le Redoutable
Ich bin El Glouglou :)
Music from the Spheres ( i.e. Spirit )
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D General For those that find Alignment useful, what does "Lawful" mean to you
- Thread starter happyhermit
- Start date
Amrûnril
Adventurer
I would say the platonic ideal of a lawful character would do both. While all characters will break rules at times (not least because rules will often contradict one another), I would describe a character as lawful if they have a strong tendency towards following rules and require a compelling reason not to do so. This applies (not exclusively) to the laws of the land, to religious principles, and to the character's understanding of "the way the world is supposed to work". For this platonically lawful character, difficult decisions would be made by weighing these rules against one another, rather than based on personal feelings about a particular situation.
Of course, actual characters aren't going to be platonic ideals of any alignment. Most characters will have some tendencies that could be described as lawful and some as chaotic. And, bonds, flaws, and positions on any number of other possible alignment/personality axes will sometimes be more important to decision making. Still, I would interpret either of the behaviors in the poll as evidence of lawful inclinations and the inverse behaviors (especially in deference to one's feelings in the moment) as evidence of chaotic inclinations.
Of course, actual characters aren't going to be platonic ideals of any alignment. Most characters will have some tendencies that could be described as lawful and some as chaotic. And, bonds, flaws, and positions on any number of other possible alignment/personality axes will sometimes be more important to decision making. Still, I would interpret either of the behaviors in the poll as evidence of lawful inclinations and the inverse behaviors (especially in deference to one's feelings in the moment) as evidence of chaotic inclinations.
le Redoutable
Ich bin El Glouglou :)
but you seem to believe that Lawfulness = Contrition !
to me it surely means that you aren't Lawful by yourself !
le Redoutable
Ich bin El Glouglou :)
wait for it !
I myself ain't Lawful ( I come from the Happy Hunting Grounds NCG )
but I'm of high a level enough to accept some concepts which finally aren't that evident
I myself ain't Lawful ( I come from the Happy Hunting Grounds NCG )
but I'm of high a level enough to accept some concepts which finally aren't that evident
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
Voted the first option, but it's only a best fit choice.
A Lawful mind holds that the best way to achieve productive ends (whatever those ends may be) is to articulate your principles or goals (again, whatever those may be), then establish and consistently apply clear, stated-in-advance policies for how to behave. A critical part of this process, however, is that these policies are not the same thing as the principles themselves; the policies are intermediaries, things that turn high-level abstractions into concrete behavioral guidance. As a result, the policies may--and indeed likely will--sometimes misfire, recommending behavior that is not in keeping with the principles/goals.
Because you know that such deviation will occur, there is an additional step: active, continuous critique and refinement. Very few (and possibly no) policies are truly immune to critique. To be scrupulously consistent, one must recognize that change is sometimes necessary. But "change is sometimes necessary" does not mean "discard anything that doesn't work the instant you have a problem." It means that 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 makes being Lawful rather difficult. The Chaotic character, who only chooses what to do for each and every situation as it comes, instantiating whatever (often very abstract) principles they hold each time they must choose. By comparison, the Lawful one must be constantly re-evaluating, considering the possible consequences of alternative policies, while at the same time genuinely being committed to the policies they have already set forth. The Neutral character may keep loose ideas of principle and tries for some semblance of consistency between choices while reserving the right to be inconsistent whenever it seems particularly necessary. By comparison, the Lawful one must very deliberately change their policies, with an appropriate level of seriousness and decorum. To change your moral guidelines is, for the Lawful character, a very weighty affair.
By this light, "Chaos" ceases to be the garbage non-alignment of "anything goes," and instead becomes committed to maximum flexibility and adaptiveness: if you know your policies will never be perfect, refuse to have policies! Choose your goals each moment, rather than trying to live by patterns you established before you knew all the facts. Just make every decision in the moment, and things will turn out for the best in the end. You'll still make mistakes--but you would make mistakes with policies too, and this way you'll be less likely to make the same mistake repeatedly.
Meanwhile, "Law" ceases to be the alignment of "stupidly hold onto laws/traditions/etc. no matter what." That's just the degenerate case of Lawful characters who have dropped the "re-evaluation" part, analogous to Chaotic characters who make their decisions purely arbitrarily, e.g., without actually applying any principles at all. Instead, it becomes the alignment of consistency and commitment: if you know you will sometimes make mistakes, have well-vetted policies so that those mistakes are infrequent and contained! Establish clear, well-vetted principles in advance, so that you can more easily make good decisions in the heat of the moment, when reason is often difficult. Set yourself on a mostly correct path now, and things will turn out for the best. You'll still make mistakes--but you would make mistakes by arbitrarily responding to every situation as it came along, and this way you'll be less likely to make mistakes you could have easily forestalled with a bit of forethought.
Neutrality on the Law/Chaos axis thus becomes (more or less) a declaration that neither consistency nor flexibility is categorically more important. Both have value, but because they are inherently difficult to reconcile, showing special favor to either side is detrimental. Neutral on this axis can thus be painted as either being wishy-washy--having weak commitment or limited flexibility--or as the wise and judicious balance-point between the foolish extremes of inflexibility (Law) and capriciousness (Chaos), marrying the deft speed of Chaos with the patient procedure of Law.
I, myself, favor a Lawful Good perspective--and for me, there is no such thing as a "Law vs Good" conflict inherent in that, because Good is the goal toward which my Lawfulness tends. Laws, by their very nature, require some kind of goal or purpose, because that's what laws are. They set out the behavior of things. A law with no purpose whatsoever is by definition impossible. But a law that either fails to achieve its intended purpose, or actively opposes its intended purpose, is quite possible. Laws of either type are to be corrected, or replaced if correction is either impossible or too onerous a burden for achieving the correct purpose. By these lights, it is not merely permitted, it is obligatory that a Lawful Good character oppose evil laws: they are laws which have failed to uphold the purpose for which Law must be committed. The higher law commands that the lower law be altered or replaced.
Likewise, a commanding officer is not to be obeyed without question; rather, they are to be obeyed only so long as their orders are just. It is entirely possible for a commanding officer to give an illegal or immoral order. This does not mean that subordinates should constantly challenge and question their commanding officer's judgment, but rather that subordinates are not suddenly absolved of all responsibility solely because an officer gave them an order. They are culpable for the orders they obey, and likewise the commanding officer is culpable for orders they give. It is the duty of every subordinate to obey just orders and to evaluate whether each order is just, just as it is the duty of commanders to only give just orders and to evaluate whether their orders are (and have been) just.
A Lawful mind holds that the best way to achieve productive ends (whatever those ends may be) is to articulate your principles or goals (again, whatever those may be), then establish and consistently apply clear, stated-in-advance policies for how to behave. A critical part of this process, however, is that these policies are not the same thing as the principles themselves; the policies are intermediaries, things that turn high-level abstractions into concrete behavioral guidance. As a result, the policies may--and indeed likely will--sometimes misfire, recommending behavior that is not in keeping with the principles/goals.
Because you know that such deviation will occur, there is an additional step: active, continuous critique and refinement. Very few (and possibly no) policies are truly immune to critique. To be scrupulously consistent, one must recognize that change is sometimes necessary. But "change is sometimes necessary" does not mean "discard anything that doesn't work the instant you have a problem." It means that 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 makes being Lawful rather difficult. The Chaotic character, who only chooses what to do for each and every situation as it comes, instantiating whatever (often very abstract) principles they hold each time they must choose. By comparison, the Lawful one must be constantly re-evaluating, considering the possible consequences of alternative policies, while at the same time genuinely being committed to the policies they have already set forth. The Neutral character may keep loose ideas of principle and tries for some semblance of consistency between choices while reserving the right to be inconsistent whenever it seems particularly necessary. By comparison, the Lawful one must very deliberately change their policies, with an appropriate level of seriousness and decorum. To change your moral guidelines is, for the Lawful character, a very weighty affair.
By this light, "Chaos" ceases to be the garbage non-alignment of "anything goes," and instead becomes committed to maximum flexibility and adaptiveness: if you know your policies will never be perfect, refuse to have policies! Choose your goals each moment, rather than trying to live by patterns you established before you knew all the facts. Just make every decision in the moment, and things will turn out for the best in the end. You'll still make mistakes--but you would make mistakes with policies too, and this way you'll be less likely to make the same mistake repeatedly.
Meanwhile, "Law" ceases to be the alignment of "stupidly hold onto laws/traditions/etc. no matter what." That's just the degenerate case of Lawful characters who have dropped the "re-evaluation" part, analogous to Chaotic characters who make their decisions purely arbitrarily, e.g., without actually applying any principles at all. Instead, it becomes the alignment of consistency and commitment: if you know you will sometimes make mistakes, have well-vetted policies so that those mistakes are infrequent and contained! Establish clear, well-vetted principles in advance, so that you can more easily make good decisions in the heat of the moment, when reason is often difficult. Set yourself on a mostly correct path now, and things will turn out for the best. You'll still make mistakes--but you would make mistakes by arbitrarily responding to every situation as it came along, and this way you'll be less likely to make mistakes you could have easily forestalled with a bit of forethought.
Neutrality on the Law/Chaos axis thus becomes (more or less) a declaration that neither consistency nor flexibility is categorically more important. Both have value, but because they are inherently difficult to reconcile, showing special favor to either side is detrimental. Neutral on this axis can thus be painted as either being wishy-washy--having weak commitment or limited flexibility--or as the wise and judicious balance-point between the foolish extremes of inflexibility (Law) and capriciousness (Chaos), marrying the deft speed of Chaos with the patient procedure of Law.
I, myself, favor a Lawful Good perspective--and for me, there is no such thing as a "Law vs Good" conflict inherent in that, because Good is the goal toward which my Lawfulness tends. Laws, by their very nature, require some kind of goal or purpose, because that's what laws are. They set out the behavior of things. A law with no purpose whatsoever is by definition impossible. But a law that either fails to achieve its intended purpose, or actively opposes its intended purpose, is quite possible. Laws of either type are to be corrected, or replaced if correction is either impossible or too onerous a burden for achieving the correct purpose. By these lights, it is not merely permitted, it is obligatory that a Lawful Good character oppose evil laws: they are laws which have failed to uphold the purpose for which Law must be committed. The higher law commands that the lower law be altered or replaced.
Likewise, a commanding officer is not to be obeyed without question; rather, they are to be obeyed only so long as their orders are just. It is entirely possible for a commanding officer to give an illegal or immoral order. This does not mean that subordinates should constantly challenge and question their commanding officer's judgment, but rather that subordinates are not suddenly absolved of all responsibility solely because an officer gave them an order. They are culpable for the orders they obey, and likewise the commanding officer is culpable for orders they give. It is the duty of every subordinate to obey just orders and to evaluate whether each order is just, just as it is the duty of commanders to only give just orders and to evaluate whether their orders are (and have been) just.
Last edited:
le Redoutable
Ich bin El Glouglou :)
thanks for your efforts !
Voadam
Legend
I think of it generally as being group and structure oriented versus individual oriented.
Monsters with a lawful alignment generally join groups and structures and organizations and religions and codes.
I view them as generally feeling there is a positive value to having rules and order.
So orcs are generally dumb evil bully antagonists. LE AD&D ones are more likely to join the armies of evil warlords as dumb evil minion soldiers as opposed to CE 3e-5e orcs who are dumb unruly evil marauders.
Following laws is not a big part of my conception of D&D [LAW]. Following something usually is though.
Monsters with a lawful alignment generally join groups and structures and organizations and religions and codes.
I view them as generally feeling there is a positive value to having rules and order.
So orcs are generally dumb evil bully antagonists. LE AD&D ones are more likely to join the armies of evil warlords as dumb evil minion soldiers as opposed to CE 3e-5e orcs who are dumb unruly evil marauders.
Following laws is not a big part of my conception of D&D [LAW]. Following something usually is though.
le Redoutable
Ich bin El Glouglou :)
and what about mimics ?
Bacon Bits
Hero
Law seeks structure.
Chaos seeks liberty.
Good seeks peace.
Evil seeks power.
Chaos seeks liberty.
Good seeks peace.
Evil seeks power.
