It's difficult to find one word that succictly wraps up what "chaotic" means because there isn't one. It means a random hodgepodge of things that have very little to do with each other besides being things that someone might have a mental association with the word "chaotic" (or "not lawful") with. This is partially because the two-axis nine boxes alignment system is singularly unfit for actually modeling ethos or personality in anything like a meaningful way, so pretty much everything about it is essentially a work of cramming things in and getting pretty creative with what the axes mean.
Really the crux of the problem is two things - The chaotic good alignment, which forces really tortured definitions of chaos that involve a bunch of stuff about constancy of behavior and attitude towards power structures that the "destructive" angle that people naturally think of when they hear chaos doesn't cover because there's a box for chaotic good, so there has to be some kind of worldview that goes in that box. The relative lack of meaningful correlation between being unpredictable, having certain attitudes towards [just, unjust] power structures and laws, supporting some kind of cosmic entropy state, and basically any of the other random things that "chaotic" sometimes means.
Destructiveness? In what meaningful sense has any character who has ever been called chaotic good more into destrutiveness than any other? Wanting to bring everything down to an evershifting primordial state is an extremely specific goal that in most settings is the goal of so few creatures that it's certainly not worth having an axis for.
In general, I agree with mellored, though. If alignment is going to be part of the game (and it almost certainly is) and the world's worst alignment model is going to be how it's structured (and it almost certainly is), then whatever new name is chosen for "chaos" needs to be much better than the existing name in order to justify the inertial effort of changing it. I doubt that one exists, because language does not normally create terms that refer to a bunch of unrelated things. (Well, it does through polysemy and stuff, but the odds that any one set of arbitrary concepts chosen at random have a single word that refers to them is extraordinarily low.)
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer.
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'" - Gary Gygax
But being chaotic within a lawful system is absolutly not the same as being chaotic within a lawless system. And this is again different if you were born and raise or not within this system.
You were a hero by being lawful in the far west, you are average joe by being lawful in modern cities. You are a hero by being chaotic and defending civil rights in a lawful society, but being chaotic when there no laws to organize people is just being another scavenger. And this paragraph is so full of paradoxes when refering to the alignment "rules" that my head spins.
D&D alignment system is skin deep and open to endless discussions.
Bravo! Perhaps you could say that this (Law, Neutral, Chaos) is the path through which the character looks to affect change in the world to bring it into harmony with their alignment (Good, Neutral, Evil). Do they act within the system to change the system? Do they ignore the system? Do they look to destroy the existing system to allow something new to develop? Not destruction to no purpose. There is always a reason, except for short people. They got no reason.
The quadrants themselves could be renamed without changing the actual alignment. The scale could still be Good - Evil - Law - Chaos in the same way that it has been in 1E, 2E, and 3.xE but the actual names of the alignment quadrant could be renamed by naming the "pillars" without the Neutral part, such as NG: Good, LN: Lawful, NE: Evil, CN: Chaotic, N: Neutral (positive stand on 'Balance'), Unaligned (most of the general populace), or None (for animals, oozes and such) and each of the diagonals as something else which typifies the behaviour such as LG: Principled, LE: Tyrannical or Oppressive, etc.
People can then either identify with the alignment quadrant or with the name.
That sounds good to me.
Then you wouldn't remove chaotic (and upset D&D) you just add extra stuff (i.e. more idealised posts).
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way. Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken. Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken. King Fisher Does an excellent job at keeping an enemy disabled in a few ways. Strong. Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading. Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered. Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square. Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong. Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked. Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic. Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation. Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses. Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat. Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent. Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof. Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it. Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways. Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful. The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken. Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken Unnamed Avenger|Runepriest/Hammer of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered. Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5. Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong. Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight, only far more broken. Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken. Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.
It's difficult to find one word that succictly wraps up what "chaotic" means because there isn't one. It means a random hodgepodge of things that have very little to do with each other besides being things that someone might have a mental association with the word "chaotic" (or "not lawful") with. This is partially because the two-axis nine boxes alignment system is singularly unfit for actually modeling ethos or personality in anything like a meaningful way, so pretty much everything about it is essentially a work of cramming things in and getting pretty creative with what the axes mean.
Really the crux of the problem is two things - The chaotic good alignment, which forces really tortured definitions of chaos that involve a bunch of stuff about constancy of behavior and attitude towards power structures that the "destructive" angle that people naturally think of when they hear chaos doesn't cover because there's a box for chaotic good, so there has to be some kind of worldview that goes in that box. The relative lack of meaningful correlation between being unpredictable, having certain attitudes towards [just, unjust] power structures and laws, supporting some kind of cosmic entropy state, and basically any of the other random things that "chaotic" sometimes means.
Destructiveness? In what meaningful sense has any character who has ever been called chaotic good more into destrutiveness than any other? Wanting to bring everything down to an evershifting primordial state is an extremely specific goal that in most settings is the goal of so few creatures that it's certainly not worth having an axis for.
In general, I agree with mellored, though. If alignment is going to be part of the game (and it almost certainly is) and the world's worst alignment model is going to be how it's structured (and it almost certainly is), then whatever new name is chosen for "chaos" needs to be much better than the existing name in order to justify the inertial effort of changing it. I doubt that one exists, because language does not normally create terms that refer to a bunch of unrelated things. (Well, it does through polysemy and stuff, but the odds that any one set of arbitrary concepts chosen at random have a single word that refers to them is extraordinarily low.)
Maybe Alignment could work with creatures by being absolute and simple.
If you are lawful, you strictly support order and actively act against corruption, and then you can't be good or evil aligned, as life is only meaningful when it protects the order from chaos. If you are chaotic, you strictly despise order and actively act against order, and then you can't be good or evil aligned, as life is only meaningful when it's free from order. Same thing with good or evil, if you strictly support or despise life and act to support or destroy it, order or chaos means nothing more than a mean to support or destroy life. Other people can vaguely be classed between selfish and sociable, the two being able to accept Lawful, Chaotic, good or evil acts if they think it won't affect what they care for. Unaligned could be the ones who don't really care about the system they live in as they only really care about themselves in the end. Aligned could be the people who don't really care about the system they live in as long as people can mostly live well together.
It leaves us with Lawful, Chaotic, Unaligned, Aligned, Good, Evil.
No sensless Lawful alignement putting on the same level Order and personal code. And no chaotic people more constructive than most. One word for a general alignment, and then full description to detail how this word apply to the character.
"They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins." - thecasualoblivion "Vancian isn't broken, you just have to set your game to the wizard's clock!" - Oxybe "In many ways, making a new edition of D&D is alot like trying to sell a car to the Amish." - Dwarfslayer "Encounters are the heart of the AD&D game" - PHB AD&D 2nd edition. "you shouldn't even bother trying to become like me." - Gary Gygax (Elfcrusher confirmed)
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'" - Gary Gygax
Maybe Alignment could work with creatures by being absolute and simple.
If you are lawful, you strictly support order and actively act against corruption, and then you can't be good or evil aligned, as life is only meaningful when it protects the order from chaos. If you are chaotic, you strictly despise order and actively act against order, and then you can't be good or evil aligned, as life is only meaningful when it's free from order. Same thing with good or evil, if you strictly support or despise life and act to support or destroy it, order or chaos means nothing more than a mean to support or destroy life. Other people can vaguely be classed between selfish and sociable, the two being able to accept Lawful, Chaotic, good or evil acts if they think it won't affect what they care for. Unaligned could be the ones who don't really care about the system they live in as they only really care about themselves in the end. Aligned could be the people who don't really care about the system they live in as long as people can mostly live well together.
It leaves us with Lawful, Chaotic, Unaligned, Aligned, Good, Evil.
No sensless Lawful alignement putting on the same level Order and personal code. And no chaotic people more constructive than most. One word for a general alignment, and then full description to detail how this word apply to the character.
Are the Modrons pure lawful? I think pure law/chaos would be Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral. They don't care about good or evil, only order and anarchy.
I think the system as it is works and the picture example in the OP is the perfect way to illustrate it. I know when they tried to change the system in 4e I was highly extremely averse to the idea. I think one thing to remember is that creatures may have stronger or looser attachment to their alignment. I like to think that there are higher powers that force the devils to abide by the letter of the law. I also imagine that some power outside the multiverse insinuates chaos into all things. Feeding off of the multiverse. Maybe something in the Far-realm?
Maybe Alignment could work with creatures by being absolute and simple.
If you are lawful, you strictly support order and actively act against corruption, and then you can't be good or evil aligned, as life is only meaningful when it protects the order from chaos. If you are chaotic, you strictly despise order and actively act against order, and then you can't be good or evil aligned, as life is only meaningful when it's free from order. Same thing with good or evil, if you strictly support or despise life and act to support or destroy it, order or chaos means nothing more than a mean to support or destroy life. Other people can vaguely be classed between selfish and sociable, the two being able to accept Lawful, Chaotic, good or evil acts if they think it won't affect what they care for. Unaligned could be the ones who don't really care about the system they live in as they only really care about themselves in the end. Aligned could be the people who don't really care about the system they live in as long as people can mostly live well together.
It leaves us with Lawful, Chaotic, Unaligned, Aligned, Good, Evil.
No sensless Lawful alignement putting on the same level Order and personal code. And no chaotic people more constructive than most. One word for a general alignment, and then full description to detail how this word apply to the character.
Are the Modrons pure lawful? I think pure law/chaos would be Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral. They don't care about good or evil, only order and anarchy.
I think the system as it is works and the picture example in the OP is the perfect way to illustrate it. I know when they tried to change the system in 4e I was highly extremely averse to the idea. I think one thing to remember is that creatures may have stronger or looser attachment to their alignment. I like to think that there are higher powers that force the devils to abide by the letter of the law. I also imagine that some power outside the multiverse insinuates chaos into all things. Feeding off of the multiverse. Maybe something in the Far-realm?
Caring about the concept, that's point.
Being Lawful should be caring about the law as a concept. Tagging Lawful Evil a corrupt politician is a nonsense from this point of view. Corrupt people don't care about the law as a concept, it's just a mean to have what they want, which can even be tagged chaotic with the current alignment rules.
If the alignment elements are not absolute, then alignment rules are worthless, which is actually the case IMO. There's no way the complexity of individuals motivations and attitudes can be reflected by only one combination of the nine alignment "system".
"They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins." - thecasualoblivion "Vancian isn't broken, you just have to set your game to the wizard's clock!" - Oxybe "In many ways, making a new edition of D&D is alot like trying to sell a car to the Amish." - Dwarfslayer "Encounters are the heart of the AD&D game" - PHB AD&D 2nd edition. "you shouldn't even bother trying to become like me." - Gary Gygax (Elfcrusher confirmed)
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'" - Gary Gygax
In general, I agree with mellored, though. If alignment is going to be part of the game (and it almost certainly is) and the world's worst alignment model is going to be how it's structured (and it almost certainly is), then whatever new name is chosen for "chaos" needs to be much better than the existing name in order to justify the inertial effort of changing it. I doubt that one exists, because language does not normally create terms that refer to a bunch of unrelated things. (Well, it does through polysemy and stuff, but the odds that any one set of arbitrary concepts chosen at random have a single word that refers to them is extraordinarily low.)
You know, I am a little insulted that you wrote that whole essay on alignment and made this particular paragraph but didn't even bother to mention my suggestion of using the word "Rebel". It describes pretty well everything from bards to demons without the either a good or bad connotation.
By the way, Chaos in science is not destruction, it is pretty much exactly what it is supposed to be in D&D: unpredictability.
By the way, Chaos in science is not destruction, it is pretty much exactly what it is supposed to be in D&D: unpredictability.
I don't think unpredictability can be be human trait, sociology tends to prove the reverse.
"They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins." - thecasualoblivion "Vancian isn't broken, you just have to set your game to the wizard's clock!" - Oxybe "In many ways, making a new edition of D&D is alot like trying to sell a car to the Amish." - Dwarfslayer "Encounters are the heart of the AD&D game" - PHB AD&D 2nd edition. "you shouldn't even bother trying to become like me." - Gary Gygax (Elfcrusher confirmed)
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'" - Gary Gygax
In general, I agree with mellored, though. If alignment is going to be part of the game (and it almost certainly is) and the world's worst alignment model is going to be how it's structured (and it almost certainly is), then whatever new name is chosen for "chaos" needs to be much better than the existing name in order to justify the inertial effort of changing it. I doubt that one exists, because language does not normally create terms that refer to a bunch of unrelated things. (Well, it does through polysemy and stuff, but the odds that any one set of arbitrary concepts chosen at random have a single word that refers to them is extraordinarily low.)
You know, I am a little insulted that you wrote that whole essay on alignment and made this particular paragraph but didn't even bother to mention my suggestion of using the word "Rebel". It describes pretty well everything from bards to demons without the either a good or bad connotation.
By the way, Chaos in science is not destruction, it is pretty much exactly what it is supposed to be in D&D: unpredictability.
No offense was meant; I actually think Rebel is a reasonably good term, and it has the advantages you describe, with only the minor drawback of being a bit oppositional. It's not particularly good at capturing the "unpredictable" element of chaotic, if that's something that people even care to have remain part of the defintion, but it's a good term for the structural elements of chaos.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer.
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'" - Gary Gygax
