What does 'Lawful' or 'Chaotic' mean, really?

You have questions? We may have answers.

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Active DMs

Post Reply
Lurch
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 11:26 am

What does 'Lawful' or 'Chaotic' mean, really?

Post by Lurch » Sat Nov 11, 2017 8:08 pm

The alignment system in D&D has always seemed somewhat vague for me. I can generally grasp what the designers intended with regards to the vertical axis of Good vs. Evil, namely whether or not a character is altruistic, has a conscience and shows remorse, et cetera.

However, when it comes to the horizontal axis of Law vs. Chaos, oftentimes the distinctions that people draw between them seem arbitrary upon closer inspection, and seem to frequently cause confusion.

For example, what does it mean when we say that a barbarian cannot be lawful? Does it mean that barbarians cannot be trusted to hold their word? Seems rather far fetched. I could well imagine an illiterate tribal society, molded by a harsh and unforgiving environment, that has a strong pressure to adopt strong notions of personal honor and accountability (are these not lawful traits? If not, why?). If the survival of a tribe depends on the fact that every single member acts to preserve the whole, there's not much room for rebellious, free-spirited behavior where everybody runs around doing their own thing.

Or is it merely that barbarian brutes simply cannot respect the rules, regulations and etiquette of polite civil society? Again, why not? Nothing about the class precludes basic common sense or intelligence. Every society has their particular norms and any outsider can easily absorb them through prolonged exposure. Moreover, why would a feudal, agrarian society be deemed any more lawful than a hunter-gatherer one, when the latter is much more communal in actual fact and often demands even greater cohesion from its members?

Or is it simply that barbarians are non-lawful because otherwise people would be making barbarian monks or barbarian paladins and that simply will not do? My purpose here is not to argue in favor of barbarian monks, but to better understand what we mean when we talk about lawful and chaotic characters.

On the lawful side, we also have lawful evil characters, epitomized by devils, which seem to embody "lawfulness" only in a very shallow sense. Everyone knows not to trust devils, yet they're supposed to be beacons of law and order, in equal measure to lawful good angels, except for the goodness part. What gives?

What follows next is just my own approach to these terms. The way I see it, the best way to disentangle these concepts is to borrow from some of our contemporary moral philosophy. Good vs. Evil is already in a pretty good place, but to reiterate:

Good corresponds to communal and collectivist notions about the worth of other sentient creatures. Whereas an Evil character fundamentally only cares about themselves and neutral characters extend that care only to personal acquaintances, a Good characters cares even in the abstract. They care about the stranger, even a rival, to varying degrees. They often help others without a direct reciprocal expectation, as the act of helping itself is pleasurable to them. In this conception, an Evil character need not necessarily enjoy causing misery and destruction, all that is needed is an intellect advanced enough to recognize that they're causing direct suffering and being fundamentally indifferent to it. Hot-blooded murder vs cold-blooded torture, is either really any better?

How I conceive of Law vs. Chaos on the other hand, is through Deontology (duty-based ethics): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics vs. Consequentialism (results-based): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism

In this view, a Lawful character has certain axioms, or codes of behavior, that they will not willingly break, even if they conceive of potential harm that could come about following said code. The more Lawful a person is, the more they are willing to sacrifice in service to this higher duty, whether it is to always tell the truth, even though deception could seemingly save the day, eschewing poison and other underhanded tactics, or never taking a life, even though there's a mass murderer on the loose, who's not amenable to redemption or prison. Batman is a notable example of this from pop-culture: Even though he's a vigilante acting outside the contemporary law of the land, he follows a strict personal code, even when it costs him and his friends dearly.

A Chaotic person on the other hand does not feel bound to any specific ethical code. Much more utilitarian in a sense, what they care about is the results and finding out the optimal solution. A Chaotic character is willing to look at a dire situation clearly, consider their options and choose what they think is best, even if doing so violates some deeply held principle of honesty, fairness or justice.

A Neutral character in terms of Law vs. Chaos could be someone who mixes these opposing perspectives together (which could get confusing), or they could instead employ a third alternative, namely Virtue ethics. I won't get into virtue ethics here, as I don't feel as well versed in it as the other two: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_ethics

If you esteemed folks happen to have any alternative definitions for the alignment axes, I'd love to hear (and probably argue about) them.
Last edited by Lurch on Sat Nov 11, 2017 9:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Seven Sons of Sin
Posts: 2184
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2014 3:40 am

Re: What does 'Lawful' or 'Chaotic' mean, really?

Post by Seven Sons of Sin » Sat Nov 11, 2017 8:16 pm

Barbarians not being allowed to be lawful, and being depicted as illiterate in PnP, has always been in poor taste and derogatory.

I agree with your deontology vs consequentialism approach. I think that generally fits in line with the common practice of, "Lawful abides to a code external to the individual" vs "Chaotic abides by whatever they want."

The problem is describing "Neutral X" alignments. Do they do both? Neither? Some halfway version?
Previous:
Oskarr of Procampur, Ro Irokon, Nahal Azyen, Nelehein Afsana (of Impiltur), Vencenti Medici, Nizram ali Balazdam, (Roznik) Naethandreil

User avatar
-XXX-
Posts: 2113
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 1:49 am

Re: What does 'Lawful' or 'Chaotic' mean, really?

Post by -XXX- » Sat Nov 11, 2017 9:34 pm

Well, the alignment chart has two axes that follow opposing cosmic forces.

a) Good opposes Evil.
People tend to say that good characters are selfless and evil characters are selfish. But this is a very simplified version of how it works and it focuses on symptoms rather than substance. Good characters act in a way that forwards the agenda of the good cosmic forces while evil characters forward the agenda of the evil cosmic forces. It's just that the agenda of the evil forces tends to be in alignment with those who are driven by some sort of selfish ambition while the agenda of the good forces is in alignment with those who behave more altruistically.

b) Chaos opposes Order
Same way as above, chaotic characters are not chaotic simply because their behavior teds to be volatile and lawful characters are not lawful merely because they adhere some code. Chaotic characters are chaotic because their actions increase entropy - they are a destructive force that forwards the agenda of the chaotic cosmic forces (the actions of these characters always create a mess). Lawful characters on the other hand try to shape the world into a structure - they forward the agenda of the forces of order (these characters act in a way, that as a result, creates a world that makes more sense).

The final alignment is a result that tracks where a character stands on each one of these axes. A tyrant for example, would probably end up being LE as his actions would lead towards building a structured state, but his avarice would lead him towards the abuse of such system. On the other hand, a vigilante might be CG as his actions might lead him towards opposing the tyrant, but his actions would ultimately result in the destruction of the structured system (the evil state in this example).

c) Neutrality
The concept of the struggle between good/evil and chaos/order seems simple enough, but the neutral alignments can get more iffy. The foundation of any neutral alignment is the tendency not to lean in favor and forward the agenda of either one of the forces they are supposed to be neutral towards (say, a NG character should be selfless and good without actually clinging to some structure or creating a mess). They can resort to small time acts forwarding the agenda of either of these forces (which sometimes can make them seem as if they could do whatever they want), but the keyword here being "small time" and swinging both ways. At the end of the day, the sum total of their actions should not be forwarding the agenda of either of these forces by a large margin.

User avatar
Iceborn
Posts: 2901
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 2:31 am
Location: Dancing on the line between sarcasm and irony

Re: What does 'Lawful' or 'Chaotic' mean, really?

Post by Iceborn » Sat Nov 11, 2017 9:45 pm

Alignments were never intended to be taken to the deep and consistent degree of RPing that we see in permanent worlds and sandbox platforms as we have in Arelith. It is something best taken with a very hefty dose of salt and suspension of disbelief, the deeper you get into the logic of your character.

GENERALLY, I see Lawful as somebody more rigid, favors stability, tends to see things from an ethical standpoint, thinks first from what their, or their current society taught him as 'right and wrong', they can be more reliable to be the same person from one day to the next. They may be more strict and technical to their word than the meaning of it.

While I see Chaotic as somebody more like a rebel, they have their own moral compass that is not dictated by the ethics, they are true to themselves rather than the collective of people and societies want them to be, less susceptible to the influence of rules and guidelines that are not their own, they may be more fluid and prefer to vary from traditional methods and formula, rather than what is expected.

For me, good/evil is morality, and chaos/law is ethics. Does it always make sense? Not really, but we work with what we have.

PD: That's one cool way to see it, XXX.
Misc Changes, with the Feats and Skills sublinks.
Available races
Spell Changes
Class Mechanics
Command Guide

Take a look before asking your questions!

User avatar
Xanos950
Posts: 268
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 11:00 am

Re: What does 'Lawful' or 'Chaotic' mean, really?

Post by Xanos950 » Sun Nov 12, 2017 5:14 am

I was low-key expecting a full fledged alignment argument when i read the topic title. But it's already pretty solidly explained.

Aelryn Bloodmoon
Arelith Supporter
Arelith Supporter
Posts: 2028
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 4:57 pm

Re: What does 'Lawful' or 'Chaotic' mean, really?

Post by Aelryn Bloodmoon » Sun Nov 12, 2017 6:08 am

Expressing both concepts in a negative light, at their simplest, Lawful can be expressed as "Change is always bad, and I'm going to keep it from happening," whereas Chaos can be described as "Change must happen, and I'm going to make it happen."

In a positive light, Lawful can be expressed as encouraging communal responsibility, whereas Chaotic encourages personal responsibility.

IMO, Neutral provides an interesting contrast in the middle. A Lawful character and a Chaotic character will act or not act based on some form of ideal about the world; an average Neutral character doesn't care about ideals, and does whatever they personally believe is best at the time (for them or whatever temporal fascination they hold most important).
Bane's tyranny is known throughout the continent, and his is the image most seen as the face of evil.
-Faiths and Pantheons (c)2002

rookie
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2017 5:10 am

Re: What does 'Lawful' or 'Chaotic' mean, really?

Post by rookie » Sun Nov 12, 2017 6:55 am

I'm in agreement with Iceborn.

What is a bit humorous to me at least is that original game (and a slight resurgence later) there was only the Lawful <-> Chaos axis. So everything was just thrown on that scale with Lawful sometimes seen as the more "noble" alignment (if I remember correctly ALL the "evil" dragons were not Lawful, only the gold dragon was).

Then a few years later they added the Good <-> Evil axis but never quite settled things properly, where some evil critters were moved to LE and others ended up flip-flopping around. For example a Succubus has been a CE demon, devil, and NE fiend in different editions. I don't think the creators themselves ever had a firm grasp on how to properly place critters in the 9 alignments and one can find a lot of oddities in the literature.

My general opinion on the definition of alignment matches -XXX-'s, where they are judged on the cosmic scale with no considerations for relative perspectives etc. Baring a character being an active and willing agent of chaos/order/good/evil like a paladin, I suspect many inhabitants would actually misidentify their own alignments because they lack the ability to objectively judge their own actions.

User avatar
Opustus
Posts: 817
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2017 9:07 pm

Re: What does 'Lawful' or 'Chaotic' mean, really?

Post by Opustus » Sun Nov 12, 2017 11:32 am

Meh, I've never been a fan of the alignment tray, so I personally favour a pretty free-form reading of it. The thoughts about "planar" or "cosmic" powers are interesting, though. Creatures like slaadi are born from chaos, pretty much, but still they have a strict hierarchy and follow patterns of chaos in which the "randomness" of chaos is somewhat of a paradox. On the opposite end of the spectrum there are the inevitables, extraplanar constructs like the marut, the kolyarut, and the zelekhut.
Lurch wrote:Or is it merely that barbarian brutes simply cannot respect the rules, regulations and etiquette of polite civil society? Again, why not? Nothing about the class precludes basic common sense or intelligence. Every society has their particular norms and any outsider can easily absorb them through prolonged exposure. Moreover, why would a feudal, agrarian society be deemed any more lawful than a hunter-gatherer one, when the latter is much more communal in actual fact and often demands even greater cohesion from its members?
Isn't this a pretty lawful way to understand the purpose of rules, regulations and etiquette, to give them such names and meanings? That these norms can be easily absorbed? Who is anyone to decide that for me, a barbarian might think! And why would you assume a hunterer-gatherer society to be automatically more communal? What if the people living in them feel oppressed and the hierarchy is very strict to keep them in line?
Characters: all poor babies suffering from neglect

chris a gogo
Posts: 473
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2017 6:41 pm

Re: What does 'Lawful' or 'Chaotic' mean, really?

Post by chris a gogo » Sun Nov 12, 2017 1:03 pm

The alignments have been pretty much explained.
So the barb example.

Barbs are berserkers this is why they has the rage feat.
Hit points in D&D represent your ability to keep fighting you could consider them to be endurance the ability to keep going only the last hit is ever a mortal one,this is why barbs get the most hit point and why the rage boosts them.
So when the warrior loses control ie. Rages they can ignore mortal wounds which is why in the standard game when your rage wears off you die if you have taken more damage than your standard pool of HP.
Hence they are chaotic in nature and so the alignment restriction of non lawful.

It does not mean the rest of the tribe and all berserk warriors many would be normal warrior (see fighter class).
The tribe itself could be lawful just the berserk (barb) cannot.

Sab1
Posts: 1269
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2014 8:44 pm

Re: What does 'Lawful' or 'Chaotic' mean, really?

Post by Sab1 » Sun Nov 12, 2017 4:09 pm

I agree that a lawful person raging about wouldn't make a lot of sense. Alignments were never meant to be black and white, but to have a lot of gray area so not every person of the same alignment was exactly the same.

User avatar
flower
Posts: 1287
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2017 12:16 am

Re: What does 'Lawful' or 'Chaotic' mean, really?

Post by flower » Sun Nov 12, 2017 6:16 pm

Chaotic aligment is about personal freedom and selfish style of thinking.

Evil x Good part then says how much selfish, and to what extend you see freedom.

Lawful is about order and maintaining social hierarchy in life. Good x Evil again further tell what means and to what extend it is taken .

CG toon will push for her freedom but also help others. If order (community) hurts others then it is evil in eyes of this character and will happil, break it.
Did the child steal bread? Cg will most likely stand up to save child from cutting hand.

Is that guy protected by law and known murderer? CG will most likely break the law and kill the criminal.

Lawful characters will mostly uphold the laws, customs, traditions. Son would never oppose father. Soldier would never disobey order despite its nature (depends on goood x evil axis too). They wouldnt lie. Honor above freedom. Customs and things set in order (as it is important for society to prevent chaos) are more important than free will of individual. They would punish child because letting it go would undermine the society.

User avatar
High Primate
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 5:25 pm

Re: What does 'Lawful' or 'Chaotic' mean, really?

Post by High Primate » Sun Nov 12, 2017 7:17 pm

Seven Sons of Sin wrote:I agree with your deontology vs consequentialism approach. I think that generally fits in line with the common practice of, "Lawful abides to a code external to the individual" vs "Chaotic abides by whatever they want."
Nah, I disagree. Someone can be chaotic and yet hold onto firm moral principles, when those principles put them at odds with tradition and social expectations. Someone can be lawful because they think an orderly society is the most pragmatic and desirable way of bringing about the greatest good. The lawful vs. chaotic distinction seems to have to do with traits of personality and how they define the character in contrast to the social norms and expectations of the people around them.
Some builds I've worked on (not recommended):
Charisma Battlecleric
"E-Dodge Brycer"

Sab1
Posts: 1269
Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2014 8:44 pm

Re: What does 'Lawful' or 'Chaotic' mean, really?

Post by Sab1 » Sun Nov 12, 2017 8:31 pm

For instance Robin Hood was described as CG, a ends justify the means type, stealing from the rich is ok because you are using it to help those in need. He's a guy that wants to help people but views things as sometimes you have to do whatever needs to be done. But as long as it's for something you feel is good, then it's ok.

Aelryn Bloodmoon
Arelith Supporter
Arelith Supporter
Posts: 2028
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 4:57 pm

Re: What does 'Lawful' or 'Chaotic' mean, really?

Post by Aelryn Bloodmoon » Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:58 am

Side note: when dealing with d&d alignment, the easiest mistake to make, imo, is to slip into the thought process of moral relativism. It doesn't exist in d&d- alignments deal in absolutes for the sake of propelling the high fantasy narrative.
Bane's tyranny is known throughout the continent, and his is the image most seen as the face of evil.
-Faiths and Pantheons (c)2002

User avatar
Dreams
Posts: 1083
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2017 3:13 am

Re: What does 'Lawful' or 'Chaotic' mean, really?

Post by Dreams » Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:10 am

This is a fun topic to debate, but there are clear standards for alignment: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm

It's important to remember that whilst we can interpret things as we want to IC, from an OOC perspective there are much more defined black and white standards in this game world. Things can be objectively lawful, chaotic, good or evil.

It's also important to remember that not all characters are consistent. Good people sometimes do bad things, bad people often do good things. It's really when you're doing something that goes against divine wishes (Paladins doing an evil act should fall) that you need to be concerned.

Post Reply