Law and Chaos. Alternatives? (3.5)

[Frog Dragon]

When reading Frank&K tome series material, I happened upon the tidbit about law and chaos not actually being contradictory, and differentiating often causes all sorts of weird crap.
The PHB meaning of law and chaos is basically trashcan material, as you can be ultimate law and ultimate chaos at the same time, with a logically consistent character. Some have taken it to mean other things like, "obeys laws of homeland" vs "doesn't obey them", "sanity" vs "insanity" (which I don't like), "organization" vs disorganization (which, as mentioned by Frank&K, makes law competent, and chaos incompetent) and other such stuff.
In essence, all of this is twisting the PHB meaning into something it is not (this includes making sense).
Of course, whatever you do with the alignments, you're probably going to cause some sort of inconsistency between monster alignments and the new meaning of law and chaos.
There are multiple options in dealing with the illogic of law and chaos.
1. Kill the whole axis. This is a simple way of dealing with it, but it does kill a lot of material with this. Devils and demons are now just evil. There are no Axiomatic and Anarchic weapons. Also, limbo and mechanus are of the same alignment. Wot?
2. Use one of those remeanings. Pretty simple too, but risks leaving disconnects. If law is following the tradition of your local society, then how can a society be chaotic?
3. Something else entirely. You take out law and chaos, and replace the axis with something else. Depending on what it is, it leaves varying amounts of disconnects.
I've been thinking of replacing Law/Chaos with Honor/Dishonor. Honor would be defined as either adherence to the most common chivalric or equivalent code in the world, or adherence to one chivalric or equivalent code in the world.
The first has the problem of shoehorning everyone into one thing, and making lot of cultures "dishonorable", the second raises the "chaotic society wot?" question. In addition. Is a devil honorable? I'd say no. A demon is dishonorable yes. Is all of mechanus honorable?

Since this is mainly thoughts and rants, I thought this would be more of a roleplaying games thread. Anyway, thoughts?

[Sir_Elderberry]

I've thought of law and chaos as philosophical deontology vs. consequentialism. Deontology is the philosophy that the morality of our actions derives from their own innate morality and our rights and duties. Lawful is "principled" because they work according to a set of rules. Consequentialist philosophers see morality as something resting in the end result, like utilitarianism's "greatest good for greatest number of people." Just as a chaotic character is willing to lie, cheat, and steal, a utilitarian might sanction these actions if good came out of it, whereas a deontologist would not.

It's not perfect but I find it an interesting alternate take.

[Nihb]

I read something about that last evening.

Group vs. Individuality

I know this is working a bit weird for elves, but elves tend to valor Fighter/Wizard in a way that those elves that take this path do it to become better elves, more in control of themselves, learning more about their own person.

A bard likes the company of others, but you'll seldom see a band of bards. The bard usually goes where there is something to be told. Barbarians are loners, fighting by themselves in desolated lands.

Kobolds and dwarves need to work together to survive and get farther to their goals. Both mine ore and gems, which is pretty long and hard when you do it alone. They also consider crafting as a way to better equip their members or protect them from the enemy.

Hobgoblins are powerful, lawful warriors. They are highly organized, and their camps are run with discipline. Even when a Bugbear manages to take the role of the leader, they still do their deeds the "hobgoblin" way : by planning their attacks, using every unit involved's abilities to the best, etc.

Bugbears live within a warband, but power is determined by sheer strength, intimidation and, sometime, cleverness. They don't live as a communauty, but as a always moving hierarchy, without any determined role.

Evil outsider also work this way.

No solution EVER is going to be perfect when it comes to alignments. It's a simplified system to which people try to give more weight it should have. But this description of the ethic axis is, to me, pretty good.

[Frog Dragon]

I read something about that last evening.

Group vs. Individuality

I know this is working a bit weird for elves, but elves tend to valor Fighter/Wizard in a way that those elves that take this path do it to become better elves, more in control of themselves, learning more about their own person.

A bard likes the company of others, but you'll seldom see a band of bards. The bard usually goes where there is something to be told. Barbarians are loners, fighting by themselves in desolated lands.

Kobolds and dwarves need to work together to survive and get farther to their goals. Both mine ore and gems, which is pretty long and hard when you do it alone. They also consider crafting as a way to better equip their members or protect them from the enemy.

Hobgoblins are powerful, lawful warriors. They are highly organized, and their camps are run with discipline. Even when a Bugbear manages to take the role of the leader, they still do their deeds the "hobgoblin" way : by planning their attacks, using every unit involved's abilities to the best, etc.

Bugbears live within a warband, but power is determined by sheer strength, intimidation and, sometime, cleverness. They don't live as a communauty, but as a always moving hierarchy, without any determined role.

Evil outsider also work this way.

No solution EVER is going to be perfect when it comes to alignments. It's a simplified system to which people try to give more weight it should have. But this description of the ethic axis is, to me, pretty good.

That was actually something I thought of. It would be pretty good probably. We just need a good description.

[Tequila Sunrise]

For a while I used this remeaning:

Law = "There's a purpose to our existence, and there's a right way to fulfill that purpose. Let me show it to you."

Chaos = "There's no real purpose to existence, and there's no 'right' way to live. So bugger off."

Nowadays I just ignore the L/C axis.

[pasko77]

When reading Frank&K tome series material, I happened upon the tidbit about law and chaos not actually being contradictory, and differentiating often causes all sorts of weird crap.
The PHB meaning of law and chaos is basically trashcan material, as you can be ultimate law and ultimate chaos at the same time, with a logically consistent character. Some have taken it to mean other things like, "obeys laws of homeland" vs "doesn't obey them", "sanity" vs "insanity" (which I don't like), "organization" vs disorganization (which, as mentioned by Frank&K, makes law competent, and chaos incompetent) and other such stuff.
In essence, all of this is twisting the PHB meaning into something it is not (this includes making sense).
Of course, whatever you do with the alignments, you're probably going to cause some sort of inconsistency between monster alignments and the new meaning of law and chaos.
There are multiple options in dealing with the illogic of law and chaos.
1. Kill the whole axis. This is a simple way of dealing with it, but it does kill a lot of material with this. Devils and demons are now just evil. There are no Axiomatic and Anarchic weapons. Also, limbo and mechanus are of the same alignment. Wot?
2. Use one of those remeanings. Pretty simple too, but risks leaving disconnects. If law is following the tradition of your local society, then how can a society be chaotic?
3. Something else entirely. You take out law and chaos, and replace the axis with something else. Depending on what it is, it leaves varying amounts of disconnects.
I've been thinking of replacing Law/Chaos with Honor/Dishonor. Honor would be defined as either adherence to the most common chivalric or equivalent code in the world, or adherence to one chivalric or equivalent code in the world.
The first has the problem of shoehorning everyone into one thing, and making lot of cultures "dishonorable", the second raises the "chaotic society wot?" question. In addition. Is a devil honorable? I'd say no. A demon is dishonorable yes. Is all of mechanus honorable?

Since this is mainly thoughts and rants, I thought this would be more of a roleplaying games thread. Anyway, thoughts?

You should definately check the World of Darkness moral system.
Let me explain it a little:
basically you have a "moral code" divided in 10 steps. Each step says "what you won't do". Example: 10 means "I will harm no one", 9 means "I will kill no one and only harm someone in case of desperate necessity", 8 is "I will never start a fight", and so on. When you perfor an action which is lower than your current moral standing, you need a check, or you lower you moral to that action.

The higher your score is, the more it poses limits on your actions, but on the other hands it provides you a protection against mental compulsion and stuff like that.

People/creatures from different cultures may have different moral codes, without changes in the rules. I think it's worth trying.

[Riffington]

"organization" vs disorganization (which, as mentioned by Frank&K, makes law competent, and chaos incompetent) and other such stuff.

Not quite fair, it was always organization vs flexibility. Which makes law and chaos equally competent, but gives them different skill sets. Lawful people work better together, but chaotic people adapt better to unanticipated circumstances.

2. Use one of those remeanings. Pretty simple too, but risks leaving disconnects. If law is following the tradition of your local society, then how can a society be chaotic?

Well, you can use more than one "re"meaning, simultaneously. It is lawful to follow the traditions of your local society, and it is also lawful to follow the traditions of your home society, and it is also lawful to be organized, to be inflexible, to be uncreative, to have long-lived relationships, to keep your word, to obey authorities, to be predictable, to prioritize the letter of the law over your own conscience, to be slow to adopt new ideas, etc. Give some lawful points for all those things, with chaotic for the opposite.

Then, if a society's tradition is to frequently ignore written laws, to lie in a large number of circumstances, to move frequently and make new friends... well, following those traditions might still leave you a Chaotic person. Because you'd get some lawful points for following the tradition but lose more for some of the specifics.

Is all of mechanus honorable?

Right, so this is the difficulty. Using your mechanus/limbo dichotomy from before, there's still no reason mechanus and limbo should be different alignments. That might not be a problem, of course. In fact, this is quite workable. But I'd in a question. Do you want honorable to be "better" than dishonorable in the same way that Good is "better" than evil? Or do you want to give dishonor some virtues that honor lacks?

Group v Individuality (as Nihb points out) is another good alternative that's pretty similar to law/chaos. You could throw it in as a remeaning without necessarily changing the intent of the game designers much.

Sir_Elderberry's Deontology v Consequentialism would work well as a new axis, but it's going to require a lot of revision from law/chaos. You'll have to figure out a lot about foreign races' understandings of morality for it to work - but if you're big into philosophy that could be awesome.

[Frog Dragon]

You make great points Riffington.

You make a good point about flexibility vs organization, but are they so different? Lack of organization doesn't mean flexibility or vice versa.

About multiple remeanings. That is a good idea, but only if you make chaos yes and law no or law yes and chaos no. What I mean by this is that you must pick "lawful" or "chaotic" concepts and make the other end of the axis "the guy who isn't like this." Since you can't really be something and not be it at the same time, this avoids the Lawful Chaotic character.

My intention was for the Honor/Dishonor thing that Honor tends to be more socially acceptable, but no more intrinsically good than dishonor. Basically, it's no better to stab someone in the face than in the back when it comes to morals. A honorable person just does the former, and a dishonorable one the latter, in simplified form.
It essentially comes down to this. Honorable characters follow a code of honor. Dishonorable characters don't. A paladin would be Honorable Good, while most rogues would probably be dishonorable.

[WinWin]

There is no one true way. Attempting to define real world metaphysics has been the source of debate since civilisation began.

Just as there are varying interpretations of Good and Evil, that are equally valid, there are varying interpretations of Law and Chaos.

If a new system is going to be devised, I think it should differentiate between Elemental or Deific forces such as Celestia and the 9 Hells and the powers that reside in them, the rank and file outsiders and then the average Joe on the Prime. Even if it is just differentiating between the Law of a petty bureaucrat and the Law of a Modron.

[Riffington]

You make a good point about flexibility vs organization, but are they so different? Lack of organization doesn't mean flexibility or vice versa.

Well, they can coexist, but they're at odds. At its heart is this: to the extent that you do things the same way every time, you add standardization and improve coordination. To the extent that you see situations as unique, you lose those, but improve your ability to react to the uniqueness of that situation.

McDonalds has a tremendously orderly organization. Every burger is done to "perfection" as defined by a strict standard of quantity/quality of meat, doneness, presentation, etc. You want a predictable burger, it's perfect. You go to a brilliant chef, and your brother's burger might be bigger than yours. That's not to say you can't ever find a creative-yet-consistent restaurant... but it's harder.

Large well-disciplined armies have to have a hierarchy, have to have strict rules of behavior, have to have channels of communication. As a result, they can easily retain focus and stay cohesive and coordinate. Irregular forces can lack these things, with corresponding difficulties communicating and coordinating precise moves. But by the same token, they don't rely on plans or specific channels; when things are disrupted, they react appropriately. "No combat ready unit has ever passed inspection. No inspection ready unit has ever passed combat. " Nations with excellent militaries make use of both philosophies, permitting much more personal flexibility, creativity, and insubordination in their irregular/special forces units than they do in the rest of their army.

About multiple remeanings. That is a good idea, but only if you make chaos yes and law no or law yes and chaos no. What I mean by this is that you must pick "lawful" or "chaotic" concepts and make the other end of the axis "the guy who isn't like this." Since you can't really be something and not be it at the same time, this avoids the Lawful Chaotic character.

Yes, precisely. Anything that gives you points towards Law gives you equal points away from Chaos. Anything that gives you points towards Chaos gives you equal points away from Law. Calling what you termed a Lawful Chaotic character just "Neutral, but unusual" seems to work better for me.

My intention was for the Honor/Dishonor thing that Honor tends to be more socially acceptable, but no more intrinsically good than dishonor. Basically, it's no better to stab someone in the face than in the back when it comes to morals. A honorable person just does the former, and a dishonorable one the latter, in simplified form.
It essentially comes down to this. Honorable characters follow a code of honor. Dishonorable characters don't. A paladin would be Honorable Good, while most rogues would probably be dishonorable.

Well, wait: are there specific legitimate codes of honor? If I say "Oh, my code of honor requires me to always use the most effective tactic in combat" would you say "Yep, that's a code and you followed it honorably", or "Yeah, that sounds more like a Code of Dishonor"?

[Frog Dragon]

Well, wait: are there specific legitimate codes of honor? If I say "Oh, my code of honor requires me to always use the most effective tactic in combat" would you say "Yep, that's a code and you followed it honorably", or "Yeah, that sounds more like a Code of Dishonor"?

That's one problem with the system. I'd say that more like a "Code of Dishonor" or not a valid code for the purpose at all. Maybe honor should just be your generic chivalric or societal code, tweaked a bit for D&D. But, yeah. The code just cannot be one made up by the player himself, because that brings out problems similar to the lawful chaotic character.
However, there aren't many reasons to do that, given that there is no bonus to be gained from having a specific alignment and if he's doing this just to get his monk, then I'd just tell him."You're dishonorable, and you can be a monk".
Though, when tweaking alignment systems, it should follow that you also tweak class requirements. Since Honor would probably equate to law and dishonor to chaos, by the rules, barbarians cannot be honorable. Which is load of bull. A lot of the iconic barbarians are honorable.

[Devils_Advocate]

One part of the alignment descriptions that I'd point out is "Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel". By implication, then, Chaotic characters do feel compelled to rebel. And "Chaotic characters resent being told what to do". So I'd say that Chaotic characters are distinguished not by being uncontrolled, but by resistance to being controlled.

Defining "Chaotic" as "not Lawful" doesn't really work unless you eliminate Neutral, since if you don't, there are two non-Lawful "ethical" alignments. In theory, Lawful characters could be those who act Lawfully most of the time, but that's not likely to describe, like, anyone. Choosing to have toast for breakfast isn't likely to be Lawful, but that shouldn't make it Chaotic. There's a significant distinction between not actively following rules and actively breaking them.

So I'd suggest something like

Lawful: consistently adheres to established standards of behavior
Chaotic: resists having one's behavior determined by others
Neutral: willing to follow or defy conventions as situations warrant

The most common form of Neutrality is probably that of only breaking rules (be they official or unspoken) when you're unlikely to get caught.

Well, you can use more than one "re"meaning, simultaneously.

As I see it, there are ultimately two possibilities there. One possibility is that you're arbitrarily lumping completely unrelated things together. In which case, why are you doing that instead of having a separate axis for each one? The other possibility is that you're lumping different things together based on something that they have in common. In which case, shouldn't the axis be about the thing that they have in common, and include other instances of that thing, if any?

Since the alignments are conceptually supposed to be real things within the game universe, it seems to me that they should be natural kinds rather than conflations. Be definable without using "and" or "or", basically, whether directly or indirectly. Granted, I'm not certain that that's possible, and even if it is, it's likely not verifiable. But it seems to me that alignments should seem to be natural kinds, even if there isn't really any such thing.

In particular, it strikes me as inappropriate I find it aesthetically displeasing to have multiple alignment axes but to still have an alignment be a conflation.

Do you want honorable to be "better" than dishonorable in the same way that Good is "better" than evil? Or do you want to give dishonor some virtues that honor lacks?

Could you explain what you mean by "better" and "virtue"?

I'd personally prefer for alignment to be described in as value-neutral terms as feasible, including e.g. renaming Evil to "Vindictive" if that's fitting. (Obviously, which term is an accurate name for an alignment depends on what you decide you're going to have that alignment be.) Giving an objective description is a different task from endorsing and/or condemning, and the latter can easily sidetrack the former.

Well, they can coexist, but they're at odds. At its heart is this: to the extent that you do things the same way every time, you add standardization and improve coordination. To the extent that you see situations as unique, you lose those, but improve your ability to react to the uniqueness of that situation.

Yes, but considering the particulars of a situation may serve to lead you astray. On the other hand, even when some consistent response to a given sort of situation would be helpful, consistency alone isn't necessarily a good thing. At one extreme, you get someone who will as readily jump off a bridge as cross it, since jumping off could work out great this time. At the other extreme, you get someone who falls over a ledge because he continued on his usual path despite the bridge plainly having been washed out by a flood. A sane and competent individual will develop and employ proven techniques but will also recognize and respond to relevant differences.

That doesn't necessarily make it bad for Law and Chaos to work that way, though. If each one has its own strengths and weaknesses, then it seems almost inevitable that the right mix of the two would be better than just one. Relatively well-adjusted humans could still lean enough towards one or the other to be aligned with it, and being pathologically Lawful and Chaotic actually sort of fits for modrons and slaadi respectively. And, hey, maybe they're actually well-adapted to their native environments, where more Neutral creatures have problems. Maybe green ideas do sleep furiously sometimes in Limbo.

are there specific legitimate codes of honor?

Well, that's the metagame way of putting it. In-universe, it's more a matter of whether there can be illegitimate (i.e. unsanctioned) codes of honor, innit? And whether those codes of honor are Lawful, if so.

By some dictionary definitions, honor is basically good PR. It might be better, however, to say that it's about how others would react to your choices if they knew the truth. This also fits in with "ethics" as established standards of appropriate behavior. (Sometimes "Don't get caught" may be the actual standard at work, however. This is the case if folks disdain uncovered instances of an activity but not hypothetical secret instances.)

Races of War actually talks about what "honor" might mean in the context of a D&D world. Frank is insistent that this is nothing to do with alignment, but he's frankly (heh) overly determined that Law and Chaos don't mean anything, so obviously Law can't mean that. (But if it's up to a given group to decide on what Law and Chaos mean for them, then why should this possibility be ruled out? ) This is actually largely what the 3.5 Law Vs. Chaos section talks about, though: respect for what authority and tradition say vs. willingness or even eagerness to go outside the bounds of "appropriate" conduct.

The other thing that it talks about is honesty. Telling the truth and keeping your word. Although literally, the first bit there is almost certainly a misstatement; if anything, lying should be Chaotic, rather every non-deceptive statement you make being a Lawful act. Of course, "honor" and "dishonor" can also refer to honesty and dishonesty...

Honor and Law, in the alignment sense, are pretty much synonymous, to the point that they're even vague in largely the same way. Pretty much everything that "Law" might be taken to mean also works fine as a possible definition of "honor".

If I say "Oh, my code of honor requires me to always use the most effective tactic in combat" would you say "Yep, that's a code and you followed it honorably", or "Yeah, that sounds more like a Code of Dishonor"?

I'd say "Being able to make generalizations about a player character's behavior simply indicates that the player is roleplaying a remotely normal person with a recognizable personality. It's possible to roleplay a guy who does whatever the random voices in his head tell him to do, but there's not an official category for characters like that in my games. That either gives one of a limited number of categories to weird corner cases, or it encourages the inclusion of way too many stupidly nutso characters in the game world. Like True Neutral including a bizarre dedication to the Balance Between Good and Evil that very few if any human beings have ever had in real life."

Honestly, I'm having a hard time imagining a character who can't be described in imperative form. Instead of saying that your character does X, you just say that your character has the code of "Do X". Similarly, consequentialist ethics may be phrased as commands to pursue particular consequences. On the other hand, deontological ethics could be described as pursuing the consequence of having followed them. And plenty of ethical rules are at least partly concerned with consequences. Surely causing an individual's death is necessary, if not sufficient, to "kill" him; thus a prohibition against killing is concerned with the consequences of actions.

(Of course, one could say e.g. that a prohibition against killing is really just shorthand for a prohibition against attempting to kill, and thus that actions are being judged by intent rather than consequences. Is that what the supposed deontological/consequentialist dichotomy is supposed to be about? Because if describing acts in terms of intent or anticipated results instead of actual outcome is deontological, I'd say that every alignment should be deontologically formulated. Alignment shouldn't be a crapshoot; how Good a character is shouldn't be independent of his mental state.)

[Sir_Elderberry]

Of course, one could say e.g. that a prohibition against killing is really just shorthand for a prohibition against attempting to kill, and thus that actions are being judged by intent rather than consequences. Is that what the supposed deontological/consequentialist dichotomy is supposed to be about?

No, let me explain, deontology is about following rules, even if the consequences are bad. Immanuel Kant argued that if a murderer came to your house and asked if you were hiding his intended victim, you would be morally wrong to say "No" if you were, because he considered lying to be morally wrong. Deontology and consequentialism are about means and ends, and which ultimately takes precedence. Consequentialism tends to end up being formulated as a sort of utilitarian calculus where you attempt to maximize some value, usually happiness, whereas deontology tends to be formulated as a set of rules or logical deductions.

[Yora]

Law and Chaos are actually very easy to seperate and define:
"When in doubt, you either trust in rational logic (law) or in your own intuition (chaos)."

[Devils_Advocate]

But Sir_Elderberry, means are often categorized in terms of their results. For example, surely to "kill" is to cause a death. (That is to say, you cause the death of anyone you kill, even if not vice versa.) A system of ethics that actually completely discarded the context in which an action occurred would necessarily be bizarre and alien. Swinging your sword in front of you wouldn't be considered any more right or wrong depending on whether someone was standing in front of you at the time (and if so, who it was), for example. And "Maximize happiness" is a rule, or at least could be treated as a rule as well as anything.

A single ethical system may be described in two different ways; the map is not the territory. So I'm kind of trying to puzzle out whether there's a fundamental division here in terms of actual values, or just in terms of how values are described.

Law and Chaos are actually very easy to seperate and define:
"When in doubt, you either trust in rational logic (law) or in your own intuition (chaos)."

Well, that's one possible alternative to what the PHB has to say on the matter, but it is very much an alternative: discarding the dichotomy described in the PHB and replacing it with a different one.

A false one, at that. If your intuition has proven over time to be very reliable, then trusting in it is the rational choice, and distrusting it is irrational. Of course, simply disregarding other evidence is also irrational.

Bayesian probabilistic reasoning, as I understand it, basically requires an initial guesstimate to start with and then incorporation of available evidence.

[Xallace]

Law and Chaos are actually very easy to seperate and define:
"When in doubt, you either trust in rational logic (law) or in your own intuition (chaos)."

This is how I always defined it. Chaos is deciding with your heart, Law is deciding with your head.

Edit: Although I can see how that's still pretty vague, I find it a good way for explaining the alignment axis to newbies.

[Riffington]

Defining "Chaotic" as "not Lawful" doesn't really work unless you eliminate Neutral, since if you don't, there are two non-Lawful "ethical" alignments.

Sure, but Neutral is in between Chaotic and Lawful. If following a rule adds to your Lawfulness, then not following it adds to your chaoticness. And if >33% of people are more lawful than you and >33% are more chaotic than you you get Neutral.

In theory, Lawful characters could be those who act Lawfully most of the time, but that's not likely to describe, like, anyone. Choosing to have toast for breakfast isn't likely to be Lawful, but that shouldn't make it Chaotic.

On the law-chaos scale, choosing to have toast is approximately 0. If you act lawfully more often than you act chaotically, you get to be Lawful.

Chaotic: resists having one's behavior determined by others
Neutral: willing to follow or defy conventions as situations warrant

Are you saying that Chaotic is more than just "I don't care what others say, I do as I please" but rather "I do the opposite of what others say"? Or am I misunderstanding this set?
Because

The most common form of Neutrality is probably that of only breaking rules (be they official or unspoken) when you're unlikely to get caught.

sounds like Chaotic to me..

As I see it, there are ultimately two possibilities there. One possibility is that you're arbitrarily lumping completely unrelated things together.

Yes, and I think the book does as well.
I don't honestly believe that a desire to keep one's word has much to do with judging those who fall short of their duties. The book calls both Lawful and I figure that the easiest reasonable solution is to say "yup, Law means both those otherwise-disparate things".

If you don't do that you have to invent a new axis like some of the ones already suggested.

It seems to me that they should be natural kinds

Is there really any such thing? And if there were, it would probably include Good/Evil but not Law/Chaos as evidenced by the number of people who are super-confused by law/chaos but easily understand 90% of good/evil.

Could you explain what you mean by "better" and "virtue"?

Good is a virtue in and of itself. It is a thing with value, worthy of respect. Evil is any falling-away from that goodness. There is only one Good, but infinite ways to fall away from the path of Good and lapse into Evil. One could have a corresponding view of Honor whereby it is a virtue, with its own value; any falling-away is Dishonor. Or one could have a view more like what you want for alignment - value neutral. In this, Dishonor could have its own worth different from Honor's.

A sane and competent individual will develop and employ proven techniques but will also recognize and respond to relevant differences.

Yes, there's a spectrum as you later say. People aren't your extremes, but some people rely on more planning/predictability where others are more spontaneous/improvisational.

That doesn't necessarily make it bad for Law and Chaos to work that way, though. If each one has its own strengths and weaknesses, then it seems almost inevitable that the right mix of the two would be better than just one. Relatively well-adjusted humans could still lean enough towards one or the other to be aligned with it, and being pathologically Lawful and Chaotic actually sort of fits for modrons and slaadi respectively.

Yes, this is exactly what I mean.

Well, that's the metagame way of putting it. In-universe, it's more a matter of whether there can be illegitimate (i.e. unsanctioned) codes of honor, innit? And whether those codes of honor are Lawful, if so.

Well, he was doing this instead of Law/Chaos, not trying to tie it into law/chaos at all.

Telling the truth and keeping your word. Although literally, the first bit there is almost certainly a misstatement; if anything, lying should be Chaotic, rather every non-deceptive statement you make being a Lawful act. Of course, "honor" and "dishonor" can also refer to honesty and dishonesty...

I don't see the problem here.
I told the truth about what I had for breakfast. +.00001 Law.
I lied about sleeping with your sister. -10 Law.

Honor and Law, in the alignment sense, are pretty much synonymous, to the point that they're even vague in largely the same way. Pretty much everything that "Law" might be taken to mean also works fine as a possible definition of "honor".

Many conventional understandings of honor are similar but nonidentical to Lawful.
*Respect for those who display honor or skill is vital to many conceptions of Honor, but often contradict Law. Such respect would lead you to treat certain people (those who merit this respect) differently from others; this would be a Chaotic tendency.
*The need to defend one's honor from those who slander or disrespect it is not always conducive to law and order.
*Especially offering protection to the weak/defenseless is more chaotic than lawful.
*An unwillingness to refuse challenges can be either.
*Perseverance is honorable but neither lawful nor chaotic.

[FMArthur]

Discard "Law" and replace with "Order". Sensible people make the assumption that Order is what WotC meant when they called one part of the alightment spectrum Law and roleplay accordingly, but it's far clearer and actually game-changing for some people if you call it Order. Otherwise you wind up with people who think a Lawful character should never ever break a law or they are not being roleplayed properly. Lawfulness can certainly be a faucet of orderliness, but is by no means the definition of it.

[WarKitty]

Law: "Traditions are usually there for a reason, so we shouldn't typically challenge them. Society needs rules to survive, so we should obey the rules."

Chaos: "Traditions are evidence of societal prejudice and are usually wrong. Rules are there as rough guidelines but following them too strictly leads to more harm than good."

As a side note, there is a lot to be learned about chaos from mental illness. Not the stereotypical TV mental illness, but actual mental illness. Particularly certain of the processing disorders such as ADD and autism spectrum. And without getting into politics, there is precedent for mental illness being defined as behavior outside of the social norm (drapetomania anyone?).

[deuxhero]

MegaTen Law and Chaos.


Law: You're an ass that wants to get rid of free will
Chaos: You're an ass that wants complete and total Darwinism, kill the weak.

The variation used in the 2nd Raidou game, "pansy put up with the current possition" vs "Work to better yourself" (I think they wanted "group" v "independent", but it comes off as the first) also works.

[ericgrau]

I see the two axises as means / ends. As in structured means vs. by any means necessary and morally good ends vs. morally bad ends.

If you wanted to add a new axis you could make it anything in the world, simply select a new criteria. If it overlaps with an existing axis, you would probably want to eliminate that axis. Honor vs. dishonor seems to me like a subset of law vs. chaos, and would only make sense as a replacement in a society where honor is everything.

[Grytorm]

I once had an idea for an alternative axis. It would focus on Nature versus Cities.

[tyckspoon]

MegaTen Law and Chaos.


Law: You're an ass that wants to get rid of free will
Chaos: You're an ass that wants complete and total Darwinism, kill the weak.

The variation used in the 2nd Raidou game, "pansy put up with the current possition" vs "Work to better yourself" (I think they wanted "group" v "independent", but it comes off as the first) also works.

And, of course, MegaTen Neutral, which is "You're both insane, I'm gonna kick your asses and just let people live their own lives."

[Glimbur]

I've thought of law and chaos as philosophical deontology vs. consequentialism. Deontology is the philosophy that the morality of our actions derives from their own innate morality and our rights and duties. Lawful is "principled" because they work according to a set of rules. Consequentialist philosophers see morality as something resting in the end result, like utilitarianism's "greatest good for greatest number of people." Just as a chaotic character is willing to lie, cheat, and steal, a utilitarian might sanction these actions if good came out of it, whereas a deontologist would not.

It's not perfect but I find it an interesting alternate take.

This is extra handy in the case of a paladin: a Deontologist Good paladin will not make a deal with a devil even if it seems to be the only way to rescue a whole passel of souls from some great evil, because making deals with devils is inherently bad. The trick here is to lay out the code with priorities, and then follow and apply it. I'd argue that this should map to lawful, but there's no sensible reason a barbarian or bard can't have a moral code like this one, which is a different argument altogether.

A Consequentalist Good paladin will make the aforementioned deal if he cannot see a better alternative. Utilitarians in particular run in to trouble in real world situations because it is at best very difficult to see the consequences of your actions before you choose one. This paladin could be argued to fall from almost anything, assuming a jerk of a DM. This also feels closer to the Chaos side of the previous division, because a similar looking situation can have a different decision than it did last time, and societal order is just another factor to weigh.

[Zaydos]

I will say the Deontology vs. Consequentialism is one of the best variants to Law vs Chaos I've heard and could work quite well, as it often is one of the things that divide Lawful and Chaotic characters. I especially like Glimbur's application of it to a paladin.

On the other hand FMArthur is right about replace Law with Order. TSR took the terminology from Michael Moorcock's books about great battles between Law and Chaos; or at least I believe so because they reference these books (the Elric series) often enough in early sources (1st edition Deities and Demigods, the 1st issue of Dragon Magazine, etc) and they map well to the old D&D alignment systems (Law and Chaos, no good and evil). But in Moorcock's books the forces of Law represented an order and not laws. TSR borrowed the terminology since it was familiar to them and their target audience (Moorcock's books were popular fantasy novels in the 70s) so it made sense to them. The term Law is still just an artifact from way back then.

[Sir_Elderberry]

I have been thinking about the D/C axis, and there are a few problems. I'm going to ignore the metaethical objections raised above--not because they are without merit, but because it'd derail the thread to argue about them, and the finer philosophical points don't matter to most groups. (Half my group are debaters or former debaters, and it doesn't matter to us. Maybe a group of philosophy students?)

The main problem I see is that many of the Law/Chaos attributes don't map onto D/C. In fact, the Lawful villain doing something Evil "for the greater good" is a quite common trope, but "for the greater good" is a consequentialist sentiment. Chaos's emphasis on individual liberty can also be found here if you look (John Stuart Mill wrote a book called "On Liberty" as well as being a famous utilitarian) but doesn't seem entirely innate.

Finally, I think the main problem is that L/C is meant to be just as independent and just as viable as Evil/Good. (I certainly find it a far more interesting conflict.) Deontology/Consequentialism, however, essentially summarizes how you ethically view E/G, modifying the way you live that alignment, rather than standing out on its own. After all, what would deontologist neutral mean? I'm also not sure how nongood alignments work into it--these are ethical philosophies and therefore assumed to serve "good" results. CE's impatience or LE's calculated plotting don't seem to translate.

Basically, when I made the first post, I wasn't really suggesting that L/C be replaced with D/C. Rather, just that I saw D/C as one of the ways L/C can be interpreted in many situations. Now, I'm starting to think that while it might make an interesting replacement, it would very much be a replacement, requiring a lot of shifting in flavor, rather than a substitution or reinterpretation of existing labels.

[The Glyphstone]

There's always Square and Funky.

[hamishspence]

The easydamus summary of alignment:

http://easydamus.com/alignment.html

does mention consequentialism, but not much. True Neutral, Neutral Evil, and Neutral Good, all mention consequentialism.

Maybe it's the "midpoint" for Law/Chaos axis, just as "equitism" (defined there as the midpoint between altruism and egoism) is the midpoint on the Good/Evil axis?

[nefele]

There are multiple options in dealing with the illogic of law and chaos.

Well, yes, but why? What is the primary goal here?

Keep the crunch but modify the fluff? ("There's this cosmic force, this objective universal duality, and all creatures fall under this or that category or at least in the middle, and spells and abilities work different on each category. But the Law/Chaos duality doesn't do it for me, so I'll look for something else.")

If that's the case, I frankly wouldn't bother. Yeap, the Law/Chaos axis makes little sense if you have a moderately complicated society. But what sort of duality could possibly make sense universally? What would apply equally in the frame of the Dark Ages and Rennaisance, Western Europe and Japan, nomad cultures and urban settlements? (To use some of the more popular inspirations for fantasy settings.) And not only apply, but qualify for "cosmic force" too, since spells work differently etc. Nothing, I dare say. You might as well keep the Law/Chaos axis, if only because people are used to it and can simplify it to "plays by the rules/doesn't play by the rules" and get done with it.


Or is it the crunch you dislike? ("I just don't want spells and abilities to affect people differently depending on an arbitrary distinction about ethics.") Because if that's the case, you don't need to replace it with anything. The sensible thing to do would be to throw the whole concept out of the window, and the crunch with it. Keep the Good/Evil axis if you wish. Drop alignment altogether if you prefer.

In any case, I don't see how replacing ONE dubious distinction with ANOTHER dubious distinction is going to help anything.

[Lapak]

I once had an idea for an alternative axis. It would focus on Nature versus Cities.

I think that's a pretty sound idea, especially in a Points-of-Light type setting, as I've said in the past:

The official materials don't do a good job of defining this, I agree. I've seen two frameworks imposed on the Law/Chaos axis that make a lot of sense and work mechanically in a D&D world, though.

Framework 1: Civilization/Individuality. Under this framework, Chaotic characters/monsters/etc. strongly believe not just in their own individual freedom, but that civilization and organization are inherently wrong. A ranger who lives alone in the woods and wants to let the townsfolk choose to live in the town isn't CG under this structure; he's NG. A Chaotic Good character would believe that civilization is inherently corruptive, decadent, and destructive of morality and goodness in general. The honorable-barbarian type, who is suspicious of cities and believes that people living there are worse for it is Chaotic Good in this framework. It's not enough to want your own freedom to be Chaotic; you have to believe that individuality should be imposed on everyone else too. (For their own good if Good, for your benefit if Evil.) This is what I generally treat it as in my games; a lot of player character types generally thought of as Chaotic fall into Neutrality on that scale here.