How can non-social creatures be lawful?

[DMH]

Rereading the definitions of evil in Evil (AEG), I was wondering- how can green and blue dragons be lawful? They don't living in large groups and can interact only occasionally. Lawful requires a hierarchy and strong interaction (which is filled with violence in a LE society). I can't see a group of green dragons as the leading council to all the others within a certain region.

So, should large, mostly solitary monsters that are currently LE be changed to NE?

 

[(un)reason]

Not neccecarily. It is entirely possible to be diciplined and organised, and stick to a personal code of behaviour, without any social interaction or reagrd for the feelings or laws of others. Indeed, when you don't have constant interaction with other creatures to shape your personality, it is all the easier to develop uncompromising personal habits and routines that you follow regardless.

 

[Starglim]

Put it this way. I don't think a creature should be adjudged more chaotic because it's non-social. In fact, the PHB definition of Chaos is just as dependent on a hierarchy (to resist), promises to others (to ignore) and tradition (to flout) as the definition of Law.

It's arguable that a non-social creature is less capable of comprehending either the Chaotic or Lawful viewpoint, and thus should be more likely ethically Neutral, as druids and animals are.

 

[DMH]

It's arguable that a non-social creature is less capable of comprehending either the Chaotic or Lawful viewpoint, and thus should be more likely ethically Neutral, as druids and animals are.

So would you change the green and blue dragons to NE, Jim?

 

[William Ronald]

A person can be a hermit, but follow a very regimented life.

As for monsters, some of the creatures may be influenced by their biological urges or by such issues as lack of trust in the case of lawful evil creatures. So, perhaps rather than having an equal or near equal, blue and green dragons have slaves whom they can easily dominate or kill. (Also, a single dragon can be a drain on the local ecology, so they may spread themselves out to secure sufficient territory.)

Possibly the dragons communicate with others of their kind at a distance, and spend some time negotiating pre-nuptial agreements. Or some solitary creatures may have to negotiate with a hierarchy to arrange for a mate.

 

[fusangite]

Alignment as a stat is an amalgam of things and not a terribly stable one at that. Alignment isn't just conduct; it's about being associated with a set of planes and gods. I tend to run alignment like the Cold War; sure, there were countries that called themselves Communist and Capitalist but outside of Europe and America didn't really have much to do with how these places were governed. I think the same is true of many aligned creatures: they have an alignment because they're on a particular cosmic "side."

As for the solitary thing, it's not so much that solitary creatures cannot be lawful or chaotic; it's more that being lawful or chaotic doesn't have much relevance to their day to day lives. It may be that when they interact with other creatures, from time to time, these things become highly relevant.

EDIT: I'd draw the comparison to gender. Being male or female doesn't really have any meaning in the day to day life of solitary creatures. But they're still one or the other. And when it does become relevant, it is highly relevant.

 

[Bront]

Lawful is more structured thinking that following laws. A chaotic evil character can be a law abiding citizen (Most of the time at least), and a lawful good character can refuse to follow laws if he sees it as not within his own personal code (Slave keeping, laws promoting ruthless killing of "criminals", things like that).

Your allignment is your way of thinking more than your likely hood to follow rules.

 

[Endur]

I would agree with the NE idea. Or maybe you could say LE leaning towards NE if you don't want to change the alignments.

I do not buy the personal code idea. I think a society is necessary for lawful, although I'm not sure that a hierarchy is necessary. (When I was younger I did agree with the personal code, now that I'm older and perhaps wiser I've begun to believe a society is necessary).

I could buy the "Last Samurai" idea where you are the last person to follow a lawful cultural code.

Likewise, I could see a hermit being lawful aligned in that he follows his society's code and has isolated himself.

 

[Turjan]

I'd interpret this alignment in a practical way. It's a guideline for the GM on how to play the dragon. If the adventurers find themselves in the position to negotiate with a Green or Blue Dragon, they might get a reliable contract out of this, if they voice the dragon's part of the deal carefully. A lawful creature will abide by the contract as far as the wording reaches, even if it's evil. The necessity to live in a large hierarchical group has nothing to do with this, though the dragons of a certain region may have a distinct hierarchy.

 

[Cintra]

Lawful creatures have a strong need to follow rules as patterns of behavior. Someone with Aspergers Syndrome (sp?) or someone who is autistic has a very strong need for certain things to follow rules, and they can be very disturbed when those rules aren't followed - but they aren't likely to be strongly social individuals.