On the Nature of Law and Chaos (Or 'Law is not Legal')


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 149 of 149 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

The Crusader wrote:

This, to me, reads like Chaos = (Lawful + Options).

For example: Kaoss crosses the street everyday when he leaves his house. He uses the crosswalk every time. He never doesn't use the crosswalk. But, as long as he puts his fingers in his ears and shouts, "I'm only doing this because it's what I want to do!" then he stays Chaotic.

Chaotic, as an alignment, should have some limitations just as law and good and evil do. If you are lawful, it's pretty obvious when you are not being lawful. If you are good, it's pretty obvious when you are not being good. If you are evil, it's a little more ambiguous, but you can still make some judgements on whether someone is being too benevolent, merciful, or forgiving to maintain that alignement. If you are chaotic... you should have to be something other, and consistently something other, than lawful.

But does Kaoss want to cross at the crosswalk because he respects the order it represents? Does he feel that the street is for cars and the crosswalk is for pedestrians and this structure should not be violated? Or does he live in an area with a lot of traffic and it is dangerous or difficult to cross elsewhere? If he were presented with a gap in traffic, no crosswalk, and something he wanted on the other side of the street, would he take a detour to a crosswalk, or would he cross?

A character who respects the order of the crosswalk even when it is inconvenient for him is performing a lawful action and is likely lawful. In terms of alignment, a chaotic creature does not have the option to respect inconvenient orderly structures, or give up flexibility that is not costly, or they will become lawful. This is a parallel to the manner in which a lawful character does not have the option to take part in disruptive disorder, or to ignore structures that are not obstructive, or they will become chaotic.

Note that a strongly aligned character will act in alignment even when other costs are high (risking your life for a sense of duty, or to break a law that is an onerous restriction on freedom) but many characters will act out of alignment given sufficient pressure and that doesn't necessarily change their alignment.

table of options for law vs chaos:
Lawful:
Action respects order and has other value - perform action
Action respects order and has no other value/cost - perform action
Action respects order and is costly - MAY perform action*
Action promotes flexibility and has other value - MAY perform action*
Action promotes flexibility and has no other value/cost - DO NOT perform action
Action promotes flexibility and is costly - DO NOT perform action

Neutral:
Action respects order and has other value - perform action
Action respects order and has no other value/cost - MAY perform action
Action respects order and is costly - DO NOT perform action
Action promotes flexibility and has other value - perform action
Action promotes flexibility and has no other value/cost - MAY perform action
Action promotes flexibility and is costly - DO NOT perform action

Chaotic:
Action respects order and has other value - MAY perform action*
Action respects order and has no other value/cost - DO NOT perform action
Action respects order and is costly - DO NOT perform action
Action promotes flexibility and has other value - perform action
Action promotes flexibility and has no other value/cost - perform action
Action promotes flexibility and is costly - MAY perform action*

*depends on strength of alignment.

analagous good/evil actions:

Good:
Action hurts me but helps others - perform action
Action helps me and helps others - perform action
Action helps me and hurts others - DO NOT perform action

Neutral:
Action hurts me but helps others - DO NOT perform action
Action helps me and helps others - perform action
Action helps me and hurts others - DO NOT perform action

Evil:
Action hurts me but helps others - DO NOT perform action
Action helps me and helps others - MAY perform action
Action helps me and hurts others - perform action

The Crusader wrote:
But, those who champion the chaotic alignment, consistently argue that the things that make lawful Lawful (structure, discipline, tradition, focus), apply equally to chaotic. I respectfully disagree. And frankly, I don't see the point.

Some of those who champion the chaotic alignment don't think that all of those things are what make lawful Lawful.

As I argued earlier, focus and (self-)discipline correlate with but do not require lawfulness in the sense of order. Many people use rigid, orderly structures in order to obtain self-discipline. And it is often easier to be disciplined - to act against your immediate desires - if you have strict rules and respect those rules enough to stick by them in the face of temptation. If you obey the rule "I don't eat cake when I'm on a diet" you don't have to make a hard decision every time you encounter cake.

HOWEVER acting against your immediate desires to attain a greater goal (not necessarily an orderly goal) is not itself an orderly action. Chaotic doesn't mean you lack concern for the future or the big picture. Indeed, flexibility can be forward-thinking in that you are leaving your options open until the last possible moment in anticipation of changing circumstances.

A chaotic character with strong willpower may be able to sacrifice their immediate desires for the big picture even if they have to re-evaluate the big picture (eg their physical well-being) every time they encounter temptation rather than just reference the rule that says "I won't eat cake when on a diet."

This is not inconsistent/paradoxical any more than a lawful character making a contingency plan or writing an exception into a rule is being inconsistent. A lawful character can appear flexible through complex orderly systems, and a chaotic character can appear reliable through a strong motivation towards a certain goal. The mental processes however (and the areas of weakness or discomfort) are rather different.

Shadow Lodge

Draco Bahamut wrote:
Democratus wrote:

Doesn't matter what each culture calls good/evil. It's still a gut reaction for anyone within that culture. And there are some fairly universal goods/evils that are ubiquitous.

Good/Evil is visceral.
Law/Chaos is an intellectual distinction.

Yeah, but say that to a christian paladin trying to smite evil a wiccan witch when both of them consider themselves good.

Both people will have a very visceral feeling - that they are good and the other person is evil.

Some of the most heated arguments occur when two people have opposing gut feelings - and these tend to be the least likely areas for compromise. Intellectual discussions can be more civil and it's more likely for people to come away having changed their mind. I'm not sure if it matters whether the reality is objective or not given peoples' attachment to their ideas and especially their visceral gut responses. If we were able to objectively prove IRL that eating babies is good I don't think anyone would start eating babies.

Whether Law & Chaos is really an intellectual discussion is hard to say. Maybe in most contexts, but I think in PF many people have developed an emotional attachment to whatever interpretation they've used for years of gaming, which complicates things.


I've long felt that in D&D, ethics (Law/Chaos axis) happens first in a character's behaviour, and is then checked by moralality (Good/Evil axis). It conveniently matches the fact that in alignment nomenclature, L/C is written before G/E.

If it is true that Good is hard (which implies a minimum of reflection, even if unconscious), I feel that Law is instinctive (or rather intrinsic)

I wonder if that would make chaos reactionary, or equally intrinsic.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Chaos is equally intrinsic.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I might as well mention this article, which is about muppets, but also happens to apply to D&D/Pathfinder alignments.


Ross Byers wrote:
Mike Franke wrote:
I would love a what is neutrality discussion. I'm not sure there is an answer but I have seen several different interpretations over the years from the "not evil or good so neutral" to the "seekers of balance" or even "followers of nature".

Neutral is the ground between the extremes. It has two 'flavors'.

The first is non-commitment. The 'not good and not evil' or 'not lawful and not chaotic'. This describes the vast majority of neutrality. Animals, people who just want to get on with their lives. Proteans just don't care about Good and Evil any more than Daemons care about Law or Chaos.

The other, rarer form is 'balance'. This is the one attained by philosphers and many druids. They understand the differences between Law and Chaos (or Good and Evil), but purposely try not to favor one over the other. The reasons for this are varied. For druids, it is often because the natural world is Neutral, and as divine spellcasters they need to remain within one step of that. For those of a philosophical bent, it might be more like they see the virtue in all alignments, so they refuse to pick one.

I think most people who practice the balance form end up some flavor of Lawful Evil over time, though.

To clarify my stance a bit:

  • They become Lawful because they end up subscribing to this code of balance, and only really exceptional individuals can really do "what they want to do" while still following that code.

  • They become Evil because it's very difficult to "see the merits" of evil. Through inaction, or through the wrong action, they will cross the line.

  • Also, they really need to fix these OOC tags someday.

    RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

    I try not to think about that too hard.

    "There must be equal amounts of Law and Chaos" is a paradox about on par with "This statement is false."

    "Law and Chaos are both necessary for the function of the universe", however, is much more palatable.


    Put in an edit to clarify why I made that point. You can be Lawful and still understand the need for Chaos, in my opinion. That's why I have a lot of trouble believing aeons are truly Neutral--I mean, they have very, very firm rules for what they do, and they are willing to wipe out orphanages if it means "preserving balance".


    Ross Byers wrote:
    I might as well mention this article, which is about muppets, but also happens to apply to D&D/Pathfinder alignments.

    Good article.

    It's when I read something like that that I resist the envy to say "screw it, I'm going with Good/Evil only".

    Now that I'm thinking of it, theatre directors often guide their actors in similar ways, even if tragedies tend to be less cartoonesque but nevertheless as distinct (regardless of the morality of the characters, which is often left vague or undefined).

    RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

    Kobold Cleaver wrote:
    That's why I have a lot of trouble believing aeons are truly Neutral--I mean, they have very, very firm rules for what they do, and they are willing to wipe out orphanages if it means "preserving balance".

    Aeons have...issues. But I think alignment applies to Outsiders differently than to mortals. For (alignment subtyped*) Outsiders, it really is closer to Team Red and Team Blue.

    *:
    Psychopomps and Aeons don't have alignment subtypes, but totally would if there was a 'Neutral' subtype.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    The Crusader wrote:
    Weirdo wrote:
    The Crusader wrote:

    And what's the penalty for acting against your alignment? Most people would argue that you shouldn't suffer an alignment change for just a few, or only one, opposing act. But, wouldn't it be the most alarmingly chaotic thing a lawful person could do, to take a single act completely opposed to your entire world view? If you engaged in random, bizarre behavior frequently, it would simply be how you defined your code, your sense of order. Borderline lawful. But, just once...

    And how lawful... or how frequently lawful does a chaotic character have to be before he faces the potential of an alignment shift? Can he ever? Isn't he always doing as he pleases... the essence of Chaos? If he can't shift, what is the point of the opposing alignments? Are you only lawful until you "fall"?

    Chaos isn't randomness or bizarre behavior, and perfect unvarying order is pathological (see OCPD, not to be confused with OCD).

    A character ceases to be lawful when his actions demonstrate he is at least as comfortable with flexibility (change) as order. He ceases to be chaotic when his actions demonstrate he is at least as comfortable with order (structure) as with flexibility. For example, I am a lawful person but have become less lawful over time due to association with chaotic people (who I cannot force to follow my rigid plans) and consciously training myself to improvise more. Increased lawfulness is a common byproduct of age - people sometimes become set in their ways or slip into familiar routines as they grow older.

    Bhaene wrote:
    Chaotic people (as others have posted) see these rules as guidelines. Thus chaos can have codes of honor, laws, traditions, etc...

    This, to me, reads like Chaos = (Lawful + Options).

    For example: Kaoss crosses the street everyday when he leaves his house. He uses the crosswalk every time. He never doesn't use the crosswalk. But, as long as he puts his fingers in his ears and shouts, "I'm only doing this because...

    The problem you seem to have is that you think alignment is based on actions. It's not, it's about motives. It's not what you do, but why you do it.

    Evil can do good actions if they want, usually as cover so people don't get suspicious, or to cut down an evil rival.
    Good can do some evil stuff like killing enemies usually when they hae no other options or the options have much worse consequnces. (paladins are another matter, but theyre supposed to be extreme in their alingnment)
    Lawful can break laws that go against their personal code.
    Chaotic can follow laws, when they make sense to him or when he elieves he will be punished for breaking them.

    Chaotic societies usually have laws like:
    The Right of Hospitality: As long as your host is good toyou you have to be a good guest to him. And vice versa. If the other wrongs you, you have the right to call everybody to kick his ass. Cause if we let him be a bad guest to you then he will come o my house and I don't want that.
    Weregild: You kill someone, you have to pay the family a sack of money in compensation, if you don't they can come and kill you to settle the score. If you kill hem you're badass and nobody will care enough to keep it going. If both families start a blood feud, noone cares as long as it doesn't spill. If it pills on non-family, the rest ofthe community gathers togheter and kicks both families in the ass.
    Stealing: If you're caught stealing you give it back plus some compensation, we willl work the mount at the time. If the guy you stole from wants he can try to kill you. If you kill him, youkeep his stuf, if he kills you, you're dead.

    All examples from actual societies. See? General guidelines, instead of rigid systems.

    Sovereign Court

    I don't know about that Weregild example. The Saxons had a big weregild system going on, and actually codified (written down around 802 in the Lex Saxonum) exactly how much weregild was to be paid to people based on the kind of maiming/killing inflicted, and the social status of the victim. That's an orderly, Lawful approach to me.

    As for Hospitality: the ancient Greeks were big on this. But the punishment for breaking Hospitality wasn't handed down by the person you hurt, it was handed down by Zeus. Trusting to an external (if nebulous) authority to punish crimes committed, so that even if you hurt someone with no friends or relatives, justice will still be done. That sounds closer to Lawful to me actually.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    VM mercenario wrote:
    The problem you seem to have is that you think alignment is based on actions. It's not, it's about motives. It's not what you do, but why you do it.

    I disagree. The alignment of a given action depends on both the motive and the act itself.

    Your examples are also about legal systems. As Ross stated in the title of this thread, "Law is not Legal." It is entirely possible for legal practice of a given land to be fundamentally Chaotic! (e.g. An overlord who rules by edict: what he says is the law.)

    Law promotes order, stability, and predictability.

    Chaos promotes individuality, flexibility, and change.

    Like I said on the Good is Hard thread, you need to look at both motive and act to determine whether a given action is Good, Neutral, or Evil. In the case of the Good/Evil axis, it's clear that both act and motive must be Good for the act to be Good. If either act or motive are Evil, the action is Evil. The other combinations indicate a Neutral action.

    The Law/Chaos axis is a little tougher to think through: good/evil seems a bit more clear-cut, and is certainly the more important axis in both game terms and general philosophy.

    I'm going out on a limb, and will likewise say that Law is Hard as well. It's just easier to be chaotic: you don't need a set of rules and principles to follow. If both act and motive are Lawful, then the action is Lawful. If either act or motive are Chaotic, then the action is Chaotic. Other combinations are neutral.


    VM mercenario wrote:
    The problem you seem to have is that you think alignment is based on actions. It's not, it's about motives. It's not what you do, but why you do it.

    I vehemently disagree with this statement.

    Putting aside that this argument has raged for centuries without resolution... we are not discussing real-life! This is being applied to characters in a game world with an actual objective morality using a rule set that defines that morality with a nine-box alignment system.

    Further, the storyline of the game world is collaborative... meaning that the story is driven by the descriptions of the actions of the characters involved. Maybe you play in a high-intensity game where your characters deepest thoughts and feelings are described in-depth at the table... but, most people probably do not. Aside from certain game formats, such as play-by-post and play-by-email, where some more in-depth internal monologues can take place, your character is defined by the actions he takes in the game world.

    Even more to the point, there are NPC's, higher beings such as angels and devils, and deities, directly tied to morality system in the game world, that will smile or frown upon the actions your character takes. Your motivations hardly play into it. You describe your actions and they are viewed in light of the alignment system.

    Lastly, all of the examples you provided do not amount to anything. You didn't provide a single example of how those rules are chaotic in and of themselves, and you didn't provide an example of a chaotic society (assuming such a thing actually exists) that employed them.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    The Crusader wrote:
    Maybe you play in a high-intensity game where your characters deepest thoughts and feelings are described in-depth at the table... but, most people probably do not. Aside from certain game formats, such as play-by-post and play-by-email, where some more in-depth internal monologues can take place, your character is defined by the actions he takes in the game world.

    I agree that characters become defined by their action after they have performed them, but I'd rather say that a character is judged by the actions he takes in the game world; sometimes by his peers, sometimes by gods, sometimes by itself (it is my opinion that many fallen paladins have "removed" their own powers out of shame and feeling of unworthiness).


    Kobold Cleaver wrote:
    Ross Byers wrote:
    Mike Franke wrote:
    I would love a what is neutrality discussion. I'm not sure there is an answer but I have seen several different interpretations over the years from the "not evil or good so neutral" to the "seekers of balance" or even "followers of nature".

    Neutral is the ground between the extremes. It has two 'flavors'.

    The first is non-commitment. The 'not good and not evil' or 'not lawful and not chaotic'. This describes the vast majority of neutrality. Animals, people who just want to get on with their lives. Proteans just don't care about Good and Evil any more than Daemons care about Law or Chaos.

    The other, rarer form is 'balance'. This is the one attained by philosphers and many druids. They understand the differences between Law and Chaos (or Good and Evil), but purposely try not to favor one over the other. The reasons for this are varied. For druids, it is often because the natural world is Neutral, and as divine spellcasters they need to remain within one step of that. For those of a philosophical bent, it might be more like they see the virtue in all alignments, so they refuse to pick one.

    I think most people who practice the balance form end up some flavor of Lawful Evil over time, though.

    To clarify my stance a bit:

  • They become Lawful because they end up subscribing to this code of balance, and only really exceptional individuals can really do "what they want to do" while still following that code.

  • They become Evil because it's very difficult to "see the merits" of evil. Through inaction, or through the wrong action, they will cross the line.

  • Also, they really need to fix these OOC tags someday.

    I have to admit, the "balance seeking neutral" is the alignment I have always had more trouble wrapping my head around than any other.

    On a basic level I cannot intellectually accept that it exists, because I don't believe that one can actually implement a rilmani style approach to morality, and stay N. "We must inflict suffering upon some to maintain the stability of society/the world/the cosmos" is an evil philosophy to my mind even if it is objectively a correct philosophy. Probably LE.

    I actually really enjoy that Golarion has the LE deity entrusted with safeguarding the cosmos from Rovagug rather than some rilmani sub.


    For cultures the clearest image of Law versus Chaos is perhaps the ancient Roman Empire versus the barbarian hordes (the Huns, ancient German tribes, the Vandals, the Goths, and so on), or the Mongol horde versus civilized China and Persia and feudal Europe.

    In that sense Law versus Chaos is the organized, civilized state versus the uncivilized, barbarian tribes who pillage and destroy. This is easily extrapolated to the outer planes where the Proteans are like the barbarians at the gates who seek to smash the works of civilization.

    Scarab Sages

    4 people marked this as a favorite.

    I could write one or more whole books about this subject. I've thought about this relentlessly since I was less than 10 years old - and I come from what is sadly a rare and privileged background, which is to say, in practical essence, a parallel universe where the Counterculture defeated and buried the Far Right and was able to raise a new generation who had the opportunity to learn from the lessons of the 20th Century, and boldly go where none had gone before in the 21st. This isn't meant to be a segue into politics, just to explain that for where I'm coming from a place most people tragically aren't aware did or could have existed. Like I said, I could write books on this subject, but I will settle for just offering a sampler platter (some of which I've already iterated on other, similar threads here):

    - The Ultimate Truth is Power. Everything has it, everything needs it, and it comes in a myriad of forms. A "Lawful" person is one whose Power comes from an external source. A "Chaotic" person is someone whose Power comes from within. Though understanding by analogy always falls at least a bit short of direct understanding (for the same reason that "you have never experienced Shakespeare until you have read him in the original Klingon") it may help some people to compare what I call "Power" with what Aleister Crowley called "Thelema" - this epiphany came to me when I was 15, and was not familiar with Crowley at the time. Since then, it has proved itself to a working theory in the true scientific sense, in that I have encountered and pitted it against wide array of real-world situations and conditions and thought experiments, and it has consistently come through intact, or at least moreso than models to which it would be necessarily exclusive. There are of course, also models that are fundamentally different but do not come into necessary conflict with this one. Perhaps the greatest challenge to this comes from the fact that it might mean that "Lawful" means "those who follow" and "Chaotic" means "those who lead" - though this is not entirely shocking ("To punish me for my contempt for authority, fate made me an authority myself." - Albert Einstein). Also, not everyone considered a "leader" truly generates their own Power; they feed on power from an external source, and other people feed on them, and they are merely links in a chain of Power - but somewhere, inevitably, there is an original source.

    - There is really no such thing as Order - there is only Chaos at different speeds and in different patterns.

    - I once heard the claim "Law is what makes sense." This was the premise of a spiel given by pathguy.com - an avuncular and noticeably bigoted conservative Christian who nonetheless makes a really neat PLANESCAPE site, as well as several nice online Javascript character generators. However, this premise...makes no sense, since just because something makes sense to you doesn't mean it makes sense to others, AND just because something "makes sense" doesn't mean it's true, AND anything can be made to make sense if you give it the opportunity (though see previous), AND if something doesn't make sense to you, you must ask yourself, "does this not make sense because there's something wrong with IT, or because there's something wrong with ME?"

    - There is a fallacy that lurks in the minds of some (but only some) people that superglues one's views of Law and Chaos in the cosmos to one's views of Law and Chaos in sentient beings. This, I've learned goes back at least as far as the Greek philosopher Anaximander, famous for declaring that "the natural world operates on laws the same way our society does" - nearer our end of history, however, we have the man whom, I'm convinced history will demonstrate soon enough, killed Anaximander: Albert Einstein, who believed in an ordered universe, but who was clearly Chaotic as an individual personality, and even went so far as to utter such blasphemies as "Morality is of the highest importance - but for us, not for God."

    - Anybody who tries to be "chaotic" in order to be "cool" is not being Chaotic at all. Chaotic alignment isn't usually something you choose - at some point, you just realize you'll never be like other people, whether that's what you want or not.

    - It should be noted that alignment as a whole is, to a degree, ex post facto, and the proper way to evaluate an individual's alignment is holistically, rather than going down some checklist. Internal intent and external effect must both be taken into consideration. For instance, there are some people who may try to be Lawful (I think H. P. Lovecraft and The Tick are decent examples), and view themselves as such, but they are so divorced, in practice, from the hivemind of society that they can't help but be Chaotic.

    - As has been alluded to previously, perhaps the most easily recognizable difference between a Lawful person and a Chaotic person is that Lawful people define themselves by some kind of group identity, whereas Chaotic people are lonely outsiders. They may participate or even lead, but they ultimately have no loyalty outside their own consciences. They can do "teamwork" just fine, but they don't do "teamthink."

    - I emphatically disagree with the common assumption that Lawful is "logical mind," while Chaotic is "emotional heart." My observations of the real world and what makes it and the people in it tick, past and present, leaves me quite convinced that that is nothing more than a Victorian stereotype which the human events and scientific revolutions of the 20th Century smashed to smithereens. Having grown up among hippie nerd scientists and intellectuals, and later on having foolishly wasted years of my life trying to understand the mindsets of fascism and fundamentalism (foolish not because I was unsuccessful, but because I was - Cthulhu doesn't scare me; "ordinary people" do), I feel sufficiently comfortable saying that it is, if anything, the other way around. Most (though certainly not all) of what Sigmund Freud taught is now considered wrong; I submit that his id/ego/superego model of the mind, despite many people still believing it on some level (probably just for lack of alternatives) of the mind is one of these wrong things. I am more inclined to view logic and will as the core of an individual, and more the same than not. Irrational emotion, on the other hand, is an external invader/oppressor (think of how the game Asteroids is set up) that can feel "liberating" to some people when in its grasp, but is in fact Order, because you have been deprived of Power over yourself. I should also point out my very recent realization that "emotion" should not be considered as monolithic and uniform in effect and value as is often assumed, and some emotions are just completely different from others. I always assumed I knew what "anger" and "hate" were. I was always completely at a loss as to why some people lie when they're angry. I don't, why should being angry make you stupid? Only recently was I made aware that there is a different kind of "anger/hate" that I've honestly never experienced - some sickening and hideous phenomenon that's like Bane pumping his juices into the back of his head. Needless, to say, whatever's going on here, it falls into the category of "Lawful, irrational, mind-control emotion." Compare this to something that is very different, yet what is what a lot of people first think of when they think of "irrational emotion:" Sadness, specifically the kind that makes you cry. Among other effects, weeping purges your body of generous loads of the stress hormone cortisol. We've all broken down and cried at some point, and what happens when we do? It can be like a veil is lifted. It can make us less afraid, more rational, and more righteous. Also know that emotions are not universal - emotions recognized by some cultures are unknown to others. I'm of the mind that this is not so much that they are not felt, but that language defines and delineates them in different ways. You don't need to have heard of, say bozleegant (and you haven't, because I made it up years ago but have never shared it before now), to have experienced what it means: Exactly how you feel when you realize someone has done you a horrible and completely unjust harm not out of any sort of intent, but complete incompetence - like this. "Frustrated" wouldn't really good enough for this, would it? So bozleegant.

    - Regarding Monks and Barbarians: I've come to the conclusion that their alignment restrictions shouldn't be what they are. You could argue Monks have to be Lawful because they only way they can achieve the training that makes a Monk as we know it a Monk as we know it happens to be by having it drilled into you from outside, but unless we accept that's the case, there's no particular reason a Monk can't be non-Lawful (I might be inclined to say you have to be "any Lawful OR any Chaotic", since you need either extreme discipline OR extreme and uncompromised personal will). Also, within the Pathfinder universe to date, we've already got the Martial Artist Archetype, who has no alignment restriction but also no ki powers, but we also have the Ninja, who has no alignment restrictions but does have ki (and Rogues can unlock it too by way of a particular Talent). Then there's Irori, Golarion's patron god of Monks, who, in spite of being listed as Lawful Neutral and even being included in the "Godsclaw" of Cheliax's Hellknights which is supposed to consist of the 5 most Lawful gods of all, nothing said about Him and his following suggests being Lawful: His faith is famously tolerant, he's one of only *2* of the core deities of Golarion to NOT offer the Heresy Inquisition (the only other one being Cayden Cailean, so what does that tell you?), and of course it takes quite the irreverent, egocentric personality to say "hey, I'm going to figure out how to forge my own path to becoming a f+$~ing GOD," and mean it, and then TOTALLY DO IT. Based on my poring over various D&D books from across its editions, I've also come to the conclusion that the D&D tradition (ever since 1st Edition) of "Monks must be Lawful" is grounded in a misunderstanding of Oriental culture, and the belief that it's substantially more Lawful-leaning than Western culture, which I'm convinced for a variety of reasons is incorrect - comme ci, comme ca, and then some. 2nd Edition's Legends & Lore (it's the equivalent of 3rd Edition's Deities & Demigods, and I recommend it) lists, in it's Chinese pantheon section, Lao Tzu as Lawful Neutral - INCORRECT. I like Taoism, but there's no question it's notoriously difficult to misunderstand, even by the standards of most world religions (after all, "the Tao that can be told is not the true Tao"). I found this view corroborated when I took a few Japanese classes years ago - the teacher was a grad student who was from Japan. He was a very entertaining character who talked about (well, he talked about all kinds of things) how one reason he left Japan for his higher education was because he was disgusted with Japanese people generally being (and this was his word) "sheeple," so he tried coming to America because FREEDOM, YEE-HAW! That's how he found out Americans tend to be "sheeple" too (that's what you get for not brushing up on de Tocqueville beforehand, isn't it? *wags finger*). ANYWAYS, Barbarians: Pathfinder removed the alignment restriction on Bards, yet I would much, much sooner have removed it from Barbarians, which they didn't, or even inverted. As discussed above, I reject the "emotion is Chaotic" meme entirely, and if the rationale for their alignment restriction is the whole Rage thing, I would sooner say they ought to be "any non-Chaotic" rather than "any non-Lawful" (though I'd most likely allow the possibility that they could be any - maybe certain Archetypes would be forced to have alignment restrictions one way or another, but on the whole, a Barbarian could still plenty of room to be properly Chaotic even using my definitions). The other problem with just as the "Monks are Lawful" thing is grounded in misunderstanding Oriental culture, so is the "Barbarians are non-Lawful" thing based on "Western Civilization" misunderstanding itself and other cultures. The fantasy Barbarian is based pretty much entirely on a single fictional character: Conan. I won't go into the myriad roots and historical contexts from which Conan came, nor will I be so clueless as to believe, as some sociologists who embarrass and undermine themselves by shifting from scientists to heirophants might, that the great Robert E. Howard was nothing more than a mere culture-zombie. Anyways, "barbarians" as gamers understand them could be very xenophobic and clannish - very Lawful traits. I think another wholly mistaken reason Barbarians would be considered Chaotic-leaning is their "rural/wilderness" tendencies. The thing is, I think there's a bell-curve on this issue: True hunter-gatherers are what we could call Chaotic (understand if you don't already, Avatar, ponytail-sex aside, is based on anthropological fact), but they'd actually be too gentle to generate people who fight like Conan - they'd be more likely to generate Rangers, Bards, Witches, Sorcerers, 3.5 Scouts, Kobold Quarterly's Elven Archer (Elven race or not, especially appropriate) or (okay, here's one) the 3rd-Party Serene Barbarian. Anyways, once you get more complex than hunter-gatherer lifestyle but still "rural," you go to horticultural, pastoral, agrarian, and it all becomes very, very Lawful very quickly - but should the phenomenon of the large, cosmopolitan urban environment springs up, things start to get WEIRD, and a whole new breed of Chaotic becomes possible. (I'm sorry, did I say I'd settle for offering a sampler platter? I meant I'd settle for nothing less than a multiple-course fondue dinner). Closing the chapter on Monks and Barbarians: Sure you can have Lawful Barbarians. His name's John McCain. Sure you can have Chaotic Monks. His name was Bruce Lee (PBUH): "Using no way as a way, having no limitation as limitation."

    - A Chaotic person neither respects disrespects, trusts, nor fears authority - this is because a truly Chaotic person simply has no concept of "authority."
    Temporary tangent: While this relates to the topic only by more than one step, it is worth nothing that teachers (unless they're crummy teachers who got into it for the wrong reasons) ARE NOT AUTHORITY FIGURES, and it is, in fact, an insult with widely damaging repercussions to refer to them as such. I once got into a very nasty fight with someone who was supposedly on the same side as myself regarding the value of teachers, but when she tried to justify the value of "authority figures" in an entirely different context by trying to cite teachers as such, I found myself FURIOUS - not on my behalf, but because I felt she'd insulted teachers. Many of the best friends I had throughout all levels of school were my teachers - many of them were much closer to being my peers than most of my classmates. I came upon a bizarre shock in my senior year of high school (in spite of the background I mentioned above, my family moved to a completely different area when I was 16, and I am, no joke, still dealing with the PTSD from culture shock) when, for the first time in my life, I was called a "conformist" by a classmate (who had always been a jerk to me) - his reasoning being that I wasn't "rebelling" against the teachers. I told him HE was a conformist because he was just like everyone around him, conforming to social norms and devouring corporate-sponsored fads (his thing was skating), and he maintained he was, in his words, "a anti-conformist." I tried to explain to him that teachers weren't something to rebel against, they were there to HELP YOU REBEL. His reaction was quite literally a shocked expression and a spoken "Huh?" I did learn something from the exchange, though: He thought he was rebelling because he didn't think school was anything more than a glorified juvenile hall where kids were kept in storage until they turned 18 and could get jobs. This brings me back to why I think I was so upset when that girl I argued with (that was years later) who called teachers "authority figures" - it is precisely because people are raised to "respect authority" by parents who hope it will make them good students that it actually has the opposite effect. "Disobedience," as Oscar Wilde said, "is man's original virtue" - and people are born, in D&D terms, tending toward Chaotic Good, and no matter how people are raised, there remains deeply buried in almost all minds an intractable ember that reminds people that "authority = bully." However, this not only contradicts the way most people in the modern world (and the past few millennia) are raised, but is an idea with no place in their cosmology, so people get confused, and if they try to "rebel," they find they don't know how to do so properly - all they know how to do is switch from yang to yin, like, in the (not entirely verbatim) words of a semi-friend of mine, "angry Catholic kids who can't escape the fact that they're gay, so they kill their neighbor's dogs and call themselves Satanists, as opposed to real Satanists, who are actually pretty chill people" ("Forgive me, this is becoming a speech." - Jean-Luc Picard). What's more, anyone who knows anything about academia (particularly at the college level, naturally) knows that the best students are usually the deviants and tricksters (which is part of where hatred of "hippies" come from, because of working-class resentment of the people they saw in high school as "goodie two-shoes teacher's pets" coming back from college, acting weird as hell, telling them everything they thought they knew is wrong, and talking like THEY'RE the rebels), and the teachers themselves are, of course, of the same breed. My father, for example, has become a physics professor (the reason for the move I mentioned that was so bad for me) at a university whose present President is a slimy MBA who was handed the position as a political favor, and has been running the school like a corporation (and a badly-run corporation, even then). My father, however, was elected Chairman of the Faculty Senate not long ago, and teamed-up with the resident anthropology professor (who came to America all the way from Germany so she could make a life's work of studying American fascism) wind up launching a revolution. The most recent fruit born has been the removal of one of the most notoriously unworthy administration figures who, among other things, was chasing good teachers away because they refused to be bullied. It all ended with a faculty party held by a professor not normally known for being the sort to enjoy schadenfreude. The toast of the evening? "F*+! the administration!"

    Shadow Lodge

    VM mercenario wrote:

    The problem you seem to have is that you think alignment is based on actions. It's not, it's about motives. It's not what you do, but why you do it.

    Evil can do good actions if they want, usually as cover so people don't get suspicious, or to cut down an evil rival.
    Good can do some evil stuff like killing enemies usually when they hae no other options or the options have much worse consequnces. (paladins are another matter, but theyre supposed to be extreme in their alingnment)
    Lawful can break laws that go against their personal code.
    Chaotic can follow laws, when they make sense to him or when he elieves he will be punished for breaking them.

    Not quite.

    It is in the end about actions. A character that simply fantasizes about killing and torturing people without performing these actions is creepy, but not evil. A character that rounds up and executes all the half-orcs in town because they're "corrupted by evil and bound to kill us all" is not good (and is probably evil).

    But it's about patterns of actions rather than individual acts, and patterns are best understood in light of the why. It's particularly useful if figuring out whether acts that appear against alignment are actually so.

    • Why does the evil character donate to the orphanage? So people won't suspect kindly Mr. Charity of killing that wandering minstrel.

    • Why did the good character kill a helpless person? That person is an unrepentant serial killer who has proved difficult to imprison.

    • Why did the lawful character refuse to doff his hat to the king? His religion requires that he wear a hat at all times, and god's law trumps man's law. (In this case, we wouldn't expect the lawful character to doff his hat when meeting an old friend - this would be chaotic.)

    • Why did the chaotic character cross at the crosswalk? They don't want to get hit by a car. (In this case, we would expect the chaotic character to jaywalk when safe.

    Another way to think of it is that lawful and chaotic characters go through a different thought process when making decisions. A lawful character thinks: "Does this action follow any rules I have decided to live by (applicable laws, moral structures, promises, routines)? Is it harmonious with any structures I am a party of (duty, tradition)? Does it help me to live a more ordered life?" A chaotic character thinks: "Is this action consistent with my greater principles (moral or selfish)? If so, does it agree with my short-term desires or goals? Does it tie me down or in any way restrict my future options?" Sometimes the two will arrive at the same decision, but often they won't, and it's where the two types of thinking lead to different actions that we determine alignment.

    Shadow Lodge

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Haladir wrote:
    I'm going out on a limb, and will likewise say that Law is Hard as well. It's just easier to be chaotic: you don't need a set of rules and principles to follow.

    Oh hell no. As a lawful person, living without rules and principles is scary. If I don't have a schedule my day dissolves into randomness and I don't get anything done. If plan A doesn't work, better pray I have a plan B because no plan is no good.

    I've become better at improvising through long practice, but I'm still in awe of people who seem to improvise effortlessly - who can fit all the pieces in place as they come without planning it out beforehand - because that stuff is hard.


    Weirdo wrote:
    but I'm still in awe of people who seem to improvise effortlessly - who can fit all the pieces in place as they come without planning it out beforehand - because that stuff is hard.

    Chaotic people don't necessarily make all the pieces fit in place. Many chaotic people simply don't care if things work out. Whatever happens, happens.

    And that is much easier than making plans and sticking to schedules.

    Shadow Lodge

    Well, some people make really bad plans & schedules.

    Plus the entire existence of the obstructive bureaucrat proves that law isn't always effective.


    I disagree that seekers of balance end up as Lawful Evil. You can oppose Good or Chaos without being Lawful or Evil. For instance, an expanding LG nation can be curtailed by tariffs, or 'freedom of expression' laws, or general harmless counter-culture groups. If two people are fighting, one in self defense, and the other with murderous intent, I don't automatically need to murder them both to stop the fight.

    Intellectually, it makes no more sense that someone seeking balance through True Neutrality would gravitate away from Neutrality than that someone seeking Good through Law would gravitate towards Chaotic Evil. Which is to say that while you can envision characters that do, such as the paladin or angel that decides that serial killing is the answer to the problem of sin, but it makes more sense to assume that the majority of those who do remain within their alignment.


    Kain Darkwind wrote:
    I disagree that seekers of balance end up as Lawful Evil.

    So do I, but the keeper of balance going mad/turning evil/becoming power hungry is a common trope in sci-fi and fantasy, and I'm sure it has its reasons.

    While the keeper of balance does not have to be systematically evil, it's sure looks like a slippery slope.


    My first experience with "seekers of Balance" neutral was in Greyhawk with the Circle of Eight. In that world there was essentially a Cold War between Evil and Good and the Circle thought it best if this balance was maintained rather than letting either side become dominant.

    It made sense in that context and in that world. Modern game settings are a bit less "Realpolitik" and more traditionally fantasy.


    Laurefindel wrote:
    Kain Darkwind wrote:
    I disagree that seekers of balance end up as Lawful Evil.

    So do I, but the keeper of balance going mad/turning evil/becoming power hungry is a common trope in sci-fi and fantasy, and I'm sure it has its reasons.

    While the keeper of balance does not have to be systematically evil, it's sure looks like a slippery slope.

    No doubt why I included and acknowledged that trope in my post.


    It does seem like most of the time there's a "Balance of Good and Evil" theme in a work, the plot ends up going in the direction of Team Good not actually being good, and Team Evil not actually being evil.

    Usually, the good side somehow turns into a bunch fanatical crusaders doing all kinds of evil things in the name of the The Greater Good, while the evil side stops doing much of anything seriously evil and other than fighting against the "good" guys.

    RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Democratus wrote:
    Weirdo wrote:
    but I'm still in awe of people who seem to improvise effortlessly - who can fit all the pieces in place as they come without planning it out beforehand - because that stuff is hard.

    Chaotic people don't necessarily make all the pieces fit in place. Many chaotic people simply don't care if things work out. Whatever happens, happens.

    And that is much easier than making plans and sticking to schedules.

    Okay, the real truth is that no matter your alignment, those are the actions that are easy for you (my Good is Hard thread was about people 'rounding up' Neutrality to Good. A legitimately Good person will actually feel worse about not helping someone.) A Lawful person feels uncomfortable with disorder. Think of the people you know who clean compulsively: that dirty dish in the sink just bothers them. Such a person has an easier time making a schedule and sticking to it than not having the schedule in the first place. Chaotic people are the opposite.

    (See the second panel in this comic.)

    Verdant Wheel

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Haladir wrote:

    Please-- let's shy away from using real-world religions in this discussion!

    That way lies flame wars and moderator intervention!

    This means we can´t talk about Lamashtu, Pazuzu, or Tiamat in this thread ? Or this limitations is only for religions worshiped in USA ?


    Ross Byers wrote:
    Lawful creatures crave routine, tidiness, predictability.

    I surely hope being Lawful-aligned doesn't make you into this guy...

    Not to mention this would be the way a Lawful-aligned creature would treat his fellow adventurers...

    Lawful Stupid, anyone?


    Moving this post over so I don't necromance that other mess.

    Tacticslion (from the "Village Protector" thread wrote:


    If, on the other hand, she was condemned to death "legally" (though unlawfully)

    By the way, I think this is one of the most insightful phrasings on the nature of law we've had in a while. Just like someone lawful can break the law, things that are done legally are not necessarily lawful.

    Contrast a crime family with a corrupt corporation. The crime family may break the law more, but they may well be much more lawful than CorruptCo or whatever it's called. What matters is that one feels bound to follow their code, while the other uses the legal code, a code—not theirs—as far as it serves their goals.

    Y'know, I have a feeling this one tiny act of necromancy is going to be one of my most regrettable so far.

    RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

    Organized crime is Lawful but not legal. Says so right on the tin.


    (i'm both dotting the thread and popping in to say that i am tickled absolutely pink at seeing a discussion about pathfinder/DnD alignment that didn't cause the thread to suddenly explode into flaming debris)


    Kobold Cleaver wrote:
    Y'know, I have a feeling this one tiny act of necromancy is going to be one of my most regrettable so far.

    Well, when you cast a spell that has the [Evil] descriptor, it will always be an Evil thing to do.

    No matter the circumstances.


    Wrong alignment thread! Wrong alignment thread!


    back in 2E I got this wonderful 3rd party box that had a Law vs. Chaos appocalypse story in it. On the one side you had this force of pure order crytalizing the world in unchanging perfection on the other you had this almost psychic disease of madness and creativity buring through civilizations like wild fire, bringing revolution and invention along with rebellion and destruction.

    I've always kept it in mind when I think aboutthe Law/Chaos axis of the alignment system


    Personally I do not feel mortals can even truly have clearly defined alignments. Humans might prefer one or the other, but nobody wants one-dimensional characters.

    Pure alignment is for proteans and inevitables


    Envall wrote:

    Personally I do not feel mortals can even truly have clearly defined alignments. Humans might prefer one or the other, but nobody wants one-dimensional characters.

    Pure alignment is for proteans and inevitables

    Exactly this. Far too many people see Alignment as some sort of total absolute where every single aspect of the character's personality must be in total compliance with their alignment. Someone with a Lawful alignment cannot do anything that is not ultimate about The Law and Lawfulness. Make sure you brush your teeth with LAW, then eat your breakfast with ORDER!


    Personally I view pure CN group being like Anonymous. There is no real centralized order. There are some generally accepted rules but they are not particularly enforced and they tend sporadically gather together. They can be very vile (/b/) but also very helpful. But they care not about "good" or evil.

    Scarab Sages

    For those interested in history of D&D, In Strategic Review #6, Gary Gygax wrote :"When [the original 3 volumes of D&D] was written [law & good, chaos & evil] meant just about the same thing in my mind — notice I do not say they were synonymous in my thinking at, that time.... had I the opportunity to do D&D over I would have made the whole business very much clearer by differentiating the four categories, and many chaotic creatures would be good, while many lawful creatures would be evil"

    He also gives these synonyms for law & chaos:

    LAW
    Reliability
    Propriety
    Principled
    Righteous
    Regularity
    Regulation
    Methodical
    Uniform
    Predictable
    Prescribed Rules
    Order

    CHAOS
    Unruly
    Confusion
    Turmoil
    Unrestrained
    Random
    Irregular
    Unmethodical
    Unpredictable
    Disordered
    Lawless
    Anarchy

    I don't know how much more I can quote without running afoul of the law, but that is good I think. I was actually hoping to find more such as did he use the wording Law & Chaos from Eastern religions. But then maybe he just got it from other wargames like Warhammer, I am not sure what was around back then.


    I've tended to hold it as:
    Lawful is: society > individual
    Chaos is: individual > society

    But I haven't really played in a game where it mattered all that much. (And I allow Paladins to be non-Lawful.)

    And Moorcock saw both extremes as Evil, one being Entropy and the other Stagnation. It is only in a dynamic stability that existence can truly flourish - i.e., balancing these two forces, always in flux.


    Otherwhere wrote:

    I've tended to hold it as:

    Lawful is: society > individual
    Chaos is: individual > society

    Funny, I see Good and Evil that way.

    Evil is Individualism and Good is Communitarianism
    Of course, the names of Evil and Good mess this up. Yet I have always seen Heaven as an utopian hell. Imagine being stripped away of everything related to being an individual or changing your opinions. How does a human operate in an environment where extreme altruism and dogma are absolute?

    Most of this is probably my make believe, I have not read everything Paizo has written about Golarion and the alignment planes. The same way positive plane will kill you by pumping so much energy in you until you explode, angels are not your friends when you want to indulge yourself in some harmless sin.

    RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

    'Society' has very little to do with it: that's precisely what I'm talking about.

    I agree with Moorcock that both extremes are bad/undesirable (Evil has an overloaded meaning when we're talking about the alignment system.)


    Envall wrote:


    Evil is Individualism

    O.o Not sure if I should be offended or not...


    Ross Byers wrote:

    'Society' has very little to do with it: that's precisely what I'm talking about.

    I agree with Moorcock that both extremes are bad/undesirable (Evil has an overloaded meaning when we're talking about the alignment system.)

    Society = the group. Family; clan; citizens; national identity. Lawful (imo) tend to think along the lines of "What would others do?" or "What benefits the group?" where chaotic tends to be "What do I do?" or "What benefits me?" without regard for: culture; tradition; norms; laws; codes; etc.

    It's group identity vs individual identity. I conform with others because I want to belong to that group. The chaotic individual bases their decisions on their own wants, needs, and desires.

    RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

    I think if you're talking about who 'benefits' you're more likely talking about Good vs. Evil. Good says 'How can I benefit others' and Evil says 'How can others benefit me'.

    Lawful alignments can be perfectly happy being different from the society around them. Conformity can be a Lawful motivator, but its far from the only one.

    Law and Chaos can define benefit differently, though. Law wants stability and predictability. Chaos wants flexibility and options.


    WPharolin wrote:
    Envall wrote:


    Evil is Individualism

    O.o Not sure if I should be offended or not...

    I understand what you mean.

    Individualism is such a huge word with tons of meaning baggage that using it was clumsy, but it best describes what I mean to say. Individualism is evil in pathfinder not because it is evil, but because the values connected to the evil alignment are pretty individualistic.

    Evil characters wish to fulfil their own goals and desires at the expense of others. Good characters wish to fulfil the goals and desires of others at the expense of themselves. This is simplistic way I would put it.


    Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

    The problem with alignments is that it leads to philosophical debate when what most of the players want to do is get on with it and kill some brutish orcs (or beat up townspeople, something like that).

    A good philosophy can sum up an example with a single line, yet doesn't always define it. (good is a kneejerk reaction to help people, evil is a kneejerk reaction to harm random people for profit or entertainment, etc.)

    Ross has a good grasp of how I perceive order and chaos (and I have read a lot of Moorcock's works with Elric, as well as his other fantasy novels).

    Neutral to me is one of two flavors -

    moderation neutral - When one does not feel too strongly on one extreme or another, or moderates between the extremes on purpose.

    wild neutral - When one swings from one extreme to the other as to become unpredictable. Much like a pet animal that might be crazy affectionate one day, and might try biting your toes off the next.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    {watches thread from comfort of Maelstrom beach until the waiter arrives with pizza and margarita shooters}

    101 to 149 of 149 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / On the Nature of Law and Chaos (Or 'Law is not Legal') All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.
    Recent threads in General Discussion