Is Tolerance a Lawful thing ?

[le Redoutable]

It's not exactly uncommon to have local regulations stipulating that houses need to adhere to some form of conformity, such as all the houses on a particular street being painted in a particular shade, or need to have lawns where the grass isn't taller than a specified height. Some people also think that people should dress in particular ways, enforcing dress codes at schools or work places. These kinds of regulations are made by people who clearly believe conformity in itself has value, and that variety is inherently bad – or in D&D terms, an excessive dedication to Law/Order.

then it is no Dedication but submission to the local Laws

 

[Staffan]

then it is no Dedication but submission to the local Laws

Someone thought conformity was important enough to make rules about it (generally more of regulation status than actual law status). Others thought it was important enough to enforce those regulations. That's a pretty strong dedication to the concept of conformity.

 

[Celebrim]

It's not exactly uncommon to have local regulations stipulating that houses need to adhere to some form of conformity, such as all the houses on a particular street being painted in a particular shade, or need to have lawns where the grass isn't taller than a specified height. Some people also think that people should dress in particular ways, enforcing dress codes at schools or work places. These kinds of regulations are made by people who clearly believe conformity in itself has value, and that variety is inherently bad – or in D&D terms, an excessive dedication to Law/Order.

I don't disagree so much as I think you are partially missing the point. As I noted, this conversation gets complicated when you start bringing the good/evil axis into it, and that the answer really depends on how you define tolerance. Because while you've done a good job at defining conformity as a moral value, it's not at all clear that tolerance is the opposite of conformity. Tolerance is in my opinion more related to your response to diversity and non-conformity. It doesn't necessarily imply approval or agreement or even that you think that the diversity on display is a good thing. Rather, it has to do with what compassion you extend toward those that have beliefs you disagree with and which might offend you.

If there is nothing you disagree with or nothing you find disagreeable, then it's not possible to be tolerant. You're just indifferent. Tolerance shows up with there are things that bother you, but you feel compelled to be generous toward what you think perhaps you have a right to be bothered by.

As I said, I think tolerance is a species of Mercy (which is ultimately a variety of Love), and those aren't Lawful virtues.

Sometimes I like to define the alignments by aphorisms or axioms. LN (and neutrality in generally) tends to believe in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Whatever crime anyone is guilty of, they are punished according to what they deserve. LE (and evil in general) on the other hand tends to believe in at least an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. More often and more justly in their mind, a life for an eye and a hand for a loaf of bread - whatever slight or failing is to be found, must be avenged several fold against the guilty. Answer any insult with a blow; answer any blow with death. LG (and good in general) on the other hand tends to believe in at most an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth, and if it all possible treat people not as the deserve but better than they deserve.

So while I agree with you that Lawful Good by virtue of being Lawful will tend to want and desire a much higher standard of conformity than say Chaotic Good, both groups will value Tolerance to some degree. The difference is going to be mostly on how they define the standard of what you tolerate, whether it's up to your personal judgment on the assumption you'll have a personal relationship to the person you are tolerating or whether it's encoded into an external set of rules intended to guide everyone and specify how you are allowed to use your freedoms. But note, because the code is LG, it's going to want to encourage a degree tolerance even in situations where the code is transgressed.

And even in your examples, there are complexities you aren't really considering. There is a difference between a dress code and a uniform, both in practice and in motivation. And there are a heck of a lot of motivations for both that have nothing to do with conformity. Like a uniform can be mandated for safety reasons, or a uniform can be mandated because it communicates something to the viewer like ("this person is available to help me in this way"). I despise neighborhood associations, but even they often have motivations beyond just love of conformity.

 

[Parmandur]

Yes:

 

[Piratecat]

Been trying to find a post by @Piratecat that was very well done, that would add a good bit to this thread but have not yet.

If you remember what I said, maybe I can paraphrase it. MAYBE.

 

[le Redoutable]

or, perhaps is Tolerance the way of letting people ( even people you dislike ) try their luck on you

 

[Tallifer]

Many years ago, I would have said, "No, tolerance is the essence of free thinking and non-conformity. Law is the essence of conformity, social cohesion and tradition."

However, being a Canadian, I have in my lifetime seen the Law used to impose tolerance, perversion, moral relativism and child abuse, so who the bleep knows.

Play your game in whatever world you live in, I guess.

 

[Jmarso]

My experience IRL with tolerance is that it only extends to the limits of any one person's subjective personal beliefs, and no further. As such, 'tolerance' on the personal level is the antithesis of 'lawfulness', so therefore, 'tolerance' is a building block of chaos, not law.

 

[Selvarin]

Some projection on here. Echoes of "I'm a good person (because I am), and I consider myself X, therefore Y...."

D&D alignment does not 'align' itself well when it comes to politics or personal habits. It's a general. As useful as it is, it breaks down when trying to apply it to real-world. In real life I could/can have politics which suggest chaos and personal habits or traits which suggest and orderly (lawful) personality.

What I found interesting in (A)D&D was Planescape and the concept of factions. It wasn't an absolute straightjacket, yes a faction would tend to attract a particular group but others may champion that faction and its goals from a different mindset.

 

[le Redoutable]

mine answer here is that you can have different Levels of experience, with a spending of xp levels among the nine Alignments
( for example, a 10th level pc could have 7 Levels of LG + 1 Level of CE + 2 Levels of LN )