Is a constitution Lawful or Chaotic? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

hamishspence

2020-05-10, 02:23 AM

Very, very Lawful. Preserving freedoms in that fashion is Lawful Good at work. Chaotic governments don’t have laws; they have guidelines and unspoken understandings. They operate either on a strongman principle or by virtue of shared values and culture.

They do not codify exact rules or prohibitions.
Chaotic societies can have laws - they're just not as important to them as guidelines and traditions:

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a

First of all, let's be clear about one important concept: Lawful does not necessarily mean "adheres to the letter of the law." A law (or body of laws) is merely a rule that a government imposes on those who are subject to its power. A lawful alignment, on the other hand, represents an orderly approach to matters of ethics and personal conduct. Most lawful characters do respect the order that the laws of the realm represent, but adherence to local ordinances is only one way of demonstrating a lawful alignment.

To be lawful is to be in favor of conformity and consistency, to act in a systematic and uniform fashion, and to take responsibility. As a lawful person, you establish patterns and precedents and stick to them unless you can see a good reason to do otherwise. Methodical efficiency is your byword, and you believe in the concept of duty. You plan and organize your activities to achieve particular goals, not just to satisfy impulsive desires. You believe a proper way exists to accomplish any goal, though it may not always be the traditional, tried-and-true way. Likewise, you cultivate long-term relationships and endeavor to build trust between your associates and yourself. As a lawful person, you recognize that most laws have valid purposes that promote social order, but you are not necessarily bound to obey them to the letter. In particular, if you are both good and lawful, you have no respect for a law is unfair or capricious.

Being chaotic, on the other hand, doesn't necessarily mean you are incapable of adhering to the law. Though chaotic societies may seem disorderly, they exist in abundance. As a chaotic character, you are dedicated to personal and societal freedom. You pursue your dreams and don't try to put limits on your nature. You don't value consistency for its own sake; rather, you respond to every situation as you see fit without worrying about what you did before. The past is the past and the future is uncertain, so you prefer to live in the present. Each situation is new, so planning and procedures are pointless -- in fact, they restrain people from reacting quickly and decisively. You don't get tied up in exclusive relationships because they could hold you back from your destiny -- which might be right around the corner. You are always ready to try new techniques because you believe that experience is the best teacher, and you are always open to discovery.

In short, good and evil describe a character's ideals, and law and chaos describe the means she uses to work toward her goals. The law of the land in any given place is most likely designed to promote social order, so in general terms, lawful characters are more likely to respect it than chaotic characters are. However, the content of the law matters much more than its mere existence.

BoED on CG:

While promoting a legal system that places few restrictions on individual freedom, chaotic good individuals look to other forces - religion, philosophy, or community, for example - to encourage good behaviour and punish evil.

So, when "the law of the land" is not designed primarily around "promoting social order" it may be more compatible with Chaos, than when it is.

"Capricious laws" seem like exactly the sort of thing a CE or CN society might have - the ruler making up a law on a whim.

The DMG suggests "Common-sense laws" should be assumed to be in place everywhere unless specified otherwise. IMO that applies to Chaotic places as well. Their laws might not be as formal as those of Lawful societies, but they're still laws rather than traditions.

If you murder an elf in an elven kingdom, when you're captured, they'll be telling you that's against the law, rather than "against tradition".

Yogibear41

2020-05-10, 03:58 AM

SangoProduction

2020-05-10, 04:25 AM

I say Lawful.

I also say that an individual in charge of a government can be chaotic, the culture can be chaotic, but the government itself by virtue of what it is must be lawful, or it ceases to be an actual government.

Also Honoring Traditions is a lawful act too.

True, a government must have some sort of order in order to be a government. (aka, a functioning system that governs / directs... people probably.)
But there is a gradient there between perfect chaos and perfect order. To say that no government can be chaotic because a perfectly chaotic system can't have a government does not seem a compelling argument.

Esprit15

2020-05-10, 04:56 AM

True, a government must have some sort of order in order to be a government. (aka, a functioning system that governs / directs... people probably.)
But there is a gradient there between perfect chaos and perfect order. To say that no government can be chaotic because a perfectly chaotic system can't have a government does not seem a compelling argument.

To expand on that, I would say that hierarchy would be in general more lawful, with power flowing from the top, while a more horizontal system would be chaotic, where power is evenly dispersed throughout the population and no individual has much power.

A constitution can dictate how either of these system is meant to be run. A lawful society would be less likely to amend it, while a chaotic would be more likely to say “Oh, they didn’t plan for this. All in favor of changing this section?”

MoiMagnus

2020-05-10, 05:23 AM

In chaotic societies, laws and traditions are descriptives. They simply describe how peoples usually behave, but they do not say how peoples should behave in a given situation. A rational chaotic might follow laws and traditions as a "shortcut of reasoning", trusting that the peoples who made those decisions were reasonable, but will deny their universality and not hesitate at to break those traditions and laws as soon as they go against his intuition of how he should behave.

So yes, a constitution is Lawful. However, a declaration might be Chaotic. See texts like declaration of human right, which are non-binding. They are agreement of common values and guideline. Having text to formalise what are the objectives of the society is something you will find in Chaotic society (they're subject to change, obviously, as nothing is eternal in a Chaotic society). Their point is not to prescribe behaviour, but to allow some common basis for education, debate and argumentation. Because the core way Chaotic (Good) societies regulate themselves is through convincing the others and trying to reach unanimous decisions.

Sutr

2020-05-10, 05:44 AM

Sounds pretty neutral. Rather balanced I might say.

AvatarVecna

2020-05-10, 09:04 AM

Any organization founded on chaotic principles drifts when those principles are put into codified rules, when they are written down and given formal definition in a way that could be rules-lawyered into allowing something they weren't meant to. Any physical constitution is in a very literal sense the letter of the law, where a chaotic organization is by its nature about the spirit of the law.

For examples of capital-C "Chaotic" organizations in practice, there's a few neat examples you can look at: the rules of Fight Club (Fight Club), the Sith Code (Star Wars), the Ferengi Rules Of Acquisition (Star Trek), and the Assassin's Creed (Assassin's Creed series). Some of these end up working okay, some of them...devolve as a consequence of the particular code being upheld.

Telonius

2020-05-10, 09:15 AM

Any set of laws determines how and under what circumstances a government is "supposed to" exercise power, or not exercise power. A constitution is a written record of that social contract. Because a constitution is an attempt to codify behavior and expectations, they'll generally tend towards Lawful on the Law/Chaos scale. In practice, they could range anywhere from Neutral to Lawful. A Neutral constitution would be one that uses Lawful means to achieve Chaotic ends.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2020-05-10, 09:18 AM

Agreeing to abide by a piece of paper to the letter definitely leans lawful, but it could go either way. If you have a classic "limit the power of the central authority" type of constitution - which is importantly different than the "guarantee individual freedoms" type mentioned - then you have laws explicitly designed to prevent a central authority from stopping your society from running in a Chaotic fashion. The other thing about a Chaotic constitution is that the rules to amend it shouldn't be too restrictive, since a Chaotic society would understand the need for change.

From a rules and player perspective on alignment, I prefer to take a minimalist approach. Most actions are reasonably justifiable for most alignments. Some things are egregious - Paladins aren't serial killers and so on - but stuff like this where there can be a reasonable disagreement should not contribute to an alignment shift.

Nifft

2020-05-10, 09:19 AM

In my favored interpretation, Chaos is strongly correlated with individualism, so this particular constitution would be more Chaotic than Lawful.

In order to be strongly Lawful it would need to be collectivist, not merely "traditional", and thus it's not particularly Lawful.

Zarrgon

2020-05-10, 09:42 AM

A constitution is Chaotic. A constitution is a very brief, very simple, very straight forward document. They don't have a ton of legalese or word play or word confusion.

In a "perfect" Constitutional Government, there would not be very much to the government except exactly what the constitution says. Any and all constitutional issues would be resolved on a case by case basis, with no presidents. And a prefect constitution would have a section forbidding making changes outside the constitution.

All the laws, bureaucracy and such that follows: that is all Lawful.

For example, the Constitution says "all beings have the right to use magic". And that is it: simple and straightforward. The Lawful people will be falling over themselves to restrict that right "for the safety of everyone" and pass tons of laws. For Chaotic people: it's fine, and they never really need think about it. If a problem comes up the lawful people are ready with tons and tons and tons of laws. The chaotic people, they just solve the immediate problem.

Remember the Constustion does not have all the laws, it only says "all beings have the right to use magic". And in a pure Chaotic society whatever was acting as the government one day can interpret that anyway they would like, and change it everyday.

In a Lawful society the governments "hands are tied": they must follow the law. In a Chaotic society, the laws are much more suggestions...and really the government just does what it wants on a whim.

Segev

2020-05-10, 10:01 AM

A constitution is lawful because it codifies rules that cannot be broken. It sets them above the administration.

“People have a right to do magic,” is a liberating law, but it is lawful to lay it out.

A chaotic government might have that as a guiding principle, and generally think stopping people from using magic just because it’s magic is wrong, but under some circumstances, “you can’t use magic” might be a rule they enforced. And they would not be bothered by concerns over whether it infringed on a right to do magic because “it’s different this time.”

A lawful government would find this concerning. People have a right to do magic, but in some cases it’s seen as undesirable or even dangerous, or enabling only bad behavior. But they can’t just say “no magic” to fix it; they have to figure out how to square this circle, either formally changing the “right to do magic” constitutional law, or banning more specific activities regardless of whether they are magical or not. Just because you have a right to do magic doesn’t mean you have a right to murder people with it any more than you do without magic, for example.

If animating the dead is illegal, it’s illegal even if you find a nonmagical way to do it.

Etc.

hamishspence

2020-05-10, 10:05 AM

If you have a classic "limit the power of the central authority" type of constitution - which is importantly different than the "guarantee individual freedoms" type mentioned - then you have laws explicitly designed to prevent a central authority from stopping your society from running in a Chaotic fashion.

Agreed.

In a Lawful society the governments "hands are tied": they must follow the law. In a Chaotic society, the laws are much more suggestions...and really the government just does what it wants on a whim.

A case could be made that limiting a government's power strictly, is exactly the sort of thing that happens, when a Chaotic guy is put in charge of writing a constitution.

Like The Professor in Robert Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. He comes across as very Chaotic, and most of his recommendations are about imposing limitations on what the government is allowed to do.

And also about not letting precedent dictate how it's written.

Segev

2020-05-10, 10:24 AM

Agreed.

A case could be made that limiting a government's power strictly, is exactly the sort of thing that happens, when a Chaotic guy is put in charge of writing a constitution.

Like The Professor in Robert Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. He comes across as very Chaotic, and most of his recommendations are about imposing limitations on what the government is allowed to do.

And also about not letting precedent dictate how it's written.

Chaotic people can use lawful means. Heck, lawful people can use chaotic means. They just tend to find them distasteful. Alignment “slippage” happens when you start to use them regularly and think of them as important tools rather than unfortunate exigencies.

“I know lawful tyrannical types respect codified laws, so I’ll spell out my liberties in language they’ll understand when they get into power,” is not a regularized use of an important but distasteful tool, but rather a “take that” using their own tools against them. But it still is a Lawful tool. The Constitution itself is a Lawful thing, and adhering to it is also Lawful.

NontheistCleric

2020-05-10, 10:29 AM

There is only one real difference between Law and Chaos.

Law accepts outside authority acting on itself, while Chaos rejects it. Of course, these behaviours are only expressed as stronger or weaker tendencies in actual sentient beings, who always have a chance to act contrary to alignment.

In this case, outside authority can be any dictate that stems from outside the present self; a law, a by-law, an order from a superior, a promise you made to someone else, or even a promise you made to yourself. Note that both Law and Chaos have to acknowledge an authority as legitimate for this metric to apply, which is why a Lawful Good character is not acting chaotically when he decides not to respect the slavery laws of a Lawful Evil nation.

When making a decision, Law asks: Do I have something already in place that tells me what to do?

Chaos asks: What do I think is best, right now?

The law (and by extension subsets of law like constitutions) is one of the highest expressions of Law, because it comes from a place so far outside the self—some people (who you probably never even knew) in the past who thought certain things were so sure to always be good ideas that they wrote them down for everyone to follow all the time—and yet it expects to be obeyed unwaveringly. It is by its very nature Lawful, and only the most Lawful of creatures would ever feel any concern that even a law protecting freedom would be shifted by that fact anywhere near the Chaotic end of the alignment scale.

Any Chaotic individual can see right away how Lawful the concept of telling others how to be free is.

False God

2020-05-10, 10:43 AM

Segev

2020-05-10, 11:13 AM

Lawful....it's literally a code of laws. It doesn't have to be oppressive to be lawful. And in some ways it doesn't really "preserve" or "enshrine" or "protect" freedoms. When you're free, no rules at all free, you can do anything. But a constitution says you can only do A, B, C, D. By not listing E, F, G, H it actually vastly restricts your freedom, by saying the other 22 options on the menu of alphabetical menus of freedom are not available. Or at least, not explicitly protected.

Now, granted "anything" also means bad things too. The State has a vested interest in protecting it's citizens from bad things, which includes "dangerous freedom" like the freedom to kill people or the freedom to poison water or the freedom to start forest fires.

By protecting certain freedoms it also restricts others.

Another way to look at it is this: The principle, "Your right to swing your fist ends at my face," is generally enough for chaotic people. Sure, there'll be disagreements over specific situations, who is analogous to swinging the fist and who is analogous to having their face in its path, but they accept this and will deal with it case-by-case, confident that the principle is sound.

Lawful people will not be satisfied with just the principle. They will try to codify as many precedents and cases as possible to clarify who is the fist-swinger and who is the stationary face as possible, so that there is hopefully a rule for any time there's dispute over whether Bob is swinging his fist, or Alice is swinging hers. And, if there's not a law clarifying it, the Lawful types look at all the other examples and try to determine which is closest.

Whereas the Chaotic types might look to precedent, but they probably won't. They'll just go with what seems most right to them at the time. Which may not be what others of their alignment think is most right. Bob and Alice may both feel the other one's swinging their fist, and that they're doing nothing, themselves, but having their face sit still.

Ashtagon

2020-05-10, 11:38 AM

Very, very lawful.

All societies, even chaotic ones, have rules. What marks the difference is whether those rules are formed by casual whim or needs of whoever is the current leader, or by reference to some kind of system that has been previously agreed-upon (whether a constitution, legal precedence, case/statute law, formalised traditions, referral to holy books, or whatever).

D+1

2020-05-10, 01:41 PM

Segev

2020-05-10, 02:32 PM

Well, just having a constitution is not lawful, just more likely to be something that lawful people would have. What does the constitution actually SAY, or REQUIRE?

Without attempting to invoke real-world politics or real-world ideas of morals and ethics try this hypothetical: In a game world it may be permitted by written law that you can kill someone who sleeps with your wife and kill your wife as well. We'll just say that it's a constitutional right. That makes such killings a LEGAL act, but just because the written law says you MAY do that doesn't mean that a lawful character would think it RIGHT to do that. [Whether that's a right or wrong thing to do is far better weighed according to the good/evil axis.] Being lawful is not about OBEYING written laws. The opposite of Lawful in alignment terms is not ILLEGAL or CRIMINAL - it's Chaotic. So the scale of Lawful-to-Chaotic in alignment terms isn't talking about whether you have written laws or gleefully obey written laws. It's talking about the COSMOLOGICAL implications of what you do (or the perceived LACK of implications for actions).

Not all laws are needed or used or obeyed by lawfully ALIGNED characters. Lawfully aligned characters really don't even need written laws because they're likely to do the things that written laws WOULD say whether those things are written down or not. Doing those things because they're written down as laws isn't what makes characters lawful - it's the fact that they'd do those things ANYWAY. The written laws are likely to be devised by lawfully aligned people but more for OTHER people whom those lawful people feel would need to be more clearly told what to do and NOT do. A lawfully-aligned person doesn't need the written laws so much as NON-lawfully aligned people do. So, a constitution is something that is LIKELY to be used by lawful people, but just having one is not in and of itself a lawful-alignment defined thing, nor even wanting one. A constitution can even go so far as to make it LEGAL to do things that a LAWFULLY-aligned character would hate.

You're getting your logical consequents mixed up, here.

"You have a right to bear arms" means that druids are permitted to transform their arms into bear arms. It does not require druids to do so, nor mean that druids feel it is socially acceptable in all situations.

"You have a right to refuse to allow others to take, use, or consume your property," means that you can keep starving people from having any of your lavish feast. It doesn't mean you are required to, nor does it make you feel any less guilty that you're exercising that right, should you choose to do so.

"You have a right to speak your mind" means you can't be jailed for telling a widdow what you really thought of her husband, at his funeral. It doesn't mean you think it's the right time, place, or person to say it to.

Choosing to refrain from exercising your rights, even rights codified and protected under law or constitution, doesn't make you chaotic. Lawful people are not compelled to do everything they're permitted to. They simply are not inclined to do things they're prohibited from, nor to refrain from things they're required to do.

Grek

2020-05-10, 02:54 PM

Neither inherently. You can have a constitution which enshrines Lawful values into the law, or one that enshrines Chaotic values into the law. Or even Good/Evil ones.

Lawful things to put in a constitution include a right to trial, a collective process for replacing unfit leaders, centralized government authority, the institution of conscription or corvee labour and a requirement to specify judicial punishments via law. Chaotic things to put in a constitution include a right to trial by combat, competing codes of law, transferable right of prosecution, punishment at the discretion of judges, localized government authority, population of government offices via sortition and strong exit rights.

Segev

2020-05-10, 05:29 PM

Neither inherently. You can have a constitution which enshrines Lawful values into the law, or one that enshrines Chaotic values into the law. Or even Good/Evil ones.

The key phrase is “enshrined into law.”

Chaos doesn’t need nor respect a piece of paper establishing rules.

Zarrgon

2020-05-10, 07:26 PM

When making a decision, Law asks: Do I have something already in place that tells me what to do?

Chaos asks: What do I think is best, right now?

To expand on this:

Lawful: Not only is look back to see if there is something they can use from history, but they are also worried about how the ruling might look, how other might see it and how it might effect the whole nation. In short there ruling will be meant so reinforce what is there, change what is there, or even make new rules and laws if needed because they are worried about the whole community and future history of the nation.

Chaotic: They only care about the here and now. And if it happens again they will deal with it again.

Well, just having a constitution is not lawful, just more likely to be something that lawful people would have. What does the constitution actually SAY, or REQUIRE?

This is my point Constitutions are vague and chaotic. They are short with only a couple words...and no legalese double talk.

Like 12 says "if there is a dispute assemble a group of judges to make a ruling". And that is it, that is all the constitution says.

For a Chaotic society that is enough. If a dispute comes up, anyone that cares can assemble a group of judges(or people or whatever) and make a ruling. And maybe people will follow it.

The Lawful society...well, if the constitution is even just a couple years old they have likely added tons and tons and tons and tons and more tons of laws ans rules and such on top of it. They have a whole massive judicial system, that follows whatever rules were made for it. And NONE of it is in the constitution.

Chaos doesn’t need nor respect a piece of paper establishing rules.

Keep in mind that chaos is not "random mess", it's "freedom". Specifically: Any Chaotic person is fine with any rule or law as long as and only IF they agree to it directly. They want the freedom of choice.

Grek

2020-05-10, 09:42 PM

The key phrase is “enshrined into law.”

Chaos doesn’t need nor respect a piece of paper establishing rules.

Chaotic doesn't mean 'no rules'. It means being in favour of personal liberty and not restricting people's choices.

If you actually look at my examples of Chaotic constitution elements, they're stuff like "If you don't want to go to court, you can demand your accuser(s) fight you instead." and "Here is a code of conduct. If you obey it and don't do crimes to anyone on our do-not-crime list, you will be added to our do-not-crime list. Otherwise, you're free game. If you don't like our list, make your own list of crimes-not-to-do and get people to agree to that instead." and "In case of a dispute, you can agree to have a randomly selected citizen judge who gets what punishment." or "If you don't like the law, you can just leave the country in lieu of punishment." Yes, those are rules. But they are rules which outline particular rights which you possess with regards to society, not restrictions that society places upon you. That's the Chaotic mindset when it comes to a constitution.

Oddstar

2020-05-10, 10:14 PM

When I DM--and I realize that this may be a departure from the letter of the rules, although I do think it's at least somewhat debatable--I hold that the law-chaos axis of alignment refers to ethics, that is, prevailing societal judgments of right and wrong, whereas the good-evil axis refers to morality, that is, universal and absolute principles of right and wrong. To give an illustration, a lawful evil knight would never put poison on the blade of his sword, because that would be against societal norms of proper behavior, especially for a knight--that is, it would be dishonorable--but he would have no compunction--and, because he's evil, might well enjoy it--about slaughtering civilians in a walled town that the army he was part of had just taken by storm, because, under the rules of chivalry, it is acceptable to do that when taking a fortified place by storm. A chaotic good ranger, by contrast, would happily put poison on the tips of his arrows when hunting the bandits who had been raiding the local villages, because he's just using another weapon to defend the innocent against injustice and would not care that others would see this as dishonorable. A lawful good knight, by contrast, would not use poison--because it would be dishonorable even if not wrong--and would not slaughter civilians, even in the context of storming a fortified place--because it would be wrong even if not dishonorable. A chaotic evil warlord, by contrast, would happily use poison and would slaughter civilians, even if it would be dishonorable to do so (that is not to say that a chaotic evil warlord would never behave honorably in order to seem honorable to others, but it would be completely tactical, whereas a lawful evil character would genuinely care about doing the honorable thing).

With this in mind, I would say that, in a society where it was considered appropriate or normal to have a written constitution, having one would be a lawful act. In a world where that was not the norm--which is most D&D campaigns, because most of them have (pseudo)medieval or otherwise premodern political institutions, it would be, not necessarily chaotic, unless there were a strong norm against written constitutions, but neutral. As for the contents of any given constitution, written or unwritten, that might be lawful, chaotic, or neutral, depending on whether or to what extent it conformed to or opposed societal norms. Different provisions of a constitution might be lawful while others might be chaotic, especially if various provisions were added at different times: a provision might have been lawful when it was adopted, in that it conformed to societal norms at the time, but chaotic at a later time, if societal norms had changed but the provision in question had not. In a country where norms are not shared throughout the whole country, a provision might be lawful to one sector of the country but chaotic to another. (When I am DMing, I generally apply the standards of lawfulness and chaos according to the society the character is from; I don't expect a paladin from Cormyr to behave lawfully according to the standards of Menzoberranzan just because he is in Menzoberranzan.)

Nifft

2020-05-10, 10:21 PM

When I DM--and I realize that this may be a departure from the letter of the rules, although I do think it's at least somewhat debatable--I hold that the law-chaos axis of alignment refers to ethics, that is, prevailing societal judgments of right and wrong, whereas the good-evil axis refers to morality, that is, universal and absolute principles of right and wrong. To give an illustration, a lawful evil knight would never put poison on the blade of his sword, because that would be against societal norms of proper behavior, especially for a knight--that is, it would be dishonorable--but he would have no compunction--and, because he's evil, might well enjoy it--about slaughtering civilians in a walled town that the army he was part of had just taken by storm, because, under the rules of chivalry, it is acceptable to do that when taking a fortified place by storm. A chaotic good ranger, by contrast, would happily put poison on the tips of his arrows when hunting the bandits who had been raiding the local villages, because he's just using another weapon to defend the innocent against injustice and would not care that others would see this as dishonorable. A lawful good knight, by contrast, would not use poison--because it would be dishonorable even if not wrong--and would not slaughter civilians, even in the context of storming a fortified place--because it would be wrong even if not dishonorable. A chaotic evil warlord, by contrast, would happily use poison and would slaughter civilians, even if it would be dishonorable to do so (that is not to say that a chaotic evil warlord would never behave honorably in order to seem honorable to others, but it would be completely tactical, whereas a lawful evil character would genuinely care about doing the honorable thing).
That's reasonable if and only if you have exactly one Lawful code of honor.

If you ever come up with a second code of honor, which conflicts with the first, then it might become impossible to be Lawful about respecting both.

For example, if Elves have a code of honor about respecting nature, and Paladins have a code of honor about chivalrous behavior, then you must consider the various cases where an Elf Paladin navigates the intersections of those two codes.

With this in mind, I would say that, in a society where it was considered appropriate or normal to have a written constitution, having one would be a lawful act. In a world where that was not the norm--which is most D&D campaigns, because most of them have (pseudo)medieval or otherwise premodern political institutions, it would be, not necessarily chaotic, unless there were a strong norm against written constitutions, but neutral. As for the contents of any given constitution, written or unwritten, that might be lawful, chaotic, or neutral, depending on whether or to what extent it conformed to or opposed societal norms. Different provisions of a constitution might be lawful while others might be chaotic, especially if various provisions were added at different times: a provision might have been lawful when it was adopted, in that it conformed to societal norms at the time, but chaotic at a later time, if societal norms had changed but the provision in question had not. In a country where norms are not shared throughout the whole country, a provision might be lawful to one sector of the country but chaotic to another. (When I am DMing, I generally apply the standards of lawfulness and chaos according to the society the character is from; I don't expect a paladin from Cormyr to behave lawfully according to the standards of Menzoberranzan just because he is in Menzoberranzan.)

I find it odd to think that obeying the social norms of a Chaotic Evil society could ever be considered Lawful.

I would not find that definition usable in a game.

Oddstar

2020-05-10, 11:42 PM

That's reasonable if and only if you have exactly one Lawful code of honor.

If you ever come up with a second code of honor, which conflicts with the first, then it might become impossible to be Lawful about respecting both.

For example, if Elves have a code of honor about respecting nature, and Paladins have a code of honor about chivalrous behavior, then you must consider the various cases where an Elf Paladin navigates the intersections of those two codes.

As I said, in my view, a character is lawful or chaotic relative to his own society. Behavior that is lawful to one society might well be chaotic to another. That, incidentally, is one of the reasons why I thought that the rule from earlier editions that only humans could be paladins made perfect sense: paladins followed a particular code of behavior from human society that would not resonate in the same way in an alien culture.

I find it odd to think that obeying the social norms of a Chaotic Evil society could ever be considered Lawful.

I would not find that definition usable in a game.

No society is chaotic to itself. As I said, it's always defined relative to society. To the Cormyrians, the Menzoberranzanites are a chaotic society, but the Menzoberranzanites would see their own society as lawful. And I can assure you, it is not only entirely usable in the game, I adopted it because I found it much more usable. I found the more conventional definitions useless as a guide to actual behavior in-game.

hamishspence

2020-05-11, 12:32 AM

Segev

2020-05-11, 02:09 AM

I did not say, “Chaos means no rules.” I said, “Chaos does not respect laws written on pieces of paper.” Or something to that effect.

Chaos won’t care what the constitution says of Chaos thinks it is not helpful to his cause right now. It’s just a piece of paper. It cannot constrain his freedom to do what he thinks is right/best/most desirable.

The only reason Chais would write such a thing down is to either make Law feel compelled to respect something, or as a way of hashing out an agreement such that everyone is sure they understand. But in either case, Chais will not feel constrained to hold to it, himself, without reasons better than “because that piece of paper says so.”

If you get two Chaotic people to actually write a constitution to govern their interactions, they will use it to assure themselves they know what each other meant, but even an amiable relationship that sees either party decide the agreement isn’t working out will see a very informal negotiation on what changes will be made, and whether they bother to formally amend or rewrite the constitution they’re now ignoring is far down their lists of priorities.

Which means the constitution really isn’t one. It governs nothing.

A constitution is inherently an instrument of Law because Law is the only thing that lets it be a constitution, rather than the vain scribblings of an ancient political-opinion blogger.

Esprit15

2020-05-11, 02:55 AM

NontheistCleric

2020-05-11, 05:14 AM

A 'Chaotic constitution' would be more descriptive of how the society has generally agreed to operate, only really existing to be a reminder of what the society stands for. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen would be a decent example of this - not so much dictating how a government is to be run but an assertion of the values of the citizens. Additionally, governments can still exist within a Chaotic aligned society - they're just generally less powerful and hierarchical than those that we are traditionally used to.

While a constitution is more Lawful than Chaotic by its very nature, it isn't mutually exclusive, either. Just like Lawful individuals can sometimes recognize when the rule of law fails, Chaotic ones can sometimes see the need to write laws down.

In the eyes of Chaos, though, even the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen don't really matter if there is something that genuinely seems better to do in the moment, even if it goes against the established ideals. Not to mention that a 'Chaotic constitution' as you describe it isn't really a constitution.

Chaotic people don't necessarily need to think the law is worthless, but law itself is always a Lawful thing, and a truly Chaotic individual is not going to take it into account when making decisions beyond the practical consequences of following or not following it.

AntiAuthority

2020-05-11, 05:24 AM

Freedom is important, but if the law is protecting the personal freedoms of everyone that lives by it, I'd consider it Lawful.

If it were chaotic, it'd probably just go by whatever the most people felt like or whoever was strongest... Which isn't really any set of rigid laws, just what people felt like.

Anyway, Law is my answer considering how it has clearly defined, possibly rigid, rules.

Segev

2020-05-11, 10:10 AM

In the eyes of Chaos, though, even the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen don't really matter if there is something that genuinely seems better to do in the moment, even if it goes against the established ideals. Not to mention that a 'Chaotic constitution' as you describe it isn't really a constitution.

Chaotic people don't necessarily need to think the law is worthless, but law itself is always a Lawful thing, and a truly Chaotic individual is not going to take it into account when making decisions beyond the practical consequences of following or not following it.

I think the point is that the Declaration of the Rights of Man - or really any declaration of principles - is not the same thing as a Constitution. Chaotic folks can easily have "declarations" that spell out principles, and even agree they're useful tools for communicating or setting the ground around which their discussions will center. This isn't binding themselves into any sort of law, just providing clarity of purpose.

A declaration, when used as a founding document, is just aspirational, and Chaotic types who aspire to its goals will generally look to what it says is good and strive to achieve it. But the moment that any fiddly wording, unintentional consequences, or specific clauses clash with what they feel is the best idea at the time, they will generally feel free to ignore it.

A constitution treated that way isn't a constitution. It isn't even a declaration, because constitutions aren't written purely aspirationally; they spell out specific dos and do-nots. Chaotic types will disregard a constitution anyway if they don't have a good reason not to, if the constitution is in their way. Neutral types will grudgingly do so if they subscribed to it in the first place, deciding "exceptions" are better than allowing "bad things" to come about that oppose what they feel is the spirit of the constitution, but it's a last resort, done in extremis. Lawful types will struggle desperately to find a way to work within the bounds of a constitution, especially to achieve its aspirational goals even when its rules seem in conflict (especially in specific corner cases), but if they can't, they'll grudgingly do what the rules say, all the while trying to mitigate things as much as possible. This is how you get Admiral Kirk demoted to Captain and put in charge of a shiny new Enterprise as a "punishment." IF there are ways to change the constitution within its rules, Lawful folks will likely strive to make that change when they find some intractable problem of its current structure.

But for it to be a constitution, it has to have weight. Lawful and Neutral types will give it that weight (assuming they subscribe to it in the first place; a Paladin isn't going to subscribe to the Tyrannical State of Tiamat's constitution that spells out her religious hierarchy and theocratic dominion rigorously), even if Neutral types might be willing to make exceptions. Chaotic types generally only give it the weight that the force of arms or social pressure from their Lawful and Neutral fellow-citizens (and or the government itself) enforces on them. Or where it's useful. Few Chaotic types are going to refuse to hold a constitution over a Lawman's head when it keeps the Lawman from infringing on what the Chaotic guy wants.

But a constitution, literally by definition, is lawful. It is the Law of the land, if it is a constitution at all.

I mean, if I wrote a "new United States Constitution" that I declared was how the US should be run from here on out, people would ignore it completely because I have zero authority nor power to enforce it. It wouldn't be a real constitution. Just a piece of paper with writing on it.

NontheistCleric

2020-05-11, 10:50 AM

A long post

Um, yes? If you read what I wrote, I actually agreed with everything you just said when I said it wasn't really a constitution, and I only mentioned the Declaration because the person I was replying to was talking about it. So I'm not sure why you quoted me.

Unless you just thought I was correct and wanted to elaborate on that point, in which case, thank you.

Unavenger

2020-05-11, 11:28 AM

It's chaotic, because inevitables are constructs, and thus lack a constitution.

For serious: In this instance, it's chaotic. The idea that's being espoused that chaotic is always might-makes-right and you must always oppose the laws, despite numerous sources to the contrary, makes me think that people have sorta forgotten that Chaotic Good and Chaotic Neutral (not to mention Lawful Evil) are actually real alignments. Lawful in D&D and actually just following laws are not, remotely, the same thing.

(Also, fully a third of people are chaotic, as has been the case since they changed the most-people-are-lawful ruling of the earlier editions. Far less than a third of people are utter anarchists.)

Segev

2020-05-11, 01:16 PM

Um, yes? If you read what I wrote, I actually agreed with everything you just said when I said it wasn't really a constitution, and I only mentioned the Declaration because the person I was replying to was talking about it. So I'm not sure why you quoted me.

Unless you just thought I was correct and wanted to elaborate on that point, in which case, thank you.Mostly just elaborating, yes. I thought the distinction between "declaration" and "constitution" was useful to helping stipulate the definition of "Constitution" vs. "this list of rules Segev wrote up and now for some strange reason expects others to follow."

It's chaotic, because inevitables are constructs, and thus lack a constitution.:smallbiggrin: I laughed. Thanks for that.

For serious: In this instance, it's chaotic. The idea that's being espoused that chaotic is always might-makes-right and you must always oppose the laws, despite numerous sources to the contrary, makes me think that people have sorta forgotten that Chaotic Good and Chaotic Neutral (not to mention Lawful Evil) are actually real alignments. Lawful in D&D and actually just following laws are not, remotely, the same thing.

(Also, fully a third of people are chaotic, as has been the case since they changed the most-people-are-lawful ruling of the earlier editions. Far less than a third of people are utter anarchists.)

It still isn't a Constitution if they're not deferring to it for their legal system/government. And, for clarity, "We haven't gone against it because we happen to have never felt like it was in the way," is not "deferring." I could write a law that says, "All living citizens must eat at least one meal per year," and have an entire village who never violates it. That doesn't mean the villagers are deferring to my law. It means they just never saw a reason (or means) to oppose it. No Elan or others who even have the means to avoid doing so are around, and it isn't making anybody do even something slightly different than they would if I didn't write it.

So if these Chaotic people wrote a Constitution that dictated their government's behavior to promote liberty et al, that's great. It's not being deferred to if they would have done all of that, anyway.

Writing up a set of rules to follow is Lawful. It may be only mildly so, and well within the bounds of what a Chaotic person feels is reasonable, but it's still Lawful. There is nothing Chaotic about it. It doesn't matter how much it protects Chaotic folks' rights, privileges, and liberties to be Chaotic; it's still a Lawful act to adhere to a Constitution.

Oddstar

2020-05-11, 02:02 PM

In the novels, drow from Menzoberranzan have used "Chaos" in their descriptions of their own society.

"There aren't many ways to have fun in Menzoberranzan. Playing tricks is one of them—the more malicious, the better."
"Things tend toward chaos, do they?"
"Of course! How else would the structure be maintained?"
The elf's brow furrowed. "You maintain structure through chaos?"
"There's another way?"

Fair enough, but I always understood that to mean chaos in the sense of a rapidly changing political situation, not in the sense of a chaotic alignment. A society in the midst of a civil war, for example, would certainly be in chaos in the conventional sense of that term, but it would not follow that the society is of a chaotic alignment in D&D terms.

hamishspence

2020-05-11, 02:10 PM

Drow themselves are "Usually NE" but Lolth, the ruler of the Drow Pantheon, is CE - the "Demon Queen of Spiders". And it's her clerics that rule Menzoberranzan.

PairO'Dice Lost

2020-05-11, 03:13 PM

Writing up a set of rules to follow is Lawful. It may be only mildly so, and well within the bounds of what a Chaotic person feels is reasonable, but it's still Lawful. There is nothing Chaotic about it. It doesn't matter how much it protects Chaotic folks' rights, privileges, and liberties to be Chaotic; it's still a Lawful act to adhere to a Constitution.

This is just the old "chaotic people are allergic to following laws" canard in different words. You could just as easily say "Following a leader because of their personal authority is Chaotic. It may be only mildly so, and well within the bounds of what a Lawful person feels is reasonable, but it's still Chaotic. There is nothing Lawful about it. It doesn't matter how much Lawful folks might view the leader as a stabilizing influence and an enforcer of social mores allowing people to be Lawful; it's still a Chaotic act to owe allegiance to an autocrat over a nation." Both "following laws" and "following a particular leader" can be lawful or chaotic (or neutral) depending on the context and reasoning of the laws/leader and the people doing the following.

Law maps to deontology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics), or rule-based ethics, the ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on the action itself as judged by agreement with a specific set of principles. A person or society adhering to a Constitution can be a lawful action if it is adhered to because the person or society views it as intrinsically ethical to abide by a specific legal code. A Constitution can either protect others' freedoms or restrict others' freedoms and still be lawful if "freedom must be preserved against the tyranny of the majority" or "everyone must give up freedom for the good of society" are used as guiding principles.

Neutrality maps to aretology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethics), or virtue-based ethics, the ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on the intentions behind the action as judged by an understanding of the actor's character. A person or society adhering to a Constitution can be a neutral action if it is adhered to because the person or society views it as proof of willingness to cooperate with the larger society. A Constitution can either protect others' freedoms or restrict others' freedoms and still be neutral if it is truly the belief of the Constitution's writers that the promotion or restriction of freedom is for the best.

Chaos maps to consequentialism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism), or outcome-based ethics, the ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on the action's consequences as judged by an analysis of likely outcomes. A person or society adhering to a Constitution can be a chaotic action if it is adhered to because the person or society views it as the best way to achieve a desired outcome (by, for instance, being a compromise between multiple competing factions with different goals). A Constitution can either protect others' freedoms or restrict others' freedoms and still be chaotic if the end goals of promoting or restricting freedom are enshrined in the Constitution regardless of any other laws or legal principles.

Fair enough, but I always understood that to mean chaos in the sense of a rapidly changing political situation, not in the sense of a chaotic alignment. A society in the midst of a civil war, for example, would certainly be in chaos in the conventional sense of that term, but it would not follow that the society is of a chaotic alignment in D&D terms.

Drow themselves are "Usually NE" but Lolth, the ruler of the Drow Pantheon, is CE - the "Demon Queen of Spiders". And it's her clerics that rule Menzoberranzan.

Drow society actually is Chaotic in the alignment sense, because the whole point is that while it superficially has complex laws for inter-House warfare, strict social hierarchies for priestesses of Lolth, immutable social roles, and the like, all of those go out the window--Houses are wiped out, priestesses are assassinated, male archmages give orders to female Heads of House, and so on--the moment someone either thinks they can get away with something that will improve their standing without getting caught or is ordered by Lolth to do a particular thing. No one actually respects the law itself (lawful behavior) or trusts that anyone else respects the law (neutral behavior), but solely focuses on how they can do whatever they want despite the law (chaotic behavior).

Segev

2020-05-11, 03:30 PM

Characterizing what I said as "chaotic people are allergic to following laws" is entirely incorrect.

Chaotic people can and will follow laws if they have reason to do so. That reason might be as simple as agreeing that the law spells out the best way to do something. It might be due to social pressure, or even fear of consequences ranging from losing a job, getting their boy- or girlfriend mad at them, or threat of government power being exerted against them.

What I said was that, absent a reason to follow a law, they won't. Not that they'll actively work to oppose it; they just won't care. They'll care about following a law exactly as much as you'd care about obeying me if I told you to take off your shoes and use the laces to type all of your forum posts, because it's a new rule that I just added to the forum rules. Not only do I lack any authority to impose forum rules, but even if the moderators of this forum were to make such a rule, it would be entirely unenforcible because they couldn't tell who had obeyed it (except MAYBE by studying how long it takes to make a post). The forums would rapidly be empty or the rule would be ignored.

To be Chaotic is to have limited respect for naked authority. Chaotic people respect consequences, good and bad. Direct and ancillary. They're not (categorically) stupid. They can and do make value judgments on what they'll do.

But a constitution is as meaningless to them as the rules the thug who just walked into their tavern posted on the door with a dagger: they respect them exactly as much as the one backing them can enforce them. They might agree with them, in which case they'll find following them less onerous and less worth hassle (or even follow them just by virtue of thinking they are a good idea), but they're not going to follow them because "they're the law."

"Why don't you underreport your sales so you pay less sales tax?" asks a young child of his Chaotic and Lawful parents. His Lawful parent says, "That would be wrong. The law is to pay our taxes honestly." His Chaotic parent says, "The government tax collectors are very good at ferreting out underreports. The risk I'd get caught and have to pay a higher fine isn't worth what I could potentially save."

Psyren

2020-05-11, 04:26 PM

In broad terms, law vs chaos is order vs freedom. Let's assume it's a constitution drafted with the intention of preserving the freedom of the individual.

So, we have it right there. It is chaotic. It opposes the governmental power to clamp down on freedom.

But it's also almost a standing stone that is engraved with rules (for the governing body on which it is ascribed), which must not be broken. That's quite orderly

There are more arguments, but I don't want to have all the fun.

It would depend on the specific wording.

All a constitution is, is a supreme law that all the lesser/more detailed laws have to abide by. That law can serve the cause of freedom ("here are inalienable rights that no other law can infringe") or it can serve the cause of order ("changing certain laws requires a byzantine process that is likely to be beyond any one organization or regime.") So it can be either/both.

To give clearer examples - A constitution that says "The only rule is, there are no rules!" or even "All other laws must be rewritten every fortnight" would be chaotic.

Segev

2020-05-11, 04:33 PM

It would depend on the specific wording.

All a constitution is, is a supreme law that all the lesser/more detailed laws have to abide by. That law can serve the cause of freedom ("here are inalienable rights that no other law can infringe") or it can serve the cause of order ("changing certain laws requires a byzantine process that is likely to be beyond any one organization or regime.") So it can be either/both.

To give clearer examples - A constitution that says "The only rule is, there are no rules!" or even "All other laws must be rewritten every fortnight" would be chaotic.

Nope. If either of those exists and is followed, even when people living with them would rather ignore them, then they are not chaotic.

They might promote chaos. Chaos and Law can lead to each other if done in particular fashions. Pure anarchy inevitably leads to despotism, which can be tyrannical and orderly. As you note, setting up laws that create chaotic results is also possible.

But the following of those laws, even when they lead to things you don't want to have happen is Lawful. Whether it's stupid or not depends entirely on whether the following of the laws is leading to something the laws are not meant to promote.

"The only rule is, 'There are no rules!'" is only a chaotic declaration if said flippantly and as an acknowledgement that people won't follow them if you make them. It's lawful if you actually intend to enforce it or defer to it even when you'd rather set up some rules besides that one.

Nifft

2020-05-11, 04:42 PM

Nope. If either of those exists and is followed, even when people living with them would rather ignore them, then they are not chaotic.

They might promote chaos. Chaos and Law can lead to each other if done in particular fashions. Pure anarchy inevitably leads to despotism, which can be tyrannical and orderly. As you note, setting up laws that create chaotic results is also possible.

But the following of those laws, even when they lead to things you don't want to have happen is Lawful.

This is absolutely wrong in any game I've played, and any game I've run.

Lawful and Chaotic shouldn't just be semantic word-games.

At the point where they become this convoluted -- where obeying a Chaotic rule isn't allowed to be Chaotic -- you've destroyed any descriptive or mechanical value that the words might previously have had.

Segev

2020-05-11, 04:59 PM

This is absolutely wrong in any game I've played, and any game I've run.

Lawful and Chaotic shouldn't just be semantic word-games.

At the point where they become this convoluted -- where obeying a Chaotic rule isn't allowed to be Chaotic -- you've destroyed any descriptive or mechanical value that the words might previously have had.

They're not.

Lawful means you respect and defer to the laws because they're laws.

Chaotic means you do neither unless you have consequential reasons to do so.

I honestly don't know how you get "semantic games" out of what I am writing. Can you please explain where you see that?

At no point did I say, "Obeying a chaotic rule isn't chaotic." Because it's impossible for there to be a "chaotic rule." You can have rules which promote chaos, but that's not the same thing. And a chaotic person can obey any rule he likes; he just isn't doing it because "it's a rule." He's doing it because obeying it is the best way to get what he wants.

Tiktakkat

2020-05-11, 05:56 PM

Psyren

2020-05-11, 05:59 PM

This is absolutely wrong in any game I've played, and any game I've run.

Lawful and Chaotic shouldn't just be semantic word-games.

At the point where they become this convoluted -- where obeying a Chaotic rule isn't allowed to be Chaotic -- you've destroyed any descriptive or mechanical value that the words might previously have had.

This.

They're not.

Lawful means you respect and defer to the laws because they're laws.

Chaotic means you do neither unless you have consequential reasons to do so.

I honestly don't know how you get "semantic games" out of what I am writing. Can you please explain where you see that?

A rule that says "I can do whatever I feel like, when I feel like" is chaotic. Why can't you see that?

ExLibrisMortis

2020-05-11, 06:10 PM

Law is about deriving ultimate moral authority from something greater than yourself: tradition, the community, the government, extraplanar killer robots, it doesn't matter. It is also about applying the moral rules derived from that authority to the greater community.

Chaos means that you are the ultimate moral authority--other have less of a say (if at all) and you apply your moral rules in a small area. But they are still rules and principles. Randomness and inconsistency are not "Chaos". They are "chaos".

Inevitables, being perfectly lawful, derive their morals (so they say) from the Great Wheel itself, and they apply their morals to everyone in the Great Wheel. By contrast, slaadi, well, don't. Each slaad determines their own moral standards and behaves accordingly. However, a slaad still has moral standards. They're not random, and they're not automatons--those are Neutral or without alignment.

Where Chaos becomes Neutral is, in my view, where people start including people they haven't met under their principles.
Where Lawful becomes Neutral is where you are not including including everyone by default.

So if this constitution is signed by everyone covered by it and "opt-in" for new arrivals (so to speak), then it's Chaotic.

Nifft

2020-05-11, 06:27 PM

They're not.

Lawful means you respect and defer to the laws because they're laws. That can't be true, because in this case the law you're obeying is promoting Chaotic attributes.

Chaotic means you do neither unless you have consequential reasons to do so. Wait, this looks like you're claiming that it's only obedience to unenforced laws = Lawful, and that's wrong for different reasons.

I honestly don't know how you get "semantic games" out of what I am writing. Can you please explain where you see that? The part where obedience to any possible law implies Lawful-ness.

Lower-case laws can be Lawful or Chaotic, which is confusing but unavoidable.

At no point did I say, "Obeying a chaotic rule isn't chaotic." Because it's impossible for there to be a "chaotic rule." You can have rules which promote chaos, but that's not the same thing. In what way is a rule that enforces or promotes Chaos at the expense of Law not a Chaotic law? (note the lower-case "law" here, this isn't a contradiction)

Law is about deriving ultimate moral authority from something greater than yourself: tradition, the community, the government, extraplanar killer robots, it doesn't matter. It is also about applying the moral rules derived from that authority to the greater community.

Chaos means that you are the ultimate moral authority--other have less of a say (if at all) and you apply your moral rules in a small area. But they are still rules and principles. Randomness and inconsistency are not "Chaos". They are "chaos".

This is similar to what I do in my games.

In my games, the basic summary would be that Lawful = collectivist, and Chaotic = individualist.

Thus it's quite easy to have a Chaotic law -- you just need to favor or enforce individualism, which the example Constitution in this thread does.

LG Paladins sacrifice their own needs for the greater good. They may obey, subvert, or disregard local laws insofar as they act for the greater good, and the specifics of that "greater good" will depend on their oaths (which are probably codified by a Knightly Order, and usually steeped in tradition, but neither the tradition nor the organization are strictly necessary).

NG would be "all for one, and one for all" -- a balance between the group and the individual, aspiring to sacrifice neither.

CG would focus on individuals rather than any greater good. In some ways it's a refreshing humility -- "the big picture is out of my hands, I'm just going to do what good I'm certain an individual can do" -- but it's got a suite of flaws comparable to what LG's "greater good" can suffer.

hamishspence

2020-05-11, 11:48 PM

At least according to FC2, "obeying a rule you consider stupid" is an Obeisant act (Obeisant is to Lawful, as Corrupt is to evil)
Same with "obeying a leader you do not respect".

So, if a Chaotic person doesn't think a particular rule, or law, or whatever, is "stupid" - then they're off the hook, and obeying it doesn't qualify as "something that may eventually change their alignment or afterlife destination, to a Lawful one".

NontheistCleric

2020-05-12, 07:20 AM

In what way is a rule that enforces or promotes Chaos at the expense of Law not a Chaotic law? (note the lower-case "law" here, this isn't a contradiction)

Even if one is 'promoting Chaos', doing so with a law implies that there is a best, codifiable way of doing so, which is a very Lawful idea. Obeying a law that tells you how to be free doesn't make you free, you're just being controlled into motions that might look somewhat like freedom.

The Chaotic way of promoting Chaos would be for the Chaotic individual to ask themselves, every time they wanted to promote Chaos: 'What do I think is the best way of promoting Chaos today?' and then do just that.

At least according to FC2, "obeying a rule you consider stupid" is an Obeisant act (Obeisant is to Lawful, as Corrupt is to evil)
Same with "obeying a leader you do not respect".

So, if a Chaotic person doesn't think a particular rule, or law, or whatever, is "stupid" - then they're off the hook, and obeying it doesn't qualify as "something that may eventually change their alignment or afterlife destination, to a Lawful one".

Exactly—because if a Chaotic person thinks something that's written in a law is a good idea, they're likely to do it, but for the reason that they think it's a good idea rather than because there's a law telling them to do it.

ThanatosZero

2020-05-12, 07:28 AM

In order to truly understand how constitutes work, we need to understand the barebones of what right is and how it is obtained.

Imagine the following scenario, my jura teacher gave to me years ago.

You are a man wandering through the savanna to the next destination.
On your way, you encounter a man walking towards the way you came from, which holds a big piece wood in his hand.

What would you do in this encounter?
There are several options, what you can do.

Segev

2020-05-12, 05:30 PM

This.

A rule that says "I can do whatever I feel like, when I feel like" is chaotic. Why can't you see that?

Because it's a rule, and you're relying on it BEING A RULE to ENFORCE others allowing you to do so.

If you're Chaotic, you don't need that rule. If you're Chaotic, you only care that that rule exists if there are Lawful types around who will actually see it, and curb their urge to stop you from doing whatever you want because the rule says you can. Because if you're Chaotic, the mere absence of that rule would not change your behavior in the slightest. Absent Lawful types who will obey or even enforce the rule on your behalf, as a Chaotic person, you don't care if the rule exists or not. You'll do whatever you want, curbed only by your appreciation for consequences falling out from your actions.

The rule is meaningless without lawful people to be influenced by it. Therefore, the RULE is a Lawful thing. It is meaningless to the Chaotic, except in how its influence on those who respect rules - i.e. Lawful and Neutral people - will alter the consequences of the Chaotic person's actions.

And, before we chase our tails around in circles, please note that at no point have I said that Chaotic people are "allergic to rules," nor that they'll do the opposite, or any such nonsense. Chaotic people are indifferent to rules, unless the rules impact the consequences of their actions.

"Don't walk on the grass," says the sign, and the chaotic person might not do so because it would be out of his way, but if it's the easiest path, he might well ignore the sign.

"Don't walk on the grass. Violators will be thrown in prison," says the sign, with a burly gendarme casually sitting across the street, watching, and the Chaotic person will reconsider obeying the rule. Not because he respects the rule, but because he respects that the gendarme there DOES respect the rule and will likely throw him in prison (or at least try, which is inconvenient) if he violates it.

The Chaotic person cares about the CONSEQUENCES of his actions, and cares about the rule iff it influences those consequences. Which it generally only does if there's somebody Lawful enough to act to enforce or be restrained from acting against the rule.

Psyren

2020-05-12, 05:47 PM

The rule is meaningless without lawful people to be influenced by it.

That's the whole point of being chaotic. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0606.html) People will form societies (and the natural world itself has certain rules) no matter how chaotic you are, so the ways in which the chaotic person defies those rules (and the results of them doing so) are what determines their morality.

NontheistCleric

2020-05-12, 05:55 PM

That's the whole point of being chaotic. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0606.html) People will form societies (and the natural world itself has certain rules) no matter how chaotic you are, so the ways in which the chaotic person defies those rules (and the results of them doing so) are what determines their morality.

You just said it yourself, though. Chaos defies rules (or at least, doesn't consider them to be inherently important). So how can a rule, or a law, be chaotic?

Not to mention that 'natural rules' are not rules in the sense we are talking about, and your example of a Chaotic law, 'I can do whatever I want' isn't really a law of any kind at all, because it's actually just a description of a state in which there are no laws.

Psyren

2020-05-12, 06:01 PM

You just said it yourself, though. Chaos defies rules (or at least, doesn't consider them to be inherently important). So how can a rule, or a law, be chaotic?

How can chaos fit into an alignment grid? How can chaotic planes fit into a defined cosmology?

NontheistCleric

2020-05-12, 06:03 PM

How can chaos fit into an alignment grid? How can chaotic planes fit into a defined cosmology?

Those are, as you say, 'natural laws' of whatever cosmology they exist in, like D&D's cosmology. But natural laws are not the same kind of laws that have a relation to the ideals of Law and Chaos.

Nifft

2020-05-12, 06:08 PM

Because it's a rule, and you're relying on it BEING A RULE to ENFORCE others allowing you to do so.

If you're Chaotic, you don't need that rule. If you're Chaotic, you only care that that rule exists if there are Lawful types around who will actually see it, and curb their urge to stop you from doing whatever you want because the rule says you can. Because if you're Chaotic, the mere absence of that rule would not change your behavior in the slightest. Absent Lawful types who will obey or even enforce the rule on your behalf, as a Chaotic person, you don't care if the rule exists or not. You'll do whatever you want, curbed only by your appreciation for consequences falling out from your actions.
Of course you do.

You see, other people exist.

In order for ~me~ to have meaningful freedom, there must be a civilization which enables, supports, and does not actively reduce that freedom.

The Constitution at the top of this thread is a rule which preserves individualist freedom. It's enforced in service of Chaotic ideals. The fact that it's a rule does not make it Lawful; obeying the rule does not make the citizen non-Chaotic.

Laws which protect freedom do not reduce freedom merely by existing as laws.

The Chaotic person cares about the CONSEQUENCES of his actions, and cares about the rule iff it influences those consequences. Which it generally only does if there's somebody Lawful enough to act to enforce or be restrained from acting against the rule.
That makes it sound like your version of Lawful people are kinda dumb.

Your version of Chaotic sounds a lot like enlightened selfish pragmatism, which IMHO describes True Neutral (not Chaotic).

I think you've got flaws in your Law-Chaos axis.

Segev

2020-05-12, 06:11 PM

I'm either not following you at all right now, Psyren, or you're agreeing with me while insisting that I'm wrong. I'm not sure which.

Chaotic people disregard rules for rules' sake. They don't follow or defy them except coincidentally.

Charlie Kaotiq doesn't care about rules enough to consider whether he's following them or not, unless and until Larry Lauphel decides that those rules will influence how Larry behaves, and the way Charlie behaves wrt the rules will change how Larry behaves wrt Charlie. Then, Charlie cares about the rules because they help him predict and act in ways to influence Larry's behavior, particularly towards Charlie.

A rule, therefore, is inherently a Lawful thing, because without Larry choosing to follow and/or enforce it, the rule is powerless over Charlie.

As has been said, a discussion of "natural laws" falls more into "consequences," which nobody who can't warp reality is above. But, given the topic of this thread is constitutions, natural laws don't really enter into it in any direct sense, because a constitution is not "natural laws" but rather a document describing laws of men. Or elves, or whatever.

Psyren

2020-05-12, 06:14 PM

I'm either not following you at all right now, Psyren, or you're agreeing with me while insisting that I'm wrong. I'm not sure which.

I direct you to Nifft's post. "Other people exist" sums up the comic I linked too.

NontheistCleric

2020-05-12, 06:15 PM

Of course you do.

You see, other people exist.

In order for ~me~ to have meaningful freedom, there must be a civilization which enables, supports, and does not actively reduce that freedom.

The Constitution at the top of this thread is a rule which preserves individualist freedom. It's enforced in service of Chaotic ideals. The fact that it's a rule does not make it Lawful; obeying the rule does not make the citizen non-Chaotic.

Laws which protect freedom do not reduce freedom merely by existing as laws.

But laws that claim to protect freedom must inherently reduce some freedoms. Otherwise they would also allow people freedom to do things like take slaves, or oppress populaces with large armed forces, etc.

At the end of the day, a law is inherently a Lawful thing, because it's telling people that what it says will always take precedence over what they think is best.

Segev

2020-05-12, 06:19 PM

I direct you to Nifft's post. "Other people exist" sums up the comic I linked too.

Right. And that's when and why Chaotic people care about Laws, because there exist people who are Lawful.

I don't see how that makes a rule chaotic. The only reason Charlie Kaotiq cares the rule, "I can do anything I want," is there is because Larry Lauphel cares enough about the rule to not stop Charlie from doing what ever Charlie wants to do. The rule itself is a thing of Law; it constrains the Lawful.

Nifft

2020-05-12, 06:35 PM

At the end of the day, a law is inherently a Lawful thing, because it's telling people that what it says will always take precedence over what they think is best.

If Chaotic laws can be written, then your statement cannot be true.

The Constitution at the top of this thread is a Chaotic law -- it protects ideals which are Chaotic.

Your assertion is at odds with observed reality. Either you must change reality, or recognize that your assertion is incorrect.

Segev

2020-05-12, 06:57 PM

If Chaotic laws can be written, then your statement cannot be true.

The Constitution at the top of this thread is a Chaotic law -- it protects ideals which are Chaotic.

Your assertion is at odds with observed reality. Either you must change reality, or recognize that your assertion is incorrect.

The fundamental disagreement is over what you assert as a premise.

I dispute that "The Constitution at the top of this thread is a Chaotic law." It is not.

It is a Lawful way to protect Chaotic ideals.

Asserting your conclusion doesn't prove anything. We both need to either find a set of premises we can agree on, or we're never going to agree.

I'm attempting to use the premise that the definition of chaotic alignment means that Charlie Kaotiq doesn't care about laws (except insofar as people who DO care about them will change their behavior because of them), and therefore that a nation of Chaotic individuals will not care about that Constitution as long as there are no Lawful people who will attempt to infringe on the freedoms it protects. Whether they will, themselves, infringe on those freedoms or not is entirely independent of the fact that there's a law protecting those freedoms, because the Chaotic people do not care about the law.

If Charlie Kaotiq finds that Chris Qoace is infringing on his right to do whatever he wants, Charlie hopefully knows better than to rely on the law that says Charlie can do whatever he wants to stop Chris from impeding Charlie doing things Charlie wants to do. Because if Charlie says, "Hey, the law says I can do whatever I want, so you can't stop me like this!" Chris is going to look at him like he's crazy and ask, "Why should I care what some stupid piece of paper says?" And Charlie, being Chaotic, will agree, albiet frustratedly recognizing that what he's used to keep Larry from impeding him all this time doesn't work on somebody who isn't silly enough to care about a stupid law.

See how I'm using something other than my conclusion ("Laws are inherently Lawful") to build my case? I'm starting with the definitions of how Lawful and Chaotic people act, and demonstrating that a Law or Rule enshrined in a Constitution has no power without Lawful (or at least non-Chaotic) people to obey or enforce it. Therefore, the rule, the law, is a Lawful thing. It may promote Chaos, but it nevertheless is Lawful, because the very notion that a rule can constrain (or dictate) your behavior simply because it exists as a rule is something only those who respect Lawful ideals buy into.

Put another way: If there were no lawful people, the proposed Constitution wouldn't say, "Charlie can do whatever he wants." Nor even something broader like, "There are no rules." Because nobody would be silly enough to write a Constitution that says something so obviously false.

The documents and signs and such would say things like, "If you try to stop Charlie from doing whatever he wants, he'll probably beat you up." Or, "If you try to force your will on others with rules, you'd better have some consequences you can enforce on them for breaking them."

Without Law, laws have no power, because nobody will care about technically following their letter before doing what they want; they'll only care about what htey can get away with, or what others will react to them doing, or what their actions might do to others. Chaotic Good people will constrain themselves, but not because any rules say to. They'll constrain themselves because they don't want to cause others harm, and perceive that the actions from which they refrain will or at least could lead to harm. Chaotic people, again, care about consequences. They don't care about laws except insofar as the laws bear related consequences that actually will come to bear.

D+1

2020-05-12, 07:18 PM

Therefore, the rule, the law, is a Lawful thing. It may promote Chaos, but it nevertheless is Lawful, because the very notion that a rule can constrain (or dictate) your behavior simply because it exists as a rule is something only those who respect Lawful ideals buy into.Lawfully aligned people don't need written laws to be Lawfully aligned. They'll do the Lawfully aligned thing without the written law anyway. Written laws aren't really for them. They're far more for non-lawfully aligned people who would be less likely to do what the lawmakers would prefer.

You don't need a lawfully aligned person writing laws or enforcing them. Any alignment can write laws and enforce them for their own purposes - which do not have to be lawfully aligned activities or ideals. What those laws are attempting to DO is what makes their creators and enforcers lawful. A completely neutral society with neutral leaders still typically has the usual dose of written laws - often the same laws as a lawful society with lawful leaders has. HAVING those laws; putting those laws in writing doesn't make neutral leaders or a neutral society suddenly become LAWFUL because creating laws is not in and of itself a LAWFUL act. It isn't written laws in and of themselves that makes anyone lawful. But to be sure a lawful society and leaders are going to feel differently ABOUT their laws than a strictly neutral or evil or chaotic society will - but all the latter (even chaotic) can and will still make and enforce laws.

Nifft

2020-05-12, 07:24 PM

It is a Lawful way to protect Chaotic ideals. In what way is it Lawful?

(Other than by mixing up the meanings of law and Law, which would be wrong.)

I'm attempting to use the premise that the definition of chaotic alignment means that Charlie Kaotiq doesn't care about laws (except insofar as people who DO care about them will change their behavior because of them), and therefore that a nation of Chaotic individuals will not care about that Constitution as long as there are no Lawful people who will attempt to infringe on the freedoms it protects. Whether they will, themselves, infringe on those freedoms or not is entirely independent of the fact that there's a law protecting those freedoms, because the Chaotic people do not care about the law. That's probably untrue, since the law in question was written to protect Chaotic ideals.

If Chaotic people did not care about laws, why did they bother to write the highest law in the land? That's what a Constitution is, you know -- the law at the top of all the other laws.

Why would someone who "does not care" about law write the biggest law, which all lesser laws must obey?

The answer is: these Chaotic folks clearly do care. That's why there's a constitution for us to discuss.

Either you're mistaken about what Chaotic people care about, or reality is mistaken about the whole premise of the thread. I'm siding with reality on this one, sorry.

Put another way: If there were no lawful people, the proposed Constitution wouldn't say, "Charlie can do whatever he wants." Nor even something broader like, "There are no rules." Because nobody would be silly enough to write a Constitution that says something so obviously false. The constitution we're talking about says nothing like either of those things, so it kinda looks like you're making straw-man arguments, or some kind of parody.

If you want this:

to either find a set of premises we can agree on
... then you're going to have to stop doing that.

I'm asserting my conclusion after making an argument which leads to and supports my conclusion. Sorry if you don't like the conclusion, but you need to engage with the arguments to convince people against it.

Segev

2020-05-12, 07:30 PM

Lawfully aligned people don't need written laws to be Lawfully aligned. They'll do the Lawfully aligned thing without the written law anyway. Written laws aren't really for them. They're far more for non-lawfully aligned people who would be less likely to do what the lawmakers would prefer.

Okay. There are no rules for the society the Lawful person is visiting. He has nothing telling him what to do. What is "the Lawfully-aligned thing to do?"

Additionally, by your logic, a society of Lawful people would have no laws. :smalleek:

You don't need a lawfully aligned person writing laws or enforcing them. Any alignment can write laws and enforce them for their own purposes - which do not have to be lawfully aligned activities or ideals. What those laws are attempting to DO is what makes their creators and enforcers lawful. A completely neutral society with neutral leaders still typically has the usual dose of written laws - often the same laws as a lawful society with lawful leaders has. HAVING those laws; putting those laws in writing doesn't make neutral leaders or a neutral society suddenly become LAWFUL because creating laws is not in and of itself a LAWFUL act. It isn't written laws in and of themselves that makes anyone lawful. But to be sure a lawful society and leaders are going to feel differently ABOUT their laws than a strictly neutral or evil or chaotic society will - but all the latter (even chaotic) can and will still make and enforce laws.Sure. Any alignment - even Chaos - can write and enforce laws. But Chaos will enforce them only as long as they like the results of enforcing them. And Chaos will only obey them as long as they like the results of obeying them (or fear the results of breaking them).

Laws themselves are lawful. Really, what a Chaotic person who writes and enforces laws is doing is writing down what he wants people to do and either implicitly or explicitly saying "or else." The laws have no power over his chaoticly-aligned minions and subjects; they're just informational about how to avoid having the real power (whatever the "or else" the law-enforcer will bring to bear) crack down on them.

Laws written by a chaotic government for chaotic people are informational, not prescriptive, because nobody expects anybody to follow them for any reason other than they prefer the consequences of following them to the consequences of not following them. Such "laws" are no more laws than a sign over a stove that says, "Do not touch: hot."

They're not written by a chaotic overlord because he expects anybody cares about rules. He expects that he'll have to do less work if people know how not to make him mad enough to come down on them. And the chaotic folks who obey them either like them (and thus would act that way anyway), or are afraid of being cracked down upon and respect that they're written mainly because the writing gives them guidance on how to avoid punishment.

If the overlord changes his mind tomorrow, the laws can change, too, and he doesn't even have to tell anybody before enforcing them or ignoring them differently. And people will only be surprised in a sense of, "Why'd he change his mind?" rather than in a sense of, "But the law says--!" Because the laws only ever were a list of things the guy in charge wanted you to do or not do, and the fact that he's changed his mind is all that matters.

Lawful people, on the other hand, actually respect the laws. For them, they're something real. They are LAWS. To be followed because they're written, or at least commonly accepted and understood.

What a chaotic government writes for its chaotic citizens isn't "laws" so much as it is information about what the consequences of certain actions will be. Because again, when everyone involved is chaotic, everyone involved expects that the only thing anybody will respect is the consequences.

The constitution we're talking about says nothing like either of those things, so it kinda looks like you're making straw-man arguments, or some kind of parody.
Okay, I'm going to need you to point me to the post, because I distinctly recall reading "A constitution that says 'I can do anything I want' is chaotic" as an argument, and that's what I thought we were talking about.

PairO'Dice Lost

2020-05-12, 07:37 PM

The problem is defining Law and Chaos on such a mundane level.

"Law/Lawful" should not be about ordinary written laws. It should be about grand multiversal order.
"Chaos/Chaotic" should not be about ordinary personal freedom/whim. It should be about grand multiversal potential.
[...]
Law and Chaos should be a distinction between wanting the multiverse defined and ordered versus wanting it to be nothing but potential. Between wanting everything run by modrons and enforced by inevitables or wanting everyone to run around like slaadi.
Mere mortal laws regarding government are just very pale reflections of this,[...]

There's not a problem with defining things on a personal level at all. Law and Chaos are about order and disorder at a cosmic level as you describe and at a society level as ExLibrisMortis described and at an individual level as I described; those who owe allegiance to Law and Chaos as cosmic concepts believe they should work the same way all the way down the scale, people who hold personal ethical beliefs generally believe that's the way the world "should" work for everyone, and so on.

It's like how the four elements have a presence at the cosmic scale where the Inner Plane of, say, Water is the platonic ideal of Water from which all other water derives in all its possible forms, then you have oceans as the source of water at a worldly scale, then creatures partly composed of water at a personal scale, and a priest who could be described as "water-aligned" would be concerned about (and likely have rites dealing with) water in all its myriad forms from the grandest to the most humble.

Even if one is 'promoting Chaos', doing so with a law implies that there is a best, codifiable way of doing so, which is a very Lawful idea. Obeying a law that tells you how to be free doesn't make you free, you're just being controlled into motions that might look somewhat like freedom.

The Chaotic way of promoting Chaos would be for the Chaotic individual to ask themselves, every time they wanted to promote Chaos: 'What do I think is the best way of promoting Chaos today?' and then do just that.

Hardly. Joe the Chaotic can develop a rule of thumb that doing X is generally the best way to promote Chaos and so default to following the rule most of the time. The difference between Joe the Chaotic and Bob the Lawful who is (for whatever reason) following the same rule to promote Chaos as well is that if the rule turns out to be mistaken or a better way is found to promote Chaos or he just feels like it one day, Joe will do something different because the rule is about promoting Chaos and what Joe wants to do is promote Chaos, but Bob might keep following the rule because the rule is a rule and following the rules is a good thing to do.

Which isn't to say that Bob would follow the rule blindly (he's Lawful, not an automaton) nor that Joe would stop following the rule on a whim (he might not be convinced that the other way he's found is better and might stick with the rule until he's thought about it for a bit) but, again, framing things as "following rules is Lawful therefore Chaotic people don't follow rules" is reductive and wrong.

How can chaos fit into an alignment grid? How can chaotic planes fit into a defined cosmology?

Because in the War of Law and Chaos at the beginning of time, Law won and got to set the cosmology up as it wanted, whereas if Chaos had won there wouldn't be a Great Wheel or possibly any defined planes at all. The Law and Chaos of the alignment grid aren't Pure Fundamental Ineffable Law and Pure Fundamental Ineffable Chaos, they're "Law as was mutually agreed upon by the Vaati and other Lawful factions in the early days of the Wheel" (because Lawful people are capable of disagreeing and the Wheel is merely one possible form of cosmic law) and "Chaos as has been reluctantly allowed to play in Law's sandbox" (because Chaos had kicked over one too many sandcastles to be allowed to do their own thing but the obliteration of chaos wasn't feasible for various moral and practical reasons).

For actual Pure Fundamental Ineffable Chaos you'd have to go to the Far Realm (but actually don't, because it makes for a terrible vacation spot), which is closer to (though not precisely like) what pure Chaos were untrammeled by Law might have looked like.

But laws that claim to protect freedom must inherently reduce some freedoms. Otherwise they would also allow people freedom to do things like take slaves, or oppress populaces with large armed forces, etc.

At the end of the day, a law is inherently a Lawful thing, because it's telling people that what it says will always take precedence over what they think is best.

That assumes that the natural state of affairs without laws is "everyone is maximally free all the time," but that's not the case. In a Lawful kingdom that prohibits slave-taking or militia-building by law, citizens are not free to own slaves or raise an army, but presumably have certain other freedoms enshrined in the law. In a territory invaded by a swarm of demons, residents are not free to own slaves or raise an army, and completely lack all other freedoms such as, say, the freedom to not have one's face eaten by demons or be dragged down into the Abyss for endless torment.

Hyperbolic, sure (largely to avoid real-world politics), but the fact remains that it's entirely possible for a body of laws to promote much more Chaos than would exist in the absence of those laws. A "local maximum Chaos vs. global maximum Chaos" situation, of sorts.

Without Law, laws have no power, because nobody will care about technically following their letter before doing what they want; they'll only care about what htey can get away with, or what others will react to them doing, or what their actions might do to others

Laws have no intrinsic power with Law, either, because laws are imposed by someone or something. That "someone or something" may be a community imposing laws on itself, a government imposing laws on its citizens, a demon prince imposing laws on its level of the Abyss, whatever, and the "imposition" may be via anything from a threat of force to a mutual good-faith agreement by all parties to abide by them.

Here you're constantly framing things in terms of very specific individual actions as if everyone and everything is in a vacuum. If a Chaotic person "only cares about what they can get away with" and what a Chaotic person in modern society wants to get away with is, say, both "have enough money to drink margaritas all day" and "spend as much time as possible lounging on the beach," they might very well join a nice big corporate company with all sorts of rules and regulations because it lets them work remotely from the beach while paying them enough money to afford bottomless margaritas, and that's the most efficient way for said Chaotic person to get what he wants. Your Charlie Kaotiq might care very much about laws because they help him do what he wants, lead to the outcomes he wants, affects people he wants to affect in the way he wants to affect them, and so on.

You're also implicitly assuming that Chaos is morally inferior to Law here by framing Chaos in terms of "getting away with things" and Law in terms of "protecting Chaotic ideals," which is a pretty LG-vs.-CE dichotomy. But to rephrase a quote from Penn Jilette:

The question I get asked all the time is, without laws, what’s to stop me from murdering all I want? And my answer is: I do murder all I want. And the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that without laws they would go on killing rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine. I don't want to do that. Right now, I don't want to jump across this table and strangle you. I have no desire to strangle you. You know what I mean?

Saying that Chaotic people don't care about laws and do what they want is basically like saying Lawful people don't care about the outcomes of their actions as long as they follow the rules. Sure, those are each one particular example of how Chaotic and Lawful people might view things...but those are the Chaotic Evil and Lawful Evil perspectives because in both cases they're myopically focused on the self.

Okay. There are no rules for the society the Lawful person is visiting. He has nothing telling him what to do. What is "the Lawfully-aligned thing to do?"

Additionally, by your logic, a society of Lawful people would have no laws. :smalleek:

A society of Lawful people wouldn't necessarily have laws, because, as many have mentioned, laws are not Lawful and Lawful does not entail "likes and follows laws." Lawful also encompasses personal moral codes, for instance. If you had 10 equally-Lawful people in a room, half of whom follow Personal Code A and half of whom follow Personal Philosophy B, and you wanted to make a mini-society out of them with a mini-Constitution and everything, a society consisting of 5 As would need many fewer laws than one consisting of 2 As and 3 Bs even though they're equally Lawful.

Equally, a society of 10 Chaotic people might need anywhere from "no laws" to "all the laws" to be functional, depending on their personalities, desires, and so on. Alignment isn't personality, and ethical alignment says nothing about values, only how one decides upon and acts in relation to those values.

Heck, a society of millions of Exalted-level Good people wouldn't need laws, even and especially for the Lawful Good people, because everyone doing what they want all the time would work out just fine regardless of whether we're talking about LG people pondering Kant's categorical imperative, NG people trying to be the Good-est people they can be, or CG people considering what would be the best end state for society.

Nifft

2020-05-12, 07:41 PM

Lawful people, on the other hand, actually respect the laws. For them, they're something real. They are LAWS. To be followed because they're written, or at least commonly accepted and understood. This must be incorrect, because if it were true then it would be easy to write a law which leads to a logical paradox for anyone "Lawful".

And again, your idea of Lawful people seems to be insulting to the intelligence of those people.

Okay, I'm going to need you to point me to the post, because I distinctly recall reading "A constitution that says 'I can do anything I want' is chaotic" as an argument, and that's what I thought we were talking about. It's the first post in this thread. Do you really need this spoon-fed to you? Well, whatever, here you go:

In broad terms, law vs chaos is order vs freedom. Let's assume it's a constitution drafted with the intention of preserving the freedom of the individual.

So, we have it right there. It is chaotic. It opposes the governmental power to clamp down on freedom.

If you weren't aware of the thread topic then I guess some "parody" is explainable, but at that point I wonder how it's even possible to argue in good faith without knowing what you're arguing about.

Doctor Awkward

2020-05-12, 08:09 PM

Let's assume it's a constitution drafted with the intention of preserving the freedom of the individual.

So, we have it right there. It is chaotic. It opposes the governmental power to clamp down on freedom.

No it is lawful. A body of organized laws is antithetical to chaos by it's very nature. Chaos by it's ethical definition is an absolute: you either have ultimate freedom or you do not. If a constraint on freedom exists, either explicitly or implicitly then you do not have ultimate freedom. Laws designed to protect individual freedom by their existence impose an inherent limit on ultimate freedom. That is you are no longer free to act in a way that would affect another person's freedom. Ergo, they are lawful, not chaotic.

Nifft

2020-05-12, 08:16 PM

No it is lawful. A body of organized laws is antithetical to chaos by it's very nature. Chaos by it's ethical definition is an absolute: you either have ultimate freedom or you do not. If a constraint on freedom exists, either explicitly or implicitly then you do not have ultimate freedom. Laws designed to protect individual freedom by their existence impose an inherent limit on ultimate freedom. That is you are no longer free to act in a way that would affect another person's freedom. Ergo, they are lawful, not chaotic.

Your "ultimate freedom" thing sounds like you want it to include harming others, which would be Chaotic Evil, not regular Chaotic.

Also I don't think it's valid to argue that any imperfect Chaos is "not Chaotic". Law and Chaos exist on a spectrum, and it must be possible for things to exist anywhere on that spectrum. Being on the Chaotic side of Neutral is sufficient to be Chaotic, even if it's not turned all the way up to 11.

Calthropstu

2020-05-12, 08:18 PM

Neither. It is merely a number representing how hardy your character is.

Hope this helps!

PairO'Dice Lost

2020-05-12, 08:49 PM

Also I don't think it's valid to argue that any imperfect Chaos is "not Chaotic". Law and Chaos exist on a spectrum, and it must be possible for things to exist anywhere on that spectrum. Being on the Chaotic side of Neutral is sufficient to be Chaotic, even if it's not turned all the way up to 11.

Not to mention that if one of the three ethical alignments was going to be rigid, inflexible, dogmatic, or absolute about definitions and whether something meets a certain bar of behavior, it's certainly not going to be Chaos. :smallamused:

Esprit15

2020-05-12, 08:57 PM

Not to mention that if one of the three ethical alignments was going to be rigid, inflexible, dogmatic, or absolute about definitions and whether something meets a certain bar of behavior, it's certainly not going to be Chaos. :smallamused:

The Law of Chaos is that there are no laws. But don't you dare write that down.

I think that if back when alignment was being written, Orderly, or maybe Structured was the chosen term instead, a lot of these Law debates would be less of an issue.

PairO'Dice Lost

2020-05-12, 09:30 PM

I think that if back when alignment was being written, Orderly, or maybe Structured was the chosen term instead, a lot of these Law debates would be less of an issue.

"Law" and "Chaos" were used because Gygax and Arneson were borrowing the terms from Michael Moorcock, only swapping "Balance" out for "Neutrality" since they were positioning the third faction to be "between" the others rather than "above" them somehow. "Law and Chaos" were quite readily recognizable as such to the folks picking up those initial Chainmail and OD&D booklets where alignments were described, given Moorcock's prominence in the sci-fi/fantasy landscape of the time, in the same way that describing noncasters and the Plane of Shadow as "muggles" and "the Upside Down" would immediately resonate with many non-D&Ders today given the current pop-culture lanscape.

Once Moorcock was less well known, changing Law to Order might possibly have helped with alignment debates, sure. Or, y'know, people could actually read the alignment descriptions, instead of going off what they think they half-remember the definitions to be. :smallamused:

Like, in the 3e PHB, here's how the Lawful alignments are described:

A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good.

Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion.

A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government. Ember, a monk who follows her discipline without being swayed either by the demands of those in need or by the temptations of evil, is lawful neutral.

Lawful neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot.

A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises. This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds.

Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains. The scheming baron who expands his power and exploits his people is lawful evil.

Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.

Lawful evil is sometimes called “diabolical,” because devils are the epitome of lawful evil.
The only place the idea that "people of this alignment like following laws" is even referenced at all is in a list of several possible sources of morality for a LN character, and the argument upthread that CG people "don't care about laws except insofar as the laws bear related consequences that actually will come to bear" is straight out of the description of how Lawful Evil people react to law and order, just as similar arguments about how Chaotic people should act actually resemble the description of Chaotic Evil rather than Chaos as a whole.

Even if one prefers different phrasings (such as the AD&D versions) or more nuanced takes on certain alignments, one shouldn't assert a given premise is always and definitively true when even a cursory look at the PHB demonstrates otherwise.

MR_Anderson

2020-05-13, 02:03 AM

A Constitution is not inherently Lawful or Chaotic, nor is it inherently Good or Evil. A Constitution is going to take on the alignment characteristics depending upon what the goals are of the creator(s) of it.

In broad terms, law vs chaos is order vs freedom. Let's assume it's a constitution drafted with the intention of preserving the freedom of the individual.

I would classify it as Order/Structure (Law) vs Impulsive/Inconsistency (Chaos).

With the understanding of Freedom as a aspect of something good, evil wants to maintain control over lesser beings, a constitution looking to preserve Freedom would fall into 1 of 5 possible alignments. (CG, NG, LG, N, & LN)

The reason I did not include CN is because a CN constitution would lack the motivation of a good intent to preserve other’s freedoms, and it would also lack structure to preserve freedoms.

So, we have it right there. It is chaotic. It opposes the governmental power to clamp down on freedom.

I would argue this trait to be to non-good.

But it's also almost a standing stone that is engraved with rules (for the governing body on which it is ascribed), which must not be broken. That's quite orderly

There is a difference between a constitution and set of laws, but it is possible to create something of order that will ultimately bring much more chaos.

NontheistCleric

2020-05-13, 05:18 AM

That assumes that the natural state of affairs without laws is "everyone is maximally free all the time," but that's not the case. In a Lawful kingdom that prohibits slave-taking or militia-building by law, citizens are not free to own slaves or raise an army, but presumably have certain other freedoms enshrined in the law. In a territory invaded by a swarm of demons, residents are not free to own slaves or raise an army, and completely lack all other freedoms such as, say, the freedom to not have one's face eaten by demons or be dragged down into the Abyss for endless torment.

Hyperbolic, sure (largely to avoid real-world politics), but the fact remains that it's entirely possible for a body of laws to promote much more Chaos than would exist in the absence of those laws. A "local maximum Chaos vs. global maximum Chaos" situation, of sorts.

Yet that doesn't change the fact that law, used in the way it's intended to be used, is inherently Lawful. It's like asking if a sword, which is used for stabbing people, helps people or harms them. Of course, stabbing some people might help some other people, but sometimes it doesn't. The sword will always be a tool that harms people, even when there might be some help resulting from that harm. Similarly, a law is always Lawful, even if the results of following that law result in some Chaos, and thus, a constitution, which is made of laws, is Lawful.

SangoProduction

2020-05-13, 05:21 AM

Yet that doesn't change the fact that law, used in the way it's intended to be used, is inherently Lawful. It's like asking if a sword, which is used for stabbing people, helps people or harms them. Of course, stabbing some people might help some other people, but sometimes it doesn't. The sword will always be a tool that harms people, even when there might be some help resulting from that harm. Similarly, a law is always Lawful, even if the results of following that law result in some Chaos, and thus, a constitution, which is made of laws, is Lawful.

*casually parries a fatal blow with a sword*
"I'd say it helped without harming anyone."

Batcathat

2020-05-13, 07:54 AM

*casually parries a fatal blow with a sword*
"I'd say it helped without harming anyone."

I think the comparison works better if the sword is turned into a gun. I agree with the general sentiment of it though – a constitution can be followed by Chaotic people and uphold Chaotic values like freedom but I think the concept in itself is lawful by deafault.

Nifft

2020-05-13, 09:21 AM

I think the comparison works better if the sword is turned into a gun. I agree with the general sentiment of it though – a constitution can be followed by Chaotic people and uphold Chaotic values like freedom but I think the concept in itself is lawful by deafault.

If any Chaotic law is somehow Lawful just because of the word "law", then what's the difference between Law and Chaos?

In your version -- which isn't the PHB version, as noted by PairO'Dice Lost above -- is there any useful distinction between Law and Chaos?

NontheistCleric

2020-05-13, 09:57 AM

*casually parries a fatal blow with a sword*
"I'd say it helped without harming anyone."

Well, the point of a sword is to harm people. Otherwise, it wouldn't be sharpened. After all, you could parry just as well with a blunt stick of the same metal, so the entire reason you've taken a sword into battle is for the killing potential it provides. I do agree it's a little ambiguous of an example, though, and Batcathat's substitution of a gun for the sword makes the analogy a little more effective.

Or, if you like, take a bomb that is used to blow up a building to prevent fire from spreading. It serves a preservative purpose, true, but it would be impossible to say that the bomb isn't inherently destructive.

If any Chaotic law is somehow Lawful just because of the word "law", then what's the difference between Law and Chaos?

In your version -- which isn't the PHB version, as noted by PairO'Dice Lost above -- is there any useful distinction between Law and Chaos?

A law is not inherently Lawful because it contains the same letters—it is inherently Lawful because to be Lawful means to place outside authority above one's own judgment, and that is exactly what every law, by definition, is asking people to do.

Nifft

2020-05-13, 10:13 AM

Well, the point of a sword is to harm people. Otherwise, it wouldn't be sharpened. Yeah it's not like anyone uses a sword to cut underbrush, shave kindling, or other utility tasks.

Clearly this whole "machete" concept is just fiction.

A law is not inherently Lawful because it contains the same letters—it is inherently Lawful because to be Lawful means to place outside authority above one's own judgment, and that is exactly what every law, by definition, is asking people to do. But this constitution is placing limits on authority.

If placing a limit on authority is the same as imposing authority, then you've removed any useful distinction between these two allegedly different concepts.

Batcathat

2020-05-13, 10:26 AM

If any Chaotic law is somehow Lawful just because of the word "law", then what's the difference between Law and Chaos?

I'd argue that there can't be a Chaotic law since laws aren't a Chaotic concept. For the same reason I'd argue that, say, a revolution is a Chaotic concept even if it can be carried out by Lawful people for the sake of Lawful ideals.

NontheistCleric

2020-05-13, 10:26 AM

Yeah it's not like anyone uses a sword to cut underbrush, shave kindling, or other utility tasks.

Clearly this whole "machete" concept is just fiction.

Well, tools made for that purpose are slightly different from swords made for combat, which is the whole reason why there's a separate word for them.

But this constitution is placing limits on authority.

If placing a limit on authority is the same as imposing authority, then you've removed any useful distinction between these two allegedly different concepts.

The useful distinction is in terms of magnitude. A constitution is a higher level of authority than ordinary laws, and does indeed impose its own authority on the lower systems of law to limit their power.

Nifft

2020-05-13, 12:20 PM

Well, tools made for that purpose are slightly different from swords made for combat, which is the whole reason why there's a separate word for them. Claymore, Scimitar, Rapier, and Saber are also "separate words".

Did you have a point? (The swords do.)

The useful distinction is in terms of magnitude. A constitution is a higher level of authority than ordinary laws, and does indeed impose its own authority on the lower systems of law to limit their power. The obvious conclusion is that imposing authority isn't limited to Lawful entities.

In the OP, we have a constitution (a law) which is supporting Chaotic ideals.

If any form of authority is supposed to be anti-Chaotic, you've got yourself a contradiction.

MR_Anderson

2020-05-13, 01:16 PM

I'd argue that there can't be a Chaotic law since laws aren't a Chaotic concept. For the same reason I'd argue that, say, a revolution is a Chaotic concept even if it can be carried out by Lawful people for the sake of Lawful ideals.

Laws provide a line of something to be followed and a punishment for violating it.

If a law were to lack a punishment, it would be Chaotic, because it sends mixed signals.

If there were two laws stating the following:
1) Wheeled items, such as carts, could only be moved by horses,
2) Horses are outlawed throughout the kingdom

This would be Chaotic laws.

A Constitution that divided power between two different entities without a means to resolve disagreements would lead to chaos, and thus be a Chaotic Constitution.

Nifft

2020-05-13, 01:45 PM

Laws provide a line of something to be followed and a punishment for violating it.

If a law were to lack a punishment, it would be Chaotic, because it sends mixed signals.

If there were two laws stating the following:
1) Wheeled items, such as carts, could only be moved by horses,
2) Horses are outlawed throughout the kingdom

This would be Chaotic laws. That's just dysfunctional.

The Chaotic alignment shouldn't come with a mandatory feeblemind effect.

A Constitution that divided power between two different entities without a means to resolve disagreements would lead to chaos, and thus be a Chaotic Constitution. That sounds more like evil than freedom.

NontheistCleric

2020-05-13, 02:00 PM

Claymore, Scimitar, Rapier, and Saber are also "separate words".

Did you have a point? (The swords do.)

Those are all subsets of the classification 'sword'. A 'machete', while similar to and at times overlapping with certain kinds of 'sword', is not necessarily the same thing.

The obvious conclusion is that imposing authority isn't limited to Lawful entities.

In the OP, we have a constitution (a law) which is supporting Chaotic ideals.

If any form of authority is supposed to be anti-Chaotic, you've got yourself a contradiction.

It's not anti-Chaotic, it's just much more Lawful than it is Chaotic, because although I don't deny that there may be some Chaos somewhere in the overall equation of what is happening in relation to this constitution (a law), it is in itself a strongly Lawful thing.

That sounds more like evil than freedom.

Where are you getting 'evil'? That's just incompetence.

Segev

2020-05-13, 02:04 PM

This must be incorrect, because if it were true then it would be easy to write a law which leads to a logical paradox for anyone "Lawful".How so?

And again, your idea of Lawful people seems to be insulting to the intelligence of those people.Again, how so? I think you're reading something there that I'm not saying.

While I think what I initially wrote is not in violation of any rules, I choose not to take the risk, so I will edit out my response to the rest of this post. I apologize for the lack of response this leaves in its place, but I fear that any response to it would get me in trouble. So I will refrain.

MR_Anderson

2020-05-13, 07:11 PM

This got quite philosophical.

That's just dysfunctional.

The Chaotic alignment shouldn't come with a mandatory feeblemind effect.

It isn’t feeblemind, because that is Intelligence. Chaos is a lack of order or structure, a lack of Wisdom.

Intelligence is a measurement of information and the ability to retain knowledge, while Wisdom is the measurement of how well one’s intelligence can be applied or conveyed to others.

This is why so many “smart” people full of knowledge can’t apply it, but a low intelligent individual can solve something because they have street smarts.

Wisdom is the trait/ability of order and discipline. Clerics, Paladins, and Rangers use it for structure of their faiths, Druids use it for their understanding of the natural order, Monks use it in their strict discipline to fight better and use powers.

A monk's training requires strict discipline. Only those who are lawful at heart are capable of undertaking it.

Look at the Plane of Limbo, it is the definition of chaos, but it is filled with raw material that creatures with Wisdom have the ability to shape to their will. Words within a constitution or laws are shaped by their creators which would be wisdom not intelligence.

The Abyss is a CE plane and there are little freedoms there, while in Arborea which is CG has much freedom while there are still rules. Freedom is an extension of Goodness, not something that arises from a lack of order.

That sounds more like evil than freedom.

Freedom and Chaotic are not related, matter of fact they are close to opposing one another. In that example you could have two entities that were both good but just disagreeing. It would still lead to chaos without being evil.

The problem is, D&D has taught the alignment system as a square with Good at the top and Law at the right with Chaos on the left, which places the misconception that LG and CG would be on the same good level.

The D&D model does not match a real world application of alignments, so people don’t understand how to apply (wisdom) this in thinking things out to solve other applications in game.

The D&D model should be turned counter-clockwise 45 degrees so that LG is at the apex, and the worst of the worst is CE. This would place CG and LE at the same level. One in Complete rejection of Goodness and the other in Complete rejection of Order. There have even been D&D publishings that have produced this layout.

Chaos is the lack of order, not freedom at its greatest; just as Evil is not the opposite Good, it is the absence of goodness.

I hope someone was able to take something away from this.

Esprit15

2020-05-13, 09:09 PM

Your example of Wisdom being a lawful trait, then including Druids, Rangers, and Clerics (none of which need be lawful) is a bit incoherent.

MR_Anderson

2020-05-13, 09:47 PM

Your example of Wisdom being a lawful trait, then including Druids, Rangers, and Clerics (none of which need be lawful) is a bit incoherent.

{Scrubbed}

Druids, Rangers, & Clerics have discipline to follow their faith and are rewarded or empowered with divine spells from a power outside of themselves.

This is why Bards who cannot be lawful are able to heal or other normally divine powers as it comes from the heart or motivating other people’s hearts, as they pull from Charisma.

It isn’t incoherent, it just requires a very deep understanding on how D&D was structured when they designed it. It is so complicated we have forums for people to ask questions and discuss a game edition that is 20 years old.

SangoProduction

2020-05-14, 03:12 AM

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Druids, Rangers, & Clerics have discipline to follow their faith and are rewarded or empowered with divine spells from a power outside of themselves.

This is why Bards who cannot be lawful are able to heal or other normally divine powers as it comes from the heart or motivating other people’s hearts, as they pull from Charisma.

It isn’t incoherent, it just requires a very deep understanding on how D&D was structured when they designed it. It is so complicated we have forums for people to ask questions and discuss a game edition that is 20 years old.

Probably not wise to talk down to others when your argument doesn't even hold up. As Druids can be chaotic neutral (aka, strictly not lawful), while rangers and clerics can be chaotic anything and get the same powers.

Esprit15

2020-05-14, 03:22 AM

Probably not wise to talk down to others when your argument doesn't even hold up. As Druids can be chaotic neutral (aka, strictly not lawful), while rangers and clerics can be chaotic anything and get the same powers.

Yeah, I grasped the concept just fine. I just think the concept (tying stats to alignment when over half of the classes cited don’t follow that rule at all) is nonsense.

SangoProduction

2020-05-14, 04:57 AM

Yeah, I grasped the concept just fine. I just think the concept (tying stats to alignment when over half of the classes cited don’t follow that rule at all) is nonsense.

Responded to the wrong person?

dancrilis

2020-05-14, 05:14 AM

In broad terms, law vs chaos is order vs freedom.
Let us accept this.

Is a constitution Lawful or Chaotic?
No.

Let's assume it's a constitution drafted with the intention of preserving the freedom of the individual.

That would be lawful - it is the establishment of rules to restrict the ability of individuals to interfere with other people.
The restricted individuals being the Lawful government and the other people potentially being Chaotic does not change the basic orderly nature of the restriction.

However if we change the assumption from 'preserving the freedom of the individual' to 'preventing any laws being enforced' than the constitution would become an actively chaotic document (and would likely not last very long).

MR_Anderson

2020-05-14, 05:33 AM

Probably not wise to talk down to others when your argument doesn't even hold up. As Druids can be chaotic neutral (aka, strictly not lawful), while rangers and clerics can be chaotic anything and get the same powers.

My statement holds up, and I wasn’t talking down to anyone. I knew when I typed my original reply linking Wisdom to Lawful traits that it would be confusing and people would either not understand it or reject it.

You just made the statement I knew people would make. You are assigning character alignment as the end all be all rather than realizing I am discussing class traits that would associate with chaos or law.

This goes back to the original topic. Any law or governing document, such as a Constitutions is inherently originated from order/law by its structured design, but each particular document could be Lawful, Chaotic, Good, Evil, or Neutral.

A Druid even if it is Chaotic Neutral has a character trait that is based in Order/Law.

The druid gains her power not by ruling nature but by being at one with it.
If you are at one with something, you are in line with it. You are creating an order even if it is a small aspect of a character. In the instance of Druids it is a huge aspect as it is the source of their power, and it uses Wisdom as the base stat for casting.

Yeah, I grasped the concept just fine. I just think the concept (tying stats to alignment when over half of the classes cited don’t follow that rule at all) is nonsense.

I’m not tying stats to alignments, I am tying a single stat to a single alignment branch of the alignment grid, the Lawful ones.

Wisdom is an ability stat that is special and stands apart from all others, especially when you look at the core book, the PHB.

Wisdom Facts

No core race adjusts Wisdom.
All other abilities scores are adjusted by core races.
Wisdom is the only stat to impact Saving Throws, Defenses, Attacks, and Spell Casting.
There are Five core classes that have Alignment restrictions/requirements, and all of the classes are related to Wisdom stats or Lawful alignments.

Classes

Paladin must be Lawful Good (Requirement), spells are based off Wisdom.
Monk must be Lawful (Requirement), defenses & attacks are modified by Wisdom.
Druids must be Nuetral (Requirement), spells are based off Wisdom.
Barbarians cannot be Lawful (Restriction)
Bard cannot be Lawful (Restriction), spells are based off Charisma.

You don’t have to agree with my ultimate conclusion, but you cannot deny that there isn’t a unique relationship between Wisdom and Lawful Alignments.

That would be lawful - it is the establishment of rules to restrict the ability of individuals to interfere with other people.
The restricted individuals being the Lawful government and the other people potentially being Chaotic does not change the basic orderly nature of the restriction.

However if we change the assumption from 'preserving the freedom of the individual' to 'preventing any laws being enforced' than the constitution would become an actively chaotic document (and would likely not last very long).

Most Constitutions state what governments can and cannot do, they rarely state what people can and cannot do, as that falls within the laws.

For example: The longest current active Constitution still empowered by the people to give their nation the ability to govern is mostly made up of setting restrictions on what the government cannot do.

Esprit15

2020-05-14, 06:23 AM

Responded to the wrong person?

Not exactly. I was agreeing with your point that condescending while wrong was a bad argument tactic.

dancrilis

2020-05-14, 06:38 AM

You don’t have to agree with my ultimate conclusion, but you cannot deny that there isn’t a unique relationship between Wisdom and Lawful Alignments.
You don't seem to have actually made an arguement for there being a unique relationship between wisdom and lawful alignments.

Most Constitutions state what governments can and cannot do, they rarely state what people can and cannot do, as that falls within the laws.
I am not sure how that adds to/subtracts from from what I said.
I did not say anything against this concept - nor imply some constitution that would be an exception to it.

For example: The longest current active Constitution still empowered by the people to give their nation the ability to govern is mostly made up of setting restrictions on what the government cannot do.
Which sourcebook are you using?
This seems like it might be about some real world politics - which is specifically against the rules and goes against the stated intentions of the opening poster - but perhaps you mean some nation in Grayhawk or some domain in Ravenloft etc that I am drawing a blank on currently.

MR_Anderson

2020-05-14, 06:45 AM

Not exactly. I was agreeing with your point that condescending while wrong was a bad argument tactic.

As I stated, I was not talking down or being condescending, I was stating a thought that I should have elaborated more. If you or someone else feels this way I apologize that is how you took it, as that was not the intention.

I start my talking down remarks with, “Now listen here you...”

So honestly it wasn’t an argument tactic, as I’m only having a discussion.

Esprit15

2020-05-14, 07:14 AM

As I stated, I was not talking down or being condescending, I was stating a thought that I should have elaborated more. If you or someone else feels this way I apologize that is how you took it, as that was not the intention.

I start my talking down remarks with, “Now listen here you...”

So honestly it wasn’t an argument tactic, as I’m only having a discussion.

You started your post with
{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
To the vast majority of the English speaking world, this is condescension. I don’t care whether you apologize to me, but at least own up to either doing that, or miscommunications your intentions.

And you have no clear connection that Wisdom and Law are connected. Paladins are also emboldened by their Charisma, which is the very same stat that Bards cast off of. Druids are tied to Neutrality, not Law. The only possible connection you actually have there that isn’t discounted by other examples is Monk.

Except that Wisdom is not a stat determining just “discipline,” but intuition - one’s ability to operate not on rules but on gut feelings and instincts, things that fly in the face of law and order.

MR_Anderson

2020-05-14, 08:07 AM

You don't seem to have actually made an arguement for there being a unique relationship between wisdom and lawful alignments.

I laid out what I believe is a compelling case for the relationship between Wisdom and Lawful Characteristics. I’m not looking for an argument. If you disagree with what I presented, I support your choice, as I know that you respect mine.

I am not sure how that adds to/subtracts from from what I said.
I did not say anything against this concept - nor imply some constitution that would be an exception to it.

My statement was in line with yours, and we are in agreement, but I just worded mine in my own words.

Which sourcebook are you using?
This seems like it might be about some real world politics - which is specifically against the rules and goes against the stated intentions of the opening poster - but perhaps you mean some nation in Grayhawk or some domain in Ravenloft etc that I am drawing a blank on currently.

There are plenty of 3rd party D20 sourcebooks for running campaigns in different time periods of history. A real-world fact about a governing document does not make for a real-world political discussion. It makes for a possible analogue if someone needs it in their world. Similar to how the Realms was developed and created.

I am running a strategic popular power struggle and espionage campaign as a DM, and while there are 3rd party D20 sourcebooks I am pulling from, some of the best sources for comparable content are history books.

You started your post with
To the vast majority of the English speaking world, this is condescension. I don’t care whether you apologize to me, but at least own up to either doing that, or miscommunications your intentions.
Let me clarify it yet again so that any misunderstanding is cleared up, I was going to post more in the original post, but chose not to as it was already very long. When questions were raised I knew I needed to elaborate more, so the comment was towards myself and there was no intended belittling of others.

And you have no clear connection that Wisdom and Law are connected. Paladins are also emboldened by their Charisma, which is the very same stat that Bards cast off of. Druids are tied to Neutrality, not Law. The only possible connection you actually have there that isn’t discounted by other examples is Monk.

Except that Wisdom is not a stat determining just “discipline,” but intuition - one’s ability to operate not on rules but on gut feelings and instincts, things that fly in the face of law and order.

Charisma is a stat based on power from within oneself, and oneself can be Lawful or Chaotic. The Paladin’s Wisdom stat applies to his powers of Spell Casting which take discipline, and his Charismatic powers coming from himself should be aligned to Good, thus why a Paladin is LG.

Druids get their power from being one with nature, or in harmony with it. Being in harmony with something require conformity which is a trait of order. Their powers are based in order just like Clerics and Rangers, all of which have their Spell Casting based upon Wisdom.

I was pointing out something that I saw that had relationship, that being Wisdom and Law. We can agree to not see eye to eye on this.

Segev

2020-05-14, 10:49 AM

Well, this is a different direction to take it.

No, ability scores are not inherently aligned, and high or low score doesn't inform your alignment. Your expression of them can inform alignment, and your alignment can influence how you exercise them, but you can be high or low Int, Wis, or any other score and be any alignment.

A wise chaotic person is one who trusts his own intuition over all else. If he exercises faith in a greater power, it is because his own judgment is that that greater power's perspective and knowledge is such that it has a broader picture, and he trusts it to have his own best interests (or the interests of things he cares about) in mind. A cleric of chaotic alignment can be whimsical or serious, can be mercurial or reasonably predictable, but will never let rules and rote get in the way of doing what he or his god's guidance show to be the right path.

A low-wisdom lawful person is one who follows the letter of the code, law, rules, etc. with little deviation, and, if ever confused, seeks precise guidance from the organized interaction of the system to which he subscribes. If this leads him into quandaries and poor decisions due to the codes he follows not being well-designed for rigid interpretation in a particular case, that is his burden for having low wisdom.

A low-wisdom chaotic person may well be unstructured and undisciplined, following his whims wherever they take him and suffering for his poor intuition.

A high-wisdom lawful person will be able to, when the code is confusing, discern its intent and make judgments that align with it and with common sense and the situation at hand. Recognizing that the rules don't cover something (as opposed to being flawed by covering it poorly) is a hallmark of high wisdom, not of Lawfulness or a lack thereof.

A high-wisdom chaotic person may well follow a constitution more than a low-wisdom one would, but that would be due to better intuitive grasp of consequences than the low-wisdom person has. Better understanding of how the constitution will cause those of less chaotic alignment to behave, or simply grasping that some of what the constitution says is good advice in general (if it happens to be).

Side note:
There's nothing preventing a chaotic person from reading and following the advice of a self-help book, or reading and following PRECISELY a recipe for cake. After all, they want the consequence of a cake being made, and the recipe is exacting because that's the only way to make it come out right.

Note, too, that a lawful person may well experiment with things not in a recipe. They recognize that the recipe is an instruction, not a codified law, and that instructions are there to get reproducible results. Experimentation to see if the different results are superior (or different in a useful way) is neither chaotic nor lawful. It is, however, a function of both intelligence and wisdom.

Nifft

2020-05-14, 11:39 AM

I think you're reading something there that I'm not saying.

While I think what I initially wrote is not in violation of any rules, I choose not to take the risk, so I will edit out my response to the rest of this post. I apologize for the lack of response this leaves in its place, but I fear that any response to it would get me in trouble. So I will refrain.

I think you're not saying anything coherent.

It's difficult to judge, since you say you can't clarify your real thoughts within the forum's rules.

PairO'Dice Lost

2020-05-14, 11:50 AM

The problem is, D&D has taught the alignment system as a square with Good at the top and Law at the right with Chaos on the left, which places the misconception that LG and CG would be on the same good level.

[...]

The D&D model should be turned counter-clockwise 45 degrees so that LG is at the apex, and the worst of the worst is CE. This would place CG and LE at the same level. One in Complete rejection of Goodness and the other in Complete rejection of Order. There have even been D&D publishings that have produced this layout.

This view on alignment conflates Law with Good and Chaos with Evil, which is completely false. (It also agrees with 4e's take on alignment, and agreeing with 4e on anything involving setting flavor is always a sign that you should recheck your assumptions. :smallamused:)

It has been true from literally the earliest days of D&D, when it was just an addon to Chainmail, that Law != Good and Chaos != Evil.

1) Law and Chaos are, as I mentioned, based on Moorcock's take on cosmic forces in the Eternal Champion series. The explicit message of Law and Chaos in those works is that, not only are the gods, forces, magics, and so forth of Law equivalent to those of Chaos in terms of both morality and power, but Law and Chaos are both equally bad for the universe when taken to the extreme, hence the need for the Cosmic Balance.

2) The unit lists for the different factions in Chainmail are explicit that Law and Chaos are not about morality ("magic weapons" are on the Law list and "dragons" are on the Chaos list, when one can most certainly have both good dragons and evil magic weapons), and AD&D alignment diagrams are clear about how strongly various characters and monsters are aligned with the different moral and ethical alignments. Here's one example, where the farther one is placed from the center the more strongly it exemplifies its alignment:

http://lh6.ggpht.com/mitchaskari/SN9Kj5-_N2I/AAAAAAAAGsM/f6v1q8cQDGY/s1600-h/illus2%5B2%5D.jpg

Note especially the top right and bottom left corner, where it lists Platinum Dragons and Chromatic Dragons. At that point in the game, "platinum dragon" and "chromatic dragon" were generic terms for "god of good dragons" and "god of evil dragons" with Bahamut and Tiamat being specific instances of those, in the same way that you had "Type V demons" named Marilith and "Type VI demons" named Balor and so on which later assigned the proper names to the creature type.

Bahamut later went from CG to LG in the 1e MM (just as Djinn, Unicorns, and a bunch of other monsters on the chart changed alignment), but you can see that as of that chart's publication the extremes of LG/CG and LE/CE are explicitly equal in their degree of Goodness and Evilness, and in fact the dragon gods (that is, the archetypal representations of dragonkind and the examples to which all mortal dragons aspire) are in fact CG and LE, not LG and CE, so the idea that LG is somehow better or more Good than CG and vice versa for CE over LE is ludicrous and revisionist.

The D&D model does not match a real world application of alignments, so people don’t understand how to apply (wisdom) this in thinking things out to solve other applications in game.

The closest thing to real-world ethical alignments that exist are the philosophical classifications of deontological, aretological, and consequentialist ethics, as I mentioned upthread, and while Gygax was certainly not a professor of moral philosophy the descriptions of alignment in every edition do map to those ethical categories, also as mentioned upthread. If you tried to suggest to an actual ethical philosopher either that discipline and intuition/perception/etc. are associated with deontology or that deontology is somehow innately better than aretology or consequentialism, you'd be laughed out of the room.

Nifft

2020-05-14, 12:01 PM

It isn’t feeblemind, because that is Intelligence. Chaos is a lack of order or structure, a lack of Wisdom.
Chaos is orthogonal to Wisdom, since there's no mechanical relationship between the two.

If a definition of Law or Chaos requires any form of mental defect, that definition is wrong.

The Abyss is a CE plane and there are little freedoms there, while in Arborea which is CG has much freedom while there are still rules. Freedom is an extension of Goodness, not something that arises from a lack of order. "The Abyss has the most freedom. It's the best place. Boring places like Ar-BORE-ia are full of stuffy idiots who won't even let me sacrifice a million gnomes to my own glory." -- Graz'zt, champion of freedom

Freedom and Chaotic are not related, matter of fact they are close to opposing one another. In that example you could have two entities that were both good but just disagreeing. It would still lead to chaos without being evil. Hmm. I think "freedom" as a motivational factor is a constituent to the Chaotic alignment, but you're correct that imposing chaos doesn't increase freedom. (Note caps.) It's also true that freedom can be severely hampered by a lack of order, just as it can be hampered by the enforcement of order.

The problem is, D&D has taught the alignment system as a square with Good at the top and Law at the right with Chaos on the left, which places the misconception that LG and CG would be on the same good level. Law is on the left in my books... and in the more recent memes I've seen.

Here, take a look:

1e PHB Alignment Chart:
https://i.imgur.com/H1g34Zs.png

A Meme:
https://i.imgur.com/NhebTMV.jpg

Just out of idle curiosity, what books are you looking at where the left-right thing is inverted?

The D&D model does not match a real world application of alignments, so people don’t understand how to apply (wisdom) this in thinking things out to solve other applications in game. Er, I'm not sure if you're saying that "real world alignments" are a thing, or if people who don't agree with you lack wisdom, or something else entirely.

Hopefully the latter.

The D&D model should be turned counter-clockwise 45 degrees so that LG is at the apex, and the worst of the worst is CE. This would place CG and LE at the same level. One in Complete rejection of Goodness and the other in Complete rejection of Order. There have even been D&D publishings that have produced this layout.

You're posting Diabolical propaganda.

Not even gonna blue-text this, it's the sort of mistake which would be 100% supported by every layer of Hell, and every god of tyranny.

Per the game rules, Lawful Evil is just as bad as Chaotic Evil, and Chaotic Good is just as good as Lawful Good.

Segev

2020-05-14, 12:13 PM

Per the game rules, Lawful Evil is just as bad as Chaotic Evil, and Chaotic Good is just as good as Lawful Good.

This is definitely house rules territory, but I always prefer to view it as a wheel rather than a grid. More like the planes than like the alignment chart. That is: Neutral Evil is more Evil than either Lawful Evil or Chaotic Evil. Lawful Neutral is more Lawful than either Lawful Good or Lawful Evil. Neutral Good is more Good than either Lawful Good or Chaotic Good. Chaotic Neutral is more Chaotic than either Chaotic Good or Chaotic Evil.

The "corner" alignments are admixtures. They're just as far from True Neutral as any of the "cardinal" alignments, but they're less of either of their components than being on the cardinal points would be.

This is just my conception, though; I am making no hard RAW claims.

Draken

2020-05-14, 04:57 PM

This is definitely house rules territory, but I always prefer to view it as a wheel rather than a grid. More like the planes than like the alignment chart. That is: Neutral Evil is more Evil than either Lawful Evil or Chaotic Evil. Lawful Neutral is more Lawful than either Lawful Good or Lawful Evil. Neutral Good is more Good than either Lawful Good or Chaotic Good. Chaotic Neutral is more Chaotic than either Chaotic Good or Chaotic Evil.

The "corner" alignments are admixtures. They're just as far from True Neutral as any of the "cardinal" alignments, but they're less of either of their components than being on the cardinal points would be.

This is just my conception, though; I am making no hard RAW claims.

Nitpick. All spokes of a wheel are equally distant from the center. The intercardinal alignments would not be any more or less chaotic/lawful/good/evil than the cardinals. They just focus on different things.

They focus on different things to a perfect, extreme, deranged point. Which makes using the planes as a paradigm for any discussion on actual moral and ethics a self-defeating.

On this point, I would like to note that the only part of Mr_Andersom's post that I agree with is that freedom is not a chaotic ideal, it is a neutral one. Every alignment wants freedom to carry out its will. Evil wants to be free to be selfish. Good wants the freedom to create bliss. Law wants freedom to establish systems and structures. Chaos wants freedom from cause and effect, it wants to be rid of consequence. Look at the planes of pure alignment and tell me what you see.

Elysium: Pure, rapturous bliss that steals away your will to do anything but exist in that place of perfect, empty fulfillment.

Hades: Absolute despair at the desolation of all that surrounds you, reducing those who come to the plane to nothing more than resources for it (read, serve the selfish desires of the plane).

Mechanus: Clockworks going forever. What purpose do they serve? Doesn't matter to you.

Limbo: Fire turning to stone. Turning to water. Turning to Air. Turning to Earth. Turning to Lightning. Turning to Ice. Turning to ???...???...???... Forever. No rhyme, no reason, no purpose, no consequence, no cause, no effect.

Ignore the planes. Ignore the outsiders because they are extensions of the planes. They don't matter. They are perfect. Immutable. Extreme. Celestia works with the hells with the same degree of distaste it reserves for Ysgard. The hells war with the Abyss and not with Celestia not because the Abyss is somehow more insulting, but because it is more aggressive and has an easier path of access to the Hells than it has to Ysgard. Good does not war with Good solely because it is unwilling to strike first.

As for Mr_Anderson's arguments regarding Wisdom. I wonder why nobody pulled out yet that his idea of what Wisdom is is wrong. Here is what wisdom is.

Wisdom describes a character’s willpower, common sense, perception, and intuition. While Intelligence represents one’s ability to analyze information, Wisdom represents being in tune with and aware of one’s surroundings. Wisdom is the most important ability for clerics and druids, and it is also important for paladins and rangers. If you want your character to have acute senses, put a high score in Wisdom. Every creature has a Wisdom score.

Wisdom is your ability to interact with your surroundings in the most basal, animal way possible. It is intuition, the source of superstition. It is perception, the ability to notice what is happening around you. It is willpower, the ability to perform rote tasks without going insane. Wisdom is the lizard brain operating at full capacity.

Psyren

2020-05-14, 04:59 PM

Calthropstu

2020-05-14, 05:03 PM

A constitution, at its core, is a set of rules that:

Establishes a power structure
Determines the authority of that power structure
Sets forth rules that even that power stucture cannot (easily) break.

Since it is a set of rules, and rules are pretty much anathama to chaos as whole, I cannot see a constitution being chaotic in and of itself. It CAN, of course, espouse ideals that can be considered chaotic in nature. But it would really have to try to make a block of rules seem chaotic, and would be useless at that point.

Segev

2020-05-14, 05:14 PM

The issue there though is how do you define "more evil?" Yes, it's logical to conclude that mixing X with Y results in both the X and the Y being more diluted than they would be if "pure" and alone. But that logic doesn't necessarily work if you measure evil a different way, such as effectiveness. For example, in Greyhawk the most effective evil is arguably Asmodeus, who fooled every good deity in creation via the Pact Primeval, and that only worked because of the existential threat posed by the CE Abyss. Meanwhile in Golarion, the most powerful evil deity in the setting that required all the others (good and evil alike) to band together to stop him or else perish, was Rovagug (CE). In both settings, NE is more of a footnote. In Faerun meanwhile, NE is the most dangerous due to Shar, though she's content to play the very long game.

A NE entity might be more dedicated to evil as a concept, and willing to pursue any or all means to achieve it - but that lack of focus may actually lead to them being less effective overall too, and the amount of evil they actually cause in the world could be slimmer as a result.

That really depends on what you mean by "effectiveness."

Asmodeus sacrifices some of his evil for the sake of adhering to his Lawful plans. He sacrifices some Law, twisting it about to serve his Evil agenda. Yes, he's highly effective, but one could argue that his alignment is not the most contributory aspect to his effectiveness. The Demon Princess Asmo-chan, his hypothetical CE equal, may well be just as effective. That's...probably its own thread worth of discussion, trying to figure out how and whether paragons of the eight major points on the alignment wheel could conceivably be as effective at advancing their goals as Asmodeus is his.

The point I'm getting at here, though, is that if Asmodeus advances the cause of Evil more than anybody else, that speaks not to the utility of Law for that purpose, but just to how effective Asmodeus is. There is literally nothing preventing a Neutral Evil deceiver from feigning as much Law as Asmodeus feigned Good to trick everyone, and he'd go much further in the crucial moment because of his greater willingness to betray everything the moment it all hinged on his being bound by the letter of his word.

GrayDeath

2020-05-15, 04:53 PM

You don’t have to agree with my ultimate conclusion, but you cannot deny that there isn’t a unique relationship between Wisdom and Lawful Alignments.

True. Noone cannot deny that it isnt a unique relationship.

Ergo we all can agree that it isnt a unique Relationship.

Thread finished.

^^

MR_Anderson

2020-05-15, 05:57 PM

True. Noone cannot deny that it isnt a unique relationship.

Ergo we all can agree that it isnt a unique Relationship.
^^

Very good catch. 👍

Other people even quoted it and did not catch that. I proof read my responses multiple times before posting, because of my vision disability and didn’t catch that double negative typo.

I’m pretty sure this discussion is ended here, so the main topic isn’t completely sidetracked. My reasoning for discussing it had a relation to the main topic.

However Abilities vs Alignment is starting up in another thread, and I might partake in the discussion if it isn’t treated as a mockery or joke, because there is a deep understanding to things of this topic.

PairO'Dice Lost

2020-05-16, 10:11 PM

This is definitely house rules territory, but I always prefer to view it as a wheel rather than a grid. More like the planes than like the alignment chart. That is: Neutral Evil is more Evil than either Lawful Evil or Chaotic Evil. Lawful Neutral is more Lawful than either Lawful Good or Lawful Evil. Neutral Good is more Good than either Lawful Good or Chaotic Good. Chaotic Neutral is more Chaotic than either Chaotic Good or Chaotic Evil.

The "corner" alignments are admixtures. They're just as far from True Neutral as any of the "cardinal" alignments, but they're less of either of their components than being on the cardinal points would be.

This is just my conception, though; I am making no hard RAW claims.

NE being more Evil (by volume, at least) than LE or CE is true, but Nifft's point that they're all equally bad from the perspective of Good is also true. Soil is more Earth-y than either lava or mud, as the former is pure elemental Earth while the latter are Fire/Earth and Water/Earth mixtures, but anyone submerged head-first in any of the three isn't exactly going to be in a position to argue whether burning, choking, or drowning to death is a less-bad way to go. :smallamused:

Nitpick. All spokes of a wheel are equally distant from the center. The intercardinal alignments would not be any more or less chaotic/lawful/good/evil than the cardinals. They just focus on different things.

Asmodeus sacrifices some of his evil for the sake of adhering to his Lawful plans.

Draken is right here, the AD&D take on alignment (whence the Great Wheel and the exemplar lords derive) doesn't view LG/CG/LE/CE as less "pure" in their alignments than NG/NE/LN/CN, but rather that the former are just as Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic as the latter in a "greater than the sum of their parts" kinda way. You'll note that in the image Nifft posted from the 1e PHB appendix the corner alignments have much larger shares of the grid and their own Saintly/Beatific/Diabolic/Demoniac titles where the other alignments don't get titles of their own, and there are basically zero NG/NE/LN/CN monsters in the 1e monster books and the ones that did show up later are much less numerous (in terms of monsters published, not in-game strength) and distinct.

If anything, NE is just as much Evil+Neutrality as LE is Evil+Law, so while NE has less regard for ethical concerns than LE neither of them is "sacrificing" Evilness in favor of their other alignment component.

Yes, he's highly effective, but one could argue that his alignment is not the most contributory aspect to his effectiveness. The Demon Princess Asmo-chan, his hypothetical CE equal, may well be just as effective.
[...]
There is literally nothing preventing a Neutral Evil deceiver from feigning as much Law as Asmodeus feigned Good to trick everyone, and he'd go much further in the crucial moment because of his greater willingness to betray everything the moment it all hinged on his being bound by the letter of his word.

...I just want you to know that when my D&D group discovers that the fiendishly clever mind behind the villainous plot in our next campaign turns out to be Magical Lyrical Demon Princess Asmo-Chan living in her Abyssal layer of neon pink blood, sparkly crystal fangs, and acidic lollipop forests and promoting ideals of Universal Love, Peace, and Friendship OR ELSE, I'm laying the blame entirely on you. :smallbiggrin: