Lawful Good Vs. Chaotic Good Fight

[Bartmanhomer]

Do Lawful Good Characters and Chaotic Good Characters fight against each other?

[Inevitability]

Do they have big, supernatural wars on the same scale as the Lawful Evil-Chaotic Evil or Evil-Good wars? No.

Are they overcome by uncontrollable rage every time they see each other? No.

Do they tend to, in general, fight more often than cooperate? Also no.


That said, Lawful Good and Chaotic Good have some pretty different ways of doing things, and it's possible that such differences will lead at the very least to spirited disagreements. Outright violent conflict is likely rare for the both of them, if only because D&D morality doesn't let you remain Good if you regularly kill Good creatures.

So to answer your question: yes, sometimes they do, but often they don't.

[Bartmanhomer]

Do they have big, supernatural wars on the same scale as the Lawful Evil-Chaotic Evil or Evil-Good wars? No.

Are they overcome by uncontrollable rage every time they see each other? No.

Do they tend to, in general, fight more often than cooperate? Also no.


That said, Lawful Good and Chaotic Good have some pretty different ways of doing things, and it's possible that such differences will lead at the very least to spirited disagreements. Outright violent conflict is likely rare for the both of them, if only because D&D morality doesn't let you remain Good if you regularly kill Good creatures.

So to answer your question: yes, sometimes they do, but often they don't.

I assume that they debate the Law and Chaotic Axis when they don't agree with their ethics.

[Awakeninfinity]

I personally think that they wouldn't fight unless one or the other was falling...

Edit: I was actually considering ending one of my fellow player's paladin, because he stopped being a paladin in all but his character sheet.

[Jay R]

If the Lawful Good person is trying to help a Lawful Good society extend its ordered society to a wilderness area, or even an outlying village, the Chaotic Good person might consider it his duty to fight it.

But in general, alignments aren't "sides". They are approaches to life. It's quite possible for two Lawful Good people to fight each other, if their respective missions require the same MacGuffin.

[My village is dying of a plague; yours is threatened by a typhoon. In a nearby cave is a Ring with one wish which is the only solution for either one.]

[Pleh]

In general, Good aligned creatures would seek non violent solutions when they come to be at odds with one another.

Will they fight? Yes, you can push just about anyone to fight.

The really nasty thing about the fight we're talking about is that it will be particularly vicious and remorseless. By the time two good creatures are compelled to fight each other to the death, they've both exhausted every other option and they are both looking to end their adversary in as quick and as merciful manner as they can manage. They probably talk throughout the fight if they have any remaining hope that saying the right thing will resolve the conflict.

It's the kind of fight that generates the old saying, "Demons run when a good man goes to war."

And yes, in this instance, it would be on the Law and Chaos division, which for Good characters to truly come to blows over Law vs Chaos, you almost have to be considering an invasion of a Lawful Good civilization over otherwise Good and peaceful landscape. The argument would come down to whether the people on both sides of the fence are better taken care of by cooperation under common rule or by allowing each creature to go their own course.

It's also unlikely for this scenario to boil into an actual fight without having some Evil creatures running interference to orchestrate this conflict.

I could see a scenario where the dissociated tribes of CG are under threat of some Neutral Natural Catastrophe, and the neighboring LG state wants to help protect them, but they need the tribes to let their army come in and build fortifications. The tribes refuse, preferring to take their chances against the Catastrophe than submit to the state's regulation.

So, yes, this fight can happen. Rarely.

[Zhentarim]

Do Lawful Good Characters and Chaotic Good Characters fight against each other?

I made the same thread last year:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?511700-Would-Lawful-Good-and-Chaotic-Good-ever-wage-war-with-each-other

[Darth Ultron]

They don't fight too often.

In general Lawful Good people want to do EVERY thing by the book. Chaotic Good people glance at the book from time to time for suggestions. At the end of the day they are both good people...they just disagree a bit on how to be good. But, really, they don't have too much of a problem working together.

Really, ''at worst" the LG person can just ''turn around" and let the CG person do something.

[Torpin]

as far as metaphysical fights between different heavenly factions, not really, however a brass dragon who sets up shop in the territory of a gold dragon, absolutely, on a more local scale, a vigilante and a paladin will almost certainly cross blades, especially if the vigilante kills people instead of capturing them, hell lawful good characters will fight each other, as say generals of two opposing armies.

[Selion]

I think they can. I'm giving an example.
There is a large city, confining with a forest. The only way the city has to support its growing population is cutting down the forest, building new quarters with the wood and farming the land, otherwise many would starve. The city has a lawful good government.
There is an elven tribe in the forest, they would lose their home if the forest is destroyed, however, the government offer them a quarter to live peacefully inside the city. The elves refuse the offer, because they would lose their tradition, their connection with nature and their freedom. Conversely citizens think that the priority should be preventing people from dying from hunger.
I think that both factions would kill in this setting.
Similar situations could be arranged even in interplanar wars.

[AMFV]

Lawful Good and Lawful Good characters fight each other. Chaotic Good and Chaotic Good characters fight each other. Having a similar philosophical outlook does not mean that you have the same goals. Now both Lawful Good and Chaotic Good characters tend to be opposed to unnecessary violence and bloodshed, so its less likely that their fights would turn violent and destructive, but it's certainly possible.

[Florian]

Do Lawful Good Characters and Chaotic Good Characters fight against each other?

Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive.

So, yes, they do, all the time.

[Pex]

They will bicker, and for the most part that's as far as it goes. They love to argue. It's how their friendship is bonded. It rarely comes to violence, but if it does it's not lethal, they aren't really meaning it, and it only happens if they both know they're evenly matched. There might be a few slaps, but it ends up as wrestling and no class features are used. Afterwards they have a good laugh and a drink together both claiming they won. A barbarian and paladin will brawl. Two wizards will brawl. A barbarian will not brawl with the wizard.

[Calthropstu]

I am going to go against the consensus here and say "frequently."

Not often battles to the death, usually it results in the CG person getting jailed when a fight does come.

For example:
A CG bard helps a young noblewoman betrothed against her will flee. The LG paladin chases them, arrests the bard, brings the girl back then tries to find a way within the law to abort the marriage.

A CG barbarian kills some ruffians harassing a girl. One of the ruffians is a noble's son, gets his LG fighter to bring this vigilante homicidal maniac to justice.

A CG sorcerer refuses to join the mages guild, publicly casts magic to help someone despite it being illegal to cast spells without being a member. LG wizard has no choice but to arrest him for it.

Usually their fights are over the law. CG usual defense is "but the law is stupid. I'm doing what is right, and if the law says that's wrong well then the law is wrong." The LG counter is "if we allow people to break the law whenever it suits them, then anarchy reigns and that serves no one."

Neither are wrong per se, but it is definitely a source of conflict.

[Fizban]

When the word "fight" means "subdue each other with lethal weaponry," then as a rule, no. If you're the kind of person that resorts to physical harm when you disagree on which method is best for achieving the same goal, you weren't Good in the first place. Book of Exalted Deeds addresses the issue, basically saying that the CG and LG exemplars work together when they can, and otherwise just try to stay out of each others' way.

That doesn't mean it can't happen, but you don't get a fight that breaks the rules without breaking the rules. When you want two people to employ drastic force in combat against each other, in spite of them both being good people who would choose to avoid that at almost all costs, you need to force it. You contrive a situation where the two sides see the cost of letting the other person's course of action (which differs on the Law/Chaos axis) as being so risky, so foolish, so costly that one or both believes force of arms must be used to stop the other person.

Such situations can usually be seen a mile away, relying on either outside forces literally contriving the situation to screw with these people or upon lack of information. Two people that are so convinced that they know the entire situation better than the other person, who believe there is no time to explain, can easily come to blows. More savvy and/or capital G Good people will be wary of this, and will be more ready to come to an agreement on a single plan rather than pointlessly fight each other. But more modestly Good people and those with less experience can be quite easily goaded into a fight even without some omnipotent chessmaster rigging the game against them.


Don't forget the flipside of the common situations for smaller arguments and one side making the rational response to the other. The CG lawbreaker is quite obviously a source of conflict in cities with laws that a LG person wishes to abide by, but lawful types can be just as wrong in another environment: the dungeon, the Evil city, etc. Trying to drag in city laws and appeal to outside authority in a place where all you've got is yourself or your usual code of conduct is against the local law is a good way to bite off more than you can chew or find yourself caught off guard and killed.

Of course there's also the question of just how capital the L or C is in your law/chaos. Since just as you can be modestly good, you can be modestly lawful or chaotic. Going along with the rest of the party is fine as long as that's not changing who you are. A person who follows reasonable laws when in town so they don't go to jail doesn't stop being chaotic, and a person who is willing to break a law for a good reason doesn't instantly stop being lawful.


For example:
A CG bard helps a young noblewoman betrothed against her will flee. The LG paladin chases them, arrests the bard, brings the girl back then tries to find a way within the law to abort the marriage.

A CG barbarian kills some ruffians harassing a girl. One of the ruffians is a noble's son, gets his LG fighter to bring this vigilante homicidal maniac to justice.


A CG sorcerer refuses to join the mages guild, publicly casts magic to help someone despite it being illegal to cast spells without being a member. LG wizard has no choice but to arrest him for it.
Honestly, I don't think these are great examples:

A law which forces you to marry against your will is clearly an Evil law (bringing harm to the victim for someone else's gain, if any), and the Paladin should not be enforcing it. They can work to change the law, try to get her out legally if she was captured, but if all the Paladin has to do to help her escape is not catch her then she ought to be gone. Only if letting her escape without the legal backing would put her in worse danger (as in, the chances of legal response are better than fleeing), would the Paladin then be compelled to arrest her. And suffer the guilt/try to bust her out if their estimation was wrong.
A "CG" character who kills people for harassment was clearly mislabeled, and the father sending "his LG fighter" would also be a "vigilante" action unless there are laws being followed.
Unless that wizard is in law enforcement they don't have the right to "arrest" anyone, nor are they forced to report anything, because you can be lawful without being a robot- this one works, but only if the wizard is specifically law enforcement.

[Calthropstu]

Honestly, I don't think these are great examples:

A law which forces you to marry against your will is clearly an Evil law (bringing harm to the victim for someone else's gain, if any), and the Paladin should not be enforcing it. They can work to change the law, try to get her out legally if she was captured, but if all the Paladin has to do to help her escape is not catch her then she ought to be gone. Only if letting her escape without the legal backing would put her in worse danger (as in, the chances of legal response are better than fleeing), would the Paladin then be compelled to arrest her. And suffer the guilt/try to bust her out if their estimation was wrong.
A "CG" character who kills people for harassment was clearly mislabeled, and the father sending "his LG fighter" would also be a "vigilante" action unless there are laws being followed.
Unless that wizard is in law enforcement they don't have the right to "arrest" anyone, nor are they forced to report anything, because you can be lawful without being a robot- this one works, but only if the wizard is specifically law enforcement.


1: Yeah, those laws existed for a LONG time in the real world, and still do in many many places. As head of the household, a father has the legal right to choose his daughter's bride in many areas of the time period that D&D deals with. To call it evil is to call nearly all societies that are not modern western civilization evil. Doubt most of the world will agree with you on this.
2: If he goes to break them up, and weapons get drawn he would have every right to draw his own. There are plenty of ways that could go. As for the noble, he's a noble dispatching someone to enforce the law. In many areas the nobles ARE the law. So that LG fighter would be an enforcer of the law.
3: In the case of the wizard, wizards would have many duties. Enforcing the laws regarding magic would be one of them, seeing as how many spellcasters would be needed to be dealt with by other spellcasters. Think Irenicus and Imoen in Baldurs Gate 2. All the wizards in the cowled wizards would be required assist in law enforcement as needed for example.

Another instance where LG and CG may be forced to fight is if they are lied to concerning the actions of the other. Being framed for crimes may force an LG or CG character on the run where they may have to fight all sorts of LG characters in order to survive.

[Keltest]

1: Yeah, those laws existed for a LONG time in the real world, and still do in many many places. As head of the household, a father has the legal right to choose his daughter's bride in many areas of the time period that D&D deals with. To call it evil is to call nearly all societies that are not modern western civilization evil. Doubt most of the world will agree with you on this.
2: If he goes to break them up, and weapons get drawn he would have every right to draw his own. There are plenty of ways that could go. As for the noble, he's a noble dispatching someone to enforce the law. In many areas the nobles ARE the law. So that LG fighter would be an enforcer of the law.
3: In the case of the wizard, wizards would have many duties. Enforcing the laws regarding magic would be one of them, seeing as how many spellcasters would be needed to be dealt with by other spellcasters. Think Irenicus and Imoen in Baldurs Gate 2. All the wizards in the cowled wizards would be required assist in law enforcement as needed for example.

Another instance where LG and CG may be forced to fight is if they are lied to concerning the actions of the other. Being framed for crimes may force an LG or CG character on the run where they may have to fight all sorts of LG characters in order to survive.

1: Saying that because something was done historically it cant be evil doesn't make it a good thing, or any less bad. The whole reason we stopped is because we decided it was wrong.

2: Its one thing if this is a one off occurrence, but if this becomes a pattern, then he's deliberately seeking out and picking lethal fights. That's definitely not Good.

3: The Cowled Wizards were law enforcement in BG2. Perhaps more to the point, they were both corrupt as an institution and generally neutral or evil on an individual level, capturing and experimenting on magic users they found who weren't registered. That's a really bad example of LG and CG coming into conflict.

[tiercel]

When the word "fight" means "subdue each other with lethal weaponry," then as a rule, no.... When you want two people to employ drastic force in combat against each other, in spite of them both being good people who would choose to avoid that at almost all costs, you need to force it. You contrive a situation where the two sides see the cost of letting the other person's course of action (which differs on the Law/Chaos axis) as being so risky, so foolish, so costly that one or both believes force of arms must be used to stop the other person....

The CG lawbreaker is quite obviously a source of conflict in cities with laws that a LG person wishes to abide by, but lawful types can be just as wrong in another environment: the dungeon, the Evil city, etc. Trying to drag in city laws and appeal to outside authority in a place where all you've got is yourself or your usual code of conduct is against the local law is a good way to bite off more than you can chew or find yourself caught off guard and killed.

Agreed with all these points (with the addendum that, of course, “Lawful” doesn’t always literally mean a specific legal system per se).


Honestly, I don't think these are great examples:

A law which forces you to marry against your will is clearly an Evil law (bringing harm to the victim for someone else's gain, if any), and the Paladin should not be enforcing it....

Agreed that the examples aren’t necessarily the best, but not so much that they are wrong but debatable. The whole “noble having to be married against will” is practically a trope of pseudo-medieval nobility, and while it certainly can be Evil (“bwu-ha-ha-HAAAH once I marry into the Goldmark house the family fortune can fund my world-conquering necromancy!!!”), it could just as easily be a straight-up Lawful societal tradition (“look, we know you don’t want to do this now, but both our families have agreed: it’s the way things have always been done and it will be what’s best for the kingdom.”)

I’m certainly not on side with forced marriages, but it’s not that hard to imagine a context in-world in which “a greater good” is cited as a reason for them over “personal gain.” It’s the kind of situation in which an LG type could be reasonably conflicted between Law (respect for tradition, benefit to the social system) and Good (love, happiness).


A "CG" character who kills people for harassment was clearly mislabeled, and the father sending "his LG fighter" would also be a "vigilante" action unless there are laws being followed.

More inclined to agree here, depending on the form of the “harrassment”; if it constituted a credible threat of harm to the girl, for instance, then depending on the situation lethal force might be justifiable to a CG type (especially in a D&D world where violence is a common form of conflict resolution).

A father seeking justice for an apparent murder would certainly be LG; depending on the laws of the setting, it’s very likely that a noble may have jurisdiction over murders that take place in his domain (and thus be able to dispatch one of his knights/retainers to bring in the accused murderer).


Unless that wizard is in law enforcement they don't have the right to "arrest" anyone, nor are they forced to report anything, because you can be lawful without being a robot- this one works, but only if the wizard is specifically law enforcement.

Agreed, depending on guild law and the setting, that a LG wizard guildmember probably wouldn’t be arresting anyone per se, but while LG doesn’t mean “robot,” a LG guildmember who willingly signed up for, and believes in, the terms of the guild would be very likely to report (potentially dangerous) magical offenses to the guild and/or law enforcement.

[Fizban]

1: Yeah, those laws existed for a LONG time in the real world, and still do in many many places. As head of the household, a father has the legal right to choose his daughter's bride in many areas of the time period that D&D deals with. To call it evil is to call nearly all societies that are not modern western civilization evil. Doubt most of the world will agree with you on this.
So, you literally just admitted that dnd 3.5 Good is based on a specific mode of thought that most of the world disagrees with. And then you say that the rest of the world which doesn't agree with that is what actually decides the meaning of Good in dnd. That's an oxymoron, a statement which contradicts itself.

The rest is just expanding on the situations given, as I said was neccesary to fix them. Framing people is one of the contrived situations I spoke of.


it could just as easily be a straight-up Lawful societal tradition (“look, we know you don’t want to do this now, but both our families have agreed: it’s the way things have always been done and it will be what’s best for the kingdom.”)
Nope, that's a Lawful Evil tradition. Unless the idea of marriage in this situation is more "roommate with no other restrictions or expectations" and your marriage ceremonies and rituals don't include any sort of physical confirmation (kiss the bride, the "marriage night," etc). Calthropstu wants to bring up ancient marriages? Where defiance carried physical punishment or even death penalties? Yup, forced marriages are Evil, and doing them because tradition dictates is Lawful Evil. You can make them less Evil, but in the end no matter what you pretend, taking away someone's freedom to choose their partner is some degree of Evil, and forcing them to closely associate with someone they don't want to is also Evil. Those are root choices regarding happiness that everyone gets to make.

You can have a non-Evil forced "marriage" if the parties are allowed full freedom to ignore their "spouse." You can have a story about nobles with non-Evil arranged marriages where they're married on paper but only have to meet for official business and otherwise spend their entire lives raising families with concubines/whatever a male concubine is, and/or being allowed to marry multiple people. And I'm pretty sure there are plenty of cases of that in history. But the example of a girl running away to avoid the forced marriage rather strongly implies this is not the type of marriage being suggested.

More inclined to agree here, depending on the form of the “harrassment”; if it constituted a credible threat of harm to the girl, for instance, then depending on the situation lethal force might be justifiable to a CG type (especially in a D&D world where violence is a common form of conflict resolution).
Harrassment is a pretty hard term to pin down even today, and when applied to a fantasy game situation it's even more vague. I can only assume that the word is used to indicate the lack of a a clear immediate danger. How much of what is harassment and how harshly it should be dealt with are indeed up to the viewer, but using the term "harassing" instead of "assaulting" is what makes the difference in immediate response. You could easily have a society where that behavior is against the law and carries the death penalty, enforceable by anyone, and so the "CG" character would be acting Lawfully. Though that law would be far too intolerant of the range of humanity to be a Good one, and it's abusability would almost certainly make it of Evil intent.

[Mordaedil]

While I can't go into specifics, it's a lot like a political debate, but I think maybe for sake of clarification that using the two largest parties in the US as an example is a poor representation of what Law vs Chaos is like.

It might be more helpful to look at how they operate internally and where they disagree inside the parties. Or use a foreign nation with multiple parties representing the public as an example. Lots of viewpoints, a lot of ways to cut one cake it turns out. Thus chaotic good and lawful good may disagree and fight. Especially if it is something that is very particularly relevant to them as people.

The others here also have some valid viewpoints on things.

[Eldan]

They do have sort of cold wars in the canon. And there are good factions who get involved in the Blood War.

[DeadLight63]

Yes, but only in specific circumstances. In most cases, the fact that they both care about the good of people and benefiting as many people as possible, this will likely lead to them having discussions, disagreements, and bickers more that actual fights.

One case where they might fight is this;

A king discovers that numerous graves have been desecrated, with dead bodies being removed and the graves themselves left in ruin. Outraged, the king commissions a Knight of the Holy Church (Think Lawful Good Oath of Devotion Paladin) to track down and arrest the grave robber.

A week of investigation later, the Knight tracks down various leads and discovers the bodies weren’t stolen, they were reanimated as zombies by a necromancer. Outraged, the Knight tracks the movements of the necromancer, and after many days, discovers his headquarters. The necromancer is there, but demands the Knight listen to him for a moment. The Knight, angry as he is, obliges.

The wizard reveals that slavers have been raiding the countryside of the kingdom for months now, a fact the Knight knows to be true. The wizard knows that no one will believe his intentions to help, as he is a necromancer. So as to not waste his time, he has raised an army of the dead, so as to attack the slavers. He sees this as a better option that recruiting young men, as if they die, their families will mourn, while the dead are already deceased.

The Knight, now more understanding of the Wizard’s intentions, still informs the Wizard he is under arrest for his gross mistreatment of the dead, and for that is his purpose in being here. The wizard begs the Knight to leave him be, as he is not going to harm innocent people with his dead, but the Knight reveal that he has already promised the king and the church that he would bring him back. Realizing compromise isn’t possible, both parties lament that there is no other way to solve this, and battle.

Other than really specific situations like this, I don’t see them fighting per se, just disagreeing and being aggravated with each other from time to time.

[Calthropstu]

Yes, but only in specific circumstances. In most cases, the fact that they both care about the good of people and benefiting as many people as possible, this will likely lead to them having discussions, disagreements, and bickers more that actual fights.

One case where they might fight is this;

A king discovers that numerous graves have been desecrated, with dead bodies being removed and the graves themselves left in ruin. Outraged, the king commissions a Knight of the Holy Church (Think Lawful Good Oath of Devotion Paladin) to track down and arrest the grave robber.

A week of investigation later, the Knight tracks down various leads and discovers the bodies weren’t stolen, they were reanimated as zombies by a necromancer. Outraged, the Knight tracks the movements of the necromancer, and after many days, discovers his headquarters. The necromancer is there, but demands the Knight listen to him for a moment. The Knight, angry as he is, obliges.

The wizard reveals that slavers have been raiding the countryside of the kingdom for months now, a fact the Knight knows to be true. The wizard knows that no one will believe his intentions to help, as he is a necromancer. So as to not waste his time, he has raised an army of the dead, so as to attack the slavers. He sees this as a better option that recruiting young men, as if they die, their families will mourn, while the dead are already deceased.

The Knight, now more understanding of the Wizard’s intentions, still informs the Wizard he is under arrest for his gross mistreatment of the dead, and for that is his purpose in being here. The wizard begs the Knight to leave him be, as he is not going to harm innocent people with his dead, but the Knight reveal that he has already promised the king and the church that he would bring him back. Realizing compromise isn’t possible, both parties lament that there is no other way to solve this, and battle.

Other than really specific situations like this, I don’t see them fighting per se, just disagreeing and being aggravated with each other from time to time.

I cast control undead on the revived thread. Make a save dc 24.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Thread necromancy is disfavored here.