Would lawful evil do this?

[tedcahill2]

My group and I are currently trying to find some dirt on the mayor of a city we are in, which we plan to use to blackmail him into appointing my character as the captain of the city guard. Once in power I would use my position within the guard to help some of their party members establish a thieves guild, with the ultimate goal of overthrowing the current thieves guild in town.

My character is lawful evil, and I'm having a hard time determining if these actions are in fact in line with my alignment. On the one hand, some of these actions are on lawful. On the other hand these actions will ultimately advance my characters political power.

[Nifft]

Seeking power without regard for the well-being of others is certainly evil, so that's a good fit.

Seeking to subvert and use the systems in place -- both legal and illegal -- instead of disrupting or overthrowing them seems fairly lawful to me, so that's fine.

Yeah, I'd be nodding if you told me that was Lawful Evil.

[Coidzor]

My group and I are currently trying to find some dirt on the mayor of a city we are in, which we plan to use to blackmail him into appointing my character as the captain of the city guard. Once in power I would use my position within the guard to help some of their party members establish a thieves guild, with the ultimate goal of overthrowing the current thieves guild in town.

That's doesn't seem like the ultimate goal. What do you plan to do once you control the thieves' guild and the law? Ostensibly take full control of the town instead of having an uncertain blackmail leash on the current ruler, right?

But what is the ends you're doing this to? Just to control the town and have it be a well-oiled and efficient machine?

[Keltest]

I think the scheme itself doesn't have any particular inclination on the law/chaos axis, although its definitely evil. What you do while in power will determine if its ultimately a lawful thing to do or not.

A "good" lawful evil character would use that combined influence to clean things up and organize them, with the purpose of making them more efficient or effective. Think Johnny Marcone from the Dresden Files. Crime, especially violent crime, goes down under his watch, and the more distasteful things like getting children addicted to drugs are outright off limits. At the same time, his profits are going through the roof, because the illegal activities he does do are much harder to catch and trace to him, and the authorities are hesitant to go after him for fear that his replacement will just bring back all the violent crime.

So you direct your guards towards cracking down on all the really violent crime, the thieves and assassins and other people who cause a lot of havoc and damage. So maybe rich old Mrs Johnson's manor gets robbed because the guards were going after a serial killer instead, but she cant exactly put up a fuss about use of resources (as long as youre effective about shutting down the violent crime). Meanwhile your friends the burglars are making twice as much as they used to, and you don't necessarily even have to be working directly with them.

[flappeercraft]

My group and I are currently trying to find some dirt on the mayor of a city we are in, which we plan to use to blackmail him into appointing my character as the captain of the city guard. Once in power I would use my position within the guard to help some of their party members establish a thieves guild, with the ultimate goal of overthrowing the current thieves guild in town.

My character is lawful evil, and I'm having a hard time determining if these actions are in fact in line with my alignment. On the one hand, some of these actions are on lawful. On the other hand these actions will ultimately advance my characters political power.

Definitely evil, on lawful you are blackmailing which depending on where you are might be illegal which might mean chaotic even more so since its against the city leader but are doing so using the law system in your favor which could also mena lawful.

[Red Fel]

My character is lawful evil, and I'm having a hard time determining if these actions are in fact in line with my alignment. On the one hand, some of these actions are on lawful. On the other hand these actions will ultimately advance my characters political power.

Explain to me how these two things ("On the one hand," "On the other hand") in any way contradict one another?

[Keltest]

Explain to me how these two things ("On the one hand," "On the other hand") in any way contradict one another?

I believe he meant to say "not lawful", which mostly shows a poor understanding of lawful, but I cant exactly blame him for that.

[Red Fel]

I believe he meant to say "not lawful", which mostly shows a poor understanding of lawful, but I cant exactly blame him for that.

Yeah, in that case, let me rephrase.

Ahem. OP, explain to me how what you described was non-Lawful?

[Daefos]

Definitely evil, on lawful you are blackmailing which depending on where you are might be illegal which might mean chaotic even more so since its against the city leader but are doing so using the law system in your favor which could also mena lawful.

"This character is Lawful" and "this character follows the law" are not the same thing.

[flappeercraft]

"This character is Lawful" and "this character follows the law" are not the same thing.

According to the SRD literally the first sentece on Law vs Chaos is "Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability.", therefore since the law is made by the authority not following is disobedience to authority meaning Chaos.

[Keltest]

According to the SRD literally the first sentece on Law vs Chaos is "Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability.", therefore since the law is made by the authority not following is disobedience to authority meaning Chaos.

A lawful individual cannot be obedient to every authority, nor indeed are they required to recognize every authority. A paladin in a city ruled by Red Fel, for example, would A: be having the worst day of his life, and B: not feel compelled to follow any of Red Fel's laws if they violated his principals. But if they do recognize an authority (say, a soldier who voluntarily signed up for Red Fel's army), then they are required to obey that authority.

Evil in particular has a tendency to impose their own authority over people and places, and follow that authority. After all, theyre (hopefully) competent, and somebody needs to straighten out this mess of a town.

[Jay R]

There are two approaches. Both are valid.

1. Theoretical approach: You're trying to do it within the Law. It's an Evil thing you're trying to do. Therefore it is consistent with being Lawful Evil.

2. Practical approach: Ask the DM. If he thinks it's Lawful Evil, then it's fine.

[Flickerdart]

My group and I are currently trying to find some dirt on the mayor of a city we are in, which we plan to use to blackmail him into appointing my character as the captain of the city guard. Once in power I would use my position within the guard to help some of their party members establish a thieves guild, with the ultimate goal of overthrowing the current thieves guild in town.

My character is lawful evil, and I'm having a hard time determining if these actions are in fact in line with my alignment. On the one hand, some of these actions are on lawful. On the other hand these actions will ultimately advance my characters political power.

A Lawful Evil character balances Law and Evil. Evil characters seek to gain power at the cost of others. Lawful characters seek to work within larger systems. Therefore, Lawful Evil characters seek to gain power over larger systems.

Your characters wants to a) become the city guard captain, and b) establish a guild. Both the city guard and a guild are great examples of systems, full of delicious rules that let you boss around tons of people. That's what LE characters live for. So what if you have to subvert the organization for your own desires? That's what underlings are for - to serve you! So what if you have to defeat a rival guild? You can't make an omelet without breaking some necks. So what if you have to strongarm your way into power? Blackmail only makes sense in the context of a Lawful, social system. Using society's rules to get someone do to what you want is the ultimate Lawful act. You are putting leverage on a weak point in the system to get it to do what you want. That's hella Lawful. You should get a medal for being so Lawful.

[tedcahill2]

That's doesn't seem like the ultimate goal. What do you plan to do once you control the thieves' guild and the law? Ostensibly take full control of the town instead of having an uncertain blackmail leash on the current ruler, right?

But what is the ends you're doing this to? Just to control the town and have it be a well-oiled and efficient machine?

We have an eclectic group that have some varied short and long term goals. We've decided this is the best course of action to start with. We've been hired to find out how people are escaping from the local prison. The escapees consist of both slaves waiting for sale, and criminals. We've decided that finding out how the inmates are escaping, and then exploiting it to start our takeover of the slave trade in town, will help us reach our goals. We will ensure the tribesman of our group barbarian are given immunity from the slave trading once we control it (our barbarian's goal). We will run our own slave ring (our fighter's and rogue's goal). We will obtain political power (our dragon shaman's goal [that's my lawful evil guy]). Our wizard will take control of a library, and our cleric wants to open a church of kelemvor.

Between the lot of us we will control much of the criminal, political, religious, and educational aspects of the village.

[Flickerdart]

We have an eclectic group that have some varied short and long term goals. We've decided this is the best course of action to start with. We've been hired to find out how people are escaping from the local prison. The escapees consist of both slaves waiting for sale, and criminals. We've decided that finding out how the inmates are escaping, and then exploiting it to start our takeover of the slave trade in town, will help us reach our goals. We will ensure the tribesman of our group barbarian are given immunity from the slave trading once we control it (our barbarian's goal). We will run our own slave ring (our fighter's and rogue's goal). We will obtain political power (our dragon shaman's goal [that's my lawful evil guy]). Our wizard will take control of a library, and our cleric wants to open a church of kelemvor.

Between the lot of us we will control much of the criminal, political, religious, and educational aspects of the village.

So you seek to builds systems. That's super dang Lawful. You know what a Chaotic Evil character would do? Blackmail the mayor for money, take a dump in his desk drawer, and then burn down the prison. And then leave, because being in charge of stuff is boring.

[tedcahill2]

Yeah, in that case, let me rephrase.

Ahem. OP, explain to me how what you described was non-Lawful?

Blackmail I'm good with, abusing my position of power I'm okay with.

What I was unsure about is knowingly assisting with the establishment of a guild that would be committing crimes. Is that part of it lawful? It sounds like what we're doing is sort of creating our own status quo, and it remains lawful to strive toward, and work within, the status quo we're working toward.

[Flickerdart]

Blackmail I'm good with, abusing my position of power I'm okay with.

What I was unsure about is knowingly assisting with the establishment of a guild that would be committing crimes. Is that part of it lawful? It sounds like what we're doing is sort of creating our own status quo, and it remains lawful to strive toward, and work within, the status quo we're working toward.

Crimes don't figure into being Lawful at all. The guild's rules allow stealing, you are going to set up and enforce those rules. Mega Lawful.

[tedcahill2]

Most things I read say lawful characters, even lawful evil, don't lie. Can I lie if it furthers my goals?

Like the job we took: the guy is expecting reports every couple days on our progress of finding the chink in the prison system. We collectively decided that I am the face of the job, and will give him false reports regarding our progress.

Is it more appropriate for a lawful evil character to lie outright in this situation?

Or to be honest up to the point where I say, "Yeah we figured it out, but I'm not telling you, and if you think you can do something about that then come at me bro."?

[Aimeryan]

Most things I read say lawful characters, even lawful evil, don't lie. Can I lie if it furthers my goals?

Like the job we took: the guy is expecting reports every couple days on our progress of finding the chink in the prison system. We collectively decided that I am the face of the job, and will give him false reports regarding our progress.

Is it more appropriate for a lawful evil character to lie outright in this situation?

Or to be honest up to the point where I say, "Yeah we figured it out, but I'm not telling you, and if you think you can do something about that then come at me bro."?

You don't need to lie to mislead people. If you need tips on how to do this, look at your nearest big newspaper or politician.

[Amphetryon]

You want advice on Lawful Evil?

Ahem. 'Red Fel, Red Fel, Red ...'

Wait. He's already here?

Sigh. Yeah. What he said, then.

[Red Fel]

Blackmail I'm good with, abusing my position of power I'm okay with.

What I was unsure about is knowingly assisting with the establishment of a guild that would be committing crimes. Is that part of it lawful? It sounds like what we're doing is sort of creating our own status quo, and it remains lawful to strive toward, and work within, the status quo we're working toward.

Murder is a crime. Are you saying LE characters can't commit murder? Likewise, in an Evil society where every citizen is legally required to perform some acts of Evil, does a Paladin cease to be Lawful because he disobeys what is obviously an Evil law?

Of course not. Lawful doesn't mean you can't commit crimes. Let's review what we've learned so far.

1. Lawful respects authority. This is so. However, you define authority. An LG character does not have to respect the authority of a tyrant. Likewise, an LE character does not have to respect the authority of anyone weak or foolish enough to fall victim to his blackmail or manipulation. Also, respect does not mean obedience. You can respect the king, and refuse to obey his instructions. You can respect the church, but decline to join its crusade.

2. Law follows rules or codes. This is also true. However, you define your code. Not every Lawful obeys every law, nor every code, nor every rule, nor every tradition. Doing so would be quite impossible. Instead, you define the set of rules by which your character lives, and adhere to that. Even when it means breaking the law. Sometimes, especially then.


Most things I read say lawful characters, even lawful evil, don't lie. Can I lie if it furthers my goals?

Like the job we took: the guy is expecting reports every couple days on our progress of finding the chink in the prison system. We collectively decided that I am the face of the job, and will give him false reports regarding our progress.

Is it more appropriate for a lawful evil character to lie outright in this situation?

Or to be honest up to the point where I say, "Yeah we figured it out, but I'm not telling you, and if you think you can do something about that then come at me bro."?

See above. Is lying part of your personal code?

Now, cosmically Lawful creatures, such as Archons, Inevitables, or Devils, may not lie, depending on how the DM runs them. But in their case, they aren't just Lawful, they are (Lawful), made of the literal stuff of cosmic Law. Your PC is probably not an Outsider. And that means he can be Lawful and still lie, provided that it meets his personal code.

If you, as the player, decide that this character's personal code includes not lying, then you must figure out what to do next. In my case, I frequently play my Lawful Evil characters with the "never lie, but never use the whole truth" method - anything they say is absolutely true, but you know there's something else to it.

That's the thing - even if your character's code involves not lying, it doesn't require you to disclose everything. You're always able to say, "I decline to answer." Not lying and telling the whole truth are two different things. If someone asks you the weather, you can say, "It's not raining," and omit "right now, but it's expected to storm throughout the day."

Again, it's all about how you define it.

[Dagroth]

Most things I read say lawful characters, even lawful evil, don't lie. Can I lie if it furthers my goals?

Like the job we took: the guy is expecting reports every couple days on our progress of finding the chink in the prison system. We collectively decided that I am the face of the job, and will give him false reports regarding our progress.

Is it more appropriate for a lawful evil character to lie outright in this situation?

Or to be honest up to the point where I say, "Yeah we figured it out, but I'm not telling you, and if you think you can do something about that then come at me bro."?

Read Fiendish Codex 2.

Lie by telling the truth. Leaving out details is perfectly acceptable for Lawful Evil. Subverting the system (instead of overthrowing the system) is perfectly acceptable... even mandated if the existing system is failing to produce the "proper" results. Backstabbing; providing aid, only to pull it away at the opportune moment; creating false hope; double-speak; elaborate fine-print; blackmail (there are no laws against blackmail... and if you didn't break the law in order to obtain the blackmail material, you're perfectly justified in using it!)... these are just a few of the many tools of Lawful Evil.

[Mordaedil]

A great blackguard named Obi-wan Kenobi once said "What I told you was the truth, from a certain point of view."

Find that point of view as the basis for your lie. A lawful evil character is manipulative, but with a personal code or an authority he respects. In Darth Vader's case, it'd be the Emperor. He was willing to give up his son to service his master and only the conflict between family and loyalty to ones lord cause him to waiver. And finally he tipped in favor of servicing his family, redeeming him. He didn't become a good person, he just became redeemed. Those are different things because Star Wars doesn't operate as D&D.

Ahem. If you are playing as a lawful character, be it good, neutral or evil, you do not necessarily respect the law around you if your viewpoint doesn't align with the society you are in. A paladin would be very out of place in a barbaric tribe as would your lawful evil character be in a city ruled by good or neutral people.

Even when you have characters in your own city, there are times you can exploit them, but you'd use the law itself against them and use that same law to shield yourself from similar attacks. Above all, the only real law you adhere to is the one you deem fit yourself. A paladin in the city of a tyrant wouldn't flog the beggar in the streets just because the law told them to.

[hifidelity2]

Of course not. Lawful doesn't mean you can't commit crimes. Let's review what we've learned so far.

1. Lawful respects authority. This is so. However, you define authority. An LG character does not have to respect the authority of a tyrant. Likewise, an LE character does not have to respect the authority of anyone weak or foolish enough to fall victim to his blackmail or manipulation. Also, respect does not mean obedience. You can respect the king, and refuse to obey his instructions. You can respect the church, but decline to join its crusade.

2. Law follows rules or codes. This is also true. However, you define your code. Not every Lawful obeys every law, nor every code, nor every rule, nor every tradition. Doing so would be quite impossible. Instead, you define the set of rules by which your character lives, and adhere to that. Even when it means breaking the law. Sometimes, especially then.

Again, it's all about how you define it.

Totally agree

I have a LE (was NE but become soft) Thief / Wizard

He set up his own magic school to spite the “Approved Imperial School “ and then worked to over throw it
He also took over the capitals thieves guild and replaced as many of the thieves guild masters in the larger cities with his people

To steal a quote he says “I am the Law”. Anyone too weak to oppose him does not have the authority to make a law that he needs to follow, however anyone who steps out of line in his organisations is punished but they are given a “fair” hearing

He is also good any speaking then truth, the partial truth and nothing but the truth

e.g. He may let it be known that he would be pleased to hear if X was dead

If questioned ( even under a truth spell) he would not be lying if he said no if asked

Did you kill X
Did to pay someone to kill X

And of course the longer the question the easier it is to not actually answer it

[Zanos]

And that means he can be Lawful and still lie, provided that it meets his personal code.
I don't buy this personal code garbage. With this as your basis, you could create a personal code that looks a whole hell of a lot like Chaos, then get away with saying you're Lawful by just claiming "oh it's my personal code." Stabbing guards in the face because your personal code says to tear down the institution is Chaotic, even if you write it down.

Having a code does not inherently make you Lawful. Your code has to follow Lawful principles to be Lawful. Case in point, Chaotic Clerics and Chaotic Paladin variants all have codes.

Of course Lawful characters can still lie. Lying isn't that major of an act in general. Most Lawful creatures, specifically devils, will prefer to "lie" by omitting crucial facts, leading people without correcting them, and selective interpretation.

But that brings me to my main point, which is that unless your character is a crusader for a specific alignment, you shouldn't really ask "would my alignment do this?" You should ask "would my character do this?" Alignment is not a determiner of what your character will do in the future, it describes how they have acted in the past. Patterns emerge, but the cosmic alignments aren't particularly kind, so it's probably that a character of one alignment will perform acts of every alignment in their lifetime.

[Keltest]

I don't buy this personal code garbage. With this as your basis, you could create a personal code that looks a whole hell of a lot like Chaos, then get away with saying you're Lawful by just claiming "oh it's my personal code." Stabbing guards in the face because your personal code says to tear down the institution is Chaotic, even if you write it down.

Having a code does not inherently make you Lawful. Your code has to follow Lawful principles to be Lawful. Case in point, Chaotic Clerics and Chaotic Paladin variants all have codes.

Of course Lawful characters can still lie. Lying isn't that major of an act in general. Most Lawful creatures, specifically devils, will prefer to "lie" by omitting crucial facts, leading people without correcting them, and selective interpretation.

But that brings me to my main point, which is that unless your character is a crusader for a specific alignment, you shouldn't really ask "would my alignment do this?" You should ask "would my character do this?" Alignment is not a determiner of what your character will do in the future, it describes how they have acted in the past. Patterns emerge, but the cosmic alignments aren't particularly kind, so it's probably that a character of one alignment will perform acts of every alignment in their lifetime.

Heres the thing. "tearing down the institution" isn't a code. Its a goal. Its something your character strives to accomplish, but it does nothing to dictate to them how they should go about doing it. What is it about your characters values and motivations that says stabbing guards in the face is the best way to go about achieving your goal? Do they find any authority besides the "natural order" to be corrupt? Do they think armed guards are a danger to the populace? Do they believe that a guardsman's face is the only appropriate place to sheathe a dagger? That's what the code is for, and you can get a pretty wide range of personalities and actions into the Lawful alignment, as long as you understand what is motivating this character and what they want to accomplish with their actions.

[Zanos]

Heres the thing. "tearing down the institution" isn't a code.
Not, but that goal can be codified, like it is in the dogma of Chaotic deities. Having a code is not inherently Lawful in any sense.

[Keltest]

Not, but that goal can be codified, like it is in the dogma of Chaotic deities. Having a code is not inherently Lawful in any sense.

Having "a code" is not, true. It needs to be a personal code, one that only you hold yourself to. The codes of your deity and/or organization aren't the same thing, because there are external forces that will judge your adherence to that code and inflict the consequences for failure to adhere to it, if any, on you. A personal code is one of your own creation, that nobody besides yourself can compel you to follow. You don't go about doing these things because your god told you to, you do it because you genuinely believe that this is the way things Should Be Done. A chaotic person looks at a goal and focuses on that. A lawful person looks at the goal, and focuses on making a specific path towards that goal. How they arrive there is just as important as actually arriving there.

Chaotic people can hold themselves to codes of conduct to a point as well, true. But these tend to be based more out of practicality rather than a legitimate belief in the rightness of the code. If something forces them to break that code, they'll go "darn" and move on (if even that much), because they don't care about the code for its own sake, only how following it will be beneficial for them more often than not.

[Segev]

To steal a quote he says “I am the Law”. Anyone too weak to oppose him does not have the authority to make a law that he needs to follow, however anyone who steps out of line in his organisations is punished but they are given a “fair” hearing

This...is more an essence of Chaos than Law. For it to be Lawful, he would have to be bound by his own laws, but it sounds quite the opposite is true. He makes the laws to suit himself and ignores any he doesn't like. He enforces it through nothing but brutality.

"Might makes right" is the essential truth of Chaos. It can also be a basis for Law, but the system gets formalized. Duels to prove superior might and thus authority in things beyond the duel become part of it. Positions are codified, rather than merely being a rough pecking order of who can beat up whom. Moving up is rigorous, with formal challenges and officiated personal combats.


As to "personal code isn't Lawful," it depends on whether that personal code actually binds behavior. "I make it a personal principle to do whatever the heck I want" is not a Lawful code.

A Chaotic person who lives by a code is recognizably Chaotic because his code is just guidelines. Sure, he might let it restrain him at times. But only because he has determined that the restraint is necessary to make sure he's not about to make a mistake. They're rules for pragmatic living - i.e. not being Chaotic Stupid. But, as guidelines, if he really wants to, he'll ignore them completely.

Honestly, the same is true of ethically Neutral people. It's just a matter of degree. The dividing line is fuzzy, but lies somewhere in the region where it goes from "guidelines you follow only when they make sense" to "rules you follow except when you can get away with breaking them."

Lawful people adhere strongly to their code. The rules are (nearly) inviolate to them. ("Nearly" because Lawful people can sometimes take less-than-lawful actions, just as good people can take less-than-good actions, evil people can take surprisingly kind actions, and chaotic people can restrain themselves to a set of rules even when they don't want to and don't see a logical reason to from time to time.) A Lawful person's 'personal code' is never going to be wishy-washy. If it's at all subjective, it will be rooted in objective principle, and applied equally to all.

One way to tell it apart from a Chaotic "code" is to examine how often it says "this is true for me; this other thing is true for everyone else." "I am the Law" is actually a pretty Neutral code, because it recognizes iron-clad law as being a thing, but it applies it to everybody else except you. (That CE may act like it is distinct; CE is simply saying "there is no law; I'm just gonna pound you until you do what I say.")

[Keltest]

This...is more an essence of Chaos than Law. For it to be Lawful, he would have to be bound by his own laws, but it sounds quite the opposite is true. He makes the laws to suit himself and ignores any he doesn't like. He enforces it through nothing but brutality.

"Might makes right" is the essential truth of Chaos. It can also be a basis for Law, but the system gets formalized. Duels to prove superior might and thus authority in things beyond the duel become part of it. Positions are codified, rather than merely being a rough pecking order of who can beat up whom. Moving up is rigorous, with formal challenges and officiated personal combats.

Point of order. While I generally agree with everything you said here, "Might makes right" is the essential truth of Evil. "I do what I want" is the essential truth of Chaos. A chaotic person isn't going to recognize the "rightness" of a tyrannical warlord just because he happens to have an army of minions brutally oppressing the populace. They believe in personal freedoms. Whether that extends to people who aren't them, and whether theyre willing to do anything about that, depends where they fall on the good/evil axis.

[Zanos]

I disagree on two points Segev. The first is that Chaotic characters living by a code treat it with some amount of disdain. I'm fairly certain that this is not the case for Paladins of Slaughter/Freedom, who take their Chaotic codes of conduct quite seriously, and Chaotic clerics/servants of Chaotic deities, who take their deities dogma quite seriously. It's entirely possible to have a code that you put serious weight on and still be Chaotic, as long as that code has Chaotic principles. "Never bow to authority" could be part of a rigid code that will often disadvantage you, but is definitely a Chaotic principle.

I also don't agree that following a code when it agrees with you and discarding it when it doesn't is Chaotic. Behaving pragmatically is usually Neutral. You have to act consistently against Lawful principles or for Chaotic ones to be Chaotic, not just be "you doing you." If you bow your head when it's the path of least resistance and don't bow your head when it isn't advantageous, you're neutral on the L-C axis, not Chaotic.

[Segev]

Point of order. While I generally agree with everything you said here, "Might makes right" is the essential truth of Evil. "I do what I want" is the essential truth of Chaos. A chaotic person isn't going to recognize the "rightness" of a tyrannical warlord just because he happens to have an army of minions brutally oppressing the populace. They believe in personal freedoms. Whether that extends to people who aren't them, and whether theyre willing to do anything about that, depends where they fall on the good/evil axis.Fair point.

I was trying mostly to home in on why "I am the Law" coupled with "I ignore laws made by anybody who can't force me to follow them" is more CE than LE. I suppose it's the "laws don't apply to me unless you can force me" angle that's really the more chaotic.

"I am the Law" works as long as you legitimately hold yourself to the same laws, and don't change them just because their personally inconvenient.


I disagree on two points Segev. The first is that Chaotic characters living by a code treat it with some amount of disdain. I'm fairly certain that this is not the case for Paladins of Slaughter/Freedom, who take their Chaotic codes of conduct quite seriously, and Chaotic clerics/servants of Chaotic deities, who take their deities dogma quite seriously. It's entirely possible to have a code that you put serious weight on and still be Chaotic, as long as that code has Chaotic principles. "Never bow to authority" could be part of a rigid code that will often disadvantage you, but is definitely a Chaotic principle."Principles" are not "Codes." Codes can be based on principles, but principles are, as I said, guidelines. They're bases on which to build your decisions.

"The innocent should be protected" is a principle. LG, NG, and CG can all agree on it. Even *N probably has at least a sympathy for that principle.

NG and LG would agree that this principle should be enshrined in law. They would hammer out hypothetical ways the innocent could be victimized, and spell out specific rights, and even draw lines between sets of individual rights to ensure that one person's rights don't infringe on another's too much. And they'd definitely agree to a legal definition of "innocent."

NG and CG would agree that this principle is more important than the laws that stem from it. If the laws get in the way of protecting the innocent, understanding the underlying principle allows NG and CG to both step up and call out this perversion of the law and make an exception.

NG and LG disagree over how to handle such exceptional cases. LG feels that it is important to stick to the law, but to perhaps find the most merciful and morally upright way to interpret it. Definitely, LG would seek to change it if it saw a problem. But LG would allow the law to inflict harm on the innocent if there was no other way. It would mean law had to be changed, not that law could be ignored. NG, on the other hand, would be happy to work with LG on finding a way to bend, twist, or shape the law...but if that failed, NG would break it for the principle's sake.

NG and CG disagree over such exceptional cases even being a big deal. CG is focused entirely on the principle. Sure, those laws are nice if they help some people stick to the principle, but they're really unnecessary. CG will only follow the law if it's convenient and practical. Not "follow it if it's practical," but "only if it's practical." NG will follow it even if impractical, as long as it's not causing harm. CG will view it as pointless if it's even merely inconvenient, as long as CG feels he can serve the underlying principle while breaking it.

When CG appears to be following the law, it's only because he coincidentally agrees with it, or because he's truly worried that the enforcement agencies would make his life truly that much harder AND that he's likely to get caught.

When NG is following the law, it's because he hasn't found it to get in the way of the underlying principles in a fashion he can't make work for the principles in the end. (He may also break it, occasionally, if he thinks he can get away with it and no harm will arise. NG may well jaywalk across an empty street.)


I also don't agree that following a code when it agrees with you and discarding it when it doesn't is Chaotic. Behaving pragmatically is usually Neutral. You have to act consistently against Lawful principles or for Chaotic ones to be Chaotic, not just be "you doing you." If you bow your head when it's the path of least resistance and don't bow your head when it isn't advantageous, you're neutral on the L-C axis, not Chaotic.I'd say Chaotic is not entirely unwilling to bow to the force of Law. If the force of Law legitimately makes it harder to adhere to the chaotic person's principles when he bucks said Law, he will probably grumble and obey it...for now. The moment he thinks he can get away with it, he'll ignore it. He'll also probably try to get away from it. And undermine it. Chaos is likely cowed only under immediate threat of force. Neutral people are more likely to stay cowed when not under immediate threat, and to follow the law if it's not TOO inconvenient.

The CN champion is not going to refuse to pay the 2 cp tithe to the Queen just because he doesn't feel he owes it to her, if the penalty for failure to do so is exile from the capitol. It is far easier to fork over 2 cp than to undergo shenanigans sufficient to sneak into the city and avoid the tithe-collectors and keep from being caught and thrown out.

Not to say that there aren't CN people who'd stand on such principles. But taking the path of least resistance, as long as it gets you where you're going, is fine under Chaos.

At the same time, the TN person is likely to pay the 2 cp rather than risk getting caught, whereas, if the chances of getting caught were small enough, the CN person would refrain. Most likely.

The difference, to me, is that the ethically neutral individual is going to follow the law UNLESS it is too onerous AND he thinks he can get away with it. The Chaotic person is only going to follow the law by coincidence or if BREAKING it is too onerous and he thinks he can't get away with it. (The "will follow the law by coincidence" is important: don't ever fall into the trap of thinking that, just because it IS a rule, a Chaotic person can't follow it.)

[Flickerdart]

I'd say that "I am the Law" is more about responsibility and consistency than submitting to the rule of the laws you write. An LE tyrant might embezzle, blackmail, threaten, cheat, and make backroom deals - but his jack-booted thugs are subject to some kind of order, and so are his subjects (though it might be a different order - like the laws that govern nobles were different from those that governed peasants). A CE tyrant doesn't give a fig about rules - the laws of the kingdom are not enforced, and the army only exists to extract wealth from the population by force.

[Zanos]

"Principles" are not "Codes." Codes can be based on principles, but principles are, as I said, guidelines. They're bases on which to build your decisions.
I never claimed that they are. I described a code that contains that principle, and a hypothetical individual who rigorously followed such a code. The hypothetical individual was Chaotic, because the code he was so rigid about enshrined Chaotic principles in it. Seems simple enough to me. In any case it seems like a foregone argument that characters with rigid codes can be Chaotic, since there are classes with Chaotic alignment requirements that also have codes of conduct that are major dysfunctions if you assert that following a code makes you Lawful, even if the code itself is not Lawful.



I'd say Chaotic is not entirely unwilling to bow to the force of Law. If the force of Law legitimately makes it harder to adhere to the chaotic person's principles when he bucks said Law, he will probably grumble and obey it...for now. The moment he thinks he can get away with it, he'll ignore it. He'll also probably try to get away from it. And undermine it. Chaos is likely cowed only under immediate threat of force. Neutral people are more likely to stay cowed when not under immediate threat, and to follow the law if it's not TOO inconvenient.

The CN champion is not going to refuse to pay the 2 cp tithe to the Queen just because he doesn't feel he owes it to her, if the penalty for failure to do so is exile from the capitol. It is far easier to fork over 2 cp than to undergo shenanigans sufficient to sneak into the city and avoid the tithe-collectors and keep from being caught and thrown out.

Not to say that there aren't CN people who'd stand on such principles. But taking the path of least resistance, as long as it gets you where you're going, is fine under Chaos.

At the same time, the TN person is likely to pay the 2 cp rather than risk getting caught, whereas, if the chances of getting caught were small enough, the CN person would refrain. Most likely.

The difference, to me, is that the ethically neutral individual is going to follow the law UNLESS it is too onerous AND he thinks he can get away with it. The Chaotic person is only going to follow the law by coincidence or if BREAKING it is too onerous and he thinks he can't get away with it. (The "will follow the law by coincidence" is important: don't ever fall into the trap of thinking that, just because it IS a rule, a Chaotic person can't follow it.)
Bowing to the Law is a minor Lawful act. Of course, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, characters of any alignment will occasionally perform acts that aren't entirely in line with their current alignment and it won't be changed unless they make it a habit, but conceding to a Lawful authority impinging your personal freedom is going to ping as a Lawful act.

I agree with you about the coincidence aside, but will add an addendum. A Chaotic individual might follow a law by coincidence because it was something he was going to do anyway, but he will also probably think that it shouldn't even be a Law, because Chaotic characters eschew such authority on principle.

[Segev]

I don't think "bowing to law because the king's soldiers will hurt him if he doesn't" is a lawful act, any more than "bowing to the orders of Thog Thuggerson because Thog will hurt him if he doesn't" is a lawful act. Chaotic people obey other chaotic people - especially in (but not at all limited to) CE groupings - due to fear of retribution all the time.

But a Chaotic person does so ONLY because of the threat. Or, conversely, promised reward. If CN Mercenary Max is told by his employer that, if he follows this one rule on this mission, he'll get paid double, Mercenary Max isn't going to say, "Screw you, man; I don't follow rules set by other people!" He's going to say, "Sweet! Bonus!" and try to follow that rule. Or at least only break it in ways that can't be detected, so he can claim the reward.

TN Mercenary Mel will also try to follow it, and may or may not lie about it if she broke it in ways that weren't detectable. But she'll actually feel worse about lying about it, if only because she feels some ethical pull that way.

LN Mercenary Mike, meanwhile, is going to try to follow it not just for the reward, but because he promised he would.


And yeah, the Chaotic guy's going to follow a law by coincidence when it was what he was going to do anyway, or when, upon examining the situation, he decides (independently of the fact that it's a law) that it's the best way to do it. He may or may not care about it being a law, depending on whether his Chaotic principles are ideological or just personal preference. Certainly, if the "law" is more like a rule on how to do something, he might appreciate the instruction that makes the task easier.

Nothing says a Chaotic person can't read the instructions and follow them to the letter, if the instructions are actually good.

[Zanos]

Nothing says a Chaotic person can't read the instructions and follow them to the letter, if the instructions are actually good.
That still seems pretty Neutral to me. Always taking the the most pragmatic option on the ethical scale seems Neutral rather than Chaotic to me. If you're Chaotic, I would think at some point you would act in line with your Ethical principle despite it not being the most efficacious option, because that's what being non-Neutral pretty much is. You at least occasionally make a decision based on ideology rather than pragmatism.

Not to say that Lawful or Chaotic people can't be pragmatists, but they're going to make an ideological decision at some point, because if they don't, they're probably Neutral.

[Flickerdart]

That still seems pretty Neutral to me. Always taking the the most pragmatic option on the ethical scale seems Neutral rather than Chaotic to me. If you're Chaotic, I would think at some point you would act in line with your Ethical principle despite it not being the most efficacious option, because that's what being non-Neutral pretty much is. You at least occasionally make a decision based on ideology rather than pragmatism.

Not to say that Lawful or Chaotic people can't be pragmatists, but they're going to make an ideological decision at some point, because if they don't, they're probably Neutral.

The way I read it, Chaos is the obligation to re-examine a situation based only on your own principles, not those of others, and do what feels good to you, not anyone else. A Lawful person won't give money to a panhandler sitting under the "no panhandling" sign. A Neutral person might. A Chaotic person will decide whether or not he wants to give money, regardless of the sign. Sure, some Chaotics might give money because the sign is there, just to spite it, but spite is not a requirement of Chaos.

[Segev]

Chaos isn't "the complement of Lawful." It is the OPPOSITE of Lawful. The complement of Lawful is just another Lawful person whose code is exactly opposite of whatever code is under examination.

The pragmatic Lawful person reads and follows the instructions because they're the rules for doing whatever he's doing. He picks and chooses his rules based on pragmatism, but he does it once, and only re-evaluates after being shown something truly does not work.

The pragmatic Neutral person reads and follows the instructions because he has no real reason not to, and again, he hopes they're the best way to do what he's doing. He is a little less picky about the laws/codes he subscribes to, and doesn't mind a few minor contradictions, because he also only picks once, and often doesn't re-evaluate even when shown something doesn't work. He's just willing to bend or break the law in little ways when it doesn't work. He only really re-evaluates base legal codes if he finds himself breaking it so often that it's become meaningless.

The pragmatic Chaotic person reads and follows the instructions if they really are the best way to get the job done. If he doesn't know one way or the other, he only trusts the instructions as far as he trusts the notion that whoever wrote them knew what he was talking about. Chaotic people don't evaluate codes for consistency or efficacy; instead, they evaluate each situation as it comes up against their principles and desires, and go with what they think is right this time. This can lead to amazingly consistent behavior, but only because they get consistently desirable results. The moment they don't, they'll do something else instead.

[Dagroth]

I have to agree that the Chaotic person would follow a law if the law matched what he was going to do anyway... and I also agree that the Chaotic person would probably say "why does there need to be a law about something that is common sense?"

The Neutral person would then look at the Chaotic person and say "because it keeps the Lawfuls happy..." and go on about his business.

[Segev]

I have to agree that the Chaotic person would follow a law if the law matched what he was going to do anyway... and I also agree that the Chaotic person would probably say "why does there need to be a law about something that is common sense?"

The Neutral person would then look at the Chaotic person and say "because it keeps the Lawfuls happy..." and go on about his business.

It's also important to remember that some laws are really just instructions. And even Chaotic people don't mind taking instruction, if it tells them how to do something better than they would otherwise. The difference is that the Lawful (and even the Neutral) person's first instinct is to accept that the instructions are valid because people don't make instructions for no reason. The Chaotic person's first instinct is to say, "Well, I'll give it a try, and see if it really works."

It's more about expectations, here. The Lawful guy will expect the instructions to be right. And, unless it's actively demonstrated that there's a better way, he'll probably keep trusting to them. The Neutral guy will expect the instructions to be right, but is probably willing to take a short-cut here or there if he genuinely doesn't see harm (perhaps after doing it "right" a few times to get the hang of it). The Chaotic guy will only expect that the instructions might be better than trying to spitball how to do it on his own. He's more interested in why the instructions say what they do, and will not trust them to be the best way to do it; only, perhaps, better than his inexpert first try would otherwise be.

Lawful and Neutral people also can experiment, mind. But they'll tend to do it more rigorously and with a return to report on what worked better and why, and propose a change to the instruction set. The Chaotic person's "experimentation" is more likely to be "I think this'll work...oh, it did, great, I'll keep doing that 'cause it's easier/better," and move on. He'll pass on his modifications usually only via word of mouth and personal instruction. He's less likely to propose a change to the overall instruction set, because he is more likely to think his changes are situational and specific.

[Zanos]

I think you're assigning a degree of inherent rationality to Chaos that isn't part of the alignment.

A Chaotic person, in my view, puts little stock in the instructions, and only bothers with them if he can't figure out his own method. The instructions are a fallback, rather than the primary source(for Lawful) or situational(Neutral).

[Segev]

I think you're assigning a degree of inherent rationality to Chaos that isn't part of the alignment. (Ir)rationality isn't a trait of Chaos or Law. Though Chaos has more of a reputation for being irrational, it isn't actually part of the alignment. It's just more likely for irrational people to also be chaotic, and for chaotic irrational people to be obviously so.


A Chaotic person, in my view, puts little stock in the instructions, and only bothers with them if he can't figure out his own method. The instructions are a fallback, rather than the primary source(for Lawful) or situational(Neutral).This is fair. In fact, it probably describes more chaotic people than the converse where they'd read the instructions and evaluate their usefulness first.

Though a Lawful person could be prone to similar behavior. "The procedure I use when building a shelf has always been the same. I do not need to read the instructions. ... ... ... The items I need to follow the procedure I usually use are not all present. Let me see those instructions."

[Red Fel]

I don't buy this personal code garbage.

I don't care what you buy. It's your money. Use it how you like it.


With this as your basis, you could create a personal code that looks a whole hell of a lot like Chaos, then get away with saying you're Lawful by just claiming "oh it's my personal code." Stabbing guards in the face because your personal code says to tear down the institution is Chaotic, even if you write it down.

Perhaps you could, if you were to ignore the whole spirit of the thing. It's like people who try to get Exalted feats and cheese their way around the RP requirements. Can you do that? Possibly, with enough contortions, but if you do you're ignoring the whole point. And "tear down the institution" isn't exactly Lawful, now is it?

A Lawful character necessarily adheres to a principle, and one more than simply "do whatever I want." It could be personal, it could be religious, it could be self-imposed or imposed by an external source. That's not to say other alignments can't have codes, but Lawful must.


Having a code does not inherently make you Lawful. Your code has to follow Lawful principles to be Lawful. Case in point, Chaotic Clerics and Chaotic Paladin variants all have codes.

See what I just said, and the definitions of "necessary" versus "sufficient."


Of course Lawful characters can still lie. Lying isn't that major of an act in general. Most Lawful creatures, specifically devils, will prefer to "lie" by omitting crucial facts, leading people without correcting them, and selective interpretation.

But that brings me to my main point, which is that unless your character is a crusader for a specific alignment, you shouldn't really ask "would my alignment do this?" You should ask "would my character do this?" Alignment is not a determiner of what your character will do in the future, it describes how they have acted in the past. Patterns emerge, but the cosmic alignments aren't particularly kind, so it's probably that a character of one alignment will perform acts of every alignment in their lifetime.

This.


I also don't agree that following a code when it agrees with you and discarding it when it doesn't is Chaotic. Behaving pragmatically is usually Neutral. You have to act consistently against Lawful principles or for Chaotic ones to be Chaotic, not just be "you doing you." If you bow your head when it's the path of least resistance and don't bow your head when it isn't advantageous, you're neutral on the L-C axis, not Chaotic.

More accurately, it's non-Lawful. A Lawful character is necessarily bound by his code. A non-Lawful character - that is, C or N on the L-C spectrum - may disregard his "code" as it suits him.


I never claimed that they are. I described a code that contains that principle, and a hypothetical individual who rigorously followed such a code. The hypothetical individual was Chaotic, because the code he was so rigid about enshrined Chaotic principles in it. Seems simple enough to me. In any case it seems like a foregone argument that characters with rigid codes can be Chaotic, since there are classes with Chaotic alignment requirements that also have codes of conduct that are major dysfunctions if you assert that following a code makes you Lawful, even if the code itself is not Lawful.

Again, I think you're getting away from this. The initial position is that Lawful characters have a code. Somehow, you twisted around into that's not true, because Chaotic can have a code. Your statement in no way precludes the initial position.

An illustration. I say, "All horses must drink water to survive." Your response is equivalent to, "But some horses can be given alcohol. And sheep require water to survive, too!" That in no way disproves the initial position.


Bowing to the Law is a minor Lawful act. Of course, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, characters of any alignment will occasionally perform acts that aren't entirely in line with their current alignment and it won't be changed unless they make it a habit, but conceding to a Lawful authority impinging your personal freedom is going to ping as a Lawful act.

Conceding to an external authority against your will or better judgment is a minor Lawful act. Conceding when it suits you to is not.


Though a Lawful person could be prone to similar behavior. "The procedure I use when building a shelf has always been the same. I do not need to read the instructions. ... ... ... The items I need to follow the procedure I usually use are not all present. Let me see those instructions."

I feel like we need a "You have two cows" list of scenarios for the different alignments. For instance, building a shelf:
Good: When building a shelf, I invite my friends over so that we can do it together. When I'm done, I give it to my friend who just moved into a new apartment; she needs it more than I do, and for me the fun was doing something with my friends.
Evil: When building a shelf, I include one fatal flaw in the design. Mostly harmless, unlikely to come up. But if it is ever stolen, or if I feel the need to give it as a "gift" to someone I dislike, the flaw will be designed to trigger when they least expect it. No jury in the world will convict me.
Lawful: When building a shelf for the first time, I am careful to follow all instructions and ensure all needed pieces are present. Subsequently, the instructions are unnecessary; I can build the shelf using the same methods that worked the last time. I can be relied upon to produce consistent work.
Chaos: ... I don't need that part, do I? Nah. This looks like it works just fine.

[Zanos]

(Ir)rationality isn't a trait of Chaos or Law. Though Chaos has more of a reputation for being irrational, it isn't actually part of the alignment. It's just more likely for irrational people to also be chaotic, and for chaotic irrational people to be obviously so.
I'm not saying that it's inherently irrational, but it's not inherently rational either, and your descriptions of the three ethical axis certainly paints Chaotic as the most rationally behaving of those alignments.



This is fair. In fact, it probably describes more chaotic people than the converse where they'd read the instructions and evaluate their usefulness first.

Though a Lawful person could be prone to similar behavior. "The procedure I use when building a shelf has always been the same. I do not need to read the instructions. ... ... ... The items I need to follow the procedure I usually use are not all present. Let me see those instructions."
I think that's more memorizing the instructions than disregarding them, though. I guess figuring it out on your own was the part of Chaos I was trying to highlight. Stagnation and Stability vs Innovation and Instability.


I don't care what you buy. It's your money. Use it how you like it.
That probably came off harsher than intended. Damn alignment arguments getting to me. Apologies. I've had a person in one of my games murder city guards and argue that his character, that needed to be Lawful to qualify for class features, was Lawful because it was part of his "personal dwarven code" to try to pick a fight with authority.



Perhaps you could, if you were to ignore the whole spirit of the thing. It's like people who try to get Exalted feats and cheese their way around the RP requirements. Can you do that? Possibly, with enough contortions, but if you do you're ignoring the whole point. And "tear down the institution" isn't exactly Lawful, now is it?
I wasn't trying to give an example of what you can do, only using that as an example of why pesenting a character with any code of conduct as Lawful was absurd.



See what I just said, and the definitions of "necessary" versus "sufficient."

That pretty much clears up any issue I took with your initial post. I read your post as describing having a code as being inherently Lawful. Since instead you're arguing that Lawful must have a code and Chaos can, I largely agree.

[Red Fel]

That probably came off harsher than intended. Damn alignment arguments getting to me. Apologies. I've had a person in one of my games murder city guards and argue that his character, that needed to be Lawful to qualify for class features, was Lawful because it was part of his "personal dwarven code" to try to pick a fight with authority.

Don't apologize. My response probably wasn't my best, either.


I wasn't trying to give an example of what you can do, only using that as an example of why pesenting a character with any code of conduct as Lawful was absurd.

That's fair. The fact is, if having a code was the only prerequisite to being Lawful, then yeah, the result would be pretty absurd. What I had hoped to communicate is that having a code is a minimum threshold, and that even with just that, it needs to be Lawful in spirit. So, "destroy the nonbelievers" can be Lawful, because it embraces a cause and a course of action; "plant an apple tree in every town" can be Lawful, same; but "row, row, fight the power," isn't a Lawful code, because it enshrines the notion of destroying stability. While Lawful characters can oppose certain authority figures (e.g. a Paladin fighting an Evil dictator), simply tearing down all authority is too destabilizing; while the concept of a code may generally suggest Lawfulness, the code itself is clearly not a Lawful one.


That pretty much clears up any issue I took with your initial post. I read your post as describing having a code as being inherently Lawful. Since instead you're arguing that Lawful must have a code and Chaos can, I largely agree.

Yeah. While I have my own hangups with respect to Chaotic codes - I still have some issues with the concept, I admit that - technically, nothing stops a Chaotic or Neutral character from having a code. The difference is that a Lawful character must have some rule that binds his actions, whereas others may.

I still want to do that "Two Cows" exercise, by the way.

[ATHATH]

Personally, I see the Law vs. Chaos axis this way:

Law: Prefers working within a structured society/ruleset. They don't HAVE to, but they're more comfortable when rules are present/when they follow them. It's sort of like how a spider (the lawful creature) is at its best when it has a web (a ruleset/code/general rules/the guidance of a respected authority figure/whatever) to work with.
Chaos: Prefers being unconstrained by rules/society. They don't necessarily dislike having a position of authority; they just don't like being constrained by it. Using the spider analogy, the chaotic creature is more like a flying insect that gets caught in the web; it's restrained by the web and works less effectively/is more vulnerable when constrained by it. When it is outside of the web, it can fly free and has more mobility than the spider. If the insect was more intelligent (but possibly still chaotic), it might learn to use the web to escape the grasp of predators (by leading them into it).
Neutral: Ambivalent.