pin down where I am going wrong.
Admittedly I'm more of a lawful individual with chaotic tendencies...

Simple. Consider chaotic habits.
A person with no habits isn't chaotic... He's inhuman. As you say, humans are habitual, but that sooner means that all humans, even chaotic ones, have habits, than it does that chaotic humans are insane, or don't exist.

Likewise, many mental disorders tend to be habitual... But that doesn't make them lawful.

{table]
Chaotic Habit|
Lawful Habit

Picking your nose or scratching, even in public places.|Scratching only in private.

Trying out a different flavor every time you go to the ice cream shop.|Getting only the same flavor.

Going left instead of right, or right instead of left.|Always going left.

Flipping any coin for decisions.|Flipping the very same coin every time.

Being late for nearly every meeting.|Always being "fashionably" late, to the point of waiting out the door until the right time.

Staying in bed on weekends.|Waking up promptly even on weekends.

Staying in bed on weekdays.|<--- He should die!

Always getting a condiment or two, even if never used.|Always getting ketchup, and actually using it.[/table]

Shadowdweller
2007-07-04, 07:57 PM
The Recluse Saga is not mainly about "order vs chaos", it's about good and evil using the guises of "order vs chaos". Hell, Fairhaven itself is more ordered then Recluse. They just use forces termed as "chaos" and "order".
Haven't read any of the latter books, have you? Order and Chaos are most definitely not good and evil under Modesitt's cosmology.

Rasumichin
2007-07-04, 08:02 PM
Do you think a paladin should fall for killing a baby that had been disguised as a demon, then?

In an RPG, a DM who throws babies disguised as demons at the group's paladin to see him fall needs to be kicked in the teeth.

In a fictional, D&D style world in general, a paladin who unknowingly kills a baby might suffer loss of his paladin abilities as soon as he finds out he did so, due to the ensuing personal crisis, until he can somehow atone for it (even though he might never feel able to atone for it and might stay in retirement forever, depending on the individual paladin).

However, in game terms, which constitute the objective reality of an RPG's setting, the paladin has to willfully commit an evil act to lose his powers.

Following this guideline, and including some common sense, i would base alignment changes on willful acts, too.
So, in my game, conning or magically controlling someone into an alignment change wouldn't work (except for the helmet of opposite alignment, which is specifically designed for such an attempt).

However, personal delusions, which affect your very self, your inner condition, coming from within, not from an outside source, would legitimate an alignment change indeed.
So i would let Miko fall in my campaign, too.
Without any hesitation.
However, such personal delusions are the player's choice, not mine as a DM.

If the player wants his PC to take this direction, fine.
If he seems unaware of this because we have not discussed such matters before the game, i'd give him a warning shot before yelling "there, you got it, you turned beige" (lovely expression, BTW).

Krellen
2007-07-04, 08:40 PM
Regarding bias, there is a slight cultural bias in alignment, towards both Lawful and Good behaviour. Neutral folks will, under normal, comfortable circumstances, typically appear Lawful Good, because Lawful Good behaviour is most conducive to civilised society. Lawful behaviour means respecting authority and following the rules - which makes the job of folks in charge easier, as obedient people are easier to shepherd than willful ones - and Good behaviour means causing no harm (and possibly even alleviating harm) to people around you, which leaves less for people in charge to do. Civilisation is biased to Lawful Good because Lawful Good is exceedingly easy to cater to; an entirely Lawful Good populace would probably maintain itself without need for any leadership, in fact.

Of course, people aren't Lawful Good - they're Neutral, which means that while they might under normal, comfortable conditions appear Lawful Good, when push comes to shove and things get difficult, their behaviour tends more towards selfish and unruly, until things become comfortable again.

Extreme alignments might have play in day-to-day life, but for more people their true colour doesn't show until they're put under duress - which few people actually are.

Demented
2007-07-04, 08:55 PM
In an RPG, a DM who throws babies disguised as demons at the group's paladin to see him fall needs to be kicked in the teeth.

What about a player who throws babies disguised as demons at the DM's paladin? (If it helps, I like my teeth. <_< )