• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

On the Subjective Nature of Law

Philip

Explorer
Vrecknidj said:
In my own campaign, I ask all my players to answer these four questions for each of their characters; each is to be answered on a spectrum from +5 to -5.

snip...

1) How organized is this individual (i.e. does he keep track of where every item in his backpack is, or would he lose his keys everyday if he lived in this world)? +5 = very organized.

2) How practical is this individual (i.e. is he a "head in the clouds" type or a "feet on the ground" type)? +5 = feet so on the ground that there's hardly any creativeness

3) How outgoing is this individual (i.e. is he very sociable or mostly shy; or, does he have great tolerance for others or almost none)? +5 = very sociable or very tolerant

4) Does this person prefer to gather information or put it to use (i.e. is he more like the researcher who just can't get enough data, or more like the CEO who makes the decision once the data is in)? +5 = pure researcher

Most of my player's characters (see above) would, if I asked him rate somewhere between 15-20. He is utterly not a group player and others find him totally unpredictable. I cannot label his actions other than chaotic, he almost never manages to adapt.

Other players would rate his characters a bit lower, maybe 12-16, because they would likely give him a 1 on the 'sociable' score and high scores on the rest.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Kahuna Burger

First Post
Wombat said:
or we could just fall down to the level of the Chinese Legalist theory...

If even minor offenses are punishable by the death penalty, no one will commit any crimes at all.

I don't know if Legalism ever got beyond the pure theory stage, but it is a truly frightening and logical, the ultimate reductionism.

frightning, yes, but logical hardly if you mean that the conclusion will follow from the premise. I rather liked a bit in the Cartoon History of the Universe illustrating the breakdown of such a system. A sizable wing of an army has lost their way in a swamp, and the commander is talking to his second in command.
Whats the penalty for rebellion?
Death.
Huh, whats the penalty for being late on assigned movements?
Er... death.
Guess what, we're late.
cut to scene of destructive rebellion. ;)

In the smaller scale, such a system means that if you lose your temper and slap someone, you might as well kill them, since murder carries the same penalty as simple assualt. If you feel driven to commit a robbery, you're better off murdering any witnesses and burning down the place to hide the evidence because you haven't increased your penalty if you do get caught. Having a single overwhellming punishment for every crime may cause some people not to commit crimes at all, but on a society wide level it will just escalate crimes to the highest degree.

Anyway, as for the larger question, I generally agree that lawful doesn't HAVE to mean law abiding (though it can) but would point out that the Paladin specificly is not bound merely by being lawful good, but by a specific code which includes respecting legitamate authority (and no word games that any authority which would disagree with him on any point is illegitamate). So its IMHO important for these discussion to look at either non paladin lawful behaviour or paladin behaviour, not conflate the two.

Kahuna Burger
 


Sejs

First Post
I'm another of those people that believe that using the word "Lawful" to describe one of the 4 arms of alignment was a really bad move, though an understandable one. We're all human, after all.

Anyway. Lawful means Orderly. Lawful does not mean Jurisprudence.

Order, the concept of order, does not change from place to place they same way that local laws can, such as PCs chewing gum example above. Order at its core means things doing what they're supposed to in the manner that they're supposed to and interacting in a structured, regulated manner. Thing X acts in way Y becuase that's how it's supposed to.

Lawful aligned people would interact with local legislation differently depending on the second component of their alignment. Generally speaking, of course.

A lawful good person would generally adhere to an area's laws so long as doing so in an individual instance was to the benefit of the people. Don't kill unless it's in self defense - easy. Don't steal - easy. Don't rape - easy. Don't chew bubble gum - easy, as chewing bubble gum isn't that big a deal for anybody. If a woman does not wear a hat in your presence you are required to beat her - no; because despite what they law may be, the LG person would easily recognise it as being harmful and wrong-headed. If a slave looks you in the eyes, you must have them put out - no; again, the law is not morally right and the good portion of their alignment would protest. And so forth.

A lawful neutral person would generally adhere to an area's laws so long as doing so was to the benefit of the society, rather than to the benefit of the people that make up that society.

A lawful evil person would generally adhere to an area's laws so long as doing so was to the benefit of himself. Twist the system to your advantage. Do with what you can get away with. The appearance of fairness is more important than the practice of fairness. It's not what you know, it's what you can prove.

In all, though, a Lawful person is lawful (to say, orderly) even in a vaccuum. Even in an area that has no laws that punish lying, giving false witness, or breaking a contract a lawful person would still keep their word, tell the truth on what they considdered important matters (what's important to them being in part determined by the G-N-E portion of their alignment, again), and uphold their end of a bargain. A lawful person wouldn't enter into a contract they had no intention of honoring, because once they're comitted, they're comitted. A lawful person would not make make promises they had no intention of keeping; to a lawful person a man is as good as his word. The examples could go on and on. Lawful people act how they're supposed to, because they're supposed to.


A lawful person is orderly, structured, disciplined, and conventional in their personal affairs, outlook and mannerisms. An area's legal structure has no bearing on the way in which they conduct their lives; they're Lawful no matter what local legislation may be.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
Philip said:
Yes, and if a crime is committed, the person is either:

a. obviously crazy, and not responsible for his actions
b. obviously unaware that his actions transgressed the law, or he would not have comitted them

or...
c. less obviously crafty, and is trying to use the simplicity of logic to appear as if he were as in case (a) or (b) in an attempt to excuse unlawful behavior.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
Savage Wombat said:
So, in conclusion - if you allow for the subjective nature of Law (or any alignment) you MUST therefore throw out or reinterpret the alignment system with regards to magic. Otherwise you have conflict.

Who wants to argue with me? Anyone? Bueller?

I will argue with you.

1) To be lawful, it is not sufficient to have laws. Those laws must create an orderly and functioning society. Given a world that is not in all places uniform, conditions will vary from place to place. Laws that are not crafted to take local conditions into account will create disorder - laws suited for governing cattle ranchers will not function well when applied to fishermen, for example. Thus, those who wish to increase the overall orderliness of the universe must on occasion bend to local conditions. This is allowable, so long as the end result is orderly society.

2) A lawful person desires and creates orderliness. To go against local laws would create disorderliness. Thus, the lawful person will tend to follow the local law, so long as there is no driving reason to do otherwise.
 

Gez

First Post
Metaphysical Principle of LAW != one culture's set of laws and customs.

Indeed, it's quite possible to have chaotic laws... A paladin is required to obey Law, not law. Usually, being Lawful demands to be also law-abiding, but that's not an obligation at all.
 

Sejs

First Post
Another way to look at it would be that a society that is made up of only lawful people wouldn't need laws, or would only need very few laws, because the people would act in a way that would be beneficial to the society without having to be told "Don't do this, or else." A bee hive is lawful. The Borg are lawful. The constituent works for the better of the whole over the better of the individual.


Chaotic = me.
Lawful = us.


Savage Wombat said:
Who wants to argue with me? Anyone? Bueller?
If Chewbacca is a wookie that lives on Endor, you must acquit.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top