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

[Scruffy nerf herder]

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

Well you can't exactly come up with a "right" definition for something that is nothing more than a matter of culture, and how one person or one group defines it.

Thinking that there's one, monolithic answer doesn't work, because it's not like anyone can prove "hey this is what Justice, Law, Order, Society means". If they could prove something then everyone wouldn't still be arguing two and a half thousand years later over Plato.

So of course everyone's going to have a different version of the made up ideas we use to try and think the world makes sense, that way we can get to sleep without thinking all night about how the world doesn't make much sense at all.

Laws can be group oriented, individual oriented, they can be anything they're a chameleon. Really laws are nothing but another mirror people can look at and see what they themselves and their society are like.

You won't learn a thing about what "Justice" with a capital J really is, but you'll learn all about what the people in that society are like when you look at their laws.

For me a lawful PC is whatever the player thinks "being lawful" means. In the same way pretty much every alignment is a blank check that says "well whatever the heck you think this is, write it down right here".

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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

That is beautiful, and would work if the axis weren't binary.

But what if I want to build structures that ensure freedom (such as liberal democracy)? What if I believe I need power to ensure peace?

 

[Mind of tempest]

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’

ah, but those are dogs without master or wolves without a pack they are lone variants of a group built thing hence they work similarly.

Well you can't exactly come up with a "right" definition for something that is nothing more than a matter of culture, and how one person or one group defines it.

Thinking that there's one, monolithic answer doesn't work, because it's not like anyone can prove "hey this is what Justice, Law, Order, Society means". If they could prove something then everyone wouldn't still be arguing two and a half thousand years later over Plato.

So of course everyone's going to have a different version of the made up ideas we use to try and think the world makes sense, that way we can get to sleep without thinking all night about how the world doesn't make much sense at all.

Laws can be group oriented, individual oriented, they can be anything they're a chameleon. Really laws are nothing but another mirror people can look at and see what they themselves and their society are like.

You won't learn a thing about what "Justice" with a capital J really is, but you'll learn all about what the people in that society are like when you look at their laws.

For me a lawful PC is whatever the player thinks "being lawful" means. In the same way pretty much every alignment is a blank check that says "well whatever the heck you think this is, write it down right here".

I have a theory on how morals are manufactured so that it could become possible to make non-cultural morals.

That is beautiful, and would work if the axis weren't binary.

But what if I want to build structures that ensure freedom (such as liberal democracy)? What if I believe I need power to ensure peace?

I think that is why we have neutrals also it depends on whether you get consumed by the means of getting the goal.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think that is why we have neutrals also it depends on whether you get consumed by the means of getting the goal.

I have massive problem with the system representing indifference and driven in a way that is conflicting according the system as the same.

 

[Scruffy nerf herder]

I have a theory on how morals are manufactured so that it could become possible to make non-cultural morals.

The literal definition of a "social more" or "moral" has to do with culture so it kind of doesn't make sense theorizing how something can be non-cultural when its very basis is in culture.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Well you can't exactly come up with a "right" definition for something that is nothing more than a matter of culture, and how one person or one group defines it.

Thinking that there's one, monolithic answer doesn't work, because it's not like anyone can prove "hey this is what Justice, Law, Order, Society means". If they could prove something then everyone wouldn't still be arguing two and a half thousand years later over Plato.

So of course everyone's going to have a different version of the made up ideas we use to try and think the world makes sense, that way we can get to sleep without thinking all night about how the world doesn't make much sense at all.

Laws can be group oriented, individual oriented, they can be anything they're a chameleon. Really laws are nothing but another mirror people can look at and see what they themselves and their society are like.

You won't learn a thing about what "Justice" with a capital J really is, but you'll learn all about what the people in that society are like when you look at their laws.

For me a lawful PC is whatever the player thinks "being lawful" means. In the same way pretty much every alignment is a blank check that says "well whatever the heck you think this is, write it down right here".

I’m not saying that there should be one big monolithic set of What The Rules Are, I’m saying that if a character follows, of their own will, a consistent and established set of rules for themselves no matter what, that they should be considered Lawful IMO

 

[Mind of tempest]

I have massive problem with the system representing indifference and driven in a way that is conflicting according the system as the same.

well, one if apathy the other is madness both are a sickness to be cured.

The literal definition of a "social more" or "moral" has to do with culture so it kind of doesn't make sense theorizing how something can be non-cultural when its very basis is in culture.

well, it works more one what fundamentally is the limited versions of reality a human can generate thus it is more designed to be useable by all possible human cultures.

 

[Scruffy nerf herder]

I’m not saying that there should be one big monolithic set of What The Rules Are, I’m saying that if a character follows, of their own will, a consistent and established set of rules for themselves no matter what they are that should be considered Lawful IMO

I enjoyed reading your perspective and am not trying to downplay anyone's perspective here about it. It's super interesting reading and interacting with people, that's good enough for me. I'm just being candid about how I think, too.

So when I read you saying here what makes someone lawful in your opinion, I'm not saying your wrong but I still have to ask: let's say an agent of the society's established laws, e.g. a town guard, does not agree with that character and says they are breaking the law. Who's being lawful then? If the guard is right about what "lawful" is then no, that PC isn't lawful?

 

[Scruffy nerf herder]

well, it works more one what fundamentally is the limited versions of reality a human can generate thus it is more designed to be useable by all possible human cultures.

Okay but who is it that says society should be that way? If only one person or some people understand and follow that moral framework then what? Is that Justice/Law now?

 

[CreamCloud0]

I enjoyed reading your perspective and am not trying to downplay anyone's perspective here about it. It's super interesting reading and interacting with people, that's good enough for me. I'm just being candid about how I think, too.

So when I read you saying here what makes someone lawful in your opinion, I'm not saying your wrong but I still have to ask: let's say an agent of the society's established laws, e.g. a town guard, does not agree with that character and says they are breaking the law. Who's being lawful then? If the guard is right about what "lawful" is then no, that PC isn't lawful?

Then they are both still lawful, they just have different opinions of what the rules are,
Soldiers ordered to cut down and retrieve several square miles of forest for the army’s needs are just as lawful as the druid who opposes them because they have taken a sacred oath to protect nature from being destroyed