Law vrs Chaos

[Gameogre]

My ideal system for Alignment is close to DCCRPG's.

I like the whole Law versus Chaos thing but with all sections being separate from good and evil.

Law in it's own way can be just as evil or unhealthy as chaos. If Law were to totally rule then all change would stop.All creativity,freedom, and free will would vanish and perhaps what was left would be more machine than man.

Chaos would be just as bad with ever changing,unlimited,freedom with no permanency of any kind being it's own special kind of hell.

Even Neutrality would be bad if it won totally. I think Cthulhu or just simple apathy ruling all things is something to be avoided!

Life in a role playing game is interesting when all three forces are in constant flux. With one side making small victories and then sliding backwards as one of the other forces makes gains.

DCC RPG uses the same base but makes some(mistakes). Chaos isn't evil any more than Law is good. This colors all the interactions within the game is a slanted light.

Elves could be Chaotic and perhaps should be if much of the lore is examined,but with chaos being so aligned with evil they are pigeon holed into Law. Now I'm not saying Lawful Elves are a impossibility as a race or culture but it isn't standard to how elves are normally viewed.

How much more interesting would it be if Elves and Goblins both followed the same ethos but on different levels? One being Good while the other evil.

The same could be said for Dwarves and Giants.

How much more interesting if both of them worshiped the same Gods?Just in different ways.

In my games at home this is the path I have chosen, many of my villains are Lawful and many of the Heroes are chaotic but both will find themselves often at odds with others of the same basic ethos.

One of the Lords of Hell is the Lawful Demon of Tyranny,Manamanam.

One of the Lords of Chaos is the Chaotic Goddess Pujzera, The Goddess of Birth and Change.

While Neutrality has many champions few of them represent both good and evil so well as Ankalagon The Dragon. Who encircles the multiverse in his protective embrace,until the night at the end of time when he devours all.

I love these kinds of two sided examples and love even more putting characters in impossible positions.Where they are forced to figure out that the greater good, might just be siding with their enemies and that their friends need to be defeated.

[Gameogre]

After thinking about it for a minute or ten I did remember a Lawful group of Elves.

Remember those bearded Elves from Classic D&D? Those guys were not the touchy feely type elves in commune with nature,not the free thinkers of the world that they became in later games.
Those guys were Lawful and Ancient beings of power who lived in crystal cities in the middle of the wilderness. Perhaps I have been viewing Elves in DCC RPG through a too modern lens.

[Rostranor]

I have been looking at Elves and Goblins more in the Fey sense as opposed to the Tolkien and Forgotten Realms sense.

[Doug Kovacs]

I am all for "chaos is not evil" (but can be) and "law is not good" (but can be).  I believe a couple of other notable creators of this game agree with me.

There has been a discussion on these forums somewhere that has the Poul Anderson Three hearts Three lions version of alignment, but I believe Nat Turner was chaotic and the Nazis were lawful.

I also like the idea that with DCC if folks want to play law is good and chaos is evil they can, but to me that is boring as sh*t and probably best for child philosophers.

[Skyscraper]

I like what you propose as much as any other well-thought-out alignment system, but then it is more a dual axis alignment system than the single alignment system of DCC. You propose the good-evil axis that appears to play a significant role, perhaps even moreso than the law-chaos axis, a bit like D&D of old. Back then, you were either good or evil, and law and chaos were two ways to refine what type of good or bad guy you were.

In DCC, there is only the law-chaos axis. Lawful characters support society. Chaotic undermine it. That's how I understand the DCC alignment.

[Gameogre]

Well,a lot of it has to do with the type game I am running.

If all I am doing is running dungeon crawls I really wouldn't pay it any mind. Law=good and chaos=evil is just fine in that type of environment. Heck 90% of the time the guys are tromping through a dungeon its Party=Good Everything else that moves=Evil. If it doesn't move but looks like it could be a threat in some even tiny way=Evil.

It's only when I run outside of the dungeon type games where PC's start building up relationships with different factions and interacting with the different Important faction heads that suddenly I need more wiggle room for concepts.

[Gameogre]

I like what you propose as much as any other well-thought-out alignment system, but then it is more a dual axis alignment system than the single alignment system of DCC. You propose the good-evil axis that appears to play a significant role, perhaps even moreso than the law-chaos axis, a bit like D&D of old. Back then, you were either good or evil, and law and chaos were two ways to refine what type of good or bad guy you were.

In DCC, there is only the law-chaos axis. Lawful characters support society. Chaotic undermine it. That's how I understand the DCC alignment.

Actually what I guess(hadn't really thought of it as propose) I am proposing is to keep the system in place but remove the good and evil tags and not replace or add on to it.

I would rather alignment be what team you are for or in general agree with and leave good and evil out of it.

Gives PC's more freedom(and the pains in the arse that come with it) and the npc's as well.

[Skyscraper]

Well,a lot of it has to do with the type game I am running.

If all I am doing is running dungeon crawls I really wouldn't pay it any mind. Law=good and chaos=evil is just fine in that type of environment. Heck 90% of the time the guys are tromping through a dungeon its Party=Good Everything else that moves=Evil. If it doesn't move but looks like it could be a threat in some even tiny way=Evil.

It's only when I run outside of the dungeon type games where PC's start building up relationships with different factions and interacting with the different Important faction heads that suddenly I need more wiggle room for concepts.

I hear you I play mostly non-dungeon crawl games (in a system called dungeon crawl classics, go figure), so indeed individual ethos takes on a more signficant role.

[Skyscraper]

Actually what I guess(hadn't really thought of it as propose) I am proposing is to keep the system in place but remove the good and evil tags and not replace or add on to it.

I would rather alignment be what team you are for or in general agree with and leave good and evil out of it.

Gives PC's more freedom(and the pains in the arse that come with it) and the npc's as well.

Hmm, then I think that's pretty much my understanding of DCC. If I understand what you say.

DCC, as far as I understand it, says:

Law = you're a team player
Chaos = you want to undermine the team

Elves might be in favor of life and nature, but not of laws or rulers that force you to do that which you do not want to do. They are chaotic. Orcs are like elves, but they despise life and nature and love torture and suffering instead. To each his own persnonal likes, I think Orcs are also chaotic.

The inquisitors roam the kingdom and hang anyone they find not quite follows the church's precepts. They are lawful. Paladins roam the kingdom to uphold the church's precepts, but also show compassion towards the weak and give food to the hungry. They are also lawful.

That's a bit how I see alignment in DCC.

Now, some others have posted in a recent thread, very interesting takes on their views on alignment. Different takes, also very interesting.

Thanks for sharing anyway,

Sky

[Rostranor]

I have appended the Adventure Conqueror King System description of alignments to my game to give them added clarity and focus.

"Law: Lawful beings believe that civilization is worth fighting for. Despite its vices and villainies, civilization must be defended against those who would destroy it. Lawful beings tend to see wars among civilizations as aiding the cause of Chaos, and so they seek peace among Lawful civilizations where possible. However, Lawful characters are not pacifists, nor are they necessarily altruists. Indeed, most would think something was wrong with a hero who turned down fame and fortune; chests of gold, magnificent weapons, comely consorts, and grants of land are, after all, the rightful rewards for great deeds of valor on behalf of Law.

Neutrality: Neutral beings generally enjoy the benefits of law and civilization, but it is not something they directly fight for. They tend to focus on their own ends, whether those are family, fame, fortune, pleasure, or power. A Neutral mercenary might be found fighting on behalf of Law or Chaos; a Neutral farmer tends his crops and pays his taxes, whether to the Patriarch or the Lich-King.

Chaos: Chaotic beings actively seek to destroy civil society. Chaotic characters are often madmen or cultists of forgotten, chthonic gods. To the extent they have any order at all, societies of Chaotic characters are ruled by force and fear, and are often characterized by all manner of corruption and vice. Even decadent Lawful civilizations at least pay homage to civilizing virtue, but chaotic civilizations embrace their corruption.

Note that a character’s choice of Alignment doesn’t determine whether or not he takes care of his children, cheats on his wife, or steals from the merchant’s guild. It is concerned only with the weighty issue of where his allegiance lies in the grand struggles of existence. To have an alignment of Lawful or Chaotic is to have chosen a side in this perpetual struggle. Many people, choosing no side, are Neutral, although it is important to remember that most Neutrals still want the protection of Law even though they are not willing to die for it. (To paraphrase George Orwell, Neutral humans sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because Lawful heroes stand ready to do violence on their behalf.)

Human vices, such as greed, lust, and vanity, are widespread and common even in Lawful societies. But Chaotic societies are characterized by their monstrous vices: Genocide, human sacrifice, wanton destruction, cannibalism, necrophilia, and so on. Evil is all-too-human in every civilization, but Chaotic is something both less and more than human.

ADVENTURING PARTIES
The worlds of Adventurer Conqueror King are dangerous and hostile. For the sake of survival, characters team up to undertake adventures because any number or type of monsters could lie in wait. Such groups, known as adventuring parties, are generally composed of a diverse array of classes, so that different characters are able to contribute their specific talents for any given situation. A thief can check for traps, for instance, and fighters are good for muscle. Clerics have spells for healing and divination, while mages are capable of powerful offensive and defensive magic.

Occasionally, there are not enough party members to take on the challenges of an adventure. The party may hire NPCs, such as henchmen or mercenaries, for extra hands. The rules for hiring henchmen and mercenaries are discussed in Chapter 3, Equipment.

When there are only a small number of players, the Judge may allow them to each play more than one character. Nevertheless, in these cases characters belonging to the same player cannot offer each other special treatment, such as trading or giving away riches or magical items, unless the Judge rules it acceptable." pg37 ACKS


ADMIN EDIT: Fixed line spacing

[cjoepar]

This is a good topic for discussion and I suspect you'll see as many different points of view as you can imagine on it. I, too, have a hard time separating good vs. evil from the picture, and I have really wondered if the whole DCC version of alignment was created just to avoid possible copyright infringement rather than because it was thought to be better in some way than the D&D system.

For me, I don't like to focus too much on alignment, trying to force people to make every decision in game like alignment is a straightjacket. It's one thing if someone is playing a templar or paladin type, then maybe they are aspiring towards living the ideal of their mythos. But the vast majority of people in the real world choose an alignment, but then typically fall miserably short of living it, so why not let the characters have that same realism? Besides, we play rpg's for fun. Everyone is there to enjoy themselves, and being shoehorned into making your character make specific choices isn't a lot of fun for most people. Characters in my games have alignment, but they also have free will. Yeah, sometimes there are consequences for betraying your alignment, just like sometimes there are rewards for living it, but most of the time the powers of the ethos are pretty indifferent to the lives and choices of mortal men. This approach is sure to sound like sacrilege to some folks, but we just prefer to focus our time on other things.

[Skyscraper]

This is a good topic for discussion and I suspect you'll see as many different points of view as you can imagine on it. I, too, have a hard time separating good vs. evil from the picture, and I have really wondered if the whole DCC version of alignment was created just to avoid possible copyright infringement rather than because it was thought to be better in some way than the D&D system.

For me, I don't like to focus too much on alignment, trying to force people to make every decision in game like alignment is a straightjacket. It's one thing if someone is playing a templar or paladin type, then maybe they are aspiring towards living the ideal of their mythos. But the vast majority of people in the real world choose an alignment, but then typically fall miserably short of living it, so why not let the characters have that same realism? Besides, we play rpg's for fun. Everyone is there to enjoy themselves, and being shoehorned into making your character make specific choices isn't a lot of fun for most people. Characters in my games have alignment, but they also have free will. Yeah, sometimes there are consequences for betraying your alignment, just like sometimes there are rewards for living it, but most of the time the powers of the ethos are pretty indifferent to the lives and choices of mortal men. This approach is sure to sound like sacrilege to some folks, but we just prefer to focus our time on other things.

No sacrilege, I've played most games that way. Choice, no more, no less.

[Rostranor]

I think the alignment comes more into play when your talking about cosmic allegiance. Relics or magic items of laws and chaos, patron outlooks, etc. For day to day issues, do we put the prisoners to the sword type stuff I let the situation and the players decide.

[Rythwold]

This one of those subjects we could talk about till the cows come home. I forget where I heard it (might have been the Save or Die podcast) but I think the most elegant solution to how to set things up for players when DMing is just to say that there are two rival pantheons - one chaotic, the other lawful. Choose which to serve or stay neutral. Then, leave it at that - let things grow organically from there in your campaign.

My least favourite way to do it for the DM to have the whole think dictated by your player’s behaviour. 'You just killed a defenceless enemy - now you're chaotic' or ‘you didn’t pay you bar tab, now you’re chaotic'’. I much prefer the idea of there being a cosmic battle out there and you have practically no say on how it is going to pan out. So choose you loyalties and make do the best you can.

One thing I’d argue (and no disrespect to great Anderson and Moorcock) is that, more than chaotic vs. lawful, a stronger theme in fantasy and myth is old gods vs. new gods. In my books the new ones are lawful, human gods, who are dominant, while the old monstrous gods are the chaotic ones, driven underground. But, that's just one way of doing it!

[Galadrin]

I have always preferred to keep it simple: Law are the "good guys" and Chaos are the "bad guys". Having said that, Law is not always pretty and Chaos is not always ugly. Public corporal punishment is the epitome of law, after all. Likewise, freedom fighters and rebels are the epitome of chaos, as they are trying to subvert the dominant order. But civilization and humanity ultimately need law, even when it isn't pretty, which make lawful forces a sort of "good guys".