Question on alignment

[tglassy]

Can a character be considered Lawful Good and follow a master who is Chaotic Neutral?

For example, the character I’m developing grows up an urchin, and is rescued from a very bad life by a “master” who is very much focused on increasing his own wealth, but who recognizes that having loyal servants is to his best interest. So he treats the character well, trains him, and makes rules for him to follow. Not any rules that have to do with society or a nation, but the Master’s own rules, meant to focus on increasing the Master’s profit and wealth, and the rest of the world can go jump in a lake.

If the Character decides to continue following this Master, and adheres strictly to those rules, even though he would routinely break the Laws of any land he may be in while he is following his Master’s Orders, would he be considered Lawful?

As for Good, I would consider that separate from law, as it denotes that the Character cares for life and would willingly sacrifice himself for someone he thought was innocent or deserved it. He is not evil, and does care about being “moral”, but he also believes his Master is owed his loyalty and therefore obeys him rather than some King’s laws.

 

[iserith]

In D&D 5e, lawful good is defined as someone who can be "counted on to do the right thing as expected by society." That's all we have to go by. Reading into it any further or bringing in definitions of that alignment from other games only serves to confuse the issue. So the question is: "Is this the right thing to do as expected by society?"

Whether it is or isn't, it should also be noted that "Individuals might vary significantly from that typical behavior, and few people are perfectly and consistently faithful to the precepts of their alignment."

 

[Charlaquin]

I foresee this thread getting heated...

 

[Umbran]

Can a character be considered Lawful Good and follow a master who is Chaotic Neutral?

This is 5e. Alignment is not a game mechanical concept. It is presented as a suggestion/guideline for play, and nothing more.

 

[Satyrn]

Every single one of us has a different definition of each alignment (is what I have learned from years of forumimg) and so the only one who can possibly give a useful answer to this question is your DM.



(Most of my posts during my years of foruming have been intentionally humorous. This post, however, is entirely serious)




Tee hee hee.

 

[Hardhead]

It's hard to say, people are multi-faceted. It sounds more like a LN character to me, with some good tendencies, but depending on how the character was played I'm sure I could be convinced of him being LG.

 

[jasper]

A lawful good may have a code. But he would come very close to cheating on his taxes. And speed limits are just suggestions when Dark Vader is going to first in line for the free showing on Shazam!

 

[Brashnir2]

I'd allow it at my table. A person could have natural instincts that lean toward Lawful Good, while their outward behavior and image they want to project is more edgy.

This character would probably have a complex where he tries to justify his unlawful actions internally by adhering to some sort of a criminal code or some other type of orderly system, while also doing his best to do the most "good" thing possible in any given situation. I think it would be a really interesting character concept.

 

[Harzel]

Can a character be considered Lawful Good and follow a master who is Chaotic Neutral?

For example, the character I’m developing grows up an urchin, and is rescued from a very bad life by a “master” who is very much focused on increasing his own wealth, but who recognizes that having loyal servants is to his best interest. So he treats the character well, trains him, and makes rules for him to follow. Not any rules that have to do with society or a nation, but the Master’s own rules, meant to focus on increasing the Master’s profit and wealth, and the rest of the world can go jump in a lake.

If the Character decides to continue following this Master, and adheres strictly to those rules, even though he would routinely break the Laws of any land he may be in while he is following his Master’s Orders, would he be considered Lawful?

As for Good, I would consider that separate from law, as it denotes that the Character cares for life and would willingly sacrifice himself for someone he thought was innocent or deserved it. He is not evil, and does care about being “moral”, but he also believes his Master is owed his loyalty and therefore obeys him rather than some King’s laws.

Side question: As to the 'master' - based on what you said, I see 'neutral', but in what sense is he chaotic?

As to Lawful - Sure the character can be 'lawful' by dint of consistently following some set of rules.

As to Good - My sense is that 'good' as used in D&D generally has an absolutist take on what is good, especially when it comes to 'lawful' 'goodness'. The bolded part of the quote seems to try to point things in a relativist direction. I don't see how the character is going to be considered 'good' if he does things at the behest of the 'master' that are unjust, inequitable, unfair or otherwise 'ungood'. You made an abstract reference to being 'moral', but I think it is in the specifics of what the 'master' might ask your character to do that you might encounter conflict between 'good' (in the sense of fairness and equity for all) and the 'neutral' self interest of the master.

Put differently, a lawful good character would obey neither the master's dictates nor the King's law unless they embodied (or at least did not conflict with) the principles of equity, justice, fairness, etc. Of course, there might be some wiggle room in how the character's background informed his assessment of situations in which there was some ambiguity.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

Yes. Find any Jeeves the Butler book. Read. Enjoy. You are welcome. It will be totally clear how you can be lawful and serve a chaotic master. If anyone says you are wrong, repeat this advice. Anyone who reads one Wodehouse's books and still says you are wrong is not worth associating with.