Absolute law would preclude freedom and creativity. I'm less sure about "heart".
in that essay, heart was acting on feeling, impulsion or intuition. Mind was acting on reasoning, calculation, developed reflexes. Innate vs acquired. Improvisation vs conditioning. Emotional vs intellectual
Neutral is the ground between the extremes. It has two 'flavors'.The first is non-commitment. (...)
The other, rarer form is 'balance'(...)
Could there be a third form; equally pulled in both directions? Contradictory people are frequent enough in real life.
I'd call that the non-committed form. It's not that an average NPC doesn't do anything lawful or anything chaotic, but that they don't prefer one over the other.
The big problem is that Chaotic is not chaotic. Every alignment discussion I've ever been a part of includes people that claim chaotic characters can be focused, be disciplined, follow a code, adhere to guidelines or rules, avoid flights of fancy or random acts...
... in other words, be all the things Lawful people are without any of the restrictions of being lawful.
So, what's the point of having the opposing alignments?
"Freedom" always enters the discussion at some point. Chaotic characters value freedom, for themselves, for others, for everyone. As opposed to what? Lawful characters want everyone to be shackled or tiered in a societal caste? Wouldn't a chaotic king want to maintain his status quo? Wouldn't a lawful peasant try to improve his lot? Does that mean such characters can't exist?
And what's the penalty for acting against your alignment? Most people would argue that you shouldn't suffer an alignment change for just a few, or only one, opposing act. But, wouldn't it be the most alarmingly chaotic thing a lawful person could do, to take a single act completely opposed to your entire world view? If you engaged in random, bizarre behavior frequently, it would simply be how you defined your code, your sense of order. Borderline lawful. But, just once...
And how lawful... or how frequently lawful does a chaotic character have to be before he faces the potential of an alignment shift? Can he ever? Isn't he always doing as he pleases... the essence of Chaos? If he can't shift, what is the point of the opposing alignments? Are you only lawful until you "fall"?
The point of these questions is not to dismantle the alignment system. I'm really just looking for a version of Chaos that is... well, something more than "I don't want to be Lawful."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Freedom" always enters the discussion at some point. Chaotic characters value freedom, for themselves, for others, for everyone.
Agreed, free-form might be a better word than freedom
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Freedom" always enters the discussion at some point. Chaotic characters value freedom, for themselves, for others, for everyone. As opposed to what? Lawful characters want everyone to be shackled or tiered in a societal caste? Wouldn't a chaotic king want to maintain his status quo? Wouldn't a lawful peasant try to improve his lot? Does that mean such characters can't exist?
I guess lawful evil characters try to estabilish tyranical laws that befit themselves and hurt people for their gain, thus abolishing freedom by choice.
Lawful neutral estabilish laws for the better control of society and enforce them because they feel not following them means anarchy, thus abolishing freedom by duty.
Lawful good create laws for the good of everyone, no sexist joke, no racist remark, no freedom that could hurt the next, thus abolishing freedom by need.
I believe that Lawful characters look on "freedom" with a skeptical eye - believing that is is a slippery slope towards anarchy (the ultimate bad in their eyes).
Chaotic characters value freedom above all else. The other axis determines how they approach this value:
Chaotic Neutral - "I believe everyone should be free, but won't go out of my way to ensure freedom for anyone but those I love if it is too dangerous."
Chaotic Good - "I will fight to bring freedom to everyone, even at the risk of my own life."
Chaotic Evil - "I will be free. None will dictate my fate but me - and I will commit any action to guarantee my personal freedom no matter who it harms."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Freedom" always enters the discussion at some point. Chaotic characters value freedom, for themselves, for others, for everyone. As opposed to what? Lawful characters want everyone to be shackled or tiered in a societal caste? Wouldn't a chaotic king want to maintain his status quo? Wouldn't a lawful peasant try to improve his lot? Does that mean such characters can't exist?I guess lawful evil characters try to estabilish tyranical laws that befit themselves and hurt people for their gain, thus abolishing freedom by choice.
Lawful neutral estabilish laws for the better control of society and enforce them because they feel not following them means anarchy, thus abolishing freedom by duty.
Lawful good create laws for the good of everyone, no sexist joke, no racist remark, no freedom that could hurt the next, thus abolishing freedom by need.
This presumes that Anarchy = Greater Freedom. I would suggest that is at best fallacious, at worst demonstrably false.
|
The big problem is that Chaotic is not chaotic. Every alignment discussion I've ever been a part of includes people that claim chaotic characters can be focused, be disciplined, follow a code, adhere to guidelines or rules, avoid flights of fancy or random acts...
... in other words, be all the things Lawful people are without any of the restrictions of being lawful.
So, what's the point of having the opposing alignments?
Others have also stated that a society cannot exist without rules. Such rules are usually fashioned around people's sense of right, and wrong. Even chaotic people have rules. However chaos does prefer liberty to law. Chaotic people (as others have posted) see these rules as guidelines. Thus chaos can have codes of honor, laws, traditions, etc...
The difference in an orderly society is the rules are set in stone, and cannot be altered without due course of action through litigation, they must be upheld or society falls to chaos. Where in a chaotic society the spirit of the rule, the law should be considered. Why was the rule or tradition kept? What did it preserve? Does that rule apply to the current situation? Then they will make a ruling depending upon what best upholds the spirit of the law. Such creativity, and spontaneous divergence from the law as it is written in an orderly society is viewed as absurd.
I suppose what I am trying to say is that freedom is more important and valued over order by those who follow chaos. Yet even chaotic people can see the value of laws, rules, honor. They just do not place as high a priority upon them.
The closer to good a chaotic person is, the more value they can see in laws, but still push them lower on their priority. Because they value the freedom, and rights of all living things.
A chaotic evil person only values their own freedom, and live only for their own pleasure. Who cares about what anyone else thinks.
|
|
This presumes that Anarchy = Greater Freedom. I would suggest that is at best fallacious, at worst demonstrably false.
This presumes that you are a lawful person. So it would be natural for you to think that.
Others have also stated that a society cannot exist without rules. Such rules are usually fashioned around people's sense of right, and wrong. Even chaotic people have rules. However chaos does prefer liberty to law. Chaotic people (as others have posted) see these rules as guidelines. Thus chaos can have codes of honor, laws, traditions, etc...
not only that, but chaotic people change opnions often and frequently, i have a friend who already proclamed himself to be facist, communist, anarchist and capitalist at different times. Fast adapting to different situations is also a chaotic characteristic, evolution is a chaotic process, so a chaotic person can claim to have rules but will discard them at a whim or when he would need otherwise without any afterthought.
This presumes that Anarchy = Greater Freedom. I would suggest that is at best fallacious, at worst demonstrably false.
In all fairness, an anarchy means a society with no ruler. A perfect anarchy is an utopia of course, but yes, one would be more "free" in a state were everyone regulates himself rather than being regulated by a ruler.
Just as depictions of law are often one-sided, it would be nice of chaos' depictions could be explored further.
That is, there are depths that are often undeveloped.
Chaos is often divided into descriptions of murderhobo or Captain America. While we can laugh at the former, it's actually the second that's more concerning. The latter is this idea that "chaos = freedom = the end of slavery." So far this isn't too bad...except now if you don't like freedom then you support slavery.
I'm not sure I explained that well, so I'll try to clarify.
Saying that "chaos = freedom = end of slavery" presents a quandary. This definition not only ignores the potential depth chaos has, it makes it difficult to paint a chaotic hero who is not a "champion of freedom."
Worse, it makes it very difficult to paint flaws into characters /or/ oppose them, because of course, slavery is evil. It is too easy to agree with or argue for, and arguing against chaos then--not only becomes arguing against /freedom/ but /for slavery/ (and potentially, mind control).
It's an indefensible position.
To put it a little more directly: you can't disagree with it. Chaos is not chaos, but freedom, and freedom means the end of slavery.
...see what happens there?
All at once, we've set up a Mary Sue, while shoveling chaos into a singular definition.
|
|
@ Ruggs
Not entirely true. Orderly people can also value freedom, but no one's freedom is above the law. Law in an orderly society is paramount, and if upholding the law means that liberty is lost, well so be it.
This does not mean that slavery is more or less abundant in either society. Slavery and freedom can be found in both orderly, and chaotic societies.
|
Good stuff! Also some good comments on chaos, but I'd like to suggest a one-word definition for chaos in the style of "Law is order."
Chaos is flexibility.
Chaos suffers discomfort in routines because routines are typically inflexible - they follow a fixed pattern. Chaos prefers flexible guidelines of behavior over precise rules and laws. Chaos/Flexibility also supports change and innovation when the way things are is not demonstrably the best way for things to be. Chaos/Flexibility can work around individual differences rather than insist that everyone play a rigid role in the social order.
If you're familiar with Jungian personality types and Meyers-Briggs this correlates rather well with Judging vs Perceiving.
Lawfulness/order is sometimes associated with logic over emotion because logic is a system that makes use of absolutes and rigid statements. However, emotion is not inconsistent with lawfulness, for example, when clinging to duty or tradition despite logic supporting other decisions. Chaos/flexibility is likewise associated with emotion because flexibility makes more allowances for individuals to bend the rules according to their emotions. However, chaotic characters can be logical and simply understand that limited human knowledge requires that our logic be tolerant of and adapt to new evidence or exceptions – that logic embraces probabilities and not just binary absolutes.
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
I only argue that a chaotic person is required to break the law when I see people arguing that a lawful person is required to obey it. |X| = |-X| and all that. :D
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.
Probably accurate historically, but unfortunately Chaos = Destruction is very much a "chaos leans to evil" idea. Compare with PF cosmology where the CG celestials, the Azata, are very artistic and creative.
You are right there. In the old days there was not Good and Evil only Law and Chaos so Chaos was also a stand in for evil.
I remember the definitions in Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, where Law was just as bad as Chaos, because Law meant a complete, unchanging environment. Not only would you not age, you wouldn't learn anything new. Chaos meant daemons and mutants and today gravity is suspended because I felt like it, so the needle fell slightly to the side of Law, because people generally appreciated having some predictability in their lives. But the original book showed that Law was just as bad as Chaos. And thus humanity fell neatly in the middle.
Of course, that was a cosmological decision, and I can't ever remember a debate about it (trolls, fimir, and other hungry things were always too busy eating heroes to worry about the nuances of the universe).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This presumes that Anarchy = Greater Freedom. I would suggest that is at best fallacious, at worst demonstrably false.
An anarchy populated exclusively by CG beings would be pretty free. (See Elysium.)
An anarchy populated exclusively by CE beings is not free at all, unless you're the guy at the top of the heap (in which case you're quite free.) See the Abyss. But demons wouldn't have it any other way: respect for other beings is just another limiter on the freedom of the powerful.
This presumes that Anarchy = Greater Freedom. I would suggest that is at best fallacious, at worst demonstrably false.An anarchy populated exclusively by CG beings would be pretty free. (See Elysium.)
An anarchy populated exclusively by CE beings is not free at all, unless you're the guy at the top of the heap (in which case you're quite free.) See the Abyss. But demons wouldn't have it any other way: respect for other beings is just another limiter on the freedom of the powerful.
This definition of CE is very similar to my definition of LE. How is your version of the Abyss any different than the hierachical levels of Hell?
In my own games, Lawful means having an external codex of behaviors that is referenced. A lawful religion would have a Bible/Koran/Torah. A chaotic religion will have much more "communing time." Because the chaotic deities might have an "Oh, shiny!" moment.
Paladins don't suddenly support a tyrannical king's laws because they're travelling through the realm; their behavior and actions are dictated by The Treatise of Alhuria, the original copy of which is housed at the Great Cathedral, and outside the purview of mere mortals.
Chaotic people have an "end justifies the means" mentality. It doesn't matter that the religious codex says "don't spit on sidewalks," because swallowing a nasty loogie is worse than following some dusty old book.
Similarly, lawful civilizations have codified laws, and no one is above the law. The United States has the Constitution, Great Britain has the Magna Carta. Somalia and Sudan are chaotic societies, given that there are no guarantees about your health or property, nor necessarily who . The Terror (referencing the French Revolution) would also qualify, because being on the wrong end of a political argument might mean you're facing the nasty side of a guillotine blade. Vigilante justice is another example of a chaotic societal behavior. Not that vigilante justice is necessarily evil (superheroes are a hallmark of working outside the legal system).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This definition of CE is very similar to my definition of LE. How is your version of the Abyss any different than the hierachical levels of Hell?
Elysium and Heaven are rather similar too, from a mortal's perspective. (My pet theory about alignment is that the Law vs. Chaos axis is a bigger deal to Outsiders than to mortals.)
Anyway, most forms of Evil believe that ultimately might makes right: Hell sucks for lemures, the Abyss sucks for dretches, but Pit Fiends and Balors largely get to do what they want.
The difference is in structure and attitude.
For example, the write-up for dretches says they can sometimes carve out their own fiefdoms in the Abyss, even though they don't have the strength to rule anything more than other dretches and fiendish rats and vermin. They just have to do it by finding a corner of the abyss so worthless that no one more powerful than themselves thinks it is worth the effort to take it from them - Abyssal 'borders' are not rigid lines. At best there are wide swaths of no-man's-land where no one goes because someone else might take offense. There are no surveyors, and the local 'authority' (demon lord, balor, hezrou, whatever) is not interested in spending time settling land disputes.
Lemures could never do the same thing (even if they weren't mindless, sub imps if that's a sticking point for you.) Territories in hell are known and registered, and borders can be razor-thin lines, with opposing forces standing just on opposite edges, perfectly calm as long as you stay on your own side of the line (think the Sino-russian border during the Cold War, or the Pakistan-India border today.) Nothing in the Devils' Hell is so worthless that they'd let a Lemure or an imp have sovreignity over it. It might be worthless on it's own, but technically it's the property of a greater devil somewhere and they will reclaim it based purely on principle. (E.g. Britain taking the Falklands back from Argentina: they have little economic and zero strategic value, and taking them back cost more than holding them would ever gain, but it was theirs, damnit.)
Also, Evil knows that Might makes Right, but Law and Chaos disagree on what 'might' is. Abyssal rulers are bullies: subordinates obey under threat of violence, and chains of command tend to be short: there is the boss and the guys he orders around (those flunkies may have their own flunkies, but the guy at the top cares little about them.) Infernal rulers can be bullies too (they are Evil and powerful after all), but they are also invested with a certain amount of authority. They have long chains of command (Asmodeus is an imp's boss's boss's boss's boss, and both know it.) Infernal creatures, in particular, also obey contracts. An imp can give an order to a Pit Fiend if it was promised before hand (maybe the imp did a favor for the pit fiend at a crucial point in time, and had the sense to negotiate.) A quasit trying to get a favor returned by a balor will not have the same luck, simply because the Pit Fiend cares about keeping his promises and the Balor does not.
Similarly, lawful civilizations have codified laws, and no one is above the law. The United States has the Constitution, Great Britain has the Magna Carta. Somalia and Sudan are chaotic societies, given that there are no guarantees about your health or property, nor necessarily who . The Terror (referencing the French Revolution) would also qualify, because being on the wrong end of a political argument might mean you're facing the nasty side of a guillotine blade. Vigilante justice is another example of a chaotic societal behavior. Not that vigilante justice is necessarily evil (superheroes are a hallmark of working outside the legal system).
Maybe in a proper LN civilization. In a LE civilization, plenty of people can be above the written law. And in a LG civilization, people should be willing to (sometimes) grant exceptions when the cause is right.
This is becomes sometime the Good (or Evil) thing is not the Lawful (or Chaotic) thing, and the 'four corners' alignments will sometimes run into that.
|
|
Interactions at the corner alignments is probably worth its own post/essay. CG characters will make sacrifices to respect/protect others' freedom, while CE characters ignore the usual qualifier "my freedoms end where yours begin." Just like LG characters believe they have a duty to help others, while LE ones believe others have a duty to serve them.
As for chaos vs law I still hold that Chaos vs Law is defined by valuing the end goal vs the means to said goal. (ie. for the classic murder 1 to save 10 problem Lawful would refuse to kill the one and try to find a different solution [they see a necessary evil as a necessary evil] where as Chaotic would kill the one [they see a necessary evil as a necessary evil])
That's inconsistent with the description in the CRB, which while admittedly imperfect doesn't say anything about means vs end. (It does touch on duty vs individualism, tradition vs novelty, reliability vs adaptability, etc)
@The Crusader - All of the oddities you describe are a result of defining Lawful as "must obey laws." If Lawful characters must obey laws it's natural that chaotic characters must break them (and indeed the highly imperfect CRB does talk about a "compulsion to obey" vs "compulsion to rebel"). I have argued this myself in the past.
However, if Law is Order (rigidity, routine) and Chaos is Flexibility (adaptability, change) then most of your concerns are addressed:
The big problem is that Chaotic is not chaotic. Every alignment discussion I've ever been a part of includes people that claim chaotic characters can be focused, be disciplined, follow a code, adhere to guidelines or rules, avoid flights of fancy or random acts...
... in other words, be all the things Lawful people are without any of the restrictions of being lawful.
First of all, Law and Chaos are not under this interpretation a matter of restrictions vs lack of restrictions. Rather both characters are acting naturally in response to their preferences - see my above comment on Lawful/Judging vs Chaotic/Perceiving personality types. There's also some very good discussion upthread on Lawful Rules (letter of law) vs Chaotic Guidelines (spirit of law) and other differences in the way the two alignments handle issues of conduct.
"Freedom" always enters the discussion at some point. Chaotic characters value freedom, for themselves, for others, for everyone. As opposed to what? Lawful characters want everyone to be shackled or tiered in a societal caste? Wouldn't a chaotic king want to maintain his status quo? Wouldn't a lawful peasant try to improve his lot? Does that mean such characters can't exist?
Lawful characters can support social mobility, they'll just want to go about it in an orderly way (such as formal promotion through ranks based on performance review, testing, or training). A chaotic king may want to remain in power, but he'll be motivated to change his style of rule based on the situation of the kingdom, and might be a reformer in terms of throwing out laws or courtly traditions he sees as dead weight. A lawful peasant might want to improve his lot, but he'll do it in a structured manner (whether by making use of existing social mobility systems or with an organized rebellion to introduce a better system).
And what's the penalty for acting against your alignment? Most people would argue that you shouldn't suffer an alignment change for just a few, or only one, opposing act. But, wouldn't it be the most alarmingly chaotic thing a lawful person could do, to take a single act completely opposed to your entire world view? If you engaged in random, bizarre behavior frequently, it would simply be how you defined your code, your sense of order. Borderline lawful. But, just once...
And how lawful... or how frequently lawful does a chaotic character have to be before he faces the potential of an alignment shift? Can he ever? Isn't he always doing as he pleases... the essence of Chaos? If he can't shift, what is the point of the opposing alignments? Are you only lawful until you "fall"?
Chaos isn't randomness or bizarre behavior, and perfect unvarying order is pathological (see OCPD, not to be confused with OCD).
A character ceases to be lawful when his actions demonstrate he is at least as comfortable with flexibility (change) as order. He ceases to be chaotic when his actions demonstrate he is at least as comfortable with order (structure) as with flexibility. For example, I am a lawful person but have become less lawful over time due to association with chaotic people (who I cannot force to follow my rigid plans) and consciously training myself to improvise more. Increased lawfulness is a common byproduct of age - people sometimes become set in their ways or slip into familiar routines as they grow older.
The point of these questions is not to dismantle the alignment system. I'm really just looking for a version of Chaos that is... well, something more than "I don't want to be Lawful."
Which is what Chaos is Flexibility does.
@ Ruggs
Not entirely true. Orderly people can also value freedom, but no one's freedom is above the law. Law in an orderly society is paramount, and if upholding the law means that liberty is lost, well so be it.
This does not mean that slavery is more or less abundant in either society. Slavery and freedom can be found in both orderly, and chaotic societies.
Oh, I don't disagree. My point was more about it being defined as either exclusively or as the sole definition of.
Apparently I just did not express that very well!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not entirely true. Orderly people can also value freedom, but no one's freedom is above the law. Law in an orderly society is paramount, and if upholding the law means that liberty is lost, well so be it.
Indeed. I would imagine that most Lawful Good people are believers in the concept of Ordered Liberty. Society, as a whole, is much freer when there is a firm structure of laws and traditions outlining and protecting the rights of the individual. People give up some portion of their personal freedom to create social structures that ensure the freedom of all.
Maybe in a proper LN civilization. In a LE civilization, plenty of people can be above the written law. And in a LG civilization, people should be willing to (sometimes) grant exceptions when the cause is right.This is becomes sometime the Good (or Evil) thing is not the Lawful (or Chaotic) thing, and the 'four corners' alignments will sometimes run into that.
Yes. I had removed good/evil out of the equation.
I imagine a LN planar society (in 1st ed AD&D I believe it was called Nirvana) existing much like a computer program. Binary responses, without grey areas. Unknown situations would create error codes, which might be examined by unqualified entities who would rely on their internal mechanisms instead of the Mechanical Codex, introducing inexactitude and chaos into the system.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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).
Much as I like the OP in general, I have to object to this.
First, seeking perfection and enlightenment isn't Lawful (otherwise, law is better than chaos and the OP says that isn't intended to be the case in PF).
Second, when it comes to the type of martial and spiritual training that characterizes the monk, regularity is more important than routine. A character that performs grueling exercises for 2 hours before breakfast, and then meditates for 2 hours before bed is not at an advantage over the character that sometimes performs the 2 hours of grueling exercise between breakfast and lunch, or sometimes meditates in the morning and exercises in the evening. Routines are often used as a tool to help people attain frequency of training, but routine is not itself necessary for good training.
Third, in terms of the content of the training, structure does not provide more benefit than flexibility. Katas are useful and beneficial because they allow you to train an idealized set of moves until it is very familiar, but training only using katas does not prepare you to adapt to your opponent's actions in an actual sparring situation. I did martial arts for a couple years and our sensei repeatedly told us not to let our training to get routine or predictable. One exercise consisted of performing different techniques as they were called out at random by an instructor. Supplementary training in Tai Chi consisted of two parts - the formal, orderly sequence and then a more flexible/disordered applied exercise. We were also repeatedly told "if the technique doesn't work, don't just try it again, try a different technique." This is approaching fighting from a non-orderly direction.
I believe that the "Lawful" descriptor was attached to monks because monks are considered disciplined and discipline has associations with law. However, while military or organizational discipline is indeed orderly, self-discipline of the type required of a monk is not necessarily. Self-discipline is less about being rigid, and more about impulse control and delayed gratification. It's about doing what is right or what is more advantageous in the long run rather than giving in to short-term desires. Many people use routines or structures to help them develop these skills, and that's just dandy. But it is not contradictory to have someone who dislikes routine, and thinks that novelty is awesome, and prefers flexible guidelines to inflexible rules, and also is able to pass on dessert and spend hours a day meditating in the hopes of becoming the next Bruce Lee. Such a character is not orderly overall, and thus should not be lawful.
The law/chaos axis is from the Elric books by Michael Moorcock.
The way I see the law/chaos axis is how the individual organizes the world.
Lawful creatures have a strong sense that there is a "right way" and a "wrong way" to do things. They prefer routines to shaking things up. They prefer writing a script to improvising. When sightseeing, they make an itinerary to follow rather than wander around looking for something interesting.
Chaotic creatures don't like to be pinned down. They want to keep their options open. They prefer to live in the moment. They would rather jump in and figure things out on the fly than get bogged down in the details. Their plans are more like outlines that leave a lot of room for changing things as they develop.
Lawful creatures will have a tendency to keep a neat and tidy desk, organize their files, use a catalog system for their library, and neatly fold their clean socks. Chaotic creatures are less likely to care about that level of organization, but have little trouble keeping track of their things.
Lawful creatures consider chaotic creatures to be disorganized, flighty, and unreliable.
Chaotic creatures consider lawful creatures to be stodgy, rigid, and inflexible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been trying to come up with something catchy having read both discussions, and I think I'm onto something.
What is best for:
You [Good]
Me [Evil]
All [Law]
Each [Chaos]
This leads to some odd interactions (such as Lawful Evil being "what is best for All Me"), but I think it encapsulates things quite well.
|
In the case of freedoms, I don't think Chaos has a monopoly on appreciating freedom, but it has a different approach to it.
Lawful will delineate rights and duties; guaranteeing certain freedoms, and limiting some in order that your freedom doesn't infringe on that of another.
Chaos considers such an enumerated list of freedoms risky, because it suggests that everything else might not be inherently free. Chaos will start by assuming everything is allowed, and then maybe deciding to grudgingly give up a few things because they have spectacularly bad results. However, if you can do those things without causing the bad results, then what you did wasn't morally wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Law and Chaos can be argued to mean anything.
/thread
Seriously why are people still arguing?
Law and Chaos can be argued to mean anything./thread
Seriously why are people still arguing?
because people want to solve issues rather than let them be?
For many, the issue at stake is not the EndTread, it's the OpenTread.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been trying to come up with something catchy having read both discussions, and I think I'm onto something.
What is best for:
You [Good]
Me [Evil]
All [Law]
Each [Chaos]This leads to some odd interactions (such as Lawful Evil being "what is best for All Me"), but I think it encapsulates things quite well.
I've found one of the best ways to sleuth out what an alignment stands for is contrast it with what the opposing alignment thinks of it. That is, Law considers itself 'Orderly', and thus thinks of Chaos as random and disorganized. However, Chaos views itself as flexible and adaptable, and thinks of Law as rigid and joyless.
This method makes sense because both alignment axes only exist as contrasts: Law has no identity without Chaos, and vice versa (same for Good and Evil).
Law and Chaos can be argued to mean anything./thread
Seriously why are people still arguing?
Why are people having discussions on a forum? Strange question.
The Law/Chaos axis is much more difficult to spell out due to the lack of real negative/positive connotations each carries.
Your gut can tell you when something is Evil. The same isn't true with Chaos. Thus we must work through this axis intellectually rather than emotionally. A much more difficult process.
Some interpretations:
Law/Chaos - Regulation/Freedom
Law/Chaos - Groups/Individuals
Law/Chaos - Predictability/Randomness
There's a lot of different tacks to take here. All of them are interesting to discuss so that we can decide what is best for our tables.
|
Moorcock, argues that extremes of law and chaos are equally bad: the pointless activity of chaos matched by the rigid fossilization of law. But Moorcock takes these abstract concepts to the point where the geography, even the reality of the world, changes with them; to the point where worlds are destroyed by either.
Just a note on something that always bothered me. Moorcock indeed professes to see extremes of Law and Chaos as equally bad things, but he only really shows bad examples of extremes of Chaos.
Concerning the whole Law-Chaos axis, my take is the following :
IMO, modern Japan is a very good example of a RL Lawful society. The most important thing for the average japanese person is being responsible, as in doing what you are expected to do because of your role in society. Duty is a key word and there are no excuses for not doing your duty, only extenuating circumstances. Also people avoid promising anything because any promise made publicly becomes a duty.
A sense of responsibility is the cardinal virtue. Being unreliable is the greatest sin.
Basically, the system makes all things work smoothly and comfortably because the people put so much effort in fulfilling their role and responsibilities. Being reliable is the utmost virtue and peer-pressure is a mighty tool for inciting people to conform.
Of course, this entails that insiders are implicitly trusted while outsiders are implicitly distrusted.
This enables controlling the influence of foreign ideas by subjecting any citizen having heavy contact with the outside to a heavy and lengthy scrutiny from his peers until they are satisfied that said contact did not "contaminate" him and that he can still be relied upon to responsibly fill his appropriate role in society.
The group is far more important than the individual. In fact, the individual is defined by the groups to which he belongs.
You should know your place in the group, respect those above you and demand respect from those below you.
Respecting tradition is the most important thing. Laws should be respected too. Even a law opposed to tradition should be respected to the letter if possible (of course, the spirit of the law needs not be respected if it is contrary to tradition).
In a Chaotic society, I believe that results (whatever the means), rather than duty and the observance of tradition, are the most important thing for a person. Also people are very concerned (nigh paranoid in fact) about anything that might threaten their freedom. Quite frankly, in this light, the United States do seem more Chaotic than Lawful (at least when viewed with a foreigner's eyes).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And what's the penalty for acting against your alignment? Most people would argue that you shouldn't suffer an alignment change for just a few, or only one, opposing act. But, wouldn't it be the most alarmingly chaotic thing a lawful person could do, to take a single act completely opposed to your entire world view? If you engaged in random, bizarre behavior frequently, it would simply be how you defined your code, your sense of order. Borderline lawful. But, just once...
And how lawful... or how frequently lawful does a chaotic character have to be before he faces the potential of an alignment shift? Can he ever? Isn't he always doing as he pleases... the essence of Chaos? If he can't shift, what is the point of the opposing alignments? Are you only lawful until you "fall"?
Chaos isn't randomness or bizarre behavior, and perfect unvarying order is pathological (see OCPD, not to be confused with OCD).
A character ceases to be lawful when his actions demonstrate he is at least as comfortable with flexibility (change) as order. He ceases to be chaotic when his actions demonstrate he is at least as comfortable with order (structure) as with flexibility. For example, I am a lawful person but have become less lawful over time due to association with chaotic people (who I cannot force to follow my rigid plans) and consciously training myself to improvise more. Increased lawfulness is a common byproduct of age - people sometimes become set in their ways or slip into familiar routines as they grow older.
Chaotic people (as others have posted) see these rules as guidelines. Thus chaos can have codes of honor, laws, traditions, etc...
This, to me, reads like Chaos = (Lawful + Options).
For example: Kaoss crosses the street everyday when he leaves his house. He uses the crosswalk every time. He never doesn't use the crosswalk. But, as long as he puts his fingers in his ears and shouts, "I'm only doing this because it's what I want to do!" then he stays Chaotic.
Chaotic, as an alignment, should have some limitations just as law and good and evil do. If you are lawful, it's pretty obvious when you are not being lawful. If you are good, it's pretty obvious when you are not being good. If you are evil, it's a little more ambiguous, but you can still make some judgements on whether someone is being too benevolent, merciful, or forgiving to maintain that alignement. If you are chaotic... you should have to be something other, and consistently something other, than lawful. But, those who champion the chaotic alignment, consistently argue that the things that make lawful Lawful (structure, discipline, tradition, focus), apply equally to chaotic. I respectfully disagree. And frankly, I don't see the point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Law and Chaos can be argued to mean anything./thread
Seriously why are people still arguing?
Why are people having discussions on a forum? Strange question.
The Law/Chaos axis is much more difficult to spell out due to the lack of real negative/positive connotations each carries.
Your gut can tell you when something is Evil. The same isn't true with Chaos. Thus we must work through this axis intellectually rather than emotionally. A much more difficult process.
Some interpretations:
Law/Chaos - Regulation/Freedom
Law/Chaos - Groups/Individuals
Law/Chaos - Predictability/RandomnessThere's a lot of different tacks to take here. All of them are interesting to discuss so that we can decide what is best for our tables.
Any alignment is whatever the player wants it to be.
They can be argued to be anything.
It's a question of roleplaying, not rules or philosophy.
As GM all you really care about is whether people are roleplaying honestly and didn't just pick an alignment for meta reasons. THAT is a GM/player issue not a GM/character issue.
You guys are trying to find rules for subjective thematic ideals.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been trying to come up with something catchy having read both discussions, and I think I'm onto something.
What is best for:
You [Good]
Me [Evil]
All [Law]
Each [Chaos]This leads to some odd interactions (such as Lawful Evil being "what is best for All Me"), but I think it encapsulates things quite well.
I've found one of the best ways to sleuth out what an alignment stands for is contrast it with what the opposing alignment thinks of it. That is, Law considers itself 'Orderly', and thus thinks of Chaos as random and disorganized. However, Chaos views itself as flexible and adaptable, and thinks of Law as rigid and joyless.
This method makes sense because both alignment axes only exist as contrasts: Law has no identity without Chaos, and vice versa (same for Good and Evil).
My own short method :
One word (more or less) but based on how a person following one of the axes would describe his most defining characteristic :
- Good = "I am compassionate/caring"
- Evil = "I am powerful/efficient"
- Chaotic = "I am free"
- Lawful = "I am responsible"
- Neutral (along any axis) = "I am pragmatic/level-headed"
|
|
Any alignment is whatever the player wants it to be.
They can be argued to be anything.
It's a question of roleplaying, not rules or philosophy.
As GM all you really care about is whether people are roleplaying honestly and didn't just pick an alignment for meta reasons. THAT is a GM/player issue not a GM/character issue.
You guys are trying to find rules for subjective thematic ideals.
Alignments should REALLY be treated like houserules : something that the GM explains to his players (and even discusses/adapts with them) BEFORE the game even begins. Before PCs are even created in fact.
This would help us avoid 99% of the nightmarish situations described in all the alignment threads.
Law and Chaos can be argued to mean anything./thread
Seriously why are people still arguing?
Why are people having discussions on a forum? Strange question.
The Law/Chaos axis is much more difficult to spell out due to the lack of real negative/positive connotations each carries.
Your gut can tell you when something is Evil. The same isn't true with Chaos. Thus we must work through this axis intellectually rather than emotionally. A much more difficult process.
Some interpretations:
Law/Chaos - Regulation/Freedom
Law/Chaos - Groups/Individuals
Law/Chaos - Predictability/RandomnessThere's a lot of different tacks to take here. All of them are interesting to discuss so that we can decide what is best for our tables.
Any alignment is whatever the player wants it to be.
They can be argued to be anything.
It's a question of roleplaying, not rules or philosophy.
As GM all you really care about is whether people are roleplaying honestly and didn't just pick an alignment for meta reasons. THAT is a GM/player issue not a GM/character issue.
You guys are trying to find rules for subjective thematic ideals.
If the discussion is useless, why are you still here discussing it?
Law can't be argued into being anything. Not if you are being intellectually honest in your discussion. The same applies to Chaos.
Trying to find an essential core to Law/Chaos is a worthwhile endeavor for it allows a foundation to build motivations.
The BBEG in The Lego Movie specifically wanted the world to stop being so chaotic. He wanted everything in it's perfect place and to stay there forever. This seems a perfect extreme example of Lawful and I don't believe any reasonable argument can make it Chaotic.
By contrast we have The Hulk in his original configuration. The incarnation of rage and destruction. It would be quite a feat to argue that he is Lawful.
So the trick is to tease out the essential commonality between obviously chaotic/lawful characters and find the ground on which they are built. From there you can build upwards again with any characters you like.
|
|
The Law/Chaos axis is much more difficult to spell out due to the lack of real negative/positive connotations each carries.
Your gut can tell you when something is Evil. The same isn't true with Chaos. Thus we must work through this axis intellectually rather than emotionally. A much more difficult process.
I would say the exactly oposite. Good and evil is very relative from culture to culture. Some cultures violence is evil and sexuality is good, others culture say the oposite. Law and chaos generally is the same in any culture.
The Law/Chaos axis is much more difficult to spell out due to the lack of real negative/positive connotations each carries.
Your gut can tell you when something is Evil. The same isn't true with Chaos. Thus we must work through this axis intellectually rather than emotionally. A much more difficult process.
I would say the exactly oposite. Good and evil is very relative from culture to culture. Some cultures violence is evil and sexuality is good, others culture say the oposite. Law and chaos generally is the same in any culture.
Doesn't matter what each culture calls good/evil. It's still a gut reaction for anyone within that culture. And there are some fairly universal goods/evils that are ubiquitous.
Good/Evil is visceral.
Law/Chaos is an intellectual distinction.
|
|
Doesn't matter what each culture calls good/evil. It's still a gut reaction for anyone within that culture. And there are some fairly universal goods/evils that are ubiquitous.
Good/Evil is visceral.
Law/Chaos is an intellectual distinction.
Yeah, but say that to a christian paladin trying to smite evil a wiccan witch when both of them consider themselves good.
Any alignment is whatever the player wants it to be.
They can be argued to be anything.
It's a question of roleplaying, not rules or philosophy.
As GM all you really care about is whether people are roleplaying honestly and didn't just pick an alignment for meta reasons. THAT is a GM/player issue not a GM/character issue.
You guys are trying to find rules for subjective thematic ideals.
Alignments should REALLY be treated like houserules : something that the GM explains to his players (and even discusses/adapts with them) BEFORE the game even begins. Before PCs are even created in fact.
This would help us avoid 99% of the nightmarish situations described in all the alignment threads.
Absolutely true! Which is why I codify and publish my table rules on alignment.
Isn't that lawful of me?
Yeah, but say that to a christian paladin trying to smite evil a wiccan witch when both of them consider themselves good.Doesn't matter what each culture calls good/evil. It's still a gut reaction for anyone within that culture. And there are some fairly universal goods/evils that are ubiquitous.
Good/Evil is visceral.
Law/Chaos is an intellectual distinction.
Easy. They would both consider it a viscerally good (paladin)/evil(wiccan) act.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, but say that to a christian paladin trying to smite evil a wiccan witch when both of them consider themselves good.Doesn't matter what each culture calls good/evil. It's still a gut reaction for anyone within that culture. And there are some fairly universal goods/evils that are ubiquitous.
Good/Evil is visceral.
Law/Chaos is an intellectual distinction.
Please-- let's shy away from using real-world religions in this discussion!
That way lies flame wars and moderator intervention!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Especially since Good and Evil are objective in the Pathfinder universe. Moral relativism cannot exist there.
That's one of the reasons there are so many debate threads for Good/Evil - In game it's objective, but it is difficult to agree on what the objective criteria are.
In any case, Good/Evil is not the topic for this thread: Law/Chaos is (and originally just the relationship between Law the alignment and law, those things written in books at courthouses.)