Save My Game: Lawful and Chaotic

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

But don't confuse a strategy for getting around the absurdity and inconsistency of the system for one that somehow does away with this basic incoherence.

*sigh*

 

[Al]

I'd add a small caveat to the section about lawful characters and obeying laws that they personally disagree with, as I personally feel that for a lawful character, if an authority is legitimate, then all of its laws are likewise of legal status and should be dealt with accordingly . Thus, if a government issues a law with which a lawful character disagrees but nevertheless recognises the legitimacy of the arguments to justify, the lawful character must obey them to the best of their ability. This clearly is not applicable if there is a serious violation of ethical standards which would delegitimise the government: a paladin would not follow a law to murder babies for breakfast. However, if there was, say, a ban on alcohol, then a paladin who nevertheless disagrees with prohibition would be bound to follow those laws. Conceivably, a lawful character could obey a government even if its laws are radically different to his own conception of justice, so long as that government falls within acceptable ethical standards. Lawful characters tend to see governments themselves are legitimate or illegitimate; once a government has established its legitimacy, its laws must be complied with or opposed within the constitutional contexts allowed.

Chaotic characters are more likely to dissent against governments, even those of which they recognise the legitimacy of. In the above example, the chaotic character could be an otherwise law-abiding, tax-paying citizen but flagrantly traffic alcohol in violation of the laws - because he personally disagrees with the law. Chaotic implies a personal construction of laws; lawfulness implies a societal or governmental construction. Clearly, if the personal construction and the societal construction coincide, the chaotic character could be not merely an adherent but even a strong advocate of that law. It is thus perfectly feasible for a chaotic character to attain high government office, so long as the laws passed coincide with his personal conceptions of justice. Should they diverge, he is more likely to flagrantly ignore them that side with any form of "loyal opposition".

In sum, a lawful character must regard any law passed by a government he regards as legitimate to be binding; a chaotic character, by contrast, can simultaneously hold the positions of regarding the government as legitimate but its laws as not. When laws and personal morality coincides, law and chaos are no different in this regard. When they diverge, however, chaotic characters would dissent in extra-constitutional methods whilst lawful characters would advocate reform through established channels.

 

[Voadam]

I'd add a small caveat to the section about lawful characters and obeying laws that they personally disagree with, as I personally feel that for a lawful character, if an authority is legitimate, then all of its laws are likewise of legal status and should be dealt with accordingly . Thus, if a government issues a law with which a lawful character disagrees but nevertheless recognises the legitimacy of the arguments to justify, the lawful character must obey them to the best of their ability. This clearly is not applicable if there is a serious violation of ethical standards which would delegitimise the government: a paladin would not follow a law to murder babies for breakfast. However, if there was, say, a ban on alcohol, then a paladin who nevertheless disagrees with prohibition would be bound to follow those laws. Conceivably, a lawful character could obey a government even if its laws are radically different to his own conception of justice, so long as that government falls within acceptable ethical standards. Lawful characters tend to see governments themselves are legitimate or illegitimate; once a government has established its legitimacy, its laws must be complied with or opposed within the constitutional contexts allowed.

Chaotic characters are more likely to dissent against governments, even those of which they recognise the legitimacy of. In the above example, the chaotic character could be an otherwise law-abiding, tax-paying citizen but flagrantly traffic alcohol in violation of the laws - because he personally disagrees with the law. Chaotic implies a personal construction of laws; lawfulness implies a societal or governmental construction. Clearly, if the personal construction and the societal construction coincide, the chaotic character could be not merely an adherent but even a strong advocate of that law. It is thus perfectly feasible for a chaotic character to attain high government office, so long as the laws passed coincide with his personal conceptions of justice. Should they diverge, he is more likely to flagrantly ignore them that side with any form of "loyal opposition".

In sum, a lawful character must regard any law passed by a government he regards as legitimate to be binding; a chaotic character, by contrast, can simultaneously hold the positions of regarding the government as legitimate but its laws as not. When laws and personal morality coincides, law and chaos are no different in this regard. When they diverge, however, chaotic characters would dissent in extra-constitutional methods whilst lawful characters would advocate reform through established channels.

That's not a small caveat, that's rewriting the article to say something different.

In the article it says "A law (or body of laws) is merely a rule that a government imposes on those who are subject to its power. A lawful alignment, on the other hand, represents an orderly approach to matters of ethics and personal conduct. Most lawful characters do respect the order that the laws of the realm represent, but adherence to local ordinances is only one way of demonstrating a lawful alignment."

So whereas you say a lawful character must attempt to obey laws of legitimate authorities the article says that is only one option for a lawfully acting character.