lawful neutral is very much just following rules. it can have a chaotic element if you follow your own code, but generally, lawful neutral is following rules to a fault. lawful good is following rules, but also being, well, good. lawful evil sounds strange, but it is more common than you think. lawful evil is evil, but to a certain degree. they follow a law or code, but that does not mean that they are weak. some of the greatest villains are lawful evil, but some are lawful neutral.
Lawful is conservative, predictable, unchanging, trustworthy, honourable, and a stickler for rules. It is also inflexible, bigoted, close-minded, fundamentalist, judgemental and unable to adapt to new situations.
All of these could show up in good or evil people. A Lawful Evil priest miught be one who preaches that half-breeds are wrong and then leads a crusade to kill all half-elves and half-orcs in the land. That priest miught even think that they are actually lawful good.
A lawful evil ruler might use the laws of the land to increase their own riches at the expense of others, they might oppress minorities and try to exclude them, they might pardon their cronies and coerce the legal system to be harsh on their enemies.
It’s interesting. It’s been a long time since I’ve had someone play a lawful character. And even the one I can remember didn’t emphasis it enough to be that memorable. I guess chaotic or neutral good is more to my players tastes.
I have trouble playing a particular alignment. For me, it's more like i play the character the way they develop and that informs their alignment. I guess I could set out to play a lawful character. Lawful neutral could be interesting to play, but I fear the character would become insufferable eventually. Like Stannis Baratheon or Judge Dredd. You just need to be completely unyielding in your conviction and dedicated to your own sense of fairness even if it's a bit twisted.
Lawful is conservative, predictable, unchanging, trustworthy, honourable, and a stickler for rules. It is also inflexible, bigoted, close-minded, fundamentalist, judgemental and unable to adapt to new situations.
Not really. There is no connection between "lawful" and any of those things you mentioned. A lawful character can be all those things butthey doesn't have to.
Lawful Evil is hardly predictable unless you predict that they'll include some unpredictable, confusing fine-print for their advantage... which doesn't seem all that honorable.
Lawful isn't one thing. Good, neutral, and evil change lawful, neutral, and chaotic into 9 distinct (even if still vague and widely-varied) personalities.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.
I would say that description and Greenstone's description have more in common than they do apart.
Being lawful doesn't mean you have to be "conservative, predictable, unchanging, trustworthy, honourable, and a stickler for rules. It is also inflexible, bigoted, close-minded, fundamentalist, judgemental and unable to adapt to new situations." There's a huge difference between honoring tradition and being unchaging or close-minded. Judging those who fall short is not the same as being bigoted or judgemental. respecting authority is not the same as being fundamentalist, et cetera.
Matt Colville has a good video on the subject as well but in short, if you don't have time for that here's a simple test to see if your character is more lawful or chaotic. You stand in line at the supermarket. Only one line is open and you are to the back of that line. You then see how a cashier is about to open a new line. Do you think it's OK for you to hurry to the other line so that you'll be the first one there? If you lean more towards no (because you weren't the first one in this line) then you are more lawful, if yes (because why not?) then you are more chaotic. Whether or not you would actually do it (because for example you're not in a rush or there is an old lady behind you who might appreciate not standing in line for so long) is more of a good or evil dilemma.
I have trouble playing a particular alignment. For me, it's more like i play the character the way they develop and that informs their alignment. I guess I could set out to play a lawful character. Lawful neutral could be interesting to play, but I fear the character would become insufferable eventually. Like Stannis Baratheon or Judge Dredd. You just need to be completely unyielding in your conviction and dedicated to your own sense of fairness even if it's a bit twisted.
Lawful neutral doesn't have to mean insufferable. Stannis was insufferable not because of his commitment to following the law, but because he imposed that commitment (and his own personal morality) onto everyone else around him regardless of their own views or values. You can absolutely be highly lawful and also not be a dick about it.
An example: my boyfriend and I catch the tram. He pays the fare (lawfully) while I (chaotically) do not. Neither of us gives the other any shit about it because we don't want to be an insufferable dick.
A character's alignment is less of a mutually-exclusive punnett square than it is a dynamic spectrum. Greenstone's description of Lawful traits is accurate, and everyone's examples of personality traits is accurate as well. The only insufferable/boring lawful characters are the ones for which their player conflates their alignment with their personality.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Being lawful doesn't mean you have to be "conservative, predictable, unchanging, trustworthy, honourable, and a stickler for rules. It is also inflexible, bigoted, close-minded, fundamentalist, judgemental and unable to adapt to new situations."
It's the other way around. If a character is conservative, predictable, unchanging, etc then they are lawful. Actions inform alignment.
And it is also not binary. We could imagine alignment as a scale. Perhaps the law-chaos axis is a scale of 1 to 100, with 1 to 30 termed "lawful", 31 to 70 "neutral" and 71 to 100 "chaotic". 1 could be an ultra-conservative fundamentalist, 30 could be honouring tradition most of the time but not being a stickler.
My advice is, don't sweat it. Alignments are general anyway (mapping the entirity of human and alien actions into 9 boxes is extremely simplistic already :-).
There was once a group of lawful people that roamed a land far across the ocean. Their leader rose up to prominence after his people suffered a defeat in a horrible war and were brutalized for years after. The lawful leader rose from a corporal to the leader of his land. He ordered millions of people, who had a religion that was disagreeable to him, put to death by various means such as a gas chamber. Many of them starved to death. His soldiers, also being lawful, did as they were told and killed men, women, and children.
Being lawful doesn't mean you have to be "conservative, predictable, unchanging, trustworthy, honourable, and a stickler for rules. It is also inflexible, bigoted, close-minded, fundamentalist, judgemental and unable to adapt to new situations."
It's the other way around. If a character is conservative, predictable, unchanging, etc then they are lawful. Actions inform alignment.
And it is also not binary. We could imagine alignment as a scale. Perhaps the law-chaos axis is a scale of 1 to 100, with 1 to 30 termed "lawful", 31 to 70 "neutral" and 71 to 100 "chaotic". 1 could be an ultra-conservative fundamentalist, 30 could be honouring tradition most of the time but not being a stickler.
My advice is, don't sweat it. Alignments are general anyway (mapping the entirity of human and alien actions into 9 boxes is extremely simplistic already :-).
You're comepletely wrong in your first statement. Being "conservative, predictable, unchanging, etc" does not in any way make you lawful, those have nothing to do with each other. It's like saying that you have to like the colour white if you are good-aligned. Captain America is often used as a marvelous (see what I did there?) example of a lawful good character and he's anything but unchanging and bigoted.
I agree with the other parts though, alignment is a gradual scale and it's a very simplistic system.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Man, alignment conversations just always get out of hand.
I always consider 'lawful' is someone who believes laws matter and they and others should follow the law. Police officers are a good example of someone who is lawful (yes, yes, they can be fallible as a person, and yes there are people who become police because they like to have authority over others). They also would believe in the value of government and respect for authority.
With that as a baseline, there is plenty of room for variety in attitudes.
Captain America is often used as a marvelous (see what I did there?) example of a lawful good character and he's anything but unchanging and bigoted.
Really? I would certainly associate those two words with that character.
In any case, what alignment would you associate with the words "conservative", "predictable", "unchanging", "honourable", and so on?
The PHB says of lawful characters that they can be counte on to do "the right thing as expected by society." Isn't that the definition of conservative?
Captain America is often used as a marvelous (see what I did there?) example of a lawful good character and he's anything but unchanging and bigoted.
Really? I would certainly associate those two words with that character.
In any case, what alignment would you associate with the words "conservative", "predictable", "unchanging", "honourable", and so on?
The PHB says of lawful characters that they can be counte on to do "the right thing as expected by society." Isn't that the definition of conservative?
I don't equate the term 'lawful' with 'conservative' either. I am definitely a 'law and order' person, but I believe in using laws to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority and to maximize individual's ability to fully participate in society. I don't believe in maintaining status-quo, which is what I'd associate with 'conservative', but I do feel that I'd be doing 'the right thing as expected by society.'
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
lawful neutral is very much just following rules. it can have a chaotic element if you follow your own code, but generally, lawful neutral is following rules to a fault. lawful good is following rules, but also being, well, good. lawful evil sounds strange, but it is more common than you think. lawful evil is evil, but to a certain degree. they follow a law or code, but that does not mean that they are weak. some of the greatest villains are lawful evil, but some are lawful neutral.
do you have any stories about lawful characters?
Lawful is conservative, predictable, unchanging, trustworthy, honourable, and a stickler for rules. It is also inflexible, bigoted, close-minded, fundamentalist, judgemental and unable to adapt to new situations.
All of these could show up in good or evil people. A Lawful Evil priest miught be one who preaches that half-breeds are wrong and then leads a crusade to kill all half-elves and half-orcs in the land. That priest miught even think that they are actually lawful good.
A lawful evil ruler might use the laws of the land to increase their own riches at the expense of others, they might oppress minorities and try to exclude them, they might pardon their cronies and coerce the legal system to be harsh on their enemies.
It’s interesting. It’s been a long time since I’ve had someone play a lawful character. And even the one I can remember didn’t emphasis it enough to be that memorable. I guess chaotic or neutral good is more to my players tastes.
I have trouble playing a particular alignment. For me, it's more like i play the character the way they develop and that informs their alignment. I guess I could set out to play a lawful character. Lawful neutral could be interesting to play, but I fear the character would become insufferable eventually. Like Stannis Baratheon or Judge Dredd. You just need to be completely unyielding in your conviction and dedicated to your own sense of fairness even if it's a bit twisted.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Not really. There is no connection between "lawful" and any of those things you mentioned. A lawful character can be all those things butthey doesn't have to.
Here's a handy site for a good way to look at alignments.
http://easydamus.com/alignment.html
From the article you quoted:
I would say that description and Greenstone's description have more in common than they do apart.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Lawful Evil is hardly predictable unless you predict that they'll include some unpredictable, confusing fine-print for their advantage... which doesn't seem all that honorable.
Lawful isn't one thing. Good, neutral, and evil change lawful, neutral, and chaotic into 9 distinct (even if still vague and widely-varied) personalities.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Being lawful doesn't mean you have to be "conservative, predictable, unchanging, trustworthy, honourable, and a stickler for rules. It is also inflexible, bigoted, close-minded, fundamentalist, judgemental and unable to adapt to new situations."
There's a huge difference between honoring tradition and being unchaging or close-minded. Judging those who fall short is not the same as being bigoted or judgemental. respecting authority is not the same as being fundamentalist, et cetera.
Matt Colville has a good video on the subject as well but in short, if you don't have time for that here's a simple test to see if your character is more lawful or chaotic. You stand in line at the supermarket. Only one line is open and you are to the back of that line. You then see how a cashier is about to open a new line. Do you think it's OK for you to hurry to the other line so that you'll be the first one there? If you lean more towards no (because you weren't the first one in this line) then you are more lawful, if yes (because why not?) then you are more chaotic. Whether or not you would actually do it (because for example you're not in a rush or there is an old lady behind you who might appreciate not standing in line for so long) is more of a good or evil dilemma.
I'm just holding your comment to the standard you brought up yourself--a lawful response.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Lawful neutral doesn't have to mean insufferable. Stannis was insufferable not because of his commitment to following the law, but because he imposed that commitment (and his own personal morality) onto everyone else around him regardless of their own views or values. You can absolutely be highly lawful and also not be a dick about it.
An example: my boyfriend and I catch the tram. He pays the fare (lawfully) while I (chaotically) do not. Neither of us gives the other any shit about it because we don't want to be an insufferable dick.
My LN characters would probably become insufferable. Maybe that says more about me :)
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Alignment =/= Personality
A character's alignment is less of a mutually-exclusive punnett square than it is a dynamic spectrum. Greenstone's description of Lawful traits is accurate, and everyone's examples of personality traits is accurate as well. The only insufferable/boring lawful characters are the ones for which their player conflates their alignment with their personality.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Being lawful doesn't mean you have to be "conservative, predictable, unchanging, trustworthy, honourable, and a stickler for rules. It is also inflexible, bigoted, close-minded, fundamentalist, judgemental and unable to adapt to new situations."
It's the other way around. If a character is conservative, predictable, unchanging, etc then they are lawful. Actions inform alignment.
And it is also not binary. We could imagine alignment as a scale. Perhaps the law-chaos axis is a scale of 1 to 100, with 1 to 30 termed "lawful", 31 to 70 "neutral" and 71 to 100 "chaotic". 1 could be an ultra-conservative fundamentalist, 30 could be honouring tradition most of the time but not being a stickler.
My advice is, don't sweat it. Alignments are general anyway (mapping the entirity of human and alien actions into 9 boxes is extremely simplistic already :-).
There was once a group of lawful people that roamed a land far across the ocean. Their leader rose up to prominence after his people suffered a defeat in a horrible war and were brutalized for years after. The lawful leader rose from a corporal to the leader of his land. He ordered millions of people, who had a religion that was disagreeable to him, put to death by various means such as a gas chamber. Many of them starved to death. His soldiers, also being lawful, did as they were told and killed men, women, and children.
Yes they were lawful
Well there’s a conversation killer.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Not really, but thanks for trying.
You're comepletely wrong in your first statement. Being "conservative, predictable, unchanging, etc" does not in any way make you lawful, those have nothing to do with each other. It's like saying that you have to like the colour white if you are good-aligned. Captain America is often used as a marvelous (see what I did there?) example of a lawful good character and he's anything but unchanging and bigoted.
I agree with the other parts though, alignment is a gradual scale and it's a very simplistic system.
Yuup... just ignore and move on
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
Man, alignment conversations just always get out of hand.
I always consider 'lawful' is someone who believes laws matter and they and others should follow the law. Police officers are a good example of someone who is lawful (yes, yes, they can be fallible as a person, and yes there are people who become police because they like to have authority over others). They also would believe in the value of government and respect for authority.
With that as a baseline, there is plenty of room for variety in attitudes.
Really? I would certainly associate those two words with that character.
In any case, what alignment would you associate with the words "conservative", "predictable", "unchanging", "honourable", and so on?
The PHB says of lawful characters that they can be counte on to do "the right thing as expected by society." Isn't that the definition of conservative?
I don't equate the term 'lawful' with 'conservative' either. I am definitely a 'law and order' person, but I believe in using laws to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority and to maximize individual's ability to fully participate in society. I don't believe in maintaining status-quo, which is what I'd associate with 'conservative', but I do feel that I'd be doing 'the right thing as expected by society.'