Should "Lawful" Alignment be Renamed "Ordered"


Homebrew and House Rules

51 to 85 of 85 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

moon glum wrote:

Lawful should be renamed 'Control'. Then you would have 'Control vs. Chaos'.

But really, the alignment system is only confusing for those who aren't aware of the literature that was its origin. Law vs. Chaos was all there was in the original 'Chainmail' rule system, and it spawned from Micheal Moorcock's Eternal Champion novels (of which the Elric series is the most famous. And note that Moonglum is the companion to Elric in that series...)

In those books, Chaos and Law are more cosmic forces than definitions of a character's personality.

In D&D, people wanted to create other kinds of fantasy worlds, such as the traditional one where the overall conflict is a simple good vs. evil one. So they ended up adding good and evil.

I once made an 8 dimensional alignment system. I think there was life vs. death, knowledge vs. oblivion (thank you Excaliber), law vs. chaos, love vs. selfishness, magic vs. mundanity, truth (light) vs. deception (shadow), and I forgot what the other 2 dimensions were. So you could be 'lawful-death-oblivion-deception-selfish-mundane' in alignment. It never really was very popular with players, but they thought it was a fun idea.

Another alignment system I have seen was based on the Kholberg's stages of moral development. This just gave in and said that alignment was a character's personal ethical outlook. The better wisdom score a character had, the more advanced alignment they could adopt. So unwise character would have alignments like 'nice' or 'nasty-unfair', or for vermin 'mechanistic', while very wise characters could have alignments like 'relativistic', 'just', or 'principled-dark'.

A friend of mine modified the system slightly as well. Changing some of the stances a little.

-- Represents an in-between and non-radical/determined attitude.

Honourable, --, Dishonourable
Lawful, --, Criminal
Violent, --, Pacifist
Moral, --, Immoral
Prejudiced, --, Tolerant

========================================
SIMPLIFIED EXPANDED ALIGNMENT SETS
========================================

Honorable Lawful Pacifistic : Contemplative Priest (good gods)
Honorable Lawful -- : Knight, Samurai
Honorable Lawful Violent : Cavalier, Hangman, Devils
Honorable -- Pacifistic : Priest
Honorable -- -- : Adventurer
Honorable -- Violent : Duelist, Kensai
Honorable Criminal Pacifistic : Burglar, Insurance Schemer
Honorable Criminal -- : Thief
Honorable Criminal Violent : Gangster, Cleric(evil gods)
-- Lawful Pacifistic : Conformist
-- Lawful -- : Rough Commoner
-- Lawful Violent : Soldier
-- -- Pacifistic : Recluse, Druid, Monk
-- -- -- : The common man
-- -- Violent : Bully
-- Criminal Pacifistic : Burglar, Confidence man, Anarchist
-- Criminal -- : Malcontent, Rebel
-- Criminal Violent : Thug
Dishonorable Lawful Pacifistic : Corrupt official
Dishonorable Lawful -- : Bounty hunter
Dishonorable Lawful Violent : Corrupt Judge, Corrupt Officer
Dishonorable -- Pacifistic : Merchant
Dishonorable -- -- : Adventurer
Dishonorable -- Violent : Mercenary
Dishonorable Criminal Pacifistic : Confidence man
Dishonorable Criminal -- : Street soldier
Dishonorable Criminal Violent : Murderer, Assassin

Honorable Lawful Pacifistic : LG
Honorable Lawful -- : LG, LN
Honorable Lawful Violent : LE, LN
Honorable -- Pacifistic : LG, NG
Honorable -- -- : LG, LN, NG, TN
Honorable -- Violent : LN, LE, NE, TN
Honorable Criminal Pacifistic : NG, CG
Honorable Criminal -- : NG, TN, CG, CN
Honorable Criminal Violent : TN, NE, CN, CE

-- Lawful Pacifistic : LG, LN, NG
-- Lawful -- : LG, LN, LE, TN
-- Lawful Violent : LN, LE, NE
-- -- Pacifistic : LG, NG, TN, CG
-- -- -- : LN, NG, TN, NE, CN
-- -- Violent : LE, TN, NE, CE
-- Criminal Pacifistic : NG, CG, CN
-- Criminal -- : TN, CG, CN, CE
-- Criminal Violent : NE, CN, CE

Dishonorable Lawful Pacifistic : LG, LN, NG, TN
Dishonorable Lawful -- : LN, LE, NE, TN
Dishonorable Lawful Violent : LE, NE
Dishonorable -- Pacifistic : NG, TN, CG, CN
Dishonorable -- -- : TN, NE, CN, CE
Dishonorable -- Violent : NE, CE
Dishonorable Criminal Pacifistic : CG, CN
Dishonorable Criminal -- : CN, CE
Dishonorable Criminal Violent : CE

========================================
EXPANDED ALIGNMENT SETS
========================================

Honorable Tolerant Lawful Pacifistic : LG
Honorable Tolerant Lawful -- : LG, LN
Honorable Tolerant Lawful Violent : LE, LN
Honorable Tolerant -- Pacifistic : NG
Honorable Tolerant -- -- : TN, NG
Honorable Tolerant -- Violent : NE, TN
Honorable Tolerant Criminal Pacifistic : CG
Honorable Tolerant Criminal -- : CG, CN
Honorable Tolerant Criminal Violent : CN, CE

Honorable -- Lawful Pacifistic : LG
Honorable -- Lawful -- : LG, LN
Honorable -- Lawful Violent : LE, LN
Honorable -- -- Pacifistic : LG, NG
Honorable -- -- -- : LG, LN, NG, TN
Honorable -- -- Violent : LN, LE, NE, TN
Honorable -- Criminal Pacifistic : NG, CG
Honorable -- Criminal -- : NG, TN, CG, CN
Honorable -- Criminal Violent : TN, NE, CN, CE

Honorable Prejudice Lawful Pacifistic : LG
Honorable Prejudice Lawful -- : LN
Honorable Prejudice Lawful Violent : LE
Honorable Prejudice -- Pacifistic : LG, NG
Honorable Prejudice -- -- : LN, TN
Honorable Prejudice -- Violent : NE, LE
Honorable Prejudice Criminal Pacifistic : NG, CG
Honorable Prejudice Criminal -- : TN, CN
Honorable Prejudice Criminal Violent : NE, CE

-- Tolerant Lawful Pacifistic : LG, NG
-- Tolerant Lawful -- : LG, LN, NG, TN
-- Tolerant Lawful Violent : LN, LE, TN, NE
-- Tolerant -- Pacifistic : NG, CG
-- Tolerant -- -- : NG, TN, CG, CN
-- Tolerant -- Violent : TN, NE, CN, CE
-- Tolerant Criminal Pacifistic : CG
-- Tolerant Criminal -- : CG, CN
-- Tolerant Criminal Violent : CN, CE

-- -- Lawful Pacifistic : LG, LN, NG
-- -- Lawful -- : LG, LN, LE, TN
-- -- Lawful Violent : LN, LE, NE
-- -- -- Pacifistic : LG, NG, TN, CG
-- -- -- -- : LN, NG, TN, NE, CN
-- -- -- Violent : LE, TN, NE, CE
-- -- Criminal Pacifistic : NG, CG, CN
-- -- Criminal -- : TN, CG, CN, CE
-- -- Criminal Violent : NE, CN, CE

-- Prejudice Lawful Pacifistic : LG, LN
-- Prejudice Lawful -- : LN, LE
-- Prejudice Lawful Violent : LE
-- Prejudice -- Pacifistic : LG, LN, NG, TN
-- Prejudice -- -- : LN, LE, TN, NE
-- Prejudice -- Violent : LE, NE
-- Prejudice Criminal Pacifistic : NG, TN, CG, CN
-- Prejudice Criminal -- : TN, NE, CN, CE
-- Prejudice Criminal Violent : NE, CE

Dishonorable Tolerant Lawful Pacifistic : LG, NG
Dishonorable Tolerant Lawful -- : LN, TN
Dishonorable Tolerant Lawful Violent : LE, NE
Dishonorable Tolerant -- Pacifistic : NG, CG
Dishonorable Tolerant -- -- : TN, CN
Dishonorable Tolerant -- Violent : NE, CE
Dishonorable Tolerant Criminal Pacifistic : CG
Dishonorable Tolerant Criminal -- : CN
Dishonorable Tolerant Criminal Violent : CE

Dishonorable -- Lawful Pacifistic : LG, LN, NG, TN
Dishonorable -- Lawful -- : LN, LE, NE, TN
Dishonorable -- Lawful Violent : LE, NE
Dishonorable -- -- Pacifistic : NG, TN, CG, CN
Dishonorable -- -- -- : TN, NE, CN, CE
Dishonorable -- -- Violent : NE, CE
Dishonorable -- Criminal Pacifistic : CG, CN
Dishonorable -- Criminal -- : CN, CE
Dishonorable -- Criminal Violent : CE

Dishonorable Prejudice Lawful Pacifistic : LG, LN
Dishonorable Prejudice Lawful -- : LN, LE
Dishonorable Prejudice Lawful Violent : LE
Dishonorable Prejudice -- Pacifistic : NG, TN
Dishonorable Prejudice -- -- : TN, NE
Dishonorable Prejudice -- Violent : NE
Dishonorable Prejudice Criminal Pacifistic : CG, CN
Dishonorable Prejudice Criminal -- : CN, CE
Dishonorable Prejudice Criminal Violent : CE


Kthulhu wrote:
Better idea - drop the antiquated concept of alignment altogether.

This.

As mentioned above, the reason its called Lawful is almost certainly due to its roots in Moorcocks fantasy novels., which were some of the first to couch its coflicts in terms of other than good vs evil.

tbh, i cant see it changing - too embedded in the system....but i'd like to see it replaced by something similar to codes of honor..." my character will do this, my character wont do that...." ; currently the alighnments suffer from being too wide and vague, leading to difficulties in interpretation.


I was in a game though, where a dm got tired of the alignment system, and dispensed with it entirely. Not saying this will always happen, but many of the characters suffered from a lack of... character. They were concerned with the end of day profits, following the story, doing the obvious thing. In a sense bland adventurers. Alignment is a piece of a character, and alignment had been stripped away.

I was the one still playing a character with alignment, a chaotic neutral rogue (yes, I was playing a character not playing by the rules as I was also not playing by the new rules). He was a complete maverick, so much fun to play. I had a lot of fun and spiced the game up, took it off its expected course. The others... not so much (except one guy who played his character as excessively vain). Taking out alignment took a lot out of the characters of the game I was in.

Alignment isn't the enemy. Let us all embrace together in the centre of understanding, and then go into our separate corners before the fight begins.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Freehold DM wrote:

I like the idea.

You also made me lol at a bad time toz. Bad toz.

*sunglasses*

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

MMM, I like that. I have never liked it being named Lawful since it has caused confusion and misunderstanding in the past for some of my players. Order would be a much better term and I may just change that in my own games.

Thanks for the question.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rename them conservative and liberal!

:P

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

The idea is to REDUCE arguments, man, not INCREASE them...

Frog God Games

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just can't wrap my head around people who think that if a Paladin goes into a land where it's the law to kill bastard children and eat them, that he is somehow violating his ethics by NOT cannibalizing infants.


Personally I like to just keep it Good/Neutral/Evil. The whole Law/Order v.s. Chaos thing just gets stupid way, way too often and what's it really good for to begin with?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
The idea is to REDUCE arguments, man, not INCREASE them...

heh heh....HAHAH.....EEEEEEEEHEEEHEHEEEHEEHEEEE!

OOOOOOHOHOHOHOHOHAHAHOHOHO!!!


We could use conservative and liberal, but those labels are such a simplification. So I prefer questions of how law-abiding, honourable, prejudiced, violent and moral are you?

A law-abiding moral person could have an incredible violent streak, or a immoral person could be greatly prejudiced, but not excessively honourable or violent in the day-to-day.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

3.5 Loyalist wrote:

We could use conservative and liberal, but those labels are such a simplification. So I prefer questions of how law-abiding, honourable, prejudiced, violent and moral are you?

A law-abiding moral person could have an incredible violent streak, or a immoral person could be greatly prejudiced, but not excessively honourable or violent in the day-to-day.

What does it mean to be 'moral' in you alignment system? I notice that you don't use the moral vs. immoral axis in any examples.

It might be good if the game seperated cosmic allegiance from a character's personality. So a character could owe allegiance to the forces of chaos, but be honorable and law abiding.


Moral or immoral, steps in place of good and evil. Are you a decent person, or even a good person who believes in doing right by people, or do you sit somewhere else on the scale?

Prejudiced and tolerant, violent and pacifist make this a series of sliders you can play around with.

Let's take an example, a moral knight say, who is prejudiced and violent, but not pure evil as he also has a sense of honour and fair play. He is one that is being pulled towards the dark, but isn't a thug or assassin.


Invoking the word 'moral' just complicates this further, as morals are entirely culturally specific construction.


This is not a new point. Whatever a culture defines as good and evil does not matter, their little truths stand as ants before the greater Truths in D&D. Much as good and evil was used before, this snippet asks is the individual character moral or immoral? An immoral pacifist might be a bureaucrat, a violent immoral actor would be a murderer or rapist--whatever one culture or another says about rapists is unimportant (until it becomes such in the setting). Another way to think about this, would be a humanity rating, a la white wolf. High = moral, low = untrustworthy creature placing little value on people.


Aranna wrote:
I think the OP was talking about changing the name for his own game...

Does OP stand for Ordered Poster?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alignment is an obscure area.

Longtime Moorecock fan, so law vs. chaos is familiar ground for me.

Good vs. evil is usually pretty clear-cut, in my opinion: they did a better job on the moral axis than the ethical one. Still plenty to argue about on relative/absolute stuff.

But the PF alignment system is a holdover, and lots of people are not fluent in the old assumptions on which it was based, making it more than a little clunky in modern use.

Hero, Villain, Antihero.

Throw on a category for people who really don't care or want to be involved in the world: Autarch.

Paladins must be Heroes, obviously. Everybody else can fit any of the 4 "alignments."

How does your character impact the world? Which of the above four roles does s/he fill?

Keep the c/e/g/l detections, because it isn't hard to hang them onto the new alignments based on behaviours. Even protection/magic circle spells can go largely unchanged.

This may seem a little sleight-of-handy, shell-game. But if you're running a character by hero or villain, by antihero or autarch, I think you'll find your determination of the old alignments of your actions easier to judge. And that your consistency of adherence to patterns of behaviour that fit the old alignments will actually improve.

'Pay no attention to the alignment behind the curtain.'

Really, if you stop worrying, "Am I lawful, neutral, or chaotic," or "good/neutral/evil" but ask yourself, "What would a hero do now?" or "Am I acting like a villain or an antihero doing this in this manner?" your actions will flow more naturally into a consistent alignment.

Try it, you'll like it.


So far, pathfinder games I've been in that abandoned alignment actually had some problems because of this.

Then again, I have lost a player infuriated he couldn't be chaotic evil without eventual consequences as a druid.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I believe the rule by law is preferable to rule by altruistic personality. It is a rare in our culture, but valid way of seeing morality and politics, that law and justice are what keep people honest and fair, and that only justice carried out according to the law is valid, and different than revenge. Law allows justice without succumbing to the evils of vigilantism.

I enjoy characters that follow the law.

Taken to extreme, sometimes I enjoy characters like Judge Dread who are the most brutal versions of LN.

More than all that though, a lot of gamers think that a person who behaves the same way all the time deserves the lawful descriptor, even if they don't follow the law, even if they cheat, lie to or rob other people, just because they do it the same way all the time or for the same reasons. "My lawful character lies to dishonorable characters." "My lawful character only steals on fridays." "My lawful character blah blah blah."

The preference to call it "ordered" instead of "lawful" in my opinion is tied up in anti-authoritarian attitudes and a personal (player) lack of appreciation for rule by law. I wouldn't abide by the change.


From the point of view of cosmic forces opposing each other it should be Order vs Chaos. Just like Good and Evil are cosmically opposed. I'm not really hung up on the particular name though.

What bugs me is D&D always focuses almost entirely on the Good vs Evil with their Celestial/Infernal, Aasimar/Teifling, Paladin/Anti-Paladin, etc. Really CG is just as far removed from LG as is LE. Yet they pretty much just lump all Good alignments together. By the same token why not do LG & LE against CG & CE?

It might actually be interesting to create a setting where you get rid of the Good vs Evil all together and focus entirely on the Order vs Chaos aspect. Like in the original works of Michael Moorcock. In Good vs Evil eliminating your enemy is beneficial. In an Order vs Chaos setting both are necessary to keep each other in check. There Whichever force is out of balance becomes the evil one. Though I guess that's not as easy as a Black/White, Yes/No, Right/Wrong paradigm. It would require actual thinking and compromise for crying out loud!


I thought about changing the name of lawful once too.
(Before I decided to drop the whole stupid thing)

My take:

the axis switch places in the naming and lawful/chaotic become Order/Chaos:

Lawful Good = Good Order
Chaotic Evil = Evil Chaos
...

Turning the L/C axis' names into nouns enhances their role as fundamental concepts, as is Good/Evil.

And "a being of pure Order" sounds way better than "a pure lawful being" or "a being of pure lawfulness".


Epic Meepo wrote:

Lawful and Orderly

In the Pathfinder alignment system, there are two separate but equal lawfully-aligned character classes: the paladins who detect offenders, and the district monks who prosecute them. These are their stories.

*bing bong!*

(If I had even a modicum of artistic talent, this would be a web comic right now.)

Awesome Meep. I can't believe more boob-tube watching couch-potatoes didn't speak up in appreciation. LOL


I would separate order/chaos from the alignment system altogether, probably reduce the function of good and evil, make alignment much less pronounced the gods less abssolute in their stances and keep on gaming.

'Evil' would be anything judged and condemned by the mainstreaming pantheon of deities, regardless wether those deities would actually qualify as [good] individually. For exaample Loki in the Asgardian pantheon would start out as a [good] deity later he got exiled, he, his children, followers and anything else closely associated with Loki are branded 'evil'. Simple dualistic alignment system.

By the same token you could have 'Order' and anything that is not part of the 'Order' to be branded 'CHAOS', from people's perspective you could alternate the two for the most part using order/chaos might be more appropriate for less moralistic societies. It allows for less than moral priests and paladins only being constrained by a specific code or dogma and enemies of the faith which are not necesarily evil at all.


Orthos wrote:


I'm at work so can't get to the official paperwork, but I'm pretty sure that's not what it says. Explain to me the Lawful Evil conquering tyrant who dismisses other lands' laws and regulations with an uncaring wave of the hand as he crushes their soldiers and citizenry under his heel, to start.

Also, as PH said, saying "Lawful follows the law" invites "Which Law?" as the obvious response, and demands an answer to what happens when the law changes to something the character's personal morals object to.

Rule by might, by the right of conquest

now that I think of it, William the Conqueror fits the image

Dark Archive

Hmm.

Another way to look at it is Rational(Lawful)/Emotional(Chaotic).

Because a Lawful person has a thought out reason for the things they do, and a Chaotic person often does things on a whim.

Of course, in D&D/PF, there are other connotations to Law/Chaos as well.
For example: Rules/Freedom.

I disagree with thor about Compliance/Noncompliance. That's a completely unrelated axis. Plus then you get paladins who are being chaotic by not following the law of the land when the law says to eat babies.


Arikiel wrote:

From the point of view of cosmic forces opposing each other it should be Order vs Chaos. Just like Good and Evil are cosmically opposed. I'm not really hung up on the particular name though.

What bugs me is D&D always focuses almost entirely on the Good vs Evil with their Celestial/Infernal, Aasimar/Teifling, Paladin/Anti-Paladin, etc. Really CG is just as far removed from LG as is LE. Yet they pretty much just lump all Good alignments together. By the same token why not do LG & LE against CG & CE?

It might actually be interesting to create a setting where you get rid of the Good vs Evil all together and focus entirely on the Order vs Chaos aspect. Like in the original works of Michael Moorcock. In Good vs Evil eliminating your enemy is beneficial. In an Order vs Chaos setting both are necessary to keep each other in check. There Whichever force is out of balance becomes the evil one. Though I guess that's not as easy as a Black/White, Yes/No, Right/Wrong paradigm. It would require actual thinking and compromise for crying out loud!

Chaos vs law has been big in games I run and games I have been in.

Currently in a setting I am experimenting with and putting together as the players play through it, there are a few factions.

Evil, freedom and the death of the old gods and ascent of humanity = Neutral evil.
Law and empire = LE to LG.
Enlightenment, learning and a growing monster confederacy = NG, LG, CN
Otyugh democracy = N, CN
The old druidic ways = N
The homicidal guardians of the old forests = NE, CE
Freefolk of Honne = CG
Roaming barbarian factions = NE to CE


There was one time where I just put together a real life list of moral philosophies and just assigned an alignment label to each one. Then I had the players choose from the real life list. That made it easier to role play the alignments and since they have assigned game alignment tags, spells and abilities that target alignment worked correctly. It played just fine... I don't remember why I stopped using it.

Silver Crusade

Well, law is more than just "the law" a Lawful good person could not follow any laws of socicty, however they could follow a very strict personal code that they would never deviate from, no matter what the law of the land said.


That code would have to care about people and uphold benevolent order, or the code would be LN.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If Paizo were to use that term,it w ould no doubt be sued by Eric Siembada of Palladium whose had the lock on that term for decades. And is more than willing to unleash the legal hounds.

Dark Archive

People have already covered that argument, and it was pointed out that Palladium used a different term. Plus I highly doubt the term Ordered is anywhere near unique enough to fall under trademark, and it's definitely not original or creative enough to fall under copyright.


LazarX wrote:
If Paizo were to use that term,it w ould no doubt be sued by Eric Siembada of Palladium whose had the lock on that term for decades. And is more than willing to unleash the legal hounds.

Erick Wujcik, who died several years ago, and was the greatest game designer of his day in my opinion.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
cranewings wrote:
LazarX wrote:
If Paizo were to use that term,it w ould no doubt be sued by Eric Siembada of Palladium whose had the lock on that term for decades. And is more than willing to unleash the legal hounds.
Erick Wujcik, who died several years ago, and was the greatest game designer of his day in my opinion.

It's kind of hard to judge something like that since it's very much a YMWV deal. Different mechanic styles appeal differently to different people. And if you don't like someone's mechanics, you don't tend to give them high grades. I think his finest flowering was Amber Diceless which took cinematic style roleplaying to extents that very few had ever done and none with as much impact.


LazarX wrote:
cranewings wrote:
LazarX wrote:
If Paizo were to use that term,it w ould no doubt be sued by Eric Siembada of Palladium whose had the lock on that term for decades. And is more than willing to unleash the legal hounds.
Erick Wujcik, who died several years ago, and was the greatest game designer of his day in my opinion.
It's kind of hard to judge something like that since it's very much a YMWV deal. Different mechanic styles appeal differently to different people. And if you don't like someone's mechanics, you don't tend to give them high grades. I think his finest flowering was Amber Diceless which took cinematic style roleplaying to extents that very few had ever done and none with as much impact.

Yeah, that's why I said, "in my opinion."

Amber was about where game meets art.

I just played his adventure games like Ninjas and Superspies.

51 to 85 of 85 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Should "Lawful" Alignment be Renamed "Ordered" All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules