Which do you think is better.
Lawful Good
24.4% (149)
24.4% (149)
Chaotic Good
75.1% (459)
75.1% (459)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Lawful-Good vs Chaotic Good: Which is better?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

A few of us have played games with alignment systems, and the codifier of this is Dungeons and Dragons, who gave us an alignment system that included both Good vs Evil, and Law vs Chaos.

Now I'm sure many of the more idealistic among us would want to play a good character, but Neutral Good sounds like such a boring character to be in, yet alone role-play without great effort.

...I think you know where this is going...

I pose a question... What is the Best Lopsided Good alignment?

Now before we begin, let's grab Definitions of both from an RPG book so there are no misconceptions. I'm using Pathfinder cause it's what I have on hand.

Lawful-Good:
A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. (They) combine a commitment to oppose Evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. (They) tell the truth, keep (their) word, help those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful Good Character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Lawful Good combines Honor with Compassion.

Chaotic Good:
A Chaotic Good character acts as his conscience directs (them) with little regard for what others expect of (them). (They) make their own way, but (they) are kind and benevolent. (They) Believe in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. (They) hate is when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. (They) follow their own Moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.
Chaotic good combines a good heart with a free spirit.

And thus the debate begins. But if any of you don't feel like joining in, but still want to show your opinion, there is a poll.

Now since I still have the floor, and this is pretty much a set up for a debate anyways:

I think Chaotic good is best.
First off, Chaotic Good doesn't have to put up with the king's S*** when the king decides he wants to slaughter a village. They can just go, "Hey, what kind of jerk are you?", and promptly punch him in the face. And if you happened to like that village, that is a really refreshing feeling.

Lawful Good on the other hand, has to hold back and say "Umm... Mi'lord, don't you think that's a bit hasty? There are better ways..." and then he goes on to try persuade the king for several minutes, which requires a lot of restraint for anyone, especially when the king flat out says "No" to their face. At which point the Lawful Good character has no option but to leave the throne room, go to another nation, and ask for their help in defeating the corrupt king's nation; which has an equal chance of failure.

Speaking of overthrowing the king, if a Chaotic Good character wants a lawful Evil king overthrown, they can just rile up the same kingdom into rebellion. That way only one kingdom worth of people are in harms way, and the king's power slowly crumbles as the revolution takes hold; meaning, once its set in action, the chance of the king staying at the top diminishes the longer it goes on. And in the end, logistically it would probably leave less of a hole in the population that the Lawful Good alternative.

As mentioned, all the Lawful good character can do is rally an army, probably from another nation, and declare war. Naturally, A state of open war is not the easiest time for convincing the other side is wrong, and telling the other nation to rise against its ruler. And during the effort of war, how many more casualties would take place? Essentially, either way, one whole kingdom would be reduced to almost ash, and the other critically wounded. And even if your good kingdom wins without casualty, what's the chance that you haven't destroyed an entire kingdom of Neutral or Good characters just because their king and a few of his right hand men are bad people? And Even if you do adopt a policy of "only fight the army and the corrupt officials" you still have the fact that the army has family to go home to.

Of course, I don't think you should be passive in this discussion. Pick a side and start arguing, this is a debate after all.

Again, if you don't feel like arguing in this, there's always the poll you can go with.

P.S. I think Capcha is trolling me with "Skynet is watching".

Chaotic Good, I guess, because it allows for more leeway when it comes to using shadier means to achieve good ends. In my opinion, when role-playing a character, Good (or Neutral and Evil) should always take precedence over any other part of the alignment.

And there's the thing about many people playing Lawful Good as Lawful Stupid: religious zealots or inflexible automatons that mindlessly slaughter everything evil. That is neither Lawful nor Good.

Then again, in the games we used to play, we did away with alignments altogether. We felt it improved our games and allowed us to play more nuanced characters. Morality is too complex to be shoehorned into six vaguely defined categories.

Although i don't plan to stay for a full on wordy battle, i'll throw in my 2 cents.

While Chaotic Good is obviously more appealing in many instances (well, it's what i'd rather be) i feel Lawful Good takes more responsibility for all the people under his care and his actions affecting them. By definition, though a chaotic good character's benevolence may reach far, it will, by his nature, have limits. If an invading army arrived the chaotic good char might choose to flee with his love or a group of people, though vulnerable people no doubt. Essentially taking the easier way out.

I feel a lawful good character wouldn't make this compromise, carrying the burden of their duty and his obligation to the people in the face of whatever might come at them, even if the chance of success was slim. I guess what i'm trying to say is that i 'respect' lawful good more as their responsibility to their ethics ultimately carries a greater weight, whereas i feel chaotic good will have a streak, a thin one though it may be, of self preservation/interest the lawful good character lacks.

Lawful Evil, all other alignments are "meh" at best.

Other than that, I can just point out that Sam Vimes from the Discworld could be Lawful Good. I wouldn't mind that.

Well, your example of the King isn't quite right - after trying to stop the problem using diplomacy / persuasion, a Lawful Good character would definitely take action against the King; although they will uphold law and order, they're not forced into following clearly unjust / evil rules - that would be more Lawful Neutral.

On top of that, Lawful Good is a more "Good" alignment because they take into account the wider ramifications of their actions. While a Chaotic Good character would steal from the rich and give to the poor, a lawful good character would know that long-term, this will only cause more problems for the very people they're trying to help.

But what's wrong with Neutral Good? It's the most flexible. It's the purest form of good, because it's the most reasonable. You fulfill your promises as much as possible, but will always take a pragmatic approach.

Then again, I agree with DoPo - Lawful Evil FTW.

If you ask me, Lawful Good's weakness is exactly the Lawful side. It really restricts someone's possibilities. Fun to roleplay properly I suppose. But Chaotic Good characters have a lot more tools at their disposal, so to speak.

DoPo:
Other than that, I can just point out that Sam Vimes from the Discworld could be Lawful Good. I wouldn't mind that.

Nah, Lawful Neutral. He doesn't care at all about good or evil, just people breaking the law and the people he swore to protect.

WolfCross:
Although i don't plan to stay for a full on wordy battle, i'll throw in my 2 cents.

While Chaotic Good is obviously more appealing in many instances (well, it's what i'd rather be) I feel Lawful Good takes more responsibility for all the people under his care and his actions affecting them. By definition, though a chaotic good character's benevolence may reach far, it will, by his nature, have limits. If an invading army arrived the chaotic good char might choose to flee with his love or a group of people, though vulnerable people no doubt. Essentially taking the easier way out.

I feel a lawful good character wouldn't make this compromise, carrying the burden of their duty and his obligation to the people in the face of whatever might come at them , even if the chance of success was slim. I guess what I'm trying to say is that i 'respect' lawful good more as their responsibility to their ethics ultimately carries a greater weight, whereas i feel chaotic good will have a streak, a thin one though it may be, of self preservation/interest the lawful good character lacks.

Bold point one is solid enough, Lawful characters do on average have better organization skills, making them a more responsible leader; however, I do not think it necessarily translates to Bold point 3, as those same lawful favored skills usually mean they will pull out of a battle when it "logically" isn't in their favor. While some Lawful Good characters have that resolve, they tend to be ones that are more towards either "lawful Stupid" or are more focused on the "good" aspect than on the lawful aspect.

Bold points 2 and 4 I have some problems with; A chaotic character could be just as determined to win a battle as a lawful character, they just go about it in a much different way. Such as the Berserker, who uses chaotic rage to cut through opponents. They live for battle, and fight every battle as if they want to die in it to uphold their ideals. Of note in that the class is not allowed to be lawful. They have no self preservation, no fear, no concept of "against their favor"; and so the good beserkers will fight to the last breath to defend the innocent despite the odds.

Its kinda like Kamina from Gurren Lagann. He's all like "REAL MEN DON'T RUN FROM A FIGHT FOR WHAT THEY BELIEVE IN! RAH! *Chews Scenery*" (I'm a little depressed I had to drag Gurren Lagann into this.)

9thRequiem:
Well, your example of the King isn't quite right - after trying to stop the problem using diplomacy / persuasion, a Lawful Good character would definitely take action against the King; although they will uphold law and order, they're not forced into following clearly unjust / evil rules - that would be more Lawful Neutral.

On top of that, Lawful Good is a more "Good" alignment because they take into account the wider ramifications of their actions. While a Chaotic Good character would steal from the rich and give to the poor, a lawful good character would know that long-term, this will only cause more problems for the very people they're trying to help.

But what's wrong with Neutral Good? It's the most flexible. It's the purest form of good, because it's the most reasonable. You fulfill your promises as much as possible, but will always take a pragmatic approach.

Then again, I agree with DoPo - Lawful Evil FTW.

With the original king example I was putting it up that the lawful good character didn't know that the king was evil... Yet. And that when he Discovers the king is evil, he won't be equipped with "chaos skills" to cause descent against the king as of that moment. Therefore, his exact logical actions are limited. As the only classes able to do something right then and there and expect to get away with it, are bared from being lawful. (And the few that can be argued to be, should probably have one think twice before investing in those skills). Lawful Good just isn't good with fighting tyranny without starting a war.

Meanwhile, The Chaotic Good Character, noticing that the king is pulling a D*** move, is able to draw enough attention to the fact that the king is an evil dude; since that is what chaotic good is all about, exposing tyrants. And so he could walk up to the king with little effort (possibly sneaking first), and punch him in clear sight of everyone; drawing attention to himself, and then he could just flat out say "You were about to invade my home town for no good reason you ingrate!"... or something to that effect. And at that moment, anyone who isn't being paid by the king directly should cause quite a commotion at this. Causing both the seeds of revolution and, if he's lucky, he may even have a chance to escape while the guards are busy holding off the commoners.

The Chaotic good for this job? A Rogue/Ninja or Bard.

Edit: also, this is about the Lopsided Goods, not the "true goods".

ZexionSephiroth:
snip

Fair points, i guess i always had the Robin Hood model in mind for Chaotic Good, someone taking discretion as the better part of valor :)

Lawful good, as long as I can remember. You can't be a hero unless you set and example, care for your brethren and try to spread a 'good' ethos. I'm not religious IRL, ofc.

CHAOTIC GOOD IF ONLY 'CAUSE LAWFUL GOOD IS MOSTLY LAWFUL STUPID.

denseWorm:
Lawful good, as long as I can remember. You can't be a hero unless you set and example, care for your brethren and try to spread a 'good' ethos. I'm not religious IRL, ofc.

But the message that Lawful Good spreads is "do what we expect good people to do", and rarely does that get questioned. It's all "because the arcane rules we set said so"; and because Lawful Good has no intention of rocking the boat when its not necessary, they don't. Which means that it takes an extremely smart Lawful good to figure out if a rule is good or not if its been there for ages and not had the issue come up. The only real world analogues that I can think of all come from religion, specifically the Abrahamic ones (Christianity, Islamic, Jewish.) And for some reason, Paladins in D&D always seem to be tied to religion. Their Alignment is locked on lawful good. And I'm quite sure intelligence is their "dump stat".

^that arguement might not be the soundest, but it gets the point across. Especially If the game Master decides that a Paladin/Inquisitor dual class is not a contradiction when the character starts going "have you or have you not had Gay sex", because the in game religion the paladins are tied to says its forbidden for some reason. And considering Pathfinder, such a rule would only be in place so that more Archons (lawful good celestials) could come into existence from their souls.

Conversely, Chaotic good gets the chance to wipe it all clear with minimal effort; cause they make their own moral compass rather that get it handed to them. They break the rules as they see as necessary. And some get elevated to hero status for breaking rules that are not just stupid, but exist purely to keep people from fighting back against... Whatever Lawful villains there are (not just Lawful evil, but extreme Lawful Neutral as well). And once they've led the people to freedom, they can just wonder off into the sunset, leaving people to figure out what is right or wrong on their own... And then new rules arise that aren't quite so stupid. And they owe it all to the Chaotic Good Guys.

Lawful good. Sure, studies have shown chaotic good does 60% more good per good, but there's always going to be collateral damage!

Chaotic Good because that's usually what I play. I prefer the "Robin Hood" type hero over a paladin or knight.

However, it is more difficult to play a Lawful-Good character and the roleplay can be more rewarding. In fact I'm playing a lawful-good character on my skyrim let's play and I'm having a blast.

ZexionSephiroth:
A few of us have played games with alignment systems, and the codifier of this is Dungeons and Dragons, who gave us an alignment system that included both Good vs Evil, and Law vs Chaos.

Now I'm sure many of the more idealistic among us would want to play a good character, but Neutral Good sounds like such a boring character to be in, yet alone role-play without great effort.

...I think you know where this is going...

I pose a question... What is the Best Lopsided Good alignment?

Now before we begin, let's grab Definitions of both from an RPG book so there are no misconceptions. I'm using Pathfinder cause it's what I have on hand.

Lawful-Good:
A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. (They) combine a commitment to oppose Evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. (They) tell the truth, keep (their) word, help those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful Good Character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Lawful Good combines Honor with Compassion.

Chaotic Good:
A Chaotic Good character acts as his conscience directs (them) with little regard for what others expect of (them). (They) make their own way, but (they) are kind and benevolent. (They) Believe in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. (They) hate is when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. (They) follow their own Moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.
Chaotic good combines a good heart with a free spirit.

And thus the debate begins. But if any of you don't feel like joining in, but still want to show your opinion, there is a poll.

Now since I still have the floor, and this is pretty much a set up for a debate anyways:

I think Chaotic good is best.
First off, Chaotic Good doesn't have to put up with the king's S*** when the king decides he wants to slaughter a village. They can just go, "Hey, what kind of jerk are you?", and promptly punch him in the face. And if you happened to like that village, that is a really refreshing feeling.

Lawful Good on the other hand, has to hold back and say "Umm... Mi'lord, don't you think that's a bit hasty? There are better ways..." and then he goes on to try persuade the king for several minutes, which requires a lot of restraint for anyone, especially when the king flat out says "No" to their face. At which point the Lawful Good character has no option but to leave the throne room, go to another nation, and ask for their help in defeating the corrupt king's nation; which has an equal chance of failure.

Speaking of overthrowing the king, if a Chaotic Good character wants a lawful Evil king overthrown, they can just rile up the same kingdom into rebellion. That way only one kingdom worth of people are in harms way, and the king's power slowly crumbles as the revolution takes hold; meaning, once its set in action, the chance of the king staying at the top diminishes the longer it goes on. And in the end, logistically it would probably leave less of a hole in the population that the Lawful Good alternative.

As mentioned, all the Lawful good character can do is rally an army, probably from another nation, and declare war. Naturally, A state of open war is not the easiest time for convincing the other side is wrong, and telling the other nation to rise against its ruler. And during the effort of war, how many more casualties would take place? Essentially, either way, one whole kingdom would be reduced to almost ash, and the other critically wounded. And even if your good kingdom wins without casualty, what's the chance that you haven't destroyed an entire kingdom of Neutral or Good characters just because their king and a few of his right hand men are bad people? And Even if you do adopt a policy of "only fight the army and the corrupt officials" you still have the fact that the army has family to go home to.

Of course, I don't think you should be passive in this discussion. Pick a side and start arguing, this is a debate after all.

Again, if you don't feel like arguing in this, there's always the poll you can go with.

P.S. I think Capcha is trolling me with "Skynet is watching".

Actually any lawful good character in a campaign I was running would be well within their rights, NAY Expected to try and stop the king then and there, putting their own life as well as his own desires aside. Regicide may be a crime but that does not make it unlawful in alignment terms.

A lot of people confuse Lawful good with holding to a legal parchment when what it really means is to hold to a set of principals and a code of ethics. be it the ethics of a religious order like a paladin, or a very personal code that you will never break that is all your own.

Chaotic good doesn't mean that you don't follow a code or set of rules. It just means that you are more flexible and do not really care about others following it as long as they're being in general a way you approve.

Lawful people like rules. They like to know where things stand.

Honestly, I'd rather have my party headed by a lawful-good Paladin than a chaotic-good pirate type character. I think the Pally would be more concerned with my well being than the pirate.

Daverson:
Lawful good. Sure, studies have shown chaotic good does 60% more good per good, but there's always going to be collateral damage!

As mentioned in the initial Argument against Lawful good, in certain circumstances, such as dealing with Lawful types, they have little choice in the matter except to find an army elsewhere and bring it back to bring the entire kingdom down. Which is going to average out at approximately 100% more collateral damage than dealing with the collateral damage caused by Chaotic good in tearing apart the lawful Evil Dude's kingdom from within.

Paya Chin:
CHAOTIC GOOD IF ONLY 'CAUSE LAWFUL GOOD IS MOSTLY LAWFUL STUPID.

That's a problem with players not understanding Lawful Good. not the alignment itself.

It's the same for people who play evil characters as Stupid Evil. You can be an evil character in a group of good and neutral players. Just don't be stupid with your actions Do things that further the goals of everyone but mostly yourself. And do actions that others would dissaperove of when those Good people can't find out about them.

I will always choose Chaotic Good over Lawful Good,because of the slight freedom of choice actually.

We all know what happened during the Templar Crusade.

So..yea.

ZexionSephiroth:
With the original king example I was putting it up that the lawful good character didn't know that the king was evil... Yet. And that when he Discovers the king is evil, he won't be equipped with "chaos skills" to cause descent against the king as of that moment. Therefore, his exact logical actions are limited. As the only classes able to do something right then and there and expect to get away with it, are bared from being lawful. (And the few that can be argued to be, should probably have one think twice before investing in those skills). Lawful Good just isn't good with fighting tyranny without starting a war.

In you example. would it be possible for the Lawful Good character to say, "This isn't right. I'm not doing it?" Can it be possible for him to say it whether or not he knows his king is evil?

Based on the description of the alignment you've provided, it is perfectly reasonable to do and also does not violate the vague Lawful Good description.

I think that if one of the knights takes a principled stand against this tyranny, it will inspire others to stand up against oppression. He also does not need any "chaos skills" to spread dissent and make people aware of how bad things are. He does it by taking a stand against this form of tyranny, regardless of consequences.

Nowhere in the description of the alignments you've used prevents a Lawful Good character from doing that.

In order for your example to work, Lawful Good means Lawful Stupid.

DarkhoIlow:
I will always choose Chaotic Good over Lawful Good,because of the slight freedom of choice actually.

We all know what happened during the Templar Crusade.

So..yea.

Yep a lot of lawful evil and chaotic evil people pretending that they were lawful good.

I voted Chaotic Good but only by a thin sliver, the main distinguishing feature between them seems to be that Lawful would do it because he has to and Chaotic because he chooses to. One is a hero who's completely resolved to his course of action by external standards they adhere to and one's going case by case with their own internal standards. In terms of heroics, if you aren't obligated to the do the right thing by anything other than your own rules it seems more heroic, slightly, than doing it because you know it's right by the law. Just my stance.

ZexionSephiroth:

Now since I still have the floor, and this is pretty much a set up for a debate anyways:

I think Chaotic good is best.
First off, Chaotic Good doesn't have to put up with the king's S*** when the king decides he wants to slaughter a village. They can just go, "Hey, what kind of jerk are you?", and promptly punch him in the face. And if you happened to like that village, that is a really refreshing feeling.

Lawful Good on the other hand, has to hold back and say "Umm... Mi'lord, don't you think that's a bit hasty? There are better ways..." and then he goes on to try persuade the king for several minutes, which requires a lot of restraint for anyone, especially when the king flat out says "No" to their face. At which point the Lawful Good character has no option but to leave the throne room, go to another nation, and ask for their help in defeating the corrupt king's nation; which has an equal chance of failure.

Speaking of overthrowing the king, if a Chaotic Good character wants a lawful Evil king overthrown, they can just rile up the same kingdom into rebellion. That way only one kingdom worth of people are in harms way, and the king's power slowly crumbles as the revolution takes hold; meaning, once its set in action, the chance of the king staying at the top diminishes the longer it goes on. And in the end, logistically it would probably leave less of a hole in the population that the Lawful Good alternative.

As mentioned, all the Lawful good character can do is rally an army, probably from another nation, and declare war. Naturally, A state of open war is not the easiest time for convincing the other side is wrong, and telling the other nation to rise against its ruler. And during the effort of war, how many more casualties would take place? Essentially, either way, one whole kingdom would be reduced to almost ash, and the other critically wounded. And even if your good kingdom wins without casualty, what's the chance that you haven't destroyed an entire kingdom of Neutral or Good characters just because their king and a few of his right hand men are bad people? And Even if you do adopt a policy of "only fight the army and the corrupt officials" you still have the fact that the army has family to go home to.

Of course, I don't think you should be passive in this discussion. Pick a side and start arguing, this is a debate after all.

Again, if you don't feel like arguing in this, there's always the poll you can go with.

I think you aren't getting the jist of Lawful Good. In the circumstances you dictated, if the King was doing something the LG OG knows is evil then his first reaction will likely be decapitate the king then and there and (events from this point vary, likely it could even end with the LG's death but that's a price you pay for justice). The Chaotic Good reaction could well be as simple as 'Get my family the hell out of this kingdom first, then I can come back later and shoot the king from a distance'. Chaotic Good doesn't HAVE to obey justice, they just have to do what they see as right and if that's 'help some people, don't risk my own neck' that's their prerogative.

I think you're getting caught up thinking of lawful as obeying the laws of the land. It isn't. Lawful has more to do with a belief in an ordered society of laws that people should follow rather than a belief that any given set of laws is correct.

So in your king example a lawful good character could just as easily strike the king and shout, "You may be a king, but that does not grant you the right to take the lives of innocents!" In this case the character would be standing up for their belief that killing innocents is wrong and universalizing it.

Chaotic alignments on the other hand tend not to accept that laws should be applied universally. So in the same situation they might just end up saying, "That might not be prudent. In any case let us discuss my quest to kill the dragon, how will I be rewarded when I succeed?"

The two have no bearing on either good or intelligence. As for why Intelligence is normally a Paladin's dump stat that's easy. They need a good Strength, Constitution and Charisma score as well as at least a 14 in Wisdom to cast max level spells. That leaves Dexterity and Intelligence to dump, and few Paladins that I've seen made with a point buy ever have more than 12 Dexterity which is the maximum you can use in non-mithril full plate armor.

CaptainMarvelous:
I voted Chaotic Good but only by a thin sliver, the main distinguishing feature between them seems to be that Lawful would do it because he has to and Chaotic because he chooses to. One is a hero who's completely resolved to his course of action by external standards they adhere to and one's going case by case with their own internal standards. In terms of heroics, if you aren't obligated to the do the right thing by anything other than your own rules it seems more heroic, slightly, than doing it because you know it's right by the law. Just my stance.

Because he chooses to get involved does not make him more heroic. It makes him more selfish. It is another way of saying, "what's init for me?"

Winnosh:

ZexionSephiroth:
-snip-

Actually any lawful good character in a campaign I was running would be well within their rights, NAY Expected to try and stop the king then and there, putting their own life as well as his own desires aside. Regicide may be a crime but that does not make it unlawful in alignment terms.

A lot of people confuse Lawful good with holding to a legal parchment when what it really means is to hold to a set of principals and a code of ethics. be it the ethics of a religious order like a paladin, or a very personal code that you will never break that is all your own.

The problem here is that as mentioned in another post, its more about whether it is logical for them to go after the evil king then and there. Chaotic good can get away with it as they have all the rouges, Ninjas, Spies, Bards, etc. So they can just smoke bomb the place, stab the king and jump out the window.

...Meanwhile, The Paladin has to deal with guards, which we don't know he'll get past on his own. He has to kill the king in a hurry before the guards, or another wave of guards, deals with him; also not sure how he does that. And then he has to have an escape plan in case there are more Lawful Evil types in the area to take the top position... And come to think of it, why would a Lawful good character Need the skills that would get them through that alive without becoming a martyr (as, let's face it, is what a paladin would become if he tried this alone... unlike rogues), except with dealing with Lawful Evil Characters?

Now, in hindsight, I may have made one error of logic; yes, the Paladin could easily just 'say' that the king is corrupt in a convincing manner; but logically, it doesn't have the effect as doing something that everyone in the kingdom will talk about. Such as punching the king after sneaking up on him and THEN Speaking against him. And alongside that, Paladins and monks probably don't have "persuasion" as class skills. So It would be pretty hard to get them to the point outing the king as evil is going to be effective regardless. And thus, they are more likely to fail to convince anyone and just get beaten up by the guards for 'high treason' and either killed or thrown in the dungeon.

Yes, I do realize I'm moving away from the moral side towards the practical side; but its all part of the package, with great chaotic hearts comes great chaotic skills... and then responsibility, as these are good guys either way.

malestrithe:

CaptainMarvelous:
I voted Chaotic Good but only by a thin sliver, the main distinguishing feature between them seems to be that Lawful would do it because he has to and Chaotic because he chooses to. One is a hero who's completely resolved to his course of action by external standards they adhere to and one's going case by case with their own internal standards. In terms of heroics, if you aren't obligated to the do the right thing by anything other than your own rules it seems more heroic, slightly, than doing it because you know it's right by the law. Just my stance.

Because he chooses to get involved does not make him more heroic. It makes him more selfish. It is another way of saying, "what's init for me?"

That's a valid view point, but it also applies to doing it because you have to. It isn't heroic to do things because you have to either, you aren't choosing to do the right thing, you're just doing it because you don't have a choice. If you are opting to do heroic things (which doesn't neccessarily need to be because your selfish, it could just be because you think it needs to be done) it's more heroic than doing it because 7th commandment paragraph 3 says you must.

malestrithe:

ZexionSephiroth:
With the original king example I was putting it up that the lawful good character didn't know that the king was evil... Yet. And that when he Discovers the king is evil, he won't be equipped with "chaos skills" to cause descent against the king as of that moment. Therefore, his exact logical actions are limited. As the only classes able to do something right then and there and expect to get away with it, are bared from being lawful. (And the few that can be argued to be, should probably have one think twice before investing in those skills). Lawful Good just isn't good with fighting tyranny without starting a war.

In you example. would it be possible for the Lawful Good character to say, "This isn't right. I'm not doing it?" Can it be possible for him to say it whether or not he knows his king is evil?

Based on the description of the alignment you've provided, it is perfectly reasonable to do and also does not violate the vague Lawful Good description.

I think that if one of the knights takes a principled stand against this tyranny, it will inspire others to stand up against oppression. He also does not need any "chaos skills" to spread dissent and make people aware of how bad things are. He does it by taking a stand against this form of tyranny, regardless of consequences.

Nowhere in the description of the alignments you've used prevents a Lawful Good character from doing that.

In order for your example to work, Lawful Good means Lawful Stupid.

Huh... I hadn't thought of it that way.

But on the other side of the coin, the king is probably just going to get some other bunch of soldiers to do it. After all he is a king.

Second, the ripple effect of just saying "no", is much slower than causing a scene. And it still leaves a village in peril in the interim. So... Actually, there is one logical course of action there, but its pretty much "pull villagers out of burning buildings, get them to safety." Not exactly the safest course of action, but a paladin is both willing and able to do so.

I guess this is my Favorite argument against my points thus far.

CaptainMarvelous:

That's a valid view point, but it also applies to doing it because you have to. It isn't heroic to do things because you have to either, you aren't choosing to do the right thing, you're just doing it because you don't have a choice. If you are opting to do heroic things (which doesn't neccessarily need to be because your selfish, it could just be because you think it needs to be done) it's more heroic than doing it because 7th commandment paragraph 3 says you must.

You know, you've just given a perfect example of Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil characters, who either go along with society or uses it to their advantage. you did not describe Lawful Good.

You are acting as though Lawful means you must follow some precepts written down somewhere. It does not. In the context of a roleplaying game, Lawful means Oder. You think order is preferable to chaos. It does not say that you have some external compass that governs your actions. The only compass you have is yourself regardless of alignment.

Lawful Good characters follow what is right not written by some book, but by themselves. They see oppression they step in.

Chaotic Good characters may only choose to get involved in causes they want to, but that does not make it a better alignment.

I feel like Lawful Good gets the shaft over Chaotic Good too much. It's an often misunderstood alignment, and most people gravitate instead to the Robin Hood/Drizzt "I'm too awesome to follow the rules" alignment and joke about Lawful Stupid. This perception that a Lawful Good character must stringently follow the laws in even the most absurd situation, like the King example, is simply baffling.

The argument that Chaotic Good also has the most potential for good is a bit flawed as well, in that it's that characters perception of what's good. A Lawful Good character will at least be operating within the societal norms of what's good and moral.

That all said, this is why I dislike alignment and prefer instead to have characters pick allegiances. People sides with "Good" can be horrible and those sided with "Evil" can be upstanding and honorable.

I preffer the lawful good allignment, mostly because that just makes for a more glorious roleplay.

that said, I dont think either is "better".

I would say "better" is a matter of opinion. Personally, I like Lawful Good because it's much more difficult to play correctly. As noted by other posters, there's a prevalence of Lawful Good being "smite all evil without question". Which, in a lot of cases, turns out to be Evil.

Some ways I've seen Lawful Good be played extremely well:

As paladins are usually part of "the system", I've seen a paladin use his position to take responsibility for the party. So, when the rogue would steal something, instead of threatening to give him a smite-ation, he goes to said system and accepts punishment on behalf of the rogue (the player's opinion that he failed to set a good example for those he is "in command" of). Doing it with not even a hint of disdain in his voice, it eventually brought everyone else closer to his alignment (role-playing-wise: someone selflessly sacrificing for the thief in their party who no one trusts anyway makes a good impression; mechanically: they couldn't afford to lose their only tank if jail time was involved).

Another favorite of mine was a "combat medic", pacifist Cleric. While not looking down on members of the party for unavoidable violence (where negotiations and charisma checks have failed), they would never actually attack anything. Again, really challenging to play (as the game of D and D is almost based exclusively on killing monsters). However, he turned out to be one of the best clerics because he didn't try to have his smiting cake and eat it, too. In other words, since he only focused on defensive spells, he was absolutely vital to the party's success.

malestrithe:

CaptainMarvelous:

That's a valid view point, but it also applies to doing it because you have to. It isn't heroic to do things because you have to either, you aren't choosing to do the right thing, you're just doing it because you don't have a choice. If you are opting to do heroic things (which doesn't neccessarily need to be because your selfish, it could just be because you think it needs to be done) it's more heroic than doing it because 7th commandment paragraph 3 says you must.

You know, you've just given a perfect example of Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil characters, who either go along with society or uses it to their advantage. you did not describe Lawful Good.

You are acting as though Lawful means you must follow some precepts written down somewhere. It does not. In the context of a roleplaying game, Lawful means Oder. You think order is preferable to chaos. It does not say that you have some external compass that governs your actions. The only compass you have is yourself regardless of alignment.

Lawful Good characters follow what is right not written by some book, but by themselves. They see oppression they step in.

Chaotic Good characters may only choose to get involved in causes they want to, but that does not make it a better alignment.

Lawful Evil? O.o What part of 'deciding to do the right thing' is lawful evil? The entire concept for that is doing things selfishly because you look out for number one or use society to your advantage. You can perform Altruistic deeds that go against society or the law (using the OP's example of killing the Evil king) even if it goes against the law itself because you don't follow a code like "I must not shoot a man with a crossbow while he's on the toilet"

You could make the case for Lawful Neutral but the point of Lawful Good isn't just deciding what's right yourself by your own moral compass, that's literally how they describe Chaotic Good in the players handbook. Lawful may not require you to follow the letter of the law, but it does mean your choices are normally premade by your own personal code or belief system. Whatever the Law is, there is a law that you follow to do good. Chaotic does the same but their law doesn't line up with the laws of society. The Lawful Good character's has to, or else they're Chaotic Good.

((Side-note: this is more personal preference, I don't believe you can have better allignments just which ones we regard as being more heroic, interesting or fun or some such, which is what we're arguing I think?))

DoPo:
Lawful Evil, all other alignments are "meh" at best.

So much this.
Why destroy when you can conquer. Why treat criminals good when they refuse to follow society's rules. As Lawful Evil, i don't kill you because i want to, i do it because you are in my way.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked