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?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Lawful Good determines that he has somehow wandered into Lawful Evil territory and boogies.
|
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?
He changes the law. If the law can't be changed or the slave owners don't follow the new law, then this is what can cause wars to happen.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd imagine Lawful Evil might think itself Lawful Good a fair amount, if not most, of the time.
So a lawful good person always follows the law because the law is always good?
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...
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?
|
Neutral Good is more concerned with if something is good than if it contributes to the stability of society as a whole.
They may break the law if it is the "right" thing to do, whereas a lawful good person thinks there is a fundamental good inherent in civilized law.
Inspector Javert is LG, Valjean is NG.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, the lawful good evaluates the Law to be more or less good. If less good the option is to correct it in defense of the Law.
whereas a lawful good person thinks there is a fundamental good inherent in civilized law.
Wait isn't that Lawful Neutral?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it also depends on societal factors. Was the slave captured against their will or did they sell themselves? How are the slaves treated? Do they want to be freed? In many ancient cultures, being a slave offered opportunities to serve the rulers at the highest levels of government and a level of power they could never reach if they were free.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, the lawful good evaluates the Law to be more or less good. If less good the option is to correct it in defense of the Law.
OK I think Being is helping me.
So Both lawful good and Neutral Good do the same good. when the law conflicts lawful good works to change the law or make it fit somehow while Neutral Good doesn't give an orc's @$$ about the law.
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 takes the farmer to the Paladin's Sanctuary and receives tithes of the other paladins to help the farmer, extracting a solemn oath from the farmer to donate to the temple of Iomedae an equal portion when his crops sell, and if he cannot then to continue contributing as he can until the obligation is repaid.
He takes the farmer to the Paladin's Sanctuary and receives tithes of the other paladins to help the farmer, extracting a solemn oath from the farmer to donate to the temple of Iomedae an equal portion when his crops sell, and if he cannot then to continue contributing as he can until the obligation is repaid.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?
NICE!!!
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?
As would happen in the US, the farmer would be jailed for failure to pay. (Which to me makes the place LE, but that's just an opinion)
No, the lawful good evaluates the Law to be more or less good. If less good the option is to correct it in defense of the Law.OK I think Being is helping me.
So Both lawful good and Neutral Good do the same good. when the law conflicts lawful good works to change the law or make it fit somehow while Neutral Good doesn't give an orc's @$$ about the law.
Something like that, yes. To defnd the law, the good man will change it where it fails to fulfill its mission, which is Justice.
|
|
Wait isn't that Lawful Neutral?
whereas a lawful good person thinks there is a fundamental good inherent in civilized law.
Lawful neutral only wants order. Good or evil is irrelevant. Morality is irrelevant. Order is paramount.
Consider again Javert, who had to kill himself over a paradox between the law and good. Lawful neutral wouldn't care why they were causing problems, they were causing disorder.
As would happen in the US, the farmer would be jailed for failure to pay. (Which to me makes the place LE, but that's just an opinion)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?
DONT HIJACK THIS THREAD - that is CEvil
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, a Lawful Good character has a code that they follow. If the law is unjust they try and change the law, if the law conflicts with their code then they are within their purview to break it. Lawful Good is the hardest alignment to play and that's because people confuse the laws of the land as the Law in lawful.
It's just not so, it's about having a personal code.
Now if you're lawful good in a society that practices slavery you don't participate in that system. You actively protest and work to change it. Or you buy slaves and grant them freedom whenever possible. What you DON'T do is break into the slave pens, free the slaves and terrorise slavers for their foul practices (that's more Chaotic Good).
Finally a Lawful Good character accepts sometimes they'll fail to live up to their ideals. They seek forgiveness, atonement and either revise their code or strive to do better in future.
Playing Lawful Good is difficult and rewarding, I really recommend it sometime especially for an unlikely class (Rogue, Sorcerer or Witch as LG is something to see).
Lawful good follows good laws because good laws are always good, but the law also applies to others.
Others should also follow good laws because good laws are always good. For everybody.
Chaotic good believes that good laws are rare, and it is best to set up and follow your own personal code for just yourself.
Neutral good looks for balance between a good personal code and good laws.
No, a Lawful Good character has a code that they follow. If the law is unjust they try and change the law, if the law conflicts with their code then they are within their purview to break it. Lawful Good is the hardest alignment to play and that's because people confuse the laws of the land as the Law in lawful.
It's just not so, it's about having a personal code....
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.
LG receives Law from a deity. It isn't just a personal code.
So one must be faithful to be lawful? Please explain further.
Personally, I'd say that lawful is more an attitude of expectations for larger social groups to follow similar codes of conduct. Whether it be to please some deity, or simply for the greater good of the group, either is law oriented.
The opposite, chaotic, is the notion that no law can be designed that properly fits all people and their needs.
What do you say to commands that come from chaotic gods to break a national law? Is that still lawful?
Frankly, it's a big mess.
Sorry to quote myself, but I do not want to type this again:
One thing I am not convinced of - the Gary Gygax idea of alignment making it into the game, realistically. I disagree that anyone is divided into those boxes, or dimensions, as they are "defined" by the rpg world. This website "Real" Alignments?
has a clever interpretation (based on research) that could work. It's worth a look. If you declare yourself to be Lawful Good (Conformity and Benevolence), and then immerse yourself in the context of the game, you may find your motivations and values reflect more of a Lawful Evil (Power and Security) point of view.
Basically, it depends...
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lawfull Good places INHERINT value on Order because he believes it leads to the greatest good for everyone.
I think you guys are getting a little too hung up on the litteral term "law"...laws can be evil, laws can even be chaotic if they are so esotericaly formulated that they lead to random or inconsistant results.
A Lawfull Good character will have a Hiearchy of Sources of LEGITIMATE authority that he recognizes as binding upon him and his behavior. Some of those sources are internal (personal codes of honor, etc), other are external (ones King, Diety, Captain, etc).
The important thing to note here is those sources of authority are not ALL inclusive. There are sources of authority that the LG character does NOT reckognize as LEGITIMATE and therefore feels no obligation whatsoever to pay any heed to.
A LG character will NOT reckognize the dictates of Rovagug as binding upon him nor feel any need to pay any heed to them. Nor will a LG character feel the need to reckognize the "laws" established by some Brigand Prince who managed to take over a piece of dirt by force and raise his flag over it.
What a LG character will do is TRY his hardest to follow the laws, orders, obligations placed upon him by each LEGITIMATE source reckognized in his HIERARCHY even in individual cases where he thinks they are wrong. He does so because he feels overall that maintaining ORDER outweighs individual judgement. When sources of authority come into conflict with one another, then he will go with whatever one has greatest precedence in his heirarchy.
Thus when a LG character is ordered by his King to arrest and banish a person who the character knows is innocent. The LG character may, at great personal risk, try to convince the King that the order is wrong, but he will ultimately follow it, regretfully and possibly try to find other ways to assist the person that don't contravene his orders.
A NG character doesn't inherently value Order as an end to itself. Faced with the same situation, he might simply let the innocent accused person escape. He doesn't care about the Kings orders unless each time they result in a Good end.
The LN character would unquestioningly follow the Kings orders because they are the Kings orders and Good or Ill doesn't matter. He would not try to help the person or try to convince the King to resend the order.
|
|
No, a Lawful Good character has a code that they follow. If the law is unjust they try and change the law, if the law conflicts with their code then they are within their purview to break it. Lawful Good is the hardest alignment to play and that's because people confuse the laws of the land as the Law in lawful.
It's just not so, it's about having a personal code....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.
That's ridiculous, are you saying you can't be a Lawful Good atheist or anti-theist?
A PALADIN recieves his code from a god. A Paladin is lawful good.
But you can be Lawful Good without being a paladin or even believing in the gods. Having an ethical or moral code does not need any divine inspiration.
The doctor that invents a cure for a community without charging for it because "good health belongs to everyone" is lawful good (follows the Doctor's code AND seeks no personal financial improvement).
Care to revise your definition to be less offensive to atheists and agnostics?
Lawfull Good places INHERINT value on Order because he believes it leads to the greatest good for everyone.
Well said. And to apply that to lawful evil I would say that lawful evil places inherent value on order because he believes it leads to the greatest good for himself personally.
Yeah, I think Being's statement comes from previous discussions that focused ONLY on Paladin, where that's true.
Personally, I think alignment is rather abstract at times, and there are a LOT of ways to be each of the alignments. In PnP this tends to work at the GM and gaming group itself work out what definitions fit the campaign.
Personally, I kind of like Mel's take on Lawful, but YMMV.
Lawfull Good places INHERINT value on Order because he believes it leads to the greatest good for everyone.Well said. And to apply that to lawful evil I would say that lawful evil places inherent value on order because he believes it leads to the greatest good for himself personally.
That one take on it.
I think there's a number of ways to run LE, and a LE CAN, in my opinion, work towards the greater good. They just do so without restraint, or regard for suffering of the few, or the short term, for the many, or the long term benefits.
As the core book says,
"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." Emphasis mine.
I find the best examples of a particular alignment are the gods that share the alignment. Erastil and Iomedae represent two common LG tropes, the crusader and honorable woodsman/farmer.
A central element of a Lawful Good character is a belief in the rule of law. Law and Order represent the best way to enhance the good of all. A lawful good character strives to do what is right, but won't break the law/rules to get it done. 'I can't process this after the deadline, but let me see if there is someone else who can.'
A neutral good person, "... works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them." i.e. 'I normally don't do this, but we'll make an exception. Try to have everything filed properly next time.'
A chaotic good person, "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." i.e. 'Late paperwork? No problem. I'll just use the stamp from yesterday and no one will know.'
A common cause of conflict for LG characters is when different systems conflict.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, a Lawful Good character has a code that they follow. If the law is unjust they try and change the law, if the law conflicts with their code then they are within their purview to break it. Lawful Good is the hardest alignment to play and that's because people confuse the laws of the land as the Law in lawful.
It's just not so, it's about having a personal code....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.
LG reckognizes SOME source(s) of Legitimate Authority. Some MAY be internal others MAY be external.
It certainly doesn't have to be a diety (although that is a common one in Pathfinder). It might be the King of one's Nation. It might be the Captain of ones company. It may be a Noble of a House on has sworn to protect. It may be the Code of Chivalry or Bushido, etc. It may be multiple ones of those.
The thing about a Lawful Character is that he feels an inherint obligation to follow said Code regardless of his personal feelings about any given issue or situation. That is because he feels there is an inherent value in Order that superceeds those feelings.
Good tempers this with WHAT specific Code/Authority he selected and WHY he selected it and will try to bring that Code/Authority in harmony with Good results.
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.
Lawfull Good places INHERINT value on Order because he believes it leads to the greatest good for everyone.Well said. And to apply that to lawful evil I would say that lawful evil places inherent value on order because he believes it leads to the greatest good for himself personally.That one take on it.
I think there's a number of ways to run LE, and a LE CAN, in my opinion, work towards the greater good. They just do so without restraint, or regard for suffering of the few, or the short term, for the many, or the long term benefits.
Yeah I think there are several ways to go for LE. Blaeringr's is one of the most common, though not neccesarly the only one.
LE could be so enamored of some other entity....that they would sacrifice anyone anything to it (even themselves)...without regards the harm it does anyone else. If you look at the origional version of "The Mummy" this is kinda close to the relationships portayed by the secret cult toward the sanctity of Pharoh's Tomb.
LE could be "angry at the world" and want to see everything destroyed but unwilling to break certain codes that they set for themselves. That's essentialy how Stoker's Dracula came off or close to it.
LE could actualy be working toward what they saw as "good", just an entirely warped and twisted version of it.
LE can make for very interesting character types as well.
No, a Lawful Good character has a code that they follow. If the law is unjust they try and change the law, if the law conflicts with their code then they are within their purview to break it. Lawful Good is the hardest alignment to play and that's because people confuse the laws of the land as the Law in lawful.
It's just not so, it's about having a personal code....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.
LG reckognizes SOME source(s) of Legitimate Authority. Some MAY be internal others MAY be external.
It certainly doesn't have to be a diety (although that is a common one in Pathfinder). It might be the King of one's Nation. It might be the Captain of ones company. It may be a Noble of a House on has sworn to protect. It may be the Code of Chivalry or Bushido, etc. It may be multiple ones of those.
The thing about a Lawful Character is that he feels an inherint obligation to follow said Code regardless of his personal feelings about any given issue or situation. That is because he feels there is an inherent value in Order that superceeds those feelings.
Good tempers this with WHAT specific Code/Authority he selected and WHY he selected it and will try to bring that Code/Authority in harmony with Good results.
So basically Good allows a lawful character to temper the law with mercy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
That's ridiculous, are you saying you can't be a Lawful Good atheist or anti-theist?
A PALADIN recieves his code from a god. A Paladin is lawful good.
But you can be Lawful Good without being a paladin or even believing in the gods. Having an ethical or moral code does not need any divine inspiration.
The doctor that invents a cure for a community without charging for it because "good health belongs to everyone" is lawful good (follows the Doctor's code AND seeks no personal financial improvement).
Care to revise your definition to be less offensive to atheists and agnostics?
Well, within the bounds of the pathfinder universe, atheists and agnostics are pretty illogical concepts. The existence of higher powers is a demonstrable fact within the context of the universe. It is one thing to doubt the existence of Bigfoot when only a small group of people claim to have seen him. Doubting the existence of deities in the pathfinder universe, is like doubting the existence of dogs in our world.
Antitheist by definition is one opposed to belief in gods, so it also falls into the same category as atheists and agnostics by our worlds definitions.
That being said, it is fully plausible within the pathfinder universe to be LG and
Distrust dieties, not agree with 100% of what they stand for, not want to chose one particular deity etc... Lawful is the preference of order over disorder.
Lawful good believes a well designed government (either under the rule of someone who has the good of all in mind, or a democracy). That being said, a lawful person does not just sit and accept it when the law opposes his morals. He would do anything in his power to have the law changed, a corrupt government overthrown or abolished, and a better one put in place. If the LG character has no means to do so, he would leave, and follow a group that fits with his morals. If the oprotunity arises he would lead his new group to liberate those suffering under the current rule (assuming he couldn't take those who are equally outraged with him).
@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?
In PFO lawful good is literally an alignment: specifically alignment with Torag, Iomedea, Erastil, Peace Through Vigilance, etc. So while lawful good has ethical dimensions and entailments, it's ultimately metaphysical. Those gods ARE lawful good, and doing as they do, acting in accord with their dictates, is what "lawful good" means.
In broader gaming terms, one useful way to think about lawful good is that it does not allow ends to justify means. So while all good alignments generally seek weal, they have variance in means. So if for example Iomedae has forbidden torture as a legitimate means of gathering information, while a lawful good worshiper will never resort to such means, a chaotic good worshiper might easily justify these means, given a very important end.
This distinction gets obscured in most alignment arguments, as players want to argue about the ethics of whatever the issue is, i.e. whether torture can or can't be legitimate. The alignment issue isn't really about the ethics of issue X or Y, but how a players choices align with the cosmology of the game world.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lawful Good would work from within the government to free the slaves. He may reluctantly bend the rules to help slaves from being killed or tortured, but would turn himself in for it. He might also find a way to raise the money to buy all the slaves and free them. If he felt the authorities would agree, he would offer himself as a slave in exchange for freeing all the other slaves.
Neutral Good would work within the government to help free the slaves, but also might sneak out to operate an underground railroad helping them escape. Whatever it took to help people, they would do.
Chaotic Good would reason that any government that would condone slavery is too corrupt to reason with. They would use any methods to defy the current authority and free the slaves or incite them to rebellion.
Lawful Neutral would go with whatever made the most ordered society. If the slaves seemed to be mistreated, he may campaign to change the rules for better treatment. He would demand strictly codified rules for slaves and their owners alike. As long as the system "worked" for the most people, he would have no objections to it.
Chaotic Neutral might feel sorry for slaves that are missing their freedom, but would always value his own more. He may talk to the slaves about the value of fighting for their freedom and may help those who agree to seek it. Ultimately, he would move on if he felt his own liberties were being curtailed.
True Neutral would not care about slavery as long it doesn't affect him or the people he personally cares about. He may help free the slaves if one of his friends or family were pressed into service.
Lawful Evil would abuse the slave laws to their own advantage using loopholes. He would favor Draconian laws punishing freed slaves and abolitionists. He would use his slaves to primarily wait on him but also to keep up his estate and businesses. He would consider himself a harsh master that does what is necessary to maintain order.
Neutral Evil would want all the slaves to suffer as much as possible. If they were being treated well, he would try to arrange for harsher treatment. He would keep slaves as a source of his own twisted amusement. It would not matter to him if the laws said he could or not.
Chaotic Evil would keep slaves and punish them constantly. He would enforce their loyalty through pain and violence. He would have no need for mealy-mouth laws on what he could do or not do with his slaves. He would kill, or perhaps even release, slaves on whims. He would consider that slaves are slaves because they are weak or lack ambition.
Of course the problem with all these Alignment X would do Y statements is the Core Rulebook itself states that each Alignment ecompasses a pretty broad swath of philosophies and personality types....on top of the fact that human's are pretty complex creatures who are not always entirely consistant or predictable in thier action.
So in many cases individuals of the same Alignment might have different approaches to a particular situation or even different philosophies and still be acting within the scope of thier Alignment.
So I think we are more giving a sense of what individuals of a specific Alignment MIGHT do.
LG receives Law from a deity. It isn't just a personal code.So one must be faithful to be lawful? Please explain further.
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.
Care to revise your definition to be less offensive to atheists and agnostics?
Nope. Their sensibilities are theirs to take offense if they so choose, but we are talking Pathfinder, not RL. I've never yet, to my knowledge, met an unintelligent atheist. Do you really believe an atheist, confronted with a bonafide deity who proved their existence right in front of him repeatedly would remain an atheist?
Onishi, really?
An athiest or antitheist would be at best chaotic in a world where deities walk around and talk to folks regularly.
Mad, more likely.
I can see a Barbarian distrusting deities, but Barbarians are not LG. And often mad.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can see a Barbarian distrusting deities, but Barbarians are not LG. And often mad.
Everyone remember "What is best in life?" from Conan the Barbarian. But my favorite quote has always been Conan's prayer.
"Crom, I have never prayed to you before, I have no tongue for it. No one, not even you, will remember if we were good men or bad, why we fought or how we died. No, all that matters, is that few stood against many. That's what's important. Valor pleases you, Crom, so grant me one request: grant me revenge! And if you do not listen, then to hell with you!"
@Imbiacatus Indeed. Great movie.
@Being, just because they exist in Pathfinder, doesn't mean all peoples or character still choose to worship them. For various reasons, plenty of folks might simply choose not to do so, actively, or disdain prayer at all.
Hell, the nation of Rahadoum FORBIDS religion entirely.
Are any of them Lawful Good?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They can be?
A character doesn't have to be religious in Pathfinder, nor does that choice affect their alignment. Choosing to follow one would most likely affect it, but only in so far as following the teachings of a LG deity typically make you LG (or one step away, at least, following cleric rules. If you're two steps away, you're probably not following the teachings well enough to actually get the attention of your divine patron).
As a side example, a follower of one deity knows of the others, but chooses not to worship them or follow their teachings. Are they crazy?
Are any of them Lawful Good?
Of course. You're out to lunch on the notion that devotion to a deity is required to be Lawful Good. It's not that complicated. All that's required is skepticism, especially in a world in which there are a vast number of things demonstrably more powerful than most people. Maybe the god is just one more extra-planar pain in the ass with an ego problem.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Heck according to the Pathfinder Core Rules it's even possible for CLERICS to not be devoted to or worship a particular Diety...
Straight from the SRD....
"While the vast majority of clerics revere a specific deity, a small number dedicate themselves to a divine concept worthy of devotion—such as battle, death, justice, or knowledge—free of a deific abstraction."
Kinda weird but one has to consider the Core Rulebook as authoritative for whats possible in the Pathfinder Universe.
Care to revise your definition to be less offensive to atheists and agnostics?Onishi, really?
An athiest or antitheist would be at best chaotic in a world where deities walk around and talk to folks regularly.
Mad, more likely.
I can see a Barbarian distrusting deities, but Barbarians are not LG. And often mad.
Looks like I'm suffering a quote tag mistake :P. Too late for me to edit the post, but my response starts at
"Well, within the bounds of the pathfinder universe"
before that is mislabeled quote from DM_AKA_Dudemeister.
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?
There's a few ways to do this.
I think the easiest is to see idea behind Lawful good is fundamentally a slippery slope fallacy. If everyone broke the law based on their own conscience, society would break down, there would be anarchy, and the results would be worse for everyone. To keep that from happening it is worth (in lg's opinion) a few individuals to suffer so that everyone doesn't.
Someone can think that the law itself is a good thing: this is a lot more common than you'd think. Its amazing how often when discussing the morality of something its legality gets used as a substitute.
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.
Neutral is conflicted. They know what they should, but that isn't always what they want to do and so they let the situation dictate.
A lawful good character will think long and hard about what is truly best for everyone and work his hardest to accomplish that.
A chaotic good character will jump up and do whatever he feels is right and then move on.
Neutral good will weigh the situation. They just want everyone to be happy, and they'll do whatever they believe serves that end.