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

[Voadam]

For me generally the good evil axis is more useful than the law chaos one.

Good tells me the NPC monster is intended as a good guy. Evil means they are intended as hostile. Neutral means no default, it is intended to depend on the situation and the PCs actions instead or anything I care to come up with in the moment or I can focus on something else from their description as a roleplay/motivation hook.

That is a useful general guide as a DM.

Law can mean different things. I usually go with this person is part of a system or believes in the value of order in some sense. I could go with a code, I could go with an ideal, a cause, a leader, a bunch of things.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

I would agree with this.

My own gaming opinion is that traits, ideals, bonds and flaws make for a much better roleplaying device for PCs. Alignment still is a good tool to use for NPCs, as it summarizes their nature in two words. And even better, the DM can form their own opinion as to what those two words mean - a la this thread.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I treat alignment as what the PC or NPC is at a given moment. I look at the law and chaos axis to be mostly about how you want other people to perceive you. Lawful and chaotic types both want others to notice them (for different reasons). Neutrals would prefer that others didn't think about them too much (for example Yugoloths don't want you to think about how easy it is to bribe them, because you wouldn't hire them, but they don't want you to think they are hard to bribe either). The PC trying to sneak into a castle is probably some kind of neutral while the sneaking is going on.

Lawful types are interested in demonstrating themselves as respectable. The people (or things) that they want to see them as respectable may not be on hand ("tell my parents back in the village I died well") but they are in the head of the lawful types. If lawful types want to fit in, chaotic types want to stand out. Maybe you annoyed someone, inspired them, or terrified them. When I run chaotic evil NPC's, they always try to leave one survivor to spread the legend of their cruel deeds (I have even had a young red dragon follow his survivor [at a distance] and save him from trolls so the witness could tell everyone how great and terrible the dragon was).

Good and evil is a little harder given that many players want their PC's to kill their enemies and steal their stuff with the thin fig leaf of "the enemies are monsters or evil" while not having evil on the character sheet. That leaves out a lot of traditional definitions. So, I focus on sadism: if you do something bad to someone or something but it is "just business", you are neutral; if you enjoyed it, you are evil; and if you feel bad about it, you are probably good.

 

[Hussar]

For me generally the good evil axis is more useful than the law chaos one.

Good tells me the NPC monster is intended as a good guy. Evil means they are intended as hostile. Neutral means no default, it is intended to depend on the situation and the PCs actions instead or anything I care to come up with in the moment or I can focus on something else from their description as a roleplay/motivation hook.

That is a useful general guide as a DM.

Law can mean different things. I usually go with this person is part of a system or believes in the value of order in some sense. I could go with a code, I could go with an ideal, a cause, a leader, a bunch of things.

It's funny. I see it the other way.

Lawful/Chaotic defines how an NPC reacts to a situation. I do agree that good/evil is useful for the hostile/non-hostile reaction, but, lawful/chaotic will tell me how they are hostile or non-hostile.

A lawful monster will have plans, standard procedures and will use group tactics. A chaotic creature will be disorganized, lacking in precision tactics and will generally react on a more individual basis.

So, a group of lawful monsters will set up shield walls, form ranks, sound the alarm and react in a much or precise manner. A chaotic group of monsters will grab the nearest weapon and charge and/or break and run away to save themselves.

Note, this is a rule of thumb, not a hard and fast rule. But, a group of LE hobgoblins, for example, should react in a more organized fashion, IMO, than a group of CE orcs.

 

[le Redoutable]

For me generally the good evil axis is more useful than the law chaos one.

Good tells me the NPC monster is intended as a good guy. Evil means they are intended as hostile. Neutral means no default, it is intended to depend on the situation and the PCs actions instead or anything I care to come up with in the moment or I can focus on something else from their description as a roleplay/motivation hook.

That is a useful general guide as a DM.

Law can mean different things. I usually go with this person is part of a system or believes in the value of order in some sense. I could go with a code, I could go with an ideal, a cause, a leader, a bunch of things.

I would gladly add ( or else ? ) that there is a Detect Evil Intent , but no Detect Chaos Incoming

 

[le Redoutable]

It's funny. I see it the other way.

Lawful/Chaotic defines how an NPC reacts to a situation. I do agree that good/evil is useful for the hostile/non-hostile reaction, but, lawful/chaotic will tell me how they are hostile or non-hostile.

A lawful monster will have plans, standard procedures and will use group tactics. A chaotic creature will be disorganized, lacking in precision tactics and will generally react on a more individual basis.

So, a group of lawful monsters will set up shield walls, form ranks, sound the alarm and react in a much or precise manner. A chaotic group of monsters will grab the nearest weapon and charge and/or break and run away to save themselves.

Note, this is a rule of thumb, not a hard and fast rule. But, a group of LE hobgoblins, for example, should react in a more organized fashion, IMO, than a group of CE orcs.

When you make plans you use prefetch, which is relative to non-Real Time reaction ( like when you're paranoid , even if to a lesser deal )

 

[Yaarel]

lawful is also individual people with strong personal codes.

An individual, whose personal code is to be an individual even if it means feeling alienated from the group, is Chaotic.

Lawful = group identity
Chaotic = individual identity

 

[Yaarel]

There is a D&D tradition that perceives Chaotic to mean "random" (= Chaotic Stupid), and by contrast, Lawful to mean "ordered" (= Lawful Stupid).

However, the above two unhelpful definitions are inconsistent and logically irreconcilable with the other more helpful definitions elsewhere.

The better definitions are Lawful=group and Chaotic=individual, especially for the sake of a roleplaying game.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Do people want to be chaotic that badly?

Not exactly. That implies that Chaotic is seen as being way above baseline. It's more like people want to avoid being Lawful that badly. Lawful is, in many minds, axiomatically the alignment of irrational dickheads who enforce rules no matter what; Lawful Good is thus either self-deluded (the 'Good' part being in name only, behaving as if they were righteous but actually being constantly heinous, cruel, destructive, selfish, and generally just really awful), or is a hamstrung bureaucrat meekly making excuses about what they are and aren't allowed to do while monstrous events occur around them.

I've literally never seen a player choose to be Lawful Neutral (at least as a mortal; LN gods, on the other hand, are extremely common.) I've seen dozens, perhaps even low hundreds of NG, CG, or CN characters. Many of those CN characters are actually either CG or NG because the Good label carries the connotation of being a square, never doing anything fun or joyful. Many other CNs are actually CE but playing in a game where evil PCs aren't permitted, so they're just as destructive and dangerous but like, take time to pet a kitten now and then. All other alignments have shown up now and then.

I am trying to think of what these clear examples are that mean people can't still be X.

Usually alignment is considered a broad overall evaluation and individual acts can be good or evil or whatever, but individual acts are only part of an alignment calculus, not individually defining.

Law - do enough not lawful stuff not to be considered lawful? Believe in the value of anarchy? Prioritize individuals over groups/systems? This one seems hard to come up with clear examples or even conceptual ones. It would depend a lot on the definition of Law that you use.

Good - unpardonable sins? Enough evil acts to not be still considered good?

Evil - atone and make amends? Change your evil ways and do good to the point you are considered redeemed or off the path of evil?

Chaos do enough lawful stuff not to be considered chaotic? Believe in the value of groups/systems? Follow something devotedly? It would depend a lot on the definition of Chaos that you use.

It all seems to be do enough not X or opposite of X to not be considered X any more. This seems to apply to Chaos as much as to Law or Good or Evil.

Good: You've already given the key example. Unpardonable sins. The knowing murder of an innocent person, for example, or...well, to be blunt, sexual assault. Child abuse. There are a LOT of things that, if someone does them, it's pretty clear they're instantly kicked out of Good and can't just go back to it with a quick change. Redemption is hard, and we recognize that there are some acts that maybe there can't be any redemption for, even with an infinite amount of time. For D&D-specific things, becoming a lich is presented this way, to the point that some books will dance around it, just saying that it's horribly reprehensible and no good person would even seek out how to do it, let alone actually DO it.

Evil: I still see bright lines. Consider A Tale of Two Cities. A noble but secret sacrifice not forced by anyone, and which you'd never see negative consequences if you didn't do it. And its very nobility requires secrecy: your sacrifice can't even earn fame. That conflicts with how most D&D eds define "Evil," as it's a rubbish deal to any "rational" (non-Good) mind. The Redemption Equals Death trope is built on this. Self-sacrifice, in a non-self-serving way, is almost axiomatically anti-Evil. It doesn't necessarily make you Good, that very aforementioned trope is pretty controversial, but such actions make it very hard to argue that a person is truly Evil--it's at least "Neutralizing," if you will.

Law: Consider that "steal to save your kid" thing. If a Lawful char's player stole without any hesitation and then covered it up...that sounds like "falling from Lawful" to me. Lawful doesn't strictly mean being honest (many LE types are excellent deceivers), but I'd say it does mean "I keep my word, and make amends if I break it," like how Good says "I do right by others, and make amends if I fail." IMO, "my word is my bond" is almost pure (single-person) Lawful; it's pretty much THE thing separating most LE antagonists from NE/CE ones. Other acts would be, for example, "abandoning my spouse and children to unite with my One True Love" (CG: "my cruel spouse and hateful step-children," CE: "my dependent spouse and children") "arranging for a third party to suffer the consequences for my deeds" (CG: "a third party that got away with other crimes," CE: "an innocent third party").

By comparison...I just don't see such actions articulated for Chaos. I'm dead certain if I used my definition of Chaos, I could come up with them. But the way people actually play and discuss Chaos, there aren't such things. There is literally nothing that could BE a "fall from Chaos," because even something like "staying with your cruel spouse and hateful step-children" will end up spun as soulful individual bravery in the face of terrible hardship or something like that.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

There is a D&D tradition that perceives Chaotic to mean "random" (= Chaotic Stupid), and by contrast, Lawful to mean "ordered" (= Lawful Stupid).

However, the above two unhelpful definitions are inconsistent and logically irreconcilable with the other more helpful definitions elsewhere.

The better definitions are Lawful=group and Chaotic=individual, especially for the sake of a roleplaying game.

Except that this runs afoul of other definitions (another serious part of the problem). If Lawful = group, then the lone paladin fighting the good fight against a nation that legalizes slavery would instantly fall due to failing to uphold the common group identity. If Chaotic = individual, then Robin Hood and his Band of Merry Men--despite standing up to a tyrannical usurper-king and actively breaking laws on the regular--are axiomatically Lawful because they represent the Organized Rebellion.

Which is why I use the metric I do. Lawful is about legitimacy, justification, and setting clear policies which only change under duress (and always with caution and care). Chaotic is about flexibility, adaptation, and keeping all commitments as open-ended as possible (and always with an eye on the alternatives).

Chaotic people can form associations, even large ones, but these associations are fragile, particularly if they're large, because everyone in them might potentially say, "Ah, sorry guys, this isn't working out for me, have fun!" Such associations tend to form where a natural, unforced, long-standing drive or desire overlays enough of the population in question that they all willingly stick around--if departing would consistently be worse than staying, then people will stay. Pirate ships, for example, would sign contracts--not because they had any affection for law, for example, but because it's really hard to be a one-man pirate, and really, REALLY lucrative to be one of the blokes on the ship when it sails back into port full of booty. (As CGP Grey put it in the "How to be a Pirate: Quartermaster Edition" video, "We have a ship, and a business, only by our cooperation...and only if we can keep it. But the incentive is great.")

And Lawful people can go it alone. Inspector Javert is absolutely a one-man legalism machine, having conflated executing all laws as written with being a good and noble person. In the words of the author himself (translated, of course), "And, withal, [Javert led] a life of privation, isolation, abnegation, chastity, with never a diversion." (Emphasis added.) Javert lives a loner's life, having explicitly almost no connection to the rest of the human race (his only vice being that he occasionally takes snuff when offered), and his individual isolation and refusal to interact (or belief that he is not allowed to interact) with the bulk of humanity is exactly what permits his hyper-legalistic mindset to prevail. Javert is Lawful Neutral tragic villain, perhaps even antivillain, someone with explicitly laudable precepts who applies them with a dangerous zealotry.

Even if we don't consider a broken Lawful mind, but rather a healthy (even heroic) one, it is entirely possible for a Lawful person to be the Only Sane Man in a group--or, in the example that most readily comes to mind, the Only Sane Woman, Hermione Granger. She is of course a fantastically gifted student and witch, being both intellectually brilliant and supremely skilled with the use of magic. But she's also the voice of reason and the one who tries to instill ideas like discipline, responsibility, and upright behavior in her friends. She has a deep and abiding passion for justice (likely the reason she was sorted into Gryffindor rather than Ravenclaw), and commits herself wholeheartedly (even in the absence of interest from both wizards and house elves) to the cause of house-elf rights, founding S.P.E.W.; this very impulse tends to isolate her from others who don't share her passion or don't think that systemic change is needed.

Lawful can disagree with group identities if those group identities are founded on unacceptable situations or principles. Chaotic can accept, even embrace group identity, if that group identity is founded purely upon sustained common interest, rather than arbitrary standards or someone else's rules.