D&D General How do you think each alignment would handle this?

[Baron Opal II]

Like I said, the origins of the system. Till this day my red flag is not the usual chaotic neutral rogue, it is the lawful good paladin.

Which is really sad.

 

[MNblockhead]

It makes me very, very sad how poorly most folks play LG. There is no Good in the behavior discussed there. That is at best LN--and may be weakly LE.

Agreed.

 

[MNblockhead]

Look, according to Gygax it is obviously lawful good to murder non-combatants affiliated with the enemy, so arresting a criminal is nothing.

Lawful good-doers are not just nit pickers, they are nit killers.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Basic Human Fighter (or whatever) is in a local store sees an obviously poor man steal something.

How would each of the alignment's react in your opinion?

Without overthinking...

LG - Offers to pay for what the man has stolen (normal); embarks on a campaign to end poverty by challenging the system that produces them, changing it so that all have enough money (heroic)

NG - I didn't see anything, what are you talking about? (normal); embarks on a campaign to end poverty by giving all poor people enough money (heroic)

CG - Runs interference, helping the poor man steal; embarks on a campaign to end poverty by overthrowing the evil government that allows it, changing it so that all are free and have enough money (heroic)

LN - Afraid I'm going to have to turn you in (normal); embarks on a campaign to improve the security of the shops (heroic)

TN - Nothing to do with me, but I saw what happened, I'm not gonna lie (normal); embarks on a campaign to teach the poor wilderness survival skills

CN - Steals some stuff as well; embarks on a campaign to free all imprisoned folks.

LE - I'm going to turn you in, unless you give me personally some incentive not to; embarks on a campaign to maximize suffering with draconian punishments.

NE - I'm going to use this information to bribe you; embarks on a campaign to make more people poor and desperate.

CE - Steals some stuff as well and kills the shop owner in front of her family; embarks on a crime spree.

 

[Vaalingrade]

When did Lawful become "Smugly Cruel"?

I don't make the rules.

They did.

 

[Andvari]

Basic Human Fighter (or whatever) is in a local store sees an obviously poor man steal something.

How would each of the alignment's react in your opinion?

Addendum: Don’t over think this

LG: Stop the man. Inform the store owner. Request leniency if the man promises not to steal again.
NG: Stop the man, but do not inform the store owner. Offer to pay for the item partially or completely.
CG: Pretend as if nothing.
LN: Shout at the man, alerting the store owner and any nearby guards.
TN: Question the man if he thinks it's really a good idea, but do not interfere otherwise.
CN: Pretend as if nothing.
LE: Shout at the man, alerting the store owner and any nearby guards. Request the harshest punishment possible.
NE: Let the man know you saw him steal. Let him go through with it, but use the knowledge to control him. Perhaps to steal things for you when necessary, or doing dirty work for you.
CE: Let the man know you saw him steal. Ask him to steal something else for you, or you'll get him thrown in jail. Once he steals something else, tell on him anyway. His punishment will be more severe now that he has stolen more than one thing. Perhaps use the distraction to steal something for yourself.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It was not about how it should be, but an explanation for why people might see lawful good as judgemental bigots, because that's exactly how it originally was, and confirmed to be so by the creator of the game.

Then Gygax is even less someone we should listen to than I had thought.

Like I said, the origins of the system. Till this day my red flag is not the usual chaotic neutral rogue, it is the lawful good paladin.

I mean, the Chaotic Neutral Rogue is just as bad, if not worse, because the Paladin at least wants to be good even if they're objectively terrible at doing it. The CN Rogue is as likely to screw over everyone else in the party and laugh about it all the way to the bank as they are to be a great asset.

Lawful good-doers are not just nit pickers, they are nit killers.

Good God, it genuinely makes my gorge rise just reading this stuff. This is deeply messed up.

I don't make the rules.

They did.

You can choose to be different. I have.

 

[Andvari]

I much prefer alignment as described in 3E to AD&D, where they were, imo, silly.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I mean, the Chaotic Neutral Rogue is just as bad, if not worse, because the Paladin at least wants to be good even if they're objectively terrible at doing it. The CN Rogue is as likely to screw over everyone else in the party and laugh about it all the way to the bank as they are to be a great asset.

How I see it is that the player of the CN rogue actually understands that their character is not a nice person. The LG paladin is not a nice person either, but as their player lacks awareness, they think that they are, whilst acting like a morally superior jerk about it.

Good God, it genuinely makes my gorge rise just reading this stuff. This is deeply messed up.

Now you understand. Alignment system is terrible descriptor of anything to begin with, but I think it's origins are so toxic that I really don't want to deal with it for that reason either. It has too often been used just as justification for being horrible whilst pretending to be good.

 

[Vaalingrade]

You can choose to be different. I have.

I don't think you understand.

Lawful types are the ones who make and uphold the rules that make it so a poor man stealing to live ought to be punished, and the rules that likely made him poor in the first place.

There is a reason 'to be lawful or good' is a question constantly posed in pieces about the paladin: they're not a harmonious pairing.