PDA

View Full Version : What do the Lawful Good owe the Chaotic Stupid?



McStabbington
2016-05-07, 11:12 PM
Roleplaying Question for the Board:

My character is a 6th Level Halfling Rogue (specializing as an assassin) in a 5e campaign. By virtue of 1) being one of the older and more experienced players, 2) being one of the few players that shows up every week when there are many more infrequent players who essentially sub in and out on a week-by-week basis, and 3) being one of the very few people who didn't treat charisma as the dump stat, I have also assumed the unofficial role as team party leader. My character started off Neutral Good, but because of the fact that I am the only guy who plans things out and serves as the Only Sane Man in the party, I have requested and received permission from the DM to become Lawful Good.

That being said, I have noted a certain ruthlessly pragmatic streak in my character when faced with willfully stupid behavior on the part of other characters, and I wanted to check with the other roleplayers on the forum about whether I'm playing in a way that is compatible with Lawful Good. It hasn't been commented upon by the other players, or even been made explicit by the PC. It's just something I noted and wanted to check with on the forums.

So let me give you two examples of this "ruthlessly pragmatic" gameplay style to give you an idea of what I mean.

Example One: Three weeks ago, our character's ship got a hole torn in the bottom of the boat, forcing us to beach on an inhospitable shore. Our party was supposed to be the guards for the boat, so while the NPC crew slept, we drew watches. In the first watch, eyes started appearing in the dark and circling around the sleeping crewmen. Rather than, say, wake people up, the PC on guard duty woke exactly one other PC up, and then they both left camp to investigate. The eyes turned out to be about 50 wolves, who started 1) raiding the camp, and 2) circling and trying to tear apart the PC's that had just left camp.

Once they raided the camp, my character woke up and, despite not really having any practice at it, began organizing the defense. He kept the crew tightly packed in, had the NPC's that could shoot bows (2 crewmen) fire at the wolves that were between us and the PC's out in the middle of the pack, and began to have the rest of the crew light branches and have them ring the campsite. But he did nothing to explicitly help the PC's who had left camp, explicitly told the camp that they would have to cut their own way back, and only rushed out and got them back to camp once the DM had effectively fudged a path for my character to do so by having the bowmen kill the wolves between me and my party mates.

Example 2: Last week, we were looking for resupplies for the beached boat, only to find that the nearest town had been ransacked by hill giants. Tracking the giants, we found some villagers still alive as captives while the giants were busy roasting others. My character essentially organized a very basic crowd-control strategy: have the party sorcerer cast fear on one giant while the party sharpshooter pulls the other giant into a crowd of rogues that will sneak attack it and drop it fast. If the fear didn't succeed, the sorcerer was to run back to the party as fast as he could to pull the giant at least to a position where we could fight it as a group.

Sorcerer at that point announces that he's so delirious that he doesn't remember the plan, and fires a chromatic orb straight in the air. Meanwhile, the sharpshooter shoots the second hill giant, but doesn't retreat and essentially tries to solo a hill giant by himself. Most of the party runs forward; my character moves forward only as far as he can maintain cover. The hill giants nearly kill both the sorcerer and the sharpshooter, who only survive because the bard goes out of his way to heal them enough to survive. Most of the party is badly wounded, except for the afore-mentioned bard and my character, who takes not a scratch of damage and takes out both hill giants will well-timed sneak attacks, but who pointedly makes no effort to save the sorcerer or sharpshooter.

So, out of character, what's happening is fairly simple: this is a campaign played at a local hobby store. Most of the people playing are younger than I am, and fairly inexperienced with roleplaying games. They're teens, and this is about having fun for them, which translates as sticking it to The Man, even if The Man is being entirely sensible and taking steps to reduce their chances of character death. I get that, and have no problem with it. But by the same token, I do like playing my character at least somewhat in alignment, and my alignment is Lawful Good. How consistent is this streak of not going out of my way to save the Chaotic Stupid with my chosen alignment?

Gildedragon
2016-05-07, 11:31 PM
From those two points of data it feels LN behavior: it is neither good nor evil and focuses on keeping most of the party alive. It is very "greatest good for the most people" and "people don't deserve to be saved from their folly" mentally.
You could stand to in-character tell them to be more careful, while out of character being cool about things. Also push maybe a bit more to helping them out of their mishaps. You needn't help them at considerable risk to you but enough to show that they are valuable party members to your character. That is to say, you could be more L and G in regards to your affiliation to the party: Good in the showing of selflessness and mercy to the party, Lawful in showing a Party First, Leave No-One Behind sort of loyalty

NichG
2016-05-07, 11:35 PM
In the first example in particular, stopping what you were doing to go save the idiots would mean trading other people's lives for theirs. So that just falls into 'leadership sometimes means hard choices'.

If you could save them without sacrifice, but you choose not to because you want them to be punished for their mistakes with death, that feels less 'good' to me. So the second example is more iffy. You aren't an exalted character though - if you honestly thought running forward would get you or others killed and might not save the idiots, I wouldn't say holding back to protect yourself makes you actively non-good. But holding back to punish them seems to.

Mando Knight
2016-05-07, 11:45 PM
On the one hand, you're not a brainless Paladin with some kind of excessively rigid code of honor that demands you throw yourself into the fray without a plan to actually accomplish anything, you're a Rogue, and an assassin at that. On the other hand, you aren't really Good if you refuse to risk yourself to help a teammate in dire need.

Keep your head, work as hard as you can to save your allies from themselves, and in the aftermath feel free to point out how their foolishness almost got you all killed.

McStabbington
2016-05-07, 11:49 PM
In both examples, stopping what you were doing to go save the idiots would mean trading other people's lives for theirs. So that just falls into 'leadership sometimes means hard choices'.

If you could save them without sacrifice, but you choose not to because you want them to be punished for their mistakes with death, that feels less 'good' to me.

Ah yes, to be clear, in both cases my character's actions were more explicitly motivated by the former than the latter. My character didn't go rescue the PC's in the first instance because, quite literally, there were 4 PC's in the game at the time. My job was keeping the NPC's alive, most of them are 1st and 2nd level NPC fighters surrounded by about 25-30 wolves, and I'm their leader. I didn't feel that I could leave, nor could I delegate the task to the other PC who was doing his job at the time, even if it meant two other members of my party are getting dogpiled by 20 more wolves. As soon as a path was available to my character, my character did explicitly break formation to rescue the other two PC's and bring them back to camp.

The second case is a little more "The plan will save us, and I'm sticking to it," mindset. Most of the other characters broke formation once the plan broke down. My character didn't, and technically did the most damage as a consequence. But he also, once again, didn't go out of his way to save the characters, especially the sorcerer and the one PC I had protecting him, who got one-shotted by the hill giant that attacked them.

Hence both the emerging theme and the question.

Tiktakkat
2016-05-08, 02:02 AM
Fully consistent, and even more so with other lives on the line.
In fact, if they are determined to ignore the group and endanger others then you should feel an obligation not to help them, as doing so would result in even more lives lost.
At most, you might feel the need to make it clear to them that you don't intend to endanger yourself or others if they aren't going to work as part of the team, but even that is dependent on what the standards are for LG where your character is from and based on whatever setting faith he follows.

veti
2016-05-08, 03:27 AM
The first of those instances is perfectly LG. Your option was to desert the helpless NPCs, to help your fellow PCs, and you most creditably resisted any temptation you might have felt to do it. No paladin could have done better.

The second is much less clear cut. Did you 'maintain cover' in order to deliver sneak attacks, or to preserve your own HP? And what does "pointedly made no effort" to save the idiots mean?

In answer to the thread title - I see nothing out-of-alignment in not going out of your way to help people who wilfully and needlessly choose to endanger themselves. Having said that, if I were in your shoes, I probably would do my best to help them without going out of my way. That is to say, if any possible mode of helping them has a reasonable chance of success and not too much risk, I'd take it.

Ikitavi
2016-05-08, 04:09 AM
Why does the alignment label matter in that campaign? If people are having fun doing things that endanger their character, why can't YOU have fun endangering their character?

Heck, if people are doing stuff that endangers the party, claim that your CHARACTER thinks it is deliberate, that the crazy character must actually be in league with the wolves, or the giants, to the point that they would sacrifice their lives to the cause. Make it clear that you as a player are fine with it, but that your character is less imaginative than you are, or something.

Or just have fun playing lawful snark, or even lawful evil, if you MUST play with labels. Why in the world do you need the GM PERMISSION to change alignment? Do players need GM PERMISSION to be stupid? No? Then why do you need GM PERMISSION to be interesting and fun to play?

Fizban
2016-05-08, 06:59 AM
The first one sounds pretty textbook: save the many before the few. The second is well within standard operations for a rogue: if you killed the giant with "well-placed sneak attacks," that implies attacking them earlier would not have killed them and thus would not have done anything to help the other characters (unless the DM runs them like dumb MMO monsters, at which point you get to try kiting them yay).

The difference between lawful and chaotic is that lawful is beholden to others (often a ruling body or set of principles from their culture), while chaotic is beholden to self. A common problem is a "lawful" type defining their set of principles as "do whatever I want," and some might say being "pragmatic" is the same thing, but it's not. As de-facto party leader your job is to make the calls: sticking to the plan even when others have abandoned it upholds the principle of the matter and is indeed the standard lawful response. That fact that it was your plan changes nothing.

As for being good, that doesn't mean stupid or doormat either. You don't have to throw yourself into harm's way for every idiot that passes just to keep the tag, just help enough people in general. You don't stop being good because you failed to personally rescue enough party members, just like you don't stop being evil because you helped a few puppies. If anything the party should count the least for "alignment points," since they're both highly competent adventurers who can take care of themselves, and have a close personal relationship with you that allows for exceptions to your usual demeanor. Evil people have loved ones and comrades but they're still evil, good people can let their friends rush into danger and even die (in fact it's a common trope that you must let them do so in order to respect their autonomy).

SirBellias
2016-05-08, 09:04 AM
Nothing. Lawful good helps the most people as possible, and can safely ignore those with the ability to help themselves. If they can't follow a simple plan, then you should probably just focus on damage control, I guess. Or you should just determine whether staying with said group is more of a priority than helping the crew, or something. The point is, they are fully capable of not getting themselves murdered if they think, so I wouldn't help them dodge the chance to learn something.

Draken
2016-05-08, 12:39 PM
I will tell this primarily because you are playing 5th and this is true.

Play your character consistently however you think best and don't care about alignment labels. They don't matter. All the mechanics that were tied to alignments back in 3.5 apply to creature type in 5th ed. So you could be the saintliest saint who ever sainted and Detect Good (and Evil) would still not care about you because it is looking for Celestials and Fiends (and Aberrations, Fey, Elementals and Undead).

That being said, pragmatism is not necessarily an aspect of neutral/evil, it is an aspect of sensible thought. A good character is by no means obligated to rescue people from their own bad decisions specially when there are other, pressing threats to other people who did not put themselves at risk out of stupidity. So don't worry yourself on that front.

In fact, that is an usual issue Good characters and their players appear to meet. Failure to help everyone everywhere every time due to simple lack of omnipotence being conflated with a failure to live up to "Good". The proper answer to that simple, inevitable truth is to tarnish the shining armor, not to start wondering if the G should turn into an N.

Honest Tiefling
2016-05-08, 12:46 PM
Are you sure there's not a more out of character reason for their stupidity? You mentioned a few reasons why you are the party leader, but not a single one of them was that everyone else voted for you or listens to you. It seems like their stupidity only comes online when you give them a plan they can pointedly ignore. I wonder if they are ignoring the plans because you come up with them and they don't like the fact that you've become the party leader without their input.

ReaderAt2046
2016-05-08, 12:53 PM
You could also make a pretty good argument that enabling these guy's Chaotic Stupid antics would ultimately leave them worse off than letting them experience at least some consequences for their actions. So what you are doing could easily be seen as the best thing even for the people who are acting out, since it shows them that their stupidity has consequences and ideally will help them learn to pay attention and act more maturely.

So yes, what you are doing is totally within the bounds of Lawful Good.

goto124
2016-05-08, 08:04 PM
Isn't Chaotic Stupid an OOC problem? A player problem?

RazorChain
2016-05-08, 08:41 PM
Well just think of what Good means. Does it mean that you have to put yourself in harms way to help people who are capable of taking care of themselves?

If you are a coward are you then incapable of being a good?

Inevitability
2016-05-09, 12:37 AM
The first case was fine: after all, what were you supposed to do? Cut a path through dozens of wolves? It'd be suicide.

The second case, however, involved you not helping the others because you'd lose a small defense bonus. I'm inclined to call that LN behavior.

Crake
2016-05-10, 03:08 AM
The first case was fine: after all, what were you supposed to do? Cut a path through dozens of wolves? It'd be suicide.

The second case, however, involved you not helping the others because you'd lose a small defense bonus. I'm inclined to call that LN behavior.

From the impression I got, staying in cover was enabling him to sneak attack (presumably by using the hide action), which let him kill the giants faster, thus neutralizing the threat faster. In that sense, it was about the best thing he could do to actually save his team mates, killing the enemies before they killed his party.

Geddy2112
2016-05-10, 04:04 AM
You did the best you could, and I disagree that they are chaotic stupid. They are more just reckless and wanna be the "big damn heroes" who kill things and stuff.

You get the "biggest damn hero" cake though. Seriously, you have the patience, heroics, and mettle of a freaking saint. LG does not mean being a bleeding heart altruist, you earned that L not from pragmatism but from discipline, and LG loves discipline and the greater good. Risking your own life to save an idiot is one thing, but risking a thousand to save one is not pragmatism, it is knowing that a 1000 lives risking death is not the same as saving one. You are doing whatever deities work you serve!

If I were you, I would treat them IC and OOC the same. You are the Shepard watching the flock. Sometimes it means being kind and nurturing, sometimes it means fighting off the wolves. Some of your sheep are stupid, but with proper guidance they will see the light. Keep calm, carry on.

If you want leadership, ask LoyalPaladin. Hell, Red Fel would even be good here. Obligatory Red Fel Red Fel Red Fel.

Red Fel
2016-05-10, 10:18 AM
Hell, Red Fel would even be good here. Obligatory Red Fel Red Fel Red Fel.

Speaking.


Roleplaying Question for the Board:

Roleplaying answer for McStabbington.


My character started off Neutral Good, but because of the fact that I am the only guy who plans things out and serves as the Only Sane Man in the party, I have requested and received permission from the DM to become Lawful Good.

Oh. Joy. Another one.


That being said, I have noted a certain ruthlessly pragmatic streak in my character when faced with willfully stupid behavior on the part of other characters, and I wanted to check with the other roleplayers on the forum about whether I'm playing in a way that is compatible with Lawful Good. It hasn't been commented upon by the other players, or even been made explicit by the PC. It's just something I noted and wanted to check with on the forums.

So, you're asking us if you're roleplaying your character "right?" As a general rule, the answer is, "Yes." However, if you have to ask, the answer is, "No," because if you have to ask, you think that you're doing something wrong.


So let me give you two examples of this "ruthlessly pragmatic" gameplay style to give you an idea of what I mean.

Please do. I'd love to hear what LG calls "ruthlessly pragmatic."


Example One: Three weeks ago, our character's ship got a hole torn in the bottom of the boat, forcing us to beach on an inhospitable shore. Our party was supposed to be the guards for the boat, so while the NPC crew slept, we drew watches. In the first watch, eyes started appearing in the dark and circling around the sleeping crewmen. Rather than, say, wake people up, the PC on guard duty woke exactly one other PC up, and then they both left camp to investigate. The eyes turned out to be about 50 wolves, who started 1) raiding the camp, and 2) circling and trying to tear apart the PC's that had just left camp.

Once they raided the camp, my character woke up and, despite not really having any practice at it, began organizing the defense. He kept the crew tightly packed in, had the NPC's that could shoot bows (2 crewmen) fire at the wolves that were between us and the PC's out in the middle of the pack, and began to have the rest of the crew light branches and have them ring the campsite. But he did nothing to explicitly help the PC's who had left camp, explicitly told the camp that they would have to cut their own way back, and only rushed out and got them back to camp once the DM had effectively fudged a path for my character to do so by having the bowmen kill the wolves between me and my party mates.

So, these characters stupidly wandered off, and your character attempted to secure the camp before rescuing the idiots.


Example 2: Last week, we were looking for resupplies for the beached boat, only to find that the nearest town had been ransacked by hill giants. Tracking the giants, we found some villagers still alive as captives while the giants were busy roasting others. My character essentially organized a very basic crowd-control strategy: have the party sorcerer cast fear on one giant while the party sharpshooter pulls the other giant into a crowd of rogues that will sneak attack it and drop it fast. If the fear didn't succeed, the sorcerer was to run back to the party as fast as he could to pull the giant at least to a position where we could fight it as a group.

Sorcerer at that point announces that he's so delirious that he doesn't remember the plan, and fires a chromatic orb straight in the air. Meanwhile, the sharpshooter shoots the second hill giant, but doesn't retreat and essentially tries to solo a hill giant by himself. Most of the party runs forward; my character moves forward only as far as he can maintain cover. The hill giants nearly kill both the sorcerer and the sharpshooter, who only survive because the bard goes out of his way to heal them enough to survive. Most of the party is badly wounded, except for the afore-mentioned bard and my character, who takes not a scratch of damage and takes out both hill giants will well-timed sneak attacks, but who pointedly makes no effort to save the sorcerer or sharpshooter.

So, you pronounced a plan, and the idiots ignore it and injure themselves; you make no effort to save your comrades, because who are you to defy Darwin?


So, out of character, what's happening is fairly simple: this is a campaign played at a local hobby store. Most of the people playing are younger than I am, and fairly inexperienced with roleplaying games. They're teens, and this is about having fun for them, which translates as sticking it to The Man, even if The Man is being entirely sensible and taking steps to reduce their chances of character death. I get that, and have no problem with it. But by the same token, I do like playing my character at least somewhat in alignment, and my alignment is Lawful Good. How consistent is this streak of not going out of my way to save the Chaotic Stupid with my chosen alignment?

And stop. The issue isn't that you're playing Lawful Good, and they're playing Chaotic Stupid. The issue is that your definition of fun and theirs are two different things.

Your definition of fun: I'm RPing and I'm trying to play smart. I'm playing to survive and win.

Theirs: This sucker gonna 'splode now! WOO!

You say: "I get that, and have no problem with it." Clearly you have a problem with it. It is plainly visible that you are, at best, troubled, and at worst, barely controlling your murderous rage at these incompetent boobs who hold you back from greatness. I get that, and have no problem with it.

As to whether your LG character can be LG while letting these fools get themselves into danger, that's up to you. I'm inclined to say yes, because even LG doesn't mean you have to save everyone from themselves. However, I don't think you should be playing LG. Here's why: Their behavior is annoying you. It's frustrating you. I think a part of you wants to show them the folly of their actions, but being LG, you can't exploit their idiocy. But playing an Evil alignment, you could gleefully and selfishly laugh at their suffering until they learned to be less foolish. Just a thought.

Now, that said, what you're expressing is an out-of-character issue. It's a difference of game expectations. You want to play a smart, tactical combatant who leads a team of smart, tactical combatants. They want to play a video game. If it bothers you, the solution is to discuss that.

Of course, there's always my preferred solution:

https://i.imgflip.com/6qtrr.gif

goto124
2016-05-10, 10:27 AM
So, you're asking us if you're roleplaying your character "right?" As a general rule, the answer is, "Yes." However, if you have to ask, the answer is, "No," because if you have to ask, you think that you're doing something wrong.

Aren't there plenty of people who think they're roleplaying right, but doing it wrong? Not this thread specifically, just in general.

Also, by this metric, I would be roleplaying wrong 100% of the time, and have to retire from roleplay entirely. Asking myself such questions is how I avoid needless antagonism ("It's what my character would do!').

Red Fel
2016-05-10, 10:36 AM
Aren't there plenty of people who think they're roleplaying right, but doing it wrong? Not this thread specifically, just in general.

Also, by this metric, I would be roleplaying wrong 100% of the time, and have to retire from roleplay entirely. Asking myself such questions is how I avoid needless antagonism ("It's what my character would do!').

The general rule, I find, is that when it comes to roleplaying your character, only you know whether you're doing it right. There are exceptions and fringe cases, but frequently the issue is more of the mechanics, or interpersonal issues between players (such as antagonism), than of the actual character roleplay.

Further, if you do question yourself, it's because your instincts are telling you you're doing something wrong, and you should probably listen to them. That doesn't mean you're a bad roleplayer, or that you should "retire from roleplay entirely;" it means that, for whatever reason (and there are many), you've strayed from what you believe to be good, solid roleplay, and your instincts are telling you so. That's not your cue to leave the table; it's your cue to fix what's bothering you.

goto124
2016-05-10, 10:38 AM
it means that, for whatever reason (and there are many), you've strayed from what you believe to be good, solid roleplay, and your instincts are telling you so. That's not your cue to leave the table; it's your cue to fix what's bothering you.

...but... how? I turn one way and it's wrong, I turn the other way and it's also wrong.

I've antagonized many players with what I thought was good roleplay - or at least, the only way of roleplay I could come up with at that time.

I've never antagonized other players when I thought I was wrong.

Red Fel
2016-05-10, 10:48 AM
...but... how? I turn one way and it's wrong, I turn the other way and it's also wrong.

I've antagonized many players with what I thought was good roleplay - or at least, the only way of roleplay I could come up with at that time.

I've never antagonized other players when I thought I was wrong.

Then maybe what's wrong is your definition of good roleplay.

Or maybe what's wrong is the other players.

You'll figure it out.

Flickerdart
2016-05-10, 10:52 AM
I for one think it would be entertaining to follow the story of a valiant heroic LG type who leads idiot companions into battle. It would make a great comic. :elan:

2D8HP
2016-05-10, 12:46 PM
I for one think it would be entertaining to follow the story of a valiant heroic LG type who leads idiot companions into battle. It would make a great comic. :elan:This is why I love the playground! :smallbiggrin:

MintyNinja
2016-05-10, 01:58 PM
I would talk to your DM about a possible alignment shift again down the line. If they keep this up and you stick to the pragmatism, maybe Lawful Neutral is more your flavour.

As for now, don't ever change. This is a learning opportunity for them and who knows, maybe you'll convert one of them to Competent. By allowing them to fail and suffer, maybe they'll just go with the plan and learn to like it. There is a sense of glee from a plan well executed.

Rumpus
2016-05-10, 05:05 PM
you aren't really Good if you refuse to risk yourself to help a teammate in dire need.

I disagree pretty strongly with this. Good doesn't have to be self-sacrificing. Now, if we're talking about children too young to understand the danger, then I think you have a moral obligation to put yourself at risk to help. But if the PCs are old enough to be adventurers, they are old enough to live with the consequences of their own stupidity. I'm not saying you should let them die if you have a reasonable chance of saving them, but in the scenarios you described it sounds like he evaluated that trying to save them would have entailed major risk to both the smart PCs and the non-adventurers. This is really a Scylla and Charybdis situation, neither is inherently good or evil.

LoyalPaladin
2016-05-26, 03:49 PM
If you want leadership, ask LoyalPaladin.
I need to get better at finding threads where I'm mentioned. But I'm only, what? Oh. 16 days late...


So, out of character, what's happening is fairly simple: this is a campaign played at a local hobby store. Most of the people playing are younger than I am, and fairly inexperienced with roleplaying games. They're teens, and this is about having fun for them, which translates as sticking it to The Man, even if The Man is being entirely sensible and taking steps to reduce their chances of character death. I get that, and have no problem with it. But by the same token, I do like playing my character at least somewhat in alignment, and my alignment is Lawful Good. How consistent is this streak of not going out of my way to save the Chaotic Stupid with my chosen alignment?
This is a tough one, my friend. Roleplay games can be hard to "take the lead" in, since everyone wants their special snowflake to be the best. As the LG Paladin player, I tend to rack up lead points based on consistency and trustworthiness (also, when you come to a fork in the dungeon, always go right. Since obviously it's the right choice.) But there are some players who will want to rebel against your lead because they're either challenging your authority to be annoying, trying to be the leader, or because you're a poor leader.

In my gaming group, we have a friend (that we love and cherish dearly) who just refuses to follow or accept anyone else's plans. Which can be pretty annoying, as he'll even kill roleplay to accomplish this. Which might be what spurred me to become a paladin, no one bothers to question my leadership tendencies but him, since I don't lead them astray and they can trust me.

Unfortunately for you, these are semi-strangers that are young and lack system knowledge. I'd say you offer plans up, let them suffer when they mess them up, but all the while try to earn their respect. Tough love goes a long way. If they die, that sucks and you shouldn't laugh at them. But if they died because they failed to follow the plans that were set up, well, they endangered other people's live and lost their own. That's the price you pay for being foolhardy.