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

[Scruffy nerf herder]

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

How can they both be right? They're standing there in front of each other, disagreeing. Justice/Law isn't a round square, is it?

 

[nevin]

I feel there is an option missing. I don't think "lawful" follows or adheres to the moral codes and mores of society any more than someone who is neutral or chaotic. The difference is, they will feel more guilt by not following the normal morality of their society. Here are some examples:

• The classic priest that always wants to do the right thing, and most of the time does, but finds himself sneaking to the brothel every now and then.
• The poet that always sympathizes and has deep empathy for those hurt around him, but he often can't see his own actions harm the ones closest to him. He gives coin away to his friends, so they have something to pay with, but also forgets that his wife needs the coin to fix the house.
• The empathetic judge who follows all the rules of his court and king, but then always seems to break them when the person before him is a teen.

If you need an evil example: a city-gate guard who is a strict rule follower, but still takes bribes from his two friends even though it is illegal. Because, you know, there his, bros.

So lawful follows the codes of the land, rules of the kingdom, norms of the community, morals of the church, and mores of the culture, but breaks them just as often as the others. They just pay a heavier price emotionally because of it. This might make them swing harder on the lawful spectrum for the next few days, or weeks, or months. Until, of course, they break it again.

Now we Are into alignment vs being human. Almost no one follows there alignment 100 percent. And alignment gets washed through or perspective. I think of it as the characters general morality. Lawful means they think rules are necessary for a functioning society. That doesn't mean they'll agree with laws that are obviously not working, though it would most likely mean they'd prefer to try and address that within the system first if possible.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I don’t think the two options cover all the possibilities for archetypes or tropes that are generally considered lawful. A example not covered is the classic villain who believes that there are in-groups the law protects but doesn’t bind, and out-groups that the law binds but doesn’t protect.

 

[CreamCloud0]

How can they both be right? They're standing there in front of each other, disagreeing. Justice/Law isn't a round square, is it?

A round square? Sorry I don’t know that expression, but the problem is that life isn’t simple, there is no big monolithic rulebook to judge everything to, the people valued different things and followed different rules, this does not make either of them wrong, nor does it make either of them right

What’s your favourite flavour of ice cream mine’s strawberry, yours is mint choc chip, someone else likes vanilla, we disagree but does this make any of us wrong about our favourite flavour though?

 

[Scruffy nerf herder]

A round square? Sorry I don’t know that expression, but the problem is that life isn’t simple, there is no big monolithic rulebook to judge everything to, the people valued different things and followed different rules, this does not make either of them wrong, nor does it make either of them right

What’s your favourite flavour of ice cream mine’s strawberry, yours is mint choc chip, someone else likes vanilla, we disagree but does this make any of us wrong about our favourite flavour though?

By a round square I meant that something can't be a circle and a square at the same time. It's kind of a common expression? I don't know.

The most important reason that I asked that question is you might think they're both being lawful, basically, but the town guard definitely does not think the PC is being lawful. As far as they are concerned only one person is right and that is them. So who's right?

 

[CreamCloud0]

By a round square I meant that something can't be a circle and a square at the same time. It's kind of a common expression? I don't know.

The most important reason that I asked that question is you might think they're both being lawful, basically, but the town guard definitely does not think the PC is being lawful. As far as they are concerned only one person is right and that is them. So who's right?

I mean there’s alot of ambiguity in that situation due to the vagueness of it but irregardless the answer is neither, or both, the guard can be right that the adventurer has broken a law of the city but the adventurer can also be right in that he has broken no rules of his own vows

Being lawful does not equate to being right on either side of a conflict

 

[HammerMan]

I know it just says Lawful but I see it as mattering the 2nd part...

good means you care for others... so you follow laws and your code until a part of the law would hurt instead of help people... then you push to the good over the law. However when you are good and your personal code (that may be to follow the law or not) conflicts with the good THAT should be a hard choice for you.

Neutral means that you will rarely if ever go against laws or your code and the only conflict will be when the laws conflict with your own code... and you will most likely lean more to your code

Evil means selfish and out for yourself. You will follow laws and your code (sometimes to the letter avoiding the context if that is better for you on both) until the law or your code doesn't help you... then you are more likely to ditch following the law/code to help yourself... there is NO conflict in you when the law and your code disagree you will almost ALWAYs go with your code...

However in my games I always use the 'mostly' and 'on average' assumption with alignment. You may be LG but you can be pushed to do something evil or chaotic... you may be NE but something every once in a while may push you to do something good. No living mortal being with free will and soul will ever be 100% there alignment 100% of the time... it is the defualt for your character not the always, and since the game is almost always about putting stress on the character there could be a dozen 'exception' moment in any given campaign.

 

[Mind of tempest]

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?

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.

 

[Minigiant]

I think Lawful has less to do with being group minded and more to being about not being quick to break, make exception to, or make new caveats to rules.

For example the "Personal code"

If your personal code is easy to follow, you are Chaotic.

If your personal code is tough to adhere to or make the job harder, you are Lawful.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Lawful to me is following a code the person didn't create themselves.

Typically a person doesn't create the laws of the land.
Typically a person doesn't create the expectations of society
Often a person doesn't create the tenets of a code, even a personal code,

I think that this, with some caveats, is the best articulation of the difference.

Lawful is belief that rules that bind a group are a good in and of themselves- that people should follow the rules, even when the application of them might not always be the best in a particular situation.

Chaotic, on the other hand, is the belief that those rules that bind groups are only useful to the extent that they are beneficial in that particular situation.


The distinction for lawful people is two-fold; the first is that it has to be a set of social rules. Minigiant states this is being a code that the person doesn't create themselves, which is another useful way of thinking about it, but ... this is why "lawful" can apply both to judges that enforce a set of laws and to organized crime that have an internal and rigid code that applies to them. In both cases, there is a set of rules that apply to a group, and that the group is expected to follow, and the lawful person within that group will uphold the rules.

For the most part, this doesn't apply to idiosyncratic personal codes of conduct, even if rigidly adhered to. Anton Chigurh (No Country for Old Men) is most certainly not lawful, even though he has a code of conduct. If no one else in the world has the same set of rules, then it's not lawful, because the purpose of "lawful" is ... well, for groups.

The second distinction, and what I think is the main determinant of what is "lawful," is that the lawful character will strive to uphold the rules even if the application in a particular situation might not be beneficial; there is a belief that the rules themselves are important. Personally, I find that these types of characters (regardless of whether or not you are using alignment) provides for rich fodder for roleplaying.