Law vs Chaos | Running the Game
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 04. 2019
- Episode 78. Chaos doesn't mean random, and it doesn't mean having no rules, or no code.
Get an alert when the Kingdoms, Organizations, & Warfare Kickstarter goes live: www.mcdmproductions.com/kingd...
Strongholds & Followers, available now!
shop.mcdmproductions.com/
Our Second Channel! Where you can watch us play D&D!
/ mcdmproductions
We have a Patreon!
/ mcdm
Watch us play D&D Wednesdays at 7PM Pacific on Twitch!
/ mcdm
The Podcast version of the livestream!
www.mcdmproductions.com/mcdm-...
Follow me on Twitter!
/ mattcolville
Join the conversation on our Discord!
mcdm.gg/discord
#RunningTheGame #MattColville - Hry
A chaotic good character would slow down, just in case.
A chaotic evil one would speed up, just in case.
I had to click the like think three times just so that I could like this tiwce.
Matthew, I began to watch this series and I'm in episode 20 something. Can't believe you are still running this till today! Your channel is helping me DM my first table and you are the reason for it.
Thank you so much! Greetings from Brazil
You're in for a treat. I'm also a fellow Brazilian, and I've been following this guy for quite a while. Check out his novels on amazon if you like his content, they're pretty fucking awesome as well.
Hahaha do you know he also made 2million on kickstarter? Senpai is just the fukkin best man
Video request in this series - Neutrality vs. Balance.
The character who is the utter pragmatist and could take any course of action based on motivation vs. the character who actively tries to make sure all things are kept in check on all sides.
I think he has a video on that topic.
@ZoixivTheCat I think he talks about it in his wang rod video.
Or the different types of players. That's not the titles of the videos. It might be his alignment video. I'm not his glossary/index you would just have to binge his videos.
I'll copy this from a response I made in another video...
I've often told new players that it's better to think of alignment as having two factors: Their "dogmatic alignment", and their "practical alignment". There's often a problem when people think of alignments as something that people both believe in and always act upon. In D&D, there are people who actually straight-up worship murder and think evil is best, and these are "dogmatically evil", but generally, compelling villains are dogmatically good or neutral, but do evil things because they are driven by patriotism or duty to become ruthless or even genocidal. An elf that has come to genocidally drive back both orc and human invaders to their woods is evil, but they still likely pray to a good deity and believe that good is best, just that "they did what they had to do" to protect some greater purpose, and this is "practical alignment".
I most often see the problem with people talking about True Neutral, where they think that True Neutral as an alignment can only exist if someone actually worships neutrality itself, which is not at all how it generally works. Most humans are true neutral (at least practically); They may believe in good, but most people are too cowardly or selfish or parochial to actually be self-sacrificing for their beliefs. (It's perfectly normal for evil characters to be self-sacrificing for family or close relations - the point is that they're willing to do horrible things to anyone outside the couple people they care about.) Many average humans are "dogmatically Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic Good", but actually act True Neutral because they are willing to bend their beliefs depending upon what favors them or their families in the moment.
---
When you talk about "Neutrality vs. Balance", you're talking about whether someone actually *believes* in neutrality as an ideal to live up to, versus whether someone has other kinds of ideals that they just don't live up to.
Neutral neutral. That's what you are describing. That alignment is the most diverse one. It can support a character who has no interest in helping or hindering others, who does not particularly care about systems of governance, and what you describe
Alignment change!
I had a player that rolled a C/N Rogue. One day she decides to assault a dwarf banker woman, loot the vaults, and leave the dwarf for dead. Everyone was shocked during the following session when I asked the rogue for her character sheet, erased the N, and wrote E.
I believe this is a trick I picked up from Matt.
Here's the kicker, the player is my wife :P
So when she tells you to take out the garbage you obey, right? :D
One time I had my group encounter this NPC who was found chained up in a ruined tower in the middle of the swamp. When his story didn't add up, one PC wanted to cut him with a dagger to see if he bled. The "antique dealer" bard PC in my group (who would buy stuff off the other PCs at a low price and then turn a profit selling them at his store...) stepped between the other PC and the NPC in an effort to protect him, and was grabbed from behind by the NPC and used as a hostage.
After the game the bard player said his character was so traumatised by the encounter, he has become distrustful, and changed his alignment from Good to Neutral.
Totally justified.
This comes actually funny when a paladin or a cleric does something out of alignment. "No powers for you!"
@@rex290 seems to be the other way round
I just did this to a couple of my players at once. They disobeyed local authority and "accidentally" killed two guards. I didn't push them all the way to evil, but definitely hard to chaos.
Matt:“Do you stop at a stop sign even when literally no one is around?”
Me: “I’m an agent of chaos...”
It's so perfect to me that one of the most enduring, widely known, and canonical elements of dungeons & Dragon (The alignment chart) was invented because a frustrated DM needed a solution for one of their players being a wangrod.
You are speaking my alignment language, Matthew. I recently re-evaluated my method of assigning alignment and realized that many people determine alignment by what their character thinks is best for themselves but I think a much better metric is what values the character projects onto others. A self identified chaotic neutral player who only uses their personal freedom to be cruel and subjugate others would actually be Neutral Evil because to that character others’ freedom is without value. It helps form a more nuanced understanding of chaotic characters than the cartoonish types I’m used to seeing.
My new shorthand for alignment is:
Chaos - authority is internal/personal
Law - authority is external/systematic
Good - value autonomy and consent
Evil - value subjugation and control
Chaotic Evil = personal freedom exists to subjugate others. I.E. Might makes right, like in your example.
Lawful Evil = the law exists to subjugate others. I.E. Class divide is natural & Slavery should be legal.
If I ever need to explain what my Law/Chaos interpretation is, I can just link this video instead now. Thanks! ;)
For a more direct and 'societal' view of law vs. chaos, I like to look at the settling of the wild west. People forming communities with laws based on handshake agreements and traditions, all so that they weren't saddled with the laws of the country that was spreading to their necks of the woods.
I’m not a video-quality critic/perfectionist, but this video looks great!
I never really threw out alignment so much as we just sort of stopped using it. I really like this interpretation of Law vs Chaos though, it makes so much more sense than predictable vs not predictable.
"It's not my fault you haven't gotten around to it."
Is that a... wangrod defense I hear?
I think my favorite description of law vs chaos is that the lawful character holds the society above the individual and the chaotic character puts the importance of the individual above society.
Think of it in terms of "systems" rather than "societies". that way it becomes much more general.
I consider Allignment is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules (cit)
😄 Capt Barbosa is the best.
My approach to alignment: Good = NPCs well being takes primacy. Neutral = Your well being and NPCs take equal primacy. Evil = only your well being takes primacy. Lawful = defer authority to NPCs (lord, quest giver, etc). You work together. Neutral = NPCs and your authority are equally considered. You may seek them out tine to time. Chaotic = you are the law. You work alone. You will not plead to a militia or lord.
No no no. If only your well-being is primary that's neutral. If only by your well being is primarily and to the expense of everybody else, that's evil
@@DimT670Yeah I'd have to agree. Evil isn't just putting your own needs first, it's being willing to put your own needs or agenda before the needs, or freedoms of others. An evil character might say "The ends justify the means."
A neutral character might put their own want's & needs first, but they generally will try to avoid harming or even hindering others unless they see no other way, even if only to not provoke retaliation.
A character who tries to put their own needs and the needs of others on a more or less even playing field, could be good or neutral depending on their law or chaos alignment, (Lawful character have a tendency towards collectivistic, and/or utilitarian altruism, as opposed to the more platonic altruism of good aligned characters, a tendency that will even carry over to Lawful Evil characters and their general "For the Greater Good" mentality.) and how far they would be willing to go to help their fellow man when push comes to shove.
Furthermore as hinted at above just because someone puts the good of others before themselves does not make them necessarily good aligned. As someone who is willing to sacrifice for others may also be willing to sacrifice others for "the common good". A good character will only ever place themselves or other willing parties in danger (Especially Chaotic Good characters! who typically think the only "Common Good" is not letting any one person decide what the "Common good" is.) a lawful character might be willing to put his own life on the line, but they might not hesitate to endanger other less willing parties for the greater good. With Lawful Good aligned people being extremely reluctant to make such decisions (But ultimately willing to, if the need is great enough) , while a lawful evil character (in an extreme example) would not hesitate to burn down an orphanage via using puppies as kindling, if it meant stopping an invading army.
I’d tweak it slightly.
Good=wants to make the world a better place
Neutral=doesn’t care if the world changes
Evil=willing to make the world a worse place
Law=Make the world a more structured place
Chaos=Make the world a less structured place
@@DimT670 If only your well-being is primary, that is by definition to the expense of other people. Otherwise, both your well-being and theirs are taken into consideration.
@@zylaji not really. if you're hungry and have one apple, and come up on a starving person; if you're good, you give them half of your apple. if you're a neutral, you might or might not help them get an apple, but you will not share YOUR apple. if you're evil however, you will not only not share, but take away THEIR apple for yourself.
The balance must be maintained. Blood and Souls! Blood and Souls for my lord, Arioch!
9:44 The talk about the Law and Chaos being universal powers/forces reminded me of Preservation and Ruin in the Mistborn Trilogy, presented much the same way
Yes, you stop, cause if you roll through, a hidden cop will chase you down and pull you over. Then you’ll have to pay $150 bucks to the Man when you are already struggling with other bills. And your insurance payments will go up.
This happened earlier this month.
It's such a revenue-raising racket. I feel for you. :(
There cannot be a hidden cop in the example in the video.
Think of a Oklahoma farm road stop sign... Stop sign so full of bullet holes you can barely read them. Do you roll through because your 1987 f-150 4 speed stalls instead of idles or stop because there is NO CHANCE of a cop hiding in a peanut field.
lol. Yeah. I’d still stop though. I feel like I’m quite lawful in most situations. The cop in question seemed quite green and eager to catch some law-breakers. He kept exaggerating how utterly I broke the law, making it sound like a peeled through without even a thought to tap the breaks. In reality I had just rolled through slowly, almost stopping without making a complete stop.
Matthew Colville awesome video, by the way! I’ve always loved the alignment system and put a lot of stock in alignment in my campaigns.
I remember when I started playing D&D (i was 16, 22 solar cycles ago) and I always choose to play a chaotic good Ranger, it took long time to me and a bit of soul searching to to embrace my true alignment and from there learn to role play different from who I was, I learned I was Lawful Good and start playing a paladin with a lot more success for me and the party.
D&D has been a great tool for my growing as a person and I truly appreciate your work Matt, I’m telling you from the bottom of my heart, THANK YOU. I’m looking forward more of your work which is great and inspired me to go and master myself again after many years away from the game.
I threw out alignment a long time ago, I never looked back and everything's fine.
There. Prophecy fulfilled.
(P.S. I actually did and it actually is.)
Great video. Just wanted to add my two cents.
I think it is a bit reductive to say that lawful folks just follow the rules just because they are the rules. I think it would be better to say that they follow the law because they believe that the law itself is virtuous and they believe in the importance of the law and following it. I know that in essence these are really the same but using the former way to describe it is too simplistic, particularly when contrasted with how you describe chaotic.
Just wanted to drop that i agree with you on this one.
Yeah. I think you’re more on the money with this.
I wager Matt would agree with this sentiment. And my guess to why he didn't explain it as such is because people rarely have an issue understanding Lawful. The focus is way more on explaining Chaotic, because too many people think it means Random when that doesn't make much sense if you think about it for a few seconds.
Also consider the Shin Megami Tensei series for its focus on the Law vs Chaos conflict.
Triangle Mann loved SMT 4s and how you fought physical manifestations of law, chaos, and even neutrality.
Excellent perspective on alignment. I too like the alignment system. Some of the best moments for me as a DM have happened when the players come up against their character's alignment, or when their story arc reaches a point where the character authentically changes alignment. Great stories come out of these self-imposed boundaries.
To me, law vs chaos is about how much you follow your society’s rules, so in the dune example paul is acting chaotically. When it comes to an entire society, it would be about how well the society fits into the dominant culture, so small goblin tribe within large human kingdom
I LOVE Law vs Chaos war. It’s amazing and as a result I love the blood war, it’s just so interesting to have such a polarising difference that isn’t
“Hi I’m your protagonist” and
“Hi, I guess I’m the antagonist then”
Definitely A Human
To be pedantic, protagonist =! good guy and antagonist =! bad guy.
J2Dragon. That’s my point
2:33 end of spoilers for dune.
I literally just started reading it so I just skipped until I hoped he was done XD
Thank you!
So, what did you think of the book?
Thank you so much for the in depth look at law vs chaos. It has always been harder for me to explain to my players than it has been to explain good vs evil. Thanks for the tools to have that conversation! Love your content.
This helped me really define Law and Chaos. Thank you! Keep these videos coming!
The question you asked your player is a good and simple exemple, very efficient. Just sharing a thought about Dune on the other hand :)...
I consider in the case of Dune that the Fremen are a Loyal society. The rules are very important. But a few things have changed. Paul Atreid is an anomaly that lead the society toward "chaos". As Liet Kynes did before him. The change in the rigid society involved by the change in environnement and a few key characters is precisely a part of the story. Liet Kynes made the change in the world but the society was still pretty much the same. Stilgar is ready to accept the combat, even at the cost of his life : it's the law. If that's not Loyal, what is ? Paul is the one who broke the old rules, opening new possibilities and teaching them that rule might not be adapted to all situation, which makes sense as the situation is changing for the first time in a loooong time. I have a hard time calling it a "chaotic society" in its core without any example of "rules might be flexible" prior to these triggers. (and later on Paul will kinda go back on his work by following the rule about blind people, at this point he has become more of a Freman than he was originally).
(and the Emperor is the one who brings the society to the extreme of Law, hoping to breed perfect Chaos... I guess ? Not sure we can summarize the golden path that way, but alignment are fun to think about ^^)
Stilgar is certainly Lawful. The laws of the Freman society could be seen more as guidelines for surviving their harsh environment, given how open they are to change. They also appear to be anticipating change.
Thank you so much for still making these videos Matt, they inspired me to begin playing and become a DM. As I felt obstacles in my DMing experiences, your insight certainly helped me hurdle those obstacles and ultimately made the bonds between my Friends much stronger. I also took a huge interest in reading history and fantasy novels. Being able to channel out my creativity really got me out of a very dark place. I’ve been DMing for almost 2 years now and I never enjoyed anything more. Thank you so much
My favorite representation of a chaotic group is the nomadic tribe with no sense of personal ownership.
Fun to put players in something like that, "The big fellow you saw yesterday in the loincloth is now wearing your cloak, you left it outside and he was cold and thought it looked pretty neat."
"Thr old guys by the fire are passing around your flask, for what it's worth they seem really happy you thought to bring booze."
Matt, you’ve given me a lot of joy. whenever dnd gets too complicated for me, i come back to your videos and i’m reminded of the simple fun i had at the table my first session. you remind me it’s all about having fun and you inspired me to start my favourite hobby. thanks a bunch!
Thank you for sharing your light with the world Matt ❤️
Great arguments. Thank you, sir.
I Just ran my first campaign as a dungeon master, and I have to say, these videos have help a lot! Thank you so much!
Excellent thought-provoking discussion of a very "D&D" topic that has wider societal implications. Thank you!
Sir, you are incredibly insightful and knowledgeable. These are traits you have always shown. However your recent content has evolved. Your videos are shorter, yet your ability to teach and express has not suffered. This is rare and it is why you are truly in a league of your own. Easily the most succinct, coherent and articulate creative mind I have had the pleasure of listening to. Talking about a subject that is close to my heart. And for that, thankyou.
Matt, can you make a video about encounters against really big creatures?
Yes!!! I would love that! I just ran a few sessions where my players had to find & fight an Aboleth that was hoarding a magical artifact that was keeping them trapped in the demi-plane of said Aboleth. I thought my concept was good and all, but I felt like the actual fight against the Aboleth was lackluster.
A simple scale for difficulty
Fight going to end too soon?
Increase boss HP
Revive boss as some undead monstrosity once it is "killed" (or alternatively it is powered up by some other magical means)
have the boss increase the number of attacks/actions it gets once it's bloodied or half hp
Add in some extra pitfalls or traps around the floor, nothing too crazy but enough to slow the players down a round or two.
Send in goons just before the boss dies
Fight too hard and taking too long
Reduce boss HP
Give a few extra opportunities for the players to think their way out of the encounter, or even run away for a break if necessary to think.
Have the boss fail some dex/strength check and it falls over or gets trapped on something making it easy to attack
Send in allies just before the boss dies. (not necessarily pure angel allies, it could be allies of circumstance say a group of orcs come in to fight a devil because they really don't like what the devil did to their tribe a month ago)
Writing help
Why are the party fighting this monster? If it's a big boss creature it must serve some part of the plot. If the group just randomly come across a group of giants or something they should have an in-world reason to be there.
If it's the big bad villain, make sure the creature does something evil or interesting to hook the players interest. Maybe it burned down a pc's home once.
Matryoshka doll the monster. If the players think it's too easy, have the monster eaten by a bigger more powerful one and let the players try to handle that.
Don't be afraid to throw something beyond the party ability to fight, just so long as they have a hint that this is actually going to be a really tough fight. You have tools available to you to alter the fight difficulty/setting. It helps to plan out a few settings depending on how well the party are doing but the basic idea is that you have a magical artifact/maguffin that the players need in order to actually kill this monster. So there's a sense of progression, that the players went through a trial in order to finally meet this thing.
This makes so much sense. Thanks Matt!
I like your interpretation of alignment! I don't really use it to any capacity in my games, but the way you describe it seems very useful for figuring out how a group/society of people acts and having a clear and easy explanation should it ever come up with my players. So, thanks!
I'm new to D&D and completely hooked! Thanks for such a great series of tips and tricks to pull from, I can't wait to start a campaign as DM!
That was a super useful explanation. Thanks
Very good! Love this perspective!
God i'm hungry for any video coming from this channel, either running the game or campaign diary.
both feed me, and aid me to best plan my campaign,which the greatest inspiration for it,has been matt.
this would immensely help my campaign, especially in dealing with the Town's Mafia. Thank you so much Matt.
I wanna throw this out there, my interpretation. Lawful and chaos represents flexibility of a person’s interpretation of code. Someone lawful is strict to their code, with little to no exception. As you mentioned with Copper, he cared more about the order than his own interpretation of the situation. Robin Hood feels that the king is wrong, so rather than following code, he created his own personal, flexible code that satisfies his desires rather than the law around him. Lawful doesn’t have to mean you follow the laws of a country. It can be the personal code you follow. A monk following his teachings can still be lawful if he breaks the law of a city, because he had to follow his teachings.
This is how I have always viewed it as well (3.5e was this way). Although, Robin Hood is a terrible example haha. Robin Hood was a loyalist to King Richard who was away fighting in the crusades who was fighting against a corrupt regime lead by the regent at the time, Prince John. Prince John was committing treason with the aid of corrupt officials line the Sheriff of Nottingham.
Hey Matt! Great video again. I'm binge-watching them from the beginning and they're incredibly engaging. Great stuff for DM's of all Levels. Congrats!
Recently I've been thinking on the Law-Neutral-Chaos axis as "I follow the Law" - "I follow the law unless inconvenient" - "I openly challenge the law". Brings a certain punk-rockness to my games i think.
Take care!
"Peace/Out" - still the best sign off on CZcams. Thank you for all the excellent advice, Matt!
Excellent discussion thanks matt
Ah, a Matt Colville video to start the morning. Almost no better way
Fantastic analysis, I hadn't thought about the relevance of Stilgar to the concept of DnD Law/Chaos. Very interesting, but more importantly very practical!
My campaign currently defines the alignments as the following: lawful vs chaotic as a social behavior (lawful = community over individual, chaotic = individual over community) and good vs evil as an individual behavior (good = selfless, evil = selfish).
Super useful. How Matt describes alignment are the words I couldn't find.
"Remember the story of the 'Good Samaritan.'"
"...I am the ill intent."
@Matt Colville I used to not like lawful neutral because it seemed bland but now it is one of my favorite alignments
This was as usual, a very helpful episode, thank you, been struggling with choosing some of my characters Alignments.
I think alignment is fantastic to determine a baseline for players. Not everything you do will correspond to your alignment and of course there will be outlier decisions that you make. Alignment feels like it serves roleplay and with personality traits, bonds, flaws, ect, your character gets framed. It gets easier to role play a fake persona when you have generalizations to grasp from.
Wonderful video Matt!
Great quality content and visually clean cut.
Heck yea, Matt! This video is just what I needed!
Excellent video! You went on for quite some time, but it is not without reward. Your thoughts have depth and lots of books and crannies to explore.
Here is a crannie I offer in exchange:
A 4x4 grid to replace the 3x3, forcing players away from the neutral options, and granting players a foothold to their character.
One of my favorite topics. lets go!
My favourite law vs chaos distinction is external vs internal codes. Basically, if I made my code, my personal rules, and follow them unflinchingly, I would describe myself as Chaotic (though not chaotic). Similarly, if I were to follow a set of rules someone else made, that would be Lawful, even when it contradicts other codes or laws
I love the Eternal Champion series. Moorcock masterfully crafted such a unique world that I borrowed the plane of law for my campaign. Though the outer plans are the only places that are defined by alignment. Where as the people on the prime material are free to do as they wish, so their actions define their alignment.
Great video as always Mr. Colville. Can't wait until the next one.
You're completely right. My girlfriend, out of nowhere, started talking about alignments. Now, I just recently introduced to her to RPGs (something very far from D&D), so it really came as quite a surprise. It turns out she had no idea it comes from tabletop RPGs at all. She's just seen the meme on tumblr all the time!
Due the straight-jacket problem, I see alignment now less about how your character behaves in a given scenario but more about which cosmic forces they align with. I think the original “teams” idea makes sense and keeps it from devolving into subjective (and conflicting) interpretations of alignment.
In a Moorcockian sense, I don’t think a Chaotic society is possible.
Thank you for that question. Ive always had issues handling Law and Chaos in this game, and that stop sign question really made it click. Thank you for that.
Law vs chaos allways seemed more defined and logical to me as a conflict than good vs evil.
Mainly cause "good" and "evil" usually are pretty vague in definition and also change from society to society.
Aztec culture viewed human sacrifice as good because it nurtured Huitzilopochtli for his fight against his siblings who wanted to kill their mother and by doing so would end the world.
Our modern western society would most certainly consider it evil (even though christianity is build on the story of a human sacrifice come to think of it).
Maybe the Aztecs thought human sacrifice was Good because their society was actually Evil.
As for Christianity, if the sacrifice you're referring to is that of Jesus, it's worth noting that he willfully sacrificed himself.
So, the comparing the two is like comparing a murderer to someone who dies saving someone else. Saying, "Both instances involve someone dying, so the situations are equivalent," seems reductionist at best.
@@MrSilvUr well, medieval western societies thought feudal systems, slavery and opressing women were good, doesn't mean the entire societies were evil by default, it just means what is considered good is subject to debate (and people do debate it. a lot. A LOT. i mean A LOT).
Yeah self-sacrifice and an unwilling sacrifice are too completely different things.
@@rateater1857 It doesn't just mean that necessarily. It could mean that the degree of cultural corruption is on a gradient, for instance.
The fact that you're bringing things up as corrupt elements in a culture implies that you have a position on those things. You seem to have a position on the moral quality of oppressing women, for instance. Why undermine your position on the matter by yielding its authority to those less certain?
I agree that morality is often a nuanced and complicated thing, but I don't think that's a reason to divest your decision making power to people who can't decide. These things are important enough for me to try to find the answers myself.
Christianity (and Judaism) for that matter are not founded upon human sacrifices. Abraham and Isaac ends with a third party going "hey Abraham, you proved your faith don't kill your son please that's not what God wants."
and then Jesus sacrificed himself to save all others from sin, no one sacrificed him to appease a deity
Great video on a great discussion!
I often correlate Law and Chaos to "Structure" and "Fluidity" in thought pattern (paradigm?) when explaining it to my Players. When the suggestion of "Chaos being random", I point out that it's better described as "fluid" or "more informal", since water is also fluid, but makes up streams and rivers... They don't adhere strictly to specialized patterns, and from nearly any scale or scope can appear quite "chaotic" and even sort of "random"... BUT the water still gathers together and moves in great mass eventually at great force... Still, you can toss even heavy stones into it and the water very informally "moves around" them...
Ice is crystalline in structure, and can be very hard... BUT in all it's rules and structures, there's SOO much variety still readily available... However, throw even a not-so-heavy stone at ice and either it bounces right off, or deforms that structure permanently...
ANYWAYS... themes of alignment are great if not taken TOO seriously in the RP department... and you have solid sound advice. ;o)
I'm glad that by both mine, my players, and now your standards I am a firmly lawful evil character myself.
Matt: *describes a society so wrapped up in tradition that they follow it even though it clearly is a bad idea*
Also Matt: This is a great example of a chaotic society
Matt you’re already familiar with the best example of a Chaotic society, it’s the Culture.
Colville, you are awesome. Thank you for the inspiration.
This is super helpful. Much more helpful than your previous alignment videos in my opinion.
Ah, a fresh hot cuppa Colville, excellent!
Still making great content 👏 I too like the Chaos vs. Law dichotomy, and commonly use it in my story writing and the games I DM.
Great discussion Matt. I've always been a bit of an alignment fan and, oh yeah, folks get all kinds of wrapped up in it. It's easy to drop if needed but I like to still use it. Each facet of D&D have pros and cons of course. Thankfully, it's easy to tailor the game to what players and DMs alike prefer.
Very well articulated. I am sometimes surprised at how some people are not able to grasp the concept between lawful and chaotic alignment. It seemed quite evident to me the very first time I picked up a D&D book.
That's an interesting take on the Good-Evil dichotomy.
As far as I can see it, someone that does not go out of their way to alleviate suffering is not necessary evil. Rather neutral.
Someone evil is someone that is willing to go out of their way cause suffering, with the lawful/chaotic dichotomy relating to the conditions under which they are willing to cause such suffering.
A lawful evil character will conquer and slaughter a rival tribe if he believes it to be the best course of action for his tribe.
A chaotic evil character will conquer and slaughter for fun/personal glory/lunacy, and will relish as his own men die for him.
A neutral evil character is someone in the middle, the treacherous type, one who will do his tribe's best interests and so long as they do not interfere with his own. Which possibly makes them more dangerous than either extreme.
I don't think your analysis of Chaotic Evil is especially well-supported within D&D lore. For example, ever since AD&D 1st edition the Drow have been presented as a Chaotic Evil society - but the drow don't slaughter for fun, or out of lunacy, and an intelligent drow leader certainly wouldn't relish the loss of her soldiers. Even the most evil dark elves are capable of acting in the interest of others, making sacrifices to aid their family, and falling in love - and yet they are still, beyond any doubt, a Chaotic Evil society.
Yes! Keep 'em coming!
I have to say, this has changed my stance. Bravo, sir.
I think similar on these things, but a bit more abstract. A cool thing, I think, is the idea that a Chaotic Warlord can conquer a territory, and they would make rules not because of any external pressure/belief, but only for self-preservation. If someone in their territory follows "the rules" and becomes a threat, the Warlord will then change the rules, because he fundamentally is not beholden to them. After the Warlord dies, if the kingdom they carved persists, and even grows, people might feel beholden to the last set of rules the Warlord left because "it works". These later leaders would be bound by tradition and law, unlike the warlord.
Hence, a chaotic person can not only have a society, but can create the basis for a "Lawful" society in their wake.
the best law vs chaos example in story telling is Rush's Cygnus book II
Aaaa. Such casual philosophy on good and evil. And here people just accept it. It's lovely. I'd love to see you talk on ethics.
Actually useful info, thanks
I've dabbled in interpreting Law and Chaos as Deontology and Utilitarianism, or alternatively tradition and modernity. I think there are lots of ways that law and chaos can be interpreted and in so doing, used to illustrate the important axis of a setting.
That book on the top shelf just right of Matt's head. National Geographic's "Picture Atlas of Our Universe." I had that as a kid and LOVED it. I'm off to see if I can buy another copy. :)
Hey, this ties very nicely into some stuff I'm writing for a new one on one campaign! Neat!
DeadAussieGamer has some videos on alignment and I like his point: "Don't swing for the fences. "
Your law vs chaos world reminds me of author L.E. Modesitt, Jr. I thoroughly enjoyed the depiction and magic of that world.
I only wish he included neutral alignments in this video. I thought his example of Tom's good vs evil question for example to be more of a neutral response than an evil one. And does slowing down a bit and/or making a pretense of stopping count as chaotic since you didn't stop, lawful because you still slowed even if you didn't blow past it at full speed or neutral because you essentially compromised neither stopping or ignoring it.
You know when I think about it there's actually a great analogy for law-chaos alignment in science. Specifically states of matter, Solid= Lawful as it has a fixed form and volume. Neutral= Water, it has a fixed volume but will freely change its form depending on container. Then there's Gas=Chaotic, it has no fixed form nor fixed volume.
I just started watching this series. I've built a campaign setting wherein the Central Tension in the universe is Law versus Chaos. I really liked the video and it gave me some awesome ideas and it totally broke my cosmology! . . . so . . . thanks for that.
In the planescape, REALITY was built by the Lawful Good and Lawful Evil entities in the form of the Celestial Kingdom and Hell. Chaos seeks to destroy reality but I shoehorned the Chaotic Good entity as Death that wants to destroy REALITY to rebuild a planescape based on good with Law and Chaos as the internal forces that keep the new reality in existence while it is EVIL that they are united against.
It was weak, and your take on wilderness and the WILD being Chaos makes the Corellon analog Chaotic Good and creator of the Feywild etc, and Death as Neutral on the Alignment chart being a force of entropy and the "Natural Order". Cosmology is stronger now, but I gotta rewrite that history and fix the rest of the world to make that new setup work... So yeah... I got a bunch of work to do to make my setting more better.
Thanks! great work on these. =]
Looking good bud!
Reading "Three Hearts and Three Lions" by Poul Anderson gave me a whole new outlook on this. In that book (without too many spoilers), the faerie world represents Chaos and the human world represents Law (or Order). One focuses on magic and emotion and whimsy and, well, fairy tales; the other on science and structured societies and the world we know today. It's one of the inspirations for the alignment system used by Gary Gygax.
this is a really great topic.
I've just been starting out as a GM, but the thing that I like to think about alignment is that it is more descriptive than proscriptive. If your sheet says lawful good, but you do evil things, that's fine, but you have to change the alignment on your character sheet.
I think I would always allow the players to take any action they want, but not without consequence. "You're a Paladin pledged to the God of Law and Goodness... Your alignment wouldn't really allow you to cut down the entire town just because they insulted your Deity. The consequences could be dire. Are you sure?"
"Yes. They can't insult my deity and get away with it!"
"Okay... Go ahead."
"I attack the nearest townsfolk."
"You cut down two easily with just a single swipe each, the blood splatters across your armor, and as you go to swing for a third, you feel your armor become heavy and then stiff. It glows with holy power, holding you in place. Your holy symbol shatters and you feel all connection to the celestial fade. You drop your weapon as it burns in your hand, even starting to melt the gauntlet you were holding it with before you even have a chance to drop it willingly. You take 3d10 holy damage and drop your weapon to the ground. You can't see it yet, but you can feel a pulsing, horrible, red, puckered burn across the palm of your hand.
The crowd is either running away or looks on in horror and confusion and as you now stand there like a statue and witness your once silver and gold armor turn jet black. Your cape seems to catch a wind that isn't there as it flaps behind you turning from pure white to blood red. Only one person has come closer to you, the wife of the man you just cut down. She looks up at you and awkwardly picks up your weapon, which appears to be as light as a feather in her hand. She swings it like a bat...
You awake in a jail cell in prison garb as a guard bangs the bars with a metal polearm. Despite it being just yesterday, it feels like years since you were a Paladin.
You remember your skills in weaponry, and you maintain your ability scores and hit points, but you lose all your abilities and any bonuses related there to. You forget everything about the deity you were pledged to, even its name. You remember only vaguely that you were once pledged to a deity.
You must find someone to train with in a new class. They must be chaotic neutral or chaotic evil."
The guard raps on the bars of your cell with a metal polearm, "Wake up, Buttercup. You have a one-time performance to get to. It'll end with applause... I'm sure you'll get a kick out of it. Hehe, he'll get a kick out of it. Get it, Sam?"
Sam, the other guard signs, "Yeah, I get it. His feet will be kicking in the air. I told you it's not funny if you explain it."
The first guard throws a piece of bread through the bars, "Sorry we didn't get you a better last meal. You'll give us a break, though, right?" He laughs loudly and looks at Sam again.
"Yeah, yeah. I get it, Joe."
To the rest of the group, "It's up to you if you want to save him..."
Thank you
This was a great video. Lots of stuff to chew on.
The most honest answer i can give to your opening question is, usually
😂
Honestly once I started playing the SMT games the alignment system just snapped in place for me and made sense. Maybe it’s the fact that most of the game take place in a contemporary setting instead of fantasy like dnd made me better understand it.
I can't help but Upvote when he talks about how great Dune is, so like within the first 30 seconds of the video.
1 Yes, you stop at the stop light. You go when it turns green.
2 The better question would be: "In the middle of the night, you stop at a red light on a motorcycle. You wait a long time, and the light doesnt change. Few if any cars come from the other way. Do you reason that this light is one that isnt on a timer and the pressure plate that triggers it to change wont react to the light weight of your motorcycle, and run the red light?"
I think this is really quite interesting and has really made me understand d&d alignment. However I was thinking that if elves are chaotic, they would want the best person in charge, but I also don't see them fighting to the death nor caring about having the strongest person as a leader. So I wonder how elves would go about picking their leaders