Quote from: Mishihari;1146510That is a fascinating question, though I doubt there will ever be a consensus on the answer.  I don't find either answer satisfactory.  Even a madman, the definition of chaos, can have a personal code.  And if one travels to another society with different laws and still adheres to one's own cultural norms, I would consider that lawful even if it is in opposition to the laws of the land.  To me, law implies being part of a society.  So my own personal definition of lawful is that a character adheres to the norms, formal or otherwise, of the group to which he is the most loyal.

To me, the problem with defining lawful to as those who are law abiding and those who have an internal code is: What's left? There's usually some mealy-mouthed verbiage about how chaotics can "do whatever they want", but unless you're a Crowleyist, that's not a moral philosophy. No, it's just a license given to the player, not the character, to do whatever they want. And I don't think defining chaotic as chaotic random or fishmalkism works.

It's better if all alignments have a moral base, and I think the way to give chaotic a moral base is to look at barbarians. Barbarians, in D&D, have always been the iconically chaotic, or at least not lawful, class. But does it make sense for barbarians to do anything they want at any time, acting randomly and wholly in their own self interest? Of course not, that's absurd. The answer is a code of honor. A stereotypical barbarian is far more honor-bound than the most law-abiding bureaucrat, but the code is internalized not externally imposed. Adherence affects self-worth, and reputation. I think that works far better than a rudderless undefined chaotic. It even preserves the divide between law = civilization and chaotic = the wilderness of the OD&D and Basic lines, because it highlights the conflict between the rule of law, and a culture of honor.

This does have some implications for monks. Most monks are still lawful, being obedient to their superiors, but tying them strictly to lawful makes less sense.

Quote from: Bren;1146440So what should they do with defeated enemies?

Solutions that have been used in the real world include:

H. Like a Greek hero, kill all the men and enslave all the women.

Quote from: DocJones;1146568H. Like a Greek hero, kill all the men and enslave all the women.

I thought that was Conan the Schwarzenegger's solution.

A lawful good character might feel compelled to buy all the slaves they can so they can ensure they're treated better, they might even pauper themselves doing so, but in any case, being the slave of a lawful good character (as opposed to someone who's chaotic evil but thinks they're lawful good which is a far more common state) would probably be a pretty good thing.  It might even inspire some real loyalty once the slaves overcome their cynicism about the slave owning class.

Quote from: Pat;1146466That gets back to the age old question: Is lawful about obeying the law of the land, or adhering to your own internal code?

Quote from: Mishihari;1146510That is a fascinating question, though I doubt there will ever be a consensus on the answer.  I don't find either answer satisfactory.  Even a madman, the definition of chaos, can have a personal code.  And if one travels to another society with different laws and still adheres to one's own cultural norms, I would consider that lawful even if it is in opposition to the laws of the land.  To me, law implies being part of a society.  So my own personal definition of lawful is that a character adheres to the norms, formal or otherwise, of the group to which he is the most loyal.

Quote from: jhkim;1146514This seems very fuzzy for me - especially in the AD&D where good and evil are supposed to be independent of lawful. Even if I accept that slavery isn't necessarily evil, there are some behaviors that surely *are* evil like torture and human sacrifice. However, they could be legal according to the society, especially if it is an evil group. For example, the kingdom of Iuz in Greyhawk is ruled by an evil god. Can someone raised in Iuz even be lawful good? What would that mean for them?

I'm just raising it as a question. I don't generally use alignment, so if raising these questions is off-topic, I'm fine with that.

Quote from: Pat;1146566To me, the problem with defining lawful to as those who are law abiding and those who have an internal code is: What's left? There's usually some mealy-mouthed verbiage about how chaotics can "do whatever they want", but unless you're a Crowleyist, that's not a moral philosophy. No, it's just a license given to the player, not the character, to do whatever they want. And I don't think defining chaotic as chaotic random or fishmalkism works.

It's better if all alignments have a moral base, and I think the way to give chaotic a moral base is to look at barbarians. Barbarians, in D&D, have always been the iconically chaotic, or at least not lawful, class. But does it make sense for barbarians to do anything they want at any time, acting randomly and wholly in their own self interest? Of course not, that's absurd. The answer is a code of honor. A stereotypical barbarian is far more honor-bound than the most law-abiding bureaucrat, but the code is internalized not externally imposed. Adherence affects self-worth, and reputation. I think that works far better than a rudderless undefined chaotic. It even preserves the divide between law = civilization and chaotic = the wilderness of the OD&D and Basic lines, because it highlights the conflict between the rule of law, and a culture of honor.

This does have some implications for monks. Most monks are still lawful, being obedient to their superiors, but tying them strictly to lawful makes less sense.

All of these ranging definitions of the various meanings of "Lawful" vs "Chaotic", including the various considerations for "follows the law" vs "has a personal code", the inherent fuzziness of them, and the realization that "chaotic" individuals could have a personal code too, are the reason why alignment (particularly along the Law/Chaos axis) doesn't work. It's all too subjective and arbitrary, and there's no broad consensus over what any of it means. At least Good/Evil is more clear cut, though, even that runs into issues in terms of implementation when it comes time to shift a paladin's alignment over a one time lapse (maybe the DM decided that the paladin executing some goblin prisoners cuz was an evil act, but the player thought that camping with captured raiders could put the lives of hostages that they rescued at risk when the town was days away). But generally speaking at least most people agree that unwarranted killings or acts of cruelty are just "evil" or at least "not good", while acts of kindness and compassion are "good" or at least "not evil". But when it comes to Law/Chaos, nobody even knows exactly WTF any of it means, or what happens when the chaotic guy has a "code" or the lawful guy is in lands with completely different laws than the ones he grew up with.

This is why I ditched alignment years ago and have not looked back since. It's just so fuzzy and arbitrary, and most of all completely relative (laws vary widely across lands, and characters may agree with some laws but disagree with others), and it involves too many attempts to shoehorn certain interpretations in order to make the character's personality work around alignment and vice versa. It's more effective to just define the character's loyalties and conduct on a case by case basis than apply a blanket "Lawful" or "Chaotic" label then have to fret over whether a chaotic character can have a strict personal code or a lawful character has to respect the laws of a foreign land whose legal system he's at odds with, or whether a mafia boss who obviously breaks the laws of the land but strictly follows the rules of the underworld is "lawful" or "chaotic" (or somehow "neutral"). None of this is an issue once you move past alignment and look at things more in terms of personal loyalties and personality traits.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1146603All of these ranging definitions of the various meanings of "Lawful" vs "Chaotic", including the various considerations for "follows the law" vs "has a personal code", the inherent fuzziness of them, and the realization that "chaotic" individuals could have a personal code too, are the reason why alignment (particularly along the Law/Chaos axis) doesn't work. It's all too subjective and arbitrary, and there's no broad consensus over what any of it means

I did not really want to get into the plus or minuses of slavery and on the other hand I could not let the narrative of "no broad consensus" go without comment.

That comment is: Fact Check - False.

Quote from: Shasarak;1146608I did not really want to get into the plus or minuses of slavery and on the other hand I could not let the narrative of "no broad consensus" go without comment.

That comment is: Fact Check - False.

Dude, there are people with different interpretations of how to handle alignment along the Lawful/Chaotic axis right on this thread, and that's just a few out of topic comments that aren't even arguing against alignment. Plus there was a whole thread a while back dedicated to arguing about alignment that went on for dozens of pages and arguments about alignment are one of the oldest dead horses when it comes to heated D&D discussions. There demonstrably is no broad consensus about alignment, because if there was these discussions couldn't exist.

Quote from: AnthonyRoberson;1146359I just stumbled on a large trove of my old campaign documents and I saw some notes about the local Lord who was using goblins as slave labor to build a wall around the settlement he owned. My question is this. From a D&D perspective only and not considering real world politics, morality, etc., if I assume that the 'default' alignment of the society is LN and slavery in one or more forms is legal in that society, should a Lawful Neutral character be allowed to own slaves without affecting his alignment? I am also making the assumption that he is not beating, raping or otherwise treating his slaves in some other unusual manner.

Depends on the setting but also on the meaning Law/Chaos has in it, I'll explain myself:

Law (Order) or Chaos aren't moral positions per se (unless in the setting Law = Good and Chaos = Evil). From this it follows that IF Law =/= Good it is perfectly possible for a lawful character to own slaves, on the other hand if they are one and the same then no, a lawful (good) character shouldn't own slaves without it affecting his alignment.

To avoid such ambiguities the best is to switch to Good/Evil as alignment with Law/Neutral/Chaos bringing some nuance to it.

So, I touched on it before but let's remember that people generally don't know their own alignment.  The guy who tells you he's lawful good is probably chaotic evil.  He might be lawful evil and just rationalizing his behavior.  Most people thing they're good, they think they're doing the right thing, and the people they don't like are bad.  This is a big part of the problem with alignment.  The Joker is chaotic evil incomicate he's trying to be bad.  Darkseid is lawful evil or possibly neutral evil depending on how thinking the only law that matters is his law sits with you.  But they're essentially on par with demons and devils as anthropomorphic manifestations of principles.  People make themselves out to be victims of circumstance or shift the blame to others.  I generally assume there's two circles on the alignment graph an the inner one is for mortals who always have neutral tendencies.  The outer ring is for caricatures like Joker and Darkseid.

But let's be clear.  Slavery is bad.  It's not as bad as genocide or mass murder, but it's a social evil in the best cases.  Lawful neutral doesn't care about that.  It cares about rules and structures.  The guy who tries to rationalize his slave ownership because it was legal or everyone was doing it is Lawful Evil.  The guy who doesn't care enough to rationalize it because that's the rules and that's just how it is might be lawful neutral.  The guy who earnestly believes the slavery laws are a good thing thinks he's lawful good but at best he's lawful neutral and he's probably lawful evil.  Neutral isn't about balance, it just tries to believe that.  Neutral is about lacking conviction and the will to act on it and thus is the most common and human alignment.

Quote from: VisionStormAll of these ranging definitions of the various meanings of "Lawful" vs "Chaotic", including the various considerations for "follows the law" vs "has a personal code", the inherent fuzziness of them, and the realization that "chaotic" individuals could have a personal code too, are the reason why alignment (particularly along the Law/Chaos axis) doesn't work. It's all too subjective and arbitrary, and there's no broad consensus over what any of it means...

Alignment is objectively defined in AD&D. Law is about groups over individuals, and chaos is about individuals over groups. Thus if someone has a personal code, then they are by definition chaotic. Characters who are lawful don't have personal codes, they adhere to the group's code. Obviously, "personal codes" can change from day to day since they are predicated only on personal whim.

QuoteLaw And Chaos: The opposition here is between organized groups and individuals.[DMG 1e, p. 23]

At its most basic tactical level, lawful creatures such as orcs and goblins will attack as a group, whereas ogres will attack individually and ignore the actions of their fellows. The former are organized enough to send out search parties for the PCs, the latter are not.

Ooh, I just remembered an interesting variation.

In David Eddings's Elenium and Tamuli series, there a race of humans called the Atan whose hat is being larger than the norm, and being seriously badass infantry fighters. However, they're also notoriously twitchy and prone to fighting -- to the death -- for perceived slights. To keep them from wiping themselves out, an Atan king goes to their nearest relations (the Tamuli people), and essentially sells his entire race into a kind of institutionalized slavery. Technically they ARE slaves, but it resembles the aforementioned janissaries more than anything else (it also lets the Tamuls set up their empire, as threatening people with Atans encourages them to see reason). The Tamuls get the best infantry in the world, and can keep the Atans in check ('no, you may not kill that man, even if he did insult you.')

Indeed, the Tamuls try to AVOID using the Atans, as they have to be given specific restrictions. One outlying nation started getting uppity and attacking Tamul's provinces, and the then-Tamuli emperor, in a fit of righteous anger, just unleashes the Atans with no restrictions. The result was said nation was all but wiped off the map, the survivors chased into the mountains, and it took centuries for them to recover.

Besides the obvious and many problems for the slaves (already well discussed in this topic), the institution of slavery has a long-term corrupting influence on any society in which it is practiced.  If the slavery is of the milder sort (e.g. certain instances in ancient Greece though not Sparta), then the corrupting influence may be relatively mild and relatively slow.  It will still be there.  I think it is possible that a generally LG or LN society could practice a milder slavery for a short time as the lesser of two evils (e.g. as opposed to effective genocide of a defeated foe), but only if they then assimilate the slaves into their own society and abandon the practice.

As long as you don't make eye-contact.

Quote from: Cloyer Bulse;1146637Alignment is objectively defined in AD&D. Law is about groups over individuals, and chaos is about individuals over groups. Thus if someone has a personal code, then they are by definition chaotic. Characters who are lawful don't have personal codes, they adhere to the group's code. Obviously, "personal codes" can change from day to day since they are predicated only on personal whim.

If you change your code from day to day based on your personal whims, you don't have a code.

Quote from: Cloyer Bulse;1146637Alignment is objectively defined in AD&D. Law is about groups over individuals, and chaos is about individuals over groups. Thus if someone has a personal code, then they are by definition chaotic. Characters who are lawful don't have personal codes, they adhere to the group's code. Obviously, "personal codes" can change from day to day since they are predicated only on personal whim.



At its most basic tactical level, lawful creatures such as orcs and goblins will attack as a group, whereas ogres will attack individually and ignore the actions of their fellows. The former are organized enough to send out search parties for the PCs, the latter are not.

That would pretty much discard monks as being Lawful, since their alignment requirement is about strict personal conduct and achieving self-perfection rather than adhering to groups or organizations. And it would also discard honor-bound and self-disciplined criminals (such as Drizzt's nemesis, Artemis Entreri, who's a self-disciplined "lawful evil" lone wolf assassin), who are invariably described as "Lawful Evil" in D&D. I also wasn't aware that orcs and goblins were Lawful, or that ogres were incapable of sending out search parties if you messed around their homes, but then again D&D has constantly flipped flopped around creature alignment throughout editions. Which is a testament to how objective alignment truly is.