I'm actually wondering about (Manifest/Inevitable/Orthodox/Ordered) vs. (Indeterminate/Erratic/Free/Disordered) I dislike that fact that many of the words that you can think of that might fit on the Chaotic side seems to have distinct tugs to be viewed potentially on the Good/Evil side. People wouldn't think about Demons being concerned about 'Freedom' and advocating for raw 'Anarchy' has a certain threat of Evil to it.
Finding it funny that the prevalence of the Radical Catgirl Anarchy emotes in my Discord servers has rendered unto me a rather more neutral-to-opposite gut impression of the word 'anarchy'.
Unrelated I do actually kind of like 'orthodox' as an adjective for Law things. It has something like the same ring as 'holy' does which is something I usually find lacking in descriptors of law/chaos alignment elements. This might be my new favourite.
Too bad heterodox is too much a mouthful and heresy has rather a rather overt tint of connotation to it...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I was to take a wild guess as to how personal alignment is going to work, it would be mechanically similar to how Champion Tenets currently work (though the particulars would be different).
During character creation you can pick one (or more if they are not opposing) alignment traits such as Holy to add to your character. They would each come with a set of personal Edicts and Anathema. Then various deities and feats and such would only be available to characters that have the prerequisite alignment traits.
And if a character does not take any of the alignment traits, then they can still have personal Edicts and Anathema of their own choosing. But they wouldn't have the traits needed to select certain deities or some class feats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally don't see much point in the Chaos/Law axis. It exists for ages and I still haven't played a single story about it. In my opinion, it's better to just remove it. Neutral forces like Axis and the Maelstrom would just be part of the universe, they don't really need to be in opposition.
Law/Chaos is more useful in settings where Good/Evil isn't an axis and the angels are lawful but generally terrible (see: Diablo, Megami Tensei). You definitely don't see it much in settings where the Paladins Are Right, No Notes.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I definitely want to have the Chaos/Law axis stay on par with the Good/Evil.
And yes, with opposed traits you can opt-in. Open to any name really.
To me, in a way, they are Yin (Law) and Yang (Chaos). More of an eastern concept than a western one actually.
And note that AFAICT eastern cultures understand that it is a cycle, but they definitely much prefer Yin/ Order than Yang/Chaos.
Actually, Japan is my RL go-to example for a LN society.
Tradition, status, a sense of responsibility, the group far more important than the individual ...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thought about this, and while yes, Law and Chaos can stand out more when not overshadowed by an objective Good and Evil conflict, I still think of it as fully useful even in that case, if not moreso, because it gives an aspect to the setting morality that isn't objective good or evil.
In short, even if Paladins are objectively right, it's still valuable to have a faction that is neither allied with nor against the paladin on matters of morality, but instead present another dimension of conflict where the paladin being objectively correct doesn't matter so much more than just a set of standards with which to navigate.
I'd be fine with law and chaos still existing as opposed forces on opposite planes. But I think I'm glad to see it not get applied to any other creature in the game. Lawful vs Chaotic makes less sense when applied to people.
Like, devils are lawful and demons are chaotic is an interesting dichotomy, but it isn't like demons can't follow a leader and devils can't lie and break the rules.
I'm honestly excited to have more than 2 opposed axes. I'm currently trying to expand to 27 outer planes (a 3x3x3 grid) and would like to do 81 if I can come up with enough ideas.
Like there's no reason the outer planes shouldn't be infinite dimensional and effectively innumerable really, it's just hard to put this in books.
Had a thought and not entirely sure it makes sense. In addition to Traits for:
Holy/Unholy
Anarchic/Axiomatic
How about Ernest/Tempered.
Whereas the first four align with good/evil & chaos/law, Ernest/Tempered plays around with the extremes and neutal axis of the old alignment chart. Formerly LG, LE, CG, and CE alignments might also get an Ernest Trait. Formerly NG, LN, N, CN, and NE might get the Tempered Trait. Basically add in a third dichotomy based on the old extreme alignments and neutral alignments.
Holy & Ernest might be an Angel.
Holy, Axiomatic, & Ernest might be an Archon.
Holy & Tempered might be an Agathion.
Just an idea, but I need play around with it more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I'm fine with law/chaos just... not being there. I would have actually preferred holy/unholy to go, too, and have alignment damage be purely handled in the realm of "I damage that which is anathema to me", but I also understand that for an organized play setting, this isn't always the best route; since you can't adjudicate it the same way every time.
That said; me liking the idea of there being no law and chaos isn't to say I don't like the planes associated with them; I actually find the monitors far more interesting than most of the celestials and fiends (azatas being the exception; they are mostly like kindly fey, and I love fey). I actually think by not tying them to one unified idea of "cosmic" chaos or law; they'll be free to finally show their nuance.
The fact that proteans actually have an authority structure, and that the paragons of law are themselves rebels shows that what constitutes law and chaos in golarion is a lot messier than a single, all encompassing definition. Chaos and law are weird to put on diametrically opposed axes anyways since creating one tyically invokes the other; entropy is a mathematically quantifiable thing. Creating something requires the destruction of something else. Chemical equilibrium; while representing a steady state of concentrations of chemicals; is also active and constantly ongoing.
Even if we don't have order/chaos damage there's still plenty of space for moniters in the cosmology of the setting
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Sweeties" and "Meanies".
That is all you need.
"Sweeties" and "Meanies".
Warm Fuzzies & Cold Pricklies :-)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like, devils are lawful and demons are chaotic is an interesting dichotomy, but it isn't like demons can't follow a leader and devils can't lie and break the rules.
One reason I could never really get hooked into Law vs Chaos in PF. The difference between our primary NE guys and their CE counterparts are mostly semantic... and then our LE guys on the opposite side have very few actually lawful traits (and in some cases are almost defined by their propensity for deception, betrayal, and upending social orders).
The axis ends up feeling inconsequential and hard to define.
Like, devils are lawful and demons are chaotic is an interesting dichotomy, but it isn't like demons can't follow a leader and devils can't lie and break the rules.One reason I could never really get hooked into Law vs Chaos in PF. The difference between our primary NE guys and their CE counterparts are mostly semantic... and then our LE guys on the opposite side have very few actually lawful traits (and in some cases are almost defined by their propensity for deception, betrayal, and upending social orders).
The axis ends up feeling inconsequential and hard to define.
Yeah, it isn't like devils seem particularly respectful of any law but their own. And personal codes are such a weird grey area, because many chaotic characters have them too.
I really dig the old Hell is a bureaucracy trope, and enjoy how you can bargain with devils if you're careful enough... But that's the sort of nuance edicts and anethema can deal with better than alignment.
One reason I could never really get hooked into Law vs Chaos in PF. The difference between our primary NE guys and their CE counterparts are mostly semantic... and then our LE guys on the opposite side have very few actually lawful traits (and in some cases are almost defined by their propensity for deception, betrayal, and upending social orders).
The axis ends up feeling inconsequential and hard to define.
It's also effectively impossible to tell whether a PC who is willing to lie, use underhanded tactics, violate laws and social norms, etc. in pursuit of good ends is CG or NG without looking at their character sheet.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like, devils are lawful and demons are chaotic is an interesting dichotomy, but it isn't like demons can't follow a leader and devils can't lie and break the rules.One reason I could never really get hooked into Law vs Chaos in PF. The difference between our primary NE guys and their CE counterparts are mostly semantic... and then our LE guys on the opposite side have very few actually lawful traits (and in some cases are almost defined by their propensity for deception, betrayal, and upending social orders).
The axis ends up feeling inconsequential and hard to define.
IMO the real difference between a lawful and chaotic society is "does hierarchy grant power, or does power determine the hierarchy?" In Hell how much power you have is determined entirely by your place in the hierarchy, and all of the deceit and trickery employed mostly grants horizontal movement along that hierarchy, and movement upwards only happens at the behest of someone further up than your goal. Meanwhile if you're a demon you move up just by killing whoever was above you.
IMO the real difference between a lawful and chaotic society is "does hierarchy grant power, or does power determine the hierarchy?" In Hell how much power you have is determined entirely by your place in the hierarchy, and all of the deceit and trickery employed mostly grants horizontal movement along that hierarchy, and movement upwards only happens at the behest of someone further up than your goal. Meanwhile if you're a demon you move up just by killing whoever was above you.
Like, devils are lawful and demons are chaotic is an interesting dichotomy, but it isn't like demons can't follow a leader and devils can't lie and break the rules.One reason I could never really get hooked into Law vs Chaos in PF. The difference between our primary NE guys and their CE counterparts are mostly semantic... and then our LE guys on the opposite side have very few actually lawful traits (and in some cases are almost defined by their propensity for deception, betrayal, and upending social orders).
The axis ends up feeling inconsequential and hard to define.
Right, is the system in control? Lawful.
Are the individuals in control? ChaoticOne might develop similar questions re: one's actions being pro-system or pro-individual, though once gets into the welfare of beings, that slips in to good/evil questions.
---
As for proto-D&D only having Chaos/Law, yes, though I'd say the conflict was watered down. The party Thief (now Rogue) was typically Chaotic and well, a member of the party, a party generally fighting bad guys (and yeah, that you didn't want to let near the queen's jewelry).
And one could have civilized folk, Lawful, with somewhat evil authoritarian traits. And there's that us/them cultural dynamic too, a simplistic and historically harmful notion.
In retrospect, it seems an undeveloped notion since early modules hardly centered on it. "Because they're Chaotic" mattered less than them being the enemy (or "not us" creature w/ wealth). In fact, modules gave more space to "random rumors you might hear" (mix of true/false) and "list of NPC personality traits" (pick 2). Those are RPing tools one could use in a modern sophisticated RPG (and w/ crit fails re: Recall Knowledge might be welcome to avoid obvious ad-libbing.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMO the real difference between a lawful and chaotic society is "does hierarchy grant power, or does power determine the hierarchy?" In Hell how much power you have is determined entirely by your place in the hierarchy, and all of the deceit and trickery employed mostly grants horizontal movement along that hierarchy, and movement upwards only happens at the behest of someone further up than your goal. Meanwhile if you're a demon you move up just by killing whoever was above you.
Like, devils are lawful and demons are chaotic is an interesting dichotomy, but it isn't like demons can't follow a leader and devils can't lie and break the rules.One reason I could never really get hooked into Law vs Chaos in PF. The difference between our primary NE guys and their CE counterparts are mostly semantic... and then our LE guys on the opposite side have very few actually lawful traits (and in some cases are almost defined by their propensity for deception, betrayal, and upending social orders).
The axis ends up feeling inconsequential and hard to define.
But then "the strong should rule" is specifically Asmodeus' ethos and the hierarchy of hell encourages members to kill, maim, or otherwise depose people above them in order to claim their position. Pretty much every major player in Hell has been described in books as either plotting to overthrow someone or guarding against plots to be overthrown.
That blurs the lines between the two a lot and the distinction between them ends up feeling more like an aesthetic than a defining component of their character.
There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but it's incompatible with making that a primary axis of focus.
To put it another way, if Order vs Chaos is going to be a defining axis of your story, then the characters on the side of Order should be fundamentally defined by that. Instead devils are largely portrayed as opportunistic and only interested in hierarchies and systems when it's convenient and beneficial to them.
Again, the opportunistic power broker who abuses, exploits, and then ultimately considers themselves above the system is a popular and perfectly functional archetype, but they are not a paragon of Law or Order or Rule or Civilization or whatever other word we want to use here.
It's the same reason why it looks weird when ostensibly Good characters commit or condone blatantly evil acts without the literature calling it into question.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But then "the strong should rule" is specifically Asmodeus' ethos and the hierarchy of hell encourages members to kill, maim, or otherwise depose people above them in order to claim their position. Pretty much every major player in Hell has been described in books as either plotting to overthrow someone or guarding against plots to be overthrown.
That blurs the lines between the two a lot and the distinction between them ends up feeling more like an aesthetic than a defining component of their character.
There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but it's incompatible with making that a primary axis of focus.
To put it another way, if Order vs Chaos is going to be a defining axis of your story, then the characters on the side of Order should be fundamentally defined by that. Instead devils are largely portrayed as opportunistic and only interested in...
I think what you are complaining about are poorly designed characters. If Law is a factor and not just Evil then you have to lean into it. Not mix in Chaotic concepts. A quality writer will understand and bring it out in their words.
Please don't dumb our game world down.
The funny thing to me here is that people are arguing about what "Chaos" vs "Law" looks like in the old system. That's not the system we're moving into.
In the new system? Most people, most places, most societies aren't going to have dedicated themselves to Good or Evil. They won't have dedicated themselves to Order or Chaos. They'll just be people, generally with bits of each, like most people are.
Those that do dedicate themselves? They'll also have bits of each. They'll have a team that they're playing for, they'll have certain rules that they have to follow lest they be punished, and they may have a superior or two looking over their shoulder to one degree or another, but all of that is external and explicit. People may expect certain things of you if you've declared yourself as a Champion of Goodness and Order, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything about who you are as a person.
Similarly, the interpretations of the players as to what is good or evil or ordered or chaotic no longer matter. Instead, we have a series of Outsider sports teams, and it's their opinions on the matter that decide what is or is not "cosmological Good". We may feel free to disagree with them, if we so choose.
So the only question (and one, let's be clear, that has already been answered, though we don't know what the answer is yet) is whether we should have two sports teams or four. That's it. Personally, I'd like to see four. I think that it's more opportunities for interesting stories at basically zero cost. I wouldn't be opposed to the idea of having lesser Powers out there eventually creating their own. That could be cool too. Still, the underlying structure for Good/Evil/Order/Chaos is already in place, and it would be costly to remove. Why not just keep it? More texture more better.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is incredibly unlikely that they will use Virtue/Sin.It sounds neat on the surface, but some of us can still remember the Satanic Panic and Mothers Against Dungeons and Dragons and being targeted for playing that one game that the OGL came from.
Use those two terms and they *will* come back, and in the current political climate they will come back with a vengeance.
Here in Nashville, TN they are alive and well and currently panicking about all the Satan everywhere and D&D is still not safe. Belt Buckle of the Bible Belt and all that...
My mother, and I kid you not, told me I was "summoning portals through my Warhammer miniatures [because they have skulls on them which is satanic] that was allowing Satan to attack my dad's business" and that's why they are hurting for money. You see, Satan attacks the person in the family with the weakest faith and uses them as a foot in the door to get at the other members of the family. Because I play D&D and Warhammer Age of Sigmar and collect Slaves to Darkness and play Orcs and stuff...
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps we could turn to the Age of Sigmar and their Order and Chaos system (as well as Death and Destruction) which are pretty broad, and remember, now all Order is good...but then again there's no good Chaos so it's not particularly nuanced there either.
Paizo is only just now pulling itself free from the last grasping tentacles of WotC. Let's not jump directly into the grasp of Games Workshop. It's really, really not worth it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
One key difference re: devils & demons seems to be that with devils, they can use (non-magical) words to incapacitate or kill (in Hell that is). They support the system because they appreciate how the system/hierarchy grants them power. Yes, there's always someone higher to subvert, but usually someone lower who "deserves it". Authority & position has value in and of itself, which is of course why the devil one step down wants to steal it, but not in a way that it loses its value to you when you ascend.
One enforces the rules because the rules...set the rules. They're the water in which devils swim, and the stone with which LEs build their own power.
Meanwhile the NEs don't care as long as it doesn't detract from harm happening. And the CEs reject and want to destroy such concepts, like tearing off painful shackles. To them one's control comes from what power & fear you can directly apply. At best someone else breaking a rule is an excuse to harm them since they themselves hardly follow any rule unless under similar threat of the retribution.
In their purest representations (in RPGs & IMO), Devils feel bound by the rules, so hope to alter, tweak, and reinterpret them to suit their wants. This has led to an enormous maze of legal loopholes, essentially an entity unto itself the type of which Demons hate (therefore wish to destroy).
Devils, if forced to reboot their hierarchy, would likely reform much the same way they are, albeit with many names changed. Demons are constantly rebooting and innately must. (Frankly with so little Regeneration & Fast Healing for Demons, and fewer Resistances in PF2, I don't see how Demons thrive nowadays in the Abyss. Nickel and dimed to death by the constant turmoil...Chaos I should have said!)
---
How does this translate to mundane creatures though who don't feel obligation to ANY & EVERY law in their blood and don't feel the imminent pressure to destroy & reboot ALL SYSTEMS AT ALL TIMES?
Dunno, though for myself that helped me clarify my concepts of what pure Law & pure Chaos might strive for: Build honoring what's been built vs. rebuild, rebuild, rebuild, etc., which kinda requires un-building too.
I'd already considered having different levels of dedication, as in there's good and there's Good. The concept went nowhere, but I'm kinda foreseeing it in the Remaster.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I for one always appreciated the law/chaos dynamic. Though it's certainly true that different authors have defined the axis inconsistently over the years.
I see it fundamentally as,
Collectivism/individualism
Authoritarian/libertarianIn my head cannon at least.
And yes, free willed good and evil people will have issue with dictators, whether they are motivated by good or evil.
I think this works well.
It gets messy when some authors think that lawful means always (as in always good, always evil etc) or that chaos means random.
Not saying that's wrong...but I don't like it.
Well, many political philosophers have considered the "benevolent dictator" to be the best form of government except for a crucial flaw: Ensuring they and those who come next are and remain benevolent since they now lack oversight! (Historically, strings of good monarchs/emperors only lasted so long, it only taking one to derail the whole endeavor.)
But yeah, that past (and expected into the future) inconsistency requires rigorous definitions before emphasizing their cosmic rivalry.
I like the community/system vs. individuals/freedom dichotomy when it comes to RPing, yet those hardly lend themselves to wars on their own. Applying more profound principles seems to bleed into the Good/Evil spheres, i.e. authoritarianism vs. destruction, harmony vs. madness, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see no reason I couldn't have a character who believes in collectivist anarchism though. Is that character lawful or chaotic?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see no reason I couldn't have a character who believes in collectivist anarchism though. Is that character lawful or chaotic?
They are an oxymoron.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see no reason I couldn't have a character who believes in collectivist anarchism though. Is that character lawful or chaotic?They are an oxymoron.
Collectivist Anarchism was a real thing that people took seriously, so clearly not an oxymoron.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Instead of baiting about real-world philosophies and defunct Alignment systems, I will say: I’d honestly love a greater look at what the cosmic clashes between ‘Law’ and ‘Chaos’ look like!
It’s easy enough to picture hosts of angels clashing against demonic hordes and infernal legions, but I’ve always found the more esoteric conflicts to be more interesting. An AP about a bunch of Axiomites coming to flatten some poor country or a Protean aiming to unmake reality would be so much more welcome than more standard villains.
EDIT: I’m really hoping for a taste of this in the new elemental planes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Instead of baiting about real-world philosophies and defunct Alignment systems, I will say: I’d honestly love a greater look at what the cosmic clashes between ‘Law’ and ‘Chaos’ look like!
I picture in my head an illustration from Michael Moorcock's tale of the end of the life of Elric of Melniboné ("Doomed Lord's Passing", 1964). Picture Elric, lying on the ground, dying or dead, and the Black Sword, floating above him, laughing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see no reason I couldn't have a character who believes in collectivist anarchism though. Is that character lawful or chaotic?
A character who seeks above all to abolish unjust hierarchies is about as by-the-numbers Chaotic Good as possible.
|
Instead of baiting about real-world philosophies and defunct Alignment systems, I will say: I’d honestly love a greater look at what the cosmic clashes between ‘Law’ and ‘Chaos’ look like!
It’s easy enough to picture hosts of angels clashing against demonic hordes and infernal legions, but I’ve always found the more esoteric conflicts to be more interesting. An AP about a bunch of Axiomites coming to flatten some poor country or a Protean aiming to unmake reality would be so much more welcome than more standard villains.
EDIT: I’m really hoping for a taste of this in the new elemental planes.
Tbh, assuming main reason why paizo is hesitant to use proteans and inevitables as "main bad guys" IS "because they aren't evil strictly speaking", maybe removing alignment encourages them to be used more x'D
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
real thing that people took seriously, so clearly not an oxymoron.
That doesn't follow at all. People make lots of mistakes.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, a neutral outsider does feature as the primary antagonist of one instalment of a 1e AP. The fact that she's just doing her job a little overzealously is brought up as a significant factor and that she can be persuaded to parlay (and meanwhile is becoming obsessive enough that if not persuaded, she's likely to devolve into evil.
--
But then "the strong should rule" is specifically Asmodeus' ethos
I'm not sure this is wholly accurate. From Asmoedeus I more get the sense that his ethos is less about the strong ruling (though it is about that) and more about "There is a place for everything in the universe and that place is beholden to my ultimate authority."
I can't very well argue that the philosophy of Hell and the devils aside from Asmodeus isn't about power struggles to be in charge, so I won't, but I do think it is important to recognise that "I support the existence of a cruel and unjust hierarchy which personally benefits me" is still entirely consistent with LE. Even if we assume that lawful creatures must be model citizens that obey even the spirit of the law in whatever society they create, devils are the type of creature which might consider murdering one's superior officer a valid, legal, and traditional method of obtaining promotion. Contrast in CE lands where no one cares about your status and authority other than whether you're just plain strong or terrifying enough to enforce your will.