Law vs. Chaos
Nifft
Member Posts: 1,065
The D&D definitions of Lawful and Chaotic have fluctuated across editions. Here's the one which IMHO makes the most sense.
Lawful - A person who ascribes to a Lawful ethos is one who believes in and respects the power of the group or organization over the individual.
Chaotic - A person who professes a Chaotic ethos is one who only respects or fears the power of people as individuals.
A Lawful Good ruler is concerned about aggregate welfare: her policies will improve conditions in general. She will ensure that the laws of the land are just laws, and that the laws are applied fairly. She trusts that by applying good laws in a fair way, society will best take care of itself.
A Chaotic Good ruler is much less concerned about the particulars of the laws. He will instead focus on ensuring that his governors, lieutenants, mayors, and wardens are trustworthy people, and assume that by putting good people in charge, and trusts them to best take care of their slice of society.
A lawyer who relentlessly applies the law to defend the interest of her friends might very well be Chaotic: she respects the law, but she does not bow before society. Instead she uses the laws for the benefit of individuals, even if those interests do not align with the interests of society at large.
In contrast, a district attorney might apply the very same laws, but do so purely in the public interest, and this would make him squarely Lawful.
A knight who serves his liege loyally, and follows no code but his lord's will, is Chaotic Neutral.
A cavalier who serves her nation loyally, and follows no code but the orders of her chain of command, is Lawful Neutral.
Lawful people have difficulty understanding the actions and beliefs of Chaotic people, and vice-versa: for example, a Chaotic Barbarian might not understand why the Lawful Fighter adheres to a treaty made hundreds of years ago by strangers.
What's the best definition of the Lawful vs. Chaotic split you've seen?
Cheers, -- N
Lawful - A person who ascribes to a Lawful ethos is one who believes in and respects the power of the group or organization over the individual.
Chaotic - A person who professes a Chaotic ethos is one who only respects or fears the power of people as individuals.
A Lawful Good ruler is concerned about aggregate welfare: her policies will improve conditions in general. She will ensure that the laws of the land are just laws, and that the laws are applied fairly. She trusts that by applying good laws in a fair way, society will best take care of itself.
A Chaotic Good ruler is much less concerned about the particulars of the laws. He will instead focus on ensuring that his governors, lieutenants, mayors, and wardens are trustworthy people, and assume that by putting good people in charge, and trusts them to best take care of their slice of society.
A lawyer who relentlessly applies the law to defend the interest of her friends might very well be Chaotic: she respects the law, but she does not bow before society. Instead she uses the laws for the benefit of individuals, even if those interests do not align with the interests of society at large.
In contrast, a district attorney might apply the very same laws, but do so purely in the public interest, and this would make him squarely Lawful.
A knight who serves his liege loyally, and follows no code but his lord's will, is Chaotic Neutral.
A cavalier who serves her nation loyally, and follows no code but the orders of her chain of command, is Lawful Neutral.
Lawful people have difficulty understanding the actions and beliefs of Chaotic people, and vice-versa: for example, a Chaotic Barbarian might not understand why the Lawful Fighter adheres to a treaty made hundreds of years ago by strangers.
What's the best definition of the Lawful vs. Chaotic split you've seen?
Cheers, -- N
9
Comments
A lawful person is someone who has some rules to ensure his own safety and that of those around him. He has a collection of habitual responses to a variety elements in the environment - a set of habits, a mind-set.
Chaotic is the opposite: he doesn't care about the laws, and doesn't feel like they would or should touch him. Likewise, he would not think there was some sort of a universal order, but rather think it's all a huge mess and trying to bring order to chaos is just futile. Again, depending on the good-evil axis and the individual.
I can't believe this is still unclear to some. It's actually quite obvious when you think about it.
Lawful characters not only subscribe to a code of principles, they follow it consistently. It's ultimately the consistency of behavior that I'm getting at. But in order for the behavior to be consistent there is typically some underlying set of ideas that govern actions. I'm calling that a personal code of behavior for lack of a better term. That code could well be internalized from a religion or organization, or a written or orally transmitted philosophy of some sort, however. It almost always is in real life.
All I'm trying to point out, really, is that if Lawful means to be obedient with whatever laws a location might have, there would be no consistency of behavior if one were to move from, say, Silverymoon to the Underdark to the High Forrest to Thay.
I mean, wouldn't you say a Chaotic Good character is just as likely to have some very deep principles in helping people and defending the weak, than a Lawful Good one? If the Chaotic Good guy didn't have such principles, then he wouldn't be much of a Good person at all.
That said, I agree that the Lawful character would be much more likely than the Chaotic one to obey the local laws, even if he doesn't personally agree with them. He wouldn't join the Chaotic Good in beating up some Thayan slavers and freeing the slaves, but rather see if he could purchase the poor sods legally and then set them free, for instance.
Lawful is to follow a set code established by the individual, government, leader, god etc. to which he/she does not sway, only in extremely rare occasions would said individual break this code in order to achieve their goal. Lawful is routine IF A. THEN B.
Chatic is the oposite to an extent, the individual may or may not have a loose moral code either established by themselves or an exterior force, however this code would be closer to guidelines and can be broken whenever he/she chooses if it does not benifit their interest. Chaos is the oposite of routine the individual responds to the situation before them on a whim, generally following their gut.
Codes and principles don't really have anything to do with law or chaos, or good or evil for that matter: they're a neutral concept, something for all alignments to tap into. So you're saying a Chaotic Good is far more likely than a Lawful Good to, say, kill a child? After all, for him the whole concept of being good would be just a guideline.
Imagine, a bus driver notices a poor passenger who has tried to ride in without paying. There are ample empty seats, and the poor passenger looks really in need of riding the bus to go to his/her designed place.
A Lawful good person may pay for the poor sod's passage, it is a good thing to help others and no law is broken. We do good and bus driver does not lose anything at all. Nice! Ajantis would be proud.
A Chaotic good person may allow the poor being ride without paying. Afterall who will know, to hell with laws, it is a good thing to do. Poor thing. Coran will agree.
A Neutral good person may do any of the above, and does not care which is which, as long as the poor sod is helped. It is of utmost importance, for helping those in need is the best thing to do. Imoen will pat you on the back.
A Lawful Neutral may disallow unpaid passanger, and order him to leave. It is the law to pay for your passage, if you can't pay, you don't have the right. Sorry, but no can do. Xan will sigh and watch the poor sod leave the bus as it is what law dictates and everyone has to obey.
A Chaotic Neutral may be too busy watching the clouds from window or eyeing that sexy guy/girl sitting on the nearby seat, and may not even be aware of the poor sod's trouble. If asked about the subject, he may say 'mm whatever, I am hungry, hey, I love your shirt, it's my favourite colour!' Garrick will then jump on to further comment on the shirt's color, and how fancy it is and then a song will play on the radio and he will cheerfuly join.
A True Neutral may remain silent, and allow the bus driver to decide, it's his responsibility afterall, and one does not need to be involved in needless conflict. Skie will just mind her own business, hoping the ordeal won't take too long and delay her.
A Lawful Evil guy may pay for the poor sod, but only if he has a plan to gain something. Thus he will seemingly uphold the law but for his own greedy and terrible ends. Maybe the poor sod is an attractive version of his preferred gender, and by earning his/her trust the evil guy may plan on exploiting and taking advantage of the unsuspecting during or after the journey. Edwin will allow the attractive young lady in need to sit near him, by paying her need, under his 'wings', for his own perverted desires.
A Chaotic Evil will be happy to see the poor being left out of the bus, and if in an isolated place, he may leave the bus as well to catch the poor alone for a bit of surprise beating if the whim strikes...Poor people have no body to protect them, right? So let's give him a sound trashing, so he will learn a lesson. Also, it is fun to torture people! Xzar will see it an excellent opportunity to taste the poor man's liver, and wishes he had some chianti nearby.
A Neutral Evil may not interfere at first, but will happily watch with a smirk, if the poor sod is humiliated and ordered to leave the bus. May call bad words to further break the poor's spirits. Pfaugh! Poor and weak people are disgusting, and the flea bag had the gall to think this was a charity ride! Viconia will look down on the poor and taunt.
But in a made-up fanatasy universe for a tabletop game I can see where you're coming from. That's not how I appreciate the alignment system, myself (especially in a single-player game!). But I respect how you appreciate it, for whatever that's worth.
If it were a PnP game the DM would say there are the house rules, and here's how Law vs. Chaos works in our gameworld. And that's fine. (A player can choose to sign on or find another game.)
* Consistent behavior is what I'm defining as Lawful, versus unpredictable and/or impulsive behavior, which I define as Chaotic.
The alignments were, and always will be to some extent, a reflection of simpler times, back when the stories were black and white, when the kings were unambiguously good and the dark necromancers monstrously evil. It works just fine for those, but trying to use it on anything more complicated is pure folly.
I kind of thought it was obvious but I suppose I should have stated that it varies from person to person and good to evil like everyone else.
while Chaotics don't follow any rules but their own, which often run counter to the established order, and are willing to break the law to get their goals accomplished.
Neutrals do things any way possible for the sake of doing good/evil, or just sit there and
do nothing at all.
and @Lemernis is correct as well. Chaotic behavior may profess to have a code or set behavior, but will not adhere to it if it is not convenient. You simply cannot trust a Chaotic individual, though you can trust a Lawful individual.
Lawful does not tend to change it's mind - certainly not often, and only with overwhelming evidence to the contrary (and then perhaps even not).
Lawful is rigid and stabile. Note that a Lawful will consider lying, breaking of a word, vow, ethic, or code as something negative. However, a Lawful can twist things, as long as they are within the limits of the allowed vow, ethic, or code. This is most likely referred to as interpretation.
Individual : "You promised to help us, so help us now!"
Lawful : "I will help you, as promised. However, as we did not agree on when, I will decide when I will give you my aid."
Chaotic changes it's mind as it suits itself.
Chaotic is flexible and changing. Note that a Chaotic may not consider something lying, or breaking of a word, ethic, or code as negative. The Chaotic has simply changed their mind.
Individual : "Look, you promised to help us! You promised!!"
Chaotic : "I have changed my mind. It is no longer in my personal interests to help you."
I realize that not every Lawful character has a formal code to follow (such as a paladin, druid, or cleric). But they will still have basic values and/or feeling-driven inclinations along the Good vs. Evil axis that will inform how they consistently behave.
Lawful generally means ordered and leans more towards some kind of guidelines in their approach to society. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY BLANKETLY FOLLOW THE LAW.
Chaotic generally means that they tend more towards individual pursuits. This does not mean that they can't and won't join a group and function well in one.
A Chaotic person can have a very strongly held code of ethics that they will adhere to in even the most extreme situations. However that code will tend more towards the individual.
A Lawful person might not have a code of ethics hammered in stone. They may very well play it fast and loose with interpretations but those interpretations will be more geared towards the group and the larger whole over the individual.
The leader of the group need not be the Lawful one. A chaotic person can make a perfectly good leader and tactician.
The truly unfortunate thing about it is that someone somewhere boiled down Michael Moorcock's ideals into two words and players for years have been trying to hammer these concepts into teeny, tiny little definitions based on really unfortunate choices of words.
lawfull is certainly not abide to any law,even those that make no sense
lawfull is a more of a state of mind, a belief in organisation and order,as for being not only the most efficient way to achieve anything but also for making a better society to live in
also lawfull means: reliability,stability,honesty,method even seemingly unrelated things such as monogamy,also lawfull means less respect for individual freedom or individual opinions if they do not benefit the society as a whole,they tend to be more predictable(even monotonous) and fit in routine schedules much easier than non lawfull types,lastly patience and discipline are also lawfull traits
chaotic on the other hand is not disobeying every law just because you can,chaotic is emphasis on freedom and individualism(sometimes even obsession), chaotic characters are more likely to accept a 'the ends justify the means' reasoning,(chaotic good lying or stealing in order to help those in need)
also chaotic characters tend to be more adventurous and lead more exciting,and more passionate personal lives,to think outside the box etc, but they also tend to put themselves 'above' others as they are too good to follow the rules others adhere too
when i was a teen i used to love chaotic characters,now i find them annoying...
overall both good vs evil and law vs chaos is having some restrictions or none at all
lawfull good has the maximum restrictions possible while chaotic evil has none
Same goes for the "Too good" comment.
Chaotics are not less moral than Lawfuls, they are merely moral in a different direction and to a different goal.