Post/Author/DateTime	Post
lastknightleft 02-15-07, 03:46 PM	And its duplicate Book of inflexible law, am I the only person in the world who thinks that chaos and law are just as viable and important as good and evil? I mean you can go further with the book of perfect balance, but I really don't think that one makes much sense. that's my personal oppinion. Anywho, who out there wants to see a better and more thourough explenation of chaos and law and how it affects the world without it breaking into good and evil? I'm just saying 90% of the time people equate evil with chaos and law with good, and I'm just saying that a chaotic good paladin could be even more disgustingly rigid and hard to deal with than a lawful one. C'mon WOTC give us a furthering of the BoVD and BoED line
bonethug0108 02-15-07, 11:45 PM	I think the base of the problem is that law and chaos are more of tools of how you acheive good and evil rather than forces in their own right. I takes a strong player to effectively play the strength of law or chaos, and most of the rules and concepts of d&d do little to encourage the battle of these axes. I would be very much in favor of a book of law and chaos. Maybe they could roll it in together, and help further differentiate them by making side by side comparisons. Maybe the book could focus more on making them forces much like good and evil, rather than the tools they are now. The only current way they are really used as forces is the blood war between devils and demons. I happened to play a cn halfling ninja, who really liked to cause mischief for the sake of causing chaos. He wasn't trying to do good or bad things, but rather just trying to make everywhere he went turn upside down. It was the best character I played, and we always had fun when "unexpected" things happened. I think if they made a law and chaos book, it could go a long way to making more moments like that.
lastknightleft 02-16-07, 09:59 AM	True, but then law can also be fun to play, I had a player in my campaign who got changed from nuetral evil rouge to lawful evil, and it altered the way he played the game drastically, especially when he started to work with it and tried to constantly find loopholes and such. why not be able to fully exploit those situations. But no, it's just supposed to be a quantifier it seems in most games
|)ar|{ 02-16-07, 10:31 AM	The problem is, while good and evil are easy to define law and chaos are much harder. Sure extrmes of either are pretty easy to understand but after that it gets hard. Does having and closely following a personal code of honor make you lawful or at least non chaotic? I've heard people say it does but then you have examples like the honorable barbarian and Robin Hood. What about laws of an unjust land. Just how corrupted and unjust must a government be before the pally can say, "Sorry I refuse to follow the baby killing law"? Can an honorable, extremely self disapplined dwarf monk ever be a freedom fighter? I think having a Law Vs Chaos book would only anger a lot of players when they find their idea of law and chaos contridicted. While I'd love to see them more clearly defined I don't think its a good idea. Heck, If you don't believe me take a look and CS section on scoundrels by alignment. I have seen dozens of boards arguing back and forth about several of Hollywoods most famous characters. I personally would have put zorro and indiana jones as CG but they have them listed as NG and LG respectively. Lord only knows what some other writers take on it would be. I think I'd rather keep my own ideas thank you very much.
Frugal 02-16-07, 11:58 AM	Personally, I think it could be cool. I recently played in a campaign where the primary division was Law vs. Chaos rather than Good vs. Evil. I found it really fun because you could play up supporting one or the other philosophy or perhaps take the neutral stance that balance between the 2 forces is best. Good-evil then became a question or morality (ie, what methods/means you consider acceptable to achieve those ends).
bonethug0108 02-16-07, 01:15 PM	True, but then law can also be fun to play, I had a player in my campaign who got changed from nuetral evil rouge to lawful evil, and it altered the way he played the game drastically, especially when he started to work with it and tried to constantly find loopholes and such. why not be able to fully exploit those situations. But no, it's just supposed to be a quantifier it seems in most games I wasn't trying to imply that law was lesser than even chaos. I only had a story that related to chaos. I think they are equals.:) Well, at least where each other are concerned, according to wizards.:P
Pyke_Moonshadow 02-16-07, 01:38 PM	C'mon WOTC give us a furthering of the BoVD and BoED line or never ever visit that line again.... :D
Frugal 02-16-07, 01:56 PM	Personally, BOED and BOVD may have had their problems but I think the concept was good, just that the execution was lacking. The other issue is that most people have a pretty good grasp of the dichotomy of good vs. evil. However, I think that the law-chaos axis is a lot more poorly understood and could use some fleshing out. With some good execution this could be a cool product. Heck, for that matter throw a neutral book in there and then you'd cover all 9 alignments and could maybe undo/improve/recover some of the issues with BOED and BOVD. I know I'd love to see a book on neutrality that expands things more than just the "meh, I do what I feel like" approach that a lot of players take (CN, I'm looking at you). Concepts like maintaining balance or amorality (neutral) vs. immorality (evil) come to mind.
bonethug0108 02-16-07, 01:59 PM	Personally, BOED and BOVD may have had their problems but I think the concept was good, just that the execution was lacking. The other issue is that most people have a pretty good grasp of the dichotomy of good vs. evil. However, I think that the law-chaos axis is a lot more poorly understood and could use some fleshing out. With some good execution this could be a cool product. Heck, for that matter throw a neutral book in there and then you'd cover all 9 alignments and could maybe undo/improve/recover some of the issues with BOED and BOVD. I know I'd love to see a book on neutrality that expands things more than just the "meh, I do what I feel like" approach that a lot of players take (CN, I'm looking at you). Concepts like maintaining balance or amorality (neutral) vs. immorality (evil) come to mind. I completely agree with the first part. As for the second part,:P I play chaotic neutral that way if I feel that is his character. Though I agree there are many other ways to play it. Neutral is definitely the most misunderstood alignment.
Frugal 02-16-07, 03:03 PM	As for the second part,:P I play chaotic neutral that way if I feel that is his character. Though I agree there are many other ways to play it. Neutral is definitely the most misunderstood alignment. I think it all depends on what you mean by "do what I feel like". There are plenty of horror stories from DMs (and other players) regarding what some players think CN means they can do. You can certainly play it along the idea of being someone who values individual freedom who's not overly fettered by moral concerns. However, some people seem to take that as meaning they can just run around randomly killing people for money, torturing people for information yet he's not "evil" because he still goes along with a good-neutral party and fights evil stuff. Definitely agree with what you say about neutral being the most misunderstood alignment (on either axis) and that's why I think it's the book we most need. But law and chaos books would be super cool too.
wrecan 02-16-07, 03:48 PM	I have trouble imagining a D&D Book of Ethos selling very well. Good and evil are sexy. Order and chaos? Not so much. As for the difference between law and choas in the middle... Law believes that rules serve to protect us from ourselves. We are fallible people and prone to make rash decisions. Rules help us know what to do what we are uncertain. That's why lawful people will follow a rule even to their own apparent detriment. Their concept of honor comes from following traditions, laws or other written codes. Chaos believes that most rules serve to prevent us from reaching our full potential. They believe that the inner voice is truer than any externally imposed rules. Their concept of honor comes from following their own internal voice, and being true to themselves. Can you have an honorable barbarian? Of course. But he follows his own concept of right and wrong. If that happens to coincide with his clan's traditions, that's fine. If he comes upon a situation where he thinks his clan's traditions are not applicable, he won't apply it. Can you have a LE dishonorable monk? Yes. His rigid code of conduct serves to further his aim. Let's say it is of amassing power. But to do so, he knows he must be disciplined. So he has a rigid code of conduct aimed at his long-term goals. He will try to eschew the petty pleasures of the flesh, no matter tempted he is, because this hardens him and makes him stronger, until he is ultimately the leader of his order. And if his order tells him to kill a lord, the lord is dead. If it tells him to sacrifice innocents, so be it. Anyway, that's how I see it.
lastknightleft 02-16-07, 04:47 PM	and it's a perfectly good interpretation of law vs. chaos. Personally I think a chaotic nuetral character should value personal freedoms and be a champion of causes that allow people to have said freedoms, but yeah, players just allways say I can do what I want. which isn't true at all, a person of pure chaos with no bias towards good or evil, would work against repressive systems and while not utterly avoiding them would still find distaste in even a more open system that merely withheld some minor freedoms (say prostitution). But that doesn't mean that every CN is that way, its an approach to CN however CN can't just do evil do evil and then say oh I'm CN no you're CE do some purposefully (I.E. not just by happenstance of travelling with others) good acts. However, I do not want to turn this into a debate of black and white morality vs. interperative morality that these discussions allways degrade into. So who agrees that a book that provided a measurable system of quantifying good and evil deeds and lawful and chaotic deeds would be a good thing? Mainly I want to know about prestige classes and abilities that favor people who are chaotic but not necessarily good or evil, and vise versa for lawful.
wrecan 02-16-07, 05:20 PM	So who agrees that a book that provided a measurable system of quantifying good and evil deeds and lawful and chaotic deeds would be a good thing? Not I. I think it would be an affirmatively bad thing. Mainly I want to know about prestige classes and abilities that favor people who are chaotic but not necessarily good or evil, and vise versa for lawful. How about barbarian and bard for chaotic and monk for lawful? I don't think we need an Anarchist or Lawgiver Prestige Class.
bonethug0108 02-16-07, 06:36 PM	I think it all depends on what you mean by "do what I feel like". There are plenty of horror stories from DMs (and other players) regarding what some players think CN means they can do. You can certainly play it along the idea of being someone who values individual freedom who's not overly fettered by moral concerns. However, some people seem to take that as meaning they can just run around randomly killing people for money, torturing people for information yet he's not "evil" because he still goes along with a good-neutral party and fights evil stuff. Definitely agree with what you say about neutral being the most misunderstood alignment (on either axis) and that's why I think it's the book we most need. But law and chaos books would be super cool too. No, I'm not a random killer type. That would be ce anyway. And you can be evil and fight evil. It's not who you hang around with that makes your alignment. I mean more or less along the lines of what a "normal" person would do. Like drinking and sleepin with a half-orc after, getting her pregnant and having your son want to kill you years later for trying to kill her because she attack you and you realised she was just angry becuase you left without saying goodbye. Or accidently joining a group of halfling clowns in a traveling circus, putting on an amusing show, and deciding to leave to group to stay but then the owners of the circus realise your not really a clown so you have to escape and eventually wind up back with the group. You know, that kind of "normal".
Frugal 02-16-07, 09:03 PM	wrecan, the honor/tradition vs. personal freedom or personal responsibility is simply one way to look at the Law-Chaos axis. I'm not saying it's invalid but simply that it's a single way of exploring things. This seems mainly along concepts of society and the rule of law. You could argue this as being the age old question of whether man is inherently good and thus needs few laws beyond his own sense of right and wrong (chaotic viewpoint) or if man is essentially evil and needs laws to establish a sense of right and wrong (lawful viewpoint). Let's look at it another way though, law is close-minded (things have already been decided and will not change), absolute and inflexible. Chaos is open-minded (things can change, old views may not apply any more), relative and flexible. Pure law means stagnation whereas pure chaos is total anarchy. Reality needs a mix of the 2. The cycle of the seasons is regular and predictable (law), the weather is more random and less predictable (chaos) yet both are needed for life to flourish. Evolution is chaos (change, mutation, adaptation) but constant change would be bad (if everything mutates to far away from the original form and can no longer reproduce). Or another way to look at it, law is conservative, focuses on tradition, may even pine for the "good old days". Chaos is progressive and focuses little on the past, the future will be better, progress is a good thing. Say Confucian China (everything is rigidly set) vs. 50's America (technological advancements will make our lives easier). I think either of these viewpoints create some interesting roleplay potential. Plus, they also setup interesting viewpoints for the neutral. For instance, the neutral (law-chaos) druid who feels that law and chaos must be kept in balance, or the neutral (law-chaos) dwarven blacksmith who believes in careful progress balanced with a respect for traditional craftsmanship.
bonethug0108 02-16-07, 11:07 PM	Well said and very good points, frugal.:)
lastknightleft 02-16-07, 11:33 PM	Frugal you're a true nuetral in real life aren't you:teach:
lastknightleft 02-16-07, 11:38 PM	Not I. I think it would be an affirmatively bad thing. why not, all you have to do is ignore it, power of the consumer you don't have to purchase the material you wouldn't appreciate How about barbarian and bard for chaotic and monk for lawful? I don't think we need an Anarchist or Lawgiver Prestige Class. For that matter then why have any prestige class at all, when the base classes with feat progression can do it. That's like saying "well we allready have the wizard so archmages shouldn't exist." By that standard none of the completes should have been released
lastknightleft 02-16-07, 11:40 PM	PS wrecan I see you around the boards alot and have respect for your opinion:bravo: , the last post wasn't meant to be a burn at all, merely a call for clarification and asking for further debate
bonethug0108 02-16-07, 11:40 PM	I would play the anarchist prc.:P
CoyoteUK 02-17-07, 10:10 AM	If you avoid some of the more naval-gazey nonsense spoken about Law and Chaos it can form the basis of an excellent "Civilisation vrs The Wild" campaign. Consider: Barbarians, rangers and even druids (all "classes of the wild") favour a non-lawful alignment. Paladins, clerics and wizards all favour a lawful alignment - they all being classes of the civilised world. Yes the dnd rules are not necessarily a sound tool for understanding the differences :P but when understood in a bit of a wider sense this is very workable :) Consider "chaos" (the wild) as messy, exposed, intimate, loose and not suited to mechanised ways of living (including regular work - theivery, although present in civilisation, is very much the way of the wild.... eg: hunters steal from their prey effectively). Then "law" (civilisation), with its walls and regularity, works as tidy, insulated, armored, binding and both industry and industriousness. :)
lastknightleft 02-17-07, 02:15 PM	right and thats fine to, but what abilities should you gain from choosing to favor one or the other? I once created a monster who's very existence distorted the world around her, she was a manefestation of pure chaos, so could that be something she chose willingly to become (I.e PrC)? and if so a book that displayed that so it wasn't just house ruled mumbo jumbo would be excellent
Frugal 02-17-07, 07:08 PM	I think it's the variety of different ways of looking at law vs. chaos that make it a more interesting axis. As I said before, good vs. evil is a lot easier to understand, BOED and BOVD kind of had a lot of "no duh" stuff in them in terms of defining it; people get good vs. evil. I think that a pair of law and chaos books that take a more open-ended approach could be cool. Show different ways that law and chaos manifest themselves, beyond the typical honour/rules vs. individual freedom stance that we've heard. I brought up a few different ways of looking at things, I think they tie in well with the "wild" vs. "civilised" concepts or you can use one or the other set, or use both methods with different groups or races. I think if done well, the 2 books could add a lot of new material to the law-chaos axis and provide new ideas for both players and DMs.
lastknightleft 02-17-07, 08:53 PM	which is exactly what D&D is all about:tie:
Arrowhen 02-17-07, 11:19 PM	For that matter then why have any prestige class at all, when the base classes with feat progression can do it. That's like saying "well we allready have the wizard so archmages shouldn't exist." By that standard none of the completes should have been released I couldn't agree more. ;)
lastknightleft 02-19-07, 10:01 AM	what are you agreeing with? that the complete's shouldn't have been writen or that my argument is valid?:confused:
tallforadwarf 02-20-07, 04:34 PM	I think the base of the problem is that law and chaos are more of tools of how you acheive good and evil rather than forces in their own right. As a Planescape fan/player I couldn't disagree more! :D It's great to see these books being discussed though and I know of more than one gamer who'd snap these up. Myself included. Come on WotC! Law/Chaos me up! tfad
Ventilatory_Threshold 02-20-07, 04:57 PM	Law and Chaos are basically two different methods and, at the same time, goals. The relationship between the two is incredibly complex and a good deal of either book would go into explaining that. A book explaining Law would potentially be very easy to understand, contain simple guidelines so you can determine the course of action for your character within the bounds of his alignment. Some PrCs for killing Slaadi, Demons and/or Eladrin, "corrupting" people towards Law, etc, etc. A book on Chaos, however... It's already a bad idea to classify Chaos (my policy is that it's idiotic, counterintuitive and contradictive to even try). I'd imagine some PrCs bent on defying laws (gaining a psychotic amount of movement-related abilities, along with movement speeds), the Wild Mage reprinted and more random than ever (but still playable), and maybe a PrC that makes certain classes into something they weren't before (Chaotic Paladin? Monk?). Of course there'd be feats for all.
bonethug0108 02-20-07, 04:59 PM	As a Planescape fan/player I couldn't disagree more! :D It's great to see these books being discussed though and I know of more than one gamer who'd snap these up. Myself included. Come on WotC! Law/Chaos me up! tfad I should have clarified more. I don't see law/chaos as that, but the way they are written makes them seem vastly insignificant as compared to good/evil. Not to mention to lack of support for them. Where good and evil seem like forces, law/chaos seems like the means of acheiving these forces. Again, not how I view them, just how they read to me from the phb. I understand that planescape takes it the opposite direction, and I like that idea. I think wizards needs to flesh out law/choas more as well. I would love a book on those alignments.
tallforadwarf 02-20-07, 05:06 PM	A book on Chaos, however... It's already a bad idea to classify Chaos (my policy is that it's idiotic, counterintuitive and contradictive to even try). I'd imagine some PrCs bent on defying laws (gaining a psychotic amount of movement-related abilities, along with movement speeds), the Wild Mage reprinted and more random than ever (but still playable), and maybe a PrC that makes certain classes into something they weren't before (Chaotic Paladin? Monk?). Some good ideas there - perhaps the old WOD Malkavian clan book would be a good place for the designers to start. Although given current edit trends, this'd not be that much work! :D Thanks for clarifying Bonethug - I agree the PHB alignments need fleshing out, and I agree we need these books! tfad
Frugal 02-20-07, 09:11 PM	Oooh, I hadn't even been thinking about some material on the various law-chaos aligned outsiders, that would be cool to see and probably more likely than seeing them get their own books along the lines of the fiendish codices. I'd agree that quantifying chaos is impossible but it's possible to at least explain more what it means in D&D terms, which would be really good considering it's really easy to fall into the chaos = evil trap. Or at least in various ways to play a chaotic character. I mean a chaotic character can just as easily be a hedonist (constantly pursuing pleasure) as much as he could be an anarchist.
Ventilatory_Threshold 02-20-07, 09:26 PM	And damn would that Chaos book need to include some serious amounts of Chaotic Outsiders. Lawful Neutral has a greater variety of exemplars than Chaotic Neutral. That's so completely unacceptable I just want to march right into WotC HQ, kick out the staff as a whole and write the damn book myself! I would also not mention the wannabe Demons that Death Slaadi are, they are just pure bad!
savant_warlord13 02-20-07, 09:31 PM	And its duplicate Book of inflexible law, am I the only person in the world who thinks that chaos and law are just as viable and important as good and evil? I mean you can go further with the book of perfect balance, but I really don't think that one makes much sense. that's my personal oppinion. Anywho, who out there wants to see a better and more thourough explenation of chaos and law and how it affects the world without it breaking into good and evil? I'm just saying 90% of the time people equate evil with chaos and law with good, and I'm just saying that a chaotic good paladin could be even more disgustingly rigid and hard to deal with than a lawful one. C'mon WOTC give us a furthering of the BoVD and BoED line I completely disagree. I think people tend not to associate alignments on one axis with alignments on the other. For instance, there is Nazi Germany, clearly LE. Then there is the American Revolution, which is CG.
savant_warlord13 02-20-07, 09:39 PM	Law believes that rules serve to protect us from ourselves. We are fallible people and prone to make rash decisions. Rules help us know what to do what we are uncertain. That's why lawful people will follow a rule even to their own apparent detriment. Their concept of honor comes from following traditions, laws or other written codes. Chaos believes that most rules serve to prevent us from reaching our full potential. They believe that the inner voice is truer than any externally imposed rules. Their concept of honor comes from following their own internal voice, and being true to themselves. Again, I disagree completely. I am definitely more on the chaotic end of the spectrum, but I believe that rules are meant to protect us. I fight rules which do not seem to serve any purpose (increasing order is not considered a purpose in my book), and I fight unyielding application of the rules without considering the circumstances. I also find order to be oppressive. But I do not believe rules are meant to prevent us from reaching our full potential.
bonethug0108 02-20-07, 09:41 PM	Then there is the American Revolution, which is CG. That is debatable.:P
wrecan 02-21-07, 09:39 AM	why not, all you have to do is ignore it, power of the consumer you don't have to purchase the material you wouldn't appreciate I think it would be affirmatively bad, not as a consumer, but as someone who had to watch TSR go down the tubes from bad business decisions. I think a Big Book of Law and Chaos would be a bad business decisions because I don't think it would sell, regardless of whether I personally would buy it. For that matter then why have any prestige class at all, when the base classes with feat progression can do it. No need to be snotty. I was saying if you want to explore concepts of law and chaos class-wise, there are things out there that can help you. This was just another iteration of "I don't think a book of lawful and chaotic themed prestige classes will sell." Being noble is cool. Being evil is hot. Being lawful is boring. Being "chaotic", I agree with Ventilatory, is unquantifiable and so is a guaranteed let-down. I doubt WotC is interested in traveling down that path. Again, I disagree completely. I am definitely more on the chaotic end of the spectrum, but I believe that rules are meant to protect us. I fight rules which do not seem to serve any purpose (increasing order is not considered a purpose in my book), and I fight unyielding application of the rules without considering the circumstances. I also find order to be oppressive. But I do not believe rules are meant to prevent us from reaching our full potential. This description makes you feel more neutral, than chaotic, in my opinion.