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

Recommended Videos

BabySinclair

New member
Apr 15, 2009
934
0
0
ZexionSephiroth said:
Yeah, sorry about the original example. I should modify it to say that if he doesn't want to get killed by the regiment of guards before he can reach the king; then his only option that doesn't cause chaos is to... yeah, summon an army.

...at the time I was arguing such because rogues can just sneak past the guards; or cause a massive distraction... or something to get to the king on his own.

Anyways, thanks to several concessions I made, yeah, the opening to this thread is almost moot.

Edit: Also, I just realized that if the Lawful good guy was a wizard, he could just do the old "summon bigger fish" strategy making it completely moot. Save as a precursor to a more relevant example where a lawful good character would have to waste a whole lot of time to get anywhere without causing chaos. Then leading to his finally realizing what needs to be done, and doing it.

Edit Continued: Even then I made it clear that it wasn't universal, just an example of if the Lawful Good Character doesn't figure where all the evidence is pointing quick enough; what happens.
What class the character is makes little difference on their alignment (restrictions aside.) A LG rogue could still leave and then sneak back, kill the king, and take responsibility. The other option is to refuse and try to defend the town on his own or with local volunteers to ensure as many people that can evacuate can.

The easiest way to talk about the alignment chart is to look a XN or NX. LG is tricky since it carries the baggage of the Paladin which is bound by both LG and its code of conduct which is why LG is usually bulked in with Lawful Stupid.

The best description of alignment put out by WotC is in the Complete Scoundrel and there are good threads on The Escapist that go into the Law-Chaos axis in depth. I would look those up if you're interested.
 

Ravinoff

Elite Member
Legacy
May 31, 2012
316
35
33
Country
Canada
Lawful good believes in the system and due process. Chaotic good believes in getting shit done. I'll go with the latter. Although I tend to lean more towards chaotic neutral.
 

ZexionSephiroth

New member
Apr 7, 2011
242
0
0
BabySinclair said:
ZexionSephiroth said:
Yeah, sorry about the original example. I should modify it to say that if he doesn't want to get killed by the regiment of guards before he can reach the king; then his only option that doesn't cause chaos is to... yeah, summon an army.

...at the time I was arguing such because rogues can just sneak past the guards; or cause a massive distraction... or something to get to the king on his own.

Anyways, thanks to several concessions I made, yeah, the opening to this thread is almost moot.

Edit: Also, I just realized that if the Lawful good guy was a wizard, he could just do the old "summon bigger fish" strategy making it completely moot. Save as a precursor to a more relevant example where a lawful good character would have to waste a whole lot of time to get anywhere without causing chaos. Then leading to his finally realizing what needs to be done, and doing it.

Edit Continued: Even then I made it clear that it wasn't universal, just an example of if the Lawful Good Character doesn't figure where all the evidence is pointing quick enough; what happens.
What class the character is makes little difference on their alignment (restrictions aside.) A LG rogue could still leave and then sneak back, kill the king, and take responsibility. The other option is to refuse and try to defend the town on his own or with local volunteers to ensure as many people that can evacuate can.

The easiest way to talk about the alignment chart is to look a XN or NX. LG is tricky since it carries the baggage of the Paladin which is bound by both LG and its code of conduct which is why LG is usually bulked in with Lawful Stupid.

The best description of alignment put out by WotC is in the Complete Scoundrel and there are good threads on The Escapist that go into the Law-Chaos axis in depth. I would look those up if you're interested.
I'm sure that Rogues are usually more likely to be closer to chaotic than lawful. For the simple reason that most of their skills are only useful for disrupting order.

...just saying.


Edit: I stand corrected.
 

ZexionSephiroth

New member
Apr 7, 2011
242
0
0
Kwil said:
ZexionSephiroth said:
Before I begin arguing for Chaotic good again, just going to post point of someone else, to show I'm not being... Un-receptive to lawful-Good.
Kwil said:
No, it's perfectly in keeping with lawful good. Lawful, in AD&D, revolves around order, stability, and reliability -- not legality. So lawful characters, of any variety, have a code that they follow -- relentlessly. However that does not mean that the code is simplistic or without compassion. Look at the very description of lawful good: "speaks out against injustice .. Honor with compassion" A lawful good character would not stand for killing children who stole because they were starving, as that's not compassionate, nor just.

The difference, however, is that lawful good would seek to have the laws changed. Chaotic good is far more likely to simply rescue a few kids from the guards, or steal the food themselves and give it to a few of the kids, before going on their way.
However, I do have problems with the methods of Lawful Good. Its slow. Critically so.
No. It's not slow. It's complete. Painstakingly so. A lawful good character is entirely capable of rescuing the kids, just as the chaotic good one is. The lawful good character, however, doesn't stop there, and seeks to change the system so that it benefits everybody. The chaotic good character would simply work to demolish the system -- wiping out the guards who are being oppressive, for instance.

The problem you're having is that you've posited an unrealistic situation. A king wouldn't be telling a chaotic good character anything, because the chaotic good character A) opposes the authority of the king on general principles, B) cannot be trusted to follow through with what the King wants to happen.

Remember, what the chaotic character hates is when someone tries to "tell them what to do". So when a guard tells a chaotic good character to bow, the instinct of that character is to flip the guard the bird. Which is why they need to be stealthy, because they spend a lot of their time trying to get away from people they've pissed off, even if they haven't caused any actual harm. If you're playing a chaotic good character simply as if he has no restrictions, you're not playing a chaotic good character.. you're playing a neutral good one. Truly chaotic characters tend to want to subvert, destroy, or otherwise eliminate hierarchy and order. Which means they don't tend to benefit from it from it either. The freedom of the chaotic good comes at a cost, and that cost is that most of society doesn't really like to deal with them.. and vice versa.. which means that they're often very short on information as to what the hell is going on. So the first indication the chaotic good character would have of the king wanting to slaughter the village is when the first flaming arrow lands in it -- assuming he was anywhere nearby in the first place.
You're right there. Lawful Good is a complete process. But one doesn't always have to be complete in order to do good. Sometimes somebody else will finish the job you left half finished; Chaotic Good understands that... I think.

Strangely enough, I'm beginning to think some... interesting things happen when Lawful Good Characters and Chaotic Good Characters work together. Especially when one understands the point of view of the other, but its just not in their nature to do things in the way the other does. And even when they don't fully understand the other's view, some interesting conversations result. Such as this thread.

Hang on... maybe I can come up with a tenuous example that's more fun to write:
Paladin: You aren't listening to a word I'm saying, are you?
Chaotic Good Cavalier: You're probably saying the same things you always do, you're always telling me what to do. I understand why you do it; you think maintaining some kind of order is going to do the greatest good for the most people. And while that may be true, I just don't like it.
Paladin: ... If you'll pardon the colloquialism "Why the f*** not?" it keeps people doing the right thing doesn't it?
Chaotic Good Cavalier: It breeds an atmosphere where people are obliged to do things they don't want to. Not everyone can be as 'upstanding' as you, and I certainly never want to do anything I don't agree with.
Paladin: But you rarely listen to me when something's a good idea anyways!
Chaotic Good Cavalier: Can't I be left to come to the conclusion on my own? I'm not a child, even if I act like one; I deserve the right to come to the conclusion on what is right myself without somebody breathing down my neck.
Paladin: Well, I certainly don't think arguing with every man with a badge is going to solve the problem.
Chaotic Good Cavalier: They aren't always right, you know that! You overthrew a tyrant last Tuesday!
Paladin: But I did not attempt to cause complete anarchy to do that! I made the people see why certain rules aren't meant to be followed, and some are.
Chaotic Good Cavalier: That's exactly what I do, except I'm more direct about it. And I certainly didn't treat the people like they needed to be taught what was right to do.
Paladin: Sometimes, they do-
Chaotic Good Cavalier: -And who's fault is that? Usually some guy who thinks he's better than the crowd, and thinks he can get away with telling the crowd they are nothing compared to him.
Paladin: It's not supposed to be like that.
Chaotic Good Cavalier: Sometimes it is, and then the will of the people gets hurt. What's so good about order then if its so easy to crush the spirit of the people with it when some jerk decides its a good way to get a nation to do whatever he says?
Paladin: And what good is chaos if someone decides they just want to see the world burn? Its like you said, "not everyone is as upstanding as you".
Chaotic Good Cavalier: That is true, but at least they will have come to the decision on their own. And you know what? If they are bad people deciding to cause chaos to spite people, they are just as likely to go against other bad people as they are to go against us. With order, Evil just blobs up into a big ball and crushes everything under it. And then next thing you know; there's a dozen big balls rolling down the hill like some hideous fungus I heard about that exists to crush the life out of everything that moves.
Paladin: Oh? I guess that makes Chaos the Pit of Snakes that is always hissing and spiting at each other for no reason.
Agathion, Vulpinal*: I wish you two would stop hissing and spitting at each other. The Marshmallows Are getting cold.
Chaotic Good Cavalier: He started it...
Agathion, Vulpinal: If you're so worked up about it, why do you two still travel together?
Paladin: Um...
Chaotic Good Cavalier: Uhh...
Agathion, Vulpinal: Face it, you both mean well. You just have different views of the world. So maybe, [Cavalier] when [Paladin] asks you to do something, how about you treat it as a suggestion; then you wouldn't get so worked up.
Chaotic Good Cavalier: Fine... I guess.
Agathion, Vulpinal: And [Paladin], if [Cavalier] isn't agreeing with your course of action; can you at least ask him why? After all, his gut instinct is right more often than you think.
Paladin: I suppose if it will keep this group from descending into anarchy.
Agathion, Vulpinal: Its agreed then. Now, let us stuff our faces. We've got some Daemons to beat the ever-unliving fluff out of tomorrow.

*Agathions are Neutral Good celestials. Used in this example to dispel the conflict between the two, though in Pathfinder, such a task is usually taken up by angels. I just thought the image of a fox-like being in this scene lightened the mood.
I guess that conversation sums up this thread right?
 

Uikri

New member
Jul 28, 2012
15
0
0
Chaotic Good because f*ck having to sit around and tolerate a corrupt government's BS. Although I'll admit I'd rather have the corrupt leader killed than have to rile up some stupid revolution.
 

ZexionSephiroth

New member
Apr 7, 2011
242
0
0
A note, semi interesting, and related: when A chaotic Good Character starts ranting, it's way more fun than when a Lawful Good starts ranting... in my opinion...

Gurren Lagan examples these videos, not sure which one works best, and you may have to wade through the rest of the epic to get to the ranting. Also Massive Spoilers:

...One begins to doubt if its even possible for a Chaotic Good character to have charisma as a dump stat. Its possible, sure, but what are the chances of a Chaotic Good character treating it that way? I have no idea.

"GURREN LAGANN! SPIN ON! ORE WO DARE DA TO OMOTE YAGARU!"
 

BabySinclair

New member
Apr 15, 2009
934
0
0
ZexionSephiroth said:
BabySinclair said:
ZexionSephiroth said:
Yeah, sorry about the original example. I should modify it to say that if he doesn't want to get killed by the regiment of guards before he can reach the king; then his only option that doesn't cause chaos is to... yeah, summon an army.

...at the time I was arguing such because rogues can just sneak past the guards; or cause a massive distraction... or something to get to the king on his own.

Anyways, thanks to several concessions I made, yeah, the opening to this thread is almost moot.

Edit: Also, I just realized that if the Lawful good guy was a wizard, he could just do the old "summon bigger fish" strategy making it completely moot. Save as a precursor to a more relevant example where a lawful good character would have to waste a whole lot of time to get anywhere without causing chaos. Then leading to his finally realizing what needs to be done, and doing it.

Edit Continued: Even then I made it clear that it wasn't universal, just an example of if the Lawful Good Character doesn't figure where all the evidence is pointing quick enough; what happens.
What class the character is makes little difference on their alignment (restrictions aside.) A LG rogue could still leave and then sneak back, kill the king, and take responsibility. The other option is to refuse and try to defend the town on his own or with local volunteers to ensure as many people that can evacuate can.

The easiest way to talk about the alignment chart is to look a XN or NX. LG is tricky since it carries the baggage of the Paladin which is bound by both LG and its code of conduct which is why LG is usually bulked in with Lawful Stupid.

The best description of alignment put out by WotC is in the Complete Scoundrel and there are good threads on The Escapist that go into the Law-Chaos axis in depth. I would look those up if you're interested.
I'm sure that Rogues are usually more likely to be closer to chaotic than lawful. For the simple reason that most of their skills are only useful for disrupting order.

...just saying.
Their skill set is great for maintaining order. Afraid the king might be slipping? Break in and take a look at his plans. Someone planning a revolt? Make them exit the political stage. Espionage is not inherently chaotic, MI6, the CIA, and similar hierarchical covert programs are Lawful and full of rogues. James Bond by WotC's words is LN and you can't say he's not a rogue. Barbarians are C because they follow their emotions, bards too to a lesser extent, hence the no-L. Rogues and scoundrels can very easily be lawful, the player perception of the rogue is usually a chaotic archetype. I usually play rogues or rogue-like characters but only once played chaotic, I'm usually lawful with an established code of honor that he lives (and steals) by.
 

ZexionSephiroth

New member
Apr 7, 2011
242
0
0
BabySinclair said:
ZexionSephiroth said:
BabySinclair said:
ZexionSephiroth said:
Yeah, sorry about the original example. I should modify it to say that if he doesn't want to get killed by the regiment of guards before he can reach the king; then his only option that doesn't cause chaos is to... yeah, summon an army.

...at the time I was arguing such because rogues can just sneak past the guards; or cause a massive distraction... or something to get to the king on his own.

Anyways, thanks to several concessions I made, yeah, the opening to this thread is almost moot.

Edit: Also, I just realized that if the Lawful good guy was a wizard, he could just do the old "summon bigger fish" strategy making it completely moot. Save as a precursor to a more relevant example where a lawful good character would have to waste a whole lot of time to get anywhere without causing chaos. Then leading to his finally realizing what needs to be done, and doing it.

Edit Continued: Even then I made it clear that it wasn't universal, just an example of if the Lawful Good Character doesn't figure where all the evidence is pointing quick enough; what happens.
What class the character is makes little difference on their alignment (restrictions aside.) A LG rogue could still leave and then sneak back, kill the king, and take responsibility. The other option is to refuse and try to defend the town on his own or with local volunteers to ensure as many people that can evacuate can.

The easiest way to talk about the alignment chart is to look a XN or NX. LG is tricky since it carries the baggage of the Paladin which is bound by both LG and its code of conduct which is why LG is usually bulked in with Lawful Stupid.

The best description of alignment put out by WotC is in the Complete Scoundrel and there are good threads on The Escapist that go into the Law-Chaos axis in depth. I would look those up if you're interested.
I'm sure that Rogues are usually more likely to be closer to chaotic than lawful. For the simple reason that most of their skills are only useful for disrupting order.

...just saying.
Their skill set is great for maintaining order. Afraid the king might be slipping? Break in and take a look at his plans. Someone planning a revolt? Make them exit the political stage. Espionage is not inherently chaotic, MI6, the CIA, and similar hierarchical covert programs are Lawful and full of rogues. James Bond by WotC's words is LN and you can't say he's not a rogue. Barbarians are C because they follow their emotions, bards too to a lesser extent, hence the no-L. Rogues and scoundrels can very easily be lawful, the player perception of the rogue is usually a chaotic archetype. I usually play rogues or rogue-like characters but only once played chaotic, I'm usually lawful with an established code of honor that he lives (and steals) by.
Okay, I guess I stand corrected. I wasn't expecting a class so easily thought of as chaotic to be so good at being lawful.

...

And as a change of pace, I always thought it was odd that there wasn't a class specifically for Chaotic Good like there is for Lawful Good. Heck, in Pathfinder, there are Anti-Paladins for Chaotic Evil; and Druids are required to be within a step from True neutral. Next thing I'll know is that Lawful Evil has something and I'll be stuck improvising something from "any alignment" classes and Barbarians...

...I think I just went from apologetic to whinny in ten seconds flat.
 

malestrithe

New member
Aug 18, 2008
1,818
0
0
Uikri said:
Chaotic Good because f*ck having to sit around and tolerate a corrupt government's BS. Although I'll admit I'd rather have the corrupt leader killed than have to rile up some stupid revolution.
Lawful Good does not tolerate tyranny. Corrupt governments can lead towards tyrannical regimes if you are not careful and Lawful Good actively works to prevent that from happening.

From D&D Essentials:

Lawful Good characters respect the authority of a personal code of conduct, laws, and leaders, and they believe that these code of laws are the best way of achieving one's ideals. Virtuous authority promotes the well-being of its subjects and prevents them from harming one another. Lawful Good characters believe just as strongly in the value of life, and they put more emphasis on the need for the powerful to protect and lift up the downtrodden. The exemplars of the lawful good alignment are shining champions of what's right, honorable, and true, risking or even sacrificing their own lives to stop the spread of evil in the world.

When leaders exploit their authority for personal gain, when laws grants privileged status to some citizens and reduce others to slavery or untouchable status, law has given into evil and just authority becomes tyranny. Lawful Good characters are not only capable of challenging injustice, but are morally bound to do so. However, such characters would prefer to work within the system to right such problems rather than resorting to lawless methods.
Explain to me again how they need to tolerate it? Lawful Good actively changes corrupt governments from within. Lawful good also considers most benefit least harm. Lawful Good is perfectly capable of getting rid of a corrupt leader just as easily as other good alignments.
 

Nieroshai

New member
Aug 20, 2009
2,940
0
0
Either way, the CG character in your scenario would get killed immediately by the palace guards. Just like Chaotic Evil, Chaotic Good is about ingenuity. "How can I get what I want without breaking the law and getting killed?" A Lawful Good character can win through turning the populace against the king, including the army. Propaganda is more effective in the hands of a smart LG diplomancer than a poisoned dagger is in the hands of a seasoned rogue or a battleaxe in the mitts of a raging barbarian, and less likely to get you killed. Pen and paper RPGs aren't just about beating up villains, they're about making the most of the world you find yourself in. The perception that Lawful Good is weak or ignorant is near-sighted. I in no way disparage CG, please understand. Just remember, a Lawful Good character is at her best when played like a Lawful Evil character but on the other side of the moral compass. Lawful evil characters are constantly plotting, trying to get their way within the law, and having people in their way dealt with through the system. A Good character would do exactly the same thing; she'd just do it for the greater good. People who play Paladins forget this. There are some things the Paladin code does not expressly forbid, and Paladins make great diplomancers.

CAPTCHA: easy as cake
My point exactly.
 

ThePenguinKnight

New member
Mar 30, 2012
893
0
0
Well, it seems you've already made your mind up so why make a thread? I think it's important to keep in mind that the books are only there to give some ideas and pre-made designs, the DM is law, not the books.

Lawful Good characters can often act as the judge, jury, and executioner. Chaotic Good characters can do things by the book so to speak. There's really no absolute meaning behind alignments, they only act as a vague guideline build off of and to help describe your character to others.
 

ZexionSephiroth

New member
Apr 7, 2011
242
0
0
Nieroshai said:
Either way, the CG character in your scenario would get killed immediately by the palace guards. Just like Chaotic Evil, Chaotic Good is about ingenuity. "How can I get what I want without breaking the law and getting killed?" A Lawful Good character can win through turning the populace against the king, including the army. Propaganda is more effective in the hands of a smart LG diplomancer than a poisoned dagger is in the hands of a seasoned rogue or a battleaxe in the mitts of a raging barbarian, and less likely to get you killed. Pen and paper RPGs aren't just about beating up villains, they're about making the most of the world you find yourself in. The perception that Lawful Good is weak or ignorant is near-sighted. I in no way disparage CG, please understand. Just remember, a Lawful Good character is at her best when played like a Lawful Evil character but on the other side of the moral compass. Lawful evil characters are constantly plotting, trying to get their way within the law, and having people in their way dealt with through the system. A Good character would do exactly the same thing; she'd just do it for the greater good. People who play Paladins forget this. There are some things the Paladin code does not expressly forbid, and Paladins make great diplomancers.

CAPTCHA: easy as cake
My point exactly.
Eh... I just suck at Long term planing. So that might explain why my Lawful Good examples suck.

Really, I'm pretty much already the epitome of Chaotic Good in real life.

Still, I think its possible to get the king killed in the scenario. It's just that most of the strategies that I can think of are Chaotic based. Such as... Summoning the Planar Equivalent of Godzilla using a gate spell. Which, back when my only contact with D&D was Bauldar's Gate, meant summoning a demon and then running for your life. But in pathfinder, there are enough options on what to summon to not have to go that route.
 

ZexionSephiroth

New member
Apr 7, 2011
242
0
0
ThePenguinKnight said:
Well, it seems you've already made your mind up so why make a thread? I think it's important to keep in mind that the books are only there to give some ideas and pre-made designs, the DM is law, not the books.

Lawful Good characters can often act as the judge, jury, and executioner. Chaotic Good characters can do things by the book so to speak. There's really no absolute meaning behind alignments, they only act as a vague guideline build off of and to help describe your character to others.
Um... Why make a thread?

Because arguing a point is fun! Its called debating... Or maybe just Arguing.

I'm not good at it, as a lot of people have have noticed. but hey, I'm still having fun discussing it.
 

Alakaizer

New member
Aug 1, 2008
633
0
0
DoPo said:
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.
Vimes is Lawful Neutral, Carrot Ironfoundersson is Lawful Good. Nobby is Chaotic Evil, but pretty tame.
 

Chimpzy_v1legacy

Warning! Contains bananas!
Jun 21, 2009
4,789
1
0
You know what, I already posted my answer a few pages back, but I want to change it:

There is no such thing as a better alignment. Only better players.
 

BabySinclair

New member
Apr 15, 2009
934
0
0
ZexionSephiroth said:
BabySinclair said:
ZexionSephiroth said:
BabySinclair said:
ZexionSephiroth said:
Yeah, sorry about the original example. I should modify it to say that if he doesn't want to get killed by the regiment of guards before he can reach the king; then his only option that doesn't cause chaos is to... yeah, summon an army.

...at the time I was arguing such because rogues can just sneak past the guards; or cause a massive distraction... or something to get to the king on his own.

Anyways, thanks to several concessions I made, yeah, the opening to this thread is almost moot.

Edit: Also, I just realized that if the Lawful good guy was a wizard, he could just do the old "summon bigger fish" strategy making it completely moot. Save as a precursor to a more relevant example where a lawful good character would have to waste a whole lot of time to get anywhere without causing chaos. Then leading to his finally realizing what needs to be done, and doing it.

Edit Continued: Even then I made it clear that it wasn't universal, just an example of if the Lawful Good Character doesn't figure where all the evidence is pointing quick enough; what happens.
What class the character is makes little difference on their alignment (restrictions aside.) A LG rogue could still leave and then sneak back, kill the king, and take responsibility. The other option is to refuse and try to defend the town on his own or with local volunteers to ensure as many people that can evacuate can.

The easiest way to talk about the alignment chart is to look a XN or NX. LG is tricky since it carries the baggage of the Paladin which is bound by both LG and its code of conduct which is why LG is usually bulked in with Lawful Stupid.

The best description of alignment put out by WotC is in the Complete Scoundrel and there are good threads on The Escapist that go into the Law-Chaos axis in depth. I would look those up if you're interested.
I'm sure that Rogues are usually more likely to be closer to chaotic than lawful. For the simple reason that most of their skills are only useful for disrupting order.

...just saying.
Their skill set is great for maintaining order. Afraid the king might be slipping? Break in and take a look at his plans. Someone planning a revolt? Make them exit the political stage. Espionage is not inherently chaotic, MI6, the CIA, and similar hierarchical covert programs are Lawful and full of rogues. James Bond by WotC's words is LN and you can't say he's not a rogue. Barbarians are C because they follow their emotions, bards too to a lesser extent, hence the no-L. Rogues and scoundrels can very easily be lawful, the player perception of the rogue is usually a chaotic archetype. I usually play rogues or rogue-like characters but only once played chaotic, I'm usually lawful with an established code of honor that he lives (and steals) by.

Okay, I guess I stand corrected. I wasn't expecting a class so easily thought of as chaotic to be so good at being lawful.

...

And as a change of pace, I always thought it was odd that there wasn't a class specifically for Chaotic Good like there is for Lawful Good. Heck, in Pathfinder, there are Anti-Paladins for Chaotic Evil; and Druids are required to be within a step from True neutral. Next thing I'll know is that Lawful Evil has something and I'll be stuck improvising something from "any alignment" classes and Barbarians...

...I think I just went from apologetic to whinny in ten seconds flat.
I'm not really the biggest fan of narrow alignment restrictions like the anti-paladin or the paladin. The druid and barbarian have wider restrictions so I don't mind as much. Alignment is a very tricky thing and the DM is ultimately the one with the final say at the table anyways.
 

Baralak

New member
Dec 9, 2009
1,244
0
0
Uikri said:
Chaotic Good because f*ck having to sit around and tolerate a corrupt government's BS. Although I'll admit I'd rather have the corrupt leader killed than have to rile up some stupid revolution.
A Lawful Good knight would just as soon attack the corrupt government leaders than follow them. They'd just rather work in the system than go all chaotic.

Think of it as work. Your boss is a dick and everyone hates him. CG would just outright call him out and possibly attack him, whereas LG would be the one filing the reports against the boss, and getting everyone else to do the same. Results are the same, though. Boss is gone, everyone's happy. just different methods.


BabySinclair said:
ZexionSephiroth said:
BabySinclair said:
ZexionSephiroth said:
BabySinclair said:
ZexionSephiroth said:
Yeah, sorry about the original example. I should modify it to say that if he doesn't want to get killed by the regiment of guards before he can reach the king; then his only option that doesn't cause chaos is to... yeah, summon an army.

...at the time I was arguing such because rogues can just sneak past the guards; or cause a massive distraction... or something to get to the king on his own.

Anyways, thanks to several concessions I made, yeah, the opening to this thread is almost moot.

Edit: Also, I just realized that if the Lawful good guy was a wizard, he could just do the old "summon bigger fish" strategy making it completely moot. Save as a precursor to a more relevant example where a lawful good character would have to waste a whole lot of time to get anywhere without causing chaos. Then leading to his finally realizing what needs to be done, and doing it.

Edit Continued: Even then I made it clear that it wasn't universal, just an example of if the Lawful Good Character doesn't figure where all the evidence is pointing quick enough; what happens.
What class the character is makes little difference on their alignment (restrictions aside.) A LG rogue could still leave and then sneak back, kill the king, and take responsibility. The other option is to refuse and try to defend the town on his own or with local volunteers to ensure as many people that can evacuate can.

The easiest way to talk about the alignment chart is to look a XN or NX. LG is tricky since it carries the baggage of the Paladin which is bound by both LG and its code of conduct which is why LG is usually bulked in with Lawful Stupid.

The best description of alignment put out by WotC is in the Complete Scoundrel and there are good threads on The Escapist that go into the Law-Chaos axis in depth. I would look those up if you're interested.
I'm sure that Rogues are usually more likely to be closer to chaotic than lawful. For the simple reason that most of their skills are only useful for disrupting order.

...just saying.
Their skill set is great for maintaining order. Afraid the king might be slipping? Break in and take a look at his plans. Someone planning a revolt? Make them exit the political stage. Espionage is not inherently chaotic, MI6, the CIA, and similar hierarchical covert programs are Lawful and full of rogues. James Bond by WotC's words is LN and you can't say he's not a rogue. Barbarians are C because they follow their emotions, bards too to a lesser extent, hence the no-L. Rogues and scoundrels can very easily be lawful, the player perception of the rogue is usually a chaotic archetype. I usually play rogues or rogue-like characters but only once played chaotic, I'm usually lawful with an established code of honor that he lives (and steals) by.

Okay, I guess I stand corrected. I wasn't expecting a class so easily thought of as chaotic to be so good at being lawful.

...

And as a change of pace, I always thought it was odd that there wasn't a class specifically for Chaotic Good like there is for Lawful Good. Heck, in Pathfinder, there are Anti-Paladins for Chaotic Evil; and Druids are required to be within a step from True neutral. Next thing I'll know is that Lawful Evil has something and I'll be stuck improvising something from "any alignment" classes and Barbarians...

...I think I just went from apologetic to whinny in ten seconds flat.
I'm not really the biggest fan of narrow alignment restrictions like the anti-paladin or the paladin. The druid and barbarian have wider restrictions so I don't mind as much. Alignment is a very tricky thing and the DM is ultimately the one with the final say at the table anyways.
Unearthed Arcana in 3.5 has Paladins of Tyranny, which are LE, Paladins of Freedom, who are CG, and Paladins of Slaughter, who are CE.
 

malestrithe

New member
Aug 18, 2008
1,818
0
0
BabySinclair said:
I'm not really the biggest fan of narrow alignment restrictions like the anti-paladin or the paladin. The druid and barbarian have wider restrictions so I don't mind as much. Alignment is a very tricky thing and the DM is ultimately the one with the final say at the table anyways.
If we were playing AD&D right now, I would allow alternate paladins because LG and CE ones. Of course we would have to use the poorly defined alignment system from that setting, but we can make it work. You still have the ridiculously high attribute restrictions, but each would favor different stats and get different abilities.

True Neutral Paladins would either be about balance or looking for knowledge.
Chaotic Neutral Paladins would be insane and get bonuses to resist mind magic.
Neutral Good Paladins would favor ends justify means approaches.

And So on. The point is my game my rules.
 

Uikri

New member
Jul 28, 2012
15
0
0
kyosai7 said:
Uikri said:
Chaotic Good because f*ck having to sit around and tolerate a corrupt government's BS. Although I'll admit I'd rather have the corrupt leader killed than have to rile up some stupid revolution.
A Lawful Good knight would just as soon attack the corrupt government leaders than follow them. They'd just rather work in the system than go all chaotic.

Think of it as work. Your boss is a dick and everyone hates him. CG would just outright call him out and possibly attack him, whereas LG would be the one filing the reports against the boss, and getting everyone else to do the same. Results are the same, though. Boss is gone, everyone's happy. just different methods.
Then I'd still have to say I prefer CG, because I shouldn't have to work within somebody's system in that kind of situation.