New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 60 of 60

Thread: Law and Chaos

  1. - Top - End - #31
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Marlinspike

    Default Re: Law and Chaos

    Quote Originally Posted by Frozen_Feet View Post
    The joke's on the King for making an unreasonable demand. Under your logic, would it be any less revealing if the Paladin would just shut up?
    Unreasonable demand? There are plenty of scenarios that could be painted where thousands of lives would be on the line...

    Saying "it is critical that nobody knows about this" is not an unreasonable demand if it ensures the saftey of people's lives.

    If the church believes that it "knows better" and must be informed on all political/military activities within the kingdom, so that the church (in its wisdom) can influence things to ensure "good" for all of the kingdom... and the King believes that the church shouldn't know something, then the LG paladin runs into a problem.

  2. - Top - End - #32
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Marlinspike

    Default Re: Law and Chaos

    Quote Originally Posted by illyahr View Post
    I don't like using the word "Law" as it's too much open for confusion. I prefer using the word "Order" as it better represents the concept. Namely: discipline and structure.
    So instead of "law vs chaos" maybe it should be "order vs freedom", "discipline vs flexability"? Make both words sound like a positive concept.

  3. - Top - End - #33
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Law and Chaos

    The more extreme you get on the Lawful axis, the more you respect rules because they are rules. You have the freedom to choose which rules become part of your personal set, but the more lawful you are the more likely you are to only accept new ones (or change or drop old ones) based on well-established rules for how to go about doing so. You apply logic dispassionately. You become more alien to typical people in the same way that a computer is alien to a human. You behave with rigid logic even when "common sense" could interpret nuances. This doesn't mean you cannot or will not interpret nuances; it just means that the spirit of the law loses to the letter. You interpret according to "spirit" only when there are two equally-valid interpretations and one clearly, to you, violates that spirit.

    The more extreme you get on the Chaotic axis, the more you value your own personal judgments and desires over anything else. Consistency is not anathema to you, but it is pointless. You do what works. You have your goals and will pursue them, helping others when it helps you and ignoring or opposing others when they are of no help or get in your way. You take no delight in hurting others, but are not particularly prone to "warm fuzzies" for helping them, either. You keep your word exactly as much as it benefits you to do so (and may even develop something of a code about it, as reputation can be leveraged), but won't hesitate to break it if it becomes too burdensome for the benefits of reputation to make up for it. You see nothing wrong with agreements, but to you it is all about the spirit thereof. If you're feeling nice, you bend or break the agreement to make sure everybody is happy, and if you're feeling vindictive, you bend or break it to screw over the people who angered you.

  4. - Top - End - #34
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Marlinspike

    Default Re: Law and Chaos

    Quote Originally Posted by Seto View Post
    - So NG really is more Good than the others ?
    - Well, no. They're all equally Good, because they all put Good above all else. They'd all do anything non-Evil to make Good prevail.
    I'm sorry I can't comment too much about your examples, as I am not familiar enough with them.

    But on the comment above:
    I am not saying that NG is more 'good', I am saying it is better... a NG society would be more of a "Utopia" than a CG or a LG one.

    A LG character would in theory equally consider both the lawfulness and the goodness of an action. A CG character would in theory equally consider both the chaoticness and the goodness of an action. Where as a NG character would only consider the goodness of an action. Chaos and law would be an afterthought.

    A NG character is good unhindered by any other value laden dilemmas.

  5. - Top - End - #35
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Law and Chaos

    I would say that NG is more Good than LG or CG, that LN is more Lawful than LG or LE, that NE is more Evil than LE or CE, and that CN is more Chaotic than CE or CG. While a lot of alignment graphs like to draw it as a square, I think it is more accurately drawn as a circle. The further from TN you are, the more extreme your alignment is. If you are X units of extremity and pointing in the LG direction, you are less G and less L than you would be if you were pointing in the NG or LN directions, respectively.

    If the "most extreme" you can be is 1 unit away from TN, then the most extreme NG is 1 unit of Good, and the most extreme LN is 1 unit of Law. The most extreme LG is roughly 0.71 units of Law and 0.71 units of Good. (0.70710678118654752440084436210485 is more accurate, but still not precise, as it's 1/sqrt(2), which is an irrational number)

  6. - Top - End - #36
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Marlinspike

    Default Re: Law and Chaos

    @ Segev

    I find your definition of extreme chaotic is quite focused on selfishness. I'm not sure if I agree on that aspect. I can imagine a highly chaotic individual still caring about the welfare of others, but just having a strong distaste for any form of hierarchy, rules or structure.

    Their compassion could be shown by spending their time saving others who are being punished by the establishment.

    I agree with your alignments on a circle description though. That makes sense to me.
    Last edited by Aliquid; 2014-09-24 at 06:38 PM.

  7. - Top - End - #37
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Law and Chaos

    Quote Originally Posted by Aliquid View Post
    Unreasonable demand? There are plenty of scenarios that could be painted where thousands of lives would be on the line...

    Saying "it is critical that nobody knows about this" is not an unreasonable demand if it ensures the saftey of people's lives.

    If the church believes that it "knows better" and must be informed on all political/military activities within the kingdom, so that the church (in its wisdom) can influence things to ensure "good" for all of the kingdom... and the King believes that the church shouldn't know something, then the LG paladin runs into a problem.
    You are approaching the problem from completely wrong angle.

    Think for a second. If the Church knows to ask questions like "Did King do X when you were on a mission?", they already know the Paladin is/was on a mission. The King would know too, at minimum because the Paladin told him.

    You stated that the Church dogma demands full disclosure. This is a known quality to the Paladin who would, again, inform the King, at latest when receiving the order to "keep the secret a secret". Here's the deal: a Paladin is under no compulsion to reveal a secret, but he cannot pretend there is no secret, because that would require a cover story (etc.), which is something a Paladin can't do because they are forbidden from lying. The most he can do at a mission debriefing is to be completely silent - from which everyone can tell something is off, because that is not normal for mission debriefings.

    The order is unreasonable, because there is no way for the Paladin to carry it out without breaching his Code of Conduct. This isn't the Paladin's problem - it's the King's.

    By contrast, if the Church doesn't/didn't know the Paladin is/was on a mission, there is no problem. The matter falls outside Church jurisdiction, so the Paladin is under no compulsion to utter a word about it unless asked... and who will think to ask if they don't know something has happened?

    Also, what the Church wants to know isn't the same what it is authorized to know under the principles of Lawful Good. Presence of a King implies a monarchy, not a theocracy. (Technically, a monarchy can also be a theocracy, but in that case the King would also be the supreme commander of the Church; lower-level Church officials would not have the authority to contradict him.) In a monarchy, once a King has been granted the mandate to rule (either by the Church or by the people), the Church cannot repeal that mandate unless they have evidence of the King acting immoral, breaking the constitution etc. A King is the supreme military and political commander; he does not answer to the Church, and hence military matters are none of the Church's business. A Paladin, as a warrior, answers to the King before the Church in military affairs. In our scenario, he also knows the King has not acted immorally. If the Church tries to pry into the matter, it constitutes a breach on the Church's part and the Paladin is authorized to take action against them.

    If precedence of royal and religious laws is not established, the Paladin is free to do whatever is within the principles of Lawful Good and his Code, because the Paladin is a champion of natural rights / the cosmic good above and beyond any legal law. Due to the code's demand to not lie, the Paladin's answer defaults to the same as before: "I'm under legal orders to not tell". Getting to know anything more is the Church's problem.
    "It's the fate of all things under the sky,
    to grow old and wither and die."

  8. - Top - End - #38
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Law and Chaos

    Quote Originally Posted by Aliquid View Post
    So instead of "law vs chaos" maybe it should be "order vs freedom", "discipline vs flexability"? Make both words sound like a positive concept.
    It doesn't matter which word you use. No single English word will say everything you're trying to say, and no single English word has a single unambiguous meaning. The Oxford English Dictionary has 35 definitions and subdefinitions for "the". The single word "Law" or "Chaos" is an identifier, not a complete, nuanced description.

    Besides, if this thread has shown us anything, it's that there is no agreement on exactly what the divisions between them are. We have a hazy more-or-less shared idea, but it breaks down into argument whenever why try to make it precise.

  9. - Top - End - #39
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Law and Chaos

    Quote Originally Posted by Aliquid View Post
    @ Segev

    I find your definition of extreme chaotic is quite focused on selfishness. I'm not sure if I agree on that aspect. I can imagine a highly chaotic individual still caring about the welfare of others, but just having a strong distaste for any form of hierarchy, rules or structure.

    Their compassion could be shown by spending their time saving others who are being punished by the establishment.
    To me, this is veering up into CG. Caring about others is a Good trait. Just as a Lawful person who looks for loopholes in the Law (note: not ways to break, but exploits and maybe ways to bend just a little) to help those who need it is veering towards LG, not LN.

    The morally neutral alignments are about the self. One's place and duties in the hierarchy, or one's goals and freedoms to pursue them. All morally-neutral alignments do respect the rights of others to do the same, but will oppose them without remorse if they are in the way. The morally-neutral alignments typically will stop short of deliberately exploiting others in ways that are perceived to cause harm, unless the need is great or the duty demands it. A CN thief may well rob a rich man's house, but might balk at stealing the last loaf of bread from a starving family (even if he is, himself, very hungry). A LN enforcer may well repossess the horse and carriage of a middle-class merchant who's fallen on hard times; while he would also do so to the now poverty-stricken cabby, he might also help out by warning the cabby and waiting for the last possible legal moment, and give the cabby some advice on how to approach his creditor.

    The morally-neutral alignments take no pleasure in others' pain, and often have some sympathy for it. But they don't go out of their way when it interferes with their duty or their own goals.

    Yes, my CN definition focuses on selfishness, but that's in contrast to my LN definition's focus on duty. It is a selfishness of goal-determination, as opposed to the evil selfishness which cares not or even delights in how much suffering it spreads.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aliquid View Post
    I agree with your alignments on a circle description though. That makes sense to me.

  10. - Top - End - #40
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Marlinspike

    Default Re: Law and Chaos

    Quote Originally Posted by Frozen_Feet View Post
    You are approaching the problem from completely wrong angle.
    Actually, I think you and I have a completely different view of the relationship between church and state in a pre-democratic kingdom.

    When I look at historic examples, the church very rarely acknowledged the state as being in charge of them. In a D&D setting, the Paladin's church would believe that their god out-ranks any mortal king. Where as the king would believe that since they live in a Kingdom, his rule is the highest. Hierarchy and power are not as cut-and-dry as they are in modern day real world. Simply put, the king and the head priest would not agree on who is in charge. The poor paladin could be stuck in the middle of a power struggle.

    The order is unreasonable, because there is no way for the Paladin to carry it out without breaching his Code of Conduct. This isn't the Paladin's problem - it's the King's.
    Well then the paladin can wash his hands of it and feel no guilt when the enemy hoards come rushing into village after village, brutally killing innocent peasants. Doesn't matter that he could have stopped this by lying to his church, that's the King's fault not his.

    I realize that sounds flippant, but I'm trying to show that ethical dilemmas can exist where a Lawful individual is stuck in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario.

  11. - Top - End - #41
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Law and Chaos

    The relationships between religious and earthly rulers has differed wildly from time to time and place to place. I noted in the beginning that I'm referring to the historical inspiration behind Paladins; that's a very specific type of relationship, and I can't fully explain it within the board rules. The phrase "give the Emperor his due" will crop up if you start researching it, though.

    There most certainly can be no-win scenarios for decisions on the Law - Chaos axis. This isn't one of them. It's you and your King who are assuming that wild assumptions from the Church's part will lead to the secret being revealed. Just knowing something is hidden is not enough information to figure out what, why and (if applicable) where. In any case, the Church knowing that there's something hidden will not come as a surprise to either the Paladin or the King; they know to be on the lookout for the clergy.
    "It's the fate of all things under the sky,
    to grow old and wither and die."

  12. - Top - End - #42
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Marlinspike

    Default Re: Law and Chaos

    Quote Originally Posted by Frozen_Feet View Post
    There most certainly can be no-win scenarios for decisions on the Law - Chaos axis. This isn't one of them.
    you know... That's all ok.
    All I was trying to establish was the existance of a no win scenario, and it appears we agree on that possibility.

    I'm thinking it is a waste of both of our time to fuss over how each of us perceive a hypothetical situation that I made up.
    On that issue, I'm ready to "agree to disagree", and let it drop.

  13. - Top - End - #43
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    SW England
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Law and Chaos

    Quote Originally Posted by Frozen_Feet View Post
    Also, what the Church wants to know isn't the same what it is authorized to know under the principles of Lawful Good. Presence of a King implies a monarchy, not a theocracy. (Technically, a monarchy can also be a theocracy, but in that case the King would also be the supreme commander of the Church; lower-level Church officials would not have the authority to contradict him.) In a monarchy, once a King has been granted the mandate to rule (either by the Church or by the people), the Church cannot repeal that mandate unless they have evidence of the King acting immoral, breaking the constitution etc. A King is the supreme military and political commander; he does not answer to the Church, and hence military matters are none of the Church's business. A Paladin, as a warrior, answers to the King before the Church in military affairs. In our scenario, he also knows the King has not acted immorally. If the Church tries to pry into the matter, it constitutes a breach on the Church's part and the Paladin is authorized to take action against them.
    That's not necessarily true. You seem to be assuming something akin to a modern nation state, where the government (however formed) has supreme authority over an unbroken country, and all institutions in that country (religious or otherwise) are subservient to the laws of that government.

    For much of the medieval world, though, that wasn't the case. Kings were major land-owners, and had authority over the land they owned and the people who lived on it.

    In some countries (this was generally the case in England) other nobles only held land and authority because the king granted it to them (and could revoke it). But in other places nobles had land and authority in their own right, and merely agreed to ally with and serve a more powerful king (a mutually beneficial arrangement, because the noble gained the protection of a powerful king, while the king gained the prestige and resources of an ally).

    In many cases the same applied to churches and monasteries and bishops - they were powerful landowners in their own right, who owed allegiance to the head of the church, not to the king or noble who owned the land surrounding their land. So if this fantasy realm is structured like many medieval lands, it doesn't necessarily follow that a temple or church or paladin order is subservient to the local king. (They might be, it just isn't definite, and doesn't require the kingdom to be a theocracy).


    One thing though that I've just remembered as I type this, which is relevant to how this would be solved: it was quite common in feudal systems for people to owe allegiance to multiple lords, resulting in some quite strange webs of loyalty, and inversions of the expected chain of command. (Examples: many British nobles held land in both England and Scotland, and were vassals of both the King of England and the King of Scotland. The King of England was also Duke of Normandy, and so was (in theory) subservient to the King of France, at least as far as things to do with Normandy was concerned). In order to reduce confusion and prevent loyalty cascades, you had two different sorts of oaths of allegiance: you could swear "fealty" to multiple lords, but only "homage" to one (literally meaning to "become his man"), who became your "liege". In the event of a loyalty conflict, your oath of homage to your liege overrode any other alliances. (Although of course, nobles being nobles, opportunity and pragmatism often overrode oaths of homage).

    So all we need to solve this particular problem is to decide whether the paladin pays homage to his king or to the church. Once that is decided, the question of who he ought to obey in the case of conflicting orders becomes clear, both to him, and to anyone giving him orders.

  14. - Top - End - #44
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Law and Chaos

    That's not necessarily true. You seem to be assuming something akin to a modern nation state, where the government (however formed) has supreme authority over an unbroken country, and all institutions in that country (religious or otherwise) are subservient to the laws of that government.
    No. I'm assuming a specific premodern form of government where military power was on the hands of the King and spiritual power was on the hands of the Church. Using the terms you defined, the Paladin's homage is to the King, even when his fealty is to the Church.
    "It's the fate of all things under the sky,
    to grow old and wither and die."

  15. - Top - End - #45
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Jeff the Green's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The Great PNW
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Law and Chaos

    Quote Originally Posted by jedipotter View Post
    Remember that 'Law' is more 'Order' and Alignment is more a Way of Life. A lawful person does not have to follow any or all laws. Laws are man (creature) made. While the lawful person likes laws and approves of laws, they don't follow them blindly. It's perfectly fine for a lawful person to be a law zombie, but they don't have to be.
    I agree with this.

    So... did we just break the first seal of Satan's prison?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay R View Post
    It doesn't matter which word you use. No single English word will say everything you're trying to say, and no single English word has a single unambiguous meaning. The Oxford English Dictionary has 35 definitions and subdefinitions for "the". The single word "Law" or "Chaos" is an identifier, not a complete, nuanced description.
    For describing character behavior, I think it's useful to think of them as Code and Whim. The Lawful Good character does good things because he has a moral code that instructs him how to be Good. The Lawful Evil character does evil because under his code what is Right happens to also be what is Evil. (Think Tarquin; he has a Code of Drama that he follows and has cast himself as the Villain, which dictates his actions.) The Chaotic Good character, on the other hand, does Good because that's what he feels like at any given time, while the Chaotic Evil character is a sadist with little self control, giving into his horrible urges all the time.

    I prefer to take this to the extreme with the exemplars. Modrons are literally incapable of violating their programming unless they're broken, and so don't deal well with events their programming doesn't cover. Slaads are literally as likely to jump off a bridge as cross it, but they're also as likely to mate with it, dance the macarena on it, or compose a 174-stanza poem in amphibrachic hexameter about it but then violate that meter on every single line because Chaotic.
    Author of The Auspician's Handbook and The Tempestarian's Handbook for Spheres of Power.
    Ask me (or the other authors) anything.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lateral View Post
    Well, of course I'm paranoid about everything. Hell, with Jeff as DM, I'd be paranoid even if we were playing a game set in The Magic Kiddie Funland of Perfectly Flat Planes and Sugar Plums.
    Greenman by Bradakhan/Spring Greenman by Comissar/Autumn Greenman by Sgt. Pepper/Winter Greenman by gurgleflep

  16. - Top - End - #46
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Law and Chaos

    I would hesitate to say Chaos is inherently whimsical. It can be, of course, but that's not the defining feature. The defining feature is a combination of whim and pragmatism: they do what works to achieve what they want, and are unafraid to change their plans in a pivot so tight it leaves a nickle and four pennies when performed on a dime, if needs be. Lawful people will adhere to agreements and rules even to their personal detriment, or the detriment of their goals, on the principle that their chance will come. Chaotic people will not; if they abandon a goal or personal benefit, it is because they have something that, in the moment, they want more. Lawful people perform a check against their code and any rules or agreements into which they've entered. Chaotic people perform a cost-benefit analysis.

    That isn't to say cost-benefit analysis is exclusive to Chaos; far from it. Lawful people tend to do it long ahead of time and stick with it, however, even if the factors have changed. There is a time and place to change one's mind, and the heat of the moment usually isn't it, for Lawful types.

    This makes them reliable in ways Chaotics are not. But it also makes them vulnerable in ways Chaotics are not. It's a trade-off.

  17. - Top - End - #47
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Jeff the Green's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The Great PNW
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Law and Chaos

    Quote Originally Posted by Segev View Post
    I would hesitate to say Chaos is inherently whimsical. It can be, of course, but that's not the defining feature. The defining feature is a combination of whim and pragmatism: they do what works to achieve what they want, and are unafraid to change their plans in a pivot so tight it leaves a nickle and four pennies when performed on a dime, if needs be. Lawful people will adhere to agreements and rules even to their personal detriment, or the detriment of their goals, on the principle that their chance will come. Chaotic people will not; if they abandon a goal or personal benefit, it is because they have something that, in the moment, they want more. Lawful people perform a check against their code and any rules or agreements into which they've entered. Chaotic people perform a cost-benefit analysis.

    That isn't to say cost-benefit analysis is exclusive to Chaos; far from it. Lawful people tend to do it long ahead of time and stick with it, however, even if the factors have changed. There is a time and place to change one's mind, and the heat of the moment usually isn't it, for Lawful types.

    This makes them reliable in ways Chaotics are not. But it also makes them vulnerable in ways Chaotics are not. It's a trade-off.
    That's just a function of mortals being incapable of the purity of alignment an exemplar shows. The Paladin strives for the perfection of the Celestial Hebdomad, but will never achieve it. The chaotic creature follows their whims, but the process that produces their whims has a measure of order to it.

    A chaotic good ranger leading a band of outlaws resistance movement isn't going to have the whim to pack up and leave or betray his fellows or become a pacifist, but he might be seized by the urge to participate in the sheriff's archery contest or sneak into the evil prince's castle just to see his beloved. A Lawful Good paladin leading the same group might have these urges once in a while (since, again, he's not an exemplar), but he wouldn't act on them.
    Last edited by Jeff the Green; 2014-09-26 at 08:09 AM.
    Author of The Auspician's Handbook and The Tempestarian's Handbook for Spheres of Power.
    Ask me (or the other authors) anything.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lateral View Post
    Well, of course I'm paranoid about everything. Hell, with Jeff as DM, I'd be paranoid even if we were playing a game set in The Magic Kiddie Funland of Perfectly Flat Planes and Sugar Plums.
    Greenman by Bradakhan/Spring Greenman by Comissar/Autumn Greenman by Sgt. Pepper/Winter Greenman by gurgleflep

  18. - Top - End - #48
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2011

    Default Re: Law and Chaos

    Quote Originally Posted by Aliquid View Post
    So LG says "The ends don't justify the means", where as CG will say "Actually...often they do"?
    A better way to look at it is that every morality says that the ends justify the means. The question isn't about means. It never really is. It is about ends. But that rarely comes up because most people don't recognise the nature of the discussion.

    So take the example of a dragon demanding a sacrifice or burning the town. The arguments look like they are over means, with the ends being 'let town be burnt' vs 'not let town be burnt'. In reality the discussion is about the ends: sacrifice my personal morality, or the morality of the town as a collective in order to protect the town? Sacrifice the town in order to protect the morality of myself and/or the town.

    Means are not the real issue. Ends is the real issue. And in a world where good and evil are physical forces, that might be a much harder choice to make than here.

    A paladin, for example, fully in line with LG-ness, might recognise the 'greater good' and sacrifice one of pure heart and so on. Personally taking a small child to be chomped on by Big Red. The paladin will fall. The paladin sacrificed their own moral standing (and powers) for the benefit of the community. The paladin fell so others didn't have to.

    A chaotic good person may instead say that everyone's moral standing is important to the cosmos. More important than their life. Its not enough for the collective to be good, as individuals we must be good or nothing matters. On this reasoning the CGer may try to stop the paladin.

    One could easily think of arguments where the CG is in favour of the collective good and the LG in favour of the individual good. So the specifics of who is in favour of what is not important in this example, merely to show the difference in ends

    Everyone believes that the ends justify the means. They just disagree on what the ends should be.

  19. - Top - End - #49
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Jeff the Green's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The Great PNW
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Law and Chaos

    Quote Originally Posted by Grac View Post
    A better way to look at it is that every morality says that the ends justify the means. The question isn't about means. It never really is. It is about ends. But that rarely comes up because most people don't recognise the nature of the discussion.

    So take the example of a dragon demanding a sacrifice or burning the town. The arguments look like they are over means, with the ends being 'let town be burnt' vs 'not let town be burnt'. In reality the discussion is about the ends: sacrifice my personal morality, or the morality of the town as a collective in order to protect the town? Sacrifice the town in order to protect the morality of myself and/or the town.
    Another way to think of it is that you need to consider all the ends to tell whether something is Good or evil. (Though this does require using "end" in a way counter to the source material, where it's equivalent to "goal".) In the Dragon/Princess trope, the primary ends that I can see are
    • Town doesn't get burnt down.
    • A young woman dies.
    • A mother and father lose their daughter (and possibly brothers and sisters lose their sister).
    • Several people lose a friend.
    • The villagers suffer either collective guilt or cognitive dissonance.
    • The dragon learns he can get a steady supply of tasty tasty princesses by threatening towns.
    • Villagers know they could lose their daughter at any time if the dragon comes back.

    If you add all those up and decide it's on balance good, it is. If you decide it isn't, it isn't.

    (This isn't, I think, how D&D does alignment. It will often reach the same conclusions, though. For example, in D&D and this example sacrificing the princess is probably Evil. On the other hand, if the princess goes willingly, it signifies that she values the town over her life and so her death is mostly cancelled out. The guilt of the villagers is also lessened as is the fear of losing their daughter, and it's possible that the dragon won't be as certain of getting his sacrifice in the future, because self-sacrificing princesses are a rare commodity.)
    Author of The Auspician's Handbook and The Tempestarian's Handbook for Spheres of Power.
    Ask me (or the other authors) anything.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lateral View Post
    Well, of course I'm paranoid about everything. Hell, with Jeff as DM, I'd be paranoid even if we were playing a game set in The Magic Kiddie Funland of Perfectly Flat Planes and Sugar Plums.
    Greenman by Bradakhan/Spring Greenman by Comissar/Autumn Greenman by Sgt. Pepper/Winter Greenman by gurgleflep

  20. - Top - End - #50
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    OrcBarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Gender
    Male

    d20 Re: Law and Chaos

    Yep. Self-sacrifice is Good. Sacrificing other is not. What Jeff the Green said. I like his Code versus Whim analysis of alignment.
    -Curb

  21. - Top - End - #51
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Seto's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Paris, France
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Law and Chaos

    Quote Originally Posted by Grac View Post
    So take the example of a dragon demanding a sacrifice or burning the town. The arguments look like they are over means, with the ends being 'let town be burnt' vs 'not let town be burnt'. In reality the discussion is about the ends: sacrifice my personal morality, or the morality of the town as a collective in order to protect the town? Sacrifice the town in order to protect the morality of myself and/or the town.
    That sounds sophistic. If you take "the end" as meaning not "possible outcome", but "the goal", (which is its meaning in the sentence "The end justifies the means"), no Good character would consider "let town be burnt" an end. LG and CG have exactly the same goal, the same end, here : save everyone it's possible to save. As such, both saving the town and saving the sacrifice are part of that end. Where you may be right, is that the difference doesn't lie in the means as such, but in the means as a result of the character's willingness to tamper with that end. That is, one logical way to achieve the end of "saving everybody" is to set up a daring plan where the Dragon is led to believe he's gonna be offered a sacrifice, but the "sacrifice" is actually a powerful PC in disguise who'll attack the Dragon when he expects it the least. However, while that shows a dedication to the end of saving everybody, that's also risky. It's a gamble, a double-or-nothing situation. Some characters may think that it's the only way worth taking ; some others will not be comfortable with throwing everyone's lives on the line, and, even though it will leave them with a bitter aftertaste, will consider it preferable to take a clear stance on the matter. That is, either offer the sacrifice, either say "no" and face the Dragon together with all able-bodied fighters in the village, knowing that there will be casualties but the battle can be won. (Or if it can't, they'll give the sacrifice). That's a win-some-lose-some situation.
    IMO you were half-right and half-wrong : there is such a thing as means, but interestingly enough the end justifies the means as much as the means are determined according to the way you treat the end.
    Last edited by Seto; 2014-09-27 at 04:26 AM.
    Avatar by Mr_Saturn
    ______________________
    • Kids, watch Buffy.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bard1cKnowledge
    Charisma, it makes the difference between "Oh hey, it's this guy!" And "oh hey it's this guy."
    My True Neutral Handbook, a resource for creating and playing TN characters.

    Check out my extended signature and the "Gitp regulars as..." that I've been honored with!

  22. - Top - End - #52
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2010

    Default Re: Law and Chaos

    My particular view of Law and Chaos is that they have to do with the degree to which a person values the associations between individuals as inherently important, versus the individuals themselves. Someone who is very lawful would tend to state their values in terms of large-scale constructs such as societies, organizations, pacts, etc more than in terms of what an individual experiences. Rationales like 'it is important to keep the team together' or 'this is for the good of the organization' are Lawful in nature.

    On the other hand, Chaos represents a valuation of things based on how they influence the individuals that make them up more than the things in of themselves. So a chaotic person might very well approve of laws, but the rationale behind that approval is centered on the benefits that the laws confer to individuals (either individuals in general, individuals they personally care about, or just them alone). E.g. they might say something like 'no, I don't think we should get rid the law against theft, because I don't want to be stolen from'.

    So an LG character faced with a conflict between two sets of laws wouldn't actually be caught in a double-bind. They would pursue the set of laws that is consistent with views and benefit of the large-scale constructs which they feel connected to. Where an internal conflict often occurs is when the specific details of a given situation have to be weighed against more abstract things - for example, a Lawful person might well have an internal conflict between breaking their vow to an enemy in order to escape and prevent that enemy from causing harm. The reason isn't 'Lawful characters believe in being honorable', but rather because they think 'Well, in this individual situation that might save a life, but what if everyone in my organization behaved that way all the time? What if we were an organization that did not value our word?'. The thing is, you could just as well have a Lawful character who doesn't care if their organization values oaths and promises, but believes more strongly in having an organization that puts valuing lives as the top priority. Or other things as well.

  23. - Top - End - #53
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    MonkGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    SW England
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Law and Chaos

    Quote Originally Posted by Frozen_Feet View Post
    No. I'm assuming a specific premodern form of government where military power was on the hands of the King and spiritual power was on the hands of the Church. Using the terms you defined, the Paladin's homage is to the King, even when his fealty is to the Church.
    My apologies - I misread/misinterpreted.

  24. - Top - End - #54
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2011

    Default Re: Law and Chaos

    Quote Originally Posted by Seto View Post
    That sounds sophistic. If you take "the end" as meaning not "possible outcome", but "the goal", (which is its meaning in the sentence "The end justifies the means"), no Good character would consider "let town be burnt" an end. LG and CG have exactly the same goal, the same end, here : save everyone it's possible to save. As such, both saving the town and saving the sacrifice are part of that end. Where you may be right, is that the difference doesn't lie in the means as such, but in the means as a result of the character's willingness to tamper with that end. That is, one logical way to achieve the end of "saving everybody" is to set up a daring plan where the Dragon is led to believe he's gonna be offered a sacrifice, but the "sacrifice" is actually a powerful PC in disguise who'll attack the Dragon when he expects it the least. However, while that shows a dedication to the end of saving everybody, that's also risky. It's a gamble, a double-or-nothing situation. Some characters may think that it's the only way worth taking ; some others will not be comfortable with throwing everyone's lives on the line, and, even though it will leave them with a bitter aftertaste, will consider it preferable to take a clear stance on the matter. That is, either offer the sacrifice, either say "no" and face the Dragon together with all able-bodied fighters in the village, knowing that there will be casualties but the battle can be won. (Or if it can't, they'll give the sacrifice). That's a win-some-lose-some situation.
    IMO you were half-right and half-wrong : there is such a thing as means, but interestingly enough the end justifies the means as much as the means are determined according to the way you treat the end.
    That part was worded weirdly, so it can seem like nonsense. Of course no good person would want the town to be burnt, but that is the acknowledged result of another end. Which is my point. Where people deny the ends justify the means, what they are simply saying is that they consider other ends (saving souls) more important than the one in question (saving lives).

    Other possibilities, like a daring mission or whatever, were ignored to make a stark choice and show how the chosen means are justified by a different ends, and how both law and chaos might interpret that.

    The fact that the ends itself needs to be justified is a totally separate topic.

  25. - Top - End - #55
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Segev's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Law and Chaos

    "Save the town by sacrificing an innocent" really isn't a Law/Chaos issue. It's a Good/Neutral issue. Really, a Good/Evil one, but a carefully-reasoned, options-weighed, not-gleefully-nor-easily-chosen sacrifice for "the greater good" is the kind of evil act which, counterbalanced by the deliberate seeking of good for most people, tends to mark a neutral person with at least good intentions (if not good leanings). Obviously, doing it often or easily or without remorse will pull you further and further south on the alignment grid, but that's not really the point. The point is, this isn't Law/Chaos.

    LG would actually find itself in conflict if an individual who is not in need exercises his legal rights in a way that causes harm to innocents. For example, the landlord who is evicting the orphans from the orphanage, because the orphanage hasn't paid its rent in a year. Regardless of whether he's a wealthy man or not, the landlord is completely within his rights, but exercising those rights kicks the orphans out onto the street. The LG person, assuming he respects the local laws as part of his personal order, is going to be conflicted because what is ethical is not what is kind. He likely will strive to find a way to raise the money and convince the landlord to accept it and let the orphans stay. He probably will go further and try to find a way to keep the money coming in.

    The CG type would take a more, ironically, measured view of it. He'd want to know if the landlord could afford to lose the property or not. Because he's CG, if the landlord is having to do this because his own family is going to start to starve if he doesn't get some income off of his property, the CG man might go to the same lengths as the LG one. Or he might try to find a solution which allows him to buy out the landlord and give the property to the orphans. If the landlord can afford it (in the CG man's estimation), he may well decide to use force or threat thereof to simply take the property. He might instead try to find legal loopholes and cheat until it looks like the loopholes are met.

    Note that this personal assessment of whether the landlord "needs" it means the CG sort may well be inconsistent or even a bit hypocritical. If he doesn't know or like the landlord, and hears about it from the orphans first, he likely has a dim view of the landlord and will be prone to harsh judgment. If he's the landlord's best friend, however, he knows his best friend does this begrudgingly but has to do it, and knows his friend's need is almost as great as the orphans'. So there's a level of hypocrisy based on perspective inherent to the CG judgment. This is why CG is not "more good" than LG.

    Neutral Good is going to act similarly to Lawful Good unless the landlord is a reprobate, in which case NG likely gives up on the law as not working in this case and joins the CG's efforts to oust the evil landlord. NG will, like LG, strive to set aside biases and really get to the bottom of the whole situation. He'll bend the rules and laws in ways the LG sort would not, but will usually balk at simply ignoring them the way CG will.

    But that's how you create an ethical distinction. Not by a moral "do this evil to serve greater good" thing; that's good vs. evil. Law vs. Chaos involves how much you are willing to be bound by rules in order to ensure that everybody knows where everybody else stands, and to guarantee as fair (not necessarily merciful) an accounting as possible.

  26. - Top - End - #56
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2014

    Default Re: Law and Chaos

    Quote Originally Posted by Aliquid View Post
    Alignment threads always seem to devolve into a discussion on the meaning of good and evil. I have seen this on a variety of boards.

    Law and Chaos on the other hand always seem to be an afterthought. So, I would like to dedicate this thread to discussing the meaning of the Lawful and Chaotic alignments.

    I will start it off with an observation:
    From my perspective, the perfect alignment for a utopian society would be Neutral. Too much ‘Law’ is just as dangerous as too much ‘Chaos’

    --Edit--
    Maybe a question too:
    A common question is about a LG paladin, who is in a country where there is a state law that goes directly against the laws of his church. How does he deal with this?
    Personally myself? i tend to look at law and chaos as a sort of preferences thing, lawful people tend to want stable, dependable lives and that lifestyle tends towards being in one location, whearas chaotic people tend to be the "Live for the moment", "Yolo", wanderlust, kind of people who cant stay in one place for too long, thats also why i tend to personally see adventuring as a chaotic profession, it very much fits that wanderlust and live for the moment kind of lifestyle, while lawful characters CAN be adventurers, i dont tend to see much reason why they would, sort of like how i dont see much reason for a evil character to do good things, its not against the rules so much as unusual
    Quote Originally Posted by bekeleven View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AnonymousPepper View Post
    Easy. Be a Planar Shepherd.
    I, too, destroy beehives with nuclear weapons.
    Proponent of Rudisplorkery in the Rudisplorker Guild

    Avatar by the ever so generous Grinner

  27. - Top - End - #57
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Law and Chaos

    Quote Originally Posted by Wardog View Post
    My apologies - I misread/misinterpreted.
    No offense taken. In general, I aplaud you for your post as you managed to explain what was going on without invoking the specific religious clauses behind it.
    "It's the fate of all things under the sky,
    to grow old and wither and die."

  28. - Top - End - #58
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Dhavaer's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2005

    Default Re: Law and Chaos

    Haven't looked at this for a while:

    Law: All dwarves are created equal.

    The hallmark of Law is that strength comes from numbers, unity and consensus. Allowing an individual to defy this consensus will shatter its strength, and therefore must be prevented at all costs. Law generally considers all beings under its rule to be equal, and will take steps to ensure they remain so either by disadvantaging the powerful or raising up the weak. Beings outside the rule of that aspect of Law are assumed to be under the rule of another aspect, and will be treated as such. This is the reason that, for example, citizens of a Lawful human kingdom will treat all orcs as being essentially the same. They assume that orc is part of 'Orcdom', or a similar concept. Their opinion will likely be different if the orc openly displays insignia of a different, known organisation. It is because of this instinct to identify with a group instead of an individual that Law finds it difficult to deal with exceptions.
    Despite what might be thought, Lawful beings are very distinct from each other in many ways. This appearance of variety and difference is mostly illusory; in Lawful societies the individual is not the base unit. Lawful beings specialise at a task, with individuals supplied by and supplying others. While they look different on an individual level, communities are all largely the same when viewed as a whole.
    Law protects its weaker members, but can also exploit them. It is often bound or blinded by tradition. It can restrain its stronger members, preventing them from reaching their full potential. As power in Law comes from numbers, less numerous groups within a larger society can be oppressed.


    Chaos: Might Makes Right

    The hallmark of Chaos is that strength comes from personal power. In the end, the only thing you can be certain of is yourself, your own desires, abilities and convictions. Allowing yourself to be restrained or relying upon the goodwill of others is to give up your strength, and must therefore be avoided at all costs. This is not to say that Chaos rejects the kindness of others, or will not seek it, only that it does not rely on it. Chaos thinks in terms of individuals and makes few assumptions of a person it has not seen before. It is because of this tendency to identify with individuals instead of groups that Chaos finds it difficult to deal with homogeneous organisations.
    Chaotic beings are surprisingly similar to one another, until a little thought is given to the matter. For the most part, all beings need food, shelter and similar amenties; Chaos is self-reliant and thus must know how to provide these things for itself. It can thus be expected that most Chaotic beings will have the skills to do this.
    Chaos has the freedom to strive for its fullest potential, but no assurances are made for those whose potential is meagre. It is as often a bloody reaver as a noble renegade.
    Thanks to Veera for the avatar.

    I keep my stories in a blog. You should read them.

    5E Sorcerous Origin: Arcanist

    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by ClericofPhwarrr View Post
    Dhavaer, your ideas are like candy from the sky, sprinkled lightly with cinnamon.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll View Post
    Wow. Badass without being flashy and showy, attractive while remaining classy. Bravo Dhavaer.
    Quote Originally Posted by Psyren View Post
    ...Why do I imagine you licking your lips and rubbing your hands together?

  29. - Top - End - #59
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Kobold

    Join Date
    May 2009

    Default Re: Law and Chaos

    Quote Originally Posted by Aliquid View Post
    When I look at historic examples, the church very rarely acknowledged the state as being in charge of them. In a D&D setting, the Paladin's church would believe that their god out-ranks any mortal king. Where as the king would believe that since they live in a Kingdom, his rule is the highest. Hierarchy and power are not as cut-and-dry as they are in modern day real world. Simply put, the king and the head priest would not agree on who is in charge. The poor paladin could be stuck in the middle of a power struggle.
    Not exactly. The power struggle would only start to happen when the church considers that the king is endangering people's souls. That should happen quite rarely - if it starts to happen more often, then the whole system becomes unstable and needs a permanent upgrade, as happened in Europe after the Reformation.

    There may be issues if the church and king actively distrust one another; then the church might want to ferret out the king's secrets, and the king would want to stop them, fearing that those secrets would fall into the hands of his enemies.

    But in the scenario you've been talking about, the king would know that the paladin would be bound to share things with the church. In a well organised kingdom, he would have put a structure in place for exactly this contingency: by making sure there are senior church people whom he, the king, also trusts. Then the paladin can talk to them, they can keep their mouths shut, and everyone can be happy. A modern analogy would be if, say, a national security agency wanted to employ a law enforcement officer for some specific purpose: the officer would be told "we realise you may have some questions about this operation, you can safely discuss it with these people, but make sure you get their express permission before saying anything to anyone else".

    Failing that, he'd have to treat the paladin as a potential security leak, and simply not tell her whatever he wanted to keep secret. Occasionally, the paladin would find herself sent out of the room while the king and his trusted advisors discussed stuff. And nobody, including the paladin, would argue that there was anything wrong with that.
    Last edited by veti; 2014-09-29 at 06:26 PM.
    "None of us likes to be hated, none of us likes to be shunned. A natural result of these conditions is, that we consciously or unconsciously pay more attention to tuning our opinions to our neighbor’s pitch and preserving his approval than we do to examining the opinions searchingly and seeing to it that they are right and sound." - Mark Twain

  30. - Top - End - #60
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Jeff the Green's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    The Great PNW
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Law and Chaos

    Quote Originally Posted by veti View Post
    Not exactly. The power struggle would only start to happen when the church considers that the king is endangering people's souls.
    Uh huh. You have a much higher opinion of religious people (i.e. people) than history warrants.
    Author of The Auspician's Handbook and The Tempestarian's Handbook for Spheres of Power.
    Ask me (or the other authors) anything.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lateral View Post
    Well, of course I'm paranoid about everything. Hell, with Jeff as DM, I'd be paranoid even if we were playing a game set in The Magic Kiddie Funland of Perfectly Flat Planes and Sugar Plums.
    Greenman by Bradakhan/Spring Greenman by Comissar/Autumn Greenman by Sgt. Pepper/Winter Greenman by gurgleflep

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •