Can Chaos and Law be reconciled? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Can Chaos and Law be reconciled? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
sciborg3
12-03-07, 11:41 AM I don't believe Good and Evil can be reconciled, but what about Order and Chaos? They are, after all, part of what we might call (likely inappropriately) system dynamics in the Multiverse.

The Planescape adventure Infinite Staircase suggested that Order and Chaos were linked and perhaps flowed into each other. Is this possible - can there be a possilbly Rilmani Messiah that can bring these alignments together?
setekh
12-03-07, 12:54 PM Order emerges from Chaos given enough time.
It might not be an order recognizable to anyone observing it from outside, but it's there.
Lobsopdoy
12-03-07, 12:56 PM I think that if they are linked, then it is because they are defined by their differences. Without Law, nothing is really chaotic, without chaos there is nothing that needs to be structured. So if they did reconcile, it would sort of remove the point.
MagusBlack
12-03-07, 04:43 PM There is an Order in Chaos and some Chaos in Order...but if they ever merged it would be the end of reality itself.
CryoSilver
12-03-07, 04:57 PM In order for the Great Wheel to make much sense, Law and Chaos need to be as different as Good and Evil.
Taeldrin Laesrash
12-03-07, 06:50 PM They may be reconciled, but I think the (current) multiverse thrives on the differences. If there is a messiah who merges them, then it's a sign of a new reality replacing the old one.
HK-47 II
12-03-07, 10:05 PM Chaos creates order.
Order creates chaos.

They don't need to be reconciled, they are One. (Which is why Law and Chaos don't conflict as often, Law views Chaos as part of the Natural order, and Chaos doesn't exactly need a reason to conflict/not conflict with Law.)

The same with good/evil, they are one. They just don't see it as well.
BadCatMan
12-04-07, 07:39 AM I don't know quite how it is in D&D/Planescape, but mathematical chaos theory is all about how ordered, predictable behaviour arises from basic rules, complexity and random, variable properties. Real chaos is a product of order and disorder.

D&D Chaos is more precisely disorder and randomness. The combination of Law and Chaos then results in the quite natural behaviour exhibited in chaos theory - the real world, or Neutral on the L-C axis.
Bull-of-the-Pit
12-04-07, 01:33 PM Elric and his lot not withstanding, I don't see why Law and Chaos have to be at odds, either. Good and Evil? Sure, they can't ever peacefully coexist...though one could argue that if one was truely erased the other would lose all definition.

I personally see Law and Chaos as the two primary ingredients to everything. As they gain more and more equilibrium with each other, our reality starts to take form. I don't even think L/C need exemplers (such as celestials/fiends)...once one takes too much of reality, the game is over...or more properly resets to a different game.

In addition, Law and Chaos can exist without sentients...Good and Evil have a harder time. What is "Good" to a color? Can one be "Evil" to a sound or a rock? Structure and entropy exist even if there's no one there to observe them (please, no koans).

I guess that ultimately, it's how you spin it...
Urithair
12-04-07, 06:34 PM Structure and entropy are observer dependent concepts, just like morality. What makes you say they aren't?
Bull-of-the-Pit
12-04-07, 08:16 PM Structure and entropy are observer dependent concepts, just like morality. What makes you say they aren't?
Whatever dude...it's just my opinion...just the way I look at it. If you don't like it, all I can say is "meh, don't follow it then."
Kain_Darkwind
12-05-07, 08:53 AM Law and Chaos can peacefully coexist because their nature doesn't demand destruction, pain and humiliation. Evil is not going to be capable of peaceful co-existence with anything because of its nature. It seeks to harm others. It views itself as a threat as much as it views those of other view points as a threat.

Law and Chaos and Good do not have this 'absolute destruction' clause as part of their alignments. For them, destroying the enemy is typically a means, not the ends.
sciborg3
12-05-07, 11:20 AM Kain and Bull, I'd have to say I agree with you two the most. I am loving the responses all around though.

Structure and entropy are observer dependent concepts, just like morality. What makes you say they aren't?

Only about 17 Outer Planes. :)
Furryhowler
12-06-07, 04:52 AM Some kinds of law can accept chaos and some cannot. Reactionary law (law imposed upon chaos to try to create order) does not accept chaos - they are diametrically opposed.

Innate law though can accept chaos because the order is already understood to exist and doesnt need to be imposed on chaos.

Chaos doesnt accept any kind of law.

Note:
I'm assuming chaos here to mean individualistic/relativistic/subjective/atomised/unsecure. Reactionary law sees chaos as chaos sees itself (individualistic etc) and tries to impose secure order upon it. Innate law sees chaos as "a smaller mind's attempt to understand reality" whilst understanding this is just a role played in the greater order of the world.
R4za
12-06-07, 07:59 AM Sure; they're not really all that different, if you look closely. Chaos (as in unpredictability) is complexity, not a lack of underlying structure. Anarchy, the state that DnD puts forth as the epitome of chaotic-ness, is actually a very elegant principle, unifying various ideals and granting clear insight in related issues, which is an acccomplishment law should respect.

Similary, axioms and ideological absolutes as they are associated with law are most commonly the result of people placing what they desire to be true before a structured approach to finding out, behaviour that is considered chaotic. Logic, possibly the single standing unifying concept in our understanding of everything and a much-hailed star player of law, can be very chaotic if applied to any existing order to detect and negate superfluity. Living in defiance to your surroundings (chaotic) takes resolve and conviction torwards your own ideals (lawful); which of these becomes obvious to the observer is entirely dependant on the individual's current surroundings.

Law and chaos aren't philosophical opposites; they're far broader than that. Most things are or at least have every potential to be both, in different ways, and the conclusion that a given thing is more of one than the other can be little more than an averaged, quantified measure of the many different and only barely related qualities we consider either lawful or chaotic. Thus, I would say that a given chaotic entity and a given lawful entity are only barely less likely to 'reconcile' than any other two.
hazhar
12-06-07, 09:43 AM The whole concept of alignments is meaningless if chaos and law aren't as absolutely diametrically opposed as good and evil are. Chaos and law are irreconcilable by the nature of the system. You can't be "chaotic lawful" or "lawful chaotic".
Kain_Darkwind
12-06-07, 10:07 AM The whole concept of alignments is meaningless if chaos and law aren't as absolutely diametrically opposed as good and evil are. Chaos and law are irreconcilable by the nature of the system. You can't be "chaotic lawful" or "lawful chaotic".

You misunderstand me then. While they are diametrically opposed to each other, that opposition doesn't need to take the form of genocide. They can never agree, but they live alongside each other. Good and Evil don't share that, not because they are 'more opposed', but because Evil can't live alongside another. Not in its ultimate expression, anyways. It will seek to destroy, corrupt or dominate everything else around it.

Note, the fiercest war between Law and Chaos isn't in the Upper Planes. It isn't the slaad vs the modrons/vaati/inevitables/formians. It is the Blood War, where Chaos and Law clash in pure and endless violence. Because of Evil.

I don't play the planes like a zero sum game. The archons winning might not be the eladrin or devils losing. Unless of course, they win against those races. Thus, the races drive for expansion does not need to result in the destruction of those not like them. Allowing them to live and flourish in peace if they desire.
hazhar
12-06-07, 10:16 AM You misunderstand me then. While they are diametrically opposed to each other, that opposition doesn't need to take the form of genocide. They can never agree, but they live alongside each other. Good and Evil don't share that, not because they are 'more opposed', but because Evil can't live alongside another. Not in its ultimate expression, anyways. It will seek to destroy, corrupt or dominate everything else around it.

Note, the fiercest war between Law and Chaos isn't in the Upper Planes. It isn't the slaad vs the modrons/vaati/inevitables/formians. It is the Blood War, where Chaos and Law clash in pure and endless violence. Because of Evil.

I don't play the planes like a zero sum game. The archons winning might not be the eladrin or devils losing. Unless of course, they win against those races. Thus, the races drive for expansion does not need to result in the destruction of those not like them. Allowing them to live and flourish in peace if they desire.

That puts evil in a special place though, it makes it an exception. Which again, messes with the concept of aligments. There is nothing about genocidal war that makes it absolutely more of a conflict than the philosophical debates between archons and eladrin, or the complete lack of understanding between the modrons and the slaadi; any such conflict is a barrier for coexistence. The form the conflicts take is only a manifestation of an underlying incompatibility in the belief systems - the planes are made of belief, after all.
Kain_Darkwind
12-06-07, 11:14 AM That puts evil in a special place though, it makes it an exception. Which again, messes with the concept of aligments. There is nothing about genocidal war that makes it absolutely more of a conflict than the philosophical debates between archons and eladrin, or the complete lack of understanding between the modrons and the slaadi; any such conflict is a barrier for coexistence. The form the conflicts take is only a manifestation of an underlying incompatibility in the belief systems - the planes are made of belief, after all.

Every alignment is special and unique. Evil has its unique traits, the others have theirs.
hazhar
12-06-07, 11:53 AM Every alignment is special and unique. Evil has its unique traits, the others have theirs.

Yes, I agree. Evil's trait is that the Law/Chaos conflict manifests as war. Just as Good's trait is that the conflict manifests as debate. Or Neutrality's trait is that the conflict manifests as a cold war. The problem is in seeing the Good or Neutral versions of the conflict as somehow less of a barrier to coexistence than the Blood War is.

If the Good and Neutral versions of Law and Chaos are reconciled then the Law/Chaos axis is rendered subordinate to the Good/Evil axis. This is because the only place where the Law/Chaos difference would be equal to the Good/Evil difference is on the Lower planes, wheras the Good/Evil difference would become the primary concern of all the other planes over Law/Chaos. This is what I meant by it making Evil an exception. For the alignment system to work the two axes need to be equally important points of contention in all planes, not just the Evil ones.
boozerker
12-06-07, 05:12 PM If different colors of paint were splattered aimlessly onto a canvas by people (or in a human-constructed environment), it doesn't look "right". But different trees clustered into forests in nature, or windswept sands gathering into mounds, or coral reefs, or cloud formations, they all have that "right" look. Yet they gather just as aimlessly.

Choice is the key, and it's born of chaos. When a decision is about to be made, we can determine only the consequences of all possible choices, as no one knows what the final choice is until it's made.* (however, it's possible to determine which choice is more likely, due to law)
*Quantum particles work like that -- a particle's behavior has two possible outcomes, which can't be determined beforehand, it can only be witnessed after the fact.

(disclaimer: I am not a physicist, nor have I played one in an RPG) :DSince people are hardwired more for choice than instinct, people's randomness isn't going to be visually orderly (as instinct is just nature making the decisions for a creature -- thus instinctual actions fulfill the order/chaos harmony more easily than actions from a choice-friendly source do). So when a bunch of birds poopy all over a field, that's why it doesn't have that "right" look. Each bird feels the coming on of a poopy, and then "decide" to squeeze it out.

Pretty much: order and chaos work together harmoniously, except where decisions factor in.

Which again, messes with the concept of aligments.
Only WotC's concept of alignment :P
sciborg3
12-07-07, 12:13 AM I failed to see how a lack of conflict makes Law and Chaos subordinate to Good and Evil. Why would an inability to reconcile be so vital? To me, since Law v. Chaos is more elemental in that it spreads from the physical to the moral, it automatically supersedes Good vs. Evil.

In D&D, there has only ever been mention of one great planar war in prehistory that I know of, and it was the war between Order and Chaos perpetrated by the Vaati and the Queen of Chaos.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
sciborg3 12-03-07, 11:41 AM	I don't believe Good and Evil can be reconciled, but what about Order and Chaos? They are, after all, part of what we might call (likely inappropriately) system dynamics in the Multiverse. The Planescape adventure Infinite Staircase suggested that Order and Chaos were linked and perhaps flowed into each other. Is this possible - can there be a possilbly Rilmani Messiah that can bring these alignments together?
setekh 12-03-07, 12:54 PM	Order emerges from Chaos given enough time. It might not be an order recognizable to anyone observing it from outside, but it's there.
Lobsopdoy 12-03-07, 12:56 PM	I think that if they are linked, then it is because they are defined by their differences. Without Law, nothing is really chaotic, without chaos there is nothing that needs to be structured. So if they did reconcile, it would sort of remove the point.
MagusBlack 12-03-07, 04:43 PM	There is an Order in Chaos and some Chaos in Order...but if they ever merged it would be the end of reality itself.
CryoSilver 12-03-07, 04:57 PM	In order for the Great Wheel to make much sense, Law and Chaos need to be as different as Good and Evil.
Taeldrin Laesrash 12-03-07, 06:50 PM	They may be reconciled, but I think the (current) multiverse thrives on the differences. If there is a messiah who merges them, then it's a sign of a new reality replacing the old one.
HK-47 II 12-03-07, 10:05 PM	Chaos creates order. Order creates chaos. They don't need to be reconciled, they are One. (Which is why Law and Chaos don't conflict as often, Law views Chaos as part of the Natural order, and Chaos doesn't exactly need a reason to conflict/not conflict with Law.) The same with good/evil, they are one. They just don't see it as well.
BadCatMan 12-04-07, 07:39 AM	I don't know quite how it is in D&D/Planescape, but mathematical chaos theory is all about how ordered, predictable behaviour arises from basic rules, complexity and random, variable properties. Real chaos is a product of order and disorder. D&D Chaos is more precisely disorder and randomness. The combination of Law and Chaos then results in the quite natural behaviour exhibited in chaos theory - the real world, or Neutral on the L-C axis.
Bull-of-the-Pit 12-04-07, 01:33 PM	Elric and his lot not withstanding, I don't see why Law and Chaos have to be at odds, either. Good and Evil? Sure, they can't ever peacefully coexist...though one could argue that if one was truely erased the other would lose all definition. I personally see Law and Chaos as the two primary ingredients to everything. As they gain more and more equilibrium with each other, our reality starts to take form. I don't even think L/C need exemplers (such as celestials/fiends)...once one takes too much of reality, the game is over...or more properly resets to a different game. In addition, Law and Chaos can exist without sentients...Good and Evil have a harder time. What is "Good" to a color? Can one be "Evil" to a sound or a rock? Structure and entropy exist even if there's no one there to observe them (please, no koans). I guess that ultimately, it's how you spin it...
Urithair 12-04-07, 06:34 PM	Structure and entropy are observer dependent concepts, just like morality. What makes you say they aren't?
Bull-of-the-Pit 12-04-07, 08:16 PM	Structure and entropy are observer dependent concepts, just like morality. What makes you say they aren't? Whatever dude...it's just my opinion...just the way I look at it. If you don't like it, all I can say is "meh, don't follow it then."
Kain_Darkwind 12-05-07, 08:53 AM	Law and Chaos can peacefully coexist because their nature doesn't demand destruction, pain and humiliation. Evil is not going to be capable of peaceful co-existence with anything because of its nature. It seeks to harm others. It views itself as a threat as much as it views those of other view points as a threat. Law and Chaos and Good do not have this 'absolute destruction' clause as part of their alignments. For them, destroying the enemy is typically a means, not the ends.
sciborg3 12-05-07, 11:20 AM	Kain and Bull, I'd have to say I agree with you two the most. I am loving the responses all around though. Structure and entropy are observer dependent concepts, just like morality. What makes you say they aren't? Only about 17 Outer Planes. :)
Furryhowler 12-06-07, 04:52 AM	Some kinds of law can accept chaos and some cannot. Reactionary law (law imposed upon chaos to try to create order) does not accept chaos - they are diametrically opposed. Innate law though can accept chaos because the order is already understood to exist and doesnt need to be imposed on chaos. Chaos doesnt accept any kind of law. Note: I'm assuming chaos here to mean individualistic/relativistic/subjective/atomised/unsecure. Reactionary law sees chaos as chaos sees itself (individualistic etc) and tries to impose secure order upon it. Innate law sees chaos as "a smaller mind's attempt to understand reality" whilst understanding this is just a role played in the greater order of the world.
R4za 12-06-07, 07:59 AM	Sure; they're not really all that different, if you look closely. Chaos (as in unpredictability) is complexity, not a lack of underlying structure. Anarchy, the state that DnD puts forth as the epitome of chaotic-ness, is actually a very elegant principle, unifying various ideals and granting clear insight in related issues, which is an acccomplishment law should respect. Similary, axioms and ideological absolutes as they are associated with law are most commonly the result of people placing what they desire to be true before a structured approach to finding out, behaviour that is considered chaotic. Logic, possibly the single standing unifying concept in our understanding of everything and a much-hailed star player of law, can be very chaotic if applied to any existing order to detect and negate superfluity. Living in defiance to your surroundings (chaotic) takes resolve and conviction torwards your own ideals (lawful); which of these becomes obvious to the observer is entirely dependant on the individual's current surroundings. Law and chaos aren't philosophical opposites; they're far broader than that. Most things are or at least have every potential to be both, in different ways, and the conclusion that a given thing is more of one than the other can be little more than an averaged, quantified measure of the many different and only barely related qualities we consider either lawful or chaotic. Thus, I would say that a given chaotic entity and a given lawful entity are only barely less likely to 'reconcile' than any other two.
hazhar 12-06-07, 09:43 AM	The whole concept of alignments is meaningless if chaos and law aren't as absolutely diametrically opposed as good and evil are. Chaos and law are irreconcilable by the nature of the system. You can't be "chaotic lawful" or "lawful chaotic".
Kain_Darkwind 12-06-07, 10:07 AM	The whole concept of alignments is meaningless if chaos and law aren't as absolutely diametrically opposed as good and evil are. Chaos and law are irreconcilable by the nature of the system. You can't be "chaotic lawful" or "lawful chaotic". You misunderstand me then. While they are diametrically opposed to each other, that opposition doesn't need to take the form of genocide. They can never agree, but they live alongside each other. Good and Evil don't share that, not because they are 'more opposed', but because Evil can't live alongside another. Not in its ultimate expression, anyways. It will seek to destroy, corrupt or dominate everything else around it. Note, the fiercest war between Law and Chaos isn't in the Upper Planes. It isn't the slaad vs the modrons/vaati/inevitables/formians. It is the Blood War, where Chaos and Law clash in pure and endless violence. Because of Evil. I don't play the planes like a zero sum game. The archons winning might not be the eladrin or devils losing. Unless of course, they win against those races. Thus, the races drive for expansion does not need to result in the destruction of those not like them. Allowing them to live and flourish in peace if they desire.
hazhar 12-06-07, 10:16 AM	You misunderstand me then. While they are diametrically opposed to each other, that opposition doesn't need to take the form of genocide. They can never agree, but they live alongside each other. Good and Evil don't share that, not because they are 'more opposed', but because Evil can't live alongside another. Not in its ultimate expression, anyways. It will seek to destroy, corrupt or dominate everything else around it. Note, the fiercest war between Law and Chaos isn't in the Upper Planes. It isn't the slaad vs the modrons/vaati/inevitables/formians. It is the Blood War, where Chaos and Law clash in pure and endless violence. Because of Evil. I don't play the planes like a zero sum game. The archons winning might not be the eladrin or devils losing. Unless of course, they win against those races. Thus, the races drive for expansion does not need to result in the destruction of those not like them. Allowing them to live and flourish in peace if they desire. That puts evil in a special place though, it makes it an exception. Which again, messes with the concept of aligments. There is nothing about genocidal war that makes it absolutely more of a conflict than the philosophical debates between archons and eladrin, or the complete lack of understanding between the modrons and the slaadi; any such conflict is a barrier for coexistence. The form the conflicts take is only a manifestation of an underlying incompatibility in the belief systems - the planes are made of belief, after all.
Kain_Darkwind 12-06-07, 11:14 AM	That puts evil in a special place though, it makes it an exception. Which again, messes with the concept of aligments. There is nothing about genocidal war that makes it absolutely more of a conflict than the philosophical debates between archons and eladrin, or the complete lack of understanding between the modrons and the slaadi; any such conflict is a barrier for coexistence. The form the conflicts take is only a manifestation of an underlying incompatibility in the belief systems - the planes are made of belief, after all. Every alignment is special and unique. Evil has its unique traits, the others have theirs.
hazhar 12-06-07, 11:53 AM	Every alignment is special and unique. Evil has its unique traits, the others have theirs. Yes, I agree. Evil's trait is that the Law/Chaos conflict manifests as war. Just as Good's trait is that the conflict manifests as debate. Or Neutrality's trait is that the conflict manifests as a cold war. The problem is in seeing the Good or Neutral versions of the conflict as somehow less of a barrier to coexistence than the Blood War is. If the Good and Neutral versions of Law and Chaos are reconciled then the Law/Chaos axis is rendered subordinate to the Good/Evil axis. This is because the only place where the Law/Chaos difference would be equal to the Good/Evil difference is on the Lower planes, wheras the Good/Evil difference would become the primary concern of all the other planes over Law/Chaos. This is what I meant by it making Evil an exception. For the alignment system to work the two axes need to be equally important points of contention in all planes, not just the Evil ones.
boozerker 12-06-07, 05:12 PM	If different colors of paint were splattered aimlessly onto a canvas by people (or in a human-constructed environment), it doesn't look "right". But different trees clustered into forests in nature, or windswept sands gathering into mounds, or coral reefs, or cloud formations, they all have that "right" look. Yet they gather just as aimlessly. Choice is the key, and it's born of chaos. When a decision is about to be made, we can determine only the consequences of all possible choices, as no one knows what the final choice is until it's made.* (however, it's possible to determine which choice is more likely, due to law) *Quantum particles work like that -- a particle's behavior has two possible outcomes, which can't be determined beforehand, it can only be witnessed after the fact. (disclaimer: I am not a physicist, nor have I played one in an RPG) :DSince people are hardwired more for choice than instinct, people's randomness isn't going to be visually orderly (as instinct is just nature making the decisions for a creature -- thus instinctual actions fulfill the order/chaos harmony more easily than actions from a choice-friendly source do). So when a bunch of birds poopy all over a field, that's why it doesn't have that "right" look. Each bird feels the coming on of a poopy, and then "decide" to squeeze it out. Pretty much: order and chaos work together harmoniously, except where decisions factor in. Which again, messes with the concept of aligments. Only WotC's concept of alignment :P
sciborg3 12-07-07, 12:13 AM	I failed to see how a lack of conflict makes Law and Chaos subordinate to Good and Evil. Why would an inability to reconcile be so vital? To me, since Law v. Chaos is more elemental in that it spreads from the physical to the moral, it automatically supersedes Good vs. Evil. In D&D, there has only ever been mention of one great planar war in prehistory that I know of, and it was the war between Order and Chaos perpetrated by the Vaati and the Queen of Chaos.