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

[payn]

Ok, but the premise I responded to said the Chaotic person would frequently disregard their own personal code. So you end up with characters who "only shoot to maim" routinely shooting to kill. How do they reconcile the fact that they frequently break their own code? It's not like they would even feel guilty about it, because breaking their code is part of their ethical nature (being Chaotic). If the code I claim to have is "I never lie to my friends", but I do in fact lie to them on a regular basis, is my character a hypocrite? Liar? Deluded?

This sounds like the chaotic version of trap the paladin. Just because a chaotic person doesn't feel compelled to always keep their word, doesn't mean they lie or break it constantly.

 

[Aldarc]

True Neutral is basically someone who really doesn't care about such debates. They don't feel particularly inclined towards following any judgement or moral guides but their own. In older editions, there was some nonsense about "upholding the balance", which comes from the original views of Law vs. Chaos as per Michael Moorcock's books, but really, a Neutral character doesn't concern themselves with "order or balance". They do what makes sense to them, and if you don't like it, too bad.

 

[HammerMan]

Ok, but the premise I responded to said the Chaotic person would frequently disregard their own personal code. So you end up with characters who "only shoot to maim" routinely shooting to kill. How do they reconcile the fact that they frequently break their own code?

but are they only ''frequently" in game because the game is about the most stress filled moments of there lives? or are they "frequently" because it isn't really a code at all?

It's not like they would even feel guilty about it, because breaking their code is part of their ethical nature (being Chaotic). If the code I claim to have is "I never lie to my friends", but I do in fact lie to them on a regular basis, is my character a hypocrite? Liar? Deluded?

Imagine a super hero game where part of your ideals is truthfulness... but you also need to have a secret ID... so you have to lie... can you be truthful and lie?

 

[RuinousPowers]

This sounds like the chaotic version of trap the paladin. Just because a chaotic person doesn't feel compelled to always keep their word, doesn't mean they lie or break it constantly.

The premise I was responding to claimed that a Chaotic aligned person would violate their personal codes frequently. I'm not talking about a person who doesn't feel compelled to tell the truth, but a person who states "I promise not to lie" but has no problem lying while still claiming to have a code.

 

[payn]

The premise I was responding to claimed that a Chaotic aligned person would violate their personal codes frequently. I'm not talking about a person who doesn't feel compelled to tell the truth, but a person who states "I promise not to lie" but has no problem lying while still claiming to have a code.

Oh, this is a specific example? My bad.

 

[HammerMan]

The premise I was responding to claimed that a Chaotic aligned person would violate their personal codes frequently. I'm not talking about a person who doesn't feel compelled to tell the truth, but a person who states "I promise not to lie" but has no problem lying while still claiming to have a code.

and again. I am reminded of many characters on many shows, but one is a TV comedy (with alot of philosophy) were a very GOOD person who teaches philosophy constantly reminds everyone he doesn't lie because his own philosophy is against it... the show is the Good Place, and I would 100% recommend it.

Every few episodes you know what happens... that character is put into a spot where he has to be deceitful if not out right lie OR break OTHER tenets of his personal philosophy. A running theme is him having an internal struggle over this ideal or that ideal.

I would not take a character like that and assume that when the DM (well the writer in that case) puts the character in a position to weight 1 ideal vs another ideal, it should not be held against them that they choose one over the other.

Example: I want to save those 10 children's lives. I have no weapon and no ability even when fully equipped to kill all of the evil slaver demons holding them... but one comes up and says 'are you here to take the kids to the slave pit' do I lie and say yes, take the 10 captured kids using deception, or do I tell the truth and either A die or B fail to save them,..,. no one not another PC not the DM better say I am wrong no matter what I am aligned or breaking an oath or changing my alignment... I choose a or b both are bad...

now if You don't put the character in said spots..

 

[FrozenNorth]

1e and 2e were far more restrictive on alignment and the penalties involved.

True, but as I recall, 3e applied alignment restrictions to more classes. I remember druid and paladin restrictions from 2nd ed, but I think the restrictions on barbarians, bards and monks started in 3e.

 

[HammerMan]

True, but as I recall, 3e applied alignment restrictions to more classes. I remember druid and paladin restrictions from 2nd ed, but I think the restrictions on barbarians, bards and monks started in 3e.

yeah and some of those stink...

If I want to play a chaotic good monk that is more Daniel Laruso and less Qui CHang Kane, or heck any jackie chan character why should the alignment stop me?

I even had a PC BEG to remove some of the restrictions so she could multiclass Barbarian and Monk with Psi warrior to make her concept work... and by the rules you had to be chaotic or you had to be lawful and rage had to be anger... it took a bit of house rules to make it work

 

[Rabulias]

Example: I want to save those 10 children's lives. I have no weapon and no ability even when fully equipped to kill all of the evil slaver demons holding them... but one comes up and says 'are you here to take the kids to the slave pit' do I lie and say yes, take the 10 captured kids using deception, or do I tell the truth and either A die or B fail to save them,..,. no one not another PC not the DM better say I am wrong no matter what I am aligned or breaking an oath or changing my alignment... I choose a or b both are bad...

You say "Oh, I am here to take these kids where they will spend the rest of their days... <evil laugh>heh heh heh</evil laugh>," and proceed to rescue them once you take them out of sight.

Actually, I have no problem with lawful and/or good characters lying to/deceiving villains, so in this case, a LG paladin could indeed say "Yes I am" with no problems from their deity or church. Indeed, they would be hailed as a hero for rescuing children.

Think of it like a sting operation -- as long as there is no entrapment/inducement, playing along with what BBEGs say, letting them make assumptions (as my example above), lying to make them think you are someone evil and should be included in their plans, etc., are all fair game.

 

[Voadam]

True, but as I recall, 3e applied alignment restrictions to more classes. I remember druid and paladin restrictions from 2nd ed, but I think the restrictions on barbarians, bards and monks started in 3e.

3e only opened up alignments for a bunch of classes (cleric, ranger, druid, rogue) compared to AD&D. It did not create any new alignment restrictions in core classes.

1e Alignment restrictions:

Barbarians - Any non-lawful. Bard - have to be at least part neutral. Clerics - any alignment except true neutral. Druids - must be true Neutral. Rangers - must be good. Paladin - must be LG. Thief - cannot be CG or LG/must be neutral or evil in one way. Assassin - must be evil. Monk - must be lawful.