|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I've seen this pop up twice on the 'advice' messageboard this week alone, plus it showed up twice in home games, and it is a fundamental misunderstanding of the DnD alignment system.
So, I guess I'm gonna talk about it, even though everyone hates alignment threads.
Okay, so here's the deal: "Lawful" is an artifact term from DnD, and it does not mean 'follow the law.' Maybe that's what it started off being like, I dunno, never played first edition, but now law is opposed by 'chaos' not criminality. And given how EVERY OTHER part of the alignment system works (good, evil, chaos), it is based solely around how your character approaches his interactions with the world in general. Not how your character interacts with each and every government.
Now, if it's part of your own personal code to fallow the law of the land, that's great. BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE LIKE THAT.
Look at how the other alignments work:
Are you mostly selfless? Do you try to respect the sanctity of sentient life? Do you try to minamize the pain and suffering of others?
You are good.
Are you selfish, do you not give a flying hoo-haa about other sentient life? Do you enjoy/not care about causing pain and suffering of others? You are evil.
Are you impulsive? Do you respect adaptability and gut feelings more than lists and plans? Are you a "we'll figure it out as we go" kinda guy? You are chaotic.
Are you organized? Do you have set lists and plans? Do you use logic and facts over the idea of 'trusting your gut?' You are Lawful.
Lawful doesn't mean 'follow the law.' You can be a very organized freedom fighter who makes very elaborate and painstakingly-crafted plans to free slaves in Chelliax. Does that mean you respect Chelliax's laws? Hell no, you are an instrument designed to tear that regime down. Still means you can be lawful.
Someone brought up that a Paladin cannot break the law, and that is incorrect. In fact, part of the Abdar Paladin code is actually something like "If a government is corrupt and beyond saving, it is your DUTY to TEAR IT DOWN and put a better one in its place."
Listen, is the alignment system perfect? No, of course not. But I think people put too much of their baggage on it. A LG person can hate another LG person if they have different world outlooks. And Lem, a CG freedom fighter could be best friends with our hypothetical LG freedom fighter. Alignment doesn't dictate how well you get along with others or how you have to play your character. Instead, it exists to answer two questions, and ONLY two questions. Roughly speaking, where do you fall on the 'good-evil' spectrum, and where do you fall on the 'order-chaos' spectrum. That's it.
A:Lawful means inclined towards order and tradition.
B:Rules maintain order and tradition.
C:Laws are rules.
Therefore, Lawful characters are inclined to obey laws.
There are of course exceptions, but overall this is a reasonable expectation.
Law Versus Chaos
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has some respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is generally honest, but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.
In particular, obedience to authority ==> obeying the law.
Law (and chaos) has had an annoying dual nature of "internal lawfulness" and "external lawfulness" at least since 2nd ed. Don't expect it to match real life.
Lawful seems more inclined towards making large organizations.
These do not have to be LEGAL groups, of course. The classic example would be the LE mobsters that brutally enforce family rules.
Anyway, the reason why they tend towards larger organizations is because of their tendency to enjoy rules- large groups have to rely upon standardized rules of some sort (laws, etiquette, etc.) in order to allow people that never met before to work together in an orderly fashion.
As an example of how this might apply to a game-
A CG ranger might fight against the evil noble's 100 guards, and kill them all- hey they worked for an evil man, and were carrying out that evil.
A LG paladin might be concerned with who would defend the villages against bandits once the 100 guards are killed.
Heck, that is what got Cheliax. It turned towards Hell as an alternative to the insecurity brought by civil war- they would rather devote themselves to hell than worry about which inner threat (an opposing faction in the civil war) or outside threat (a foreign nation taking advantage of the civil war) would come in and kill them next.
So that LG paladin would prefer to have some easy alternative to switch out the evil authority if one is available- maybe the evil noble's good twin brother is raising an army to retake the land. With that premise, the paladin be fine with all this.
|
|
In particular, obedience to authority ==> obeying the law.
Law (and chaos) has had an annoying dual nature of "internal lawfulness" and "external lawfulness" at least since 2nd ed. Don't expect it to match real life.
The problem is when people say obedience to AN authority ===> obedience to ALL authorities.
Let's take, for example, Hell's rebels. In that AP, the law is totally and irrevocably corrupt. There is a guy who is in charge of the law, and can TECHNICALLY do everything he is doing, but it is clear he is doing it for his own amusement and to hurt the citizenry of Kintargo. Even if you were loyal to Chelliax, there is no reason you would be loyal to HIS rule because he, quite clearly, does not represent the will of Chelliax.
Or, to use my first example, if you are loyal to the Bellflower Network, there's no reason to follow CHELLAXIAN authority.
Lawful tends to imply that you have a strict code of ethics you follow, sure, but it doesn't mean you have to follow every, or even a single, government.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like I should beat TOZ to the punch here.
Say it with me, guys.
Law and Chaos do not have any meaning under the standard D&D rules.
'Impulsive' versus 'organised' doesn't sound much like a great iconic struggle of philosophies on a par with the conflict between good and evil.
Hey, fight for freedom is very iconic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Saying Lawful means "Follows the law" is akin to saying Good means "Never harm others", Evil means "Do harm to others when given the opportunity", or Chaotic means "Break every rule". Those stereotypes fail to address the full scope of each alignment and what people of that alignment value.
Lawful characters value order and structure in their lives. They're the type that reads the instruction manual before booting up a game so they can garner a better understanding of the mechanics. When faced with a problem they tend to use the tried and true solution rather than taking unnecessary risks. In times of crisis they look to figures of authority or a code of conduct to guide their actions. They value the power of a collective and tend to think of things on a larger scale than most others - for instance, paying taxes sucks, but if everyone does it the government can run smoothly for the betterment of all. To them, solutions which cause discomfort to the individual are acceptable so long as the collective whole benefits.
I could write more, but this basically sums up my thoughts on the topic.
Man, I've been saying this for years.
Got into a heated debate on the Candlekeep forums over whether or not Artemis Enteri was lawful(his official alignment is lawful evil, but Candlekeep is a very novels over crunch place). Their argument was that he routinely breaks the law and has no respect for authority so he must be chaotic where as my argument was that his high levels of discipline and organized behavior made him lawful.
You can easily be a Lawful character opposing local laws if those laws contradict your personal principles.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With you on the title, but there's a lot of problems here.
Lawful doesn't mean 'follow the law.' You can be a very organized freedom fighter who makes very elaborate and painstakingly-crafted plans to free slaves in Chelliax. Does that mean you respect Chelliax's laws? Hell no, you are an instrument designed to tear that regime down. Still means you can be lawful.
Organizing your revolutionary pamphlets by the dewy decimal system does not make you lawful. There is a tendency for people that like social disorder to like personal disorder, and an even larger tendency for fiction to SHOW one with the other, but they're not the same thing. One is a superficial personality trait. Deeper down, in your heart, is what you want society to be and what kind of society you're working for: free or functional.
People of any good alignment can try to bring down cheliax. Chaotic is going to try to keep what comes next small because we know we can't trust chelaxians to organize, lawful good is going to try to keep the good parts of cheliax because they need something to keep them on the straight and narrow. It's more likely the latter cuts their toast with a protractor, but not neccesary.
Someone brought up that a Paladin cannot break the law, and that is incorrect.
A paladin does not have to follow laws because they are lawful. They have to (to some extent) follow laws because they are a paladin and, like poison use, part of that code specific to the paladin and not their overall lawful good alignment is to respect legitimate authority. Legitimate authorities tell you what to do by passing laws.
Like anything else it's not absolute. If the law tells you to catapult an orphan into the chasm of never ending screams, you don't. If it tells you to wear a chicken hat, you put on the chicken hat.
In fact, part of the Abdar Paladin code is actually something like "If a government is corrupt and beyond saving, it is your DUTY to TEAR IT DOWN and put a better one in its place."
Quite the opposite.
- I respect all lawful authority and understand that different places have laws that I may not agree with, but work for those who reside within. If a law is unlawful, I will work to the best of my ability to show them a better law or way.
Show them a better law. Not cut off the head and start writing it in in place.
- Corruption in the courts is the greatest corruption of civilization. Without confidence in justice, citizens cannot believe in their countries, and civilization begins to disappear. I will root out corruption wherever I find it, and if a system is fundamentally flawed, I will work to aid citizens by reforming or replacing it.
Reform and replace. Not burn the sucker down.
Batman hasn't been written consistently. There's a good argument for him being of any aligmment
Maybe he's a hyper vigilantee and all of the batmans are his alternate identities with different alignments? Lawful good Adam west batman. CE Frank miller batman that hates ice cream....
I also mentioned this in the "what's so fun about evil" thread, but I like the easydamus "real alignment" framework. For law he matches it to preferences for conformity/tradition and security, for chaos to preferences for self-direction and and stimulation. It works for me, and maps onto consistent real world behavior/preferences more than following a particular set of laws.
|
This is why I go with Complicated Good. My interactions on organized/disorganized, obeying laws / don't tell me what to do, and personal standards of conduct are so far across the board that getting blocked into one term is unrealistic.
Then there's what you strive for versus what you actually accomplish - I WANT to have a clean desk and read my mail on time, but it rarely happens.
And yet another layer of how you Present yourself to others on this scale, how others perceive you, and how you actually are. (At least white-wolf covers this aspect better).
