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

[pnewman]

I consider "Lawful" to be almost identical to what philosophers call "deontological", "the normative ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the consequences of the action."

Also - as long as all your players are philosophers they will all understand what you mean by "lawful"!

 

[Fifinjir]

I view Good, Evil, and mix as 100% the historical record of an individuals own actions.

Albeit the intention of the action is about as important as the action itself.

For clarities sake, does this mean that a villain that sees the error in their ways near the end of their life and spends their last ten years doing good deeds still count as Evil?

For my own position on alignment, the vast majority of people are Neutral. You really need to go out of your way to be Good, Evil, Lawful, or Chaotic. So a lawful person, as opposed to one with just lawful tendencies, would indeed be very in favor of laws and government, only going against them with great reluctance in dire situations.

 

[Maxperson]

True, but as I recall, 3e applied alignment restrictions to more classes. I remember druid and paladin restrictions from 2nd ed, but I think the restrictions on barbarians, bards and monks started in 3e.

Restrictions:

2e Fighter: None
3e Fighter: None
2e Ranger: Always good
3e Ranger: None
2e Paladin: Must be LG
3e Paladin: Depends on if core or splatbooks. If splatbooks, LG/CG and LE/CE. Otherwise LG.
2e Wizard: None
3e Wizard: None
2e Cleric: None
3e Cleric: None
2e Druid: Must be True Neutral
3e Druid: Can be any neutral
2e Thief: Cannot be LG
3e Rogue: None
2e Bard: Any neutral
3e Bard: No lawful
2e Monk(released in Faiths and Avatars): Must be lawful.
3e Monk: Must be lawful.
2e Barbarian: Does not exist
3e Barbarian: Cannot be lawful.

Comparing the 3e core classes to the 2e versions we get...

Results: 2e: 6 alignment restricted classes.
3e: 5 alignment restricted classes.

On top of 1 extra alignment restricted class, 2e also punished all PCs for alignment changes with a huge exp penalty.

 

[Maxperson]

yeah I remember DMs changing alignment due to actions and that applying XP penalties for a time (I don't remember exact amount of time was it until a level?)

1e:

If the alignment change was involuntary, such as because of a cursed item, the PC dropped to the beginning of the prior level, so if you close to leveling, it could cost you almost 2 entire levels. On top of that you would need to find a cleric to cast Atonement on you and pay 10,000gp per level. When done you would regain the lost levels.

It the alignment change was due to player decision, knowingly or unknowingly(DM decides), you permanently lost 1 level and be unable to speak in your alignment language for a while.

2e:

If the DM and player mutually decide a different alignment should be changed(usually at low level), there is no effect.

If the PC changes alignment without DM approval(usually for established PCs), the exp cost to go to the next level is doubled.

If the PC changes alignment involuntarily, he gains no exp until he regains his former alignment, assuming he wants to change back. If the player decides to have his PC retain the new alignment, he starts gaining exp again, but the double exp penalty kicks in.

 

[Yaarel]

For clarities sake, does this mean that a villain that sees the error in their ways near the end of their life and spends their last ten years doing good deeds still count as Evil?

Repentance cannot erase damage done.

The only person who can forgive the damage is the person who was damaged.

 

[Jack Daniel]

The 2e barbarian (CBHB) could be LG, LN, TN, NG, or CG. The shaman from the same book had the same alignment restrictions—no Evil or CN allowed. (In 3e, the CD spirit shaman could be of any alignment.)
The 2e psionicist (CΨHB) and 2e ninja (CNHB) could not be Chaotic. (In 3e, the psion and the CA ninja could be of any alignment.)

(2e did also eventually revive the 1e monk and assassin classes in Greyhawk: The Scarlet Brotherhood, but there are some special circumstances—the titular Brotherhood is an Evil organization. So while the book mentions that assassins can be of any Evil alignment, it says that SB assassins are generally LE, and it says that all SB monks are LE without making any mention of monks in general being only Lawful. In those days, of course, there was still a general presumption that if you wanted to use 1e classes in 2e, you just used the 1e classes as written, whether from the PHB, OA, or Dragon. So I'd call this a wash: in 3e, assassins remained "any Evil" and monks remained "any Lawful," just as they'd been in 1e.)

 

[CreamCloud0]

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.

An example of lawful and good not aligning but the law not being bad, in the most simple scenario I can imagine:
A heavy object is about to fall out of a window onto an unaware innocent across the road from you, (you can’t call out to them they can’t hear you for whatever reasons) you can’t just run across the road to push them out the way because the law says you may only cross the road at a designated pedestrian crossing further down the road, and even then when the lights say to, so you do so but you take too long as a result and the innocent is harmed by the falling thing, but you remained lawful and only crossed at the designated crossing, but ultimately less good came about of your actions because you choose law over good
The law was not wrong nor does it really need to be reviewed but in the moment law and good conflicted and one must come out on top

 

[Crimson Longinus]

An example of lawful and good not aligning but the law not being bad, in the most simple scenario I can imagine:
A heavy object is about to fall out of a window onto an unaware innocent across the road from you, (you can’t call out to them they can’t hear you for whatever reasons) you can’t just run across the road to push them out the way because the law says you may only cross the road at a designated pedestrian crossing further down the road, and even then when the lights say to, so you do so but you take too long as a result and the innocent is harmed by the falling thing, but you remained lawful and only crossed at the designated crossing, but ultimately less good came about of your actions because you choose law over good
The law was not wrong nor does it really need to be reviewed but in the moment law and good conflicted and one must come out on top

Obviously the correct Lawful Good reaction is to carefully asses the situation, and set up a committee to determine how the law could be amended to have exceptions for such situations.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Obviously the correct Lawful Good reaction is to carefully asses the situation, and set up a committee to determine how the law could be amended to have exceptions for such situations.

Ah yes, if the committee decrees that the innocent should not have perished and that the LG person should of in fact crossed the road without a crossing to save them the innocent will retroactively be brought back from the dead and their death will in fact turn out to of been just a minor clerical bookkeeping error

 

[FrozenNorth]

A heavy object is about to fall out of a window onto an unaware innocent across the road from you, (you can’t call out to them they can’t hear you for whatever reasons) you can’t just run across the road to push them out the way because the law says you may only cross the road at a designated pedestrian crossing further down the road, and even then when the lights say to, so you do so but you take too long as a result and the innocent is harmed by the falling thing, but you remained lawful and only crossed at the designated crossing, but ultimately less good came about of your actions because you choose law over good
The law was not wrong nor does it really need to be reviewed but in the moment law and good conflicted and one must come out on top

Wouldn’t the acceptable lawful course of action in that case be to save the pedestrian and then turn yourself in to pay the fine for jaywalking?

This is just reinforcing @EzekielRaiden ’s point about lawful being interpreted as stupid or callous.