Playing an all Lawful Good party

[CTurbo]

Has anybody taken part in an all LG party? How do you think that would play out? It actually kinda sounds fun to try. It's not like everybody has to play Paladins.

[MoiMagnus]

The most important thing is probably to agree on "what mean LG".

And it should probably include that "a LG character may not be LG in every situation". Peoples don't split themselves between "always good", "always bad", and "mostly neutral". Even good peoples can be truly evil in some circumstance (like vengeance), as long at it is consistent with the character, and that those circumstances remain rare (double standards and cognitive dissonance are a thing too). Same for Lawful.

[KorvinStarmast]

Has anybody taken part in an all LG party? How do you think that would play out? It actually kinda sounds fun to try. It's not like everybody has to play Paladins.
Fits the trope and the intent of most published adventures for 5e to date.

[Chronos]

Are you envisioning the DM saying "OK, everyone, roll up a Lawful Good character for the next campaign", or everyone just picking what they want to play, and everyone happening to all choose LG? If everyone is "supposed to be" the same alignment, then you're going to get disputes about what that alignment means, and so-and-so isn't acting like he should, and so on. But if it's just what everyone happens to choose, then it won't matter, because someone who thinks that someone else isn't actually LG might just think that they're CG or LN or whatever, and it's no more drama than you'd normally get in a mixed-alignment party (and probably a lot less, since probably everyone is going to agree to at least some degree of approximation).

[SkipSandwich]

I can see it now, the PC are agents of the crown who basicly act as fantasy CIA, however before the campaign each PC is pulled aside privately and told that a member of the party is suspected of being a spy and thier job is to figure out who before the end of the adventure or else they will simply arrest the entire party.

TWIST! ALL of the PCs are spies for different factions merely pretending to be LG agents. Now they have to figure out how to frame the others for thier own spying.

DOUBLE TWIST: The Kingdom is secretly evil and the PCs really *are* LG agents pretending to be Evil pretending to be Good sent independantly from neighboring kingdoms to infiltrate and disrupt said evil schemes from the inside.

[noob]

First step: Make an all lawful good party.
Step 2: solve all the problems you meet.
Step 3: people likes you.
Step 4: be remembered forever as heroes.
Step 5: realize it is only within a game and sadly not in real life...

[Orc_Lord]

All LG can be fun.

Having one be LE in secret is even better.

[Mercurias]

All LG can be fun.

Having one be LE in secret is even better.

I like how this person thinks.

As an all LG party, if I were the DM then I'd probably throw circumstances at the party that challenge their alignments all the time, and occasionally not give them an easy out where they can walk away feeling good about themselves if they're clever. I'd also give them plenty of other things to do that make them feel like righteous heroes to offset that.

[noob]

I like how this person thinks.

As an all LG party, if I were the DM then I'd probably throw circumstances at the party that challenge their alignments all the time, and occasionally not give them an easy out where they can walk away feeling good about themselves if they're clever. I'd also give them plenty of other things to do that make them feel like righteous heroes to offset that.

that is wrong.
would you do that to a normal mixed alignment party with half of the players being ce and the other half being ng?
nope.
I think you should throw stuff that challenge their alignment only sometimes and not all the time.
And if they are the kind of people who goes there to feel they are doing virtual good maybe they does not want situations which can not be fixed by being sufficiently ready for martyrdom and compassion.

[Malifice]

that is wrong.

No, its not.

Providing your players a chance to roleplay their alignment or personality or bonds/ flaws/ ideals etc is not 'wrong' in and of itself. It can be quite rewarding.

Doing it all the time to railroad them is a jerk move.

Know where the line is.

[noob]

No, its not.

Providing your players a chance to roleplay their alignment or personality or bonds/ flaws/ ideals etc is not 'wrong' in and of itself. It can be quite rewarding.

Doing it all the time to railroad them is a jerk move.

Know where the line is.

read my above post.
I said it was wrong to do it all the time because the poster to which I replied used the term all the time
Also you can prove your lawful goodness without situations where all the outcomes are evil I can give one example:
A village is attacked by thousands of demons.
Do you A: flee
B: let the peasant flee and warn the rest of the country while distracting the demons and die.

[Hail Tempus]

I like how this person thinks.

As an all LG party, if I were the DM then I'd probably throw circumstances at the party that challenge their alignments all the time, and occasionally not give them an easy out where they can walk away feeling good about themselves if they're clever. I'd also give them plenty of other things to do that make them feel like righteous heroes to offset that. I'd caution you to avoid putting the party in a "no-win" situation for a group of good-aligned PC's. It's okay to make the "good" choice be more difficult than the non-good option, but forcing a group of good-aligned PC's to choose from the lesser of two evils is a bit of a jerk move, and will just serve to discourage them from playing their alignments.

[KorvinStarmast]

As an all LG party, if I were the DM then I'd probably throw circumstances at the party that challenge their alignments all the time, and occasionally not give them an easy out where they can walk away feeling good about themselves if they're clever. I'd also give them plenty of other things to do that make them feel like righteous heroes to offset that. The Gotcha DM is alive and well, 40+ years into the hobby ... whatever works at your table. Ah, sorry, looks like Malifice already covered this.

[Particle_Man]

I would love to try it out. The chance of this happening at my table is low, but I can dream.

[ImproperJustice]

Sure.
We play one every Saturday and it’s awesome.

We protect the weak, save the innocent, and smite the wicked. It’s awesome.

Yes, our GM has thrown us some moral quandries. We have had to walk away from epic treasure, bonus xp, and in some cases seen heroes sacrifice themselves for the sake of others.
It’s all in good fun, and we like it.

[Talyn]

Moral quandaries are fine in an all LG party - but it's more fun to have the quandaries be between two different types of Lawful Good. For example: does the honorable samurai engage his vile foe in a duel, once challenged? On the one hand, it's obviously a trap. His duty to his lord is to protect his lord's interests to the best of his ability. On the other hand, his personal honor demands that he not back down from a properly issued challenge.

Both accepting and turning down the challenge are both 'lawful good,' but for different reasons. The party might disagree as to which way to go, but neither option is more LG than the other.

[Porcupinata]

We don't use alignment, but my group tend to play characters who would be considered lawful good if we did use it. We just prefer being heroes to being jerks, I guess.

I find that everyone has more fun if I enable heroics by putting them in situations where they can be good, rather than "testing" them by putting them in no-win situations where they have to choose the lesser evil.

[Spore]

All LG without moral challenges is pretty boring to me.

Have them encounter problems that either allow lawful OR good behaviour. If they find a solution that allows for both.

But LG is not cut and dry. A lawful good Paladin of the Crown is bound to valor and the say of his king, even if he commands to cut down a forest the kingdom needs to provide for its inhabitants. A lawful good ranger - bound to his own morality of protecting his forest - meanwhile can even be the "villain" in the campaign of the paladin.

[LibraryOgre]

I think having the occasional challenge to morals and ethics should be part of gaming... but I also think they would be more common in mixed parties, than in homogeneous parties.

In a mixed party (say, you have a LG, NG, CG, LN, N, and LE), you're always going to be challenging someone's morals or ethics, but often with the choices of another player about the situation in which you find yourself. In a more homogeneous party, you're going to have less challenges, because people will largely be on the same page, more often.

In a mixed group, encountering something like the abandoned goblin whelps can be a fair amount of discussion... save them, mercy kill them, sell them into slavery, what have you. In a more homogeneous group, some of those options go away, and others become questions of "Well, what IS the moral choice"? The existence of skills that consider alignments and the planes implies, to me, that there's going to be a body of existing discussion about this, even if there's no consensus. What do the religions of the world say about the innate evil of goblin whelps? Of black dragon hatchlings? Of wolf pups? I refuse to believe that there are several thousand years of culture, including direct communion with a variety of entities more or less made out of ethics and morals, and no one has put these ideas to the test... but the DM also has to be the arbiter of what these discussions, hundreds or thousands of years ago, or last week, decided, since the PCs almost certainly were not there.

So, if you've got an all LG party, consider what Lawful and Good mean, especially in any situation that you specifically put to them to test their character's devotion to those ideals. Because if you don't know, they don't know.