I agree with Kirin'Tor's assessment of the events, but not his ultimate conclusion. For the fighter to do what you describe, he is acting Chaotic (Good). To me, the events you describe are highlight the classic difference between the prototypical Paladin and Ranger (I know, I know- Rangers can be other alignments now, but work with me, people). The Paladin would suffer the rules of the kingdom even if personally distasteful, or leave. The Ranger would have none of that nonsense, and lead the charge to free the people. The gotcha in your story is your fighter then re-establishing Law; a true CG character would generally leave well-enough alone after deposing the baddie King. *shrug* I would still vote CG, though, for his fundamental notion of destroying the existing (legal) power structure.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
The nature of "lawful" 2
- Thread starter Zweischneid
- Start date
cignus_pfaccari
First Post
BlackMoria said:
Exactly. While there may be momentary chaos as the old order is supplanted, it's not Chaos.
Brad
So, a paladin (or any LG type) confronted with an evil tyranny, would just shrug and say, "oh well, gotta follow the laws, can't rock the boat..."? That's silly. D&D Lawful does not mean a slavish devotion to all laws, and evil tyrannies are exactly the sort of thing that paladins should be fighting against.rowport said:
I would say that the example can't be defintively answered. Actions, in and of themselves, are not necessarily definitive. One needs to know the motivations. This example, as many of this kind do, pressupposes too many assumptions. It is also extremely simplistic and unrealistic no one person is able to change that many institutions. One person can be the instrument but there has to be support for the change or the change won't occur.
Personally, I approach alignment by looking at the two elements that create an alignment. The first element I think effectively relates to "method". It is the method that a PC chooses for resolving ethical questions. Lawfuls will work with others (organziations/protest groups/PTA's/etc) to develop change. Chaotics rely on making the change independly or "it's only illegal if I get caught" approach. A more gentle view might be "if I'm not hurting anyone then where's the harm?". Regardless it is always focused on one's self-interest. Lawful is looking at group interest. Leaving Neutral to choose either/or depending on the circumstance.
The second element IMO deals with how a PC views himself/herself and others. Good is alturism. It focuses on the idea that if I worry about taking care of others then I will be taking care of myself, people are worthy of my energy. Evil is always focused on the 'self'. What is in it for me. They are always selfish. They are the insenitive selfabsorb character who will always looks at any situation from how it will benefit or not inconvience oneself. Neutrals again worry about both and will fluctuate between either pole but never truly going to one or the other.
That's why all the heroes are good. The definition of being a hero is the same as it is for being good. It is also why villians are always evil. Everyone else is neutral and why they get the bit parts.
I think the majority of these type of "alignment conundrum" approach it ass-backwards. Alignments in and of themselves create relatively rigid pyschological/ideological responses/approaches a PC may take. Using real world examples are meaningless as they exist in a context that is "grey" at best. In D&D the world is fairly sharply coloured (to extend the analogy).
I would suggest that a more appropriate approach would be to ask given circumstance "A" what would a person with a "given alignment" do or find appropriate in changing "A" to something else, "B".
But in my heart of hearts I believe that the real reason these types of questions are put forward is become players don't want to restrict their playing options and that they put forward arguemtns that extends the "grey" in order to legitimate their own desire to stray from a given alignment. IMO.
Personally, I approach alignment by looking at the two elements that create an alignment. The first element I think effectively relates to "method". It is the method that a PC chooses for resolving ethical questions. Lawfuls will work with others (organziations/protest groups/PTA's/etc) to develop change. Chaotics rely on making the change independly or "it's only illegal if I get caught" approach. A more gentle view might be "if I'm not hurting anyone then where's the harm?". Regardless it is always focused on one's self-interest. Lawful is looking at group interest. Leaving Neutral to choose either/or depending on the circumstance.
The second element IMO deals with how a PC views himself/herself and others. Good is alturism. It focuses on the idea that if I worry about taking care of others then I will be taking care of myself, people are worthy of my energy. Evil is always focused on the 'self'. What is in it for me. They are always selfish. They are the insenitive selfabsorb character who will always looks at any situation from how it will benefit or not inconvience oneself. Neutrals again worry about both and will fluctuate between either pole but never truly going to one or the other.
That's why all the heroes are good. The definition of being a hero is the same as it is for being good. It is also why villians are always evil. Everyone else is neutral and why they get the bit parts.
I think the majority of these type of "alignment conundrum" approach it ass-backwards. Alignments in and of themselves create relatively rigid pyschological/ideological responses/approaches a PC may take. Using real world examples are meaningless as they exist in a context that is "grey" at best. In D&D the world is fairly sharply coloured (to extend the analogy).
I would suggest that a more appropriate approach would be to ask given circumstance "A" what would a person with a "given alignment" do or find appropriate in changing "A" to something else, "B".
But in my heart of hearts I believe that the real reason these types of questions are put forward is become players don't want to restrict their playing options and that they put forward arguemtns that extends the "grey" in order to legitimate their own desire to stray from a given alignment. IMO.
Evil king is defeated by good guy who is immediately crowned king. New king repeals evil king's laws and such and replaces them with his own. There is never a void of law, just a change from evil to good.
Therefore the whole thing is probably pretty lawful. Except, perhaps, for the LG guy being able to defeat an LE guy on their home turf without calling in a bunch of CG guerillas. Really, the LE guy, sensing the attack, would just send out a horde of Vampire Bureaucrats with their Red Tape attack and the poor LG guy would be tied up for several lifetimes...
Now, if the tyrant died and left an LE kingdom to an olgiarchy of nasties that peverted the laws to suit their whims, then we'd see the downgrade from LE to CE before it gets overrun by the nice LG guy.
Actually, the LE description you're giving sounds a bit more like NE to me -- lots of arbitrary cronyism and such at the expense of people who haven't done anything wrong. I read lawful-evil as a merciless "Even the most trivial of offense merits punishment such that you'll wish you'd never been born" compared to the more neutral-evil "Just wish you'd never been born -- it saves time," or the chaotic evil "We'll summon a demon to arrange your unbirth presently..."
Cheers,
::Kaze
Therefore the whole thing is probably pretty lawful. Except, perhaps, for the LG guy being able to defeat an LE guy on their home turf without calling in a bunch of CG guerillas. Really, the LE guy, sensing the attack, would just send out a horde of Vampire Bureaucrats with their Red Tape attack and the poor LG guy would be tied up for several lifetimes...
Now, if the tyrant died and left an LE kingdom to an olgiarchy of nasties that peverted the laws to suit their whims, then we'd see the downgrade from LE to CE before it gets overrun by the nice LG guy.
Actually, the LE description you're giving sounds a bit more like NE to me -- lots of arbitrary cronyism and such at the expense of people who haven't done anything wrong. I read lawful-evil as a merciless "Even the most trivial of offense merits punishment such that you'll wish you'd never been born" compared to the more neutral-evil "Just wish you'd never been born -- it saves time," or the chaotic evil "We'll summon a demon to arrange your unbirth presently..."
Cheers,
::Kaze
CRGreathouse
Community Supporter
The act is neither lawful nor chaotic. The character (as mentioned above) is probably lawful, but the act has no law/chaos meaning -- it's Law transitioning to Law.
You can't easily judge alignment of an isolated action.
You can't easily judge alignment of an isolated action.
Psion
Adventurer
First off, I see alignment as agent evaluation rather than act evaluation -- acts themselves have no alignment.
So it may depend on what the King's motives were, but I have no reason as an observer to beleive that they are not lawful.
I think you court alignment problems when you interperet lawful as static, unchanging, and stagnant. For the purposes of societies, I consider lawful characters to be those who beleive in and adhere to a code of standards set by a larger authority, and beleive that to be the right way of things.
So if the kingdom became qualifiably lawful good -- with strict but just laws -- that is showing deference to the role of an ordered society as intrumental and desirable, thus lawful, despite the fact that change has been effected.
So it may depend on what the King's motives were, but I have no reason as an observer to beleive that they are not lawful.
I think you court alignment problems when you interperet lawful as static, unchanging, and stagnant. For the purposes of societies, I consider lawful characters to be those who beleive in and adhere to a code of standards set by a larger authority, and beleive that to be the right way of things.
So if the kingdom became qualifiably lawful good -- with strict but just laws -- that is showing deference to the role of an ordered society as intrumental and desirable, thus lawful, despite the fact that change has been effected.
ARandomGod
First Post
Zweischneid said:Sounds more like Zelazny than Gyrax
Hey, just because it's been written about before doesn't make it an invalid perspective. Just the opposite in fact.
And a number of other books that are along the law/chaos axis instead of the good/evil axis point this out.
Mickey Zucker Riechert, Jack Chalker, and LE Modesitt are a few more authors who've written looking along that axis.
FireLance
Legend
A number of people seem to be arguing that Law cannot change and that any change is chaotic. That is incorrect, in my view. First, imposing law certainly causes changes, no matter whether it was because law was imposed on a previously lawless place, or whether a new set of laws replaces the old. Second, Law can change and adapt as well, but the change will be made in as orderly a fashion as possible.
MrFilthyIke
First Post
The action was chaotic, but the outcome lawful. IMO.
Similar Threads
