PDA

View Full Version : To be Lawful



Pages : [1] 2

goto124
2015-02-14, 06:08 AM
I've seen a bunch of people playing Lawful alignments, whether LG, LN or LE. As someone who's Chaotic IRL, and is biased towards it, I sometimes wonder how I can play a Lawful character, if only to shake things up a bit. How do I play a Lawful well? Or does it not matter most of the time?

I've heard that being Lawful doesn't have to be restrictive. I'm interested in how exactly this is done.

Ashtagon
2015-02-14, 06:21 AM
Generally, I take the following to be true:


Lawful: Loyalty to city, large tribe, nation, or empire. Works with the rules of the wider society.
Chaotic: Loyalty to family, close friends, small clan-like group such as guild or extended family. Happy to follow the lead of the head of that small group where such a head exists.
Good: Makes an effort to help others. Does not knowingly hurt others unless it is the "least bad" option.
Evil: Hurts others.


Hope that helps.

Seto
2015-02-14, 07:34 AM
There's what Asthagon said (the social aspect), which, combined with what I'll say (personal behavior and values aspect), can make a pretty Lawful core.

Here's what I posted recently in another thread (I left Neutral and Chaotic for comparison) :


That's only one aspect of the question, but I tend to look at the way the character treats the principles he adheres to (almost everyone has at least some). All three ways are equally coherent and valid.
To Lawful, a principle is a principle, you accepted it, and now you put your doubts or feelings aside and uphold it when it needs to be upheld. You do not allow yourself to do otherwise, except when the consequences would be dire, and sometimes not even then. Of course you're not dumb, you can question yourself and change principles, but that's a long and thoughtful road (and you certainly don't change them the very moment you need to act on them) and you treat your new principles the same way you treated the old. Principle is law.
To Neutral, a principle is something you should not stray away from and you have a firm belief in. However, you can sometimes tweak it if it serves the big picture, or try to keep the principle's spirit while formulating it differently (which sometimes leads to subtly changing principles). If the consequences for upholding your principles are too harsh, though, you can silence them for a moment. Principles are rules.
To Chaotic, a principle helps you formulate who you are and find a way in life ; it gives you identity and reason. However, people can and do change, so it's only natural that you principles change overtime. Besides, the same situation doesn't always call for the same answer : context matters. This is why you should treat principles with both respect and caution : for while your principles reflect who you are, they should not decide who you are. As such, when followed too blindly, they will keep you from moving on and making your own way through life. Principles are guidelines.

Part of being Lawful is accepting there's something bigger and more important than yourself, and this thing's importance (big picture, system, community, principles) may override that of your feelings/doubts/personal judgment. Doing that doesn't make you automatically Lawful, but I think it's a requirement for a Lawful character.

MrNobody
2015-02-14, 08:12 AM
Lawful is about respect, duty and moral. I also feel that a part of being lawful is not only respecting the rules but also trying to have a deep knowledge of them and using them at your own benefit.

Just a quick example: i once played a LN cleric, descending from a family of clerics who inherited from father to son the task of serving their god around the world. My character was the last of its family and had no children.
At a certain point the party it was in came to face a really powerful enemy that could wipe them all out.
Before going out to face him, my character needed to be sure that an heir could be ready to continue his task in case of his death.
He went out in the city and asked the "major" about the local traditions regarding marriage. He than selected an expecially pious family and, in total respect of those habits, went to the father to ask the permission to marry its daugter, explaining the situation and offering gold and other precious (being an high level pc it was enough to sustain a family of artisans for a century or so).
With a little magic the cerimony was set up quickly and the couple married. On the first night, with my DM's approval a spell from Book of erotic fantasy was used to have my PC's wife surely pregnant.
After a few days (spent taking care of the new family, setting up the education of the future child and behaving like a "respectable husband") the party left to face the final battle.

Karl Aegis
2015-02-14, 08:23 AM
A) The destination is more important than the journey. If your goal is perfection, it doesn't matter how you become perfect, as long as you are perfect in the end.

B) If you encounter a problem, you will try to find a solution specifically for that problem. If a solution has worked for that specific problem before, you will try that solution first.

C) You have some sort of tradition or code you will adhere to. It can be a code given to you by your society and peers, or your code can be unique to you. There are certain things you won't do.

Afterthought: It is generally a good idea to have a flowchart handy for how you would deal with a common situation.

Seto
2015-02-14, 09:03 AM
A) The destination is more important than the journey. If your goal is perfection, it doesn't matter how you become perfect, as long as you are perfect in the end.

C) You have some sort of tradition or code you will adhere to. It can be a code given to you by your society and peers, or your code can be unique to you. There are certain things you won't do.

Seeing the issue here ? ;)
You could resolve it by saying that C overrides A, but my own resolution is that A is simply incorrect. This kind of thing has to do with personality.

Talyn
2015-02-14, 09:34 AM
Saying that the destination matters more than the journey is a very Chaotic attitude.

A Lawful person cares just as much about how she achieves her goals as she does what the end goals are. There are a number of reasons for why this might be the case.

As a very Lawful person in real life myself, I believe that there is an inherent arrogance in typical Chaotic attitude. A Chaotic Good person who says "I don't need rules or guidelines, I'll just do what's right based on the circumstances" is implying that a) they know what "right" is in the moment, correctly, every time, and b) that they will be able to correctly anticipate which behaviors will lead to good outcomes, despite a lack of perfect information.

Both of these beliefs might be appropriate for an omniscient divine entity, but for mere mortals in the real world, they smack of hubris.

A Lawful person, on the other hand, acknowledges that if they tried to approach each circumstance without some ethical guidelines they will, as a fallible mortal, make mistakes. Instead, they create rules which they follow, which (they hope) will create good outcomes as often as possible. Society and in the individuals within it, are, over the long run safer and happier by following those guidelines - even though, in individual circumstances, it can lead to a less Good outcome for a single individual.

In short: a Chaotic person trusts themselves to make the right decision with incomplete information. A Lawful person would rather trust a set of rules, hopefully made with the wisdom of experience, to guide them towards making the right decision.

Michael7123
2015-02-14, 10:39 AM
As someone who is very lawful (and good) IRL, let me give you an overview. For the record, these are allo general qualities, and not every lawful character has to possess all of these qualities.

(Note, this is more of a lawful good/neutral argument. Lawful Evil is a bit trickier.)

1. Respect of Family and Tradition
You probably look up to your parents and elders , or at a minimum have respect for them. This doesn't mean that you have to do everything they say. However, if your parents came to you and said that they were very displeased by your behavior, you would at a minimum hear them out and seriously consider what they had to say, even if you strongly disagree with them, or even are offended by what they say. Your parents don't know everything, but they probably know some things.

Furthermore, to give an example in real life (and speaking from personal experience here), if you are raised by a family of Lawful Good Catholics, you can be sure that you'll be taken to church every sunday. If religion is a part of a lawful family's life. Now, depending where they stand on the good-evil spectrum, there will be various degrees of understanding in regards to a conversion (which also depends on the reasons for converting). Chaotics (and even some Neutrals) tend to view this as shoving religion down someones throat. My opinion is that if you don't give someone some sort of religious background to ground themselves in, they'll flirt whatever way the wind blows and go with the crowd, and not just when it comes to religion. If you do change your opinions, it will be because you thought long and hard about it.

2. Loyalty and trustworthiness
You're word is your bond. If you say you're going to do something, you do it, even if it becomes inconvenient. You have a show you wanted to watch, but you agreed to help a friend pack? To bad for you, you go and help your friend and feel good about it. The bottom line is if someone is making a deal with you, they don't need to "get in writing", or even make you promise. You're trustworthy. However, Lawful Good characters probably won't compromise their moral code because they made an agreement to help someone.

3. Respect for Legitimate authority
You respect the law and do your best to uphold it. If you see someone robbing a store for food, you, at a minimum, tell them to stop, even if they look like they need it (and then depending on alignment, you could either turn them in or offer to buy them some food). If you hit someone on the road, you stop and call 911 and fully admit what you've done, even if you're reputation will suffer.

This does not mean you don't have a personal sense of justice either. If someone steals something from a jerkbag who has it coming, you probably won't tell on him. However

4. Personal code of honor
Most importantly, you realize that you are a mortal, and therefore, flawed. To combat this, you try to set rules for your behavior, even when it results in personal loss. To quote the "being of pure law and good" Ned Stark,


You think my life is some precious thing to me? That I would trade my honor for a few more years... of what? (For those of you who don't know, he was being told to commit an unlawful act, or he'd be executed.

Most people will never be faced with a choice as severe as Ned's. However, someone might be told to do something against their moral code, or be fired. My dad has been put into this position more than once, and each time, he's chosen the moral high ground. I have the utmost respect for him because of this. As a general rule, the personal code of honor is the most important thing to you.

5. In regards to Chaos:
I had something planned for this but the post above me by Tayln summed it up best.

Tragak
2015-02-14, 01:18 PM
How about this:

Instead of looking at Lawful Good versus Chaotic Good and asking yourself "why would somebody think that Lawful Good is better?" look at Lawful Evil versus Chaotic Evil and ask yourself "why would somebody think that Chaotic Evil is worse?"

Lappy9001
2015-02-14, 01:57 PM
Lawful is about respect, duty and moral. I also feel that a part of being lawful is not only respecting the rules but also trying to have a deep knowledge of them and using them at your own benefit.

Just a quick example: i once played a LN cleric, descending from a family of clerics who inherited from father to son the task of serving their god around the world. My character was the last of its family and had no children.
At a certain point the party it was in came to face a really powerful enemy that could wipe them all out.
Before going out to face him, my character needed to be sure that an heir could be ready to continue his task in case of his death.
He went out in the city and asked the "major" about the local traditions regarding marriage. He than selected an expecially pious family and, in total respect of those habits, went to the father to ask the permission to marry its daugter, explaining the situation and offering gold and other precious (being an high level pc it was enough to sustain a family of artisans for a century or so).
With a little magic the cerimony was set up quickly and the couple married. On the first night, with my DM's approval a spell from Book of erotic fantasy was used to have my PC's wife surely pregnant.
After a few days (spent taking care of the new family, setting up the education of the future child and behaving like a "respectable husband") the party left to face the final battle.Wow, that's an amazing RP story!

JadedDM
2015-02-14, 02:34 PM
The way I've always seen it is Lawful people are collectivists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism) and Chaotic people are individualists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism). So while Chaotic characters would believe very strongly in things like freedom, self-reliance, and independence, a Lawful person would be the opposite and believe very strongly in things like community, cooperation, and interdependence.

Lawful Good, therefore, would be about putting the good of the group first. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

Lawful Neutral would be more about hierarchy, structure and order than anything else. People needs rules to survive, or else we'll all fall into anarchy.

Lawful Evil also places importance on order and structure, but with a very cruel bent. Punishment is quick and harsh and usually favors a small group of the privileged over the masses. Things may not be fair, but they are very well executed.

Also worth noting, is what Lawful does NOT mean.

Lawful does not mean you must mindlessly obey everything you are told.

Lawful does not mean you are incapable of compromise.

Lawful does not mean you have to follow every rule and law in existence (a LG character would have no trouble freeing slaves in a place where slavery is legal, for instance).

Mando Knight
2015-02-14, 02:34 PM
A Lawful person, on the other hand, acknowledges that if they tried to approach each circumstance without some ethical guidelines they will, as a fallible mortal, make mistakes. Instead, they create rules which they follow, which (they hope) will create good outcomes as often as possible. Society and in the individuals within it, are, over the long run safer and happier by following those guidelines - even though, in individual circumstances, it can lead to a less Good outcome for a single individual.

In short: a Chaotic person trusts themselves to make the right decision with incomplete information. A Lawful person would rather trust a set of rules, hopefully made with the wisdom of experience, to guide them towards making the right decision.

To add to this, they often also follow rules created by those they consider wiser than themselves, even if they don't understand the rule.

Darth Ultron
2015-02-14, 03:02 PM
Lawful:

At it's core, Lawful likes order. Any type of order: laws, rules, plans, traditions, agreements or whatever. A Lawful person believes that having order in life is the only way to live life. A Lawful person might not like every law or rule, but they do agree that there must be laws and rules. The are one hundred prevent behind the idea that there must be ordered rules or laws or such to follow.

Lawful people dislike freedom, free will and choice. A Lawful person does not like the idea that anyone can just do anything. The Lawful person will all most always immediately go to the ''what if'' extreme: If people are left to their own free will and choice then anything can happen...and it will most likely be bad. Naturally, many Lawful people will lie and say they do like freedom, free will and choice...but it's a lie, of course. they are saying they like freedom, free will and choice...after a person is utterly forced to follow dozens of rules and laws. So a person can have freedom, free will and choice, only if and after they obey dozens of laws and rules.....and that is not pure freedom, free will and choice.

A Lawful person has no trust in others, unless that other person is also Lawful and follows the same order. And even then they might have doubts. And while they might at the word of some they trust, they will almost all ways insist that things be done in writing and with witlessness. They all most always distrust strangers. They fell there can be no trust without a huge, oppressive order looking over the shoulders of both parties.

A Lawful person does not fell they have the freedom to act out against someone who harms or wrongs them. Their only option is to let the social order they live under deal with it. They rarely, if ever act by themselves or take matters into their own hands.

A Lawful person is not comfortable making decisions, and will gladly give others that power over them.

A Lawful person likes the comfort of someone else making the decisions and hard calls for them. They are more then willing to fall in line behind any idea. When they follow an idea, they themselves don't have to decide, they just go along. And this goes from deep philosophical ideas, to social ideas, to personal ones. A lawful person does not decide something is right or wrong or good or bad on their own, they use the structural social framework they have chosen to follow to tell them what to think or do or say.

A Lawful person is a conformist, they want and need to fit in. They follow the crowd. They want to be part of something bigger then they are as an individual. A Lawful person loves being a part of as many groups as possible.

A Lawful person likes plans. They almost never do anything without a plan. Even the simplest of activity needs a plan.

A Lawful person sees no need to wander or moves about aimlessly. They stick to a set path.

A Lawful person lives by the clock. Time is the ultimate order. They do set things at set times on set days. They really...really...hate to break or disrupt their set ways

A Lawful person does not like chance or randomness. Most don't do activities like gamble, but even if they do, they will do it in a careful and orderly way. A Lawful person often only takes a chance when there is a good chance they will succeed.

Michael7123
2015-02-14, 03:10 PM
The way I've always seen it is Lawful people are collectivists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism) and Chaotic people are individualists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualism). So while Chaotic characters would believe very strongly in things like freedom, self-reliance, and independence, a Lawful person would be the opposite and believe very strongly in things like community, cooperation, and interdependence.

Lawful Good, therefore, would be about putting the good of the group first. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."



Be careful about this. While I would definately call chaotic people individualists, lawful people are not always collectivists. A lawful person in America, for example, could strongly belive in individual rights and freedoms and believes they should be upheld, in addition to having respect for authority, a personal moral code, etc.

Also, regarding the phrase "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Be VERY careful with that. A lawful good human would likely give up his life for others, especially if he cares about them (ie family). But he won't necissarily be willing to actively sacrifice others for the benifit of more others.

Michael7123
2015-02-14, 03:48 PM
Lawful:

At it's core, Lawful likes order. Any type of order: laws, rules, plans, traditions, agreements or whatever. A Lawful person believes that having order in life is the only way to live life. A Lawful person might not like every law or rule, but they do agree that there must be laws and rules. The are one hundred prevent behind the idea that there must be ordered rules or laws or such to follow.



As a general rule, yes. However, as you mentioned, lawful folk will probably dissagree with some rules in society, and if they have a moral objection against them, you can be sure they will speak out. (Example, a lawful good paladin won't just go along with the slave trade because it's legal. They'll free the slaves because its good.)



Lawful people dislike freedom, free will and choice. A Lawful person does not like the idea that anyone can just do anything. The Lawful person will all most always immediately go to the ''what if'' extreme: If people are left to their own free will and choice then anything can happen...and it will most likely be bad. Naturally, many Lawful people will lie and say they do like freedom, free will and choice...but it's a lie, of course. they are saying they like freedom, free will and choice...after a person is utterly forced to follow dozens of rules and laws. So a person can have freedom, free will and choice, only if and after they obey dozens of laws and rules.....and that is not pure freedom, free will and choice.


Gonna take a stab in the dark and say you're very, very chaotic IRL.

This is a statement accurate regarding Lawful Evil. This doesn't apply to lawful neutral (usually), and certainly not lawful good.

Speaking as a lawful good person who likes free will and choice, you could not be more wrong. Lawful evil might fall into this category, and maybe some lawful neutrals, but any lawful good paladin would strongly disagree with this.

A lawful good person doesn't people to mindlessly obey the law. He wants people to choose to lead orderly and civilized lives. Furthermore, if people are just mindlessly obeying authority, that won't be as efficient as telling someone "you should do x", and letting them figure out how to do x.

For someone criticizing a people for going to an extreme, you seem to be going to an extreme yourself. The only thing lawful types are this violently against is an absolute lack of authority or government. People need to have laws, and yes, there do need to be rules that people have to follow. Just little things like don't rape, murder, steal, etc. That doesn't mean they hate free will and choices. A lot of the times (but not all), a chaotic good person would have no problems following the laws of a lawful good city.



A Lawful person has no trust in others, unless that other person is also Lawful and follows the same order. And even then they might have doubts. And while they might at the word of some they trust, they will almost all ways insist that things be done in writing and with witlessness. They all most always distrust strangers. They fell there can be no trust without a huge, oppressive order looking over the shoulders of both parties.


Eh, this is debatable. A lawful good person's word is good enough. This is more regarding lawful evil than anything else.



A Lawful person does not fell they have the freedom to act out against someone who harms or wrongs them. Their only option is to let the social order they live under deal with it. They rarely, if ever act by themselves or take matters into their own hands.


While lawful types do often report crimes to authorities, depending on alignment, they will do whats right on their own. But they won't be vigilantes.

As for the quote in bold, a lawful person might be the one who founds a police force in the first place: to take matters into his own hands.



A Lawful person is not comfortable making decisions, and will gladly give others that power over them.


This completely depends from person to person. Some lawful people love to be in charge.



A Lawful person likes the comfort of someone else making the decisions and hard calls for them. They are more then willing to fall in line behind any idea. When they follow an idea, they themselves don't have to decide, they just go along. And this goes from deep philosophical ideas, to social ideas, to personal ones. A lawful person does not decide something is right or wrong or good or bad on their own, they use the structural social framework they have chosen to follow to tell them what to think or do or say.


Sometimes, yes, but this varies from individual to individual. Lawful people aren't always mindless automatons who do whatever they are told. My father is a very lawful person, and he was told to do something immoral or he'd be fired. He choose the moral high ground over obeying his superiors.



A Lawful person is a conformist, they want and need to fit in. They follow the crowd. They want to be part of something bigger then they are as an individual. A Lawful person loves being a part of as many groups as possible.


I was someone with fairly right of center political opinions in a very, very liberal highschool. And I'm also very lawful.

Conformity to everything isn't inherently lawful. That's just being mindless and holding no opinions of your own.



A Lawful person likes plans. They almost never do anything without a plan. Even the simplest of activity needs a plan.


You're exaggerating. Plans are good, yes, but they shouldn't be shackles preventing them from doing something better.



A Lawful person sees no need to wander or moves about aimlessly. They stick to a set path.


I wouldn't say no need, but as a general rule, they aren't prone to wanderlust.

So, yeah, this is fairly accurate.



A Lawful person lives by the clock. Time is the ultimate order. They do set things at set times on set days. They really...really...hate to break or disrupt their set ways


Exaggeration. See the section on plans.



A Lawful person does not like chance or randomness. Most don't do activities like gamble, but even if they do, they will do it in a careful and orderly way. A Lawful person often only takes a chance when there is a good chance they will succeed.

Bit of an exaggeration, but less so than the last one.


Source: I'm lawful good.

Darth Ultron
2015-02-14, 03:53 PM
Be careful about this. While I would definately call chaotic people individualists, lawful people are not always collectivists. A lawful person in America, for example, could strongly belive in individual rights and freedoms and believes they should be upheld, in addition to having respect for authority, a personal moral code, etc.

Lawful people do not believe in freedom. They do believe in Rights, as that is a Lawful Idea.

Just take the America example: The Lawful person says here are 100,000 laws that you must absolutely follow without question or you will be punished. Now your free to do anything that the laws allow you to do, but that is as far as your freedom goes. So, note, that is not freedom.



Also, regarding the phrase "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." Be VERY careful with that. A lawful good human would likely give up his life for others, especially if he cares about them (ie family). But he won't necissarily be willing to actively sacrifice others for the benifit of more others.

It will vary by individual, of course. Most Lawful Good people will all ways ''try and find another way''. But a lot of Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil will be more then willing to sacrifice others.

hamishspence
2015-02-14, 03:55 PM
WOTC's Save My Game section had some good stuff on Law and Chaos:

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a

Michael7123
2015-02-14, 04:04 PM
Lawful people do not believe in freedom. They do believe in Rights, as that is a Lawful Idea.

Just take the America example: The Lawful person says here are 100,000 laws that you must absolutely follow without question or you will be punished. Now your free to do anything that the laws allow you to do, but that is as far as your freedom goes. So, note, that is not freedom.


People have rights, which is a lawful principle. These rights can be more or less summed up as "your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins." That's freedom, and people are more happy because it's not complete anarchy.

The freedom you're talking about is absolute lawlessness. People are free to vote and speak their opinions about laws, and can elect people to change them. In america, this happens all the time.

Freedom and laws are not incompatible. Laws limit freedom, but they don't have to destroy it entirely.

Darth Ultron
2015-02-14, 04:31 PM
People have rights, which is a lawful principle. These rights can be more or less summed up as "your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins." That's freedom, and people are more happy because it's not complete anarchy.

Only the Lawful person thinks that a right has an end. And, yes, rights do make all the Lawful and most of the neutral people happy.



The freedom you're talking about is absolute lawlessness. People are free to vote and speak their opinions about laws, and can elect people to change them. In america, this happens all the time.

Yes. People are free be forced to follow the laws on how and when they can vote and how and when they can speak their opinions about laws, and be forced to follow the laws on how and when to elect people to change them.

Note, that is not Freedom. It's the Lawful person saying that they are willing to follow laws, and that they absolutist force all others living in the country to follow the same laws...OR ELSE.

Freedom is not telling others what they can and can't do, and it sure is not forcing people to do, or not do anything.



Freedom and laws are not incompatible. Laws limit freedom, but they don't have to destroy it entirely.

In a generic sense laws and freedom are not incompatible. After all, a Chaotic Law would offer almost pure freedom. Such as a law like ''it's only stealing if you get caught'' would be a great example. So Chaotic people could take stuff from anyone, anywhere, anyhow. anytime...as long as they don't get caught. See, that is freedom...a law that allows a person to do anything.

Pex
2015-02-14, 04:34 PM
Lawful:

At it's core, Lawful likes order. Any type of order: laws, rules, plans, traditions, agreements or whatever. A Lawful person believes that having order in life is the only way to live life. A Lawful person might not like every law or rule, but they do agree that there must be laws and rules. The are one hundred prevent behind the idea that there must be ordered rules or laws or such to follow.

Lawful people dislike freedom, free will and choice. A Lawful person does not like the idea that anyone can just do anything. The Lawful person will all most always immediately go to the ''what if'' extreme: If people are left to their own free will and choice then anything can happen...and it will most likely be bad. Naturally, many Lawful people will lie and say they do like freedom, free will and choice...but it's a lie, of course. they are saying they like freedom, free will and choice...after a person is utterly forced to follow dozens of rules and laws. So a person can have freedom, free will and choice, only if and after they obey dozens of laws and rules.....and that is not pure freedom, free will and choice.

A Lawful person has no trust in others, unless that other person is also Lawful and follows the same order. And even then they might have doubts. And while they might at the word of some they trust, they will almost all ways insist that things be done in writing and with witlessness. They all most always distrust strangers. They fell there can be no trust without a huge, oppressive order looking over the shoulders of both parties.

A Lawful person does not fell they have the freedom to act out against someone who harms or wrongs them. Their only option is to let the social order they live under deal with it. They rarely, if ever act by themselves or take matters into their own hands.

A Lawful person is not comfortable making decisions, and will gladly give others that power over them.

A Lawful person likes the comfort of someone else making the decisions and hard calls for them. They are more then willing to fall in line behind any idea. When they follow an idea, they themselves don't have to decide, they just go along. And this goes from deep philosophical ideas, to social ideas, to personal ones. A lawful person does not decide something is right or wrong or good or bad on their own, they use the structural social framework they have chosen to follow to tell them what to think or do or say.

A Lawful person is a conformist, they want and need to fit in. They follow the crowd. They want to be part of something bigger then they are as an individual. A Lawful person loves being a part of as many groups as possible.

A Lawful person likes plans. They almost never do anything without a plan. Even the simplest of activity needs a plan.

A Lawful person sees no need to wander or moves about aimlessly. They stick to a set path.

A Lawful person lives by the clock. Time is the ultimate order. They do set things at set times on set days. They really...really...hate to break or disrupt their set ways

A Lawful person does not like chance or randomness. Most don't do activities like gamble, but even if they do, they will do it in a careful and orderly way. A Lawful person often only takes a chance when there is a good chance they will succeed.

As Spoken by the Chaotics who oppose Lawful in every way and seek only to portray it as the most cruel abomination thing in all existence.
:smallsigh:

Darth Ultron
2015-02-14, 05:27 PM
Speaking as a lawful good person who likes free will and choice, you could not be more wrong. Lawful evil might fall into this category, and maybe some lawful neutrals, but any lawful good paladin would strongly disagree with this.

But you do note that the Free Will and Choice only come after a person is absolutely forced to obey a set of laws. So it's free will and choice, with in the limits given. And limits mean it's not free will and choice.



A lawful good person doesn't people to mindlessly obey the law. He wants people to choose to lead orderly and civilized lives. Furthermore, if people are just mindlessly obeying authority, that won't be as efficient as telling someone "you should do x", and letting them figure out how to do x.

Yes, a Lawful Good person has the utmost best intentions at heart and they do really care and what to help others, and they are utterly willing to violently force their way of life and absolute view point on others.



For someone criticizing a people for going to an extreme, you seem to be going to an extreme yourself. The only thing lawful types are this violently against is an absolute lack of authority or government. People need to have laws, and yes, there do need to be rules that people have to follow. Just little things like don't rape, murder, steal, etc. That doesn't mean they hate free will and choices. A lot of the times (but not all), a chaotic good person would have no problems following the laws of a lawful good city.

Only a Lawful person says people need to have laws or rules. And I would not say Lawful ''hates'' free will and choices....I said ''dislikes''. And sure a good person of any type has few problems in any good city.



Eh, this is debatable. A lawful good person's word is good enough. This is more regarding lawful evil than anything else.

I don't think every Lawful Good person would take everyone, even a stranger at their word, at least not with out something more to go on about the person. And very few Neutral Good people will take someone at just their word in a vacuum. And a Lawful Evil person is even more willing to take a person at their word, as they plan to get around it anyway.



While lawful types do often report crimes to authorities, depending on alignment, they will do whats right on their own. But they won't be vigilantes.

All lawful types are going to report crimes, they strongly believe in the whole law and order idea. And, sure, they will do what they think is right within the limits of the laws and rules.



As for the quote in bold, a lawful person might be the one who founds a police force in the first place: to take matters into his own hands.

Well, you might note that founding a police force does not exactly take matters into ones own hands. Police enforce the laws, they don't make the law. But sure a Lawful person might found a government, makes some laws, and found a police force...all to go after a criminal with their own hands.



This completely depends from person to person. Some lawful people love to be in charge.

I'm going big picture. Sure lots of Lawful people like to be in charge of others....but that is be in charge of others by the permission of a lawful social structure and laws. A Lawful person can not make a decision in a void, they need rules and laws and order to base their decisions off and to tell them what to do.



Sometimes, yes, but this varies from individual to individual. Lawful people aren't always mindless automatons who do whatever they are told. My father is a very lawful person, and he was told to do something immoral or he'd be fired. He choose the moral high ground over obeying his superiors.

Following the line is not an automaton, the Lawful person wants to follow the line. The Lawful person can not imagine an existence where they did not follow. And picking not doing an immoral act is good, not lawful.



Conformity to everything isn't inherently lawful. That's just being mindless and holding no opinions of your own.


Lawful is not ''conformity to everything'', it's ''they like conformity''.




You're exaggerating. Plans are good, yes, but they shouldn't be shackles preventing them from doing something better.

How do you go from ''likes plans. They almost never do anything without a plan. Even the simplest of activity needs a plan '' to ''shackles''? Bit of a leap....



Exaggeration. See the section on plans.

Not an exaggeration. Lawful people like time. Lawful people are clock watches.



Bit of an exaggeration, but less so than the last one.


Not at all. Most Lawful types don't like to gamble, especially for fun. They don't like blind luck or chance. They only take chances or risks in planned orderly ways.

Michael7123
2015-02-14, 05:39 PM
As Spoken by the Chaotics who oppose Lawful in every way and seek only to portray it as the most cruel abomination thing in all existence.
:smallsigh:

If there was an upvote on this forum, you would have just gotten one from me.

McStabbington
2015-02-14, 05:43 PM
Yes. People are free be forced to follow the laws on how and when they can vote and how and when they can speak their opinions about laws, and be forced to follow the laws on how and when to elect people to change them.

Note, that is not Freedom. It's the Lawful person saying that they are willing to follow laws, and that they absolutist force all others living in the country to follow the same laws...OR ELSE.

Freedom is not telling others what they can and can't do, and it sure is not forcing people to do, or not do anything.



In a generic sense laws and freedom are not incompatible. After all, a Chaotic Law would offer almost pure freedom. Such as a law like ''it's only stealing if you get caught'' would be a great example. So Chaotic people could take stuff from anyone, anywhere, anyhow. anytime...as long as they don't get caught. See, that is freedom...a law that allows a person to do anything.

. . .I think you have a somewhat misguided sense of what "freedom" is, largely because you seem a bit blinkered by the idea that the only thing that can impede your freedom is a law telling you not to do something, or else. If "Freedom" is being unrestricted by external impediments generally, then stealing is wrong because not simply because we've collectively decided that it is, but because it reduces the freedom of the person whose property was stolen. Extortion is wrong because it uses power to override the free ability of another to choose. Murder is wrong because it eliminates the very possibility of freedom in the murdered person. And in each of these cases, we use law not simply to prevent those moral wrongs that we've all collectively decided are wrong. We use them to protect and uphold the freedom for everyone.

Quite simply, a Lawful Good person proceeds not simply out of a view that disorder is bad and order is good. It's that other goods are derived from a smooth, well-functioning system of order. We like laws because we like freedom, and realize that absent the law, the only people that are truly free are those who are utterly impervious both harm and the fear of being harmed. And no human is utterly impervious to either of those things: we are not superheroes, and an anarchical war of all against all is not a recipe for freedom, but is in fact the least free state a man can find himself in.

Long story short, I do not mean to utterly dismiss the idea that laws can impinge on freedom. Laws, especially poorly-designed ones or ones that are designed to benefit the few at the expense of all, can be some of the most dangerous foes of freedom that exist, and the lawful good person is often the first to call out such laws for the threat that they are. But they also don't use the existence of bad laws to throw out the idea of laws altogether, any more than the idea that food can spoil and hurt you is a justification to stop eating altogether.

Darth Ultron
2015-02-14, 06:23 PM
. If "Freedom" is being unrestricted by external impediments generally, then stealing is wrong because not simply because we've collectively decided that it is, but because it reduces the freedom of the person whose property was stolen. Extortion is wrong because it uses power to override the free ability of another to choose. Murder is wrong because it eliminates the very possibility of freedom in the murdered person. And in each of these cases, we use law not simply to prevent those moral wrongs that we've all collectively decided are wrong. We use them to protect and uphold the freedom for everyone.

You are on to something here. Welcome to thinking like a Chaotic person.

Now...here is the important point. The Lawful person says Only laws can protect and uphold limited freedoms and that everyone has to accept that some freedoms must be controlled for all to be mostly free. Lawful makes the trade off of ''your as free as possible, under the set laws you must obey''. A Lawful person believes that should someone be a victim of a crime, that that person should sit back and let the law handle it.

The Chaotic person does not like laws at all, and for sure does not think they are the only way to do things. The Chaotic person thinks the individual should be free to do anything, anytime and anyhow. So steal from someone, and they are free to get you back...or not..any way they see fit. An individual is free to avenge a murder..or not...in any way they wish to.



Quite simply, a Lawful Good person proceeds not simply out of a view that disorder is bad and order is good. It's that other goods are derived from a smooth, well-functioning system of order. We like laws because we like freedom, and realize that absent the law, the only people that are truly free are those who are utterly impervious both harm and the fear of being harmed. And no human is utterly impervious to either of those things: we are not superheroes, and an anarchical war of all against all is not a recipe for freedom, but is in fact the least free state a man can find himself in.

Right, Lawful Good people like laws as it makes the best type of society for the good of everyone. That is kinda basic. Lawful Good likes laws that forbid the freedom to be evil, but support the freedom to be good.



.
Long story short, I do not mean to utterly dismiss the idea that laws can impinge on freedom. Laws, especially poorly-designed ones or ones that are designed to benefit the few at the expense of all, can be some of the most dangerous foes of freedom that exist, and the lawful good person is often the first to call out such laws for the threat that they are. But they also don't use the existence of bad laws to throw out the idea of laws altogether, any more than the idea that food can spoil and hurt you is a justification to stop eating altogether.

The Chaotic person is not just against bad laws, they are against all laws. They are against the very idea of laws. A Chaotic person does not want to change the laws to make things better, they want no laws. They think to be forced to give up some freedoms to have others is wrong.

McStabbington
2015-02-14, 07:15 PM
The Chaotic person is not just against bad laws, they are against all laws. They are against the very idea of laws. A Chaotic person does not want to change the laws to make things better, they want no laws. They think to be forced to give up some freedoms to have others is wrong.

You see, I'm not sure that's true at all. A Chaotic Good person doesn't look at a law against murder and say "Grrr, don't impose your will on me!" and go out and kill someone just to show The Man what's what. Indeed, I don't think all but the most foolhardy and short-sighted of Chaotic Evil strawmen do that either. It's that they don't act out of respect for the law regardless of what the law says. A Chaotic Good person might well never murder anyone so long as they live, but they will do it because a) they feel that murder is wrong, and b) they've got some kind of internal justification that holds them to a standard of decency that doesn't outright hold any particular value for order or consistency or anything else a Lawful person might find valuable. Even a Chaotic Evil person, at least one who's actually Chaotic Evil rather than Chaotic Stupid, might never murder, but they'll do so because it never advantages them to do so.

Simply put, I strongly suspect that outside of . . . let's call them unusual and unlikely situations, such as being thrust back in time to a period just before the rise of Hitler, you will almost never see a Lawful Good and a Chaotic Good person act all that differently. But you will see substantial differences in how they arrive at their consistent actions. The Lawful Good man will value order for its own sake. A Chaotic Good man will tolerate order so long as it produces outcomes that are good. The Lawful Good man will believe that consistency, sobriety and procedure are all things to be paid attention to and cared about. The Chaotic Good man will believe that spontaneity, flexibility and the ability to be adaptable in the face of changing circumstances is more important, and would never make the same decision twice simply because of how the first decision was made.

Angel Bob
2015-02-14, 07:30 PM
Speaking as a True Neutral (leaning Lawful) individual, this debate is really very engaging and enlightening. :smallsmile:

Michael7123
2015-02-14, 07:55 PM
But you do note that the Free Will and Choice only come after a person is absolutely forced to obey a set of laws. So it's free will and choice, with in the limits given. And limits mean it's not free will and choice.


It is not absolute choice in as much as you can do ANYTHING without legal consequences. Even the drow (chaotic evil poster children) have government of a sort (mainly don't piss off the church of Lolth).



Yes, a Lawful Good person has the utmost best intentions at heart and they do really care and what to help others, and they are utterly willing to violently force their way of life and absolute view point on others.

Resorting to violence is a characteristic of all alignments. Lawful types are usually more organized about it. What are chaotic good rebels if they aren't forcibly placing their views on the rest of society.



Only a Lawful person says people need to have laws or rules. And I would not say Lawful ''hates'' free will and choices....I said ''dislikes''. And sure a good person of any type has few problems in any good city.


Most chaotic people would like at least some form of government. Granted, it would probably be very different from the government of one a lawful person would prefer



I don't think every Lawful Good person would take everyone, even a stranger at their word, at least not with out something more to go on about the person. And very few Neutral Good people will take someone at just their word in a vacuum. And a Lawful Evil person is even more willing to take a person at their word, as they plan to get around it anyway.

You misinterpreted what I said. I meant that a lawful person should be taken at their word. If they agree to do something, they'll do it. In regards to trusting other people, that really just varies from person to person.



All lawful types are going to report crimes, they strongly believe in the whole law and order idea. And, sure, they will do what they think is right within the limits of the laws and rules.

Yeah. This fairly accurate, except that lawful good will often do what is right in spite of the laws. Case in point: the example I gave with my father.



Well, you might note that founding a police force does not exactly take matters into ones own hands. Police enforce the laws, they don't make the law. But sure a Lawful person might found a government, makes some laws, and found a police force...all to go after a criminal with their own hands.


Yeah.... whats the issue with this again? They choose to found the police force because they choose to follow the law.



I'm going big picture. Sure lots of Lawful people like to be in charge of others....but that is be in charge of others by the permission of a lawful social structure and laws. A Lawful person can not make a decision in a void, they need rules and laws and order to base their decisions off and to tell them what to do.


Lawful people aren't incapable of using critical thinking skills. They don't need protocols for every single decision they make.



Following the line is not an automaton, the Lawful person wants to follow the line. The Lawful person can not imagine an existence where they did not follow. And picking not doing an immoral act is good, not lawful.


Following something, yes. This doesn't necessarily mean following authority. It can easily mean following a personal code that they set for themselves. That they chose.



Lawful is not ''conformity to everything'', it's ''they like conformity''.

Gonna need you to clarify that then. Everyone likes it when people agree with them.




How do you go from ''likes plans. They almost never do anything without a plan. Even the simplest of activity needs a plan '' to ''shackles''? Bit of a leap....


The way you described it makes it sound like they could never change plans and were bound to them.



Not an exaggeration. Lawful people like time. Lawful people are clock watches.


Liking punctuality doesn't make you a clock watch, and it doesn't make you inflexible.



Not at all. Most Lawful types don't like to gamble, especially for fun. They don't like blind luck or chance. They only take chances or risks in planned orderly ways.

I'm lawful, and I like to gamble, and sometimes I'm rash about it.

Darth Ultron
2015-02-14, 09:14 PM
You see, I'm not sure that's true at all. A Chaotic Good person doesn't look at a law against murder and say "Grrr, don't impose your will on me!" and go out and kill someone just to show The Man what's what.

Well, the first part is true. A Chaotic Good person does say "Grrr, don't impose your will on me!". A Chaotic Good person does think murder is wrong, but they don't agree with the idea of anyone telling them they can't do anything. The Chaotic Good person does not murder as it's wrong, they do not need to be told that and don't want to be forced to follow any law.



Indeed, I don't think all but the most foolhardy and short-sighted of Chaotic Evil strawmen do that either. It's that they don't act out of respect for the law regardless of what the law says. A Chaotic Good person might well never murder anyone so long as they live, but they will do it because a) they feel that murder is wrong, and b) they've got some kind of internal justification that holds them to a standard of decency that doesn't outright hold any particular value for order or consistency or anything else a Lawful person might find valuable. Even a Chaotic Evil person, at least one who's actually Chaotic Evil rather than Chaotic Stupid, might never murder, but they'll do so because it never advantages them to do so.

Just as a Chaotic person does not like a law, does not mean they will break it. They could very well not care.



Simply put, I strongly suspect that outside of . . . let's call them unusual and unlikely situations, such as being thrust back in time to a period just before the rise of Hitler, you will almost never see a Lawful Good and a Chaotic Good person act all that differently. But you will see substantial differences in how they arrive at their consistent actions. The Lawful Good man will value order for its own sake. A Chaotic Good man will tolerate order so long as it produces outcomes that are good. The Lawful Good man will believe that consistency, sobriety and procedure are all things to be paid attention to and cared about. The Chaotic Good man will believe that spontaneity, flexibility and the ability to be adaptable in the face of changing circumstances is more important, and would never make the same decision twice simply because of how the first decision was made.

There are tons of ways a Lawful Good person and a Chaotic Good person act, but sure, most of the time they will get along.


It is not absolute choice in as much as you can do ANYTHING without legal consequences. Even the drow (chaotic evil poster children) have government of a sort (mainly don't piss off the church of Lolth).

Drow have a beautifully Chaotic Evil government with laws like ''mass murder of a house is fine, as long as you kill all the nobles of the house you attack and leave no witnesses''.




Resorting to violence is a characteristic of all alignments. Lawful types are usually more organized about it. What are chaotic good rebels if they aren't forcibly placing their views on the rest of society.


Violence is wide spread, that is for sure. Though a Chaotic Good rebel never forces their view on others, they believe everyone has the ultimate right of choice and free will. Only Lawful people for their views on others.



Most chaotic people would like at least some form of government. Granted, it would probably be very different from the government of one a lawful person would prefer


The most pure Chaotic person would want no government. The same way a most pure Lawful person would want a government that controlled everything and everyone down to the tiniest detail.



You misinterpreted what I said. I meant that a lawful person should be taken at their word. If they agree to do something, they'll do it. In regards to trusting other people, that really just varies from person to person.


Think that is what I said too, a lawful person will take another lawful person from the same order base, at their word, most of the time.



Yeah. This fairly accurate, except that lawful good will often do what is right in spite of the laws. Case in point: the example I gave with my father.


Well, it's a real toss up. Just as many Lawful Good people will ''just follow orders'' as there are ones who ''rebel''.



Yeah.... whats the issue with this again? They choose to found the police force because they choose to follow the law.


I said a Chaotic person would take matters into their own hands if they were wronged, and take action or not, as an individual. You said a Lawful person might just ''found the police'' and make themselves the law and then take the law into their own hands.



Lawful people aren't incapable of using critical thinking skills. They don't need protocols for every single decision they make.


Critical thinking is Lawful. Not sure about ''needing protocols'', but a Lawful person will always take the laws and rules into consideration when they have to make a choice. And nine times out of ten a lawful person will follow the laws and rules by default.



Following something, yes. This doesn't necessarily mean following authority. It can easily mean following a personal code that they set for themselves. That they chose.


A Lawful person does not follow authority like an automaton, no. But they do like to follow in line. And Lawful people often have personal codes, like they won't commit immoral acts, for example. Though, note, again, the personal code is not in a vacuum for the Lawful person. They follow the rules and the laws and the authority....and then add their code on to that. If the law of the land is do not murder, then the personal code can not say murder freely. So the code is free, only so much as it follows the laws and rules.




Gonna need you to clarify that then. Everyone likes it when people agree with them.


Lawful people like to conform, they like to fit in. They follow the laws, of course, but more so they follow other things to fit in. Even if they don't like something, they will almost all ways do it, if everyone else does it...or they will avoid letting others know they don't do it.




The way you described it makes it sound like they could never change plans and were bound to them


''likes plans. They almost never do anything without a plan. Even the simplest of activity needs a plan '' does not sound like I'm saying they can't change plans or were bound to follow a plan.




Liking punctuality doesn't make you a clock watch, and it doesn't make you inflexible.

It does make you Lawful. And Lawful is often very inflexible, in the same way you can't ignore ''a little'' of a law, you can not be ''a little late'' with out some consequence.




I'm lawful, and I like to gamble, and sometimes I'm rash about it.

I did say most. And Lawful people do gamble, and sometimes they are rash. Lawful people can and do take chances...just not too often and for not too big a stakes.

goto124
2015-02-14, 09:54 PM
look at Lawful Evil versus Chaotic Evil and ask yourself "why would somebody think that Chaotic Evil is worse?"

My guess: Other players know what an LE will and will not do. Not so much for CE. CG is confined by having to be Good. Not so much for CE.

Wait, what did you mean by better and worse?

If I make a Lawful, does it make life easier for all players at the table? Okay, if not necessarily, how do I make it turn out that way?

Tragak
2015-02-14, 10:36 PM
My guess: Other players know what an LE will and will not do. Not so much for CE. CG is confined by having to be Good. Not so much for CE.

Wait, what did you mean by better and worse?

If I make a Lawful, does it make life easier for all players at the table? Okay, if not necessarily, how do I make it turn out that way? I mean from a character perspective ("how does a Lawful type think compared to a Chaotic type, and how can I get in character to play somebody like that"), not from a gamer perspective ("which should I play as").

I'm a Chaotic Neutral. "Lawful Neutrality/Goodness makes the world better according to X, Chaotic Neutrality/Goodness makes the world better according to Y" makes sense to me, but simply understanding X on it's own doesn't help me understand why people would find it preferable to Y.

Whereas, I can easily work backwards from "Lawful Evil makes the world worse according to M, Chaotic Evil makes the world worse according to N." I personally think that M is worse than N, but I can understand why somebody would think that N is worse than M.

Figuring out ways that Lawful Goodness could be seen as better than Chaotic Goodness doesn't help me get into a Lawful Neutral character's shoes, but figuring out ways that Chaotic Evilness could be seen as worse than Lawful Evilness does.

Darth Ultron
2015-02-14, 11:09 PM
Instead of looking at Lawful Good versus Chaotic Good and asking yourself "why would somebody think that Lawful Good is better?" look at Lawful Evil versus Chaotic Evil and ask yourself "why would somebody think that Chaotic Evil is worse?"

To any single alignment, the other alignments are worse. A person of Lawful Evil alignment thinks that all the other alignments are worse.

In vague terms Good and Evil and Lawful and Chaos will all agree, for example a trio of a Lawful Good, Neutral Good and Chaotic Good will not have too much problem agreeing to be and do Good. At least in general. The same way Lawful good, Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil can all agree on order or a law.

Only Good people see Chaotic Evil as Worse then Lawful Evil, in the sense that it's ''worse'' to live ones life with out Lawfulness and Goodness.

The Grue
2015-02-15, 12:18 AM
As someone who's Chaotic IRL

Err...what?

theNater
2015-02-15, 01:28 AM
Though a Chaotic Good rebel never forces their view on others, they believe everyone has the ultimate right of choice and free will.
Are you saying a Chaotic Good person would never force someone to refrain from committing murder? Doing so would negate that other person's choice and free will, right?

Darth Ultron
2015-02-15, 02:39 AM
Are you saying a Chaotic Good person would never force someone to refrain from committing murder? Doing so would negate that other person's choice and free will, right?

Yes.

A Chaotic Good person would never force someone to do anything. They might try to talk them out of it, or reason with them or others such actions. But not direct force. They want everyone to think for themselves, even if they make the ''wrong'' call.

Envyus
2015-02-15, 02:42 AM
He is thinking by way too extreme in terms of both Chaotic and Lawful. He is pretty much going into Chaotic Neutral Slaad territory and Lawful neutral Modron territory. Not how most people would actually think.

It's pointed out that almost no one acts their alignment 100% of the time. Lawful people can do Chaotic things, Chaotic people can do Lawful things and not have any issue with it.


Yes.

A Chaotic Good person would never force someone to do anything. They might try to talk them out of it, or reason with them or others such actions. But not direct force. They want everyone to think for themselves, even if they make the ''wrong'' call.

This is not even close to true. A Chaotic Good person would stop someone with force because they feel it's the right thing to do. They may try to talk them out of it like you suggest, but a lawful good person would try that too.

Darth Ultron
2015-02-15, 03:06 AM
He is thinking by way too extreme in terms of both Chaotic and Lawful. He is pretty much going into Chaotic Neutral Slaad territory and Lawful neutral Modron territory. Not how most people would actually think.

How am I being extreme? A Lawful person likes to make and follow plans does not equal the ''Modron Lawful'' of they walk around like robots. A lot of Lawful people follow a very set routine, every day. They like living that way.



It's pointed out that almost no one acts their alignment 100% of the time. Lawful people can do Chaotic things, Chaotic people can do Lawful things and not have any issue with it.

Not true. A person acts their Alignment just about all the time. A Lawful person does not only follow laws from 9 to 5 and then wildly and randomly break them after. A Lawful Good person does not murder others...all the time. A Chaotic Evil person would kill anyone, for any reason..or none....all the time.

But yes, people can do small things. Lawful person eats a salad for lunch every single day. But if one day they decide to have a ham sandwitch, they are not going ''all Chaotic''.....it's hardly a bump. But a Lawful person would never willing just say ''Eh, lunch, I'll figure out something to eat or not at noon''.



This is not even close to true. A Chaotic Good person would stop someone with force because they feel it's the right thing to do. They may try to talk them out of it like you suggest, but a lawful good person would try that too.

As said before Good will mostly agree with Good....bur not with all the details. A Chaotic person values an individuals freedom, and would not take that away from someone.

And it's not like ''talking'' is exclusive to Chaotic Good....even a Chaotic Evil person might try to talk a person out of murder for a selfish reason.

goto124
2015-02-15, 03:07 AM
So Lawfuls think the Chaotic are flying by the seat of their pants, part of the reason Lawfuls have a code.

Playing/being a Lawful doesn't mean whipping out a book for every action I make, right? How do I convincingly play a Lawful especially when I'm just starting out? Giving her a routine to follow (*watch rings* Oh it's 3pm, I better take my medicine) sounds like a good start?

Darth Ultron
2015-02-15, 03:43 AM
Playing/being a Lawful doesn't mean whipping out a book for every action I make, right? How do I convincingly play a Lawful especially when I'm just starting out? Giving her a routine to follow (*watch rings* Oh it's 3pm, I better take my medicine) sounds like a good start?

A set routine for just about everything is a good way to show a character is Lawful. They get up every day and do the same basic things over and over and over again. They don't like change much, and avoid it if possible. A Lawful person likes plans, so they will what a fairly detailed plan the spells out what everyone is doing. They really don't like ''eh, we will figure it out as we go along''.

The vast majority of Lawful people choose to follow another s rules, codes or laws. So someone who follows such a thing is a good way to play. Some Lawful people make their own to follow, but it's still the same: they follow and don't change.

For just starting out, the By-The-Book Lawful person is the easy one.

But the other part of your alignment matters too....Lawful good and Lawful evil are not the same.

MrNobody
2015-02-15, 06:02 AM
So Lawfuls think the Chaotic are flying by the seat of their pants, part of the reason Lawfuls have a code.

Playing/being a Lawful doesn't mean whipping out a book for every action I make, right? How do I convincingly play a Lawful especially when I'm just starting out? Giving her a routine to follow (*watch rings* Oh it's 3pm, I better take my medicine) sounds like a good start?

Setting a routine is a good way to show lawfulness. Another one, since Lawful Pcs are generally linked to traditions, hierarchy and such, is sometimes starting your sentences quoting someone you recognize as morally superior to you. "Like my village leader said", "Like my priest told me once" (if your PC is devoted), "Like my grand-grandfather used to tell me" 8(f you are linked to your family) are all a good start!

hamishspence
2015-02-15, 06:20 AM
Yes.

A Chaotic Good person would never force someone to do anything. They might try to talk them out of it, or reason with them or others such actions. But not direct force.

Not likely. "Forcing a tax collector for a LE baron to hand over the money" is textbook CG - the PHB even gives i as an example.

And on the other side of the coin, a CE person will certainly force slaves to do stuff. Drow society, orc society, and so on and so forth.

theNater
2015-02-15, 06:31 AM
Are you saying a Chaotic Good person would never force someone to refrain from committing murder? Doing so would negate that other person's choice and free will, right?
Yes.
Okay, we've got confirmation that Darth Ultron is using some non-D&D alignment system. Moving on.

Playing/being a Lawful doesn't mean whipping out a book for every action I make, right? How do I convincingly play a Lawful especially when I'm just starting out? Giving her a routine to follow (*watch rings* Oh it's 3pm, I better take my medicine) sounds like a good start?
Routine is good. Depending on the particulars of the game, you may not want to tie it to the clock, but a daily plan of: wake up, do exercises, breakfast, work, dinner, read for a bit, sleep is a pretty standard routine a lot of people fall into naturally. Don't be inflexibly tied to it, but grump when it gets rearranged("Fine, we can have breakfast before exercises" kind of things). Similarly, do subtasks of those things in the same order when possible(exercises are pushups, then situps, then jumping jacks).

The whole book issue is a misunderstanding of how codes of behavior work. Most codes are, at their core, a very simple list of principles. You can(and some people do) go into a fractal specification pattern on them, but it's really not necessary; stick to the top-level principles and it'll fall into place pretty naturally. A code for an adventurer might look something like:

1. Honesty-only say things that are true. Always keep your word.
2. Courage-never do or refrain from doing something out of fear.
3. Reciprocity-when someone does something for you, do something for them in return.
4. Courtesy-use appropriate manners. Be polite, even to your enemies.
5. Honor-don't kill people who can't fight back.
6. Defense-protect civilians when you can.

Books show up when people try to precisely nail down all the details on this stuff: what exactly constitutes a civilian, what sorts of things require reciprocation and what reciprocation is appropriate, etc. But that's mostly for covering corner cases; the vast majority of the time it's pretty obvious. Plus, since it's a code you're making up for your character, you can make the ruling in corner cases. Just try to be consistent as best you can.

Also remember that the code isn't magically inviolable, it's just something your character prefers to follow("I know we're in a hurry, but can we stay for, like, an hour? I owe this guy a favor, and I'm not sure we'll ever be back.") And note that this particular code works just as well for Evil people as Good ones(it's always useful to have a reputation for honesty, grateful civilians are a valuable resource, etc.)

goto124
2015-02-15, 07:30 AM
I'll look into the suggested methods for playing out a Lawful. I was thinking of making it in-game, in fact, by having a newbie Paladin who just got started on this whole LG thing, and still has to take out her schedule to keep on track :smalltongue:


Not likely. "Forcing a tax collector for a LE baron to hand over the money" is textbook CG - the PHB even gives i as an example.

The Chaotic Good determines if forcing someone would lead to a good or bad result. She will force someone to not murder. In the case of an LE tax collector trying to force a poor citizen to cough up the money, she won't help the tax collector- she forces the tax collector himself to bugger off instead.

The Lawful Good... maybe... will give money to the destitute citizen, to let that citizen pay up the taxes. Hmm, that option might also be open to the Chaotic Good, if she's rich enough. Chaotic can do Lawful things, but Lawful can't do Chaotic things, at least not nearly as much as the Chaotic can do Lawful stuff. Did I get that right?

hamishspence
2015-02-15, 07:47 AM
Chaotic can do Lawful things, but Lawful can't do Chaotic things, at least not nearly as much as the Chaotic can do Lawful stuff. Did I get that right?

Pretty much. Staying Lawful can be harder than "staying Chaotic" - and it may be the Lawful person's responsibility to punish themselves for lapses.

The Giant had some interesting things to say on "personal code" Lawfulness:



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.

Michael7123
2015-02-15, 08:25 AM
So Lawfuls think the Chaotic are flying by the seat of their pants, part of the reason Lawfuls have a code.

Playing/being a Lawful doesn't mean whipping out a book for every action I make, right? How do I convincingly play a Lawful especially when I'm just starting out? Giving her a routine to follow (*watch rings* Oh it's 3pm, I better take my medicine) sounds like a good start?

Absolutely not.

You want to convincingly lawful person? Make 5 rules that your character will never break under any circumstances (baring mind control). Try to respect legitimate authority as much as possible, and definitely respect your superiors. That doesn't mean you have to slavishly obey them, but you recognize the possibility that some people might be wiser than you, which is why you choose to follow them in the first place.

Tragak
2015-02-15, 09:55 AM
Okay, we've got confirmation that Darth Ultron is using some non-D&D alignment system. Moving on. Sensible enough.

Gritmonger
2015-02-15, 01:27 PM
I'm currently running an entire campaign based on law vs. chaos, instead of good vs. evil.

Playing a lawful character to the players currently means the most in interpretation of law, especially when it gets murky. Kind of like rules in roleplaying games. What is the right thing to do? When has a person transgressed? When has crossing the line earned summary punishment instead of due process? When does a person need to be protected from due process?

Playing a lawful character in this setting means being mindful of laws, not mindlessly bound by them, especially as some seek to use the laws to engage in tyranny over others, not really a good principle on the face of it. Players have principles they won't violate, but being lawful means that they attempt to abide by the laws that exist that do not conflict with those principles. Being in a society of laws doesn't remove the ability to act as an individual, or in some cases the obligation.

Laws are a framework at best, and when invoked as an abstract such as in a city may include old laws, laws that appear nonsensical, laws that appear to be unfair, laws with rather large loopholes. And who is administering and enforcing the law can also have an effect.

veti
2015-02-15, 02:32 PM
Lawful people are systematic. They know what works in a lot of situations, and they try to apply that knowledge to each new situation as it arises. When they come across something completely new, their first impulse will be to try to find a parallel with some "known" challenge, and attempt what's worked before.

This is where the "respect for authority" comes from. Laws and customs are there for a reason: over a long time, people (collectively) have found that these things work. A tradition is a form of codified experience - long after everyone has forgotten how it started, they still remember "things work out when we do them this way". Therefore, they're worth sticking to, unless you have a good reason not to.

Darth Ultron
2015-02-15, 03:20 PM
Okay, we've got confirmation that Darth Ultron is using some non-D&D alignment system. Moving on.

Thanks for letting me know.


Not likely. "Forcing a tax collector for a LE baron to hand over the money" is textbook CG - the PHB even gives i as an example.

Well, what fits good Robin better: Tricking or fooling the tax collector, stealing from the tax collector, intimidating the tax collector or slamming the tax collector into the ground, jamming a dagger in his throat and saying ''give me the money or I'll kill you!''.



The Chaotic Good determines if forcing someone would lead to a good or bad result. She will force someone to not murder. In the case of an LE tax collector trying to force a poor citizen to cough up the money, she won't help the tax collector- she forces the tax collector himself to bugger off instead.

Chaotic Good is the poster child for ''finding another way, other then force''. They are the ones that think ''force'' is the ''last resort'', and by that, they mean ''never''.



The Lawful Good... maybe... will give money to the destitute citizen, to let that citizen pay up the taxes. Hmm, that option might also be open to the Chaotic Good, if she's rich enough. Chaotic can do Lawful things, but Lawful can't do Chaotic things, at least not nearly as much as the Chaotic can do Lawful stuff. Did I get that right?

It's about 50/50 for both. Each can do things that would rate as being ''less then half''. For example if a Lawful Good person sat down for a meal and said ''eh, bring me whatever'', that is a Chaotic act, but only like a 5.


Sensible enough.

Glad everyone agrees. Though, just as you don't like what someone says, does not make that person wrong...

Now our Chaotic Good person really believes in freedom and choice....and that really goes against forcing someone to do something.

I wonder if anyone can give examples of a Chaotic Good person forcing people to do things the same way an oppressive Lawful Good person does?

Gritmonger
2015-02-15, 03:25 PM
I wonder if anyone can give examples of a Chaotic Good person forcing people to do things the same way an oppressive Lawful Good person does?

Robin Hood stealing from the rich? A more informal form of taxation, but the end result is the same.

Darth Ultron
2015-02-15, 03:43 PM
Robin Hood stealing from the rich? A more informal form of taxation, but the end result is the same.

I guess this is going to be how ''force'' is defined. If Robin breaks into a rich persons safe, is he ''using force''? If he dresses up as the false tax collector and collects taxes is he ''forcing'' people the pay the tax? If he tricks or fools someone is that ''force''?

After all Robin would never use the Lawful force of ''pay the tax or we will take it anyway, ruin your life, imprison you and maybe even kill you''.

And sure Robin might tap a guy on the shoulder with his sword blade as intimidation, but it is all for show as Robin would never kill someone just to steal their money. So it's not a show of force, it's a trick.

Gritmonger
2015-02-15, 03:59 PM
I guess this is going to be how ''force'' is defined. If Robin breaks into a rich persons safe, is he ''using force''? If he dresses up as the false tax collector and collects taxes is he ''forcing'' people the pay the tax? If he tricks or fools someone is that ''force''?

After all Robin would never use the Lawful force of ''pay the tax or we will take it anyway, ruin your life, imprison you and maybe even kill you''.

And sure Robin might tap a guy on the shoulder with his sword blade as intimidation, but it is all for show as Robin would never kill someone just to steal their money. So it's not a show of force, it's a trick.

Fundamentally, though, it's the same: Conform to my perception of how reality should be or suffer consequences. One just has it codified and published. A bit more polite, if you ask me.

hamishspence
2015-02-15, 04:00 PM
And sure Robin might tap a guy on the shoulder with his sword blade as intimidation, but it is all for show as Robin would never kill someone just to steal their money. So it's not a show of force, it's a trick.

Being surrounded by men with bows and told "drop the goods, or else" sounds like force to me. Especially if arrows are shot (albeit aimed to miss) as a warning.

Darth Ultron
2015-02-15, 04:08 PM
Being surrounded by men with bows and told "drop the goods, or else" sounds like force to me. Especially if arrows are shot (albeit aimed to miss) as a warning.

I guess if you want to define force as ''something someone does not like''.

So you don't separate a Bluff from a Slaughter? Both are force?

Good Robin is never going it shoot....it's a bluff. He wants you to think he will...but he won't. So I'd say it's a trick, not force.

Now take Evil Robin. He is more then willing to shoot and kill and slaughter everyone and loot their corpses. his threat of force is very real.

But if your going to go with ''If a chaotic good person closes a door, they are forcing people to no come in to their house if they want too'' then...well, ok.....

hamishspence
2015-02-15, 04:13 PM
You're making a certain assumption about Robin and his Merry Men - and that's that they would never actually use violence, only the threat of it.

Yet, in a great many Robin-Hood stories, he does.

Heck, even Disney cartoon Robin Hood's pal Little John coerces Prince John into letting Robin go free (after he's captured and sentenced to death) - by poking a knife painfully into Prince John's back.


I guess if you want to define force as ''something someone does not like''..

The threat of violence, is force, going by the Wikipedia description of "Force (law)"

Darth Ultron
2015-02-15, 04:26 PM
You're making a certain assumption about Robin and his Merry Men - and that's that they would never actually use violence, only the threat of it.


What I'm saying is a Chaotic Good person, like Robin does not use force to get others to do what he wants, or what he thinks is right. He will use every other means possible to change someones mind of their own free will. And if all else fails, he is willing to take and steal. But he is still not forcing someone to chance their mind when he robs them.

Compared to a Lawful Good person who always uses the force of law to bully people around and force them to do exactly what the law says and what they want. You say ''no'' to a tax and you will be arrested, your things seized, and you will stand trial for breaking the law and face prison or even death.


But violence is a whole other topic. Every alignment uses violence.....

hamishspence
2015-02-15, 04:35 PM
Every alignment has some people who are prepared to use violence. Some alignments have some people who aren't.

However "forcing somebody to do what you want them to do" is a very common thing.

The difference is in the nature.

A Good person won't usually force anyone to do anything evil. They might force someone, especially an evil someone, to do "what they think absolutely has to be done".


A Chaotic Good wizard might use Dominate Person on a guard (magical force) to make them leave their post, so the wizard can sneak into the villain's fortress.

Darth Ultron
2015-02-15, 04:40 PM
A Chaotic Good wizard might use Dominate Person on a guard (magical force) to make them leave their post, so the wizard can sneak into the villain's fortress.

I would say a true Chaotic Good person would not use mind control. Mind Control is a Lawful and Evil thing.

hamishspence
2015-02-15, 04:48 PM
BoED warns Good characters to be extremely careful when controlling people (a controlled person is a helpless prisoner) but doesn't call it out as Evil in itself. The Dominate Person spell doesn't have the Evil subtype either.

veti
2015-02-15, 04:49 PM
Well, what fits good Robin better: Tricking or fooling the tax collector, stealing from the tax collector, intimidating the tax collector or slamming the tax collector into the ground, jamming a dagger in his throat and saying ''give me the money or I'll kill you!''.

"Intimidating the tax collector" is by far the most common of those, as portrayed in various interpretations of the legend.


Chaotic Good is the poster child for ''finding another way, other then force''. They are the ones that think ''force'' is the ''last resort'', and by that, they mean ''never''.

You're saying CG is pacifist?


It's about 50/50 for both. Each can do things that would rate as being ''less then half''. For example if a Lawful Good person sat down for a meal and said ''eh, bring me whatever'', that is a Chaotic act, but only like a 5.

That's not chaotic at all. On the contrary, insisting on having what you want brought to you, rather than what someone has available or wants to serve you - that's chaotic, with options on evil. Example right here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0312.html).


I wonder if anyone can give examples of a Chaotic Good person forcing people to do things the same way an oppressive Lawful Good person does?

I wonder where you get this idea that "lawful" equals "oppressive"? A lawful good person will not, in general, "force people to do things the same way". There are exceptions, of course, but that's what you get for classifying everyone in the world into just nine boxes.

Drascin
2015-02-15, 04:56 PM
So Lawfuls think the Chaotic are flying by the seat of their pants, part of the reason Lawfuls have a code.

Playing/being a Lawful doesn't mean whipping out a book for every action I make, right? How do I convincingly play a Lawful especially when I'm just starting out? Giving her a routine to follow (*watch rings* Oh it's 3pm, I better take my medicine) sounds like a good start?

Another little way to signify lawfulness without being an idiot is having a preference towards the tried and true methods - what you know works in situation A would be your preference whenever situation A happens unless there's circumstances that require changing up gears. If you fought trolls before and saw acid work wonderfully, even if a guy at the pub tells you that fire also works, you'll probably still reach for your acid flasks next time you see a troll, because hey, the guy at the pub might or might not be right, but you know acid works and no call to fix what ain't broken.

theNater
2015-02-15, 05:04 PM
Thanks for letting me know.
You are quite welcome, though I feel I should admit it wasn't for your benefit. I was mostly letting goto124 know, as adhering to your version of Lawful would breed resentment around many gaming tables.

Darth Ultron
2015-02-15, 05:23 PM
BoED warns Good characters to be extremely careful when controlling people (a controlled person is a helpless prisoner) but doesn't call it out as Evil in itself. The Dominate Person spell doesn't have the Evil subtype either.

Try not to get confused between ''would not use'' and ''is absolutely forbidden to use.'' I said a Chaotic Good wizard would not use mind control, not that they could not. There is a difference.



You're saying CG is pacifist?

I'm saying they don't force their will upon others....they believe in true good freedom.



I wonder where you get this idea that "lawful" equals "oppressive"? A lawful good person will not, in general, "force people to do things the same way". There are exceptions, of course, but that's what you get for classifying everyone in the world into just nine boxes.

Every Lawful person believes in laws. Laws are oppressive, they tell you things you can and can not do under threat of force. Now, sure, the Lawful people love the laws and the rules and the oppression....that is who the Lawful people are, so they don't see it as wrong.

If a Lawful Good person saw someone commit a crime, would they turn that person in? Of course they would! They think breaking the law is wrong and they want criminals punished. And that is oppression....

hamishspence
2015-02-15, 05:28 PM
If a Lawful Good person saw someone commit a crime, would they turn that person in? Of course they would! They think breaking the law is wrong and they want criminals punished.

So would a great many Chaotic people - if they thought they couldn't punish the criminal themselves (maybe they're only low-level), and if they thought the crime was evil enough that the person needed to be taken out of circulation.

TheThan
2015-02-15, 05:35 PM
D&D alignments are rarely so black and white, and really are a lot deeper than people seem to think.
Since Robin Hood was already brought up lets use him as an example.


Robin Hood is often considered to be chaotic good; he robs from the rich and gives to the poor.
However I have doubts as to his chaotic nature.

Robin Hood rebels against prince john, when he learns that Prince John is trying to usurp the throne away from the rightful king. He also stops his rebellion when King Richard returns and takes charge of the situation. Are these the acts of a chaotic individual? He shows loyalty to the rightful king and fights against his enemy (Prince John) while the king is away and unable to not only lead but to protect his kingdom from an internal threat. He clearly dislikes illegitimate rule because he fights against Prince John. He also immediately submits to the authority of the rightful king when he shows, indicating he prefers rightful rule. He also recruits a friar into his merry little band, showing this willingness to submit to church and God. If he was chaotic wouldn’t he continue the fight against authority? Wouldn’t he choose to not submit to the rightful king? Wouldn’t he choose to not submit to the church and God?

I also have doubts as to his goodness.

Robin Hood robs from the rich. Theft is easily an evil act, even if you feel it’s justified it’s still evil. Now the stories say he gives back to the poor. However the poor never really seem to be enriched by his generosity. They are always portrayed as being downtrodden and destitute no matter how much he gives back to them. Now the stories give the excuse that the taxmen are coming by and taking it away. I can’t entirely buy that because no taxman in history comes by daily to collect from the same group of people. It’s not possible; and no-one would stand for that sort of taxation. Prince John would have an even greater uprising on his hands.

So what’s really happening to all that loot? Is Robin keeping the majority of it and splitting the rest with his Merry Men? Is he not robbing as much as we’ve been lead to believe in the stories? Is his efforts causing the value of gold to crash locally and causing a depression? His efforts to revitalize the area are not working; so either he is failing or making matters worse by forcing Prince John to increase taxes to make up for the government’s losses, and as I already said, no one can collect taxes that much or risk open rebellion. I’m not talking about additional cost of goods; I’m talking about someone literally coming to your door and taking money from you in the name of taxes.

Now you could say he’s simply taking back wealth that was unlawfully taken from people. What about wealth that was rightfully earned? Even in feudal times the rich still had to earn their great riches, despite the difference between the rich and poor being even greater than what we see today. In this situation he is simply stealing from people. Now he’s just a common highway bandit, How is that good?

So my question to you after reading all that; is Robin Hood still chaotic good? or is he some other alignment?

Darth Ultron
2015-02-15, 05:36 PM
So would a great many Chaotic people - if they thought they couldn't punish the criminal themselves (maybe they're only low-level), and if they thought the crime was evil enough that the person needed to be taken out of circulation.

Yes, vigilantism is a cornerstone of Chaotic Good. The Green Arrow in the first season of Arrow, for example.

hamishspence
2015-02-15, 05:38 PM
Robin Hood rebels against prince john, when he learns that Prince John is trying to usurp the throne away from the rightful king. He also stops his rebellion when King Richard returns and takes charge of the situation. Are these the acts of a chaotic individual? I'm pretty sure that even in the "Prince-John era" Robin Hood settings, he becomes an outlaw before he finds out about any scheming on Prince John's part.


Yes, vigilantism is a cornerstone of Chaotic Good. The Green Arrow in the first season of Arrow, for example.

But when one's fragile enough not to be able to take up The Way of The Vigilante - one has to report people to the law, instead.

Gritmonger
2015-02-15, 05:45 PM
Yes, vigilantism is a cornerstone of Chaotic Good. The Green Arrow in the first season of Arrow, for example.

...but isn't vigilanteism just Lawful Good where you, alone, are the holder, administrator, and interpreter of Law?

Darth Ultron
2015-02-15, 05:48 PM
So my question to you after reading all that; is Robin Hood still chaotic good? or is he some other alignment?

Well, with any character example there is always lots of confusion. After all what story of Robin Hood does one use?

Robin of Locksley, the earl of Locksley, seemed to be more Lawful Neutral. He was a good lord, and a good man and loyal to his king.

But when evil takes over the kingdom....everyone changes his alignment to Chaotic Good, but only as he not opposed the ''law''. Though it's very odd that he opposes the Evil Law, only.

And robbing, looting being a criminal are not good acts...and not Chaotic Good acts. A Chaotic person dislikes all laws, not just the bad or evil ones.

I'd say that makes Robin Hood Lawful Neutral all along....even as a rogue.

hamishspence
2015-02-15, 05:59 PM
A Chaotic person dislikes all laws, not just the bad or evil ones.

What D&D sources did you get that idea from? I've read a lot of D&D novels, and seen a lot of splatbooks that give novel characters alignments - and I've never seen anything to make me believe all Chaotic characters dislike all laws.

Darth Ultron
2015-02-15, 06:10 PM
But when one's fragile enough not to be able to take up The Way of The Vigilante - one has to report people to the law, instead.

Yes, a Chaotic Good person does not like any laws at all, but they are still a good person. So they won't like telling a lawman about a criminal, but they would do it. Though they are much more likely to go the ''anonymous tip'' route then walking up to the station to swear out a formal statement.

The Chaotic Good person does not like laws, does not even like the idea of laws, but nothing stops them from following a law if they want too. Lawful on the other hand likes laws, likes the idea of laws and agrees with the idea that everyone must be forced to follow the law.


...but isn't vigilanteism just Lawful Good where you, alone, are the holder, administrator, and interpreter of Law?

It is possible to have a Lawful Good vigilantly, vs an evil government. Though in almost all cases, a Lawful Good person will be ''part of the system'' and not a lone wolf.


What D&D sources did you get that idea from? I've read a lot of D&D novels, and seen a lot of splatbooks that give novel characters alignments - and I've never seen anything to make me believe all Chaotic characters dislike all laws.

Well, D&D 3.5E players handbook says ''Chaotic says only unfettered personal freedom is desirable.'' And all laws do is restrict, or fetter, personal freedom. But the PH never uses ''man made laws''.

What novel characters did you have in mind?

TheThan
2015-02-15, 06:15 PM
In the Kevin Costner movie, Robin returns from the crusades to find his land seized, home burned to the ground, his father murdered and the sheriff of Nottingham in charge (no mention of Prince John). He quickly learns that all this is the sheriff’s doing and begins the fight against him, marshalling the outlaws of Sherwood Forest into a guerrilla army.

In the animated Disney version (the one with the anamorphic animals) we aren’t given a background. It’s just assumed that robin is the hero of the tale. But he is still fighting against illegitimate rule.

In the 1938 version (staring Errol Flynn), Robin is a Saxon knight opposing the Norman rulers of the area. His merry men are not just thieves but a rebel guerrilla army fighting an unlawful and oppressive government.

in all of these above situations, he's fighting against an illegitimate authority, and has fealty to the true king. (in the Disney version they literally call Prince John the phony king of England). Is fighting against an illegitimate authority a chaotic act? or is it a lawful act?


Also who said Robin was a rogue, he could very easily be a ranger. Skilled woodsman, archer and swordsman screams ranger not rogue. Besides not all rogues are thieves, and not all thieves are rogues.

Envyus
2015-02-15, 06:21 PM
Yes, vigilantism is a cornerstone of Chaotic Good. The Green Arrow in the first season of Arrow, for example.

He used force and killed people all the time in the first season. You are bad at supporting your extreme versions of the alignments.

Envyus
2015-02-15, 06:23 PM
Robin Hood robs from the rich. Theft is easily an evil act


Theft is considered to be a chaotic act at the least. While it can be evil the situations depend.

hamishspence
2015-02-15, 06:34 PM
Well, D&D 3.5E players handbook says ''Chaotic says only unfettered personal freedom is desirable.'' And all laws do is restrict, or fetter, personal freedom. But the PH never uses ''man made laws''.

What novel characters did you have in mind?

Alias in the Azure Bonds series (who ends up breaking up a criminal organization in the later book Masquerades, on the instructions of the city's ruler), Elminster, The Simbul (a monarch), Storm Silverhand, and so forth.



Well, D&D 3.5E players handbook says ''Chaotic says only unfettered personal freedom is desirable.''

Or at least:


Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

In practice, I could see a CG person coming down as heavily on CE behaviour as on LE behaviour.

goto124
2015-02-15, 06:56 PM
Another little way to signify lawfulness without being an idiot is having a preference towards the tried and true methods - what you know works in situation A would be your preference whenever situation A happens unless there's circumstances that require changing up gears. If you fought trolls before and saw acid work wonderfully, even if a guy at the pub tells you that fire also works, you'll probably still reach for your acid flasks next time you see a troll, because hey, the guy at the pub might or might not be right, but you know acid works and no call to fix what ain't broken.

So I will have to keep track of the tried and proven methods....

TheThan
2015-02-15, 07:00 PM
Theft is considered to be a chaotic act at the least. While it can be evil the situations depend.

Theft is an evil act.
Stealing from someone directly hurts them, you take something they possess. Whether that’s food, money, your sister’s dolly, you name it. Theft hurts people pure and simple. Even if you can justify it to yourself, “if I steal that loaf of bread, I can feed my starving daughter”, it still hurts the person whom you are stealing it from. Therefore I classify theft as evil rather than chaotic. Evil is often defined as actions that hurt people, and since theft hurts people, theft is evil.





Well, D&D 3.5E players handbook says ''Chaotic says only unfettered personal freedom is desirable.'' And all laws do is restrict, or fetter, personal freedom. But the PH never uses ''man made laws''.


Ahhem:


“Chaos” implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.


This does not say anything about unfettered personal freedom being desirable, only that it allows people to express themselves fully. That’s not the same thing. You may be reading that into the sentence, but it’s not necessarily desirable.

Unfettered personal freedom can lead to some pretty awful places.

hamishspence
2015-02-15, 07:04 PM
Stealing from someone directly hurts them, you take something they possess. Whether that’s food, money, your sister’s dolly, you name it. Theft hurts people pure and simple. Even if you can justify it to yourself, “if I steal that loaf of bread, I can feed my starving daughter”, it still hurts the person whom you are stealing it from.

Fighting someone with a deadly weapon hurts that person too. Yet a paladin doesn't always Fall for doing it.

I could see a CG paladin variant:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#paladinofFreedomClassF eatures


Code of Conduct
A paladin of freedom must be of chaotic good alignment and loses all class abilities if he ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin of freedom's code requires that he respect individual liberty, help those in need (provided they do not use the help for lawful or evil ends), and punish those who threaten or curtail personal liberty.
not Falling for at least some kinds of theft.

veti
2015-02-15, 07:08 PM
I'm saying they don't force their will upon others....they believe in true good freedom.

You use those three words ("true good freedom") as if they had some obvious relationship to one another. Seems to me that makes a lot of assumptions. What is "good freedom" as opposed to "bad freedom"? What is "true" - as opposed to what, fake? - "good freedom"?

And yes, if you don't believe there is any circumstance in which you may force your will upon others, then you're a pacifist, and basically you have no business being armed with anything more dangerous than strong language.


Every Lawful person believes in laws. Laws are oppressive, they tell you things you can and can not do under threat of force. Now, sure, the Lawful people love the laws and the rules and the oppression....that is who the Lawful people are, so they don't see it as wrong.

If a Lawful Good person saw someone commit a crime, would they turn that person in? Of course they would! They think breaking the law is wrong and they want criminals punished. And that is oppression....

Baloney. Not to say hooey.

"Every Lawful person believes in laws" - to the extent that they believe the local laws are correctly formed ("just"), yes. But a LG person would be unlikely to arrest you for, e.g., violating a local law against giving food to the homeless. Just because you believe in "laws" as a concept, doesn't mean you slavishly follow every law even on your own behalf, much less that you actually try to enforce that code on everyone else.

"Laws tell you things you can not do under threat of force" - well, so do chaotic people, who tend to be very touchy about (for instance) their own property. Basically, anyone with a voice will tell you things you can't do, and if they're not a pacifist, then there's always an implicit threat of force to back up their words at some point. For the great majority of people, laws are less oppressive than anarchy, because they protect them from the strong. "Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow", and there are a lot more minnows than pike out there.

TheThan
2015-02-15, 07:42 PM
Fighting someone with a deadly weapon hurts that person too. Yet a paladin doesn't always Fall for doing it.

That’s the problem. Good/Evil and law/chaos are not so easy to define and never as black and white as they seem.

If someone breaks into my house with the clear intent to rape/kill my family and steal my things, and I shoot him dead with the gun on my bed stand, did I just commit an evil? I stopped someone from hurting/killing my family but I also took a person’s life.

I previously said that theft is evil, but I also said it can be justified. But does that justification make it right? What if by stealing something you save someone’s life? Isn’t that doing good? See what I mean, the waters get very murky very fast. Much of it’s determined by one’s perspective, and these ideas are very subjective.


Unless it’s explicitly stated in the game that monsters are not people and therefore don’t count, trying to be perfectly good according to the definitions given to us, suddenly falls apart the first time you get into a battle.

Darth Ultron
2015-02-15, 08:04 PM
He used force and killed people all the time in the first season. You are bad at supporting your extreme versions of the alignments.

Never did I say that a Chaotic Good person does not use force. Keep it in context: A Chaotic Good person does not use force to change someones mind or to get them to do a set thing.



You use those three words ("true good freedom") as if they had some obvious relationship to one another. Seems to me that makes a lot of assumptions. What is "good freedom" as opposed to "bad freedom"? What is "true" - as opposed to what, fake? - "good freedom"?

True Good Freedom-anyone can do anything anytime anyway and for any reason

False Bad Freedom-first everyone is utterly forced to live my a ridged set of absolute oppressive laws that are inflicted on everyone by the use of force.....and then, with in that frame work, people are allowed to do whatever the laws allow them to do freely.



And yes, if you don't believe there is any circumstance in which you may force your will upon others, then you're a pacifist, and basically you have no business being armed with anything more dangerous than strong language.


A pacifist does not fight, it has nothing to do with peoples will. And it has nothing to do with being Chaotic. A Chaotic person believes that no one, not themselves and not anyone in the world, can tell anyone what to do. That is Freedom: Anyone can do what they want. Anything.



"Every Lawful person believes in laws" - to the extent that they believe the local laws are correctly formed ("just"), yes. But a LG person would be unlikely to arrest you for, e.g., violating a local law against giving food to the homeless. Just because you believe in "laws" as a concept, doesn't mean you slavishly follow every law even on your own behalf, much less that you actually try to enforce that code on everyone else.

A Lawful person follows the law, that is kind of basic. And LG can be a toss up, as some of them do have a heart and common sense and won't arrest someone for breaking the don't feed the homeless law. But some of them will arrest the person as they are still breaking the law.

And sure, Lawful Evil don't follow every law...exactly. They are more then willing to twist and spin things.



"Laws tell you things you can not do under threat of force" - well, so do chaotic people, who tend to be very touchy about (for instance) their own property. Basically, anyone with a voice will tell you things you can't do, and if they're not a pacifist, then there's always an implicit threat of force to back up their words at some point. For the great majority of people, laws are less oppressive than anarchy, because they protect them from the strong. "Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow", and there are a lot more minnows than pike out there.

Yes, Lawful people think ''laws are better then anarchy''.

Though there is a huge difference between:

Chaotic: A single person defending their stuff and telling anyone he sees something he suggests they do

And

Lawful: A massive organization that forces everyone to follow dozens of laws under the threat of arrest, trial, loss of everything, imprisonment and death.

goto124
2015-02-15, 08:09 PM
It IS usually assumed that monsters don't count as people. So that the LG paladin has something to kill without falling.

And IMHO if theft is considered Evil, that really restricts the options of Chaotic Good people who want something but don't want to murder people for it. Sure you could intimidate or something, but what are these Hide, Sneak, Lockpick and Steal skills for? Let my rogue do some stealing darn it.

To go back on topic, how do I find/establish 'tried-and-proven' methods for my Lawful character to use?

thebothan
2015-02-15, 08:12 PM
I like to think of Lawful/Chaotic characters to either trust or distrust the system (not necessarily the people in the system).
To a lawful character, the law of the land should be trusted, those who follow these laws are protected, and everything is happy. To a lawful character, everything that the system does (within the system) is worth it. If a crime happens, you can depend on those in the police to follow through on the case (if they work within the system), the decrees of a just system are worth following. So if you are RP'ing someone lawful, you just have to trust the system... Note this isn't full on delusion (not every cop is good, or every person who leads worth following), but IN GENERAL your character should feel the idea of law and justice are well maintained in governments. Social contract type of stuff. A Lawful good wants to perpetuate everyone's happiness, and make justice reach even those who the law has previously been unable to reach, an evil character is selfish, but the character still feels that the system is worth it (if only because it still serves a purpose of protecting the character from the more uncontrollable chaotics).

To a chaotic character, either the people in a system or the system itself are corrupted that it is not worth staying in...

The dilemma of taxes, Self-defense and those outside the system is one that I don't think the lawful alignment have any strong collective stance on (though certainly a strong individual stance).

theNater
2015-02-15, 08:20 PM
Robin Hood rebels against prince john, when he learns that Prince John is trying to usurp the throne away from the rightful king. He also stops his rebellion when King Richard returns and takes charge of the situation. Are these the acts of a chaotic individual?
In theory, Robin Hood is fighting John because he's an Evil ruler, and supporting Richard because he's a Good one. The legitimacy argument muddies it, but it's there because the story originated in a culture where legitimate and Good were assumed to be one and the same.


Now the stories say he gives back to the poor. However the poor never really seem to be enriched by his generosity. They are always portrayed as being downtrodden and destitute no matter how much he gives back to them. Now the stories give the excuse that the taxmen are coming by and taking it away. I can’t entirely buy that because no taxman in history comes by daily to collect from the same group of people. It’s not possible; and no-one would stand for that sort of taxation. Prince John would have an even greater uprising on his hands.
I'm gonna use some modern numbers, just to give a rough idea. A little Googling suggests that Bill Gates is the richest man in America, with a net worth of about $80 billion. The 2013 U.S. Census says there are some 40 million Americans in poverty. Dividing Mr. Gates' entire fortune evenly among the poor would give each person about $2000. That'll pay the bills for a while, but it's not going to take a family from the depths of poverty straight up to middle class.


Theft is an evil act.
Stealing from someone directly hurts them, you take something they possess. Whether that’s food, money, your sister’s dolly, you name it. Theft hurts people pure and simple. Even if you can justify it to yourself, “if I steal that loaf of bread, I can feed my starving daughter”, it still hurts the person whom you are stealing it from. Therefore I classify theft as evil rather than chaotic. Evil is often defined as actions that hurt people, and since theft hurts people, theft is evil.
Who is harmed-by the D&D definition of "harmed"-if someone steals the equivalent of $50 from the equivalent of Bill Gates? Nobody's life is on the line, and it's not oppressive(unless it's part of a long-term effort to make him feel insecure). It's a mild inconvenience for him, at worst.


If someone breaks into my house with the clear intent to rape/kill my family and steal my things, and I shoot him dead with the gun on my bed stand, did I just commit an evil?
By D&D rules, no. Good creatures protect innocent life, Evil creatures debase or destroy innocent life, and Neutral creatures have compunctions against killing the innocent. If that person is there to rape/kill your family, they aren't innocent, and killing them is Neutral, at worst.


Unless it’s explicitly stated in the game that monsters are not people and therefore don’t count, trying to be perfectly good according to the definitions given to us, suddenly falls apart the first time you get into a battle.


That's why it IS usually assumed that monsters don't count as people. So that the LG paladin has something to kill without falling.
Monsters with an int score of 3 or higher are people, but aren't universally innocent. If a band of orcs has been marauding up and down the countryside, the LG paladin can wade right into their encampment and start swinging. The same is true for a band of humans which has similarly been marauding.


To go back on topic, how do I find/establish 'tried-and-proven' methods for my Lawful character to use?
You say you're naturally Chaotic, so I'd suggest making them up. Whenever you have a good idea for a method, technique, or strategy, pass it off as something from your character's history. "I've done something like this before, and it went really well when we..."

goto124
2015-02-15, 08:24 PM
Chaotic ways to pass as Lawful. This sounds great!


In theory, Robin Hood is fighting John because he's an Evil ruler, and supporting Richard because he's a Good one. The legitimacy argument muddies it, but it's there because the story originated in a culture where legitimate and Good were assumed to be one and the same.

So if Robin Hood found out that Prince was a good guy and the rightful king was actually evil, Robin would've switched sides. Did no one write this as a story already?

Darth Ultron
2015-02-15, 08:28 PM
To go back on topic, how do I find/establish 'tried-and-proven' methods for my Lawful character to use?

My list back a couple pages is a great way to play a Lawful character.

But Alignment is more a lifestyle, but not everything a person does screams 'alignment'.

Take the adventurer Bornt Dwarf Fighter, Lawful Good He follows a very strict personal routine every day. He walks up at the same time, prays at the same time, eats at the same time, and so forth. He has everything he plans to do that day planned out. He likes it when his adventuring group has a set leader and organization. Though he does not want to lead himself. He wants his group to have a marching order, battle plans, escape plans and all sorts of plans. And again, he is not the best planner...but he very much wishes for there to be a plan for him to follow. Even if the group just goes wild, he will still try to personalty have plans for himself. For example, he will charge the biggest and toughest foe on the first round of combat. He likes the idea of laws and will follow the laws of any place he finds himself...except he refuses to do evil. So if he ever did encounter a ''kill a innocent person for fun law'', he would not do that and would accept the punishment for it. He has a great greed for gold and gems. He will all most never help someone with money, but he will help in any other way possible...he just won't normally open his money pouch.

veti
2015-02-15, 08:28 PM
Never did I say that a Chaotic Good person does not use force. Keep it in context: A Chaotic Good person does not use force to change someones mind or to get them to do a set thing.

What other use of force is there? - assuming you don't mean just the sort of force you use to open a paint tin.


True Good Freedom-anyone can do anything anytime anyway and for any reason

False Bad Freedom-first everyone is utterly forced to live my a ridged set of absolute oppressive laws that are inflicted on everyone by the use of force.....and then, with in that frame work, people are allowed to do whatever the laws allow them to do freely.

There you go again. In your private universe, apparently laws are axiomatically "rigid absolute oppressive", "inflicted by the use of force". In the real world, that was hooey before and it's still hooey now.


A pacifist does not fight, it has nothing to do with peoples will.

So what is "fighting", if it's not the effort to impose your own will?

"War - an act of violence whose object is to constrain the enemy, to accomplish our will." - George Washington


A Lawful person follows the law, that is kind of basic.

Still not true. "Believing in law" is not the same as "following the law". There are any number of reasons why a lawful person might decide not to follow the law on a particular occasion, without compromising their lawfulness.

And "following the law" aside, you've further assumed that a lawful person will do more - they'll go out of their way to force others to follow the law as well. That's an even bigger leap, and quite unfounded in logic. Unless, of course, there's a law that requires you to inform on lawbreakers in general, which is something that hasn't been mentioned yet.

Gensuru
2015-02-15, 09:30 PM
To go back on topic, how do I find/establish 'tried-and-proven' methods for my Lawful character to use?


Generally? Trial and error. Order is about patterns. Good/useful patterns are encouraged/kept, bad/harmful patterns are abandoned/discouraged. You don't just magically wake up one day and come up with a thick tome of rules for every aspect of your life. No, you learn from every mistake and every interaction in general. It's only natural for you to do so. The advantage of a society is that patterns tend to get passed on from one generation to the next. Certain changes occur over time as people and circumstances change but in general there is a reason most of humankind lives in some sort of (more or less) ordered society. It's natural evolution. All talk of chaos and freedom aside, we are social beings because our chances at survival (as a species if nothing else) are better this way. If you want freedom, go live as a hermit. And even then you will never be free as your very body binds you to certain needs. Food, rest, shelter. You can't just use your "freedom" to decide "I don't feel like looking for food today" without suffering the consequences. In extreme cases that's death.

For your character this means: look at your own experiences and look at the game world to figure out a set of patterns that generally work. A lot of that stuff is fairly basic. Don't (needlessly) break the local laws. Simple pragmatism should tell you that doing so will make buying stuff or just plain walking around difficult if the people want to arrest you. If you're going to kill someone/something have a socially acceptable reason for it. So you can't loot graves? If you're that desperate for money, start hunting criminals for the bounty. You will get extra cash, a better reputation and a chance to get the guards' cooperation on certain matters. Heck, they might even call you in for special criminals they can't handle once you get high level enough. Quest-hooks, rewards and a chance for the odd specialized magical item/weapon straight from their armory.



Lawful: A massive organization that forces everyone to follow dozens of laws under the threat of arrest, trial, loss of everything, imprisonment and death.


Don't see it as that. If you want to play lawful, see rules as guidelines, not chains. Heck, most of that stuff is just being smart. Don't murder people at random. It doesn't make you any friends, and what gain you get from looting the bugger generally isn't worth having the entire city watch out to effin kill you. Keep your word so that people know you're reliable and will want to deal with you. Unless the society you're in is completely nuts, breaking minor laws will not result in "loss of everything", imprisonment or even death. Contrary to what some might believe, any half decent lawful society will NOT execute you for speeding or false parking. They save that sort of punishment for bigger issues. Unless you're specifically out to hurt others you shouldn't even notice most laws. "Don't murder people" did you intend to murder people? No? Good, no problem then. "Don't steal". Has the convenience of awarding your proterty the same protection. Otherwise for game purposes... well. Don't get caught and generally don't steal unless it's important enough to be worth the risk of punishment. And if nobody is going to punish you for the killing of a monster or for stealing its stuff feel free to do so unless it somehow conflicts with your own personal code of honour/morals. I don't think anyone is really asking you to get all anal retentive about obscure fiddly laws that will rarely apply anyways. It's a game, not frickin law school.

Heck, do you know how the "don't steal" rule works for rogues in my experience? "Everywhere but here". You don't steal from your fellow rogues/comrades (guild members, party members). Everyone else is fair game. Granted, it's preferable you don't get the party in trouble with theft from townsfolk (why harm them to begin with?) but being lawful does NOT require you to follow every law of any society you happen to be in at the time. You generally acknowledge that doing so (or not getting caught breaking it) is a good idea if for no other reason that the resulting problems aren't worth it. There should be enough monsters and villains to steal and loot from. Even ignoring moral or legal matters it should be more profitable to restrict your thefts to "evil" beings and enjoy the benefits of a heroic reputation. Cheaper Inns and equipment for example. Why wouldn't the local merchant sell you those throwing daggers at a better price when he can not only boast with selling the local heroes their stuff but also knows that you'll likely put it to good use keeping them safe from bandits and monsters, as you have several times in the past? And if a thing or two should happen to go missing on (rare) occasion? Eesh, we really have bigger fish to fry. I like to think even a Paladin has enough common sense to know when to focus on petty pickpocketing and when to focus on the Necromancer trying to turn the entire town into a feasting ground for his undead abominations.

Why do you think money works? Because people can rely on certain rules being kept. Otherwise we'd have to go back to trading directly with goods such as food (and always fearing someone stronger will just rob/kill you instead). Technology, money, anything that required some sort of structure to come into being you owe to a lawful way of thinking. You want complete freedom? Go back to being a hermit and keep one thing in mind. Only he who has nothing left to lose is truly free.

Gritmonger
2015-02-15, 09:44 PM
Take the adventurer Bornt Dwarf Fighter, Lawful Good He follows a very strict personal routine every day. He walks up at the same time, prays at the same time, eats at the same time, and so forth. He has everything he plans to do that day planned out...

That - sounds more like Lawful Obsessive Compulsive.

Lawful does not have to mean inflexible. It can mean bound by principle.

Say, never hurt an innocent - which may be to his detriment if he ever runs across a child antagonist.

It doesn't mean he has to be scrubbing his sword free of debris by 7:22, and wipe it twenty-two times each side or he starts to sweat and shake uncontrollably.

Lawful can stand on principle, and be difficult to move from that position. He might be the one who would rather go hungry than take some items from a farmer's field with a promise to come back and pay.

He sweats the small stuff when it comes to doing the right thing in social situations. It's more than written law that a lawful good character upholds - it's unwritten social contracts. Respect parents and elders, for instance. There isn't an ironclad law, or a written penalty, but it is expected.

This is in contrast to having to perform the same routine every day. That's meaningless after a while - a habit, not a principle. Upholding obligations, however, is more lawful.

Remembering your mother's birthday? A lawful character might be more upset about forgetting it than a chaotic character.

Consider that it might involve what is "proper" as well as what is "right." Burying even an enemy properly. Not desecrating the dead. Essentially a reason behind why undead are repulsive - not just because they are disgusting and scary, but they represent a fundamental lack of respect and twisting of the social contract with regard to how the dead are treated.

Red Fel
2015-02-15, 10:04 PM
To go back on topic, how do I find/establish 'tried-and-proven' methods for my Lawful character to use?

Other people have already suggested that an easy explanation for Lawful is "principled" - that is, a Lawful PC has certain principles on which he will not compromise. If that's a bit esoteric, consider the fact that, at least in an objective alignment system (such as those found in D&D and Pathfinder), Good functions much the same way.

I will explain. You've heard people (including me) observe that Good has lines that it will not cross. That is to say that there are moral boundaries, points a Good character will not overstep. These may vary between characters, but certain areas (killing innocent children, rape, that sort of thing) are clear no-go zones.

A Lawful PC works in much the same way. Except that where the Good character has moral lines he will not cross, the Lawful character has ethical ones. For example, his personal scruples may include never breaking a promise, always showing respect where it is due, always taking off his hat and shoes when entering a home, never knowingly working with a known criminal, always (or never) showing mercy to a defeated opponent, and so forth. He has principles on which he cannot compromise. An easy method is to come up with a short list of such principles at the start of play.

The thing to remember is that a Lawful character is a person, just like anybody else. Just like a Good character, an Evil character, a Chaotic character, or a Neutral character, a Lawful character has needs and wants; he has friends and enemies; he may like or dislike jokes, may enjoy or dislike drinking, may be extremely reserved or brash and loud. The distinction is that, when it comes to a critical situation, the Lawful character will instinctively find comfort in order, respect, and principles. He likes an organized world. It doesn't have to be obsessive-compulsively chronicled, it doesn't have to be perfectly symmetrical or carefully calendared, but his greatest comfort is knowing - at least on a metaphorical level - that there is order to the universe, and that everything has a place where it can belong.

There are those who have argued the issue of whether "rights" are a Lawful concept. I would suggest an alternative: Lawful characters believe in responsibilities. For example, instead of seeing people as having a right to live lives free from barbarism and criminality, they might see people as having a responsibility to avoid indulging in barbarism, and to protect one another from criminals. Now, whether your Lawful character believes that that responsibility is one voluntarily undertaken, or whether he believes that other people need to be encouraged (or forced) to live up to that responsibility, depends a great deal on how you play him.

The point is that there are different angles from which you can attack this concept, and it boils down to a simple premise: the Lawful character believes in certain concepts greater than himself, for which he is willing to surrender a certain degree of personal autonomy and freedom. He is not unique in this respect, but it does define him.

Darth Ultron
2015-02-15, 10:26 PM
What other use of force is there? - assuming you don't mean just the sort of force you use to open a paint tin.

It's started with the question: Are you saying a Chaotic Good person would never force someone to refrain from committing murder?

I said, no. A Chaotic Good person would never force a person to do anything as they believe in personal freedom to chose. They could stop the murder in other ways, like for example just talking the person out of the idea.



There you go again. In your private universe, apparently laws are axiomatically "rigid absolute oppressive", "inflicted by the use of force". In the real world, that was hooey before and it's still hooey now.

Well, laws by there very nature are "rigid absolute oppressive". Take any law for an example.



So what is "fighting", if it's not the effort to impose your own will?

A fight has nothing to do with imposing will. Only the Lawful types think that way.



Still not true. "Believing in law" is not the same as "following the law". There are any number of reasons why a lawful person might decide not to follow the law on a particular occasion, without compromising their lawfulness.


Not true. A Lawful person who does not follow the law or randomly picks what laws they follow is not a Lawful person. They are Neutral at best, or even Chaotic.

The problem might be is your saying everyone can be everything all the time and so everything is gray and no one can ever be judged and everyone is whatever they say they are at any one second. And that is just not true.



And "following the law" aside, you've further assumed that a lawful person will do more - they'll go out of their way to force others to follow the law as well. That's an even bigger leap, and quite unfounded in logic. Unless, of course, there's a law that requires you to inform on lawbreakers in general, which is something that hasn't been mentioned yet.

I think any Lawful person would report any crime they see, and that is sure forcing others to obey laws. They don't even need a law to tell them to do it. They want everyone to be forced to follow the laws. And the very nature of Lawful is that people do not have any choice, but to follow the laws. An individual has no choice: here are the laws of the land, too bad, you must follow them. Some one can not live in a Lawful place and be immune to the laws.



That - sounds more like Lawful Obsessive Compulsive.

Lawful does not have to mean inflexible. It can mean bound by principle.

Yes, every single Lawful Good person in the whole world is not a exact copy of this one dwarf. Each person is different. Is he Obsessive Compulsive, yes. All Obsessive Compulsive people are Lawful. But not all Lawful people are Obsessive Compulsive.

Lawful does not mean ''does everything like a robot'', it means they like to have set ways. But note ''like to'' does not mean ''act like robot''.



It doesn't mean he has to be scrubbing his sword free of debris by 7:22, and wipe it twenty-two times each side or he starts to sweat and shake uncontrollably.

Having a set routine is not Obsessive Compulsive.

veti
2015-02-15, 11:02 PM
It's started with the question: Are you saying a Chaotic Good person would never force someone to refrain from committing murder?

I said, no. A Chaotic Good person would never force a person to do anything as they believe in personal freedom to chose. They could stop the murder in other ways, like for example just talking the person out of the idea.

So if the 20th level CG wizard sees a 15th-level necromancer about to wipe out an entire village of people, she can do absolutely anything short of - anything that would actually prevent the crime, because that would be interfering with the necromancer's freedom?


Well, laws by there very nature are "rigid absolute oppressive". Take any law for an example.

That's just your prejudice talking. How "rigid absolute oppresive" is the law against rape? Or to phrase the question another way: who, exactly, is being oppressed by that law?


A fight has nothing to do with imposing will. Only the Lawful types think that way.

Then what does it have to do with?


Not true. A Lawful person who does not follow the law or randomly picks what laws they follow is not a Lawful person. They are Neutral at best, or even Chaotic.

I didn't say they randomly picked what laws they'd follow. That's entirely your interpolation. Yes, that would be chaotic, not to say insane. A lawful person will be systematic and deliberate about choosing which laws to follow.


I think any Lawful person would report any crime they see, and that is sure forcing others to obey laws. They don't even need a law to tell them to do it. They want everyone to be forced to follow the laws.

"You think" all of that based on - what, exactly? Because as far as I can see, your only source for any of this is "your own imagination". You make assertions about "how a Lawful person behaves" based on - nothing you've told us about.


And the very nature of Lawful is that people do not have any choice, but to follow the laws. An individual has no choice: here are the laws of the land, too bad, you must follow them. Some one can not live in a Lawful place and be immune to the laws.

The last part of that is true, but everything leading up to it is not. If "people do not have any choice but to follow the laws", why is there so much crime? Including petty crime, such as parking and speeding, that daily goes unreported, mostly unnoticed and entirely unpunished?

Gritmonger
2015-02-15, 11:07 PM
Yes, every single Lawful Good person in the whole world is not a exact copy of this one dwarf. Each person is different. Is he Obsessive Compulsive, yes. All Obsessive Compulsive people are Lawful. But not all Lawful people are Obsessive Compulsive.


Obsessive Compulsive does not mean Lawful either. The framing around this presupposes this example of "Lawful" is alleged to be archtypical. I apologize if I am reading that framing incorrectly.

A person can be obsessive compulsive and still be a criminal, and a rather chaotic one at that. It is a mental disorder that is an organic compulsion, apart entirely from somebody's stance on whether they obey the law, or follow traditional rules, or follow convention. It is not conventional to insist that anything that touches the floor can't be touched by you, because it is soiled. It leads to a horribly cluttered, filthy home - but is still obsessive-compulsive in behavior. And it is not conventional.

One is not standing on principle or observing convention by being obsessive compulsive - witness the stigma endured by persons that are, and the embarrassment that often comes with having this disorder, and the lengths gone to in order to hide it.



Lawful does not mean ''does everything like a robot'', it means they like to have set ways. But note ''like to'' does not mean ''act like robot''.


"Likes to have set ways" potentially describes anybody over fifty. Not all of them are Lawful, either.

The point of Lawful is not sticking to things because you are set in your ways, or have a compulsion to do so - it is a choice like any other free-willed alternative in the panoply of alignments in that you choose to observe the big laws and the little, social ones, as part of being what you consider a good person, or a proper person.



Having a set routine is not Obsessive Compulsive.


The way it is described, I would contend that it is. A set routine is the general things you do to get ready for work each day. Doing so at exactly the same time by rote borders on illness. Things happen, not all evenings are the same, you have days off.

The point is, this is a choice, not a compulsion. Being lawful does not necessitate what appear to be a broad spectrum of desultory unreasoned purposeless by-rote actions purely for the sake of doing them and no other. Not liking the worldview of being Lawful is fine - describing it in terms that tersely describe a straw man that nobody would willingly be part of is not so fine.

LaserFace
2015-02-16, 01:43 AM
Wikipedia has a pretty good blurb on this topic:


Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.


You can have obsessive-compulsive robots on the lawful side and you can have idiots on the chaotic side, but the majority throughout will just be normal people.

Envyus
2015-02-16, 02:07 AM
It's started with the question: Are you saying a Chaotic Good person would never force someone to refrain from committing murder?

I said, no. A Chaotic Good person would never force a person to do anything as they believe in personal freedom to chose. They could stop the murder in other ways, like for example just talking the person out of the idea.


This is the worst example you have ever made up. Robin Hood and Green Arrow have used force to stop people from preforming murder and other acts. Drizzt stabbed some Gnolls who were going to rob and murder a family.

Seriously unless they were friends with the person who was going to commit the murder or felt that the guy going to be killed deserved in somewhat. They would never allow your scenario to happen.

You have a completely alien mindset about this that is not accurate or right.

hamishspence
2015-02-16, 02:17 AM
So if Robin Hood found out that Prince was a good guy and the rightful king was actually evil, Robin would've switched sides. Did no one write this as a story already?

Older stories tend to portray Robin as a yeoman rather than an earl - outlawed not for "supporting the king against an usurper" but for getting into a fight with a bullying forester and killing him.

The book I read was heavily based on the old folklore tales, with only one concession to later ones - the King who pardons Robin is Richard (with most of Robin's adventures took place in the reign of Henry II). Maid Marian wasn't even included, nor the "collect ransom to free Richard" subplot that later stories had.

theNater
2015-02-16, 03:26 AM
Chaotic ways to pass as Lawful. This sounds great!
Use what you got. I sometimes build tables of potential actions and roll on them, when I want to simulate being Chaotic.

Do be careful if you decide to use the "make it up" strategy on a code of conduct, though. It's easy to invent exceptions, and I've seen some players do it to the point that there isn't really a code at all. Remember that the character thinks the root principles are important, and is willing to to adhere to them despite inconvenience or unpleasantness.

So if Robin Hood found out that Prince was a good guy and the rightful king was actually evil, Robin would've switched sides. Did no one write this as a story already?
Star Trek: The Next Generation did something like this in the episode The Pegasus. Long ago, Riker defended the captain of the ship he was on at the time against a mutiny. However, as the years have gone by, he has realized that the mutineers were in the right, and he eventually turns on that captain(well, admiral, by this point).

veti
2015-02-16, 07:18 AM
So if Robin Hood found out that Prince was a good guy and the rightful king was actually evil, Robin would've switched sides. Did no one write this as a story already?

Richard I was arguably one of the worst kings in English history, but that's not the point from Robin's point of view. First, it's not for him to judge the king either way. Second, and more importantly - if you're looking at the version of the story with the rival candidates for king, there's one candidate who'll support Robin's claim to his title, and one who won't. Robin doesn't get to choose between them.

hamishspence
2015-02-16, 07:26 AM
Richard I was arguably one of the worst kings in English history, but that's not the point from Robin's point of view. First, it's not for him to judge the king either way. Second, and more importantly - if you're looking at the version of the story with the rival candidates for king, there's one candidate who'll support Robin's claim to his title, and one who won't. Robin doesn't get to choose between them.

I see Robin (even Ivanhoe Robin, which is one of the earlier "Robin & Richard" stories) as a guy who's a "patriotic criminal" - he might have no qualms about pinching the king's deer - but when he becomes aware that the king's in prison abroad and that the prince has no intention of ransoming him, but instead plans to seize the throne - he decides that's just not on.

A bit like the Mafia guys in The Rocketeer.

EDIT- Apparently how I saw things wasn't very accurate: Robin was moved to "Richard era" fairly early (16th century) but "Robin raises Richard's ransom" is an extremely late addition - even postdating Ivanhoe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood

Segev
2015-02-16, 12:23 PM
Freedom is not telling others what they can and can't do, and it sure is not forcing people to do, or not do anything.

This statement is inherently self-contradictory. If freedom is never forcing others to or not to do anything, then you can only respect others' freedom by giving up all of yours.

If you dare stop me from taking your property, you are, by the logic of the quoted sentence, impinging on my freedom, and that makes you anti-freedom. If you try to stop me from doing physical harm to you, you're forcing me not to hurt you.

Even on the Chaotic side of the ethical axis, CG and CN tend to respect that others have a right to tell you "no" if you seek to do something which would cause them harm. CN may do so in a more pragmatic sense of "I also want to be able to tell others not to hurt me, so I will give equal respect to them," but they still do.

Even CE recognizes that, if they cause harm to others, they only thing they can do to stop those others from doing the same to them is be strong enough to make them helpless to exact revenge.

TheThan
2015-02-16, 04:20 PM
In theory, Robin Hood is fighting John because he's an Evil ruler, and supporting Richard because he's a Good one. The legitimacy argument muddies it, but it's there because the story originated in a culture where legitimate and Good were assumed to be one and the same.


But what if we flip it around, what if prince john is the illegitimate but good ruler, and king Richard was the legitimate but evil ruler?
Would Robin Hood still be chaotic good? He’s actively opposing an illegitimate ruler that’s doing good.


Who is harmed-by the D&D definition of "harmed"-if someone steals the equivalent of $50 from the equivalent of Bill Gates? Nobody's life is on the line, and it's not oppressive(unless it's part of a long-term effort to make him feel insecure). It's a mild inconvenience for him, at worst.


the guy who was stolen from.
It doesn’t matter if the guy you steal from won’t feel the loss. You’re still hurting him and that is still wrong. Claiming that it doesn’t harm him because he’s rich and can afford to lose a small amount of petty cash doesn’t diminish this. All it does is justify it to the thief. “Oh he won’t even notice it’s gone, he’s the richest guy in the land”.

The idea that victimizing someone who won’t feel the loss is ok is somewhat of a fallacy. Just because a victim doesn’t feel hurt by a crime, doesn’t dilute the fact that he is a victim of a crime and is still hurt by that crime, even if it’s so minuscule that he won’t really suffer from it. The amount of property that was stolen is inconsequential and doesn’t make the act of theft good.

According to my definitions of good/evil and right/wrong at the least.

veti
2015-02-16, 04:28 PM
But what if we flip it around, what if prince john is the illegitimate but good ruler, and king Richard was the legitimate but evil ruler?
Would Robin Hood still be chaotic good? He’s actively opposing an illegitimate ruler that’s doing good.

Robin Hood is CG in his original, quintessential, folk-hero incarnation as the guy who steals from the rich and gives to the poor.

All the political cruft about kings and usurpers and ransoms? All that was added in later - much later, in some cases - in a deliberate effort to co-opt him, as a massively popular folk hero, into The Establishment. To make him a supporter of the crown, rather than what he was - an outlaw.

So really, anytime you introduce "kings", "birthrights" or words like "rightful" into the Robin Hood story, it immediately becomes questionable whether the "CG" tag still even applies. Keep it simple: he steals from the rich and gives to the poor. That's CG. Everything beyond that simply clouds the story.

hamishspence
2015-02-16, 04:33 PM
And in the early stories - there's very little "giving to the poor" - it's more like "lending to the poor (and eventually choosing to write off the debt)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_at_the_Lee

Duke of URRL
2015-02-16, 04:41 PM
This statement is inherently self-contradictory. If freedom is never forcing others to or not to do anything, then you can only respect others' freedom by giving up all of yours.

If you dare stop me from taking your property, you are, by the logic of the quoted sentence, impinging on my freedom, and that makes you anti-freedom. If you try to stop me from doing physical harm to you, you're forcing me not to hurt you.

Well, everyone says that a Lawful person does not have to follow every law, code or rule right? So why not appy the same to Chaotic? They don't have to allow others freedom, but they should. It's exactly like saying a good person does not have to help others 24/7, but they should or an evil person does not have to kill 24/7, but they should.

Sylian
2015-02-16, 04:52 PM
True Good Freedom-anyone can do anything anytime anyway and for any reasonWhy would any good person want to be chaotic, if this were true? Why is it desirable to let murderers murder, vandals vandal, thieves steal? If you object with "Sure, a murderer may murder, but a Chaotic Good person might try to stop the murderer", then isn't the Chaotic Good person, by your definitition, oppressing the murderer and denying them their freedom? Why would any reasonable person be Chaotic Good rather than Neutral Good or Lawful Good, if that were the case?

Traditionally, even the most pro-freedom ideologies in real life tend to end with something like "Your freedom ends where mine begins". That is, you're free to do whatever you want as long as you don't impose on someone else's freedom. To me, that seems far more reasonable for a Chaotic Good person than "Do whatever you want, I won't stop you". A Chaotic Evil person might be willing to deny others their freedom, by murdering them, for instance. They are Chaotic Evil, after all.

Darth Ultron
2015-02-16, 05:12 PM
So if the 20th level CG wizard sees a 15th-level necromancer about to wipe out an entire village of people, she can do absolutely anything short of - anything that would actually prevent the crime, because that would be interfering with the necromancer's freedom?

In this case the CG is not changing someones mind: the necromancers mind is all ready made up:they want to mass murder. So the CG person, being good, will try to stop them and save the village. That is what good people do.

But if the two wizards met in a tavern and the necromancer said ''I'm going to kill off a village next weekend'', the CG wizard would do something like try and talk him out of it or maybe disrupt his plan through some sort of trickery.

Now look at a Lawful Good person, like the commoner barkeep....they would immediately run to the nearest authority and tattle tale on the necromancer and try and get the law and forces of good to stop him. The lawmen would go over, attack and arrest the necromancer for ''conspiracy to commit mass murder'', put the necromancer in jail and give him his day in court.




That's just your prejudice talking. How "rigid absolute oppresive" is the law against rape? Or to phrase the question another way: who, exactly, is being oppressed by that law?

Not a good law for an example. Lets take: Trespassing. Lord Mcscruge says he owns that 100 square miles of land over there by the laws of the land. Joe is hunting and walks onto the lords land, and the lord has Joe attack and arrested and jailed and given a fine and whatever other punishments can be done under the law. Who is oppressed? Joe and everyone else that might want to walk on or use that land.




I didn't say they randomly picked what laws they'd follow. That's entirely your interpolation. Yes, that would be chaotic, not to say insane. A lawful person will be systematic and deliberate about choosing which laws to follow.

Maybe you can give an example of a lawful person picking laws to follow and not follow?




"You think" all of that based on - what, exactly? Because as far as I can see, your only source for any of this is "your own imagination". You make assertions about "how a Lawful person behaves" based on - nothing you've told us about.

Ok, well I will provide detailed documentation of every word I type, if you also do so first. So I can have an idea of what you want by documentation.



The last part of that is true, but everything leading up to it is not. If "people do not have any choice but to follow the laws", why is there so much crime? Including petty crime, such as parking and speeding, that daily goes unreported, mostly unnoticed and entirely unpunished?

Answer: most people are not Lawful, and not everyone is good. The vast majority of criminals are evil! Most people in a society are neutral: they pick and chose the laws and rules they will follow.

hamishspence
2015-02-16, 05:22 PM
TN is the most common human alignment (according to PHB) but that doesn't necessarily mean that most people are TN. After all, "humans tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral".



Maybe you can give an example of a lawful person picking laws to follow and not follow?

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a


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 (that) is unfair or capricious.

So, a LG person entering LE society, who comes across "unfair laws" (ones that keep slaves in slavery) might not choose to follow those laws - they might - illegally - rescue slaves.

Darth Ultron
2015-02-16, 05:37 PM
TN is the most common human alignment (according to PHB) but that doesn't necessarily mean that most people are TN. After all, "humans tend toward no alignment, not even Neutral".


Right, it's kinda like saying ''most people are Purple Ducks'' because that page does not specifically say that people are ''not Purple Ducks''.



So, a LG person entering LE society, who comes across "unfair laws" (ones that keep slaves in slavery) might not choose to follow those laws - they might - illegally - rescue slaves.

Well, I think that a Lawful Good person in just this one example given above only is an enabler. The LG person is the type that saws things like ''I don't like their laws, but I must respect them the same way they must respect mine.'' At best, they simply look the other way, and at worse they just say ''well that is their way of life''.

The Chaotic Good person is the one rescuing slaves and running the underground railroad.

hamishspence
2015-02-16, 05:42 PM
At best, they simply look the other way, and at worse they just say ''well that is their way of life''.

Not going by BoED - the Archon rulers include some fiercely devoted to anti-tyranny and slave-freeing work.

There's plenty of room for LG "freedom-fighters" in D&D.

Sylian
2015-02-16, 05:55 PM
Right, it's kinda like saying ''most people are Purple Ducks'' because that page does not specifically say that people are ''not Purple Ducks''.No, it's not. Besides, in the Player's Hanbook, they say "Humans tend toward no particular alignment, not even neutrality. The best and the worst are found among them." If most humans were Neutral, then wouldn't it say so? It seems to me that the default assumption is that humans are somewhat evenly spred between Law and Chaos, Good and Evil.


Well, I think that a Lawful Good person in just this one example given above only is an enabler. The LG person is the type that saws things like ''I don't like their laws, but I must respect them the same way they must respect mine.'' At best, they simply look the other way, and at worse they just say ''well that is their way of life''.

The Chaotic Good person is the one rescuing slaves and running the underground railroad.I don't know if you read Order of the Stick, but there is a paladin that fights in an underground movement against the government. According to Wizards of the Coast, Lawful doesn't necessarily mean "worships laws", Monks tend to be Lawful after all yet I don't think all Monks value laws all that highly.

hamishspence
2015-02-16, 05:56 PM
"Orderly" might a a better term than "Lawful" in practice.

Sith_Happens
2015-02-16, 06:07 PM
*doesn't feel like reading the whole thread right now*


I guess part of my problem is that, on a meta or OoC level, I'm afraid to be too rigid and not flexible to fit the situations I and my PC will be in. Is this a case of 'making up excuses for enjoyable gameplay', much like how excuses are made for an LG and CE character to be in the same group?

The bolded bit is a separate issue entirely, so I'm just going to address the rest.

How to play a Lawful Good character in one easy step: "What would a Reasonable Authority Figure (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ReasonableAuthorityFigure) do?"

How to play a Lawful Neutral character in one easy step: "What would a By-the-Book Cop (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ByTheBookCop) do?"

How to play a Lawful Evil character in one easy step: "What would an Evil Overlord (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilOverlord) do?"

(To the rest of the forum: Yes, I realize there are multiple flavors of each of the above alignments, but IMO the tropes I just presented encompass most or all of the most common ones.)

veti
2015-02-16, 06:29 PM
In this case the CG is not changing someones mind: the necromancers mind is all ready made up:they want to mass murder. So the CG person, being good, will try to stop them and save the village. That is what good people do.

So they will interfere with the necromancer's freedom? I just want to confirm that because earlier, you said:


It's started with the question: Are you saying a Chaotic Good person would never force someone to refrain from committing murder?

I said, no. A Chaotic Good person would never force a person to do anything as they believe in personal freedom to chose. They could stop the murder in other ways, like for example just talking the person out of the idea.

And this seems to contradict that.


Now look at a Lawful Good person, like the commoner barkeep....they would immediately run to the nearest authority and tattle tale on the necromancer and try and get the law and forces of good to stop him. The lawmen would go over, attack and arrest the necromancer for ''conspiracy to commit mass murder'', put the necromancer in jail and give him his day in court.

There you go again: "they would...". Like there's no room for interpretation, this is THE lawful action and nothing else is even an option.


Not a good law for an example.

Hey, you're the one who said:

Take any law for an example.


Ok, well I will provide detailed documentation of every word I type, if you also do so first. So I can have an idea of what you want by documentation.

When I start making absolute statements about "what a lawful person will do, invariably, no question about it, I mean by definition they must" - then I'll try to back that up with a reference to something somewhere.


Answer: most people are not Lawful, and not everyone is good. The vast majority of criminals are evil! Most people in a society are neutral: they pick and chose the laws and rules they will follow.

Once again, I remind you of your previous statement:


And the very nature of Lawful is that people do not have any choice, but to follow the laws. An individual has no choice: here are the laws of the land, too bad, you must follow them.

... which you now seem to be recanting fully.

Are you trying to show us what it's like to be truly chaotic, so that you don't have to be remotely self-consistent from one point to the next? If so bravo, nicely done, but it's a bit meta for me.

theNater
2015-02-16, 07:39 PM
But what if we flip it around, what if prince john is the illegitimate but good ruler, and king Richard was the legitimate but evil ruler?
Would Robin Hood still be chaotic good? He’s actively opposing an illegitimate ruler that’s doing good.
Right, that would not be Chaotic Good. If Robin were doing that. Which he isn't. So I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.

the guy who was stolen from.
It doesn’t matter if the guy you steal from won’t feel the loss. You’re still hurting him and that is still wrong. Claiming that it doesn’t harm him because he’s rich and can afford to lose a small amount of petty cash doesn’t diminish this. All it does is justify it to the thief. “Oh he won’t even notice it’s gone, he’s the richest guy in the land”.

The idea that victimizing someone who won’t feel the loss is ok is somewhat of a fallacy. Just because a victim doesn’t feel hurt by a crime, doesn’t dilute the fact that he is a victim of a crime and is still hurt by that crime, even if it’s so minuscule that he won’t really suffer from it. The amount of property that was stolen is inconsequential and doesn’t make the act of theft good.

According to my definitions of good/evil and right/wrong at the least.
We're not allowed to discuss real-world morality on these boards, which is why I was very careful to specify that the harm be by D&D's standards. While it's nice to know that it's harm by your standards, that doesn't answer the question I asked.

Darth Ultron
2015-02-16, 09:35 PM
Not going by BoED - the Archon rulers include some fiercely devoted to anti-tyranny and slave-freeing work.

There's plenty of room for LG "freedom-fighters" in D&D.

Where did you see an anti-slavery Archon?

And you can't really have a LG freedom fighter...as LG does not believe in freedom, unless your just talking about the false watered down LG ''freedom lite'' where people are free to do what they are allowed to do.


"Orderly" might a a better term than "Lawful" in practice.

True. Laws are just one type of order.....there are plenty of others too.


So they will interfere with the necromancer's freedom? I just want to confirm that because earlier, you said:
And this seems to contradict that.

My point has been lots over several posts.

Ok, the Lawful person uses force to enforce the laws, rules, codes, traditions or whatever order they have on everyone without their consent or choice. They can care less what people think, as everyone will be forced to follow the laws, rules, codes, traditions or whatever order, no matter what the individual thinks.

The Chaotic person has no order and does not force their way of thinking on others at all. They want everyone to have a choice and make up their own mind freely. A Chatoic person wants everyone to think for themselves and not follow any laws, rules, codes, traditions or whatever order. Only what each individual thinks matters.

Now a Chaotic Good person would try to stop a murder, as they are good and they think murder is wrong(they can care less that murder is likely ''illegal''). They want the murderer-to-be to freely choose not to murder of there own free will. So they will try ways to convince the murderer-to-be not to commit the murder and to change their mind.

Now take Lawful. As soon as they hear about the murderer-to-be they will charge over, attack and arrest the murderer-to-be with ''attempted murder or conspiracy to commit murder''. They will lock him up, put him on trial and punish him to the full extent of the law.

So you see CG:tries to get the murder-to-be to freely change his own mind and not do the murder vs LG use violent force to lock up and punish the person and stop the murder.



which you now seem to be recanting fully.

I guess the problem is I don't take three paragraphs to explain everything so it can't be nit picked apart by hostile readers.

Ok...Lawful says that they have the supreme right to tell everyone how to live. If the city of Ord is a Lawful place and you go to the city, you must follow the cities laws...or else you will be punished. This does not mean Lawful people are robots that follow the laws. After all tons of Lawful people are hypocrites and break dozens of laws while screaming that everyone else must follow the laws. Even the most LG person can be a horrible hypocrite and say things like ''well it's ok for me to own a sword, but you can not have one.''

But don't just get caught up on ''laws''. Lets take a Tradition: Elves do not marry Orcs. And two towns, one of Lawful people, one of Chaotic who are all against the idea of elves and orcs marriage. So when Elza comes home one day with an orc she wants to marry. What does everyone do?

Well, the Lawful people will say ''we can't change the tradition'' and hide behind that. So no Lawful church will even marry them. And her parents, friends and family even refuse to come to the weeding. And they can't even buy anything to have the wedding as no one will sell anything to them. In short, the Lawful people are trying to force her not to marry him. And she simply can not get married in town.

Now take it if everyone was Chaotic: They would all want Elza to change her mind, on her own. The Chaotic church would agree to the ceremony, but only after a ''lets talk you out of this '' meeting first. People might agree to come to the wedding, but they will try to convince them not to get married. The same with store people. In short, the Chaotic people want Elza or the orc guy, to change their minds...on their own, with no force. But, in the end, the Chaotic people will allow the wedding in the town.

In both cases the people use force or pressure or influence to get Elza and the orc to not get married. But there is a huge difference between the Lawful ''get out of my bakery! As long as you want to marry that orc, I'll never sell you a cake ever!'' and the Chaotic ''Well, before I get started on the cake...I want you to hear me out and think about that I have to say.''

Now, note this example is just for two towns of all Lawful or Chaotic elves. It does not represent each of the nine combined alignments, just generic Lawful and Chaotic. And it also assumes everyone in town is the same alignment. And note it's not exclusive, each Lawful or Chaotic town might well try several other Lawful or Chaotic based ways to stop the wedding(like the Lawful town passing a law or the Chaotic town tricking Elsa), I can only put so much in a post.

And note that, the example does not say that only Chaotic people can try to change someones mind. The Lawful people do still have the ability to talk. But the example is meant to show the primary way each alignment deals with a violation of a tradition. So, sure, Elza's lawful parents will sit her down and talk to her....you know after they lawful forbid her from marring the orc...and try and change her mind. The same way the Chaotic parents of Elsa might not go to her wedding after they fail to change her mind.

veti
2015-02-16, 10:17 PM
Ok, the Lawful person uses force to enforce the laws, rules, codes, traditions or whatever order they have on everyone without their consent or choice. They can care less what people think, as everyone will be forced to follow the laws, rules, codes, traditions or whatever order, no matter what the individual thinks.

And that right there is the sticking point. You seem to be firm in your (highly lawful, in the way you use the word) insistence that this is the only plausible way "Lawful" people can act. They are all, to a one, rigid petty dictators who simply assume the right to tell everyone else what to do. This is so far from my perception of reality that I can't even recognise it. And, judging by other contributions to this thread, many others share my difficulty.


The Chaotic person has no order and does not force their way of thinking on others at all. They want everyone to have a choice and make up their own mind freely. A Chatoic person wants everyone to think for themselves and not follow any laws, rules, codes, traditions or whatever order. Only what each individual thinks matters.

And if "an individual" thinks that laws, rules, codes, traditions and whatever are important and deserving of respect, what then?


Now a Chaotic Good person would try to stop a murder, as they are good and they think murder is wrong(they can care less that murder is likely ''illegal''). They want the murderer-to-be to freely choose not to murder of there own free will. So they will try ways to convince the murderer-to-be not to commit the murder and to change their mind.

Now take Lawful. As soon as they hear about the murderer-to-be they will charge over, attack and arrest the murderer-to-be with ''attempted murder or conspiracy to commit murder''. They will lock him up, put him on trial and punish him to the full extent of the law.

There you go again with the "they will charge over". You presume - still on the basis of nothing - that you can anticipate the actions of any Lawful aligned person anywhere. It seems to me not at all incompatible with Lawful to try to talk to the other party, every bit as calmly as your saintly Chaotic might do it.

After all, in a lot of places, merely "talking about murder" - isn't actually against the law. Therefore the LG person can't "lock him up, put him on trial etc.", because they haven't done anything wrong at this point.


So you see CG:tries to get the murder-to-be to freely change his own mind and not do the murder vs LG use violent force to lock up and punish the person and stop the murder.

Only because they're both acting according to the dictates of your incredibly slanted imagination. The Chaotic Good person is acting reasonably, while you feel the Lawful Good is for some reason obliged to go all Pre-Crime on the poor sod. Believe it or not, a Lawful Good person does have ways of acting that are not "violent force".

Now let's consider the situation later, when the LG/CG person finds the would-be murderer poised behind his victim with a poisoned dagger drawn back ready to strike. How does the LG person act then, in your imagination? How does the CG person act then, in your imagination? Assume they're the same class and level.


I guess the problem is I don't take three paragraphs to explain everything so it can't be nit picked apart by hostile readers.

First, this isn't hostile. This nitpicking is for the sake of trying to understand your point, because I genuinely don't. And secondly, based on what follows here, it's going to take way more than three paragraphs to explain that. Because you're still doing that thing where "Lawful people are all unreasonable jerks, oh and mostly also hypocrites, because that's the only form of Lawful behaviour I'm capable of imagining".

Gritmonger
2015-02-16, 11:15 PM
Yeah. Lawful, to me at least, means following laws. Punishment in lawful societies, and in propriety, and in general happenstance, doesn't come before breaking said laws.

Your mother isn't going to be disappointed you've forgotten her birthday before you forget her birthday.

The social club isn't going to be outraged by your behavior if you aren't there to commit it, or haven't committed it yet, and are only joking about burying your face in the cake and going "wubba wubba wubba."

The whole point about following obligation, being trustworthy, and the like - is that it isn't forced on you. At some point your behavior, your choice, comes into play.

I seem to see an obsession with a Lawful person policing everybody else, when generally they police themselves first. Anything else is hypocritical. And it isn't done by rote, either; there is choice involved. A Lawful person might speed, given the circumstances, but they will also pull over when the cop flashes their lights, admit to the speeding, and accept the ticket. The whole thing isn't "I will never break the law, and nobody else better damn well either" but more "I know the costs and consequences, and I know my responsibilities and obligations."

There is choice in lawful good, not just denial of choice to others. A lawful good person can be simply severely disappointed that his friend got off of a speeding ticket by knowing another police officer, rather than trying to somehow make sure his friend is punished.

The life of a Lawful Good is more one of frequent disappointment rather than seething rage at all the lawbreakers.

Darth Ultron
2015-02-17, 01:58 AM
And that right there is the sticking point. You seem to be firm in your (highly lawful, in the way you use the word) insistence that this is the only plausible way "Lawful" people can act. They are all, to a one, rigid petty dictators who simply assume the right to tell everyone else what to do. This is so far from my perception of reality that I can't even recognise it. And, judging by other contributions to this thread, many others share my difficulty.

I guess it does not agree with the idea of others that says ''Oh Lawful people just do whatever they want when ever they want and just say they are Lawful sometimes''.




And if "an individual" thinks that laws, rules, codes, traditions and whatever are important and deserving of respect, what then?

Then they do? I kinda think your missing the point, still.

A Chaotic king would say ''I think murder is wrong, I would ask that all in my kingdom do not murder. But, everyone has the free will to do so if they wish, with no repercussions from me, the guards or anyone in the government.. But I simply ask you not too. " and leave it at that. So see, note how the king leaves it 100% up to each individual to decide what they want to do. The king is just asking and telling people what he would like to be done. But everyone can decide for them selves.

A Lawful king says "I think murder is wrong. And I have made it a law: I demand that everyone in my kingdon follow my no murder law! You get no choice! My law is absolute! If you choose to break my law or even think about it I will have you arrested, put and trial and punished." Now, note how this king does not give people any choice. You follow the law....or else.



There you go again with the "they will charge over". You presume - still on the basis of nothing - that you can anticipate the actions of any Lawful aligned person anywhere. It seems to me not at all incompatible with Lawful to try to talk to the other party, every bit as calmly as your saintly Chaotic might do it.

After all, in a lot of places, merely "talking about murder" - isn't actually against the law. Therefore the LG person can't "lock him up, put him on trial etc.", because they haven't done anything wrong at this point.

I guess your going to go with ''a lawful person can just do whatever they want and just say they are lawful?''

And you might want to note that even just ''talking about murder'' is illegal in a lot of places.



Only because they're both acting according to the dictates of your incredibly slanted imagination. The Chaotic Good person is acting reasonably, while you feel the Lawful Good is for some reason obliged to go all Pre-Crime on the poor sod. Believe it or not, a Lawful Good person does have ways of acting that are not "violent force".

You do know planning to commit a crime is illegal right? Like say a wizard was making bombs and had plans to blow up the school of magic. And someone found out about it, and told the lawmen. Well, they would go over and arrest the wizard and confiscate his bombs. The lawmen don't just sit there and say ''eh, we will do something after he sets off his bombs''. They stop the crime before it happens.



Now let's consider the situation later, when the LG/CG person finds the would-be murderer poised behind his victim with a poisoned dagger drawn back ready to strike. How does the LG person act then, in your imagination? How does the CG person act then, in your imagination? Assume they're the same class and level.


They will probably react mostly the same. They are both good, so they will both try and stop the murder.



First, this isn't hostile. This nitpicking is for the sake of trying to understand your point, because I genuinely don't. And secondly, based on what follows here, it's going to take way more than three paragraphs to explain that. Because you're still doing that thing where "Lawful people are all unreasonable jerks, oh and mostly also hypocrites, because that's the only form of Lawful behaviour I'm capable of imagining".

Well, why do you see being jerks or hypocrites as negative?

Just watch the amazing spin:

I am a lawful person and I think that society must have order. People need structure, and limits, and rules to follow. You simply can not have a society where anyone can do anything. Too many people would go too far, and too many people would be bullied in such chaos. The strong of heart or arm need to have a leash and ones weak of heart or arm need protection. The only way to have a civilized society is for everyone to have a level playing field where everything is fair and balanced. There must be order. And yes, people must give up some of their free will and choice...but it is a very small price to pay for the good of the whole community. What is lost in free will and choice, will be made up with strength and unity. The loss of your free will to murder at will also means that you yourself need not have to worry about others murdering you, for example. And murder is wrong in any case, and no one should want to do it anyway, so making it a rule of law is really a no brainier. The system of order and rules and laws will not be perfect, but it's far better for everyone as opposed to anarchy.

See, that is the positive spin of Lawful. Just note it is exactly what I've said before, just using different words.


The whole point about following obligation, being trustworthy, and the like - is that it isn't forced on you. At some point your behavior, your choice, comes into play.

You have a choice, but the lawful people often have strict set consequences in place if you choose not to follow. A chaotic group of people do not.




The life of a Lawful Good is more one of frequent disappointment rather than seething rage at all the lawbreakers.

Very true

hamishspence
2015-02-17, 02:14 AM
Where did you see an anti-slavery Archon?

And you can't really have a LG freedom fighter...as LG does not believe in freedom
Page 133 - Raziel the Firestar - fierce opponent of tyranny and oppression. "Fighting tyranny" crops up in the description of several other archon rulers of Celestia as well.

The book also says "Even if slavery, torture, etc are tolerated by a society - they remain evil". Strongly Good characters oppose that kind of Evil - even if they're Lawful Good.

Darth Ultron
2015-02-17, 03:02 AM
Page 133 - Raziel the Firestar - fierce opponent of tyranny and oppression. "Fighting tyranny" crops up in the description of several other archon rulers of Celestia as well.

The book also says "Even if slavery, torture, etc are tolerated by a society - they remain evil". Strongly Good characters oppose that kind of Evil - even if they're Lawful Good.

This is one of them fun things. What is ''tyranny''? It's anything they want it to be. But it does not work that way.

Anyone can point to something and say ''that is that''....

Seto
2015-02-17, 03:03 AM
A Chaotic king would say ''I think murder is wrong, I would ask that all in my kingdom do not murder. But, everyone has the free will to do so if they wish, with no repercussions from me, the guards or anyone in the government.. But I simply ask you not too. " and leave it at that. So see, note how the king leaves it 100% up to each individual to decide what they want to do. The king is just asking and telling people what he would like to be done. But everyone can decide for them selves.

A Lawful king says "I think murder is wrong. And I have made it a law: I demand that everyone in my kingdon follow my no murder law! You get no choice! My law is absolute! If you choose to break my law or even think about it I will have you arrested, put and trial and punished." Now, note how this king does not give people any choice. You follow the law....or else.


A "Chaotic King" with your concept of what Chaotic means, makes absolutely no sense. It's an oxymoron. What's a King that simply asks people things but never interferes in their 100% freedom ?

An actual Chaotic King that doesn't want you to murder people will probably kill you just as dead as the Lawful one if you do. The difference would be in the reasoning. To the Lawful "killing is wrong, you're spitting in the face of men's law and the Gods' law. To the Chaotic : "you made your choice as a moral agent to kill someone, I can't have you doing that in my kingdom so I'll make my choice as a King to remove you from it".

hamishspence
2015-02-17, 03:06 AM
This is one of them fun things. What is ''tyranny''? It's anything they want it to be. But it does not work that way.

Anyone can point to something and say ''that is that''....

And if it's the DM pointing - in those games they will be right.

Darth Ultron
2015-02-17, 03:09 AM
A "Chaotic King" with your concept of what Chaotic means, makes absolutely no sense. It's an oxymoron. What's a King that simply asks people things but never interferes in their 100% freedom ?

Why does it not make sense to you? It's the way a Chaotic king would think.

hamishspence
2015-02-17, 03:13 AM
Or rather, it's the way you think a Chaotic monarch would think.

Most D&D authors don't do that though. Elven kings execute murderers, tomb robbers, etc - King Boranel of Breland in Eberron is a nice person but still has lawbreakers punished - etc etc.

Even if you go right back to Gygax books - I can't recall anything that said Chaotic rulers were that hands-off.

SiuiS
2015-02-17, 03:24 AM
Only the Lawful person thinks that a right has an end. And, yes, rights do make all the Lawful and most of the neutral people happy.



Yes. People are free be forced to follow the laws on how and when they can vote and how and when they can speak their opinions about laws, and be forced to follow the laws on how and when to elect people to change them.

Note, that is not Freedom. It's the Lawful person saying that they are willing to follow laws, and that they absolutist force all others living in the country to follow the same laws...OR ELSE.

Freedom is not telling others what they can and can't do, and it sure is not forcing people to do, or not do anything.



In a generic sense laws and freedom are not incompatible. After all, a Chaotic Law would offer almost pure freedom. Such as a law like ''it's only stealing if you get caught'' would be a great example. So Chaotic people could take stuff from anyone, anywhere, anyhow. anytime...as long as they don't get caught. See, that is freedom...a law that allows a person to do anything.

You've made a single easy but glaring judgement error.

Freedom does not and never has meant "without consequence". It means "won't be prevented from doing something stupid". All actions have consequences. Behavior deemed inappropriate will be handled and punished – even in a completely 'free' lawless system. Legal freedom just means there are no constraints on your ability to act or decide beyond knowledge of what awaits transgression.

Darth Ultron
2015-02-17, 03:28 AM
Or rather, it's the way you think a Chaotic monarch would think.

Most D&D authors don't do that though. Elven kings execute murderers, tomb robbers, etc - King Boranel of Breland in Eberron is a nice person but still has lawbreakers punished - etc etc.

Even if you go right back to Gygax books - I can't recall anything that said Chaotic rulers were that hands-off.

You mean the books that say things like:

Chaotic creatures and individuals embraced the individual above the group and viewed laws and honesty as unimportant. At that time, "Chaotic behavior is usually the same as behavior that could be called 'evil'".

And

Law And Chaos: The opposition here is between organized groups and individuals. That is, Law dictates that order and organization is necessary and desirable, while Chaos holds to the opposite view. Law generally supports the group as more important than the individual, while Chaos promotes the individual over the group.

SiuiS
2015-02-17, 03:44 AM
You mean the books that say things like:

Chaotic creatures and individuals embraced the individual above the group and viewed laws and honesty as unimportant. At that time, "Chaotic behavior is usually the same as behavior that could be called 'evil'".

And

Law And Chaos: The opposition here is between organized groups and individuals. That is, Law dictates that order and organization is necessary and desirable, while Chaos holds to the opposite view. Law generally supports the group as more important than the individual, while Chaos promotes the individual over the group.

No, I don't think the books that preclude good and evil and so assigned them to law and chaos are what he meant.

But if they are what he meant, we should re-examine the validity of the sources. Not because Gygax is somehow wrong about alignment (although that is possible, as alignment came from other sources), but because what D&D meant by 'lawful' and 'chaotic' were wildly divergent in different eras.

Quite frankly, all this talk of chaotic kings is obfuscatory poppycock. A chaotic king is still a king, still rules, still demands obeisance and respect. The chaos descriptor is about his position in the cosmic scale of stais versus change and entropy, not about silly things like mortal consideration. This view has been around for 45 years, the newer view of lawful meaning society over individual is much younger and less valid as a source for all D&D or gaming in general.

Notice that the opposite view of "law and order are desirable" is NOT equality. Law exists as a structure to supply objective merit to a person. In a lawful system the system decides your worth. In a chaotic system, your with is what you can hold on to. A chaotic king is more likely to be king because he intimidates everyone into agreement and kills dissenters. A lawful king is invested in the system of monarchy and the legitimacy of the crown as an institution instead of as a pointy hat he earned with blood and steel and vim.

Darth Ultron
2015-02-17, 04:32 AM
You've made a single easy but glaring judgement error.

Freedom does not and never has meant "without consequence". .

The difference is, in a Chaotic view, the consequence comes from the individual or the choices of individuals.


And if it's the DM pointing - in those games they will be right.

Only if you have a Lawful Good DM.

A person in Cormyr has no choice in life other then to work from dawn to dusk on his lords farm. A person in Thay has no choice in life other then to work from dusk to dawn on his lords farm. Are they exactly the same? Or is one good and one bad?

Sembia forces people to be sailors in their navy. Thay forces people to be sailors in their navy. Are they exactly the same? Or is one good and one bad?


No, I don't think the books that preclude good and evil and so assigned them to law and chaos are what he meant..

I'm just copying what the book says.



Quite frankly, all this talk of chaotic kings is obfuscatory poppycock. A chaotic king is still a king, still rules, still demands obeisance and respect. The chaos descriptor is about his position in the cosmic scale of stais versus change and entropy, not about silly things like mortal consideration. This view has been around for 45 years, the newer view of lawful meaning society over individual is much younger and less valid as a source for all D&D or gaming in general.

The difference is the chaotic king demands nothing. Demands are a Lawful thing. The Chaotic king wants real obeisance and respect given freely. This is a big difference.

To put it another way, a Chaotic king earns the obeisance and respect of his subjects. The Lawful king is the one that demands it....or else.



Notice that the opposite view of "law and order are desirable" is NOT equality. Law exists as a structure to supply objective merit to a person. In a lawful system the system decides your worth. In a chaotic system, your with is what you can hold on to. A chaotic king is more likely to be king because he intimidates everyone into agreement and kills dissenters. A lawful king is invested in the system of monarchy and the legitimacy of the crown as an institution instead of as a pointy hat he earned with blood and steel and vim.

A Chaotic king can rule that way, but he can also just be a good king and make others want to follow him. The Lawful king, no matter what he is like, demands you follow him and gives you no choice.

You should note there are few Chaotic kings as power corrupts, no matter what alignment.

Envyus
2015-02-17, 05:10 AM
A person in Cormyr has no choice in life other then to work from dawn to dusk on his lords farm. A person in Thay has no choice in life other then to work from dusk to dawn on his lords farm. Are they exactly the same? Or is one good and one bad?
.

Man your views are alien.

And no in Cormyr is has way more choices. He can choose to not be a farmer for one thing and choose a different occupation if he ever so desires, if he ever wants to leave Cormyr no one is going to stop him other then maybe some friends and family who would ask him not to. Lastly he does not have to work from dawn till dusk on his lords farm he can work when he wants to. He may not get payed for it but that's just common sense.

In Thay their is no choice. You ether leave Thay or prform the role you carve out for yourself in it's society. That Farmer would not work till dawn till dusk on his lords farm in Thay. He would be killed and turned into a skeleton and work on the farm 24 Hours a day as undead don't need rest, food or pay for their work. Unless you can prove that you would be more useful then a corpse in Thay you will become one. Lawful people and a good number of the Red Wizards (Who are mostly lawful evil) hate how Thay currently is and have become Rebels and exiles who want to take their home back from Szass Tam. They still believe in order and lots of them are horrible people, but find Thay but still desire to overthrow Tam.

hamishspence
2015-02-17, 06:41 AM
I'm just copying what the book says.

The wrong book - AD&D 1e, which introduces the 9 alignment system to replace the 3 alignment system - is the relevant one.

Even then, there's been changes in alignment interpretation over time. I think there was a thread on the subject. In older editions, an adventurer who walked into a "CN town" would be expected to feel that "it's a town of madmen".

Not so much in 3.0-3.5 though.

Segev
2015-02-17, 09:45 AM
Well, everyone says that a Lawful person does not have to follow every law, code or rule right? So why not appy the same to Chaotic? They don't have to allow others freedom, but they should. It's exactly like saying a good person does not have to help others 24/7, but they should or an evil person does not have to kill 24/7, but they should.
This is the difference between a fundamental definition and a choice of principles.

WHICH set of laws/rules/traditions the Lawful individual subcribes to is part of his choice. The fundamental principle is that he'll choose one. He might change his mind if he finds he likes another one better, but he will not do so capriciously.

The way that the point in contention about Chaos - that a Chaotic person will always respect freedom, to the point of never ever interfering with anybody else's - is presented is as such a fundamental principle. As a fundamental principle, it is inherently contradictory with the other part of that principle - that the Chaotic person will also not permit his own freedom to be infringed in any way.

A more sensible principle would be that Chaotic people value individual judgment of specific circumstances over rigid codes which may not always apply, and will generally protect their own freedom from constraint by others' tyranny. They may constrain themselves in the name of protecting others' freedom, and they may even act to constrain others who would infringe on others' freedom. Or they may take a wholly selfish view of it and protect only their own, and even trample on others'. This usually is how one can tell where on the moral axis the Chaotic person lies, though there's lots of room for nuance in here.


But if the two wizards met in a tavern and the necromancer said ''I'm going to kill off a village next weekend'', the CG wizard would do something like try and talk him out of it or maybe disrupt his plan through some sort of trickery. Except that disrupting his plan is infringing on his freedom by the earlier argument.


Now look at a Lawful Good person, like the commoner barkeep....they would immediately run to the nearest authority and tattle tale on the necromancer and try and get the law and forces of good to stop him. The lawmen would go over, attack and arrest the necromancer for ''conspiracy to commit mass murder'', put the necromancer in jail and give him his day in court. Actually, unless the law was particularly slanted to value commoner inkeepers' word over that of the guy he's accusing of something, the lawmen would likely come over and ask politely but firmly for the necromancer to answer a few questions.

It really depends on the laws of the area, though, at that point. I mean, if "some tattletale" was actually a lying liar that lies who wanted to accuse Joe Barkeep of having been talking about how he was going to go slaughter a village and raise them as zombies, would the law come down and arrest Joe Barkeep without doing any investigation at all? Probably not, in most functioning societies (though there are some where such draconian tyranny occurs...and they're often NE or CE).





Not a good law for an example. Lets take: Trespassing. Lord Mcscruge says he owns that 100 square miles of land over there by the laws of the land. Joe is hunting and walks onto the lords land, and the lord has Joe attack and arrested and jailed and given a fine and whatever other punishments can be done under the law. Who is oppressed? Joe and everyone else that might want to walk on or use that land.Ah, ownership. Like so many things, it's a concept we inherently grasp from the time we're tiny babies, but trying to define it - and who gets to decide who owns what - is always so tricky.

We usually rely on our less-than-rigorous sense of its meaning, for day-to-day activities. We know what we own, we accept that others know what they own, and we trade or gift ownership via mutual agreement. For other things, particularly real estate, we tend to have more complex legal systems to judge who owns what. We rely on our government for that.

Once you get to international determinations of ownership, particularly of land, however, you actually enter a realm governed by the Chaotic side of the ethics axis. While lawful nations can agree and stick to an agreement, even they have to come to a basis of agreement. Chaotic nations may behave similarly in the end, but they will tend to view the agreement as an acknowledgement of how things fell out, rather than as something to which to adhere.

In any case, deciding who owns something, absent a mutually-respected higher power, is generally a matter of application of force. It can be done with the mere threat, but it leads to war so often because usually, the threat is just not enough.

The example of Peasant Tresspasser and Lord McScruge has at least a tacit implication that Lord McScruge is the local law. If he is, himself, Chaotic, he may use his power capriciously to simply claim the land. If he is, himself, Lawful, he probably has some claim to it via the systems and rules governing land ownership in the government to which he belongs. A hallmark of a chaotic government is autocracy without constraint. A king who is bound by traditions and laws is less a chaotic government than an absolute monarch who literally can throw out or ignore any he finds inconvenient.

If Lord McScruge just sets himself down and decides he's a Lord because he can build a castle and send out soldiers to claim land, then we're in the "international politics" realm of discussion. He's a power who's claimed sovereignty. This could be either LAwful or Chaotic, really; formal declarations are part of Law, but establishing oneself without regard for pre-existing authority can be Chaotic.


So, the question you're asking depends on what we assume the situation is.

If we assume that Lord McScruge is plopping down a claim with naught but brute force to enforce it, then obviously he's the oppressor. It's no different than a gang of thugs declaring an alley "theirs," and kicking out any homeless people who live there.

If we assume that Lord McScruge owns it by some legitimate authority - however we wish to define that - then no, he's not oppressing people by forbidding them to tresspass. He has, for whatever reason, ownership of that land and a right to use it as he pleases. It would be oppressing him to steal that from him.

You could argue whether his treatment of the tresspassers was charitable or cruel, but you cannot argue that he's oppressing them simply based on the fact that he's not letting them use his property as they see fit. No more than you could claim that a poor peasant innkeeper was oppressing a well-off burglar who broke into his storeroom to steal his mead when said peasant innkeeper drives him out with a cudgel.

DodgerH2O
2015-02-17, 11:45 AM
(Nearly everything in the thread thus far, way too much to individually quote)

I disagree with the caricatures of both Law and Chaos you continually put up as your opinions of the alignments. They are useful for the purposes of this thread, showing extreme contrast, but at the gaming table I've never seen such behavior mandated by either alignment, nor have I seen a player or DM ever perform such extreme behavior in an attempt to portray Law or Chaos appropriately.

Sylian
2015-02-17, 11:53 AM
It seems to me that in order to progress we need to discuss what freedom is. Generally, you'd divide it into positive liberty and negative liberty. Negative liberty means freedom from. Things such as freedom of speech (not being restricted or censored), freedom against slavery, and freedom against murder. Would a Chaotic character necessarily respect negative liberty? Not necessarily. Many thieves are depicted as Chaotic, yet they are not respecting others negative liberty when they're stealing from them. Furthermore, Chaotic Evil characters are often seen as murderers, yet when you murder someone you prevent them form exercising their freedoms ever again, unless they are raised from the dead or turned undead. Also, could a Chaotic Evil character not be a kidnapper? I say they could be, but kidnapping is a very clear violation of negative liberty.

Positive liberty, on the other hand, could be seen as freedom to. This means that one actually has the ability to do certain things. Positive liberty is about control of your life. You want to be a painter? That's rather tough if you can't afford any paint. Structural things like racism, sexism, and classism might also limit ones positive freedom.

Do note that many laws are there in order to protect freedom. Without the law, there would be less overall freedom. If criminal gangs were free to blackmail, rob, and murder however they wanted to, they would probably greatly limit the freedoms of others. Laws set in place to limit certain crimes

A Lawful Character, perhaps especially a Lawful Good character, might very well prioritize freedom. An ordered society might provide safety against crimes against liberty, and a Lawful Good character might work hard to increase positive liberty. They might, for instance, work hard to enable people to live their dreams, assuming the dreams don't limit others liberty. They might also work hard to reduce or limit racism, sexism, or classism.

Segev
2015-02-17, 12:03 PM
I'm not sure I can even agree on your definitions of "positive and negative liberty."

Is not freedom of speech a freedom to speak?

"Freedom from slavery" is "freedom to choose your labor."

"Freedom to paint" is "freedom from slavery," as well; just a specific case. Meanwhile, it's not an infringement on your freedom if you happen to not have paints, if you are free to seek the means to acquire them.

If you have a freedom to demand paint be provided so that you can exercise your freedom to paint, is that not slavery or theft? After all, you have to force somebody to either create the paints for you, or to give them to you without recompense they feel is worth the exchange (if they already have them).

Is not freedom from theft freedom to own property?

I don't think it's a meaningful distinction, because in the end, freedom is freedom, and anybody's freedom "to" do something is a freedom "from" somebody else stopping them. Anybody's freedom "from" something is a freedom "to" stop somebody else from doing it.

There's a reason that the philosophy of rights and freedoms amongst those who want to maximise them for everybody tends to center around whether or not your right to swing your fist ends at my face, and then around what constitutes "my face" and "your fist."

It's a simple concept, but as always, the corner cases create the conundrums.

Baxter Konrad
2015-02-17, 12:18 PM
For me, Lawfulness is a strict adherence to a code. This is why I allow things like Lawful Barbarians as a DM; just because they fly into a murderous rage doesn't mean they don't have any concept of honour!

It's also important to remember that Lawfulness is adherence to a code, not all codes. A Lawful judge probably adheres very strongly to the law, whereas a crusading character may adhere to a chivalric code.

I suppose I'd say that for a Lawful character, their code defines them. It's not just a series of rules you live by because that's what's expected; it's an ideal to be upheld and strived toward in all things.

Sylian
2015-02-17, 12:33 PM
A Chaotic king would say ''I think murder is wrong, I would ask that all in my kingdom do not murder. But, everyone has the free will to do so if they wish, with no repercussions from me, the guards or anyone in the government.. But I simply ask you not too. " and leave it at that. So see, note how the king leaves it 100% up to each individual to decide what they want to do. The king is just asking and telling people what he would like to be done. But everyone can decide for them selves.Counter-example: Shojo. Chaotic Good, but he certainly didn't let criminals do whatever they wanted. I'd argue that king would be Chaotic Neutral at best, not Chaotic Good.


A Lawful king says "I think murder is wrong. And I have made it a law: I demand that everyone in my kingdon follow my no murder law! You get no choice! My law is absolute! If you choose to break my law or even think about it I will have you arrested, put and trial and punished." Now, note how this king does not give people any choice. You follow the law....or else.I'm pretty sure it's not illegal to think about breaking the law in most fantasy communities. Anyway, you make Chaotic people seem idealistic to the point of idiocy. Perhaps they should be more pragmatic? If you want to reduce murder, a law against murder would probably help. People might not feel safe if murder were legal.


You do know planning to commit a crime is illegal right? Like say a wizard was making bombs and had plans to blow up the school of magic. And someone found out about it, and told the lawmen. Well, they would go over and arrest the wizard and confiscate his bombs. The lawmen don't just sit there and say ''eh, we will do something after he sets off his bombs''. They stop the crime before it happens.I'd imagine many Chaotic Good characters would do something about it as well. Just letting the wizard finish making his bombs doesn't seem very Good, from a D&D perspective.


I am a lawful person and I think that society must have order. People need structure, and limits, and rules to follow. You simply can not have a society where anyone can do anything. Too many people would go too far, and too many people would be bullied in such chaos. The strong of heart or arm need to have a leash and ones weak of heart or arm need protection. The only way to have a civilized society is for everyone to have a level playing field where everything is fair and balanced. There must be order. And yes, people must give up some of their free will and choice...but it is a very small price to pay for the good of the whole community. What is lost in free will and choice, will be made up with strength and unity. The loss of your free will to murder at will also means that you yourself need not have to worry about others murdering you, for example. And murder is wrong in any case, and no one should want to do it anyway, so making it a rule of law is really a no brainier. The system of order and rules and laws will not be perfect, but it's far better for everyone as opposed to anarchy.This seems like a reasonable description of why a Lawful character might like order.


You have a choice, but the lawful people often have strict set consequences in place if you choose not to follow. A chaotic group of people do not.True, and Lawful people are less likely to bend the rules if needed. However, they do tend to be more predictable. It can be hard to know if a Chaotic person would just shrug it off or punish you even harder than a Lawful person would.



I'm not sure I can even agree on your definitions of "positive and negative liberty."

Is not freedom of speech a freedom to speak?

"Freedom from slavery" is "freedom to choose your labor."They are not quite the same, no. Freedom of speech is basically being permitted to speech without being punished for it. It doesn't necessarily involve having the ability to speech. Your freedom of speech might not have been restricted, but you might still feel like your positive freedom is limited, since you don't have access to any newspaper or radio station where you can broadcast your opinions.


"Freedom to paint" is "freedom from slavery," as well; just a specific case. Meanwhile, it's not an infringement on your freedom if you happen to not have paints, if you are free to seek the means to acquire them.No, I'm afraid you misunderstood me. What I meant with "freedom to paint" is within the realms of positive freedom. You mention "infringement on your freedom", that's essentially what negative freedom is about. Negative freedom is the freedom from having your freedom violated. Positive freedom is the ability to do certain things. For instance, if you want to increase positive freedom when it comes to having options of different occupations, teaching them to read and write might help tremendously. This is positive freedom. Negative freedom means that they shouldn't be stopped from learning how to read and write.


If you have a freedom to demand paint be provided so that you can exercise your freedom to paint, is that not slavery or theft?Yes. One could argue that the increase in positive freedom (when it comes to free education for poor children) is worth the sacrifice in negative freedom, though I suspect that is a more Lawful than Chaotic point of view. Probably partly because Lawful people are more inclined to believe that the government can redistribute founds properly. With that being said, positive freedom doesn't necessarily mean that it ought to be given by society/through the state. If a paladin teaches a child to read, the paladin might have helped expand the child's options without breaking any negative freedoms. If a paladin gives paint to a would-be painter, the paladin might have helped the painter significantly, without violating any negative liberty.

Segev
2015-02-17, 02:12 PM
My point is more that there is no such thing as a positive freedom that is not also a negative freedom, and vice-versa, and therefore, they are meaningless terms which serve only to muddy the issues in question.

Worse, the term "negative freedom" sounds, to those who are not paying close attention (and therefore on the lips of those who would misuse rhetoric to mislead - not that I'm accusing you of this, but rather am being sensitive to the risk), like a bad thing. "Negative freedoms" are clearly things that one should be willing to give up to get more "positive freedoms," right? Because "positive" is good and "negative" is bad!

We already have a word for what you're calling "positive freedom," and it is a freeing concept: opportunity.

You are free to paint if nobody is going to stop you. You have the opportunity to paint if you possess the means or are able to acquire them.

You are free to speak if nobody is going to punish you for doing so. You have the opportunity to be heard if you have a platform and an audience.

(Notably, while the US Constitution guarantees the freedom to speak without fear of oppression by the government, it does not grant you the freedom to be heard. If nobody wants to listen, you have no right to compel them to. Nor to even force others to give you a platform from which to preach.)

You are free from slavery if nobody will (actively) punish you for working only how, when, and where you like. You have the opportunity to work how, when, and where you like if you can produce something which others will pay you for when you do so.


Freedom and opportunity working together can lead to great things, but they are not the SAME thing.

theNater
2015-02-17, 02:38 PM
I disagree with the caricatures of both Law and Chaos you continually put up as your opinions of the alignments. They are useful for the purposes of this thread, showing extreme contrast, but at the gaming table I've never seen such behavior mandated by either alignment, nor have I seen a player or DM ever perform such extreme behavior in an attempt to portray Law or Chaos appropriately.
They really aren't useful, because in addition to being so extreme that they never actually see play(and this is a thread about play), they are straight-up factually wrong in several respects. Really, the only thing they're likely to do is cause confusion.

It seems to me that in order to progress we need to discuss what freedom is. Generally, you'd divide it into positive liberty and negative liberty...
While I can kind of see the distinction you're going for, I don't think it's one that is helpful to this discussion. Good characters are generally interested in promoting the freedoms of others, whether classed as negative or positive; Evil characters are happy to trample the freedoms of others in pursuit of their goals, again without regards to whether it's classed as positive or negative.

veti
2015-02-17, 04:06 PM
The difference is, in a Chaotic view, the consequence comes from the individual or the choices of individuals.

How is that a "difference"? In a lawful system, the police officer who hunts you down, the lawyers who try you, the jurors who vote to convict you, the judge who sentences you, and the jailer who ultimately locks you up - are all individuals, each taking their autonomous decisions that result in the law being enforced. They all have choices - that's why they're there, if they had none we could simply remove them from the process.


The difference is the chaotic king demands nothing. Demands are a Lawful thing. The Chaotic king wants real obeisance and respect given freely. This is a big difference.

To put it another way, a Chaotic king earns the obeisance and respect of his subjects. The Lawful king is the one that demands it....or else.

"Earns it" how, exactly? He's not prepared to defend them, even from each other. He's (presumably) not prepared to help them settle disputes, because that would also be Interfering With Their Freedom. What does he contribute to the kingdom, to "earn" this "respect and obeisance"?

In (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0230.html) my (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0312.html) gaming (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0393.html) and (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0404.html) reading (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0573.html) experience (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0602.html), I (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0662.html) see (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0695.html) no (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0736.html) shortage (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0760.html) of (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0796.html) chaotic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0833.html) people (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0922.html) issuing (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0932.html) demands (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0975.html).


A Chaotic king can rule that way, but he can also just be a good king and make others want to follow him. The Lawful king, no matter what he is like, demands you follow him and gives you no choice.

You should note there are few Chaotic kings as power corrupts, no matter what alignment.

So law == corruption now? That's a new twist.

I suggest the reason there are few Chaotic, by your definition, kings is because if that's how you feel, there's no point being 'king'. I could pronounce myself 'king' by that standard today, and no-one would care or even notice. A king's job is to rule, if you're not doing that then you're not really being a king, you're just sitting on an uncomfortable chair in a silly hat. Of course you could take it anyway, if you have the opportunity - but as soon as they realised what you were doing, your followers would simply start ignoring you and look for another candidate to replace you.


I'm not sure I can even agree on your definitions of "positive and negative liberty."

The principle hasn't been very well articulated here, but it's an important distinction. If you want the long version, it's here (https://www.wiso.uni-hamburg.de/fileadmin/wiso_vwl/johannes/Ankuendigungen/Berlin_twoconceptsofliberty.pdf).


For the 'positive' sense of liberty comes to light if we try to answer the question, not 'What am I free to do or be?', but 'By whom am I ruled?' or 'Who is to say what I am, and what I am not, to be or do?' [...]

One way of making this clear is in terms of the independent momentum which the, initially perhaps quite harmless, metaphor of self-mastery acquired. 'I am my own master', 'I am slave to no man'; but may I not be a slave to nature? Or to my own 'unbridled' passions? Have not men become aware of a self which dominates, and, on the other hand, of something in them which is brought to heel? This dominant self is then variously identified with reason, with my 'higher nature', with my 'real' or 'ideal' or 'autonomous' self, or with my self 'at its best'.

(Quote abbreviated in several places. It's a long lecture. It doesn't even get to this point until page 8 (of 32), in the PDF I'm currently looking at.)

Sylian
2015-02-17, 04:24 PM
Worse, the term "negative freedom" sounds, to those who are not paying close attention (and therefore on the lips of those who would misuse rhetoric to mislead - not that I'm accusing you of this, but rather am being sensitive to the risk), like a bad thing.I'm really not too worried about that. Maybe some people would have a negative gut-reaction towards "negative freedoms", but once they hear it's stuff like freedom of speech and freedom from violence, surely they'll realise negative freedoms are quite good to have.


We already have a word for what you're calling "positive freedom," and it is a freeing concept: opportunity.It is not quite that simple, even if opportunity often is a part of it. I found an interesting example.

"Suppose a rich and powerful actor is also a drug addict. This actor may possess a great deal of Negative Liberty, but very little Positive Liberty according to Taylor. Recall that, by Taylor's definitions, Positive Freedom entails being in a mature state of decision making, free of internal or external restraints (e.g. weakness, fear, ignorance, etc.)." -Wikipedia, on Charles Taylor.

Thus enters another aspect: Internal restraints. If you have a fear of flying, that might limit your positive freedom. You might still be legally allowed to visit the jungle, but your fear of flying might limit you. I don't think this falls under "opportunity", since technically you do have the opportunity to catch a flight.


(Notably, while the US Constitution guarantees the freedom to speak without fear of oppression by the government, it does not grant you the freedom to be heard. If nobody wants to listen, you have no right to compel them to. Nor to even force others to give you a platform from which to preach.)Freedom of speech is typically viewed as a negative freedom, yes.

Anyway, dividing freedom into positive liberty and negative liberty is not entirely uncontroversial. It does seem to be quite common in modern philosophy, although there are critics, certainly. Negative liberty can be summed up as freedom from coercion (which I don't think is really all that complex), while positive liberty is a bit trickier. It's basically the freedom to act, which includes opportunity, freedom from internal restraints, freedom from certain normative structures and thoughts (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc, depending on the individual). Example: A homosexual person might feel more free (and, indeed, arguably be more free) in an open and tolerant society compared to a homophobic society, even if they'd have the same negative rights and no actual violence would be done against them. Same negative liberty in both scenarios, but different positive liberty.

Thus, the Chaotic Good homophobic rogue* might limit his closeted homosexual sister's freedom more than the Lawful Good non-homophobic paladin. Positive liberty is arguably more complex and situational than negative liberty, yet it can often be nearly as important (perhaps even more important in some situations).

*I'm not saying that Chaotic Good rogues are more likely to be homophobic than Lawful Good paladins, it's just an example.


While I can kind of see the distinction you're going for, I don't think it's one that is helpful to this discussion. Good characters are generally interested in promoting the freedoms of others, whether classed as negative or positive; Evil characters are happy to trample the freedoms of others in pursuit of their goals, again without regards to whether it's classed as positive or negative.It was mostly aimed at Darth Ultron. According to him, Lawful Good characters do not respect freedom, while all Chaotic (even Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Evil, if I understood him correctly) do respect freedom. I'm contesting that claim. I do believe that Lawful Good characters can and often do promote freedom,.

I would also like to claim this: Laws might lead to more freedom. They might protect you against negative liberty violations by reducing the overall liberty violations (violent crime, mostly), and they can, in some cases, help promote positive freedom (laws that help poor kids with schooling, for instance).

hamishspence
2015-02-17, 04:29 PM
It was mostly aimed at Darth Ultron. According to him, Lawful Good characters do not respect freedom, while all Chaotic (even Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Evil, if I understood him correctly) do respect freedom. I'm contesting that claim. I do believe that Lawful Good characters can and often do promote freedom.

Agreed. And conversely, it's common for CE characters to take slaves or keep slaves. Raiding a nation - kidnapping a bunch of people - forcing them to do all the non-fighting task - that's exactly the sort of thing you'd expect out of orcs, CE human barbarians, etc.

Darth Ultron
2015-02-17, 06:59 PM
And no in Cormyr is has way more choices. He can choose to not be a farmer for one thing and choose a different occupation if he ever so desires, if he ever wants to leave Cormyr no one is going to stop him other then maybe some friends and family who would ask him not to. Lastly he does not have to work from dawn till dusk on his lords farm he can work when he wants to. He may not get payed for it but that's just common sense.

Well, your not taking into account Lawful things like indentured servitude, apprenticeships, and feudalism. You might be thinking of a bit too modern of a Cormyr.

But even the modern way does not exactly make the person not exactly like a salve. The farmer that has to work 24/7 just to pay his bills, has a life exactly like a slave. But sure, in theory the farmer could give it all up and live under a bridge.


I disagree with the caricatures of both Law and Chaos you continually put up as your opinions of the alignments. They are useful for the purposes of this thread, showing extreme contrast, but at the gaming table I've never seen such behavior mandated by either alignment, nor have I seen a player or DM ever perform such extreme behavior in an attempt to portray Law or Chaos appropriately.

This just shows how middle-of-the-road most people are. They like everything bland and gray.

Just think, how would most people describe a ''good person''? Well, they would be very vague and say the person does ''good deeds''. Same way with an ''evil person'', how do most describe one? Well the evil person does crimes and bad things, in vague ways. People don't really want to be specific....and they don't want to look in the mirror.

And that is on top of the average gamer that has the philosophy of ''everyone is everything or anything, depending on how I feel'.

Tragak
2015-02-17, 07:29 PM
This just shows how middle-of-the-road most people are. They like everything bland and gray. Wait, so 1% of people are Lawful, 1% of people are Chaotic, and 99% of people are Neutral? 0.1%, 0.1%, 99.8%?

When I take online alignment tests, I score ≈70% Chaotic. Would you call that "Neutral" because it is not greater than 99%?

Darth Ultron
2015-02-17, 07:33 PM
It seems to me that in order to progress we need to discuss what freedom is. Generally, you'd divide it into positive liberty and negative liberty.


Think your missing the basic idea of Freedom.

Freedom: The ability of a person to do anything they want, any time, any how, and any way they wish too. There is nothing stopping a person from doing things. Call this pure freedom. This is pure Chaotic.

Limited Freedom: Now this is what lawful does: they take away pure freedom to give everyone limited freedom. A person is free to do what they want, but only with in the structure of the lawful order.

No Freedom. This is where the structure and lawful order take over completely and make everyone a slave to it. This is pure lawful.


Counter-example: Shojo. Chaotic Good, but he certainly didn't let criminals do whatever they wanted. I'd argue that king would be Chaotic Neutral at best, not Chaotic Good.

Note I kept it pure Chaotic, when you add good and evil things change.



I'm pretty sure it's not illegal to think about breaking the law in most fantasy communities. Anyway, you make Chaotic people seem idealistic to the point of idiocy. Perhaps they should be more pragmatic? If you want to reduce murder, a law against murder would probably help. People might not feel safe if murder were legal.

In a fantasy world with mind reading, divination and truthtelling? You'd have ''minority report'' in no time.

And a pure chaotic person is idealistic, that is kind the point.


How is that a "difference"? In a lawful system, the police officer who hunts you down, the lawyers who try you, the jurors who vote to convict you, the judge who sentences you, and the jailer who ultimately locks you up - are all individuals, each taking their autonomous decisions that result in the law being enforced. They all have choices - that's why they're there, if they had none we could simply remove them from the process.

Sure, if you want to twist the word ''individual'' out of context to say ''each person is an individual'' then your statement makes twisted sense. But just note that your ''individuals'' in the legal system are not acting as individuals, they are acting as a collective. They are acting with no free will of their own. All the lawful people just do as they are told. Some times they agree, but some times they don't, but they always do as they are told.(except for extreme situations).

[QUOTE=veti;18835690]
"Earns it" how, exactly? He's not prepared to defend them, even from each other. He's (presumably) not prepared to help them settle disputes, because that would also be Interfering With Their Freedom. What does he contribute to the kingdom, to "earn" this "respect and obeisance"?

Well, dozens of ways. For example: The King might lead a life by example. the king will do things day to day, and show his subjects ''look at how I do things, they work out for me...I suggest you do the same''. And his subjects can decide, of their own free will, to live their life like the king does...or not.



So law == corruption now? That's a new twist.

Well, it's super old. Where you find power, you find corruption. And where you find Lawfulness, you find more corruption then you find with Chaotic.



I suggest the reason there are few Chaotic, by your definition, kings is because if that's how you feel, there's no point being 'king'.

That is simply because most kings are tyrants....because power corrupts


Wait, so 1% of people are Lawful, 1% of people are Chaotic, and 99% of people are Neutral? 0.1%, 0.1%, 99.8%?

No, I'd say 25% Chaotic, 50% Neutral and 25% Lawful.

Gritmonger
2015-02-17, 07:42 PM
Ah, so that's why post-apocalyptic anarchic scenarios are always so idyllic! See, the mob of zombies is the perfect anarchic society - none of them interfere with each other, you see, and they spontaneously cooperatively go for brains as a group.

Chaos is the better choice!

Acacia OnnaStik
2015-02-17, 07:44 PM
But even the modern way does not exactly make the person not exactly like a salve. The farmer that has to work 24/7 just to pay his bills, has a life exactly like a slave. But sure, in theory the farmer could give it all up and live under a bridge.

No.

No, no, no, no, no.

And furthermore, no.

Your obtuseness has been entertaining up till now, but now I have to speak up.

Is there something less-than-truly-free about living hand to mouth or paycheck to paycheck? Sure. But does it involve arbitrary and potentially fatal beatings for minor infractions, or even no infraction at all? Can their creditors rape or kill them with legal impunity? Can the employer of even the most oppressed and degraded of minimum-wage workers just up and decide to sell that worker's children to another company, never to see them again?

No. And none of these things are a distinction without a difference, either. Be an anarchist if you want, but do not try to claim that the rule of law is inherently exactly like slavery.

veti
2015-02-17, 08:08 PM
Sure, if you want to twist the word ''individual'' out of context to say ''each person is an individual'' then your statement makes twisted sense. But just note that your ''individuals'' in the legal system are not acting as individuals, they are acting as a collective. They are acting with no free will of their own. All the lawful people just do as they are told.

So... a person is only a "true individual" when they're being chaotic? If they're choosing through their own free will to be lawful, they're no longer an individual, therefore they're not really "individuals" within the meaning of your creed, therefore - what, exactly? You don't have to respect their "unfree" choices?


Well, dozens of ways. For example: The King might lead a life by example. the king will do things day to day, and show his subjects ''look at how I do things, they work out for me...I suggest you do the same''. And his subjects can decide, of their own free will, to live their life like the king does...or not.

You don't need to be a king to do that - indeed it would be an impediment, because it makes it harder for regular people who aren't kings to identify with you on a personal level. People adopt role models from all walks of life, but more often from those they can easily empathise with. He could accomplish the same good, more easily, by being a bartender or a golfer or a nanny.


Well, it's super old. Where you find power, you find corruption. And where you find Lawfulness, you find more corruption then you find with Chaotic.

"Power corrupts" is an old saying, widely believed to be true. "Lawful is more corrupt than chaotic" is a new claim, which I suspect may be rooted in your idiosyncratic definitions of those two words, and therefore only true if you accept those definitions. (Which, for the record, I emphatically reject.)


That is simply because most kings are tyrants....because power corrupts

You may not be aware that "tyrant" is a technical political term (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrant) with a precise definition. Plato and Aristotle defined it as "one who rules without law" (emphasis added).

And if "power corrupts", surely by your logic it's not "kings" who are in most danger of turning Lawful in a D&D setting - it's "high-level characters". A 20th-level wizard is more powerful than most kings who are not themselves 20th-level wizards.

SiuiS
2015-02-17, 08:18 PM
The difference is, in a Chaotic view, the consequence comes from the individual or the choices of individuals.

Not necessarily. Both lawful and chaotic systems allow individuals to be the source of consequences. It's whether their right to do so is contest able/supportable by an external factor. The difference between a king and mafia boss in action is zero. One has legitimate authority however, and the other just murders people who disobey.

[quotr]
A person in Cormyr has no choice in life other then to work from dawn to dusk on his lords farm. A person in Thay has no choice in life other then to work from dusk to dawn on his lords farm. Are they exactly the same? Or is one good and one bad?

Sembia forces people to be sailors in their navy. Thay forces people to be sailors in their navy. Are they exactly the same? Or is one good and one bad?[/quote]

This is Incorrect in both examples. Choice != every choice is equally good.



I'm just copying what the book says.


Being factual does not mean being relevant. I could quote what a book says too, but I don't think a tale of two cities is worth writing about, in this context. :smalltongue:



The difference is the chaotic king demands nothing. Demands are a Lawful thing. The Chaotic king wants real obeisance and respect given freely. This is a big difference.

Preposterous and completely unsubstantiated. Demands are a living thing, not lawful. All sophonts have demands. Even most nonsapient things do; chimps have socialization based on needs and demands.

The only difference between a lawful ruler and a chaotic ruler is the type of institution they defer responsibility to.

These responses are showing a marked misunderstanding of sociology. Are you trying to build a case for how alignment must work without considering how living creatures form inter relational bonds? Because the one must be informed by the other to have any basis at all.


To put it another way, a Chaotic king earns the obeisance and respect of his subjects. The Lawful king is the one that demands it....or else.

These are not different. This is a false dichotomy. A lawful king could demand respect and get it because his system and laws em amour him to the people. A chaotic leader could earn respect through their ruthlessness and vicious reprisal, which is the same as "or else"


The wrong book - AD&D 1e, which introduces the 9 alignment system to replace the 3 alignment system - is the relevant one.

Even then, there's been changes in alignment interpretation over time. I think there was a thread on the subject. In older editions, an adventurer who walked into a "CN town" would be expected to feel that "it's a town of madmen".

Not so much in 3.0-3.5 though.

I don't believe CN ever really for to be that way in design so much as played that way memetically. But yes.

McStabbington
2015-02-17, 09:54 PM
They are not quite the same, no. Freedom of speech is basically being permitted to speech without being punished for it. It doesn't necessarily involve having the ability to speech. Your freedom of speech might not have been restricted, but you might still feel like your positive freedom is limited, since you don't have access to any newspaper or radio station where you can broadcast your opinions.


Without attempting to get too deep into the philosophical implications, what Segev is arguing is actually a fairly standard critique of the of the positive/negative liberty distinction: that it commits what is known as Reification Fallacy. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_%28fallacy%29) A Reification fallacy isn't the same kind of fallacy as a strawman or red herring, where what you are arguing for or against doesn't actually exist, but rather a fallacy that occurs when one confuses a conceptual distinction for a distinction that exists in concrete form in the real world. If I am right in reading Segev as using this argument, then the argument is not that there's only one box for things labeled "freedoms." Rather, it's that if you tried to put all real world freedoms into one of two boxes, one labeled "things in which negative liberties can be neatly divided from positive liberties", and one labeled "things in which negative liberties and positive liberties are both implicated", every single implication of a liberty interest would fit in the second box, leaving the first box an empty set with no tangible, real-world instantiations.

And to be fair, I don't think that's an invalid critique. A rule against theft implicates someone's negative liberty to be free from unreasonable seizure and usage of their assets against their will. But it also implicates their positive liberty to use their assets as they see fit. Even the most classical version of a "positive" liberty that I can think of offhand, namely that of a hunting or fishing license, which quite literally grants a person access to the taking of a reasonable share of the common goods found in the wild and streams, also comes with it the protection of those same commons for the use and enjoyment of every other person who gets a license at the potential cost of revoking lawful access if you abuse the trust of the government by taking too much or something other than you were entitled to. The point being that when you try and apply that distinction in real world cases, the distinction fairly consistently breaks down.

Even Taylor's conception falls apart when you realize that the distinction he's really making with positive and negative liberties is one of "liberties deprived by state actors" vs. "liberties deprived by non-state actors." Offhand, I don't really see any instrumental difference in the real world between a man prevented from going on a plane because the law forbids him from doing so for some reason, and one prevented from doing so by a crippling fear of heights or enclosed spaces. Either way, he's limited in his ability to travel by plane.

To go further would almost certainly bring the ban hammer down on me, and rightfully so, so I will refrain. I will add only that this kind of distinction that would have puzzled many of the Enlightenment thinkers that really pioneered the concept of "freedom" as we know and use the term, because when they talked about "freedom", they didn't really distinguish freedoms based on who took them. Hobbes, for interest, really did much of the pioneering work in what we would later refer to as "liberty", though he didn't really use the term that much, but he was quick to point out that an anarchical state was horrific precisely because it deprived people of liberty interests despite there being, by definition, no state actor to deprive them. Similarly, Kant was one of the first people to explicitly use the word "freedom" to describe much of what we use the term to describe, but his discussion of the term in the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals was quite emphatically apolitical. Kant was interested solely in individual-level ethics in the Groundwork rather than any macro-level political discussion.

Darth Ultron
2015-02-17, 10:31 PM
Is there something less-than-truly-free about living hand to mouth or paycheck to paycheck? Sure. But does it involve arbitrary and potentially fatal beatings for minor infractions, or even no infraction at all? Can their creditors rape or kill them with legal impunity? Can the employer of even the most oppressed and degraded of minimum-wage workers just up and decide to sell that worker's children to another company, never to see them again?

Arbitrary and potentially fatal beatings for minor infractions, or even no infraction at all? Well, I really should not need to point out that this is very common in Lawful societies.

And to use the Lawful example: Can an employer get the law to come in and rip the children away from a worker and have them never seen again? Well, why yes and employer can do that.



No. And none of these things are a distinction without a difference, either. Be an anarchist if you want, but do not try to claim that the rule of law is inherently exactly like slavery.

My point was more ''slavery is everywhere'' and ''everyone does it''.


So... a person is only a "true individual" when they're being chaotic? If they're choosing through their own free will to be lawful, they're no longer an individual, therefore they're not really "individuals" within the meaning of your creed, therefore - what, exactly? You don't have to respect their "unfree" choices?

Ok, keep in mind a person is an individual unless they merge to form Voltron. A person only has true freedom when they are Chaotic. And yes, a Lawful person gives up a lot of their rights as an individual to become part of the lawful group. That is how Lawful works(assuming you were given the choice, but your not, of course).



You don't need to be a king to do that

Ok? It's still an example of something a Chaotic king can do.



"Power corrupts" is an old saying, widely believed to be true. "Lawful is more corrupt than chaotic" is a new claim, which I suspect may be rooted in your idiosyncratic definitions of those two words, and therefore only true if you accept those definitions. (Which, for the record, I emphatically reject.)

I think you'd find that Lawful Evil rulers are simply the most corrupt of all, just slightly ahead of Lawful Good.



And if "power corrupts", surely by your logic it's not "kings" who are in most danger of turning Lawful in a D&D setting - it's "high-level characters". A 20th-level wizard is more powerful than most kings who are not themselves 20th-level wizards.

First, I did say corruption effects everyone. Second, why would you think corruption would change a persons alignment? If the wizard is Chaotic Good, and became corrupt, he would just be a Chaotic Good corrupt wizard.


Not necessarily. Both lawful and chaotic systems allow individuals to be the source of consequences. It's whether their right to do so is contest able/supportable by an external factor. The difference between a king and mafia boss in action is zero. One has legitimate authority however, and the other just murders people who disobey.

Except, they are both Lawful. Organized Crime...is Lawful. The word ''Organized'' is kinda a hint.... And a crime boss would say he has legitimate authority...and kings do kill people who disobey them.

Let me give an example of a Chaotic Kingdom. The old king passes away. They get a basket and anyone who wishes to be king can put there name in the basket. Then a single name is drawn from the basket, and that person is king. Now for the new king to have any authority, he must convince people to follow him. People have the choice of ignoring the king, or following him. The king would need to form a core power base and branch out.

And just note an example of the Lawful way: The old king passes and his son becomes king. Period. You don't like it, too bad he is king. Accept it or flee the kingdom.

veti
2015-02-17, 10:54 PM
Ok, keep in mind a person is an individual unless they merge to form Voltron. A person only has true freedom when they are Chaotic. And yes, a Lawful person gives up a lot of their rights as an individual to become part of the lawful group. That is how Lawful works(assuming you were given the choice, but your not, of course).

So... "true freedom" means "the freedom to agree with you". Right.


Let me give an example of a Chaotic Kingdom. The old king passes away. They get a basket and anyone who wishes to be king can put there name in the basket. Then a single name is drawn from the basket, and that person is king. Now for the new king to have any authority, he must convince people to follow him. People have the choice of ignoring the king, or following him. The king would need to form a core power base and branch out.

And just note an example of the Lawful way: The old king passes and his son becomes king. Period. You don't like it, too bad he is king. Accept it or flee the kingdom.

The points you seem to think follow from the premises - just don't.

In your "chaotic" kingdom? The new king is someone who actively applied for the job, so there's a good chance they have a plan in mind for making something of it, and a core of people they can rely on to form their starting administration. Yes, people have the choice of ignoring the king or following him; and the king has the choice of punishing people who choose the latter.

In your "lawful way": the old king passes and his son becomes king... okay, but just "being king" doesn't mean very much, as many kings have found to their cost. You still need to persuade people to follow you. "Accept it or flee the kingdom" is only true if the overwhelming majority of people do choose to accept it.

This whole thing about "everyone naturally recognising the Rightful Born King and falling into line behind him" - is just proto-nationalist propaganda claptrap, in real life it doesn't work that way and never has. Not once. Ever.

Envyus
2015-02-17, 11:06 PM
Arbitrary and potentially fatal beatings for minor infractions, or even no infraction at all? Well, I really should not need to point out that this is very common in Lawful societies.

And to use the Lawful example: Can an employer get the law to come in and rip the children away from a worker and have them never seen again? Well, why yes and employer can do that.



My point was more ''slavery is everywhere'' and ''everyone does it''.



Ok, keep in mind a person is an individual unless they merge to form Voltron. A person only has true freedom when they are Chaotic. And yes, a Lawful person gives up a lot of their rights as an individual to become part of the lawful group. That is how Lawful works(assuming you were given the choice, but your not, of course).



Ok? It's still an example of something a Chaotic king can do.



I think you'd find that Lawful Evil rulers are simply the most corrupt of all, just slightly ahead of Lawful Good.



First, I did say corruption effects everyone. Second, why would you think corruption would change a persons alignment? If the wizard is Chaotic Good, and became corrupt, he would just be a Chaotic Good corrupt wizard.



Except, they are both Lawful. Organized Crime...is Lawful. The word ''Organized'' is kinda a hint.... And a crime boss would say he has legitimate authority...and kings do kill people who disobey them.

Let me give an example of a Chaotic Kingdom. The old king passes away. They get a basket and anyone who wishes to be king can put there name in the basket. Then a single name is drawn from the basket, and that person is king. Now for the new king to have any authority, he must convince people to follow him. People have the choice of ignoring the king, or following him. The king would need to form a core power base and branch out.

And just note an example of the Lawful way: The old king passes and his son becomes king. Period. You don't like it, too bad he is king. Accept it or flee the kingdom.

I can't even respond to this. It's just so insane, alien and infuriating.

Gritmonger
2015-02-17, 11:10 PM
I can't even respond to this. It's just so insane, alien and infuriating.

Like I was saying, this guy's idea of utopia is a zombie apocalypse. No rulers, no 'judgement,' just brains. Collected spontaneously and cooperatively when the opportunity presents itself, with no strictures or obligations.

Darth Ultron
2015-02-18, 12:09 AM
In your "chaotic" kingdom? The new king is someone who actively applied for the job, so there's a good chance they have a plan in mind for making something of it, and a core of people they can rely on to form their starting administration. Yes, people have the choice of ignoring the king or following him; and the king has the choice of punishing people who choose the latter.

You don't have to have a plan to be the king. Though it would not hurt at all to have a loyal Lawful adviser think up of one for you... And the chaotic king does not punish people that don't follow him, he believes in free will, remember. He wants others to choose to follow him, not make them follow him.




In your "lawful way": the old king passes and his son becomes king... okay, but just "being king" doesn't mean very much, as many kings have found to their cost. You still need to persuade people to follow you. "Accept it or flee the kingdom" is only true if the overwhelming majority of people do choose to accept it.

The sad truth is, that in a Lawful kingdom, your going to have a lot of Lawful people known as ''sheep''. They willing give up their freedom, independence and even identity to the social order they follow. They are the ''he is king because Lawful'' types.



This whole thing about "everyone naturally recognising the Rightful Born King and falling into line behind him" - is just proto-nationalist propaganda claptrap, in real life it doesn't work that way and never has. Not once. Ever.

Well, sure in a well rounded kingdom with people of all nine alignments, that is how it works. Really only the Lawful Neutral ones do the most ''stepping in line behind the king'', it can vary for everyone else.

And are you saying there has never been a charismatic leader that inspired people to follow him or her?


Like I was saying, this guy's idea of utopia is a zombie apocalypse. No rulers, no 'judgement,' just brains. Collected spontaneously and cooperatively when the opportunity presents itself, with no strictures or obligations.

Um, just as I describe what the alignment Chaotic is like, does not mean I think that is utopia. But, on an unrelated note....I'd love to live in a Zombie Apocalypse! I'd be the ''Glen'' and use the Apocalypse to get me a beautiful woman! Or maybe I'd be....the Governor :)

Hjolnai
2015-02-18, 02:05 AM
Arbitrary and potentially fatal beatings for minor infractions, or even no infraction at all? Well, I really should not need to point out that this is very common in Lawful societies.

And to use the Lawful example: Can an employer get the law to come in and rip the children away from a worker and have them never seen again? Well, why yes and employer can do that.

Arbitrary punishments for no infraction are definitely not Lawful - if anything, they're Chaotic, as it's an action which isn't supported by law. In a non-Evil society, the same should apply for real but minor infractions - the rules won't be written to permit that much suffering. But generally, excessive punishments (whether legal or not) are performed by Evil people (in D&D terms), regardless of Law vs Chaos.



Ok, keep in mind a person is an individual unless they merge to form Voltron. A person only has true freedom when they are Chaotic. And yes, a Lawful person gives up a lot of their rights as an individual to become part of the lawful group. That is how Lawful works(assuming you were given the choice, but your not, of course).


To be part of a Lawful group does involve giving up some rights, but also protecting others. In a society without Law, people have no freedom from murder, theft, violence, etc... other than their own strength or charisma. So, Chaos involves giving up a great many freedoms. Even freedom of speech is as likely to be protected in a Lawful Good society as a Chaotic Good one, since that right will be codified into law. And of course, exercising free speech in a Chaotic Neutral or Evil society may lead to beatings or murder from the person insulted (instead of arrest for a Lawful Neutral/Evil society - and even then only if you're criticizing the governing body). I'd really rather have a freedom from murder than a freedom to murder.



I think you'd find that Lawful Evil rulers are simply the most corrupt of all, just slightly ahead of Lawful Good.


...No. Corruption is illegal in most Lawful societies, and heavily frowned upon. It's directly going against the rules (although it may be traditional in some instances). Corruption is a group of Chaotic acts in a Lawful society, although it may be Lawful in a Chaotic society (where it is traditional). Also, tends toward Evil (though nepotism might be found in Good societies to a lesser or greater degree). For a society to be Lawful Good, corruption cannot be excessive; that would make it at best Lawful Neutral, and more likely True Neutral.



Except, they are both Lawful. Organized Crime...is Lawful. The word ''Organized'' is kinda a hint.... And a crime boss would say he has legitimate authority...and kings do kill people who disobey them.


Organized crime can indeed be Lawful (but not lawful in the non-alignment sense). That's only if it can manage a stable pattern, though - a war between two crime bosses causes chaos, and is generally a result of the bosses being unable to make (and stick to) a deal - i.e. being Chaotic. Also, organized criminals tend to be more professional - as a victim, you're more likely to be successfully robbed by organized criminals, but less likely to be murdered. This is unpleasant, but better than the alternative in my view.



Let me give an example of a Chaotic Kingdom. The old king passes away. They get a basket and anyone who wishes to be king can put there name in the basket. Then a single name is drawn from the basket, and that person is king. Now for the new king to have any authority, he must convince people to follow him. People have the choice of ignoring the king, or following him. The king would need to form a core power base and branch out.

And just note an example of the Lawful way: The old king passes and his son becomes king. Period. You don't like it, too bad he is king. Accept it or flee the kingdom.

Your example of a so-called Chaotic kingdom has some Lawful traits. If this is the way the King is always chosen, it is traditional; respect for traditions is Lawful. The example of royal inheritance is indeed Lawful, but so is a democracy.


In general, Darth Ultron, I will echo others by saying I do not understand your view of Chaos or Law. Your attribution of "pure good freedom" to Chaos doesn't make sense to me either - some laws increase freedom, by (for example) banning slavery - if there's no law, or if it's not enforced with violence, slavery can persist wherever one person has the power to hold another. Of course, a law permitting slavery does the opposite, and many laws do decrease freedom - but not all of them.

Darth Ultron
2015-02-18, 02:40 AM
Arbitrary punishments for no infraction are definitely not Lawful - if anything, they're Chaotic, as it's an action which isn't supported by law. In a non-Evil society, the same should apply for real but minor infractions - the rules won't be written to permit that much suffering. But generally, excessive punishments (whether legal or not) are performed by Evil people (in D&D terms), regardless of Law vs Chaos.

This kinda falls back on ''if a good person does it, it's good and if an evil person does it, it's evil''. And arbitrary punishments for no infraction are definitely Lawful, take for just one example Lawful Evil organized crime.




To be part of a Lawful group does involve giving up some rights, but also protecting others. In a society without Law, people have no freedom from murder, theft, violence, etc... other than their own strength or charisma. So, Chaos involves giving up a great many freedoms. Even freedom of speech is as likely to be protected in a Lawful Good society as a Chaotic Good one, since that right will be codified into law. And of course, exercising free speech in a Chaotic Neutral or Evil society may lead to beatings or murder from the person insulted (instead of arrest for a Lawful Neutral/Evil society - and even then only if you're criticizing the governing body). I'd really rather have a freedom from murder than a freedom to murder.

This is what the vast majority of Lawful people think.




...No. Corruption is illegal in most Lawful societies, and heavily frowned upon. It's directly going against the rules (although it may be traditional in some instances). Corruption is a group of Chaotic acts in a Lawful society, although it may be Lawful in a Chaotic society (where it is traditional). Also, tends toward Evil (though nepotism might be found in Good societies to a lesser or greater degree). For a society to be Lawful Good, corruption cannot be excessive; that would make it at best Lawful Neutral, and more likely True Neutral.

Um....you can't really make ''corruption'' illegal, it's like making ''bad ideas'' illegal. Corruption has nothing to do with being Chaotic. And Corruption has the potential to effect everyone in power. And is Corruption frowned upon? Er, not so much: a lobbyist that gives a donation is exactly like a person that gives a bribe. And Lawful Good, might be the worst for Corruption sometimes...as most people ''won't believe it's happening'' and the drive to ''do good'' can be a little too strong.




Organized crime can indeed be Lawful (but not lawful in the non-alignment sense). That's only if it can manage a stable pattern, though - a war between two crime bosses causes chaos, and is generally a result of the bosses being unable to make (and stick to) a deal - i.e. being Chaotic. Also, organized criminals tend to be more professional - as a victim, you're more likely to be successfully robbed by organized criminals, but less likely to be murdered. This is unpleasant, but better than the alternative in my view..

It's not like Lawful people don't start wars and kill people.




Your example of a so-called Chaotic kingdom has some Lawful traits. If this is the way the King is always chosen, it is traditional; respect for traditions is Lawful. The example of royal inheritance is indeed Lawful, but so is a democracy.

Yea....but it's a nitpicky one. It's like saying ''eating'' is a tradition, and everyone eats every day so everyone is Lawful.




In general, Darth Ultron, I will echo others by saying I do not understand your view of Chaos or Law. Your attribution of "pure good freedom" to Chaos doesn't make sense to me either - some laws increase freedom, by (for example) banning slavery - if there's no law, or if it's not enforced with violence, slavery can persist wherever one person has the power to hold another. Of course, a law permitting slavery does the opposite, and many laws do decrease freedom - but not all of them.

I don't get why it does not make sense. I get that you, and others, don't like ''pure freedom'', but why can't you get it?

You really think that if humans had pure freedom there would be overwhelming evil? You really think most people would choose to not be good, if they were given the choice?

The Purge might be a great example here. If there was no Law Enforcement for 24 hours, and anyone could do anything they wanted with no fear of repercussions, what do you think would happen?

hamishspence
2015-02-18, 03:04 AM
This is what the vast majority of Lawful people think.


And the vast majority of Good people as well. You never hear of CG characters championing the "freedom to murder" in D&D sourcebooks.

Hjolnai
2015-02-18, 03:08 AM
I don't get why it does not make sense. I get that you, and others, don't like ''pure freedom'', but why can't you get it?

You really think that if humans had pure freedom there would be overwhelming evil? You really think most people would choose to not be good, if they were given the choice?

The Purge might be a great example here. If there was no Law Enforcement for 24 hours, and anyone could do anything they wanted with no fear of repercussions, what do you think would happen?

You say that without Law there is "pure freedom". I disagree. Without laws, your freedom ends wherever someone more powerful wants it to. With laws, it ends where the law says it does - which is effectively the same thing, except that many legal systems apply equally to everyone (or at least are meant to). Let's say someone is physically strong, and you are not as much. Then in the absence of any authority, you have no freedom to own anything which that person wants - he/she can just take it (unless you live right next to someone even stronger). You have no freedom to wander where you want if that person wants to stop you. Lawful authority can put a stop to that (forming a group to protect yourself leads to Lawful behaviour sooner or later). Of course, Lawful authority can support the violent thief - which is one of the reasons that modern democracy is preferable to monarchy/nobility (but both are inherently Lawful).

Basically, my point is that the absence of Law is freedom for the most powerful, but not for anyone else. I cannot call that state "pure freedom", and it baffles me that you would.

SiuiS
2015-02-18, 03:30 AM
Except, they are both Lawful. Organized Crime...is Lawful. The word ''Organized'' is kinda a hint.... And a crime boss would say he has legitimate authority...and kings do kill people who disobey them.

A monarchy is systematized. A crime organization means only a series of criminal actions which have a formation in hindsight. Organization is an acknowledgement of relationships. Relationships are when there is more than one person and they interact.

For proof of this, you can note that a crime boss doesn't need to be in organized crime. People will align with and behind a strong individual naturally, because that's what they do. This is, in fact, the defining point of chaotic systems historically; ogres banded together behind stronger ogres or were the strong ogre others banded behind. They were still chaotic, despite this banding.

Lawful and chaotic refers whether a society is systematized or emergent.


Let me give an example of a Chaotic Kingdom. The old king passes away. They get a basket and anyone who wishes to be king can put there name in the basket. Then a single name is drawn from the basket, and that person is king. Now for the new king to have any authority, he must convince people to follow him. People have the choice of ignoring the king, or following him. The king would need to form a core power base and branch out.

You say this is an example of a chaotic king. You have not established this man as a king, as having a kingdom, or as being chaotic.


And just note an example of the Lawful way: The old king passes and his son becomes king. Period. You don't like it, too bad he is king. Accept it or flee the kingdom.

You say this is how the lawful form of monarchy works. This is not how historical monarchy works, universally. You have not established this as lawful whatsoever. You HAVE established that people under this king have choices and are free to make them, which implies a chaotic system.

Segev
2015-02-18, 10:22 AM
"Power corrupts" is an old saying, widely believed to be true.My favorite refinement of it is, "Power attracts corruptible people." It feels like a truer statement: those who are corruptible will tend to seek power, because it aids them in their corrupt goals.

One might make a similar argument about good people, but (perhaps) sadly, most incorruptible people only really start seeking power when they notice that corruption has started making the power positions impede their and their neighbors' ability to live without corruption.



"Lawful is more corrupt than chaotic" is a new claim, which I suspect may be rooted in your idiosyncratic definitions of those two words, and therefore only true if you accept those definitions. (Which, for the record, I emphatically reject.)Yeah...Ultron's definitions of Law and Chaos are, quite frankly, self-contradictory. His definition of chaos alone is unattainable if you have more than one being and they're able to interact in any meaningful fashion.


If I am right in reading Segev as using this argument, then the argument is not that there's only one box for things labeled "freedoms." Rather, it's that if you tried to put all real world freedoms into one of two boxes, one labeled "things in which negative liberties can be neatly divided from positive liberties", and one labeled "things in which negative liberties and positive liberties are both implicated", every single implication of a liberty interest would fit in the second box, leaving the first box an empty set with no tangible, real-world instantiations.That is a nice analogy for my position. Thank you for articulating it.


Even Taylor's conception falls apart when you realize that the distinction he's really making with positive and negative liberties is one of "liberties deprived by state actors" vs. "liberties deprived by non-state actors." Offhand, I don't really see any instrumental difference in the real world between a man prevented from going on a plane because the law forbids him from doing so for some reason, and one prevented from doing so by a crippling fear of heights or enclosed spaces. Either way, he's limited in his ability to travel by plane. I haven't read Taylor, admittedly. My first exposure to the term "negative liberties" was...such that I probably shouldn't go into more detail lest I violate ToU. It did, however, inform my position that the term is a biasing one.

Worse, I have seen people try to argue that "freedom of speech" is, in fact, a bad thing because it's a "negative liberty." Relying almost wholly on emotional language and the use of terms such as "hate speech" and the oft-mentioned "can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater" argument, but still, the "negative liberty" terminology was likely deliberately chosen for its biasing connotations.

So from a rhetorical standpoint, I dislike it. And from a rational standpoint, McStabbington has laid out well why I think it's not a useful distinction. To reiterate: any "positive liberty" is inherently also a "negative liberty," and vice-versa, when implemented in the real world.



Arbitrary and potentially fatal beatings for minor infractions, or even no infraction at all? Well, I really should not need to point out that this is very common in Lawful societies. Um, no? Not even in Lawful Evil societies. Lawful Evil always requires SOME sort of infraction, because the law specifies who it's okay to beat, when, and why.

Even if that infraction happens to be "being half-human," it's still an infraction. Just a decidedly evil law to make it an infraction. And it's not arbitrary: the law says that half-humans can and should be beaten. That's the reason the beating occurs: you're half-human.

In contrast, a CN or CE nation can have a lot of rules...that apply to those beneath the ruler. But the CN or CE ruler can make them up and change them and ignore them as he likes. He's the boss, so what he says, goes. So if he decides that he wants you beaten, you get beaten. Heck, if one of his underlings decides it and he doesn't care, you get beaten.


And to use the Lawful example: Can an employer get the law to come in and rip the children away from a worker and have them never seen again? Well, why yes and employer can do that. This is a false statement. No employer in the USA has the legal power to do so.




My point was more ''slavery is everywhere'' and ''everyone does it''.And it is a point that's been refuted soundly.




A person only has true freedom when they are Chaotic. And yes, a Lawful person gives up a lot of their rights as an individual to become part of the lawful group. That is how Lawful works(assuming you were given the choice, but your not, of course).You also give up a lot of your rights to be your definition of Chaotic. You give up all right to anything you cannot protect, because others who are stronger, faster, or more wiley will simply take what they want from you. Heck, by your definition, you DARE NOT stop them: to do so would be to violate THEIR freedom.




Ok? It's still an example of something a Chaotic king can do.Not and remain a king in anything but name. He isn't doing his job. He isn't solving any problems, defending his subjects from foreign or domestic threats, or anything. He's effectively dissolved his kingdom. Thus, by definition, he is no longer a king.




I think you'd find that Lawful Evil rulers are simply the most corrupt of all, just slightly ahead of Lawful Good. False. Corruption has a definition. It occurs when somebody abuses a position which they ostensibly hold for the benefit of the organization to instead benefit themselves, specifically at the expense of those they are intended to serve.

A LE person may well engage in significant corruption. The rules can be twisted without being broken such that he benefits, even if it costs others. They can be used to punish those he doesn't like. So they are. The LG person would balk at the notion of choosing interpretations of rules which actually harm the organization he is meant to be serving, even if it would benefit himself. He would find the idea of using the rules as a weapon against people he doesn't like repugnant. LG people are often so concerned about avoiding being corrupt that they will turn to others in their organization if they fear there exists a potential conflict of interest. "I would not wish to have my personal interest in this matter color my judgment, so I formally request somebody more impartial take it on."


First, I did say corruption effects everyone. Second, why would you think corruption would change a persons alignment? If the wizard is Chaotic Good, and became corrupt, he would just be a Chaotic Good corrupt wizard.Corruption is pretty much intrinsically tied with evil. It is a form of selfishness, and it is at the expense of others. It by definition causes you to slip down the morality axis towards evil. Perhaps not precipitously, but it does start the slide.

Sylian
2015-02-18, 11:36 AM
Think your missing the basic idea of Freedom.

Freedom: The ability of a person to do anything they want, any time, any how, and any way they wish too. There is nothing stopping a person from doing things. Call this pure freedom. This is pure Chaotic.

Limited Freedom: Now this is what lawful does: they take away pure freedom to give everyone limited freedom. A person is free to do what they want, but only with in the structure of the lawful order.

No Freedom. This is where the structure and lawful order take over completely and make everyone a slave to it. This is pure lawful.I agree that pure individual freedom would mean being able to do whatever you want, and also, somehow, having the ability to want anything. The first requires omnipotence, while the second requires, I don't know... The utter ability to control your own mind? Though I suppose omnipotence covers that. Realistically, no D&D character expect perhaps the High God of the setting (assuming there is one) would fall under pure freedom. Still, it's not too hard to imagine a Chaotic Evil character that does whatever they feel like, whenever they feel like. An epic level Wizard would have quite a bit of freedom. Of course, this also means that the wizard is able to enslave and coerce others, something you seem to think Chaotic characters won't do. You might object that Chaotic Evil isn't pure chaotic. Granted, but... What is? Chaotic Neutral? Would someone like Jack Sparrow (arguably Chaotic Neutral) ever kidnap someone? I think it's plausible.

Realistically speaking, pretty much all freedom will be limited freedom. Most people lack the ability to do whatever they want, after all. Anyway, limited freedom is the realistic goal. Is it better to limit someone else's freedom in order to increase overall freedom and protect others negative freedom? Most Lawful and Neutral types would say yes, assuming they value freedom at all (not everyone does).

Now, given the choice between passing a law that punishes kidnappers, and letting kidnappers kidnap as much as they wish, what should someone wanting to maximize freedom do? Arguably support the law. The law will help decrease the overall amount of kidnappings, thus fewer people have their negative freedom violated. Let's assume the kidnapper gains 30 units of freedom* from being able to kidnap, while the kidnapped loses 150 units of freedom. By allowing kidnapping, the overall amount of freedom is lower.

So, having a law leads to more overall freedom. A Chaotic Good person might very well accept a law against kidnapping (but would probably be vary of certain other laws, and might be vary of the practitioners of law and the authorities).

*The numbers are arbitrary.

Also, note that monks tend to be lawful.

I imagine non-coercion is a common ideal for some Chaotic Good people, although I don't think it's necessary for Chaotic Good people to be non-coercive. And certainly not for Chaotic Neutral people.


In a fantasy world with mind reading, divination and truthtelling? You'd have ''minority report'' in no time.Lawful Good people tend to like rights. It's not implausible to think that some believe in the right to privacy. Also, magic is often quite limited, and going around scanning people thought-crime would be very taxing. With that being said, I cannot deny that it's a possibility. There was a Lawful Good/Lawful Neutral society in Dragonlance that worked like that, all in the name of Good. Most Lawful societies tend to be less totalitarian, although it is true that some Lawful people try to control others a bit too much.


And a pure chaotic person is idealistic, that is kind the point.Now, this "pure" thing seems rather recent. What constitutes a "pure Chaotic person"? Real people are not purely Lawful or purely Chaotic. A pure Lawful being would be similar to an inevitable, a pure Chaotic being would be similar to a chaos beast. Humans and elves and other humanoids are never or almost never purely Lawful or purely Chaotic.


No, I'd say 25% Chaotic, 50% Neutral and 25% LawfulWhile those numbers might be right using different definitions of Lawful and Chaotic, with your definitions I find them a bit high. Both Lawful people and Chaotic people are described by you to act in certain manners that, to me, seems very far from how 90%+ of the real world population acts.

Envyus
2015-02-18, 01:02 PM
The closest creature we have to pure chaotic in D&D are the Slaadi. Who are insane Frog creatures that are known to cause horrible death through their bizzare reproduction system and just run around causing problems for no reason. They don't respect others freedoms only their freedom matters and the spread of entropy. They only obey other stronger Slaadi due fear of death, the stronger slaad don't care what their leasers want, they just want to do whatever they want in their chaotic minds.

Darth Ultron
2015-02-18, 02:48 PM
And the vast majority of Good people as well. You never hear of CG characters championing the "freedom to murder" in D&D sourcebooks.

True. But you want to note first when I say Chaotic, I'm covering all three chaotic alignments. Second, it will depend on what ''murder'' is. And third, plenty of CG vigilantes do kill criminals or evil people in the name of good...and that is still ''murder'' under a law that says it is.


You say that without Law there is "pure freedom". I disagree. Without laws, your freedom ends wherever someone more powerful wants it to. With laws, it ends where the law says it does - which is effectively the same thing, except that many legal systems apply equally to everyone (or at least are meant to).


With laws a persons freedom ends where every the powerful people that make and enforce the laws say it ends. The Lawful persons freedom is at the whim of the powerful people.




Let's say someone is physically strong, and you are not as much. Then in the absence of any authority, you have no freedom to own anything which that person wants - he/she can just take it (unless you live right next to someone even stronger). You have no freedom to wander where you want if that person wants to stop you. Lawful authority can put a stop to that (forming a group to protect yourself leads to Lawful behaviour sooner or later). Of course, Lawful authority can support the violent thief - which is one of the reasons that modern democracy is preferable to monarchy/nobility (but both are inherently Lawful).

And lets say a person lives in a Lawful land, and the king wants to make a new road. And the persons farm is in the way. Well, the Lawful king can just seize the farm. And any Lawful person can be just as much of a bully as anyone else. And a Lawful land is really the poster child for such things as ''no one can move throughout the land without papers approved by the law''.

The truth is: the powerful will always control or prey on the weak, no matter what alignment.



You say this is an example of a chaotic king. You have not established this man as a king, as having a kingdom, or as being chaotic.

Ok? I do establish in this post that my fictional king example from a couple of pages ago has a kingdom and is chaotic.



You say this is how the lawful form of monarchy works. This is not how historical monarchy works, universally. You have not established this as lawful whatsoever. You HAVE established that people under this king have choices and are free to make them, which implies a chaotic system.

So for my one example of a Lawful form of monarchy, you say that historically no monarchy in the history of the world has ever passed the ruling power from father to son? Really?



Um, no? Not even in Lawful Evil societies. Lawful Evil always requires SOME sort of infraction, because the law specifies who it's okay to beat, when, and why.

Well, I guess this will go to the word play of ''infraction''. And how about when the law says ''The Order of Beaters can beat up anyone they see doing wrong''.




This is a false statement. No employer in the USA has the legal power to do so.

Not sure what you mean about ''legal power'', but they can sure report them to the law and spin like crazy. And saying ''it's not true in one country at one time'' really does not say much worldwide and throughout time.




You also give up a lot of your rights to be your definition of Chaotic. You give up all right to anything you cannot protect, because others who are stronger, faster, or more wiley will simply take what they want from you. Heck, by your definition, you DARE NOT stop them: to do so would be to violate THEIR freedom.

That is the negative view of freedom. Just like the negative view of order is slavery. I know you would not say every lawful person is a slave, so everyone does not follow your negative version of freedom.



Not and remain a king in anything but name. He isn't doing his job. He isn't solving any problems, defending his subjects from foreign or domestic threats, or anything. He's effectively dissolved his kingdom. Thus, by definition, he is no longer a king.

Wow, you sure assumed a lot by just one line. I say ''Ok? It's still an example of something a Chaotic king can do.'' and you leap to ''he is not doing his job or anything''. Based on what exactly?



False. Corruption has a definition. It occurs when somebody abuses a position which they ostensibly hold for the benefit of the organization to instead benefit themselves, specifically at the expense of those they are intended to serve.

Where do you get that definition? My dictionary says Corruption occurs when an office-holder or other governmental employee acts in an official capacity for personal gain.

And yes, most people see corruption as evil, but there are just as many corrupt good people as evil people.

Segev
2015-02-18, 03:16 PM
And lets say a person lives in a Lawful land, and the king wants to make a new road. And the persons farm is in the way. Well, the Lawful king can just seize the farm. And any Lawful person can be just as much of a bully as anyone else. And a Lawful land is really the poster child for such things as ''no one can move throughout the land without papers approved by the law''.Actually, that depends on the laws and traditions of the land. It is typically a hallmark of lawful lands that even the king is subject to the laws. And he cannot typically change them on a whim.

This is actually a major deal in at least two specific historical instances I can think of, and is often a plot issue in various fictions relating to the pseudo-medieval times our typical Fantasy setting tries to emulate.

1) King Darius issued a proclamation about everybody in his land bowing and praying to none save himself for a certain period of time. When his favored servant, Danial, placed his religious beliefs above his fear of the King, Darius regretted the law because he still had to enforce the punishment for its breaking.

2) The Magna Carta, in England, was expressly about forcing the King of England to acknowledge that he was subject to the law, not above it.

Both Darius's Persia and England's use of the Magna Carta are considered impressive representations of the rule of law (as opposed to the rule of men). This is because they established that even the potentate is subject to the law.

The United States took it further when it postulated in its Constitution that all men are equal in the sight of the law.

So, no. Unless the laws are written specifically to allow the King to exercise imminent domain in the circumstance of building a road, he cannot. Not in a Lawful society.

Now, in a Chaotic kingdom, the King's whim is all that matters. He can take that farmer's farm for any reason at all, since his word is all that rules the land.


The truth is: the powerful will always control or prey on the weak, no matter what alignment.No, that's the rule of power. It happens to be a truth, but the alignment of the ruler(s) will determine a lot about how much this is done at the expense of the weak.

Lawful societies tend to be about banding the strength of many together for mutual benefit. Lawful Neutral ones pass laws they think benefit themselves and strive to maintain them. Lawful Good ones will want to additionally benefit all who might potentially be joining the society, and strive to preserve ability for individuals to pursue happiness while minimizing harm they can do to each other (and which can be done by the individually powerful). Lawful Evil societies tend to be rife with corruption, by the definition you use in the block I quote below, because they view law as a tool to gain power in spite of personal strength or weakness. As a way to coopt group power for their personal benefit. Though again, they recognize that even if their power is coopted, it's better than if it were crushed by that individually powerful dude over there. "At least in a LE society," thinks the LE person, "I have recourse to the law rather than having to just hope I have strong enough fists."



So for my one example of a Lawful form of monarchy, you say that historically no monarchy in the history of the world has ever passed the ruling power from father to son? Really? That's quite the obvious logical fallacy, to claim that because it has happened at least once, your claim that it is what always happens without exception is correct.




Well, I guess this will go to the word play of ''infraction''. And how about when the law says ''The Order of Beaters can beat up anyone they see doing wrong''.Ah, but a Lawful society will then go on to specify what "doing wrong" means. Again: with a Lawful society, you will know what you have to do to avoid those beatings. It may or may not be practical or possible, but you know what it is. (Or, at least, it is knowable. Ignorance of the law is possible, obviously.)


Not sure what you mean about ''legal power'', but they can sure report them to the law and spin like crazy. And saying ''it's not true in one country at one time'' really does not say much worldwide and throughout time.When you say "employers can do this in a lawful society," you are implying that they have the authority, granted by virtue of law, to unilaterally decide to take away somebody's chlidren.

You especially imply this when you use that statement as a refutation of the claim that there is a far cry from being able to deny pay if people don't work a certain amount to being able to take away their children and sell them to somebody else.

To try to dance around later and claim that just because the USA doesn't do it doesn't mean it never happens is fallacious in the extreme, since your statements again made the claim that something is true under all Lawful societies, not that there have existed Lawful societies that did it.

Nobody disputes that LE has existed. Nor that LE can exist. We dispute your claims that Law innately leads to these things.


That is the negative view of freedom. Just like the negative view of order is slavery. I know you would not say every lawful person is a slave, so everyone does not follow your negative version of freedom.Hardly.

I have a very positive view of freedom. I have a very realistic view of anarchy. Anarchy is what you describe, not freedom.

By your statement, freedom is the ability to do anything you want without constraint by others. That means that, if you wish to constrain others, freedom is the ability to do so. Which means that, for somebody to have 100% freedom as you define it, nobody else can. Because whoever has 100% freedom has the freedom to constrain others' freedom, rendering theirs less than 100%.

This is not a "negative view" of freedom. It is a purely logical analysis of the consequences of your premises.

Your claim that "the negative view of law" means "everybody's a slave" is equivalent is equally fallacious. "Slave" has a meaning, and it is not "obligated to obey laws."




Wow, you sure assumed a lot by just one line. I say ''Ok? It's still an example of something a Chaotic king can do.'' and you leap to ''he is not doing his job or anything''. Based on what exactly?Based on the quote to which what I quote you as saying was responding.

The full chain of discussion started with you claiming that a "chaotic king" would not issue any decrees, would not enforce any rules, and would only make suggestions and live as he thinks others should, hoping they'll follow his example. If he is not making decrees, issuing judgments in the case of disputes, and using force to protect his lands, the lands of his subjects, and their freedom from foreign aggressors and each others' potential malice, he is not doing his job as King.

All of that extends from your statement that he would not issue laws nor in any way impinge on anybody's freedom. That means, by your own definitions, that he would not arrest people who abuse each other, he would do nothing to prevent one citizen from arresting, enslaving, or killing another, etc.




Where do you get that definition? My dictionary says Corruption occurs when an office-holder or other governmental employee acts in an official capacity for personal gain.

And yes, most people see corruption as evil, but there are just as many corrupt good people as evil people.

Fine, we can use that definition. The reason it's a bad thing is because acting in such a capacity for personal gain often leads to acting in a way that is detrimental to those you are meant to be serving. It is compatible with my definition. Yours just leaves room for the slim possibility that acting for your own best interests in an official capacity might not be detrimental to those in whose interests your official capacity is meant to serve.

To be fair, though, if you don't have an implicit understanding that it means "at the expense of what you're supposed to be doing," then all actions are corrupt, because the very act of doing your job well helps you by making you more desirable in that job and thus letting you keep it.

But that's twisting the literal meaning around so much that any serious discussion will laugh one trying to make that claim out of the room.

veti
2015-02-18, 04:03 PM
You don't have to have a plan to be the king. Though it would not hurt at all to have a loyal Lawful adviser think up of one for you... And the chaotic king does not punish people that don't follow him, he believes in free will, remember. He wants others to choose to follow him, not make them follow him.

You don't have to have a plan to be king, but there's nothing to stop you. Therefore, some candidates very likely will. And all other things being equal, they'll be more successful, because that's what "having a plan" means.

A chaotic good king probably won't punish those who reject him, but a chaotic evil king might well. And a chaotic neutral one - well, who knows what they'll do? There's nothing to stop them from punishing people for anything and nothing.


The sad truth is, that in a Lawful kingdom, your going to have a lot of Lawful people known as ''sheep''. They willing give up their freedom, independence and even identity to the social order they follow. They are the ''he is king because Lawful'' types.

And here we have the real agenda. In your mind, as you've explained it to this point, people who disagree with you - are not really people at all, and therefore their opinions have no relevance or value. You just can't conceive that an individual - not a king, not an official, just nobody in particular - could sit down and work out, from first principles, that laws and tradition have a positive value to them personally.

Now, dozens of philosophers have done exactly that. Most famously Hobbes, but also Locke, Voltaire, Rousseau and countless lesser-known figures who had no particularly exciting privileges within society, but who came to the rational conclusion that they were far more free within than without it.

But according to you, it seems these people were not "truly free" because... well, basically they can't have been, because they didn't agree with you, which seems to be the current definition of "true freedom".


And are you saying there has never been a charismatic leader that inspired people to follow him or her?

No, I'm not saying and I didn't say anything like that. A "charismatic leader that inspires people" is an example - indeed, such an obvious example that I assumed it was what you had in mind when you wrote it - of the Chaotic leader of whom you said "Now for the new king to have any authority, he must convince people to follow him."

What I'm saying is that the whole "the king is determined by birth and everyone just falls in behind this" is bunk, at least in a system where the king is important enough that anyone actually gives a flying fig who it is. It's an idea that was deliberately and calculatingly invented for (partly but not entirely) self-serving reasons by various monarchs (and their henchpeople, such as a guy you may have heard of called Shakespeare) towards the tail end of the Renaissance, when people began to understand the political power of such myths.

SiuiS
2015-02-18, 04:10 PM
Freedom: The ability of a person to do anything they want, any time, any how, and any way they wish too. There is nothing stopping a person from doing things. Call this pure freedom. This is pure Chaotic.

Freedom != chaos. Freedom != chaotic. Because lawful societies have this. I live in a lawful society. I can go and so literally any action I wish to, whenever I want.

The freedom to do anything is not freedom from consequences for what you do. Consequences are about the responses of others, not your own freedoms.



Well, it's super old. Where you find power, you find corruption. And where you find Lawfulness, you find more corruption then you find with Chaotic.

This is factually untrue, and if you're using a specific definition of corruption, it is still easily disproven.


True. But you want to note first when I say Chaotic, I'm covering all three chaotic alignments. Second, it will depend on what ''murder'' is. And third, plenty of CG vigilantes do kill criminals or evil people in the name of good...and that is still ''murder'' under a law that says it is.

Which is why weird of outlawry, trial, jurisdiction and territory exist.



With laws a persons freedom ends where every the powerful people that make and enforce the laws say it ends. The Lawful persons freedom is at the whim of the powerful people.


A chaotic person'a freedom also ends where the powerful people say it does. That's how chaotic rulers function. Chaotic rulers are not above or beyond angry reprisal. It in fact defines their organization principles.



Ok? I do establish in this post that my fictional king example from a couple of pages ago has a kingdom and is chaotic.


No you do not. You say "chaotic" and "king" but you go on to demonstrate the man in question is not a ruler at all and the system isn't shown to be chaotic, it is shown to be whimsical.



So for my one example of a Lawful form of monarchy, you say that historically no monarchy in the history of the world has ever passed the ruling power from father to son? Really?

It is interesting that you choose a strawman instead of my actual statement.

Not every monarch has passed power from father to son. This is why the terms heir apparent and heir designant exist. Sometimes power was passed to daughters. Sometimes to nephews. Or siblings. Or cousins. Or voted in. Or given to someone outside the family because none of the descendents were fit.



That is the negative view of freedom. Just like the negative view of order is slavery. I know you would not say every lawful person is a slave, so everyone does not follow your negative version of freedom.

You are confusing common and accepted expressions of a principle for a principle itself.

You are also using emotionally charged language. What is "slavery" to you? I am curious why you use that word the way you do. Does it account for say, Scandinavian enslavement, where you're a member of society and just have to work your way up the social ladder? Or are you thinking only whips and chains chattel slavery?



Wow, you sure assumed a lot by just one line. I say ''Ok? It's still an example of something a Chaotic king can do.'' and you leap to ''he is not doing his job or anything''. Based on what exactly?

Based on two things.
1) his job title
2) his actions

If a man is a manager and his actions show a lack of management, he is not managing. If a man is a king and his actions show a lack of ruling he is not being a king.

Sylian
2015-02-18, 04:57 PM
Regarding Chaotic and punishment: "Areas dominated by chaos often favor the ordeal as a method of adjudication." - Dungeon Master's Guide II

So, areas dominated by chaos seem to have some sort of rules still. The DMG2 also notes that a region with no corruption has a higher Law rank than a region with a lot of corruption. Granted, I don't think the DMG2 is the most reliable source, but it does provide some evidence for Chaotic not necessarily meaning "No laws" or "Unfettered freedom".

veti
2015-02-18, 05:09 PM
True. But you want to note first when I say Chaotic, I'm covering all three chaotic alignments. Second, it will depend on what ''murder'' is. And third, plenty of CG vigilantes do kill criminals or evil people in the name of good...and that is still ''murder'' under a law that says it is.

"If the law defines a killing as murder, then that killing is murder under the law." And your point is...?


With laws a persons freedom ends where every the powerful people that make and enforce the laws say it ends. The Lawful persons freedom is at the whim of the powerful people.

"Your freedom to swing your arm ends where my nose begins. Discuss."

A chaotic person's freedom is very much "at the whim of powerful people". The whole point of law, the entire reason the concept is so popular, is that it constrains powerful people from doing whatever they want.


And lets say a person lives in a Lawful land, and the king wants to make a new road. And the persons farm is in the way. Well, the Lawful king can just seize the farm.

That's... the opposite of lawful. The legend of King Arthur tells of a king who is mournful when he hears that his best friend has been having an affair with his wife, because he doesn't want to punish them but the laws require him to do it. It's an early example of "even the king is bound by the law", which is a principle that has been stated time and again, both theoretically by philosophers, rhetorically by politicians, and practically, in blood and iron, by soldiers and executioners.


And any Lawful person can be just as much of a bully as anyone else. And a Lawful land is really the poster child for such things as ''no one can move throughout the land without papers approved by the law''.

Any Chaotic person can be just as much a bully as her size and prowess allow her to be. And a Chaotic land is the poster child for such things as "no one can move throughout the land without a heavily armed escort". How is that more free?


The truth is: the powerful will always control or prey on the weak, no matter what alignment.

Then why do you persist in arguing that these things are alignment-related?


Well, I guess this will go to the word play of ''infraction''. And how about when the law says ''The Order of Beaters can beat up anyone they see doing wrong''.

Sure, you could have a law saying that. Or you could have no law, and the Order of Beaters could just beat up anyone anyway, for whatever reason they saw fit.

If you have a law saying that, then there's a way to stop the practice: you can get the law changed. If there's no law to change, then your best bet is just to hide when the Order of Beaters comes by. Or join them, of course.


Not sure what you mean about ''legal power'', but they can sure report them to the law and spin like crazy. And saying ''it's not true in one country at one time'' really does not say much worldwide and throughout time.

Well yes, I guess they could do that. And when the authorities find out they've done it, they'll be in a heap of trouble.

As to your second statement: if your position is "I can imagine bad laws, therefore law as a concept is inherently bad", I really don't know what anyone can say to you.


That is the negative view of freedom. Just like the negative view of order is slavery. I know you would not say every lawful person is a slave, so everyone does not follow your negative version of freedom.

Everyone doesn't need to follow it. It only takes one person to "follow" that negative version of freedom, and the life of everyone around them is blighted. Now, how many neighbourhoods do you think exist in the world that don't contain at least one nasty, ruthless, strong person?

(The answer doesn't actually matter, because without laws to stop them, the nasty person from the next neighbourhood would just roll over those that don't have such a figure of their own to resist them.)


And yes, most people see corruption as evil, but there are just as many corrupt good people as evil people.

Err... that's somewhere between meaningless and false. If corruption is evil, then by definition a good person who engages in it extensively will sooner or later stop being good. Conversely, you could argue that an evil person can't really be corrupt, because they're not acting contrary to their morality, so the concept of "corruption" doesn't apply to them.

Edit:

Wow, you sure assumed a lot by just one line. I say ''Ok? It's still an example of something a Chaotic king can do.'' and you leap to ''he is not doing his job or anything''. Based on what exactly?

If I call myself "a plumber", but refuse to have anything to do with water and pipes...

If I call myself "a butcher", but refuse to touch, or even look at, meat...

If I call myself "a king", but refuse to discuss laws or judgments... it's reasonable to say I'm not doing (what I claim is) my job.

Darth Ultron
2015-02-18, 09:41 PM
I agree that pure individual freedom

Ok



Now, this "pure" thing seems rather recent. What constitutes a "pure Chaotic person"? Real people are not purely Lawful or purely Chaotic. A pure Lawful being would be similar to an inevitable, a pure Chaotic being would be similar to a chaos beast. Humans and elves and other humanoids are never or almost never purely Lawful or purely Chaotic.

Yes, mortals are all most never pure. This goes for Good and Evil too.



While those numbers might be right using different definitions of Lawful and Chaotic, with your definitions I find them a bit high. Both Lawful people and Chaotic people are described by you to act in certain manners that, to me, seems very far from how 90%+ of the real world population acts.

That Lawful people generally follow the laws and Chaotic people generally don't follow the laws? That Lawful people stick to routines and Chaotic people don't? That Lawful people accept limited freedom and Chaotic people want total freedom?

You might call the 25% of the world that is Chaotic ''criminals'', but they are still Chaotic. You might call the 25% of the world that is Lawful ''normal law abiding citizens'', but they are still lawful.



And here we have the real agenda. In your mind, as you've explained it to this point, people who disagree with you - are not really people at all, and therefore their opinions have no relevance or value. You just can't conceive that an individual - not a king, not an official, just nobody in particular - could sit down and work out, from first principles, that laws and tradition have a positive value to them personally.

I'm not sure who your talking about. The Lawful people are the ones that say ''you must think this way or your wrong or evil or bad or whatever negative word they want to use. And I'm sure I never said you can't have a utopia with laws.



But according to you, it seems these people were not "truly free" because... well, basically they can't have been, because they didn't agree with you, which seems to be the current definition of "true freedom".

Freedom has nothing to do with agreeing with someone...




No, I'm not saying and I didn't say anything like that. A "charismatic leader that inspires people" is an example - indeed, such an obvious example that I assumed it was what you had in mind when you wrote it - of the Chaotic leader of whom you said "Now for the new king to have any authority, he must convince people to follow him."

Yes, a Lawful person just orders people around based on the laws/rules/order/whatever. He can be a jerk or even a monster, but if they are in charge you have to obey them or suffer the punishments for doing so.

The Chaotic leader, in an example of one way of doing it, leads by example. Saying ''I do this and suggest you do it too''. He does not order people around. At best, he might ask for something to be done.



What I'm saying is that the whole "the king is determined by birth and everyone just falls in behind this" is bunk, at least in a system where the king is important enough that anyone actually gives a flying fig who it is. It's an idea that was deliberately and calculatingly invented for (partly but not entirely) self-serving reasons by various monarchs (and their henchpeople, such as a guy you may have heard of called Shakespeare) towards the tail end of the Renaissance, when people began to understand the political power of such myths.

I'm confused. What part of lots of historical kings passed their power onto their sons and other family members is bunk?

Gritmonger
2015-02-18, 10:18 PM
I'm not sure who your talking about. The Lawful people are the ones that say ''you must think this way or your wrong or evil or bad or whatever negative word they want to use. And I'm sure I never said you can't have a utopia with laws.

Actually, no... the first thing a lawful person does is observe the laws and fulfill obligations. It isn't rote, and that seems to be a major sticking point.

Being lawful, observing laws and traditions, is just as much a choice as being chaotic. A person ceases being lawful when it is no longer a choice and becomes a construct with no free will.

It takes effort to be lawful. It is not a default position that requires no thought. It is because it is a choice that it takes effort.

The major difference is that a lawful person's potential actions are bounded, not bound. There is still choice involved, with some actions demarked as "lawbreaking." It doesn't keep them from being capable of being taken. It means that they carry a burden if chosen as an action.

A chaotic person eschews such burdens and limits, to a point. They don't feel obligated to tip, but they still pay for the meal. If they do not observe any limits, they are reckless and anarchic, not observing simple laws that protect their own person, and really become Id driven animals, no longer making choices, and the opposite extreme.

The polarities you've attempted to espouse are artificial - the "chaotic king" relies on a procedure, a law, to establish that he's 'voted' king. But the vote is meaningless. Everybody could claim to be king at the same time, and it wouldn't matter, because nobody is going to observe any limits or boundaries, which is why I wonder how they communicate in the first place, because that would require agreeing on common meaning, a more lawful thing to do.

Darth Ultron
2015-02-18, 10:57 PM
Freedom != chaos. Freedom != chaotic. Because lawful societies have this. I live in a lawful society. I can go and so literally any action I wish to, whenever I want.

To be accurate it's ''A person in a lawful society can do what they want, within the frame work of law and order of the society.



This is factually untrue, and if you're using a specific definition of corruption, it is still easily disproven.

Well, you do need laws and order and other such Lawful things to even be corrupt. The mayor that takes a bribe is corrupt as that is against the law.



No you do not. You say "chaotic" and "king" but you go on to demonstrate the man in question is not a ruler at all and the system isn't shown to be chaotic, it is shown to be whimsical.

Ok, well if you would like some specific examples, then just ask.



Not every monarch has passed power from father to son. This is why the terms heir apparent and heir designant exist. Sometimes power was passed to daughters. Sometimes to nephews. Or siblings. Or cousins. Or voted in. Or given to someone outside the family because none of the descendents were fit.

Well, terms are a lawful thing. All your examples are lawful. Don't nitpick so much. Try and read ''monarchs passed power within their family'' or even ''followed set rules and order''.



You are also using emotionally charged language. What is "slavery" to you? I am curious why you use that word the way you do.

I'm talking about the ultimate form of Lawful slavery: where the powerful ones in charge tell everyone else what to do and how they do it from cradle to grave.


"If the law defines a killing as murder, then that killing is murder under the law." And your point is...?

Then a CG vigilante might murder criminals or others he thinks are bad.



A chaotic person's freedom is very much "at the whim of powerful people". The whole point of law, the entire reason the concept is so popular, is that it constrains powerful people from doing whatever they want.

So, in a place with law, there are no rich and powerful people that just do whatever they want? A couple of laws on the books makes a utopia?



That's... the opposite of lawful. The legend of King Arthur tells of a king who is mournful when he hears that his best friend has been having an affair with his wife, because he doesn't want to punish them but the laws require him to do it. It's an early example of "even the king is bound by the law", which is a principle that has been stated time and again, both theoretically by philosophers, rhetorically by politicians, and practically, in blood and iron, by soldiers and executioners.

Sure, but your not going to take one example and apply it to every king, emperor, president and ruler everywhere and every when? As if lots of the rich and powerful don't live above and beyond the law.



Any Chaotic person can be just as much a bully as her size and prowess allow her to be. And a Chaotic land is the poster child for such things as "no one can move throughout the land without a heavily armed escort". How is that more free?

Ok, anyone can be a bully...



Then why do you persist in arguing that these things are alignment-related?

They are related. Like 75% of the power hungry bullies are going to be Lawful.



Everyone doesn't need to follow it. It only takes one person to "follow" that negative version of freedom, and the life of everyone around them is blighted. Now, how many neighbourhoods do you think exist in the world that don't contain at least one nasty, ruthless, strong person?

About the same number that contain nice, friendly, strong people?



Err... that's somewhere between meaningless and false. If corruption is evil, then by definition a good person who engages in it extensively will sooner or later stop being good. Conversely, you could argue that an evil person can't really be corrupt, because they're not acting contrary to their morality, so the concept of "corruption" doesn't apply to them.

Corruption is no more evil then killing, and good people can kill. And a good person can kill endlessly, as long as they have a good reason.



If I call myself .

So where did you see the example of the chaotic king ''not doing his job''?


Actually, no... the first thing a lawful person does is observe the laws and fulfill obligations. It isn't rote, and that seems to be a major sticking point. Being lawful, observing laws and traditions, is just as much a choice as being chaotic. A person ceases being lawful when it is no longer a choice and becomes a construct with no free will.

It takes effort to be lawful. It is not a default position that requires no thought. It is because it is a choice that it takes effort.

This is a big sticking point right here. The people that say the Lawful person has a choice to follow a law/tradition/order or not. And, yes they do have that choice.

But step back, here is the big one, the lawful person does not get a choice about weather or not the law/tradition/order even exists. They just have to accept it exists, except that it is the way things are and except that they can only pick from the choices they are given.

Example: in 1002 the law is made ''murder is illegal''. Harry is born in 1010, and becomes a man in 1028. He does not like Bill and wants to murder him. Oh, wait, Harry would be told, murder is illegal and has been sense before you were born. So now Harry gets the choice of obeying the law or breaking it....but those are the only two choices that the lawful society gives Harry. Harry can not pick and choose what law he follows and he can't just change the law so he can murder Bill. This is where the big choice of freedom comes in, Harry can only pick from the what is given to him.



A chaotic person eschews such burdens and limits, to a point. They don't feel obligated to tip, but they still pay for the meal. If they do not observe any limits, they are reckless and anarchic, not observing simple laws that protect their own person, and really become Id driven animals, no longer making choices, and the opposite extreme.

Tipping is a great example. The Lawful person will most likely follow the social custom that says not only must you tip, but you must do so irregardless of the service and you must do so at a set amount(the set percentage of the total bill). And there is tons of social pressure here....just admit that your a ''person that does not tip'' in public and see the reaction. To a lot of lawful people tipping is automatic, it's not even a choice. It simply must be done. But sure, a lawful person could choose not to tip at all, and suffer the consequences of that action(you eat at your own risk if you regularly go to a place and regularly don't tip, most date won't be too happy about it, and so on).

Now take the Chaotic side. First the chaotic person would say that the whole concept of tipping is wrong and should not exist and point out everything wrong with every part of the concept. That being said, a chaotic person can still leave a tip, but not just because ''they'' say too. The chaotic person could just be nice, if they are a good person. Otherwise, most chaotic people rate getting a tip vs. the service. If they feel they got good service, they will leave a tip for the person that gave them the service. If they got poor or even bad service, they will give no tip. And they suffer the same consequences.



The polarities you've attempted to espouse are artificial - the "chaotic king" relies on a procedure, a law, to establish that he's 'voted' king. But the vote is meaningless. Everybody could claim to be king at the same time, and it wouldn't matter, because nobody is going to observe any limits or boundaries, which is why I wonder how they communicate in the first place, because that would require agreeing on common meaning, a more lawful thing to do.

Well, a chaotic ruler would be a bit more like ''first among equals'' and not a ''king'', per say. It works great for warrior societies with ''I rule here, and others choose to follow me. But anyone here can challenge me for the right to rule at any time''

Gritmonger
2015-02-18, 11:44 PM
This is a big sticking point right here. The people that say the Lawful person has a choice to follow a law/tradition/order or not. And, yes they do have that choice.

But step back, here is the big one, the lawful person does not get a choice about weather or not the law/tradition/order even exists. They just have to accept it exists, except that it is the way things are and except that they can only pick from the choices they are given.

Example: in 1002 the law is made ''murder is illegal''. Harry is born in 1010, and becomes a man in 1028. He does not like Bill and wants to murder him. Oh, wait, Harry would be told, murder is illegal and has been sense before you were born. So now Harry gets the choice of obeying the law or breaking it....but those are the only two choices that the lawful society gives Harry. Harry can not pick and choose what law he follows and he can't just change the law so he can murder Bill. This is where the big choice of freedom comes in, Harry can only pick from the what is given to him.

Um, this isn't even close. There are a host of other things Harry can do besides murder, especially if he's a "good" person. That alone, even before the law, bounds the options he'd consider. Nobody forces him not to consider murder. He is free to consider it. He is also bounded by more than the law. Does he think depriving somebody else of life is a good act? No? Then it won't be in his considerations - and that's lawful, without the law, without the 'man' telling him so.

It appears that you are making considering the other person's point of view a non-issue, when empathy plays a large part in both "good" and "lawful" personas. Actions are bounded in both Chaotic and Lawful Good by this consideration - whether it is the Chaotic perspective that Good should be done despite the law, or the Lawful Good perspective that Good should be done within the law.

Both are still bounded choices. When you take the bounds off, and remove empathy from the equation, you've slipped over into what can be called "evil." Chaotic, if it espouses to be "good," has to be bounded by some code of morality, some empathy, some sense of "right" and "wrong," or it is just pure Chaos, or worse - only considering yourself might be termed "Chaotic Evil."




Tipping is a great example. The Lawful person will most likely follow the social custom that says not only must you tip, but you must do so irregardless of the service and you must do so at a set amount(the set percentage of the total bill). And there is tons of social pressure here....just admit that your a ''person that does not tip'' in public and see the reaction. To a lot of lawful people tipping is automatic, it's not even a choice. It simply must be done. But sure, a lawful person could choose not to tip at all, and suffer the consequences of that action(you eat at your own risk if you regularly go to a place and regularly don't tip, most date won't be too happy about it, and so on).

Now take the Chaotic side. First the chaotic person would say that the whole concept of tipping is wrong and should not exist and point out everything wrong with every part of the concept. That being said, a chaotic person can still leave a tip, but not just because ''they'' say too. The chaotic person could just be nice, if they are a good person. Otherwise, most chaotic people rate getting a tip vs. the service. If they feel they got good service, they will leave a tip for the person that gave them the service. If they got poor or even bad service, they will give no tip. And they suffer the same consequences.

Wouldn't Chaos espouse a "ruleless" system based entirely on merit, with no fixed prices, since those would be "lawful?" And the lawful person is bound by the same considerations of service, as essentially, not tipping is punative, and therefore, lawful.



Well, a chaotic ruler would be a bit more like ''first among equals'' and not a ''king'', per say. It works great for warrior societies with ''I rule here, and others choose to follow me. But anyone here can challenge me for the right to rule at any time''
Uh, but those are rules and traditions, and therefore lawful. Even the title "first among equals" espouses a hierarchy, which is, again, organized and lawful.

By the definitions you're espousing, "Chaotic" and "Society" are anathema to one-another. Purely selfish existence precludes cooperation.

Darth Ultron
2015-02-19, 12:14 AM
Actually, that depends on the laws and traditions of the land. It is typically a hallmark of lawful lands that even the king is subject to the laws. And he cannot typically change them on a whim.

True, but with the acknowledgment that it's a typical hallmark of lawful lands that the king, royalty, nobles and anyone with money, connections, prestige, power or celebrity is above the law.



So, no. Unless the laws are written specifically to allow the King to exercise imminent domain in the circumstance of building a road, he cannot. Not in a Lawful society.

The average wise king/ruler/president is going to write/create/get created all sorts of laws that favor their viewpoint. Often under the disguise of ''the good for all''. So a lawful kingdom will likely already have seize laws. But even if it did not, the rule could just make a law that does that. It happens all the time in lawful lands.



No, that's the rule of power. It happens to be a truth, but the alignment of the ruler(s) will determine a lot about how much this is done at the expense of the weak.

True, alignment determines how people do things. But Good and Lawful can be just as bad as Chaotic and Evil can be, it all depends on the person. A very Lawful person can take great control of the weak people they rule, all in the name of making the country a better place for all. And the details do matter.



That's quite the obvious logical fallacy, to claim that because it has happened at least once, your claim that it is what always happens without exception is correct.

I think it's safe to say that in the last 5,000 years of history there has been more then one royal ruler that passed the power onto a family member, most often a son, but sometimes a daughter or someone else.

And Lawful businesses do it all the time too.



Ah, but a Lawful society will then go on to specify what "doing wrong" means. Again: with a Lawful society, you will know what you have to do to avoid those beatings. It may or may not be practical or possible, but you know what it is. (Or, at least, it is knowable. Ignorance of the law is possible, obviously.)

This is good in theory. And it's the more positive side of a lawful society. First off, a law can be vague or open to interpretation. And what is ''right'' and ''wrong'' changes all the time. And, the Lawful rules can at any time just say ''that is wrong and illegal'' and....



When you say "employers can do this in a lawful society," you are implying that they have the authority, granted by virtue of law, to unilaterally decide to take away somebody's chlidren.

That is not what I said. Every employer is not a member of the Child Displacement Order. The employer does not have the authority, but they can still do it.



By your statement, freedom is the ability to do anything you want without constraint by others. That means that, if you wish to constrain others, freedom is the ability to do so. Which means that, for somebody to have 100% freedom as you define it, nobody else can. Because whoever has 100% freedom has the freedom to constrain others' freedom, rendering theirs less than 100%.

I don't get what is so hard about ''freedom is the ability to do anything'' that it gets twisted into ''Must be a Tyrant?'' Like free people can't just get along and be well just as they want too




This is not a "negative view" of freedom. It is a purely logical analysis of the consequences of your premises.

Your claim that "the negative view of law" means "everybody's a slave" is equivalent is equally fallacious. "Slave" has a meaning, and it is not "obligated to obey laws."

My definition of salve for this single context: one forced to obey laws. And no, they can't even choose to just not follow a law. They are robots/drones.



The full chain of discussion started with you claiming that a "chaotic king" would not issue any decrees, would not enforce any rules, and would only make suggestions and live as he thinks others should, hoping they'll follow his example. If he is not making decrees, issuing judgments in the case of disputes, and using force to protect his lands, the lands of his subjects, and their freedom from foreign aggressors and each others' potential malice, he is not doing his job as King.

I'm not sure why you think a chaotic king would not do those things. Just take an invasion: The dark orcs! The Chaotic king draws his sword and says ''I go to find the invaders! Who is with me!'' and then the horde attacks the orcs. Note how the king is asking others, of their own free will to join him and fight.

Compare to the Lawful king. The lawful king calls for all the troops he is owed by feudalism, and has his lords send them. Then he hires some mercenaries. And last, but not least, conscripts(''drafts'') a bunch too. And sure a lord could say ''no'', and then the king would seize the lord, his lands and troops anyway. And the conscripts don't get any choice.



All of that extends from your statement that he would not issue laws nor in any way impinge on anybody's freedom. That means, by your own definitions, that he would not arrest people who abuse each other, he would do nothing to prevent one citizen from arresting, enslaving, or killing another, etc.

A chaotic person can choose to protect and defend another persons freedom. They want to keep the baseline of ''everyone is free''. So as soon as someone takes away freedom from someone, they can act.....if they want too.

Sure they, in some twisted way ''take'' away the freedom of a bully who takes away the freedom of another individual. It's the exactly same extreme as a good person that kills.


Um, this isn't even close. There are a host of other things Harry can do besides murder, especially if he's a "good" person. That alone, even before the law, bounds the options he'd consider. Nobody forces him not to consider murder. He is free to consider it. He is also bounded by more than the law. Does he think depriving somebody else of life is a good act? No? Then it won't be in his considerations - and that's lawful, without the law, without the 'man' telling him so.

Well, I'm just going by Lawful, but to break it down:
Lawful Good Harry is not going to murder....he is a good person. He'd only murder in a extreme situation.
Lawful Neutral Harry is the one with the decision to make
Lawful Evil Harry has already killed Bill.....



Wouldn't Chaos espouse a "ruleless" system based entirely on merit, with no fixed prices, since those would be "lawful?" And the lawful person is bound by the same considerations of service, as essentially, not tipping is punative, and therefore, lawful.

Yes, I forgot to type that the chaotic person does not use the fixed tip amount. Very few Lawful people like judging others on merit. Most lawful people just follow the crowd and the tipping society rules. Though greed is alignment free, and anyone can horde money.



Uh, but those are rules and traditions, and therefore lawful. Even the title "first among equals" espouses a hierarchy, which is, again, organized and lawful.

By the definitions you're espousing, "Chaotic" and "Society" are anathema to one-another. Purely selfish existence precludes cooperation.

Yes, it's exactly like Pure Lawfulness is robots. The Darleks, from Doctor Who, are a great example. And for our example, ignore the Evil part and focus just on the Lawful part, as that is what we are talking about. A single darlek is a drone that has been programed, but my technology and biology to do as it is told by the ruling elite. A single drone darlek just says ''I obey'' and rolls along through life. That is the ultimate from of Lawful: The individual does not matter and is part of the whole for the betterment of all.

Now, you will note, that the vast majority of Lawful societies do not go that far. They might make 50,000 rules and laws and orders and traditions to control a persons life from cradle to grave.....but not quite to the extent of a drone.

So note Chaotic is the same way. Each of Chaotic/Lawful has a bit of shades of each other.

But really saying ''a Chaotic person can't make a plan'' is just silly to the extreme. It's exactly like saying ''good can never kill'' or ''evil can't do a nice thing''. A single, or even a dozen, rare and isolated acts do not change ones alignment. A lawful good person who thinks any type of killing is wrong does not burn in Hades forever if he kills a single foe in pure self defense.

Segev
2015-02-19, 09:04 AM
To be accurate it's ''A person in a lawful society can do what they want, within the frame work of law and order of the society.

To be accurate, it's "A person in a chaotic anarchy can do what they want, within the frame work of what those stronger than them permit them to do."



Darth Ultron, you're consistently ignoring the inherent impossibility of what you term "pure freedom." By your definition of it, there can be at most one truly free person. Everybody else is constrained from "pure freedom" by his choices, because his choices can conflict with theirs.

This isn't a "negative view of freedom." This is pure unadulterated logic.

Your "good king" who "leads by example" and never, ever requires anything of anybody else will, if he is to be the true respecter of freedom you seem to be indicating, take no action nor effort to defend himself from others' violence. That would be constraining their freedom to do him harm. He will constrain his own actions based on what others want to do; to do otherwise would be to constrain their freedom with his actions. He is, by your definition, not free. Therefore, he is not chaotic.

Your definition destroys itself.

Segev
2015-02-19, 09:42 AM
True, but with the acknowledgment that it's a typical hallmark of lawful lands that the king, royalty, nobles and anyone with money, connections, prestige, power or celebrity is above the law.False. That is a hallmark and definition of a chaotic society. Lawful societies constrain all by the law. There may not be equality before the law (that is more typically an LG thing), but everybody, from the bottom to the top, must obey the law.

Moreover, nobody has the power to unilaterally change the laws which govern them. It requires some sort of process. That is the nature of lawful societies. Otherwise, there is no law, and that is chaos.


The average wise king/ruler/president is going to write/create/get created all sorts of laws that favor their viewpoint.You could have been right, but you inserted the adjective "wise." You likely did so because you're trying to disparage "wisdom" and "goodness" as falsehoods, but they are meaningful words. A wise, Lawful ruler is going to recognize that laws serve a purpose. Certainly, LE rulers - wise or not - will act to get laws written to serve them more than anybody else, but that is a hallmark of Evil with a Lawful bent, not Law in and of itself.


Often under the disguise of ''the good for all''. So a lawful kingdom will likely already have seize laws. But even if it did not, the rule could just make a law that does that. It happens all the time in lawful lands.It could. But it is not inherent to it being Lawful.

And in a chaotic land, the ruler wouldn't need a law; he just says, "mine now," and kicks the farmer out to build his road.

So your example fails to demonstrate that this is a flaw of Lawfulness.



But Good and Lawful can be just as bad as Chaotic and Evil can be, it all depends on the person.Er, no. If they are "just as bad as Chaotic and Evil," then they are by definition Evil. The statement would be potentially true if it was, "Evil and Lawful can be just as bad as Chaotic and Evil." But you'll have to provide some of those "detailed" examples of "good and lawful" people being "just as bad as Chaotic and Evil," because definitionally, this is not true.



I think it's safe to say that in the last 5,000 years of history there has been more then one royal ruler that passed the power onto a family member, most often a son, but sometimes a daughter or someone else.

And Lawful businesses do it all the time too.Look at what you quoted me as saying before you wrote this response. Then think about how your response only repeats the fallacy of which I accused you.

That it has happened does not mean that is the only thing that happens. Nobody is disputing that it happens.

Heck, in matters of property? I don't even think it's a bad thing. Part of owning something is having the right to dispose of it however you like, and that includes upon your demise. If you want to give it to your kids, you should be able to. Otherwise, do you really own it?

But that's tangential to the point: Just because hereditary rulership has happened does not mean that it is the only thing that happens. Nobody is disputing that it has happened. What we dispute is that it is all that ever happens.



This is good in theory. And it's the more positive side of a lawful society. First off, a law can be vague or open to interpretation. And what is ''right'' and ''wrong'' changes all the time. And, the Lawful rules can at any time just say ''that is wrong and illegal'' and....Again, you're describing a chaotic society when you describe vague rules which can be interpreted any which way and which can be changed on a whim.

Law is characterized by order and regulation, by standards and procedures and traditions and practices. If a law is vague in a Lawful society, it is because there is an unwritten but societally-understood interpretation of it that is not at all vague or open to interpretation. This is, in general, considered a flaw in the law when Lawful societies realize that it relies on this unwritten aspect to be clear; they usually seek to correct this when confusion seems to arise.

Lawful societies do not like confusion in their laws.

That said, LE societies might like certain people to be confused about the law. But they wouldn't want it to be open to interpretation; they want to be able to make the iron-clad case that they've invoked the law exactly right to get the result they want, and that the people who were confused merely didn't understand the law well enough.

It is a hallmark of Chaos when whether you get a judge who feels like ruling in your favor or not today matters to whether or not the law means what YOU say it does.

Note that this can be true in a CG society, as well. "This vague law clearly intends to protect the sanctity of life and property, so you should rule in my favor because the other guy's being a meanie-pants jerk and his interpretation of the law is clearly designed to swindle people," is something a CG judge might say, "You know, you're right. Screw Villain McConartist's interpretation, we're going with the one that is clearly morally upright."

In a Lawful society, if Villain McConartist's interpretation were rigidly correct by the law, even the LG judge would be compelled to rule in his favor. He would probalby issue a public statement describing how there is a flaw in their laws, and recommend that whoever is in charge of writing or changing them seek to correct this error, however. (And might take personal steps to help the wronged party, perhaps with charity or the like.)

But again, changing the rules on a whim or having vague rules which can be interpreted in a few ways in order to adhere to a certain spirit are hallmarks of a Chaos.


That is not what I said. Every employer is not a member of the Child Displacement Order. The employer does not have the authority, but they can still do it.The context in which you said it - provided by the quote to which you were responding, if nothing else - clearly implied it. But, if you honestly meant only that "some" "could" do so, and would be doing so by abusing the laws and actively breaking them (since perjury is illegal), then I'm glad you agree that it is not a hallmark of lawful behavior and a problem inherent to lawful societies that employers can take employees children away from them.

You would seem not to disagree, then, with the points made and with which you seemed to be arguing.


I don't get what is so hard about ''freedom is the ability to do anything'' that it gets twisted into ''Must be a Tyrant?'' Like free people can't just get along and be well just as they want tooThey can! But not by your definition of freedom, as exemplified by your notion of what a "chaotic king" would have to do to be chaotic.

It's definitional. If I can do literally anything I want, without constraint, then I cannot be constrained by concern with what you want. This means that you are now constrained where my desires conflict with yours.

The moment "hey, don't do that, it isn't nice" is said, that's a constraint on my behavior.

CG people act under all sorts of constraints. They recognize the rule of "your right to swing your fist ends at my face," and that it is reciprocal. CN people tend to be similar in that regard, though they're also more likely to have a bit of "what you don't know won't hurt you" and even "I want it more." CE people will generally have the attitude of, "My right to swing my fist is absolute, and you can do nothing that I don't like."

Nobody is able to have the kind of "pure freedom" you seem to be espousing when you claim that chaotic people who respect freedom would never constrain anybody, including themselves.

If you acknowledge that constraints exist on even chaotic people's behavior when they enter into any sort of society - as you must to say "they all get along if they choose to" - then there's no argument here. But you keep insisting that pure freedom - pure chaotic societies - have zero constraints on anybody. And that's simply untrue. It's literally impossible if there exists more than one person.


My definition of salve for this single context: one forced to obey laws. And no, they can't even choose to just not follow a law. They are robots/drones.That's a useless definition for purposes of this discussion, since nobody else is using it and it adds nothing meaningful. Such creatres would be of neutral alignment (if alignment even has meaning wrt them), like animals or tools.


I'm not sure why you think a chaotic king would not do those things. Just take an invasion: The dark orcs! The Chaotic king draws his sword and says ''I go to find the invaders! Who is with me!'' and then the horde attacks the orcs. Note how the king is asking others, of their own free will to join him and fight.

Compare to the Lawful king. The lawful king calls for all the troops he is owed by feudalism, and has his lords send them. Then he hires some mercenaries. And last, but not least, conscripts(''drafts'') a bunch too. And sure a lord could say ''no'', and then the king would seize the lord, his lands and troops anyway. And the conscripts don't get any choice.
Ah, but any random warrior could raise his sword and say, "I go to find the invaders! Who is with me!"

But now, your "chaotic" king is constraining those invaders' choices. He's impinging on their freedom.

Perhaps you'll say, "but they're not his people, so they don't count?"

Okay, I'll go so far as to grant you the exception to "chaotic example" if they aren't "of his people," despite that being, itself, a constraint.

But what if King Chaotic has two farmers who are in a dispute because one claims he owns a given field, and the other claims it's his? Both are willing to work the land, and have no desire to allow the other to do so nor to have a share in that field's produce.

King Chaotic could make suggestions all he likes, but the two farmers are going to use violence to kick the other out, and have no interest in splitting it. King Chaotic COULD say, "I am splitting it; you get one half, he gets the other." But the two farmers, knowing King Chaotic won't actually enforce this with violence or any sort of punishment of his own, will just ignore him because neither likes the ruling.

So what good is King Chaotic to his people, if he won't enforce his rulings and they're left to handle their disputes themselves?


A chaotic person can choose to protect and defend another persons freedom. They want to keep the baseline of ''everyone is free''. So as soon as someone takes away freedom from someone, they can act.....if they want too.

Sure they, in some twisted way ''take'' away the freedom of a bully who takes away the freedom of another individual. It's the exactly same extreme as a good person that kills. Um...

Okay. So you concede the point. Works for me!

Seriously, this is the point we've been trying to make for pages. There is no such thing as the "pure freedom" you originally espoused. Also, this means that your Chaotic King is going to do more than live by example and hope people do the same; if he sees people infringing on what he considers others' freedom, he will act to stop them. That's within his rights as king.

Also? This means he's now punishing people for not doing what he says. Which you'd earlier said he wouldn't.

However, I agree: a choatic king WOULD. What makes him chaotic is that he does so according to his own judgment, and screw the rules and traditions if they're in the way. If he's CG, he'll still respect the rules and traditions that are there because they promote everybody's freedom. Not because he respects their traditional value or value as laws, but because they're good guidelines. If he's CN, he'll probably still want to preserve everybody's freedom, as long as it's not getting in the way of how he wants to rule his kingdom. He certainly won't care about traditions or laws that get in his way, but he'll still want to avoid changing rules merely for his own selfish gain, if only because that hurts his subjects and he's not out for cruelty. A CE king will make, break, and change rules as it suits his own selfish desires.

But all of them will punish those who disobey their edicts. That's what makes them Kings: the right (and power) to do so.

illyahr
2015-02-19, 01:36 PM
Chaotic can do Lawful things, but Lawful can't do Chaotic things, at least not nearly as much as the Chaotic can do Lawful stuff. Did I get that right?

Chaotic doing a Lawful thing: waiting in line to order his food, complains loudly about the line

Lawful doing a Chaotic thing: disobeying an order, asks [respected authority figure/deity] for forgiveness

Alignment isn't about actions, it's about habits. I usually view it on a sliding scale of -100 to 100. Most people fall with in the -33 to +33 (Neutral) range. Even characters that are Chaotic usually only fall around the -75 to -33 range.

What Darth Ultron is describing is the outliers, those that sit between -100 to -76 (I use Dynamic) and +76 to +100 (I use Static).

Synovia
2015-02-19, 02:05 PM
You really think that if humans had pure freedom there would be overwhelming evil? You really think most people would choose to not be good, if they were given the choice?

The same thing would happen that always happens in that situation - someone would seize power and life would be significantly worse for those below them - pretty much every power vacuum in world history has been filled with a warlord or tyrant.

It's simple - those willing to commit violence are more powerful than those not - which means that if there's no structure/law to prevent violence, those who commit violence rise. The willingness to commit violence is evolutionarily advantageous.



Most people wouldn't be given a choice to be good - that's the point. You only get a choice when there's structure in place that keeps the guy next to you from stabbing you and taking your stuff.

If everyone is free to do whatever they want - then only the powerful are actually free - everyone else is a victim.

veti
2015-02-19, 06:33 PM
Well, terms are a lawful thing. All your examples are lawful. Don't nitpick so much. Try and read ''monarchs passed power within their family'' or even ''followed set rules and order''.

I don't want to misrepresent you, so could you please clarify your position a little more here: are you saying that because you're not lawful, you're free to redefine the words you use however you want, whenever you want?

Because that would explain an awful lot about the last four pages of this thread.


I'm talking about the ultimate form of Lawful slavery: where the powerful ones in charge tell everyone else what to do and how they do it from cradle to grave.

That may be slavery, but I'm not seeing the connection to Lawful. A Lawful person could do that, yes, but so could a Chaotic person. The difference is that in a Lawful society, there's some coherent reason why you're a slave, even if that reason is completely unjust. In a Chaotic society, it's just "because you're not strong enough not to be".


Then a CG vigilante might murder criminals or others he thinks are bad.

Righto. I don't see anyone disputing that, so let's move on.


So, in a place with law, there are no rich and powerful people that just do whatever they want? A couple of laws on the books makes a utopia?

Pretty sure I never mentioned the word "utopia". But yes, you yourself have already said that "in a place with law, there are no [...] people that just do whatever they want". You said:


An individual has no choice: here are the laws of the land, too bad, you must follow them. Some one can not live in a Lawful place and be immune to the laws.

No doubt you can explain how I'm twisting your meaning, again, and some people, specifically those who disagree with you/whom you dislike, are immune to the laws?


Sure, but your not going to take one example and apply it to every king, emperor, president and ruler everywhere and every when? As if lots of the rich and powerful don't live above and beyond the law.

Wow, that was quick.


Example: in 1002 the law is made ''murder is illegal''. Harry is born in 1010, and becomes a man in 1028. He does not like Bill and wants to murder him. Oh, wait, Harry would be told, murder is illegal and has been sense before you were born. So now Harry gets the choice of obeying the law or breaking it....but those are the only two choices that the lawful society gives Harry. Harry can not pick and choose what law he follows and he can't just change the law so he can murder Bill. This is where the big choice of freedom comes in, Harry can only pick from the what is given to him.

This is utterly incoherent. You might just as well say "there is no law. Now Harry gets the choice of murdering Bill or not murdering him... those are the only two choices that the chaotic society gives Harry."


Now take the Chaotic side. First the chaotic person would say that the whole concept of tipping is wrong and should not exist and point out everything wrong with every part of the concept. That being said, a chaotic person can still leave a tip, but not just because ''they'' say too. The chaotic person could just be nice, if they are a good person. Otherwise, most chaotic people rate getting a tip vs. the service. If they feel they got good service, they will leave a tip for the person that gave them the service. If they got poor or even bad service, they will give no tip. And they suffer the same consequences.

First, a lawful person might also think tipping is wrong. I do, for one. But then I live in a place where people don't tip, at least not routinely.

Secondly, a chaotic person might think tipping is wrong - or they might not. How on earth could you predict that? Every chaotic person, by nature, will come to their own conclusion. Who are you to assume what that will be?


I'm not sure who your talking about. The Lawful people are the ones that say ''you must think this way or your wrong or evil or bad or whatever negative word they want to use. And I'm sure I never said you can't have a utopia with laws.

Freedom has nothing to do with agreeing with someone...

OK. Once again, and this is the last time I'm going to do this, I'll quote your own words back to you. I said that lawful people, such as judges and jurors, make a choice as individuals to enforce the law. You replied:


Sure, if you want to twist the word ''individual'' out of context to say ''each person is an individual'' then your statement makes twisted sense. But just note that your ''individuals'' in the legal system are not acting as individuals, they are acting as a collective. They are acting with no free will of their own. All the lawful people just do as they are told. Some times they agree, but some times they don't, but they always do as they are told.

Which apart from being wrong (jurors are required to reach a decision based on their own individual judgment, that's their job, it's literally the only reason they're part of the process at all) - seems to imply that the decisions, and therefore the wishes and preferences, of lawful people are somehow "worth less" than those of Chaotic people. That a Chaotic Good person, who would in general respect everyone's freedom to do as they wish, somehow wouldn't feel the same compunction about interfering with the judge's wish to incarcerate his friend.

Am I understanding you correctly?


Yes, a Lawful person just orders people around based on the laws/rules/order/whatever. He can be a jerk or even a monster, but if they are in charge you have to obey them or suffer the punishments for doing so.

And a Chaotic person can do exactly the same. The big difference is, with a Lawful person doing it, they'll have some kind of superiors/chain of command that you can appeal to. But there's no appeal from a Chaotic person. If you're not big enough to stand up to their fists, you're finished.


I'm confused. What part of lots of historical kings passed their power onto their sons and other family members is bunk?

The part where everyone in the kingdom accepts it and gets on with whatever the new king wants, just because of who he is.

Lots of kings have thought that way, at various times, but those who've put it to the test have found they were very much mistaken. Within English history, you could read up on, e.g., Edward II, Richard II, Charles I, James II, Edward VIII, as well as the fictional Arthur. And that's just one country's worth, and only including those where the succession itself wasn't disputed.

Darth Ultron
2015-02-19, 11:12 PM
Darth Ultron, you're consistently ignoring the inherent impossibility of what you term "pure freedom." By your definition of it, there can be at most one truly free person. Everybody else is constrained from "pure freedom" by his choices, because his choices can conflict with theirs.

I don't see what the problem is. Pure freedom is doing whatever you want. It's that simple.

Please, please drop the idiotic idea that ''if you block a someones path'' or ''attack them'' that your some how ''taking away their freedom''. It just does not make any sense. Your heading down the road of both good and lawful can never, ever kill.

And, the point you might be missing is a Chaotic person does not care about another freedom. They think everyone should have pure freedom, yes. But it's up to the individual to do that. By themselves.



Your "good king" who "leads by example" and never, ever requires anything of anybody else will, if he is to be the true respecter of freedom you seem to be indicating, take no action nor effort to defend himself from others' violence. That would be constraining their freedom to do him harm. He will constrain his own actions based on what others want to do; to do otherwise would be to constrain their freedom with his actions. He is, by your definition, not free. Therefore, he is not chaotic.

Your definition destroys itself.

Well, the idea that a Chaotic king would be Chaotic Stupid by default is wrong. It's like saying Lawful Stupid or Good Stupid is default. Does a Good person just stand there and let themselves be killed as they care so much about life that they would never, ever take a life or even do any violence? Does a Lawful person follow their duty/orders even if it would kill them?

No. They do not.

So please try a different tactic then to say ''all Chaotic people are Chaotic Stupid''.

Gritmonger
2015-02-20, 12:05 AM
Pointless.

..except I would say that in response to this:

Does a Lawful person follow their duty/orders even if it would kill them?

Yes, sometimes they do. Such as a soldier who willingly faces death to take an objective (duty, patriotism, and often brotherhood-in-arms), or a parent who runs back into a burning building (familial obligation plus, you know, love and stuff...). But if you want to claim all of those acts are robotic, or impossible... I'm not sure which you'd be claiming at this point.

theNater
2015-02-20, 12:12 AM
Well, the idea that a Chaotic king would be Chaotic Stupid by default is wrong. It's like saying Lawful Stupid or Good Stupid is default. Does a Good person just stand there and let themselves be killed as they care so much about life that they would never, ever take a life or even do any violence? Does a Lawful person follow their duty/orders even if it would kill them?

No. They do not.

So please try a different tactic then to say ''all Chaotic people are Chaotic Stupid''.
Are you saying that a Chaotic Good person would fight back against someone trying to kill them, assuming there were no other practical options?

veti
2015-02-20, 12:20 AM
I don't see what the problem is. Pure freedom is doing whatever you want. It's that simple.

Please, please drop the idiotic idea that ''if you block a someones path'' or ''attack them'' that your some how ''taking away their freedom''. It just does not make any sense. Your heading down the road of both good and lawful can never, ever kill.

And, the point you might be missing is a Chaotic person does not care about another freedom. They think everyone should have pure freedom, yes. But it's up to the individual to do that. By themselves.

So the Chaotic person has no problem with enslaving others, it's their own fault if they weren't strong enough to resist - is that how it works? Because what I read here is "enslaving someone isn't taking away their freedom, they can still walk away, they just have to be strong enough to handle the consequences of doing that".

And at that point, I really don't see what your beef with Lawful people is, because they'd say just the same thing. Yes you can break the laws, you just have to handle what follows.

But to be a bit less of a caricature: if what I, as a perfectly free person, want to do is play my music at 11 outside your window in the small hours of the morning, and what you, as a perfectly free person, want to do is to sleep with the window open at that time, would you:
1. Politely ask me to turn it down or take it elsewhere,
2. Take an axe to my sound system, or
3. Take an axe to my face?

Any of these interferes with both our freedoms - yours because whichever of these options you take, you're not doing what you want to do which is "sleeping", and I'm not doing what I want which is "listening to my music".

Freedoms collide all the time. This isn't some theoretical edge case that I'm stressing about just because I think it'll make you sweat, it's something I've dealt with every single day of my life for the past 30 years. I want to do things that are incompatible with what other people want to do, and vice versa.


Well, the idea that a Chaotic king would be Chaotic Stupid by default is wrong. It's like saying Lawful Stupid or Good Stupid is default. Does a Good person just stand there and let themselves be killed as they care so much about life that they would never, ever take a life or even do any violence? Does a Lawful person follow their duty/orders even if it would kill them?

No. They do not.

I swore I wouldn't do this again, but look: you're the one who introduced that rule into this thread (and thereby started this whole epic argy). You said, in reply to the question "Are you saying a Chaotic Good person would never force someone to refrain from committing murder? Doing so would negate that other person's choice and free will, right?":


Yes.

A Chaotic Good person would never force someone to do anything. They might try to talk them out of it, or reason with them or others such actions. But not direct force. They want everyone to think for themselves, even if they make the ''wrong'' call.

You're the one who said that a Chaotic Good person must be what you're now calling Chaotic Stupid. Indeed, if you hadn't made that statement, and then repeatedly doubled down in trying to defend it, I think this thread would have fizzled out on page 3.

Darth Ultron
2015-02-20, 02:18 AM
Are you saying that a Chaotic Good person would fight back against someone trying to kill them, assuming there were no other practical options?

It's a possibility, but you can never really know what a chaotic person might do.



Yes, sometimes they do. Such as a soldier who willingly faces death to take an objective (duty, patriotism, and often brotherhood-in-arms), or a parent who runs back into a burning building (familial obligation plus, you know, love and stuff...). But if you want to claim all of those acts are robotic, or impossible... I'm not sure which you'd be claiming at this point.

Your making a different point.

Lets put it this way: Would a lawful who believes in a set order/rule/law/obligation/tradition follow it, even if it would get them killed and be Lawful Stupid? The exact same way the idiot king in the example would be Chaotic Stupid and say ''It can't take way another freedom to kill me''.

And, no, we are not talking about things like heroic sacrifice or even just a soldier following an order. We are talking about Lawful Stupid....keep in mind the stupid part.

For example, someone gives the Lawful person a glass of poison to toast. And the lawful person feels they must do the toast as it's fully part of their lawful beliefs. A Lawful Stupid person drinks the poison and dies!


So the Chaotic person has no problem with enslaving others, it's their own fault if they weren't strong enough to resist - is that how it works? Because what I read here is "enslaving someone isn't taking away their freedom, they can still walk away, they just have to be strong enough to handle the consequences of doing that".

To a chaotic person, the weak enslave themselves.



But to be a bit less of a caricature: if what I, as a perfectly free person, want to do is play my music at 11 outside your window in the small hours of the morning, and what you, as a perfectly free person, want to do is to sleep with the window open at that time, would you:
1. Politely ask me to turn it down or take it elsewhere,
2. Take an axe to my sound system, or
3. Take an axe to my face?

You kinda forget all the other options:

4.If I like it quiet, I simply live far from any neighbors.
5.If I choose to live in a city, I will very, very, very carefully pick my neighbors.
6.If a horrible person did move in next door...I could always move myself.
7.Sleeping with ear plugs

And 8, really my favorite: I would endeavor to create a society where horrible jerks that play loud music at night don't even exist.



I swore I wouldn't do this again, but look: you're the one who introduced that rule into this thread (and thereby started this whole epic argy). You said, in reply to the question "Are you saying a Chaotic Good person would never force someone to refrain from committing murder? Doing so would negate that other person's choice and free will, right?":

And I said, they would not force them not to murder. It seems so simple. The CG would sure try and stop the murder, but without using force to change the person mind The Chaotic person does not believe in using force to change another person mind. They want each person to make up there own mind, of their own free will.

But please cut the crap about like attacking a murder. Like you'd say to a CG person ''I'm going to murder Bill'' and the CG person takes out there axe and kills the person that said that.....that is insane.



You're the one who said that a Chaotic Good person must be what you're now calling Chaotic Stupid.

I said Chaotic people act chaotic, everyone else on the Lawful side says they must act Chaotic Stupid.

hamishspence
2015-02-20, 03:10 AM
I was thinking more:

"Chaotic Person witnesses a (slow) murder in process - they see somebody in the process of being beaten to death in an alleyway - they leap on the violent one and drag them off (on the presumption that nobody deserves to be beaten to death.)"

The point to be made - is that sometimes "trying to change the murderer's mind by reason" is simply not practical.

So they are "using force to stop the murderer"

theNater
2015-02-20, 03:32 AM
It's a possibility, but you can never really know what a chaotic person might do.
Do you realize that this contradicts with your earlier claim that a Chaotic Good person would never(your word) use force to cause a person to refrain from committing a murder? If their attacker is attempting to murder them, and they fight back, they are using force to cause that person to refrain from murdering them.

How do you resolve this contradiction?

Envyus
2015-02-20, 07:56 AM
You also ignored stuff like Slaadi who are beings of near pure chaos not caring at all about other beings or freedom. Their only focuses being whatever thoughts spread throughout their insane minds and the spread of entropy.

illyahr
2015-02-20, 10:17 AM
It's a possibility, but you can never really know what a chaotic person might do.

You have literally spent this entire thread exclaiming that you know what a chaotic person will do.

hamishspence
2015-02-20, 10:30 AM
Maybe we could look at the things that Chaotic Evil and Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Good people might be expected to think are "sinful" or "wrong" or "stupid"

And also, things Lawful people of all strains think are "right" or "necessary" or "sensible"?

Easydamus may be of help here.

Darth Ultron
2015-02-20, 10:51 AM
"Chaotic Person witnesses a (slow) murder in process - they see somebody in the process of being beaten to death in an alleyway - they leap on the violent one and drag them off (on the presumption that nobody deserves to be beaten to death.)" The point to be made - is that sometimes "trying to change the murderer's mind by reason" is simply not practical.

So they are "using force to stop the murderer"

Well, then yes, a Chaotic Good person might use physical force to stop a murder, only in this one very specific given example. As they are good they are opposed to murder and care about people and the community. This tempers there view of freedom a bit, as they will say '''anyone can do anything good''


Do you realize that this contradicts with your earlier claim that a Chaotic Good person would never(your word) use force to cause a person to refrain from committing a murder? If their attacker is attempting to murder them, and they fight back, they are using force to cause that person to refrain from murdering them.

How do you resolve this contradiction?

I never said that. I said a Chaotic Good person would not use force to change a person mind about anything. The CG person always wants people to make up their own mind.

And, again, a CG person would use force to stop any Evil person from murdering them.


You also ignored stuff like Slaadi who are beings of near pure chaos not caring at all about other beings or freedom. Their only focuses being whatever thoughts spread throughout their insane minds and the spread of entropy.

Who ignored them? Slaadi are pure Chaotic just like Mordorns are pure Lawful.


You have literally spent this entire thread exclaiming that you know what a chaotic person will do.

Though you might read my posts were I say ''A chaotic person might do anything..or not. And here is just one example of what they might do''. Sure everyone takes my one example and apply it to everything, even when I say it's just one possible example.

And remember Chaotic is not ''crazy random'' like some people think. For example most chaotic people won't go to the authorities, as Chaotic people just don't believe in that sort of thing. Chaotic people believe in ''being a man'' and ''taking care of business'' themselves. Note I say things like most, but not ''every single chaotic person in the whole world''. There are wimpy chaotic people that go running and crying to the authorities just as much as most of the lawful people do.

hamishspence
2015-02-20, 10:55 AM
I never said that. I said a Chaotic Good person would not use force to change a person mind about anything. The CG person always wants people to make up their own mind.

Wouldn't a Chaotic Good parent, whose child is about to do something epically stupid and hazardous to themselves, lock the child in the home and lecture them until they change their mind?

Even a Chaotic Neutral parent might "stop a person they care about from doing something that they think will ruin their life"

What do you define as "using force to change a person's mind" anyway? Obi-Wan's "You don't want to sell me death sticks" would be an obvious example, but without magic or psionics it's very hard to "forcibly change a person's opinion of something".

theNater
2015-02-20, 11:04 AM
I never said that. I said a Chaotic Good person would not use force to change a person mind about anything.
I have the quote right here. It's from post #35 in this thread, if you want to go see for yourself.

A Chaotic Good person would never force someone to do anything.
Nothing about people's minds. That's entirely about actions.

illyahr
2015-02-20, 11:06 AM
And remember Chaotic is not ''crazy random'' like some people think. For example most chaotic people won't go to the authorities, as Chaotic people just don't believe in that sort of thing. Chaotic people believe in ''being a man'' and ''taking care of business'' themselves.

I'm Chaotic. I would. I have quite a few Chaotic friends. They would. You are generalizing to make sorting one category from another easier. This is called stereotyping. Stop making decisions for me.


Note I say things like most, but not ''every single chaotic person in the whole world''. There are wimpy chaotic people that go running and crying to the authorities just as much as most of the lawful people do.

This is just ignorant. Anything that doesn't fit your definition is weak and wrong. You are arguing as an anarchist who would destroy all Lawful tendencies but you don't fully understand why that would be a really bad thing.

Lets get chemical as an example. To reduce everything down to where there is no structure at all would be the same as reducing all matter down to hydrogen. Some structure is necessary to build up to more complex atoms and even more structure to build up molecules

hamishspence
2015-02-20, 11:49 AM
What percentage of Chaotic humans in a D&D world will be 1st level commoners? If it's a bit higher than the percentage that are not - and if any 1st level commoner, Lawful Chaotic or Neutral, is likely to refer problems to the authorities- a case could be made that it's normal for a Chaotic person to put their trust in others rather than themselves - only high level Chaotics have the luxury of "solving problems on their own."

Indeed, high level Lawful characters might be much more self-reliant than low level ones.

Perhaps it's being high level, not being chaotic - that leads to "taking care of business themselves".

Segev
2015-02-20, 12:12 PM
Lawful people will use force to change people's minds exactly as often as chaotic people will.

Lawful people tend to believe in orderly systems where actions' consequences are clearly spelled out. Violate a law, and force will be used to constrain you from doing so again (and probably penalize your violation).

Nowhere in being Lawful is there inherently a mind-control option, any more or less than there is in being Chaotic.

You've yet to name a horror of "law" that is actually related to Lawfulness. Everything you've named is equally problematic in Chaotic systems.

Gritmonger
2015-02-20, 12:29 PM
Long story short to OP: I'd go for modeling a Lawful Good character on William H Macy's portrayal of "The Shoveler" in "Mystery Men."

It isn't over the top, it isn't extreme, it is pretty easy to model on. Just think: What Would The Shoveler Do?

Red Fel
2015-02-20, 12:55 PM
Just think: What Would The Shoveler Do?

This... Is actually an incredibly good point.

Ignoring for a moment the fact that Mystery Men was an adorable exercise in the absurd, the Shoveler is a great example of a more down-to-earth, realistic LG. Very honorable, dedicated to heroing as a higher cause, but also dedicated and loyal to his wife; possessed of a strong sense of duty, and an equally strong sense of right and wrong; faithful to and supportive of his friends. But behind the ideals and the moral rectitude, what you have is a really decent person. Good friend, faithful husband, decent citizen, hard worker. Otherwise, a perfectly ordinary, relatable person; not a shining knight on a horse on top of a pedestal enshrined in light, just a normal, decent person. Much easier to understand than a lot of more idealized caricatures of the alignment.

And as an aside... Maybe we should get off of Darth Ultron's case. Clearly, he plays by a very extreme definition of Lawful and Chaotic, as is his prerogative. Clearly, quite a few people (myself included) disagree with his definition, as is their prerogative. I think the point has been made. We can get back to the OP now.

hamishspence
2015-02-20, 01:17 PM
We can get back to the OP now.

Which covered all three Lawful alignments:


I've seen a bunch of people playing Lawful alignments, whether LG, LN or LE. As someone who's Chaotic IRL, and is biased towards it, I sometimes wonder how I can play a Lawful character, if only to shake things up a bit. How do I play a Lawful well? Or does it not matter most of the time?

I've heard that being Lawful doesn't have to be restrictive. I'm interested in how exactly this is done.

Which makes me wonder:

What traits are normally common to all three?
What chaotic traits can a Lawful character have, and still be Lawful (maybe they're only minor)?
What chaotic traits are so chaotic that it's impossible for a Lawful character to stay Lawful and act on them?

Gritmonger
2015-02-20, 01:44 PM
I'd like to hear other examples, preferably playable examples, of Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil characters from fiction.
I'm having a hard time thinking of a few myself.

Lando Calrissian prior to being forced by the Empire to choose sides? (LN?)

Tina Turner's character from Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome? (LN)

hamishspence
2015-02-20, 01:51 PM
There'll always be an element of subjectivity of interpretation.

However, from D&D splatbook Complete Scoundrel are these examples:

LN: James Bond, Odysseus, Sanjuro (from Yojimbo)
LE: Boba Fett, Magneto

Easydamus examples:

http://www.easydamus.com/alignment.html

LN: Judge Dredd (Comics), Sergeant Friday (Dragnet television show), Percy Weasley (Harry Potter), and Cornelius Fudge (Harry Potter)

LE: Darth Vader (Star Wars), Magneto (Marvel Comics), Dolores Umbridge (Harry Potter), and the Borg (Star Trek, the Next Generation)

TV Tropes Examples:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulNeutral
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulEvil
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulStupid

Segev
2015-02-20, 02:10 PM
An LG, LN, and LE person sharing a society would share the same laws. As Lawful individuals, they would all respect the laws, and tend to obey them.

The LG individual will seek to comply with the law and help others to do so. If he sees somebody violating it, he is likely to politely warn them, himself, if he thinks it an innocent violation.

The LN individual will behave similarly, but will likely firmly suggest that even an innocent infractor turn himself in (even if only to a nearly-wronged party, rather than a law enforcement authority).

The LE individual will either give said person a warning, if he thinks it will benefit him, or he will tell an authority figure or wronged party, if he thinks he will benefit (even by simple amusement) from the fallout.

Should the LG individual witness what he believes to be a willful violation of the law, he will likely call them out (if he believes it would be efficacious or is necessary for the good of others), or he will report them swiftly to the proper authorities.

The LN individual is less likely to call people out, doing so only if it is necessary to prevent harm that would be widespread or difficult for the LN individual, personallly. He will swiftly report the violation to the proper authorities, however.

The LE individual is actually the most likely to call the person out. Either to decry them publicly for his own aprobation, or privately in hopes of winning some reward for his warning. If he doesn't think that would benefit him, however, he is also going to report the crime to the authorities, and try to exploit the situation to benefit himself as much as possible.


LG and LE people will be more likely to engage in bending the law than LN people. LG types will look for excuses and interpretations in the law to help others, to spare the just and innocent and to defeat and punish the cruel and guilty. LE types will look for loopholes and excuses to exploit the law for their own benefit.

LN types are more likely to interpret the rules strictly. They may allow for nuance for their own benefit or for the soothing of their conscience, but they will NEVER do so when it requires twisting the rules around. They will seek to follow spirit and letter of the law, but letter always, always comes first. (LG types will seek to find a spirit of good in the law; LE types will care only that the letter serves their ends.)

Gritmonger
2015-02-20, 02:18 PM
I'm wondering if there are more sedate, relatable player character type examples, as while Boba Fett may be a good example of Lawful Evil, his screen time and lines don't give a lot of meat to chew as far as character motivation.

For instance: Jet Black from Cowboy Beebop as Lawful Neutral. His motivations stemmed partly from being a lawman in his previous life, and he adhered to many of these principles despite no longer having the status of lawman. Sure he had some good leanings, but I didn't see him as driven by a larger struggle of good versus evil, more by a desire to uphold order. He wasn't as concerned with whether his bounties were good or evil.

hamishspence
2015-02-20, 02:34 PM
How about D&D novel characters - and maybe Campaign Setting NPCs?

Khelben Arunsun (one of the most powerful wizards in Waterdeep): LN
Narm Tamaraith (Shandril's husband in the Spellfire series): LN
Vangerdahast (Court Wizard of Cormyr) LN

Artemis Entreri (Drizzt's archenemy): LE

Zhentarium:
Manshoon: LE
Fzoul Chembryl: LE
Sememmon: LE

Synovia
2015-02-20, 02:55 PM
There'll always be an element of subjectivity of interpretation.

However, from D&D splatbook Complete Scoundrel are these examples:

LN: James Bond,



This one is funny to me (and highlights why alignment is such a problem) - in my mind, Bond is a chaotic character. He doesn't give a crap about laws, he's insubordinate, he's very much results based vs process based - there are too many "bond has gone rogue" stories for him to be lawful. And he's definitely not good - he regularly gets people killed - often innocent people, and doesn't seem to care that he set them up (see list of dead bond girls) - he's maybe even evil.


Part of the issue though is that Bond lives in a world where good and evil really don't exist - it's gray.

Darth Ultron
2015-02-20, 06:33 PM
Wouldn't a Chaotic Good parent, whose child is about to do something epically stupid and hazardous to themselves, lock the child in the home and lecture them until they change their mind?


No good person would ''lock'' their child up. Would a Lawful Good parent lock their kid up?



What do you define as "using force to change a person's mind" anyway? Obi-Wan's "You don't want to sell me death sticks" would be an obvious example, but without magic or psionics it's very hard to "forcibly change a person's opinion of something".

Well, I'm talking about the Lawful way that Lawful people force their single will on someone by the threat of force, violence and punishment.

Murder does not work for a good example as all good people don't like murder and will try to stop a murder. Lets use a corrupt law made by a Lawful Good ruler. The LG rule owns all the bakeries in the nation. And he wants to make more money. So he makes his bakery the only legal bakery goods with a simple ''health and safety'' law. The H&S law says all bakeries must meet 25 standards set by the food council. Not too amazingly the rules bakeries pass with flying colors....all the others don't and are closed. So the rule gets a nice Lawful Good monopoly and no one much complains as every one wants health and safe food(and they don't know about/don't believe the corruption is happening).

So then enter baker Bob from the south. He comes to the realm and wants to open a bakery. He does not pass all 25 standards and is told ''no''. He goes ahead and opens his shop from his wagon and sells his stuff.

Now enter Chaotic Good friend: as an individual, all by him self, the friend will try an convince the baker to change his mind and obey the law. There will be nothing even remotely like force use.

Now enter Lawful Good friend-eneny: as a good citizen he will immediately run over and tell the cops about the violation of the law. The cops will come over arrest the ''outlaw'' baker and impound his stuff...by force. The outlaw baker is put in jail, eventually goes on trial, looses, and has to pay a fine. The baker is forced to stay in jail, go to the trial and pay the fine...it's really endless force. And the Lawful Good system could care less about the baker changing his mind, they just want to force him to stop breaking the law and punish and punish and punish some more.

Zarrgon
2015-02-20, 07:52 PM
How about......


Lawful Neutral:

Peacekeepers (Farscape)
Aeryn Sun (Farscape)
The Auditors (Discworld)
Death (the Grim Reaper, particularly as depicted by Terry Pratchett)
The Patrician of Ankh-Morpork (Discworld)
Grissom (from CSI)
Vito Corleone (The Godfather)
Granny Weatherwax (Discworld)
Zoe (Firefly)
Col. Saul Tighe (Battlestar Galactica)

Lawful Evil
Lex Luthor
Darth Vader
Scorpius (Farscape)
The Borg
The Darleks(Doctor Who)
Saruman
Grima Wormtongue
Cersei Lannister (The Song of Ice and Fire, George RR Martin)
Emperor Palpatine (possibly NE)
Vincent Vega and Jules Winnfield (Pulp Fiction) (Jules later becomes LG)
The Bride (Kill Bill Vol. 1 & 2)

Darth Ultron
2015-02-20, 08:00 PM
I'm Chaotic. I would. I have quite a few Chaotic friends. They would. You are generalizing to make sorting one category from another easier. This is called stereotyping. Stop making decisions for me.

So how does saying ''most'' make a decision for you? How do you confuse ''most'' with ''absolutely everyone''?



This is just ignorant. Anything that doesn't fit your definition is weak and wrong. You are arguing as an anarchist who would destroy all Lawful tendencies but you don't fully understand why that would be a really bad thing.

Well, what is considered a ''strong'' person?


What percentage of Chaotic humans in a D&D world will be 1st level commoners? .

I lot. In a D&D world, Law and Order and Organization does not cover every square inch of the planet. A lot of people have to look out for themselves and do things for themselves.

And a lot of places are far, far, far beyond the reach of laws/traditions/order/rules and what not. All that Lawful stuff only matters in dense groups of people. When your in the Desert of Desolation, over 100 miles from any town or organized group of people....then a person is on their own. This is where chaotic people thrive!

BootStrapTommy
2015-02-20, 08:16 PM
Tommy's Lawful Alignments for Dummies:

Lawful Good:
Step 1: Is the action good? If not, don't do it.
Step 2: Is it against the rules? If yes, don't do it.
Step 3: Does Step 2 conflict with Step 1? If so, err on the side of Step 1. If you can't, experience mental anguish.

Lawful Neutral:
Step 1: Is it against the rules? If yes, don't do it.

Lawful Evil
Step 1: Is the action evil and profitable to me? If yes, do it.
Step 2: Is it against the rules? If yes, don't do it.
Step 3: If Step 1 conflicts with Step 2, can you miscontrue or manipulate the rules so that it doesn't? If yes, do it anyway.
Step 4: If Step 3 fails, can you construe it so that it is for the "greater good *wink wink*"? If yes, do it anyway.


I'm wondering if there are more sedate, relatable player character type examples, as while Boba Fett may be a good example of Lawful Evil, his screen time and lines don't give a lot of meat to chew as far as character motivation. I've always thought Boba gets a bad rep. People only label him Evil because he works for the Empire and Lawful because apparently bounty hunters are Lawful (Spike and Fey aren't). If he's Lawful it's as a Mandolorian. But they have an almost " barbarians/Vikings" vib that might imply Chaotic. And in the Expanded Universe, he lead the Mandolorians to effectively save the galaxy and even eventually begrudgingly befriends Han! Yet none of those actions are framed as a redemption, but just a Boba being Manolorian.

Acacia OnnaStik
2015-02-20, 09:04 PM
No good person would ''lock'' their child up. Would a Lawful Good parent lock their kid up?
If the child was a threat to self or others? I'd hope so, though with great regret and every effort to ensure the confinement was as brief and comfortable as possible.


Now enter Chaotic Good friend: as an individual, all by him self, the friend will try an convince the baker to change his mind and obey the law. There will be nothing even remotely like force use.
That... sounds pretty lawful to me. Why does the Chaotic friend even care that this is against the law, especially if the law is as corrupt as you insist it is? Unless the bakery clearly is filthy and unsafe, why does Chaotic Good object at all? If it is, why shouldn't the baker be shut down?


And the Lawful Good system could care less about the baker changing his mind, they just want to force him to stop breaking the law and punish and punish and punish some more.

...wow, you really have no idea what "Good" means.

goto124
2015-02-20, 09:54 PM
"Lawful Evil
Step 1: Is the action evil? If yes, do it.
Step 2: Is it against the rules? If yes, don't do it.
Step 3: If Step 1 conflicts with Step 2, can you miscontrue or manipulate the rules so that it doesn't? If yes, do it anyway.
Step 4: If Step 3 fails, can you construe it so that it is for the "greater good *wink wink*"? If yes, do it anyway."

If only I had the creativity to do this *sob*

Gritmonger
2015-02-20, 10:01 PM
I've always thought Boba gets a bad rep. People only label him Evil because he works for the Empire and Lawful because apparently bounty hunters are Lawful (Spike and Fey aren't). If he's Lawful it's as a Mandolorian. But they have an almost " barbarians/Vikings" vib that might imply Chaotic. And in the Expanded Universe, he lead the Mandolorians to effectively save the galaxy and even eventually begrudgingly befriends Han! Yet none of those actions are framed as a redemption, but just a Boba being Manolorian.

I can buy that - honestly, until (and even when) he goes against the empire, Boba Fett and Lando are moral equivalents - if anything, Boba is more honest because he's not trying to hide his motivations.

Citrakayah
2015-02-20, 10:04 PM
Typically, I think of lawful and chaotic more as descriptions of personality. If you're lawful, you are a cog in the machine, you know that you are a cog in the machine, and you like being a cog in the machine.

theNater
2015-02-20, 10:08 PM
Lets use a corrupt law made by a Lawful Good ruler. The LG rule owns all the bakeries in the nation. And he wants to make more money. So he makes his bakery the only legal bakery goods with a simple ''health and safety'' law. The H&S law says all bakeries must meet 25 standards set by the food council. Not too amazingly the rules bakeries pass with flying colors....all the others don't and are closed. So the rule gets a nice Lawful Good monopoly and no one much complains as every one wants health and safe food(and they don't know about/don't believe the corruption is happening).
A Lawful Good ruler will not pass this law for this reason. It is lining the ruler's pockets by bankrupting the other bakers in the country; this is Evil behavior. A Lawful Evil ruler might pass this law, certainly.

Now enter Lawful Good friend-eneny: as a good citizen he will immediately run over and tell the cops about the violation of the law.
Have you considered that maybe he will help baker Bob upgrade his bakery so it can pass inspection? This has to be possible, as the ruler's bakeries are passing inspection. If the inspectors are applying different standards to the ruler's bakeries than to Bob's, they are not behaving Lawfully.

goto124
2015-02-20, 10:11 PM
A Lawful Evil baker will report his competitor to the authorities!

Darth Ultron
2015-02-20, 10:11 PM
I'd like to hear other examples, preferably playable examples, of Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil characters from fiction.
I'm having a hard time thinking of a few myself.

Lando Calrissian prior to being forced by the Empire to choose sides? (LN?)

Tina Turner's character from Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome? (LN)

This is tricky, and you need to keep a couple things in mind.

First, you can't apply one alignment to a single character who has their actions written by dozens of writers over years. You can only apply a single alignment to a character for a single story.

Second, characters in stories are very often put in over the top extreme situations for the sake of drama. So a lot of stories are not exactly a typical day in the life of someone who is of that alignment.

Third, you always get the vagueness. Some will say things like ''anyone of any alignment can just do whatever they want'', and that is just really odd at best. As when you get to ''everyone is everything'' it just makes alignment pointless....though that would be their point.


This one is funny to me (and highlights why alignment is such a problem) - in my mind, Bond is a chaotic character. He doesn't give a crap about laws, he's insubordinate, he's very much results based vs process based - there are too many "bond has gone rogue" stories for him to be lawful. And he's definitely not good - he regularly gets people killed - often innocent people, and doesn't seem to care that he set them up (see list of dead bond girls) - he's maybe even evil.

Well, Bond is a character with dozens of writers and is an example of often being put in an extreme story. Lawful Neutral fits Bond very well. He definitely believes in Law and Order and Organizations, after all he is part of a group. And he does follow orders, after all each Bond film starts with him being given a mission. He is not good, for sure, but he is by no means evil. Everything he does is for his country, and to a lesser bit the world.



If the child was a threat to self or others? I'd hope so, though with great regret and every effort to ensure the confinement was as brief and comfortable as possible.

Well, if you want to go to that extreme.



That... sounds pretty lawful to me. Why does the Chaotic friend even care that this is against the law, especially if the law is as corrupt as you insist it is? Unless the bakery clearly is filthy and unsafe, why does Chaotic Good object at all? If it is, why shouldn't the baker be shut down?


Well, the Chaotic person does not care about the law at all, other then if you obey the law you have less problems in life from the oppressive lawful people. And keep in mind, that like typical lawful people, everyone falls for the health and safety line.



...wow, you really have no idea what "Good" means.

You might note I used the word ''lawful good''. And sure, good is well good...in small doses. But good just does not know when to stop. They keep going and going and going, not just too far, but way too far. And lawful good is the worst of all.


A Lawful Evil baker will report his competitor to the authorities!

Very true. That is what your typical lawful person does.

Acacia OnnaStik
2015-02-20, 10:30 PM
You might note I used the word ''lawful good''. And sure, good is well good...in small doses. But good just does not know when to stop. They keep going and going and going, not just too far, but way too far. And lawful good is the worst of all.

Going too far gives you the Knight Templar character type- Evil that thinks it's Good, not an "excess" of Good. When it's bad, it's no longer good! That's why it's called good!

Darth Ultron
2015-02-20, 10:41 PM
A Lawful Good ruler will not pass this law for this reason. It is lining the ruler's pockets by bankrupting the other bakers in the country; this is Evil behavior. A Lawful Evil ruler might pass this law, certainly.

You only say it's evil as I've give you the truth to go off of to make the call. If the lawful good ruler just ''randomly'' made the bakery health and safety, you might be all for it. After all you want food to be healthy and safety, right? And, assuming your lawful, you want ''someone else'' to make the food healthy and safe, right?



Have you considered that maybe he will help baker Bob upgrade his bakery so it can pass inspection? This has to be possible, as the ruler's bakeries are passing inspection. If the inspectors are applying different standards to the ruler's bakeries than to Bob's, they are not behaving Lawfully.

Your assuming the inspectors will do the right thing....but there is no reason to assume that.


Going too far gives you the Knight Templar character type- Evil that thinks it's Good, not an "excess" of Good. When it's bad, it's no longer good! That's why it's called good!

Well, good, as they try to be good, don't have a point where they stop. There will always be more good to do. And when you combine lawful and good, you get the handful of elites not just doing good, but telling everyone else how to live their lives as good people, all for the good of all.

BootStrapTommy
2015-02-20, 10:43 PM
A Lawful Evil baker will report his competitor to the authorities!

So would a Lawful Good baker, if their competitor were up to some shady tomfoolery!

Citrakayah
2015-02-20, 11:03 PM
Well, good, as they try to be good, don't have a point where they stop. There will always be more good to do. And when you combine lawful and good, you get the handful of elites not just doing good, but telling everyone else how to live their lives as good people, all for the good of all.

In which case you'd have a government that was:

1. Not making the law to line anyone's pockets (except perhaps the whole populace).
2. Willing to help bakers upgrade their facilities to comply with the new law.
3. Creating the rules based on the health and safety of the populace, not what their own bakeries would pass.
4. Not own bakeries in the first place, since it would be a conflict of interest and could undermine their objectivity.
5. Evenly enforcing the rules.

Envyus
2015-02-21, 12:00 AM
You only say it's evil as I've give you the truth to go off of to make the call. If the lawful good ruler just ''randomly'' made the bakery health and safety, you might be all for it. After all you want food to be healthy and safety, right? And, assuming your lawful, you want ''someone else'' to make the food healthy and safe, right?



Your assuming the inspectors will do the right thing....but there is no reason to assume that.



Well, good, as they try to be good, don't have a point where they stop. There will always be more good to do. And when you combine lawful and good, you get the handful of elites not just doing good, but telling everyone else how to live their lives as good people, all for the good of all.

So not only are your views alien and warped when it comes to Law and Chaos, but also alien and warped when it comes to good.

Seriously you are going into Blue and Orange Morality (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlueAndOrangeMorality) here

Franswa
2015-02-21, 12:26 AM
Tommy's Lawful Alignments for Dummies:

Lawful Good:
Step 1: Is the action good? If not, don't do it.
Step 2: Is it against the rules? If yes, don't do it.
Step 3: Does Step 2 conflict with Step 1? If so, err on the side of Step 1. If you can't, experience mental anguish.

Lawful Neutral:
Step 1: Is it against the rules? If yes, don't do it.

Lawful Evil
Step 1: Is the action evil? If yes, do it.
Step 2: Is it against the rules? If yes, don't do it.
Step 3: If Step 1 conflicts with Step 2, can you miscontrue or manipulate the rules so that it doesn't? If yes, do it anyway.
Step 4: If Step 3 fails, can you construe it so that it is for the "greater good *wink wink*"? If yes, do it anyway.


I would said that LG and LE come each in two shade : one which favors G or E before L, and one which favor L.

Also step 1 for LE should read : Is the actevilis profitable for me? If yes, do it.

Not every evil people is in "for the evulz"

theNater
2015-02-21, 12:28 AM
You only say it's evil as I've give you the truth to go off of to make the call. If the lawful good ruler just ''randomly'' made the bakery health and safety, you might be all for it.
That law, made for those reasons, is Evil. If I didn't know the reasons, I wouldn't know it was Evil. But it would still be Evil.

Your assuming the inspectors will do the right thing....but there is no reason to assume that.
I am assuming they will follow the law. Y'know, being Lawful and all.

BootStrapTommy
2015-02-21, 12:38 AM
Also step 1 for LE should read : Is the actevilis profitable for me? If yes, do it.

Not every evil people is in "for the evulz"
*Noted and fixed

Sylian
2015-02-21, 06:38 AM
How about D&D novel characters - and maybe Campaign Setting NPCs?I'll bite. Characters from the Dragonlance setting, source: War of the Lance sourcebook for 3.5.

Main characters:
Tanis: LG
Caramon: LG
Goldmoon: LG
Rivermoon: NG
Sturm: LG
Tika: NG
Raistlin: N
Flint: NG
Tasslehoff: NG
Laurana: NG

Other characters:
Kitiara: NE
Derek Crownguard: LN
Bertrem, the Aesthetic: N
Bupu: NG
Fewmaster Toede: LE
Porthios: LG
Gilthanas: CG
Silvara: LG

Lots of Lawful characters, very few of which would fit Darth Ultron's definition of Lawful.

Gritmonger
2015-02-21, 09:28 AM
I'll bite. Characters from the Dragonlance setting, source: War of the Lance sourcebook for 3.5.

Main characters:
Tanis: LG
Caramon: LG
Goldmoon: LG
Rivermoon: NG
Sturm: LG
Tika: NG
Raistlin: N
Flint: NG
Tasslehoff: NG
Laurana: NG

Other characters:
Kitiara: NE
Derek Crownguard: LN
Bertrem, the Aesthetic: N
Bupu: NG
Fewmaster Toede: LE
Porthios: LG
Gilthanas: CG
Silvara: LG

Lots of Lawful characters, very few of which would fit Darth Ultron's definition of Lawful.

Are they fleshed out in the sourcebook, or is the sourcebook the place where they are categorized? ...part of what I'm thinking from a roleplaying standpoint is "is there enough of a portrayal of the character for somebody to model themselves when playing?" Is there enough of an example to make the character easily relatable, without the alignment becoming burdensome or overbearing?

With some examples, you can see more of the motivation, and it might be easier to model a similar character by thinking about what that character might do. There's a lot of portrayal of Jet Black, for instance; from his concern for the main ship, his organization of the group, the fact that his his hobby is bonsai (a very human desire to control and constrain something that otherwise represents an object of nature into something manageable and beautiful, an archetype in miniature, where it takes great effort and patience to mimic what otherwise is natural beauty...oddly enough, by repeatedly trimming it and constraining it)

Yet at the same time, he cares - to a point. While he is lawful, he doesn't constrain Spike when Spike goes off on occasion. Including on the "final" occasion.

It is interesting, because while he believes in laws and ordered behavior, he doesn't force that on Spike. He complains, he cajoles to a point, but it's never forced.

Or Granny Weatherwax, as mentioned upthread, as Lawful Neutral. She is an - interesting character - because she is constrained by what she is supposed to be, what she may be fearful of becoming, by her appearance and the respect she is supposed to command. She is very much a Lawful Neutral more in the sense of sticking to propriety and the way things are done, partly because her own health as well as her ability to help depends on maintaining the respect her kind is due.

Unlike Jet Black, some of the behaviors she gets up to are meant to act on the larger world to change it to be more ordered, or sometimes to constrain or help one of her own kind who may have gone off the rails. Moreso than Jet Black, she has a mission.

Michael7123
2015-02-21, 12:37 PM
It's taken me ages to read through all this, but I'm finally up to date on this thread. I just wanted to thank everyone who participated here for putting the time into this thread. It's made my three and a half hour shift at the campus safety office this morning bearable.

Darth Ultron
2015-02-21, 12:57 PM
Lots of Lawful characters, very few of which would fit Darth Ultron's definition of Lawful.

Well, lets see...

Sturm Brightblade is a text book example of a ''Lawful Good Stupid type''. He is also a lair, a hypocrite and keeps secrets. He sees everything in black and white terms, refusing to consider the grayer shades between, and considers all magic as being evil. And he does like being a good soldier and having others tell him what to do, and he fully supports Tanis as leader.

Tanis Half-elven is the leader and he likes having a set organized group. He quite literately orders everyone around throughout the books. Tanis is a brilliant leader and tactician. Likes: Being away from and argument, peaceful places, fighting for what he believes in, having a good evening with the ones he loves, and when a war has ended. Dislikes: Dragons, Dragon Riders, other things in his eyes that create a disturbance, being disgraced by elves because of his human heritage and vise versa, and people who disagree with him.

Caramon Majere is the text book example of a Lawful Good sheep. He spends the first half of his life being caregiver to his brother and a good soldier. He wants to be told what to do.

So what does not fit, I wonder?

ObnoxiousKender
2015-02-21, 03:31 PM
To me being/playing a lawful character is simply abiding by a personal code or creed. That can vary from character to character. Like a samurai's code of conduct might be totally different than a paladins, but he would still follow it to the letter.
And just because you have the lawful stuck onto your character doesn't mean that you have to blindly follow your code/creed. You can have a thoughtful paladin as well as a religious Zelot who is really stupid and blindly follows his code.
Also, what if your lawful character has a sudden epiphany or conflict of faith? They can change in an instant, although I am not sure what would happen to their alignment. I guess it would suppose on what they did afterwards.
So in my opinion all you need to do to successfully play a lawful character is to follow your creed. Make sure your DM knows what your creed is, (write it out and give it to him if you need to.) so that he can help you if you need it.

goto124
2015-02-21, 10:41 PM
I view Lawful as less about following a code down to the letter, and more about serving the society she lives in.

Lawfuls are collectivists, Chaotics are individualists. IMHO, anyway.

wumpus
2015-02-21, 11:04 PM
Quick question: Has anybody made a campaign/setting based on Modesitt's "Recluse setting"? Law and Chaos are somewhat tied with good and evil (although less than I would consider positive and negative energy in D&D), but still have other effects. Healers tend to be tied with order, while chaos mages can throw fireballs (ordermasters are still pretty effective in combat, but more defence oriented and have certain disadvantages). There are also certain changes in [natural] life expectancy, but that is unlikely to matter for PCs. Note: non-casters are unlikely to have a specific alignment, although some craftsmen (and hopefully judges) can be detected as lawful. Pinging chaotic is more common in casters and criminals (in the latest book an order mage has a barely detectable white [the color of chaos] haze in his aura after his first kill in war).

Personal belief about (D&D) "lawfulness": it basically is defined by the size of the group you self-identify with. Any character can have a code of honor. If your code is personal and held by yourself, you are likely chaotic (I think the Giant mentioned this, or at least mentioned that a merely self-inforced code wasn't necessarily lawful). If you follow the code of your clan, knighly order, or kingdom, that is increasingly more lawful (although degree maters. If you really consider an attack on someone across the kingdom an attack on yourself that is Miko-level lawful (consider Captain Carrot) this holds. Simply being part of a large kingdom and thinking yourself an Imperial isn't quite the same). A chaotic individual is more likely to see each PC/NPC (possibly monster) as an individual and not necessarily a member of a group (although this doesn't prohibit stereotypes. After hearing that all dwarves are drunken louts, he treats each individual as a drunken lout).

goto124
2015-02-21, 11:11 PM
Recluse alignment sounds very closely tied to mechanics, TBH, and not exactly something that can be slotted into another system such as DnD.

oudeis
2015-02-21, 11:26 PM
Hey, all:

I mostly just skimmed through this thread* but I was wondering if the fate of Howard Ro Bob the baker was ever settled? Did the loot Lawful Goods force him to give away the fruits, er, muffins of his labor? Was he able to maintain ownership of the Rearden me mithril baking pans he invented and that made his pastries so much more delicious than others'?



*or maybe skimmed over it, like an Everglades airboat navigating a particularly fallacious swamp, perhaps

veti
2015-02-22, 12:10 AM
"Lawful Evil
Step 1: Is the action evil? If yes, do it.
*

No no no.

Step 1: What is my mission? What is the minimum I need to do to keep my superiors off my case?
Step 2: Within the framework of Step 1, how can I enrich or empower myself and do the opposite to my enemies?
Step 3: If Step 2 is impossible, how can I make it possible? Is it time to switch allegiance or dish the dirt I've collected on my superior?

Rules don't enter into the calculation, except in so far as breaking them would get me in trouble, or as tools to achieve Step 2. "Evil" doesn't enter it at all, unless my mission is evil, and in that case it's covered by Step 1.

veti
2015-02-22, 12:15 AM
Recluse alignment sounds very closely tied to mechanics, TBH, and not exactly something that can be slotted into another system such as DnD.

Alignment in Recluce is very mechanical, yes. It only really applies at all to casters, has no meaning to anyone else; and they don't have any choice about which sort of talent they develop, it's basically genetic. Not a good fit to D&D, although for all I know there's a perfect system for it out there somewhere.

BootStrapTommy
2015-02-22, 12:16 AM
No no no.

Step 1: What is my mission? What is the minimum I need to do to keep my superiors off my case?
Step 2: Within the framework of Step 1, how can I enrich or empower myself and do the opposite to my enemies?
Step 3: If Step 2 is impossible, how can I make it possible? Is it time to switch allegiance or dish the dirt I've collected on my superior?

Rules don't enter into the calculation, except in so far as breaking them would get me in trouble, or as tools to achieve Step 2. "Evil" doesn't enter it at all, unless my mission is evil, and in that case it's covered by Step 1.
Not even close. Lawful Evil is Exploitative Evil. They use the rules to benefit themselves. It's that selfishness that separates them from Lawful Neutral.


Not a good fit to D&D, although for all I know there's a perfect system for it out there somewhere. It's called not having one.

Darth Ultron
2015-02-22, 01:04 AM
I view Lawful as less about following a code down to the letter, and more about serving the society she lives in.

Lawfuls are collectivists, Chaotics are individualists. IMHO, anyway.

Sounds good.

But i'd nitpick about the code. When someone says ''I follow this code of 25 things...well except the 12 I don't like...oh, and I only follow the other 13 maybe, sometimes, when I feel like it'' is not being very lawful.



I mostly just skimmed through this thread* but I was wondering if the fate of Howard Ro Bob the baker was ever settled? ]

I do believe the thread consensus was something like ''Lawful people are pure perfect angels and would never do bad things like put a baker like Bob out of business. Because laws made by lawful people are always perfect. So, free muffins for everone!''




Step 1: What is my mission? What is the minimum I need to do to keep my superiors off my case?
Step 2: Within the framework of Step 1, how can I enrich or empower myself and do the opposite to my enemies?
Step 3: If Step 2 is impossible, how can I make it possible? Is it time to switch allegiance or dish the dirt I've collected on my superior?


Your not really thinking evil enough:

Step 1: What is my mission? What can I do to benefit myself, while using the mission as a cover and at least making it look like I completed the mission.
Step 2: Within the framework of Step 1, how can I enrich myself and promote my evil viewpoints, while keeping everyone off my case?
Step 3: How can I use this mission to advance myself in the lawful hierarchy?

A ''dirty cop'' is a classic Lawful Evil example. They will follow the rules and the law...at least enough not to get caught. They will steal money from criminals. They will use lots of violence. They will often twist and bend...but maybe not overly break rules and laws. The classic of ''they kill a prisoner and then put a weapon on the body and say he was trying to escape'' is a classic older then dirt.

BootStrapTommy
2015-02-22, 01:07 AM
I do believe the thread consensus was something like ''Lawful people are pure perfect angels and would never do bad things like put a baker like Bob out of business. Because laws made by lawful people are always perfect. So, free muffins for everone!'' Apparently none of them are acquainted with wonderful Lawful system known as Corporatism.

Acacia OnnaStik
2015-02-22, 01:12 AM
I do believe the thread consensus was something like ''Lawful people are pure perfect angels and would never do bad things like put a baker like Bob out of business. Because laws made by lawful people are always perfect. So, free muffins for everone!''

No, the consensus was "You said Lawful Good, and that's obviously not Good, what is going on in your head".

Darth Ultron
2015-02-22, 01:22 AM
No, the consensus was "You said Lawful Good, and that's obviously not Good, what is going on in your head".

Seems a bit odd to think all Lawful good people are perfect though. So if your LG you know that perfect spot to stop before your law/order/tradition/oppressive idea becomes too bad? So every bad lawful thing ever done was by a LN or LE person?

I'll never agree, I just see so much Lawful Good bad....

BootStrapTommy
2015-02-22, 01:26 AM
I'll never agree, I just see so much Lawful Good bad.... Most examples of Lawful Good bad are just examples of being Lawful before being Good, not being Lawful Good.

No, the consensus was "You said Lawful Good, and that's obviously not Good, what is going on in your head". Not every Capitalist would agree. Then again most Capitalists aren't Lawful. Or Good.

Gritmonger
2015-02-22, 01:32 AM
Seems a bit odd to think all Lawful good people are perfect though. So if your LG you know that perfect spot to stop before your law/order/tradition/oppressive idea becomes too bad? So every bad lawful thing ever done was by a LN or LE person?

I'll never agree, I just see so much Lawful Good bad....
Tell the Shoveler when he's gone too far. It's not that a Lawful Good person will never make a mistake - as the Shoveler says when his wife declares that if anyone throws up in her pool she's going to divorce him:

"That's fair."

It's not about pushing laws on everybody else. Jet Black only gathers bounties, he never makes Spike or Faye live by all of his rules, just enough of them to keep them from getting the BeeBop impounded or the law mad at him.

Granny Weatherwax, even in her most terrifying form as an incarnation of consequences as it exists on Discworld, still affords people the chance to turn away from their course. She doesn't ride people to do what she says everyday, though she would if given the opportunity, but she doesn't want the responsibility for other people, or their decisions. She lives alone for a reason. She seeks her own unburdening through riding along with animals. Even she has a hard time understanding the regimented minds of a hive.

It almost seems, though, that it is some law that any law is evil, with no room for any kind of personal consideration or motivation, or that it's impossible to allow for somebody being 'lawful good' because that would mean that other people who fall short might be responsible for their own actions.

Darth Ultron
2015-02-22, 01:36 AM
Most examples of Lawful Good bad are just examples of being Lawful before being Good, not being Lawful Good.

Well, I do see Good as the worst. The whole being nice and helping others is great...as long as you don't go too far. But that is the big problem with Good. They simply never stop.

Then mix in Lawful with the idea of ''we/they'' and not the individual knows best. And you get bad, bad things.

The worst tyrannies are when the Lawful Good people try and help everyone.

theNater
2015-02-22, 01:39 AM
Seems a bit odd to think all Lawful good people are perfect though. So if your LG you know that perfect spot to stop before your law/order/tradition/oppressive idea becomes too bad?
There's plenty of room between perfect and monstrous. If you want to discuss a law that a LG person might actually try to put together that would have negative consequences, we can. But "I'll put a bunch of other people out of business to line my own pockets" isn't that.

Lawful Good people are trying to help others. Keep that in mind while formulating your examples, and maybe we can have an interesting discussion.

BootStrapTommy
2015-02-22, 01:39 AM
The worst tyrannies are when the Lawful Good people try and help everyone. And here I was thinking it was when Evil people raped, murdered, plundered and where just generally horrible to the people around them, violently robbing them of their personhoods and agency for their own gain...

Acacia OnnaStik
2015-02-22, 01:41 AM
Seems a bit odd to think all Lawful good people are perfect though. So if your LG you know that perfect spot to stop before your law/order/tradition/oppressive idea becomes too bad? So every bad lawful thing ever done was by a LN or LE person?

I'll never agree, I just see so much Lawful Good bad....

Everything Gritmonger said, plus: It's absolutely possible for an LG person to make mistakes. Even lots of mistakes. Sometimes they even commit Evil acts, whether from the best of intentions or as a lapse from their own usual standards. Sometimes they have a hard time working out what the Good thing to do actually is.

Your specific scenario was not a mistake, or a gray area, or anything about which the people in on it could have been confused. An LG ruler simply does not connive in that way, and if any significant portion of the many, many people he must rely on to administer the law are honest- not even of any particular alignment, just committed to actually doing their job correctly, though that's certainly a common impulse among the Lawful Good- it won't even work, since some of those bakeries will legitimately pass any standards you care to write, unless they're so strict that the royal ones can't pass them either.

Darth Ultron
2015-02-22, 01:50 AM
Lawful Good people are trying to help others. Keep that in mind while formulating your examples, and maybe we can have an interesting discussion.

The ''helping others'' is the big downfall of Lawful Good. Everything they do is to try and help others, but at the cost of the individual.

Though I'm not sure how we could discuss any example I give.


And here I was thinking it was when Evil people raped, murdered, plundered and where just generally horrible to the people around them, violently robbing them of their personhoods and agency for their own gain...

Your just looking at the hype and the show. When the Lawful Good king takes all the income of the hard working people to help all the peasants, no one who is good cares about the starving hard workers dieing as they can't even afford food. While the poor peasants just sit at home and say ''more food!''.

BootStrapTommy
2015-02-22, 01:56 AM
When the Lawful Good king takes all the income of the hard working people to help all the peasants, no one who is good cares about the starving hard workers dieing as they can't even afford food. And here I was thinking that that's exactly what Good characters would care about...

Gritmonger
2015-02-22, 01:57 AM
Your just looking at the hype and the show. When the Lawful Good king takes all the income of the hard working people to help all the peasants, no one who is good cares about the starving hard workers dieing as they can't even afford food. While the poor peasants just sit at home and say ''more food!''.

Oh, I think I know what I'm seeing now. It may be that relying on a single source of information is part of the problem, as this appears to be more an issue of framing rather than discussing existing, practical, or narrative examples.

It appears the framing approach is "taking my stuff is bad, always." Ergo, anything that might take my stuff, no matter what the cost-benefit analysis, is trumped by my consideration that my deserved goods are going to a host of undeserving people.

Ergo, anybody who tries to take my stuff is also bad. Because they take my stuff for other undeserving people.

By extension, everybody else is undeserving. People who appear deserving, or appear to be decent people, fall into one of two categories. Secretly, they are undeserving, or they are undeserving by their nature of not also wanting nobody to take their stuff as well.

Acacia OnnaStik
2015-02-22, 02:03 AM
When the Lawful Good king takes all the income of the hard working people to help all the peasants, no one who is good cares about the starving hard workers dieing as they can't even afford food. While the poor peasants just sit at home and say ''more food!''.

And, to the list of words Darth Ultron does not understand, we can now add "peasant"...

theNater
2015-02-22, 02:25 AM
The ''helping others'' is the big downfall of Lawful Good. Everything they do is to try and help others, but at the cost of the individual.
Individuals are "others", too, and the 3.5 alignment rules explicitly say that recognizing that is part of being Good.

When the Lawful Good king takes all the income of the hard working people to help all the peasants, no one who is good cares about the starving hard workers dieing as they can't even afford food. While the poor peasants just sit at home and say ''more food!''.
Ah, but there's an easy out there. The hard workers can just become non-working "peasants", and then they'll be well-fed!

...Until the economy collapses because nobody is working. This is indeed a trap that naive Lawful Good people can fall into; failing to recognize greed as a basic human motivator. Fortunately, most LG rulers will figure out(or have advisors point out) why fewer and fewer people are working before it gets irreversible. It turns out that, except in periods of famine, it's pretty cheap to feed people enough to survive. So you can take a portion of the hard workers' money and use it for survival level feeding of the non-working while still leaving the workers enough to have a better standard of living than the non-workers. This keeps the incentive to work, while also keeping everybody fed. Everybody wins!

BootStrapTommy
2015-02-22, 02:30 AM
...Until the economy collapses because nobody is working. This is indeed a trap that naive Lawful Good people can fall into; failing to recognize greed as a basic human motivator. Fortunately, most LG rulers will figure out(or have advisors point out) why fewer and fewer people are working before it gets irreversible. It turns out that, except in periods of famine, it's pretty cheap to feed people enough to survive. So you can take a portion of the hard workers' money and use it for survival level feeding of the non-working while still leaving the workers enough to have a better standard of living than the non-workers. This keeps the incentive to work, while also keeping everybody fed. Everybody wins! Hooray! Because using the violent, coercive power of the law to forcibly redistribute wealth is totally Good!

theNater
2015-02-22, 02:43 AM
Hooray! Because using the violent, coercive power of the law to forcibly redistribute wealth is totally Good!
Remember, we're talking about an alignment system in which Robin Hood is Good. Dude is the poster boy for using violent, coercive power to redistribute wealth.

Note that the Evil Sherrif of Nottingham is also primarily interested in forcibly redistributing wealth. The direct act itself is neither Good nor Evil, it's the intentions behind it that matter.