Alignment question:

[shadow_archmagi]

Goes Lawful/Chaotic refer to the character's preference on a massive scale or a personal scale?

For example, take Sam Vimes. In the long run, he likes the law. He's a policeman. He really wants there to be a duly constituted authority to make things run.

But at the same time, his everyday adventures are all about flexibility. Vimes loves to improvise and rapidly change tactics, and he hates formalities.

I'm trying to think of an anarchist who fights the government in a very systematic way, (Chaotic Orderly, as opposed to Vimeses Lawful Adaptive) but I can't at the moment.

[Firechanter]

I'd sort Commander Vimes' behaviour as "The end justifies the means (to a limited extent)", and thus maybe Neutral (Good) would be the closest match.

But, well, the Alignment system is more than a bit iffy anyway. ^^

[hamishspence]

Goes Lawful/Chaotic refer to the character's preference on a massive scale or a personal scale?

It probably depends on the DM and how strongly they weight the various factors.

I'm trying to think of an anarchist who fights the government in a very systematic way, (Chaotic Orderly, as opposed to Vimeses Lawful Adaptive) but I can't at the moment.

Not sure if Rorschach (Watchmen) is exactly an anarchist- but he certainly subscribes to a philosophy that says the government is best that governs least- as well as maybe being rather orderly in his approach to things.

[valadil]

Without knowing the character beyond what you described, I'd probably call him chaotic. The reason is that he treats himself as an exception. He likes order and process, and understands their place in the world, but they don't necessarily apply to him when they're inconvenient.

Also, it's okay for a character to not fit neatly into an alignment. In fact, it's one of my tests for figuring out if I've devised an interesting character. If they have aspects of opposing alignment slots, the character is usually reasonably complex and well defined.

[bloodtide]

Both. It depends on a lot of things.

Sam is lawful, as he is a cop and likes the legal laws.

But 'loves to improvise and rapidly change tactics, and he hates formalities' is also being lawful. Improvise itself is alignmentless, as is the dislike for formalities(almost everyone hates them). But tactics are a lawful and order part of alignment. Chaos does not use 'tactics' much, they just act.

If your thinking and planing, that is lawful. If your doing this at random, that is chaotic.

Randomly selecting what sword maneuver you will use is not chaotic, that is still lawful(selecting from a set group). Chaotic would be doing something random at all times, attacking with any weapon, for example, not just your sword.

[valadil]

If your doing this at random, that is chaotic.

That is not what Chaotic means. Okay, it's what the Oxford English Dictionary says chaotic means, but it's not what the DnD Chaotic alignment is (note the use of capitalization). Someone who is Chaotic is a loner. They do things their own way. How society feels about something has little bearing on a Chaotic person, whereas a Lawful person would allow his opinions to be determined by the mainstream. For someone Lawful, established procedure has value simply because it is established. They would stick with what they know on the basis that it's been done before. I don't think that applies to Vimes (as he's been explained in this post).

Personally I've always felt that the Lawful and Chaotic terms were poorly chosen. Way too many people interpret Lawful as policemen and Chaotic as random. That said I don't have suggestions for better terminology.

[BraveSirKevin]

Not sure if Rorschach (Watchmen) is exactly an anarchist- but he certainly subscribes to a philosophy that says the government is best that governs least- as well as maybe being rather orderly in his approach to things.

Rorschach is an interesting example because his defining trait is that he sees everything in black and white. It's either right or wrong, with no middle ground. No shades of grey. The tempation is to put him in the Lawful Neutral box based on that, but looking deeper at the character, he really has nothing but contempt for the law. In his mind Law has failed in its task of meting out justice, and he's taken it upon himself to be the adjudicator. I'd put him in chaotic neutral territory, as while he stands for justice, he doesn't feel the need to be good himself. He's also a little insane and is almost certainly suffering from some form of obsessive compulsive disorder, which is to say, his life is full of rigid structure, but none of it is there as a result of a conscious preference on his part. He is a man who thrives in chaos, though he sees that chaos as separate blobs of black in white space and vice versa, rather than seeing it as a confused grey mess.

Sam Vimes on the other hand is definitely Lawful by most definitions of the word. The quick thinking doesn't negate that aspect of his personality, as it fits in with his personal code of efficiency.

Just my 2 cents worth

[tyckspoon]

Sam Vimes on the other hand is definitely Lawful by most definitions of the word. The quick thinking doesn't negate that aspect of his personality, as it fits in with his personal code of efficiency.

Just my 2 cents worth

I would actually say Vimes is a Chaotic person who has taken a good look at himself, the society he lives in, and what it needs.. and decided to be Lawful. Man has tremendous willpower. Remember, this is a man who sees a king as a man who happens to be wearing a crown, in the middle of a society that sees a king as A King and puts up with incredibly bad ones because, well, You've Got To Have A King. Vimes is the man who will kill that king for the good of the society, regardless of what said society thinks of him for it. That's a strongly Chaotic sort of opinion. He has also used something much like a Barbarian Rage several times, which, of course, D&D tells us no Lawful person can do.

[Mr.Bookworm]

Vimes has always struck me as pretty much the perfect example of how to play a LG character.

To me, the difference between Lawful and Chaotic is the difference between a civil code and a personal code. A Lawful character plays by someone else's rules, be they a god, a nation, a king, whatever, and is predisposed to follow civil codes even if they are not the primary one he subscribes to. A Chaotic character, by contrast, plays by their own rules.

Even if they don't consciously think about it, pretty much everyone has their own inherent set of guidelines that function how they interact with people, be they "kill all red-headed people milkshake 29 argleblargle" insanity, or a code of personal honor that they have actively cultivated through their own personal experiences. A Chaotic character primarily follows those rules, and if their personal code comes into conflict with an established civil code, they will almost always follow their personal code, while a Lawful character will almost always follow the civil code.

LG, LE, CG, CE people will generally prioritize one aspect of their alignment over the other. NG, NE, LN, and CN people will generally follow their single aspect to the exclusion of both civil and personal codes. TN people are munchkins.

[Jothki]

How I prefer to think of it is that Lawful characters tend to view others in terms of their roles within society. A good person is someone who has a duty that is useful to others, and carries out that duty well. A Chaotic character, on the other hand, tends to view others in terms of their inherent merit, regardless of what others would expect of them.

A Lawful character might join his country's army and seek to defend it from threats, while a Chaotic character might roam around looking for wrongs to right and/or paychecks to earn.

A Lawful character might immerse himself in society, seeking to build a place for himself, while a Chaotic character might isolate himself from society, seeking to build his inner strength instead. Yes, you heard me, Monks are heavily Chaotic.

I've never read the books, but from what I've heard of them, isn't Vimes heavily meritocratic? That'd place him solidly in Chaotic.

[RndmNumGen]

I would say it depends more on how he arrived at that conclusion; was it a rationed, well-thought out and logical decision that makes him act as he does? If so, Lawful. If he acts the way he does because he follows his heart and does based on what he 'feels' is right, then Chaotic. If both, Neutral.

[Acanous]

Eh, I try to play Law/Chaos heavier than I play Good/Evil. I loves me my chaotic characters. They're the ones that'll see a narrow mountain pass, guarded by hobgoblins on the ground and s'more on towers to either side and be like "Hmm... We should climb the mountain the hard way, then toss an avalanche down on them!"

Whereas my lawful characters would come up with a less risky, more bread and butter plan, like "Cover the wagon with a tent, then push it from behind to provide cover from arrows. Their melee will have to come at us, so get people with spears on either end, and we'll kill forward until we're too close to shoot at."

I've never read the books Vimes is in, but from descriptions here, I'd put him as lawful Good, with a touch of "Ends justify the means".

[hamishspence]

I've never read the books Vimes is in, but from descriptions here, I'd put him as lawful Good, with a touch of "Ends justify the means".

He tends to come down very heavily on the "ends justify means" mindset in Night Watch- as represented by Mr FindtheSwing.

[Yora]

Also, chaotic and lawful traits don't have to be in conflict. It's called neutral.

[MarkusWolfe]

In all honesty?

Personal scale/Massive scale is a good candidate for a third axis on the 3.5 alignment chart.

[Mastikator]

It probably depends on the DM and how strongly they weight the various factors.



Not sure if Rorschach (Watchmen) is exactly an anarchist- but he certainly subscribes to a philosophy that says the government is best that governs least- as well as maybe being rather orderly in his approach to things.

Rorschach is definitely not an anarchist, V is an anarchist, he's supposed to be one too. Almost explicitly even.
I think V is a good example of a systematic anarchist. His actions are to undermine the state by attacking people's belief in it, Rorschach attacks people physically because he believes they're bad people.

[Aergoth]

The difference between lawful and chaotic isn't between imposed rules and personal preference.

A character who adheres to a personal standard is no less lawful than a paladin, knight or samurai, whose codes are impositions from the outside.

A chaotic character may have an imposed source for their code. Eberron's Children of Winter, stand out (Chaotic Neutral)

Vimes is Lawful Neutral. He uses methods that are decidedly neutral, but he follows a higher definition of law. The whole "serve the people" aspect. Vetinari might be Chaotic Neutral. He's a little like Lord Shojo, using methods which can be decidedly chaotic to achieve lawful ends. Moist is Neutral.
Carrot is Neutral Good. For a very obviously Lawful Neutral character in Discworld, look no further than the golems. Mr. Pumps "actuarial definition of murder" is quite obviously Lawful, Dorfl (the golem constable) is also highly lawful.

[dps]

Yeah, "Order vs Chaos" woud, IMO, be better terminology than "Law vs. Chaos". "Law" makes people think of in terms of legalistic formalities, while in DnD, to me, it implies a preference for order and structure. While written laws do, of course, provide society with some order and structure, they're not the only things to do so. For example, it you always get up at the same time each day, regardless of whether or not you have to go to work that day, have a slice of toast, a glass of orange juice, and a bowl of cereal for breakfast, then a cup of coffee while reading the morning newspaper, then you're extremely lawful (i.e., orderly) even though there's no law that says you have to have a strict morning routine like that.

[valadil]

Yeah, "Order vs Chaos" woud, IMO, be better terminology than "Law vs. Chaos".

I like Order better than Law, but IMO Chaos still needs to go. I've seen way too many people misinterpret it as totally random.

[shadow_archmagi]

In all honesty?

Personal scale/Massive scale is a good candidate for a third axis on the 3.5 alignment chart.

Does this mean that alignment would have to be a cube instead of a square

[Yora]

And there'd be 27 of them.

I like Order better than Law, but IMO Chaos still needs to go. I've seen way too many people misinterpret it as totally random.

It's worse in the german translation where it's Righteousness. A word nobody in the german language uses anymore. I think they only took it because in germen it begins with Right and the german term for legal system is the system of rights. The final result doesn't make any sense at all.

[Tanngrisnir]

Just have to say I would never say that Vimes is an 'ends justify the means' type of person. Everything he does, he tries to do by the law.

At the end of Nightwatch

Spoiler

Show

He refuses to kill Carcer when he has the chance, because that is not the way the law works. The city should kill carcer, needs to see Carcer dead. The end either way is Carcer dead, but Vimes reaches that end by forcing himself to follow the law, instead of killing him himself and claiming that the end justifies the means.

There are other examples as well, peppered throughout the books. As has been said, Vimes has a tendency to become enraged with people who use "ends justify means" excuses, such as Dr. Cruces, Lupine Wonse, Lady Margolotta etc.

[MarkusWolfe]

Does this mean that alignment would have to be a cube instead of a square

If implemented, that's precisely what it would mean.

Of course, there's no good way to show a fourth dimension if you wanted to implement one unless you were going to use a color scale, and that's always problematic because it's very hard to tell orangey yellow from yellowy orange. And gods help you if you're colorblind.....

[HenryHankovitch]

A Lawful person is someone who believes that society is best served by an orderly set of rules, broadly applied. The specifics of that ruleset can vary based on setting, religion, whatever; but the character ought to be of a mind that everyone else would be better off if they followed that same set of rules. Or at least, some of them. If you have a code for yourself, but you believe it only applies to you and everyone else can and should come up with their own ideas of morality and duty, then you're not really Lawful.

Your code may disagree with the law of the land; the Lawful character is then required to either fight the system, or compromise with it to the best of his ability. A Lawful character may very well be practical enough to realize that a somewhat flawed set of laws which almost everyone can agree on is better than enshrining an ideal set of laws which only a few saints can live up to.

Being Lawful doesn't mean you never break the law or violate your code; it means you think it's a bad thing when you do it, and you either try to avoid it or minimize the consequences. A Lawful person could easily believe that driving 10mph over the speed limit isn't really a big deal, but everyone should stop at red lights. And of course, even a Lawful person is capable of being fallible, or hypocritical. (OTOH, a Neutral or Chaotic type may tell himself he's a "law-abiding" sort of person even when he's not actually Lawful at all.)

Being Lawful also doesn't necessarily mean that you believe all laws/rules apply to everyone, equally. Lawful Evil tyranny may well believe that the way things ought to be is somebody makes the rules--like me--and everyone else has to follow them. Or die. If I don't follow them, that's because I'm the decider, not a follower. A Lawful caste system might very well decide that some people simply have more freedoms or priveleges than others.

[Tyndmyr]

Not sure if Rorschach (Watchmen) is exactly an anarchist- but he certainly subscribes to a philosophy that says the government is best that governs least- as well as maybe being rather orderly in his approach to things.

He is an excellent example of the problems of the alignment system. I've seen all nine quadrants of the alignment argued for him, and yknow...they can all be argued well. It all depends on the importance you place on various things.

In the end, complex characters end up having difficulty with the alignment system. Rorschach has very definite goals, methods, etc...he's a very distinct persona, but not one that plays well with D&D alignment.

[hamishspence]

Unless you focus on one aspect emphasised in the splatbooks.

For example- Champions of Ruin takes the tack that a character who routinely commits Evil acts is evil- even if they might also be altruistic or compassionate a lot of the time as well.

So- if Rorschach routinely tortures criminals for information- breaking their fingers in bars- that might make him Evil.

The harder part is the Law/Chaos axis.

[Yora]

I'd say yes. Never read it, but he doesn't strike me as someone who feels remorse or has any doubts about his actions.

[Toofey]

I only really play alignments with priests, partly because this gives a guide for deciding this. In all cases I think about the agenda of he gods in question, if the god is concerned with personal order, there ya go, if it's a matter of justice and the player is the kind of chaotic from law and order... probably going to let it slip.

[Kyberwulf]

Having never read the comics. Only going off the movie (shudders and HOPES the movie was close to the Comics.) I would Say Rorschach is definaintly Lawful. He Dies at the end of the movie BECUASE he goes against his peers cause it violates his set of rules.

He is not evil though, not really good though either.. so on that part he is at least neutral.

[Ezeze]

Lawful characters make decisions based on dogma, they have ideologies that they firmly believe are more important than themselves. Chaotic characters are more pragmatic and a little more selfish.

The fact that characters can dogmatically believe in pragmatic solutions, or that pragmatism might mean temporary subscription to dogma, is no more a contradiction than the fact that evil actions can have good consequences or that good actions can have evil consequences.

To answer the question about whether your character is lawful or chaotic answer two questions; why is he fighting the government, and what will he do if he succeeds? That will tell you if he is embarking on a lawful crusade with chaotic outcomes, or a chaotic one through lawful means.