Would a LG character get along better with a CG character or a LE character?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 174 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Which would a Lawful Good (doesn't have to be paladin) character have a better time getting along with in their party?

Could the LG and LE strike up a deal based on their word and keep peace between themselves, or could the LG and CG see their attempts to do better and work with each other from that point?


12 people marked this as a favorite.

depends on both characters in question.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah. No two Lawful Good characters are the same, nor are any two Chaotic Good or Lawful Evil characters.

Often, it will come down to whether the character in question is more Lawful / Good, or more Evil / Chaotic.

However, in a void and assuming average characters, I will bring up that the Paladin's code of conduct and abilities discourages him from being with Evil characters, and encourages him to stab them. No such caveats exist for bring with a Chaotic character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My bet is CG. Good-aligned outsiders cooperate regardless of where they belong on the Law/Chaos axis (and unlike evil outsiders, they're not separated into types along that axis). For paladins, you don't even have to ask: their code forbids associating with evil creatures (except to fight a greater evil), but not with chaotic creatures.


I believe in 3.5 you had fights between Archons and Azatas just as you would between Archons and Devils (not sure if this holds true in Pathfinder, it's not touched upon to my knowledge). LG hates CG just as much as they hate LE, in a vacuum.

But really, it all comes down to the characters and what they're trying to do at the time, and whether or not the character emphasizes good over law or law over good.

A choatic good character breaking laws and traditions will upset a LG person. A LE character who hides his evil actions such that no one knows (despite registering as evil) may not anger a LG character.

It's all really dependent on circumstance.

Liberty's Edge

LG hate seeing Evil deeds go unpunished. CG will be safer from this than LE

Sovereign Court

It would of course vary with the characters in question, but in general I think that the LG character would be periodically annoyed/frustrated with the CG character and be opposed to the LE character.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

You do realize that just because two characters have the same alignment, it doesn't mean they will get along right? You could have two LG Paladins that intensely dislike each other.

That said, I agree that for most characters it would be easier for the LG and CG to get along than a LG and LE.


By and large, most campaigns are about Good vs Evil, so Good characters have a harder time getting along with evil characters than Lawful vs Chaos.

Players are also biased against Evil, because Evil is by definition inherently morally negative, while Chaos isn't, as evidenced by the fact that Chaos can be paired with good.

So it seems to me the one place where a LG character would likely get along better with a LE character is a campaign that really stresses a Law vs Chaos backstory, where people are less concerned with being morally Good and more concerned with keeping the world from dissolving into Chaos.


BretI wrote:
You do realize that just because two characters have the same alignment, it doesn't mean they will get along right? You could have two LG Paladins that intensely dislike each other.

Being the same alignment doesn't mean getting along, but being different alignments sometimes means not getting along.

Opposite corner alignments for instance are never going to get along. Good and Evil don't get along unless evil is so inactive as to be functionally neutral.

Law and Chaos are going to interact badly, but they won't automatically feel obligated to kill each other and if they're both good will feel obligated to not kill each other. Most systems of laws have some allowance for chaos (and any that doesn't can't be good) and most chaotic people aren't full on anarchists (and those that are can't be good).

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atarlost wrote:
BretI wrote:
You do realize that just because two characters have the same alignment, it doesn't mean they will get along right? You could have two LG Paladins that intensely dislike each other.

Being the same alignment doesn't mean getting along, but being different alignments sometimes means not getting along.

Opposite corner alignments for instance are never going to get along. Good and Evil don't get along unless evil is so inactive as to be functionally neutral.

Law and Chaos are going to interact badly, but they won't automatically feel obligated to kill each other and if they're both good will feel obligated to not kill each other. Most systems of laws have some allowance for chaos (and any that doesn't can't be good) and most chaotic people aren't full on anarchists (and those that are can't be good).

Why are you hating on anarchists? Why cant they be good?

Sovereign Court

Halek wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
BretI wrote:
You do realize that just because two characters have the same alignment, it doesn't mean they will get along right? You could have two LG Paladins that intensely dislike each other.

Being the same alignment doesn't mean getting along, but being different alignments sometimes means not getting along.

Opposite corner alignments for instance are never going to get along. Good and Evil don't get along unless evil is so inactive as to be functionally neutral.

Law and Chaos are going to interact badly, but they won't automatically feel obligated to kill each other and if they're both good will feel obligated to not kill each other. Most systems of laws have some allowance for chaos (and any that doesn't can't be good) and most chaotic people aren't full on anarchists (and those that are can't be good).

Why are you hating on anarchists? Why cant they be good?

They can't be if they're old-school (late 19th/early 20th century) anarchists - who were the terrorists of the day. (They were behind a "car" bombing of Wall Street in 1920 - the horse and 38 civilians didn't make it.)

Most modern anarchists are much more mellow - though I really think they should get a different name to avoid the association to old-school anarchists.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Just because you are chaotic doesn't mean that you are constantly rolling dice to make decisions or breaking laws just to break them.

A Chaotic Good character could live just fine in an elected democracy that puts the emphasis on the individual rights over the needs of the group. Such societies would have laws and principles that establish a mindset where it is better to allow some criminals to go free rather than wrongfully prosecute and punish an innocent person. The needs of the individual would outweigh the needs of the many.

Provided punishment wasn't severe, you could even have a Lawful Good society that would rather capture and detain anyone in an area rather than allow a guilty party to escape. Doing so would protect the community even if some members of said community were inconvenienced.

Community domain is aligned with lawful, while Liberation domain is aligned with chaotic.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Short term I suspect they'd actually be more likely to get along with LE (evil particularly with a lawful streak is often less obvious) while long term they'd do better with chaotic good, as they would be more repulsed by the evil and find ways to work around methodological differences.


Standard boiler plate of it depending on the individuals aside, without a Detect spell I imagine the LG and LE would actually do better around each other. Law vs. Chaos is more WHAT you do while Good vs. Evil is more WHY you do it. So there would be more active clashes with actions between the LG and CG but the LG and LE would clash more during debates with each other.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Khudzlin wrote:
My bet is CG. Good-aligned outsiders cooperate regardless of where they belong on the Law/Chaos axis (and unlike evil outsiders, they're not separated into types along that axis). For paladins, you don't even have to ask: their code forbids associating with evil creatures (except to fight a greater evil), but not with chaotic creatures.

That's why I like to build my Paladins with Oath Against Chaos.

<cue Oprah gif>
You get a smite! You get a smite! You get a smite!


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Depends on which aspect of the alignment they skew towards.

Ethical Skew: "Sure, I hate LE Lea's politics, but at least she's always polite to me. She seems to be willing to work within the system. I can have a productive conversation with Lea, unlike CG Craig over there. I'm sure she's just gotten carried away playing Devil's Advocate."

Moral Skew: "Sure, I don't like Craig personally—he's obnoxious and has no idea how to actually do the things he wants to do—but at least he keeps good priorities. I can at least relate to what he wants to accomplish, unlike Lea over there. I think he's just a bit unrealistic."


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Halek wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
BretI wrote:
You do realize that just because two characters have the same alignment, it doesn't mean they will get along right? You could have two LG Paladins that intensely dislike each other.

Being the same alignment doesn't mean getting along, but being different alignments sometimes means not getting along.

Opposite corner alignments for instance are never going to get along. Good and Evil don't get along unless evil is so inactive as to be functionally neutral.

Law and Chaos are going to interact badly, but they won't automatically feel obligated to kill each other and if they're both good will feel obligated to not kill each other. Most systems of laws have some allowance for chaos (and any that doesn't can't be good) and most chaotic people aren't full on anarchists (and those that are can't be good).

Why are you hating on anarchists? Why cant they be good?
They can't be if they're old-school (late 19th/early 20th century) anarchists - who were the terrorists of the day. (They were behind a "car" bombing of Wall Street in 1920 - the horse and 38 civilians didn't make it.)

I wouldn't fall quite so readily into guilt-by-label-association; it has a more than dubious history. Not unlike the term 'terrorist'... It's kind of like saying Christians are terrorists because of clinic bombings.


For a Paladin specifically, it would be CG. This is because they can't help LE with anything at all murky. A single Evil act loses all of their powers. A single Chaotic act... well, does nothing.

For LG in general, I'd assume LE works out best. Good and Evil are why you do things, Law and Chaos are how you do things. It's easy enough to convince someone that other people will benefit/they'll benefit from something (Good vs Evil), it's much harder to convince them that it needs to be done this way.

Sovereign Court

BadBird wrote:


I wouldn't fall quite so readily into guilt-by-label-association; it has a more than dubious history. Not unlike the term 'terrorist'... It's kind of like saying Christians are terrorists because of clinic bombings.

I did say specifically that modern ones are much more mellow. (I've actually heard an argument that the existence of the Soviet Union took a lot of steam out of the crazier leftists of the time - because their example became the "correct" way to do it.)

But it wasn't an isolated incident either. There were hundreds of successful and attempted bombings and assassinations which were associated with the anarchists (such as President McKinley), which were not an especially large group #s wise. Anarchist leaders such as Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman were horrible horrible people who promoted the idea of bombings and assassinations, and Berkman published books explaining how to make the dynamite bombs to do it with.

I'm not saying that they were all bad even then - but it wasn't a tiny subset of them either. Looking back it's hard to tell if the majority were in favor of terrorism - but in history they were certainly the loudest for several decades, and they have become the ones which the term "anarchist" has been most generally associated with.


I could see a non-Paladin grudgingly accepting both chaotic methods to accomplish a good goal or evil actions to accomplish a lawful one. Asmodeus (LE) is basically the concept of "necessary evil", and is tentatively allied with lawful good deities. Cayden is that chaotic good guy that everyone gets along with, except for Asmodeus. Cayden is known to be friendly with Torag (LG), although this may just be because of shared interests.

Oh a whole, I'd believe that LG people will choose doing good rather than doing the technically correct thing if they were forced to choose. A LG character would be uncomfortable with chaos, but definitely opposed to evil.


Which one is the other PC?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think as a whole, a LG character would argue with a CG character a lot more based on methods, but when it comes down to a decision of who to trust, they'll side with the CG character all them same.

Just because you fight, doesn't mean you don't know who your real friends are.


I don't even think its close. I think in general if you are either good or evil on the moral axis, the moral axis is going to tend to dominate. In fact, you might despise the lawful evil MORE - for corrupting the law that to you should be used for good.


RDM42 wrote:
I don't even think its close. I think in general if you are either good or evil on the moral axis, the moral axis is going to tend to dominate. In fact, you might despise the lawful evil MORE - for corrupting the law that to you should be used for good.

And that is where you run into what you do vs. why you do it. Two people are building a case to get a guy imprisoned for life. One is doing so because the guy is known to run a slave ring. The other is doing so because the guy is cutting in on his territory. Unless they had a Detect spell or asked each other why they are trying to lock the guy up there would never be any issues between them working together. Their goals and methods are the same but one is LG and the other is LE due to their motive.

Same scenario but with one trying to build a case and the other trying to execute the guy. Both are doing so because the guy is running a slave ring, both want to bring him to justice, but one want to do so in court and the other wants him stopped immediately. In this case they would likely clash and hard as the LG would be obligated to try and protect the guy long enough to be judged and the CG would see the court case as nothing but a way for the guy to go free. They have the same motive but their goal and means are very different and those are what they will see unless they site down and talk.


Well, in this case we are presuming knowledge of goals.

If you don't have knowledge, then it's not necessarily a true acid test of preferences. So I suppose I would have to preface it with 'presuming he or she knows what the other person is."


I see one as intent and the other as methods towards that intent.

Being put off by rebellious nature is one thing. Knowing someone is using the same legal system you follow only because they personally gain from it, even with the intent of harming others to do so is another.

So while I can agree that CG and LG would butt heads, good vs evil is always the classic for a reason.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The overall view on this seems to have shifted from D&D 2nd Edition/PlaneScape days to Pathfinder, with D&D 3.x seeming to be somewhere in between. In D&D 2nd Edition/PlaneScape time, it was made quite clear that Law and Chaos hated each other as much as Good and Evil (the Blood War only being the most famous and long-running example). In Pathfinder (at least in the Campaign Setting), it seems that Good versus Evil is much more important for most creatures, with a few notable exceptions such as Hellknights, Inevitables, Oath Against Chaos Paladins, and Proteans.

Khudzlin wrote:
My bet is CG. Good-aligned outsiders cooperate regardless of where they belong on the Law/Chaos axis (and unlike evil outsiders, they're not separated into types along that axis). For paladins, you don't even have to ask: their code forbids associating with evil creatures (except to fight a greater evil), but not with chaotic creatures.

Actually, even in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting, the Good Outsiders are partially divided between Law and Chaos -- Angels span the spectrum, but Archons are Lawful, while Azatas are Chaotic, and Agathions are in between.

Grand Lodge

Atarlost wrote:
Opposite corner alignments for instance are never going to get along.

I respectfully disagree! There's plenty of LE sorts I've gotten along with splendidly. Most of them I probably wouldn't want to hang out long-term with, but that doesn't mean I hate them!


And remember, all the lawful deities go to Asmodeus for advice, even the queen of paladins, Iomadae. She doesn't go ask Desna how to do things.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

The discussion on personality and that no two people of a given alignment are the same is spot on.

However, to answer the OP's question: all things being equal, morality influences one's perception of ethics.

LG will get along with CG > LE
CG will get along with LG > LE
LE will get along with LG > CG

Friendships are often (60-80%) one sided. Poor LE fellow thinks the LG fellow likes him.


If alignment were real I'd probably be CN and I find most C-alignment people vapid, illogical, and aggravating. I have had several LG friends, however.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blake's Tiger wrote:
Friendships are often (60-80%) one sided.

I've heard that 75-80% of people who estimate statistics on unequal friendship are at least 90% too into Nietzsche.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BadBird wrote:
Blake's Tiger wrote:
Friendships are often (60-80%) one sided.
I've heard that 75-80% of people who estimate statistics on unequal friendship are at least 90% too into Nietzsche.

I've heard that 65-75% of percentages are made up on the spot


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Sideromancer wrote:
BadBird wrote:
Blake's Tiger wrote:
Friendships are often (60-80%) one sided.
I've heard that 75-80% of people who estimate statistics on unequal friendship are at least 90% too into Nietzsche.
I've heard that 65-75% of percentages are made up on the spot

Pft 8 out of 11 people know that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
The Sideromancer wrote:
I've heard that 65-75% of percentages are made up on the spot

It's not malicious, it's just that four-thirds of people have problems with fractions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ZZTRaider wrote:
The Sideromancer wrote:
I've heard that 65-75% of percentages are made up on the spot
It's not malicious, it's just that four-thirds of people have problems with fractions.

Half of those people don't know any better, half of them know, but don't or can't learn fractions correctly, and another half think that everyone else is wrong.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It would also depend on the situation, too.

As roommates, for example, the LG/LE combination would probably get along better. They'd both come up with an agreed set of "rules" for the house, while the LE player tried to determine which one of them were the dominant member of the household. Both parties would have a personality that would tend for them to adhere by the rules, though the LE player would probably try to find ways to twist the rules to his/her advantage. Overall, though, they'd both be orderly, pay bills on time, keep the agreed upon degree of cleanliness, etc.

The LG/CG roommate combination would be more like the Odd Couple. One would want things clean and orderly, the other couldn't understand the need to bother with all that. While they'd both be relatively nice people, their attitudes towards how to run their daily lives would conflict. The CG person probably wouldn't think twice about bringing a friend over unannounced, while this might be seen as irritating and inconsiderate by the LG person.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

maybe, just maybe, the LG character can work with both alignment's best examples.

like maybe they appreciate the LE character's dedication to the law, while also appreciating the the CG character's dedication to good.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For me? CG every time.


In general terms i would easilly say CG.

Sure in certain situations and certain chars this could be different.

But 99% of the time, good will always be better with other good before any evil that is for sure.


SorrySleeping wrote:

Which would a Lawful Good (doesn't have to be paladin) character have a better time getting along with in their party?

Could the LG and LE strike up a deal based on their word and keep peace between themselves, or could the LG and CG see their attempts to do better and work with each other from that point?

Yeah.... Either COULD get along with each on 'some' level. It all depends on where they find their common ground.

However, when the orphanage starts to burn down, and the CG guy wants to do things HIS way and save the kids... and LE guy is more interested in something else...

LG is going to be more agreeable with the CG any time.


Alternatively, when the local lord is passing brutal taxes, who are you going to want on your side: CG Craig, who wants to rob the lord's house and redistribute funds, or launch a revolt? Or LE Lea, who wants to work within the system to force the lord to comply by more sensible laws that don't interfere with her business? :P


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Alternatively, when the local lord is passing brutal taxes, who are you going to want on your side: CG Craig, who wants to rob the lord's house and redistribute funds, or launch a revolt? Or LE Lea, who wants to work within the system to force the lord to comply by more sensible laws that don't interfere with her business? :P

The Murderhobbos Compact I signed obligates me to side with Craig on this issue.


Poison Dusk wrote:
And remember, all the lawful deities go to Asmodeus for advice, even the queen of paladins, Iomadae. She doesn't go ask Desna how to do things.

Really, all of them go to Asmodeus for advice? I thought it was just Iomedae (who is arguably cracking under pressure from the Worldwound Incursion, and isn't necessarily doing what is the best idea in the long term . . .).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The real question here: Which one is the PC?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Alternatively, when the local lord is passing brutal taxes, who are you going to want on your side: CG Craig, who wants to rob the lord's house and redistribute funds, or launch a revolt? Or LE Lea, who wants to work within the system to force the lord to comply by more sensible laws that don't interfere with her business? :P

Actually, Lea is working to get a 'pro-business tax deduction' enacted into law that targets Lea Inc and their expedient allies, and that's payed for - if at all - by more taxes on everyone else.


BadBird wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Alternatively, when the local lord is passing brutal taxes, who are you going to want on your side: CG Craig, who wants to rob the lord's house and redistribute funds, or launch a revolt? Or LE Lea, who wants to work within the system to force the lord to comply by more sensible laws that don't interfere with her business? :P
Actually, Lea is working to get a 'pro-business tax deduction' enacted into law that targets Lea Inc and their expedient allies, and that's payed for - if at all - by more taxes on everyone else.

That seems more likely.

It is really questionable to assume that the CG character naturally wants to do something completely different to the Paladin and there is no possibility of compromise, but the LE character is totally on board with everything the Paladin wants.

Especially since the handbook for being a good little paladin has this to say about evil...

Quote:

...

A paladin ... loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
...
a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good. ...

...and this to say about chaotic...

Quote:

...

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment
...
she may adventure with good or neutral allies
...

Do you really think CG is more likely to be the one the Paladin has serious issues with?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
BadBird wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Alternatively, when the local lord is passing brutal taxes, who are you going to want on your side: CG Craig, who wants to rob the lord's house and redistribute funds, or launch a revolt? Or LE Lea, who wants to work within the system to force the lord to comply by more sensible laws that don't interfere with her business? :P
Actually, Lea is working to get a 'pro-business tax deduction' enacted into law that targets Lea Inc and their expedient allies, and that's payed for - if at all - by more taxes on everyone else.

Or has them lower the taxes and suggests declaring war on a neighbor for all their loot. This is a more accurate thing to happen before countries had tax codes...

Though if asked the LE character would probably lobby for a lowering of the tax if asked to by a powerful ally. Strong connections are very important to them.


There would be a lot of minor disagreements with the CG character.

There would be that one time the LE people acted evil, and then there would be smites to the head.

1 to 50 of 174 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Would a LG character get along better with a CG character or a LE character? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.