L/G vs L/G Paladins Code of Conduct

[killem2]

In an upcoming session I will be in, the GM may be allowing a mix of evil and good alignments should the party choose to do so. I am worried some in my party do not fully understand the differences in the title above. I plan on being a L/G Zen Archer into a War Priest later on. I am worried from some brief exchanges we had about the upcoming session while getting ready to play the one I GM, that they equate L/G to a code of conduct of a similar alignment.

I want to formulate a nice run down so I can better explain it to not only my GM should it be an issue, and anyone else in the party.

[Psyren]

I'm not sure what the problem is. Are you saying you're worried they might expect you to act like a Paladin just because you're a divine class with Lawful Good alignment?

[Abd al-Azrad]

Well, first off is the major difference that you don't lose class abilities for conducting yourself in a manner which does not uphold the values dictated in the Paladin Code.

The thing is, as a divine caster, you probably do have some form of codified behaviour, ideals to which you're meant to cleave. It is simply a different one than the Paladin Code, one written by less anal-retentive lawmakers. I am not sure of your specific Deity, but I imagine It has some fairly specific things to say regarding how Its chosen priests ought to use Its power on the Material Plane.

In terms of addressing the question itself, LG vs. the LG Paladin's Code: a regular dude, a farmer, can be LG simply by:

- Following the laws of the land and respecting them
- Putting the needs of the community before the self (willingness to pay taxes for social programs, perhaps)
- Believing in safety and order as key components of a well structured society

You can deal with evil people. You can bend or break the law occasionally, but you'll probably feel pretty weird and icky about it. One need not be a paragon of his alignment to follow that alignment, or else there would be no alignments but True Neutral.

[SiuiS]

I'm not sure what the problem is. Are you saying you're worried they might expect you to act like a Paladin just because you're a divine class with Lawful Good alignment?

Sounds like it, aye. The problem is that someone who doesn't follow the paladin code of conduct may fall from being lawful good.

There's an actual discussion or handbook out there somewhere that specifically goes over this, but I can't find it Right now. But basic logic and the idea that the books make an attempt to be pretty forward, it makes sense that while paladins must be lawful good, they also specifically have a code in addition. Monks can be lawful good and do not have this self-same code.

The paladin's code is not about being good, it's about earning trust because you are the hair-trigger bullet of God, who can be tasked at any time to be executioner after the judgement and jury phase is done. The code is so people who aren't doing bad things can relax around them.

[Telonius]

A lawful good character can certainly have a personal code, even without being a Paladin. They can choose to follow the Paladin Code if they want to, even if it doesn't give them any mechanical benefits.

Just in general: alignment is a way of describing a character's general approach to life. Law and Chaos are all about whether a character follows the rules*, respects authority, and honors tradition. Good and Evil are about whether or not the character respects life and avoids causing suffering. I usually ask these questions when trying to figure out a character's alignment: "How far out of the way would they go to help or hurt somebody? How much would they inconvenience themselves to follow a rule or flagrantly break it?" There are probably millions of examples where that breakdown doesn't completely fit, but for most characters it can capture the alignment reasonably well.

A Lawful Good character is one that would go out of the way to uphold law and tradition, and would go out of the way to help people. You don't necessarily have to have an explicitly written-out set of guidelines (though some do) or be an inflexible pain in the rear (though some are).

Another thing to note is that a single chaotic or evil action - unless it's really, really serious - is probably not going to shift alignment. This is very different from the Paladin, which is a special case: Paladin loses its powers if it ever commits an Evil act or violates the code. Other than Paladin and some very unusual cases (things like regicide, torture, becoming a Lich, signing a Pact Certain, burning down an orphanage that didn't attack you first...), only repeated actions are going to change alignment.



* "The rules" don't necessarily have to be the actual laws currently active in the country. If a lawful character believes a law is being illegitimately applied, he or she might well choose to ignore it. For example, a hero who is fighting against a usurper and trying to restore the rightful line of succession would probably be Lawful, not Chaotic, even if the usurper's currently occupying the throne and wearing the crown.

[Red Fel]

There's an actual discussion or handbook out there somewhere that specifically goes over this, but I can't find it Right now. But basic logic and the idea that the books make an attempt to be pretty forward, it makes sense that while paladins must be lawful good, they also specifically have a code in addition. Monks can be lawful good and do not have this self-same code.

This, I think, is an excellent distinction. The difference between LG and Paladin-LG is a matter of type, as well as of scale. Scale, in that Paladins are supposed to be extra-LG (for certain definitions of L and G), much like Exalted is extra-Good. Type, in that the Paladin Code is a different kind of restriction, distinct from the usual concept of alignment.

LG, first and foremost, is an alignment, which - as is often repeated - is not a straightjacket. It describes a spectrum of worldviews, encompassed by the intersection of "those worldviews within the realm of Good" and "those worldviews within the realm of Lawful." There are many ways to play Good, many ways to play Lawful, and many ways to play Lawful Good, just as there are many ways to play any other alignment.

Paladin-code LG, by contrast, is a straightjacket. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the Paladin Code is expressly designed as a limit on actions. Whereas alignment describes how you see the world, and what you are likely to do in a given situation, the Paladin Code explicitly tells you what you ought not do. As Siuis states, that's an additional restriction, on top of existing alignment.

That's how you can explain it. Being LG is just like being CG, or LN, or NE - it's an alignment, a description of your worldview and conduct. There aren't rules about LG in any way that there aren't also about any other alignment. It's only classes that have an explicit Code of Conduct that are subject to those additional requirements.

That said, both come back to the same thing - be an upright, honorable, honest, decent human being. (Or Elf, or Dwarf, or Orc, or Dragonborn Warforged, or Primordial Half-Ogre Dragonwrought Kobold...) Try to be the best person you can, and help others do the same. (That's not how some Paladins are played, but frankly, I think it should be. My baggage, though.) Play LG well, and people won't really notice much difference.

[Psyren]

Paladins are in general held to a stricter standard than LG clerics/warpriests. All they need to worry about is impiety, not the stricter stuff like associating with evil characters or lying. That's part of the reason Warpriest is so attractive, it gives considerably more leeway to NG and LN faiths. (Making a habit of those things could shift your alignment of course, but even if it does - depending on the deity you may still be within one step and thus suffer no negatives.)

Of course, a Monk/Warpriest can really only slide downwards (to LN or LE, depending on the deity) but that's still more leeway than a paladin gets.

[OldTrees1]

Well, yes LG(as opposed to lG, Lg, or lg) is usually stereotyped as the self imposed code of conduct kind of person.

But for good reason. You are G(as opposed to g) which means you preform to a higher standard. You are L(as opposed to l) which means you think of things in an orderly manner. Together this naturally evolves into imposing a higher standard upon oneself and rising to the challenge.

So yes, LG does naturally work with a code of conduct(but codes done right, not like WotC's Paladin)

[killem2]

In terms of addressing the question itself, LG vs. the LG Paladin's Code: a regular dude, a farmer, can be LG simply by:

- Following the laws of the land and respecting them
- Putting the needs of the community before the self (willingness to pay taxes for social programs, perhaps)
- Believing in safety and order as key components of a well structured society

You can deal with evil people. You can bend or break the law occasionally, but you'll probably feel pretty weird and icky about it. One need not be a paragon of his alignment to follow that alignment, or else there would be no alignments but True Neutral.

This is a lot more on the lines on what I am concerned with.

[Psyren]

As a Warpriest, all you should be concerned with is your deity's dogma, and avoiding gross alignment shifts. If you worship a philosophical ideal instead, stay within one step of it. That's really all there is to it.

[killem2]

Thanks for the replies. I think my question was more to do with just being L/G aside from anything else. It's almost as though some of the players in my group expect L/G people (regardless of classes) to be held to the same standards as a L/G paladin.

[Chronos]

What fiction does the rest of your group read or watch? It might be easiest to illustrate by contrasting various lawful good characters. For instance, in Discworld, Vimes and Carrot are both lawful good, but nobody would ever mistake Vimes for a paladin.

[killem2]

What fiction does the rest of your group read or watch? It might be easiest to illustrate by contrasting various lawful good characters. For instance, in Discworld, Vimes and Carrot are both lawful good, but nobody would ever mistake Vimes for a paladin.

Archer, Star Wars, Star Trek, Firefly, The Walking Dead, Game of Thrones..

[Abd al-Azrad]

Archer: No one.
Star Wars: Luke.
Star Trek: Picard, Data, Spock.
Firefly: Inara?
Game of Thrones: Sean Bean's disembodied head.

[OldTrees1]

Archer: No one.
Star Wars: Luke.
Star Trek: Picard, Data, Spock.
Firefly: Inara?
Game of Thrones: Sean Bean's disembodied head.

I am only familiar with Star Wars and Star Trek, but don't Luke, Picard and Spock all act as Paladins are supposed to do?(rather than how WotC bungled their CoC rules). They all have a moral core and they use their logic to develop moral rules that help them stay on their path.

And Data is a living definition of a Code of Conduct since his conduct is coded(even with feedback).

[Red Fel]

I would actually argue that Luke is a NG who nonetheless acts like a Paladin. I say NG instead of LG, because in the Star Wars universe, the Jedi Order was collectively mostly LG (with LN leanings), and Luke represents a willingness to depart from that tradition. For example, his belief that Vader can be redeemed (this isn't going in spoilers, because come on, it was decades ago) is more of an NG tendency than the belief espoused by Yoda that "once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny[,]" which is more of an LG perspective.

But coming back around to the point, this illustrates the distinction again - Luke may be LG or NG, depending on your read on him, but he has very clear Paladin Code-style tendencies. The two - alignment and code - are distinct.

I'd similarly argue that Picard is more LN than LG (albeit with G-tendencies) but with an extremely pronounced and rigid code. (Contrast him with Kirk, who is ruggedly CG, and more or less disregards the Prime Directive as suits his fancy.)

[killem2]

So, here is this thing I want to throw at you.

You want to be a L/G character (forgot class it doesn't matter for this). You join a group, and you plan on RPing this Lawful Good character and end up in a group with say a neutral evil character. (We are talking about two real players now) You happen to find a witness to a crime, and want to question them. You do it in a completely polite and mannered way.

The N/E sees this as a problem to their self preservation and think it may draw unwanted attention (good or evil) to them, and beat it out of them.

What do you do? What if you don't do anything?

Where are you boundries and requirements as a L/G player in this case?

[OldTrees1]

Wait, is the NE character:
Beating up the witness to make them talk?
Beating up the witness to silence them?
Beating up the LG character to silence them?

As for what the LG character should do/must do? That greatly depends on their code of ethics that they follow as a LG character.

In most cases the LG character would probably stop the beating. Anything more is hard to say without dipping into specific LG ethics and usually requires more information. Some would not feel the need to do anything more after the beating is stopped(and perhaps they treat the wounds themselves).

[Telonius]

Lawful Good characters are perfectly capable of crafting arguments that would convince people with other points of view. One possible response: "So, you think that causing a ruckus is going to draw less attention than asking nicely in a forgettable way?" This really sounds like a time when Good and Evil would agree on a course of action, since the alternative would mean acting stupidly. (EDIT: I might be misreading the situation - I'm assuming the LG and NE characters both want to interrogate the witness. If the NE character *is* the witness, that changes things).

[killem2]

LG conducts himself in a very polite manner trying to ask the witness questions.


He doesn't get any answers.

NE character decides, this could be bad for ME, this guy has GOT to talk and he is going to talk NOW.

So he begins to beat the witness until he gets answers.

LG character's reactions to this have not been determined. What happens if he does nothing? Does he have to do something, does he have to make sure the NE guy doesn't kill the man but gets the info. looking the other way? (almost le there)?

[Red Fel]

LG conducts himself in a very polite manner trying to ask the witness questions.

Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence!

Need I remind you that Good is Not Nice (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodIsNotNice), Good is Not Soft (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodIsNotSoft), and Holy is Not Safe (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HolyIsNotSafe)? Who says LG is going to be polite, or even ask questions? I could see an interrogation going something like this:

Erdrick, Priest of Justice, stands over the whimpering form of the witness who made the mistake of fleeing. Erdrick had to break his legs. That was unfortunate. Abounding in compassion, Erdrick reaches down to heal the injured limbs. His prey withdraws in fear.

"You don't trust me." Erdrick sighs. "I suppose I understand. In that case, we'll just talk. Would you prefer that? I'll stand over here, and we can just talk."

The witness trembles for a moment, staring at Erdrick, before he spits in his face defiantly.

Erdrick sighs again, wiping the saliva from his face. "Okay. I'll talk. You listen."

The Priest of Justice crouches down opposite his prey. "You're on the run from the law. Know what that means? It means you're an outlaw. That means anyone, anywhere, is legally permitted to do whatever they want to you. The laws of this land no longer protect you."

He gestures outside of the small alleyway they occupy. "Know what's out there? A mob. A mob out for blood. Your blood. They don't care if you're an innocent witness or not. They just want somebody to blame, and you're a convenient target. If they catch you here, they will rip you apart. Literally. Slowly. No trial. No justice. No mercy."

He stands up. "I'm offering you a chance. One chance. You come with me. You give a full statement. You submit to proper justice. Do that, and I can protect you. I'll heal your legs. We'll walk out of here together, and the mob won't touch you."

Erdrick turns away. "This is your one and only chance. Once I walk out into that street, they'll know you're here. They'll come for you. And as you are, I doubt you could stop them. Let me help you."

He hesitates for a moment. Hearing no reply, he starts to walk...

I don't know about you, but I'd fess up at that point.

[OldTrees1]

@killem2
While LG characters are bound to their Moral Code, Moral Codes do not universally agree on what is morally obligatory or morally supererogatory in that example.

The LG character could prevent the witness from dying or suffering permanent injury.
The LG character could stop the beating and leverage the witness's new found gratitude into getting them to talk.
The LG character could stop the beating and try to find out the info in a different manner.

Again, there are way too many LG Moral Codes to say even with knowing that LG characters are bound to their Moral Codes.

[killem2]

Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence!

Need I remind you that Good is Not Nice (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodIsNotNice), Good is Not Soft (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodIsNotSoft), and Holy is Not Safe (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HolyIsNotSafe)? Who says LG is going to be polite, or even ask questions? I could see an interrogation going something like this:

Erdrick, Priest of Justice, stands over the whimpering form of the witness who made the mistake of fleeing. Erdrick had to break his legs. That was unfortunate. Abounding in compassion, Erdrick reaches down to heal the injured limbs. His prey withdraws in fear.

"You don't trust me." Erdrick sighs. "I suppose I understand. In that case, we'll just talk. Would you prefer that? I'll stand over here, and we can just talk."

The witness trembles for a moment, staring at Erdrick, before he spits in his face defiantly.

Erdrick sighs again, wiping the saliva from his face. "Okay. I'll talk. You listen."

The Priest of Justice crouches down opposite his prey. "You're on the run from the law. Know what that means? It means you're an outlaw. That means anyone, anywhere, is legally permitted to do whatever they want to you. The laws of this land no longer protect you."

He gestures outside of the small alleyway they occupy. "Know what's out there? A mob. A mob out for blood. Your blood. They don't care if you're an innocent witness or not. They just want somebody to blame, and you're a convenient target. If they catch you here, they will rip you apart. Literally. Slowly. No trial. No justice. No mercy."

He stands up. "I'm offering you a chance. One chance. You come with me. You give a full statement. You submit to proper justice. Do that, and I can protect you. I'll heal your legs. We'll walk out of here together, and the mob won't touch you."

Erdrick turns away. "This is your one and only chance. Once I walk out into that street, they'll know you're here. They'll come for you. And as you are, I doubt you could stop them. Let me help you."

He hesitates for a moment. Hearing no reply, he starts to walk...

I don't know about you, but I'd fess up at that point.


But you can gather more ants with honey than vinegar. In what law system would you want to scare the **** out of the person who could very well bring the criminal to justice? Don't you want them to be willing to testify for you in court?

We're talking about a witness remember not the accused.

[Red Fel]

But you can gather more ants with honey than vinegar. In what law system would you want to scare the **** out of the person who could very well bring the criminal to justice? Don't you want them to be willing to testify for you in court?

We're talking about a witness remember not the accused.

Then what's the NE guy doing?

[OldTrees1]

Then what's the NE guy doing?

The PCs do not know who to accuse but they know this individual was a witness.

[killem2]

Then what's the NE guy doing?

The NE guy is tired of waiting for Mr Goodie Two shoes Lawful good to sweet talk this innocent witness and decides to beat the hell out of him to get somewhere.

Lets up it a bit. Saw Mr LG, is ok with a little roughing up, but the NE goes two far and accidentally kills the witness when they fall to the floor and crack their head on a table on the way down. Maybe LG decided to play a little good cop bad cop with the NE.

Maybe he didn't care if the witness would testify. Who knows. But this is the kind of stuff I can see the LG getting ham stringed into responding to, because the NE player feels like they don't have to be a team player.

Mixing good and evil alignments has never seemed like a good idea to me. Someone always plays Lawful/Stupid, Chaotic/Moron, Neutral/Psychopath.

What is a Lawful Good player suppose to be expect to do, if other players in the group have no reason to follow or care about his morality or lawfulness.:smallbiggrin:

[OldTrees1]

-snip- because the NE player feels like they don't have to be a team player.

Mixing good and evil alignments has never seemed like a good idea to me. Someone always plays Lawful/Stupid, Chaotic/Moron, Neutral/Psychopath.

What is a Lawful Good player suppose to be expect to do, if other players in the group have no reason to follow or care about his morality or lawfulness.:smallbiggrin:

If the players are playing the same game, then the LG player doesn't need to be a team player either.

If the players are not playing the same game(aka there is a player to player disconnect, aka there is an OOG problem), then they should resolve the OOG problem OOG.


Most Moral Codes involve higher standards for yourself than they do for others. This allows them to work with others. (Example (http://yafgc.net/?id=2690))

[killem2]

If the players are playing the same game, then the LG player doesn't need to be a team player either.

If the players are not playing the same game(aka there is a player to player disconnect, aka there is an OOG problem), then they should resolve the OOG problem OOG.


Most Moral Codes involve higher standards for yourself than they do for others. This allows them to work with others. (Example (http://yafgc.net/?id=2690))

Thanks for that strip, made my day. Luckily, my players are not THAT over the top to sabatoge a game. I just wanted some inight on how to deal with evil character in the same group. However, I think when we get together to create our characters, it will start to come out, that evil might not be any benefit at all. (It's for the mummy's mask).

[OldTrees1]

Thanks for that strip, made my day. Luckily, my players are not THAT over the top to sabatoge a game. I just wanted some inight on how to deal with evil character in the same group. However, I think when we get together to create our characters, it will start to come out, that evil might not be any benefit at all. (It's for the mummy's mask).

Ah.
My advice would be to consider it is better to redeem the party member than it is to slay the party member. And that redemption is a long road paved with baby steps. Do not walk the road of corruption, but allow the evil one the time needed to walk the road of redemption.

So in your beating example, I would have the LG character highlight how harming the witness would make their task harder rather than easier and risk creating a dead end where none previously existed.

[killem2]

Ah.
My advice would be to consider it is better to redeem the party member than it is to slay the party member. And that redemption is a long road paved with baby steps. Do not walk the road of corruption, but allow the evil one the time needed to walk the road of redemption.

So in your beating example, I would have the LG character highlight how harming the witness would make their task harder rather than easier and risk creating a dead end where none previously existed.

I appreciate that. I wanted to give examples over the broad spectrum of options.