Question about lawful alignment

[Reprimand]

I have a hypothetical question about a character with lawful alignment made a promise and will go to any lengths to fulfill the promise even breaking the law and committing crimes to fulfill that promise?

At what point does it stop being a moral question and start affecting they're lawful alignment?

Is someone who is lawful evil bound by societal laws or just they're own code of conduct?

[BearonVonMu]

I think that depends on you and your characterization of the person.
You can have a lawful character who follows bushido, or the law of the land, or the knight's code, or even maybe something as vague as the "Law of the Jungle". They could follow "might makes right".
The important part is that they follow their code.

[CharonsHelper]

Indeed - "lawful" isn't really about the law of the land. It's about having a code that you live by which you virtually always follow.

But his code would have to be more than this single promise in order to be lawful.

[KarlMarx]

I think it could easily go either way.

Lawfulness usually means disciplined, communal, and committed.

To put it another way, a knight championing the law of the land and an outlaw staunchly committed to the rules of their band are both lawful, but have very different relations to that lawfulness.

Trying to determine what a character of this alignment would do is unnecessarily limiting and an oversimplification.

Provided that they are relating in a lawful manner to their code of discipline, the scenario you outlined could either instantly or never affect their lawful alignment.

Finally, LE characters can be both. An enforcer for a LE government can be bound by its laws while seeking its own gain, while the agents of an infernal cabal can be bound by its rules and only its rules.

Alignment, quite simply, is a minor part of these decisions.

[anti-ninja]

depends , if you're lawful character is bound to a lord or something similar then yes its unlawful to break the rules of society. But if he follows a code and is not breaking it the action is lawful

[BowStreetRunner]

A Lawful character is someone whose behavior follows a code, but not every code. Within the code that they follow, they will have rules of behavior. Moreover, they will have an internalized hierarchy that determines which rules take precedence in the event that any two rules come into conflict with one another.

So when confronted by a code of conduct - for instance a law against carrying weapons inside the city limits - a Lawful character might react a number of different ways depending on their personal code.

They could decide that the law is inviolable and they have to find a way to achieve their goals without carrying weapons inside the city limits.
They could decide that the law is important, but not as important as the need to defend the city against a nefarious villain so they will break the law in order to achieve the goal linked to the more important rule.
They could decide that the law is irrelevant, as their personal code does not recognize the authority of the rulers of the city.

These would all be examples of a lawful character's conduct. Moreover, their decision would be highly predictable. No matter how many times they are confronted with the same set of choices, they are likely to react the same every time.

[Fouredged Sword]

A lawful character will likely feel bad about ignoring a set of law even if he is obeying a more important one. A lawful character is one who feels just a little uncomfortable jay walking. He may still do it, but it feels off.

[Geddy2112]

Second that a lawful character (of any alignment) could be bound to societal laws or personal ones, or both.

In your case, it would depend if the promise made is more important than the laws of the land.

Only lawful stupid blindly and stupidly follows rules. It is also shortchanging the L alignments to think of lawful as some kind of code and that all lawful characters have to have codes, and that nonlawful characters can't have codes. Lawful is better stated as "order"; in the form of natural order, society, structure. Lawful people can(and do) lie. Hell, I would wager that every lawful evil ruler/politician lies, cheats, breaks rules, doublespeaks and manipulates all the freaking time. All lawful wants to keep a system/order in place, but what that is varies from character to character, as well as why, personal gain, what have you.

Also, if were talking about LE, why not ask the expert?
Red Fel, Red Fel, Red

[Guancyto]

Could go both ways, because Lawful is two factors in conflict. "How many internal rules do you set for your behavior?" and "How many external constraints on your behavior will you tolerate?"

The Paladin's Oath is a code that a person follows as best they know how, but it's also a shackle placed on them with the keys handed to the highest beings in the cosmos. It's a promise from the gods to stop the Paladin if they go too far in the pursuit of righteousness.

So, do you follow your own internal honor that no man can take away from you, or bow before the external honor that others bestow on you? They're both totally valid concepts of honor! (For a pretty good talk on the difference between the two, see SFDebris (http://sfdebris.com/videos/startrek/d473.php).) Happily, it ultimately it comes down to the adventure and the people involved.

[SethoMarkus]

Red Fel, Red Fel, Red Fel

pesky character limit

[Red Fel]

Also, if were talking about LE, why not ask the expert?
Red Fel, Red Fel, Red

http://img.pandawhale.com/post-35918-I-see-you-shiver-with-antici-g-j29F.gif


Fel

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/5155d9ece4b06ce8229b7640/t/5228d1dae4b03f96f1b79e49/1378406877440/pation.gif


I have a hypothetical question about a character with lawful alignment made a promise and will go to any lengths to fulfill the promise even breaking the law and committing crimes to fulfill that promise?

At what point does it stop being a moral question and start affecting they're lawful alignment?

Is someone who is lawful evil bound by societal laws or just they're own code of conduct?

It never was a moral question. The G-E spectrum deals with moral issues. Abiding by principles, as opposed to morals, falls under the ethical spectrum - L-C.

Committing crimes may or may not be a moral issue, depending on the nature of the crime. For example, theft is not inherently Evil, although stealing a starving family's last scrap of bread, being a needlessly cruel act, tends Evil. Murder is straight-up explicitly Evil.

Committing crimes may or may not be an ethical issue, as well, but this has less to do with the nature of the crime, and more to do with the character's relationship with the code of laws. A Lawful character who abides by a personal set of principles or a set of religious dogmas, for instance, may have no relationship with a particular city's or nation's code of laws. As such, violation of a local law may not be of much concern to him. But a Lawful character in service to a local sovereign becomes an instrument of the State, and necessarily has a fundamental relationship with the Law; for him, violation of the local law is violation of his obligation to his master, an inherently non-Lawful act.

See the difference?

Give you a classic example. Paladin, ur-archetype of Lawful Good, enters an LE city-state where, in order to exercise full rights of citizenship, you must own at least one slave. That's basically your badge of citizenship. Slavery is explicitly Evil, by RAW. If our Paladin fails to procure and own another living, thinking being, he will not be afforded rights; if he does so, he is willfully committing Evil. Is he non-Lawful for failure to comply with this law? No. Is he non-Lawful if he helps the slaves lead a revolt and guides them to freedom? No. Is he non-Lawful for helping to overthrow the immortal tyrant who has held this city-state in an iron grip for centuries? No.

Distasteful and churlish, but not non-Lawful.

That said, can keeping your oaths impact your moral alignment? Oh, yes. Imagine the Dark Knight with a pure heart, bound in servitude to a wicked master. His bloody acts at his master's command will stain him Evil, in short order, despite his noble inclinations. Delicious tragedy.

All that said, should a Lawful character keep a single promise to the detriment of all other principles? It depends on the character, of course, but I would say no. There comes a time when, to quote Tevye the Dairyman, "If I try and bend that far, I will break." If keeping this one promise requires the character to compromise all other principles, then yes, he is no longer Lawful. At a certain point, he has to decide on his priorities. However, let's be clear - if he is only compromising his moral principles, not his ethical ones, it shouldn't impact his Lawfulness nearly as much.

It does, however, make for delicious tragedy.

[Hecuba]

All that said, should a Lawful character keep a single promise to the detriment of all other principles? It depends on the character, of course, but I would say no.

For large classes of potential characters, I might say yes. Those classes tend, however, to be creatures that are [Lawful] and not just Lawful (and certainly not just lawful).

A devil can absolutely be counted on to keep its word, no matter what: it might not turn out like you expected when they do keep it, but they will keep it.
Archons, if the issue is sufficient to give their word, will add a caveat like "or be destroyed trying" or "to the best of my ability."
Formans probably won't give you their word, but if you can find a way to get them to do so the words will be highly detailed so that hey avoid exactly the kind of situation at question.

But all of these characters must absolutely keep their word if they give it; they would be more capable of perishing in the attempt than not attempting it.

That said, for characters not made out of the physical manifestation of Order & Law, Red Fel's answer is right on the money.




Also, wrong cosmology, but:
"I am Mab. The stars will rain from the sky before Mab fulfills not her word."

[Red Fel]

For large classes of potential characters, I might say yes. Those classes tend, however, to be creatures that are [Lawful] and not just Lawful (and certainly not just lawful).

*SNIP*

Also, wrong cosmology, but:
"I am Mab. The stars will rain from the sky before Mab fulfills not her word."

This is very true. A (Lawful) creature isn't just a person who values tradition, honor, and stability, but a being formed of the cosmic Stuff of Law. This is a being whose word is very literally its bond, in that its oath is writ in cosmic stone, binding in an absolute (if hypertechnical) sense.

Most PCs are not Lawful on a cosmic level. Breaking a promise, in a vacuum, is a non-Lawful thing, but violating one Lawful principle in order to maintain other Lawful principles is a relatively minor violation, all things considered. And breaking a single promise, even if non-Lawful, is highly unlikely to be enough to cause an alignment shift. Most single acts aren't sufficient to do that. (But see: Genocide, planetary destruction, talking in the theater.)

[Hecuba]

Most PCs are not Lawful on a cosmic level.

Beings that are include: Asmodeus, Mab, Primus, Sir Mix-a-Lot, and Jack McCoy.

Off-topic-but-brought-to-mind-by-this-thread: Next time I play a PC that is, I need to get the DM to let me have an at-will ability (SLA/SU/whatever) to play the Law and Order sound.

[Jay R]

1. The Lawful-Chaotic spectrum in D&D is not consistent with any real-world moral, ethical, philosophical, psychological, or theological system. It's its own unique D&D fiction.

2. Give an alignment question to three DMs, and they will start an argument and quickly split into four factions.

Ask your own DM. And nobody else.

[Extra Anchovies]

Give you a classic example. Paladin, ur-archetype of Lawful Good, enters an LE city-state where, in order to exercise full rights of citizenship, you must own at least one slave. That's basically your badge of citizenship. Slavery is explicitly Evil, by RAW. If our Paladin fails to procure and own another living, thinking being, he will not be afforded rights; if he does so, he is willfully committing Evil. Is he non-Lawful for failure to comply with this law? No. Is he non-Lawful if he helps the slaves lead a revolt and guides them to freedom? No. Is he non-Lawful for helping to overthrow the immortal tyrant who has held this city-state in an iron grip for centuries? No.

Distasteful and churlish, but not non-Lawful.

Gotta say, I love your style - not to mention your understanding of and ability to explain the alignment system. You said pretty much all of my thoughts on the Lawful alignment, and better than I could have. But then, it was probably one of your posts that helped me understand the Lawful alignment in the first place :smallbiggrin:

A part of understanding Law is to understand what the Chaotic alignment is, and that is, well, whatever it wants to be at the moment and nothing more. If Law is about following principles, Chaos is about following passions. One of the best examples I've encountered of a Chaotic character (and a Chaotic deity, to boot) is Illaoi (http://gameinfo.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/game-info/champions/illaoi/#champion-lore), from League of Legends:

All who encounter Illaoi are struck by her presence. An intense woman, the priestess is fully committed to the experience of living. She takes what she wants, destroys what she hates, and revels in everything she loves.

However, to truly know Illaoi you must understand the religion she has devoted her life to. Nagakabouros, the deity of her faith, is usually depicted as an enormous serpent head with tentacles spiraling around it in endless motion, with no beginning and no end. Also called The Mother Serpent, The Great Kraken, or even The Bearded Lady, Nagakabouros is the Serpent Isles’ god of life, ocean storms, and motion. (The literal translation of its name is “the unending monster that drives the sea and sky.”) Central to the religion’s theology are three tenets: every spirit was born to serve the universe; desire was built into every living being by the universe; the universe only moves toward its destiny when living creatures chase their desires.

Chaotic characters can still have personal rules that they follow, especially if CG (because altruism inevitably requires deferring personal desires to promote collective well-being), but those rules are much more fluid and breaking them isn't something the character would regret or see as a personal failing. Law deliberates and contemplates until it's sure it's made the right choice, while Chaos picks whichever looks best after only a moment's thought and forges on. Law continues to serve those it has sworn to serve even when doing so is counter to their personal interests, while Chaos abandons roles that they no longer benefit from. If Good is placing others over yourself and Evil is placing yourself over others, then Law is valuing what you decided to do in the past over what you want to do in the present and Chaos is valuing what you want to do in the moment over what you decided to do in the past.


That said, can keeping your oaths impact your moral alignment? Oh, yes. Imagine the Dark Knight with a pure heart, bound in servitude to a wicked master. His bloody acts at his master's command will stain him Evil, in short order, despite his noble inclinations. Delicious tragedy.

Indeed. Worth noting is that the alignment shift is not because killing is teh evils; it's because the Dark Knight is placing their own good (namely, following their principles and their liege) over the good of others (namely, all the people they kill).


Also, wrong cosmology, but:
"I am Mab. The stars will rain from the sky before Mab fulfills not her word."

It's never the wrong cosmology for Mab. :smallcool:


This is very true. A (Lawful) creature isn't just a person who values tradition, honor, and stability, but a being formed of the cosmic Stuff of Law. This is a being whose word is very literally its bond, in that its oath is writ in cosmic stone, binding in an absolute (if hypertechnical) sense.

Indeed. And "binding" isn't "will never knowingly break its word through action or inaction" - it's "is truly incapable of knowingly breaking its word through action or inaction". If external circumstances arrange themselves such that an agreement's terms all become impossible to meet with no chance of becoming possible again within the duration of the agreement's terms, they can freely abandon their pursuit of the agreement, but even the slightest chance of fulfilling any of the agreement's terms means they can take no other actions than those intended to (in some way or another) meet those terms, and they take those actions willingly, because that's what being actually made of Law means. At least, that's what it means with creatures that are innately [Lawful]; I don't believe that's the case if the [Lawful] subtype is gained by a class feature, spell, or other effect.


Most PCs are not Lawful on a cosmic level. Breaking a promise, in a vacuum, is a non-Lawful thing, but violating one Lawful principle in order to maintain other Lawful principles is a relatively minor violation, all things considered. And breaking a single promise, even if non-Lawful, is highly unlikely to be enough to cause an alignment shift. Most single acts aren't sufficient to do that. (But see: Genocide, planetary destruction, talking in the theater.)

Agreed. Nor does holding to a single principle or promise cause a shift from Chaotic.


Beings that are [Lawful on a cosmic level] include Sir Mix-a-Lot[/B]

You know, I hadn't thought about this before - and I would've been sure that I never would - but I'm pretty sure you're right, in a certain sort of way.


Off-topic-but-brought-to-mind-by-this-thread: Next time I play a PC that is, I need to get the DM to let me have an at-will ability (SLA/SU/whatever) to play the Law and Order sound.

Ghost Sound is a zero-level spell - that means a use-activated item (maybe a big red button?) is only 1000 GP.

To all the players whose DMs allow custom items: you know you want to.

[Kelb_Panthera]

One of the most important things to remember with the ethical alignment axis is that lawful =/= legal. Being lawful has almost nothing to do with the law of the land, generally. It's about order, consistency, and (to a certain extent) collectivism.

A lawful character respects the concept of the rule of law but not necessarily the law of the land if he strongly disagrees with its legislators or if he subscribes to the rules of a higher authority.

Example: a Cleric of Heironeous won't give a flying fig about the laws in a land ruled by a theocracy dedicated to Hextor or Asmodeus. He'll try to avoid fomenting chaos and won't go out of his way to disable or kill minor functionaries of the court/ constabulary but won't think twice about breaking a law that goes against his own moral code which strongly reflects the teachings of the church of Heironeous.

More nuanced example: A LN cleric of Boccob would -likely- follow the laws of the land as much as would any character who has no particularly strong convictions regarding politics. However, such a character would almost certainly break the law where it conflicts with his conviction to spread knowledge of magic, in line with his god's teachings. In that case, breaking the law would likely be a lawful act in that he would be following his conviction that the teachings of his god supercede any mortal laws or the teachings of any other god.

Also be aware that Lawfully aligned characters don't follow an arbitrary, self-imposed code of conduct. Their code is based in the expectations of some outside body they consdier to be of great importance; the church, their homeland's code of civility, the philosophical order to which they belong, or even just the judgment of their lord in a feudal society. The self-imposed code of conduct that some characters subscribe to, which has no outside source and cares nothing for the expectations of others, is -not- a lawful one. If you don't care what anyone else thinks of your behavior, you're probably chaotic or, at most, neutral.

To your specific example: there's not really enough to say for certain but obsession is not necessarily lawful. Unless it's a promise you've made to your liege lord or a hierarch of the church or something like that, putting it ahead of everything will likely result in some sort of chaotic behavior.

[Hecuba]

You know, I hadn't thought about this before - and I would've been sure that I never would - but I'm pretty sure you're right, in a certain sort of way.
Its all there in the lyrics: he "cannot lie"


One of the most important things to remember with the ethical alignment axis is that lawful =/= legal. Being lawful has almost nothing to do with the law of the land, generally. It's about order, consistency, and (to a certain extent) collectivism.

Agreed. I often think that it would be better named as the order/chaos axis. Deference and respect by Lawful mortals for the "law of the land," where it exists, is generally a matter of such laws being how mortal people make ordered societies - and order being a desirable thing is generally the base of (deliberate) Lawfulness.