Alignment -- How 'good' is LG anyway?

[Starglim]

It depends. The most committed Lawful Good is less good than the most committed Neutral Good, and likewise the strongest Lawful Neutral is more lawful than the strongest Lawful Good.

However Neutral Good can simply mean mostly neutral, but well-meaning, and likewise for LG or LN, so a paladin may be far more Good than a Neutral Good merchant.

 

[Vegepygmy]

I always saw the "Law-Chaos" axis as the "how to do it" part of alignment, and the "Good-Evil" axis as the "what should I do" part of it. So that LG, NG, and CG all could be equally Good, but have different ideas on how to help people, etc.

Bingo.

 

[Fieari]

Like orsal, I definitely see the alignments as diamond (or circular) shaped, not square shaped.

    NG
  LG  CG
LN  TN  CN
  LE  CE
    NE

 

[Greylock]

Now that I see the idea illustrated, I find I agree with it.

Thank you.

 

[Bront]

I view Allignment as a matrix. There is the law and Chaos side, and the Good and Evil side. Break it down into 9 boxes, and anywhere side the lawful Good box allows for a lot of leway.

I'm going to use some pop-culture examples.

LG characters: Superman, Batman

Now, they're quite different, but (in my opinion), they're both good, and lawful. They're probably the more extreme versions inside the Lawful Good spectrum, but they're there.

Remember, Lawful or Chaotic has nothing to do with civil law (Technicaly, neither does good or evil, but that's a different discussion), but with how they approach things. A lawful character would be more methodical, consistant, and likely has a fairly strict code of conduct. A chaotic character is likely a little more of a free spirit, plays things a little more by ear, and is probably a little more eratic in their personal actions.

This is not to say that a lawful character can't be eratic or play things by ear, nor a chaotic character can't plan or have a code of conduct, but it is a much lesser part of their personality and mode of operations.

Hope this makes sense.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

It depends. The most committed Lawful Good is less good than the most committed Neutral Good, and likewise the strongest Lawful Neutral is more lawful than the strongest Lawful Good.

However Neutral Good can simply mean mostly neutral, but well-meaning, and likewise for LG or LN, so a paladin may be far more Good than a Neutral Good merchant.

This take on the "circle" model sums me up fairly well. You cannot serve two masters and all that.

 

[Zzyzx]

I side with Particle Man (and Kant, by the way).

Law and Chaos are the means that are preferentially used to achieve the ends of Good or Evil.

If you think that lying to save someone is "more good" than telling the truth (even if someone is hurt because of truth-telling), you merely define "immediate" good as more important than "long-term" good. You are also moving yourself towards CG.

LG is harder than CG, because following rules is harder than making it up as you go. But if you are making a cake, making it up as you go may not make the best cake. If you are making a happy and safe society (your "good" goal), making it up as you go may not be best either.

My biases are clear, however, so I won't side-track any more.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

LG is harder than CG, because following rules is harder than making it up as you go. But if you are making a cake, making it up as you go may not make the best cake. If you are making a happy and safe society (your "good" goal), making it up as you go may not be best either.

On the other hand, mindlessly following a set of strict rules no matter what their real impact is significaly easier than working out the actual right thing to do in a complicated reality. If you are fighting a lab fire, mindlessly following the rule "water fights fire" may not give you the best results. If you are dealing with a complicated moral issue, mindlessly following a rule like "telling the truth is always the right thing to do" may not give you the best result either.

I'm not partcularly biased to law or chaos, your argument was just too flawed not to be adressed.

 

[FireLance]

On the other hand, mindlessly following a set of strict rules no matter what their real impact is significaly easier than working out the actual right thing to do in a complicated reality.

If we were actually talking about reality, I'd agree with you. In a game, however, things are only as complicated as the DM wants it to be. If the DM believes in a "square" alignment chart, there should always be a way to resolve the conflict between Law and Good. In fact, some DMs (like me ) might even set things up so that the only way to achieve a Good outcome is to follow the Law scrupulously, even when it doesn't seem to be the logical or sensible thing to do. You need to have faith in your government's institutions, or your culture's traditions, or the tenets of your religion, and so on.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

If we were actually talking about reality, I'd agree with you. In a game, however, things are only as complicated as the DM wants it to be. If the DM believes in a "square" alignment chart, there should always be a way to resolve the conflict between Law and Good. In fact, some DMs (like me ) might even set things up so that the only way to achieve a Good outcome is to follow the Law scrupulously, even when it doesn't seem to be the logical or sensible thing to do. You need to have faith in your government's institutions, or your culture's traditions, or the tenets of your religion, and so on.

Illogical DM fiat can of course work either way, and thus adds nothing to the discussion.