"Might Makes Right" and "Survival of the Fittest" [Archive] - Wizards Community

"Might Makes Right" and "Survival of the Fittest" [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Augurer
03-30-07, 11:23 AM Are these Lawful ideals?

My Lawful character has recently found himself in a situation where the party has unintentionally upset a powerful merchant and "political" figure in a society where these are the "laws". In order to appease this figure, the party is given four options:

1) Disrupt a shipment from a rival merchant, ensuring that the merchant doesn't receive whatever is on this ship. This requires destroying or stealing property.

2) Break into a rival merchant's home/stronghold and steal a valuable object that presumably once belonged to the figure we've "wronged".

3) Do neither 1 or 2, and face "restitution" (purposely left vague) in whatever manner the figure we've wronged chooses.

4) Skip town, essentially breaking an escort contract we've already agreed to perform the following day for a recurring employer.

There are some other options, as well, such as appealing to the rival merchant and likely performing needing to perform some other equally "illegal" task. In my view, none of these options fit the profile of Lawful. I previously defined my character to place his view of his own local laws above all else... however such a decision essentially takes him out of the campaign, as he'd be deserting the rest of the party.

Now, #1 and #2 aren't strictly illegal in the city our party is in, but they are clearly illegal where the party originated from. Is it Lawful merely to follow the laws wherever you might be? Or is Lawful a more absolute outlook, using RL Western cultural ideals as its tenets (i.e. stealing and destroying property not your own is illegal, and thus not lawful)?
Selgard
03-30-07, 11:35 AM WARNING: the following is my opinion :)

Lawful is a person's adherence to order.
an Army is lawful. It's actions are good or evil. (for example)

Theft, destruction of property, refusing to take punishment, are all neither necessarily L or C, but are rather Good or Evil (depending on the circumstances thereof).

According to some of the rules, breaking contracts willingly entered into, is Chaotic behavior. (not sure I buy that.. but it's what the bits on the devils/demons says and implies).

Lawful is, imo, about Order.
If your group has a set order about it, then it's probably more lawful than chaotic. It doesn't have to be "they follow the laws of X" but rather how they intereact with each other, and how each person behaves.

The illegality of an action has no bearing on being lawful/chaotic.
If I could officially rename them, it would be Order/Chaos.

but again.. those are all just my opinions. :)
Augurer
03-30-07, 11:43 AM Aren't laws a means of defining Order?
The illegality of an action has no bearing on being lawful/chaotic.
Jay-walking is illegal. That makes it evil? I think it's safe to say everyone agrees that's not evil. It's pretty blatantly Chaotic, but only when a Law exists against it. It's not Chaotic if it's not illegal.

But I don't want to get caught up in RL analogies. Is Lawful an absolute concept in D&D? If so, how do laws play into it? Is there a set of absolute laws that a Lawful character is implied to follow? Or is that a subjective component of the Lawful alignment? Or is Lawful more about "respect for authority", and has nothing to do with the actual laws themselves?

Is a character who upholds his own set of laws Chaotic sometimes (when he's in a region that doesn't have the same/similar laws), and Lawful othertimes? Or is he always Lawful, because he has a clearly defined "Order" to how he believes people should behave?
MaryContrary
03-30-07, 11:43 AM I'm confused a little. Is the party required by law to perform a service for the powerful person they've offended and they're insisting they do something illegal as recompense?
If not then I don't see a real moral quandry for the lawful character here. In my opinion obeying the law is more important for a lawful character than appeasing some powerful person you may have offended. And I don't get how refusing to break the law means they've deserted the rest of the party either. From the lawful character's perspective it would seem more like the party is deserting them by running around breaking the law just to get out of trouble.

In other words if this were my character I'd try to find some other way of making amends with this person my party offended but breaking the law would just be out of the question. I would take fulfilling the contract I've already agreed to seriously but I would probably just refund whatever pay we've been given up front back to my employer. Then I'd skip the country because it sounds like we're dealing with a corrupt public official here. (Unless of course the DM decided to make an adventure out of exposing the corruption. I think my lawful character would be up for that.)
If the rest of the party didn't agree with all of that I would...hmm...yeah I'd have to sit this one out. I'd put my lawful character up at the local inn where she'd sit in protest while I call in my backup neutral or chaotic character to go poaching with the party. :D
Selgard
03-30-07, 11:47 AM to Aug:

yes, but if I am lawful, that doesn't mean i have to follow every law i come across.
being Lawful isn't some odd disorder.. it's a choice to make your life more orderly.

Usually, you choose to follow some laws. even if they are only things you made up in your head. (i.e. how straight is your desk? do you notice if your stapler isn't where you left it?.. do you set it back where it was when you do notice?)

Just because you have chosen an Orderly outlook doesn't mean you can't also choose what Order to follow.

Consider Heironeous(sp? bah) and Hextor.

Both are Lawful. But while they are both orderly, they have Very different sets of laws.
High Octane
03-30-07, 11:56 AM #1 is lawful evil. #2 in this context is lawful evil.
Augurer
03-30-07, 11:59 AM I'm confused a little. Is the party required by law to perform a service for the powerful person they've offended and they're insisting they do something illegal as recompense?
The Law is "Might Makes Right" and "Survival of the Fittest". Or, in other words, there's virtually no laws at all. If we don't do what this political figure want, he's within "legal rights" to do whatever he pleases. He is an "authority figure".
If not then I don't see a real moral quandry for the lawful character here. In my opinion obeying the law is more important for a lawful character than appeasing some powerful person you may have offended.
In this case, obeying the "law" is all about appeasing this powerful person.
And I don't get how refusing to break the law means they've deserted the rest of the party either. From the lawful character's perspective it would seem more like the party is deserting them by running around breaking the law just to get out of trouble.
My character is the only one not willing to perform either of these "illegal" (from his perspective) acts. If I refuse to do them, I suppose my character might just be "sitting out" in the next session. The other option is to skip town, which essentially means I'm leaving the campaign.
In other words if this were my character I'd try to find some other way of making amends with this person my party offended but breaking the law would just be out of the question.
I attempted to find another means of making ammends. The figure in question essentially wants us to perform either task #1, #2, or supply an absurd amount of gold. Or #3 is going to happen.
I would take fulfilling the contract I've already agreed to seriously but I would probably just refund whatever pay we've been given up front back to my employer. Then I'd skip the country because it sounds like we're dealing with a corrupt public official here. (Unless of course the DM decided to make an adventure out of exposing the corruption. I think my lawful character would be up for that.)
We're in a country where this is the "law". This isn't a corrupt official. Or rather, they're all corrupt from my character's PoV.
If the rest of the party didn't agree with all of that I would...hmm...yeah I'd have to sit this one out. I'd put my lawful character up at the local inn where she'd sit in protest while I call in my backup neutral or chaotic character to go poaching with the party. :D
It would seem this is my only option, other than essentially having my character capitulate on his ethical views because the target of tasks #1 and #2 is likely just as corrupt.
MaryContrary
03-30-07, 12:07 PM I would think that "Might make right" and "Survival of the fittest" are everything the lawful character stands against in my opinion. Getting away from these two ideas is exactly why civilizations have legal systems and I would assume that's what any lawful character of mine would love about the law. So I don't think my lawful character would have a lot of respect for the local law. Sounds like chaos made law to me.
But all that's just my own opinion though.

BUT - it sounds like the local law is really just enforced lawlessness. So I think this is more of a question of the good/evil side of the alignment thing. There ain't no law around here for the lawful character to respect or abide by so I would think it's time to kind of default to the moral side of the alignment.
JulesCARV
03-30-07, 12:14 PM I'd say that "Might Makes Right" is typically a chaotic evil maxim. "Survival of the fittest" isn't normative per se, but if reformulated as "the fittest (and only the fittest) should survive," I'd say it's typicall a neutral evil maxim.
Nephlite
03-30-07, 12:45 PM WARNING: the following is my opinion :)

Lawful is a person's adherence to order.
an Army is lawful. It's actions are good or evil. (for example)

Theft, destruction of property, refusing to take punishment, are all neither necessarily L or C, but are rather Good or Evil (depending on the circumstances thereof).

Nope. Theft is chaotic as against laws (in almost anyway) not good or evil. Refusing to take punishment can bwe chaotic like in the mlitary.

The illegality of an action has no bearing on being lawful/chaotic.
If I could officially rename them, it would be Order/Chaos.

but again.. those are all just my opinions. :)

Yes, breaking the law is a chaotic act. One chaotic act will not affect alignment though (tou need a pattern).
Hungry_Backpack
03-30-07, 01:11 PM Lawful is NOT necessarily following laws and such. I think it's more of the character being routined, often planning ahead, maybe follows a way of living, and stuff like that.

Chaotic are more emotional, more impulsive you might say. They don't care much for planning, are impatient, care about themselves very much, if the easiest way to do something is illegely then that's the way for a Chaotic person.

Of course, a Lawful person doesn't need to be just like that, and neither do a Chaotic one. A chaotic person can be patient, follow laws, etc. but it must have something that makes it Chaotic.

Of course, these are my opinions, so take them with a pinch of salt.
trapspringer
03-30-07, 01:15 PM If might makes right, kill the bastard and be done with it.

Those are natural laws. As has already been stated, the entire reason behind a personal or civil code is to help man rise above those laws.

But hey, if you can't beat the system, beat the hell out of the guy and hide behind it instead.
Cifer
03-30-07, 05:37 PM Lawfulness doesn't need to have anything to do with laws, local or otherwise.

The best definition I've seen is the following: Everyone has a moral code - things he thinks to be "right". The easyness with which he deviates from this code is how chaotic he is.

To view e.g. stealing, we can picture four characters:
-The first one steals because he is impoverished. He doesn't like what he's doing and knows it to be wrong, but he still does it. Thus, he is chaotic.
-The second one is also impoverished and also doesn't like stealing. He is strong enough in his principles that he gets along without it - thus, he is lawful.
-The third one is a good guy in a land oppressed by an evil king. He steals from the government officials and believes it to be his duty in order to hinder the kingdom's efforts to make war with its neighbours. He is lawful.
-The fourth guy is the tax collector in said kingdom. He essentially steals from the inhabitants of the kingdom and is allowed to keep some of the taxes for himself. Now there are two possibilities: Either he sees the taxation as quite just and correct, in which case he would be lawful, or he deems it to be unfair, but doesn't care about it since it allows him a pleasant life, meaning he is chaotic.

An objective view of lawfulness is even harder than one of goodness, since the latter can more or less be reduced to altruism/egotism.
High Octane
03-30-07, 05:50 PM Actually I see lawfulness as a measure of ones sense of obligation.
trapspringer
03-30-07, 06:03 PM Hence the problem with the alignment system and any class rooted in it.
Augurer
03-30-07, 06:12 PM If might makes right, kill the bastard and be done with it.

Those are natural laws. As has already been stated, the entire reason behind a personal or civil code is to help man rise above those laws.

But hey, if you can't beat the system, beat the hell out of the guy and hide behind it instead.
That'll surely result in the death of our characters.
-The third one is a good guy in a land oppressed by an evil king. He steals from the government officials and believes it to be his duty in order to hinder the kingdom's efforts to make war with its neighbours. He is lawful.
Sounds like Robin Hood. Most everyone I've talked to has agreed he's stereotypical CG.
Cifer
03-30-07, 06:19 PM Sounds like Robin Hood. Most everyone I've talked to has agreed he's stereotypical CG.
I know - but "everyone agrees that" is what people call an argumentative fallacy.
Robin Hood can only be described to be CG if one assumes he is still torn between his old code (stealing, ambushing and lying are bad) and his will to help the people. Otherwise, he is not in any way different from a paladin fighting to release a land from the Evil King (tm) - who would get massive problems if this made him become chaotic.
Geogoose
03-31-07, 01:50 AM "Might makes Right" style of philosophy sounds a bit CE. It implies the strongest gets to decide the rules on a whim (chaotic). It implies using force to subjigate others to your ideals (evil).

"Survival of the Fittest" seems true neutrality. It implies a system where the weak are not particularly given aid, but neither are others actively oppressed.

Try not to link the Law with lawful alignment. In general, Lawfully aligned characters will see the importance of Laws because they stand for order. In specific, certain laws may run against a different code of conduct followed by a Lawful character. Think about the example of organised crime (Lawful). Traditions, respect, strict rules, etc are all important to mafia-esque criminals, yet they are clearly in the business of performing illegal acts.
trapspringer
03-31-07, 02:53 PM That'll surely result in the death of our characters.

Then you have misrepresented the laws under which you are operating.

If the law is "this guy is untouchable" then just get the hell out of dodge. That's pretty blatant DM fiat if the guy in question is an exhalted high grand-pobah or some ****.

Talk to your recurring employer and explain the situation.
Augurer
03-31-07, 03:28 PM Then you have misrepresented the laws under which you are operating.
How do you figure?. Sure, we can kill the guy. And then his minions/supporting staff and probably the King/Emperor/Whatever's minions will kill us in our attempted escape.
If the law is "this guy is untouchable" then just get the hell out of dodge. That's pretty blatant DM fiat if the guy in question is an exhalted high grand-pobah or some ****.
The law is essentially that he's untouchable, as the guy commands far more power than our group of five level 4 PCs.

Seems like DM fiat/railroading to me. We're just going to do task #1. The campaign only has a handful more sessions, anyway, and the DM role will rotate.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Augurer 03-30-07, 11:23 AM	Are these Lawful ideals? My Lawful character has recently found himself in a situation where the party has unintentionally upset a powerful merchant and "political" figure in a society where these are the "laws". In order to appease this figure, the party is given four options: 1) Disrupt a shipment from a rival merchant, ensuring that the merchant doesn't receive whatever is on this ship. This requires destroying or stealing property. 2) Break into a rival merchant's home/stronghold and steal a valuable object that presumably once belonged to the figure we've "wronged". 3) Do neither 1 or 2, and face "restitution" (purposely left vague) in whatever manner the figure we've wronged chooses. 4) Skip town, essentially breaking an escort contract we've already agreed to perform the following day for a recurring employer. There are some other options, as well, such as appealing to the rival merchant and likely performing needing to perform some other equally "illegal" task. In my view, none of these options fit the profile of Lawful. I previously defined my character to place his view of his own local laws above all else... however such a decision essentially takes him out of the campaign, as he'd be deserting the rest of the party. Now, #1 and #2 aren't strictly illegal in the city our party is in, but they are clearly illegal where the party originated from. Is it Lawful merely to follow the laws wherever you might be? Or is Lawful a more absolute outlook, using RL Western cultural ideals as its tenets (i.e. stealing and destroying property not your own is illegal, and thus not lawful)?
Selgard 03-30-07, 11:35 AM	WARNING: the following is my opinion :) Lawful is a person's adherence to order. an Army is lawful. It's actions are good or evil. (for example) Theft, destruction of property, refusing to take punishment, are all neither necessarily L or C, but are rather Good or Evil (depending on the circumstances thereof). According to some of the rules, breaking contracts willingly entered into, is Chaotic behavior. (not sure I buy that.. but it's what the bits on the devils/demons says and implies). Lawful is, imo, about Order. If your group has a set order about it, then it's probably more lawful than chaotic. It doesn't have to be "they follow the laws of X" but rather how they intereact with each other, and how each person behaves. The illegality of an action has no bearing on being lawful/chaotic. If I could officially rename them, it would be Order/Chaos. but again.. those are all just my opinions. :)
Augurer 03-30-07, 11:43 AM	Aren't laws a means of defining Order? The illegality of an action has no bearing on being lawful/chaotic. Jay-walking is illegal. That makes it evil? I think it's safe to say everyone agrees that's not evil. It's pretty blatantly Chaotic, but only when a Law exists against it. It's not Chaotic if it's not illegal. But I don't want to get caught up in RL analogies. Is Lawful an absolute concept in D&D? If so, how do laws play into it? Is there a set of absolute laws that a Lawful character is implied to follow? Or is that a subjective component of the Lawful alignment? Or is Lawful more about "respect for authority", and has nothing to do with the actual laws themselves? Is a character who upholds his own set of laws Chaotic sometimes (when he's in a region that doesn't have the same/similar laws), and Lawful othertimes? Or is he always Lawful, because he has a clearly defined "Order" to how he believes people should behave?
MaryContrary 03-30-07, 11:43 AM	I'm confused a little. Is the party required by law to perform a service for the powerful person they've offended and they're insisting they do something illegal as recompense? If not then I don't see a real moral quandry for the lawful character here. In my opinion obeying the law is more important for a lawful character than appeasing some powerful person you may have offended. And I don't get how refusing to break the law means they've deserted the rest of the party either. From the lawful character's perspective it would seem more like the party is deserting them by running around breaking the law just to get out of trouble. In other words if this were my character I'd try to find some other way of making amends with this person my party offended but breaking the law would just be out of the question. I would take fulfilling the contract I've already agreed to seriously but I would probably just refund whatever pay we've been given up front back to my employer. Then I'd skip the country because it sounds like we're dealing with a corrupt public official here. (Unless of course the DM decided to make an adventure out of exposing the corruption. I think my lawful character would be up for that.) If the rest of the party didn't agree with all of that I would...hmm...yeah I'd have to sit this one out. I'd put my lawful character up at the local inn where she'd sit in protest while I call in my backup neutral or chaotic character to go poaching with the party. :D
Selgard 03-30-07, 11:47 AM	to Aug: yes, but if I am lawful, that doesn't mean i have to follow every law i come across. being Lawful isn't some odd disorder.. it's a choice to make your life more orderly. Usually, you choose to follow some laws. even if they are only things you made up in your head. (i.e. how straight is your desk? do you notice if your stapler isn't where you left it?.. do you set it back where it was when you do notice?) Just because you have chosen an Orderly outlook doesn't mean you can't also choose what Order to follow. Consider Heironeous(sp? bah) and Hextor. Both are Lawful. But while they are both orderly, they have Very different sets of laws.
High Octane 03-30-07, 11:56 AM	#1 is lawful evil. #2 in this context is lawful evil.
Augurer 03-30-07, 11:59 AM	I'm confused a little. Is the party required by law to perform a service for the powerful person they've offended and they're insisting they do something illegal as recompense? The Law is "Might Makes Right" and "Survival of the Fittest". Or, in other words, there's virtually no laws at all. If we don't do what this political figure want, he's within "legal rights" to do whatever he pleases. He is an "authority figure". If not then I don't see a real moral quandry for the lawful character here. In my opinion obeying the law is more important for a lawful character than appeasing some powerful person you may have offended. In this case, obeying the "law" is all about appeasing this powerful person. And I don't get how refusing to break the law means they've deserted the rest of the party either. From the lawful character's perspective it would seem more like the party is deserting them by running around breaking the law just to get out of trouble. My character is the only one not willing to perform either of these "illegal" (from his perspective) acts. If I refuse to do them, I suppose my character might just be "sitting out" in the next session. The other option is to skip town, which essentially means I'm leaving the campaign. In other words if this were my character I'd try to find some other way of making amends with this person my party offended but breaking the law would just be out of the question. I attempted to find another means of making ammends. The figure in question essentially wants us to perform either task #1, #2, or supply an absurd amount of gold. Or #3 is going to happen. I would take fulfilling the contract I've already agreed to seriously but I would probably just refund whatever pay we've been given up front back to my employer. Then I'd skip the country because it sounds like we're dealing with a corrupt public official here. (Unless of course the DM decided to make an adventure out of exposing the corruption. I think my lawful character would be up for that.) We're in a country where this is the "law". This isn't a corrupt official. Or rather, they're all corrupt from my character's PoV. If the rest of the party didn't agree with all of that I would...hmm...yeah I'd have to sit this one out. I'd put my lawful character up at the local inn where she'd sit in protest while I call in my backup neutral or chaotic character to go poaching with the party. :D It would seem this is my only option, other than essentially having my character capitulate on his ethical views because the target of tasks #1 and #2 is likely just as corrupt.
MaryContrary 03-30-07, 12:07 PM	I would think that "Might make right" and "Survival of the fittest" are everything the lawful character stands against in my opinion. Getting away from these two ideas is exactly why civilizations have legal systems and I would assume that's what any lawful character of mine would love about the law. So I don't think my lawful character would have a lot of respect for the local law. Sounds like chaos made law to me. But all that's just my own opinion though. BUT - it sounds like the local law is really just enforced lawlessness. So I think this is more of a question of the good/evil side of the alignment thing. There ain't no law around here for the lawful character to respect or abide by so I would think it's time to kind of default to the moral side of the alignment.
JulesCARV 03-30-07, 12:14 PM	I'd say that "Might Makes Right" is typically a chaotic evil maxim. "Survival of the fittest" isn't normative per se, but if reformulated as "the fittest (and only the fittest) should survive," I'd say it's typicall a neutral evil maxim.
Nephlite 03-30-07, 12:45 PM	WARNING: the following is my opinion :) Lawful is a person's adherence to order. an Army is lawful. It's actions are good or evil. (for example) Theft, destruction of property, refusing to take punishment, are all neither necessarily L or C, but are rather Good or Evil (depending on the circumstances thereof). Nope. Theft is chaotic as against laws (in almost anyway) not good or evil. Refusing to take punishment can bwe chaotic like in the mlitary. The illegality of an action has no bearing on being lawful/chaotic. If I could officially rename them, it would be Order/Chaos. but again.. those are all just my opinions. :) Yes, breaking the law is a chaotic act. One chaotic act will not affect alignment though (tou need a pattern).
Hungry_Backpack 03-30-07, 01:11 PM	Lawful is NOT necessarily following laws and such. I think it's more of the character being routined, often planning ahead, maybe follows a way of living, and stuff like that. Chaotic are more emotional, more impulsive you might say. They don't care much for planning, are impatient, care about themselves very much, if the easiest way to do something is illegely then that's the way for a Chaotic person. Of course, a Lawful person doesn't need to be just like that, and neither do a Chaotic one. A chaotic person can be patient, follow laws, etc. but it must have something that makes it Chaotic. Of course, these are my opinions, so take them with a pinch of salt.
trapspringer 03-30-07, 01:15 PM	If might makes right, kill the bastard and be done with it. Those are natural laws. As has already been stated, the entire reason behind a personal or civil code is to help man rise above those laws. But hey, if you can't beat the system, beat the hell out of the guy and hide behind it instead.
Cifer 03-30-07, 05:37 PM	Lawfulness doesn't need to have anything to do with laws, local or otherwise. The best definition I've seen is the following: Everyone has a moral code - things he thinks to be "right". The easyness with which he deviates from this code is how chaotic he is. To view e.g. stealing, we can picture four characters: -The first one steals because he is impoverished. He doesn't like what he's doing and knows it to be wrong, but he still does it. Thus, he is chaotic. -The second one is also impoverished and also doesn't like stealing. He is strong enough in his principles that he gets along without it - thus, he is lawful. -The third one is a good guy in a land oppressed by an evil king. He steals from the government officials and believes it to be his duty in order to hinder the kingdom's efforts to make war with its neighbours. He is lawful. -The fourth guy is the tax collector in said kingdom. He essentially steals from the inhabitants of the kingdom and is allowed to keep some of the taxes for himself. Now there are two possibilities: Either he sees the taxation as quite just and correct, in which case he would be lawful, or he deems it to be unfair, but doesn't care about it since it allows him a pleasant life, meaning he is chaotic. An objective view of lawfulness is even harder than one of goodness, since the latter can more or less be reduced to altruism/egotism.
High Octane 03-30-07, 05:50 PM	Actually I see lawfulness as a measure of ones sense of obligation.
trapspringer 03-30-07, 06:03 PM	Hence the problem with the alignment system and any class rooted in it.
Augurer 03-30-07, 06:12 PM	If might makes right, kill the bastard and be done with it. Those are natural laws. As has already been stated, the entire reason behind a personal or civil code is to help man rise above those laws. But hey, if you can't beat the system, beat the hell out of the guy and hide behind it instead. That'll surely result in the death of our characters. -The third one is a good guy in a land oppressed by an evil king. He steals from the government officials and believes it to be his duty in order to hinder the kingdom's efforts to make war with its neighbours. He is lawful. Sounds like Robin Hood. Most everyone I've talked to has agreed he's stereotypical CG.
Cifer 03-30-07, 06:19 PM	Sounds like Robin Hood. Most everyone I've talked to has agreed he's stereotypical CG. I know - but "everyone agrees that" is what people call an argumentative fallacy. Robin Hood can only be described to be CG if one assumes he is still torn between his old code (stealing, ambushing and lying are bad) and his will to help the people. Otherwise, he is not in any way different from a paladin fighting to release a land from the Evil King (tm) - who would get massive problems if this made him become chaotic.
Geogoose 03-31-07, 01:50 AM	"Might makes Right" style of philosophy sounds a bit CE. It implies the strongest gets to decide the rules on a whim (chaotic). It implies using force to subjigate others to your ideals (evil). "Survival of the Fittest" seems true neutrality. It implies a system where the weak are not particularly given aid, but neither are others actively oppressed. Try not to link the Law with lawful alignment. In general, Lawfully aligned characters will see the importance of Laws because they stand for order. In specific, certain laws may run against a different code of conduct followed by a Lawful character. Think about the example of organised crime (Lawful). Traditions, respect, strict rules, etc are all important to mafia-esque criminals, yet they are clearly in the business of performing illegal acts.
trapspringer 03-31-07, 02:53 PM	That'll surely result in the death of our characters. Then you have misrepresented the laws under which you are operating. If the law is "this guy is untouchable" then just get the hell out of dodge. That's pretty blatant DM fiat if the guy in question is an exhalted high grand-pobah or some ****. Talk to your recurring employer and explain the situation.
Augurer 03-31-07, 03:28 PM	Then you have misrepresented the laws under which you are operating. How do you figure?. Sure, we can kill the guy. And then his minions/supporting staff and probably the King/Emperor/Whatever's minions will kill us in our attempted escape. If the law is "this guy is untouchable" then just get the hell out of dodge. That's pretty blatant DM fiat if the guy in question is an exhalted high grand-pobah or some ****. The law is essentially that he's untouchable, as the guy commands far more power than our group of five level 4 PCs. Seems like DM fiat/railroading to me. We're just going to do task #1. The campaign only has a handful more sessions, anyway, and the DM role will rotate.