TheRPGSite

Over in the "I Hate Clerics" thread, RPGPundit raised a side discussion:

Quote from: RPGPundit;646719See, "law" and "chaos" are real things, while "good" and "evil" as most societies use it don't actually exist (the only thing that is good really is that which is True, and denying truth is evil).

Quote from: apparition13;646937Law and Chaos are real things? 99% of the arguments over what alignments mean are over how people define law and chaos. They aren't remotely real.

Quote from: RPGPundit;647268I find them considerably more definable than "good" and "evil" which depend far more on cultural norms.  Arguments about law and chaos tend to be about which of these is more ethically appealing.

Now, I kind of agree with The Pundit, but with some caveats. But heck, let's open this up for a separate discussion. Do people see Law/Chaos as real, or at least more real than Good and Evil? Do they seem vaguer than Good and Evil, as apparation13 suggests? Or are they more primal, but still ultimately a cultural construct?

Michael Moorcock.

/thread

I think that Law and Chaos are just thesaurus entry for good and evil. Good/law or evil/chaos. All visions (or opinions) in the eye of the beholder.

Sure, I can see Law and Chaos as real things ...in the realm of an RPG, and it's a notion I usually subscribe to when DMing.

How can one honestly say law vs chaos is more real than good vs evil. Its all the same. Hell depending on who you talk to, their definition of evil and good, or chaos and law can be totally the opposite of you. One mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter. One who you perceive as committing evil acts, can be seen as by another committing a deed of unparalleled good. How can one say law or evil is less realistic than chaos and law. Especially being they are all flips of the same coin.

Quote from: Ronin;647579How can one honestly say law vs chaos is more real than good vs evil. Its all the same.

I guess some people haven't read Erekosë and the way he breaks the balance in the end, which basically, from a Moorcockian point of view, validates the exact point you are making, that Law and Chaos are human constructions, the way Evil and Good are in other ways.

Yet, from a "genre emulation" standpoint (which is something I don't get behind, as it is treating RPGs as emulators of other media instead of media of their own), it kind of makes sense given that you've got Chaos Butterflies and Lords of Law instead of, you know, good guys and bad guys...

Wait.

Good and Evil ....
Essentially, there are things that is claimed to be "Good", however, if they really isn't good, but just thought of as good (spanking children for raising them is in some places still thought of as "good", but it really just hurts the children), then it is just social constructs.

Evil, on the other hand, is supposedly that which is hurtful, but as some allegedly "good" things also is hurtful, plus the metaphysicality often claimed by the Abramic religions, it has become claimed that good and evil really is on a metaphysical plane, thereby even claiming that not phisically hurting someone can be "Evil", and that hurting someone is "Good".
That standpoint is, of course, a load of bullshit, and only a social construct.
"Evil" has thus rather been used as a kind of "buzzword" to alienate and persecute anything odd, and anything that has claimed that the socially constructed "good" isn't Good at all.

Now, Law and Chaos:

Law is a social construct. It is Morals upheld in a martial or near-martial way(police).
It is no more "Real" than good or evil.
What about the Natural Laws, then?
Gravity, attraction, and so forth?
In that case, if you want Order ... i'll show you a Dimond.
Perfect order also means totally stuck.

Chaos ....
Nah, that isn't real either, it is defined as disorder(figure that), cruelty/evil(see above), imperfection.
However, it is also defined as uncivilized, wild, and random.

Essentially, the "Law vs Chaos" thing is only a way to bring the "civilization vs wilderness" - thing to metaphysical heights ... or lows, with "Civilization" claiming to have a "moral highground" that it really doesn't have.

However, if you are smack down in the middle of a society that claims that Law vs Chaos and/or Good vs Evil is true ... then it is really hard to see it for what it is, and if you do, it is still damn near impossible to try convincing others that it is all rubbish without getting branded as "Evil", or possessed.

To be honest, almost every RPG setting ignores Law/Chaos or Good/Evil as real things, as well as the influence of Gods that are actually real.  Historians can say that the Medieval mind actually believed in God so it is the same thing, but it really ain't.  People didn't come back from the dead.  Priests couldn't put your arm back on or remove the scars of the Black Plague you survived.

Manifest deities would change the entire mindset of a culture at least as much if not more then "real arcane magic" would.

Not to pick on anyone in particular, but for example, take Rob.  He's a longtime player and GM, writes great gaming stuff, yet in a thread about "What sticks in your craw about settings" he mentioned rain shadows.  What do rain shadows have to do with weather in a world where whether or not it rains depends on whether your gods feel like making it rain?

People are so used to the concept of a subtle, non-overt, physically absent deity, that it seems to be a blind spot for them to make that leap.  If you can't get to where the gods whether through will or simply by existing, form the laws of the universe, then you're not gonna get to Law/Chaos/Good/Evil as a "thing" most likely.

Most people who can get Law/Chaos are really thinking in scientific terms of Order/Entropy, as a result, Good/Evil seem to be less real as when viewed through the lens of the scientific universe, they are relative.  I doubt anyone, not even the most devout human living today, natively thinks of a universe where angels dance on the head of a pin because God wills it.  Because even they know they're wrong, and they'll never see an angel anyway.

I think they are aesthetically real, as in Nietzsche's Apollonian vs Dionysian, and I think they exist on a psychic level with most western minds comfortable with dichotomies and opposites.

As for the objectiveness of their existence, who knows. I don't think it's that big 'a deal to be honest.

Law and chaos are how the world is organised, good and evil are why it's organised in that way. Law is predictable, structured, sterile. Chaos is wild, creative, and destructive. They are a philosophical simplification of many divergent factors which fits well into fiction.

Of course in the real world, no objective good and evil can exist, but as far as RPGs and fiction in general go, why not? So you can slaughter vampires, ghouls and orcs all day long and sleep well that night, assuming you got them all.

So basically law and chaos are simplifications of real forces, good and evil are imaginary but a lot of fun.

I've moved on a bit from that in my own game, using Primevals as the bad guys instead, embodiments of the ancient horrors that stalked just outside the light of the campfires of stone age man as he clawed his way up towards civilisation, and that have never really left us.

The night hag, the tickler, the tall man, the slowing darkness, the following beast, the faceless terror, skitters and the weeper, things that will make your skin crawl in a far more personal way than a distant daemon prince on a throne of bones in a fluorescent palace in chaosville. Overtones of Twin peaks.

If we're talking real world, Reaction vs Revolutionary would be a better term.

I like the notion of Law versus Chaos, because it's a fight on a much more abstract level, than Good versus Evil.

So shouldn't Law be Akin to Bourdieu's concepts of Habitus and Doxa where as Chaos would be the conscious rejection of those ?

Good and Evil are heavily infuenced by cultural contextualisation obviously. However, I think there are a slew of accepted absolutes. If you are religious the grey area is far smaller.

I certainly think there are Evil Laws and that some people that break laws do it for good reasons without those laws themselves being unjust.

Course Nietzsche woudl disagree with me....

Since Pudnip has described himself as a Thelemist (if I recall) thus believes that 'do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law' and probably has an entirely different opinion.

Quote from: talysman;647570Now, I kind of agree with The Pundit, but with some caveats. But heck, let's open this up for a separate discussion. Do people see Law/Chaos as real, or at least more real than Good and Evil? Do they seem vaguer than Good and Evil, as apparation13 suggests? Or are they more primal, but still ultimately a cultural construct?

My basic approach to good/evil is the one from behavioral economics/game theory/biology. Good = altruistic, you should help others even if it costs you; neutral =  wary-cooperation/reciprocal-altruism, you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours (1); evil = it is acceptable to hurt others to achieve your goals (2).

(1) With the implication that favors done today will be returned tomorrow.

(2) Here the technical terminology isn't as useful, it's frequently "defector", from game theory, but selfish can also work, though there is frequently an implication of sociopathy as well.

This is basically the Harm-Care axis from Jonathan Haidt. Note that it deals with individual interactions, as in "was anyone hurt", not necessarily actions that societies may or may not judge as immoral (drugs, prostitution, speech, etc.).

I like this because it's pretty simple and straighforward, and avoids the question of "social convention".


Law/Chaos is a different beast entirely.

Quote from: Benoist;647573Michael Moorcock.

/thread

is an answer, but I've read Moorcock and it was never clear to me what he meant.

Quote from: Ronin;647575I think that Law and Chaos are just thesaurus entry for good and evil. Good/law or evil/chaos. All visions (or opinions) in the eye of the beholder.

I think this is also implied in some settings/writings.

Quote from: CRKrueger;647622Most people who can get Law/Chaos are really thinking in scientific terms of Order/Entropy, as a result, Good/Evil seem to be less real as when viewed through the lens of the scientific universe, they are relative.

Order/entropy is also used, and makes sense in a physics, but...

Quote from: The Traveller;647635Law and chaos are how the world is organised, good and evil are why it's organised in that way. Law is predictable, structured, sterile. Chaos is wild, creative, and destructive. They are a philosophical simplification of many divergent factors which fits well into fiction.

perfect entropy is predictable, structured and sterile (all matter and energy is evenly distributed throughout the universe), while "wild, creative, destructive" is the province of negentropic (complex, "ordered") open systems, so the physics definitions wind up getting inverted.

Quote from: Rincewind1;647655If we're talking real world, Reaction vs Revolutionary would be a better term.

I like the notion of Law versus Chaos, because it's a fight on a much more abstract level, than Good versus Evil.

This gets tossed into the mix, but how do you tell apart a reactionary extremist (al Queda) from a revolutionary one (Red September)?

You get Lawful = predictable in behavior/follows a behavioral code vs. Chaos = unpredictable/random in behavior, but you also get Lawful = social convention vs. Chaos = individualism, and social conventions can be pretty random, while individualists can have strict behavioral codes. This leads into lawful and chaotic as analogous to deontological vs. consequentialist ethics.

Personally I like lawful = social, chaotic = individual, with eusocial insects as the ultimate in lawful and asocial solitary animals as the ultimate in chaotic. Not for any philosophical reason, just because it makes determining whether someone or something is lawful or chaotic a matter of determining how big their social group is, which is simpler than trying to fit their behavior into a conceptual scheme. If it lives in big groups its lawful (Humans, Orcs, Bison), if in small groups its neutral (lions, wolves), if its solitary its chaotic (tigers, dragons, most spiders). Individuals can vary, with some preferring more social connections and others living as hermits.

A consequence of this is that at the lawful end, good and evil become more complicated than the simplicity of harm care, since good must now include "what is good for the social group, even if it harms individuals", and evil implies that altruism for the sake of the group may be mandated, but other groups are fair game.

Quote from: jibbajibba;647675So shouldn't Law be Akin to Bourdieu's concepts of Habitus and Doxa where as Chaos would be the conscious rejection of those ?

I'm only somewhat familiar with Bourdieu, but I think maybe, for Doxa at least. Habitus I'm not so sure about, since it would seem to include all deeply learned behavior. But like I said, I'm not sure what all Bourdieu would include in habitus.

QuoteSince Pudnip has described himself as a Thelemist (if I recall) thus believes that 'do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law' and probably has an entirely different opinion.

At face value this seems chaotic, since it rejects all social rules, but then again "what thou wilt" could be a sophisticated and complex moral philosophy, so who knows.

Quote from: apparition13;647704I think this is also implied in some settings/writings.
Order/entropy is also used, and makes sense in a physics, but...

perfect entropy is predictable, structured and sterile (all matter and energy is evenly distributed throughout the universe), while "wild, creative, destructive" is the province of negentropic (complex, "ordered") open systems, so the physics definitions wind up getting inverted.

This is fiction, not physics.

The 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.

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.

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.

This is very, very close to how I play it. I downplay alignment as a behavioral guideline, and I'm a firmly believer in Jeff Rients' Threefold Apocalyptic Alignment System (http://jrients.blogspot.com.br/2008/07/jeffs-threefold-apocalyptic-alignment.html). I've seen it called the "Team Jersey" approach to alignment, but I like it; I also like to tie it into a Grand Unified Theory of D&D's Universe, marrying Moorcock's (and really Poul Anderson's) Law/Chaos divide to Robert E. Howard's dichotomy of civilization and barbarism. They are not synonimous, but civilization and savagery are often the tools of choice of Law and Chaos, though that does not preclude the silver-tongued and urbane Chaotic agent, or the noble savage stalwart of Law. Gary's introduction to B2 Keep on the Borderlands profoundly colours my vision of the matter.

However I do like to divide Neutral characters into (a) people whose concerns (typically but not necessarily self-centered) keep them out of the Cosmic Struggle, and (b) people who preach Balance between Law and Chaos a la Moorcock's Eternal Champion(s).

Quote from: talysman;647824

• 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!
  
• 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.
  

I've bolded the points that are exactly how I play.

However, I do have Neutral deities (whose portfolios may be important for mortals but have little bearing on the conflicts of Law and Chaos), and Chaotic deities (gods of sin and madness and horror, who may be portrayed as demon lords, Cthulhoid elder beings, etc.). I keep Druids Neutral, being essentially "specialty priests" for a subset of cthonic Neutral gods (running the gamut from bountiful Eostre to harsh, vicious Xipe Totec in real-world inspirations).

Quote from: talysman;647975Hannibal 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.

In my typical D&D setting, I'd say Lecter does the work of forces of Chaos, whether he realizes it or not, by spreading pain and death and madness.

Quote from: talysman;647824Some side-effects of my interpretation:
[LIST=7]

• 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.

Your points 7 and 8 contridict each other.
Civic law isn;t law so Robin Hood appeals to a higher principle and can be Lawful.
However your druids can't be lawful becuase they are opposed to the major state civilisation, ie the Civic Law.
That your druids can't be lawful because they worship Herne or the Wild Hunt or whatever, no issue , but surely if they are defined as non-lawful because they oppose the hegemony and can't therefore be working towards a higher set of principles doesn't make any sense.

QuoteSome side-effects of my interpretation:
7. Druids can theoretically be any alignment, but I exclude them from Law, because my game world uses them as rebels against the major civilization.
8. 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.

Quote from: jibbajibba;648005Your points 7 and 8 contridict each other.
Civic law isn;t law so Robin Hood appeals to a higher principle and can be Lawful.
However your druids can't be lawful becuase they are opposed to the major state civilisation, ie the Civic Law.
That your druids can't be lawful because they worship Herne or the Wild Hunt or whatever, no issue , but surely if they are defined as non-lawful because they oppose the hegemony and can't therefore be working towards a higher set of principles doesn't make any sense.

No, they don't contradict each other. They oppose civilization and have argued themselves into opposing Civilization. One does not necessarily follow the other, but what makes these guys "druids" in my setting is that they have jumped to that conclusion.

My druids seek power in nature not because they worship it, but because they have rejected everything else. Neutral druids are hippies. Chaos druids are guerrillas with an Earth First! vibe.

Quote from: The Traveller;647895Seems 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.

Yet Moorcock (Law and Chaos), Zelazny (Order and Chaos), and Anderson (Law and Chaos) don't use them in the same way. The inconsistency in the way Law and Chaos are used from rpg table to rpg table is also reflected in the source fictions.

Quote from: TristramEvans;647896Disorder, confusion, and discord I suppose.

How would your definitions play out in terms of PC or NPC behavior?

Quote from: Rincewind1;647973Well, 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.

He meant if all you use is Law/Chaos, without the good/evil axis.

Quote from: apparition13;648164Yet Moorcock (Law and Chaos), Zelazny (Order and Chaos), and Anderson (Law and Chaos) don't use them in the same way. The inconsistency in the way Law and Chaos are used from rpg table to rpg table is also reflected in the source fictions.

It's like I said back here:

Quote from: talysman;647712So: 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.

Science fiction writers from about the '40s through the '60s were obsessed with the idea of irrational, chaotic forces (like those that spawned World War II and the hippie revolution in the '60s) rising up to oppose rationality and science. At the core, that's all that the cosmic battle of Law and Chaos is about in Moorcock, Zelazny and Anderson (and Gordon R. Dickson.) However, each had unique things to say about that, so the borders around what constitutes Law or Chaos in each are fuzzy, and the *exact* definitions change, even though the *core* definitions don't. And Moorcock and Zelazny wrote about Law and Chaos for much longer, and their presentations changed as their opinions changed. Or, for that matter, the needs of the story.

Quote from: talysman;648113No, they don't contradict each other. They oppose civilization and have argued themselves into opposing Civilization. One does not necessarily follow the other, but what makes these guys "druids" in my setting is that they have jumped to that conclusion.

My druids seek power in nature not because they worship it, but because they have rejected everything else. Neutral druids are hippies. Chaos druids are guerrillas with an Earth First! vibe.

Ah.
Okay, this clears up my earlier mistrust of what you were going for with it.

Quote from: apparition13;648164How would your definitions play out in terms of PC or NPC behavior?
.

Not at all. I am firmly of the belief that a character's choices, personality, emotions and morals should all firmly be in the hands of the player.

My two cents -

I personally feel that Gygaxian 9 spoke alignment sucks donkey balls, due to the fact that Gary could never decide if Lawful meant either someone who adheres to societal mores or someone who had a great degree of self discipline. Miyamato Musashi was a great example of a dude who broke society' laws constantly but had great internal self discipline. Another great fictional example (although I personally find objectivism juvenile) is John Galt, who was a rebel but had great personal discipline and loyalty to consistent ideals. 9 spoke alignment is horribly broken and an interminable source of arguments due to its poor handling of the societal/internal divide.

I much prefer the OD&D Law vs Chaos split, with an eye towards Moorcock's writings. I leave good and evil as subjective things, as they were in the old S&S classics.

Law (order) and chaos are visible in nature.  "good" and "evil" are only relative to culture.

Quote from: RPGPundit;648340Law (order) and chaos are visible in nature.  "good" and "evil" are only relative to culture.

The Physical Law of the Conservation of Information dictates that there is no such thing as chaos.
Every eventual end state, however chaotic it appears, can be deduced from the initial setting and the application of physical laws.(here discussed in relation to the black hole paradox and Hawking radiation - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox)

Whereas raping a 5 year old girl and leaving her to die is Evil - http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/22/world/asia/india-child-rape/index.html

Quote from: jibbajibba;648344The Physical Law of the Conservation of Information dictates that there is no such thing as chaos.
Every eventual end state, however chaotic it appears, can be deduced from the initial setting and the application of physical laws.(here discussed in relation to the black hole paradox and Hawking radiation - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox)

Bad citation: it says at the start that this isn't a law, merely a "commonly assumed tenet" - in other words, precisely the sort of thing science ought to test.

Also, it depends on unitarity, and as the article itself shows you can propose (and Roger Penrose has proposed) ways in which unitarity can be lost without us rethinking physics.

Also, the uncertainty principle states that omniscient knowledge of all aspects of a physical situation is impossible and you have to compromise certainty in one area to get any information about other areas. So, you can have a setup where Law operates to the extent where you have certainty, and Chaos operates within the uncertainty.

Also applying real world physics to fantastical cosmology and metaphysics = get the hell out of here dammit and come back when you've left behind your hard science baggage, this is a fantasy game. :P

Chaos is merely the unknown, and Law is merely the known. Patterns are our inventions. The world is just the world, and it goes on it's merry way.

Quote from: RPGPundit;648340Law (order) and chaos are visible in nature.  "good" and "evil" are only relative to culture.

Unless you support the concept of Natural Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law), which pretty much is predicated on the notion that there is a natural "right" and a natural "wrong," e.g. "good" and "evil".

What it really comes down to with RPGs is that who gives a fuck what you think about how our world works with regards to God or lack thereof, physics or what-have-you.

Can you imagine a universe/cosmology that works in another way?

Quote from: CRKrueger;648442What it really comes down to with RPGs is that who gives a fuck what you think about how our world works with regards to God or lack thereof, physics or what-have-you.

Can you imagine a universe/cosmology that works in another way?

I can. In case of DnD alignments, one just has to Learn To Love The Bomb. I personally dislike the notion that Law is just a different variety of Good, and Chaos is so closely connected to the bad/evil things.

Quote from: Benoist;648436Unless you support the concept of Natural Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law), which pretty much is predicated on the notion that there is a natural "right" and a natural "wrong," e.g. "good" and "evil".

I support that there is such a thing for human beings. That is, that we have in our human natures certain points of reference (whether you want to call them 'god-given' or a product of our evolution to sentience) that hold certain things as good, and certain things as evil; and that at the same time there are philosophical stands one can take that put one in closer harmony with natural reality, and others that lead one further away from that into delusion (what the Buddha and other spiritual teachers of that kind were trying to tell people); but these are all very different from the idea that the universe or god or whatever are going to behave by what humans consider to be "good" standards.  And even further away from the notion that the particular taboos any single human society comes up with are likely to be very representative of that natural law.

To paraphrase Lao Tzu: "when people are in tune with the Tao, there is harmony; when they are not in tune with the Tao, then government arises".

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;648915I support that there is such a thing for human beings. That is, that we have in our human natures certain points of reference (whether you want to call them 'god-given' or a product of our evolution to sentience) that hold certain things as good, and certain things as evil; and that at the same time there are philosophical stands one can take that put one in closer harmony with natural reality, and others that lead one further away from that into delusion (what the Buddha and other spiritual teachers of that kind were trying to tell people); but these are all very different from the idea that the universe or god or whatever are going to behave by what humans consider to be "good" standards.  And even further away from the notion that the particular taboos any single human society comes up with are likely to be very representative of that natural law.

To paraphrase Lao Tzu: "when people are in tune with the Tao, there is harmony; when they are not in tune with the Tao, then government arises".

RPGPundit

That's one way to look at it, and you consider it a different thing so, as far as you're concerned, that's that and I get it. There are proponents of Natural Law who very much think of the concepts you are talking about as being really close to a positive (as in, real, objectively observable) existence of "good" and "evil", and if that is the case, then, for these people, "good and evil" can just as readily be seen around us as "law and chaos".

Now that said, yes, societal values which influence the laws of men and Natural Law as a positive state of the universe all around us, within us and out there, are different things, obviously.

Quote from: Benoist;648919That's one way to look at it, and you consider it a different thing so, as far as you're concerned, that's that and I get it. There are proponents of Natural Law who very much think of the concepts you are talking about as being really close to a positive (as in, real, objectively observable) existence of "good" and "evil", and if that is the case, then, for these people, "good and evil" can just as readily be seen around us as "law and chaos".

They'd then need to explain just what those absolute laws are; "thou shall not kill" wouldn't be one of them, for example, as there are all kinds of animals that must kill to eat... right?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;648340Law (order) and chaos are visible in nature.  "good" and "evil" are only relative to culture.

This.

When Good, Evil, Neutrality, Law, and Chaos are defined in any coherent manner that everyone at the game table agrees upon....get back to me.

Quote from: CRKrueger;648442What it really comes down to with RPGs is that who gives a fuck what you think about how our world works with regards to God or lack thereof, physics or what-have-you.

Can you imagine a universe/cosmology that works in another way?

This is what matters for me in an rpg. A lot of arguments at the table over alignmemt seem to revolve more around peoples' notions of real word morality. But in a game where the authors create a world where x is evil and y is good, i am much more willing to roll with whatever they come up with for the setting provided it makes (there will still be gray areas and behavior not covered in the book definitions). I believe morality in the real world is pretty subjective, but can but into objective morality in a fictional fantasy setting.

I don't see a problem with a fantasy world being different in many ways from the real world.
Thats kind of the point.


Alignment can still be annoying.

Most will agree that a 'Demon' can be inherently evil.

But getting people to agree about how evil a Baker is that lets someone starve through inaction is a lot trickier.



I am running  Planar dnd game where alignment has some setting relevance, and so far, the only alignment hiccup is one player confusing CG with CE.

Quote from: Bill;650960.

But getting people to agree about how evil a Baker is that lets someone starve through inaction is a lot trickier.

I think the problem there is the alignment system needs to address those kinds of cases or they need to be treated as gray areas the cosmic sources of morality dont pay as much attention to.

QuoteI am running  Planar dnd game where alignment has some setting relevance, and so far, the only alignment hiccup is one player confusing CG with CE.

I think the D&D alignment system has always had some clarity issues (partly because there are so many alignments). I could see confusing CG with NG or even CN. But if the player is confusing CE and CG, that seems a little odd. There are going to be times when CE and CG intereect because the chaotic descriptor. I dont know the specifics of the situation so it could be a genuine corner case came up (and I never played much planescape so there may be a concern I havent thought of).

In 3E, if that is what you are using, i found if the player is confused, he cant rely on the individual CG or CE entries. He should also read the Good Vs. Evil entry and the Law Vs. Chaos entry because the individual alignment entries refer back to those (for example the chaotic good entry says something like "CG characters believe in good but don't worry about laws", which is meaningless unless you read the entry on Good versus Evil). Still I wouldn't hold up the D&D alignment systems as perfect. It's also a system that has been around so long people tend to bring their own ideas into it or carry assumptions from one edition into another.  I find it is usually easier to gloss over corner cases and gray areas with it when they come up.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;650964I think the problem there is the alignment system needs to address those kinds of cases or they need to be treated as gray areas the cosmic sources of morality dont pay as much attention to.




I think the D&D alignment system has always had some clarity issues (partly because there are so many alignments). I could see confusing CG with NG or even CN. But if the player is confusing CE and CG, that seems a little odd. There are going to be times when CE and CG intereect because the chaotic descriptor. I dont know the specifics of the situation so it could be a genuine corner case came up (and I never played much planescape so there may be a concern I havent thought of).

In 3E, if that is what you are using, i found if the player is confused, he cant rely on the individual CG or CE entries. He should also read the Good Vs. Evil entry and the Law Vs. Chaos entry because the individual alignment entries refer back to those (for example the chaotic good entry says something like "CG characters believe in good but don't worry about laws", which is meaningless unless you read the entry on Good versus Evil). Still I wouldn't hold up the D&D alignment systems as perfect. It's also a system that has been around so long people tend to bring their own ideas into it or carry assumptions from one edition into another.  I find it is usually easier to gloss over corner cases and gray areas with it when they come up.

I know player sthat confuse LG with LE also.

But the particulars of this players CG CE confuson is about how he views casual murder at worst, and convenient practical murder at best.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;650964I think the problem there is the alignment system needs to address those kinds of cases or they need to be treated as gray areas the cosmic sources of morality dont pay as much attention to.

I think the problem is that there's a lot of ways to interpret alignment. Not "the individual alignments", mind you: the GM is responsible for defining those for that particular campaign. It's the concept of alignment itself. There's something like six main ways to run alignment; I call them "Scorecard", "Factions", "Taint", "Tendency", "Track", and "Compulsion". If the GM is running alignment one way and the players think of it another way, you wind up with confusion.

Also, I think running alignment in general under the Track or Compulsion interpretations is inherently full of problems. I tend to run it down near the Scorecard/Faction/Taint end, and I haven't seen alignment debates when I run it that way.

Quote from: talysman;651024I think the problem is that there's a lot of ways to interpret alignment. Not "the individual alignments", mind you: the GM is responsible for defining those for that particular campaign. It's the concept of alignment itself. There's something like six main ways to run alignment; I call them "Scorecard", "Factions", "Taint", "Tendency", "Track", and "Compulsion". If the GM is running alignment one way and the players think of it another way, you wind up with confusion.

Also, I think running alignment in general under the Track or Compulsion interpretations is inherently full of problems. I tend to run it down near the Scorecard/Faction/Taint end, and I haven't seen alignment debates when I run it that way.

I find scorecard to be a reasonable approach, but I don't really like, as a gm, to be heavy handed about alignment.

My style is to have the 'Good' PC get funny stares from npc's that know of the PC's evil actions despite claims of goodness.

Clerics and Paladins sometimes require a more direct intervention, such as...'dude...where's my spell?'