Alignement
- Thread starter Jack Daniel
- Start date
(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
I voted for the first two.
Lawful characters don't have to be disciplined or focused - they might even have attention deficit disorder
They don't have to have high Wisdom, either.
A character who follows the law without thinking about it probably has low Intelligence, IMO.
Lawful characters don't have to be disciplined or focused - they might even have attention deficit disorder
They don't have to have high Wisdom, either.A character who follows the law without thinking about it probably has low Intelligence, IMO.
Angcuru
First Post
I like the Monte Cook alignment System. There are different degree of law and chaos, not just two huge defining ideas, and his system implements that. I.E. Lawful on a scale of 1-10.
1- I gots myself a routine.
2- I have a degree of discipline.
3- Follow basic set of non-moral-concerning laws.
4- If someone has to be hurt to enforce the laws, so be it.
5- Follow all laws, even if bodily harm is a prospect.
6- If someone has to be killed to enforce the laws, so be it.
7- Will harm kill to enforce the laws.
8- If massive amounts of people have to die to enforce the laws, so be it.
9- Follow all laws unquestioningly, TO THE DEATH!
10- COMMUNISM ALL THE WAY! INDIVIUALS ARE NON-EXISTANT!
Chaotic on a scale of 1-10.
1- I do what I want, when I want.
2- I don't need discipline, I'm my own person.
3- Don't care about laws at all.
4- Will go out of your way to disobey laws.
5- something...
6- F*CK the PO-LICE!
7- Actively try to disrupt law enforcement.
8- Would rather be hermit than live in a society.
9- Totally despise social structure.
10- Hate laws to the extent that rampant destruction is the only thing desireable.
BTW I may be a little off. If anyone has the system on hand, plz correct me if I am wrong on some of this stuff.
1- I gots myself a routine.
2- I have a degree of discipline.
3- Follow basic set of non-moral-concerning laws.
4- If someone has to be hurt to enforce the laws, so be it.
5- Follow all laws, even if bodily harm is a prospect.
6- If someone has to be killed to enforce the laws, so be it.
7- Will harm kill to enforce the laws.
8- If massive amounts of people have to die to enforce the laws, so be it.
9- Follow all laws unquestioningly, TO THE DEATH!
10- COMMUNISM ALL THE WAY! INDIVIUALS ARE NON-EXISTANT!
Chaotic on a scale of 1-10.
1- I do what I want, when I want.
2- I don't need discipline, I'm my own person.
3- Don't care about laws at all.
4- Will go out of your way to disobey laws.
5- something...
6- F*CK the PO-LICE!
7- Actively try to disrupt law enforcement.
8- Would rather be hermit than live in a society.
9- Totally despise social structure.
10- Hate laws to the extent that rampant destruction is the only thing desireable.
BTW I may be a little off. If anyone has the system on hand, plz correct me if I am wrong on some of this stuff.
Mercule
Adventurer
Well, you've got nothing even close to what I'd vote, Jack.
Personally, the definition that I've found makes some sense, is reasonably internally consistant, and is usable (require the other two) is that Lawful tends to think in terms of groups, while Chaotic tends to think in terms of individuals.
That isn't to say "what's in the group's _best_ interest" (that would be LG), but "American, German, Chinese" or "Democrat, Republican, Libertarian (aka 'nutjob' to a Lawful)". Chaotics also don't think "what's good for _me_" (that would be non-good), but "Bob", "Sue", "Sven".
Because Lawfuls deal with large grains (groups), they seem better at organizing things. And they are -- putting people into boxes is a great way of getting things accomplished in the short term. Chaotics, dealing with many small grains (individuals) seem very disorganized. Again, they are -- it's much harder to figure out what Sven is doing than it is to figure out what the majority of Swedes are doing.
Lawfuls can appear inflexible because it takes some time to figure out which box things fit into, and they may try to put square pegs into round holes. Chaotics are flexible because they approach every situation as something completely new.
Unwise Lawfuls can fall into sterotypes and prejudices -- "All orcs are evil", "All slaves are better off serving", etc. Unwise Chaotics can be shortsighted, forgetting about the ties a foe (or friend) may have -- "I kill the diplomat for his rude remark."
I think it works well with most of the stereotypes. It also keeps down stupid quandries/types like the Paladin following the obviously evil law and Chaotic Neutral being certifiably insane.
Personally, the definition that I've found makes some sense, is reasonably internally consistant, and is usable (require the other two) is that Lawful tends to think in terms of groups, while Chaotic tends to think in terms of individuals.
That isn't to say "what's in the group's _best_ interest" (that would be LG), but "American, German, Chinese" or "Democrat, Republican, Libertarian (aka 'nutjob' to a Lawful)". Chaotics also don't think "what's good for _me_" (that would be non-good), but "Bob", "Sue", "Sven".
Because Lawfuls deal with large grains (groups), they seem better at organizing things. And they are -- putting people into boxes is a great way of getting things accomplished in the short term. Chaotics, dealing with many small grains (individuals) seem very disorganized. Again, they are -- it's much harder to figure out what Sven is doing than it is to figure out what the majority of Swedes are doing.
Lawfuls can appear inflexible because it takes some time to figure out which box things fit into, and they may try to put square pegs into round holes. Chaotics are flexible because they approach every situation as something completely new.
Unwise Lawfuls can fall into sterotypes and prejudices -- "All orcs are evil", "All slaves are better off serving", etc. Unwise Chaotics can be shortsighted, forgetting about the ties a foe (or friend) may have -- "I kill the diplomat for his rude remark."
I think it works well with most of the stereotypes. It also keeps down stupid quandries/types like the Paladin following the obviously evil law and Chaotic Neutral being certifiably insane.
frankthedm
First Post
Law gives structure. Taken too far and everything will become flawless as pure crystal and just as static.
Chaos gives freedom. taken too far and eveything will be free from even the laws of reality, formless and betweeen all places that were once reality.
Chaos gives freedom. taken too far and eveything will be free from even the laws of reality, formless and betweeen all places that were once reality.
G'day
In my opinion, Lawful alignment confounds together two things that in people are quite separate. One is personal integrity (which some people call "honour" and others "character"). The other is deference to authority, society, and tradition, (which some people call "conservatism" and others "duty"). I have one of these and not the other, so I find the Law/Chaos axis muddled and useless. Another example would be the US Founding Fathers, who (it seems to me) combined a passion for liberty with a firm belief in the strength and necessity of personal integrity.
By the way, you made it difficult for me to vote by linking "honour" to "ethics". IMO, "honour" is associated with Law (though confounded by conservatism), while "ethics" is associated with Good.
Regards,
Agback
In my opinion, Lawful alignment confounds together two things that in people are quite separate. One is personal integrity (which some people call "honour" and others "character"). The other is deference to authority, society, and tradition, (which some people call "conservatism" and others "duty"). I have one of these and not the other, so I find the Law/Chaos axis muddled and useless. Another example would be the US Founding Fathers, who (it seems to me) combined a passion for liberty with a firm belief in the strength and necessity of personal integrity.
By the way, you made it difficult for me to vote by linking "honour" to "ethics". IMO, "honour" is associated with Law (though confounded by conservatism), while "ethics" is associated with Good.
Regards,
Agback
Tom Cashel
First Post
The lawful alignment implies...
...spending more than two and a half minutes devising the options for this, your umpteenth poll.
...spending more than two and a half minutes devising the options for this, your umpteenth poll.
Lucius Foxhound
First Post
Re: The lawful alignment implies...
Wouldn't that be more chaotic, then?
Tom Cashel said:
Wouldn't that be more chaotic, then?
rijeagle
First Post
Lawful is a mindset, a belief, a standard one follows, regardless of action on the part of others.
A paladin who follows, without failure, his deity's rules and code of conduct is lawful; an anti-paladin who follows, without failure, his deity's rules and code of conduct is lawful.
Both have opposing views upon the world, but both approach it the same way.
In the terms of Law or Chaos, it is how one approaches his goal, while good and evil are views of the world, upon which they act towards his goal.
Neutrality in either sense in just being unbiased/undecided. In reality, there would be no one who is true neutral. How can someone have absolutely no opinion at all on anything?
A paladin who follows, without failure, his deity's rules and code of conduct is lawful; an anti-paladin who follows, without failure, his deity's rules and code of conduct is lawful.
Both have opposing views upon the world, but both approach it the same way.
In the terms of Law or Chaos, it is how one approaches his goal, while good and evil are views of the world, upon which they act towards his goal.
Neutrality in either sense in just being unbiased/undecided. In reality, there would be no one who is true neutral. How can someone have absolutely no opinion at all on anything?
Similar Threads
