7 Jan 2014: RRAAAH

[RedwoodElf]

Lots of players confuse "Lawful" with "Obeys the law" - which is not true at all. Lawful means you believe in being organized and deferring to the chain of command, but a Lawful Good will ignore or outright defy evil laws.

Al Capone was lawful in alignment, but broke quite a few laws. Ditto with Robin Hood...he was loyal to the TRUE king and fought against the unjust taxation of the usurper John.

[kida]

Lots of players confuse "Lawful" with "Obeys the law" - which is not true at all. Lawful means you believe in being organized and deferring to the chain of command, but a Lawful Good will ignore or outright defy evil laws.

Al Capone was lawful in alignment, but broke quite a few laws. Ditto with Robin Hood...he was loyal to the TRUE king and fought against the unjust taxation of the usurper John.

Robin Hood is the embodiment of chaotic character, IMHO.

[Aliroz The Confused]

I don't think you can really say that John usurped his brother Richard. I mean, Richard was the one who put John in power, and appointed John to run the place while he went on the Crusades. It's not really usurping if the previous authority willingly gives you his position for until-I-get-back amount of time. John's taxes were oppressive and unduly harsh, and Robin Hood (assuming historical) was rebelling against abuse of power, not necessarily power himself. You don't see Robin Hood going all "no more kings! Us peasants should rule!", he goes "This king stinks, and I'm not putting up with him anymore.". By abusing his power, John, in this scenario lost the right to have said power, and the obligation of the peasants to obey.

If anyone's an usurper, it's John and Richard's Father's Mother's Father's Father, Duke William of Normandy.

[Gurkenglas]

Who wants to bet Minmax will next draw Oblivious just as he's trying to sneak up on someone?

[BuildsLegos]

Unless you count pushing the tree, when has Minmax ever been even remotely sneaky? I get that it's probably going to be important in the likely chance that Kore fallows them in, but any attempt of violence by him is probably going to be at full volume anyway.

[Jochi]

Lots of players confuse "Lawful" with "Obeys the law" - which is not true at all. Lawful means you believe in being organized and deferring to the chain of command, but a Lawful Good will ignore or outright defy evil laws.

Al Capone was lawful in alignment, but broke quite a few laws. Ditto with Robin Hood...he was loyal to the TRUE king and fought against the unjust taxation of the usurper John.

Robin Hood is the embodiment of chaotic character, IMHO.

That depends on who's writing him this week. Just like Batman and The Punisher. Either of you could cherry-pick events from the RH mythos that totally demonstrate your position. "Locksley is a soldier forced to fight a usurper with guerilla tactics and went back to being a feudal Lord as quickly as possible" and "Robin fights for the good by any means and prefers guile and trickery to losing good men in a straight-up fight" have both been done, and both fit the character.
My opinion is that he's a Lawful Good dedicated to the service of King, Country and People PLAYING THE PART of a Chaotic Good to keep the Hearts and Minds of the peasantry and yeomanry because he needs their support. He's not a flat, simple character.

[T' Northerner]

Lots of players confuse "Lawful" with "Obeys the law" - which is not true at all. Lawful means you believe in being organized and deferring to the chain of command, but a Lawful Good will ignore or outright defy evil laws.

Al Capone was lawful in alignment, but broke quite a few laws. Ditto with Robin Hood...he was loyal to the TRUE king and fought against the unjust taxation of the usurper John.

Al Capone, the tax avoiding, smuggling, racketeering, murdering gangster, was lawful? Forcing others to show deference to your authority doesn't really count as believing in law and order. It just makes you a bully.

I agree with your argument, I just think that was possibly the worst possible example you could have picked.

[RedwoodElf]

Lots of players confuse "Lawful" with "Obeys the law" - which is not true at all. Lawful means you believe in being organized and deferring to the chain of command, but a Lawful Good will ignore or outright defy evil laws.

Al Capone was lawful in alignment, but broke quite a few laws. Ditto with Robin Hood...he was loyal to the TRUE king and fought against the unjust taxation of the usurper John.

Al Capone, the tax avoiding, smuggling, racketeering, murdering gangster, was lawful? Forcing others to show deference to your authority doesn't really count as believing in law and order. It just makes you a bully.

I agree with your argument, I just think that was possibly the worst possible example you could have picked.

Wrong. Al Capone was loyal to his organized crime family/Gang. He was Lawful Evil. You are confusing Law/Chaos with Evil/Good - a common mistake.

[Glemp]

Al Capone, the tax avoiding, smuggling, racketeering, murdering gangster, was lawful? Forcing others to show deference to your authority doesn't really count as believing in law and order. It just makes you a bully.

I agree with your argument, I just think that was possibly the worst possible example you could have picked.

Happily, this is yet another problem that can be solved by Batman. He trespasses on other people's property, breaks and enters it, puts people in the hospital for likely months at a time, diverts company funds for personal use, and acts without any official authority whatsoever for any of this...but is Lawful. He has a rule he won't break, and sends the bad guys to prison rather than just kicking their faces in for the hell of it. He works with the police, sharing information with them and helping them to enforce the law.

[Gryphonic]

So, might Lawful be most simply described as having a personal code of conduct that a character consistently adheres to?

[BuildsLegos]

As I understand it, their personal code must also encourage authoritive structure. Thaco cares about his team first and fallowing laws second; Robin Hood dedicates his life to balancing the economy; Batman is all about reducing crime, preferably through violence.

[Gryphonic]

As I understand it, their personal code must also encourage authoritive structure. Thaco cares about his team first and fallowing laws second; Robin Hood dedicates his life to balancing the economy; Batman is all about reducing crime, preferably through violence.

Thaco might see the two of them as the same. He exiled himself for the clan's sake, and prodded Chief to take charge when Chief wasn't because he WAS the official leader, and had to the be the one at least nominally making decisions. So, I think his taking care of his clanmates has frequently been part of upholding their traditions. Clan survival is critically important, right down to how their warcamps are putting themselves in harm's way just to keep the breeding population intact. That's just what their traditions require them to do, even when come of their laws make no sense as some of them argued int he first arc.

That he's Lawful Neutral may come from both his willingness to harm bystanders to protect family, and his willingness to lose Fumbles to keep the rest of them alive. Like in the warcamp example, goblin traditions have accepted that some will die to keep the rest safe.

[BuildsLegos]

I was thinking about Brassmoon's laws, and I hardly think they're the same in that regard.

[Madfox11]

Lots of players confuse "Lawful" with "Obeys the law" - which is not true at all. Lawful means you believe in being organized and deferring to the chain of command, but a Lawful Good will ignore or outright defy evil laws.

Al Capone was lawful in alignment, but broke quite a few laws. Ditto with Robin Hood...he was loyal to the TRUE king and fought against the unjust taxation of the usurper John.

Al Capone, the tax avoiding, smuggling, racketeering, murdering gangster, was lawful? Forcing others to show deference to your authority doesn't really count as believing in law and order. It just makes you a bully.

I agree with your argument, I just think that was possibly the worst possible example you could have picked.

Wrong. Al Capone was loyal to his organized crime family/Gang. He was Lawful Evil. You are confusing Law/Chaos with Evil/Good - a common mistake.

A D&D alignment discussion? Doesn't any such discussion belongs to the Controversy boards considering the amount of heat those things generate on D&D boards?

[YardMeat]

So, might Lawful be most simply described as having a personal code of conduct that a character consistently adheres to?

It should also involve a concept of authority. You don't have to obey all potential authority figures, but you still have to believe that there is some sort of legitimate authority/hierarchy. The big thing is, despite the way a lot of players and GMs interpret the lawful alignment, it has nothing to do with a rigorous obedience to the written laws of whatever land you happen to find yourself in. A lawful character is under no obligation to follow laws that come from a source that they do not consider legitimate.

As with "good" and "evil", "law" is more than just a philosophical concept in D&D. It is a divine force in its own right, and it is not as simple as just being shorthand for written laws.

I was thinking about Brassmoon's laws, and I hardly think they're the same in that regard.

I'm sure what the GAP did broke tons of Brassmoon's laws, but that has nothing to do with whether or not Thaco (and BE for that matter) are lawful.

[Kamos]

To expand on that it in fact in might be considered unlawful for a lawful character to adhere to rules he considers illegitimate or wrong. It's the sort of thing that makes a Paladin player weep.
Paladins have a clear code.
Knights/Samurai must serve their lord.
Kensai must follow their Oath.
Many Monks follow a certain discipline.
None of these require an adherence to law. Only an adherence to an organized form of life, authority or belief. Structure is what's key here.

I do so love the Lawful alignment.

[RedwoodElf]

If you want to clarify it, start calling it "Order" instead of "Law" - That's what Michael Moorcock called it (Though in his Eternal Champion books, Order and Chaos were nearly synonymous with Good and Evil

[spiderwrangler]

I always viewed Lawful Evil as one who can do things deemed wrong or unethical, but works within the framework of the system to do so. Hostile corporate takeovers, tax loopholes, stock manipulation etc. being more modern day examples as opposed to robbing a bank as a means to get $$.

[willpell]

If you want to clarify it, start calling it "Order" instead of "Law" - That's what Michael Moorcock called it (Though in his Eternal Champion books, Order and Chaos were nearly synonymous with Good and Evil

I thought Moorcock's thesis was generally that Order was the bad one?

[AntMac]

I don't think you can really say that John usurped his brother Richard. I mean, Richard was the one who put John in power, and appointed John to run the place while he went on the Crusades. It's not really usurping if the previous authority willingly gives you his position for until-I-get-back amount of time. John's taxes were oppressive and unduly harsh, and Robin Hood (assuming historical) was rebelling against abuse of power, not necessarily power himself. You don't see Robin Hood going all "no more kings! Us peasants should rule!", he goes "This king stinks, and I'm not putting up with him anymore.". By abusing his power, John, in this scenario lost the right to have said power, and the obligation of the peasants to obey.

If anyone's an usurper, it's John and Richard's Father's Mother's Father's Father, Duke William of Normandy.

John was the usurper of Richards rights and position. Inarguable historical fact.

John was appointed Regent at his brothers command, and he usurped the Crown, its Rights, and that was what made him the Usurper, you see. You have to really understand history, before you set out to say that the common understanding of the people who lived through it, and all subsequent historical understanding, is wrong. The people of the time all called him usurper and you are to try to explain it away on your own understanding?. Well, and so you could possibly, but first you would need to do a LOT of primary research.
Richard was held to ransom, John knew of it and was by his oath required to succour his lord, and didn't. He in fact tried to stop others from sending the ransom out of England.

And actually, William was perfectly entitled to invade England, because, during a period when he needed Williams help, Harold had sworn that he made William his heir, as in fact William had the better hereditary claim to the English throne than Harold. Harold did get elected to the position at a "parliament" but King Edward had appointed William his heir, so under the law, it was HAROLD that was usurping the crown.
Once back in England, Harold repudiated his sacred oath, and in real actual fact, all the rights except actual possession were with William, and he came to claim his right from an unfaithful King.

My opinion is that he's a Lawful Good dedicated to the service of King, Country and People PLAYING THE PART of a Chaotic Good to keep the Hearts and Minds of the peasantry and yeomanry because he needs their support. He's not a flat, simple character.

Absolutely so. "Long live King Richard, and Confusion to his Enemies!" he cries when being taken to the scaffold, not "Long live the English People, Huzzay for Democracy"

[RedwoodElf]

If you want to clarify it, start calling it "Order" instead of "Law" - That's what Michael Moorcock called it (Though in his Eternal Champion books, Order and Chaos were nearly synonymous with Good and Evil

I thought Moorcock's thesis was generally that Order was the bad one?

Arioch and Stormbringer were hardly "Good" - you thought wrong.

Elric eventually destroyed them both...because he was just that kind of guy.

[willpell]

Arioch and Stormbringer were hardly "Good" - you thought wrong.

Elric eventually destroyed them both...because he was just that kind of guy.

I didn't know about Arioch; Stormbringer was bad news, yes, but I thought Elric himself, and his race of elves in general, was Chaotic and at least vaguely goodish. My only direct experience with the Moorcockiverse was a graphic novel adaptation of some Eternal Champion story, very abstruse, in which the forces of Chaos were these utterly looney but seemingly fairly harmless etherspace-pirates, while Order was represented by a bleak gray landscape of creepy Edward Gorey-esque figures who wanted to make everything stop forever, preserving the whole cosmos in mundane, colorless stasis. I've largely been drawing on this portrayal in my D&D setting, portraying Chaos as the ebullient creativity of the human spirit and Law as the inevitability of entropic decay in a cold, uncaring universe...was I perhaps misinterpreting it all?

[Aliroz The Confused]

I don't think you can really say that John usurped his brother Richard. I mean, Richard was the one who put John in power, and appointed John to run the place while he went on the Crusades. It's not really usurping if the previous authority willingly gives you his position for until-I-get-back amount of time. John's taxes were oppressive and unduly harsh, and Robin Hood (assuming historical) was rebelling against abuse of power, not necessarily power himself. You don't see Robin Hood going all "no more kings! Us peasants should rule!", he goes "This king stinks, and I'm not putting up with him anymore.". By abusing his power, John, in this scenario lost the right to have said power, and the obligation of the peasants to obey.

If anyone's an usurper, it's John and Richard's Father's Mother's Father's Father, Duke William of Normandy.

John was the usurper of Richards rights and position. Inarguable historical fact.

John was appointed Regent at his brothers command, and he usurped the Crown, its Rights, and that was what made him the Usurper, you see. You have to really understand history, before you set out to say that the common understanding of the people who lived through it, and all subsequent historical understanding, is wrong. The people of the time all called him usurper and you are to try to explain it away on your own understanding?. Well, and so you could possibly, but first you would need to do a LOT of primary research.
Richard was held to ransom, John knew of it and was by his oath required to succour his lord, and didn't. He in fact tried to stop others from sending the ransom out of England.

And actually, William was perfectly entitled to invade England, because, during a period when he needed Williams help, Harold had sworn that he made William his heir, as in fact William had the better hereditary claim to the English throne than Harold. Harold did get elected to the position at a "parliament" but King Edward had appointed William his heir, so under the law, it was HAROLD that was usurping the crown.
Once back in England, Harold repudiated his sacred oath, and in real actual fact, all the rights except actual possession were with William, and he came to claim his right from an unfaithful King.

My opinion is that he's a Lawful Good dedicated to the service of King, Country and People PLAYING THE PART of a Chaotic Good to keep the Hearts and Minds of the peasantry and yeomanry because he needs their support. He's not a flat, simple character.

Absolutely so. "Long live King Richard, and Confusion to his Enemies!" he cries when being taken to the scaffold, not "Long live the English People, Huzzay for Democracy"

That's not what Alan Lloyd says in his biography of John. Nor even Frank McLynn in his biography of Richard and John.

Also, duuuuude, the throne of England was not King Edward The Confessor's to give. The Witan appointed the king, and while the current King's choice for successor was usually a pretty dang strong contender for the Witan to choose (as would be the King's closest relatives), it was still the Witan who chose and appointed the king. There were multiple times when the Witan officially deposed a king, and times when they chose someone with no real claim to the throne by heredity or Kingly successor-choosing. It doesn't matter that Edward promised/appointed William, because the crown was not his to give.

The Witan chose Harold.

And, if you'll remember, Harold was effectively a hostage when he swore that oath. He didn't know about the Saint's Bones. An oath coerced doesn't count.

Also, the throne was not Harold's to give to William. Being Harold's chosen successor as king is a huge advantage and gives you leverage at the Witan, but it does not mean you necessarily get to be king when Harold dies.

If you swore an oath to me to give me the Golden Gate bridge, would it be reasonable for me to claim ownership of it? No. Because it is not yours to give.

[AntMac]

True about the council choosing or disposing Kings and their Heirs at times, this also isn't unknown in modern times you know. However, it chose under certain conditions. If there was an Heir of the body, no other choice was mooted. And more Kings than Edward in our history, named a successor when their own kin failed. Not every time has this been accepted by their council of Peers of course.

Now, you make a false step in your logic, it is key to my point, please take no umbrage at my having to point it out.

You say Edward wasn't allowed to appoint his COUSIN William to the High Seat, but almost the next thing you say is he DID appoint Harold, no-kings-son Godwinson, and that smacks of having it both ways.

The Kings favour was an important point, given that they didn't usually sit still in their seat, but built up their personal power by showing favour to followers, whose adherence to their house in turn strengthened the Kingship and that ended up making it in everyones favour to select the next King from people close to the throne. Edwards fault in this very field had lead to the advance of the Godwinsons.
And "An oath coerced" was what the King "gave" to the Godwinsons.

[RedwoodElf]

Arioch and Stormbringer were hardly "Good" - you thought wrong.

Elric eventually destroyed them both...because he was just that kind of guy.

I didn't know about Arioch; Stormbringer was bad news, yes, but I thought Elric himself, and his race of elves in general, was Chaotic and at least vaguely goodish. My only direct experience with the Moorcockiverse was a graphic novel adaptation of some Eternal Champion story, very abstruse, in which the forces of Chaos were these utterly looney but seemingly fairly harmless etherspace-pirates, while Order was represented by a bleak gray landscape of creepy Edward Gorey-esque figures who wanted to make everything stop forever, preserving the whole cosmos in mundane, colorless stasis. I've largely been drawing on this portrayal in my D&D setting, portraying Chaos as the ebullient creativity of the human spirit and Law as the inevitability of entropic decay in a cold, uncaring universe...was I perhaps misinterpreting it all?

Yes. you misinterpreted it A LOT. The Melniboneans were anything but good...their music is a human Mouse Organ, and Elric's battle cry is "Blood and souls for my lord Arioch!"