The Nature of Law & Chaos

[crimhthanthegreat]

In your campaign how do you define Law (Order) and Chaos. How does it effect the whole of your campaign.

For instance the Tolkien view of elves is very Lawful; however, the elves of myth, legend and folklore tend very strongly to be represented as belonging to the side of Chaos. So as one example, I have mulitiple races of elves IMC, some of which belong to Law and some of which belong to Chaos.

I plan to say alot more concerning this as I organize my thoughts on the matter.

I also want to more fully delineate why Law & Chaos are not necessarily about Good & Evil (although they can be).

[ffilz]

Here's the blurb from my Players Manual for my upcoming campaign:

Alignment in my campaign represents alignment with a specific cosmic force. The alignments are:

Law

This cosmic force represents the human drive towards orderliness, with kingdoms and empires gaining strength over small communities.

Neutrality or Nature

This cosmic force is the old cosmic force of living with nature in small communities. Demi-humans as entities are overwhelmingly neutral in alignment though individuals may align themselves with law, or even chaos.

Chaos

This is the cosmic force seeking to tear the world asunder. The forces of chaos breed in dungeons, swamps, and other dank and foul places. It is said that in these foul places, even the very earth itself is a force of chaos. This might explain the inexplicable tricks and traps that abound in dungeons. It could explain the fact that dungeon doors will swing open to allow inhabitants to pass but be jammed solid against lawful expeditions seeking to penetrate the dungeon and slay the forces of chaos. The corrupting nature of chaos sometimes allows individual creatures aligned with law or neutrality to be bent to the needs of chaos, and some individuals will even seek chaos for their own reasons.

Frank

[Finarvyn]

I typically oversimply alighnnent to the point where law=good and chaos=evil, even though often this isn't the case. (The Empire of Star Wars is probably Law, but not good.)

Globally, a better definition might be about Law as building the order of society whereas Chaos representing the factors trying to tear down that order. (Which is why the Empire would be Law but the Rebellion would be Chaos, whereas in LOTR Gondor/Rohan is Law while Sauron represents Chaos.)

[thorswulf]

I have had problems with the Law/Chaos thing forever. None of it made sense, and frankly it is my opinion that it only exists as a wargaming convention to define and order troops, and spells affecting those of a given alignment. The spell protection from Law/good Chaos/evil beinga prime case in point.

Apart from this I feel an alignment system is very artificial as well. We all succumb to some kind of temptation in our day to day lives, but does this make us evil? Hardly. I like the idea of values of virtues and vices, and the cultural influences from Pendragon, or the Palladium alignment system. These seem to reflect how people behave, and are expected to behave in society fairly easily and well.

The Law/Chaos thing is great in Moorecock's Eternal champion stories. But most D&D characters are a far cry from Elric, or Dorian hawkmoon as beginning characters. Now granted belonging to societies that embrace one over the other work well within the frame of the stories! A Pan Tangian warrior surely must be chaotic, after all!

[dwayanu]

In D&D, I've tended to equate Chaos with an irruption and corruption utterly inimical to humanity. Think of Lovecraft's "Things Man Was Not Meant to Know." Among the things on which it feeds is the "will to power" not unknown to the typical D&D PC. Unlike in Moorcockia or EPT, I don't hold Law to represent a force ultimately as alien or oppressive. Heck, the "gods" of Lawful clerics may be (as opposed to all-too-incarnate Demons) mere projections of their own psyches. Lawful is simply the "side" of those who actively oppose Chaos and may thereby help preserve even the natural laws necessary to life as we know it (which must perish if the other side attains full victory). "Neutrals" (probably including most ordinary humans) are basically self-interested and may swing either way. They generally prefer to avoid situations in which they might have to decide where they stand and risk something dearer than words.

I would count Howard's Conan as Lawful when the chips are down -- but that doesn't keep him from being a rogue when dealing with rogues! Vance's Cugel might be an example of an adventurous Neutral. Karl Edward Wagner's Kane seems from what I've read to have a touch of Chaos, and Howard's Bran Mak Morn a tragic taint.

IIRC, Gary's own PCs were largely (even in AD&D) Neutral.

Chaos (in my game's cosmology) is the state from which the ordered universe was born and to which it must eventually return. Life's triumph is to delay the final fall of night.

The Underworld (or "dungeons") is a seepage of Chaos back into this world. As such, it is (increasingly, as one delves deeper into it) unbound by the rules of the (soap-bubble?) surface world. It is a realm of dreams and nightmares. Goblins are nasty by nature, and no amount of "nurture" is going to change that. No natural history can surely be counted on in the labyrinth. A Dragon is not part of the ecology of fruitbats and squirrels!

In the article in which he added the Good/Evil axis, Gygax wrote that he had at first (i.e., when writing D&D) treated Law as Good and Chaos as Evil.

An interesting note: The chart in Volume 1 lists Orcs and Ogres as both Neutral and Chaotic.

The Lawful tendency of Dwarfs and Elves may reflect Tolkien's influence. It's certainly helpful if they're allowed as PCs! Many sources in myth and folklore portray them as capricious and contemptuous of "mere mortals" -- part of the dangerously Chaotic-leaning world of Faerie. That is echoed in the depiction of a magically puissant "elder race" in some works of fantasy.

An interesting aspect of evil Elves is that -- unlike goblins, trolls, etc. -- they can be of enthralling beauty. Terry Pratchett's Discworld novel Lords and Ladies treats the topic.

[coffee]

I find myself looking at the old west.

The story of the old west is the story of the triumph of Law (or, if you prefer, law) over Chaos. The old west was teeming with villains, renegade indians (the government's term for them, anyway), and unreconstructed rebels. Add to this the trappers, buffalo hunters and cowboys.

Opposing them were the lawmen of the towns and the townsfolk themselves, farmers for the most part. And (with the exception of certain parts of California) the west is now tamed.

Law is pro-civilization, Chaos is extreme individualism. There comes a time when (despite Star Trek) the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

Also, Chaos in D&D has the whole destruction thing going for it, and the "good guys" are generally opposed to any destruction they themselves are not causing.

Anyway, that's my very late night take on it.

[jrients]

coffee said:

Law is pro-civilization, Chaos is extreme individualism. There comes a time when (despite Star Trek) the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.

That's my general take on it as well.

[tgamemaster1975]

I think of Law as order, civilization, tradition, consistency, safety, and the status quo. Chaos as disorder, anarchy, danger, every man for himself, breeding ground for evil, discord. Neutral as striving to stay out of things, keep from making a decision, professing balance but really just too cowardly to pick a side, ultimately supporting Chaos through inaction.

[Finarvyn]

thorswulf said:

Apart from this I feel an alignment system is very artificial as well.

I think it was created for an "us against them" style of wargaming and is therefore somewhat a holdover to the pre-D&D days.

[coffee]

admin said:

I think it was created for an "us against them" style of wargaming and is therefore somewhat a holdover to the pre-D&D days.

I agree.

But I also think it's useful in a role playing context. It's so much easier to say "He's Chaotic, I kill him" then to wrangle over the existential grief you can get into when you realize that "adventurer" can easily translate into "lawless thug".

Sometimes it's useful to have "us against them".

[jdrakeh]

I think that the Law/Chaos things was actually nicked from Moorcock. If used in this context, it makes a useful tool for roleplay. That said, outside of the whole 'primal forces secretly warring for control of the world and using mortals as their pawns in this game' context, it's just next to useless.

[coffee]

jdrakeh said:

I think that the Law/Chaos things was actually nicked from Moorcock. If used in this context, it makes a useful tool for roleplay. That said, outside of the whole 'primal forces secretly warring for control of the world and using mortals as their pawns in this game' context, it's just next to useless.

For a long time I thought that Gygax had gotten it from Moorcock, but he consistently says that it came from Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions, a book I've never been able to find a copy of. I'm still looking, however.

[jdrakeh]

[quote author=coffee board=philosophy thread=1194842820 post=1195514217For a long time I thought that Gygax had gotten it from Moorcock, but he consistently says that it came from Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions, a book I've never been able to find a copy of. I'm still looking, however.[/quote]

Well, today, he attributes nearly every facet of AD&D to that book though, at one time, other attributions were made. I've long since learned not to take everything that EGG says at face value. He waffles a lot on certain topics (where inspiration for AD&D came came from is one such topic).

[coffee]

No argument there, but I do like Poul Anderson's work so I'm still going to look for the book.

[foster1941]

coffee said:

No argument there, but I do like Poul Anderson's work so I'm still going to look for the book.

If you're willing to purchase from Amazon's marketplace you can get a copy for $1-2 + shipping (which is usually ~$4). My local used-bookstore-of-choice also usually has a copy or two in-stock.

[doc]

My take is that alignment in OD&D is just that: which power are you aligned with? It has nothing to do with good vs. evil. It instead could be seen to reflect civilization and order vs. barbarism and discord.

Both Law and Chaos can be "good" at base levels, but as you get further and further to the fringe, it becomes dangerous. With too much Law, you have tyranny, oppression, and paranoia. With too much Chaos, you have anarchy, decadence, and wanton slaughter. True neutrality reflects a person who strives for individuality and follows his own beliefs, willing to take actions that may be seen as Lawful at times and Chaotic at others, but are always guided by his internal compass of right and wrong.

While tacking on "good" and "evil" to the alignment table relieves the feeling of ambiguity, it takes something away from the role-playing opportunities of interpreting a character in shades of grey rather than black and white. Remember, what one civilization calls "good," another might call "evil." It doesn't mean that one is any less moral or honest than the other, merely that the cultures have different values and outlooks.

Doc

[tgamemaster1975]

Doc, great post, I agree with you completely, have an Exalt!

[doc]

Thanks!

;D

Doc

[coffee]

Have an exalt from me, too, Doc. That's pretty much what I wanted to say, only you said it so much better than I could.

I'm actually going to swipe that and use it in a little document I'm preparing for my (eventual) players, on the Philosophy of OD&D.

[doc]

Thanks #2!

;D ;D

Doc

[Finarvyn]

I like your thinking, Doc.

Based on First Fantasy Campaign I get the impression that "Law" and "Chaos" were mostly convenient terms to represent the "good guys" (us) and the "bad guys" (them), and it's interesting to note that early players got to be orcs and vampires if they wanted. The rules seemed to divide creatures into piles mostly to determine which ones could be purchased in miniatures play. ("No, you're playing Law so you can't have a squadron of Balrogs in your army.")

My favorite interpretation probably goes back to Moorcock and similar authors where Law v. Chaos seems to be a continual struggle and part of the plotline of the books. I like the idea that "Law" is usally good guys trying to build civilization, while "Chaos" are the monsters trying to tear things down.

[crimhthanthegreat]

I have also read that in Arneson's campaign, while the players started out playing both good guys and bad guys, the bad guys regularly got their butts kicked so after a while the players were only taking the good guys and Arneson (the ref) started playing all of the bad guys by default. When we started playing we didn't know any of that (this is in the pre-D&D days, we just assumed that the ref would play the bad guys.

[James Maliszewski]

jdrakeh said:

Well, today, he attributes nearly every facet of AD&D to that book though, at one time, other attributions were made. I've long since learned not to take everything that EGG says at face value. He waffles a lot on certain topics (where inspiration for AD&D came came from is one such topic).

While I'm sure Mr. Gygax's memory, like that of all of us, can sometimes be faulty, I'm pretty sure he's correct on this particular point. Indeed, if I recall correctly, Moorcock himself has stated that Anderson was his inspiration on the idea of Law vs. Chaos as cosmic principles. Seeing as how Anderson's book predates Elric, I can believe that.

[dwayanu]

The allowance for monster-characters highlights, I think, one difference between early and later play.

My impression is that it started out very much in wargames mode (hence, e.g., the term "campaign" for a connected series of scenarios). Arneson had run "Braunstein" games, and I'm sure had at least read of the Hyboria campaign -- as well as being a member of the Castle and Crusade Society. I don't know about Arneson, but Gygax was certainly a Diplomacy player.

In that context, it was natural for the "game master" to serve primarily as a referee judging the outcomes of players' interactions. The established tradition was one of a player-driven game, and a campaign might be expected to include dozens of players. It might even be regarded as improper for a GM to play one of the factions.

This seems gradually to have evolved into the arrangement commonly assumed today. That the change was not yet complete is evident in Men & Magic: "There is no reason that players cannot be allowed to play as virtually anything, provided they begin relatively weak and work up to the top."

One approach oft-neglected today is to "work up" by playing successively more numerous or powerful monsters. One might start with a Goblin, and eventually play a Balrog commanding a Goblin army.

[crimhthanthegreat]

I think you are exactly right that war-gamers would have initially at least have viewed the ref as a judge not a participant, again as I have heard Arneson's players started out that way and moved to playing all good guys so Arneson had to start playing the bad guys, we did that as an assumed (on our part) default. But there is no reason that you couldn't run the game again as all bad guys (not our cup of tea) or with two competing groups of players with the ref as just a judge and maybe running all noncombatants.

[badger2305]

doc said:

My take is that alignment in OD&D is just that: which power are you aligned with? It has nothing to do with good vs. evil. It instead could be seen to reflect civilization and order vs. barbarism and discord.

Both Law and Chaos can be "good" at base levels, but as you get further and further to the fringe, it becomes dangerous. With too much Law, you have tyranny, oppression, and paranoia. With too much Chaos, you have anarchy, decadence, and wanton slaughter. True neutrality reflects a person who strives for individuality and follows his own beliefs, willing to take actions that may be seen as Lawful at times and Chaotic at others, but are always guided by his internal compass of right and wrong.

While tacking on "good" and "evil" to the alignment table relieves the feeling of ambiguity, it takes something away from the role-playing opportunities of interpreting a character in shades of grey rather than black and white. Remember, what one civilization calls "good," another might call "evil." It doesn't mean that one is any less moral or honest than the other, merely that the cultures have different values and outlooks.

Doc

I like that. Makes things much easier. Thank you.

[crimhthanthegreat]

As an example:

I am quoting Sieg's statement from DF here but replacing Fairy or Fay with Elven, Elves or Elf. This is pretty close to the way I do elves, I don't have drow, I just have Seelie and Unseelie, Lawful & Chaotic with a few Neutrals. In the below quote my changes are in bold.

"Elven society is divided into two camps, the Seelie and Unseelie courts. These courts exist in pocket dimensions that have access to the Prime Material Plane but are not part of it. Elves owing fealty to the Seelie court are mostly Lawful in alignment, while those choosing to be part of the Unseelie court are usually Chaotic. There are Neutral Elves in each court, but they are few as the gnossis of the courts tend to draw most Elves to either Law or Chaos. A very small number of Elves wander the Prime Material Plane, seeking new experiences and comrades in the world."

Like I say this is pretty much how I run elves IMC and if I had written down my own defintion, I could not have done it better than this or as good for that matter. I think this is good example of how to apply Law and Chaos to the game and to allow for Elves as PCs while being able to run the darker Chaotic type elves that tend to the common example in folklore.

[raithe]

I've always seen Law & Chaos from a quasi-scientific viewpoint. Law is order & structure that which binds the universe together. Chaos is the force of BOTH creation and destruction. Without the other other each is useless. No law and the universe becomes a mass of boiling energy constantly forming and reforming. No chaos and you get decay, nothing can remain in stasis forever without growth and change. Neutrality is the balance struck between these, ergo the state the universe actually exists in, with slight imbalances one way or the other at times.
How does this relate to individuals, or societies? Well it pretty much follows the same trends. An individual or group that is too heavily under the force of chaos will constantly be changing, to the extent that nothing is accomplished. One could point to almost any "free-thinking" movement in history and see this trend. Too much law and you lack creativity, growth and freedom of ideas. Pretty much what we have now in the world. Everything is just a rehash of what we've already seen, and people want to be told what to do not think for themselves. Hence the importance of the good/evil axis as doc said. Though I do like that OD&D does not have that defined as such. I feel that hedges in players too much.
For a more expanded (and probably better stated) view of what I'm talking about check out any quantum mechanics books, particularly anything by bell. This is actually a rather important part of quantum mechanics and physics. Mostly look at the rules for chaos and information based systems. (no chaos=no new information in system) etc.

[Thorulfr]

I seem to be in Doc and raithe's camp - I've been doing some pondering about alignment (slowly trying to lay the foundations for a campaign, you see), and the Lax vs. Chaos thing seems to me to be an expression of 'natural law': the tendency either against or toward entropy. Good vs. Evil, however, is a purely human invention, and the lines of which acts are good and which evil are not always clear.
On one level, I wonder if it could be related to the Hindu pantheon, where the deities are where roughly grouped into avatars/associates of a god of 'Creation' (Brahma), 'Preservation' (Vishnu), and 'Destruction'/'Renewal' (Shiva).
On another level, I wonder if we could take a page from Tekumel, where the deities were divided into two camps: "Stability" and "Change." On the "human" level, I could easily envision temples in every city for deities of "Stability", "Balance", or "Change"; but away from the eyes of men, the nature of those three forces takes a rather darker turn (from our limited point of view, at least).

[Finarvyn]

The key to alignment is that it provides an "us against them" system for the campaign. This is a pretty universal concept (Emprire v. Rebellion in Star Wars, Fellowship v. Sauron in Lord of the Rings, Axis v. Allies in WWII, or whatever) and is needed in some way in order to give some meaning to the conflict in a campaign.

What makes alignment unusual in many RPGs is the fact that the alignment starts to dictate actions, rather than the other way around.
1. My character acts this way so he must be this alignment.
2. My character is of this alignment so he must act this way.
A subtle difference, but an important one.

I suspect this is a result of the "paladin effect", since paladins have a strict alignment code. (As far as I can recall, the paladin is the only class like this. Can you imagine a GM telling the player of a druid character that he would lose his druid status because he did a good thing and therefore violated his Neutral alignment?)

I remember an adventure where I was a LG fighter and was with a LG mage. We broke into the keep of an evil magic-user and wanted to steal his spellbooks, only to be told by the GM that stealing was wrong and as LG characters we weren't allowed to do this.