The D&D definitions of Lawful and Chaotic have fluctuated across editions. Here's the one which IMHO makes the most sense.
Lawful - A person who ascribes to a Lawful ethos is one who believes in and respects the power of the group or organization over the individual.
Chaotic - A person who professes a Chaotic ethos is one who only respects or fears the power of people as individuals.
A Lawful Good ruler is concerned about aggregate welfare: her policies will improve conditions in general. She will ensure that the laws of the land are just laws, and that the laws are applied fairly. She trusts that by applying good laws in a fair way, society will best take care of itself.
A Chaotic Good ruler is much less concerned about the particulars of the laws. He will instead focus on ensuring that his governors, lieutenants, mayors, and wardens are trustworthy people, and assume that by putting good people in charge, and trusts them to best take care of their slice of society.
A lawyer who relentlessly applies the law to defend the interest of her friends might very well be Chaotic: she respects the law, but she does not bow before society. Instead she uses the laws for the benefit of individuals, even if those interests do not align with the interests of society at large.
In contrast, a district attorney might apply the very same laws, but do so purely in the public interest, and this would make him squarely Lawful.
A knight who serves his liege loyally, and follows no code but his lord's will, is Chaotic Neutral.
A cavalier who serves her nation loyally, and follows no code but the orders of her chain of command, is Lawful Neutral.
Lawful people have difficulty understanding the actions and beliefs of Chaotic people, and vice-versa: for example, a Chaotic Barbarian might not understand why the Lawful Fighter adheres to a treaty made hundreds of years ago by strangers.
What's the best definition of the Lawful vs. Chaotic split you've seen?
Cheers, -- N
Lawful - A person who ascribes to a Lawful ethos is one who believes in and respects the power of the group or organization over the individual.
Chaotic - A person who professes a Chaotic ethos is one who only respects or fears the power of people as individuals.
A Lawful Good ruler is concerned about aggregate welfare: her policies will improve conditions in general. She will ensure that the laws of the land are just laws, and that the laws are applied fairly. She trusts that by applying good laws in a fair way, society will best take care of itself.
A Chaotic Good ruler is much less concerned about the particulars of the laws. He will instead focus on ensuring that his governors, lieutenants, mayors, and wardens are trustworthy people, and assume that by putting good people in charge, and trusts them to best take care of their slice of society.
A lawyer who relentlessly applies the law to defend the interest of her friends might very well be Chaotic: she respects the law, but she does not bow before society. Instead she uses the laws for the benefit of individuals, even if those interests do not align with the interests of society at large.
In contrast, a district attorney might apply the very same laws, but do so purely in the public interest, and this would make him squarely Lawful.
A knight who serves his liege loyally, and follows no code but his lord's will, is Chaotic Neutral.
A cavalier who serves her nation loyally, and follows no code but the orders of her chain of command, is Lawful Neutral.
Lawful people have difficulty understanding the actions and beliefs of Chaotic people, and vice-versa: for example, a Chaotic Barbarian might not understand why the Lawful Fighter adheres to a treaty made hundreds of years ago by strangers.
What's the best definition of the Lawful vs. Chaotic split you've seen?
Cheers, -- N