Replacing the Law / Chaos Axis

[L33Fish]

I was never able to really grok the law/chaos alignment axis. Like why would someone be for or against rules for the sake of being for or against them?

That's why I came up with my own philosophical axis:

Absolutist - You believe that an action can be judged as right or wrong based upon the action. An absolutist might believe that killing is wrong or that disobedience is wrong.

Undecided - You have not given much thought to the philosophy of right and wrong, but instead go with what your gut tells you is good or bad. An undecided might believe that killing is usually wrong except if the person deserved it.

Consequentialist - You believe that an action should be judged based upon the outcomes it produces or was intended to produce. A consequentialist might believe that killing is morally wrong unless it saves more lives in the end.

[Cyrad]

Law/Chaos is poorly named. It's more so about whether you have liberal or conservative mind set. A lawful person prefers structure and discipline whereas a chaotic person see structure as hindering restraints. Having meant many people of different ends of the spectrum, I honestly feel there exists truth to this, though obviously not so polarizing as the game presents it. Even societies and culture can go either way. Some cultures place a high value on tradition and loyalty while others encourage shrugging off tradition in favor of advancing personal ambition.

That being said, I do think there's something to this concept of yours. However, I'm not entirely sure how it fits with Good/Evil. So if I'm EC, it's okay to do good things as long as I have an evil agenda? And if I'm EA, doing evil things is more important than the end result?

[master_marshmallow]

Cyrad wrote:

Law/Chaos is poorly named. It's more so about whether you have liberal or conservative mind set. A lawful person prefers structure and discipline whereas a chaotic person see structure as hindering restraints. Having meant many people of different ends of the spectrum, I honestly feel there exists truth to this, though obviously not so polarizing as the game presents it. Even societies and culture can go either way. Some cultures place a high value on tradition and loyalty while others encourage shrugging off tradition in favor of advancing personal ambition.

That being said, I do think there's something to this concept of yours. However, I'm not entirely sure how it fits with Good/Evil. So if I'm EC, it's okay to do good things as long as I have an evil agenda? And if I'm EA, doing evil things is more important than the end result?

I do like Liberalism vs Conservatism replacing Chaos and Law, respectively.

I will be using this nomenclature in my next game.

[L33Fish]

Cyrad wrote:

That being said, I do think there's something to this concept of yours. However, I'm not entirely sure how it fits with Good/Evil. So if I'm EC, it's okay to do good things as long as I have an evil agenda? And if I'm EA, doing evil things is more important than the end result?

That's pretty much how I envision it working.

[Abyssian]

The law/chaos axis comes from Michael Moorcock's Elric stories. Elric: The Stealer of Souls is worth reading to understand the context that inspired its existence in early D&D.

[Avatar-1]

Cyrad is on the money. I think the terms "Law" and "Chaos" are just simpler than "Liberal" and "Conservative".

It's more about following rules or evading rules, rather than the latter two, which (for me, at least) suggest it's a political stance on decision making/personality.

[JoeJ]

Also, using liberal and conservative is extremely likely to be interpreted as, "let's argue about politics tonight instead of playing a game."

[Keydan]

I once pondered the 3-axis system that's more political by nature.
1st axis - Ego vs Conformism
2nd axis - Order vs Anarchy
3rd axis - Doves vs Hawks

Each axis had 5 points, and they gave certain bonuses.

[Lincoln Hills]

I'd call them "Unity" vs. "Liberty," but there's more history to the Chaos/Law terminology. And yes, the extreme ends of the spectrum get pretty silly - extremism/fundamentalism tends to embarrass the moderates of any philosophical system.

Slightly Chaotic Guy: Dude, you're making us look bad!
Extremely Chaotic Guy: Address me as Duchess, you conformist gestapo thug!

[Scythia]

To me, I see law and chaos as being more group/individual. A lawful person follows the rules not because they have a love of regulations, but because rules are what's best for the group, whether the group in question is a family, a city, or a nation. The chaotic person is driven by what they want to do, rather than regard for others. The addition of the good or evil determines what sort of actions they're inclined to within that framework.

I don't really like the liberal and conservative comparison, because some conservatives are driven by things other than tradition, and some liberals aren't motivated by change. As the most abstract concepts, I suppose it makes sense, but going abstract can make many things fit.

[50ShadesofGoblin]

It is poorly named.

Let's please change it.

[GM Elton]

master_marshmallow wrote:

Cyrad wrote:

Law/Chaos is poorly named. It's more so about whether you have liberal or conservative mind set. A lawful person prefers structure and discipline whereas a chaotic person see structure as hindering restraints. Having meant many people of different ends of the spectrum, I honestly feel there exists truth to this, though obviously not so polarizing as the game presents it. Even societies and culture can go either way. Some cultures place a high value on tradition and loyalty while others encourage shrugging off tradition in favor of advancing personal ambition.

That being said, I do think there's something to this concept of yours. However, I'm not entirely sure how it fits with Good/Evil. So if I'm EC, it's okay to do good things as long as I have an evil agenda? And if I'm EA, doing evil things is more important than the end result?

I do like Liberalism vs Conservatism replacing Chaos and Law, respectively.

I will be using this nomenclature in my next game.

Given how most of us Conservatives in the United States are actually Classical liberals, and we believe that today's Liberals (that have Democratic/CPUSA talking points) are actually Statists, I find this idea of Conservatism vs. Liberalism to be also imperfect.

[Secret Wizard]

The whole system is whacked.

To me, for example, Evil vs. Good means Egoism vs. Altruism, and that's how I use it.

Chaotic vs. Lawful has more complications, because while some actions can be construed as Egoistic or Altruistic, but can an action be construed as Institutionalizing or Deinstitutionalizing?

So what I made Chaotic vs. Lawful to be is Amoral vs. Moral - that is, does this character care about a code of conduct? That makes it much easier.
Neutral characters are more flexible, believing there is a code of conduct to follow in some cases, while forgoing it altogether in most cases.

So, here would be some alignments in my system, examplified by Game of Thrones characters!

Lawful Good (Altruistic Moral) - Ned Stark, to a ridiculous extent. The Mad King killed his brother and father, but when Jamie Lannister backstabs the Targeryan, Ned Stark is still pissed because that was a dick move of Jamie.

Neutral Good (Altruistic) - Daenerys Targeryan. She'll do some things because they are just, but if you are keeping slaves, she'll roast you alive and nail you to a board. Flexible in this sense.
Another good example is Davos Seaworth, who has his own code of ethics - mercenaries, smuggling, all is fair game in war; but no magic and no human sacrifices plox.

Chaotic Good (Altruistic Amoral) - Tyrion Lannister. He'll blow up your army with medieval-nukes and take any underhanded measure to get his way... but he cares for the common good and actively wishes for peace. Killing people at a wedding might be too much for him, though. No altruistic character can be completely devoid of SOME moral.

Lawful Neutral (Moral) - Stannis Baratheon. He wants to be king because it's his right. Jamie Lannister -- I mean, Jamie "The Kingslayer" Lannister, I mean, he did backstab a king... oh, sorry, yes, SER Jamie "The Kingslayer" Lannister, he is still a knight.
You see my point. This guy only cares about the code of conduct. Can't cheat on his wife without blurting it out right afterwards because that was improper.

True Neutral (???) - Balon Greyjoy. Ironborn in general don't give two shits about moral or amoral, but they do follow a code of conduct and are fiercely loyal to those who earn their respect, but will swiftly dig an axe into the head of the man they've just lost respect for.
It's not egoistical or altruistic behavior, either - they want a good fight because that's what they do.

Chaotic Neutral (Amoral) - Jamie Lannister. A man without honor. Will do anything to get back with his loved one. Anything. Gravitating towards Lawful Neutral/Good.

Lawful Evil (Egoistic Moral) - Tywin Lannister. The lion doesn't concern with the opinion of the sheep... but there are things he cares about - namely, incest, homosexuality, keeping a respectable amount of face, a proper judiciary system.

Neutral Evil (Egoistic) - Khal Drogo. Has a code of conduct, but easily trumped by his own wishes - yeah, it's customary to give our warriors a few women for fun rape times, but my wife wants it another way so let's switch that around. Yeah, no blood in Vaes Dothrak, but you know, let's get creative about that.

Chaotic Evil (Egoistic Amoral) - Everyone else in this f*$&ing show basically.

[LazarX]

Cyrad wrote:

Law/Chaos is poorly named.

It helps more if you read more British literature. Warhammer for instance puts Good and Evil on the same line as Law and Chaos. Moorcock put his gods on the Law and Chaos axis by making it clear that Good and Evil were human concerns alone.

Actually eliminating the Good/Evil axis instead gives you a more modern grey on grey morality set so that the story line is driven by the tension between those who try to bring order to the degree where everything is brought into stasis, and the chaos extreme where all boundaries including that of form itself are erased, with the heroes those looking to balance between the two extremes.

[Mechagamera]

I use lawful to mean that you would prefer to be led by someone primarily based on their social status (or to lead based on your status): king, president/prime minister, high priest, general,etc. Chaos means you would prefer to be led by someone primarily based on a characteristic (or to lead based on your characteristics): biggest, strongest, smartest, most magical, most charismatic, etc. Neutrals largely don't care who is in charge as long as their needs/wants/desires are taken care of.

This does change some standard D&D/Pathfinder alignments. Most fey are lawful (attached to a Summer/Winter/Spring/Fall court, seelie and unseelie), and almost all dragons are chaotic (because being a dragon means you are the biggest, strongest, smartest, and most magical, so why shouldn't you be in charge?).

[Jeven]

Law versus Chaos is a contradiction in human society.

Even "chaotic", individualistic societies like the Vikings or Ancient Greeks had gods who represented their customary laws like Odin and Zeus.

Its hard to think of better terms, but perhaps Regimented versus Individualistic. This covers things like Ancient Rome (the regimented empire) versus the Barbarians (the individualistic, poorly organized tribes), and even things like regimented Devils and individualistic Demons.

I don't think modern political terms like Conservatism/Liberalism would create good poles, since they both seem to be a mixture of regimented/individualistic but applying those to different areas of life.

[JoeJ]

Why not just get rid of it, at least for character alignments? People can be good or evil, and can tend toward individuality vs. collectivism, or toward long-range planning vs. spontaneity, but actual law and chaos are reserved for some of the more bizarre outsiders.

[Jeven]

JoeJ wrote:

Why not just get rid of it, at least for character alignments? People can be good or evil, and can tend toward individuality vs. collectivism, or toward long-range planning vs. spontaneity, but actual law and chaos are reserved for some of the more bizarre outsiders.

Yeah, I agree, Law and Chaos aren't great for PCs. You could replace it with a Code of Behavior for Paladins and the like who must follow rules instead of the generic and confusing "must obey Law". Even Chaotics like barbarians should have a Code of Behavior, but it would be different.

Basically codes could be modeled on cultural archetypes, so the barbarians could choose from ones similar to Vikings or Homeric heroes, while paladins would mold to a medieval-Christian chivalric-like code.

[Atarlost]

Any alignment chart that reflects reality must be multi dimensional and possibly multiply connected.

There's group vs individual, but there are two mid-points: balance and apathy. There's altruism and selfishness, but there's also realism: the recognition that systems must expect people to behave selfishly even if the people designing and/or implementing them are altruists and that naive altruists interfering with such systems can break them producing undesirable outcomes like the tragedy of the commons. Then there's the consequentialist/deontologist/traditionalist issue (are good acts acts that result in good, acts performed for good reasons, or acts in accordance with what your predecessors considered good for reasons you don't know and don't care to explore?) Also universalist/tribalist (who do you consider people? your tribe or nation/ all humans/civilized humanoids /all humanoids/ anything with int>2 that isn't naturally evil/ any creature of your socioeconomic class regardless of species but not creatures of higher or lower status/ coreligionists/ anyone int>2 who doesn't worship Rovagug?)

[Cyrad]

GM Elton wrote:

master_marshmallow wrote:

Cyrad wrote:

Law/Chaos is poorly named. It's more so about whether you have liberal or conservative mind set. A lawful person prefers structure and discipline whereas a chaotic person see structure as hindering restraints. Having meant many people of different ends of the spectrum, I honestly feel there exists truth to this, though obviously not so polarizing as the game presents it. Even societies and culture can go either way. Some cultures place a high value on tradition and loyalty while others encourage shrugging off tradition in favor of advancing personal ambition.

That being said, I do think there's something to this concept of yours. However, I'm not entirely sure how it fits with Good/Evil. So if I'm EC, it's okay to do good things as long as I have an evil agenda? And if I'm EA, doing evil things is more important than the end result?

I do like Liberalism vs Conservatism replacing Chaos and Law, respectively.

I will be using this nomenclature in my next game.

Given how most of us Conservatives in the United States are actually Classical liberals, and we believe that today's Liberals (that have Democratic/CPUSA talking points) are actually Statists, I find this idea of Conservatism vs. Liberalism to be also imperfect.

My model does not entirely reflect American politics. Rather, the opposite. My interpretation merely argues that for a given philosophy, there often exists a scale of how strict one should conform to that philosophy. This is what the Law vs Chaos axis represents. It's a model. No model is perfect, but I find it useful and intriguing enough. Pathfinder/D&D takes philosophies regarding the value of life and the value of order and makes them the cosmic forces that bind the multiverse together.

[Secret Wizard]

I use it for guidelines to players on how to roleplay their characters... are they selfish or altruistic? Do they have a code of honor or not?

[GM Elton]

There is always Pendragon RPG's Traits and Passions system.