The Nature of "Lawful"

[Lord Pendragon]

Thank you to everyone who participated in this thread, it was a great discussion that showed me several points I hadn't considered before. I chose "Lawful" in the test scenario, and here is why.

When trying to determine "What is the nature of Lawful?" the first thing that I considered was the fact that, like Good and Evil, Law and Chaos are objective truths in the D&D universe. A weapon can be "Lawful." A plane of existence into which no sentient being has ever ventured, can be Lawfully-aligned. Therefore, like Good and Evil, the qualities of Law and Chaos cannot be determined by any particular subjective viewpoint, nor by the varying circumstances in which a being finds itself. Setting aside killing, acts which are evil in the D&D sense--torture, for instance--are evil, regardless of the circumstances surrounding them. Torture isn't evil only if perpetrated against the innocent, for example. It is evil, in and of itself. Likewise compassion and mercy are good, regardless of whether the subject of such acts is worthy of them.

So in looking at "Lawful", it's important to create an objective definition that can withstand scrutiny regardless of circumstance. This of course, (it seemed to me at the time I started this thread,) immediately disqualifies any definition which pertains to societal laws. After all, if being Lawful was synonymous with abiding by the law, any given act would be Lawful only if in accordance with the legal practices of the region in which it was perpetrated. Were this true, it would invariably lead to odd situations, such as the evil nation into which no paladin can tread, since the paladin, once entering the jurisdiction of the national laws, would either fail to be lawful (by fighting against the established laws) or fail to be good (by acceding to evil).

But if one sets aside laws, then what other meaning of "lawful" might fit the D&D paradigm, existing both as an objective truth and as a trait which can be ascribed to individuals? I looked to the PH for guidance. Firstly, I noted that two classes in particular are lawful by nature: the paladin, and the monk. What is it, then, that makes these two classes more Lawful than others? What intrinsic "lawful" trait does a PC need, in order to be a paladin or monk? Reading through the class descriptions, and considering the flavors of the two classes, I decided that what the two classes shared was a degree of discipline, a sense of order.

And that, it seems to me, is the answer. Order. Order can exist as a concept outside of any individual, yet it can also be applied to an individual. A plane can be ordered, can favor structure over anarchy. A sword can be sympathetic to an ordered soul, and anathema to an anarchic one. Order fits all the necessary criteria of an objective force in D&D terms, equal to Good and Evil.

This thread has shown me that I have, however, been a bit closed-minded about the nature of "Lawful."

I still believe that "Lawful" is in reality Order, and not dependent on how one reacts to local laws. However, this thread did make me realize that although Order is not always tied to societal laws, it can nevertheless take that form in some people. Like Good or Evil, Chaos and Order are multifaceted, and not every PC need emphasize every facet. Mercy is good, and one PC might make a Vow of Peace and a Vow of Nonviolence, swearing to take no lives. Does that make the paladin who smites evil less good? No. It merely means that the paladin has chosen to emphasize the protection of the innocent and punishment of the guilty over mercy for the damned.

Likewise, one PC may express his Lawfulness by being a strong proponent of laws and the structure they give to society. While another PC may pay no mind to laws at all, but rather keep to a rigid personal code that defines who he is and what he does. Is the second PC less Lawful than the first? No. He merely emphasizes a personal, internal sense of Order in his own life, whereas the first PC has chosen to express his need for Order in his support for societal rules.

Thanks again to everyone who shared their opinion. As I thought, I was in the minority, though not by much. And the posts on either side of the issue were very illuminating.

 

[Al]

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?"

I think you misunderstand me. The argument I'm making is that a lawful person either has to reject the legitimacy of the legal authority in its entirety, or to accept it. One cannot be consistently lawful accepting the legitimacy of the law in some places and not in others- that is the hallmark of chaos, a pick-and-mix approach to legality.

In the case of Bob the tyrant, the lawful good character would reject the entire legitimacy of Bob's regime and seek to change it, and to "re-legitimise" it. This does not invalidate sensible laws, since these can be derived from first principles (e.g. do not murder) or according to a personal code. It merely invalidates Bob's position as law-maker.

Essentially, for a lawful person to reject the legitimacy of the law is to reject the legitimacy of the law-maker. Lawfuls are more than entitled to say "Bob's an evil tyrant- let's reject his authority and change the laws." They *cannot* say "Bob's authority is legitimate, but let's ignore his laws anyway". That's the distinction. I hope that this clears up the confusion.

[Edit/PS]

So in looking at "Lawful", it's important to create an objective definition that can withstand scrutiny regardless of circumstance

Actually, this particular interpretation can incorporate the impact of societal laws whilst still holding to an unimpeachably objective core.

"Lawful entails the acceptance of the notion that once the validity of any particular legal authority is established, then all of its laws are legitimate, but not necessarily morally right".

True objective law can also be found in the proverbial "laws of nature", which is the only truly objective (or at least non-subjective) "legal authority" and whose laws are de facto legitimate even if not subject to moral judgement.

This interpretation of lawfulness is both objective and universal, and has a nod towards social construction, but holds the scenario that Lord_Pendragon posted as chaotic.

 

[Bagpuss]

Lawful act IMHO.

While a lawful character will often have his own code match those of the laws of the land, they don't need to. It would also have been lawful to hand him over to the authories in this case.

 

[ARandomGod]

And that, it seems to me, is the answer. Order. Order can exist as a concept outside of any individual, yet it can also be applied to an individual. A plane can be ordered, can favor structure over anarchy. A sword can be sympathetic to an ordered soul, and anathema to an anarchic one. Order fits all the necessary criteria of an objective force in D&D terms, equal to Good and Evil.

This thread has shown me that I have, however, been a bit closed-minded about the nature of "Lawful."

I still believe that "Lawful" is in reality Order, and not dependent on how one reacts to local laws. However, this thread did make me realize that although Order is not always tied to societal laws, it can nevertheless take that form in some people. Like Good or Evil, Chaos and Order are multifaceted, and not every PC need emphasize every facet. Mercy is good, and one PC might make a Vow of Peace and a Vow of Nonviolence, swearing to take no lives. Does that make the paladin who smites evil less good? No. It merely means that the paladin has chosen to emphasize the protection of the innocent and punishment of the guilty over mercy for the damned.

Likewise, one PC may express his Lawfulness by being a strong proponent of laws and the structure they give to society. While another PC may pay no mind to laws at all, but rather keep to a rigid personal code that defines who he is and what he does. Is the second PC less Lawful than the first? No. He merely emphasizes a personal, internal sense of Order in his own life, whereas the first PC has chosen to express his need for Order in his support for societal rules.

Agreed.
Next to think about on that same axis is chaos. Chaos has to have some defining characteristic other than simply being the opposite of law...
OK, sometimes it does.
Some "chaotic" alignments are simply people who are anti-law, who rebel against laws just to be fighting law. But there is more to chaos than that. Chaos is change, creativity, innovation. Law is order, structure, custom.

Of course, there can and should be some chaos in law, there needs to be in oder for it to change and evolve. And there should be some law in chaos. Some people are more dedicated to change and innovation, and hold it more important than laws and custom. Those can be said to be chaotic. They don't need to be completely unpredictable. But they don't hold so much a personal code as a set of beliefs, which they apply differently as needed. A chaotic person could follow laws of the land, indeed could follow the laws of every different land, and much easier than a lawful person could, as the order present in their life would rebel against changing the law that they follow so very much.

Law without chaos leads to stagnation and death.
Chaos without law leads to dissolution and death.

Just wanted to add some thoughts about the aspects of chaos that aren't simply reactive against law.

 

[Izerath]

Ooh goody - one of my favorite topics

In the original question, if the PC is Lawful, than he should follow the societies laws, even if they go against his current beliefs. Thus killing the pedophile is a chaotic act in the fact that its not lawful. A LG character would have tried to capture the offender and turn him over to authorities. A LN character would capture him, but may hurt him if it is necessary to bring him in. A LE character may catch the guy, beat him to within an inch of his last breath, then turn him in. In all cases, he should not have killed him.

Now, how do I conclude this?

Ethics and Morality: That's the central theme to the Law/Chaos and Good/Evil scenario.

The funny thing is that Ethics are BASED on morality.

Per Webster's, Ethics are a system of moral principles; the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of actions or a particular group, culture, etc.

So if you really want to get crazy, think about this. What kind of laws would an evil society write? or what about a chatoic one?

Here's an example. Now be careful, don't cross the politics line in your replies. I am just using this as an example of how you can try to interpret things using a real world example.

The US Bill of Rights was a statement of freedoms for the people - A code of conduct endorsing free will and self-determination, and thus it defined an ethical code of conduct based in the principles of "freedom first."

You have the right to bear arms
You have the right to free speech
You have the right to worship as you please.

This is basically the law to preserve personal FREEDOM (chaos).

Now ironically, our forefathers were also very religious. Again - don't cross the line. This is just an example for demonstration.

The Ten Commandments.

Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not covet....

I could go on, but the key point I am making is the commandments prohibit behavior. (i.e. NOT)

This is law to impose structured ORDER (law).

Now both ethical codes above are rooted in good. Neither one condones the harming of another, but neither one lists any sort of punishment either. They are the general tenets by which societies live.

One of the basic reasons the US has lasted so long is that the core ethical principles it was based upon are rooted in maintaining freedom. Contrary to that is the constant fight to prohibit other people's behaviors in keeping with the principle "for the common good." This assumes that the common good is greater than the rights of the individual and many times the common good is defined not by the society, but by a few influential members of that society.

Maintaining this fine balance between these two aspects is why the US has lasted this long. Eventually, it'll have to clean house and rewrite or toss out obselete laws, but time has shown Americans are more likely to just ignore the laws which no longer apply by not enforcing them. The US government is in constant conflict with itself, trying to respect personal freedom yet protect its citizens for the common good.

A true Darwinian would be chaotic, in that only the strong survive. Another way to say it would be that people have the right to disobey the law to survive, and will have to live with the consequences should they get caught. On the other hand, many organizations go out of their way to protect the weak and provide help for the general good. These are nebulous examples of the many clashing forces we often see in the headlines of the news every day.

Now generally speaking, I would say most Americans are reflections of this very struggle, and thus in the middle, or Neutral good. I say this because they follow the laws, but if they are inconvenient or are contrary to their personal morality, they may bend or break them. Activists tend towards one pole of the spectrum or the other.

Speeding is the perfect example. Speeding is socially acceptable "so long as you don't get caught." Murder on the other hand is persecuted without hesitation because it infringes on another's right to live.

Ironic? It certainly makes you wonder. If you want to see the contrasts, take a look at Saudi society, or in another light, China. Look at from what morality their society is rooted and then look at how it has evolved. You can even look in periods of US history to see how it evolved from a people bent on protected our freedoms to one bent on protecting the common good. You'll be surprised at what you find and it should certainly enlighten you to the complexities of alignment.

BTW, this is the very reason some people abhor alignment. Sorry if I offended, but hopefully I was entertaining at the least and inspirational ot the most.

So now, how would you define a LE society?

 

[Lord Pendragon]

if the PC is Lawful, than he should follow the societies laws

If you've followed the thread, you know that this point is hotly contested. I myself believe that only a certain strain of Lawful PCs "should follow the societies laws." Other characters are internally Lawful, and to them society's laws are largely irrelevant.

 

[Saqhara]

I'll post later after a good night's sleep when I can type...

 

[Izerath]

Oh I've followed along....

I think lawful is more about having some sort of common "rules" for everyone and, of course, order, while chaotic is more about the individuals.....

I think Thanee summed it up quite nicely. Rose colored glasses taint the view.

It all comes down to free will vs. order imposed for any reason. It could be control, agression, safety, or even isolation.

"Internal" lawfulness is PERSONAL, centered on the individual, making it free will, and thus chaotic.

When you try to understand my point, look at it from the "big picture" view as if you were playing Populous, Civ, Age of Empires, etc. If your sims did nothing but what they thought was right all the time you tried to play, could you ever win the game?

You say go right, the sim goes left? or stops?
You say chop wood, he goes swimming? or burns the forest down?

How would you classify the sims behaviour then? Is that sim lawful because he's following his own laws? No. He's chaotic because he is not following the imposed order you have laid out as the master of society.

In that same vain, the lawful fighter from one country who walks into another country which outlaws murder and who then commits that act would be committing a chaotic act, because it goes against the laws set down by the society he is in. He behaved contrary to the laws of the general populace.

Here's another way to think of it. Is a terrorist lawful?

Is he organized? Yes.
Does that make him lawful? No.
Would he call himself lawful? Probably. Most do. Just listen to the rhetoric they spew. They believe every word of it.

My point is that the determination of how behavior is classified is done from ONE viewpoint, not multiple viewpoints. Do we consider them lawful? No way. Causing chaos is their trade, no matter what shield of organization they hide behind and certainly no matter what they say about themselves.

The bottom line is that alignment is designed to be black and white, interpreted from the dominant society's viewpoint, and macro in nature.

Many people simply pick their color of shades and wear them, applying one view to the entire setting they play in. Doing anything else only makes matters more confusing for them.

On the other hand, for those that can handle it, adding complexity by making alignments reliant on the societies where the PCs are can certainly be fun. A Paladin from Country A travels to country B and is considered and outlaw because he is from A, even though he is lawful.....

Honestly, if I did that, I would throw out alignment rather than try to stick to it. Its just easier that way.

Hey, this one's a no brainer.....everyone is right!

Cheers!

 

[Umbra]

This, incidentally, is a perfect example of why the alignment system hast to be at least somewhat flexible.

I find that I am starting to see the alignment system in a similar way to the real world Myer Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI).

The system, based on Jung's work, presents 16 types of personality based on four continuums with 2 extremes eg introvert/extrovert (in the original sense, not in the common usage sense), intuitive/sensing, thinking/feeling, judging/perceiving.

These types are preferences only. They are not labels saying you always do x in these types of situations. They simply show what your preferences are: how you normally react but not how you always react; what increases your energy level normally but not always, etc.

The rules are designed with alignments needing to be treated as absolutes within the game world (culture, species, etc) but I tend to be more forgiving now and give the classes with restrictions eg paladins, a little more leeway or less severe penalties until they can atone.

There is also the problem of the perceiver paradox with the alignment system.
In the example given, the country he broke the law in could see him as non-lawful and potentially evil. Which is he in truth?

 

[Lord Pendragon]

These types are preferences only. They are not labels saying you always do x in these types of situations. They simply show what your preferences are: how you normally react but not how you always react; what increases your energy level normally but not always, etc.

Well said. This is exactly how I treat alignment. As such, I don't even consider shifting a PCs alignment after one atypical action. It's only after enough actions that the atypical seems more like the typical that a shift is warranted.

"Internal" lawfulness is PERSONAL, centered on the individual, making it free will, and thus chaotic.

When you try to understand my point, look at it from the "big picture" view as if you were playing Populous, Civ, Age of Empires, etc. If your sims did nothing but what they thought was right all the time you tried to play, could you ever win the game?

Um...I have no problem understanding your point. I don't need to "try" to understand it. I simply disagree with it. Or rather, I don't believe your view of Lawfulness is exclusive. It's one expression of Lawfulness among several.

Let me try and clarify my own point. Consider water. Water is an amazing substance because it's molecules naturally line up with each other. The very nature of water is ordered, moreso than most other substances.

Now take a glass of water and spill it on the floor. You'd tell me that the water isn't ordered (Lawful) because its taken on a very chaotic shape as it spreads out over the floor. I'm telling you that even so, the water itself is essentially ordered (Lawful).

I'm not saying that a PC cannot express Lawfulness by being law-abiding. This thread has taught me to remember that Lawful, like Good, can mean many things that are each simultaneously true. But Lawfulness can also take place internally, and be Lawful, not Chaotic.

Yes, the oil that forms a perfect square on the ground is Ordered. But so is the water that spreads out unevenly, and yet is Ordered in its very substance.