To be Lawful

[Darth Ultron]

Instead of looking at Lawful Good versus Chaotic Good and asking yourself "why would somebody think that Lawful Good is better?" look at Lawful Evil versus Chaotic Evil and ask yourself "why would somebody think that Chaotic Evil is worse?"

To any single alignment, the other alignments are worse. A person of Lawful Evil alignment thinks that all the other alignments are worse.

In vague terms Good and Evil and Lawful and Chaos will all agree, for example a trio of a Lawful Good, Neutral Good and Chaotic Good will not have too much problem agreeing to be and do Good. At least in general. The same way Lawful good, Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil can all agree on order or a law.

Only Good people see Chaotic Evil as Worse then Lawful Evil, in the sense that it's ''worse'' to live ones life with out Lawfulness and Goodness.

[The Grue]

As someone who's Chaotic IRL

Err...what?

[theNater]

Though a Chaotic Good rebel never forces their view on others, they believe everyone has the ultimate right of choice and free will.

Are you saying a Chaotic Good person would never force someone to refrain from committing murder? Doing so would negate that other person's choice and free will, right?

[Darth Ultron]

Are you saying a Chaotic Good person would never force someone to refrain from committing murder? Doing so would negate that other person's choice and free will, right?

Yes.

A Chaotic Good person would never force someone to do anything. They might try to talk them out of it, or reason with them or others such actions. But not direct force. They want everyone to think for themselves, even if they make the ''wrong'' call.

[Envyus]

He is thinking by way too extreme in terms of both Chaotic and Lawful. He is pretty much going into Chaotic Neutral Slaad territory and Lawful neutral Modron territory. Not how most people would actually think.

It's pointed out that almost no one acts their alignment 100% of the time. Lawful people can do Chaotic things, Chaotic people can do Lawful things and not have any issue with it.

Yes.

A Chaotic Good person would never force someone to do anything. They might try to talk them out of it, or reason with them or others such actions. But not direct force. They want everyone to think for themselves, even if they make the ''wrong'' call.

This is not even close to true. A Chaotic Good person would stop someone with force because they feel it's the right thing to do. They may try to talk them out of it like you suggest, but a lawful good person would try that too.

[Darth Ultron]

He is thinking by way too extreme in terms of both Chaotic and Lawful. He is pretty much going into Chaotic Neutral Slaad territory and Lawful neutral Modron territory. Not how most people would actually think.

How am I being extreme? A Lawful person likes to make and follow plans does not equal the ''Modron Lawful'' of they walk around like robots. A lot of Lawful people follow a very set routine, every day. They like living that way.

It's pointed out that almost no one acts their alignment 100% of the time. Lawful people can do Chaotic things, Chaotic people can do Lawful things and not have any issue with it.

Not true. A person acts their Alignment just about all the time. A Lawful person does not only follow laws from 9 to 5 and then wildly and randomly break them after. A Lawful Good person does not murder others...all the time. A Chaotic Evil person would kill anyone, for any reason..or none....all the time.

But yes, people can do small things. Lawful person eats a salad for lunch every single day. But if one day they decide to have a ham sandwitch, they are not going ''all Chaotic''.....it's hardly a bump. But a Lawful person would never willing just say ''Eh, lunch, I'll figure out something to eat or not at noon''.

This is not even close to true. A Chaotic Good person would stop someone with force because they feel it's the right thing to do. They may try to talk them out of it like you suggest, but a lawful good person would try that too.

As said before Good will mostly agree with Good....bur not with all the details. A Chaotic person values an individuals freedom, and would not take that away from someone.

And it's not like ''talking'' is exclusive to Chaotic Good....even a Chaotic Evil person might try to talk a person out of murder for a selfish reason.

[goto124]

So Lawfuls think the Chaotic are flying by the seat of their pants, part of the reason Lawfuls have a code.

Playing/being a Lawful doesn't mean whipping out a book for every action I make, right? How do I convincingly play a Lawful especially when I'm just starting out? Giving her a routine to follow (*watch rings* Oh it's 3pm, I better take my medicine) sounds like a good start?

[Darth Ultron]

Playing/being a Lawful doesn't mean whipping out a book for every action I make, right? How do I convincingly play a Lawful especially when I'm just starting out? Giving her a routine to follow (*watch rings* Oh it's 3pm, I better take my medicine) sounds like a good start?

A set routine for just about everything is a good way to show a character is Lawful. They get up every day and do the same basic things over and over and over again. They don't like change much, and avoid it if possible. A Lawful person likes plans, so they will what a fairly detailed plan the spells out what everyone is doing. They really don't like ''eh, we will figure it out as we go along''.

The vast majority of Lawful people choose to follow another s rules, codes or laws. So someone who follows such a thing is a good way to play. Some Lawful people make their own to follow, but it's still the same: they follow and don't change.

For just starting out, the By-The-Book Lawful person is the easy one.

But the other part of your alignment matters too....Lawful good and Lawful evil are not the same.

[MrNobody]

So Lawfuls think the Chaotic are flying by the seat of their pants, part of the reason Lawfuls have a code.

Playing/being a Lawful doesn't mean whipping out a book for every action I make, right? How do I convincingly play a Lawful especially when I'm just starting out? Giving her a routine to follow (*watch rings* Oh it's 3pm, I better take my medicine) sounds like a good start?

Setting a routine is a good way to show lawfulness. Another one, since Lawful Pcs are generally linked to traditions, hierarchy and such, is sometimes starting your sentences quoting someone you recognize as morally superior to you. "Like my village leader said", "Like my priest told me once" (if your PC is devoted), "Like my grand-grandfather used to tell me" 8(f you are linked to your family) are all a good start!

[hamishspence]

Yes.

A Chaotic Good person would never force someone to do anything. They might try to talk them out of it, or reason with them or others such actions. But not direct force.

Not likely. "Forcing a tax collector for a LE baron to hand over the money" is textbook CG - the PHB even gives i as an example.

And on the other side of the coin, a CE person will certainly force slaves to do stuff. Drow society, orc society, and so on and so forth.

[theNater]

Are you saying a Chaotic Good person would never force someone to refrain from committing murder? Doing so would negate that other person's choice and free will, right?

Yes.

Okay, we've got confirmation that Darth Ultron is using some non-D&D alignment system. Moving on.

Playing/being a Lawful doesn't mean whipping out a book for every action I make, right? How do I convincingly play a Lawful especially when I'm just starting out? Giving her a routine to follow (*watch rings* Oh it's 3pm, I better take my medicine) sounds like a good start?

Routine is good. Depending on the particulars of the game, you may not want to tie it to the clock, but a daily plan of: wake up, do exercises, breakfast, work, dinner, read for a bit, sleep is a pretty standard routine a lot of people fall into naturally. Don't be inflexibly tied to it, but grump when it gets rearranged("Fine, we can have breakfast before exercises" kind of things). Similarly, do subtasks of those things in the same order when possible(exercises are pushups, then situps, then jumping jacks).

The whole book issue is a misunderstanding of how codes of behavior work. Most codes are, at their core, a very simple list of principles. You can(and some people do) go into a fractal specification pattern on them, but it's really not necessary; stick to the top-level principles and it'll fall into place pretty naturally. A code for an adventurer might look something like:

1. Honesty-only say things that are true. Always keep your word.
2. Courage-never do or refrain from doing something out of fear.
3. Reciprocity-when someone does something for you, do something for them in return.
4. Courtesy-use appropriate manners. Be polite, even to your enemies.
5. Honor-don't kill people who can't fight back.
6. Defense-protect civilians when you can.

Books show up when people try to precisely nail down all the details on this stuff: what exactly constitutes a civilian, what sorts of things require reciprocation and what reciprocation is appropriate, etc. But that's mostly for covering corner cases; the vast majority of the time it's pretty obvious. Plus, since it's a code you're making up for your character, you can make the ruling in corner cases. Just try to be consistent as best you can.

Also remember that the code isn't magically inviolable, it's just something your character prefers to follow("I know we're in a hurry, but can we stay for, like, an hour? I owe this guy a favor, and I'm not sure we'll ever be back.") And note that this particular code works just as well for Evil people as Good ones(it's always useful to have a reputation for honesty, grateful civilians are a valuable resource, etc.)

[goto124]

I'll look into the suggested methods for playing out a Lawful. I was thinking of making it in-game, in fact, by having a newbie Paladin who just got started on this whole LG thing, and still has to take out her schedule to keep on track

Not likely. "Forcing a tax collector for a LE baron to hand over the money" is textbook CG - the PHB even gives i as an example.

The Chaotic Good determines if forcing someone would lead to a good or bad result. She will force someone to not murder. In the case of an LE tax collector trying to force a poor citizen to cough up the money, she won't help the tax collector- she forces the tax collector himself to bugger off instead.

The Lawful Good... maybe... will give money to the destitute citizen, to let that citizen pay up the taxes. Hmm, that option might also be open to the Chaotic Good, if she's rich enough. Chaotic can do Lawful things, but Lawful can't do Chaotic things, at least not nearly as much as the Chaotic can do Lawful stuff. Did I get that right?

[hamishspence]

Chaotic can do Lawful things, but Lawful can't do Chaotic things, at least not nearly as much as the Chaotic can do Lawful stuff. Did I get that right?

Pretty much. Staying Lawful can be harder than "staying Chaotic" - and it may be the Lawful person's responsibility to punish themselves for lapses.

The Giant had some interesting things to say on "personal code" Lawfulness:

In my personal interpretation of Lawfulness in D&D, I believe that yes, it is possible to be Lawful using a personal code rather than the societal definitions of law and order. However, I believe that the burden of upholding that code has to be much stricter than that of the average person in order to actually qualify as Lawful. You must be willing to suffer personal detriment through adhesion to your code, without wavering, if you want to wear the Lawful hat.

Because almost everyone has a personal code of some sort; Robin Hood had a personal code, and he's the poster child for Chaotic Good. The reason his code doesn't rise to the level of Lawful is that he would be willing to bend it in a pinch. And since he's already bucking all the societal traditions of his civilization, there are no additional penalties or punishments for him breaking his own code. He's unlikely to beat himself up if he needs to violate his own principles for the Greater Good; he'll justify it to himself as doing what needed to be done, maybe sigh wistfully once, and then get on with his next adventure.

Conversely, a Lawful character who obeys society's traditions has a ready-made source of punishment should he break those standards. If such a character does stray, she can maintain her Lawfulness by submitting to the proper authorities for judgment. Turning yourself in effectively atones for the breaking of the code, undoing (or at least mitigating) the non-Lawful act.

A Lawful character who operates strictly by a personal code, on the other hand, is responsible for punishing herself in the event of a breach of that code. If she waves it off as doing what needed to be done, then she is not Lawful, she's Neutral at the least. If she does it enough, she may even become Chaotic. A truly Lawful character operating on a personal code will suffer through deeply unpleasant situations in order to uphold it, and will take steps to punish themselves if they don't (possibly going as far as to commit honorable suicide).

People think that using the "personal code" option makes life as a Lawful character easier. It shouldn't. It should be harder to maintain an entirely self-directed personal code than it is to subscribe to the code of an existing country or organization. This is one of the reasons that most Lawful characters follow an external code. It is not required, no, but it is much, much easier. Exceptions should be unusual and noteworthy. It should be an exceptional roleplaying challenge to take on the burden of holding yourself to a strict code even when there are no external penalties for failing.

[Michael7123]

So Lawfuls think the Chaotic are flying by the seat of their pants, part of the reason Lawfuls have a code.

Playing/being a Lawful doesn't mean whipping out a book for every action I make, right? How do I convincingly play a Lawful especially when I'm just starting out? Giving her a routine to follow (*watch rings* Oh it's 3pm, I better take my medicine) sounds like a good start?

Absolutely not.

You want to convincingly lawful person? Make 5 rules that your character will never break under any circumstances (baring mind control). Try to respect legitimate authority as much as possible, and definitely respect your superiors. That doesn't mean you have to slavishly obey them, but you recognize the possibility that some people might be wiser than you, which is why you choose to follow them in the first place.

[Tragak]

Okay, we've got confirmation that Darth Ultron is using some non-D&D alignment system. Moving on.

Sensible enough.

[Gritmonger]

I'm currently running an entire campaign based on law vs. chaos, instead of good vs. evil.

Playing a lawful character to the players currently means the most in interpretation of law, especially when it gets murky. Kind of like rules in roleplaying games. What is the right thing to do? When has a person transgressed? When has crossing the line earned summary punishment instead of due process? When does a person need to be protected from due process?

Playing a lawful character in this setting means being mindful of laws, not mindlessly bound by them, especially as some seek to use the laws to engage in tyranny over others, not really a good principle on the face of it. Players have principles they won't violate, but being lawful means that they attempt to abide by the laws that exist that do not conflict with those principles. Being in a society of laws doesn't remove the ability to act as an individual, or in some cases the obligation.

Laws are a framework at best, and when invoked as an abstract such as in a city may include old laws, laws that appear nonsensical, laws that appear to be unfair, laws with rather large loopholes. And who is administering and enforcing the law can also have an effect.

[veti]

Lawful people are systematic. They know what works in a lot of situations, and they try to apply that knowledge to each new situation as it arises. When they come across something completely new, their first impulse will be to try to find a parallel with some "known" challenge, and attempt what's worked before.

This is where the "respect for authority" comes from. Laws and customs are there for a reason: over a long time, people (collectively) have found that these things work. A tradition is a form of codified experience - long after everyone has forgotten how it started, they still remember "things work out when we do them this way". Therefore, they're worth sticking to, unless you have a good reason not to.

[Darth Ultron]

Okay, we've got confirmation that Darth Ultron is using some non-D&D alignment system. Moving on.

Thanks for letting me know.

Not likely. "Forcing a tax collector for a LE baron to hand over the money" is textbook CG - the PHB even gives i as an example.

Well, what fits good Robin better: Tricking or fooling the tax collector, stealing from the tax collector, intimidating the tax collector or slamming the tax collector into the ground, jamming a dagger in his throat and saying ''give me the money or I'll kill you!''.

The Chaotic Good determines if forcing someone would lead to a good or bad result. She will force someone to not murder. In the case of an LE tax collector trying to force a poor citizen to cough up the money, she won't help the tax collector- she forces the tax collector himself to bugger off instead.

Chaotic Good is the poster child for ''finding another way, other then force''. They are the ones that think ''force'' is the ''last resort'', and by that, they mean ''never''.

The Lawful Good... maybe... will give money to the destitute citizen, to let that citizen pay up the taxes. Hmm, that option might also be open to the Chaotic Good, if she's rich enough. Chaotic can do Lawful things, but Lawful can't do Chaotic things, at least not nearly as much as the Chaotic can do Lawful stuff. Did I get that right?

It's about 50/50 for both. Each can do things that would rate as being ''less then half''. For example if a Lawful Good person sat down for a meal and said ''eh, bring me whatever'', that is a Chaotic act, but only like a 5.

Sensible enough.

Glad everyone agrees. Though, just as you don't like what someone says, does not make that person wrong...

Now our Chaotic Good person really believes in freedom and choice....and that really goes against forcing someone to do something.

I wonder if anyone can give examples of a Chaotic Good person forcing people to do things the same way an oppressive Lawful Good person does?

[Gritmonger]

I wonder if anyone can give examples of a Chaotic Good person forcing people to do things the same way an oppressive Lawful Good person does?

Robin Hood stealing from the rich? A more informal form of taxation, but the end result is the same.

[Darth Ultron]

Robin Hood stealing from the rich? A more informal form of taxation, but the end result is the same.

I guess this is going to be how ''force'' is defined. If Robin breaks into a rich persons safe, is he ''using force''? If he dresses up as the false tax collector and collects taxes is he ''forcing'' people the pay the tax? If he tricks or fools someone is that ''force''?

After all Robin would never use the Lawful force of ''pay the tax or we will take it anyway, ruin your life, imprison you and maybe even kill you''.

And sure Robin might tap a guy on the shoulder with his sword blade as intimidation, but it is all for show as Robin would never kill someone just to steal their money. So it's not a show of force, it's a trick.

[Gritmonger]

I guess this is going to be how ''force'' is defined. If Robin breaks into a rich persons safe, is he ''using force''? If he dresses up as the false tax collector and collects taxes is he ''forcing'' people the pay the tax? If he tricks or fools someone is that ''force''?

After all Robin would never use the Lawful force of ''pay the tax or we will take it anyway, ruin your life, imprison you and maybe even kill you''.

And sure Robin might tap a guy on the shoulder with his sword blade as intimidation, but it is all for show as Robin would never kill someone just to steal their money. So it's not a show of force, it's a trick.

Fundamentally, though, it's the same: Conform to my perception of how reality should be or suffer consequences. One just has it codified and published. A bit more polite, if you ask me.

[hamishspence]

And sure Robin might tap a guy on the shoulder with his sword blade as intimidation, but it is all for show as Robin would never kill someone just to steal their money. So it's not a show of force, it's a trick.

Being surrounded by men with bows and told "drop the goods, or else" sounds like force to me. Especially if arrows are shot (albeit aimed to miss) as a warning.

[Darth Ultron]

Being surrounded by men with bows and told "drop the goods, or else" sounds like force to me. Especially if arrows are shot (albeit aimed to miss) as a warning.

I guess if you want to define force as ''something someone does not like''.

So you don't separate a Bluff from a Slaughter? Both are force?

Good Robin is never going it shoot....it's a bluff. He wants you to think he will...but he won't. So I'd say it's a trick, not force.

Now take Evil Robin. He is more then willing to shoot and kill and slaughter everyone and loot their corpses. his threat of force is very real.

But if your going to go with ''If a chaotic good person closes a door, they are forcing people to no come in to their house if they want too'' then...well, ok.....

[hamishspence]

You're making a certain assumption about Robin and his Merry Men - and that's that they would never actually use violence, only the threat of it.

Yet, in a great many Robin-Hood stories, he does.

Heck, even Disney cartoon Robin Hood's pal Little John coerces Prince John into letting Robin go free (after he's captured and sentenced to death) - by poking a knife painfully into Prince John's back.

I guess if you want to define force as ''something someone does not like''..

The threat of violence, is force, going by the Wikipedia description of "Force (law)"

[Darth Ultron]

You're making a certain assumption about Robin and his Merry Men - and that's that they would never actually use violence, only the threat of it.

What I'm saying is a Chaotic Good person, like Robin does not use force to get others to do what he wants, or what he thinks is right. He will use every other means possible to change someones mind of their own free will. And if all else fails, he is willing to take and steal. But he is still not forcing someone to chance their mind when he robs them.

Compared to a Lawful Good person who always uses the force of law to bully people around and force them to do exactly what the law says and what they want. You say ''no'' to a tax and you will be arrested, your things seized, and you will stand trial for breaking the law and face prison or even death.


But violence is a whole other topic. Every alignment uses violence.....

[hamishspence]

Every alignment has some people who are prepared to use violence. Some alignments have some people who aren't.

However "forcing somebody to do what you want them to do" is a very common thing.

The difference is in the nature.

A Good person won't usually force anyone to do anything evil. They might force someone, especially an evil someone, to do "what they think absolutely has to be done".


A Chaotic Good wizard might use Dominate Person on a guard (magical force) to make them leave their post, so the wizard can sneak into the villain's fortress.

[Darth Ultron]

A Chaotic Good wizard might use Dominate Person on a guard (magical force) to make them leave their post, so the wizard can sneak into the villain's fortress.

I would say a true Chaotic Good person would not use mind control. Mind Control is a Lawful and Evil thing.

[hamishspence]

BoED warns Good characters to be extremely careful when controlling people (a controlled person is a helpless prisoner) but doesn't call it out as Evil in itself. The Dominate Person spell doesn't have the Evil subtype either.

[veti]

Well, what fits good Robin better: Tricking or fooling the tax collector, stealing from the tax collector, intimidating the tax collector or slamming the tax collector into the ground, jamming a dagger in his throat and saying ''give me the money or I'll kill you!''.

"Intimidating the tax collector" is by far the most common of those, as portrayed in various interpretations of the legend.

Chaotic Good is the poster child for ''finding another way, other then force''. They are the ones that think ''force'' is the ''last resort'', and by that, they mean ''never''.

You're saying CG is pacifist?

It's about 50/50 for both. Each can do things that would rate as being ''less then half''. For example if a Lawful Good person sat down for a meal and said ''eh, bring me whatever'', that is a Chaotic act, but only like a 5.

That's not chaotic at all. On the contrary, insisting on having what you want brought to you, rather than what someone has available or wants to serve you - that's chaotic, with options on evil. Example right here.

I wonder if anyone can give examples of a Chaotic Good person forcing people to do things the same way an oppressive Lawful Good person does?

I wonder where you get this idea that "lawful" equals "oppressive"? A lawful good person will not, in general, "force people to do things the same way". There are exceptions, of course, but that's what you get for classifying everyone in the world into just nine boxes.

[Drascin]

So Lawfuls think the Chaotic are flying by the seat of their pants, part of the reason Lawfuls have a code.

Playing/being a Lawful doesn't mean whipping out a book for every action I make, right? How do I convincingly play a Lawful especially when I'm just starting out? Giving her a routine to follow (*watch rings* Oh it's 3pm, I better take my medicine) sounds like a good start?

Another little way to signify lawfulness without being an idiot is having a preference towards the tried and true methods - what you know works in situation A would be your preference whenever situation A happens unless there's circumstances that require changing up gears. If you fought trolls before and saw acid work wonderfully, even if a guy at the pub tells you that fire also works, you'll probably still reach for your acid flasks next time you see a troll, because hey, the guy at the pub might or might not be right, but you know acid works and no call to fix what ain't broken.