| 33 people marked this as a favorite. |
By popular demand, I am following up on my 'Good is Hard' thread to clear up another common misconception about alignment.
Law is not Legal.
I will say that again. Law is not Legal.
The 'Law' of alignment is a synonym for 'Order'. That is, the opposite of 'Chaos'. I'm not sure where the original use came from. I have two theories. 1) When the game was young and the Good/Evil axis hadn't even been created yet, and the scale of adventures was more like 'inhabitants of one village against the wilderness', it really was more of 'Law vs. anarchy' and it was Chaotic that was misnamed. 2) 'Lawful X' sounds better than 'Orderly X'.
No one (well, very few people) would argue that a Chaotic person is required to break the law, but I constantly see posts in alignment discussions where someone claims that a Lawful person is required to follow the law of the land (whatever land they happen to be in, apparently) or they are violating their alignment. It's absurd on its face. For one thing, it would mean alignment changes at national borders. For another, it would make most Lawful Evil creatures impossible in most civilized lands, which make many Evil acts illegal.
Lawful creatures crave routine, tidiness, predictability. Systems, structures. Even rules and laws - But which rules can vary widely. Some of the worst wars, in the real world and in fiction, are driven by two competing lawful systems trying to prove their superiority to one another.
Lawful followers of any given Lawful god are unlikely to give up their deity just because the King of whatever land they are in bans it.
Pathfinder monks are Lawful because they seek perfection and enlightenment, even if they aren't a member of a larger order or temple. They follow a regimen of exercises, meditation, kata (themselves orderly patterns). That doesn't mean they give two ticks about the local sherrif, unless said sherrif tries to interrupt their morning contemplation.
Well said.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am currently plotting a third installment in this series, which is more of an overall discussion of the alignment system and its place in the cosmology of the game. I realized I was exceeding the scope of this article.
about to start show, dotting for later...
For the title of your next article I humbly suggest "Neutral New Troll (or The Extreme Balance of Middlingly Tipping the Scales)"
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was thinking more like 'On the Nature of Alignment (Or 'How to stuff human behavior into nine boxes')'
This is a fairly interesting website on Dnd-style alignments:
http://easydamus.com/alignmentreal.html
Law = conformity and security
Law is not Legal
(...)
Lawful creatures crave routine, tidiness, predictability. Systems, routines. Even rules and laws - But which rules can vary widely
Good post.
I'm glad you didn't go the "LAW is community" route, because it would have muddied the "good is hard" principle. With Law as order, community becomes a product and not an intrinsic definition.
However, this still leaves me a bit struggling with what is chaos, other than the absence of order. Can an alignment be defined by the absence of the other, or should the absence be neutrality?
I also like this interpretation because it allows non-lawful (even chaotic) character to adhere to a code of honour, only the reasons behind the code will be different (a paladin could see it as a fail-safe against his own frustrations/sinful thoughts while a barbarian might see it as a willful 'handicap' to prove his worthiness).
Very cool start.
As an aside, as to the origin, I seem to recall the original Law vs. Chaos stuff in D&D was attributed to the influence of Michael Moorcock's books.
-TimD
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder monks are Lawful because they seek...
And Pathfinder Elves are Chaotic and they seek perfection and enlightenment and favor the rigorous study to become wizards.
Law and Chaos can be argued to mean anything.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always felt that the Law/Chaos dichotomy was a bit confused, because it blended both local and cosmis concepts.
Lawful often includes things such as:
- local laws
- cosmic laws
- order in the cosmos
- civilization
- ends don't justify the means
- knowing your place
- surrendering individual freedom to society
- rationality
- honor
- deferring to another's greater wisdom
Chaos has been associated with:
- individual freedom
- instinct
- your own conscience instead of external morality
- primordial soup, the original chaos from which an ordered cosmos once sprang
- wilderness
- primitive, uncivilized societies
- individual honor instead of rules
- keeping your own promises, but not feeling bound by what other people promised on your behalf, but without your consent
- thinking for yourself
Note how being honorable shows up in both lists.
I like the civilization/wilderness theme, the laws/conscience theme and the cosmic order/primordial soup theme, but I think they're sufficiently separate concepts that they fit poorly into one alignment axis.
Really, I think Law/Chaos is a much muddier aspect of the alignment system than good/evil.
I've heard that once upon a time, before Good/Evil got introduced, Chaos was the bad side, but that it's been gradually re-styled to be a more ambiguous, not necessarily bad thing. And yet it feels like LG is somehow considered to be superior to CG in some way.
Ascalphus - Check out Moorcock's Stormbringer/Elric of Melnibone series at some point for the backdrop on how D&D alignment came to be. Indeed, Chaos was the antagonist - although the protagonist was an agent of chaos himself, so it naturally gets kind of muddy. (Though that goes back, I would argue, to the concept that Chaos does not equal Evil.)
I'd say that stepping into a role of such authority would change a person quite a bit. While the person is a revolutionary, they are very much about chaos. Then they experience a period of transition when they become chief, and change accordingly. That doesn't mean they instantly turn lawful. I'd still describe some rulers as chaotic - like the dictator who runs everything according to his whim. I'd say there are more balanced (neutral) leaders our there as well. A republic style of government seems to invite a somewhat chaotic mindset just because of all the wheeling and dealing going on to get things done.
Interesting article Ross. The more I think about it, the more I think that the Law/Chaos axis is a poor method of defining things. I'm temped to just have a good/evil axis in my games.
What alignment is a revolutionary who leads an insurrection to overthrow an existing Lawful government to replace it with an even more ordered, but different type of authoritarian government?
E.g. a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary who overthrows the Lawful monarchical state to create a Lawful communist state. Surely he can't be Chaotic.
I don't think insurrection is inherently Chaotic, especially if the goal is to install a better (from his perspective) style of Order. Now, if he goes about it in a non-Lawful manner, that would change things.
Interesting. Prefer this one to your good is hard (oh the double entendras) thread.
Pathfinder monks are Lawful because they seek...And Pathfinder Elves are Chaotic and they seek perfection and enlightenment and favor the rigorous study to become wizards.
Law and Chaos can be argued to mean anything.
Don't know where you are getting this from.
Here's what I see in the RAW under alignment: Elves are emotional and capricious, yet value kindness and beauty. Most elves are chaotic good, wishing all creatures to be safe and happy, but unwilling to sacrifice personal freedom or choice to accomplish such goals.
There could certainly be exceptions to the rule, with wizards who engage in rigorous study. But the majority of Elves are just NPCs with appropriate classes.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think people get confused by alignment because they think it dictates what you do. Alignment is not what you do, it is WHY you do it. Two people of opposite alignment might do the same thing in a given situation, they will just have different reasons for doing so.
A lawful person sees an elderly couple struggling with their groceries. He helps them home because it is tradition to honor ones elders. A chaotic person sees the same couple and on a whim, decides to help them because it makes him feel good.
I've often seen Lawful as an abnegation of individual rights over the needs of others. A place for everything and everything in its place: including people.
The Lawful Neutral character could easily accept slavery as an institution so long as it didn't involve excessive cruelty. Freedom isn't, in itself, a desirable end. A well functioning world is more important.
Of course, there's lots of ways to see Lawful. But this one seems to be the easiest to then set up Chaos as an opposition; where Chaos is the valuing of an individual's freedom as a goal in and of itself.
I think people get confused by alignment because they think it dictates what you do. Alignment is not what you do, it is WHY you do it. Two people of opposite alignment might do the same thing in a given situation, they will just have different reasons for doing so.
A lawful person sees an elderly couple struggling with their groceries. He helps them home because it is tradition to honor ones elders. A chaotic person sees the same couple and on a whim, decides to help them because it makes him feel good.
Have to agree here. One of my number one gaming pet peeves is people trying to base a character's actions on their alignment. I'm pretty sure I would like the alignment system a lot more if I'd never heard a GM or another player tell someone "Your Character would not perform Act X because it is not the Alignment Y thing to do."
I think it's worth noting here that Irori's Sacred Order of Archivists is essentially rebelling against censorship in Cheliax and elsewhere, circulating illegal pamphlets and posters.
However, this still leaves me a bit struggling with what is chaos, other than the absence of order. Can an alignment be defined by the absence of the other, or should the absence be neutrality?
The absence of the other is Neutrality: As I pointed out in the other thread, Good is more than not-Evil, and Evil is worse than not-Good.
I apologize in advance for articulating chaos poorly: I'm of a Lawful bent myself, so I don't fully understand its opposite.
Law favors tradition and routine. Chaos thinks routine is boring and traditions arbitrary.
Law is willing to take "we've always done it that way" as an answer, as long as it keeps working. Chaos thinks that's a load of crap.
Law says "Kids these days". Chaos says "The future is going to be awesome!"
If you've seen the Lego Movie, Lord Business was Lawful, while the Master Builders were Chaotic.
I'll go into this in more detail in the next big essay post, which is currently looking very large.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm temped to just have a good/evil axis in my games.
That wouldn't be too hard: Law/chaos is a neglected axis in game design, mostly because it is safer to assume PCs prefer Good to Evil than a preference on Law and Chaos. (For instance, a Good sword hurts demons and qlippoth, but a Lawful sword won't penetrate their DR.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What alignment is a revolutionary who leads an insurrection to overthrow an existing Lawful government to replace it with an even more ordered, but different type of authoritarian government?
E.g. a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary who overthrows the Lawful monarchical state to create a Lawful communist state. Surely he can't be Chaotic.
That's still Lawful.
A revolutionary seeking anarchy or 'tear down the system, anything else would be better' kind of things are Chaotic. But 'my government is better than your government' is usually a Law-on-Law conflict.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What alignment is a revolutionary who leads an insurrection to overthrow an existing Lawful government to replace it with an even more ordered, but different type of authoritarian government?
As I understand Ross's OP, the revolutionary can be of any alignment, and all alignment makes him/her just as likely a revolutionary.
Only, the Lawful revolutionary will make use of planning, strategies involving cohesive units, use rigorous tactics, might impose discipline withing his revolutionary troops etc. His goal will more likely be to build/install another regime rather than simply overthrow the previous one, and his motivations to do so will be more a result of his Good/Evil axis than Law/Chaos.
I'm interpreting the OP here, but "Law is not Legal" means that being lawful is not about your relationship with who is in charge, not about obedience or refusal. Obedience might be a lawful trait, but it doesn't make lawful = obedience.
[edit] ninja'd by Ross
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm temped to just have a good/evil axis in my games.That wouldn't be too hard: Law/chaos is a neglected axis in game design, mostly because it is safer to assume PCs prefer Good to Evil than a preference on Law and Chaos. (For instance, a Good sword hurts demons and qlippoth, but a Lawful sword won't penetrate their DR.)
One difference between Law/Chaos and Good/Evil is that seeking a balance between Law and Chaos is posited by Moorcock as the most rational thing a person can do, whereas consciously seeking a balance between good and evil is seen as insane by most people. Most characters I have seen or played who are neutral on the Good/Evil axis would better be described as not giving any priority to good/evil considerations.
The absence of the other is Neutrality: As I pointed out in the other thread, Good is more than not-Evil, and Evil is worse than not-Good.
Excellent, so evil is not simply not-good, therefore chaos is more than just not-law. Good basis to clarify.
Good can easily become muddled with good, especially around the harmony in community concept. Chaos can equally be muddled with evil, especially around the "about/for myself" theme.
Law favors tradition and routine. Chaos thinks routine is boring and traditions arbitrary.
I think I would go as far as saying law takes comfort in routine, chaos suffer discomfort in routines.
Traditions is always a touchy aspect of Law/Chaos, as most civilization labeled as chaotic (elves, orcs, typical barbarian tribes etc) are typically described as followers of traditions rather than laws.
Again, perhaps the so called chaotic society aren't as chaotic as we were led to believe the same way good societies aren't that good after all. But I think that traditions aren't wholly a construct of law but of cultural identity.
If you've seen the Lego Movie...
did I ever!
...Lord Business was Lawful, while the Master Builders were Chaotic.
Tough analogy, as Lego are very Cartesian, orderly concepts and the master builders were basically individual able to see how part can be ordered together to create things. Batman only builds in black; that's a rather lawful paradigm. But only addressing the Lord business = regulate everything to the point of freezing everyone in time vs master builders = every individual is free to create whatever they like, I can see the analogy.
Traditions is always a touchy aspect of Law/Chaos, as most civilization labeled as chaotic (elves, orcs, typical barbarian tribes etc) are typically described as followers of traditions rather than laws.
Chaos prefers 'guidelines' to rules, if that makes sense? That's a different sense of tradition. Chaos in uncomfortable with stark, sharp edges.
Law likes traditions in the sense of 'We have this festival every year, on the same date, and we do the same things in that festival as the year before, because that is what you do for that holiday'.
I think I would go as far as saying law takes comfort in routine, chaos suffer discomfort in routines.
Yes.
Tough analogy, as Lego are very Cartesian, orderly concepts and the master builders were basically individual able to see how part can be ordered together to create things. Batman only builds in black; that's a rather lawful paradigm. But only addressing the Lord business = regulate everything to the point of freezing everyone in time vs master builders = every individual is free to create whatever they like, I can see the analogy.
Legos are bricks, but the point of the master builders was that they could build anything they wanted out of anything else. It doesn't matter that was once a manhole cover: now it's a motorcycle wheel. They didn't cooperate that well (e.g. the submarine).
Wouldn't Chaos also chafe under guidelines? Aren't guidelines simply less defined rules? (or am i misunderstanding your meaning of guidelines?)
I'd think a Chaotic person thrives in an environment of free-form. No rules gives them the freedom to come up with the perfect solution to any problem.
Traditions is always a touchy aspect of Law/Chaos, as most civilization labeled as chaotic (elves, orcs, typical barbarian tribes etc) are typically described as followers of traditions rather than laws.Chaos prefers 'guidelines' to rules, if that makes sense?
Yes it does. That would be the difference between "Max speed 60mph" and "drive at a safe speed".
Chaos will understand the reasoning but will feel more comfortable interpreting the rule to his/her reality.
If my last post is correct (big if), I'd suggest a Chaotic society is one that is constantly reinventing itself (at least to some extent). Their motto would be, "Don't like something? Stick around a week, it's bound to be different then."
I guess each Chaotic society would have to have some agreed-upon values, but beyond that, shouldn't everything be up for grabs?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wouldn't Chaos also chafe under guidelines? Aren't guidelines simply less defined rules? (or am i misunderstanding your meaning of guidelines?)
I'd think a Chaotic person thrives in an environment of free-form. No rules gives them the freedom to come up with the perfect solution to any problem.
Yes and yes. But a society, by necessity, has to have some rules.
But a Lawful society will have rules like "Theft (defined as such and such) is a class 2 felony, punishable by not less than 2 and not more than 5 years of hard labor.", while a Chaotic society has rules more like "Stealing is bad, mmkay? It bothers the person you stole from and we might have to punish you for it."
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess each Chaotic society would have to have some agreed-upon values, but beyond that, shouldn't everything be up for grabs?
The difference being that the things Chaotics agree on are agreed because they have been up for grabs and never been taken down. Not because 'it has always been this way' but because 'it is provably right' in their eyes. Lawful societies codify common sense, Chaotic societies just use it. Which leads to Lawful societies enforcing things that are no longer common sense, and Chaotic societies arguing about what is common sense.
Legos are bricks, but the point of the master builders was that they could build anything they wanted out of anything else. It doesn't matter that was once a manhole cover: now it's a motorcycle wheel. They didn't cooperate that well (e.g. the submarine).
This foreshadows the concept of creativity.
Last time, I timidly attempted to describe Chaos as freedom, creativity and heart (as opposed to mind) and Law as organization, conditioning and mind (as opposed to heart), I nearly got flayed (OK, I'm exaggerating but lets say many disagreed)
I guess each Chaotic society would have to have some agreed-upon values, but beyond that, shouldn't everything be up for grabs?The difference being that the things Chaotics agree on are agreed because they have been up for grabs and never been taken down. Not because 'it has always been this way' but because 'it is provably right' in their eyes. Lawful societies codify common sense, Chaotic societies just use it. Which leads to Lawful societies enforcing things that are no longer common sense, and Chaotic societies arguing about what is common sense.
That is a great way to put it. Thanks, TOZ.
Chaos prefers 'guidelines' to rules, if that makes sense? That's a different sense of tradition. Chaos in uncomfortable with stark, sharp edges.
I'm now reminded of the Pirate Code from the Pirates of the Carribean movies. There are rules which provide some useful bits of structure, but the instant their usefulness is outlived, toss them out the window.
Hmm, another thought that occurs, chaotic folks care more about the spirit of the law than the letter of it, and tend to believe a lot more in every problem needing to be looked at as a unique situation rather than trying to come up with a general guideline. So, for an issue like legal drinking age a Lawful society would say "Once someone's X years old" while a Chaotic one would say "Once someone's mature enough to handle it." Same general idea, but different approaches to seeing it implemented.
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".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Law is not Legal
(...)
However, this still leaves me a bit struggling with what is chaos, other than the absence of order.
As was touched on in the OP, I believe Chaos was originally a force opposed to civilization in early D&D. For this purpose chaos = savagery or barbarism. To use Frog God as an example, the followers of Orcus are chaotic because they want to destroy civilization. Likewise in Pathfinder think of the followers of Rovagug. They want to destroy civilization. They can still form groups, have rules or hierarchies but the purpose of these groups is to destroy not build.
This has evolved into Chaos = a distaste for order because order is the basis of civilization. At least that is my take on it.
I used to game with a guy who played quite a few CN characters, and some GC who might as well have been CN. He didn't play it exactly as the version of CN we all hate where the player does anything they choose, acting evil or good on whim, using alignment as the excuse. Rather, he had his own personal variation on it that drove us crazy without actually causing us to eject him from the game. He was an excellent role-player, and often brought out better role-playing in the other players. It was frustrating because these CN characters were quite unpredictable.
One day he decides he will play a LN character - one with his own personal code of right and wrong, having little to do with good and evil. The interesting thing was that in his version of LN, he was actually able to perform acts that were as diverse as those of his CN characters, and all of it was within the guidelines of his personal code. The rationale for all this, the one difference aside from being less unpredictable, was that his personal code was written down.
:)
I would love to see that code.
Legos are bricks, but the point of the master builders was that they could build anything they wanted out of anything else. It doesn't matter that was once a manhole cover: now it's a motorcycle wheel. They didn't cooperate that well (e.g. the submarine).This foreshadows the concept of creativity.
Last time, I timidly attempted to describe Chaos as freedom, creativity and heart (as opposed to mind) and Law as organization, conditioning and mind (as opposed to heart), I nearly got flayed (OK, I'm exaggerating but lets say many disagreed)
I actually don't think this is far off. Absolute law would preclude freedom and creativity. I'm less sure about "heart". I know this is difficult for some to hear but extreme law can lead to tyranny just like extreme chaos can lead to savagery. But in the middle you get freedom and creativity.
What alignment is a revolutionary who leads an insurrection to overthrow an existing Lawful government to replace it with an even more ordered, but different type of authoritarian government?
E.g. a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary who overthrows the Lawful monarchical state to create a Lawful communist state. Surely he can't be Chaotic.
No he would be laweful, over throwing a legitimate authority does not make the act itself un-laweful in an alignment sense.
Generally, in film and fiction marist revolutionaries are depicted as following order. they gather people together they give speaches, they hand out pamflets explaining their positions on hatever is the issue of the day. Essentially, wether you agree with their position or not their methods should be predictable or follow logical patterns (even if those patterns only make sense after the fact)
Essentially, the essense of a workers party (on paper at least) is to work with others as a group with the common sharded experiences of toil.
In short, a Laweful revolutionary who actively plans to over throw a govorment likely has details of how the govorment is going o be replaced, how the positions of authority are going to be handed out etc etc.
A chaotic one may simply want to destabilize the govorment, with no plans for a replacemet or any long term goals beyond 'hating the system'.
|
If you want to know what a chaotic good society would be, study Brazilian government. People follow only the laws that they want (even politicians), all the laws are open to wildly different interpretations, there laws that never "catched up" and are not enforced, people goes more on the spirit of what they feel there would be the worth laws over what is better for society, and there it goes.