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

[CreamCloud0]

That's nonsense. It is part of their nature. They're unable to break their word, that is extremely lawful trait. Yet they're chaotic. This is why alignment is just bad and misleading. You cannot rely on it as a guide of creature's behaviour. If you did, you'd assume that the fey break their word and that beholders work in groups. And both of these assumptions would be utterly wrong. You need to actually read the full description to understand the creature, and once you do, the alignment is no longer needed. All the the alignment contributes is misunderstandings and arguments; just get rid of it already!

I’d point out that the fey don’t willingly obey those rules, they are forced upon them, even if only by their own minds or nature or whatever it is that causes the obedience to the fey rules, I find the situation comparable to someone under the Geas spell or command or some such, just because they are compelled to obey those rules does not immediately make the afflicted creature lawful, the same if someone only obeys the law because they’re being threatened with consequences if they don’t.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So what alignment do you give someone who follows a rigid code of conduct, and is honorable and inflexible, has a clear code that governs their actions, and while they sometimes act impulsively, those actions are never contrary to that strict code?

None, as I don't believe in alignment. And as you just described the characters nature, you'd have no use for their alignment either, you already know what they're like.

To me, they're Lawful.

You're asserting one can both be 'honorable, dependable, follow a code, and be inflexible' while also being 'spontaneous, reckless, unconventional and flexible'.

I didn't say 'inflexible' nor 'unconventional.'

I'm just struggling to see how that's possible, and I'm asking you to provide for me some clear fictional examples (antagonists or protagonists).

Give me someone from the MCU or DCU as an example of this.

Is "choose which Avenger you are" the new alignment system? I really have no interest in debating how cartoon characters map on nonsensical alignment system. But I don't think it would be hard to imagine a character who is honourable and follows a chivalric (or other similar) code, but still makes impulsive and reckless decisions. The code might guide what they do (protect the innocent etc) and their reckless nature influences how they go about doing it (impulsively and without strategy or plan, charging the danger head on.) And if you insist, I think MCU Thor is somewhat like that, though not as extreme example as one could imagine.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I’d point out that the fey don’t willingly obey those rules, they are forced upon them, even if only by their own minds or nature or whatever it is that causes the obedience to the fey rules, I find the situation comparable to someone under the Geas spell or command or some such, just because they are compelled to obey those rules does not immediately make the afflicted creature lawful, the same if someone only obeys the law because they’re being threatened with consequences if they don’t.

Just like every though you have is "forced on you by your own mind and nature". This is a totally absurd attempt to make a separation. It's part of them, it is their nature, the alignment is supposed to describe creature's nature and behaviour, yet it doesn't.

 

[Yaarel]

Just like every though you have is "forced on you by your own mind and nature". This is a totally absurd attempt to make a separation. It's part of them, it is their nature, the alignment is supposed to describe creature's nature and behaviour, yet it doesn't.

The Chaoticness of Fey makes sense as individualists.

But, whenever people assume Predictable-versus-Random are alignments, the alignment system becomes meaningless nonsense.

You are right to call out the nonsense.

 

[Voadam]

How can one be impulsive AND follow a code?

That seems trivially easy to conceive.

Media samurai follow a warrior code of Bushido. A Samurai can be thoughtful and cautiously reserved or rash and impulsive and still be a samurai following their code.

Knights of the round table have a code. They can be rash and impulsive.

Give me an example of a person who (allegedly) upholds a code of honor, and/or a code of conduct, whom also acts impulsively contrary to that code, that you consider to be lawful.

That seems a completely different question.

Is the impulsive part even relevant here? Is the acting in violation of the code the relevant part?

Think of someone who has a code who calculatingly acts contrary to that code, a warrior who has a code of honorable martial combat who calculatingly uses poison to eliminate an enemy for example.

Is it only the combination? Is a person who acts impulsively but consistent with their code lawful? One who violates their code but in a calculating manner?

 

[le Redoutable]

That seems trivially easy to conceive.

Media samurai follow a warrior code of Bushido. A Samurai can be thoughtful and cautiously reserved or rash and impulsive and still be a samurai following their code.

Knights of the round table have a code. They can be rash and impulsive.

That seems a completely different question.

Is the impulsive part even relevant here? Is the acting in violation of the code the relevant part?

Think of someone who has a code who calculatingly acts contrary to that code, a warrior who has a code of honorable martial combat who calculatingly uses poison to eliminate an enemy for example.

Is it only the combination? Is a person who acts impulsively but consistent with their code lawful? One who violates their code but in a calculating manner?

I think you've all got contaminated by the Rogue vs Thief substitution :
while the Thief was some of a spy, the Rogue is a Thug, who has got Attacks of Opportunity instead of Backstabb, and is a real nuisance to the group because the group tolerates him and he corrupts everyone at the table .

 

[Maxperson]

And of course the chaotic fey are well known to be unable to break their word and having to stick to their contracts!

And even more well known for intentionally exploiting the loopholes(and there are always loopholes) in those contracts to the detriment of the mortals.

 

[Maxperson]

So? Once again alignment is misleading and utterly crap at predicting actual behaviour.

The fey thing literally has nothing to do with alignment. Nothing. Keeping their word(though they "break" it constantly through loopholes) is not an alignment feature or a part of their behaviors. It's literally forced on them.

 

[Maxperson]

Here, the Fey are individualists. Each one can choose to give ones own word or not. If one does, it is only binding on oneself. This is like an example of an individualist "code". There is no group. Only individuals. It is a Chaotic trait.

It's not an example of any kind of code. It's a magical constraint on them, not part of their personality or belief structures. Alignment is irrelevant to that trait. But here's the kicker, go ahead and make it part of their personality or traits and the fey are still chaotic. Because alignment is not a straightjacket, but just a general idea of where the creature's main attitude lies.

You can have a primarily chaotic being have a single strong lawful trait without breaking that primary behavior pattern, and without making alignment useless like @Crimson Longinus wants it to be.

 

[Yaarel]

The oaths of the Fey are self-imposed! The magic that binds a Fey to an oath is ones own magic. The oath is freely given or not given. Each individual decides for oneself. There is no coercion here.

The oaths are who a Fey is: ones own nature.

The trope relates to the nature of magic itself. The "Fey" are the "fates". The concept of foreseeing the future to speak it during an oracle, extends to changing the future by means of speaking. Hence, these words cause reality itself to happen. These are the magic words.

The word "fairy" (also spelled "fairie, faierie, faerie, feiery" and so on) means "magic". Magic is the "activity of the fates". A Fey (also spelled fay, faie, feie, and so on) literally means a "fate".

The Fey are magic itself, made out of magic, deciding magic. When a Fey gives ones word, that word creates a new reality to come into existence.

In other words, the Fey are made out of oaths. These oaths are magic itself.

The Fey are individualists. Each one unilaterally causes reality to happen in a certain way by speaking it that way.

The Fey are very careful about what they SAY.