The Gaming Outpost

  Many problems in Dungeons & Dragons™ play arise from misunderstanding the meanings of the alignments; this stain has carried over to other games, as the grandfather of the hobby has definitely passed many of its traits to its progeny.  Chaos is an excellent example of this problem.

  A lot of people think that a chaotic alignment, and particularly a chaotic neutral alignment, means I can do any crazy thing that I want to do, whenever I want, because there aren’t any rules that apply to me.  It really doesn’t mean that.  Like the other aspects of alignment, chaos is a belief, a core value which the chaotic character holds, either above all others or in balance with his other values.  In this case, that value is freedom–not just his own freedom; everyone’s freedom.  Give me liberty or give me death is the war cry of the chaotic; but it goes beyond the selfish desire to have freedom to a belief that freedom must reach to everyone.  To be Selfish, after all, is the hallmark of evil; characters who do whatever they want whenever they want are not exemplifying the virtues of chaos, but those of evil.

  I played a game in which I was the very lawful party leader of a very disjointed and nearly dysfunctional party.  On the way back from a difficult and dangerous mission, resources nearly depleted, we came upon a slave caravan traveling the other direction.  The slaves themselves were of little interest to us–fifty goblins, two female drow, and a giant–but the issue of slavery within that world suddenly came into sharp relief.  I was lawful good; and the chaos of that world and of that party had pushed me strongly toward the law side of that alignment.  I believed that order and discipline were necessary to the happiness of the greatest number.  That country had legalized slavery, and (this was the gut-wrenching kicker for me) I had no reason to oppose it.  I had no knowledge that the lives of these slaves would be better if they were free; I had every reason to think that upsetting the lawful order of the world, even for what seemed a good reason, would result in more harm than good.  Society needs its rules, its structures, its systems, in order to function in a way that brings its benefits to people.  If that structure included that some would be slaves (which might not be a bad life, with the right masters, particularly for creatures who left to their own devices would only cause great harm to others in their efforts to survive, creatures who ultimately would be hunted and killed to stop them without this place in society in which they could live productive lives), that was something I had to support, because to do otherwise would be to become a lawbreaker and an enemy of the very fabric of society.

  However, the chaotic neutral member of our contingent did not see it that way.  As I attempted to maneuver my people to a safe defensive position which would allow the slavers to pass without risk to us, he broke ranks and attacked them, getting pelted with arrows, and collapsing.

  Tactically, it was a very stupid move.  It was also the most intelligent and principled action I had ever seen that player take in any game, and ranks among the most meaningful moments in any game I’ve ever played.  He knew that slavery was absolutely inimical to the value he held, that of individual freedom, and he could not permit it to pass unchallenged.  It didn’t matter what harm these creatures might do if freed; it didn’t matter whether they were able to care for themselves on their own.  Better that they should starve to death or be killed for thieving than that they should live comfortable lives as slaves, he reasoned.  If by his death he could spur us to action and free those creatures, he died nobly in the name of his creed.

  He didn’t die, and we did act; it’s actually a lot more complicated than that, but here ends the anecdote.  We have time for another.

  A certain anti-paladin, who in that particular game had to be lawful evil, was charged with some criminal offense.  I was playing an attorney, and he brought his problem to me.  I then proceeded to work out what the options were, and how to get him declared not guilty.  The details of how that was done are not essential, beyond that it was an interesting and complicated process, and I think the referee pretty much made it up as he responded to my questions.  The accused character walked away clean.  The player commented in passing that the attorney character must have been very lawful; not at all, I said–his alignment was chaotic neutral.  He firmly believed that everyone should be free to do whatever he chose to do, as long as he did not prevent anyone else from being free to do what he in turn chose to do, and the state should stay out of it.  If Malacon the Shining Legacy wished to devote his life to some strict code of discipline and conduct that constituted the life of an anti-paladin, he was perfectly free to do so and his right was to be protected–as long as he didn’t insist that anyone else had to do the same thing.  Every individual should be allowed to pick his own path in life, and no individual should be permitted to take that right away from any other.

  These are the values of chaos, the intention that everyone should be free, whether or not they wish to be, even if it kills them, to pick their own course in life unhindered by anyone else.  Some say that your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins; but my attorney character would have insisted that that is exactly where it ends, and not an inch further.  You, and everyone else, must be free; that is the thing that matters.

  I felt some of this in reading Eric “Tadeusz” Ashley’s World a Week:  Jaxons.  To bring it back to your mind, he came to a mid twentieth century earth that was overrun by benevolent conquering aliens.  They were intent on raising humanity to a world of peace.  Among the humans there were resistors who were willing to commit the most heinous of atrocities to drive the aliens from earth, take their advanced technologies, and destroy them.  It didn’t matter that the aliens were giving humanity wonderful medicines, advanced technologies, better environmental conditions, and happier lives.  The only thing that mattered was that humanity wasn’t free, and these men would not stand for that, even if they had to destroy the entire planet (earth, that is) to prevent humanity from being anything less than completely free.

  Sure, anarchy is part of that.  You really can’t set everyone free to do what he wants without some of that.  Yet the problem with most players’ anarchic chaos is that it is too one-sided.  I didn’t understand what it was that bothered me about chaos as anarchy until I saw the bumper sticker:  Perform random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.  If good and evil don’t matter to the chaotic neutral, why do so many who play that alignment do so much evil and so little good?  Where is the random kindness, the senseless beauty?  Chaos is anarchistic, but it is not destructively anarchistic, at least not by definition.  It is the exaltation of the individual above all else; every individual, all exalted individually.  If what results is anarchistic, that’s fine; as long as people are free, the world is a better place.

  Maybe these particular ideas about chaos are too difficult for the typical high school and younger kids who tried to grapple with the games; maybe they formed their warped ideas of the meaning of chaos when they couldn’t understand the nature, the value, the danger of individual freedom, and they never looked back to straighten it out.  Ours is a chaotic society, in the main; we value freedom, sometimes perhaps too highly.  It is sometimes more difficult to understand the values you hold than those you admire–most of us think that law and good are the virtuous sides of the alignment grid, but perhaps we should awaken to the fact that the values of American society and perhaps those of ourselves are closer to those of chaos and evil.  Capitalism and Democracy are, after all, on the evil and chaos sides of the alignment grid, respectively.  That’s not necessarily entirely bad, particularly in relation to chaos, as freedom is an important value (Adam Smith can defend selfishness without my help).  It may help our games if we can come to grips with our own values, and see them in the light of the alignment system.

  Next week, something different.

—–

M. Joseph Young is co-author of Multiverser and Vice President for Development at Valdron Inc.  His many contributions to online literature are indexed for convenience, and he looks forward to discussing these things by e-mail or on our Gaming Outpost forums.