| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
 Posted - 29 Apr 2012 : 18:47:58
|
So I've been pouring over my own cosmological thoughts - like usual - and am trying to wrap my mind around my latest version of my "theory of everything" (as it applies to D&D). I love the Gygaxian model for alignments, and its one of the most important things I think 4e did away with. At the same time, I understand the reasoning behind the 4e design team, and why they made their decisions.
Good is good. Doesn't matter if its chaotic or lawful, they are pretty-much all on the same side. LG and CG aren't even 'two sides of the same coin', they are the same side of the coin, behaving differently depending upon the situation, but working toward the same exact ends (for the most part).
But evil... thats another story. I can clearly see the difference between chaotic evil (thinking Far-Realmsian, inhuman type chaos), and Lawful evil, which is how most 'normal' evil types behave.
So instead of a cross-hair pattern I was picturing before for alignments, I'm now getting a triangle-shaped pattern - that 'good' is really all one camp, but evil is split into two distinct camps, and all three are equally powerful (which is why the Bloodwar is so important - fiends working together would soon overrun the 'forces of good').
I am woefully uninformed when it comes to the 4e lore - is that how they present it? What little I know - turning the Demons into corrupted elementals - seems to fit into my line of thinking.
And I'm no saying the 'heavens' should have both CG and LG alignments, but where mortals are concerned, it really doesn't matter so much. It becomes situational.
So here's how I see it - the celestials (counting ALL being from 'above', including gods) are trying to hold the world together, one way or the other, but promote 'peace & love' as a means to an end. The devils (counting ALL being from 'below', including deities) would also like to keep the universe together, but under their domination and for their own selfish ends (although some may be deluded into thinking the best thing for the world is to be ruled by them - a megalomaniac complex, like Doctor Doom or Bane). Ergo, I see 'tyranny' as the absolute crux of LE.
But Chaos is chaos - it is evil by its nature, not by design. It works toward the eventual goal of destroying the entire universe and rendering it back down to the primal soup it once was. It despises order in all its myriad forms. This means that celestials and devils would occasionally work together when chaos threatens existence itself. Beings of Chaos are not from 'above' or 'below', they are from 'outside'.
So the three points of the alignment-triangle would be 'pure', 'taint' (LE), and 'corruption' (CE). I am not sure if this would work in an RPG system - rules need balance, and its hard to do that when things don't have true opposites.
I am having some trouble fitting deities like Cyric and Loviatar into this model (insane LE?). If I go with this, ALL deities have to be lawful, because there are rules they must follow to be a deity in the first place, and are bound (lawfully) to their own portfolios.
Any thoughts? I'd like to know how everyone else sees this working, or am I barking up the wrong tree here?
|
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 29 Apr 2012 18:49:51
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 29 Apr 2012 : 19:54:13
|
Why is Chaos evil? Disorder is a very common thing in nature, afaik. Heck, even gases are normally chaotic, or weather or other phenomena which evolve unpredictably.
Also, LG and CG are different in their behavior as I see it. Even if their primary goal may be the same at the beginning (say, get rid a town from a tyrant), they'd have divergences about how to develop things after the goal is reached (in the example above, lawful people would seek to replace the old government with a new system of laws, while the CG people wouldn't see the need to insist heavily on these ''restrictions''*, trusting the town folks to be reasonable and reciprocally respectful of their freedom enough to not fall in the same situation again).
About deities, the fact that they are bound to rules doesn't mean they're happy that way (see Myrkul and the Crown of Horns). So I don't see why they should all be lawful.
*They'd just deem the very basic ones necessary (like don't go around killing etc... but all of these would summarize to ''respect other people's freedom'' to them ), and even these ones would be so natural to them, that they would think establishing fixed punishment for their violations or ways to enforce them as pointless. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 29 Apr 2012 20:11:03 |
 |
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4427 Posts |
Posted - 29 Apr 2012 : 20:23:30
|
I like your justification MT, though I don't think of all Chaos as "evil". There are certian people who don't want or feel they need the over-management or reaching hands of authority, whether that authority comes from the city government, country government, clergy, popular vote, or what have you. These people might be considered chaotic because they don't want the shackles of Law forcing them to behave a specific way. I wouldn't consider these people evil either. Sometimes they just want to be left alone or to just do their thing.
This is what I'd like to call evil-free Chaos or, perhaps a more modern term, Liberty. Laws are often put into place to make people safe, yet it's a slippery slope when those laws start to constrict and form tyranny. There are times when Chaos must insue to escape the bindings of totalitarianism. So to relate this back to your initial point, I like your terminlolgy. 'Pure' is the essence of Lawful Good and people who are generally good-natured. They're pure in their intentions. 'Tainted' is the essence of Lawful evil, those who make structure and laws, but for ones own end and often to oppress others. 'Corruption' is the essesnse of Chaotic Evil, those who delight in the torture of others and corrupt those they meet. And I'd add in a fourth one: 'Liberation' is the essense of Chaotic Good, those who bend or break the laws of tyranny in achieve freedom from strife. |
|
|
|
idilippy
Senior Scribe
USA
417 Posts |
Posted - 29 Apr 2012 : 20:24:05
|
I was going to say what Irennan said, is chaos by nature evil? Chaos, in another context, is changing and evolving, it's being dynamic as opposed to static, it's freedom from dogmatism and a desire to be free from ties to tradition or ancestor worship: doing the same thing because that is the way it is always done. Chaos can lead to the development of new ideas and entirely new ways of thinking, tradition and order can lead to being unable to make decisive changes, of being so tied to the past that the present overpasses you.
Edit: I agree with Diffan too, Liberation is a good one for a chaotic good alignment, either that or Freedom maybe. |
Edited by - idilippy on 29 Apr 2012 20:28:58 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 29 Apr 2012 : 20:31:40
|
Chaos in general is not evil - note I said that CG outsiders could still exist, but their chaotic element has very little bearing on a D&D game - good is good.
Pure Chaos would also NOT consider itself evil - it would consider Order Evil - the lawful nature of the universe would be offensive to the normal, chaotic state it should be in (according to their own points of view).
Evil is actually a matter of perspective - Aztec priests sacrificing thousands thought they were doing good. Chaos in my latest model would be viewed as evil by both good and LE types, because it would mean an end to their carefully laid plans (to control the universe by one means or another... lawful good is also a form of control).
Most evil isn't nihilistic. My own opinion of true chaos is that it should be - any sort of structure should be anathema to it.
Yes, their are thousands of 'shades of grey' - perhaps millions. But they all stem from the basic three goals - to see mortals happy, to make themselves happy (selfishness, or LE), or to obliterate everything in existence. There is no emotion involved in chaos - it is pure logic, albeit faulty logic to someone who is lawful.
Like I said, I am just playing with this newest concept - I actually want people to poke holes in it, so thanks for your participation.  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 29 Apr 2012 20:33:23 |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 29 Apr 2012 : 20:42:03
|
Hm. The part that the ''evilness'' of chaos (as all things actually) depends on who's watching works for me.
But, about the destructive essence of chaos, as I see it, change is the essence of chaos and it isn't necessary nihilistic. Change can produce both ''positive'' or ''negative'' developments (again, according to the point of view) but doesn't have to utterly destroy any structure. I wouldn't exclude that an ever-changing structure could theoretically exist (the Universe itself is, afaik). |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 29 Apr 2012 : 21:26:10
|
Stagnation itself will lead to obliteration (there was a very good Moorcock/Elric tale where he visits a plane of pure law... it was empty).
Ergo, chaos is necessary for the universe to exist - balance is key. However, too much of anything is not good - not even LG or CG.
A lot doesn't fit into this model very well, I must admit, which is why I wanted this discussion. I am picturing chaos as an "evil eviller then evil", which doesn't really work so well (in terms of making rules around it).
maybe thats because you can't write rules about 'Chaos'. 
Anyhow, part of my universal concept is that aberrations come form 'outside' the normal universe - they were here before the universe (we know) formed. Then I realize that most aberrations aren't really evil - just amoral - and they are highly rational (part of being psionic, I guess, which most are). Illithids and Aboleths have rigid societies, which means they must be more lawful then anything else.
Maybe pure law is the true evil... perhaps it is chaos that makes the universe work (life itself), and it is pure law that exist outside of it. I have to play with this some more - nothing really makes sense when it comes to the Far Realms and it's denizens. 
I wish I could pick Bruce Cordell's brain... I don't think that conversation would go very well, though.  |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 29 Apr 2012 21:27:00 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7968 Posts |
Posted - 29 Apr 2012 : 22:13:25
|
Concepts like good and evil, law and chaos, are imperfectly defined - theologians, philosophers, and scientists still disagree about exactly what these things really are about. D&D's alignment rule system is doubly-flawed. Why should the entire cosmos be shaped around only the two axes of good-vs-evil and law-vs-chaos? Why not a third intangible axis like sentient-vs-inanimate, beauty-vs-ugly, playful-vs-bored? A cosmos of nearly infinite dimensions, based on the so-called Rule-of-Three, modelled around a primarily two-dimensional map of the planes?
"Basic" D&D (and 4E) seem to constantly return to more simplified alignment system, with an objective to remove alignment combinations and extremes many people seem to find confusing. Compare to alignments from The Palladium RPG (1984) - Principled (LG), Scrupulous (NG,CG), Unprincipled (N), Anarchist (CN), Aberrant (LE), Miscreant (NE), and Diabolic (CE). Wikipedia summarizes the alignment systems from a number of RPGs.
I'm just saying, that words like "pure", "taint", and "corruption" are as entirely arbitrary as "good", "evil", "neutral", etc. Pure, tainted, and corrupt suggest two quantities which can be mixed or separated, somewhat like the "Light Side" and "Dark Side" approach of Star Wars.
Many DMs hardly seem to bother with alignments, aside from enforcing restrictions which apply to certain classes or deities, and of course alignment is a decisively major factor when planeswalking. I personally enforce alignment "compatibility" among my PCs, where members of the party cannot normally choose completely opposed alignments. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Dennis
Great Reader
9933 Posts |
Posted - 30 Apr 2012 : 00:59:17
|
@MT:
Have you read The Saga of Recluse by L.E. Modesitt, Jr.? The novels delve into the nature of order and chaos---both evil and good can be harnessed from the two forces. |
Every beginning has an end. |
|
|
|
Eli the Tanner
Learned Scribe
United Kingdom
149 Posts |
Posted - 30 Apr 2012 : 02:40:23
|
Dealing with cosmological absolutes like chaos-vs-law and good-vs-evil are essentially the same questions and ultimately redundant when it comes to an ordinary characters perspective. Few mortal characters could comprehend such over-arching struggles that wage amid the cosmos.
I think where many people's distinctions have come from is undoubtedly the novels and books....but mostly their own games. The simple division is between the selfish and the co-operative. The good and evil of D&D both in-game and out of game.
D&D is a game defined by co-operation, shared story-telling and imagination. The in-universe divisions are the silence between notes...the drama that threatens to disrupt the balance of the world.
Gygax hated the alignment system and one of things he would have done away with in hindsight. However I think he produced something that drove the players together...a framework that mirrored how the game itself is played. We play the everyday struggle for co-operation out within these fantastical settings.
For every selfish player, there is an uncompromising assassin to face, for every dutiful map-maker there is a cadre of benevolent monks, for every tyrannical dm there is an unassailable villan, for every storyteller there is a winsome inkeeper who always remembers your favourite seat.
The shades of alignment are as varied as the spectrum of playstyles...but in the end we seem to portray them all through our imagination in a fantasy, meta-world of socialization.
A philosophical ramble
-Eli the Tanner |
Moderator of /r/Forgotten_Realms |
Edited by - Eli the Tanner on 30 Apr 2012 02:40:49 |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 30 Apr 2012 : 03:28:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Concepts like good and evil, law and chaos, are imperfectly defined. D&D's alignment rule system is doubly-flawed. Why should the entire cosmos be shaped around only the two axes of good-vs-evil and law-vs-chaos? Why not a third intangible axis like sentient-vs-inanimate, beauty-vs-ugly, playful-vs-bored? A cosmos of nearly infinite dimensions, based on the so-called Rule-of-Three, modelled around a primarily two-dimensional map of the planes?
"Basic" D&D (and 4E) seem to constantly return to more simplified alignment system, with an objective to remove alignment combinations and extremes many people seem to find confusing. Compare to alignments from The Palladium RPG (1984) - Principled (LG), Scrupulous (NG,CG), Unprincipled (N), Anarchist (CN), Aberrant (LE), Miscreant (NE), and Diabolic (CE). Wikipedia summarizes the alignment systems from a number of RPGs.
I'm just saying, that words like "pure", "taint", and "corruption" are as entirely arbitrary as "good", "evil", "neutral", etc. Pure, tainted, and corrupt suggest two quantities which can be mixed or separated, somewhat like the "Light Side" and "Dark Side" approach of Star Wars.
Many DMs hardly seem to bother with alignments, aside from enforcing restrictions which apply to certain classes or deities, and of course alignment is a decisively major factor when planeswalking. I personally enforce alignment "compatibility" among my PCs, where members of the party cannot normally choose completely opposed alignments.
I agree about good and evil (it all depends on who is called to judge) not so much about order and chaos (it is possible to give a definition of them which people could agree on, such as Entropy, or the way a system changes with time given its starting conditions; but even the efficiency of these definitions, while not depending on what the person who is watching thinks, depends on the fact that the observer is a human).
However I think Markustay was referring to chaos as a force of pure, uncontrolled change, and law as something that leads to shaping things into rigid ''structures'' organized in every aspect, thus stable and enduring; and trying to build the Multiverse using the contrast between them as one of its moving forces.
This looks like a reasonable choice to me (to explain a fantasy setting, ofc) way more than beautiful-ugly or bored-playful or any other dualities that require humanoid perspective to be applied. Order-disorder, while still depending on the observer to be defined, can be used without having moral code/tastes restrictions.
You might argue that there could be more (like, why must a Universe work according to the contrasts between two, four or one thousand extremes?) but, as I see it, if I wanted to know what makes my fantasy Universe run and created it, trying to giving a REAL explanation to it would be pointless given that we don't even have one real explanation for our Universe.
Just my thoughts. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 30 Apr 2012 03:33:05 |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 30 Apr 2012 : 03:51:20
|
Markus, just some thoughts on this...
We start with law (order), chaos (dispersion), good, and evil, all as separate things. But the instant that time affects them, they start to interact and meld.
We keep the labels after the melding: LG, LE, CG, and CE. But in keeping those labels, we become blind to the fact that the melding has irrevocably changed them. Each one becomes an emergent property, more than the sum of the individual parts. Behavior and thought, when they combine with time, become consciousness (also an emergent property).
There are two huge errors we make when looking at alignment.
One is, as I've said, not recognizing that they are emergent properties when they blend.
The other is in believing that alignment is a static thing, or a property. Instead, it is a vector, a measurement over time. One's alignment is the sum of behavior and thought over a lifespan (or to a certain point). It's a thing that modifies easily when it's "young" and becomes more and more resistant to change over time. Unless - and this is a big point - unless a person/being has a "defining choice moment" that alters them on a fundamental level.
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
|
|
|
Eladrinstar
Learned Scribe
USA
196 Posts |
Posted - 30 Apr 2012 : 04:15:46
|
| Alignments, in-setting, should be obscure theological concepts, and the average Faerunian shouldn't know for sure their own alignment or the alignment of anyone they know. |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 30 Apr 2012 : 10:07:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eladrinstar
Alignments, in-setting, should be obscure theological concepts, and the average Faerunian shouldn't know for sure their own alignment or the alignment of anyone they know.
Why should alignments be obscure concepts in-setting (and why theological)? They simply represent two of the (many) facets someone's personality has. Even not so smart people could see if someone acts with rigor and order or chaotically, or if he/she tends more towards what is generally considered ''evil'' or ''good''.
That said, I don't believe, say, a paladin would say things like ''I'm killing you because you are CE''. However, if you told a Faerunian about the alignment system and asked him/her to categorize the order-disorder and ''good''-''evil'' aspects of their friend's personality accordingly to that system, I think he/she would be capable of doing so (I'm not talking about how accurate is alignment to categorize someone's behavior, just saying that it is not an obscure concept at all). |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 30 Apr 2012 10:10:06 |
|
|
|
Zireael
Master of Realmslore
Poland
1190 Posts |
Posted - 30 Apr 2012 : 16:48:32
|
Due to many problems with using and understanding aligment (y'know, "this isn't LG!")... I decided to create a system which doesn't use it at all.
You just write on your sheet what personality traits the character has (i.e. honest, just, scrupulous, smart, greedy, ambitious) and you roleplay them. |
SiNafay Vrinn, the daughter of Lloth, from Ched Nasad!
http://zireael07.wordpress.com/ |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 30 Apr 2012 : 16:56:21
|
Heresy!
Thats how I do it in-game as well. This discussion is for a new model for cosmology with a threeway axis, rather then 2 two-way axis.
However, I've hit upon a brand-new way of looking at things thanks to this thread: What if chaos isn't evil... what if law is?
Would that mean 'GOD' is insane? Could it be that there is an uber-super-overpower asylum, and we are but figments in a deranged mind? Could aberrations actually be the fantasy equivalent of anti-bodies and an immune system? Are they fighting to restore order to the universe, and bring it back to its old, stagnant (pre-'big bang') state?
Then, by our reckoning (and nearly all non-aberrations), aberrations are evil, because their success would destroy us all, but by their own reasoning, we shouldn't even exist.
Once again, this isn't supposed to be FR/D&D - it is a thought experiment for my own homebrew world's cosmological model. Thanks again for all of your input. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Eli the Tanner
Learned Scribe
United Kingdom
149 Posts |
Posted - 30 Apr 2012 : 21:00:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
However, I've hit upon a brand-new way of looking at things thanks to this thread: What if chaos isn't evil... what if law is?
Would that mean 'GOD' is insane? Could it be that there is an uber-super-overpower asylum, and we are but figments in a deranged mind? Could aberrations actually be the fantasy equivalent of anti-bodies and an immune system? Are they fighting to restore order to the universe, and bring it back to its old, stagnant (pre-'big bang') state?
Then, by our reckoning (and nearly all non-aberrations), aberrations are evil, because their success would destroy us all, but by their own reasoning, we shouldn't even exist.
I like these ideas. I've always preferred the chaos-law divsion, mostly because good-evil are rather undefined ideologies (as in they require subjective input to have meaning)
Law as your cosmological evil works quite well...It is, after all, about things like enforcement, structure and tyranny. The stuff that adventurers hate.
Chaos can bee seen as a natural, normalising force that wishes to break down the boundaries that law creates (some would say illusory boundaries)....I've often toyed with the idea of a Chaotic monk concept who believes the strictures of reality, society and ideas are all a figment and that the highest state of being is to transcend such fallacies and become 'one with everything'. He goes about sprading the word of shared brotherhood and has an iconolcastic zeal to bring down those who promote the false reality.
There is an exerpt from the Fiendish Codex II that details the Pact Primeval which I believe you would enjoy Markus. |
Moderator of /r/Forgotten_Realms |
|
|
|
tomhorth
Acolyte
United Kingdom
3 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2012 : 01:07:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Eli the Tanner
I like these ideas. I've always preferred the chaos-law divsion, mostly because good-evil are rather undefined ideologies (as in they require subjective input to have meaning)
Law as your cosmological evil works quite well...It is, after all, about things like enforcement, structure and tyranny. The stuff that adventurers hate.
Chaos can bee seen as a natural, normalising force that wishes to break down the boundaries that law creates (some would say illusory boundaries)....I've often toyed with the idea of a Chaotic monk concept who believes the strictures of reality, society and ideas are all a figment and that the highest state of being is to transcend such fallacies and become 'one with everything'. He goes about sprading the word of shared brotherhood and has an iconolcastic zeal to bring down those who promote the false reality.
There is an exerpt from the Fiendish Codex II that details the Pact Primeval which I believe you would enjoy Markus.
I see chaos as a constant force and law as transient. Communities initially form as a defense against the myriad of changes and threats presented by a chaotic world. Some last for many years, but ultimately, an event or series of events will take place that will lead to the demise of society and law. Law is the natural reaction of intelligent creatures to chaos - a survival instinct - by imposing order on the world for as long as possible the lifespan of a society is extended. Neither law or chaos can be defined as evil, they are just part of the natural balance.
Of course thats not to say these lawful societies wouldnt be considered evil as regards those they exclude or suppress. But the fact they are lawful would not automatically make them evil.
|
Edited by - tomhorth on 01 May 2012 01:10:02 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2012 : 16:26:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
@MT:
Have you read The Saga of Recluse by L.E. Modesitt, Jr.? The novels delve into the nature of order and chaos---both evil and good can be harnessed from the two forces.
Another I've added to my ever-growing reading list.
Thanks. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2012 : 16:43:31
|
Anyone remember anything concerning the Queen of Chaos? How about the Wind Dukes of Aaqa? Battle of the Pesh where the Rod of Seven Parts was instrumental in defeating the Queen?
Any of this ring a bell?  |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2012 : 17:45:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
Anyone remember anything concerning the Queen of Chaos? How about the Wind Dukes of Aaqa? Battle of the Pesh where the Rod of Seven Parts was instrumental in defeating the Queen?
Any of this ring a bell?
It quite rings a bell; it was what I first thought of when seeing the recent scroll about Law versus Chaos.
I've never been a huge fan of a conflict between just Law and Chaos, without good and evil also factoring in.
Pretty sure that's all Core, though, and has never really been a part of Realmslore. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 01 May 2012 17:52:53 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2012 : 18:47:10
|
Probably where I get a lot of my ideas, being a GH DM first.
I wish I still had that box - I never read through the entire thing, in all the years I owned it. 
In fact, I think I only opened it when I was doing research for the Utter East thread, many years after I bought it. There was some good stuff in there we applied to the things we were doing with the Ue.
The only thing I can recall off-hand was relating the Wind Dukes to the Sisters of Serenity (Landarma/Faces of Deception), but I'm not sure what relationship we chose to go with (if any). And of course, all non-canon/homebrew.
EDIT: On Topic
I think I have had one of those Zen-like 'philosophical circles' with my train-of thought here.
Just because both evil and good beings would consider aberrations 'evil', doesn't make it so. Chaos is chaos - neither good nor evil. Same goes for order/law. The thing I am having doubts about now is the God/Evil axis - since its all a matter of perception. Who, exactly, decides whats good and evil? 'The Gods'? They're the worst of a bad bunch (they act out of pure selfishness - ALL of them).
In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think both good and evil are a subset of law - they are expected patterns of behavior dictated by local social mores (and by 'local', I could mean an entire plane). For example, a demon being evil (by celestial standards) wouldn't be viewed as evil by its brethren - it just behaving normally. If it started acting 'good', then they would consider it evil, by their own standards.
That is why both good and evil cannot abide chaos - it is life without rules and restrictions. Even demons have rules within their own culture.
Every system of belief - including atheism/agnosticism - is a sub-set of Law, and by its very nature, nothing can be a subset of chaos. You actually can't have a society based around chaos - a 'Chaocrity' - its an Oxymoron. Anarchy is the correct term, and it implies no discernible society at all. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 01 May 2012 19:07:38 |
|
|
|
Dennis
Great Reader
9933 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2012 : 18:53:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I've never been a huge fan of a conflict between just Law and Chaos, without good and evil also factoring in.
Agreed. The first pair makes little sense without involving the last.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
You actually can't have a society based around chaos - a 'Chaocrity' - its an Oxymoron. Anarchy is the correct term, and it implies no discernible society at all.
There's one---the Dasati, in Raymond E. Feist's Darkwar Saga. Their continued existence (spanning millenia) puzzled even Pug himself. Perhaps nature---or some unknown being or force---helps maintain their population despite their casual killings in a daily basis. |
Every beginning has an end. |
Edited by - Dennis on 01 May 2012 19:14:50 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2012 : 19:52:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dennis
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
You actually can't have a society based around chaos - a 'Chaocrity' - its an Oxymoron. Anarchy is the correct term, and it implies no discernible society at all.
There's one---the Dasati, in Raymond E. Feist's Darkwar Saga. Their continued existence (spanning millenia) puzzled even Pug himself. Perhaps nature---or some unknown being or force---helps maintain their population despite their casual killings in a daily basis.
I wouldn't say the Dasati society was based on chaos, as much as it was chaotic with some structure -- much like drow society, in the Realms. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 01 May 2012 : 22:15:28
|
The Queen of Chaos actually was Evil...and the Wind Dukes (if I remember correctly) were Lawful Neutral...not truly a force for good so much as order.
One of my favorite divine rival pairs are Saint Cuthbert vs. Pholtus in Greyhawk. Both are "Good" deities primarily, but are constantly at each other's throats via their clergy...and they are both Lawful as well.
I once played a game (with no paladins) that mandated that players did not start with an alignment. During play, I would study the player's actions (not their thoughts) and later assign an alignment to the player after the two of us talked about it. Most were surprised to see that they played Neutral Evil! |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31701 Posts |
Posted - 02 May 2012 : 01:38:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
Anyone remember anything concerning the Queen of Chaos? How about the Wind Dukes of Aaqa? Battle of the Pesh where the Rod of Seven Parts was instrumental in defeating the Queen?
Any of this ring a bell?
It quite rings a bell; it was what I first thought of when seeing the recent scroll about Law versus Chaos.
I've never been a huge fan of a conflict between just Law and Chaos, without good and evil also factoring in.
Pretty sure that's all Core, though, and has never really been a part of Realmslore.
I'm thinking the same.
In fact, I think it might have been stuff from DRAGON Magazine, IIRC. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
Scribe for the Candlekeep Compendium -- Volume IX now available (Oct 2007)
"So Saith Ed" -- the collected Candlekeep replies of Ed Greenwood
Zhoth'ilam Folio -- The Electronic Misadventures of a Rambling Sage |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 02 May 2012 : 02:02:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Sage
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
Anyone remember anything concerning the Queen of Chaos? How about the Wind Dukes of Aaqa? Battle of the Pesh where the Rod of Seven Parts was instrumental in defeating the Queen?
Any of this ring a bell?
It quite rings a bell; it was what I first thought of when seeing the recent scroll about Law versus Chaos.
I've never been a huge fan of a conflict between just Law and Chaos, without good and evil also factoring in.
Pretty sure that's all Core, though, and has never really been a part of Realmslore.
I'm thinking the same.
In fact, I think it might have been stuff from DRAGON Magazine, IIRC.
The "Fields" of Pesh is where the final battle took place, and the Rod of Seven Parts was used to defeat the Queen of Chaos. She was the leader of the Obyriths of the Abyss...the loss of this war is what caused the eventual rise of the Demons. The Obyriths came before either Gods or Mortals it is said.
The Wind Dukes of Aaqa were from the Inner Planes, not the outer. Their empire was rather vast and crossed the planes (including all of the Elemental Planes!). Incursions by the Obyriths started the war...but it in fact originated earlier when the Queen of Chaos slew Obox-Ob. You can reference Dragon #357 for some of this. More about the Wind Dukes can be found in Dungeon #124.
Of significant importance to me was the fact that originally the Queen of Chaos was able to ally even with Chaotic Good entities in the war! Her appointment of Mishka the Wolf-Spider as both Prince of Demons and commander of the forces of Chaos caused the Eladrins to withdraw...and later invade the Abyss! Had she instead appointed an Eladrin leader of the combined forces of Chaos...the universe would be far different today...including the Forgotten Realms!
In fact, the Blood War is simply a remainder of this earlier war between the forces of Law and Chaos.
|
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 02 May 2012 : 03:23:56
|
Thus proving ALL D&D canon is FR canon.
I wonder if Miska was related to Zenassu, the Spider-demon Lolth absorbed. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 02 May 2012 03:25:07 |
|
|
|
Sightless
Senior Scribe
USA
608 Posts |
Posted - 02 May 2012 : 03:50:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by idilippy
I was going to say what Irennan said, is chaos by nature evil? Chaos, in another context, is changing and evolving, it's being dynamic as opposed to static, it's freedom from dogmatism and a desire to be free from ties to tradition or ancestor worship: doing the same thing because that is the way it is always done. Chaos can lead to the development of new ideas and entirely new ways of thinking, tradition and order can lead to being unable to make decisive changes, of being so tied to the past that the present overpasses you.
Edit: I agree with Diffan too, Liberation is a good one for a chaotic good alignment, either that or Freedom maybe.
There’s one thing that no one has suggested, as far as I’ve heard thus far; which is to consider it all in this way. For good, Law and chaos are the two elements of the Hegelian model. Law is the Thesis, Chaos, the anti-thesis, and together they from the synthesis. Law without Good, is tyranny without mercy, it is the eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth law. It seeks to destroy chaos for it’s creation of instability. It is cold uncaring order. A lawfully good being therefore knows that Chaos is both in part to an extent natural, to a certain extent vital for orderly progress. Good however compels Chaos to serve in patterned forms, nature may be chaotic, but there is a pattern to the chaos, this is its beauty. A hurricane is a destructive force, but it doesn’t occur entirely by chance, one can see its formation, can understand the forces that drive it, can prepare for its destructive influences. In this way, beings that are good, whether lawful or chaotic, can by the character of their goodness completely work in harmony with one another.
Remove this goodness, and tyranny without restraint and chaos without restraint come into the picture. Another way of thinking about this system, one that I’ve devised, and my DM is considering is instead of these four being static, as they were in the past, make them continuous.
Law and chaos on one; Good and evil on the other.
A one through five, or one through seven systems would work well for this. For instance, a lawful neutral person could have a one on the lawful element, and a 3 on goodness. Meaning that they were a total zealot when it came to order, but of little concerned with the actual morality of another being. I find Chaotic Evil as it’s described something rather amusing, as most beings that are described as such do not actually act that way. The dark elves for instance have an extremely rigid society for a group that’s supposed to be chaotic evil. I’ll discuss these thoughts in greater detail as I listen to more, but at least what is here should give most a hint as to my opinion on the matter.
|
We choose to live a lie, when we see with, & not through the eye.
Every decision, no matter the evidence, is a leap of faith; if it were not, then it wouldn't be a choice at all. |
|
|
|
EltonJ
Learned Scribe
USA
101 Posts |
Posted - 02 May 2012 : 04:17:19
|
I think Alignment works for this type of game, but yes, there are times when you need to take it out. :)
Edit:
Sorry, I was having problems with a player. Alignment. alignment is good to start with, but there are other options that can help you to role-play. The traits and passions system from Pendragon is a good example of a different system.
However, in D&D it's pretty much a big deal. |
Edited by - EltonJ on 02 May 2012 04:21:06 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 02 May 2012 : 04:35:18
|
Yes, roleplay should trump alignment. Like all the other rules, its just a tool to be used or discarded when necessary.
My old system was similar to yours, sightless - I'm sorry you were unable to see the diagram I linked to - it has degrees along all four axis (really just two crossed lines with numbers running along them).
I think part of my problem was trying to think of Far-Realmsian creatures as chaotic, and then later (in the thread) lawful. They are neither, nor are they good or evil - they are outside and beyond all normal description... it simply doesn't apply.
It did help me understand chaos better - I was always associating it with evil (or an evil eviller then evil, as I said). Now I think its more along the lines of the force of life itself - this is why magic goes wild without the Weave - Life IS Chaos.
Your Hegelian model seems good - I will have to look into that. I can do some fun word-play with that (free will allows 'sin', hence a universe based on 'syn'ergy). Ergo, 'original sin'(syn) can be translated to mean mixing chaos with law - something unnatural and yet providing the spark of creativity (Now I'm leaning towards Quales Demiurge philosophy).
Anyhow, I like how 'synergy' sounds like 'sin energy' - I'll have to tinker with that some more. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Alignments....
