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

If you find alignment useful, which definition of "Lawful" do you use?

  • I usually think of "Lawful" as adhering to a code (or similar concept) more than a C or N NPC would

    Votes: 35 31.5%
  • I usually think of "Lawful" as following the laws of the land more strictly than a C or N NPC would

    Votes: 17 15.3%
  • I use both definitions about equally

    Votes: 41 36.9%
  • I don't find alignment useful but I still want to vote in this poll

    Votes: 18 16.2%

depends on if they have the power to enforce their view on others, justice need not be law and the law does not need to be just but being both is desirable.

The guard doesn't think it depends on who's powerful in that moment. The PC doesn't either. The guard believes he is right and the PC believes he is right. From their own individual perspectives there's nothing uncertain about it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


The guard doesn't think it depends on who's powerful in that moment. The PC doesn't either. The guard believes he is right and the PC believes he is right. From their own individual perspectives there's nothing uncertain about it.
that is true but only in the subject sphere of reality, both could be objectively wrong.
 

In my homebrew, the alignment is downplayed, but where it comes into play it is in the eye of the beholder.

A player puts their PC's alignment on their character sheet to describe how they see themselves. I ask them to look at the phb definitions for alignments when they do so.

However, if a spell is cast, or a creature ability is activated, or a class ability is used - and that thing cares about alignment, I stop and think about where the power to use that ability originated, and how that entity would have thought about alignment.

Thus, a PC might consider themselves LG because they will do whatever it takes to do what is right in the eyes of their community, even though that may mean overthrowing a cruel ruler - which is against all the laws of the land, but it is what all (but that unjust ruler and his cronies) think is right. However, if a LN cleric of a God of Laws were to cast a spell that only worked on Lawful beings, then that LG PC would not be counted as lawful because that Cleric's God would hold the law as the ultimate authority.
 


If they both are objectively wrong then how can there be a right answer? Surely the PCs actions are either lawful or not, so the town guard must either be rightfully arresting him out wrongfully so.
they could be guilty of something non-lawful but the town guard could be mistaken as to why they are guilty assuming we are trying for objective law that to seeks to bring justice other law might just be about being lawful itself in which case the guard would be always correct.
 

they could be guilty of something non-lawful but the town guard could be mistaken as to why they are guilty assuming we are trying for objective law that to seeks to bring justice other law might just be about being lawful itself in which case the guard would be always correct.

Okay but which perspective about the law is correct then? What I'm trying to suggest is that when you say 2+2=4 that has to mean that it isn't true that 2+3=4, the two claims are mutually exclusive.

In order for some perspective on the law to be right, surely another perspective which opposes that must be wrong. That is if there is some kind of objective truth involved in it all.
 
Last edited:

Although the term "Lawful" is thematically appropriate for alignment in D&D, it is also misleading. A lot of people gravitate heavily towards the root of the word ("law") and thus comprehend it by its simplest implication that lawful beings only function if they follow the rules. Any rules. That is neither accurate, nor is it normal.

A "lawful" being favors order, structure, and logic. Practicing routines, observing traditions, and performing ritual habits are some of the most basic examples of a lawful-minded individual. These individuals tend to be organized, thoughtful, and even meticulous in their daily routines.

Rules and laws, whether written or unwritten, exist for different reasons. They may be in place to protect the innocent (good) or benefit the privileged few or elite (evil), but they work with the expectation that everyone potentially affected subscribes to and abides by them. Otherwise, anarchy and chaos would threaten the structure and stability of whatever it is they seek to preserve.

The key to alignments is recognizing that there are degrees to each aspect. They point to the stronger tendency but that does not exclude the individual from choosing to act differently. Such acts aren't done by accident as long as they possess free will and have the capacity to contemplate their actions. A lawful person knows that they are bending the rules and finds reason to justify it.

A chaotic person, however, doesn't really care if the rule is broken or not because the rule itself has no value or meaning for them. It is someone else's construct that imposes limitations on them and others in an effort to exert control on forces outside themselves.
 

Okay but which perspective about the law is correct then? What I'm trying to suggest is that when you say 2+2=4 that necessarily mean that it isn't true that 2+3=4, the two claims are mutually exclusive.

In order for some perspective on the law to be right, sure another perspective which opposes that must be wrong. That is if there is some kind of objective truth involved in it all.
give me the definitions so I can crunch them to see are we working from pure order as the lowest definition of law?
 


Remove ads

Top