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

[RobfromtheGulag]

Seems to me the key difference is whether they follow the law. Which was decided upon and written down by some other group of people.

So Lawful Good do what [some other] people think is right.
Chaotic Good do what you yourself think is right.

The former brings up some frightening possibilities.

I'll admit I've always found the system a bit confusing though. Mostly when it comes to Lawful Evil.

 

[TwiZtah]

Chatoic Good is better, less people will probably be hurt. Example: Every damn fucking superhero.

Batman knows The Joker will escape from Arkham for the millionth time and kill people when he gets out, but Batman is on his high horse and will not kill him. Therefore, he is indirectly responsible for every death, and therefore I think he is evil.

 

[PurePareidolia]

Chaotic Good. It's about doing what you believe is right regardless of whether the law agrees with you. In that sense I have a lot more respect for it than "it's right as long as someone else says it's right". The latter takes no responsibility for their actions - they defer their entire morality to someone else's code, never really choosing for themselves what they believe is right. A chaotic good character might have to choose between the mission and what they believe is right, lawful good character will always take the lawful path because "good" is what's expected of them, nothing more, nothing less.

Now, that's kind of an idealized version of Lawful Good, sure - but if a character doesn't define themselves by the laws they follow, surely they're neutral good instead? Now, this isn't to say the lawful good character can't act in the spirit, not the letter of the law, but the fact they have to do that to avoid becoming Lawful Stupid points to a major flaw in their philosophy - Lawful Good only works if you're willing to be flexible with the very laws you claim to uphold. At least Chaotic good has a choice in the matter - if the law sides with their outlook they can still work within it, but should the law prove oppressive or corrupt, they can be a force for change, not just try to make the best of a bad situation.

of course the irony of the situation is that lawful good as an alignment for a society is great - band together to make life better for everyone. But that's the price of Lawful Good - you're required to sacrifice your own ideals/freedoms/life for the good of society. Perhaps it can be called noble, but I think it's far more noble to make that sacrifice knowing you could have turned away or stepped aside. If sacrifice is your duty, then what you're doing is far less selfless than if it isn't.

 

[Mister K]

Villains rarely play by the rules and sometimes hero must lower him/herself to their level. For, you know, greater good.

 

[Baalthazaq]

I've already argued that most players seem to confuse Alignment with personality [http://gulf-roleplaying.blogspot.com/2012/07/d-alignment-system-is-perfect.html].

Here I think the problem isn't so much that as simplifying "believes in law" as "follows the rules". Just because I think that the world should have laws and be ordered, doesn't mean I won't fight a tyrant, or free a prisoner.

A chaotic good guy likely frees a prisoner, a lawful good guy fights to change the laws so they're never imprisoned unfairly again.

Lawful Good. Justice just feels "more good" than Anarchy in any realistic setting, and that's what you're basically asking, though obviously a true utopia would be anarchist I suppose.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

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.

Are we arguing Rogue's VS Paladin's now ? No, the Lawful Good character is unlikely to be a Rogue so is unlikely to have those skills but they will likely be a tank who could cleave through people or have a high diplomacy/charisma score they can use to talk their way through it and rally people or a Cleric who can bring down a hammer of the Gods or... so many options. The rogue, by comparison would have difficulty inciting a rebellion since most people are going to remember them as 'that guy who stole my purse' or some such and anything short of the assassination route is unlikely because (again) dissent and rebellion would require charisma. So it'd work if the Chaotic Good character is a Bard I guess?

As for the martyring, that really depends on the Lawful Good's personal code. If it says 'kill evil, but spare people if possible' he'd likely be arrested and then the court system, etc. If it's "kill evil, and it's accomplices' they could walk out of their in a bloodbath of guards and servants of the King while still being Lawful Good (by their own definition).

 

[spartan231490]

Neither is better. They're both perfectly valid ways to play a game, or to exist if you're talking about real life alignment.

Also, you misunderstand lawful good a little bit. A lawful good character doesn't need to just go along with the law no matter whether the law is good or evil, that is lawful neutral. Being lawful good means you would oppose evil laws. You would first do so from within, such as trying to persuade the king, but they would be perfectly capable of executing a coup de tat, or rising a rebellion, or even assassinating the king right there on the spot. The only difference is that lawful good would then turn himself in to whatever authority replaced the king for justice.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

Chatoic Good is better, less people will probably be hurt. Example: Every damn fucking superhero.

Savage Dragon. He's a cop who just happens to be a giant green dragon-man. He's pretty Lawful Good since he goes by the book and his 'costume' is his police uniform. But I wouldn't say he's ineffective at solving crimes.

 

[malestrithe]

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?))

((Clarification: No we are not arguing what one is better for roleplaying purposes. I could care less what you choose to play, or what is more heroic. We are arguing against a misunderstanding of what Lawful actually means.))

Lawful in a roleplaying game does not mean follow the rules. It means order is preferable to chaos. Lawful Good believes in a universal order that is not govern by society. Lawful Good characters are just as likely to break the laws of whatever kingdom they are because the see a bully oppressing a weak person. He will step in and prevent it from happening. It is not govern by the rules of a kingdom, for all we know he is just a visitor passing through, but by his personal sense of order. He is not against authority either. If he steps in to prevent a fight and is caught, he will accept that he violated this kingdom laws and accept the punishment, if it seems fair. It also means they spend a lot of time in jail if roleplayed right. He is not going to run from punishment.

Chaotic characters may do the right thing, but they practice more discretion. They choose to step in when they feel like it, but that does not make they are more heroic than Lawful Good characters.

 

[chimeracreator]

...Okay, then there's this one. I mentioned in another post that Paladins don't have Persuasion as a class skill, just diplomacy.

In 3.X and 4E Diplomacy and is used for that type of Persuasion. These editions of D&D have three main skills for influencing NPCs:

Bluff: For when you are lying to them or telling an unbelievable truth.

Diplomacy: For when you want to bring an NPC around to your way of thinking or at least to accept an argument you are making in good faith or back up by a successful bluff check.

Intimidate: For when you want to scare someone into doing what you want.


So if you want to ride up to an army and tell them that the king sent you to recall them, that would be a bluff check. If you want to scare them into not attacking that would be an intimidate check. However if you want to convince them that attacking would be wrong, that would be a diplomacy check, and as you pointed out Diplomacy is a class skill for Paladins and it is a Charisma based skill so they should be getting an extra bonus from that as well.

 

[Setch Dreskar]

Neither, it is far to subjective and you can come up with an argument for why Lawful Evil or True Neutral are better within context of justice/laws. LE will follow their own laws to the absolute letter, never deviating, where as True Neutral will never interfere and thus have no impact for good or ill on anything.

Though you really need to add more options to the poll, an Other and a Neither option would be better then a choice between 2 and only 2 of the 9 alignments.

 

[plugav]

I suppose I'd sooner play Chaotic Good, but there's a place for both. CG is the brave adventurer who saves the day when she's needed but then carries on her adventuring. It's up to the LG people left behind to keep things from falling apart again.

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

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?))

((Clarification: No we are not arguing what one is better for roleplaying purposes. I could care less what you choose to play, or what is more heroic. We are arguing against a misunderstanding of what Lawful actually means.))

Lawful in a roleplaying game does not mean follow the rules. It means order is preferable to chaos. Lawful Good believes in a universal order that is not govern by society. Lawful Good characters are just as likely to break the laws of whatever kingdom they are because the see a bully oppressing a weak person. He will step in and prevent it from happening. It is not govern by the rules of a kingdom, for all we know he is just a visitor passing through, but by his personal sense of order. He is not against authority either. If he steps in to prevent a fight and is caught, he will accept that he violated this kingdom laws and accept the punishment, if it seems fair. It also means they spend a lot of time in jail if roleplayed right. He is not going to run from punishment.

Chaotic characters may do the right thing, but they practice more discretion. They choose to step in when they feel like it, but that does not make they are more heroic than Lawful Good characters.

Right, you are describing one kind of lawful good character and this is definitely worth exploring. Is a Knight who follows a code of chivalry, but does not believe in universal order, not Lawful Good? What about a guard who only believes in the laws he has to enforce (a la Sam Vimes) but doesn't believe that the world needs universal order? I think you're right and believing in a universal order of how to act is a valid role-playing choice for a character who's Lawful Good, but there are other archetypes which are ALSO Lawful Good besides the ones you mention. There may be some who are well aware of the law and follow it while doing good within the law, they don't have to break it because of their allignment and spend a lot of time in jail because they'll fight the fight within the law (though if the system itself is broken that may make things difficult)

Chaotic doesn't habe to believe in complete anarchy as the main government. They CAN do, but they don't need to commit fully to it, you can be chaotic just because you have a tendency to willfully ignore the law and beat up on people bullying others just the same as the Lawful Good if their own moral compass compels them to it, but they have the distinction that they'll cry bullshit to being punished for doing what they see as right.

 

[ZexionSephiroth]

Okay, These two posts seem to put Chaotic Good and Lawful Good on... Even ground?

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.

All I can say against that is more logistics. A point already made at the beginning, and at this point weakened by the fact the "army" was one that was gained by saving their lives. Still, they have to risk their lives, and the lives of the (mostly) innocent soldiers working for the evil king as well, so... I'm rather confused at where the logistics lie here. Its still more than one kingdom, but it simultaneously lowered the death toll.

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.

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...

Wait a minute. Lets see what happens With some editing....

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.

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.

Yeah... This feels like a cheap shot on my part. And it even makes my point worse, as not only does one cancel the other out, they do this while simultaneously both disproving my point.

 

[malestrithe]

Chatoic Good is better, less people will probably be hurt. Example: Every damn fucking superhero.

Batman knows The Joker will escape from Arkham for the millionth time and kill people when he gets out, but Batman is on his high horse and will not kill him. Therefore, he is indirectly responsible for every death, and therefore I think he is evil.

Judge Dredd is Lawful Good. He applies his own personal of the Law where ever he goes. He invaded the Soviet equivalent of Mega City One and applied his personal understanding of the Law to its Chief Justice, not sparing one thought that Soviet Law might be different. When Dredd found out that Judge Manners did not apply the law universally and fairly, he ordered Manner's Death. Also, he made a road trip to Texas Mega City to kill Cadet Ralph Bryce, again not even considering how Texas Law is different from his own.

 

[Lord_Ascendant]

They both have their merits and failing. No alignment is "better" than another. A Lawful Evil sorcerer and a Chaotic Evil Lich are completely different and have their own failings. Neither is, however, better than another by a long shot. They are their own philosophical mindsets, they are individuals. No individual is better than any others in terms of the way they see the world...except of course the Mongols, they're the exception.

 

[ZexionSephiroth]

...Okay, then there's this one. I mentioned in another post that Paladins don't have Persuasion as a class skill, just diplomacy.

In 3.X and 4E Diplomacy and is used for that type of Persuasion. These editions of D&D have three main skills for influencing NPCs:

Bluff: For when you are lying to them or telling an unbelievable truth.

Diplomacy: For when you want to bring an NPC around to your way of thinking or at least to accept an argument you are making in good faith or back up by a successful bluff check.

Intimidate: For when you want to scare someone into doing what you want.


So if you want to ride up to an army and tell them that the king sent you to recall them, that would be a bluff check. If you want to scare them into not attacking that would be an intimidate check. However if you want to convince them that attacking would be wrong, that would be a diplomacy check, and as you pointed out Diplomacy is a class skill for Paladins and it is a Charisma based skill so they should be getting an extra bonus from that as well.

I just looked it up, You were right. So...

one moment, I'm going to go back and do some strike outs of points I made related to that.

 

[malestrithe]

Right, you are describing one kind of lawful good character and this is definitely worth exploring. Is a Knight who follows a code of chivalry, but does not believe in universal order, not Lawful Good? What about a guard who only believes in the laws he has to enforce (a la Sam Vimes) but doesn't believe that the world needs universal order? I think you're right and believing in a universal order of how to act is a valid role-playing choice for a character who's Lawful Good, but there are other archetypes which are ALSO Lawful Good besides the ones you mention. There may be some who are well aware of the law and follow it while doing good within the law, they don't have to break it because of their allignment and spend a lot of time in jail because they'll fight the fight within the law (though if the system itself is broken that may make things difficult)

Probably, but it does not jive with my understanding of Lawful Good. Your examples feel more neutral good to me. But that's solely based on my understanding of the alignment system.

And, my example applies to when he visits foreign cities. Lawful Good characters will know the rules of whatever kingdom he's from and will work within the law there. The same cannot be said for foreign travel. Why would anyone know the rules for some foreign they've only visited once? The only thing a Lawful Good character can do, from my understanding, is to step in and intervene in the situation. If punishment comes, accept it and move on. They are doing the right thing, to their understanding, but must play by the rules.

Also, I said fair punishments. Fairness means a night in jail, conduct your business, leave, and never come back, a fine, a few hours community service, or something like that. He will not support corruption, unfair bribes or anything egregious. If the society is corrupt and they prove it to him, he's going to be more active in resisting.

 

[tobi the good boy]

Lawful Stupid versus Row Row Fight Da Powah?

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

You'd call this guy lawful stupid!

OT: I'm going to flat out say... I am not qualified to answer this, having only played Chaotic/Neutral Evil. But I am looking forward to playing a paladin in the likeness of Samuri Jack.

 

[Eremiel]

Chatoic Good is better, less people will probably be hurt. Example: Every damn fucking superhero.

Batman knows The Joker will escape from Arkham for the millionth time and kill people when he gets out, but Batman is on his high horse and will not kill him. Therefore, he is indirectly responsible for every death, and therefore I think he is evil.

Batman is not in any way, shape or form Lawful Good. Vigilantism does not a superhero lawful make.

Also.. someone from the initial example who goes along with the Evil King's plan to kill villagers just because "the King says so and his Word is Law" is -not- Lawful Good. He's Lawful Neutral. Lawful good follows the spirit of law and order. Lawful Neutral follows the exact wording, no matter what.

Chaotic Good is "everyone should be free! ANARCHY!" with good intentions.