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

[Zubatcarteira]

That would depend on if it is followed reliably and consistently. If it is, then the code isn't random by the way, it's with purpose and deliberation. If its truly random, it's not a code.

For a person with a personal code of conduct and/or ethics to be chaotic, they would have to break their own code fairly often.

Well, say someone like Two-Face who kills based on a coin toss, he has a code that says he has to respect what the coin says, but wether he kills or not will be random. The code is followed, but the results are random.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, say someone like Two-Face who kills based on a coin toss, he has a code that says he has to respect what the coin says, but wether he kills or not will be random. The code is followed, but the results are random.

Two-Face doesn't kill randomly. The person has to be in the way, be an enemy somehow or whatever, but there are reasons that he wants to kill that person. Then he flips the coin and abides by the decision.

As for the "code," I don't think one rule about flipping a coin constitutes a code of behavior. You also have it backwards. It's not whether he kills that will be random. He wants to kill that person before he flips the coin. It's whether that person is saved that is random. The coin decides whether Two-Face gets his way or if chance saves the person.

 

[Yaarel]

An example of a Chaotic code is that of an inspirer who helps each individual discover ones own bliss and talents, and helps to become the best version of oneself.

 

[Flamestrike]

But you can easily be reckless in without constantly breaking your traditions and honour code.

Give me an example. You're either breaking your code all the time (so your code isnt a code you actually follow) or you're not.

Give me a protagonist (or antagonist) that follows a strict code (and breaks it all the time) that is not Chaotic.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Give me an example. You're either breaking your code all the time (so your code isnt a code you actually follow) or you're not.

Give me a protagonist (or antagonist) that follows a strict code (and breaks it all the time) that is not Chaotic.

Why would you need to break your honour code? You can easily have a code that is compatible with reckless behaviour. If you code is to "help those in need" or something like that, you can easily proceed to do so in reckless manner, charging into danger without plan or strategy. I also literally did write a longish example which you just ignored.

 

[Flamestrike]

Why would you need to break your honour code? You can easily have a code that is compatible with reckless behaviour.

If your code is 'be reckless' you're chaotic.

The Sith code is 'act as your anger, fear and hatred direct (subject to your masters will). Betray and kill your master, and take an apprentice'.

Its a CE code.

Again, give me an example (fictional antagonist or protagonist) that regularly breaks their code and acts impulsive, and does what they think is better (or worse) that is 'Lawful'.

Just one. One.

 

[le Redoutable]

is liar/Bluff a Chaotic concept ?

now is Bluffer does use much Stun ?
and then, is Stun = Memory ?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

If your code is 'be reckless' you're chaotic.

The Sith code is 'act as your anger, fear and hatred direct (subject to your masters will). Betray and kill your master, and take an apprentice'.

Its a CE code.

Again, give me an example (fictional antagonist or protagonist) that regularly breaks their code and acts impulsive, and does what they think is better (or worse) that is 'Lawful'.

Just one. One.

I don't know why I respond to you, as you don't actually seem to read my posts. The code is not 'be reckless' nor is recklessness expressed via breaking the code. They're separate things. On is a belief, the other is personality. Sir Sagramore or any hot-headed honourable knight would fulfil the criteria, as does the generic Klingon behaviour.

 

[Tallifer]

IMHO, Honour Code does not equal the Law. The Law is what society imposes and traditionally hands down. Honour can be traditional (indeed in the ideology of the Christian middle ages or of Biblical heroes, it was), but the Honour among thieves or of individualists is just a personally invented arbitrary self-justification.
Lawful means following and defending society's (or the Lawful Good gods') Laws.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Yes, exactly. The imprecision is a feature.

How? You said it is 'descriptive'. Descriptions only make sense if they convey information.

I am a scientist.
This allows you to have some notions about my profession, habits, worldview, and how I have been trained to accumulate and process information. It is descriptive, yet general.

I am a Clinical Pharmacist with a Doctorate of Pharmacy specializing in Addiction and Pain Management. I see patients in a clinic and work closely with MDs, NPs, PsyDs, and other professionals in a team-based environment to help people rejoin life and society.
This is descriptive and proscriptive. It gives you a much clearer picture of my habits, &c., but also eliminates other possibilities. I'm not one of Umbran's colleagues, for example. It also takes more verbiage and possibly more explanation. Sometimes a shorthand has more utility for a variety of reasons, and I say that I am a scientist or I work in health care.

Alignment is like that for me. It's a shorthand, and I as the DM provide clarification as needed.

OK. But you could use Pokémon types as cosmic poles.

Indeed.

And I get your cosmic factions thing, and from the little snippets it sounds cooler that the default D&D cosmology. But I simply do not believe alignment should be any longer be part of the default assumptions of D&D.
...
As for cosmic forces and such, alignment based cosmology could be one of the examples in DMG of how one could set up their cosmology, but just one among many others.

Thank you!

I think that despite our disagreement we understand one another, however incomprehensible some of my choices are to you. Cheers!