The Law/Chaos problem.

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 5:36 am

On the D&D Wiki Tomes, someone's taken exception to the Tome of Fiends' view of Law versus Chaos, and claims (of course) that his solution is Teh Best Evar.

Surgo and I have replied to him a few times on the Talk page, but this has kick-started something...

I'd be much happier with Law and Chaos if they were physical forces and not ethical ones. After some discussion with a friend, I've settled on the names Order and Entropy.

Order allows matter to form into complex shapes, and Entropy eventually breaks them down so matter can be used to make new shapes. Both are needed for life to exist, and, like that yin-yang ripoff in Wheel of Time, work both with and against each other.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 5:44 am

So you have the Creative and Destructive principles of Shiva. Are they still supposed to be part of the alignment system?

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 6:56 am

What does this fellow believe to be the problem/solution?

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 8:26 am

To the first...maybe. I mean, them being actual forces could still let you have Order-aligned spells, for example. But an alignment system works fine with White, Gray, and Black.

To the second:

http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Talk:Tome_ ... D_Other%29

He's saying that Chaotic characters are unpredictable and Lawful characters make plans.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 3:14 pm

But order is objectively good for people and entropy is objectively bad. Furthermore, they aren't even opposed, the one simply continuously moves towards the other. It would be like having "earlier" and "later" be alignments - it's just nonsensical.

He's saying that Chaotic characters are unpredictable and Lawful characters make plans.

He's saying that Chaotic characters have better initiative modifiers, and that's just objectively false. The iconic Chaotic character is supposed to be a Barbarian, with Dex as a dump stat therefore, and the iconic Lawful character is a Monk - who is Dex centric.

It's just silly.

-Username17

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 4:49 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:But order is objectively good for people and entropy is objectively bad. Furthermore, they aren't even opposed, the one simply continuously moves towards the other. It would be like having "earlier" and "later" be alignments - it's just nonsensical.

He's saying that Chaotic characters are unpredictable and Lawful characters make plans.
He's saying that Chaotic characters have better initiative modifiers, and that's just objectively false. The iconic Chaotic character is supposed to be a Barbarian, with Dex as a dump stat therefore, and the iconic Lawful character is a Monk - who is Dex centric.

It's just silly.

-Username17

I agree on that one...

Anyway,

Well, the idea would be that for the material world, they'd have a necessary yin-yang effect, although I readily concede that any society you have is going to have a lot of Order going for it, and your ordinary person is going to put his eyebrows up when you say Entropy is a good thing. But it's so easy to make up some bullshit to explain it--like Order and Entropy give the universe its body, while Good and Evil give its soul.

Or maybe the world is meant to progress towards some goal, and the circle of Order and Entropy is what keeps that pace going--empires are built, and then they fall, and another civilization comes around after it. Creatures live, they die, and new creatures come afterwards. Whatever. Order would also be creation, and Entropy would also be change.

ubernoob · Post by **ubernoob** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 5:18 pm

I've always gone with Order vs Freedom instead of Law vs Chaos. The greater the amount of order you have the less freedom any part has. The more freedom the individual has the weaker your chain of command is.

In effect, Order is large scale movement while Freedom is small scale movement. Freedom is desired for battles while order is desired for sieges.

Thoughts?

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 6:33 pm

I don't see lawful and chaotic having any place in alignment really. They're so confusing that it's unlikely that any two people are necessarily going to see them the same way. Mostly because there's so much mashed criteria in D&D for law/chaos that it's not even worth keeping it in the game because all it does is confuse people.

Tequila Sunrise · Post by **Tequila Sunrise** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 6:38 pm

As a player I tend to ignore law/chaos because the definitions are just so vague. As a DM I go with this:

Law = "My way is THE way."
Chaos = "I like my way, but your way is okay too."

TS

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 7:23 pm

Law = "My way is THE way."
Chaos = "I like my way, but your way is okay too."

Law/Chaos is probably harder to sell as a question of relativism and tolerance even then it is as this other crap people are trying to shovel.

-Username17

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Sun Nov 02, 2008 8:35 pm

One of the things the ToF said was that most definitions of Chaos and Law make one ultimately better than the other. My solution for that was to have the divide be both of organization and rigidity: that is, Lawful people run on arbitrary specifics, and that makes them work better together when they happen to agree, but less likely to agree in the first place.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 12:11 am

FrankTrollman wrote:But order is objectively good for people and entropy is objectively bad.

Except his "Entropy" and "Order" aren't entropy and order. His Entropy works along the same lines as a forest fire, a demolitions crew, or a doctor. His order works along the same lines as a carpenter, a bakerm or a gunsmith.

Neither is objectively good or bad. One set creates (for good or for evil), the other destroys (for good or for evil).

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:57 am

For the first time ever, I'm going to agree with RC2 on something: Law/Chaos is a crock of shit, people will never agree on what they mean, so the best thing to do is curb-stomp them and just have Good-Evil. Or add some other random axis. I'm sure a Google search or 5 minutes on /tg/ will grant a variety of things.

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 1:58 am

I'm still a fan of the Planescape setup, which is largely a variant on Moorcock setup; Law and Chaos are hats, and the overall difference between the two in actuality is difficult to discern. Both will kill you for nonsensical reasons, and there are different interpretations on each side (motivation is important), along with themes. While at the same time, these hats are serious business, and good/evil conflict almost takes a back seat to their conflict.

Then there's idea that Order is another word for understandable human civilization, and the further from human you get, the more on the side of Chaos you are. All of the humanoids are a part of Order, and humans fighting orcs is political infighting. Monstrous humanoids are those tainted with Chaos, and everything else is Chaos; even if they form cities and cultures, their life is going to be fundamentally different from anything a humanoid will produce and thus is grouped with Chaos.

Tequila Sunrise · Post by **Tequila Sunrise** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:01 am

FrankTrollman wrote:
Law = "My way is THE way."
Chaos = "I like my way, but your way is okay too."
Law/Chaos is probably harder to sell as a question of relativism and tolerance even then it is as this other crap people are trying to shovel.

-Username17

Yeah, not many people seem to like/follow my law/chaos definitions. But whatever, every DM has to run alignments in such a way that he/she can understand and explain to his/her players. The RAW definitions are so bogus that every experienced DM almost can't help but have a different definition than the next DM.

P.S. I don't get the pic.

TS

bosssmiley · Post by **bosssmiley** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 9:21 am

I usually thing of Law and Chaos in Moorcockian terms too: pure Law is excessively structured and unchanging stasis, pure Chaos undirected ferment without any regard for consistent meaning and/or cause-and-effect.

Both have their role to play; but too much of either is bad for business.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 10:22 am

Neither is objectively good or bad. One set creates (for good or for evil), the other destroys (for good or for evil).

Yeah, but how would you swing a sword for non-destruction? Seriously, what does the spell order's wrath even do?

I usually thing of Law and Chaos in Moorcockian terms too: pure Law is excessively structured and unchanging stasis, pure Chaos undirected ferment without any regard for consistent meaning and/or cause-and-effect.

And this impacts the individual actions of two real people standing next to each other how? What does a character whose alignment is "chaotic good" as opposed to "lawful good" even look like? While you paint a potential picture of ULTIMATE CHAOS, your description has no influence whatsoever on the actions or philosophies of a decidedly non-ultimate character doing his thing.

Law and Chaos are stupid and should be done away with. No one has ever made a genuinely satisfying description of them as alignments.

-Username17

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:52 am

Alignment damage types are just stupid. I always pictured Lawful damage as being an effect that rearranges your cells in alphabetic order or something equally "organised, yet definitely not good for you!" whereas Chaotic damage... is just bludgeoning damage from a giant frog landing on you.

Bigode · Post by **Bigode** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 2:58 pm

Tequila Sunrise wrote:But whatever, every DM has to run alignments in such a way that he/she can understand and explain to his/her players.

Nope. They can also choose to "not be retarded", and do away with them (where "them" includes any player who insists on disagreeing).

Koumei wrote:Alignment damage types are just stupid.

No, you are for making something stupid that doesn't exist, unless the blame lies on some sourcebook author who thought he had the power retroactively type the damage (possibly by writing something like the Fanboynomicon giving dragon resistance, which should definitely be called "armor of the hardest metal").

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:57 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:Law and Chaos are stupid and should be done away with. No one has ever made a genuinely satisfying description of them as alignments.

What's wrong with the hat designation? Law/Chaos being a political party for extraplanar beings, and mortals don't have such an alignment unless they decide to vote for a side with oaths and the like; where their alignment is more of a taint and comes with a requirement to fight the other side (usually in exchange for protection/power/etc).

That is the proper Moorcockian Law/Chaos angle, from what I've read on the subject. The two might have a different theme from each other, but mortals couldn't ever be described as one alignment or other without it being more of a claim over their soul by the actual Lords of Chaos/Order.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:25 pm

What's wrong with the hat designation?

It does not in any way describe what action a character who is wearing that hat will take?

I mean, it's one thing to just have Law and Chaos be political parties or something; but if those political parties don't have any actual platforms, it's all meaningless. I mean sure, those platforms can be inane and even wishy-washy, but as currently conceived they don't have platforms at all. And that means that they don't make it as alignments.

If you are "lawful" can you name a specific circumstance where you would take an action that a "neutral" character would not? If the answer is "no" then there's n point in writing "lawful" on your character sheet because it's not an alignment.

-Username17

virgil · Post by **virgil** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:42 pm

That's mostly my point. The most common use of Law/Chaos has just been that, a functionally meaningless concept that only matters because two identical gods descend down and shout "PICK ONE"; Elric had quite a bit of trouble coming to terms with this fact.

And what about the idea of Order being "human-esque civilization"? The less human you get in your culture, the less 'orderly' you become. Hermits in the woods would inherently be more chaotic because they chose to live in an area largely untouched by human hands; and paved cities designed for Medium size walking bipeds would be centers of Order.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:48 pm

And what about the idea of Order being "human-esque civilization"? The less human you get in your culture, the less 'orderly' you become. Hermits in the woods would inherently be more chaotic because they chose to live in an area largely untouched by human hands; and paved cities designed for Medium size walking bipeds would be centers of Order.

This is completely incompatible with Druids and Beasts as presently defined in D&D, but you could do something like that.

-Username17

Judging__Eagle · Post by **Judging__Eagle** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:54 pm

Also....

Cities are often described as chaotic and full of hustle and bustle. Putting the common impression of a city at odds with the order/chaos argument.

Orion · Post by **Orion** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 5:22 pm

I tried PMing you, Frank, but my PM got eaten.

Anyway, the internet is a funny place. I've been enjoying your work for years -- we corresponded briefly about pokemon when I was maybe 14 or 15. And after all this time on the Den and your blog, I feel like I know you. I even count you as a "friend," in the sense of "what'cha up to?" "talking to my friend in Prague." I have no idea if I've made any impression on you.

Anyway, I'm studying in Freiburg, DE, right now, and want to see Prague while I'm in Europe. The most likely time for this to happen is around December 7, but any weekend before then is also possible. Would you be interested in meeting a Den regular, or possibly showing me around?