Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sinjin the Rogue" data-source="post: 575599" data-attributes="member: 2288">lawful goodLawful 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.</blockquote>

Verification