In defense of Law

[Rixx]

A trend I'm seeing, at least in my experiences with my tabletop friends as well as stuff I read on the internet, is that the "Law" side of the law-chaos axis is generally seen as the less desirable one. You're more likely to see a neutral to chaotic party going up against a lawful foe than the reverse - I've never in my life been in a party that slanted lawful.

This may be because of the common association of chaotic with "freedom", and lawful with "oppression" - indeed, a good portion of the tabletop gaming crowd are teenagers who already have to deal with parents, teachers, and the like. The common perception seems to be that a lawful character can't think for him or herself, and a chaotic character remains free and flexible. Indeed, the primary problem people have with paladins isn't the "good" part, but the "lawful" part - but there are just as many stupid and irritating ways to be good as there are to be lawful.

I'll tell you all right now, though, that I'd rather have a lawful friend than a chaotic one. Being loyal, keeping your promises, and being reliable are all lawful qualities. But too often is "lawful" used as shorthand for "orwellian".

Has anyone else had problems defending their lawful characters from accusations of stick-in-the-mud-itude?

[Lateral]

It's a lot like 'stick-up-the-ass syndrome'. Lots of people play D&D and expect certain stereotypes, and that's one that many people expect out of all lawful characters. Yeah, totalitarianism is Lawful, but it's always only intended to be Lawful Neutral at best, and usually it's intended to be Evil, and I've never heard of a totalitarian government that ever ended up as anything but LE. (I only really play Chaotic or Neutral characters, but that's a personal playstyle preference.)

I think this sums up how Lawful Good is supposed to be:

Cleric: “Haven’t you done enough heroics for the day?”

Paladin, stonefaced, with water dripping off his face and still coughing up liquid as he runs: “Nope. Paladin.”

[HunterOfJello]

Many to most PCs are really just homicidal hobos who spend their time killing and stealing from normal everyday people and monsters who are trying to live their lives.


A more appropriate way to think of Lawful than many players do is the Deontological perspective.

[Black_Zawisza]

Many to most PCs are really just homicidal hobos who spend their time killing and stealing from normal everyday people and monsters who are trying to live their lives.


A more appropriate way to think of Lawful than many players do is the Deontological perspective.

In order to defend or oppose the Lawful alignment, we must first come to a consensus about what being Lawful means. Alignment debates will forever be meaningless until our premises are the same.

I think this sums up how Lawful Good is supposed to be:

What's so Lawful about that, as opposed to Chaotic or Neutral?

[Lateral]

In order to defend or oppose the Lawful alignment, we must first come to a consensus about what being Lawful means. Alignment debates will forever be meaningless until our premises are the same.

And there's another point. Exactly what does Lawful mean? Not to turn this into another alignment debate thread, but D&D alignments are very vague. 'Lawfulness' as a concept is pretty much just that- a concept, subject to various interpretations and preconceptions.

What's so Lawful about that, as opposed to Chaotic or Neutral?

It's a moment that perfectly demonstrates how Paladins should be, and, by extension, what any LG character should strive for. He puts the needs of the many over the needs of the few- in this case, he puts the lives of his party far above his.

[Hazkali]

Interesting, I would say I've not experienced this much. Of course, there will always be a bit of alignment friction, but less something that spills out into RL. That said, most people I know generally build characters with the same alignment- I have a friend who likes chaotic character, a friend who likes neutrality, and I personally tend to play Lawful characters.

[Eldan]

Incidentally, I wouldn't really see loyalty as a lawful concept. Chaotic people can be loyal. I'd just say their loyalties are more on a personal basis, while lawful people are more loyal to organizations.

And yes, I much, much prefer chaos over law.

[Zeofar]

In order to defend or oppose the Lawful alignment, we must first come to a consensus about what being Lawful means. Alignment debates will forever be meaningless until our premises are the same.

Lolyouwinthethread.

I agree though, that example that Lateral posted wasn't terribly "lawful." Heroic sacrifice can happen given any alignment, though Evil and the Chaotic variety are the least likely.

[Black_Zawisza]

It's a moment that perfectly demonstrates how Paladins should be, and, by extension, what any LG character should strive for. He puts the needs of the many over the needs of the few- in this case, he puts the lives of his party far above his.

But that's the commonly accepted definition of the Good alignment – putting others before yourself. Does that mean that LG is more Good than NG or CG? Does it follow that the alignment system doesn't neatly follow two axes?

[Lateral]

But that's the commonly accepted definition of the Good alignment –*putting others before yourself. Does that mean that LG is more Good than NG or CG?

It's not the putting others before yourself, it's more the putting the group before the individual. IMO, that's a very lawful standpoint, but your mileage may vary.

Does it follow that the alignment system doesn't neatly follow two axes?

Well, yes, that too. The D&D alignment system is extremely vague and subject to interpretation.

[Xiander]

Well, like any alignment, lawful can be played in different ways.

Of all my D&D characters, my own favorite was a lawful neutral fighter/rouge. I played him as a mercenary with a very strict personal code. He was the only lawful character in the party. He took the leader role. At times he actively acted to avoid his comrades making a decision as he believed their decisions would violate his code. On the other hand he risked his life for his party mates time after time, stubbornly refusing to give up even in the case where one of them was posessed by a demon.

No going back on his word, no compromise. All in all great fun.

[mrcarter11]

Like many have side, we have to decide what Law is supposed to be. I agree that Chaos should represent freedom, but that it also shows personal bias. The people that do what they want, because it's helpful for them. Loyalty for personal reasons.. Law is loyalty to the cause, imho. What cause however, is up to the PC.

[Grelna the Blue]

As can be seen from my sig, I'm more than a little biased in this matter.

However, the most simplistic defense of Law in a D&D setting that I can make that still bears some resemblance to the truth is that Lawfulness is about believing in and accepting responsibility. Chaos in D&D is about freedom from obligations, including responsibility. Being Good imposes certain responsibilities on people, but Lawful and Chaotic types disagree on how many responsibilities these are and how heavily they should bear upon any given situation. In D&D terms, Chaos is easy and Law is hard, which is why in my experience most younger gamers prefer to play Chaotic characters.

Law might or might not be desirable from any particular individual's viewpoint, but it is not Good in and of itself. However, from the aforementioned deontological viewpoint (certainly not the only viewpoint possible), Good requires an acceptance of a certain amount of Law.

[Zonugal]

A more appropriate way to think of Lawful than many players do is the Deontological perspective.

Yes...

I also think it can become easier if we bring in codes, oaths, creeds and even honor.

[Black_Zawisza]

As can be seen from my sig, I'm more than a little biased in this matter.

However, the most simplistic defense of Law in a D&D setting that I can make that still bears some resemblance to the truth is that Lawfulness is about believing in and accepting responsibility. Chaos in D&D is about freedom from obligations, including responsibility. Being Good imposes certain responsibilities on people, but Lawful and Chaotic types disagree on how many responsibilities these are and how heavily they should bear upon any given situation. In D&D terms, Chaos is easy and Law is hard, which is why in my experience most younger gamers prefer to play Chaotic characters.

Law might or might not be desirable from any particular individual's viewpoint, but it is not Good in and of itself. However, from the aforementioned deontological viewpoint (certainly not the only viewpoint possible), Good requires an acceptance of a certain amount of Law.

As biased towards Chaos as I am, this is the best definition I've heard of. +1 to you.

[Dragonus45]

Currently i am playing a lawful good fighter half orc who is the childhood friend and body guard to another party member, a half elf rogue. I always sort of equate law and politeness on the alignment scale. Not to say that chaotic people cant be polite but it seems to be less in the nature of that end of the axis, case in point.

So the party gets invited to a meeting with some mysterious person, whom the half elf tried to pick pocket, and spent about three or so hours waiting for them to join us. The party had just met that morning and after ten minutes real time the conversation had devolved into the half elf barbarian attempting to strangle the elf wizard, who was convinced he was better than a room full of half breeds. All while the rogue attempted to take off with a bunch of silverware. The whole time he just sat quietly made polite conversation with the nobles retainer and the few other people in the room.

[Yukitsu]

I almost invariably play what others describe as "generally lawful". The only difference between annoying lawful that is less desireable than chaos, is that it imposes on others. Acting lawfully, but not demanding it from others is a perfectly acceptable manner to be. If you or the NPC is harping on the chaotics for being chaotic, then he's more likely to be hated for being lawful than if you left them alone.

[The Big Dice]

Law is a confusing term, especially in D&D.

If you go back to the source of Law and Chaos, the books of Michael Moorcock (who incidentally came up with all the imagery Games Workshop stole for their chaos, including the 8-pointed arrow symbol, and who also coined the term 'multiverse') you get a somewhat different picture.

Law isn't about manners or following a code or anything like that. It's about order and progress. It's about a place for everything and everything in it's place. It's about building on the foundations that the people who came before you laid down. Law is form and structure, where chaos is fluid and formless.

Getting away from issues regarding good and evil, law is all about fitting in. If a Lawful person says they'll do something, then they will do it. Lawful Good, Neutral and Evil beings might do this thing in different ways and with different motives, but their word is their bond.

Tarquin might be deeply Evil, but he's also extremely Lawful. Durkon does his best to be Good, but he's also fundamentally Lawful. Being Lawful doesn't mean you can't be a fun person to hang around with. It means you're more likely to be the designated driver, not that you won't go to the party.

[Elric VIII]

Law is a confusing term, especially in D&D.

If you go back to the source of Law and Chaos, the books of Michael Moorcock (who incidentally came up with all the imagery Games Workshop stole for their chaos, including the 8-pointed arrow symbol, and who also coined the term 'multiverse') you get a somewhat different picture.

Law isn't about manners or following a code or anything like that. It's about order and progress. It's about a place for everything and everything in it's place. It's about building on the foundations that the people who came before you laid down. Law is form and structure, where chaos is fluid and formless.

Getting away from issues regarding good and evil, law is all about fitting in. If a Lawful person says they'll do something, then they will do it. Lawful Good, Neutral and Evil beings might do this thing in different ways and with different motives, but their word is their bond.

Tarquin might be deeply Evil, but he's also extremely Lawful. Durkon does his best to be Good, but he's also fundamentally Lawful. Being Lawful doesn't mean you can't be a fun person to hang around with. It means you're more likely to be the designated driver, not that you won't go to the party.

I agree with this completely. The names of the alignments are rather unfortunate in that their connotations set forth a stereotype and we base our alignment-related actions on those stereotypes. Just look at the concept of Chaotic; the word means containing no pattern, rhyme, or reason, whereas in D&D it refers to freedom from thing such as implied oaths and obligations (such as being expected to help someone just because they are in trouble).

There needs to be degrees of each alignment, such as a version of lawful that represents someone that is (a) dutiful, (b) routine, and (c) ordered. Each is a possible version of Lawful that may be the only part or one area of a character's alignment. Imagine a Lawful(dutiful) Neutral character as a king's head general, he is loyal to the crown, but may now be particularly routine in his tactics or ordered about his battleplans. Whereas a Lawful (routine) Neutral character may be a priest, going aobut his same duties the same way every day, being neither loyal to his church, joining out of obligation, or ordered. A Lawful (ordered) Neutral character might be a master jewel theif, meticulous and ordered in making his plans, but not routine so that he doesn't have a recognizible M.O. and not dutiful because of his disregard of the laws. Lastly, imagine a Lawful (dutiful, routine) Neutral character as a Monk, devoted to his martial arts, meditating every day, but his fighting style is varied and unpredictable.

[awa]

the reason lawful enemies are more common than chaotic enemies is a chaotic enemy is vastly more likely to be a one shot villain not the basis of a entire campaign. An evil empire or master manipulator(lawful) makes a better main villain than a berserker or orc horde.

In addition lawful evil characters are more likely to have something you can identify with such as behaving honorably.

that is why you are getting the perception that law is more evil than chaos.

p.s. alignment debates are long and futile so i am doing my best to ignore that aspect of the thread in it's entirety.

[Popertop]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7577205

Zeal's expanded alignment system is one way to approach that.

[Tyndmyr]

Many to most PCs are really just homicidal hobos who spend their time killing and stealing from normal everyday people and monsters who are trying to live their lives.


A more appropriate way to think of Lawful than many players do is the Deontological perspective.

There is that. Lawful people try to solve things with laws, and creating a system that gets rid of the problem. Chaotic people run over, stab it in the face, then rifle through it's pockets. Adventurers have a certain tendency to come from the latter group.

[Traab]

When I think chaotic, i always think random. Im talking ctrl-alt-del comic, Chef Brian random. Wether its good or evil isnt as important, its still just random actions. Lawful I personally view as more of a structured setup. Meaning you can more or less tell what type of action that person will take. That basically makes it easier to create a character around as there are guidelines to follow. Whereas chaotic is an alignment that should cause your party members AND the dm, to go "Wtf?!" at least a dozen times per campaign. "I cast polymoprh bannana on his left hand!"

[Tyndmyr]

That's one form of chaos, yes. However, crazy chaotic isn't the only form of chaos.

Alternate viewpoints include a more direct anti-order theme, in which your character acts logically and rationally, but with the end goal of disrupting law and order. A frequent reason for this is that too much order results in stagnation and the lack of new creation.

[Traab]

But isnt acting logically and rationally the direct antithesis of chaos? You may be serving the cause of chaos, but you are not yourself acting chaotically. If you are truly chaotic, I would expect to see you or the dm roll a die with a prewritten list of actions that corresponds to each number that would determine what you will do that turn. As an example,
1) Attack enemy
2) attack friend
3) eat some cake and pie
4) Attack enemy
5) Try to cast a spell (while playing a class that has no spells)
6) Attack enemy
7) attack enemy
8) Attack landscape
9) tickle enemy
10) sit this one out

Your definition seems more like a religious alignment than a lawful/chaotic thing.

[Rumpus]

The are two very different schools of thought on alignment. The more prevalent school believes that alignments are an expression of personality quirks (ie lawful characters are OCD and never break their promises, chaotic characters are flighty and unpredictable).

I started playing with 2nd Edition, and I think it had a more helpful version of alignment: viewing it as ideology, rather than a collection of tics. If you are Lawful, you believe that working within the rules (or changing them through the proper channels) is the best way to solve problems. Whether you are working toward good or evil ends, organizations and governments are fundamentally a good thing, because a group working together can achieve more than an individual.

If you are Chaotic, you believe that organizations allow one group to oppress the other. If you are CG, you think that the strong oppress the weak (which you think is bad). If you are CE, you think organizations allow the weak to gang up and oppress the strong (which you think is bad, since you consider yourself one of the strong). Either way, you think any government or large organization is a bad thing.

If you want to help others regardless of what the law says, that would make you NG. You would only be CG if you want to tear down the government because you think it's better for everybody (ie utopian anarchists).

Obviously, this isn't a straight-jacket. LG characters can still form an underground resistance to an evil overlord. The difference is that after the overlord is toppled, the LG characters will want to establish a new, better government in his place. The CG characters will want every man to be a king in his own household, and will resist setting up ANY government, even if they are the ones in charge.

[Yukitsu]

But isnt acting logically and rationally the direct antithesis of chaos? You may be serving the cause of chaos, but you are not yourself acting chaotically. If you are truly chaotic, I would expect to see you or the dm roll a die with a prewritten list of actions that corresponds to each number that would determine what you will do that turn. As an example,
1) Attack enemy
2) attack friend
3) eat some cake and pie
4) Attack enemy
5) Try to cast a spell (while playing a class that has no spells)
6) Attack enemy
7) attack enemy
8) Attack landscape
9) tickle enemy
10) sit this one out

Your definition seems more like a religious alignment than a lawful/chaotic thing.

Chaotic characters when done in literature aren't completely random, but will act on impulse. Even if you want to think of chaos as completely arbitrary, the most interesting characters that snub the rational and the rules are people who play by emotions, or what they feel is right. Acting completely random is more likely to be insane, or chaotic stupid.

[Teron]

But isnt acting logically and rationally the direct antithesis of chaos? You may be serving the cause of chaos, but you are not yourself acting chaotically. If you are truly chaotic, I would expect to see you or the dm roll a die with a prewritten list of actions that corresponds to each number that would determine what you will do that turn. As an example,
1) Attack enemy
2) attack friend
3) eat some cake and pie
4) Attack enemy
5) Try to cast a spell (while playing a class that has no spells)
6) Attack enemy
7) attack enemy
8) Attack landscape
9) tickle enemy
10) sit this one out

Your definition seems more like a religious alignment than a lawful/chaotic thing.

I don't think (a very crude portrayal of) utter insanity is a very good interpretation of a third of the alignment spectrum. I don't recall any WotC source supporting it, either.

You might as well object to chaotic characters having a solid skeleton and the same number of limbs every day.

[Traab]

Well yeah, I mean there also a matter of degree. I was basically at the farthest edge of chaotic where your actions are pretty much entirely random, and you are just as likely to walk away from your group in the middle of a campaign as you are to start stabbing the ground with a carton of milk, or to suddenly wrap yourself in exploding runes and run screaming at the dragon in an attempt to blow it up from the inside!

A less random chaotic character might just pick really strange combat tactics that nevertheless work, such as, rather than using some exploding spell to blast a group of incoming bandits, you use the spell to open a pit under the feet of the oncoming horde of bad guys, so they take some aoe damage, some falling damage, and are now stuck in a pile at the bottom of a pit, and are sitting ducks for your ranged group members. Or instead of doing a standard, I dunno, lightning bolt attack on a dragon, you would instead toss a pebble into its mouth as its roaring away, then cast a growth spell on it to make it choke to death. Whatever.

Oh, and the truly random chaotic type just might decide his arm is looking at him funny and chop it off, thus altering the number of limbs he is starting the day with. :D

[Teron]

Seriously, where did you get the idea that "chaotic" means -- or has any kind of connection to -- "lunatic"?