The Nature of "Lawful"

[Sejs]

...killing someone without a reason is neutral? Are you sure?

Technically all killing would have some reason - I'm righting a wrong, It's convienant for me, I just feel like it, I'm hungry and that thing is food, I'm defending my young, etc. Killing with absolutly no reason would be an accident - you didn't mean to kill that person, something just happened and now they're dead.

Nah, I think he meant killing without a reasoned motive - like the kind an animal does. That would be neutral.

 

[ARandomGod]

...killing someone without a reason is neutral? Are you sure?

Sure. It's right there in your sentence: "without a reason". It's likely chaotic, almost certainly deranged (how can a sane person really not have a reason? It's more likely the person just doen't know what that reason is) it's definitely not good... it could be evil... but most likely it's neutral.

Large cats do it all the time. Bears sometimes do it. And it's listed righ there on their alignment sheet "neutral".

But let's not digress too far off topic. This thread is about the law/chaos axis.

So I'll just point out what I said above, some actions that people I'm around have deemed to be "good" I personally find quite evil. Some that I see as good they see as evil. But this one, this one I don't see as good or evil, not without some qualifier. And I didn't say "without a reason" for that matter... I said that you can't determine it's good or evil ness without a motive.

And I personally think that it's completely impossible for a sane person to not have some reason somewhere for any and every action that person performs. There is always a reason. Hell, even "insane" people have reasons. They just don't know it. And some actions you don't bother to find your reasons for, they don't matter enough.

 

[Trickstergod]

Sure. It's right there in your sentence: "without a reason". It's likely chaotic, almost certainly deranged (how can a sane person really not have a reason? It's more likely the person just doen't know what that reason is) it's definitely not good... it could be evil... but most likely it's neutral.

Large cats do it all the time. Bears sometimes do it. And it's listed righ there on their alignment sheet "neutral".

And are also exempt from standard alignment classification due to their inability to act beyond instinct and emotion, for the most part, due to their intelligence. A number of animals also engage in forms of rape, cannibalism, infanticide and other atrocities that would peg a human as being evil.

With that said, I throw my lot in with the "the fighter's action was chaotic."

Especially for killing the pedophile in a nation that would have done that to the pedophile in the first place. Lawfulness doesn't always mean law-abiding in the alignment sense of it, but agreeing with a local law yet believing that you as the individual are more capable of seeing it through rather then trusting to the authorities seeing it out? Definitely chaotic.

I also disagree with the general notion that a chaotic individual will necessary have an inconsistent personal code; chaotic good characters, for example, will consistently strive to do the right thing. The chaotic individual merely trusts to his own decision making over others.

My own remarks aren't the most in-depth but, then again, a number of other people have already quite eloquently written their thoughts out on the matter in a way that agrees with my own, so no need to drone on overly much beyond my stating that I agree with those who support the act as being chaotic.

 

[ARandomGod]

And are also exempt from standard alignment classification due to their inability to act beyond instinct and emotion, for the most part, due to their intelligence. A number of animals also engage in forms of rape, cannibalism, infanticide and other atrocities that would peg a human as being evil.

Pshhht. "Exempted from alignment classification" is simply rationalization. They're not exempted. Yes, their acting on instinct and emotion is why the act is neutral for them. And yes you can make a PC who acts only on instinct and emotions. Hell, having a set of actions allowed to you doesn't exempt you from classification, it just sets your classification. There are a number of undead who are essentially programed, but that doesn't exempt them from classification. An animal's instinct is their reason, and their reasons make them neutral. Some of them.

Or, to think of this another way, if I made a paladin with a very low int and wisdom would that make the paladin "exempt" from having to be lawful and/or good?

There's nothing to stop a character from being flawed to the point where they only act from instinct and emotion, but sometimes acting from emotion can be evil (sometimes it's good, actually)... in fact, to be fair, evilness itself is often (in real life) due to the inability to act beyond a certain level, a lack of empathy that "allows" a person to act purely on instinct or emotion, sometimes but not always restrained by laws...

A number of societies and cultures define infantacide as normal and cannibalism as a good and expected thing. In fact, by some definitions you are showing an evil attitude coupled with a lack of empathy by the ethnocentrism inherent in this statement. The very ethnocentrism, I will point out, that *could* allow a character to be "lawful" within himself while disobeying the laws of the local land.

(And with that statement I neatly bring this tangent back to the law/chaos axis it's meant to be about)

With that said, I throw my lot in with the "the fighter's action was chaotic."

Especially for killing the pedophile in a nation that would have done that to the pedophile in the first place. Lawfulness doesn't always mean law-abiding in the alignment sense of it, but agreeing with a local law yet believing that you as the individual are more capable of seeing it through rather then trusting to the authorities seeing it out? Definitely chaotic.

I also disagree with the general notion that a chaotic individual will necessary have an inconsistent personal code; chaotic good characters, for example, will consistently strive to do the right thing. The chaotic individual merely trusts to his own decision making over others.

My own remarks aren't the most in-depth but, then again, a number of other people have already quite eloquently written their thoughts out on the matter in a way that agrees with my own, so no need to drone on overly much beyond my stating that I agree with those who support the act as being chaotic.

Yup. I also stated chaotic as a possibility. Although still I see it as more likely to be neutral. Sure, non-lawful, but neutral is non-lawful. Even anti-lawful, but going against does not define a person as chaotic. A chaotic action, perhaps, but his general ordered bent could easily outweigh this action.

But my main reason for writing to this point was to agree with you that being chaotic does not necessarily mean not having a consistent code. Sure, that does tend to be a lawful trait, but if that code contains a certain distain for codes... if the code is really more of a "guideline", then it could easily be chaotic.

Yes, agreeing with local law but thinking that you are more fit than the local authorities to carry out the law is most likely chaotic. Of course, you could be right. The original post didn't say if this was a valid perspective. A lawful person whose personal law required the punishment of the evildoer caught in this act, whose law gave them the right to do this punishment, and who knew that there was a non-zero chance of the culprit being set free to commit unlawfulness again? That character could be seen as non-lawful for NOT killing the offender. It all depends on circumstance and reasoning.

 

[Queequeg]

The source of all the divergent interpretations is that a lot of different traits and principles are lumped together under "lawful" or "chaotic." Different interpretations emphasize different aspects of the definitions. I think for the fighter in the example, he is following his conscience rather than respecting authority, so I say he's being chaotic. Those who say he's being lawful seem to be emphasizing the association of chaos with arbitrary actions, and since the fighter is not being arbitrary -- he's following his code -- he's not being chaotic. I don't really see arbitrariness as the key distinction between lawful and chaotic, though.

Lawful characters tend to be honest, respect authority, and keep their promises. So a chaotic good character is more likely than a lawful good character to sacrifice those principles for the sake of compassion or justice.

If a LG hero lives under a brutal regime, is he/she being chaotic by rebelling against that regime? Absolutely. But submitting to the regime would be evil. The LG character has to decide what's important to him/her.

 

[Sejs]

To the people that are talking about a chaotic person not being able to have a personal code of behavior: yes, a chaotic person is perfectly able to have a code, just the same as anyone else is.


Get this - the primary difference? A chaotic person is far more likely to be flexible in how they live with that code depending on the situation that arises. Say their code includes "No killing non-combatants (children, the elderly, etc)". Now say there's a situation where the point is pressed: if the badguy gets away with the destined child, the kid will become the host for the Unstopable Avatar of Destruction and end all existance. You have this one chance stop them before they get away and you know there's no way you can kill the badguy in the time given because he's just too strong.

A lawful person would be more likely to stick to his code and look for some way to stop them from getting away without hurting the child.

A chaotic person would be more likely to be willing to be flexible in this one instance, say they're sorry, and then kill the kid. This doesn't mean they're all of a sudden going to abandon their code and go out kicking orphans. It just means that they saw this situation as important enough to let their code slide this one time.


Edit/Additional: It's important to note though, that neither example is an unbreakable dictate of what the character MUST do, because of their alignment. The lawful person could be willing to make the exception, the chaotic person could stick to their guns - their alignment is just a reflection of their general trends, and a single act does not an alignment make. What an individual character would do given the circumstances is all based on the character as an individual, not just what's written down in their alignment line on the character sheet.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Your example is implying that a Chaotic character is more willing to commit an evil act toward a Good end than a Lawful character. Personally, I don't agree with that.

 

[Sheridan]

The example given at the start of this thread is pretty much the definition of Lawful behavior in my book. The character consistantly follows a predictable pattern of personal behavior without variation. If the killings were completely random and at the character's whim, then they would be Chaotic. It makes no difference if muder is illegal wherever the character is now, as the Law/Chaos element of one's alignment is not determined by whatever regulations govern the tract of land the character hapens to be standing on. The Law/Chaos element is a PERSONAL alignement component, not a geographic one. I think some people are confusing Law/Chaos with legal/illegal, good/bad, or good/eveil here. For you comic-book fans out there, Lex Luthor, the Red Skull, and Galactus are all bad guys, sure, but they are all Lawful. They all have predictable patterns of behavior and follow certain standards they establish for themselves ("I promise not to destroy and entire world full of people without consuming every last drop of planetary energy. Waste not, want not I always say." -Galactus). Foolkiller and Madcap are Chaotic. Their behavior is random and not planned - the exact opposite of how Luthor, Skull, and Galactus operate.
Any character that would radically alter his established behavior pattern just because he happens to be wandering through a different country (if the behavior pattern is well established), is most likeley Neutral. One that stays consistant in their behavior irregardless of external factors is behaving Lawfully. Don't confuse one's personal code of conduct (which the Law/Chaos component is based on), with governmental "Law".
*Sheridan (old crusty 20+ year D&D veteran)

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

The example given at the start of this thread is pretty much the definition of Lawful behavior in my book. The character consistantly follows a predictable pattern of personal behavior without variation. If the killings were completely random and at the character's whim, then they would be Chaotic. It makes no difference if muder is illegal wherever the character is now, as the Law/Chaos element of one's alignment is not determined by whatever regulations govern the tract of land the character hapens to be standing on. The Law/Chaos element is a PERSONAL alignement component, not a geographic one. I think some people are confusing Law/Chaos with legal/illegal, good/bad, or good/eveil here. For you comic-book fans out there, Lex Luthor, the Red Skull, and Galactus are all bad guys, sure, but they are all Lawful. They all have predictable patterns of behavior and follow certain standards they establish for themselves ("I promise not to destroy and entire world full of people without consuming every last drop of planetary energy. Waste not, want not I always say." -Galactus). Foolkiller and Madcap are Chaotic. Their behavior is random and not planned - the exact opposite of how Luthor, Skull, and Galactus operate.
Any character that would radically alter his established behavior pattern just because he happens to be wandering through a different country (if the behavior pattern is well established), is most likeley Neutral. One that stays consistant in their behavior irregardless of external factors is behaving Lawfully. Don't confuse one's personal code of conduct (which the Law/Chaos component is based on), with governmental "Law".
*Sheridan (old crusty 20+ year D&D veteran)

What he said.

Sheridan said it much better than I've been able to.

Sure, a Lawful character is more INCLINED to follow local laws, but inclined doesn't mean that will or have to. The thing about alignment is its determined by the personality of the character, NOT the other way around.

 

[iblis]

Any character that would radically alter his established behavior pattern just because he happens to be wandering through a different country (if the behavior pattern is well established), is most likeley Neutral. One that stays consistant in their behavior irregardless of external factors is behaving Lawfully. Don't confuse one's personal code of conduct (which the Law/Chaos component is based on), with governmental "Law".

Again, I am compelled to disagree. Of course, this whole alignment thing begins and ends being far more about opinion than 'facts' (and naturally, that assertion applies to me as much as it does to anyone else) - that's just always been part of the package, I believe. Anyway...

It seems to me that a character who would radically alter their established behavioural pattern just because they happened to be wandering through a different country (even if the behavioural pattern was well-established) could equally be lawful, neutral or chaotic, and also either good, evil or neutral along the other axis.

For the first example, in the case of Lawful, they could be in a different country and decide to follow the laws of the land (as many 'sane', 'normal', 'respectful' - 'Lawful' - travellers will do even IRL) despite the fact that some of those laws might conflict with the character's own personal thoughts and feelings. Order should be maintained and laws adhered to for the sake of the greater stability, right?

In the case of Neutral, they are neither tied to Law/laws nor rallying against it/them. Therefore, I would say that in one sense of the word at least, their behaviour could be the most unpredictable of any.

And finally in the case of Chaotic, their own personal beliefs are going to rule supreme no matter what. So they might radically alter their established behaviour merely because, for example, doing so will place them in opposition to the established 'powers-that-be'.

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.

It either does or it doesn't (have anything to do with the actual laws). Which is it for you? (Note the 'for you' part). In fact, that reminds me. I try to populate my posts will all appropriate species of disclaimer, but I know sometimes I forget some. I'll try not to.

What about (while trying to sidestep both the other 'p' word and the 'r' word, but particularly the other 'p' word) IRL? Is a law-abiding citizen lawful, neutral or chaotic? Or is it different in each case? Perhaps by drawing some parallels with real life more clarity could be achieved. (?)

For my part, in practise, I really don't care about alignment all that much, as I've said in another thread recently. So it's (im)pure debate for the sake of...er, not sure what...on my behalf, I'll admit.

All in all, alignment is very open to interpretation. The SRD definitions are (perhaps deliberately) vague. At least they're not contradictory - could be worse. :\

How about a Book of Chaotic Stuff, and a Book of Lawful Things? Yeh, maybe not those titles, but the general idea...?

Then there'd be even more definitive nebulousness to sling around!