Behaviors to link to Law/Chaos?

[JusticeZero]

This alignment band is always problematic, so can anyone suggest specific actions that can be quantitively operationalized as "Lawful" or "Chaotic" tied to one of the various dichotomies that aren't just good/evil for moral arguments? Something that can be easily communicated, and measured non-subjectively.

[HunterOfJello]

Lawful can be very generalized, highly specific, or location dependent.

When it is considered from a very generalized point of view, it would be working towards the cause of Order. The Saga of Recluse is a good example of this. Working towards building things like cities, complex objects, and civilizations can fall under this in very broad terms. In the very generalized form Lawful also opposes the forces of Chaos that work towards breaking complex objects, cities, and groups apart. (I don't think I've explained this one very well, but if you look up information on the Saga of Recluce you'll see what I mean.) Lawful deities who write their own rules fall into this category.

In a highly specific form, Lawful can work by creating a very explicit list of rules, set of laws, or a code that a character follows no matter what. They follow this code regardless of the situation and what they personally consider to be acceptable or unacceptable conduct will likely flow directly out of this list of rules, set of laws, or code. This method is an expression of the deontological ethics standpoint. Paladins fall into this category.

Location dependent will mean that an individual has a variable set of rules, laws, or code that they follow based on what location they occupy. These rules would match up to the laws of that specific land (though they likely have their own set of morals that will conflict with this upon occasion). A person in this position would obey the laws of the land wherever they are and occasionally take different actions than they would like due to how their current area's laws are. A lawful diplomat would likely fall into this category.


I think one of the reasons why Lawful is often such a pain to deal with as an alignment is because people don't come out and say what sort of Lawful they are and get caught in between one of the above three types (or others). The above categories will of course also blend either well or badly on occasion.

[jedipotter]

Lawful is really simple order. Doing things as per a set of rules or standards. Simple lawful behavior is having a plan. For example, taking the same route to a place or doing the same things daily are both Lawful.

More complex a Lawful person likes rules. They like the idea of rules. They like the idea that rules and/or laws and/or standards will be best for everyone.

Chaotic is disorder. Doing whatever, whenever. Simple chaotic behavior is random. For example, aimless wandering or all ways doing different things.

The average farmer is very Lawful. He gets up every day and does a lot of the same chores. Every day. And very often he has a set order and plan on how to get everything done. He is working every day to provide for himself, as planned

The thief is very Chaotic. He gets up, not quite sure what to do that day. Every day. He just takes things as they happen. He does not have much of a plan, but just thinks up of things on the run. He simply does whatever he needs to provide for himself.

[Akodo Makama]

Lawful is really simple order. Doing things as per a set of rules or standards. Simple lawful behavior is having a plan. For example, taking the same route to a place or doing the same things daily are both Lawful.

More complex a Lawful person likes rules. They like the idea of rules. They like the idea that rules and/or laws and/or standards will be best for everyone.

Chaotic is disorder. Doing whatever, whenever. Simple chaotic behavior is random. For example, aimless wandering or all ways doing different things.

The average farmer is very Lawful. He gets up every day and does a lot of the same chores. Every day. And very often he has a set order and plan on how to get everything done. He is working every day to provide for himself, as planned

The thief is very Chaotic. He gets up, not quite sure what to do that day. Every day. He just takes things as they happen. He does not have much of a plan, but just thinks up of things on the run. He simply does whatever he needs to provide for himself.

The real test of the farmer's law-good axis comes when you ask him to join you at the bar after a day of work for a night of drunken debauchery. Mr Law will say "Nope, gotta milk the cows at 6". Mr Chaos will say "Let the booze flow as long as I can hold onto the ground with both hands and not fall off". Mr Neutral will say "Ok, but only till 10, cause the cow does still need to get milked, but they can wait till 9 for one day".

[jedipotter]

The real test of the farmer's law-good axis comes when you ask him to join you at the bar after a day of work for a night of drunken debauchery. Mr Law will say "Nope, gotta milk the cows at 6". Mr Chaos will say "Let the booze flow as long as I can hold onto the ground with both hands and not fall off". Mr Neutral will say "Ok, but only till 10, cause the cow does still need to get milked, but they can wait till 9 for one day".

Not exactly. Lawful farmer can go out for a drink. Most of the time he won't have too many, and won't stay too late...he has work to do in the morning. And he dislikes disrupting his normal set workday.

The Chaotic one will just do whatever they want, when ever they want.

Neutral falls right in the middle, may or may not go for a drink...might stay lat, might not.

[JusticeZero]

So, given that adventuring will contain a lot of novel and changing situations that defy a set routine, what specific behaviors can you use to measure this?

[Corsair]

The thief is very Chaotic. He gets up, not quite sure what to do that day. Every day. He just takes things as they happen. He does not have much of a plan, but just thinks up of things on the run. He simply does whatever he needs to provide for himself.

Any thief who just does whatever comes to mind is going to either never go beyond being a sixth-rate pickpocket or end up in prison. Skilled theft requires a plan. Ever play Payday? How about the Thief games? Going into a difficult heist and not planning it out generally results in you getting your ass handed to you.

And that doesn't make the Thief Lawful. Being careful, methodical, and having a plan doesn't make you Lawful, it makes you Not An Idiot. It's more statistical than moral, a representation of your character's Wisdom.

By that same token one can be reckless and foolish without being Chaotic. Hell, you can have a reckless, foolish Paladin. I wouldn't advise it, especially given that you should probably represent that with a low Wisdom score, but it can be done.

[Beta Centauri]

I recall when Law/Neutrality/Chaos were all the game offered me. Of course, the definitions and most of the rest of the rules clearly implied that Law was "good" and Chaos was "evil."

At the most basic, I see Law as having a plan and Chaos as not having a plan. If things go wrong for Law, it tries to correct things. If things go wrong for Chaos, it tries to adapt to the new things.

[Synovia]

Law vs Chaos is about motivation, and about reasons for doing things. A lawful individual lives by a code of rules.

If you've ever see The Wire (I've been watching a lot lately, so forgive all the references), Omar is a Lawful Evil roguish character, despite making his living by robbing drug dealers. He does some terrible things, and breaks a ton of laws, but everything he does is structured - he makes a point of not harming 'Taxpayers' and only hurting people in the game, about following the 'rules' as agreed upon (won't rob people on sunday, etc). He's big on 'eye for an eye,' and on payback. He's a terrible person (evil) but believes that if people don't follow rules, everything falls apart.

McNulty, on the other hand, is a Chaotic Good detective - he's insistent that the right people go to jail, and that 'good people' don't get screwed. He doesn't care about the chain of command, doesn't follow his orders, doesn't care about politics, and is willing to fudge things occasionally, etc.

Lawful people are more about the process and rules, Chaotic about the end results.

[Segev]

Lawful people generally like predictability. They like knowing what is coming, knowing what is expected of them, knowing what to expect of others, and being able to rely on this to make plans.

To this end, they tend to dislike liars and feel telling lies is bad. This doesn't mean they never will, but they have to have a reason for creating this diruption in the ability of people to know what to expect.

They will tend to feel that denotation can trump connotation, especially if there is dispute over connotation's meaning.

They are often creatures of habit, because habit provides predictability and minimizes the number of things which could get in the way of smooth operations.


Chaotic people like options. They like surprises, and they like being able to surprise. They don't mind if they don't know what others are doing, nor if others know what they're doing, because they like taking things as they come and adapting to take advantage of what they find.

To this end, they tend to look like they run haphazard lives. The plans they make are rough and have enormous swaths of "and then see what we have" scribbled into them.

They don't mind throwing out the exact meaning of an agreement as long as they feel that everybody involved knew what was meant and they're working towards it. If they feel cheated, they'll take what they feel they're due and call it quits.


Both lawful and chaotic people are capable of deception. Lawful types will tend to value truthful denotations that are deceptive in context, while chaotic types will simply out-and-out lie. Lawful types feel this gives them ethical high ground, because they do what they said they would. Chaotic types feel such sophistry is silly.

Both lawful and chaotic types are capable of adapting to situations. Lawful types may have contingencies galore, or they may have a simple "if nothing else applies, improvise" condition in their plans, but they will improvise if needs be. They just tend to do so with an eye towards repeatability and making sure everybody knows the new plan.

Chaotic types improvise a lot more often. Not only are they less likely to have a plan for a given situation, but they are more comfortable just making it up as they go along. They either trust that everybody else will pick up on it or improvise a similar solution given similar conditions, or they don't care and plan to work through it alone. (Maybe planning to help others, maybe not.)


Worrying about the letter of an agreement, about one's honor, or about the conflicting call of one's conscience and one's ethics is a hallmark of Law (and often LG).

Taking things as you find them, going into a situation unprepared but planning to improvise as your first order of business, and refusing to be bound by a misunderstanding (sometimes even to the detriment of others who were dealing in good faith) are hallmarks of Chaos.

[jedipotter]

So, given that adventuring will contain a lot of novel and changing situations that defy a set routine, what specific behaviors can you use to measure this?

Lawful This person likes plans and goals. They want to know where they are going and when and why and how. And they like to stick to the plan. Even if something happens, they will still want to do the plan. They will keep a set routine for themselves as much as possible, get up at the same time, take watch at the same time, and so on. And they would really want everyone else to do so too. They like battle plans and tactics. They like to plan ahead. They like to have set things that will happen in response to an action.

A lawful person will follow laws and rules and such, simply as they like the idea of following them. Though if they are evil, they will try to twist the law or rule so it works out for them.

Chaotic is more carefree, they don't really think about tomorrow much at all. They don't make plans and only have vague goals like ''get rich someday''. They find it impossible to really follow much of any plan. They think everyone should decide what they will do themselves. They don't care much for battle plans and tactics, they will just do whatever comes to their mind at the time. They like to think and do things on the run.

A chaotic person only vaguely follows the laws and rules, but it's more like they simply have not broken the law or rule....yet. A good chaotic person will try to twist a law or rule so it works out for them.

Though you should never measure alignment by one act. A Chaotic person might come up with a single plan, but that does not violate their alignment. Same way a Lawful person can just ''wing it'' for once.

Any thief who just does whatever comes to mind is going to either never go beyond being a sixth-rate pickpocket or end up in prison.

This is very true. And note this is the way at least half of the thieves worldwide are....

Skilled theft requires a plan. Ever play Payday? How about the Thief games? Going into a difficult heist and not planning it out generally results in you getting your ass handed to you.

And these are the more Lawful Thieves. Planning a big heist is a lawful act, not a chaotic one.

And that doesn't make the Thief Lawful. Being careful, methodical, and having a plan doesn't make you Lawful, it makes you Not An Idiot. It's more statistical than moral, a representation of your character's Wisdom.

Having a big plan does make a person Lawful, that is the whole point of Lawful. A thief with a plan is not chaotic, they are lawful evil or neutral evil.

By that same token one can be reckless and foolish without being Chaotic. Hell, you can have a reckless, foolish Paladin. I wouldn't advise it, especially given that you should probably represent that with a low Wisdom score, but it can be done.

Yes, any alignment can be reckless and foolish.

[JusticeZero]

Law vs Chaos is about motivation, and about reasons for doing things.

Alas, the whole point is because it's important to remove the "discern the motives of the character" part from the equation. It's just too much of a hassle to second-guess the thoughts of the character. I am actually willing to discard "Law" and "Chaos" to clear things up if needed, and replace it with a different set of ideals.

[Segev]

Hm. Let's look at it from the perspective of "what would be a 'sin' to a Lawful/Chaotic person?"

A lawful person will not out-and-out lie. He might twist the truth, but he will not lie.

A lawful person will not flout the rules of any organization he has willingly joined. If he finds the rules untennable, he will separate from the organization as formally as possible; he will not simply abandon his duties without a great deal of ethical turmoil.

A lawful person will not go back on an agreement, even if it has become unfavorable to him.

A lawful person will not allow others to back out of an agreement just because it is disadvantageous to them, unless they can do so in a "costless," and thus just, fashion. (e.g. if they want to back out before any exchanges of goods or services have been made, a lawful person CAN agree to abrogate the agreement. But won't if either side's already begun to deliver their part of it.)


A chaotic person will not allow conscious habits to control him. He may fall prey to vices and addictions, but he will not follow a habitual process just because it is habit if something - anything - potentially better crops up.

A chaotic person will not hold people to the letter of an agreement if it becomes clear they did not understand what was meant.

A chaotic person will not allow themselves to be held to the letter of an agreement which is twisted from what they understood the spirit to be.

A chaotic person will not hesitate to do what their conscience or desires tell them just because some rules, agreements, or promises say they shouldn't. (They might choose to refrain based on other, deeper concerns, such as keeping a promise they know is important to a friend, but they would do so not because they promised, but because it's for a friend.)

[hamishspence]

Elan's mum has a tendency to come up with complicated plans, despite being Chaotic Good:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0725.html

the Lawful Evil Nale apparently inherited the tendency.

Perhaps "Planner" is not an especially alignment-associated personality trait?

[Segev]

Elan's mum has a tendency to come up with complicated plans, despite being Chaotic Good:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0725.html

the Lawful Evil Nale apparently inherited the tendency.

Perhaps "Planner" is not an especially alignment-associated personality trait?

Maybe. I would still say it's indicative.

Lawful people plan, and stick to plans. They like knowing what is coming and knowing, in the heat of the moment, that there is a contingency for this.

It's the Xanatos Gambit vs. Xanatos Speed Chess. Xanatos Speed Chessmasters will tend more towards the chaotic side of things. It's not inherent, but it is where Chaotic type planners likely fall. Xanatos Gambits almost always are Lawful designs, because they involve not just planning, but planning to a degree that you have arranged events to your liking almost before you push the first domino.

[ObnoxiousKender]

This is a helpful site about the alignments. It gives a pretty in depth overview, the sins and commandments of the different alignments and a bunch of other helpful stuff.
http://www.easydamus.com/lawfulgood.html

[jedipotter]

Perhaps "Planner" is not an especially alignment-associated personality trait?

It's not just ''the plan''. It's not like Chaotic people don't plan, it's more that they don't really feel the need to do so very often.

Take the two types of plans:

Often a Chaotic plan is simple, we will go and do this. They can be someone complex, though often it's just linked simple plans. A chaotic person only does the bare minimum research they feel they need to do. A Chaotic plan often does not have a set time element, it's left more for the individuals to decide when to act. A Chaotic plan will not have lots of moving parts.

Lawful plans are all most always too complex. A pure lawful person can plan something out for weeks or more. The lawful person will often over research everything. Most often, a Lawful plan is timed down to the second. There is no room for improvising in a Lawful plan. A Lawful plan has lots of moving parts.

[hamishspence]

It's the Xanatos Gambit vs. Xanatos Speed Chess. Xanatos Speed Chessmasters will tend more towards the chaotic side of things. It's not inherent, but it is where Chaotic type planners likely fall.

Vetinari and Thrawn are usually cited as excellent examples of LE (or possibly LN, in their more sympathetic variants.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...atosSpeedChess

Lawful plans are all most always too complex. A pure lawful person can plan something out for weeks or more. The lawful person will often over research everything. Most often, a Lawful plan is timed down to the second. There is no room for improvising in a Lawful plan. A Lawful plan has lots of moving parts.

You're thinking of the Clock King - tends to be associated with Law - but not always - and not all, or even most, Lawful characters have to be this way.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ClockKing

[Beta Centauri]

Elan's mum has a tendency to come up with complicated plans, despite being Chaotic Good:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0725.html

the Lawful Evil Nale apparently inherited the tendency.

Perhaps "Planner" is not an especially alignment-associated personality trait?

"Perhaps." Spare me your condescension.

First of all, The Order of the Stick is a story, and a story has certain requirements that a strict ruleset isn't going to meet. I don't go to it to interpret the rules, I go to it for entertainment.

Second of all, Rich Burlew's interpretation of alignment isn't the end-all-be-all of alignment. And for all we know he gave that's character's alignment next to no thought. For all we know, he completely spaced on the character's alignment when writing scenes for it.

Finally, alignment isn't a program that controls a person's every action. Anyone can plan, and who says a complicated plan is any good as a plan. Complicated plans rely heavily on luck, rather than certainty, which sounds to me like something someone chaotic would do, adapting to the situation if the plan falls through.

Is alignment really a valid conversational topic on this board. Most other places have realized that it brings out the worst in people.

[hamishspence]

Maybe someone who's read a lot of D&D novels could cite examples of how canonically Chaotic characters plan, how canonically Lawful characters plan, and noticeable commonalities?

[jedipotter]

Maybe someone who's read a lot of D&D novels could cite examples of how canonically Chaotic characters plan, how canonically Lawful characters plan, and noticeable commonalities?

Well, the most striking thing about Chaotic characters, like Drizzit, Elminster, Storm, and The Simbul is they very often don't have much of a plan. They have a more, ''lets just go and see what we can do''. When they do come up with a plan, it's very short term and direct. And another striking feature is they leave everyone else alone. They will help if directly asked, some times, but really have no plan for helping anyone before they get in trouble.

Lawful characters, King Azron, Laroch, Manshoon, and Khelben very often have plans with in plan with in more plans and even more plans. They have lots of goals they have set for themselves and have at least a couple plans in motion to get the goal. A lot of the plans are very long term. A big feature is they are often rulers who want to tell everyone what to do. They try to 'help' long before anything happens.

[Deophaun]

The problem with the Law vs. Chaos axis is that Law and Chaos are not actually opposites, so you get lots of debate as to what makes someone lawful versus what makes one chaotic, and all of the distinctions are terrible.

Take your barbarian for instance. Barbarians cannot be lawful according to 3.5 rules. Barbarians are such because they are uncivilized: they live outside the protections and rules of established society. All good so far. However, consider then that, since barbarians do not have external restraints on their behavior, that means they probably have a lot of internal restraints. After all, when you live in a group where the only thing preventing anyone else from taking an axe to you in your sleep is their opinion of you, you are not going to make yourself a liability to your tribe or do things that might make others think it would be better if you never woke up again. That means barbarians are much more likely to have a personal code of conduct than, say, a banker that already has a system of external laws and regulations in place to bind conduct between parties.

The banker, of course, is lawful, because his entire profession relies on the law and other people having enough faith in that law that they will willingly surrender their money to a stranger. But he needs no personal code. He can, of course, swindle his clients through creative bookkeeping, and use the law as a veil under which to commit his crimes. Remove the law, and the dishonest banker is going to feel completely exposed.

So, then Law and Chaos are about External versus Internal restrictions, right? Well, no, because you have the bloody Paladin and Knight, which are all about Internal restrictions that often call on them to part with the External.

So, in the end, you're left with a mess, and the only conclusion being that the people who made the alignment grid didn't think things through. So, for the sake of your sanity, you shouldn't think too much about it, either.

[JusticeZero]

Thus why I am happy to replace the concepts with a roughly analogous duality, provided that whatever duality is used allows me to judge a characters actions without ever having any insight into what said character is thinking or intending to do.

[Mastikator]

A lawful person will be organized, honest, uncreative and strict.
A chaotic person will be disorganized, dishonest, creative and flaky.

Lawful people tend to plan ahead, in detail. Chaotic people tend to improvise.

[Corsair]

A lawful person will be organized, honest, uncreative and strict.
A chaotic person will be disorganized, dishonest, creative and flaky.

Lawful people tend to plan ahead, in detail. Chaotic people tend to improvise.

All those are only tangentially connected to the Law/Chaos spectrum. Creativity in particular has -nothing- to do with either axis of morality. LGs can be just as creative as any other alignment. I wouldn't classify lying as a Chaotic act either. Devils are Lawful and the greatest liars in the cosmos.

[Mastikator]

"Tangentially connected" is still connected, and frankly, tangentially is the only kind of connected you'll find in either axis for any trait.

And even if you wouldn't classify lying as chaotic, the D&D system does classify honesty as a lawful trait, especially lawful good. You might reason that lying is either (or both) chaotic and evil, which would explain devils lying. The devils still value "honor" in their own twisted way, which nonetheless involves not saying something technically untrue to someone you've sworn fealty to. And never backing down on a promise. (yes, only technically, but technically can still get you pretty far)

[ChaoticSky]

I did alot of research on this topic when i first got into DnD because i found it fascinating. However the eventual conclusion i reached is that, as often defined, the law/n/chaos band makes no sense, most examples of lawful or chaotic behaviour are bad stereotypes at best, and often not even morality-related, Chaos doesnt mean a person is dishonest any more than Law means they have to tell the truth. I did eventually find a explanation for DnD morality that i fancied and makes moral sense, but i cannot find a link for it now, so i will paraphrase as best i can;

Law vs Chaos is ultimately a matter of where a person draws their morality from. A Lawful character holds to a external code of morality; a code of honour, a religious doctrine, the rule of law, fealty to a lord or cause, ect. A Chaotic character holds a internal code of morality; they follow their own conscience(or lack thereof) and feel for right and wrong rather than what others or society expects of them. Neutral characters do alittle of column A/alittle of column B; they form their own morals and mold them with the expectations of society, or hold to the law, while informing it with the demands of their own conscience.

(On the other band: Good characters care about the wellbeing of everyone more or less equally, Neutral characters care about people and things they have a connection to, and have a internal order of importance; family over friends, friends over strangers, etc. Evil characters care only and absolutely about themselves, and only care about other people and things in the capacity that they affect their own life; Bob is my mancandy, my fortress is important to my plans, i really like that sword, etc.)

Its never what a character does, its why they do it. A Chaotic character who places a tremendous personal value on honesty is less flakey and more trustworthy than a Lawful character who follows a code that calls for secrecy and/or misdirection (like the followers of Zon Kuthon in pathfinder). It is also why paladins are always Lawful, even when their deity is not; they are following that deity's doctrines, and are therefore behaving Lawfully, even if those doctrines call for what you might consider 'chaotic behavour' in service to a chaotic deity.

I know not everyone shares this view, but it elegantly resolves all issues that have ever cropped up with dnd morality systems that ive been able to find or imagine. Lets me sleep at night.

[PersonMan]

"Perhaps." Spare me your condescension.

I didn't see any sort of condescension in his post.

Is alignment really a valid conversational topic on this board. Most other places have realized that it brings out the worst in people.

I don't think that's quite the case.

---

As far as Law/Chaos is concerned, I'd agree that a Chaotic plan would look like 'alright, so Sneaky Bob sneaks up to the door' instead of 'so, Sneaky Bob takes this alley into that plaza, then goes behind the merchant stalls and then takes the first left...', but that Chaotic people would definitely plan if it was needed. They'd just be the type to make a sequence of solo 'every man is his own general' bits rather than a single, interwoven plan.

[Thrudd]

I prefer a simpler alignment system. as we've discovered from all these debates, the nine spoked wheel is so open to interpretation on all points as to be almost useless. Forcing a character's personality into these poorly defined boxes is nothing but a source of argument and misunderstanding, if alignment is taken seriously by the DM.

Law is ordered civilization. If your character is from human/demi-human civilization and has a basically favorable attitude toward it and isn't a criminal, they are lawful.

If a character or creature has an antagonistic attitude regarding human/Demi-human civilization, they are chaotic.

If a character does not seek the downfall of human civilization but does not necessarily respect it's laws and customs, they are neutral.

This doesn't mean all human kingdoms must be lawful, I just used that as an example, since humans and Demi humans are generally the protagonists of the game, with law abiding societies. Whatever creatures make up the generally fair/rule of law societies are lawful. Two lawful kingdoms could be at war with one another, but they would not engage in slash and burn pillaging or genocide.

The forces of chaos, however, will always be the enemies of lawful societies, by definition, and would raze enemy civilizations to the ground.

This implies a game world where the civilization of the player characters is on the edge of wilderness and unknown lands full of dangerous creatures that would harm them and destroy their towns and cities if they were able.

A character's moral code or personality traits don't really need to be categorized. Protection and detection spells based on alignment either don't exist, or apply only to supernatural creatures and divinely powered spell casters.

[Corsair]

I prefer a simpler alignment system. as we've discovered from all these debates, the nine spoked wheel is so open to interpretation on all points as to be almost useless. Forcing a character's personality into these poorly defined boxes is nothing but a source of argument and misunderstanding, if alignment is taken seriously by the DM.

Law is ordered civilization. If your character is from human/demi-human civilization and has a basically favorable attitude toward it and isn't a criminal, they are lawful.

If a character or creature has an antagonistic attitude regarding human/Demi-human civilization, they are chaotic.

If a character does not seek the downfall of human civilization but does not necessarily respect it's laws and customs, they are neutral.

This doesn't mean all human kingdoms must be lawful, I just used that as an example, since humans and Demi humans are generally the protagonists of the game, with law abiding societies. Whatever creatures make up the generally fair/rule of law societies are lawful. Two lawful kingdoms could be at war with one another, but they would not engage in slash and burn pillaging or genocide.

The forces of chaos, however, will always be the enemies of lawful societies, by definition, and would raze enemy civilizations to the ground.

This implies a game world where the civilization of the player characters is on the edge of wilderness and unknown lands full of dangerous creatures that would harm them and destroy their towns and cities if they were able.

A character's moral code or personality traits don't really need to be categorized. Protection and detection spells based on alignment either don't exist, or apply only to supernatural creatures and divinely powered spell casters.

Why wouldn't they engage in slash and burn or pillaging? I would describe almost every major conflict of the last 10,000 years of Human history to have been Lawful societies versus Lawful societies. Rome utterly annihilated Carthage. Crusaders sacked Jerusalem and the streets ran red with blood. The Thirty Years War turned Germany into a wasteland, the list goes on and on.