| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Something that bugged me in Pathfinder is that there didn't ever seem to be an actual meaningful difference between Law and Chaos other than types and descriptors for creatures and spells. Someone could do almost anything and give a reasonable argument for it to be either a lawful or a chaotic act. So, what is the value in even having that alignment axis? Does it ever inform what your character would do in a situation?
At least with good vs evil, you can make some baselines. Doing something that lessens you to benefit others is good. Doing something that lessens others to benefit yourself is evil. And then there are lots of shades of grey based around those two baselines, so while it can still be confusing, at least there is some firm ground to stand on.
I wish they would embrace/implement the Law/Chaos axis as much as the easier Good/Evil.
What would that look like?
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Law and Chaos are useful to reflect the huge differences even people with the same goals can have in regards to how those goals should be achieved. In a lot of ways the Good/Evil axis is about ends while the Law/Chaos axis is about means. That's not an inviolable rule (torture as a means is Evil, no matter the ends), but it's a pretty good general guideline.
They also delineate a very real difference between many real world cultures and moralities with collectivism equating to Law and individualism equating to Chaos. Those are very real philosophies that many people follow to one degree or another, and particularly if you're gonna give nations or deities Alignments (which is useful), are probably even more informative regarding those people, cultures, and deities behaviors than whether they are Good or Evil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Law and Chaos are useful to reflect the huge differences even people with the same goals can have in regards to how those goals should be achieved. In a lot of ways the Good/Evil axis is about ends while the Law/Chaos axis is about means. That's not an inviolable rule (torture as a means is Evil, no matter the ends), but it's a pretty good general guideline.
They also delineate a very real difference between many real world cultures and moralities with collectivism equating to Law and individualism equating to Chaos. Those are very real philosophies that many people follow to one degree or another, and particularly if you're gonna give nations or deities Alignments (which is useful), are probably even more informative regarding those people, cultures, and deities behaviors than whether they are Good or Evil.
But I don't think Law and Chaos actually do what you want them to do, at least not in P1. There are plenty of solitary Lawful creatures and community-based Chaotic creatures. Even demons, creatures with the chaotic subtype, are known to form large armies, so clearly chaos has no problem with collectivism.
Conflict between LG and CG more pronounced, pure Law being defined by LN and pure Chaos being defined by CN, more distinctiveness and flavour to Chaotic and Lawful BBEGs, not just the classic Good and Evil. As it seems the Evil tag is in the game, I want the other 3 (4?).I wish they would embrace/implement the Law/Chaos axis as much as the easier Good/Evil.What would that look like?
That might be good, but my argument here is that there is no such thing as an actual difference between Law and Chaos. And more importantly, what would the difference look like if there was one.
|
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
But I don't think Law and Chaos actually do what you want them to do, at least not in P1. There are plenty of solitary Lawful creatures and community-based Chaotic creatures. Even demons, creatures with the chaotic subtype, are known to form large armies, so clearly chaos has no problem with collectivism.
You need to re-read what individualism and collectivism are. Individualism isn't about being alone and collectivism isn't about being in a group, both are about the ways in which it is appropriate to organize groups and what the goals of such organization should be. A collectivist group believes in prioritizing the good/efficiency of the group while an individualist one prioritizes the good/freedom of individual members.
The United States is widely considered a very individualist country (at least in political principle), for example (certainly as compared to, say, China). The United States nonetheless has an army.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
my argument here is that there is no such thing as an actual difference between Law and Chaos. And more importantly, what would the difference look like if there was one.Their difference is in how their beliefs about restrictions affect their actions. Law believes that restrictions imposed upon us, either by ourselves or by others, are the only thing separating us from animals. That everyone live in accordance with the proper set of restrictions (laws, traditions, oaths, etc.) is the goal of Law.
Chaos believes that people cannot be themselves unless they are free. All of people's problems and dilemmas ultimately spring from the artificial limitation of their choices. The only restrictions anyone should ever be under are those imposed by themselves. The triumph of the unfettered individual will (even if only their own) is the goal of Chaos.
Lawful characters don't have to follow laws though. Just ask your local monk. And chaotic characters have slaves all the time, so limitations aren't that important to them.
But I don't think Law and Chaos actually do what you want them to do, at least not in P1. There are plenty of solitary Lawful creatures and community-based Chaotic creatures. Even demons, creatures with the chaotic subtype, are known to form large armies, so clearly chaos has no problem with collectivism.You need to re-read what individualism and collectivism are. Individualism isn't about being alone and collectivism isn't about being in a group, both are about the ways in which it is appropriate to organize groups and what the goals of such organization should be. A collectivist group believes in prioritizing the good/efficiency of the group while an individualist one prioritizes the good/freedom of individual members.
The United States is widely considered a very individualist country (at least in political principle), for example (certainly as compared to, say, China). The United States nonetheless has an army.
Do you realize you are using definitions of Good to try to describe what you think Law and Chaos are? But Law and Chaos should be independent of Good and Evil shouldn't it?
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lawful characters don't have to follow laws though. Just ask your local monk.
Sure, but you get a promise from someone Lawful, it's pretty binding.
And chaotic characters have slaves all the time, so limitations aren't that important to them.
Evil (and some Neutral) versions of any Alignment tend to be very self centered. CE people thus care about their freedom, not that of others.
Lawful characters don't have to follow laws though. Just ask your local monk.Sure, but you get a promise from someone Lawful, it's pretty binding.
Maybe. I guess we could maybe say Law and Chaos is just your likelihood to keep promises. But is that worth a whole alignment?
And chaotic characters have slaves all the time, so limitations aren't that important to them.Evil (and some Neutral) versions of any Alignment tend to be very self centered. CE people thus care about their freedom, not that of others.
But that doesn't inform what the CE character does, so where is the value? Almost every creature, including lawful ones, will seek to be free.
Do you realize you are using definitions of Good to try to describe what you think Law and Chaos are? But Law and Chaos should be independent of Good and Evil shouldn't it?That was a lower case 'good' there, nothing to do with the Alignment.
I'd argue that it is also capital Good. It's about putting others needs ahead of your own, or your own needs ahead of others.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe. I guess we could maybe say Law and Chaos is just your likelihood to keep promises. But is that worth a whole alignment?
That's hardly the only thing you can tell by looking at a character's Alignment.
But that doesn't inform what the CE character does, so where is the value? Almost every creature, including lawful ones, will seek to be free.
A LE person is much more likely to be willing to work as a subordinate than a CE one, generally speaking. CE people tend to be almost obsessive about not being controlled.
Law and Chaos are not monoliths. Monks don't necessarily follow laws, but they believe in restrictions. They've chosen a monastic lifestyle and follow monastic traditions. They are restricted in what they do and how they live because they believe that it's the path to a kind of enlightenment.
Lawful characters don't have to follow laws though. Just ask your local monk. And chaotic characters have slaves all the time, so limitations aren't that important to them.
I mean, how often have you ever met a monk in a monastary? How often have you seen a monk following monastic traditions? Now this may just be a failure of the monk, but the monk's lawful restrictions never seem to affect what he does in game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lawful characters believe in the value of consistency for the most part, from what I understand. Whether they be LG or LE, they value rules and knowing what'll happen next. Demons, Inevitables, and Archons all show this, favoring highly organized systems. Monks place rules upon themselves, remaining consistent themselves and thus 'improving' themselves.
|
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd argue that it is also capital Good. It's about putting others needs ahead of your own, or your own needs ahead of others.
Nope!
Someone CG thinks that society should protect the rights of the individual above basically all things because that's what they believe results in the greatest Good for everyone.
Someone LG, meanwhile, has a more collectivist view and believes that things like say, involuntary military service or high taxes on fairly earned income, are necessary in order to make society work best for everyone.
Someone NG sees value in both perspectives and tries to arrange something between those two extremes.
All are prioritizing the Good of everyone (that's what Good people do), they're just doing it in different ways and guided by different definitions of what's best for everyone.
I could do a similar layout for Neutral or Evil people as well, and the differences would be similar, the core goal would just be something different (remember, the Evil-Good axis is about goals while the Law-Chaos one is about means).
I honestly have trouble telling the difference between NG and CG in practice, unless I look at someone's character sheet. Since both are in the sort of place where they break the rules when it suits them, in order to create the greatest good. I'm not really sure these are actually different alignments, really.
|
|
I honestly have trouble telling the difference between NG and CG in practice, unless I look at someone's character sheet. Since both are in the sort of place where they break the rules when it suits them, in order to create the greatest good. I'm not really sure these are actually different alignments, really.
CG tends to be more focused on the 'freedom for freedom's sake' aspects IME, as well as less willing to bow to random authority figures.
But there's definitely a bit of overlap. There's much less with the Lawful Alignments, though.
That might be good, but my argument here is that there is no such thing as an actual difference between Law and Chaos.Wild, what is your argument for Law and Chaos being one and the same?
I've kind of already said it. A character can do anything and claim they are doing it for lawful/neutral/chaotic reasons.
Free slaves: Because of my code / Either / For freedom
Serve in an army: For my people / Either / For myself
Steal treasure from innocents: For the greater good / Either / Why not
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of my problems with the 4-Axes is that Law/Chaos is more often than not subserviated or marginalized to Good/Evil, which does a massive disservice to Law/Chaos.
That might be good, but my argument here is that there is no such thing as an actual difference between Law and Chaos. And more importantly, what would the difference look like if there was one.
I would argue that in terms of D&D terminology, Law/Chaos was a far more important concern in the mythos of ancient cultures than Good/Evil, though "Law" does have a presumed positive value judgment and, likewise, "Chaos" a negative one. There is a reason why the motif of the Chaoskampf is so preeminent in a lot of ancient mythologies. "Order" was closely associated with "Creation." This is particularly clear in Genesis 1 creation account where establishing order from chaos /is/ creation. Dieties in Canaanite, Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Greco-Roman mythologies are frequently depicted as forces that triumph over the cosmological forces of chaos (often personified in rival dieties/titans/etc.) to establish creation through order.
The inverse of order and creation can likewise be seen in the Noahide/Great Deluge account where "Chaos" is a symptom of human failure in their obligation to preserve "order" in the world, thus letting the world fall to violence, entropic corruption, and decadence. Pure "chaos" is a lack of "creation." Here, there are close parallels between the cosmological Chaoskampf of creation/order constantly combating entropic un-creation and the human activity of civilization-making combating the wilderness. And here, kings and priests were frequently envisioned as contributors to the preservation of "order, law, creation" in this Chaoskampf. (There is a positive value to "Law" over against "Chaos" because it preserves the things that these ancient cultures valued: life, civilization, cities, stability/peace.*
* Here wars are often envisioned as rulers establishing greater peace, stability, etc. for their realms. This is even depicted commonly in a lot of the iconography, monuments, etc. that commemorate military victories over rebellions or foreign powers. Gardens (and zoos) are frequently symbols rulers use to show their propriety for rulership through their mastery over the chaotic wilderness, establishing a beautific order. Likewise, depictions of rulers hunting conveys a similar Chaosmotif of a "civilized ruler" defeating the wilderness and/or placating chaotic forces.
In this schema, I have found several useful analogies to teach the ancient sense of Law/Creation and Chaos/Entropy: your room or your personal hygiene. "Creation" procedes out of establishing order to your body or room. You maintain its well-kept appearance. You ensure that it continues thriving. You can find things easily in your room, because they have a place. Your hair and teeth are regularly cleaned and proporly groomed. "Chaos" is what happens when you fail to maintain order and allow that your room and/or hygiene to fall into disarray.
If you are potentially looking for a game setting that conveys Law/Chaos well, then I cannot recommend Tekumel/Empire of the Petal Rose enough. The deities are aligned primarily in terms of the Gods of Stability and the Gods of Change.
The fact that someone disingenuous can justify many behaviors with anything from Lawful to Chaotic does not make them actually similar.
It doesn't have to be disingenuous though. And that's the problem. You can literally do anything and call it whichever you want, mostly because going by your own code counts as being lawful. Heck, it could be part of my code to never keep a promise, and it'd be lawful.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Law sets up a structure to reproduce something over and over again. Law is a machine that stamps out widgets all day long. It is a bureaucracy. It is a group that follows laws and says no one is above those laws. Advancement in a lawful society involves working your way through a set regimented ladder of promotions and advancements. In its best forms it provides assurances of a regular paycheck and organizations you can depend upon. In its worst forms it is soul crushing, not allowing for any individuality.
Chaos does as it feels at that moment. There is little repetition, keeping it fresh and exciting. Chaos is a unique object, never reproduced again. Chaos is not dependable because there is no predictability to it. Chaos is a system of government of might makes right, of the strong leading the weak. Making gains in a chaotic organization involves taking what you want whether the person that currently owns it wants to give it or not. In its best form, chaos lets people do as they choose, free to enjoy life when you are not providing for your basic needs. In its worst forms it is the strong oppressing the weak, leaving those that cannot fight back in slavery.
My own take is a little different.
Characters of a Lawful alignment have deducible codes of behaviour that they consider inviolate. If their code appears contradictory, they will try to use logic to resolve it.
But that doesn't actually effect what they do, just that they need to justify it.
Characters of a Chaotic alignment are more arbitrary doing whatever seems right at the time. If this appears to result in a coherent pattern, they consider it coincidence.
That would imply that chaotic characters can't plan, which can't be true.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To add my two cents and maybe ideas from another system (Victoriana)
Law and Chaos both tend to influence the world in their wished image.
Law brings order, structure, lets community thrive and brings a world of reason without suffering or crimes.
Chaos brings creativity, creation, novelity and everything beautiful.
These are the points each site views as what matters, but of course both sides have their counterpoints.
A world of Law and perfect order would be boring, basically everyone would be a biological robot doing the same every day for all eternity. Nothing new, no changes, never anything.
Chaos on the other side brings anarchy, everyone does as he wants and in the end would lead to the reality as we know unravel into pure chaos
so the key is balance but no one wants to admit it :P
I like this system and sometimes use it as general guideline for my pf games
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you realize you are using definitions of Good to try to describe what you think Law and Chaos are? But Law and Chaos should be independent of Good and Evil shouldn't it?
Not really. Collectivism is Lawful. Now, it can be like in Sweden, which would be LG, or Soviet Russia, which I think it is LE.
Individualism is Chaotic. It can be Chaotic good, like US Constitution founding fathers, or CE, like Somalia pirates and warlords.
My personal preference would be to do away with personal codes and "freedom" in regards to Law and Chaos. Those seem to be what is most likely to break the axis in my opinion.
If you are lawful, then you want and respect laws and order. If the laws go against your other beliefs, then you work within the laws to change those laws. If you are something like a monk, then in addition to regional laws, your monastery should also have it's own tenets similar to the paladin code. Basically, every lawful organization should have its own set tenets.
If you are chaotic, then you prefer less laws and order, and you may desire to break laws and order just because they are there. You can work with others if needed, but would prefer doing everything yourself.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Law sets up a structure to reproduce something over and over again. Law is a machine that stamps out widgets all day long. It is a bureaucracy. It is a group that follows laws and says no one is above those laws. Advancement in a lawful society involves working your way through a set regimented ladder of promotions and advancements. In its best forms it provides assurances of a regular paycheck and organizations you can depend upon. In its worst forms it is soul crushing, not allowing for any individuality.
Chaos does as it feels at that moment. There is little repetition, keeping it fresh and exciting. Chaos is a unique object, never reproduced again. Chaos is not dependable because there is no predictability to it. Chaos is a system of government of might makes right, of the strong leading the weak. Making gains in a chaotic organization involves taking what you want whether the person that currently owns it wants to give it or not. In its best form, chaos lets people do as they choose, free to enjoy life when you are not providing for your basic needs. In its worst forms it is the strong oppressing the weak, leaving those that cannot fight back in slavery.
I like these descriptions on the differences, Dale.
@op When determining whether my character fits on axis or the other I look at the total of their means and methods. A chaotic guy can follow the rules and a lawful guy can break them. Its what the sum total of their actions combined with their philosophical outlook equals. Not always, but often, I dont really know where my character lands until I've gotten a number of sessions and levels under my belt. It can also be fluid and change a time or two during a campaign. However, its always on my mind during play and adds a great amount of flavour to the game for me.
I also enjoy examining lax/chaos on a cosmic level. As GM I often like to use a mix of planar beings to emphasize law and chaos. Fighting them is always fun because you will never know how the party is going to take on combat and diplomacy with matching/opposing viewpoints. Smiting/protecting yourself against those cosmic elements is a real fun part of the game for me. YMMV.
Yup. This is what I've been saying, too.Not really. Collectivism is Lawful. Now, it can be like in Sweden, which would be LG, or Soviet Russia, which I think it is LE.
Individualism is Chaotic. It can be Chaotic good, like US Constitution, or CE, like Somalia.
So, are you arguing that we currently have the collectivism/individualism metric in game, or are you suggesting that it would be a good metric to move to? Because I don't feel we currently have that, but I agree it might be a way to help make the axis meaningful.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, are you arguing that we currently have the collectivism/individualism metric in game, or are you suggesting that it would be a good metric to move to? Because I don't feel we currently have that, but I agree it might be a way to help make the axis meaningful.
I'm arguing we already do.
It's not the sole difference between the two, but Lawful being collectivist and Chaos individualist is very clearly laid out if you read the descriptions of the Alignments and the definitions of individualism and collectivism.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, are you arguing that we currently have the collectivism/individualism metric in game, or are you suggesting that it would be a good metric to move to? Because I don't feel we currently have that, but I agree it might be a way to help make the axis meaningful.I'm arguing we already do.
It's not the sole difference between the two, but Lawful being collectivist and Chaos individualist is very clearly laid out if you read the descriptions of the Alignments and the definitions of individualism and collectivism.
Yeap, its not always quite that simple and black and white, but its a good starting place. I think Dale's descriptions capture both the benefits and drawbacks of lawful and chaotic societies.
I do agree with Melkinador that its not a concept well represented in the game currently.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's not an inviolable rule (torture as a means is Evil, no matter the ends), but it's a pretty good general guideline.Uh, saywhat? I'd torture the lich overlord to save the lives of innocent children. Classic Utilitarianism (aka CG) demands that you be willing to do the distasteful things in order to achieve the greater good. CG is all about the greater good.
"Greater good" is not actually Good, and can even be evil. It may help to think of it as "Least Bad". It's could still be really, really bad, but it's the best you could do.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, saywhat? I'd torture the lich overlord to save the lives of innocent children. Classic Utilitarianism (aka CG) demands that you be willing to do the distasteful things in order to achieve the greater good.
Well, to start with torture is a terrible information extraction methodology, especially in situations like this. But leaving that aside, we also have an explicit statement (via the Paladin Code posted Monday) that torture is always Evil.
So it's no longer up for debate. In PF2, torture is always Evil. If it worked, it's the sort of Evil act that a Good character might resort to (regardless of being Lawful or Chaotic) but it remains Evil.
CG is all about the greater good.
That's actually not supported very well by the text. One article online proposed it, but it's basically a fan theory rather than how it actually works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, are you arguing that we currently have the collectivism/individualism metric in game, or are you suggesting that it would be a good metric to move to? Because I don't feel we currently have that, but I agree it might be a way to help make the axis meaningful.I'm arguing we already do.
It's not the sole difference between the two
But the problem is that it's not the sole difference. And the other differences add together to make the whole axis largely meaningless. "Personal codes" are the worst offenders. But "freedom" is also to blame.
I think it helps to explain the difference between 2 types of good guys, one who is more about the individual, and another more about the collective, so it is needed. Alignment is pretty shallow already to describe personality, simplify it more, and there is no point on it
But I agree it is overshadowed by good-evil.
More LG-LE alliances for example would make it more important.
|
|
But the problem is that it's not the sole difference. And the other differences add together to make the whole axis largely meaningless. "Personal codes" are the worst offenders. But "freedom" is also to blame.
Anyone can have a personal code regardless of Alignment, though Chaotic characters will have a greater tendency to be flexible about it. I'm not sure how having such a Code devalues Alignment.
As for freedom...individual freedom is sort of one of the fundamental principles of individualism, so again I'm not seeing a problem here.
I AM THE MASTER OF SUBTLETY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!