Alignment -- How 'good' is LG anyway?

[FireLance]

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

DM fiat, certainly, since the DM defines the set-up, what information the players are able to find out, and the consequences of their decisions. It need not be "illogical", though - it might only seem illogical because the characters aren't aware of all the pertinent information (like much of real life, actually, but I disgress). It wouldn't be much of a test of faith if all the information is known and the answer is obvious.

But okay, I'll add something to the discussion that has nothing to do with DM fiat.

Why do many people seem to assume that the Law is monolithic, and that Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil have the same idea of what are acceptable laws, or even the same concept of what Lawfulness is? For example, a Lawful Good and a Lawful Evil person would probably have very different opinions on a law whose only purpose is to protect the weak from the strong.

When Lawfulness and Good conflict, the problem is usually due to the inadequacies of the law, at least, from a Lawful Good standpoint. The law may be incomplete or incorrectly applied, e.g. the example of fighting a lab fire with water (there must be a standard procedure for fighting lab fires). The law may be a Lawful Neutral law, e.g. you must always fulfill your bargains. A Lawful Good law would probably include an escape clause similar to "unless this results in Chaotic or Evil ends" (kind of like the paladin's code).

A Lawful Good person following a perfect system of Lawful Good laws should never have to trade off Law for Good.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Why do many people seem to assume that the Law is monolithic, and that Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil have the same idea of what are acceptable laws, or even the same concept of what Lawfulness is? For example, a Lawful Good and a Lawful Evil person would probably have very different opinions on a law whose only purpose is to protect the weak from the strong.

I tend to equate 'lawful' more with 'orderly' that '[civil] law abiding'. I think the internal makeup of consistency, planning and "my word is my bond" thinking would be consistent to the lawful allignment, but I agree that when put in a position to make civil laws, the systems designed will rely heavily on the good/evil allignment component.

When Lawfulness and Good conflict, the problem is usually due to the inadequacies of the law, at least, from a Lawful Good standpoint. The law may be incomplete or incorrectly applied, e.g. the example of fighting a lab fire with water (there must be a standard procedure for fighting lab fires). The law may be a Lawful Neutral law, e.g. you must always fulfill your bargains. A Lawful Good law would probably include an escape clause similar to "unless this results in Chaotic or Evil ends" (kind of like the paladin's code).

At which point you have made law expressly secondary to good. Which is fine, but goes against the poster I was orriginally responding to, and I'm experienced with 3 way discussions and don't want one.

A Lawful Good person following a perfect system of Lawful Good laws should never have to trade off Law for Good.

As signified by my endorsement of the circle chart, I disagree. But thats cool.

 

[Black Omega]

Interesting topic. I don't see alignments as a zero sum situation where becoming more lawful makes one less good or vice versa. I can kind of see the point that LG is 50% lawful and 50% good, while NG is 100% good. I don't see it as quite that easy though. It's more individual by individual. Someone LG could be 75% good, 25% law, while a NG could be 50% good and 50% neutral (or 25/25 Law/Chaos, depending on how you see it).

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I tend to equate 'lawful' more with 'orderly' that '[civil] law abiding'. I think the internal makeup of consistency, planning and "my word is my bond" thinking would be consistent to the lawful allignment, but I agree that when put in a position to make civil laws, the systems designed will rely heavily on the good/evil allignment component.

I agree here.

The problem with trying to use civil laws or written laws is that these laws are not universal. If somehow there were a perfect set of LG laws, great, but what happens when an LG person is in a land with laws that are not perfect? Is the LG person obliged to follow the local laws, rather than the "perfect" laws? This is where the circular diagram comes in. Each person will have to decide if they favor law over good, or vice versa when there may be conflict between the two.

 

[Derren]

Neither LG, NG or CG are is more good then the others (Yes, even NG). All of them want the same, only the methode differs.

Image in magistrate who rules a city (or kingdom) while his lord is absent and because of some reason a large portion of the city/kingdom ends up poor.

A CG magistrate whould simply take money from the treasury which he was told not to touch to help those people. An LG character would ask the other population to donate money and search for ways how to poor people can earn money. A NG magistrate would take money from the treasury to help the people who need it most and then ask for donations, keeping a small part of the donations to refill the treasury (but not more).

Is any of this methods more good than the other? No. Some might be more effective then others but that changes from case by case and the NG magistrate would not always take the one with the best chances of success, he rather would use a mix of everything so that the overall chance of success is higher.

 

[howandwhy99]

Would you say shorter people are better looking than taller people?

I think the alignment axes have no relation to each other. But most real people and NPCs probably have their own preferences about such things.

 

[tzor]

I would point out that alignment is not a point. It is a zone, an area as it were. Given this the notion of good is at best only discussable at the extreemes. One can argue that good and evil are one pair of opposite priorities and values, and that law and chaos are a second set of opposite priorities and values. The Lawful Good or Chaotic Good person has to deal with two sets of priorities, while the Neutral Good person only has one priority to deal with and can concentrate fully on it.

However, just because he can give 100% of his attention to it, doesn't mean he is gving more attention than someone who isn't giving 100% of his attention to it. In order to make this point, I will consider the casuse of Law to be Baseball and the cause of Good to be Golf.

Suppose there was a professional baseball player who would go to Florida every fall to play golf. He would spend perhaps 25% of his time playing golf and 75% of his tmie playing baseball. Clearly golf is not his highest priority, but he approaches both sports with equal dedication. Now let's consider the average golf duffer. He spends 100% of his time playing golf, but is not very dedicated at it.

Now clearly the basball player will not be superior to the professional golfer, but he might be superior to the duffer, even though he only spends a portion of his resouces on the game, because he puts more effert overall.

Even considering the extreemes can be difficult because alignment is an area not a point. Consider the paladin, who is technically LG. But the paladin is not equally lawful and good, because while a single evil act can result in an ex-paladin, a single chaotic act does not do the same thing. A paladin is a lawful paragon of good, not a good paragon of law. Likewise most chaotic "free wheeling" good characters are not paragons of chaos, are just free thinking guardians of good.