Lawful society v. Chaotic PCs

[Jon Potter]

In my game, I've set up a strange cult/society of elves and nomads who have been forced to live and work together by a lawful beholder and his minions. Essentially, he's Charmed them into working together. The beholder is NOT evil (he's Lawful Neutral - emphasis on Lawful) and is honestly trying to bring about an orderly society; eliminating free will is an incidental and acceptable sacrifice. This is all per Goodman Games' excellent "Complete Guide ot Beholders", a sourcebook that I highly recommend.

But anyway, all of that is just background. Into this orderly society come the PCs. They met with the beholder and were properly frightened by his anti-magic cone and many zapping rays. They and the beholder share a common foe so both sides were hoping to work together. Two of the PCs, however, are Chaotic (Good and Neutral respectively) and they have a long history of antagonizing each other. Well, it finally came to blows. In the middle of the street. Shortly after the beholder's lacky had given the group approval to outfit themselves in town.

What should the consequences for disrupting this "perfect society" be, IYO?

 

[Tonguez]

Encephalic Clyster

 

[DreadArchon]

They're only fighting each other?

Ignore the fight, but of course make them pay for any incidental damage to the surroundings.

I don't see how a fight in the street matters much if the town itself isn't involved somehow.

 

[AntiStateQuixote]

They're only fighting each other?

Ignore the fight, but of course make them pay for any incidental damage to the surroundings.

I don't see how a fight in the street matters much if the town itself isn't involved somehow.

Because a lawful society, by definition, interferes with the free will of individuals. A fight between two people is, on its face, an afront to a lawful society that believes that the government should regulate individual behavior. Fights are counter productive and do not help society. A lawful society sees the individual as a cog in the machine that must conform and cooperate for the machine to run efficiently. At least, that's how the LN beholder led society came across to me.

As to the OP, I'll turn the question around on you . . . what kind of result would be fun for you and your players? Do you want to change the current campaign focus into a struggle between the chaotic, freedom-loving PCs vs. a well-intentioned, but restrictive lawful government? If so, then have some harsh penalties for their fight that pretty much demand the PCs to "fight the power". Mabye they will be imprisoned until trial and the likely penalty is death for "crimes against the peace of society."

If you would prefer to continue your current campaign focus with the LN beholder as a convenient ally then make the penalties less harsh. Maybe harsh enough that it would definitely deter the average citizen from fighting, but not so harsh as to illicit a fighting response from the PCs. Maybe the penalty is a stiff fine that the average citizen couldn't easily afford, and would be forced to "work off" in servitude to the state, but which a PC can pay without breaking a sweat: 100 - 1,000 gp?

 

[sckeener]

Why not charm them into compliance? Isn't that what the beholder is doing to get its perfect society?

If that doesn't work, as I assume it doesn't on some of the elves, I assume there are ways of reeducating the troublemakers or making them disappear....

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

All I can think of is the ST:TNG episode where Wesley Crusher is running in this peace, love and joy society. He trips, ruining some flowers and is sentenced to death for it.

What would the beholder do if two of its citizens were to fight each other? I might consider a break of the rules a little and make the beholder ensorcell the two PCs so they are suddenly best buddies. I know it could make for quite a hoot with some players I've had in the past watching them roleplay that out.


{Begin threadjack}

This is all per Goodman Games' excellent "Complete Guide ot Beholders", a sourcebook that I highly recommend.

I thought Beholders were considered proprietary to WotC. How can a 3rd party publisher put this out? Not that it really matters to me, I'm just curious since I thought they were pretty big on trying to protect these things.

{end threadjack}

 

[DreadArchon]

Because a lawful society, by definition, interferes with the free will of individuals. A fight between two people is, on its face, an afront to a lawful society that believes that the government should regulate individual behavior. Fights are counter productive and do not help society. A lawful society sees the individual as a cog in the machine that must conform and cooperate for the machine to run efficiently. At least, that's how the LN beholder led society came across to me.

...So? These are adventurer allies that we're talking about here. They're not part of the machine. The Beholder may ask, even a bit forcefully, that they not do that again, but if they didn't disrupt the machine or throw off any of the cogs, why does it matter enough to justify sudden hostility?

 

[AntiStateQuixote]

...So? These are adventurer allies that we're talking about here. They're not part of the machine. The Beholder may ask, even a bit forcefully, that they not do that again, but if they didn't disrupt the machine or throw off any of the cogs, why does it matter enough to justify sudden hostility?

There are many political reasons, but the most important reason would be that it could make for a good story. If not, then I wouldn't do it. But I could easily see a fun story developing as the freedom fighting chaotic PCs band together with like-minded individualists in the LN society to throw off the yoke of legal tyranny brought on by the beholder.

As to the political:
1) Many believe that in order for a lawful society to function that the law must be applied equally to all, or at the least it must appear to apply equally. If not you will have rebellion among those who feel mistreated by the disparity in application of the law.

2) A failure to punish the PCs may be interpreted by the subjects of the law as some weakness on the part of the beholder. Not a good thing for a tyrant.

3) Does this lawful society sport any democratic trappings like elections? If so then political enemies and/or demagogoues could seize this event as a political issue to use against the beholder. How often in politics do we hear of politicians ruined by seemingly minor events that are blown up by their political enemies? Why give the opponent any potential ammo?

4) A tyranical creature like a beholder could easily see a breach of its laws as a personal attack that requires retribution.

5) Because it's the law! I know that sounds simplistic, but I've seen and heard very intelligent people make what I consider very silly arguments for an action (or lack of action) simply "becuase it's the law." Just because the beholder is hyper intelligent does not mean it cannot be subject to a simlilar mental blindeness when it comes to legal transgressions. In fact, my interpretation of the OP is exactly that . . . the beholder believes that the law solves all problems and will make for the perfect society if it can maintain order.

 

[DreadArchon]

5) Because it's the law!

No, that's my point. Is it the law? Attempting to subjugate one's allies for breaking laws that don't apply to them would itself be rather disruptive to the society. Shouldn't they have diplomatic immunity or something like that, at least for minor infractions? Even the obsessively Lawful Neutral can and should pay some attention to public relations.

 

[AntiStateQuixote]

No, that's my point. Is it the law? Attempting to subjugate one's allies for breaking laws that don't apply to them would itself be rather disruptive to the society. Shouldn't they have diplomatic immunity or something like that, at least for minor infractions? Even the obsessively Lawful Neutral can and should pay some attention to public relations.

Ah, good point and not one I considered. In (most) modern societies anyone present within a given community/state/nation is considered to be subject to the laws of the land regardless of his/her home/origin with some few exceptions like the diplomatic immunity you mentioned. I applied the same thinking to our current situaiton. Because the OP asked the question, I think it is safe to assume that no such exception/immunity applies. If it did then the original question is moot.