On the Subjective Nature of Law

[random user]

If you had a spell, say, "Detect Precious Metals" - and then found out that, in this region, platinum didn't register because the locals didn't consider it precious - would you think that a reasonable ruling?

I think if you cast that spell you would find the platinum, but if a local cast the spell he would not find the platinum.

My friend had a good analogy from real life. I believe I can relate it without totally mangling it, but please correct me if I'm wrong.

In the United States, you are not allowed to export goods to Cuba as per some law I think it was the US Embargo Act, but I'm not sure. I'm just going to call it that for this discussion though.

In Canada, if you are a Canadian corporation, you are not allowed to obey the US Embargo Act.

That's fine, until you find a Canadian subsidiary of a US corporation. If someone in Cuba wants you to export something to them, then if you ship it, you are obeying Canadian law and breaking US law. If you don't ship it you break Canadian law and obey US law.


Getting back to DnD, I run my paladins like this: they have a personal code of honor (specific to each paladin and their diety). It may include things like: I will never steal. I will never lie. I will never allow an innocent to die. I will never use my weapon against an unarmed foe. etc etc.

It will be ordered in terms of importance. So in the above example if an unarmed foe is seconds away from killing an innocent, and I don't think I'm going to be able to stop him by just calling out for him to stop, I'm going to strike at that unarmed foe. Yes, it's going against one of my tenets, but it's to protect one of the tenets I feel is more important.

At the end of that list is always: I will obey the laws of the land I am in.

But again, my paladin may disobey one of the laws of the land, if it's to protect one of his more important tenets. I don't think that's being unlawful. My law is written down in my code of honor, and I do not stray from it, nor does the code change from region to region. The code provides a way to settle disputes when parts of the code conflict with each other. If I break any my tenets without cause (cause being to uphold an even more important tenet) then I expect to have to atone. If I break one of my tenets to uphold an even more important tenet, I expect my god to understand that.

 

[tarchon]

If a Paladin lives somewhere where there's a law against being lawful, does he have to kill himself to retain his Paladinhood, or would that be an evil act?

 

[FireLance]

In my view, a lawful character simply believes that there should be rules, and people should follow rules. This is in contrast to a chaotic character who would believe that there should be no rules, or that there is no need to follow them, or a neutral character who may believe that rules are necessary in some areas, but are not needed in others.

Whether or not a person believes there should be rules can be objectively determined, and this is what is picked up by detect law.

That said, lawful characters may have very different ideas on what the rules should be. A lawful good and a lawful evil character would have very different ideas and support very different rules.

So what happens when a lawful character encounters a rule that he does not agree with? Well, he would try not to break it because of the lawful aspect of his nature, but he may very well decide to do so if there are other considerations. For example, a lawful evil person might decide to break a "foolish" (i.e. lawful good) rule if he stands to gain substantially, and a lawful good person might decide to break a "harsh" (i.e. lawful evil) rule to save a life.

 

[Hemlock Stones]

Please Stop Inciting Me... I Wanna Go To Sleep

GREETINGS!

First its hard to measure D&D Law with all of the previous analogies related to modern legal considerations. Too many loopholes essentially. Lawful is a misnomer. The intention was that lawful was intended to be analogous to ordered.

Seeing as how we are applying colorful analogies to the interpretation of law, please consider this axiom. Hot and cold are not two polar opposites. Cold is the absence of heat. That being said. Does order exist and chaos is the absence of order? Or do we consider randomness as being the natural way of things? Hence: Chaos is natural therefore order is the intentional premeditated assembly of random elements into a cohesive union.

Going a step further, consider this. We always place good and evil as two polar opposites. I've always thought of it as a troika: Good, Bad and Evil. I arrived at this from my religious teachings as a Christian in trying to identify the nature of sin. If you don't kill somebody, that's considered good. If you go out and intentionally slay somebody, that's evil. If while out in the world something you do inadvertently results in the death of somebody that's bad. Granted this is a simplification of one the most complex philosophical elements in life. This doesn't even scratch the surface of how the multitude of ramifications apply to any one of the three in the troika. When I say ramifications. I am talking about: social, legal, political, emotional, etc.

Roleplaying games take us into situations where we rise to the occasion and are victorious. (Notice I avoided any mention of alignment in that statement.) Sometimes we have to do things that are unpleasant and go against what we might otherwise prefer to do. We evaluate a means to best arrive at the ends that will best suit us. Sometimes we settle for less. Sometimes we fail. Sometimes things remain same. No matter what, we roll on and role on. Finding gratification from the stimulation of using our minds to solve problems that we don't have to face in the real world.

So Sayeth the Bone Daddy!

 

[S'mon]

You don't detect Law, you detect Lawfulness - ie a predisposition to Order, Predictability & Structure. A law that increased Chaos could thus not be Lawful, it could be Chaotic.

However I agree the "Detect X/Y/Z" system as absolutes is unworkable and I now use a subjective approach. So IMC the god Ksarul (highly organised, secretive, orderly, rebellious) might register as anything from LE to CG depending on the views of the assigner, though he wouldn't register as LG and probably not as NG.

 

[Hand of Evil]

My soapbox: The DM should define good and evil building culture taboos. Lawful if the following of rules, order, and strictures. While it can overlap with laws of the land it may not based on the character. Don't confuse law and lawful, one is the legal code and one is the nature of order.

 

[Faerl'Elghinn]

If strict adherence to the laws of the land is a requirement to maintain a "lawful" alignment, it would certainly present a difficult situation for a Paladin if said laws were inherently evil. I feel that the "lawful" alignment more accurately represents an unyielding demand for justice, while secondarily expressing support for a system of order. However, I will submit that- in my opinion- the Paladin is only justified in carrying out a death sentence when all of his other options have been exhausted. If he has the option of following local law to the letter in good conscience, and said law is justly enforced by those with the legal right to enforce it, then he must employ the proper legal channels. If the local laws are inherently unjust, then he cannot in good conscience stand by and watch evil acts be committed.

That said, I don't feel that giving in to one's impulses of rage is generally in keeping with a lawful alignment, as "lawful" also represents personal discipline to me.

 

[Vrecknidj]

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.

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

(Some of you will recognize where I got these questions from, but that's neither here nor there.)

Once I have these, I can see more clearly what kind of person I'm dealing with. Also, for some players, it helps them get a grip on what kind of alignment they might want for this individual.

But, as to the more direct question, I see Lawfulness the same way I see Evilness in this game. There are three categories. Here's my example from evil.

"evil" = an adjective to describe certain kinds of acts
"Evil" = an adjective to describe individuals who prefer "evil" acts
"EVIL" = a noun; the metaphysical force behind both "evil" and "Evil"

In the case of evil outsiders, for example, the individual could be considered between "Evil" and "EVIL" because, depending on the campaign perspective, a demon or devil might be composed of EVIL.

Similarly, we could do the same thing with lawful.

"lawful" = an adjective to describe certain kinds of acts (organized, social, legal, or however else others have defined them).
"Lawful" = an adjective to describe certain kinds of individuals (law enforcers come to mind)
"LAWFUL" = the metaphysical force that's the underpinning.

This is all very much taken from the idea of Plato's forms and fits well with a 3rd-century-BC Greek point of view. But, given the mythological underpinnings of D&D, and given that there's a very medieval-Roman-Greek historical chain at the game's core, I don't have a problem with it. Heck, the very notion of soul in the D&D game is basically a mixed Greco-Roman/Judeo-Christian-Islamic notion, more Dante-esque than Augustinian.

Dave

 

[Philip]

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.

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

 

[Philip]

I am not going to argue with you.

The name "Lawful" is misleading. It actually has little or nothing to do with "law" (in the legal sense). However, there are very few one-word summations for "reliant upon authority" as a personality trait.

Silveras, I think you are making a very good point. I agree that lawful is primarily choosing the group norm before your own convictions.

I have a player that plays very structured and rigid characters, his character's actions governed by strict guidelines. The other players feel he is completely unreliable though, and this is because his 'rules' are far removed from the group norm and they are unable to understand them (and the player is unable to explain them). This makes his characters extremely unpredictable, he might save his friends lives one moment and abandon them to a grisly fate the next.

While the player 'thinks' he plays lawful characters, I explained to him that he actually plays chaotic characters, because he lives completely by his own rules and doesn't care about someone else his rules (or the group norm). That's chaotic, even though his characters are rigid and rule-abiding.

Lawful is certainly misleading. Modron's and Formian are not Lawful because they follow a specified set of laws, they are lawful because they follow the group norm (some even have a group mind). Ultimate lawfulness means loss of individuality, not loss of changeability.