This might surprise you two, but I have no bias against CG, nor do I mystically consider it a lesser form of Good than LG.
Chaos by definition is simply far more self centered than Law could ever be. Law is concerned with society as a whole, Chaos is more concerned with the self. Reread the definitions, and try to take a few deep breaths, hey?
It IS less valid, simply because of the nature of Chaos in the first place. Again, go reread the chapter on alignment, please.
Maybe you should:
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
Nowhere in there do I see "Law is concerned with overall society, Chaos is selfish". I do see "Inflexibility vs Flexibility, Following tradition vs New Ideas, and Respect for authority vs Favoring their own conscience" though, right there in plain text.
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.
A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he's kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.
Chaotic good combines a good heart with a free spirit.
I don't see "Chaotic Good is selfish good while Lawful Good isn't" here either.
this an easy question dude, paizo maintains the paladin aligment for two things
1.- as a hoock for the AD&D/3.5 shipwreck (the paladin must be that way without asking nothing) it reminds me the stars wars or star treck frikies crying about the changes!!
2.- because they need to mantain in some way the old manners...
|
Chaos by definition is simply far more self centered than Law could ever be. Law is concerned with society as a whole, Chaos is more concerned with the self. Reread the definitions, and try to take a few deep breaths, hey?
'Selfishness' lies on the Evil part of the moral (Good/Evil) axis; it is not weighted toward Law or Chaos.
A LG society wants to benefit all of it's citizens, but so does a CG society! They just believe that the 'Good' society will be achieved in differing ways!
LG thinks that if the Law is written well enough then if citizens follow the Law than that is the best way of maintaining a 'Good' society.
CG thinks that a 'Good' society is one in which each citizen is free to do what they want, so long as they don't impede the rights of others to do what they want! Any laws will be about preserving that freedom, as that freedom is what indicates a 'Good' society!
In contrast, a LE society has strict laws in place which serve to promote the continued existence of the current social order, and the happiness of individuals is simply not important! In a LE society, the trains will run on time, and they don't care who has to die to achieve it!
jezzz my country is LE
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
Let's start with the basics:
Why tell the truth? Because it damages one's reputation to lie, and lies get found out anyway. It also hampers society at large when prominent figures lie. Lying hurts other people, for the most part, so it's a bad idea. Better to just out with it and figure out what to do about the matter. Think John Wayne flicks.Honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority et al are inherently considering the rest of society, that is, the community at large. Thus, Lawful characters are inherently going to be less self centered than Chaotic ones. I can go into chapter and verse about this, breaking down each meaning of each word in these definitions, but I am hoping you can find a dictionary and USE IT.
Chaos:
recklessness (something only other people would say about another, because nobody calls themselves reckless. Thus, this is a societal judgement.) Freedom is something only those who worry about other people hampering them mention as a virtue. Think about it.
Express themselves fully? Again, these people are inherently afraid that the rest of society will somehow keep them from doing what they want. This is an inherently self centered goal, and can verge on being selfish.
Want me to continue? I can analyze every word of those definitions, bit by bit, but I am hoping you get the general idea and read for yourself. Think about the implications of the definitions.
I do NOT consider CG a "lesser form of Good" than LG. I *do*, however, think that CG, CN, and CE are inherently more self centered and thus more likely to be selfish than LG, LN, and LE. If one is busy defending one's freedom, one does not tend to pay attention to how other people feel about one's actions. I've seen this time and again, if anything, CG and CN tend to be short sighted individuals with less empathy for others than they would like to admit.
Does that mean I would not like to be around a CG person? No. It means I wouldn't trust them with money, that's for sure. It means I have limited trust in their awareness of conscience (how their actions affect others around them). But I would still enjoy being their friend, just not a close friend/family member.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not necessarily. A Lawful character is perfectly capable of working within the law to benefit himself (which is pretty much the definition of Lawful Evil), just as a Chaotic character is capable of working outside of society to secure a better future for a nation.
You seem to be confusing "adherence to society" with "selflessness" and the two rarely correlate, just like "shuns restrictions" and "selfish" are not anywhere near each other.
Law and Chaos are your meter of adherence to societal norms. Good and Evil are the measures of selflessness vs selfishness.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not necessarily. A Lawful character is perfectly capable of working within the law to benefit himself (which is pretty much the definition of Lawful Evil), just as a Chaotic character is capable of working outside of society to secure a better future for a nation.
You seem to be confusing "adherence to society" with "selflessness" and the two rarely correlate, just like "shuns restrictions" and "selfish" are not anywhere near each other.
Law and Chaos are your meter of adherence to societal norms. Good and Evil are the measures of selflessness vs selfishness.
Spot on!
Freedom is something only those who worry about other people hampering them mention as a virtue.
CG cares just as passionately about everyone's freedoms!
The Bill of Rights is an excellent example of a document that is Chaotic Good. The amendments preserve the freedoms of citizens! They prioritise the rights of the individual over the rights of the state! This is the definition of Chaos when discussing the Law/Chaos axis. A Lawful document would have prioritised the duties of individuals to serve the state!
As previously mentioned, 'selfishness' is neither Lawful nor Chaotic; it is Evil.
Both CE and CG believe that freedom is paramount, but where they differ is that CE believes there should be no restrictions whatsoever, resulting in the strong doing what they want at the expense of the weak. CG believes that each individual should have as much freedom as possible, which requires guarantees that none of it's citizens has the right to restrict the freedoms of any other citizens.
CE is selfish. CG is altruistic; they preserve their own freedoms by guaranteeing the freedoms of all!
Both LE and LG believe that the needs of society as a whole takes precedence over the rights of any individual. Law requires obedience to authority. For a LG society, the idea is that if the laws are just then the whole society will be happy. A LE society requires obedience, but the laws are not formulated to ensure the the happiness of all, just to ensure the happiness of the people at the top of the hierarchy.
LE is selfish. LG is altruisic; they formulate laws for the common good.
Nice one, Malachi.
Let me suggest an example - note this is an example of D&D alignment, not a social criticism on a current debate:
Chaotic Good: Everyone has a right to defend themselves, and to fulfil this right they must be allowed to bear arms to defend themselves. It is regrettable that some people use those arms for ill, but if everyone is armed they will swiftly be restrained from doing so as everyone they may use those arms on can defend themselves.
Lawful Good: Everyone has the right to defend themselves, but some weapons are too dangerous for average people to use - they can kill large numbers of people too easily and there is NO defence. Being armed doesn't help when you are dead before you can draw your own weapon. We need to restrict certain weapons from public ownership, and make sure that all people who own weapons are responsible and law-abiding.
Neutral Good: You both have a point. Which way is likely to result in the least loss of life?
Chaotic Neutral: Any laws restrict my freedoms, and I don't care what other people do with their weapons - you can have mine when I'm dead, and not before.
Lawful Neutral: The process of law must always be observed, whatever it may be. Nothing should be done without proper legislation. Now who's paying my fee for me to represent them?
True Neutral: You guys just carry on, so long as me and mine are safe, I'm honestly not bothered.
Lawful Evil: Weapons must be held, but only by the elite, the common scum cannot be trusted and will use such against one another and worse, against their betters, and should not be permitted to do so. The elite should be free to use their weapons within certain strictures (in their interests, of course).
Chaotic Evil: I want the means to kill people, and I want it to be better than anyone else's so I can whatever the hell I like, and no-one can stop me.
Neutral Evil: What he said, but I don't care how good anyone else's weapon is if it's not pointed my way.
|
I have always thought the nine alignments were not the best morality system ever in roleplaying games, even though they can still be used to further roleplay. The problem begins when you start bringing them into game mechanics, because everyone has their own conceptions of what is lawful, chaotic, good, or evil.
Considering lawful good only: You can have a character that holds any law in high regard and does little thinking about how just the law might be. On the other hand, you can have a character who is very disciplined, has a strong personal code of honor, keeps their word etc, but could not care less about the law of the land they find themselves in, especially if this is a land ruled by evil (not that uncommon around Golarion, huh? :) ). Lawful good does not have to mean close-minded good.
Besides, there are situations in which one can simply not do the lawful good thing either way. Example: Rogue saves Paladin's life. Paladin acknowledges the life debt and promises to repay the Rogue first chance he/she gets. Rogue asks Paladin to help him/her commit a crime and calls him/her on the promise.
Either way, the Paladin must be a scumbag. There's situations like this aplenty in roleplay. And human (or elf, or dwarf, or...) morality is so much more complex than the nine alignments, so i don't think people should stress over perfectly fitting a stereotype of an alignment too much - after all, no well-written character's moral compass can be summed up in two words.
Point: Lawful != Law abiding.
You can be lawful and break all the laws you want, lawful refers to logical, codified, honourable, and reliable. Lawful rulers will codify things into laws, but lawful and law-abiding are not the same thing. A lawful evil character will break laws as and when they interfere with his own ethos of putting himself on top of the heap.