Is Chaos the "other Evil"?

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

Perpdepog wrote:

Ly'ualdre wrote:

As Necrog1ant stated, the Bestiary is focused toward utilizing creatures for, mostly, antagonistic and combat oriented purposes. There is a line with some creatures, especially Good ones, where they are more presented as tools for GM use in either non-combative scenarios or as allies. They can equally be used as adversaries all the same, depending on the context of the plot and/or composition of the PCs group.

I myself have had a plot hook I'm hoping to plant somewhere one day, involving heroic PCs coming to blows with something like a Planetar, who is serving as a guardian to an imprisoned great evil. The PCs have been tasked with destroying it, but the Planetar believes that any scenario in which this being is released, even if complete annihilation of it be a prospect, to be absolute folly and would sooner be destroyed itself than allow the beings chains to be broken. Thus, potentially resulting in a fight with the Planetar unless some other conclusion can be met; unlikely given Planetars realative lack of diplomacy.

Looking through some other sources to get a better idea of how Proteans operate outside of the Bestiary would be a great start. Their role depends more on what you need them for. You want to run a campaign about rebels attempting to take down a corrupt regime? A story that puts the PCs in a situation were they become enslaved thanks to the actions of a Theletos, which sees your deal with some great evil to be law-abiding? Proteans make good allies here. Incidently, this is also part of why I find the LN shift in Aeon philosophy to be a bit silly in places. A Pleroma, imo, is just as likely to work with a Izfiitar as they are to fight one. Personally, my head canon believes Aeons simply shift to whatever philosophy is important to their overall plan for the multiverse. So come third edition Pathfinder, they'll be Chaotic. I digress. These are my own musings.

I'm not even sure it's headcanon. Aeons were TN in 1stEd, the Convergence happened because stuff...

For what it's worth, according to my understanding, the aeons are lawful because the very act of moderating and maintaining a balance between opposing forces is inherently lawful in the eyes of the setting. even if an aeon chooses to work with a protean in the inscrutable pursuit of balance, the act of putting a hand on the scale to correct it ius a regulatory behaviour befitting of law.

Also I believe it's not so much that aeons became lawful so much as they became neutral and gave now returned to their primal state... With some so moved by the deep fake that they have remained neutral.

[Ly'ualdre]

No No, I get their shift to being Lawful, even if I don't particularly agree with it due to my professional background.

What I'm suggesting is that perhaps they shift between the three Natural Alignments as befits their inscrutable ambitions. Given that train of thought, I wouldn't be surprised to see them shift to CN if a 3rd edition of Pathfinder is ever released. This mostly stems, again, from my my career in law. But also is partly inspired by the fact that the Aeons supreme being, the Monad, has remained TN. Suggests to me there is perhaps a lot more to their Convergence than we know.

But that is my own head canon on the matter.

[Grankless]

I'd like to note that nearly every time an aeon appeared in a 1e AP, they were usually doing something lawful stupid, like the bythos in Strange Aeon. There are also those guys who kill intellectuals because they think there's too much knowledge in the world, who even the other aeons don't like.

[The Raven Black]

I think the LN outsiders are not nicer than the CN ones. We just have an easier time portraying them because all of us have been, at one time or another, in interaction with RL representatives of order and authority. So these are pretty familiar.

RL representatives of disorder and rebellion, not so much.

[Temperans]

It is very easy to write about what we know. Most of us know more about following the rules than not.

*****************
Regarding the Aeons. I believe the whole change of alignment to be weird. You have these group of creatures created by 2 opposing opinions clashing that are described as having no culture, society, personality, or memory beyond the present, willing to destroy or create anything for the sake of balance. But then you have the Pleroma come in and say Axiomites, and by extension Inevitables, are Aeons. Creatures that are born differently, in a different plane of existence, with different goals, and no connection to the Monad.

The fact that Axiomites/Inevitables who resist the change are "convinced" or worse destroyed just makes the change even more questionable to me. It reads less as "Aeons are now LN" and more like "The Pleroma took over Axis and are running it like a dictatorship".

[The Raven Black]

Which can be quite LN actually.

[Temperans]

The Raven Black wrote:

Which can be quite LN actually.

More like LE, still doesn't really match their "supposed" role.

[Taja the Barbarian]

Archpaladin Zousha wrote:

...

And as for the Proteans, I think the issue is perspective: you only really get to see Proteans used as antagonists in much of the printed material like APs and such, so you come away with a negative impression of them. Proteans also CREATE as much as they destroy. The whole point of the destruction is so something new may be created in its place.
...

Generally speaking, opinions on acts of destruction/creation will change greatly when you or your family are the ones facing destruction...

In some ways, Chaos is a bit like a drunk driver: He has no evil intent, but he likely will bring tragedy to someone's life nonetheless and stopping that from happening is generally seen as a 'good' thing for everyone...

[Kasoh]

Taja the Barbarian wrote:

Archpaladin Zousha wrote:

...

And as for the Proteans, I think the issue is perspective: you only really get to see Proteans used as antagonists in much of the printed material like APs and such, so you come away with a negative impression of them. Proteans also CREATE as much as they destroy. The whole point of the destruction is so something new may be created in its place.
...

Generally speaking, opinions on acts of destruction/creation will change greatly when you or your family are the ones facing destruction...

In some ways, Chaos is a bit like a drunk driver: He has no evil intent, but he likely will bring tragedy to someone's life nonetheless and stopping that from happening is generally seen as a 'good' thing for everyone...

As a fundamental force of the universe, Chaos is probably more like a Forest Fire.

People who have vested interest in Lawful, society stuff probably don't care for Forest fires because of things like property. In the middle of nowhere, not only does no one care, but it often takes care of itself without interference from anyone.

[Perpdepog]

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

Perpdepog wrote:

Ly'ualdre wrote:

As Necrog1ant stated, the Bestiary is focused toward utilizing creatures for, mostly, antagonistic and combat oriented purposes. There is a line with some creatures, especially Good ones, where they are more presented as tools for GM use in either non-combative scenarios or as allies. They can equally be used as adversaries all the same, depending on the context of the plot and/or composition of the PCs group.

I myself have had a plot hook I'm hoping to plant somewhere one day, involving heroic PCs coming to blows with something like a Planetar, who is serving as a guardian to an imprisoned great evil. The PCs have been tasked with destroying it, but the Planetar believes that any scenario in which this being is released, even if complete annihilation of it be a prospect, to be absolute folly and would sooner be destroyed itself than allow the beings chains to be broken. Thus, potentially resulting in a fight with the Planetar unless some other conclusion can be met; unlikely given Planetars realative lack of diplomacy.

Looking through some other sources to get a better idea of how Proteans operate outside of the Bestiary would be a great start. Their role depends more on what you need them for. You want to run a campaign about rebels attempting to take down a corrupt regime? A story that puts the PCs in a situation were they become enslaved thanks to the actions of a Theletos, which sees your deal with some great evil to be law-abiding? Proteans make good allies here. Incidently, this is also part of why I find the LN shift in Aeon philosophy to be a bit silly in places. A Pleroma, imo, is just as likely to work with a Izfiitar as they are to fight one. Personally, my head canon believes Aeons simply shift to whatever philosophy is important to their overall plan for the multiverse. So come third edition Pathfinder, they'll be Chaotic. I digress. These are my own musings.

I'm not even sure it's headcanon. Aeons were TN in 1stEd, the

...

I want to say that JJ said that about the change for aeons though I can't point to a particular post. Regardless yeah, I think you're right about one of the reasons they were altered from N to LN.

It does give some interesting in-universe nuance to how monitors function, which I enjoy. I see law and chaos in the monitor model as more co-dependent on each other than the more directly oppositional framework of good and evil because each side requires the seed of the other to function. Aeons need to be able to embrace change and become something arguably radically different in order to maintain their idea of balance, while proteans have an underlying ethos which they subscribe to, a kind of Code of Chaos which becomes like their guiding principle.
And the psychopomps are in between, not really caring what anyone does as long as that river of souls keeps a-flowin'.

[Gortle]

Taja the Barbarian wrote:

Archpaladin Zousha wrote:

...

And as for the Proteans, I think the issue is perspective: you only really get to see Proteans used as antagonists in much of the printed material like APs and such, so you come away with a negative impression of them. Proteans also CREATE as much as they destroy. The whole point of the destruction is so something new may be created in its place.
...

Generally speaking, opinions on acts of destruction/creation will change greatly when you or your family are the ones facing destruction...

In some ways, Chaos is a bit like a drunk driver: He has no evil intent, but he likely will bring tragedy to someone's life nonetheless and stopping that from happening is generally seen as a 'good' thing for everyone...

I prefer a different view of Chaos. Drunk Driver is too negative. I prefer to consider a lot of independent actors all making their own choices. Just because there is no overall plan doesn't mean its going in a bad direction on average. If you want CG to be possible and rational then you have to consider this type of thinking.

[Castilliano]

Gortle wrote:

Taja the Barbarian wrote:

Archpaladin Zousha wrote:

...

And as for the Proteans, I think the issue is perspective: you only really get to see Proteans used as antagonists in much of the printed material like APs and such, so you come away with a negative impression of them. Proteans also CREATE as much as they destroy. The whole point of the destruction is so something new may be created in its place.
...

Generally speaking, opinions on acts of destruction/creation will change greatly when you or your family are the ones facing destruction...

In some ways, Chaos is a bit like a drunk driver: He has no evil intent, but he likely will bring tragedy to someone's life nonetheless and stopping that from happening is generally seen as a 'good' thing for everyone...

I prefer a different view of Chaos. Drunk Driver is too negative. I prefer to consider a lot of independent actors all making their own choices. Just because there is no overall plan doesn't mean its going in a bad direction on average. If you want CG to be possible and rational then you have to consider this type of thinking.

Yep, way too negative.

Maybe a drunk actor, who might drive a car recklessly, improvise an inspiring (or nihilistic) monologue, donate (or destroy) his wealth, brawl with a rival suitor, or pee in a gutter. Who knows? Heck, they likely surprise themselves and enjoy doing so.
Whether it sways into negligence or outright malice matters, yet some might have such internal moral compasses that they lean good instead, always cognizant of others, even if just so as not to interfere with the free agency of another sentient or sapient being.

[Ly'ualdre]

We just need an AP with a focus on Law and Chaos, with the Aeons and their Convergance as the major plot point. Would be a great place to add in some more Aesir as well. They are a very interesting wrinkle to all this, if for no other reason than they seem to be rounding out the Immortals in 2e. At least where the Monitors are concerned. There are a great many Fiends and no small number of Celestials in-setting. Monitors are far and few.

[The Raven Black]

Likely because the writers stumble on the same questions and debates we have here.

[The Raven Black]

It is easy IMO to write about Good and Evil because of the very strong weight and stigmas attached to those IRL.

While Chaos and Law/Order are very much more of an individual's preference, without that much social stigma one way or another, at least in the western societies most of us are familiar with.

[Gortle]

The Raven Black wrote:

without that much social stigma one way or another, at least in the western societies most of us are familiar with.

I don't think this part is true. Libertarian views and the opposite don't get on well these days.

[The Raven Black]

Gortle wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

without that much social stigma one way or another, at least in the western societies most of us are familiar with.

I don't think this part is true. Libertarian views and the opposite don't get on well these days.

I think I did not use the proper words for what I meant. Sorry about that.

I did not mean that the opposites get along nicely. But that I believe many people will consider themselves libertarians, or conservatives, and so on, without qualms.

While not many people will accept to consider themselves Evil.

[CorvusMask]

I mean. Pathfinder uses LN lot of time for bad guys and aeons have inbuilt "they might come out of nowhere to laser beam your face for reasons beyond your comprehension".

Like thing about alignment is that in Moorecock's books that inspired it, lawful and chaos were both kinda bad since they were radical extremes and humans were somewhere in between. Like the Shin Megami Tensei "be neutral and reject both" is basically from Moorecock's books. Heck even Warhammer originally had law gods that would have been just as bad as chaos gods(but in different way) if they were the dominant ones instead.

[Alchemic_Genius]

As a chemist irl, I actually have a pretty big issue with science = lawful. The "laws of a nature" are just as much chaotic as they are ordered. If we accept that nature is neutral (as per og druids, most repretations of nature gods, etc), then we have to accept that the way it functions and "rules" that underpin it are also neutral. Even if we take lawful = logic, chaos = emotion, scientists themselves would fall under neutral most of the time, and an equal distribution of lawful and chaos; the pursuit of science calls both logical and passionate minds, and requires both logic and inspiration alike. One of the reasons I vibe with desna so hard is that her whole thing of pursuing passions, talking with people who are experts to expand your knowledge, etc is actually closer to my experience as a scientist than most of the actual science themed dieties.

It's actually a source of frustration to me that the only dieties that really represent my profession are cold and dispassionate LNs or CE demon lords. I know there's some TN gods for engineering like Casandalee and Brigh, as well as a NG empyreal lord who's name escapes me at the moment, but they are all more thematically focused more on engineering than science; which is well and good, I like playing engineers, and I like engineering, but it's annoying that I can't play a CG scientist and have a patron diety or cosmic representation. It seems almost like an accidental case with media where physical powers/abilities/skills are often portrayed as more good than purely mental ones

[Temperans]

Honestly, the way I see it the lawful gods of science represent the structure behind the scientific process, theories, and methods. They are the ones recording the data so that others may one day use it.

However, all the major discoveries are found by the chaotic scientists that many would even call "mad". They are the ones willing to break from convention to search for wild new theories and interactions.

If we were to represent them in classes. Lawful scientists are more likely to be Wizards, who do things meticulously and structured. Chaotic scientists are more likely to be Arcanists, who break the rules and exploit magic to find new phenomena. Druids are the botanist, biologists, zoologist, etc.

So yeah, I agree science as a whole is a neutral thing. Or even more true, Science is just the act of looking and interacting with the hidden parts of nature.

[NECR0G1ANT]

There is Zohls, deity of investigation, evidence and hypotheses.

I do think that RL Science is properly represented by the Lawful alignment, because it follows certain regulations (avoid contamination, don't fudge your data), must be replicable, and is mediated by math. If you're not doing that, then you're not doing science, IMHO.

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

I'm not sure that, "I must do things like this to be safe with these possibly dangerous materials and i must be rigorous to record scientifically usable data" is really on the same level of Lawful behaviour re: "I believe in a society with laws and following those laws." There is some overlap to be sure, but if a wizard can be chaotic, then so can a scientist.

This actually dovetails with my previous complaint about interpreting creativity as an inherently chaotic trait even though Bards are (no longer) restricted to chaotic alignments.

[The Raven Black]

In a perfect Lawful world, everything has been discovered. In a perfect Chaotic world nothing is ever truly discovered. We live somewhere in the middle.

[Perpdepog]

Another good example of a non-lawful science-type deity would be Starfinder's Yaraesa, who is devoted to the scientific method and expanding knowledge with an NG alignment.

She also has a sort of divine understudy in the form of Jalvari, goddess of Disproven Hypotheses who is also NG, and is specifically devoted to the learning one acquires from failure.

[Kasoh]

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

I'm not sure that, "I must do things like this to be safe with these possibly dangerous materials and i must be rigorous to record scientifically usable data" is really on the same level of Lawful behaviour re: "I believe in a society with laws and following those laws." There is some overlap to be sure, but if a wizard can be chaotic, then so can a scientist.

This actually dovetails with my previous complaint about interpreting creativity as an inherently chaotic trait even though Bards are (no longer) restricted to chaotic alignments.

I don't think its a large leap to say that Lawful people will find the academic rigors of science easier than Chaotic ones. Not that science is entirely in the purview of Lawfulness, only that a field with strict methodologies appeals to some types more than others.

A person of any alignment can become a scientist. And there's no alignment restrictions on great discoveries. The scientific community might be more inclined to lawful behavior because it has some kind of organization with rules, taboos, and expectations.

Every field will have its rebels who buck the trends and established order.

[Temperans]

The Raven Black wrote:

In a perfect Lawful world, everything has been discovered. In a perfect Chaotic world nothing is ever truly discovered. We live somewhere in the middle.

Not necessarily, in a perfect lawful world scientists wouldn't do crazy experiments even if it breaks the law. Which limits what is discovered. Ex: You cannot find out about demons without first summoning or visiting them.

Similarly, in a perfect chaotic world things can still be discovered and retained for a long time. It just requires luck that everything who knows about that isn't erased from existence. As proven by the existence of stable areas in the maelstrom.

[Lycar]

The Raven Black wrote:

In a perfect Lawful world, everything has been discovered. In a perfect Chaotic world nothing is ever truly discovered. We live somewhere in the middle.

Welcome to the Prime Material Plane, citizen.

Where energy both positive and negative, all the elements and all the alignments mix together in an inherently chaotic mess, from which springs order incessantly, to thrive and die again, just to be replaced by 'The Next Big Thing'.

[Squiggit]

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

This actually dovetails with my previous complaint about interpreting creativity as an inherently chaotic trait even though Bards are (no longer) restricted to chaotic alignments.

Well, I think one thing worth pointing out is that when dealing with people we're not dealing in absolutes.

You can have lawful bards and chaotic lawyers but that doesn't mean that ordered systems might be easier for someone with a tendency toward order and structure to understand and navigate and vice versa for more freeform endeavors.

I think there's a tendency in these discussions to try to make things more binary than they actually are. In practice, something that's purely lawful or purely chaotic and nothing else should be incredibly alien to a normal person.

[Castilliano]

The Raven Black wrote:

In a perfect Lawful world, everything has been discovered. In a perfect Chaotic world nothing is ever truly discovered. We live somewhere in the middle.

At one time the real universe seemed much more chaotic, but as humanity and us as individuals grew in knowledge, it seems darn lawful (even if there's so much unknown left to plumb). At our scale it seems nature's chaos relies on large quantities of agents more than some intrinsic chaos.

On the flip side, lawful puts group and/or authority as primary, top down; while in reality our universe is more bottom-up, starting with fundamental particles then building from there over the eons w/ the help of supernovae (et al). Of course emergent properties have been lawful and consistent, even if difficult for our minds to predict, determine, or even conceptualize. Think of how long it took us to grasp much of this.
Or one can look at entropy, and how it persistently increases, even as we exist because of the whorls of order within the greater disorder, leading eventually to maximum disorder & uniformity, merging law & chaos until...who knows what? (Much speculation, little data on that)

The ebb and flow strikes me as poetic. :-)

[MindFl*yer98]

I'm with Alchemic_Genius on the need for a true CG science deity. The closest i could find was the Azlanti god of exploration and discovery,wich could fit a scientist in a way, but does not even have the knowledge domain. There is passion in science, wonder at unexpected phenomena, hope for the knloedge acquired to be used to build a better future and just a desire to "f*+@ things up and see what happens". We need a god for that.
Not to mention, at least in some science, like biology, there is a strong chance component that cannot be eliminated, no matter how hard you try.

That said i also think that the "laws of nature" are inherently lawful, because they are attempts to impose order on the world, to find predictability where there was none before. The primordial inevitables ensure that the planets follow their orbit, the proteans send the odd meteor or two to shake things up and nature includes both.

[The Raven Black]

Order = Yin.

Chaos = Yang.

One springs from the other eternally, no matter what the proteans and the aeons / inevitables wish.

[The Raven Black]

MindFl*yer98 wrote:

I'm with Alchemic_Genius on the need for a true CG science deity. The closest i could find was the Azlanti god of exploration and discovery,wich could fit a scientist in a way, but does not even have the knowledge domain. There is passion in science, wonder at unexpected phenomena, hope for the knloedge acquired to be used to build a better future and just a desire to "f#+& things up and see what happens". We need a god for that.

Not to mention, at least in some science, like biology, there is a strong chance component that cannot be eliminated, no matter how hard you try.

That said i also think that the "laws of nature" are inherently lawful, because they are attempts to impose order on the world, to find predictability where there was none before. The primordial inevitables ensure that the planets follow their orbit, the proteans send the odd meteor or two to shake things up and nature includes both.

The orbits are chaotic actually IIRC.

Your description made me think of Alchemy. Do we have a deity of Alchemy in the setting ?

[The Raven Black]

Science gets its everyday strength from Law, but it progresses thanks to Chaos.

[Alchemic_Genius]

The Raven Black wrote:

The orbits are chaotic actually IIRC.

Your description made me think of Alchemy. Do we have a deity of Alchemy in the setting ?

In physical chemistry, electron orbit position is literally expressed as a probability derivation, so def chaotic, or at least not lawful

As far as alchemy gods, its a demon lord, Haagenti, though he lacks a 2e entry. There is an NG Tian god whos adjacent, but she's focused herbalism and medicine specifically, and explicitly eschews poison iirc

As for the comment earlier about the scientific process being inherently lawful, or at least disagreeing with chaos: keeping accurate records, academic honesty etc can really just be thought of as edicts, and knowingly reporting false data, using experimental data and research to harm, etc can be thought of as anathema to the philosophy of science. All clerics and champions have to follow edicts and anathema, including chaotic ones, so having a personal code of ethics is not inherently morally anything.

If you think those behaviors sound lawful at first, heres a few chaotic gods with some lawful appearing tenets:

Selket (avenge the wrong, heal other, protect the dead, do not harm people for crimes other people did, do not use poison on people you didn't intent to)

Ketephys (hunt and kill demons, provide for your community, protect the health of the forest, do not overhunt)

Cernunnos (protect the forest, commit to decisive action, strike down evil, dont allow the destruction of the forest, never needlessly kill animals)

Ydajisk (chronicle and preserve old languages to prevent them from dying, create new words, never ban a language, dont teach secret languages or slang to outsiders, protect literary word)

Findeladlara (protect elven architecture, bless and secure households, do not violate the Law of Hospitality)

There's more, but literally all of these are about as "lawful" as the requirements of the scientific method, and yet they are all chaotic dieties.

[Alchemic_Genius]

Like, I think it's okay for there to be gods of specific facets of science to have a more lawful/chaotic/good/evil bent but science itself as a while should be N or NG (in the case of science that also follows the ethics of science as well as the methods)

Zohls is actually one of my fave LG gods, and while she lists scientists as followers, she doesn't jive with me as an actual science god, she's very clearly a criminal justice god who's mindset of puzzle solving just happens to appeal to the sciences, too

[Claxon]

I don't think we should attempt to view the basics of physics and chemistry in terms of order/law or chaos. It's natural phenomena and has little to do with the actual concept of order or chaos as far as alignment goes.

That said, the scientific process is definitely an orderly process when done well and correctly. However, advancements in science that become well known are often view through the lens of being randomly stumbled upon however I promise you as a former R&D engineer this is not the case for most discoveries. Someone comes up with an idea (hypothesis, usually based on already existing ideas and tweaking them slightly), develops a plan to test it, and evaluates the results to see if their hypothesis holds true.

[Alchemic_Genius]

I'm also an R&D chemist, I'm pretty familiar with the process, the paperwork, the tweaking, the testing, and did I mention the paperwork. As I've shown above though, chaotic dieties can have pretty orderly edicts and code.

Chaos isn't just lolrandom, chaos is change, and scientific theory does actually change and adapt as new information and discoveries are made. It's also worth noting that sometimes people really do just stumble into things that lead to ideas for experiments, which inevitably leads to discoveries (or at least disproving failed hypotheses)

At the end of the day, scientists are just scholars of the natural world, and the typical accepted alignment for that is neutral (individuals may vary)

[Claxon]

I generally disagree with your statement that "chaotic deities can have pretty orderly edicts and codes". From your given examples the only one that strikes me as particularly orderly (lawful from an alignment standpoint) are Ydajisk's, because the methods of preserving a language would generally need to be methodical to actual succeed, which is something I associate with law/order.

I don't consider anything other examples to really fall on the law or chaos spectrum. Rather how you execute those things will determine if it's lawful or chaotic. For example, protecting elven architecture could go either way. If you're out there passing laws, funding interest groups, raising aware, etc it's a pretty lawful way of doing things. If you're out there stopping people a sword point from developing an area containing architecture you wish to protect I would consider that chaotic.

The general goal of protecting them isn't especially either, IMO.

I agree chaos isn't "lolrandom". But I don't think science adapting to new information means it chaotic. It's a process, one that clearly includes looking at existing work and known information. If the known information increases or changes, you integrate that into what you're doing. To me, that's just further example of orderly behavior.

Chaos would be ignoring what everyone else is doing to blaze your own path. Which sometimes people do. And sometimes they make amazing discoveries. But those sometimes represent a very very very small portion of developments compared to the more normal orderly procession as I see it.

I would agree that the natural world is neutral, but I would say following the scientific process (and a good scientist should) is a lawful activity.

If I were to ballpark things, I would say the scientific process and scientist tend toward being lawful/orderly, but there are always going to be people who buck the system. When they're successful we often label them innovators. When they're not they tend to get fired for being "loose cannons".

For what it's worth, I do think this is compounded by the fact that a lot of scientific research is done by individual corporations, and they're naturally going to tend towards law/order due to the nature of the legal systems they exist in.

[Temperans]

There is also the matter of the laws upheld/broken in pursuit of the science. A scientist that breaks the law to do their science is chaotic, one that doesn't is lawful: Regardless of whether the science is good/evil.

Grave robbing because dissecting corpses is illegal? Chaotic.
Legally purchasing bodies from a morgue? Lawful.
Testing chemicals based on intuition? Chaotic.
Testing chemicals based on precise measurements? Lawful.

***************
Also yeah, like Claxon said now a days any scientist that behaves "chaotically" will get fired for being a lose cannon (at best).

[Squiggit]

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

she doesn't jive with me as an actual science god, she's very clearly a criminal justice god who's mindset of puzzle solving just happens to appeal to the sciences, too

shots fired at criminologists everywhere.

[Temperans]

Squiggit wrote:

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

she doesn't jive with me as an actual science god, she's very clearly a criminal justice god who's mindset of puzzle solving just happens to appeal to the sciences, too

shots fired at criminologists everywhere.

F forensic scientists, so under valued.

[Ly'ualdre]

Wait, are we equating the note taking to Lawful Alignement? Because there are myriad sources of media that depict tropes like mad scientists, nihilist cults, and gibbering madman of the elder gods keeping copious amounts of notes on their various matters of interests. Granted, mostly negative examples, but point withstanding, I don't really think we should be writing out chaotic Deities of science because most of have different ways of taking notes.

Hell, iirc, Doomsday Dawn feature an adventure where a professor looking into the Night Heralds and would lock himself in the basement, scrawling crazed notes upon every inch of the rooms walls and floors. Not a deity, obviously, but an example of a man of academic/scientific background taking notes in his own way (even if it is influenced by the elder mythos).

I can 100% see a CG Deity whose depicted as a eclectic or eccentric science God who wants to push the boundaries of science for the betterment of society.

[The Raven Black]

The betterment of people. Chaotic does not care about the system we call society. Actually, Chaotic does not trust the system.

[Claxon]

The scientific process is much more than "note taking". Although good notes are a key part of it.

I can imagine a CG deity dedicated to making society better, but I view it as unlikely that they are using the scientific method to do it.

I imagine them as the kind to skip key parts (or not do them thoroughly) and especially as not the type to construct experiments in such a way as to obtain valid data. The most complex parts of the scientific method are setting up valid experiments and having good data analysis (which requires a lot of statistical analysis).

I'm talking about double blind studies on medicines and things like that. to ensure (for instance) that whatever medicine you're providing is more effective than a placebo. Because unfortunately, it can be a real thing patients can appear to get better simply because they think they're getting medicine which will make them better, but instead it's sugar water.

Doing good science is really hard to do.

[The Raven Black]

We need the CG deity of scientific breakthrough and explosions. Of course they will be a goblin. Ascended through the Starstone test. They used a huge explosion to cross the chasm.

[PossibleCabbage]

My personal experience with postgraduate research is all in Math, which is not precisely a science, but I imagine this translates.

There's essentially two ways to get progress done on a problem:

1) You sit down with a conjecture, worth through several examples to verify that it's plausible, then work on systematically demonstrating it.

2) Shower thoughts! Moments of insight just come to you when you've let a thing bounce around in your mind long enough. Practically you cultivate quiet, comfortable circumstances so that things are able to come to you. You don't turn down an epiphany when it comes to you, but it's best to do so when it's safe (I have walked into a tree in a public place while thinking about Banach space too hard).

The former is lawful, the latter is chaotic, and the balance of what works for you is going to depend on the individual.

[Temperans]

That is exactly what I was trying but kept failing to describe. Thanks PossibleCabbage.

[Darigaaz the Igniter]

The Raven Black wrote:

We need the CG deity of scientific breakthrough and explosions. Of course they will be a goblin. Ascended through the Starstone test. They used a huge explosion to cross the chasm.

I'm pretty sure that's just Adam Savage.

[Claxon]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

My personal experience with postgraduate research is all in Math, which is not precisely a science, but I imagine this translates.

There's essentially two ways to get progress done on a problem:

1) You sit down with a conjecture, worth through several examples to verify that it's plausible, then work on systematically demonstrating it.

2) Shower thoughts! Moments of insight just come to you when you've let a thing bounce around in your mind long enough. Practically you cultivate quiet, comfortable circumstances so that things are able to come to you. You don't turn down an epiphany when it comes to you, but it's best to do so when it's safe (I have walked into a tree in a public place while thinking about Banach space too hard).

The former is lawful, the latter is chaotic, and the balance of what works for you is going to depend on the individual.

I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I think the relative ratio of the two is like 90% former 10% later.

Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

We need the CG deity of scientific breakthrough and explosions. Of course they will be a goblin. Ascended through the Starstone test. They used a huge explosion to cross the chasm.

I'm pretty sure that's just Adam Savage.

I think you've just confirmed that Adam Savage is a goblin, but like a super friendly one that just wants to share friendship through the power of explosions.

[PossibleCabbage]

Claxon wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

My personal experience with postgraduate research is all in Math, which is not precisely a science, but I imagine this translates.

There's essentially two ways to get progress done on a problem:

1) You sit down with a conjecture, worth through several examples to verify that it's plausible, then work on systematically demonstrating it.

2) Shower thoughts! Moments of insight just come to you when you've let a thing bounce around in your mind long enough. Practically you cultivate quiet, comfortable circumstances so that things are able to come to you. You don't turn down an epiphany when it comes to you, but it's best to do so when it's safe (I have walked into a tree in a public place while thinking about Banach space too hard).

The former is lawful, the latter is chaotic, and the balance of what works for you is going to depend on the individual.

I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I think the relative ratio of the two is like 90% former 10% later.

It's going to depend on the individual, the subject, and the actual question at hand. Like I've found if I'm going to cultivate a mental image of a very abstract thing in order to manipulate it, I need to not focus too much on it otherwise it stops being something I couldn't actually picture (e.g. a manifold with more than 3 spatial dimensions).

I feel like the sort of "intellectual flexibility" you need to cultivate to handle some of the really big stuff is at its nature chaotic, you just need to hammer it into lawful shape by the time it comes to publication.

So a deity of science ought to be Neutral on the Law-Chaos axis. But there's absolutely space for a "God of Inspiration" who can be chaotic.