I love this. Especially the take on the tribal savages people being actually lawful in a chaotic environment and the reverse for the modern citizen in more urban surroundings.
The problem I see with this idea is that, while living in nature one must abide by the laws of nature. So there is definitely the ability to be chaotic in the wild, by simply ignoring the laws of nature/refusing to live by natural law. A great example would be using healing magic in a barbarian tribe. If you truly lived by nature's laws, you wouldn't heal the weak, for it would cause your tribe to become weak. The death of one who becomes dangerously hurt in the hunt would not be stopped, but instead accepted as a part of the way of life.
@@darklordmathias9405 Of course you can always bend those archetypes for your story's game but overall in real life there's a patern close to what is described here.
@@raydaveed Tbf, my statement extends to more than just a game world. Chaos, by it's very nature, is disorderly. Would a tribe of peoples who live off of scavenging and hunting and never staying in one singular place consider being a stationary settlement as chaotic? The tribes of Uthgurt in the north are mostly stationary, which would lend credence to their chaotic alignment. Not to mention if there were tribes who used undead as menial labor, those are most definitely chaotic, because undead are the very antithesis of "natural law", which are the laws that a society of lawful tribesmen would live by. I think the problem lies in that, in my opinion, "uncivilized folks" are more likely neutral on the spectrum of law versus chaos, rather than outright lawful. Unless these tribes specifically practice things like ostracizing magic users of all kinds(due to the fact that magic alters the natural world, rather than being in harmony with it) and remaining nomadic, they couldn't be entirely lawful, at least according to the laws of nature. A perfect example of what would be a lawful tribal society would be some of the early Native American tribes from before the lands were settled by Europeans. I do say some, because I can only recall a couple of tribes that would purposely allow the weak and old to die off, allowing more resources for the young and strong to make their people stronger as well. I think there is definitely a case that CAN be made for lawful tribesmen, but I also think they're more rare than one would think. It's like how in my experience, most Barbarian players are either Good-aligned, or Evil-aligned, with no in-between. But then again, maybe the idea is just too fresh for people to have pre-thought of character ideas for an actually neutral barbarian? Would require a bit more investigation maybe. Also, the presence of Rage Mages in the tribes would pull them away from entirely lawful, due to the fact that it is still indeed magic that alters the world around them.
I would argue that chaos, when used to refer to a person, means they live by their own rules. They don't try to live entirely outside of order and organization, rather they take the initiative to create the law and order they live by. The chaotic person is at the top of his own personal hierarchy, not answerable to others who seek to rule from the top down. Instead of being forced to live the way someone else deems acceptable for him, he lives his own way, free to succeed or fail based on his decisions and skills alone.
There are lots of people who attempt to impose their own will upon reality or create their own reality, with their own self-made set of values. The main problem with this is that we are actually unable to create our own values. We can try, but we will fail every time. Life and the world are just too complex for one mere human to figure out. And a person is always too flawed and too limited to be the lord over everything.
@@esperthebard I wouldn't say creating your own values. There is certainly an objective good and an objective evil. There is an objective morality as well. However, these do not define everything. There are a number of gray areas, both in the items above and in people's interpretations of the objective morality. It is in the interpretation and application of objective morality that people can make their own way. If there was only one way to interpret morality, the only people we would see as bad are the ones who are intentionally evil. We can't be the gods of our own universes or escape the black and white of good and evil, but we can make our own decisions in the gray areas instead of allowing others to do so for us. Its part of free will. We are capable of doing things that we know aren't good, and we don't always know what is good or bad, but we are still given the opportunity to make the decision ourselves.
@@internetcatfish I agree with that for the most part. There definitely is objective morality, but there is also complex gray area in the middle that we have to continuously discuss and debate and try to figure out.
There’s something weirdly meta about a chaotic entity like Eilistraee having a difficult name to pronounce, as though order holds such limited chord over her that even categorizing her with a name proves difficult.
To be fair, there is a language bias here. What sounds odd, forced, and discordant to the ear in one language can sound natural and elegant in another. One of the signs of a fiction author who hasn't put a lot of thought into their "aliens" or foreign peoples is that they all use the same alphabet (or near enough that it makes no difference). Meanwhile, there are real Earth languages which don't even have a past tense or a future tense, or certain colors, have different ways to think about numbers, include clicking sounds or vocal inhalations, assign meaning to specific tones/notes or ways to enunciate "n," rhyme with different qualities than the sound of the word when spoken aloud, and a bunch of other cool-as-hell features. The Elven name "Eilistraee" is straight-up _mundane_ compared to normal Human words in many IRL languages.
How a chaotic character can be as mature as a lawful character: make them a consequentialist. A consequentialist fundamentally rejects the notion of universal rules of behavior in favor of always adapting to circumstances, it doesn't matter what you do, it matters what happens. Rejecting rules not out of immature hedonism but in favor of independent reason based on everchanging circumstances. From their perspective the rules are a crutch for those who are not ready to make their own assessments. It would be a good counter for the stereotype of the chaotic character as an impulsive toddler. Rather than emotions being the source of the chaotic behavior let reason be the source of the chaotic behavior.
Where do you go with their analysis on consequences? I think the answer to why they want certain outcomes or how they plan to achieve them might quickly lut them back in the lawful or neutral zone. Even as described I think you are talking neutral instead of chaos. Pretty nebulous though
@@davidburnett5049 Scientifically speaking how order vs chaos is essentially a question of how easy it is to predict: if you know the approximate starting conditions and can from that predict the approximate outcome the system is ordered, if the approximate knowledge of the starting conditions does not allow you to predict the approximate outcome but exact knowledge allows you to predict it the system is chaotic. If perfect knowledge of the starting conditions does not allow you to predict the system the system is random. So the question of where someone lands on the scale of lawful vs chaotic should be how simple is it to predict what they are going to do. If you want to predict a consequentilist you can't just know their principles you need to know everything they know, if you don't you can't know what they intend to do therefore they can't be lawful. Where they end up between neutral and chaotic is a matter of how intelligent they are, the more intelligent the more chaotic. There is different levels of planning, trying to assess action and consequences ahead of time and creating a strict structured plan to follow lands them closer to the ordered, but also pushes what it means to be a consequentialist. A highly intelligent consequentialist would continuily change not just their plans but also their analysis based on outcomes from past experiences. Continually learning and adapting not just their plan of action but also their analysis, this makes it impossible to predict what they would do without knowing everything they know about the present circumstances, all of their experiences and what consequences they want, making them extremely chaotic. I'll say this analysis is based on viewing the chaotic alignment as chaotic rather than random. D&D kind of conflate the two terms, but chaos is theoretically deterministic while randomness is not. Ordered and chaotic systems often operate on similar rules are often distinguished from eachother by complexity (example would be the three body problem where three objects e.g. stars orbit around each other creating a chaotic and unpredictable pattern, but two bodies orbiting each other is very ordered). Randomness can appear superficially similar to chaos but really is not.
I don't think that consequence based decision making is chaotic at all. Maybe ultimate pragmatism/realism doesn't literally line up with the law but it is ordered more than it is chaotic. If we are talking about society a character, I would assume that the character would be more lawful or chaotic depending on their sympathy with where that society is on the good/evil axis relative to them. If they are good and in an relatively good society they probably wouldn't literally break laws all the time but if they were evil they might see an evil societies tyranny as ultimately effective. All I'm saying is that it's complicated and I think this character concept is more based on context of the setting more than an object lawful chaotic scale.
I feel like the great old ones/elder evils would be the most chaotic from the perspective of beings from the prime material plane. They're invomprehensible/unknowable.
Personally not sure about this one. There's an ever-present sense of disdain for the concept of chaos as presented here that looks at the gods aligned with it with blood-stained lenses. The concept of what makes a person chaotic aligned seems to fall pretty far afield of what the 5e makers intended, as evidenced by the fact this analysis places plenty of these chaotic-aligned gods as neutral instead. The disdain is once again evident as the chaotic good gods are almost unilaterally viewed as neutral good instead.
My main account is now unsubscribed from Edge due they viewing my real world, maturely, legal rebelling against laws that demand I be killed for my immutable characteristics as "immature". Ironically the opening quote precisely what chaos enabling one to be an individual, how it manifests & D&D lack of distinction between chaos & randomness perfect.
I think I get why Shaundakut is more chaotic than neutral good. He’s the spirit of curiosity and the bane of secrets. Not all secrets should be spoiled, and not all places visited. Sometimes it’s best to leave well enough alone, but he is the god of intrigue untempered by judgment. That kind of curiosity could be the undoing of the current order, for better or worse.
The thoughts on chaos as a concept seem...oddly judgemental to me, and even the assessment of some gods; if they have the tiniest hint of pattern to them, are they even chaotic at all? I guess this really just falls into how badly alignments are up to interpretation. I would argue heavily against taking the freedom aspect out of chaos, considering how much it thrives under it. Chaotic freedom is not just "toddler whims" but also unconstrained determinism. You could easily argue that within our ordered society we have as much freedom as we do, not because of our structured laws, but in despite of them. We have the freedoms *because* they are not dictated and left up to individual choice. Though you are still right about safe, orderly places giving birth to counter-culture, but isn't that part of the cycle or things? Order within chaos, within order, within chaos, layers and layers. A chaotic person, doesn't *have* to really on orderly people, a lot do, just as most others rely on others. Don't forget hermits, and those that shunned civilization, those characters make their own houses/tools etc. Of course they don't have to be chaotic but they can be, and they would have no reliance on orderly people at all. This feels like arguing or complaining, and I'm sorry about that, but it truly felt that you were vehemently dismissive to the concept of an "actual" chaotic character, or that it could be a character concept at all.
Precisely. Chaos by deities, unless explicitly malicious (ala Shar's Nihilist Black Hole oblivion fantasies vs transcending Buddist style Nihilism)is inherent, as the Lawful Neutral plane is needed to balance the Chaotic Neutral plane of Limbo. Chaos-vs randomness-"immature" only in an immature teenage Emo declaring "Urgh no one knows my dark pain" & teenage rebelling vs maturely realising stagnation from too much Lawfulness (including the afformentioned Lawful Neutral plane) or wholly unjust, with no option to leave societies requiring in some capacity mass, violent in destruction but not harm to living beings, change. Ie Not all revolutions require full Communist esque destroy everything & kill dissentors->rebuild from the ashes, as some prescribe destroying institutions & ideas, especially ignorance by violence to those non material concepts vs harming living beings.
I like how you explain that Chaos AND Order are both important to civilization, Order a bit more so but still. I would like to provide a Biologist (even if only of a Bachelor's level) view, as Order and Chaos are important in Nature as well as society. Chaos is change, mutation, adaptability. It is necessary for an organism to survive. Order, meanwhile, is fitting into an ecological niche, having a place in the ecosystem where you do your role so the whole can survive and be healthy. To much chaos, and you might survive, but you'll never thrive, because you can't properly exploit resources without being out competed. Too much order, and you become too specialized and cannot adapt to changing environmental conditions. If you look at extinction events, it's often the more specialized species that die out first, while the adaptable are more likely to survive and thrive later, producing more specialized species in future. Find your niche, create order, but keep some chaos around to handle change. At least, that's my understanding after studying for several years.
Binging chaotic does not mean you do not have or follow rules. If anything being chaotic and having or following rules is quite chaotic as it is a very unpredictable move.
Few understand Chaos. Most cling to a commonly-held view of what "chaos" is, seeking to adoringly match that template of rebellion. To... CONFORM to it. In so doing, they wear the uniform of the anarchist. Thus, they fail.
Precisely. As I've stated elsewhere in this comment section, rebelling to prevent unjust laws killing you, let alone remaining individual to do so is just vs Monty Python esque crowds chanting in unison "Yes, we're all different".
Precisely. As I've stated elsewhere in this comment section, rebelling to prevent unjust laws killing you, let alone remaining individual to do so, is just & moral vs Monty Python esque crowds chanting in unison "Yes, we're all different".
I really like your break down here. I encounter a lot of players that want to be anarchistic and true neutral but I always try to let people know its harder to achieve than you might think. Perfectly stradling the line between chaos and law, good and evil is like trying to balance a disk on a pole, it must be perfectly centers too much to the right it falls to the right to much to the left it falls left. A lot of people want to play true neutral because they believe it gives them carte blanche to pick and choose how to act when in reality it is one of the most narrow and strict paths one can take.
True Neutral usually prescribes non malice or Meglomania, but no mass compassion nor want for a single idea to thrive above others. Their choice to be so by remaining an arbiter to all alignments or apathy to everything not of their perview ala Gond essential.
The way I view chaos is that it reflects unpredictability. You generally stay within your moral compass, but you're willing to bend the rules a little if you don't agree with something or if you're not in the right mood. Let's say there's a lawful good king in charge of a city, and he has to impose harsh rules to keep things safe. A neutral good character might politely decline to help enforce the rules, but promise not to get in the way and help where they can. A chaotic good character would be more likely to tell the king he's dumb and actively flaunt his rules, then proceed to help the city in a better way just to prove a point.
Love how well thought out this argument is. I do think it’s odd that it isn’t noticed how there were counter cultural figures in historical tribal societies-they just didn’t look like the aesthetic egalitarians and counter fundamentalists that originated consumerist anti-the-man subcultures. At the same time, the idea that individuals in a seemingly ordered society can be ‘toddlers’ because of ‘hard-working’ individuals elsewhere isn’t wrong, but it ignores how those who are ‘hard working’ are not necessarily proponents of the rules they allow to theoretically persist over them-nor are those rules always entirely actually about any objective good or evil (if such a thing could exist, except as they can be defined by our human sensibilities and cultural filters). More often those hard-workers are servants without their permission or knowledge to someone who makes the rules for everyone else. And those people, in their selfish desires, their penchant for not following their own rules, are chaotic. I like to think the chaos, as a deterministic meta observation, is the zoom out result of any lawful force. Like any sufficiently lawful society will be ultimately driven by concentrated chaotic forces. What is more toddler like, than to arrange the world such that you are at the center of it, while demanding all others follow your rules to support you? This is the paradox of applied alignments. An individual god might support a certain way of looking at the world but the gods themselves are all children, demanding everyone else follow them. Same for the most disciplined world leaders and-yes-the counterculture nerds playing D&D.
I kinda feel like you have your own idea of what chaos is, that doesn't really match what the D&D authors had in mind. This is OK, but I'm not sure that evaluating other people's work from your point of view and getting mad about it is the right thing to do... PS: to clarify, I don't mind this definition of law and chaos. I don't agree that it's *the definition*, and everyone else is wrong about it, including in their own art. Order and chaos are very abstract concepts, and in the context of D&D alignments, they are what you see fits. It's exactly why alignments are so contagious topic in general.
I think he also misses the fact that many of the tribes he mentions that get listed as 'chaotic' are to some degree raider societies, the Neutral or Evil groups are generally nomadic and will quite happily steal from other societies because it benefits their group.
Art is subjective. It’s no longer the authors interpretation that matters once their idea is thrust into the world. It will matter entirely how people perceive it. He has all the right in this world to have a unique point of view on D&D
@@mrsweeney34 what I disagree with is him saying that *authors* are in the wrong for calling some gods chaotic because *in his book* chaos is a different thing. There is nothing wrong with attributing these gods as neutral or lawful in one's games or publishing adventures where these gods would be attributed in this way (as well as changing them so they would be chaotic in a different way).
17:44 This is a misconception. Even in your "shooting the target with an arrow" example, there are an infinite number of ways to strike the target dead-on. One can angle the arrow high up like lobbing a mortar shell, use a flat trajectory like firing a rifle, or anything in-between. There are reasons to use each approach, too. In reality, there are an infinite number of ways to succeed, and an infinite number of ways to fail. This reasoning is an example of bad faith in the sense that Jean-Paul Sartre used the term.
I disagree. Let's say you're interested in a woman. There is a finite number of ways in which you (or anyone) could enter into a relationship with her, and there is an infinite number of ways in which you could fail to win her heart. Or imagine you need to feed your hungry child. There is a finite number of ways in which you can provide sustenance to him, and there is an infinite number of ways in which you could fail to nourish him. Or think of a game of basketball. There are a finite number of moves you can make and finite conditions for winning the game, but there is an infinite number of things you cannot do and an infinite number of ways to lose the game.
@@esperthebardHistorically & assuming future cultures evolve, there are potentially infinite ways in which approach, have sex, fall in love or pair bond with ANYONE. The only finite thing being the end goal to achieve your desired response or act with that specific person. Feeding ANY hungry person requires only the endgame of they not going hungry. Infinite options allow for a single child to steal a grain of rice to temporarily state their hunger OR to somehow be eternally full from it to a politician ending global hunger or a scientist developing technology to prevent the concept of eating. The only reality in which your comment exists is completely predetermined ones vs the clearly lacking non Physics based predetermination & lacking objective morality of our own. Ie The Dm &/or you determine X WILL happen, whether organically, willfully, by contrite or pure accident within the rules of other's actions.
Warhammer 40k does it right. In a universe full of endless chaos, it’s no surprise that the Imperium needs to be lawful and traditionalist to the extreme.
The imperium doesn't need to be extremely lawful and traditionalist to fight the chaosl. That's the other point is that they CREATE their enemies by being so awful to live in. Roboute said something similar along those lines.
Now I’m thinking I somehow missed the chaotic part of Iliira’s alignment. Granted, I first learned of her through 5e when I checked out the gods section in the 5e handbook, and thought that was pretty cool of a god to embody joy. I even had the thought of how people might be dismissive, like “oh, she just tells you to smile all the time. What a load.” I feel like if a cleric devotes themselves to Iliira, they have enough sense to know that “just smile” is incredibly reductive. Life’s full of emotions, and bad ones don’t just go away because we force ourselves to be happy. I’d assert that the goal of Iliira is to help people through good times and bad, always making sure emotions are valid and ensuring there’s a good future to fight for. Society needs food and trades, but joy is the glue that holds society together, not an afterthought of society existing.
Yeah without art and joy and love we'd just be ants. What's the point. A god of joy doesn't aid in survival, but they do give survival a purpose, which in a way is pretty damn necessary to get shit done ask any depressed person.
Hm.. We can assume a Quasar won't explode & destroy any trace of Earth, or the Universe decides to press the "Emergency Resest Button" only once we die & are in eternal oblivion, but ultimately philosiphically Hume has a point. Everyday depressing end of the universe scenarios? Fuck it, I live life & enjoy it never assuming the Aztecs were right re the Sun rising..
I kinda once made a character who's a bit close to a god, and mostly follows in line with the ideas of Chaos. to summarize who he is, he once was a simple person who used to live freely, however an event happened that made him unintentionally defy fate and reality, which gifted him the ability to control what is basically the worlds version of literal chaos essence (which is called Paradox, and I'll be happy to explain what it is and how it works). after some time, he came to realize this power, and eventually learned its true nature, later developing a philosophy surrounding ideas of chaos, eventually even becoming what is basically the god of chaos the ideals he holds involving his abilities of chaos mainly surround ideas of choice and simply becoming at piece with who you are. an example he commonly has is that, despite chaos not having a true alignment, he still chooses to do good, as it is his choice, not simply the will of the universe. he also encourages people to become at peace with any primal instincts, but to not loose themselves to it. he believes that who a person truly is mainly comes from who they are and what choices they make, without any form of code of honor or a society and its taboo's to force a decision out of them. besides things such as choice and peoples instincts, he also has some connection to ideas such as Life, Death, Emotion, Nature, Art, dreams, etc. another interesting thing is that, despite being basically the god of chaos, he can't actually control it at all, and doesn't seek to. he mainly focuses on creating more raw chaos in several ways, whether it be as big as crumbling societies or as small as allowing a small little flower to grow.
The Primordial version of Chaos, very Dharmic in its usage & better than this video's interpretation of "chaos=toddler". Piece with oneself & knowing who you are is long, but very rewarding.
"Humans are odd. They think order and chaos are somehow opposites and try to control what won't be. But there is grace in their failings. I think you missed that."
A safety net is what catches you if the main course fails. A tribal community is the main course, and if that fails, there are no other protection structures, aid organizations, government programs, etc. to fall back on.
Shaundakul seems like a great chaos god. Exploration? Uncharted lands? Going with the wind? These seem like very chaotic things. All his domains are prepared for the unexpexted. Sounds like a god of travel, with no destination. A god of freedom, with no goal.
A god of war like Tempus should totally be Lawful Evil. He's a god of violence on a massive scale with the mitigating factor is that he supports an order to the methods and motivations of that violence... sounds like a mix of law and evil to me.
The LE god of war is Bane. He's all about conquest, domination, tyranny, and ruling with an iron fist. Tempus (N or CN) demands that fights be honorable, and he supports those who rebel and fight against tyrants.
But also supports tyrants and conquerors who fight with honour. It feels like Ares and his sister Enyo (the goddess of atrocity and sacked cities). It just feels like that Tempus is inherently connected to the evil bit of the "necessary evil" of war. @@esperthebard
Tempus is definitely not evil. I agree with Esper that the Chaotic is debatable at best but he's not evil. Violence in and of itself is not inherently evil, animals are violent. Most heroes use violence a lot, they just use it for good causes. Tempus is more flexible on what a "good cause" might be than most heroes are but he still agrees there should be one. The way he sees it violence with no cause isn't war, it's just mindless butchery. There's a different god for that, Graragos (who would be much more like the Ares example you mentioned), and he and Tempus can't stand each other. Tempus is also very protective of Eldath, goddess of peace, because he understands war has no meaning without peace to contrast it and to return to. After all, if war never ends there can be no victory. In fact clerics of Tempus are required to protect threatened clerics and holy sites of Eldath. Tempus is not a nice entity but he is not cruel, greedy, selfish or sadistic. He's also a surprisingly good father to his de facto daughter The Red Knight, the goddess of strategy.
I think the most realized version of a Chaotic Deity is not from D&D, but rather the Elder Scrolls with Mehrunes Dagon. He is the god of Change and Destruction. Many view him as an evil god because of his commitment to tearing down things that mortals built, but he is more like a force of nature, a hurricane in a sense. His only motivation is to cause continual change in the status quo, and the most effective way to do that is to destroy. If you view the current power structures as evil, then he could be a force for good. If you view the structures as benevolent, then he is a force for evil. In this sense, he is divorced from any kind of good or evil. He is just a force, and his morality is entirely dependent on perspective. This is what I think Chaos should be in an embodiment. A completely different scale from morality.
I think that cyric is the most chaotic god in FR. I mean he wrote a book about himself, read it, and then became mad. I think this is one of the most chaotic things I ever read! However, I like your take on this topic!
I think you articulated very well, an unspoken feeling I've had concerning tribal vs urbanized societies. I feel like urbanites see the aethstetics of tribal societies; the scanty clothing, the tattoos and dances - and assume them without context, to stand out and contrast their own society; and are misled empathetically into assuming that the demeanor of those people must match their own. But whenever one looks at such tribal cultures; the aesthetics are by necessity - scanty clothes require less precious hand-made fabric, and are less sweltering in oppressive climates. The tattoos and dances are all very orderly, with deep symbolism - not a single bead or feather is added without deliberation, or purpose. They are typically quite chaste, lawful, and conservative, and it doesn't jive with modern urban sensibilities.
This is one of those videos where I want the moment I hit the "like" button to be known, as I hit it right when you defined Chaos in accordance with my knowledge
The most powerful D&D character I ever had was a 3E elven Cleric/Wizard of Leira that got to epic level in both classes. He was a spell slinging powerhouse that delighted in disrupting powerbases throughout the land. He also had a particular hatred of Cyric. I learned that strategic deception is much more effective than pathological lying.
you cannot have order without chaos, nor chaos without order. the law and order of society only grow and exist to combat the chaos of nature. without that chaos, there would be no order.
I'd argue that Lady of Pain is a chaos god or chaos entity, since she is truly unpredictable with her wants and desiers. She has a code but no one seems to really understand anything of what they are without some vague glimpses. The fact so much of her is shrouded in mystery seems more like that true unknown rather than each chaos god clearly declared their domain. And it reminds me of the realm of chaos and the Githyanki where there are some order in chaos, Why? Because expecting to be chaotic all the time is predictable.
The ruler of Sigil is much the same vs many putting her in "Lawful Evil". She's both Lawful in keeping Neutrality of Sigil & "DO NOT LOOK UPON ME", yet unpredictable in her end goal & choosing between apathy to alignments or Arbiter of them.
Loved it and love how you keep reinventing yourself. The part about chaos needing laws to break was kinda weird to me, though as I like to align with chaos myself. Yes, I got stuff I wanna break, but perhaps is because we carry the cavepeople genes we kinda can't imagine pure chaos? Because as you said, life was just that at that time and place. Now to the good ones? Ngl, I got chills from the evil one. The neutral ones was pretty cool too. This one was a welcome expectation break. Will we get the warm and fuzzies good aligned gods?
This was fascinating! I've always struggled to understand what DnD means by chaos or something being chaotic, because often most of the lore about it feels paradoxical.
Yeah a lot of people want to sugar coat parts of alignment or try to ignore or various other methods that aren't dealing with it as intended. I got a friend wanting to run a game and he has basically wiped all the alignment stuff from his setting, which also means the whole cosmos is wiped clean. I don't like it but that's ok
The alignments mean different things in different editions so it's almost impossible to pin down. In some editions they represent various personality traits, in others they represent primordial forces, in still others they represent leagues of gods.
Talos (CE) is less chaotic than Cyric (CE), and after looking at Cyric, I realized that the most chaotic god possible would have to be chaotic neutral. If I could have made this video longer, I would have included Talos and the two chaotic luck gods though. Btw: In 3e, gods always had the domains of their alignments.
One other way to maybe think about chaos/law as an alignment is its relation to adaptability. Law is to change the surroundings to suit the person, Chaos is to change the person to suit the surroundings. Eilistraee seeks to change the drow to life better life's amongst other races under the sun. Shaundakul seeks to aid explorers, explorers need adaptability, he would promote it to help explorers. "Adaptability" is not all chaos is of course, but it can be a logical aspect of it. It would certainly help the bottom of your list.
4 месяца назад
I always found the Lawful/chaos paradigm a little weird. sometimes the law is not orderly, in fact the law can be somewhat chaotic Many of the Cthulhu cycle gods had very strict laws, rituals that needed to be followed to exact and meticulous detail. If I had been there at the beginning of all things for D&D I would have suggested Order vs Chaos just made me think, very cool video Esper, very fun video!
You had great thoughts on this, Esper! To me, chaos will always be something very negative and evil. Because if deity also exists in the lack of good, or in the total opposite of it, then it cannot be neutral, it is evil. The "good" sides of this chaotic god are meaningless, when evil is involved. In a way, you could expect a chaotic god to always lean towards evil, merely because evil is also a part of it. It's like playing a Russian Rolette.
@@rubyriches What?! "The Heroes Journey" (and such) isn't Peri-Christian, let alone a "Post Christian story and structure". Stories of today don't have the characters move the story forward, the characters ARE the story, and (most of) the characters of today are quite shallow. If you like the stuff of today, fine, you watch it, write it, or use it for your (I'm sure) combat, character-based games. Mine is story-driven, making combat and all aspects of the game to have meaning and purpose, and every group I've DMed for notices this and prefers it! But you play however you and your group wishes.
@@MarkLewis...? Campbell is one of MANY choices to use when making fiction. Our species has used oral tradition, fables, satire & comedy since we evolved beyond using "Ugg" & grunts, a plethora of recognisable & alien themes, structures, characters & methods have & do exist. My comment desires they be utilised vs done to death Western christian tropes. Let alone you ranting vs calmly asking my use of "post christian Western storytelling" or "eastern" or "non christian". Ironically, in your critique of modern storytelling, re shallow all but attempt at ultimate relatable ideas, not well written characters, driving the story vs plot only, I agree entirely. The last good modern character driven fiction I enjoyed was Pirates of the Caribbean Curse of the Black Pearl in 2003.
@@rubyriches I respectfully disagree. You're conflating formulation (how) with substance (what). "How" you came into being, (reproduction and birth) is quite different than "what" you are, (human). The "cliches" and all else you mentioned is what is being written, not how it's being written. Also, East, West, and Christendom has nothing to do with it. The formulation of storytelling, such as Gilgamesh and many other stories, predates all of those things, centuries to millennia. We tell stories to educate and entertain, so, the method that invokes the most curiosity, intrigue, wonder, etc., and taps into our emotions, as well as psyche, (such as the Heroes Journey illustrates) is still superior to character-driven stories. Characters don't make a great story, but a story makes great characters. Star Wars "A New Hope" story-driven is great, while modern Star Wars (the Rey Years) is horrible and character-driven.
You missed Ereven Ilesere, the Elven god of Chaos and thieves. He delights is just mucking with other's grand plans, and has none of his own. He's capricious, but not either evil or good. I think he ranks up there with Leiira.
I recently found out that freedom and friend are etymologically linked, and that in ancient Greece, tyrants were considered thus because they repressed group bonds. Perhaps something to ber in mind with D&D's concept of chaos.
Look, I came here to hear about the most chaotic gods in D&D, not get a lecture about how pursuing freedom from a society drowning in unjust laws is toddler behavior.
The reason we don’t like chaos is that our brains are very, very good at recognizing patterns. We naturally seek to find patterns in the world. After all, the ability to see that people who ate fish from a pond and then died is a powerful evolutionary advantage that animals generally do not have. We don’t know why, exactly, the people who ate the fish died, but we can see the pattern and not eat fish from the pond. Chaos then is the anti-pattern. Our brains dislike the idea that just anything can result from an action. We want to believe there is an order to the universe, and when discovered, we can use that knowledge to our benefit. Asmodeus is certainly evil, but he is also lawful. Ordered. We can see the pattern in his actions and use that knowledge. If we lived in Faerûn, we could make a very educated guess what would happen when dealing with devils, what a pact would entail. Demons, on the other hand, we could not. That few of the unknown is powerful.
In the context of chaos i think freedom was meant to be tendency towards change, coming up with new ideas and lack of fear when it comes to consequences How easy is it to change when you are not free thinker How chaotic can you be when you are held back by rules, strict codes and your own fears?
This has been said by other people, but it definitely seems like you misunderstand Chaos in DnD a bit. Rather than your breakdown at the beginning, you should read the alignment page from 3e/3.5e. It breaks it down pretty well. Chaos does not necessarily mean you can't have a code. It also doesn't mean you are irresponsible, or infantile. But it CAN. That is chaos in its extreme. It seems like you're kinda stuck on the extremes of chaos, while looking at Law in a more tempered way. Love your other videos, just kinda seemed like you missed the target on this one.
“We’re particularly sensitive to bad things. Bad things can hurt us, they can even kill us.” That’s not to say good things can’t I assume, seeing as anything can prove harmful if in high enough quantity.
"Good things" (a transient state) are enjoyable and give us pleasure... if they start out as enjoyable, but then later hurt us, (from too much exposure say) then they cease being "good", so no... "good things" can't hurt us.
There are absolute values and there are relative values. The relative values can be bad in excess or if not grounded in absolute values. The absolute values can never be harmful, not matter if the quantity is extremely high: truth, beauty, goodness, love. (Clarification: By love, I mean true love, in which someone wills the good of the other and makes sacrifices for the good of the other; I'm not talking about things like infatuation or lust)
@@esperthebard Do forgive me if my rebuttal has a few flaws; it’s late, I’m tired, and I’m likely to turn in for the night the moment I send this. Truth? That’s _generally_ a good thing, but there are situations in which truth can cause actual harm if not obfuscated in some way. Tell me - would the truth be an absolute value in regards to, say, breaching someone’s privacy and sharing information about them that, by all conceivable metrics, should not be shared? Or how about step-by-step instructions on how to go about committing an atrocity? Both are truthful, but neither are morally correct to share. Beauty? That’s a very subjective term that varies not only culture-by-culture, but individual-by-individual; meaning it can’t be an “absolute value” because it’s inherently not absolute. Goodness? So far as I see it, that too is a relative term my friend; and even if it’s not, we are quite literally discussing whether or not “good” can be stretched to such an extent that it becomes harmful, meaning citing it as an example of an absolute value is arguably an instance of circular reasoning - and, if not, it’s definitely repeating your premise wholesale while confusing it for a point in favor of your premise. And as for love? I do have to wonder if you’ve ever endured a toxic relationship (not to say it’s a bad thing if you haven’t - frankly, I envy you if you haven’t); because, if you have, one of the key takeaways you should take from them is that willing the good of the other and making sacrifices for them is a very, very dangerous game to play when you do it for someone who, by all conceivable metrics, does not deserve it. Especially when seeking to actively justify or cover up the things they say and do, or enduring whatever they put you through specifically, simply because you love them - or both.
@@MarkLewis... You really think “good” and “bad” necessarily equal “pleasure” and “displeasure”? That is a very simplistic way of looking at the world my friend.
@esperthebard Just curious Esper... what "absolutes" are there, and why are they "absolute"? I can't think of 1 absolute universal truth as it pertains to human understanding. It can't be love, good, beauty, all the things you mentioned, because they are all subjective, and an absolute would be 100% proven fact, not emotional or opinion. Not even science deals in absolutes, but in probability, based in evidence. Yet, we don't know anything with 100% certainty. I'm willing to consider I may be wrong... respectfully, what absolutes are there?
I wanna leave a comment to support the channel but after watching the video I have to say we'll I feel your pick for he most chaotic God was correct I also think you have an extremely poor understanding of what true chaos is and it's full importance to our world and people
I think the whole idea of law and chaos can be really hard to unravel. Take for example a wild band society. In some ways they don't go massively far from a traditional way of life with the beats they know as they hunt and herd their animals through the mountains for example. They may also be a society where family ties and bonds of cooperation are important for mutual survival. So in that way they are orderly. But also this society may have only weak and fluid leadership structures, they feel no obligation to continue to obey a leader whom they no longer regard as acting in their best interest, with smaller family groups potentially leaving a band group to seek another if they don't feel they are being treated well and if the majority of the tribe does not feel a leader has their best interest at heart a society without much in the way of institutions means a leader disliked is going to have a very limited ability to command the obedience of others. Likewise the leader may have a limited capacity to command a monopoly on the use of force, with it potentially being acceptable for people to act individually to avenge a wrong or perhaps spontaneously as a group to exclude someone who is breaking the norms. The leader of the group is also unlikely to do many other things that a state may do like collect taxes, with such a band society often being based more on a leader's ability to distribute resources such as the loot from a raid or meat from the livestock the leaders owns or the animal they lead a hunt to kill as a means of achieving loyalty rather than a system where leaders consolidate resources via taxing, collecting rent from, employing or owning other people. The urbanised society may well in some ways include the capacity to live various kinds of life styles, at least if you're in the right social class, thanks to the wider variety of goods it can produce and the wider number of socioeconomic niches it may have. They also have leaders at the top who have the institutions by which they can say that only they are allowed to set the laws and only their appointed judges may decide who is innocent and who is guilty. They may collect the tariffs from the peasants who live on their land, or the taxes from the people, or demand corvee labour. They may hold people in bondage and force them to remain on a particular piece of land or at least prevent them from leaving the kingdom and going off into the wilderness. Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States I think is an excellent source of inspiration I think for thinking about things like frontier environments and the wilderness and the like in my adventures.
No, I disagree with that. The question of freedom is a philosophical question, and first and foremost you have to distinguish between "positive freedom" (freedom to do ...) and "negative freedom" (freedom from ...). "Law-abidingness" and discipline can certainly help to achieve the positive variety, but one can never achieve freedom from e.g. rules, conventions or ideologies without causing some degree of unrest and chaos. I think the fundamental misunderstanding here (and in Dnd in general) is that order and chaos are some kind of human characteristics. But they are not. They are a way of describing conditions in our world, and they are not objective because they depend on the knowledge, values and perceptions of the people who apply them.
Freedom is a subjective term, based in popularity, not a dichotomy of positive and negative applications. Freedom is a desired status, but all human freedom is an illusion. Without Law and order, there can be no freedom, because without Law, life for all becomes a contest in a "survival of the fittest" mentality only; powerful over the weaker, so, if everyone is free, how are the weak then free? If people were 100% free... they'd be slaves to the constraints of survival, every second of every day, because exercising your ultimate freedom by power will infringe other's freedom. There is no benevolence, morality, or justice in a 100% freedom society. No, "freedom" is a balance of moral liberties, but exercised with respect of others, within the established Law... but then again... who dictates morality?! (Though, believe whatever you like.)
@@MarkLewis...I don't really see what this has to do with what I wrote. Positive and negative freedom are common terms in the philosophical debate about freedom (you can find them in Kant, Leibniz and Rousseau). These terms are used to better understand the concept of freedom and are not a judgment (in the sense of positive = good and negative = bad, which is not what is meant at all). I suggest you look up these terms, then perhaps it will become clearer what I mean. But it definitely has nothing to do with "believing" ...
@@Liber-Abraxas Lol... funny how you don't understand, but attempt to project that on to me. BTW... Kant was an idiot. Maybe you should read Hume to learn why.
What about freedom from unlawful search and seizure? Freedom from the press? Freedom from cruel and unusual punishments? Those are negative freedoms achieved, established, and maintained by disciplined, law-abiding individuals.
Some misunderstanding here. Alignments are a representation of defining beliefs systems, and doesn't mean total adherence to order and chaos in it's most extreme representation. If we're following your proposition, then even Leira is somewhat lawful, because she still adheres rigidly to her domains in how she behaves - trickery and illusion. Being truly chaotic would also mean veering out of one's domain as a god. Deciding one day to stop being a god, etc. But being chaotic for a god follows their defining domain/trait, and that's trickery for Leira. Probably only lovecraftian, outer gods are true chaotic. Alignments marital PC/NPC are much easier to define. Barbarians are considered chaotic because they're considered highly disorganized, when compared to that of a city/cloister/monastery. Hence why a monk/pally is always lawful. Fighters are mixed bag, and rogues, barbarians always non-lawful.
Part of the problem is the fact that "Law" and "Chaos" has never been defined particularly well. The idea originally came from the Medieval notion of Order and Chaos but D&D got it from Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions and Michael Moorcock's iconic Eternal Champion novels, which were very popular when D&D was first being written. (Moorcock was very influenced by Anderson, so it was a double influence through Anderson.) Order meant "world of civilization" basically, or under the rule of the rightful emperor and church. In Medieval Europe this would be the Catholic Church and the Pope of Rome, with people arrayed in the "Great Chain of Being", which encapsulated even animals, plants, and matter. Chaos meant the world outside of that. It applied to other civilizations (e.g., Islam) but very definitely to non-"Peoples of the Book". Interestingly while I agree that barbarians (so-called) often lived by a code, things like their political alliances and even their religious beliefs were often frequently changing. Even tribal identities changed to suit the blowing political winds and this change is one reason markers of tribal identity become so personal and strong among nomads and pastoralists, as they are in Judaism or in historical societies that did things like practice head deformation (Sarmatians, Huns) or heavy tattooing and body modification (Scythians).
just because the survival of some chaotic beings is dependent on law and structure doesn't mean they are apart of it, part of chaos is destruction, and so they don't always care if they are destroyed or changed of couse chaotic goods beings want to thrive but that just means they need a chaotic plane to inhabit a chaotic good heaven, the mortals that live in structured places often time need the good things that are provided but that doesn't mean they like it, it must feel frustrating to rely on law to thrive, and to be the most chaotic is to change the most and to change into more of everything which includes there opposites you can act lawful and evil without being it, Jack Sparrow may need law to survive, but thats because hes a being in a lawful world with laws of physics or maybe thats a lie in its own right and he lives in a chaotic universe that is just acting lawful. Teehee haha lol XD
great vid i was wondering were you found that long list of all the gods and goddesses for DND, i still don't know most of the lesser ones and want to put some more into my pantheon for my next play through
God, quite an excavation you performed here!!! Thanks! Great thoughts on the nature of "freedom" of a toddler and discipline of a successful grown up in the beginning 👍🏼 😀 💪🏼
What's your character like? Race, feats, abilities, equipment, spells, behavior, etc.? I'm curious because as I was making this video, I got kind of interested in playing a character that follows Leira.
@@esperthebard well it started as just wanting to take a cleric dip with a bard. He's a water genasi charlatan with expertise in insight and deception. His father was a marid and his mother was a pirate captain. he has a raven familiar because of mimicry, he's a rumormonger who works with all factions (we are playing Dragon Heist). He's an absolute menace. We are on Liar's Night right now which is the main holiday for Leirans so I'm doing some extra shenanigans. Taking all of the illusion and enchantment spells in Bard and college of eloquence so I can't roll lower than like a 21 in deception.
Legit...what are you even on about? Of course CN characters are gonna be lunatics. CN is like sitting in the middle of the street gluing your hands to the cement...not caring about laws and only living for yourself but not going out of your way to murder people. That would be CE. So just don't allow CN characters if you don't want morons at your table
makes me sad to say cyric always acts according to evil because maybe it's technically true but I'm always very "nobody understands him like i do. hes misunderstood" about him lol. he's my patron in the main long running campaign im in and he gave me a nice necromancy necklace so i think he's quite nice actually (delusional)
How could someone be chaotic and be stable and structured? Those are opposites. It would be like saying someone is messy and organized, or someone is short and tall.
I'm more of a neutral good soul personally. I believe in balance. Be grounded in order and law, so that you can explore and adventure into the realm of chaos and the unknown, seeking wisdom and treasures that you can use to help people.
Umm...no. if we are talking about real Hunter Gatherers, they do not have strict hierarchies or roles on average - you can always find outliers. The people you showed to refer to as "tribal" are actually "civilized" (i dont like the terms) and have domesticated animals and plants they mostly rely on. Its with large scale organization/wealth accumulation that you get "laws" and strict hierachies. Hunter gathers work like 4 hours a day and rarely war with each other. Its those "civilized" folk with their domesticated animals and plants who adhere to strict societal expectations, class hierachies that protect the rich, and so forth. I think someones conservarive politics is bleeding into their DnD lore.
Hunter gathers have no lawyers, no police, no judges, or other "civilized " roles like that. Let's be real, the law/chaos duality isn't perfect in DnD let alone good and evil.
I had a hard time find videos of tribal people from 1,000 years ago. But the point of that section was that D&D always depicts tribal people as being chaotic or neutral-but-close-to-chaotic, which is inaccurate, as most tribal people are heavily based in traditions and roles.
@esperthebard Brother man, you don't need videos from a 1000 years ago. We have hunter gathers now. You have the Hadza, Australian Aboriginals, Bushmen of the Kalihari, several tribes in South America still persist, as well as in Malaysia. There are literal hunting videos where hunters use persistance hunting and run down their prey before hitting it with a spear. This is how humans existed for about 90% or our existence. You have more freedom and free time as a hunter gather than a serf in the middle ages. Only the rich and nobles were afforded the luxury of idleness due to labor exploitation. Civilized people, those who farm or domesticated animals have those strict societal roles. Wealth accumulation = inequality and subservience to a class structure. Hunter gathers do not operate this way and women have more equality. That's why when the white settlers came to America, they were shocked to find women "leaders" (better to say influential). Crazy Horse was a chief. Chief of what? The whole tribe? No, he was specifically the war chief. Its back in "civilization" that you have strict gender roles to produce more people for armies that serve the ruling elite. Depending on your definition of tribal, which is a very nebulous term (basically every human could be called tribal), those people have more freedom.and not less. You are thinking like early anthropologists instead of the current ones.
Pygmies....I could go on. That one Island where the Christian tried to go and "teach" the people religion and got killed - dude was warned not to go. Those people are hunter gathers. Once people are growing crops and animals and that makes up most their diet, that's when you get laws, taxes, writing (to keep track of all the exploiting you are doing to others), and all the other BS that comes with civilization. So no, if we are using this imperfect paradigm of Law vs Chaos, Tribal/Hunter Gathers would be more chaotic since they lack the strict structure of civilized societies. That doesn't mean they don't have good manners, or responsibility, or even organization, it just means they do have more personal freedom and more leisure time to do what they want.
Also,....you were more likely to starve or face famine as a "civilized " domesticator than a hunter gather. The fossil evidence is clear on this. Farmers had poorer diets and lacked iron which created pits in their skulls. Hunter gathers also tended to be larger than farmers due to better diet. People shrank in height once they domesticated crops. Them are the facts 💯
Man I just see Chaos as Entropic in nature and instability or change Order is negentropic and stagnation or stability The entire opening of this was pedantic and while yes you mentioned that Chaos was needed. You seem very biased against any chaotic world view. For instance I find a tribal "rule by the strong" and "Democracy" as both being rather chaotic systems of governing because the rulers and leaders are always in flux. Where as an Absolute Monarchy or a dictatorship is one of Order, due to the respective rules ruling for potential decades with their lineages ruling for hundreds of years.
I love this. Especially the take on the tribal savages people being actually lawful in a chaotic environment and the reverse for the modern citizen in more urban surroundings.
It really explains today's US society... vs certain others.
The US isn't having a normal time at the moment. Many things are changing. This are highly unusual times for the US.
The problem I see with this idea is that, while living in nature one must abide by the laws of nature. So there is definitely the ability to be chaotic in the wild, by simply ignoring the laws of nature/refusing to live by natural law. A great example would be using healing magic in a barbarian tribe. If you truly lived by nature's laws, you wouldn't heal the weak, for it would cause your tribe to become weak. The death of one who becomes dangerously hurt in the hunt would not be stopped, but instead accepted as a part of the way of life.
@@darklordmathias9405 Of course you can always bend those archetypes for your story's game but overall in real life there's a patern close to what is described here.
@@raydaveed Tbf, my statement extends to more than just a game world. Chaos, by it's very nature, is disorderly. Would a tribe of peoples who live off of scavenging and hunting and never staying in one singular place consider being a stationary settlement as chaotic? The tribes of Uthgurt in the north are mostly stationary, which would lend credence to their chaotic alignment. Not to mention if there were tribes who used undead as menial labor, those are most definitely chaotic, because undead are the very antithesis of "natural law", which are the laws that a society of lawful tribesmen would live by. I think the problem lies in that, in my opinion, "uncivilized folks" are more likely neutral on the spectrum of law versus chaos, rather than outright lawful. Unless these tribes specifically practice things like ostracizing magic users of all kinds(due to the fact that magic alters the natural world, rather than being in harmony with it) and remaining nomadic, they couldn't be entirely lawful, at least according to the laws of nature. A perfect example of what would be a lawful tribal society would be some of the early Native American tribes from before the lands were settled by Europeans. I do say some, because I can only recall a couple of tribes that would purposely allow the weak and old to die off, allowing more resources for the young and strong to make their people stronger as well. I think there is definitely a case that CAN be made for lawful tribesmen, but I also think they're more rare than one would think. It's like how in my experience, most Barbarian players are either Good-aligned, or Evil-aligned, with no in-between. But then again, maybe the idea is just too fresh for people to have pre-thought of character ideas for an actually neutral barbarian? Would require a bit more investigation maybe.
Also, the presence of Rage Mages in the tribes would pull them away from entirely lawful, due to the fact that it is still indeed magic that alters the world around them.
Clearly, the RNG is the most chaotic deity, regardless of setting or edition.
roll the dice ... dance with chaos 🌀
Willinus Wheatonus
Domain: Natural 1s
I would argue that chaos, when used to refer to a person, means they live by their own rules. They don't try to live entirely outside of order and organization, rather they take the initiative to create the law and order they live by. The chaotic person is at the top of his own personal hierarchy, not answerable to others who seek to rule from the top down. Instead of being forced to live the way someone else deems acceptable for him, he lives his own way, free to succeed or fail based on his decisions and skills alone.
There are lots of people who attempt to impose their own will upon reality or create their own reality, with their own self-made set of values. The main problem with this is that we are actually unable to create our own values. We can try, but we will fail every time. Life and the world are just too complex for one mere human to figure out. And a person is always too flawed and too limited to be the lord over everything.
@@esperthebard I wouldn't say creating your own values. There is certainly an objective good and an objective evil. There is an objective morality as well. However, these do not define everything. There are a number of gray areas, both in the items above and in people's interpretations of the objective morality. It is in the interpretation and application of objective morality that people can make their own way. If there was only one way to interpret morality, the only people we would see as bad are the ones who are intentionally evil. We can't be the gods of our own universes or escape the black and white of good and evil, but we can make our own decisions in the gray areas instead of allowing others to do so for us. Its part of free will. We are capable of doing things that we know aren't good, and we don't always know what is good or bad, but we are still given the opportunity to make the decision ourselves.
@@internetcatfish I agree with that for the most part. There definitely is objective morality, but there is also complex gray area in the middle that we have to continuously discuss and debate and try to figure out.
@@esperthebard You seem to have found a much more efficient way of saying basically what I said. This is why I'm not a writer.
@@esperthebard only a Sith deals in absolutes...
There’s something weirdly meta about a chaotic entity like Eilistraee having a difficult name to pronounce, as though order holds such limited chord over her that even categorizing her with a name proves difficult.
To be fair, there is a language bias here.
What sounds odd, forced, and discordant to the ear in one language can sound natural and elegant in another.
One of the signs of a fiction author who hasn't put a lot of thought into their "aliens" or foreign peoples is that they all use the same alphabet (or near enough that it makes no difference).
Meanwhile, there are real Earth languages which don't even have a past tense or a future tense, or certain colors, have different ways to think about numbers, include clicking sounds or vocal inhalations, assign meaning to specific tones/notes or ways to enunciate "n," rhyme with different qualities than the sound of the word when spoken aloud, and a bunch of other cool-as-hell features.
The Elven name "Eilistraee" is straight-up _mundane_ compared to normal Human words in many IRL languages.
In brazilian portuguese sounds good
How a chaotic character can be as mature as a lawful character: make them a consequentialist.
A consequentialist fundamentally rejects the notion of universal rules of behavior in favor of always adapting to circumstances, it doesn't matter what you do, it matters what happens.
Rejecting rules not out of immature hedonism but in favor of independent reason based on everchanging circumstances. From their perspective the rules are a crutch for those who are not ready to make their own assessments.
It would be a good counter for the stereotype of the chaotic character as an impulsive toddler. Rather than emotions being the source of the chaotic behavior let reason be the source of the chaotic behavior.
Where do you go with their analysis on consequences? I think the answer to why they want certain outcomes or how they plan to achieve them might quickly lut them back in the lawful or neutral zone. Even as described I think you are talking neutral instead of chaos. Pretty nebulous though
@@davidburnett5049 Scientifically speaking how order vs chaos is essentially a question of how easy it is to predict: if you know the approximate starting conditions and can from that predict the approximate outcome the system is ordered, if the approximate knowledge of the starting conditions does not allow you to predict the approximate outcome but exact knowledge allows you to predict it the system is chaotic. If perfect knowledge of the starting conditions does not allow you to predict the system the system is random.
So the question of where someone lands on the scale of lawful vs chaotic should be how simple is it to predict what they are going to do. If you want to predict a consequentilist you can't just know their principles you need to know everything they know, if you don't you can't know what they intend to do therefore they can't be lawful.
Where they end up between neutral and chaotic is a matter of how intelligent they are, the more intelligent the more chaotic.
There is different levels of planning, trying to assess action and consequences ahead of time and creating a strict structured plan to follow lands them closer to the ordered, but also pushes what it means to be a consequentialist.
A highly intelligent consequentialist would continuily change not just their plans but also their analysis based on outcomes from past experiences. Continually learning and adapting not just their plan of action but also their analysis, this makes it impossible to predict what they would do without knowing everything they know about the present circumstances, all of their experiences and what consequences they want, making them extremely chaotic.
I'll say this analysis is based on viewing the chaotic alignment as chaotic rather than random. D&D kind of conflate the two terms, but chaos is theoretically deterministic while randomness is not. Ordered and chaotic systems often operate on similar rules are often distinguished from eachother by complexity (example would be the three body problem where three objects e.g. stars orbit around each other creating a chaotic and unpredictable pattern, but two bodies orbiting each other is very ordered). Randomness can appear superficially similar to chaos but really is not.
@@randomtimeline I do appreciate a response but I don't have the energy to read this right now
I don't think that consequence based decision making is chaotic at all. Maybe ultimate pragmatism/realism doesn't literally line up with the law but it is ordered more than it is chaotic. If we are talking about society a character, I would assume that the character would be more lawful or chaotic depending on their sympathy with where that society is on the good/evil axis relative to them. If they are good and in an relatively good society they probably wouldn't literally break laws all the time but if they were evil they might see an evil societies tyranny as ultimately effective. All I'm saying is that it's complicated and I think this character concept is more based on context of the setting more than an object lawful chaotic scale.
Precisely.
For those of us legally rebelling against unjust laws, thank you.
Ah yes, Chaos. The other Lawful alignment.
I feel like the great old ones/elder evils would be the most chaotic from the perspective of beings from the prime material plane. They're invomprehensible/unknowable.
Personally not sure about this one. There's an ever-present sense of disdain for the concept of chaos as presented here that looks at the gods aligned with it with blood-stained lenses. The concept of what makes a person chaotic aligned seems to fall pretty far afield of what the 5e makers intended, as evidenced by the fact this analysis places plenty of these chaotic-aligned gods as neutral instead. The disdain is once again evident as the chaotic good gods are almost unilaterally viewed as neutral good instead.
My main account is now unsubscribed from Edge due they viewing my real world, maturely, legal rebelling against laws that demand I be killed for my immutable characteristics as "immature".
Ironically the opening quote precisely what chaos enabling one to be an individual, how it manifests & D&D lack of distinction between chaos & randomness perfect.
I think I get why Shaundakut is more chaotic than neutral good. He’s the spirit of curiosity and the bane of secrets. Not all secrets should be spoiled, and not all places visited. Sometimes it’s best to leave well enough alone, but he is the god of intrigue untempered by judgment. That kind of curiosity could be the undoing of the current order, for better or worse.
I always played him as the embodiment of wanderlust. He was always on the move and clerics of him should be too. Good deity for an adventurer cleric.
The thoughts on chaos as a concept seem...oddly judgemental to me, and even the assessment of some gods; if they have the tiniest hint of pattern to them, are they even chaotic at all? I guess this really just falls into how badly alignments are up to interpretation. I would argue heavily against taking the freedom aspect out of chaos, considering how much it thrives under it. Chaotic freedom is not just "toddler whims" but also unconstrained determinism. You could easily argue that within our ordered society we have as much freedom as we do, not because of our structured laws, but in despite of them. We have the freedoms *because* they are not dictated and left up to individual choice. Though you are still right about safe, orderly places giving birth to counter-culture, but isn't that part of the cycle or things? Order within chaos, within order, within chaos, layers and layers. A chaotic person, doesn't *have* to really on orderly people, a lot do, just as most others rely on others. Don't forget hermits, and those that shunned civilization, those characters make their own houses/tools etc. Of course they don't have to be chaotic but they can be, and they would have no reliance on orderly people at all. This feels like arguing or complaining, and I'm sorry about that, but it truly felt that you were vehemently dismissive to the concept of an "actual" chaotic character, or that it could be a character concept at all.
Precisely.
Chaos by deities, unless explicitly malicious (ala Shar's Nihilist Black Hole oblivion fantasies vs transcending Buddist style Nihilism)is inherent, as the Lawful Neutral plane is needed to balance the Chaotic Neutral plane of Limbo.
Chaos-vs randomness-"immature" only in an immature teenage Emo declaring "Urgh no one knows my dark pain" & teenage rebelling vs maturely realising stagnation from too much Lawfulness (including the afformentioned Lawful Neutral plane) or wholly unjust, with no option to leave societies requiring in some capacity mass, violent in destruction but not harm to living beings, change.
Ie Not all revolutions require full Communist esque destroy everything & kill dissentors->rebuild from the ashes, as some prescribe destroying institutions & ideas, especially ignorance by violence to those non material concepts vs harming living beings.
I like how you explain that Chaos AND Order are both important to civilization, Order a bit more so but still. I would like to provide a Biologist (even if only of a Bachelor's level) view, as Order and Chaos are important in Nature as well as society.
Chaos is change, mutation, adaptability. It is necessary for an organism to survive. Order, meanwhile, is fitting into an ecological niche, having a place in the ecosystem where you do your role so the whole can survive and be healthy. To much chaos, and you might survive, but you'll never thrive, because you can't properly exploit resources without being out competed. Too much order, and you become too specialized and cannot adapt to changing environmental conditions. If you look at extinction events, it's often the more specialized species that die out first, while the adaptable are more likely to survive and thrive later, producing more specialized species in future. Find your niche, create order, but keep some chaos around to handle change.
At least, that's my understanding after studying for several years.
Both are essential, else stagnation & eternal Entrpy would be reality.
Binging chaotic does not mean you do not have or follow rules. If anything being chaotic and having or following rules is quite chaotic as it is a very unpredictable move.
Mask: The Herald of Shar (until he schemed to share hid Godhood with Erevis Cale......)
@jasonhopper2130 I think he schemed to keep it for himself but when he ran out of moves....
Few understand Chaos. Most cling to a commonly-held view of what "chaos" is, seeking to adoringly match that template of rebellion. To... CONFORM to it. In so doing, they wear the uniform of the anarchist.
Thus, they fail.
Precisely.
As I've stated elsewhere in this comment section, rebelling to prevent unjust laws killing you, let alone remaining individual to do so is just vs Monty Python esque crowds chanting in unison "Yes, we're all different".
Precisely.
As I've stated elsewhere in this comment section, rebelling to prevent unjust laws killing you, let alone remaining individual to do so, is just & moral vs Monty Python esque crowds chanting in unison "Yes, we're all different".
I really like your break down here.
I encounter a lot of players that want to be anarchistic and true neutral but I always try to let people know its harder to achieve than you might think.
Perfectly stradling the line between chaos and law, good and evil is like trying to balance a disk on a pole, it must be perfectly centers too much to the right it falls to the right to much to the left it falls left.
A lot of people want to play true neutral because they believe it gives them carte blanche to pick and choose how to act when in reality it is one of the most narrow and strict paths one can take.
True Neutral usually prescribes non malice or Meglomania, but no mass compassion nor want for a single idea to thrive above others.
Their choice to be so by remaining an arbiter to all alignments or apathy to everything not of their perview ala Gond essential.
First 6 minutes of the video summarised: We live in a society!
I wish the comment section allowed for image posts.
The memes one could make from this video's sheltered views..
The way I view chaos is that it reflects unpredictability. You generally stay within your moral compass, but you're willing to bend the rules a little if you don't agree with something or if you're not in the right mood. Let's say there's a lawful good king in charge of a city, and he has to impose harsh rules to keep things safe. A neutral good character might politely decline to help enforce the rules, but promise not to get in the way and help where they can. A chaotic good character would be more likely to tell the king he's dumb and actively flaunt his rules, then proceed to help the city in a better way just to prove a point.
Love how well thought out this argument is. I do think it’s odd that it isn’t noticed how there were counter cultural figures in historical tribal societies-they just didn’t look like the aesthetic egalitarians and counter fundamentalists that originated consumerist anti-the-man subcultures.
At the same time, the idea that individuals in a seemingly ordered society can be ‘toddlers’ because of ‘hard-working’ individuals elsewhere isn’t wrong, but it ignores how those who are ‘hard working’ are not necessarily proponents of the rules they allow to theoretically persist over them-nor are those rules always entirely actually about any objective good or evil (if such a thing could exist, except as they can be defined by our human sensibilities and cultural filters). More often those hard-workers are servants without their permission or knowledge to someone who makes the rules for everyone else. And those people, in their selfish desires, their penchant for not following their own rules, are chaotic.
I like to think the chaos, as a deterministic meta observation, is the zoom out result of any lawful force. Like any sufficiently lawful society will be ultimately driven by concentrated chaotic forces. What is more toddler like, than to arrange the world such that you are at the center of it, while demanding all others follow your rules to support you?
This is the paradox of applied alignments. An individual god might support a certain way of looking at the world but the gods themselves are all children, demanding everyone else follow them. Same for the most disciplined world leaders and-yes-the counterculture nerds playing D&D.
I kinda feel like you have your own idea of what chaos is, that doesn't really match what the D&D authors had in mind. This is OK, but I'm not sure that evaluating other people's work from your point of view and getting mad about it is the right thing to do...
PS: to clarify, I don't mind this definition of law and chaos. I don't agree that it's *the definition*, and everyone else is wrong about it, including in their own art. Order and chaos are very abstract concepts, and in the context of D&D alignments, they are what you see fits. It's exactly why alignments are so contagious topic in general.
Hit to close to home huh 😂
I am with the bard. Esper is no fool
I think he also misses the fact that many of the tribes he mentions that get listed as 'chaotic' are to some degree raider societies, the Neutral or Evil groups are generally nomadic and will quite happily steal from other societies because it benefits their group.
Art is subjective. It’s no longer the authors interpretation that matters once their idea is thrust into the world. It will matter entirely how people perceive it. He has all the right in this world to have a unique point of view on D&D
@@mrsweeney34 what I disagree with is him saying that *authors* are in the wrong for calling some gods chaotic because *in his book* chaos is a different thing. There is nothing wrong with attributing these gods as neutral or lawful in one's games or publishing adventures where these gods would be attributed in this way (as well as changing them so they would be chaotic in a different way).
17:44 This is a misconception. Even in your "shooting the target with an arrow" example, there are an infinite number of ways to strike the target dead-on. One can angle the arrow high up like lobbing a mortar shell, use a flat trajectory like firing a rifle, or anything in-between. There are reasons to use each approach, too. In reality, there are an infinite number of ways to succeed, and an infinite number of ways to fail. This reasoning is an example of bad faith in the sense that Jean-Paul Sartre used the term.
I disagree. Let's say you're interested in a woman. There is a finite number of ways in which you (or anyone) could enter into a relationship with her, and there is an infinite number of ways in which you could fail to win her heart. Or imagine you need to feed your hungry child. There is a finite number of ways in which you can provide sustenance to him, and there is an infinite number of ways in which you could fail to nourish him. Or think of a game of basketball. There are a finite number of moves you can make and finite conditions for winning the game, but there is an infinite number of things you cannot do and an infinite number of ways to lose the game.
@@esperthebardHistorically & assuming future cultures evolve, there are potentially infinite ways in which approach, have sex, fall in love or pair bond with ANYONE. The only finite thing being the end goal to achieve your desired response or act with that specific person.
Feeding ANY hungry person requires only the endgame of they not going hungry. Infinite options allow for a single child to steal a grain of rice to temporarily state their hunger OR to somehow be eternally full from it to a politician ending global hunger or a scientist developing technology to prevent the concept of eating.
The only reality in which your comment exists is completely predetermined ones vs the clearly lacking non Physics based predetermination & lacking objective morality of our own.
Ie The Dm &/or you determine X WILL happen, whether organically, willfully, by contrite or pure accident within the rules of other's actions.
I love that Mask is chaotic neutral when in 3rd edition "evil" is literally in his portfolio
The original Mask is dead "the former mortal known as Lesinor." Drasek Riven is now Mask, and he is far less "evil" in DnD terms than the original.
Warhammer 40k does it right. In a universe full of endless chaos, it’s no surprise that the Imperium needs to be lawful and traditionalist to the extreme.
The imperium doesn't need to be extremely lawful and traditionalist to fight the chaosl. That's the other point is that they CREATE their enemies by being so awful to live in. Roboute said something similar along those lines.
Now I’m thinking I somehow missed the chaotic part of Iliira’s alignment. Granted, I first learned of her through 5e when I checked out the gods section in the 5e handbook, and thought that was pretty cool of a god to embody joy. I even had the thought of how people might be dismissive, like “oh, she just tells you to smile all the time. What a load.”
I feel like if a cleric devotes themselves to Iliira, they have enough sense to know that “just smile” is incredibly reductive. Life’s full of emotions, and bad ones don’t just go away because we force ourselves to be happy. I’d assert that the goal of Iliira is to help people through good times and bad, always making sure emotions are valid and ensuring there’s a good future to fight for. Society needs food and trades, but joy is the glue that holds society together, not an afterthought of society existing.
The other gods are for stuff you have to do. The party god is for what you want to do.
Yeah without art and joy and love we'd just be ants. What's the point. A god of joy doesn't aid in survival, but they do give survival a purpose, which in a way is pretty damn necessary to get shit done ask any depressed person.
Bro was cutting into his arm, biting his tongue to bleeding to resist shouting Deus Vult and wanting to talk about FBI crime stats
None of these gods of chaos even come close to David Hume not believing we can know if the sun will rise tomorrow morning
Hm..
We can assume a Quasar won't explode & destroy any trace of Earth, or the Universe decides to press the "Emergency Resest Button" only once we die & are in eternal oblivion, but ultimately philosiphically Hume has a point.
Everyday depressing end of the universe scenarios? Fuck it, I live life & enjoy it never assuming the Aztecs were right re the Sun rising..
I kinda once made a character who's a bit close to a god, and mostly follows in line with the ideas of Chaos.
to summarize who he is, he once was a simple person who used to live freely, however an event happened that made him unintentionally defy fate and reality, which gifted him the ability to control what is basically the worlds version of literal chaos essence (which is called Paradox, and I'll be happy to explain what it is and how it works). after some time, he came to realize this power, and eventually learned its true nature, later developing a philosophy surrounding ideas of chaos, eventually even becoming what is basically the god of chaos
the ideals he holds involving his abilities of chaos mainly surround ideas of choice and simply becoming at piece with who you are. an example he commonly has is that, despite chaos not having a true alignment, he still chooses to do good, as it is his choice, not simply the will of the universe. he also encourages people to become at peace with any primal instincts, but to not loose themselves to it. he believes that who a person truly is mainly comes from who they are and what choices they make, without any form of code of honor or a society and its taboo's to force a decision out of them. besides things such as choice and peoples instincts, he also has some connection to ideas such as Life, Death, Emotion, Nature, Art, dreams, etc. another interesting thing is that, despite being basically the god of chaos, he can't actually control it at all, and doesn't seek to. he mainly focuses on creating more raw chaos in several ways, whether it be as big as crumbling societies or as small as allowing a small little flower to grow.
The Primordial version of Chaos, very Dharmic in its usage & better than this video's interpretation of "chaos=toddler".
Piece with oneself & knowing who you are is long, but very rewarding.
"Humans are odd. They think order and chaos are somehow opposites and try to control what won't be. But there is grace in their failings. I think you missed that."
The description of 'tribal life' at 2:40 is nonsense. Since tribes are so tightnit the 'safety net' is literally the community.
A safety net is what catches you if the main course fails. A tribal community is the main course, and if that fails, there are no other protection structures, aid organizations, government programs, etc. to fall back on.
Shaundakul seems like a great chaos god. Exploration? Uncharted lands? Going with the wind? These seem like very chaotic things. All his domains are prepared for the unexpexted. Sounds like a god of travel, with no destination. A god of freedom, with no goal.
A god of war like Tempus should totally be Lawful Evil. He's a god of violence on a massive scale with the mitigating factor is that he supports an order to the methods and motivations of that violence... sounds like a mix of law and evil to me.
The LE god of war is Bane. He's all about conquest, domination, tyranny, and ruling with an iron fist. Tempus (N or CN) demands that fights be honorable, and he supports those who rebel and fight against tyrants.
But also supports tyrants and conquerors who fight with honour. It feels like Ares and his sister Enyo (the goddess of atrocity and sacked cities). It just feels like that Tempus is inherently connected to the evil bit of the "necessary evil" of war. @@esperthebard
Tempus is definitely not evil. I agree with Esper that the Chaotic is debatable at best but he's not evil. Violence in and of itself is not inherently evil, animals are violent. Most heroes use violence a lot, they just use it for good causes. Tempus is more flexible on what a "good cause" might be than most heroes are but he still agrees there should be one. The way he sees it violence with no cause isn't war, it's just mindless butchery. There's a different god for that, Graragos (who would be much more like the Ares example you mentioned), and he and Tempus can't stand each other. Tempus is also very protective of Eldath, goddess of peace, because he understands war has no meaning without peace to contrast it and to return to. After all, if war never ends there can be no victory. In fact clerics of Tempus are required to protect threatened clerics and holy sites of Eldath. Tempus is not a nice entity but he is not cruel, greedy, selfish or sadistic.
He's also a surprisingly good father to his de facto daughter The Red Knight, the goddess of strategy.
I think the most realized version of a Chaotic Deity is not from D&D, but rather the Elder Scrolls with Mehrunes Dagon. He is the god of Change and Destruction. Many view him as an evil god because of his commitment to tearing down things that mortals built, but he is more like a force of nature, a hurricane in a sense. His only motivation is to cause continual change in the status quo, and the most effective way to do that is to destroy. If you view the current power structures as evil, then he could be a force for good. If you view the structures as benevolent, then he is a force for evil. In this sense, he is divorced from any kind of good or evil. He is just a force, and his morality is entirely dependent on perspective. This is what I think Chaos should be in an embodiment. A completely different scale from morality.
I think that cyric is the most chaotic god in FR. I mean he wrote a book about himself, read it, and then became mad. I think this is one of the most chaotic things I ever read! However, I like your take on this topic!
I think you articulated very well, an unspoken feeling I've had concerning tribal vs urbanized societies.
I feel like urbanites see the aethstetics of tribal societies; the scanty clothing, the tattoos and dances - and assume them without context, to stand out and contrast their own society; and are misled empathetically into assuming that the demeanor of those people must match their own.
But whenever one looks at such tribal cultures; the aesthetics are by necessity - scanty clothes require less precious hand-made fabric, and are less sweltering in oppressive climates.
The tattoos and dances are all very orderly, with deep symbolism - not a single bead or feather is added without deliberation, or purpose.
They are typically quite chaste, lawful, and conservative, and it doesn't jive with modern urban sensibilities.
This is one of those videos where I want the moment I hit the "like" button to be known, as I hit it right when you defined Chaos in accordance with my knowledge
What i learned from this video is "this guy hates chilldren"
So do I.
They seem to believe rebelling the perview of the immature only.
A bizzare & sheltered concept.
The most powerful D&D character I ever had was a 3E elven Cleric/Wizard of Leira that got to epic level in both classes. He was a spell slinging powerhouse that delighted in disrupting powerbases throughout the land. He also had a particular hatred of Cyric. I learned that strategic deception is much more effective than pathological lying.
Sean de cull got the right temperature to shelter you from the storm
you cannot have order without chaos, nor chaos without order. the law and order of society only grow and exist to combat the chaos of nature. without that chaos, there would be no order.
I'd argue that Lady of Pain is a chaos god or chaos entity, since she is truly unpredictable with her wants and desiers. She has a code but no one seems to really understand anything of what they are without some vague glimpses. The fact so much of her is shrouded in mystery seems more like that true unknown rather than each chaos god clearly declared their domain. And it reminds me of the realm of chaos and the Githyanki where there are some order in chaos, Why? Because expecting to be chaotic all the time is predictable.
The ruler of Sigil is much the same vs many putting her in "Lawful Evil". She's both Lawful in keeping Neutrality of Sigil & "DO NOT LOOK UPON ME", yet unpredictable in her end goal & choosing between apathy to alignments or Arbiter of them.
Loved it and love how you keep reinventing yourself. The part about chaos needing laws to break was kinda weird to me, though as I like to align with chaos myself. Yes, I got stuff I wanna break, but perhaps is because we carry the cavepeople genes we kinda can't imagine pure chaos? Because as you said, life was just that at that time and place. Now to the good ones?
Ngl, I got chills from the evil one. The neutral ones was pretty cool too. This one was a welcome expectation break. Will we get the warm and fuzzies good aligned gods?
This was fascinating! I've always struggled to understand what DnD means by chaos or something being chaotic, because often most of the lore about it feels paradoxical.
Yeah a lot of people want to sugar coat parts of alignment or try to ignore or various other methods that aren't dealing with it as intended.
I got a friend wanting to run a game and he has basically wiped all the alignment stuff from his setting, which also means the whole cosmos is wiped clean. I don't like it but that's ok
It definitely is paradoxical and messy. Way back alignments even had their own languages.
The alignments mean different things in different editions so it's almost impossible to pin down. In some editions they represent various personality traits, in others they represent primordial forces, in still others they represent leagues of gods.
Order is like the fuel, while Chaos is like the flame.
How about Talos, the lord of Storms? With a domain consisting destruction and chaos itself, I would think he's a potential candidate.
Talos (CE) is less chaotic than Cyric (CE), and after looking at Cyric, I realized that the most chaotic god possible would have to be chaotic neutral. If I could have made this video longer, I would have included Talos and the two chaotic luck gods though.
Btw: In 3e, gods always had the domains of their alignments.
@@esperthebard what about Umberlee?
One other way to maybe think about chaos/law as an alignment is its relation to adaptability.
Law is to change the surroundings to suit the person, Chaos is to change the person to suit the surroundings.
Eilistraee seeks to change the drow to life better life's amongst other races under the sun.
Shaundakul seeks to aid explorers, explorers need adaptability, he would promote it to help explorers.
"Adaptability" is not all chaos is of course, but it can be a logical aspect of it. It would certainly help the bottom of your list.
I always found the Lawful/chaos paradigm a little weird. sometimes the law is not orderly, in fact the law can be somewhat chaotic Many of the Cthulhu cycle gods had very strict laws, rituals that needed to be followed to exact and meticulous detail. If I had been there at the beginning of all things for D&D I would have suggested Order vs Chaos just made me think, very cool video Esper, very fun video!
You had great thoughts on this, Esper!
To me, chaos will always be something very negative and evil. Because if deity also exists in the lack of good, or in the total opposite of it, then it cannot be neutral, it is evil. The "good" sides of this chaotic god are meaningless, when evil is involved. In a way, you could expect a chaotic god to always lean towards evil, merely because evil is also a part of it. It's like playing a Russian Rolette.
If only modern day Hollywood (and TV) could return to the understanding of story structure, so well defined an described by Joseph Campbell?!
Post christian Western stories & structures are done to death.
Utilise & develope Eastern or at least non Christian ones for a breath of fresh air.
@@rubyriches What?! "The Heroes Journey" (and such) isn't Peri-Christian, let alone a "Post Christian story and structure". Stories of today don't have the characters move the story forward, the characters ARE the story, and (most of) the characters of today are quite shallow. If you like the stuff of today, fine, you watch it, write it, or use it for your (I'm sure) combat, character-based games. Mine is story-driven, making combat and all aspects of the game to have meaning and purpose, and every group I've DMed for notices this and prefers it! But you play however you and your group wishes.
@@MarkLewis...? Campbell is one of MANY choices to use when making fiction.
Our species has used oral tradition, fables, satire & comedy since we evolved beyond using "Ugg" & grunts, a plethora of recognisable & alien themes, structures, characters & methods have & do exist. My comment desires they be utilised vs done to death Western christian tropes.
Let alone you ranting vs calmly asking my use of "post christian Western storytelling" or "eastern" or "non christian".
Ironically, in your critique of modern storytelling, re shallow all but attempt at ultimate relatable ideas, not well written characters, driving the story vs plot only, I agree entirely.
The last good modern character driven fiction I enjoyed was Pirates of the Caribbean Curse of the Black Pearl in 2003.
@@rubyriches I respectfully disagree. You're conflating formulation (how) with substance (what). "How" you came into being, (reproduction and birth) is quite different than "what" you are, (human). The "cliches" and all else you mentioned is what is being written, not how it's being written. Also, East, West, and Christendom has nothing to do with it. The formulation of storytelling, such as Gilgamesh and many other stories, predates all of those things, centuries to millennia. We tell stories to educate and entertain, so, the method that invokes the most curiosity, intrigue, wonder, etc., and taps into our emotions, as well as psyche, (such as the Heroes Journey illustrates) is still superior to character-driven stories. Characters don't make a great story, but a story makes great characters. Star Wars "A New Hope" story-driven is great, while modern Star Wars (the Rey Years) is horrible and character-driven.
Is it just me or is Umberlee has not been mentioned in some of the deity videos ? I was expecting her to be included here as she's chaotic evil
You missed Ereven Ilesere, the Elven god of Chaos and thieves. He delights is just mucking with other's grand plans, and has none of his own. He's capricious, but not either evil or good. I think he ranks up there with Leiira.
Garagos is, I think, worthy at least of an honorable mention in this list.
I recently found out that freedom and friend are etymologically linked, and that in ancient Greece, tyrants were considered thus because they repressed group bonds. Perhaps something to ber in mind with D&D's concept of chaos.
Look, I came here to hear about the most chaotic gods in D&D, not get a lecture about how pursuing freedom from a society drowning in unjust laws is toddler behavior.
Same
Today I learned that because I am an individual, I am a toddler.
@VoidstriderLucatiel Today I learned esper is likely voting for trump. Wild.
Apparently living in a city is immature and delusional. Guaranteed this guy lives >30 minutes from a metropolitan area
I think therefore I toddler.
We have Lawful, Chaotic, neutral and evil now we need the most good god.
The reason we don’t like chaos is that our brains are very, very good at recognizing patterns. We naturally seek to find patterns in the world. After all, the ability to see that people who ate fish from a pond and then died is a powerful evolutionary advantage that animals generally do not have. We don’t know why, exactly, the people who ate the fish died, but we can see the pattern and not eat fish from the pond.
Chaos then is the anti-pattern. Our brains dislike the idea that just anything can result from an action. We want to believe there is an order to the universe, and when discovered, we can use that knowledge to our benefit. Asmodeus is certainly evil, but he is also lawful. Ordered. We can see the pattern in his actions and use that knowledge. If we lived in Faerûn, we could make a very educated guess what would happen when dealing with devils, what a pact would entail. Demons, on the other hand, we could not. That few of the unknown is powerful.
Very cool video. But I am surprised Talos was not metioned. IMHO this god is Chaos in its pure form.
would the most chaotic be any more surprising if you didnt understand the beauty in illusions
In the context of chaos i think freedom was meant to be tendency towards change, coming up with new ideas and lack of fear when it comes to consequences
How easy is it to change when you are not free thinker
How chaotic can you be when you are held back by rules, strict codes and your own fears?
I'd argue the Abyss itself is since it is considered by some to be an entity almost like the overlord from Starcraft
Shaundakul is alive and he is slowly rebuilding is faith on Faerûn
My ADHD ass listening to the intro of this video: yeah sounds about right...
Loved your take on chaos at the beginning of the video! You've gotten a sub today!
This has been said by other people, but it definitely seems like you misunderstand Chaos in DnD a bit. Rather than your breakdown at the beginning, you should read the alignment page from 3e/3.5e. It breaks it down pretty well. Chaos does not necessarily mean you can't have a code. It also doesn't mean you are irresponsible, or infantile. But it CAN. That is chaos in its extreme. It seems like you're kinda stuck on the extremes of chaos, while looking at Law in a more tempered way. Love your other videos, just kinda seemed like you missed the target on this one.
Chaos is secrets of magister lore
“We’re particularly sensitive to bad things. Bad things can hurt us, they can even kill us.”
That’s not to say good things can’t I assume, seeing as anything can prove harmful if in high enough quantity.
"Good things" (a transient state) are enjoyable and give us pleasure... if they start out as enjoyable, but then later hurt us, (from too much exposure say) then they cease being "good", so no... "good things" can't hurt us.
There are absolute values and there are relative values. The relative values can be bad in excess or if not grounded in absolute values. The absolute values can never be harmful, not matter if the quantity is extremely high: truth, beauty, goodness, love. (Clarification: By love, I mean true love, in which someone wills the good of the other and makes sacrifices for the good of the other; I'm not talking about things like infatuation or lust)
@@esperthebard Do forgive me if my rebuttal has a few flaws; it’s late, I’m tired, and I’m likely to turn in for the night the moment I send this.
Truth? That’s _generally_ a good thing, but there are situations in which truth can cause actual harm if not obfuscated in some way. Tell me - would the truth be an absolute value in regards to, say, breaching someone’s privacy and sharing information about them that, by all conceivable metrics, should not be shared? Or how about step-by-step instructions on how to go about committing an atrocity? Both are truthful, but neither are morally correct to share.
Beauty? That’s a very subjective term that varies not only culture-by-culture, but individual-by-individual; meaning it can’t be an “absolute value” because it’s inherently not absolute.
Goodness? So far as I see it, that too is a relative term my friend; and even if it’s not, we are quite literally discussing whether or not “good” can be stretched to such an extent that it becomes harmful, meaning citing it as an example of an absolute value is arguably an instance of circular reasoning - and, if not, it’s definitely repeating your premise wholesale while confusing it for a point in favor of your premise.
And as for love? I do have to wonder if you’ve ever endured a toxic relationship (not to say it’s a bad thing if you haven’t - frankly, I envy you if you haven’t); because, if you have, one of the key takeaways you should take from them is that willing the good of the other and making sacrifices for them is a very, very dangerous game to play when you do it for someone who, by all conceivable metrics, does not deserve it. Especially when seeking to actively justify or cover up the things they say and do, or enduring whatever they put you through specifically, simply because you love them - or both.
@@MarkLewis... You really think “good” and “bad” necessarily equal “pleasure” and “displeasure”? That is a very simplistic way of looking at the world my friend.
@esperthebard Just curious Esper... what "absolutes" are there, and why are they "absolute"? I can't think of 1 absolute universal truth as it pertains to human understanding. It can't be love, good, beauty, all the things you mentioned, because they are all subjective, and an absolute would be 100% proven fact, not emotional or opinion. Not even science deals in absolutes, but in probability, based in evidence. Yet, we don't know anything with 100% certainty. I'm willing to consider I may be wrong... respectfully, what absolutes are there?
Thank you once again for your great content!
I wanna leave a comment to support the channel but after watching the video I have to say we'll I feel your pick for he most chaotic God was correct I also think you have an extremely poor understanding of what true chaos is and it's full importance to our world and people
We need a video on the God's version of "The birds and bees". How do gods have babies?
Spot on. Love the intro.
I think the whole idea of law and chaos can be really hard to unravel.
Take for example a wild band society. In some ways they don't go massively far from a traditional way of life with the beats they know as they hunt and herd their animals through the mountains for example. They may also be a society where family ties and bonds of cooperation are important for mutual survival. So in that way they are orderly. But also this society may have only weak and fluid leadership structures, they feel no obligation to continue to obey a leader whom they no longer regard as acting in their best interest, with smaller family groups potentially leaving a band group to seek another if they don't feel they are being treated well and if the majority of the tribe does not feel a leader has their best interest at heart a society without much in the way of institutions means a leader disliked is going to have a very limited ability to command the obedience of others. Likewise the leader may have a limited capacity to command a monopoly on the use of force, with it potentially being acceptable for people to act individually to avenge a wrong or perhaps spontaneously as a group to exclude someone who is breaking the norms. The leader of the group is also unlikely to do many other things that a state may do like collect taxes, with such a band society often being based more on a leader's ability to distribute resources such as the loot from a raid or meat from the livestock the leaders owns or the animal they lead a hunt to kill as a means of achieving loyalty rather than a system where leaders consolidate resources via taxing, collecting rent from, employing or owning other people.
The urbanised society may well in some ways include the capacity to live various kinds of life styles, at least if you're in the right social class, thanks to the wider variety of goods it can produce and the wider number of socioeconomic niches it may have. They also have leaders at the top who have the institutions by which they can say that only they are allowed to set the laws and only their appointed judges may decide who is innocent and who is guilty. They may collect the tariffs from the peasants who live on their land, or the taxes from the people, or demand corvee labour. They may hold people in bondage and force them to remain on a particular piece of land or at least prevent them from leaving the kingdom and going off into the wilderness.
Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States I think is an excellent source of inspiration I think for thinking about things like frontier environments and the wilderness and the like in my adventures.
Well written. Liked the definition of Kaos
chaotic beast as force of nature, don't need to rely on lawful society...
No, I disagree with that. The question of freedom is a philosophical question, and first and foremost you have to distinguish between "positive freedom" (freedom to do ...) and "negative freedom" (freedom from ...). "Law-abidingness" and discipline can certainly help to achieve the positive variety, but one can never achieve freedom from e.g. rules, conventions or ideologies without causing some degree of unrest and chaos. I think the fundamental misunderstanding here (and in Dnd in general) is that order and chaos are some kind of human characteristics. But they are not. They are a way of describing conditions in our world, and they are not objective because they depend on the knowledge, values and perceptions of the people who apply them.
Freedom is a subjective term, based in popularity, not a dichotomy of positive and negative applications. Freedom is a desired status, but all human freedom is an illusion. Without Law and order, there can be no freedom, because without Law, life for all becomes a contest in a "survival of the fittest" mentality only; powerful over the weaker, so, if everyone is free, how are the weak then free? If people were 100% free... they'd be slaves to the constraints of survival, every second of every day, because exercising your ultimate freedom by power will infringe other's freedom. There is no benevolence, morality, or justice in a 100% freedom society.
No, "freedom" is a balance of moral liberties, but exercised with respect of others, within the established Law... but then again... who dictates morality?! (Though, believe whatever you like.)
@@MarkLewis...I don't really see what this has to do with what I wrote. Positive and negative freedom are common terms in the philosophical debate about freedom (you can find them in Kant, Leibniz and Rousseau). These terms are used to better understand the concept of freedom and are not a judgment (in the sense of positive = good and negative = bad, which is not what is meant at all). I suggest you look up these terms, then perhaps it will become clearer what I mean. But it definitely has nothing to do with "believing" ...
@@Liber-Abraxas Lol... funny how you don't understand, but attempt to project that on to me. BTW... Kant was an idiot. Maybe you should read Hume to learn why.
What about freedom from unlawful search and seizure? Freedom from the press? Freedom from cruel and unusual punishments? Those are negative freedoms achieved, established, and maintained by disciplined, law-abiding individuals.
This video comes off the same as new players who just read the titles of the alignments and didn't bother to actually read the explanation for them.
Some misunderstanding here. Alignments are a representation of defining beliefs systems, and doesn't mean total adherence to order and chaos in it's most extreme representation.
If we're following your proposition, then even Leira is somewhat lawful, because she still adheres rigidly to her domains in how she behaves - trickery and illusion. Being truly chaotic would also mean veering out of one's domain as a god. Deciding one day to stop being a god, etc. But being chaotic for a god follows their defining domain/trait, and that's trickery for Leira.
Probably only lovecraftian, outer gods are true chaotic.
Alignments marital PC/NPC are much easier to define. Barbarians are considered chaotic because they're considered highly disorganized, when compared to that of a city/cloister/monastery. Hence why a monk/pally is always lawful. Fighters are mixed bag, and rogues, barbarians always non-lawful.
Esper, this is Idris Eldritch on my alt account. I just can't stand how much Wizards dumbed down the gods portfolios in 5th edition!
Part of the problem is the fact that "Law" and "Chaos" has never been defined particularly well. The idea originally came from the Medieval notion of Order and Chaos but D&D got it from Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions and Michael Moorcock's iconic Eternal Champion novels, which were very popular when D&D was first being written. (Moorcock was very influenced by Anderson, so it was a double influence through Anderson.)
Order meant "world of civilization" basically, or under the rule of the rightful emperor and church. In Medieval Europe this would be the Catholic Church and the Pope of Rome, with people arrayed in the "Great Chain of Being", which encapsulated even animals, plants, and matter. Chaos meant the world outside of that. It applied to other civilizations (e.g., Islam) but very definitely to non-"Peoples of the Book".
Interestingly while I agree that barbarians (so-called) often lived by a code, things like their political alliances and even their religious beliefs were often frequently changing. Even tribal identities changed to suit the blowing political winds and this change is one reason markers of tribal identity become so personal and strong among nomads and pastoralists, as they are in Judaism or in historical societies that did things like practice head deformation (Sarmatians, Huns) or heavy tattooing and body modification (Scythians).
I am loving this series.
The Great D M is the most chaotic force in D&D, followed closely by...
Players.
just because the survival of some chaotic beings is dependent on law and structure doesn't mean they are apart of it, part of chaos is destruction, and so they don't always care if they are destroyed or changed of couse chaotic goods beings want to thrive but that just means they need a chaotic plane to inhabit a chaotic good heaven, the mortals that live in structured places often time need the good things that are provided but that doesn't mean they like it, it must feel frustrating to rely on law to thrive, and to be the most chaotic is to change the most and to change into more of everything which includes there opposites you can act lawful and evil without being it, Jack Sparrow may need law to survive, but thats because hes a being in a lawful world with laws of physics or maybe thats a lie in its own right and he lives in a chaotic universe that is just acting lawful. Teehee haha lol XD
great vid i was wondering were you found that long list of all the gods and goddesses for DND, i still don't know most of the lesser ones and want to put some more into my pantheon for my next play through
now all we need is most good, and most lawful god
The Leira Trading Center on Seluné(the moon, not the God) is wild.
God, quite an excavation you performed here!!! Thanks! Great thoughts on the nature of "freedom" of a toddler and discipline of a successful grown up in the beginning 👍🏼 😀 💪🏼
I'm playing a cleric of leira right now. Can confirm she is by far the most chaotic. My poor DM and fellow players are constantly at wits end
What's your character like? Race, feats, abilities, equipment, spells, behavior, etc.? I'm curious because as I was making this video, I got kind of interested in playing a character that follows Leira.
@@esperthebard well it started as just wanting to take a cleric dip with a bard. He's a water genasi charlatan with expertise in insight and deception. His father was a marid and his mother was a pirate captain. he has a raven familiar because of mimicry, he's a rumormonger who works with all factions (we are playing Dragon Heist). He's an absolute menace. We are on Liar's Night right now which is the main holiday for Leirans so I'm doing some extra shenanigans. Taking all of the illusion and enchantment spells in Bard and college of eloquence so I can't roll lower than like a 21 in deception.
@@davidfarnham5623 That sounds like a blast! Hopefully your GM doesn't get too overwhelmed with all your tinkering and jiggery-pokery.
When the intro is a quarter of the entire video 😮💨👌
Thanks Esper
Discipline is freedom... yes yes officer!
I have a hunch imma be intrigued by this video
Your take on chaos as an alignment type is the reason we have such crappy players trying to play CN as some kind of lunatic.
Legit...what are you even on about? Of course CN characters are gonna be lunatics. CN is like sitting in the middle of the street gluing your hands to the cement...not caring about laws and only living for yourself but not going out of your way to murder people. That would be CE. So just don't allow CN characters if you don't want morons at your table
makes me sad to say cyric always acts according to evil because maybe it's technically true but I'm always very "nobody understands him like i do. hes misunderstood" about him lol. he's my patron in the main long running campaign im in and he gave me a nice necromancy necklace so i think he's quite nice actually (delusional)
Is there any reason why so many chaotic gods in D&D are Elven?
Because elves are considered more chaotic due to their connection with fey and the faeywild
Elves are the OG Chaotic race
1:16 well that's possibly the most untrue thing I've heard today.
How could someone be chaotic and be stable and structured? Those are opposites. It would be like saying someone is messy and organized, or someone is short and tall.
Hell yeah! I’ve been waiting for you to make this video. Your introduction tells me you definitely have a bias towards lawful LOL!
I'm more of a neutral good soul personally. I believe in balance. Be grounded in order and law, so that you can explore and adventure into the realm of chaos and the unknown, seeking wisdom and treasures that you can use to help people.
I think it would be That One.
Loved this
The first part of this video sounds like Lawful propaganda lol
Especially the part when I talk about how chaos is necessary and we need it.
Especially calling it "immature".
Especially calling it "immature".
Came here to learn about D&D. Got a lecture about the efficacy of capitalism instead. Not sure what just happened.
Umm...no. if we are talking about real Hunter Gatherers, they do not have strict hierarchies or roles on average - you can always find outliers. The people you showed to refer to as "tribal" are actually "civilized" (i dont like the terms) and have domesticated animals and plants they mostly rely on. Its with large scale organization/wealth accumulation that you get "laws" and strict hierachies. Hunter gathers work like 4 hours a day and rarely war with each other. Its those "civilized" folk with their domesticated animals and plants who adhere to strict societal expectations, class hierachies that protect the rich, and so forth.
I think someones conservarive politics is bleeding into their DnD lore.
Hunter gathers have no lawyers, no police, no judges, or other "civilized " roles like that.
Let's be real, the law/chaos duality isn't perfect in DnD let alone good and evil.
I had a hard time find videos of tribal people from 1,000 years ago. But the point of that section was that D&D always depicts tribal people as being chaotic or neutral-but-close-to-chaotic, which is inaccurate, as most tribal people are heavily based in traditions and roles.
@esperthebard Brother man, you don't need videos from a 1000 years ago. We have hunter gathers now. You have the Hadza, Australian Aboriginals, Bushmen of the Kalihari, several tribes in South America still persist, as well as in Malaysia. There are literal hunting videos where hunters use persistance hunting and run down their prey before hitting it with a spear. This is how humans existed for about 90% or our existence. You have more freedom and free time as a hunter gather than a serf in the middle ages. Only the rich and nobles were afforded the luxury of idleness due to labor exploitation.
Civilized people, those who farm or domesticated animals have those strict societal roles. Wealth accumulation = inequality and subservience to a class structure. Hunter gathers do not operate this way and women have more equality. That's why when the white settlers came to America, they were shocked to find women "leaders" (better to say influential). Crazy Horse was a chief. Chief of what? The whole tribe? No, he was specifically the war chief. Its back in "civilization" that you have strict gender roles to produce more people for armies that serve the ruling elite. Depending on your definition of tribal, which is a very nebulous term (basically every human could be called tribal), those people have more freedom.and not less. You are thinking like early anthropologists instead of the current ones.
Pygmies....I could go on. That one Island where the Christian tried to go and "teach" the people religion and got killed - dude was warned not to go. Those people are hunter gathers. Once people are growing crops and animals and that makes up most their diet, that's when you get laws, taxes, writing (to keep track of all the exploiting you are doing to others), and all the other BS that comes with civilization. So no, if we are using this imperfect paradigm of Law vs Chaos, Tribal/Hunter Gathers would be more chaotic since they lack the strict structure of civilized societies. That doesn't mean they don't have good manners, or responsibility, or even organization, it just means they do have more personal freedom and more leisure time to do what they want.
Also,....you were more likely to starve or face famine as a "civilized " domesticator than a hunter gather. The fossil evidence is clear on this. Farmers had poorer diets and lacked iron which created pits in their skulls. Hunter gathers also tended to be larger than farmers due to better diet. People shrank in height once they domesticated crops. Them are the facts 💯
Christ bless you, bro got philosophical in this one
Man I just see Chaos as Entropic in nature and instability or change
Order is negentropic and stagnation or stability
The entire opening of this was pedantic and while yes you mentioned that Chaos was needed. You seem very biased against any chaotic world view. For instance I find a tribal "rule by the strong" and "Democracy" as both being rather chaotic systems of governing because the rulers and leaders are always in flux. Where as an Absolute Monarchy or a dictatorship is one of Order, due to the respective rules ruling for potential decades with their lineages ruling for hundreds of years.