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

[Darkmantle]

I never got into D&D, as much as I would love to. Is there a way to go over to another alignment after a while? for instance, switching to lawful from chaotic? Because Lawful sounds like an ideal, something to stride towards, but it's hardly practical, as you pointed out. Nothing is as black and white as being lawful requires of it. but it would be interesting for someone with their own moral compass working towards being a beacon of light to others.

In AD&D, it was possible to force Alignment changes onto players. If a character does not act in accordance to their alignment, the DM told them their alignment is not such and such. When that happens, they lose a level immediately and gain no experience in the adventure.

However, Law is not what's at the issue. Order is what's at issue. Lawful Good thinks Order is the best way to attain a just world. Society is one way of doing that, but there are other ways to attaining order. It does not mean go along with it,. It means apply the law fairly and equally when rules are present. It means work to stop corruption. It also means getting rid of evil when it presents itself.

Chaotic characters have their best interests at heart. Chaotic Good does the right thing, but is not above being a little selfish from time to time. The only thing that matters to them are friends and family, but will fight oppression when they see it.

I believe you are thinking of Chaotic Neutral or true neutral with slight tendencies towards good. Neutral characters normally only are about friends and family. A chaotic character is just willing to be underhanded to make things right, if they have to. They are not above theft, lying, etc to do the right thing. The law holds no sway over them.

 

[Twilight_guy]

I dunno, using 'but I'm chaotic' strikes me as a cop-out. It sounds more like you just want to do whatever you feel like, in which case why not be true neutral and really do whatever the hell you feel like at the time? Anyways, my vote goes lawful good mostly because chaotic good by its very nature doesn't play well with others. When you follow your own rules at what denotes 'good' and how its done you can make enemies by doing things other disagree with, including other chaotic good characters. At least lawful good characters have a common set of ethics (assuming they follow the leaders/holder of power) and can get along based on that.

 

[malestrithe]

I would disagree with that i feel that as all you "Good guys" seem to struggle with is as everything good is subjective to the situation.That might be the Chaotic Neutral in me but when lawful good comes to a point where its there perception of society vs good in the view of the "good" people they can easily be blinkered by others to do things that are "evil" for the "good" of the group.

While Chaotic good is backed up by a personal view on "good" and have a none biased view on the subject.

Also lawful good is not following what your told because you believe they are good.But doing what your told because you will follow higher authority even if personally you feel the actions are good or bad.This is going to sound bad but like most developed nations armed forces as there missions are for the better of their nations not for the betterment of good or bad.

The society you described would be Lawful Neutral. To a Lawful Good character, if society oppresses the weak, that society is not lawful good. That has nothing to do with the concept of society as a just and fair place, which is what Lawful Good strives for.

Stepping in to stop authority oppressing the lower classes is Lawful Good. Overthrowing evil monarchs is Lawful Good act. Changing the laws so they are applied equally to everyone is Lawful Good.

As for your description of Lawful Good, you are actually describing lawful neutral. Sorry, but obeying the laws with out question is not a good act. It is the most neutral thing you can possibly do. And it does not matter what society tells you is right or not. Alignments are a personal thing always has been. Lawful Good characters would not follow laws blindly. They actively try to change them or get rid of the evil leaders.

Morality may be subjective and good and bad depends on the situation, this is not a philosophy class. This is a roleplaying game where moral absolutes do exist. The Planescape campaign setting, as well as the Manual of the Planes, prove this.

 

[Darkmantle]

"What is better - to be born good, or to overcome your evil nature through great effort"

Being good because you want to is be always better than being good because your told to be.

Following what's right is the precept of all good alignments. What's at issue is society's place in the world. Lawful Good thinks a just society is best for all people. They do that by making sure the law is applied fairly to everyone. They do not tolerate corruption and actively try to get rid of the bad elements. Chaotic Good just has no place in society.

Following orders without question is what Neutral alignments do. Lawful Neutral tends to think the law is the law regardless of situation.

I would disagree with that i feel that as all you "Good guys" seem to struggle with is as everything good is subjective to the situation.That might be the Chaotic Neutral in me but when lawful good comes to a point where its there perception of society vs good in the view of the "good" people they can easily be blinkered by others to do things that are "evil" for the "good" of the group.

While Chaotic good is backed up by a personal view on "good" and have a none biased view on the subject.

Also lawful neutral is not following what your told because you believe they are good.But doing what your told because you will follow higher authority even if personally you feel the actions are good or bad.This is going to sound bad but like most developed nations armed forces as there missions are for the better of their nations not for the betterment of good or bad.

This is why i feel that the concept of "good" and "bad" is ridiculous.

Please keep in mind that we are talking about a system that deals in absolute morals. If your scenario were to take place in a dnd game, the Lawful good character would almost immediately drop to lawful neutral, falling into well-intentioned-extremist territory. Besides, this is about the law-chaos axis, not the good-evil axis. Though personally I don't believe good and evil are as subjective as you think.

 

[Darkmantle]

Personally I prefer chaotic good. It's much more flexible and realistic. And it seems the people who don't like it keep confusing it with chaotic Neutral. A chaotic good person isn't necessarily selfish, nor does it mean he can't play well with others. That's more CN and NE style

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

I find most people who claim to be lawful good or chaotic good, are actually lawful neutral or chaotic neutral.

 

[The Rainmaker]

Chaotic good, just because that's how I feel Stannis Baratheon is like. Ned Stark was lawful good and that just ended with him fucking everything and everyone up.

 

[Spygon]

I would disagree with that i feel that as all you "Good guys" seem to struggle with is as everything good is subjective to the situation.That might be the Chaotic Neutral in me but when lawful good comes to a point where its there perception of society vs good in the view of the "good" people they can easily be blinkered by others to do things that are "evil" for the "good" of the group.

While Chaotic good is backed up by a personal view on "good" and have a none biased view on the subject.

Also lawful good is not following what your told because you believe they are good.But doing what your told because you will follow higher authority even if personally you feel the actions are good or bad.This is going to sound bad but like most developed nations armed forces as there missions are for the better of their nations not for the betterment of good or bad.

The society you described would be Lawful Neutral. To a Lawful Good character, if society oppresses the weak, that society is not lawful good. That has nothing to do with the concept of society as a just and fair place, which is what Lawful Good strives for.

Stepping in to stop authority oppressing the lower classes is Lawful Good. Overthrowing evil monarchs is Lawful Good act. Changing the laws so they are applied equally to everyone is Lawful Good.

As for your description of Lawful Good, you are actually describing lawful neutral. Sorry, but obeying the laws with out question is not a good act. It is the most neutral thing you can possibly do. And it does not matter what society tells you is right or not. Alignments are a personal thing always has been. Lawful Good characters would not follow laws blindly. They actively try to change them or get rid of the evil leaders.

Morality may be subjective and good and bad depends on the situation, this is not a philosophy class. This is a roleplaying game where moral absolutes do exist. The Planescape campaign setting, as well as the Manual of the Planes, prove this.

Okay i total agree that my argument is not suited for an role playing game as such.But how would you "class" a person who felt they were doing good out of ignorance that were actually doing "evil" while believing he was doing good but could not see the bigger picture to make a knowledgeable personal choice.This comes up a lot in role playing games as the betrayed that happens a a lot normally ends up having to learn the bigger picture to become the "hero"

In my eyes this falls into lawful good as the character feels they are doing good but being mislead by their view of the world and their own society role in it.

 

[manarazer]

A few of us have played games with alignment systems, and the codifier of this is Dungeons and Dragons, who gave us an alignment system that included both Good vs Evil, and Law vs Chaos.

Now I'm sure many of the more idealistic among us would want to play a good character, but Neutral Good sounds like such a boring character to be in, yet alone role-play without great effort.

...I think you know where this is going...

I pose a question... What is the Best Lopsided Good alignment?

Now before we begin, let's grab Definitions of both from an RPG book so there are no misconceptions. I'm using Pathfinder cause it's what I have on hand.

Lawful-Good:
A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. (They) combine a commitment to oppose Evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. (They) tell the truth, keep (their) word, help those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful Good Character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Lawful Good combines Honor with Compassion.

Chaotic Good:
A Chaotic Good character acts as his conscience directs (them) with little regard for what others expect of (them). (They) make their own way, but (they) are kind and benevolent. (They) Believe in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. (They) hate is when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. (They) follow their own Moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.
Chaotic good combines a good heart with a free spirit.

And thus the debate begins. But if any of you don't feel like joining in, but still want to show your opinion, there is a poll.

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.

P.S. I think Capcha is trolling me with "Skynet is watching".

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.

Doesn't that mean that a lawful good character who upholds a personal code is the exact same as a chaotic good character?

'A Chaotic Good character acts as his conscience directs'
Personal code being your conscience...

 

[malestrithe]

I believe you are thinking of Chaotic Neutral or true neutral with slight tendencies towards good. Neutral characters normally only are about friends and family. A chaotic character is just willing to be underhanded to make things right, if they have to. They are not above theft, lying, etc to do the right thing. The law holds no sway over them.

I don't think so. Chaotic Neutral is a cop out alignment to begin with: no matter what you do, you can justify it with "because I felt like it" and it works. True Neutral tends to stay out of it a lot more than other alignments. Chaotic Good people can take advantage of others if they have a more pressing need over their head.

To be fair, my understanding of alignment comes from AD&D and the go to example for Chaotic Good is Han Solo back then. He kills Greedo, first or second, does not matter in this case. He charged a lot more than needed for his services, but Ben goes along with it, sensing the good in him. He tells Chewie that he can finally pay off Jabba, so he's conscious about his debts. He is a smuggler, so he has no place in society from the get go. In Empire, he sticks around to find Luke, and sacrifices himself to make sure his friends are safe. In jedi, he aids the Rebels at Dagobah because he owes them.

 

[malestrithe]

Okay i total agree that my argument is not suited for an role playing game as such.But how would you "class" a person who felt they were doing good out of ignorance that were actually doing "evil" while believing he was doing good but could not see the bigger picture to make a knowledgeable personal choice.This comes up a lot in role playing games as the betrayed that happens a a lot normally ends up having to learn the bigger picture to become the "hero"

In my eyes this falls into lawful good as the character feels they are doing good but being mislead by their view of the world and their own society role in it.

It would work, if you think Lawful Good is Lawful Stupid. Being Lawful Good does not mean you stop questioning what you are told. Also, it does not prevent you from disobeying orders not matter how many times you are told you are doing the right thing. If it does not feel right to you, it is not the right thing to do regardless of who told you otherwise.

Breakdown of your hypothetical character's actual alignment:

He's thinks he's doing good while doing evil acts? Because he's not actively questioning it, That automatically makes him Neutral right there.

He is doing evil acts for the Betterment of his society. Because society is his motivation, he would be on the law end of the spectrum. So Lawful.

Combine them together you are left with: Lawful Neutral. A character that does what he's told is helping, but does not stop to question why.

 

[Darkmantle]

I believe you are thinking of Chaotic Neutral or true neutral with slight tendencies towards good. Neutral characters normally only are about friends and family. A chaotic character is just willing to be underhanded to make things right, if they have to. They are not above theft, lying, etc to do the right thing. The law holds no sway over them.

I don't think so. Chaotic Neutral is a cop out alignment to begin with: no matter what you do, you can justify it with "because I felt like it" and it works. True Neutral tends to stay out of it a lot more than other alignments. Chaotic Good people can take advantage of others if they have a more pressing need over their head.

To be fair, my understanding of alignment comes from AD&D and the go to example for Chaotic Good is Han Solo back then. He kills Greedo, first or second, does not matter in this case. He charged a lot more than needed for his services, but Ben goes along with it, sensing the good in him. He tells Chewie that he can finally pay off Jabba, so he's conscious about his debts. He is a smuggler, so he has no place in society from the get go. In Empire, he sticks around to find Luke, and sacrifices himself to make sure his friends are safe. In jedi, he aids the Rebels at Dagobah because he owes them.

I mainly played 3.5e

Han solo is considered CN at the start, and has an alignment change to CG eventually. It's because 3e let you change your alignment more fluidly and didn't penalize you for it, unless you did it too often. I like that better because it allows for character growth as opposed to your char being stuck no matter what happens if you don't want the XP damage.

Anybody who uses CN as a "cause I felt like it" alignment is just doing it wrong, I've played and have seen CN chars played very well. CN doesn't mean insane, they have some rhyme or reason to their ways. quick example, I played a guy who would lie cheat and steal for more gold, he had a bit of an obsession for it. But he never, ever betrayed or steal from his party. He considered them close friends and would never dream of harming them, but fuck anyone else. Just like I'm sure Han would go to great lengths to save Chewie.

Another CN char was a mercenary who was only loyal to his contracts. He didn't care who hired him, he did the job and that was it. He would go so far as to take jobs from opposing factions, forming alliances only as long his contracts. Didn't care if it was illegal, legal, right, wrong, in between. His only loyalty was to the money he was paid.

Those are CN characters to me.

CG is more along the lines of the idealized Robin Hood or Malcolm Reynolds from firefly.

 

[Darkmantle]

I would disagree with that i feel that as all you "Good guys" seem to struggle with is as everything good is subjective to the situation.That might be the Chaotic Neutral in me but when lawful good comes to a point where its there perception of society vs good in the view of the "good" people they can easily be blinkered by others to do things that are "evil" for the "good" of the group.

While Chaotic good is backed up by a personal view on "good" and have a none biased view on the subject.

Also lawful good is not following what your told because you believe they are good.But doing what your told because you will follow higher authority even if personally you feel the actions are good or bad.This is going to sound bad but like most developed nations armed forces as there missions are for the better of their nations not for the betterment of good or bad.

The society you described would be Lawful Neutral. To a Lawful Good character, if society oppresses the weak, that society is not lawful good. That has nothing to do with the concept of society as a just and fair place, which is what Lawful Good strives for.

Stepping in to stop authority oppressing the lower classes is Lawful Good. Overthrowing evil monarchs is Lawful Good act. Changing the laws so they are applied equally to everyone is Lawful Good.

As for your description of Lawful Good, you are actually describing lawful neutral. Sorry, but obeying the laws with out question is not a good act. It is the most neutral thing you can possibly do. And it does not matter what society tells you is right or not. Alignments are a personal thing always has been. Lawful Good characters would not follow laws blindly. They actively try to change them or get rid of the evil leaders.

Morality may be subjective and good and bad depends on the situation, this is not a philosophy class. This is a roleplaying game where moral absolutes do exist. The Planescape campaign setting, as well as the Manual of the Planes, prove this.

Okay i total agree that my argument is not suited for an role playing game as such.But how would you "class" a person who felt they were doing good out of ignorance that were actually doing "evil" while believing he was doing good but could not see the bigger picture to make a knowledgeable personal choice.This comes up a lot in role playing games as the betrayed that happens a a lot normally ends up having to learn the bigger picture to become the "hero"

In my eyes this falls into lawful good as the character feels they are doing good but being mislead by their view of the world and their own society role in it.

That char would be classed as Lawful Neutral, they are a well-intentioned extremist. Especially if they are mislead by their societal role. That plays right into Lawful Neutral actually.

 

[Zakarath]

To shoehorn some popular fantasy protagonists into an alignment, would you rather be Sam Vimes (Lawful Good), William Laurence (Who I class as neutral good but would be lawful if Temeraire wasn't a rather chaotic influence on him), or Harry Dresden (Chaotic Good).

Myself, I think I'm gonna have to side with Harry.

 

[Spygon]

Thank you malestrithe and Darkmantle as you can tell i am not full immerse into the D&D spectrum.But i like debating about races,classes and beliefs of worlds so nice to be explained how the spectrum works.

As my question leads onto propaganda and nationalism in fictional worlds but i feel that is a discussion for another thread

 

[malestrithe]

I mainly played 3.5e

Han solo is considered CN at the start, and has an alignment change to CG eventually. It's because 3e let you change your alignment more fluidly and didn't penalize you for it, unless you did it too often. I like that better because it allows for character growth as opposed to your char being stuck no matter what happens if you don't want the XP damage.

Anybody who uses CN as a "cause I felt like it" alignment is just doing it wrong, I've played and have seen CN chars played very well. CN doesn't mean insane, they have some rhyme or reason to their ways. quick example, I played a guy who would lie cheat and steal for more gold, he had a bit of an obsession for it. But he never, ever betrayed or steal from his party. He considered them close friends and would never dream of harming them, but fuck anyone else. Just like I'm sure Han would go to great lengths to save Chewie.

Those are CN characters to me.

Then they must have changed the alignments after 3.0. Han Solo is the quintessential CG character in the AD&D mindset. He does not do things willy nilly or without reason. Chaotic Neutral is a copout alignment in an AD&D mindset. they do things not because they're crazy, but because they feel like it.

I'm quoting from the AD&D players Handbook on this: "Chaotic Neutral characters believe that there is no order to anything, including their own actions. With this as a guiding principle, they tend to follow whatever whim strikes them at that moment. Good and evil are irrelevant when making a decision."

Also, anyone who is a merc would be considered lawful to some degree in AD&D. Contracts require some set upon standards that must be followed. Even if they are loyal to money, they still need to abide by the contract to get it.

 

[TheScientificIssole]

Chaotic Good, for I love westerns of the Spaghetti variety. And I always love characters of the Man With No Name or Harry Callahan attitude. Those who understand that good is hard to define with anything, but a gut instinct.

 

[Darkmantle]

Thank you malestrithe and Darkmantle as you can tell i am not full immerse into the D&D spectrum.But i like debating about races,classes and beliefs of worlds so nice to be explained how the spectrum works.

As my question leads onto propaganda and nationalism in fictional worlds but i feel that is a discussion for another thread

Suffice to say, if you buy into what your society says is right without thinking about it any further, in DnD terms, you are lawful neutral, you obey the law because you assume the law is good/the best way to do things. Nationalism and state propaganda would probably sway a LN person. But a LG person would be expected to question it. They would be like an activist really, trying to change public opinion through legal channels.


honestly it can be a hard distinction to make, as it always is when you try to deal with an absolute moral system.

 

[malestrithe]

To shoehorn some popular fantasy protagonists into an alignment, would you rather be Sam Vimes (Lawful Good), William Laurence (Who I class as neutral good but would be lawful if Temeraire wasn't a rather chaotic influence on him), or Harry Dresden (Chaotic Good).

Myself, I think I'm gonna have to side with Harry.

Jonah Hex for me. Lawful Evil, slight leanings towards good. Honors his contracts, but gets rid of the bounty almost immediately if it does not feel right to him. Has a high sense of justice, but has no place for friends or family.