D&D General For those that find Alignment useful, what does "Lawful" mean to you

[HammerMan]

There are actually real-world laws related to this sort of thing; "Good Samaritan" laws, for example, specifically exculpate people for "ordinary negligence" (that is, for example, a failure to conduct CPR by proper current procedure, but still conducting CPR to try to save someone's life), even if that ordinary negligence might have been a contributing factor to someone's death. They do not exculpate "gross negligence," which usually requires the demonstration of explicitly willful, wanton dereliction of duty, possibly even malicious intent.

I know this isn't a superhero/comic board but this overlaps... this is why I HATE super hero registration stories. We don't need whole knew laws and concepts. We HAVE good Samaritan and Vigilante laws and concepts... and those can be enforced (bare with me a bit)

you went out (mask/costume or not) and stopped an armed robbery in progress, you are a hero. You save a life (CPR, Magic, what ever) and cause minor damage in process... good Smartian laws cover both. You track down someone guilty of a crime and beat them to a pulp or worse... this is where vigilante laws come in, and you are most likely on the wrong side (but cops and prosecutors can look the other way as long as public opinion is on your side)

In D&D kingdoms that adventurers are the norm (even if we say less then 1% of population if the kingdom is 1/2 a million that still leaves what 5kish so if we say they are half that and most are in groups then we still have somewhere around a thousand groups) they can (but don't have to) have something like this.

over the years most games hand wave this... but think about it. A well armed (and most likely wielding magic close to artillery's level) of unaligned (like not alligned to kingdom or town watch not alignment mechanic) mercanaries walk into town... and they find and kill a cult, and they help protect from an orc or undead attack... how does town guard handle that?
(BTW I always joke 'carefully and diplomaticly so they don't get fireballed')

 

[le Redoutable]

do any of you know of the Calling system from Marvel's Adventure ( Strength - Agility- Intellect - Willpower )

??

 

[Voadam]

I have never actually found anyone who could articulate a clear example of "things Chaotic people can't do and still be Chaotic," whereas you can absolutely give examples for all three other alignment poles (Lawful, Good, and Evil).

I am trying to think of what these clear examples are that mean people can't still be X.

Usually alignment is considered a broad overall evaluation and individual acts can be good or evil or whatever, but individual acts are only part of an alignment calculus, not individually defining.

Law - do enough not lawful stuff not to be considered lawful? Believe in the value of anarchy? Prioritize individuals over groups/systems? This one seems hard to come up with clear examples or even conceptual ones. It would depend a lot on the definition of Law that you use.

Good - unpardonable sins? Enough evil acts to not be still considered good?

Evil - atone and make amends? Change your evil ways and do good to the point you are considered redeemed or off the path of evil?

Chaos do enough lawful stuff not to be considered chaotic? Believe in the value of groups/systems? Follow something devotedly? It would depend a lot on the definition of Chaos that you use.

It all seems to be do enough not X or opposite of X to not be considered X any more. This seems to apply to Chaos as much as to Law or Good or Evil.

 

[Baron Opal II]

I am trying to think of what these clear examples are that mean people can't still be X.

I'm reminded of elan in the Stormbringer rules from Chaosium. If you built a shrine to Chaos, summoned demons, or defeated champions of Law you gained elan. Once you gained 100 elan you could do cool things. There were much more "gain paoins with this activity" than "lose points by do that activity". There were obvious ones, a supplicate of Grome or Arioch lost points helping a supplicant of Straasha or Donblas. But it was a lot easier yo define appropriate acts than taboos.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Because such restrictions are irrelevant to alignment. They exist within the classes and are ridiculous CLASS restrictions. Change LN to group only and they're still ridiculous. Change LN to purple flying people eaters and they're still CLASS restrictions. There's no good reason to give more weight to the version of alignment from another edition(which still had bard and barbarian restrictions by the way) than the 3e version.

I disagree. When a game developer says that certain alignments can’t be certain classes, they are saying something about how they see those classes, but they are also saying something about how they see those alignments.

 

[Maxperson]

I disagree. When a game developer says that certain alignments can’t be certain classes, they are saying something about how they see those classes, but they are also saying something about how they see those alignments.

When you have the same exact limitations happening in two editions with two different LN alignments(group and individual, societal laws and personal codes), it cannot be about one of those alignments and not the other. Those limitations don't speak to what lawful is, because lawful changed and the limitations did not. I suspect that they were kept for 3e due to tradition.

 

[FrozenNorth]

When you have the same exact limitations happening in two editions with two different LN alignments(group and individual, societal laws and personal codes), it cannot be about one of those alignments and not the other. Those limitations don't speak to what lawful is, because lawful changed and the limitations did not. I suspect that they were kept for 3e due to tradition.

Both are about alignments. Why would you think I thought differently?

 

[Maxperson]

Both are about alignments. Why would you think I thought differently?

Most of the thread has been about what is or is not lawful, and that's what I was discussing when I brought 3e into it to show how lawful is also individual people with strong personal codes. I was showing how lawful is not just about the rules of society or groups.

 

[Hussar]

i know this is mostly a joke but there is some truth to this.
/snip

You and me both. I remember a player coming to my table with a CN character. I was leery, but, okayed it. He then played the character as 100% trustworthy, stalwart, always doing what he was told, always thinking about the group, never impulsive. After about four or five levels of this I had the following conversation:

Me: Umm, your character isn't CN, he's LG.
Player: Absolutely not. He's CN. 100% dedicated to CN.
Me: But, you never do anything that's even remotely chaotic. Your character is better behaved than the LG paladin in the group. Good grief, you make Superman cry.
Player: Absolutely not. He's CN. 100% dedicated to CN.

On and on for a while. Then it hit me. It wasn't that he wanted to play a CN character. It's that he had had DM's in the past pull the "your character wouldn't do that" alignment schtick, and he was building as strong of a defense as he could to prevent that. He absolutely never wanted me to have any leverage over how he played his character. So, the character had no family, no real ties, and this CN alignment to make sure that there were no levers I could grab on to.

So, I let the character be CN and moved on.

One thing I do wish they would bring back in D&D though is "Unaligned". To me, that's a very good idea. It's simply a way for the player to say, "I really don't care about this aspect of the game, don't bother me with it."

 

[NotAYakk]

Law vs Chaos is about systems vs personal connections.

A lawful society is one where the lines of loyalty are to institutions. A chaotic one is where loyalty is to individuals.

In a lawful society, the queen dies and the prince becomes king, the institution carries on. in a chaotic society loyalty is to the person of the leader; their heir is not the next leader, unless they personally gain loyalty somehow.

A lawful character is loyal to a church, a city, a nation, ruler or clan. A chaotic character is loyal to a noble, friend, spouse or warlord.

Laws are just the rules of some institution. If it is an enemy, hostile or morally opposed institution, they are irrelevant.