does lawful and legal mean the same thing?

[jk7275]

I am new to role-playing games and recently joined a group. I was interested in playing a lawful character and the group informed me that the only valid definition of lawful is that you can only do something if its legal and when i question this the reason i was told by a lawyer that's the way the american legal system defines lawful as whatever is legal so it must be the only valid definition

What being lawful means is something I never gave much thought about and i can see how a layman will see lawful and legal as being the same thing this still seems wrong to me especially n a role playing game. I.E. how would lawful evil work or why must monks be lawful?

Is there a book/website that gives a good explanation in laymen terms just what is meant by lawful? In other forums I have seen people make comments that being lawful doesn't mean the same thing as legal or something can be legal yet unlawful. However there wasn't any much of any kind of explanation as to why those statements are true

[Flickerdart]

Let's consult the SRD, which I think just quotes verbatim from the PHB.

"Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-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."

Legal principles are not mentioned here. What is mentioned is obedience and reliability. A lawful character respects authority above himself (whether that authority is a person or a code), and can be expected to be consistent in his actions. But there is no rule that a lawful character must consider his nation's laws to be that code. This is doubly important if the character is not currently in his own country - a Lawful Good Paladin has no reason to obey the laws of the despotic nation of Tyrrania, because he does not see them as legitimate.

Let's roll through the three lawful alignments.

"A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished."

So a lawful person follows expectations, and has discipline, and promotes justice. Nothing about laws.

"A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government."

A LN guy can base his actions on laws, but tradition or a personal code are just as valid as sources of guidance.

"A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.

This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.

Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master."

Tradition appears again, as do a personal code, loyalty, duty, and reliability. We also see more mentions of hierarchy - a Lawful characters may belong to an organization.



So a character can be Lawful and yet perform illegal acts if his source of authority is, for example, a personal code, tradition, or a criminal organization. This puts him against other Lawful characters such as policemen, soldiers, or kings, but such is life. Nobody said that people of one alignment had to work together.

[DrMotives]

No, your lawyer friend is wrong if they're talking about the game. In the legal system, they use the word lawful to mean legal, but its opposite is unlawful. In game, the opposite of lawful is chaotic, which is a very different idea from unlawful. The lawful-chaotic distinction isn't as easy as the good-evil distinction, sometimes it's called the ethical axis while good-evil is the moral axis. It has more to do with a belief that the universe does & should have a set of rules it's supposed to run on, and acting like you yourself are & are supposed to be bound to rules too. Lawful exemplars like devils & angels like contracts, organized military formations, discipline. Chaotic exemplars like demons & eledrins have courts & terms of royalty, but those are pretty much just because they're the most powerful of their kind and therefor in charge. But even though lawful types are about rules, that doesn't mean they have to be about the rules of the land in which they happen to reside. You can play a lawful good Robin Hood type, he was all about who was the proper king, not simply against the king he didn't like.

[Firest Kathon]

In the D&D vocabulary, the term "lawful" describes a character following a personal code/guideline. To quote from the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#lawVsChaos):

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.
It contrasts with chaotic characters:

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
Legal, on the other hand, is an action permitted by the law, or whatever passes as law in the location you are in. Two examples:

A member of the local Thieves' Guild may have a lawful alignment (they follow the guild rules, pay a share to the guild, etc.), but their behavior (stealing) is most likely not a legal activity, i.e. it is illegal.
A warrior with a personal code of helping the oppressed comes upon the (evil) baron's men taking money from the local farmers. Helping the farmers and opposing the baron would be a lawful action (keeping with the personal code), but would not be legal (as the law allows the baron to collect the money).

You should read the description of lawful and the lawful alignments on the SRD here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#lawVsChaos).
Edit: Double-swordsaged.

[Hecuba]

Not in D&D they do not.

In general, it would probably be better if the D&D alignment access was labeled "Order vs. Chaos" rather than "Law vs. Chaos."
That still wouldn't be perfect, but it would get much closer.

[jk7275]

You should read the description of lawful and the lawful alignments on the SRD

Perhaps I should have been more clear. I brought up those descriptions . The DM disagreed with them and then told me that lawful in the game its defined in the american legal system

[squiggit]

Perhaps I should have been more clear. I brought up those descriptions . The DM disagreed with them and then told me that lawful in the game its defined in the american legal system

Well if he wants to house rule and ignore what the books explicitly say there's not much to do.

[Flickerdart]

Perhaps I should have been more clear. I brought up those descriptions . The DM disagreed with them and then told me that lawful in the game its defined in the american legal system
Why would the American legal system have any say in how to play a game of D&D?

[FocusWolf413]

Check these out:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448542-Compliance-Will-Be-Rewarded-A-Guide-to-Lawful-Evil

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448799-To-March-Into-Hell-for-a-Heavenly-Cause-A-Lawful-Good-Handbook

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448817-My-Country-Right-Or-Wrong-A-Lawful-Neutral-Alignment-Handbook


No, they do not mean the same thing. As everyone said before, Lawful means reliability, honor, or loyalty. As long as your character sticks to a code, you're fine.

[Telonius]

Most places won't have a specific law against lying (except under certain circumstances, like when you're under oath, or talking to the King, or things like that). But a capital-L Lawful person would be more likely not to lie, whether or not there was a specific rule against it.

So on to the Monk question. This is one where I personally houserule it away. But, the idea of a (standard) Monk is that you need dedication, discipline, and training to perfect your martial arts skills. Only someone who has a mindset that's all about following a very difficult regimen would be able to stick with it long enough to get the class features. So, Lawful is the requirement. What you do with the training is more up to the individual person. You might be a Ninja Turtle, or you might be Shredder. That's where the Good/Evil axis comes in.

A DM is totally free to waive any of those requirements, or change them to be something else altogether. Yours seems to have done just that. That's Rule Zero territory, though; if you were playing by standard rules your interpretation would be closer to correct.

[Red Fel]

Perhaps I should have been more clear. I brought up those descriptions . The DM disagreed with them and then told me that lawful in the game its defined in the american legal system

Here's the bottom line, in two nutshells:
He's wrong. Lawful does not mean "obeys the American legal system." It means "adheres to codes, traditions, and/or respect." Plenty of examples have been given of a Lawful character breaking local laws. As America does not exist within any known D&D setting, all the more reason to disregard the American legal system in defining Lawful.
He's the DM. Unfortunately, the DM can define terms within his setting. This also means that he has the right to be wrong. If he is a reasonable person, plead this case to him, as we have illustrated, and perhaps he will relent. If he does not, then it's up to you if you want to game in his world.



http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448542-Compliance-Will-Be-Rewarded-A-Guide-to-Lawful-Evil


Hey, that one looks familiar. And is also the only one that matters.

[stanprollyright]

I was interested in playing a lawful character and the group informed me that the only valid definition of lawful is that you can only do something if its legal and when i question this the reason i was told by a lawyer that's the way the american legal system defines lawful as whatever is legal so it must be the only valid definition

No. No. No no no. No. Absolutely not. The American Legal System has absolutely no bearing on the game whatsoever, and shouldn't. These people don't understand what roleplaying is. Someone who always follows the law of the land without question is not a character, they're a conformist stereotype. Considering that most adventures consist largely of murdering things and grave-robbing, taking the actual written law of fictional societies into account will almost certainly start to break down the verisimilitude. Most places can be assumed to have laws prohibiting murder, theft, assault, rape, and destruction of property, and adventurers need not concern themselves with whether jaywalking or having a licence to sell liquor is legal, or whether they're within the jurisdiction of this governing entity or that one. Other places might have laws that are corrupt, nonsensical, and/or oppressive, in which case a Lawful Good character would be obligated NOT to follow the law or even to actively fight it. A world where lawful characters must follow all laws will quickly turn into a farce, where your characters' behavior is entirely based upon where they find themselves.

The DM makes up all the laws, and telling you that your lawful character must follow all the laws they make up is a way to control your character. This clearly oversteps the bounds of a DM and completely misses the point of roleplay.

[nedz]

Perhaps I should have been more clear. I brought up those descriptions . The DM disagreed with them and then told me that lawful in the game its defined in the american legal system

Are you playing in a Fantasy USA setting ?

Didn't think so.

If you were then Clerics would be only good for book-keeping.

[Prime32]

Perhaps I should have been more clear. I brought up those descriptions . The DM disagreed with them and then told me that lawful in the game its defined in the american legal systemFirst of all, the American legal system exists in your setting? :smalleek: Second, under any legal system if you sign a contract saying "I pledge to perform one cannibalistic act, where 'cannibalistic' is defined as an act involving petting puppies on the head"... then you're contractually bound to pet puppies, not eat people. D&D includes a definition of "lawful", meaning that the rules refer to this definition regardless of what the word might mean in other contexts.

Alignment is intrinsic to your character and their personality. You can't change someone else's alignment, unless you're using some kind of mind-altering magic. "Lawful" is a physical substance which things can be made out of, including planes and living creatures. By your DM's logic, a king could destroy a third of the multiverse by saying "Outsiders are now illegal".

The battle between the cosmic forces of Order and Chaos (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OrderVersusChaos) is a very old and established concept in fantasy literature, and D&D draws heavily from works where it was a major theme (notably, Gygax saw works like The Lord of the Rings as running completely against the themes of D&D, and only added halflings because his players wouldn't stop asking to play one), even if later editions muddled things a bit by adding Good and Evil to the mix.

[FocusWolf413]

Hey, that one looks familiar. And is also the only one that matters.

That's why I put it on top.

[Strigon]

Yeah, as others have said, Lawful refers to Law in the sense of order, or the Opposite of Chaos. A cosmic Lawful, as opposed to a legalistic one; just like Good refers to a cosmic Good, and not "this turkey sandwich is good."

When I first got my friends into D&D, one of them had a very similar outlook because he played a very... peculiar version of D&D (they gained attributes at every level, apparently that's what Lawful meant, etc.), and his idea of LE was a corrupt cop. Still on the side of the law, but Evil. Fortunately, I was the DM and had the rulebooks on hand, so I managed to show him the difference.


What I'd recommend is going through the sections of alignment with your DM. Chances are, nothing will change; at best, he'd probably just say that they do things differently. The whole group is unlikely to change (though it's possible, I suppose) so I think you're just going to have to decide whether you can still have fun in a game with those particular rules.

[stanprollyright]

When I first got my friends into D&D, one of them had a very similar outlook because he played a very... peculiar version of D&D (they gained attributes at every level, apparently that's what Lawful meant, etc.), and his idea of LE was a corrupt cop. Still on the side of the law, but Evil. Fortunately, I was the DM and had the rulebooks on hand, so I managed to show him the difference.

A corrupt cop or politician is a pretty good stereotype of LE, actually. Doing evil things within the bounds of the law, or enforcing an order that you don't feel personally beholden to.

[Zanos]

A corrupt cop or politician is a pretty good stereotype of LE, actually. Doing evil things within the bounds of the law, or enforcing an order that you don't feel personally beholden to.
Corrupt cops are usually paid off by seedy elements to either ignore their duty or outright work against it, and would therefore likely be some flavor of Chaotic, or possibly Neutral. Someone who takes money to break oaths they made is basically the opposite of Lawful.

[Prime32]

Corrupt cops are usually paid off by seedy elements to either ignore their duty or outright work against it, and would therefore likely be some flavor of Chaotic, or possibly Neutral. Someone who takes money to break oaths they made is basically the opposite of Lawful.It depends on whether they operate by perverting the law to their own ends, or just ignore it.

[Red Fel]

It depends on whether they operate by perverting the law to their own ends, or just ignore it.

This. "Corrupt" as in betraying their sworn duties is non-Lawful. "Corrupt" as in using the veil of law to insulate themselves from the consequences of their cruelty and tyranny, or to give them greater opportunity to cause harm, is very Lawful. Very Lawful indeed.

I seem to recall writing something about that... Hmm...

[nedz]

Corrupt cops are usually paid off by seedy elements to either ignore their duty or outright work against it, and would therefore likely be some flavor of Chaotic, or possibly Neutral. Someone who takes money to break oaths they made is basically the opposite of Lawful.

There are any number of possible motivations.

They could quite easily only have joined the force so that they could infiltrate it — these could be of any alignment.

They could have changed substantially after joining, maybe they acquired some addiction or changed their alignment.

They could have some higher calling and regard the law as wrong - perhaps only in this instance.

They might have only joined the force to earn a living and be entirely mercenary.

etc.

[Strigon]

I clearly didn't put enough detail in my post (and therefore somehow derailed the entire thread).
The logic was this: A cop enforces the law. Therefore, any officer, whether corrupt or not must be Lawful. Therefore a corrupt cop is the epitome of Lawful Evil.

I certainly never meant to imply that such a character couldn't be Lawful, but that it was a mistake to say "police officer, therefore Lawful."

[Flickerdart]

A cop enforces the law. Therefore, any officer, whether corrupt or not must be Lawful.

The whole point of a corrupt cop is he's willing not to enforce the law - whether to look the other way for bribes, or demand bribes in order to not bring someone in on false charges.

[P.F.]

The whole point of a corrupt cop is he's willing not to enforce the law - whether to look the other way for bribes, or demand bribes in order to not bring someone in on false charges.

Or to enforce the law with one hand by confiscating contraband while breaking the law with the other hand by selling it back to other criminals.

Of course, a corrupt cop could engage in vigilante justice on the side, conducting extrajudicial executions according to his own personal code which would be Lawful but illegal.

[Zanos]

There are any number of possible motivations.

They could quite easily only have joined the force so that they could infiltrate it — these could be of any alignment.

They could have changed substantially after joining, maybe they acquired some addiction or changed their alignment.

They could have some higher calling and regard the law as wrong - perhaps only in this instance.

They might have only joined the force to earn a living and be entirely mercenary.

etc.

Some of these aren't really corrupt, considering the definition of corrupt is "having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain." Being dishonest is a trademark of a Chaotic character.

The 1st doesn't mention anything about what the character actually does. Is he actually undermining the operations of the law officials?
The 2nd is irrelevant, since changing your alignment to chaotic still makes you chaotic.
The 3rd is possible, but unlikely. It is tremendously unusual for a Lawful character to make oaths and then disregard them because they think other things are more important than those Oaths. The fact that those Oaths are important are what makes a Lawful person Lawful.
The 4th is just neutral, and again, not corrupt.

[Anlashok]

This reminds me of a DM I had once who thought he had found a foolproof way to make our party paladin fall (that he considered such an important goal is probably telling on its own) by sending us to an Evil city.

In this DM's mind, either the paladin refused to abide by the city's rules and became chaotic or he follows the law and becomes evil.

I did not find him a particularly good game master.

[Ashtagon]

At it's most extreme, one definition of D&D Lawful matches the Vorlons from Babylon 5.

D&D Lawful has never been defined as following the letter of the legal system, except maybe in an incidental fashion.

3e most usually uses a definition that involves following a code, whether externally imposed or internally-imposed.

1e/2e most usually defined it as relating to obedience to states, empires and greater powers, as opposed to chaos, which was about loyalty to family, clan, and what Traveller calls "law of man", where legal issues are decided more on a case by case basis rather than by precedent and statute.

Take your pick.

[jk7275]

What I'd recommend is going through the sections of alignment with your DM. Chances are, nothing will change; at best, he'd probably just say that they do things differently. The whole group is unlikely to change (though it's possible, I suppose) so I think you're just going to have to decide whether you can still have fun in a game with those particular rules.

Well I talked to the DM and have something of a compromise. She wont change her mind but will allow me to follow lawful neutral as defined in the books. I will basically have to join an organisation similar to the nights watch from Game of thrones which is fine with me as I liked that group

[Waazraath]

Don't forget - an alignment isn't meant as something that forces your character to behave in a certain way, it's not a straight jacket. A character can be lawful in general, but still have a few chaotic tendencies, it can be very strict about aligment, or somewhere on the edge. It's a guideline, to help you role play, not something that is meant to restrain your choices. A DM should imho only interfere if a character has a strict code (like a paladin, knight, priests of a dogmatic deity, or exalted character), or when a player consistently and without appearant reason does things other then would be logical or appropriate from his/her aligment.

[stanprollyright]

The DM should never interfere with your alignment or tell you how to roleplay.

[John Longarrow]

jk7275

Unless there is a rules reason to be Lawful, I'd just put now "N" and be done with it. Let your DM tell you if your drifting away from neutral.

As your DM has told you what the rules are in her game, be prepared for a lot of unusual issues. Just remember to specify you are only drinking water (avoids drunk in public and drunk driving - even applies to riding animals (I can get you the reference if you need) and don't accept any funds from any governmental source unless they can provide you with the proper appropriation they are under. The last is just a teak to your lawyer friend.


Note: It would be funny for the local sheriff to ask you to do something and your ask to see the appropriation. DM and lawyer should give you that blank look. Point out that under ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 7 "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time." Tell them you want to make sure the allocated funds meet the stipulations of the appropriation and that you'd hate to have to turn the sheriff in for an anti-deficiency acts violation.

I've had to do fiscal audits of governmental expenditures. Lawyers get confused by appropriated VS allocated funds.

[Waazraath]

The DM should never interfere with your alignment or tell you how to roleplay.

This is too much an absolutetist statement imo. In a lot of cases, I'd agree. But there are classes and feats that have specific roleplay requirements. If you want to play a saint or a paladin, and start randomly slaughtering innocents, the DM is more then justified to interfere and strip away your powers. Especially for something like the saint, that is explicitly more powerful then usual for its LA, because the stiff RP requirements. Also, the DM is responsible for a consistent story that is fun for all the players. If a 'good' character in a good party messes up the story line by random murder, theft or whatever, the DM should interfere. That's his job. If a player has a chaotic character, and never acts that way, it's only good gamemanship if a DM checks if the player understands the aligment system, what he/she had in mind, and if a change would be appropriate.

[Optimator]

It breaks my little nerd-heart when I hear about DMs like this. I just don't even

[Darth Ultron]

The DM should never interfere with your alignment or tell you how to roleplay.

This is a lot like saying any player can just randomly do whatever they feel like, and that is very wrong.

A player can't have a character slaughter every innocent and drink their blood and they say they are lawful good.

[John Longarrow]

This is a lot like saying any player can just randomly do whatever they feel like, and that is very wrong.

A player can't have a character slaughter every innocent and drink their blood and they say they are lawful good.

For me the answer is 'of course not'. If the DM says 'Hey, they are not people in the legal definition', I'd quit the game.

OP is talking about a DM who's defining lawful as 'follows the laws of the US'. To me the issue is that the OPs DM doesn't understand the alignment system.

[industrial]

This is a lot like saying any player can just randomly do whatever they feel like, and that is very wrong.

A player can't have a character slaughter every innocent and drink their blood and they say they are lawful good.

This reminds me of a Player we had when I was DMing. he made a lawful good cleric to help our Paladin of Palor, both came from the same church. And when he got bored instead of coming up for a reason he was becoming chaotic, He decided he was going strip naked and start killing ppl. only time ive ever had to stop a player and go your lawful good, why are you trying to kill ppl when it goes against your religion and your code. He just got up and walked out saying a good dm would just let him change on a whim.

[Metahuman1]

The whole point of a corrupt cop is he's willing not to enforce the law - whether to look the other way for bribes, or demand bribes in order to not bring someone in on false charges.

Or, you know, he's just abusing his authority on technicality's.

"Oy! I have a legal authority to search you in a fashion I deem appropriate! And I deem a public strip search appropriate! What? Was that a twitch? I that's resisting arrest that is! *Proceeds to beat the person to death on grounds they were resisting arrest, laughing as they do.*"

Yeah, corrupt cop as Lawful Evil is a completely perfect fit actually.

[Zanos]

Or, you know, he's just abusing his authority on technicality's.

"Oy! I have a legal authority to search you in a fashion I deem appropriate! And I deem a public strip search appropriate! What? Was that a twitch? I that's resisting arrest that is! *Proceeds to beat the person to death on grounds they were resisting arrest, laughing as they do.*"

Yeah, corrupt cop as Lawful Evil is a completely perfect fit actually.
That's not really corrupt, more just being a ****.

[Metahuman1]

Except that afterwords, because they were perfectly within LEGAL authority, they don't get so much as a "Don't do that." over it, and anyone who TRIES to go after them for it brings the whole system against them.

And remember, he was within his authority per the legal system. Was this what was had in mind when he was given that authority? Maybe not. Is it what authority he actually has and how he's really using it? Yes.

[Agincourt]

That's not really corrupt, more just being a ****.

I don't understand why you think it can't be both. Those are hardly mutually exclusive.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

It's the DM's setting. If you want to play a class that has to be lawful, ask if you can play that class while being neutral, because your character still fits the concept the SRD has of lawfulness, and the alignment restriction is based on the definition in the SRD.

[Zanos]

I don't understand why you think it can't be both. Those are hardly mutually exclusive.
They aren't, but a corrupt cop specifically ignores or acts against their office for personal gain. If you abuse the wording of the law, you're just a bad cop, not a corrupt one.