Lawful good / neutral good. I believe in order and all that but I can understand when exceptions need to be made in certain situations. Unlike my paladin friend who gets on my rogues friends ass everytime he picks a lock. Its for the greater good bro!
Nerds Unite: What is your moral Alignment [aka (A)D&D Alignment]?
- Thread starter CulixCupric
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Because Chaotic Good isn't willing to sacrifice. They're the ones who cross the street to avoid another person's troubles.Rack said:
Personally, I would be lawful neutral. I, like many, would like to consider myself some breed of chaotic; but, I really have never lived my life that way so lawful neutral it is.
However I LOVE to rp lawful evil characters. Being a puppetmaster, manipulating people and events to my will and adding to my riches is just a damn fun experience.
However I LOVE to rp lawful evil characters. Being a puppetmaster, manipulating people and events to my will and adding to my riches is just a damn fun experience.
Neutral Good.
What? I consider myself a good person as do many of my friends. I don't really care whether something is againist the laws of the land or not, I just try to do what's morally right. Some laws and/or rules I just find silly.
What? I consider myself a good person as do many of my friends. I don't really care whether something is againist the laws of the land or not, I just try to do what's morally right. Some laws and/or rules I just find silly.
No, that's Chaotic Neutral. Or with my point on things True Neutral.SnakeoilSage said:
Chaotic Good is Robin Hood, who sees the beggar and goes off to rob the government to drop a big bag of money in the Beggar's lap. Chaotic Good is the guy who says "yeah, this [insert name of lawful evil character here] character could be our only hope: but he's being a [insert slur] about it, so let's kick his @$$."
Chaotic Good is good (to the point of martyrdom), above all other things; but they also hate authority, rules, and discipline.
Any character that avoids helping another in a "cross the road" way is not good, they are neutral, or even Evil.
...Remember that.
Chaotic characters get to be even more interesting puppet-masters: they can set things up in ways that put things in their favor, while all the while having no clue as to how some aspects of their plan might be helpful until it comes up.Wayneguard said:
...As a Chaotic "puppetmaster", the best example would be the A-Team. (I'm not sure if "good or "neutral" though.) They have plans set up that rely on being able to account for every possible situation, and all they have to do is keep moving the chaotic actions towards a specific goal.
The movie remake of the A-Team from not long ago even talked about it.
And that perfectly encompasses the chaotic puppet-master ideals, they have a plan, it's just so buried in all the outward discord they create to obscure the plan that nobody notices the things going on right under their noses.
On the other hand Lawful puppetmasters require every step to conform to logic in order to work. as a paraphase of 8-bit theatre would say:
...And If you have any doubt about whether you can be chaotic and still a puppetmaster, just remember: the goal of chaos is to create a state of perfect disorder, the perfect state in which to carry out plans, such as stealing the crown jewels while a brawl has suddenly erupted in the ball-room, and then plant some incriminating evidence of a high ranking member's involvement in the matter, who you then interrogate yourself to claim that you are the one that is on the side of the investigation. And you may even be able to then convince the one you're interrogating to play along just so you can go off to pretend to go off and find the ones who stole the jewels, only to come back after having done almost nothing (exept slay some bandits to use for false evidence) and claim the reward yourself.
...and if you're chaotic good like me, you could then use that money to help some kid who needs treatment for some kind of disease.
P.S. I don't know why I argue this point so much, there's not so much to say Lawful characters can't be puppetmasters here, just that Chaotic characters are just as good, if not better as they can break the law more often.
I'm gonna disagree because I believe a Neutral Good character, who's moral code is defined by helping others, would not ignore those in need. A Lawful Good character would help because his moral code is his honor, his order, and to deny it is wrong.ZexionSephiroth said:
Maybe a Chaotic Good character would help those in need, but their morality seems to put themselves first and others only when he feels there is no other way. They aren't willing to sacrifice themselves for a cause unless that cause is the freedom they cherish. They're rebels, protestors, dissidents to corruption.
Lawful Good are the martyrs. They live lives that demand self-sacrifice and a true Lawful Good would understand that not all people can meet his code of ethics. Therefore he would gladly put himself in harms way to uphold law and decency, and die fighting for it. That's the essence of what, say, a Paladin is: a fact that many people brush aside because a) they can't visualize someone being that good and therefore visualize him as flawed, naive, or a hypocrite, or b) an oppressive blowhard who tries to push his values onto others "for the greater good." These people fail to realize that the moment a Lawful Good character starts pushing his views onto others and enforcing them that he stops being Lawful Good, and is instead Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil.
You can be Lawful Good, with all its strict codes, and still accept that the world can't live up to your morality. A true Lawful Good would understand this, accept it even if he didn't like it, and fight every day to inspire and protect that code so that others can adopt it.
A Chaotic Good wouldn't do that. He wouldn't care. He'd fight for freedom, but he's not going to stick around after to see what people do with that freedom. His pledge is anarchy, albeit a benevolent perception of one, where all men are free and thus equal. The fact that he survives and thrives with that moral code is all that matters to him, whether others do or not is not really his concern.
I won't deny that the way you present Chaotic Good doesn't fall into the category; however I certainly think it's the lower end of "good" on that spectrum. Because in D&D, Pathfinder and others, only those with a compulsion to help others before themselves can qualify for "good".SnakeoilSage said:
As such, while a Pure "Rebel" character can count as Chaotic Good, they are not good at codifying the alignment in its ideal state. The next step up in "good" from there for chaotic good would be something like the Disney Aladin; Remember that scene where he had just escaped from the guards after stealing from a stall and gave ALL of the bread he just stole to some other starving kids? That's slightly more Ideal.
...The next step up from there would be one of the Digimon Protagonists, any of the goggle heads count. Such as Taiki, who's values at play include not just anarchy towards the lawful evil villain, but also literally jumps in front of danger to protect the innocent at a moment's notice (to the point his personal motto is "I can't turn my back on them") as he will never give up on helping someone that he thinks for even a moment needs help.
Going up from there, in Pathfinder, there is a Celestial Race set called Azata, which are like Angels except Chaotic. They Value "Freedom and Goodness" above all else, and beyond that sound like the traditional "adventurer seeking to make the world a better place." And it is implied that a certain occurrence of them going off on a one Azata chaotic good crusade to bring good to those who need it and defeat evil... Is relatively common, and that the only reason they don't do it more often is that they think humans feel better when they get to "own their own victory", which in itself still leaves enough room for them to act as allies, advisers and even sidekicks to chaotic good characters instead, which the Bestiary entry seems to say is the most common of their behavior; next to just wondering the lands and generally helping those who need it, going from one quest to another. They are also involved in creativity.
Really, through all this, Chaotic Good in its ideal form is more than the cynical view you put forward; However through all this the key word is "ideal". So there is some leeway. But don't assume they are selfish before they go about helping others, because once they go down that route, they are by D&D/Pathfinder standards, the definition of either Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Evil. (GM's Discresion advised)
The problem is Chaotic is a selfish alignment choice. That isn't cynicism that's just how it is. To act by one's own whims in disregard for how the rest of society expects or demands you act? Tell me that isn't selfish.ZexionSephiroth said:
Aladdin isn't Chaotic Good. He was a thief because he was penniless and homeless, not because it was his personal creed. He was more than happy to prince himself up and turn that insufferable smirk towards acting like a rich nobleman, using the Sultan's laws to get himself close to the Princess. Feeding kids stolen bread is more Neutral Good, Good for Goodness' sake, than anything else.
It can be even be argued against Robin Hood being Chaotic Good, because he did believe in order and would see the rightful rulers put back in power. He fought to return the status quo.
So I made an error earlier. Chaotic Goods are not inherently rebels. It's my perspective that Chaotic Goods are the reluctant heroes. They're the Han Solo's who do good because the bad is unbearable and they're getting paid in the process, or because there's a pretty face in the room that appeals to him. If the Empire were more tolerable they probably wouldn't give two cents about some dissident group. Granted, Leia seems to be the only one with an ounce of passion about the rebellion, everyone else seems to approach it with the same enthusiasm one does for their day jobs, but that's another discussion entirely.
Well, I suppose you got me on some of my examples, but my stance still stands. After all, I believe chaos can be touted as a moral ideal to look up to (regardless of whether it is indeed better).SnakeoilSage said:
The question of Chaotic good vs Lawful good is really about whether the character thinks the rules get in the way of doing good, or whether it is necessary. Both are inherently flawed, but to call one side selfish across the board is a flawed argument too. A friend pointed out the fact that both Chaotic Good and Lawful good can be selfish, but agreed with me when I said that both will go ahead and help any just cause they find. Noramally they will help the just cause out either before or during their furthering their own wealth or whatever.
Of course, that said, neither have to be selfish either. Lawful good speaks for itself, and Chaotic Good could be stealing from rich men for the fun ("the Lols") and decides to just throw that useless pile of gold he just stole into some beggars hat. In fact, Fun, Freedom and Creativity are practically brought up every time chaos is discussed, and their own motivations beyond that could be anything.
I do have to say that I'm not entirely agreeing with the reluctant hero part, I picture more a drunken, brash, proud warrior who does whatever he thinks is right at that moment, before any question of whether its against the law comes up. In fact this Pathfinder RPG Book I just bought should have some notes on a god that used to be a human warrior of this kind:
The above may not paint Chaotic good as entirely without selfishness, but it does show that he is not avoiding doing good things, but going out and actively doing good things; Even if he does ask a price. And if I recall correctly, our entire debate rests on this point, which is whether Chaotic Good Avoids doing good or not. In fact, that is the only point I was really trying to get you to concede.
I Think I'm done here, if you disagree with that last point; then there's really nowhere we can go from here, and we'll have to agree to disagree. But this was nice anyways.
According to a test:
"Alignment: True Neutral
You do whatever seems like a good idea at the time. You don't feel any strong inclination towards good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Some may say that you lack conviction, while others might admire you for your capability of remaining unbiased. You likely prefer good versus evil in society, since good people tend to make better neighbors and rulers, but you are not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way. You are the stereotypical ?Balancer.? You act in a way that is natural to you without prejudice or compulsion.
Examples of characters and people who fit into the same alignment as you include Linus Torvalds, Dr. Strangelove, Scott Evil, Mr. Spock, and the nation of Switzerland."
Yup, I'm Switzerland apparently.
"Alignment: True Neutral
You do whatever seems like a good idea at the time. You don't feel any strong inclination towards good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Some may say that you lack conviction, while others might admire you for your capability of remaining unbiased. You likely prefer good versus evil in society, since good people tend to make better neighbors and rulers, but you are not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way. You are the stereotypical ?Balancer.? You act in a way that is natural to you without prejudice or compulsion.
Examples of characters and people who fit into the same alignment as you include Linus Torvalds, Dr. Strangelove, Scott Evil, Mr. Spock, and the nation of Switzerland."
Yup, I'm Switzerland apparently.
Embarrassingly lawful good, I try to be as friendly as possible and obey the law. I'm the kind of person that would get the crap kicked out of me if I acted anything but, I'm a terrible fighter and a huge crybaby so I let my charm act as my main strength.
