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

[Yaarel]

It CAN be that if you want it to for your game. It doesn't mean that as the default in D&D, though. Since 3e came out it can in fact be just you. Making lawful be for multiple people(groups) only is a home brew change to the game.

We are talking about 5e.

Your posts keep on referring to 3e.

3e is irrelevant.

It is ok if your 5e homebrew still holds onto 3e.

 

[CreamCloud0]

We are talking about 5e.

Your posts keep on referring to 3e.

3e is irrelevant.

It is ok if your 5e homebrew still holds onto 3e.

They said ‘Since 3e’ implying that it is still the case afterwards, which would include 5e.

 

[Maxperson]

We are talking about 5e.

Your posts keep on referring to 3e.

3e is irrelevant.

The past of a company that is currently making D&D, where the past is entirely consistent with the new edition and provides continuity framework, is not irrelevant.

It is ok if your 5e homebrew still holds onto 3e.

Dude. 3e is identical to 5e here. Individuals get to be lawful with a personal code. End of story. It takes a home brew at this point to make lawful about groups only.

 

[Minigiant]

It CAN be that if you want it to for your game. It doesn't mean that as the default in D&D, though. Since 3e came out it can in fact be just you. Making lawful be for multiple people(groups) only is a home brew change to the game.

That's what I am saying.

Lawful often means "group" but it more accurately means "other people's laws and restrictions"

 

[Maxperson]

That's what I am saying.

Lawful often means "group" but it more accurately means "other people's laws and restrictions"

I'm confused. I thought you have been saying that is has to be other people's laws and restrictions and that an individual with a personal code wasn't lawful. If you're just saying that it usually means the "group" or "other people's laws and restrictions," then we are in agreement.

Most often lawful people will be in a group or following the rules and restrictions of others. Individuals with a personal code of conduct that they follow are relatively rare.

 

[Yaarel]

Dude. 3e is identical to 5e here. Individuals get to be lawful with a personal code. End of story. It takes a home brew at this point to make lawful about groups only.

By your logic, only Lawful Neutral can have an individual code.

Meanwhile Lawful Good does what is "expected by society", thus cannot have an individual code.

 

[Oofta]

So now we've gotten to the nitpicking verbiage instead of discussing broad concepts of the thread?

 

[Minigiant]

I'm confused. I thought you have been saying that is has to be other people's laws and restrictions and that an individual with a personal code wasn't lawful. If you're just saying that it usually means the "group" or "other people's laws and restrictions," then we are in agreement.

Most often lawful people will be in a group or following the rules and restrictions of others. Individuals with a personal code of conduct that they follow are relatively rare.

What I am saying is "group" and "other people" are more of less the same. The key point is the Lawful person accepts a ruleset, code, of law system that the Lawful person won't or can't change to meet their desires or needs.

Many personal codes are not devised ultimately by the person and are often heavily affected by outside groups, other people, or biological constraints.

Chaotic is more "I leave all my options open. I'm not letting others lock options away from me "

Robin Hood is chaotic not because he breaks the law but because he is willing to break the law with little care to do Good. He doesn't let the law bind him.

Batman is Lawful because while he is a vigilante, he twists and binds himself with a code of conduct to not become the monsters he stalks. If it were purely up to him and there were no consequences, he'd just shoot and kill people.

 

[Maxperson]

By your logic, only Lawful Neutral can have an individual code.

No. That's a bastardization of my logic. I'm just showing you that such a code is by RAW, lawful.

 

[Yaarel]

No. That's a bastardization of my logic. I'm just showing you that such a code is by RAW, lawful.

But your interpretation of the term "personal code" is incorrect. Even if supposed hypothetically, your interpretation would only apply to Lawful Neutral, because Lawful Good clearly contradicts your interpretation.