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

[Zakarath]

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.

I'd not place Stannis anywhere near Chotic Good, although Ned is a classic example of Lawful Good equaling Lawful Stupid.

I'd place Stannis as either a true neutral, or perhaps lawful neutral. He's far too willing to do Bad Things in order to increase his own power to call him good, and though his sense of justice is rather harsh and/or twisted at times, it's still present enough to keep him from being chaotic.

 

[malestrithe]

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

Propaganda is Lawful Neutral in nature. Good characters would question propaganda or actively try to get rid of it.

Grey areas exist in the real world, not in a game.

 

[Darkmantle]

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.

Oh believe me, I know the old ADnD alignment system, my dad grew up with it and I hear about it constantly. I think it's just silly. CN is basically just "insane" in ADnD and that is dumb. I don't let people run CN characters as insane.

Many mercs would be some form of lawful, but when this guy's contracts ranged from being part of an actual battle, to just taking a hit on someone, to switching sides after his first contract was up because the other side pays more, he falls off the lawful scale. He'll break any law you want him to for a price. He feels no loyalty towards his employers or anything like that.
Having one trait that a LN char also has(fulfilling contracts) doesn't make all your other traits(not beholden to any kind of honour system or loyalty) irrelevant. As it seems is often the case in ADnD.

Here, from the complete Scoundrels Guide:

They are concerned with their own needs and freedoms over those of anyone
else. Chaotic neutral scoundrels are often mercenaries,
pirates, or smugglers.

Chaotic good scoundrels use their skills
to help others regardless of the consequences.

Honestly, I don't like how the ADnD system classifies it's alignments. If Han Solo is CG, what is the idealized version of robin hood? Because Robin Hood did a lot more good things and was far more benevolent than Han.

 

[Sean Steele]

True Neutral, I'm happy to be at the party no matter whats going down.

(Or rather I like my characters motivations to be a bit more complex and personal then, I'm good, and I follow the law, or I'm bad, and I don't care about the law.For me its like, here DM here is an elaborate back story about how what really motivates my character is severe daddy issues brought on by early child hood abandonment, if you would please completely ignore that so, me the paladin and the necromancer can go gank that basilisk that would be lovely.)

 

[malestrithe]

Oh believe me, I know the old ADnD alignment system, my dad grew up with it and I hear about it constantly. I think it's just silly. CN is basically just "insane" in ADnD and that is dumb. I don't let people run CN characters as insane.


Honestly, I don't like how the ADnD system classifies it's alignments. If Han Solo is CG, what is the idealized version of robin hood? Because Robin Hood did a lot more good things and was far more benevolent than Han.

Neutral Good to some degree. Here's the breakdown of it:

Values his friends.
Steal from rich, but only keeps just enough for his needs, doles out the rest to other needy people.
Abandoned society not because he did not need it, but society is corrupt.
Actively points out flaws in society, but does not try to change it at once.
When Richard III comes back, he gladly returns to society.

 

[Darkmantle]

Oh believe me, I know the old ADnD alignment system, my dad grew up with it and I hear about it constantly. I think it's just silly. CN is basically just "insane" in ADnD and that is dumb. I don't let people run CN characters as insane.


Honestly, I don't like how the ADnD system classifies it's alignments. If Han Solo is CG, what is the idealized version of robin hood? Because Robin Hood did a lot more good things and was far more benevolent than Han.

Neutral Good to some degree. Here's the breakdown of it:

Values his friends.
Steal from rich, but only keeps just enough for his needs, doles out the rest to other needy people.
Abandoned society not because he did not need it, but society is corrupt.
Actively points out flaws in society, but does not try to change it at once.
When Richard III comes back, he gladly returns to society.

See that falls firmly under CG for me, He's doing good things, even though it's illegal, the abandoning society one is consistent with CG, as ss rejoining it if it repairs itself, CG chars are not anarchists who think society is wrong and we should be rid of it.

Like I said, a lot of the alignments just read to me as "stupid" in ADnD, particularly to CN you posted. And even your CG was weird, Han Solo, is not a good person at the beginning of star wars, so throwing him under chaotic good is just a bit wrong don't you think?

 

[Winnosh]

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...

No because a Lawful good person wants society to also follow such codes. He won't force them to but will try and guide it that way. Lawful good people like order

A chaotic person has their own code and doesn't really care if others conscribe to it as much.

 

[Sean Steele]

Alignment has nothing to do with what people are doing or will do. I played a CE character in a party of Good Aligned allies and got along with them perfectly fine, and almost never had an arguement with what we should be doing. Alignment is intention, inclination, and personal desire.

 

[Darkmantle]

True Neutral, I'm happy to be at the party no matter whats going down.

(Or rather I like my characters motivations to be a bit more complex and personal then, I'm good, and I follow the law, or I'm bad, and I don't care about the law.For me its like, here DM here is an elaborate back story about how what really motivates my character is severe daddy issues brought on by early child hood abandonment, if you would please completely ignore that so, me the paladin and the necromancer can go gank that basilisk that would be lovely.)

I had a problem with this in one of my games, when ever players would pick their alignment they would just pigeon-hole themselves into a stereotype of the alignment. I had to tell them that I would pick their alignments after I saw how their chars were acting one campaign. I basically made them create a personality

 

[blaize2010]

feh, chaotic neutral. Basically means I get to do whatever I want, whenever.

 

[Pirakahunter788]

By the logic you put forth, Chaotic Good by a long shot. You're still a good guy, but you don't need to follow arbitrary rules that would restrict you or other people.

 

[Unsilenced]

Lawful good can be nice, but it often comes across as just sort-of white knight behavior when taken to an extreme. Like lawful neutral (worst alignment ever), lawful good can become lawful stupid, getting so caught up in the details that it actually impedes its own goals.

 

[octafish]

It is too hard to play a Lawful Good Thief. Chaotic Good means I can rob from the Rich and give a small amount to the Poor.

 

[malestrithe]

See that falls firmly under CG for me, He's doing good things, even though it's illegal, the abandoning society one is consistent with CG, as ss rejoining it if it repairs itself, CG chars are not anarchists who think society is wrong and we should be rid of it.

Like I said, a lot of the alignments just read to me as "stupid" in ADnD, particularly to CN you posted. And even your CG was weird, Han Solo, is not a good person at the beginning of star wars, so throwing him under chaotic good is just a bit wrong don't you think?

I get that, but in AD&D, Chaotic Good characters are never a part of a society, always existing on the fringes of it. Neutral Good have no place for law or chaos in their hearts. They really don't place value in society either. They use it, cast it away, and destroy it just as easily. That's how AD&D sees Robin Hood.

As for Han Solo, Solo would be CN in 3.5, but the argument has been made that he has a good heart because Ben can somehow sense the good in him and that he did come back for Luke, even though he had his money and on his way back to paying off Jabba. Also, that argument comes from many years of elevating his importance to that universe. People like him just as much as they like Fett.

 

[malestrithe]

True Neutral, I'm happy to be at the party no matter whats going down.

(Or rather I like my characters motivations to be a bit more complex and personal then, I'm good, and I follow the law, or I'm bad, and I don't care about the law.For me its like, here DM here is an elaborate back story about how what really motivates my character is severe daddy issues brought on by early child hood abandonment, if you would please completely ignore that so, me the paladin and the necromancer can go gank that basilisk that would be lovely.)

What you described is not True Neutral. What you have is Neutral Evil. True Neutral is balance above everything else. Neutral Evil is whatever works as long as I get ahead.

 

[DocBalance]

one of the best campaigns ive ever been in was where the person the group fought against was a paladin.

he and his group were all for the wanton slaughter of innocents as they didnt view them as innocent. in this case tribes of neutral, peaceful tribesmen and orcs. a small unrelated band attacked and desecrated a temple the paladin belonged to so to protect the innocent the paladin slaughtered village after village of "evil" creatures.

In that case it's an issue of perception though. The Paladin is still acting within the "good" parameters because he does not know he is committing evil.

 

[malestrithe]

one of the best campaigns ive ever been in was where the person the group fought against was a paladin.

he and his group were all for the wanton slaughter of innocents as they didnt view them as innocent. in this case tribes of neutral, peaceful tribesmen and orcs. a small unrelated band attacked and desecrated a temple the paladin belonged to so to protect the innocent the paladin slaughtered village after village of "evil" creatures.

In that case it's an issue of perception though. The Paladin is still acting within the "good" parameters because he does not know he is committing evil.

Alignment only works with sentient creatures in D&D settings.

Also, he would not be a paladin. He is committing evil, so he's lawful neutral.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

I would think Chaotic Good would be more fun but Lawful Good would be more beneficial. I see it as the difference between beating a mugger to death (chaotic good) vs following a mugger to a potential ring of muggers who have been terrorizing the city (lawful good). Or maybe that's just the difference between being proactive and psychotic vs patient...