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

[Yaarel]

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.

Such a Paladin, who opposes slavery, can easily be Chaotic.

If the Paladin is a member of the group who is being enslaved, that struggle to save the group might be Lawful.

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.

One can categorize Robin Hood into various alignmenys. If he fights for the true king and patriotism against usurpers and criminals that harm England, then he is Lawful.

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 individuals csn be legitimate ethical, justified and even following laws and codes that affirm and safeguard individualism.

Chaotic is about flexibility, adaptation, and keeping all commitments as open-ended as possible (and always with an eye on the alternatives.

Lawful individuals can be flexible and adaptive. Indeed you yourself argue such when in a situation that forces a choice between Lawful and Good.

Chaotic people can form associations.

Yes, but when Chaotic people form an association, the organization supports and protects individualism.

Like a "cult of free thinkers".

 

[Yaarel]

MCU Thor is not Lawful. He's (very) Chaotic (Good).

As is Tony Stark, but Tony moves from CN (start of Iron Man 2), to CG (after his injury) to NG as his arc progresses.

Cap is LG. He can do LG all day.

Lokis arc in the MCU takes him from CN to CE to CN to CG.

Thanos is LE. He has a code, and respects family, honor and tradition. He is rigid in his thinking, and a tyrant. He's just also a genocidal monster.

Spidey is NG.

I am talking about Norse Thor. Marvel comics and D&D are nonrepresentative.

Norse Thor is Lawful Neutral, possibly Lawful Good. He often polarizes against Loki who is Chaotic Neutral, possibly Chaotic Evil. Odin is True Neutral.

 

[le Redoutable]

I personally see the Paladin like a Healer on the battlefield ( unfortunate his lay on hands is very limited )

 

[Yaarel]

Artists who focus on self expression tend to be Chaotic. Artists who focus on political commentary tend to be Lawful.

 

[Maxperson]

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

Okay. What does that have to do with what I said. I never said the personal code was to be an individual even if it means feeling alienated from the group. There are many, many codes that individuals can have that are very lawful and aren't, "to be an individual even if it means feeling alienated from the group."

Lawful = group identity
Chaotic = individual identity

So it's Lawful can = group identity, not does = group identity. There are group codes of conduct that are individualistic and chaotic(see America). America's constitution and identity is all about the group all being individuals, with individual rights and support of individuals' beliefs. Our laws support that to a great degree. America is a CG country.

Lawful can also = individual with strong orderly/structured code of ethic and/or conduct.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

A Lawful person respects structure, family, honor and tradition. They are predictable, dependable, and often rigid in thinking.

A Chaotic person is impulsive, reckless, and unconventional. They are agents of change, and act according to their conscience (or lack thereof for CE) with no respect for family, honor or tradition, only held in check by masters and commanders out of fear, friendship or respect.

But what if a person is reclass and impulsive but respects honour and tradition? What if they're logical, dependable and predictable, but despise tradition and honour as outdated illogical nonsense?

This is why alignment is detrimental. It lumps things that are not connected together, and directs people creating boring stock personalities. And sure someone will reply to this that it is not straitjacket and every aspect of the character don't need to conform to their alignment, but ultimately if alignment cannot reliably convey information or describe behaviour it serves no purpose at all.

 

[Voadam]

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.

These two examples seem to posit a view that most things are neutral, that specific non-neutral alignments are narrow, that good is good throughout, that Moses is not good because he has that murder in his backstory.

That a murderer/slaver/torturer who makes a noble self sacrifice is not evil.

That can work but I think it is a bit counter to the normal D&D view that alignment is a judgment about the overall end point and that lots of people can end up on the various alignment points. That an evil villain who does something really good is still evil if the overall weight of evil pushes the scale that way.

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.

A thief, part of an organized crime family with a strong code, hierarchy, obligations they consider important, etc. Stealing is part of his job and his duty.

Not lawful?

Or is it just the "to save your kid" part that makes it not-lawful in your view?

In that case a lawful person completely devoted to their family, they would become not lawful if they stole to save a member of their family?

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").

This again seems a view of a designation of lawful alignment requires Law throughout, not an overall calculus of how lawful in total they are.

So a completely dedicated secret agent who sacrifices everything to be an agent for their cause is not lawful because they set up third parties to suffer for their actions. This seems like it could be viewed as classic LE political machination maneuvering with deception. Or part of a devil's plan.

 

[Voadam]

but ultimately if alignment cannot reliably Convery information or describe behaviour it serves no purpose at all.

Alignment clearly conveys the mechanical alignment of a character or a creature for purposes of mechanical interaction. A 5e talisman of ultimate evil has different mechanical effects on a character or monster with a different listed alignment.

If as a DM I and my friend as a DM interpret lawful differently it has still served a purpose in giving us roleplay hooks for NPC or monster portrayal even though they are different. They both might be different than the D&D author's specific intent, but it still has served a useful purpose in giving us a roleplay hook to use.

If all my AD&D orcs join armies or follow evil leaders as minions because I see they are LE and my friend gives all their AD&D orcs a strong Klingon code of honor they live by because they are LE, the alignment designation has served a useful purpose.

If I and my friend have different views on what a lawful alignment means and we choose to roleplay lawful characters based on our different views of lawfulness, it has served a purpose in giving us a character hook to choose to portray, even though they are different and might be different than the specific intent of the D&D authors on how a lawful character would be portrayed.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Alignment clearly conveys the mechanical alignment of a character or a creature for purposes of mechanical interaction. A 5e talisman of ultimate evil has different mechanical effects on a character or monster with a different listed alignment.

There thankfully is exceedingly few mechanical interaction with alignment in 5e. So few, that they seem like vestiges from some earlier draft version that they accidentally forgot to delete.

If as a DM I and my friend as a DM interpret lawful differently it has still served a purpose in giving us roleplay hooks for NPC or monster portrayal even though they are different. They both might be different than the D&D author's specific intent, but it still has served a useful purpose in giving us a roleplay hook to use.

If all my AD&D orcs join armies or follow evil leaders as minions because I see they are LE and my friend gives all their AD&D orcs a strong Klingon code of honor they live by because they are LE, the alignment designation has served a useful purpose.

If I and my friend have different views on what a lawful alignment means and we choose to roleplay lawful characters based on our different views of lawfulness, it has served a purpose in giving us a character hook to choose to portray, even though they are different and might be different than the specific intent of the D&D authors on how a lawful character would be portrayed.

Sorry, but I don't agree at all. An utterly subjective Rorschach test is not a sensible purpose for a rule.

 

[nevin]

As always the lawful and Chaotic keep descending into Tropes or behavior tags.

I could come up with lots of historical battles where the "chaotic" germans, celts, or vikings fought with military precision that some would associate with "law". Or the reverse because some leader lost his mind and ordered a charge.

I know "Lawful" military and police officers who love to go all nuts at a shooting evaluation and libertarian military or police officers who'll go in methodically by the book every time. The first group are usually adrenaline junkies and the second group have no desire to risk unnecessary harm.

There is nothing about personality that has to do with lawful or Chaotic. There is nothing about good or evil that have to do with personality. Was J edgar hoover LE, LN, or LG? I've heard convincing arguments for all three. But I also know that there were several instances where citizens broke the law and after things were under control he just waived his hand and said behave and no one ever got charged. Maybe his alignment was CG and he believed they had the moral high ground.

I get why people like to use alignments the way they do. It seems easy. But running long campaigns it jacks everything up. As soon as you have any player go all morally grey on you the whole thing breaks if your using it that way.