[D&D before 4e] Law and Chaos

[Dimers]

Just a thought that occurred to me a while back ... Law and Chaos, in terms of alignment, are supposed to represent two different things at once:

(1) How does the character think a society ought to operate? -- i.e. are rules vitally important, useful, optional, actively bad, appropriate in some spheres and not in others? Is it better to change a bad system from within or to break it and start over?
(2) How consistent is the character's own set of actions, beliefs and code of conduct? Does the character act on a whim, use intuition as a guide, draw strength from clan/religion/philosophy/upbringing, uphold oaths in spirit and in letter?

There are many heroes of literature for whom these two aspects don't line up, a fact I first noticed when trying to figure out why monks had to be Lawful. It's possible that you'd want to act as an agent of chaos in your own life so as to weaken the unnecessary rule of law, or to uphold order personally because you feel lawful societies make more sense ... but it's also quite possible to have a dichotomy.

I'm not going anywhere in particular with this, just pointing out the different meanings.

[Kyeudo]

Looks like you have once again discovered the root cause of a third of alignment debates. Everytime someone brings up a Law/Chaos problem, someone says "Well, was it against the law to do it? Oh, it was? Then his actions where definately Chaotic."

I personally had to ditch half of the definition just to make some sense of alignment for my own games.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Looks like you have once again discovered the root cause of a third of alignment debates. Everytime someone brings up a Law/Chaos problem, someone says "Well, was it against the law to do it? Oh, it was? Then his actions where definately Chaotic."

I personally had to ditch half of the definition just to make some sense of alignment for my own games.

Honestly, the definition makes sense if you consider its wording

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.

Imperatives ("tell," "keep,") are rigid rules - baring exceptional circumstances, Lawful characters won't live or break their words; Chaotic characters won't go against their personal judgment or be cheerful following orders.

Other words, like "respect" and "honor" imply a lesser degree of fidelity. Lawful characters don't "obey" authority and "follow" tradition - but they give them respect. A Lawful person does not violate traditions or disobey authority lightly, but they certainly aren't slavishly devoted.

This is why Monks in 3.5 were labeled as Lawful - they live strictly regimented lives; lives according to an external code or teaching system.

Likewise, Chaotic character aren't necessarily whimsical - they "favor" new ideas over tradition; they don't "always accept" new ideas. If a Chaotic character is very set in their ways, they're unlikely to change ("follow their conscience") particularly if someone else (or some other system) tells them to do so.

Most of the problems people have with Alignment come from treating it as a Subjective system rather than in considering the definitions provided.

[Dimers]

This is why Monks in 3.5 were labeled as Lawful - they live strictly regimented lives; lives according to an external code or teaching system.

Zen is not a Lawful system itself, and neither are a lot of incarnations of Taoist thought. I'd say the systems that many monks follow are inherently neutral (balance in all things) or chaotic (constantly shake up your assumptions because if you're not moving then you're not moving toward enlightenment). "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him" is a statement which forces the would-be learner NOT to accept outside authority, even from within their own monastic tradition. ... Just to clarify how my thoughts on monks and Law morphed into this thread.

[hamishspence]

yes, "self-discipline = Lawful" wasn't the rule in earlier editions- which I mentioned in the Drow & Drow Hatred Thread.

AD&D Dungeoneer's Survival Guide (by Douglas Niles)

page 67: Nature of the Underground Environment and its Denizens

section: Philosophy

Every underground culture has developed distinct philosophies. Each culture has several things in common with other races living under the surface, however.
...
Many of these races are chaotic in nature, but this alignment is reflected mainly in large-group organization and coordination. The individuals of each race, whether lawful or chaotic, tend to be very disciplined in their personal habits and social lives. No doubt the scarcity of many resources taken for granted on the surface- most notably air- has forced these creatures to adopt a more careful approach to life.
...
Waste, whether of food, material, or energy, is deplored and often punished severely. Again, the constraints of the environment can easily explain this value. Air is a valuable resource, and the control of its use, particularly regarding fires, is a common feature of underground law.
...
Creatures raised in the underground are usually very stubborn and resistant to change. The most conservative of the surface governments would seem to fluctuate radically and whimsically by comparison. Perhaps this narrow-mindedness arises also from the environment- with solid rock all around, the options available when a decision is required are often seriously limited.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Zen is not a Lawful system itself, and neither are a lot of incarnations of Taoist thought. I'd say the systems that many monks follow are inherently neutral (balance in all things) or chaotic (constantly shake up your assumptions because if you're not moving then you're not moving toward enlightenment). "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him" is a statement which forces the would-be learner NOT to accept outside authority, even from within their own monastic tradition. ... Just to clarify how my thoughts on monks and Law morphed into this thread.

It doesn't really matter how you characterize the system; the fact that the Monk will rigidly follow a given system of thought (and, more importantly, combat) is where WotC was going with this. Plus, we're talking about Fantasy Monks, not RL "Monks." In D&D, the "balance" for Monks is between Good and Evil, not Law and Chaos.

Personally, I don't see a need to impose Alignment restrictions on Monks, but then again I don't think it is absurd to label them as a "Lawful" bunch.

[hamishspence]

But there are LG, LN, and LE monks.

Going right back to Frank Mentzer's AD&D Basic/Expert/Companion/Master set, and the Mystic, a possible prototype of the monk, it said:

"Mystics are usually (75%) Lawful, though other alignments are represented."

[Oracle_Hunter]

But there are LG, LN, and LE monks.

Right - for Monks who are supposed to see a Balance (LN, I guess), it's on the G/E axis. But it is by no means assured that all Monks seek this kind of Balance.

Yeah, my last post could have been clearer

[Jayabalard]

Going right back to Frank Mentzer's AD&D set and the Mystic, a possible prototype of the monk, it said:

I'm a little confused as to what you're talking about here. The monk appeared in the 1e AD&D player's handbook, which was the first AD&D book released. The Witch and Mystic first appeared in Dragon magazine.

iirc: During that period, Frank Mentzer was pretty much involved in writing the Basic/Expert/etc D&D set rather than AD&D

Right - for Monks who are supposed to see a Balance (LN, I guess), it's on the G/E axis. But it is by no means assured that all Monks seek this kind of Balance.

REally, I don't see any reason why a LG or even a LE monk couldn't be seeking a balance... they're just not seeking balance between G/E, or even L/C, but other things entirely.

[hamishspence]

Sorry- that should have been "D&D Master DM set".

Did the "Basic/Expert/Master" mystic come out before, or after, the AD&D Monk?

[Devils_Advocate]

In D&D 3.5, a Lawful character is "honorable". She consistently acts "how she's supposed to"; in other words, she reliably acts how at least one other being thinks or thought she should act. Conversely, a Chaotic character is "independent". He regularly does "what he feels like" and resists others' attempts to control his behavior.

And that's it. That's what Law and Chaos are. Feel free to rename them to "Compliance" and "Independence" (and Good and Evil to "Kindness" and "Cruelty") if you want less misleading terms. This allows characters in the game to talk about things with words that simply have their normal meanings, which is nice.

Unlike with Good and Evil, promoting Lawful behavior need not be Lawful and promoting Chaotic behavior need not be Chaotic. A Chaotic dude can try to amass loads of blindly loyal followers to help him to maintain his personal freedom and a Lawful character could be an honorable member of an organization dedicated to defending personal freedom and individual choice.

It doesn't really matter how you characterize the system; the fact that the Monk will rigidly follow a given system of thought (and, more importantly, combat) is where WotC was going with this.

But Dimers's point was that some monkish systems of thought aren't the sort of thing that one rigidly adheres to, and in some cases even caution against rigidity. Harmony over discipline, or maybe harmony through discipline and/or discipline through harmony. 'Cuz to let the Force flow through you, you've gotta go with the flow. The Transcendent Order, from the Planescape setting, has this philosophy.

I see no good reason to restrict the slightly supernatural unarmed martial artist class in alignment at all, nor any good reason to require Monks (or Paladins) to take all of their levels in one block. I say get rid of that crap and change the Monk's Ki Strike so that its unarmed attacks are treated as Lawful, Good, Chaotic, and Evil weapons at 10th level. "Overcomes any alignment DR" just makes more sense and provides a nice boost to an underpowered class.

Of course, you can just use Swordsage instead. But even given that, I still see no good reason to restrict Monks.