PDA

View Full Version : In defense of Law



Rixx
2010-12-30, 07:34 PM
A trend I'm seeing, at least in my experiences with my tabletop friends as well as stuff I read on the internet, is that the "Law" side of the law-chaos axis is generally seen as the less desirable one. You're more likely to see a neutral to chaotic party going up against a lawful foe than the reverse - I've never in my life been in a party that slanted lawful.

This may be because of the common association of chaotic with "freedom", and lawful with "oppression" - indeed, a good portion of the tabletop gaming crowd are teenagers who already have to deal with parents, teachers, and the like. The common perception seems to be that a lawful character can't think for him or herself, and a chaotic character remains free and flexible. Indeed, the primary problem people have with paladins isn't the "good" part, but the "lawful" part - but there are just as many stupid and irritating ways to be good as there are to be lawful.

I'll tell you all right now, though, that I'd rather have a lawful friend than a chaotic one. Being loyal, keeping your promises, and being reliable are all lawful qualities. But too often is "lawful" used as shorthand for "orwellian".

Has anyone else had problems defending their lawful characters from accusations of stick-in-the-mud-itude?

Lateral
2010-12-30, 07:37 PM
It's a lot like 'stick-up-the-ass syndrome'. Lots of people play D&D and expect certain stereotypes, and that's one that many people expect out of all lawful characters. Yeah, totalitarianism is Lawful, but it's always only intended to be Lawful Neutral at best, and usually it's intended to be Evil, and I've never heard of a totalitarian government that ever ended up as anything but LE. (I only really play Chaotic or Neutral characters, but that's a personal playstyle preference.)

I think this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8359242#post8359242) sums up how Lawful Good is supposed to be:

Cleric: “Haven’t you done enough heroics for the day?”

Paladin, stonefaced, with water dripping off his face and still coughing up liquid as he runs: “Nope. Paladin.”

HunterOfJello
2010-12-30, 07:48 PM
Many to most PCs are really just homicidal hobos who spend their time killing and stealing from normal everyday people and monsters who are trying to live their lives.


A more appropriate way to think of Lawful than many players do is the Deontological perspective.

Black_Zawisza
2010-12-30, 08:02 PM
Many to most PCs are really just homicidal hobos who spend their time killing and stealing from normal everyday people and monsters who are trying to live their lives.


A more appropriate way to think of Lawful than many players do is the Deontological perspective.
In order to defend or oppose the Lawful alignment, we must first come to a consensus about what being Lawful means. Alignment debates will forever be meaningless until our premises are the same.



I think this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8359242#post8359242) sums up how Lawful Good is supposed to be:

What's so Lawful about that, as opposed to Chaotic or Neutral?

Lateral
2010-12-30, 08:05 PM
In order to defend or oppose the Lawful alignment, we must first come to a consensus about what being Lawful means. Alignment debates will forever be meaningless until our premises are the same.

And there's another point. Exactly what does Lawful mean? Not to turn this into another alignment debate thread, but D&D alignments are very vague. 'Lawfulness' as a concept is pretty much just that- a concept, subject to various interpretations and preconceptions.


What's so Lawful about that, as opposed to Chaotic or Neutral?

It's a moment that perfectly demonstrates how Paladins should be, and, by extension, what any LG character should strive for. He puts the needs of the many over the needs of the few- in this case, he puts the lives of his party far above his.

Hazkali
2010-12-30, 08:07 PM
Interesting, I would say I've not experienced this much. Of course, there will always be a bit of alignment friction, but less something that spills out into RL. That said, most people I know generally build characters with the same alignment- I have a friend who likes chaotic character, a friend who likes neutrality, and I personally tend to play Lawful characters.

Eldan
2010-12-30, 08:10 PM
Incidentally, I wouldn't really see loyalty as a lawful concept. Chaotic people can be loyal. I'd just say their loyalties are more on a personal basis, while lawful people are more loyal to organizations.

And yes, I much, much prefer chaos over law.

Zeofar
2010-12-30, 08:11 PM
In order to defend or oppose the Lawful alignment, we must first come to a consensus about what being Lawful means. Alignment debates will forever be meaningless until our premises are the same.

Lolyouwinthethread.

I agree though, that example that Lateral posted wasn't terribly "lawful." Heroic sacrifice can happen given any alignment, though Evil and the Chaotic variety are the least likely.

Black_Zawisza
2010-12-30, 08:17 PM
It's a moment that perfectly demonstrates how Paladins should be, and, by extension, what any LG character should strive for. He puts the needs of the many over the needs of the few- in this case, he puts the lives of his party far above his.
But that's the commonly accepted definition of the Good alignment – putting others before yourself. Does that mean that LG is more Good than NG or CG? Does it follow that the alignment system doesn't neatly follow two axes?

Lateral
2010-12-30, 08:19 PM
But that's the commonly accepted definition of the Good alignment –*putting others before yourself. Does that mean that LG is more Good than NG or CG?
It's not the putting others before yourself, it's more the putting the group before the individual. IMO, that's a very lawful standpoint, but your mileage may vary.


Does it follow that the alignment system doesn't neatly follow two axes?

Well, yes, that too. The D&D alignment system is extremely vague and subject to interpretation.

Xiander
2010-12-30, 08:25 PM
Well, like any alignment, lawful can be played in different ways.

Of all my D&D characters, my own favorite was a lawful neutral fighter/rouge. I played him as a mercenary with a very strict personal code. He was the only lawful character in the party. He took the leader role. At times he actively acted to avoid his comrades making a decision as he believed their decisions would violate his code. On the other hand he risked his life for his party mates time after time, stubbornly refusing to give up even in the case where one of them was posessed by a demon.

No going back on his word, no compromise. All in all great fun. :smallbiggrin:

mrcarter11
2010-12-30, 08:25 PM
Like many have side, we have to decide what Law is supposed to be. I agree that Chaos should represent freedom, but that it also shows personal bias. The people that do what they want, because it's helpful for them. Loyalty for personal reasons.. Law is loyalty to the cause, imho. What cause however, is up to the PC.

Grelna the Blue
2010-12-30, 08:26 PM
As can be seen from my sig, I'm more than a little biased in this matter.

However, the most simplistic defense of Law in a D&D setting that I can make that still bears some resemblance to the truth is that Lawfulness is about believing in and accepting responsibility. Chaos in D&D is about freedom from obligations, including responsibility. Being Good imposes certain responsibilities on people, but Lawful and Chaotic types disagree on how many responsibilities these are and how heavily they should bear upon any given situation. In D&D terms, Chaos is easy and Law is hard, which is why in my experience most younger gamers prefer to play Chaotic characters.

Law might or might not be desirable from any particular individual's viewpoint, but it is not Good in and of itself. However, from the aforementioned deontological viewpoint (certainly not the only viewpoint possible), Good requires an acceptance of a certain amount of Law.

Zonugal
2010-12-30, 08:33 PM
A more appropriate way to think of Lawful than many players do is the Deontological perspective.

Yes...

I also think it can become easier if we bring in codes, oaths, creeds and even honor.

Black_Zawisza
2010-12-30, 08:37 PM
As can be seen from my sig, I'm more than a little biased in this matter.

However, the most simplistic defense of Law in a D&D setting that I can make that still bears some resemblance to the truth is that Lawfulness is about believing in and accepting responsibility. Chaos in D&D is about freedom from obligations, including responsibility. Being Good imposes certain responsibilities on people, but Lawful and Chaotic types disagree on how many responsibilities these are and how heavily they should bear upon any given situation. In D&D terms, Chaos is easy and Law is hard, which is why in my experience most younger gamers prefer to play Chaotic characters.

Law might or might not be desirable from any particular individual's viewpoint, but it is not Good in and of itself. However, from the aforementioned deontological viewpoint (certainly not the only viewpoint possible), Good requires an acceptance of a certain amount of Law.
As biased towards Chaos as I am, this is the best definition I've heard of. +1 to you.

Dragonus45
2010-12-30, 08:42 PM
Currently i am playing a lawful good fighter half orc who is the childhood friend and body guard to another party member, a half elf rogue. I always sort of equate law and politeness on the alignment scale. Not to say that chaotic people cant be polite but it seems to be less in the nature of that end of the axis, case in point.

So the party gets invited to a meeting with some mysterious person, whom the half elf tried to pick pocket, and spent about three or so hours waiting for them to join us. The party had just met that morning and after ten minutes real time the conversation had devolved into the half elf barbarian attempting to strangle the elf wizard, who was convinced he was better than a room full of half breeds. All while the rogue attempted to take off with a bunch of silverware. The whole time he just sat quietly made polite conversation with the nobles retainer and the few other people in the room.

Yukitsu
2010-12-30, 09:00 PM
I almost invariably play what others describe as "generally lawful". The only difference between annoying lawful that is less desireable than chaos, is that it imposes on others. Acting lawfully, but not demanding it from others is a perfectly acceptable manner to be. If you or the NPC is harping on the chaotics for being chaotic, then he's more likely to be hated for being lawful than if you left them alone.

The Big Dice
2010-12-30, 09:08 PM
Law is a confusing term, especially in D&D.

If you go back to the source of Law and Chaos, the books of Michael Moorcock (who incidentally came up with all the imagery Games Workshop stole for their chaos, including the 8-pointed arrow symbol, and who also coined the term 'multiverse') you get a somewhat different picture.

Law isn't about manners or following a code or anything like that. It's about order and progress. It's about a place for everything and everything in it's place. It's about building on the foundations that the people who came before you laid down. Law is form and structure, where chaos is fluid and formless.

Getting away from issues regarding good and evil, law is all about fitting in. If a Lawful person says they'll do something, then they will do it. Lawful Good, Neutral and Evil beings might do this thing in different ways and with different motives, but their word is their bond.

Tarquin might be deeply Evil, but he's also extremely Lawful. Durkon does his best to be Good, but he's also fundamentally Lawful. Being Lawful doesn't mean you can't be a fun person to hang around with. It means you're more likely to be the designated driver, not that you won't go to the party.

Elric VIII
2010-12-30, 09:46 PM
Law is a confusing term, especially in D&D.

If you go back to the source of Law and Chaos, the books of Michael Moorcock (who incidentally came up with all the imagery Games Workshop stole for their chaos, including the 8-pointed arrow symbol, and who also coined the term 'multiverse') you get a somewhat different picture.

Law isn't about manners or following a code or anything like that. It's about order and progress. It's about a place for everything and everything in it's place. It's about building on the foundations that the people who came before you laid down. Law is form and structure, where chaos is fluid and formless.

Getting away from issues regarding good and evil, law is all about fitting in. If a Lawful person says they'll do something, then they will do it. Lawful Good, Neutral and Evil beings might do this thing in different ways and with different motives, but their word is their bond.

Tarquin might be deeply Evil, but he's also extremely Lawful. Durkon does his best to be Good, but he's also fundamentally Lawful. Being Lawful doesn't mean you can't be a fun person to hang around with. It means you're more likely to be the designated driver, not that you won't go to the party.

I agree with this completely. The names of the alignments are rather unfortunate in that their connotations set forth a stereotype and we base our alignment-related actions on those stereotypes. Just look at the concept of Chaotic; the word means containing no pattern, rhyme, or reason, whereas in D&D it refers to freedom from thing such as implied oaths and obligations (such as being expected to help someone just because they are in trouble).

There needs to be degrees of each alignment, such as a version of lawful that represents someone that is (a) dutiful, (b) routine, and (c) ordered. Each is a possible version of Lawful that may be the only part or one area of a character's alignment. Imagine a Lawful(dutiful) Neutral character as a king's head general, he is loyal to the crown, but may now be particularly routine in his tactics or ordered about his battleplans. Whereas a Lawful (routine) Neutral character may be a priest, going aobut his same duties the same way every day, being neither loyal to his church, joining out of obligation, or ordered. A Lawful (ordered) Neutral character might be a master jewel theif, meticulous and ordered in making his plans, but not routine so that he doesn't have a recognizible M.O. and not dutiful because of his disregard of the laws. Lastly, imagine a Lawful (dutiful, routine) Neutral character as a Monk, devoted to his martial arts, meditating every day, but his fighting style is varied and unpredictable.

awa
2010-12-30, 10:26 PM
the reason lawful enemies are more common than chaotic enemies is a chaotic enemy is vastly more likely to be a one shot villain not the basis of a entire campaign. An evil empire or master manipulator(lawful) makes a better main villain than a berserker or orc horde.

In addition lawful evil characters are more likely to have something you can identify with such as behaving honorably.

that is why you are getting the perception that law is more evil than chaos.

p.s. alignment debates are long and futile so i am doing my best to ignore that aspect of the thread in it's entirety.

Popertop
2010-12-31, 12:06 AM
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7577205

Zeal's expanded alignment system is one way to approach that.

Tyndmyr
2010-12-31, 12:10 AM
Many to most PCs are really just homicidal hobos who spend their time killing and stealing from normal everyday people and monsters who are trying to live their lives.


A more appropriate way to think of Lawful than many players do is the Deontological perspective.

There is that. Lawful people try to solve things with laws, and creating a system that gets rid of the problem. Chaotic people run over, stab it in the face, then rifle through it's pockets. Adventurers have a certain tendency to come from the latter group.

Traab
2010-12-31, 12:22 AM
When I think chaotic, i always think random. Im talking ctrl-alt-del comic, Chef Brian random. Wether its good or evil isnt as important, its still just random actions. Lawful I personally view as more of a structured setup. Meaning you can more or less tell what type of action that person will take. That basically makes it easier to create a character around as there are guidelines to follow. Whereas chaotic is an alignment that should cause your party members AND the dm, to go "Wtf?!" at least a dozen times per campaign. "I cast polymoprh bannana on his left hand!"

Tyndmyr
2010-12-31, 12:26 AM
That's one form of chaos, yes. However, crazy chaotic isn't the only form of chaos.

Alternate viewpoints include a more direct anti-order theme, in which your character acts logically and rationally, but with the end goal of disrupting law and order. A frequent reason for this is that too much order results in stagnation and the lack of new creation.

Traab
2010-12-31, 12:40 AM
But isnt acting logically and rationally the direct antithesis of chaos? You may be serving the cause of chaos, but you are not yourself acting chaotically. If you are truly chaotic, I would expect to see you or the dm roll a die with a prewritten list of actions that corresponds to each number that would determine what you will do that turn. As an example,
1) Attack enemy
2) attack friend
3) eat some cake and pie
4) Attack enemy
5) Try to cast a spell (while playing a class that has no spells)
6) Attack enemy
7) attack enemy
8) Attack landscape
9) tickle enemy
10) sit this one out

Your definition seems more like a religious alignment than a lawful/chaotic thing.

Rumpus
2010-12-31, 12:52 AM
The are two very different schools of thought on alignment. The more prevalent school believes that alignments are an expression of personality quirks (ie lawful characters are OCD and never break their promises, chaotic characters are flighty and unpredictable).

I started playing with 2nd Edition, and I think it had a more helpful version of alignment: viewing it as ideology, rather than a collection of tics. If you are Lawful, you believe that working within the rules (or changing them through the proper channels) is the best way to solve problems. Whether you are working toward good or evil ends, organizations and governments are fundamentally a good thing, because a group working together can achieve more than an individual.

If you are Chaotic, you believe that organizations allow one group to oppress the other. If you are CG, you think that the strong oppress the weak (which you think is bad). If you are CE, you think organizations allow the weak to gang up and oppress the strong (which you think is bad, since you consider yourself one of the strong). Either way, you think any government or large organization is a bad thing.

If you want to help others regardless of what the law says, that would make you NG. You would only be CG if you want to tear down the government because you think it's better for everybody (ie utopian anarchists).

Obviously, this isn't a straight-jacket. LG characters can still form an underground resistance to an evil overlord. The difference is that after the overlord is toppled, the LG characters will want to establish a new, better government in his place. The CG characters will want every man to be a king in his own household, and will resist setting up ANY government, even if they are the ones in charge.

Yukitsu
2010-12-31, 12:55 AM
But isnt acting logically and rationally the direct antithesis of chaos? You may be serving the cause of chaos, but you are not yourself acting chaotically. If you are truly chaotic, I would expect to see you or the dm roll a die with a prewritten list of actions that corresponds to each number that would determine what you will do that turn. As an example,
1) Attack enemy
2) attack friend
3) eat some cake and pie
4) Attack enemy
5) Try to cast a spell (while playing a class that has no spells)
6) Attack enemy
7) attack enemy
8) Attack landscape
9) tickle enemy
10) sit this one out

Your definition seems more like a religious alignment than a lawful/chaotic thing.

Chaotic characters when done in literature aren't completely random, but will act on impulse. Even if you want to think of chaos as completely arbitrary, the most interesting characters that snub the rational and the rules are people who play by emotions, or what they feel is right. Acting completely random is more likely to be insane, or chaotic stupid.

Teron
2010-12-31, 01:02 AM
But isnt acting logically and rationally the direct antithesis of chaos? You may be serving the cause of chaos, but you are not yourself acting chaotically. If you are truly chaotic, I would expect to see you or the dm roll a die with a prewritten list of actions that corresponds to each number that would determine what you will do that turn. As an example,
1) Attack enemy
2) attack friend
3) eat some cake and pie
4) Attack enemy
5) Try to cast a spell (while playing a class that has no spells)
6) Attack enemy
7) attack enemy
8) Attack landscape
9) tickle enemy
10) sit this one out

Your definition seems more like a religious alignment than a lawful/chaotic thing.
I don't think (a very crude portrayal of) utter insanity is a very good interpretation of a third of the alignment spectrum. I don't recall any WotC source supporting it, either.

You might as well object to chaotic characters having a solid skeleton and the same number of limbs every day.

Traab
2010-12-31, 01:12 AM
Well yeah, I mean there also a matter of degree. I was basically at the farthest edge of chaotic where your actions are pretty much entirely random, and you are just as likely to walk away from your group in the middle of a campaign as you are to start stabbing the ground with a carton of milk, or to suddenly wrap yourself in exploding runes and run screaming at the dragon in an attempt to blow it up from the inside!

A less random chaotic character might just pick really strange combat tactics that nevertheless work, such as, rather than using some exploding spell to blast a group of incoming bandits, you use the spell to open a pit under the feet of the oncoming horde of bad guys, so they take some aoe damage, some falling damage, and are now stuck in a pile at the bottom of a pit, and are sitting ducks for your ranged group members. Or instead of doing a standard, I dunno, lightning bolt attack on a dragon, you would instead toss a pebble into its mouth as its roaring away, then cast a growth spell on it to make it choke to death. Whatever.

Oh, and the truly random chaotic type just might decide his arm is looking at him funny and chop it off, thus altering the number of limbs he is starting the day with. :D

Teron
2010-12-31, 01:23 AM
Seriously, where did you get the idea that "chaotic" means -- or has any kind of connection to -- "lunatic"?

Elric VIII
2010-12-31, 02:17 AM
I personally think that the Chaos-Law axis is similar to Jungian personality types: Thinking vs Feeling (http://www.mypersonality.info/personality-types/thinking-feeling/), Judging vs Perceiving (http://www.mypersonality.info/personality-types/thinking-feeling/), and Sensing or Intuition (http://www.mypersonality.info/personality-types/sensing-intuition/) (the Introverted vs Extroverted portion could be applicable to both). In the three stated cases, the Lawful side is the former and the Chaotic side is the latter.

I believe the C-L axis is much more flavorful than the G-E one, simply because moral alignment by itself is less abiguous. It is the addition of a social alignment that adds ambiguities such as the concept of greater good, et al. That is, however, a different subject entirely.

P.S. - I'm sorry if this comes out as an attempted alignment debate, I just think it's necessary to define, if not agree on, the possible inclinations of each alignment before deciding if it is truly the most likely to be that of an adventurer.

P.P.S. - I play lawful characters in a party almost solely composed of Chaotic Stupid, "I can do anything I want because I'm Chaotic Aligned," party members.

P.P.P.S. - I have learned to love Dictum.

TaintedLight
2010-12-31, 03:27 AM
I agree though, that example that Lateral posted wasn't terribly "lawful." Heroic sacrifice can happen given any alignment, though Evil and the Chaotic variety are the least likely.

I have to disagree with this point. As droll as the PHB is on the subject of morality,


Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

No such mention of sacrifice for the sake of others is made in the short, dry description of evil.

To get back on topic, I do feel like law gets less fair a shake than it deserves with many people. Devotion, consistency, and conviction are not bad things for a character to have that stunt creativity and dull the mind. In fact, many of the most compelling characters of film and fiction are very much like that.

Chaos offers players the lucrative proposition of being totally unbound and free to make spontaneous decisions based on their whims and feelings. No doubt, it's great when you're not beholden to something other than yourself and you can be that spontaneous, but lawful characters don't have to always grit their teeth and say, "No, I will not budge remotely from my small-minded position." Alignment is a suggestion and a guideline that suggests to a player how their character would most often react given any situation. There are often complicating factors that allow you to bend your rules and that is okay.

If it makes you happy, you can play a total hard***. Maybe you enjoy that and your group will put up with you without complaint.

Rumpus
2010-12-31, 05:46 AM
Seriously, where did you get the idea that "chaotic" means -- or has any kind of connection to -- "lunatic"?

Pretty common misconception, actually. A lot of younger players confuse "freedom" with "freedom to be an impulsive twit who lights things on fire for no apparent reason". And "Chaotic" does not mean "creative", nor does Lawful mean "unimaginative".

Any of the alignments can be held by a completely rational, intelligent individual. Equally, somebody of any alignment can be absolutely insane to the point of being dangerous to themselves and others.

Febreezium
2010-12-31, 05:53 AM
the reason lawful enemies are more common than chaotic enemies is a chaotic enemy is vastly more likely to be a one shot villain not the basis of a entire campaign. An evil empire or master manipulator(lawful) makes a better main villain than a berserker or orc horde.

In addition lawful evil characters are more likely to have something you can identify with such as behaving honorably.

To counteract this, a great example of a Chaotic 'villain' would be Andrew Ryan or the other villain in Bioshock.

In fact, both games are about more chaotic societies and people, so you can build entire games on Chaotic antagonists.

Murdim
2010-12-31, 06:35 AM
Well yeah, I mean there also a matter of degree. I was basically at the farthest edge of chaotic where your actions are pretty much entirely random, and you are just as likely to walk away from your group in the middle of a campaign as you are to start stabbing the ground with a carton of milk, or to suddenly wrap yourself in exploding runes and run screaming at the dragon in an attempt to blow it up from the inside!

A less random chaotic character might just pick really strange combat tactics that nevertheless work, such as, rather than using some exploding spell to blast a group of incoming bandits, you use the spell to open a pit under the feet of the oncoming horde of bad guys, so they take some aoe damage, some falling damage, and are now stuck in a pile at the bottom of a pit, and are sitting ducks for your ranged group members. Or instead of doing a standard, I dunno, lightning bolt attack on a dragon, you would instead toss a pebble into its mouth as its roaring away, then cast a growth spell on it to make it choke to death. Whatever.
I don't think it has anything to do with alignment. Xykon is very straightforward and very Chaotic. Nale is Lawful, yet his wacky, needlessly complicated plans are one of his most defining features.


Law is a confusing term, especially in D&D.

If you go back to the source of Law and Chaos, the books of Michael Moorcock (who incidentally came up with all the imagery Games Workshop stole for their chaos, including the 8-pointed arrow symbol, and who also coined the term 'multiverse') you get a somewhat different picture.

Law isn't about manners or following a code or anything like that. It's about order and progress. It's about a place for everything and everything in it's place. It's about building on the foundations that the people who came before you laid down. Law is form and structure, where chaos is fluid and formless.

Getting away from issues regarding good and evil, law is all about fitting in. If a Lawful person says they'll do something, then they will do it. Lawful Good, Neutral and Evil beings might do this thing in different ways and with different motives, but their word is their bond.

Tarquin might be deeply Evil, but he's also extremely Lawful. Durkon does his best to be Good, but he's also fundamentally Lawful. Being Lawful doesn't mean you can't be a fun person to hang around with. It means you're more likely to be the designated driver, not that you won't go to the party.
Those are the only general definitions of Law and Chaos that ever made sense to me. I can't say I completely stick to them as I tend to more closely associate Law with communitarianism and Chaos with individualism, but Moorcock's definitions remain for me a baseline of sort. Lawful characters can be smart, creative or easy-going. Chaotic characters can be wise, foreseeing or devoted. They just have two very different ways to conceive the Universe and their place therein.

There's also the fact that the Outer Plans do fit with Moorcock's concept of Law and Chaos. Both Celestia and Baator have every one of their inhabitants climbing their way towards a single goal that is the very soul of the plane itself : reaching higher and higher states of enlightenment until the illumination of the Seventh Heaven for celestials, and reaching higher and higher ranks among the diabolic hierarchy until dethroning the King of Hell (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FailureIsTheOnlyOption) for infernals. By contrast, Arborea and the Abyss have everyone doing their own thing, which usually involve hugging animals/trees/each other in the former and violently murdering devils/mortals/each other in the latter.

hamishspence
2010-12-31, 06:39 AM
No such mention of sacrifice for the sake of others is made in the short, dry description of evil.

That's kind of the point- Good characters must be at least willing to make sacrifices for others- but Evil characters aren't forbidden to make sacrifices for others.

Being willing to make sacrifices for others, doesn't automatically make the character "Not Evil".

And the PHB's summary of Evil- does not require that they behave that way to everyone. They can "behave evilly" to only a small subset of the population- and still qualify as Evil-aligned.


Pretty common misconception, actually.

Early editions did describe Chaotic Neutral as a typical alignment for "lunatics and madmen" - and that might be where Chaotic as crazier than Lawful, came from.

Talkkno
2010-12-31, 07:38 AM
I think though the biases comes from culturally as well, since most of us on this board are westerners, which tend to value individual over the group, where East Asian cultures tend to value the group over the individual.

hamishspence
2010-12-31, 07:44 AM
Maybe.

A common LE stereotype seems to be:
"the needs of the group outweigh the rights of the individual"

The CE counterpart is usually:
"the desires of an individual (me) outweigh the rights of other individuals".

LG D&D societies tend to balance the rights of the individual with the needs of the group- not using "what's good for the group" as a reason to violate individual rights.

CG groups tend to be similar- but maybe with a wider definition of "violation of the rights of an individual" and a little less emphasis on "the needs of the group".

Heliomance
2010-12-31, 07:57 AM
Aye, I would say that Lawful values the group over the individual, and Chaotic values the individual over the group.

Lawful: "The needs of the many outweigh thee needs of the few."
Chaotic: "Yeah, but I know the few, and they're really nice people."

hamishspence
2010-12-31, 08:47 AM
Yes- the wise Lawful Good character might use "needs" as a reason to help one group over another (if you have only time to help one group, you help the most people you can)

but, they'll be very wary of violating the "rights" of the few- even if not as wary as CG characters might be.

Picard from TNG is a pretty fair example of a LG character in other media- and he knows just how easy it is to be tempted into violating the rights of individuals- and tries to avoid doing so. As I recall, quite a few "Patrick Stewart Speeches" from TNG mention this.

Tyndmyr
2010-12-31, 09:27 AM
But isnt acting logically and rationally the direct antithesis of chaos? You may be serving the cause of chaos, but you are not yourself acting chaotically. If you are truly chaotic, I would expect to see you or the dm roll a die with a prewritten list of actions that corresponds to each number that would determine what you will do that turn. As an example,
1) Attack enemy
2) attack friend
3) eat some cake and pie
4) Attack enemy
5) Try to cast a spell (while playing a class that has no spells)
6) Attack enemy
7) attack enemy
8) Attack landscape
9) tickle enemy
10) sit this one out

Your definition seems more like a religious alignment than a lawful/chaotic thing.

Logic and rationality are traits that are not directly governed by the alignment system. Int and Wis and, if used, Sanity, are more indicative of a character's abilities in such things.

You do know randomness is also considered a pattern, don't you? Chaos is not merely "just add randomness" to a character. Chaos is the antithesis of law and/or order. Acting at random is hardly the only way to oppose the currently used sets of laws/social order. And generally, it's not a very effective one.

Eldan
2010-12-31, 10:17 AM
Yeah, sorry, Traab, but that's one of the worst interpretations of alignment I ever saw.

I mean, do you have a similar table for lawful characters, on which they have to roll if they are suddenly overcome by the desire to clean their collection of bottlecaps instead of fight, or if they can not move diagonally because they can't stand black floor tiles?

big teej
2010-12-31, 03:15 PM
Seriously, where did you get the idea that "chaotic" means -- or has any kind of connection to -- "lunatic"?

after to many games with people who think chaotic stupid is the only alignment perhaps?

in a very small response to the OP

I just ended my teenage years
and I have had very lawful tendencies since the age of 16 (still working out who I was before then, )
tendencies to the point that whenever someone calls me on something that seems odd (in it's goody two-shoeness for lack of a better term) I simply inform them that I'm Lawful Good and deal with it :smallsigh:

but I digress,

the point I set out to make was teenage does not always = chaotic.

/ramble

back to observing the thread now.

Burner28
2010-12-31, 05:18 PM
Logic and rationality are traits that are not directly governed by the alignment system. Int and Wis and, if used, Sanity, are more indicative of a character's abilities in such things.



Yeah, logic and rationality is a sign that you are a smart person, not Lawful.

The Big Dice
2011-01-01, 02:40 PM
Yeah, logic and rationality is a sign that you are a smart person, not Lawful.
By that measure, people who are intuitive and instinctive are by definition stupid. And that is patently ridiculous. Logic and rationality are absolutely defining traits of Law. Law and Chaos, especially in terms of Alignment, are internalised traits. It's the difference between natural talent and disciplined practise.

Burner28
2011-01-01, 02:49 PM
By that measure, people who are intuitive and instinctive are by definition stupid. And that is patently ridiculous. Logic and rationality are absolutely defining traits of Law. Law and Chaos, especially in terms of Alignment, are internalised traits. It's the difference between natural talent and disciplined practise.

Umm.. Logic and rationality are traits of intelligent people not Lawful people otherwise all Lawful characters would be smart and all chaotic characters would be stupid as the iopposite of logic and rationality are traits of stupid poeople not Chaotic. and to say otherwise itself would not make sense. After all it is extremely possible for a L Lawful character, to say, to support the established order by following the rules even thought it is suicidal(therefore acting iligically and unrationally in support of the established order) and it is possible for a free-spirited Chaotic character to be able to calculate and actually make smart decision (thefore using logic)

The Big Dice
2011-01-01, 04:37 PM
Umm.. Logic and rationality are traits of intelligent people not Lawful people otherwise all Lawful characters would be smart and all chaotic characters would be stupid as the iopposite of logic and rationality are traits of stupid poeople not Chaotic. and to say otherwise itself would not make sense. After all it is extremely possible for a L Lawful character, to say, to support the established order by following the rules even thought it is suicidal(therefore acting iligically and unrationally in support of the established order) and it is possible for a free-spirited Chaotic character to be able to calculate and actually make smart decision (thefore using logic)Why logic and rationality a sign of intelligence? Logic has nothing todo with making any kind of calculation,and Star Trek style Vulcan logic is more about being reasonable than being logical. And considering there are multiple definitions of what logic is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_logic) then any generalisations about logic and intelligence are just opinion. And again, the focus is on Law as unreasoning following regulations, not an organisational principle. By the logic of blindly following the established order, a chaotic person, in order to not follow the established order, is likely to walk out onto a busy road.

A logical deduction to one person might not be a logical deduction to another. After all, for centuries it was a perfectly logical assumption that the Earth was at the center of the universe. After all, everything seems to revolve around us. So logically it does revolve around us, making this planet the center of everything.

Law and chaos have nothing to do with relative intelligence. The difference between Law and Chaos is the difference between constructive and creative.

Terraoblivion
2011-01-01, 05:14 PM
Logic is about processes of connecting facts, Dice. The facts might be wrong or you might lack facts to arrive at the proper conclusion. I'll try to use your own example of people believing the Earth to be at the center of the universe to try and explain it. Quite simply, does it look like the Earth is orbiting the Sun or the opposite when you look at the sky? To a casual observer or even an early astronomer lacking an established body of observations to work from, the most logical conclusions is that the Sun orbits the Earth. As observations increase and the inconsistencies and holes in the math becomes clear, it becomes increasingly more logical to instead conclude that the Earth orbits the Sun. This is because this explanations is a much neater, simpler system than the increasingly complex orbits celestial bodies would have to follow in order to fit the observations where they to revolve around the Earth.

Absent the data from fairly sophisticated astronomical observation, however, arriving at the conclusion that the Earth is at the center of the universe is completely logical. It is not about there being different kinds of logic that arrive at different conclusions, it is about having different sets of empirical data from which to derive logical conclusions. Not only that, in the strictest sense logic does not deal with reality at all, but instead with how you arrive at conclusions based on a set of premises. Saying "If tigers are purple and you look at a large, purple cat you are probably looking at a tiger" is perfectly logical, but it does not correspond to reality.

In most cases, though, people also demand that logic is applied to actual, empirical observation about the world, since solely focusing on the construction of arguments is hardly useful most of the time. Even so, being logical simply means arriving at sensible conclusions based on a set of data, it has nothing to do with being ordered, unemotional or obedient. Those are all traits that can exist separately from or together with being logical, or rational, as is what is really being talked about. Rationality and logic simply aren't related to anything but how you arrive at conclusions and whether it makes sense given the premises you set up.

Yukitsu
2011-01-01, 06:47 PM
Logic is about processes of connecting facts, Dice. The facts might be wrong or you might lack facts to arrive at the proper conclusion. I'll try to use your own example of people believing the Earth to be at the center of the universe to try and explain it. Quite simply, does it look like the Earth is orbiting the Sun or the opposite when you look at the sky? To a casual observer or even an early astronomer lacking an established body of observations to work from, the most logical conclusions is that the Sun orbits the Earth. As observations increase and the inconsistencies and holes in the math becomes clear, it becomes increasingly more logical to instead conclude that the Earth orbits the Sun. This is because this explanations is a much neater, simpler system than the increasingly complex orbits celestial bodies would have to follow in order to fit the observations where they to revolve around the Earth.

Absent the data from fairly sophisticated astronomical observation, however, arriving at the conclusion that the Earth is at the center of the universe is completely logical. It is not about there being different kinds of logic that arrive at different conclusions, it is about having different sets of empirical data from which to derive logical conclusions. Not only that, in the strictest sense logic does not deal with reality at all, but instead with how you arrive at conclusions based on a set of premises. Saying "If tigers are purple and you look at a large, purple cat you are probably looking at a tiger" is perfectly logical, but it does not correspond to reality.

In most cases, though, people also demand that logic is applied to actual, empirical observation about the world, since solely focusing on the construction of arguments is hardly useful most of the time. Even so, being logical simply means arriving at sensible conclusions based on a set of data, it has nothing to do with being ordered, unemotional or obedient. Those are all traits that can exist separately from or together with being logical, or rational, as is what is really being talked about. Rationality and logic simply aren't related to anything but how you arrive at conclusions and whether it makes sense given the premises you set up.

That's still not really intelligence though. A computer can follow a logical process, it doesn't make it an intelligent system.

Logic is usually a part of our preconcieved notion of intelligence, but it's more the ability to learn, not the ability to deduce through structured formats.

WarKitty
2011-01-01, 06:57 PM
It's easier to play chaotic if you don't have the same view on things as your DM does. :smallbiggrin:

In all seriousness, I played a lawful character once. It sucked. I ended up behind the party in experience and loot because I was trying not to loot the random temple for no reason.

Terraoblivion
2011-01-01, 07:07 PM
Being good at logic is part of being intelligent. Not the only part or necessarily the most important part, but it is, although i would really say it is more of a part of being sane than of being intelligent. If you can't draw logical conclusions, not necessarily the best or the right solution, then something is genuinely wrong with you. After all most sets of data have numerous different, perfectly logical conclusions that you can draw from them. More importantly for this discussion, however, it has no bearing on alignment, you can have any of the nine alignments and be a completely rational or a completely irrational person.

Yukitsu
2011-01-01, 07:10 PM
Being good at logic is part of being intelligent. Not the only part or necessarily the most important part, but it is, although i would really say it is more of a part of being sane than of being intelligent. If you can't draw logical conclusions, not necessarily the best or the right solution, then something is genuinely wrong with you. After all most sets of data have numerous different, perfectly logical conclusions that you can draw from them. More importantly for this discussion, however, it has no bearing on alignment, you can have any of the nine alignments and be a completely rational or a completely irrational person.

Most people are actually highly irrational. For example, people are more likely to be afraid of being hit by lightning during a lightning storm than getting into a car, despite the car being more dangerous. There's nothing wrong or unintelligent about this sort of behavior, and even if there were, people would not sit down and apply logic to the majority of their thoughts, as in most cases, an approximation based on the data is simpler, more efficient, and ultimately, more rational.

The Big Dice
2011-01-01, 07:10 PM
Rationality and logic simply aren't related to anything but how you arrive at conclusions and whether it makes sense given the premises you set up.

Which was exactly my point about logic and intelligence not being the same thing. Logic doesn't even have anything to do with a Lawful alignment. Chaos can be logical, even if it doesn't make sense to an outside observer. All logic is is a linking of cause to effect. Even if the two are completely unrelated. The Aztecs believed if they didn't perform human sacrifices, the sun would fail to rise.To them, the two were connected and so the logic of the sacrifice was both simple and inevitable.

To modern people, the two are totally unrelated, but to the Aztecs that was the Law of hos reality worked.

The thing is, reading this thread gives a sense that many Playgrounders feel that Law is boring, stuffy and mindlessly obedient, where Chaos is fun, free and interesting. Personally, I think Law and Chaos define each other. I's a codependency thing and neither is objectively better or worse than the other.

Tiniere
2011-01-01, 07:21 PM
Uhm not to take a completely different direction or anything but to bring up something that may, or may not be terribly important.

Usually player characters are imperfect mortals. And only in rare cases to they actually embody their alignment perfectly, that's something for outsiders and other creatures entirely native to planes of good/evil/law/chaos etc...

A player character's alignment should be a general overview of their behavior and thoughts. Someone on the first page mentioned codes and honour as being lawful. However, lot's of barbarian tribes had longstanding tribal rituals and traditions based around honour and as we know, barbarians at the time of 3.5 couldn't be lawful, not without losing their rage anyway. So it would seem to stand to reason that the degree of ambiguity (which has also been brought up a lot, and with good reason) lessens the need for "perfect paragon heroes".

Also, as this thread was designed in defense of lawful alignments I'd also like to give my two cents there.

I agree completely with the idea that on a general scale lawful motivations usually work on the basis of a group. Leaders of countries, or even parties have some sort of lawful tendancy in that regard. Chaotic motivations stemming from more personal desires and wants, are easier for a person to relate to. For a lot of people they can figure out what THEY want much quicker and easier than what would benefit the whole, or work towards some greater plan.

I enjoy playing as Lawful Neutral more than any chaotic alignment, The characters have their own ideas about the world, and these systematic outlooks and values are important enough to structure their lives and the lives of others. I find that entertaining to role play, but other's don't, and I would suspect at least, that more people in the western world value the less fenced in chaotic spectrum with it's greater freedom of choice?

Terraoblivion
2011-01-01, 07:55 PM
Logic transcends differences in knowledge. Good or bad logic is unaffected by reality. If you have a premise that says the gods cause the sun to rise when pleased and one saying that being given the hearts of sacrificial victims pleases the gods, then it is a perfectly logical conclusion to say that you better sacrifice people if you want the sun to rise. Of course there are more steps to make it a proper syllogism, but the overall concept is sound. Empirical knowledge show that it isn't the case, but that really has no bearing on the logic of the conclusion. It is really just about whether the conclusion can be derived from putting the premises together and nothing more or less.

Yukitsu
2011-01-01, 08:59 PM
Yeah, but real people, smart people don't actually think in that manner. Rough correlation is all you're going to get out of real people in day to day thinking. Only people who have learned logic use it.

Elric VIII
2011-01-01, 09:05 PM
Most people are actually highly irrational. For example, people are more likely to be afraid of being hit by lightning during a lightning storm than getting into a car, despite the car being more dangerous. There's nothing wrong or unintelligent about this sort of behavior, and even if there were, people would not sit down and apply logic to the majority of their thoughts, as in most cases, an approximation based on the data is simpler, more efficient, and ultimately, more rational.

Although, getting into a car during a lightning storm would make you safe from lightning by acting as a Faraday Cage.

I agree with this statement and we also should not forget that in a world with actual magic, superstition is even more likely than it was in ancient times on our own mundane rock.

Terraoblivion
2011-01-01, 09:09 PM
Not quite. It is more that logic is the fundamentals that human reasoning can be reduced to. In actual practice no one uses formal logic except in philosophy classes, but basically all human reasoning can be reduced to a long string of syllogisms. The mind just skips most of the steps and makes many of the judgements implicit, because the whole thing would be impractical and is an unnaturally structured way of thinking, but that doesn't mean it can't be expressed in that way.

Really the formal structuring is more of a tool for analyzing the validity of a conclusion, that is it a tool for thinking or arguing. It simply is too unwieldy for practical use. Doesn't mean that the basic mode of thinking and reasoning it represents isn't valid for understanding thoughts.

Yukitsu
2011-01-01, 09:16 PM
Not quite. It is more that logic is the fundamentals that human reasoning can be reduced to. In actual practice no one uses formal logic except in philosophy classes, but basically all human reasoning can be reduced to a long string of syllogisms. The mind just skips most of the steps and makes many of the judgements implicit, because the whole thing would be impractical and is an unnaturally structured way of thinking, but that doesn't mean it can't be expressed in that way.

Really the formal structuring is more of a tool for analyzing the validity of a conclusion, that is it a tool for thinking or arguing. It simply is too unwieldy for practical use. Doesn't mean that the basic mode of thinking and reasoning it represents isn't valid for understanding thoughts.

Can you quote the psychiatrist that states this? I haven't come across any that have compared our thoughts to syllogisms since like, the 70s. Everyone since then has pretty much agreed we just go without anything that appears like any definition of "logic" (that is, premises, conclusions). There's a strong cognitive bias to simply thinking in terms of what we already know and categorizing things based on that knowledge, which has nothing to do with logic, since logic is about arguments.

Alternatively, could you define what you refer to as logic? Any form of logic, no matter how rudimentary is no different from formal logic in structure.

Edit: This is getting away from the main point regardless. By the manner in which you're alluding things, chaotic, stupid, lawful, intelligent individuals all operate in a logical manner in the sense you're implying. that's simply not a useful categorization in this particular discussion. Given what you're saying logic is, I can't really agree that coming to logical conclusions is at all correlated to being smart, since given your recent post, any formally illogical, incorrect and outright moronic statement is still logical in the layman's sense.

Dusk Eclipse
2011-01-01, 10:12 PM
I think the commonality of chaotic characters is due the usual interpretation of chaotic neutral equalling: I can do whatever I want to do (I have dealt with this type of characters to many times).

Personally I prefer law over chaos, but that is because I try to be a generally responsible and dependable person on real life, so that is reflected on my characters; besides the idea of putting the benefit of the group (family/friends/whatever) over the individual is something that I agree whole heartedly. I just can't phantom caring more about me than someone else.

WarKitty
2011-01-01, 10:14 PM
I think the commonality of chaotic characters is due the usual interpretation of chaotic neutral equalling: I can do whatever I want to do (I have dealt with this type of characters to many times).

Personally I prefer law over chaos, but that is because I try to be a generally responsible and dependable person on real life, so that is reflected on my characters; besides the idea of putting the benefit of the group (family/friends/whatever) over the individual is something that I agree whole heartedly. I just can't phantom caring more about me than someone else.

That's good alignment, not lawful.

Dusk Eclipse
2011-01-01, 10:24 PM
That's good alignment, not lawful.


Good is altruistic, at least the definition given by the PHB, you could put your own group of friend over anyone else, and that wouldn't be good.

WarKitty
2011-01-01, 10:36 PM
Good is altruistic, at least the definition given by the PHB, you could put your own group of friend over anyone else, and that wouldn't be good.

And this is why I don't like the law/chaos axis much.

In real life, I have a very strong sense of honor and keeping your word, but I generally dislike and distrust authority. I think that most lawful systems are fundamentally about privileging "people like me" over "people who aren't like me." Chaotic? Very definitely, according to D&D system. Chaos for me is a refusal to see the good of the group as opposed to the good of the individual - a truly good system is good to all members, not just some or even most. You're setting up a false dichotomy between putting the good of the group first and putting yourself first. You can be altruistic and put others first while still believing this whole "group" thing is stuff and nonsense.

Cerlis
2011-01-01, 10:38 PM
I was actually thinking the other day that every game children play thats fun is Highly Lawful. A game created 100% by a buncha random rules people come up with. "Why cant you use your hands" "Cus you cant". Even when people choose to change the rules thats a rule. An Ammendment.

The problem that the OP had was with, indeed as people say, people look at all the good aspects of chaos and only the bad aspects of Law

Every entertaining game, form of entertainment (including this comic), or source of communication (such as this forum) is generated through Rules. Their existence is created by rules. Thus fun comes directly from Law

Dusk Eclipse
2011-01-01, 10:44 PM
And this is why I don't like the law/chaos axis much.

In real life, I have a very strong sense of honor and keeping your word, but I generally dislike and distrust authority. I think that most lawful systems are fundamentally about privileging "people like me" over "people who aren't like me." Chaotic? Very definitely, according to D&D system. Chaos for me is a refusal to see the good of the group as opposed to the good of the individual - a truly good system is good to all members, not just some or even most. You're setting up a false dichotomy between putting the good of the group first and putting yourself first. You can be altruistic and put others first while still believing this whole "group" thing is stuff and nonsense.

I see where you come from (or at least I want to think that I do); I don't like the alignment system either; but my usual RL DM insist on using it, so that is why I use the alignment (as written) that is most similar to my world view.

And my argument about good being altruistic was an apparently poor attempt, at explaining that putting others before you is not necesarilly good.

Cerlis
2011-01-01, 10:49 PM
I see where you come from (or at least I want to think that I do); I don't like the alignment system either; but my usual RL DM insist on using it, so that is why I use the alignment (as written) that is most similar to my world view.

And my argument about good being altruistic was an apparently poor attempt, at explaining that putting others before you is not necesarilly good.


Well the problem is that many people get confused between vague general statements, and unique circumstances.

For instance, I might say "Good is basically doing stuff to help others" and "Evil is doing stuff for yourself at the expense of others". but then someone will point out some pedantic circumstance that disproves that. But the thing was i was being vague and general. The good evil thing really boils down to Sacrifice vs motivation vs Peoples rights. and how each of those three factors interact with each other.

So yes. unless you use a page or two to describe Good, evil or neutrality, then any definition of any axis is going to be wrong.

WarKitty
2011-01-01, 10:56 PM
I haven't found half as much confusion about good/evil as about law/chaos. We actually had a long argument about Robin Hood's alignment, as the historical figure was supporting the person he perceived to be the true king over a false king.

Elric VIII
2011-01-01, 11:10 PM
And this is why I don't like the law/chaos axis much.

In real life, I have a very strong sense of honor and keeping your word, but I generally dislike and distrust authority. I think that most lawful systems are fundamentally about privileging "people like me" over "people who aren't like me." Chaotic? Very definitely, according to D&D system. Chaos for me is a refusal to see the good of the group as opposed to the good of the individual - a truly good system is good to all members, not just some or even most. You're setting up a false dichotomy between putting the good of the group first and putting yourself first. You can be altruistic and put others first while still believing this whole "group" thing is stuff and nonsense.

This is actually how I play Lawful. Having a personal code of conduct/chivalry/bushido that may not necessarily coincide with the actual laws of whatever country/region that I'm in. There's nothing wrong with a Lawful person putting themselves before the group as long as it does not go against their code, although such actions are more toawrd the evil side (not necessarily Evil) of LN.

snoopy13a
2011-01-01, 11:16 PM
I haven't found half as much confusion about good/evil as about law/chaos. We actually had a long argument about Robin Hood's alignment, as the historical figure was supporting the person he perceived to be the true king over a false king.

That's probably because no one agrees on what constitutes law and chaos.

Good and evil is relatively simple from a DnD perspective. Altruism is good, selfishness is normally netural and exploiting others is evil. Sure, there are questions in the grey area but overall the concepts are fairly simple.

However, what is law? Does it just represent strict adherence to written codes? Does it entail respect for tradition and authority? What if there are new legal reforms that counter tradition? If there is a conflict, does a lawful character obey tradition or the law?

Does chaos mean a desire to break the law simply for law-breaking sake? Does it just mean a character has no problem disobeying the law if they have no moral objection and they believe they won't get caught? Does it mean a character who chooses a non-traditional vocation such as a trapper, a sailor, or a bard? Does a chaotic character pursue societal reform? Or would they rather just live outside of society?

The concepts of law and chaos are complex. For example, the rules say that paladins are lawful good. Good is relatively easy to understand. However, what if the laws are evil? Must the paladin only work within the law? Are they allowed to be part of a revolt? If they are allowed to be part of a revolt what conditions need to be met to stay lawful and how can "lawful" character resist lawful authority?

None of us can agree on these points and thus, there isn't really any law/chaos standards.

Cerlis
2011-01-01, 11:17 PM
I haven't found half as much confusion about good/evil as about law/chaos. We actually had a long argument about Robin Hood's alignment, as the historical figure was supporting the person he perceived to be the true king over a false king.

Right, and i disagreed with a Firefly Alignment chart cus as far as i remembered the captian only was a criminal because the Main government was an illigitimate authority (same reason Roy didnt obey miko). And he always got offended when people broke the rules. Mal doesnt succeed on his job? he gives them the money back? But they break some rules or peace agreement both parties made? then yea he wont respect the terms that where broken by another party.

Paseo H
2011-01-01, 11:39 PM
Lawfulness is less of a problem, but rather lawfulness combined with the human failing of smugness and arrogance. If you tend to associate "law" with "self-assured jackhole who knows he can push you around and make it stick because the law is on his side," then yes one will tend to have a sour opinion of lawfulness.

And no it's not just Lawful Evil types who do that. Lawful Neutral and even Lawful Good types might be just a little too happy to see the law prevail over everything. After all, alignment isn't personality.

Murdim
2011-01-02, 04:58 AM
I was actually thinking the other day that every game children play thats fun is Highly Lawful. A game created 100% by a buncha random rules people come up with. "Why cant you use your hands" "Cus you cant". Even when people choose to change the rules thats a rule. An Ammendment.

The problem that the OP had was with, indeed as people say, people look at all the good aspects of chaos and only the bad aspects of Law

Every entertaining game, form of entertainment (including this comic), or source of communication (such as this forum) is generated through Rules. Their existence is created by rules. Thus fun comes directly from Law
True, but the spontaneous, creative, arbitrary conception of all those rules is inherently Chaotic. Therefore, fun comes from Chaos.

More generally, all good, interesting things in the Material Plane comes from a combination of Law and Chaos, and breaking this balance would render it sterile and useless to the Multiverse at large, basically a spatially and temporally finite copy of the (infinite, timeless) Outer Plane of corresponding alignment. Which is why trying to bring absolute Law (resp. Chaos) into the "mundane" world is usually considered a stupid idea by about everyone, up to and including many beings of Pure Law (resp. Chaos). Which is why absolute Law, absolute Chaos and the metaphysical conflict between the forces of Law and Chaos are mainly constrained to the Outer Planes. Or at least that's how I see it.

ffone
2011-01-02, 05:31 AM
A trend I'm seeing, at least in my experiences with my tabletop friends as well as stuff I read on the internet, is that the "Law" side of the law-chaos axis is generally seen as the less desirable one. You're more likely to see a neutral to chaotic party going up against a lawful foe than the reverse - I've never in my life been in a party that slanted lawful.

This may be because of the common association of chaotic with "freedom", and lawful with "oppression" - indeed, a good portion of the tabletop gaming crowd are teenagers who already have to deal with parents, teachers, and the like. The common perception seems to be that a lawful character can't think for him or herself, and a chaotic character remains free and flexible. Indeed, the primary problem people have with paladins isn't the "good" part, but the "lawful" part - but there are just as many stupid and irritating ways to be good as there are to be lawful.

I'll tell you all right now, though, that I'd rather have a lawful friend than a chaotic one. Being loyal, keeping your promises, and being reliable are all lawful qualities. But too often is "lawful" used as shorthand for "orwellian".

Has anyone else had problems defending their lawful characters from accusations of stick-in-the-mud-itude?

AMEN to this. The sentence "Lawful is used as shorthand for Orwellian" sums it up nicely.

One of my largest pet peeves in DnD - and fiction tropes in general, really, is the Rebel. Everyone wants to be a rebel, okay fine, but some people seem to think they are very 'creative' or 'original' and 'free-thinking' for doing or being what the majority of protaganists are.They need to see themselves as a lone wolf against the System, not realizing many if not most people feel teh same way (and many of those doubtless perceive them as part of the System in turn!).

You see it in RL politics too.

And I'm especially annoyed by clumsy, trite metaphors of the former for the latter (portrayals of paladins of other Lawfuls that are basically an analgrm of all the nasty things about the Crusades / Spanish Inquisition your grade school teaches told you to help you becoming enlightened and politically correct.)

A related irritation I have is the very common PC attitude of 'emotion-justified-morality.' To wit, "my character is SO GOOD that seeing [puppy kicking, human slavery, or whatever the baddie is doing] makes me SO MAD that I DO DARK VIGILANTE THINGS.

(But when the badly portrayed Lawful NPCs do the same thing, it proves they are moralizing, sanctimonious theocratic fascists.)

"I want to be an individual, just like everybody else does."

hamishspence
2011-01-02, 07:24 AM
For instance, I might say "Good is basically doing stuff to help others" and "Evil is doing stuff for yourself at the expense of others". but then someone will point out some pedantic circumstance that disproves that. But the thing was i was being vague and general. The good evil thing really boils down to Sacrifice vs motivation vs Peoples rights. and how each of those three factors interact with each other.

These do sum it up fairly well.

A person who has a strong respect for people's rights- even the rights of those people they disapprove of (say, "bad guys" and the like) is unlikely to be Evil. It's hard (impossible?) to be Evil and really, truly, genuinely respect the rights of all other people.
A person who is generally unwilling to make any kind of sacrifice for those they do not feel a close personal connection to, is unlikely to be Good (Good means being willing to sacrifice for strangers- not just friends, kin, and others they are connected to).

Aside from that though, there's a great deal of flexibility. You could have a character who has contempt for "the rights of villains" and no qualms about torturing them for his own personal pleasure (or a belief that the needs of good people outweigh the rights of evil people)- and yet, is a genuine altruist- willing to sacrifice for strangers.

In which case, they'd probably qualify as Evil- it's "contempt for the rights of some people" to the point of being willing to commit Evil acts against them, that's a major factor in Evil alignment. Sometimes, one Evil trait (contempt for rights) can outweigh Good traits like "will sacrifice for strangers".

TheWhisper
2011-01-02, 01:08 PM
Bear in mind that PCs are usually the fringe of society. They are nameless, clanless, classless fortune hunters, mercenaries, odd-jobs men, and sellswords, one short step away from being pirates or bandits themselves.

Society's elite often employ them for tasks that those in their regular service are less suited for, but have little respect for them, and will generally want to go and wash if they are forced to shake hands. These folks are the ones who would generally be Lawful, both because the status quo benefits them, and because it's that sort of temperament that gets you an office job in the first place.

The PCs don't fit into established structures. They may have wealth and power, but they don't get them through organizations, status, and societal structure. They go where and do what they please. Sounds like Chaotic to me.

Lawful characters make less sense to play, not because they have a stick up their ass, but because they have orders to follow, a schedule to keep, and no time to go gallivanting across the countryside getting into trouble. A Lawful character will not generally go and raid the bandits' headquarters with a few heavily armed friends. That's random and risky. Instead, he will report their presence to his superiors, who will send a detachment of troops.

Lawful characters wouldn't act like PCs, and truly playing them would be dull indeed.

hamishspence
2011-01-02, 01:11 PM
The PCs don't fit into established structures. They may have wealth and power, but they don't get them through organizations, status, and societal structure. They go where and do what they please. Sounds like Chaotic to me.

Lawful characters make less sense to play, not because they have a stick up their ass, but because they have orders to follow, a schedule to keep, and no time to go gallivanting across the countryside getting into trouble. A Lawful character will not generally go and raid the bandits' headquarters with a few heavily armed friends. That's random and risky. Instead, he will report their presence to his superiors, who will send a detachment of troops.

Lawful characters wouldn't act like PCs, and truly playing them would be dull indeed.

The rules don't really fit this though. Some PC classes are Lawful-only (monk, paladin) and Lawful characters can be just as "adventurer-ish" as Chaotic ones.

WarKitty
2011-01-02, 01:15 PM
Bear in mind that PCs are usually the fringe of society. They are nameless, clanless, classless fortune hunters, mercenaries, odd-jobs men, and sellswords, one short step away from being pirates or bandits themselves.

Society's elite often employ them for tasks that those in their regular service are less suited for, but have little respect for them, and will generally want to go and wash if they are forced to shake hands. These folks are the ones who would generally be Lawful, both because the status quo benefits them, and because it's that sort of temperament that gets you an office job in the first place.

The PCs don't fit into established structures. They may have wealth and power, but they don't get them through organizations, status, and societal structure. They go where and do what they please. Sounds like Chaotic to me.

Lawful characters make less sense to play, not because they have a stick up their ass, but because they have orders to follow, a schedule to keep, and no time to go gallivanting across the countryside getting into trouble. A Lawful character will not generally go and raid the bandits' headquarters with a few heavily armed friends. That's random and risky. Instead, he will report their presence to his superiors, who will send a detachment of troops.

Lawful characters wouldn't act like PCs, and truly playing them would be dull indeed.

Actually I've had a couple different PC's where this is different. The displaced character is one that I've played. She had been a temple guard when a war broke out. Her side was defeated, and she was turned out. Wanting her military life back but not allowed to serve in the regular army, she took up with a band of adventurers.

Another one I've played is just a cultural difference. In some cultures, it is presumed that young men will go out to prove their worth by a year of adventuring. So the adventurer is not an outcast in that society.

hamishspence
2011-01-02, 01:17 PM
In a "points of light" world- the world might have collapsed into a dark age-

and adventurers might be respected, because they are the ones clearing the territory around the beleaguered towns, and allowing civilization to begin flourishing again.

TheWhisper
2011-01-02, 01:54 PM
The rules don't really fit this though. Some PC classes are Lawful-only (monk, paladin) and Lawful characters can be just as "adventurer-ish" as Chaotic ones.

Indeed, and that is a flaw in the rules as written, created by the lack of a consistent definition of what "Lawful" really means.

Monks are described as Lawful-only because "A monk’s training requires strict discipline.". But Lawful itself is described as "honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability.". This has absolutely nothing to do with the self-discipline required to stick to a program of mental and physical training.

The idea that Monks must be Lawful is particularly ludicrous. What about the peasant-hero-revolutionary martial artists of Chinese literary tradition? What about taoist priests?

If monks must be Lawful because they must be disciplined, then are all Chaotic characters undisciplined? Explain to me, pray, how someone becomes a high-level wizard without having the discipline to study, how chaotic bards memorize epic legends to the letter, how chaotic priests manage to obey the will of their chaotic gods.

Often, the rules of D&D are nothing more than a collection of someone else's crude knee-jerk stereotypes.

hamishspence
2011-01-02, 01:59 PM
Indeed, and that is a flaw in the rules as written, created by the lack of a consistent definition of what "Lawful" really means.


WoTC provides a bit more definition on "Lawful" here:

Save My Game: Lawful and Chaotic (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a)


To be lawful is to be in favor of conformity and consistency, to act in a systematic and uniform fashion, and to take responsibility. As a lawful person, you establish patterns and precedents and stick to them unless you can see a good reason to do otherwise. Methodical efficiency is your byword, and you believe in the concept of duty. You plan and organize your activities to achieve particular goals, not just to satisfy impulsive desires. You believe a proper way exists to accomplish any goal, though it may not always be the traditional, tried-and-true way. Likewise, you cultivate long-term relationships and endeavor to build trust between your associates and yourself. As a lawful person, you recognize that most laws have valid purposes that promote social order, but you are not necessarily bound to obey them to the letter. In particular, if you are both good and lawful, you have no respect for a law is unfair or capricious.

Chaotic, however, is still left a bit undefined- and stereotyped.

Being chaotic, on the other hand, doesn't necessarily mean you are incapable of adhering to the law. Though chaotic societies may seem disorderly, they exist in abundance. As a chaotic character, you are dedicated to personal and societal freedom. You pursue your dreams and don't try to put limits on your nature. You don't value consistency for its own sake; rather, you respond to every situation as you see fit without worrying about what you did before. The past is the past and the future is uncertain, so you prefer to live in the present. Each situation is new, so planning and procedures are pointless -- in fact, they restrain people from reacting quickly and decisively. You don't get tied up in exclusive relationships because they could hold you back from your destiny -- which might be right around the corner. You are always ready to try new techniques because you believe that experience is the best teacher, and you are always open to discovery.

Grelna the Blue
2011-01-02, 02:08 PM
Defending Law when almost everyone disagrees as to what it is is hard. So let's look at one facet of it most people do agree on and then discuss that:

Lawfulness is intrusive. Lawful people are much more likely to "get up in your business" than Chaotic people are. This is not because (at least not necessarily because) any given Lawful person is more nosy than his Chaotic neighbor. It is because Lawful people tend to have lists of things forbidding certain actions they consider wrong (often they call these things "laws" :smallwink:) and they believe they should apply to everybody. A Chaotic person is much more likely to live and let live. Different strokes for different folks, and all that. If a Chaotic person is truly upset by his neighbor's habit of beating his wife and children, he'll deal with it personally (assuming he thinks he can). He's won't drag in the machinery of the Law except as a last resort.

It is certainly possible to have bad laws. Have enough of them (or even just a few really bad ones) in a D&D setting and you've probably got a LN or LE society. NE societies may or may not have bad laws, but the laws are generally not the major problem. If they were, they'd be LE societies. And CE societies are generally Evil not because of their laws but because of their lack of them. However, Lawful types tend to assume that existing laws serve a purpose and only when there is a clear conflict with Good will a Lawful Good person break those laws. In a LG society (there is seldom more than one such society in most fantasy settings), Lawful Evil people won't break laws out of moral revulsion, but they are much more likely to subscribe to a harsher code on top of the law and to enforce existing laws with maximum force.

The point is, Lawful people have largely agreed that there is a system of rules everyone should live by (although LG, LN, and LE types will frequently disagree strongly about how restrictive and punitive those rules should be). Chaotic people may have codes that may be every bit as binding as laws to them personally (although to be truly Chaotic the number of rules should be very short), but they don't accept that anyone else has the right to judge their behavior or that everyone in the world should share their codes.

You can absolutely play a Chaotic hero (it helps a lot if the GM has established a LE society to oppose or subvert). However, when doing so you are roleplaying a highly personal revulsion with some moral evil(s). Your character may be upholding the common interest of a large number of people (e.g., Spartacus), but he or she is not representing their shared beliefs because a Chaotic Good PC doesn't give a damn whether the people saved by the PC's heroics (or any group of people whatsoever) would approve of the PC's actions or beliefs. It is left to NG and especially LG characters to take up the role of champions, heroes who "represent". That is why paladins have the restrictive code they do. Not only are they lawful, but they are supposed to be exemplars. Chaotic Goods would not even be able to define what an exemplar was.

Yukitsu
2011-01-02, 02:09 PM
Using the WoTC definitions for any of the alignments is a sure way to get a big headache if you try to move even an inch in the direction of analysis. Honestly, I'd just go with the general feel more than anything.

hamishspence
2011-01-02, 02:19 PM
Using the WoTC definitions for any of the alignments is a sure way to get a big headache if you try to move even an inch in the direction of analysis.

It helps to find a starting point, though- before one chooses whether or not to start moving away from it- and redefining behaviour to make "more room" for Chaotic characters.

Or for that matter, the Good/Evil axis- Good behaviour is usually associated with altruism, especially toward strangers, and Evil behaviour associated with "causing unnecessary harm".

This is a general principle that tends to hold, even when sometimes the specific applications of the principle don't always make sense.

Heliomance
2011-01-02, 02:42 PM
Most people are actually highly irrational. For example, people are more likely to be afraid of being hit by lightning during a lightning storm than getting into a car, despite the car being more dangerous. There's nothing wrong or unintelligent about this sort of behavior, and even if there were, people would not sit down and apply logic to the majority of their thoughts, as in most cases, an approximation based on the data is simpler, more efficient, and ultimately, more rational.

http://xkcd.com/795/

TheWhisper
2011-01-02, 03:05 PM
WoTC provides a bit more definition on "Lawful" here:

Save My Game: Lawful and Chaotic (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a)

Interesting and thanks for linking.

But it doesn't address the problem.

It still compounds discipline, the ability to stick with a task, to conformity, the ability to obey rules and play well with others.

Most martial arts experts I know (including myself) could only be described as nonconformists.

hamishspence
2011-01-02, 03:25 PM
It may be a generalization-

there can be people who are disciplined and dedicated- but nonconformist, just as there are characters who are creative, but conformist. But both of these might be a bit less common than the standard.

Maybe Law is like Evil- you don't have to have every Lawful trait to be lawful- just having some of them might be enough.

FC2 does have a system for Law that works a bit like for Evil- only it's "obesiance" points, rather than "corruption" points.

So-
you can have disciplined but nonconformist Lawful guys
you can have conformist but not very disciplined Lawful guys

but it's rare to have a Chaotic guy with either strong discipline or strong conformity?

WarKitty
2011-01-02, 03:33 PM
Eh, personally I'd say anyone who makes it as an adventurer has to have a fairly high level of discipline, at least in most classes. Being good at something takes discipline. So your bard or barbarian are going to have to be pretty disciplined to master their craft.

hamishspence
2011-01-02, 03:36 PM
In which case "discipline" would be a generic trait- that characters of any alignment can have.

Raising the question- why are monks Lawful, if discipline isn't the primary reason?

In Rules Cyclopedia- Mystics (a bit like Monks) are usually lawful- but they don't have to be. About 75% of Mystic NPCs are lawful- in the monsters & NPCs section.

WarKitty
2011-01-02, 03:40 PM
In which case "discipline" would be a generic trait- that characters of any alignment can have.

Raising the question- why are monks Lawful, if discipline isn't the primary reason?

In Rules Cyclopedia- Mystics (a bit like Monks) are usually lawful- but they don't have to be. About 75% of Mystic NPCs are lawful- in the monsters & NPCs section.

Because the alignment system is borked?

Seriously, I always figured it was because traditionally dojo life was very regimented and regulated. A chaotic character is not going to submit to having their entire life regulated like that, even if they have the discipline to proceed in their own area.

hamishspence
2011-01-02, 03:42 PM
Seriously, I always figured it was because traditionally dojo life was very regimented and regulated. A chaotic character is not going to submit to having their entire life regulated like that, even if they have the discipline to proceed in their own area.

That would make more sense- though there are other ways of learning martial arts than the dojo- one to one teaching, maybe.

The more "chaotic martial artist" type concepts, could be represented with the Battle Dancer from Dragon Compendium.

TheWhisper
2011-01-02, 07:00 PM
It may be a generalization-

there can be people who are disciplined and dedicated- but nonconformist, just as there are characters who are creative, but conformist. But both of these might be a bit less common than the standard.

So-
you can have disciplined but nonconformist Lawful guys
you can have conformist but not very disciplined Lawful guys

but it's rare to have a Chaotic guy with either strong discipline or strong conformity?

Yeah, that's the problem. If my "Lawful" rebel monk is highly disciplined in his training, but doesn't respect the laws of the land, then what happens when team up with a wizard who is "Chaotic" because he doesn't respect the laws of the land... although he is highly disciplined in his studies and research?

Now we have the Lawful and Chaotic characters displaying identical ethos.

Not to mention the problem I have when I raid a slave market and free everyone there... and have committed a chaotic act, and lose my class features.

Discipline is not a ethical dimension. It is a personal habit.

Insisting that monks must be Lawful is one of many little bits of foolishness that a rigid but ambiguous alignment system injects into the game.

TheWhisper
2011-01-02, 07:10 PM
Because the alignment system is borked?

Yep. Huge reams of writing in later editions of D&D only exist to defend decisions made by Gygax and Co. in about about thirty seconds worth of stereotypical whimsy.

Seriously, the Rogue class only exists because there was a "thief" class, which only existed because someone read "The Hobbit".


Seriously, I always figured it was because traditionally dojo life was very regimented and regulated. A chaotic character is not going to submit to having their entire life regulated like that, even if they have the discipline to proceed in their own area.

Perhaps, but to disallow Chaotic monks is not to say that "it's generally this way" but to say that every single teacher demands strict submission and oaths of loyalty.

Sure, you can invent rationalizations to defend it. But why would you? It's kinda dumb.

Yukitsu
2011-01-03, 01:24 AM
http://xkcd.com/795/

And I'm Canadian, so the addendum applies to me. :smalltongue:

hamishspence
2011-01-03, 06:25 AM
Not to mention the problem I have when I raid a slave market and free everyone there... and have committed a chaotic act, and lose my class features.

Monks never lose their class features- all they can lose is their ability to advance in a class.

And they only lose that for changing alignment- not for one chaotic act (unless it's one act big enough to cause an alignment change- which is rare.

While "discipline" vs "respect the laws of the land" can crop up in various alignments- maybe the amount plays a part.

A Lawful character might default to "the laws of the land should be respected- until evidence comes up proving them to be bad laws".

A lawful rebel would only rebel against truly tyrannical systems- they respect laws, just not really, really bad ones.

Chaotic people might obey laws for other reasons than "respect for law as a whole"- they might have personal loyalty to the ruler- and as a sign of respect for the ruler- not the law itself- obey the rules.
That might be how systems like elven kingdoms (elves tend toward Chaotic Good) would work- the ruler inspires personal loyalty- and his chaotic subjects obey because of love or respect for the ruler rather than respect for the concept of Law.

(In Chaotic Evil communities, it will be fear more than love, that inspires obedience to whatever rules there are).

One of the things 4E did, was remove a lot of these limitations. If your DM allows you to play Evil/CE characters, you can play an Evil paladin, a Chaotic Evil monk, a Lawful Good Warlock, Barbarian, or Bard, and so on.

(but then, it merged some of the alignments- the 3 Neutral ones became Unaligned, NG & CG became Good, LE and NE became Evil- so, while classes no longer have alignment restrictions (or at least, no longer penalties for changing alignment, in the cases of the divine classes)- there's less alignments to have.)

Wardog
2011-01-03, 01:17 PM
A Lawful character might default to "the laws of the land should be respected- until evidence comes up proving them to be bad laws".

A lawful rebel would only rebel against truly tyrannical systems- they respect laws, just not really, really bad ones.


Alternatively, or additionally, the lawful character would think that there ought to be laws of the land. He could quite happily rebel against an unjust system, even one that was only mildly tyranical (or perhaps even just inefficient), as long as he intended to establish a better lawful system in its place.

In contrast, a chaotic rebel would want to abolish the concept of a "lawful system" altogether.



***

Someone earlier suggested that a Lawful character would take a "needs of the many outweight the needs of the few" approach, whereas a Chaotic character would oppose such as view as they value individuals.

I disagree (or at least can think of valid opposites). For example: people benefit from living in an ordered, structured society, where disputes are settled in courts and the trains (or magical equivilents) run on time. If a Chaotic character succeeds in bringing down such a system, then some people will lose out. Even if everyone could be equally well of in a Chaotic society, some people would undoubtably suffer during the change. Any CG or CN character who advocates a revolutionary change of society as opposed to just wanting to be left alone to do his own thing) is effectively advocating "the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few". (And a CE char will of course put his own needs ahead of everyone else, including his supposed allies).

Conversly, I can easily see a LG character (and probably also a LN one) taking the view that everyone needs to be treated fairly, that all should be equal before the law, and that the big problem with a Chaotic society is people who can't look after themselves would be abandoned or worse by the rest. And on an individual basis, I can also easily envisage a LG/LN character taking the stance that "I gave them my word I would save all of them" as a reason for not being willing to sacrifice some for the greater good.

hamishspence
2011-01-03, 01:25 PM
I see a Good character (Chaotic, Neutral, or Lawful)

as opposing any extension of "needs of many vs needs of few" arguments to become "rights of few don't matter, when the many benefit".

When minorities get plundered to help majorities, this is likely to be something Good characters of any stripe will dislike.

A chaotic character can work with "the system" if it doesn't oppress. There's plenty of examples of Chaotic communities in D&D- with laws and traditions- Chaos doesn't have to be opposed to all law. Though, in this case, it might be the "Good" aspect dominating over the "Chaotic" one.

How do elven communities (where much of the population is Chaotic) exist? Maybe, because the Good traits, help them to "pull together".

Grelna the Blue
2011-01-03, 01:30 PM
Chaotic people might obey laws for other reasons than "respect for law as a whole"- they might have personal loyalty to the ruler- and as a sign of respect for the ruler- not the law itself- obey the rules.
That might be how systems like elven kingdoms (elves tend toward Chaotic Good) would work- the ruler inspires personal loyalty- and his chaotic subjects obey because of love or respect for the ruler rather than respect for the concept of Law.

That is exactly how it works in my game.

The elves in my campaign world are guided by counselors chosen by acclamation because each of them is respected as the best and wisest in his or her field and usually has been so respected for centuries.

There are a number of Speakers, but the ones that are generally relevant outside elven society are listed below:

The Speaker for the Trees is an ancient and epic level druid who has been pushing for nearly her entire tenure for the elves to drive out or subjugate (for the purpose of enlightening them) the younger races. Those younger races have proven to be terrible stewards of the lands they usurped well over a millenium ago when the elves were weakened after their victory in the Great Racial Wars against the elder trolls and nagas. However, the Speaker for the Trees is willing to (grudgingly) concede that when properly guided, they aren't inherently evil. Perhaps in a few millenia, they might be ready to have the leading strings cut. Of course, their breeding rate would have to be kept to a minimum.

The Speaker for War is an imposing 7' tall warblade who wears an antlered helmet. For himself, he would be happy to fight no more, but he will do his best to guide his people to victory if war comes. His contrarian advice for the past 7 centuries has been to keep the borders closely guarded and to wait and prepare. He believes that losses among the slow breeding elves would be unacceptable in any largescale conflict before the Younger Races have weakened themselves with internecine conflicts and until the elves have recovered their lost numbers and trained and stockpiled enough magical might to be irresistible. His reputation from past wars is such that his words have prevailed. However, he now believes the state of elven readiness and outside disarray is almost acceptable, perhaps less than a century away, should the decision be made.

The Speaker for the Past is a arrogant expert specializing in Knowledge: elven history (given the length of that history, his is generally considered to be an extremely difficult job). He also pushes for war and holds out little hope for any peaceful settlements with the Younger Races, observing that they are a treacherous lot. None of them have ever kept to the terms of any treaty with the elves for any longer period than 379 years and far less time is more usual.

There is a Speaker for the Gods. Elves aren't nearly as reverent as humans, seeing their gods more as extremely wise elders worthy of emulation, but they certainly consider them worth listening to. He passes on the gods' strictures on what is forbidden. Genocide, for one. The elves nearly wiped out the dwarves once before by dropping a small moonlet onto them. Apparently this was a mistake. As a sign of their displeasure, the elven gods have removed the elves' ability to work magic at that level. However, upon inquiry it appears the gods wouldn't much care if the younger races were forcibly resettled to some empty and hospitable world.

The Speaker for the Sun and Stars is an epic level mage who generally thinks that conflict is a waste of valuable resources, lives, and time. However, he has become quite interested in the technical aspect of the magic involved in resettling entire populations and has been working closely with the Speaker for the Gods on this for some time.

There is the Speaker for the Younger Races, who doesn't so much speak for the younger races as give advice as to what they are doing or likely to do--also a difficult job, requiring the assisting efforts of quite a few volunteer spies (and assassins). The Speaker for the Younger Races is undoubtedly more hostile to them than any other Speaker, including the Speaker for the Trees.

And then there is the Listener for Truth. She is the "ruler" who listens closely to the words of the Speakers and makes decisions. Her position is not hereditary and the current Listener has held this position only about 500 years. She doesn't personally favor the idea of bringing her people to war, but she will be replaced if she ignores the overall sentiment of the Speakers without a very good reason, so unless something drastic happens a continent-spanning war will come.

No elf is constrained to accept the direction of the elvish state, if such you can call it. Any elf can act in accordance with his or her own conscience. However, few elves really want the headaches of rulership and most of those who do aren't seen as fit for it. The Speakers are among the oldest and wisest of all elves and very few elves alive today can match their power and experience, as most elves of a certain age travel to Arcadia. By and large, the vast majority of younger elves trust the Speakers to know what they're talking about and the Listener to make wise decisions (which is why they are Speakers and she is the Listener). So personal loyalty and respect is where it's at. And that is why in the next campaign cycle (or possibly the campaign after the next), the elves will be the Big Bad Enemies, unless before then a PC party manages to somehow change the situation.

Winter_Wolf
2011-01-04, 01:55 AM
Lots of points so far. In my experience playing, the reason people don't play lawful alignments is because it's presented really poorly in D&D. The exact same players in a game without that system would probably be more open to lawful behavior.

Alternity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternity)had a system where you picked either two or four major traits as a guideline for your character's personality, and there were numerous ways to portray what in D&D would fall under say lawful good behavior. Then again you didn't really have spells and effects based on whether LG or NE was on your character sheet.

That system was not long lived or widespread, though. Poor sales, poor marketing, and honestly the mechanics weren't that great. I liked the flavor though.

Tvtyrant
2011-01-04, 02:28 AM
I think Lawful has a lot to recommend itself both in real life and in the game. In the game in particular lawful alignments tend to be more resistant to the "see NPC, kill NPC, loot NPC, DM cries" that chaotic aligned characters are often fond of. I think the reason a lot of people don't like them is they try to force other people to act on their alignment and are stereotypically seen as such. Of course if the chaotic good rogue steals from the rich and gets the party in trouble he has done exactly the same thing, just invokingfate accompli to avoid the wrath of the other party members.