Chaos, the least defined alignment discussion

[divinedragonslayer]

And I'm probably over thinking demons. I know devils are consummate planners and use laws to twist things to their favor, but I was thinking demons had some other motive other than to cause pain and suffering.

[veekie]

Individual demons do have personal motives, you're mixing up means and motive there. The difference is more that devils use a coordinated method while demons prefer the wildcard, ace in the hole victory.

EDIT:
For example, a devil has his personal motives(involving suffering and personal gain). He would pursue these motives with the use of his underlings(mortal or immortal) and superiors(at least where he can get away with it), while at the same time working on his superiors defined objectives. His ability to pursue his own goals is curtailed by having to put at least as much effort into his superior's goals, but he has better access to resources and leverage, especially if his superior has a common goal.

A demon on the other hand, has his personal motives. He would pursue these motives with only his personal resources and whoever he can bully or beguile into assisting him. He has total freedom in pursuing these goals, but without an organization, its all down to a personal effort, or else a sustained effort in maintaining minions.

Then you have NE, who would be working on a pure malice perspective. They would pursue their motives whatever the means, but at the same time, may put causing harm above more efficiently pursuing objectives. To them, the how is far less important than the why.

[oslecamo]

Fiendish codex says quite otherwise.

Devils may be more organized overall... But each one has their own, carefully laid out agenda. And one devil's agenda isn't always the same of the one next pit. More often than not devils are scheming against each other as against the enemy, and if not careful end up backstabbed by their own superiors, equals or underlings if they really slipped off.

Demons meanwhile, being chaotic, don't plan that far ahead and are somewhat random. This means that altough they're usually pretty disorganized, now and then they'll all be pointed out in the same direction with a same, basic goal of destruction whitout any secondary purposes to get in their way. And then even the best devil plans crumble when they're facing an horde twenty times their own size.

Yugoloths meanwhile are mercenaries for the highest bidder. They don't care much about what cause they're fighting now, as long as it's evil and they can get some profit out of it.

[veekie]

That was why it was mentioned previously, that often, players and writers alike mix up Conceptual or Physical Chaos with Ethical. Granted being outsiders they probably could do that just fine.

[oslecamo]

You just made that ethical one up. It has nothing to do whatsoever with law/chaos in any form or shape, and never has. Your "Individualist" doesn't exist because the very moment you start laying down rules of any kind for the whole, you've become a "Collectivist", thus proving your definition is self-defeating.

[InnaBinder]

You just made that ethical one up. It has nothing to do whatsoever with law/chaos in any form or shape, and never has.

Not exactly; the reasons it has to do with ethics go back to the roots of D&D, and to one of the many reasons it's so difficult to get a consensus on Law/Chaos in D&D, even relative to Good/Evil.

Remember, back in Red Box Set D&D (I think Chainmail also, but I've only perused those rules, never made a character), there was no Good or Evil; the only alignment options were Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic.  The fact that there were only three choices essentially forced an Ethical consideration onto these alignments, and the baggage of that fact informs players' ideas about the Law/Chaos axis to this day.

[divinedragonslayer]

I think I understand chaos now. Sorry it took so long. It's about the individual versus the collective as people have said from a moral standpoint. I know it it's strange it took me so long.

Chaotic Good: I help people as best I can without regard to what society thinks.
Chaotic Neutral: I'm after what I can get out of the world without hurting too many innocent people.
Chaotic Evil: It's all about me. Screw whoever gets in my way or gets hurt in my pursuits. I don't care what anyone thinks.

[veekie]

Remember, back in Red Box Set D&D (I think Chainmail also, but I've only perused those rules, never made a character), there was no Good or Evil; the only alignment options were Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic.  The fact that there were only three choices essentially forced an Ethical consideration onto these alignments, and the baggage of that fact informs players' ideas about the Law/Chaos axis to this day.

This in turn came from Micheal Moorcock's Eternal Champion/Elric of Melnibone books. The great cosmic conflict there is between the Lords of Order and the Lords of Chaos, with the chaos lords being pretty much demonic in nature, and the lords of order being angelic, but both being ultimately alien and deadly to mankind when taken to the extreme. Mortals may take up with either cause, but cannot truly comprehend them.

The concept rather lost a great deal in the transition over the editions, but it wasn't originally meant for characters to begin with.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Let's suppose you:

1) ... dressed in black only
2) ... "protested" ONLY when other (supposed not like you) people were protesting
3) ... your protest involved only property damage
4) ... you insisted on calling your group a specific synonym for Chaotic only
5) ... and that this was actually "Good" morally not just for you, but for everybody

Then ...  ... is the only thing chaotic about this, the claim that it somehow it IS chaotic ??
 



I like Vernor Vinge's tropical Choir(s) of the Tines.
Very chaotic.
Very.

[EjoThims]

I've always seen chaotic alignments as more actively and deliberately thwarting rules.

A Neutral character jaywalks because it is convenient. A Chaotic character jaywalks because it is illegal.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Google:  awaken_D_M_golem
He's completely different from the same guy above.
Heck, you can click the [ I Feel Lucky ] button
... and it'll give you as good an answer as any.

 
Do you hear the bells?

[weenog]

Seems to me that in terms of describing behavior (as opposed to universal forces or ethical ideals), law and chaos relate to your interdependence with other creatures, places and things.

A lawful creature is like one cog in a machine, regardless of whether it's a good machine or an evil machine, a fishing machine, a military machine or any number of other systems.  It expects neighboring cogs to be positioned and turned appropriately, and its neighbors can rely on it to be that also.  The machine only functions efficiently when every piece is in the right place and doing the right thing.  Keeping the machine running efficiently is the most important thing, because all the cogs fall into disuse and ruin if it breaks down.

A neutral creature recognizes it's a part of a society and/or ecosystem, and it respects that.  It has concerns of its own as well, and those may well be put ahead of the welfare of the system, depending on the weight of the opposing needs.  Goods must be paid for, but the children are hungry, it might risk stealing a chicken and some veg from a farm.  The neighbor's wife is pretty hot and they've been fighting lately, but adulterers aren't looked at too fondly around the village, guess the ostracism isn't worth a few nights of fun.  One balances the needs of the many with the needs of the self, so it's easiest to just casually go with the flow and try to reduce such tricky judgment calls to a minimum.

A chaotic creature isn't an island, but it might like to be.  It has few expectations of the creatures and systems around it, and feels little or no obligation to them in turn.  Such a creature need not be selfish, but it is self-centered, tending to see connections as transitory and circumstantial.  Personal responsibility tends to be strong with these creatures, because Self is the only one they can reliably depend on.  Whereas a neutral problem-solver might say "something must be done," and a lawful one would check into who is supposed to be doing what exactly, "I must do something" is the rallying cry of the chaotic creature faced with a problem.  A chaotic creature need not be antisocial, but little regard for personal or business relationships may make it difficult for such an individual to keep friends and partners.

[divinedragonslayer]

Weenog: I'd say yours is pretty much what I was thinking. Especially on chaos. Basically I see chaos in it's most simplest form is a chaotic character looks for what they can give to the world, get from the world, or take from the world if that makes sense.

[weenog]

So consider how a Lawful Evil character and a Chaotic Evil character would each react to the problem of a paladin, assuming they are both absolutely dedicated to Evil as an ideal, and while they each have individual hopes and dreams, the overriding goal for both is to make the world a darker, nastier place.

One is just a single part of a larger, more complex organization.  It has its own role and functions to serve in that organization, as do all the parts.  Maybe it's a spy, or a grunt.  On the other hand, maybe it's a strategist, a thinker rather than a doer.  In any case, failure to perform, or overstepping one's bounds, degrades the organization as a whole.

One is out there on the fringe of any groups it belongs to, loosely attached at best.  It's unable to count on relationships like "ally", "rival", "superior" or "servant" remaining stable, let alone anybody serving a predictable function.  It therefore needs to depend mainly on itself if it wants results.  It has no need to conform, but it can expect no reliable support.

How different are their approaches to the problem going to look, even if they're equally intelligent and put just as much thought and effort into seeing their plans through?

[veekie]

I think to some degree they'd be treating others as if they acted alike.
The LE character would see the paladin as a powerful member of an opposing force(such as his church), and acts primarily against said perceived faction, amongst which a priority would be to screw with said paladin.

The CE character would tend to see the paladin as more of a personal foe, with personal grudges. He'd attack the paladin as a person, and everything else is only a concern in that they are assaults on what his foe, as an individual might care for.