The Nature of "Lawful"

[ElvishBard]

I always believed Lawful means they follow a strict code of personal beliefs, and that if the local laws didn't agree then too bad for the local laws. Lawful doesn't mean obeying all the authority laws, it means following a personal code and following it to the best of you ability.

 

[Sammael]

Neutral. It wasn't a deliberately chaotic act, made to undermine the society and whatnot, nor was it an attempt at strengthening the society through application of laws. It was enforcing one's own ethical beliefs (pedophilia is a crime punishable by death), but having such ethical beliefs (or a "code of honor") does not necessarily make a person lawful.

Now, the good vs. evil angle on this case would be interesting to analyze as well, but I'd need more data.

 

[eris404]

This is really interesting. For fun, I went back to the SRD and looked up alignments again and I was surprised by what I read. Somehow, I remember this passage very differently, so I'm posting it here:

LAW VS. CHAOS

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

“Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closemindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

“Chaos” implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Although there is lots of room for interpretation, it seems to me that the fighter (by these definitions) was acting more chaotic (or at least neutral) than lawful. My intepretation of the passage above is that "lawfulness" is more about following the rules, laws and traditions of a society. Personal code and conscience seem to fall under "chaotic."

I think that the word chaotic is misleading. I think many people (including myself from time to time) think of it as random or whimsical, but it might be more about individualism. A chaotic-aligned person might act in a predictible way and have a very well-defined personal code, but it is one that he has decided for himself, not one handed to him by an authority.

Maybe the fighter should reconsider his alignment.

 

[Sammael]

Robin Hood had a personal code of honor. Was he lawful?

Chaotic clerics of Tempus (CN deity of war from the FR) have a very strong personal code of honor (never attack unarmed opponents, treat prisoners honorably, do not use ranged weapons, etc.). Are they lawful?

Personal code != lawful.

 

[The Amazing Dingo]

I do believe that a lawful person has a strict code of personal beliefs, but so do chaotic individuals.

Whats the difference?

The chaotic person's alignment generally adheres to personal freedom at the expense of society. The lawful person has ideas along just the opposite line: the individual's freedom must be limited slightly in order for society to survive and properly function.

Generally speaking, a lawful person adheres to the laws of the land not necessarily because he might have a personal code of contact that runs parallel to them. Instead, he respects what law and society represent and seeks to follow those laws.

Lets look at the real world and the Speed Limit. A chaotic person would speed for any number of reasons, not the least of which is that its perfectly safe and reasonable to to go 5-10 miles per hour over the limit. Why should he be slowed down when he can go faster and be just as safe?

The lawful person, though perhaps able to go faster without any more danger, still refuses to because its the law. He might not agree with it (I know I don't agree with it all the time) but he follows it (I do...most of the time). He respects the law for what it is, even if his own personal ethics might not totally agree with it.

The character's personal ethics didn't agree with it but he also didn't respect the law enough to restrain from killing him and allowing society to preform justice.

Edit - In reality, there is a great deal of wiggle room. But in the nearly black-and-white that DnD tries to be with alignment, that is how I see it.

 

[Gez]

Chaotic. He chooses to do what he wanted to do (regardless of why he wanted to do it), without caring about the consequences, nor about the normal way out (if he wanted to have that person dead, he could simply have ratted him out, same outcome, but by following the socially expected way, and thus lawful). He didn't tried to fit in that country's society -- it's not just about abiding laws, but also using them, working in the framework they provide -- and that show he really wasn't trying to be lawful.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Pedophilia is define cultral taboo, views change from one place to another, while the player is in another country following of the rules of his home land maybe seen as unlawful but the carring them out is an evil act, not that it matters, for in a land of chaotic behavior anything goes. It really comes down to who is reading the alignment of the fighter and I don't think you would ever get a true answer one way or the other.

 

[The Great Bear King]

This is really interesting. For fun, I went back to the SRD and looked up alignments again and I was surprised by what I read. Somehow, I remember this passage very differently, so I'm posting it here:



Although there is lots of room for interpretation, it seems to me that the fighter (by these definitions) was acting more chaotic (or at least neutral) than lawful. My intepretation of the passage above is that "lawfulness" is more about following the rules, laws and traditions of a society. Personal code and conscience seem to fall under "chaotic."

I think that the word chaotic is misleading. I think many people (including myself from time to time) think of it as random or whimsical, but it might be more about individualism. A chaotic-aligned person might act in a predictible way and have a very well-defined personal code, but it is one that he has decided for himself, not one handed to him by an authority.

Maybe the fighter should reconsider his alignment.

I agree but, not all Chaotics are mere vigilanties. Some are rebels, freedom fighters, and a few are even terrorist leaders. And just because they're Chaotic dosen't mean they're disorganizied they just have a organiziational structure than Lawfuls. Lawfuls prefer top down hirearchy, while Chaotics like cell-style or foundation (organizations that have a clear leader who controls the group and gives input, but dosen't give them marching orders) style groups instead.

 

[Tonguez]

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

tell the truth - irrelevant to this scenario,
keep their word -yes, if it includes keeping his personal beleifs
respect authority - No, he broke the law in defiance of local authority
honor tradition - Yes, his tradition
judge those who fall short of their duties - Yes, a Pedophile falls short

So on balance this fighter gets 3/5 on the Lawful behaviour chart so stays Lawful (though straying towards Neutral)

the stuff about “Law” (implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability) and 'Chaos' are Cultural points which define Lawful society not behaviours of a lawful character

 

[Gnarlo]

Chaotic in my viewpoint. If he knew the law of the land (and as a lawful character, it's his responsibility to), he knew the law was in sync with his personal beliefs. Therefore, his duty was to allow the law to be carried out. In taking it into his own hands, he commits a chaotic act. To bring up the P-word , I see little difference in this and the P-word that goes around Detecting Evil and killing those who light up on the spot.

Errr, I mean.... Avast! Keelhaul the mutinous lubber!