Law and Chaos, D&D discussion.

[frigidmagi]

The alignment tree of DnD has been around longer then most everyone on this board has been alive... And during that time no one has really fucking understood it, or at least any real agreement and understanding seems to vary by group.

This does lead to some questions, such as why is does it seem to have such a varied meaning, is it that badly constructed, what does each force in the alignment tree mean? Now the alignment tree is made up of 4 forces, Good, Evil, Chaos and Law (Neutrality isn't a force, it's a position of nonalignment, this makes as much a force as the statement Fuck You is a logical argument).

Let's focus on Law and Chaos, mainly because discussions about Good and Evil open up massive cans of worms and... I want to discuss Law and Chaos not good and evil and I made this thread.

I had the position that if I asked people to write out their views of law and chaos that I would get different answers on what each one meant. I'm gonna go ahead and list the responses I got here under a spoiler tag, why under a tag? Because I would like you the reader to take part. If you've made this far without clicking on the spoiler tag, type up what you being Lawful or Chaotic means to you. Then take a look under the tag.

[spoilers]Daleous Barakiel
Hmm odd request. Simply put I would say the belief in or the natural inclination to obey rules. Laws of the land, rules of the culture, or personal commandments, however you look at it. While a chaotic character would simply see those things as boring, getting in their way, or a complete waste of time. Being lawful doesn't mean you believe or even follow all laws and rules but it should mean the character puts in the effort to stay within the acceptable boundaries of those laws. On the flip side a chaotic probably won't break the law or bend the rules just for the sake of it, but they won't give a single thought of doing so in achieving their goals.

Darktooth
To be lawful, to me, is to have a mind- set where things have a natural order to them, a proper way of being done. This does not have to mean a lawful character must follow local laws, but he will have an opinion about how things should be done. It's a little like having OCD but it shouldn't be a serious case unless you also want to be a righteous prick. 
To be chaotic is to have an unstructured mind-set. Instead of feeling that everything should be done a certain way you either don't care how something is done or you may even become bored with any "proper" manner and strive for variety. To put another way a chaotic person leaves his dirty plates wherever he finishes his meal--and that could be anywhere--while a lawful person will clean up to some degree or another (unless distracted or something).

Mat
The difference between law and chaos is the difference between following codes and not.  Whether it is a code of law, a code of conduct, a set of oaths, lawful characters are bound.  A chaotic character may or not be bound to set of ethics, but for them the rules are plastic.  A chaotic guard can look the other way to let in refugees, a chaotic knight can violate his knightly code to gain advantage in battle, a chaotic merchant can break an agreement, and so forth.

A chaotic good character will break laws, abandon responsibilities, etcetera if he believes the end result will be good.  A chaotic evil character will do whatever the fuck he wants, constrained only by what he thinks he can get away with, if he's thinking at all.  A lawful evil character may be constrained by laws, duty, or an honour code, but the laws that bind his actions are also weapons he can wield against others.  A lawful good character will uphold a just code, even when it places him at a personal disadvantage, because a just code is worth supporting for its own sake in all but the most extreme situations.  Neutrals fall in between them, placing some but not absolute value on laws and codes of conduct.

Vi
Lawful in D&D: A person who obeys the laws to the best of their abilities. First by obeying the laws of his/her homeland and then doing the best they can to know and obey the laws of the area they are in. So long as local laws do not interfere with his/her own moral code/homeland laws to an extreme level. A lawful character should not be persuaded or inclined to break the law, even a lawful evil character.
 
Chaotic in D&D: A person who follows a code that is based on their own moral compass and history of decisions. A chaotic person could also be persuaded to change their minds based on changing circumstances. Such as gold, a good argument, or an overwhelming presence of law enforcement/level of punishment.
 

Johson
Law and Chaos, independent of intention (Good, Evil, Neutral) are less about Law and Lawlessness to me than Order and Chaos.  A Paladin, for example, doesn't need to be mired in the details of legal code in order to meet his alignment, but rather due process and justice rather than vengeance.  In a way, it's the difference between trusting your gut and letting emotions have more control over you versus letting your own opinions take second place to a process that is not guided by emotion.  A Chaotic character will be more interested in doing what feels right regardless of what authority might say, while a Lawful Character will try to do right within the system.  For the evil side of things, a Lawful Character will get their way, cause harm, and so forth within the constructs of the established order, using the flaws and oversights of the system to their advantage, while a Chaotic Character will more do what they please and revel in the raw suffering of it all.  In my mind, a Lawful Evil character would be a politician or vizier or similar, manipulating things to get what they want, while a chaotic character would more likely be a Warlord, raping and pillaging across the land.  On the Neutral side of things, you have the Judge and the Misfit, so to speak.  Think of the guy who makes rules to be as fair as possible, without necessarily giving thought to things like intent, only end result.  That would what I imagine on a Lawful Neutral character.  For Chaotic Neutral, I don't see insane (as has been described much to my annoyance in AD&D), but rather someone who cares not for the rules and expectations of society or civilization, but rather cares more about doing whatever they feel like doing, and the hell with the rest.  Maybe they have a cause, but it's usually one that's personal, rather than political or long reaching.  Maybe it's that they get paid, maybe it's that they track down and murder the bastards that raped their sister/mother/whatever.  They're not good, not evil, and like with all neutral character, I think they tend to be more self-serving, but not in a way that tends to do others harm.

True Neutral, meanwhile, is the hardest one to deal with, and it's often the one I think more people fit into than they think.  They'll obey the laws as long as they're not inconvenient, they'll break them without much thought if they feel they can get away with it and it suits their purposes, but they have no great motivation to harm to others or to help them out.

To that end, I'll bring up the Star Trek example.  Spock is Lawful, Bones is Chaotic, and Kirk is Neutral.  They're all good, of course.  Judge Dredd I would say is Lawful Neutral, though in his setting he might be Good, which is a disturbing thought.  Chaotic Neutral I'm having a hard time thinking of an example, but at a stab in the dark I'd probably put my Russian Merc from Cyberpunk in there, Mikal.  True Neutral, well...good luck finding a good example there to exemplify it, but I'd say perhaps the average citizen fits there more often than not.  Lawful Evil, well I'd say Xanatos fits there until his Heel-Face turn towards the end of the series.  Chaotic Evil would be, you know, Warlords and the like, as I said above, but for a specific example, I'd probably look at Trigon, from Teen Titans.

So, in short, Law is more about doing things in an orderly fashion, Chaos is more about listening to your emotions, at least to me.  Good is about helping others, even if it involves some self sacrifice, while evil is about sacrificing others for your own improvement.  Hope that helps.

Da Turtle
The dichotomy between law and chaos reflects--to me at least--the dichotomy between the acceptance or non-acceptance of values which are distinct from what would necessarily be called moral values.  

Law: Represents values with respect to order, systematization, and pre-arranged sets of rules which may or may not be actual laws.  A lawful character would tend to accept an actual ethical system (Kant, what have you) and stick to it.  They would also tend to be predictable once you understand their rules.  So, a lawful person who values the keeping of their word can be counted on to do so consistenly.  A lawful good character would probably accept a system of laws or personal rules which they consider just--but would not consider themselves bound by an unjust set.  A lawful evil person would probably be the sort who reads the evil overlord list and follows its edicts.

Chaos: Represents the conscious rejection of any and all non-moral restraints on behavior.  They fly by the seat of their pants, are generally opposed to planning, structured learning, that sort of thing.  Unpredictable(even they cannot predict themselves).  They wont follow a set of laws unless the obeying corresponds to their moral values, and that is incidental.  

Shooter:
Lawful: the character will follow laws and respect customs to the best of his knowledge. The respecting customs part is more up to how you want to play your character. I sort of see lawful characters kind of like cops. They still have to follow certain laws but they are kind of above other laws realistically. Of course there are all different types of cops, ones that follow the law to the letter and those that are more loose.....

Chaotic: The ends justify the means. You want something done and you don't care how many laws or morals you have to break to get the job done.  Can still follow laws to a point, until they get in the way of your goals. 

Frigid:

It's in the end about security vs freedom. For things to work in a society, you need laws, rules and a lawful is going to uphold that. Not all laws but a lawful will believe that rules are generally a good thing in and of themselves. A Chaotic is more concerned with preserving freedom of action, either for the people or just themselves. Rules are at best an necessary evil or a completely pointless burden. A lawful is pushing rules because they provide regularity and security, a chaotic is pushing against that because it hampers freedom and ability to act.
[/spoilers]

[Magnus]

IMO, Lawfulness is voluntary obedience to predetermined hierarchy of constraining authorities. The hierarchy of authorities must be predetermined so that when authorities conflict, the choice of authorities cannot be left to whimsy. The authorities may include a god, a pointiff, a king, a set of laws, or a code of conduct... The authority must be constraining, otherwise followers of a chaotic god might themselves be lawful. A chaotic authority does not impose constraints on followers, and relies on persuasion to guide followers.

[Hotfoot]

This is an interesting discussion, and I was certainly intrigued to read what others had written about it. There's a common theme throughout it, so naturally there's a lot of overlap and in many cases the differences arise in how we conceptualize the concept. The D&D alignment system in many ways is a starter's guide to character depth, and as much as I might malign it (and the system it is in), it's not totally without merit. The issue is that it has been elevated past the point of its utility and that it has never really been described well in its own source material.

Obligatory D&D criticism aside, I will continue my thoughts here. The desire to follow law and order goes beyond setting arbitrary hierarchies that are often nonsensical (though Orbach Uber Alles is totally valid). People are more complex creatures than that would allow for, and while the system may not have taken that in mind at its creation, it can certainly be made to service it currently. While a given character may have such hierarchies, that in no way should be a restriction on all such characters.

A lawful character, for example, may have their own opinions as to what constitutes justice for case X, but local law from a just society does not allow for that. It could be because the law simply does not exist, or the former law no longer applies in the same way. A lawful character would start the process needed to change such a law, whatever that may be for the society. Petitioning nobles, asking for an audience with the local ruler, or what have you. A chaotic character, meanwhile, might start bribing people, threatening others, or forming flash mobs to get their way. Both are interested in justice and changing the existing set of laws, i.e. not following the law blindly, and both methods of seeking change are valid towards their outlook.

Of course, even a lawful character may partake in acts that might otherwise seem chaotic when the system is itself unjust and no other recourse seems possible. Leading a war of conquest against an unjust king, raising a popular rebellion from tyrannical rule, or even bribing or threatening unjust officials. What matters, I think, is the end result and how the character rationalizes it, more than arbitrary titles.

As I said above, the difference largely seems to be between the connection between how much you let emotion sway your judgement, for emotion itself is not a logical, orderly thing. Emotionally, you want to be free to do what you want, but rationally, there are consequences to that which extend past yourself. There are extremes to both ends, the pitiless soul-sucking bureaucrat who makes rules and regulations that needlessly complicate and bloat the system, and the anarchist who doesn't consider the consequences of their actions past the immediate concerns of how it affects them. Both can be played within the lawful and chaotic spectrum, but neither should be used as the de facto standard of each.

Though Magnus does make a good point in that chaotic leaders tend to maintain control through charisma, which lends itself to my point that chaos and emotions are inexorably linked. People who follow charismatic leaders tend to do so because it just "feels" right, regardless of what the facts of the matter are, though it often says more of the followers than the leaders, really. A chaotic leader, however, can very well put constraints on their followers. "Do what I say or die" is one hell of a constraint, and pretty common for most warlords, and they pretty much tend to epitomize a chaotic leader.

[Magnus]

... A chaotic leader, however, can very well put constraints on their followers. "Do what I say or die" is one hell of a constraint, and pretty common for most warlords, and they pretty much tend to epitomize a chaotic leader.

I distinguish between a genuine constraint and intimidation (i.e. charisma).

Chaotic warlord says "drop your weapon or die". Instead you attack the assassin who was sneaking up to attack the warlord? Do you die?

Chaotic warlord says "surrender or die". If you surrender, will you live?

[Hotfoot]

I'm...not entirely sure what your objection is. Allow me to clarify further. A warlord's word is final. The rules and regulations one creates as a warlord are based entirely on his or her whims, rather than what is fair, right, or just.

Might a chaotic evil warlord give a surrendering foe mercy? Sure, if it suits their purposes. Might they slaughter the foes? Sure, if it suits their purposes. There is no universal answer, because we're talking about methods of decision making, not rules by which you may determine how one must act.

In a lawful society or a chaotic one, there are almost always mandates that must be followed. One does not maintain control if one does not exert control. The question is how are the mandates determined, enforced, and so on.

So what's the difference here? What's the issue? It's really not clear from what you're posting.

[Hawkwings]

Written without reading anything but the prompt:

Law: Understands, supports, and follows a set of external "rules". Whether they're laws, a religion, commands from those above him, etc doesn't matter.

Chaos: A free spirit, does what he wants and chooses not to be bound by the "rules" that try to govern the world.

These descriptions are pretty vague and general, and that's not a bad thing. As long as the spirit of the guidelines is followed, that's all that is really needed.

[Magnus]

I'm...not entirely sure what your objection is. Allow me to clarify further. A warlord's word is final.

Only a lawful warlord's word is final.

All warlords make threats; but only a lawful warlord can be counted on to follow through.

Similarly, all warlords make promises; but what value is a promise of from a chaotic warlord?