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

[James Gasik]

As an example of criminals and alignment, I offer up the movie Payback. In the movie, Porter is a career criminal. He lies, cheats, steals, and cons people regularly in order to get what he wants. But at his core, he is defined by a strict personal code. When slighted, he will go to Hell and back to get exactly what he feels he is owed, no more, no less.

His rival, Val Resnick, on the other hand, belongs to an organized crime organization with very strict rules. Rules that are to be followed to the letter. Val, however, is a sadist and a bully, and will do anything to save his own neck and further his own goals.

We can say Porter is Lawful and Val is Chaotic, and there are merits to these arguments. But a person is more than just their alignment. Alignment is not absolute, alignment is not an inviolate code. As it applies to an individual, it is only an indication of what they will likely do, not what they will do. You can say you're whatever alignment you want, but only through observation of your actions can we attempt to describe your (probable) alignment.

This is why these debates can never have a definitive solution, because alignment is highly subjective.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Lawful Good is the most likely. You want a structured society (law) that promotes freedom (good).

Why is freedom now good instead of chaos like it was in the thing I quoted?

Sounds lawful evil to me. You need power so all options have to be on the table (evil). You want to apply this in a way that ensures peace (law).

Why is peace now law and not good like previously? These definitions keep shifting, there is nothing concrete behind them. Also, by your definition NATO would be evil and doubt many would agree, especially now…

 

[payn]

Where does it mention society at all? This is what you posted.

"Lawful Good, "Crusader"

A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished."

A moral compass is not a code. It's not refined enough and can shift.

This has all gotten too obtuse for me. I get what you are saying Maxperson, it just seems all a little too literal for my take.

 

[Yaarel]

Why is freedom now good instead of chaos like it was in the thing I quoted?

Why is peace now law and not good like previously? These definitions keep shifting, there is nothing concrete behind them. Also, by your definition NATO would be evil and doubt many would agree, especially now…

Helping someone else become free is Good.

Helping an individual become free is more Chaotic Good. Helping a group become free from an other group is more Lawful Good.

 

[Maxperson]

I donno. Its often mix. Like someone stabs their coworker in the back to get a raise to feed ones family.

I agree, but the mix doesn't make for neutral just because it's mixed. For example, "I cut the man's throat and take his bread in order to feed my starving son." Do you think the good of feeding my son balances a murder?

To get back to your example, how does stabbing a coworker in the back weigh against being able to feed your family? I have no idea. Is the coworker a trust fund baby and doesn't really need the money? Is he suffering from long term illness and really needed the raise to cover rising costs? Do those things matter? And if so, how much? I have no idea, but you can be sure that there's no way that a person will consistently be behaving in a way that will balance out all of their actions to neutral.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Helping someone else become free is Good.

I was just told that if I use power to do it, it is evil…

 

[happyhermit]

Lots of interesting opinions, wish I was able to post more on this.

Unfortunately a lot of this thread has been about what alignment actually means when the question I was trying to get at is along the lines of;

"Which definition of Lawful is more useful to people who find alignment useful?"

Perhaps if I had narrowed it a bit to something like; which do people find more useful from a roleplaying or helping to determine the actions of a creature, perspective.

I didn't include the cosmic perspective because it always seemed to come out like this IME;

While I (mostly) don't find alignment useful and therefore didn't vote in the poll, I wouldn't use either of the OP's definitions. They rely too much on character behavior or beliefs. Alignment is cosmic—it's either allegiance to a big, universal "side", or some inherent quality in a being's spiritual nature.

Lawful is either personal allegiance (whether consciously given or not) to the cosmic concept of Order (Moorcockian Lawfulness); or it's an inherent tie to the mundane world of human beings (and their societies and religions), as opposed to the Chaotic world of eldritch, fae, or monstrous things and Powers (Andersonian Lawfulness).

Basically, Alignments absolutely mean this specific thing, and I don't find that useful. I would tend to agree that alignment using that definition is not very useful, at least from a character decision making perspective (world building might be different).

So, are there a lot of people who find a definition along these lines (cosmic order) to be useful in-game when making decision for a NPC or PC?

 

[Yaarel]

I agree, but the mix doesn't make for neutral just because it's mixed. For example, "I cut the man's throat and take his bread in order to feed my starving son." Do you think the good of feeding my son balances a murder?

To get back to your example, how does stabbing a coworker in the back weigh against being able to feed your family? I have no idea. Is the coworker a trust fund baby and doesn't really need the money? Is he suffering from long term illness and really needed the raise to cover rising costs? Do those things matter? And if so, how much? I have no idea, but you can be sure that there's no way that a person will consistently be behaving in a way that will balance out all of their actions to neutral.

Well, there are degrees of Good and degrees of Evil.

By itself murder yanks the Evil side of the scale way down.

 

[James Gasik]

One man's good is another man's evil. Mere mortals like us cannot truly grasp what good and evil are on a cosmic scale. If you liberate a country from a despotic ruler, you are either a hero or a villain. The Rebel Alliance are either the heroes of Star Wars, or a left wing group of violent radicals attempting to overthrow the legitimate galactic government.

EDIT: sorry happyhermit, I find it hard to talk about alignment and how useful it is/isn't without trying to define what alignment IS. A lot of different things have been said about it over the years, and even the people who make D&D don't seem to agree on it.

I foresee a future D&D where alignment is finally retired, because it causes so many "spirited debates". However, I think when that happens we will lose the ordered cosmology of D&D, which is based around the concept of alignment as cosmic forces. I always tell my players that since the cosmic forces are inscrutable to mere mortals, you'll know what your alignment is by how people react to your deeds.

 

[CreamCloud0]

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’d say those were neutral then, up until the point where one is chosen to be sacrificed significantly for the means of acquiring the other