Need more info.
I'd say that if the law goes the way the Chaotic character needs it to go, all's fine. It's when the law isn't so convenient that things get iffy.
|
Urk...
Alright, I'll try to be vague here. (Its an ongoing experience here on the boards).
Let's say, for example, that the lawful good person charges ahead into a socially awkward scene, does something drastically public and politically dangerous, riling up the city guards and letting the whole city suffer as a result of his actions. The chaotic good character was saying "Let's wait and see what happens." but the lawful good character basically ignored this advice and charged in. Of course, the chaotic good character immediately goes into stealth to avoid detection and association with the 'stupid one'.
So now, the rest of the group is trying to strategize around the new political atmosphere that the lawful good character basically had caused and he's completely ignoring what the rest of the party wants to do and rushing around doing all sorts of things. (It's incredibly annoying).
So my question is, at what point does the chaotic good person leave the 'let everyone do what they want to do' argument and take more decisive actions?
The in game role-play to do is to cut ties with that character. If he can't act as part of a group, then he is part of the group no longer.
I dunno that a chaotic good character would out and out betray a former comrade and give them up, but they can sure withdrawl support and not aid him when they come for him.
|
|
For the lawful good or the chaotic good character?
The chaotic good character actually suggested going to the temple of Iomedae to get a high ranking cleric to intervene, then retracted that in their next post, going back to a devil-may-care attitude where each individual is free to do what they want, and apologizing for taking on an intervening position.
Eh, I disagree. A Lawful Good idealist can still make things awkward for a party in society (especially with low charisma, but just being naive can be enough), and a Chaotic Good character can still be the voice of reason. Sure, it's funny, and a little bit ironic, but not justifying a switch. If people can argue over whether a paladin can get babies killed, I think saying a switch is due here is overkill.
|
Chaotic good you say...
There is a very simple way to handle this situation. Would you do it?
If so, the chaotic good character would do it too. Don't you see it? Playing a chaotic character is all about FREEEDOM!!!! You can do whatever you want, as long as it doesn't involve something outside your moral code (that is what we call "jumping a slipery slope", something that happends often with chaotic good characters).
A lawful character procedes with the rules of the society or his faith and believes in mind. A chaotic character makes his own rules.
|
Even a CG character sets limits on what they're willing to do. That's where the Good part comes in. Played well, a CG character should be a very "live and let live" kind of person, only resorting to violence or retribution when absolutely necessary. Good people are generally helpful and like to see that people are happy. They'll speak out against evil acts and dickery because kindness is in the best interest of everyone and they tend to believe it begets more kindness.
A Chaotic Good person is generally helpful, likes to see people happy and isn't afraid to let you know it, especially when "The Man" is trying to keep a brother down or they witness you harshing someone's buzz. Freedom to live the way you want to live is important to a CG person but, what separates them from other Chaotics, is they realize the societal benefit of stopping people from exercising too much freedom (i.e. the "freedom" to murder, steal, cheat, oppress, etc. just because they feel like it or just to get ahead in life.)
What separates Chaotic Goods from Lawfuls is that a CG person generally lacks the reservations of a Lawful character. Where a LG acts with preset rules of engagement or limits the extent of their reprisals, a CG tends to strike out with swift vengeance doing what feels right on a case-by-case basis while maintaining their mostly-clean-but-slightly-spotty demeanor (i.e. not becoming "just like them.")
Getting to Marcellius' question, I think it comes down to whether or not the CG character agreed with the LG character on the Good axis? There isn't enough to go on so all I can say is:
Yes...if the LG character was doing something that was pretty obviously evil or oppressive (not just pretty obviously stupid or embarrassing.) If the LG character acted in a manner that was Good despite the society's customs (for instance, stopping the blatant murder of an innocent that was legally sanctioned,) the CG should have been inclined to back him up.
It isn't necessarily Chaotic for a Lawful individual to retaliate against customs that are obviously injust, and it isn't necessarily Lawful for a Chaotic person to agree that a particular law is beneficial to society. A LG character will usually prefer to find precedents in a society's tenets to change or overturn existing unjust laws but, as a Good person, they would accept that direct action is sometimes necessary in pursuit of what is just. On the other hand, a CG character will usually prefer to mete out justice on the spot, but is Good enough to accept that some people just need to be told how to treat one another. In either case, they'll still cling to the idea that their Lawful or Chaotic philosophy is the better path in the long run, leaving their NG friends to shrug their shoulders and wonder what's the difference if we're all Good?
(Obviously, there are going to be a few people who take their alignment's philosophy to extremes even among Good types, never swaying from doing Good through legal avenues or by defying societal norms, but I'll leave that sort of behavior to paladins, chaotic good barbarians and the like.)