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

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Couldn't disagree more, Vader was a solider following the emperors wishes for a long time. He didn't kill indiscriminately. He ran a tight ship.

Did he do chaotic things now and then, sure.

Vader is 110% a CE dumbass. The entire Sith code is about giving into your primal passions. Palpatine miiiiight be Neutral Evil but certainly isn't Lawful. He only set up the empire to ensure he could do whatever he wanted and ensure those that rose to the top were loyal to an institution that was just an extension of his own desires. The incredibly Chaotic Evil Operation Cinder (carried out by Lawful Stupid imperials) shows that all the talk of order was just to con people into obeying him.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Worth noting that none of the lawful planes seem to reflect a "personal code", but rather being subject to external control. The lawful neutral planes (ie, the most lawful, untempered by evil or good) seek to turn everything into a cog/drone lacking any individuality (modrons, formians, ineveitables). Lawful isn't directed from within.

 

[Yaarel]

So, the alignment system is more "useful", when Lawful versus Chaotic only refers to collective self-identity versus individual individual self-identity, respectively.

If the polarity takes on different meanings, such as predictable versus random, or architectural versus organic, or logic versus emotion, or legalistic versus criminal, then the meaning of alignment becomes more ambiguous and self-contradicting, thus less clear, and less useful.

 

[payn]

So, the alignment system is more "useful", when Lawful versus Chaotic only refers to collective self-identity versus individual individual self-identity, respectively.

Not entirely sure I follow.

For me, I use this from 5E.
"Alignment is a combination of two factors: one identifies morality (good, evil, or neutral), and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, or neutral)."

...and this from 3E:
""Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability."
""Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility."

If the polarity takes on different meanings, such as predictable versus random, or architectural versus organic, or logic versus emotion, or legalistic versus criminal, then the meaning of alignment becomes more ambiguous and self-contradicting, thus less clear, and less useful.

Some of these descriptions might fit chaotic and lawful people, though, they do not work as rules or guidelines in general. So, yes, I agree they are less useful.

 

[Yaarel]

Heh, in my eyes, the 3e alignment definitions are horrible. The 5e definitions are not-bad.

My ideal alignment definitions would look something like:

Alignment is a combination of two factors: one measures ethics from altruistic to predatory (Good, Neutral, or Evil), and the other measures self-identity from society to individual (Lawful, True, or Chaotic).

Not entirely sure I follow.

For me, I use this from 5E.
"Alignment is a combination of two factors: one identifies morality (good, evil, or neutral), and the other describes attitudes toward society and order (lawful, chaotic, or neutral)."

...and this from 3E:
""Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability."
""Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility."

 

[payn]

Heh, in my eyes, the 3e alignment definitions are horrible.

What makes them horrible?

The 5e definitions are not-bad.

Agreed. Simpler, but not quite as nuanced.

My ideal alignment definitions would look something like:

Alignment is a combination of two factors: one measures ethics from altruistic to predatory (Good, Neutral, or Evil), and the other measures self-identity from society to individual (Lawful, True, or Chaotic).

I think "morality" is a fine and a streamlined way of saying the G/N/E factor compared to your's. There can be both lawful and chaotic societies. Are you saying chaotic societies are just individuals all for themselves?

For me, its more about looking at tradition and rules (order/law) vs context and guidelines (liberty/chaos).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

IMO a lawful person has a Kantian view of the morality of an action. That is, that an evil act is evil regardless of it’s outcome. Everything else flows from that.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

One thing that I think makes the Law and Chaos axis a bit harder to use in D&D than it otherwise could be is that there isn't an undisputed authority in-setting on what Law is.

In real world mythology and religion with chaoskampf motifs, chaos (often represented by sea monsters, or even the sea itself) is subdued to create order. However, those real-world belief systems also usually have a chief god or singular deity that defines what order should be like and how a lawful society should behave (sometimes these laws are not even related to morality, but to reinforcing social structure or setting adherents apart from others through certain rituals or taboos).

Meanwhile, in D&D there are a lot of divine and/or planar Lawful authorities that have their own ideas on what order should be like, and in most settings there isn't a chief authority laying down the law.

 

[Flamestrike]

fear? lol no.

he didn't even kill princes leia.

He tortured her. And forced her to watch the destruction of her planet. And when he found out she was his daughter, his first thought was to threaten to turn her to the Dark side, or kill her as well.

In a threat announced to his son, who he was trying to do the same thing to, mere months after chopping off his hand, and torturing his daughters significant other, before freezing him in carbonite, and betraying Lando Calrissian by 'altering the deal.

There is nothing lawful about him. He has no code, no respect for tradition, family or order, and lies through his teeth.

 

[Flamestrike]

When you read about devils they often mention treachery of their underlings, who would gladly usurp them. When did LE become unable to lie, rather than obeying the strict letter of their promises?

Vader has literally broken every promise ever made, betrayed (or destroyed or both) every organization he has ever belonged to, and betrayed (or killed, or both) every friend, partner and master he's ever had.

You haven't explained your reasons, or answered my questions, just dismissed me. Other people in this thread have said he was LG too, so your hazarded guess would be wrong. Maybe reign in your snark or engage in honest communication next time?

Make a poll. He's CG.

He does what he thinks is right; honor, tradition, and expectations be damned. He is impulsive, reckless and lacks forethought.

It's quite literally his entire character arc.