NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6687376" data-attributes="member: 4937">As I use the term, it means simply that you consider something outside of yourself to be the primary source of judgment, reason, and authority and that you subordinate yourself to this external thing - whatever it is.   So it could be 'organized society' (whatever that means) or it could be (and often is) your nation, tribe, or some other social identity.  But the important point is that, if you find yourself in a situation where your judgment and your consciousness are in conflict with the judgment and consciousness of this external entity, you consider yourself to be in error and the judgment of this external thing to be the superior guide.As an example, you wish to marry a certain man.  You are sure in your heart that you love the man and that he loves you, but you go to ask your father's permission and blessing over the conjoining and he tells you, "No."  If you then tell the man, "Sorry, I love you, but I can't marry you; father won't give his permission.", then that is a lawful perspective.As for your example of feudal law, I won't quibble to much with your characterization but I will note that in theory, regardless of the right to do something, the dealings of the knight where supposed to live up to ideal of both chivalric codes and church ethics.   The Paladin is intended to represent and is drawn from this very ideal, so seldom if ever realized in actual practice, but as a heroic model of virtue, modesty, honor, chastity, mercy, and prowess of arms.   I won't quibble that in the real world, few lived up to the idea, or that in practice the society was seldom idealistic rather than pragmatic and even tyrannical.  But in a fantasy story where a figure draws real supernatural power from his honor and righteousness, I think we can assume the fantasy paragon acts like how knights were supposed to act, and not how they usually acted.Oh, I'm by no means saying we own a monopoly on it.  I'm just speaking of what I know best.Well, it's often not well defined what law and chaos represent, but for me this divide loosely described as individualist versus collectivist (though, this latter term strikes me as distinctly misleading) for me is the one that is most interesting and leads to the least contradictions.So yes, societies can become quite complex.  But I think that there is a distinct difference between being an individualists and upholding individualism as a virtue because it is enshrined in the national myth, the national identity, and the national law or because it is believed to be a natural law.  You might say that in some cases societies are trying to strike a balance between the competing tendencies of society and the individual.  It's also worth noting that a lawful society could evolve (and often would evolve) so that the leaders are self-serving or self-seeking, or conversely that the rulers of a nation where individualism was the prevailing mode of belief might tend toward a more orderly approach and desire greater conformity and unity of purpose than what is normally seen.  In the case of a ruthless ruler, you might see a cynical promotion of collectivism not because the ruler wished to serve the state per se, but because the ruler wished the society to serve him as the head of the state.  Or you might see that individualists would seek to create a small limited government expressly to protect the rights of individuals, or that in a sufficiently large nation multiple competing cultures might arise with slightly different takes on what it would take to make the nation great.I'm saying the application of the code is wholly subjective and often confusing, and what a player needs is a list of 10 or so imperatives so that at least he has some idea of how this all is supposed to work out in play.  A statement like "Truth is a greater weapon than any sword." is axiomatic and notably not imperative.  So what does this code compel me to do?  Taken literally, am I supposed to truth speak dragons to death and foreswear swords?  It doesn't even say, "Truth can be a better weapon than any sword", or "Truth can cut through things that a sword can not."  What does it mean?  When is it applicable?   It tells me that if I value weapons, then truth is better than a sword, but should I value weapons and how valuable is a sword anyway? Other parts are little better: "There is no dishonor in survival, only in desertion."  Ok, that at least compels me to not commit suicide, I think, though I'm not sure that was the intention.  But as a player trying to play a PC, what I really want to know is what must I do, and what must I not do, if I don't want to end up atoning or a permanently bad fighter.   Should I literally interpret this like the 1e Cavalier code - no running away from a fight?  I'm supposed to obey the law unless I think it is an unjust law?  Can't the code at least specify how I'm to recognize an unjust law or how to know when the laws aren't serving the people?  If you are going to claim that there are unlawful orders, you better define what they are.   But yes, when you say something like, "Justice without mercy is tyranny. Mercy without justice is impotent.", I really do feel you've said nothing that isn't equivalent to, "Be good and be lawful."  Striking a balance between justice and mercy isn't exactly intuitive.  I would presume that with a code like that, I've got pretty far latitude and the DM isn't going to throw any gotchas out there.</blockquote>

Verification