Good Dragon Deities Argument

[Bartmanhomer]

Ok let just say two good dragon deities siblings Bamamut and Hlal always get along with each other just like any brother and sister do. However one day both siblings were having a conversation with each other and seem to be a disagreement with their ethical viewpoint. (Bamamut believes in Lawful Good and his sister Hlal believes in Chaotic Good) as both deities start an argument and cause a war with each other despite both siblings are good with different ethical viewpoints. So how will the Bamamut and Hlal worshippers handled their relationship and dogma with each other?

[Karl Aegis]

They kill each other and loot their homes like everyone else. Dragon cults aren't much different than normal cults with dragons.

[torrasque666]

They kill each other and loot their homes like everyone else. Dragon cults aren't much different than normal cults with dragons.
That tends to be Evil cults though. Or Neutral at worst. Good cults aren't likely to do that to other Good people.

[Kayblis]

People seem to think the Good/Evil axis is much more important than the Lawful/Chaotic one, when they're supposed to be equally as defining. See for example Demons and Devils, both are evil and are very very different from eachother, Devils being Lawful and having an organized society caste system while Demons being much more openly disrespectful with one another's property and territory. They fight an eternal war in the lower planes mostly because of this difference.

I do believe Good entities would solve this in a much less violent way, probably by agreeing to not encroach on eachother's territory and fighting indirectly through representatives. Chaotic side would be the one pushing the dirty tactics, while Lawful would sometimes declare that specific issues should be solved with a honored duel and the winner has the final say in the issue at hand. They'd have the advantage of organization and loyalty, being able to conscribe a generally stronger representative to back their challenge.

But yeah, the Dragon part hardly changes that. The only relevant factor is that you have very old and intelligent participants on both sides. The power disparity between the sects and Demons/Devils is not too big, if nothing else it's harder to gain favor with dragons because they can't be summoned or bribed with souls. Both being good, they'd probably be a net gain for whatever region they compete in.

[Crake]

Chaotic side would be the one pushing the dirty tactics

Dirty tricks are decidedly Not Good™ and aren't indicative of chaos any more than sneak attacking is (which is to say, it's not indicative of chaos at all).

[Hackulator]

Dirty tricks are decidedly Not Good™ and aren't indicative of chaos any more than sneak attacking is (which is to say, it's not indicative of chaos at all).

Could you give some examples of "dirty tricks" you would consider explicitly not good?

[Kayblis]

Dirty tricks are decidedly Not Good™ and aren't indicative of chaos any more than sneak attacking is (which is to say, it's not indicative of chaos at all).

Dirty tricks come from all places. Ignoring a non-interference pact and going around spreading the word of Hlal in Bahamut territory is not an evil act, it's a notoriously chaotic one with clear intent of not following the rules agreed upon by both parties. A more evil-inclined dirty trick would be a smear campaign against Bahamut's cult, spreading lies and hate against its followers, which I agree doesn't fit either deity's agenda. Not all dirty tricks are evil by nature.

[Crake]

Dirty tricks come from all places. Ignoring a non-interference pact and going around spreading the word of Hlal in Bahamut territory is not an evil act, it's a notoriously chaotic one with clear intent of not following the rules agreed upon by both parties. A more evil-inclined dirty trick would be a smear campaign against Bahamut's cult, spreading lies and hate against its followers, which I agree doesn't fit either deity's agenda. Not all dirty tricks are evil by nature.

I didn't say dirty tricks were necessarily evil, just that they were not good. I also wouldn't necessarily call ignoring a non-interference pact a dirty trick, unless you actually agreed to it. But then, I don't believe a chaotic good person would agree to something he doesn't intend to uphold.


Could you give some examples of "dirty tricks" you would consider explicitly not good?

Could you give me an example of a dirty trick that is good?

To me dirty tricks are things like lies, manipulation, deciet, misdirection, all things that both lawful AND chaotic people would employ, but none are things good people would employ. Maybe we're just on different pages as to what a "dirty trick" is.

[liquidformat]

Dirty tricks come from all places. Ignoring a non-interference pact and going around spreading the word of Hlal in Bahamut territory is not an evil act, it's a notoriously chaotic one with clear intent of not following the rules agreed upon by both parties. A more evil-inclined dirty trick would be a smear campaign against Bahamut's cult, spreading lies and hate against its followers, which I agree doesn't fit either deity's agenda. Not all dirty tricks are evil by nature.

Part of the problem with the alignment system that this thread is highlighting is that it can be hard to distinguish between evil and chaos. For example you are stating that lying is an evil act, however, lying is a fluid act that depending on intent can vary greatly in alignment and would often fall under chaotic or maybe even neutral.

I didn't say dirty tricks were necessarily evil, just that they were not good. I also wouldn't necessarily call ignoring a non-interference pact a dirty trick, unless you actually agreed to it. But then, I don't believe a chaotic good person would agree to something he doesn't intend to uphold.



Could you give me an example of a dirty trick that is good?

To me dirty tricks are things like lies, manipulation, deciet, misdirection, all things that both lawful AND chaotic people would employ, but none are things good people would employ. Maybe we're just on different pages as to what a "dirty trick" is.
Lies, deceit, and misdirection have nothing to do with the good/evil spectrum inside themselves. For example an evil tyrannical organization is trying to find a set group of people to send to a concentration camp, a good person uses lies, deceit, and misdirection to hide said group of people from the evil tyrant organization. Is the good person any less good because they employed Lies, deceit, and misdirection to save people?

[denthor]

Lawful vs. Chaotic is a lifestyle choice.

Lawful say get it done no stopping. Let nothing stand in your way. Good part says be nice and allow for mercy.

Chaotic say take time off recollect your thoughts, level up, go on this side quest, the end of the matter is what's important. Good part says allow for mercy, oppose total oppression. Liberate the unhappy.

[SquidFighter]

It seems to me that a war between LG and CG clergies would take the form of a result-oriented competition. They would try and convert the most people (dragons ?) that their way of promoting Goodness is the only actual viable way.

In the most extreme situation, they would go so far as to accuse the opposite clergy of permitting Evil by the faults of their organisations. Lawful governments permitting tyranny and excess throught centralized power, Chaotic societies permitting anarchy and vice through unabated personnal freedom. They would then try to purge the other clergy of the Evil they harbour, by throwing the baby with the water, so to speak.

[doctor doughnut]

A good war would be a lot like a sports event. Though it would be very rare for good folks to ever get into a war with each other.

[Buufreak]

... always get along with each other just like any brother and sister do.

Your logic is already faulty from the start. I have literally put a knife through my brother's hand just because he tried to touch the food on my plate. Siblings don't always naturally get along. Sometimes based on beliefs, standards, upbringing, as well as any infinite number of things, there is no hope of them ever getting along. Case in point, which you seem to be entirely overlooking, is Bahamut and his sister Tiamat.

[Bartmanhomer]

Your logic is already faulty from the start. I have literally put a knife through my brother's hand just because he tried to touch the food on my plate. Siblings don't always naturally get along. Sometimes based on beliefs, standards, upbringing, as well as an infinite number of things, there is no hope of them ever getting along. Case in point, which you seem to be entirely overlooking, is Bahamut and his sister Tiamat.

I understand that and brother and sisters argue and get into conflict.

[liquidformat]

Lawful vs. Chaotic is a lifestyle choice.

Lawful say get it done no stopping. Let nothing stand in your way. Good part says be nice and allow for mercy.

Chaotic say take time off recollect your thoughts, level up, go on this side quest, the end of the matter is what's important. Good part says allow for mercy, oppose total oppression. Liberate the unhappy.

Wait what? A lawful person can be lazy just as a chaotic person can be driven. Being lazy or driven really shouldn't fall into the Law/chaos spectrum, maybe into the good/evil spectrum but that too is questionable.

Lawful isn't about 'get it done no stopping and let nothing stand in your way'. That second part particularly sounds like a better fit to chaotic or maybe evil in fact. Lawful is about following rules, having a code which you live your life by and upholding laws.

Chaotic on the other hand is about doing what you want the rules be damned. Ayn Rand is actually a decent philosopher to look at to figure out what CG would be, there is a quote by her that goes something like, if it feels good and you aren't hurting anyone then it is morally right. That is in my opinion a great description of the CG alignment. Granted I think Objectivism might fall slightly more into NG than CG it is a pretty good baseline for CG.

Going based on that an argument between Bamamut and Hlal could spring up from the idea of putting the good of everyone above the good of the individual as chaos, imo, is inherently selfish.

Also I am not convinced that good beings wouldn't go to war against each other. That idea just rubs me the wrong way. Sure it wouldn't be as underhanded and cruel as war traditionally is but there could still be war. Most likely war would only be between those deemed as soldiers or combatants and might even have a designated location, time, place, and rules for winning; however, CG being chaotic would most likely go around the rules of designated location, time, and place in order to achieve victory.

[KillianHawkeye]

However one day both siblings were having a conversation with each other and seem to be a disagreement with their ethical viewpoint. (Bamamut believes in Lawful Good and his sister Hlal believes in Chaotic Good) as both deities start an argument and cause a war with each other despite both siblings are good with different ethical viewpoints.

Wait... what? :smallconfused:

When did a disagreeable conversation become a war? I think you skipped about a dozen steps in the middle there.



I have a perfect example of why this wouldn't happen in the first place: the Blood War.

For anyone who might not know, whenever the grand cosmic battle between Good and Evil is on pause or just having a slow day, the forces of Evil have this side thing going where the Lawful devils and the Chaotic demons fight against each other over their differences in ethical viewpoints. That's the Blood War.

Do you know what the forces of Good do on their days off? Something else. Yeah, they generally get along and don't wage stupid wars against one another, because even though they don't always agree, they're still allies. Crazy, right?

So yeah, there is no war going between Hlal and Bahamut, because they're smarter than that. They know that no matter how much Hlal goes rogue or how much Bahamut chafes Hlal's britches, they still gotta be cool or Tiamat wins.

[Segev]

Where you're actually going to see it potentially come to violence is when dearly-held beliefs and principles of the two sides come into conflict, and can be seen to be causing harm to people.

Lawful Good will always strive to ensure its laws are fair and just, and that no unintended consequences adversely affect those who do not deserve them. This doesn't preclude death penalties or other harsh punishments, but they will be reserved for the worst cases. Just as some sacrifices of individual good must be made to preserve order, however, Lawful Good will sometimes sacrifice or bend the rules of law in the face of gross wrongs and in the name of goodness. Lawful Good is not Lawful Neutral, and can see its way to bending or even flauting the law in important enough circumstnaces. (It also is not Neutral Good, and can accept that occasionally some minor evils will slip through in preserving the rule of law.)

Chaotic Good will always value individual freedom tempered by kindness and empathy towards others. It will strive to see to it that everybody's free to pursue their own aims, while strongly discouraging those whose aims are malign from pursuing them anywhere near the good and innocent. They thus will sacrifice some value of free choice for the greater good, and will constrain even their own selfish free choices a bit to ensure they aren't interfering unduly with others' free choices. But by the same token, they will not allow just anybody's good and needs always trump their own. They are not Neutral Good, and will sometimes allow a bit of wickeness to befall people in the name of preserving their own and others' rights to make their own choices.

LG and CG agree on the moral axis. They agree that sacrifices should be made to help others. That they should care about others, that they should love and respect people and want them to be happy. Whenever either sacrifices their ethics for their morals, they will nod and say, "Good." Where they become horrified at each other is when they sacrifice their morals for their ethics.

An LG person will occasionally allow innocents to be wronged in the name of preserving the system, because the system, to the LG person, is as good as it can get or is being fixed and is worth preserving. The precedent of violating it is not worth it, here; the harm too small or the system too important. It pains him to know that this fee or fine is unjust, or that the widow is losing her home because some ne're-do-well perfectly legally played the system to take it from her, but he also knows that breaking the rules here opens the door to others who would claim moral right to break the rules for their own selfish benefit. Rules which are there to protect innocents just like the widow from worse and easier depredations. The LG person would likely want to help her as much as he can within the law, possibly giving of himself, but there are things he just can't restore, such as the home she lived with her husband in for most of her life. He can make sure she has a home, a roof and even act as her friend, but he can't give her THAT house and its sentimental meaning.

The CG person is horrified that the LG person would permit such an evil to befall her. It's clear to both of them that the ne're-do-well abused that system, but where the LG person reluctantly acknowledges that he is exploiting very important rules that should not be broken, the CG person rejects those rules entirely because each case is to be judged individually, and the ne're-do-well is clearly abusing it. The CG individual would don his Robin Hood garb and go to war (or at least vigilantism) for the widow, punishing the ne'er-do-well in ways that, if similar justifications were used by less moral people, would be termed "banditry."

The CG person will occasionally grant that it is better to allow people to handle their own justice than it is to enforce strict rules about who can and cannot punish wrongdoing and enforce redress. Even though this can be abused, and those seeking vengeance can make mistakes, it is better to let the resolution happen within the group of people involved than to enforce some external procedure which might enable systematic abuse. The CG person is, of course, saddened when he realizes that his fellows lynched an innocent man, mistakenly believing him to be the Kingpin of the local crime mob, and will even admonish them to be more careful, but he isn't going to declare what they did to be worthy of punishment unless they were grossly negligent and demonstrated moral failing as well as lack of orderly rigor in their determinations.

The LG person is horrified that the CG society permits this kind of lawlessness. Laws are there exactly to prevent that kind of injustice, to protect the innocent from mob rule. The LG individual may even feel obligated to crusade to enforce some sort of order to protect the innocent from such vigilante "justice" that makes so many mistakes.

Two cultures - perhaps religions - who share moral good may still view the other as morally deficient because they make sacrifices in the name of an ethical system that is monstrously wrong from their own perspective. Neither side is liable to engage in torture of POWs, nor to revel in death, pillage, and rape, and both are likely to strongly discourage/harshly punish needless violence (especially rape). But war is war, and they will kill. They will do terrible things to each other. All in the name of protecting their own people or even the people of the other side from what they perceive as a corrupt leadership who are doing more harm than good due to their lack of suitable ethics and the ways they permit morals to slide in the name of their abhorrent philosophies.

[D+1]

(Bamamut believes in Lawful Good and his sister Hlal believes in Chaotic Good) as both deities start an argument and cause a war with each other despite both siblings are good with different ethical viewpoints.I reject the premise. Any version of alignments worth playing will not have those two alignments at war over their doctrinal differences. If they do then I do not understand your interpretations of alignment and only the creator of such a system/interpretations could begin to answer.

[ezekielraiden]

Count me also as skeptical about the premise. If two otherwise peaceable beings get into an argument, one of them resorting to violence in order to resolve it means that one has committed an evil act. Therefore, the premise is broken; the two gods cannot each be equally Good and equally advocate violence to resolve this conflict of beliefs.

An inherent part of Good is respect for other beings, a belief in the genuine, irreplaceable value of other living things. To make war so that the correctness of your own cause will be revealed or established logically contradicts this respect. Whether you believe a systematic approach or a case-by-case basis approach is correct, neither side can say the approach is more important than the beings whose value that approach strives to protect, without becoming irreconcilably self-inconsistent.

Even if Bahamut and Hlal openly quarrelled on something, I cannot see any reason that either one of them would EVER say, "Now their followers must DIE to prove them wrong!" There is no compassion in that. No joy, no justice, no humor, no hope, no pleasure, no kindness. There is only malice--and neither of these gods is malicious. You have either stopped talking about the same "Bahamut" and "Hlal" as me (that is, one or both of the gods *you* speak of must be non-good), or you have described a situation that cannot happen, a contradiction hidden behind verbiage (like a three-sided euclidean square or a euclidean Platonic solid with exactly 7 faces.)

[Bartmanhomer]

I didn't put too much thought about this topic. :frown:

[ezekielraiden]

I didn't put too much thought about this topic. :frown:

That's alright. You wondered how an interaction would work, and threw it out for others to consider. That your brain could not do what a dozen brains all communicating with each other could do over a much longer span of time? Not a bad reflection on you.

However, I do think that it's possible for a more clearly separate kind of thing to happen. For example, let's say we take Bahamut, LG and pretty serious about it, and (I'll make up a god) Korath, CN goddess of nature, storms, and the sea. Korath doesn't hate anybody, but she violently resists being "chained" in any way. Including, say, anyone making sailing ships; she will not be "bridled" like a horse.

That's...kind of a problem. I could very easily see Bahamut approaching her with an interest in finding a peaceable resolution--e.g. "respect the sea, pay homage to her whose domain you tread," etc. And she'd have none of it, accusing him of being just as much an oppressor as Bane or Asmodeus. And that could easily be a final straw for Bahamut: when a being is so hateful of ANY form of behavioral or physical restriction that it asserts that tyranny and justice are really the same thing, there will be no middle ground, no agreement. Her selfish freedom, at the cost of ANY good to ANY other being EVER, is not acceptable, and if she lashes out at his subjects, he will respond in kind to protect them (as any good god of Protection should). He's not trying to dominate or enslave--just carve out enough of an exception for people to, y'know, be able to live near the sea, and her reaction is a violent "NO." Can't do much about that!

[Bartmanhomer]

That's alright. You wondered how the interaction would work, and threw it out for others to consider. That your brain could not do what a dozen brains all communicating with each other could do over a much longer span of time? Not a bad reflection on you.

However, I do think that it's possible for a more clearly separate kind of thing to happen. For example, let's say we take Bahamut, LG and pretty serious about it, and (I'll make up a god) Korath, CN goddess of nature, storms, and the sea. Korath doesn't hate anybody, but she violently resists being "chained" in any way. Including, say, anyone making sailing ships; she will not be "bridled" like a horse.

That's...kind of a problem. I could very easily see Bahamut approaching her with an interest in finding a peaceable resolution--e.g. "respect the sea, pay homage to her whose domain you tread," etc. And she'd have none of it, accusing him of being just as much an oppressor as Bane or Asmodeus. And that could easily be a final straw for Bahamut: when a being is so hateful of ANY form of behavioural or physical restriction that it asserts that tyranny and justice are really the same things, there will be no middle ground, no agreement. Her selfish freedom, at the cost of ANY good to ANY other being EVER, is not acceptable, and if she lashes out at his subjects, he will respond in kind to protect them (as any good god of Protection should). He's not trying to dominate or enslave--just carve out enough of an exception for people to, y'know, be able to live near the sea, and her reaction is a violent "NO." Can't do much about that!
I could see the problem of the dichotomy between Bamamut and Korath.

[Psyren]

(Bamamut believes in Lawful Good and his sister Hlal believes in Chaotic Good) as both deities start an argument and cause a war with each other despite both siblings are good with different ethical viewpoints.

Bold is where your premise veers off the rails and into a canyon. LG and CG don't settle their differences that way, BoED makes this crystal clear.

[Bartmanhomer]

Bold is where your premise veers off the rails and into a canyon. LG and CG don't settle their differences that way, BoED makes this crystal clear.

Ok. A few people have pointed that out already. Thank you.

[Promethean]

A good war would be a lot like a sports event. Though it would be very rare for good folks to ever get into a war with each other.

Or it may just be a war. I don't understand the notion that the "Good" alignment isn't capable of causing bloody or horrible consequences, especially when "Good" is horribly defined.

I would go so far as to say that 2 Lawful Good faction can go to Horrible, Bloody war if they have to completely differing cultures that each condemn the every day actions of the other as a Crime. Take for example if a society that believes in preserving the dead to ensure they have an after-life meets a culture where ritual cannibalism was their form of ancestor worship(Before someone says, No this would Not auto-qualify as evil their are cultures Today that see this as respecting the dead)

[hamishspence]

Bold is where your premise veers off the rails and into a canyon. LG and CG don't settle their differences that way, BoED makes this crystal clear.

Yup. While it's possible for celestials to go to war with one another, this is inevitably traceable to some kind of corruption somewhere.

Good mortals are more likely to go to war with one another than good celestials - but war tends to corrupt - and it's difficult for such characters to stay good.

As Champions of Valor points out - tolerance is a key feature of Good - differing Good alignments need to "agree to disagree" if they wish to stay Good.

[Bartmanhomer]

Yup. While it's possible for celestials to go to war with one another, this is inevitably traceable to some kind of corruption somewhere.

Good mortals are more likely to go to war with one another than good celestials - but war tends to corrupt - and it's difficult for such characters to stay good.

As Champions of Valor points out - tolerance is a key feature of Good - differing Good alignments need to "agree to disagree" if they wish to stay Good.
Agree to disagree really sounds reasonable.

[Albions_Angel]

This has got me thinking. Regardless of whether the dragon gods fight eachother, what happens if a LG society and a CG society go to war with eachother in a high fantasy medieval analogue?

Both are good. Both will likely attempt diplomacy first, both before the first battle AND before every subsequent battle. Limiting death, especially if unnecessary, is a tenant I feel all good people uphold. So, LG would send envoys. CG might as well. The LG envoys might actually be slower off the mark, as the LG society spends time coming up with reasonable demands, concessions, etc. Chaos is impulsive. "Send the Envoys! We know what we want, and we know they are wrong. They will see sense". During negotiations, both sides are equally likely to cause the discussions to break down. Neither would want it, and both would try and prevent it, but it could happen. Chaos could ask too much, or refuse a concession out of hand. Lawful would be slower to react to changing circumstances, or to an offer they didnt expect, or might stick at red lines they decided before turning up, but might now be unreasonable.

If talks break down, formal war decorations from the Lawful side would likely be reciprocated. While not Chaotic, the Chaos side is still good, and its the right thing to do. A formal war puts rules and boundaries in place that, while lawful, protect innocent people.

When the fighting starts, both sides would likely attempt to find locations to fight away from population centres. Law takes the obvious path of finding open, if favourable, ground, and setting up a well defended camp. Think roman legions, or knights in armour in neat groups. Chaos would meet them there, likely fighting in small squads, where personal prowess is key. Think vikings. Yeah, they can field massive armies, and they have shield walls, but they are more ready to break ranks, and each person is well adapted to fighting solo. This could be a benefit, allowing Chaos to exploit weaknesses in the enemy lines as they appear, or a curse, as they fall to the well disciplined battle lines of Law.

Both sides would be aiming to kill, then capture, then wound. Wounding prolongs suffering, and can lead to horrible deaths. Even with magical healing, 10 clerics of level 5 or below are quickly going to run out of spells for 10,000 troops. Killing swiftly and decisively in battle is the most merciful way to fight (and thus the most Good) in large scale conflicts. Wounded troops on BOTH sides would be likely to surrender, as it takes them out of the battle, which ends it quicker, thus minimising potential loss of life. Both sides would treat POWs well. Lawful POWs would attempt ask for ransom, and would likely endure their imprisonment quietly. Im not saying they wont try and ORGANISE an escape if they get the chance, but they wont risk others if they dont have to. Chaos would be more, well, chaotic. They might sit and wait for ransom, or they might attempt small, localized break outs, seeking to rejoin their forces (remember, both are Good. They arnt about to turn their back on their cause). Doctors/Healers on both sides will treat anyone brought to them. Law likely has a well organised triage system. Chaos probably either treats people in the order they turn up, theorising that if its a small wound, it gets them over and done with, OR treats people on what, at first glance, seems worst, which likely leads to missing internal damage in favour of fixing stab wounds and broken limbs.

Both sides would seek to alter the battlefield to their advantage. Law would likely try and ensure some sort of funnel system, that directs the enemy into their front lines. Perhaps they would try and keep back routes clear so they can easily use cavalry to surround the enemy and call for their surrender. Chaos is still good, remember? But they will be more likely to use impulsive traps and ambushes. Short, sharp shock tactics, hard to predict, designed to inflict large scale losses and force a surrender. Or maybe they simply wont think to do that, favouring a full frontal all in assault.

Behind the scenes, both sides will engage in espionage. Still both good, so minimising civilian casualties. Law would be all in on the spying. Predict the unpredictable. Know Chaos's every move before they do. If you can send false messages, or intercept true ones, all the better. A few operations to capture/kidnap important players, or "encourage" trading nations to not trade could bring a swift end to the bloodshed. Chaos will be more heavy on sabotage. Supply lines, manufacturing, trade routes. Raids would be fine, if every opportunity was given for the people to surrender. Cause economic damage and Law will break down.

I think Chaos is more likely to start sieges of small towns, but Law has a better chance at taking Larger ones. Chaos would be too tempted to break off and go for an easy target. Or get bored and try to attack. That said, Law would sit outside, starving them out (but letting the people know that if they surrender, aid will be given), while I imagine there would be a LOT of nighttime raids by Chaos over (or under) the walls to try and shorten the siege.

When things start going bad... Im not sure what would happen. Chaos could impulsively give up, a snap decision to save their people. Law could make the decision to end the bloodshed in favour of peace. BUT, Law likely has a lot of alliances, and may decided that calling on the help of a less-than-good neighbour might be the swiftest, and least bloodfilled way to end the conflict. Chaos likely doesnt have many stable alliances. And I dont know if their impulsive nature would mean those they do have would be all good (reject, offhand, anyone that isnt, regardless of what they offer), or far more flat spectrum (this is the best alliance, right now, even if they are devil worshipers). Would they be willing to jump into bed with an evil nation just to end things? Who knows?

Wars are never good. Politics is never good. Wars and politics conducted by good people quickly become a series of choices that are defined by the lesser of many evils. People are going to die, the good path is to ask "how many are necessary, and how many will that save?" Both Law and Chaos ask this question. Law spends its time trying to find the ONE perfect answer. Chaos goes for the current nearest approximation, hoping it will home in on the right one some day.

At the end, its all likely to close the way it opened. With negotiations. If Chaos lost, their impulsiveness is likely tempered. They would agree to Laws demands quickly (though Law is still good, and wouldnt demand too much punishment). If Law lost, negotiations would probably go on for a while. They would want guarantees of aid and funds to rebuild. This might inflame Chaos, and tip them towards more punishment on the upper classes, perhaps even shifting a LG feudal or monarchical society towards a more democratic one? Who knows.

Anyway, this has been fun. That was my thoughts.

[Bartmanhomer]

This has got me thinking. Regardless of whether the dragon gods fight eachother, what happens if a LG society and a CG society go to war with eachother in a high fantasy medieval analogue?

Both are good. Both will likely attempt diplomacy first, both before the first battle AND before every subsequent battle. Limiting death, especially if unnecessary, is a tenant I feel all good people uphold. So, LG would send envoys. CG might as well. The LG envoys might actually be slower off the mark, as the LG society spends time coming up with reasonable demands, concessions, etc. Chaos is impulsive. "Send the Envoys! We know what we want, and we know they are wrong. They will see sense". During negotiations, both sides are equally likely to cause the discussions to break down. Neither would want it, and both would try and prevent it, but it could happen. Chaos could ask too much, or refuse a concession out of hand. Lawful would be slower to react to changing circumstances, or to an offer they didnt expect, or might stick at red lines they decided before turning up, but might now be unreasonable.

If talks break down, formal war decorations from the Lawful side would likely be reciprocated. While not Chaotic, the Chaos side is still good, and its the right thing to do. A formal war puts rules and boundaries in place that, while lawful, protect innocent people.

When the fighting starts, both sides would likely attempt to find locations to fight away from population centres. Law takes the obvious path of finding open, if favourable, ground, and setting up a well defended camp. Think roman legions, or knights in armour in neat groups. Chaos would meet them there, likely fighting in small squads, where personal prowess is key. Think vikings. Yeah, they can field massive armies, and they have shield walls, but they are more ready to break ranks, and each person is well adapted to fighting solo. This could be a benefit, allowing Chaos to exploit weaknesses in the enemy lines as they appear, or a curse, as they fall to the well disciplined battle lines of Law.

Both sides would be aiming to kill, then capture, then wound. Wounding prolongs suffering, and can lead to horrible deaths. Even with magical healing, 10 clerics of level 5 or below are quickly going to run out of spells for 10,000 troops. Killing swiftly and decisively in battle is the most merciful way to fight (and thus the most Good) in large scale conflicts. Wounded troops on BOTH sides would be likely to surrender, as it takes them out of the battle, which ends it quicker, thus minimising potential loss of life. Both sides would treat POWs well. Lawful POWs would attempt ask for ransom, and would likely endure their imprisonment quietly. Im not saying they wont try and ORGANISE an escape if they get the chance, but they wont risk others if they dont have to. Chaos would be more, well, chaotic. They might sit and wait for ransom, or they might attempt small, localized break outs, seeking to rejoin their forces (remember, both are Good. They arnt about to turn their back on their cause). Doctors/Healers on both sides will treat anyone brought to them. Law likely has a well organised triage system. Chaos probably either treats people in the order they turn up, theorising that if its a small wound, it gets them over and done with, OR treats people on what, at first glance, seems worst, which likely leads to missing internal damage in favour of fixing stab wounds and broken limbs.

Both sides would seek to alter the battlefield to their advantage. Law would likely try and ensure some sort of funnel system, that directs the enemy into their front lines. Perhaps they would try and keep back routes clear so they can easily use cavalry to surround the enemy and call for their surrender. Chaos is still good, remember? But they will be more likely to use impulsive traps and ambushes. Short, sharp shock tactics, hard to predict, designed to inflict large scale losses and force a surrender. Or maybe they simply wont think to do that, favouring a full frontal all in assault.

Behind the scenes, both sides will engage in espionage. Still both good, so minimising civilian casualties. Law would be all in on the spying. Predict the unpredictable. Know Chaos's every move before they do. If you can send false messages, or intercept true ones, all the better. A few operations to capture/kidnap important players, or "encourage" trading nations to not trade could bring a swift end to the bloodshed. Chaos will be more heavy on sabotage. Supply lines, manufacturing, trade routes. Raids would be fine, if every opportunity was given for the people to surrender. Cause economic damage and Law will break down.

I think Chaos is more likely to start sieges of small towns, but Law has a better chance at taking Larger ones. Chaos would be too tempted to break off and go for an easy target. Or get bored and try to attack. That said, Law would sit outside, starving them out (but letting the people know that if they surrender, aid will be given), while I imagine there would be a LOT of nighttime raids by Chaos over (or under) the walls to try and shorten the siege.

When things start going bad... Im not sure what would happen. Chaos could impulsively give up, a snap decision to save their people. Law could make the decision to end the bloodshed in favour of peace. BUT, Law likely has a lot of alliances, and may decided that calling on the help of a less-than-good neighbour might be the swiftest, and least bloodfilled way to end the conflict. Chaos likely doesnt have many stable alliances. And I dont know if their impulsive nature would mean those they do have would be all good (reject, offhand, anyone that isnt, regardless of what they offer), or far more flat spectrum (this is the best alliance, right now, even if they are devil worshipers). Would they be willing to jump into bed with an evil nation just to end things? Who knows?

Wars are never good. Politics is never good. Wars and politics conducted by good people quickly become a series of choices that are defined by the lesser of many evils. People are going to die, the good path is to ask "how many are necessary, and how many will that save?" Both Law and Chaos ask this question. Law spends its time trying to find the ONE perfect answer. Chaos goes for the current nearest approximation, hoping it will home in on the right one some day.

At the end, its all likely to close the way it opened. With negotiations. If Chaos lost, their impulsiveness is likely tempered. They would agree to Laws demands quickly (though Law is still good, and wouldnt demand too much punishment). If Law lost, negotiations would probably go on for a while. They would want guarantees of aid and funds to rebuild. This might inflame Chaos, and tip them towards more punishment on the upper classes, perhaps even shifting a LG feudal or monarchical society towards a more democratic one? Who knows.

Anyway, this has been fun. That was my thoughts.

Amazing input on that subject. :smile:

[Segev]

Yup. While it's possible for celestials to go to war with one another, this is inevitably traceable to some kind of corruption somewhere.Eh... "corruption" can be as simple as not being NG, really. By being LG, they already corrupt pure goodness with concessions to Law that might require a lack of mercy at times. By being CG, they corrupt pure goodness with concessions to individual freedom that might require a hands-off approach that may permit mistakes to be made in the name of avoiding too-rigid rules.


This has got me thinking. Regardless of whether the dragon gods fight eachother, what happens if a LG society and a CG society go to war with eachother in a high fantasy medieval analogue?

Some good insights here. I would add that CG warfighters will likely engage in deliberate abuse of the rules. Breaking the honor codes themselves where they can, seeing them as foolish, but deliberately exploiting them where they hinder the LG armies. The LG sorts will ramp up their own unifying propaganda to protect against potential sedition, but also will actively seek to deal with individual sub-commanders, sub-cultures, towns, etc. in the CG culture, sowing sedition and disunity and exploiting their individualistic streaks.

[Albions_Angel]

Some good insights here. I would add that CG warfighters will likely engage in deliberate abuse of the rules. Breaking the honor codes themselves where they can, seeing them as foolish, but deliberately exploiting them where they hinder the LG armies. The LG sorts will ramp up their own unifying propaganda to protect against potential sedition, but also will actively seek to deal with individual sub-commanders, sub-cultures, towns, etc. in the CG culture, sowing sedition and disunity and exploiting their individualistic streaks.

Absolutely. Though while Chaos would break honour codes, they wouldnt murder captives, or downed fighters. It would be more using flanking, ganging up on targets, seeking to frighten people into not fighting.

I think both sides would ambush the other if they could, but in very different ways. Law would seek to learn where armies are marching, and then would find very favourable terrain, hide, and spring out, shouting "Surrender, you are surrounded". Almost a louder version of the Elf ambush of the Fellowship in LotR. One minute Chaos are alone, the next, a well coordinated ambush has them totally pinned down without a shot being fired. Of course, chaos might feel the odds are in their favour, and might fight, but I dont think so very often. Too likely to lose a significant percentage of their troops. More needless death.

A Chaos ambush on the other hand would be more spur of the moment. Scouts return and, oh look, a column of Law is about to march through a forest. They hustle over, and cause trees to fall in front and behind, before springing out and engaging in combat (though, looking all the time for signs of surrender). Shock tactics again. Scare them into surrendering.

Chaos would see small armies regularly ambushed by overwhelming forces.

Law would see large armies SOMETIMES successfully ambushed, and REGULARLY harassed by much smaller forces.

[Segev]

Important to remember that Chaos isn't impulsive to the point of not being able to plan or adhere to a plan. It can be patient. Ambushes aren't particularly chaotic nor lawful, just good tactics.

While CG is unlikely to break agreements that actively keep civilians safe, they are more likely to break agreements that protect soldiers' lives (even their own side's) on the basis that soldiers are risking their lives in battle anyway; it's their job. CG won't torture any more than LG will. LG will generally have better cohesion in adhering to a grand plan, simply because CG are so individualistic, but CG will also tend to adapt better to changing circumstances, while LG might rigidly follow a plan that isn't quite so sensible anymore (barring the plan grossly turning Evil due to changes in circumstances).

[liquidformat]

Or it may just be a war. I don't understand the notion that the "Good" alignment isn't capable of causing bloody or horrible consequences, especially when "Good" is horribly defined.

I would go so far as to say that 2 Lawful Good faction can go to Horrible, Bloody war if they have to completely differing cultures that each condemn the every day actions of the other as a Crime. Take for example if a society that believes in preserving the dead to ensure they have an after-life meets a culture where ritual cannibalism was their form of ancestor worship(Before someone says, No this would Not auto-qualify as evil their are cultures Today that see this as respecting the dead)

BoVD defines cannibalism as an evil act much as BoED says good doesn't go to war with each other. So there is that...

Granted that always bugs me since as 'good' as good deities might be they always have a vested interest in obtaining more followers to become more powerful. As such the most likely reason for 'good' deities to go to war is poaching other good god's followers. Gathering followers is a paramount exercise for all gods/religions so it has always bugged me that it is more or less ignored. I guess this happens because 'good' gods shouldn't be greedy but wanting to increase your power can be construed as greedy.

[Psyren]

Eh... "corruption" can be as simple as not being NG, really. By being LG, they already corrupt pure goodness with concessions to Law that might require a lack of mercy at times. By being CG, they corrupt pure goodness with concessions to individual freedom that might require a hands-off approach that may permit mistakes to be made in the name of avoiding too-rigid rules.

Avoiding that possibility is why NG is so important to both of them. One thing that all three alignments have in common is that if the Rules result in innocent people getting hurt, they don't allow that to happen - LG will change them, while CG will ignore them, but either way the G is the most important part, and NG works to keep that at the forefront at all times.

The reason this works is that a Good legal system includes provisions for following the spirit of a law, not just its letter. This includes pardons, clemency, and sentencing guidelines. It also means evaluating intent and effort (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html) as components of alignment, not purely results.

[Segev]

Avoiding that possibility is why NG is so important to both of them. One thing that all three alignments have in common is that if the Rules result in innocent people getting hurt, they don't allow that to happen - LG will change them, while CG will ignore them, but either way the G is the most important part, and NG works to keep that at the forefront at all times.

The reason this works is that a Good legal system includes provisions for following the spirit of a law, not just its letter. This includes pardons, clemency, and sentencing guidelines. It also means evaluating intent and effort (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html) as components of alignment, not purely results.

Well, yes and no. LG will seek to change rules that regularly harm innocents, absolutely. But depending on how much L vs G they are, they will have varying thresholds for how much a given rule or law is allowed to cause individual or occasional harm in the name of the greater good it serves.

Just as CG may well refuse to accept rules which prevent it from quickly responding to what it perceives as wrongs, even if those rules often prevent wrongs stemming from deception or misunderstanding.

[Promethean]

BoVD defines cannibalism as an evil act much as BoED says good doesn't go to war with each other. So there is that...

Granted that always bugs me since as 'good' as good deities might be they always have a vested interest in obtaining more followers to become more powerful. As such the most likely reason for 'good' deities to go to war is poaching other good god's followers. Gathering followers is a paramount exercise for all gods/religions so it has always bugged me that it is more or less ignored. I guess this happens because 'good' gods shouldn't be greedy but wanting to increase your power can be construed as greedy.

I'm not sure deities even have to follow their own rules as far as they define "Good" and "Evil". There have been multiple instances of D&D gods just screwing over their populous for no reason other than "we're the god's, and thus better than you".

One example being the wall of the faithless, which is only there too keep gods in power. Despite what they might say, gods aren't necessary to keep a cosmology running or for magic to exist. See the history of the dark sun setting and the Serpent entry in Elder Evils, both show you don't even need gods to have Clerics, gods are thus literally metaphysical parasites that feed on faith only allowing the people they like to have the power they were Already Fully Capable Of.

See also The Durakistad Coin, where the gods got jealous of an awesome party city that wizards made. One of the nobles(in as city that was implied to have many) got a big head and told people he'd had out green cards to anyone that worshiped his noble house(in a city that was implied to have many). The gods got huffy Over One Noble and tried to send Deadly Flesh Eating Plagues that would Kill Hundreds of People to try to scare the population into submission. When the wizard lords of the city(who are described as Good and Generous) Protected their Citizens(like a Good Lord Should) they cursed The Entire Populous to live in a Demiplane inside a single coin and forced them to serve anyone who owns said coin. No this didn't specify only the Evil gods did this, it was All the gods of this area that decided this was a good idea.

Gods in D&D are Hypocritical parasites with power and this is why I Refuse to play a cleric in this game.

[Bartmanhomer]

LG and CG can settle their differences. :smile:

[ezekielraiden]

Eh... "corruption" can be as simple as not being NG, really. By being LG, they already corrupt pure goodness with concessions to Law that might require a lack of mercy at times. By being CG, they corrupt pure goodness with concessions to individual freedom that might require a hands-off approach that may permit mistakes to be made in the name of avoiding too-rigid rules.

I don't get this logic. This is assuming that "Lawful Good" always means "Good only if I don't have to compromise on other things." And that's...not Good in my eyes. Bahamut in particular has been noted to support fighting back against wicked or oppressive regimes, and to prefer arming individuals/communities to fight for themselves rather than depending on others. Yet he is very much Lawful Good, in some settings almost the poster boy of LG (in 4e, monarchs are ceremonially crowned in Bahamut's name, though such a ruler must take care under such auspices.)

"Lawful Good" does not have to mean Good-with-compromises. It can instead mean Good-that-uses-Law, a Good that breaks rules because those rules have violated their own purpose and reason for being. Law exists to serve the Good, and a rightly-made law is always better than no law at all, but a wrongly-made law not only can be but should be changed. And if change is impossible, or the cost of waiting too great, it should be abolished, and as quickly as possible replaced with one that actually works. This is not random flaunting of rules whenever caprice strikes: it is cautious, reasoned evaluation of law, holding law to a consistent and enduring standard that transcends mortal life.


Some good insights here. I would add that CG warfighters will likely engage in deliberate abuse of the rules. Breaking the honor codes themselves where they can, seeing them as foolish, but deliberately exploiting them where they hinder the LG armies. The LG sorts will ramp up their own unifying propaganda to protect against potential sedition, but also will actively seek to deal with individual sub-commanders, sub-cultures, towns, etc. in the CG culture, sowing sedition and disunity and exploiting their individualistic streaks.

This strikes me as merely assuming that the LG side will make lots of stupid rules. If both sides are actually good, it seems to me that the Lawful side will be smart enough to at least try to make the rules as "if you break this, you have done an evil thing" as possible, knowing that doing so will counterbalance the Chaotic side's almost-guaranteed abuse of the rules. E.g., no one attack civilian targets that are not actively participating in the war effort (e.g. growing food is something farmers do all the time, they're innocents; but a blacksmith churning out weapons is actively aiding the war effort). It's...hard to see how any Chaotic Good person could intentionally abuse that rule without doing something Evil in the process.

Again, just because you're Lawful Good doesn't mean you're Good hobbled by Law. If Law is used for its instrumental value, but held to have instrumental value effectively always superior to Chaotic action, you can absolutely avoid being an easily-duped fool. A cleverly-duped fool, on the other hand, is hard to avoid no matter which side of this war you're on, so don't take this as me saying "oh, just play it smart and LG always wins." Just that your strategy has a pretty severe hole of "....just make the Rules actually require Goodness, as opposed to simply being Consistent or Regimented." Drafting rules such that all of them require Goodness, all the time? Yeah that'd be hard as balls, so both sides will be hunting for loopholes, one to close them and the other to exploit them, and that's where the tactical warfare comes in.

Incidentally, @Albion's Angel, you may want to check out Just War theory, which began amongst the Greek philosophers (particularly Plato and Aristotle), but really achieved its zenith from analyses by St. Augustine in late Antiquity and (later, but perhaps even more importantly) St. Aquinas in the (late) High Middle Ages. An entry which mostly focuses on modern authors, but does make use of terms from Medieval philosophers like Aquinas, can be found on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/).

[ezekielraiden]

Gods in D&D are Hypocritical parasites with power and this is why I Refuse to play a cleric in this game.

Sure. If you play in FR. But the FR is literally terrible for exactly these reasons.

I much prefer the 4e Nentir Vale setting pantheon, where Bahamut is actually a god of justice. To the point that he is the only god doing something about all the lost souls in the Astral Plane by--and this is not even slightly exaggerating or joking--building asteroid ark-ships for them to live in. Literally crafting mini-worldships that provide a comfortable life for lost souls, regardless of alignment, because he's not okay with just accepting that reality is broken and souls don't always get to go to "heaven" (the most reasonable deity's domain for their values, that is).

(And this is one example of why I love 4e fluff. Bahamut gets to be an ACTUAL god of justice, AND do something as gorram metal as building divine asteroid ark-ships, because it's the right thing to do.)

[Psyren]

Well, yes and no. LG will seek to change rules that regularly harm innocents, absolutely. But depending on how much L vs G they are, they will have varying thresholds for how much a given rule or law is allowed to cause individual or occasional harm in the name of the greater good it serves.

Just as CG may well refuse to accept rules which prevent it from quickly responding to what it perceives as wrongs, even if those rules often prevent wrongs stemming from deception or misunderstanding.

There's harm and then there's Harm. A LG society certainly won't mind a law that just annoys or inconveniences the individual while furthering the greater good. But one that actually causes injury or suffering to innocent people would be a bridge too far.



One example being the wall of the faithless, which is only there too keep gods in power. Despite what they might say, gods aren't necessary to keep a cosmology running or for magic to exist. See the history of the dark sun setting and the Serpent entry in Elder Evils, both show you don't even need gods to have Clerics, gods are thus literally metaphysical parasites that feed on faith only allowing the people they like to have the power they were Already Fully Capable Of.

It's curious that you claim clerics don't need gods while also bringing up the Wall, which is part of a setting where you explicitly can't have clerics of an ideal...

[Segev]

It’s simple, really. Lawful Good is not more good than lawful, nor more lawful than good. I mean, some people can and will be one or the other and still more LG than LN or NG, but in general, yes, by not being NG, LG sacrifices some good for law, and some law for good.

Committing fewer good acts doesn’t make you non-good. It just makes you less good.

The notion that LG is always all the way Good just doesn’t hold much water. There are always trade-offs. If you’re willing to do whatever it takes for the cause of good, you will balance law and chaos because there is good in each of them and you will use whichever is more effective in Good’s cause at any given circumstance. If you will adhere to one or the other more often, you may BELIEVE that you are acting in the greater good, but you are in fact balancing good against something you incorrectly feel to be necessary to good.

Similarly, a Lawful Good person who thinks of order and tradition as the most important things still sacrifices both occasionally for doing something he knows to be right, though he will fight tooth and nail not to have to. He may incorrectly believe that this serves order better than doing what is required, or he may view it as a failing of his that he succumbs to the temptation to break the rules out of pity. Either way, he gives up some on Law for Good.

The paragon of LG will balance the two, giving up a little in each to maximize his combination of them. He likely believes that both are essential, and that good and law are both important (rather than feeling one serves the other). He is pained when they conflict, and will do his best to resolve such conflicts. He may even believe that there is always a resolution, and feel he’s failed if he doesn’t find it.

But an LG person will never be quite as Good as an NG person. Nor will a CG person. To always choose the Good will require a balance of Law and Chaos.

[Psyren]

It’s simple, really. Lawful Good is not more good than lawful, nor more lawful than good. I mean, some people can and will be one or the other and still more LG than LN or NG, but in general, yes, by not being NG, LG sacrifices some good for law, and some law for good.

Disagree completely, that's not how I read the alignments at all. It's not about diluting or sacrificing morals for ethics, it's about approach; Good and Evil describe the ends, while Law and Chaos describe the means. Being LG means you think a certain approach will overall lead to the most good, and being CG means you think the opposite approach will. NG doesn't care and is willing to use whichever seems most good depending on the situation. In other words, maximizing goodness is the goal of all three - LG is LG because it believes Lawful methods can be used to improve the lot of all more than Chaotic ones, and vice-versa for CG.

The key difference between that and your POV is that all three of them are trying to maximize good in their own way. NG's approach might seem the best in theory, but in practice that flexibility can also mean more opportunities to choose the wrong approach for the situation at hand and effect less good in the long run or overall. An archon doesn't see their approach as a tradeoff or dilution compared to a guardinal or azata/eladrin, they in fact think their method will do the best in the long run for the greatest number of people - and likewise for the other two.

[Segev]

Disagree completely, that's not how I read the alignments at all. It's not about diluting or sacrificing morals for ethics, it's about approach; Good and Evil describe the ends, while Law and Chaos describe the means. Being LG means you think a certain approach will overall lead to the most good, and being CG means you think the opposite approach will. NG doesn't care and is willing to use whichever seems most good depending on the situation. In other words, maximizing goodness is the goal of all three - LG is LG because it believes Lawful methods can be used to improve the lot of all more than Chaotic ones, and vice-versa for CG.

The key difference between that and your POV is that all three of them are trying to maximize good in their own way. NG's approach might seem the best in theory, but in practice that flexibility can also mean more opportunities to choose the wrong approach for the situation at hand and effect less good in the long run or overall. An archon doesn't see their approach as a tradeoff or dilution compared to a guardinal or azata/eladrin, they in fact think their method will do the best in the long run for the greatest number of people - and likewise for the other two.

The trouble with this formulation is that it leads to an alignment graph whereby you can measure LG and CG to be "more good" than NG.

NG says there is no conflict over good vs. anything else: you do what is right, period, no matter what. LG says that you have an approach to doing good that you think will always be right, or that you have an approach to applying the law that favors good-aligned outcomes. CG says much the same, but angled towards chaos.

By the formulation you're using, NG doesn't do good as well as LG or CG do, because it is actually less far from TN than they are.



I'll note that this doesn't mean there aren't hard choices even as a paragon of any particular alignment. NG can face moral dilemmas where two choices both yield harm that the good-hearted would wish not to inflict nor see done, but NG will never face those dilemmas because of ethics. Ethics will never get in the way of doing what is right for the NG.

For the LG, they can face ethical dilemmas even when there is no moral dilemma, because they can have contradictions or conflicts in the rules they must resolve. They also can face moral dilemmas where NG would not, because the rules say a wrong should be done (possibly due to a bug in the rules), but setting a precedent of breaking the rules whenever they don't have the outcome you prefer, no matter how good your motive, undermines the system which protects so many righteous things and people.

For the CG, they can also face ethical dilemmas even when there is no moral dilemma, because they value both decisive action and getting things right, but they can't allow the guilty to go free just because they're not 100% sure, etc. etc. The Good code says to stop the guilty before they can do more harm. The Chaotic code says to screw procedure, but it also says to respect individuals and their choices, and you might be depriving an innocent of their choices if you're too reckless. They can also face an ethical/moral dilemma when faced with the question of whether to interfere to prevent harm to one person or group by another when that other has just cause to claim the other was first aggressor. NG wouldn't care who "started it," but CG would because of a general principle that it's action against others which causes harm that is the greater wrong.

In all, NG characters never suffer ethical dilemmas, only moral ones. LG and CG characters can suffer both ethical and moral dilemmas, and can suffer dilemmas of conflict between ethics and morals. NG cannot suffer the latter; they have no ethos that demands consideration.

[liquidformat]

I disagree with the idea that lawful good or even lawful wouldn't deploy tactics like ambush or sneak attacking the other's army and so on and so forth. Using tactics to win has nothing to do with alignment unless said tactic specifically goes against other codes or established rules. So attacking during a cease fire would be an unlawful non good act; however, having scouted the enemy and then setting up an ambush isn't evil or nonlawful it is just good military tactics. In fact lawful and lawful good would surely have books going into detail about tactics and how to employ them, what is ok and what isn't.

Another important note is a chaotic good army wouldn't be particularly well organized, nor well trained trained, and even if they did employ tactics they would probably not work very well. They are more of an organized mob, or perhaps a militia at best rather than a well organized and trained military. So in that sense hands down the Lawful Good side would be much more competent.

[Promethean]

It's curious that you claim clerics don't need gods while also bringing up the Wall, which is part of a setting where you explicitly can't have clerics of an ideal...

Except, as per Elder Evil's Sertrous(chapter 8), you can. This is also a book published at the end of 3.5, so it may be a bit of a retcon if that has been stated explicitly in other books(though the elder evils chapter does build this point up as a dirty secret of the gods, so that may be purposeful).

If you also take spell-jammer, the world serpent inn, or Sigil as canon in your games, then Every D&D setting is true somewhere in the multiverse. This would make the Dark Sun example relevant to any setting that is part of the multiverse(though I'm not sure about WOTC's official stance on that, so it may be that they Are entirely independent settings and not part of a multiverse)

[Psyren]

Except, as per Elder Evil's Sertrous(chapter 8), you can. This is also a book published at the end of 3.5, so it may be a bit of a retcon if that has been stated explicitly in other books(though the elder evils chapter does build this point up as a dirty secret of the gods, so that may be purposeful).

Never read it, but I'm pretty sure the primary sources on FR are FRCS/PGTF. At the very least you would have to be running an EE game for its material to be relevant, whereas you can't run a FR campaign at all without the first two.


The trouble with this formulation is that it leads to an alignment graph whereby you can measure LG and CG to be "more good" than NG.

All of them think they are "more good." That's the whole point. And none of them can be proven definitively right, because the world is ongoing. It's why they continue to debate with each other per BoED.


*snip*

In all, NG characters never suffer ethical dilemmas, only moral ones. LG and CG characters can suffer both ethical and moral dilemmas, and can suffer dilemmas of conflict between ethics and morals. NG cannot suffer the latter; they have no ethos that demands consideration.

As I noted, this is false. NG has the biggest ethical dilemma of all in fact - when to use Lawful or Chaotic methods to support a given Good cause, and if so, how much. Having flexibility to pick your approach does not make you infallible or immune to unintended consequences.

[Segev]

I disagree with the idea that lawful good or even lawful wouldn't deploy tactics like ambush or sneak attacking the other's army and so on and so forth. Using tactics to win has nothing to do with alignment unless said tactic specifically goes against other codes or established rules. So attacking during a cease fire would be an unlawful non good act; however, having scouted the enemy and then setting up an ambush isn't evil or nonlawful it is just good military tactics. In fact lawful and lawful good would surely have books going into detail about tactics and how to employ them, what is ok and what isn't.

Another important note is a chaotic good army wouldn't be particularly well organized, nor well trained trained, and even if they did employ tactics they would probably not work very well. They are more of an organized mob, or perhaps a militia at best rather than a well organized and trained military. So in that sense hands down the Lawful Good side would be much more competent.

Oh, absolutely, LG would use whatever tactics were viable, though they would avoid what might be considered "war crimes." Mainly as pertains to targeting civilians. What you do to enemy soldiers on the battlefield is sticky, at best, and our own modern standards of "war crimes" are almost laughably designed by people with noble intentions but no real concept of why wars are fought in the first place.

Regardless, you can expect reasonably good POW treatment from both Good armies, and good tactics and even strategy from them, too.

The LG army will be made up of soldiers, who will follow battle plans reliably and routinely. The CG army will be made up of warriors, and will follow broad strokes plans that they understand (or really, REALLY trust the strategist who designed), but will, as you said, not be as regimented in their organization. Breakdowns in communication will hurt LG more than CG, but that's mainly because CG is operating semi-independently anyway, trusting specific battle tactics to the units performing them, because they're more groups of warrior/adventurers than a solidified and well-structured army.

[liquidformat]

Oh, absolutely, LG would use whatever tactics were viable, though they would avoid what might be considered "war crimes." Mainly as pertains to targeting civilians. What you do to enemy soldiers on the battlefield is sticky, at best, and our own modern standards of "war crimes" are almost laughably designed by people with noble intentions but no real concept of why wars are fought in the first place.

Regardless, you can expect reasonably good POW treatment from both Good armies, and good tactics and even strategy from them, too.

The LG army will be made up of soldiers, who will follow battle plans reliably and routinely. The CG army will be made up of warriors, and will follow broad strokes plans that they understand (or really, REALLY trust the strategist who designed), but will, as you said, not be as regimented in their organization. Breakdowns in communication will hurt LG more than CG, but that's mainly because CG is operating semi-independently anyway, trusting specific battle tactics to the units performing them, because they're more groups of warrior/adventurers than a solidified and well-structured army.

Well both sides in a CG/LG war would be avoiding civilians and give quarter to those who surrender and treat them well. One interesting question is how a LG army handles deserters? CG 'army' wouldn't even have a concept of desertion just due to the nature of chaos.

The CG army would be piecemealed together group of different factions and those 'incharge' and I use that word loosely would most likely try to employ tactics that favor guerrilla warfare and small independent unit tactics as anything larger than that would most likely fall apart. The 'leaders' in the CG army would be the 'strongest' where as the LG leadership would be those who climbed the ranks to that position. Both sides would have their own issues; for the CG those who are the 'strongest' might not be the best or most suitable leaders whereas even in a LG organization cronyism and nepotism would be present you just would get more of the incompetent side of that rather than the other parts associated with such practices.

Either way it is hard to say which side would actually do better, depends on location as much as those in command I suppose.

[Bartmanhomer]

Well both sides in a CG/LG war would be avoiding civilians and give quarter to those who surrender and treat them well. One interesting question is how a LG army handles deserters? CG 'army' wouldn't even have a concept of desertion just due to the nature of chaos.

The CG army would be piecemealed together group of different factions and those 'incharge' and I use that word loosely would most likely try to employ tactics that favor guerrilla warfare and small independent unit tactics as anything larger than that would most likely fall apart. The 'leaders' in the CG army would be the 'strongest' where as the LG leadership would be those who climbed the ranks to that position. Both sides would have their own issues; for the CG those who are the 'strongest' might not be the best or most suitable leaders whereas even in a LG organization cronyism and nepotism would be present you just would get more of the incompetent side of that rather than the other parts associated with such practices.

Either way it is hard to say which side would actually do better, depends on location as much as those in command I suppose.

Agree. It will go either way to say the least.