The Nature of "Lawful"

[the Jester]

It depends.

If he's become an agent of the law- a sheriff, for instance- it's a lawful act.

If he doesn't know that this is against the law (unlikely, but consider- perhaps he has never lived in a society with laws and doesn't realize that things have changed yet), it depends. If he is defending the child victim at the time it is certainly a good act. If he's attacking the pedophile in cold blood it may well be evil.

If he knows it's against the law, shrugs and does it anyway, then it's a chaotic act.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I think that it's a chaotic act (if only slightly), but not because it violates the laws.

Solo/Vigilante justice is by its nature chaotic, regardless of the laws of the land. Even where a crime is punishable by death, taking lone responsibility for killing those guilty without some sort of position (sheriff, for example) isn't particularly lawful.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I think that it's a chaotic act, as were all the other killings, but I voted "other" because I wanted to emphasise that it doesn't change his alignment.

"Lawful" doesn't mean "law-abiding" per se. "Lawful" means that the character believes the best society is one that is ordered and structured so as to provide stability - lawful neutral characters tend to think of this as an end in itself, while lawful good characters tend to believe that an ordered society will produce genuinely positive effects in its citizens' lives - they will be safer from harm, they will be provided for in times of hardship, et cetera. In other words, they believe that the aims of Good will be best served by an ordered society. Lawful evil characters, on the other hand, support social order and legal codes so that they can be reliably manipulated for the characters' benefit or that of those they care for.

Laws, in and of themselves, do not necessarily create the kind of stable and reliable social order that lawful characters believe is best. The laws proclaimed by a chaotic good king are not likely to tend towards the establishment of social structure! Even without bringing up the conflict likely to arise between a lawful good character's beliefs and the legal code of a lawful evil nation, you can have outright conflict and incompatibility between "laws" and "lawful alignment".

It's clear to me, at least, that any definition of "lawful" which relies upon the idea of following local laws is deeply flawed. That said, what is true is that lawful characters will tend to prefer to disrupt the structures of any society in which they find themselves as little as possible, because even when they fundamentally disagree with the specific structures of a society they won't want to exacerbate the problem by their own actions.

For example, a lawful good character in a neutral evil society will probably try to work for the establishment of laws or traditions which correct the abuses of the society and increase the safety and happiness of as many people as possible. They're also likely to have their hearts broken when lawful evil people manipulate the new systems.

In this specific case, the fighter's being in one country or the other is irrelevant. In the first, lawless nation, his actions represent the individual efforts of one man - he was not attempting to establish laws or traditions or structures by which paedophiles could be punished, but taking justice into his own hands and eliminating the threat to children himself. If he is otherwise the kind of person who believes in social order, then it represents a slight inconsistency in his character for him to take such direct personal action.

In a lawful good country, nothing changes. He's not working within the social order - he's neither obeying the laws nor even assisting the authorities in tracking paedophiles down. He is, instead, acting on his own "authority" as a vigilante - he may otherwise be a supporter of social order and structure, but this compulsion to act alone against such wrongdoers remains a chaotic component of his personality.

(I'm skeptical of any description of a "lawful" character that relies upon terms like "a strict, disciplined life, and an ordered, rational way of thinking". These are things with no direct bearing on one's opinions on the best way for society to be - if the fighter expected and encouraged similar discipline and rationality in society as a whole, that would be an indication of lawful alignment, but a structured "inner life" says little about one's social views.)

If the fighter, while in the lawless country, had attempted to build some kind of structure to prevent child molestation - even a semi-formal agreement between regional "authorities" (be they local warlords, strongmen, what have you) - that would be more in keeping with a lawful alignment, as well as a good first step for increasing social order and structure. If you can get the strong personalities who control their local areas to agree that something needs to be done about child molestation, you can presumably get them to agree on other things, and start to build some kind of nationwide council which can establish laws, traditions, and other apparatus of an ordered nation. One analogue would be a certain kind of romanticised image of a Wild West sheriff, one who comes into town and tries to impose order onto lawlessness and encourage other towns to do the same.

In the lawful good country, a more appropriate course of action would have been to work with the authorities in some capacity - either through anonymous information, or through openly offering one's services as either a member of the "police force" or in some related "freelance" capacity. A modern analogue would be the formation of a pressure group attempting to influence the authorities into devoting more resources to the issue - i.e., working within the established structures of society.

 

[Ottergame]

Most certainly that's chaotic. Unless he had the authority to kill criminals on sight, not only is he acting chaoticly he is also now a criminal, and could now be charged for murder. A lawful person would have informed the real authorites of the town and let them take care of it through a legal process.

 

[Conaill]

I'd say screw the alignment system. One of the most idiotic parts of D&D, IMHO.

 

[Vaxalon]

The act is chaotic. The character is lawful, mostly.

 

[Queen_Dopplepopolis]

I'd say he was following the spirit of the law... as such, it was a lawful act.

 

[Azul]

I choose Other.

As someone with legal training (law degree - I don't practice), I find the idea that Lawful = slavishly Law-abiding to be absurd. Such an alignment should be called Legalistic rather than Lawful. Look up the Chinese Legalist school of philosophy if you want to see what a truly legally-driven personal and social philosophy resembles.

I think the problem lies is using the word "Law" as the opposite of "Chaos". I usually favour the term "Order" in my campaigns, to distinguish between the universal concept of Order (which is on the same level as Chaos, Good and Evil) and the law (which is simply one culture's tool to help create Order). A Lawful character believes everything should have its own place in the scheme of things and that the world is a better place when things are well organized and structured. They are team players who like the world to make sense and be predictable.

A Lawful character should show deference (not slavish devotion) to *just* laws. Their own perception of what is just will vary due to their culture and where on the Good-Evil spectrum they lie. Lawful characters have a natural affinity for orderliness and structure and are likely to be law-abiding unless the local laws seem unjust or completely irrelevant to them. This doesn't mean that they are hung up about legalities, but rather they simply are inclined to work within whatever social structures exist if those structures seem valid to them. Order is a good thing in their eyes. Challenging the system unnecessarily is un-Lawful.

Lawful Good characters should be strong on the idea of redeeming evil whenever possible. This doesn't mean they are bleeding hearts, but rather than they believe it is worthwhile to defeat evil within a person and thus foster the spead of Good in that way. Such a character is also likely to find the principles of justice in another Lawful Good society to be generally compatible with his own, and would be highly inclined to show deference to the local rules - not because somebody wrote them down and said "this is the law", but because these rules are part of a healthy well-knit orderly society. This character's logical move would be to work *within* the Lawful Good society's limits. Murdering the paedophile is against his alignment because the Lawful Good character understands that vigillante killing harms the structures of the society he is in, undermining justice as a whole. He also understands that it is not his duty and right to be the tool of justice in this society, so wishing to foster greater Order, he'd work with local authorities to bring the individual to justice.

A Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil character would probably act in a roughly similar manner UNLESS they thought that this society's idea of justice was too soft. A Lawful Evil character's idea of justice is often very brutal. He might think "killing's too good for him" and take the law into his own hands to inflict a more gruesome and prolonged death upon the paedophile. Even so, Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil characters would value social institutions and social structures and would think twice before acting in a way that undermines the strength of the local justice system (i.e. vigilante killing). It might be worth noting that a "Lawful Good" character who is too bloodthirsty to care for mercy and redemption is probably a Lawful Neutral who believes he is Lawful Good.

Vigilante action is a hallmark of Chaotic characters, but it can be justified by Lawful characters if the Good-Evil element of their alignment demands action that clashes with the local rules or if their cultural values are so radically different that their concept of justice is incompatible with the local customs.

On a side note, a Lawful character could also simply be ignorant of local rules and customs. A Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil character might commit the vigilante killing thinking the local rules are probably soft on paedophiles (LG societies are usually pretty merciful). A Lawful Good character might work with local authorities and be horrified when the realize that the evil-doer they hoped to eventually redeem and reform is to be executed.

 

[DonaldRumsfeldsTofu]

In my opinion, killing is nuetral on the lawful-chaoitc axis. It's purely a matter of good and evil.

 

[Ukyo the undead]

If the chaotic option were stated:
" The man murdered someone and broke the law without a pressing need( defending his own life; only way to stop the criminal)", I would vote chaotic.

Since it´s not the case, i vote Other. I think its a chaotic act, but not because he just killed the pedophily, but because he did it driven only by his personal set of rules, and ignoring the local laws and customs.