Poll: Lawful-Good vs Chaotic Good: Which is better?

Recommended Videos

ZexionSephiroth

New member
Apr 7, 2011
242
0
0
A few of us have played games with alignment systems, and the codifier of this is Dungeons and Dragons, who gave us an alignment system that included both Good vs Evil, and Law vs Chaos.

Now I'm sure many of the more idealistic among us would want to play a good character, but Neutral Good sounds like such a boring character to be in, yet alone role-play without great effort.

...I think you know where this is going...

I pose a question... What is the Best Lopsided Good alignment?

Now before we begin, let's grab Definitions of both from an RPG book so there are no misconceptions. I'm using Pathfinder cause it's what I have on hand.

Lawful-Good:
A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. (They) combine a commitment to oppose Evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. (They) tell the truth, keep (their) word, help those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful Good Character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Lawful Good combines Honor with Compassion.
Chaotic Good:
A Chaotic Good character acts as his conscience directs (them) with little regard for what others expect of (them). (They) make their own way, but (they) are kind and benevolent. (They) Believe in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. (They) hate is when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. (They) follow their own Moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.
Chaotic good combines a good heart with a free spirit.
And thus the debate begins. But if any of you don't feel like joining in, but still want to show your opinion, there is a poll.

Now since I still have the floor, and this is pretty much a set up for a debate anyways:

I think Chaotic good is best.
First off, Chaotic Good doesn't have to put up with the king's S*** when the king decides he wants to slaughter a village. They can just go, "Hey, what kind of jerk are you?", and promptly punch him in the face. And if you happened to like that village, that is a really refreshing feeling.

Lawful Good on the other hand, has to hold back and say "Umm... Mi'lord, don't you think that's a bit hasty? There are better ways..." and then he goes on to try persuade the king for several minutes, which requires a lot of restraint for anyone, especially when the king flat out says "No" to their face. At which point the Lawful Good character has no option but to leave the throne room, go to another nation, and ask for their help in defeating the corrupt king's nation; which has an equal chance of failure.

Speaking of overthrowing the king, if a Chaotic Good character wants a lawful Evil king overthrown, they can just rile up the same kingdom into rebellion. That way only one kingdom worth of people are in harms way, and the king's power slowly crumbles as the revolution takes hold; meaning, once its set in action, the chance of the king staying at the top diminishes the longer it goes on. And in the end, logistically it would probably leave less of a hole in the population that the Lawful Good alternative.

As mentioned, all the Lawful good character can do is rally an army, probably from another nation, and declare war. Naturally, A state of open war is not the easiest time for convincing the other side is wrong, and telling the other nation to rise against its ruler. And during the effort of war, how many more casualties would take place? Essentially, either way, one whole kingdom would be reduced to almost ash, and the other critically wounded. And even if your good kingdom wins without casualty, what's the chance that you haven't destroyed an entire kingdom of Neutral or Good characters just because their king and a few of his right hand men are bad people? And Even if you do adopt a policy of "only fight the army and the corrupt officials" you still have the fact that the army has family to go home to.

Of course, I don't think you should be passive in this discussion. Pick a side and start arguing, this is a debate after all.

Again, if you don't feel like arguing in this, there's always the poll you can go with.

P.S. I think Capcha is trolling me with "Skynet is watching".
 

Chimpzy_v1legacy

Warning! Contains bananas!
Jun 21, 2009
4,789
1
0
Chaotic Good, I guess, because it allows for more leeway when it comes to using shadier means to achieve good ends. In my opinion, when role-playing a character, Good (or Neutral and Evil) should always take precedence over any other part of the alignment.

And there's the thing about many people playing Lawful Good as Lawful Stupid: religious zealots or inflexible automatons that mindlessly slaughter everything evil. That is neither Lawful nor Good.

Then again, in the games we used to play, we did away with alignments altogether. We felt it improved our games and allowed us to play more nuanced characters. Morality is too complex to be shoehorned into six vaguely defined categories.
 

WolfCross

New member
Jun 12, 2012
91
0
0
Although i don't plan to stay for a full on wordy battle, i'll throw in my 2 cents.

While Chaotic Good is obviously more appealing in many instances (well, it's what i'd rather be) i feel Lawful Good takes more responsibility for all the people under his care and his actions affecting them. By definition, though a chaotic good character's benevolence may reach far, it will, by his nature, have limits. If an invading army arrived the chaotic good char might choose to flee with his love or a group of people, though vulnerable people no doubt. Essentially taking the easier way out.

I feel a lawful good character wouldn't make this compromise, carrying the burden of their duty and his obligation to the people in the face of whatever might come at them, even if the chance of success was slim. I guess what i'm trying to say is that i 'respect' lawful good more as their responsibility to their ethics ultimately carries a greater weight, whereas i feel chaotic good will have a streak, a thin one though it may be, of self preservation/interest the lawful good character lacks.
 

DoPo

"You're not cleared for that."
Jan 30, 2012
8,665
0
0
Lawful Evil, all other alignments are "meh" at best.

Other than that, I can just point out that Sam Vimes from the Discworld could be Lawful Good. I wouldn't mind that.
 

9thRequiem

New member
Sep 21, 2010
447
0
0
Well, your example of the King isn't quite right - after trying to stop the problem using diplomacy / persuasion, a Lawful Good character would definitely take action against the King; although they will uphold law and order, they're not forced into following clearly unjust / evil rules - that would be more Lawful Neutral.

On top of that, Lawful Good is a more "Good" alignment because they take into account the wider ramifications of their actions. While a Chaotic Good character would steal from the rich and give to the poor, a lawful good character would know that long-term, this will only cause more problems for the very people they're trying to help.

But what's wrong with Neutral Good? It's the most flexible. It's the purest form of good, because it's the most reasonable. You fulfill your promises as much as possible, but will always take a pragmatic approach.

Then again, I agree with DoPo - Lawful Evil FTW.
 

Cowabungaa

New member
Feb 10, 2008
10,806
0
0
If you ask me, Lawful Good's weakness is exactly the Lawful side. It really restricts someone's possibilities. Fun to roleplay properly I suppose. But Chaotic Good characters have a lot more tools at their disposal, so to speak.
DoPo said:
Other than that, I can just point out that Sam Vimes from the Discworld could be Lawful Good. I wouldn't mind that.
Nah, Lawful Neutral. He doesn't care at all about good or evil, just people breaking the law and the people he swore to protect.
 

ZexionSephiroth

New member
Apr 7, 2011
242
0
0
WolfCross said:
Although i don't plan to stay for a full on wordy battle, i'll throw in my 2 cents.

While Chaotic Good is obviously more appealing in many instances (well, it's what i'd rather be) I feel Lawful Good takes more responsibility for all the people under his care and his actions affecting them. By definition, though a chaotic good character's benevolence may reach far, it will, by his nature, have limits. If an invading army arrived the chaotic good char might choose to flee with his love or a group of people, though vulnerable people no doubt. Essentially taking the easier way out.

I feel a lawful good character wouldn't make this compromise, carrying the burden of their duty and his obligation to the people in the face of whatever might come at them , even if the chance of success was slim. I guess what I'm trying to say is that i 'respect' lawful good more as their responsibility to their ethics ultimately carries a greater weight, whereas i feel chaotic good will have a streak, a thin one though it may be, of self preservation/interest the lawful good character lacks.
Bold point one is solid enough, Lawful characters do on average have better organization skills, making them a more responsible leader; however, I do not think it necessarily translates to Bold point 3, as those same lawful favored skills usually mean they will pull out of a battle when it "logically" isn't in their favor. While some Lawful Good characters have that resolve, they tend to be ones that are more towards either "lawful Stupid" or are more focused on the "good" aspect than on the lawful aspect.

Bold points 2 and 4 I have some problems with; A chaotic character could be just as determined to win a battle as a lawful character, they just go about it in a much different way. Such as the Berserker, who uses chaotic rage to cut through opponents. They live for battle, and fight every battle as if they want to die in it to uphold their ideals. Of note in that the class is not allowed to be lawful. They have no self preservation, no fear, no concept of "against their favor"; and so the good beserkers will fight to the last breath to defend the innocent despite the odds.

Its kinda like Kamina from Gurren Lagann. He's all like "REAL MEN DON'T RUN FROM A FIGHT FOR WHAT THEY BELIEVE IN! RAH! *Chews Scenery*" (I'm a little depressed I had to drag Gurren Lagann into this.)
 

ZexionSephiroth

New member
Apr 7, 2011
242
0
0
9thRequiem said:
Well, your example of the King isn't quite right - after trying to stop the problem using diplomacy / persuasion, a Lawful Good character would definitely take action against the King; although they will uphold law and order, they're not forced into following clearly unjust / evil rules - that would be more Lawful Neutral.

On top of that, Lawful Good is a more "Good" alignment because they take into account the wider ramifications of their actions. While a Chaotic Good character would steal from the rich and give to the poor, a lawful good character would know that long-term, this will only cause more problems for the very people they're trying to help.

But what's wrong with Neutral Good? It's the most flexible. It's the purest form of good, because it's the most reasonable. You fulfill your promises as much as possible, but will always take a pragmatic approach.

Then again, I agree with DoPo - Lawful Evil FTW.
With the original king example I was putting it up that the lawful good character didn't know that the king was evil... Yet. And that when he Discovers the king is evil, he won't be equipped with "chaos skills" to cause descent against the king as of that moment. Therefore, his exact logical actions are limited. As the only classes able to do something right then and there and expect to get away with it, are bared from being lawful. (And the few that can be argued to be, should probably have one think twice before investing in those skills). Lawful Good just isn't good with fighting tyranny without starting a war.

Meanwhile, The Chaotic Good Character, noticing that the king is pulling a D*** move, is able to draw enough attention to the fact that the king is an evil dude; since that is what chaotic good is all about, exposing tyrants. And so he could walk up to the king with little effort (possibly sneaking first), and punch him in clear sight of everyone; drawing attention to himself, and then he could just flat out say "You were about to invade my home town for no good reason you ingrate!"... or something to that effect. And at that moment, anyone who isn't being paid by the king directly should cause quite a commotion at this. Causing both the seeds of revolution and, if he's lucky, he may even have a chance to escape while the guards are busy holding off the commoners.

The Chaotic good for this job? A Rogue/Ninja or Bard.

Edit: also, this is about the Lopsided Goods, not the "true goods".
 

WolfCross

New member
Jun 12, 2012
91
0
0
ZexionSephiroth said:
Fair points, i guess i always had the Robin Hood model in mind for Chaotic Good, someone taking discretion as the better part of valor :)
 

ZexionSephiroth

New member
Apr 7, 2011
242
0
0
denseWorm said:
Lawful good, as long as I can remember. You can't be a hero unless you set and example, care for your brethren and try to spread a 'good' ethos. I'm not religious IRL, ofc.
But the message that Lawful Good spreads is "do what we expect good people to do", and rarely does that get questioned. It's all "because the arcane rules we set said so"; and because Lawful Good has no intention of rocking the boat when its not necessary, they don't. Which means that it takes an extremely smart Lawful good to figure out if a rule is good or not if its been there for ages and not had the issue come up. The only real world analogues that I can think of all come from religion, specifically the Abrahamic ones (Christianity, Islamic, Jewish.) And for some reason, Paladins in D&D always seem to be tied to religion. Their Alignment is locked on lawful good. And I'm quite sure intelligence is their "dump stat".

^that arguement might not be the soundest, but it gets the point across. Especially If the game Master decides that a Paladin/Inquisitor dual class is not a contradiction when the character starts going "have you or have you not had Gay sex", because the in game religion the paladins are tied to says its forbidden for some reason. And considering Pathfinder, such a rule would only be in place so that more Archons (lawful good celestials) could come into existence from their souls.

Conversely, Chaotic good gets the chance to wipe it all clear with minimal effort; cause they make their own moral compass rather that get it handed to them. They break the rules as they see as necessary. And some get elevated to hero status for breaking rules that are not just stupid, but exist purely to keep people from fighting back against... Whatever Lawful villains there are (not just Lawful evil, but extreme Lawful Neutral as well). And once they've led the people to freedom, they can just wonder off into the sunset, leaving people to figure out what is right or wrong on their own... And then new rules arise that aren't quite so stupid. And they owe it all to the Chaotic Good Guys.

Gurren Lagann ended that way... Damn it! I mentioned them again!
 

Daverson

New member
Nov 17, 2009
1,164
0
0
Lawful good. Sure, studies have shown chaotic good does 60% more good per good, but there's always going to be collateral damage!
 

R3dF41c0n

New member
Feb 11, 2009
268
0
0
Chaotic Good because that's usually what I play. I prefer the "Robin Hood" type hero over a paladin or knight.

However, it is more difficult to play a Lawful-Good character and the roleplay can be more rewarding. In fact I'm playing a lawful-good character on my skyrim let's play and I'm having a blast.
 

Winnosh

New member
Sep 23, 2010
492
0
0
ZexionSephiroth said:
A few of us have played games with alignment systems, and the codifier of this is Dungeons and Dragons, who gave us an alignment system that included both Good vs Evil, and Law vs Chaos.

Now I'm sure many of the more idealistic among us would want to play a good character, but Neutral Good sounds like such a boring character to be in, yet alone role-play without great effort.

...I think you know where this is going...

I pose a question... What is the Best Lopsided Good alignment?

Now before we begin, let's grab Definitions of both from an RPG book so there are no misconceptions. I'm using Pathfinder cause it's what I have on hand.

Lawful-Good:
A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. (They) combine a commitment to oppose Evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. (They) tell the truth, keep (their) word, help those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful Good Character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Lawful Good combines Honor with Compassion.
Chaotic Good:
A Chaotic Good character acts as his conscience directs (them) with little regard for what others expect of (them). (They) make their own way, but (they) are kind and benevolent. (They) Believe in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. (They) hate is when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. (They) follow their own Moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.
Chaotic good combines a good heart with a free spirit.
And thus the debate begins. But if any of you don't feel like joining in, but still want to show your opinion, there is a poll.

Now since I still have the floor, and this is pretty much a set up for a debate anyways:

I think Chaotic good is best.
First off, Chaotic Good doesn't have to put up with the king's S*** when the king decides he wants to slaughter a village. They can just go, "Hey, what kind of jerk are you?", and promptly punch him in the face. And if you happened to like that village, that is a really refreshing feeling.

Lawful Good on the other hand, has to hold back and say "Umm... Mi'lord, don't you think that's a bit hasty? There are better ways..." and then he goes on to try persuade the king for several minutes, which requires a lot of restraint for anyone, especially when the king flat out says "No" to their face. At which point the Lawful Good character has no option but to leave the throne room, go to another nation, and ask for their help in defeating the corrupt king's nation; which has an equal chance of failure.

Speaking of overthrowing the king, if a Chaotic Good character wants a lawful Evil king overthrown, they can just rile up the same kingdom into rebellion. That way only one kingdom worth of people are in harms way, and the king's power slowly crumbles as the revolution takes hold; meaning, once its set in action, the chance of the king staying at the top diminishes the longer it goes on. And in the end, logistically it would probably leave less of a hole in the population that the Lawful Good alternative.

As mentioned, all the Lawful good character can do is rally an army, probably from another nation, and declare war. Naturally, A state of open war is not the easiest time for convincing the other side is wrong, and telling the other nation to rise against its ruler. And during the effort of war, how many more casualties would take place? Essentially, either way, one whole kingdom would be reduced to almost ash, and the other critically wounded. And even if your good kingdom wins without casualty, what's the chance that you haven't destroyed an entire kingdom of Neutral or Good characters just because their king and a few of his right hand men are bad people? And Even if you do adopt a policy of "only fight the army and the corrupt officials" you still have the fact that the army has family to go home to.

Of course, I don't think you should be passive in this discussion. Pick a side and start arguing, this is a debate after all.

Again, if you don't feel like arguing in this, there's always the poll you can go with.

P.S. I think Capcha is trolling me with "Skynet is watching".
Actually any lawful good character in a campaign I was running would be well within their rights, NAY Expected to try and stop the king then and there, putting their own life as well as his own desires aside. Regicide may be a crime but that does not make it unlawful in alignment terms.

A lot of people confuse Lawful good with holding to a legal parchment when what it really means is to hold to a set of principals and a code of ethics. be it the ethics of a religious order like a paladin, or a very personal code that you will never break that is all your own.
 

Winnosh

New member
Sep 23, 2010
492
0
0
Chaotic good doesn't mean that you don't follow a code or set of rules. It just means that you are more flexible and do not really care about others following it as long as they're being in general a way you approve.

Lawful people like rules. They like to know where things stand.
 

Wayneguard

New member
Jun 12, 2010
2,085
0
0
Honestly, I'd rather have my party headed by a lawful-good Paladin than a chaotic-good pirate type character. I think the Pally would be more concerned with my well being than the pirate.
 

ZexionSephiroth

New member
Apr 7, 2011
242
0
0
Daverson said:
Lawful good. Sure, studies have shown chaotic good does 60% more good per good, but there's always going to be collateral damage!
As mentioned in the initial Argument against Lawful good, in certain circumstances, such as dealing with Lawful types, they have little choice in the matter except to find an army elsewhere and bring it back to bring the entire kingdom down. Which is going to average out at approximately 100% more collateral damage than dealing with the collateral damage caused by Chaotic good in tearing apart the lawful Evil Dude's kingdom from within.
 

Winnosh

New member
Sep 23, 2010
492
0
0
Paya Chin said:
CHAOTIC GOOD IF ONLY 'CAUSE LAWFUL GOOD IS MOSTLY LAWFUL STUPID.
That's a problem with players not understanding Lawful Good. not the alignment itself.

It's the same for people who play evil characters as Stupid Evil. You can be an evil character in a group of good and neutral players. Just don't be stupid with your actions Do things that further the goals of everyone but mostly yourself. And do actions that others would dissaperove of when those Good people can't find out about them.
 

DarkhoIlow

New member
Dec 31, 2009
2,531
0
0
I will always choose Chaotic Good over Lawful Good,because of the slight freedom of choice actually.

We all know what happened during the Templar Crusade.

So..yea.