PDA

View Full Version : Lawful=Sticking To Your Principles?Chaotic=Ends Justifies the Means?



Burner28
2011-01-13, 05:24 AM
I wanted to have an intersting debate about the whole Lawful meaning never betray your principles and chaotic meaning the ends justifies the means, so feel free to show any opinion you may have on this subject.

Heliomance
2011-01-13, 05:29 AM
I'd say exactly the opposite, actually. A Lawful character is more likely to throw around phrases like "the greater good", "the ends justify the means" and "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". The Chaotic character is more concerned with individual rights, less likely to sacrifice others to do what must be done.

Killer Angel
2011-01-13, 05:33 AM
They're both sticking to their principles... only, the principles are different. :smallsmile:

Comet
2011-01-13, 05:38 AM
They're both sticking to their principles... only, the principles are different. :smallsmile:

This indeed.
It all depends on the individual. Some people are Lawful Good because they like to be nice neighbours and think that the police are okay fellows, all in all.
Some people are Lawful Good because they are driven to bring the cosmos into an equilibrium where no man can do evil. If this means killing freedom, so be it.

There are extremes and different methods to achieve those extremes on every step of the alignment system.

absolmorph
2011-01-13, 05:49 AM
Lawful means sticking to your rules (and also, generally) that your rules are more strict than most).
Those rules could just be an extremely extensive list of guidelines.
It varies.

Myth
2011-01-13, 06:40 AM
I've been loathe to play a Lawful anything character for some time now. Only recently did I start making a LG elven Wizardress, and because I found a new perspective towards the Lawful end of the axis.

Initially I thought that Lawful equated with Lawful Stupid. Such characters I saw as constipated and inflexible, who would not stray from the written law of the land no matter what. Like the judge who would whip a street urchin for stealing an apple, just as he would whip a thug who assaulted a woman and took her purse.

Recently i've started equating Lawful with a personal code, a tradition or legacy and not necessarily with the flawed laws that kings or judges would pursue, mainly because IRL i think laws are a pathetic charade (they don't reach anyone with wealth and power, only the little people).

As far as Chaotic goes, this is the classic "Would rob a pharmacy to save his dying mother.", a person who believes in his own sense of judgment and as such does not subject to authority. He challenges those who are higher up in the hierarchy if he does not deem them worthy according to his scale.

JaronK
2011-01-13, 07:17 AM
I tend to say that lawful characters value a code (legal, honor, whatever), while chaotic characters value their goals, and neutral characters are in between.

JaronK

rakkoon
2011-01-13, 07:22 AM
I tend to say that lawful characters value a code (legal, honor, whatever), while chaotic characters value their goals, and neutral characters are in between.

It's hard not to get into the Good/Evil debate here so I thing the sentence above describes it perfectly

Vangor
2011-01-13, 07:25 AM
Depends on the usage of lawful. One of my biggest issues with 3.5 alignment is the law axis. Lawful, to me, does not mean adherence to the law always, but could mean adherence to the law, personal discipline, cooperation in an organization, or simply organization and orderliness (one other I cannot recall, too). On the other hand, chaotic would mean lack of personal discipline, individualism, disorganization, flouting of the law, destruction of order, or similar. Now, within 3.5 or similar alignment axis systems, the most important aspect of any of those, say you are terribly undisciplined and disorganized but you stand for order in society and spend campaign time hunting down criminals, is what you label yourself, but they currently seem too encompassing.

Gullintanni
2011-01-13, 07:28 AM
Another way to view Lawful is having a concern for order, in that order is more important for the sake of itself. Lawful Good, Neutral and Evil all share this perspective in that they have different goals, but tend to appreciate continuity and focused adherence to overarching principles, for the sake of some greater end.

Chaotic folk find order tiresome and needless. A waste of time and space. They tend to place more value on asserting individuality than on defending higher goals. They often appear impatient because their goals appear to be in constant flux (in truth this is more because a person's needs can vary from day to day).

Ultimately, a Lawful person recognizes that ordered living has the potential to provide for everyone's needs including his own; while a Chaotic person doesn't trust order to understand his needs well enough to provide for them. A Chaotic person will defend order only up until the point that it stops being directly beneficial to him.

Vangor
2011-01-13, 07:55 AM
A Chaotic person will defend order only up until the point that it stops being directly beneficial to him.

To note, depends on the chaotic person. Someone chaotic good may see goodly value in terms of greater "freedom" through the destruction of central authority. This might be the intent of the chaotic good character. What you say sounds more akin to Lawful Evil who knowingly abuse order to benefit themselves. They may care little for the order itself, but know others are bound by this, and the system itself is not as relevant as forcing others beneath their rule. Thus, when the system stops being beneficial, they'll leave and start anew elsewhere.

Burner28
2011-01-13, 08:22 AM
As far as Chaotic goes, this is the classic "Would rob a pharmacy to save his dying mother.", a person who believes in his own sense of judgment and as such does not subject to authority. He challenges those who are higher up in the hierarchy if he does not deem them worthy according to his scale.

Robbing a pharmacy is Chaotic Evil as your are threatening them, not to mention the store owner needs the profit to support themself.

Myth
2011-01-13, 08:41 AM
Robbing a pharmacy is Chaotic Evil as your are threatening them, not to mention the store owner needs the profit to support themself.

Because you absolutely have to go in gun-ho and in broad daylight, you can't possibly smash the windows at night and take the medicine to save your mother. In any case this is a hypothetical anecdote it's not meant for you to argue on it's practicality. I could have easily said: you are a policeman. You catch a teenager who has applied for military school (see, i'm making it pro American even) and you know personaly, as you both live in a small town. The teenager has marijuana in his possession.

Hard law would say you book him and ruin his chances of joining the military. Chaotic Good would be you let him off the hook if you know he is a good kid despite slipping this one time. Get it?

Burner28
2011-01-13, 08:47 AM
Yeah you are probably right myth about the pointlessness of arguing about the alignment of that action.

Though robbery is defined as stealing by threat of violence. Breaking in and taking it would just be plain old stealing.

Myth
2011-01-13, 09:00 AM
Since English is not my native language, and In my native language theft, burglary and robbery are all one word, I can't say I thought about the semantics.

rayne_dragon
2011-01-13, 09:09 AM
Reflecting on Lawful/Chaotic... I'm coming to think that you could look at it as Lawful people are usually great at being team players, while chaotic people... well, not so much. As a character confronted by the villain who slew their parents and that due to the circumstances of the encounter they can either chase after the villain or stick with the party and that the other members of the party have expressed that they need to stick together. A lawful character is most likely going to stay with the party to maintain the order of the group. A chaotic character would likely chase the villain. Obviously, depending on the exact circumstances and characters there's room for different reactions from the same alignment. A lawful character might have sworn revenge and consider that oath a more important kind of order to uphold than the cohesion of the adventuring party. A chaotic character might feel no obligation to seek revenge or feel that they have more important personal interests that require staying with the party.

I guess what I'm getting at is that I think a lawful character feels more of an obligation to social responsibilities, usually putting them ahead of personal desires, while the chaotic character is the opposite, putting their personal interests and whims ahead of societal obligations.

Gullintanni
2011-01-13, 10:23 AM
To note, depends on the chaotic person. Someone chaotic good may see goodly value in terms of greater "freedom" through the destruction of central authority. This might be the intent of the chaotic good character. What you say sounds more akin to Lawful Evil who knowingly abuse order to benefit themselves. They may care little for the order itself, but know others are bound by this, and the system itself is not as relevant as forcing others beneath their rule. Thus, when the system stops being beneficial, they'll leave and start anew elsewhere.

You have to read my language strictly. I said specifically that chaotic people will cease to Defend order when it ceases to be beneficial to them. Ceasing to defend is a position of apathy. A chaotic person would do nothing to attack the order (unless they are Chaotic Evil). Conversely a Chaotic Good person's behavior will be to defend the order as long as it serves visibly good ends without imposing undue limits on their freedom and individuality. Depending on whether or not they are predominantly good or predominantly chaotic, such a character may even defend an order that serves good ends despite undue limits on freedom.

Chaotic Neutrals wouldn't derail or assault an orderly society, they'd simply strive to participate as little as possible in it. Lawful Evil would exploit and subvert said order to benefit themselves. As I said, Chaotic Neutral characters would simply cease to defend such an order that did not serve their needs. Nothing Lawful or Evil about that.

Jayabalard
2011-01-13, 10:29 AM
I wanted to have an intersting debate about the whole Lawful meaning never betray your principles and chaotic meaning the ends justifies the means, so feel free to show any opinion you may have on this subject.The ends justify the means is iconically evil "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" ... it's not chaotic.


Lawful means sticking to your rules (and also, generally) that your rules are more strict than most).It's more about sticking to societies rules than your own rules. Sticking to your own rules is a valid way of playing chaotic.

Mastikator
2011-01-13, 10:32 AM
They're both sticking to their principles... only, the principles are different. :smallsmile:

So basically it's collectivism vs individualism?

Actually this makes sense. At least more sense. If we replace the "good, evil, chaos, law" with real ideals like "sadism, altruism, collectivism, individualism" then alignment discussions wouldn't be such a pain. :smallconfused:

Stegyre
2011-01-13, 10:33 AM
They're both sticking to their principles... only, the principles are different. :smallsmile:
Another vote for this summation.

For me, "lawful" characters uphold an external set of rules / code of conduct. For example, "I hate the 55 mph speed limit, but it is the law, so I'll abide by it." That's "lawful."

"Chaotic" characters abide by no set of rules but their own. ("I never agreed on a 55 mph speed limit; I can drive safely at 80 mph, so that's what I'm doing.")

Ends-justifies-means is neither a lawful nor a chaotic concept. Instead, it invokes ethical issues on the good-evil axis: can evil means be justified if they lead to good ends?

Sipex
2011-01-13, 10:36 AM
I think it depends on what the ends are and the viewpoint of the group as a whole though.

On topic? This topic (and others like it) have actually shown me why I don't really like the alignment paradigm anymore. It's an interesting thought excercise and helps me, as a DM, monitor my players actions and give helpful suggestions (ie: You can torture that goblin but I'm not really sure that it's a good act) but overall it can make things too rigid.

Barstro
2011-01-13, 10:48 AM
I think it depends on what the ends are and the viewpoint of the group as a whole though.

On topic? This topic (and others like it) have actually shown me why I don't really like the alignment paradigm anymore. ... overall it can make things too rigid.

Then you, sir, are chaotic.

Sipex
2011-01-13, 10:53 AM
See, that's what I mean though, I do have a disregard for some rules. For example the overall forum rules irk me quite a bit (but I deal) and the rigidness around alignment also does so but when you get into law I like law, I think law works very well.

I don't like stupid laws but a lot of laws make sense and I would actually feel very bad about breaking them (in fact I used to be incapable of breaking rules my mom set down when friends wanted to get into mischief and she wasn't around or we weren't even doing anything that affected her personally).

Barstro
2011-01-13, 10:57 AM
I recall from my first days of D&D learning the example that a Lawful (in this case; Good) character will "wisely" do things for the greater Good (give to poor, kill goblins, try to get the evil clerics out of town, while a Chaotic character will do things without thinking (Chaotic Good will protect the elderly man getting beaten by a soldier, without taking time to notice that the elderly man is wearing an unholy symbol and is surrounded by the corpses of all the children he just slaughtered)

I've taken the view that Chaotics will do anything that immediately seems correct for their Good/Evil alignment, while Lawfuls might do things that immediately seem to go against their alignment because they believe the action has will be for their alignment in the long run.

Gullintanni
2011-01-13, 11:03 AM
I recall from my first days of D&D learning the example that a Lawful (in this case; Good) character will "wisely" do things for the greater Good (give to poor, kill goblins, try to get the evil clerics out of town, while a Chaotic character will do things without thinking (Chaotic Good will protect the elderly man getting beaten by a soldier, without taking time to notice that the elderly man is wearing an unholy symbol and is surrounded by the corpses of all the children he just slaughtered)

I've taken the view that Chaotics will do anything that immediately seems correct for their Good/Evil alignment, while Lawfuls might do things that immediately seem to go against their alignment because they believe the action has will be for their alignment in the long run.

This analysis is pretty close but it's missing a few caveats IMHO.

Lawful makes long term plans and is usually a little more rigid in enforcing those plans; as deviations often compromise the moral integrity of the end result (even if it's only a small breach.)

Chaotics can and often do plan; but in the even that something goes wrong, they're more apt to throw things out and start from scratch. After all, if something went wrong, then it must've been a lousy plan. They tend to plan for the short term; as they're comfortable with the fact that there are variables they're not likely to account for, that appear more and more often the further ahead you plan.

Myth
2011-01-13, 11:23 AM
I think it depends on what the ends are and the viewpoint of the group as a whole though.

On topic? This topic (and others like it) have actually shown me why I don't really like the alignment paradigm anymore. It's an interesting thought excercise and helps me, as a DM, monitor my players actions and give helpful suggestions (ie: You can torture that goblin but I'm not really sure that it's a good act) but overall it can make things too rigid.

If I remember correctly you've advocated for 4E's superiority in other threads, as well as saying to DMs to just ignore character generation rules and make their NPCs with whatever abilities they want.

How do your games run when no one has any set alignment? How do you gauge how well your players are sticking to their concept instead of reverting to a generic Mary Sue or Stupid Evil Psychopath?

Sipex
2011-01-13, 11:33 AM
If I remember correctly you've advocated for 4E's superiority in other threads, as well as saying to DMs to just ignore character generation rules and make their NPCs with whatever abilities they want.

How do your games run when no one has any set alignment? How do you gauge how well your players are sticking to their concept instead of reverting to a generic Mary Sue or Stupid Evil Psychopath?

Oddly enough Myth we've actually been sticking to the alignment system (I used the classic alignment system as 4e doesn't actually use it's system all that much and I preferred the classic 9 sects at the time). It's only very recently (within the past week) with, what seems to me, an influx of morality threads, which has made me start disliking alignments as a whole.

As a caveat I don't consider 4e superior (I'd start so many fights that way), I'd like to put that out there now. I consider it a good game which is just another option when choosing your system. I, personally, prefer it though. In addition, my NPC/Monster creation advice is due to how 4e looks at things compared to 3.5. 4e advocates creating monsters and NPCs using completely different rules than the players (because PC characters are incredibly complex to run and don't balance well against each other in the system).

If my group were to adopt this method where alignment is just a label (we'd still keep the labels, my group likes having them around) I'd imagine we'd use common sense and group judgement to help us in the area you highlighted. It's basically how we do things now anyways.

Shenanigans
2011-01-13, 12:16 PM
I agree with much of what's been said, particularly what JaronK and Vangor have said, but I'm even more thrilled that most of the posters so far seem to acknowledge that the alignments aren't cookie-cutter, especially as regards the law-chaos axis. I've played at least three different lawful neutral characters (and am about to start with another) and each has been quite different alignment-wise. One kept to a personal code of discipline, honor and ethics and little else; one idolized the ordered nature of the universe; one valued the order that civilization provided.

JonestheSpy
2011-01-13, 12:35 PM
Another vote for this summation.

For me, "lawful" characters uphold an external set of rules / code of conduct. For example, "I hate the 55 mph speed limit, but it is the law, so I'll abide by it." That's "lawful."

"Chaotic" characters abide by no set of rules but their own. ("I never agreed on a 55 mph speed limit; I can drive safely at 80 mph, so that's what I'm doing.")

Ends-justifies-means is neither a lawful nor a chaotic concept. Instead, it invokes ethical issues on the good-evil axis: can evil means be justified if they lead to good ends?

Excellent summation. Just to throw another example in the mix: a lawful person who is part of an organization - government, church, etc - is going to be more likely to betray their principles if given an order that contradicts said principles. The classic "I don't make the rules, I just have to enforce them" kind of situation.

A chaotic person, on the other hand, is much more likely to ignore orders, societal customs, etc that are in conflict with their personal code of ethics.

Myth
2011-01-13, 02:51 PM
Oddly enough Myth we've actually been sticking to the alignment system (I used the classic alignment system as 4e doesn't actually use it's system all that much and I preferred the classic 9 sects at the time). It's only very recently (within the past week) with, what seems to me, an influx of morality threads, which has made me start disliking alignments as a whole.

As a caveat I don't consider 4e superior (I'd start so many fights that way), I'd like to put that out there now. I consider it a good game which is just another option when choosing your system. I, personally, prefer it though. In addition, my NPC/Monster creation advice is due to how 4e looks at things compared to 3.5. 4e advocates creating monsters and NPCs using completely different rules than the players (because PC characters are incredibly complex to run and don't balance well against each other in the system).

If my group were to adopt this method where alignment is just a label (we'd still keep the labels, my group likes having them around) I'd imagine we'd use common sense and group judgement to help us in the area you highlighted. It's basically how we do things now anyways.

I understand. But it seems you know your group pretty well. I'm playing PbP exclusively and for a group of relative strangers I find it required to have set alignments so that I may shake my DMly finger when somebody starts behaving out of his PC character to an extreme. Plus alignments are needed for some spells in 3.5, not sure how they covered that in 4E.

Black_Zawisza
2011-01-13, 02:54 PM
I've taken the view that Chaotics will do anything that immediately seems correct for their Good/Evil alignment, while Lawfuls might do things that immediately seem to go against their alignment because they believe the action has will be for their alignment in the long run.
As far as I can tell, this seems like a categorization defined by nothing more than intelligence. :smallconfused:

Sipex
2011-01-13, 02:57 PM
I understand. But it seems you know your group pretty well. I'm playing PbP exclusively and for a group of relative strangers I find it required to have set alignments so that I may shake my DMly finger when somebody starts behaving out of his PC character to an extreme. Plus alignments are needed for some spells in 3.5, not sure how they covered that in 4E.

Yeah, my group is all in person and we're all close friends so these things are very easy for us to mediate.

Also, 4E is very loose on it's alignment restrictions, there are no classes or spells which have them attached and the only real thing which, by RAW, requires alignment, are dieties (ie: Bahamut won't accept evil worshippers, etc) but we largely ignore that anyways.

I can see why 3.5 really needs them though and why they're particularily useful in your situation.

TheCountAlucard
2011-01-13, 03:09 PM
What does Lawful mean within game terms? What does Chaotic mean within game terms?

Not a thing. Got it?

Go and look in the rulebook - 90% of the stuff they say about lawfully-aligned people and chaotically-inclined people are not mutually exclusive. Ever notice how arguments over what's good and evil don't happen nearly as often? That's because for the most part, those got some fairly-solid defining traits attached to them. Law and Chaos did not.

In short, pretty much every gaming table (and every person at said gaming table) is going to have a somewhat-different definition of what those alignments mean to them.

Mastikator
2011-01-13, 03:24 PM
^ Indeed.
They probably only added the lawful/chaotic axis to make the alignment system seem non-linear.

Tyndmyr
2011-01-13, 04:07 PM
I wanted to have an intersting debate about the whole Lawful meaning never betray your principles and chaotic meaning the ends justifies the means, so feel free to show any opinion you may have on this subject.

Law is better defined as order. So, if you have someone that is highly impulsive, or routinely acts in a non-orderly fashion, they are chaotic.

Either side might have principles, mind you, but a lawful person tends to have a very clear set of cohesive principles, whereas a chaotic person might have a collection of unrelated ideals.

JonestheSpy
2011-01-13, 04:17 PM
They probably only added the lawful/chaotic axis to make the alignment system seem non-linear.

Except that Law/Chaos came first.

hamishspence
2011-01-13, 04:21 PM
True- they tended to be fairly close to Good/Evil though.

There were a few exceptions- Chaotic but benevolent beings, and Lawful but evil beings- but those tended to be the exception.

Even without Good and Evil being in a creature's alignment block- the terms were still used to describe creature behaviour.

PairO'Dice Lost
2011-01-13, 04:30 PM
Found an interesting article (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/checkfortraps/8386-Check-for-Traps-All-About-Alignment.2) on this the other day. Basically, it posits that lawful = deontological ethics, chaotic = consequentialist ethics, and neutral = aretological ethics. For the non-philosophers, this essentially means that a lawful good character believes "Lying is wrong because Pelor/my personal code says so, period," a chaotic good character believes "Lying is wrong, but can be excused in the pursuit of the greater good," and a neutral good character believes "Lying is excusable if I do it with good intentions."

The article's definitely worth a read. I didn't agree with every point, but I thought giving Chaos the "for the Greater Good!/Evil!" view was an interesting take on things.

Beleriphon
2011-01-13, 04:40 PM
The best way that I look at is as such, being a student of law:

In most systems of law there are technicalities that allow the obviously guilty to go free. This sucks, but it's an unfortunately consequence of keeping the rest of safe from The State. A LG character would realize this, and likely adhere to the belief that letting one hundred guilty men go free is better than punishing one innocent man (this in common law is referred to as the golden thread). The CG character likely would have serious issues with this, because the person is guilty and got off because of the way a code is written. They are very likely to just skip the laws and do what needs to be done. They may follow the guilty but unpunished until they find them in a position that allows for punishment.

By that extension most lawyers are some variety of lawful. Most cops as well, that said there are probably lawyers that bend the rules, or outright lie to get what they need done. Sam Waterson's character on Law & Order is likely neutral at best.

hamishspence
2011-01-13, 05:02 PM
Found an interesting article (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/checkfortraps/8386-Check-for-Traps-All-About-Alignment.2) on this the other day. Basically, it posits that lawful = deontological ethics, chaotic = consequentialist ethics, and neutral = aretological ethics. For the non-philosophers, this essentially means that a lawful good character believes "Lying is wrong because Pelor/my personal code says so, period," a chaotic good character believes "Lying is wrong, but can be excused in the pursuit of the greater good," and a neutral good character believes "Lying is excusable if I do it with good intentions."

The Easydamus system seems to give the three Neutral alignments (NG, TN, NE) consequentialist ethics:

http://easydamus.com/alignment.html
(see descriptions on each alignment page- especially the bit at the bottom on philosophy).

Myth
2011-01-14, 04:55 AM
I suspect the Law/Chaos axis was inspired from The Chronicles of Amber, whilst the Good/Evil one from... anything from fairy tales to movies.

Xuc Xac
2011-01-14, 05:36 AM
I suspect the Law/Chaos axis was inspired from The Chronicles of Amber, whilst the Good/Evil one from... anything from fairy tales to movies.

Law and Chaos were quite explicitly taken from the works of Michael Moorcock.

Frozen_Feet
2011-01-14, 05:50 AM
Uh... that depends on what principles and what ends are being talked about, and how those attitudes manifest as actual actions.

If a character's principle is "no-one shall ever restrict my freedom,", following that is quite likely to lead him to a Chaotic alignment.

If the end is "creating a society where everyone has a place", following through with that goal is likely Lawful... though depending on what means are being used, that character might still end up as Neutral or Chaotic.

However, there's one form of "end justifies the means" which is strictly lawful - sticking to the word of the law to upkeep societal order, even if such approach is detrimental to members of said order from time to time. It's "we can't compromise with law, or law will lose its meaning" point of view.