Reading these posts, I think I see the same disagreement that I'm confused about, trying to understand the alignment system. A part of the problem is that I don't see "lawful" and "chaotic" as poles but are orthogonal to each other.
Lawful suggests that a character places the law above invidividual conscience. An example of a conflict between the two might be a person that disagrees with drug laws who comes across someone with pot in a place where it's illegal. A conscientious person sees that they broke the law but, to their view, it wasn't immoral so they have no issue with it. A lawful person sees that they broke the law and so have to be punished, even if they don't think they did anything wrong. If this is what the scale is intended to represent, I think lawful vs conscientious would be a better label.
Chaotic suggests a condition without rules. I'd contrast thus with someone who is principled. Someone who is principled has their own moral code (which may or may not align with the law, and so is a separate thing) which they follow. I'd say chaotic described someone who doesn't rigidly follow principles, but instead just makes it up as they go along. I'd suggest that this scale would be better described as principled vs chaotic would be a better label.
I see lawfulness in an individual as being on a different axis to chaotic, and I'm seeing the same divide in this discussion. Some see being lawful as following the law, and others as following their principles.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Reading these posts, I think I see the same disagreement that I'm confused about, trying to understand the alignment system. A part of the problem is that I don't see "lawful" and "chaotic" as poles but are orthogonal to each other.
Lawful suggests that a character places the law above invidividual conscience. An example of a conflict between the two might be a person that disagrees with drug laws who comes across someone with pot in a place where it's illegal. A conscientious person sees that they broke the law but, to their view, it wasn't immoral so they have no issue with it. A lawful person sees that they broke the law and so have to be punished, even if they don't think they did anything wrong. If this is what the scale is intended to represent, I think lawful vs conscientious would be a better label.
Chaotic suggests a condition without rules. I'd contrast thus with someone who is principled. Someone who is principled has their own moral code (which may or may not align with the law, and so is a separate thing) which they follow. I'd say chaotic described someone who doesn't rigidly follow principles, but instead just makes it up as they go along. I'd suggest that this scale would be better described as principled vs chaotic would be a better label.
I see lawfulness in an individual as being on a different axis to chaotic, and I'm seeing the same divide in this discussion. Some see being lawful as following the law, and others as following their principles.
Your example is misleading. A lawful person is someone who believes there should be laws and principles governing peoples' behaviour in a society but it says nothing about whether or not the person agrees with the actual laws of said society. If we take your example with the lawful person coming across someone with some pot we also need to take into account the good-neutral-evil aspect (you also mix in the totally alien "conscientious" aspect which is either irrelevant or falls under something that isn't on the lawful-chaotic scale). A lawful good person would agree that it's against the law to have pot on them but, since they are good, wouldn't report them if they don't agree with said laws. I guess your "conscientiousness" could be relevant here. A lawful neutral person might not agree that the possession of pot is such a big deal but since "the law is the law" they report them anyway but perhaps hope for light sentencing. A lawful evil person woud perhaps extort the pothead in exchange for not reporting them or call for a maximum sentence.
Seen several more posts saying that "Lawful" means "upholding the law", which is frankly wrong.
An individual who upholds the law is lawful, to be sure, but that does not make someone who is lawful obliged to uphold the law. All apples are fruits, but not all fruits are apples.
A Lawful character is one which has their own code of conduct, one who follows their own rules and sticks with them, even if they aren't the easy way. A Lawful Paladin holds themselves to the laws of their oath - For oath of vengeance, it is to act in a way to take them to their desired route of vengeance, for oath of the ancients, it is to act in ways which promote and protect nature. A Lawful Good paladin with an Oath of Vengeance, who meets the person they have sworn vengeance against in the street, will consider how to fulfil their oath, even if the result (bad guy dies) is against the local laws. A Smart paladin won't go full duel in the streets, but they aren't going to let the laws of the land get between them and vengeance. They will try to do it without having to then kill the guards, but that's the "Good" part. A Lawful Evil paladin in the same situation would kill their nemesis than then kill their way out of the town. Or proclaim the guards to have tried to protect their nemesis and thus the town is forfeit, and burn it down for good measure.
So you can decide to be lawful and uphold the law, but it sure isn't a requirement.
Seen several more posts saying that "Lawful" means "upholding the law", which is frankly wrong.
An individual who upholds the law is lawful, to be sure, but that does not make someone who is lawful obliged to uphold the law. All apples are fruits, but not all fruits are apples.
A Lawful character is one which has their own code of conduct, one who follows their own rules and sticks with them, even if they aren't the easy way. A Lawful Paladin holds themselves to the laws of their oath - For oath of vengeance, it is to act in a way to take them to their desired route of vengeance, for oath of the ancients, it is to act in ways which promote and protect nature. A Lawful Good paladin with an Oath of Vengeance, who meets the person they have sworn vengeance against in the street, will consider how to fulfil their oath, even if the result (bad guy dies) is against the local laws. A Smart paladin won't go full duel in the streets, but they aren't going to let the laws of the land get between them and vengeance. They will try to do it without having to then kill the guards, but that's the "Good" part. A Lawful Evil paladin in the same situation would kill their nemesis than then kill their way out of the town. Or proclaim the guards to have tried to protect their nemesis and thus the town is forfeit, and burn it down for good measure.
So you can decide to be lawful and uphold the law, but it sure isn't a requirement.
That's an interpretation, but I wouldn't agree. That's saying law and order, good and evil, right and wrong are subjective based on an individual's own feelings, motivations and desires. By definition, that would not be being lawful; more like chaotic. Laws are laws and being lawful is following laws. Maybe one kingdom (that of the Paladin) has different laws on the books than in a different kingdom and, perhaps the Paladin may visit that other kingdom and not know the laws of that land and instead follows the laws he does know. In this case, he could be breaking laws that he believes don't apply to him since he isn't from that place, but laws DO matter to a Paladin (or at least are supposed to). If you have a vengeance to claim, you do it within the laws. That's why the Paladin has always been called the "goodie two shoes" of the party. Paladin's have a hard time working with, say, a rogue, since rogues, by nature, break laws. Having an evil person in the party with a Paladin would be predestined to have a messy ending. Having said that, I know the new system has twisted the value system around a bit and now Paladins don't HAVE to be L/G and they can be vengeful creeps. I just make it a homebrew rule that they still HAVE to be L/G, but that's just me. It used to be a C/E Paladin was not a Paladin, but an Anti-Paladin. There were no in between versions of a Paladin (alignment-wise), for those who have only known the latest editions. If you were a Paladin that transgressed the values of Law, you temporarily lost your abilities until you did something profound to repent. If you EVER did something evil, you lost your Paladinhood irrevocably and became a fighter (losing your heretofore gained Paladin abilities). This made being a Paladin something "special". You couldn't be just another guy with a grudge. If you are a Paladin, you ARE the quintessential "knight in shining armor." Regardless of these differences, what Lawful people/characters do is to follow the law, not just their personal version of the law, picking and choosing what to follow and not to follow. Law is about community and the power of that community. They believe that those who follow laws have strong communities, which makes for safety and survival of that group. Those who are good do every thing they can not to take lives unless it comes down to surviving someone's attack on them or if vanquishing evil. In the last case (vanquishing), even then the character may try to redeem the evil one or take them in for Lawful justice, depending on the circumstance. Now, these are the views of what law/order and goodness meant in Basic D&D through 3E. It's also how they were viewed in real life until some time around the 2000s. If you don't think a law makes sense, you work to get it changed. If you simply don't follow it, you are not being lawful, whatever the excuse you come up with for not following the law.
That's saying law and order, good and evil, right and wrong are subjective based on an individual's own feelings, motivations and desires. By definition, that would not be being lawful; more like chaotic. Laws are laws and being lawful is following laws.
~ Pallutus
Absolutely. Right and wrong are 100% subjective, as described in my earlier post. A paladin who is sworn to protect nature will fight anyone who trie to cut the trees down. A paladin who is sworn to protect the commonfolk will fight a paladin who is attacking the lumberjacks. They are both lawful good.
Just because "Lawful" has the word "Law" in it doesn't mean it is held to the laws of the land. Paladins are, at their core, religeous characters who are held to the standards of the higher powers. To quote Kingdom of Heaven:
When you stand before God, you cannot say, "But I was told by others to do thus," or that virtue was not convenient at the time.
~ King Funny-face
That's the Law that paladins hold themselves to. The Laws of men, if they do not align with the laws the paladins hold, are not laws to them. If a LG Paladin entered a kingdom where the Law said that slavery was acceptable and to interfere with someone elses slaves was illegal, and they saw someone trying to free the slaves, then they will ceace being LG only when they stop following their own laws - they vowed to protect the innocent, so if they fail to do so, then they are not following their laws. In a kingdom where one must, by law, obey the king, a paladin will not meekly do whatever they are told just because they are "Lawful".
Take Hobgoblins, for example. They are aligned as Lawful, but that does not mean that they will respect the Laws of warfare, or the Laws of any land they enter. They respect their own laws, and their own rules, and that is how they remain Lawful. A Hobgoblin killing someone in a town for a slight on their honour doesn't suddenly make them chaotic because of the setting.
Geann direct messaged me to discuss this, and my conclusion was that "Lawful" and "Chaotic" is more about Predictability. a Lawful character follows their rules strictly, and thus is predictable in situations - if presented with a hostage, they will save them instead of taking the money, if they are presented with a guard beating a beggar, they will confront the guard. Neutral characters are less predictable, and will generally follow rules unless pursuaded to do otherwise. Chaotic characters don't follow rules at all, and so are entirely unpredictable.
Take Batman as an example. The Joker is Chaotic, no doubt - follows no rules, and is completely unpredictable. Batman, I put as Neutral (I said good before but now I realise) because Batman has his rules, but he sometimes chooses not to follow them - He doesn't use guns, except when he uses guns. He doesn't kill people, except when he kills people (It doesn't count if they're unnamed henchmen!). So Batman is neutral - follows some rules, except when it's inconvenient. Mostly predictable.
so who is Lawful? Two face. Yep, that's right. Harvey Dent is the Lawful character of the 3, because he follows one rule, no matter what - you live, you die, all on the flip of a coin. It doesn't matter how badly he wants you dead, if that coin comes up heads, you live. That's what Lawful means, not "Goody two-shoes", but "Harvey two-face".
Seen several more posts saying that "Lawful" means "upholding the law", which is frankly wrong.
An individual who upholds the law is lawful, to be sure, but that does not make someone who is lawful obliged to uphold the law. All apples are fruits, but not all fruits are apples.
A Lawful character is one which has their own code of conduct, one who follows their own rules and sticks with them, even if they aren't the easy way. A Lawful Paladin holds themselves to the laws of their oath - For oath of vengeance, it is to act in a way to take them to their desired route of vengeance, for oath of the ancients, it is to act in ways which promote and protect nature. A Lawful Good paladin with an Oath of Vengeance, who meets the person they have sworn vengeance against in the street, will consider how to fulfil their oath, even if the result (bad guy dies) is against the local laws. A Smart paladin won't go full duel in the streets, but they aren't going to let the laws of the land get between them and vengeance. They will try to do it without having to then kill the guards, but that's the "Good" part. A Lawful Evil paladin in the same situation would kill their nemesis than then kill their way out of the town. Or proclaim the guards to have tried to protect their nemesis and thus the town is forfeit, and burn it down for good measure.
So you can decide to be lawful and uphold the law, but it sure isn't a requirement.
That's an interpretation, but I wouldn't agree. That's saying law and order, good and evil, right and wrong are subjective based on an individual's own feelings, motivations and desires. By definition, that would not be being lawful; more like chaotic. Laws are laws and being lawful is following laws. Maybe one kingdom (that of the Paladin) has different laws on the books than in a different kingdom and, perhaps the Paladin may visit that other kingdom and not know the laws of that land and instead follows the laws he does know. In this case, he could be breaking laws that he believes don't apply to him since he isn't from that place, but laws DO matter to a Paladin (or at least are supposed to). If you have a vengeance to claim, you do it within the laws. That's why the Paladin has always been called the "goodie two shoes" of the party. Paladin's have a hard time working with, say, a rogue, since rogues, by nature, break laws. Having an evil person in the party with a Paladin would be predestined to have a messy ending. Having said that, I know the new system has twisted the value system around a bit and now Paladins don't HAVE to be L/G and they can be vengeful creeps. I just make it a homebrew rule that they still HAVE to be L/G, but that's just me. It used to be a C/E Paladin was not a Paladin, but an Anti-Paladin. There were no in between versions of a Paladin (alignment-wise), for those who have only known the latest editions. If you were a Paladin that transgressed the values of Law, you temporarily lost your abilities until you did something profound to repent. If you EVER did something evil, you lost your Paladinhood irrevocably and became a fighter (losing your heretofore gained Paladin abilities). This made being a Paladin something "special". You couldn't be just another guy with a grudge. If you are a Paladin, you ARE the quintessential "knight in shining armor." Regardless of these differences, what Lawful people/characters do is to follow the law, not just their personal version of the law, picking and choosing what to follow and not to follow. Law is about community and the power of that community. They believe that those who follow laws have strong communities, which makes for safety and survival of that group. Those who are good do every thing they can not to take lives unless it comes down to surviving someone's attack on them or if vanquishing evil. In the last case (vanquishing), even then the character may try to redeem the evil one or take them in for Lawful justice, depending on the circumstance. Now, these are the views of what law/order and goodness meant in Basic D&D through 3E. It's also how they were viewed in real life until some time around the 2000s. If you don't think a law makes sense, you work to get it changed. If you simply don't follow it, you are not being lawful, whatever the excuse you come up with for not following the law.
Not sure what you think happened IRL in the early 2000s (and my guess is that it's totally irrelevant to this game of make-belief) but everything you said about Paladins being knights in shiny armour is kind of irrelevant since paladins no longer have to be LG.
Just because "Lawful" has the word "Law" in it doesn't mean it is held to the laws of the land.
Take Hobgoblins, for example. They are aligned as Lawful, but that does not mean that they will respect the Laws of warfare, or the Laws of any land they enter. They respect their own laws, and their own rules, and that is how they remain Lawful. A Hobgoblin killing someone in a town for a slight on their honour doesn't suddenly make them chaotic because of the setting.
so who is Lawful? Two face. Yep, that's right. Harvey Dent is the Lawful character of the 3, because he follows one rule, no matter what - you live, you die, all on the flip of a coin. It doesn't matter how badly he wants you dead, if that coin comes up heads, you live. That's what Lawful means, not "Goody two-shoes", but "Harvey two-face".
You would assume a Paladin, much as a person in real life, grew up in a location that has laws. So that Paladin would follow those laws while in that kingdom. If the Paladin took an oath that required him to break those laws, then he is breaking his/her LAWFUL alignment. YES, Lawful does mean that because it has the work Law in it. There's a reason the word is written that way. Words, by definition, have meaning! Lawful means, following the laws. Not your own version of the laws. So that would create a DRAMATIC CONFLICT with the Paladin who has that oath - "I have to stop those 'bad' people from taking those trees down, but I can't just go kill them or those protecting them." To kill those people to protect the trees to uphold his oath is both unlawful and EVIL (taking life). In your explanation, those people cutting the trees down may have their subjective view that cutting trees down is good and part of THEIR oath. Now what? So the Paladin could take other actions to stop the tree cutters, ones that fall within the law, but not breaking the law or killing them. If a Paladin finds themselves in another land, similarly to a diplomat or an ambassador or even a tourist in another country, you better go find out the laws there which may be different than in your land or you may very well end up in their jail or beheaded or starting a conflict between nations, even. A Paladin would at least attempt to follow the laws of the other kingdom while there. That may mean following laws that he doesn't normally have to follow, but so be it. And if those laws are in direct conflict with the laws of HIS land (say for instance that nation allows a father to kill his daughter if she shames the family, but your nation considers that evil and illegal) the Paladin would be in a bit of a quandary, right? He may have to allow that act to happen - another moment of DRAMA. If the player can come up with a real reason why the Paladin wouldn't follow that law, but still be considered lawful, then, ok. Otherwise, it's time to repent or even lose your paladinhood. And, sometimes, a Paladin may be willing to put his paladinhood on the line to save someone's life. At least he could repent for that and the penance may be really simple since he was saving a life by his transgression.
Now, consider hobgoblins...if they are not Paladins, then their treatment of what following the law (being lawful) means may not be a strict. They follow their laws at all times no matter who's land they are in. This is more of a Barbarian way of looking at things. My people have these laws and this is how we live. There is a bit of a difference between how Paladins follow laws and every one else. The knight in shinning armor holds him/herself to a higher standard. Hobgoblins may, however, honor the laws in a land where they are guests. As an example, one native American tribe in another's land would probably adhere to the laws their hosts have and would certainly be held to account for them.
I agree with you on Harvey Dent and the coin as an example of adhering to something, but not law. His RULE is not a LAW. He follows his rule, his oath. Keeping your word and promise, while it is an indicator of being a lawful person, is not being lawful in itself. The law, by nature, is a societal thing, not individual. Remember, Chaotic people believe the power is within the individual and Lawful people believe it rests in the group. So laws are societal, not individual. You can make a rule and you a can make a promise, but those rules and promises can definitely break the law. When Harvey gets tails and kills someone, it is unlawful and, more than likely, evil. What Batman is doing is Neutral and verging on N/E, though he does it "for the benefit of society". If you have such fluidity in AL as 100% subjectivity, you have a very loose foundations, which eventually causes a structure to crumble. Strong societies are not founded on such things because there is always a way someone can justify what they did and then nobody knows if what they or anyone else does is good, bad, allowed, forbidden - CHAOS.
Moral of that story is: Be careful of the promises you make!!!
Just because "Lawful" has the word "Law" in it doesn't mean it is held to the laws of the land.
Take Hobgoblins, for example. They are aligned as Lawful, but that does not mean that they will respect the Laws of warfare, or the Laws of any land they enter. They respect their own laws, and their own rules, and that is how they remain Lawful. A Hobgoblin killing someone in a town for a slight on their honour doesn't suddenly make them chaotic because of the setting.
so who is Lawful? Two face. Yep, that's right. Harvey Dent is the Lawful character of the 3, because he follows one rule, no matter what - you live, you die, all on the flip of a coin. It doesn't matter how badly he wants you dead, if that coin comes up heads, you live. That's what Lawful means, not "Goody two-shoes", but "Harvey two-face".
You would assume a Paladin, much as a person in real life, grew up in a location that has laws. So that Paladin would follow those laws while in that kingdom. If the Paladin took an oath that required him to break those laws, then he is breaking his/her LAWFUL alignment. YES, Lawful does mean that because it has the work Law in it. There's a reason the word is written that way. Words, by definition, have meaning! Lawful means, following the laws. Not your own version of the laws. So that would create a DRAMATIC CONFLICT with the Paladin who has that oath - "I have to stop those 'bad' people from taking those trees down, but I can't just go kill them or those protecting them." To kill those people to protect the trees to uphold his oath is both unlawful and EVIL (taking life). In your explanation, those people cutting the trees down may have their subjective view that cutting trees down is good and part of THEIR oath. Now what? So the Paladin could take other actions to stop the tree cutters, ones that fall within the law, but not breaking the law or killing them. If a Paladin finds themselves in another land, similarly to a diplomat or an ambassador or even a tourist in another country, you better go find out the laws there which may be different than in your land or you may very well end up in their jail or beheaded or starting a conflict between nations, even. A Paladin would at least attempt to follow the laws of the other kingdom while there. That may mean following laws that he doesn't normally have to follow, but so be it. And if those laws are in direct conflict with the laws of HIS land (say for instance that nation allows a father to kill his daughter if she shames the family, but your nation considers that evil and illegal) the Paladin would be in a bit of a quandary, right? He may have to allow that act to happen - another moment of DRAMA. If the player can come up with a real reason why the Paladin wouldn't follow that law, but still be considered lawful, then, ok. Otherwise, it's time to repent or even lose your paladinhood. And, sometimes, a Paladin may be willing to put his paladinhood on the line to save someone's life. At least he could repent for that and the penance may be really simple since he was saving a life by his transgression.
Now, consider hobgoblins...if they are not Paladins, then their treatment of what following the law (being lawful) means may not be a strict. They follow their laws at all times no matter who's land they are in. This is more of a Barbarian way of looking at things. My people have these laws and this is how we live. There is a bit of a difference between how Paladins follow laws and every one else. The knight in shinning armor holds him/herself to a higher standard. Hobgoblins may, however, honor the laws in a land where they are guests. As an example, one native American tribe in another's land would probably adhere to the laws their hosts have and would certainly be held to account for them.
I agree with you on Harvey Dent and the coin as an example of adhering to something, but not law. His RULE is not a LAW. He follows his rule, his oath. Keeping your word and promise, while it is an indicator of being a lawful person, is not being lawful in itself. The law, by nature, is a societal thing, not individual. Remember, Chaotic people believe the power is within the individual and Lawful people believe it rests in the group. So laws are societal, not individual. You can make a rule and you a can make a promise, but those rules and promises can definitely break the law. When Harvey gets tails and kills someone, it is unlawful and, more than likely, evil. What Batman is doing is Neutral and verging on N/E, though he does it "for the benefit of society". If you have such fluidity in AL as 100% subjectivity, you have a very loose foundations, which eventually causes a structure to crumble. Strong societies are not founded on such things because there is always a way someone can justify what they did and then nobody knows if what they or anyone else does is good, bad, allowed, forbidden - CHAOS.
Moral of that story is: Be careful of the promises you make!!!
Why do you apply to arbitrarily different definitions of "lawful" depending on if the lawful person is a paladin or a hobgoblin? Also, characters like Superman or Steve Rogers are typically described as Lawful Good, yet they break the laws quite often. Why? Because their morals and their code and the way they felt that the rules should be clashed with how the actual laws of the land were.
Just because "Lawful" has the word "Law" in it doesn't mean it is held to the laws of the land.
Take Hobgoblins, for example. They are aligned as Lawful, but that does not mean that they will respect the Laws of warfare, or the Laws of any land they enter. They respect their own laws, and their own rules, and that is how they remain Lawful. A Hobgoblin killing someone in a town for a slight on their honour doesn't suddenly make them chaotic because of the setting.
so who is Lawful? Two face. Yep, that's right. Harvey Dent is the Lawful character of the 3, because he follows one rule, no matter what - you live, you die, all on the flip of a coin. It doesn't matter how badly he wants you dead, if that coin comes up heads, you live. That's what Lawful means, not "Goody two-shoes", but "Harvey two-face".
You would assume a Paladin, much as a person in real life, grew up in a location that has laws. So that Paladin would follow those laws while in that kingdom. If the Paladin took an oath that required him to break those laws, then he is breaking his/her LAWFUL alignment. YES, Lawful does mean that because it has the work Law in it. There's a reason the word is written that way. Words, by definition, have meaning! Lawful means, following the laws. Not your own version of the laws. So that would create a DRAMATIC CONFLICT with the Paladin who has that oath - "I have to stop those 'bad' people from taking those trees down, but I can't just go kill them or those protecting them." To kill those people to protect the trees to uphold his oath is both unlawful and EVIL (taking life). In your explanation, those people cutting the trees down may have their subjective view that cutting trees down is good and part of THEIR oath. Now what? So the Paladin could take other actions to stop the tree cutters, ones that fall within the law, but not breaking the law or killing them. If a Paladin finds themselves in another land, similarly to a diplomat or an ambassador or even a tourist in another country, you better go find out the laws there which may be different than in your land or you may very well end up in their jail or beheaded or starting a conflict between nations, even. A Paladin would at least attempt to follow the laws of the other kingdom while there. That may mean following laws that he doesn't normally have to follow, but so be it. And if those laws are in direct conflict with the laws of HIS land (say for instance that nation allows a father to kill his daughter if she shames the family, but your nation considers that evil and illegal) the Paladin would be in a bit of a quandary, right? He may have to allow that act to happen - another moment of DRAMA. If the player can come up with a real reason why the Paladin wouldn't follow that law, but still be considered lawful, then, ok. Otherwise, it's time to repent or even lose your paladinhood. And, sometimes, a Paladin may be willing to put his paladinhood on the line to save someone's life. At least he could repent for that and the penance may be really simple since he was saving a life by his transgression.
Now, consider hobgoblins...if they are not Paladins, then their treatment of what following the law (being lawful) means may not be a strict. They follow their laws at all times no matter who's land they are in. This is more of a Barbarian way of looking at things. My people have these laws and this is how we live. There is a bit of a difference between how Paladins follow laws and every one else. The knight in shinning armor holds him/herself to a higher standard. Hobgoblins may, however, honor the laws in a land where they are guests. As an example, one native American tribe in another's land would probably adhere to the laws their hosts have and would certainly be held to account for them.
I agree with you on Harvey Dent and the coin as an example of adhering to something, but not law. His RULE is not a LAW. He follows his rule, his oath. Keeping your word and promise, while it is an indicator of being a lawful person, is not being lawful in itself. The law, by nature, is a societal thing, not individual. Remember, Chaotic people believe the power is within the individual and Lawful people believe it rests in the group. So laws are societal, not individual. You can make a rule and you a can make a promise, but those rules and promises can definitely break the law. When Harvey gets tails and kills someone, it is unlawful and, more than likely, evil. What Batman is doing is Neutral and verging on N/E, though he does it "for the benefit of society". If you have such fluidity in AL as 100% subjectivity, you have a very loose foundations, which eventually causes a structure to crumble. Strong societies are not founded on such things because there is always a way someone can justify what they did and then nobody knows if what they or anyone else does is good, bad, allowed, forbidden - CHAOS.
Moral of that story is: Be careful of the promises you make!!!
Why do you apply to arbitrarily different definitions of "lawful" depending on if the lawful person is a paladin or a hobgoblin? Also, characters like Superman or Steve Rogers are typically described as Lawful Good, yet they break the laws quite often. Why? Because their morals and their code and the way they felt that the rules should be clashed with how the actual laws of the land were.
I believe I addressed why there was a difference in applying the law. A Paladin is held, or holds themselves, to a higher standard. They must follow the laws and not do evil acts (old school; I guess now you can). Hobgoblins are not Paladins unless they are of that class. So Hobgoblins and others that are not Paladins, even a L/G fighter or the renowned Lawfulness of dwarfs, doesn't mean they don't find reasons based on their moral codes to break the law. Is that understandable? They are apples and oranges. Both fruits, yet different on how they apply being a fruit. Superman and Captain America do break laws, but they are also not Paladins. They are seen as something similar, though. To be sure, Paladins break laws, but must repent (although most DMs don't really require it or RP it). When the Sekovia Accords were signed, making it law, Cap didn't adhere to it because he didn't agree with it. That was an unlawful act and he was put on "the list" for that. Superman breaks some laws, but that even garners him some negative reactions - look, he broke the law!!!, but he saved all of those people, so, we'll overlook it. In these cases, society is choosing to mitigate the punishment and overlook his transgressions, but they were still unlawful and the people recognize it as such!!! .... because the law is the law and words, by definition, have meaning.
You would assume a Paladin, much as a person in real life, grew up in a location that has laws. So that Paladin would follow those laws while in that kingdom. If the Paladin took an oath that required him to break those laws, then he is breaking his/her LAWFUL alignment. YES, Lawful does mean that because it has the work Law in it. There's a reason the word is written that way. Words, by definition, have meaning! Lawful means, following the laws. Not your own version of the laws. So that would create a DRAMATIC CONFLICT with the Paladin who has that oath - "I have to stop those 'bad' people from taking those trees down, but I can't just go kill them or those protecting them." To kill those people to protect the trees to uphold his oath is both unlawful and EVIL (taking life).
So, in this paragraph, you assume that no paladin can come from the wilds, only from society. You assume that Lawful means follows the laws of the world, and you assume that taking life is Evil.
First bit - it's overly restrictive to assume that a Paladin comes from civilised society. I myself have a paladin from a tribe of primitives who finds themselves in a world which cares nothing for nature, and has to decide on the oath of Vengeance or the Ancients. It's going to be so good to play them, one day, when the lurgy ends.
Second bit - Lawful doesn't mean the laws of the land. Here's the 3 Lawful alignments, as described in the basic rules:
Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society. Gold dragons, paladins, and most dwarves are lawful good.
Lawful neutral (LN) individuals act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes. Many monks and some wizards are lawful neutral.
Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. Devils, blue dragons, and hobgoblins are lawful evil.
I hope you'll notice that "Law" only comes up once, in Lawful Neutral, in a list of 3 options; Law, Tradition, or Personal Codes. Note the "Or". "Law" is optional.
Third bit, you assume taking life makes you evil, by this logic almost every character ever made for dnd is Evil, as the game revolved predominantly around killing things.
Your next paragraph about paladins in other countries and having to come up with a good reason to not be suddenly unlawful for, you know, not following corrupt laws, is describing a Paladin as a Jobsworth, not a knight in shining armour. "Sorry, I'd love to help you, but the dragon didn't do anything illegal when it ate your husband and stole your children, plus you'll notice section 3b of the protection of animals act 1382 states that any nocturnal winged beasts shall not be harmed, so without a decisive study proving this dragon isn't nocturnal, my hands are tied". Hardly sounds like a paladin-y thing to say.
while it is an indicator of being a lawful person, is not being lawful in itself
That's it, you had it there for just a moment. Alignments are not judgements being put on individuals by society, they are indications of what people are like as a person. If Harvey Dent is a Lawful person, he is a Lawful person. That doesn't mean he obeys "The Law", it means he obeys "one or more Laws".
You are dealing with "Lawful" and "Chaotic" in the bigger setting - what it means in large groups, not in individuals. Take me, for example: I follow the laws of the countrly, but I am a fundamentally unpredictable person - my house is a mess of half-finished projects, at any time I might decide to go for a walk or start making something, or cooking, or cleaning, and so on. I am about as chaotic as they come, personality-wise. That doesn't make me a law-breaking anarchist, it just means that my personality is hard to predict and tends towards impulsive decisions.
In 5E not all paladins even care about being lawful. Oath of the Ancients specifically makes itself out to be neutral good, 'This oath emphasizes the principles of good above any concerns of law or chaos'
I would say "yes" to the lawful, society and killing is evil if it is not for (game-wise) vanquishing evil or protecting from killers. I would say that 5E definitely changed things for paladins and it would, in my humble opinion, have been better just to make a different class that could be any AL (Like an Oath-bearer class) or something, than to water down the Paladin so it could be any alignment. But to each his/her own. I can always just run my game the old school way. To some degree, yes, you are right in the chaotic personality vs law abiding citizen thing. But chaotic people and characters have been known to follow laws and rules because it benefits them to do so. It doesn't mean they are lawful, just choosing to follow the laws for their own good. So, yes, you are a chaotic person and follow societal laws, but, if that is so, I bet there are many you don't follow, because you don't see a benefit to you.... I used to be lawful as a person and tend heavily in that direction. And I am definitely good. However, I found that always following the laws just because they are laws goes against my code/morals. Therefore, I have chosen a path that follows my code more so that the letter of the law. As a real person, I could be termed Lawful/Good with a neutral bent or N/G with lawful tendencies. If you are actually C/G, I can see why you make the arguments you do and see it that way, though. Truthfully, these are the kinds of contentions/discussions we should see between party characters of differing alignments if we are to really RP our characters. I like it!!
Just because "Lawful" has the word "Law" in it doesn't mean it is held to the laws of the land.
Take Hobgoblins, for example. They are aligned as Lawful, but that does not mean that they will respect the Laws of warfare, or the Laws of any land they enter. They respect their own laws, and their own rules, and that is how they remain Lawful. A Hobgoblin killing someone in a town for a slight on their honour doesn't suddenly make them chaotic because of the setting.
so who is Lawful? Two face. Yep, that's right. Harvey Dent is the Lawful character of the 3, because he follows one rule, no matter what - you live, you die, all on the flip of a coin. It doesn't matter how badly he wants you dead, if that coin comes up heads, you live. That's what Lawful means, not "Goody two-shoes", but "Harvey two-face".
You would assume a Paladin, much as a person in real life, grew up in a location that has laws. So that Paladin would follow those laws while in that kingdom. If the Paladin took an oath that required him to break those laws, then he is breaking his/her LAWFUL alignment. YES, Lawful does mean that because it has the work Law in it. There's a reason the word is written that way. Words, by definition, have meaning! Lawful means, following the laws. Not your own version of the laws. So that would create a DRAMATIC CONFLICT with the Paladin who has that oath - "I have to stop those 'bad' people from taking those trees down, but I can't just go kill them or those protecting them." To kill those people to protect the trees to uphold his oath is both unlawful and EVIL (taking life). In your explanation, those people cutting the trees down may have their subjective view that cutting trees down is good and part of THEIR oath. Now what? So the Paladin could take other actions to stop the tree cutters, ones that fall within the law, but not breaking the law or killing them. If a Paladin finds themselves in another land, similarly to a diplomat or an ambassador or even a tourist in another country, you better go find out the laws there which may be different than in your land or you may very well end up in their jail or beheaded or starting a conflict between nations, even. A Paladin would at least attempt to follow the laws of the other kingdom while there. That may mean following laws that he doesn't normally have to follow, but so be it. And if those laws are in direct conflict with the laws of HIS land (say for instance that nation allows a father to kill his daughter if she shames the family, but your nation considers that evil and illegal) the Paladin would be in a bit of a quandary, right? He may have to allow that act to happen - another moment of DRAMA. If the player can come up with a real reason why the Paladin wouldn't follow that law, but still be considered lawful, then, ok. Otherwise, it's time to repent or even lose your paladinhood. And, sometimes, a Paladin may be willing to put his paladinhood on the line to save someone's life. At least he could repent for that and the penance may be really simple since he was saving a life by his transgression.
Now, consider hobgoblins...if they are not Paladins, then their treatment of what following the law (being lawful) means may not be a strict. They follow their laws at all times no matter who's land they are in. This is more of a Barbarian way of looking at things. My people have these laws and this is how we live. There is a bit of a difference between how Paladins follow laws and every one else. The knight in shinning armor holds him/herself to a higher standard. Hobgoblins may, however, honor the laws in a land where they are guests. As an example, one native American tribe in another's land would probably adhere to the laws their hosts have and would certainly be held to account for them.
I agree with you on Harvey Dent and the coin as an example of adhering to something, but not law. His RULE is not a LAW. He follows his rule, his oath. Keeping your word and promise, while it is an indicator of being a lawful person, is not being lawful in itself. The law, by nature, is a societal thing, not individual. Remember, Chaotic people believe the power is within the individual and Lawful people believe it rests in the group. So laws are societal, not individual. You can make a rule and you a can make a promise, but those rules and promises can definitely break the law. When Harvey gets tails and kills someone, it is unlawful and, more than likely, evil. What Batman is doing is Neutral and verging on N/E, though he does it "for the benefit of society". If you have such fluidity in AL as 100% subjectivity, you have a very loose foundations, which eventually causes a structure to crumble. Strong societies are not founded on such things because there is always a way someone can justify what they did and then nobody knows if what they or anyone else does is good, bad, allowed, forbidden - CHAOS.
Moral of that story is: Be careful of the promises you make!!!
Why do you apply to arbitrarily different definitions of "lawful" depending on if the lawful person is a paladin or a hobgoblin? Also, characters like Superman or Steve Rogers are typically described as Lawful Good, yet they break the laws quite often. Why? Because their morals and their code and the way they felt that the rules should be clashed with how the actual laws of the land were.
I believe I addressed why there was a difference in applying the law. A Paladin is held, or holds themselves, to a higher standard. They must follow the laws and not do evil acts (old school; I guess now you can). Hobgoblins are not Paladins unless they are of that class. So Hobgoblins and others that are not Paladins, even a L/G fighter or the renowned Lawfulness of dwarfs, doesn't mean they don't find reasons based on their moral codes to break the law. Is that understandable? They are apples and oranges. Both fruits, yet different on how they apply being a fruit. Superman and Captain America do break laws, but they are also not Paladins. They are seen as something similar, though. To be sure, Paladins break laws, but must repent (although most DMs don't really require it or RP it). When the Sekovia Accords were signed, making it law, Cap didn't adhere to it because he didn't agree with it. That was an unlawful act and he was put on "the list" for that. Superman breaks some laws, but that even garners him some negative reactions - look, he broke the law!!!, but he saved all of those people, so, we'll overlook it. In these cases, society is choosing to mitigate the punishment and overlook his transgressions, but they were still unlawful and the people recognize it as such!!! .... because the law is the law and words, by definition, have meaning.
Again, why the arbitrary distinction between LG Paladins and LG anything else? There is literally nothing in the game that supports such an interpretation. "Having meaning" is also not what defines a law.
Just because "Lawful" has the word "Law" in it doesn't mean it is held to the laws of the land.
Take Hobgoblins, for example. They are aligned as Lawful, but that does not mean that they will respect the Laws of warfare, or the Laws of any land they enter. They respect their own laws, and their own rules, and that is how they remain Lawful. A Hobgoblin killing someone in a town for a slight on their honour doesn't suddenly make them chaotic because of the setting.
so who is Lawful? Two face. Yep, that's right. Harvey Dent is the Lawful character of the 3, because he follows one rule, no matter what - you live, you die, all on the flip of a coin. It doesn't matter how badly he wants you dead, if that coin comes up heads, you live. That's what Lawful means, not "Goody two-shoes", but "Harvey two-face".
You would assume a Paladin, much as a person in real life, grew up in a location that has laws. So that Paladin would follow those laws while in that kingdom. If the Paladin took an oath that required him to break those laws, then he is breaking his/her LAWFUL alignment. YES, Lawful does mean that because it has the work Law in it. There's a reason the word is written that way. Words, by definition, have meaning! Lawful means, following the laws. Not your own version of the laws. So that would create a DRAMATIC CONFLICT with the Paladin who has that oath - "I have to stop those 'bad' people from taking those trees down, but I can't just go kill them or those protecting them." To kill those people to protect the trees to uphold his oath is both unlawful and EVIL (taking life). In your explanation, those people cutting the trees down may have their subjective view that cutting trees down is good and part of THEIR oath. Now what? So the Paladin could take other actions to stop the tree cutters, ones that fall within the law, but not breaking the law or killing them. If a Paladin finds themselves in another land, similarly to a diplomat or an ambassador or even a tourist in another country, you better go find out the laws there which may be different than in your land or you may very well end up in their jail or beheaded or starting a conflict between nations, even. A Paladin would at least attempt to follow the laws of the other kingdom while there. That may mean following laws that he doesn't normally have to follow, but so be it. And if those laws are in direct conflict with the laws of HIS land (say for instance that nation allows a father to kill his daughter if she shames the family, but your nation considers that evil and illegal) the Paladin would be in a bit of a quandary, right? He may have to allow that act to happen - another moment of DRAMA. If the player can come up with a real reason why the Paladin wouldn't follow that law, but still be considered lawful, then, ok. Otherwise, it's time to repent or even lose your paladinhood. And, sometimes, a Paladin may be willing to put his paladinhood on the line to save someone's life. At least he could repent for that and the penance may be really simple since he was saving a life by his transgression.
Now, consider hobgoblins...if they are not Paladins, then their treatment of what following the law (being lawful) means may not be a strict. They follow their laws at all times no matter who's land they are in. This is more of a Barbarian way of looking at things. My people have these laws and this is how we live. There is a bit of a difference between how Paladins follow laws and every one else. The knight in shinning armor holds him/herself to a higher standard. Hobgoblins may, however, honor the laws in a land where they are guests. As an example, one native American tribe in another's land would probably adhere to the laws their hosts have and would certainly be held to account for them.
I agree with you on Harvey Dent and the coin as an example of adhering to something, but not law. His RULE is not a LAW. He follows his rule, his oath. Keeping your word and promise, while it is an indicator of being a lawful person, is not being lawful in itself. The law, by nature, is a societal thing, not individual. Remember, Chaotic people believe the power is within the individual and Lawful people believe it rests in the group. So laws are societal, not individual. You can make a rule and you a can make a promise, but those rules and promises can definitely break the law. When Harvey gets tails and kills someone, it is unlawful and, more than likely, evil. What Batman is doing is Neutral and verging on N/E, though he does it "for the benefit of society". If you have such fluidity in AL as 100% subjectivity, you have a very loose foundations, which eventually causes a structure to crumble. Strong societies are not founded on such things because there is always a way someone can justify what they did and then nobody knows if what they or anyone else does is good, bad, allowed, forbidden - CHAOS.
Moral of that story is: Be careful of the promises you make!!!
Why do you apply to arbitrarily different definitions of "lawful" depending on if the lawful person is a paladin or a hobgoblin? Also, characters like Superman or Steve Rogers are typically described as Lawful Good, yet they break the laws quite often. Why? Because their morals and their code and the way they felt that the rules should be clashed with how the actual laws of the land were.
I believe I addressed why there was a difference in applying the law. A Paladin is held, or holds themselves, to a higher standard. They must follow the laws and not do evil acts (old school; I guess now you can). Hobgoblins are not Paladins unless they are of that class. So Hobgoblins and others that are not Paladins, even a L/G fighter or the renowned Lawfulness of dwarfs, doesn't mean they don't find reasons based on their moral codes to break the law. Is that understandable? They are apples and oranges. Both fruits, yet different on how they apply being a fruit. Superman and Captain America do break laws, but they are also not Paladins. They are seen as something similar, though. To be sure, Paladins break laws, but must repent (although most DMs don't really require it or RP it). When the Sekovia Accords were signed, making it law, Cap didn't adhere to it because he didn't agree with it. That was an unlawful act and he was put on "the list" for that. Superman breaks some laws, but that even garners him some negative reactions - look, he broke the law!!!, but he saved all of those people, so, we'll overlook it. In these cases, society is choosing to mitigate the punishment and overlook his transgressions, but they were still unlawful and the people recognize it as such!!! .... because the law is the law and words, by definition, have meaning.
Again, why the arbitrary distinction between LG Paladins and LG anything else? There is literally nothing in the game that supports such an interpretation. "Having meaning" is also not what defines a law.
Well, if you are just looking at D&D as 5E, maybe so. But I have been playing since 1980, so Basic D&D. When AD&D came out, it had classes, which included...wait for it...the Paladin. It stated that the Paladin was expected to be held to a higher standard. Hobgoblins and dwarfs are not generally punished for breaking their AL, but Paladins were. You lost your Paladin abilities until you repented your transgression of the law. Now some DMs may have been somewhat lenient and not required it for lesser transgressions (spitting on the sidewalk or riding your horse on the wrong side of the lane), but thievery or randomly assaulting people, well.... If a Hobgoblin assaults someone, they don't cease being a Hobgoblin, nor does a dwarf cease to be a dwarf. See the difference? Paladin becomes fighter if transgresses. No more Lay on Hands, no more spells, no more protection from evil 10' rad (used to be a standard ability), no more detect evil...nada. So if this is a Paladin, then they are different, historically, even if this edition doesn't say it explicitly, it's still D&D and still a Paladin, right?
So if this is a Paladin, then they are different, historically, even if this edition doesn't say it explicitly, it's still D&D and still a Paladin, right?
Honestly, no. This edition doesn't explicitly hold "paladins" to a specific standard, nor does it imply they should be, other than following the tenets of their oath. There are many oaths possible and while many tenets proscribe good and/or lawful behaviour not all of them do - and the ones that do require living up to these ideals, not maintaining a specific alignment. Don't expect previous editions to tell you how this one works.
Yeah, D&D has been evolving more toward mix and match throughout editions. In the original game, elf was a class. A matrix of race and class options soon followed, but alignment was sometimes tied to race or class. 5e emphasizes narrative, and gives players the chance to mix and match the story they want to tell with the mechanics they want to play with.
When AD&D came out, it had classes, which included...wait for it...the Paladin. It stated that the Paladin was expected to be held to a higher standard. Hobgoblins and dwarfs are not generally punished for breaking their AL, but Paladins were.
(clears throat) Well, actually, paladin was still just a subclass of fighter in first edition AD&D, not a separate class as they are now, which is rather an important change.
Also only humans could be paladins Because Reasons, so the standards other races might be held to vis a vis their alignment was irrelevant.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
So if this is a Paladin, then they are different, historically, even if this edition doesn't say it explicitly, it's still D&D and still a Paladin, right?
Honestly, no. This edition doesn't explicitly hold "paladins" to a specific standard, nor does it imply they should be, other than following the tenets of their oath. There are many oaths possible and while many tenets proscribe good and/or lawful behaviour not all of them do - and the ones that do require living up to these ideals, not maintaining a specific alignment. Don't expect previous editions to tell you how this one works.
This is not strictly true. Paladins swear oaths in 5e and are presumably expected to hold to their oaths. Perhaps not to LG, but nevertheless to their oaths. Other classes can swear any oaths they wish with no class related consequences for breaking them.
Yes, the Paladin is a bit of a different flavor than what it was before; watered down and tweaked. I would personally have like to have seen this "flavor" of class have been made, let's say, the Knight class with oaths, rather than modifying the Paladin this way. Then keep the Paladin as the "extreme" "holy knight" with the L/G requirement and abilities it had. Admittedly, the old Paladin abilities made it a bit OP, though. I recall being a 3rd level Paladin and whipping a 5th level Fighter in AD&D (as a "what if" duel) 3:3 times.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Pallutus
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Reading these posts, I think I see the same disagreement that I'm confused about, trying to understand the alignment system. A part of the problem is that I don't see "lawful" and "chaotic" as poles but are orthogonal to each other.
Lawful suggests that a character places the law above invidividual conscience. An example of a conflict between the two might be a person that disagrees with drug laws who comes across someone with pot in a place where it's illegal. A conscientious person sees that they broke the law but, to their view, it wasn't immoral so they have no issue with it. A lawful person sees that they broke the law and so have to be punished, even if they don't think they did anything wrong. If this is what the scale is intended to represent, I think lawful vs conscientious would be a better label.
Chaotic suggests a condition without rules. I'd contrast thus with someone who is principled. Someone who is principled has their own moral code (which may or may not align with the law, and so is a separate thing) which they follow. I'd say chaotic described someone who doesn't rigidly follow principles, but instead just makes it up as they go along. I'd suggest that this scale would be better described as principled vs chaotic would be a better label.
I see lawfulness in an individual as being on a different axis to chaotic, and I'm seeing the same divide in this discussion. Some see being lawful as following the law, and others as following their principles.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Following your logic, the word for Chaotic is "Unprincipled" That's fine by me. I call Chaotic Neutral "Selfish" which is pretty much the same thing.
<Insert clever signature here>
Those two are not the same things, though.
Your example is misleading. A lawful person is someone who believes there should be laws and principles governing peoples' behaviour in a society but it says nothing about whether or not the person agrees with the actual laws of said society. If we take your example with the lawful person coming across someone with some pot we also need to take into account the good-neutral-evil aspect (you also mix in the totally alien "conscientious" aspect which is either irrelevant or falls under something that isn't on the lawful-chaotic scale). A lawful good person would agree that it's against the law to have pot on them but, since they are good, wouldn't report them if they don't agree with said laws. I guess your "conscientiousness" could be relevant here. A lawful neutral person might not agree that the possession of pot is such a big deal but since "the law is the law" they report them anyway but perhaps hope for light sentencing. A lawful evil person woud perhaps extort the pothead in exchange for not reporting them or call for a maximum sentence.
Seen several more posts saying that "Lawful" means "upholding the law", which is frankly wrong.
An individual who upholds the law is lawful, to be sure, but that does not make someone who is lawful obliged to uphold the law. All apples are fruits, but not all fruits are apples.
A Lawful character is one which has their own code of conduct, one who follows their own rules and sticks with them, even if they aren't the easy way. A Lawful Paladin holds themselves to the laws of their oath - For oath of vengeance, it is to act in a way to take them to their desired route of vengeance, for oath of the ancients, it is to act in ways which promote and protect nature. A Lawful Good paladin with an Oath of Vengeance, who meets the person they have sworn vengeance against in the street, will consider how to fulfil their oath, even if the result (bad guy dies) is against the local laws. A Smart paladin won't go full duel in the streets, but they aren't going to let the laws of the land get between them and vengeance. They will try to do it without having to then kill the guards, but that's the "Good" part. A Lawful Evil paladin in the same situation would kill their nemesis than then kill their way out of the town. Or proclaim the guards to have tried to protect their nemesis and thus the town is forfeit, and burn it down for good measure.
So you can decide to be lawful and uphold the law, but it sure isn't a requirement.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
That's an interpretation, but I wouldn't agree. That's saying law and order, good and evil, right and wrong are subjective based on an individual's own feelings, motivations and desires. By definition, that would not be being lawful; more like chaotic. Laws are laws and being lawful is following laws. Maybe one kingdom (that of the Paladin) has different laws on the books than in a different kingdom and, perhaps the Paladin may visit that other kingdom and not know the laws of that land and instead follows the laws he does know. In this case, he could be breaking laws that he believes don't apply to him since he isn't from that place, but laws DO matter to a Paladin (or at least are supposed to). If you have a vengeance to claim, you do it within the laws. That's why the Paladin has always been called the "goodie two shoes" of the party. Paladin's have a hard time working with, say, a rogue, since rogues, by nature, break laws. Having an evil person in the party with a Paladin would be predestined to have a messy ending.
Having said that, I know the new system has twisted the value system around a bit and now Paladins don't HAVE to be L/G and they can be vengeful creeps. I just make it a homebrew rule that they still HAVE to be L/G, but that's just me. It used to be a C/E Paladin was not a Paladin, but an Anti-Paladin. There were no in between versions of a Paladin (alignment-wise), for those who have only known the latest editions. If you were a Paladin that transgressed the values of Law, you temporarily lost your abilities until you did something profound to repent. If you EVER did something evil, you lost your Paladinhood irrevocably and became a fighter (losing your heretofore gained Paladin abilities). This made being a Paladin something "special". You couldn't be just another guy with a grudge. If you are a Paladin, you ARE the quintessential "knight in shining armor."
Regardless of these differences, what Lawful people/characters do is to follow the law, not just their personal version of the law, picking and choosing what to follow and not to follow. Law is about community and the power of that community. They believe that those who follow laws have strong communities, which makes for safety and survival of that group. Those who are good do every thing they can not to take lives unless it comes down to surviving someone's attack on them or if vanquishing evil. In the last case (vanquishing), even then the character may try to redeem the evil one or take them in for Lawful justice, depending on the circumstance. Now, these are the views of what law/order and goodness meant in Basic D&D through 3E. It's also how they were viewed in real life until some time around the 2000s. If you don't think a law makes sense, you work to get it changed. If you simply don't follow it, you are not being lawful, whatever the excuse you come up with for not following the law.
Pallutus
Absolutely. Right and wrong are 100% subjective, as described in my earlier post. A paladin who is sworn to protect nature will fight anyone who trie to cut the trees down. A paladin who is sworn to protect the commonfolk will fight a paladin who is attacking the lumberjacks. They are both lawful good.
Just because "Lawful" has the word "Law" in it doesn't mean it is held to the laws of the land. Paladins are, at their core, religeous characters who are held to the standards of the higher powers. To quote Kingdom of Heaven:
That's the Law that paladins hold themselves to. The Laws of men, if they do not align with the laws the paladins hold, are not laws to them. If a LG Paladin entered a kingdom where the Law said that slavery was acceptable and to interfere with someone elses slaves was illegal, and they saw someone trying to free the slaves, then they will ceace being LG only when they stop following their own laws - they vowed to protect the innocent, so if they fail to do so, then they are not following their laws. In a kingdom where one must, by law, obey the king, a paladin will not meekly do whatever they are told just because they are "Lawful".
Take Hobgoblins, for example. They are aligned as Lawful, but that does not mean that they will respect the Laws of warfare, or the Laws of any land they enter. They respect their own laws, and their own rules, and that is how they remain Lawful. A Hobgoblin killing someone in a town for a slight on their honour doesn't suddenly make them chaotic because of the setting.
Geann direct messaged me to discuss this, and my conclusion was that "Lawful" and "Chaotic" is more about Predictability. a Lawful character follows their rules strictly, and thus is predictable in situations - if presented with a hostage, they will save them instead of taking the money, if they are presented with a guard beating a beggar, they will confront the guard. Neutral characters are less predictable, and will generally follow rules unless pursuaded to do otherwise. Chaotic characters don't follow rules at all, and so are entirely unpredictable.
Take Batman as an example. The Joker is Chaotic, no doubt - follows no rules, and is completely unpredictable. Batman, I put as Neutral (I said good before but now I realise) because Batman has his rules, but he sometimes chooses not to follow them - He doesn't use guns, except when he uses guns. He doesn't kill people, except when he kills people (It doesn't count if they're unnamed henchmen!). So Batman is neutral - follows some rules, except when it's inconvenient. Mostly predictable.
so who is Lawful? Two face. Yep, that's right. Harvey Dent is the Lawful character of the 3, because he follows one rule, no matter what - you live, you die, all on the flip of a coin. It doesn't matter how badly he wants you dead, if that coin comes up heads, you live. That's what Lawful means, not "Goody two-shoes", but "Harvey two-face".
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
Not sure what you think happened IRL in the early 2000s (and my guess is that it's totally irrelevant to this game of make-belief) but everything you said about Paladins being knights in shiny armour is kind of irrelevant since paladins no longer have to be LG.
You would assume a Paladin, much as a person in real life, grew up in a location that has laws. So that Paladin would follow those laws while in that kingdom. If the Paladin took an oath that required him to break those laws, then he is breaking his/her LAWFUL alignment. YES, Lawful does mean that because it has the work Law in it. There's a reason the word is written that way. Words, by definition, have meaning! Lawful means, following the laws. Not your own version of the laws. So that would create a DRAMATIC CONFLICT with the Paladin who has that oath - "I have to stop those 'bad' people from taking those trees down, but I can't just go kill them or those protecting them." To kill those people to protect the trees to uphold his oath is both unlawful and EVIL (taking life). In your explanation, those people cutting the trees down may have their subjective view that cutting trees down is good and part of THEIR oath. Now what? So the Paladin could take other actions to stop the tree cutters, ones that fall within the law, but not breaking the law or killing them.
If a Paladin finds themselves in another land, similarly to a diplomat or an ambassador or even a tourist in another country, you better go find out the laws there which may be different than in your land or you may very well end up in their jail or beheaded or starting a conflict between nations, even. A Paladin would at least attempt to follow the laws of the other kingdom while there. That may mean following laws that he doesn't normally have to follow, but so be it. And if those laws are in direct conflict with the laws of HIS land (say for instance that nation allows a father to kill his daughter if she shames the family, but your nation considers that evil and illegal) the Paladin would be in a bit of a quandary, right? He may have to allow that act to happen - another moment of DRAMA. If the player can come up with a real reason why the Paladin wouldn't follow that law, but still be considered lawful, then, ok. Otherwise, it's time to repent or even lose your paladinhood. And, sometimes, a Paladin may be willing to put his paladinhood on the line to save someone's life. At least he could repent for that and the penance may be really simple since he was saving a life by his transgression.
Now, consider hobgoblins...if they are not Paladins, then their treatment of what following the law (being lawful) means may not be a strict. They follow their laws at all times no matter who's land they are in. This is more of a Barbarian way of looking at things. My people have these laws and this is how we live. There is a bit of a difference between how Paladins follow laws and every one else. The knight in shinning armor holds him/herself to a higher standard. Hobgoblins may, however, honor the laws in a land where they are guests. As an example, one native American tribe in another's land would probably adhere to the laws their hosts have and would certainly be held to account for them.
I agree with you on Harvey Dent and the coin as an example of adhering to something, but not law. His RULE is not a LAW. He follows his rule, his oath. Keeping your word and promise, while it is an indicator of being a lawful person, is not being lawful in itself. The law, by nature, is a societal thing, not individual. Remember, Chaotic people believe the power is within the individual and Lawful people believe it rests in the group. So laws are societal, not individual. You can make a rule and you a can make a promise, but those rules and promises can definitely break the law. When Harvey gets tails and kills someone, it is unlawful and, more than likely, evil. What Batman is doing is Neutral and verging on N/E, though he does it "for the benefit of society". If you have such fluidity in AL as 100% subjectivity, you have a very loose foundations, which eventually causes a structure to crumble. Strong societies are not founded on such things because there is always a way someone can justify what they did and then nobody knows if what they or anyone else does is good, bad, allowed, forbidden - CHAOS.
Moral of that story is: Be careful of the promises you make!!!
Pallutus
Why do you apply to arbitrarily different definitions of "lawful" depending on if the lawful person is a paladin or a hobgoblin? Also, characters like Superman or Steve Rogers are typically described as Lawful Good, yet they break the laws quite often. Why? Because their morals and their code and the way they felt that the rules should be clashed with how the actual laws of the land were.
I believe I addressed why there was a difference in applying the law. A Paladin is held, or holds themselves, to a higher standard. They must follow the laws and not do evil acts (old school; I guess now you can). Hobgoblins are not Paladins unless they are of that class. So Hobgoblins and others that are not Paladins, even a L/G fighter or the renowned Lawfulness of dwarfs, doesn't mean they don't find reasons based on their moral codes to break the law. Is that understandable? They are apples and oranges. Both fruits, yet different on how they apply being a fruit.
Superman and Captain America do break laws, but they are also not Paladins. They are seen as something similar, though. To be sure, Paladins break laws, but must repent (although most DMs don't really require it or RP it). When the Sekovia Accords were signed, making it law, Cap didn't adhere to it because he didn't agree with it. That was an unlawful act and he was put on "the list" for that. Superman breaks some laws, but that even garners him some negative reactions - look, he broke the law!!!, but he saved all of those people, so, we'll overlook it. In these cases, society is choosing to mitigate the punishment and overlook his transgressions, but they were still unlawful and the people recognize it as such!!! .... because the law is the law and words, by definition, have meaning.
Pallutus
So, in this paragraph, you assume that no paladin can come from the wilds, only from society. You assume that Lawful means follows the laws of the world, and you assume that taking life is Evil.
First bit - it's overly restrictive to assume that a Paladin comes from civilised society. I myself have a paladin from a tribe of primitives who finds themselves in a world which cares nothing for nature, and has to decide on the oath of Vengeance or the Ancients. It's going to be so good to play them, one day, when the lurgy ends.
Second bit - Lawful doesn't mean the laws of the land. Here's the 3 Lawful alignments, as described in the basic rules:
Link to basic rules section if you wanted it
I hope you'll notice that "Law" only comes up once, in Lawful Neutral, in a list of 3 options; Law, Tradition, or Personal Codes. Note the "Or". "Law" is optional.
Third bit, you assume taking life makes you evil, by this logic almost every character ever made for dnd is Evil, as the game revolved predominantly around killing things.
Your next paragraph about paladins in other countries and having to come up with a good reason to not be suddenly unlawful for, you know, not following corrupt laws, is describing a Paladin as a Jobsworth, not a knight in shining armour. "Sorry, I'd love to help you, but the dragon didn't do anything illegal when it ate your husband and stole your children, plus you'll notice section 3b of the protection of animals act 1382 states that any nocturnal winged beasts shall not be harmed, so without a decisive study proving this dragon isn't nocturnal, my hands are tied". Hardly sounds like a paladin-y thing to say.
That's it, you had it there for just a moment. Alignments are not judgements being put on individuals by society, they are indications of what people are like as a person. If Harvey Dent is a Lawful person, he is a Lawful person. That doesn't mean he obeys "The Law", it means he obeys "one or more Laws".
You are dealing with "Lawful" and "Chaotic" in the bigger setting - what it means in large groups, not in individuals. Take me, for example: I follow the laws of the countrly, but I am a fundamentally unpredictable person - my house is a mess of half-finished projects, at any time I might decide to go for a walk or start making something, or cooking, or cleaning, and so on. I am about as chaotic as they come, personality-wise. That doesn't make me a law-breaking anarchist, it just means that my personality is hard to predict and tends towards impulsive decisions.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
In 5E not all paladins even care about being lawful. Oath of the Ancients specifically makes itself out to be neutral good, 'This oath emphasizes the principles of good above any concerns of law or chaos'
I would say "yes" to the lawful, society and killing is evil if it is not for (game-wise) vanquishing evil or protecting from killers. I would say that 5E definitely changed things for paladins and it would, in my humble opinion, have been better just to make a different class that could be any AL (Like an Oath-bearer class) or something, than to water down the Paladin so it could be any alignment. But to each his/her own. I can always just run my game the old school way.
To some degree, yes, you are right in the chaotic personality vs law abiding citizen thing. But chaotic people and characters have been known to follow laws and rules because it benefits them to do so. It doesn't mean they are lawful, just choosing to follow the laws for their own good. So, yes, you are a chaotic person and follow societal laws, but, if that is so, I bet there are many you don't follow, because you don't see a benefit to you....
I used to be lawful as a person and tend heavily in that direction. And I am definitely good. However, I found that always following the laws just because they are laws goes against my code/morals. Therefore, I have chosen a path that follows my code more so that the letter of the law. As a real person, I could be termed Lawful/Good with a neutral bent or N/G with lawful tendencies. If you are actually C/G, I can see why you make the arguments you do and see it that way, though. Truthfully, these are the kinds of contentions/discussions we should see between party characters of differing alignments if we are to really RP our characters. I like it!!
Pallutus
Again, why the arbitrary distinction between LG Paladins and LG anything else? There is literally nothing in the game that supports such an interpretation. "Having meaning" is also not what defines a law.
Well, if you are just looking at D&D as 5E, maybe so. But I have been playing since 1980, so Basic D&D. When AD&D came out, it had classes, which included...wait for it...the Paladin. It stated that the Paladin was expected to be held to a higher standard. Hobgoblins and dwarfs are not generally punished for breaking their AL, but Paladins were. You lost your Paladin abilities until you repented your transgression of the law. Now some DMs may have been somewhat lenient and not required it for lesser transgressions (spitting on the sidewalk or riding your horse on the wrong side of the lane), but thievery or randomly assaulting people, well.... If a Hobgoblin assaults someone, they don't cease being a Hobgoblin, nor does a dwarf cease to be a dwarf. See the difference? Paladin becomes fighter if transgresses. No more Lay on Hands, no more spells, no more protection from evil 10' rad (used to be a standard ability), no more detect evil...nada. So if this is a Paladin, then they are different, historically, even if this edition doesn't say it explicitly, it's still D&D and still a Paladin, right?
Pallutus
Honestly, no. This edition doesn't explicitly hold "paladins" to a specific standard, nor does it imply they should be, other than following the tenets of their oath. There are many oaths possible and while many tenets proscribe good and/or lawful behaviour not all of them do - and the ones that do require living up to these ideals, not maintaining a specific alignment. Don't expect previous editions to tell you how this one works.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Yeah, D&D has been evolving more toward mix and match throughout editions. In the original game, elf was a class. A matrix of race and class options soon followed, but alignment was sometimes tied to race or class. 5e emphasizes narrative, and gives players the chance to mix and match the story they want to tell with the mechanics they want to play with.
(clears throat) Well, actually, paladin was still just a subclass of fighter in first edition AD&D, not a separate class as they are now, which is rather an important change.
Also only humans could be paladins Because Reasons, so the standards other races might be held to vis a vis their alignment was irrelevant.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Yes, the Paladin is a bit of a different flavor than what it was before; watered down and tweaked. I would personally have like to have seen this "flavor" of class have been made, let's say, the Knight class with oaths, rather than modifying the Paladin this way. Then keep the Paladin as the "extreme" "holy knight" with the L/G requirement and abilities it had. Admittedly, the old Paladin abilities made it a bit OP, though. I recall being a 3rd level Paladin and whipping a 5th level Fighter in AD&D (as a "what if" duel) 3:3 times.
Pallutus