Alignment Issues

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

If you do that' date=' though, you may as well not [i']have[/i] any other measurement of Law; the Good/Evil is already deciding it.

 

The two-dimensional construct only makes sense if each dimension does not cover anything in the other dimensions (in this case just one, but the principle still applies).

 

If we can derive Law/Chaos from Good/Evil, it doesn't make any sense to have Law/Chaos; it would be determined by Good/Evil, and therefore couldn't have an independent rating. The existence of two separate axes is meaningless unless we reserve the essential aspects of each axis for that axis.

That was my whole point. It was the exact parallel of what you said. Yes, I do consider the Law/Chaos axis, as defined (however ambiguously and confusedly) by D&D, to be mostly meaningless, at least as compared to the Good/Evil axis.

[Lucius]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

"Once he had understood the existence of the Great Game, and had become one of its players, he had felt his perception of the universe and his place in it expand a thousandfold. He sensed the entropy going on at all levels, the endless struggle between Order and Chaos - and how easily Chaos could overcome Order with a single touch, no matter how the stars in their courses and human beings in the course of their lives struggled to maintain their bearing. Chaos had constantly driven a random finger into the motion of his own life, destabilizing him at every turn. Now, at last, he had stopped struggling against entropy's flow, and had chosen to embrace it. At last he saw clearly, even in darkness."

 

Joan D. Vinge The Summer Queen

 

Interestingly enough, it's a science fiction story set on several far away planets in some unimaginably distant future. As far as I know, the author doesn't know what a role playing game is. The Great Game referenced is basically a game of interstellar conspiracy.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary notes that Lucius just happened to read that passage shortly after being online and reading this thread.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

And many authors (and others) will use terms like Order and Chaos to substitute for Good and Evil. I guess it sounds more... poetic? epic? politically correct? non-judgmental?

 

The terms used don't matter so much as the *definitions* of those terms. What exactly does Vinge mean by "order" and "chaos"?

 

If you wanted to, you could set up your RPG alignment system with your own made-up terms. Use the D&D model, but call Good "Hufarb" and call Evil "Coinsy". Call Lawful "Fnarg" and call Chaotic "Sebeese". Thus you can have alignments like "Sebeese Hufarb" and "Fnarg Coinsy." But you haven't actually changed anything.

[Lucius]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

Perhaps the words "entropy" "random" and "destabilizing" are clues. In any case, the passage is only a snapshot of a given character's view of the universe and his place in it at a given point in time.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

And the verdict is: Innocent! Feed them to the palindromedary!

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

Perhaps the words "entropy" "random" and "destabilizing" are clues. In any case' date=' the passage is only a snapshot of a given character's view of the universe and his place in it at a given point in time.[/quote']

Not really. Those are just synonyms, not definitions or examples. In fact, it makes me suspect that Vinge isn't even talking about alignment issues at all. Bad weather, natural disasters, car accidents, unannounced visitors, change in career, health issues, etc., can all destabilize your life, they can occur randomly, they can increase the amount of chaos in your life, but they really don't have anything to do with character alignment.

 

Are we just talking about random, entropic events in life, or are we talking about the willful acts of "chaotically-aligned" people. And even if a Chaotic mob of anarchists, who are philosophically opposed to Law and Order* come and burn down our hero's house and murder his family, that's an act of Evil, much more significantly than of Chaos.

[Lucius]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

If you recognize them as synonyms, it seems to me that you're admitting you know what the word means.

 

However, I think you're helping me clarify something about the whole alignment issue, as D&D defined it. Let me get back to you on this.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary and I are going to ruminate.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

If you recognize them as synonyms' date=' it seems to me that you're admitting you know what the word means.[/quote']

Well, I can interpret what I think it means, but as I said, the inference I draw is that it has nothing to do with character alignment.

[Shike019]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

Not really. Those are just synonyms, not definitions or examples. In fact, it makes me suspect that Vinge isn't even talking about alignment issues at all. Bad weather, natural disasters, car accidents, unannounced visitors, change in career, health issues, etc., can all destabilize your life, they can occur randomly, they can increase the amount of chaos in your life, but they really don't have anything to do with character alignment.

 

Are we just talking about random, entropic events in life, or are we talking about the willful acts of "chaotically-aligned" people. And even if a Chaotic mob of anarchists, who are philosophically opposed to Law and Order* come and burn down our hero's house and murder his family, that's an act of Evil, much more significantly than of Chaos.

 

If I remember correctly from my Logic class in my undergrad, the shortest definitions are the best, thus if you can define a word with only a single word, that is the best definition you can use. So synonyms are probably the best way to define what you're talking about.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

If I remember correctly from my Logic class in my undergrad' date=' the shortest definitions are the best, thus if you can define a word with only a single word, that is the best definition you can use. So synonyms are probably the best way to define what you're talking about.[/quote']

Fine. Whatever. It's irrelevant. The question is: What does it have to do with character alignment? What does it have to do with the moral/ethical makeup of a person? And how does it relate, if at all, to the Good/Evil axis?

 

"Chaos means Entropy means Randomness means Disruption" does not answer these questions.

[Lucius]

Alignment Issues

 

Okay, I think I'm ready to try to articulate what I've been mulling over.

 

Mind you, it's taken me literally thirty years to realize this.

 

The problem is that Law-Chaos isn't just a different axis than Good-Evil. It isn't even on the same plane. Putting them both on a single graph like the Alignment Chart is a fundamental category confusion.

 

Good and Evil are value judgments. It's been pointed out that very nearly NO ONE is "evil" in their OWN eyes. The question of what constitutes good and evil is so subjective, the meanings of the words are very nearly all connotation - no denotation.

 

Law and Chaos however DO denote something, and it is possible - if not always easy - to talk about them objectively. But the words are also capable of carrying a great deal of connotation. Thus, some people would condemn one or the other, or perhaps either in excess, as "evil" - but that is a value judgment, a moral decision. And law and chaos intrinsically are NOT moral distinctions. Any more than the distinction between light and darkness is a moral one, much as that one has been used metaphorically.

 

Lucius Alexander

 

Contemplating a palindromedary

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

The problem is that Law-Chaos isn't just a different axis than Good-Evil. It isn't even on the same plane. Putting them both on a single graph like the Alignment Chart is a fundamental category confusion.

I think I agree with you here. However...

 

Good and Evil are value judgments. It's been pointed out that very nearly NO ONE is "evil" in their OWN eyes. The question of what constitutes good and evil is so subjective, the meanings of the words are very nearly all connotation - no denotation.

I disagree here. I believe good and evil are objective. Just because some people have different beliefs, or even completely backwards beliefs, on the subject doesn't make it subjective. One's incomplete or imperfect understanding of a particular truth doesn't make the truth less objective. If someone sincerely believes that 2+2=5, they are objectively wrong. If someone believes it is good to kill your daughter because she was raped, he is objectively wrong. And yes, it is possible that I am objectively wrong about those two statements.

 

In a game however, we the players and GM's can look down upon our characters and NPCs and objectively describe their alignments, even if they can't do it themselves. Very convenient thing to do in RPG's - admittedly much tougher in real life, because we live in the same world where the good and evil we're trying to assess is taking place.

 

Law and Chaos however DO denote something, and it is possible - if not always easy - to talk about them objectively.

So what exactly do they denote? In D&D it depends on which page of the rules you read. Sometimes they denote personality traits (Monks practice mental dicsipline so they're Lawful), and sometimes they denote combat tactics (Barbarians go berserk in battle, which is Chaotic), and sometimes it is claimed that it has something to do with a character's attitude toward authority, government, ans social convention.

[David Johnston]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

Fine. Whatever. It's irrelevant. The question is: What does it have to do with character alignment? What does it have to do with the moral/ethical makeup of a person? And how does it relate, if at all, to the Good/Evil axis?

 

"Chaos means Entropy means Randomness means Disruption" does not answer these questions.

 

You're right. Better words would be:

 

Freedom, egalitarianism, a willingness to make up the rules as you go along and to abandon traditions no longer seem to serve a practical purpose, a refusal to respect the position when you don't respect the man, a love of change for change's sake, and a low boredom threshold. Those are Chaotic values.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

You're right. Better words would be:

 

Freedom, egalitarianism, a willingness to make up the rules as you go along and to abandon traditions no longer seem to serve a practical purpose, a refusal to respect the position when you don't respect the man, a love of change for change's sake, and a low boredom threshold. Those are Chaotic values.

Excellent! This actually means something real. I have a few minor disagreements about individual points here, but the basic idea I have no problem with.

 

The specific points I disagree on:

Egalitarianism - seems to me this could just as easily be on the Lawful side. Without laws, how do you ensure equality?

Freedom - in many senses Law provides far more freedom than lack of same. Certainly in a practical sense, law-based societies have always been more free than those not based in law.

Low boredom threshold - this is more of a personality trait than an alignment characteristic, IMO.

 

The next question (which was a point I had made earlier, and which Lucius touched on) is how does the Law/Chaos axis, in terms of it's impact and relevence, compare to the Good/Evil axis? My claim is that it's not even close. In works of fiction (fantasy fiction especially), as well as in the real world, the Good/Evil distinction is of vastly greater importance. In some works (which don't feel bound to the D&D model), the terms Law (or Order) and Chaos, as substituted for Goo and Evil, without meaning anything different. I've never heard of any story in any genre where the primary conflict was between those who wanted a well-organized and stable legal system with respect for tradition, and those who wanted to abolish tradition and have no legal system. Some such conflicts arise occasionally, but only within the context of good and evil.

[David Johnston]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Johnston

You're right. Better words would be:

 

Freedom, egalitarianism, a willingness to make up the rules as you go along and to abandon traditions no longer seem to serve a practical purpose, a refusal to respect the position when you don't respect the man, a love of change for change's sake, and a low boredom threshold. Those are Chaotic values.

 

Excellent! This actually means something real. I have a few minor disagreements about individual points here, but the basic idea I have no problem with.

 

The specific points I disagree on:

Egalitarianism - seems to me this could just as easily be on the Lawful side. Without laws, how do you ensure equality?

 

A chaotic person would tell you that laws only ensure inequality...particularly since we are talking about fantasy environments where the laws aren't exactly designed to keep everyone on a level playing field. The idea of "using laws to ensure equality" is fundamentally a neutral, one, a compromise between the two ideals. A chaotic utopian vision would be one where people exist in a more or less tribal organisation, where leadership roles are purely the result of demonstrated competence and if someones a screwup, it doesn't matter how elevated their birth, or how long their time in service is. And toward the good side of the spectrum there would probably be quite a bit of townhall democracy when major decisions need to be made and there's time to natter about them.

Freedom - in many senses Law provides far more freedom than lack of same. Certainly in a practical sense, law-based societies have always been more free than those not based in law.

 

Spoken like a Lawful person, but it isn't true. Rome was not a freer or more equal society than the more Gauls who fought them for all that Rome had more law. Also it's worth remembering that Chaotic societies still have laws. They just prefer to get by with fewer and interpret them more flexibly. Note of course that Chaotic Evil societies only have freedom for the powerful (because Evil involves lack of respect for the life and dignity of others), but they have a lot more of it.

Low boredom threshold - this is more of a personality trait than an alignment characteristic, IMO.

 

Alignment characteristics ARE personality traits. Evil and Good alignments are evaluations of the kind of personality you have. If you're the kind of person who hates standing in line and filling out forms and naps in class, then you probably aren't Lawful.

 

The next question (which was a point I had made earlier, and which Lucius touched on) is how does the Law/Chaos axis, in terms of it's impact and relevence, compare to the Good/Evil axis?

 

Usually Law versus Chaos is a secondary consideration when Good and Evil are on the field. But since there are campaigns where the GM doesn't want to get locked into good guys versus bad guys, but wants a more shades of grey type of deal. So, easily done, just have most of your characters (and your divinities) be on the range between chaotic neutral and lawful neutral, and make Detect Law and Detect Chaos available spells, but not Detect Good and Detect Evil.

 

My claim is that it's not even close. In works of fiction (fantasy fiction especially), as well as in the real world, the Good/Evil distinction is of vastly greater importance.

 

Not in Moorcock of course. His Lawful deities aren't particularly good. Not in Zelazny's Amber series. The conflict between Amber and Chaos is not one between good and evil. Neither side is particularly good. It's just that one of them wants stability and the other wants flexibility.

[Robyn]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

My claim is that it's not even close. In works of fiction (fantasy fiction especially)' date=' as well as in the real world, the Good/Evil distinction is of vastly greater importance. [/b']

 

Not in Moorcock of course. His Lawful deities aren't particularly good. Not in Zelazny's Amber series. The conflict between Amber and Chaos is not one between good and evil. Neither side is particularly good. It's just that one of them wants stability and the other wants flexibility.

 

How about the Shadows and Vorlons in Babylon 5? They were both "good"; their ultimate goal (and the original reason they stayed behind when most of the other Elder Races left for the Rim) was to guide the younger races along their respective paths of evolution, even if they did forget this over time and become focused on their rivalry with each other over how to achieve that goal.

[Alcamtar]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

Freedom is not unique to chaos. A lawful person would say that true freedom requires self-restraint, because asserting your own freedom infringes on the freedom of others. A chaotic person says that personal freedom must be absolute. Restraint does not make one less free: a truly lawful person respects others and does not WANT to cause them trouble. (Not doing what you never wanted to do in the first place does not inhibit your freedom at all.)

 

Likewise I would argue that egalitarianism is primarily a Lawful trait, not chaotic, because it is concerned with Justice which is the primary concern of Law, and not chaotic at all.

 

Alignment characteristics ARE personality traits. Evil and Good alignments are evaluations of the kind of personality you have.

 

Alignment are personality traits, but personality traits are not necessarily alignment traits. Alignment traits are things that are important. Low boredom threshold is just a quirk. A lawful person could be easily bored, and a chaotic person could be highly focused. The important question is what you do when you are bored/focused? And why you do it? If alleviating boredom is your core drive and overrides moral concerns, then you are not Chaotic you are Evil. (i.e., putting yourself head of others no matter what).

 

 

In Moorcock, I'd argue that Law/Chaos is a superficial distraction from the real point, which is Good/Evil. The heroes are champions of something they don't even believe in, because they see how petty and worthless it is, even if they cannot escape from it. Law/Chaos is a false axis in Moorcock.

 

 

Actually I think the best thing about alignment is that it is so vague and hard to pin down, and it results in interesting arguments. For all that people complain it is too black and white, too stereotyped, alignment is a rich gray morass of limitless interpretations. Fantasy desperately needs that conflict. Oddly enough alignment itself does not provide this, but it somehow provokes players into producing it.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

A chaotic person would tell you that laws only ensure inequality...

Well, such a person would be wrong. Without laws, you only get what you can take by physical force.

particularly since we are talking about fantasy environments where the laws aren't exactly designed to keep everyone on a level playing field.

True. But that's a lack of Goodness, not a lack of Chaoticness. The lower classes/castes/etc. wouldn't be any better off in a society that was the same place on the Good/Evil axis but with fewer laws.

 

A chaotic utopian vision would be one where people exist in a more or less tribal organisation, where leadership roles are purely the result of demonstrated competence and if someones a screwup, it doesn't matter how elevated their birth, or how long their time in service is. And toward the good side of the spectrum there would probably be quite a bit of townhall democracy when major decisions need to be made and there's time to natter about them.

Yep. That's a utopian vision, all right. A real chaotic society would be a tribal organization where leadership roles are purely the result of physical might, and last only as long as that might can be maintained, regardless of screwups of policy. A wise and good leader in such a society will likely listen to his townhall to some extent and realize that laws are needed for fairness and egalitarianism and gradually increase Lawfulness.

Spoken like a Lawful person, but it isn't true. Rome was not a freer or more equal society than the more Gauls who fought them for all that Rome had more law.

That's a result of a deficiency of Goodness on Rome's part, not of Law. Every society on earth had slavery at some point (and some still do). This preceeded any formal legal systems. Without law, you only get the freedom you can ensure through force. If one group's army is stronger than another group's army, there's nothing (other than the Goodness of the first group) to ensure the freedom of the second group.

Also it's worth remembering that Chaotic societies still have laws.

And to the extent they do, they are less Chaotic. A system of laws written on paper doesn't make a Lawful society unless those laws are actually used. The constitution of the Soviet Union granted freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc., but those guarantees of freedom were never actually put into practice.

 

Alignment characteristics ARE personality traits.

What Alcamtar said.

 

If you're the kind of person who hates standing in line and filling out forms and naps in class, then you probably aren't Lawful.

By that definition, almost nobody in the world is Lawful. I guess the only Lawful people would be Adrian Monk-like folks who have an obsession with organization. But that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with alignment, because it doesn't necessarily say anything about the persons beliefs about society.

 

But all the stuff I've said above is somewhat off-topic.

 

Usually Law versus Chaos is a secondary consideration when Good and Evil are on the field.

Which was my original point. I would say further that Good and Evil are *always* on the field, except for campaigns/adventures that are just a series of challenges to be overcome just for the sake of seeing if you can. Like a old-school dungeon crawl: kill the monster, disable the trap, grab the treasure, proceed to the next room. Good and Evil don't enter the picture in that case (and neither to Law and Chaos). Another example would be a sports event. Two teams face off to see who's skills are greater. There's no alignment consideration.

 

A classic example of Chaotic Good vs Lawful Evil would be the story of Robin Hood. But even here, Robin isn't specifically trying to be chaotic. He goes against the law because it's currently being used for evil. It's the evil that he objects to, not the lawfulness. The Sheriff of Nottingham fights against him, not because he's breaking the law, but because his actions thwart his evil purposes.

 

Not in Moorcock of course. His Lawful deities aren't particularly good. Not in Zelazny's Amber series. The conflict between Amber and Chaos is not one between good and evil. Neither side is particularly good. It's just that one of them wants stability and the other wants flexibility.

I'll take your word for it. I haven't read either. Who follows the Lawful gods in Moorcock, and why? Are there any good guys in Moorcock? What do they do? If neither side in Amber is good, why do they want stability/flexibility respectively? What's the point?

[Robyn]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

a truly lawful person respects others and does not WANT to cause them trouble.

 

But isn't "causing trouble for someone" an evil act? Along the Good/Evil axis rather than the Law/Chaos axis?

 

If alleviating boredom is your core drive and overrides moral concerns' date=' then you are not Chaotic you are Evil. (i.e., putting yourself head of others no matter what).[/quote']

 

I catch a reference to the Good/Evil axis in your definition . . . what happens if we make it Law/Chaos?

 

Alcamtar: "If your core drive overrides moral concerns, you are Evil."

 

Robyn: "If your core drive overrides legal concerns, you are Chaotic."

 

Without laws' date=' you only get what you can take by physical force.[/quote']

 

What about personal production? It might be more accurate to say that you only keep what you (or your allies) can protect by physical force.

 

The domain of Law insists that everything has a singular nature. But the domain of Chaos is free to not, in a lawless society, have "raiders and thieves who only loot, never create" as its natural state.

 

Without law' date=' you only get the freedom you can ensure through force.[/quote']

 

Again, a Lawful presumption that Chaos will follow the patterns of Law - it isn't obliged to! If a chaotic society were, by definition, afflicted with constant challenges of freedom, challenges that could only be met with physical force, and only withstood by a superior physical force, then the only freedom anyone would get would be that which they could ensure through force. But that's an excessively narrow definition of chaotic societies.

 

If one group's army is stronger than another group's army' date=' there's nothing (other than the Goodness of the first group) to ensure the freedom of the second group.[/quote']

 

How about Neutrality?

 

Morally, freedom may exist simply through the "I don't care!" attitude of people who naturally mind their own business.

 

You've touched on an interesting point, though - there is nothing to ensure the freedom of one group from another, except physical force:

 

A system of laws written on paper doesn't make a Lawful society unless those laws are actually used.

 

Even then, a Lawful society may find itself helpless against Chaotic individuals who choose not to follow those laws. If someone physically powerful (such as, say, supervillains) does not respect the laws, it comes down to force, and what does society have?

 

These so-called "laws" are nothing more than a social agreement, Law is meaningless and powerless to those who do not heed it. Ultimately, the Lawful society is even more likely as a Chaotic one to find itself needing physical force to maintain the status quo. Not just because Chaotic societies could more readily accept a change to that state, but because Law by nature establishes more rules than Chaos, and thus increases the opportunities for someone to break them.

 

By that definition' date=' almost nobody in the world is Lawful. I guess the only Lawful people would be Adrian Monk-like folks who have an obsession with organization. But that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with alignment, because it doesn't necessarily say anything about the persons beliefs about society.[/quote']

 

A person's Law/Chaos alignment isn't limited to their beliefs about society; there's an interpersonal aspect present, too.

 

A classic example of Chaotic Good vs Lawful Evil would be the story of Robin Hood.

 

A classic example of Lawful Good would be Darth Vader.

 

[assault]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

Laws don't have to be written, of course.

 

Historical examples of societies going from "Chaotic" to "Lawful" would include the German tribes during the Roman empire.

 

Originally they were small scale clan oriented societies, with little or no social hierarchy and formal leadership. There were laws, but they were mainly bodies of customary practice. Over time, elaborate social hierarchies emerged, with kings and nobles formally establishing laws that bound their social inferiors.

 

A slightly later process along the same lines occurred in Iceland.

 

These changes were relative, of course. "Absolute" chaos and "absolute" law are ideal, abstact categories, which don't exist in the Real World. Fantasy worlds may differ - see Moorcock for further details.

[Alcamtar]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

But isn't "causing trouble for someone" an evil act? Along the Good/Evil axis rather than the Law/Chaos axis?

 

I catch a reference to the Good/Evil axis in your definition . . . what happens if we make it Law/Chaos?

 

Alcamtar: "If your core drive overrides moral concerns, you are Evil."

 

Robyn: "If your core drive overrides legal concerns, you are Chaotic."

 

By the traditional game-alignment definition of Law (as opposed to say, Moorcock), respect for and loyalty to others is a primary value and defining characteristic of lawfulness. A lawful person considers respect for others to be a moral imperative, thus to a lawful person Law = Good. Lawful and Chaotic persons then have different definitions for Good and Evil.

 

If morality is absolute, and if concern for others is Good, then Law generally corresponds with Good and Chaos with Evil. If Law and Chaos do not correspond to Good and Evil, then morality must be relative. (Or if morality is not relative, then Law and Chaos must have no moral component, and Law cannot be defined as concern for others or submission to rightful authority, since these are moral imperatives. But if Law/Chaos have no moral component, they should not serve as alignment.)

[Robyn]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

A lawful person considers respect for others to be a moral imperative

 

But is morality the same as alignment? Alignment includes morality, but the Law/Chaos axis is in addition to the moral axis - else there wouldn't be a point to having both of them.

 

If morality is absolute' date=' and if concern for others is Good,[/quote']

 

If, if. If we presuppose that a certain side is "in the right", we can trudge on from that and go in a circle, eventually ending up right back where we started, only we'll think it's a conclusion rather than a premise. Of course, it's all right then to finally look back and check our premises, because we've just "proven" them. Isn't circular logic fun?

 

Law and Chaos must have no moral component

 

They can certainly refer to morality, just as morality can refer to law or chaos.

 

Law cannot be defined as concern for others or submission to rightful authority' date=' since these are moral imperatives.[/quote']

 

Correction - they are both.

 

Each axis governs the area(s) it has sole authority over. This restriction would not be necessary if they did not, at times, claim that the same area was in their jurisdiction.

 

Where a conflict exists, or neither axis cares, "free will" may enter the equation.

 

if Law/Chaos have no moral component' date=' they should not serve as alignment[/quote']

 

Why? I think you're conflating "alignment" with "morality" here.

[David Johnston]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Johnston

A chaotic person would tell you that laws only ensure inequality...

 

Well, such a person would be wrong. Without laws, you only get what you can take by physical force.

 

It's exactly that kind of response that explains why Law and Chaos fight.

Quote:

particularly since we are talking about fantasy environments where the laws aren't exactly designed to keep everyone on a level playing field.

True. But that's a lack of Goodness, not a lack of Chaoticness. The lower classes/castes/etc. wouldn't be any better off in a society that was the same place on the Good/Evil axis but with fewer laws.

 

That depends on the laws in question now doesn't it? If it's the law saying that a serf can't leave his plot of land, then are they really going to be better off keeping it? The lawful point of view tends to be "Know your place in society and work to fill it". The chaotic point of view tends to be, "Any boy can be King"...if he's tough enough.

Quote:

A chaotic utopian vision would be one where people exist in a more or less tribal organisation, where leadership roles are purely the result of demonstrated competence and if someones a screwup, it doesn't matter how elevated their birth, or how long their time in service is. And toward the good side of the spectrum there would probably be quite a bit of townhall democracy when major decisions need to be made and there's time to natter about them.

Yep. That's a utopian vision, all right. A real chaotic society would be a tribal organization where leadership roles are purely the result of physical might,

 

Physical might IS competence (in war) and that's important. But that doesn't mean a chaotic society would not have a place of respect for their shaman or their bard, or the guy who is simply their oldest member.

and last only as long as that might can be maintained, regardless of screwups of policy. A wise and good leader in such a society will likely listen to his townhall to some extent and realize that laws are needed for fairness and egalitarianism and gradually increase Lawfulness.

 

It's up to the GM to decide how adjudicate his own biases towards Good or Lawfulness. But as I said Chaotic societies still have laws. Just not so many.

Quote:

Spoken like a Lawful person, but it isn't true. Rome was not a freer or more equal society than the more Gauls who fought them for all that Rome had more law.

That's a result of a deficiency of Goodness on Rome's part, not of Law.

 

The Gauls weren't all that Good either.

Quote:

Also it's worth remembering that Chaotic societies still have laws.

And to the extent they do, they are less Chaotic.

Perfection is not expected.

Quote:

If you're the kind of person who hates standing in line and filling out forms and naps in class, then you probably aren't Lawful.

By that definition, almost nobody in the world is Lawful.

 

Really? I stayed awake in class and I have stood in lines and filled out forms willingly. Am I so rare? Understand that when I say "hate" I do not mean "does not love". I mean "hate". As in "enrages you".

 

A classic example of Chaotic Good vs Lawful Evil would be the story of Robin Hood. But even here, Robin isn't specifically trying to be chaotic. He goes against the law because it's currently being used for evil. It's the evil that he objects to, not the lawfulness.

 

Because he's Chaotic Good. If he was Chaotic Neutral he'd steal just because he wanted the money and didn't respect authority. Note that the earliest versions of Robin DID steal just because he didn't respect authority and wanted the money. But a Lawful person wouldn't generally stake out a piece of turf and then just start robbing people as a response to an evil administration. Consider the Camber series by Katherine Kurtz for how Lawful Good types respond to an Evil King. Do they start a series of robberies and random guerilla attacks against the Evil guys? Not hardly. They look for a survivor from the previous dynasty who might be considered more legitimate and then they pull off a coup d'etat which is as bloodless as possible to install a new and better King. It's a difference in philosophy, and one that can create real conflicts when a hypothetical Ivanhoe runs into a hypothetical Robin Hood.

The Sheriff of Nottingham fights against him, not because he's breaking the law, but because his actions thwart his evil purposes.

 

You can't imagine the Sheriff not having any evil purposes but just doing his job as it was assigned to him by his boss?

Quote:

Not in Moorcock of course. His Lawful deities aren't particularly good. Not in Zelazny's Amber series. The conflict between Amber and Chaos is not one between good and evil. Neither side is particularly good. It's just that one of them wants stability and the other wants flexibility.

I'll take your word for it. I haven't read either. Who follows the Lawful gods in Moorcock, and why?

 

Mostly people under attack by people backed by the Chaotic gods.

Are there any good guys in Moorcock?

Sometimes, but their goodness or evil has little bearing on how they relate to magic because there are no supernatural entities of "good" or "evil". If either Law or Chaos wins in a given universe, everyone (mortal) dies as the natural laws of said universe collapse. The closest they get to gods of good are the beings of Balance, but they are only "good" in the sense that they work to prevent that outcome. They're basically cold and pragmatic beings.

What do they do? If neither side in Amber is good, why do they want stability/flexibility respectively? What's the point?

 

The point is to increase their sides power and their personal comfort. That does NOT mean that you wouldn't take a side in their battles because if the Courts of Chaos were to win in your universe it would change in ways that you would find extremely uncomfortable, not mention hard to survive, unless you picked up mastery of self-mutation.

[assault]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

Physical might IS competence (in war) and that's important. But that doesn't mean a chaotic society would not have a place of respect for their shaman or their bard' date=' or the guy who is simply their oldest member. [/quote']

 

That's right. And this is a stable structure, which has existed in real world societies for longer than more "lawful" societies have been around.

 

Of course the latter are better at warfare, and tend to conquer the more chaotic societies, or force them to become more structured to defend themselves. Let's face it, Lawful Evil beats Chaotic Good every time.

 

But a Lawful person wouldn't generally stake out a piece of turf and then just start robbing people as a response to an evil administration.

 

They might. Working within the existing structure isn't the only possible response. A Lawful leader might simply declare themselves to be the legitimate source of authority in a particular area... (It's good to be the King.)

[Robyn]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

A chaotic person would tell you that laws only ensure inequality...

 

Well, such a person would be wrong. Without laws, you only get what you can take by physical force.

 

It's exactly that kind of response that explains why Law and Chaos fight.

 

"You have to use lethal force against the pacifists! If you don't use some violence to settle disputes, the only alternative is all-out war!"

 

Also it's worth remembering that Chaotic societies still have laws.

And to the extent they do, they are less Chaotic.

 

Perfection is not expected.

 

It's worth remembering that Lawful societies don't legislate everything.

 

The Sheriff of Nottingham fights against him' date=' not because he's breaking the law, but because his actions thwart his evil purposes.[/b']

 

You can't imagine the Sheriff not having any evil purposes but just doing his job as it was assigned to him by his boss?

 

Or, even recognizing that Robin Hood was battling for Good, holding Lawful to be more important than Good?

 

I'll go a step further - I can imagine Darth Vader having good purposes, and holding them above his Lawfulness: yes, Darth Vader as Lawful Good.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Alignment Issues

 

Alcamtar: "If your core drive overrides moral concerns, you are Evil."

 

Robyn: "If your core drive overrides legal concerns, you are Chaotic."

I'm not sure that's what Alcamtar is saying. And it isn't necessarily true (either of the above statements). That's a perfect reason for the Robin Hood example. His concern for good overrode his concern for the law, so he broke the law. But if the law hadn't been in conflict with good, he wouldn't have gone against the law.

 

What about personal production? It might be more accurate to say that you only keep what you (or your allies) can protect by physical force.

Fair enough.

 

The domain of Law insists that everything has a singular nature. But the domain of Chaos is free to not, in a lawless society, have "raiders and thieves who only loot, never create" as its natural state.

I have no idea what you mean by either of these two sentences.

 

I think we all need to clarify the definitions we are using for "Lawful" and "Chaotic." I know it isn't easy, as I've pointed out before, even D&D isn't clear on this, and they've had thirty years to explain it. Based on David Johnston's descriptions of Amber and Moorcock, I'd guess that those terms were included in D&D because Gary Gygax liked those works (and presumably others that used similar terms).

 

So lat me clarify my own working definition:

Lawful (society) = one in which there is a formal system of laws, potentially including but not limited to: laws to declare certain acts forbidden, and establish punishments for commiting them; laws that establish authority and/or grant privileges to certain persons; laws which structure the society; laws that establish proceedures for resolving conflicts and disputes.

Chaotic (society) = one in which there is no formal legal system; where problems, conflicts, and disputes among the people are decided in a more-or-less arbitrary fashion by whomever has the power to do so. Those who have authority/power can do pretty much anything they want, and need not take into consideration the needs/wishes or the rest of the people. Those without power/authority have only those rights/recourses granted by the whim or grace of those in power.

Lawful (individual) = one who is especially in favor of a lawful society.

Chaotic (individual) = one who is especially in favor of a chaotic society.

 

So what are *your* definitions? (any or all of you)

 

Again, a Lawful presumption that Chaos will follow the patterns of Law - it isn't obliged to! If a chaotic society were, by definition, afflicted with constant challenges of freedom, challenges that could only be met with physical force, and only withstood by a superior physical force, then the only freedom anyone would get would be that which they could ensure through force. But that's an excessively narrow definition of chaotic societies.

I may be misunderstanding you here, but it seems to me the only narrowness of the definition is to exclude the unrealistic and implausible.

 

How about Neutrality?

 

Morally, freedom may exist simply through the "I don't care!" attitude of people who naturally mind their own business.

 

You've touched on an interesting point, though - there is nothing to ensure the freedom of one group from another, except physical force:

You answered your own question here. The key word is "ensure." You can certainly enjoy freedom if your stronger, lawless neighbor hasn't gotten around to conquering you yet!

 

The rest of your post leads me to beleive we're using very different definitions of these terms, so I will wait for you to clarify the difinitions you are using (as I requested above). You certainly don't have to supply definitions, but it would make this discussion more meaningful, more useful, and more likely to remain civil. A lot of what we've been talking about has been off the subject. I don't want to debate social philosophy here - which seems to mean preferences of one alignment over another. The subject, as I understand it, is the *meaning* of alignment(s), and their usefulness in RPGs.

 

A classic example of Lawful Good would be Darth Vader.

How's that?