Is Tolerance a Lawful thing ?

[Celebrim]

I actually really like the D20 Modern concept of Allegiances. I wish that has just replaced alignment in D&D. It’s more flexible and allows you to really get to the heart of what a character’s values are in a few words with minimal interpretation.

While I like Allegiances as well and think you could quite profitably replace alignments with allegiances, I am not nearly as sanguine as you that this solves the problems you claim alignments have. In fact, I'm pretty certain the problem will only get worse.

The problem is not likely to be with loyalties to concrete things like a person or a country, although I can see some problems there with it being highly unlikely most characters - even Captain America - actually has loyalty to a person or country as their highest value. Characters that never have a problem with anything someone else does or asks them to do are imaginable, but in most cases aren't the sort of character players want to play. For one thing, that will often mean in practice being absolutely obedient to the game master in as much as the game master is responsible for impersonating those persons.

The real problem is that most people's moral code is not going to in fact be more precisely defined than broad terms like 'Good' or 'Lawful' or whatever. (And I can think of a lot of them but I'm not going to list them for fear of derailing the conversation.) And I very much then think that you are therefore multiplying the problem of ambiguity and interpretation rather than reducing it. If you want to actually avoid this at least to some extent, you have to do the work ahead of time of providing to the players a list of ethical/moral codes available in the campaign world with a detailed list of what each of those codes believes similar to what Pendragon does in the world of King Arthur. That won't fully solve the problem but then at least it will be somewhat clear what exactly a given character has allegiance to.

 

[Blue Orange]

Depends what you're tolerating. Religious practices that involve human sacrifice? Intolerance of those might easily be considered 'good'.

All other things equal, I'd say it leans chaotic (not evil!) as laws are rules that you can't (or must) do something. Given that most modern gamers value tolerance highly, this might be a nice way to do the Lawful is Not Always Good thing for DMs with a taste for moral dilemmas.

 

[Hand of Evil]

I disagree with part of this. Having a personal code or oath has little or nothing to do with Lawful. Lawful is following the laws of the realm, or subset thereof. Having a personal code that you follow regardless of local law would be a chaotic trait...

Lawful Good, and Lawful in general, do not lend themselves to tolerance. Lawful societies would regulate what behaviors are appropriate, with the Good/Evil spectrum determining what is okay. But none of them would allow much leeway for divergence or freedom of expression...which are Chaotic traits.

In the realm of Dungeons and Dragons, Lawful Good is best expressed by the paragons of the ethos: Paladins. Between Detect Evil and Smite Evil, I think their level of tolerance is made very clear...

Trying using the boy scout oath for a paladin.

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.

 

[Andvari]

To me, Lawful implies a tendency of mistrust towards that which does not conform, while Chaotic embraces non-conformity and individuality. Thus, I see Tolerance as a Chaotic trait.

 

[delericho]

I actually really like the D20 Modern concept of Alliegences. I wish that has just replaced alignment in D&D. It’s more flexible and allows you to really get to the heart of what a character’s values are in a few words with minimal interpretation.

Don't 5e's Bond and Ideal do much the same thing?

 

[Ixal]

I disagree with part of this. Having a personal code or oath has little or nothing to do with Lawful. Lawful is following the laws of the realm, or subset thereof. Having a personal code that you follow regardless of local law would be a chaotic trait...

I think its the opposite.
Lawful people are the ones making plans for everything. Adhere to a code, make private business plans, discuss strategy and so on.
Chaotic people do things decided by intuition on the spot. If they see a opportunity they grab it, don't put much value on strategy because it won't survive contact with "the enemy" anyway and so on.

Tolerance has nothing to do with law a chaos.

 

[aglondier]

I think its the opposite.
Lawful people are the ones making plans for everything. Adhere to a code, make private business plans, discuss strategy and so on.
Chaotic people do things decided by intuition on the spot. If they see a opportunity they grab it, don't put much value on strategy because it won't survive contact with "the enemy" anyway and so on.

Tolerance has nothing to do with law a chaos.

I think you are equating Chaotic with Random. If the axis was Order/Chaos, that might work as the definition. But we are working on a Law/Chaos axis that has been defined as law-abiding vs freedom-loving.

I do agree that Tolerance does not lie on this axis.

 

[Committed Hero]

If the definition of tolerance is "a permissive attitude towards opinions/beliefs/ethnicities/practices that differ from one's own" then it probably hinges on whether those differences arise from personal distinctions or societal. For the former, I would consider tolerance a Good trait; for the latter, a chaotic one.

I can envision a society that enshrines tolerance in its laws (the US tries, bless its heart), but to me that tacitly acknowledges an orthodoxy of some sort, and a (probable) minority of individuals that deviates from it - which still sounds like a matter of Good over Law. An Evil society would force the minority to comply with the orthodoxy.

 

[le Redoutable]

so, is there a link in between Tolerance and Jack of All Trades ?
" you must not hate anything from what the world gives you as spiritual food "
or
" check every path that exists ( until you find your Path ? ) "
" don't put aside unfriendly ( or unpopular ) matters because, in reality you should bear skill in every known field ( or discipline, or chakra, or even in the professional/amateur/lucky how can them get defined ? )

and Jack of All Trades lets you embrace new skills with a bargain ...

 

[Staffan]

I address this argument later on in my post, but once again there is a big difference between tolerance of freedom of expression and tolerance of actual evil. If your neighbor paints his house yellow, and you prefer blue and think yellow is ugly, it's quite likely under a lawful moral code that not only is your neighbor allowed to pick yellow but you are required by that same moral code to be tolerant of your neighbors mysterious love of yellow.

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.