What were the first instances of the idea that there was some sort of war between Chaos and Law which is distinct from the more simple dichotomy of the war between Good and Evil?
I guess the Bible could be quoted in that God’s word is the Law and the universe was created out of the pre-existent Chaos, but that seems unlike a description of two opposing forces and more like a description of the creative act.
In Sci-fi / fantasy the earliest proponent of the idea of a war between Chaos and Law where neither side can be correlated directly to the moral polarities of Good and Evil is the works of Michael Moorcock. I’m not sure when he first published works concerning law vs. chaos, but he had certainly started by 1965 and the release of the first Elric book.
So who are the earlier proponents of the idea of Law vs. Chaos being opposing ‘moral’ paradigms?
I may be a little muddled on your idea- I am only a 1/3 of the way into my morning coffee- but from what I understand the idea of Chaos vs Law is a major factor in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms (based on the Three Kingdoms period of ancient Chinese history).
I’m not sure if this is what you’re looking for… but the Zoroastrian religion was based on a concept of two opposing gods. The two spirits were equals and opposites, with the good spirit, Ahura Mazda, being a constructive force for upholding law, and the evil spirit, Angra Mainyu, being a destructive force.
There is still the imperative that one is morally good and the other evil. In law vs’ chaos neither side can really be identified as ‘the good guys’ though law tries to present itself as such, they represent stagnation and conformity.
I’m not sure about Roamnce of the Three Kingdoms, I really should get round to reading it. Is this a struggle between anarchy and organised society in which neither side has the moral higher ground? If so then it may be the perfect example.
Well none of the three kingdoms really had any more right to rule than the others. Each did have the desire of ending the ‘chaos’ which referred to the lack of no central rule of law after the fall of the Han.
Chaos / Order figures in the Zelazny’s Chronicles of Amber.
In G. Dickson’s Dragon searies, the good guys tried to make sure Chance and History were in balance (i.e. things shoukd be niether too predictable or too random)
I think this is the old Good/Evil dichotomy, though, with Mainyu understood as evil and Mazda as perfectly good (the big wankel).
The OP is asking about Cahos and Order as opposites. I’d guess that it comes from Eastern religion. They’re more interested in balance, and in setting up opposing values.
What would the ultimate goal of the Giants be? And what of the Norse Gods? They seem quite similar to me, with the giants being just less favourable to humans and generally nastier. Very similar to the Greek Gods vs’ Titans in which I would consider the Greek Gods to b`often be extremely entropic/random/chaotic.
I’ve often heard the Titans equated to the forces of primal chaos, and the gods the forces of order and civilization. The Greeks obviously sided with Zeus over Cronos, but the gods aren’t exactly the good guys, either.
In fact, Greek mythology (at least as drawn by Thesiod) can be seen as a cycle from chaos to order back to chaos again:
Khaos, from out of which springs
Gaia (the Earth), Tartarus (the Underworld), and Nyx (Desire)
Gaia gives birth to Uranus (the sky) (and many other)
Gaia and Uranus gives birth to the Titans, including Kronos.
Kronos and Rhea produced the gods, and Zeus overthrew Kronos.
So, you can see how the more primal entities (earth, sky) are first, and the more concpetual gods come later.
At the same time, humanity has slipped from an idyllic golden age into a turbulent iron age. We’ve become more chaotic. Zeus will someday destroy humanity for our sins.
I think you may want to take a better look at Moorcock, there. The forces of Law weren’t saintly, but they were clearly Good, at least when compared to Evil. Law was’t neccessarily out for any specific individual’s or group’s happiness, but it favored peace and growth.
There is one real problem with DnD alignments: you can easily get to the point where almost any action is justifiable under any alignment.
Take this text for Lawful Good right out 3rd edition:
Lawful Good, “Crusader”: A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion.
So, this character ought to go out and slaughter all evil beings, and gives explicit permission to do so. The character ought not to do so so they they can be redeemed for good. The character should obey the law. They character should not obey human law because the demands of true Order and Good come above it. About all you can say is that the character should be nice to people, tell the truth, and isn’t shy about letting others know her status. That’s… not very much.
And most other alignments are not even this restrictive!
We’ve even seen some who’ve managed to turn Lawful Good into a license to kill anyone over age 12 (with the apparent plan that once all the corrupt grown-ups were gone, the kids would be better off). That was under a different edition, though.
Fortunately, most people don’t think about it that much. They know the imagery (heroic, honorable knight) and go with it. Frankly, they’re more fun than the people who read and actually pick apart what the writers really said.
In the turbulent (chaotic) times law may look like peace and growth, but the ultimate vision of law is stagnation and lifelessness. Which is why Elric (and pretty much all of the eternal champions) in the end works for the cosmic ballance. The morality of both Chaos and Law is very twisted in all Moorcocks books. Chaos looks evil because it is capricious, violent, selfish. Law looks evil because it cares nothing for individuals, is mercyless, and officious.
In Genesis, God creates the universe out of a “formless void” – i.e., brings order out of chaos. But the chaos is not an active, conscious opposing force, it is merely the stuff that’s there to begin with.
The same article notes, “Chaos and order are often attributed with moral perceptions, however moral perception is order, and thus the notion of applying such a thing to chaos is quite absurd.” Which I can see no reasonable way to contradict.
