Advice on how to play Lawful Good not Lawful Stupid needed

[jester47]

I have always seen Lawful good in the light that the lawful good work off the idea that structure and codes bring about the most good. However they understand that a code cannot be perfect and seek to revise them to be so. Chaotic good seem to believe that free will and lack of rigid codes bring about the most good. I would think that neutral good people are the ones that think that codes are good to an extent but sometimes you have to go against them.

None of these (LG, NG, CG) have to remain in their box all the time.

A lawful good character could break the law to get somthing done if he thought it was urgent enough. However he would see that he recieved the punishment that that infraction carries. Thus if it was needed that he steal a sword to defeat the bad guy that was trying to destroy the town he would take the days in jail (or even loose his hand) as a result of his action. Also, the DM could have the person he stole the sword from make no charge, as long as the sword was returned.

A chaotic good character could and often does follow laws, ussually if they coincide with what he finds is good. The second the law breaks down he will do what he thinks is right.

Neutral obviously falls inbetween.

The interesting thing in this comparison is that you will find more often then not that eventually the Lawful Good will have more credibility than the Chaotic Good. A lawful good character is more likely to recieve the benefit of the doubt from those in charge of the law, and thusly those who enforce the law (if it is not corrupt) will be on his side.

Aaron.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Does, the Punisher kill? Yes. But killing in and of itself is not an evil act or a chaotic one.

It is the circumstances and the reasoning behind who was killed and why that determines whether its a good or evil act.

That's modern-day moral relativism for you.

Depriving another person of life is NEVER a Good act. It's not necessarily Evil, and it can certainly be Lawful, but it's never Good. It is cheap and easy and a repudiation of redemption and forgiveness.

Dungeons and Dragons-- and specifically, the alignment system-- is one of absolutes. GOOD and EVIL are real concepts and tangible forces in the world, and they do not vary with circumstances.

Wulf

 

[InvaderSquoosh]

The thing is, LG can be interpreted in so many different ways. It's boring if every LG character acts like Superman. One of my favorite interpretations was by this DM that allowed LG societies to be extremely racist, bigoted and uncompromising. Their way or the highway, but no executions.

Anyhoo, I also think that Law is not as important as Good when playing LG. I know a player who runs his Paladin as if he were LN, occasionally doing Good Deeds (TM) to give the illusion that he's LG. That's dishonest and not fun. Placing an emphasis on the Good side should prevent such play.

 

[Vexed]

Great posts guys, enjoyed reading them. Just to throw in my two cents.

Superman -LG yep.
John Wayne -LG
Batman -Reluctantly say LG. However, in some recent comics you could dispute this! I read one a week ago at Barnes/Noble where Batman "implied" he would do away with Lex Luger for something he did to Superman, and said "he" (refering to Superman) was the best of them, but Lex shouldnt expect the same treatment from him. (not word for word, but that was the jist of it). Just because he works with the law doesnt mean he is necessarily lawful. He can work with them as they have the same goals, but he still does things his own way and works outside the law when it suits him or is necessary. (Again, it depends on what "era" of Batman we are talking about.)

Charles Bronson -CG
Punisher is Def CG in my book. He takes the law into his own hands, and the foundation of what he is doing is retribution/revenge. His family was murdered by crimals, scum, etc. So now he is going to take out all the scum because he feels its the right thing to do. His "version" of justice is that of a lynch mob mentality. Something similar to the movie "Boondock saints" where they are like radical modern harpers. If you are an "evil man" we are going to kill you.

 

[Dragonblade]

That's modern-day moral relativism for you.

Depriving another person of life is NEVER a Good act. It's not necessarily Evil, and it can certainly be Lawful, but it's never Good. It is cheap and easy and a repudiation of redemption and forgiveness.

Dungeons and Dragons-- and specifically, the alignment system-- is one of absolutes. GOOD and EVIL are real concepts and tangible forces in the world, and they do not vary with circumstances.

Wulf

Sorry, but no. Killing can in fact be a good act especially if the killing has prevented further evil from occuring.

I would say that a woman who kills a would-be rapist has not only performed a non-evil act but has in fact performed a good and just act as well.

Nor is my position Moral Relativism. Moral relativism means that good and evil are completely subjective to the agent in a given situation. Thus there is no such thing as good and evil really.

The rapist/killer views a woman as an object for him take and kill at will. By performing the act he is reinforcing his belief.

The woman views it as a horrible violation of her very spirit and body.

If morality is relative then neither one is right and they are both right at the same time. Thus it becomes impossible to judge and render justice. For justice to be done implies that good and evil be determined regardless of the beliefs or perception of the people involved. Who are we to condemn the Nazi's if morality is relative?

It can be demonstrated logically and philosophically that morality is not relative. Both in the D&D world and the real one.

You concede in your post that the D&D world does not have relative morality. But then you take it one step further by saying that killing is NEVER a good act.

Now why is killing not a sometimes a good act? Other than simply saying that killing is never good; as if its a self-evident statement when it is not. Can you justify why killing would always be evil?

I don't think you can. Because there are some situations where killing is necessary and if it becomes necessary for good to be accomplished by killing then wouldn't killing then be good in that situation? Like the woman who is forced to kill a rapist to defend herself. I would say that is not even a neutral act but in fact a good one. Considering not only did she save her self but many other potential victims as well.

You call killing cheap and easy. But for the woman in this example, killing was vitally necessary to defend herself. It was neither cheap nor easy. But it was justified.

You talk about redemption and forgiveness. But redemption and forgiveness are not an obligation that the forces of good must grant. Rather they are privelige that evil doers must ask for.

They have chosen evil and they must choose to seek redemption. When and if they choose to seek forgiveness and redemption, then and only then are the forces of good obligated to consider it. But not necessarily grant it, depending upon the heinous nature of the crimes involved. Forgiveness is not a right.

 

[Mirth]

Man, how many Paladin/LG threads can this board generate? Maybe they should be given their own forum

Anyway, I agree with Mark and I think that I have a pretty good grip on how to play the LG alignment. If you'd like to see me in action, check out the Gobtales PbP link in my sig. I'm playing D'Bruuhl, a Goblin Cleric (it's an all-Goblin party) who aspires to be a Paladin (he doesn't think he or the humans are ready for a Goblin Paladin yet). We've just started part two of the campaign but I haven't put that in my sig as of now.

It seems that LG is something you either get or you don't. You will see how that little Goblin cleric puts the Good above the Law a few times in the game. Feel free to comment here about my take on it if you want or email me.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I would say the both Superman and Batman would be LG. But I would say the Punisher is also LG.

Does, the Punisher kill? Yes. But killing in and of itself is not an evil act or a chaotic one.

It is the circumstances and the reasoning behind who was killed and why that determines whether its a good or evil act.

I think the Punisher is LN with evil leanings, myself. He has a very strict code of acceptable behavior, which he upholds. Others who violate this code are acceptable targets for his vendetta.

Castle is sadistic and genuinely enjoys the pain and suffering he inflicts. On several occasions, he explains to others that he doesn't care about innocent people or protecting good-- he kills criminals because he hates criminals.

At the same time, Castle hates other vigilantes because of their lack of self-control and the threat he feels they represent to the social order-- Castle considers himself self-controlled enough that his activities do not damage social order as a whole. Other vigilantes are too sloppy, too angry, or otherwise too out-of-control to be allowed to operate.

His attitudes towards the spandex superheroes are more divided. He sees them as naive, and too weak to make the choices he does, but acknowledges that they, too, fight criminals, and they protect the innocent-- a job he himself has no interest in. Despite both superhero and police interference in his crusade, he will not kill members of either group.

However, his treatment of Daredevil also shows that he believes in his ways, and believes that other people should follow his code-- or at least, understand and acknowledge it.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

A lawful good character could break the law to get somthing done if he thought it was urgent enough. However he would see that he recieved the punishment that that infraction carries. Thus if it was needed that he steal a sword to defeat the bad guy that was trying to destroy the town he would take the days in jail (or even loose his hand) as a result of his action. Also, the DM could have the person he stole the sword from make no charge, as long as the sword was returned.

He would have to return the sword. He would most certainly not have to submit himself to any form of punishment for having borrowed it, if the cause were urgent enough, and to allow himself to spend time in prison or to lose his hand for a necessary act isn't required to Lawful Good.

Now, this would be changed, if he had made some vow regarding local justice, or some vow about the sword. In the case of Tyr's sacrifice, he had specifically promised the Fenris Wolf his hand, if the chains held-- removing his hand wouldn't have simply been a case of being smart, it would make him an oathbreaker. This is a far more serious matter than returning a magical sword to where a Paladin had borrowed it from.

 

[s/LaSH]

About killing:

Killing is necessary from time to time, especially in the life of a wandering adventurer, whether good or evil. It's the choice to kill when it's not necessary that makes someone evil. The Punisher (to continue this long, drawn-out metaphor-thingy) doesn't have to pop some goon with his trusty sniper rifle six blocks over in self-defence, but he pops him anyway. That makes him evil, in my book. If he instead webbed him up and hung him for the cops to find (for example), that's a commitment to life and the dignity of other sentient beings (direct quote there from the PHB alignment pages), and thus be good. Neutral characters would act depending on the situation, I guess; neutrality tends to be glossed over...

As they say, alignment isn't relative. If you kill, hurt or opress senselessly, you're evil. If you have a healthy respect for all others, even evil, you're good. If you don't swing either way, eh.

 

[Celtavian]

Re

Don't forget the lawful aspect of Lawful Good. Lawful does in fact mean law-abiding it just doesn't mean abiding any law.

A lawful good person would actually take the time to think about the justness of a law. If the law were just, they would follow it. If it were injust, they probably would not.

Lawful Good people are not vigilantes either. They are actually the kind of people that vigilantes help. Vigilantes fall more into the Neutral Good (An often forgotten alignment) or Chaotic Good category.

A good example of a Lawful Good person would be the District Attorney of a city who was unable to try a known criminal because he had no evidence to base a conviction on. This is where your Neutral or Chaotic Good vigilante type comes into help.

A great example of this is in the movie The Untouchables. Elliot Ness is Lawful Good. He believes that he must follow the laws of the country to carry out his job effectively to prove that the justice system works for the good of the people. Now, he chooses a few partners who step over the line, but are still probably Neutral Good because they follow the laws when they feel they do the most good and break them when they feel it does the most good.

That difference must be noted when judging the difference between a lawful good and neutral good character.

Lawful Good does follow the law and rarely breaks a just law made for the greater good of society, even if not breaking that law means an evil will be done.

A neutral good person will support the laws as long as they don't allow evil to be done. They will break a law arbitarily if they feel the greater good is served by doing so.

This distinction must be made otherwise there really is no different between Lawful and Neutral Good.