Response vs. Reaction

[coineineagh]

An old coment of the Giant that was recently linked to, said this:

I don't think they need to, no. Look at Elan: as Chaotic as they come, but he obeys the law most of the time. The real issue is, how does a character respond when what they believe and what the government is doing don't agree?
But is *response* tied to alignment, I wonder?

Responding to a situation requires calm, considerate thought. It often gets the most favourable results.

Reacting to a situation if often done without giving the situation a 2nd thought. It is tied to emotions, and in D&D, is also based on alignment.

So here's my question: If a character chooses to *respond* to a situation (like say, Elan has a plan to avoid inevitably playing into his father's hands), does it still have to be in keeping with his character?
Elan is chaotic, and usually not very bright. But I still feel that his plan could be very intelligent, and maybe involve the law.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Being dumb does not mean you can never do anything smart. Being chaotic does not mean you can never do anything lawful.

[factotum]

And thinking through things in a calm, collected way is not the sole preserve of Lawful characters in any case. Chaotic characters are not required to be insane, and do not have do things at random just because they feel like it--they just see the world differently to Lawful people and that colours their decisions.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Maybe slaadi can never do anything lawful.

[ti'esar]

And thinking through things in a calm, collected way is not the sole preserve of Lawful characters in any case. Chaotic characters are not required to be insane, and do not have do things at random just because they feel like it--they just see the world differently to Lawful people and that colours their decisions.

Amen to this.

[Draz74]

Maybe slaadi can never do anything lawful.

Nah, that would be too much of a hard-and-fast governing rule for Slaadi to follow. :smallamused:

"Every rule has an exception, including this one."

[coineineagh]

And thinking through things in a calm, collected way is not the sole preserve of Lawful characters in any case. Chaotic characters are not required to be insane, and do not have do things at random just because they feel like it--they just see the world differently to Lawful people and that colours their decisions.

That wasn't what I was suggesting at all. I was only wondering if a carefully-thought-through response is different from a guttural reaction, in that characters can actually make choices that are different than their alignment.

A lawful character might decide to break the rules after thinking it through, because it's the best course of action in the given situation. But if he/she didn't spend any thought on it, a lawful charater would never *react* in a non-lawful manner.

That's what I'm getting at. Characters react in accordance with their character type, alignment and so on. But characters are capable of responding in all manner of ways, depending on what they think is best.

There's a stark difference between a reaction and a response to situations. I think alignment governs reactions, but I'm wondering if responses are less restricted. What do you guys think about it? Both from a general D&D point of view, as from the OotS storyline.

[Domino Quartz]

I would say that, in my opinion (and from what seems to be the case in OotS only, since I'm not very familiar with D&D), if a character is simply reacting, they will do so according to their alignment; if a character is responding (by the definition you're using), they may decide to do so in a way that is outside their alignment, but they will still be inclined to do so according to their alignment.

[King of Nowhere]

I think there's a merit in your idea.
When confronted by a rule, a chaotic character first tought will likely be "screw that rule, it's pointless anyway". If then, on second tought, he decides "actually there's a merit, if everyone violated this rule there would be problems" or "if I do it and a policemen sees me, I will get fined" and decides to follow the rule it doesn't make him any less chaotic. And if his first reaction is "this rule is pointless, it is so clear doing that stuff is wrong that the burocrats could have spared the time to forbid it" then again he can follow it and not be any less chaotic for it.

On the other hand, I'm not sure how much this works on lawful people. they are supposed to value following the rules for its own sake, with arguments like "if everyone ignored the rules when they feel like it, even if they tought they had a good reason there, society would collapse", so I would expect them to follow a rule even when it's pointless, as long as following it don't do any harm.

[NerdyKris]

does it still have to be in keeping with his character?.

I certainly hope so. Otherwise, the character makes no sense. That's like asking if Spider-man has to deal with a mugger, does he have to web him up or can he just snap his neck and dump the body. It's like the entire later half of Heroes. It's like Batman using a gun.

Yes, their reactions have to make sense for the character. And yes, sometimes people make decisions that they wouldn't make in other circumstances. But it's still going to go with their character. Otherwise it's just poor writing.

[factotum]

On the other hand, I'm not sure how much this works on lawful people. they are supposed to value following the rules for its own sake

No, they're not. How many times does this have to come up and get shot down before people get it? Lawful does not mean "Follows the laws". A lawful character will generally stick to their own principles above all else, but that does not mean following the local rules for the sake of it--for instance, a Lawful Good Paladin is not going to follow the rule instigated by the local insane monarch that you have to kill at least one innocent a year or face exile.

[Jay R]

But is *response* tied to alignment, I wonder?

Yes, of course. It's also tied to race, class, level, intelligence, stats, relationships, and current situation.

But it's not determined by any of them.

Elan will do something consistent with being a human high-level bard / Dashing Swordsman with low intelligence and high charisma with a red-headed rogue girlfriend, who is part of an adventuring party fleeing his father, and whose dinosaur just became a lizard.

But it can be completely different from the response of some other human high-level bard / Dashing Swordsman with low intelligence and high charisma with a red-headed rogue girlfriend, who is part of an adventuring party fleeing his father, and whose dinosaur just became a lizard.

If alignment determined actions, then running the character wouldn't mean anything.

[King of Nowhere]

No, they're not. How many times does this have to come up and get shot down before people get it? Lawful does not mean "Follows the laws". A lawful character will generally stick to their own principles above all else, but that does not mean following the local rules for the sake of it--for instance, a Lawful Good Paladin is not going to follow the rule instigated by the local insane monarch that you have to kill at least one innocent a year or face exile.
You misunderstand my point. A lawful character is certainly not compelled by his alignment to follow any law, but he's more likely to do so. most of them will follow the law if they don't have any good reason not to do so, because they see a value in having rules that everybody respects.
Otherwise, if we define a lawful character as one who "stick to his own principles", what's a chaotic character? We all agree a chaotic character is not one who acts randomly, so a chaotic character has to have his own moral principles to follow. But hey, that's just the definition you just gave for lawful, so something is wrong there.
So, I think for the definition to not be self-contradicting, a lawful person must be one who is concerned about what society expects him to do. He may decide to do otherwise for many reasons, but "law/tradition/my tutoring figures expect me to act a certain way" is a good reason for a lawful person to act that way. he may not act that way if there are other reasons that superseed this one. Whether on the other hand a caotic person will not take into accout what others expect from him, and will only do what he think is right (or will bring him profit) whether it's what society approves or not.

Your misunderstanding of my point came from confusing "sees a value with following the rules" with "always follow the rules".

EDIT: there are a few people angry with society that will try not to do what society expects from them. I wonder if we should count them as an extreme form of caotic (not only won't care about rules, but they will go out of their way to break them), or if it would be better to put them as a very specialized brand of lawful (after all, they are concerned with what society expects from them as much as most lawful)

[warrl]

On the other hand, I'm not sure how much this works on lawful people. they are supposed to value following the rules for its own sake, with arguments like "if everyone ignored the rules when they feel like it, even if they tought they had a good reason there, society would collapse", so I would expect them to follow a rule even when it's pointless, as long as following it don't do any harm.

But if, say, the rules of a Paladin's order require him to bathe every Sunday, and he happens to be in a kingdom where bathing on Sunday is forbidden...

(Note: I am not the sort of DM who sets up "damned either way" situations to force Paladins to fall - and if I were, it wouldn't be over bathing.)

[King of Nowhere]

But if, say, the rules of a Paladin's order require him to bathe every Sunday, and he happens to be in a kingdom where bathing on Sunday is forbidden...

(Note: I am not the sort of DM who sets up "damned either way" situations to force Paladins to fall - and if I were, it wouldn't be over bathing.)

then he has a good reason to bath on sunday, and another good reason to not bath on sunday. other considerations will probably decide it (and yes, the example is quite ridiculous, but it works well because it don't add other moral implications to it)

[Snails]

As rules of thumb go, the idea that the initial reaction is in line with alignment is a good one.

On a personal level, Elan's gut instincts are very chaotic. But he trusts that Roy is usually trying to do good. He is quite capable of suppressing chaotic tendencies and trusting his friends when the pressure is on.

[Unisus]

No, they're not. How many times does this have to come up and get shot down before people get it? Lawful does not mean "Follows the laws". A lawful character will generally stick to their own principles above all else, but that does not mean following the local rules for the sake of it--for instance, a Lawful Good Paladin is not going to follow the rule instigated by the local insane monarch that you have to kill at least one innocent a year or face exile.

Not exactly - a lawful character follows rules he agreed to follow - whether they are his own principles or laws made by a gouvernment he accepts. Our LG paladin would not follow that law because he's good, not because he's lawful. And he will not be willing to accept that monarch. But if he decides to be part of a society, he will follow the rules of that society.

And for the creator of this thread: did it come to your mind that maybe the giant did not follow your definition of responding in the case you cited?

[Domino Quartz]

And for the creator of this thread: did it come to your mind that maybe the giant did not follow your definition of responding in the case you cited?

That's not really relevant to his question, because I don't think he's criticising The Giant.

[Unisus]

Depends on how you read it, i guess: for me, the quote followed by "But is "response" tied to allignment" looked like questioning the quoted statement. And this only makes sense (at least for me) if the giant uses the same definition here.

[Liliet]

It's an interesting distinction. But it can work both ways.

I can imagine a Lawful character whose first instinct in every situation would be to follow the rules and do what everyone does, but who will, upon thought, act against it in special circumstances.

But I can also imagine a Lawful character whose first instinct in many situations would be to do something Chaotic, but then he will remember that it's wrong and act in a Lawful manner.

Alignment can mean many things. It can describe "gut reaction" of the character, like with Elan, or it can describe their conscious choice that goes against their primal nature, like with Roy (who only counts as Lawful because he tries so hard). And in different situations alignment of reactions and responses can be quite different too.


So no, I don't agree with the OP and I don't think it can be described as simply as "reaction is alignmental, response can differ".

[Sir_Leorik]

Here's my view: Elan grew up without a father figure. His mother, a Chaotic Good barmaid, who was kind and free-spirited (and known for making overly complex plans for waiting on tables) influenced Elan to become benevolent (Good) and flighty (Chaotic). Throughout his life, Elan has had four father figures, three of them Lawful Good (Sir Francois, Roy and Hinjo) and one Chaotic Neutral (Julio Scoundrel). One of Elan's more endearing attributes is the way he latches onto a new surrogate father figure and tries to emulate them. (He may have been trying to make V a surrogate parental figure as well. ) Since Sir Francois fought to uphold Law & Order (cha-chunk-didda-do), Elan respects the Law. Since Elan was already Good, and was raised by a mother who never broke the Law (unlike Haley), unless a Law was very restrictive, or someone was in trouble, Elan would probably uphold it. That's why Elan broke out of prison and stole clothes in Cliffport: Haley was in danger. But when Nale and Thog were captured, Elan was happy to see them escorted to prison by Celia to stand trial.

[hamishspence]

Since Elan was already Good, and was raised by a mother who never broke the Law (unlike Haley), unless a Law was very restrictive, or someone was in trouble, Elan would probably uphold it. That's why Elan broke out of prison and stole clothes in Cliffport: Haley was in danger. But when Nale and Thog were captured, Elan was happy to see them escorted to prison by Celia to stand trial.
And, indeed, he's unwilling to take a lute from a shop- even an abandoned shop in the middle of an invasion, without leaving money for it, here:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0471.html

[Liliet]

And, indeed, he's unwilling to take a lute from a shop- even an abandoned shop in the middle of an invasion, without leaving money for it, here:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0471.html

But he was willing to pay for his drink with "30 ft movement per round" in Cliffport. And kept trying to cheat his way on board of the vehicle without paying.

[hamishspence]

Because he'd just escaped from jail, and had no money to pay his way.

Add in that he was afraid Nale would murder Haley as soon as Nale got the chance.

[Liliet]

Because he'd just escaped from jail, and had no money to pay his way.

Add in that he was afraid Nale would murder Haley as soon as Nale got the chance.

True.

Em, in what way is all this relevant to reaction vs response?

It's really hard to differentiate impulses from thought-out actions when we are talking about Elan...

[martianmister]

Chaotic characters do follow law, if they want.
Evil characters do make good acts, if they want.
Lawful characters do follow law, as they should.
Good characters do make good acts, as they should.

[Snufkin]

I think most of what has been said here is partially correct in it's own way - Which points out the overall limitations of the dnd alignment system more than anything else - something that giant seems to enjoy tearing to pieces :p

That being said i think, the response is more important than the reaction when determining alignment. Generally speaking, an immediate reaction to something is by nature, instinctive and chaotic. The main difference that can be observed between a lawful vs chaotic personality is that a chaotic person is more likely to live by that first emotional response, wheras a lawful character will develop a more habitual and organised style of thinking.

Oh, and a lawful mindset should never be confused with the stereotypical "obey the laws for the sake of them being laws" stick up the arse attitude that is often associated with paladins. That was the whole point of Miko's character.

[Sir_Leorik]

Chaotic characters do follow law, if they want.
Evil characters do make good acts, if they want.
Lawful characters do follow law, as they should.
Good characters do make good acts, as they should.

If I might offer some caveats:

Lawful characters want to follow rules and obey laws.

Chaotic characters want to be left alone to follow their hearts' desires.

Good characters want to help others, be kind and make their part of the world a better place.

Evil characters want to gain something (wealth, power, status, etc.) by actively harming others.

If we put these opinions on a graph, with Law v. Chaos running on the X axis and Good v. Evil running on the Y axis, we get:

Lawful Good characters want to follow rules and obey laws in order to help others, be kind and make the world a better place.

Chaotic Good characters want to be left alone to follow their hearts' desires, in order to help others, be kind and make their part of the world a better place.

Neutral Good characters want to help others, be kind and make their part of the world a better place; sometimes they follow rules and obey the law, and other times they follow their hearts' desires.

Lawful Evil Characters want to follow rules and obey laws, in order to gain something (wealth, power, status, etc.) by actively harming others.

Chaotic Evil Characters want to be left alone to follow their hearts' desires in order want to gain something (wealth, power, status, etc.) by actively harming others.

Neutral Evil Characters want to want to gain something (wealth, power, status, etc.) by actively harming others; sometimes they obey laws, and other times they follow their hearts' desires.

[Liliet]

Chaotic characters do follow law, if they want.
Evil characters do make good acts, if they want.
Lawful characters do follow law, as they should.
Good characters do make good acts, as they should.

Not necessarily. I have a mob of Chaotic Good characters behind my back nodding in agreement. And a few paladins, too.

(I don't know much about motivations of Lawful Evil characters, so I can't claim that they support me, too)

[factotum]

Evil characters want to gain something (wealth, power, status, etc.) by actively harming others.


I'm not so sure about that--a character who simply doesn't care if they harm others or not would still be shading on the Evil side of the spectrum, IMHO.

[Souhiro]

I'm with Sir_Leorik: Why does Elan -usually- follows the law?

Because The Giant wants he to do so.
Because Elan wouldn't want to harm anybody as the result of a chaotic action


I just remembered when he had to steal (Twice!) from the Tip Box to get some costumes and board the FF-VI Airship. He wasn't feeling bad for commiting a crime (as a paladin would) he was feeling bad because those coins belonged to the shopkeeper.

---
Sorry for my awful english. Yo hablo español

[Sir_Leorik]

I'm with Sir_Leorik: Why does Elan -usually- follows the law?

Because The Giant wants he to do so.
Because Elan wouldn't want to harm anybody as the result of a chaotic action


I just remembered when he had to steal (Twice!) from the Tip Box to get some costumes and board the FF-VI Airship. He wasn't feeling bad for commiting a crime (as a paladin would) he was feeling bad because those coins belonged to the shopkeeper.

---
Sorry for my awful english. Yo hablo español

Don't worry, your English is better than several North Americans I happen to know!

I think that Book Five has shown us how much growing up without a father-figure affected Elan. He was definitely influenced by his Mommy, but he's been looking for a surrogate father figure for years. Sir Francois, the Paladin Elan served as a herald, was one of those surrogate fathers, and Roy is obviously another. In Roy's absence, Hinjo took on that role. Sir Francois and Hinjo are both Paladins, and Roy, while not a Paladin, is Lawful Good. Elan has absorbed several lessons about Lawfulness from them, but he still has the inate seed of Chaos from his free-spirited Mommy.

The end result is that Elan doesn't steal (unless he has to), he doesn't lie (unless he has to), he doesn't disobey the lawful authorities (unless he has to) and he doesn't stay up past his bedtime (I think even Mommy enforced that rule). But Elan only has this attitude because he looks up to Lawful Good characters as role models. The influence of Julio Scoundrel and Haley moves Elan much further towards Chaos. And given the revelations about his Lawful Evil biological father, Elan may move even further toward a Chaotic bent in the future. Release the Slaad!

[Fish]

Chaotic characters do follow law, if they want.
Evil characters do make good acts, if they want.
Lawful characters do follow law, as they should.
Good characters do make good acts, as they should.

Chaotic characters follow earthly laws, if they choose. They usually act, behave, and think according to some intuitive or vague principle, rather than in accordance with a specific, organized, logical dogma. Bards tell stories, and the stories themselves follow certain narrative rules, but those rules are a mess, and stories often break their own rules. Barbarians go on instinct and feeling more than on textbook-acquired knowledge.

Lawful characters follow earthly laws, if they choose. They usually act, behave, and think in accordance to some strict or well-defined principle, rather than trusting to hunches or gut feelings. Monks react according to their discipline and training, so that their instantaneous decision comes from habit and drills and regularity; however, the Monks may train hard to follow a chaotic-appearing path (eg, drunken boxing), because in combat it is never good to be predictable. Paladins react according to moral principles, either of their own making or following those of an Order.

It isn't as easy as "lawful = obeys laws." Obeys some laws, sure.

[Sir_Leorik]

Chaotic characters follow earthly laws, if they choose. They usually act, behave, and think according to some intuitive or vague principle, rather than in accordance with a specific, organized, logical dogma. Bards tell stories, and the stories themselves follow certain narrative rules, but those rules are a mess, and stories often break their own rules. Barbarians go on instinct and feeling more than on textbook-acquired knowledge.

Lawful characters follow earthly laws, if they choose. They usually act, behave, and think in accordance to some strict or well-defined principle, rather than trusting to hunches or gut feelings. Monks react according to their discipline and training, so that their instantaneous decision comes from habit and drills and regularity; however, the Monks may train hard to follow a chaotic-appearing path (eg, drunken boxing), because in combat it is never good to be predictable. Paladins react according to moral principles, either of their own making or following those of an Order.

It isn't as easy as "lawful = obeys laws." Obeys some laws, sure.

That's why I prefer to say "Lawful Characters want to follow Laws". It's more complicated than that, but so long as a Lawful character is following their own Ethical standard, a religious credo, or some other set of laws, they are following their Alignment. The next step is that "Lawful Characters want to promote Lawful behavior", whereas Chaotic characters might be indifferent to Anarchy and Chaos. (Some, though, like the Xaositects or the Joker, most assuredly are not indifferent to Chaos.)

[Fish]

I would still go with "lawful characters want structure." The word "law" has too many associations with legal systems of justice.

[martianmister]

Not necessarily. I have a mob of Chaotic Good characters behind my back nodding in agreement.

They can't follow law, even if they want it? Weird...


Lawful characters follow earthly laws, if they choose...It isn't as easy as "lawful = obeys laws." Obeys some laws, sure.

There is a big difference between following a code of law (which he recognize) and following every law in the world. They have to obey the laws they recognize.

[Wardog]

I think an important thing to remember is that there are degrees of Lawfulness (and Chaoticness, and Good, and Evil. And even Neutrality).

Someone who obeys all the rules all the time without question is Lawful.
Someone who thinks that everything that isn't forbidden should be compulsory (or vice versa) is Lawful.

But not everyone that is Lawful will agree with those positions. (Lawful Good and Lawful Evil people will disagree when the other aspect of their alignment, and even many/most Lawful Neutrals will disagree).

The most extreme forms of all the alignments generally amount to Lawful/Chaotic/Good/Evil Stupid, so most people won't go that far.


For that reason, as applied to the OP, I would disagree with the suggestion that:

A lawful character might decide to break the rules after thinking it through, because it's the best course of action in the given situation. But if he/she didn't spend any thought on it, a lawful charater would never *react* in a non-lawful manner.

I think the idea that "Alignment X means your instincts tend towards X, even if you can reason your way to an alternative" is a good one, but it shouldn't be absolute. An non-stupid/non-extreme Lawful character won't necessarily instinctively support a stupid or extreme Lawful idea.

And of the Moral axis, I can easily envisage an Evil character whose instincts are to do good/avoid evil, but invaraibly manages to rationalize why despite that he shouldn't help other people, or that sacrificing others for his own gain is justified.

Likewise, I can envisage a Good character - particularly if placed in an extreme situation - doing something evil as a gut reaction, when if they had longer to think about it would realize they shouldn't.

[hamishspence]

And of the Moral axis, I can easily envisage an Evil character whose instincts are to do good/avoid evil, but invaraibly manages to rationalize why despite that he shouldn't help other people, or that sacrificing others for his own gain is justified.

This probably happens a lot- with such characters usually being ex-Good ones who have succumbed to corruption but won't admit it to themselves.

[Souhiro]

That's why I prefer to say "Lawful Characters want to follow Laws". It's more complicated than that, but so long as a Lawful character is following their own Ethical standard, a religious credo, or some other set of laws, they are following their Alignment. The next step is that "Lawful Characters want to promote Lawful behavior", whereas Chaotic characters might be indifferent to Anarchy and Chaos. (Some, though, like the Xaositects or the Joker, most assuredly are not indifferent to Chaos.)

I like this one! You see, we have seen a TON of GMs, (or even has BEEN one of those GMs) that is always saying "If you do this, you won't be lawful anymore" or "You won't be good anymore".

But in truth, alignment is more personal than facts, it's about how do you feel about yourself, and how do you think you should act.

If you're forced to steal, BUT YOU REGRET IT, the act isn't lawful, nor is good, but you indeed still are! If you're living in a city, doing your job and paying your taxes, but hate the ever-looking guards, because you want to get out and make some graffittis in your boss' door, you're chaotic, even if you didn't commit any felony.

Sir Leoric, Thank you. You have changed how I see D&D, and the alignments: It's kinda the old Cyberpunk, it's Style over Substance, again!

-- Edit --
But remember that there are classes that won't allow you to make an EVIL act, it's different to being forced to do an evil act, and being corrupted to enjoy commiting acts of evil.

[hamishspence]

If you're forced to steal, BUT YOU REGRET IT, the act isn't lawful, nor is good, but you indeed still are!

A case could be made that to stay Lawful- you need to be prepared to "turn yourself in" afterward, though:


In my personal interpretation of Lawfulness in D&D, I believe that yes, it is possible to be Lawful using a personal code rather than the societal definitions of law and order. However, I believe that the burden of upholding that code has to be much stricter than that of the average person in order to actually qualify as Lawful. You must be willing to suffer personal detriment through adhesion to your code, without wavering, if you want to wear the Lawful hat.

Because almost everyone has a personal code of some sort; Robin Hood had a personal code, and he's the poster child for Chaotic Good. The reason his code doesn't rise to the level of Lawful is that he would be willing to bend it in a pinch. And since he's already bucking all the societal traditions of his civilization, there are no additional penalties or punishments for him breaking his own code. He's unlikely to beat himself up if he needs to violate his own principles for the Greater Good; he'll justify it to himself as doing what needed to be done, maybe sigh wistfully once, and then get on with his next adventure.

Conversely, a Lawful character who obeys society's traditions has a ready-made source of punishment should he break those standards. If such a character does stray, she can maintain her Lawfulness by submitting to the proper authorities for judgment. Turning yourself in effectively atones for the breaking of the code, undoing (or at least mitigating) the non-Lawful act.

A Lawful character who operates strictly by a personal code, on the other hand, is responsible for punishing herself in the event of a breach of that code. If she waves it off as doing what needed to be done, then she is not Lawful, she's Neutral at the least. If she does it enough, she may even become Chaotic. A truly Lawful character operating on a personal code will suffer through deeply unpleasant situations in order to uphold it, and will take steps to punish themselves if they don't (possibly going as far as to commit honorable suicide).

People think that using the "personal code" option makes life as a Lawful character easier. It shouldn't. It should be harder to maintain an entirely self-directed personal code than it is to subscribe to the code of an existing country or organization. This is one of the reasons that most Lawful characters follow an external code. It is not required, no, but it is much, much easier. Exceptions should be unusual and noteworthy. It should be an exceptional roleplaying challenge to take on the burden of holding yourself to a strict code even when there are no external penalties for failing.

[Sir_Leorik]

There is a big difference between following a code of law (which he recognize) and following every law in the world. They have to obey the laws they recognize.

This reminds me of the restrictions on the members of the Fraternity of Order faction in the Planescape Campaign. The "Guvners" has to be of Lawful Alignment, and they were obligated to obey any Law they were aware of. However the Fraternity happily allowed it's members to look for loopholes in the legal codes (and the laws of the multiverse, for that matter). In Sigil, prior to the Faction War, the Guvners operated the Cage's court system, working as judges, prosecuters, defense attorneys, plaintiff's attorneys and defendant's attorneys, as well as bailiffs, clerks and paralegals. The Guvners' ideology was that they had to obey all laws. But their approach to Law was that all laws need to be defined and examined, and if there's a loophole there's nothing wrong with exploiting it. After all, if the legislative body (or cosmic forces) that instituted the law in question had been more rigorous they would have caught the loophole ahead of time. :smallwink:


I think an important thing to remember is that there are degrees of Lawfulness (and Chaoticness, and Good, and Evil. And even Neutrality).

Someone who obeys all the rules all the time without question is Lawful.
Someone who thinks that everything that isn't forbidden should be compulsory (or vice versa) is Lawful.

Those are two very different views of Lawfulness; in fact the latter probably isn't actually a Lawful philosophy. As I mentioned above, the Fraternity of Order subscribe to the first principle; they must obey all laws they are aware of. The latter is a little bizarre. Who actually promotes that idea?


I think the idea that "Alignment X means your instincts tend towards X, even if you can reason your way to an alternative" is a good one, but it shouldn't be absolute. An non-stupid/non-extreme Lawful character won't necessarily instinctively support a stupid or extreme Lawful idea.

Depends on the character. Roy would happily break an unjust law, while Durkon wouldn't.


And of the Moral axis, I can easily envisage an Evil character whose instincts are to do good/avoid evil, but invaraibly manages to rationalize why despite that he shouldn't help other people, or that sacrificing others for his own gain is justified.

Likewise, I can envisage a Good character - particularly if placed in an extreme situation - doing something evil as a gut reaction, when if they had longer to think about it would realize they shouldn't.

What about an Evil character who is aware that what he is doing is technically Evil, but is convinced he's working for the greater Good, such as the Alliance Operative in the movie "Serenity"? The Operative murders and tortures innocents in his quest to find River Tam, and he flat out tells Mal that he knows that he would not be worthy of living in the "better world" that he's trying to build. The Operative seems pretty Lawful Evil to me, but he's not a Devil. He's a man who is violating his society's morals so that others can live a better life.


But in truth, alignment is more personal than facts, it's about how do you feel about yourself, and how do you think you should act.

If you're forced to steal, BUT YOU REGRET IT, the act isn't lawful, nor is good, but you indeed still are! If you're living in a city, doing your job and paying your taxes, but hate the ever-looking guards, because you want to get out and make some graffittis in your boss' door, you're chaotic, even if you didn't commit any felony.

In a case like this, where a PC is living under an oppressive government, the case can be made that rebelling is a Good act. And in some cases, such as where the oppressive government is headed by a usurper, a very tenuous case can be made that the act of rebellion is Lawful, provided the PCs are supporting the Lawful government that was overthrown by the usurper. But that's a very tenuous argument, and it does get into the thorny issues of all civil wars. There may be people supporting the usurper because they regard the new government as legitimate (for whatever reason) and consider the PCs to be insurrectionists.


Sir Leoric, Thank you. You have changed how I see D&D, and the alignments: It's kinda the old Cyberpunk, it's Style over Substance, again!

-- Edit --
But remember that there are classes that won't allow you to make an EVIL act, it's different to being forced to do an evil act, and being corrupted to enjoy commiting acts of evil.

I suppose we're moving into discussing the Paladin, Good Clerics and the AD&D Ranger. My advice to players and DMs is to have a discussion before the campaign starts about what the DM expects from Paladins and similar characters. How much leeway will the DM provide? Will the DM provide a warning to the player of a Paladin when he's in danger of committing a Chaotic or Evil act?

Remember the goal of the game is to have fun, not to get into arguments over roleplaying and rules minutia. If the player and the DM have a discussion about how the DM expects Paladin PCs to behave, and the player feels it would be too difficult, my advice is to not play a Paladin. Play a Cleric or a Knight (from Player's Handbook II) instead.

In the "Star Wars: Saga Edition" campaign I played in, I played my Jedi PC for over two years, reaching character level 13, without earning a single Dark Side Point. I'm rather proud of that accomplishment, since other PCs racked up quite a few. One of the methods I used was to employ the "Search Your Feelings" use of the Use the Force skill, to ask the GM about the consequences of actions I was thinking of taking. (Not immediately grabbing Sith artifacts the group came across helped too. :smallbiggrin:)

There's no reason that a player of a Paladin in (A)D&D couldn't do the same thing. Rather than "Use the Force", the Paladin is meditating briefly, praying to his patron, or thinking back to his training. The DM should then mention briefly whether the action in question is ethically or morally questionable, and maybe give hints to other actions to take. I don't think this is cheating; it's merely an extrapolation of the Paladin's Detect Evil ability. Maybe the Paladin could be considered to be directing her Detect Evil ability inward, rather than outward, as she meditates or prays, trying to find a path forward that is pure but will also lead the Paladin and her allies to honorable victory.

[Wardog]

Those are two very different views of Lawfulness; in fact the latter probably isn't actually a Lawful philosophy. The latter is a little bizarre. Who actually promotes that idea?


I can't think of any specific examples offhand, but I'm sure some dictatorships (possibly real ones, definitely fictional ones) have taken the view that society should be that regulated. (Did Libria from Equilibrium might come close? What about in 1984?).

I did see someone arguing about alignment who claimed that a Lawful character meant you had to take that view.


And yes - I agree it's a bizarre and stupid stance, but not inconcievable that someone would believe it. And I would presume it would count as lawful rather than anything else. (Although I suppose that might depend on the ration of banned to mantatory things. If you made a few things compulsory and banned everything else, that would be extreme Lawful. If you only banned a few things and made everything else compulsory, that would probably end up some weird Chaotic-Lawful hybrid).

[Orm-Embar]

Someone who obeys all the rules all the time without question is Lawful.
Someone who thinks that everything that isn't forbidden should be compulsory (or vice versa) is Lawful.


Those are two very different views of Lawfulness; in fact the latter probably isn't actually a Lawful philosophy. As I mentioned above, the Fraternity of Order subscribe to the first principle; they must obey all laws they are aware of. The latter is a little bizarre. Who actually promotes that idea?


I can't think of any specific examples offhand, but I'm sure some dictatorships (possibly real ones, definitely fictional ones) have taken the view that society should be that regulated. (Did Libria from Equilibrium might come close? What about in 1984?).

I believe the quote is from T.H. White, The Once and Future King, describing an anthill as seen by an ant: "The fortress was entered by tunnels in the rock, and, over the entrance to each tunnel, there was a notice which said: EVERYTHING NOT FORBIDDEN IS COMPULSORY."

It doesn't get any more lawful than that.

[Sir_Leorik]

I can't think of any specific examples offhand, but I'm sure some dictatorships (possibly real ones, definitely fictional ones) have taken the view that society should be that regulated. (Did Libria from Equilibrium might come close? What about in 1984?).

I did see someone arguing about alignment who claimed that a Lawful character meant you had to take that view.

And yes - I agree it's a bizarre and stupid stance, but not inconcievable that someone would believe it. And I would presume it would count as lawful rather than anything else. (Although I suppose that might depend on the ration of banned to mantatory things. If you made a few things compulsory and banned everything else, that would be extreme Lawful. If you only banned a few things and made everything else compulsory, that would probably end up some weird Chaotic-Lawful hybrid).


I believe the quote is from T.H. White, The Once and Future King, describing an anthill as seen by an ant: "The fortress was entered by tunnels in the rock, and, over the entrance to each tunnel, there was a notice which said: EVERYTHING NOT FORBIDDEN IS COMPULSORY."

Maybe that's where the idea for Formians came from. I never did like them.


It doesn't get any more lawful than that.

The idea is pretty anathema to all of the Lawful groups I've seen in (A)D&D. The Fraternity of Order, for example, would definitely attack that concept. Most legal systems, real world and fictional, religious or secular, have a concept of a forbidden act and a compulsory act, but this idea is just bizarre. For example, it is compulsory in most of the City-States of Athas, in the Dark Sun Campaign, for free citizens to register with the Templars when they enter a City State. It is forbidden in the village of Ulthar to harm a cat. It is compulsary for all newborns children in the Domain of Falkovnia to be branded on their forheads with a hawk's head, marking them the property of the Domain's Darklord, Vlad Drakov. It is forbidden to molest the Vistani in the Domain of Barovia, on pain of death. (The latter two are from the Ravenloft Campaign.)

Laws are generally legislated, proclaimed, or arrived at by judicial precedent. The legislature could be democratically elected, a representative body, a council of sages or elders, or an octopus selecting colored balls from a tank, or the proclamation could be from a mayor, king, emperor or pantheon, but somebody decided that something should be illegal or compulsory, needed regulation (and how to regulate it), etc.

I think an argument could be made that a society like that has a Chaotic Legal system, even if the people themselves are Lawful. Think about it: Pistachio ice cream isn't illegal, therefore everyone must always eat pistachio ice cream. Always. Reading the newspaper isn't illegal, therefore everyone must read the newspaper, all the time. And what is the consequences for this compulsory behavior? Is there a reward? Is there a punishment for not doing something compulsory? This is is the most ludicrous thing I've heard of in a while.

You know what, if I ever meet anyone calling Modrons stupid, ever, I will point to Formians, and then say that this is what they believe. Then I'll ask which is a better exemplar of ideal Law: clockwork beings based on "Flatland", or Ants who decreed that eating ice cream is compulsory, since eating ice cream isn't forbidden. :smallmad:

EDIT: Just to clarify, when a system of laws has made some acts compulsory (like paying taxes) and others illegal (various criminal acts), it leaves breathing room for all other aspects of life. Even beings like Modrons, who categorize every aspect of their existence, would find the T.H. White quote puzzling, if not Chaotic. Something is compulsory because there is a regulation or law saying so. It may be compulsory once a day for some Modrons to check the fire extinguishers. It may be compulsory once a year for some Modrons to serve as couriers. And every 17 cycles (a cycle being 17 years, the period it takes for Regulus to complete it's rotation through Mechanus) comes The Great Modron March. But all of these are the result of orders passed down from Primus to his Secundi, to the Tertions, all the way down the chain. Whereas the T.H. White quote sounds like a small child's understanding of how the world works.

[coineineagh]

Too bad this has boiled down to yet another discussion of the 3x3 alignment grid. I was asking about response vs. reaction on a very general level, in which alignment plays a role of course, but also education, intelligence, disposition, background, mood, values, and most importantly the situation. Making a character realistic or believable does not depend upon sticking close to its alignment. That would result in a reactive character, in which it's debatable if there is any intelligent thought at all, or just a mindless bumbling through the story in accordance with alignment. I believe a realistic character should be well-balanced, showing balanced reasoning capabilities as well as habits and tendencies that result from alignment, values and so on.

If a character *reacts*, it should definitely be in accordance of what you'd expect from them.

If a character *responds*, he/she can make all manner of decisions and actions, as long as it is clear that any deviation from the established behaviour pattern was brought about by a priority deemed more important at the time. Perhaps due to situation, knowledge, background, etc.

From what I can read in this story, the Giant already implements this principle to a certain extent. And like it or not, this makes the characters better than what you'd find in your average D&D session.

[Orm-Embar]

The idea is pretty anathema to all of the Lawful groups I've seen in (A)D&D. The Fraternity of Order, for example, would definitely attack that concept. Most legal systems, real world and fictional, religious or secular, have a concept of a forbidden act and a compulsory act, but this idea is just bizarre.

The ants' system works for ants. It doesn't work for humanity. White knew this, and expected his readers to get it too. Without getting into spoilers, just believe me, the book is worth reading.


Laws are generally legislated, proclaimed, or arrived at by judicial precedent. The legislature could be democratically elected, a representative body, a council of sages or elders, or an octopus selecting colored balls from a tank, or the proclamation could be from a mayor, king, emperor or pantheon, but somebody decided that something should be illegal or compulsory, needed regulation (and how to regulate it), etc.

In this case, the Computer Queen Ant.

It's worth noting that both Paranoia's Computer-controlled society and the anthill are, by human standards, mad and impossible for normal humans.


I think an argument could be made that a society like that has a Chaotic Legal system, even if the people themselves are Lawful. Think about it: Pistachio ice cream isn't illegal, therefore everyone must always eat pistachio ice cream. Always.

Ants love ice cream! If the gods have provided an ice cream mountain, the ant scouts must hurry back to the nest and all workers must mobilize to take advantage of this fantastic resource. Always.


Reading the newspaper isn't illegal, therefore everyone must read the newspaper, all the time. And what is the consequences for this compulsory behavior? Is there a reward? Is there a punishment for not doing something compulsory? This is is the most ludicrous thing I've heard of in a while.

Stop oppressing my culture, you -! :smallmad: More seriously, yes of course it's ludicrous for a human culture to act in this way, and I believe that's one of the points White was trying to make.


You know what, if I ever meet anyone calling Modrons stupid, ever, I will point to Formians, and then say that this is what they believe. Then I'll ask which is a better exemplar of ideal Law: clockwork beings based on "Flatland", or Ants who decreed that eating ice cream is compulsory, since eating ice cream isn't forbidden. :smallmad:

Actually as noted above, that's a bad example because as any picnic-goer can attest, ants probably would regard eating ice cream as compulsory. :smallwink:

But your point was really about ideal Law and it's a fair point. What is ideal Law, anyway? I would say this is the kind of reason why IMO the alignment system can be useful as a set of training wheels for beginning roleplayers, but isn't much good for resolving issues and has no place in game mechanics. YMMV of course.


Whereas the T.H. White quote sounds like a small child's understanding of how the world works.

More like an allegory. Also a cautionary tale. White's story has layers upon layers. In the context of the times in which he was writing it had a definite point.

[Sir_Leorik]

In this case, the Computer Queen Ant.

It's worth noting that both Paranoia's Computer-controlled society and the anthill are, by human standards, mad and impossible for normal humans.

Treason! Friend Computer only wants Alpha Complex's citizens to be happy! Happiness is mandatory! Unhappiness is treason!

Also, Alpha Complex is a good description of a Chaotic society that appears to be Lawful on the surface. On the surface, with citizens ranks by color and security clearance, Alpha Complex seems Lawful. But security clearance is based on how much the Computer (which is paranoid) trusts an individual citizen, not on any form of merit. Clones who know how to lie, bluff and sweet-talk their way out of trouble are more likely to acheive higher clearance, than a hard working individual who has useful skills.


Ants love ice cream! If the gods have provided an ice cream mountain, the ant scouts must hurry back to the nest and all workers must mobilize to take advantage of this fantastic resource. Always.

Well now I know how to stop Formians in their tracks: carry small cartons of Ben & Jerry's in a Cube of Frost. :smalltongue:


But your point was really about ideal Law and it's a fair point. What is ideal Law, anyway? I would say this is the kind of reason why IMO the alignment system can be useful as a set of training wheels for beginning roleplayers, but isn't much good for resolving issues and has no place in game mechanics. YMMV of course.

Here's how I see Modron society, which patterns itself on a top-down bureaucracy, with Primus sitting (literally, in an Energy pool) at the top, issuing orders, with those orders passed down a chain of command. In different editions, Modrons have zero free will, a little free will, or total free will but are devoted to Order (or are kept in line by the Pentadrones), but regardless, their society needs regulation, a constant stream of orders, amended orders, etc., to keep functioning. There are benefits and downsides to their system, but it is recognizable as one that humans might use in limited circumstances; an army, a government bureaucracy or a large corporation, for example. It would not be ideal for humans to live like this all the time, but sometimes it would be useful. It does come in handy when Modrons are in combat, as Heirarch Modrons relay telepathic orders to the lower ranks through the chain of command (e.g., an Octon relays an order to Nonaton, that Nonaton relays to a Decaton, that Decaton relays to a Pentadrone, that Pentadrone relays to a Quadrone, that Quadrone relays to a Tridrone, that Tridrone relays to a Duodrone and that Duodrone relays to a Monodrone, who carries out the Octon's order, all in one round; the Monodrone is unaware of the existence of the Octon, except in a vague way, but it knows it has to obey the order since it was relayed from a Duodrone).

One of the major flaws in the Modron society was demonstrated by how easily Tenebrous (the shadowy aspect that the Demon Prince Orcus was reduced to for most of 2E) assassinated the previous Primus, and corrupted one of the Secundi who tried to assume the mantle of Primus. The other Secundi recognized the Chaotic influence, and instead promoted another Secundi to become the new Primus, and as a result there were two heads of the complex bureaucracy competing for control: a Lawful Neutral Primus trying to stave off a Chaotic influence, and a Chaotic Evil Primus, controlled by Tenebrous, who was infusing any Modrons under his hierarchy with Demonic energy. A more flexible system might have been able to thwart or recognize Tenebrous' influence earlier, before so many Modrons became part of his heirarchy. Those Modrons were ordered to consider any Modrons under the other (non-Demonic) Primus' heirarchy as Rogue Modrons (not to be confused with Modron Rogues :smallwink:), while the Lawful Neutral Primus ordered his Modrons to treat the Demonic Primus' Modrons as Rogue Modrons. Because orders and questions need to be relayed down and up the hierarchy, Tenebrous could wreak havoc on the Lawful Neutral Modrons, while dispatching his own Modrons throughout the Planes to create Chaos, in anticipation of Orcus' revival.


More like an allegory. Also a cautionary tale. White's story has layers upon layers. In the context of the times in which he was writing it had a definite point.

Understood. I presume it was an allegory against one or more political systems in vogue at the time, which I will not mention due to this board's ban on discussing real world politics. (You know which ones, right? :smallwink:)

In terms of the (A)D&D Alignment system, I think that in terms of the genre that the typical campaign setting is based on, especially ones like Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, and even Ravenloft, the Alignment system provides a good starting point for metaphysical conflict, heroic actions, or religious orders. In campaign settings like Dark Sun or Eberron, both of which are based on other genre (pulp science fiction and steampunk, respectively) it might be better to jettison alignment altogether. The Sorcerer Kings aren't bad guys because they have "Evil" on their character sheet, they're bad guys because they restrict the liberty and access to resources of their subjects, they defile the environment, and they feed people to their old buddy The Dragon. In the meantime, Player Characters are put in more morally ambiguous situations, and might benefit if they weren't put in black and white categories like "Lawful" vs. "Chaotic" or "Good" vs. "Evil". As for Eberron, the setting would probably be much better if everyone, Player Character and Non-Player Character, were treated as complex characters, with diverse motivations. I am a big advocate of the idea that "Alignment =/= Character Personality", but even I can see how some Eberron DMs and Players might want to put Alignment aside and play a different style for a change.

Alignment should be seen as a tool, not a strait-jacket. If it is hindering a campaign, then modify it, or don't use it. But some campaigns (e.g. Dragonlance) have Alignment built into their DNA, and changes should be made with care in those cases.

[Souhiro]

I suppose we're moving into discussing the Paladin, Good Clerics and the AD&D Ranger. My advice to players and DMs is to have a discussion before the campaign starts about what the DM expects from Paladins and similar characters. How much leeway will the DM provide? Will the DM provide a warning to the player of a Paladin when he's in danger of committing a Chaotic or Evil act? I GM'ed to a supposed paladin. I say "Supposed" because he always play paladins in MMRPGs, he even call all them the same. I forced him to makie a diferent paladin, to create some background and choose a diferent name. I told him that since he was Lvl-1, his superiors, peers and even gods would be a little bit lenient in little errors, but only if he learned from the lesson.

I regreted saying that... (He ended getting another PC's child protegee drunk, and doing very, VERY bad things to the poor girl. He shouted at me a hour after, when he was counting on his paladin powers and they went away)

But with a the Druid, a Cleric and a Monk I didn't had those problems, and this little pearl of knowledge that you shared with me will prove useful: Enjoying trolling a rookie can be more damaging to your alignment than a serious crime, if you do the later under pressure or blackmail. Maybe even they'll get some surprises with NPCs!

Yes, there will be all that "Stain of Evil" thing, like Durkula or Eludecia, the succubus Paladin (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a). But I think that the capital letter in RPG should be "Game". And the capital letter in "Game" should be the F from "Fun": A boring RPG is a Bad RPG. Period.

[Sir_Leorik]

I suppose we're moving into discussing the Paladin, Good Clerics and the AD&D Ranger. My advice to players and DMs is to have a discussion before the campaign starts about what the DM expects from Paladins and similar characters. How much leeway will the DM provide? Will the DM provide a warning to the player of a Paladin when he's in danger of committing a Chaotic or Evil act?

Remember the goal of the game is to have fun, not to get into arguments over roleplaying and rules minutia. If the player and the DM have a discussion about how the DM expects Paladin PCs to behave, and the player feels it would be too difficult, my advice is to not play a Paladin. Play a Cleric or a Knight (from Player's Handbook II) instead.


I GM'ed to a supposed paladin. I say "Supposed" because he always play paladins in MMRPGs, he even call all them the same. I forced him to makie a diferent paladin, to create some background and choose a diferent name. I told him that since he was Lvl-1, his superiors, peers and even gods would be a little bit lenient in little errors, but only if he learned from the lesson.

I regreted saying that... (He ended getting another PC's child protegee drunk, and doing very, VERY bad things to the poor girl. He shouted at me a hour after, when he was counting on his paladin powers and they went away)

But with a the Druid, a Cleric and a Monk I didn't had those problems, and this little pearl of knowledge that you shared with me will prove useful: Enjoying trolling a rookie can be more damaging to your alignment than a serious crime, if you do the later under pressure or blackmail. Maybe even they'll get some surprises with NPCs!

Yes, there will be all that "Stain of Evil" thing, like Durkula or Eludecia, the succubus Paladin (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a). But I think that the capital letter in RPG should be "Game". And the capital letter in "Game" should be the F from "Fun": A boring RPG is a Bad RPG. Period.

Souhiro, I think the language barrier between us might be giving me some difficulty comprehending your last post. In the anecdote about the problematic player running a Paladin, was the problem that his Paladin PC was violating the Paladin's Oath, committing Chaotic Acts, or committing Evil Acts? Was he causing problems in the group?

[coineineagh]

I just realized that the most powerful and influential characters in the game, are the ones who pretend to be thoughtless, 'reactive' characters, while in fact their responses are very premeditated and deliberate.
Xykon is not as stupid as he appears.
Shojo was not as stupid as the facade he maintained.
Tarquin is more than a humble submissive general.
Redcloak pretends to cower in fear under Xykon's command.

And perhaps Belkar is now getting the hang of it too.

[Silverionmox]

No, they're not. How many times does this have to come up and get shot down before people get it? Lawful does not mean "Follows the laws". A lawful character will generally stick to their own principles above all else, but that does not mean following the local rules for the sake of it--for instance, a Lawful Good Paladin is not going to follow the rule instigated by the local insane monarch that you have to kill at least one innocent a year or face exile.

But what if your personal principles involve independence and liberty? :smallbiggrin:

Absolute alignments are bound to run into messy reality sooner or later. Personally I see the meaning of alignment as heavily context-dependent, and therefore story-dependent. Not everything can be placed in a preexisting conflict between good and evil.