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

[EzekielRaiden]

It seems to me, if there is a situational conflict between doing the Good thing versus doing the Lawful thing, the doer is conflicted or compromised. Thus Lawful Good is ultimately less Good.

As stated in my (much) earlier post, I reject this notion. Laws sometimes need to be changed. Laws are not perfect, but (by definition) strive toward some goal or purpose. A law which fails to achieve its purpose is a poor law; a law that actively harms its intended purpose is outright bad. Both poor laws and bad laws not only can be replaced, but necessarily must be replaced, if one is to be truly committed to the cause of Law; it would be irrational to desire law and yet support poor or bad(/self-contradictory) laws.

The Lawful Good person says that the only admissible laws are those which support Good. If a law fails to sufficiently support Good, it must be modified until it does sufficiently support Good. (There may be some laws permitted to continue to exist that do not truly do anything to help Good nor hamper Evil; these are more conventions than anything else, and are particularly important to monitor, should they prove to fall short in either aspect in the future.) All laws, even those currently held to sufficiently support Good, must be regularly evaluated to make sure they continue to support Good, as one cannot simply presume that past laws remain perfectly effective forever.

There will, unfortunately, be cases where reform is either genuinely impossible (e.g., no law which permits any form of slavery is compatible with Good, no matter how much reform you may apply to it). In these circumstances, outright removal is the only option. Should efforts to remove these irredeemable laws be met with resistance, it may even prove necessary to revolt against authorities attempting to uphold and enforce wicked laws. Such revolt is never something to be entered into lightly--revolt necessarily brings with it all sorts of dangers and potential evils--but if the choice is between submitting to broken laws (that is, either actively or passively evil/anti-good laws, noting that "evil" and "anti-good" are not precisely equivalent) and correcting the law so that it conforms to the only acceptable goals or purposes laws may have, correcting the law is always the correct choice even by a purely Lawful adjudication, so long as Good is held to be the only acceptable goal or purpose laws may have.

A Lawful alignment does not mean slavish devotion and abandonment of rationality, unless you are trying to portray Lawful as exclusively irrational and degenerate. This is part of the problem with how the Law/Chaos axis is understood by many. Chaos is a garbage non-alignment that permits people to do whatever they want whenever they want with no limit. It's totally cool for a Chaotic Good character to always obey the rules, play by a pretty clear moral code that prevents them from doing things they would really like to be able to do, and always keep their promises and never tell lies because "well that's just what they always felt like doing." Meanwhile, anyone with a Lawful bent is characterized as an idiot incapable of re-evaluating, unable to consider consequences and absolutely incapable of deviating from previously chosen methods even in the face of irrefutable and damning evidence that they are simply, totally wrong.

It is this very thing that is why I consider alignment as it currently exists such a frustrating and useless tool. It is so goddamn hard to get people to even make Chaos something that isn't an utterly useless "anything goes" faux-"alignment," and infuriatingly EVEN HARDER to get people to consider a Lawful alignment that admits even the barest possibility that laws should be beholden to evaluative standards and subject to reform, replacement, or removal should they be judged wanting.

 

[Oofta]

Ah, the same old arguments we always have. Arguments against basically boil down to

• In a previous edition I had a jerk DM tell me my PC's alignment changed which really pissed me off because I don't believe in alignment.
• I can't agree what some the alignment of some random fictional character is because alignment isn't a straightjacket that defines every aspect of their character.

Going back to the OP and what alignment means to me? The only person that needs to know a character's alignment is the person running the character. As long as they have a reasonably consistent idea of what alignment means to them, it's all good. It doesn't really matter if there's no universal definition because it's just a tool. If you have a ruler it doesn't matter if you measure in inches or centimeters as long as you are consistent. For that matter, alignment is just one aspect of personality and not even one that will be followed 100%. Everyone has quirks and idiosyncrasies, alignment does not and is not intended to tell the whole story.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Ah, the same old arguments we always have. Arguments against basically boil down to

• In a previous edition I had a jerk DM tell me my PC's alignment changed which really pissed me off because I don't believe in alignment.
• I can't agree what some the alignment of some random fictional character is because alignment isn't a straightjacket that defines every aspect of their character.

Going back to the OP and what alignment means to me? The only person that needs to know a character's alignment is the person running the character. As long as they have a reasonably consistent idea of what alignment means to them, it's all good. It doesn't really matter if there's no universal definition because it's just a tool. If you have a ruler it doesn't matter if you measure in inches or centimeters as long as you are consistent. For that matter, alignment is just one aspect of personality and not even one that will be followed 100%. Everyone has quirks and idiosyncrasies, alignment does not and is not intended to tell the whole story.

Okay but saying your character is ‘lawful’ without an agreed definition between the group is about as useful as telling them that you have measured ‘five’ with your ruler without giving units

 

[Jack Daniel]

Basically, Alignments absolutely mean this specific thing, and I don't find that useful. I would tend to agree that alignment using that definition is not very useful, at least from a character decision making perspective (world building might be different).

So, are there a lot of people who find a definition along these lines (cosmic order) to be useful in-game when making decision for a NPC or PC?

Well I did say mostly. As in, I don't require/allow most characters to pick an alignment. I see no reason to impose that on players, and most players (even if I clearly explain the Moorcockian/Gygaxian cosmic perspective or the Andersonian faerie-tale perspective to them) still take alignment to mean "personal code." And then they turn around and use "Lawful" to mean "self-righteous" or "Chaotic" to mean "lolrandumb." I don't what players inflicting that on my games (or their fellow players) for no good reason.

But I do require that priest and paladin types be cognizant of the fact that their supernatural abilities come from bigshot, divine powers aligned with Law or Chaos. In practical gameplay terms, that usually means that clerics and paladins are under an obligation to protect human societies from monsters; that druids and bards have an obligation to protect nature's balance from any outside threats; and cultists and avengers (i.e. anticlerics and antipaladins) are encouraged (but never precisely obligated) to side with monsters seeking to dismantle human societies.

 

[Oofta]

Okay but saying your character is ‘lawful’ without an agreed definition between the group is about as useful as telling them that you have measured ‘five’ with your ruler without giving units

Why does anyone else know what my PC's alignment is? It's not stamped on my forehead. It's not (fortunately) a class requirement any more. All other players know about my PC is what they say and do. For that matter, why would they care?

I have a no evil policy when I DM for a variety of reasons but it doesn't really have anything to do with alignment per se. Other than that? I don't know the alignments of my player's PCs and don't care. It's just one descriptor of many that gives me a handle on how to run my character. With a few very minor exceptions it hasn't ever been anything other than that in 5E.

 

[Yaarel]

As stated in my (much) earlier post, I reject this notion. Laws sometimes need to be changed. Laws are not perfect, but (by definition) strive toward some goal or purpose. A law which fails to achieve its purpose is a poor law; a law that actively harms its intended purpose is outright bad. Both poor laws and bad laws not only can be replaced, but necessarily must be replaced, if one is to be truly committed to the cause of Law; it would be irrational to desire law and yet support poor or bad(/self-contradictory) laws.

The Lawful Good person says that the only admissible laws are those which support Good. If a law fails to sufficiently support Good, it must be modified until it does sufficiently support Good. (There may be some laws permitted to continue to exist that do not truly do anything to help Good nor hamper Evil; these are more conventions than anything else, and are particularly important to monitor, should they prove to fall short in either aspect in the future.) All laws, even those currently held to sufficiently support Good, must be regularly evaluated to make sure they continue to support Good, as one cannot simply presume that past laws remain perfectly effective forever.

There will, unfortunately, be cases where reform is either genuinely impossible (e.g., no law which permits any form of slavery is compatible with Good, no matter how much reform you may apply to it). In these circumstances, outright removal is the only option. Should efforts to remove these irredeemable laws be met with resistance, it may even prove necessary to revolt against authorities attempting to uphold and enforce wicked laws. Such revolt is never something to be entered into lightly--revolt necessarily brings with it all sorts of dangers and potential evils--but if the choice is between submitting to broken laws (that is, either actively or passively evil/anti-good laws, noting that "evil" and "anti-good" are not precisely equivalent) and correcting the law so that it conforms to the only acceptable goals or purposes laws may have, correcting the law is always the correct choice even by a purely Lawful adjudication, so long as Good is held to be the only acceptable goal or purpose laws may have.

A Lawful alignment does not mean slavish devotion and abandonment of rationality, unless you are trying to portray Lawful as exclusively irrational and degenerate. This is part of the problem with how the Law/Chaos axis is understood by many. Chaos is a garbage non-alignment that permits people to do whatever they want whenever they want with no limit. It's totally cool for a Chaotic Good character to always obey the rules, play by a pretty clear moral code that prevents them from doing things they would really like to be able to do, and always keep their promises and never tell lies because "well that's just what they always felt like doing." Meanwhile, anyone with a Lawful bent is characterized as an idiot incapable of re-evaluating, unable to consider consequences and absolutely incapable of deviating from previously chosen methods even in the face of irrefutable and damning evidence that they are simply, totally wrong.

It is this very thing that is why I consider alignment as it currently exists such a frustrating and useless tool. It is so goddamn hard to get people to even make Chaos something that isn't an utterly useless "anything goes" faux-"alignment," and infuriatingly EVEN HARDER to get people to consider a Lawful alignment that admits even the barest possibility that laws should be beholden to evaluative standards and subject to reform, replacement, or removal should they be judged wanting.

I agree that Lawful Good can and must abolish bad laws.

I am talking about the excellent laws (group expectations) that work well. No law is true 100% of the time. There are always special situations. In those exceptional circumstances, Lawful Good must choose between Lawful and Good, thus be less Good.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I agree that Lawful Good can and must abolish bad laws.

I am talking about the excellent laws (group expectations) that work well. No law is true 100% of the time. There are always special situations. In those exceptional circumstances, Lawful Good must choose between Lawful and Good, thus be less Good.

Again, I disagree. That exact situation is the law revealing that it is flawed and needs to be changed. That's the whole point of reviewing your laws to make sure they're still effective. You know your laws will be imperfect, so you must continuously vet them.

A law that directs you away from Good is a bad law (here and elsewhere assume an appended "from the perspective of an LG person.") It may be only bad in a very small way, or in an unlikely circumstance, or in a focus that could not have been foreseen, or due to an unexpected intersection with some other law. But as soon as the law directs you away from Good, it is a bad law, and needs to be changed. This is quite literally how Common Law works: the courts exist both to confirm the actual state of affairs so that correct judgment can be rendered, and as the final review on laws so that missteps or errors can be corrected. (This is, incidentally, part of why I find the "civil law" system both baffling and deeply concerning; the whole doctrine of "parliamentary sovereignty" is very worrisome specifically because it makes the review of laws so much more difficult.) Judicial review is absolutely one of the most Lawful procedures around, full of the gravitas and patience I previously described, and yet its specific purpose is to determine whether or not laws actually conform with orders and principles higher than the law itself (for the US, the Bill of Rights, which enshrines numerous freedoms as supreme to any law, be it local, state, or federal.)

Edit: Further, this provides an excellent opportunity to show why I get so frustrated with alignment.

What is the Chaotic equivalent of "the law is imperfect and might direct you away from Good"? I have never actually found anyone who could articulate a clear example of "things Chaotic people can't do and still be Chaotic," whereas you can absolutely give examples for all three other alignment poles (Lawful, Good, and Evil). It's why I so consistently refer to Chaotic as a garbage non-alignment as written, since it cashes out as "anything goes," a completely useless metric indistinguishable from Neutrality, or even indistinguishable from Lawful under the right circumstances.

 

[Yaarel]

Again, I disagree. That exact situation is the law revealing that it is flawed and needs to be changed. That's the whole point of reviewing your laws to make sure they're still effective. You know your laws will be imperfect, so you must continuously vet them.

A law that directs you away from Good is a bad law (here and elsewhere assume an appended "from the perspective of an LG person.") It may be only bad in a very small way, or in an unlikely circumstance, or in a focus that could not have been foreseen, or due to an unexpected intersection with some other law. But as soon as the law directs you away from Good, it is a bad law, and needs to be changed. This is quite literally how Common Law works: the courts exist both to confirm the actual state of affairs, and as the final review on laws. (This is, incidentally, part of why I find the "civil law" system both baffling and deeply concerning; the whole doctrine of "parliamentary sovereignty" is very worrisome specifically because it makes the review of laws so much more difficult.)

Edit: Further, this provides an excellent opportunity to show why I get so frustrated with alignment.

What is the Chaotic equivalent of "the law is imperfect and might direct you away from Good"? I have never actually found anyone who could articulate a clear example of "things Chaotic people can't do and still be Chaotic," whereas you can absolutely give examples for all three other alignment poles (Lawful, Good, and Evil). It's why I so consistently refer to Chaotic as a garbage non-alignment as written, since it cashes out as "anything goes," a completely useless metric indistinguishable from Neutrality, or even indistinguishable from Lawful under the right circumstances.

It is logically impossible for a law to be true 100% of the time. (Compare Gödels Theorem.)

At some point, the Lawful Good approach will fail, and must choose between Good and Lawful.



Besides, even when a law is plainly bad, it takes time to abolish or rewrite it, often years. What does the Lawful Good do in the meantime?

 

[Yaarel]

I am getting caught up in the D&D tradition that, Lawful = legal system, which I consider a fallacy.

Rather.

Lawful = group identity

This group may or may not have a legal system.

But even here, there are kinds of Good actions that an individual can do, that a group cant do. Thus there are situations when Lawful Good does less Good.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It is logically impossible for a law to be true 100% of the time. (Compare Gödels Theorem.)

At some point, the Lawful Good approach will fail, and must choose between Good and Lawful.

Again, I don't see that as a problem. When that happens, you do your best to determine the correct policy and strive toward goodness. Or, in the words of better-educated men than I, "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes..."

Besides, even when a law is plainly bad, it takes time to abolish or rewrite it, often years. What does the Lawful Good do in the meantime?

As I said before: "...when you do encounter a problem, you pause and evaluate, doing your best to take the least-harmful, most-easily-revoked choices while you are trying to figure out how to improve your policies. Once you have done so, you must then ensure you have done what you can to provide restitution for any past errors you committed."

This does not, in any way, require that one be "less Good." It instead requires that one be extremely cautious and careful, proceeding with full awareness of how serious the situation is. Any time laws change, be they the laws a single woman holds herself to, or the laws that govern entire nations, is a difficult time. Institutions may go into flux. As another better-educated man said, through the voice of one of his characters, "For even the very wise cannot see all ends." As a certain Bureaucratic Deva says of a certain Mr. Greenhilt, "He was doing what he thought was best, to the limit of his abilities—including his ability to judge what was best."

Being Lawful does not absolve one of needing to exercise sound judgment. Being Lawful does not make a person into a simplistic mechanism, where an algorithm is followed. (That, incidentally, is part of the problem with your reference to Godel's Theorem: it refers to things like decision procedures and Turing machines, which can fail to do things that even a young human child can trivially achieve without such a procedure, because humans can reason beyond the limits of first-order logic.)

The Neutral Good person says that the way an individual can pursue the most good is to favor neither flexibility nor consistency unnecessarily, but to employ each as much as possible, recognizing that both have their virtues and faults. The Chaotic Good person says that the way an individual can pursue the most good is to favor flexibility over consistency, because even though consistency may have virtues, the vices of excessive consistency are too significant. The Lawful Good person says the reverse, that an individual person can pursue the most good by favoring consistency, because the vices of excessive flexibility are too significant. There is no reasoning in which any of these three are refusing to do Good. Instead, each is saying, "I cannot take all possible actions that would promote Good, and I will sometimes take actions which fail to promote Good or even (despite my best efforts) weaken Good or promote Evil. This is both due to me being a finite being with finite resources, and me being a finite reasoner with incomplete data. Therefore, I must be selective; I have determined that my chosen method (L, N, or C) is the one that will succeed most at promoting Good and weakening Evil, and most avoid weakening Good and promoting Evil."

You can only get "Lawful Good forces you to be less Good" by presupposing that the Neutral Good person is correct, which is circular logic. By the standard of the Lawful Good person, both Neutral and Chaotic Good are "less Good" because they accept methods that either excessively fail to promote Good, excessively weaken Good, or excessively promote Evil. (Usually "excessively fail to weaken Evil" is less of a concern, but in theory that's also an option.)