"Lawful Good - Characters of this alignment believe that an orderly, strong society with a well-organized government can work to make life better for the majority of people. To ensure the quality of life, laws must be created and obeyed..."
"Lawful Neutral - Order and organization are of paramount importance to characters of this alignment. They believe in a strong, well-ordered government, whether that government is a tyranny or benevolent democracy..."
"Lawful Evil - These characters believe in using society and its laws to benefit themselves. Structure and organization elevate those who deserve to rule as well as provide a clearly defined hierarchy between master and servant..."
Here's where your argument breaks down. WHO'S government (or authority if that makes it any easier)? Where there are multiple authorities of varying and even conflicting natures (Church/State Democratic/Republican, Left wing/Right wing) who would a "Lawful" person follow? And to what degree (say totalitarian versus laissez faire) would they follow (blindly) simply to be LAWFUL? And in a situation where the other component of their alignment (Good, Neutral, Evil) are at variance with the given government or authority (a Good character in a country where the authority is EVIL) MUST that Lawful character still maintain and uphold that Law? Therein lies the dilemma.
The argument that a Lawful character has to blanketly support any and every governmental form is not logical nor supportable. And if it is not logical or supportable, you have to conclude that Lawful is something OTHER than the absolute blanket support of the Government or local authority.
The same is true of a chaotic. If that same chaotic is capable of using/manipulating the current laws for their own benefit, why wouldn't they? or if that same chaotic individual can 'skate under the wire' and not even BOTHER with the government, why would they care if same exists? Still further, if a Chaotic found themselves IN CHARGE of some authority (it has been known to happen) and can utilize that authority to sew chaos and self benefit (take a good long look at the legal system in Nevada), why wouldn't they capitalize?
In the end, alignment isn't blanket tacit following (or standing against) some external force sans any kind of thought or moderation. It HAS to be something internal.
I quoted from the sourcebooks since we are talking about alignments as a D&D mechanic. If you don't like how D&D describes alignments, and want your "the_spyder brand" of alignment system, feel free, but it will have no bearing on this thread, unless you are talking about how to transpose the alignment system into RL.
The "Rule" books are supposed to be suggested guidelines and nothing more. I've met Gary and Frank and both of them have indicated that you should take what you like about the rules and throw the rest away. This isn't Checkers. And both of them HATED rule lawyers as they felt that it made their game small and shallow.
But if that is all you see out of the game then I truly feel sorry for you in that you are missing out on 95% of the wonder of it.
I say again, play the game how YOU enjoy. Don't expect to HAVE to force your interpretation down someone else's throat.
"Lawful Good - Characters of this alignment believe that an orderly, strong society with a well-organized government can work to make life better for the majority of people. To ensure the quality of life, laws must be created and obeyed..."
"Lawful Neutral - Order and organization are of paramount importance to characters of this alignment. They believe in a strong, well-ordered government, whether that government is a tyranny or benevolent democracy..."
"Lawful Evil - These characters believe in using society and its laws to benefit themselves. Structure and organization elevate those who deserve to rule as well as provide a clearly defined hierarchy between master and servant..."
Here's where your argument breaks down. WHO'S government (or authority if that makes it any easier)? Where there are multiple authorities of varying and even conflicting natures (Church/State Democratic/Republican, Left wing/Right wing) who would a "Lawful" person follow? And to what degree (say totalitarian versus laissez faire) would they follow (blindly) simply to be LAWFUL? And in a situation where the other component of their alignment (Good, Neutral, Evil) are at variance with the given government or authority (a Good character in a country where the authority is EVIL) MUST that Lawful character still maintain and uphold that Law? Therein lies the dilemma.
That is their personal decision. Both a democrat and republican can be lawful. But a lawful person would follow most of the rules, even if he doesn't agree with them. Here, say a lawful person is in favor of having his own, rather sizable gun, and means to bumpy one soon. the state passes a law banning the sale of sizable guns. A lawful man, at this point, would lobby and vote in order to repeal the law and allow him to buy his sizable gun legally. A chaotic person would simply buy a gun off the black market, or something akin to that.
"Lawful Good - Characters of this alignment believe that an orderly, strong society with a well-organized government can work to make life better for the majority of people. To ensure the quality of life, laws must be created and obeyed..."
"Lawful Neutral - Order and organization are of paramount importance to characters of this alignment. They believe in a strong, well-ordered government, whether that government is a tyranny or benevolent democracy..."
"Lawful Evil - These characters believe in using society and its laws to benefit themselves. Structure and organization elevate those who deserve to rule as well as provide a clearly defined hierarchy between master and servant..."
The argument that a Lawful character has to blanketly support any and every governmental form is not logical nor supportable. And if it is not logical or supportable, you have to conclude that Lawful is something OTHER than the absolute blanket support of the Government or local authority.
I know that's not what I'm trying to say, I I think the same goes for jacobtan.
"Lawful Good - Characters of this alignment believe that an orderly, strong society with a well-organized government can work to make life better for the majority of people. To ensure the quality of life, laws must be created and obeyed..."
"Lawful Neutral - Order and organization are of paramount importance to characters of this alignment. They believe in a strong, well-ordered government, whether that government is a tyranny or benevolent democracy..."
"Lawful Evil - These characters believe in using society and its laws to benefit themselves. Structure and organization elevate those who deserve to rule as well as provide a clearly defined hierarchy between master and servant..."
The same is true of a chaotic. If that same chaotic is capable of using/manipulating the current laws for their own benefit, why wouldn't they? or if that same chaotic individual can 'skate under the wire' and not even BOTHER with the government, why would they care if same exists? Still further, if a Chaotic found themselves IN CHARGE of some authority (it has been known to happen) and can utilize that authority to sew chaos and self benefit (take a good long look at the legal system in Nevada), why wouldn't they capitalize?
Exploiting the law for personal benefit would be neutral(evil), not chaotic, and regardless, I fail to see your logic. It's far easier to not have any rules to follow that have to hide from the rule that there is.
In the end, alignment isn't blanket tacit following (or standing against) some external force sans any kind of thought or moderation. It HAS to be something internal.
I think it's an internal view on the external world. Obviously it has to be personalized to some extent. Just because the universe is lawful or chaotic doesn't mean everybody is. It's about what they believe.
Perhaps you missed it in the passion of your argument, but I have emphasized earlier that players can exercise their discretion as DM on what interpretation they wish. It is their right. It is their game after all, and contrary to your imagination, I have not called for it to be taken away or demanded that my interpretation is imposed on another. In fact, I offered no interpretation, but simply presented the source material as it was.
If you are so insecure that you fear that a person on an online forum can take away your treasured way to play your game, my condolences go to you, for you will need it.
@jacobtan I totally disagree that my post is a blanket statement—notice the phrases "tend to", "not necessarily", "they can", and "not always". These words clearly do not line up with me saying "all" Lawful characters do any one thing, quite the opposite.
Also, to me, the most important, indeed superseding principle from the DMG is, and I'm paraphrasing here, "The rules herein need not be followed strictly. The most important thing about this game is to have fun." Here, perhaps, we differ philosophically. I don't base my perceptions of alignment, or anything else, strictly on the rules. I do not disregard them, but I do also think outside of them. Hence my vote. I don't discard external structure in the context of alignment, and in fact was specifically referring to legal principles, (as evidenced by the quoted portion of your previous post), but neither do I see it as the end-all, be-all when it comes to this question.
LOL. Way to beg the question and attack the poster. Congrats.
Quoting the rules and saying you can't be wrong "because you are merely quoting the rules" is exactly rule lawyering.
And you don't take anything away from my enjoyment of the game. I just feel sorry for your lack of enjoyment because you are clearly missing out on a lot of the game's richness. but that is merely my opinion. I take nothing away from you as a person, merely that I wish I could open your eyes.
But this isn't an attack. Again, feel free to enjoy the game as you see fit. I personally see the Lawful/chaotic alignment as something very different than you do. Nuff said.
I would ask though, could a Lawful character (in your view) exist on a desert island with no other people around? Would they be truly Lawful with no government or authority to speak of?
If all monks believed that then they obviously have a system of order. Rejecting most governments doesn't automatically make you chaotic. It simply means the system of order doesn't exist as a government.
I didn't say the rejected most governmentS, but that they rejected most *government* (no S). Not specific governments, but governance in general.
For example, Lao Tzu: "The more rules and regulations, The more thieves and robbers there will be." "A government can be compared to our lungs. Our lungs are best when we don't realize they are helping us breathe. It is when we are constantly aware of our lungs that we know they have come down with an illness."
Then that sounds like a fault of the alignment system. Whatever inspiration the people who designed the game's versions of monks on weren't fully translated to D&D terms because of the restriction of Monks to Lawful only.
@jacobtan I totally disagree that my post is a blanket statement—notice the phrases "tend to", "not necessarily", "they can", and "not always". These words clearly do not line up with me saying "all" Lawful characters do any one thing, quite the opposite.
Also, to me, the most important, indeed superseding principle from the DMG is, and I'm paraphrasing here, "The rules herein need not be followed strictly. The most important thing about this game is to have fun." Here, perhaps, we differ philosophically. I don't base my perceptions of alignment, or anything else, strictly on the rules. I do not disregard them, but I do think outside of them. Hence my vote. I don't discard external structure in the context of alignment, and in fact was specifically referring to legal principles, (as evidenced by the quoted portion of your previous post), but neither do I see it as the end-all, be-all when it comes to this question.
I know "tend to" will give you some wriggling room, but giving yourself wriggling room does not resolve the argument. If there is a trend towards moving away from external structures, you need to address the issues I raised - what are external structures for, of what relevance they are to people of lawfully-aligned people, and so on.
There is a very critical reason why I insist on using source material for discussions. If something is written there, it should be taken as it is, unless the DM wishes to exercise discretionary power to override the source material, which is perfectly fine. But when you extrapolate and/or introduce extra-sourcebook information into the framework, it becomes a customized framework specifically tailored to you, then it should not be taken as the gold standard of interpretation. But if you want to discuss how this can apply in RL, then we are free to introduce whatever information that is relevant to the discussion, even tangentially relevant materials.
I'm not referring to real life, but to how I play the game. I don't begrudge you for sticking to the rules as written, but my point of view doesn't come from the same sort of literal interpretation of them—this does not magically invalidate my stance.
I didn't use those qualifying statements to give myself wiggle room, but in fact to avoid making blanket statements. External structure serves a very clear purpose, and Lawful characters do often follow it, but so too do they drift away from it at times, suggesting to me that an internal code can override the laws of society.
LOL. Way to beg the question and attack the poster. Congrats.
Quoting the rules and saying you can't be wrong "because you are merely quoting the rules" is exactly rule lawyering.
And you don't take anything away from my enjoyment of the game. I just feel sorry for your lack of enjoyment because you are clearly missing out on a lot of the game's richness. but that is merely my opinion. I take nothing away from you as a person, merely that I wish I could open your eyes.
But this isn't an attack. Again, feel free to enjoy the game as you see fit. I personally see the Lawful/chaotic alignment as something very different than you do. Nuff said.
I would ask though, could a Lawful character (in your view) exist on a desert island with no other people around? Would they be truly Lawful with no government or authority to speak of?
Flinging accusations around is exactly what happens when your argument is approaching bankruptcy. but I digress.
In this thread, I have attempted to make a distinction between the following:
1. People who take the alignment system at face value and avoid imposing extra-sourcebook interpretations on the framework. I profess to be this type of player. For me to exercise DM discretion to override the rules, there has to be a very good reason to do so.
2. People who introduce their interpretations onto the alignment framework, like yourself. This is perfectly fine because every player runs his own game. However, please refrain from branding your customized framework as the gold standard.
The compromise I seek to achieve here is to leave the source materials alone and take them as they are, and let every DM exercise his discretion whether or not to customize the alignment system, and if so, to what degree. But here you are, fiercely defending your interpretation for some unknown reason, then accusing me of offering my own interpretations, being a rules lawyer, and whatnot, when all I am asking is for players to leave the basic format alone, and customize as individuals see fit. It can be ZERO customization (probably the true rules lawyers), very limited and situational customization (for a player like myself), or varying levels of more involved customization like what you seemingly advocate.
As for your last question, if I am answering as a DM, I will fall back on what the source materials say - there is a natural law of the universe, and laws should be made and followed. If there is no reason to believe that the lawful aspect of the alignment is breached, I am fine with that. Contrary to what you might like to imagine of me, I will exercise discretion to suspend the source materials if there arises a situation where the source materials cannot adequately address the issue.
If this is the US Supreme Court, count me as an originalist.
I kind of feel like the Law one has a right answer. A Paladin could and would fall pretty quickly just blindly obeying/enforcing the laws in many lands. Without going into much detail, the good one I just chose based on which fits me better, so I tend to RP that way if it ever really comes up. And I'm not going to argue any of this.
I'm not referring to real life, but to how I play the game. I don't begrudge you for sticking to the rules as written, but my point of view doesn't come from the same sort of literal interpretation of them—this does not magically invalidate my stance.
I didn't use those qualifying statements to give myself wiggle room, but in fact to avoid making blanket statements. External structure serves a very clear purpose, and Lawful characters do often follow it, but so too do they drift away from it at times, suggesting to me that an internal code can override the laws of society.
This is where I see that you have neglected the "universal law" aspect of lawful alignments.
Falling back onto the sourcebooks, it is implied that there is a universal law that is the underpinning of external structures like organization, society and government. External structures are part of this universal law (since the materials have indicated that the relationship exists "naturally", i.e. not subsequently introduced).
If external structures deviate from the underpinnings that is the universal law, then it is not out-of-character for a lawful character to follow his personal code that presumably is a better mirror of the universal law. But if the character does not consider that external structures have deviated sufficiently from the universal law such that he needs to take over, then he should still find himself flowing along with the external structures, because it is the lawful thing to do.
In this case, if a government acts like an anarchy (hence contravening the universal law), as a DM, I will allow a lawful character to take matters into his own hands if he so chooses, or at the very least, if he chooses to act out of character every now and then, I am willing to give him some leeway.
I do not see any anomalous situation in the scenario you offered.
For me to exercise the DM power of discretion, a situation must arise where I cannot rationalize a player's action with the source materials - if such a situation never arises, or if I can rationalize the issues away, then I may never need to exercise the discretionary power and allow the player to have a free pass.
Just whimsically wondering what most people thought about this.
The debate degenerated into a "my interpretation vs your interpretation" quarrel. This is why I changed my mind and decided to chip in to establish what the source materials say so that parameters can be righted.
If all monks believed that then they obviously have a system of order. Rejecting most governments doesn't automatically make you chaotic. It simply means the system of order doesn't exist as a government.
I didn't say the rejected most governmentS, but that they rejected most *government* (no S). Not specific governments, but governance in general.
For example, Lao Tzu: "The more rules and regulations, The more thieves and robbers there will be." "A government can be compared to our lungs. Our lungs are best when we don't realize they are helping us breathe. It is when we are constantly aware of our lungs that we know they have come down with an illness."
Then that sounds like a fault of the alignment system. Whatever inspiration the people who designed the game's versions of monks on weren't fully translated to D&D terms because of the restriction of Monks to Lawful only.
So it is more likely that the game contradicts itself than that you misunderstand the alignment system? I find that hard to believe to be honest.
Also I have still to see an example given equating any chaotic good character to an anarchist.
I am not neglecting universal law—in this and other, similar discussions, I have consistently and intentionally referred to the actual laws of a society.
I am not neglecting universal law—in this and other, similar discussions, I have consistently and intentionally referred to the actual laws of a society.
Law of a society may be based on universal law but they are not the same.
The source materials have already stated that "... this order is not created by man but is a natural law of the universe...". Ergo, the universal law does not even require a society to manifest, for it is already there. This is unlike the law of a society where someone must establish it, codify it, and enforce it.
What I am hearing from you is that law of a society is the same as the universal law, hence the confusion on your side.
@jacobtan - I really think that the issue is that you have put up your interpretation of the rules set as 'The Rules SET'. And anyone else who says something different than your interpetation, you claim as " People who introduce their interpretations onto the alignment framework, like yourself. This is perfectly fine because every player runs his own game. However, please refrain from branding your customized framework as the gold standard." and this attempt to invalidate their argument directly because it doesn't match your interpretation. But you are in fact interpreting the rules.
Stating:
"Characters of this alignment believe that an orderly, strong society with a well-organized government can work to make life better for the majority of people. To ensure the quality of life, laws must be created and obeyed..."
Is not the same as saying that this type of person blanketly adheres to the law of the land as the defining characteristic of their Lawfulness. The two are not synonymous.
I would agree that someone of this disposition would LEAN towards a good and just government should that exist, but they wouldn't Make it the loadstone of their lives if it didn't exist. Also, the dichotomy that I tried to express earlier, when the government itself is at variance with another government form, a Lawful person can not "Follow the law" as there might be different and conflicting laws. Then what do they do?
Church and state are very real "Authorities" in both the real world and the fantasy one. But have differing ideologies about how to best support society as a whole. If a member of one or the other is bound to uphold 'The law', how does he decide 'Which' law? And that is the defining moment that says that alignment HAS to be internal. He would follow that which agreed with his INTERNAL belief system. And with that being the case, what if that INTERNAL belief system was at variance with ALL external government/authorities? That wouldn't (in my view) make them Chaotic, but merely not supporters of the current administration, but still believers in Order and strong society and a well-organized government (that doesn't currently exist).
I do not mean to say that universal law and societal laws are the same, but they are both examples of external structure. A Lawful character may deviate from one of them, so I interpret that Lawful characters are not in fact bound to external structure.
Seeing as you used the inspiration for the Monk orders instead of the actual monk orders themselves, me calling a failure in translation from real world monks to D&D monks is fair.
Why not use the descriptions of the actual D&D monks?
As for an anarchist being Chaotic Good, what exactly is the issue here? An anarchist is defined as someone who rebels against authority. Chaotic means a preference against any kind of authority. So there's some intersect. Rebelling against authority doesn't necessarily mean Evil goals/intentions. So an anarchist by definition can be Chaotic Good.
The issue here is that I am trying to restrict any interpretation from my side to what is presented in the source material, and you are trying to extrapolate from there.
"Is not the same as saying that this type of person blanketly adheres to the law of the land as the defining characteristic of their Lawfulness. The two are not synonymous."
- "Blanketly" is such a weaselly word. How about taking out "blanketly" and we can talk.
"I would agree that someone of this disposition would LEAN towards a good and just government should that exist, but they wouldn't Make it the loadstone of their lives if it didn't exist."
- Why are you so focused on government in particular? Can you try to look at 'law' in a generic sense (this includes rules, regulations, norms, etc.) and not the strictly legal sense?
"Church and state are very real "Authorities" in both the real world and the fantasy one. But have differing ideologies about how to best support society as a whole."
- Not all faiths intend to support society. They support society insofar as it advance the goals of their deities, within the tenets of their faiths, in accordance with their general alignments.
"If a member of one or the other is bound to uphold 'The law', how does he decide 'Which' law? And that is the defining moment that says that alignment HAS to be internal. He would follow that which agreed with his INTERNAL belief system. And with that being the case, what if that INTERNAL belief system was at variance with ALL external government/authorities? That wouldn't (in my view) make them Chaotic, but merely not supporters of the current administration, but still believers in Order and strong society and a well-organized government (that doesn't currently exist)."
- Sourcebook already accounted for such situations:
"... it is his obligation to function within them...".
If the external laws are inadequate to address the issue, then fall back on the universal law that the sourcebook has described as
"... this order is not created by man but is a natural order of the universe...".
DM has the discretion to determine what "universal law" actually means and adjudicate accordingly.
What I am hearing from you is that law of a society is the same as the universal law, hence the confusion on your side.
I am not confused at all. I am still struggling to understand why you feel the need to change my stance on the issue. I assure you that I don't share a reciprocal intention.
I honestly wonder how what you are hearing from me is that societal law is the same as universal law. When I said
I am not neglecting universal law—in this and other, similar discussions, I have consistently and intentionally referred to the actual laws of a society.
I made a clear distinction between universal and societal law.
I do not mean to say that universal law and societal laws are the same, but they are both examples of external structure. A Lawful character may deviate from one of them, so I interpret that Lawful characters are not in fact bound to external structure.
Are you saying that a lawful person is a law unto himself?
I do not mean to say that universal law and societal laws are the same, but they are both examples of external structure. A Lawful character may deviate from one of them, so I interpret that Lawful characters are not in fact bound to external structure.
Are you saying that a lawful person is a law unto himself?
I am saying that a Lawful person follows a strict internal code that can line up with societal laws, but doesn't always do so. Edit: Again, as I see it.
What I am hearing from you is that law of a society is the same as the universal law, hence the confusion on your side.
I am not confused at all. I am still struggling to understand why you feel the need to change my stance on the issue. I assure you that I don't share a reciprocal intention.
I honestly wonder how what you are hearing from me is that laws of a society is the same as the universal law. When I said
I am not neglecting universal law—in this and other, similar discussions, I have consistently and intentionally referred to the actual laws of a society.
I made a clear distinction between universal and societal law.
Neither do I see a need to change your stand. If this is the case, I will cease this discussion with you here.
It might be interesting to note that Chaos was originally analogous to chasm or valley. So you have Someone who likes order and structure and someone who likes valleys. I like valleys myself.
It is also interesting that Chaos in the strictest sense was used to describe Heat death of the Universe. Just adding my own two bits to the dissolution of the universe as a whole.
Persons commenting in this thread who are of (RL) Lawful alignment will tend to really perceive that there must be a correct answer, a gold standard, so to speak in order to have the true DnD experience.
Persons commenting in this thread who are of (RL) Chaotic alignment will tend to really perceive that there can be no correct limiting answer about what alignment means and how it should be played in order to have the true DnD experience.
Persons lurking on this thread are probably of Neutral alignment and find it really interesting that such things are still so intensely juicy!! What the DM decides is all that really matters and perhaps the fun of arguing it out over the table if the DM is open to that.
In that respect, alignment in BG is not the same as it is in DnD because there is no DM check in the computer comparable to the rigors of the PnP tradition.
It seems to me that the nature of alignment from the POV of a game designer is simply this--a general intention in DnD for players to generate characters with some realistic imaginative depth and interest. And to have some real fun with that creative challenge and perhaps some amazing self-discoveries to boot.
Comments
The argument that a Lawful character has to blanketly support any and every governmental form is not logical nor supportable. And if it is not logical or supportable, you have to conclude that Lawful is something OTHER than the absolute blanket support of the Government or local authority.
The same is true of a chaotic. If that same chaotic is capable of using/manipulating the current laws for their own benefit, why wouldn't they? or if that same chaotic individual can 'skate under the wire' and not even BOTHER with the government, why would they care if same exists? Still further, if a Chaotic found themselves IN CHARGE of some authority (it has been known to happen) and can utilize that authority to sew chaos and self benefit (take a good long look at the legal system in Nevada), why wouldn't they capitalize?
In the end, alignment isn't blanket tacit following (or standing against) some external force sans any kind of thought or moderation. It HAS to be something internal.
* snip! *
I'm afraid you are talking nonsense.
I quoted from the sourcebooks since we are talking about alignments as a D&D mechanic. If you don't like how D&D describes alignments, and want your "the_spyder brand" of alignment system, feel free, but it will have no bearing on this thread, unless you are talking about how to transpose the alignment system into RL.
Try again.
The "Rule" books are supposed to be suggested guidelines and nothing more. I've met Gary and Frank and both of them have indicated that you should take what you like about the rules and throw the rest away. This isn't Checkers. And both of them HATED rule lawyers as they felt that it made their game small and shallow.
But if that is all you see out of the game then I truly feel sorry for you in that you are missing out on 95% of the wonder of it.
I say again, play the game how YOU enjoy. Don't expect to HAVE to force your interpretation down someone else's throat.
Here, say a lawful person is in favor of having his own, rather sizable gun, and means to bumpy one soon. the state passes a law banning the sale of sizable guns. A lawful man, at this point, would lobby and vote in order to repeal the law and allow him to buy his sizable gun legally. A chaotic person would simply buy a gun off the black market, or something akin to that. I know that's not what I'm trying to say, I I think the same goes for jacobtan. Exploiting the law for personal benefit would be neutral(evil), not chaotic, and regardless, I fail to see your logic. It's far easier to not have any rules to follow that have to hide from the rule that there is.
Perhaps you missed it in the passion of your argument, but I have emphasized earlier that players can exercise their discretion as DM on what interpretation they wish. It is their right. It is their game after all, and contrary to your imagination, I have not called for it to be taken away or demanded that my interpretation is imposed on another. In fact, I offered no interpretation, but simply presented the source material as it was.
If you are so insecure that you fear that a person on an online forum can take away your treasured way to play your game, my condolences go to you, for you will need it.
I totally disagree that my post is a blanket statement—notice the phrases "tend to", "not necessarily", "they can", and "not always". These words clearly do not line up with me saying "all" Lawful characters do any one thing, quite the opposite.
Also, to me, the most important, indeed superseding principle from the DMG is, and I'm paraphrasing here, "The rules herein need not be followed strictly. The most important thing about this game is to have fun." Here, perhaps, we differ philosophically. I don't base my perceptions of alignment, or anything else, strictly on the rules. I do not disregard them, but I do also think outside of them. Hence my vote. I don't discard external structure in the context of alignment, and in fact was specifically referring to legal principles, (as evidenced by the quoted portion of your previous post), but neither do I see it as the end-all, be-all when it comes to this question.
Quoting the rules and saying you can't be wrong "because you are merely quoting the rules" is exactly rule lawyering.
And you don't take anything away from my enjoyment of the game. I just feel sorry for your lack of enjoyment because you are clearly missing out on a lot of the game's richness. but that is merely my opinion. I take nothing away from you as a person, merely that I wish I could open your eyes.
But this isn't an attack. Again, feel free to enjoy the game as you see fit. I personally see the Lawful/chaotic alignment as something very different than you do. Nuff said.
I would ask though, could a Lawful character (in your view) exist on a desert island with no other people around? Would they be truly Lawful with no government or authority to speak of?
There is a very critical reason why I insist on using source material for discussions. If something is written there, it should be taken as it is, unless the DM wishes to exercise discretionary power to override the source material, which is perfectly fine. But when you extrapolate and/or introduce extra-sourcebook information into the framework, it becomes a customized framework specifically tailored to you, then it should not be taken as the gold standard of interpretation. But if you want to discuss how this can apply in RL, then we are free to introduce whatever information that is relevant to the discussion, even tangentially relevant materials.
I didn't use those qualifying statements to give myself wiggle room, but in fact to avoid making blanket statements. External structure serves a very clear purpose, and Lawful characters do often follow it, but so too do they drift away from it at times, suggesting to me that an internal code can override the laws of society.
In this thread, I have attempted to make a distinction between the following:
1. People who take the alignment system at face value and avoid imposing extra-sourcebook interpretations on the framework. I profess to be this type of player. For me to exercise DM discretion to override the rules, there has to be a very good reason to do so.
2. People who introduce their interpretations onto the alignment framework, like yourself. This is perfectly fine because every player runs his own game. However, please refrain from branding your customized framework as the gold standard.
The compromise I seek to achieve here is to leave the source materials alone and take them as they are, and let every DM exercise his discretion whether or not to customize the alignment system, and if so, to what degree. But here you are, fiercely defending your interpretation for some unknown reason, then accusing me of offering my own interpretations, being a rules lawyer, and whatnot, when all I am asking is for players to leave the basic format alone, and customize as individuals see fit. It can be ZERO customization (probably the true rules lawyers), very limited and situational customization (for a player like myself), or varying levels of more involved customization like what you seemingly advocate.
As for your last question, if I am answering as a DM, I will fall back on what the source materials say - there is a natural law of the universe, and laws should be made and followed. If there is no reason to believe that the lawful aspect of the alignment is breached, I am fine with that. Contrary to what you might like to imagine of me, I will exercise discretion to suspend the source materials if there arises a situation where the source materials cannot adequately address the issue.
If this is the US Supreme Court, count me as an originalist.
Falling back onto the sourcebooks, it is implied that there is a universal law that is the underpinning of external structures like organization, society and government. External structures are part of this universal law (since the materials have indicated that the relationship exists "naturally", i.e. not subsequently introduced).
If external structures deviate from the underpinnings that is the universal law, then it is not out-of-character for a lawful character to follow his personal code that presumably is a better mirror of the universal law. But if the character does not consider that external structures have deviated sufficiently from the universal law such that he needs to take over, then he should still find himself flowing along with the external structures, because it is the lawful thing to do.
In this case, if a government acts like an anarchy (hence contravening the universal law), as a DM, I will allow a lawful character to take matters into his own hands if he so chooses, or at the very least, if he chooses to act out of character every now and then, I am willing to give him some leeway.
I do not see any anomalous situation in the scenario you offered.
For me to exercise the DM power of discretion, a situation must arise where I cannot rationalize a player's action with the source materials - if such a situation never arises, or if I can rationalize the issues away, then I may never need to exercise the discretionary power and allow the player to have a free pass.
Also I have still to see an example given equating any chaotic good character to an anarchist.
The source materials have already stated that "... this order is not created by man but is a natural law of the universe...". Ergo, the universal law does not even require a society to manifest, for it is already there. This is unlike the law of a society where someone must establish it, codify it, and enforce it.
What I am hearing from you is that law of a society is the same as the universal law, hence the confusion on your side.
Stating:
"Characters of this alignment believe that an orderly, strong society with a well-organized government can work to make life better for the majority of people. To ensure the quality of life, laws must be created and obeyed..."
Is not the same as saying that this type of person blanketly adheres to the law of the land as the defining characteristic of their Lawfulness. The two are not synonymous.
I would agree that someone of this disposition would LEAN towards a good and just government should that exist, but they wouldn't Make it the loadstone of their lives if it didn't exist. Also, the dichotomy that I tried to express earlier, when the government itself is at variance with another government form, a Lawful person can not "Follow the law" as there might be different and conflicting laws. Then what do they do?
Church and state are very real "Authorities" in both the real world and the fantasy one. But have differing ideologies about how to best support society as a whole. If a member of one or the other is bound to uphold 'The law', how does he decide 'Which' law? And that is the defining moment that says that alignment HAS to be internal. He would follow that which agreed with his INTERNAL belief system. And with that being the case, what if that INTERNAL belief system was at variance with ALL external government/authorities? That wouldn't (in my view) make them Chaotic, but merely not supporters of the current administration, but still believers in Order and strong society and a well-organized government (that doesn't currently exist).
Why not use the descriptions of the actual D&D monks?
As for an anarchist being Chaotic Good, what exactly is the issue here? An anarchist is defined as someone who rebels against authority. Chaotic means a preference against any kind of authority. So there's some intersect. Rebelling against authority doesn't necessarily mean Evil goals/intentions. So an anarchist by definition can be Chaotic Good.
"Is not the same as saying that this type of person blanketly adheres to the law of the land as the defining characteristic of their Lawfulness. The two are not synonymous."
- "Blanketly" is such a weaselly word. How about taking out "blanketly" and we can talk.
"I would agree that someone of this disposition would LEAN towards a good and just government should that exist, but they wouldn't Make it the loadstone of their lives if it didn't exist."
- Why are you so focused on government in particular? Can you try to look at 'law' in a generic sense (this includes rules, regulations, norms, etc.) and not the strictly legal sense?
"Church and state are very real "Authorities" in both the real world and the fantasy one. But have differing ideologies about how to best support society as a whole."
- Not all faiths intend to support society. They support society insofar as it advance the goals of their deities, within the tenets of their faiths, in accordance with their general alignments.
"If a member of one or the other is bound to uphold 'The law', how does he decide 'Which' law? And that is the defining moment that says that alignment HAS to be internal. He would follow that which agreed with his INTERNAL belief system. And with that being the case, what if that INTERNAL belief system was at variance with ALL external government/authorities? That wouldn't (in my view) make them Chaotic, but merely not supporters of the current administration, but still believers in Order and strong society and a well-organized government (that doesn't currently exist)."
- Sourcebook already accounted for such situations:
"... it is his obligation to function within them...".
If the external laws are inadequate to address the issue, then fall back on the universal law that the sourcebook has described as
"... this order is not created by man but is a natural order of the universe...".
DM has the discretion to determine what "universal law" actually means and adjudicate accordingly.
I honestly wonder how what you are hearing from me is that societal law is the same as universal law.
When I said I made a clear distinction between universal and societal law.
Edit: Again, as I see it.
It is also interesting that Chaos in the strictest sense was used to describe Heat death of the Universe. Just adding my own two bits to the dissolution of the universe as a whole.
Persons commenting in this thread who are of (RL) Chaotic alignment will tend to really perceive that there can be no correct limiting answer about what alignment means and how it should be played in order to have the true DnD experience.
Persons lurking on this thread are probably of Neutral alignment and find it really interesting that such things are still so intensely juicy!! What the DM decides is all that really matters and perhaps the fun of arguing it out over the table if the DM is open to that.
In that respect, alignment in BG is not the same as it is in DnD because there is no DM check in the computer comparable to the rigors of the PnP tradition.
It seems to me that the nature of alignment from the POV of a game designer is simply this--a general intention in DnD for players to generate characters with some realistic imaginative depth and interest.
And to have some real fun with that creative challenge and perhaps some amazing self-discoveries to boot.