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

Recommended Videos

Marsell

New member
Nov 20, 2008
824
0
0
Chaotic Neutral
A character of this alignment is an individualist who follows his or her own heart, and generally shirks rules and traditions. Although they promote the ideals of freedom, it is their own freedom that comes first. Good and Evil come second to their need to be free, and the only reliable thing about them is how totally unreliable they are. Chaotic Neutral characters are free-spirited and do not enjoy the unnecessary suffering of others, but if they join a team, it is because that team's goals happen to coincide with their own at the moment. They invariably resent taking orders and can be very selfish in their pursuit of personal goals. A Chaotic Neutral character does not have to be an aimless wanderer; they may have a specific goal in mind, but their methods of achieving that goal are often disorganized, unorthodox, or entirely unpredictable.
F**k Yeah.
 

malestrithe

New member
Aug 18, 2008
1,818
0
0
ZexionSephiroth said:
Okay, this mostly works. But strangely it sounds like you confused one point, but I could be reading it wrong. I never said "go along with the plan", but I did say that after running out on the king and saving the village was an option... Of course, you disproved that by saying the king might do something to punish the lawful good character that would keep them from it so... point still valid?

Of course, the way you put it, outing the king and letting things happen as they may may yield better results. However, in this version, the Lawful good character dies. Conversely the chaotic good character lives to fight through it...
Why does the scenario have to end with the Lawful Good character becoming a martyr? What's stopping other characters from rescuing him? What's stopping him from taking an opportunity to escape on his own?

My understand of Lawful Good says as long as the punishment is fair, he will accept it. If it seems egregious, he will actively resist the punishment. The character will not think being killed just because you tell the king off is a fair punishment.
 

tobi the good boy

New member
Dec 16, 2007
1,229
0
0
ThePostalDude said:
Chaotic Neutral
A character of this alignment is an individualist who follows his or her own heart, and generally shirks rules and traditions. Although they promote the ideals of freedom, it is their own freedom that comes first. Good and Evil come second to their need to be free, and the only reliable thing about them is how totally unreliable they are. Chaotic Neutral characters are free-spirited and do not enjoy the unnecessary suffering of others, but if they join a team, it is because that team's goals happen to coincide with their own at the moment. They invariably resent taking orders and can be very selfish in their pursuit of personal goals. A Chaotic Neutral character does not have to be an aimless wanderer; they may have a specific goal in mind, but their methods of achieving that goal are often disorganized, unorthodox, or entirely unpredictable.
F**k Yeah.
Chaotic neutrals are such cop outs! So many people take them just so they can ultimately have the grounds to justify anything, most of the time it's so they can have the thrill of doing something blatantly evil and not suffering the downsides of an alignment shift, because "Hay, my character is just looking out for himself!"
 

ZexionSephiroth

New member
Apr 7, 2011
242
0
0
R3dF41c0n said:
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.
I like to think its possible to create a Chaotic Good Knight. The thing I've got for that is somewhere in the advanced player's guide for Pathfinder.

...

Cavalier:
Alignment: Any
While Many warriors strive to perfect their art, spending all of their time honing their skill at martial arms, others spend as much time dedicating themselves to a cause. These Warriors, known as Cavaliers, swear themselves to a purpose, serving it above all else. Cavaliers are skilled at fighting from horseback, and are often and charging across a battlefield, with the symbol of their order trailing on a long, fluttering banner. the Cavalier's true power comes from the conviction of his ideals, the oaths that he swears, and the challenges he makes.
Sounds a lot like a knight, even the bit later about heavy Armour proficiencies. And while you might not think that they lend themselves well to chaotic good now, some of the orders you can pick fit with it well.

Such as the order of the dragon, which is about loyalty to a small group; which might just be a group of friends.

...and...

...

Okay, there's always Knight's Errant/Rohnin from ultimate combat to fall back on, which is literally "make you own moral code up."
 

Rednog

New member
Nov 3, 2008
3,567
0
0
I love Lawful Good, but almost no one plays it correctly. Everyone instead plays it like a wet blanket to the group and just turns everything into a moral discussion. Roll a paladin, be a religious zealot who smites down enemies because their very existence is an affront to your god.
 

Exius Xavarus

Casually hardcore. :}
May 19, 2010
2,064
0
0
I'm gonna say Chaotic Good. I've never actually played a game where I got to be any alignment, but to be perfectly honest, I wouldn't be Lawful or Chaotic Good. I'd have chosen Chaotic Neutral(I think that's what it's called). Chaos for chaos' sake.^^ As far as I'm concerned, a little danger makes everything more interesting. :D
 

ZexionSephiroth

New member
Apr 7, 2011
242
0
0
malestrithe said:
ZexionSephiroth said:
Okay, this mostly works. But strangely it sounds like you confused one point, but I could be reading it wrong. I never said "go along with the plan", but I did say that after running out on the king and saving the village was an option... Of course, you disproved that by saying the king might do something to punish the lawful good character that would keep them from it so... point still valid?

Of course, the way you put it, outing the king and letting things happen as they may may yield better results. However, in this version, the Lawful good character dies. Conversely the chaotic good character lives to fight through it...
Why does the scenario have to end with the Lawful Good character becoming a martyr? What's stopping other characters from rescuing him? What's stopping him from taking an opportunity to escape on his own?

My understand of Lawful Good says as long as the punishment is fair, he will accept it. If it seems egregious, he will actively resist the punishment. The character will not think being killed just because you tell the king off is a fair punishment.
Gah! Two people thinking ten steps ahead of me at once! give me ten seconds!

...

...Um...

...Middle of throne room, lots of guards, pissed off king...

Yeah, at that point, most lawful characters aren't likely to be able to escape a hundred elite soldiers coming at once. Unless someone jumps out the-

*slaps self* No, there aren't any rogues!

Okay, at that point, odds are stacked against you unless there's a Wizard/Mage/sorcerer/whatever-spellcaster-your-setting-has in the group with a convenient spell to get you out of there. But then that simply raises the question of why the Wizard had that spell ready to go in the first place? Unless its a teleportation spell.

But then that's not a Lawful-Good only thing so, kinda undermines the point. Not as bad as my points have been undermined though.

:(
/sad

Edit: Just remembered there are monks that might be able to jump out the window. Another *derp* for me it seems.
 

tobi the good boy

New member
Dec 16, 2007
1,229
0
0
ZexionSephiroth said:
malestrithe said:
ZexionSephiroth said:
Okay, this mostly works. But strangely it sounds like you confused one point, but I could be reading it wrong. I never said "go along with the plan", but I did say that after running out on the king and saving the village was an option... Of course, you disproved that by saying the king might do something to punish the lawful good character that would keep them from it so... point still valid?

Of course, the way you put it, outing the king and letting things happen as they may may yield better results. However, in this version, the Lawful good character dies. Conversely the chaotic good character lives to fight through it...
Why does the scenario have to end with the Lawful Good character becoming a martyr? What's stopping other characters from rescuing him? What's stopping him from taking an opportunity to escape on his own?

My understand of Lawful Good says as long as the punishment is fair, he will accept it. If it seems egregious, he will actively resist the punishment. The character will not think being killed just because you tell the king off is a fair punishment.
Gah! Two people thinking ten steps ahead of me at once! give me ten seconds!

...

...Um...

...Middle of throne room, lots of guards, pissed off king...

Yeah, at that point, most lawful characters aren't likely to be able to escape a hundred elite soldiers coming at once. Unless someone jumps out the-

*slaps self* No, there aren't any rogues!

Okay, at that point, odds are stacked against you unless there's a Wizard/Mage/sorcerer/whatever-spellcaster-your-setting-has in the group with a convenient spell to get you out of there. But then that simply raises the question of why the Wizard had that spell ready to go in the first place? Unless its a teleportation spell.

But then that's not a Lawful-Good only thing so, kinda undermines the point. Not as bad as my points have been undermined though.

:(
/sad

Edit: Just remembered there are monks that might be able to jump out the window. Another *derp* for me it seems.
You realise you can be Lawful Good without running your mouth off? If I were playing Lawful Good character I wouldn't call the king out when he's surrounded by guards. A Lawful good character can be something as simple as someone who adheres to a code of beliefs to better the lives of others. Heck a Lawful Good character can operate from the shadows and through manipulation just as much as a Lawful Evil character, just with his end goals being a positive result.

Lawful doesn't mean you adhere to laws blindly. It means you adhere to Morally Just Laws, sometimes laws that aren't imposed by mere mortal kings...
 

ImperialSunlight

New member
Nov 18, 2009
1,269
0
0
I personally find lawful good a more interesting alignment from a roleplaying perspective, since it places the character within the world more than a chaotic good character who just wants to be good and doesn't give a shit about anyone else's laws since it gives the player a loyalty or affinity to something in that world (society, the king, a god, etc. ). Both can be effective, though, it just depends on the character.
 

malestrithe

New member
Aug 18, 2008
1,818
0
0
ZexionSephiroth said:
malestrithe said:
ZexionSephiroth said:
Okay, this mostly works. But strangely it sounds like you confused one point, but I could be reading it wrong. I never said "go along with the plan", but I did say that after running out on the king and saving the village was an option... Of course, you disproved that by saying the king might do something to punish the lawful good character that would keep them from it so... point still valid?

Of course, the way you put it, outing the king and letting things happen as they may may yield better results. However, in this version, the Lawful good character dies. Conversely the chaotic good character lives to fight through it...
Why does the scenario have to end with the Lawful Good character becoming a martyr? What's stopping other characters from rescuing him? What's stopping him from taking an opportunity to escape on his own?

My understand of Lawful Good says as long as the punishment is fair, he will accept it. If it seems egregious, he will actively resist the punishment. The character will not think being killed just because you tell the king off is a fair punishment.
Gah! Two people thinking ten steps ahead of me at once! give me ten seconds!

...

...Um...

...Middle of throne room, lots of guards, pissed off king...

Yeah, at that point, most lawful characters aren't likely to be able to escape a hundred elite soldiers coming at once. Unless someone jumps out the-

*slaps self* No, there aren't any rogues!

Okay, at that point, odds are stacked against you unless there's a Wizard/Mage/sorcerer/whatever-spellcaster-your-setting-has in the group with a convenient spell to get you out of there. But then that simply raises the question of why the Wizard had that spell ready to go in the first place? Unless its a teleportation spell.

But then that's not a Lawful-Good only thing so, kinda undermines the point. Not as bad as my points have been undermined though.

:(
/sad
Nope. Do you honestly think a King is going to kill this guy immediately? Why would he do that? I said the King was going to kill the character, I never said right away. In order for this character to have titles or land, stuff that can be taken away, he's going to have some importance. Otherwise, why would he sit in on the private war council session?

Either way, in order to be get the orders from the king, he's going to have some pull in the kingdom or with the army. That also means a rank of lieutenant or above. Having that rank also means reputation of some kind. A savvy king would know not to kill this guy publicly in front of witnesses. No, he would opt for a more private affair. Hence jail time and opportunities to escape.

If the character is a freelance adventurer, it would be perfectly reasonable to have a wizard on retainer with a teleport spell ready. He could have been burned several times before and chooses to be cautious. Perfectly reasonable for characters of any alignment to be prepared incase shit happens. Once again, Lawful Good is not Lawful Stupid. Don't confuse the two.
 

LadyRhian

New member
May 13, 2010
1,246
0
0
Lawful Good. It may be harder to play, but, in the scenario you propose, the Paladin does not have to just stand there and let the king slaughter people so he can raise other nations against him. You call the King out on that what he is doing is EVIL, you try to persuade him (through diplomacy) to call the whole thing off (using your high charisma skill), and if he still declines to do the right thing, you challenge him in front of his whole court. Tell people why you are challenging him. If he sends guards after you, you can take them down in non-lethal ways (they are following orders, after all).
 

ZexionSephiroth

New member
Apr 7, 2011
242
0
0
tobi the good boy said:
ZexionSephiroth said:
malestrithe said:
ZexionSephiroth said:
Okay, this mostly works. But strangely it sounds like you confused one point, but I could be reading it wrong. I never said "go along with the plan", but I did say that after running out on the king and saving the village was an option... Of course, you disproved that by saying the king might do something to punish the lawful good character that would keep them from it so... point still valid?

Of course, the way you put it, outing the king and letting things happen as they may may yield better results. However, in this version, the Lawful good character dies. Conversely the chaotic good character lives to fight through it...
Why does the scenario have to end with the Lawful Good character becoming a martyr? What's stopping other characters from rescuing him? What's stopping him from taking an opportunity to escape on his own?

My understand of Lawful Good says as long as the punishment is fair, he will accept it. If it seems egregious, he will actively resist the punishment. The character will not think being killed just because you tell the king off is a fair punishment.
Gah! Two people thinking ten steps ahead of me at once! give me ten seconds!

...

...Um...

...Middle of throne room, lots of guards, pissed off king...

Yeah, at that point, most lawful characters aren't likely to be able to escape a hundred elite soldiers coming at once. Unless someone jumps out the-

*slaps self* No, there aren't any rogues!

Okay, at that point, odds are stacked against you unless there's a Wizard/Mage/sorcerer/whatever-spellcaster-your-setting-has in the group with a convenient spell to get you out of there. But then that simply raises the question of why the Wizard had that spell ready to go in the first place? Unless its a teleportation spell.

But then that's not a Lawful-Good only thing so, kinda undermines the point. Not as bad as my points have been undermined though.

:(
/sad

Edit: Just remembered there are monks that might be able to jump out the window. Another *derp* for me it seems.
You realise you can be Lawful Good without running your mouth off? If I were playing Lawful Good character I wouldn't call the king out when he's surrounded by guards. A Lawful good character can be something as simple as someone who adheres to a code of beliefs to better the lives of others. Heck a Lawful Good character can operate from the shadows and through manipulation just as much as a Lawful Evil character, just with his end goals being a positive result.

Lawful doesn't mean you adhere to laws blindly. It means you adhere to Morally Just Laws, sometimes laws that aren't imposed by mere mortal kings...
I wasn't one that suggested the Paladin Run their mouth off...

Anyways, much of what you say is taken for granted, such as the point about simply having a consistant code of beliefs. But I like to think its better to argue using something closer to a paragon of the alignment. Such as Archons and Azatas: the Lawful good and chaotic good pathfinder rpg celestials. It makes it easier to argue.
 

ZexionSephiroth

New member
Apr 7, 2011
242
0
0
malestrithe said:
ZexionSephiroth said:
malestrithe said:
ZexionSephiroth said:
Okay, this mostly works. But strangely it sounds like you confused one point, but I could be reading it wrong. I never said "go along with the plan", but I did say that after running out on the king and saving the village was an option... Of course, you disproved that by saying the king might do something to punish the lawful good character that would keep them from it so... point still valid?

Of course, the way you put it, outing the king and letting things happen as they may may yield better results. However, in this version, the Lawful good character dies. Conversely the chaotic good character lives to fight through it...
Why does the scenario have to end with the Lawful Good character becoming a martyr? What's stopping other characters from rescuing him? What's stopping him from taking an opportunity to escape on his own?

My understand of Lawful Good says as long as the punishment is fair, he will accept it. If it seems egregious, he will actively resist the punishment. The character will not think being killed just because you tell the king off is a fair punishment.
Gah! Two people thinking ten steps ahead of me at once! give me ten seconds!

...

...Um...

...Middle of throne room, lots of guards, pissed off king...

Yeah, at that point, most lawful characters aren't likely to be able to escape a hundred elite soldiers coming at once. Unless someone jumps out the-

*slaps self* No, there aren't any rogues!

Okay, at that point, odds are stacked against you unless there's a Wizard/Mage/sorcerer/whatever-spellcaster-your-setting-has in the group with a convenient spell to get you out of there. But then that simply raises the question of why the Wizard had that spell ready to go in the first place? Unless its a teleportation spell.

But then that's not a Lawful-Good only thing so, kinda undermines the point. Not as bad as my points have been undermined though.

:(
/sad
Nope. Do you honestly think a King is going to kill this guy immediately? Why would he do that? I said the King was going to kill the character, I never said right away. In order for this character to have titles or land, stuff that can be taken away, he's going to have some importance. Otherwise, why would he sit in on the private war council session?

Either way, in order to be get the orders from the king, he's going to have some pull in the kingdom or with the army. That also means a rank of lieutenant or above. Having that rank also means reputation of some kind. A savvy king would know not to kill this guy publicly in front of witnesses. No, he would opt for a more private affair. Hence jail time and opportunities to escape.

If the character is a freelance adventurer, it would be perfectly reasonable to have a wizard on retainer with a teleport spell ready. He could have been burned several times before and chooses to be cautious. Perfectly reasonable for characters of any alignment to be prepared incase shit happens. Once again, Lawful Good is not Lawful Stupid. Don't confuse the two.
Actually, from what you say here, it's not that this specific example is of me getting lawful good wrong, but lawful evil.

... Ether way. You're probably right at this point.

... Doesn't stop me thinking Chaotic Good is more fun though, or more in line with who I am...

...and there goes the last of my credibility.
 

malestrithe

New member
Aug 18, 2008
1,818
0
0
tobi the good boy said:
You realise you can be Lawful Good without running your mouth off? If I were playing Lawful Good character I wouldn't call the king out when he's surrounded by guards. A Lawful good character can be something as simple as someone who adheres to a code of beliefs to better the lives of others. Heck a Lawful Good character can operate from the shadows and through manipulation just as much as a Lawful Evil character, just with his end goals being a positive result.

Lawful doesn't mean you adhere to laws blindly. It means you adhere to Morally Just Laws, sometimes laws that aren't imposed by mere mortal kings...
For this particular version of Lawful Good, it does mean speak out for what's right. Original post of this discussion uses an example like, "Chaotic Good does not have to put up with the king's Shit. Lawful Good, oth must work within the laws and try to appeal to the king's better judgment."

OP also said that Lawful Good is handicapped when helping overthrow the king because he must follow the rules of warfare and get a neighboring kingdom to invade. Chaotic Good can get the peasants to revolt a lot easier.

I came up with what I thought was the clearest example of someone that can change society and still be Lawful Good.
 

2xDouble

New member
Mar 15, 2010
2,310
0
0
It depends on which you're better at roleplaying.

Whats the difference between Paragon and Renegade?
 

RyuujinZERO

New member
Oct 4, 2010
43
0
0
tl;dr - Both extremes have potential for being duped by a clever dungeon master into doing bad things; the lawful good paladin by lumbering him with a covertly evil authority figure who he protects by duty. A chaotic good rogue may be tricked into undermining a government body that overtly looks bad, but causes a far greater evil breaking it.

Both archetypes played properly should be immune to this anyway because alignment is a guideline, not a set of dictates. A good paladin SHOULD question authority, a rogue SHOULD think through his actions and their consequences. Failure to do so just dumps them into lawful Stupid and Chaotic Stupid