Alignment -- How 'good' is LG anyway?

[Aus_Snow]

Depends on personal opinions really.

Yep. That's what I was asking for really - as many as people are willing and wanting to give.

But in this day and age, with so much focus on individual rights as opposed to duties, this comes as no wonder many gamers would consider LG to be "less good" than NG, or even CG.

I wonder. Either way though, do you believe that it's spelled out clearly in the game itself?

 

[Odhanan]

I wonder. Either way though, do you believe that it's spelled out clearly in the game itself?

In the game itself no, not really. LG, CG and NG are just as much "good" in the way they are worded, I think. That's just hat LG and CG seem to have a particular take on how good comes into play, "rules in sorciety are the prime base of goodness" for LG, "personal choices and decency first" for a CG, and the NG is more of "depends on the situation" kind of good guy.

Lawful Good, "Crusader"
A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

Lawful good is the best alignment you can be because it combines honor and compassion.

Neutral Good, "Benefactor"
A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them..

Neutral good is the best alignment you can be because it means doing what is good without bias for or against order.

Chaotic Good, "Rebel"
A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.

Chaotic good is the best alignment you can be because it combines a good heart with a free spirit.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

Good is Good and Evil is Evil.

Lawful is Lawful and Chaotic is Chaotic.

A Lawful Good character is every bit as Good as a Chaotic Good one.

See the recent WotC article on Lawful versus Chaotic to see what I'm talking about.

Now if you really want to know the measure of the amount of pain-in-the-arse the character has that is a different question but ahs nothing to do with "How good is the character?"

Very logical. I think you're probably right, even though I came to this thread thinking NG and NE were more pure good/evil.

Ofc as others have said there are varying degrees of good/evil (and law/chaos) with in each alignment.

 

[Shemeska]

but I've never heard of those other guys before afair.

The Kamerel are virtually extinct, and those that remain fled into a quasi-reality of mirrors and reflections, anchored upon the mirrored library that the Rilmani city of Sum-Of-All sprung up around. In any event, the only details on them are found in the late 2e module 'Tales from the Infinite Staircase'.

 

[orsal]

Very logical. I think you're probably right, even though I came to this thread thinking NG and NE were more pure good/evil.

There's something to that. For any of the corner alignments, you can easily construct a situation in which the two components conflict. For example, what does a lawful good character do when he realizes that the person he has made a deal with is intent on malice, and his fulfilling his part of the bargain would help the other person's nefarious plans. The LN character would fulfill his contract, the NG character would have no compunction about welching, but the LG character is conflicted. In that sense, NG is (potentially) the purest good of all.

On the other hand, many LG people would argue that law and lawfulness are inherently good, and do generally promote good. For example, some defenders of Kantian ethics (the quintessential LG philosophy) contend that in the long run following the categorical imperative will do more good than deciding when to break it. In the above example, the LG character might rationalize that breaking his word, while it would be beneficial in the short term, would in the long term undermine his reputation (and therefore his ability to make contracts in the future that would be for the good), or would set an example for others (whose objectives were less noble) to break promises.

I think of this question as: is the alignment map square or circular? Irdeggman and Odhanan, and the second paragraph of this post, are arguing for a square map -- at the good extreme is a straight line, so that the square extends as far in that direction on the sides (LG/CG) as in the middle (NG). Shemeska and spunkrat, and the first paragraph of this post, are arguing for a circular map -- to be as far as possible in the good direction you need to be in the middle on the other axis.

 

[Particle_Man]

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.

The rules don't seem to differentiate between exalted characters of lawful, neutral or chaotic alignments, and exalted is meant to be the goodest good that ever gooded. So I would assume that the default alignment map is square, to use the above poster's shape analogy.

 

[irdeggman]

I think of this question as: is the alignment map square or circular? Irdeggman and Odhanan, and the second paragraph of this post, are arguing for a square map -- at the good extreme is a straight line, so that the square extends as far in that direction on the sides (LG/CG) as in the middle (NG). Shemeska and spunkrat, and the first paragraph of this post, are arguing for a circular map -- to be as far as possible in the good direction you need to be in the middle on the other axis.

Actually I'm not.

Particle Man pretty much summed up WotC article (and my opinion).

Good/Evil is morale codes (e.g., right and wrong) and Law/Chaos is how you achieve it.

In the past the "square" alignment board is what got everyone into trouble in "qunatifying" alignment in the first place.

 

[Agback]

Actually, I think that Neutral Good is more Good than either Lawful Good or Chaotic Good. Law and Chaos both reflect tendencies that can compromise Good. Neutrality with respect to the Law-Chaos conflict/dichotomy leaves a character free to pursue Good even in ways that offend either Law or Chaos.

 

[Umbran]

Or, to expand on that a bit: is LG 'less good' than NG? NE 'more evil' than CE? LE 'less lawful' than LN? And so on.

Not where I come from. Law-Chaos and Good-Evil are orthogonal and independant, both contunuous scales. So one NG person may be more or less good than a CG person, or vice versa.

Some folks may find that trying to stick very far out on one axis can compromise their ability to go far out on the other. A really lawful person, sticking to a set of rules, may have to pass on some opportunities to be really Evil. And sometimes doing the Right Thing may mean passing up on standing quite so strongly for personal freedom.

But that's mostly an issue of particular circumstances. In the general case, they're basically independant.

 

[Shadowbane2]

In my opinion:

CG - Good natured, but lets his (virtuous) emotions get the best of him.

NG - Selfish isn't quite the right word, but the NG character is good natured. He's noit going out of the way to do great, though.

LG - Good natured, and willing the help for the greater good. These folks pay their taxes, don't break laws, and may or may not contribut to charity.

But that's just my take.