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

[Maxperson]

I agree LG
But... I picture him more of a the noble barbarian. In more than one episode he has a combat rage ability.
Does 5e still restrict Barbarian's to chaotic alignment?

Worf is a fighter, not a barbarian. His "rage" isn't barbarian rage, even though he completely loses it on occasion. If he was a barbarian, he'd be raging like that a lot more often.

 

[Voadam]

But you must agree, that this can only occur via sheer co-incidence.

Nope.

As in, you would need to 'rashly and impulsively act' without considering your actions through the lens of your code, while simultaneously (somehow) also considering your actions through the lens of your code of conduct (and without breaking that code of conduct).

No, you would just need to rashly and impulsively act in a way that does not violate the code.

A samurai who impulsively decides to buy his wife flowers just because some catch his eye is not violating his code.

Purporting to be 'following a strict code of conduct', yet breaking that code all the time due to rash and impulsive actions, means you dont really follow a code.

The important part there is breaking the code all the time, not acting rashly and impulsively.

If you break the code all the time you can reasonably be said to not really follow that code.

If you act rashly and impulsively but follow the code you can reasonably be said to follow the code.

 

[Voadam]

Heh, the FR Tyr seems the opposite of the reallife Norse Týr.

The Norse Týr is war, courage and victory, and is explicitly unjust. He kills the opponent, and is incapable of settling a conflict legally and peacefully.

That is an interesting interpretation.

Most I have seen connect Tyr as the Norse God unhesitatingly willing to pay the high price owed for the Aesir's injustice in lying to the Fenris Wolf and not releasing him from his bindings.

This gets him associated with justice and paying your debts and owning up to the costs of your wrongs.

For instance one of the first hits I get doing a search for Tyr is here which talks about him as a law god. Wikipedia also talks about this aspect.

He is also the Swordsman god, a god of war but that does not seem incompatible with having a justice aspect. Most of the Aesir are warrior gods.

In a somewhat humorous comment, he is unable to arbitrate a dispute because he is unable to say, On the one hand this but on the other hand that.

A low blow.

 

[Flamestrike]

No, you would just need to rashly and impulsively act in a way that does not violate the code.

A samurai who impulsively decides to buy his wife flowers just because some catch his eye is not violating his code.

That's not the same thing though. I mean not every decision one makes is guided through the lens of a code.

Im sure Captain America doesnt agonise about the morality of deciding whether to jump in the shower or not.

The more appropriate question is 'Does this person regularly consider their actions via the lens of a code of conduct that guides their actions, with the code determining (limiting) how they act?'

Eddard Stark does this. Worf does this. Captain America does this. Judge Dredd does this. Frank Castle does this.

Jack Sparrow does not do this. Deadpool does not do this. Ragnar Lodbroek does not do this. Captain Kirk does not do this. MCU Thor does not do this.

The important part there is breaking the code all the time, not acting rashly and impulsively.

If you're acting rashly and impulsively, you're not considering your actions through the lens of your code. It is not guiding your actions and decisions.

How can you be said to be complying with a code of conduct when making a decision, if you never even consider the code of conduct when making your decision?

Thats akin to a Judge making a ruling on a Law (that he has never read and is unaware of), that just happens to turn out to be correct by sheer fluke.

He's not acting lawfully there, or making a decision through the lens of the law. He just got lucky.

If you break the code all the time you can reasonably be said to not really follow that code.

No, in order to follow a code, you have to actually follow a code.

Not just get lucky making a bunch of random impulsive decisions that by sheer coincidence happen to align with a code you once considered.

Codes limit actions. Eddard Stark did not want to go to Kings Landing, but he was honor bound to do so. He did not want to execute the deserter, but was legally bound to do so (and considered him personally obliged to be the hand that swung the sword himself). He considered his response to these events through the eyes of the law, his own personal code, and what he was honor bound to do.

He didnt go around making rash and impulsive decisions. He always considered his actions by reference to his obligations, duty and responsibilities to King, family, his people and honor.

Can you see the difference between him, and (for example), Bronn of the Blackwater?

Lysa Arryn: "You don't fight with honor!"
Bronn: "No... but he did."

 

[Yaarel]

That is an interesting interpretation.

Most I have seen connect Tyr as the Norse God unhesitatingly willing to pay the high price owed for the Aesir's injustice in lying to the Fenris Wolf and not releasing him from his bindings.

This gets him associated with justice and paying your debts and owning up to the costs of your wrongs.

For instance one of the first hits I get doing a search for Tyr is here which talks about him as a law god. Wikipedia also talks about this aspect.

He is also the Swordsman god, a god of war but that does not seem incompatible with having a justice aspect. Most of the Aesir are warrior gods.

Týr is the human impulse to leap into battle and win.

His "bravery" in the situation with Fenris has more to do with the fighting instinct. Nothing to do with fairness or justice.

A low blow.

Heh, well, it was Loki who said it. But Snorri affirms the point in a more serious context.

Týr is about winning, not about fairness.

 

[Yaarel]

So, Norse Týr is probably True Neutral, a primal instinct. He personifies both the assembling of armies to fight (collectivism) and the warriors that excel in fearlessness and prowess (individualism).

Paladin archetypes that can resonate Týr are Glory, Vengeance, and Conquest. He associates with warrior magic, so in that context the Paladin healing is ok, but avoid building around healing or support. Smite on!

Týr actually is witty, but in a poignant way that hits where it hurts.

 

[Voadam]

That's not the same thing though. I mean not every decision one makes is guided through the lens of a code.

Exactly, not every decision is guided through the lens of a code.

Im sure Captain America doesnt agonise about the morality of deciding whether to jump in the shower or not.

Right.

I also don't think he agonizes over most morality decisions, he is at heart a good and decent guy who helps others and bravely stands up against what is wrong.

The more appropriate question is 'Does this person regularly consider their actions via the lens of a code of conduct that guides their actions, with the code determining (limiting) how they act?'

Eddard Stark does this. Worf does this. Captain America does this. Judge Dredd does this. Frank Castle does this.

I don't think MCU Captain America regularly stops and consciously considers his actions through a lens, I think he is at heart naturally a good guy and there is generally no conflict between his code and his desires.

I think of him as a more Aristotelean a good guy, he is habitually a good guy and so it is the easy and natural choice for him when situations come up.

Eddard Stark constantly has conflicting duties pulling at him that requires more introspection, particularly because he is keeping confidences at a constant personal cost.

I would not say I am familiar enough with Dredd to make a good evaluation on whether he has a code that guides his actions, he simply seems to be be a lethally martially competent enforcer of the fascist law and he is dedicated and committed to his cause.

Punisher I don't normally think of as having a code, more just a vigilante willing to rack up large bodycounts of bad guys. He is motivated by revenge and then a personal mission to kill criminals. He is dedicated and committed to that mission, which can be a hook for lawfulness, but I don't see him as having a code that drives his actions.

Codes limit actions. Eddard Stark did not want to go to Kings Landing, but he was honor bound to do so. He did not want to execute the deserter, but was legally bound to do so (and considered him personally obliged to be the hand that swung the sword himself). He considered his response to these events through the eyes of the law, his own personal code, and what he was honor bound to do.

He didnt go around making rash and impulsive decisions. He always considered his actions by reference to his obligations, duty and responsibilities to King, family, his people and honor.

Captain America generally does not seem limited.

His code seems completely in sync with his nature and desires. When he acts rashly, facing Thanos alone to stand up against evil even though he believes he has no chance to win and it will end in his death, he does this because of his code and his heroic nature.

He wanted to get back to Peggy Carter and not die instead of sacrifice himself at the end of the first movie, so there was a little conflict there. He doesn't want to fight fellow avengers, but he definitely actively wanted to save Bucky in Winter Soldier and Civil War. Mostly he does not seem limited from doing what he wants to do.

 

[RuinousPowers]

I'm curious, how common is it for CG characters to be portrayed as untrustworthy or liars? Is it normal for them to refuse conventions like "we split treasure equally"? How often are Chaotics, like elves, have nations, organizations, respect the concept of hereditary nobility?

 

[Flamestrike]

I also don't think he agonizes over most morality decisions, he is at heart a good and decent guy who helps others and bravely stands up against what is wrong.

All of the Avengers are good decent people.

It's just that Cap follows a very strict code of honor and responsibility. It's what drives his frequent tension with Tony, who doesnt.

I don't think MCU Captain America regularly stops and consciously considers his actions through a [code of conduct].

Id hazard a guess you're alone there.

Punisher I don't normally think of as having a code

He kills kids does he? He kills non criminals? He has a very strict (but warped and morally repugnant) and black and white code.

Like the Batman, Castle dresses in black, wages a vigilante war on crime, motivated by the loss of his family, and respects family, honor and tradition.

Unlike the Batman, Castle is a monster, and prepared to engage in murder, torture and ultraviolence to others in his war on crime.

Both are Lawful. It's just the Punisher is also Evil.

Captain America generally does not seem limited.

He's limited all the time! It's core to the tension between him and Stark. Stark wants to adopt pragmatic solutions, but Cap refuses on principle.

His code seems completely in sync with his nature and desires.

He's not 'biologically' LG mate. He's strongly principled, never once taking an option that goes against his code. He fights for honor, family and tradition according to his code (lawful) and is also a morally a kind, merciful, altruistic and compassionate (good) person.

When he acts rashly, facing Thanos alone to stand up against evil even though he believes he has no chance to win and it will end in his death, he does this because of his code and his heroic nature.

He's not acting rashly there! He knows he will die, and accepts that fate. He stands up to a superhuman leagues above him, because thats what his code dictates he do.

There are other options. He could bugger off and fight a guerilla war. Surrender. Join Thanos. Kill Vision to remove the Stone from Thanos.

But his code dictates he stand and fight for what is right. Its the harder option, and one that will likely see him killed. But he's OK with self sacrifice (as we see repeatedly).

He wanted to get back to Peggy Carter and not die instead of sacrifice himself at the end of the first movie, so there was a little conflict there.

And remind me again, what did he choose, and why did he choose it?

 

[Flamestrike]

I'm curious, how common is it for CG characters to be portrayed as untrustworthy or liars? Is it normal for them to refuse conventions like "we split treasure equally"? How often are Chaotics, like elves, have nations, organizations, respect the concept of hereditary nobility?

Thor is Chaotic (like DCU Aquaman) and both are also hereditary nobility. Aquaman was pretty non-fussed about it, and Thor was an arrogant dick about it.

Then when Thor finally got to be king, he handed the job over to someone else, so he could play the PlayStation and drink beer, before leaving entirely with the GOTG on a spaceship.

Loki was Chaotic and he wanted the job. But that was simply so he could do whatever he wanted (so he had Chaotic ambitions to rule) and also because he felt like an outsider his whole life, and desired love.

Chaotic people can desire to rule. They just tend not to follow rules themselves.