Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Law vs Chaos thread: first Axis of alignment

The Law-Chaos Axis is foundational to D&D's alignment system and actually preceded the Good-Evil Axis.

In its earliest iteration the 3 alignments available to PCs were Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic.

The second Axis Good/Neutral/Evil was added later with the Dungeons and Dragons Basic Set (first revision 77 printing.) It remains significant in the background, even if 5e has moved away from alignment tic tac toe as a core feature, and BG3 doesn't include alignment at Char creation at all. It still informs much of our thinking and expectations. Ditching it is somewhat unfortunate because the traditional alignment system then sort of devolves into Goody goody vs baddy baddy, or other shorthands that I hear people using like "stupid Evil" vs "intelligent Evil" etc.


Good vs Evil playthroughs are getting plenty of feedback attention for BG3, but I'd propose that we (and the devs) spend a little more time thinking about Law and Chaos now.

Unlike Good and Evil which can get a bit convoluted and somewhat charged, (anyone recall how Nietzsche was quoted in the first load screen of BG1? Hehe) Law and Chaos, by contrast are somewhat easier to work with.

Based on the recent posts and patch updates concerning the popularity of good vs evil playthroughs in EA, I wonder whether some Law vs Chaos telemetry might be more revealing? And maybe help demonstrate some of the areas where the game is still lacking nuance?

What do people think about the current gameplay servicing the Law/Chaos divide, as distinct from the Good/Evil divide?

I feel like the Goblin/Minthara arch is better described as a Chaotic playthrough, rather than just an "Evil" playthrough.

Actions taken by the party along that plot line just seem to suggest a chaotic vibe more than anything else. Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Evil can both fit the story beats there, but its the Chaos that's the driver. The about faces, the betrayals and wonton slaughter that ensues is pretty much the definition of Chaotic, since a lot of what charname has to do to get to that endpoint doesn't make a whole ton of sense from a logical standpoint. But it definitely fits if eschuing the Logos altogether is Charname's jam.

The opposing Druid/Halsin arch however doesn't fit as neatly into a Lawful paradigm of maintaining order. Neither does it have the Neutrality vibe one might expect from a typical druid plot, focused on preserving balance and whatnot. I think this is partially because the Druid line has a few breaks in the interplay with various factions to consider Aradin and his big swinging dick vs Tieflings vs Goblins vs Druids vs Shadowdruids power play, can get a little complicated to keep sorted for the PC guided by Law.

Lawful Neutral used to be aligmment shorthand for "normal" in that it was the basic alignment of most NPCs one runs into in town, paired off against Chaotic Neutral which was similarly shorthand for "crazy."

It was notable I think that none of the Companion NPCs in BG1 had the Lawful Neutral alignment. Anomen was the only one in BG2, but obviously he was a no-name and kinda forgettable lol.

They did give us Tiax as a possible Chaotic Neutral 'crazy' archetype late in the Gate BG1. But Safana and Garrick who broadened the scope a bit with crazed nympho thief style neutrality or chaotic cowardly minstel style neutrality. So some depth there hehe.

How does BG3 measure up on this one?

It seems like the devs are clearly interested in how we feel about but kicking for goodness vs villainous evil playstyles, but what of the other Axis?