Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lord Pendragon" data-source="post: 1769295" data-attributes="member: 707">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.</blockquote>

Verification