I believe that the lawful portion of the Dungeons and Dragons alignment axis is the most complex and interesting. Unfortunately, that complexity makes it the most confusing. It is easiest for us to attempt to simplify matters so that they can be easily understood, gauged, and then dealt with. For DMs and players alike, applying "Lawfulness" to this three-step process is not nearly as simple as doing so for good and evil.

Even though many can claim that good and evil are nonexistant or extremely relative, I believe that in D&D and EfU it is evident what these polarizations represent: tending to selflessness and humane actions, versus airing on the side of selfishness and immoral actions, respectively. Chaos, too, is not very difficult to decipher: the chaotic are those who act without accordance to code; whether that of society, that of themselves, or that of another person.

Law, on the other hand, has so many forms: fealty to family or tribe, abidance by common rule or decree of the land, following of moral code (either of your own, or that of another), fulfillment of duty or charge, loyalty to a master, or perhaps even unrelenting conviction in a belief or ideal. And within this small list of forms there are infinite permutations of each form: each man has a different family or tribe, each land has a different rule or decree, each teaching has a different code of morals, each institution has a different duty for its members, each retainer has a different master, and each ideal is different from the last.

Now that we have some understanding of what law is, how do we gauge it? Most often, "law" is associated with the institutions of Sanctuary; that is, the ordinances set out by the government of Sanctuary that are upheld by the Watch and other organizations intended to keep the peace of Sanctuary. Though, it is not uncommon for a "lawful" character to come in contact with these laws of the land and find conflict betwixt their own code and that of the government.

The purpose of the thread is this: how do we gauge this conflict of law? And then, how do we deal with it?

Shall we be lenient and allow lawfulness to be interpretive? Can a knight of a noble lord break the laws of Sanctuary in order to save his master's life, property, or dignity (as a good retainer does) and keep his "lawful" status? Or, by breaking the laws of the land does he, by default, become more chaotic for not finding a solution within the laws of Sanctuary?

Will Dungeon Masters deal out chaos points to that retainer for breaking the ordinance of the land, or law points for upholding his duty and proving his fealty to his master?

I'm no master of the lawful/chaotic system -- but generally actions that promote chaos will get chaotic points. Sticking to a code of some sort despite the personal costs will generally net you lawful points from me.

I can't remember his name, but in Bauldar's Gate 2 there was that paladin that had his little sister killed (rather accidental or on purpose, I cannot remember) by an evil person. The paladin wanted revenge by killing the evil person in return, thus not following the laws he would fall as a paladin. Or, he could report the murder to the authorities properly and let justice deal with the evil person.

(actually, the paladin guy was about to be judged. If he passed without any detection of evil he would become a paladin, otherwise he would not. So, he wasn't a paladin before the murder of his little sister. Either way, the wrong choice still reflected good or evil..)

As the main character you could sway him either way. So, as a paladin he had to follow the law of that city and do what was "right" according to those laws -no matter how much he hated it- rather than take the law into his own hands and simply killing the bad guy out of revenge.

Don't know if that helps, but that's what pops into my mind. If the laws in a city are true and good, then the paladin will uphold and protect them. But, if the laws are corrupted, or the government, king, council, whatever, are corrupted, then I would imagine the paladins' job would be to remove the corruption. Depending on the god he follows, like Tyr. *shrugs*

I'm no expert either. You know what, maybe this is more good vs evil, not law...forget it..

Anomen was a Cleric/Fighter.

And an ass.

In my opinion, being lawful says a few things about a character:

He is respectful of the status quo, even as it may not be ideal at any moment. The structure and arbitrary nature of hierarchical authority is to be desired as it is something that can be depended on in the long term. It's the PC's standing on the axis of good or evil that decides how he attempts to influence, change, or what role he wishes to play in that structure, but he does not attempt to reject it completely.

He is judgemental. Whether he is good or evil a lawfully aligned man has a code of morality or conduct that he holds dear and he uses them as a benchmark to determine the trustworthiness or character of others. These rules of behavior are not relative, and they are quite fixed. This makes very lawful characters very close minded and prone to rejecting more progressive rationales on morality.

He is inflexible. When a situation changes rapidly, rather than abandon his expected duties on a whim to better adapt to the situation at hand, he holds firm to his original goals or objectives. This makes him very dependable as a subordinate or superior, but also can make him vulnerable when a well laid plan is betrayed or backfires.

That's my 2 cents, Meow-mix

Whether he is good or evil a lawfully aligned man has a code of morality or conduct that he holds dear and he uses them as a benchmark to determine the trustworthiness or character of others.

Chaotic characters -can- have codes of honour as well (as said in the Barberian entry). It just means that, in being chaotic, it's more likely to be a personal code than one shared by a large group.

Nero24200

Whether he is good or evil a lawfully aligned man has a code of morality or conduct that he holds dear and he uses them as a benchmark to determine the trustworthiness or character of others.

Chaotic characters -can- have codes of honour as well (as said in the Barberian entry). It just means that, in being chaotic, it's more likely to be a personal code than one shared by a large group.

I was careful not to use the term "Honor." Honor is the way a persons deeds glorify him and his family through their quality. Honor is the way that a person embodies the most important virtues of their society. Honor is the strength of someone's reputation. For barbarians it is often strength and courage and fearlessness. Morality is little quirks of right and wrong that have little to do with anything other than being guidelines of how to act.

For instance, faithfulness to a spouse is a moral code. Even if a person is dissatisfied with their marriage, a lawful character still frowns on them cheating on their husbands or wives with their true love because it defies the sanctity of that tradition. A chaotic PC may or may not find this acceptable, based on their own personal standards.

That's my 2 cents, Meow-mix!

The Chaos and Law thing here is a huge difference.When I play Chaotic good characters, they piss on law and will bash anything that threatens there home, when I play an LG character, they usually find a denotation within the law to bring down the evil doer. I find myself inching toward true neutral the more I play my characters (( LN Mostly)) because I consider myself True Neutral and real life and a paladins code still doesn't make sense to me. When I played Fig, he had a strong sense Justice and Vengeance because he was the writer and reader of laws in his tribe even though being LE, he did everything for his tribe. SO when He challenged Tyrus, he was acting according to the laws of Cave Worm Tribe (He was very concious of the fact he was) and was taking full advantage of local law and custom (even though he knew he was likely to die, he would be honored anyways if he lost) and so ful-filled his selfish desire to leave an impression on society.

Chaotic evil characters with a high intelligence I think actively work toward anarchism (Think Elizabeth more evil) Chaotic Neutral don't really give a damn what others think and use there own thought and wit (Which is why CN oughtta have a high intelligence in my opinion) while Chaotic good don't mean to cause anarchism, they do because they usurp any evil goverment but technically don't know how to run a goverment.

Neutral characters do what they believe is right, neutral evil, for example, would mug someone for gold and take nothing (Usually!) but the gold. True Neutral would take any help without prejudice because help is help and they do what they must to achieve there goals. They do not see a real good/bad scale only what they think must be done.

Lawful characters follow strong moral traditions, or cultural law. The written codex is wide open for interpretation here, do you follow the law of your tribe? Or do you follow the law of town?

First, let's not turn this into another thread about paladins and lawful good, we have enough (excellent) threads on that subject. It's the law-chaos axis we're looking at here.

The PHB has the following to say about law and chaos:

PHB "Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

And then it "Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

What meow-mix described is pretty much spot on. Because of their xenophobia and the fact that they will eat their own offspring if it looks too different from themselves, I like to use beholders as an example of the status quo.

You can also give this alignment test a shot and see if you can hit lawful.

I'd have thought:Lawful=Orderly Not necessarily law abidding,but someone that believes that Order and discipline is the way to go.

Pfft, the Wizard tests are flawed. The alignment test claims that I am Lawful Good, yet the race and class test pin me as a elven barberian.

do you follow the law of your tribe? Or do you follow the law of town?

As stated, being Lawful is following a code. Any code. Even "I will not kill women," while you pretty much go random on the opposite gender. I'm glad this point is brought up, as it's a hot-topic which will hopefully clairify a lot for all of us. At some point one might argue one's Lawful if he attacks and kills everyone who leaves Sanctuary in an attempt to keep everyone inside so they don't get themselves killed to the monsters in the underdark, no exeptions; while this would definitely seem like a chaotic thing to do. This is exactly why it's hard to determine whether someone is Lawful or Chaotic. If the DMs intent to shift one's alignment for not-so-obvious reasons, perhaps it's an idea to first ask the Player why he acted the way he did.

That's my coin.

Obedience As stated, being Lawful is following a code. Any code. Even "I will not kill women," while you pretty much go random on the opposite gender.

I, personally, was not really interested in a vague debate over the nature of the alignment system and the pieces therein. I am more concerned with how DMs will treat characters who maintain a lawful standpoint, but who may fail to respect "the law". Will they be subject to chaos or law shifts?

Thanks LaBrea for your response. Are other DMs of a similar mind?

(Feel free to continue the debate, but I'd really like to hear the DMs' word on this matter.)

I think someone who breaks the law of the land should be prepared to face the consequences. To do otherwise undermines the law and invites others to do so. (If A can get away with murder, why can't B?)

The knight who has to break the law to save his master could move outside the law's jurisdiction, or work with the system to change the law that prevents him from helping his master.

The knight has to sacrifice something to save his master and accept the consequences of that decision, or else chaos++.

Meow mix nailed it.

Nailed it harder than a cheerleader on prom night.