7 replies to this topic

[Azkyroth]

Second, law and chaos isn't so much about rules of society as it is about personal ones. It's possible to break every law you come across and remain lawful because have your own personal code and stick to it. (For example, a paladin only obeys local laws as long as they don't conflict with his order's code of behaviour.) Chaos is more a matter of not having any personal code of bahaviour and being impluse-driven or even "random". So, he could very well be NG (which means he'd have some set principles he'll follow, but also act on impulse a good amount of the time) if you prefer that. You could even state that he's "NG with CG tendencies" if you want - I've seen that used in official material on a few occasions. But like I said, there's nothing wrong with being CG.

I...don't think that's the interpretation of lawful/chaotic that most people are working from.

[vilkacis]

I think there's one in the IWD2 NPC Project.

I should specify, NPCs for Baldur's Gate.

I...don't think that's the interpretation of lawful/chaotic that most people are working from.

"Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it." - D20 SRD.

One can be lawful because one follows the rules of society, of course, but that's not the only way to be lawful. The "authority and tradition" that the character respects is not necessarily the same ones that rules the country. Obviously, a paladin won't kill a starving child who steals a loaf of bread just because he happens to be in a country where the law states that all thieves are to be killed on sight. That's neither good nor in line with the code. (Most paladins' codes should realistically involve statements such as "uphold local law, as long as that does not contradict any other aspect of the code".) Any character who uses divine magic must place the rules set by their god and church before any rules set by mortals, or they will lose their powers. Depending on the character, society and god, these rules may or may not match up with the laws of the land.

Criminals are another example. A group of bandits may have a strict code among themselves, but live outside the rules of society - rob and plunder, perhaps even murder. Crime syndicates such as the Shadow Thieves, or the Mafia, all have their own rules. These people respect the authorities and traditions of their own groups. But even those who live where there are no laws can be lawful; a hermit in the middle of nowhere can lead a structured life and have a strict set of principles he follows. He may be the last keeper of some ancient tradition - there may be no one else left who shares his philosophy, but he is still lawful because he adheres to the tradition of whatever order he belongs to.

Likewise, a chaotic character's actions may be completely in line with the rules of the society they live in - especially for good characters in good societies. A "good" country might have laws made to protect the weak, prevent abuse, preserve democracy and such. A CG character living there may rarely or never feel the need to break any rules, simply there are no or very few rules that would prevent him from living the way he wants (in other words, though he "resents being told what to do", he rarely encounters a situation where people do so). In fact, if he goes out of his way to break the rules in such a society, he may no longer qualify as "good" himself! (An obsession with breaking rules, no matter what the rule says, is more neutral -or plain crazy- behaviour.) In a "neutral" society, the same character would probably need to break a few rules, and in an "evil" one, he may have to break a lot of them.

[Azkyroth]

"Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it." - D20 SRD.

One can be lawful because one follows the rules of society, of course, but that's not the only way to be lawful. The "authority and tradition" that the character respects is not necessarily the same ones that rules the country. Obviously, a paladin won't kill a starving child who steals a loaf of bread just because he happens to be in a country where the law states that all thieves are to be killed on sight. That's neither good nor in line with the code. (Most paladins' codes should realistically involve statements such as "uphold local law, as long as that does not contradict any other aspect of the code".) Any character who uses divine magic must place the rules set by their god and church before any rules set by mortals, or they will lose their powers. Depending on the character, society and god, these rules may or may not match up with the laws of the land.

Criminals are another example. A group of bandits may have a strict code among themselves, but live outside the rules of society - rob and plunder, perhaps even murder. Crime syndicates such as the Shadow Thieves, or the Mafia, all have their own rules. These people respect the authorities and traditions of their own groups. But even those who live where there are no laws can be lawful; a hermit in the middle of nowhere can lead a structured life and have a strict set of principles he follows. He may be the last keeper of some ancient tradition - there may be no one else left who shares his philosophy, but he is still lawful because he adheres to the tradition of whatever order he belongs to.

Likewise, a chaotic character's actions may be completely in line with the rules of the society they live in - especially for good characters in good societies. A "good" country might have laws made to protect the weak, prevent abuse, preserve democracy and such. A CG character living there may rarely or never feel the need to break any rules, simply there are no or very few rules that would prevent him from living the way he wants (in other words, though he "resents being told what to do", he rarely encounters a situation where people do so). In fact, if he goes out of his way to break the rules in such a society, he may no longer qualify as "good" himself! (An obsession with breaking rules, no matter what the rule says, is more neutral -or plain crazy- behaviour.) In a "neutral" society, the same character would probably need to break a few rules, and in an "evil" one, he may have to break a lot of them.

Under that interpretation,

a matter of not having any personal code of bahaviour and being impluse-driven or even "random".

really isn't a very accurate description for the opposite of "lawful" (though such behavior would be limited to Chaotic alignments, it's hardly reasonable to construe it as typifying them). I think you're conflating a "personal code" in the sense of an external set of rules accepted and internalized with heavy emotional investment, with a "personal code" in the sense of a set of principles a character has individually developed and tries to live by. The defining feature of the former (lawful characters) is the general inclination to accept direction from an external authority, whether it's a government or not, and it's the fact that their "rules" come from outside that make a character Lawful, not the existence of internal "rules" in itself (a Chaotic Good character who answers only to herself may be equally or even more demanding of herself than the external authorities Lawful characters answer to).

One useful way of conceptualizing Lawful and Chaotic may be that Lawful characters tend more toward Deontological, and Chaotic characters tend more towards Consequentialist, ethical systems (exceptions for Chaotic characters, in my experience, typically consist of a rule-like commitment to personal freedom as an abstract concept, and/or an overriding loyalty to friends and family).

[Miloch]

One useful way of conceptualizing Lawful and Chaotic may be that Lawful characters tend more toward Deontological, and Chaotic characters tend more towards Consequentialist, ethical systems

Geez. I'm glad I didn't take that upper-level Ethics course. Next thing you know, you'll be talking about Eudaimonia and hedonistic utilitarianism. I need a lot more coffee to read about that kind of stuff.

[vilkacis]

Well, I did put "random" in quotation marks. I admit that I might not have worded it very well, though. It's "random" in the sense that others may see it as such, not in the sense of flipping a coin. A chaotic character goes with what feels like the "best" thing to do at the time, rather than thinking about the "proper" thing to do, so I still think "impulse-driven" is a fairly accurate (if simple) description.

it's the fact that their "rules" come from outside that make a character Lawful, not the existence of internal "rules" in itself

But wouldn't you say that the creation of a set of rules is also lawful behaviour? In a place where no outside authority exists, would you say that it is imposible to be lawful? As I see it, to desire and strive for order and structure is most certainly a lawful trait.

a Chaotic Good character who answers only to herself may be equally or even more demanding of herself than the external authorities Lawful characters answer to

Of course, but being chaotic, that character would have few specific rules beyond "good" behaviour. They would stick to the rule "do no evil" (or perhaps even "do nothing that is not good"), but have little use for "it's best to do good in this specific manner" rules. If they keep too many rules and traditions, they won't be CG anymore, but probably NG. Chaos is an extreme.

One useful way of conceptualizing Lawful and Chaotic may be that Lawful characters tend more toward Deontological, and Chaotic characters tend more towards Consequentialist ethical systems (exceptions for Chaotic characters, in my experience, typically consist of a rule-like commitment to personal freedom as an abstract concept, and/or an overriding loyalty to friends and family).

I can't disagree with that... but I also don't see how that would contradict anything else I have said in this topic.

[Azkyroth]

I'm mostly working from Arkalian as an example of a non-random Chaotic Good character here, but I think the points are more generally applicable.

Well, I did put "random" in quotation marks. I admit that I might not have worded it very well, though. It's "random" in the sense that others may see it as such, not in the sense of flipping a coin. A chaotic character goes with what feels like the "best" thing to do at the time, rather than thinking about the "proper" thing to do, so I still think "impulse-driven" is a fairly accurate (if simple) description.

This makes more sense, but "random" still doesn't seem like the best way of putting it.

On a note related to my point, going with what "feels like the 'best' thing to do" isn't always a good description of Chaotic Good behavior, at least for the usual meaning of "feels"; it may also take the form of analytically determining which course of action is most likely to yield the most beneficial result for those concerned, for a simple, pragmatic definition of beneficial, without regard for established procedures. (Such a character would probably dispute the appropriateness of "thinking" as a description of someone automatically selecting the customary or societally endorsed response in a given situation, and find the tendency of many people in society to assume that not following the rules = acting on impulse particularly annoying.)

That said, "poor impulse control" or "craziness" is indeed a common interpretation by other characters of certain of, say, Arkalian's peculiarities, although given a good understanding of her character, worldview, and past, her reaction in most situations is, at least in moderately general terms, quite predictable.

But wouldn't you say that the creation of a set of rules is also lawful behaviour? In a place where no outside authority exists, would you say that it is imposible to be lawful? As I see it, to desire and strive for order and structure is most certainly a lawful trait.

Of course, but being chaotic, that character would have few specific rules beyond "good" behaviour. They would stick to the rule "do no evil" (or perhaps even "do nothing that is not good"), but have little use for "it's best to do good in this specific manner" rules. If they keep too many rules and traditions, they won't be CG anymore, but probably NG. Chaos is an extreme.

"Rules" is perhaps not the best description. For a Chaotic Good character, internal "rules" would tend to be better described as heuristics rather than elements of a formal code (regardless of origin) - tools to be discarded once their usefulness is at an end. A reflective Chaotic Good character would probably tend to see the (questionable) proportion of societal rules that do not exist solely for the individual and group benefit of the rulemakers as (usually inefficient, and often irreparably faulty) heuristics adopted by society for various reasons (which may or may not extend beyond "well, it's easier to figure out and it doesn't actually destroy us"), and thus find the insistence of many in society on treating "rules" and "laws" as things with intrinsic value bizarre and irrational.

This seems to be more of a semantic than a conceptual dispute, though...

[vilkacis]

On a note related to my point, going with what "feels like the 'best' thing to do" isn't always a good description of Chaotic Good behavior, at least for the usual meaning of "feels"; it may also take the form of analytically determining which course of action is most likely to yield the most beneficial result for those concerned, for a simple, pragmatic definition of beneficial, without regard for established procedures.

I wasn't thinking just of CG, but chaos in general. There are of course many ways to be chaotic - both our descriptions fall under the definition of chaotic, but neither defines it.

That said, "poor impulse control" or "craziness" is indeed a common interpretation by other characters of certain of, say, Arkalian's peculiarities, although given a good understanding of her character, worldview, and past, her reaction in most situations is, at least in moderately general terms, quite predictable.

Perhaps "being impulsive" would have sounded better than "being impulse-driven", that sounds more like it could be a mental problem. Not every chaotic is impulsive, even though impulsiveness would be chaotic behaviour.

Anyway, with a chaotic character, one would need to know that specific character in order to predict their actions. With a lawful one, knowing which "law" they follow would give, if not the whole story, some quite accurate pointers.

"Rules" is perhaps not the best description. For a Chaotic Good character, internal "rules" would tend to be better described as heuristics rather than elements of a formal code (regardless of origin) - tools to be discarded once their usefulness is at an end.

I can, like, totally get with that.

When I say "creating a ruleset", I mean building a code that is just as strict and defined as any "official" one. A loose set of rules or guidelines, whether self-imposed or otherwise, wouldn't be enough to make someone lawful.

This seems to be more of a semantic than a conceptual dispute, though...

Quite possibly, yes.

[oralpain]

In addition to some of the sources quited above, I've always found the more general descriptions from older editions of the game to be useful. Sometimes they can be vague, but that's not necissarily a bad thing. Personally, I find the mention of how "non-philsophical" types are unconciously aligned to be much more useful than the rest. Alignment is determined by actions, and most people don't sit around and write out complex personal codes, muse in great detail about the subjectiveness of right and wrong, or actively look to prove or disprove the existance of complex patterns of balance.

From the 2nd edition PHB:

Characters who believe in law maintain that order, organization, and society are important, indeed vital, forces of the universe. The relationships between people and governments exist naturally. Lawful philosophers maintain that this order is not created by man but is a natural law of the universe. Although man does not create orderly structures, it is his obligation to function within them, lest the fabric of everything crumble. For less philosophical types, lawfulness manifests itself in the belief that laws should be made and followed, if only to have understandable rules for society. People should not pursue personal vendettas, for example, but should present their claims to the proper authorities. Strength comes through unity of action, as can be seen in guilds, empires, and powerful churches.

Those espousing neutrality tend to take a more balanced view of things. They hold that for every force in the universe, there is an opposite force somewhere. Where there is lawfulness, there is also chaos; where there is neutrality, there is also partisanship. The same is true of good and evil, life and death. What is important is that all these forces remain in balance with each other. If one factor becomes ascendant over its opposite, the universe becomes unbalanced. If enough of these polarities go out of balance, the fabric of reality could pull itself apart. For example, if death became ascendant over life, the universe would become a barren wasteland.

Philosophers of neutrality not only presuppose the existence of opposites, but they also theorize that the universe would vanish should one opposite completely destroy the other (since nothing can exist without its opposite). Fortunately for these philosophers (and all sentient life), the universe seems to be efficient at regulating itself. Only when a powerful, unbalancing force appears (which almost never happens) need the defenders of neutrality become seriously concerned.

The believers in chaos hold that there is no preordained order or careful balance of forces in the universe. Instead they see the universe as a collection of things and events, some related to each other and others completely independent. They tend to hold that individual actions account for the differences in things and that events in one area do not alter the fabric of the universe halfway across the galaxy. Chaotic philosophers believe in the power of the individual over his own destiny and are fond of anarchistic nations. Being more pragmatic, non-philosophers recognize the function of society in protecting their individual rights. Chaotics can be hard to govern as a group, since they place their own needs and desires above those of society.

and

Like law and order, the second set of attitudes is also divided into three parts. These parts describe, more or less, a character's moral outlook; they are his internal guideposts to what is right or wrong.

Good characters are just that. They try to be honest, charitable, and forthright. People are not perfect, however, so few are good all the time. There are always occasional failings and weaknesses. A good person, however, worries about his errors and normally tries to correct any damage done.

Remember, however, that goodness has no absolute values. Although many things are commonly accepted as good (helping those in need, protecting the weak), different cultures impose their own interpretations on what is good and what is evil.

Those with a neutral moral stance often refrain from passing judgment on anything. They do not classify people, things, or events as good or evil; what is, is. In some cases, this is because the creature lacks the capacity to make a moral judgment (animals fall into this category). Few normal creatures do anything for good or evil reasons. They kill because they are hungry or threatened. They sleep where they find shelter. They do not worry about the moral consequences of their actions--their actions are instinctive.

Evil is the antithesis of good and appears in many ways, some overt and others quite subtle. Only a few people of evil nature actively seek to cause harm or destruction. Most simply do not recognize that what they do is destructive or disruptive. People and things that obstruct the evil character's plans are mere hindrances that must be overcome. If someone is harmed in the process... well, that's too bad. Remember that evil, like good, is interpreted differently in different societies.

Anyway, from my interpretation of the way alignments work, it is perfectly possible to find a very "chaotic" character who has a high level of personal organization, and a definable code of honor. Much game or game related literature also supports this.

Lord Soth (and some other death knights), of Dragonalance fame, is a good example. Soth being a former knight, and a life long military man, he had a very strong preference for military order (and a dislike for chaotic surroundings), and a semblance, or at least a facade, of honor. Still, Soth, according to the rules and his deeper background, is as chaotic evil as they come, and such an alignment does show through in the long run. The way his chaos surfaces is simply a bit different than for some other characters.

Another good example of the CE alignment is the abyssal Lord Graz'zt. He is a phenominally powerful tanar'ri, pure chaos and evil to the core, yet he has near-flawless self control, is rarely wanton with his incredible power and capacity for violence, rarely acts without thinking long and hard about a situation, and stands at the head of a well organized government. Indeed, look at his enterprise, visit his court, and he could easily be mistaken for a being of utmost order. However, the chaos of Graz'zt is omnipresent and extreme, it's just more subtle, and beneath the surface.

For any given alignment it's possible to find examples of characters who at first seem to not fit at all, but who on closer examination, could not possibly fit any other alignment better.

Law, chaos, good, and evil are all pretty much infinite in their variety. If the sterotypes of each alignment fit everyone of that alignment, the D&D game would be extremely boring and implausible.

Edited by oralpain, 26 January 2008 - 03:14 AM.