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

[Haltherrion]

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]

"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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.