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

[malestrithe]

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.

In you example. would it be possible for the Lawful Good character to say, "This isn't right. I'm not doing it?" Can it be possible for him to say it whether or not he knows his king is evil?

Based on the description of the alignment you've provided, it is perfectly reasonable to do and also does not violate the vague Lawful Good description.

I think that if one of the knights takes a principled stand against this tyranny, it will inspire others to stand up against oppression. He also does not need any "chaos skills" to spread dissent and make people aware of how bad things are. He does it by taking a stand against this form of tyranny, regardless of consequences.

Nowhere in the description of the alignments you've used prevents a Lawful Good character from doing that.

In order for your example to work, Lawful Good means Lawful Stupid.

 

[Winnosh]

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.

Yep a lot of lawful evil and chaotic evil people pretending that they were lawful good.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

I voted Chaotic Good but only by a thin sliver, the main distinguishing feature between them seems to be that Lawful would do it because he has to and Chaotic because he chooses to. One is a hero who's completely resolved to his course of action by external standards they adhere to and one's going case by case with their own internal standards. In terms of heroics, if you aren't obligated to the do the right thing by anything other than your own rules it seems more heroic, slightly, than doing it because you know it's right by the law. Just my stance.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

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.

I think you aren't getting the jist of Lawful Good. In the circumstances you dictated, if the King was doing something the LG OG knows is evil then his first reaction will likely be decapitate the king then and there and (events from this point vary, likely it could even end with the LG's death but that's a price you pay for justice). The Chaotic Good reaction could well be as simple as 'Get my family the hell out of this kingdom first, then I can come back later and shoot the king from a distance'. Chaotic Good doesn't HAVE to obey justice, they just have to do what they see as right and if that's 'help some people, don't risk my own neck' that's their prerogative.

 

[chimeracreator]

I think you're getting caught up thinking of lawful as obeying the laws of the land. It isn't. Lawful has more to do with a belief in an ordered society of laws that people should follow rather than a belief that any given set of laws is correct.

So in your king example a lawful good character could just as easily strike the king and shout, "You may be a king, but that does not grant you the right to take the lives of innocents!" In this case the character would be standing up for their belief that killing innocents is wrong and universalizing it.

Chaotic alignments on the other hand tend not to accept that laws should be applied universally. So in the same situation they might just end up saying, "That might not be prudent. In any case let us discuss my quest to kill the dragon, how will I be rewarded when I succeed?"

The two have no bearing on either good or intelligence. As for why Intelligence is normally a Paladin's dump stat that's easy. They need a good Strength, Constitution and Charisma score as well as at least a 14 in Wisdom to cast max level spells. That leaves Dexterity and Intelligence to dump, and few Paladins that I've seen made with a point buy ever have more than 12 Dexterity which is the maximum you can use in non-mithril full plate armor.

 

[malestrithe]

I voted Chaotic Good but only by a thin sliver, the main distinguishing feature between them seems to be that Lawful would do it because he has to and Chaotic because he chooses to. One is a hero who's completely resolved to his course of action by external standards they adhere to and one's going case by case with their own internal standards. In terms of heroics, if you aren't obligated to the do the right thing by anything other than your own rules it seems more heroic, slightly, than doing it because you know it's right by the law. Just my stance.

Because he chooses to get involved does not make him more heroic. It makes him more selfish. It is another way of saying, "what's init for me?"

 

[ZexionSephiroth]

-snip-

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.

The problem here is that as mentioned in another post, its more about whether it is logical for them to go after the evil king then and there. Chaotic good can get away with it as they have all the rouges, Ninjas, Spies, Bards, etc. So they can just smoke bomb the place, stab the king and jump out the window.

...Meanwhile, The Paladin has to deal with guards, which we don't know he'll get past on his own. He has to kill the king in a hurry before the guards, or another wave of guards, deals with him; also not sure how he does that. And then he has to have an escape plan in case there are more Lawful Evil types in the area to take the top position... And come to think of it, why would a Lawful good character Need the skills that would get them through that alive without becoming a martyr (as, let's face it, is what a paladin would become if he tried this alone... unlike rogues), except with dealing with Lawful Evil Characters?

Now, in hindsight, I may have made one error of logic; yes, the Paladin could easily just 'say' that the king is corrupt in a convincing manner; but logically, it doesn't have the effect as doing something that everyone in the kingdom will talk about. Such as punching the king after sneaking up on him and THEN Speaking against him. And alongside that, Paladins and monks probably don't have "persuasion" as class skills. So It would be pretty hard to get them to the point outing the king as evil is going to be effective regardless. And thus, they are more likely to fail to convince anyone and just get beaten up by the guards for 'high treason' and either killed or thrown in the dungeon.

Yes, I do realize I'm moving away from the moral side towards the practical side; but its all part of the package, with great chaotic hearts comes great chaotic skills... and then responsibility, as these are good guys either way.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

I voted Chaotic Good but only by a thin sliver, the main distinguishing feature between them seems to be that Lawful would do it because he has to and Chaotic because he chooses to. One is a hero who's completely resolved to his course of action by external standards they adhere to and one's going case by case with their own internal standards. In terms of heroics, if you aren't obligated to the do the right thing by anything other than your own rules it seems more heroic, slightly, than doing it because you know it's right by the law. Just my stance.

Because he chooses to get involved does not make him more heroic. It makes him more selfish. It is another way of saying, "what's init for me?"

That's a valid view point, but it also applies to doing it because you have to. It isn't heroic to do things because you have to either, you aren't choosing to do the right thing, you're just doing it because you don't have a choice. If you are opting to do heroic things (which doesn't neccessarily need to be because your selfish, it could just be because you think it needs to be done) it's more heroic than doing it because 7th commandment paragraph 3 says you must.

 

[ZexionSephiroth]

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.

In you example. would it be possible for the Lawful Good character to say, "This isn't right. I'm not doing it?" Can it be possible for him to say it whether or not he knows his king is evil?

Based on the description of the alignment you've provided, it is perfectly reasonable to do and also does not violate the vague Lawful Good description.

I think that if one of the knights takes a principled stand against this tyranny, it will inspire others to stand up against oppression. He also does not need any "chaos skills" to spread dissent and make people aware of how bad things are. He does it by taking a stand against this form of tyranny, regardless of consequences.

Nowhere in the description of the alignments you've used prevents a Lawful Good character from doing that.

In order for your example to work, Lawful Good means Lawful Stupid.

Huh... I hadn't thought of it that way.

But on the other side of the coin, the king is probably just going to get some other bunch of soldiers to do it. After all he is a king.

Second, the ripple effect of just saying "no", is much slower than causing a scene. And it still leaves a village in peril in the interim. So... Actually, there is one logical course of action there, but its pretty much "pull villagers out of burning buildings, get them to safety." Not exactly the safest course of action, but a paladin is both willing and able to do so.

I guess this is my Favorite argument against my points thus far.

 

[malestrithe]

That's a valid view point, but it also applies to doing it because you have to. It isn't heroic to do things because you have to either, you aren't choosing to do the right thing, you're just doing it because you don't have a choice. If you are opting to do heroic things (which doesn't neccessarily need to be because your selfish, it could just be because you think it needs to be done) it's more heroic than doing it because 7th commandment paragraph 3 says you must.

You know, you've just given a perfect example of Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil characters, who either go along with society or uses it to their advantage. you did not describe Lawful Good.

You are acting as though Lawful means you must follow some precepts written down somewhere. It does not. In the context of a roleplaying game, Lawful means Oder. You think order is preferable to chaos. It does not say that you have some external compass that governs your actions. The only compass you have is yourself regardless of alignment.

Lawful Good characters follow what is right not written by some book, but by themselves. They see oppression they step in.

Chaotic Good characters may only choose to get involved in causes they want to, but that does not make it a better alignment.

 

[Slycne]

I feel like Lawful Good gets the shaft over Chaotic Good too much. It's an often misunderstood alignment, and most people gravitate instead to the Robin Hood/Drizzt "I'm too awesome to follow the rules" alignment and joke about Lawful Stupid. This perception that a Lawful Good character must stringently follow the laws in even the most absurd situation, like the King example, is simply baffling.

The argument that Chaotic Good also has the most potential for good is a bit flawed as well, in that it's that characters perception of what's good. A Lawful Good character will at least be operating within the societal norms of what's good and moral.

That all said, this is why I dislike alignment and prefer instead to have characters pick allegiances. People sides with "Good" can be horrible and those sided with "Evil" can be upstanding and honorable.

 

[Combustion Kevin]

I preffer the lawful good allignment, mostly because that just makes for a more glorious roleplay.

that said, I dont think either is "better".

 

[el_kabong]

I would say "better" is a matter of opinion. Personally, I like Lawful Good because it's much more difficult to play correctly. As noted by other posters, there's a prevalence of Lawful Good being "smite all evil without question". Which, in a lot of cases, turns out to be Evil.

Some ways I've seen Lawful Good be played extremely well:

As paladins are usually part of "the system", I've seen a paladin use his position to take responsibility for the party. So, when the rogue would steal something, instead of threatening to give him a smite-ation, he goes to said system and accepts punishment on behalf of the rogue (the player's opinion that he failed to set a good example for those he is "in command" of). Doing it with not even a hint of disdain in his voice, it eventually brought everyone else closer to his alignment (role-playing-wise: someone selflessly sacrificing for the thief in their party who no one trusts anyway makes a good impression; mechanically: they couldn't afford to lose their only tank if jail time was involved).

Another favorite of mine was a "combat medic", pacifist Cleric. While not looking down on members of the party for unavoidable violence (where negotiations and charisma checks have failed), they would never actually attack anything. Again, really challenging to play (as the game of D and D is almost based exclusively on killing monsters). However, he turned out to be one of the best clerics because he didn't try to have his smiting cake and eat it, too. In other words, since he only focused on defensive spells, he was absolutely vital to the party's success.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

That's a valid view point, but it also applies to doing it because you have to. It isn't heroic to do things because you have to either, you aren't choosing to do the right thing, you're just doing it because you don't have a choice. If you are opting to do heroic things (which doesn't neccessarily need to be because your selfish, it could just be because you think it needs to be done) it's more heroic than doing it because 7th commandment paragraph 3 says you must.

You know, you've just given a perfect example of Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil characters, who either go along with society or uses it to their advantage. you did not describe Lawful Good.

You are acting as though Lawful means you must follow some precepts written down somewhere. It does not. In the context of a roleplaying game, Lawful means Oder. You think order is preferable to chaos. It does not say that you have some external compass that governs your actions. The only compass you have is yourself regardless of alignment.

Lawful Good characters follow what is right not written by some book, but by themselves. They see oppression they step in.

Chaotic Good characters may only choose to get involved in causes they want to, but that does not make it a better alignment.

Lawful Evil? What part of 'deciding to do the right thing' is lawful evil? The entire concept for that is doing things selfishly because you look out for number one or use society to your advantage. You can perform Altruistic deeds that go against society or the law (using the OP's example of killing the Evil king) even if it goes against the law itself because you don't follow a code like "I must not shoot a man with a crossbow while he's on the toilet"

You could make the case for Lawful Neutral but the point of Lawful Good isn't just deciding what's right yourself by your own moral compass, that's literally how they describe Chaotic Good in the players handbook. Lawful may not require you to follow the letter of the law, but it does mean your choices are normally premade by your own personal code or belief system. Whatever the Law is, there is a law that you follow to do good. Chaotic does the same but their law doesn't line up with the laws of society. The Lawful Good character's has to, or else they're Chaotic Good.

((Side-note: this is more personal preference, I don't believe you can have better allignments just which ones we regard as being more heroic, interesting or fun or some such, which is what we're arguing I think?))

 

[Ziggy]

Lawful Evil, all other alignments are "meh" at best.

So much this.
Why destroy when you can conquer. Why treat criminals good when they refuse to follow society's rules. As Lawful Evil, i don't kill you because i want to, i do it because you are in my way.

 

[loc978]

Lawful Stupid versus Row Row Fight Da Powah?

Honestly, I'm pretty chaotic myself, so I prefer rowing.

 

[chimeracreator]

But on the other side of the coin, the king is probably just going to get some other bunch of soldiers to do it. After all he is a king.

Second, the ripple effect of just saying "no", is much slower than causing a scene. And it still leaves a village in peril in the interim. So... Actually, there is one logical course of action there, but its pretty much "pull villagers out of burning buildings, get them to safety." Not exactly the safest course of action, but a paladin is both willing and able to do so.

Except the lawful action can be far more powerful than the chaotic in this case. In your examples it could play out as follows using a rogue for the chaotic good example and a paladin for the lawful good example:

Chaotic Good (Rogue):

Upon hearing this the rogue stabs the king in his court killing him. The guards charge him, he jumps out the window. Tumbles down and escapes into the sunset. Meanwhile the vizier takes the throne declares the rogue an outlaw, puts a bounty on his head and generally causes him to lose stock across all nearby kingdoms. Also the army that was already underway kills everyone in the village because the rogue didn't bother to find out that it had already been dispatched.


Lawful Good (Paladin):

Upon hearing this the Paladin says, "You cannot do this." The king states his army is already underway and the village will burn. So the Paladin charges out gets on his mount and races ahead of the army, as one man can move more quickly than an entire army. Then he rallies the villagers and when the army comes he meets them out in the field and convinces them that what they are doing is wrong and that the king has gone mad.

He then leads the army back to the king's castle, seizing it and imprisoning the king. At which time he uses the political ambitions of neighboring kingdoms to to form a court which tries the king and executes him transferring power to a new more agreeable monarch.

 

[malestrithe]

Huh... I hadn't thought of it that way.

But on the other side of the coin, the king is probably just going to get some other bunch of soldiers to do it. After all he is a king.

Second, the ripple effect of just saying "no", is much slower than causing a scene. And it still leaves a village in peril in the interim. So... Actually, there is one logical course of action there, but its pretty much "pull villagers out of burning buildings, get them to safety." Not exactly the safest course of action, but a paladin is both willing and able to do so.

I guess this is my Favorite argument against my points thus far.

What the king does after you say No is irrelevant. The king is going to do what the scenario calls for. He also might do a lot more than that, like lock up the Lawful Good character for defying him, take away his title and lands, exile the betrayer, or even try to kill him. Do you honestly think king evil enough to slaughter villagers willy nilly is going to let this affront slide? I don't think so.

Also, the character said no in a very public place. That Act of defiance will send more shockwaves than you expect it to.

Even if it was not public, people are going to ask questions when the bad shit happens to the Lawful good character. Even if the king silences the war council, what about the attendants, the scribes and the other misc servants in the room. Unless he orders wholesale slaughter, he cannot prevent everyone from talking. Even if he did, some one is going to find out why the LG character is in the dungeon eventually. And if their life's on the line, it might encourage them to find out why sooner. When the inevitable backlash happens, as well as news when the massacre gets back to the kingdom, don't you think that will spark rebellion just as fast as some chaotic good character spreading dissent? And the LG character still sparked rebellion by taking a principled stand and accepting the backlash when it comes.

Going along with the plan just to save villagers is not logical. Once again, you are confusing Lawful Good with Lawful Stupid. It is not logical to put yourself in a position that goes against your better judgement. The alternative, knowing its going to happen anyway, is not desirable, but at least you were not a part of it.

 

[ZexionSephiroth]

To save posts, I'll do two in one.

-snip-

I think you aren't getting the jist of Lawful Good. In the circumstances you dictated, if the King was doing something the LG OG knows is evil then his first reaction will likely be decapitate the king then and there and (events from this point vary, likely it could even end with the LG's death but that's a price you pay for justice). The Chaotic Good reaction could well be as simple as 'Get my family the hell out of this kingdom first, then I can come back later and shoot the king from a distance'. Chaotic Good doesn't HAVE to obey justice, they just have to do what they see as right and if that's 'help some people, don't risk my own neck' that's their prerogative.

Ignoring The "don't risk me comment", which I already addressed earlier by invoking Kamina who risks his neck all the time all says screw rules all the time... Yeah, Lawful Good could become a martyr, but then, that would say more about the intelligence of the Lawful Good character in question that it does about his alignment.

What is in question is what would the "intelligent" chaotic good or lawful good do? Chaotic good, having rogues on their side can sneak by... Stab, jump. I Mentioned it before... somewhere on here.

Lawful Good would find it hard to do a similar task with that level of efficiency. And apart from a few things like go off and make an army, and maybe save the village before the army gets there, there's not much a smart lawful good can do on their own.

I think you're getting caught up thinking of lawful as obeying the laws of the land. It isn't. Lawful has more to do with a belief in an ordered society of laws that people should follow rather than a belief that any given set of laws is correct.

So in your king example a lawful good character could just as easily strike the king and shout, "You may be a king, but that does not grant you the right to take the lives of innocents!" In this case the character would be standing up for their belief that killing innocents is wrong and universalizing it.

Chaotic alignments on the other hand tend not to accept that laws should be applied universally. So in the same situation they might just end up saying, "That might not be prudent. In any case let us discuss my quest to kill the dragon, how will I be rewarded when I succeed?"

The two have no bearing on either good or intelligence. As for why Intelligence is normally a Paladin's dump stat that's easy. They need a good Strength, Constitution and Charisma score as well as at least a 14 in Wisdom to cast max level spells. That leaves Dexterity and Intelligence to dump, and few Paladins that I've seen made with a point buy ever have more than 12 Dexterity which is the maximum you can use in non-mithril full plate armor.

...Okay, then there's this one. I mentioned in another post that Paladins don't have Persuasion as a class skill, just diplomacy...Edit: I goofed, Diplomacy is persuasion. So while, yeah, it makes sense from a role-play perspective, its not going to net you much in the way of results. And, I'm sure striking the king is going to get him in a bit of trouble to say the least... But then, I may be thinking too practically. And maybe if its a lawful neutral king as opposed to a Lawful evil king, it might count as a plus to the Diplomacy check to persuade the king not to invade... Depending on if the king is nice enough or not.

Edit: okay... this is falling apart.

 

[Saviordd1]

I always find that Lawful Good is the better route, and since I'm the GM I have to admit my NPC's tend to normally lean more towards that gradient (Much to one of my frequent players ire since he is very much in the chaotic good/neutral ground.)