Need help in playing lawful characters

[Ferghis]

YThink about the differance between a LEGAL SYSTEM and a JUSTICE SYSTEM. In the states currently we have more of a legal as opposed to a justice system. Think Batman vs Superman. Superman is more of the Legal system and Batman is more of the Justice system. Both can be LG for example and have VASTLY opposing views. Some things in this country are leagal and unjust and some are illegal and just. Depending on the state where you live and even the locality if you use force to defend your self and you are wholy justified (moraly) in doing so you can still go to jail and or be sued in civil court. It happens all the time. It is an out cropping of our legal system, and though you were not in the wrong for defending your self or familly you could have commited an illegal act and end up in jail anyways. Unjust but legal.

Good post. I still think this overlaps lawfulness too much with good. I think Batman, who doesn't associate much with formal institutions (I'd consider the various Justice Leagues he's been a part of more akin to a party of adventurers), might be better considered Chaotic Good, given his disdain for most of the police and other "formal" institutions that work to achieve justice. If you really want to argue about his cooperation with the police via the Batsignal and all that, I could agree that he is NG.

Thinking about it, the old TV series Batman might be LG. The batphone thing and his chummy ways with law enforcement might carry that argument. But Miller's Batman is most likely CG. For me.

 

[Wraith-Hunter]

Good post. I still think this overlaps lawfulness too much with good. I think Batman, who doesn't associate much with formal institutions (I'd consider the various Justice Leagues he's been a part of more akin to a party of adventurers), might be better considered Chaotic Good, given his disdain for most of the police and other "formal" institutions that work to achieve justice. If you really want to argue about his cooperation with the police via the Batsignal and all that, I could agree that he is NG.

Thinking about it, the old TV series Batman might be LG. The batphone thing and his chummy ways with law enforcement might carry that argument. But Miller's Batman is most likely CG. For me.

Batmans is actually a tough one because of all the different versions of him. Some have used firearms and some were on the whole antifirearm kick in the 90's. SOme show him as being a good guy and some he is damn near LE. The "general" batman is usually more concerned with Justice than with the niceties of Law but could still be LG. Sometimes the legal system fails it self. Many times BM is a vigilanty but upholds moral (mala in se) laws. Whereas Superman is more of upholding both mala in se and mala phohibita. Batman generally cares for mala in se.

I personally always prefered Good Lawful to Lawful Good. You see lots of cop shows and movies talk about this issue. A good one is 'A Time to Kill' with Donald Southerland, Matthew McHonaughy, Samule L Jackson. There is a really good scene where DS talks to MM and states that no matter who wins the case 'justice' is done. The kicker is wether natural justice or legal justice is done.

IRL I know many people who are decent people and are very lawful. They are more concerned about following the law than determining if the law it self is just these are not LN people I am refering to. They try to do whats right but are -more- concerned with laws, they just don't think about wether the laws are just or not,this does not occur to them. If it is a law it is good enough for them. Then there are people who also believe in laws, very strongly they are very much lawful. But they look at the law themselves and see injustice and see evil and want the law changed or abolished. Feel good laws might be a good example. Say a jelous husband says he is going to come home and kill his wife. She tries to buy a handgun to defend herself. She can't because of waiting periods. The husband violates the restraining order comes over, she calls 911 and is killed before the cops get there. - Almost happened to my monther so this is an IRL. The waiting period was a feel good law. Most of the time it is an annoyance to lawabiding people but in some situations can cause the death of an inocent person. There is a counter point to this argument of course, and for brevity it is a simplified situation.

The Civil War series of Comics already mentioned is another VERY good read for this argument. What do you do when a law is unjust. I have played with a DM who took a Paladins status away for breaking a law that was neutral at best. This particular DM was much more concerned with mala prohibita. Frankly the Paladin was screwed etiher way, not that the Dm saw it that way, no not my character. I don't like Paladins in general.

So as far as advice goes find out what your DM thinks of as lawful vs chaotic. Personaly I detest law vs chaos unless it is very setting dependent where chaos magic has a totaly different mechanic from Law magic. Wherin Chaos magic is corrupting and inherently evil.

I would rather see Law vs Chaos OR Good vs Evil. I don't think they mesh very well in DnD. I think it is better to use one or the other. I'm sure lots of people will disagree with me and this is just my preferance. I liked LvC in some novels I read but they were very setting dependent, not genaric DnD. Most DM's I've played with only used alignment for game based effects and were much more concerned with good vs evil. For instance the paladin can't go around killing bar maids for XP. But would not care if the paladin killed a murderer after he saw him kill an inocent child, even if technically he was supposed to 'dial 911' The DM basically viewed it as upholding mala in se laws, though he didn't use that term it is a legal one, that is how he played. I know other DM's that would consider that a chaotic act as it violated mala prohibita.

Both of them are right

That is why you have to find out what your DM views as lawful because he is god in the game. THEN get specific advice. You can see this in this thread already different views of lawful behavior. And in this case both sides are right. What the argument breaks down to is wether you are more concerned with mala in se or mala prohibita.

 

[Henry]

You really need to talk to your DM about what HE/SHE thinks is lawfull.

I don't think I've read better advice in the whole thread. This is what the most practical answer is, when all is said: Just be sure that whatever definition you use, your group, or at least you and your DM, are on the same page.

 

[Stalker0]

To me, Lawful is about consistency, to what is what you pick.

If your version of law is about adhering to the man, then always adhere to the man no matter where you go.

If your personal code says you can never retreat when a woman is in danger, then you've got to stay whether that woman is a wonderful person or an evil *****.

But some people do use the personal code as a way of just doing what they want with a lawful alignment, and that's not the point. If your going with a personal code, write it down and stick to it!

 

[jollyninja]

every character has a set of morals just as every person has a set of morals weither they write it down or not. Writing it down does not make the character lawful. lawful characters tend to treat authority figures with respect, try to work within the system when they can (weither for the advantage of all for LG, to advance their superiors agenda for LN or personal gain for LE) and they expect others to do so as well. Even when trying to change the system, they will use the conventional means of doing so. Rather then revolt against the powers that be, change their minds or become one of them. They recognize that the fact that the rules by which we live are not perfect is less important then the fact that that there are rules and if one were to go picking and choosing which ones apply, there would be anarchy. I'm not saying a lawful character will never break a rule, lie, cheat or steal. I'm just saying that their tendency would be toward working within the system.

 

[Phlebas]

I have played with a DM that penalized a player who was Lawful for inadvertantly breaking the law of a land he was not from. Dm basically wanted the lawful characters to search out all the laws of wherever they were and then follow them, though he would not come out and say this.

That neatly sums up how not to play Lawful - does that means paladins should sacrifice babies when travelling in evil lands when thats the law? Should Lawful Evil characters turn surrender at the borders and apolgise for leading an enemy army. If anything lawful characters are MORE likely to disobey strange laws if they violate the codes they try to live to

Lawful is about a state of mind where 'the code' - the rules - are what counts, and what you do is ultimately judged by your rules. Think Lancelot (LG), think judge dredd (LN), think of a mafia boss(LE)

Chaotic is where your judgement on each situation is more important than what others codes - or the rules say. Think Robin Hood (CG), think Han Solo, (CN), think hanibal lecter (CE)

Neutral people judge each rule on its merits depending on how it impacts them or their ideals.

 

[billd91]

One of the way I look at the differences between lawful and chaotic creatures is to look at why they do things the way they do and what customs to they follow. A character may belong to any number of distinct groups larger than him self: an ethnic group, a race, a city, a kingdom, a religion, a professional organization. Each of these organizations has its own customs, expectations, and requirements.

A lawful character intends to conform to as many of those customs faithfully as he can without them conflicting. It's something he naturally wants to do because, based on his lawful approach to the world, it's the right thing to do. His personal codes conform to broader codes as much as they can. Customs from all of these groups are often in conflict and then, the lawful character will choose which group has the priority to follow at the expense of the others. Take Don Corleone as an example of a likely lawful evil character. He is reasonably patriotic, family comes first, devout and yet criminal. Of the organizations in his life that could claim his allegiance, he has prioritized his professional organization (the mob), his family, his ethnic group, and religion over his country and its laws.

A chaotic character intends to conform to those customs that he personally feels are appropriate for him. Thus, his personal codes, and he probably has some, are idiosynchratic and individual. He follows them because they appeal to him as right for him, not because they are the right thing to do for everyone in the organization. The customs he follows should have their own intenal logic to compel them, not merely the weight of time.

If you want to project a lawful character, I would suggest thinking of customs and traditions to follow or favor. Respect the social order. Respect honor and agreements. Respect the rules of your religion, your country. Things are done this way because there is value in doing them this way, proven by years of tradition. As a lawful character, you would recognize this weight of history and agree that it has a certain compelling logic to it rather than throw it away on personal fancies. You and your beliefs are the product of tried and true methods. Be proud of them. Defend them. Uphold them.

 

[billd91]

I don't think I've read better advice in the whole thread. This is what the most practical answer is, when all is said: Just be sure that whatever definition you use, your group, or at least you and your DM, are on the same page.

Amen to that. And if your DM's view of lawful conflicts with what people have been saying here (not that we're all in agreement), then send him here to be schooled!

 

[Wraith-Hunter]

every character has a set of morals just as every person has a set of morals weither they write it down or not. Writing it down does not make the character lawful. lawful characters tend to treat authority figures with respect, try to work within the system when they can (weither for the advantage of all for LG, to advance their superiors agenda for LN or personal gain for LE) and they expect others to do so as well. Even when trying to change the system, they will use the conventional means of doing so. Rather then revolt against the powers that be, change their minds or become one of them. They recognize that the fact that the rules by which we live are not perfect is less important then the fact that that there are rules and if one were to go picking and choosing which ones apply, there would be anarchy. I'm not saying a lawful character will never break a rule, lie, cheat or steal. I'm just saying that their tendency would be toward working within the system.

That argument breaks down though. If a character is LG and the 'system' is LE the system it self maybe the problem. Read some American History. (Note this is a clash of 2 systems not refering to LG vs LE, both could be agrued as LG).

"Lawfull" basically means different things to different people and is a rather clumsy game mechanic subject to the arbitrary whim of the DM.

In regards to Anarchy and picking and choosing rules that is exactly what the founders of the USA did, and anarchy was the LAST thing any of them wanted.

Lawfull behavior could be following the Shaolin Moral code or a Cop upholding the racist laws enacted after the civil war in certain parts of the south. Both could be lawful good.

A personal code could be short and simple but sacred to the person following it, and this is supported by the current edition rule set. Not every lawful person has to be a gov't fanboy.

The fact of the matter is everyone has opinions on lawfull behavior and they are as varied as the number of people who are being asked. Just look at the Complete Scoundral Alignment thread. Every one has different ideas of what the given characters alignments would be. I disagree with abotu 50% of them.

Unfortunately the DnD alignment system is clunky at best. Some love it, some hate it most I would say are indifferent.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

More than one person has recommended personal codes.

That's a load of hooey, in my opinion. Having a personal moral code is basically the same thing as saying "I live by my own rules". That's the essence of chaos, in my book.

That depends.

Does your list of rules boil down to, "Do whatever feels right"?

If so, that's Chaotic.

Does your list of rules look more like, "I have the following hierarchy of loyalty: Ship, Shipmate, Self"?

That's more Lawful (and, hopefully, LG; LE might be Ship, Self, Shipmate).

Chaos changes - early, and often. It recognizes that each and every situation should be approached on its own merits; don't forget everything you've learned, certainly, but recognize the small changes that make no two situations exactly the same.

Law changes - late, and slowly. It recognizes that each and every situation is similar to all other situations that have gone before; remember everything you've learned, and recognize the elements that make even two widely disparate situations - at first blush - similar.

A Chaotic historian might write a moving biography, explaining how one man [woman, thing] at the right moment lead a movement to change the world.

A Lawful historian might write a moving sociography, explaining how a society came to the point where it "created" a required group of leaders to take charge of a movement and alter the world.

They're both describing the American Revolution.

How does a particular Lawful character feel about democracy? He's for it; it allows the grouping of people into political parties based on shared ideologies. Together, they wield more power than any individual could.

How does a particular Chaotic character feel about democracy? He's for it; it allows the ultimate political power to reside exactly where it should: in the individual. A leader with the right ideas can inspire each and every individual to follow him, making those ideas reality.

In other words, much like Good and Evil characters can come to the same conclusion about what the "right thing to do" in any given situation is, Lawful and Chaotic characters can do the same. The reasoning will be different, but the result of the "ethical math" will be the same.