I think that "Lawful Good" is not a single thing but actually a relationship between two things (leaving out reputation for this discussion). IMO, Law/Chaos is how the character relates to the society around it while Good/Evil is more about how a character relates to itself. The devs seem to be heading toward actions affecting two scales, the Law/Chaos scale and the Good/Evil scale. I think Lawful Good is not about intentions, but about actions. Do a characters actions reinforce or uphold the structure of society, or work toward its dissolution? Do a characters actions speak more to the care of others, or to the care of ones self?
Iomedae is a lawful good deity. She identifies what is good and lawful. She isn't chaotic. She isn't evil. It isn't a moral/ethical shopping mall where you get to pick out whatever fits our mood and convenience. No moral relativism.LG receives Law from a deity. It isn't just a personal code.So one must be faithful to be lawful? Please explain further.
There is a case for her identifying in Pathfinder, in an absolute sense, what is good. But lawful? Not at all.
According to the Pathfinder source material, lawful respects authority. It does not specify which authority. You interpretation has become even narrower. It now excludes worshipers of other lawful deities.
And I really don't see theism vs atheism as mattering. In the Pathfinder universe, believing in a god does not equate to feeling obliged to worship them. There is a whole catalog of options to choose from to worship, lawful good, lawful neutral, lawful evil. They all have different laws, and different codes of behavior they expect from people.
So technically speaking, yes, religion in Pathfinder is indeed a shopping mall.
Do a characters actions reinforce or uphold the structure of society, or work toward its dissolution?
There may be some chaotic characters that are anarchists, but I think most just don't care about rulership/laws/authority. They do what they please and it doesn't factor into their thinking unless it directly affects them in the moment.
I think Lloyd Jackson and Wildebob provided some excellent examples of how the alignments differ.
Law vs Chaos deals more with how a character decides to react, including the mechanisms of that choice (What society says is the best way vs what you think is the best way)
Good vs Evil deals more with the impact and moral direction of that choice (who will be negatively affected by my choices and how can I avoid that?)
So to sum the findings of the community it looks like we don't think 'lawful good' is a paradox, but instead they are completely different scales for two completely different values.
It looks like a paradox because it is contrary to their seperate natures to be fused into one thing.
The paradox then is conceptual, and the problem leading to it is in the understanding rather than in what they are or how they relate.
Do we agree with this assessment?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So to sum the findings of the community it looks like we don't think 'lawful good' is a paradox, but instead they are completely different scales for two completely different values.
It looks like a paradox because it is contrary to their seperate natures to be fused into one thing.
The paradox then is conceptual, and the problem leading to it is in the understanding rather than in what they are or how they relate.
Do we agree with this assessment?
Stop right there!, If everyone reaches a uniform consensus on an alignment discussion related to anything pathfinder or D&D, the universe will implode upon itself. We could all be DOOOMED, DOOOOOOOOOOMMMMEEED
This may not mesh with some of your ideas, but I find this helps me with characterization of my PCs and NPCs:
Lawful characters follows their head. They think things through and decide what they should do.
Chaotic characters follow their heart. They follow their gut and do what they want to do.
Absolutely not.
A lawful person has outsourced their thinking. They're letting the law decide what is right. A chaotic person has to think for themselves, because their own morality is the only standard they hold themselves to.
Clearly we owe our continued existence in an unimploded universe to the quick thinking of BigNorseWolf.
We can all rest easy now.
@the OP
Well, after reading all the replies, where do you stand on LG, LN etc? What I mean is, does it still seem paradoxical? How has your opinion of the alignments changed?
I understand LG a lot better from this excellent thread full of great responses and opinions.
Overall, Being helped me the most. It seems LG and NG both do good, but the code which LG uses to determine what is good is far more defined then NG. LG wants to have order while good is being done. NG just wants to have good done regardless of whether it also encourages order.
I may start a new thread on chaotic good..... :)
Not necessarily, BigNorseWolf. Being beholden to the law of the land or of the church or whatever are only possible options. A lawful character could be sworn to a code of conduct entirely his own which dictates what he should do and still be VERY lawful. He thinks things through and decides which action is within his code.
Not necessarily, BigNorseWolf. Being beholden to the law of the land or of the church or whatever are only possible options. A lawful character could be sworn to a code of conduct entirely his own which dictates what he should do and still be VERY lawful. He thinks things through and decides which action is within his code.
Wildebob, this is neutral good not lawful good. "Lawful" means a code that creates order. It can only be order if multiple people are following it.
The tricky part of a "personal" code that is "LG" is delineating it from a NG who also follows a personal "good" code.
Can LG be a personal code that encourages both good and order when no one else is being "ordered" by following the code?
@the OP
Well, after reading all the replies, where do you stand on LG, LN etc? What I mean is, does it still seem paradoxical? How has your opinion of the alignments changed?
I understand LG a lot better from this excellent thread full of great responses and opinions.
Overall, Being helped me the most. It seems LG and NG both do good, but the code which LG uses to determine what is good is far more defined then NG. LG wants to have order while good is being done. NG just wants to have good done regardless of whether it also encourages order.
I may start a new thread on chaotic good..... :)
Lol well good, cause I was sort of expecting you to post saying you were more confused then ever after seeing everyone's take on LG/N :p.
@the OP
Well, after reading all the replies, where do you stand on LG, LN etc? What I mean is, does it still seem paradoxical? How has your opinion of the alignments changed?
I understand LG a lot better from this excellent thread full of great responses and opinions.
Overall, Being helped me the most. It seems LG and NG both do good, but the code which LG uses to determine what is good is far more defined then NG. LG wants to have order while good is being done. NG just wants to have good done regardless of whether it also encourages order.
I may start a new thread on chaotic good..... :)
Well, thank you Soldack, glad to have made a contribution to the community's conversation.
It is a hallmark of productive conversation that it evades all attempts to wrestle it into a rite of anyone's personality cult. I think we are doing pretty well at that, all things considered.
We're obviously deep into the realm of personal opinion here, but I still think that following a personal code makes you lawful. (The CRB entry for LN also says, "A lawful neutral character acts as...a personal code directs her.")
A lawful character is bound by some collection of "proper" behaviors, be they by royal mandate, divine mandate, organizational mandate, or personal mandate. This instructs them on what they should do and they stick to it because they've hung their honor or self-worth on keeping to those proper behaviors. For a lawful good character, these proper behaviors should include protecting the innocent and helping the needy. There may be some conflicts where a LG character has to make hard decisions. He'll do what he feels he must, but if "what he must" breaks his code or doesn't protect an innocent or help the needy then it's going to weigh heavy on him for a while until he moves on.
A neutral character has no such code or set of proper behaviors. They weigh each and every situation independently. A neutral good character honestly just wants everyone to get along and be happy. They don't have time for honor and propriety when they're so busy helping, but they're still not as impulsive and have longer attention spans than chaotic good characters. Neutral characters often appear as lawful or appear as chaotic because they might make the same choice a lawful or chaotic character would make in that same situation, but they make it for entirely different reasons. They may pay their taxes dutifully - not because it's the law, but because they trust that the taxes are going to a good cause. They may evade their taxes - not to stick it to the man, but because they believe the taxes are going to a bad cause.
That got long. Sorry. Again, my own opinions here.
There will be a mechanism to assess (by the AI of the game) when a character has deviated from their alignment. @Wild bob, how would you see a character's actions evaluated against a personal code of honor for that character by the mechanics of the AI of the game?
@the OP
Well, after reading all the replies, where do you stand on LG, LN etc? What I mean is, does it still seem paradoxical? How has your opinion of the alignments changed?
I understand LG a lot better from this excellent thread full of great responses and opinions.
Overall, Being helped me the most. It seems LG and NG both do good, but the code which LG uses to determine what is good is far more defined then NG. LG wants to have order while good is being done. NG just wants to have good done regardless of whether it also encourages order.
I may start a new thread on chaotic good..... :)
I hate to throw a wrench in things here, but NG has a code that is just as defined as LG. The main difference is that with NG, the Good comes from a universal code that stands over and above any law, while LG comes from a tradition, society, or a mandate from some deity. CG comes from my own personal thoughts and feelings regardless of rules or tradition.
With LG, the context is the laws of society, tradition, or a god. Wth NG, the context is a code or formula, for what we define as "good". Wth CG, the context is our own personal, self-direction.
The problem is that these distinctions fall apart when you add context in the mix.
Here is a an idea for you, Malcolm Reynolds of the Firefly series would be Lawful Good if he was a member of a society that followed his obvious and personal moral code.
Not necessarily, BigNorseWolf. Being beholden to the law of the land or of the church or whatever are only possible options. A lawful character could be sworn to a code of conduct entirely his own which dictates what he should do and still be VERY lawful. He thinks things through and decides which action is within his code.
If someone makes up a code on their own there's no reason they can't amend it as the situation warrants, resulting in either chaotic or neutral behavior.
Not necessarily, BigNorseWolf. Being beholden to the law of the land or of the church or whatever are only possible options. A lawful character could be sworn to a code of conduct entirely his own which dictates what he should do and still be VERY lawful. He thinks things through and decides which action is within his code.If someone makes up a code on their own there's no reason they can't amend it as the situation warrants, resulting in either chaotic or neutral behavior.
That is also the very problem with these definitions of alignment as inflexible codes or orientations. If my god or my country tells me to do something I disagree with, I can change my behavior at any time. Just because someone follows the letter of the law, or the word of their god down to the syllable, does not make that law/word "good".
Slippery slope...
I am glad that this is all just talk, and really has not bearing on PFO. I trust that GW will design an MMO that will be a step beyond the sand boxes of the past.
I am glad that this is all just talk, and really has not bearing on PFO. I trust that GW will design an MMO that will be a step beyond the sand boxes of the past.
I may be wrong, but GW is designing a sandbox that exactly uses alignment system for everything in the game from flagging to settlement creation...
I may be wrong, but GW is designing a sandbox that exactly uses alignment system for everything in the game from flagging to settlement creation...
I am glad that this is all just talk, and really has not bearing on PFO. I trust that GW will design an MMO that will be a step beyond the sand boxes of the past.
There is a big difference between our discussion of alignment, and the flagging system GW is working on. GW will start from behaviors and work backwards. The rpg alignment system seeks to define sets of motivations and then applies them to behavior.
There will be a mechanism to assess (by the AI of the game) when a character has deviated from their alignment. @Wild bob, how would you see a character's actions evaluated against a personal code of honor for that character by the mechanics of the AI of the game?
I think we could help the Devs by trying to include triggers the game can use to shift alignment along the axes based on their actions.
There is a big difference between our discussion of alignment, and the flagging system GW is working on. GW will start from behaviors and work backwards. The rpg alignment system seeks to define sets of motivations and then applies them to behavior.I may be wrong, but GW is designing a sandbox that exactly uses alignment system for everything in the game from flagging to settlement creation...
I am glad that this is all just talk, and really has not bearing on PFO. I trust that GW will design an MMO that will be a step beyond the sand boxes of the past.
Excellent point Valorren. PnP dictates that a character should be played by her alignment. In PO, the character's actions will lead to an alignment. Still, this debate has bearing on PO.
Excellent point Valorren. PnP dictates that a character should be played by her alignment. In PO, the character's actions will lead to an alignment. Still, this debate has bearing on PO.There is a big difference between our discussion of alignment, and the flagging system GW is working on. GW will start from behaviors and work backwards. The rpg alignment system seeks to define sets of motivations and then applies them to behavior.I may be wrong, but GW is designing a sandbox that exactly uses alignment system for everything in the game from flagging to settlement creation...
I am glad that this is all just talk, and really has not bearing on PFO. I trust that GW will design an MMO that will be a step beyond the sand boxes of the past.
Yes, I completely agree. And I reverse my previous statement about this having no bearing on PFO. Everything we discuss is considered by GW, and this whole discussion is important to their planning.
What I suspect is that PFO will be a grand experiment in moral behavior.
Lawful good only follows nations and codes that are good. If their nation or order adopted an evil law that they were obligated to enforce then they would leave that nation/order. If they were not obligated to enforce it they might start a legal protest or work to change the system in some other legal manner.
They don't have to stand by and do nothing. Their options are just more limited than neutral-good.
So in terms of say the slavery in US history. Those who debated against slavery and tried to change the laws were mostly lawful-good. Those who took part in illegal activities like the Underground Railroad were neutral-good or chaotic-good.
"Lawful" can be something of a misnomer. "Orderly", "Disciplined", and "Just" might be better.
If a law is evil and unjust, the just thing to do is to oppose it, not follow it. Following a code of honour is orderly. Self-discipline and respect for others and for social structures that preserve dignity rather than oppressing people are LG traits.
Read The Dresden Files novels and pay attention to Michael Carpenter (doesn't show up until book 3).
The LG could break an unfair law (in a system with legit authority), but he would be inclined to turn himself in and accept punishment. The NG would not turn himself in unless it was for a greater good purpose.
The LG getting evil orders would object and ask to be relieved of his oath/duty, but might still obey if pushed. A NG might sabotage or ignore the orders without doing so openly.
The LG plays fair and acts honorable (ie follows his code) even when the opponent does not. A LG would not falsify evidence or bribe judges in order to convict evildoers. NG may be more 'flexible', but would typically be less focused on justice/punishment (or revenge) and more on helping the victims.
Lawful Good recognizes that it's better for the occasional murderer to go free - even when that particular LG character knows the murderer is guilty - if "the system" can't objectively prove that guilt to the common folk who ultimately sit in judgment of "the system".
It seems to me that the debate between what is and isn't LG and how a paladin response is based on how one defines justice. So what type of justice is Iomedae the goddess of?
Instead of me regurgitating the different types, here is a link that talks about them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice
Some forms of justice include mercy where other forms do not. Some forms have champions like Judge Dredd who is both the judge and executioner because there is no jury. While other forms would show mercy and require trial by jury.
It seems to me that the debate between what is and isn't LG and how a paladin response is based on how one defines justice. So what type of justice is Iomedae the goddess of?
Instead of me regurgitating the different types, here is a link that talks about them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice
Some forms of justice include mercy where other forms do not. Some forms have champions like Judge Dredd who is both the judge and executioner because there is no jury. While other forms would show mercy and require trial by jury.
zyric, I am trying to get a good grasp of it because player actions in PFO affect flagging and alignments.
LOTS of good stuff in this thread. Thank you for the link I will check it out.
This may not mesh with some of your ideas, but I find this helps me with characterization of my PCs and NPCs:
Lawful characters follows their head. They think things through and decide what they should do.
Chaotic characters follow their heart. They follow their gut and do what they want to do.
Absolutely not.
A lawful person has outsourced their thinking. They're letting the law decide what is right. A chaotic person has to think for themselves, because their own morality is the only standard they hold themselves to.
I think you are only partialy correct. All human beings are thinking creatures so no character is ever likely to be entirely bereft of thought (assuming thier int. stat hasn't been reduced to 0 or something like that).
However Lawful characters DO generaly sublimate thier own impulses or decisions to some external authority. The question of WHY is an interesting, as well as WHAT specific authorties they choose and will differ wildly from one character to another. Do they FEEL a moral obligation to do so? Is it a natural inclination/compulsion to do so? Is it a conscious decision that source of authority is better equiped to handle such matters? Is it a conscious decision that following the ideal of order ALWAYS in a better result then making individual exceptions?
Likewise for Chaotic characters, some could be acting merely on whim or compulsion or "gut feeling" or are they deeply considering each decision but merely giving order, organization, consistancy or convention little to no weight in such considerations?
As Mbando has, I think rightfully pointed out, in each case the character is Aligned with the cosmological forces of Lawful Good but WHY and How they have arrived at that Alignment as well as the specific subset of forces within that range they are more closely aligned with is an open question.
I 'get" neutral good - you do the right thing by a greater moral code.
I "get" Lawful Neutral - you follow the law regardless of the outcome.
So what is Lawful Good? Both? You follow the law because the law is good? But isn't neutral good, following a "law" of moral goodness...
For example...
The law says that slaves are property. What does a Lawful Good person do with that?
Believing that social organization conduces to human thriving doesn't mean believing that every law is good. Take Princess Leia, for example. Her goal is to eliminate a system of political and social organization which is oppressive and destructive and replace it with one which is not. There's nothing inherently contradictory about being a lawful good rebel.
Why the Lawful sublimate the responsibility of volition to Laws they hold to be true and Just will certainly vary with the individual, but the way I could see myself doing so is because of my apprehension that what actually exists is possibly so very different from how I perceive it that responsibiity for making judgements in such an unreliably real world is almost impossible.
If it is true that the only good decision is an informed decision, and my vision is so dependent on my body's chemical balance that each of us might at any moment hallucinate in technicolor 3D that would embarass Nvidea, then it is possible that only lucky decisions and mistakes are possible for me.
If I can hallucinate, and if the basis for really knowing something is so tenuous that you can call it a social construct, an agreed reality as it were, AND I may be judged based on what I do, then knowing what is the right thing to do could petrify me unless I had a reliable guideline governing my decisions and behaviors.
And the Law and the Good are just such guides as I would need.
Not necessarily, BigNorseWolf. Being beholden to the law of the land or of the church or whatever are only possible options. A lawful character could be sworn to a code of conduct entirely his own which dictates what he should do and still be VERY lawful. He thinks things through and decides which action is within his code.Wildebob, this is neutral good not lawful good. "Lawful" means a code that creates order. It can only be order if multiple people are following it.
The tricky part of a "personal" code that is "LG" is delineating it from a NG who also follows a personal "good" code.
Can LG be a personal code that encourages both good and order when no one else is being "ordered" by following the code?
Order simply means CONSISTANCY and ORGANIZATION. If you ALWAYS order your close neatly in your closet according to the colors of the rainbow. That is a form of Order. It may not be an Order shared with anyone else, but it is a form of Order.
Order is simply CONSISTANCY in behavior. A "Lawful" places INHERENT value in ORDER itself. A "Neutral" person may utilize Order when it is usefull in achieving his goals but will just as quickly abandon it when it is not.
IMO, I think where you are getting a bit astray is that both LG and NG have "Good", i.e. making the world a better place for all, as goals and both have certain things that they won't do, i.e. "ethics", because those things are "Evil". However the LG sees ORDER as an inherent and neccesary thing in order for the world to be a good place. The NG person doesn't. It may sometimes, depending upon the circumstances, be usefull in advancing thier cause of "Good", other times it will not be and when it is not, it is quickly discarded.
The key factor for each "alignment" is what is most important as an outcome to each person, and why.
Let's take slavery, in my opinon is could not be considered "good":
Lawful good = the most important outcome is conformity and tradition that leads to benevolence. Slavery is not acceptable because tradition, by nature, must be benevolent to all. A tradition of slavery would undermine the reason for tradition, ie. benevolence.
Neutral good = the most important outcome is uniform benevolence because it is universally good. Slavery is not acceptable because it is not uniformly benevolent. Having a slave, even if it benefits "most" people via increased industry, does not respect the benevolence of the slave as a being itself.
Chaotic good = the most important outcome is universalism based on self-direction. Or, the reason for universal "goodness" is that each individual can choose it themselves. Slavery cannot be good, as each slave cannot be self-directed (obviously). Funny thing is, Elves in the PF universe can have slaves (not sure, is that right?). Chaotic good is not "lawless", it's just that laws are less important than choosing goodness on your own.
I disagree that chaos vs law is principled vs unprincipled, it is probably more like what is most important, self direction vs community or tradition. In the end, it doesn't matter much, because I will flag myself a Champion and attack you if you enter my forest unwelcomed.
Just one point: In many cases, the enslavers may not consider the enslaved as the equivilent of their own people (less than human, or whatever race in question), so the enslavers may not look upon the enslaved as people, and so would not see them as anything better than slightly elevated pets or more useful livestock. So to the enslavers, it IS uniformly beneficial to their own people, as they aren't enslaving anyone that has risen much above the level of an animal. Perception tends to carry the greater truth than reality.
|
No, I think we are at the disagreement GrumpyMel and I have. If it is just a personal code you are describing CG or at best NG. LG receives Law from a deity. It isn't just a personal code.
Even if in the darkest night of the soul, when he may be isolated by circumstance and evil, he may only have recourse to his best personal judgment. Even then the LG will still seek the counsel of his god.
Actually, what you say does not make sense, at least not in the case of the Pathfinder Campaign setting, simply for the fact that at one time, there were no "Gods." Prior to the Gods' existence, there were the Old Ones, none of whom were Lawful, and certainly were not Good in any meaningful sense of the word.
So, going by your logic, if you were to play a character in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting a time before the gods, by your line of reasoning, you could not under any circumstances play a character of good and/or lawful alignment? But then, if that is your particular house rule, I cannot fault you for it.
And further, I see no rule in which a Lawful Good character must be religious and follow the direction of a Lawful Good deity. That really only seems to apply in the case of Paladins.
Better example.
Lawful Good settlement has a law that you pay 10% of your net worth on the first full moon of the year or is jailed/evicted.
Week before, a storm wipes out s farmer's farm and most of his assets. He can not pay even 10% of what little is left over.
Lawful Good Paladin tax collector comes along. What does he do?
He pays the farmer's tax for him out of his own pocket, and asks the farmer to make a donation to the Temple of [insert deity here] when he has recovered and is able to do so.
It is true that the biggest problem with the alignment system happens the second you make alignments 'subjective'... If the only meaning of lawful is that you follow a code, but it doesnt matter if the code is local law or your own personal code, then it loses its meaning almost entirely.
A hedonist's code of 'I do whatever I think makes me happy' has created a one line 'code' of conduct. Remaining loyal to that code is lawful? Things start getting messy.
Same thing happens with good. If the altruistic definition of good is no less good than your own personal edict that whatever is good for me is good, then being good or calling it good loses its meaning.
The way to establish them as important is to make sure that you don't use the personal subjective definition or lawful or good. I know a guy that I consider a paladin of modern politics and his 'lawful' answer to rules you dont like is 'if you don't like them move to canada'... Being lawful isnt personal or subjective. Its the law. If the paladin doesnt like the law there are plenty of places where his version of what are good laws are, in fact, the laws so he can just move and not worry about breaking the law.
I dont necessarily think thats a solution because his 'good' meter is still subjective, I'd label his attitude as Lawful Neutral, but everyone plays it differently. That kind of subjectivity makes Lawful Good translate not to 'fixing the laws that aren't good' to 'moving where the Laws match whatever you personally already think is good'... Now if thats what the paladin thinks then we can presume it's what the paladin has already done, so whatever the local laws are should match what the paladin thinks are good laws and he should rarely if ever have to do or believe things counter to those laws.
He runs off, we finish off the goblins, track him down and he attacks us. He has no more idea that we've been deputized to investigate his sisters disappearance than our characters know he's actually kidnapped her. At that specific point, for all we know he could be just defending his fathers property from uninvited intruders or even trying to rescue her. Only later do we find out that he was responsible for the goblins and his fathers death. So did we just murder the possible owner of the property on his own property and only learn that it was the right thing to do after the fact? A man whose close family would report was not in his right mind recently. Maybe his family wanted still loved him despite his mental troubles and wanted him captured and rehabilitated and instead it's kind of like a cop killing a mentally handicapped person because he was having a siezure when we kicked the door down... We're not on morally solid footing yet I don't think. I think only finding out that you're doing the right thing after the enemy is dead is playing paladins a little fast and loose if you ask me, but lets even let that slide...
Ok. We accidentally killed him in self defense. Family member and possible heir to the family fortune, found paper in his pocket that both says he's guilty and that he's nuts, so self defense and mitigating circumstance and all that will probably keep our noses clean but the next step was hillarious. We looted his body. Now my character is chaotic neutral so theres no reason my character 'shouldnt' loot the body, but the paladin both 'let it happen' AND 'insisted on his cut'. SERIOUSLY?
We killed a possibly mind controlled man on his own property and then looted him of his own property ON his own property and the paladin is just like yep. Doin good deeds. Thats my thing. Fog of war and all that. Gimme my loot. What happens if Amieko loved her brother despite his recent craziness, you report to her that you regrettably had to put him down in self defense, and then the next day you're trying to sell his bow at the market for money... That doesnt seem very paladinlike. Its akin to kicking in the door of a drug dealer, shooting him dead, then pocketing his wallet and looting his house of all its expensive electronics before notifying next of kin.
Our gm at the time was the guy who's a modern political paladin and when i pointed out all these moral dilemmas he was like 'man. you're pretty strict with paladins.' I love paladins and I wouldnt wanna play it if its like that'... He's like well, if you want to bring it up to the player you can... So I did. And the player was like hey, if nobody saw me do it then I'm good... I'm like wow. How very not-lawful not-good you are... Apparenly he's a paladin of the church of 'aint nobody gots ta know about it'...
So a lawful good person always follows the law because the law is always good?
A lawful good player always follows the law because the law is always....the law. I have tried to play them, and in most groups LG is very unpopular, especially when the player character is played to an extreme (or really even moderately). Dudley Do-Right comes to mind.
How is that different then a neutral good person always following the "good moral code"? Is it the same just the Lawful good must live where the law matches the good moral code?This is relevant to me for the PO alignment system...
A neutral good player will always do good because good is .....good. Please keep in mind good is a relative term. But, using the traditional interpretation (I know, there isn't really one) this player will do good even if they break the law (forgiving debt, helping those that won't help themselves, "greater good" types).
Chaotic good players always follow....whatever they think is good, as long as it is not evil. There is a big difference between good and evil. The CG player will do good by whatever means he can in order to achieve good as he sees it.
Not sure if that is helpful...many may not agree. *shrugs*
To further understand lawful good and how that can be reconciled with a not quite lawful good order, check out the show Murdoch. Follows a very lawful good sherlock holmes + inventor Canadian detective. Pretty cool, the man is all that is lawful good, but as a LG, his society isn't.
So he struggles, and does the right thing for his code.
When I've played a LG spellcaster, I've emphasised winning over and helping the people, creating respect for the lawful order, coming to the aid of the people and respecting the higher authority, as long as it was not evil.
Be cool, reasonable, heroic and respect the hierarchy. Helps if you are playing a noble that is noble in character.
|
I 'get" neutral good - you do the right thing by a greater moral code.
I "get" Lawful Neutral - you follow the law regardless of the outcome.
So what is Lawful Good? Both? You follow the law because the law is good? But isn't neutral good, following a "law" of moral goodness...
For example...
The law says that slaves are property. What does a Lawful Good person do with that?
Uphold Good laws and oppose the bad ones. So to ensure that no one is enslaved, dispossessed, or unequal every act of government, law, constitution, sovereign must have the consent of the whole populace. Huzza the Ideal Lawful Good is in fact what People of all the other Alignments consider nonfunctional chaos.
Lawful good only follows nations and codes that are good. If their nation or order adopted an evil law that they were obligated to enforce then they would leave that nation/order.
IMO so much of this discussion is subjective in that its each of our own interpretations of say where the "code" or "order" originates from, how it's applied within a character (or persons) life. Thus I've got to disagree with your point here. But understand that I'm not saying your wrong and I'm right, once again because at its root it's up to us as an individual, or as a group, nation, organization or whatever to define the code and detail how its applied.
I see LG as following a code or order that they "perceive" as good. Throughout history many countries that were of the same general alignment went to war over these perceived differences.
I like this view of the various alignments..
I hate to throw a wrench in things here, but NG has a code that is just as defined as LG. The main difference is that with NG, the Good comes from a universal code that stands over and above any law, while LG comes from a tradition, society, or a mandate from some deity. CG comes from my own personal thoughts and feelings regardless of rules or tradition.With LG, the context is the laws of society, tradition, or a god. Wth NG, the context is a code or formula, for what we define as "good". Wth CG, the context is our own personal, self-direction.
I've seen the term "greater good" in relation to an entire group or nation. To me that's one of the buzz phrases that Collectivists use to excuse an action or a system that harms some of its members. This sort of belief structure can be applied to not only a LG group, but also a LE group. In actuality I don't see why it can't be applied to LN as well.
(It's worth my mentioning that I'm against Collectivism as a belief or as a system as if that couldn't be recognized by my posts :p)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we are all in agreement that the D&D alignment system that plots a person's ethics and morality on a 2-dimensional grid is an oversimplification of the complexities of human behavior and motivation (Law/Chaos and Good/Evil).
That said, I still find it a very useful role playing tool.
I mentioned this in another alignment thread, but I find the alignment system to be akin to the Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator: another gross simplification of a a person's personality on four axes (Introversion/Extroversion, Intuition/Sensing, Thinking/Feeling, Perceiving/Judging). While an abstraction, it's still a useful tool.
Back to D&D, an alignment axis is a continuum, not a trinary value. Someone could be less Lawful than someone else,but still be Lawful.
A Lawful person believes that order and predictability is inherently better than disorder and unpredictability. For societies, this means laws that are codified or well-established by tradition. Courts and magistrates that make comparable rulings on similar cases. A clear understanding of acceptable and unacceptable behavior, and a similarly clear understanding of the consequences of failure to comply. To a lawful person, true freedom comes from minimizing the ability of whim or arbitrariness to negatively impact others. Society as a whole is more important than the individual.
A Good person believes that other people are at least as important as herself. Good people treat others with respect and kindness, help others when in need, and defend the weak against the strong.
Lawful Good people combine these worldviews, to create a just and benevolent society, where people know their rights and responsibilities, and all can work together for the common good.
Being Lawful takes more effort than being than Chaotic, just as it is harder to be Good than Evil. Both paths require effort and reflection on what us right, which can come at the expense of expedience. To Lawful Good people, the ends can never justify the means: the means must stand on their own merits.
To me, Lawful Good is both the hardest alignment to play, and the most rewarding.
lulz...you are looking at slavery from a MODERN perspective. In many cultures it was rationalized and viewed as perfectly ethical and acceptable for most of human history from the Greeks to into the 20th century.
Again all of this is SUBJECTIVE and is highly dependent on time and place.
There's nothing subjective about the idea that clamping someone in irons and forcing them to work for you for the rest of their lives is wrong. Of course it was rationalized: it was evil and beneficial to the people who owned slaves.
If the law is evil then a lawful good person tries to
1) Ameliorate it. He can't run around freeing slaves, but he can show them basic human kindness. This can be its own protest against the situation.
2) Work within the system to change it. Lobby the king, get elected to public office, buy slaves and free them, etc. Harriet Tubman's approach freed a lot of slaves, but Lincolns freed a lot more. The system is very powerful if you can get it on your side, but that's almost impossible to do if you're thumbing your nose at it.