Brainstorming - Order vs. Chaos (no Good or Evil)

[Nifft]

Brainstorming a setting idea. The basic idea is: the major conflict in the setting is not Good vs. Evil, it's Order vs. Chaos.

Order and Chaos both have good (and evil) people & creatures on their side. Politics making for strange bedfellows, and all that.

What are Order & Chaos?

Chaos is:
- To thine own self, be true.
- An institution is no better than its weakest link.
- Respect the person, not the office or institution.
- A man is the measure of all things, and it's right to try to measure yourself personally against the world.
- Honor your personal debts to individuals. You might obey the King if you knew him personally, or if his actions had recently benefited you, or if the policy is one you'd follow anyway due to your personal ethos.
- Seek to improve your personal power.

Order is:
- Loyalty beyond life.
- The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
- Honor the institution and office rather than the individual. You obey the King because he is the rightful King.
- Respect treaties: they are the oaths of your ancestors, and your superiors.
- Honor the debts and partake of the liberties of your station. Seek to improve your station in society.

- - -

Paladins might be exemplars of Order. Specifically, civilization. They honor the local authority because it's the local pinnacle of civilization, which is their power source.

Fey might be exemplars of Chaos. Specifically, wilderness. They never lie, but they often deceive. They act for their own amusement. They don't form hierarchies, and they don't honor the intent of oaths, only the wording.

Bards are urban, yet have high potential for Chaotic tendencies. They're untrusted by the authorities of their favorite environment. This seems pretty appropriate to me.

Rangers could be agents for Order or Chaos. They might be hunters who make the wilderness safe for the expansion of civilization, or they might be trying to keep civilization away from their lovely pristine nature spots.

- - -

Hmm. Looking over this, it seems like I'm stuck thinking about Urban = Order, and Nature = Chaos.

Maybe that's okay... but it seems a bit limited.

What other Order / Chaos splits can be made?

Thanks!

[hamishspence]

Sounds a lot like Poul Anderson's Three Hearts & Three Lions (which was a big inspirer of some D&D tropes).

[Nifft]

Sounds a lot like Poul Anderson's Three Hearts & Three Lions (which was a big inspirer of some D&D tropes).

Interesting, I've never read that.

What kinds of divisions did that book make?

Thanks!

[hamishspence]

Order vs Chaos - with Chaos including many fairy-type monsters:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_...nd_Three_Lions

[NecroRebel]

Oftentimes, things like this go for a "there must be a balance" theme more strongly than Good vs. Evil. In Good vs. Evil stories, Good oftentimes ends up eradicating Evil, but most of the time Order vs. Chaos one eradicating the other is treated as a Very Bad Thing. That might be something you want to do, or it might be something you want to avoid.

Anyway, one you missed was continuity vs. change. This can be both in terms of society - tradition and reform, for instance, or perhaps stagnation versus corruption if you want to go more extreme - and in physical reality. This is one that probably only exists in a "balance" world.

[Milo v3]

The Soul Calibur/Edge series could be inspiration for this, being a battle between a sentient artefact of chaos (soul edge) and a sentient artefact of law (soul calibre), who both choose warriors to be their exemplars.

[Jaredino]

Order is sticking to tradition, Chaos is doing something new just to be different
Order is demanding respect and obeying rank, Chaos is believing oneself to be equal to any lord or king
Order is living in a town with others, Chaos is living wherever feels best
Order is trusting all, Chaos is doubting all

[HolyCouncilMagi]

Order is sticking to tradition, Chaos is doing something new just to be different
Order is demanding respect and obeying rank, Chaos is believing oneself to be equal to any lord or king
Order is living in a town with others, Chaos is living wherever feels best
Order is trusting all, Chaos is doubting all

I agree with all of these except the last one. Chaos isn't inherently untrusting or untrustworthy and lawful isn't inherently trusting... And for that matter, not inherently trustworthy.

That last one is special because a lot of people make a big mistake about it when it comes to differentiating between law and chaos by saying that chaos is focusing on the lettering over the intent, which is almost the opposite of the truth. Law is a lot more likely to take the letter over the spirit; if chaos has reason to work around the intent of a rule, they'll ignore the rule, while law will use the wording to its advantage (should the need be great enough to override the general respect for law; what needs count as great enough vary across the Good/Evil spectrum and from person to person). There's a reason the iconic literalist contract tricksters, devils and evil genies (efreeti in D&D, which is what most alignment discussions apply to), are Lawful Evil rather than Chaotic Evil.

[Raimun]

Twist: It's the mighty Chaotic Empire that the underdog Lawful Rebels are fighting against.

[goto124]

May I ask how that works? I've never heard of it...

[Nifft]

Oftentimes, things like this go for a "there must be a balance" theme more strongly than Good vs. Evil. In Good vs. Evil stories, Good oftentimes ends up eradicating Evil, but most of the time Order vs. Chaos one eradicating the other is treated as a Very Bad Thing. That might be something you want to do, or it might be something you want to avoid.

Anyway, one you missed was continuity vs. change. This can be both in terms of society - tradition and reform, for instance, or perhaps stagnation versus corruption if you want to go more extreme - and in physical reality. This is one that probably only exists in a "balance" world.

Interesting! That's pretty much the opposite of what I've laid out so far.

Order = Civilization = EXPANDING their territory, CHANGING and INNOVATING, and BREAKING UP the natural order.

Chaos = Nature = the OLD WAYS (law of the jungle), ANCIENT INDIVIDUALS (like dragons and treants) who want things to STAY THE SAME (cyclical).

I suppose it'd be reasonable for both sides to call the other side "Chaos". Heh.

The Soul Calibur/Edge series could be inspiration for this, being a battle between a sentient artefact of chaos (soul edge) and a sentient artefact of law (soul calibre), who both choose warriors to be their exemplars.

Never played that game.

Maybe post some details of stuff from the game, which you think might be relevant?

Order is trusting all, Chaos is doubting all

In the eyes of a Justiciar, all may be guilty of some transgression against the law. Some people who are on the side of Order know that you're guilty of something.

Other people on the side of order trust you as far as your gold will reach. They don't have to trust ~you~, because they've got currency and credit which are backed up by the force of Law. They trust currency and credit institutions, not individual people.

People on the Chaos side trust you as far as they can throw you. Which might be quite far indeed.

But, and this is important, the old traditions of hospitality are honored much more strongly among the people of Chaos.

That last one is special because a lot of people make a big mistake about it when it comes to differentiating between law and chaos by saying that chaos is focusing on the lettering over the intent, which is almost the opposite of the truth. Law is a lot more likely to take the letter over the spirit; if chaos has reason to work around the intent of a rule, they'll ignore the rule, while law will use the wording to its advantage (should the need be great enough to override the general respect for law; what needs count as great enough vary across the Good/Evil spectrum and from person to person). There's a reason the iconic literalist contract tricksters, devils and evil genies (efreeti in D&D, which is what most alignment discussions apply to), are Lawful Evil rather than Chaotic Evil.

Agree mostly.

There are exceptions, though: Fey are Chaotic, but love word-play and trickery. They're not actively malicious, but they are not straightforward or particularly honorable either.

You're absolutely right about Efreeti. They are legalistic and malicious. The human bankers want to get rich off your work -- and that's greedy, but human, and not necessarily evil. The Efreeti, on the other hand, want you to destroy yourself, and want to end up owning or enslaving you -- they are evil.

Twist: It's the mighty Chaotic Empire that the underdog Lawful Rebels are fighting against.

Sounds interesting.

Post more details?

[goto124]

For one thing, I'm not sure how you can keep an Empire intact with Chaos. For such huge numbers of people... that's what Law is for.

[Nifft]

For one thing, I'm not sure how you can keep an Empire intact with Chaos. For such huge numbers of people... that's what Law is for.

Feudalism works equally well with Law or Chaos.

Under Law, you have some rights and obligations for the nobility of each layer. Rights and obligations for each citizen according to his or her station. Standard taxes, tariffs, and tributes. Of course, not all land produces identical value, so not all tribute will be in the exact correct form, but there are tables of conversion and substitutions can be made accordingly.

Under Chaos, you have personal oaths of fealty from each specific person who is directly under you. You've kicked all of their asses, personally, and they respect your might. You travel around and visit them to remind them of your power, and to check up on them... and to drain their coffers, which reduces their ability to war on their neighbors. Thus, you also protect them from each other. You don't much care how they each run their domains, you just demand that they have their tribute ready on time -- and each one will have a different tribute, since each one will have an individually different oath of fealty.

The cool thing is: you can have tributaries of both types under Feudalism. And they'll hate each other.

[Rakoa]

This reminds me a lot of Michael Moorcock's Eternal Champion series, particularly that featuring Elric of Melnibone. Chaos vs. Law was the central conflict raging around the poor "hero", particularly with regards to Arioch. If I'm not mistaken, D&D adopted the usage of Law and Chaos from Moorcock. Inspiration was drawn, I'm sure of it.

[HolyCouncilMagi]

I personally think you have Law and Chaos flipped in some ways. There are certainly interesting exceptions to all cases, but in general, Law is a lot more likely to respect old traditions, stay civil even when they don't feel that way, and go for the tried and true more often than the risky and innovative, while Chaos is a lot more likely to eschew formal tradition, act how they feel, and try new things for the sake of trying new things and seeing how they work.

[Nifft]

I personally think you have Law and Chaos flipped in some ways. There are certainly interesting exceptions to all cases, but in general, Law is a lot more likely to respect old traditions, stay civil even when they don't feel that way, and go for the tried and true more often than the risky and innovative, while Chaos is a lot more likely to eschew formal tradition, act how they feel, and try new things for the sake of trying new things and seeing how they work.

Well, I'm making a distinction between Law and Tradition.

Order (Law) says:
- You may make a contract to rent living space in trade for money.
- Murder is illegal, but sometimes the State can execute a criminal.

Chaos (Tradition) says:
- You must offer a stranger hospitality for at least 3 days.
- You may not murder a guest unless your guest has initiated violence against you.

In this case, both are trying to be Good. Neither is universally correct.

If you look at old fairy tales, you'll see that the Fey in the stories had all sorts of rules and traditions. They weren't laws -- each faerie's rules might be different, and there's no particular reason or justice to their rules -- but they adhere to their rules, and they are ~NOT~ just a bunch of hedonistic do-what-I-feel random action generators.

[Milo v3]

Chaos is sorta.... anti-tradition in everything I've seen.

[goto124]

Isn't Tradition a looser, less formal kind of Law...? With the 'listen to authority' thing and all?

[Nifft]

Chaos is sorta.... anti-tradition in everything I've seen.

Can you cite some sources?

When Elric calls upon the ancient pacts, that's NOT anti-tradition.

When the Death of Discworld disrupts the Auditor's plans by evoking the spirit of the Hogfather, that's NOT anti-tradition.

In A Midsummer Night's Dream, when Oberon commands his vassal to seek out an herb, his vassal Puck does NOT respond by rejecting tradition. He responds by obeying the commands of his lord and getting the job done.

[Nifft]

Isn't Tradition a looser, less formal kind of Law...? With the 'listen to authority' thing and all?

No.


In a society run by Tradition:
- You are obligated to share your food with someone who asks.
- But, if the same person asks too often, which is not defined in any specific way, but basically if you and your neighbors agree that this person is being a leech, then you can just kill the jerk. There will be no repercussions unless one of your neighbors objects, or if the person had kin who object.


In a society run by Law:
- You are not obligated to give anyone anything.
- You are not allowed to murder anyone.


Both can try to be fair, both can try to be good -- but they go about it differently.

[Bobb]

The agents and beings of pure archetypes of both sides are Baad news for living things.

The beings of pure law want to freeze all movement, creating a perfect, unchanging tapestry of reality in which even they have no part left to play.

The beings of pure chaos want to dissolve all bonds. Literally all bonds. They create, destroy and recreate themselves endlessly and seek to destroy all things so that reality can become a constantly swirling maelstrom of chaotic-ness and randomness.

[NecroRebel]

No.


In a society run by Tradition:
- You are obligated to share your food with someone who asks.
- But, if the same person asks too often, which is not defined in any specific way, but basically if you and your neighbors agree that this person is being a leech, then you can just kill the jerk. There will be no repercussions unless one of your neighbors objects, or if the person had kin who object.

I feel like most people would call an obligation to help others to be an aspect of order. Chaotic people might help others because they enjoy it, or because they just want to, or because they feel that it would benefit themselves in the long run. Basically, most of us see all obligations as orderly.

And being able to kill others is not really orderly or chaotic. Organized criminals, especially things like the Italian mafia, are usually associated with order more than chaos because they tend are organized and highly striated. They also routinely murder those who get in their way or fail the organization.



It feels like you've gotten too much into an interpretation of order as written law, and so you've taken unwritten law (tradition or custom) as chaos and are trying to draw a distinction there that most people wouldn't. There's nothing wrong with that as such, but it's a much more narrow view than most people will take.

[Flickerdart]

Neither Chaos nor Law are against change, necessarily. The difference is in how they approach it.

Law prefers evolutionary change. A Lawful empire might go to war with its neighbour to claim more land to extract taxes from, or send off explorers to set up a colony where people can exploit resources, but these are both things in service to the way that Empire does its things. They had taxes and resources before, after all. When developing something new, a lawful society will follow a careful approach, with government oversight of experiments and scrutiny of every new discovery to see how it will affect things and whether or not it is worthwhile to go through with it in the long run.

Chaos prefers revolutionary change - sudden bursts of spontaneous progress that brings qualitative instead of quantitative change. The "Law of the Jungle" means that everyone quickly adopts the new tech, because if you don't, someone who does have it will eat you (metaphorically, or maybe even literally). Conquering new land? The motivation is more likely to be liberating a people (from their oppressive, unfriendly-to-chaos monarchy), exploiting a unique resource (whether natural resources or skilled scientists), or getting access to a port or trade route the empire didn't have before. Sending out colonies? The emphasis will be on finding previously unseen treasures, animals, and so forth in the new world.

Chaos and Law are also not against tradition, in principle, but neither are they for it.

Law likes tradition because it unites the people. You can say "we have these shared traditions and values, those guys over there have different ones, and never the twain shall mix." A well-written law is informed by tradition. On the other hand, if it is for the greater good, tradition can go stuff it - if we need to knock down your sacred shrine to build a castle, that's just too bad.

Chaos also likes tradition - but chaotic traditions serve to make small units unique. For instance, a village might traditionally receive visitors with open arms, but the next one might view them suspiciously. Chaos says - good! Both are responding to their own conditions in the way they find appropriate. Chaotic traditions are likely to evolve rather than remain the same forever, for the same reason. "I won't do it because it's tradition" is considered to be a reasonable response even in the face of greater good.

Remember that no society in the history of ever has been fully Lawful or Chaotic.

[GorinichSerpant]

Interesting! That's pretty much the opposite of what I've laid out so far.

Order = Civilization = EXPANDING their territory, CHANGING and INNOVATING, and BREAKING UP the natural order.

Chaos = Nature = the OLD WAYS (law of the jungle), ANCIENT INDIVIDUALS (like dragons and treants) who want things to STAY THE SAME (cyclical).

I suppose it'd be reasonable for both sides to call the other side "Chaos". Heh.

Never played that game.

Maybe post some details of stuff from the game, which you think might be relevant?

I think that Civilisation and Nature are along a different an axis then Order and Chaos. You can have orderly nature beings like ancient dragons, treants and the people who follow their ways, while chaotic nature would look like the fey or embodiments of storms. Chaotic Civilisation would consist of innovators,robber barons, revolutionaries and orderly civilization would be gods of war, agriculture and so forth as well as the traditionalists who are very upset when said innovators,robber barons, and revolutionaries try to achieve their goals.

[JBPuffin]

While the OP's label of Chaos may imply the idea's working under stereotypical DnD assumptions, this is supposed to be its own animal. Instead of messing with the system, it might be better to find a word that isn't chaos, but goes with what you mean. I think "Tradition" might actually be a better word than "Chaos", and the two can be diametrically opposed. Traditions are organic - laws are fabricated. It makes a nice contrast and sets up the wilderness/civilization split.

[Nifft]

While the OP's label of Chaos may imply the idea's working under stereotypical DnD assumptions, this is supposed to be its own animal.

Well, I think I'm drawing from the same sources as D&D. So it's surprising to me that some people seem to bring such a vastly divergent set of assumptions... but nobody else is really citing examples from literature, so it's difficult to figure out where the divergence might be happening.

Instead of messing with the system, it might be better to find a word that isn't chaos, but goes with what you mean

That's possible! I'm certainly using Order instead of Law because it seemed that Law had too much baggage.

The stuff I have for "Team Not Order" is:
- Personal (not Institutional)
- Individualist (not Collectivist)
- Change is Cyclical (not Progressive)
- See the Person (not the Title or Office)
- Faeries in the Woods (not Craftsmen in the City)
- Dragons and Bandit-Barons (not Knights or Kings)
- Bards and Barbarians (not Clerics or Paladins)
- Nature and Wilderness (not Cities or Cultivated Fields)

If there's a better word for "Team Not Order" than Chaos, I'm super interested.

Thanks!

[GorinichSerpant]

By asking google for chaos's synonyms you get disorder which is kind of disappointing. There is also disarray, mayhem and anarchy.

I think Disarray might be a good one for Team Not Order.

[goto124]

Disarray doesn't carry the baggage of mayhem (negative connotations) or anarchy (politics). Though it does sound a tad weird.

[GorinichSerpant]

Not that you say it, Disarray sounds like it would consist of beings from Wonderland.

There is also Discord but that implies "something's off" and will be associated with a character from MLP by many.

[Nifft]

Some thoughts for better TNO names:

- The Wyld (baggage from Exalted but the baggage is pretty appropriate)

- The Unfettered

- The Exceptional (blatant propaganda yet literally true)