PDA

View Full Version : Lawful Anarchists



Renrik
2010-03-28, 01:55 PM
Are they possible? It really all depends on if lawful is considered an acceptance of current social mores and power structures, or if it is the following of a specific code of behavior, such as anti-hierarchical nonaggression. Your thoughts?

hamishspence
2010-03-28, 01:58 PM
Lawful guys don't have to follow the laws of society- if they are strongly against their moral beliefs.

A Lawful Good guy in a very Lawful Evil society might actively fight the system because of its evilness.

Eurus
2010-03-28, 01:59 PM
It's possible if you say it is, really. Law and Chaos just aren't well-defined enough to say much about them -- half of the definitions for the two aren't even mutually exclusive.

Siegel
2010-03-28, 02:15 PM
that reminds me of the Warhammer Chaos god of atheism

Seffbasilisk
2010-03-28, 02:52 PM
When you try to define it, you're deviating from Chaos.

When you have to use vague terms in defining it, you're deviating from Law.

Hardcore
2010-03-28, 03:04 PM
Anarchy is about self government by the people. An anarchist would obey laws he felt were written under a system he approved of.
Look it up on Wiki!

Riffington
2010-03-28, 03:11 PM
A Lawful anarchist still lives in a specific place with specific rules/traditions/etc. There are a few he may feel compelled to break (he may for instance have to falsify census forms or avoid paying taxes for ethical reasons) but he's still going to be an organized person/follow most rules/be reliable. You can have all the theoretical arguments you want about why stoplights should behave differently in your ideal state, but if you're lawful you're still going to obey the stoplights as they exist.

urbanpirate
2010-03-28, 03:19 PM
A Lawful anarchist still lives in a specific place with specific rules/traditions/etc. There are a few he may feel compelled to break (he may for instance have to falsify census forms or avoid paying taxes for ethical reasons) but he's still going to be an organized person/follow most rules/be reliable. You can have all the theoretical arguments you want about why stoplights should behave differently in your ideal state, but if you're lawful you're still going to obey the stoplights as they exist.

not true. take the lawful evil example of the mob boss who always plays by the rules, the mobs rules. he anwsers to his own strictly defined code of honor. the folks from black block would be the same way. even Dr king could pretty accurately be defined as lawful in dungeons and dragons terms as he led the marches (often illegaly) due to his belief in a higher ( and therefore more legitimate) code of honor and conduct.

aivanther
2010-03-28, 03:22 PM
Look it up on Wiki!

Because if you found it on wikipedia, it must be true...

Really, an anarchist doesn't rebel against the system, the rebel against all systems. Hardcore seems to be confusing anarchists with libertarians.

Riffington
2010-03-28, 03:23 PM
not true. take the lawful evil example of the mob boss who always plays by the rules, the mobs rules. he anwsers to his own strictly defined code of honor. the folks from black block would be the same way. even Dr king could pretty accurately be defined as lawful in dungeons and dragons terms as he led the marches (often illegaly) due to his belief in a higher ( and therefore more legitimate) code of honor and conduct.

I'm not sure that's different from what I said.
The Lawful mob boss (these are rare) ignores the rules he has to (don't steal) but he's still going to tell the truth and stay faithful to his wife and show up to appointments on time etc.

Dr King led marches because there was a super important reason. He followed the law when there wasn't something extremely important at stake.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-03-28, 03:25 PM
"An unjust law is no law at all"
—St Augustine

I also recall from an NPC mod for an old game Baldur's Gate II.

You can ask a paladin what if good conflicts with the law, she replies"
"There can be no conflict, for good is greater then any law"

It is important to remember that the two sides of someones alignment law vs chaos and good vs evil do not exist independently.

A lawful good person wouldn't believe in an unjust law and is still perfectly lawful for breaking them. Because its not lawful and good, its LAWFUL GOOD.
A character has one alignment not two.

trmptfnfr
2010-03-28, 03:30 PM
It seems to me that someone who actively believes in Anarchy, rather than just disliking authority, would have some lawful traits.

Now I doubt they'd outnumber their chaotic traits, but I could accept a neutral Anarchist.

oxybe
2010-03-28, 03:37 PM
i think i remember reading something on "anarchists".

a guy was walking down the street and he meets a young punk spouting stuff about pro-anarchy. guy asks the teen if he honestly believes in a system where anarchy prevails.

teen says yes and that the current government (i don't remember which one it was) should be brought down. guy slaps the teen in the face, puts the kid in an armlock while the kid's still in shock and takes the teen's wallet with his free hand. guy then asks if he (the teen) liked that. teen of course says no and asks for his wallet back. guy laughs, throws the wallet to the teen and says he's not ready for a system based off "anarchy".

Lord Vukodlak
2010-03-28, 03:43 PM
i think i remember reading something on "anarchists".

a guy was walking down the street and he meets a young punk spouting stuff about pro-anarchy. guy asks the teen if he honestly believes in a system where anarchy prevails.

teen says yes and that the current government (i don't remember which one it was) should be brought down. guy slaps the teen in the face, puts the kid in an armlock while the kid's still in shock and takes the teen's wallet with his free hand. guy then asks if he (the teen) liked that. teen of course says no and asks for his wallet back. guy laughs, throws the wallet to the teen and says he's not ready for a system based off "anarchy".

Which actually demonstrates what anarchy boils down to, without a governing enforcing body everyone would simply do what they wished, and while some would be nice about it. Others would be a jackass.

If humanity ever evolves socially to the point where anarchy could work, it also have evolved to the point where the problems in government no longer exist rendering anarchy unnecessary.

Riffington
2010-03-28, 03:49 PM
There will always be governing and enforcing bodies. The jerk in this story had the incorrect belief that such bodies must always be subject to a centralized State, and that without that State we would have spontaneous assault and violence. But this is silly. People can enforce order and property on a much more local level.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-03-28, 03:56 PM
There will always be governing and enforcing bodies. The jerk in this story had the incorrect belief that such bodies must always be subject to a centralized State, and that without that State we would have spontaneous assault and violence. But this is silly. People can enforce order and property on a much more local level.

The jerks point is the same as yours, there will always be an enforcing body, by beating up the kid and taking his wallet he was acting as an enforcing body, and like you say people can enforce order and property on a local level, but that is still governing body.

Iku Rex
2010-03-28, 03:57 PM
"Anarchist" can mean a lot of things, but as far as anarcho-capitalists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism) go, sure. They can lawful.

I'd elaborate, but the laws of this forum do not allow political discussions.

lsfreak
2010-03-28, 04:02 PM
The jerks point is the same as yours, there will always be an enforcing body, by beating up the kid and taking his wallet he was acting as an enforcing body, and like you say people can enforce order and property on a local level, but that is still governing body.

'I do whatever I want' is not anarchy. Anarchy (usually) still recognizes legitimate governing bodies as well as enforceable laws, such as those decided by the people of a city or organization. You'd be hard-pressed to find an anarchist state that would allow such actions by the guy who mugged the kid.

hamishspence
2010-03-28, 04:04 PM
It does, however, fit the dictionary definition of "anarchy" as a state of absolute breakdown of law and order.

Which is not quite the same thing.

trmptfnfr
2010-03-28, 04:06 PM
'I do whatever I want' is not anarchy. Anarchy (usually) still recognizes legitimate governing bodies as well as enforceable laws, such as those decided by the people of a city or organization. You'd be hard-pressed to find an anarchist state that would allow such actions by the guy who mugged the kid.It doesn't seem to fit the definition of Anarchy if there are enforced laws and a governing body.
Maybe that's just me though. :smallredface:

Riffington
2010-03-28, 04:06 PM
The jerks point is the same as yours, there will always be an enforcing body, by beating up the kid and taking his wallet he was acting as an enforcing body, and like you say people can enforce order and property on a local level, but that is still governing body.

Not quite. He'd have to be claiming that in the absence of a centralized authority, jerks like him would be able to beat up and rob defenseless kids. Yet there *was* a centralized authority in power in the location he beat up and robbed the kid. His much-loved State did absolutely nothing to stop that violence.

oxybe
2010-03-28, 04:18 PM
There will always be governing and enforcing bodies. The jerk in this story had the incorrect belief that such bodies must always be subject to a centralized State, and that without that State we would have spontaneous assault and violence. But this is silly. People can enforce order and property on a much more local level.

the jerk had the right idea though. in a real state of anarchy, everyone will enforce the laws they want to enforce. it will be completely lawless at the start, but eventually like-minded people will group together, but in a "real" anarchy they won't have a body of law, at best an unwritten code and a gentleman's agreement.

this could mean problems when Jack from North Thunderdomesburg comes visiting his sister Jill from Totalitown.

the main issue is even though you're enforcing order on a local level, there's nothing really protecting you but yourself. if you can't defend yourself, tough noogies; it's entirely within North Thunderdomesburg's right to roll into Totalitown and take all their stuff if they're unable to defend themselves since it's a state of anarchy: you don't have any rights other then those you're willing and able to enforce.

mucat
2010-03-28, 04:19 PM
As a good friend of mine likes to put it, "an anarchist has got to have intense self-discipline, since they won't accept it from anyone else." You can flatly reject the idea that one person can have legitimate authority over another, and still live by a rigid set of personal rules and ideals.

Would such a person be considered Lawful by D&D standards? I would say so, though someone with equally strong self-enforced code, who also accepted outside authority of some sort, would be even further along the Lawful axis.

By the way, it seems that a lot of the posts here are veering away from the original question, "Can an anarchist be Lawfully aligned?", into the question "Is anarchy a viable system?" I'm not even trying to answer the second question (which contains way too much real-world politics), just the first.

Lord Vukodlak
2010-03-28, 04:24 PM
'I do whatever I want' is not anarchy. Anarchy (usually) still recognizes legitimate governing bodies as well as enforceable laws, such as those decided by the people of a city or organization. You'd be hard-pressed to find an anarchist state that would allow such actions by the guy who mugged the kid.

Not according to the definition of anarchy.

TheMadLinguist
2010-03-28, 04:33 PM
Not according to the definition of anarchy.

You expect anarchists to agree on a common definition?

Riffington
2010-03-28, 04:40 PM
the jerk had the right idea though. in a real state of anarchy, everyone will enforce the laws they want to enforce. it will be completely lawless at the start, but eventually like-minded people will group together, but in a "real" anarchy they won't have a body of law, at best an unwritten code and a gentleman's agreement.

this could mean problems when Jack from North Thunderdomesburg comes visiting his sister Jill from Totalitown.

the main issue is even though you're enforcing order on a local level, there's nothing really protecting you but yourself. if you can't defend yourself, tough noogies; it's entirely within North Thunderdomesburg's right to roll into Totalitown and take all their stuff if they're unable to defend themselves since it's a state of anarchy: you don't have any rights other then those you're willing and able to enforce.

How is that different from a non-anarchist system?

Mastikator
2010-03-28, 04:42 PM
Believe it or not, but most who call themselves anarchists aren't individualist, neither psychologically or philosophically.

And no anarchist wants a chaotic society. Most anarchists believe that rulers and rulership leads to chaos, not order. So, really. Anarchy is a lawful philosophy.
Though it's not "central authority" type lawfulness.

Renrik
2010-03-28, 04:58 PM
Maybe we should lay down the definition of anarchism. I hope I'm not breaking the forum rules on politics, I'm just trying to explain the anarchist ideology without referencing too much contemporary political events.

Anarchism is an anti-State, historically anti-Capitalist idea based on the end of hierarchical society, and the creation of a society without a hierarchical monopoly of violence (the State) and without social classes. Anarchists historically range from individualists (Mutualists such as Prodhoun and Warren and naturalists like Thoreau) to social anarchists (the historically more active movement, consisting of anarcho-communists and anarcho-collectivists, such as Bakunin, Goldman, and Kropotkin).

Anarchists were originally allied with Communists until the split in the First International over the use of the State as a tool to empower the Working Class into the creation of classless society. In recent decades, two new trends have emerged. the Anarcho-Capitalists, who most anarchists do not consider anarchists, believe in no monopoly of violence but support classical liberal property rights, which most anarchists oppose in favor of communitarian or possession-and-use property rights. Anarcho-Primitivists grew out of Green Anarchism and believe that all civilization, defined by the subjugation of other species through the system of technology, breeds a hierarchical mass society through the division of labor, and this should be opposed by returning to a tribal society.

Traditional anarchists (social anarchists and pre-AnCap individual anarchists) view the State as a hierarchical monopoly on violence used as an instrument of class rule. Anarchist alternatives tend towards federations of non-hierarchical municipalities or a polycentric customary common law, based on the nonaggression principle- thus, the example of the man taking from the anarchist kid would be opposed by anarchists because it is an aggressive act that violates the person's freedom. Anarchists are not in favor of absolute freedom, they're in favor of equality, and the absence of hierarchy. Anarchists tend to believe a society should be very organized and peaceful, and that monopolistic force, social inequality, exploitation, and alienation produce the majority of social problems.

Major Anarchist Tendencies:
Economic:
Communist- Believe in federations of democratic worker's communes, where workers in an area cooperate. From each according to ability, to each according to need.
Syndicalist- Believe in federations of democratic worker's syndicates, where workers of a single trade make a big union.
Collectivist- Believe in federations of collectives, where returns are decided by labor contributed.
Mutualist- Believe in a market, but with mutual credit instead of money and rights to productive capital based on possession and use.
Capitalist- Believe in capitalism, sans State.

Other:
Anarcha-feminism: Critiques the anarchist movement from a feminist standpoint, emphasizes an opposition to all forms of hierarchy, beyond the State and Capital.
Eco-Anarchism: May be any form of anarchism, usually a communitarian one, that critiques mass society and advocates eco-villages and municipalities.
Anarcho-Primitivism: Anti-civilization.

Emmerask
2010-03-28, 04:58 PM
'I do whatever I want' is not anarchy. Anarchy (usually) still recognizes legitimate governing bodies as well as enforceable laws, such as those decided by the people of a city or organization. You'd be hard-pressed to find an anarchist state that would allow such actions by the guy who mugged the kid.

No anarchy is against every type of hierarchy because it subdues personal freedom.
The Greek word from which it came even means without rule (government).
And those who call themselves anarchists but in fact want a different kind of government are not anarchists. I can call myself superman all day long that does not mean I become superman.

Harperfan7
2010-03-28, 07:06 PM
{scrubbed}

Riffington
2010-03-28, 07:09 PM
{Scrubbed}

You can talk about anarchism or libertarianism in the abstract or in a fantasy setting. Nobody is talking about specific details of some anarchist candidate.

Geiger Counter
2010-03-28, 07:16 PM
{Scrubbed}

Ormur
2010-03-28, 08:25 PM
Renrik IMO describes what anarchy is in political thought perfectly so I think we should debate whether a proponent of those ideas could be lawful instead of using the non-political definition of anarchy as simply the absence of order. Someone that wanted the latter would definitely be chaotic.

It depends on whether you have to obey local laws to be lawful according to D&D but on the other some entities in medieval society were pretty close to being anarchic. The state didn't have monopoly on violence and there were often no written laws but that didn't mean there was no order or an idea of how things should be governed. In such a society an anarchist might only need to fight against the nobles and external forces to rid people of class based oppression and he'd have something very close to anarchy, repeat for the next village.

That still smacks of Chaotic good freedom fighter archetype but he's still fighting for a system he believes society should be organized according to. Someone that fought against it with legal means might be lawful. If we return to historical comparisons then nobles might not be anything more than highway robbers with castles and fancy titles. Fighting against such class oppression might not be chaotic or even neutral.

So in an already feudal society anarchism might very well fit the traditions of some regions and be very lawful. Whether the same could be said of an anarchist fighting for his beliefs in a centralized monarchy with a claim to monopoly of violence depends on whether you require lawful characters to obey local laws.

Could the anarcho-syndicalist dirt farmer in Monty Python and the Holy Grail be lawful?

urbanpirate
2010-03-28, 08:56 PM
I'm not sure that's different from what I said.
The Lawful mob boss (these are rare) ignores the rules he has to (don't steal) but he's still going to tell the truth and stay faithful to his wife and show up to appointments on time etc.

Dr King led marches because there was a super important reason. He followed the law when there wasn't something extremely important at stake.

the difference is not so much in what laws or rules they would obey or break, rather why.

In the example of the mobster his own code is internaly consisitent whatever components agree or conflict with state imposed laws are just coincidence.
in the example of dr king he is breaking laws because he values the good he was working for as superior to the law.

Riffington
2010-03-28, 09:15 PM
the difference is not so much in what laws or rules they would obey or break, rather why.
So far, agreed.


In the example of the mobster his own code is internaly consisitent whatever components agree or conflict with state imposed laws are just coincidence.
No. Merely having an internally consistent code tells us nothing about Lawful/Chaotic. Many lawful people have internally inconsistent codes (follow family; follow law; family happens to contradict law) and many chaotic people have internally consistent codes (I believe in doing what feels right. It feels better to sleep in than make my job interview. So I'll stay in bed)
To be Lawful, you have to be ordered; you have to respect the law and tradition and family. It may be that your family and/or tradition conflicts with the law, causing you to break the law in places. But it's always going to be a conflict there.



in the example of dr king he is breaking laws because he values the good he was working for as superior to the law.
He's breaking laws that are necessary to accomplish a great end. He wasn't ignoring the law. Every time he broke a law it was because there was a real justification for it.

Renrik
2010-03-29, 02:08 AM
Specifically, I'm asking because I am running what started as a socialist revolutionary campaign in Sharn for a group of friends, but due to my own leaning towards the anarchic end of the left, the campaign has taken the tone of anarcho-syndicalism, and the players, whose characters are part of a revolutionary trade union called the Collective, have started calling even themselves anarchists. I suppose, of course, that this is oddly in line with the actual development of trade unionism, and I'll soon play the next part and have a split between pro-State and anti-State members of the collective, but the fact that one of the players wanted his character to be lawful (it was a dwarven artificer who worked for House Cannith and had begun sympathizing with the revolutionaries) raised the question, even if that character's hard-nosed, snarky, anti-authoritarian behavior and complete disregard for rules, planning, or even sanity (I think the uptight player may have been letting lose with the character) in the first session made us decide he was chaotic.

Still, it'd be useful to discuss it in the general range of situations, just to figure out for sure.

Riffington
2010-03-29, 04:01 AM
Specifically, I'm asking because I am running what started as a socialist revolutionary campaign in Sharn for a group of friends, but due to my own leaning towards the anarchic end of the left, the campaign has taken the tone of anarcho-syndicalism, and the players, whose characters are part of a revolutionary trade union called the Collective, have started calling even themselves anarchists. I suppose, of course, that this is oddly in line with the actual development of trade unionism, and I'll soon play the next part and have a split between pro-State and anti-State members of the collective, but the fact that one of the players wanted his character to be lawful (it was a dwarven artificer who worked for House Cannith and had begun sympathizing with the revolutionaries) raised the question, even if that character's hard-nosed, snarky, anti-authoritarian behavior and complete disregard for rules, planning, or even sanity (I think the uptight player may have been letting lose with the character) in the first session made us decide he was chaotic.

Still, it'd be useful to discuss it in the general range of situations, just to figure out for sure.

Well, you are certainly describing a chaotic character.
But yeah - you can have any alignment and any political view. The chaotic anarchists are going to thumb their noses more at authorities both within society and (to a lesser extent) within the collective. The lawful ones are going to respect the existing authorities even as they decry the power structure propping it up. They'll follow the collective's rules better, be more organized/plan better; etc. Just for fun, listen to Dar Williams' The pointless yet poignant crisis of a co-ed.

Renrik
2010-03-29, 01:18 PM
Could the anarcho-syndicalist dirt farmer in Monty Python and the Holy Grail be lawful?

I think he is. His views on social organization are absed very much in the laws of rights and legitimacy of executive power, and he seems to respect the demarchy/near-consensus-democracy they have set up in the collective. He is an anti-hierarchical lawful anarchist.

Friend Computer
2010-03-29, 05:47 PM
Actually, yeah there is a definition of anarchism. Prior to the Russian revolution, Anarchism was a rather stable body of ideas. With the victory of the revolution, a big chunk went over to communism (and constituted a decent enough chunk of the early Comintern that Lenin had to lead a minor faction fight to bring them to discipline), the more right wing elements became regular social democrats, and the remainder were wiped out with victory of Franco on Spain and during WWII in the rest of Europe. With the end of WWII and the prestige of the Communist Parties due to the parts they played in the resistance, anarchism pretty much died as a movement.

With the New Left movement there arose a new group calling itself anarchist, but it had no connection to actual anarchism except a childish rebellion against authority and as such is incorrectly named. Anarchism properly speaking is a doctrine in line with Proudhon, Bakhunin, and Kropotkin. Modern anarchism does share a number of features with classical anarchism, however: Disdain for organised groups, opposition to organised authority, and a belief in the validity of 'propaganda of the deed.'

With that little history lesson out of the way, it is hard to see anarchists as actually lawful. They oppose authority because they believe it is based on compulsion and that while a law may be just, people should be convinced of the correctness of a given course of action, not forced. This much is certainly lawful, but this goes so far for them that there can be no authority at all, not even that based on delegation (or rather, they accept such authority in practice, but oppose it in principle and try to hide it by calling it a 'commission' or something). In short, individual anarchists would likely vary all over from good to evil according to their methods, but would sit on the neutral and chaotic alignments, not touching lawful.

/my $.02

Devils_Advocate
2010-04-03, 05:47 PM
The difference between Lawful characters and Chaotic characters is that Lawful characters "respect authority" and "honor tradition", while Chaotic characters "resent being told what to do" and "favor new ideas over tradition". (There are other things associated with these alignments, but not so that any of them is ruled out for characters of the opposite alignment and actually required for the alignment that it's associated with. A Chaotic character could be perfectly honest and even rigidly devoted to doing things in his own eccentric personal way, for example.) Specifically, "[s]omeone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel". So, by implication, Lawful characters are compelled to obey and Chaotic characters are compelled to rebel.

We are also told that "[t]hose who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should", and that "[t]hose who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them".

Here's the catch, though: Promoting Lawfulness doesn't necessarily mean personally being Lawful, and promoting Chaotic behavior doesn't necessarily mean being Chaotic, not vice versa! A demon prince is going to damn well want to get a bunch of demons to respect his authority and obey his commands, as a way of preventing anyone else from subjugating him. He's just got his work cut out for him, what with all those demons also being Chaotic.

Conversely, does regard for authority and tradition have to mean thinking that everyone should have to follow them? No, of course not. One may both value leadership and disdain coercion. A society that values individual sovereignty will likely have institutions devoted to protecting it; but their non-coercive authority will be derived from and legitimized their ability to convince individuals to choose to follow them, and from not forcing compliance.

Bogardan_Mage
2010-04-04, 08:29 PM
In many ways, Anarchism is a very lawful movement. Or perhaps more accurately, it is based on the belief that people are in general lawful. So this probably doesn't mean that Anarchists would necessarily be lawful, but they might be more inclined towards law because why would they believe people were generally lawful if they themselves were not?

On the other hand, the ethical axis is extremely ambiguous. Is law necessary for a stable society? Or are all the things that we normally rely on law for covered by morality instead? Come to think of it, it might be more accurate to say that Anarchism is based on the belief that people are in general good. In which case they would see the forces of cosmic Law as redundant, and potentially dangerous. So they'd be more chaotic good.

Having thought it through, I'm inclined to go with the second one, but my overall point is that you have to decide what law and chaos are actually about. Is a stable, secure society "lawful" enough?

Tura
2010-04-05, 10:40 AM
First of all, I find it rather... misguided to suggest that political beliefs limit a person's alignment in any way. Alignment is about character and morality and, in any one political party, faction, movement, what have you, you can find all sorts of people. I find this self-evident, really. I weep when a DM says something like "so, this kingdom here has very strict laws, ergo all government officials are Lawful, except for the traitors".

And you know, it's awfully difficult for anyone to be loyal to the laws of the land, his own moral law, the custom law of his community, tradition and family at the same time. I mean, you'd have to play in a remarkably simple setting to pull that off, and this is obviously not the case.

I strongly suggest you cut some slack to the players and use alignment as "guideline not straightjacket". Your dwarven artificer may disrespect and indeed resent authority, rules and err... sanity, but if he is uncompromisingly loyal to something (the cause, perhaps? a subset of the cause? the means they will use to advance that cause? a personal code of conduct?) then why not let him be lawful if he wants to.

Just ask him what exactly he plans to be lawful about, because, from your description, I don't see much that fits...

That said, IMHO, following the D&D rules of alignment in the setting you have described is unnecessary, if not completely incompatible. But in any case, I see no need to worry too much about it. It's two letters on the character sheet. No big deal. :)