Can Lawful good ever be ruthless?

[RSKennan]

There's a scene in The Crow that always stuck with me where one of the villains says, "Abashed the Devil stood and felt how awful goodness is. And felt how awful goodness is." Against the wicked, all bets are off.

That's originally from Milton's 'Paradise Lost'... a lot of good stuff there.

 

[Arnwyn]

Ruthless? I don't think it was that bad.

But to me, alignments are all about "habit". If you don't make a habit of giving/sticking with such orders, I wouldn't even think twice about it. All bets are off during extremely traumatic circumstances (which I would equate to Ship + Dragon).

Not paladin material (IMO and IMC), but certainly fine for a lawful good knight in a trying moment.

 

[Aethelstan]

Forgive me If I give offense but this thread (and countless others like it) highlights the absurdity and pointlessness of the D&D alignment system. Is there anything to be gained - both in terms of roleplaying or rules mechanics - by constantly trying to match up a player's actions with one of the nine alignments slots? Yes, maybe the PC in question was "ruthless," but so what. The PC's ruthlessness should of course infleunce the way other PCs and NPCs react to him. But again, what is the point or purpose of debating whether action "x" changes a PCs alignment to "y."? Players should be able to roleplay their characters how ever they like without fear of the dreaded "alignment shift." The consequences of his actions should influence a player's behavior not some rigid ethics diagram. Imagine D&D without alignment. Would the game really lose anything besides a “sacred cow?”

 

[Henry]

By strict definition, it might have been more Neutral Good than Lawful Good, but the distinction is so fine it wouldn't be worth worrying about, as a DM, because you're upholding one law (protect innocents) at the expense of another (extenuating circumstances of other beings needing help being ignored to the exclusion of the preotecting innocents. It's lawful, it's good, so why worry if it's "Lawful Good?"

 

[Barak]

Man, people put waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much weight into alignements. It is a tool, not more or less important than say, race.

I play a dwarven fighter who is LG. He has no time for elves, orcs, and a few other races. He thinks -all- arcane casters (even the dwarven wizard who is another PC) are invariably going to end up insane (our two previous arcane casters -went- crazy, for various reasons), and he has no time for people who cross him. He will attack (non-lethally, if possible) people who offend him seriously.

Yet, he is LG. He -does- have a good heart, he -does- what he believes to be right, he -does- (while grumbling) defend those who cannot defend themselves. Intentions, when one speaks of alignement, is very, very important. The exact same action can be a lawful (or good) act for one character, and a chaotic (or evil) act for another. If your character was a mercenary, and had given that order for monetary considerations, for example, it might be different. But it wasn't.

 

[Mercule]

Man, people put waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much weight into alignements. It is a tool, not more or less important than say, race.

Quite true. Alignments are supposed to be used descriptively, not proscriptively. That said, I've copped the d20 Modern "Allegiences" system for my game. We just use the nine alignments as foci of allegience. That means that some character sheets (about half, by my experience) read "Alignment: none".

 

[Elf Witch]

I can tell you know that I wish I had never given the order. Not only was it ruthless but it showed that I do not put the party first and that my character is not to be trusted. Because I did not tell the squire not to include the party in that order.

I didn't hink I needed to we have a lawful good monk, a paladin a neutral good druid in the party we do have two characters who may have more shady personalities. And if they got in my squires way then so be it.

Sigh

 

[Barak]

Well that's just silly.

"Squire! Get those innocents to safety, and if anyone try to stop you, deal with them with force! Well. Except the druid. Should the druid try to stop you, well, you know, he can kill the innocents. 'Cause, well, you know. He's a PC. And, well, if the -monk- tries to stop you... Oh hell, just kill the innocents."

 

[Breakdaddy]

I can tell you know that I wish I had never given the order. Not only was it ruthless but it showed that I do not put the party first and that my character is not to be trusted. Because I did not tell the squire not to include the party in that order.

I didn't hink I needed to we have a lawful good monk, a paladin a neutral good druid in the party we do have two characters who may have more shady personalities. And if they got in my squires way then so be it.

Sigh

If your GM or players use this against you then imo, it's just plain foolhardy. First off, the NPC isnt stupid (I hope). She will know who your trusted companions are and who the potential enemies might be. So I would sincerely hope your GM doesnt play this NPC as some sort of pre programmed automaton that will kill anything in her path just because he doesnt feel like you gave an alignment in synch with your order. If the other PCs get in her way, then she would know enough to give your PC a sheepish look and give up until you sorted it out with the other PC.

 

[Arnwyn]

"Squire! Get those innocents to safety, and if anyone try to stop you, deal with them with force! Well. Except the druid. Should the druid try to stop you, well, you know, he can kill the innocents. 'Cause, well, you know. He's a PC. And, well, if the -monk- tries to stop you... Oh hell, just kill the innocents."

Heh.

"Refer to Subsection C, where you may kill only those with their last names starting with 'G', but ignore Paragraph iv, as it doesn't apply to dragon attacks while at sea. Instead... well, just read the prepared paperwork, squire, and note the exceptions."