Advice on how to play Lawful Good not Lawful Stupid needed

[Mark Chance]

Not quite...

For a fantasy campaign these might work, but in general I don't think vigilantism is an appropriate model for lawful good behavior. Both Batman and Dirty Harry suffer from "Judge, Jury, Executioner" syndrome, and that just doesn't fly for Lawful Good.

Wulf

Dirty Harry, yes. Batman, no. Batman does not, will not, kill. To take a life violates the most fundamental tenet of his personal code. Batman also works very much hand-in-hand with law enforcement, doing the things that the police cannot do because of the niceties of things like search warrants, probable cause, et cetera.

Regarding the LG monk, remember that Lawful not necessarily equate to law-abiding. Lex inuista non est lex, if I remember my Latin correctly. An unjust law is not a law. This principle has been of cardinal importance, at least in Western philosophy and theology, for something on the order of 2000+ years.

The problem that I see with regards to Lawful alignments is that too many people seem to approach the idea from a positivist point of view, which holds that man-made law is the highest law there is. This is not only demonstrably false, but is also a recipe for tyranny, whether it is the tyranny of one party (i.e., the Nazis or the Communists), of one person (i.e., Saddam Hussein), or of the majority (i.e., popular democracy).

A Lawful Good character, it seems to me, is committed to the idea that there is a Good that stands as the superior in the relationship between Lawful and Good. Consequently, laws that permit evil to occur or directly bring about evil need not be obeyed.

Of course, this doesn't mean they have to be fought against tooth and nail. An unjust law can be permissive or coercive. Permissive evil impose no moral obligation for civil disobedience. Coercive laws do.

Hand in hand with all of this remains a prime consideration: Evil has no rights, but people do.

Anyway, that's enough for one post. I need to get up and do something constructive.

 

[bret]

The lawful person should attempt to work within the law.

Most of the stuff I'm writing here assumes that the laws are LG or LN, trying to protect the society. A LG character in a LE environment had better have several ranks of barrister and Knowledge: Religion to help guide him.

Here is an example from one of our play sessions:

We were in a town hunting down a slaver, smuggler, and thief. We had a number of records showing the involvement of a local mage with this person. It implicated the mage.

My paladin and the wizard (who was the other LG character in the group) went to the local authorities. We waited as a writ was created against the mage, and then were given permission to serve the writ. We captured the mage, brought him to the local law, and turned over the equipment he was carrying. The person at the office gave us a chance to just take the items (saved him paperwork), but we once again asked what the local law was on such things.

A CG could have just broken into the mage's home, may have slain the mage, and definately would have just taken the items.

The LG personality should attempt to live within the strictures of the law. A just law is written to benefit the society. It is the greatest good for the many that should concern the LG character. If an individual suffers, try and find a way within the laws to seek mercy. Do not act above the law.

To take the example of breaking into a house, if the character has no authority (current day police do), he should still break in and stop the sacrifice. Then he should turn himself in to the local law, explaining his reasons for breaking the law and accepting the punishment. In most cases, the punishment is likely to only consist of a slap on the wrist. The thing is the character should not consider himself above the law, they must be willing to face any infractions they make and accept the consequences. Not doing so sets a bad example.

In my opinion, a personal code is not lawful behaviour. It is called a personal code for a reason, it is individual to the person who holds it. A LG character may have a code of conduct, but it is one that a group or society has created. It isn't something that is unique to the character. This is much more like a chaotic's behavior than a lawful behavior.



Now, back to the question of how to not be lawful stupid:

There is nothing about LG that prevents a strategic withdrawls. Entrapment may or may not be acceptable means of proving someone has criminal tendancies. The idea would be "you can't cheat an honest man." The LG character doesn't have to be naive, they can reasonably expect all sorts of dirty tricks from their opposition. Although they would never use a poisoned weapon, there is no reason they can't plan for someone using such means against them.

The LG character should be willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of society, but that doesn't mean they are constantly seeking ways to throw away their lives. It is only under extreme circumstances that this should ever come up, and they should be sure that it will serve the good of the society because it means they will not be there to protect others the next time something crops up.

 

[Maerdwyn]

Re: Not quite...

Dirty Harry, yes. Batman, no. Batman does not, will not, kill. To take a life violates the most fundamental tenet of his personal code. Batman also works very much hand-in-hand with law enforcement, doing the things that the police cannot do because of the niceties of things like search warrants, probable cause, et cetera.

Nerdy nitpick - this, of course, depends on what era of Batman you are looking at. In his Golden Age days, Batman actually killed somewhat frequently - THrottling villains with the Bat-Rope, shooting them with the Bat Plane's machine guns, etc

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Re: Re: Not quite...

Nerdy nitpick - this, of course, depends on what era of Batman you are looking at. In his Golden Age days, Batman actually killed somewhat frequently - THrottling villains with the Bat-Rope, shooting them with the Bat Plane's machine guns, etc

Agree with you there.

Regardless, Mark, I don't see how you can say that he's Lawful when in the next breath you explain the various ways that he circumvents the law. Diminishing important aspects of the law (like search and seizure) by calling them "niceties" doesn't change the fact that he's breaking the law. In fact, he flaunts it.

Of course, I am sure we all realize this particular angle of the thread isn't going anywhere, since in real life (and comic books) folks don't generally adhere to such a thing as alignment-- at least, not 100% of the time.

To put Batman in d20 Modern terms, I'd say he has allegiance to Good and Justice, and leave it at that.


Wulf

 

[2WS-Steve]

For a fantasy campaign these might work, but in general I don't think vigilantism is an appropriate model for lawful good behavior. Both Batman and Dirty Harry suffer from "Judge, Jury, Executioner" syndrome, and that just doesn't fly for Lawful Good.

Wulf

I agree that the Dirty Harry one is pretty open to interpretation. However I think Clint Eastwood would say that his character was lawful good. My feeling is that those stories were told with an assumption that the regular laws of society had broken down due to bureaucracy or whatever and that, in order to have justice done, you needed cops who would cut through the red tape. A lot of people see the films as simple revenge fantasies but at least some people thought of the character as pursuing true justice in a society that no longer seemed to care about justice. Frankly I don't know how I feel about the issue but I do think reasonable people can disagree about this and that a player could run a Dirty Harry style character as their interpretation of lawful good.

Batman runs from Dirty Harry to a more traditional notion of lawful good; in the 70's comics he turned over crooks to the police and wouldn't even use a gun!

One approach to the good alignments that I like is having lawful good emphasize justice, neutral good emphasize compassion, and chaotic good emphasize liberty. These are all important principles that underlie many of our moral choices. Unfortunately, we occasionally find ourelves in situations where we must sacrifice one to protect the other.

 

[2WS-Steve]

Re: Re: Re: Not quite...

To put Batman in d20 Modern terms, I'd say he has allegiance to Good and Justice, and leave it at that.


Wulf

I'd buy that too

 

[Sinjin the Rogue]

lawful good

Lawful good certainly does not have to be played "lawful stupid", nor does "lawful" mean that you adhere only, and necessarily to the recognized rule of law set forth by the local government.

A lawful character might have a personal code of conduct to which he/she strictly adheres. For that person, his/her personal code of conduct is the law. Of course, this does not mean, "do whatever feels right". What it means is that you have a well-thought out personal code for your character. It means that you may want to write items down so that when you are in doubt about how to act as your character, you try to have a rule to turn to for guidance. Of course, since you are a good character, your personal code will reflect that. For example, slavery might be legal in a particular land, but your character might never consider owning a slave, because your character would consider slavery to be a violation of a law that is greater than the edict of the local magistrate or king. Your character might believe that the forces of creation meant for all persons to live equally free. Your character might attempt to free some slaves, despite the fact that helping them escape would be a violation of the local law. However, your character would not consider killing anyone in the attempt, even if it meant being captured.

A lawful character might also follow a regimen of doctrine established by a church or monestary. This is very similar to the personal code, accept you might see about getting help from your DM or from friends to think of things that you must follow. Your DM might be inclined to include taboos or disciplines to your characters religious code. For instance, your monk's monestary will have a rigid heirarchy, and the members of the heirarchy might establish a discipline members aren't allowed to wear shoes. The act of wearing shoes is certainly a neutral thing, but because your character is required to obey the disciplines imposed by his superiors, wearing shoes would be wrong for him, not because wearing shoes is wrong, but because disobedience is wrong. The heirarchy of course could amend or remove disciplines at any time, but as long as they are in effect, your monk would be required by the laws of his monestary to adhere to these disciplines. Of course, you might also determine a reason for the institution of such a discipline. It may be that the founder of the monestary once had to prove himself worthy to some higher power, and he was therefore charged with treading across a pit of hot coals in his barefeet. The act was one of humility in recognition of superiority, and because of this, your monestary traditionally enforces the discipline of going bare-foot to teach monks the art of humility.

Of course, a lawful good character may very well adhere to the laws of the land. However, because the character is good, he would struggle with laws that are tyrannical, and possibly seek to change them.

I don't think batman would be a good example of Lawful Good". Batman is a vigilante, who brings his own method of justice to bear on evil doers. I'd say that batman would be chaotic good. An example of Lawful Good would be a knight of the round table, who followed the code of chivalry. Of course that's the easy recomendation. Another example of lawful good would be King David, or even Aragorn.

A lawful good character that does not take slaves, would still take prisoners. Prisoners would be treated humanely and then delivered at the soonest possible time to a place where they could be interned. Being lawful good does not require a character to release anyone who surrenders on the battlefield. (A paladin in my group believes that being lawful good requires him to do this. As such, we face the very real possibility of being attacked by those he sets free. Now, this is "lawful stupid", not lawful good. A paladin would also be trained in tactics, and surely, no paladin is going to allow himself or his companions to be ambushed simply because the paladin does not personally believe that taking prisoners is acceptable.)

A lawful good character is willing to give potential foes the benefit of the doubt and therefore likes to ask questions first and attack, if necessary, later. But, that does not mean that a lawful good character can only retaliate if attacked first. If a company of hobgoblins is on the march towards the local village, it is stupidity that drives a fool to assume that the hobgoblins might have good intentions and therefore any action must wait for the hobgoblins to attack first.

A lawful good character is not perfect. All people sin. The road to perfection is a long journey, and no character starts out at the end of the trail. Therefore, if your character succumbs to a weakness, recognize that it does not have to mean an alignment change. Lancelot fell for Guenevere (sp?), but in the end, he came back to fight alongside Arthur, and Lancelot died in the final battle against Mordred. Despite his previous failure, Lancelot gave his life defending that in which he truly believed: Camelot.
Of course, alignment change could occur, depending on the severity of the infraction. Murder or rape could certainly cause one to lose his alignment, but getting publically drunk and starting a brawl one time might not be so bad, especially if your character learns from his mistakes.

A lawful Good character tends to be more forgiving of others, but recognizes that forgiveness might still require another to make satisfaction for an infraction. For instance, the lawful good character might learn that the rogue in the party stole 10 GP from a patron at a local tavern. The lawful good character admonishes the rogue, but does not tell the authorities about it. Instead, the lawful good character insists that the party rogue return the ill-gotten booty. Once the lawful good character believes this has been accomplished, he is willing to forget about the incident. (Until such time as he learns of a similar act). A lawful neutral character might turn in the rogue, and a lawful evil character might beat the rogue into senselessness, and then take the money for himself. After all, the lawful evil character had to make sure justice was done, and he reasons that his effort qualifies for a reward.

Anyway, I know this is long, but I hope it helps.

 

[reapersaurus]

Re: Not quite...

Regarding the LG monk, remember that Lawful not necessarily equate to law-abiding. Lex inuista non est lex, if I remember my Latin correctly. An unjust law is not a law. This principle has been of cardinal importance, at least in Western philosophy and theology, for something on the order of 2000+ years.

The problem that I see with regards to Lawful alignments is that too many people seem to approach the idea from a positivist point of view, which holds that man-made law is the highest law there is. This is not only demonstrably false, but is also a recipe for tyranny, whether it is the tyranny of one party (i.e., the Nazis or the Communists), of one person (i.e., Saddam Hussein), or of the majority (i.e., popular democracy).

A Lawful Good character, it seems to me, is committed to the idea that there is a Good that stands as the superior in the relationship between Lawful and Good. Consequently, laws that permit evil to occur or directly bring about evil need not be obeyed.

Of course, this doesn't mean they have to be fought against tooth and nail. An unjust law can be permissive or coercive. Permissive evil impose no moral obligation for civil disobedience. Coercive laws do.

Hand in hand with all of this remains a prime consideration: Evil has no rights, but people do.

This is one awesome post.

You should reply in more Paladin threads over the years.

You Get It.

 

[Dragonblade]

I agree with reapersaurus.

That is a great post, Mark!

Lawful doesn't mean law-abiding. It means belief and adherence to a personal code of behavior or an external morality. It is the code or framework which the person uses to guide their actions that provides the lawful component of their alignment.

It is whether they use this code to benefit others or themselves that determines the good and evil part of their alignment.

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.

 

[s/LaSH]

To quote the PHB:

'Law' implies honour, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability.
'Chaos' implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility.

It's easy to get personalities with traits from both. Take Batman. He's free from the shackles of normal law-enforcement (no authority rules Bats), but at the same time he's got his rigid honour code going on. Unfortunately, they're mutually reinforcing traits, not traits at loggerheads. I was going to use logic to determine his alignment, but now I've confused myself and I can't. Just goes to show what an approximation alignment is.

Furthermore:

'Good' implies altruism, respect for life, concern for dignity etc.
'Evil' implies hurting, opressing, and killing others.

That's simple enough on the face of it. But what happens when you come across someone like Frank Castle, the Punisher? He goes after scuzzbag criminals with extreme prejudice. He's clearly protecting the innocent, but almost all of what he does is on the evil list - Frank's not a nice man, he's surly and doesn't play well with others. He'll take down superheroes who get in his way if they give him a chance. For Frank, I'm fairly certain that chaotic evil describes him best, despite the fact that he's a hero (of sorts), largely because his violence outweighs the need to employ it.

The alignment system in D&D is clearly stated to be a cosmos-defining force. While humans don't have to tick every box in the right order, they'll still be sorted into one of the nine slots. A paladin has to act in a specific way, but that way doesn't have to dominate her world-view. She can easily have a whole string of non-lawful, non-good traits, so long as good and law are the highest priorities. Was Robin Hood (the romantic figure, not a more realistic view) LG? From a certain way of looking at it, yes. He had his honour, his code, his chivalry; and he was definitely good. On the other hand, he defied local authority consistently and lived a merry life in the greenwood, which is quite chaotic. Which one was stronger? I'll tell you: His honour. If the local authorities had been nice and cared for the poor (or whatever they were doing, I can't actually recall), he would have sided with them because of his honour, and in many tales he swears fealty to King Richard. If he were truly chaotic, he would have stayed in the Greenwood, killing deer that didn't belong to him just because he liked it better.

There! I cracked an alignment problem! Robin's LG!

Thank-you for reading.