While I love Dungeons and Dragons as a game, there are parts of it that don't click with me in the real world, which consequently affects the way I play and DM. In my previous column, Clerics, Dieties, & Religions, Oh My!, I touched on how morality is viewed in DnD. This column expands on that.

It needs to be stated again that DnD is a game, not real life. However it also needs to be stated again that it is a game that acts out how we wish life would be. (Temporarily anyway, I'd rather not have rampaging orcs run through the Loop while an Ancient Green Dragon lurks in Lake Michigan.) We would like to be the good guys, and we want the other guys (the ones who we are critical hitting, magical missiling, and sneak attacking) to be bad. That's established deep within our psyches. Most human beings want to be good, even if at time their flaws lead them to do bad things. Very few people are actually evil (fortunately for society).

This does not mean that people can't become evil even if they are not inherently evil. When we think evil we think in terms of sociopaths who kidnap, rape, and murder just because. (I recall Richard Pryor once saying "Thank Heavens for prisons!") We recognize these people in our society by giving them labels such as 'repeat offender' and 'personality disorder'. Those people are indeed inherently evil. We usually recognize that they have to be stopped (at least when they are domestic criminals, don't ask me why there is always resistance in academic circles against getting tough with dictators and thugs). Those people would set off a paladin's detect evil ability like a big old flare on the radar scope. (An aside: When player's play a paladin, I do refer to it as radar, and I often describe the evil that the paladin detects as greed, lust, or anger, rather than just 'evil'.) But there are also people who may not be inherently evil, but they do evil things, whether out of lust, laziness, or temper. Think of the person who gets in their car, knowing that they are drunk, who then wipes out some innocent pedestrians. How about the nuclear plant guard who falls asleep, letting terrorists enter the area? Or one of many examples of road rage taken from the newspaper headlines that ended up tragically? These people may be good most of the time. What alignment are they?

There is a great deal more to discuss in the issues I opened up above, but this is a web site about being a DM, not a theology newsletter. My point is, think of people in complex terms. A generous merchant who helps the poor but slaps his wife around when he's drunk - what alignment is he? Does he flicker back and forth between Neutral and Good? Good and Evil? If he walks past your paladin during the day you'll get one reading. At night, after a few ales, perhaps another.

I could stop here and be satisfied, but I didn't write the column about good and evil. The column is about alignment, and Good and Evil, while more sophisticated than the game portrays it, isn't the most confounding part of the alignment system. Indeed while it would be good to get DMs to think about Good and Evil in terms that are more sophisticated than the Super Friends versus the Legion of Doom, what has bugged me for a long time about DnD alignments is Law and Chaos.

What does Law and Chaos mean? I'm not sure, but I'll tell you where it comes from. The DnD boxed Expert Set, when it was Dungeons and Dragons, not Advanced Dungeons and Dragons (which later was called 1st edition). In that version of the DnD rules there was no good and evil. There were three alignments: Law, Neutrality, and Chaos. Chaos was bad. Chaos meant orcs that wanted to burn down Rivendell and destroy civilization. Law meant righteousness.

With Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, DnD introduced the idea of disagreements within good and within evil. Rather than come up with some complicated philosophy, they went with Law and Chaos again, giving us nine different alingment positions. Now Law meant staying within group guidelines, which was perfect for dwarves, and Chaos meant freedom and artistic expression, which was perfect for elves. Thus the elf-dwarf antagonism that Tolkien used in his literature finally had a home in DnD.

Some drawbacks resulted from this. First of all, if this is nothing more than an indication of the Meyers-Briggs personality test, with Lawfuls being a type J and Chaotics being a type P, why would entire cultures be swamped with one personality type? Secondly, what is the median? According to this definition Law and Chaos are relative terms. In elven society there are those elves that are more chaotic and there are those elves that are less so. If Protection from Law is cast by a very Chaotic Elf against an elf that isn't so Chaotic, why wouldn't it work? How do you measure when someone is more or less lawful? The third problem is that most people who play DnD are the artistic type, does this mean that they are supposed to play Chaotics? Is this why you find so few paladins?

Tangent: Since so many artistic types are leftist in their politics, and the chaotic side of the alignment grid seems to be identified as artistic, some bozo wrote a column that was way too long on the forums on a DnD site. (The fact that it was so long was the first indicator to me that the person was off their rocker. People who ramble that much have usually spent a great deal of time by themselves expounding on their personal stupidities. Those that haven't write columns on web sites like this one.) Anyway, this fellow decided that the many Republican think-tanks and orginazations showed that the Republicans were Lawful, while the Democrats were Chaotic. There are many, many dumb things that people say about politics, but that one took the cake. Apparently this fellow didn't know that both parties have think-tanks and orginazations. They are two, large, complex groups dedicated to gaining political power. If ignorance is bliss, that poster must be a happy man.

Sometimes the rule books have portrayed law and chaos as monk self-discipline versus fits of barbarian rage. That makes little sense. I don't care if you are the most chaotic of slaad lords, you do need some self-discipline to accomplish anything in life. If only lawful people have self-discipline, chaotics would never get past 1st level. Nor do I see why music-lovers (i.e. bards) have to be chaotic under that rule. Music works on a mathematical sequence of notes. (Ah, but bards do not have to be Chaotic, you say? Just Non-Lawful? Then you are beginning to perceive my thesis.)

You may think that this whole thing is irrelevant, just let people play as they like, and why bother with all of this ruminating? Firstly, if you thought that, we are you reading this? Secondly, suspension of disbelief is a large part of the game, and such things as alignment can add to that suspension if done properly. Thirdly, there are many areas of the game where alignment makes a difference for class abilities or magical items. Fourthly, if you can't babble about some esoteric aspect of your hobby that no one else cares about on the Internet, then where can you?

I have evolved a standard of play for Lawful and Chaotic alignments. Lawful and Chaotic are not opposites in my campaign (when and if they become a factor), they are merely in conflict. One can be lawful, non-lawful, chaotic, non-chaotic, or partially lawful and partially chaotic. Those that are non-lawful but not chaotic, or non-chaotic, but not lawful, or the rare partially chaotic and partially lawful, are called neutral.

To re-iterate: My Thesis still has nine alignments, but there are three NGs, three N's, and three NEs. Someone can be Neutral because they are non-lawful, because they are non-chaotic, or because they are a little of both.

How does this come about? I try to play Law and Chaos as what they mean. Law means a desire for law, meaning rules. That's not the same thing as structure. Even a drow city has some structure. It means rules. Lawfuls are people who are comfortable with having rules. Rules are complex things, and their complexity usually requires that they be written down in some fashion. A paladin prides herself on her morality, and that morality gives her various holy powers. That holy energy cannot be channeled unless it is retained. Think of the paladin's lawfulness as a mechanic's guide to maintaining a power plant. Ditto for a monk's ki power. Monks require precision with their unarmed strikes as well, and though they may not write down complex trigonomic formulas for punching two stiffened fingers through an orc's sternum, they require rules.

A barbarian by contrast must be non-lawful. Notice that I did not say chaotic, I said non-lawful. Barbarians are one with the wild, the untamed, the raw, unshaped world. The barbarian is not non-lawful because he is illiterate, he is illiterate because is non-lawful (& uncivilized). The barbarian has no need to write down laws, or write down anything else. The barbarian can be, and very often is, an honorable human being. That honorableness can be as simple as the seven rules of the samurai. Just a few, easily memorized, inherently understandable, rules. The rules are a means to an end, and gray areas of the rules are settled through contest or combat, not through more rules. (No I am not calling the Japanese barbarians, they have developed a highly detailed culture. The concept of samurai goes beyond the seven rules, they are merely a start. But a barbaric culture may just have the seven.)

Both the LG Paladin and the NG Barbarian can be good and honorable. The difference between them is more rules versus core rules. The Paladin's power comes from more rules, because more rules leads to more pecision of this otherworldy holy power channeled through a human body. In contrast, the barbarian uses core rules. The core of the NG honorable barbarian is a few simple rules that define him, the one leaf blowing in the forest, the one bubble of foam roaring down the river, the one piece of the world living through the world as part of the world. The NG honorable barbarian's rules are very important to him, so important that he does not want to weigh them down by adding more rules. Only the core rules are important. To add things that you do not need takes away from what you already have. Adding to the core rules makes them less important, because one can only carry so much in life. This is the mindset of the barbarian who lives off of the land, prefers tents to houses, and does not bother with gold, books, bathtubs, or other things that cannot be carried easily. The barbarian stays light and quick, and part of the world. The barbarian's life is mobility. Make the things that you are carrying count, because you can only carry so many. The barbarian's power is similarly simple, yet powerful. Strength, Constituion, and Will saves go up during the rage. Three simple core attributes. The monk and the paladin work with an array of possibilities. They focus on more attributes rather than core attributes.

I have used the NG honorable barbarian to explain the difference between and non-lawful, but the concept applies to even neutral or evil barbarians. Even an amoral barbarian may have some core rules to his life.

A bard also fits the definition of non-lawful. The bard uses the rules of music, and there is a backbone or hard rules about tone and pitch, but those core rules lend themselves to possibilities beyond possibilities.

For those of you who come from a legal background, think of lawful as codific law and non-lawful as common law. It doesn't fit perfectly, but it heps.

So what does chaotic mean? Chaos means change. Untamed change. Anything could happen. Obviously a chaotic outlook fits with the core rules attitude better than the more rules attitude. As a matter of fact, it is nearly impossible for someone who embraces change wholeheartedly to really get into any rules. It COULD happen in rare individuals, and they would be Neutral as a result, but it is rare. Chaotic individuals may enjoy tweaking authority, especially unchanging authority. Chaotics may have an authority, but usually just a King or Queen without too many intervening ministers. Every elf in the forest can go visit Galadriel and try to change her mind about her decrees. She may change or mind, she may not, but the potential for change is there. Chaotics are suspicious of structures that perpetuate themselves. Chaotics can work within a structure, and act with much organization when it is called for (just ask anyone who has been ambushed by a drow patrol). Chaotics have no problem with organization and structure, they have a problem with organizations and structures that perpetuate themselves. Galadriel's decrees may last for 3000 years in the elven forest, but not because they are codified into any law, written or carried, but because Galadriel is accepted as Queen of the elves.

I don't think that a non-chaotic attidue needs much explaining. Just think of it as someone who does not feel change is integral. The LG planes can change, I doubt that every modron in mechanus is static (how would they mave a move speed if they were?), but they change when they have to, not when they want to. The non-chaotic has no need for change that drives him or her. The chaotic person cannot exist within changing. (Which may fit more into the artistic persona or not.)

Certainly chaotic attitudes lead towards more individualism than lawful, and probably more towards artistic souls than lawful, but lawful artists can be found and chaotics can have a body of laws.

A final thought: Look at out system of government with its checks and balances, Lawful or Chaotic? I think both. Many, many laws to create a balance of power between State and Federal, and between Legislative, Judicial, and Executive. Our government is a good example of the rare combination of lawful and chaotic that produces Neutral. The many little laws are designed to keep the change potential going. The ultimate source of law, the Constitution, can be changed with a series of precise rules!

Oh yes, I consider the US to be NG. You don't think so? Feel free to leave.

Roll Well and Prosper,

The Nefarious DM