A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps 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.
Lawful good is often regarded as the most restrictive of alignments. I'd like to discuss the extents of a system of in-game ethics that might be regarded as both lawful and good, from the tropic extreme of "lawful stupid" to the most liberal of interpretations.
I usually DM, but I've started playing Kingmaker (first in-game sesh this weekend) with an all-dwarven party. I'm playing a lawful good Inquisitor of Abadar with a 6 Cha. We rolled stats, and I don't usually dump, but that's how it turned out. My character concept is an itinerant Andoran freedom fighter that moves from village to village agitating and organizing for Common Rule. Basically, Che Guevara minus the eloquence. My particular interest is how to portray such an abysmally low social IQ while doing "the right thing". The hackneyed holier-than-thou route is a well-worn cliche; how can I add individuality to my character without revisiting the "gee shucks"/dwarf/lawful good beat-cop schtick?
Zo
I imagine this character has a VERY strong sense of right and wrong and has very little tolerance for any views that go against it.
He is probably stubborn and really is not a good listener. He often acts on his own accord and does not bother to take other people into consideration. His singlemindedness is however as much a strength for him as it is a handicap. He will never draw first blood except in defense of those who cannot fend for themselves. If, however, someone raises a hand or weapon against him he will probebly punish it severely either killing or beating to within an inch of his life whom ever offended him.
When trying to convince others of his view he might adopt one of two strategies. Either he speaks in short yes/no kind of sentences without bothering to relate his answer to the general subjects being discussed or gets carried away in longwinded and boring rethoric.
He seeks freedom and self governance for all, but also expects a lot, maybe too much of those who have/seek it, they must be willing to fight for it themselves and must prove that they deserve it. He is not a fan of charity. In his eye everyone must be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for freedom.
Those are the first thoughts I had when I read your post.
"Charisma measures a character’s personality, personal
magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance"
well, you might not be especially suitable for the job you chose, but you can try anyway :p
Your leadership skills are pretty bad, you might have the proper idea but you have trouble speaking eloquently and your speaches lack passion, you prolly do not maintain the best hygiene and your appearance is typical at best, a guy people see and forget easily even though your actions might be remembered. Typical dwarven gruffness and a bit of a drunkard.
just some ideas ;)
|
Maybe he's a "less talk more action" kinda guy?
A little like Silent Bob.
Or Mac from Dresden files. He has someone else speak for him (do you have a high cha character elsewhere n the party?) Grunt assent or dissent when asked questions, and if you have a buddy in the party occasionally growl meaningfully.
(Hand the note to your friend saying what your character thinks. Think Han Solo and Chewbacca).
When it's time to act, act decisively. Leap to the defense of the weak, bring swift justice to the unjust.
Be quiet but righteous. You won't be convincing with words, but actions.
I think the problem isn't that LG is the most restrictive, I think the problem is that some people forget that you can be LG and not be a paladin.
As far as I'm concerned, you guys have pretty much hit the nail on the head. I'm trying to reconcile the 18 Wis/6 Cha and I've come up with a personality that just can't get the right foot forward, so to speak. Always talking a hair's breadth "above" the plebs, so that they understand what the message is, but just can't relate to the delivery. His proclamations have the ring of self-aggrandizement, flattery, pedantry and condescension. Ivory tower elitism...
Zo
I think the problem isn't that LG is the most restrictive, I think the problem is that some people forget that you can be LG and not be a paladin.
you just had to drop the P word *sighs* now I have to comment.. it is compulsionary =p
I kinda wished the Paladin's required LG alignment would be dropped in pathfinder dependant on deity.
CG deity - CG or NG paladins
NG deity - NG or LG paladins
LG deity - LG paladins
essentially the alignment similar to a Good deity or one step closer to Law.
anyway I kinda agree, that LG can be a bit less restrictive.. even for paladins, I mean.. then again a good alignment should be a bit of a burden, one that I as DM are willing to reward if played well. If you are not commited to the good cause you should prolly not be good alignment anyway. It is the Lawful / Chaos part that I can really do without.
I think 4th edition has a simpler alignment system that works quite well I think
Lawful Good, Good, Neutral, Evil, Chaotic Evil
basically they are grades of 'Goodness' rather than a Law / Chaos component, my players couldnt fully agree yet wether it was a good system or not so I havent implemented it in my own campaign.
The Paladins concept is Honour and loaylty. A defender of your deity should be lawful. Otherwise it is hard to believe that the character will defend it at almost all cost.
However i agree that there should be some variants, but we should not call it a Paladin.
I don't like the fact that LG is often considered the ultimate goodness. In my opinion, NG should be the ultimate goodness, as those only have a Good component to their alignment, so they can devote themselves wholeheartedly to that concept.
LG's should care just as much about Law as about Good, which is why there exists LG Paladins of Asmodeus, and why Sarenrae has worked with Asmodeus on occasion when combatting Chaos.
The 4E alignment system is, accordingly, one of the things I dislike the most about that game :)
The 4E alignment system is, accordingly, one of the things I dislike the most about that game :)
I really don't think the 4E and 3.5 alignment systems can be compared in that way.
I think 4E is more about degrres of good/evil and devotion than actual law vs. chaos.
Personally I would have prefered Pathfinder to have three alignments.
Good, Evil and Neutral. Where Good and Evil cover the the whole law-chaos spectrum, but are reserved to people who make their alignment a fundamental of their very existance one way or another.
Neutral would be the most normal alignment and cover almost all normal people; nice, bad and in betweens. Your loving grandmother who would never hurt a fly might be neutral simply because she is has other things to fill her life than those fundamental ethics that shape the univers and fuels the strugle between good and evil.
EDIT: Compared to 4E what I propose is probably:
4E LG = My Good = extreme devotion to the cause of good in all its aspects. The character views law as a way of protecting the community and chaos/freedom as necesary to ensure the protection of the individual.
4E G+N+E = My Neutral
4E CE = My Evil = complete moral corruption. Law is a means to oppress the masses and to force to become your tools of power. Chaos does not serve freedom, but rather as a weapon to destroy communities that oppose you in a very material sense chaos is manifested as the destruction of the Spirit and the Body/Structure.
I'm trying to reconcile the 18 Wis/6 Cha and I've come up with a personality that just can't get the right foot forward, so to speak. Always talking a hair's breadth "above" the plebs, so that they understand what the message is, but just can't relate to the delivery. His proclamations have the ring of self-aggrandizement, flattery, pedantry and condescension. Ivory tower elitism...
Or possibly he's a follower, not a leader, and he knows it? One aspect of wisdom is knowing your own limitations and strengths.
I don't like the fact that LG is often considered the ultimate goodness. In my opinion, NG should be the ultimate goodness, as those only have a Good component to their alignment, so they can devote themselves wholeheartedly to that concept.
LG's should care just as much about Law as about Good, which is why there exists LG Paladins of Asmodeus, and why Sarenrae has worked with Asmodeus on occasion when combatting Chaos.
The 4E alignment system is, accordingly, one of the things I dislike the most about that game :)
As already said, 4E alignment has very little to do with Law and Chaos, rather the Lawful part speaks to dedication to the concept of good itself, while Chaotic part in Evil just speaks about extremely self pleasing behaviour with no regard to others apart from how that might affect him or her. This alignment system actually allows for less restrictive behaviour and allows for the paladin to be a true champion of good more than a slave to law.
Lawful Good paladins of asmodeus.. I dont think so.
Lawful Good paladins of asmodeus.. I dont think so.
This is straight from the game designers; in the article about the faith of Asmodeus in AP 29: Mother of Flies (page 65-66).
I think that we need to look at it a bit closer to home. Your typical citizen of the US (my home country so used as example no elitism intended) is LN or even LG. Very few of us ever attempt to break the laws intentionaly and most of us would or at least say we would ;) help others in need, not out of any potential benefit to ourselves but out of a desire to be good to our fellow citizens.
Following the models set forth in 3.5/Pathfinder descriptions an average citizen of a country similar to ours is LN or LG, N or NG people would be thsoe who rebel against the establishment and over all may seem to shun societal norms. Now when we look at evil people in the world we would see that they can fit in almost anywhere and it appears at least that in reality it is not a matter of innate Gvs.E axis but actions that determine whether or not someone qulaifies for evil... a cold hearted banker is not evil exactly probs LN but the same banker who personally enjoys ousting people from their homes and maybe evin makes a personal profit from these actions is LE.
As for your character I don't the alignment is the issue at play here but how the ability scores are actually described. A CHA 6 is a mighty hinderance to being the leader of any cohesive group of individuals but I agree with many of the above statements. Maybe your character is not the face but the "soul" of the revolution. And I am always a firm believer that actions speak louder than words. Even if no one understands or can follower his speeches if your Dwarf stomps injustice left and right and has no tolerance for preying upon the inoocent. People will take notice.
Best of luck in the new Campaign. I am very excited about Kingmaker I am also getting to play this AP starting next week and I can't wait to have my Human Bard become a King! :-)
|
I think the problem isn't that LG is the most restrictive, I think the problem is that some people forget that you can be LG and not be a paladin.you just had to drop the P word *sighs* now I have to comment.. it is compulsionary =p
I kinda wished the Paladin's required LG alignment would be dropped in pathfinder dependant on deity.
CG deity - CG or NG paladins
NG deity - NG or LG paladins
LG deity - LG paladinsessentially the alignment similar to a Good deity or one step closer to Law.
anyway I kinda agree, that LG can be a bit less restrictive.. even for paladins, I mean.. then again a good alignment should be a bit of a burden, one that I as DM are willing to reward if played well. If you are not commited to the good cause you should prolly not be good alignment anyway. It is the Lawful / Chaos part that I can really do without.
I think 4th edition has a simpler alignment system that works quite well I think
Lawful Good, Good, Neutral, Evil, Chaotic Evil
basically they are grades of 'Goodness' rather than a Law / Chaos component, my players couldnt fully agree yet wether it was a good system or not so I havent implemented it in my own campaign.
I've always found this to be a very interesting idea, as I cannot figure out what a Chaotic Good "paladin" would look like. I've asked for examples numerous times, but no one has ever provided a solid and reasonable one.
I think the core of the problem is this: people define "the extremes" (Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil) to be way too narrow, and as a result Chaotic Good and Chaotic Neutral end up too large to really have any meaning.
The 'classic' example of Chaotic Good that many people first reach to as a way of describing a "Chaotic Good" paladin is Robin Hood, but he is (or can easily be portrayed as) a Lawful Good paladin already, so the example fails rather badly. Which is my point.
Think about it. Lets take the classic, generic, over-simplified version of Robin Hood; as Batman has proven, alignments can shift depending on the author, so lets stick to the basic commonalities.
First, the Pope calls for Knights to go fight in the Crusades. King Richard thinks this is a great idea, starts getting ready to go himself, and asks for volunteers. Robin of Loxley, a landed and titled noble lord, decides to go with his king, which is both Lawful (following his lord into battle) and Good (fighting what were perceived as "bad guys" (no offense)).
So Robin goes off, fights for a significant period of time (roughly a decade, though it varies quite a lot). Then a couple different things happen, the exact order of which varies a little.
1) He gets imprisoned and tortured for some time (but does not betray his king, thus continuing to be Lawful)
2) He escapes and goes home. (not Lawful, but not necessarily Chaotic - he had been fighting a war for over a decade and just escaped from torture, so feeling that he had done his duty and wanting to 'retire' is not unreasonable; see also 3)
3) He hears about something odd going on at home (not directly related to alignment, though it might impact his decision to go home, see 2)
Thirdly, Robin Hood arrives home. Again, several different things happen at this point, though exactly how, why, and in what order varies from version to version.
1) He goes home, only to find it in ruins / seized. Alternatively, he is able to go home at first (or skips it entirely), and loses his land after confronting the Prince/Sheriff (see 4). (unrelated to alignment)
2) He encounters Maid Marien, and usually one or two others (some of whom typically die horribly soon after). Can be combined with 1 and/or 3. (unrelated to alignment)
3) He encounters signs of terror and deprivation being inflicted on the peasantry by the Price/Sheriff, and feels compelled to do something about it. Can be combined with 1 and/or 2. (usually presented as a Good act, though sometimes, if the actions are specifically directed at him / his loved ones, can be an inspiration for revenge)
4) He publicly confronts the Prince/Sheriff. By himself. He tries and fails to end the tyranny right then and there, but fails and is forced to flee or die. (usually presented as Good (depending on 3), and can be either Chaotic (have fun storming the castle) or Lawful (foul tyrant, your rein ends here) depending on the story)
5) He meets a few peasants with surprising skills who tell him what the Prince/Sheriff have been doing. (Good, neither Lawful nor Chaotic)
(The public confrontation with the Prince/Sheriff is key, from a paladin's point of view. He comes back, sees the Prince/Sheriff behaving badly, and straight up goes to the castle to find out why - it's the first thing any proper paladin would do. The confrontation failing is likewise critical; if the Prince/Sheriff is Lawful Evil (easy assumption), and if he is able to chase off the Lawful Good paladin, then there aren't many options left; it's an isolated island kingdom, the nobles are controlled, the soldiers are either in the tyrants pocket or halfway around the world. Robin the paladin's only choice is to become an outlaw, use guerrilla tactics, and wait for an opportunity to strike. Not a Paladin's ideal choice by any means, but better than giving up or dying a meaningless death.)
Forth: at this point, Robin Hood has been stripped of his lands and title, named a traitor to the crown, charged with assaulting the Prince/Sheriff and so on and so forth. He's hiding in Sherwood, moping about with the few other people he's met. He decides that enough is enough, its time to fight against tyranny and oppression the only way he can: Guerilla warfare. (Good act, and given his (former) status as a landed noble in King Richard's army, neither Lawful nor Chaotic)
He doesn't need the money he takes, so he gives it to the people. He's got a decade of experience leading troops, he's the only living noble who still openly and publicly opposes the tyrant Prince/Sheriff, he's proven his loyalty to the true king, and he's giving away money, so of course lots and lots and lots of peasants flock to him, either giving aid or joining his rebellion.
Finally, the Prince/Sheriff has the Archery Contest. The normally walled city will be open (allowing an army to sneak in) and the Prince/Sheriff will personally oversee it, the first time he's been even remotely vulnerable since the conflict started. So Robin puts together a master plan and dives into the trap head first. (Soldily Lawful Good here. In fact, this is the single most paladin-ly act he does in the entire story)
NOTE: The only way Robin's choice here (to walk into the obvious trap) makes sense is if he is a paladin. The "Chaotic Good Dashing Rogue" version of the character gets handed the Idiot Ball, as demanded by the plot. (Seriously, if you're a lovable rogue, why go? It makes no sense). But a paladin, now, it works beautifully: forced into guerrilla warfare and hit-and-run tactics, forced to lead an army that he does not want against a tyrant that he wishes to overthrow, the Archery Contest is the perfect trap. Robin the paladin gets the first shot he's had at the Prince/Sheriff and he will take it even though its a trap - because he's a paladin and that's what paladins do.
Of course, the plan succeeds (with some bumps to make the tale more dramatic), King Richard shows up, restores Robin's land and title, approves the marriage, etc etc, happily ever after.
So I'm curious:
First, do you believe my interpretation of Robin Hood as a paladin is flawed? Not "do you agree or disagree", because exactly where Lawful Good ends and Chaotic Good begins is a somewhat personal opinion, but are there any flaws with my interpretation?
Second, what would a genuinely Chaotic Good paladin look like? At the very core of a paladin's being is the code; it defines them as a class and a group more than any "special powers" do. I'm trying to figure out how a Paladin could exist without that core and still fit within what a paladin is, or how a group of Chaotic paladins could maintain their alignments and their "code" at the same time.
not really any flaws I suppose, though diving into the Trap as you call it does not seem particulary lawful ?
I honestly do not think it is even at all alignment dependent, maybe you are citing a movie I have not seen yet though so I might miss out on some details.
The Chaotic Good paladin I find most fitting for Elven Champions, since as a race they graviate towards Chaotic Good and it reflects the elven ideal. They might not quite believe in the high standards of chivalry as typical paladins, being more likely to use trickery and deceit, but they hold life and freedom to choose one's path in the highest regards.
I always find it fascinating that the USA is a very conservative society, defined as LN or LG by it's citizens (as Kyle above), yet if you look at the US constitution with all it's emphasis on liberties and freedoms it seems to be a description of a chaotic good state.
I always find it fascinating that the USA is a very conservative society, defined as LN or LG by it's citizens (as Kyle above), yet if you look at the US constitution with all it's emphasis on liberties and freedoms it seems to be a description of a chaotic good state.
One possible interpretation of LG (I think it was in 2E) was the government's existence to establish a set of laws that protect as many freedoms and liberties as feasibly possible.
I always find it fascinating that the USA is a very conservative society, defined as LN or LG by it's citizens (as Kyle above), yet if you look at the US constitution with all it's emphasis on liberties and freedoms it seems to be a description of a chaotic good state.One possible interpretation of LG (I think it was in 2E) was the government's existence to establish a set of laws that protect as many freedoms and liberties as feasibly possible.
Well, you can easily see how Law / Chaos gets muddled, aside from personally not caring a rat's ass about the Law / Chaos factor in fantasy gaming.
Players also have the tendency to explain evil acts away as merely chaotic, to be fair chaotic often entails not caring a wit about what other people think, which might not be evil most of the time, but certainly not noble.
Using the 4E alignment system allows you to judge an action just by it's moral inclination rather than unnecesarily complicating it further.
On the contrary, I think the law/chaos axis is fairly simple: Chaos is not about not caring what people think, it's about intuition, creativity and individualism. Law is not about being 'law abiding' but about acting logically, having the security of a code of conduct and seeing the benefit of coordinated action.
Sure, some people like to play fast and loose with alignment, usually because they are told 'no evil' but still want to behave like dicks. Just because some people abuse a system does not make the system bad, it just means the players are behaving badly.
Going back to the case of the USA, it's an example of the strengths of a chaotic system that allows people to be what they want to be - in this case, it allows people to act in a manner that is lawful because that is their choice. A lawful society, by contrast, could well restrict the activities of those that wish to act chaotically.
BobChuck:
That is pretty much my exact feelings on Robin Hood. He is not the chaotic outlaw that most people think of him as (though some of his friends definetely are). He is a Paladin upholding his vows to his rightful King in the only way he can. His is a story about maintaining your honor when others have forsaken it out of fear.
I played a character I considered a Chaotic Paladin. He still had a high sense of honor and duty, but his primary concern was personal choice. In many ways he was an anarchist, though he believed that some governing structure was needed to protect people from evils that they cannot fight alone. Free though and universal acceptance of other's beliefs were his primary tennants, along with family and honor. Honor is not the exclusiver purview of lawful. Look at Paizo's gods; the dueling god is chaotic.
And I would like to point out to the people who are proponents of 4e as simpler that previous versions of d&d considered law-chaos just as important, or moreso, than good-evil. Planescape had the Blood War, a war between demons and devils, as the primary conflit, and the good angels influenced it for their respective sides.
BobChuck:
That is pretty much my exact feelings on Robin Hood. He is not the chaotic outlaw that most people think of him as (though some of his friends definetely are). He is a Paladin upholding his vows to his rightful King in the only way he can. His is a story about maintaining your honor when others have forsaken it out of fear.
I played a character I considered a Chaotic Paladin. He still had a high sense of honor and duty, but his primary concern was personal choice. In many ways he was an anarchist, though he believed that some governing structure was needed to protect people from evils that they cannot fight alone. Free though and universal acceptance of other's beliefs were his primary tennants, along with family and honor. Honor is not the exclusiver purview of lawful. Look at Paizo's gods; the dueling god is chaotic.
And I would like to point out to the people who are proponents of 4e as simpler that previous versions of d&d considered law-chaos just as important, or moreso, than good-evil. Planescape had the Blood War, a war between demons and devils, as the primary conflit, and the good angels influenced it for their respective sides.
I know it was somewhat of a big deal in planescape, though personally I couldn't care less about the whole planescape set up. It was just heaps of weirdness and abstract ideas piled together to make even weirder stuff for flying giant spacemonkeys that smoked too much canabis.
basically : it sucked.
Also it doesn't in anyway make the whole bloodwar thing impossible.
Evil on Evil conflict, seems perfectly reasonable for evil creatures to do.
Dabbler wrote:
"I always find it fascinating that the USA is a very conservative society, defined as LN or LG by it's citizens (as Kyle above), yet if you look at the US constitution with all it's emphasis on liberties and freedoms it seems to be a description of a chaotic good state."
I agree actually that a lot of our foundation (USA) would seem to follow a CG principle base except for the fact that most people not only respect the laws we tend (note this is most people and a generalization) to agree with them. If you follow and believe in or agree with the societal laws you are lawful this seems pretty clear according the alignment descriptions in the PHB for 3.5 and Pathfinder respectively. Thus I beleive it would actually be difficult to find significant number of people (note within the US) who are unlawful.
That is not to try and knock the ideals that we are founded on or try to promote LG over CG in game. Personally I am all for CG in game as I love the free spirit and anti-establishment type of characters. But I would have to go with Lathiira's post:
"One possible interpretation of LG (I think it was in 2E) was the government's existence to establish a set of laws that protect as many freedoms and liberties as feasibly possible."
+1
In the case of the USA Lawful Good would prolly be acurate, though most people would gravitate towards a Lawful Neutral alignment, the law and constitution are an ideal, most people will follow the law but can not live up to the ideals that serve as foundation.
Planescape (and even 3e) had planes that were dedicated entirely to Law (Mechanus) or Chaos (Limbo). These are hard to run without having it detached from the Good/Evil axis.
It had Angels who were a hair's breadth from fighting each other (Chaotic Eladrin pitted against Lawful Archon), if not for the fact that they both follow Good causes (and thus would likely not actual intend to kill their opponent), and were too busy dealing with the Blood War. Which makes for some great roleplaying scenarios.
It allowed for some fairly complex philosophical concepts, with a backdrop where belief could literally change the face of the environment, given a large and strong enough force behind it.
Honestly though, I have to admit I have a soft spot for Modrons, and anything clockwork actually (Inevitables are a great concept). So maybe my planescape feelings are more than a bit biased.
.
Regarding the average alignment of a person today... I have to say that I feel that most people are True Neutral, insofar that they don't have a particularly strong feeling towards Law or Chaos, nor do they particularly want to hurt people, or sacrifice themselves to aid people they don't know.
My reasoning?
Most people will try to ignore someone getting mugged or beaten up, to the point that they will not even call 911 on a phone or try and make a scene so the group beating up an individual might be distracted or run away in fear of reprisal.
Perhaps that's just "big city survival tactics", but it's as Neutral as you can get (I don't know you, so I'm not willing to risk getting killed over trying to save you).
Yes, I know lots of people might say they'll do X or Y when situation Z occurs, but I've had a cousin who had to personally experience what the average person will do to help (which is nothing, even when they outnumber the attackers).
Isn't it said that it's better to scream "fire" instead of "rape"?
But what about Lawful/Chaotic?
Most people I know will ignore copyright laws on some level. Yeah, yeah, torrenting... but how many of your parents (or you if you are old enough) bought a VCR back in the day and recorded tv/movies off the television?
How about jaywalking? How about the average person's "complete stop" at a stop sign? Or talking on the phone while driving (now that that law was passed). How many people, if they were in dire straits, would accept money under the table for a job (not reporting for taxes)?
These are all things people are told to do because it benefits the society (people getting paid for their work, tax money for the betterment of society, and the general safety of everyone), but they break them all the time for personal freedom (there's NO ONE around, why can't I jaywalk?).
On the flipside I know plenty of people who are constantly speaking out against authority in some form or another.. the "man" trying to make them "conform", etc.
And yet some of these people are HUGE proponents on some of the biggest socialist concepts (such as tax money towards general health care, etc). They are okay with some things that remove their personal freedom, because they recognize the benefit it gives the society as a whole. Typically because they've experienced it firsthand (usually a european country, or Canada/Cuba).
Sure, there's extremes on any camp, enough that they could land in the Lawful/Chaotic, Good/Evil camps. People who kill, etc.
But honestly, for the most part, people I've met, and studies I've read and heard, all seem to point towards the average person being "not fully committed" to any end of the spectrum.
If you've got time on your hands, a great way to "study" the differences in how to roleplay lawful good in general is to read The Order of the Stick. Two protagonists are Lawful Good, Roy and Durkon. There is another character who goes from the Lawful Stupid version of Lawful Good and slips from there.
Rather than essay about it, seeing the issue treated in fiction is a pretty good way to get a sense for different interpretations.
...Uh.
I only mentioned paladins because many DMs treat LGs with the same strictness they do paladins - ie, one chaotic act "WELL YOU'RE CG NOW, YOU JUST HAD TO LIE TO THAT GUY DIDN'T YOU!"
...Uh.
I only mentioned paladins because many DMs treat LGs with the same strictness they do paladins - ie, one chaotic act "WELL YOU'RE CG NOW, YOU JUST HAD TO LIE TO THAT GUY DIDN'T YOU!"
Well aside from paladins lawful good players are just a bit rare really, I think the paladin-like behaviour scares them away more than GM's actually do.
Well aside from paladins lawful good players are just a bit rare really, I think the paladin-like behaviour scares them away more than GM's actually do....Uh.
I only mentioned paladins because many DMs treat LGs with the same strictness they do paladins - ie, one chaotic act "WELL YOU'RE CG NOW, YOU JUST HAD TO LIE TO THAT GUY DIDN'T YOU!"
I think it's more that DMs are far harsher on LG characters, whereas CG character they don't really care.
LG character breaks a rule? They change alignment.
CG character never breaks any rules? "Lol it's just a part of my wacky chaos!"
Well, not to ruffle any political feathers, but you could just follow the comparison through minus Guevara's charisma. Sure, organize those villages... and line the aristocrats against the wall, execute, rinse, repeat. Something tells me that if Che had done that with a charisma of 6 it would've been remembered a little differently, if he could've found followers in the first place.
My character's goals are similar to Che's, but being lawful good means summary executions are probably not an option. To my mind, the combination of Andoran, Abadar, and Inquisitor creates a character that wants to spread the blessings of political and personal liberty, democracy, and the non-exploitative aspects of commerce among the frontiersfolk, at the same time acting like a wild west circuit judge, enforcing his code of law when relevant (to HIM, so pretty much all the time). The character isn't particularly ugly or unhygienic, so his catastrophically low charisma will probably manifest itself in an inability to express himself without offending someone.
As far as the paladin/LG paradigm goes, I'll explain to my DM that my character is simply not that virtuous. His lawfulness applies to the tenets of his faith (Abadar is LN) and his adherence to his sense of justice, while his goodness stems from his willingness to help those who help themselves (another concept of Abadar).
Zo