Chaos is real.

'Law' is just a delusion of control.

Good and Evil are also 'real'. They just are names for social customs rather than absolutes.

I like Law vs. Chaos and I use it in my OD&D games.

For me, its a playability thing. I can have a Lawful and a Chaotic character in the same party and they may have conflict, but I have been unsuccessful at having Good and Evil characters in the same party because it always breaks down into PvP.

There is a more esoteric feel to Law vs. Chaos, where even most Lawful PCs can appreciate some aspects of freedom and most Chaotic PCs can appreciate some aspects of civilization.

It creates fun party tension in that I will have Lawful, Neutrals and Chaotics at the table, but I rarely have instant PvP issues. Instead, I find I have more passive aggressive stuff like "oops, I am out of healing spells" and "sorry you got caught in the blast radius" and "I lock the door and leave them to their fate. Let the gods sort them out."

For me, that's much more fun.

In my campaign world the gods of "Good" try to use both Law and Chaos to uncover the ultimate good, an objectively benign philosophy for the enlightenment of the world. They don't know for sure that they're on the right track and therefore require constant soul-searching of their followers, because the one thing they do know for sure is that the greatest evil is often done by those who absolutely know they are right.

Conversely, the gods of "Evil" simply see the cosmos as their playground and use Law and Chaos to maximise their power and pleasure.

And between all of them there's the Cosmic Balance keeping everything in check.

I use Law and Chaos (and not Good and Evil,) but I imagine most people would consider my interpretation pretty paleolithic. I don't approve of alignment as behavioral constraint; it's a behavior suggestion for monsters who have no other listed behavior, but otherwise has nothing to do with how anyone acts.

Instead, Law is an ideal of cosmic order and Civilization in the broadest sense, but not necessarily in the specific sense. In other words, obsessive-compulsives or highly disciplined characters aren't necessarily Lawful. Chaos is a supernatural taint that undermines cosmic order; some intelligent beings embrace Chaos voluntarily because they believe in "might makes right". Neutral isn't really an alignment, it's a lack of alignment. Neutrals are the people who put mundane concerns (good or bad) ahead of cosmic issues.

Some side-effects of my interpretation:

• Alignment isn't enforced; it mainly just controls how cleric spells and aligned magic items work, and how some creatures react to others.
• Chaos isn't necessarily freedom, nor is it randomness. Pretty much everything that goes against nature is Chaotic, though. Like undead.
• Neutral isn't selfishness. If anything, Chaos is selfishness, although I suppose you could distinguish mundane self-interest from sociopathic self-absorption.
• Anyone can be good, evil, or either, all the time or only in specific situations/towards specific individuals. No moustache twirlers!
• All gods are Lawful. They represent order, regardless of how they behave. Not all clerics are Lawful, though.
• Neutral Clerics aren't druids. They're just guys who think of the priesthood as more of a job. Neutral clerics can't reach name level.
• Chaotic clerics are heretics or demon-worshipers. They're in it for personal power. Demon-worship is more a matter of bargains and pacts, rather than admiration.
• Druids can theoretically be any alignment, but I exclude them from Law, because my game world uses them as rebels against the major civilization.
• Civic law isn't Law. You can believe that the local laws go against higher principals. Therefore, I allow Lawful thieves. Robin Hood is my example of a Lawful thief.

It may just be that I frequent his blog, but Talysman's take on Law and Chaos speaks to me (though I'd allow lawful Druids for other reasons).

Quote from: LibraryLass;647825It may just be that I frequent his blog, but Talysman's take on Law and Chaos speaks to me (though I'd allow lawful Druids for other reasons).

Well, my restriction on Lawful druids has more to do with me basing some of my fantasy world on the Merlin TV series, where the druids are rebels opposed to Camelot. A more integrated world might have druids who are OK with civilization and Law. But where's the fun in that?

Quote from: The Traveller;647706This is fiction, not physics.

When fiction uses terms wrong, it's confusing and annoys people. See Ron Edwards and "incoherent".

Quote from: talysman;647712The problem as I see it is: the definitions of both "Good vs. Evil" and "Law vs. Chaos" change from culture to culture, but they don't change at the same sense.

We're all familiar with how Good and Evil change from culture to culture. The problem is that some definitions do not intersect at all with other definitions. For example, apparition13's definition (altruism vs. selfishness, or help vs. harm) fits some Christian interpretations, but not all... and that's just Christian interpretations; we aren't even considering other religious and moral systems, including some that don't seem to have good and evil at all.

Law and Chaos are always some version of Order and Disorder; what changes there is what kinds of order and disorder are relevant. Just cosmic order? Or civilization in general, either in the universal sense or one specific sense (or every specific sense?) Or the concept of rules in general? Or just behavior as a group vs. behavior of individuals?

So: there's a core concept behind Law vs. Chaos, and the societal definitions relate to the stuff around the core, while Good vs. Evil at its core is just "what society values", but what those core values are changes. That's the sense in which Law/Chaos are more real than Good/Evil, but with the caveat that the universal definition of Law/Chaos is pretty fuzzy.

I don't buy the more real part of this. Is Hannibal Lector Lawful or Chaotic? You'll get plenty of arguments on both sides. Is he evil or good? Not so much.

Quote from: TristramEvans;647770Chaos is real.

'Law' is just a delusion of control.

Good and Evil are also 'real'. They just are names for social customs rather than absolutes.

And what do you mean by Chaos here?

Quote from: Spinachcat;647808I like Law vs. Chaos and I use it in my OD&D games.

For me, its a playability thing. I can have a Lawful and a Chaotic character in the same party and they may have conflict, but I have been unsuccessful at having Good and Evil characters in the same party because it always breaks down into PvP.

There is a more esoteric feel to Law vs. Chaos, where even most Lawful PCs can appreciate some aspects of freedom and most Chaotic PCs can appreciate some aspects of civilization.

It creates fun party tension in that I will have Lawful, Neutrals and Chaotics at the table, but I rarely have instant PvP issues. Instead, I find I have more passive aggressive stuff like "oops, I am out of healing spells" and "sorry you got caught in the blast radius" and "I lock the door and leave them to their fate. Let the gods sort them out."

For me, that's much more fun.

So Law = civilization, and Chaos = freedom? Are the two necessarily opposed?

Quote from: talysman;647824I use Law and Chaos (and not Good and Evil,) but I imagine most people would consider my interpretation pretty paleolithic. I don't approve of alignment as behavioral constraint; it's a behavior suggestion for monsters who have no other listed behavior, but otherwise has nothing to do with how anyone acts.

Instead, Law is an ideal of cosmic order and Civilization in the broadest sense, but not necessarily in the specific sense. In other words, obsessive-compulsives or highly disciplined characters aren't necessarily Lawful. Chaos is a supernatural taint that undermines cosmic order; some intelligent beings embrace Chaos voluntarily because they believe in "might makes right". Neutral isn't really an alignment, it's a lack of alignment. Neutrals are the people who put mundane concerns (good or bad) ahead of cosmic issues.

Some side-effects of my interpretation:

• Alignment isn't enforced; it mainly just controls how cleric spells and aligned magic items work, and how some creatures react to others.
• Chaos isn't necessarily freedom, nor is it randomness. Pretty much everything that goes against nature is Chaotic, though. Like undead.
• Neutral isn't selfishness. If anything, Chaos is selfishness, although I suppose you could distinguish mundane self-interest from sociopathic self-absorption.
• Anyone can be good, evil, or either, all the time or only in specific situations/towards specific individuals. No moustache twirlers!
• All gods are Lawful. They represent order, regardless of how they behave. Not all clerics are Lawful, though.
• Neutral Clerics aren't druids. They're just guys who think of the priesthood as more of a job. Neutral clerics can't reach name level.
• Chaotic clerics are heretics or demon-worshipers. They're in it for personal power. Demon-worship is more a matter of bargains and pacts, rather than admiration.
• Druids can theoretically be any alignment, but I exclude them from Law, because my game world uses them as rebels against the major civilization.
• Civic law isn't Law. You can believe that the local laws go against higher principals. Therefore, I allow Lawful thieves. Robin Hood is my example of a Lawful thief.

This looks eminently playable, but it is yet another example of differing definitions of law and chaos, which points to "not obviously real things".

Quote from: apparition13;647892When fiction uses terms wrong, it's confusing and annoys people. See Ron Edwards and "incoherent".

Seems pretty straightforward and intuitive by the description I gave earlier, which is the generally accepted view in most fiction that uses Law and Chaos as opposing supernatural powers. I can't imagine anyone getting confused by that.

In physics there's still raging debate over whether or not anything can be unpredictable (playing dice with the universe works on a few levels here) chaos theory/M-theory/determinism notwithstanding, and if it's not unpredictable it's not chaos.

Quote from: apparition13;647892And what do you mean by Chaos here?

Disorder, confusion, and discord I suppose.

Quote from: talysman;647878Well, my restriction on Lawful druids has more to do with me basing some of my fantasy world on the Merlin TV series, where the druids are rebels opposed to Camelot. A more integrated world might have druids who are OK with civilization and Law. But where's the fun in that?

I never saw that show, I don't think. But I don't think rebellion against a specific society, even an idealized on ala Camelot, necessitates rebellion against all society. Could just be my anarchist tendencies manifesting.

so how do you guys deal with a Lawful evil state/group like Nazi Germany, The Inquisition ?

Do you shift the underlying morality such that Heritics do need to be burned atthe stake becuase actually they are evil or do you define the regime as Chaotic in that it opposes and interpretation of lawful where lawful equates to 'good' laws?

Quote from: jibbajibba;647967so how do you guys deal with a Lawful evil state/group like Nazi Germany, The Inquisition ?

That's where Lawful Evil is useful.

But in my OD&D games, there are Chaotic lords who have all sorts of nasty laws for their citizens, but not for himself or his inner circle.

A Lawful character may decide killing this Chaotic lord is in the best interest of civilization since it rids the citizens of his insanity. Or the Lawful character may realize that Chaotic lord is all that keeps the city in one piece.

Quote from: Spinachcat;647971That's where Lawful Evil is useful.

But in my OD&D games, there are Chaotic lords who have all sorts of nasty laws for their citizens, but not for himself or his inner circle.

A Lawful character may decide killing this Chaotic lord is in the best interest of civilization since it rids the citizens of his insanity. Or the Lawful character may realize that Chaotic lord is all that keeps the city in one piece.

Sure a game can have a fantasy version of Caligula a despot that gets to power but a despot like that is different to a state that is more organised. I can certainly imagine the Fantasy version of Hilter who totally follows his own rigid morality.

My point is if you only use LAW/CHAOS where do these regimes fit.

Quote from: jibbajibba;647972Sure a game can have a fantasy version of Caligula a despot that gets to power but a despot like that is different to a state that is more organised. I can certainly imagine the Fantasy version of Hilter who totally follows his own rigid morality.

My point is if you only use LAW/CHAOS where do these regimes fit.

Well, you answered your own question in your own post, had you not? Nazi Germany, USSR from Stalin onward or Spanish Inquisition fit under Lawful Evil, as it was a purposeful, orderly regime, which fought against spread of new ideas within it's ranks, while committing terrible travesties.

Quote from: jibbajibba;647967so how do you guys deal with a Lawful evil state/group like Nazi Germany, The Inquisition ?

Do you shift the underlying morality such that Heritics do need to be burned atthe stake becuase actually they are evil or do you define the regime as Chaotic in that it opposes and interpretation of lawful where lawful equates to 'good' laws?

Simple. I don't have Lawful (evil) states.

I don't use alignment for nations. National leaders, maybe. Since my Chaos is the exaltation of personal desire over universal order -- Might make Right, every man for himself -- Hitler and the Nazi leadership might be Chaotic. Or not. Chaos is a supernatural extreme, so Hitler is only Chaotic if I go with the occult Nazi theory. Most Nazis, while possibly evil, are less absolute. They're just Neutral.

Hannibal Lector, likewise, is just an ordinary evil little man. Not Lawful (did he ever work a miracle?) or Chaotic (did he display demonic powers?) Just Neutral.