The Nature of "Lawful"

[Li Shenron]

Thats funny, because to me, Chaotic characters, including chaotic neutral or even chaotic evil characters, can have their own code on how they do things. Lawful characters by contrast recognize external codes of behavior, to them the law is greater than the individual.

Actually I rather agree

A character who says "I am the law!" is definitely chaotic, not lawful...

Sometimes (that's kind of a joke, but not completely) I tell the players that lawful characters are like right-wing conservatives while chaotic characters are like left-wing progressists: for example the first ones are usually more likely to need a single leader to follow (sometimes blindly), while the latter are usually more likely keep leadership temporarily.

 

[Al]

The notion that chaotic characters cannot have their own personal code is a hangover from the 2e CN-madman archetype whose death was greeted with little or no mourning. Chaotic characters can and do have their own personal codes: clerics of Tempus and Robin Hood have been cited as good examples.
Indeed, there are few characters of any alignment that don't have some sort of belief: even pragmatists believe in the notion of pragmatism and self-centred CEs believe in their own personal advancement. To argue that having any sort of guiding principle, on any issue (eg. paedophilia) automatically renders one lawful, would be to impose a lawful alignment on nearly every sentient being in existence. Elves, classically chaotic good, have clearly defined principles.

Given the rebuttal of the old code = lawful fallacy, I'd say that this character acted in a chaotic fashion. Lawfulness implies, whilst not the veneration of all laws, a broad respect for the procedure of law, or in a primitive society, the binding power of tradition. Lawfuls only reject the legal process under certain specific conditions: possibly when it is perceived as corrupt or tyrannical (LG) or when it clashes with established vested interests (LE). Generally, however, the default lawful accepts the legal process. He may reject the law, but civil disobedience is frowned upon, and vigilantism is scorned. Particularly in a society where the character agrees with the laws, he must accept due legal process and proceed through the proper authorities. Where he disagrees, he accepts that the legal process is superior to the opinion of one man- particularly one without any 'higher' moral principle (and here I applaud the wise choice to avoid the tired paladin's dilemma of temporal versus divine authority).

In modern society, theft is often punishable by imprisonment. Yet if I catch a burglar in my home, it is not a lawful act to lock him in my cellar for five years. Nor is it lawful for me to chop off his hand if I believed that to be an appropriate punishment. Lawfuls don't accept that every law is good, but they accept the fundamental process of law. The proper code for a lawful is both situations is to act in accordance with local custom. It may gall to see one whom you feel guilty of death released, but if the legal process is valid, then the laws it creates are also valid and can only be challenged through the appropriate channels. To practise extra-legal methods of enforcement repudiates not only the law, but the entire legal system: and a lawful only does that under extreme circumstances.

 

[Spatula]

"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.

This fits my view of Lawful as well.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

The notion that chaotic characters cannot have their own personal code is a hangover from the 2e CN-madman archetype whose death was greeted with little or no mourning. Chaotic characters can and do have their own personal codes: clerics of Tempus and Robin Hood have been cited as good examples.
Indeed, there are few characters of any alignment that don't have some sort of belief: even pragmatists believe in the notion of pragmatism and self-centred CEs believe in their own personal advancement. To argue that having any sort of guiding principle, on any issue (eg. paedophilia) automatically renders one lawful, would be to impose a lawful alignment on nearly every sentient being in existence. Elves, classically chaotic good, have clearly defined principles.

It's not that chaotic characters aren't likely to have an ideology or set of principles. It's that they're more likely to act out of line with those principles when it becomes inconvenient to do so, given their overall goals (i.e. good or evil). Whatever works, works.

Given the rebuttal of the old code = lawful fallacy, I'd say that this character acted in a chaotic fashion. Lawfulness implies, whilst not the veneration of all laws, a broad respect for the procedure of law, or in a primitive society, the binding power of tradition. Lawfuls only reject the legal process under certain specific conditions: possibly when it is perceived as corrupt or tyrannical (LG) or when it clashes with established vested interests (LE). Generally, however, the default lawful accepts the legal process.

I think you're equivocating here between "lawful" as opposed to "chaotic" and "lawful" as pertaining to matters of public law. When Bob the despot sets up his stone block in the public square with a set of laws, all of which are unfair, and all of which are punishable by death, but Bob is the fair-and-square hereditary ruler of the place (son of a really great despot that everyone loved), Bob's laws are The Law. But that probably won't stop the place getting a bad reputation among good people, both lawful and chaotic. Lawful Good people aren't going to say, "well, Bob's in charge, so what can we do?" Rather, they're likely to have a code of conduct or chivalry that compels them to act against Bob, despite his position as legitimate authority. Lawful Good can oppose Lawful Evil, even if that would require breaking the law, so long as the law is unjust, even if it's legitimate.

 

[iblis]

"Lawful" doesn't mean "law-abiding" per se.

It means exactly that, and only that.

This definition from the Australian Oxford Dictionary, for example : "Conforming with, permitted by, or recognised by law; not illegal or (of a child) illegitimate."

Not surprisingly, I voted 'Chaotic'. I would say the fighter is classically Chaotic Good, though by the definition of Good from the Book of Exalted Deeds (the D&D 'book of Good', in a way) they would not even be truly Good, killing an intelligent being reflexively in such a situation.

There also seems elsewhere in the thread to have been a perception of laws as universally benevolent, and therefore of Lawful Evil as being incomprehensible (in that context). Hmm. Well firstly, there is a separate axis for each pair for a reason - they are not akin to one another. Also, there are a great many cases of laws being (at least in hindsight...) 'evil', or 'neutral' at best. Some (NOT ALL) of the makers and enforcers of laws throughout history and right now, have been and are corrupt to the core (including, but not limited to members of criminal organisations, terrorists and plain old-fashioned brutal thugs). It logically follows that some (NOT ALL) laws are themselves of dubious moral virtue. A law is whatever it is written and/or enforced as being, i.e. pretty much anything whoever has those tasks wishes it to be, for whatever reasons.

my 2c.

 

[Talon5]

To me Lawful = strict order- home is very clean, things in order, almost anal, there are lots of laws in place in a lawful town/city.

Neutral means things are a bit more layed back, less laws more freedoms

Chaotic- well things are..... not very orderly.

To answer your question- not sure. Seems fairly open in ones inturpitation.

 

[Zappo]

IMO, alignment doesn't describe a character; rather, it is a derived property. You can't reliably judge whether the action was lawful or chaotic; it depends on exactly what was going on in his mind when he committed the act. That's why we get so many contrasting answers, not because the alignment system is broken - everyone, consciously or not, is making different basic assumptions.

Making the assumption that the character is a sort of serial killer who specializes in paedophiles, that the urge to kill them is so powerful that it overrides rationality (he could've got him dead without breaking the law if he wanted), I voted chaotic. He placed his personal code above the law; he acted in an individualistic way; he did so without need.

An equally strong case for lawfulness can be made, though. Maybe the character had different motivations than just his personal feelings. Maybe he wasn't aware of the local laws. Maybe he consciously was, but (due to low mental stats) he was still stuck in an "I'm living in a lawless place and must make my own law" mindset. Maybe something else.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

It means exactly that, and only that.

This definition from the Australian Oxford Dictionary, for example : "Conforming with, permitted by, or recognised by law; not illegal or (of a child) illegitimate."

But there's your problem. That's NOT the D&D definition of the ALIGNMENT Lawful. That's the definition of the word Lawful. There is a big difference between the two.

One can be a very Lawful person and still break the Laws of a society. Think about it: A Lawful Good(or evil) warrior is in a Lawful Evil(or good if you switch them) province. The Laws set down by the ruler are unjust, cruel, and meant only to give the ruler more money/power/etc. The Lawful Good character is NOT performing a Chaotic action to go against these laws, even being fully away of them.*

Lawful does has SOME to do with the actual laws, but it all depends on the individual character's code of honour as it were. Yes, Chaotic characters can have personal codes, but they're much more likely to go against them(as sticking to something like that IS Lawful) when it suits them.

*...and yes, I know I'm throwing in another alignment component, but it still works.

 

[Ghostknight]

Lawful in my opinion, but Lawful neutral. In my estimation he followed a code, his own one, and not that of the country. So while it was lawful, it was not good.

 

[Knoxgamer]

Lawful in my opinion, but Lawful neutral. In my estimation he followed a code, his own one, and not that of the country. So while it was lawful, it was not good.

This is only a true statement if it is the case that following a personal code of behavior is not a good act.