Lumber's Alignment Article #1: Lawful Good

[lumberofdabeast]

Welcome to what may be the first in a series of articles typed by yours truly, and inspired by Mark Rosewater's articles on the various colors in Magic: the Gathering. Unfortunately, the alignments in Dungeons and Dragons do not enjoy the same set definitions and restrictions as the colors of M:tG, and so a large part of this will be purely my opinion.

Much like Rosewater's articles, I shall be writing these as if asking a number of questions, and then answering from that alignment's point of view. For this article only, I will be providing explanations of what each question means before answering. I hope that, through these articles, I will help you (as well as myself) find a better understanding of what the alignments mean, even if you disagree with me. And I encourage disagreement; I'm looking forward to the discussion on the meaning of Lawful Good that is sure to follow. I do ask, however, that you keep it focused on Lawful Good; mentioning an act as an example of Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil as opposed to Lawful Good is fine, but don't derail the topic by going extensively into those.

One thing to keep in mind: I am not making a statement on just Good, or just Law, or just anything. This article is meant to cover one specific alignment, as will the other 7. (I'm skipping True Neutral because there are just too many ways to approach that particular alignment. I may do a short section on it at the end of LN or start of CN, but it won't get an article of its own.)

Oh, and, for the most part, these are going to be fairly extreme answers. There will always be the guy who is Lawful Good, but will occasionally do something quite Chaotic for whatever reason. I do not seek to cover these, as they depend largely on the individual.

I hope you enjoy reading. Now, let's begin....




What is the alignment?
This one should be obvious, and is only here for those too lazy to read the topic title. The alignment in question is Lawful Good.


What does the alignment consider most important?
This question is meant to pin down what the alignment values most, what it wants from the world as a whole, and basically what positively motivates it. Lawful Good, most of all, wants everyone to be safe. Lawful Good is the alignment of police forces the world over, barring corruption.


What does the alignment hate?
This question pins down what negatively drives the alignment; what it strikes out against and seeks to destroy. Lawful Good, above all else, hates those who revel in wanton destruction and seek to undo the system solely for their own pleasure. If something is wrong with the way Lawful Good is doing things, just tell Lawful Good about it. It'll listen, and either change or explain why it shouldn't.


What methods will the alignment use to achieve its goal?
This question goes into actions, rather than intentions; it figures out just what an alignment will do. Lawful Good seeks to bring those who would wrong others to justice, and it is extremely structured in doing so. Policemen, judges, prison wardens, all work together to keep those who would endanger society where they can do no harm and, hopefully, redeem them with time. Additionally, Lawful Good is the most likely to enforce the spirit of the law rather than the letter; it may look the other way for a starving beggar who steals a loaf of bread, though it is far more likely to simply pay for the loaf and help the beggar clean himself up and find a job. Lawful Good characters that follow a personal code rather than an actual set of laws are the prime example of this; if no other solution presents itself, such a character may happily help the beggar steal.


What methods will the alignment never use?
This states what the alignment is never willing to resort to, under any circumstances. Lawful Good does not inflict pain on others lightly, and torture is right out of the question. A Lawful Good character should always ask himself if he's certain he's doing the right thing; to accidently do evil is often worse than intentionally doing it.


When would the alignment condone killing?
Under what circumstances would the given alignment deal lethal damage to a sentient being? Lawful Good is reluctant to kill, but it will not hesitate to do so in the defense of others if there is no other way. It is generally reluctant to execute its prisoners, instead preferring to lock them away forever if they cannot be redeemed. Many Lawful Good characters will allow themselves to die rather than let a single innocent be murdered.


What is the alignment's best feature?
This question states what the primary positive thing about the alignment is (from a Good point of view, I might add). Lawful Good's best feature is its willingness to safeguard the innocent at all costs, including its own destruction.


What is the alignment's worst feature?
This question states what the primary negative thing about the alignment is (from a Good point of view, I might add). Lawful Good's worst feature is its desire to legislate morality, restricting the freedoms of its citizens. It often goes too far in its desire to protect.


What makes the alignment unique?
This question answers why a given alignment is different from the alignments that share a component with it. Lawful Good is different from other Lawful alignments because it governs out of caring for the people, rather than a desire for order. Lawful Good is different from other Good alignments because it wishes to control others.


What are some common misconceptions about the alignment?
This question seeks to address what I see as frequent but incorrect assumptions about the given alignment.
1) Lawful Good characters are not obligated to have a stick up their butts. Indeed, Lawful Good characters are allowed to revel and party as much as they like, as long as they continue to fufill their obligations to society and avoid doing anything immoral or at least illegal. Many Lawful Good characters feel they should lead by example, and thus avoid any Chaotic behavior. However, you don't have to be an Inevitable to be Lawful.
2) Lawful Good characters do not have to be kind and merciful. In fact, they're the least likely of all the Good alignments to be merciful, because they're Lawful as well. A Chaotic Good person would help someone wrongfully convicted excape from jail, but a Lawful Good person would just shrug and say "Appeal."


What are some well-known characters with the alignment in popular culture?
1) Batman: Many argue that he's Neutral or even Chaotic, but I feel that he is unquestionably Lawful because he seeks to bring criminals to justice, and makes sure that they fall into the hands of the proper authorities.
2) Gil Grissom (CSI): Frankly, I can't remember who this guy is, much less what makes him Lawful Good. But the two friends who I consulted with prior to beginning this article swear he is, so in he goes.
3) Mario: Mario's goodness is unquestionable; why would he go to all the trouble of rescuing Princess Peach every time Bowser kidnapped her if he wasn't? (Apart from the hope of a little peach fuzz, of course. *gets shot*) However, his Lawfulness will probably spark debate. I think that he's Lawful owing to the events in Super Mario Sunshine; he didn't resist arrest, and cleaned the island without complaint, always trying to find the real criminal and bring him to justice.
4) Yoda: It's been a very long time since I watched the movies, so I can't give any specific examples, but I remember this much: Yoda was one of the Good guys. As for being Lawful, the little green man was a Jedi Master. That takes some serious devotion and strength of will. In fact, quite a lot of the Jedi are varying degrees of Lawful and Good.


If you have any ideas for questions that would be worth asking, differing views on an answer I've given, or just wish to say that I am awesome and should continue or suck and should stop, please post.

And thank you to the aformentioned two friends. You helped out more than you think. Also, thanks to the forum and its posters, who point out how and why I'm wrong or things that I have forgotten or simply didn't think about.

EDITS SO FAR: Added example number 4 of a Lawful Good character, added another question, slightly clarified an example, and added another misconception.

[Rakeesh]

1) Batman: Many argue that he's Neutral or even Chaotic, but I feel that he is unquestionably Lawful because he seeks to bring criminals to justice, and makes sure that they fall into the hands of the proper authorities.

Hmmm...I'm afraid I have to disagree. He acts in support of law, but that is secondary to his support of justice and protection of the innocents. Throughout Batman stories, you will see that he is more than willing, should the situation call for it, to violate the law in pursuit of justice, or to protect the innocent. I'm not just talking about him being a vigilante in general, swooping around and driving too fast, but situations like breaking a captive's jaw after a confession, torturing a captive for information (not traditional splinters under fingernails, but what Batman does is very arguably torture sometimes), etc. etc.

But he's really not Chaotic either, because all other things being equal, he prefers to work with the law, for example his relationship with Commiser Gordon.

Batman is the ultimate mythological pragmatist when it comes to his life and goals. He is the Machiavelli of the comic book world, in that he values expedience so highly in achieving his goals, and there is really only one law he would not break in pursuit of his goals, murder.

[lumberofdabeast]

Hmmm...I'm afraid I have to disagree. He acts in support of law, but that is secondary to his support of justice and protection of the innocents. Throughout Batman stories, you will see that he is more than willing, should the situation call for it, to violate the law in pursuit of justice, or to protect the innocent. I'm not just talking about him being a vigilante in general, swooping around and driving too fast, but situations like breaking a captive's jaw after a confession, torturing a captive for information (not traditional splinters under fingernails, but what Batman does is very arguably torture sometimes), etc. etc.

But he's really not Chaotic either, because all other things being equal, he prefers to work with the law, for example his relationship with Commiser Gordon.

Batman is the ultimate mythological pragmatist when it comes to his life and goals. He is the Machiavelli of the comic book world, in that he values expedience so highly in achieving his goals, and there is really only one law he would not break in pursuit of his goals, murder.

Of course he believes in justice above all else. I think he is Lawful because I see justice as a Lawful belief by its very definition. If no law was violated, there can be no true justice. Only revenge.

[13_CBS]

Excellent article! It may behoove you, however, to add better examples of Lawful Good folks, both in and out of the d20 world (say, someone from Faerun, or the stereotypical paladin, Roy, Miko, etc.)

[lumberofdabeast]

Excellent article! It may behoove you, however, to add better examples of Lawful Good folks, both in and out of the d20 world (say, someone from Faerun, or the stereotypical paladin, Roy, Miko, etc.)
I saw no need to mention Roy because everyone here is likely to already be familiar with him. I don't really think Miko is LG any more. I feel the stereotypical paladin is a bad example of LG. I'm not familiar enough with Faerun to mention anyone from there, and Eberron seems to get as much hate as it does love.

And, to be honest, I couldn't really think of anyone else. If I do, I will happily add them.

[Daze]

Some real life examples of lawful good: Charlemagne, Confuscious, Magaret Thatcher, Abraham Lincoln

Fictional lawful good: Captain America, Eddard Stark (from song of fire and ice), Professor X, Cyclops...

I'm kinda rushed at the moment, but there's plenty more (both fictional and non).

All in all, LG strains to live/create a socitey definied by fair and just rule of law, with the intent to do the most good possible. Law's are voided of status when they cease (or werent designed) to do good.

great thread Lumber!

[lumberofdabeast]

Daze actually brings up a good point. While I still think I'm correct with my interpretation of the primary LG motive, he could just as easily be correct. Or maybe we both are. I'll probably add it in tomorrow, but for now, I'm tired. So good night, all.

[Dhavaer]

Throughout Batman stories, you will see that he is more than willing, should the situation call for it, to violate the law in pursuit of justice, or to protect the innocent.

He's not, though. If he was willing to violate the law to protect the innocent, he would have wasted Joker years ago instead of having him sent to a prison he can escape more or less at will.

[Daze]

He's not, though. If he was willing to violate the law to protect the innocent, he would have wasted Joker years ago instead of having him sent to a prison he can escape more or less at will. However he did violate laws to catch joker... illegal possesion of incendiary device, speeding (numerous traffic violations actually), assault, kidnapping, illegal search and seizure... vigilantism is never lawful i dont think....

[The Valiant Turtle]

I would disagree with Daze and argue that vigilantes are usually lawful, but either way they are most motivated when official law enforcement is either corrupt or impotent/overwhelmed.

Batman certainly has an exacting moral code and certainly strives to be lawful and to support the spirit if not the letter of the law. Most of the infractions Daze lists are also frequently performed by cops (excepting kidnapping and maybe illegal search and seizure), it's just that the law has written an exception for them.

[daggaz]

Wow. A whole thread where nobody has actually bothered to read the definition of 'Lawful' as given by the WotC.

Before you carry this thread onwards deep into the plane of TotallyBesidesthePoint, and approach the portal of CompletelyBaselessArgumentation, I would recommend you read this section of your PHB once more... or for the first time, as the case may be.


LAWFUL alignment does not necessarily mean you follow the Law of the land.

Lawful means you have a set and ordered existance, you follow a personal mantra which dictates your actions (to some extent, no alignment should be concrete), and you have a distaste for disorder and chaos. A lawful character, by definition, is far more likely to follow the laws of the land, but he/she is by no means restricted to doing so, and in fact, most certaintly will not follow them if they conflict with other beliefs. (IE: Lawful good does not mean you blindly follow the twisted rules and regulations of Mordovia, the land of Evil Blackguards. Think about it, what paladin would?).

That said, Lawful should probably chance its name to Orderly to avoid this constant confusion. Also, Batman is very lawful. He's a bleeping paladin.

[Demented]

Batman argument ho!


The article has its flaws, but nothing fails to benefit from a good (or lawful evil) critiqueing.

What Makes Lawful Good Unique?
This question is essential, in one form or another. Given the current questions, the only way to answer it is by comparing the other articles against eachother. Unfortunately, the other articles aren't here (yet), and it may just be too difficult for some to compare two or three articles extensively to tell whether a character (like, say, Batman) is Lawful Good, Neutral Good, or Lawful Neutral.

Especially since the other articles haven't been created, you should outline in your mind the differences between this alignment and alignments to come, so that the answers to questions don't turn out the same.

Spirit of the Law
The latter half of "What methods will the alignment use" goes on to talk about the alignment's perspective on following the spirit of the law. It's mainly the example I take issue with: The spirit of law against theft is meant to protect the victim, and cares nothing for the thief. The principle of private property, more or less, is that one should be able to enjoy the benefit of his labor. Any interpretation of this law other than the punishment of the thief would be violating that basic principle, because someone is inevitably being denied the benefit of their own labor. Even if the Lawful Good person pays the baker for the stolen bread, the Lawful Good person is losing the money that he doubtlessly labored for, thus violating the spirit of enforcing the law.

Lawful Good versus Lawful and Good
Some of the answers in your questions seem more oriented to a particularly Lawful or particularly Good aspect of what a Lawful Good character would do. This has the flaw of dividing the alignment into a Lawful and Good half. If you focus on, say, a solely Lawful issue, the distinction between Lawful Good and Lawful Evil is lost, as they'll act the same. Likewise with a solely Good issue, it's difficult to see what would make Lawful Good different from Chaotic Good in a situation.

You should try to use examples and comparisons that involve both alignments, and thus show what happens when Lawful and Good intermingle to create the Lawful Good alignment. That way your article can better define the Lawful Good alignment, even in complex situations.

"Gil Grissom"
As far as Lawful Good goes, he's practically the book's definition of Lawful Good. If Lawful Good were in the dictionary, you could find his picture there. Well, actually, you'd find his picture under the actor's biographical entry, rather than the definition of Lawful Good, but you get the idea.

Food For Thought
According to D&D, or at least the neutral perspectives, the extreme alignments (Good, Lawful, Evil, Chaotic) are zealous. By zealous, that means that, if a Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil character were to ever meet, the time it would take for them to be at eachother's throats could be measured on a stopwatch.

[daggaz]

What Makes Lawful Good Unique?
This question is essential, in one form or another. Given the current questions, the only way to answer it is by comparing the other articles against eachother. Unfortunately, the other articles aren't here (yet), and it may just be too difficult for some to compare two or three articles extensively to tell whether a character (like, say, Batman) is Lawful Good, Neutral Good, or Lawful Neutral.

Lawful Good is unique, simply because all the other alignments are different.



Food For Thought
According to D&D, or at least the neutral perspectives, the extreme alignments (Good, Lawful, Evil, Chaotic) are zealous. By zealous, that means that, if a Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil character were to ever meet, the time it would take for them to be at eachother's throats could be measured on a stopwatch.

Wrong. Lawful good could be zealous, but it isn't necessarily so. Most people in a well-ordered society, for a good part of their day, behave as if lawful good. They are hardly zealous about it. Think about a real-life bank teller, for example. A zealous bank teller, on the other hand, is a character you meet in a movie (and sometimes in real life), who's love for the system constantly thwarts the protagonist. Any alignment can be taken to the zealous extreme, really. The Chaos axis, for example (read the book, 'Dice Man') or even Neutralism. (Switzerland, anybody?).

But to counterspell your point about them instantly killing eachother: A lawful good bankteller meets the chaotic evil BBEG in a bank. The BBEG is just depositing his latest haul. He cuts in line, rather than waiting, but she doesnt notice, being too busy filling in a form. He bangs the bell rudely, to which she promptly responds, 'May I help you?' He thinks about it, he almost decides to rob the bank right then and there, but on a whim, he decides to just deposit his loot instead. She has him fill in a form, pointedly making sure he remembers to put an 'X' here and there, and sign there, as he seems rather quick and careless about the process. He mutters an insult, which she ignores or perhaps does not even hear, and he walks away. She calls out, 'Next!' He walks across the street, sees a bar, and decides 'what the hell, its 3-oclock' and goes in for a drink.

[Rakeesh]

Y'know guys, vigilantism is by definition unlawful...or alawful, similar to amoral.


Wow. A whole thread where nobody has actually bothered to read the definition of 'Lawful' as given by the WotC.

Before you carry this thread onwards deep into the plane of TotallyBesidesthePoint, and approach the portal of CompletelyBaselessArgumentation, I would recommend you read this section of your PHB once more... or for the first time, as the case may be.

I'm not sure that degree of rudeness is really called for. Did it occur to you that I don't particularly care how WotC defines Lawful for the purposes of alignment? Rather than assume ignorance from the start and insult, perhaps you should simply address the statements I made.

[Rakeesh]

He's not, though. If he was willing to violate the law to protect the innocent, he would have wasted Joker years ago instead of having him sent to a prison he can escape more or less at will.

I never said he was willing to violate all laws, just that he was willing to violate the law. Am I evil because I kick a puppy, am I good because I volunteer for Habitat for Humanity?

[Demented]

Batman's vigilantism is slightly different from typical vigilantism. You can either believe that he sees himself above the law, or you can believe that the law in Gotham is inefficient, slow and corrupt, and Batman is simply making up for the inadequacies of bureacratic law.

Though, it's more fun to him as the "Dark Knight", even if, in practice, the Dark part refers solely to his nocturnal tendencies.


Moving on....


Most people in a well-ordered society, for a good part of their day, behave as if lawful good...

Well, that could be a perspective.
Let's take your example:
What does the "Lawful Good" bank teller do? She ignores or misses most of the BBEG's blately chaotic/evil actions. At most, she makes sure he fills out the form in the right way and greets him in the way the Bank has instructed her to. How has she behaved any differently from a true neutral character?

What about the BBEG? From the get-go, he shoves people out of his way. He bangs rudely on the bell. He ponders, briefly, a robbery of the bank. He mutters an insult (for what reason? Because he's "chaotic"?). Finally, he wanders off to a bar as a snap decision. If anything, his actions are detailed lividly in accordance with his alignment, nearly to the point of disbelief. Exactly how the guy functions in normal society at all, much less with bank tellers, is an unanswerable mystery.

From my perspective, if the bank teller were portrayed as Lawful Good to the extent that the BBEG were portrayed as Chaotic Evil, sparks would fly, and quickly.

"Most" people in a well-ordered society, for a "good part" of their day, behave as if true neutral.
It causes the least friction, and allows any normal society to be the most "well-ordered" it can be. (For abnormal societies, the least friction can be found in an entirely Lawful populace of the same moral axis, but those are generally the realm of fiction.)

As an aside: It's true that True Neutral can be zealous. Though, that more often serves to be a justification for druids and pacifists (which, incidentally, tend to be complete opposites) funnily enough.

[Rakeesh]

Though, it's more fun to him as the "Dark Knight", even if, in practice, the Dark part refers solely to his nocturnal tendencies.

I dunno...Batman is extremely angry and vengefuly a lot, even if his discipline keeps him from pursuing that all the way (i.e. death), and his methods--relying in big part on terrorizing criminals to gain an advantage--are pretty darn 'Dark'

[Dhavaer]

I never said he was willing to violate all laws, just that he was willing to violate the law. Am I evil because I kick a puppy, am I good because I volunteer for Habitat for Humanity?

Nonetheless, he's willing to endanger innocents, by letting Joker live, in order to follow the law, by not killing him.

[Dervag]

Of course he believes in justice above all else. I think he is Lawful because I see justice as a Lawful belief by its very definition. If no law was violated, there can be no true justice. Only revenge.Debatable.

First of all, appeals to 'natural law' are not necessarily any more Lawful than appeals to 'common sense'. And it is quite possible to say that a crime against natural law has been committed even where there is no written law against the action. For instance, would a lawful character disapprove of murders or thefts committed in the wilderness where no nation's laws apply? If the answer is 'yes', then they must have some concept of law that exists outside of the written law of the state. But a neutral or chaotic character might find those murders or thefts just as objectionable, for much the same reasons.

Remember that neutral characters can believe in well-defined categories of acceptable and unacceptable behavior; they don't have to keep such an open mind that their brain falls out as a result.


Confuscious, Magaret ThatcherPeople could get into big arguments about those two.

For instance, Confucius believed that the world would be a good place if everyone knew their place in society and worked to perfect their relationships with others in an orderly manner. Family ties and the responsibility between government and governed where very important to him. But the fact that he expected good results from this kind of thing doesn't make him Good. Remember that a morally neutral philosopher would probably still expect results that we would call 'good'. Moral neutrals will still generally desire things like peace, safety, and the well-being of all.

I've used Confucius as an example of Lawful Neutral myself. Like Immanuel Kant (who has a totally different philosophy), Confucius's worldview centers on the importance of following a code rather than on pursuing some laundry list of ethical values.

Likewise, the question of whether Margaret Thatcher was Lawful Good depends heavily on what one thinks of her policies and whether she actually expected them to be good for the common Briton. I'm sure that many of her political opponents would have characterized her as Lawful Evil instead.


All in all, LG strains to live/create a socitey definied by fair and just rule of law, with the intent to do the most good possible.Do you think lawful neutrals don't?


He's not, though. If he was willing to violate the law to protect the innocent, he would have wasted Joker years ago instead of having him sent to a prison he can escape more or less at will.The thing about Batman is that he'll violate some laws without so much as a twitch while going to extreme lengths not to violate others. So he won't simply kill a criminal that is at his mercy, but he will do a tap-dance all over the legal system if that's what it takes to put that criminal at his mercy.


Batman's vigilantism is slightly different from typical vigilantism. You can either believe that he sees himself above the law, or you can believe that the law in Gotham is inefficient, slow and corrupt, and Batman is simply making up for the inadequacies of bureacratic law.Personally, I've tended to believe both. If Batman didn't consider himself above the law, then he wouldn't be in his line of work. If Gotham's law were efficient, then he wouldn't have seen the need to enter that line of work in the first place.


What about the BBEG? From the get-go, he shoves people out of his way. He bangs rudely on the bell. He ponders, briefly, a robbery of the bank. He mutters an insult (for what reason? Because he's "chaotic"?). Finally, he wanders off to a bar as a snap decision. If anything, his actions are detailed lividly in accordance with his alignment, nearly to the point of disbelief. Exactly how the guy functions in normal society at all, much less with bank tellers, is an unanswerable mystery.Right.

Such a character is not aligned so much as deranged. While an insane person may have an alignment like chaotic evil (for extreme sociopathy) or lawful neutral (for obsessively controlling people), their insane behavior will cause them to act in abnormal ways that do not automatically reflect on their alignment. Not every chaotic evil character is a cackling maniac; not every lawful neutral character is totally blind to the practical consequences of the laws they follow.


Nonetheless, he's willing to endanger innocents, by letting Joker live, in order to follow the law, by not killing him.But he's also willing to break the law, by doing all kinds of illegal things to catch the Joker, to protect innocents, by catching the Joker.

I'd say it more or less balances out. Batman's intense personal discipline and his preference for legal tactics keep him out of the chaotic range, but his willingness to ignore laws when he feels it appropriate to do so keeps him from being truly lawful.

[Ulzgoroth]

I'm particularly interested in what happens when the code/laws, whatever they may be, wind up in obvious conflict with 'good'. Only one example is provided, in which the LG example chooses good over law. Is it not also Lawful Good, in some cases, to choose Law over Good when they conflict?


Spirit of the Law
The latter half of "What methods will the alignment use" goes on to talk about the alignment's perspective on following the spirit of the law. It's mainly the example I take issue with: The spirit of law against theft is meant to protect the victim, and cares nothing for the thief. The principle of private property, more or less, is that one should be able to enjoy the benefit of his labor. Any interpretation of this law other than the punishment of the thief would be violating that basic principle, because someone is inevitably being denied the benefit of their own labor. Even if the Lawful Good person pays the baker for the stolen bread, the Lawful Good person is losing the money that he doubtlessly labored for, thus violating the spirit of enforcing the law.

Aside from the fact that, being good, the LG person is willing to make personal sacrifices for others or for their principles, is the fact that the spirit of property rights is that you can dispose of your property however you like. If you want to dispose of your property by paying back the baker, that's your choice.

[lumberofdabeast]

Spirit of the Law
The latter half of "What methods will the alignment use" goes on to talk about the alignment's perspective on following the spirit of the law. It's mainly the example I take issue with: The spirit of law against theft is meant to protect the victim, and cares nothing for the thief. The principle of private property, more or less, is that one should be able to enjoy the benefit of his labor. Any interpretation of this law other than the punishment of the thief would be violating that basic principle, because someone is inevitably being denied the benefit of their own labor. Even if the Lawful Good person pays the baker for the stolen bread, the Lawful Good person is losing the money that he doubtlessly labored for, thus violating the spirit of enforcing the law.
The spirit of that individual law may be to protect the victim against theft, but a Lawful Good character believes that the spirit of all laws is to protect the innocent and help people. Who can afford the loss more: The starving beggar, or the merchant who will still sell dozens of loaves that day?


Lawful Good versus Lawful and Good
Some of the answers in your questions seem more oriented to a particularly Lawful or particularly Good aspect of what a Lawful Good character would do. This has the flaw of dividing the alignment into a Lawful and Good half. If you focus on, say, a solely Lawful issue, the distinction between Lawful Good and Lawful Evil is lost, as they'll act the same. Likewise with a solely Good issue, it's difficult to see what would make Lawful Good different from Chaotic Good in a situation.

You should try to use examples and comparisons that involve both alignments, and thus show what happens when Lawful and Good intermingle to create the Lawful Good alignment. That way your article can better define the Lawful Good alignment, even in complex situations.
You have a point. I'll clarify that example, and maybe add a few more.


Food For Thought
According to D&D, or at least the neutral perspectives, the extreme alignments (Good, Lawful, Evil, Chaotic) are zealous. By zealous, that means that, if a Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil character were to ever meet, the time it would take for them to be at eachother's throats could be measured on a stopwatch.
I'll address this issue in the Neutral Good article.

Oh, and that question you thought up was excellent. I'll add that at the next opportunity, which happens to be right now.

[Nowhere Girl]

Just a thought to add:

While chaotic good is more traditionally associated with characters willing to dish out "hard justice" (because they go "outside the rules"), from a certain perspective, lawful good is the least likely of the good alignments to be merciful. Mercy for the wicked is, after all -- by definition -- the act of giving the wicked something less than the full justice they deserve. It is a chaotic act, an act going against the strictly consistent giving to each person of precisely what he or she has coming.

Therefore, a lawful good character can -- really really -- be a harsh executioner, fully prepared to hunt the wicked and bring them to swift, merciless justice. The book even supports this: "Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy ..."

I think there's this stigma that you have to be sweet and gentle if you're lawful good, and that just isn't right. Lawful good crusaders can be some of the hardest, grittiest people around, less willing than anyone to give any quarter to the evil they face. "Merciless" is not automatically "evil," nor is "merciful" automatically "good."

Edit: One more thing. Lawful good can definitely be the alignment of legislating morality, where chaotic good, at the other extreme, would be the alignment of tireless ACLU battles against the same. On the other hand, lawful good can also be the alignment of "tough love," while chaotic good is the alignment of "too-soft permissiveness." Again, skewering the notion of chaotic good as the "grittier" good alignment.

[lumberofdabeast]

Just a thought to add:

While chaotic good is more traditionally associated with characters willing to dish out "hard justice" (because they go "outside the rules"), from a certain perspective, lawful good is the least likely of the good alignments to be merciful. Mercy for the wicked is, after all -- by definition -- the act of giving the wicked something less than the full justice they deserve. It is a chaotic act, an act going against the strictly consistent giving to each person of precisely what he or she has coming.

Therefore, a lawful good character can -- really really -- be a harsh executioner, fully prepared to hunt the wicked and bring them to swift, merciless justice. The book even supports this: "Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy ..."

I think there's this stigma that you have to be sweet and gentle if you're lawful good, and that just isn't right. Lawful good crusaders can be some of the hardest, grittiest people around, less willing than anyone to give any quarter to the evil they face. "Merciless" is not automatically "evil," nor is "merciful" automatically "good."

Ack, you're right. I was thinking so hard about why Batman was still Lawful, I forgot to mention why he's still Good.

[Krellen]

I'm not sure that degree of rudeness is really called for. Did it occur to you that I don't particularly care how WotC defines Lawful for the purposes of alignment?
At the risk of being "rude", why are you engaging in a conversation about WotC's alignment system if you don't care about WotC's alignment definitions? Really, if you're not willing to contain yourself to the boundaries of the debate - that being D&D alignment system, which is defined by WotC - you shouldn't be welcome to the debate at all.

[Demented]

The spirit of that individual law may be to protect the victim against theft, but a Lawful Good character believes that the spirit of all laws is to protect the innocent and help people. Who can afford the loss more: The starving beggar, or the merchant who will still sell dozens of loaves that day?

But who is more innocent, the thieving beggar, or the bread merchant?

Ultimately, helping the beggar steal should simply not be an option for a Lawful Good character. Returning the bread or paying for it is primarily good and somewhat lawful, but are there better options for a Lawful Good character? The best option would discourage the beggar from stealing again and/or encourage him to pursue other methods of obtaining wealth, probably while also correcting the theft.

(Most law can do little to correct a crime already committed, but with spells like Modify Memory and Resurrection, it's probably that little bit easier in fantasy environs.)

Anyway, glad to be of help so far.

[lumberofdabeast]

Ultimately, helping the beggar steal should simply not be an option for a Lawful Good character. Returning the bread or paying for it is primarily good and somewhat lawful, but are there better options for a Lawful Good character? The best option would discourage the beggar from stealing again and/or encourage him to pursue other methods of obtaining wealth, probably while also correcting the theft.
You're defining Lawful Good as obeying laws. I specified that only a Lawful Good that follows an internal code rather than external law would do such an action, and even said that Lawful Good is more likely to pay for the loaf and help the beggar fix what's wrong with his life rather than look the other way.

[Pokemaster]

Heh. I'd argue that Batman is closer to Lawful Neutral than Lawful Good. He doesn't spare the Joker because he's merciful, he spares the Joker because he adamantly refuses to kill, as per his personal code.

And I think people should keep in mind that 'lawful' in D&D doesn't imply 'legal' in anyway. They go well together, but it's entirely reasonable for a character to break the law and still be considered Lawful.

[Rakeesh]

Nonetheless, he's willing to endanger innocents, by letting Joker live, in order to follow the law, by not killing him.

You think Batman doesn't kill because killing is illegal? I disagree. In every comic I've read where it comes up, he doesn't kill because he loathes murderers, due to his childhood trauma. The law is a secondary justification.

[Rakeesh]

Krellen,


At the risk of being "rude", why are you engaging in a conversation about WotC's alignment system if you don't care about WotC's alignment definitions? Really, if you're not willing to contain yourself to the boundaries of the debate - that being D&D alignment system, which is defined by WotC - you shouldn't be welcome to the debate at all.


Unfortunately, the alignments in Dungeons and Dragons do not enjoy the same set definitions and restrictions as the colors of M:tG, and so a large part of this will be purely my opinion.

Nowhere in the OP do I find words or acronyms such as Wizards or WotC.

[Dhavaer]

You think Batman doesn't kill because killing is illegal? I disagree. In every comic I've read where it comes up, he doesn't kill because he loathes murderers, due to his childhood trauma. The law is a secondary justification.

Conceded that Batman has little respect for the law of the land. He does, however, value is own code above the protection of the innocent. Law/Chaos is unfortunately insufficiently defined to say whether or not following a personal code to this extent is Lawful or Chaotic.

[Krellen]

Nowhere in the OP do I find words or acronyms such as Wizards or WotC.
Wizard's stance is implied important by referencing their product, Dungeon and Dragons. Especially since their work does answer these questions, it is highly relevant. (If Wizard's stance on alignments doesn't matter, why bother using the alignment system at all? Make your own system, or do away with it altogether.)

Case in point: Law/Chaos is sufficiently defined to indicate whether or not following a personal code is Lawful or Chaotic; it's dependent on a few key things being in the personal code. If the personal code encourages honesty, reliability, honour and respect for legitimate authority, it's Lawful. If the personal code encourages whims of conscience, individual initiative, change and progress, it's Chaotic. It's actually quite well defined in the SRD:


Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
[...]
Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

Neither says a damn thing about "laws".

Batman is Lawful if he is honest, forthwright, trustworthy and respectful.
Batman is Chaotic if he is adaptable, independent, resentful and conscience-driven.

So it remains to ask yourself which of these better defines Batman (or if he's somewhere inbetween, making his Neutral with regards to Law and Chaos.) In my estimation, Batman is not particularly truthful, forthwright or dependible. He is rather rebellious, adaptable and conscience (vengeance) driven.

Superman and Batman's personalities clash fairly frequently, and it's not just a question of personalities - they argue over methodology frequently. As they are both good, the point where they differ in methodology must lay on the Law/Chaos axis. Superman is clearly Lawful Good - which means Batman clearly is Chaotic Good (the alignment I'd given him even without comparing him to Superman.)

[Rakeesh]

Wizard's stance is implied important by referencing their product, Dungeon and Dragons. Especially since their work does answer these questions, it is highly relevant.

Relevant and important, well of course. You can barely swing a dead cat on these forums as far as I've participated without hitting a conversation that doesn't deeply involve WotC, right?

But not necessary dominant. Again, the OP referenced talk of opinions and such and that was what I was responding to, and why I used the word 'rude' in a response earlier. The poster was assuming that a) reading and following the WotC was of primary importance to the conversation (the first is potentially not, the second definitely not), and b) that most people had not even read the source material.

I agree with you about Batman, except I would still put him on the Neutral side. Too often he does show a great deal of respect for obeying laws for their own sake.

[Krellen]

I agree with you about Batman, except I would still put him on the Neutral side. Too often he does show a great deal of respect for obeying laws for their own sake.
Ah, but my key point is that obeying the laws has nothing whatsoever to do with Law or Chaos. "Laws" are never mentioned. "Respect for authority" isn't laws: it's more to do with how you would interact with the representatives of the laws - police - than with the laws themselves.

Batman doesn't have much respect for the police (it varies slightly depending on which incarnation of Batman you consider, but overall the sense is the same) or other "lawful" authorities of Gotham city, even if he does respect its laws as protecting the innocent. Protecting the innocent, however, falls under the Good/Evil axis, not the Law/Chaos axis, so he respects the laws out of his goodness, not his Lawfulness (or non-Chaoticness).

[Draz74]

I know this isn't the end-all-say-all argument, because splatbooks have been known to contradict each other before ... especially in fluff ...

But, for what it's worth:

Batman is Lawful Good by the RAW.

Complete Scoundrel uses him as a standard and example of what a Lawful Good scoundrel is like.

(Btw I was already strongly with the group that considered Batman LG anyway before I read that.)

[Krellen]

But there's nothing Lawful about Batman, except maybe the fact that he (supposedly) has the Monk class! He isn't honest, he doesn't always keep his word, he's not dependable (except in the aspect of you can depend on him not to completely abandon you, which wouldn't be Good), and he has no respect for the authorities of Gotham.

I don't own the Complete Scoundrel (I refuse to buy another 'Complete' splatbook until WotC comes to their senses and produces the 'Complete Rapscallion', because rapscallion is an awesome word) but how on earth do they justify that? Who wrote the book - are any of the core authors involved at all?

I bet they say Han Solo is Lawful Good, too.

[Daze]

But there's nothing Lawful about Batman, except maybe the fact that he (supposedly) has the Monk class! He isn't honest, he doesn't always keep his word, he's not dependable (except in the aspect of you can depend on him not to completely abandon you, which wouldn't be Good), and he has no respect for the authorities of Gotham.

I agree Krellen. It's completely easy to confuzzle the ideas of "lawful" and "good" in your head. The superman-batman comparison you made earlier is actually quite perfect and puts things in their proper perspective, considering on how they deal with most matters.

Fact is, Vigilantes are NEVER lawful. Period. Look up the definition if need be. No one is doubting Batman's "hero" status. One can quite easily be a hero (good) and not particulary lawful.
If you are more inclined to look at "lawful" as obeying a strict inner code irrespective of minor things like stringing up joker's henchman and blowing up buildings, I'd still say that's incorrect. Batman's only professed moral code is to punish the guilty, vengence. He's not quite as bad as say The Punisher, but nonetheless, revenge is not sufficient for what anyone should consider a lawful code.

(There's a post I did on page 1 listing some real and fictional LG's based on my opinion. Do those make sense for anybody? Just curious...)

[shaddy_24]

In response to the question of laws over personal code, lawful and chaotic seem to follow a similar pattern (this is assuming both are good).
The lawful will respect the law if it matches their personal code. The chaotic will respect it for the same reasons. Both will follow the law if they agree with it and both will break it if they do not. The reasoning and methadology behind it is what decides law or chaos.
For example, in a NG city, the LG paladin and the CG rogue both agree that the law is fare, in that situation, each according to their personal code of honour. Therefore, neither will break it. However, if the law offends either the paladin's or the rogue's personal code, SNAP!!!!
The reason they break it and the way they break it decides if they are lawful or chaotic.

And on the Gil Grissom thought, he seems very lawful to me, and he honestly cares for other people. That's why he does his job.

[Rainspattered]

I'm going to argue Mario.
You will note that Bowser is a King.
I don't find regicide particularly lawful.
It is, on the other hand, particularly awesome.

[belboz]

Just a note about Batman: He has been written by so many different people, with such different images of him, that I think placing "the" alignment of Batman is effectively impossible. Depending on whose Batman you're talking about, I could see everything from LG to LN to CG to a CN that risks slipping into CE.

[puppyavenger]

Charlemagne???????????:smalleek:

[Koga]

If something is wrong with the way Lawful Good is doing things, just tell Lawful Good about it. It'll listen, and either change or explain why it shouldn't.
The Koga does this, but most are too narscistic and pigheaded to just kindly explain to The Koga what thier problem is with him. Instead they'd rather just act like assclowns and get judged.



Good does not inflict pain on others lightly, and torture is right out of the question.
That's not good, that's just stupid. Why are people under the impression good equals dumb?


A Lawful Good character should always ask himself if he's certain he's doing the right thing; to accidently do evil is often worse than intentionally doing it.
True enough.



It is generally reluctant to execute its prisoners, instead preferring to lock them away forever if they cannot be redeemed.
Not so with The Koga, he's not slow to kill his enemies because he sees them as vermin who would gut children and step on puppyheads given half the chance.

And locking them up is a waste of time, time that could be spent finding other lawbreakers. And a burden on the hardworking INNOCENT populace who has to spend taxes and labor to feed and shelter these creeps. That's the most cruel and evil thing you could do if you ask The Koga. Making the innocent pay for the mercy of the evil. And for what? To prove a point? So you can feel exalted?


Many Lawful Good characters will allow themselves to die rather than let a single innocent be murdered.
Again, this isn't good, this is just stupid. Innocent or not, are they more valuable to the cause of rightoussness then The Koga? Are they as capable of rendering evil immobile as The Koga? If not, then thier life is less valuable then his, and he will not risk losing it to save a less valuable person. So hostage situations won't work on The Koga. You'll just get judged all the harsher when he catches you.



Lawful Good's worst feature is its desire to legislate morality, restricting the freedoms of its citizens. It often goes too far in its desire to protect.
Chaos encourages evil, when people are free, freedom entails the possibility of evil. No freedom, no evil. It's that simple. Why take a gamble? Perhaps an ignoramace "chaotic good" may put some abstract value into freedom or some misguided neutral good might side that way. But rationaly these two are just being fools and need to let the adults handle matters of justice!



Lawful Good is different from other Lawful alignments because it governs out of caring for the people, rather than a desire for order. Lawful Good is different from other Good alignments because it wishes to control others.
And it's a shame most are too stupid to realize that it's the control-freaks who deepdown love you the most, they love you so much they can't bare to watch you degenerate. And yet they are rejected. So.. freedom gambles evil, freedom promotes ignorance, suffering, and a lax on moral structure...

No wonder AD&D lumped chaos with evil and law with good!



1) Lawful Good characters are not obligated to have a stick up their butts. Indeed, Lawful Good characters are allowed to revel and party as much as they like, as long as they continue to fufill their obligations to society and avoid doing anything immoral or at least illegal. Many Lawful Good characters feel they should lead by example, and thus avoid any Chaotic behavior. However, you don't have to be an Inevitable to be Lawful.
Exactly, infact some luxory can raise the morale of a population and be constructive. However give people an inch and they'll take a mile.


2) Lawful Good characters do not have to be kind and merciful. In fact, they're the least likely of all the Good alignments to be merciful, because they're Lawful as well. A Chaotic Good person would help someone wrongfully convicted excape from jail, but a Lawful Good person would just shrug and say "Appeal."
Precisely, just as easily as it is for those other morons to assume somebody is innocent untill proven guilty, why not assume they are guilty till proven innocent? How often are people wrongfuly arrested do to corruption, bad luck, or some ingenious plot to frame them??? You can never be too careful with creeps, even if this wasn't the creep you were looking for!



1) Batman: Many argue that he's Neutral or even Chaotic, but I feel that he is unquestionably Lawful because he seeks to bring criminals to justice, and makes sure that they fall into the hands of the proper authorities.
The Koga would agree. Especialy in JLU when he created a tech-fascist country and his younger self was disgusted, and the older Bat said;

"I did this for everybody, so that people could walk safe in the streets at night, so I didn't have to feel responsible for when I failed to protect a citizen, so that never again another little boy's life would fall apart because of some punk with a gun."

"You win..."

3) Mario: Mario's goodness is unquestionable; why would he go to all the trouble of rescuing Princess Peach every time Bowser kidnapped her if he wasn't? (Apart from the hope of a little peach fuzz, of course. *gets shot*) However, his Lawfulness will probably spark debate. I think that he's Lawful owing to the events in Super Mario Sunshine; he didn't resist arrest, and cleaned the island without complaint, always trying to find the real criminal and bring him to justice.
They don't really go too deep into Mario's character but The Koga agrees. By the way, awesome analogy with the peach fuzz. You win for that one. XD


4) Yoda: It's been a very long time since I watched the movies, so I can't give any specific examples, but I remember this much: Yoda was one of the Good guys. As for being Lawful, the little green man was a Jedi Master. That takes some serious devotion and strength of will. In fact, quite a lot of the Jedi are varying degrees of Lawful and Good.
Deffinitely, The Force demands law, even from most of the sith. (As much as they try to deny it, the strongest of sith were lawful..)

The Koga would also like to put in another example of lawful good;
http://kofler.dot.at/c64/download/judge_dredd_-_hes_the_law.gif
Despite how most would say Judge Dredd is lawful neutral, very few have actually botherd to read most of the stories in 2000AD. Really if people only knew the kindof lunatics Judge Dredd has to putup with on a daily basis they'd see why he was such a hardass, it has nothing to do with being focused solely on the law, but for the good of mankind. If Dredd were neutral he'd simply do his job and then punchout the moment time was up. Working just hard enough to not get fired or accused of corruption. And here is a quote that proves Judge Dredd is really a misunderstood guy who is lawful good.

Spikes: The muties let us go for now... but Morgar's been made to look stupid infront of The Brotherhood, he'll be after us thirsting for our blood! We should've destroyed them all when we had the chance!

Judge Dredd: Sick, crazy mutants... they deserve pity Spikes--not vengance! A judge must be stern, but he must also show mercy. That is the face of justice!

[Jayabalard]

Batman is Lawful Good by the RAW.

Complete Scoundrel uses him as a standard and example of what a Lawful Good scoundrel is like.

(Btw I was already strongly with the group that considered Batman LG anyway before I read that.)/shrug

Isn't that the same book that makes that asinine claim that the Gray guard is "just as lawful good as a paladin"? obviously the people writing that book don't really understand alignment ...

[ArmorArmadillo]

/shrug

Isn't that the same book that makes that asinine claim that the Gray guard is "just as lawful good as a paladin"? obviously the people writing that book don't really understand alignment ...
Gray Guard isn't for the standard campaign setting, it's for a campaign setting like Eberron where alignment isn't as strict or where things are especially grim or noir.

Batman is definitely good, that isn't the question.

But as for his being lawful, the main problem is that there have been many different interpertations of him. Adam West for example, was Lawful Good ("Support your local police, that's our message!") Many interpertations had him working in full agreement with the police commisioner (A la the Bat Signal). Others make him a violent rogue, others make him a complete vigilante.

What I think was the best interpertation of him, Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns, had a key scene that tells me why Batman is Lawful.
Batman was closing in on the Joker for the last time, witnessing the murders that the Joker had committed, and telling himself that he would kill the Joker, and never let him murder anyone again. However, at the last moment, he finds himself unable to finish of the Joker. He couldn't let himself do it.In this scene we have Batman's desire for Good giving presenting him with a moral imperative. However, his Lawfulness presents him with an ethical limit he is unwilling to cross, despite the moral need he feels.

That is Lawful Good, at least as I'm used to interpreting it.