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

[le Redoutable]

Lawful is group identity.

Chaos is individual identity.

Both are important.

yes, and Ambition from sportsmen weakens them with the use of Ego ( again the concept of Mind Control, that Chaotic people could have more of Willpower to fight against ?? )

 

[Scruffy nerf herder]

There are two obvious interpretations for "Lawful" and I have often wondered which is more common. I usually think of it in terms of sticking to a code, that may or may not conform to the laws of any particular land, let alone the one a person is in. Almost akin to a spectrum of ideological-pragmatist. I can certainly see the benefits of looking at it as "Obeys the law" when informing RP decisions though, even if for me that is more a personality trait or quirk than an overall quality. Obviously there is some overlap as well, but anyways, thanks for indulging my curiosity.

Had to answer that I use both definitions equally, but what I really think is that there isn't a true answer to the question either way. It just depends on who you ask, what their answer is.

"Law", "justice", inside fiction or outside fiction in the real world, they're merely concepts which fail to describe how the world works. Someone can think they are "lawful" because they have some ideal of an orderly society that they follow, and someone else can say that person is "not lawful", and it's not like one is right or the other is wrong. It is a matter of opinion there is no fact of the matter.

What's more important to me is if a PC says "this is what it means to be lawful", then the way they play that PC is consistent with that. That the PC may not always meet those self imposed standards but they are still primarily influenced by those standards.

 

[Scruffy nerf herder]

Lawful is partially "Order," meaning that they're internally consistent. Lawful also tends to think of society/group before the individual, but that doesn't mean they forgo their own needs or desires.

Some societies place the individual above the group. "The law" itself, and whatever a PC deems to be "lawful actions" and "lawful thinking" may be arbitrarily different from one another.

 

[Scruffy nerf herder]

When one government commits a crime against another, is it lawful? There's no referee to adjudicate, so the aggressor can say "well my laws aren't being broken so of course I'm being lawful". If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

 

[le Redoutable]

about following doctrines blindly, with no freedom of choice, these are LE societies ( simple, heh ? )

9:24 at Fresnes

 

[Kinematics]

Law to me is the idea that mankind is responsible for itself, and that "rule of law" matters. The gods have removed themselves from the material plane so that the mortal races can rule themselves, and forge their own destiny. Law is mankind as a whole trying to shape its own future. There may be disagreements about how to go about it, but there's still a fundamental agreement that society is defined and determined by mortals.

The other side, chaos, is a rejection of that mortal self-determination. A chaotic priest doesn't want to merely be guided by his deity's precepts; he wants the deity itself to be in charge, to rule society, to administer judgement, and so forth. Divine (or infernal) power is in and of itself justification for rule; might makes right, and godly might trumps anything mortals can wield.

'Selfishness' often gets lumped in with chaos — the idea that personal choice and desires trump society's rules. I'd argue that such perspectives are closer to Law than Chaos, because they still depend on mortal self-determination. For example, a chaotic good thief that robs people and gives money to the orphanage is not being "chaotic"; she's simply rejecting the manner in which society has decided to treat orphans and their caregivers. A change in government might very well change such policies, in which case her desires now match society's structure. She no longer has to act against society, and could easily transition to "lawful". That means the chaotic designation was not a true evaluation of her character, but merely a matter of perspective.

I would assign such selfish personalities to the neutral column, rather than the chaos column.

So law and chaos are both outward-looking views on how the world is run — either mortal self-determination, or godly intervention — while neutral would be inward-looking selfishness that largely ignores either side.

 

[Hussar]

Law seeks structure.
Chaos seeks liberty.
Good seeks peace.
Evil seeks power.

This hits it on the head for me.

Lawfuls are organized and if a character is lawful, will always gravitate towards longer term thinking, orderly conduct, and is probably most comfortable in a hierarchical structure. They see the group as a more important entity and the individual should be responsible for and to the group.

This is why I always disliked 3e's take on demons and devils. You had demons like Malcanthet that were organized, long term planners with plots within plots. That's the opposite of chaotic to me. Chaotic is impulsive. That's, to me, the basic difference between a lawful and a chaotic character. A lawful character will sit down and try to come up with a plan, whereas the chaotic character dives right in feet first.

 

[Mind of tempest]

This hits it on the head for me.

Lawfuls are organized and if a character is lawful, will always gravitate towards longer term thinking, orderly conduct, and is probably most comfortable in a hierarchical structure. They see the group as a more important entity and the individual should be responsible for and to the group.

This is why I always disliked 3e's take on demons and devils. You had demons like Malcanthet that were organized, long term planners with plots within plots. That's the opposite of chaotic to me. Chaotic is impulsive. That's, to me, the basic difference between a lawful and a chaotic character. A lawful character will sit down and try to come up with a plan, whereas the chaotic character dives right in feet first.

I find even the forms of the outsiders are done wrong lawfully would only have subtypes by rank or function and be featureless metal or crystal with chaotic being very organic and fleshy with ce as almost cancer whilst cg is nature but nice wit natural beings just flat out strange.

 

[CreamCloud0]

This hits it on the head for me.

Lawfuls are organized and if a character is lawful, will always gravitate towards longer term thinking, orderly conduct, and is probably most comfortable in a hierarchical structure. They see the group as a more important entity and the individual should be responsible for and to the group.

This is why I always disliked 3e's take on demons and devils. You had demons like Malcanthet that were organized, long term planners with plots within plots. That's the opposite of chaotic to me. Chaotic is impulsive. That's, to me, the basic difference between a lawful and a chaotic character. A lawful character will sit down and try to come up with a plan, whereas the chaotic character dives right in feet first.

I wouldn’t say personally that lawful creatures will require A Plan, they have their Rules, and so long as the Rules are being followed they are for all intents and purposes Lawful, some lawful entities might prefer to have a plan as a more granular set of rules for what’s going to happen but they are not required

 

[CreamCloud0]

I see alot of responses saying that lawful is group oriented and I don’t agree, oh sure lawful might be more inclined to groups but are the lone samurai or knight with their personal codes of honour or the devil out for only themselves who twists the words of a contract but still abides to the letter of it to screw over others any less lawful than the order of paladins following the tenants of their god or an organisation who only will act once the right forms have been filed correctly

Edit: and on that note being selfish isn’t unlawful either, so long as they obey their rules they can be as selfish as they like, charging through the nose for medicine still counts as ‘provide healing to the sick and injured’