Okay, but the problem wasn't about mechanics. Mechanics is another discussion. The game's content is oriented towards heroic adventurer's, can't argue against that.
What is the basis for treating x alignment as though it's better than y?I agree here, Aelryinth, your views are very restrictive and do not see all alignments equally.What is the logical basis of treating all alignments equal? Asymmetry on this is literally built into the game, just as it is in real life. Alignments don't all have equal impact, and they certainly don't bear equal burdens either.Better defined in what terms? Unless you have a problem with the concept that certain alignments are better suited for certain purposes than others.
The game by the way does not treat alignments equally. If it did,the Ant-Paladin would be equally matched with his opposite. He isn't. The game has a definite bias against evil alignments and there are far more evil creatures in the bestiaries than good... for good reason. It's also considrably easier for players who don't know each other to come together to form good and neutral parties than it is for evil ones. So yes, that's another way of showing how it's not all equal.
That's an opinion that I do not agree with. How exactly are the classes not equal? Your example is terrible.
Look at what I've started in the home-brew section lol. Guess I should have known it would degrade to a paladin alignment thread rather than what my original question(s) were about whether or not the varied alignments of paladins would break the game balance.
I read in the last page about codes of paladins (LG) being LG, that's not true. Look in Faiths of Purity in the codes for the major deities who are definitely not all LG deities. They give codes/tenets for their paladins to follow. This was one of my big reasons for wanting to remove the restriction on paladins and anti-paladins to become "any good" or "any evil" as long as they follow their deity's codes per RAW in the Faiths of Purity and Faiths of Corruption books.
Doing it this way would allow the paladin to play the different alignments that encompass all the gods and adhere to their tenets. Their powers are derived from their gods and if they follow the beliefs of their gods then they are still the holy warriors to go out and adventure as such. Being Lawful Good doesn't give the Paladin his god-bestowed powers unless that God is LG, but if his god is CG the deity doesn't care about the law, but still respects that his paladin is doing good even if he has to follow the laws of man.
I'd see a god like Cayden Cailean really enjoy having a paladin who actually follows all of his teachings and be even more pleased with this kind of person than the stuffy lawful stupid sort who decided to follow him. Just some food for thought.
Lets say you have Seloni up against the Nameless Anti-Paladin pictured in the APG.
Both of whom lay into each other with fairly identical,say for the sake of argument +2 swords.
Both smite each other with great enthuisiasm. So far the fight looks fairly even until....
Seloni hits herself with that swift action self heal.... during every round of combat. While still matching her opposite blow for blow.
I take issue with this since you have no idea who or what that nameless AP is. He could be an undead AP and use Touch of Corruption the same as Seloni uses her LoH to heal himself up or to damage her as she could use her LoH to damage him.
Thus, your scenario is flawed. In all things being equal it would come down to the roll of the dice to see who wins in a fight.
Lets say you have Seloni up against the Nameless Anti-Paladin pictured in the APG.
Both of whom lay into each other with fairly identical,say for the sake of argument +2 swords.
Both smite each other with great enthuisiasm. So far the fight looks fairly even until....
Seloni hits herself with that swift action self heal.... during every round of combat. While still matching her opposite blow for blow.
Ever rolled one? The anti paladin has a much more powerful ability with their touch of corruption, staggering or fatiguing their opponent resulting in them being unable to even take that swift action.
Also, ever rolled a Dhampir anti paladin, or looked at the knight of the sepulcher? Both of these have the ability to heal themselves with their touch of corruption ability.
Actually Touch of Corruption has no wording that implies it can be used as a swift. I don't think they thought anyone would want to use it on themselves.(its a simple house rule though). I don't know why assimar would make paladin's lay on hands even better though. They are thematic sure, and archon does happen to be good for paladin, it also happens to be good for anti-paladin by the same logic because they use the same stats, and a fallen archon assimar could be pretty awesome I think.
I think the point was that if you made a touch you could inflict something nasty and wreck the paladin. Anti-paladin's can fear paladin's can't they? Or something like that. There are more spells on paladin's list if I remember right, but making evil counter parts would be an easy house rule also.
Lazar, I think earlier marshmellow was referring to another poster's feelings about alignments not being able to take actions not because of mechanical reasons, but because of personal beliefs about alignment.
No alignment has a restriction on actions. Only the paladin code restricts his actions.
Evil is rewarded by having no restrictions on actions. .
I think this is the craziest thing said on this entire thread.
You're making the statement that Lawful people can lie freely; that Chaotics can conform happily and willingly to tyranny; that Good people can lie, cheat, steal, murder, use Poison, animate the dead...because no alignments have restrictions on actions.
So, yeah, no. Alignments do most certainly have restrictions built into them. You want to stay Good, there are things you do not do. Ditto the other alignments. You don't abide by those restrictions, guess what? Your alignment changes whether you like it or not.
Evil and Chaotic have the greatest range of actions available to them, because they can 'pretend' without limit. What they believe is something else entirely.
==Aelryinth
ANd yes, paladins do have the benefit of the action economy on their side. The anti-paladin has the benefit of being able to use undead, poison everything, have innocent hostages around to threaten, bargaining in bad faith, etc.
Kinda evens out, don't you think?
==Aelyinth
A LG person can lie, cheat, steal, and do all sorts of chaotic and evil acts. Are they going to do it wantonly? Probably not. A paladin can do it too, but at the risk of falling.(Varying between DM/PC agreements).
Think of it more about what your inclined and likely to do, rather than what you have to do.
ANd yes, paladins do have the benefit of the action economy on their side. The anti-paladin has the benefit of being able to use undead, poison everything, have innocent hostages around to threaten, bargaining in bad faith, etc.
Kinda evens out, don't you think?
No, not really. Besides, with all those undead his CR is way over! Your probably going to have a few friends with the paladin.
A LG person can lie, cheat, steal, and do all sorts of chaotic and evil acts. Are they going to do it wantonly? Probably not. A paladin can do it too, but at the risk of falling.(Varying between DM/PC agreements).
Think of it more about what your inclined and likely to do, rather than what you have to do.
And that's where you are wrong, because by the time he's doing 'all sorts of chaotic and evil acts', he's not LG any more, BY DEFINITION.
Or do you seriously think only paladins can Fall out of alignment? THere's a plane full of fallen angels that would like to have a word with you, and you don't seriously think they restrict Tempting mortals to paladins only do you?
By the way you're describing it, there is no alignment and it can be ignored. Nope, sorry, alignments are real and tangible in the game, and just because you say you are LG doesn't mean the multiverse agrees with you, and guess who's opinion is more important?
==Aelryinth
Did I say they're doing it all the time?
Edit: Really, you just tried to put a bunch of words in my mouth. I didn't say any of that.
Staggered was the wrong Cruelty to cite, Stunned was the one I meant. An antipaladin who uses his ToC to Stun the enemy paladin really doesn't care about the paladin's swift healing because that paladin can't take actions for a minimum of 3 rounds. Staggering them won't do the trick, but Nauseating them will, which they can get by level 9, Dazed also works, but only for a round making it usually a subpar choice.
This ability is modified by any feat, spell, or effect that specifically works with the lay on hands paladin class feature. For example, the Extra Lay On Hands feat grants an antipaladin 2 additional uses of the touch of corruption class feature.
This clause makes it so one could take say, Word of Healing (word of harming in this case) and apply his Cruelties as a ranged touch attack before he even gets to the paladin, or the paladin gets to him.
Point is, ToC has offensive value that lets you get in more turns to attack that also prevent the paladin from using his actions, even his swift heals. It's the best part about the ToC ability is the fact that it is used offensively, opposed to the healing ability, and saying that the paladin has the clear advantage because of his ability without realizing what the antipaladin can even do makes the argument really difficult to listen to.
I didn't even mention that the antipaladin cancels out the paladin's aura of courage and thus makes him susceptible to fear effects.
Did I say they're doing it all the time?
Edit: Really, you just tried to put a bunch of words in my mouth. I didn't say any of that.
Since when is 'doing it all the time' required?
I'm not putting words into your mouth, you're putting your foot in it. As soon as you start doing those kinds of things, you're on the road down. Your beliefs are changing, and even if you don't do those actions constantly, your very actions belie the fact that you believe that being lawful and good isn't cutting it.
You don't believe.
And so you aren't LG anymore. You're some manner of neutral who acts like a decent person until it actually matters, then you do whatever is most pragmatic and takes the least effort, most likely.
==Aelryinth
Staggered was the wrong Cruelty to cite, Stunned was the one I meant. An antipaladin who uses his ToC to Stun the enemy paladin really doesn't care about the paladin's swift healing because that paladin can't take actions for a minimum of 3 rounds. Staggering them won't do the trick, but Nauseating them will, which they can get by level 9, Dazed also works, but only for a round making it usually a subpar choice.
This ability is modified by any feat, spell, or effect that specifically works with the lay on hands paladin class feature. For example, the Extra Lay On Hands feat grants an antipaladin 2 additional uses of the touch of corruption class feature.This clause makes it so one could take say, Word of Healing (word of harming in this case) and apply his Cruelties as a ranged touch attack before he even gets to the paladin, or the paladin gets to him.
Point is, ToC has offensive value that lets you get in more turns to attack that also prevent the paladin from using his actions, even his swift heals. It's the best part about the ToC ability is the fact that it is used offensively, opposed to the healing ability, and saying that the paladin has the clear advantage because of his ability without realizing what the antipaladin can even do makes the argument really difficult to listen to.
I didn't even mention that the antipaladin cancels out the paladin's aura of courage and thus makes him susceptible to fear effects.
The paladin still gets a save against fear effects, and his Cha+good will save. The aura neutralizes his immunity, but he still gets his +4 against the -4 of the aura.
Also, the anti-paladin pulling out his condition infliction is also giving the paladin a fortitude save to avoid the condition. The likelihood of actually managing to get such a thing off against many foes is under 50%, and gets less and less likely as you level. Condition removal, on the other hand, gets more and more effective as you level (you remove all conditions you are eligible for as a paladin, but an anti-paladin only gets to inflict one).
==Aelryinth
Staggered was the wrong Cruelty to cite, Stunned was the one I meant. An antipaladin who uses his ToC to Stun the enemy paladin really doesn't care about the paladin's swift healing because that paladin can't take actions for a minimum of 3 rounds. Staggering them won't do the trick, but Nauseating them will, which they can get by level 9, Dazed also works, but only for a round making it usually a subpar choice.
This ability is modified by any feat, spell, or effect that specifically works with the lay on hands paladin class feature. For example, the Extra Lay On Hands feat grants an antipaladin 2 additional uses of the touch of corruption class feature.This clause makes it so one could take say, Word of Healing (word of harming in this case) and apply his Cruelties as a ranged touch attack before he even gets to the paladin, or the paladin gets to him.
Point is, ToC has offensive value that lets you get in more turns to attack that also prevent the paladin from using his actions, even his swift heals. It's the best part about the ToC ability is the fact that it is used offensively, opposed to the healing ability, and saying that the paladin has the clear advantage because of his ability without realizing what the antipaladin can even do makes the argument really difficult to listen to.
I didn't even mention that the antipaladin cancels out the paladin's aura of courage and thus makes him susceptible to fear effects.
The paladin still gets a save against fear effects, and his Cha+good will save. The aura neutralizes his immunity, but he still gets his +4 against the -4 of the aura.
Also, the anti-paladin pulling out his condition infliction is also giving the paladin a fortitude save to avoid the condition. The likelihood of actually managing to get such a thing off against many foes is under 50%, and gets less and less likely as you level. Condition removal, on the other hand, gets more and more effective as you level (you remove all...
Your DC's scale with your level and CHA, thus an antipaladin actually in practice cares more about his CHA over his physical attack stat than a paladin.
We really need to set a level that this supposed fight is happening if you really want to crunch numbers. Anything around lvl 10-ish, the antipaladin has a good chance of hitting with his cruelty, the damage from touch of corruption is icing on the cake.
I'm the first that want more options for Paladin (I would prefer the LG-CG-LE-CE over Only Good-Only Evil but whatever), but I really don't think he is trolling; he just have a strong opinion that is different over that of other people. There are many more people with similar ideas (I think some people on Paizo staff really believe on the Only LG restriction); they just aren't writing here.
I really, strongly disagree with the "LG is superior Good" idea, more still that the restriction on alignment for paladins, but that is another issue. What I really, really want is the end on the alignment restriction for Druid and Monk. Paladin and Barbarian I don't like, but can live with them. But for me, Druid and Monk seems really stupid restrictions.
No alignment has a restriction on actions. Only the paladin code restricts his actions.
Evil is rewarded by having no restrictions on actions. .
I think this is the craziest thing said on this entire thread.
You're making the statement that Lawful people can lie freely; that Chaotics can conform happily and willingly to tyranny; that Good people can lie, cheat, steal, murder, use Poison, animate the dead...because no alignments have restrictions on actions.
So, yeah, no. Alignments do most certainly have restrictions built into them. You want to stay Good, there are things you do not do. Ditto the other alignments. You don't abide by those restrictions, guess what? Your alignment changes whether you like it or not.
Evil and Chaotic have the greatest range of actions available to them, because they can 'pretend' without limit. What they believe is something else entirely.
==Aelryinth
Exactly, your alignment changes. That's it. No mechanical punishments. No loss of abilities. That is, in no way, a restriction on what actions your character can undertake.
You don't play an alignment; you play a character.
Did I say they're doing it all the time?
Edit: Really, you just tried to put a bunch of words in my mouth. I didn't say any of that.
Since when is 'doing it all the time' required?
I'm not putting words into your mouth, you're putting your foot in it. As soon as you start doing those kinds of things, you're on the road down. Your beliefs are changing, and even if you don't do those actions constantly, your very actions belie the fact that you believe that being lawful and good isn't cutting it.
You don't believe.
And so you aren't LG anymore. You're some manner of neutral who acts like a decent person until it actually matters, then you do whatever is most pragmatic and takes the least effort, most likely.
==Aelryinth
It only matters what you do, not why you do it. Intent and belief have no bearing on alignment, only actions.
Next thing you know someone is going to tell you that you can't act outside of alignment, or that this applies to real life.
"IT only matters what you do, not why you do it."
Perfect NE philosophy.
If I go randomly killing wandering monsters to protect the area, that has no bearing on my alignment. So if Paladin A does it to make the area secure for civilizaton, Druid B does it so the wildlife can recover from the depradations of monsters, Ranger C does it to get extra meat for his family, Rogue D does it for the bounty he hasn't told anyone about, Barbarian E does it for the pure joy of combat, Mage F does it to harvest rare material components and confirm his theories on species territorialism in temperate climates and their interaction with humanoid expansion...and Assassin G does it because he can make some very rare and effective poisons out of these things.
WHY THEY DO IT has no effect on their alignments whatsoever.
Uh-huh, Sure.
There are a great many actions that are Evil because of what they are - outright murder, animating the dead, etc. There are almost no actions that are so innately Good that doing them is a good action...because you can do them for the wrong reason.
Good has standards. Doing an evil action for a good reason is still an Evil deed. Doing a good action for an evil reason is NOT a Good Deed, on a spiritual level. The scale is biased in favor of evil, all the way.
And paladins are not the only ones punished by failing their alignments. Any divine class that falls out of harmony with their god/nature also loses all their class abilities...at least until they find another god. Don't think paladins are alone just because their code is stricter. Make a druid non-Neutral and the same thing happens to him.
==Aelryinth
That is the first time I see that kind of argument on a PF/D&D forum, but have seen it on World of Darkness or similar systems. I kind of agree on those systems, but seems waaay off-theme here; core PF is NOT grimdark. I'm kind of sure Aelryinth could be an excellent DM, but I'm sure i wouldn't play a paladin there; I can try my best, but I would be constantly really scary of falling.
Edit: There are some kind of Ignore on these forums, but I'm not sure how it works, sorry.
I should note we as people define alignments and that they are not living entities outside of imagination land. Though the core rule book and society has a good part on it all, but I feel like that's a sort of philosophical discussion that's not needed.
Edit: I should also add that that's setting specific, and that this is the homebrew forum about someone's homebrew ideas and if it was okay and if it would break the game.
Oh, I agree that in the real world, we have no ability to 'judge alignment', Mr. Sin.
But all these arguments are going to be based on the core rules by default. And those are the core rules.
If he wants to argue something about his homebrew, he needs to preface it that way. If someone wants to dictate in his homebrew that LG people can go out once a full moon and murder an evil man in cold blood, bully for his homebrew.
Playing a Dexter is not going to let you stay LG in a campaign under the core rules, however. Dexter murders serial killers because it's a way to stay under the radar and not have people looking for ANOTHER serial killer. If you read the books about him, Dexter is a sociopath who has learned to channel his killing desires and lack of empathy in a useful direction...out of self-preservation. He is sooooooo not LG. Or G. He's a murderer, he knows it, he craves the killing, and he's always living in fear of being found out.
But alignments in PF are very real things, and it seems, hard for people to grasp. In real life, the 'why' you do something isn't important unless everyone finds out. In PF, it's extremely important even if nobody ever finds out. Alignment forces are always there, and they don't need to judge and measure you...you're doing it for them. They've already got the ground staked out, you're just moving around on it.
==Aelryinth
I don't think people are suggestion playing LG sociopaths.
That is the first time I see that kind of argument on a PF/D&D forum, but have seen it on World of Darkness or similar systems. I kind of agree on those systems, but seems waaay off-theme here; core PF is NOT grimdark. I'm kind of sure Aelryinth could be an excellent DM, but I'm sure i wouldn't play a paladin there; I can try my best, but I would be constantly really scary of falling.
Edit: There are some kind of Ignore on these forums, but I'm not sure how it works, sorry.
You'd actually find it pretty easy to play a paladin, because I like heroic characters, and I'm not going to go out of my way to arrange hideous little 'moral choices' that hit you coming and going.
I like heroes, and most of those 'moral quandries', aren't. Having to pick between two evils because the choices are imposed on you is never, ever an evil decision...the evil is done by the force constraining the choices, you are blameless. Lots of people don't seem to realize that.
If you want to be a true-blue hero, I will help you be a true-blue hero. If you want to try that out in a Grimdark setting...that's going to be 'interesting', as they say, because paladins are very strange characters in such a thing.
But as I noted above...the Knights of the Sword are paladins in the Dresden books, which has tons of shades of grey. Heck, the main character is now working for the very TN or CN forces of fey Winter...and this is a guy endorsed by an archangel and guarding two of God's Own Holy Swords.
===Aelryinth
Removed a number of posts with personal sniping, insults, and accusations of trolling. Please revisit the messageboard rules. If you believe a post is inappropriate, please flag it and move on.
I don't think people are suggestion playing LG sociopaths.
Well, you did suggest playing a LG character who could go out and intemittently do Evil and Chaotic deeds without affecting his alignment, didn't you?
Isn't that exactly what Dexter does? I was just making an example of your statement. He occasionally goes out and tortures, then murders a serial killer he's tracked down. The rest of the time, he acts just like a morally upstanding citizen. He's even a forensic expert, helps solve crimes!
It was the best example I could think of your argument, and it kind of showcased how bad an argument it was, I thought.
If you can think of a better example I'd know, I'm all ears.
==Aelryinth
I don't think people are suggestion playing LG sociopaths.Well, you did suggest playing a LG character who could go out and intemittently do Evil and Chaotic deeds without affecting his alignment, didn't you?
No, No I did not.
A LG person can lie, cheat, steal, and do all sorts of chaotic and evil acts. Are they going to do it wantonly? Probably not. A paladin can do it too, but at the risk of falling.(Varying between DM/PC agreements).
Think of it more about what your inclined and likely to do, rather than what you have to do.
Mr. Sin, if that's not what you're trying to say there, then you're saying it wrong. Wantonly = randomly.
Dexter is most definitely not random. He's LG right up until he decides to futz the law, torture a murderer, and sadistically kill them. Only when he gets the urge, of course. Hey, he's going chaotic and evil, just like you said.
if that does not EXACTLY fit your own statement, then give us a better example, please.
==Aelryinth
They can. You compare a guy who has a drink once a month to a guy who's an alcoholic though. I did not suggest playing a sociopath. I think part of the problem is you want someone to be LG 100% of the time if they are lawful good. 80% lawful and 80% good still isn't enough if you think they absolutely can never perform any of those acts.
Alignment is not morally relative. That's where your problem is.
Just because a guy sacrifices outlanders on the altar to his god thinks he's lawful good doesn't mean the universe thinks he is. The universe is more important. The person's opinion does not matter at all.
The alignments in the game are based on western morality, NOT player's interpretations of what they think is the alignments. Just because you represent the highest ideal of the ethos and morality of your society doesn't mean you aren't LE. Your society just thinks LE is the best there is, and you STILL aren't LG. LG the alignment wants nothing to do with you, and if you think LG is wrong, well, the Alignments are profound forces that don't care about your opinion.
Having a drink is not chaotic. Being an alcoholic is somewhat chaotic, if you mean 'regular and heavy drinker'...but being an alcoholic is also extreme, is not something you occasionally do. It's not the same argument. (I'll also note that paladins are immune to disease, and alcoholism is an addiction, which is a disease). You can also, for instance, be an alcoholic, and never take a drink again.
And no, Dexter is not LG because he perpetrates evil upon the evil. He's is killing them because he has a sick and twisted desire to hunt them down, hurt them, and watch them die. The universe isn't watching him kill two threats to society...it's watching a demented man get his jollies offing another human being, and hiding in plain sight so nobody catches HIM.
Murdering an evil man is literally no better then murdering a good man...murder is murder, and murder is evil. Dexter isn't killing to protect or defend others. His action can be completely the same as a desperate avenger, but the why is the important thing here...and his why is all Evil. Dexter is textbook amoral NE.
And God, if you think being LG gives you the right to commit evil or chaotic acts upon Evil creatures, you don't know what Good means at ALL.
Actions defining everything matter in Grimdark. PF is not Grimdark. The why is very, very important in PF.
==Aelryinth
Once you realize that morality is relative, alignment goes out of the window.
Take for example a terrorist: He or she doesn't think he or she is evil like his or her would-be victims would. If anything, they probably think they are lawful good, avenging some wrong they feel was done against their people or beliefs: Someone who is lawful good is usually a zealot.
Alignment is really only there for the purpose of the spells and abilities that reference them and nothing more. I say let the players decide on an alignment at first with no restrictions on class and then if in the course of gameplay, they perform several acts that you as GM consider counter to their declared alignment, you change it to an alignment you feel is more appropriate.
This is moral relativity, which has nothing to do with alignment.
The universe says that terrorist is making war on innocents who have nothing to do with the fighting (hence, terrorist). He's killing innocents.
That's not something LG people do. Even if he's justifying it to himself, the universe simply does not care. He's being deluded into thinking it's the right thing, and when he blows himself up, he's likely going straight to Hell as a murderer of innocents.
His opinion is NOT IMPORTANT. The definition of alignment and why and how you do things is. The universe has standards, and even if you think someone is a perfectly valid target for your vengeance, the universe can decide otherwise, too bad, so sad, and you are SOL and heading for the big fires below.
===Aelryinth
stuff that didn't quote
Paragon, you just changed your argument and moved the goalposts, and are blaming me?
Excuse me, we're talking about the core game, not some homebrew. In a homebrew, you can do anything you want.
But the core game assumes alignments, those alignments are based on Western morality, and it doesn't matter where you come from or where you go, if you and the universe disagree on what is Good, the universe wins. Indeed, the delusion that people are doing good while actually doing the work of evil is one of Hell's classic ploys.
In a homebrew, you may do whatever you choose. I've never said otherwise. But in the default core game, it doesn't work that way.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would think that talking about homebrew in the homebrew forum talks about homebrew. Dismissing homebrew entirely in the homebrew forum to argue about something that doesn't have to do with the original topic is a bit off I think.
Were there goalpost here? I don't remember those. I really don't want to get into a talk about moving goalpost though. That never really leads anywhere I don't think.
Edit: I also think the idea that "It is divine will that I am correct! The universe agrees with me!" is a little much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As MrSin said, this is the homebrew forum, so it would make sense that this is referring to things happening in a homebrew campaign (even if it is set in Golarion). It was even in the original post, that this would be in someone's home game. All of this would be pointless if it was PFS, but this isn't the PFS forum.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having a drink is not chaotic. Being an alcoholic is somewhat chaotic, if you mean 'regular and heavy drinker'...but being an alcoholic is also extreme, is not something you occasionally do. It's not the same argument. (I'll also note that paladins are immune to disease, and alcoholism is an addiction, which is a disease). You can also, for instance, be an alcoholic, and never take a drink again.
MrSin didn't mean that having a drink was chaotic. He meant that there is a difference between a character who occasionally but regularly performs a variety of minor chaotic or evil acts (ex: stealing office supplies) and a character who regularly tortures people to death.
A LG person can lie, cheat, steal, and do all sorts of chaotic and evil acts. Are they going to do it wantonly? Probably not.
A LG person can indeed perform all sorts of chaotic and evil acts, including lying, cheating, stealing, participating in a bar brawl, violating an unjust law (good but chaotic), enforcing an unjust law (lawful but evil), etc, without necessarily losing their LG alignment. How do we know this? Because the CRB says so.
Remember that individuals vary from this norm, and that a given character may act more or less in accord with his alignment from day to day. Use these descriptions as guidelines, not as scripts.
For a LG character, less in accord = minor chaotic or evil acts.
Ultimate Campaign has a more detailed system for alignment change that makes it clear that (1) alignment is determined by actions (2) most acts shift alignment only gradually and some will have no notable effect on alignment and (3) though a character shouldn't be able to perform equal amounts of good and evil acts and remain good, a character who puts a greater effort into performing in-alignment actions than out-of-alignment actions can maintain their alignment over time. So a character who punches a man for insulting his mother one week and then risks his life saving that same person from bandits can qualify as good despite performing the minor evil act of unjustified assault.