depends what you mean by honest, lawful characters usually are obsesed with keeping their word,folloing any contract they've signed,supporting the hierarchy of the group they belong and not lying(even lawful evil characters have taboos about lying,they prefer to twist the meaning of words,or find loopholes in contracts instead) so in that sense lawful is more honest than chaotic because lying(even innocent,harmless lies or ones that are done for good purpuse) are chaotic acts
i am not saying that lawful good is 'more' good than chaotic good,but if a lawful characters tells you something definately that it is,that can't be said about a chaotic one, even chaotic good characters are sometimes amused by harmless lies
I think there's another word being confused with lawful here; that's "legalistic". Legalistic means one always tries to follow the rules and obsesses over others doing the same. Lawful in AD&D is about the needs of the corporate whole. For LGs, that may mean the ideal of the "greater good". And serving the greater good does sometimes mean lying or deceiving to accomplish an end. Real world example could be a spy or covert agent. Said person may be radically LG, willing to do almost anything in the service of their country. The "good" part of it would be their morals, for example they may strongly believe in protecting the weak. While the "lawful" part of it may mean they are willing to lie and deceive to protect the interests of the government they serve. Now honestly I don't play LGs that way. But it does fit the description. It is not about rigid. It is about something bigger than themselves.
See, I think you are looking at "Post hoc ergo propter hoc". I see lawful types maybe living by some code or another and because of THAT they may not lie. but even that is really a stretch in my book.
And I see no reason why a lawful evil type wouldn't lie their #### off.
And in what way are you saying that the "Lying" Chaotic goods are no less "good" than the "truthful" Lawful goods? That's like saying "Yeah, he is a really good guy, except for all of the rape and murder that he gets up too."
@the_spyder Lawful Evil characters rely upon the institutions of the state and their social networks to protect them. Part of maintaining the strength of any institution is openess and accountability. Lying weakens the very things a truly Lawful Evil character wishes to control.
@Tyranus: I disagree. Just look at the modern-day world to see how much lying politicians and corporations do, and how little it actually affects them.
Law (or Lawful) is the belief that everything should follow an order, and that obeying rules is the natural way of life. Lawful creatures will try to tell the truth, obey laws, and care about all living things. Lawful characters try to keep their promises. They will try to obey laws as long as such laws are fair and just.
If a choice must be made between the benefit of a group or an individual, a Lawful character will usually choose the group. Sometimes individual freedoms must be given up for the good of the group. Lawful characters and monsters often act in predictable ways. Lawful behavior is usually the same as behavior that could be called good.
Chaos (or Chaotic) is the opposite of Law. It is the belief that life is random, and that chance and luck rule the world. Everything happens by accident, and nothing can be predicted. Laws are made to be broken, as long as a person can get away with it. It is not important to keep promises, and lying and telling the truth are both useful.
To a Chaotic creature, the individual is the most important of all things. Selfishness is the normal way of life, and the group is not important. Chaotics often act on sudden desires and whims. They cannot be trusted, and their behavior is hard to predict. They have a strong belief in the power of luck. Chaotic behavior is usually the same as behavior that could be called "evil".
Neutrality (or Neutral) is the belief that the world is a balance between Law and Chaos. It is important that neither sides will get too much power and upset this balance. The individual is important, but so is the group; the two sides must work together.
A Neutral character is most interested in personal survival. Such characters believe in their own wits and abilities rather than luck. They tend to return the treatment they receive from others. Neutral characters will join a party if they think it is in their own best interest, but will not be overly helpful unless there is some sort of profit in it. Neutral behavior may be considered "good" or "evil" (or neither!), depending on the situation.
The third edition D&D rules define law and chaos as follows:[8]
Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to follow rules nor a compulsion to rebel. They are honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others if it suits him/her.
Yes I copy pasted this obviously, but i figure an official explanation could prove helpful to this thread.
Lawful alignments follows and upholds the status quo of a certain society while chaotic alignments seek to rebel against it, like a revolutionary challenging the establishment.
An example of a Lawful Good society is the Order of the Radiant Heart while an example of a Lawful Evil society is the Zhentarim. Both have a strict linear hierarchy with a defined purpose, you won't find anyone trying to challenge the established norm. They like order and resent anything or anyone who goes against the grain.
While an example of a Chaotic Good society is the Harpers while an example of a Chaotic Evil society is the Iron Throne under the leadership of Sarevok. Both societies function with a broad church of characters, each with their own goals and views. They are willing to listen to others, even if means being more inclusive or learning how to adapt for survival. They would rather be a part of a small low key or individual operation than identify or belong to a large institution.
You could compare it to the 21st century with the Law alignment being like Modernism and Chaos being like Post-Modernism. Where Modernism was about constructing and championing a set of unified 'rules' in society and culture. While Post-Modernism was about deconstructing everything we took for granted, questioning everything within society and culture.
The Neutral alignment is for those who place chaos and law on the same footing. They could be Druids who believe in balance or they could be characters that flow in and out of chaos and law depending on their situation.
Then the Good/Neutral/Evil system which is less about your own philosophical views on social or organizational structures and more to do with your moral aptitude. Good is good, Evil is evil with Neutral being morally ambiguous. If you resent black and white views on morality then you are probably Chaotic Neutral.
It's not a perfect system but neither are psychological evaluations. If the x axis is the social or organizational philosophy and the y axis is one's moral aptitude, I don't what would constitute a z axis.
Words I associate with Lawful are dependable, honourable, trustworthy, honest, responsible, but also rigid, controlling, unflexible and hiveminded. Words I associate with chaotic are passionate, free, carefree, direct, motivated but also flaky, undependable, erratic, unpredictable and unreliable.
In my impression, Lawful characters are generally truthful, they believe in the power of the group and listen to their superior, believe in order and think of their duty to the group first. Society and order are his tools with which he wants to shape the world. Chaotic characters on the other hand, I feel are more direct, they find more value in the actions of the individual want to be free from rules and regulations, they believe in 'doing your own thing' and that every person has a duty to themselves to live their life the way they want to live it. Freedom and his own individual strength are the tools with which he wants to reshape the world.
This seems pretty cut and clear to me, but it gets complicated when you add morality to it; the Good and Evil scale. This is where most conflicts arise, as I've seen plenty of "but this doesn't apply for Lawful Evil like it does for Lawful Good!" and vice versa. Of course it doesn't, they're different cake mixes thrown in the same bowl. They may end up looking similar, but they're really not.
To me, a Lawful Good character believes in a stable society where freedom is granted to people because of a well defined social structure, safety is ensured through a strong but gentle police force and there are clear rules and regulations for any situation so that everyone gets treated fairly. Freedom is important but never limitless as that would produce a chaos which would be detrimental to the welfare of others. Everyone at a fair level of freedom is better than running the risk of some people with ALL freedom and others being penalised because of it.
A Chaotic Good character wants the same on the morality scale (Freedom and happiness for all inhabitants of that society) but disagrees with the 'How'. A Chaotic Character doesn't want to fill in a form so someone else can decide where he'll build his house (the optimal place for the society to have houses built so there will be minimal conflict), he'll build his house where he feels he'll be happy having a house and the Chaotic Character believes that if everyone were allowed to have that freedom, everyone'd be better off. Conflicts between people don't need a police force, they can be settled amongst themselves and 'treated fairly' and 'justice' are things people are allowed to decide for themselves as well. The Good part of Chaotic Good comes from his compassion to others and as such will happily lend aid to his neighbours and solve disputes, as long as 'the man' or whatever overarching structure the society has, is not involved.
Evil works in a similar way. A lawful evil character believes in a stable society where freedom and happiness are far less important than power and control. Without Good's respect for life or Chaos's respect for freedom, a Lawful Evil society is a tyrannical oppression with laws for everything and heavy punishments for infractions. Gaining power is difficult for those low in rank as the metal boot of those above them keep them in line (Evil is all about power). Chaotic Evil is all about power and freedom, having none of the respect for life that Good has and none of the stability of Law. It's a society of backstabbers, infighting, indimidation and constant battle for dominance.
For the individual, having a code or a vow doesn't matter. Dilligently sticking to your vow to earrape and murder every dwarf you come across doesn't make you any less Chaotic or Evil.
I do believe that a lawful character respects the law of the land he's in. Note that I used the word *respect* and not blindly follow. Again, what causes most of the conflict about this rule is things like "So a paladin would respect Drow society?". No he would not, his Good alignment wouldn't allow it. His lawful alignment would also be appalled by the Chaos of that society. So let's put him in Thay, which is more lawful. His Good alignment still retches ath the slavery and oppression but his Lawful Alignment has something to work with. Thayan society has clear rules and regulations and since he believes that order is important (and starting chaos would only endanger the welfare of the people around him even more), he would use the system to promote his goodliness. (by either buying the slaves or finding another legal way of obtaining them without supporting the Evil system). A Chaotic Good character would find the Thayans appalling on every level and see both the oppression (law) and destruction of life (evil) as his enemies. Not restrained by a belief in order, he'd defeat the slavers, set the slaves free, set fire to the slaver's compound and announce to all who could hear him to throw off the shackles of oppression and revolt against the vile regime so that they can find happiness in their freedom. He would fare much better in Drow society than a lawful character, understanding the lying and unpredicability of the moment a lot better than a character who believes in honesty and due process. Since everyone's evil and out to get everyone, the Chaotic Good character doesn't see a problem with backstabbing the worst in an effort to make this society a better place (poor example maybe, as that would mean killing *everyone* in town).
A Lawful Evil character in a good setting would still believe in order but would find the pursuit of happiness and freedom laughable and wasteful. He would quickly use the system (lawful) to increase his own power (evil) at the expense of others. Starting a black market, extorting the neighbourhood, rigging the system so he'll get elected, he'd go with it all. Some of this may not be legal but legality is about fairness which Evil is not about. However, Law is, so he'd prefer to be as legal as possible, but if the situation demands it, he might be swayed, much like the Paladin who must kill a child to save a family. It is a conflict between one or more axis of his alignment, whichever he finds more important in that decision will win out. If the order and society are more affected than either the lives of others (good) or his own power (evil), law might win out. If people getting hurt or his own power waning are strong enough, the law might have to bend. However, since Order and Society (law) are his tools of increasing the happiness of others (good) or his own power (evil), taking them down would leave him weaponless in his struggle to form the ideal world.
Likewise, Chaotic Evil would just barge into a good society, smash their rules and set fire to their homes, taking what is needed. Laughing at their wasteful pursuit of happiness (good) and ridiculously dull and regimented lives (law), they come and go as a storm while the Lawful Good society is still forming batallions and distributing orders so that the society might be best and most efficiently defended. Chaotic Good is better suited to this type of assault, where each man can pick up a weapon and do what he feels is right (chaotic) and defend the people close around him (good). With no overarching structure to issue orders, they can react immediately but might lose sight of the bigger picture.
TL;DR Law and chaos are the tools used to make Good and Evil. A character uses society/himself to help the world/himself be better. Being properly Lawful or Chaotic (instead of neutral where you're just 'eh, whichever') means this character believes in these tools and will fight to defend them.
Lawful does not HAVE to mean 'Rigid'. Chaotic does not have to mean flighty and frivolous.
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.
Lawfuls are rigid - if they are to remain Lawful, they maintain a rigid mindset. They tend to do things in an orderly fashion, think logically and methodically. No-one here is saying that they blanketly follow the law (well, except you - that is a typical strawman argument here, purporting a previous position and then denying it). Only machines do such (and those from the Mechanus Plane).
Those who behave otherwise will soon no longer be Lawful. This is how the D&D Multiverse works. Actions decide alignment. A mortal baby is born with a True Neutral alignment and moves towards another as it grows up.
Chaotic is flexible (again, you use a strawman argument by including flighty and frivolous, which no-one is purporting here). Chaotics not acting as flexible, individuals soon are no longer Chaotic.
I think many in these types of threads on alignment are very, very confused. Alignment in D&D is very, very simple : it is real and is a force of Nature (which is why such spells as Protection from Evil and Detect Good work). If you accept this, then it is easy to see how it comes together.
Note that only those of the Prime Material Plane (mortals) are "blessed" with the ability to drift along the Alignment range. Who decreed this? Well, apart from the makers of the game, I suppose Ao has decreed this (seeing as he is the Overgod and set up everything in the Forgotten Realms Sphere). Perhaps there are even Greater Beings that have decreed such that are as far above Ao as Ao is above mortals, who knows?
So sure, you can have a Lawful X character that does not behave Lawfully. However, this character will not remain Lawful for long. As always, this does not mean that one ALWAYS maintains the actions of one's alignment - minor discrepancies will of course occur. No mortal is perfect. One can be having a "bad hair day", etc. These minor discrepancies tend to balance out the drift on the alignment range, and as such are not really meaningful for the purposes of determining alignment from, however.
Major deviations, or many over time, however, do affect the drift, and have to be taken into consideration. And are, in the D&D universe (well, multiverse actually).
"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. "
Nope. Not in the D&D multiverse. A chaotic person with a very strongly held code of ethics that they adhere to even in extreme situations is actually acting in a Lawful manner. It does not matter if the code tends towards the individual or not. It is the rigid holding to the code that is deciding here.
Take Lone Wolf & Cub - a very good example of this. Yes, he does disobey his Master (there are, however, reasons for this). But he still keeps his very rigid code of ethics and honor despite being an outlaw. In this case, I would argue that he is made into an outlaw by the State (which is probably a Lawful Neutral to Lawful Evil action, seeing that it was "arranged" by a very Lawful Evil person). So he is an outlaw that is still trying to do what he originally was charged to do. Very, very Lawful.
If we examine Wolverine here, instead, we will see that he often just...dispenses with his code of ethics when it is convenient. A good example was when Peter (Colossus) and he was in a bar, and Juggernaut and Black Tom was as well. Peter picked a fight, and got wiped by Jugs. Wolverine did nothing to help Peter (he continued to drink his beer and basically laughed at Peter's situation). Why did Wolverine not help Peter? Because he just "didn't feel like it" - the classic example of a Chaotic.
Same thing with a Lawful person who does not have a code of ethics hammered into stone. They are not Lawful, but are Chaotic (or Neutral). Of course, the Lawful person can "play it" fast and loose with interpretations - this is a given! I think these sort of threads are example enough of such (hehe). Lawyers are a good example of this (Lawful in the extreme).
@the_spyder : I personally think that you are confusing a strong personality with Lawful and/or Chaotic tendencies. That is the feeling that I am getting here, anyway. Of course, we know that in the D&D Multiverse, that just means you have a high Cha.
@WebShaman: But alignments are not as rigid as you explain them to be, even if they are multiversal constants. It is perfectly possible for a Lawful Good character to have some chaotic or even evil tendencies, without changing his alignment, so long as they do not surpass his desire for order and righteousness.
I mentioned this as minor discrepancies that do not affect drift on the alignment range, I believe (because they tend to cancel themselves out - a bit of drift towards chaotic, a bit of drift towards lawful, towards evil, good, neutral, etc).
One's position on the alignment range alters almost continuously (albeit in very small increments, normally). Only when asleep, unconcious, etc, is one not moving on the alignment scale (because one is not taking actions, obviously).
For example, a Lawful person can break a promise. It happens, a promise made without forethought, it comes into conflict with another promise of the opposite nature. One has to be broken. Take a Lawful with a very low Wisdom, for example, who often acts without forethought. Of course, this person does not do this on purpose, but it happens anyway. The action is a Chaotic one. However, the person in question then upholds the other promise (Lawful), and feels sorry, guilty, etc about breaking the other and seeks atonement, forgiveness, whatever.
They tend to balance each other out (depending on the scale here, of course).
One can consider the alignment scale to having "room" inside of each alignment area to move in, without going over the border to another area. This can be represented as a 100 point total, if one will. Each type of minor discrepancy will add or subtract to a number within this range according to what it is "worth". Move below 0 or above 100, and you have just gone over to another alignment (the exception are, of course, the extremes or absolutes here. One cannot go beyond Lawful Good, True Neutral, or Chaotic Evil in that sense. There is nothing beyond Lawful, Evil, Chaotic, Good, or Neutral, apparently).
Ahhh, Alignment issues and the loaded language implicit in their design.
First and foremost, the important things people seem to forget:
#1: Almost everyone has traits that go against their main alignment, particularly when you account for social "groups" - family, friend, enemy, guy who murdered your parents and destroyed your home village.... Everyone has exceptions or they're paladins, Law and Chaos are not mutually exclusive. #2: An alignment is a general overarching trend, not an indicator that someone has every possible trait therein. #3: Law and Chaos come in three flavours, Morally Neutral, Good, and Evil, which are indivisible from their moral component. #4: Choices made on moral grounds are not the same as choices made on subjects without a moral imperative. #5: People operate on both axes, but primarily on a moral one. It is virtually impossible to extract a moral imperative from a person's actions. #6: People make choices based on personal preference or bias with no respect to their alignment. Love makes you blind. #7: The laws of a society are frequently morality based, not Law/Chaos based. #8: An action can be Lawful and Chaotic at the same time.
#3 is the big one that people seem to forget. Law and Chaos are absolutely, entirely amoral. Keeping a promise to murder kittens is exactly as lawful as keeping a promise to rescue an orphanage. The Freedom to slaughter a village of nuns and special needs children is the exact same Freedom as the one that allows two people to marry out of true love.
Which brinds us to #4 & #5.
It is an utterly alien concept to your average human for someone to have to perform any action simply because they said they would, implied they would, or because they did it that way once before. It is also an utterly alien concept to have to fail to do something for the exact same reasons.
People are primarily driven by concerns for the benefit of themselves (possibly neutral or evil), concerns for others (good, or possibly neutral), and concerns for their immediate social network (evil/neutral/good, depending on the network). Pretty much all human motivation is covered between those three things, and for the purposes of discussion, pretty much every other comprehendable fantasy race has those same motivations.
From there, an individual's particular bent on the Law/Chaos axis helps define where their particular emphasis lies on what moral concerns they address, as well as helping to define their personality as either whimsical (chaotic) or serious (lawful), and everywhere in between.
Robin Hood is Chaotic Good, he is a Good person, who is more focused on liberty and relief from oppression than he is about ensuring that social programs are adhered to in the interests of a fair and just society.
Because Robin is Good, his liberty is curtailed; he only robs from the rich. Because Robin is Good, he engages in actions to benefit society by giving to the most needy - the poor.
These are Lawful traits, but Robin's worldview is shaped by his Chaotic Goodness. Robin probably doesn't even think of these traits as Lawful (were he so meta as to think about such things), but he does view them as the right thing to do.
Which brings us to clearing up misconception #7.
Robin Hood is not Chaotic for disobeying an evil ruler, he is Chaotic because he chose to combat said ruler outside of the structured framework of an organised revolution or from within the ruler's own framework.
What about #8?
Robin Hood is working as a vigilante outside of the law to bring about change to his home country out of loyalty to his king, his men and for the good of society. He's Chaotic Good. Batman is working as a vigilante outside of the law to better bring order and stability to Gotham. He's Lawful Good.
In the end, there are many factors of a personality that constitute an alignment, people are complex.
Once the problems are removed, it actually becomes pretty simple to break it down:
Morality is overall trends of behaviour, which extends between two extremes:
Good: For the benefit of the many at the expense of yourself. Neutral: For the benefit of those you care about. Evil: For the benefit of yourself at the expense of others.
These are shaped by trends favouring one or neither of the second axis:
Law: Collectivism and Stability, and all these entail, good or bad. Chaos: Individualism and Anarchy, and all these entail, good or bad.
As these are trends, not absolutes, an individual may have non-aligned (neutral) or cross-aligned traits without changing where they fall on the alignment axis.
Comments
depends what you mean by honest, lawful characters usually are obsesed with keeping their word,folloing any contract they've signed,supporting the hierarchy of the group they belong and not lying(even lawful evil characters have taboos about lying,they prefer to twist the meaning of words,or find loopholes in contracts instead) so in that sense lawful is more honest than chaotic because lying(even innocent,harmless lies or ones that are done for good purpuse) are chaotic acts
i am not saying that lawful good is 'more' good than chaotic good,but if a lawful characters tells you something definately that it is,that can't be said about a chaotic one, even chaotic good characters are sometimes amused by harmless lies
Lawful in AD&D is about the needs of the corporate whole. For LGs, that may mean the ideal of the "greater good". And serving the greater good does sometimes mean lying or deceiving to accomplish an end. Real world example could be a spy or covert agent. Said person may be radically LG, willing to do almost anything in the service of their country. The "good" part of it would be their morals, for example they may strongly believe in protecting the weak. While the "lawful" part of it may mean they are willing to lie and deceive to protect the interests of the government they serve.
Now honestly I don't play LGs that way. But it does fit the description. It is not about rigid. It is about something bigger than themselves.
And I see no reason why a lawful evil type wouldn't lie their #### off.
And in what way are you saying that the "Lying" Chaotic goods are no less "good" than the "truthful" Lawful goods? That's like saying "Yeah, he is a really good guy, except for all of the rape and murder that he gets up too."
Edit for typo.
Elves were Chaotic, and Orcs were Lawful.
Orcs were things you killed for loot, Elves were allies in your party.
Law (or Lawful) is the belief that everything should follow an order, and that obeying rules is the natural way of life. Lawful creatures will try to tell the truth, obey laws, and care about all living things. Lawful characters try to keep their promises. They will try to obey laws as long as such laws are fair and just.
If a choice must be made between the benefit of a group or an individual, a Lawful character will usually choose the group. Sometimes individual freedoms must be given up for the good of the group. Lawful characters and monsters often act in predictable ways. Lawful behavior is usually the same as behavior that could be called good.
Chaos (or Chaotic) is the opposite of Law. It is the belief that life is random, and that chance and luck rule the world. Everything happens by accident, and nothing can be predicted. Laws are made to be broken, as long as a person can get away with it. It is not important to keep promises, and lying and telling the truth are both useful.
To a Chaotic creature, the individual is the most important of all things. Selfishness is the normal way of life, and the group is not important. Chaotics often act on sudden desires and whims. They cannot be trusted, and their behavior is hard to predict. They have a strong belief in the power of luck. Chaotic behavior is usually the same as behavior that could be called "evil".
Neutrality (or Neutral) is the belief that the world is a balance between Law and Chaos. It is important that neither sides will get too much power and upset this balance. The individual is important, but so is the group; the two sides must work together.
A Neutral character is most interested in personal survival. Such characters believe in their own wits and abilities rather than luck. They tend to return the treatment they receive from others. Neutral characters will join a party if they think it is in their own best interest, but will not be overly helpful unless there is some sort of profit in it. Neutral behavior may be considered "good" or "evil" (or neither!), depending on the situation.
The third edition D&D rules define law and chaos as follows:[8]
Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to follow rules nor a compulsion to rebel. They are honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others if it suits him/her.
Yes I copy pasted this obviously, but i figure an official explanation could prove helpful to this thread.
Lawful alignments follows and upholds the status quo of a certain society while chaotic alignments seek to rebel against it, like a revolutionary challenging the establishment.
An example of a Lawful Good society is the Order of the Radiant Heart while an example of a Lawful Evil society is the Zhentarim. Both have a strict linear hierarchy with a defined purpose, you won't find anyone trying to challenge the established norm. They like order and resent anything or anyone who goes against the grain.
While an example of a Chaotic Good society is the Harpers while an example of a Chaotic Evil society is the Iron Throne under the leadership of Sarevok. Both societies function with a broad church of characters, each with their own goals and views. They are willing to listen to others, even if means being more inclusive or learning how to adapt for survival. They would rather be a part of a small low key or individual operation than identify or belong to a large institution.
You could compare it to the 21st century with the Law alignment being like Modernism and Chaos being like Post-Modernism. Where Modernism was about constructing and championing a set of unified 'rules' in society and culture. While Post-Modernism was about deconstructing everything we took for granted, questioning everything within society and culture.
The Neutral alignment is for those who place chaos and law on the same footing. They could be Druids who believe in balance or they could be characters that flow in and out of chaos and law depending on their situation.
Then the Good/Neutral/Evil system which is less about your own philosophical views on social or organizational structures and more to do with your moral aptitude. Good is good, Evil is evil with Neutral being morally ambiguous. If you resent black and white views on morality then you are probably Chaotic Neutral.
It's not a perfect system but neither are psychological evaluations. If the x axis is the social or organizational philosophy and the y axis is one's moral aptitude, I don't what would constitute a z axis.
Words I associate with chaotic are passionate, free, carefree, direct, motivated but also flaky, undependable, erratic, unpredictable and unreliable.
In my impression, Lawful characters are generally truthful, they believe in the power of the group and listen to their superior, believe in order and think of their duty to the group first. Society and order are his tools with which he wants to shape the world.
Chaotic characters on the other hand, I feel are more direct, they find more value in the actions of the individual want to be free from rules and regulations, they believe in 'doing your own thing' and that every person has a duty to themselves to live their life the way they want to live it. Freedom and his own individual strength are the tools with which he wants to reshape the world.
This seems pretty cut and clear to me, but it gets complicated when you add morality to it; the Good and Evil scale. This is where most conflicts arise, as I've seen plenty of "but this doesn't apply for Lawful Evil like it does for Lawful Good!" and vice versa. Of course it doesn't, they're different cake mixes thrown in the same bowl. They may end up looking similar, but they're really not.
To me, a Lawful Good character believes in a stable society where freedom is granted to people because of a well defined social structure, safety is ensured through a strong but gentle police force and there are clear rules and regulations for any situation so that everyone gets treated fairly. Freedom is important but never limitless as that would produce a chaos which would be detrimental to the welfare of others. Everyone at a fair level of freedom is better than running the risk of some people with ALL freedom and others being penalised because of it.
A Chaotic Good character wants the same on the morality scale (Freedom and happiness for all inhabitants of that society) but disagrees with the 'How'. A Chaotic Character doesn't want to fill in a form so someone else can decide where he'll build his house (the optimal place for the society to have houses built so there will be minimal conflict), he'll build his house where he feels he'll be happy having a house and the Chaotic Character believes that if everyone were allowed to have that freedom, everyone'd be better off. Conflicts between people don't need a police force, they can be settled amongst themselves and 'treated fairly' and 'justice' are things people are allowed to decide for themselves as well. The Good part of Chaotic Good comes from his compassion to others and as such will happily lend aid to his neighbours and solve disputes, as long as 'the man' or whatever overarching structure the society has, is not involved.
Evil works in a similar way.
A lawful evil character believes in a stable society where freedom and happiness are far less important than power and control. Without Good's respect for life or Chaos's respect for freedom, a Lawful Evil society is a tyrannical oppression with laws for everything and heavy punishments for infractions. Gaining power is difficult for those low in rank as the metal boot of those above them keep them in line (Evil is all about power).
Chaotic Evil is all about power and freedom, having none of the respect for life that Good has and none of the stability of Law. It's a society of backstabbers, infighting, indimidation and constant battle for dominance.
For the individual, having a code or a vow doesn't matter. Dilligently sticking to your vow to earrape and murder every dwarf you come across doesn't make you any less Chaotic or Evil.
I do believe that a lawful character respects the law of the land he's in. Note that I used the word *respect* and not blindly follow. Again, what causes most of the conflict about this rule is things like "So a paladin would respect Drow society?".
No he would not, his Good alignment wouldn't allow it. His lawful alignment would also be appalled by the Chaos of that society. So let's put him in Thay, which is more lawful. His Good alignment still retches ath the slavery and oppression but his Lawful Alignment has something to work with. Thayan society has clear rules and regulations and since he believes that order is important (and starting chaos would only endanger the welfare of the people around him even more), he would use the system to promote his goodliness. (by either buying the slaves or finding another legal way of obtaining them without supporting the Evil system).
A Chaotic Good character would find the Thayans appalling on every level and see both the oppression (law) and destruction of life (evil) as his enemies. Not restrained by a belief in order, he'd defeat the slavers, set the slaves free, set fire to the slaver's compound and announce to all who could hear him to throw off the shackles of oppression and revolt against the vile regime so that they can find happiness in their freedom.
He would fare much better in Drow society than a lawful character, understanding the lying and unpredicability of the moment a lot better than a character who believes in honesty and due process. Since everyone's evil and out to get everyone, the Chaotic Good character doesn't see a problem with backstabbing the worst in an effort to make this society a better place (poor example maybe, as that would mean killing *everyone* in town).
A Lawful Evil character in a good setting would still believe in order but would find the pursuit of happiness and freedom laughable and wasteful. He would quickly use the system (lawful) to increase his own power (evil) at the expense of others. Starting a black market, extorting the neighbourhood, rigging the system so he'll get elected, he'd go with it all. Some of this may not be legal but legality is about fairness which Evil is not about. However, Law is, so he'd prefer to be as legal as possible, but if the situation demands it, he might be swayed, much like the Paladin who must kill a child to save a family. It is a conflict between one or more axis of his alignment, whichever he finds more important in that decision will win out. If the order and society are more affected than either the lives of others (good) or his own power (evil), law might win out. If people getting hurt or his own power waning are strong enough, the law might have to bend. However, since Order and Society (law) are his tools of increasing the happiness of others (good) or his own power (evil), taking them down would leave him weaponless in his struggle to form the ideal world.
Likewise, Chaotic Evil would just barge into a good society, smash their rules and set fire to their homes, taking what is needed. Laughing at their wasteful pursuit of happiness (good) and ridiculously dull and regimented lives (law), they come and go as a storm while the Lawful Good society is still forming batallions and distributing orders so that the society might be best and most efficiently defended.
Chaotic Good is better suited to this type of assault, where each man can pick up a weapon and do what he feels is right (chaotic) and defend the people close around him (good). With no overarching structure to issue orders, they can react immediately but might lose sight of the bigger picture.
TL;DR
Law and chaos are the tools used to make Good and Evil. A character uses society/himself to help the world/himself be better.
Being properly Lawful or Chaotic (instead of neutral where you're just 'eh, whichever') means this character believes in these tools and will fight to defend them.
Those who behave otherwise will soon no longer be Lawful. This is how the D&D Multiverse works. Actions decide alignment. A mortal baby is born with a True Neutral alignment and moves towards another as it grows up.
Chaotic is flexible (again, you use a strawman argument by including flighty and frivolous, which no-one is purporting here). Chaotics not acting as flexible, individuals soon are no longer Chaotic.
I think many in these types of threads on alignment are very, very confused. Alignment in D&D is very, very simple : it is real and is a force of Nature (which is why such spells as Protection from Evil and Detect Good work). If you accept this, then it is easy to see how it comes together.
Note that only those of the Prime Material Plane (mortals) are "blessed" with the ability to drift along the Alignment range. Who decreed this? Well, apart from the makers of the game, I suppose Ao has decreed this (seeing as he is the Overgod and set up everything in the Forgotten Realms Sphere). Perhaps there are even Greater Beings that have decreed such that are as far above Ao as Ao is above mortals, who knows?
So sure, you can have a Lawful X character that does not behave Lawfully. However, this character will not remain Lawful for long. As always, this does not mean that one ALWAYS maintains the actions of one's alignment - minor discrepancies will of course occur. No mortal is perfect. One can be having a "bad hair day", etc. These minor discrepancies tend to balance out the drift on the alignment range, and as such are not really meaningful for the purposes of determining alignment from, however.
Major deviations, or many over time, however, do affect the drift, and have to be taken into consideration. And are, in the D&D universe (well, multiverse actually).
"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. "
Nope. Not in the D&D multiverse. A chaotic person with a very strongly held code of ethics that they adhere to even in extreme situations is actually acting in a Lawful manner. It does not matter if the code tends towards the individual or not. It is the rigid holding to the code that is deciding here.
Take Lone Wolf & Cub - a very good example of this. Yes, he does disobey his Master (there are, however, reasons for this). But he still keeps his very rigid code of ethics and honor despite being an outlaw. In this case, I would argue that he is made into an outlaw by the State (which is probably a Lawful Neutral to Lawful Evil action, seeing that it was "arranged" by a very Lawful Evil person). So he is an outlaw that is still trying to do what he originally was charged to do. Very, very Lawful.
If we examine Wolverine here, instead, we will see that he often just...dispenses with his code of ethics when it is convenient. A good example was when Peter (Colossus) and he was in a bar, and Juggernaut and Black Tom was as well. Peter picked a fight, and got wiped by Jugs. Wolverine did nothing to help Peter (he continued to drink his beer and basically laughed at Peter's situation). Why did Wolverine not help Peter? Because he just "didn't feel like it" - the classic example of a Chaotic.
Same thing with a Lawful person who does not have a code of ethics hammered into stone. They are not Lawful, but are Chaotic (or Neutral). Of course, the Lawful person can "play it" fast and loose with interpretations - this is a given! I think these sort of threads are example enough of such (hehe). Lawyers are a good example of this (Lawful in the extreme).
@the_spyder : I personally think that you are confusing a strong personality with Lawful and/or Chaotic tendencies. That is the feeling that I am getting here, anyway. Of course, we know that in the D&D Multiverse, that just means you have a high Cha.
One's position on the alignment range alters almost continuously (albeit in very small increments, normally). Only when asleep, unconcious, etc, is one not moving on the alignment scale (because one is not taking actions, obviously).
For example, a Lawful person can break a promise. It happens, a promise made without forethought, it comes into conflict with another promise of the opposite nature. One has to be broken. Take a Lawful with a very low Wisdom, for example, who often acts without forethought. Of course, this person does not do this on purpose, but it happens anyway. The action is a Chaotic one. However, the person in question then upholds the other promise (Lawful), and feels sorry, guilty, etc about breaking the other and seeks atonement, forgiveness, whatever.
They tend to balance each other out (depending on the scale here, of course).
One can consider the alignment scale to having "room" inside of each alignment area to move in, without going over the border to another area. This can be represented as a 100 point total, if one will. Each type of minor discrepancy will add or subtract to a number within this range according to what it is "worth". Move below 0 or above 100, and you have just gone over to another alignment (the exception are, of course, the extremes or absolutes here. One cannot go beyond Lawful Good, True Neutral, or Chaotic Evil in that sense. There is nothing beyond Lawful, Evil, Chaotic, Good, or Neutral, apparently).
First and foremost, the important things people seem to forget:
#1: Almost everyone has traits that go against their main alignment, particularly when you account for social "groups" - family, friend, enemy, guy who murdered your parents and destroyed your home village.... Everyone has exceptions or they're paladins, Law and Chaos are not mutually exclusive.
#2: An alignment is a general overarching trend, not an indicator that someone has every possible trait therein.
#3: Law and Chaos come in three flavours, Morally Neutral, Good, and Evil, which are indivisible from their moral component.
#4: Choices made on moral grounds are not the same as choices made on subjects without a moral imperative.
#5: People operate on both axes, but primarily on a moral one. It is virtually impossible to extract a moral imperative from a person's actions.
#6: People make choices based on personal preference or bias with no respect to their alignment. Love makes you blind.
#7: The laws of a society are frequently morality based, not Law/Chaos based.
#8: An action can be Lawful and Chaotic at the same time.
#3 is the big one that people seem to forget. Law and Chaos are absolutely, entirely amoral. Keeping a promise to murder kittens is exactly as lawful as keeping a promise to rescue an orphanage. The Freedom to slaughter a village of nuns and special needs children is the exact same Freedom as the one that allows two people to marry out of true love.
Which brinds us to #4 & #5.
It is an utterly alien concept to your average human for someone to have to perform any action simply because they said they would, implied they would, or because they did it that way once before. It is also an utterly alien concept to have to fail to do something for the exact same reasons.
People are primarily driven by concerns for the benefit of themselves (possibly neutral or evil), concerns for others (good, or possibly neutral), and concerns for their immediate social network (evil/neutral/good, depending on the network). Pretty much all human motivation is covered between those three things, and for the purposes of discussion, pretty much every other comprehendable fantasy race has those same motivations.
From there, an individual's particular bent on the Law/Chaos axis helps define where their particular emphasis lies on what moral concerns they address, as well as helping to define their personality as either whimsical (chaotic) or serious (lawful), and everywhere in between.
Robin Hood is Chaotic Good, he is a Good person, who is more focused on liberty and relief from oppression than he is about ensuring that social programs are adhered to in the interests of a fair and just society.
Because Robin is Good, his liberty is curtailed; he only robs from the rich.
Because Robin is Good, he engages in actions to benefit society by giving to the most needy - the poor.
These are Lawful traits, but Robin's worldview is shaped by his Chaotic Goodness. Robin probably doesn't even think of these traits as Lawful (were he so meta as to think about such things), but he does view them as the right thing to do.
Which brings us to clearing up misconception #7.
Robin Hood is not Chaotic for disobeying an evil ruler, he is Chaotic because he chose to combat said ruler outside of the structured framework of an organised revolution or from within the ruler's own framework.
What about #8?
Robin Hood is working as a vigilante outside of the law to bring about change to his home country out of loyalty to his king, his men and for the good of society. He's Chaotic Good.
Batman is working as a vigilante outside of the law to better bring order and stability to Gotham. He's Lawful Good.
In the end, there are many factors of a personality that constitute an alignment, people are complex.
Once the problems are removed, it actually becomes pretty simple to break it down:
Morality is overall trends of behaviour, which extends between two extremes:
Good: For the benefit of the many at the expense of yourself.
Neutral: For the benefit of those you care about.
Evil: For the benefit of yourself at the expense of others.
These are shaped by trends favouring one or neither of the second axis:
Law: Collectivism and Stability, and all these entail, good or bad.
Chaos: Individualism and Anarchy, and all these entail, good or bad.
As these are trends, not absolutes, an individual may have non-aligned (neutral) or cross-aligned traits without changing where they fall on the alignment axis.
This is still my favorite alignment chart: