How DO you play a LG character well?

[Edena_of_Neith]

Dwarves value the individual. They cherish the individual.
However, dwarves appreciate that society is the protector of the individual, his right to life, happiness, and fulfillment.
Dwarves cherish both their society and each other, they respect the laws and customs, and they are horrified when one of their own turns on them.
Dwarves, are just a kindly, friendly people, when those dwarves are lawful good.

I cannot imagine a paladin, or any other lawful good character, having a good time on the world of Gor.
I can only imagine that a lawful good character would be utterly miserable in that place, repulsed and horrified by the customs, appalled by the system and it's thinking.
A lawful good character would quickly realize only two things were possible: either quietly accept the grim reality, or go to war against that reality somehow.
And ANY war, no matter how justified or necessary, is going to involve pain, misery, bloodshed, and horror ... things that will bring further grief to the highly principalled and life-cherishing lawful good character.
Perhaps the lawful good character will try to integrate, become powerful within that society, then change it from within. Another kind of struggle, and involving sacrifice of the character's time and life in the process - but to lawful good characters, such sacrifices are often worth all their time.

A lawful good female character would be, to be blunt, as out of place on Gor as little green men from Mars would be on Earth, with about the same disastrous results.
Conflict would be almost inevitable. (Now, of course, if said lawful good female was a wizard, and she started throwing Domination or Polymorph Other spells, the tables would be turned on these violent people.)

Kender are going to be painful for lawful good characters to deal with.
However, one will not see lawful good characters killing or permanently imprisoning kender. Lawful good characters just aren't that kind of people, that they would inflict that kind of pain on such innocent beings.
A lawful good leader whose country is suddenly overrun with kender is going to have a king-sized headache to fit his crown. Where to find tylenol? Don't ask me ... I know Dragonlance well enough to know there is no good answer to kender. As the Hylar dwarves say, Kender Happen.

 

[Sulimo]

Ask yourself...what would Ned Flanders or Piffany from Nodwick do?

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

One of the problems with (strongly) lawful good characters, which makes them so hard to play, is THAT they do not compromise their principals.
They run straight into the stone wall, and bruise themselves from head to toe, instead of leaping over it, as is expedient.
If that doesn't work, they try to undermine the way with cunning and cleverness. They never simply climb over it, as is expedient.

However, if any good character can cope with a bad situation without starting a war or an uproar, it is the very social, easy-going lawful good person.
(Throw a chaotic good character into the mess, though, and conflict is bound to happen. Chaotics don't feel they have to take crap from others, and swallow acts and events that are repugnant to them.)

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

(considers Piffany in the situations described)

I honestly think Piffany would take her bandages, and wrap them around the mouths, arms, and hands of every male on Gor.
Then, she would start a nursing center, and process each and every male through it, reforming them one by one.
For the males of Gor, encountering drow females on the warpath would be a more pleasant and merciful experience.

As for kender, I think Piffany would sit and have a nice long conversation with them, pleasant and sociable, until even Nodwick started screaming in agony from the noise and stuffed his fingers in his ears (kender, if they do nothing else, TALK A LOT.)

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

LG = Absolute Good.


Black and white morals. As in, you're either with us or against us. Everything is very cut and dry. Moral ambiguity does not exist. Always stand up straight, brush your teeth, love your parents, respect authority. Always be good.

A couple of real-world examples:

A scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.

On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This is exactly opposite of the:


CG = Relative Good

Situational ethics. As in, good is relative, depends on the situation, depends on the culture, background of the individuals, gut instinct. Shades of grey. Actions are only good or evil as dependent on who does what against whom for why and how.

A couple of real world examples of this:


A scout is sometimes trustworthy, sometimes loyal, sometimes helpful, sometimes friendly, sometimes courteous, sometimes kind, sometimes obedient, sometimes cheerful, sometimes thrifty, sometimes brave, sometimes clean, and sometimes reverent.


Sometimes I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law depending on the situation;
To help other people when they deserve it;
To keep myself sometimes physically strong,
sometimes mentally awake, and morally open to new ideas.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Stick to the first when playing LG, and you'll be fine.

 

[herald]

OK, I also mentioned the Boy Scout pledge, but it is not the end all be all of Lawful good.

I think that the pledge is a good example of "good", but there are other factors that could range from Lawful, to Chaotic in which that code is used.

A Chaotic Good person clould follow that code just as easy as a Lawful one. It's just a matter of whether or not the code suits him. A Chaotic Good Person is just more likely to work as an individual rather than in a group setting. It's likely that he or she will expect each individual to pull their own weight.

Lawful Goods pull together for strength. They work to ease the suffering for the great many.

Chaotic Goods recognize that an individual needs to be able to stand on thier own two feet, less they become emotionally dependant and trapped in a cycle of need.

Both schools of thought ar valid and a balance between the two is needed so that is how you get Neutral Good. SOmeone who sees both sides and adjusts as per need.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

OK, I also mentioned the Boy Scout pledge, but it is not the end all be all of Lawful good.

Never said it was. The point being that an Lawful character will always follow the Oath, a Chaotic character will sometimes follow the Oath, and a Neutral character will be either Lawful or Chaotic depending on which brings about the most Good.


To a Chaotic Good character, the Oath looks like this:

Sometimes I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law depending on the situation;
To help other people when they deserve it;
To keep myself sometimes physically strong,
sometimes mentally awake, and morally open to new ideas.


To a Lawful Good character, the Oath looks like this:

On my honor I will always do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to always obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To always keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.

 

[herald]

ConcreteBuddha

Go back and read my post.

Chaotic Goods are don't go around making oaths saying that they will do something, some times.

That's not an oath.

An oath is a pledge do something.

Chaotic Goods are the type of people that might take the pledge or might not.

They might even follow the code, but not take the pledge.

What Chaotic Goods do is make individual choices of what is right and wrong and act upon it as they think is morally and ethically right. Sometimes that will conflict with the status quo, local social norms and civic laws.

There is no one way to codify Moral and Ethical behavior as stricktly Lawful or Chaotic. You can codify it as Good. It's how you interpret Morals and Ethics that make Lawful or Chaotic.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

Chaotic Goods are don't go around making oaths saying that they will do something, some times.

That's not an oath.

An oath is a pledge do something.

Yup, Chaotics can take pledges and oaths and whatever you want to call them. But when it comes down to it, they will only follow it if it suits the situation. They will not stick by the oath regardless of the circumstances.

Chaotic Goods are the type of people that might take the pledge or might not.

They might even follow the code, but not take the pledge.

I don't see how this is different from Lawfuls.

What Chaotic Goods do is make individual choices of what is right and wrong and act upon it as they think is morally and ethically right. Sometimes that will conflict with the status quo, local social norms and civic laws.

Yes. Agreed.

There is no one way to codify Moral and Ethical behavior as stricktly Lawful or Chaotic.

Why not?

You can codify it as Good. It's how you interpret Morals and Ethics that make Lawful or Chaotic.

So you can define Good, but not Lawful or Chaotic? Define "Good" for me, I'd like to hear it.

 

[herald]

Yup, Chaotics can take pledges and oaths and whatever you want to call them. But when it comes down to it, they will only follow it if it suits the situation. They will not stick by the oath regardless of the circumstances.

And you wrong. Sorry but strong individualism mixed with ethical and moral behavior is not someone who only "follows the rules" when it suits them.



Why can't you codify Lawful and Chaotic. Because situational ethics apply to both sides. American Abolishonists would be a good example of Lawful Good individuals protesting before the civil war that slavery should be abolished. But slavery was the law. Many helped slaves excape into Nothern states and even into Canada. These individuals understood that a greater good needed to be done. They worked for the greater good of man, but they broke the laws of thier country to do so.

In D&D terms, I would say that they were Lawful Good, not Chaotic Good. Situational ethics and morals placed them against the government and they did the right thing.



So you can define Good, but not Lawful or Chaotic? Define "Good" for me, I'd like to hear it.

Simple, moral and ethical behavior. The world have been defining it for years. There are variations that span the globe. But most phylosophers have agreed for years that "Good" is the natural state of being in which a person acts in a moral and ethical way.

The only reason I bring this up is simple. There are some true rugged individuals out there that subscribe to a moral code stricter that you and I can ever imagine. There are some socially adept individuals who understand that events can move very quickly and need to alter thier actions and understandings in order to do the most good, for the most amount of people.

Situational ethics shows that there is no black and white.

Ever!