Recently, a lot of ink has been spilled about the definition of Evil in the Alignment Debates – Two Situations tread. Although it took the direction of arguing about Evil, it could have taken the direction of describing what Chaos means. This got me thinking since it has always been a weak point in the D&D series for me; not so much the concepts of alignment itself, but the incoherency in the description and its applications. That was especially true in the Law vs Chaos part of the alignment.
So here’s a short essay on Law and Chaos. While it is only a first draft, I think I like the direction it is going. I do post it here for comments, suggestion and especially, critiques.
Fire away!
'findel
LAW vs CHAOS
In the alignment nomenclature, a character is lawful or chaotic before he is good or evil. Note that this does not mean that the character is more lawful than good or more chaotic then evil (although this may be the case); it just means that the most initial reaction of a character will depend on his Law-vs-Chaos alignment, while the underlying motivation behind those reactions will depend on the Good-vs-Evil axis. It should be stressed that Law-vs-Chaos has nothing to do with Good-vs-Evil. These are two separate, perpendicular axis crossing only at true neutrality.
Law is often described as loyalty, rigidity, honour, adherence to a personal code of conduct, self-discipline, respect for the civil laws etc. While these are all traits that are more likely to be dominant in a lawful character, they are not Law itself. Neutral or chaotic characters may posses one or many of these traits just as strongly as a lawful character. Similarly, defiance, insanity, selfishness, pride, independence, aloofness, adaptability, lack of respect for the authorities are traits commonly found in chaotic characters, but they do not incarnate Chaos itself. Once again, these traits may just as well define a lawful character. Without considering the Good-vs-Evil alignment, a character could be loyal to his friend but selfish in his actions, very disciplined yet independent. Character traits, by themselves, do not define neither Law nor Chaos; but the driving force behind these traits do.
Then, what does lawful and chaotic means?
LAW
In essence, law is represented by logic and order; the ‘head’ as opposed to the ‘heart’.
- A lawful character reacts in pre-programmed, conditioned patterns.
- For a lawful character, comfort is found in order, organisation and neatness.
- A lawful character easily accepts being part of a bigger whole. Knowing that there is a bigger, stronger world to back him/her off is probably a comfortable though for him/her.
CHAOS
In essence, chaos is represented by instincts and emotions; the ‘heart’ as opposed to the head.
- A chaotic character reacts by instinct and gives free reigns to his emotions.
- For a chaotic character, comfort is found in personal freedom, individualism and personal choices.
- A chaotic character puts his/her self as a priority. Being at the center and in control of his/her own destiny is probably a comfortable though for him/her.
Paladins and their Lawful requirements
Lets first stress the fact that before and above all, the paladin is a champion of Good, not Law. Paladins get to detect and smite Evil, not Law. Paladins swear to fight the influence of hell and the forces of the abyss, not the randomness of Limbo (although I admit that a Slaad is unlikely to become the paladin’s best pal…). Anyhow, you get the idea.
Yet paladins are required to be lawful to progress as such (a much debated subject in many game groups). It should be noted that the code of conduct, which the paladins are also bound to follow, has nothing with being lawful; a chaotic character is just as able to follow such a code. The paladin needs to be lawful to make sure he does not flinch in his convictions. Anger and other emotional reactions may cause him to be unfair, which in turn may cause involuntary evil which, in the mind of the paladin, cannot be allowed. The paladin has taught himself to ignore his instincts and put his faith in his cause, which grants him many benefits. Adherence to virtues, such as honor, temperance and faith, are ‘tools’ to keep the paladin on the right track, but are not what makes the paladin lawful; those trait simply make the paladin honorable, controlled and faithful. The paladin is lawful because he has ‘pre-programmed’ these traits to suppress his instinct and basic emotions as a human being (or whatever). A subtle difference, but a vital one.
Concerning Monks and their Lawful requirements
Monks do not need to be lawful because their training demands discipline. Discipline is a trait that is not exclusive to lawful characters. They are required to be lawful because the very nature of their training demands that they condition their mind and body to react in certain defensive patterns and offensive katas to such an extent that it becomes almost instinctive. Monk are the living proof that perfecting your mind can perfect your body.
Barbarians and their Lawful prohibition
Barbarians cannot progress as such and loose their ability to rage if they become lawful. This makes sense if we interpret Law as one’s reflex to supplant is own instinct with pre-programmed reactions, which goes against the very principle of the barbarian’s rage.
Concerning Honor
Honor may come from different motivations between the rustic-but-noble barbarian (CG) and the pure-at-heart paladin (LG). For the barbarian, it may be an almost selfish way to prove to all (including himself) that he is better than traitors, liars and other deceitful villains. For the paladin, it is part of his mental fortress that makes him unlikely to flinch in his convictions. In practice however, the barbarian and the paladin may react in the same ‘honorable’ ways and may end-up being great friends for such.
Concerning Insurgence
Rebellion could just as well be led by our paladin, who will lead it with more righteous and lofty goals than simply upsetting the status-quo, which our barbarian might do just to stir things-up and keep his society ‘strong’ (and perhaps with him at the top this time). Yet, neither is significantly better fitted to lead a strife against the local order. Since the two characters are of good alignment, both rebel leaders will attempt to avoid the suffering of innocents and preventable casualties by ethical believe rather than diplomatic reasons.
Concerning Military Formations
Armies composed of mainly lawful being (lets say dwarves) will take full advantage of the coherency within its units. Strong leaders will be good tacticians, using the full efficiency of their units’ strengths. A lawful army that looses its leader will lack offensive initiative but keep strong defensive coherency.
Armies composed of mainly chaotic beings (lets say elves) will take full advantage of the skills of its individuals. Strong leaders will be highly inspirational and charismatic, getting the full potential of every individual member. A chaotic army that losses its leader will quickly disband in capable pockets of skirmishers, but lacking the bigger scale of coherency especially when defending their grounds.
|
That is a very good description of my view of Lawful/Chaotic. I'd add the following thoughts to the discussion.
I'd add that another aspect of lawfulness can be a commitment to the group ahead of the rights of the individual. If it benefits the group as a whole, it's ok to discomfort the individual. Slavery is a very lawful concept, for example. It is about using individuals who have harmed the group and turning them into resources to benefit the group as a whole. They also tend to rely on precedent and authority to back up their positions.
Chaos, in contrast, is all about the individual and their rights and liberty. To a true chaotic, government is unnecessary as people can look after their own affairs without 'the man' telling them how to live. They might counsel a friend against a course of action, but, ultimately, it is their choice. They tend to rely on their own personal experiences and thoughts to back up their positions.
That is a very good description of my view of Lawful/Chaotic. I'd add the following thoughts to the discussion.
I'd add that another aspect of lawfulness can be a commitment to the group ahead of the rights of the individual. If it benefits the group as a whole, it's ok to discomfort the individual. Slavery is a very lawful concept, for example. It is about using individuals who have harmed the group and turning them into resources to benefit the group as a whole. They also tend to rely on precedent and authority to back up their positions.
Chaos, in contrast, is all about the individual and their rights and liberty. To a true chaotic, government is unnecessary as people can look after their own affairs without 'the man' telling them how to live. They might counsel a friend against a course of action, but, ultimately, it is their choice. They tend to rely on their own personal experiences and thoughts to back up their positions.
interesting thoughts.
However, I'd say that 'servitude' is a lawful concept, which would be interpreted as thigh hierarchy of worker in good society and slavery in an evil society. Depending on how you what to interpret it, feudal servitude to your lord would be a good or neutral interpretation of this, while the (romanced) northern take on slavery where slaves are possessions but possess personal rights would by either evil or neutral.
Nicely put. Just one minor correction:
Lets first stress the fact that before and above all, the paladin is a champion of Good, not Law. Paladins get to detect and smite Evil, not Law. Paladins swear to fight the influence of hell and the forces of the abyss, not the randomness of Limbo (although I admit that a Slaad is unlikely to become the paladin’s best pal…). Anyhow, you get the idea.
I think you mean to say Chaos here. :)
|
|
That is a very good description of my view of Lawful/Chaotic. I'd add the following thoughts to the discussion.
I'd add that another aspect of lawfulness can be a commitment to the group ahead of the rights of the individual. If it benefits the group as a whole, it's ok to discomfort the individual. Slavery is a very lawful concept, for example. It is about using individuals who have harmed the group and turning them into resources to benefit the group as a whole. They also tend to rely on precedent and authority to back up their positions.
Chaos, in contrast, is all about the individual and their rights and liberty. To a true chaotic, government is unnecessary as people can look after their own affairs without 'the man' telling them how to live. They might counsel a friend against a course of action, but, ultimately, it is their choice. They tend to rely on their own personal experiences and thoughts to back up their positions.
interesting thoughts.
However, I'd say that 'servitude' is a lawful concept, which would be interpreted as thigh hierarchy of worker in good society and slavery in an evil society. Depending on how you what to interpret it, feudal servitude to your lord would be a good or neutral interpretation of this, while the (romanced) northern take on slavery where slaves are possessions but possess personal rights would by either evil or neutral.
I can see that, but I could also see slavery as punishment or to pay off debts could be a lawful good. Being good, there'd be a lot of prohibitions on what you could do with the slaves, but under certain circumstances they could be held.
But you're right. Service is a better concept to illustrate a lawful nature.
Nicely put. Just one minor correction:
Lets first stress the fact that before and above all, the paladin is a champion of Good, not Law. Paladins get to detect and smite Evil, not Law. Paladins swear to fight the influence of hell and the forces of the abyss, not the randomness of Limbo (although I admit that a Slaad is unlikely to become the paladin’s best pal…). Anyhow, you get the idea.I think you mean to say Chaos here. :)
eh, yeah, I meant chaos...
thanks for catching that!
@Paul Waston and Weylin
Yes. In essence your definitions support my interpretation (or mine support yours, whichever): one isn't lawful because he is loyal. One's loyalty MAY come from one's lawful alignment, but there is more to that. There is an essence to Law and Chaos that is independent from personality traits, although these personality traits will usually take root in one's alignment.
'findel
No discussion under honor of the lawful evil outlook where defending one's honor, regardless of the sleight, takes presedence over little details like gender, age, ability, of the person offending you?
I pretty much agree with Paul.
To be lawful is to follow the rule of law, to use tradition and constancy. To judge based on the past.
In the extream to judge based on words written regardless of the consequences on society or people.
To be chaotic is to follow the rule of people, to use circumstance and goals. To judge based on the now.
In the extream to judge based on desires expressed regardless of the consequences on society or people.
To be neutral is, of course, to use both. A body of law and personal input to have consistency that can adapt to unique circumstances.
Cheers
The interesting thing about the Law vs Chaos axis, for me, is the prevailing opinion that Chaotic entities can act like Lawful entities most of the time, while at the same time no one would accept Lawful entities acting like Chaotic ones, or Good or Evil entities acting like their opposites.
This even goes down to mechanics in some ways. For example, Chaotic clerics of Chaotic deities still have to perform a routine ritual at the exact same time of day every day to gain their spells. That's Lawful, or at the very least not Chaotic.
Suffice to say, Chaotic is the worst-defined and least-supported alignment in the book.
(...)
To be lawful is to follow the rule of law, to use tradition and constancy. To judge based on the past.
(...)
I have to disagree, not in the fact that a lawful character shouldn't follow the 'rule of law', follow traditions and be constant, but in the fact that these describe Law.
Rules of law can vary from nation to nation. Within the same town, you'd get the laws as provided by the town's chart, then the laws of temple A, the laws of merchant guild B and the laws of the thieves' guild C, many of which may contradict each other.
Following the words of a set of laws is a character trait, which will be more dominant in lawful characters, but not exclusive to them. The CE thief may follow all the laws of the guild, not by principle but by fear of the consequences...
Traditions are just as strong in typically chaotic groups and cultures such as barbarians and elves. One could even argue that traditions are even more important in 'barbaric' (prone to b chaotic) cultures than literate (prone to be lawful) ones.
Constancy is essential in the practice of certain trades, which shouldn't be influenced by one's alignment. Training for combat require constancy, so does playing a musical instrument.
So while I do not think that your definition is wrong, I do think it is incomplete.
'findel
The interesting thing about the Law vs Chaos axis, for me, is the prevailing opinion that Chaotic entities can act like Lawful entities most of the time, while at the same time no one would accept Lawful entities acting like Chaotic ones, or Good or Evil entities acting like their opposites.
This even goes down to mechanics in some ways. For example, Chaotic clerics of Chaotic deities still have to perform a routine ritual at the exact same time of day every day to gain their spells. That's Lawful, or at the very least not Chaotic.
Suffice to say, Chaotic is the worst-defined and least-supported alignment in the book.
I agree with your last statement. As for your first statement, I think it is a wrong (if popular) interpretation of the alignment. I will even raise you further and say that it is the prevailing opinion that chaotic entities can act like Evil entities without remorse or repercussions.
"rule of law" is often a tricky choice of words.
Whose law? In a setting there are often several lawful nations, all with different laws, all thinking their laws are best. Add into that lawful deities, who all have their own laws which may or may not agree with various lawful nations or other lawful deities.
Your law of course.
The body of tradition that you and the group/tribe/society that you are part of follow.Nothing about the alignments imply that there is one way to be lawful, just as there is not one way evil or one way to be good.
By definition there is not one way to be chaotic.
By law, slaves are legal in Qadira. Yet I dont see a paladin who has dedicated himself to abolishing slavery having to turn in a runaway slave. And could even aid said slaves escape. Or having to even curtail his abolishinist actions while he is in Qadira.
If the Paladin was part of Qadira Society then, yes he would have to turn them in, and no they couldn't help them escape.
As this would go against he person and his societies law. He could work with in the system to try and abolish slavery by changing the law, bring abusive owners to justice and the like but they could not choose to help the salves escape.(This is just considering the Lawful side. His Good side might make him think want to help the salves. This is where playing a Paladin interesting, far from being a black and white characterization a Paladins moral compass can be cause of much role playing fun)
If the Paladin comes from a society where slavery is illegal then the Paladin could help them escape as he would not be breaking his law.
If his society held slavery to be immoral he might even feel complied to help them escape
Two Paladins can both be fighting against each other whilst up holding the(ir) law.
Cheers
As for your first statement, I think it is a wrong (if popular) interpretation of the alignment. I will even raise you further and say that it is the prevailing opinion that chaotic entities can act like Evil entities without remorse or repercussions.
Yep, I agree with you (and disagree with the prevailing opinion) in both those regards. I didn't mention the Chaotic-Evil juxtaposition because I didn't want to muddy your thread with any spillover :)
Nothing about the alignments imply that there is one way to be lawful, just as there is not one way evil or one way to be good.
By definition there is not one way to be chaotic.
Can't agree more with that.
I do think however, that there is a fundamental concept of Good, Evil and in the case that interest us (or me anyway), Law and Chaos.
So while 2 characters could live their "lawfulness" differently (without addressing Good-vs-Evil), the same lawful essential principles should be equally followed. Now I'm just struggling to find those "essential principles"...
'findel
If the Paladin was part of Qadira Society then, yes he would have to turn them in, and no they couldn't help them escape.
As this would go against he person and his societies law. He could work with in the system to try and abolish slavery by changing the law, bring abusive owners to justice and the like but they could not choose to help the salves escape.
But wouldn't that make alignment very regional? While their is nothing wrong with that per say, I have a feeling this was not intended to be as such. I was under the impression that, on the contrary, alignments were universal, at least in essence.
I see the LG (paladin or not) character meant to do good regardless of his provenance. I'm not sure if I buy this whole "if its legal where you come from, its not evil" concept...
LAW
In essence, law is represented by logic and order; the ‘head’ as opposed to the ‘heart’.
- A lawful character reacts in pre-programmed, conditioned patterns.
- For a lawful character, comfort is found in order, organisation and neatness.
- A lawful character easily accepts being part of a bigger whole. Knowing that there is a bigger, stronger world to back him/her off is probably a comfortable though for him/her.
CHAOS
In essence, chaos is represented by instincts and emotions; the ‘heart’ as opposed to the head.
A chaotic character reacts by instinct and gives free reigns to his emotions.
For a chaotic character, comfort is found in personal freedom, individualism and personal choices.
A chaotic character puts his/her self as a priority. Being at the center and in control of his/her own destiny is probably a comfortable though for him/her.
I really am not fond of this interpretation of law vs. chaos. Assigning specific actions or types of actions as Lawful, Chaotic, Evil or Good is way too Calvinistic for my taste, and I really feel like it guts the potential for roleplay.
I prefer the classic 1st edition interpretation of alignment, where alignment describes the goals your actions work towards, not the actions themselves. Lawful characters saw an organized, stable, society as important, and chaotic characters felt that leaving individuals to act freely for themselves was of the greatest importance.
Lawful characters were perfectly capable of reacting instinctively or letting their emotions drive them, their instincts and emotions simply drove them to place the good of the many over the good of the few. Chaotic characters could follow rigid personal codes, these codes just happened to be of their own choice and tended to support the right of others to act in their own interests without the interference of larger social institutions. The way you're describing chaos is way too close to Evil, not chaos, especially the part about "A chaotic character puts his or her self as a priority." Selfish motivations and disregarding the well-being of others are classically the domain of evil, not chaos.
I really am not fond of this interpretation of law vs. chaos. Assigning specific actions or types of actions as Lawful, Chaotic, Evil or Good is way too Calvinistic for my taste, and I really feel like it guts the potential for roleplay.
I prefer the classic 1st edition interpretation of alignment, where alignment describes the goals your actions work towards, not the actions themselves. Lawful characters saw an organized, stable, society as important, and chaotic characters felt that leaving individuals to act freely for themselves was of the greatest importance.
Well in a sense, me too. But a problem arises with character classes and imposed alignment; why shouldn't a paladin or monk feel that that "leaving individuals to act freely for themselves was of the greatest importance"?
At any case, its a work in progress, but you provided my first real 'check'.
Lawful characters were perfectly capable of reacting instinctively or letting their emotions drive them, their instincts and emotions simply drove them to place the good of the many over the good of the few. Chaotic characters could follow rigid personal codes, these codes just happened to be of their own choice and tended to support the right of others to act in their own interests without the interference of larger social institutions. The way you're describing chaos is way too close to Evil, not chaos, especially the part about "A chaotic character puts his or her self as a priority." Selfish motivations and disregarding the well-being of others are classically the domain of evil, not chaos.
While I agree that disregarding others well-being is evil, I don't think that concentrating on the 'self' rather than the community is evil. Perhaps the wording is off here; the last think I want is to murk the definition of evil and chaotic. What I basically want to say is that if putting the needs of the community first is lawful, whatever is opposite to that is chaotic.
'findel
Lawful characters were perfectly capable of reacting instinctively or letting their emotions drive them, their instincts and emotions simply drove them to place the good of the many over the good of the few. Chaotic characters could follow rigid personal codes, these codes just happened to be of their own choice and tended to support the right of others to act in their own interests without the interference of larger social institutions.
I also want to add that under my iteration, lawful characters are just as able to feel emotion and can give any amount of 'space' for them. Only, emotions are not the "most initial reaction" to a situation.
Perhaps that would need clarification too.
I also never intended to specify any type of action to an alignment, only a underlying concept to motivate the action which I don't want to be labeled as "lawful" or "chaotic". To state one of my examples, I don't want honor to be either lawful or chaotic, but the reasons for a character to act honorably would be different from a lawful character to a chaotic one.
Its funny though, I drafted that because I found that the description of alignments through every edition that I own (including 1E AD&D) was too restrictive in terms of roleplay.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
[threadjack]
Look at contemporary politics to understand just how complicated it is. We'd probably consider the stereotypical free-wheeling, hippie Democrat to be chaotic, and the WASP Bible-Belt Republican to be lawful. But the Democrat answer to health care is "let the government take care of it for you" (lawful) and the Republican answer is "go buy it for yourself, individual" (chaotic).
The way I've always handled alignment is that if a player seems to be acting out of alignment, I ask them to provide an explanation of their character's reasoning behind their actions and how that shows that alignment ("Lawful Neutral, hmmm? Wouldn't you consider cheating at cards to be a chaotic action since you aren't respecting the rules?"). As long as they can come up with something plausible ("My character wouldn't normally cheat at cards, but I am on a mission for king and country... my personal scruples have to take back seat") I don't worry about it. Alignment should be a tool and enabler for good roleplaying rather than a basis for a DM hijack of somebody's character.
[/threadjack]
But wouldn't that make alignment very regional? While their is nothing wrong with that per say, I have a feeling this was not intended to be as such. I was under the impression that, on the contrary, alignments were universal, at least in essence.
The lawfulness is "absolute" as intended by the alignment system.
The laws themselves can vary.The laws followed by Devils are quite different from the laws followed by Archon but they are still lawful.
To me the alignment system are about the actions not the motivations.
I see the LG (paladin or not) character meant to do good regardless of his provenance. I'm not sure if I buy this whole "if its legal where you come from, its not evil" concept...
Lawful does not imply good.
Actions can be legal and still be evil, the current AP, Council of Thieves, being a prime example.Actions can also be illegal but be good.
Good and Evil with are societaly subjective.
-Weylin
Going on a tangent here, but if we accept Good and Evil to be socially subjective, shouldn't allow Law and Chaos to be also socially subjective?
I'm finding it hard to draw the line where thing are no longer socially acceptable and no longer Good. If we accept that there is a regional subjectivity, when can we say that "this is a different Good" as opposed to "this is no longer Good".
I'm gonna push the limit very far here: if the Nazis found it "Good" to eradicate the Jews, does that make the holocaust a Good (if regional) act? I know that this wasn't a fair question because:
1) I'm not allowing anybody to argue with me without being labeled as pro-Nazi
2) the Holocaust wasn't universally acclaimed by a regional majority. Not even considering the dissension within the Nazi movement, there was another group sharing the same region, called the Germans, who had nothing to do with Nazis...
but you get my drift: At one point, it stops to be a "regional flavour", it just stops being good. The same analogy could be made with Law and Chaos.
Regarding slavery, its how one treats another being that ultimately cuts between Good and Evil. As far as Law vs Chaos; I agree that chaos would wish for the freedom of the individual, but would law want its enslavement? Law would want its cooperation, slavery is more like "being forced to cooperate".
Then there's the whole good = respect of the other's right to freedom and free expression that is quite modern and again, kind of stepping on Chaos feet again.
In reality, alignment is the least of my concerns in my gaming group and I know that I'm making too much of a fuss with this... off to bed!
I see the LG (paladin or not) character meant to do good regardless of his provenance. I'm not sure if I buy this whole "if its legal where you come from, its not evil" concept...Lawful does not imply good.
Actions can be legal and still be evil, the current AP, Council of Thieves, being a prime example.Actions can also be illegal but be good.
Absolutely, but when will the LG character stoop being Lawful because its regional laws are not Good anymore? That's what the question was geared to.
Some friends and I have debate the slavery topic at length. As a whole we agree that a paladin could own a slave as long as their society AND deity had no stricture against it. The difference is that the paladin would treat that slave better than most people and the dignity of the slave would be important.As a setting specific example, in Qadira and the greater empire slavery is legal and there is no mention of prohibition against it about Sarenrae. Thus a paladin of Sarenrae could own a slave. He is still lawful and still good.
-Weylin
Yeap, spot on.
Absolutely, but when will the LG character stoop being Lawful because its regional laws are not Good anymore? That's what the question was geared to.
A Paladin would be driven more by their Deities view of law and good than the current society, especial if society has moved away from previous views of law and good.
Which could see the Paladin rebel against laws of the land.
Or will they stay in the system and try and turn it back to the path of their Deity?
Between a rock and a hard place how will they stay true to their faith whilst all around them turn away?
(Fun fun fun - lots of role playing goodness)
|
|
To me, the Good/Evil aspect of alignment is about the relationship between the self and others. A good character will tend to prioritise the welfare and wants of others, even at the expense of his own, while an evil one prioritises his welfare and wants even at the expense of others.
The Law/Chaos axis, again, to me is about the person's relationship between the group and the individual. A Lawful character will tend to act in the best interests of the group as a whole, even at the expense of the individual. A Chaotic character will tend to act in the interests of the individual, even at the expense of the group.
But that's my loose interpretation. It gets tricky in specific situations, especially when we consider that in any character these are merely strong tendencies rather than any absolute mandate. An evil character can sacrifice himself for others if he has a personal motive to do so, it's just not his default mode of operation.
A Paladin would be driven more by their Deities view of law and good than the current society, especial if society has moved away from previous views of law and good.
Absolutely, but when will the LG character stoop being Lawful because its regional laws are not Good anymore? That's what the question was geared to.
True, but I'm not talking about a paladin. I'm talking about a LG character. So far, I didn't involve religion yet. If we do, then religious tenets may just as well be "alternative regional" takes on alignment. If we includes religion as alternative, why should we stop there? Why not include town districts? Or guilds? Or groups within a guild?
In other words, it comes down to "whatever description of alignment you give to your close relations", down to the size of one single individual.
Basically, the question is: are Law, Chaos, Evil and Good universal or personal concepts (which may or may not be influenced by your society). In modern philosophy, we find advocates of both. The whole concept of human rights is based on the fact that these concepts are universal, but that is not the only way to look at things.
In a fantasy world where you can go the to plane of ultimate Law and Good or meet THE head of Law and Evil, I tend to think that these concepts should be universal.
It is possible a chaotic person would have no trouble with slavery and even keep slaves themself. Even if they are good.
Chaotic also includes selfishness and those who place their benefit over others.
It depends on if their chaotic philosophy (wether they are conscious of it or not) includes the rights of others.
This extends to other aspects of life as well.
It could be viewed as chaotics view life on a microcosmic view and lawful view life in a macrocosmic view.
I think that any Good character, paladin or not, would have a moral issue in a slave-driven society. If the majority of the population is Good, slavery is bound to disappear. Will a Good character prefer to face its remorse about slavery rather than face the social stigmata of not having slaves (or even lobbying for the abolishment of slavery), that's another story. The paladin is special in the sense that his code (which acts in addition to his alignment) bounds him to fight evil where it is found and not associate with it. My intention wasn't really to discuss the particularity of the paladin's code and its implication in a society where a social conditions may create evil or at the very least, mistreatment of the innocents.
What I find interesting from Paul's last post is that self vs other (which are often portrayed as Evil vs Good) is a very close opposition from self vs group (which as often portrayed as Chaos vs Law).
I think that illustrates why nobody can't agree on this alignment thingy...
To me, the Good/Evil aspect of alignment is about the relationship between the self and others. A good character will tend to prioritise the welfare and wants of others, even at the expense of his own, while an evil one prioritises his welfare and wants even at the expense of others.
The Law/Chaos axis, again, to me is about the person's relationship between the group and the individual. A Lawful character will tend to act in the best interests of the group as a whole, even at the expense of the individual. A Chaotic character will tend to act in the interests of the individual, even at the expense of the group.
Mmmm, no. You're saying the same thing twice, here. Acting for the self at the expense of the group is Evil, not Chaotic. Acting for the group at the expense of the self is Good, not Lawful.
The Law/Chaos axis has to do with the character's views on authority and society.
|
|
To me, the Good/Evil aspect of alignment is about the relationship between the self and others. A good character will tend to prioritise the welfare and wants of others, even at the expense of his own, while an evil one prioritises his welfare and wants even at the expense of others.
The Law/Chaos axis, again, to me is about the person's relationship between the group and the individual. A Lawful character will tend to act in the best interests of the group as a whole, even at the expense of the individual. A Chaotic character will tend to act in the interests of the individual, even at the expense of the group.
Mmmm, no. You're saying the same thing twice, here. Acting for the self at the expense of the group is Evil, not Chaotic. Acting for the group at the expense of the self is Good, not Lawful.
The Law/Chaos axis has to do with the character's views on authority and society.
Not really. You assume the individual is always me. Modern day human rights organisations are quite chaotic in my conception of alignment. After all, society (the group) might be better off if certain people didn't have rights.
And if you disagree with my take, what's yours? Replace "the group" in my above statements with "society" and you have practically the same definition.
Not really. You assume the individual is always me. Modern day human rights organisations are quite chaotic in my conception of alignment. After all, society (the group) might be better off if certain people didn't have rights.
You're right, I did make that assumption, but it's still not correct. Evil entities are just as evil for sacrificing babies to empower something else as they for doing it to empower themselves. And it might well be a Lawful act for them if it's part of their authority structure and society.
And if you disagree with my take, what's yours? Replace "the group" in my above statements with "society" and you have practically the same definition.
No, not really. For one, I added authority, and as the headliner at that. For two, "society" and "group" are vastly different in terms of scope.
Essentially, Lawful characters adhere to their authority (which isn't the same as the authority of whatever land they're inhabiting, or their deity, or anything else -- it's whatever the character decides is their authority) and believe that society is best served by having rules and regulations. Chaotic characters adhere to no authority and believe that society is best served by being free from rules and regulations.
Like I said upthread, Chaotic is a very poorly-supported alignment in the game. Clerics especially should never be allowed to be Chaotic, as written.
Like I said upthread, Chaotic is a very poorly-supported alignment in the game. Clerics especially should never be allowed to be Chaotic, as written.
I wouldn't go that far, but I agree that churches of chaotic gods should have less rigid structures. There has to be a way to make this happen in such a way that mechanically, Chaotic priests are not advantaged nor disadvantaged by less rigid structures.
Like I said upthread, Chaotic is a very poorly-supported alignment in the game. Clerics especially should never be allowed to be Chaotic, as written.I wouldn't go that far, but I agree that churches of chaotic gods should have less rigid structures. There has to be a way to make this happen in such a way that mechanically, Chaotic priests are not advantaged nor disadvantaged by less rigid structures.
Well, like I said, as written there's really no way to do a truly Chaotic cleric. There's too much built-in ritual and bowing-to-authority in the class.
The best example of a Chaotic cleric I've ever read is actually in the Tome of Magic. One of the Binder's Vestiges was once the High Priest of Olidamarra (chaotic deity of thieves, among other things). On his deathbed, he recanted his worship of Olidamarra, thus stealing his soul from his deity and making the greatest heist ever. That is a Chaotic cleric. (Olidamarra was forced to turn him into a Vestige because he couldn't accept the dude into his heaven, because that would undo his work and shame him, and he wouldn't let another deity have his most devout follower's soul)
Well, like I said, as written there's really no way to do a truly Chaotic cleric. There's too much built-in ritual and bowing-to-authority in the class.
Two points. First, there's next to no "built-in ritual and bowing to authority" built into cleric, you can even pay a godless cleric if you want that just champions a particular ethos.
Second, you're confusing disorganized with Chaotic.
Chaotic characters and NPCs are perfectly capable of working together, even on a large scale. A chaotic church (and the chaotic priests that make it up) would have the freedom of the individual as one of their goals and would likely have a very loose power structure that allowed for personal preference in how each individual cleric observed their rites, but there's no reason at all they would be incapable of working with one another.
If you want a good example of a chaotic priesthood, look up some information on Taoism. The very first instruction in the Tao Te Ching is a reminder that the Tao is open to interpretation, and that the Tao Te Ching itself (and all other written instructions on the tao) are at best a limited description of the tao, the specific meaning of which can only be understood by the individual. That strikes me as a deeply chaotic thought to found a religion upon.
Well, like I said, as written there's really no way to do a truly Chaotic cleric. There's too much built-in ritual and bowing-to-authority in the class.Two points. First, there's next to no "built-in ritual and bowing to authority" built into cleric, you can even pay a godless cleric if you want that just champions a particular ethos.
Really? So Clerics don't have to pray at the same time every day to regain their spells? They don't lose all of their class abilities if they work against their deity's/ethos's authority?
Second, you're confusing disorganized with Chaotic.
No, you're confusing what I said with something I never said. I never made any statements whatsoever about whether Chaotic people could work together.
Lawful = Hammer square peg into round hole.
Chaotic = Cut round hole into a square hole so square peg fits.
Lawfuls try to continue modes of behavior irregardless (and sometimes inspite of) the current conditions.
Chaotics try to adapt each type of behavior to the specific current conditions.
Lawfuls depend on experience and tradition to aid them in future behavior, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" would be the slogan for Lawfuls. Lawfuls look to the past first and only when that fails do they consider new approaches.
Chaotics are willing to toss past experience and tradition out the door for a given situation, "Change is good" would be the slogan for the chaotics. Chaotics first look for new ideas and only when that fails do they consider appoarches that have worked in the past.
Lawfuls put weight of position based on chain of command and family/clan/birth order.
Chaotics put weight of position based on meritocracy and/or democracy.
The Dwarf leader is often the one based on the bloodline/clan that has the higher value. (Lawful approach)
The Orc leader is often the strongest and most capable warrior. (Chaotic approach)
Lawfuls believe the individual (even the leader) serves the needs/wants of the group/society (but not necessarily others in a general sense, i.e. not necessarily good).
Chaotics believe the group/society serves the needs/wants of the individuals (often the leader specificly) (but not necessarily in spite of the needs/wants of others, i.e. not necessarily evil).
Lawful = Hammer square peg into round hole.
Chaotic = Cut round hole into a square hole so square peg fits.Lawfuls try to continue modes of behavior irregardless (and sometimes inspite of) the current conditions.
Chaotics try to adapt each type of behavior to the specific current conditions.
Lawfuls depend on experience and tradition to aid them in future behavior, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" would be the slogan for Lawfuls. Lawfuls look to the past first and only when that fails do they consider new approaches.
Chaotics are willing to toss past experience and tradition out the door for a given situation, "Change is good" would be the slogan for the chaotics. Chaotics first look for new ideas and only when that fails do they consider appoarches that have worked in the past.
Lawfuls put weight of position based on chain of command and family/clan/birth order.
Chaotics put weight of position based on meritocracy and/or democracy.
The Dwarf leader is often the one based on the bloodline/clan that has the higher value. (Lawful approach)
The Orc leader is often the strongest and most capable warrior. (Chaotic approach)
Lawfuls believe the individual (even the leader) serves the needs/wants of the group/society (but not necessarily others in a general sense, i.e. not necessarily good).
Chaotics believe the group/society serves the needs/wants of the individuals (often the leader specificly) (but not necessarily in spite of the needs/wants of others, i.e. not necessarily evil).
Hey Pres, thanks for the input.
While I agree with most of your statements, what you described here appear (to me) to be typically lawful and chaotic traits, as opposed to the description of Law and Chaos, the latter being what I'm looking for.
I started this tread because I was tired of thinking "my character shouldn't act like this because he's lawful (or chaotic)" Ultimately, it restricts many RP options based on a more and more mechanical part of the game, which shouldn't interfere. However, alignment should be RP'd, so my chaotic character should have a chaotic reason to motivate this usually lawful trait. To get the "chaotic motivation", one need to get the essence of what chaos is.
For example, I want my chaotic barbarian to be honorable (a usually lawful trait). If the reason being his honor is to prove to everybody else that he is better than liars and cheaters (in other words a way to improve his own social status within a society that respects honor), that is a selfish, chaotic motivation of a lawful trait. That is why I was going toward the Chaos = self direction, but it seems it gets murky with the description of both Good and Evil...
While I agree with most of your statements, what you described here appear (to me) to be typically lawful and chaotic traits, as opposed to the description of Law and Chaos, the latter being what I'm looking for.
"Example is better than precept" - Aesop
I started this tread because I was tired of thinking "my character shouldn't act like this because he's lawful (or chaotic)" Ultimately, it restricts many RP options based on a more and more mechanical part of the game, which shouldn't interfere. However, alignment should be RP'd, so my chaotic character should have a chaotic reason to motivate this usually lawful trait. To get the "chaotic motivation", one need to get the essence of what chaos is.
Why do you believe the character is chaotic? Alignment and behavior is a two direction street. Your alignment influences your behavior, your behavior determines/proves your alignment. Instead of worry about a particular action being ok or not due to your character's alignment, instead you should be doing an act because it is appropriate for the character. This action should then indicate the alignment of the character. Each of the particular alignments is just a very rough idea about what philosphy your character subscribes to. Pick whatever you want then ask the DM to keep track of your actions and see what he thinks your character's alignment is.
For example, I want my chaotic barbarian to be honorable (a usually lawful trait).
A trait lawful people often demonstrat. Of course one has to be careful about what "honorable" means. As an example Worf said on DS:9, "To Klingons, nothing is more honorable than victory." In other words, being "dishonorable" is ok to klingons if you are in the end you win.
If the reason being his honor is to prove to everybody else that he is better than liars and cheaters (in other words a way to improve his own social status within a society that respects honor), that is a selfish, chaotic motivation of a lawful trait. That is why I was going toward the Chaos = self direction, but it seems it gets murky with the description of both Good and Evil...
When nobody is around to judge him, does he still act "honorable"? If not, then he is not acting in a lawful fashion. Lawfuls believe in acting in certain fashions irregardless of the circumstances, chaotics meet the particular circumstances.
Really? So Clerics don't have to pray at the same time every day to regain their spells? They don't lose all of their class abilities if they work against their deity's/ethos's authority?
And what exactly is the authority of an "Ethos"? There's no governing body or controlling entity, no one giving you orders, just an idea or principle that in character, is something you've chosen for yourself (or else, why did you pick it as your domain). Praying every day at a particular time is an artifact of how the magic rules work around a 24 hour day, not a dictate imposed on your character.
And sure, it might be possible for a cleric to go against their principles and require atonement, but I don't see why you think a chaotic cleric with domains like Chaos and Glory would have any harder time with that than a lawful cleric with domains like Community and Law.
Chaotic does not mean you have to spit in the face of any and every rule you can, it just means you support the needs of individual over the needs of the many when they come into conflict.
No, you're confusing what I said with something I never said. I never made any statements whatsoever about whether Chaotic people could work together.
My mistake then, when you said:
Chaotic characters adhere to no authority
and:
Clerics especially should never be allowed to be Chaotic, as written.
I guess I was reading the two as "Clerics should never be allowed to be Chaotic as written, because Chaotic characters adhere to no authority." (And thus could not form an organized church and would refuse to abide by any greater powers rules and restrictions).
And you're right, that was reading a lot in between the lines, so if that's not what you meant, my apologies.
(Also, really sorry, this is veering a bit off topic into a discussion about clerics, not about Law and Chaos.)
And what exactly is the authority of an "Ethos"? There's no governing body or controlling entity, no one giving you orders, just an idea or principle that in character, is something you've chosen for yourself (or else, why did you pick it as your domain).
Except that there clearly is some controlling entity, because that's where you get your powers from as a cleric who doesn't follow a deity. If you violate the ethos you draw your powers from, you lose your powers. That's enforced adherence to authority.
And, for that matter, an authority does not have to be an entity. You could have a personal code of honor as your authority (ala Knights in the PHB2). There's nothing that enforces that code of honor except your own will, but it's still an authority.
Praying every day at a particular time is an artifact of how the magic rules work around a 24 hour day, not a dictate imposed on your character.
Uh, no. If that were true, wizards, bards, sorcerers, paladins, and rangers would have to prepare their spells at the same time every day as well. Clerics are the only class that have one, single one-hour window to prepare spells every day. Every other class can use any contiguous 1 hour period (15 minutes for the spontaneous casters) following 8 hours of rest to do so, and they can do it at different times on different days. It's an artifact of the Cleric class intended to enforce flavor that isn't necessarily present or even desirable in every faith.
And sure, it might be possible for a cleric to go against their principles and require atonement, but I don't see why you think a chaotic cleric with domains like Chaos and Glory would have any harder time with that than a lawful cleric with domains like Community and Law.
I'm not sure what domains have to do with anything. Domains are nothing but a collection of spells and magical powers. They have nothing to do (directly) with what the cleric can and cannot do with respect to the strictures of their faith.
Chaotic does not mean you have to spit in the face of any and every rule you can
Never said it did.
it just means you support the needs of individual over the needs of the many when they come into conflict.
Since they generally come into conflict pretty much all the time, that's not saying much.
I guess I was reading the two as "Clerics should never be allowed to be Chaotic as written, because Chaotic characters adhere to no authority."
Correct.
(And thus could not form an organized church
Incorrect. Organization has nothing to do with authority. It has to do with responsibility. Responsibility and authority have very little to do with each other.
and would refuse to abide by any greater powers rules and restrictions).
Also incorrect. By "they adhere to no authority", I mean that they do not place themselves in the hands of others, even deific others. They might agree with all the tenets of their faith and thus abide by those rules and restrictions naturally, but they wouldn't think anything of breaking them anytime the circumstances favored doing so.
Unfortunately, doing that tends to cause clerics to lose access to their class powers.
Except that there clearly is some controlling entity
Not according to the game text. Should there be? Perhaps, that's up to you and your DM, based on your setting, but there isn't by the RAW.
If you violate the ethos you draw your powers from, you lose your powers. That's enforced adherence to authority.
No, an authority is an external entity or organization with the power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior. The ethos of a deity-less cleric is a matter of personal belief, not external authority. (And even if it were an external authority, I don't agree with the basic assumption that a Chaotic character should always defy every authority.)
Praying every day at a particular time is an artifact of how the magic rules work around a 24 hour day, not a dictate imposed on your character.Uh, no. If that were true, wizards, bards, sorcerers, paladins, and rangers would have to prepare their spells at the same time every day as well. Clerics are the only class that have one, single one-hour window to prepare spells every day. Every other class can use any contiguous 1 hour period (15 minutes for the spontaneous casters) following 8 hours of rest to do so, and they can do it at different times on different days. It's an artifact of the Cleric class intended to enforce flavor that isn't necessarily present or even desirable in every faith.
Sorry, but you're flat wrong here. Every divine caster has to prepare their spells at a particular time of day, typically, a time either associated with some event they find meaningful, or simply at a time of their choice.
Time of Day: A divine spellcaster chooses and prepares spells ahead of time, but unlike a wizard, does not require a period of rest to prepare spells. Instead, the character chooses a particular time of day to pray and receive spells. The time is usually associated with some daily event. If some event prevents a character from praying at the proper time, she must do so as soon as possible. If the character does not stop to pray for spells at the first opportunity, she must wait until the next day to prepare spells.
As I said, this is merely an artifact of the system. As you yourself mentioned it is similar to the eight hours of rest and recent casting limits imposed on Arcane casters. It's not some in game entity enforcing a specific restriction on Clerics, it's just the way divine magic works.
I'm not sure what domains have to do with anything. Domains are nothing but a collection of spells and magical powers. They have nothing to do (directly) with what the cleric can and cannot do with respect to the strictures of their faith.
I'd say the domains you choose as a deity-less cleric should be a good indication of what concept you've devoted yourself to, but I guess I could have left those out of the example.
Since they generally come into conflict pretty much all the time, that's not saying much.
Really? So you think you never have an organization that helps individuals? Or specific individuals that contribute to society? It's perfectly possible and even common to have groups/beings that are perfectly acceptable from both a lawful and a chaotic viewpoint.
They might agree with all the tenets of their faith and thus abide by those rules and restrictions naturally, but they wouldn't think anything of breaking them anytime the circumstances favored doing so.
Again, this is the part of how you're defining Chaotic that I disagree with. Always doing whatever suits you best in the moment isn't Chaos, it's self interest. From my viewpoint, chaotic characters are perfectly capable of abiding by laws, regulations, codes, commandments, you name it, they will simply choose to seek out codes that favor individual freedoms (and not just their individual freedom, everyone's).
That's not to say a Chaotic character couldn't be completely self interested and willing to flout any law that suited them, but I don't see that as part of the definition of Chaos. (that's more part of Evil)
Your problem, Broddigan, is that you're reading what I write and translating it into things I'm not writing. About half of what you wrote up there has absolutely no bearing on any of the arguments I'm making, including every instance of you trying to restate what I've said.