Law and Chaos: What exactly do they mean?

[kingpocky]

I was reading an article called "Tome of Fiends," part of a very well-written series, and the section on Law and Chaos struck me as particularly interesting. It starts out with the point that "Law and Chaos do not have any meaning under the standard D&D rules." Basically, everything that is explicitly spelled out in the PHB description is contradictory. A working definition has to be drawn from inferences, and there are several different possible interpretations. What are your thoughts on what the definitions of Law and Chaos should be?

Here's the part of the article I'm focusing on:

Spoiler

Show

Law and Chaos: Your Rules or Mine?

Let's get this out in the open: Law and Chaos do not have any meaning under the standard D&D rules.

We are aware that especially if you've been playing this game for a long time, you personally probably have an understanding of what you think Law and Chaos are supposed to mean. You possibly even believe that the rest of your group thinks that Law and Chaos mean the same thing you do. But you're probably wrong. The nature of Law and Chaos is the source of more arguments among D&D players (veteran and novice alike) than any other facet of the game. More than attacks of opportunities, more than weapon sizing, more even than spell effect inheritance. And the reason is because the "definition" of Law and Chaos in the Player's Handbook is written so confusingly that the terms are not even mutually exclusive. Look it up, this is a written document, so it's perfectly acceptable for you to stop reading at this time, flip open the Player's Handbook, and start reading the alignment descriptions. The Tome of Fiends will still be here when you get back.
…
There you go! Now that we're all on the same page (page XX), the reason why you've gotten into so many arguments with people as to whether their character was Lawful or Chaotic is because absolutely every action that any character ever takes could logically be argued to be both. A character who is honorable, adaptable, trustworthy, flexible, reliable, and loves freedom is a basically stand-up fellow, and meets the check marks for being "ultimate Law" and "ultimate Chaos". There aren't any contradictory adjectives there. While Law and Chaos are supposed to be opposed forces, there's nothing antithetical about the descriptions in the book.

Ethics Option 1: A level of Organization.

Optimal span of control is 3 to 5 people. Maybe Chaotic characters demand to personally control more units than that themselves and their lack of delegation ends up with a quagmire of incomprehensible proportions. Maybe Chaotic characters refuse to bow to authority at all and end up in units of one. Whatever the case, some DMs will have Law be well organized and Chaos be poorly organized. In this case, Law is objectively a virtue and Chaos is objectively a flaw.

Being disorganized doesn't mean that you're more creative or interesting, it just means that you accomplish less with the same inputs. In this model pure Chaos is a destructive, but more importantly incompetent force.

Ethics Option 2: A Question of Sanity.

Some DMs will want Law and Chaos to mean essentially "Sane" and "Insane". That's fine, but it doesn't mean that Chaos is funny. In fact, insanity is generally about the least funny thing you could possibly imagine. An insane person reacts inappropriately to their surroundings. That doesn't mean that they perform unexpected actions, that's just surrealist. And Paladins are totally permitted to enjoy non sequitur based humor and art. See, insanity is when you perform the same action over and over again and expect different results.

In this model we get a coherent explanation for why, when all the forces of Evil are composed of a multitude of strange nightmarish creatures, and the forces of Good have everything from a glowing patch of light to a winged snake tailed woman, every single soldier in the army of Chaos is a giant frog. This is because in this model Limbo is a place that is totally insane. It's a place where the answer to every question really is "Giant Frog". Creatures of Chaos then proceed to go to non Chaotically-aligned planes and are disappointed and confused when doors have to be pushed and pulled to open and entrance cannot be achieved by "Giant Frog".

If Chaos is madness, it's not "spontaneous", it's "non-functional". Actual adaptability is sane. Adapting responses to stimuli is what people are supposed to do. For reactions to be sufficiently inappropriate to qualify as insanity, one has to go pretty far into one's own preconceptions. Actual mental illness is very sad and traumatic just to watch as an outside observer. Actually living that way is even worse. It is strongly suggested therefore, that you don't go this route at all. It's not that you can't make D&D work with sanity and insanity as the core difference between Law and Chaos, it's that in doing so you're essentially making the Law vs. Chaos choice into the choice between good and bad. That and there is a certain segment of the roleplaying community that cannot differentiate absurdist humor from insanity and will insist on doing annoying things in the name of humor. And we hate those people.

Ethics Option 3: The Laws of the Land.

Any region that has writing will have an actual code of laws. Even oral traditions will have, well, traditions. In some campaigns, following these laws makes you Lawful, and not following these laws makes you Chaotic. This doesn't mean that Lawful characters necessarily have to follow the laws of Kyuss when you invade his secret Worm Fort, but it does mean that they need to be an "invading force" when they run around in Kyuss' Worm Fort. Honestly, I'm not sure what it even means to have a Chaotic society if Lawful means "following your own rules". This whole schema is workable, but only with extreme effort. It helps if there's some sort of divinely agreed upon laws somewhere that nations and individuals can follow to a greater or lesser degree. But even so, there's a lot of hermits and warfare in the world such that whether people are following actual laws can be just plain hard to evaluate.

I'd like to endorse this more highly, since any time you have characters living up to a specific arbitrary code (or not) it becomes a lot easier to get things evaluated. Unfortunately, it's really hard to even imagine an entire nation fighting for not following their own laws. That's just… really weird. But if you take Law to mean law, then you're going to have to come to terms with that.

Ethics Option 4: My Word is My Bond.

Some DMs are going to want Law to essentially equate to following through on things. A Lawful character will keep their word and do things that they said they were going to. In this model, a Lawful character has an arbitrary code of conduct and a Chaotic character does not. That's pretty easy to adjudicate, you just announce what you're going to do and if you do it, you're Lawful and if you don't you're not.

Here's where it gets weird though: That means that Lawful characters have a harder time working together than do non-lawful characters. Sure, once they agree to work together there's some Trust there that we can capitalize, but it means that there are arbitrary things that Lawful characters won't do. Essentially this means that Chaotic parties order one mini-pizza each while Lawful parties have to get one extra large pizza for the whole group – and we know how difficult that can be to arrange. A good example of this in action is the Paladin's code: they won't work with Evil characters, which restricts the possibilities of other party members.

In the world, this means that if you attack a Chaotic city, various other chaotic characters will trickle in to defend it. But if you attack a Lawful city, chances are that it's going to have to stand on its own.

Adherence to Self: Not a Rubric for Law

Sometimes Lawfulness is defined by people as adhering to one's personal self. That may sound very "Lawful", but there's no way that makes any sense. Whatever impulses you happen to have, those are going to be the ones that you act upon, by definition. If it is in your nature to do random crap that doesn't make any sense to anyone else – then your actions will be contrary and perplexing, but they will still be completely consistent with your nature. Indeed, there is literally nothing you can do that isn't what you would do. It's circular.

Rigidity: Not a Rubric for Law

Sometimes Lawfulness is defined by people as being more "rigid" as opposed to "spontaneous" in your action. That's crap. Time generally only goes in one direction, and it generally carries a one to one correspondence with itself. That means that as a result of a unique set of stimuli, you are only going to do one thing. In D&D, the fact that other people weren't sure what the one thing you were going to do is handled by a Bluff check, not by being Chaotic.

I Fought the Law

Regardless of what your group ends up meaning when they use the word "Law", the fact is that some of your enemies are probably going to end up being Lawful. That doesn't mean that Lawful characters can't stab them in their area, whatever it is that you have alignments mean it's still entirely acceptable for Good characters to stab other Good characters and Lawful characters to stab other Lawful characters (oddly, noone even asks if it's a violation of Chaotic Evil to kill another Chaotic Evil character, but it isn't). There are lots of reasons to kill a man, and alignment disagreements don't occupy that list exclusively.

Code of Conduct: Barbarian

A Barbarian who becomes Lawful cannot Rage. Why not? There's no decent answer for that. Rage doesn't seem to require that you not tell people in advance that you're going to do it, nor does it actually force you to break promises once you're enraged. It doesn't force you to behave in any particular fashion, and noone knows why it is restricted.

Code of Conduct: Bard

If anyone can tell me why a concert pianist can't be Lawful I will personally put one thing of their choice into my mouth. Music is expressionistic, but it is also mathematical. Already there are computers that can write music that is indistinguishable from the boring parts of Mozart in which he's just going up and down scales in order to mark time.

Beating Back Chaos

Long ago "Law" and "Chaos" were used euphemisms by Pohl Anderson for Good and Evil, and that got taken up by other fantasy and science fiction authors and ultimately snow-balled into having a Chaos alignment for D&D. If you go back far enough, "Chaos" actually means "The Villains", and when it comes down to it there's no logical meaning for it to have other than that – so the forces of Chaos really are going to show up at your door to take a number for a whuppin at some point. Depending upon what your group ends up deciding to mean by Chaos, this may seem pretty senselessly cruel. If the forces of Chaos are simply unorganized then you are essentially chasing down hobos and beating down the ones too drunk to get away. If Chaos is insanity than the Chaos Hunters in your game are essentially going door to door to beat up the retarded kids.

The key is essentially to not overthink it. Chaos was originally put into the fantasy genre in order to have bad guys without having to have black hatted madmen trying to destroy the world. So if Team Chaos is coming around your door, just roll with it. The whole point is to have villains that you can stab without feeling guilty while still having villains to whom your characters can lose without necessarily losing the whole campaign world.

Code of Conduct: Knight

Sigh. The Knight' code of conduct doesn't represent Lawful activity no matter what your group means by that term. They can't strike an opponent standing in a grease effect, but they can attack that same person after they fall down in the grease! They also are not allowed to win a duel or stake vampires (assuming, for the moment that you were using some of the house rules presented in The Tome of Necromancy that allow vampires to be staked by anyone). So the Knight's code is not an example of Lawfulness in practice, it's just a double fistful of stupid written by someone who obviously doesn't understand D&D combat mechanics. If you wanted to make a Knight's Code that represented something like "fighting fair", you'd do it like this:

* May not accept benefit from Aid Another actions.
* May not activate Spell Storing items (unless the Knight cast the spell into the item in the first place).
* May not use poison or disease contaminated weapons.

But remember: such a code of fair play is no more Lawful than not having a code of fair play. Formians are the embodiment of Law, and they practically wrote the book on cooperation. So while a Knight considers getting help from others to be "cheating", that's not because he's Lawful. He considers getting such aid to be cheating and he's Lawful. What type of Lawful a Knight represents is determined by your interpretation of Law as a whole. Maybe a Knight has to uphold the law of the land (right or wrong). Maybe a Knight has to keep his own word. Whatever, the important part is that the arbitrary code that the Knight lives under is just that – arbitrary. The actual contents of the code are a separate and irrelevant concern to their alignment restriction.

Code of Conduct? Monk

Again with the sighing. Noone can explain why Monks are required to be Lawful, least of all the Player's Handbook. Ember is Lawful because she "follows her discipline", while Mialee is not Lawful because she is "devoted to her art". FTW?! That's the same thing, given sequentially as an example of being Lawful and not being Lawful. Monk's training requires strict discipline, but that has nothing to do with Lawfulness no matter what setup for Law and Chaos you are using. If Lawfulness is about organization, you are perfectly capable of being a complete maverick who talks to noone and drifts from place to place training constantly like the main character in Kung Fu – total lack of organization, total "Chaotic" – total disciplined Monk. If Law is about Loyalty, you're totally capable of being treacherous spies. In fact, that's even an example in the PHB "Evil monks make ideal spies, infiltrators, and assassins." And well, that sentence pretty much sinks any idea of monks having to follow the law of the land or keeping their own word, doesn't it? The only way monk lawfulness would make any sense is if you were using "adherence to an arbitrary self" as the basis of Law, and we already know that can't hold.

Code of Conduct: Paladin Again

This has to be repeated: Paladins don't get Smite Chaos. They are not champions of Law and Good, they are Champions of Good who are required to be Lawful. If your game is not using Word is Bond Ethics, Paladins have no reason to be Lawful. Paladins are only encouraged to follow the laws of the country they live in if those laws are Good. They are actually forbidden by their code of conduct from following the precepts of Evil nations. The Paladin shtick works equally well as a loner or a leader, and it is by definition distinctly disloyal. A Paladin must abandon compatriots.

Here's my personal interpretation. I see things as being somewhat of a combination of Ethics options one and three. Lawful and Chaotic describe how you would feel about a system that enforces organization. The primary reason that it's difficult to define is that it deals with feelings more than actions. A chaotic character might very well choose to obey a rule he finds meaningless or stupid, because disobeying is simply more trouble than it's worth from a pragmatic viewpoint. A lawful character could willingly disobey orders from a superior they have agreed to follow, if the situation is important enough. Anyone who is basically rational will obey laws they see as beneficial and follow orders that correctly further a goal. The difference is in how they feel about it.

Being chaotic doesn't mean being opposed to organization. As pointed out in the article, being opposed to organization is stupid. What matters is whether the organization is mandatory or voluntary. Lawful philosophy believes that generally, organization must be enforced for it to function properly. Chaotic philosophy believes organizations generally function more positively if individuals are free to make their own decisions when they disagree with the organization.

While the two ideas aren't completely contradictory, they do better than the RAW definitions of Law and Chaos. Chaotic individuals can recognize the good that comes from having guards to stop people from stealing and murdering, and most wouldn't say that you should be able to opt out whenever you feel like it. Lawful individuals recognize that restrictions can be counterproductive, and usually support ways of allowing such things to be changed. Alignment is determined by which you more generally agree with. Neutral characters think that both ideas can be equally accurate in different situations, or don't feel too strongly one way or the other.

Chaotic societies make sense from this perspective. Dwarves and elves both have traditions, but elven traditions are followed simply because it's something the elves happen to like doing. If an individual didn't want to follow a tradition in an elven society, no one would really be that bothered. Doing such in a dwarven society is likely to get you thrown out. Lawful nations wouldn't be any more likely than Chaotic nations to come to the assistance of other nations sharing their alignment. The only reason anyone would be more likely to stand up for someone with the same ethical alignment is a slight admiration for how they're doing things. Sure, you might admire the kingdom next door for having well-codified and enforced rules and traditions - but they aren't your rules and traditions, so that makes them only slightly better than a chaotic kingdom. Even chaotic empires are possible. Getting an army together and using it to coerce others into paying tribute isn't necessarily lawful (Orcs do it all the time.) A chaotic empire wouldn't care about imposing its culture, so long as it's getting paid. The Mongol and Aztec empires could be real-life examples.

Why is the Barbarian required to be chaotic? I'm guessing that it has more to do with the idea behind the class than anything innately chaotic about raging. The definition of "Barbarian" is also a little sketchy. The term originally meant non-Greek or non-Roman. That wouldn't work very well, as most campaigns aren't set in historical earth. More basically, it means "uncivilized." That fits well with Barbarians being the only class unable to read. Thus, Barbarians are people who either grew up in small tribal societies, or spent their lives fending for themselves in the wilderness. The former shouldn't be required to be chaotic - tribal societies can have very strict laws and traditions. The latter makes a little more sense, but not completely. Having a strongly chaotic nature might be a reason for someone to stay away from society, but there are plenty of equally plausible reasons for living in the wilderness - Being lost, exiled, etc. If you've spent your entire life without being aware of any civilization, there's no reason to assume you'd dislike it if you found one. I guess the best argument would be that only people with a certain outlook can unlock the mystic energy within through raging, but that's still pretty silly.

Why is the Monk required to be lawful? I'm going to guess that it's similar to why the assassin is required to be evil. I think it's ultimately a fluff-based decision. There's nothing necessarily lawful about accepting strict training, and there's nothing necessarily evil about causing death (heck, PCs are expected to make a living off of it.) However, in the requirements for assassin there's also the special "The character must kill someone for no other reason than to join the assassins" requirement. This does make a certain amount of sense. In order to receive training as an assassin, you must join and participate in a group that is very explicitly evil. However, there's no reason things should have to be that way in any particular campaign. There could be an organization dedicated to the promotion of good through the destruction of people who spread evil (similar to the organization in Assassin's Creed.) Perhaps understanding the art of the monk requires that you accept their philosophy. However, there are groups of good, neutral, and evil monks. It's no huge stretch to imagine there could be ethically neutral or chaotic monasteries. Basic classes are also supposed to be generally less restrictive in regard to such things than prestige classes.

[loopy]

I generally classify Law as a propensity to following external codes of ethics. Chaotic individuals are more likely to follow an internal code of ethics.

That's pretty much how I keep track of the two, for simplicities sake.

[streakster]

I distinguish them thusly: Law is conservatism (resistance to change) and keeping one's word, irregardless of what that might be. Chaos is innovation (a willingness to try and use a Giant Frog to solve a problem, just to see if it works) and frequently trying new things instead of sticking to a defined course.

Just my opinion.

[Tequila Sunrise]

Yeah law and chaos are definately more vague than good and evil, and as a result everyone and their mother has a different interpretation. Class alignment restrictions are 100% arbitrary rulings based on traditional d&d tropes that none of the designers have yet apparently thought to simply drop. My working definitions of law and chaos in my games are:

Chaos means that you view your own personal beliefs as just that; your own. They work well for you, but they're not for everyone. You might preach the virtues of your belief system, but you realize that everyone is different and it's okay for others to have different beliefs.

Law means that you view your own personal beliefs as THE RIGHT WAY to live. You don't necessarily beat up or scream at people who have different beliefs, but you recognize that the more people who follow THE RIGHT WAY to live, the better off the world is.

[Lupy]

If we look at it like this I feel it takes prespective:

Good: You try to do the right thing
Neutral: You try to do the right thing, but only if it doesnt hurt you
Evil: You olny do the right thing if it benefits you

Law: You do what a code tells you to do, not always what the situation needs
Neutral: You do what you think is going to solve the issue without really caring which party wins
Chaos: You do what seems right

[Gralamin]

Yeah law and chaos are definately more vague than good and evil, and as a result everyone and their mother has a different interpretation. Class alignment restrictions are 100% arbitrary rulings based on traditional d&d tropes that none of the designers have yet apparently thought to simply drop. My working definitions of law and chaos in my games are:

Chaos means that you view your own personal beliefs as just that; your own. They work well for you, but they're not for everyone. You might preach the virtues of your belief system, but you realize that everyone is different and it's okay for others to have different beliefs.

Law means that you view your own personal beliefs as THE RIGHT WAY to live. You don't necessarily beat up or scream at people who have different beliefs, but you recognize that the more people who follow THE RIGHT WAY to live, the better off the world is.

I totally agree with this.

[CasESenSITItiVE]

I always saw lawfulness as pattern seeking, adhering to long-standing traditions. Lawful people would argue that learning from the past is the best way to handle the future. Chaos, on the other hand, deals with things in a case-by-case fashion. A chaotic person would argue that two situations are never exactly the same, and said deviations should be taken into consideration. And in the same way a good person still faces temptation, and evil people aren't always completely devoid of emotion, everyone will believe in a little of both. But one's alignment reflects which one you tend to lead to.

[Prometheus]

This has been my experience for the most part. Law and Chaos are essentially arbitrary distinctions as far as D&D has established it. Here's the ways I've made my distinctions in my campaigns.
-Law is Stability and Chaos is Change: Supposed their is a mildly corrupt, mildly inefficient regime in the world. A Lawful person assumes the status quo is better than the cost of a revolution and the possibility a worse regime is in its place. A Chaotic person assumes that a revolution is imperative.
-Law is a value for complexity: Someone who asserts the superiority of intelligent beings over less intelligent beings (say humans vs. animals) is lawful. Someone who would values them equally, or the latter higher (ie PETA) is definitely more chaotic.
-Law is rational: Someone makes rational decisions over what their gut would tell them is lawful. Someone who is superstituous, heavily influenced by their emotions and the present state of things is chaotic.
-Law is self-oriented: A chaotic person will change to be more like the people they are around, and will be more discriminatory of who they do hang around. Ethic Option 4 fails to account for the fact the discriminatory nature of lawful people make them more inclined to aid those that they associate with, wheras chaotic naations would roll with the punches and meet their new neighbors (and than if they don't like them promptly start another war)

[Ominous]

I got rid of the law and chaos axis that DnD uses and replaced it with the MTG color wheel. Thus if someone wants to be chaotic, they can choose red, black, blue, or green, and, if someone wants to be lawful, they can choose white, blue, black, or green. White is all about order, so it's the only non-chaotic one of the bunch and red is all about chaos, so it can't be lawful. The other colors have a mingling of both in them, so they're viable for either. Every color has its good and evil qualities; thus the good and evil axis remained.

[Starsinger]

I find that the universe works out better if you just remove the Law-Chaos axis. All that really matters alignment wise is who is good, and who is evil. Although, removing alignment all together makes things interesting...

[Maxymiuk]

In my latest homebrew I've booted the alignment system entirely and replaced it with four allegiances: Creation, Destruction, Order, and Chaos, which work off the idea of balance. Creation does just that: makes stuff. Chaos, as the agent of change, does things with this stuff - it's responsible for the sheer diversity of existence. Order on the other hand gives this diversity both form and stability, otherwise the creations of Chaos would last for an eye blink before becoming something else. And finally there's Destruction, which gets rid of the stuff that's no longer needed and making room for Creation to pop more into existence. The big ol' circle of life, basically.

Here's the kicker though. Most people aren't aware of this giant cosmic machine purring in the background. Most people look upon the world and see hailstorms pummeling their crops, wars, babies being born, mighty cathedrals in cities, kings reigning, etc. and they make their own, very flawed judgements as to what's "good" and what's "bad," thus resulting in terms such as "Evil" or "Lawful."

There's a lot more involved in how this setup actually works, involving the eternal conflict of the four forces, avatarization, independent agents and so on, but once again, from the viewpoint of most people "Law" would stand for actual laws, cities, civilizations, good weather, not getting mugged in the street, etc. while "Chaos" would involve bad weather, famines, riots, wars, insanity and the like.

It also explains how a person who's allegiance defaults to "Chaotic Good" may condone slavery. But that's a topic for a different thread.

[NecroRebel]

While I feel that the ideas set forth in the Tome of Fiends are fairly accurate, I do choose to define law and chaos slightly differently. More specifically, I view Law as "methodical" and Chaos as "spontaneous;" that being, a Lawful creature will prefer to plan out an activity from the beginning and (depending on degrees of Lawfulness) may be uncomfortable with acting without a plan or performing actions outside the plan, while a Chaotic creature will prefer to wait until the last possible moment before acting and (depending on degrees of Chaoticness) may be uncomfortable having a predetermined way of doing things.

This also tends to fit in with how I view many humans as acting; most real-world humans tend to have somewhat fleshed-out ideas for how their future will go, but only extreme oddities (in the case of Lawfuls) have particularly specific plans or (in the case of Chaotics) no plans at all. Of course, I'm of the opinion that humans tend towards Neutral whatever the books say because humans define the alignment system. As a result, Neutral Neutral is normal human behavior (note the phrasing; Neutral is normal human behavior, not normaly human behavior is neutral) and any abnormal human behavior is one way of defining off-neutral alignments.

[Tequila Sunrise]

I totally agree with this.

Sweet, I have an alignment compatriot!

[Dervag]

While the two ideas aren't completely contradictory, they do better than the RAW definitions of Law and Chaos. Chaotic individuals can recognize the good that comes from having guards to stop people from stealing and murdering, and most wouldn't say that you should be able to opt out whenever you feel like it. Lawful individuals recognize that restrictions can be counterproductive, and usually support ways of allowing such things to be changed. Alignment is determined by which you more generally agree with. Neutral characters think that both ideas can be equally accurate in different situations, or don't feel too strongly one way or the other.

I think the key here is that alignments don't become totally mutually contradictory until you reach their extremes (found only in champions of that alignment).

For instance, most real people exhibit a mix of good and evil traits- for example, they play practical jokes and they make fun of people, but they are also willing to give money to hoboes and spend all night doing something unpleasant for a friend.

Likewise, it's not surprising to find that normal people have a mix of both chaotic and lawful acts.

Now, a lawful or chaotic outsider, or a mortal being that was really really lawful or chaotic, might well have none of the opposite traits. So a slaad really can't understand why it makes sense to have people whose job it is to stop you from doing something. Conversely, a modron can't understand why it makes sense to ever not have a rule telling you what to do. It might be able to grasp the idea that there are situations not covered by rules, but its instinctive response is to simply expand the set of rules until the gaps are covered.

Why is the Barbarian required to be chaotic? I'm guessing that it has more to do with the idea behind the class than anything innately chaotic about raging. The definition of "Barbarian" is also a little sketchy. The term originally meant non-Greek or non-Roman. That wouldn't work very well, as most campaigns aren't set in historical earth. More basically, it means "uncivilized." That fits well with Barbarians being the only class unable to read. Thus, Barbarians are people who either grew up in small tribal societies, or spent their lives fending for themselves in the wilderness. The former shouldn't be required to be chaotic - tribal societies can have very strict laws and traditions. The latter makes a little more sense, but not completely. Having a strongly chaotic nature might be a reason for someone to stay away from society, but there are plenty of equally plausible reasons for living in the wilderness - Being lost, exiled, etc. If you've spent your entire life without being aware of any civilization, there's no reason to assume you'd dislike it if you found one. I guess the best argument would be that only people with a certain outlook can unlock the mystic energy within through raging, but that's still pretty silly.

I dunno.

My view is that the barbarian "rage" is not a truly mystical ability; it is simply the ability to unlock one's inner adrenaline surges. There may be classes that can use it as the basis for a mystical ability, but that's different.

As such, truly effective barbarians (who rage) must have a ferocious and somewhat ill-balanced temper. Even if their rages are a consciously controlled factor, the fact that they can actually gain significant strength and (temporary) endurance just by getting angry is not a sign of a calm personality.

Barbarians are not going to submit gracefully to authority. Communities with a lot of barbarians will have a lot of infighting, though this infighting may take the form of armwrestling or ritual trials of strength rather than lethal combats.

This is where the 'non-lawful' part comes in. For a person to become lawful, they have to submit to the idea that there are rules that should govern one's conduct. It may simply not be possible to actively tap into one's own bad temper as a source of strength once one has become the sort of person who accepts authority without a bit of a wrestling match first.

However, there's no reason things should have to be that way in any particular campaign. There could be an organization dedicated to the promotion of good through the destruction of people who spread evil (similar to the organization in Assassin's Creed.) Perhaps understanding the art of the monk requires that you accept their philosophy. However, there are groups of good, neutral, and evil monks. It's no huge stretch to imagine there could be ethically neutral or chaotic monasteries. Basic classes are also supposed to be generally less restrictive in regard to such things than prestige classes.

I suspect the theory behind monk alignment is the opposite of the theory behind barbarian alignment. A monk has to accept the dominating role of their discipline in their life in order to use it to channel ki.

I distinguish them thusly: Law is conservatism (resistance to change) and keeping one's word, irregardless of what that might be. Chaos is innovation (a willingness to try and use a Giant Frog to solve a problem, just to see if it works) and frequently trying new things instead of sticking to a defined course.

Just my opinion.

Other than the fuse in my brain that blew at "irregardless," I do actually take exception to this.

First of all, as the Tome of Fiends implies, neither law nor chaos is supposed to be "obviously right." It is not supposed to be clear to every intelligent and decent person that the world would be a better place if everyone were lawful or if everyone were chaotic.

And when we try to model law/chaos as conservatism/innovation, that tends to happen. Extreme lawfulness becomes complete inability to adapt- as in mental illness. Extreme chaos becomes the state of mental freedom that lets you react to circumstances. And unless we add that chaotics will try things regardless of whether they work (which would make them stupid), chaotics are clearly superior to lawfuls because they are willing to try something new.

We need a system that explains law and chaos without telling us which we should be and without telling us that it's smart to be one way and dumb to be the other way.

Law: You do what a code tells you to do, not always what the situation needs
Neutral: You do what you think is going to solve the issue without really caring which party wins
Chaos: You do what seems right

Again, this makes lawful people stupid and chaotic people smart. Also, it does not draw a clear line between "chaos" and "neutral," since both people are doing what they think is the 'right' thing to do in that situation.

[Roog]

I distinguish them thusly: Law is conservatism (resistance to change) and keeping one's word, irregardless of what that might be. Chaos is innovation (a willingness to try and use a Giant Frog to solve a problem, just to see if it works) and frequently trying new things instead of sticking to a defined course.

Just my opinion.

And when we try to model law/chaos as conservatism/innovation, that tends to happen. Extreme lawfulness becomes complete inability to adapt- as in mental illness. Extreme chaos becomes the state of mental freedom that lets you react to circumstances. And unless we add that chaotics will try things regardless of whether they work (which would make them stupid), chaotics are clearly superior to lawfuls because they are willing to try something new.

If Chaos is madness, it's not "spontaneous", it's "non-functional". Actual adaptability is sane. Adapting responses to stimuli is what people are supposed to do. For reactions to be sufficiently inappropriate to qualify as insanity, one has to go pretty far into one's own preconceptions. Actual mental illness is very sad and traumatic just to watch as an outside observer. Actually living that way is even worse. It is strongly suggested therefore, that you don't go this route at all. It's not that you can't make D&D work with sanity and insanity as the core difference between Law and Chaos, it's that in doing so you're essentially making the Law vs. Chaos choice into the choice between good and bad.

I see Law and Chaos similarly to this, except I see,
Law as unreasonable conservativism
and Chaos as unreasonable spontaneity
Both are "non-functional" in our world, especially with extreme versions of the alignments; but the game is not set in our world, and power and reason do not need to coincide.

They don't support support either Good or Evil, making NG and NE the highest Good and Evil.

Together they make interesting sources of "power" for creatures or magics.
For example you could write up (popular culture) vampires as Lawful aligned (Supernatural Lawful) creatures, who lose their abilities if they fail to follow the pointless set of restrictions that anchor their power.

[Superglucose]

To me, Law is conservatism, resisting the change because you think that change brings more pain than good. Unless there's a good reason to change, you won't change.

Chaos, on the opposite, is resisting the status quo. There are always problems that a chaotic person sees, and always is attempting to fix them by change. Unless there's a good reason to stay the same, why?

[Roog]

To me, Law is conservatism, resisting the change because you think that change brings more pain than good. Unless there's a good reason to change, you won't change.

Chaos, on the opposite, is resisting the status quo. There are always problems that a chaotic person sees, and always is attempting to fix them by change. Unless there's a good reason to stay the same, why?

Have you noticed that that makes Law and Chaos non-contradictory?

Those descriptions need to be more extreme, if Law and Chaos are alignments, not personality traits.

[Superglucose]

Have you noticed that that makes Law and Chaos non-contradictory?

Those descriptions need to be more extreme, if Law and Chaos are alignments, not personality traits.

They seem pretty contradictory to me, unless you're saying that someone can resist change by actuating change, but then you're just being silly. They resist each other, not because one is concerned with 'self' or 'others' but because for the goals you have, those are the means you will use.

I take the meaning of Chaotic Good to mean this, for instance:

The character desires 'good' things, equality, etc, and believes that in order for those good things to come, centralized authority must be diminished or even abolished. That's just one example, but it works.

[Mal666]

I distinguish them thusly: Law is conservatism (resistance to change) and keeping one's word, irregardless of what that might be. Chaos is innovation (a willingness to try and use a Giant Frog to solve a problem, just to see if it works) and frequently trying new things instead of sticking to a defined course.

Just my opinion.

i like the giant frog solution. i may have to play a chaotic druid and test it in every encounter :P

my dm is going to hate me.

[Roog]

They seem pretty contradictory to me, unless you're saying that someone can resist change by actuating change, but then you're just being silly. They resist each other, not because one is concerned with 'self' or 'others' but because for the goals you have, those are the means you will use.

Non-contradictory, if you change when there is a good reason to change and resist change when there is a good reason to stay the same.

I take the meaning of Chaotic Good to mean this, for instance:

The character desires 'good' things, equality, etc, and believes that in order for those good things to come, centralized authority must be diminished or even abolished. That's just one example, but it works.

But how about if central authority is already very weak or non-existent; the same character believes the same thing, but now he likes the status quo, so he is now Lawful Good.

[RedNec]

I have always felt that the names are misleading.
Good and Evil are polar opposites, but Chaos should be on the axis with ORDER.

laws (both personal and national) are human creations meant to create order in our world and a means to make sense of the world.

redifining the axis as ORDER vs CHAOS may allow a clear way of defining what each means.

- just a thought.

[KIDS]

I fully agree that Law and Chaos are very very poorly defined and those little parts of them that are defined at all are just absolutist. I.e. that someone wrote down a not-so-making-sense description doesn't mean that he was right, it just means he came first to institute some tyranny on others who disagree.

Because of this, while Law and Chaos still do have some tiny shred of meaning, it is good for everyone to be relaxed and open-minded about them. Of course, it's hard to meet such people and thus the cycle begins anew with someone rationalizing why bards can't be lawful or whatever. Also, since perilously little of even well-displayed character's motivation shows through in an actual game, one should never presume to judge other's alignment.

For me:

Law
- is aware of and values opinions of others towards him. For example, is concerned with how much his "word" is worth
- generally prefers working in groups to working alone
- people combined are always more powerful/resourceful/happier than solitary
- more easily places trust in others
- reacts slower to changes or is resistant to them
- respects tradition and elders just because they are
- more likely to think that only one view of the world is correct
- changes opinions slower
- is concerned with continuity of his actions
- likes routine
- more consistent

Chaos
- less likely to care about others' opinions
- prefers solitude to group
- thinks individual potential flourishes better outside of groups
- more accepting to changes (change for its own sake)
- less likely to be prejudiced
- can change opinion quickly
- likes tradition and family for their worth (if any), not just because they are
- dislikes routine
- less consistent

A person can be Lawful even if most of his traits are on the Chaotic list, and vice versa!!! This isn't a sliding scale like abbacus and is not supposed to be like that! The worst possible offense is to grab one of these guidelines and use it to force someone into other alignment!

[Kioran]

Law versus Chaos is, to me, essentially, the difference between Act_utilitarianism(Chaos) and Rule_utilitarianism, or if nongood, the question whether you act short term or long term. Law means considering oneself part of a larger whole, and ones actions as part of a larger tapestry of actions. Being Chaotic means evaluating each act on his own, and considering the ramifications of it.
Responsibility for a chaotic person is to be comfortable with the choices one has made in regards to their effects. Lawful responsibility means being sure that, were someone else to make a decision in a similiar situation, it would be best if he acted like you did. It´s the difference between self responsibility and a mutual responsibility of society and individual for each other

Real world examples of this different pattern of thoughts, would I think be the US and Japan/Germany, with the former being a highly chaotic society, and the other two being predominantly lawful societies.

[Roderick_BR]

Uh. My group never really paid attention to that. We take law/chaos more like a comportamental thing than ethics.
Law (incidentally called something like order instead of law in Portuguese, makes more sense than law, but then again, it's just semantics), is about plans, keeping your word, and inflexibilty.
Chaos is about expontaneity, individualization, and disorganization.
We use both good and bad definitions for each. I see a lot of people often using only derogatory terms for the ones they dislike playing.

[Orzel]

I go with the simple

Law- Tends to stick with an already created idea, plan, or tradition unless given a very good reason not to.
Neutral- Willing to abandon an already created idea, plan, or tradition.
Chaos- Tends to create and adopt new ideas, plans, or traditions unless given a very good reason not to.

[Learnedguy]

I imagine that a lawful person decides with his head, while the chaotic person decides with his heart.

With that I try to say that a chaotic character makes spontaneous decision based of his feelings, while a lawful character usually got some internal breaks that makes him consider if the things he's doing is what he should be doing before he makes the choice.

So a Bill, who stole a milkshake because he felt that he wanted that milkshake was doing a chaotic act at least. Joey who haven't stolen anything in his life, because as soon as he thinks of stealing, he starts to think of the consequences of his theft, is thinking like a lawful person.

In general, a person who keeps himself disciplined is a lawful person, and a person who doesn't care about keeping himself in check is chaotic.

[streakster]

Other than the fuse in my brain that blew at "irregardless," I do actually take exception to this.

First of all, as the Tome of Fiends implies, neither law nor chaos is supposed to be "obviously right." It is not supposed to be clear to every intelligent and decent person that the world would be a better place if everyone were lawful or if everyone were chaotic.

And when we try to model law/chaos as conservatism/innovation, that tends to happen. Extreme lawfulness becomes complete inability to adapt- as in mental illness. Extreme chaos becomes the state of mental freedom that lets you react to circumstances. And unless we add that chaotics will try things regardless of whether they work (which would make them stupid), chaotics are clearly superior to lawfuls because they are willing to try something new.

We need a system that explains law and chaos without telling us which we should be and without telling us that it's smart to be one way and dumb to be the other way.

No, no, no - I didn't mark either side as right or wrong. They're just different approaches. Law isn't free of new things - it's just that generally, they're improvements on old things, while Chaos tries something completely different. Law always goes for the sure option, Chaos takes a chance. Sure, sometimes that will pay off for a Chaotic character - and then sometimes it won't.

Take the task of improving a sword - Law and Chaos can both do it, and do it well. Law, though, will try to make the sword more effective: trying to raise the amount of damage it does per hit. Chaos might enchant the sword to increase its critical damage. Law went for the guaranteed increase, though it was less showy. Chaos went for a chance at devastating power, at the cost of uncertainty. Neither one is better - they're just different. To use another analogy, Law puts its money in banks, while Chaos buys lottery tickets. If Chaos wins, it's richer than Law - but Law is guaranteed to increase its money, while Chaos might lose it all.

I suppose if you think that this model makes Chaos or Law sound better, that just reflects the amount of risk you think is wise.

To sum up, conservatism isn't a failure to react. It's always going for old tried and true, the predictable, safe option.

(And I use irregardless merely because I enjoy it.)

[Thane of Fife]

Personally, I think Law is putting the many above the few, the later above the now. Chaos is the opposite.

A Lawful Good person says that the tax on Farmer Joe, while keeping him poor and hungry, nonetheless maintains the militia which protects him from the orcs, making it a good thing.

A Chaotic Good person says that, yes, the tax sort of helps him, but it hurts him to much now, and if it wasn't there, not only would Joe not be hungry, he might be able to better defend himself.

A Lawful Evil person says that betraying a companion for the 20,000 gp they just found may be a bad idea, because it damages his credibility and eliminates the potential for future profit with the partner.

A Chaotic Evil person says that taking his money now is the thing to do. You never know what will happen to it later.

I generally classify Law as a propensity to following external codes of ethics. Chaotic individuals are more likely to follow an internal code of ethics.

I also think that this is a good one.

[Indon]

Law and Chaos are probably intentionally poorly defined. Looking at literary influences which have affected (and/or been affected) by D&D's alignment system over the years, we see a few different examples:

Courtesy of Michael Moorcock's novels:

Law: Law is the single path - it is about unification, predictability, and in its' extreme form, ultimately stasis. Law is symbolized by a single arrow.

Chaos: Chaos is the multiple path - it is about conflict, independence, and in its' extreme form, ultimately anarchy and an unraveling of causality. Chaos is symbolized by eight arrows, which are rarely symettrical.

Meanwhile, courtesy of Roger Zelazny's Chronicles of Amber novels:

Order: Order is complexity and stability. It brings form to that which lacks form, and where it is strong, only the most powerful of sorcery can function. Order's avatar is the Unicorn, and its' source is an immensely intricate geometric pattern etched into stone.

Chaos: Chaos is the primal anarchy from which all things originate. It grants the capacity for change to that which has form. It is the source of most sorcery, and where it is strong, the laws of physics become progressively less consistent (but where they are consistent, there is an odd complexity to them). Chaos' avatar is the Serpent, and its' source is an ever-shifting three-dimensional maze.

Heading home from work now, I'll write about the Recluce saga (a more recent example) in a bit.

[Townopolis]

While I feel that the ideas set forth in the Tome of Fiends are fairly accurate, I do choose to define law and chaos slightly differently. More specifically, I view Law as "methodical" and Chaos as "spontaneous;" that being, a Lawful creature will prefer to plan out an activity from the beginning and (depending on degrees of Lawfulness) may be uncomfortable with acting without a plan or performing actions outside the plan, while a Chaotic creature will prefer to wait until the last possible moment before acting and (depending on degrees of Chaoticness) may be uncomfortable having a predetermined way of doing things.

This also tends to fit in with how I view many humans as acting; most real-world humans tend to have somewhat fleshed-out ideas for how their future will go, but only extreme oddities (in the case of Lawfuls) have particularly specific plans or (in the case of Chaotics) no plans at all. Of course, I'm of the opinion that humans tend towards Neutral whatever the books say because humans define the alignment system. As a result, Neutral Neutral is normal human behavior (note the phrasing; Neutral is normal human behavior, not normaly human behavior is neutral) and any abnormal human behavior is one way of defining off-neutral alignments.

I agree with this completely.
Law is organized but slow to react. (adapts in preparation)
Chaos is disorganized but quick to react. (adapts on the spot)