MitD XIII: Learning is happening

[Jasdoif]

I always felt like the differently coloured speech bubbles represented the tenor/sound/other magical effects of a voice. Presumably, most mortals that a succubus would try and seduce are attracted to other mortals. Given that she also has to disguise as mortals, it makes sense that her voice is represented visually in the comic as any other human/dwarf/elf/etc., and not have any weird booming, echoing qualities that scream "I AM AN OUTSIDER."

Pretty much.

You guys are overthinking the black speech bubble thing. Remember that the speech bubbles are an artifact of the comic strip process, which means they are subservient to the story. Obviously, it was narratively important to hide that Malack was undead, so therefore I decided he only speaks in black speech bubbles when he "vamps out." After all, vampires in fiction have a long history of having traits that only pop out when they feed: their fangs elongate, their eyes turn read, maybe their face gets all demony-looking if you want to go the Buffy the Vampire Slayer route. Changing voice is not outside of that realm.

Also, I already pointed out that Tarquin was able to change his speech balloons just by adopting a different way of speaking. It's not my fault no one extrapolated that to mean that characters—like the one floating next to him—can disguise/change the visual appearance of their balloons.

[Doug Lampert]

Wouldn't a being of Pure Chaos prefer a morning routine that isn't ruled by convention?

A being of pure chaos would not have a morning routine.

But if he really likes waffles, he might just happen to decide to have waffles every morning. Or maybe icecream, icecream is good, it's dairy, it's a fine breakfast food.... Hmm,

What.

Anyway, he'll have whatever he feels like or wants on any given morning, without regard to what he had yesterday or the day before, if that's always waffles, that's fine. If it's always icecream, that's fine too. If it's sometimes one and sometimes the other, that's also fine, because the Chaotic DOES NOT CARE about rules, and "have something different" is just as much a rule as "have the same thing again". He cares about having a nice breakfast. Thinking that Chaos means he "has to" have anything in particular, or can't have anything in particular, is just your lawful nature coming through, it's all up to his whim, and if he really likes waffles, that may be pretty consistent looking from the outside.

[Squire Doodad]

Wouldn't a being of Pure Chaos prefer a morning routine that isn't ruled by convention?

"We have pure freedom, and the ability to do anything we want!
Of course, I like the taste of pancakes, so most of the time I'm going to eat pancakes. I could eat waffles! But I like pancakes, so usually I eat pancakes."

[Wizard_Lizard]

"We have pure freedom, and the ability to do anything we want!
Of course, I like the taste of pancakes, so most of the time I'm going to eat pancakes. I could eat waffles! But I like pancakes, so usually I eat pancakes."

mmmmmm...... pancakes.
Or eggs, I like eggs, fried, poached, scrambled, but never boiled, although I wake up at 7:30 and have to leave the hoise at 8:10 so I usually have cereal.

Chaos sleeps in, because it can.

[Darth Paul]

Wouldn't a being of Pure Chaos prefer a morning routine that isn't ruled by convention?

This kind of question always bugs me a little. How much about being Chaotic (Whatever) means chaos for the sake of Chaos?

The definitions I've read have all emphasized freedom as the primary goal of a Chaotic alignment, whether that's personal freedom or freedom for society; not sowing anarchy for the sake of anarchy. Hence, as someone said above, does it really matter if a bunch of other people like pancakes for breakfast too, as long as the Chaotic person really likes them? Aren't you free to eat what you want, regardless of anyone else?

Does being Chaotic mean you have to eat a grapefruit, just because everyone else is having waffles?

[GreyTraveller]

But if he really likes waffles, he might just happen to decide to have waffles every morning. Or maybe icecream, icecream is good, it's dairy, it's a fine breakfast food....

Waffles and ice cream together are also pretty good.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

This kind of question always bugs me a little. How much about being Chaotic (Whatever) means chaos for the sake of Chaos?

The definitions I've read have all emphasized freedom as the primary goal of a Chaotic alignment, whether that's personal freedom or freedom for society; not sowing anarchy for the sake of anarchy. Hence, as someone said above, does it really matter if a bunch of other people like pancakes for breakfast too, as long as the Chaotic person really likes them? Aren't you free to eat what you want, regardless of anyone else?

Does being Chaotic mean you have to eat a grapefruit, just because everyone else is having waffles?

No, as far as I understand it doesn't mean anything like that. Both a Lawful and a Chaotic individual could have the same exact breakfast every day without telling us anything about their alignment. Because it all depends on the reasons why they are having that breakfast. A Lawful individual that has waffles one day and grapefruit the next might be following a meal plan, while the Chaotic one is doing because they felt like waffles the first and grapefruit the next.

The core is why they do it. Lawful people tend to delegate decision to plans and traditions and routine. Chaotic decide on each moment without consideration to previous decisions. The latter is more exhausting, but gives more freedom of action.

Grey Wolf

[Wizard_Lizard]

but if chaos means that you can do wht you want, wat if you want to follow the law?

But if it doesn't let you do what you want, then isn't it just rules woth a fancy ideaology coat on?

[Fyraltari]

but if chaos means that you can do wht you want, wat if you want to follow the law?

Then you follow the law, but you follow it because you agree with it, not because it’s the law. Example, Elan paying while robbing a store in the middle of a war.

[Jasdoif]

Then you follow the law, but you follow it because you agree with it, not because it’s the law. Example, Elan paying while robbing a store in the middle of a war.

To expand a bit on this:

Finally, do chaotics have to buck societal trends. I'm sure a lot of Chaotic people are happy with how the government runs things.

I don't think they need to, no. Look at Elan: as Chaotic as they come, but he obeys the law most of the time. The real issue is, how does a character respond when what they believe and what the government is doing don't agree?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

To expand a bit on this:

Or to quote not-Pratchett for once:

I will accept any rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

Grey Wolf

[Peelee]

Or to quote not-Pratchett for once:


Grey Wolf

[Wizard_Lizard]

Then you follow the law, but you follow it because you agree with it, not because it’s the law. Example, Elan paying while robbing a store in the middle of a war.

Ok thanks. Does that mean that chaotic people are actually more GOOD than lawful people?

If a cgaotic person is following the law it is because it is the RIGHT thing to do. Not becauseit is the law.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Ok thanks. Does that mean that chaotic people are actually more GOOD than lawful people?

If a cgaotic person is following the law it is because it is the RIGHT thing to do. Not becauseit is the law.

No. Lawful and Chaotic have nothing to do with Good and Evil. That's why they are orthogonal to it.

Grey Wolf

[Peelee]

Ok thanks. Does that mean that chaotic people are actually more GOOD than lawful people?

Short answer? No.

Long answer? Nooooooooooooooooooooo.

[Darth Paul]

The core is why they do it. Lawful people tend to delegate decision to plans and traditions and routine. Chaotic decide on each moment without consideration to previous decisions. The latter is more exhausting, but gives more freedom of action.

Grey Wolf

Why "more exhausting"? If there's no reference to any other decision, no planning, no intent, it's as simple as "pick what looks best right now". As easy as deciding what movie to watch by picking the first DVD that my hand touches off the shelf, not caring if it's what I saw last night or last week, not caring if it's drama or comedy or action.

Law would be equally easy, if a plan is pre-made and the decision process is simply "follow the plan, no matter what my preferences are". Neither one seems inherently more or less exhausting to me. (But neither one seems inherently more satisfying, either.)

[Wizard_Lizard]

Why "more exhausting"? If there's no reference to any other decision, no planning, no intent, it's as simple as "pick what looks best right now". As easy as deciding what movie to watch by picking the first DVD that my hand touches off the shelf, not caring if it's what I saw last night or last week, not caring if it's drama or comedy or action.

Law would be equally easy, if a plan is pre-made and the decision process is simply "follow the plan, no matter what my preferences are". Neither one seems inherently more or less exhausting to me. (But neither one seems inherently more satisfying, either.)

But which movie should I watch? There are so many options!

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Why "more exhausting"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_fatigue

Grey Wolf

[Wizard_Lizard]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_fatigue

Grey Wolf

decisions are HARD.

[Darth Paul]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_fatigue

Grey Wolf

In either a truly chaotic or lawful model, there are no decisions to be made. It's either completely random or completely planned in advance.

Subconsciously, of course, there is always an element of desire or regret. "I really wanted scrambled eggs today..." or, "I watched Die Hard just last month, I feel like something with Mel Brooks tonight," which will lead to skewing the process. The humanoid element cannot be ignored.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

In either a truly chaotic or lawful model, there are no decisions to be made. It's either completely random or completely planned in advance.

No, that's not how this works. First and most obvious, a decision planned in advance is still a decision. And second, despite the name, Chaotic individuals don't decide things randomly.

Grey Wolf

[Doug Lampert]

No, that's not how this works. First and most obvious, a decision planned in advance is still a decision. And second, despite the name, Chaotic individuals don't decide things randomly.

Grey Wolf

Yep, that's part of the point of the waffles or pancakes for breakfast example.

A lawful can decide, "I like pancakes, I will therefore have pancakes every morning."
Or he can decide, "I like waffles, I will therefore have waffles every morning."
Or he can decide, "I like variety, I will therefore have waffles every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday morning. Pancakes every Sunday, Tuesday, and Thursday morning, and on Saturday morning I will have both, with ice cream!"

Of for that matter he can decide, "I follow authority, so I'll ask my doctor what I should have, and follow his advice."

A chaotic decides for himself every morning. Even if he's had pancakes as his decision every single morning for the last 50 years, he decides again, each morning. And on grocery trips, he needs to decide if he should buy something else also, just in case unlike the last 18,262 consecutive mornings, tomorrow he decides to have something else.

But they are both deciding. And even random would be a decision, as you need to decide what the possibilities are and assign each of them a probability and come up with a random number generator or other random decision method.

[Darth Paul]

Yep, that's part of the point of the waffles or pancakes for breakfast example.

A lawful can decide, "I like pancakes, I will therefore have pancakes every morning."
Or he can decide, "I like waffles, I will therefore have waffles every morning."
Or he can decide, "I like variety, I will therefore have waffles every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday morning. Pancakes every Sunday, Tuesday, and Thursday morning, and on Saturday morning I will have both, with ice cream!"

Of for that matter he can decide, "I follow authority, so I'll ask my doctor what I should have, and follow his advice."

A chaotic decides for himself every morning. Even if he's had pancakes as his decision every single morning for the last 50 years, he decides again, each morning. And on grocery trips, he needs to decide if he should buy something else also, just in case unlike the last 18,262 consecutive mornings, tomorrow he decides to have something else.

But they are both deciding. And even random would be a decision, as you need to decide what the possibilities are and assign each of them a probability and come up with a random number generator or other random decision method.

But once the lawful system is decided, no further decision has to be made.

And a random system can be, "Eat the first thing I see when I open the refrigerator."

Now, someone decided what to put in the refrigerator in the first place, but it needn't have been that individual. And once the decision has been made on the method, no further decisions have to be made.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

But once the lawful system is decided, no further decision has to be made.

And a random system can be, "Eat the first thing I see when I open the refrigerator."

Now, someone decided what to put in the refrigerator in the first place, but it needn't have been that individual. And once the decision has been made on the method, no further decisions have to be made.

Random it might be, but Chaotic it is not.

Grey Wolf

[Aspheric]

I think Grey Wolf is right, at least in the sense that the Lawful <-> Chaotic Axis has more to do with how and why someone chooses to do what they do, rather than what their choice actually entails. This is how the 3.5e SRD describes them:

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

The reason I made my comment about convention is that planning out what you'll have for breakfast strikes me as Neutral, at best. Maintaining an organized structure and pattern to one's breakfast schedule, even if it's something silly like "I roll a d6, and the result determines what I eat," uses categorical logic to make a choice you consent to following through. It's about adherence to a system/code/ordained method of choice making, rather than making choices on a personal whim.

[Wizard_Lizard]

don't tell people how o be chaotic!
Chaos can be howevr you like it!

[woweedd]

don't tell people how o be chaotic!
Chaos can be howevr you like it!

Still, i'd argue a Chaotic being wouldn't do something it hates for no reason other then "I was told to".

[Grey_Wolf_c]

don't tell people how o be chaotic!
Chaos can be howevr you like it!

This is nonsense. A person that follows all rules imposed on them, even ones they dislike, because they respect authority and believes that an ordered society requires everyone to play by the same set of rules is not Chaotic, despite fitting the above definition (and I'm using the word definition quite broadly, if not wrongly). "Chaos can be howevr [sic] you like it" makes it literally useless as a classification scheme, because it can encompass anything and everything. In D&D and therefore in OotS it has a specific, defined meaning.

Grey Wolf

[hamishspence]

Still, i'd argue a Chaotic being wouldn't do something it hates for no reason other then "I was told to".

Fiendish Codex 2's "Obesiant acts" list might fit for "things a Chaotic person generally wouldn't do" - that they might become Lawful for doing a lot of.



1 pt: Swearing fealty to a leader you know
2 pts: Swearing fealty to a leader you've never met
2 pts: Disciplining an underling
2 pts: Resolving a dispute through lawful process
2 pts: Quietly accepting a legal judgement against you
3 pts: Executing a lawful sentence of corporal punishment
3 pts: Following a rule you consider stupid
3 pts: Aiding a superior to your own detriment
4 pts: Swearing fealty to a devil
4 pts: Obeying a leader you do not respect
5 pts: Performing a lawful execution

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Fiendish Codex 2's "Obesiant acts" list might fit for "things a Chaotic person generally wouldn't do" - that they might become Lawful for doing a lot of.<snip>

I agree that many of those are good indicators that someone might not be as Chaotic as they think, but as with the waffles example, the problem is that one can't measure L-C position on the actions, but should be done on the reasons why the actions were taken (in that sense, the one you underlined is the only one I fully agree with).

To take the first two, I can see a Chaotic individual swearing fealty at a given point because it was the thing to do to accomplish their objective, in full knowledge that oaths mean ****-all and that when the time comes, he can walk away from said fealty oath if need be, and have no issues with it.

Similarly, I don't see why a Chaotic person that feels an individual needs killing wouldn't step up to the plate to perform an execution - the crucial thing is he is not doing it because the code of law had duly determined this, but because he happened to agree with this particular conclusion of the law. The same individual might then go and break a different person out of jail because in their opinion, this second person does NOT deserve killing, no matter what the law says. Heck, two birds and one stone, signing up to be the executioner might be step one in the plan to both make sure the first guy dies and the second one doesn't.

Now, I understand where Fiendish Codex is going with those examples (and other that have popped up over the years for "Evil" and "Good" and so on), but I still think they are misguided. Good-Evil deal with objectives. Law-Chaos deals with means. But the actions themselves are too hard to evaluate in a vacuum.

ETA: it gets even murkier if you consider that a "Chaotic" individual that always choses to behave as if they were Lawful might be doing it because at each point, they find that going with the flow happens to be the right decision. Are they still Chaotic, or are they Lawful and deluding themselves? It is likely impossible to tell, even for themselves. The L-C and G-E spectrum is, after all, as Rich put it, training wheels. Of course it breaks if pushed to the limits.

Grey Wolf