The Law-Chaos Axis

[Ulzgoroth]

The good-evil axis can carry some contradictions and logical challenges (not to mention differences of opinion), but the Law-Chaos axis is a mystery. To me, anyway.

What I'm most inclined to load onto the Law-Chaos indicator is adherence to a code. What code isn't important, so long as it's self-consistent and faithfully followed. As an associated property, willingness to work through potentially complex but internally consistent structures. This makes defining chaotic and neutral a bit hard, though.

The PHB 'Law and Chaos' passage seems to describe the axis as mostly about acceptance of hierarchy. Lawful persons accept subordination, to other people or to abstract rules, while Chaotic persons reject both. Then the three Lawful alignment examples seem to center on straightforwardness for the Good, rigid codes for the Neutral, and a mix of subordination and rigidity for the Evil. All three of the Chaotics seem to about to refusing to be subordinate to anything.

What do you think? How do you cope? Why isn't there a law-chaos book pair to correspond to BoVD/BoED?

[Assassinfox]

What do you think? How do you cope? Why isn't there a law-chaos book pair to correspond to BoVD/BoED?

Yeah, I was kinda wondering that too.

Book of Total Craziness!
Book of Sticks up Butts!

[JaronK]

How I do it:

A Lawful character has a specific code that dominates their behavior. Thus, though you may want to do something, your code may disallow it. A Lawful Good paladin may want to help that starving beggar who just stole some bread, but his code prevents him from allowing the theft to go unanswered.

A Chaotic character is guided more by goals than specific codes. A Chaotic Good character would have no trouble looking the other way on the theft of some bread, and help out the peasant in question, for example.

In both cases, the goals of the characters were the same (help the greater good, generally), but in the case of the Lawful character, his code was more important than the goal.

JaronK

[The Extinguisher]

I hate the word Law. Order is a much better word for it. We need to change the lawful alignment to orderly.

Anyway, unlike Good and Evil which is based on actions, the ethical axis is based on intent. At least that's what I think.

[Turcano]

The problem with a code-based interpretation of the ethical axis is what counts as a code. Given a sufficiently broad definition of a code, it would be difficult to find any chaotic people, as almost no one is truly spontaneous in their behavior.

A better interpretation is how one views the place of the individual within society. Law places the good of society over the good of the individual, while Chaos places the individual over society. This, I feel, is closely analogous to the division in the moral axis (i.e., the value of life and dignity over one's own desires vs. the contrary).

[Assassinfox]

I hate the word Law. Order is a much better word for it. We need to change the lawful alignment to orderly.

On the flip side of that, Chaos should be changed to Freedom.

[Duke Malagigi]

I see the differences between Chaos and Law as having more to do with personal freedom versus societal/group/government control.

Chaotics value independence, personal responsibility (if not evil), honest and constructive competition, the idea of private property (unless you hold other sentient creatures as property. Note, Chaotic Evils could be convinced that slavery is acceptable) and individual initiative. Chaotics also believe that the individual is the most basic unit of society.

Lawfuls value obedience, group responsibility, often times mandated cooperation, the idea of group/government property (not always, but it happens on occasion), and centralized authority. Lawfuls believe that the community is the most basic unit of society.

[Wehrkind]

The only problem with your analysis Duke is that those that think community is the most basic unit of society tend to be those that have the least structured minds/actions. That is to say, they are the least internally consistent in professed values and deeds, mainly because of the flaws in their world view, precisely that community is the most basic unit of society.

I think your analysis is fairly accurate in regards to D&D alignment. I think however it also highlights another problem of the D&D alignment system. In this case that problem is that many people who value individuals above groups are extremely "orderly" and in favor of law as such.

Essentially, I think it is what happens when non-philosophers attempt to build a system based on ideas even philosophers disagree on. Not that they shouldn't have tried, but it perhaps was a bad idea to hinge large parts of the game's mechanics on that sort of thing. It might have been better to assign colors instead of alignments, saying "My character is blue/green" and thus being affected by spells etc that do that, and leave personality seperate.

[Closet_Skeleton]

At least 1 edition had an artifact called the Book of Silver Magic that had the same Effect as the Book of Exalted Deeds or the Book of Vile Darkness, but it benifited neutral characters.

That seems odd, good and evil, even neutral, get more stuff before law and chaos.

[Dhavaer]

There was a Libram of Silver Magic, I think in the Epic Level Handbook.

[Khantalas]

In my campaign setting (...and there we go...), Evil and Good are simply how one follows Law and Chaos. There are two gods, or rather, divines, Harmony and Entropy, that are lawful and chaotic, respectively. However, in this setting, Lawful also implies adherence to the Universal Law of Things (yes, that's the actual name of the law), written by Harmony at the beginning of time. Adherence to a personal code doesn't make you truly lawful. Chaotic implies the will to defy and fight against that code to empower Entropy.

For example, a Paladin may be chaotic. Yes, they can be. Shut up. They still need to be good, so they still have to respect life and all that, but their goals are different from that of a core paladin's: to free others from unjust laws set down by an abstract being no one can even prove the existence of countless years ago. They do so by proving the laws wrong, and by showing them that Entropy can be merciful (how you can show that a being that is out to destroy existence completely is merciful, I'm still thinking about it). An evil follower of Entropy, however, will force others to see his truth, slaughtering those who are too weak to do so.

Make sense? No? Then wait until you hear my "undead are chaotic" theory, that will blow your mind.

[Demented]

Of no necessary purpose...

Spoiler

Show

The only problem with your analysis Duke is that those that think community is the most basic unit of society tend to be those that have the least structured minds/actions. That is to say, they are the least internally consistent in professed values and deeds, mainly because of the flaws in their world view, precisely that community is the most basic unit of society.

Not necessarily. This is much like the question of "When a tree falls, does it make a sound?" The question itself is virtually meaningless in its apparent simplicity, until you understand what the other side is arguing. That is, that determining whether an object makes a sound can only be done by hearing the tree fall. Once you know this, the question morphs from useless solipsism into a frustrating illogic puzzle.

As far as the community being the most basic unit of society, it can be questioned whether an individual is a complete unit, in terms of a society. Can one person really constitute a society? How many people do you need to make a society? Thus would it begin.

Putting that aside....


D&D asigns absolutes fairly simply to the Good/Evil axis. Good cherishes and seeks to protect life, while Evil sees life as having no value.

With the Law/Chaos axis, the D&D description isn't as clear. It describes various traits, but it doesn't have an absolute indicator as convenient as for the Good/Evil axis. The ideal course would just be to choose a polarizing aspect for the Law/Chaos axis and use that as the standard. Otherwise, there is always room for the Law/Chaos axis to contradict itself.

...Depending on how ludicrous one gets. After all, it's questionable that there is a relationship between a belief in personal freedom, and a willingness to lie. On the other hand, one might accuse that all pieces of expressive art are lies made manifest, with no truth but their own existence. Which would have interesting implications for law versus chaos...

[Saph]

What do you think? How do you cope? Why isn't there a law-chaos book pair to correspond to BoVD/BoED?

Short answer: Because no-one cares that much. To most people, whether you're Good or Evil matters much more than whether you're Lawful or Chaotic. Lots of people like the idea of an epic campaign fighting against Evil, not that many are interested in fighting against Law/Chaos.

As for definitions, I've always seen Law and Chaos in simple terms: lawful people are ordered, chaotic people are disordered. The businessman who works a 9-5 job is more lawful, the guy who takes random jobs and travels from city to city is more chaotic.

I've never paid that much attention to the 'acceptance of a hierarchy' part, because that's so dependent on where you live. A Lawful person who strongly dislikes a hierarchy won't support it, and a Chaotic person may idealise a hierarchy that he doesn't happen to live in.

- Saph

[headwarpage]

I'm with Saph on this. Lawful doesn't necessarily have anything to do with laws, and maybe not even adherence to a code. But a lawful character likes order. He thinks that there is, or at least ought to be, a pattern and structure to things, from the unwritten laws of the multiverse to the society he lives in to how he lives his own life. But he's not necessarily bound to abide by the structure that's already in place, or to accept a code that somebody else imposes on him. A lawful good character, faced with a corrupt social structure, can overthrow it. But he'll do so in order to install what he sees as a better structure, and he might not overthrow it unless he can see that he'll be able to install that better structure afterwards. A chaotic good character, in the same situation, might simply overthrow the existing structure, tell the people, "You're free," and call it good.

Chaotic characters, conversely, have no need for order and structure. They don't necessarily crave disorder, but they don't think that order plays an important role in the world. They're more likely to be impulsive, and to act with no long-term plan. They don't necessarily chafe under strict rule, but they're more likely to, unless the nature of the rule is such that they're doing pretty much what they want to anyway. My general impression is that they'll see society as a collection of individuals, where a lawful character would see society as sort of an entity unto itself, somewhat divorced from the individual people who make it up.

[Orzel]

I always went for:

Lawful people will obey and enforce rules, traditions, routines, and codes that are restrictive, difficult, and/or inconvenient as long as possible.

Neutral people will obey rules, traditions, routines and codes that are restrictive, difficult,and/or inconvenient as long as breaking them has a worse consequence.

Chaotic people will not obey rules, traditions, routines, and codes that are restrictive, difficult, and/or inconvenient unless forced to.

My example is a guild states you must to kill a certain beast to join.
A lawful person would kill the beast as long as it wasn't suicide.
A neutral person would kill the beast as long as the beast was an easy kill.
A chaotic person would kill the beast only if you couldn't find another way in the guild.

[Maglor_Grubb]

A lawful person will avoid doing something he personally has no problems with because it's a rule. A chaotic person will listen only to his inner moral compass, and will strongly resist any attempt to force him into acting according to external rules.

Every genius that realizes a new idea better but very unlike the old one is chaotic, because he works with what-could-be, the ideal idea in his head, unlike the lawful person that has the idea most common in his society in his head.

Lawful persons are very influenced by external factors in their opinions, but ones they have made them, they will stick to them even if society changes.
Chaotic persons are less influenced by external factors, but will change their opinion more quickly.

Chaotic is a dreamer, lawful is disciplined. Chaotic has an idea, lawful works it out. Lawful is hard to separate from his idea of reality and finds it hard to work with other models of reality, chaotic jumps from model to model, often leading to inconsistent results.

It's always more clearer if you go to the extremes.

In the lawful utopia everyone follows all rules, everyone knows his place and does what he is expected to do. Theory=practise here. It worked in theory and here it works in the real world too because everyone follows the theory to the letter. Society is a well oiled machine and the individuals are parts of it. While an individual could do his job better by thinking for himself what the best course of action would be any time he has a task, he won't, he will follow the procedure every time to the letter - and that is good, because even if it makes him do his job better, it will make it harder for the other parts to depend on him and ultimately that's bad for the whole machine. Sure, geniusses are forced to do less than they can, but because everyone does something production is higher.

In the chaotic utopia everyone does what he is most talented to do. Everyone lives his life to the most potential, develops any hidden talents he might have for the maximum result. If everyone tries find the job he's most fitted to do and tries to do this the best he can, the individual will be happy and everyone will prosper. Judgements are made on a case-by-case basis for every situation is different, so if you would apply 1 rule, made without knowing where it will be applied, to 10 cases, it would at best be avarage for all. In every case the circumstances are different, so the best course of action is different, so in this chaotic utopia the action taken will be different every time, but every time the best action for the individual deciding. Sure, some people won't be able to get along, but because every talent is used to it's full potential, any potential Great Idea is realized and progress is much faster.

[lumberofdabeast]

You know what?

I was thinking about this earlier, but now it's concrete. The next campaign that I run will be centered on the Law vs. Chaos conflict, rather than Good vs. Evil. It should make for an interesting play experience.

On topic, I see the two as such:
Law values the whole.
Chaos values the individual.

[Fixer]

The closest to how my campaigns tend to interpret Law and Chaos is how Maglor Grubb defined his.

Lawful individuals tend to focus more on those around them and working as part of a collective. "Strength in numbers," and, "It worked before it can work again," would be commonplace statements for a person with a lawful mindset.

Chaotic individuals tend to focus more on themselves and their own thoughts than the thoughts of those around them. "Maybe it will work this time," and, "If I have to do it alone, I'll do it alone," would be more commonplace statement for a person with a chaotic mindset.

My challenge has always been the true neutrals. There appear to be two manners in which they are portrayed in D&D: The apathetic or the balancers. I believe another portrayal would be the justifier (i.e. The ends justify the means). They care, but their behavior is solely dictated by their goal and not the moral or ethical concerns of their behavior.

[Fixer]

You know what?

I was thinking about this earlier, but now it's concrete. The next campaign that I run will be centered on the Law vs. Chaos conflict, rather than Good vs. Evil. It should make for an interesting play experience.

On topic, I see the two as such:
Law values the whole.
Chaos values the individual.

I did this in a campaign once. The players thought it was good vs evil at first, but then they had a chance to meet both sides (Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral) and they has such a moral quandry as to who they should side with it was great to watch.

[Orzel]

I do not agree with this lawful loves the group and chaotic loves themself thing.

These are the most common sights but not common enough for the rule. The lawful tend to favor the society because the society makes the rules. The choatic tend to think inward and not based on the society's vision because the society makes the rules.

My example the monk.
Monks must be lawful.
Why?
Because being a monk is hard. The amount of training and routines required in their personal codes is great. A Nonlawful person would quit before learning much because the training is so hard/restrictive/long. "**** this! I'm not sitting under that waterfall for another 2 hours. Hand me a sword!"


Babarians must be chaotic to keep his rage.
Why? Because rage require the person to let go of his/her codes and views inorder to go crazy and feral. A lawful person would never do that.

[Baalzebub]

I see it the way outsiders see it.

Outsiders from Mechanus simply follow the rules from the plane and, according to the big system, they work.

Outsiders from Limbo do as they please, no rules, no order.

[Iudex Fatarum]

Discipline is a huge part of law, and lack of it is chaos.
The way I see it, if the person views the ends as justifying the means then they are chaotic.
If they say this is never the case then that is true.
Monks are lawful because they will never break the teaching of their master's to achieve some goal. They see things as moral absolutes and very black and white. I find that this is true even in modern martial arts, the respect and higherarchy is integral to what is taught.

[Clementx]

The distinction is the conflict between Restriction and Freedom. This manifests in many different ways

-Personal Code vs Choice: A Lawful person holds their ideals and rules above what is most convenient or desirable. In fact, they are willing to make sacrifices for something larger than themselves. It can be altruism for the sake of good, or it can be cold-hearted justification of evil deeds. A Chaotic person holds their individual and momentary desires over "the way things should be done". They will break their ideals when something competes. It can be flagrant disregard for the law, or it can be the willingness to act despite the consequences.

-Societal Order vs Liberty: A Lawful person holds society and law over personal freedoms. This is dedication to something greater than the individual. It can be tyrannical disregard for personal rights, or it can be deep desire for stability and equity. A Chaotic person holds individual rights above the demands of others. When push comes to shove, life matters more than words. It can be a deep dedication and respect for life, or it can be self-indulgent priorities.

And it goes on. Each aspect varies in application based on Good vs Evil. A real life example of the flexibility: the death penalty. A Lawful person could support it because the demands of social order can overwrite the right to life of an irredeemable person. A Lawful person could also oppose it, because the state must rise above human desire for revenge and blood, no matter the social convenience. A Chaotic person could support it, because vengeance is deeply satisfying. A Chaotic person could also oppose it because the right to life cannot be taken away from a person, no matter what he does.

Law and Chaos can agree for completely different reasons. On the same issue, law can be slightly more tyrannical than it should be, and chaos can be too short-sighted for its own good.

[LotharBot]

For a good example of Chaotic Neutral, watch the TV Show "House" (or "House, M.D."). The title character is pure chaos.

He doesn't merely value "individuality"... he values getting under people's skin. He values throwing people for a loop. Like many of us as teens, his goal is to annoy and frustrate and generally interfere.

I'd say "lawful" values doing things according to tradition, social norms, and doing things the comfortable way. "Chaotic" values breaking tradition and social norms, and making people uncomfortable. "Neutral" sees tradition and social norms as sometimes useful, but definitely bendable.

[Sardia]

My campaign cosmology started with pure, immobile order...forces and matter held immobile in a state of absolute, crystalline perfection. And then something moved, which was for all intents and purposes the beginning of time as the universe knew it.
Unfortunately, it also means that the universe lost its perfect state and is literally (if slowly) falling apart into pure chaos.
Law opposes chaos because chaos is quite simply the ultimate end of all things. Eventually. Law takes the long view, and tries to get things back to the state of primordial perfection.
Chaos considers the personal freedom to be had before the end as a positive good. Be personally fulfilled before the end comes, basically.
Neutral doesn't really care, or doesn't know. It's going to be countless eons, anyhow.

[Aximili]

The only problem with your analysis Duke is that those that think community is the most basic unit of society tend to be those that have the least structured minds/actions. That is to say, they are the least internally consistent in professed values and deeds, mainly because of the flaws in their world view, precisely that community is the most basic unit of society.

That's just a Chaotic character's point of view.
A lawfull character could say exactly the same, just switching "cummunity" with "individual".

They're all point of views. Maybe in our society one of them is viewed as right, or as more "internally consistent in professed values and deeds". But D&D world is different, and the most structured minds diverge on what the right attitudes are.

[Krellen]

There are a lot of opinions here that seem to fit with my view of Law and Chaos, which is very complex. I built my campaign world concentrating more on Chaos vs. Law - Change vs. Order, Creation vs. Structure, Individual vs. Community - and have devoted a lot of thought to differentiating Law and Chaos.

It's not simple, just like Good and Evil aren't exactly simple. Law is discipline, society, tradition, honour, structure, refinement, heirarchy, stagnation - "Everything has its place". Chaos is creativity, freedom, individual, progress, change, equality, expediency, decay - "There's got to be a better way".

It's a bit of means: Chaotic people are willing to use the best/most efficient means to accomplish their ends, while the Lawful feel that the manner they use to reach their end is as important as the end itself.

It's a bit societal: Chaotics believe that individual freedoms are sacrosanct, while Lawfuls believe the common weal (which isn't the same as "Good") trumps individual choice.

It's a bit universal: Chaos seeks to shape the world into a "better" shape, Law seeks to maintain the statis quo.

Roy and Elan are excellent examples of Law and Chaos; Roy is stodgy, steady, dependible, stoic; Elan is rambucntions, joyful, carefree, passionate. Neither one is really "best", but individuals will often prefer one to the other.

[TheOOB]

I have never had law or chaos be that important to my games, in fact i think it's silly that there are spells based on them.

Generally speaking, I consider lawful people to be stable and predictable, while chaotic people are erratic and unpredictable.

[Sardia]

I have never had law or chaos be that important to my games, in fact i think it's silly that there are spells based on them.

I suppose your gaming world could theoretically go either way-- take the Moorcock route and have the major division be Law vs. Chaos. Which would make for fascinating party composition, certainly.

[Ulzgoroth]

I think the allocation of 'individual freedoms' to chaos is at best tempting misinterpretation.

Certainly in any sense resembling the real-world history of individual freedoms, they've always been an artifact of law, not lawlessness. The concept of 'rights' makes no real sense from a social chaotic outlook...they're just the least objectionable possible rules passed down by some bossy type. At best, they're Law turned against itself to keep it out of the way. (Of course from the perspective of Law they're adding the virtues of a chaotic approach to their own by incorporating them into the legal structure.)

Compare:
L: Don't do that!
C: You promised not to interfere with me doing this.
L: Oh... *pages through ordinances* ...Quite. Sorry about that.

vs.

L: Don't do that!
C: Why shouldn't I? I don't see what business it is of yours.
L: *pulls out law book* It says right here...
C: *ignores L*