A "lawful" debate forgive me please

[Zimri]

If this is the wrong forum or has been dealt with recently.

I and the other players in the campaign in question seem to constantly butt heads over my LN monk. The DM for his part seems to be gently nudging me in one direction but is pretty much not saying alot about it except to comment that I have been acting "more lawful lately" The main sticking point seems to be what "lawful" actually is. I tend to believe that since it is opposed by chaos Lawful really means ordered (ie following a personal code is fine as long as you aren't changingg it from session to session though it can grow and mutate over time) and is less based on following the particular laws in any city state or kingdom. The majority of the rest of the party seem to believe that to be lawful you must either be following the laws of the land or those set out by the deity you venerate.

As an example the situation I get thrown at me the most often comes from "the burning plague" module from the WOTC website. We arrived at Duvik's Pass (a smallish mining town) and get turned away because they are all infected with some disease. We don't know the cause and seeing as how the entire town is infected to one degree or another the plague seems rather contagious to my monk. My suggestion on how to deal with it (and I knew the party wasn't going to let me) was "For the good of all Faerun we must burn down and cleanse the village to keep this from spreading" It just seemed the most efficient thing to do.

I really caused jaws to drop recently when we were transported to a world unfamilliar to us and upon a wererat surrendering to us I stopped them (the rest of the party ranges from LG to CN) from killing it and got them to let the local paladin that was following us around to pass judgement. My view being normally anything that surrenders to me is allowed to live (the rest of the party does not hold this view) But we were strangers in a strange land so being unfamilliar with the law it would be wiser to allow local agents of said law to carry out the punishment of prisoners.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

I had a discussion before regarding Paladins the devolved into a debate over the nature of Lawful Good.

As far as my .02 goes, my belief is that Lawful was probably the WORST term they could have used. Numerous people believe that Lawful means "Law Abiding". My personal take is that a Lawful person perfers an orderly life. They never jump into anything. They always go into any situation with a plan. The downside of being lawful is a lack of spontaneity... they don't adapt well to unexpected situations. They like a rank structure and also tend to favor democratic decisions. If the party decides on a course of action but a lawful character doesn't agree he will defer to the majority and will still put forth his best effort.

Anyway, that is just my personal take. I'm sure you'll find very few people who have the exact same take on the alignment.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

I really need to start proof reading my posts before hitting that "submit reply" button.

 

[Wippit Guud]

Hmmm... Logic Good?

 

[Li Shenron]

I think there are many aspects of being Lawful rather than Chaotic. For example, loyalty or adherence to an unwritten code of warfare is one aspect; to favor tradition over invention is another; to believe that respect for legitimate authority is to be put over personal freedom in another as well, and so on. To zealously follow the current laws is definitely an aspect of being Lawful.

Now what really annoys me is that many people think that if you are Lawful you MUST follow all those aspects, which is NOT TRUE. It is wrong that a Lawful character will never lie, although it is very likely that most of Lawful characters don't in fact lie. A Lawful character is definitely a good candidate to not break the laws, while a Chaotic character is generally less compelled to do so, but this does not mean that there are no dishonest Lawful characters or honest Chaotic characters. What makes you L or C at the end is how you react in most of the circumstances, but you don't have to have all the Lawful aspects to be Lawful.

The fact of not breaking the laws is possibly the most sensible of these aspects. Consider the following two examples:

1) a thief who regularly breaks the law in his thievery but is definitely 100% loyal to his guild, only because in his own eyes the "legitimate authority" an relative laws are the ones of his guild and not the ones of the king

2) a real-life person who lived under the fascist laws which considered a crime to help or save the life of a jew

Just two examples of character which could break the law without necessarily being chaotic at least, and possibly being lawful on everyting else you can think about.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Lawful is a very broad term but to me means you follow some type of rules and code or at least try to. The kicker is that it needs defining, is it a personal code, is it the law of the land, is the law of the church / order or guild?

You and the DM have to define what those rules are as part of the characters background.

 

[DragonLancer]

I see Lawful individuals being of both the typical viewpoints.

A lawful person would be much more inclined to obey laws that were not anti to their views and personal philosophy.
I also see them as ordered, they don't rush into things without thinking, and a lawful person would not do something just for the hell of it. Think sterotypical kung-fu monk from TV and movies, always calm and collected, slow and methodical until they need to act.

Thats how I view Lawful.

 

[Psion]

II tend to believe that since it is opposed by chaos Lawful really means ordered (ie following a personal code is fine as long as you aren't changingg it from session to session though it can grow and mutate over time) and is less based on following the particular laws in any city state or kingdom.

my belief is that Lawful was probably the WORST term they could have used. Numerous people believe that Lawful means "Law Abiding". My personal take is that a Lawful person perfers an orderly life. They never jump into anything. They always go into any situation with a plan.

I wish to express my disagreeance with the take that "lawful" is merely "self-consistent". Lawful is usually self consistent, but that is not, at all, a very functional definition. The corrolary would be that chaotic characters are erratic, and that is the most troublesome way you could possibly define chaotic. (Do I need to relate tales of characters who roll dice for their actions?)

I think the best way to define lawful in D&D is "having respect for the role of social order in life." That does not mean you immediately lock step with the local government. Heck, the social order you adhere to might not be a government at all, but (such as in monks) a monastic order, an organized crime syndicate, or what have you. Your character, as a lawful character, considers the impact of his action on the social order he identifies with, or in absence of it, strives to create or identify with one, as social order is viewed as a fundamental guiding principle in his life.

Now the sort of behavior that Calico Jack here can be a good example of this behavior. But we need to consider the reasons why. Why would such a character tend to stick to plans? Well, for one, planning is a function of social cooperation and order. The character beleives that to deviate from a plan would be to defy their role in the social order; to jump into things in a hasty manner creates social disorder, which is veiwed as an undesirable, or even dangerous condition.

Now lets say a character is travelling in a foreign land. The naively simple interperetation of lawful is that a character obeys laws, but it is easy to conceive situations where this leads to irrational behavior. But respect for social order works here. The character may not instantly subscribe to alien laws and customs, but a lawful character would also most likely seek to not "rock the boat." Offending members of a foreign nation can lead to conflict on a large scale, which is another brand of social disorder. At the same time, the character is likely to have a deep respect for the traditions they were raised with, and/or would be unwilling to do anything to jeopardize their home nation.

In my time running D&D, I have found this to be the most functional definition to work from when defining lawful. "Personal codes" and "personal consistency" is something that a chaotic character can possess; it is just that the chaotic character does not respect any obligation to larger social units.

 

[Silveras]

Any such discussion should always start with the game definitions.

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

and

“Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

So, it is not unreasonable for the rest of the party to expect a Lawful character to obey the laws of the land. However, a Lawful character can certainly obey the laws or teachings of a religion before those of a nation (bowing to the higher authority of the god(s)). A personal code of honor is more of a Chaotic type of thing (see "follow their consciences" in the next quote).

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

All that being said, though, few people are perfect. Paladins are held to a higher standard. Putting them aside, most other characters are expected to be imperfect at living to their ideal. They may want to "do the right (Lawful) thing" but sometimes cave in to expediency or temptation.

Note that the SRD does not include anything about orderliness in its definitions of Law and Chaos. I personally think some orderly behavior is a good way to express a Lawful orientation. But the defining traits are some combination of: honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, reliability, close-mindedness, blind insistence on keeping tradition, judgementalness, and an inability to cope with new situations (I am paraphrasing a couple). If none of those sound like your character, then that character is not by-the-book Lawful.

If your DM is hinting that you are not being "Lawful", s/he has the final word. Try to find out what the issue is. It may be that the personality you have created for your Monk is NOT Lawful. Look at it as a role-playing challenge; your character has been a Monk for a while, but maybe is not really suited to it. Is a career change in order ? Maybe a crisis event could spur you to adjust the character to be more by-the-book Lawful (if that's what your DM is getting at).

 

[reiella]

To me, the lawful axis means simply a strong acknowledgement and acceptance of the theory that people and society are "better off" in a structured/ordered environment. That "general" assumption starts to falter with some lawful evil types, but even the Baatezu of the Nine Hells believe that a structured and ordered society is "good" for the grunts .

Breaking local laws causes chaos and destabilizes the overall order and structure. However, that isn't to say that they aren't broken, through forms of civil protest or as part of an action to change the order (either by imposing your own form, or having legislature acknowledge a problem). Lawful Evil types probably are alot more likly to break the "letter" of the law when they think they won't get caught, not wishing to destabilize the existing structure too much.

The example of the guild thief may be two-fold. In some societies, it becomes a foregone conclussion that thieves will exist. Therefore, it is better for the thieves to follow some structure as well, and they do not necessarily break the structure of their environment by "breaking the law", because it is assumed that robberies will happen. Alternatively, the thief/guild is seeking to destablize the structure enough so that their structure will surplant it.

The second example may well be a form of social reform. And on that note, I must comment that just because someone is lawful does not mean that they do not attempt to change the laws.