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

[tobi the good boy]

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.

Sorry, I miss quoted. Also while I'm here I feel I should mention (not to you, just in general) "Lawful good does not always mean Lawful nice"

Edit: perfect picture

Spoiler

 

[skywolfblue]

I always saw "Lawful Good" as "Lawful first, Good second".

So IMO Chaotic Good is the true "Do what is right, whatever the circumstance". Not because "the law" told you to.

 

[malestrithe]

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.

Don't sell yourself short. You did a fine job defending your position. It was based on a misunderstanding of what law really means in D&D style roleplaying universes, but you did a fine job defending it.

It does not destroy your credibility to have a preference. All it means is that you simply prefer one alignment over another.

 

[ZexionSephiroth]

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.

Sorry, I miss quoted. Also while I'm here I feel I should mention (not to you, just in general) "Lawful good does not always mean Lawful nice"

That reminds me of why I like Chaotic good in the first place, its somewhat more... human.

With Chaotic Good I imagine scenes where a guy sits on the branch of an apple tree and drops down an apple to a poor kid. And they strike up an... odd conversation. They flit about on rooftops for fun, and maybe a bit of rivalry.

And then I take one of those characters, stick them in front of a lawful evil character; and suddenly, I imagine overflowing passion, a resolve that bursts forth into almost physical form. And...

...At that point it begins to sound like an anime... An Anime I'd like to watch.

Strangely enough, neither of them have to act at all friendly to each other to get across the point that a bond of friendship exists. You can't seem to get that feeling when only Lawful Good characters are involved... or at least I can't.

Eh. And Now I'm being all subjective and poetic. So feel free to say what you will about this post.

 

[tobi the good boy]

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.

Sorry, I miss quoted. Also while I'm here I feel I should mention (not to you, just in general) "Lawful good does not always mean Lawful nice"

That reminds me of why I like Chaotic good in the first place, its somewhat more... human.

With Chaotic Good I imagine scenes where a guy sits on the branch of an apple tree and drops down an apple to a poor kid. And they strike up an... odd conversation. They flit about on rooftops for fun, and maybe a bit of rivalry.

And then I take one of those characters, stick them in front of a lawful evil character; and suddenly, I imagine overflowing passion, a resolve that bursts forth into almost physical form. And...

...At that point it begins to sound like an anime... An Anime I'd like to watch.

Strangely enough, neither of them have to act at all friendly to each other to get across the point that a bond of friendship exists. You can't seem to get that feeling when only Lawful Good characters are involved... or at least I can't.

Eh. And Now I'm being all subjective and poetic. So feel free to say what you will about this post.

All I can say is to have a quick glance of the image I posted in my edit. It sums up what I mean quite well.

 

[In Search of Username]

Well, I don't know, in real life terms, chaotic good is the ideal, but lawful good is the one you're more likely to encounter. Most people in the real world will be lawful good; they'll follow their conscience but at the same time try to avoid being too much of a rebel because they're conditioned to do so and because, hey, it's less trouble. So I think it's best to be 'chaotic good' but there's nothing wrong with 'lawful good' either, it's halfway there.

I don't know which would be better within the game world though, I don't play it.

 

[StBishop]

Lawful good is rediculous, it's so much more boring than neutral good.

I've never played a game which was both fun, and included a lawful good character.

 

[malestrithe]

I always saw "Lawful Good" as "Lawful first, Good second".

So IMO Chaotic Good is the true "Do what is right, whatever the circumstance". Not because "the law" told you to.

If Lawful actually meant Lawful in D&D style universes, then you are right.

However, Law in this context, means Order. You believe order is the best way to bring out the good in all of people. This kind of order is not govern by what's in some book, but by your personal code of justice. So, it means do right whatever the circumstances.

Chaotic Good is more of a "what's in it for me?" alignment. They are good people, but do not get involved without some benefit for them.

Lawful Neutral proudly proclaim they do what the law tells them to.

 

[kickyourass]

Given the choice I'll take Neutral Good, you still want to make the world a generally beter place but you it frees me up to be a good and lawful citizan when it suits me, but doesn't prevent me from murdering a king if I need to.

But since that's not an option I'll take Chaotic Good, Laws are nice and all, but they often pervent you from outright murdering people even if it's for the best.

 

[ZexionSephiroth]

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.

Sorry, I miss quoted. Also while I'm here I feel I should mention (not to you, just in general) "Lawful good does not always mean Lawful nice"

That reminds me of why I like Chaotic good in the first place, its somewhat more... human.

With Chaotic Good I imagine scenes where a guy sits on the branch of an apple tree and drops down an apple to a poor kid. And they strike up an... odd conversation. They flit about on rooftops for fun, and maybe a bit of rivalry.

And then I take one of those characters, stick them in front of a lawful evil character; and suddenly, I imagine overflowing passion, a resolve that bursts forth into almost physical form. And...

...At that point it begins to sound like an anime... An Anime I'd like to watch.

Strangely enough, neither of them have to act at all friendly to each other to get across the point that a bond of friendship exists. You can't seem to get that feeling when only Lawful Good characters are involved... or at least I can't.

Eh. And Now I'm being all subjective and poetic. So feel free to say what you will about this post.

All I can say is to have a quick glance of the image I posted in my edit. It sums up what I mean quite well.

Well... I can't deny your image post was interesting.

...But then again that's because it was funny as all hell.

And going back to how I was saying I picture Chaotic good; Chaotic good seems to me to show up as a more emotional choice. Lawful good, such as the example you give... well... I'm wondering if I should say "logical" or not. He packed a ball with enough punch to slay a demon in one go, but, he treated it like a day job; "just that thing I do cause, you know, demons deserve to be slain." etc. I may be exaggerating but... eh.

And suddenly I thought up a point: but I'm not sure if I fully grasped it. It goes along the lines of; since Chaotic seems like a more emotional choice, playing them would end up feeding back the emotions of fun back into creating chaotic solutions to problems, and cycles round. While Lawful, being about order, would pretty much require a player who focused their creativity through more logical means...

Sounds a little corny, but its 3:30 in the morning here so that's best I can come up with right now.

 

[malestrithe]

Lawful good is rediculous, it's so much more boring than neutral good.

I've never played a game which was both fun, and included a lawful good character.

Never played in my D&D sessions, then. If you have a Lawful Good character that's also a wet blanket, you are doing it wrong.

All it means is that you have a high sense of justice and you think order is the best way to attain justice.

I had a paladin that was not a nice person. He was a paladin to a Nature Deity, who was downright mean to a lot of people. He had no problem killing people, cavorting with rogues, or anything of the sort. All he cared about was wild remaining wild and actively did things to make sure it remained that way. He had no problem with people who took what they needed from the land and nothing else. An odd tree here and there for firewood or lumber for houses, extra stones for a fence, even a wild animal or two to feed a family or the village is not going to have a massive impact for the Wilderness. He would destroy logging companies, mining operations and anything that stripped the land to nothing. He would transport wild animals near villages just to keep people out of it. He was cordial to adventurers, hunters, woodsmen and elves because they understood the wilderness. To City folk, not so much.

 

[malestrithe]

Given the choice I'll take Neutral Good, you still want to make the world a generally beter place but you it frees me up to be a good and lawful citizan when it suits me, but doesn't prevent me from murdering a king if I need to.

But since that's not an option I'll take Chaotic Good, Laws are nice and all, but they often pervent you from outright murdering people even if it's for the best.

Prevents you from killing a king, sure, but does not prevent you from overthrowing him. All you care about is order over chaos, not laws and anarchy. You think order brings out the best in people. If society is better off without this particular king, then overthrow him.

You probably can't kill the guy, but it does not mean you will prevent someone from doing it. Lawful Good is not Lawful Nice or Lawful Stupid.

 

[DJ_DEnM]

Chaotic Good would seem to fit my bard. He performs by using comical insults, and has a whip. Half the time he's cursing which helps the party. And he has the whip. Not that that's any use.

 

[tobi the good boy]

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.

Sorry, I miss quoted. Also while I'm here I feel I should mention (not to you, just in general) "Lawful good does not always mean Lawful nice"

That reminds me of why I like Chaotic good in the first place, its somewhat more... human.

With Chaotic Good I imagine scenes where a guy sits on the branch of an apple tree and drops down an apple to a poor kid. And they strike up an... odd conversation. They flit about on rooftops for fun, and maybe a bit of rivalry.

And then I take one of those characters, stick them in front of a lawful evil character; and suddenly, I imagine overflowing passion, a resolve that bursts forth into almost physical form. And...

...At that point it begins to sound like an anime... An Anime I'd like to watch.

Strangely enough, neither of them have to act at all friendly to each other to get across the point that a bond of friendship exists. You can't seem to get that feeling when only Lawful Good characters are involved... or at least I can't.

Eh. And Now I'm being all subjective and poetic. So feel free to say what you will about this post.

All I can say is to have a quick glance of the image I posted in my edit. It sums up what I mean quite well.

Well... I can't deny your image post was interesting.

...But then again that's because it was funny as all hell.

And going back to how I was saying I picture Chaotic good; Chaotic good seems to me to show up as a more emotional choice. Lawful good, such as the example you give... well... I'm wondering if I should say "logical" or not. He packed a ball with enough punch to slay a demon in one go, but, he treated it like a day job; "just that thing I do cause, you know, demons deserve to be slain." etc. I may be exaggerating but... eh.

And suddenly I thought up a point: but I'm not sure if I fully grasped it. It goes along the lines of; since Chaotic seems like a more emotional choice, playing them would end up feeding back the emotions of fun back into creating chaotic solutions to problems, and cycles round. While Lawful, being about order, would pretty much require a player who focused their creativity through more logical means...

Sounds a little corny, but its 3:30 in the morning here so that's best I can come up with right now.

Wait... 3:30 in the morning. Me thinks you be Australian as well!

And I think I understand what you mean, but I don't agree with it. I've seen enough paladin's done creatively enough to make me discard that stereotype.

Given the choice I'll take Neutral Good, you still want to make the world a generally beter place but you it frees me up to be a good and lawful citizan when it suits me, but doesn't prevent me from murdering a king if I need to.

But since that's not an option I'll take Chaotic Good, Laws are nice and all, but they often pervent you from outright murdering people even if it's for the best.

Prevents you from killing a king, sure, but does not prevent you from overthrowing him. All you care about is order over chaos, not laws and anarchy. You think order brings out the best in people. If society is better off without this particular king, then overthrow him.

You probably can't kill the guy, but it does not mean you will prevent someone from doing it. Lawful Good is not Lawful Nice or Lawful Stupid.

A Lawful Good character would be more than willing to kill the king if he sees no other way. The only difference lies in the details
Chaotic see's it as a means to an end to get a desired result. While a Lawful see's it as bringing justice to someone that is inherently against what he deems as Order and Good

 

[ZexionSephiroth]

I always saw "Lawful Good" as "Lawful first, Good second".

So IMO Chaotic Good is the true "Do what is right, whatever the circumstance". Not because "the law" told you to.

If Lawful actually meant Lawful in D&D style universes, then you are right.

However, Law in this context, means Order. You believe order is the best way to bring out the good in all of people. This kind of order is not govern by what's in some book, but by your personal code of justice. So, it means do right whatever the circumstances.

Chaotic Good is more of a "what's in it for me?" alignment. They are good people, but do not get involved without some benefit for them.

Lawful Neutral proudly proclaim they do what the law tells them to.

Okay, try not to push the hot button of Chaotic Good being "what's in it for me". From my angle its as bad as what you think perception of "lawful as Lawful-stupid" is like.

Their point is "good heart, Free spirit". And I'm sure in practice its much closer to letting their heart do their thinking for them, rather than their wallet or brain. Even if they are clever. Since they follow their conscious before they listen to anything external.

Its better to, in many circumstances, think of chaotic good being closer to being more like a barbarian than a rogue. Full of fury and passion, and fight as if each moment is their last, and would sooner die than see that feeling contained by an order they don't agree with. That is a better example. Not a perfect one by any stretch, but better.

From there you can build it up with a hint of Cavalier (either Order of dragon or Knight errant), who's moral code they swear to as tantamount to who they are and what they believe, but is not necessarily tied to an ordered existence.

At that point you begin to get a picture of what kind of Chaotic Good characters I would play. They are the heroes that are too resistant to order to become paladins, so they become a much different kind of knight; one who's only form of stability is that they have friends they can count on, and that they will always have evil to fight.

And so they throw themselves into the fight for what is right, harder than any Paladin could ever hope, using the full strength of convictions for what is right, not hampered by thoughts such as order or rules or expectations. Only what is right in the there and then.

...

I could be romanticizing a bit there, but its certainly a lot more realistic than "Looking out for me" repeated a thousand times. Uh...

...

Yeah, I've argued this point a lot. Not just in this thread, but everywhere alignment is involved.

 

[malestrithe]

Okay, try not to push the hot button of Chaotic Good being "what's in it for me". From my angle its as bad as what you think perception of "lawful as Lawful-stupid" is like.

Its better to, in many circumstances, think of chaotic good being closer to being more like a barbarian than a rogue. Full of fury and passion, and fight as if each moment is their last, and would sooner die than see that feeling contained by an order they don't agree with. That is a better example. Not a perfect one by any stretch, but better.

From there you can build it up with a hint of Cavalier (either Order of dragon or Knight errant), who's moral code they swear to as tantamount to who they are and what they believe, but is not necessarily tied to an ordered existence.

At that point you begin to get a picture of what kind of Chaotic Good characters I would play. They are the heroes that are too resistant to order to become paladins, so they become a much different kind of knight; one who's only form of stability is that they have friends they can count on, and that they will always have evil to fight. And so they throw themselves into the fight for what is right, harder than any Paladin could ever hope, using the full strength of convictions for what is right, not hampered by thoughts such as order or rules or expectations. Only what is right in the there and then.

...

I could be romanticizing a bit there, but its certainly a lot more realistic than "Looking out for me" repeated a thousand times. Uh...

...

Yeah, I've argued this point a lot. Not just in this thread, but everywhere alignment is involved.

Key Difference between your point and mine: Your point about Lawful Good is not accurate, only people choose to play it as such. There is a grain of truth to mine.

What the AD&D player's handbook (Descriptions are identical to Pathfinder, btw) basically describes as Chaotic Good is Han Solo and Conan of Cimmera. Little use for society, cares about their friends more, but they also act for their best interests. Did you think Han Solo wanted to ask Luke and Obi-Wan for that much? No, he had a far more important thing to worry about: the money he owed Jabba the Hut. He also got a little more for expenses. He did not do what he did because it was the right thing to do. He had a more pressing matter and he took advantage of desperate people to fix it.

So yeah, "what's in it for me" might be offensive to you, but it is accurate to what the alignment is. You choose to play yours a bit differently and that's fine. Lawful Stupid has never been accurate to Lawful Good.

 

[ZexionSephiroth]

Okay, try not to push the hot button of Chaotic Good being "what's in it for me". From my angle its as bad as what you think perception of "lawful as Lawful-stupid" is like.

Its better to, in many circumstances, think of chaotic good being closer to being more like a barbarian than a rogue. Full of fury and passion, and fight as if each moment is their last, and would sooner die than see that feeling contained by an order they don't agree with. That is a better example. Not a perfect one by any stretch, but better.

From there you can build it up with a hint of Cavalier (either Order of dragon or Knight errant), who's moral code they swear to as tantamount to who they are and what they believe, but is not necessarily tied to an ordered existence.

At that point you begin to get a picture of what kind of Chaotic Good characters I would play. They are the heroes that are too resistant to order to become paladins, so they become a much different kind of knight; one who's only form of stability is that they have friends they can count on, and that they will always have evil to fight. And so they throw themselves into the fight for what is right, harder than any Paladin could ever hope, using the full strength of convictions for what is right, not hampered by thoughts such as order or rules or expectations. Only what is right in the there and then.

...

I could be romanticizing a bit there, but its certainly a lot more realistic than "Looking out for me" repeated a thousand times. Uh...

...

Yeah, I've argued this point a lot. Not just in this thread, but everywhere alignment is involved.

Key Difference between your point and mine: Your point about Lawful Good is not accurate, only people choose to play it as such. There is a grain of truth to mine.

What the AD&D player's handbook (Descriptions are identical to Pathfinder, btw) basically describes as Chaotic Good is Han Solo and Conan of Cimmera. Little use for society, cares about their friends more, but they also act for their best interests. Did you think Han Solo wanted to ask Luke and Obi-Wan for that much? No, he had a far more important thing to worry about: the money he owed Jabba the Hut. He also got a little more for expenses. He did not do what he did because it was the right thing to do. He had a more pressing matter and he took advantage of desperate people to fix it.

So yeah, "what's in it for me" might be offensive to you, but it is accurate to what the alignment is. You choose to play yours a bit differently and that's fine. Lawful Stupid has never been accurate to Lawful Good.

I suppose when you phrase it that way it makes a bit more sense, characters in fiction that could be classed as chaotic good often exist in a world where everyone has problems. I still think it doesn't have to be that way, but I think your examples show that a character that makes their own way is going to have to think a bit about themselves sometimes. So I guess that's okay.

 

[BeeGeenie]

Question!: Has the Paladin Sworn an Oath of Fealty to the King in this scenario?! It makes a difference. If he has sworn loyalty to the king then he can neither follow the orders, because they are unjust, nor rebel, because he must honor his commitment. He is obligated by his own moral code to submit to punishment for refusing an evil act. (I'm thinking banishment). Think El Cid, from medieval Spain.
A lawful character would try to change the system, but would have to accept the king's decree in the mean time, even if he refused to participate on moral grounds.

If he hasn't sworn loyalty to the king, then his first priority is justice, regardless of the king's orders and therefore he should refuse the order, and try to stop the attack on the peasants. Paladins being generally associated with a religious order, I would think that their religious commitment supercedes doing what the king wants. Though I think just killing the king then and there would qualify as lawful stupid.

So that's my point of view.
Is he lawful in terms of his responsibility to his King, or in his responsibility to some other moral authority?

 

[Combustion Kevin]

okay, I'm seeing this pop up here and there but I thought it were CLERICS and not paladins that were tied to a deity.

I thought paladins upheld goodness as their sole belief and faith and not, say, Moradin for example.

 

[GlorySeeker]

One really isnt better than the other. In a sense, the LG character and the CG counterpart are on in the same. They are both goodly men, but they go about doing good in different ways. A LG character abides by the rules, as where your CG man is more of a vigilante. They each have good intent.

From a players perspective, having a CG character in your party over a LG char is certainly easier to deal with, cause you dont have the LG trying to keep the rules in check ( And from his view and the code of lawful good, thats his way of keeping good in the world).

I love the alignment debate, but they are equals.