Is a constitution Lawful or Chaotic?

[Segev]

I did not say, “Chaos means no rules.” I said, “Chaos does not respect laws written on pieces of paper.” Or something to that effect.

Chaos won’t care what the constitution says of Chaos thinks it is not helpful to his cause right now. It’s just a piece of paper. It cannot constrain his freedom to do what he thinks is right/best/most desirable.

The only reason Chais would write such a thing down is to either make Law feel compelled to respect something, or as a way of hashing out an agreement such that everyone is sure they understand. But in either case, Chais will not feel constrained to hold to it, himself, without reasons better than “because that piece of paper says so.”

If you get two Chaotic people to actually write a constitution to govern their interactions, they will use it to assure themselves they know what each other meant, but even an amiable relationship that sees either party decide the agreement isn’t working out will see a very informal negotiation on what changes will be made, and whether they bother to formally amend or rewrite the constitution they’re now ignoring is far down their lists of priorities.

Which means the constitution really isn’t one. It governs nothing.

A constitution is inherently an instrument of Law because Law is the only thing that lets it be a constitution, rather than the vain scribblings of an ancient political-opinion blogger.

[Esprit15]

A 'Chaotic constitution' would be more descriptive of how the society has generally agreed to operate, only really existing to be a reminder of what the society stands for. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen would be a decent example of this - not so much dictating how a government is to be run but an assertion of the values of the citizens. Additionally, governments can still exist within a Chaotic aligned society - they're just generally less powerful and hierarchical than those that we are traditionally used to.

While a constitution is more Lawful than Chaotic by its very nature, it isn't mutually exclusive, either. Just like Lawful individuals can sometimes recognize when the rule of law fails, Chaotic ones can sometimes see the need to write laws down.

[NontheistCleric]

A 'Chaotic constitution' would be more descriptive of how the society has generally agreed to operate, only really existing to be a reminder of what the society stands for. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen would be a decent example of this - not so much dictating how a government is to be run but an assertion of the values of the citizens. Additionally, governments can still exist within a Chaotic aligned society - they're just generally less powerful and hierarchical than those that we are traditionally used to.

While a constitution is more Lawful than Chaotic by its very nature, it isn't mutually exclusive, either. Just like Lawful individuals can sometimes recognize when the rule of law fails, Chaotic ones can sometimes see the need to write laws down.

In the eyes of Chaos, though, even the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen don't really matter if there is something that genuinely seems better to do in the moment, even if it goes against the established ideals. Not to mention that a 'Chaotic constitution' as you describe it isn't really a constitution.

Chaotic people don't necessarily need to think the law is worthless, but law itself is always a Lawful thing, and a truly Chaotic individual is not going to take it into account when making decisions beyond the practical consequences of following or not following it.

[AntiAuthority]

Freedom is important, but if the law is protecting the personal freedoms of everyone that lives by it, I'd consider it Lawful.

If it were chaotic, it'd probably just go by whatever the most people felt like or whoever was strongest... Which isn't really any set of rigid laws, just what people felt like.

Anyway, Law is my answer considering how it has clearly defined, possibly rigid, rules.

[Segev]

In the eyes of Chaos, though, even the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen don't really matter if there is something that genuinely seems better to do in the moment, even if it goes against the established ideals. Not to mention that a 'Chaotic constitution' as you describe it isn't really a constitution.

Chaotic people don't necessarily need to think the law is worthless, but law itself is always a Lawful thing, and a truly Chaotic individual is not going to take it into account when making decisions beyond the practical consequences of following or not following it.

I think the point is that the Declaration of the Rights of Man - or really any declaration of principles - is not the same thing as a Constitution. Chaotic folks can easily have "declarations" that spell out principles, and even agree they're useful tools for communicating or setting the ground around which their discussions will center. This isn't binding themselves into any sort of law, just providing clarity of purpose.

A declaration, when used as a founding document, is just aspirational, and Chaotic types who aspire to its goals will generally look to what it says is good and strive to achieve it. But the moment that any fiddly wording, unintentional consequences, or specific clauses clash with what they feel is the best idea at the time, they will generally feel free to ignore it.

A constitution treated that way isn't a constitution. It isn't even a declaration, because constitutions aren't written purely aspirationally; they spell out specific dos and do-nots. Chaotic types will disregard a constitution anyway if they don't have a good reason not to, if the constitution is in their way. Neutral types will grudgingly do so if they subscribed to it in the first place, deciding "exceptions" are better than allowing "bad things" to come about that oppose what they feel is the spirit of the constitution, but it's a last resort, done in extremis. Lawful types will struggle desperately to find a way to work within the bounds of a constitution, especially to achieve its aspirational goals even when its rules seem in conflict (especially in specific corner cases), but if they can't, they'll grudgingly do what the rules say, all the while trying to mitigate things as much as possible. This is how you get Admiral Kirk demoted to Captain and put in charge of a shiny new Enterprise as a "punishment." IF there are ways to change the constitution within its rules, Lawful folks will likely strive to make that change when they find some intractable problem of its current structure.

But for it to be a constitution, it has to have weight. Lawful and Neutral types will give it that weight (assuming they subscribe to it in the first place; a Paladin isn't going to subscribe to the Tyrannical State of Tiamat's constitution that spells out her religious hierarchy and theocratic dominion rigorously), even if Neutral types might be willing to make exceptions. Chaotic types generally only give it the weight that the force of arms or social pressure from their Lawful and Neutral fellow-citizens (and or the government itself) enforces on them. Or where it's useful. Few Chaotic types are going to refuse to hold a constitution over a Lawman's head when it keeps the Lawman from infringing on what the Chaotic guy wants.

But a constitution, literally by definition, is lawful. It is the Law of the land, if it is a constitution at all.

I mean, if I wrote a "new United States Constitution" that I declared was how the US should be run from here on out, people would ignore it completely because I have zero authority nor power to enforce it. It wouldn't be a real constitution. Just a piece of paper with writing on it.

[NontheistCleric]

A long post

Um, yes? If you read what I wrote, I actually agreed with everything you just said when I said it wasn't really a constitution, and I only mentioned the Declaration because the person I was replying to was talking about it. So I'm not sure why you quoted me.

Unless you just thought I was correct and wanted to elaborate on that point, in which case, thank you.

[Unavenger]

It's chaotic, because inevitables are constructs, and thus lack a constitution.

For serious: In this instance, it's chaotic. The idea that's being espoused that chaotic is always might-makes-right and you must always oppose the laws, despite numerous sources to the contrary, makes me think that people have sorta forgotten that Chaotic Good and Chaotic Neutral (not to mention Lawful Evil) are actually real alignments. Lawful in D&D and actually just following laws are not, remotely, the same thing.

(Also, fully a third of people are chaotic, as has been the case since they changed the most-people-are-lawful ruling of the earlier editions. Far less than a third of people are utter anarchists.)

[Segev]

Um, yes? If you read what I wrote, I actually agreed with everything you just said when I said it wasn't really a constitution, and I only mentioned the Declaration because the person I was replying to was talking about it. So I'm not sure why you quoted me.

Unless you just thought I was correct and wanted to elaborate on that point, in which case, thank you.

Mostly just elaborating, yes. I thought the distinction between "declaration" and "constitution" was useful to helping stipulate the definition of "Constitution" vs. "this list of rules Segev wrote up and now for some strange reason expects others to follow."

It's chaotic, because inevitables are constructs, and thus lack a constitution.

I laughed. Thanks for that.

For serious: In this instance, it's chaotic. The idea that's being espoused that chaotic is always might-makes-right and you must always oppose the laws, despite numerous sources to the contrary, makes me think that people have sorta forgotten that Chaotic Good and Chaotic Neutral (not to mention Lawful Evil) are actually real alignments. Lawful in D&D and actually just following laws are not, remotely, the same thing.

(Also, fully a third of people are chaotic, as has been the case since they changed the most-people-are-lawful ruling of the earlier editions. Far less than a third of people are utter anarchists.)

It still isn't a Constitution if they're not deferring to it for their legal system/government. And, for clarity, "We haven't gone against it because we happen to have never felt like it was in the way," is not "deferring." I could write a law that says, "All living citizens must eat at least one meal per year," and have an entire village who never violates it. That doesn't mean the villagers are deferring to my law. It means they just never saw a reason (or means) to oppose it. No Elan or others who even have the means to avoid doing so are around, and it isn't making anybody do even something slightly different than they would if I didn't write it.

So if these Chaotic people wrote a Constitution that dictated their government's behavior to promote liberty et al, that's great. It's not being deferred to if they would have done all of that, anyway.

Writing up a set of rules to follow is Lawful. It may be only mildly so, and well within the bounds of what a Chaotic person feels is reasonable, but it's still Lawful. There is nothing Chaotic about it. It doesn't matter how much it protects Chaotic folks' rights, privileges, and liberties to be Chaotic; it's still a Lawful act to adhere to a Constitution.

[Oddstar]

In the novels, drow from Menzoberranzan have used "Chaos" in their descriptions of their own society.


"There aren't many ways to have fun in Menzoberranzan. Playing tricks is one of them—the more malicious, the better."
"Things tend toward chaos, do they?"
"Of course! How else would the structure be maintained?"
The elf's brow furrowed. "You maintain structure through chaos?"
"There's another way?"

Fair enough, but I always understood that to mean chaos in the sense of a rapidly changing political situation, not in the sense of a chaotic alignment. A society in the midst of a civil war, for example, would certainly be in chaos in the conventional sense of that term, but it would not follow that the society is of a chaotic alignment in D&D terms.

[hamishspence]

Drow themselves are "Usually NE" but Lolth, the ruler of the Drow Pantheon, is CE - the "Demon Queen of Spiders". And it's her clerics that rule Menzoberranzan.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Writing up a set of rules to follow is Lawful. It may be only mildly so, and well within the bounds of what a Chaotic person feels is reasonable, but it's still Lawful. There is nothing Chaotic about it. It doesn't matter how much it protects Chaotic folks' rights, privileges, and liberties to be Chaotic; it's still a Lawful act to adhere to a Constitution.

This is just the old "chaotic people are allergic to following laws" canard in different words. You could just as easily say "Following a leader because of their personal authority is Chaotic. It may be only mildly so, and well within the bounds of what a Lawful person feels is reasonable, but it's still Chaotic. There is nothing Lawful about it. It doesn't matter how much Lawful folks might view the leader as a stabilizing influence and an enforcer of social mores allowing people to be Lawful; it's still a Chaotic act to owe allegiance to an autocrat over a nation." Both "following laws" and "following a particular leader" can be lawful or chaotic (or neutral) depending on the context and reasoning of the laws/leader and the people doing the following.

Law maps to deontology, or rule-based ethics, the ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on the action itself as judged by agreement with a specific set of principles. A person or society adhering to a Constitution can be a lawful action if it is adhered to because the person or society views it as intrinsically ethical to abide by a specific legal code. A Constitution can either protect others' freedoms or restrict others' freedoms and still be lawful if "freedom must be preserved against the tyranny of the majority" or "everyone must give up freedom for the good of society" are used as guiding principles.

Neutrality maps to aretology, or virtue-based ethics, the ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on the intentions behind the action as judged by an understanding of the actor's character. A person or society adhering to a Constitution can be a neutral action if it is adhered to because the person or society views it as proof of willingness to cooperate with the larger society. A Constitution can either protect others' freedoms or restrict others' freedoms and still be neutral if it is truly the belief of the Constitution's writers that the promotion or restriction of freedom is for the best.

Chaos maps to consequentialism, or outcome-based ethics, the ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on the action's consequences as judged by an analysis of likely outcomes. A person or society adhering to a Constitution can be a chaotic action if it is adhered to because the person or society views it as the best way to achieve a desired outcome (by, for instance, being a compromise between multiple competing factions with different goals). A Constitution can either protect others' freedoms or restrict others' freedoms and still be chaotic if the end goals of promoting or restricting freedom are enshrined in the Constitution regardless of any other laws or legal principles.

Fair enough, but I always understood that to mean chaos in the sense of a rapidly changing political situation, not in the sense of a chaotic alignment. A society in the midst of a civil war, for example, would certainly be in chaos in the conventional sense of that term, but it would not follow that the society is of a chaotic alignment in D&D terms.

Drow themselves are "Usually NE" but Lolth, the ruler of the Drow Pantheon, is CE - the "Demon Queen of Spiders". And it's her clerics that rule Menzoberranzan.

Drow society actually is Chaotic in the alignment sense, because the whole point is that while it superficially has complex laws for inter-House warfare, strict social hierarchies for priestesses of Lolth, immutable social roles, and the like, all of those go out the window--Houses are wiped out, priestesses are assassinated, male archmages give orders to female Heads of House, and so on--the moment someone either thinks they can get away with something that will improve their standing without getting caught or is ordered by Lolth to do a particular thing. No one actually respects the law itself (lawful behavior) or trusts that anyone else respects the law (neutral behavior), but solely focuses on how they can do whatever they want despite the law (chaotic behavior).

[Segev]

Characterizing what I said as "chaotic people are allergic to following laws" is entirely incorrect.

Chaotic people can and will follow laws if they have reason to do so. That reason might be as simple as agreeing that the law spells out the best way to do something. It might be due to social pressure, or even fear of consequences ranging from losing a job, getting their boy- or girlfriend mad at them, or threat of government power being exerted against them.

What I said was that, absent a reason to follow a law, they won't. Not that they'll actively work to oppose it; they just won't care. They'll care about following a law exactly as much as you'd care about obeying me if I told you to take off your shoes and use the laces to type all of your forum posts, because it's a new rule that I just added to the forum rules. Not only do I lack any authority to impose forum rules, but even if the moderators of this forum were to make such a rule, it would be entirely unenforcible because they couldn't tell who had obeyed it (except MAYBE by studying how long it takes to make a post). The forums would rapidly be empty or the rule would be ignored.

To be Chaotic is to have limited respect for naked authority. Chaotic people respect consequences, good and bad. Direct and ancillary. They're not (categorically) stupid. They can and do make value judgments on what they'll do.

But a constitution is as meaningless to them as the rules the thug who just walked into their tavern posted on the door with a dagger: they respect them exactly as much as the one backing them can enforce them. They might agree with them, in which case they'll find following them less onerous and less worth hassle (or even follow them just by virtue of thinking they are a good idea), but they're not going to follow them because "they're the law."

"Why don't you underreport your sales so you pay less sales tax?" asks a young child of his Chaotic and Lawful parents. His Lawful parent says, "That would be wrong. The law is to pay our taxes honestly." His Chaotic parent says, "The government tax collectors are very good at ferreting out underreports. The risk I'd get caught and have to pay a higher fine isn't worth what I could potentially save."

[Psyren]

In broad terms, law vs chaos is order vs freedom. Let's assume it's a constitution drafted with the intention of preserving the freedom of the individual.

So, we have it right there. It is chaotic. It opposes the governmental power to clamp down on freedom.

But it's also almost a standing stone that is engraved with rules (for the governing body on which it is ascribed), which must not be broken. That's quite orderly

There are more arguments, but I don't want to have all the fun.

It would depend on the specific wording.

All a constitution is, is a supreme law that all the lesser/more detailed laws have to abide by. That law can serve the cause of freedom ("here are inalienable rights that no other law can infringe") or it can serve the cause of order ("changing certain laws requires a byzantine process that is likely to be beyond any one organization or regime.") So it can be either/both.

To give clearer examples - A constitution that says "The only rule is, there are no rules!" or even "All other laws must be rewritten every fortnight" would be chaotic.

[Segev]

It would depend on the specific wording.

All a constitution is, is a supreme law that all the lesser/more detailed laws have to abide by. That law can serve the cause of freedom ("here are inalienable rights that no other law can infringe") or it can serve the cause of order ("changing certain laws requires a byzantine process that is likely to be beyond any one organization or regime.") So it can be either/both.

To give clearer examples - A constitution that says "The only rule is, there are no rules!" or even "All other laws must be rewritten every fortnight" would be chaotic.

Nope. If either of those exists and is followed, even when people living with them would rather ignore them, then they are not chaotic.

They might promote chaos. Chaos and Law can lead to each other if done in particular fashions. Pure anarchy inevitably leads to despotism, which can be tyrannical and orderly. As you note, setting up laws that create chaotic results is also possible.

But the following of those laws, even when they lead to things you don't want to have happen is Lawful. Whether it's stupid or not depends entirely on whether the following of the laws is leading to something the laws are not meant to promote.

"The only rule is, 'There are no rules!'" is only a chaotic declaration if said flippantly and as an acknowledgement that people won't follow them if you make them. It's lawful if you actually intend to enforce it or defer to it even when you'd rather set up some rules besides that one.

[Nifft]

Nope. If either of those exists and is followed, even when people living with them would rather ignore them, then they are not chaotic.

They might promote chaos. Chaos and Law can lead to each other if done in particular fashions. Pure anarchy inevitably leads to despotism, which can be tyrannical and orderly. As you note, setting up laws that create chaotic results is also possible.

But the following of those laws, even when they lead to things you don't want to have happen is Lawful.

This is absolutely wrong in any game I've played, and any game I've run.

Lawful and Chaotic shouldn't just be semantic word-games.

At the point where they become this convoluted -- where obeying a Chaotic rule isn't allowed to be Chaotic -- you've destroyed any descriptive or mechanical value that the words might previously have had.

[Segev]

This is absolutely wrong in any game I've played, and any game I've run.

Lawful and Chaotic shouldn't just be semantic word-games.

At the point where they become this convoluted -- where obeying a Chaotic rule isn't allowed to be Chaotic -- you've destroyed any descriptive or mechanical value that the words might previously have had.

They're not.

Lawful means you respect and defer to the laws because they're laws.

Chaotic means you do neither unless you have consequential reasons to do so.

I honestly don't know how you get "semantic games" out of what I am writing. Can you please explain where you see that?

At no point did I say, "Obeying a chaotic rule isn't chaotic." Because it's impossible for there to be a "chaotic rule." You can have rules which promote chaos, but that's not the same thing. And a chaotic person can obey any rule he likes; he just isn't doing it because "it's a rule." He's doing it because obeying it is the best way to get what he wants.

[Tiktakkat]

The problem is defining Law and Chaos on such a mundane level.

"Law/Lawful" should not be about ordinary written laws. It should be about grand multiversal order.
"Chaos/Chaotic" should not be about ordinary personal freedom/whim. It should be about grand multiversal potential.

In classical mythological terms, how the world was created from some primal chaos in various iterations.
Look at how the terms operate in the Eternal Champions stories, from which the terms operate.
Or, a more modern version, how the concepts were presented in Mage: The Ascension.

An even better version can be found in Jack Chalker's "Dancing G-ds" series, where there is a "reflection" of earth that came into existence as an "equal and opposite reaction" to the force of creation. The "rules" (natural laws) there were not set as they are on earth, so first angels, and then wizards, were given the responsibility of writing "rules" to cover them. Due to bureaucratic drift, this slowly extended to absurd levels of minutiae, reflecting standard fantasy tropes.

With this view, "gravity" is a "law". It is "lawful" that when you drop something, it falls down to the ground at a set speed.
"Magic" is often "chaotic", as it runs around breaking these "laws" in various ways. Of course, magic typically does so according to set rules, it even it can be "lawful".

Law and Chaos should be a distinction between wanting the multiverse defined and ordered versus wanting it to be nothing but potential. Between wanting everything run by modrons and enforced by inevitables or wanting everyone to run around like slaadi.
Mere mortal laws regarding government are just very pale reflections of this, and can run the gamut from being "lawful" or "chaotic" depending on the underlying motivations and abstract worldviews of the people, most of whom are probably just "unconcerned", and little better than namers (in the PS faction sense) of the various alignments they belong to. They are not even "True Neutral"/"Balance" (as described in the Gord series). They just do not have time for serious alignment questions, except as required by archetypal campaign themes.

[Psyren]

This is absolutely wrong in any game I've played, and any game I've run.

Lawful and Chaotic shouldn't just be semantic word-games.

At the point where they become this convoluted -- where obeying a Chaotic rule isn't allowed to be Chaotic -- you've destroyed any descriptive or mechanical value that the words might previously have had.

This.

They're not.

Lawful means you respect and defer to the laws because they're laws.

Chaotic means you do neither unless you have consequential reasons to do so.

I honestly don't know how you get "semantic games" out of what I am writing. Can you please explain where you see that?

A rule that says "I can do whatever I feel like, when I feel like" is chaotic. Why can't you see that?

[ExLibrisMortis]

Law is about deriving ultimate moral authority from something greater than yourself: tradition, the community, the government, extraplanar killer robots, it doesn't matter. It is also about applying the moral rules derived from that authority to the greater community.

Chaos means that you are the ultimate moral authority--other have less of a say (if at all) and you apply your moral rules in a small area. But they are still rules and principles. Randomness and inconsistency are not "Chaos". They are "chaos".

Inevitables, being perfectly lawful, derive their morals (so they say) from the Great Wheel itself, and they apply their morals to everyone in the Great Wheel. By contrast, slaadi, well, don't. Each slaad determines their own moral standards and behaves accordingly. However, a slaad still has moral standards. They're not random, and they're not automatons--those are Neutral or without alignment.

Where Chaos becomes Neutral is, in my view, where people start including people they haven't met under their principles.
Where Lawful becomes Neutral is where you are not including including everyone by default.


So if this constitution is signed by everyone covered by it and "opt-in" for new arrivals (so to speak), then it's Chaotic.

[Nifft]

They're not.

Lawful means you respect and defer to the laws because they're laws.

That can't be true, because in this case the law you're obeying is promoting Chaotic attributes.

Chaotic means you do neither unless you have consequential reasons to do so.

Wait, this looks like you're claiming that it's only obedience to unenforced laws = Lawful, and that's wrong for different reasons.

I honestly don't know how you get "semantic games" out of what I am writing. Can you please explain where you see that?

The part where obedience to any possible law implies Lawful-ness.

Lower-case laws can be Lawful or Chaotic, which is confusing but unavoidable.

At no point did I say, "Obeying a chaotic rule isn't chaotic." Because it's impossible for there to be a "chaotic rule." You can have rules which promote chaos, but that's not the same thing.

In what way is a rule that enforces or promotes Chaos at the expense of Law not a Chaotic law? (note the lower-case "law" here, this isn't a contradiction)

Law is about deriving ultimate moral authority from something greater than yourself: tradition, the community, the government, extraplanar killer robots, it doesn't matter. It is also about applying the moral rules derived from that authority to the greater community.

Chaos means that you are the ultimate moral authority--other have less of a say (if at all) and you apply your moral rules in a small area. But they are still rules and principles. Randomness and inconsistency are not "Chaos". They are "chaos".

This is similar to what I do in my games.

In my games, the basic summary would be that Lawful = collectivist, and Chaotic = individualist.

Thus it's quite easy to have a Chaotic law -- you just need to favor or enforce individualism, which the example Constitution in this thread does.

LG Paladins sacrifice their own needs for the greater good. They may obey, subvert, or disregard local laws insofar as they act for the greater good, and the specifics of that "greater good" will depend on their oaths (which are probably codified by a Knightly Order, and usually steeped in tradition, but neither the tradition nor the organization are strictly necessary).

NG would be "all for one, and one for all" -- a balance between the group and the individual, aspiring to sacrifice neither.

CG would focus on individuals rather than any greater good. In some ways it's a refreshing humility -- "the big picture is out of my hands, I'm just going to do what good I'm certain an individual can do" -- but it's got a suite of flaws comparable to what LG's "greater good" can suffer.

[hamishspence]

At least according to FC2, "obeying a rule you consider stupid" is an Obeisant act (Obeisant is to Lawful, as Corrupt is to evil)
Same with "obeying a leader you do not respect".


So, if a Chaotic person doesn't think a particular rule, or law, or whatever, is "stupid" - then they're off the hook, and obeying it doesn't qualify as "something that may eventually change their alignment or afterlife destination, to a Lawful one".

[NontheistCleric]

In what way is a rule that enforces or promotes Chaos at the expense of Law not a Chaotic law? (note the lower-case "law" here, this isn't a contradiction)

Even if one is 'promoting Chaos', doing so with a law implies that there is a best, codifiable way of doing so, which is a very Lawful idea. Obeying a law that tells you how to be free doesn't make you free, you're just being controlled into motions that might look somewhat like freedom.

The Chaotic way of promoting Chaos would be for the Chaotic individual to ask themselves, every time they wanted to promote Chaos: 'What do I think is the best way of promoting Chaos today?' and then do just that.

At least according to FC2, "obeying a rule you consider stupid" is an Obeisant act (Obeisant is to Lawful, as Corrupt is to evil)
Same with "obeying a leader you do not respect".


So, if a Chaotic person doesn't think a particular rule, or law, or whatever, is "stupid" - then they're off the hook, and obeying it doesn't qualify as "something that may eventually change their alignment or afterlife destination, to a Lawful one".

Exactly—because if a Chaotic person thinks something that's written in a law is a good idea, they're likely to do it, but for the reason that they think it's a good idea rather than because there's a law telling them to do it.

[ThanatosZero]

In order to truly understand how constitutes work, we need to understand the barebones of what right is and how it is obtained.

Imagine the following scenario, my jura teacher gave to me years ago.

You are a man wandering through the savanna to the next destination.
On your way, you encounter a man walking towards the way you came from, which holds a big piece wood in his hand.

What would you do in this encounter?
There are several options, what you can do.

[Segev]

This.



A rule that says "I can do whatever I feel like, when I feel like" is chaotic. Why can't you see that?

Because it's a rule, and you're relying on it BEING A RULE to ENFORCE others allowing you to do so.

If you're Chaotic, you don't need that rule. If you're Chaotic, you only care that that rule exists if there are Lawful types around who will actually see it, and curb their urge to stop you from doing whatever you want because the rule says you can. Because if you're Chaotic, the mere absence of that rule would not change your behavior in the slightest. Absent Lawful types who will obey or even enforce the rule on your behalf, as a Chaotic person, you don't care if the rule exists or not. You'll do whatever you want, curbed only by your appreciation for consequences falling out from your actions.

The rule is meaningless without lawful people to be influenced by it. Therefore, the RULE is a Lawful thing. It is meaningless to the Chaotic, except in how its influence on those who respect rules - i.e. Lawful and Neutral people - will alter the consequences of the Chaotic person's actions.

And, before we chase our tails around in circles, please note that at no point have I said that Chaotic people are "allergic to rules," nor that they'll do the opposite, or any such nonsense. Chaotic people are indifferent to rules, unless the rules impact the consequences of their actions.

"Don't walk on the grass," says the sign, and the chaotic person might not do so because it would be out of his way, but if it's the easiest path, he might well ignore the sign.

"Don't walk on the grass. Violators will be thrown in prison," says the sign, with a burly gendarme casually sitting across the street, watching, and the Chaotic person will reconsider obeying the rule. Not because he respects the rule, but because he respects that the gendarme there DOES respect the rule and will likely throw him in prison (or at least try, which is inconvenient) if he violates it.

The Chaotic person cares about the CONSEQUENCES of his actions, and cares about the rule iff it influences those consequences. Which it generally only does if there's somebody Lawful enough to act to enforce or be restrained from acting against the rule.

[Psyren]

The rule is meaningless without lawful people to be influenced by it.

That's the whole point of being chaotic. People will form societies (and the natural world itself has certain rules) no matter how chaotic you are, so the ways in which the chaotic person defies those rules (and the results of them doing so) are what determines their morality.

[NontheistCleric]

That's the whole point of being chaotic. People will form societies (and the natural world itself has certain rules) no matter how chaotic you are, so the ways in which the chaotic person defies those rules (and the results of them doing so) are what determines their morality.

You just said it yourself, though. Chaos defies rules (or at least, doesn't consider them to be inherently important). So how can a rule, or a law, be chaotic?

Not to mention that 'natural rules' are not rules in the sense we are talking about, and your example of a Chaotic law, 'I can do whatever I want' isn't really a law of any kind at all, because it's actually just a description of a state in which there are no laws.

[Psyren]

You just said it yourself, though. Chaos defies rules (or at least, doesn't consider them to be inherently important). So how can a rule, or a law, be chaotic?

How can chaos fit into an alignment grid? How can chaotic planes fit into a defined cosmology?

[NontheistCleric]

How can chaos fit into an alignment grid? How can chaotic planes fit into a defined cosmology?

Those are, as you say, 'natural laws' of whatever cosmology they exist in, like D&D's cosmology. But natural laws are not the same kind of laws that have a relation to the ideals of Law and Chaos.

[Nifft]

Because it's a rule, and you're relying on it BEING A RULE to ENFORCE others allowing you to do so.

If you're Chaotic, you don't need that rule. If you're Chaotic, you only care that that rule exists if there are Lawful types around who will actually see it, and curb their urge to stop you from doing whatever you want because the rule says you can. Because if you're Chaotic, the mere absence of that rule would not change your behavior in the slightest. Absent Lawful types who will obey or even enforce the rule on your behalf, as a Chaotic person, you don't care if the rule exists or not. You'll do whatever you want, curbed only by your appreciation for consequences falling out from your actions.

Of course you do.

You see, other people exist.

In order for ~me~ to have meaningful freedom, there must be a civilization which enables, supports, and does not actively reduce that freedom.

The Constitution at the top of this thread is a rule which preserves individualist freedom. It's enforced in service of Chaotic ideals. The fact that it's a rule does not make it Lawful; obeying the rule does not make the citizen non-Chaotic.

Laws which protect freedom do not reduce freedom merely by existing as laws.

The Chaotic person cares about the CONSEQUENCES of his actions, and cares about the rule iff it influences those consequences. Which it generally only does if there's somebody Lawful enough to act to enforce or be restrained from acting against the rule.

That makes it sound like your version of Lawful people are kinda dumb.

Your version of Chaotic sounds a lot like enlightened selfish pragmatism, which IMHO describes True Neutral (not Chaotic).

I think you've got flaws in your Law-Chaos axis.

[Segev]

I'm either not following you at all right now, Psyren, or you're agreeing with me while insisting that I'm wrong. I'm not sure which.

Chaotic people disregard rules for rules' sake. They don't follow or defy them except coincidentally.

Charlie Kaotiq doesn't care about rules enough to consider whether he's following them or not, unless and until Larry Lauphel decides that those rules will influence how Larry behaves, and the way Charlie behaves wrt the rules will change how Larry behaves wrt Charlie. Then, Charlie cares about the rules because they help him predict and act in ways to influence Larry's behavior, particularly towards Charlie.

A rule, therefore, is inherently a Lawful thing, because without Larry choosing to follow and/or enforce it, the rule is powerless over Charlie.

As has been said, a discussion of "natural laws" falls more into "consequences," which nobody who can't warp reality is above. But, given the topic of this thread is constitutions, natural laws don't really enter into it in any direct sense, because a constitution is not "natural laws" but rather a document describing laws of men. Or elves, or whatever.