# Can a Lawful Good character be flexible and fun to play?



## Grok (May 16, 2011)

I'm fairly new to the rpg world, and I've never played a Lawful Good character before, but I'm considering starting a paladin for a Carrion Crown game.  I like the paladin, but every time I've seen someone play a LG character they seem to act like mindless evil-smiting drones.

Ex: If it's evil I must smite it, regardless of mission or weighing what the greater evil might be.  There are no gray areas.  All responses are dictated clearly by my alignment. Evil must be destroyed, good must be upheld.  I can't punch someone in the face if I get angry, unless they are evil.  I can't have any desires or goals beyond destroying evil.

I just feel like if I play a Paladin, the alignment sucks out all of the flavor and personality that a character could have.

I've considered combining other classes or choosing a prestige class with similar abilities and flavors, but I really like the paladin.  It's just the dang alignment that feels like a roadblock to having a good time with the character.  Someone convince me that I've just never seen a LG character played right.  Examples would be helpful.


----------



## Holy Bovine (May 16, 2011)

Grok said:


> I'm fairly new to the rpg world, and I've never played a Lawful Good character before, but I'm considering starting a paladin for a Carrion Crown game.  I like the paladin, but every time I've seen someone play a LG character they seem to act like mindless evil-smiting drones.
> 
> Ex: If it's evil I must smite it, regardless of mission or weighing what the greater evil might be.  There are no gray areas.  All responses are dictated clearly by my alignment. Evil must be destroyed, good must be upheld.  I can't punch someone in the face if I get angry, unless they are evil.  I can't have any desires or goals beyond destroying evil.
> 
> ...




The best advice I can give you is to talk to your DM and find out how he interprets the LG alignment.  The examples you give are most often dictated by a DM's style and/or an overly strict interpretation of the LG alignment and the Paladin's code.  Define what that code is if you must have hard and fast rules to use in game but keep it broad and open enough to allow some kind of variety in dealing with different situations.  Far too often DMs put paladin players in unwinnable situations where every choice leads to an alignment violation and the DM is often congratulating himself on his "clever" moral quandary.  These are the problem DMs to avoid if you can and at least avoid playing any kind of moralistic character if you have to suffer their rule.


----------



## Kvantum (May 16, 2011)

Grok said:


> I'm fairly new to the rpg world, and I've never played a Lawful Good character before, but I'm considering starting a paladin for a Carrion Crown game.  I like the paladin, but every time I've seen someone play a LG character they seem to act like mindless evil-smiting drones.
> 
> Ex: If it's evil I must smite it, regardless of mission or weighing what the greater evil might be.  There are no gray areas.  All responses are dictated clearly by my alignment. Evil must be destroyed, good must be upheld.  I can't punch someone in the face if I get angry, unless they are evil.  I can't have any desires or goals beyond destroying evil.
> 
> ...



It really sounds like you've been dealing with a bunch of LAWFUL good (Awful Good?) paladins, not the lawful GOOD that they're supposed (?) to be. As far as I've ever seen it (and GM'd it), unless you're playing a Paladin of a LN deity (Abadar, for example), the Law is a _tool_ to achieve the Good, but the *goal*, the result you're shooting for through your character's actions, is the Good. Law is just the best means to an end, not the end in and of itself. 

There are allowances that can be made for less than ethical behavior, and maybe even for tolerating less than moral behavior in others, without resulting in a fall for the paladin. (Particularly if one makes a point of role-playing the character's great discomfort with such non-LG actions - theft is a bad thing, but stealing from the BBEG to stop him from calling down a zombie horde to assault a town is the lesser of two evils, or at least the lesser of two transgressions, and as long as you reflect that internal debate and uncertainty, I wouldn't think any GM should penalize a paladin character.)

But a lot of that is personal opinion, and I love both playing and GMing for paladins, provided the player or GM is on the same page I am.


----------



## pawsplay (May 16, 2011)

There is nothing about being Lawful or Good that implies dichotomous, black-and-white thinking. In fact, since Lawful characters are so concerned with consistency, they must deal with considerable gray areas in many situations that other characters might finesse. A paladin's code is very demanding, but it need not be unthinking. Mind you, paladins are a special case in that they may be called by duty to do some smiting, but that doesn't define them as a being. In fact, they're more fun if the way of the palading really costs them something. 

Being LG is an alignment; think of the paladin as someone whose _job_ is to be Good in a lawful fashion to their utmost, in much the same way a physician's job is to heal the sick.


----------



## kcmopd1913 (May 16, 2011)

Our gaming group actually put together a code for Paladin's, maybe it can be useful to you. Now as for any LG characters, talk to your DM, but like I said maybe this will help for Paladins.

"The Paladins code is by no means an oath that one accepts lightly. To be a Paladin is to exhibit the best qualities in men, and display none of their weaknesses. Many men try, but cannot live up to the ideals of the code and as such falter. All Paladins adhere to said code without regret or remorse. There are many knights in the world, many noble men. But very few of these are Paladins. Paladins are shining beacons of hope, in an otherwise dark world. They are both feared and respected by their enemies, precisely because they alone adhere to this unwavering code. This code shall be adhered to at all times even if doing so leads to your death.
• Faith: Serve always the true lord your god. Keep faith in your beliefs, for faith roots you and gives you hope against the despair that human failings, and the darkness of the world create. Paladins apply their faith to all aspects of their life. In addition to assisting their church, they freely lend aid to others, and take it as an opportunity to spread the good will that their faith has given them. Men often lose hope, and Paladins aspire to instill hope and goodwill to all.
• Hope: Bring light and hope to all parts of the world. Seek out evil in all of its forms, stand before it, and vanquish it without pause or remorse. Paladins are the sword of the gods. Without question they are both hated and feared by all who fear the powers of good. In most cases Paladins are the primary targets when involved in a confrontation with evil, even more so then clerics. This is because the Paladins unending thirst to destroy evil, is widely known.
• Defense: Seek always to defend the weak, your liege, your nation, your family, and those to whom you believe worthy of your loyalty. Paladins will always protect those they see as innocent or weak, friends, family, or those they serve. If a Paladin were to come upon a burning building and hear screams inside, he would without pause or thought of his own well being, charge into the building and attempt to help its occupants.
• Loyalty: Be known for unwavering commitment to the people and ideals you choose to live by. There are many places where compromise is expected; loyalty is not amongst them. Paladins are always loyal to those they associate with. If a friend was captured and taken to a castle to be tortured for information, the friend need not worry, for it is understood that the Paladin will do all in his power to find and rescue him.
• Prowess: Seek excellence in all endeavors expected of a knight, martial and otherwise, seeking strength to be used in the service of justice, rather than in personal accomplishment.  Paladins seek to be excellent in all that they do. If a Paladin uses a sword, he attempts to master the sword. Every day he will train or engage in warfare, and it is likely will never stop in that endeavor, until of course he cannot find an equal in that skill. This is true with any pursuit be it weapon play, or dancing. For this reason, Paladins choose their activities wisely.
• Justice: Seek always the path of 'right', unencumbered by bias or personal interest. Recognize that the sword of justice can be a terrible thing, so it must be tempered by humanity and mercy. If the 'right' you see agrees with others, and you seek it out without bending to the temptation for expediency, then you will earn renown beyond measure. Paladins uphold the law, and seek to ensure others do the same. A Paladin will only intentionally break a law, if he deems the law to be unjust, and even then he would rather seek to change the law then to break it outright.
• Courage: Always speak the truth, and have the strength to take the side of truth in all matters, rather than seeking the expedient lie. Seek the truth whenever possible, but remember to temper justice with mercy, or the pure truth can bring grief. Paladins do not lie. Paladins seek truth in all aspects of their life. They will not abide liers, and will often not wish to associate themselves with those that do.
• Courtesy: At all times be courteous to women, for they hold the power to breathe life into the world, and should be respected for such a gift. Paladins will always be respectful of women. Even if said woman is an enemy.
• Humility: Be humble before others, especially superiors. Be not boastful. Value first the contributions of others; do not boast of your own accomplishments, let others do this for you. Tell the deeds of others before your own, according them the renown rightfully earned through virtuous deeds. Paladins do not undertake dangerous assignments for the glory. They leave the glory to be had by others. 
• Largesse: Be generous in so far as your resources allow; largesse used in this way counters gluttony. It also makes the path of mercy easier to discern when a difficult decision of justice is required. Paladins are very generous with their worldly possessions. Money, clothing, food, all are given to those in need. Many Paladins are remembered for their seemingly unending generosity.
• Nobility: Seek great stature of character by holding to the virtues and duties of a knight, realizing that though the ideals cannot be reached, the quality of striving towards them ennobles the spirit, growing the character from dust towards the heavens. Nobility also has the tendency to influence others, offering a compelling example of what can be done in the service of rightness. Paladins view nobility not as a birthright, but as something that each man must earn. Aspiring to greatness lifts the spirit. Paladins act in a matter befitting the best of nobility at all times.
• Mercy: Show mercy to defeated enemies. Mercy is not for the weak. It takes the strongest of men to refrain from killing a foe, and such strength does not go unnoticed. When an enemy falls and cowers before a Paladin, the Paladin will grant him mercy, and not take his life. Instead he will take all power from the enemy, ensuring he can do no more harm. In many cases this implies returning the foe to civilization to serve trial. The outcome of which is not the Paladins concern.
• Franchise: Seek to emulate this code as sincerely as possible, not for the reason of personal gain but because it is right. Do not restrict your exploration to a small world, but seek to infuse every aspect of your life with these qualities. Should you succeed in even a tiny measure then you will be well remembered for your quality and virtue. Not only will the Paladin live by the words of this code (or the letters of the law), he will also strive unendingly to live by its ideals (the spirit of the law). Paladins hope to die in service of the powers of good, so that their death is remembered, and inspires others to rise up and take their place against the forces of darkness."


----------



## R-Hero (May 16, 2011)

Grok said:


> Ex: If it's evil I must smite it, regardless of mission or weighing what the greater evil might be.





The rulebooks even say that a paladin can work with evil to stop a greater threat.  Think of it as a cop going undercover...





> There are no gray areas.  All responses are dictated clearly by my alignment. Evil must be destroyed, good must be upheld.




As a paladin there are FEW grey areas but you can uphold your ideals without killing everything in sight.  
Stabbing is not the only answer.  (although there are many on the boards that will disagree with this...)




> I can't punch someone in the face if I get angry, unless they are evil




You are looking at this a little backward.
Ex:  Chaotic Neutral drunken npc pushes down 99 y/o great grandmother to steal her coppers = a face punching

Most Evil murdering slave trader is at the bar minding his own business.  You can't just walk up to him and start something just he glows like the Batsignal when evil is detected (unless you have proof of his activities, even then its probably a law enforcement issue)





> I can't have any desires or goals beyond destroying evil.




The ultimate goal for a paladin is the rescue of souls from evil.  You can't convert the heathens to goodness it they are dead...

I mostly play a paladin and I always have fun doing it.  Every now and then there is a hangup on the rules, but that is why it is called role playing.


I've also played with Dm's that would warn me if they thought actions would not be paladin like.  They have never tried to trick me into becoming a fallen paladin. (a very rat-bastard Dm move if you ask me)

Even if your character gets out of sorts with his deity because his actions were the only way out of a bad situation, you can always try to atone later.
(Yay, sidequest with more Exp and Gold)


----------



## Grok (May 16, 2011)

Thanks for the examples!


----------



## Herobizkit (May 16, 2011)

Check this link out... gives examples of Lawful Good in action:

Lawful Good - Television Tropes & Idioms

And this one puts all of the collected D&D descriptions of Lawful Good through the editions... REALLY helps with understanding alignments in general.

The Alignment System - Lawful Good


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (May 16, 2011)

Grok said:


> Thanks for the examples!




Here's another little thing that people* tend to forget.

In your normal, D&D-esque setting, your Paladin is a human from the Prime Material plane (e.g., "normal reality").  Your character's body and soul are, therefore, formed of a mish-mash of all the various planar energies that make up creation (earth, fire, water, air, good, evil, law, chaos, positive, negative, etc.).

You are not a [Lawful] [Good] Archon from Mount Celestia.  You are not totally made up of the stuff of Law and Good.  You are not intrinsicly perfect and pure.

But that's probably what you're _striving_ towards.

So, you'll have character traits, or habits, or what-have-you, that are not perfectly Paladinic.  Maybe you struggle with them; maybe they give you moments of doubt; maybe you've learned to accept some of them, to work on them later.  There are a range of interesting character decisions to make here.  So, let the attempt to reach perfection be part of your story - that's always seemed, to me, to be the more interesting story.

But don't let your DM tell you that such things automatically make you into a fallen paladin; if your DM is going to play that way, I'd stay away from the class entirely.

* _Some_ people ...


----------



## Alexanderone (May 16, 2011)

I think song an silence summed paladins up well when it described how rogues and bards feel about them. Impressive, friendly, pretty and free handed with the healing and not to mentioned generous with their share of the treasure.
paladins are motivated by the compassion to do good the players handbook even says so.
quintessential paladin from mongoose publishing is a good book to get.


----------



## concerro (May 16, 2011)

Grok said:


> I'm fairly new to the rpg world, and I've never played a Lawful Good character before, but I'm considering starting a paladin for a Carrion Crown game.  I like the paladin, but every time I've seen someone play a LG character they seem to act like mindless evil-smiting drones.
> 
> Ex: If it's evil I must smite it, regardless of mission or weighing what the greater evil might be.  There are no gray areas.  All responses are dictated clearly by my alignment. Evil must be destroyed, good must be upheld.  I can't punch someone in the face if I get angry, unless they are evil.  I can't have any desires or goals beyond destroying evil.
> 
> ...




It depends on your GM. Some people believe lawful characters in general are drones who can't have their own thoughts. Talk to your GM. I can only tell you how things go in my game which won't help if the GM shuts you down.


----------



## thundershot (May 17, 2011)

I have one character who proves that "Lawful Good" doesn't have to mean "Lawful Nice". He fights for justice and believes in doing great deeds, but he doesn't want any recognition and tries to keep people at a distance. He's tough and gruff. He believes in a Lawful Good society. He's just not nice.


----------



## kcmopd1913 (May 17, 2011)

kcmopd1913 said:


> Our gaming group actually put together a code for Paladin's, maybe it can be useful to you. Now as for any LG characters, talk to your DM, but like I said maybe this will help for Paladins.
> 
> "The Paladins code is by no means an oath that one accepts lightly. To be a Paladin is to exhibit the best qualities in men, and display none of their weaknesses. Many men try, but cannot live up to the ideals of the code and as such falter. All Paladins adhere to said code without regret or remorse. There are many knights in the world, many noble men. But very few of these are Paladins. Paladins are shining beacons of hope, in an otherwise dark world. They are both feared and respected by their enemies, precisely because they alone adhere to this unwavering code. This code shall be adhered to at all times even if doing so leads to your death.
> • Faith: Serve always the true lord your god. Keep faith in your beliefs, for faith roots you and gives you hope against the despair that human failings, and the darkness of the world create. Paladins apply their faith to all aspects of their life. In addition to assisting their church, they freely lend aid to others, and take it as an opportunity to spread the good will that their faith has given them. Men often lose hope, and Paladins aspire to instill hope and goodwill to all.
> ...




By the way this is already copyrighted material already published in a game book I put together, for all your pirates out there, ARRGGGGGG


----------



## Dingo333 (May 17, 2011)

"Can a lawful good charracter be flexible..."

To a degree yes. The lawful good character must adhere to their moral codes (for example Good: dont torture, murder, attack without provocation, enslave). They are more likely (and expected) to obey their word and the word of others who have power over them (kings, high ranking knights, their captains, high ranking paladins etc).

This means if they enter a kingdom where slavery is protected by law, the paladin has a moral descission whether to break the law to help the slaves, or obey the local laws and walk on. This doesn't mean they can't work against an evil king but it does restrict how they can (no assassins for example but a yes to mounting a crusade).

"Can a lawful good character be..... and fun to play?"

Yes, they can. You don't have to be "Is it evil? smiting evil" though this can be fun. A person in our group is a paladin, and he is playing it as his quirk "must smite all evil" which has lead to him smiting an evil stone and snapping a couple wands of spells with evil descriptors. It is sometimes funny to watch, sometimes annoying but always interesting. Another way to play would be the staunch defender type of LG, where they will repeatedly put their life on the line to save allies (not necessarily to kill the evil thing)


----------



## Haltherrion (May 17, 2011)

I think many people play paladins as LAWFUL/good, meaning they feel compelled to stress adherence to rules and conventions over anything else. L/G is as much good as lawful (and maybe more so if you lawful/GOOD ). One way to break out of the mold would simply be to stress your goodness over your lawfulness.

In any case, to me, lawful and good simply capture how much a character considers norms & societal rules and well-being of others in their actions. It doesn't make them a robot, it just means they tend to consider these things. Paladins being paladins, they ought to generally consider them and act on them alot but in the end they have free will.

Additionally, there are cases where the two conflict and you can use this to define your character. Most people playing a paladin seem to want to defer to law over good but who says it has to be that way? For example, in the case of a prince loving a commoner in a kingdom that forbids such interactions, who is to say the well-being of the lovers doesn't trump the law?

In matters purely of law, it is common for the paladin to play the annoying prude who continually calls out other players. But it would be just as lawful to take the offender aside in private and guide them to more lawful behavior than to turn them over to the authorities or make a fuss if no one is really being harmed by the actions.

In short, think of a model of lawful/good that works for your paladin concept and execute to that. You can be true to lawful/good without having to be playing the self-righteous, gad-fly.


----------



## Tovec (May 17, 2011)

As far as the root question of is LG fun? Yes.

As far as the secondary question of how to not be a d***annoying well that's a little harder. What I try and remind my players is to adhere to the Jack O'Neill code of conduct. If he wouldn't be okay with it, neither would I. If he wouldn't do it. Don't.

Basically it follows the same basic code as all other paladins but it means don't be a ... nnoying.
Don't kill people who don't deserve it. Take prisoners or try and reform any possible.
Don't use underhanded tactics, whenever possible that is  Don't sacrifice the innocent for the "greater good". Unless it really REALLY is the greater good.
Stuff like that.


----------



## DragonLancer (May 17, 2011)

I always describe Paladins in my games as Arthurian knights. Yes, you are lawful good but that doesn't stop you having desires and goals of your own. It doesn't stop you drinking ale, sneaking past the evil guards or punching the guy who insulted your honour but isn't worthy to challenge to honourable combat.


----------



## Nimloth (May 17, 2011)

Grok; consult with the other players and the DM before making your paladin.  A paladin in a good group is usually fine, but if someone wants to play a morally ambiguous necromancer or other shady character it WILL ruin the game unless EVERYBODY is onboard with this plan.  If you can't get everybodies agreement on playing a paladin*, you should reconsider.  I know it's "not fair" and "I should be able to play what I want", but for the good of the game, certain classes should not be allowed in the same group.  

Once I played (RL with friends) a "willingly naive" paladin in a group with a CN(tending to evil) halfling thief-type character. It was fun looking the other way and willingly being deceived/constantly misinterpreting the halfling actions, but it was MY choice to play it that way. If a paladin player is willing to play this way, it can be fun. But it needs to be a choice and not be forced on the player or it won't be fun.

Another time I was playing (online with strangers) a NG cleric of Pelor and I discover that 1 character is a N acane caster that is summoning evil creatures and another is a evil mercenary who wants to murder captives. I tried to deal with it In-character and asked them nicely to desist. They both reacted and basically said "@&&%$ you", so I stopped healing them. It caused much tension and the game became NOT FUN. I had NO CHOICE in this.  The Dm allowed these characters to exist in the same party and just let the problems fester.

*  By "everyones agreement" I mean, all the other players agree to make characters that won't have their play/fun "spoiled" by a paladin.  Or if they want to "oppose" the paladin, they agree to have a friendly rivalary instead of a "I must kill the paladin to play my character".


----------



## Marius Delphus (May 17, 2011)

Lawful Good characters live, laugh, love, and make merry just like everybody else. They sorrow, they rage, they give up, they persevere, and they appreciate a good joke, even if it's played on them.

Or they don't. The point is alignment doesn't have much to do with personality. Alignment describes the goals your character aims at, but says nothing about how he gets there. Many of Jackie Chan's characters are Lawful Good. Many comic-book superheroes are Lawful Good. 

Paladin codes typically constrain behavior, but not personality. Thus, while you might encounter a code that prohibits, say, imbibing alcohol, that doesn't mean you can't party. Your code may tell you that you need to punish evil, but you don't have to do it *right now,* or when you're outnumbered, outclassed, or both -- getting yourself imprisoned or dead keeps you from doing good in the world, and you're supposed to do good in the world.

So yes, your paladin can be a fun-loving person who genuinely grieves at the harm Evil forces him to inflict, or she can be a sourpuss who only finds solace in defeating the bad guys, or anything in between. Flexible and fun.


----------



## TwoSix (May 18, 2011)

LG can be fun, since there are no mechanical repercussions for not meeting the standard of the alignment.

Paladins, on the other hand, are totally dependent on the DM.  I've seen perfectly good DMs get stodgy where paladin morality is concerned.  Every DM has their own opinion on where paladins should lie on the continuum of purity of _intent_ and purity of _action_.


----------



## Umbran (May 18, 2011)

Tovec said:


> What I try and remind my players is to adhere to the Jack O'Neill code of conduct. If he wouldn't be okay with it, neither would I. If he wouldn't do it. Don't.




Another really good example from fiction:  Michael Carpenter*, Knight of the Cross, from Jim Butler's "Dresden Files" series.

Michael is every inch a paladin, and Lawful Good.  But he hangs around with the main character who has decidedly Chaotic tendencies, and who dabbles with rather demonic stuff.  And, if anything, Harry Dresden is a bigger jerk than Michael. 


*Warning:  spoilers at that link!!!


----------



## EUBanana (May 20, 2011)

I've had great fun with my paladin.  The basic concept was to be really angelic and 'too good for this world', so edging towards NG rather than LG.  Gets sad when other characters are somewhat disreputable but attempts to strive to be an example to others, and not an overbearing boor like the stereotypical awful good paladin.  I think personally if you do play an overbearing boor you're probably not doing justice to your stats, given how paladins generally have massive charisma.  They should generally be likeable and well thought of, not a cross for the party to bear, IMHO.

"It was me that swore the oath, not you" is the usual comment when someone is talking about poison or something dishonourable.  (The others arent evil but there are a couple of neutrals who are hardly paladinly).  On the other hand she's really generous, selfless, brave, etcetera.  It seems to work too, other party members help people out for free these days, she's considered the party leader even though she's humble and saying she's not worthy of such accolades, etcetera.  Still lawful though, always nice to the city watch, was organising contracts and stuff when someone wanted to just steal someones house (she made them talk to the city watch and get a proper contract of ownership), and almost ridiculously, naively good.  


I think a smite bot is a bit lame and one dimensional, not to mention stereotypical, but you can play a lot more than that.  If you look at Arthurian knights there are all manner of personalities there, from Gawain the lout to Galahad the saintly.


----------



## pawsplay (May 23, 2011)

Haltherrion said:


> I think many people play paladins as LAWFUL/good, meaning they feel compelled to stress adherence to rules and conventions over anything else. L/G is as much good as lawful (and maybe more so if you lawful/GOOD ). One way to break out of the mold would simply be to stress your goodness over your lawfulness.




That's actually what the rules state. A paladin must maintain a LG alignment, but loses their powers for _any evil act_. They could even perform acts which could be considered fairly Chaotic, as long as overall their behavior is consistent with a Lawful alignment.


----------



## jefgorbach (May 24, 2011)

While it varies by DM, the LG alignment is as straight forward as any other ... namely, the character is: 

* Lawful - 
   - they sincerely believe and follow their religion's stated dogma 
   - they follow the stated laws of the land (unless superseded by dogma) 
   - they expect others to do likewise, while recognizing not everyone can/will do so. 

* Good - 
   - do unto others as you would have them do unto you.


----------



## JRROGERS (May 27, 2011)

*Look for Real World Examples*

I think the best advice for playing a fun paladin is look for real world examples of folks who you think are "paladin-esque." 

I played a paladin of Heironeous back in Living Greyhawk. He was very loosely based on St. Augustine. Sir Kelur had a sort of sad past--lots of wine, women, song...and regret. He fought for good because he himself had wandered over to the dark side in some ways in his early days, and he knew about temptation and all that. However, he also believed that no one (excepting supernatural creatures whose essence *is* evil) was beyond redemption.

A great lawful good paladin is a sign of hope for the people around him. I think the core of any paladin is the belief that good is, in fact, stronger than evil. Played that way, a paladin might be rather merciful at times, b/c he knows that killing an evil foe ends any chance he might have had in this life to redeem himself. So a paladin, I think, would offer redemption to any natural foe first. If the enemy doesn't accept this redemption, only then is it time to "bring down judgement," as it were.

John


----------



## StreamOfTheSky (Jun 2, 2011)

Has no one linked to Sir Cedric yet?


----------



## tylermalan (Jun 4, 2011)

I haven't read all of the replies here, but I wanted to mention something that I usually remind myself of when considering the LG alignment:

Almost everyone that you have ever known (in real life) is LG.  They generally obey the law and respect authority and tend towards moral goodness.  Even still, there are a vast amount of different personality types that all fit within that framework.

Anyway, that usually helps me.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 6, 2011)

My own opinion:



tylermalan said:


> I
> Almost everyone that you have ever known (in real life) is Lawful Good.




Almost everyone that you have ever known (in real life) is True Neutral.

So, not as helpful a point of view to take as re: the LG alignment.


----------



## tylermalan (Jun 7, 2011)

You really think everybody acts as though they don't care about right/wrong and respect for authority?  I mean, it definitely seems like most people try to do the right thing and have respect for authority.


----------



## DragonLancer (Jun 7, 2011)

I think people are a lot closer to TN that most would believe.


----------



## tylermalan (Jun 7, 2011)

You think that most people _act_ true neutral?  I don't know if I've ever known even a single person that acted true neutral (when it mattered) often enough to actually be considered neutral.  People might try to front like they don't care or think in ways that aren't LG, but at the end of the day, how many laws did they break?  How much legitimate authority did they disrespect?  How much evil did they accomplish?  Very little on all accounts.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 7, 2011)

tylermalan said:


> You really think everybody acts as though they don't care about right/wrong and respect for authority?  I mean, it definitely seems like most people try to do the right thing and have respect for authority.




No, I think the vast majority of people don't have the moral drive to be truly, in the D&D sense, aligned.

Rather, they're True Neutral with, at best, shades of a particular alignment.

It takes something, and someone, special to get out of self-family-friends focus that defines TN.

I consider myself lucky to have met a couple of them. 



> People might try to front like they don't care or think in ways that aren't LG, but at the end of the day, how many laws did they break? How much legitimate authority did they disrespect? How much evil did they accomplish? Very little on all accounts.




I think, in large part, you're mistaking convenience for moral rectitude.

Also, you're confusing "Lawful Alignment" with "Legal."   It's a common mistake.


----------



## tylermalan (Jun 7, 2011)

Being LG because it's convenient is still LG - again, it's the actions that you take that matter.  And lawful characters respect legitimate authority, no?  What else would you call laws, the people that make them, and the people that enforce them if not legitimate authority?  Also, many moral philosophers (including recent moral philosophers) have argued that doing good things out of convenience is just as good as doing good things out of a drive to make the world a better place.

I suppose YMMV, but the vast majority of people I've ever known will, when presented with a choice, do good things instead of either bad things or nothing at all.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 7, 2011)

tylermalan said:


> Being LG because it's convenient is still LG - again, it's the actions that you take that matter.




I completely disagree with that.  "Why" is often just as important, if not moreso, than "what."


----------



## tylermalan (Jun 7, 2011)

If the "why" changes, and then changes again, and then changes again, and then changes a thousand more times... but the result obtained from completion of the action is one that is considered "good" (using whichever set of criteria you prefer to use), then is the act good or bad?  Let's say that the result is that human happiness is generally increased while human suffering is generally decreased.  I would say that it doesn't depend on the motivation.  If a cure for cancer is found because of one scientist's selfish drive for fame and glory, it would be difficult to say that finding the cure for cancer was not a good act, nor would it be easy to say that the scientist who found it is not "good" merely because he didn't do it for goodness' sake.

So, essentially, following laws and doing good things while avoiding bad actions makes you _look_ LG, and since you're obviously _acting_ LG, you might as well _be_ (as far as your effect on the world around you is concerned).


----------



## DragonLancer (Jun 7, 2011)

tylermalan said:


> Being LG because it's convenient is still LG - again, it's the actions that you take that matter.  And lawful characters respect legitimate authority, no?  What else would you call laws, the people that make them, and the people that enforce them if not legitimate authority?  Also, many moral philosophers (including recent moral philosophers) have argued that doing good things out of convenience is just as good as doing good things out of a drive to make the world a better place.
> 
> I suppose YMMV, but the vast majority of people I've ever known will, when presented with a choice, do good things instead of either bad things or nothing at all.




So will TN people. It's better to have good neighbours than bad, as I recall it being said in the 3.5 PHB.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 7, 2011)

"Good or bad" is not the same thing as "good or evil."



> I would say that it doesn't depend on the motivation.   If a cure for cancer is found because of one scientist's selfish drive for fame and glory, it would be difficult to say that finding the cure for cancer was not a good act, nor would it be easy to say that the scientist who found it is not "good" merely because he didn't do it for goodness' sake




Further evidence.

And I disagree vehemently on the first line.


----------



## Tovec (Jun 8, 2011)

tylermalan said:


> You think that most people _act_ true neutral?  I don't know if I've ever known even a single person that acted true neutral (when it mattered) often enough to actually be considered neutral.  People might try to front like they don't care or think in ways that aren't LG, but at the end of the day, how many laws did they break?  How much legitimate authority did they disrespect?  How much evil did they accomplish?  Very little on all accounts.




I think most people are closer to true neutral because everyone commits acts of good or evil, order or chaos.

How many laws do they break?
How much authority do they disrespect?
How much evil do they do?

The answer to all three isn't "Very little" it is as much as they can get away with. When was the last time you went the speed limit? If a cashier gives you the wrong change (in your favour) how often do you remedy it? If the police were to hassle you and have a legitimate case would you simply accept the charge and do the time or would  you fight it and not want to go to jail?

Unrelated to above argument:
When that scientist finds the cure for cancer do they give it away? Sell the secret? Covert it for profit?


----------



## Dingo333 (Jun 8, 2011)

If people were truly LG, things like communism would work.
Think about it, if people always obeyed the law and did what was best for the group, capitalism would have fallen apart and communism would reign supreme.

On a whole, people are TN. Yes you have groups who are LG(communists) and CG(rebels) and LE(dictators) and CE(terrorists) but on average, humans are TN.

As Tovec put it, how many laws did you "bend" today. Did you speed? Did you disrespect someone?


----------



## Marius Delphus (Jun 8, 2011)

In any event, alignment is for D&D characters, not for real people.


----------



## Haltherrion (Jun 8, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> I completely disagree with that. "Why" is often just as important, if not moreso, than "what."




I think that's a fundamental philosophical distinction 

For me, in the gaming world, alignment is about "why". As a ref, I can get inside the NPC's head and I know why they act. Alignment serves as a useful predictor/aid in determining their actions. They are good because they consider the well-being of others in their actions.

In the real world, I can't actually get inside anyone else's head. Therefore, it is all about "what", i.e., their demonstrated behavior. There is no other way to judge someone else. Even if they claim they are telling you what is in their head, the act of telling you that is still 'action', not a link to what is really going on in their head anymore than how they otherwise act. Something to be considered as part of the sum of their actions.

In both cases, it does raise interesting questions. Take an 'evil' person/NPC who never actually does anything evil. That is, his actions are all good. In the game world, is such a person really evil? I'd say, sure because he always has the potential to do something evil (and in game terms, maybe he is just in 'deep cover' until he commits the ultimate betrayal). But in real life, how can you call the person evil? You aren't in their head. You can only judge them by their actions. (And if you say, well, they were acting a little suspicious, well, that "acting suspicious" was still an action, i.e., an observed behavior you judged to be less than good.)

Of course, in the game world, if the ref has someone act good for most of the game then suddenly commit an evil act, the players could rightly accuse the ref of having his NPC act out of character. In games and fiction, we expect past behavior to predict future behavior. Of course, we expect that in real life too but when it doesn't happen, we don't have a referee to go whining to


----------



## tylermalan (Jun 8, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> "Good or bad" is not the same thing as "good or evil."
> 
> Further evidence.
> 
> And I disagree vehemently on the first line.




I was using "good or bad" to be synonymous with "good or evil."  Bad = evil in all of my posts.

When good is done, then the actions were good.  "But the guy who is doing those actions _doesn't care!_"  It doesn't matter - good is done, the actions were good, and people that do good actions are good people.

"In the real world, I can't actually get inside anyone else's head. Therefore, it is all about "what", i.e., their demonstrated behavior."

And Tovec: all the examples you gave are examples of chaos, not neutrality.  Also, I never speed 

What it comes down to for me is not "how close is a person" to one alignment.  It is about "which alignment do their actions most commonly express?"  Most people commonly express good and law, and so are good and lawful.  You can have anarchistic thoughts all day long, but if you keep going to your job and paying your taxes and etc, etc, etc... then what appreciable difference do your thoughts have on the world in comparison to your actions?  Zero.  As high school has taught us, running around and _saying_ that you're different doesn't actually make you different unless you _act_ that way - and most people don't.


----------



## Tovec (Jun 8, 2011)

tylermalan said:


> And Tovec: all the examples you gave are examples of chaos, not neutrality.  Also, I never speed




It is quite possible you don't. I wouldn't say this follows suit for the mass majority of people however.
There is a reason why we have well defined "7 deadly sins" as many people do commit them regularly and as often as possible. Some people may be truly good or even lawful good but these are less common and certainly not the average.

All examples I gave may be taken as Chaotic, yes, however if people are doing them and you say they are LG then my point still stands. If you are "mostly" following the laws but it is done out of being caught not out of moral duty and when the chance to get away with something occurs is taken then that would not make one LG. They may have started there but through their evil (sins) or chaotic (actions listed before) actions they become TN most of the time.

When was the last time someone who would have made actual actions to become LG? Remember LG is an extreme in the alignment wheel. A person is more likely to be LN or NG than LG. At least according to the rules.
Actual actions of the heroic and selfless LG alignment would include running into a burning building to rescue someone you don't know (ie. Firefighters without the job title) or giving shelter and a meal to a passing hobo (at least for the night)? They happen sure but they are rare, not everyday occurrences. At least not in Western society, I have very little experience beyond that.

I know its in the tenants of several religions to do thse things and act a certain amount of LG but upholding all the "laws" of said religion is extraordinary even amoung the most devout I have ever met.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jun 8, 2011)

Haltherrion said:


> In the real world, I can't actually get inside anyone else's head.




This is, to me, a meaningless distinction.  Given that we are presupposing the assignment of game alignments to real people (e.g., asserting a fairly simplistic objective moral reality), it doesn't matter whether or not you, personally, know what anyone else's actual alignment is.  The objective judge - God, the rules of the universe, whatever you want to call it - does.



tylermalan said:


> I was using "good or bad" to be synonymous with "good or evil."  Bad = evil in all of my posts.




Yes, well - here's the thing.  They aren't.  "Good" in the sense of "Desirable" is completely different from "Good" in the sense of "Aligning with the ideals espoused by the D&D alignment called 'Good'," and similarly for "bad = undersirable" and "bad = Evil."

As a simple example, consider a stereotypical evil warlord - he is LE and he believes in LE ideals.  In his frame of view, it is "desirable" (i.e., "good") to have supreme power vested in the position of Warlord, with enforcement of that power enabled by a highly-disciplined team of jackbooted thugs with a strict hierarchy of legal and geographic responsibilities.

A LG character might see some aspects of that warlord's rule as "good" (i.e., "desirable") - he probably likes the vesting of power in a position, rather than a person (continuity!) and the discipline and hierarchy of the enforcers (clear lines of responsibility!).  On the whole, however, he views the thing as wrong or incorrect - it misuses some desirable tools for undesirable ends.

A CN character or a CG character sees little desirable at all - the whole shooting match is bad.  (Note, the whole thing is _not_ Evil.)

In short, succinctly, I think the key to really thinking about alignments and characterization and what they mean is to realize that most people - and, most especially, the guys on the each side of the keyboard - are _not Lawful Good_.

Rather, they probably have a philosophy* that lays out what they believe is morally right - what they see as "good = desirable."  This doesn't, necessarily, make them "good = D&D Good."  That which their philosophy does not value is possibly called "evil" - and will often be, in rhetoric! - but that no more makes it "evil = D&D Evil" than they are inherently D&D Good.  Rather, those things are "evil = undesirable."

So, in summation, I think that "I may not be Lawful Good" is a great first step to take in these matters, if you ever want to apply D&D-based alignment thinking (or, really, _any_ objectivist moral philosophical thinking) to the real world.

Also also wik, applying D&D alignments to the real world never really works out that well.   So, I'll drop the tangent after this.

* One of, you know, thousands out there that exist.  Maybe they don't have any particular codified philosophy, but I'm pretty sure everyone, at least, has developed a personal understanding of what is right and wrong to them.


----------



## tylermalan (Jun 8, 2011)

Some really good stuff in this thread!  Of course, Patryn, I disagree with you.  People are lawful good because they act lawful good, and the more I read your posts, the more I feel as though you're holding too high a standard for what could be considered lawful good.  It is in my opinion that the actions of a person are what define them, not their thoughts - essentially, doing lawful good things 99% of the time determines your alignment as lawful good _because_ there is an objective moral standard.

Correct me if I misunderstand - you're trying to say that the D&D standard is too... pure, maybe, to be applied to the real world.  Right?  And so it is incorrect to say that anyone in the real world realistically adheres to or lives up to that standard.  Is this correct?


----------



## tylermalan (Jun 8, 2011)

Tovec said:


> It is quite possible you don't. I wouldn't say this follows suit for the mass majority of people however.
> There is a reason why we have well defined "7 deadly sins" as many people do commit them regularly and as often as possible. Some people may be truly good or even lawful good but these are less common and certainly not the average.
> 
> All examples I gave may be taken as Chaotic, yes, however if people are doing them and you say they are LG then my point still stands. If you are "mostly" following the laws but it is done out of being caught not out of moral duty and when the chance to get away with something occurs is taken then that would not make one LG. They may have started there but through their evil (sins) or chaotic (actions listed before) actions they become TN most of the time.
> ...




I see what you're saying, but to be honest, I don't know what else to call it other than LG.  Let me put it this way - no, you don't see people constantly giving out meals to the poor and homeless.  I would venture to say that these "extraordinary" acts don't take place as often because the chances to are also not common.  However, if a law was proposed that put zero undue strain on a state while at the same time fed every homeless person on the street for a month, do you think that law would get passed?  Of course it would.  So, despite a FEW bad things, chaotic tendencies, and general misgivings, most people are mostly LG.  It just comes down to percentages, for me.  If someone is 99% good and 1% neutral, then he's good.


----------



## Tovec (Jun 8, 2011)

tylermalan said:


> I see what you're saying, but to be honest, I don't know what else to call it other than LG.  Let me put it this way - no, you don't see people constantly giving out meals to the poor and homeless.  I would venture to say that these "extraordinary" acts don't take place as often because the chances to are also not common.  However, if a law was proposed that put zero undue strain on a state while at the same time fed every homeless person on the street for a month, do you think that law would get passed?  Of course it would.  So, despite a FEW bad things, chaotic tendencies, and general misgivings, most people are mostly LG.  It just comes down to percentages, for me.  If someone is 99% good and 1% neutral, then he's good.




I think you are wrong in this regard.
The four corners (anything without neutral in it) are extremes in alignment both in the DnD universe as well as the real one. People are not all LG and drift from there. They are all TN and "work toward" something more.
The average person doesn't run into the burning building. (Good action)
The average person would take money that they didn't earn and claim it as their own because they can't get caught. (Chaotic action)
The average person will be as lazy as they can get away with. (evil "sloth" action)
The average person will do any number of things if they get the chance. If they can do something without getting caught or suffering the consequences they will.
This is proved over and over with people in positions of power, money, influence or authority abusing their position for their own advantage.
Yes, I agree not everyone does this all the time. Not all act on impulse and ruin it for the rest of us. It happens enough that it is a fairly good indicator of the world (at least how I have seen it).

You said "However, if a law was proposed that put zero undue strain on a state  while at the same time fed every homeless person on the street for a  month, do you think that law would get passed?"
Yes I think it would. I don't know what this has to do with people but yes the Law would get passed. However I think it is more likely that a law get passed that allows the rich to get richer, the poor to get poorer.
The federal budget in the US is how much? How much is spent on wars and death? Compare that to how much would it cost to feed everyone in the US who can't feed themselves for a year.

A person with money enough to spare rarely donates all the can spare to a soup kitchen, be it time or money. They could and if they did and had pure intentions (not court ordered or trying to get out of something) then I would call that person Good, probably NG. Most people don't do this.

Despite a few bad things people are LG? One act cannot make then CN? That's like saying a good man is always a good man, even if he commits murder (like first degree). Clearly our society doesn't agree with this, as he is sent to jail. Or as many more of us believe, to hell later on. He can truly repent (Atonement spell ) and become the goodly alignment he was before but this is uncommon as well.

I would like to see your rational as to why you think most people are LG, beyond obeying the law and social norms when it suits them. I've given you several fair examples and good reasoning why that isn't true.


----------



## Marius Delphus (Jun 8, 2011)

To elaborate, in the (default) D&D/PF world, alignment is a real force, like, say, gravity. Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos exist, they have champions, you can root for your favorite "team," you can use a magic "Geiger counter" to determine how much of a given force is in the area, etc.

In D&D, Evil people can be generally pleasant, Good people can be bad-tempered and churlish, Chaotic people can abide by their community's laws, Lawful people can foment rebellion, and Neutral people can be offended by things. But a character's alignment still describes something fundamental about his or her mindset or world-view.

There are no such forces in the real world. Thus, the idea that real people have D&D alignments doesn't make any sense to me. On Earth, we have little-g "good" and little-e "evil," which are basically opinions informed by people's environment and upbringing as filtered through some biological imperatives of greater or lesser strength, depending on the individual.

So you'll forgive me that I'm disconcerted by this "real-world alignment" discussion.


----------



## tylermalan (Jun 9, 2011)

Ok, [MENTION=95493]Tovec[/MENTION] and the rest, I suppose I should clarify.

In the real world, I do not believe in an objective moral standard.  I believe in various incarnations of subjective moral standards, instead.

That being said, my opinion about the real world falls mostly in line with what Marius just said.  Almost every person that you will ever encounter is merely a different shade of grey as opposed to purely entrenched in one alignment.  Because there is no objective moral standard, I don't even think that one could say that a person _actually is_ LG or CE or whatever.

My original comment about most people being LG was an attempt to use a real world example as it might apply to the D&D world.  As Marius pointed out, chaotic people can abide by their community's laws (etc, etc), but the main point that I've been trying to make (by using real world examples) is that a person's actions and behavior are what determine their alignment.  The topic has been muddled since my initial post, but the question is: how much can a person obey the laws of their community before they are considered lawful instead of chaotic?  And for me, that comes down to percentages.  80% chaotic tendencies and behavior with only 20% lawful tendencies?  Then you're chaotic _because you behave that way._  Actions determine alignment; not thoughts.

My mistake is in not being clear that the "real world" examples are, in my mind throughout this debate, taking place in a D&D world.  This is exemplified in my most recent post to Patryn, where I said:

"essentially, doing lawful good things 99% of the time determines your alignment as lawful good _because_ there is an objective moral standard."

As I don't believe there is an objective moral standard in the real world, obviously this would not apply there.

Now, in direct response to your final question, Tovec...  my rationale is this: If we apply the objective moral standard of the D&D world (and my qualification of percentage of behavior) to the real world, what we see is the vast majority of people _behaving_ lawfully and goodly more than 50% of the time.  This makes them, in my opinion, LG.

Remember, I don't think that people actually _are_ LG once we apply real-world subjectivity.  It is only in the context of the D&D moral standard that I believe most people would be considered LG.  Most people that I personally know, anyway.

As a final point, I do not agree that "people in power, with money, etc..." proves anything about the average person, as the average person does not have vast amounts of money or power.  These are extraordinary circumstances, and I don't think it is debatable that extraordinary circumstances will make people do extraordinary things - but as these circumstances are not common, neither are the people who act out in response to them.  Again - it is the actions that matter, and it doesn't matter if people merely DON'T act in these ways because they can't (because they don't have money, or power, or etc.).  All that matters is that they aren't acting this way, so it would be odd to call them by a name befitting a behavior which they do not exhibit.


----------



## Haltherrion (Jun 11, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> This is, to me, a meaningless distinction. Given that we are presupposing the assignment of game alignments to real people (e.g., asserting a fairly simplistic objective moral reality), it doesn't matter whether or not you, personally, know what anyone else's actual alignment is. The objective judge - God, the rules of the universe, whatever you want to call it - does.




Well, that *is* the distinction in my post. In the real world, I can't get into people's heads as I am not God nor does he talk me. In the game world, I *can* get into the NPCs heads.

The point being, a game system can use an alignment definition that requires access to the "insides of heads" but in the real world we have no recourse but to rely on observed behavior.


----------



## tylermalan (Jun 11, 2011)

Haltherrion said:


> Well, that *is* the distinction in my post. In the real world, I can't get into people's heads as I am not God nor does he talk me. In the game world, I *can* get into the NPCs heads.
> 
> The point being, a game system can use an alignment definition that requires access to the "insides of heads" but in the real world we have no recourse but to rely on observed behavior.




I agree.  If the real world had an objective moral standard, the only way that we could feasibly "label" people would be to watch how they behave and give them an alignment to which their behavior most closely adheres.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 12, 2011)

Quote from a 13 year old paladin in yesterday's game - 'Some times you need to smite evil, some times you just need to punch it in the face.' Explaining to a superior in the order why he was in a bar brawl in the previous game.  (Actually, he started it, sort of. He was protecting one of the ladies present from some unwanted attention.)

The superior told him 'carry on then', clapped him on this back, and sent him on his way. 

The Auld Grump


----------

