PDA

View Full Version : Law vs. Chaos in D&D- How do you run it?



Charles Phipps
2007-11-12, 07:16 PM
Gary Gygax envisioned the Law vs. Chaos conflict to be as important as the battle between Good vs. Evil. Certain things, like the Blood War, have accented this battle as well.

So, how important is it in your game? Does the difference between a lawful and Chaotic mindset mean that much in your games?

Shas aia Toriia
2007-11-12, 07:18 PM
Nope, it really isn't that big, right? I mean, its not like chaos can have an organization or anything (if you think they can, go back to school - its CHAOS!!!)

Stormcrow
2007-11-12, 07:20 PM
Just like you can't have an Anarchist anything. Government, Regime, Movement, Nothing.

Chaos.

MCerberus
2007-11-12, 07:23 PM
I think the best way to demonstrate law vs chaos is a hasty coalition of people who work together for their own mutual good vs big Juggernaut invading alliance.


This rarely works out for the forces of chaos (See: Homer's Illiad where the Greek's were the juggernaut facing off against the coalition)

edit - although in a DnD setting this usually means a group of youths start a resistance to liberate their homeland. Although it might be fun to have a party set out to maintain order so that the government can set up institutions to better the conquered people.

nerulean
2007-11-12, 07:23 PM
I tend to define lawful as "follows the guidelines laid down by others (society/leader/family)" and chaotic as "considers her own opinion first", which neatly allows chaotic characters to not all be maniacs. It does occasionally bring me to problems with the DM who says "follows personal code" is lawful, but it's the definition I've found that makes the most sense to me.

Law/Chaos is definitely not as important as Good/Evil. Oh no, I must go and slay that terrible creature who is rearranging the books in the library so they are no longer in alphabetical order!

Neon Knight
2007-11-12, 07:29 PM
Gary Gygax envisioned the Law vs. Chaos conflict to be as important as the battle between Good vs. Evil. Certain things, like the Blood War, have accented this battle as well.

So, how important is it in your game? Does the difference between a lawful and Chaotic mindset mean that much in your games?

A being of pure Law would probably be so hidebound to the Law that it would lack free will and probably sentience. A being of pure Chaos would likewise be something like a gibbering mouther crossed with a Chaos beast, and would be utterly insane.

When the ultimate exemplars of the alignment are so utterly inhuman as to be impossible to emphasize/connect with, it makes the conflict difficult to get into.


Just like you can't have an Anarchist anything. Government, Regime, Movement, Nothing.

Chaos.

By the way, Anarchy is a system of belief. It states that humans don't need governments or that governments are undesirable/evil. Thus, I feel a dedicated anarchist is lawful.


I tend to define lawful as "follows the guidelines laid down by others (society/leader/family)" and chaotic as "considers her own opinion first", which neatly allows chaotic characters to not all be maniacs. It does occasionally bring me to problems with the DM who says "follows personal code" is lawful, but it's the definition I've found that makes the most sense to me.

Law/Chaos is definitely not as important as Good/Evil. Oh no, I must go and slay that terrible creature who is rearranging the books in the library so they are no longer in alphabetical order!

The problem I have with this definition is that it implies Lawful people cannot create, only mindlessly follow, which is more than mildly insulting. Err, as insulting as a concept such as alignment could be.

MrNexx
2007-11-12, 07:32 PM
Go back to the sources... Elric and Three Hearts and Three Lions would be good places to look.

On the one hand, Law can be about community and cooperation, but it can also be about stifling rigidity.

Chaos can be about freedom and creativity, but also about anarchism and "Your fourth grade gym class for the rest of your life."

It's worth noting that a lack of law (a chaotic society) doesn't necessarily mean a lack of rules. The traditional conception of the Wild West, for example, is of a very chaotic society, with little law, but if you didn't obey certain codes of behavior (rules), you would have far more trouble.

Fishy
2007-11-12, 09:08 PM
A being of pure Law would probably be so hidebound to the Law that it would lack free will and probably sentience. A being of pure Chaos would likewise be something like a gibbering mouther crossed with a Chaos beast, and would be utterly insane.

While I agree with you, I can almost imagine a partiularly deranged Artificer scrying a colony of Mordrons or something, and being convinced they were the perfect society- and if it weren't for psychopaths who worshipped chaos beasts, Lovecraft would have nothing to do. :P

Neon Knight
2007-11-12, 09:32 PM
and if it weren't for psychopaths who worshipped chaos beasts, Lovecraft would have nothing to do. :P

I don't think Lovecraftian creatures are so much chaos beasts as they are incomprehensible by puny, limited, retarded human perception. Essentially, in the Lovecraft Mythos, humans are petty, worthless, and insignificant lifeforms incapable of comprehending the truths of the universe. Things like Cthulhu have purpose, logic, and reason behind them, but the only way to understand it is to go insane. Actual pure chaos beings by their definition have no sense, purpose, logic, or reason behind them.

That's how I always interpreted it anyway.

Charles Phipps
2007-11-12, 09:39 PM
In my campaigns, I do make major points that the importance of Law and Chaos is a conflict every bit as important as the one between Good and Evil. Here's some general notes of how I embody it.

1. Dwarves and Elves repeatedly are at odds, up to as well as including war. Dwarves despise the elves as shiftless layabouts, honorless trash, thieves, and worse epithets. Elves, likewise, loathe the dwarves for their ridiculous and merciless legal system as well as self-serving greed/expansionist (a function of the Dwarf desire to make sense of the world) tendencies.

2. Arcadia and Arborea as enemy planes. Just as Arcadia covertly supports plenty of organizations like the Harmonium/Church of St. Cuthbert/etc, Arborea constantly releases chaos causing faeries amongst other creatures that undermine social mores while destroying lives (often by kidnapping young brides to live lives of dedadent luxury or forcing the humans to flee from their current existence because their homes are cursed to hell)

3. Pandemonium and Mechanus are powers in their own right: That's enough said right there.

Charles Phipps
2007-11-12, 09:43 PM
Actual pure chaos beings by their definition have no sense, purpose, logic, or reason behind them.

That's how I always interpreted it anyway.

Well as a reflection of how science works. Chaosticians (remember Ian Malcolm from Jurassic park? The guy played by Jeff Goldbloom) postulate that randomness has it's own patterns.

Which in D&D is either the ultimate expression of lawfulness or simply an acknowledgment that the Alignments are not PURELY reflections of Law/Chaos/Good/Evil but merely an interpretation of them.

bugsysservant
2007-11-12, 09:48 PM
Am I the only one who values poor chaos? :smallfrown:

In my cosmology the universe is divided along three axes. Good/Evil, Chaos/Evil and Life/Death (and undeath). Along each axis there are three divisions, the two extremes and neutral. Opposing planes are at war. Thus there are 27 different planes.

This also does away with a lot of the "death is always evil" belief that is so persistent in the default rules. While I prefer the movement away from this by the repose domain, I also believe that death is a natural part of the life cycle without which the world would pretty much end.

Egill
2007-11-12, 09:57 PM
Am I the only one who values poor chaos? :smallfrown:

In my cosmology the universe is divided along three axes. Good/Evil, Chaos/Evil and Life/Death (and undeath). Along each axis there are three divisions, the two extremes and neutral. Opposing planes are at war. Thus there are 27 different planes.

This also does away with a lot of the "death is always evil" belief that is so persistent in the default rules. While I prefer the movement away from this by the repose domain, I also believe that death is a natural part of the life cycle without which the world would pretty much end.

I favor "poor" chaos.

But then again, that probably comes from reading/thinking waaaaay too much about idealogical anarchism when I was younger.

I generally tend to view law/chaos along these lines: law assumes that humanoids are not strictly rational, but require a codified set of rules based upon precedence to ensure harmony, while chaos assumes that humanoids are mostly rational, and that strict rules undermine the dignity and adaptability (which also undermines survivability) of sentient beings.

This allows for chaotic governments, and lawful "anarchic" states that rely more on rigid cultural ideology than a police/military/judicial presence.

Edit: I also dislike the standard notion that death is an inherently evil fascination. I have a neutral good necromancer in the works who tries to act as a shepherd to the living, while punishing those who dismiss the value of life. I really like the idea of a character who communes with the dead, asking permission to use their remains to further a righteous cause.

Mewtarthio
2007-11-12, 09:59 PM
I generally tend to view law/chaos along these lines: law assumes that humanoids are not strictly rational, but require a codified set of rules based upon precedence to ensure harmony, while chaos assumes that humanoids are mostly rational, and that strict rules undermine the dignity and adaptability (which also undermines survivability) of sentient beings.

Seems good, except "rational" is too vague a term.

MCerberus
2007-11-12, 10:02 PM
Am I the only one who values poor chaos? :smallfrown:

In my cosmology the universe is divided along three axes. Good/Evil, Chaos/Evil and Life/Death (and undeath). Along each axis there are three divisions, the two extremes and neutral. Opposing planes are at war. Thus there are 27 different planes.

This also does away with a lot of the "death is always evil" belief that is so persistent in the default rules. While I prefer the movement away from this by the repose domain, I also believe that death is a natural part of the life cycle without which the world would pretty much end.

Yah I'm against the whole "Chaos is evil" thing. Like in my previous post I just realized that law sounds evil in that situation... meh... Go team chaos!

Egill
2007-11-12, 10:06 PM
Seems good, except "rational" is too vague a term.

Haha, I have defined one really vague term by using another really vague term.

Something along the lines of this rational choice theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory). With the "goals" of the optimization usually comfort and subsistence.

DivineBriliance
2007-11-12, 10:16 PM
Choas/law Is more of a way of thought, doing it by others rules or your own.

Lawful is not conscienceless obeying, Ever thought of a paladin in a Lawful evil city? he doesn't necessarily obey there laws...

So by this definition one can be a lawyer and be chaotic good instead of the usual lawful evil, he just bends the rules to his liking, sort of like the lawful evil lawyer but for good reasons.

How is it possible to be a chaotic good lawyer you say? Well a lawful good is obey not just the laws literally but the true meaning of the law or so to speak no loopholes! lawful evil is all about the loopholes in the law for further self profit.
Chaotic good is all about following your own rules, but it doesn't mean you cant obey the law, you just need a twist on the law to be chaotic.

Prometheus
2007-11-12, 10:18 PM
I tend to view Chaos as willingness to take losses and accept risks and Lawful as willingness to be patient and take convoluted routes to success.

Here is the classical dichotomy that I present between Chaotic Good and Lawful Good, is it worth considerably risking the lives of innocence or letting things get out of control, to do the right thing? If yes on principle, you are chaotic and would revolt against an oppressive government. If no on principle, you are lawful think that ideals come first and stability is a prerequisite for justice. If neither are principles upon which you act, than

For Chaotic Evil and Lawful Evil I use a comparable question: Are you willing to personally put yourself at risk for more power/wealth/pleasure/what you want? If yes chaotic, if no lawful.

I run the Law vs. Chaos axis a lot and it tends to be centering around a costly governmental revolution or collateral losses. Religious furvor tends to be a Law vs. Neutral conflict and savage wilderness tends to be a Chaos vs. Neutral conflict.

Neon Knight
2007-11-12, 10:23 PM
For Chaotic Evil and Lawful Evil I use a comparable question: Are you willing to personally put yourself at risk for more power/wealth/pleasure/what you want? If yes chaotic, if no lawful.


There went Paladins of Tyranny.

EDIT: And come to think of it, hobgoblins.

Mewtarthio
2007-11-12, 10:26 PM
Haha, I have defined one really vague term by using another really vague term.

Something along the lines of this rational choice theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory). With the "goals" of the optimization usually comfort and subsistence.

So, in effect, you're saying that Lawful people believe that the little guys don't know what's best for them? :amused:


Choas/law Is more of a way of thought, doing it by others rules or your own.

Lawful is not conscienceless obeying, Ever thought of a paladin in a Lawful evil city? he doesn't necessarily obey there laws...

So by this definition one can be a lawyer and be chaotic good instead of the usual lawful evil, he just bends the rules to his liking, sort of like the lawful evil lawyer but for good reasons.

How is it possible to be a chaotic good lawyer you say? Well a lawful good is obey not just the laws literally but the true meaning of the law or so to speak no loopholes! lawful evil is all about the loopholes in the law for further self profit.
Chaotic good is all about following your own rules, but it doesn't mean you cant obey the law, you just need a twist on the law to be chaotic.

I'd say any lawyer would have to be lawful because he works within the system. A Chaotic Good guy who found an innocent wrongly accused would just break him out of there. Now, there's nothing wrong with a Chaotic guy knowing how to work the system, it's just that he'd just as soon see the system dismantled.

Charles Phipps
2007-11-12, 10:45 PM
Alignment rules vary from Table to Table. It's always important to clarify your take at a game.

Here's my take on the rules.

Lawful: Individuals who prefer structure, regimented lifestyles, and discipline. Lawful individuals tend to create rules of behavior to guide their actions and are uncomfortable moving beyond this comfort zone of behavior. This leads to a lot of conflict with fellow Lawful individuals as neither side enjoys budging on even the slightest detail.

Chaotic: Individuals actively reject authority and control over their lifestyle. They handle things on a very emotional level and are uncomfortable with rules regulating matters as opposed to things handled on an individual basis. Chaotic individuals tend to disdain tradition and have difficulty understanding it except on the abstract level.

BardicDuelist
2007-11-12, 10:49 PM
In my world, the Law/Chaos thing isn't normally a big deal to mortals (except under certain circumstances), but is a huge deal to most outsiders. Good outsiders would still work with a good outsider of opposing alignment, in most cases, and so it is only amongst the L/CN and L/CE that this conflict is a great deal.

The Extinguisher
2007-11-12, 10:49 PM
Basically, for my group, you pick an alignment that goes with your character, and if you're lawful, you don't act too chaotic, and if your chaotic, you don't act too lawful. It's simple, but it works.

Of course, it leads to discussions on what is chaotic and lawful, but we've generally come to a consensus that baring Law/Chaos domain spells, anything can be played both lawfully or chaoticly (and likewise with Good/Evil)

Although I do like the idea that someone came up with one the forums for a third axis of Practical and Idealistic.

Nonah_Me
2007-11-12, 10:53 PM
In my games, I tend to run lawful societies as working towards a utilitarian ideal: The good of the many supercedes the good of the one or few.

For chaos and chaotic style governments, I tend to run them on the basis that free will is the most important thing, and that no entity has the right to limit a sentient being's freedom of choice.

There was a philosophical name for this kind of argument, but it's been years since school and my brain has to make room for how much damage a +3 flaming longsword does on a critial hit. Y'know?

bugsysservant
2007-11-12, 10:55 PM
Basically, for my group, you pick an alignment that goes with your character, and if you're lawful, you don't act too chaotic, and if your chaotic, you don't act too lawful. It's simple, but it works.


BAH! BAH I SAY! :smallmad:


Although I do like the idea that someone came up with one the forums for a third axis of Practical and Idealistic.

And please don't mention that to me. I have already spent the time describing 27 different planes based on three axes. I really don't need to add another layer of complexity. Anyway, who ever heard of the elemental plane of Lawful Evil Practical Death? :smalltongue:

Neon Knight
2007-11-12, 10:55 PM
In my games, I tend to run lawful societies as working towards a utilitarian ideal: The good of the many supercedes the good of the one or few.

For chaos and chaotic style governments, I tend to run them on the basis that free will is the most important thing, and that no entity has the right to limit a sentient being's freedom of choice.

There was a philosophical name for this kind of argument, but it's been years since school and my brain has to make room for how much damage a +3 flaming longsword does on a critial hit. Y'know?

In this definition:

Lawful = Collectivism/Communitarianism.
Chaotic = Anarchism/Individualism.

I've never liked this definition because it depends on the existence of entities such as governments. I think alignment should be able to exist independent of group relations.

tyckspoon
2007-11-12, 11:01 PM
BAH! BAH I SAY! :smallmad:



And please don't mention that to me. I have already spent the time describing 27 different planes based on three axes. I really don't need to add another layer of complexity. Anyway, who ever heard of the elemental plane of Lawful Evil Practical Death? :smalltongue:

Not every aspect of describing a person's way of thinking has to generate a plane. Besides, the third axis is obviously that of Funk. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55828&highlight=Funkitude)

Egill
2007-11-12, 11:01 PM
So, in effect, you're saying that Lawful people believe that the little guys don't know what's best for them? :amused:


Not necessarily "the little guys," but it seems like a prerequisite for strong rules that at least a significant portion of the relevant population cannot manage its own ethical or moral affairs.

The Extinguisher
2007-11-12, 11:08 PM
BAH! BAH I SAY! :smallmad:

You know it works!

And the third axis works so well.
Practical Lawful Evil and Idealistic Lawful Evil are two completely different things, and you don't get the pidgeon holeing that "All Lawful Evil people must do this." Sure, you get "All LE people must do this and this", but it's a step up.

Life and Death don't make any sense.

Mikeavelli
2007-11-12, 11:15 PM
Mmm, I once set up a campaign just to illustrate the conflict between Lawful good and Chaotic Good.

BBEG was the emperor reigning tyrannical-style over a large city and surrounding lands. The situation had gotten so out of hand that he'd essentially killed off all the high-level characters who could have opposed him, consorted with fiends from the lower planes, etc. So it drew the attention of not one, but two powerful celestial figures, each intent on hunting down and destroying the fiendish influence in the city.

One, a Trumpet Archon, bought himself a noble title and went about rallying the upper classes, drawing support for a middle class rebellion, becomming so powerful politically in such a short amount of time that by the time BBEG realized what he was doing, it was too late to just imprison him.

The other, a Ghale Eladrin, hijacked the existing resistance movement, organized and consolidated it.

Both of them were masquerading as humans, and were constantly mindblanked and otherwise protected from scrying, alignment detection, etc. 24\7 - so when the players entered on the scene, they'd never actually met, and didn't know they were both celestials. Indeed, focusing on the lawful or chaotic actions of each other, they each thought the other one was the fiend they came here to hunt down. Opposition to each other's plans figured in more than opposition from the actual BBEG

It was up to the players, who ended up running missions for each patron several times, to piece togather the fact that neither of them were fiendish, overthow the evil BBEG, and find out the only actual fiend in the city was a particularly smart Imp.

Heh.

Nonah_Me
2007-11-12, 11:19 PM
In this definition:

Lawful = Collectivism/Communitarianism.
Chaotic = Anarchism/Individualism.

I've never liked this definition because it depends on the existence of entities such as governments. I think alignment should be able to exist independent of group relations.


Utilitarianism is not collectivism nor communism. A character who's philosophy is guided by utilitarianism would perform actions based on the largest amount of utility (i.e. usefullness or "good" though not good as in the objective DnD term). A paladin of honor acting this way might require a farmer (who may or may not be poor) who cheated (either inadvertantly or on purpose) another farmer to repay the victim, even in the complete absence of governmental rules and regulations. This is because "society" and "government" are not mutually inclusive.

However, a paladin of freedom would also require recompense because stealing denies a person the freedom of choice, that is, the freedom to choose what to do with the item that was stolen.

graymachine
2007-11-12, 11:21 PM
Law v. Chaos is hard to illustrate in D&D without pointing to the extremes. Humans, as creatures of the real world, having difficulty finding consistency in pure abstract realms. Does the Great Modron March make any more sense that the Blood War? I'd suggest reading on both, as well as the planes in general to understand the differences in the alignments. If you want a more real world discussion, there is a wealth of material out there, as these kinds of arguments have been going on for the last couple thousand years.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-12, 11:31 PM
Gary Gygax envisioned the Law vs. Chaos conflict to be as important as the battle between Good vs. Evil. Certain things, like the Blood War, have accented this battle as well.

So, how important is it in your game? Does the difference between a lawful and Chaotic mindset mean that much in your games?

Alignment is almost everything in my campaigns, people who don't play alignment correctly tend to have problems reconciling their own personal views (or they just don't read the alignment rules).

Charles Phipps
2007-11-13, 02:27 AM
I always liked the Rod of Seven parts backstory.

The Wind Dukes vs. the Queen of Chaos.

Roderick_BR
2007-11-13, 05:15 AM
Hmm... I mostly use chaos and law as just an attitude thing, as part of the good-evil axis. Like, you have Cuthbert, that is mainly lawful neutral, and is the essence of law, but it rarely gets into wars with chaotic deities, not like good/evil deities get into war at least.
Like, you can have a lawful good paladin, and a chaotic good bard in a group. The paladin will think the bard is too flighty and unpredictable, and the bard will point out the paladin's stick in the butt class feature. But they'll work along fine.
But put a neutral good barbarian and a neutral evil cleric in one group, and you start having problems.
I mostly let any character pick law/chaos as they want, as long the party agree as a whole if they'll be a good or evil party (except special cases, of course).

Neon Knight
2007-11-13, 07:16 AM
Utilitarianism is not collectivism nor communism. A character who's philosophy is guided by utilitarianism would perform actions based on the largest amount of utility (i.e. usefullness or "good" though not good as in the objective DnD term). A paladin of honor acting this way might require a farmer (who may or may not be poor) who cheated (either inadvertantly or on purpose) another farmer to repay the victim, even in the complete absence of governmental rules and regulations. This is because "society" and "government" are not mutually inclusive.

However, a paladin of freedom would also require recompense because stealing denies a person the freedom of choice, that is, the freedom to choose what to do with the item that was stolen.

You might want to read what I wrote again. Communitarianism. As in, Communitarian, not communism. I never mentioned utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a philosophy that seems to be capable of existing independent of an alignment.

Communitarianism emphasizes the interest of communities and societies over those of the individual. That was effectively what the person I was quoting said he considered Lawful. Thus I told him that in his games, Lawful = Communitarianism. Collectivism is very similar to communitarianism, and thus also got on the list.

mostlyharmful
2007-11-13, 07:38 AM
In my games I remove the Lawful/Chaotic alignments, outsiders still behave the same and treat each other the same however it's about tribalism and different races/homeplanes rather than alignments. there aren't any magical effects concerned with Law/Chaos and players get to run their characters how they wish without being pinged as chaotic or rule abiding etc..

The outsiders might think in terms of individualism and collective authority, but this isn't expressed on a multiverse wide scale. the ultimate planes of Mechina and limbo become Inner planes with almost no life since sentience is pretty much anathama to both (suppression of free will and insanity respectively). So the Bloodwar is still being fought, because there are multiple "clans" of evil outsiders and the good outsiders are split up because they like to be surrounded by those that think the same way. Incidentally I useually drop the upper and lower planes into a single plane each, just really big, so heaven and hell become places and internal squabbles can be just that.

Mr.Moron
2007-11-13, 07:46 AM
Personally I like to look at "Law" and "Chaos" as being about how people go about things, as opposed to "Good" and "Evil" which determines what exactly they do.


For me, Lawful is all about having clear code of proper procedure that is separate from whatever moral inclination they may have along their other axis (Good, Neutral or Evil).Lawfulness is the part of a person that faces a situation and thinks "How am I supposed to do this". Somebody Lawful answers to something abstract and (usually), external. Lawful doesn't mean inflexible adherence to one way of doing things, except in extreme cases of LAWFUL nuetral; taken to a level really only suitable for [Lawful] outsiders. This is because somebody who is Lawful still has another axis to follow.That axis ultimately determines what they do, Law is simply a way of how they go about it. There is a correct way to do things for a Lawful being, it is defined outside whatever momentary situation they may be facing.

Chaos, on the other hand is about instinct, impulse and emotion. Chaos is basically, a complete lack of lawful qualities. While a neutral character might prefer to "Go with their gut" but follow rules because circumstances, a chaotic person does not. Someone "Chaotic" always goes with their gut unless somehow restrained from doing so. Chaos doesn't mean random insanity, again except in the case of CHAOTIC nuetral. They've still got goals and values, and they're going to stick to those; they just aren't going to be overly picky how how they work at them. What chaotic character does is defined by the moment, and what they think the situation demands.


As for how important Law/Chaos is compared to Good/Evil, I'd call it slightly less important. It is just that Good/Evil are more about concrete concepts of right and wrong, Law/Chaos is about an abstract "Correct" approach.

The way I'd see it, Lawful Good can probably tolerate and even like Chaotic Good. Lawful Good sees Chaotic Good as rude, crude and socially unacceptable but ultimately decent. Chaotic Good uses all the wrong methods, but in the end the world is a better place for it's existence.

Much in the same way, Chaotic Good probably sees Lawful Good as uptight, slow to action and ineffective, but a positive force. However, for all the time it spends on pointless and arbitrary procedure, it does the right thing.

So long as they're the same on the Good/Evil axis, Law and Chaos can probably get along OK.

I don't think it works so great the other way around.

To Lawful Good, Lawful Evil is corrupt, hateful and twisted. In some ways, I think Lawful Evil is a stronger enemy of Lawful Good than Chaotic Evil is. Lawful Evil takes much of what Lawful Good values and twists it to harm others. Lawful Evil takes everything about "Law" and invalidates it, destroys it.

Chaotic Good has no tolerance for Chaotic Evil either. Something Chaotic Evil has natural sort of impulsive urge to do harm that is the total opposite of Chaotic Good. Chaotic Evil uses everything that defines Chaos; instinct, freedom, impulse and makes them into something dark. Just like with LE/LG, in a strange way Chaotic Evil is an even greater enemy of Chaotic Good than Lawful Evil is. This is because everything a Chaotic Good character is gets turned on it's head with Chaotic Evil. Somebody is using the same approach to life, but somehow doing it all wrong. Chaotic Evil is probably twisted beyond understanding for Chaotic Good. At least with Lawful Evil, Chaotic Good can at least point to all that stifling oppression and blame it.


As for neutrality:
LG can probably tolerate LN, it at least behaves itself. CG is at best wary of CN,when your impulse is to be good, people who kind of just do what serves themselves are frustrating. LE probably likes LN, easy to manipulate. CE probably finds CN just as easy to stir up, in order to cause trouble. NG & NE are probably just less extreme versions LG/LE to somebody Chaotic and CG/CE to somebody Lawful.


Obviously there is some wiggle room in all this, but that is how I see the general trend.

Serpentine
2007-11-13, 07:51 AM
I haven't thought too deeply about what exactly Law and Chaos mean (the self vs. the community seems about right to me), but I do thing they're highly underused sources of roleplaying. I know I've said this a few times elsewhere, but I really think it's important/helpful to decide which axis means the most to your character - is the Lawful Good paladin more concerned about upholding the law because bending it even once can lead to the collapse of society and suffering, or about making sure that justice is done, within the law when possible and without when necessary?

I'm also pondering, very vaguely, about trying an adventure or campaign that's as Law vs. Chaos as most are Good vs. Law. So, where Chaotic, Neutral and Lawful Good and Lawful beings might join forces to fight off a great evil, so Lawful Good, Neutral and Evil beings might join forces to counter the threat of absolute chaos. Not sure how it'd work...

daggaz
2007-11-13, 08:00 AM
Just like you can't have an Anarchist anything. Government, Regime, Movement, Nothing.

Chaos.

Ugh. I am so tired of this enormous misconception. An anarchist government does NOT mean chaos. It means a form of government without any form of hierarchal organisation. No great leader, no chain of command. A true democracy is actually an anarchist system of government. These forms do work, tho they can be very difficult to manage (for obvious reasons), especially in larger groups. It requires a lot of trust and dedication to a cause or system of beliefs to work.

I would say go back to school, but the sad thing is that most schools simply teach anarchy = chaos.

EDIT: And on top of that, you can have such things as chaotic movement. Both in phsyics, and in sociology. Brownean motion, chaotic movement. This sixties in general? Probably pretty chaotic if you actually look at EVERYTHING people were trying to accomplish..

Saph
2007-11-13, 09:11 AM
Personally? I pay them almost no attention at all. I let players call themselves Lawful or Chaotic, and I might adjust it if they've obviously chosen an alignment that doesn't match the way they're playing, but that's all.

I just don't care about Law vs Chaos very much. Good vs Evil is the axis that interests me.

- Saph

Fishy
2007-11-13, 10:59 AM
The alignment system is one of the stupidest things about D&D. That said-

I usually think of Good-Evil as more or less equivalent to Selfless-Selfish, with Good characters working for the benefit of others, Neutral characters looking after their own interests, and Evil characters as having no hesitations about hurting others to get what they want.

So with the morality axis determining how a character thinks they should act, I'd run the Law-Chaos axis as determining how they think about the way the world works. Is there order to the universe, or do things happen at random? Is there an objective morality, or do we make up our own? Is society-building an inherent part of humanity/dwarfness/halflingocity, or is everyone ultimately out for themselves? Predestination or Free Will?

It breaks down sort of like this:

Lawful Evil: There is a natural order to the world, and I belong on top of it. People only suffer because they deserve it- and any fool who opposes my inevitable rise will suffer. Etc, etc.

Lawful Neutral: The universe runs on a strict set of rules- and that's just the way it is. Get used to it. This is where scientists, scholarly wizards, meditative monks and several druids end up, just because if there are rules to the universe, it'd be useful to understand what they are.

Lawful Good: There is an objective morality- Good and Evil can be measured, and it is my duty, the only duty, to increase the amount of Good in the world. Villains need to be stopped, innocents need to be protected, because it is Right.

Chaotic Good: "We are here to help each other get through this thing, whatever it is." When I help someone else, it makes their job easier, their life better, and it makes them feel less alone. That's all there is, but that's all I need.

Chaotic Neutral: I need to put my needs first, because in the end, the only person who you can always trust to take care of you is yourself. So I'm going to take care of myself, and I expect everyone else to do the same.

Chaotic Evil: You only get how much you take. So, if I'm going to have any power at all, if I'm going to get what I want, I have to go out there and take it. Don't get in my way.

BRC
2007-11-13, 11:07 AM
One thing about Law Vs. Chaos that Ive always wondered.
Let's say theres a barbarian, so he's chaotic because Chaos is associated with freedom, which makes sense.
But what if his tribe had a set of very strict traditions that they followed, the proper way to treat the corpse of a worthy foe, how to thank the spirits for a succsessful hunt, the proper way to name your weapon, the way you yourself are named Ect. These traditions can easily fit and make sense, but they would be considered lawful as they are rules that must be followed, so how would that work?

Indon
2007-11-13, 11:18 AM
In this definition:

Lawful = Collectivism/Communitarianism.
Chaotic = Anarchism/Individualism.

I've never liked this definition because it depends on the existence of entities such as governments. I think alignment should be able to exist independent of group relations.

This is about how I run Law/Chaos as well (ideally, anyway; alignment does not come up much in my games), but I don't view it as dependent on government, simply community.

Let's say we have a tiny village with two Druids living nearby.

The Lawful Neutral Druid lives close to the village. He wants to keep a close eye on how the villagers live with nature, and to help them learn about the nearby wilderness. He makes up a large part of the community's involvement with nature.

The Chaotic Neutral Druid lives in the wilderness. He supports himself and goes out adventuring locally and almost all of his community involvement is in the barely-extant Druid commmunity.

The LN Druid feels that the CN Druid is ignoring his duty, which is among other things, being a go-between for normal individuals and nature.

The CN Druid feels that the LN Druid is making people dependent on him, and that this dependency will leave the community floundering if and when the LN Druid can not perform his duties.

Mr.Moron
2007-11-13, 11:24 AM
One thing about Law Vs. Chaos that Ive always wondered.
Let's say theres a barbarian, so he's chaotic because Chaos is associated with freedom, which makes sense.
But what if his tribe had a set of very strict traditions that they followed, the proper way to treat the corpse of a worthy foe, how to thank the spirits for a succsessful hunt, the proper way to name your weapon, the way you yourself are named Ect. These traditions can easily fit and make sense, but they would be considered lawful as they are rules that must be followed, so how would that work?

I'd certainly say that's easily a Lawful system, and those working within it would be Lawful. It's also probably not a system that would produce "Barbarians" in their default flavor. The basic barbarian as presented is somebody flying into a crazy rage, smashing stuff and just generally acting on impulse. Not the sort who is going to be calling out to his named weapon or saying words for a fallen foe in the middle of his killing spree. A nuetral member of that tribe might pull off being an barbarian - following the traditions because he thinks they provide strength, instead of thinking their meaning has real value.

Of course if you don't mind tweaking the "RAW" fluff a bit, you could get rid of the non-lawful aspect of a barbarian and rename "Rage" to "Battle Trance" or something. Same result, different explination.

MCerberus
2007-11-13, 11:31 AM
One thing about Law Vs. Chaos that Ive always wondered.
Let's say theres a barbarian, so he's chaotic because Chaos is associated with freedom, which makes sense.
But what if his tribe had a set of very strict traditions that they followed, the proper way to treat the corpse of a worthy foe, how to thank the spirits for a succsessful hunt, the proper way to name your weapon, the way you yourself are named Ect. These traditions can easily fit and make sense, but they would be considered lawful as they are rules that must be followed, so how would that work?


Indecision or a fair mix between law and chaos is considered a neutral trait, and I think this would qualify. Living a nomadic lifestyle as a tribe has some inherent chaos in it, and if you don't think that (which you are entitled) then at the very least raging is a VERY chaotic act. You go insane and break formation, ignore tactics, and even turn on something if they look at you the wrong way. No matter what the objective was you're not going to stop until the other side stops breathing.

So your situation sounds like a neutral setup slightly favoring good.

Fixer
2007-11-13, 11:56 AM
Gary Gygax envisioned the Law vs. Chaos conflict to be as important as the battle between Good vs. Evil. Certain things, like the Blood War, have accented this battle as well.

So, how important is it in your game? Does the difference between a lawful and Chaotic mindset mean that much in your games?
I once wrote a campaign that I billed to the players as the classic good vs evil. Instead it was law vs. chaos.

The 'Law' side was comprised of paladins and devils at war with each other. In order to keep safe their populations they enforced strict laws within their dominions. Freedoms were limited and the lands between the two were nearly destroyed.

The 'Chaos' side were those who felt oppressed by the laws (both by good and evil) and attempted to rise up and overthrow the lawful sides. They wanted both the Paladins AND the devils to be taken down and to restore freedom and peace to all the lands. Their methods were to strike at the heads of government of both sides of the war.

The players were originally siding with the Lawful Good folks, but eventually came to question which side they should be siding with when they spent some quality time (i.e. not imprisoned) at a Chaotic camp. The players really enjoyed it.


One thing about Law Vs. Chaos that Ive always wondered.
Let's say theres a barbarian, so he's chaotic because Chaos is associated with freedom, which makes sense.
But what if his tribe had a set of very strict traditions that they followed, the proper way to treat the corpse of a worthy foe, how to thank the spirits for a succsessful hunt, the proper way to name your weapon, the way you yourself are named Ect. These traditions can easily fit and make sense, but they would be considered lawful as they are rules that must be followed, so how would that work?
The barbarian can follow those traditions and still be chaotic. Only if they felt they HAD to follow those traditions to be a part of their tribe would they be leaning lawful. If a chaotic barbarian believed those rituals and traditions WORKED to keep them stronger/faster/etc, they would perform them just as vigorously as a lawful person.

Jayabalard
2007-11-13, 01:15 PM
I'd certainly say that's easily a Lawful system, and those working within it would be Lawful. It's also probably not a system that would produce "Barbarians" in their default flavor.I agree; while they'd probably still be labeled as barbarians by outsiders, they really wouldn't fit into the barbarian class mold very well.


I see law vs chaos as primarily as a conflict between collectivism/traditionalism and individualism/innovation.

BRC
2007-11-13, 01:15 PM
The barbarian can follow those traditions and still be chaotic. Only if they felt they HAD to follow those traditions to be a part of their tribe would they be leaning lawful. If a chaotic barbarian believed those rituals and traditions WORKED to keep them stronger/faster/etc, they would perform them just as vigorously as a lawful person.

Hmm, so if the Barbarian did some ritual to give thanks for a succsessful hunt because he thought that if he didn't, he wouldn't have a succsessful hunt again that would still be chaotic. But if he did it for no reason other than the society would kick him out if he didn't that would be lawful?

Jayabalard
2007-11-13, 01:22 PM
Hmm, so if the Barbarian did some ritual to give thanks for a succsessful hunt because he thought that if he didn't, he wouldn't have a succsessful hunt again that would still be chaotic. But if he did it for no reason other than the society would kick him out if he didn't that would be lawful?That doesn't make any sense to me; choosing to be a traditionalist seems very much a lawful trait.

BRC
2007-11-13, 01:29 PM
So the impression I'm getting is that, according to RAW, barbarians cannot be from remotely developed cultures, even nomadic hunter-gatherer cultures, and if they are they must ignore those cultures or else they are lawful?

tainsouvra
2007-11-13, 01:32 PM
Do you believe that the purpose of each individual is to uphold society's structure, and thus benefit everyone? Lawful.
Do you believe that the purpose of each society is to uphold individuals' rights, and thus benefit everyone? Chaotic.

Many good/evil conflicts in a game have more to do with law/chaos than the players realize due to their own moral compasses making the issue muddy. The biggest problem with Law/Chaos is that we ourselves are lawful or chaotic:
To a lawful person, chaos seems wrong somehow, and it becomes difficult for them to differentiate it from evil.
To a chaotic person, law seems wrong somehow, and it becomes difficult for them to differentiate it from evil.

I'd be willing to bet that law/chaos elements show up regularly in many games, but they often go unrecognized.

tainsouvra
2007-11-13, 01:35 PM
One thing about Law Vs. Chaos that Ive always wondered.
Let's say theres a barbarian, so he's chaotic because Chaos is associated with freedom, which makes sense.
But what if his tribe had a set of very strict traditions that they followed, the proper way to treat the corpse of a worthy foe, how to thank the spirits for a succsessful hunt, the proper way to name your weapon, the way you yourself are named Ect. These traditions can easily fit and make sense, but they would be considered lawful as they are rules that must be followed, so how would that work? The Barbarian character class is only tangentially related to a tribal culture, even though a modern culture may refer to the members of a tribal culture as "barbarians".

The Barbarian class refers to highly skilled primal warriors who are prone to fly into insane rages, not tribal society members. Very different. The former flips out and kills people with his bare hands, the latter paints animal skins and passes down oral traditions by a campfire.

Mr.Moron
2007-11-13, 01:35 PM
That doesn't make any sense to me; choosing to be a traditionalist seems very much a lawful trait.

I think it's nuetral. Yes, hes choosing to adhere to tradition but not because there is any value in the tradition itself. He is only doing it because he thinks it benefits him, no more no less. Yes it's a Lawful act, but he isn't so much following the spirit of the code rather than just trying to benefit from it. I think being Lawful demands to at least some extent, following the code for the sake of the code. It's of course not chaotic because he isn't acting on impulse. However he isn't acting against "Chaos" because he isn't taking some stance to ignore his gut feeling, he just doesn't think it'll benefit him.

It isn't lawful for the exact same reason saving someones life to in hopes them giving you a big cash reward isn't good.

It's not chaotic for the same reason that not saving someones life because you think doing so would put yours at risk isn't evil.

tainsouvra
2007-11-13, 01:43 PM
So the impression I'm getting is that, according to RAW, barbarians cannot be from remotely developed cultures, even nomadic hunter-gatherer cultures, and if they are they must ignore those cultures or else they are lawful? Incorrect. The tribe's storyteller, priest, chief, basket weavers, and basically 95% or more of the population would be commoners and experts, and generally follow their society's law/chaos bent (probably neutral with some lawful). The tribe's elite warriors, who fight under a fury trance or simple uncontrolled rage, would include Barbarians in their number.

This is not an arbitrary D&D distinction, other than the naming convention of "barbarian" vs "Barbarian". For a major influence in the class, check out the berserkir (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berserker), a real-life military group very much like the D&D Barbarian.

Subotei
2007-11-13, 02:56 PM
Going back to Moorcock and his version of Law/Chaos, which DnD is heavily influenced by, Chaotic means freedom and creativity, but inconsistency in application.

A Chaotic individual may have a guiding set of principals, but by definition they may not stick to them (if they did they'd be Lawful). The Chaos lords in his End of Time books are portrayed as decadent, world weary, seekers of new experiences for the sake of experiencing them. They may play with a new creation, concept (or person!) for a while, but they are bored by routine and eventually their minds wander onto something else because it’s more fun. They behave like small children - the wrath of the Chaos gods is basically a toddler's tantrum when their fun is frustrated.

Moorcock didn't flesh out his idea for Law in as much detail (I guess it wasn't as much fun) but Law is exactly that - the rigid application of the rules, disciplined, but sterile. The Gods of Law are basically the cosmic parents, laying down the rules, but they lack the creativity of Chaos to produce anything new.

His concept of the balance between Chaos and Law is that without discipline (Law) the creativity of Chaos is never harnessed to produce anything worthwhile that lasts – it is in the interest of mankind, who perchance live in the universe fought over by these two forces, to ensure a balance exists where they can live. If either Chaos or Law ultimately conquer, mankind could not survive.

Applying this to DnD, anyone with a strong moral code that they won’t deviate from is essentially Lawful leaning. Anyone with moral ‘flexibility’ is Chaotic leaning. That’s why I have no problem with orcs being Chaotic, but still following detailed laws, routines etc. They may follow them for a while, but eventually they’ll fall out over the loot and fight, or not pay attention on guard duty cos they’d rather play dice. Being Chaotic doesn’t mean you can't follow rules, just that at some point you’ll not bother to.

hamishspence
2007-11-13, 03:40 PM
Now here we are seeing some clarity. I myself broke it down as follows:

Law: Control (of self, and/or others)
Chaos: Freedom, resisting control, etc
Evil: Destruction/damage, no restraint
Good: Creation/preservation

Monks are lawful, even if they are mostly concern with controlling themselves, not others

"Heroes" who believe their Cause allows them to do what they want in its service, are evil. Jacen Solo, in Legacy of the Force, has a good end: protecting the people, but uses evil means: torture, murder, false imprisonment, etc.

Those who believe people are being over-controlled, and act against this, are Chaotic at heart. Some work through strongly Lawful methods, such as changing laws as a politician, or defending peoples rights when governments try to take them away, as a lawyer. But the goal is Chaotic. When they oppose laws which are not over-controlling, they may be over-chaotic.
Non-evil Chaotic means include civil disobedience: no violence, no insults. just being obstructive and making your view clear.

People who not only avoid being evil, but commit their own resources to helping people, are generally Good. However good is not just about the ends, but the means. Good people use restraint in the actions, to avoid inadventently causing harm to others. They will not ignore those in need, just to serve a "Greater Good", nor will they fail to try in fix damage they accidentally cause. The only beings they might sacrifice are themselves, in defense of others.

illathid
2007-11-13, 05:04 PM
I personally don't like associating Law & Chaos with Individuality & Communitarianism. There is something about that system that just feels off. Namely, it seems weird that one can not be a chaotic and care for the community or be both individualistic and lawful.

Anyways, during a rousing (:smallsigh:) day in Ethics yesterday, while thinking about the problem at hand (i.e. daydreaming) I thought it might be a good idea to attach concrete ethical theories to the alingment system in D&D.

So what I came up with is that would be better to associate Law with Objective or Deontological ethics, and Chaos with Relative or Consequentialist ethics. Thus the Lawful Good rulers, or Paladins, are Kantian, always treating others as ends and never a means and following those maxims that could be applied universally, while the Chaotic Good rebels are Utilitarian, Trying to create the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people.

For example, working under this system lets look the example of the man who stole bread from the rich man to feed his starving family. A LG ruler would punish the thief as it is impermissible to not punish theft, however it would also be impermissible to not act with compassion towards other beings, so the ruler could give the thief a reduced sentence, or give his family an allowance, or have his punishment be fair paying menial labor, etc. A CG ruler would base his decision on what would produce the most good to the most people, and in this case that would most likely mean letting the thief go as that would result in good for the thief's whole family, while punishing him would result in good only for the rich man.

However, I have yet to work this out with the neutral and evil alignments, so any input you have would be appreciated.

Xuincherguixe
2007-11-13, 05:08 PM
One possible way of dealing with it is to make it about Freedom vs Justice. This even works for Evil too.

Lawful Evil types could believe that what they do is just. Or even simply that because it is them that it is by definition just. (Divine Right of Kings sort of thing). "The rules" are of paramount importance. For them "justice" is the letter of the law. The spirit is either ignored, or assumed to not even exist. There is no such thing as an unfair law.

The other alignments fall into place easily enough.


There might be other traits that come along with Law and Chaos, but by making this the key point it enables one to come up with conflict.

The plane of ultimate chaos could be one of extreme freedom, where there aren't even any laws of nature. To make a plane of "Justice" doesn't work so well. The Ultimate Law plane should be one in which everything can be explained in math. "Justice" here takes the form of being ultimately consistent and predictable.

I feel that I should point out that in this case, Justice is more than "harming those who break the rules." for the Justice/Freedom system, Justice as a force seeks to equalize. And conversely, freedom tends towards indefinition.

Jayabalard
2007-11-13, 06:23 PM
I personally don't like associating Law & Chaos with Individuality & Communitarianism. There is something about that system that just feels off. Namely, it seems weird that one can not be a chaotic and care for the community or be both individualistic and lawful.Actually, it sounds like your problem is that you're trying to apply alignments as absolutes and as something that controls characters rather than tendencies and something that is a reflection of characters. Individuals can have both chaotic and lawful tendencies.

chaotic individuals can definitely care about their community; they just tend to care more about the individuals of that community than the community as an institution.

A lawful individual could have some individualist tendencies, but IMO lawful individualist is indeed an oxymoron.

illathid
2007-11-13, 07:30 PM
Actually, it sounds like your problem is that you're trying to apply alignments as absolutes and as something that controls characters rather than tendencies and something that is a reflection of characters. Individuals can have both chaotic and lawful tendencies.

chaotic individuals can definitely care about their community; they just tend to care more about the individuals of that community than the community as an institution.

A lawful individual could have some individualist tendencies, but IMO lawful individualist is indeed an oxymoron.

I understand that characters can have tendencies for both law and chaos, I just find it meaningless to try and define it in terms of societal preferences.

As a thought experiment, imagine if there was a world that had but one creature in the entire universe. It's almost exactly like this world (i.e. there's rocks, and trees, and water, etc.), the only meaningful difference is that there is only one sentient creature. It should make sense to say that the person can be chaotic or lawful. there shouldn't be anything inherently preventing a lone creature from having a lawful or chaotic alignment. However, if Law and chaos are defined as Individuality & Communitarianism, that would be impossible. To be Communitarian there has to be a community, and to be Individualistic there has to be a group referenced against.

That is why I find using that particular definition of Law and Chaos to be meaningless. IMHO the Law v. Chaos axis should be independent of interaction with other creatures. If anything Good v. Evil should be based on interaction, not law & chaos.

As for a Lawful individualist, I set before you Harold Crick from the movie Stranger Than Fiction (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0420223/) (at least as he is portrayed at the beginning of the movie).

Neon Knight
2007-11-13, 07:45 PM
I understand that characters can have tendencies for both law and chaos, I just find it meaningless to try and define it in terms of societal preferences.

As a thought experiment, imagine if there was a world that had but one creature in the entire universe. It's almost exactly like this world (i.e. there's rocks, and trees, and water, etc.), the only meaningful difference is that there is only one sentient creature. It should make sense to say that the person can be chaotic or lawful. there shouldn't be anything inherently preventing a lone creature from having a lawful or chaotic alignment. However, if Law and chaos are defined as Individuality & Communitarianism, that would be impossible. To be Communitarian there has to be a community, and to be Individualistic there has to be a group referenced against.

That is why I find using that particular definition of Law and Chaos to be meaningless. IMHO the Law v. Chaos axis should be independent of interaction with other creatures. If anything Good v. Evil should be based on interaction, not law & chaos.

As for a Lawful individualist, I set before you Harold Crick from the movie Stranger Than Fiction (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0420223/) (at least as he is portrayed at the beginning of the movie).

You just took the words straight out of my mouth.

Good/Evil is already dependent on interaction. Tying Law/Chaos to the same dependency on interaction is just plain silly in my opinion.

Fishy
2007-11-13, 10:22 PM
As a thought experiment, imagine if there was a world that had but one creature in the entire universe. It's almost exactly like this world (i.e. there's rocks, and trees, and water, etc.), the only meaningful difference is that there is only one sentient creature. It should make sense to say that the person can be chaotic or lawful. there shouldn't be anything inherently preventing a lone creature from having a lawful or chaotic alignment.

Well, is there any way of describing him as Good or Evil? Arguably, you can't actually commit an evil act if you're the only intelligent creature in existance- There are no people to hurt, no gods to defy, no one you can make a promise to and then break. Since you have a pretty good claim to owning everything, you can't steal, and you can't commit property damage- if you ignite the atmosphere and destroy the world, the worst criticism we can throw a you is 'wow, that was dumb'.

In D&D terms, you could spend all day applying poison to knives, channeling Negative Energy and casting Deathwatch (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/deathwatch.htm), but who are we kidding?

And if Good and Evil are necessarially relational, why should Law and Chaos be any different?

Serpentine
2007-11-13, 10:33 PM
Do you believe that the purpose of each individual is to uphold society's structure, and thus benefit everyone? Lawful.
Do you believe that the purpose of each society is to uphold individuals' rights, and thus benefit everyone? Chaotic.
I quite like this approach to it.
In the case of that barbarian society, I think the question is, do they follow the traditions because they work, or is it assumed that they work because they're traditional? Personally I think such a society is more likely to be Neutral over all, with Chaotic (such as the Barbarian warriors) and Lawful (the people who make sure everything runs smoothly) individuals. Even if you did decide it was a Lawful community, I don't think there's any merit to the idea that it cannot have Chaotic members - if that were the case, most medieval-type cities would be largely crime-free.
I think elves and dwarves can be a good example to look at. Both can have Good communities, but they go about it in different ways. (Based on what I remember from the descriptions...) Dwarves have a very stringent code to which they expect everyone to adhere. Their laws have worked for generations, there's no reason to change them just because something new happens. The same justice applies to all, there is no favouritism nor exception. If you're not working for the good of the whole, you're not a part of Good society. Thus the community stays safe, close-knit and in harmony.
The elves live in societies made up of individuals. If you don't take care of individual members, you're not taking care of the community. Their laws are designed to ensure the freedom of every single member, but are flexible - there may be mitigating circumstances, previous behaviour, immediate needs, etc. to take into account. Everyone contributes to the society by being themselves and doing what they think is best. By not contributing anything useful or lovely, however, an individual may be impinging on the right of others to do what they want to do, and as such excessive laziness will not be tolerated - though the perpetrator may get several chances to mend their ways.

As for the lone sentinent organism, I don't think it can have an alignment at all. A creature is defined by its interactions with and comparison to those around it. Good, Evil, Law and Chaos are all societal constructions - in the case of D&D, not necessarily of human society.

At their extremes, I think Law and Chaos can be epitomised by Order and Pandemonium. The ultimate Order is static, never-changing, never moving. There would be no life, because life is messy and unpredictable (think the Auditors from Discworld). Pandemonium is ever-changing, indefinable, formless. There would be no life as we know it, because a true organism has a niche, a system of living, and some sort of form. I don't think any real character will ever want either of these ultimate ideals, really - these are much more the realms of clinically insane villains.

illathid
2007-11-13, 11:40 PM
Well, is there any way of describing him as Good or Evil? Arguably, you can't actually commit an evil act if you're the only intelligent creature in existance- There are no people to hurt, no gods to defy, no one you can make a promise to and then break. Since you have a pretty good claim to owning everything, you can't steal, and you can't commit property damage- if you ignite the atmosphere and destroy the world, the worst criticism we can throw a you is 'wow, that was dumb'.

I agree with you, because Good and Evil, in D&D at least, are both based on how you treat other creatures. Therefore, this singular creature, let's call him Solips, is completely unable to be Good or Evil.


In D&D terms, you could spend all day applying poison to knives, channeling Negative Energy and casting Deathwatch (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/deathwatch.htm), but who are we kidding?

Well I would say that the only explicit example of evil you mention (Poison is inherently evil, it's just against the paladin's code; channeling Negative Energy isn't evil, it's just non good) is the spell with the evil descriptor, which I think is nonsensical for the spell.


And if Good and Evil are necessarially relational, why should Law and Chaos be any different?

My question to you is this, then: if Good and Evil are necessarily relational, why should Law and Chaos be the same?

Let's add a little complexity to my example, and we'll see if it helps explain my position better. Lets say that there are two entirely different universes, and in resides Solips #1, and in the other resides Solips #2.

Solips #1, or S1, wakes up at the same time every day. He has an eating schedule that he follows exactly. He spends much of his cognitive power on trying to objectively define the things around him. S1 has a well defined metaphysical system and he tries to make sure all of his beliefs are logically consistent. When he encounters anything new S1 goes through a set procedure to try and fit into a preexistent framework, and if it doesn't he recreates the framework to account for it.

Solips #2, or S2, wakes up whenever he feels like it. He eats what ever he is in the mood for, and does so whenever he wants. He spends much of his cognitive power on trying to find how the things around him act/exist in relation to himself. S2 has no metaphysical system as he believes each object/substance is entirely unique. In fact, S2 doesn't even believe in causation as there can be no definitive proof for it, just empirical expectation. When he encounters anything new he does whatever seems best so as to fully experience this wholly new and unique thing.

I feel that both S1 and S2 are possible way in which a solips could exist. I for one would definitely label S1 Lawful and S2 Chaotic, and if that is actually true it means that Law and Chaos are not necessarily based on one's relation to society.



As for the lone sentinent organism, I don't think it can have an alignment at all. A creature is defined by its interactions with and comparison to those around it. Good, Evil, Law and Chaos are all societal constructions - in the case of D&D, not necessarily of human society.


Why do you think that? Or more properly, what evidence do you have to support this view?

BRC
2007-11-13, 11:43 PM
I'm intrested here, so I'll give another example and see what people think.
A Mob Boss, lets say The Godfather, Lawful or Chaotic.

In one way, he's chaotic, not only does he break the laws of society, but he makes his living doing so, he gets money because he employs the biggest guys around.
However, In another he's lawful, if were going by the definition of a godfather-esque mob boss, he follows many many rules, most of them have nothing to do with the laws of the land or society, but he's still following them. He'll send his goons to break your legs, but only if conditions A and B are met (with A being you not giving and B being Him his money), and even then it's not personal, just the cost of doing buisness.
So, is mister Don de Moboss here Lawful or Chaotic, how about some of his thugs, will they lean more towrds one side or the other?
How about the people he employs, do you think they would lean more towr

MCerberus
2007-11-13, 11:53 PM
I'm intrested here, so I'll give another example and see what people think.
A Mob Boss, lets say The Godfather, Lawful or Chaotic.

In one way, he's chaotic, not only does he break the laws of society, but he makes his living doing so, he gets money because he employs the biggest guys around.
However, In another he's lawful, if were going by the definition of a godfather-esque mob boss, he follows many many rules, most of them have nothing to do with the laws of the land or society, but he's still following them. He'll send his goons to break your legs, but only if conditions A and B are met (with A being you not giving and B being Him his money), and even then it's not personal, just the cost of doing buisness.
So, is mister Don de Moboss here Lawful or Chaotic, how about some of his thugs, will they lean more towrds one side or the other?
How about the people he employs, do you think they would lean more towr


Well Sicilian style mafias have strict hierarchy and incredible resilience because they know how to find loopholes in the law and exploit them. They also believe in the preserving the family and such. The thugs could range from L to C but at the head there's either a lawful boss or a boss that's dead in a few days.

Dhavaer
2007-11-14, 04:29 AM
I love Law vs. Chaos threads. I've posted at least two theories previously, both different, because they were made up without referencing each other and on the spur of the moment. Here's another:

The defining characteristing of Law is its belief in what should be. Each Lawful creature believes that there is a single, optimal configuration for the universe, and works to bring the universe into this axiomatic state. If you hear a phrase like 'knowing your place' or anything related to duty or honour, you are probably talking to a Lawful creature.
Each Lawful creature has their own vision of the universe, although many visions may be similar. A Lawful creature's Good-Evil alignment may or may not be related to their vision; a Lawful Evil creature may believe themselves to be destined to crush all others and gain ultimate power (possible example: Alexi from Isobelle Carmody's Obernewtyn) or may have a vision of a peaceful, pleasant world and use vile means of bringing it about (examples: The Operative from Serenity, Findthee Swing from Terry Pratchett's Night Watch).
A variant of this is a creature that believes their vision to be real, and the universe as they percieve it to be unreal. This disconnection is often associated with Evil behavior (example: Vorbis from Terry Prachett's Small Gods).
Civic laws are not inherantly connected to Law, but they are a convinient means of imposing the vision of one Lawful creature on other.
Concepts connected to Law include justice, duty, destiny, and authoritarianism

Chaos is, of course, not like Law. Ask a Chaotic creature how it thinks the world should be, and you will either be answered 'What?' or get something along the lines of 'It should give me more food, money, magic and interesting people without many clothes'. Or it might eat you. Lots of dragons are Chaotic.
This is not to say Chaos is self-interested. Chaos simply has no desire to change the way others live. A Good Chaotic creature might act to prevent a creature from forceably changing the way another creature lives, but for the most part Chaos simply isn't bothered.
Chaos is not necessarily isolationist. A Chaotic creature is just as likely as any other to form relationships with others, although they are not likely to become dependant on them. A Chaotic Evil creature could very well bully its way into a leadership position, but their orders are more likely to be along the lines of 'Bring me food, money, magic and interesting people without many clothes' than instructions on how its minions should live.
While civic law is not necessarily connected to Law and Chaos, the concept of a 'victimless crime' is not one likely to emerge in a Chaotic society. Chaos bases law not on the concept of 'duty' or 'justice', which require some level of devotion to an abstract concept, but on the principle of vengeance; if one hurts another, the one who has been hurt may seek repairations or inflict equal harm. If no-one is hurt, no-one will complain, and thus there has been no crime. By the same token, the existence of a victim indicates there has been a crime, although whether there will be vengeance depends on the nature of the people involved. If a powerful wizard turns a commoner's husband into an interesting halfling without many clothes, there's probably not much that can be done about it other than asking the wizard very, very nicely to please return him to normal and give him back.

I think that perhaps this interpretation favours Chaos over Law, and the two descriptions could stand to be more similar. Other than that, I'm fairly happy with it.

Serpentine
2007-11-14, 05:02 AM
Why do you think that? Or more properly, what evidence do you have to support this view?I don't have the faintest idea what evidence you expect me to offer :smallconfused: I'll see what I can do, though:
From the Concise Oxford English Dictionary:
law *n. 1 a rule or system of rules recognized by a country or community as regulating the actions of its members and enforced by the imposition of penalties... 2. [scientific law, I don't think it's relevant] 3. a rule defining correct procedure or behaviour in a sport. 4. the body of divine commandments as expressed in the Bible or other religious texts.
lawful *adj. conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules.
chaos... *n. 1. complete disorder and confusion > Physics behaviour so unpredictable as to appear random, owing to great sensitivity to small changes in conditions. 2. the formless matter supposed to have existed before the creation of the universe.

From the Player's Handbook:
"Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
'Law' implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority and reliability...
'Chaos' implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility...
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral."

One, lone, sentient being. Supposedly has always been alone, though surrounded by other living things. There are no gods or spirits or any other thinking guiding force.
If there is no community to create laws, how can he know whether he should adhere to them?
How can his activities be regulated when he's the only one there to do so?
How can he know correct procedure or behaviour when such things are the result of generations of accumulated social mores dependent on culture?
If there is no god, there is no holy guidebook.
How can he conform to laws that don't exist?
How can he be "disordered" if there is no "ordered" by which it can be measured?
How can he be unpredictable, when he is the only one to predict his actions?
Presumably he knows what he's going to do and why he's going to do it.
How can he tell the truth, keep his word, lie, or break promises if there's noone to do it to?
How can he respect, or not, an authority or tradition that doesn't exist?
Who is he going to judge? Squirrels?

The D&D definition of Chaos - freedom, adaptability, flexibility - would perhaps apply best to his lifestyle, but it is a dichotymous system: each extreme is defined by its contrast to the other. Without one, there is no way to define the other.

I included the note about animals because I think that is what will apply to this fellow: With nothing to judge himself against, no alternate viewpoints to compare and weigh, he will be as "incapable of moral action" as any dumb animal.

This is just dictionary and D&D definitions, though. If you wanted to bring anthropological theories of the fundamental state of Man into it, that could be interesting too.

illathid
2007-11-14, 06:18 AM
I don't have the faintest idea what evidence you expect me to offer :smallconfused: I'll see what I can do, though:
From the Concise Oxford English Dictionary:
law *n. 1 a rule or system of rules recognized by a country or community as regulating the actions of its members and enforced by the imposition of penalties... 2. [scientific law, I don't think it's relevant] 3. a rule defining correct procedure or behaviour in a sport. 4. the body of divine commandments as expressed in the Bible or other religious texts.
lawful *adj. conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules.
chaos... *n. 1. complete disorder and confusion > Physics behaviour so unpredictable as to appear random, owing to great sensitivity to small changes in conditions. 2. the formless matter supposed to have existed before the creation of the universe.

I'm tempted to quote Dausuul's Fallacy to you, but this isn't technically a rules debate so i'll let it slide. :smallwink:


From the Player's Handbook:
"Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
'Law' implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority and reliability...
'Chaos' implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility...
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral."

1st off, not everything in the the PHB's description of Law vs. Chaos is relational, and it uses lots of inductive language so there's little reason to assume that all of these traits necessarily apply to law and chaos. And if were going to be using arguments from authority, I can find support for my position as well.

From the Player's Handbook:
"a lawful neutral person acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her."

Also from the Player's Handbook:
"A chaotic neutral person follows his whims... A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random.

See? However, I don't think relying on the PHB for your definition isn't a good idea as I doubt the writers at WotC spent much time (if any) agonizing over how to make law and chaos a coherent and consistent system.


One, lone, sentient being. Supposedly has always been alone, though surrounded by other living things. There are no gods or spirits or any other thinking guiding force.
If there is no community to create laws, how can he know whether he should adhere to them?

He could create his own "laws" (i.e. predefined normative behavioral prepositions) to follow.


How can his activities be regulated when he's the only one there to do so?

So you reject the idea of self control then? Regulation need not come from an outside force.


How can he know correct procedure or behaviour when such things are the result of generations of accumulated social mores dependent on culture?

Now thats a rather large unsupported claim. Mayhaps he could discover (or at least think he's discovered) the correct procedure through Reason? GASP!


If there is no god, there is no holy guidebook.
How can he conform to laws that don't exist?

See above


How can he be "disordered" if there is no "ordered" by which it can be measured?

Isn't this what we're fundamentally arguing about? Why couldn't he create order? there is nothing necessarily societal about order.

Example: the Solips finds a pile of mixed red and blue pebbles. He then separates them into two piles of only one color each. Are you saying he didn't organize or order the pebbles?


How can he be unpredictable, when he is the only one to predict his actions?

Haven't you ever done something that surprised yourself? Modern theories of the mind are almost universal in saying that there aspects of the mind that are constantly making themselves aware to the consciousness.


Presumably he knows what he's going to do and why he's going to do it.
How can he tell the truth, keep his word, lie, or break promises if there's noone to do it to?

Why must we presume that?


How can he respect, or not, an authority or tradition that doesn't exist?

He could create his own tradition. See above.


Who is he going to judge? Squirrels?

Who is he going to judge? Himself. Have you ever done something, that you knew you shouldn't have, and then later regretted it?


The D&D definition of Chaos - freedom, adaptability, flexibility - would perhaps apply best to his lifestyle, but it is a dichotymous system: each extreme is defined by its contrast to the other. Without one, there is no way to define the other.

Why must that be the case? Did you look at my response to fishy in my post above?


I included the note about animals because I think that is what will apply to this fellow: With nothing to judge himself against, no alternate viewpoints to compare and weigh, he will be as "incapable of moral action" as any dumb animal.


I agree. Morality is beyond him, however IMHO Law & Chaos aren't moral descriptors, but they are ethical ones.

Stephen_E
2007-11-14, 07:00 AM
To anyone raising the question of Barbarians or Monks in a Law/Chaos alignment discussion.

Manks are Lawful and Barbarians non-Lawful because the designers say so. It has absolutely nothing to do with how Law/Chaos alignment works.

Working out how the alignment system works is hard enough without adding the almost entirely arbitrary alignment restrictions of character classes.

Stephen

Jayabalard
2007-11-14, 07:59 AM
It should make sense to say that the person can be chaotic or lawful. there shouldn't be anything inherently preventing a lone creature from having a lawful or chaotic alignment. Law is mostly meaningless concepts in this context, so MY interpretation would be that there is plenty that is inherently preventing him from being a lawful individual.

Fishy
2007-11-14, 08:49 AM
I feel that both S1 and S2 are possible way in which a solips could exist. I for one would definitely label S1 Lawful and S2 Chaotic, and if that is actually true it means that Law and Chaos are not necessarily based on one's relation to society.

Thanks for clarifying that point: I see what you're saying now.

Fixer
2007-11-14, 09:35 AM
Well, is there any way of describing him as Good or Evil? Arguably, you can't actually commit an evil act if you're the only intelligent creature in existance- There are no people to hurt, no gods to defy, no one you can make a promise to and then break. Since you have a pretty good claim to owning everything, you can't steal, and you can't commit property damage- if you ignite the atmosphere and destroy the world, the worst criticism we can throw a you is 'wow, that was dumb'.
You can be the only intelligent creature on a planet and still perform evil acts.

There are other living things on the planet. You could torture them for fun (there wouldn't be another reason). You could engage in wanton acts of destruction without guilt.

You could also be good. Helping wounded animals. Protecting defenseless animals from predators. Attempting to stop fires from destroying wildlife.

...unless you believe that good and evil are only abstracts that must be compared to a societal belief. If so, then you would be correct within your belief that a lone individual cannot be good or evil because your belief would require that you have a society to compare against and there would be none.

Fixer
2007-11-14, 09:59 AM
Giving some thought to it:

A person is not an alignment.
Behaviors have alignments.
Behaviors are chosen by people.
Choosing requires free will.

Therefore, alignment is the extension of the free will of a person. They will not always be LG or CN or NE or whatever. Without outside influence (society, culture, etc) a person's alignment is what they do when there is no one else around and they will not always behave in exactly the same fashion all the time. They would behave within a certain set of ranges.

Using the old chart method, if evil/good was a -10 to 10 point scale and chaos/law was a crossing -10 to 10 point scale, a person would possess a range of values.

I would consider myself (-1 to 4),(-5 to 5). This represents my ocassional evil side (really wanting to hurt someone but not doing so only because I cannot get away with it) but predominant good side (because I do help people far more often than injure). In terms of law/chaos I am not predisposed towards either and find myself 'rooting for the underdog' and trying to balance the two rather than fighting to see one side win. By D&D terms I would be somewhere between the TN and NG side.

Thus, people cannot just be an alignment. They behave in a range that is normally associated with an alignment but there are not physical, mystical or psychological boundaries that prevent them from behaving outside their alignment in particular circumstances.

Fishy
2007-11-14, 10:00 AM
...unless you believe that good and evil are only abstracts that must be compared to a societal belief. If so, then you would be correct within your belief that a lone individual cannot be good or evil because your belief would require that you have a society to compare against and there would be none.

This is certainly one position, that seems more or less consistent, and suitable for philosophers and DMs. However, it's not exactly the point I was intending to make.

You're absolutely right about the animals, though. I said 'intelligent creatures', but I meant to exclude conscious creatures- which promptly gets us into arguing about wether or not plants can feel pain, or wether the Earth itself qualifies as a living creature, etc, etc.

But you can see how the argument works if Solips is sufficiently 'alone'?

Fixer
2007-11-14, 10:03 AM
But you can see how the argument works if Solips is sufficiently 'alone'?
To be honest, I do not really understand your argument. Can you repeat it for me?

Fishy
2007-11-14, 10:55 AM
The idea is that a Good act always has a beneficiary, and an Evil act always has a victim. If we take a person and launch him into deep space, (for philosophical purposes), and make him completely alone, he cannot hurt or help anyone. For some definition of the terms, this means he can't be Good or Evil. Therefore, morality isn't something inherent to the person, it's dependant on their interactions with others.

(Unless you have the Celestial or Fiendish template. But anyway.)

illathid was making the point that it's uninteresting to give both alignment axes this property- and he has a mental conception of Law and Chaos that *is* inherent.

Indon
2007-11-14, 11:07 AM
Solips #1, or S1, wakes up at the same time every day. He has an eating schedule that he follows exactly. He spends much of his cognitive power on trying to objectively define the things around him. S1 has a well defined metaphysical system and he tries to make sure all of his beliefs are logically consistent. When he encounters anything new S1 goes through a set procedure to try and fit into a preexistent framework, and if it doesn't he recreates the framework to account for it.

Solips #2, or S2, wakes up whenever he feels like it. He eats what ever he is in the mood for, and does so whenever he wants. He spends much of his cognitive power on trying to find how the things around him act/exist in relation to himself. S2 has no metaphysical system as he believes each object/substance is entirely unique. In fact, S2 doesn't even believe in causation as there can be no definitive proof for it, just empirical expectation. When he encounters anything new he does whatever seems best so as to fully experience this wholly new and unique thing.

I feel that both S1 and S2 are possible way in which a solips could exist. I for one would definitely label S1 Lawful and S2 Chaotic, and if that is actually true it means that Law and Chaos are not necessarily based on one's relation to society.


Actually, I think we can easily determine if Solips is chaotic or neutral, or good or evil, even if in application he has never encountered other individuals.

We just have to ask ourselves: What Would Solips Do?

Barring actual human contact, hypothetical human contact should suffice to determine behavior on both alignment axes. The above is irrelevant if, for instance, S1 would behave individualistically if he became part of a community (though, this would seem to be inconsistent behavior for him).

Fixer
2007-11-14, 11:33 AM
The idea is that a Good act always has a beneficiary, and an Evil act always has a victim. If we take a person and launch him into deep space, (for philosophical purposes), and make him completely alone, he cannot hurt or help anyone. For some definition of the terms, this means he can't be Good or Evil. Therefore, morality isn't something inherent to the person, it's dependant on their interactions with others.

(Unless you have the Celestial or Fiendish template. But anyway.)

illathid was making the point that it's uninteresting to give both alignment axes this property- and he has a mental conception of Law and Chaos that *is* inherent.
Oh, I thought this was about chaos and law, not good and evil.

I do agree that morality tends to require either a beneficiary or a victim for the behaviors to be acted out. One can be good or evil, though, and not have either. You simply cannot act out the behavior you desire, ergo, there is no proof of your moral disposition without one or the other.

Kind of like Schroeder's Cat, I suppose, in that if you attempt to measure the person's alignment you have the possibility of shifting it slightly by the nature of your interaction.

WhyBother
2007-11-14, 01:58 PM
Fair warning: I'm the kind of guy who looks at things and wonders "how does that work, and how do I automate it?" Since tendencies like that put my real-life persona squarely in the Lawful camp, I may not have really nailed down my view of Chaos very well.

I tend to agree with the view espoused by Illathid:Lawful is adhering to and ordering one's life by a personal code. This may be the written laws of the land, the traditions of one's people, or even an internally consistent system of beliefs about the world and the best process for interacting with it. The stated examples in the PHB -- honoring the written law and ligitimate authority, reverence for the symbols and institutions of one's nation, respect for tradition, organized and methodical behavior -- are all applications of some single systemic method by a character. Generally, a lawful character favor predictability and consistency as the benefits of such organization: one can always find what one is looking for if he is organized; one can assume a certain level of trustworthiness in her dealings with others, because the established code enforces it with penalties and rewards as appropriate; one can be certain that what worked or failed to work today will remains so in the future, because he can methodically trace each of his steps to repeat the process. For them the "law" (it would be better to call it "order") is a trellis for their thoughts, and a foundation for their actions.

Chaotic people, on the other hand, find formalized rules to be unnecessary, or even obstructive. Flexibility is their watchword, and spontaneity, creativity, and improvisational talent often follow. If you tell try to tie them down with the written law, they will say it is unnecessary and overly procedural, an overly-complicated, imperfect way of reaching for what we all already know to be good. If you try to foist organization on them, they will point to stacks of books and tools on their table, and remind you that 90% of the things they use daily are already waiting for them, without any need for organization. If you try to force them to plan for every contingency, they will tell you such a thing is impossible, and it better to keep yourself open to the changing possibilities as they emerge.

Lawful people value the fruits of chaos: creativity, adaptability, even good fortune are not scorned. However, they also try not to rely on them, favoring established methods which are applied to every new situation. Chaotic people do not deny the benefits of some order: a good baseline plan of action, a society in which most are happy and healthy, even the quirky superstitions and dogma that some cling to is fairly harmless. However, they see no reason why it should be dictatorial, and they will no more be bound by it when it turns on them than they would lay down to be eaten by a lion.

illathid
2007-11-14, 04:02 PM
Law is mostly meaningless concepts in this context, so MY interpretation would be that there is plenty that is inherently preventing him from being a lawful individual.

Are you working under the assumption that "Law" means a rule or system of rules recognized by a country or community as regulating the actions of its members and enforced by the imposition of penalties?

Because I would argue that D&D use the term "Law" to define the objective and normative aspect of the universe that imposes order and is opposed to the objective and normative function of the universe that creates disorder (i.e. "Chaos").

If we disagree at that level then I doubt we'll be able to make any headway a all and we must agree to disagree.


You can be the only intelligent creature on a planet and still perform evil acts.

There are other living things on the planet. You could torture them for fun (there wouldn't be another reason). You could engage in wanton acts of destruction without guilt.

You could also be good. Helping wounded animals. Protecting defenseless animals from predators. Attempting to stop fires from destroying wildlife.

...unless you believe that good and evil are only abstracts that must be compared to a societal belief. If so, then you would be correct within your belief that a lone individual cannot be good or evil because your belief would require that you have a society to compare against and there would be none.

Note that in the original scenario I called for the Solips to not be just the sole sapient creature, but also be the sole sentient creature as well. Therefore there would be nothing except himself that would be able to feel pain. For reference look at the Wikipedia entry on Sentience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentient).

I do agree with you that people could be placed on a alignment spectrum. However, to do that we have to have an objective standard by which to compare each person.


Actually, I think we can easily determine if Solips is chaotic or neutral, or good or evil, even if in application he has never encountered other individuals.

Well, given that this is a totally hypothetical scenario, I think that goes without saying. :smallwink:


We just have to ask ourselves: What Would Solips Do?

Barring actual human contact, hypothetical human contact should suffice to determine behavior on both alignment axes. The above is irrelevant if, for instance, S1 would behave individualistically if he became part of a community (though, this would seem to be inconsistent behavior for him).

The question I ask is if S1 or S2 would even be able to determine if another creature was sentient if they somehow encountered them, at least initially. I could see either S1 or S2 acting in way in which could be described as good, or conversely, acting in a way we would label as evil.

However, for each we still need a societal/relational frame of reference, even if it was purely hypothetical, to which we could apply before we could label them good or evil. So, all in all it's kind of a moot point. :smallamused:

Foxer
2007-11-14, 04:45 PM
I think that part of the difficulty in these discussions is that the Law/Chaos axis actually works on three different levels.

The first of these is the character's internal life, the way they treat themselves. A Lawful example would be somebody methodical, self-disciplined and orderly. A Chaotic person, on the other hand would be impulsive and often rash.

The second level is the character's external life, that is to say their dealings with the other people in their lives. A dedicated member of a hierarchical organisation, somebody very dependable or someone who's behavior was anchored in tradition would be Lawful. The chaotic opposite would obviously scorn the rules "the Man" laid down.

The problem (in terms of defining a D&D alignment) is that an individual can have a Chaotic inner life and a Lawful external one, or vise versa.

As an example, let's have a look at Batman (always a popular choice for alignment debates, I've found...), who is simultaneously methodical, disciplined and orderly, whilst scornful of authority and the "rule of Law", and even treats co-operative efforts like the Justice League with thinly-veiled contempt, putting his own agenda first at all times.



This also explains the "barbarian paradox" in D&D. The stereotypical barbarian "noble savage" character has a very chaotic inner life - he's impulsive, rash, prone to flying off the handle (and probably chose Wisdom as his dump stat). At the same time, however, his external life is steeped in tradition - he doubtless honours the spirits of his ancestors and marks his daily life with dozens of little ritual observances - prayers for good hunting, prayers of thanksgiving for good hunting and so forth.

You could perhaps resolve all this by adding a third descriptor to a character's alignment (so that Batman is Lawful-Chaotic Good and the barbarian is Chaotic-Lawful Good) or just say that a character's alignment is an average of their inner and outer lives (giving Batman and the barbarian the same alignment: Neutral Good). Personally, I'm inclining towards the former at the moment, just as I'm currently inclining towards asking players to prioritise their alignments (as in "is your paladin Lawful Good or Lawful Good"), but that's probably too complex for most tastes.

The waters are further muddied by cosmological considerations. This is Law vs Chaos as antagonistic cosmological principles, operating at the level where simple Good vs Evil starts to look deeply parochial. This isn't an area that really affects most characters, and - the Blood War aside - isn't really handled all that well in D&D. Other games do better - I'm thinking of Werewolf: the Apocalypse and Mage: the Ascension from White Wolf, the Fair Folk in Exalted (also White Wolf) and Warhammer FRP in particular (and it's no surprise that the guys behind these games are big Moorcock fans).

I guess what it boils down to is that the forces of Law (whether Good or Evil) want to control the multiverse, whilst Chaos wants to render it essentially formless or in some other way destroy it[1]. Thus, when you get right down to it, the gods of Lawful Good and the gods of Lawful Evil are natural allies against the cosmic forces of Chaos; the Lawful powers want to [I]win the cosmic chess game, Chaos wants to overturn the board.

Like I said, this probably doesn't mean a lot in most campaigns, but it might be important for some clerics who are aligned with higher powers, and I enjoy the extra dimension it adds to D&D morality.

[1] In my modern fantasy homebrew setting, the powers of Chaos are further divided into Energetic and Entropic camps (similar respectively to the Wyld and Oblivion in the old World of Darkness), but that's another kettle of fish entirely.