What's Wrong With Lawful Good?

[Bartmanhomer]

I heard so many people complaining that Lawful Good is the worst alignment. A lot worse than Lawful Evil. To me, Lawful Good is a good alignment. Sure Lawful Good character play by the rules of goodness and they're law-abiding by their rules. But I really don't see anything wrong with that. Can somebody please explain to me why Lawful Good is a bad alignment, please? :confused:

[Malroth]

Many people (myself included) feel that Laws and rules themselves are inherently evil serving only to enrich the rule makers at the expense of everyone else. At least Lawful Evil is honest about this.

[pabelfly]

Many people (myself included) feel that Laws and rules themselves are inherently evil serving only to enrich the rule makers at the expense of everyone else. At least Lawful Evil is honest about this.
{Scrubbed}

I like Lawful Good myself. Most laws are fair and just, and I like the idea of playing a hero doing good and helping others.

[wilphe]

Lawful Good is the alignment of busybody Paladins who try or are forced, or feel they are forced, to police to rest of the party, encouraged by GMs and bad fluff

"It says I fall if I associate with Evil, therefore I have to stop the rest of the party doing anything remotely evil lest the GM turn me into a FighterWithoutBonusFeats (TM)"

It's also strongly associated with Lawful Stupid


It's like the Chaotic Neutral problem, so many people have used it as an excuse to be obnoxious or simply misunderstood it that it has a bad reputation.

I think I should blame 2E fluff

[FaerieGodfather]

I like Lawful Good myself. Most laws are fair and just, and I like the idea of playing a hero doing good and helping others.

The thing is, when the Law is not fair and just, "Lawful Good" defends it anyway and demands that Chaotic Good only resist the Law in those ways that Lawful Evil can comfortably ignore.

The problem with "Lawful Good" is that it is an oxymoron.

[jdizzlean]

There was just a discussion about this, please refer to this post

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?596873&p=24123789#post24123789

[PoeticallyPsyco]

Lawful Good is rather like the Evil alignments (and CN) in that while there's nothing wrong with the alignment that good role playing can't fix, it tends to attract people who lack that skill. People who will make their Paladin police their party-members, enforce their ideals at sword-point, insist on strictest adherence to laws, and generally behave like a Knight Templar (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KnightTemplar) that is inflicting themselves on the party rather than contributing to it (this would be a very extreme case of the root problem, but even lesser cases tend to be rather frustrating for everyone involved).

The people who create an extreme case like that are pretty rare in the scheme of things (and typically such a person will realize that there's a problem and work to fix it with future characters), but a lot of posters will have had an experience with at least one person like that, and such experiences tend to be unpleasantly memorable. Lawful Good then becomes a warning flag much like writing Chaotic Evil on your character sheet; maybe this new person will play LG well, but maybe they won't.

[King of Nowhere]

Many people (myself included) feel that Laws and rules themselves are inherently evil serving only to enrich the rule makers at the expense of everyone else. At least Lawful Evil is honest about this.

And by that you mean that you are chaotic and you refuse to accept that someone may disagree with you and still be good.

I'm chaotic myself, but I see the need for rules. when you interact with a stranger - who may have totally different customs on what is acceptable behavior and what isn't - you need a framework of rules. and when someone commits a crime, you need to have a law; else you can either pick up a gun and try to dispense vigilante justice, or suck it up and go on.
Most of all, we need rules because we can't trust people. If my brother asks me to lend him money, no problem, I trust him. If a stranger asks me to lend him money (which is basically what happens when I put money on my back account and the bank gives those on a loan), I need a written contract. Heck, the whole concept of written law was made because the king, or the village elders, or whoever else administered justice before could not be trusted to be fair and not play favorites.

I'm chaotic because I don't like that we need rules, I don't like having to follow them, and I disregard them whenever the social situation lets me, whenever I can trust the people around me to interact with me in a positive way and not try to take advantage of me. But I do recognize that rules are needed.


The thing is, when the Law is not fair and just, "Lawful Good" defends it anyway and demands that Chaotic Good only resist the Law in those ways that Lawful Evil can comfortably ignore.

The problem with "Lawful Good" is that it is an oxymoron.

oh my god no! you are confusing it with lawful stupid.
that's as nonsensical as saying that chaotic good is an oxymoron because a chaotic person will always break the law, even when it's just. as if lawful = magically compelled to ffollow every minutiae of the law.

So, to answer the op:
many people have problems with the LG alignment because they mistake it for lawful stupid.

Just like many people have problems with evil alignments because they mistake them for "kill plot-critical npcs and backstab the party ffor the lulz!"
Just like many people have problems with the CN alignment because they associate it with "murderhobo who's really CE but won't admit it", or with straight-out madman.

or, to put it in a larger context, many people have problems with alignments because they perceive them as a mix between a cage and a magical compulsion.

[PhantasyPen]

Lawful Good isn't the problem. Lawful Stupid is the problem, and is actually more common to a Lawful Neutral character, but due to LG being associated with alignment's favorite whipping boy, the Paladin, it's the one that everyone attacks first rather than LN.

The problem with LG comes in when people try to defend Law As Good, as defined in To March into Hell for a Heavenly Cause (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448799-To-March-Into-Hell-for-a-Heavenly-Cause-A-Lawful-Good-Handbook). Personally, I think the version of LG that plays out the best in most groups, and the one that actually fulfills that whole "Knight in Shining Armor" motif that most LG characters go for is when you focus on Good As Law instead.

[Ramza00]

So rethink the alignments not as Good vs Neutral vs Evil but instead Altruistic vs Neutral vs Selfish. [You can keep the Law vs Neutral vs Chaos.]

The problem with being Lawful + Altruistic is the limits of the individual, and the problems of the Lawful + Altruistic as a society is that it rarely happens in practice yet it creates the image of it being Lawful + Altruistic as some Noble Ideal that it supposedly embodies but in reality it doesn't. How do you roleplay a character that feels the urge to be lawful, while simultaneously feels the urge to be altruistic, but the whole entire society is somehow against both of these things. What happens when society is lawful but it finds the suffering of others to be acceptable, what happens when lawful society does not practice care and goodwill? What does a Lawful plus Altruistic character do in such a world?


I am ignorning the Militaristic Lawful Good character who is the Paladin / Knight Templar, who use force to force his will onto the party.



Lots of people see this dichotomy as a gilded thing, as an absurd thing that is false, like The Catcher in the Rye character calling everyone "Phoneys" for it is the truth even if Holden Caulfield is insufferable. Lots of people see Lawful plus Altruistic to be insufferable [yes this is personal opinion but humans have opinions.]

----

Now a Lawful Good Character can recognize the limits of himself and the limits of society but then the LG character has a dash / flavor enhancer of Neutrality on both axises and he no longer "Feels" LG anymore. My point is a LG character feels like an impossible standard and once realized you only see its flaws in at least one dimension or sometimes multiple dimensions simultaneously.

While all the other alignments do not have this tension, this tension of the the impossible Quixotic ideal.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfHnzYEHAow

And as you can see by the video and the reference I did, even this form of LG that is "played straight" can be fun to roleplay. Unnatural character who feels foreign to this Jaded world, but D&D is a game that you get to roleplay as if it was theater and you have fun simultaneously being both yourself and someone else simultaneously. So play that LG idealistic altruistic character who is not the LG Paladin who is a pain for the rest of the party.

[Malroth]

I'm chaotic because I don't like that we need rules, I don't like having to follow them, and I disregard them whenever the social situation lets me, whenever I can trust the people around me to interact with me in a positive way and not try to take advantage of me. But I do recognize that rules are needed.

I agree with statement 100%. Laws are sadly necessary just as evil is sometimes sadly necessary

[pabelfly]

The thing is, when the Law is not fair and just, "Lawful Good" defends it anyway and demands that Chaotic Good only resist the Law in those ways that Lawful Evil can comfortably ignore.

The problem with "Lawful Good" is that it is an oxymoron.

Anyone can play any alignment stupidly. It's not a problem limited to being lawful, being good, or being lawful good.

[KillianHawkeye]

Lawful Good is the BEST alignment! :smallcool:

[Particle_Man]

It is easy to play lawful good (there are at least three role models in the comic strip of that - more if you include Durkon’s friends and family) and not go lawful stupid. For those just starting the game lawful stupid can be a risk, but have the character play a lawful good rogue (for example) and that goes away.

[Bartmanhomer]

Wow. I didn't know the horrible truth that Lawful Good is that bad. But I think that most people who play a Lawful Good character don't know how to roleplay well. I never play a Lawful Good character before but I don't have an issue playing a Lawful Good character at all. I think the player is too blame not the alignment itself.

[Dienekes]

To answer the question directly. Nothing. Lawful Good is as fine an alignment as any other.

However, D&D is -for a lot of people- a power fantasy. You can play the guy who the laws do not apply. You can upturn the established order. Do what you want. The cops can't stop you and you can take what you want. Basically, for a lot of players playing a distinctly chaotic character is where the fun comes from. You know what isn't fun when you want to play this kind of character? A law thumper that orders you to stop having fun. But that is because the player is playing the alignment in specifically the most disagreeable way.

At its core a lawful good character only really requires two things.

1) You intentionally do good things, and strive to avoid or prevent evil things.
2) You believe the best way to create a functioning society is through rules.

That's it.

So this brings up the question. What does a Lawful Good character do when faced with a law that is evil? I've always found this a pretty silly question, as it doesn't actually effect the above two tenets of the alignment. So the answer is obvious. You change the laws. If necessary, you become Princess Leia. She is honestly, the perfect answer to the question in my mind. She's good. She's facing against a society run by evil laws. And her stated goal is to bring the return of the Senate which is a stand in for good laws. At least, in the movie.

[OGDojo]

alot of peoples main gripes with Lawful good comes from the way that Paladins play lawful good.

Paladins are Zealots of their Gods, some to the extreme of killing evil in their vicinity like rogues and other characters. this forces other characters to bend to the alignment of others and forces them to play a certain way which makes it less fun for the Chaotic neutral rogue to leave for a few hours and come back with a bag full of items. a lawful good paladin can handle this in one of two ways. 1 Accusatory "Where did you get those? you stole them didn't you?! Well we are going to return them." meaning the rogue just spent all that time and RP and dice rolls for nothing or
2. Ignorant "Oh i see you picked up some stuff from town, i didnt realize there was a store open this late, lets celebrate with the food that the ranger prepared." which makes the paladin seem like a dumb meathead when paladins should be the leaders and smarter than that and certainly not naive.

[Quertus]

Lawful Good is the wet blanket on fun. Want to do something too harmful to individuals, or to society? Lawful Good is not down with that. This is supposed to be elf games, this is supposed to be a party. We don't want no Lawful Good party pooper.

Color blue to taste.

The problem is, even if played right, Lawful Good often puts the character in opposition the party. Even if the party is all Lawful Good characters. Because different individuals can have different interpretations of what is good and just, and Lawful Good characters have the hardest time just accepting going against their values for the sake of party unity.

[Asmotherion]

Mostly because unexperienced Lawful Good players tend to go to the extreams of Lawful Stupid or/and Stupid Good.

Most people don't want to turn half the session into an arguement of "would the Paladin be cool with doing this" or having to turn on the party because the Lawful Stupid player decides that "looting is theaft/dessacration of the corpses" and starts PvP.

An experienced Role Player can easyly play Lawful Good or even Chaotic Evil in a way that he's not a hindrance to the party. i'd personally discourage a less experienced player from playin an aligment other than Lawful Neutral or Neutral Good as they are the easyest to play without hearing some absurd cases of "that's what my character would do".

[Calthropstu]

Of course it's a good alignment. It's right in the name!

Lawful good and lawful neutral actively inhibits chaotic actions. This is problematic for chaotic characters. Lawful Good also actively inhibits evil actions. This is a problem for evil characters.

It often interferes with how others want their characters to go.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Because people on modern western society do not like being told what to do. Lawful alginments put restrictions on people, including themselves. We all want to be free to do what we want to do, but LG says that sometimes we should instead be forced to do what we should do, and that sucks.

Chatoic Good is seen as a better alignment by many because it says "You can choose how much candy you eat because I know you will make the right decision and I will make sure no one steals anyone elses candy." Lawful Good doesn't really trust people and so says "First off I want to make sure everyone gets candy. And then we are going to talk about dental hygene and dietary moderation."

Also people who play Lawful Good often forget the Good part and insist on sticking to the rule that says that Frank gets extra candy because, when they are supposed to be the people saying "These candy rules are broken, we need better candy rules, but we still need candy rules because people don't make good decisions about candy."

[Biggus]

The problem with Lawful Good in my experience is that it's the most restrictive alignment. Both law and good place restrictions on behaviour in a way that evil and chaos don't (unless you have a religious devotion to those alignments as ends in themselves) which means that quite often, if a player wants to maintain their alignment, they have little choice as to how to behave, especially considering the objective nature of good and evil in the D&D game.

This means that Lawful Good is in danger of being a boring alignment to play. A friend of mine who identifies as LG himself still ended up calling it "awful good" after playing a LG Cleric for 19 levels.

I think OGDojo has the right of it though, that when people think of LG, they think of Paladins or other similar religious zealots. Any alignment (even True Neutral) can be restrictive if you're a fanatic (not to mention annoying to other players). The majority of people who are LG are not paragons of law and good, they are normal human beings who are mean or selfish or break rules occasionally, but whose behaviour tends consistently towards lawfulness and goodness. Playing that kind of character is still more restrictive than other alignments, but not dramatically so, and certainly need not be boring or annoying.

[Particle_Man]

alot of peoples main gripes with Lawful good comes from the way that Paladins play lawful good.

Paladins are Zealots of their Gods, some to the extreme of killing evil in their vicinity like rogues and other characters. this forces other characters to bend to the alignment of others and forces them to play a certain way which makes it less fun for the Chaotic neutral rogue to leave for a few hours and come back with a bag full of items. a lawful good paladin can handle this in one of two ways. 1 Accusatory "Where did you get those? you stole them didn't you?! Well we are going to return them." meaning the rogue just spent all that time and RP and dice rolls for nothing or
2. Ignorant "Oh i see you picked up some stuff from town, i didnt realize there was a store open this late, lets celebrate with the food that the ranger prepared." which makes the paladin seem like a dumb meathead when paladins should be the leaders and smarter than that and certainly not naive.

To be fair, the player of the Chaotic Neutral rogue could at least meet the requirements of party unity half-way by not ostentatiously showing off suddenly acquired bling ("Oh, look, I have a gold ring with three rubies in it that looks exactly like the ring the lord mayor just lost!"), and investing in the bluff skill so that they can come up with a very convincing story of how they legally got this stuff (or always had it) that would be convincing to all who don't have a similarly jacked up sense motive skill. Think of Haley using her bluff skill against Roy (who is no meathead) here, for example, but more subtle, since it is not for comedic effect.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0029.html

I mean, I don't mind being obtuse if I play a character that is obtuse, but if I am playing an LG character and a fellow PC is picking pockets in broad daylight on the steps of the temple of Pelor and I see it, yes I will call for the town guard to have them arrested. I mean, the twin of Lawful Stupid is Chaotic Stupid. It is the Stupid part that is the problem, not the other part.

[LordBlades]

What's wrong with Lawful Good? Paladins mainly.

The way the paladin code of conduct in the PHB is written makes some people think they are entitled to tell every other party member what they can and can't do.

I'm not saying all paladins have to be played that way, just that paladin is one of the things in the game with the greatest potential to be disruptive out of the box, which has made many (myself included) have unpleasant experiences with paladins in the party.

[BlueWitch]

Personally:

True Good is Neutral Good. I think Laws sometimes get in the way of doing what's truly right.

Lawful Good puts you in a smaller and smaller box. It's not as fun and it's stupidly strict. It makes you predictable and easy for people to pick on you.

I RESPECT Lawful Good people, but I don't have the patience or the will power to act that way all the time.

It's why I think Neutral Good should have a Paladin Variation. They're not THAT bad and losing ALL of your class skills because you made a mistake or bad call is full of bs in my opinion.

Again, I reiterate: Lawful Good (often time) makes you predictable and limits your options. (And specifically for Paladins) The rewards aren't as good.

[FaerieGodfather]

alot of peoples main gripes with Lawful good comes from the way that Paladins play lawful good.

I would refine that a little, and say that the problem comes from the way that bad rules forced Paladins to play Lawful Good from 1980 through 2007. The way that bad players played Lawful Stupid because bad DMs forced them to because bad designers told them to.

For as RAW-obsessed as a lot of folks here are, they sure are quick to overlook that what we dismiss as "Lawful Stupid" today was very much RAW and the subject of countless, ever more horrific, attempts at Sage Advice for the majority of the game's history.

Lawful Good just gets the worst of it, because it's the alignment most people consider the aspirational moral code-- the superhero alignment-- and it's the only alignment that got its own special, elite PC class to represent it.

[D+1]

I heard so many people complaining that Lawful Good is the worst alignment. A lot worse than Lawful Evil. To me, Lawful Good is a good alignment. Sure Lawful Good character play by the rules of goodness and they're law-abiding by their rules. But I really don't see anything wrong with that. Can somebody please explain to me why Lawful Good is a bad alignment, please? :confused:
40 years on and alignment is still a quagmire of misunderstanding, abuses and sillyness. In short, people complain that LG is the worst alignment because they have a PERSONAL interpretation of what they think LG is, or what they want it to be even if that ISN'T what it is, and they revel in flogging that horse to death. People can't even agree what alignment is for. Ask 10 different players you'll get 12 different answers and 13 of them will be wrong.

Alignment is what the DM says it is. Interpretations of what each alignment believes and strives for is what the DM says it is. NOT THE BOOKS - the DM. This is because enforcement of alignment related matters, whether that is by-the-book, what the DM simply THINKS is by-the-book, or what the DM makes up themselves, is still up to the DM. One DM may allow a character to do something alignment-related that another DM will have a conniption over. These are arguments that have gone on for decades and there is no solution - save that which each individual DM says is the solution.

I personally believe people despise LG because they have simply seen too many abuses and excuses that attempt to distort what alignment was intended to do and to use LG alignment in particular in a wildly incorrect and inappropriate manner. Alignment was not introduced to create the problems that people say alignment brings. It was introduced first and foremost in OD&D just because ol' Gary Gygax thought it was a cool idea from the books he'd read (Moorcock's Elric books and Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions). At that time it had no in-game mechanical purpose other than for making a setting seem more like the settings of those books where events revolve around the conflicts between these groups of cosmological forces. By the time of 1E it was given a mechanical purpose which was guiding players to keep their characters behavior more consistent and believable - and if they didn't it also gave the DM a big, fat hammer to smack them over the head with to get them back in line. Lawful Good characters were otherwise supposed to generally want righteous, beneficial, and positive things to be promoted in the world, and to beat down the vile, degrading and destructive things of the world. Not a hard act to put on. But today it's been hopelessly munged up and corrupted by a thousand different individual real-world notions of philosophy, religion, morality and ethics - and to prove to others how bad it is people will distort and abuse the livin' **** out of it.

It isn't really bad. Certainly it didn't start out that way. People MADE it that way.

[denthor]

In my case I have a hard time thinking and acting lawful.

I also attempt good but ride the neutral line closely.

Just thinking choices and serious lack of doing the correct thing when an expedient choice is presented.

In other words the flaws are mine I own them.

[BlueWitch]

It can be annoying when you have a bad DM that's constantly shouting "Oh, your alignment shifted to this!" when you've done something petty.

I don't think a Paladin stopping a man from abusing his slave is worth an alignment shift. But some DMs do. I think its the DM more than the player if I had to be honest.

[Particle_Man]

The most gygaxian thing: alignment languages.

[HouseRules]

The major thing is that lawful good characters could make chaotic evil actions throughout an entire campaign without changing their alignment.

[Blackhawk748]

I keep seeing people saying that Lawful Good people keep forcing their alignment on others or killing anything that pings Evil.

That's only the base Paladin and that's only because they are specifically not allowed to associate with Evil aligned things. (Which is stupid for many reasons, namely would negotiating count?)

And for the second part, you cannot go around and killing people who ping because THATS EVIL. Yes, they may ping as Evil, but they could just be a jerk. You are not the law, and you don't get to act like you are.

You are also good, good people try not to be annoyingly preachy because that generally makes people less likely to listen. You have to follow the code of conduct, not your Elf Rogue, not your Barbarian and not the Cleric of Kord. You.

So follow the normal social contract and don't be a jerk to your coworkers.

[TheFamilarRaven]

There is nothing wrong with the alignment itself. It simply has a negative association with the poorly written Paladin's Code of Conduct. Other than that, it run into similar problem that all good alignments have. And that is that while most people can generally agree on what evil actions are, it is harder to reach a consensus as to what constitutes a good act in specific situations. It is in these circumstance that give rise to the classic threads that we see. Such as when Lawful Good or other good aligned character (typically a Paladin) outright murders someone just because they have an evil alignment. In this case, one side believes that the eradication of any evil is a good act whereas the other camp believes that the act is straight up evil because the evil character has yet to do anything provably wrong.

[PraxisVetli]

Lawful Evil is certainly better than Lawful Good.
Lawful Evil's the best.

[Remuko]

Lawful Evil is certainly better than Lawful Good.
Lawful Evil's the best.

Spoken like a proper disciple of Red Fel :)

[Bartmanhomer]

What about the Lawful Good Deities? Do they accept the Lawful Stupid? :eek:

[Particle_Man]

Well the Twelve stripped Miko of her paladinhood eventually.

[Bartmanhomer]

Well the Twelve stripped Miko of her paladinhood eventually.

Because she went Lawfully Stupid on someone? :amused:

[Particle_Man]

But the fact that other paladins kept their paladinhood shows that they can easily be played in a non-stupid manner.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

One of my favorite characters of all time was a paladin. And not just a paladin, but (since this was 5e) an Oath of the Crown Paladin, which actively emphasizes the lawful part of the alignment. In a group of morally grey characters, no less (if anything, the reason he was so awesome to play was because as a paragon he really stood out in the relatively grey setting and party).

It's possible, and even quite fun. You just have to put the burden of your oaths on yourself, not on your party. Lead by example instead of preaching at your party; come up with alternatives when the someone proposes something morally question rather than vetoing it; that kind of thing. It can be tricky, but also remember that paladins only fall for "gross" violations of their oaths; being in a party with realistically flawed characters does not qualify.

[Zombimode]

Many people (myself included) feel that Laws and rules themselves are inherently evil serving only to enrich the rule makers at the expense of everyone else. At least Lawful Evil is honest about this.

I highly doubt that this a position shared by many.



The thing is, when the Law is not fair and just, "Lawful Good" defends it anyway and demands that Chaotic Good only resist the Law in those ways that Lawful Evil can comfortably ignore.

The problem with "Lawful Good" is that it is an oxymoron.

Orly?



Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.
...
"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
...
A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
...
A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.

Emphasis mine.
Lawful good is against injustice. By transition that also means a lawful good character is against injust laws.

In fact the only time laws are actually mentioned in the description for lawful characters is as a possible (not necessary!) source that guides a lawful neutral character.

[hamishspence]

Lawful good is against injustice. By transition that also means a lawful good character is against injust laws.


Celia's the sylph paralegal's big closing speech in OOTS summed up pretty well:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0282.html

[Calthropstu]

I keep seeing people saying that Lawful Good people keep forcing their alignment on others or killing anything that pings Evil.

That's only the base Paladin and that's only because they are specifically not allowed to associate with Evil aligned things. (Which is stupid for many reasons, namely would negotiating count?)

And for the second part, you cannot go around and killing people who ping because THATS EVIL. Yes, they may ping as Evil, but they could just be a jerk. You are not the law, and you don't get to act like you are.

You are also good, good people try not to be annoyingly preachy because that generally makes people less likely to listen. You have to follow the code of conduct, not your Elf Rogue, not your Barbarian and not the Cleric of Kord. You.

So follow the normal social contract and don't be a jerk to your coworkers.

It's not so much forcing your alignment on others, but just having you around inhibits certain other alignments.

The CN druid casts a fire trap to potentially ensnare a lackey for an illegal organization. Accidentally triggered by an old lady. She survives, barely, but the law starts looking for the responsible party.
Guess who tells what happened?

[hamishspence]

The CN druid casts a fire trap to potentially ensnare a lackey for an illegal organization. Accidentally triggered by an old lady. She survives, barely, but the law starts looking for the responsible party.
Guess who tells what happened?

Durkon managed to strike the balance between Duty to Party, and Telling What Happened, here:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0264.html

and he's Lawful in the extreme.

[Evil DM Mark3]

It's not so much forcing your alignment on others, but just having you around inhibits certain other alignments.

The CN druid casts a fire trap to potentially ensnare a lackey for an illegal organization. Accidentally triggered by an old lady. She survives, barely, but the law starts looking for the responsible party.
Guess who tells what happened?
Wait, you have beef with the Paladin alerting the authorities to the identity of, well a terrorist bomber? That's what happened here, if the Paladin knew what the Druid was about beforehand that makes it even worse. The Druid placed something the causes a large quantity of fire to suddently exist where there had been none where random passers by could activate it with the intention that it be activated.

Now, don't get me wrong, CN is exactly the sort of alignment that might risk blowing up old ladies with a bomb. They wouldn't do it on purpose, but they might do it through carelessness.

What has really happened here is one of two things, either the Druid was negligent and should/could have forseen the trap getting triggered by a 3rd party or the DM is creating alignment drama, an inherantly CE act.

[dude123nice]

The thing is, when the Law is not fair and just, "Lawful Good" defends it anyway and demands that Chaotic Good only resist the Law in those ways that Lawful Evil can comfortably ignore.

The problem with "Lawful Good" is that it is an oxymoron.

Except that most successful lawfull systems in the modern era have a court of law where you can dispute a ruling as being inherently wrong in a particular situation, because of the circumstances in that situation. Most modern era lawfull systems like to style themselves as being lawful good, and the fact that a system that tries to be lawful good includes a way to dispute the system itself shows that, while said system may be far from perfect, it, at least, is aware of its own imperfection, and has created a system to change itself for the better.

[HouseRules]

Except that most successful lawfull systems in the modern era have a court of law where you can dispute a ruling as being inherently wrong in a particular situation, because of the circumstances in that situation. Most modern era lawfull systems like to style themselves as being lawful good, and the fact that a system that tries to be lawful good includes a way to dispute the system itself shows that, while said system may be far from perfect, it, at least, is aware of its own imperfection, and has created a system to change itself for the better.

Lawful Good - to make them better citizens
Lawful Neutral - (life imprisonment) lock the ones that cannot become better citizens forever
Lawful Evil - (death penalty) kill the ones that cannot become better citizens

[Blackhawk748]

It's not so much forcing your alignment on others, but just having you around inhibits certain other alignments.

The CN druid casts a fire trap to potentially ensnare a lackey for an illegal organization. Accidentally triggered by an old lady. She survives, barely, but the law starts looking for the responsible party.
Guess who tells what happened?

That is a terrible example because...why the hell would you place that to catch someone? Just do a stake out like normal people and cast entangle when you see something. It's nonlethal and they can't move. Perfect.

And the fact that you assume that the LG just runs off to the authorities is just continuing the problem I pointed out. They are not brainless automatons that have to follow the Law all the time or their alignment shifts. That isn't how that works and thats not how people work. In that particular example I would expect the LG to be screaming at the rampant stupidity of the Druid and to have them demand that they find a way to Raise her.

But as already pointed out, LG people have a Duty to Party as well as Duty to Order. One can, and will, supersede the other. Whichever direction that goes depends on the person.

[Calthropstu]

That is a terrible example because...why the hell would you place that to catch someone? Just do a stake out like normal people and cast entangle when you see something. It's nonlethal and they can't move. Perfect.

And the fact that you assume that the LG just runs off to the authorities is just continuing the problem I pointed out. They are not brainless automatons that have to follow the Law all the time or their alignment shifts. That isn't how that works and thats not how people work. In that particular example I would expect the LG to be screaming at the rampant stupidity of the Druid and to have them demand that they find a way to Raise her.

But as already pointed out, LG people have a Duty to Party as well as Duty to Order. One can, and will, supersede the other. Whichever direction that goes depends on the person.

Maybe the druid placed it knowing the guy would be coming that way. Maybe they placed it because they wanted first strike. Maybe they placed it because it, to him, seemed like a good idea. Does it matter? He placed it, another party triggered jt, and the authorities are questioning people, including mr goody two shoes.
He doesn't have to go to the authorities, the authorities arrive on scene and if someone is say working to stop the bleeding when they arrive the conversation goes something along the lines of "What happened? Do you know who or what caused the explosion? Where are they now? Which way did they go?"

Do you know why I know it would go down that way? Because I have been at the scene of dozens of crime scenes as both witness and victim.
When someone is truly committed to doing what they think is right, it causes all kinds of problems for the ****bags around them. Just a few days ago I stopped an attempted scammer from fleecing some maintenance truck. He did a half cartwheel and slammed his own head into the pavement.

If it had been someone I knew, I wouldn't have changed my actions at all. Now, I understand it's a game. It's supposed to be fun. But some people take that mentality into the game. That desire to do good that they can't exactly do in their daily life. As someone who actively opposes such, I get it.
And going into the game with that mindset only to watch pure douchebaggery from their fellow players is annoying to that mindset. So they actively oppose evil and chaos even from party members.

On the opposite end, some want to play chaotic and or evil characters and feel they have to tip toe around mr goody two shoes. Whether it be hiding actions he opposes, or actively trying to make that character (read: player) leave. Usually LG comes into severe conflict with evil and chaotic characters. And it often spills out of character.

[FaerieGodfather]

Except that most successful lawfull systems in the modern era have a court of law where you can dispute a ruling as being inherently wrong in a particular situation, because of the circumstances in that situation. Most modern era lawfull systems like to style themselves as being lawful good, and the fact that a system that tries to be lawful good includes a way to dispute the system itself shows that, while said system may be far from perfect, it, at least, is aware of its own imperfection, and has created a system to change itself for the better.

A system that is governed by the same people it is governing, and that historically, makes very little improvement unless and until its non-Lawful subjects start gathering in large groups and threatening to set it on fire.

Modern systems of governance have the political flexibility to change under extreme enough pressure from their citizens... but they still require citizens willing to exert extreme enough pressure on their governments and government officials to coerce them into changing-- something that Lawful Good is incapable of doing because, after all, there's a "right way" to reform the system that we must not deviate from, even if its purpose is only to keep commoner Paladins from smiting their betters.

[Particle_Man]

It seems like the real problem is often a lack of communication at the character level. It could be solved by a conversation as follows:

C: “ We need to catch this guy. What if I cast fire trap over here?”

L: “ Naw. Too much chance of killing an innocent third party.”

C: “ Oh, right. And the guy we want would be alerted.”

L:” . . . Yes”

Also, lawful people can and have changed the bad laws of their countries. They just do it more slowly than chaotic people like because to change laws in a lawful manner can take time. That said, ye olde fake medieval systems endemic to the game are not modern in this manner.

[LordBlades]

It seems like the real problem is often a lack of communication at the character level. It could be solved by a conversation as follows:

C: “ We need to catch this guy. What if I cast fire trap over here?”

L: “ Naw. Too much chance of killing an innocent third party.”

C: “ Oh, right. And the guy we want would be alerted.”

L:” . . . Yes”



Such conversations however tend to get way more intersting when the best solution to a given problem any party member can come up with is non-Lawful, non-Good or both.

[Bartmanhomer]

I keep seeing people saying that Lawful Good people keep forcing their alignment on others or killing anything that pings Evil.

That's only the base Paladin and that's only because they are specifically not allowed to associate with Evil aligned things. (Which is stupid for many reasons, namely would negotiating count?)

And for the second part, you cannot go around and killing people who ping because THATS EVIL. Yes, they may ping as Evil, but they could just be a jerk. You are not the law, and you don't get to act like you are.

You are also good, good people try not to be annoyingly preachy because that generally makes people less likely to listen. You have to follow the code of conduct, not your Elf Rogue, not your Barbarian and not the Cleric of Kord. You.

So follow the normal social contract and don't be a jerk to your coworkers.Yes I don't get the Paladin Code of Conduct rule. It's so dogmatic. :sigh:

[Dienekes]

A system that is governed by the same people it is governing, and that historically, makes very little improvement unless and until its non-Lawful subjects start gathering in large groups and threatening to set it on fire.

Modern systems of governance have the political flexibility to change under extreme enough pressure from their citizens... but they still require citizens willing to exert extreme enough pressure on their governments and government officials to coerce them into changing-- something that Lawful Good is incapable of doing because, after all, there's a "right way" to reform the system that we must not deviate from, even if its purpose is only to keep commoner Paladins from smiting their betters.

Incapable my eye. I’ll go back to my Princess Leia example. Lawful citizens can very much rebel. The difference is how they go about it. If the primary motivation of your rebelling is to create a better government system, that’s Lawful. If the primary motivation of your rebelling is to topple the current government system, that’s Chaotic.

[rel]

Because if we've rolled Red Sonya, Gray Mouser and Elric and are planning to raid the temple of the crocodile god the last thing we want is for our 4th to be Dudley Do-Right.
We want to loot the religious artifacts, seduce the holy virgins and maybe engage in some light arson to cover our escape.
We need another quick wit and strong arm not some whiny wet blanket going on about how desecrating bodies, stampeding sacred crocodiles and un-holying the holy water is somehow 'wrong'.

Alignment in general adds nothing useful to the game but lawful good is especially galling. It seems designed to get in the way of the right, honest sword and sorcery upon which this hobby was built.

[ezekielraiden]

What about the Lawful Good Deities? Do they accept the Lawful Stupid? :eek:
No. Bahamut, for example, is quite clear about what he's okay with--and it's not Lawful Stupid. (In 4e material, it's even specified that Bahamut advocates overthrowing unjust regimes and removing unjust laws--because mortal law is only worthy of respect if it adheres to a higher justice. For a similar idea articulated long before D&D existed, check out The Caves of Steel by Isaac Asimov, where a Lawful Neutral character--the robot R. Daneel Olivaw--learns that maybe Lawful Good actually is better, and that "Justice" is too big and too important to merely be the complete enforcement of mortal law.)


Many people (myself included) feel that Laws and rules themselves are inherently evil serving only to enrich the rule makers at the expense of everyone else. At least Lawful Evil is honest about this.
All laws? Bit of a hard sell, that. Have you never cheered a court ruling or the passage of a good law? Have you never wanted justice against a predatory corporation or the unhealthy practices of a business? That's all law. Hell, realistically speaking you cannot have human communities without D&D "Law," because "Law" also covers tradition and honor--in other words, it covers both civic structures (where you have codified laws) and "honor system" structures (where you have unwritten but commonly-known rules of behavior). Does it make you chafe so badly to abide by the rules of someone's house (e.g. vegetarianism, or not wearing shoes inside)? Do you think traffic laws exclusively exist to enrich the people who write traffic laws, and solely take away things from all others? Anti-trust laws? Disability laws?

Or would you say that there really is a place for certain amounts of agreed-upon behavioral restriction, you just don't like that such restrictions can be used for evil? (Glossing over, for the time being, how much evil is done when there are no such restrictions at all...)


Celia's the sylph paralegal's big closing speech in OOTS summed up pretty well:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0282.html
This is really quite good! I like it. A great way of demonstrating the contrast between Law alone, and Law and Good living in harmony with each other. (OOTS, despite being a very silly comic, actually has a LOT of really good takes on the alignment system. It pleases me greatly that it does such a good job of articulating one of the most commonly maligned alignments.)


Modern systems of governance have the political flexibility to change under extreme enough pressure from their citizens... but they still require citizens willing to exert extreme enough pressure on their governments and government officials to coerce them into changing-- something that Lawful Good is incapable of doing because, after all, there's a "right way" to reform the system that we must not deviate from, even if its purpose is only to keep commoner Paladins from smiting their betters.
You avoid specifics, notably, and speak only of "extreme enough pressure." But I have found much changes through slow and steady effort, not extremism. Extreme pressure is often counter-productive, actually. Can't go into specific details because that would be banned topics, but suffice it to say that there are a number of places where enormously important reforms have been conducted peacefully, without any threat of violence--just by making voices heard and airing grievances. Remember that democracy as we know it is less than 300 years old, and universal (male *and* female) suffrage is only ~200 years old. Compared to the vast majority of human history, the idea that (all) citizens of most nations participate in the governmental process of their respective nation is incredibly new, less than 1% of human civic history (that is, history in which humans lived in large, sedentary, city-like communities, a period of about 20,000 years, give or take a few thousand.)


Such conversations however tend to get way more intersting when the best solution to a given problem any party member can come up with is non-Lawful, non-Good or both.
By what criteria are we identifying the "best" solution? I think you'll find that the definition of "best" is rather different even within a single alignment group.


Incapable my eye. I’ll go back to my Princess Leia example. Lawful citizens can very much rebel. The difference is how they go about it. If the primary motivation of your rebelling is to create a better government system, that’s Lawful. If the primary motivation of your rebelling is to topple the current government system, that’s Chaotic.
Completely agreed. Lawful Good respects legitimate authority. Authority may be illegitimate for (at least) two reasons: it is acquired via illegitimate means, or it is employed toward illegitimate ends. In the former case, if the illegitimate authority is at a sufficiently high level (e.g. the local head of state/region), then in effect there is no authority at all, and thus the Lawful Good duty is to help MAKE a legitimate authority, and affords a rare opportunity for the LG character to actively participate in shaping a legitimate authority into the best possible shape they can manage. In the latter case, Lawful Good has a standard by which the actions of authority may be judged, and if those standards are failed, it becomes necessary to either reform or replace that authority. Rebellion is to reform like war is to diplomacy: it is the endstop, when other, more legitimate means have been reasonably examined and exhausted. (I say "reasonably" because a Lawful Good character should not need to sign forms in triplicate to stop genocide, an obvious illegitimate end, but even that may be covered under the foregoing clause: unjust killing is inherently authority acquired by illegitimate means as there are no means which legitimize that act, full stop.) For Lawful Good, rebellion is engaged only with regret, in need, and to the most limited extent necessary--much as for Good characters, violence is engaged only with regret, in need, and to the most limited extent necessary, because violence is a bad thing that is sometimes necessary to prevent worse things.


Yes I don't get the Paladin Code of Conduct rule. It's so dogmatic. :sigh:
There are two problems with the code of conduct. The first is that it's badly written. The second is that it's vaguely written.

The bad writing problem leaves people with the impression that the Paladin must be this implacable, domineering, unrelenting hound to the party, rooting out even the tiniest acts of wickedness or impropriety and responding with overwhelming force. In other words, Lawful Stupid in a nutshell. Thing is....the code of conduct rule doesn't say that. I do agree that it should have had different writing in order to enable things like Roy acting as Belkar's mobile rehabilitation center. It's not just that the rule is written in such a way that it's incredibly easy to misunderstand, it also does have actual holes.

But beyond its poor writing making it easily misunderstood, it's also so vague that it supremely enables idiocy like the Lawful Stupid "you have jaywalked, NOW YOU MUST DIE" or "you took candy from a child when you were a teenager, NOW FEEL HOLY WRATH." By using such airy-fairy terms and giving zero discussion of anything practical, the rule avoids giving players even the tiniest bit of guidance on something they desperately need guidance on, since questions of moral behavior are EMPHATICALLY not easy. The Paladin, with good guidance and reasonable participants, is an excellent class that can enrich everyone's play. An enormous part of this problem is that the vague rules read as though Paladins should already be respected, when that is never how respect works in any place, ever, for any reason. Instead, Paladins should strive to earn the respect of their companions--and then, through that respect, push them to be better people. The kind of people Paladins shouldn't associate with are the ones who would never respect them in the first place--who will merely use them.

[LordBlades]

By what criteria are we identifying the "best" solution? I think you'll find that the definition of "best" is rather different even within a single alignment group.



Fair. Let's replace 'best' with 'only'. The group has a problem, some group member comes up with a non-Lawful or non-Good solution, the Paladin has no better idea (or no idea at all) but he still feels obligated by his code to oppose the solution.

[Quentinas]

Well it depend on which type of the idea is
Is a Neutral Neutral idea (so not legal not good but not evil or chaotic)? If yes the paladin could accept that (it doesn't break his code and is not an evil idea)
Is an Evil idea? The paladin can't accept that so he will propose to modify, the concept maybe is good but how do you do no. (Example they have to take the bandits who ambush many people in an alley. They know they will not be ambushed because they are armed, or because they are known, so the paladin rather than awaiting that another one would be ambushed and probably killed could propose he disguise and to be ambushed himself )
Is a Chaotic Neutral idea ? Probably he will have to think to the others so he could accept that some member of his party do that but he would not do that (example a ship sinking, a free boat for the party, they want to abandon the ship before each is save, the paladin would have them wait until they are sure that there are no people aboard, or that they are reaching in a fast way the other boat )
Is a Chaotic Good idea ?For example freeing some slave? It depend, if his against some evil rule he can accept that, but if they are in a good place he would not accept (i have no example other than the slave)
Is a Neutral good idea? I don't see why he should not accept that because if he has no other idea that is good for him

[Particle_Man]

Also, this could easily slide into the “no win” situation where there are no solutions that don’t cause a paladin to fall and that is more on the dm than on the players.

In other words, if there are no good solutions then there damn well should be.

I would also add that some parties actually *want* to be the lg heroes a la comic book Superman, movie Captain America, or the myth of Cleaned Up King Arthur (ignoring the non-good bits) and those parties are just as annoyed at That One Chaotic Stupid PC that thinks that the solution to every problem involves robbery, arson, and punching V-cards.

[Annehn]

The very short answer is: Nothing.

Nothing is wrong with Lawful Good. People however.. tend to take the alignment systems to the extreme. But that is bad roleplaying in my opinion. Seeing as a chaotic evil character doesnt necessarily have to go around time stabbing babies to death - but it simply means the guy has no qualms killing someone else.

I have a bard named Vishaka who recently had her alignment changed from CG to LG. Because she was trying to organize people and sort of evolved throughout the game ihn a more lawful direction, but I never once played her as anything else than having good intentions and trying to create a community where everyone was content. She is against mindless killing and doesn't tolerate murder in any form or fashion, but she CAN co-exist with her other party members without 'smiting' them everytime they do something selfish.


Any alignment can be made AWFUL if the player is awful. Simple as that.

[Segev]

The trouble with Lawful Good is that it is the alignment of self-righteous fools and dishonest tyrants who seek to impose their will upon others. They reinforce their position by protecting those too weak to support themselves in order to gather those peons into a collective whole that will keep them enthroned in power. They suppress the rights and privileges of those who actually make things happen, and get in the way of solving problems by protecting the guilty from the retribution they deserve. They slow down justice with rules about when and how you can punish wrongdoing, and they enshrine ineptitude and laziness and foolishness by insisting that those who are too incapable of protecting their own for some reason have a right to demand that others let them dictate the disposition of resources rather than the natural law that those who can, do. Worse, they sneer down their noses at you if you don't acceed to their demands that you actively help protect the selfish weaklings who won't bother to protect themselves.

This alignment is the worst because it imposes rules for no reason other than to tell people who know what they're doing not to do it, and at the same time insists that those who don't have any strength or wit to make anything of themselves have privileges over those who do.

[Vaern]

It seems like the real problem is often a lack of communication at the character level. It could be solved by a conversation as follows:
That looks more like an exchange between E and G to me. Chaotic doesn't mean that the character is impulsive or random, and a chaotic character (especially chaotic good) would not be dismissive of potential collateral damage by nature of his alignment. A more likely exchange between C and L:

C: "The guy we're after has some pretty powerful minions. He might be too strong for use to take out ourselves... I'm going to apply some of the venom from that giant spider we killed two rooms back to our weapons. That ought to give us a bit of an edge."

L: "I'm not going to let you do that. Using poisons is dishonorable. If we stoop to this villain's level, are we really any better than he is?"

C: "Do you have any better ideas? We could easily end up dead up ahead, and then he's going after the city next. What's more important to you: Protecting all of those innocent people, or giving the bad guy a fair fight? If you're willing to let your code of honor put thousands of innocent lives at risk for the sake of proving that you're better than he is, are you really any better than he is?"

L: "Fine, then! Use your damn poison. But don't expect me to resort to such cheap tactics with you. I'm keeping my hands clean. And don't make this a habit, or we'll be looking for a new traveling companion to replace you."

[NNescio]

That looks more like an exchange between E and G to me. Chaotic doesn't mean that the character is impulsive or random, and a chaotic character (especially chaotic good) would not be dismissive of potential collateral damage by nature of his alignment. A more likely exchange between C and L:

C: "The guy we're after has some pretty powerful minions. He might be too strong for use to take out ourselves... I'm going to apply some of the venom from that giant spider we killed two rooms back to our weapons. That ought to give us a bit of an edge."

L: "I'm not going to let you do that. Using poisons is dishonorable. If we stoop to this villain's level, are we really any better than he is?"

C: "Do you have any better ideas? We could easily end up dead up ahead, and then he's going after the city next. What's more important to you: Protecting all of those innocent people, or giving the bad guy a fair fight? If you're willing to let your code of honor put thousands of innocent lives at risk for the sake of proving that you're better than he is, are you really any better than he is?"

L: "Fine, then! Use your damn poison. But don't expect me to resort to such cheap tactics with you. I'm keeping my hands clean. And don't make this a habit, or we'll be looking for a new traveling companion to replace you."

But using poisons (that deal ability damage) is an evil act! BoED says so!

Snippets of rules and description scattered across core and splatbooks also imply likewise. Same with past editions.

Now, ravages, on the other hand...

[Faily]

Nothing wrong with Lawful Good.

It's no worse than those who play Chaotic Neutral going "I'm not evil, I'm chaotic neutral".

Some people will always be idiots at the table, no matter the alignment on the character sheet.

[Vaern]

But using poisons (that deal ability damage) is an evil act! BoED says so!

Snippets of rules and description scattered across core and splatbooks also imply likewise. Same with past editions.

Now, ravages, on the other hand...
BoED explicitly calls out poisons which cause ability damage as being evil because they cause undue suffering in the process of defeating an opponent. Ravages and afflictions only affect evil creatures, turning their moral corruption into physical corruption and essentially causing their own evil-ness to become harmful to them. One might argue that if a creature would be harmed by a ravage then the suffering is in fact due, and that the use of an equivalent poison in that case is justifiable, but the ravages and afflictions themselves would still be preferred by a good character as they come with a failsafe that prevents a non-evil creature from suffering from them.
In addition, the entry on the paladin's code of conduct says...

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act. Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth)"
Listing these "act with honor" conditions in addition to specifying that a paladin must not commit an evil act seems to imply that, while dishonorable, cheating and using poisons are not covered by the "must not commit an evil act" clause and are therefore not inherently evil according to the core rules.
It also says that a paladin must not continue association with someone who consistently offends his moral code, so while a paladin may not use poisons himself, he may give the rest of his party a pass every now and again without having to disown them.

[LordBlades]

Nothing wrong with Lawful Good.

It's no worse than those who play Chaotic Neutral going "I'm not evil, I'm chaotic neutral".

Some people will always be idiots at the table, no matter the alignment on the character sheet.

While that is definitely true, some alignments make it easier to be disruptive than others.

[BlueWitch]

The trouble with Lawful Good is that it is the alignment of self-righteous fools and dishonest tyrants who seek to impose their will upon others. They reinforce their position by protecting those too weak to support themselves in order to gather those peons into a collective whole that will keep them enthroned in power. They suppress the rights and privileges of those who actually make things happen, and get in the way of solving problems by protecting the guilty from the retribution they deserve. They slow down justice with rules about when and how you can punish wrongdoing, and they enshrine ineptitude and laziness and foolishness by insisting that those who are too incapable of protecting their own for some reason have a right to demand that others let them dictate the disposition of resources rather than the natural law that those who can, do. Worse, they sneer down their noses at you if you don't acceed to their demands that you actively help protect the selfish weaklings who won't bother to protect themselves.

This alignment is the worst because it imposes rules for no reason other than to tell people who know what they're doing not to do it, and at the same time insists that those who don't have any strength or wit to make anything of themselves have privileges over those who do.

None of what you said is true. Not for a Lawful GOOD person at least. Maybe LN or LE.

But when Lawful Good people impose laws they are doing it from a place of benefit for all. Why do you think it's illegal to play in the street? It's to keep people from needlessly getting hurt.

Why do you think public places have Waiting Lists and Lines? Its to maintain Order and Civility not "Get in the way for people to do things." Come on.

I have my issues with Lawful Good, but don't vilify it this dramatically.

[Gallowglass]

None of what you said is true. Not for a Lawful GOOD person at least. Maybe LN or LE.

But when Lawful Good people impose laws they are doing it from a place of benefit for all. Why do you think it's illegal to play in the street? It's to keep people from needlessly getting hurt.

Why do you think public places have Waiting Lists and Lines? Its to maintain Order and Civility not "Get in the way for people to do things." Come on.

I have my issues with Lawful Good, but don't vilify it this dramatically.

The purple color of his text meant he wasn't being serious. He was being sarcastic.


https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/992/401/e37.png

[Bartmanhomer]

The purple color of his text meant he wasn't being serious. He was being sarcastic.


https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/992/401/e37.png

And also blue text means sarcastic as well.

[Quertus]

That looks more like an exchange between E and G to me. Chaotic doesn't mean that the character is impulsive or random, and a chaotic character (especially chaotic good) would not be dismissive of potential collateral damage by nature of his alignment. A more likely exchange between C and L:

C: "The guy we're after has some pretty powerful minions. He might be too strong for use to take out ourselves... I'm going to apply some of the venom from that giant spider we killed two rooms back to our weapons. That ought to give us a bit of an edge."

L: "I'm not going to let you do that. Using poisons is dishonorable. If we stoop to this villain's level, are we really any better than he is?"

C: "Do you have any better ideas? We could easily end up dead up ahead, and then he's going after the city next. What's more important to you: Protecting all of those innocent people, or giving the bad guy a fair fight? If you're willing to let your code of honor put thousands of innocent lives at risk for the sake of proving that you're better than he is, are you really any better than he is?"

L: "Fine, then! Use your damn poison. But don't expect me to resort to such cheap tactics with you. I'm keeping my hands clean. And don't make this a habit, or we'll be looking for a new traveling companion to replace you."

C: "Fine then! Keep your hands clean *this time*, but you'd better get your priorities straight, or we'll be looking for a new traveling companion to replace *you*."

[Bartmanhomer]

I think inexperience players are to blame for not playing an unpopular alignment right. :annoyed:

[John05]

Rather than seeing too many people say that Lawful Good is worst because they're too stubborn, I've seen more people regard lawful good as just weak. (Even with Paladin being a class in 3.5! I know!)

IME, Lawful Good gives too many people the impression of a:

- milquetoast
- follower
- "nice guy"

I'm not sure if it's lack of exposure to cooler/stronger law-abiding "good" people, but it's just the impression I got from how other people regard lawful goodies.

This is in contrast to Lawful Evil, which gives people more of the impression of "leadership". It might be because so many people tend to think politicians and leaders have some edge/ruthlessness to them.

[Duff]

There's also groups and players for whom Lawful Good (Stupid) gets so hung up on being good *and* Lawful and making everyone else do the same, they become impractical.
Where Lawful Evil can make the trains run on time. (And will work with others to make that happen if that's something they want to see happen).

So depending on the culture at your table and the personalities involved (both player and character), LG can be harder to work with than LE, especially if your goals are not unequivocally good.
On a related note LE deals with shades of gray more easily than most LG archetypes

[Calthropstu]

The purple color of his text meant he wasn't being serious. He was being sarcastic.


https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/992/401/e37.png

I was under the belief purple meant "from an evil viewpoint." Though I guess the two are interchangeable here.

[Particle_Man]

I think the goalposts are moving a bit. It is possible to be LG without being lawful stupid just as it is possible to be LE without being lawful star-scream and it is unfair to compare the extreme version of lawful good to the moderate version of lawful evil.

[icefractal]

Yeah, I think there's a bit of memory bias here - when someone plays a cool, well thought out character that happens to be LG, people remember the former over the latter. But when someone decides to go "stick-up-the-ass Paladin with extra Lawful Stupid", people remember the alignment, because it's the "reason" for being so obnoxious.

But inherently, there's not any reason LG would have to be more extreme than other alignments. There's plenty of likable characters that fit it.

[ezekielraiden]

I think the goalposts are moving a bit. It is possible to be LG without being lawful stupid just as it is possible to be LE without being lawful star-scream and it is unfair to compare the extreme version of lawful good to the moderate version of lawful evil.

This 100%. Just as it is unfair--in the "strawman argument" sense--to compare O'Chul or Michael Carpenter to Starscream or Cersei Lannister, and act like that demonstrates LE is unplayable.

It is entirely possible to have Roy Greenhilt-types and O'Chul-types adventuring in the same party as Noble Demon LE types, and have a really good time doing so, but it requires a lot of maturity and discernment from the players--something that the often-teenage (or "might as well be teenage") D&D player usually lacks.

[NNescio]

This 100%. Just as it is unfair--in the "strawman argument" sense--to compare O'Chul or Michael Carpenter to Starscream or Cersei Lannister, and act like that demonstrates LE is unplayable.

It is entirely possible to have Roy Greenhilt-types and O'Chul-types adventuring in the same party as Noble Demon LE types, and have a really good time doing so, but it requires a lot of maturity and discernment from the players--something that the often-teenage (or "might as well be teenage") D&D player usually lacks.

To add to this, we have Roy Greenhilt adventuring in the same party as Belkar the classical Chaotic Evil Stupid murderhobo and Haley the "I-steal-from-everyone-including-the-party" Chaotic Good thief rogue. It works.

(Granted they became more developed as characters over time and are no longer as dysfunctional as before, but the party was mostly cohesive even in its early days.

Though, yeah Roy isn't exactly the straight-laced LG type. He makes an effort but he can be very flexible in his worldview.)

Edit:


The purple color of his text meant he wasn't being serious. He was being sarcastic.


And also blue text means sarcastic as well.

Purple is (roleplaying as an) "Evil" (character), a convention set by Red Fel.

Though, yeah, it can also be used in a facetious manner, like blue text (which tends to be more often used for facetious/flippant/"Not so serious" posts instead of true sarcasm). Albeit with an 'evil' undertone.

[Quertus]

I think the goalposts are moving a bit. It is possible to be LG without being lawful stupid just as it is possible to be LE without being lawful star-scream and it is unfair to compare the extreme version of lawful good to the moderate version of lawful evil.

Sure. But I will continue to hold that Lawful Good has the least flexibility to work with a party. That Lawful Good has the most difficult time promoting party unity of any "reasonable" alignment depiction.

[Quentinas]

Sure. But I will continue to hold that Lawful Good has the least flexibility to work with a party. That Lawful Good has the most difficult time promoting party unity of any "reasonable" alignment depiction.

For me a Chaotic Evil character have the least flexibility especially if they are played in a stupid manner , an LG character not paladin have more flexibility because he will not punish the other characters maybe (he will try to talk to them to doesn't do these thing and he will control, but is easier than a CE) but we want to compare an LG paladin with an CE paladin? The paladin of massacre have less flexibility than the normal paladin

[ezekielraiden]

Which alignment, on the Good/Evil axis, is more compatible with each of the following?
Forgiveness and overlooking past mistakes
Empathy and actively seeking to understand others' views
Putting collective benefit ahead of personal benefit
Desiring mutually-satisfactory outcomes

In every case, I argue Good is more compatible with these things. That doesn't mean Evil is always and constantly incompatible, but every single one of these things is, both by the descriptions of alignment and by the general meanings of the words, more in Good's wheelhouse than Evil's. Evil plots revenge, keeps record of wrongs, dismisses empathy as an impediment (note the difference between empathy and sympathy here), prefers calculated self-benefit over the group (only getting to "helping the group helps me indirectly in the long run" by more advanced calculation, not because the group is valuable in itself), and absolutely does not desire mutually-satisfactory outcomes but instead prefers maximum benefit for minimum investment and exploiting others as much as possible.

I'm leery of Evil alignments in general, but a very well-played Chaotic Evil character can adventure alongside a straightlaced Lawful Good character, if both players are mature about it. It's the maturity that matters. Unless someone can actually trot out some data on the subject, we have zero reason beyond personal experience to argue that either LE or LG (or any other alignment) is at all more likely to be immature. There is no logical necessity, only anecdotes and analogies, both of which easily betray us. As others have already noted, personal experience can be extremely biased and poisoned by merely a single bad actor out of hundreds of good ones.

So. What behaviors--at least as specific as the above, not just handwaving--does any form of Evil provide that encourage willing attachment, and resistance to forces that might break apart a party?

[Red Fel]

Purple is (roleplaying as an) "Evil" (character), a convention set by Red Fel.

Though, yeah, it can also be used in a facetious manner, like blue text (which tends to be more often used for facetious/flippant/"Not so serious" posts instead of true sarcasm). Albeit with an 'evil' undertone.

The two are hardly mutually exclusive.

[Calthropstu]

The two are hardly mutually exclusive.

His mistake is enough that we should probably take a couple fingers.

[Particle_Man]

Sure. But I will continue to hold that Lawful Good has the least flexibility to work with a party. That Lawful Good has the most difficult time promoting party unity of any "reasonable" alignment depiction.

Yet in the OOTS it is LG Roy and LG Durkon that are front and centre, and CE(CE/N now?) Belkar that almost got booted off the team by CG Haley.

[Quertus]

Which alignment, on the Good/Evil axis, is more compatible with each of the following?
Forgiveness and overlooking past mistakes
Empathy and actively seeking to understand others' views
Putting collective benefit ahead of personal benefit
Desiring mutually-satisfactory outcomes

In every case, I argue Good is more compatible with these things. That doesn't mean Evil is always and constantly incompatible, but every single one of these things is, both by the descriptions of alignment and by the general meanings of the words, more in Good's wheelhouse than Evil's. Evil plots revenge, keeps record of wrongs, dismisses empathy as an impediment (note the difference between empathy and sympathy here), prefers calculated self-benefit over the group (only getting to "helping the group helps me indirectly in the long run" by more advanced calculation, not because the group is valuable in itself), and absolutely does not desire mutually-satisfactory outcomes but instead prefers maximum benefit for minimum investment and exploiting others as much as possible.

I'm leery of Evil alignments in general, but a very well-played Chaotic Evil character can adventure alongside a straightlaced Lawful Good character, if both players are mature about it. It's the maturity that matters. Unless someone can actually trot out some data on the subject, we have zero reason beyond personal experience to argue that either LE or LG (or any other alignment) is at all more likely to be immature. There is no logical necessity, only anecdotes and analogies, both of which easily betray us. As others have already noted, personal experience can be extremely biased and poisoned by merely a single bad actor out of hundreds of good ones.

So. What behaviors--at least as specific as the above, not just handwaving--does any form of Evil provide that encourage willing attachment, and resistance to forces that might break apart a party?

"What does evil encourage?" You have asked the wrong question. There question is, what does Good encourage that makes it less resistant to forces that break the party apart. And the answer to that question is "caring".

See, Good cares about things - things other than party unity. It has to. Evil doesn't.

See, Good may be more about "Forgiveness and overlooking past mistakes", but Evil is more about overlooking current mistakes. The party wants to spare creatures that might well turn and slaughter the innocent villagers? Evil can live with that, for the sake of party unity. Can good?

As to your other characteristics, I'd say that Evil wins Empathy, Law wins the Collective, and the last one *would* be Chaos, except Evil wins Empathy, and thus is more successful at it.

[digiman619]

My major problem with the alignment, other than people playing as Lawful Stupid and/or Stupid Good (which is its own unrelated mess), is the fact that many see the alignment as the most moral; that by somehow having LG on your character sheet, you are automatically the better person. I've seen both GMs and players see someone's character sheet and use alignment as the sole factor on how trustworthy/moral someone is. As in "The LG cop who hates halflings and relishes whenever he can arrest them is the more moral character than the NG halfling Druid that runs the food co-op".

[RatElemental]

As to your other characteristics, I'd say that Evil wins Empathy, Law wins the Collective, and the last one *would* be Chaos, except Evil wins Empathy, and thus is more successful at it.

I'm a bit at a loss as to how Evil wins out on empathy. Can you elaborate?

[Segev]

The purple color of his text meant he wasn't being serious. He was being sarcastic.


https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/992/401/e37.png


I was under the belief purple meant "from an evil viewpoint." Though I guess the two are interchangeable here.


The two are hardly mutually exclusive.

In this case, I meant it as "from an evil perspective," not as "sarcasm." I'd have used a different color, since I actually meant it from a CE perspective and purple really means LE, usually, thanks to our good friend Red Fel, but I didn't think anything but Mr. Fel's iconic villainous and stylish color would be recognizable as "evil" just from color alone.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

Yet in the OOTS it is LG Roy and LG Durkon that are front and centre, and CE(CE/N now?) Belkar that almost got booted off the team by CG Haley.

Belkar is/was a poor party member not because he's CE, but because he is/was an impulsive idiot. Admittedly, that's often a part of CE, but it's not at all necessary to the alignment (and is just as frustrating no matter the alignment it's attached to).

Nobody bats an eye when he goes sociopathic on the party's enemies (beyond noting that he is and remains Evil) because, well, it's typically the same thing the rest of the party would have done, he's just doing it for all the wrong reasons. E.g. slaughtering the invading hobgoblins or rejecting Tsukiko's offer to join team evil.

[Particle_Man]

And yet Roy and Durkon are both LG and are not seen as "kickoutable" by the rest of the party. CG Elan and Haley are absolutely loyal to them, and (presumably) N Varsuvius is too (V left the group during an "Evil" phase). And while anecdotes are not data, I have yet to have a problem with LG characters in the party in my 37 years of gaming. I *have* had problems with Chaotic and Evil characters.

[Quertus]

I'm a bit at a loss as to how Evil wins out on empathy. Can you elaborate?

Good doesn't care what you think, it cares what's *right*. You think a dead baby float is tasty, Good just doesn't care. Evil can empathize with a broader range of motivations and feelings about issues.

Recent OOTS may disagree, but afaict RAW Evil can, in theory, empathize with Good without turning Good more readily than RAW Good can empathize with Evil, like, at all.

Now, sure, some sort of perfect empathy machine might - might - end up the perfect Good. But a *practical* good lacks the capacity for broad-range empathy that a practical evil can possess.

Speaking of… many might argue that evil has greater practice with by virtue of having greater need for the bluff / empathy pair. I'm not making that argument, mind - it's just one I've heard.

More anecdotally, which one understands humanity better: the angel who tells you what's right, or the demon/devil who temps you to do what's wrong?

[Lord Raziere]

Good doesn't care what you think, it cares what's *right*. You think a dead baby float is tasty, Good just doesn't care. Evil can empathize with a broader range of motivations and feelings about issues.

Recent OOTS may disagree, but afaict RAW Evil can, in theory, empathize with Good without turning Good more readily than RAW Good can empathize with Evil, like, at all.

Now, sure, some sort of perfect empathy machine might - might - end up the perfect Good. But a *practical* good lacks the capacity for broad-range empathy that a practical evil can possess.

Speaking of… many might argue that evil has greater practice with by virtue of having greater need for the bluff / empathy pair. I'm not making that argument, mind - it's just one I've heard.

More anecdotally, which one understands humanity better: the angel who tells you what's right, or the demon/devil who temps you to do what's wrong?

Chaotic Good disagrees.

after all, it can defy any rules in pursuit of good, therefore it defies your RAW rules or it wouldn't be Chaotic because it would following rules.

[ezekielraiden]

"What does evil encourage?" You have asked the wrong question. There question is, what does Good encourage that makes it less resistant to forces that break the party apart. And the answer to that question is "caring".
Why is reinforcement the wrong question, and punishment the right one? Reinforcement is--scientifically--more effective than punishment.


See, Good cares about things - things other than party unity. It has to. Evil doesn't.
I completely disagree. Evil certainly cares about things other than party unity. Or, rather, one thing. Itself. That's literally part of its definition: selfishness.


See, Good may be more about "Forgiveness and overlooking past mistakes", but Evil is more about overlooking current mistakes. The party wants to spare creatures that might well turn and slaughter the innocent villagers? Evil can live with that, for the sake of party unity. Can good?
Depends! It's a complicated situation. Moral questions do not have cut-and-dried answers--if they did, we wouldn't have spent thousands of years debating them.


As to your other characteristics, I'd say that Evil wins Empathy, Law wins the Collective, and the last one *would* be Chaos, except Evil wins Empathy, and thus is more successful at it.

I'm a bit at a loss as to how Evil wins out on empathy. Can you elaborate?
I'm with RatElemental. You're gonna have to defend basically all of those.
PHB: " 'Good' implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."
BOVD lists the following things (in addition to more obvious ones like murder) as Evil actions: "Bullying and Cowing Innocents," "Greed," "Bringing Despair," "Using Others for Personal Gain," without any list of exceptions or extenuating circumstances. In fact, the last of those explicitly says (BOVD, p 9, emphasis added):
"Whether it's sacrificing a victim on an evil god's altar to gain a boon, or simply stealing from a friend, using others for one's own purposes is a hallmark of villainy. A villain routinely puts others in harm's way to save his or her own neck--better that others die, surely.
The utter selfishness of an evil character rarely leaves room for empathy. He is so consumed with his own goals and desires that he can think of no reason not to succeed at the expense of others. At best, other creatures are cattle to be used, preyed upon, or led. At worst, they are gnats to be ignored or obstacles to be bypassed."

That's a pretty thorough damning of the notion that Evil is better at empathy, purely based on the actual text, I'd say. I'm very interested to see how you would counter that, Quertus.

Or consider this section, from the BoED (p 11):
"When conflict arises, as it certainly will at times, good charac-
ters must use every diplomatic means available to avoid the out-
break of violence, whether between nations, smaller groups, or
individuals. In the D&D universe, if one side’s goals are actually
evil, a relatively simple commune spell can make that abundantly
clear. Diplomacy might not always work, but the outbreak of
violence is not just a failure of diplomacy, it is a failure of good
and a victory for evil."

Diplomacy and understanding--at all social levels--are to be pursued as thoroughly as possible before resorting to violence. The purpose of diplomacy, in this context, is to achieve mutually-satisfactory outcomes so that violence or other undesirable outcomes do not occur. Unless you think otherwise?

Edit: To combine two posts into one response.

Good doesn't care what you think, it cares what's *right*. You think a dead baby float is tasty, Good just doesn't care. Evil can empathize with a broader range of motivations and feelings about issues.
I disagree. Practical Good does care what another's values are; I already demonstrated that myself when talking with Red Fel in the other thread.* I have long held, as a central tenet of the code of every Paladin I've ever played, that it is a lesser victory to defeat Evil, and a (much, much) greater victory to redeem it--and the BoED agrees with me. Redemption requires respect, compassion, understanding. You cannot achieve that by caring nothing for what others think.

You're taking a strawman--Stupid Good of the crusading, burn-the-heathens, take-no-prisoners, "God shall know His own" type--as though it represents all Good everywhere all the time. It doesn't. O'Chul is explicitly Lawful Good, and we all agree he is. Yet he is very much interested in understanding people, getting through to them, and communicating with them in terms they grasp and on ground they appreciate. Miko is the kind of "Good" you describe--and she lost her powers specifically because her conduct strayed too far from Good.


Recent OOTS may disagree, but afaict RAW Evil can, in theory, empathize with Good without turning Good more readily than RAW Good can empathize with Evil, like, at all.
Your "in theory" voices a lack of confidence in your position. Also, remember (as I said originally) the difference between empathy and sympathy: to sympathize with someone is to understand what they feel; to empathize with someone is to feel their feelings as if they were your own. As noted in the above quote, Evil is rarely capable of empathy. Sympathy, certainly, but sympathy is a far less useful thing for social-group cohesion than empathy.


More anecdotally, which one understands humanity better: the angel who tells you what's right, or the demon/devil who temps you to do what's wrong?
Neither, because neither is acting in an empathic context. Knowledge of the feelings and nature of a being are not, and cannot by itself be, empathy. Empathy means you actually do feel what another feels. You don't just know they're in pain, you don't just wish they weren't in pain (that's pity), you actually feel pain yourself because they feel pain. You take in the feelings of others and express them yourself (albeit usually to a lesser extent, since they're vicarious).

A demon or devil feels no empathy at all for the people they tempt, generally speaking--because they see the beings they tempt as beneath them. Dehumanizing (or "desapientizing," since we're not talking about humans only) is an Evil thing, and is one of the things that blocks empathy--you can't empathize with something you don't see, on at least some minimal level, as a being of equal footing. (To be fair, many demons and devils are likely to point to natural advantages they have, like immortality, innate magic, and higher mental and physical abilities, in order to justify desapientizing the people they tempt, but such justification does not change the underlying act.) I mean, it's literally in the description of temptation in the BoVD (p 9):
"TEMPTING OTHERS
Tempting good individuals to do wrong is an evil act. Plots with this goal are largely the purview of demons and devils that seek to corrupt mortals in order to taint their souls. The products of a tempter's work are larvae, the physical manifestations of evil souls on the Lower Planes (see Chapter 7). Larvae are valuable to fiends; in fact, they are a form of currency in their own right."

Tempted souls aren't people. They're money--objects. Objects don't have feelings, so you can't empathize with them, though because human beings IRL are incredibly good at projecting, we sometimes can't help thinking of objects as having personhood and thus empathizing with that fictitious person. See, for example, this image (https://i.imgur.com/SLJbSBb.jpg).

*Which, just so we're clear, was an extremely pleasant, edifying, and constructive experience, even with the purple-text sprinkled in. I am still flattered that he felt so compelled to respond, and that his response was beyond reproach for maturity and composure.

Edit II: Electric Boogaloo
Okay, it looks like no one can agree on which thing one means when one uses the words "empathy" and "sympathy." I have found at least three sources for either reading, so it's clearly a contentious issue. I highlighted the words originally because, when I used them, I meant "empathy" as "actually feeling what others feel, albeit vicariously and therefore likely to a lesser extent." "Sympathy," as I use the term, means cognitive understanding of what a person feels, and why they feel it. Though Merriam-Webster's definitions leave things rather in limbo, it does recognize that "empathy" is understood to be the stronger, more intuitive experience, while "sympathy" is used more loosely and usually indicates that two people already do feel the same things because they were affected similarly by a given event.

In either event, neither a tempter demon/devil, nor a proclaiming cherub, is acting in an empathetic or sympathetic capacity, regardless of the meanings you assign to the words. They are not there to share the emotional state of the person in question, nor are they (in all but the rarest circumstances) meaningfully able to feel the same feelings by dint of experiencing the same events in similar ways. The angel almost certainly isn't actually engaged in an activity that involves the recipient's emotions in the first place--after all, an angel is a messenger--so the contrast doesn't apply in the first place. As for the tempter, knowing what a being's emotions are, and how its nature may be manipulated to achieve the end you desire, is not how anyone meaningfully defines either "empathy" or "sympathy."

[RatElemental]

Good doesn't care what you think, it cares what's *right*. You think a dead baby float is tasty, Good just doesn't care. Evil can empathize with a broader range of motivations and feelings about issues.

Recent OOTS may disagree, but afaict RAW Evil can, in theory, empathize with Good without turning Good more readily than RAW Good can empathize with Evil, like, at all.

Now, sure, some sort of perfect empathy machine might - might - end up the perfect Good. But a *practical* good lacks the capacity for broad-range empathy that a practical evil can possess.

Speaking of… many might argue that evil has greater practice with by virtue of having greater need for the bluff / empathy pair. I'm not making that argument, mind - it's just one I've heard.

More anecdotally, which one understands humanity better: the angel who tells you what's right, or the demon/devil who temps you to do what's wrong?

If a good person stops an evil person from eating a baby, who is empathizing with the baby, and the people who care about the baby? You shouldn't have to be able to empathize with the kind of person who enjoys killing babies to be able to be more empathetic than him, because he's losing that race anyway by not caring about all the people he's hurt getting his dead baby fix.

Further, being good at bluff does not entail being empathic, it entails being good at understanding and manipulating how people think. Sociopaths are commonly good at manipulating people, but lack of ability to empathize is literally what defines sociopathy.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

Further, being good at bluff does not entail being empathic, it entails being good at understanding and manipulating how people think. Sociopaths are commonly good at manipulating people, but lack of ability to empathize is literally what defines sociopathy.

Not necessarily disagreeing with your claim, but as a psychology student I do feel compelled to get pedantic for a second.

Sociopathy/psychopathy is defined by lack of guilt (as the most extreme form of Antisocial Personality Disorder), not lack of empathy. Difficulty empathizing is a very common trait, though I have seen it theorized that psychopaths are actually very empathetic and just capable of turning it off in certain circumstances (I don't recall whether the theory said that was as a conscious decision or merely triggered by the situation).

I'd also like to note that it's entirely possible (and even common) for a sociopath/psychopath to be neutral or good.

[ezekielraiden]

If a good person stops an evil person from eating a baby, who is empathizing with the baby, and the people who care about the baby? You shouldn't have to be able to empathize with the kind of person who enjoys killing babies to be able to be more empathetic than him, because he's losing that race anyway by not caring about all the people he's hurt getting his dead baby fix.

Further, being good at bluff does not entail being empathic, it entails being good at understanding and manipulating how people think. Sociopaths are commonly good at manipulating people, but lack of ability to empathize is literally what defines sociopathy.

Indeed, it's a defining part, though not the only one. Sociopathic and psychopathic individuals are absolutely not the sum total of Evil people in D&D land (that would be far too few, even with my belief that a majority of people are neutral/unaligned). But it's pretty much impossible to be sociopathic or psychopathic and be Good, while it's very easy to be either of those and Evil, possibly guaranteed. "Altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings" is literally the antithesis of some of the criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder, the official medical diagnosis that covers both sociopaths and psychopaths, and it's worth noting that you don't need to disrespect the law to exhibit APD. (As of the newer DSM-5, sociopathy and psychopathy, while still not defined conditions as such, now do have some medical relevance; the manual's guidance suggests that sociopaths tend toward greater aggression and more instability, while psychopaths tend to be cold, unable to feel empathy or possibly any real emotions, and extremely adept at controlling and manipulating people. I'd argue that that's a very good description of most devils and demons!)

[Vaern]

I feel like empathy was the wrong choice of word. Tolerance would have been a better choice.

Evil can abide good.
Good can not abide evil.

Evil is characterized by satisfying one's own desires at the expense of others. As an evil character you would not likely make any personal sacrifice - bodily, financially, or otherwise - to help a stranger without some sort of incentive, though you might stand by and watch your party help an innocent so long as their sacrifice came at no expense to you. You might scoff at them and tell them they're wasting their time on that worthless meat sack, but you wouldn't be obligated to stop them.

Good is characterized by self-sacrifice for the well-being of others. As a good character you would more likely put yourself in harm's way to mitigate the suffering of others. If you saw a couple of thugs roughing up a guy in the street to steal the loaf of bread he just bought from the bakery down the street, you could not reasonably sit by watching evil people doing evil things. After all, the only thing that's necessary for evil to win is for good to do nothing. As a good character you'd be obligated to jump in and help him, while your evil traveling companion scoffs and tells you that you're wasting your time on that worthless meat sack.

Evil is inherently self-centered, and the fact that each character has his own goals and desires gives the alignment itself the potential to have very personal implications for individual characters. They may want fame, or wealth, or power, or maybe they just enjoy the suffering of others. Depending on how the situation reflects on the character in question, evil typically has the luxury of using the "What you're doing doesn't hinder me in the pursuit of my goals, so I'm fine with it" excuse. An evil character should be willing to harm others in order to achieve his goals, but he doesn't necessarily have to go out of his way to harm others in circumstances where doing so would not be beneficial to him in some way.

Good is inherently self-sacrificing. Good doesn't care about a particular character's personal ambitions. Their ultimate goal is the same - if someone is in need, good is compelled to help. Good doesn't have the luxury of being able to pick and choose when it's appropriate to be good in the way that evil is able to bide its time for the opportune moment to strike. When an evil character performs an evil act he's generally choosing to perform that act, whereas when a good character performs a good act it's because he's being called to perform that act. Ignoring the call of someone in need means turning your back on your good alignment. The inward-focused nature of evil and the outward-focused nature of good are why evil characters can generally be more flexible in their actions than good characters without jeopardizing their alignment.

[ezekielraiden]

Not necessarily disagreeing with your claim, but as a psychology student I do feel compelled to get pedantic for a second.

Sociopathy/psychopathy is defined by lack of guilt (as the most extreme form of Antisocial Personality Disorder), not lack of empathy. Difficulty empathizing is a very common trait, though I have seen it theorized that psychopaths are actually very empathetic and just capable of turning it off in certain circumstances (I don't recall whether the theory said that was as a conscious decision or merely triggered by the situation).

I'd also like to note that it's entirely possible (and even common) for a sociopath/psychopath to be neutral or good.

Most resources I can find explicitly state a lack of empathy as at least a likely feature. See:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/wicked-deeds/201801/the-differences-between-psychopaths-and-sociopaths
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/insight-is-2020/201812/difference-between-the-psychopath-and-so-called-sociopath
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/tyrannical-minds/201907/psychopathic-sociopathic-or-antisocial-personality
(note these are from 3 different, accredited authors, and do reiterate the tenuous link between clinical diagnosis and these colloquial terms)

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/320142.php
https://journals.sagepub.com/stoken/rbtfl/JZXNgVmoiiDLI/full (To whit: "Meanness describes a constellation of attributes including deficient empathy, disdain for and lack of close attachments with others, rebelliousness, excitement seeking, exploitativeness, and empowerment through cruelty.")

And while it's both technically out of date and not actually using the word "empathy," the DSM-IV entry on ASPD (https://behavenet.com/diagnostic-criteria-3017-antisocial-personality-disorder) does speak of a "lack of remorse," "deceitfulness...for personal profit or pleasure," and "reckless disregard for the safety of others," all of which are at least related to lacking a care for the feelings of others.

How would you square being psychopathic, given the above descriptions, with the explicit PHB statement that, " 'Good' implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings"? ASPD--whether or not it hard *requires* a total lack of empathy or just a deficiency of it--certainly seems to reflect major deficiencies in all three of these areas. Reckless endangerment of others, "disdain for...close attachment with others," cruelty. All of that sounds pretty incompatible with the PHB description of Good.

[RatElemental]

I'd also like to note that it's entirely possible (and even common) for a sociopath/psychopath to be neutral or good.


Sociopathic and psychopathic individuals are absolutely not the sum total of Evil people in D&D land (that would be far too few, even with my belief that a majority of people are neutral/unaligned).

I was not attempting to link any condition with being evil, I was attempting to show there was no link between being convincing and being empathetic. Or, rather, to be pedantic myself: Empathy is not a necessary condition to be convincing. It may well be a sufficient condition.

[Lord Raziere]

I feel like empathy was the wrong choice of word. Tolerance would have been a better choice.

Evil can abide good.
Good can not abide evil.

Evil is inherently self-centered, and the fact that each character has his own goals and desires gives the alignment itself the potential to have very personal implications for individual characters. They may want fame, or wealth, or power, or maybe they just enjoy the suffering of others. Depending on how the situation reflects on the character in question, evil typically has the luxury of using the "What you're doing doesn't hinder me in the pursuit of my goals, so I'm fine with it" excuse. An evil character should be willing to harm others in order to achieve his goals, but he doesn't necessarily have to go out of his way to harm others in circumstances where doing so would not be beneficial to him in some way.

Good is inherently self-sacrificing. Good doesn't care about a particular character's personal ambitions. Their ultimate goal is the same - if someone is in need, good is compelled to help. Good doesn't have the luxury of being able to pick and choose when it's appropriate to be good in the way that evil is able to bide its time for the opportune moment to strike. When an evil character performs an evil act he's generally choosing to perform that act, whereas when a good character performs a good act it's because he's being called to perform that act. Ignoring the call of someone in need means turning your back on your good alignment. The inward-focused nature of evil and the outward-focused nature of good are why evil characters can generally be more flexible in their actions than good characters without jeopardizing their alignment.

Let me take on the challenge of arguing against this.

Where does Neutral fall into this? can Neutral abide evil? and neutral can also have this luxury of non-hindrance? therefore, if the evil character doesn't do enough evil, are too smart about their pursuing their selfish goals, they are neutral, for they avoid harming altogether, reasoning that any gain from such a thing wouldn't be worth it- thinking it through, it would always have a cost that would come back to bite them.

furthermore, evil isn't always about GAIN. It can also be about, what other people LOSE. for example lets look at an evil racist character, who can't tolerate another races existence, who goes out and kills people for being that race. they don't gain anything from it, they might gain some enjoyment of out of it, but it feeds into their hatred to keep on killing and getting into stressful situations to kill more people. they don't care what they gain, its that other people exist that they don't like are there so they go out of their way to kill them to be rid of something they hate from the world. some evils doesn't just want to succeed- they want others who go against how they think the world works to be crushed. Lex Luthor isn't evil because he wants to be the greatest human, he is evil because he wants to crush Superman for daring to be a good person and hates the thought of Superman stealing his thunder. The Joker isn't evil just because he gains enjoyment from what he does, but because he wants to destroy everything sane and rational people value so they all become just as broken as he is. Freeza isn't just evil because he wants immortality, he is evil because he can't stand other people being different from or defying him in any way so he kills and tortures them just to motivate them to obey him more.

in this way, evil is all consuming. Evil is obsessive, connects everything back to their personal negative issue about the world, because they just have to compare everything to them. They just have to project their own feelings and force them on others. the greatest most memorable villains are ones that go out of their way to ruin something of others, to MAKE it all about them, because to say a villain can go "well that doesn't hinder me" is to give a villain too much credit and think they can recognize that the world is larger than the, and that they are only one person within it and that other people have things that don't relate to their own issue- when that isn't true. a villain is all about forcing their own personal issues on the world and not realizing thats what they are doing. an evil mindset can be one where they can't tolerate even the appearance of weakness or something that goes against what they believe, or whatever other issue they have.

for example, lets say a there is a orphan child who is given some bread by a hero. the neutral man who was once an orphan themselves goes "well that doesn't impact me, so I'm going to go make money." but the villain? oooh they are like "I was never given bread by a hero when I was an orphan! Why do they get bread and not me!? Why does she get to have it better! SHE SHOULDN'T HAVE IT BETTER! DIE!" then they kill the child. or they "No, its all about survival of the fittest! they are weakening her with the kindness! Its time to kill this child, the infection of compassion has already got her." things like that.

sure, a villain could be smart enough to act like the neutral man. could be. but those instances are rare. most evil people aren't all that smart, honestly, in fiction. the kind of self-aware intelligent evil able to restrain themselves like that should honestly be a rare and odd thing- self restraint is a positive trait after all and inherently tips them towards being a better person than someone who can't restrain themselves. a big part of being good is being aware and introspective enough to realize when they make mistakes and fixing them, and while a hero can be dumb, if they make too many mistakes, not restrained enough and don't fix them, thats a ticket into neutral or evil if their mistake is big enough and they don't do anything to correct it because they are too stupid to, the same for sociopaths who while can be good, are incapable of feeling guilt and thus incapable of learning from their mistakes and thus correcting them. dumb or sociopathic characters therefore have to perfect being good on the first try or they will probably gradually fall.

basically? lack of self-restraint is a big trait of many of the most memorable and enduring villains we know of. and self-restraint and self-correction is a positive trait that puts one closer to being good, and while a good person will be called to not tolerate certain things, most people probably won't tolerate them either, and thus a good person is more likely to have the self-restraint to figure out how to solve a problem smartly rather than do it any way that makes them seem intolerant or uncaring. this is where kindness and compassion comes in, these are vital virtues because its not just about giving people stuff or whatever, its about asking them what how they are feeling, what their pain is, trying to understand what is bothering you so that they know what they can do about it. Good listens to your problems. Good is patient. Good tries to understand what it is that is holding you back from being a better person so they can help you with it and thus allow you to live your life better.

So much is said about the combative holy crusader side of good- but no one seems to consider the healers who go forth to do nothing but heal. the bards who go a ruined town so they can collect peoples stories and ride back to the cities to bear the news to others by singing heartbreaking songs so that others can help, the druids who work tirelessly to make sure people live comfortably without harming the land they live because both are important, the humble monk who helps former criminals redeem themselves in a monastery, the wizard who works tirelessly to set new academies of education not just in magic but in all knowledge so that people can do things to avoid danger that they'd fall prey to in ignorance. all of these require restraint and an acceptance of other people not being the best and that they need to be taught to better their lives and thus forgive people for this or that. good is more than a sword striking a monster, more than what it does not tolerate- it is the people that tolerate all the pain in the world to make that world better.

[Quertus]

@ezekielraiden - you've made me really think. Kudos. After a bit of thought, I've realized that the issue is one of "fluff and crunch".

See, all the alignment stuff in the PH? It's fluff. (I mean, taken literally, there are 6 best alignments, and the other 3 are the most dangerous alignment. When, clearly, Lawful Evil is both the best and the most dangerous alignment.) Whereas the "perform x actions of y type, and you're going to Hell" is crunch. It's actionable RAW, whereas the PH just has 5e-style "mother may I" fluff.

Even so, my posts have wandered a bit between "raw" and "as played" and "platonic ideal of" - sometimes in ways that are obviously correct in context; other times, not so much.


Why is reinforcement the wrong question, and punishment the right one? Reinforcement is--scientifically--more effective than punishment.

Well, I've failed to be properly pedantic.

Before I write more, let me restate my understanding of the opposed high-level claims:

Good is better at forgiveness after the fact, therefore Good is better for party unity.

Evil is better at acceptance in the moment, therefore Evil is better for party unity.

Sound right?



I completely disagree. Evil certainly cares about things other than party unity. Or, rather, one thing. Itself. That's literally part of its definition: selfishness.

Well, I'd argue that any party that cannot be argued to be of benefit to any but the most short-sighted of Evil, then the party is already dysfunctional, and the group needs to step in and fix things. Unless "the party is a curse, a loadstone around your neck" is actually the game people signed up to play.

So, yeah, ignoring that one niche type of game, where Evil may not be appropriate, reasonable Evil can still be built to put the party first.

Note that I'm not talking about any arbitrary Evil - I am specifically talking about making characters designed and optimized to maximize party cohesion. And, in that race, both IMO and IME, Evil wins.

If your goal is to build a character, optimized for maximum party cohesion, in a good group that will bump dealing with actively dysfunctional parties to the metagame layer, then Evil is the best foundation upon which to build this character. Because Good can turn anything into an argument; Evil can turn anything into an agreement.


Depends! It's a complicated situation. Moral questions do not have cut-and-dried answers--if they did, we wouldn't have spent thousands of years debating them.

So, back to my original question: when one Good character looks at this complicated situation, and *believes* differently than the party regarding what is Good, can they simply ignore their belief, (say) letting all those innocent villagers die for the sake of party unity?


I'm with RatElemental. You're gonna have to defend basically all of those.
PHB: " 'Good' implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
'Evil' implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."
BOVD lists the following things (in addition to more obvious ones like murder) as Evil actions: "Bullying and Cowing Innocents," "Greed," "Bringing Despair," "Using Others for Personal Gain," without any list of exceptions or extenuating circumstances. In fact, the last of those explicitly says (BOVD, p 9, emphasis added):
"Whether it's sacrificing a victim on an evil god's altar to gain a boon, or simply stealing from a friend, using others for one's own purposes is a hallmark of villainy. A villain routinely puts others in harm's way to save his or her own neck--better that others die, surely.
The utter selfishness of an evil character rarely leaves room for empathy. He is so consumed with his own goals and desires that he can think of no reason not to succeed at the expense of others. At best, other creatures are cattle to be used, preyed upon, or led. At worst, they are gnats to be ignored or obstacles to be bypassed."

That's a pretty thorough damning of the notion that Evil is better at empathy, purely based on the actual text, I'd say. I'm very interested to see how you would counter that, Quertus.

Start with a character with Empathy. Have him live the life of an adventure. Have him slaughter dozens of sentient beings every long rest; more on a good day. How long do you think he'll remain Good?

Good men adventurers can rarely stomach empathizing with all the beings that they kill for long. Whereas Evil delights in suffering, and can enjoy empathizing with their prey.


Do you appreciate life? Yes? That's good. Because I take no pleasure in taking a life if it's from a person who doesn't care about it.

The Illithid performance eater - arguably the pinnacle of empathy - isn't exactly on Good's Christmas shopping list.




Or consider this section, from the BoED (p 11):
"When conflict arises, as it certainly will at times, good charac-
ters must use every diplomatic means available to avoid the out-
break of violence, whether between nations, smaller groups, or
individuals. In the D&D universe, if one side’s goals are actually
evil, a relatively simple commune spell can make that abundantly
clear. Diplomacy might not always work, but the outbreak of
violence is not just a failure of diplomacy, it is a failure of good
and a victory for evil."

Diplomacy and understanding--at all social levels--are to be pursued as thoroughly as possible before resorting to violence. The purpose of diplomacy, in this context, is to achieve mutually-satisfactory outcomes so that violence or other undesirable outcomes do not occur. Unless you think otherwise?

There are plenty who believe that the purpose of compromise is to make everyone equally unhappy. Just how many babies per year do you let the monster slaughter and sew into its skin, how many brains per year do you let the Illithid consume? If both these monsters need these things for their survival, how do you try to find a compromise?


Your "in theory" voices a lack of confidence in your position. Also, remember (as I said originally) the difference between empathy and sympathy: to sympathize with someone is to understand what they feel; to empathize with someone is to feel their feelings as if they were your own. As noted in the above quote, Evil is rarely capable of empathy. Sympathy, certainly, but sympathy is a far less useful thing for social-group cohesion than empathy.

Again, I reverse that - those with Empathy are unlikely to remain Good. Evil can delight in the suffering it causes; Good cannot.

But, yes, there are a few things, like remorse, that empathizing with could be dangerous to the cause.


Neither, because… the tempter, knowing what a being's emotions are, and how its nature may be manipulated to achieve the end you desire, is not how anyone meaningfully defines either "empathy" or "sympathy."

Fair enough. I view my tempers as really getting inside someone's head, and delighting in feeling their anguish, the same way some people are wired to sleep when caffeinated. But that's certainly not a required PoV for them to work.

[Psychoalpha]

Paladins are Zealots of their Gods, some to the extreme of killing evil in their vicinity like rogues and other characters.


I think OGDojo has the right of it though, that when people think of LG, they think of Paladins or other similar religious zealots.

People really need to stop perpetuating this dumb stereotype, both those criticizing it and those playing it. Paladins are not zealots, zealots are zealots. If anything Paladins are less likely to be zealots because there is nothing in the Paladin code that says anything about their religion. A worst case scenario is that one might see their religion's leaders as the only 'legitimate authority' they have to respect, but even so the rest of their code specifies behavior that runs counter to being fanatical and uncompromising, unless their religion is one that's... fanatical and uncompromising about helping the needy.


Paladin's Code of Conduct

Pathfinder more or less fixed this in an acceptable (to me) way. The 3.5 version is:


While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code.

The Pathfinder version is:


While she may adventure with good or neutral allies, a paladin avoids working with evil characters or with anyone who consistently offends her moral code. Under exceptional circumstances, a paladin can ally with evil associates, but only to defeat what she believes to be a greater evil. A paladin should seek an atonement spell periodically during such an unusual alliance, and should end the alliance immediately should she feel it is doing more harm than good.

Negotiating would presumably be to find an outcome that avoids a greater evil, or harm to innocents, etc.


Why do you think it's illegal to play in the street? It's to keep people from needlessly getting hurt.

Not... exactly. ^_^ Streets existed before cars. Horses, bikes, pedestrians, etc all shared the streets even when cars first became a thing. When people in cars started killing pedestrians, the public went after the cars, not the people. Automobiles were dangerous metal death machines that needed to be more tightly regulated, limited mechanically so they were unable to go faster than certain speeds, so on and so forth. Some places were going to ban cars entirely as too dangerous.

The new auto industry at the time knew cars were going to be big business, and engaged in widespread media manipulation, pretty sophisticated for its time. They turned the victims into the perpetrators, started the myth that streets were for cars and anybody out in the street was no better than a criminal trying to interfere in the law abiding driver's ability to get things done.

It's actually a pretty perfect example of how law can and is manipulated by non-good actors, and how 'lawful good' can fall in line. Without the manipulation of public perception, wholly to escape liability and maximize profits for the auto industry, we might have a world with fewer, slower cars, more advanced public transportation systems as the norm, etc. Or we might not. Either way, whatever the realities are now, the reason we aren't allowed to play in the street is because the rich wanted to get richer and the people were easily duped. ;)


IME, Lawful Good gives too many people the impression of a:

- milquetoast
- follower
- "nice guy"

Two of the most iconic Lawful Good guys in non-D&D fiction are Captain America and Superman (even though I argue that Superman is Neutral Good, nobody ever seems to agree). Does not compute.

[Particle_Man]

The empathetic good character stays empathetic and good by emphasizing with the innocent people saved from the sentient evil beings that the good person kills (in order to protect those innnocent people) between long rests. The good person thus retains empathy. The evil person never had empathy. They see the party as rocks. They see enemies they kill as rocks. They see the innocent beings the enemy might kill as rocks. And all the rocks are interchangeable. The LE being would have no qualms about betraying the party in order to trade up to a better party (one that more efficiently achieves the LE being’s goals). That is not conducive to party unity.

[Quertus]

I feel like empathy was the wrong choice of word. Tolerance would have been a better choice.

Evil can abide good.
Good can not abide evil.

When an evil character performs an evil act he's generally choosing to perform that act, whereas when a good character performs a good act it's because he's being called to perform that act. Ignoring the call of someone in need means turning your back on your good alignment. The inward-focused nature of evil and the outward-focused nature of good are why evil characters can generally be more flexible in their actions than good characters without jeopardizing their alignment.

This states the majority of my opinions on the subject better than I have explained them. Kudos!

Evil can accept people doing good acts; good cannot abide evil. Thus, yes, evil is better for party unity, because it can tolerate more. Evil is more tolerant.


Evil is characterized by satisfying one's own desires at the expense of others. As an evil character you would not likely make any personal sacrifice - bodily, financially, or otherwise - to help a stranger without some sort of incentive, though you might stand by and watch your party help an innocent so long as their sacrifice came at no expense to you. You might scoff at them and tell them they're wasting their time on that worthless meat sack, but you wouldn't be obligated to stop them.

Evil is inherently self-centered, and the fact that each character has his own goals and desires gives the alignment itself the potential to have very personal implications for individual characters. They may want fame, or wealth, or power, or maybe they just enjoy the suffering of others.

As long as you're creating the character, why not make something like "wants the party to succeed" to be the thing that the evil character wants?

Now, where I disagree with you is on the issue that evil won't do good, won't make sacrifices themselves. Some platonic idea of evil might not, but an evil person absolutely will. How many murderers or cutthroat companies donate to charity? Even people who actively dislike the idea of helping people can still feel the social pressure to help out (and then complain to "dear Abby" about how they're being bullied into being good). Someone who donates their time to homeless shelters, and then poisons their enemies? That's not an inherently incoherent character concept. It just ties into how flexible Evil can be, because Evil is a choice, and does not preclude behaving altruistically.

[Red Fel]

As long as you're creating the character, why not make something like "wants the party to succeed" to be the thing that the evil character wants?

This, a million times over. One of the chief complaints about Evil characters is when the player justifies a jerk move with "it's what my character would do," but this cuts both ways - you are the author of your character. What your character would or would not do is entirely your choice. And that includes wanting the party to succeed.

You can be exploitative - the party's success makes the members, including you, grow stronger. You can be cynical - as long as the party succeeds, I can use them to avoid consequences for my actions. You can be corrupting - as the party succeeds with my aid, they start to see the value of Evil methods. You can even be affable - I want the party to succeed because they are my friends, and that transcends alignment.

But first and foremost, if you're playing Evil, you want to want the party to succeed.


Now, where I disagree with you is on the issue that evil won't do good, won't make sacrifices themselves. Some platonic idea of evil might not, but an evil person absolutely will.

Preach!


How many murderers or cutthroat companies donate to charity?

Those orphans are a tax deduction!


Even people who actively dislike the idea of helping people can still feel the social pressure to help out (and then complain to "dear Abby" about how they're being bullied into being good).

Wrong "A"-name, but yes.


Someone who donates their time to homeless shelters, and then poisons their enemies? That's not an inherently incoherent character concept. It just ties into how flexible Evil can be, because Evil is a choice, and does not preclude behaving altruistically.

Precisely. Evil could do it for good press, to disguise their deeds, or simply because doing these things contributes to their ultimate goals. Evil can perform acts of Good to get the job done. It's Good that's expressly prohibited from doing Evil.

Now, back on point? The only issue I have with Lawful Good is the writing. The fact is, there's nothing wrong with Lawful Good in concept. There's something wrong with Lawful Stupid, or Awful Good, but that's been covered. There's a lot wrong with the Paladin class as written, especially with regard to its code, but that's been covered too.

No, my issue is with where the writers take the concept. Face facts, LG is considered by the writers to be "best" Good. If you look at the alignment grid as two spectra, each with an end the writers like and one they discourage, L is to C as G is to E. That is, Chaos is the "Evil" of the L-C spectrum. It's been discussed to death, but the origins of alignment in D&D start with the positive forces of Law versus the wicked forces of Chaos. L is the small-g good guys, C is the small-e bad guys.

So, naturally, Lawful and Good, the two "best" alignments of their respective spectra. They get married and have a beautiful Gerber baby named LG, and it's perfect. The writers, in an effort to show just how much better LG is than the other alignments, create Exalted feats.

Now, Exalted is ultra-Good. It's literally so Good it hurts. And it's Lawful, because of course it is. Mind you, they say "Any Good alignment," but conceptually, they're all basically Lawful. There are Vows, which - let's be honest - don't exactly jive with a Chaotic mindset. There's Servant of the Heavens, where you swear allegiance to the Tome Archons, paragons of LG. There are ostensibly ones that are designed for Chaotic types - Words of Creation can be used to enhance Bardic Music, or you could swear yourself to the Guardinals instead of the Archons - but conceptually, you're holding yourself to an extremely exacting and precise, more-Good-than-Good standard, and that looks Lawful from almost any angle.

They don't call it Lawful. They take pains to suggest it works for anyone Good. But let's be honest - it's Lawful. Because, to the authors, Lawful is Good. LG is "best" good. LN is just robots. And LE is Evil because it perverts Law.

And that's what irks me. The writing. Most alignments have their own merits. But the key merit of LG - as the writers seem determined to show us - is that it's the best alignment.

And, uh, I don't know if you've heard of me, but... I disagree with that sentiment.

[Segev]

And that's what irks me. The writing. Most alignments have their own merits. But the key merit of LG - as the writers seem determined to show us - is that it's the best alignment.

And, uh, I don't know if you've heard of me, but... I disagree with that sentiment.

I imagine you feel a little sleighted that CE is considered the most evil alignment, too. As if they somehow had more ideological purity in their villainy than LE!

But you're absolutely right; the tendency to treat Law as more good than Chaos, and Chaos as more evil than Law, to treat the LG and CE corners as more opposed and further apart than the LE and CG corners, is irksome.

Personally, I take it a step further; I think NG and NE are the epitomes of their respective moral axes. NG is where you find "the best alignment" (if you're defining "best" as "most good," at least). NE is where you find "the worst alignment" (again, defining "the worst" as "most evil").

LG is less good than NG, because it will give up some "good" for order's sake. CG is less good than NG, for much the same (but opposite) reason: it will give up some good for the sake of avoiding imposing controls on one's own or others' actions.


I mean, if you want a serious answer, from the perspective of morality, to the OP's question, the problem with LG is just that: it will give up on doing the right thing, sometimes, in order to maintain order.

[RatElemental]

I mean, if you want a serious answer, from the perspective of morality, to the OP's question, the problem with LG is just that: it will give up on doing the right thing, sometimes, in order to maintain order.

And on the flip side, it will sometimes give up on maintaining order to do what's right. Some of the arguments in this thread have been really on point in pointing out that the point of LG (at least sometimes) should be that the character recognizes that bad laws can exist.

The different approaches to the alignment can be, probably not exhaustively, summed up as "Thinking that Law is Good" and "Upholding Good as Law."

[patchyman]

I mean, if you want a serious answer, from the perspective of morality, to the OP's question, the problem with LG is just that: it will give up on doing the right thing, sometimes, in order to maintain order.

I disagree with this. Lawful Good is about using Lawful means to achieve Good ends, just as Chaotic Good is about using Chaotic means to achieve Good ends. Both seek to achieve Good. Each has a bias. A Lawful person tends to trust authority too much, but if shown an authority is corrupt, they will try to defeat it. A Chaotic person tends to mistrust authority; if the authority is truly offering the best solution, they will (reluctantly) fall in line.

A Neutral Good person isn’t free of bias: no one is. Their bias simply doesn’t neatly fall into the Lawful or Chaotic categories.

[Duff]

Looking back over a gaming life of over 30 years, I think a lot of the issues come from what I'm going to call simple* characterisation.
A table with simple characterisation is more likely to be one where character's personalities were not built to be able to adventure together.
Paladins are more likely to be dark and edgy and emphasise law or bright and shiny and always right (just ask them)
A table with simple characterisation is unlikely to have an evil character for very long before that character has to go or the campaign ends. These table are more likely to have (and need) a "No evil characters" rule
Evil characters are more likely to be in an evil campaign where the reason the PCs stay together is hand waved as "We can kill more stuff and win more loot together" and accept that characters do whatever they do and as long as it doesn't affect my character that's fine.

*simple, as against sophisticated. Sophisticated characterisation requires (but does not always come with) maturity of the player as a roleplayer. I want to emphasise that sophisticated isn't better, it's more complex and that's not what everybody wants or needs even if they can do it.
It includes:
1 - Understanding that a roleplaying game is a shared experience and one's character will be part of the experience for the other players as well
2 - That a game which is not enjoyed by everyone won't run for long
3 - That a game will often work better (provide more fun for more of the players) when character personality and player- group dynamic clash, its better to bend the character and these clashes can often be prevented by a good session 0 type conversation around everyone's characters and the style of game it will be.
4 - Alignment is not the same as personality or motivation You can build a character and then align based on that or you can choose an alignment and make sure the character fits
5- Shades of grey are interesting story elements, not traps for the paladin (unless the paladin's player and the GM want to do a fall-and-redemption plot.

[Segev]

I disagree with this. Lawful Good is about using Lawful means to achieve Good ends, just as Chaotic Good is about using Chaotic means to achieve Good ends. Both seek to achieve Good. Each has a bias. A Lawful person tends to trust authority too much, but if shown an authority is corrupt, they will try to defeat it. A Chaotic person tends to mistrust authority; if the authority is truly offering the best solution, they will (reluctantly) fall in line.

A Neutral Good person isn’t free of bias: no one is. Their bias simply doesn’t neatly fall into the Lawful or Chaotic categories.

By the same token, though, Lawful Good is about viewing order to be good, just as Chaotic Good is about viewing freedom to be good. A Lawful Neutral person is more Lawful than a Lawful Good person. A Neutral Good person is more Good than a Lawful Good person. Lawful Good people accept the notion that there is no way to always achieve Good; they believe Law is the best way to avoid unintentional harm, so they adhere to it, accepting that it will occasionally still require unrighteous occurrences due to circumstances. The rules can bend, but if you break them, you invite greater evil than if you follow them.

The moral axis isn't somehow "stronger" than the ethical one. Having a non-neutral moral alignment doesn't automatically make your ethical alignment secondary.

[noob]

I imagine you feel a little sleighted that CE is considered the most evil alignment, too. As if they somehow had more ideological purity in their villainy than LE!

But you're absolutely right; the tendency to treat Law as more good than Chaos, and Chaos as more evil than Law, to treat the LG and CE corners as more opposed and further apart than the LE and CG corners, is irksome.

Personally, I take it a step further; I think NG and NE are the epitomes of their respective moral axes. NG is where you find "the best alignment" (if you're defining "best" as "most good," at least). NE is where you find "the worst alignment" (again, defining "the worst" as "most evil").

LG is less good than NG, because it will give up some "good" for order's sake. CG is less good than NG, for much the same (but opposite) reason: it will give up some good for the sake of avoiding imposing controls on one's own or others' actions.


I mean, if you want a serious answer, from the perspective of morality, to the OP's question, the problem with LG is just that: it will give up on doing the right thing, sometimes, in order to maintain order.

So you are telling me that the NG lumi that wants to exterminate each and every thing that is evil aligned Or lies(so a Good aligned person who lies is a valid target for lumi) are among the most good people?

[Crake]

Precisely. Evil could do it for good press, to disguise their deeds, or simply because doing these things contributes to their ultimate goals. Evil can perform acts of Good to get the job done. It's Good that's expressly prohibited from doing Evil.

Performing good for evil purposes (to mask you from suspicion for example) is in itself a tainted act which strips the goodness away from what you do, because you're doing it with the express purpose of enabling future evil acts, thus in a way it actually becomes an evil act.

Now of course, an evil person could still perform a truly altruistic, good act, because being evil is really just the sum of someone's deeds, and not a presciptive element that determines the person's acts, but good done for the purpose of masking evil doesn't count.

But you see, the same could be said for the flipside. An inherently good person could likewise be driven to perform an evil act, while still being overall good. Beating someone within an inch of their life because they performed unspeakable acts to your daughter for example, is an evil act, but one would not call an otherwise benevolent and altruistic person evil for doing so. Sure it would be a "mark on the record" so to speak, but good can still be permitted to perform evil without instantly becoming evil themselves. They can even perform evil to get the job done, and then go ahead to atone for their sins, which I believe is pretty much what the entire concept of the grey guard paladin is based around.


Now, back on point? The only issue I have with Lawful Good is the writing. The fact is, there's nothing wrong with Lawful Good in concept. There's something wrong with Lawful Stupid, or Awful Good, but that's been covered. There's a lot wrong with the Paladin class as written, especially with regard to its code, but that's been covered too.

No, my issue is with where the writers take the concept. Face facts, LG is considered by the writers to be "best" Good. If you look at the alignment grid as two spectra, each with an end the writers like and one they discourage, L is to C as G is to E. That is, Chaos is the "Evil" of the L-C spectrum. It's been discussed to death, but the origins of alignment in D&D start with the positive forces of Law versus the wicked forces of Chaos. L is the small-g good guys, C is the small-e bad guys.

So, naturally, Lawful and Good, the two "best" alignments of their respective spectra. They get married and have a beautiful Gerber baby named LG, and it's perfect. The writers, in an effort to show just how much better LG is than the other alignments, create Exalted feats.

Now, Exalted is ultra-Good. It's literally so Good it hurts. And it's Lawful, because of course it is. Mind you, they say "Any Good alignment," but conceptually, they're all basically Lawful. There are Vows, which - let's be honest - don't exactly jive with a Chaotic mindset. There's Servant of the Heavens, where you swear allegiance to the Tome Archons, paragons of LG. There are ostensibly ones that are designed for Chaotic types - Words of Creation can be used to enhance Bardic Music, or you could swear yourself to the Guardinals instead of the Archons - but conceptually, you're holding yourself to an extremely exacting and precise, more-Good-than-Good standard, and that looks Lawful from almost any angle.

They don't call it Lawful. They take pains to suggest it works for anyone Good. But let's be honest - it's Lawful. Because, to the authors, Lawful is Good. LG is "best" good. LN is just robots. And LE is Evil because it perverts Law.

Most of the official literature I've read (notably the PHB descriptions) always refers to Lawful characters as following A law, not the law. Whether it be a personal code of conduct, the traditions of his lineage, the codes of his order/school of teaching, they follow that, or at least try to. Any character who "follows a code of conduct", but actively seeks to pervert it to suit their whims isn't actually following said code, and this is actually chaotic. A lawful person, evil or good, would adhere to their code regardless of their personal whims. So, as you say "LE is Evil because it perverts the Law", that's not at all what lawful evil is, that's what chaotic evil is. Lawful evil on an individual level, is an individual who's personal code of conduct allows for, or even actively encourages evil, but the individual will still follow that code, even when it might be sometimes inconvenient.

Thus, realistically, a better way of looking at lawful vs chaotic (at an individualistic level with regards to conduct anyway) would be disciplined vs whimsical.


I mean, if you want a serious answer, from the perspective of morality, to the OP's question, the problem with LG is just that: it will give up on doing the right thing, sometimes, in order to maintain order.

This follows the same flawed mentaility that lawful means following the laws of the land. A lawful good person who follows a non-lawful good code is going to have a bad time. I think this mostly stems from people reading the paladin code of conduct, which is in fact rather self contradicting in that it requres the paladin to uphold the laws of the land, but a normal lawful good individual is lawful good because they follow a good code, and thus following their code should never actually come in conflict with performing good.

[Lord Raziere]

So you are telling me that the NG lumi that wants to exterminate each and every thing that is evil aligned Or lies(so a Good aligned person who lies is a valid target for lumi) are among the most good people?

the best source I can find on lumi (https://www.realmshelps.net/monsters/block/Lumi) says they are often lawful neutral. I'd hardly consider a NG one likely to follow typical lumi behavior.

[noob]

the best source I can find on lumi (https://www.realmshelps.net/monsters/block/Lumi) says they are often lawful neutral. I'd hardly consider a NG one likely to follow typical lumi behavior.

I am sorry for getting wrong the alignment of lumi.

[ezekielraiden]

I apologize in advance for the wall of text...


@ezekielraiden - you've made me really think. Kudos. After a bit of thought, I've realized that the issue is one of "fluff and crunch".
The point of any good discussion, so I'm glad to facilitate that.


See, all the alignment stuff in the PH? It's fluff. (I mean, taken literally, there are 6 best alignments, and the other 3 are the most dangerous alignment. When, clearly, Lawful Evil is both the best and the most dangerous alignment.) Whereas the "perform x actions of y type, and you're going to Hell" is crunch. It's actionable RAW, whereas the PH just has 5e-style "mother may I" fluff.

Even so, my posts have wandered a bit between "raw" and "as played" and "platonic ideal of" - sometimes in ways that are obviously correct in context; other times, not so much.
That's...hm. On the one hand, you make very good points. On the other, where does this leave us with the "alignment RAW" problem? Because this sounds like you're in essentially the same boat as me--variably applying either RAW, active-play, and platonic ideals as warranted--but it seemed, at least in the other thread, that that was a problem, and we needed to stick to RAW entirely. If your position isn't one where the buck stops at RAW and only RAW, then I think we have a more fruitful but far less definite discussion, because we'll almost surely differ on which parts require adherence to RAW and which parts require active-play/platonic-ideal analysis.


Good is better at forgiveness after the fact, therefore Good is better for party unity.

Evil is better at acceptance in the moment, therefore Evil is better for party unity.

Sound right?
Sort of? I do think the contrast of forgiveness vs. acceptance is an interesting one, and helps break us out of possibly-conflicting uses of the word "compromise." Good doesn't accept compromises on ideals, but is actively interested in compromises (that don't affect those ideals too much) with people, as people are inherently worthy of Good's attention, with "people" being pretty broadly defined in most cases. I think a key disagreement we have is over how much Evil is willing to compromise its ideals. Because I DO think Evil has ideals, in much the way that (for example) St. Augustine (or possibly Aristotle?) noted that wicked people cannot be totally devoid of virtues or they would be ineffectual people. Whereas it seems like many here take the position that, essentially, there is no action whatsoever, or few enough to ignore as a rounding error, that can meaningfully make you less Evil, but enormously more actions that can make you less Good than actions that maintain or advance your Good-ness. And I don't accept that--I'm willing to agree that there are a variety of ways to fall, but not willing to agree that as a measure of valid actions, Good is so overwhelmingly more restricted than Evil that Good is (as noted before) merely the alignment for idiots who accomplish nothing. In a certain sense, it's St. Augustine's (or Aristotle's, can't remember) argument in reverse: smart Evil certainly prioritizes effectiveness, but there's a large excluded middle between "prioritizes effectiveness over literally anything else" and "woefully ineffective at everything."


So, yeah, ignoring that one niche type of game, where Evil may not be appropriate, reasonable Evil can still be built to put the party first.

Note that I'm not talking about any arbitrary Evil - I am specifically talking about making characters designed and optimized to maximize party cohesion. And, in that race, both IMO and IME, Evil wins.
Why is only Evil allowed to optimize for party cohesion? Why does Evil get to pursue unity without any limits? (I'm going to hit this point a lot, so it may be worthwhile to just respond once rather than to every version separately.)


Evil can turn anything into an agreement.
Yeah, this is exactly what I'm talking about. I don't buy this. I don't buy that Evil is totally uninhibited. Either there are (and I think RAW says so) or there should be (and both alignment-in-play and platonic-idealism surely say so) lines that Evil should not be willing to cross, just as there are lines for all three of the other alignment elements. The lines may be fuzzier or broader for some alignments than others, but they have to exist. Otherwise, we end up with, again, "X is the alignment for chumps, Y is the alignment for people who accomplish things," and that's clearly not RAW or RAI for any of the alignments.


So, back to my original question: when one Good character looks at this complicated situation, and *believes* differently than the party regarding what is Good, can they simply ignore their belief, (say) letting all those innocent villagers die for the sake of party unity?
In this relatively manufactured situation? Maybe not. Personally, I'd be advocating for the Roy-watching-Belkar scenario. If we can't just let them stay here, and we can't just kill them, and we can't just drive them away, and we can't hand them over to someone more competent, and we have no hope of extracting durable promises from them, then it is our responsibility to keep watch over them until such time as that watch can be transferred (e.g. to a druid grove, local Cleric temple/monastery, constabulary, etc.) or reasonably released (e.g. we're 500 miles away in an area where no innocents have any reason to be, yet it's reasonably safe for a gaggle of sapient monsters to hang out and live for a while.) Responsibility doesn't mean lacking creativity, after all.

However...are you 100% certain that no such situation can occur, even for smart, competent Evil? Because it seems to me like you're implying that with this line of questioning. Is Evil really so flexible that there is nothing whatsoever that friendly/amicable Evil would never be willing to do? Because that Evil sounds, frankly, completely unrealistic and unlike anything any real person could ever achieve, being simultaneously more generous, caring, and helpful than the goodest of Good, yet also more ruthless, selfish, and demanding than the darkest Neutral.


Start with a character with Empathy. Have him live the life of an adventure. Have him slaughter dozens of sentient beings every long rest; more on a good day. How long do you think he'll remain Good?
So, are you saying it's just impossible to be a Good character? That, again, would seem to be saying that the RAW is wrong, since it very clearly talks about long-term Good characters who are adventurers, and even engage in violence.


Good men adventurers can rarely stomach empathizing with all the beings that they kill for long. Whereas Evil delights in suffering, and can enjoy empathizing with their prey.


Do you appreciate life? Yes? That's good. Because I take no pleasure in taking a life if it's from a person who doesn't care about it.

The Illithid performance eater - arguably the pinnacle of empathy - isn't exactly on Good's Christmas shopping list.

[AN: Brought here because it's related] Fair enough. I view my tempers as really getting inside someone's head, and delighting in feeling their anguish, the same way some people are wired to sleep when caffeinated. But that's certainly not a required PoV for them to work.
I don't think anyone would say Schadenfreude is a form of empathy. Joy in another's pain, whether in the relief form ("oh thank goodness it was someone else") or in the sadistic glee sense, doesn't communicate anything like "empathy" to me.


There are plenty who believe that the purpose of compromise is to make everyone equally unhappy. Just how many babies per year do you let the monster slaughter and sew into its skin, how many brains per year do you let the Illithid consume? If both these monsters need these things for their survival, how do you try to find a compromise?
Compromise only goes so far--for anyone. Unless you're willing to say that an Evil character should always be willing to "compromise" to exactly the same extent--sacrificing all of their valuables, even their lives, just so someone else can get a bite to eat or clothes to wear? Which circles back to the "why are we only looking at Good in its absolute worst cases, either foolishness, or the most extreme possible problem, but looking at Evil in its absolute best cases, where it's stripped of every possible issue or flaw?

Why does Evil have completely unbounded potential for cooperation, but Good only ever gets its least cooperative elements emphasized?

(As for compromising with an Illithid, that involves finding sources of food that don't require sapient sacrifice. I have, in fact, played a Paladin willing to compromise with vampires--as long as those vampires were willing to stop behaving like predators and dominators, and start behaving like citizens. Remarkably, it worked, and not only did they not betray my character's trust, they genuinely worked to make a place where vampires and regular living mortals could live together peacefully. Working with illithids requires similar willingness to consider food-sources that aren't people. Past editions have included things like brain moss, which is sufficiently nutritious to keep illithids fed without needing to kill people, particularly if supplemented with the brains of non-sapient apex predators now and then.

There is no compromising with baby-skin-stitching monsters, but that's clearly a cartoonish Evil, isn't it? Party cohesion need not apply.)


Again, I reverse that - those with Empathy are unlikely to remain Good. Evil can delight in the suffering it causes; Good cannot.

But, yes, there are a few things, like remorse, that empathizing with could be dangerous to the cause.
See above. Enjoying suffering at all isn't Good, I agree on that. But I don't think sadism or Schadenfreude are "empathy." Yes, they have some relationship to knowing and understanding the feelings of others.


This, a million times over. One of the chief complaints about Evil characters is when the player justifies a jerk move with "it's what my character would do," but this cuts both ways - you are the author of your character. What your character would or would not do is entirely your choice. And that includes wanting the party to succeed.

You can be exploitative - the party's success makes the members, including you, grow stronger. You can be cynical - as long as the party succeeds, I can use them to avoid consequences for my actions. You can be corrupting - as the party succeeds with my aid, they start to see the value of Evil methods. You can even be affable - I want the party to succeed because they are my friends, and that transcends alignment.
Are there no lines whatsoever that Evil cannot cross?


But first and foremost, if you're playing Evil, you want to want the party to succeed.
So Evil is just the alignment of desiring success, and everything else is the alignment of desiring failure? Again, this trivializes alignment entirely, and emphatically disagrees with RAW, actual-play, and platonic-idealist ideas, to use Quertus' terms. Evil doesn't get to claim exclusive domain over "being effective." Otherwise the books would be explicitly saying that Good just is stupidity, and you've made it quite clear that you don't think that. Stupid Good is certainly a thing, but nothing I have read of your posts indicates the belief that being Good is identical to being stupid. It's costly, dangerous, or distracting, but not stupid--and if that's the case, it definitely sounds like Evil can't have a monopoly on "seeking success."


Precisely. Evil could do it for good press, to disguise their deeds, or simply because doing these things contributes to their ultimate goals. Evil can perform acts of Good to get the job done. It's Good that's expressly prohibited from doing Evil.
So Evil entails no limits whatsoever? I reject that both on RAW grounds and on philosophical grounds. If "Evil" simply means "not having limits," then you have washed "Evil" out until it means nothing at all. No alignment, not even Neutral, should be allowed to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, as often as it wants, without bound or limit.


Now, back on point? The only issue I have with Lawful Good is the writing.
Then you and I are completely in agreement. As LG is often written, it is often insufferable, prudish, tattling, sycophantic, dogmatic, boorish, and so closed-minded it's a wonder those minds haven't collapsed into black holes (or perhaps they have...) That writing is as distinct from the spectrum of valid LG characters as the crappy writing of basically every alignment. Lawful Evil all too often gets painted as paranoid, shortsighted, intolerant, petty, querulous, treacherous, etc. Far too many people act like Moff Tarkin and Maleficent are what all LE individuals try to be, and it's to their double detriment: both because it closes their minds to interesting characters, and because it makes them unable to see the evil living among them that has admirable traits as well as evil ones. As Captain Picard put it: "Villains who twirl their mustaches are easy to spot. Those who clothe themselves in good deeds are well-camouflaged."


Face facts, LG is considered by the writers to be "best" Good. <snipping plenty of good examples> And that's what irks me. The writing. Most alignments have their own merits. But the key merit of LG - as the writers seem determined to show us - is that it's the best alignment.

And, uh, I don't know if you've heard of me, but... I disagree with that sentiment.
I think this loops back into something I obliquely mentioned earlier (or perhaps in the other thread): one of the core problems with the writing for the Paladin class is that it strongly implies (but never outright states) that being a Paladin makes you automatically worthy of respect from everyone. I think this is an enormous part of why Paladins go so wrong as often as they do. The assumption that you deserve respect automatically is almost always a flaw, regardless of who or what is making that assumption. (I have certain religious exceptions, but those require that you've already bought into the basic premise to begin with, meaning it still always required ground work, never a mere fiat declaration with nothing to back it up.)

Lawful Good does not specially deserve respect. No alignment deserves respect without thought. Each person not only can, but should, earn respect through their deeds. How any alignment achieves that respect varies, of course, but any element of alignment can. Plus, petty Evil is easy, so it doesn't really merit much respect--but none of us is really interested in talking about petty Evil here. Petty Good really doesn't make much of an appearance in D&D writing, and that too may be part of the fault here, for failing to show the parts of Good that really are easy, like being nice to your wait-staff or tipping the bellboy.

So, believe it or not Red Fel, I pretty much unequivocally share your disagreement with this writing pattern. I prefer Lawful Good over all alignments, and absolutely work to see it enacted in most games I'm a player in. But that doesn't make LG any more, nor any less, "deserving" of respect than any other alignment. Earning your party-mates' respect is a vitally important thing for any alignment, but particularly proselytizing ones, and I suspect both of us have some interest in that!


A Lawful Neutral person is more Lawful than a Lawful Good person. A Neutral Good person is more Good than a Lawful Good person.
This I emphatically disagree with. Likewise, the idea that a Lawful Neutral person is more Lawful than a Lawful Evil person, etc. One can still be entirely Lawful Good, and yet when truly hard-pressed, consistently choose Good over Law. One can be truly Chaotic Neutral, and yet when truly hard-pressed, consistently choose Evil over Good. Alignments are not straightjackets. Celia's end speech is a perfect example of this, showing a genuinely Lawful Good society that is capable of remaining purely Lawful and purely Good while admitting fault in the laws. Roy is another; he frequently uses Chaotic means to achieve Lawful ends, and yet a literal being of pure Law and Good expressly states that his pattern of behavior befits someone genuinely seeking to be Lawful and Good, not Good with a side of Lawful but actually both things.


I mean, if you want a serious answer, from the perspective of morality, to the OP's question, the problem with LG is just that: it will give up on doing the right thing, sometimes, in order to maintain order.
I consistently play LG characters. I have, in fact, been repeatedly identified by my friends as being the LG guy, the group's natural Paladin (and, thankfully, explicitly NOT the Lawful Stupid nor Stupid Good type of Paladin). I have never--not once--given up on doing the right thing just to maintain order in any LG character I play. Order exists to serve the Good. Mortal law derives its justice from a higher Law. As Lije Bailey once said to R. Daneel Olivaw of the Law from the Bible, that doesn't really admit being legally enforced: “It is in a sense higher than any law can be.”

Order is a tool. To at least my brand of Lawful Good, order is far and away the most useful tool for achieving Good. It permits consistent outcomes, and drags actions that are often done in secrecy out into the light, where they may be scrutinized and, if necessary, corrected. But ultimately, every law exists for a function. Unlike we mortals, who may never truly know what our purpose is, our telos, laws are inherently written with a purpose, and Lawful Good says that that purpose must always be the Good, in one form or another. A law that serves no function whatsoever is at best a humorous artefact, and at worst an impediment that should be removed. (And, in general, I see it as perfectly Lawful to want elegance in a legal system--which can mean striving for maximum effectiveness with the minimum number of laws needed. Parsimony is neither inherently Lawful nor inherently Chaotic, given that it's literally the idea behind Occam's Razor, a commonly-used heuristic in one of the most lawful things humans have ever done, science.)

A law that actively fights its intended function has negated itself, and the only lawful action available is to oppose it until it is fixed, replaced, or removed, whichever is relevant. Since Lawful Good only accepts Good (in some form) as a valid purpose for any law, a law that fails to serve or actively fights against the Good is inherently unacceptable and not only can be, but MUST be opposed. That doesn't mean that you challenge the acceptability or validity of Law as a whole--just those laws which fail to adhere to acceptable functions. This is where concepts like Civil Disobedience comes in. You reject the individual law for its wrongness, but you accept the punishment for breaking it, because you still accept the validity of the system in which that law is found. Perfectly Lawful, and yet opposed to a particular law because of its faults; as Dr. King put it (https://archives.nbclearn.com/portal/site/k-12/flatview?cuecard=48756), "[A]ny man who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail in order to arouse the conscience of the community on the injustice of the law is at that moment expressing the very highest respect for law."

[Red Fel]

Are there no lines whatsoever that Evil cannot cross?

I mean, Evil is kind of defined by the willingness - nay, eagerness - to cross lines. It's a pretty big part of what Evil is. So, pure Evil, I'd say... no, no such lines.

Now, Evil plus another alignment component - Lawful or Chaotic - may have lines. But those are lines of the ethical spectrum, not the moral one.

Also, Evil may have standards. Those are personal, not alignment-based. A particular Evil may have lines that he or she personally doesn't cross, for various reasons.

But, objectively, in a vacuum? No, no lines. Not really.


So Evil is just the alignment of desiring success, and everything else is the alignment of desiring failure? Again, this trivializes alignment entirely, and emphatically disagrees with RAW, actual-play, and platonic-idealist ideas, to use Quertus' terms. Evil doesn't get to claim exclusive domain over "being effective." Otherwise the books would be explicitly saying that Good just is stupidity, and you've made it quite clear that you don't think that. Stupid Good is certainly a thing, but nothing I have read of your posts indicates the belief that being Good is identical to being stupid. It's costly, dangerous, or distracting, but not stupid--and if that's the case, it definitely sounds like Evil can't have a monopoly on "seeking success."

Just because Evil is "X" does not make non-Evil "not X." Saying that Evil desires success does not mean, for example, that Good desires failure.

Also, I didn't say that Evil is the "alignment of desiring success." Evil is, as I have often noted, the alignment of ruthlessness beyond ruthlessness. Good cannot be truly ruthless - there has to be some compassion, some mercy to its actions. Neutral can be ruthless, because it performs its role irrespective of harm or benefit to others. But Evil engages in ruthlessness and generally derives some satisfaction from the harm it causes. That's the distinction between Neutral and Evil again - the "excess" I've mentioned in the past.

Evil is the alignment of ruthlessness beyond ruthlessness. Evil will do whatever it takes - ruin however many lives, destroy however many kingdoms, wage however many wars and release however many plagues - to achieve its aims.

Evil doesn't get to claim exclusive domain over "being effective," but it can generally be more effective than alignments hampered by morality, obligation, or compassion, because it is not typically limited by those things.

Naturally, there is a cost. Evil may be more effective, but the more effective it is - by abandoning moral limits - the less desirable its methods become. That's the exchange.


So Evil entails no limits whatsoever? I reject that both on RAW grounds and on philosophical grounds. If "Evil" simply means "not having limits," then you have washed "Evil" out until it means nothing at all. No alignment, not even Neutral, should be allowed to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, as often as it wants, without bound or limit.

You can reject whatever you want. But the second sentence does not follow the first - not having limits doesn't mean meaningless. The word "unlimited" has a definition. And the third sentence perfectly encapsulates why Evil is Evil - nobody should be allowed to do whatever they want, but Evil does.

Just try to stop us.


Then you and I are completely in agreement. As LG is often written, it is often insufferable, prudish, tattling, sycophantic, dogmatic, boorish, and so closed-minded it's a wonder those minds haven't collapsed into black holes (or perhaps they have...) That writing is as distinct from the spectrum of valid LG characters as the crappy writing of basically every alignment. Lawful Evil all too often gets painted as paranoid, shortsighted, intolerant, petty, querulous, treacherous, etc. Far too many people act like Moff Tarkin and Maleficent are what all LE individuals try to be, and it's to their double detriment: both because it closes their minds to interesting characters, and because it makes them unable to see the evil living among them that has admirable traits as well as evil ones. As Captain Picard put it: "Villains who twirl their mustaches are easy to spot. Those who clothe themselves in good deeds are well-camouflaged."

To be fair, a lot of what you've described is how LG is played, not how it's written. I and others have said - upthread and elsewhere - that this is a player problem. But, yes, the shining hero and paragon of virtue does become an increasingly two-dimensional archetype when written that way.


I think this loops back into something I obliquely mentioned earlier (or perhaps in the other thread): one of the core problems with the writing for the Paladin class is that it strongly implies (but never outright states) that being a Paladin makes you automatically worthy of respect from everyone. I think this is an enormous part of why Paladins go so wrong as often as they do. The assumption that you deserve respect automatically is almost always a flaw, regardless of who or what is making that assumption. (I have certain religious exceptions, but those require that you've already bought into the basic premise to begin with, meaning it still always required ground work, never a mere fiat declaration with nothing to back it up.)

A large degree of this, yes. Paladins are heaped with so much divine favor - despite the fact, as I often have to repeat, that they are not generally obligated to follow a deity - that it comes across as them basically being The Chosen Class. Despite, you know, being one of the worst mechanically. A lot of players will see this and make that leap, ignoring the fact that respect is earned. The best Paladin players I've seen use that effectively - their characters are humble, warm, and helpful, and people admire them for these traits, not because they took a level in one of the worst core classes.


Lawful Good does not specially deserve respect. No alignment deserves respect without thought. Each person not only can, but should, earn respect through their deeds. How any alignment achieves that respect varies, of course, but any element of alignment can. Plus, petty Evil is easy, so it doesn't really merit much respect--but none of us is really interested in talking about petty Evil here. Petty Good really doesn't make much of an appearance in D&D writing, and that too may be part of the fault here, for failing to show the parts of Good that really are easy, like being nice to your wait-staff or tipping the bellboy.

Seconded.


So, believe it or not Red Fel, I pretty much unequivocally share your disagreement with this writing pattern. I prefer Lawful Good over all alignments, and absolutely work to see it enacted in most games I'm a player in. But that doesn't make LG any more, nor any less, "deserving" of respect than any other alignment. Earning your party-mates' respect is a vitally important thing for any alignment, but particularly proselytizing ones, and I suspect both of us have some interest in that!

I believe it. I'm very convincing.

[patchyman]

By the same token, though, Lawful Good is about viewing order to be good, just as Chaotic Good is about viewing freedom to be good. A Lawful Neutral person is more Lawful than a Lawful Good person. A Neutral Good person is more Good than a Lawful Good person. Lawful Good people accept the notion that there is no way to always achieve Good; they believe Law is the best way to avoid unintentional harm, so they adhere to it, accepting that it will occasionally still require unrighteous occurrences due to circumstances. The rules can bend, but if you break them, you invite greater evil than if you follow them.

The moral axis isn't somehow "stronger" than the ethical one. Having a non-neutral moral alignment doesn't automatically make your ethical alignment secondary.

Why do you conclude that the moral axis isn’t stronger than the ethical one? My experience has been that Lawful Good characters tend to work better with Chaotic Good characters than they do with Lawful Evil characters.

[Psychoalpha]

Evil can accept people doing good acts; good cannot abide evil. Thus, yes, evil is better for party unity, because it can tolerate more. Evil is more tolerant.

Except as has been pointed out numerous times, this is not the case. Good and Evil are not binary values, good and evil creatures are not uniform in their perception or behavior, so on and so forth. Otherwise good people tolerate the existence of evil all the time, they just don't tolerate all evil, all of the time. You keep using examples like eating babies and raising armies of undead, but these are not representative of all or even most evil PCs.

If good could not abide evil then the Paladin code would have no reason to even bring it up, because it'd be the default expectation. There would be no good aligned people in entire nations where slavery is legal, yet that is objectively not the case (whatever people with modern sensibilities might want to claim). Evils great and small exist in every city in the world in reasonably large numbers, and yet good people live there day by day without rioting in the streets, smiting their neighbors, and otherwise refusing to tolerate any evils in their presence. Good people can not only tolerate evil, they can commit evil acts, because people aren't perfect examples of an alignment. Where the line is depends on a lot of variables (mostly your DM) as to whether you're actually a Good person anymore, but this idea that good people are paragons of virtue is silly in the extreme.


Evil is a choice, and does not preclude behaving altruistically.

Uh... I don't think you understand what altruism is. If you're doing something because of social pressure is not altruistic.

Someone who works at a homeless shelter because of an altruistic desire to help the poor with no consideration for how it reflects on them or what it gives them, but also poisons their enemies or otherwise does some evil stuff, could just as easily be Neutral. Or they could be an evil person who does some good things (see above re: where the line is). I'm still baffled that you can see an evil person who sometimes does good things for good reasons while still being evil but can't see a good person who sometimes does evil things while still being good.


No, my issue is with where the writers take the concept. Face facts, LG is considered by the writers to be "best" Good.

Disagree 100%. The writers have been pretty clear, ime, that Neutral Good is the "best" Good, because Law and Chaos both require you to take other crap into consideration in your interpretation of Good.


Stuff about Exalted Deeds.

Again, disagree 100%. The idea that Vows don't exactly jive with a chaotic mindset is just as silly as the idea that good and evil characters are defined as some kind of platonic ideal. A chaotic person is entirely capable of taking a vow, just like a lawful person is entirely capable of ignoring law enforcement or other authority figures. A chaotic person is entirely capable of having a personal code while utterly disdaining the codes of conduct imposed by society. They don't have to, but they can. Exalted Deeds has Vows because those vows require dedication, and that kind of dedication is something not limited to or representative of Law or Chaos.


And LE is Evil because it perverts Law.

Your bias is showing more than the writers, it feels like.

"A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises. "

Nothing about that says literally anything about being evil because of perverting the law, and that's the very first thing they write about Lawful Evil in the PHB.

The people who treat Lawful Good as the most Good are a problem, but they tend to be table players more than WotC writers. As was noted previously the fact that 'Good' only has one class dedicated to it, and that class is Lawful Good, can promote that perception (point to you, sure), but the actual problem is that people have a tendency to take that to mean more than it does. Nobody ever seems to have their opinions of Neutrality swayed by the Druid. :p


Personally, I take it a step further; I think NG and NE are the epitomes of their respective moral axes. NG is where you find "the best alignment" (if you're defining "best" as "most good," at least). NE is where you find "the worst alignment" (again, defining "the worst" as "most evil").

Yeah, this 100%. Which it straight up says in the alignment descriptions in 3.5, and even more explicitly in Pathfinder.


The different approaches to the alignment can be, probably not exhaustively, summed up as "Thinking that Law is Good" and "Upholding Good as Law."

This. God this. I play at a table with at least two players whose RL perceptions are so oriented towards the idea that Law = Good and Good = Law that sometimes I want to strangle them. >_>


Why do you conclude that the moral axis isn’t stronger than the ethical one? My experience has been that Lawful Good characters tend to work better with Chaotic Good characters than they do with Lawful Evil characters.

Some Lawful Good people will place more emphasis on Law because they believe tha, say, societal good will flow from the social contract and agreed upon laws that come with it. Some Lawful Good people will focus more on doing Good, and their Lawful nature will express itself more in personal choices than their expectations for other people or even society as a whole.

My whole issue with Paladins is that I believe they should put Good first, Lawful second. They are Lawful because of the combination of their code, their honor, etc, but these things exist for the purpose of seeing Good done. A Paladin shouldn't hesitate to break the law if they feel it's necessary in the pursuit of Good, even if the law in question isn't inherently unjust, though I do prefer the Pathfinder definition of their code where a Paladin isn't expected to be an idiot about it.

[Quertus]

I mean, Evil is kind of defined by the willingness - nay, eagerness - to cross lines. It's a pretty big part of what Evil is. So, pure Evil, I'd say... no, no such lines.

Also, Evil may have standards. Those are personal, not alignment-based. A particular Evil may have lines that he or she personally doesn't cross, for various reasons.

But, objectively, in a vacuum? No, no lines. Not really.

I wanted to lead with this, and hit it from another angle. Because, when you are designing a character to work with a party, Good has limits on how you can build it, lines that it won't cross. Whereas Evil gives you much more freedom to optimize your design process, to make a character that will work with the party.


The point of any good discussion, so I'm glad to facilitate that.

:smallbiggrin:


That's...hm. On the one hand, you make very good points. On the other, where does this leave us with the "alignment RAW" problem? Because this sounds like you're in essentially the same boat as me--variably applying either RAW, active-play, and platonic ideals as warranted--but it seemed, at least in the other thread, that that was a problem, and we needed to stick to RAW entirely. If your position isn't one where the buck stops at RAW and only RAW, then I think we have a more fruitful but far less definite discussion, because we'll almost surely differ on which parts require adherence to RAW and which parts require active-play/platonic-ideal analysis.

When building a character with a personality - as opposed to a caricature of an alignment or a personification of an alignment - it's a different argument, a different set of criteria. So it's more… that we're having multiple discussions, that are trying to pretend to be one discussion.


Sort of? I do think the contrast of forgiveness vs. acceptance is an interesting one, and helps break us out of possibly-conflicting uses of the word "compromise." Good doesn't accept compromises on ideals, but is actively interested in compromises (that don't affect those ideals too much) with people, as people are inherently worthy of Good's attention, with "people" being pretty broadly defined in most cases. I think a key disagreement we have is over how much Evil is willing to compromise its ideals. Because I DO think Evil has ideals

I certainly agree that acceptance and forgiveness are good ways of wording the differences.

Does evil have "ideals"? Sure. But…



Evil certainly prioritizes effectiveness, but there's a large excluded middle between "prioritizes effectiveness over literally anything else" and "woefully ineffective at everything."

Evil prioritizes - or can prioritize - certain things (success, effectiveness, etc) higher than Good can. This includes "the party's effectiveness" or "success at working with the party".

As i keep trying to point out, "the problem with (Lawful) Good" is that when its morals come into conflict with its effectiveness as a party member, it is less able to simply choose party cohesion.


Why is only Evil allowed to optimize for party cohesion?

It's not. Hopefully, anyone who chooses any characteristic - including any alignment - will attempt to optimize their character concept to work with the party.

Problem is, by choosing "Lawful Good", you've maximally hamstring yourself for this task - much like someone who enjoys an optimization challenge choosing a weaker chassis to optimize to try to reach the party balance range has intentionally made their job harder.

It's not that Good cannot be optimized, or that Good cannot work with the party - it's that Good has a lower ceiling than Evil.


Yeah, this is exactly what I'm talking about. I don't buy this. I don't buy that Evil is totally uninhibited. Either there are (and I think RAW says so) or there should be (and both alignment-in-play and platonic-idealism surely say so) lines that Evil should not be willing to cross, just as there are lines for all three of the other alignment elements. The lines may be fuzzier or broader for some alignments than others, but they have to exist. Otherwise, we end up with, again, "X is the alignment for chumps, Y is the alignment for people who accomplish things," and that's clearly not RAW or RAI for any of the alignments.

Start with some Good character. Then add in a number of unrepentant murders (of, say, people who killed his family members, or even of otherwise good people who were in the way of someone else saving the world) sufficient to, by RAW, make them Evil. They can still have - or not have - any of their former "good" behaviors, but, by RAW, they are Evil, are they not?

Yes, they have a line that they cannot cross: they cannot repent and atone for those murders. Otherwise, they can be whoever you want them to be. Whoever will make them work best with the party, if that's your goal.


However...are you 100% certain that no such situation can occur, even for smart, competent Evil? Because it seems to me like you're implying that with this line of questioning. Is Evil really so flexible that there is nothing whatsoever that friendly/amicable Evil would never be willing to do? Because that Evil sounds, frankly, completely unrealistic and unlike anything any real person could ever achieve, being simultaneously more generous, caring, and helpful than the goodest of Good, yet also more ruthless, selfish, and demanding than the darkest Neutral.

Checking context…

Ah. I'm saying that if evil has put "work with the party" as their priority, they can overlook things that Good cannot.

Perhaps it's easier to see if we replace "party" with "country". Imagine an evil super patriot who would do anything for their country. If they believe that the right thing is to let some foreigners live, but their country has decided to kill them, do you believe that they'll make a fuss? Do you believe that a Good character wouldn't (or mightn't)?


Compromise only goes so far--for anyone. Unless you're willing to say that an Evil character should always be willing to "compromise" to exactly the same extent--sacrificing all of their valuables, even their lives, just so someone else can get a bite to eat or clothes to wear? Which circles back to the "why are we only looking at Good in its absolute worst cases, either foolishness, or the most extreme possible problem, but looking at Evil in its absolute best cases, where it's stripped of every possible issue or flaw?

I think I'm trying to look at the ceiling for both.


Why does Evil have completely unbounded potential for cooperation, but Good only ever gets its least cooperative elements emphasized?

PR? Because many people (historically) only discuss the floor of Evil, and overlook the downsides of Good?

When comparing the ceiling, when comparing the best one can optimize them to work with a party, Evil does have completely unbounded potential for cooperation, whereas Good's least cooperative elements need to be emphasized.


As for compromising with an Illithid, that involves finding sources of food that don't require sapient sacrifice. I have, in fact, played a Paladin willing to compromise with vampires--as long as those vampires were willing to stop behaving like predators and dominators, and start behaving like citizens. Remarkably, it worked, and not only did they not betray my character's trust, they genuinely worked to make a place where vampires and regular living mortals could live together peacefully. Working with illithids requires similar willingness to consider food-sources that aren't people. Past editions have included things like brain moss, which is sufficiently nutritious to keep illithids fed without needing to kill people, particularly if supplemented with the brains of non-sapient apex predators now and then.

Kudos. Most Good, as played, wouldn't even consider this.


So Evil is just the alignment of desiring success, and everything else is the alignment of desiring failure?

No, evil is the alignment of *prioritizing* success. Or it can be.

That's kinda the point of evil - it can prioritize anything. Note that "anything" can include "the party's success" or "efficiency working with others". Good is a bit more… constrained in its options.

[Voidstar01]

To join the discussion, the problem with LG is the same as any alignment the way some people play it, seriously any alignment can be bad, I once had a guy rationalize that it was okay for him to send a teenager to hell because they spit on his shoes, because true neutral characters responds to things the way those things interact with them, since spitting on his shoe was a hostile action he could respond with the hostile action of sending a minor to literal hell.


I also need to point Raistlin from dragonlance, he's about as evil as a protagonist gets (even when he was wearing the red robes), he still helped out with the war of the lance because, despite what he says, he still cared about his friends. Evil =/= inability do good, merely that that a majority of your actions, methods or goals are evil.

[Psychoalpha]

I wanted to lead with this, and hit it from another angle. Because, when you are designing a character to work with a party, Good has limits on how you can build it, lines that it won't cross. Whereas Evil gives you much more freedom to optimize your design process, to make a character that will work with the party.

Only because, as usual, you're presenting specifically limited good vs unlimited evil. As if every evil character is down for whatever, whenever, wherever, despite that not being the case for the vast majority of evil characters. If the design goal is 'A character that will work with the party.', part of the process is always going to involve asking the question 'What kind of party is it?', because otherwise the only universal fit is a character so vile that literally nothing is ever going to be off limits. That's not 'evil characters', that's a very specific type of evil character.


Problem is, by choosing "Lawful Good", you've maximally hamstring yourself for this task - much like someone who enjoys an optimization challenge choosing a weaker chassis to optimize to try to reach the party balance range has intentionally made their job harder.

Only if you've chosen a very specific kind of Lawful Good character. Once again so much of your position requires that every Good character (Lawful Good in this case) is a rigid, unyielding bastion of Law who's also maybe kind of good.


Ah. I'm saying that if evil has put "work with the party" as their priority, they can overlook things that Good cannot.

See above re: Only a very specific kind of evil.


Why does Evil have completely unbounded potential for cooperation, but Good only ever gets its least cooperative elements emphasized?

See above. Quertus seems to treat every evil character as if they are absolutely, purely evil with zero consideration for any other aspect of their character or personality. When presented with the idea that a Lawful Evil follower of Hextor and a Chaotic Evil follower of, say, Orcus will probably have pretty drastic and unresolvable conflicts, he handwaved it off as "Let's leave personality and religion out of it." more or less.

So he doesn't mean 'evil is better at cooperating' he means that since good characters can't tolerate his evil character eating babies, but his baby eating evil character can tolerate them saving an orphanage, evil is more cooperative than good. As if there aren't plenty of evil characters who would balk at, or even kill you for eating babies. :p

[FearlessGnome]

Only because, as usual, you're presenting specifically limited good vs unlimited evil. As if every evil character is down for whatever, whenever, wherever, despite that not being the case for the vast majority of evil characters. If the design goal is 'A character that will work with the party.', part of the process is always going to involve asking the question 'What kind of party is it?', because otherwise the only universal fit is a character so vile that literally nothing is ever going to be off limits. That's not 'evil characters', that's a very specific type of evil character.
While you are correct that you can make LG characters who are willing to work with almost anyone, I think if we took a random sample of 100 LG characters made by people on this forum and 100 characters of each of the evil alignments made by people on this forum, I think a larger chunk of the LG characters would have issues working with a mixed alignments party.

Only if you've chosen a very specific kind of Lawful Good character. Once again so much of your position requires that every Good character (Lawful Good in this case) is a rigid, unyielding bastion of Law who's also maybe kind of good.
Again, statistically this is just more common than with Evil builds. Doesn't apply to all LG characters, but a significant chunk of them.

So he doesn't mean 'evil is better at cooperating' he means that since good characters can't tolerate his evil character eating babies, but his baby eating evil character can tolerate them saving an orphanage, evil is more cooperative than good. As if there aren't plenty of evil characters who would balk at, or even kill you for eating babies. :p
Ironically I think evil's greatest weakness is a consistent failure to cooperate for the common good. So a lot of individual evil characters have a relatively easy time cooperating with Neutral and Good people, even working for 'good' purposes, as long as it happens to benefit them personally, but once evil people are on top that same selfishness makes it much harder to establish the social and institutional glue of common purpose that holds together Good factions. Evil characters are much more likely to betray their own. Again - this varies from individual to individual, but if you took the same 100 characters of each alignment, that's what you would generally find.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

Why is only Evil allowed to optimize for party cohesion? Why does Evil get to pursue unity without any limits? (I'm going to hit this point a lot, so it may be worthwhile to just respond once rather than to every version separately.)

Red Fel already addressed most of your points far more eloquently than I could, but I feel this one deserves special mention.

In this thread and the other, the main argument is not that Evil is better at being a party member than Good; that is highly subjective after all, and ultimately just a matter of opinion/personal preference. It's that Evil can be a good party member. Arguments that Evil is better in some ways (or even most/all ways) are merely facilitating that larger argument (kind of like taking something to its logical extreme for the purposes of an argument). The fact that Good can also optimize for party effectiveness is therefore irrelevant, because while of course Good characters can be good party members, the point is that an optimized Evil character can be too.

[Quertus]

Let's make this really simple: the party is an Illithid Savant, a homicidal cannibalistic spider chick, an honorable knight, a pacifist Druid, and a Kender.

It's easy for me to envision an Evil character to join this party. But, IMO, it's much harder to optimize a Lawful Good character to make them work with this group.


Only because, as usual, you're presenting specifically limited good vs unlimited evil. As if every evil character is down for whatever, whenever, wherever, despite that not being the case for the vast majority of evil characters.

Every evil character? No. The evil character I've optimized to work with this particular party? Yeah, he's down with this party.

More specifically, "the actions I need to take to work with this party" - for any arbitrary party - are most likely to cause alignment problems for which alignment? (My answer is either Lawful Good or Dedicated to the Balance Neutral.) The only thing that could cause alignment problems for Evil is seeking atonement for what made them evil in the first place.


If the design goal is 'A character that will work with the party.', part of the process is always going to involve asking the question 'What kind of party is it?', because otherwise the only universal fit is a character so vile that literally nothing is ever going to be off limits. That's not 'evil characters', that's a very specific type of evil character.

Imagine a super patriot, but for "the party" instead of for some country. Totally Evil, willing to do absolutely anything for the party, right or wrong. Works with any (non-dysfunctional) party.

Not what I was aiming for, but it also works.


Only if you've chosen a very specific kind of Lawful Good character. Once again so much of your position requires that every Good character (Lawful Good in this case) is a rigid, unyielding bastion of Law who's also maybe kind of good.

Here we have moved from "optimal" to "the process of getting to optimal", to the "look at 100 examples of x". Very few Lawful Good characters in the wild will work with a murderous, brain-eating Illithid Savant. It is very difficult to optimize and play a character who you have chosen to write "Lawful Good" on their character sheet, then come to terms with working with such beings. But it can be done - see the whole "brain moss" solution. "Lawful Good" is the challenge mode of cooperation.

Can you create an optimized Lawful Good character who can work with the sample party I gave above? Even if you can, I'll wager it'll be more of an optimization challenge than me developing an evil character to work with them was.


Quertus seems to treat every evil character as if they are absolutely, purely evil with zero consideration for any other aspect of their character or personality. When presented with the idea that a Lawful Evil follower of Hextor and a Chaotic Evil follower of, say, Orcus will probably have pretty drastic and unresolvable conflicts, he handwaved it off as "Let's leave personality and religion out of it." more or less.

Half right. I am saying leave personality and religion out of the question of what Evil is, conceptually, able to be optimized for. Can a genocidal dwarf hater work with dwarves? Who cares. That's irrelevant to the question of whether (and with how much difficulty) one can create a Good (or Evil) character to work with a given party.

(And, no, I think alignment is the worst thing to happen to role-playing in the history of RPGs, and generally play a personality with zero consideration for alignment unless forced to. But, since we're taking alignment here, let's talk alignment, and not muddy the waters with extraneous baggage.)


So he doesn't mean 'evil is better at cooperating' he means that since good characters can't tolerate his evil character eating babies, but his baby eating evil character can tolerate them saving an orphanage, evil is more cooperative than good. As if there aren't plenty of evil characters who would balk at, or even kill you for eating babies. :p

Of course they would. But, if you're trying to optimize to work with a baby eater, would you start by writing "Lawful Good" on your character sheet? Or do you agree that Lawful Good limits your tolerance capabilities?

EDIT:
the main argument is not that Evil is better at being a party member than Good; that is highly subjective after all, and ultimately just a matter of opinion/personal preference. It's that Evil can be a good party member. Arguments that Evil is better in some ways (or even most/all ways) are merely facilitating that larger argument (kind of like taking something to its logical extreme for the purposes of an argument). The fact that Good can also optimize for party effectiveness is therefore irrelevant, because while of course Good characters can be good party members, the point is that an optimized Evil character can be too.

Well, yes, there is that. Because Evil deserves good PR, and recognition for its ability to be a good party member. But, for this thread in particular, to understand the problems with Lawful Good, we really have to take it a step further, and help people understand why Lawful Good is the worst alignment. Just being equal to Evil falls short of this thread's purpose.

[Psychoalpha]

While you are correct that you can make LG characters who are willing to work with almost anyone, I think if we took a random sample of 100 LG characters made by people on this forum and 100 characters of each of the evil alignments made by people on this forum, I think a larger chunk of the LG characters would have issues working with a mixed alignments party.

I think we've already covered the problems inherent in people's perceptions of LG and what a LG character entails more than a few times in this thread. I'm not trying to argue that there aren't limitations imposed by being Lawful Good, depending on what type of Lawful Good you are, but to argue that they're so much greater than the issues a Lawful Evil character would face.


Again, statistically this is just more common than with Evil builds. Doesn't apply to all LG characters, but a significant chunk of them.

If we're just talking about 'the characters people create' then people are always going to be the problem. Not alignments, not classes, just players who are too lazy to play LG as anything other than Paladin-esque or evil as anything more defined than 'I do what I want and eat babies'.


In this thread and the other, the main argument is not that Evil is better at being a party member than Good

Er... except that Quertus started both threads, and in both has repeatedly said literally exactly that multiple times. If the person starting the threads continually hammers at a specific point, it's kind of weird to argue that it's not the point. It's not facilitating a larger point it is the point, since people have said on numerous occasions in these threads: 'Yeah, evil characters are capable of being good party members.' It's not even something I've seen being disputed. The only thing that's really under dispute is that evil is so much better at it that Good, and Lawful Good in particular, pale by comparison. :p

I can't even play LG characters long term, I find it exhausting and my characters tend to be NG/CG/N/NE, and I've never found alignment to be an issue for party coherence. Mind, we play Pathfinder not 3.x, so even if we end up with a Paladin in the party there's some kind of story that makes him or her putting up with a party member of evil alignment necessary. And like magic we work it out, because we're there to play a game together, and cooperation means more than just 'you have to let me do whatever I want' or 'you can't do anything I don't want you to'.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

Er... except that Quertus started both threads, and in both has repeatedly said literally exactly that multiple times. If the person starting the threads continually hammers at a specific point, it's kind of weird to argue that it's not the point. It's not facilitating a larger point it is the point, since people have said on numerous occasions in these threads: 'Yeah, evil characters are capable of being good party members.' It's not even something I've seen being disputed. The only thing that's really under dispute is that evil is so much better at it that Good, and Lawful Good in particular, pale by comparison. :p

Um, unless I'm missing something, this thread was started by Bartmanhomer and the other was started by Conradine. I will admit that I was perhaps too sweeping with my claim that no one is arguing Evil is better than Good. Likewise, upon reflection, I think all the claims I saw that "true" evil was incapable of being a good party member were in the Conradine thread instead of this one.

[ezekielraiden]

In this thread and the other, the main argument is not that Evil is better at being a party member than Good; that is highly subjective after all, and ultimately just a matter of opinion/personal preference. It's that Evil can be a good party member. Arguments that Evil is better in some ways (or even most/all ways) are merely facilitating that larger argument (kind of like taking something to its logical extreme for the purposes of an argument). The fact that Good can also optimize for party effectiveness is therefore irrelevant, because while of course Good characters can be good party members, the point is that an optimized Evil character can be too.

Except that the specific thing I was arguing against was ABSOLUTELY NOT "Evil can totally get along with the rest of the party." Because if it had been that, I never would have argued. I 110% agree that, if you aren't beholden to any other restrictions besides "this character has to be some kind of Evil," you can almost always make a character capable of working with whatever party.

I was arguing against, "Evil is always better for getting along with the party." (Implied "smart/practical/effective" in front of Evil has since been accepted as a gentleman's agreement--I won't use Stupid Evil as a counter-example, and they won't use Stupid Good as a counter-example, since we both agree that any "Stupid X"/"X Stupid" alignment is naturally bad for the party and thus not a useful discussion point.) Note the italicized words: "always better." It's not just that Evil is capable of cooperation--that's a no-brainer, otherwise things like the Evil Overlord trope would be logical contradictions. It's not just that Evil will slot into some parties Good can't. It's that, if your goal is party cohesion, you will never ever do better with Good than you will with Evil.

If your point has only been "Evil can optimize for party cohesion too!" then I have literally never intended to argue with you, because you are completely right. If your point is that everyone else has just been arguing an extreme case for a more acceptable lesser thing, then I would say you are either demonstrably wrong/mistaken, or if you're somehow right, that all the people that have been arguing this extreme case have rather poorly made their case for the general thing by barely touching it and usually ignoring it as much as possible.

Edit: That said, I appreciate you presenting this, as it's helped me understand what the others really were arguing. I had thought it was "Evil is more capable than Good, so it's better for party unity." I think the actual argument--though please correct me if I am wrong!--was that Evil slots into more parties than Good does, and is thus better in a "statistical reliability" kind of sense. That is, it doesn't matter what the party is or wants to do, an Evil character can be drafted that will fit.

I don't really agree with that. I think there are parties and contexts where an Evil character would never fit in. To give an example, one I've floated as an idea for real gaming groups in the past: a party of devotees of various Good deities, sent by their deities on a mission together. Even if they aren't all Clerics/Paladins (and thus aren't required by any game rules to be non-Evil), I find it more of a stretch than I'm willing to accept that someone specifically selected by a powerful, knowledgeable deity for a mission would actually have Evil alignment without the deity knowing. Sure, I can totally buy that there are evil people in any church hierarchy--even those of Bahamut or Pelor, the gods most likely to get called goody-two-shoes. I don't buy that a character can start off being selected, personally, by one of those deities while also being ~secretly eeeevil!~ Can they drift that way? Absolutely! Can they have behaviors or tendencies that, if allowed free expression, could be or lead to Evil? Again, absolutely.

So, does the argument that Evil is always better for party unity than Good rest on there being no parties where an Evil character just wouldn't work? If it doesn't, does it still require that in order to avoid issues of line-drawing and deciding which of two nebulous conceptual spaces is "bigger" or "more likely" (both of which are incredibly personal judgments, and probably beyond our ability to account for, even with powerful statistical tools)?

[Particle_Man]

Edit: That said, I appreciate you presenting this, as it's helped me understand what the others really were arguing. I had thought it was "Evil is more capable than Good, so it's better for party unity." I think the actual argument--though please correct me if I am wrong!--was that Evil slots into more parties than Good does, and is thus better in a "statistical reliability" kind of sense. That is, it doesn't matter what the party is or wants to do, an Evil character can be drafted that will fit.

I don't really agree with that. I think there are parties and contexts where an Evil character would never fit in. To give an example, one I've floated as an idea for real gaming groups in the past: a party of devotees of various Good deities, sent by their deities on a mission together. Even if they aren't all Clerics/Paladins (and thus aren't required by any game rules to be non-Evil), I find it more of a stretch than I'm willing to accept that someone specifically selected by a powerful, knowledgeable deity for a mission would actually have Evil alignment without the deity knowing. Sure, I can totally buy that there are evil people in any church hierarchy--even those of Bahamut or Pelor, the gods most likely to get called goody-two-shoes. I don't buy that a character can start off being selected, personally, by one of those deities while also being ~secretly eeeevil!~ Can they drift that way? Absolutely! Can they have behaviors or tendencies that, if allowed free expression, could be or lead to Evil? Again, absolutely.


This actually happened in a game I was in. We (the good party) were hired by a Silver Dragon to do X. A new player made a new character that was evil. The Silver Dragon used divination magic to determine whether each of us was worthy and flat out insta-killed killed the evil character for not being worthy (after the character lied to the Silver Dragon, raising the Silver Dragon's suspicions). So yes, that is an example where an evil character did slot into the good party. :smallbiggrin: The player made another (good) character, so that worked out.

[ezekielraiden]

This actually happened in a game I was in. We (the good party) were hired by a Silver Dragon to do X. A new player made a new character that was evil. The Silver Dragon used divination magic to determine whether each of us was worthy and flat out insta-killed killed the evil character for not being worthy (after the character lied to the Silver Dragon, raising the Silver Dragon's suspicions). So yes, that is an example where an evil character did slot into the good party. :smallbiggrin: The player made another (good) character, so that worked out.

Sounds pretty cool to me, but I've always liked silver dragons (and golds--the mustachioed look always appealed to me.) Bit sad that their character got iced, but Shadowrun has "never cut a deal with a dragon" as a rule for a reason :P

[Quertus]

Er... except that Quertus started both threads, and in both has repeatedly said literally exactly that multiple times. If the person starting the threads continually hammers at a specific point, it's kind of weird to argue that it's not the point.

Now, if you had said that I had made the craziest posts, or the most opinionated posts, or the most bombastic posts? Well, I'm getting far too senile to remember such details, so I would have just shrugged, and said, "sounds like me".

But claiming that I started both threads? I mean, I've forgotten about threads I've created before, but I'm pretty sure I didn't create either of these threads.

But, yeah, I did say that that Evil is more easily optimized for party unity than Lawful Good.


Except that the specific thing I was arguing against was ABSOLUTELY NOT "Evil can totally get along with the rest of the party." Because if it had been that, I never would have argued. I 110% agree that, if you aren't beholden to any other restrictions besides "this character has to be some kind of Evil," you can almost always make a character capable of working with whatever party.

Thank you for the vote of support there. Normally, that's what I'd be aiming for, and we'd be in complete agreement. But, sadly, that doesn't help explain what's *wrong* with Lawful Good.


I was arguing against, "Evil is always better for getting along with the party."

Oh, we're in agreement here, too. Evil is certainly not "always better", in the "every evil is better than every good" kind of way. Both can fall at party unity.


It's not just that Evil is capable of cooperation--that's a no-brainer, otherwise things like the Evil Overlord trope would be logical contradictions. It's not just that Evil will slot into some parties Good can't. It's that, if your goal is party cohesion, you will never ever do better with Good than you will with Evil.


Edit: That said, I appreciate you presenting this, as it's helped me understand what the others really were arguing. I had thought it was "Evil is more capable than Good, so it's better for party unity." I think the actual argument--though please correct me if I am wrong!--was that Evil slots into more parties than Good does, and is thus better in a "statistical reliability" kind of sense. That is, it doesn't matter what the party is or wants to do, an Evil character can be drafted that will fit.

That's much closer to what I've been trying to say, yes. But let's nudge nuiance a bit.

If I pick a random party, and your challenge is to design a character that will work with them, but you have to pick an alignment before you see the party, would you consider it not just more likely but easier to succeed if you start with Lawful Good?


I don't really agree with that. I think there are parties and contexts where an Evil character would never fit in. To give an example, one I've floated as an idea for real gaming groups in the past: a party of devotees of various Good deities, sent by their deities on a mission together. Even if they aren't all Clerics/Paladins (and thus aren't required by any game rules to be non-Evil), I find it more of a stretch than I'm willing to accept that someone specifically selected by a powerful, knowledgeable deity for a mission would actually have Evil alignment without the deity knowing.

Wrong question. You just asked, "will they fit with a specific plot hook (chosen by a good deity)", not "will they work with the party".

So, I'll play your evil manservant. No, I wasn't chosen for this quest, but I'll darn well keep you alive on it, or die trying.

Or your evil conjoined twin brother/sister. The gods chose you, so obviously I'm coming along, too.

Silly examples, maybe, but hopefully they successfully illustrate that working with the *plot hook* is not the same as working with the *adventure*, let alone with the *party*.


So, does the argument that Evil is always better for party unity than Good rest on there being no parties where an Evil character just wouldn't work? If it doesn't, does it still require that in order to avoid issues of line-drawing and deciding which of two nebulous conceptual spaces is "bigger" or "more likely" (both of which are incredibly personal judgments, and probably beyond our ability to account for, even with powerful statistical tools)?

You've lost me there. Is this bit still relevant?

[Psychoalpha]

But, if you're trying to optimize to work with a baby eater, would you start by writing "Lawful Good" on your character sheet? Or do you agree that Lawful Good limits your tolerance capabilities?

If you're trying to optimize to work with a 3.5 Paladin, would you start by writing "Chaotic Evil" on your character sheet? If you're trying to optimize working with a character who engages in practices that are antithetical to an evil companion, would you start by writing "Evil" at all?


But claiming that I started both threads? I mean, I've forgotten about threads I've created before, but I'm pretty sure I didn't create either of these threads.

See below. I thought you created this one, but I probably just saw the 'most recent post' when I was first clicking on it and got mixed up. I wasn't referring to the same 'other thread' Poetically was, we just got wires crossed there. Apologies for the confusion.


If I pick a random party, and your challenge is to design a character that will work with them, but you have to pick an alignment before you see the party, would you consider it not just more likely but easier to succeed if you start with Lawful Good?

If I don't get to know anything about the party beforehand, I'd probably just go with True Neutral and try to play a character who just doesn't feel super strongly about any extremes of alignment. :p


Um, unless I'm missing something, this thread was started by Bartmanhomer and the other was started by Conradine.

Nah, I missed that this thread wasn't Quertus'. It was very similar to another one he'd started and contained many similar arguments from a thread about why people didn't want evil PCs or some such. My bad.

See above re: my getting mixed up about who started this thread. I probably just glanced at it before my first post and saw Quertus as the most recent poster. Again, apologies for the confusion.

----

I don't really go in for random parties, personally. Whether or not there are any glaring issues that will come up and be an insurmountable problem between PCs is something I prefer to find out about and work around ahead of time, and if someone is going to want to play a character that presents such issues (baby eating tendencies, Paladin codes, etc) they'll speak up and we'll see if it presents any problems for other players or the DM.

That's not to say that conflicts don't arise, but fundamentally incompatible party members is just... not fun for me or most of the people I've played with.

[King of Nowhere]

More specifically, "the actions I need to take to work with this party" - for any arbitrary party - are most likely to cause alignment problems for which alignment? (My answer is either Lawful Good or Dedicated to the Balance Neutral.) The only thing that could cause alignment problems for Evil is seeking atonement for what made them evil in the first place.



not really. an evil character will balk at as much stuff as a good character.
an evil character willl have conflict with the party if the party decides to do charity, to help people with insufficient compensation, to not murder somebody who's just in the way...
heck, my group is risking that problem right now, with the evil party member who is losing the drive to do pursue the main plot because the rewards are not worthwile, and would rather use the time to study new spells.

you can work an evil character in a good party, or a good character in an evil party. if it's exalted good or vile evil, then you really cannot, both ways. but really, you are claiming that all party conflict is generated by good characters because they are asking people to not do stuff, while evil is fine with doing anything and is only not fine with not doing stuff, is a distorsion of reality.

it's like country A invaded country B, and ccountry B asked country A to stop, and you claim that country B is creating conflict, because country A is merely exherting its freedom by moving troops where they feel like it, while country B is iimiting that freedom. or that it's my fault if I have problems with thieves, because thieves never try to tell me what to do.

And if your character is specifically dedicated to the party, to the detriment of anything else...
well, first of all, this is a very, VERY specific kind of evil, and not representative of evil as a whole. and it's even hard to justify how the character could have developed such attachment to what were, until shortly before, a bunch of total strangers.
and second, when the party has higher goals, the character still can conflict with them. the character may try to stop a party member from taking an extra risk for a good cause.
we were there a few weeks ago, when we had called the cavalry to deal with a big bad that's still above our level, and two good characters decided to stay behind when the rest of the party teleported away because they were still in goood shape and the cavalry may have needed help, to which the evil wizard objected because, who cares about mooks, let's get away from here, we did our job.

so I refute, on multiple levels, the proposition that evil party members do not create conflict.

[ezekielraiden]

Thank you for the vote of support there. Normally, that's what I'd be aiming for, and we'd be in complete agreement. But, sadly, that doesn't help explain what's *wrong* with Lawful Good.
Sure, though at this point the thread now has two different simultaneous discussions ("what's wrong with LG" and "is Evil beneficial to party cohesion"). As noted, I had gotten rather caught up in the latter.


Oh, we're in agreement here, too. Evil is certainly not "always better", in the "every evil is better than every good" kind of way. Both can fall at party unity.
Glad we agree there, though I do feel the "is Evil beneficial to party cohesion" convo has, on the pro-Evil side, rather stridently argued that Good is strictly worse and Evil is strictly better. But we'll get to that.


That's much closer to what I've been trying to say, yes. But let's nudge nuiance a bit.

If I pick a random party, and your challenge is to design a character that will work with them, but you have to pick an alignment before you see the party, would you consider it not just more likely but easier to succeed if you start with Lawful Good?
There is insufficient data for a meaningful answer. I don't mean that flippantly. After all, "slot into a random party" simply isn't a relevant criterion for actual play most of the time, because people usually don't try to draft up a character prior to joining groups they know absolutely nothing about. And exactly what "easier" means is a painfully open question all on its own. After all, even Red Fel admits that the Evil characters he advocates are consciously and actively circumscribed, requiring careful thought to construct as rationally-acting agents. That would seem to imply that it's a non-trivial effort to create such a character. Finally, there's the issue of what each player is comfortable doing; for me, an Evil character will almost without fail be harder, because I genuinely feel icky when I play Evil characters or even do Evil things as a non-Evil character! Given all of that, I don't think we can make any kind of firm statement; the best we can manage is that it may be easier to play an Evil character if you're in the unusual situation of needing to draft a character for a party you know literally nothing about....and that's a statement that tells us very little.


Wrong question. You just asked, "will they fit with a specific plot hook (chosen by a good deity)", not "will they work with the party".

So, I'll play your evil manservant. No, I wasn't chosen for this quest, but I'll darn well keep you alive on it, or die trying.

Or your evil conjoined twin brother/sister. The gods chose you, so obviously I'm coming along, too.

Silly examples, maybe, but hopefully they successfully illustrate that working with the *plot hook* is not the same as working with the *adventure*, let alone with the *party*.
I don't really know that I, as a DM, would accept any of these things. Conjoined twins are going to be a nightmare to play mechanically, as they would have to share HP and have all sorts of other problems. How did a Good character get a genuinely Evil manservant? That's really fishy, I'd need an extremely good explanation for that--and why, again, a Good deity would choose someone with that kind of manservant. I can't imagine a deity would be totally unaware of such an association.

But my intended question to answer wasn't "will the character work for this specific party?" It was, rather, "are Evil characters always compatible with all parties?" Because if we could answer that question yes, or at least struggle and fail to come up with even one example, then you'd have a pretty ironclad case that Evil is easier to use, regardless of all the hypersubjective/deeply-personal vagueness that I covered above, simply by dint of being able to say "there is no party where it's just not possible to play an Evil character and have it make sense."


You've lost me there. Is this bit still relevant?
My intent was to respond to the statements made by (IIRC) you and others about the flexibility of Evil--more or less, that Evil can adapt to all situations, ergo all parties, and therefore is categorically easier to use than Good, which may have cases where it can't adapt. By attempting to show that there was at least one place where it really didn't (and still doesn't) make sense to me that an Evil character would fit in, even a hyperflexible and supremely pragmatic Evil, I was attempting to show that both alignments (Good and Evil, not specifically LG vs. Evil generally) have places that just can't be made to work, and thus we are unable to make categorical statements about the ease of one or another.

[Quertus]

stuff

Hmmm… I think just about everything in your response us predicated upon the same misunderstanding of my position.

I am not saying that every Evil charter is better for every party.

I'm not even saying that one particular Evil character is better for every party.

I'm saying that, what is wrong with Lawful Good is that, if you have to pick the alignment first, then learn what the one particular party you have work with is, then pick/build the character, that Lawful Good will have, not just the lowest success rate, but the hardest time with the "pick/build the character" step.

Now, admittedly, that may not be the case for you in particular, because a) you have a strong psychological aversion to playing Evil; and b) you are actually good at playing cooperative Good, able to quickly respond how you could work with an Illithid.

So, I would need to water my statement down with weasel words, saying something more like, "for any player reasonably capable of playing any alignment, the average expected difficulty & chance of success at creating a character to work with a particular non-dysfunctional party chosen at random would be lowest for Lawful Good" in order to be accurate.

[King of Nowhere]

I'm saying that, what is wrong with Lawful Good is that, if you have to pick the alignment first, then learn what the one particular party you have work with is, then pick/build the character, that Lawful Good will have, not just the lowest success rate, but the hardest time with the "pick/build the character" step.

Now, admittedly, that may not be the case for you in particular, because a) you have a strong psychological aversion to playing Evil; and b) you are actually good at playing cooperative Good, able to quickly respond how you could work with an Illithid.


As far as I am aware, good-aligned parties are much more common than evil-aligned ones. so a good character will be more likely to fit with his party than an evil one, simply because it's more likely that the party will be good.
this may not be your experience, if you routinely play with illithids and drows (by-the-book drows, not chaotic good rebeles drows). and it is even possible that I am wrong here, and the most common alignment is not good but "murderhobo claiming to be good".

anyway, the whole line of argument is moot because that's not how one builds a character. Generally there is session 0, where the tone of the campaign is agreed, and then the characters are made. And if it is agreed to play an evil campaign where your party will be a bunch of demon-worshippers, you don't make a palain. while if it is agreed on an exhalted campaign, you don't bring a murderous illithid.

you yourself say that balance must always be made to the table, that the power level of a character must be appropriate for the table depending on the power level of the other characters and the campaign. alignment is the same thing. the moral stance of a character must be appropiate to the moral stances of other characters and the campaign.

[Themrys]

So, I'll play your evil manservant. No, I wasn't chosen for this quest, but I'll darn well keep you alive on it, or die trying.


How, exactly, would you play an evil manservant? (Sounds like a hilarious idea, really, but how would you even notice that a loyal manservant who doesn't betray everyone in the end is evil? Does he secretly torture his master's enemies? Or does he just have a very evil backstory and doesn't regret what he did?)

This hypothetical evil manservant might get fired if one of the paladins on the hypothetical quest detects that he is of evil alignment.

So, yeah, an evil character might be more flexible when it comes to who he is willing to work with, but I think if the party isn't like Order of the Stick, but rather less willing to tolerate the murder of random gnome merchants and the like, an evil character could get kicked out of a Good party rather fast. With an "evil backstory but doesn't do any evil right now" character, the question is if he wouldn't work just as well if he was neutral.

[Psychoalpha]

So, I would need to water my statement down with weasel words, saying something more like, "for any player reasonably capable of playing any alignment, the average expected difficulty & chance of success at creating a character to work with a particular non-dysfunctional party chosen at random would be lowest for Lawful Good" in order to be accurate.

It still wouldn't be accurate, because you're wrong, because you're still treating alignments like characters and ignoring anything that interprets or modifies how that alignment interacts with the world or expresses itself in a character.


Glad we agree there, though I do feel the "is Evil beneficial to party cohesion" convo has, on the pro-Evil side, rather stridently argued that Good is strictly worse and Evil is strictly better.

My suspicion is that much of this has to do with the vast majority of gaming tables running Good parties, or with Good characters in them, and that some people are put out by not being able to play Evil characters (or being severely curtailed in their evil actions when they do), and thus 'Good' (and 'Lawful Good' as the most obvious example of an alignment who'll tell other people what they can't do) is at fault for not putting the party cohesion ahead of their objections to baby eating or raising whole villages as undead or whatever else said evil characters want to get up to. How dare they, right? ;D

Like... Quertus used an Illithid Savant as an example of a 'random party'. That's an ECL 15 monster before prestige class levels, and it's a Lawful Evil Aberration from a race widely known for their enslavement of any and every sentient species they come across, who are routinely depicted as betraying virtually every agreement they've ever made with anyone, because their Lawful nature begins and ends with their devotion to Mind Flayer society and considers literally no one else to be anything more than food, labor, or sometimes hosts for their young.

I feel like there's a pretty wide spectrum of characters whose problems teaming up with this would be just as immediate as any Lawful Good character, regardless of their alignment. :p

[Red Fel]

How, exactly, would you play an evil manservant? (Sounds like a hilarious idea, really, but how would you even notice that a loyal manservant who doesn't betray everyone in the end is evil? Does he secretly torture his master's enemies? Or does he just have a very evil backstory and doesn't regret what he did?)

This hypothetical evil manservant might get fired if one of the paladins on the hypothetical quest detects that he is of evil alignment.

So, yeah, an evil character might be more flexible when it comes to who he is willing to work with, but I think if the party isn't like Order of the Stick, but rather less willing to tolerate the murder of random gnome merchants and the like, an evil character could get kicked out of a Good party rather fast. With an "evil backstory but doesn't do any evil right now" character, the question is if he wouldn't work just as well if he was neutral.

The key issue there isn't that there's an Evil character doing Evil, it's that there is a Paladin in the party. By your own acknowledgment, if the Evil character has "evil backstory but doesn't do any evil right now," nobody in the party should have an issue - except the Paladin.

Fact is, there are contexts where a character who could slot into any party in a vacuum nonetheless won't work in this case. There are character concepts that actively preclude one another. If you have a sun-and-life-friendly healbot in a party and want to bring in a Necromancer, they're probably going to side with the Cleric of Pelor over the Dr. Frankenstein. If you have a party of Elves, bringing in a Cleric of Gruumsh is probably a bad idea. Kender are right out.

If you bring a Paladin into the party, you are making an alignment choice for everyone. By contrast, if you bring an Evil character - of any stripe - into a party with a Paladin, the party gets to make the choice - keep the Paladin, or side with the new guy.

Now, not all LG works like Paladins work. And I say "Paladins work" with a sense of irony. But as Paladins are the iconic emblem of LG, and as many people tend to play LGs the way they play Paladins, this is a concern, if not always an issue.

Back to what Themrys was saying, though, I've covered this in the handbook. An Evil character in service to a Good party can benefit the party a lot. That Evil Wizard they captured? Now that he's a prisoner, it would be immoral to kill him. Do you really think breaking his fingers will be enough? If he gets loose, he'll only cause more trouble. That's what Token Evil Teammate is here for. They may dislike what he did, but they can't disagree with the result - that guy needed killing.

King of Nowhere makes the right point. This stuff is - or should be - typically agreed at Session Zero. If Able makes a character, Baker makes his LE bestie, and Cain makes an LG Paladin, Able and Baker outnumber Cain. If Cain insists that Baker's character leave the party, Able and Baker can point out that they have a reason to adventure together - they have no reason to include Cain's character. Conversely, if Able makes a character, Baker makes his Paladin bestie, and Cain makes, say, a Necromancer, Cain is still the odd man out.

Not that the table should be allowed to dictate your character choices, at least not entirely. But you should be creating characters with the other players - and PCs - in mind, and with an eye on party cohesion, not party disruption. If your character is the one that sticks out, either change your character or give the other PCs a reason to want you around. In the case of an exclusionary character - like a Paladin, who blocks other characters from the party - it means being really awesome at what you do. Similarly, in the case of an Evil character, it means being essential, so that nobody even entertains the notion of booting and replacing you.

[Psychoalpha]

Red Fel: That's how every non-convention (where it's a big pot of randos and everybody just ignores there being a Paladin and a Cleric of Hextor in the same group because reasons and it's only a one-shot) campaign I've played since high school has worked. Well, usually the DM gives us specifics about the campaign he or she wants to run and any restrictions that will apply to races/classes/alignments/etc, and then the players work it out from there.

Again though, I can't stress enough that Pathfinder is the way to go. Any number of modules and campaigns, both prefab and created, tend to involve some great and absurd evil threatening the land, and the Pathfinder version of the Paladin code makes a specific exception for teaming up with evil to defeat greater evil. As long as the evil of your PC runs counter to the evil of the campaign antagonists, and you can be circumspect in your doings of evil while with the party, there's no reason a Paladin can't run through an entire campaign with an evil character. It won't always be comfortable, there'll be arguments, but it's not an insurmountable issue.

[CharonsHelper]

Back to what Themrys was saying, though, I've covered this in the handbook. An Evil character in service to a Good party can benefit the party a lot. That Evil Wizard they captured? Now that he's a prisoner, it would be immoral to kill him. Do you really think breaking his fingers will be enough? If he gets loose, he'll only cause more trouble. That's what Token Evil Teammate is here for. They may dislike what he did, but they can't disagree with the result - that guy needed killing.

See - I've gotta disagree with you here. Being a Good character in a D&D setting doesn't mean following modern police procedure.

I played a LG Samurai (in Pathfinder - where unlike 3.x they don't suck) and had no problem executing those who had attacked him. That's the punishment for banditry etc.

He actually did it all the time. Due to backstory reasons (father was enchanted to do bad stuff and the clan was disgraced/banished) he actually mostly did nonlethal damage to everyone, and once the fight was over he'd have the wizard check to make sure they hadn't been brain-controlled. As long as they hadn't been, my samurai would slit their throats. No muss, no fuss. Totally remained an LG chracter.

Now - he'd make sure to make it quick and relatively painless. No torture etc. But performing an execution is not inherently evil, and I wouldn't have any problem with playing a paladin the same way either.

[Psychoalpha]

But performing an execution is not inherently evil, and I wouldn't have any problem with playing a paladin the same way either.

Neither would Gary Gygax:


Paladins are not stupid, and in general there is no rule of Lawful Good against killing enemies. The old adage about nits making lice applies. Also, as I have often noted, a paladin can freely dispatch prisoners of Evil alignment that have surrendered and renounced that alignment in favor of Lawful Good. They are then sent on to their reward before they can backslide.

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is by no means anything but Lawful and Good. Prisoners guilty of murder or similar capital crimes can be executed without violating any precept of the alignment. Hanging is likely the usual method of such execution, although it might be beheading, strangulation, etc. A paladin is likely a figure that would be considered a fair judge of criminal conduct.

Also:


Mercy is to be displayed for the lawbreaker that does so by accident. Benevolence is for the harmless.

I'm dubious on the strangulation thing, seems too much like torture, and I feel like with most things there's plenty of leeway for how any given Lawful Good character would feel about this, but I also think it's absurd to assume every Lawful Good character would refuse to execute someone who surrendered regardless of their crimes or the danger they pose, or that all Lawful Good would be against the death penalty, etc.

[King of Nowhere]

See - I've gotta disagree with you here. Being a Good character in a D&D setting doesn't mean following modern police procedure.

I played a LG Samurai (in Pathfinder - where unlike 3.x they don't suck) and had no problem executing those who had attacked him. That's the punishment for banditry etc.

+1 on that. My lawful good(ish) monk has killed several humanoid opponents he could have chosen to take alive, though he's never seriously hurt a prisoner; generally the rationale given is "they made their choice, and I acted accordingly". Main bosses who could not be safely contained in prisons would probably not get a chance to surrender either. similarly, the party paladin didn't have many qualms against hurting evildoers.

truly, only lawful stupid paladins create major problems. even reasonably-played paladins are ok, as long as you don't take literally the "won't associate with evil characters" part. Every group I've been in that had to face the problem has read that clause as "won't help his associates pursue evil goals, but is perfectly ok cooperating with evil people towards reasonable goals" (granted, it''s only 2 groups, but still).



How, exactly, would you play an evil manservant? (Sounds like a hilarious idea, really, but how would you even notice that a loyal manservant who doesn't betray everyone in the end is evil? Does he secretly torture his master's enemies? Or does he just have a very evil backstory and doesn't regret what he did?)


Easy: character A is a noble and an assassin, character B is his loial butler who helped him perform his job, hid the bodies, and so on. Or the loial butler of an evil wizard, or that kind of stuff.
You also can take the "tragic past" path that you implied, like "this guy was a street urchin, grew up to a life of crime, became a robber and a murderer. than character A hired him as his manservant. Character B is much better off in that job than he was in the slums, so he's grateful to character A and will follow him anywhere, but he's still an unrepentant murderer and will kill for character A"

[Psychoalpha]

Easy: character A is a noble and an assassin, character B is his loial butler who helped him perform his job, hid the bodies, and so on. Or the loial butler of an evil wizard, or that kind of stuff.

I believe the 'evil manservant' thing was in terms of being adjunct to a good character, not another evil character.

[Red Fel]

See - I've gotta disagree with you here. Being a Good character in a D&D setting doesn't mean following modern police procedure.

I played a LG Samurai (in Pathfinder - where unlike 3.x they don't suck) and had no problem executing those who had attacked him. That's the punishment for banditry etc.

Oh, no, I agree with you there - self-defense is indeed a thing in D&D. Lethal force in self-defense, same. I'm not talking about that.

Note my hypothetical: "That Evil Wizard they captured." At this point, he is not actively attacking them - he is a prisoner. And D&D is pretty specific about that - killing a helpless prisoner is murder, and Evil. That's an objective standard of Evil, under D&D terms. Pretty unambiguous.

That's what I mean. You know that Evil Wizard will escape. You know that until he does, while he's in your custody, he'll be watching you, studying you, learning your weaknesses. You know he won't engage you fairly; he'll wait until you're vulnerable, escape, and attack. Unfortunately, your Good party members - having, for whatever reason, captured him instead of killing in self-defense - can't actually kill him now that he's a prisoner.

But your Token Evil Teammate? Oh, he absolutely can. And will. And he'll be doing you all an undeniable favor.

That's the point. He can do what the rest of the team - especially the LG - can't. That's how you play him. Willing to work the moral gray areas that benefit the party, that the rest can't touch because morals. That's how you play that character.

[Psychoalpha]

And D&D is pretty specific about that - killing a helpless prisoner is murder, and Evil. That's an objective standard of Evil, under D&D terms. Pretty unambiguous.

Does that appear anywhere but Exalted Deeds? Because I'm dubious that executing prisoners is evil in D&D, and they are by definition helpless. Also, while it's been a while since he was the defining guy for it, but my quotes from above were straight from Gary Gygax and he seems pretty confidant that a Lawful Good character can execute a prisoner if their crimes warrant it.

[CharonsHelper]

Note my hypothetical: "That Evil Wizard they captured." At this point, he is not actively attacking them - he is a prisoner. And D&D is pretty specific about that - killing a helpless prisoner is murder, and Evil. That's an objective standard of Evil, under D&D terms. Pretty unambiguous.

That's what I mean. You know that Evil Wizard will escape. You know that until he does, while he's in your custody, he'll be watching you, studying you, learning your weaknesses. You know he won't engage you fairly; he'll wait until you're vulnerable, escape, and attack. Unfortunately, your Good party members - having, for whatever reason, captured him instead of killing in self-defense - can't actually kill him now that he's a prisoner.


Does that appear anywhere but Exalted Deeds? Because I'm dubious that executing prisoners is evil in D&D, and they are by definition helpless. Also, while it's been a while since he was the defining guy for it, but my quotes from above were straight from Gary Gygax and he seems pretty confidant that a Lawful Good character can execute a prisoner if their crimes warrant it.

I'll +1 Psychoalpha. I don't remember reading anywhere that executions are an evil act. I think that there is one particular Paladin Oath for a particular deity against it (goddess of redemption or something) - but that's the closest I can think of.

And Red Fel - if you read the rest of my example beyond what you quoted, you'll see that my LG Samurai didn't only kill foes in combat. He intentionally knocked them out, made sure that they weren't under compulsion, and then he slit their throats. He did it on the regular. No one had any problem with it (including other good characters) and the GM only told me that it might be an issue in certain places, such as within a city etc. No threats of losing my LG status for not following 21st century police procedure.

[Particle_Man]

The “necessary evil pc” seems like a bad read of a fantasy set up. If there is a means that society has for dealing with evil wizards without killing them (from anti-magic zones to intelligence draining ravages (if Red Fel can refer to BoED so can I) and then prisons, to helms of opposite alignment) then it makes practical sense for lg people to hand the evil wizard over to those authorities. No evil pc needed. High fantasy has lots of things like that.

If in the other hand, we have a lower power setting and there is nothing like those society based controls, then killing the captured evil wizard makes sense for LG people because of the need to protect innocents (and themselves) from the evil wizard. Killing the evil wizard might be an unfortunate but necessary last resort if the lawful good society has no other way to preserve itself. Then the LG person can kill the evil wizard prisoner (or turn him over to the lg society to execute). No evil pc needed.

The odd state where the evil pc is needed to kill the evil prisoner while the lg play stupid, keep their dainty hands clean, and look the other way doesn’t sound very lg. Me leaving the prisoner alone with Big Tony and having loud conversations with my fellow pcs to drown out the screams of the dying prisoner doesn’t sound much better than me killing the prisoner myself, if there really is no other societal option. And even a naive pc fooled by the evil pc once is unlikely to keep being fooled: “Golly, why do all the prisoners die when Big Tony is left alone with them?” is not a flattering portrayal of most PCs.

[Red Fel]

Does that appear anywhere but Exalted Deeds? Because I'm dubious that executing prisoners is evil in D&D, and they are by definition helpless. Also, while it's been a while since he was the defining guy for it, but my quotes from above were straight from Gary Gygax and he seems pretty confidant that a Lawful Good character can execute a prisoner if their crimes warrant it.


I'll +1 Psychoalpha. I don't remember reading anywhere that executions are an evil act. I think that there is one particular Paladin Oath for a particular deity against it (goddess of redemption or something) - but that's the closest I can think of.

BoED, yeah. And I'll grant you, BoED (and BoVD) did some frankly stupid stuff with the alignment system. But that said, if it's in a book, it's RAW, unless we're specifically excluding said book. And "I don't like it" - and for the record, frequently neither do I - doesn't change that.


And Red Fel - if you read the rest of my example beyond what you quoted, you'll see that my LG Samurai didn't only kill foes in combat. He intentionally knocked them out, made sure that they weren't under compulsion, and then he slit their throats. He did it on the regular. No one had any problem with it (including other good characters) and the GM only told me that it might be an issue in certain places, such as within a city etc. No threats of losing my LG status for not following 21st century police procedure.

"My LG character did it and my GM had no problem with that" is not the same as "This is an action permissible to LG." It only means "This is an action permissible for my character, at that time."

Or, more broadly, anecdotes are not rules.

Look, I'm not saying you can't play Lawful or Good that way. But accept that doing so deviates from RAW (for certain definitions of RAW), and is therefore a house rule.

You can have house rules. You should have house rules. There's a lot of broken crap that does not work and basically needs houseruling.

But the key point is that, as written, an Evil character can do things that a Good character can - or perhaps should - not do. That is part of what allows an Evil character to be useful to the party. That's kind of the point.

Yes. You could run a game where straight-up genociding anything with green skin is non-Evil, and walking into any house to smash their vases and loot their rupees is the act of a hero, and nobody bats an eye when you break treaties and execute the helpless. You legitimately can, and if it sounds like I'm saying otherwise, I'm not. And if you do that, yeah, there's no advantage to having a Token Evil Teammate. Because, frankly, at that point your party is basically kinda Evil already. You can say that you're not, but that's a house rule.

From the perspective of the common ground - the rules as written, the rules in the books - there are lines that the Good characters in your party should not be crossing, even if it would benefit them to do so. Especially then. There are lines that the Lawful characters in your party should not be crossing, even if it would benefit them to do so. Especially then. That's what your Token Evil Teammate is there for. To help.

Let us help you.

[CharonsHelper]

BoED, yeah. And I'll grant you, BoED (and BoVD) did some frankly stupid stuff with the alignment system. But that said, if it's in a book, it's RAW, unless we're specifically excluding said book. And "I don't like it" - and for the record, frequently neither do I - doesn't change that.


It's been a long time since I looked over BoED (I didn't read it deep - since I thought it was mostly crap) but did it actually say that ALL good characters had to follow those rules? Or just exalted characters?

From what little I remember, it mostly had rules for playing "exalted" (IMO: stupid good) characters rather than general requirements for all good characters. I thought I remembered reading that prisoner thing as an exalted requirement and making me decide that exalted characters weren't for me.

And my Samurai was in a Pathfinder game anyway, so wacky BoED rulings wouldn't apply.

Edit: I just checked BoED - and I was right. That whole section of the book, which includes the bit about always giving mercy, is prefaced with "They are the meat and drink of the exalted hero, and should serve as an inspiration for how to play a character of good alignment...". So - definitely not a requirement for all good characters - just an inspiration for them. Which is a vague way of saying that not doing them doesn't preclude goodness.

[Quertus]

Despite one rather impressive showing for team Good (figuring out a way to work with an Illithid), all the other instances of people saying, "I don't see how that could work" is a better answer to "what is wrong with Lawful Good", a better demonstration of their intolerance in action, than I could ever hope to give.

The average player is neither sufficiently skilled at not in the right mindset to look for ways to make Lawful Good work. As evidenced not just by my own extensive experience, but by the number of times Playgrounders - a site which generally bats above average, IME - have gone on record (in this thread, and others) saying that they don't see how (Lawful) Good could work with X.


you yourself say that balance must always be made to the table, that the power level of a character must be appropriate for the table depending on the power level of the other characters and the campaign. alignment is the same thing. the moral stance of a character must be appropiate to the moral stances of other characters and the campaign.

Sure. But the problem is, "alignment" is a poor substitute for "personality". The same Good that cannot condone Evil bringing some evil dragon eggs into town, endangering the citizens, *also* cannot condone the Good character who accepted the "surrender" of the young evil dragons, and wants to leave them able to threaten the town. Good is not some huge unified front. And this brings up another problem with Lawful Good, as played: players often just assume that a group of similarly-aligned characters will automatically get along, when, in reality, this doesn't hold true.


How, exactly, would you play an evil manservant? (Sounds like a hilarious idea, really, but how would you even notice that a loyal manservant who doesn't betray everyone in the end is evil? Does he secretly torture his master's enemies? Or does he just have a very evil backstory and doesn't regret what he did?)

Either of your examples is perfectly workable. And, yes, they were loads of fun.

It's not about it being "noticeable". It can be fun when just some people notice - much like when you recognize the GM's description of the "ancient artifact" as a refrigerator or a car, and get to watch everyone else interact with it in ignorance.

Or it can be fun when people notice, but turn a blind eye ("OK, I'll talk." "What did Batman say to him?" "You don't want to know.")

Or it can be fun when everyone notices, and you have interactions like, "no, we will not sully this divine quest by <insert perfectly reasonable suggestion, like torturing prisoners for information, or stealing the McGuffin we need>.”

Or it can be fun when no-one notices ("huh. It really is fortuitous that <insert person who stood in the way of our quest> died of natural causes last night. The gods must be watching over us.")


With an "evil backstory but doesn't do any evil right now" character, the question is if he wouldn't work just as well if he was neutral.

It's not about actions, it's about attitude. "I'm asking, what are you prepared to do?".

A smart Evil character doesn't necessarily take the same actions to avoid the necessity of torturing the prisoners for information that a smart Good character has to. Because the smart Evil is prepared to torture them for information, if he has to.

Or, more fun, the smart Evil manservant may be *more* desperate to make sure that the party doesn't get into such a situation - simply to protect their own hide, for their master's reputation, or even to protect their master's "purity".

Honestly, the evil manservant is one of the coolest concepts that I've had the good fortune of getting to see from many angles.

[Psychoalpha]

then it makes practical sense for lg people to hand the evil wizard over to those authorities

I mean, for some LG people I guess. >_>


BoED, yeah. And I'll grant you, BoED (and BoVD) did some frankly stupid stuff with the alignment system. But that said, if it's in a book, it's RAW, unless we're specifically excluding said book.

Okay, having gone back to look at it, and unless we're looking at completely different parts, I think you're either misunderstanding or misrepresenting what's said there.

The section of BoED that talks about not harming or executing helpless prisoners is, first and foremost, in a section called 'EXALTED DEEDS'. Even leaving out arguments about how it calls itself out as 'the meat and drink of exalted heroes' and that for purposes of this book 'Exalted' has meaning well beyond merely 'good', this section only presents the actions and their explanations as examples of concrete good. Nowhere does it define not acting in accordance with all of them as evil.

Even leaving out that the section is talking about the most good and how to play characters along that vein, the section on Mercy only says that showing mercy to an unrepentantly evil character is a good trait, not that executions of prisoners are inherently evil.

It does say that 'Good characters must offer mercy and accept surrender no matter how many times etc etc' but unless you're going to treat the sum of BoED and BoVD as the definitive, declarative rules for how anyone with a good or evil alignment must act, that's more flavor than rule. Both books are full of statements like that, and if they were even remotely RAW for some kind of definitive line over what makes someone Good or Evil, almost nobody would be either.

That's even leaving aside such nonsense as BoED saying things like how a good character can only use violence for just reason and against evil characters, which by your reading would make using violence to apprehend a neutral criminal an evil act. Which... it clearly isn't.

None of which really matters. The sections that deal with this stuff are not rules. They're fluff, even noting themselves to be jumping off points for how to think about and create your character's personality and perspective. As such they can hardly be 'Rules As Written' in any sense.

If there's something in BoED that actually, in an explicit manner, says 'Executing a helpless prisoner is an evil act.', I can't find it. In fact the only mentions of execution are in relation to relics resulting from the execution of a holy saint, and the indication that one such relic has both good and evil in it.

So... no, I disagree that there's any common ground saying that executing a prisoner (assumed to be helpless) is in and of itself an evil act. It's not a good act (no matter what Gary Gygax apparently thought), but it's not an evil one.

The fact that the book also does explicitly call out that good characters doesn't need to accept the surrender of anything with the [Evil] descriptor or 'Always evil' (more or less, the example was evil dragons who aren't [Evil] but are 'Always evil') only makes the whole thing more stupid and muddied. An evil dragon isn't any more or less evil than an evil Archwizard, but showing mercy to the latter is Good while showing mercy to the former isn't, but in neither case is [b]not[\b] showing mercy inherently evil.


players often just assume that a group of similarly-aligned characters will automatically get along, when, in reality, this doesn't hold true.

Kind of like you, with evil characters.

[King of Nowhere]

I believe the 'evil manservant' thing was in terms of being adjunct to a good character, not another evil character.

Right, my bad. well, perhaps there is the good lord, and there is his manservant slaying his foes without the lord's knowledge. a good example of how that could have worked in the past is with thom merrilin from the wheel of time. when rand had just taken over the nation of tear, thom started to forge fake proof that some lords - all of them opponents of rand - were going to betray each other. in the next book, all those lords had assassinated each other, before they could seriously oppose the protagonist. and the protagonist never figured out about it.
the "urchin criminal past" is still on the table.


Despite one rather impressive showing for team Good (figuring out a way to work with an Illithid), all the other instances of people saying, "I don't see how that could work" is a better answer to "what is wrong with Lawful Good", a better demonstration of their intolerance in action, than I could ever hope to give.

The average player is neither sufficiently skilled at not in the right mindset to look for ways to make Lawful Good work. As evidenced not just by my own extensive experience, but by the number of times Playgrounders - a site which generally bats above average, IME - have gone on record (in this thread, and others) saying that they don't see how (Lawful) Good could work with X.


I am growing more and more apalled by your attitude of "if you can't work with a guy who routinely mindrapes, kills and eats other sentient beings, it's your problem". I would say the problem is on the guy who does the other stuff. I would say it's the mind flayer that cannot play with the paladin, not viceversa. (barring some extreme "foes have to unite against the end of the world" scenario)

Your whole "your character won't accept mine, so it's your fault" is nothing but an attempt to guilt-trip people who want to play an heroic fantasy into accepting murderhobos among them.

And NO, you do NOT have the right to play whatever you want and complain about other players curtailing your experience because they do not want you to do that kind of stuff. I have as much a right to say "I don't want to play at a table that does X" as you have to say "I want to do X at the table". Hence session 0. People talk about what they want to do at a table and what they find unacceptable. And if you do want to do X, and I cannot accept X, then the whole group has to decide one way or another. and once a decision is made one way or the other, the character who got suckered by the decision has to either accept it, or leave the group until the end of the current campaign. possibly without hard feelings.
The point here is that the other guy has as much right of not wanting to play a dark fantasy as you have to play one.
Want to play a mind flayer eating babies? find a party that's ok with that. Don't try to shift blame on this one party for not wanting to be part of it



Sure. But the problem is, "alignment" is a poor substitute for "personality".


absolutely true.
and that's why you should not discuss "alignment". You should discuss "tone". As in, "are we going to be the guys who will donate a lot of our loot to charity? Are we going to help poor people for free? Are we going to be the guys who execute prisoners when it's needed? Are we going to be the guys who execute prisoners because it's easier? Are we going to be the guys who execute the prisoners, and then track down their families and execute those too, as a warning to others that may stand against us?
Are we going to stop the bbeg? Are we the bbeg? are we going to stop the bbeg and then make everyone regret the bbeg?"

that's what you should discuss in session 0.
Not alignments.

[Quertus]

Kind of like you, with evil characters.

Not at all!

I have never contended that arbitrary Evil automatically works in any party.

My contentions are a) there is nothing inherent in Evil to be anti-party; b) Evil can be more pro-party than Good. Alternately, Evil is more tolerant than Good.

In short, that Evil is more easily optimized to work with the party / with a broader range of parties. Not that Evil (or anything) works with the party, right out of the box.

[ezekielraiden]

The average player is neither sufficiently skilled at not in the right mindset to look for ways to make Lawful Good work. As evidenced not just by my own extensive experience, but by the number of times Playgrounders - a site which generally bats above average, IME - have gone on record (in this thread, and others) saying that they don't see how (Lawful) Good could work with X.

"The average player is neither sufficiently skilled at nor in the right mindset to look for ways to make Evil work."

Unless I'm mistaken, this is actually admitted by Red Fel himself. Aside from the utterly unfair aspersions cast on Good, the two sections below do an excellent job of saying, "Being Lawful Evil and not being a jerk is a significant effort." I've trimmed some of the examples out, to keep the pithy pieces--I hate doing so, but the text is long and my posts already get overlong as it is.

3. Arrogance. While frequently associated with Evil, and particularly Lawful Evil, it is imperative that you either do this right, or not at all. Arrogance can be one of the most grating and obnoxious character traits to possess. There are two rules that you absolutely must follow if you intend to play this. First, don't lord over the other player characters. Doing so is fine for an NPC, but a player character cannot survive after alienating himself from his colleagues. If you must lord over the other player characters, have your character evolve to respect them, quickly. Second, have the skills to back up the hype.[...]

4. Loyalty. I cannot emphasize this enough. For a player character, Evil means being under constant scrutiny. Whether it's out of a sense of self-preservation, a sense of duty, or genuine fondness for your fellow partymembers, be loyal. Be helpful. Be productive. [...] Similarly, a Lawful Evil character should show loyalty to his underlings. [...]

5. Approachability. Like Loyalty, this is an extremely valuable method. The deal-doling devil needs to come across as friendly enough to deal with, not hostile and abrasive.[...]

6. Trustworthiness. [...] The rube knows that you can be relied upon to carry your side of the bargain. [...] Whatever you do, whatever you say, carry through on it.

8. Apologies. They're not your thing. Let me explain. Lawful Evil is about having convictions. What you're doing may be morally wrong, but in your mind, you have to justify it. It has to be "right" to you. And you should never have to apologize - at least, not sincerely - for doing the "right" thing. Now, that's not to say you won't try to soothe the hurt feelings of friends, or pay lip service to a rube to get what you want from him. But a sincere apology means saying, "What I did was wrong, and I will endeavor not to do it again." And that should be a rare commodity for Lawful Evil.

9. Dingus. Don't be one. It's true of any character, but particularly true of Evil characters. There is a great temptation to be a clever backstabbing manipulator, or to join forces with the strongest baddy in the room even if it means betraying the party, or to snark until your lips can't move anymore. Temper your desire to do so. One of the biggest thrills of Lawful Evil is being able to earn the respect, admiration, and even love of those around you, all while openly being a terrifying monster. And you can't do that when you go around being a dingus.
~~~~~~

First, remember the rule of fun. The goal is for everyone to enjoy themselves at the table. Whether you're playing an LE character or running an LE NPC as DM, you need to make sure that you're keeping yourself in check. Yes, Lawful Evil has the potential to be the most awesome thing in the room at any given moment. Nonetheless, restrain yourself. Don't hog the spotlight - it will come to you naturally, at the best possible times. If you play your character well, with charm and subtlety, the handful of times you decided to stand out will be among the most memorable moments of the campaign.

On a related point, and I mentioned this earlier, don't be a dingus. Evil is tempting. There's a natural inclination to wave off any misbehavior as "Well, my character is Evil." Hold yourself to a higher standard than that. I don't mean your character, I mean you. Police your character's behavior. Yes, your character should behave in a suitably Evil fashion, but there are lines. Don't cross the other PCs, unless it's that type of game. Don't do things that you know will make things harder for everyone, unless you have a remarkably good reason. Leave the lunatic murderhobos to the people who put G on their character sheets.

Lastly, one area into which I haven't delved is that of actual character and personality. Although I've suggested some methods and motivations, there's really no such thing as a "Lawful Evil personality." Lawful Evil characters are people, like any other. They have their tendencies, but are hardly monolithic. Even the archetypes I proposed above are general concepts, mere suggestions; your character could embody one of them, combine several, or fall neatly into none at all. What's important is that you flesh out your character as a person. It's entirely possible that, once you've given life to your creation, LE isn't the best fit. That's fine. The key is that you create a whole, comprehensible, enjoyable person to play.

Note points 3, 4, 6, and 9: the repeated need for strong self-control. Evil inherently means temptation to acts that will make people like you less. Red Fel insists on this with all three levels of association in a TTRPG: NPCs, fellow characters, and fellow players. Even with NPCs you must police yourself. It's not enough to roleplay well, nor to be clever and cautious. You must actively mitigate. Why do (Lawful) Evil characters get a free pass for that, but (Lawful) Good characters don't? Why are we only forgiving Evil for its temptations to harm the party?

[Zhentarim]

This is why using the mtg color wheel is better.

I am predominantly Black in the mtg color wheel, but I use white methods to achieve my black ends. I also have a touch of blue in me as I am a curious person

My alignment chart thus looks like this:



Black/White (Legal Ambitious--Orzhov)
Black/Blue (Neutral Ambitious--Dimir)
Black/Red (Illegal Ambitious--Rakdos)


White/Blue (Legal Neutral--Azorius)
Blue/Blue (True Neutral--Golgari/Boros/Free Space)
Blue/Red (Illegal Neutral--Izzet)


Green/White (Legal Complacent—Selesnya)
Green/Blue (Neutral Complacent—Simic)
Green/Red (Illegal Complacent—Gruul)

[Red Fel]

Note points 3, 4, 6, and 9: the repeated need for strong self-control. Evil inherently means temptation to acts that will make people like you less. Red Fel insists on this with all three levels of association in a TTRPG: NPCs, fellow characters, and fellow players. Even with NPCs you must police yourself. It's not enough to roleplay well, nor to be clever and cautious. You must actively mitigate. Why do (Lawful) Evil characters get a free pass for that, but (Lawful) Good characters don't? Why are we only forgiving Evil for its temptations to harm the party?

Here's the thing: everyone must mitigate. Nobody has carte blanche to be a dingus.

But for Evil, you need to step that mitigation up. Why? Because everyone assumes you will be a dingus. Right or wrong, you're starting on the back foot.

You're misreading my words. Evil characters don't get a free pass. Rather, it's Good characters who tend to get more excuses. That's the point. If a Good character is a jerk, or unhelpful, from time to time, eh, player is having a bad day. Guy's still a PC, still a member of the party, we give him a pass. If an Evil character is a jerk, or unhelpful, there are immediate questions of "Why are we adventuring with this guy?" (Unless you've done a great job of endearing yourself to the party, of course.)

Evil doesn't mean "temptation to acts that will make people like you less." Rather, it means people will expect you to perform those acts. An Evil character isn't obligated to kick puppies regularly, or to deliberately spite the party out of a sense of (im)moral compunction. But people will anticipate that from you, because Evil. Therefore, your obligation is to police your behaviors - to never give others the excuse.

That's the point I was making. There is almost an expectation - right or wrong - that an Evil character will mess over the party. There is less of an expectation of the same from a Good character. Therefore, as an Evil character - or, in the case of my guide, a Lawful Evil character - you need to actively police your interpersonal behavior.

Frankly, this is something everyone should be doing anyway. But for an Evil character, it's that much more vital. For a Good character, it's just manners; for Evil, it's a survival skill.

[Particle_Man]

But given that most gamers have not read and internalized Red Fel’s Evil survival guide, doesn’t that pretty much mean that evil characters will be more disruptive to a party? I mean, one could add “because in general people don’t give evil a pass like they do good” but in practice that comes to the same thing. If an average party will accept “weird stuff” from a lawful good pc that they won’t from a lawful evil pc then that is empirical evidence that people will be less disrupted by an lg character than an le character.

[ezekielraiden]

Here's the thing: everyone must mitigate. Nobody has carte blanche to be a dingus.

But for Evil, you need to step that mitigation up. Why? Because everyone assumes you will be a dingus. Right or wrong, you're starting on the back foot.

You're misreading my words. Evil characters don't get a free pass. Rather, it's Good characters who tend to get more excuses. That's the point. If a Good character is a jerk, or unhelpful, from time to time, eh, player is having a bad day. Guy's still a PC, still a member of the party, we give him a pass. If an Evil character is a jerk, or unhelpful, there are immediate questions of "Why are we adventuring with this guy?" (Unless you've done a great job of endearing yourself to the party, of course.)

Evil doesn't mean "temptation to acts that will make people like you less." Rather, it means people will expect you to perform those acts. An Evil character isn't obligated to kick puppies regularly, or to deliberately spite the party out of a sense of (im)moral compunction. But people will anticipate that from you, because Evil. Therefore, your obligation is to police your behaviors - to never give others the excuse.

That's the point I was making. There is almost an expectation - right or wrong - that an Evil character will mess over the party. There is less of an expectation of the same from a Good character. Therefore, as an Evil character - or, in the case of my guide, a Lawful Evil character - you need to actively police your interpersonal behavior.

Frankly, this is something everyone should be doing anyway. But for an Evil character, it's that much more vital. For a Good character, it's just manners; for Evil, it's a survival skill.

I don't see how this isn't what I was saying. Evil needs it. Good simply benefits from it. An Evil character may not work at all without it; a Good character probably works. Isn't that a clear way Evil is harder to pull off than Good?

[FaerieGodfather]

Here's the thing: everyone must mitigate. Nobody has carte blanche to be a dingus.

But for Evil, you need to step that mitigation up. ...

Frankly, this is something everyone should be doing anyway. But for an Evil character, it's that much more vital. For a Good character, it's just manners; for Evil, it's a survival skill.

I think this is a big part of why I started playing healers, and why healing powers are such an integral part of my ideal power set. People put up with a lot more devilry from the guy who keeps reattaching their heads.

Something which is very difficult for non-divine and non-Good characters to accomplish in D&D.

[Quertus]

I am growing more and more apalled by your attitude of "if you can't work with a guy who routinely mindrapes, kills and eats other sentient beings, it's your problem". I would say the problem is on the guy who does the other stuff.

Your whole "your character won't accept mine, so it's your fault" is nothing but an attempt to guilt-trip people who want to play an heroic fantasy into accepting murderhobos among them.

And NO, you do NOT have the right to play whatever you want and complain about other players curtailing your experience because they do not want you to do that kind of stuff. I have as much a right to say "I don't want to play at a table that does X" as you have to say "I want to do X at the table". Hence session 0. People talk about what they want to do at a table and what they find unacceptable. And if you do want to do X, and I cannot accept X, then the whole group has to decide one way or another. and once a decision is made one way or the other, the character who got suckered by the decision has to either accept it, or leave the group until the end of the current campaign. possibly without hard feelings.
The point here is that the other guy has as much right of not wanting to play a dark fantasy as you have to play one.
Want to play a mind flayer eating babies? find a party that's ok with that. Don't try to shift blame on this one party for not wanting to be part of it

absolutely true.
and that's why you should not discuss "alignment". You should discuss "tone". As in, "are we going to be the guys who will donate a lot of our loot to charity? Are we going to help poor people for free? Are we going to be the guys who execute prisoners when it's needed? Are we going to be the guys who execute prisoners because it's easier? Are we going to be the guys who execute the prisoners, and then track down their families and execute those too, as a warning to others that may stand against us?
Are we going to stop the bbeg? Are we the bbeg? are we going to stop the bbeg and then make everyone regret the bbeg?"

that's what you should discuss in session 0.
Not alignments.

Do note that my examples includes, is primarily, or originally was exclusively (I forget which - darn senility) not being able to accept taking prisoners in a way that could endanger innocents. Good isn't just intolerant of Evil - it's intolerant of other Good, too.

So, if someone has chosen Good, they aren't just saying that you cannot play Evil, they're saying you cannot play Good, either. They're saying you have to march to exactly their beat, or else. Because Good cares. That's what makes it Good - it cares about things like innocent lives. If it didn't, it wouldn't be Good.


I don't see how this isn't what I was saying. Evil needs it. Good simply benefits from it. An Evil character may not work at all without it; a Good character probably works. Isn't that a clear way Evil is harder to pull off than Good?

No, everyone needs to not make the game worse, to not be "my guy" or whatever. The problem with Lawful Good is, people let them make the game worse in ways that they won't let Evil hey away with.

The problem with Lawful Good is, people are desensitized to the ways that they make the game worse.

[patchyman]

There is insufficient data for a meaningful answer. I don't mean that flippantly. After all, "slot into a random party" simply isn't a relevant criterion for actual play most of the time, because people usually don't try to draft up a character prior to joining groups they know absolutely nothing about. And exactly what "easier" means is a painfully open question all on its own. After all, even Red Fel admits that the Evil characters he advocates are consciously and actively circumscribed, requiring careful thought to construct as rationally-acting agents. That would seem to imply that it's a non-trivial effort to create such a character. Finally, there's the issue of what each player is comfortable doing; for me, an Evil character will almost without fail be harder, because I genuinely feel icky when I play Evil characters or even do Evil things as a non-Evil character! Given all of that, I don't think we can make any kind of firm statement; the best we can manage is that it may be easier to play an Evil character if you're in the unusual situation of needing to draft a character for a party you know literally nothing about....and that's a statement that tells us very little.

I would add another nuance in support of your point. If we are accepting Quertus’ hypothetical at face value (random party), then there are a number of *players* who might be uncomfortable with Evil themes and acts, even if the Evil character is optimized for party cohesion. The converse, players uncomfortable with Good themes and acts (even if off-screen), is much less likely.

So even in that case, I suspect that a Good character is better for party cohesion.

[King of Nowhere]

I would add another nuance in support of your point. If we are accepting Quertus’ hypothetical at face value (random party), then there are a number of *players* who might be uncomfortable with Evil themes and acts, even if the Evil character is optimized for party cohesion. The converse, players uncomfortable with Good themes and acts (even if off-screen), is much less likely.

that's basically the point I was trying to make. thanks for summing it up for me

[Zhentarim]

I think this is a big part of why I started playing healers, and why healing powers are such an integral part of my ideal power set. People put up with a lot more devilry from the guy who keeps reattaching their heads.

Something which is very difficult for non-divine and non-Good characters to accomplish in D&D.

Well, I’m rolling a chaotic evil life oracle in pathfinder. 3.5’s favored soul could pull off evil healing too.

[Red Fel]

I don't see how this isn't what I was saying. Evil needs it. Good simply benefits from it. An Evil character may not work at all without it; a Good character probably works. Isn't that a clear way Evil is harder to pull off than Good?

Then we're in agreement. To be fair, everybody needs it - a Good character who is a useless sack and a total jerk should, by all rights, get the boot. But Evil characters do need it more, players of Evil characters therefore face a higher burden (at least until your fellow players open their minds), and so yes, Evil can frequently be harder to pull off than Good.


No, everyone needs to not make the game worse, to not be "my guy" or whatever. The problem with Lawful Good is, people let them make the game worse in ways that they won't let Evil hey away with.

The problem with Lawful Good is, people are desensitized to the ways that they make the game worse.

Back on point, this. If, for example, an Evil character announced to the party, "The new guy hasn't eaten nearly enough babies; his presence offends me. Here is a baby - if he doesn't eat it, we need to boot him," the party would almost certainly boot the Evil character. Or kill him. By contrast, when - not if, but when, because it's written into the RAW for the Paladin class - a Paladin makes the converse claim about an Evil character (e.g. "This new guy pings on my Evildar, we need to boot him,") the party... Well, they may or may not go along with it, but that isn't a terminal offense by the Paladin.

That's the point. Not every Paladin - or every LG, for that matter - is that bad, but many take the alignment as license to be. And as a whole, players will let them do that - for the most part - in ways that they wouldn't let an Evil character.

Again, yes, this makes it harder to play Evil. But on the thread topic, this is a problem with how people play Lawful Good.


I would add another nuance in support of your point. If we are accepting Quertus’ hypothetical at face value (random party), then there are a number of *players* who might be uncomfortable with Evil themes and acts, even if the Evil character is optimized for party cohesion. The converse, players uncomfortable with Good themes and acts (even if off-screen), is much less likely.

So even in that case, I suspect that a Good character is better for party cohesion.

Statistically, yes. There are two different spectra - how effective a character is at their role, and how well the character fits into the party. You can have a Wolverine-esque "best at what I do" grunting beefcake whose talents back up his claims, but if he has Wolverine's personality, nobody is going to want him on the team.

Wolverine is a bit of a jerk, y'see.

Conversely, you can have a person who's genuinely pleasant, fun, and great to have around, but utterly useless in every possible situation. Worse, he demands that the party tune its competencies down to his level, making everyone worse at everything. He may be great to have around, but he's a lead weight and you need to drop him.

Two spectra. The fact that Evil has the moral flexibility to do what Good can't, that goes to one of them. The fact that Evil is more tolerant of other alignments, that goes to the other. However, you're right; that is offset by the fact that the rest of the party - in terms of either players or PCs - may not have the same tolerance. That is a factor, and one that needs to be considered.

[Quertus]

I would add another nuance in support of your point. If we are accepting Quertus’ hypothetical at face value (random party), then there are a number of *players* who might be uncomfortable with Evil themes and acts, even if the Evil character is optimized for party cohesion. The converse, players uncomfortable with Good themes and acts (even if off-screen), is much less likely.

So even in that case, I suspect that a Good character is better for party cohesion.

They don't word it as "uncomfortable with Good". They word it as "tired of hauling around prisoners", "tired of your spotlight hogging with being honorable", or "wanting to get back to the game".

And they are, IME, if not more common, at least more vocal about their complaints.

Evil can tow the line for the sake of party unity. Good has a much harder time with that.

[King of Nowhere]

They don't word it as "uncomfortable with Good". They word it as "tired of hauling around prisoners", "tired of your spotlight hogging with being honorable", or "wanting to get back to the game".

And they are, IME, if not more common, at least more vocal about their complaints.



It's a different level of uncomfortable, though.
To take an extreme example, if you roleplay a rapist, or if your mind flayer starts implanting his larves into babies, a lot of people are going to squick and leave the table in disgust.
If you have to lug around prisoners, or if you get lesser rewards because the good guy says "think nothing of it", you may not like it... but it's not the same level of deep personal dislike that will have one leave the table at the first instance of it happening.

by the way, a sane party compromises. my good monk has accepted stuff from the evil wizard that would have earned an attack if done by npcs, because they were made to further the party's goals. when it was not possible to accept, sometimes we agreed on ways that my monk could remain blissfully ignorant of it all (a natural 1 on sense motive helped to justify it in-game). and the wizard has refrained from some of the greater evil. it's not like we keep the evil party member chained and force him to act good. And the party also has a paladin.
From this we go back to the first page, where my first argument was "it's not a problem with good, but in how people play it".

And that's why, when people come on the forum for advice, if they say "my party wants to explore horror/sex/gore themes but I am uncomfortable with them" the general advice is "split the party, you can stay friends but you can't play together", while when people complain about conflicts related to characters wanting to do different things, the general advice is "talk it ooc and find an acceptable common ground". and only split the party if talking doesn't work, because then it's a problem with the players, not with the characters or the story.

[Zhentarim]

Then we're in agreement. To be fair, everybody needs it - a Good character who is a useless sack and a total jerk should, by all rights, get the boot. But Evil characters do need it more, players of Evil characters therefore face a higher burden (at least until your fellow players open their minds), and so yes, Evil can frequently be harder to pull off than Good.



Back on point, this. If, for example, an Evil character announced to the party, "The new guy hasn't eaten nearly enough babies; his presence offends me. Here is a baby - if he doesn't eat it, we need to boot him," the party would almost certainly boot the Evil character. Or kill him. By contrast, when - not if, but when, because it's written into the RAW for the Paladin class - a Paladin makes the converse claim about an Evil character (e.g. "This new guy pings on my Evildar, we need to boot him,") the party... Well, they may or may not go along with it, but that isn't a terminal offense by the Paladin.

That's the point. Not every Paladin - or every LG, for that matter - is that bad, but many take the alignment as license to be. And as a whole, players will let them do that - for the most part - in ways that they wouldn't let an Evil character.

Again, yes, this makes it harder to play Evil. But on the thread topic, this is a problem with how people play Lawful Good.



Statistically, yes. There are two different spectra - how effective a character is at their role, and how well the character fits into the party. You can have a Wolverine-esque "best at what I do" grunting beefcake whose talents back up his claims, but if he has Wolverine's personality, nobody is going to want him on the team.

Wolverine is a bit of a jerk, y'see.

Conversely, you can have a person who's genuinely pleasant, fun, and great to have around, but utterly useless in every possible situation. Worse, he demands that the party tune its competencies down to his level, making everyone worse at everything. He may be great to have around, but he's a lead weight and you need to drop him.

Two spectra. The fact that Evil has the moral flexibility to do what Good can't, that goes to one of them. The fact that Evil is more tolerant of other alignments, that goes to the other. However, you're right; that is offset by the fact that the rest of the party - in terms of either players or PCs - may not have the same tolerance. That is a factor, and one that needs to be considered.

I don't even really accept the concept of good/evil. With the exception of Chaotic Evil and half the Neutral Evil folks, Evil doesn't seem so bad. I'd rather have a Lawful Evil or maybe a more mature Neutral Evil by my side than a Chaotic-anything or even most Neutral and/or lawful goods. When people are out for their own self interest, they are easier to predict, moreso if they generally keep their word and follow the law in letter of the local land you are traveling through. Admittedly, I can respect externally enforced order better than holding yourself back due to dogma.

[Red Fel]

I don't even really accept the concept of good/evil. With the exception of Chaotic Evil and half the Neutral Evil folks, Evil doesn't seem so bad. I'd rather have a Lawful Evil or maybe a more mature Neutral Evil by my side than a Chaotic-anything or even most Neutral and/or lawful goods. When people are out for their own self interest, they are easier to predict, moreso if they generally keep their word and follow the law in letter of the local land you are traveling through. Admittedly, I can respect externally enforced order better than holding yourself back due to dogma.

Which is kind of the point. It's why originally there wasn't even a G-E spectrum - just Law versus Chaos.

The fact is, if we lost the Good and Evil labels altogether, and replaced them with something more accurate - say, Selfish, or Ruthless, or similar - it would both make sense and permit nuance.

And that's the key. A Good character and an Evil character may not make sense traveling together, but a Compassionate character and a Ruthless character make perfect sense together - one makes up for the other's shortcomings. ("He's a bleeding-heart healer with an abundance of generosity and a lack of common sense. She's a cynical former assassin with a jaded eye and a trigger finger. They fight crime.") Objective labels that seem to create absolute divisions get replaced by descriptive terms that help express a personality, not just a particular view of puppy-kicking.

[Quertus]

It's a different level of uncomfortable, though.

A different *type* of uncomfortable, I think we can agree.

But a different *level*? Based on the number of players I've seen get red-faced and scream at people for ruining their elf games for playing Good? I think that, showing someone that there is something better/kinder/gentler than what they consider Good is tantamount to calling them Evil. People don't tend to take that well, IME. So I'll argue that being reminded that there is evil in the world, and having that reminder occur in your safe space, is not nearly so uncomfortable as being forced to face that you yourself are that evil (and have that revelation hit you unsolicited in your safe space).

So, while I may agree that they are a different level, I don't think we are likely to agree as to which is on which end.

[Kraynic]

I fully admit that this may be partly due to mostly playing other systems, but I think some people presenting their opinions on evil (and sometimes good) are actually more neutral, which really doesn't accurately present the contrast between good and evil in my opinion.

First of all, I think there are some things that need to be agreed upon that apply to everyone, or at least most people:
Everyone, or at least most people:
Have some sort of desires/goals that they pursue in their life.
Have likes, dislikes, hangups, attitudes and personality quirks that may skew someone away from the "mainstream" of their alignment in certain areas.
Are going to have people or institutions they like or dislike that may skew someone away from the "mainstream" of their alignment in certain areas.
Are going to want to preserve their own life.
Will want to avoid any trouble that can be avoided, especially against a potentially superior force.

There are probably some more things that could be added there, but I think the general gist is clear that individuals can have plans/goals, likes, dislikes, loyalties, and antipathies that influence their life and alter what the alignment means for that character.

Good:
Generally want to pursue their goals in such a manner that there is a positive impact on people around them.
Generally want to minimize chances of negative impact on people around them.
Will likely feel guilt for negative impacts imposed on people even when it is "justified" by the outcome.
Will likely feel good about other people being successful in something they view as positive/good, even if they personally had no hand in the success.
Generally dislike and will usually (if possible) work to reduce hardship/suffering of others around them.

Neutral (selfish):
Generally don't care what impact the pursuit of their goals has on the people around them.
Won't mind if the pursuit of their goals has a negative impact on those around them, but doesn't rejoice in the suffering of others.
Won't mind if the pursuit of their goals has a positive impact on those around them, but doesn't go out of their way just to benefit other people.

Evil:
Generally will enjoy success the best when it involves a negative outcome for others, after all, how else will others know they have been beaten?
Generally want to minimize positive outcomes for others that don't enhance their own outcome of a plan or action, because... Why support those free-booters anyway?
Will likely get a kick out of the failure of others, even if they didn't have a hand in it themselves.
Will likely be indifferent to the suffering of others unless there is a way to turn it to personal benefit.
Will likely be dismissive of the success of others unless that success directly hinged on personal actions, in which case that other person/group better remember it.

None of this requires you to be the perfect boy scout, or twirl your mustache into a coil spring. Once you add law into this, I think the main thing you increase is the personal code of conduct, followed by adherence to laws of the land (that your character respects), and possibly the desire of the character to have a certain reputation based on the codes and laws they follow. Maybe the second and third of those should be switched. Not all laws are truly workable or enforcable, so just sticking to a law because it is a law doesn't even make sense all the time even for L/N. Anyone L/"x" is going to appreciate what law does for civilization. That doesn't make them (well not all of them) just total law adhering robots.

And I think that last is the real problem. Players sometimes take the alignment and play that instead of a character that has their own hopes, desires, likes, and dislikes that will influence how they view Law as a cosmic/societal force. Or Good/Evil as a cosmic/societal force. Sometimes I think that the "problem" with the L/G paladin is that sometimes someone who has been told they can't play evil will just play a paladin because you can still "smite them all and let the gods sort them out". "Godly" murderhoboism. I think part of that stems from some players having the character worshiping the alignment instead of a god(dess). To an extent, (using pathfinder for my example because I haven't played d&d since 2E many years ago) I could see a paladin of Iomedae (L/G) being the steriotypical "smite everything that I can sense as evil" as the follower of a goddess of war (among other things). But I could also see a paladin of Erastil (L/G) tolerating a lot of "evil" societies because of Erastil being a deity of community, hearth, and home (among other things). Instead of slaughtering all goblins, gnolls, or kobolds you run into, you might end up wanting peaceful coexistence (where possible) to strengthen community. Sounds like a bunch of treaties which would be right up the alley of any L/"x" alignment character. But that isn't possible if L/G characters is just the opposing caricature of the C/E mustache twirler.

I have to agree with Red Fel on the onus being mostly on players of evil characters though. Most people that I have seen that want to play an evil character (and have been allowed to do so), end up wanting to backstab the party in some way, or end up doing things that spell the end of the group by doing stupid stuff to npcs. I have personally only played with one player that I would trust to run an evil character in a game with me as DM. He is just awesome at keeping his more nefarious deeds done "off screen" and out of the party eye, having reasons to be with the group for personal benefit or respect of one or more members of the group, while definitely not pretending to be good while in the group. And then there are some players that, no matter what is on their sheet, are actually playing a radically different alignment. They are playing C/D. And chaotic disruptive is only fun for a limited period of time if it is fun at all. And sometimes that C/D player has a character sheet labeled L/G and paladin.

[Bartmanhomer]

I fully admit that this may be partly due to mostly playing other systems, but I think some people presenting their opinions on evil (and sometimes good) are actually more neutral, which really doesn't accurately present the contrast between good and evil in my opinion.

First of all, I think there are some things that need to be agreed upon that apply to everyone, or at least most people:
Everyone, or at least most people:
Have some sort of desires/goals that they pursue in their life.
Have likes, dislikes, hangups, attitudes and personality quirks that may skew someone away from the "mainstream" of their alignment in certain areas.
Are going to have people or institutions they like or dislike that may skew someone away from the "mainstream" of their alignment in certain areas.
Are going to want to preserve their own life.
Will want to avoid any trouble that can be avoided, especially against a potentially superior force.

There are probably some more things that could be added there, but I think the general gist is clear that individuals can have plans/goals, likes, dislikes, loyalties, and antipathies that influence their life and alter what the alignment means for that character.

Good:
Generally want to pursue their goals in such a manner that there is a positive impact on people around them.
Generally want to minimize chances of negative impact on people around them.
Will likely feel guilt for negative impacts imposed on people even when it is "justified" by the outcome.
Will likely feel good about other people being successful in something they view as positive/good, even if they personally had no hand in the success.
Generally dislike and will usually (if possible) work to reduce hardship/suffering of others around them.

Neutral (selfish):
Generally don't care what impact the pursuit of their goals has on the people around them.
Won't mind if the pursuit of their goals has a negative impact on those around them, but doesn't rejoice in the suffering of others.
Won't mind if the pursuit of their goals has a positive impact on those around them, but doesn't go out of their way just to benefit other people.

Evil:
Generally will enjoy success the best when it involves a negative outcome for others, after all, how else will others know they have been beaten?
Generally want to minimize positive outcomes for others that don't enhance their own outcome of a plan or action, because... Why support those free-booters anyway?
Will likely get a kick out of the failure of others, even if they didn't have a hand in it themselves.
Will likely be indifferent to the suffering of others unless there is a way to turn it to personal benefit.
Will likely be dismissive of the success of others unless that success directly hinged on personal actions, in which case that other person/group better remember it.

None of this requires you to be the perfect boy scout, or twirl your mustache into a coil spring. Once you add law into this, I think the main thing you increase is the personal code of conduct, followed by adherence to laws of the land (that your character respects), and possibly the desire of the character to have a certain reputation based on the codes and laws they follow. Maybe the second and third of those should be switched. Not all laws are truly workable or enforcable, so just sticking to a law because it is a law doesn't even make sense all the time even for L/N. Anyone L/"x" is going to appreciate what law does for civilization. That doesn't make them (well not all of them) just total law adhering robots.

And I think that last is the real problem. Players sometimes take the alignment and play that instead of a character that has their own hopes, desires, likes, and dislikes that will influence how they view Law as a cosmic/societal force. Or Good/Evil as a cosmic/societal force. Sometimes I think that the "problem" with the L/G paladin is that sometimes someone who has been told they can't play evil will just play a paladin because you can still "smite them all and let the gods sort them out". "Godly" murderhoboism. I think part of that stems from some players having the character worshiping the alignment instead of a god(dess). To an extent, (using pathfinder for my example because I haven't played d&d since 2E many years ago) I could see a paladin of Iomedae (L/G) being the steriotypical "smite everything that I can sense as evil" as the follower of a goddess of war (among other things). But I could also see a paladin of Erastil (L/G) tolerating a lot of "evil" societies because of Erastil being a deity of community, hearth, and home (among other things). Instead of slaughtering all goblins, gnolls, or kobolds you run into, you might end up wanting peaceful coexistence (where possible) to strengthen community. Sounds like a bunch of treaties which would be right up the alley of any L/"x" alignment character. But that isn't possible if L/G characters is just the opposing caricature of the C/E mustache twirler.

I have to agree with Red Fel on the onus being mostly on players of evil characters though. Most people that I have seen that want to play an evil character (and have been allowed to do so), end up wanting to backstab the party in some way, or end up doing things that spell the end of the group by doing stupid stuff to npcs. I have personally only played with one player that I would trust to run an evil character in a game with me as DM. He is just awesome at keeping his more nefarious deeds done "off screen" and out of the party eye, having reasons to be with the group for personal benefit or respect of one or more members of the group, while definitely not pretending to be good while in the group. And then there are some players that, no matter what is on their sheet, are actually playing a radically different alignment. They are playing C/D. And chaotic disruptive is only fun for a limited period of time if it is fun at all. And sometimes that C/D player has a character sheet labeled L/G and paladin.
Ok I disagree that all Neutral characters are selfish. Depending on each individual, not all Neutral characters are selfish.

[King of Nowhere]

A different *type* of uncomfortable, I think we can agree.

But a different *level*? Based on the number of players I've seen get red-faced and scream at people for ruining their elf games for playing Good? I think that, showing someone that there is something better/kinder/gentler than what they consider Good is tantamount to calling them Evil. People don't tend to take that well, IME. So I'll argue that being reminded that there is evil in the world, and having that reminder occur in your safe space, is not nearly so uncomfortable as being forced to face that you yourself are that evil (and have that revelation hit you unsolicited in your safe space).

So, while I may agree that they are a different level, I don't think we are likely to agree as to which is on which end.

I see. your tabletop experience was different from mine, you probably met far too many lawful stupid characters and not many stupid evil characters.
personally, I've never met either, but then my roleplaying experience is limited to two parties of friends.

[Lord Raziere]

A different *type* of uncomfortable, I think we can agree.

But a different *level*? Based on the number of players I've seen get red-faced and scream at people for ruining their elf games for playing Good? I think that, showing someone that there is something better/kinder/gentler than what they consider Good is tantamount to calling them Evil. People don't tend to take that well, IME. So I'll argue that being reminded that there is evil in the world, and having that reminder occur in your safe space, is not nearly so uncomfortable as being forced to face that you yourself are that evil (and have that revelation hit you unsolicited in your safe space).

So, while I may agree that they are a different level, I don't think we are likely to agree as to which is on which end.

Wow, thats actually kind of screwed up. I hope I never meet those people, because if being kind or gentle is grounds for yelling at others, I'm kicking the person who got mad at the kind one from the group or leaving it myself. I don't have time for people who think that way, because evil existing is just a fact, interpreting people showing an example of Good as calling oneself evil is how jerks think, and if we have to police ourselves for being too kind and gentle in safe spaces, I don't think they are even safe anymore.

[Quertus]

I see. your tabletop experience was different from mine, you probably met far too many lawful stupid characters and not many stupid evil characters.
personally, I've never met either, but then my roleplaying experience is limited to two parties of friends.

Eh, I've seen good and bad renditions of both/all. I've played a lot. Do note, in case it wasn't clear, that it didn't take "stupid good" to elicit a "you've ruined my elf games" outburst from some players.


Wow, thats actually kind of screwed up.

I'm not gonna argue with that.

[ezekielraiden]

Eh, I've seen good and bad renditions of both/all. I've played a lot. Do note, in case it wasn't clear, that it didn't take "stupid good" to elicit a "you've ruined my elf games" outburst from some players.



I'm not gonna argue with that.

Jeez, that's...wow. If that's the kind of experience you've had even once, let alone multiple times, I can understand why you'd have a jaundiced view of characters with "Good" written on their character sheets. Anyone serious about being a good person--whether as a character or as a player--should be open to learning new approaches and methods. Learning is vitally necessary for all forms of thought, and moral thought is among them. On behalf of my fellow Good-alignment fans, I genuinely apologize. :(

[FaerieGodfather]

So I'll argue that being reminded that there is evil in the world, and having that reminder occur in your safe space, is not nearly so uncomfortable as being forced to face that you yourself are that evil (and have that revelation hit you unsolicited in your safe space).

It pairs joyously with the revelation that the people who enthusiastically invited you into their safe space to play elfgames with them won't allow you to play as yourself, the person they've always known you to be, for alignment reasons.

The biggest problem with Lawful Good is that 90% of people think they are.


Jeez, that's...wow. If that's the kind of experience you've had even once, let alone multiple times, I can understand why you'd have a jaundiced view of characters with "Good" written on their character sheets. Anyone serious about being a good person--whether as a character or as a player--should be open to learning new approaches and methods. Learning is vitally necessary for all forms of thought, and moral thought is among them. On behalf of my fellow Good-alignment fans, I genuinely apologize. :(

Just take a moment to imagine the Venn Diagram of people who believe they are personally Lawful Good, people who don't allow Evil or CN characters in their games because "heroism", and people who think that the Gray Guard is a legitimate character concept.

The biggest problem with Lawful Good is that it destroyed my faith in humanity's capacity for moral reasoning. Having mechanical rules for morality in a roleplaying game is like trying to have hard mechanical rules defining the alien geometry and colorless radiation of Lovecraft.

[Crake]

Jeez, that's...wow. If that's the kind of experience you've had even once, let alone multiple times, I can understand why you'd have a jaundiced view of characters with "Good" written on their character sheets. Anyone serious about being a good person--whether as a character or as a player--should be open to learning new approaches and methods. Learning is vitally necessary for all forms of thought, and moral thought is among them. On behalf of my fellow Good-alignment fans, I genuinely apologize. :(

I've found I mostly solve this problem by telling players that they don't get to determine their alignment, I do, as the DM. They are free to act in whatever way they please, and, when the time comes that their alignment actually has some kind of impact on the happenings in the game (they die and I need to figure out where they go, an angel shows up and casts holy smite, a succubus is secretly using detect good on the party etc etc), then i'll look back on their actions and determine what their alignment should be based on that. Until then, they should just leave the alignment section blank.

I've found that helps players play their character rather than playing their alignment.

[FaerieGodfather]

Until then, they should just leave the alignment section blank.

How does that work with the alignment restrictions on the majority (6/11) of base classes in the PHB? Or do you waive those to enable better roleplaying?

[King of Nowhere]

How does that work with the alignment restrictions on the majority (6/11) of base classes in the PHB? Or do you waive those to enable better roleplaying?

I don't know others, but I never cared at all about those.
paladins should be clearly acting heroic, because that's what paladins are supposed to be.
and druids should at least do soemthing druidic every once in a while
and clerics should at least behave in a way that doesn't conflict with their chosen deity.
those are the only restrictions. and you'll notice that those three classes are getting their powers from an external source granting them, so it makes sense that they have to further the interests of the external source.

but that a barbarian can't be lawful while a monk must be? what's the point of it all?

[RatElemental]

but that a barbarian can't be lawful while a monk must be? what's the point of it all?

I always figured it was something along the lines of a mind devoted to law is too orderly to be able to fly off the handle like that, while one not regimented enough to be can't keep the precise movements of monk abilities straight.

Bard still makes no damn sense not being able to be lawful though.

[Crake]

How does that work with the alignment restrictions on the majority (6/11) of base classes in the PHB? Or do you waive those to enable better roleplaying?

Monks, barbarians, druids and bards all have their alignment requirements removed, because frankly, those are all dumb. For paladins and clerics, it's more important that they follow the tenets of their deity, rather than adhere to a specific alignment, and they generally begin their career with a blank slate, with the assumption that they have been devout followers of the tenets so far. I've made paladin variants for my whole pantheon, and the standard paladins-of-alignment are basically non-existent, instead replaced with crusaders.

Obviously a lawful good deity will have lawful good tenets, which thusly encourage generally lawful good followers, but that gives players ideals to follow, rather than nebulous concepts that nobody can really agree on.

[FaerieGodfather]

Good stuff, man.

[patchyman]

I've found I mostly solve this problem by telling players that they don't get to determine their alignment, I do, as the DM. They are free to act in whatever way they please, and, when the time comes that their alignment actually has some kind of impact on the happenings in the game (they die and I need to figure out where they go, an angel shows up and casts holy smite, a succubus is secretly using detect good on the party etc etc), then i'll look back on their actions and determine what their alignment should be based on that.

When I DM, I do not require alignment. I find that 5e “Flaws, Bonds and Ideals” does a better job of summarizing the character in a nutshell.

[Calthropstu]

Playing an evil character can truly make people uncomfortable. "I murder character x" seems to be ok, but the moment you try to get creative people get squeemish.
{scrubbed}
Some of the arguments in this thread that are pro evil seem to forget that evil people do things that are evil. I am seeing many references to "stupid evil" but normal evil is just as bad in many people's eyes.
Even just attempting to fleece commoners in scams gets looked down on in some games.

Most people seem to be uncomfortable with evil in their games.

[Zhentarim]

I always figured it was something along the lines of a mind devoted to law is too orderly to be able to fly off the handle like that, while one not regimented enough to be can't keep the precise movements of monk abilities straight.

Bard still makes no damn sense not being able to be lawful though.

I have trouble acting angry too. I used to never get angry, now I have constant steaming resentment under the surface—one thing that’s always been true though is I’m very subdued and not hasty.

[patchyman]

I always figured it was something along the lines of a mind devoted to law is too orderly to be able to fly off the handle like that, while one not regimented enough to be can't keep the precise movements of monk abilities straight.

Bard still makes no damn sense not being able to be lawful though.

Going from some posters, Lawful Good characters are frothing at the mouth zealots who would smite you for looking at the funny, so barbarian seems apt.

[Kraynic]

Going from some posters, Lawful Good characters are frothing at the mouth zealots who would smite you for looking at the funny, so barbarian seems apt.

The Ministry of Silly Walks is a heretical organization and must be purged down to the foundations of their member hall and have the soil sowed with salt!
~This message brought to you by the Benevolent Order of the Sons of Slade

[ezekielraiden]

Playing an evil character can truly make people uncomfortable. "I murder character x" seems to be ok, but the moment you try to get creative people get squeemish.
*raises hand* Already laid claim to that one. Even just plain murder--not killing in self-defense or the like--is hard for me to stomach. I have only once had to cause intra-party disagreement about such things, but yeah, it's an issue.


Some of the arguments in this thread that are pro evil seem to forget that evil people do things that are evil. I am seeing many references to "stupid evil" but normal evil is just as bad in many people's eyes.
Even just attempting to fleece commoners in scams gets looked down on in some games.
I try to be open-minded about what other people choose to do in a game. But yes. Unlike the traditional "Being Evil Sucks" trope, I have zero lag time between "do evil deed" and "feel like crap about it." It's just my nature, I guess.

[Elkad]

Many people (myself included) feel that Laws and rules themselves are inherently evil serving only to enrich the rule makers at the expense of everyone else. At least Lawful Evil is honest about this.



All laws? Bit of a hard sell, that. Have you never cheered a court ruling or the passage of a good law? Have you never wanted justice against a predatory corporation or the unhealthy practices of a business? That's all law. Hell, realistically speaking you cannot have human communities without D&D "Law," because "Law" also covers tradition and honor--in other words, it covers both civic structures (where you have codified laws) and "honor system" structures (where you have unwritten but commonly-known rules of behavior). Does it make you chafe so badly to abide by the rules of someone's house (e.g. vegetarianism, or not wearing shoes inside)? Do you think traffic laws exclusively exist to enrich the people who write traffic laws, and solely take away things from all others? Anti-trust laws? Disability laws?

Or would you say that there really is a place for certain amounts of agreed-upon behavioral restriction, you just don't like that such restrictions can be used for evil? (Glossing over, for the time being, how much evil is done when there are no such restrictions at all...)

Trying to carefully craft this to avoid drifting into real life politics..


Dislike all laws? No, I'm a mortal, not a slaad. But damn close.

I can't think of a court ruling on a legal matter (vs a crime) I've cheered that wasn't beating down an existing law I disagreed with.
Because I'm Good, I will agree to laws that codify evils, but I don't think they are really necessary. If you kill babies absent a system of courts and laws, people will form a lynch mob and solve the problem anyway. Same if you defraud your customers (though in that case, we might just burn down your business).

Speeding? I routinely ignore it, and I think it's one of the most egregious laws on the books. There shouldn't even be speed limits. My travel speed is limited by two things. My ability to travel safely (in my own judgement), and my ability to deal with the penalties if a traffic warden spots me. In the interest of public good, I'll agree to reckless driving laws, but I'd be fine without them as well.

I'd have more respect for anti-trust laws if they were actually enforced. But now we are drifting into LE, where laws exist to empower people.

Disability laws? No. They burden every business with a huge cost, that will never be recouped in additional sales to disabled people. Let some businesses specialize in that instead, of their own free will.

Vegetarianism? If people want to poison themselves through either ignorance or some religious belief, fine. But if you invite me over, don't expect me to eat your carb and omega-6 laden poisons. And if I'm hosting a BBQ, bring your own tofuburger.

Shoes? I don't have a problem with this one. But my wife will bring her "indoor shoes" and change at the door, because she's incapable of walking safely without them. If you won't tolerate that, we'll leave. But in general, it's "your house, your rules". If I'm not forced to be there, I'll vote with my feet if I don't like your restrictions. If I am forced to be there (say at court), we'll break that law willingly.

[Crake]

Trying to carefully craft this to avoid drifting into real life politics..


Dislike all laws? No, I'm a mortal, not a slaad. But damn close.

I can't think of a court ruling on a legal matter (vs a crime) I've cheered that wasn't beating down an existing law I disagreed with.
Because I'm Good, I will agree to laws that codify evils, but I don't think they are really necessary. If you kill babies absent a system of courts and laws, people will form a lynch mob and solve the problem anyway. Same if you defraud your customers (though in that case, we might just burn down your business).

Speeding? I routinely ignore it, and I think it's one of the most egregious laws on the books. There shouldn't even be speed limits. My travel speed is limited by two things. My ability to travel safely (in my own judgement), and my ability to deal with the penalties if a traffic warden spots me. In the interest of public good, I'll agree to reckless driving laws, but I'd be fine without them as well.

I'd have more respect for anti-trust laws if they were actually enforced. But now we are drifting into LE, where laws exist to empower people.

Disability laws? No. They burden every business with a huge cost, that will never be recouped in additional sales to disabled people. Let some businesses specialize in that instead, of their own free will.

Vegetarianism? If people want to poison themselves through either ignorance or some religious belief, fine. But if you invite me over, don't expect me to eat your carb and omega-6 laden poisons. And if I'm hosting a BBQ, bring your own tofuburger.

Shoes? I don't have a problem with this one. But my wife will bring her "indoor shoes" and change at the door, because she's incapable of walking safely without them. If you won't tolerate that, we'll leave. But in general, it's "your house, your rules". If I'm not forced to be there, I'll vote with my feet if I don't like your restrictions. If I am forced to be there (say at court), we'll break that law willingly.

Lawful doesn't mean following the law, just a law. It may be some external law, or some internal personal ideal or set of values, even when those ideals or values may be inconvenient. What determines whether you're good, neutral, or evil is the substance of those ideals and values, but you can definitely be lawful while still completely disregarding the laws of the land, at least when looking at an individual level.

[Particle_Man]

As an aside, a hypothetical society that doesn’t force businesses to cater to the disabled will not magically create businesses that caters to the disabled on its own. It will simply be a society in which the disabled suffer because they are not catered to. That is why the laws forcing businesses to cater to the disabled are A Good Thing (tm).

[Eldonauran]

I've found I mostly solve this problem by telling players that they don't get to determine their alignment, I do, as the DM. They are free to act in whatever way they please, and, when the time comes that their alignment actually has some kind of impact on the happenings in the game (they die and I need to figure out where they go, an angel shows up and casts holy smite, a succubus is secretly using detect good on the party etc etc), then i'll look back on their actions and determine what their alignment should be based on that. Until then, they should just leave the alignment section blank.

I've found that helps players play their character rather than playing their alignment.
I'm going to borrow this idea for the next game I run. :smallsmile:

[Quertus]

Trying to carefully craft this to avoid drifting into real life politics..

Vegetarianism? If people want to poison themselves through either ignorance or some religious belief, fine. But if you invite me over, don't expect me to eat your carb and omega-6 laden poisons. And if I'm hosting a BBQ, bring your own tofuburger.

1) there aren't any laws (or even strict social rules) that apply here, are there? This is just a call to absurdity to avoid politics, right?

2) are you in any way serious about "poison" here? Because I've never heard this one before.


As an aside, a hypothetical society that doesn’t force businesses to cater to the disabled will not magically create businesses that caters to the disabled on its own. It will simply be a society in which the disabled suffer because they are not catered to. That is why the laws forcing businesses to cater to the disabled are A Good Thing (tm).

Ah, I'll not respond directly, because politics.

But suppose some people in D&D had additional needs. Suppose… they caught an incurable disease. Not contagious, caused by walking through Astral quicklings' wake or something.

Now, to deal with their symptoms, and allow them to shop at everyday stores, you could mandate that every business has to line their walls with crushed jade (at a cost of, say, 7k per stronghold space), or make their walls astrally impassable. And every eatery has to stock… mercurial morphic weapon extract, a perishable food additive for their special dietary needs. And that's fine. But it imposes costs on those businesses. Or on the government, if the government pays for those upgrades (as many PCs are wont to do).

Instead, the infected could take care of their own needs, or suffer when they cannot. Lower costs, more suffering.

Or a charity could centralize food distribution and handle shopping, reducing costs and waste, but limiting options.

Or… etc etc

Point is, there are many solutions to this problem - some better than others. Having one solution in place often limits how much attention people pay to finding alternative solutions (unless they are just looking to profit). When presented with this type of problem, my groups have come up with lots of creative solutions in the past - including keeping costs low by banishing (or even exterminating) the infected. :smalleek: I'll not say any one solution is perfect good, but some are clearly not so good. (To be fair, "exterminate the infected" was a response to an incurable condition, before they knew that it didn't spread. But, once it was the established solution…)

[patchyman]

Trying to carefully craft this to avoid drifting into real life politics..


Dislike all laws? No, I'm a mortal, not a slaad. But damn close.

Sure, you claim you aren’t a slaad, but don’t think I haven’t noticed that “Elkad” is almost an anagram for “Daelkyr”.

[Elkad]

1) there aren't any laws (or even strict social rules) that apply here, are there? This is just a call to absurdity to avoid politics, right?

2) are you in any way serious about "poison" here? Because I've never heard this one before.

{Scrubbed}



Lawful doesn't mean following the law, just a law. It may be some external law, or some internal personal ideal or set of values, even when those ideals or values may be inconvenient. What determines whether you're good, neutral, or evil is the substance of those ideals and values, but you can definitely be lawful while still completely disregarding the laws of the land, at least when looking at an individual level.

And if I don't hold anyone else to those laws/values? Am I still lawful?
I'd put myself at Chaotic Good. Don't harm others. Occasionally help them without thought of recompense (including stopping harm against others). Otherwise, do whatever the hell I want, with no regard for societal strictures, and definitely don't impose my will or belief system on anyone else. {scrubbed} None of my business.


As an aside, a hypothetical society that doesn’t force businesses to cater to the disabled will not magically create businesses that caters to the disabled on its own. It will simply be a society in which the disabled suffer because they are not catered to. That is why the laws forcing businesses to cater to the disabled are A Good Thing (tm).

{Scrubbed}


Sure, you claim you aren’t a slaad, but don’t think I haven’t noticed that “Elkad” is almost an anagram for “Daelkyr”.

I've been using this handle since a wizard Magic-User character I rolled up in.. uh.. 1978?
Letters were randomly selected though (scrabble tiles), so maybe Daelkyr influenced the outcome, in an attempt to make me his avatar when his name became public decades later?

[Bartmanhomer]

{Scrubbed post, scrubbed quote}




And if I don't hold anyone else to those laws/values? Am I still lawful?
I'd put myself at Chaotic Good. Don't harm others. Occasionally help them without thought of recompense (including stopping harm against others). Otherwise, do whatever the hell I want, with no regard for societal strictures, and definitely don't impose my will or belief system on anyone else. {Scrubbed post, scrubbed quote} None of my business.



{Scrubbed post, scrubbed quote}



I've been using this handle since a wizard Magic-User character I rolled up in.. uh.. 1978?
Letters were randomly selected though (scrabble tiles), so maybe Daelkyr influenced the outcome, in an attempt to make me his avatar when his name became public decades later?

Vegetarianism? What? How is this even relevant to this thread? :confused:

[Elkad]

Vegetarianism? What? How is this even relevant to this thread? :confused:

It was brought up as a rules example upthread. It's as relevant as anything else here.
If I'm in some berry-eating elf village, I may still want some bacon.

[Zhentarim]

It was brought up as a rules example upthread. It's as relevant as anything else here.
If I'm in some berry-eating elf village, I may still want some bacon.

So true.

Granted, vegetarianism is more understandable than a city ordinance decreed by the mayor forcing you to sacrifice your firstborn child to the temple of the archdevil Mammon.

[ezekielraiden]

Taxes are a form of law (pretty much by definition). As are "incentives," assuming you mean financial or material bonuses provided by government. And the difference between a fine and an incentive is thin at best, particularly once incentives become part of the foundation of a business (since they can, and often do, become dependencies.)

Still pretty surprised that you have no interest in things like taking an opponent to court if you've been wronged. Your trust in the fitness and even presence of mob "justice" is surprising at best.

{Scrubbed}

[RatElemental]

Guys we're getting way too deep into real world politics here. I think it'd be best to drop this line of discussion.

[Bartmanhomer]

Guys we're getting way too deep into real-world politics here. I think it'd be best to drop this line of discussion.

I agree. Let just focus on why Lawful Good is bad?

[Calthropstu]

I agree. Let just focus on why Lawful Good is bad?

Lawful Good isn't bad. It's good. Says so right in the name.

[Crake]

And if I don't hold anyone else to those laws/values? Am I still lawful?

You are still lawful, yes, unless your values include spreading them. There are plenty of ideals that don't require imposition on others to be upheld, and in fact many historical monastic orders say that it is up to others to find their own way, they cannot be forced, only given if asked.

Some religions on the other hand, may dictate proselytizing and attempting to convert others, some even by force (typically the more neutral/evil ones, I don't imagine good religions doing any forceful conversions). Remember, this is at an individual level. When talking about alignments with regards to groups or societies, things do indeed become about the laws imposed by that society, how strictly they are upheld, and how tyrannical/benevolent they are, but the context of this thread seems to be much more about Lawful Good at an individualist level.

What I understand lawful good to be, and what the PHB describes it as, is an individual with morally good ideals and values, who upholds those values even when they become inconvenient. The mistake I think a lot of people have is reading the paladin code, and assuming that to be the description of lawful good, when instead the paladin code is just a set of ideals, upheld by an order of holy warriors. It's a good code, not the good code, and some would even argue it's a poorly written code in the first place, though I would stipulate that the main thing it needs is a heirarchy of which parts of the code take precedence over others.


I'd put myself at Chaotic Good. Don't harm others. Occasionally help them without thought of recompense (including stopping harm against others). Otherwise, do whatever the hell I want, with no regard for societal strictures, and definitely don't impose my will or belief system on anyone else. {scrub the post, scrub the quote} None of my business.

Well, you don't follow any sort of code of conduct, or adhere to any strict set of values, so it definitely rules out lawful. Occasionally helping people however doesn't strike me as good, it would be neutral with good leanings. Good actively seeks out opportunities to help others. Your disregard for societal structures doesn't necessarily make you chaotic, but more anarchistic, not necessarily the same thing, what does make you chaotic is "do whatever the hell I want". That strikes me as a rather whimsical statement, where you let you current mood dictate your actions. Neutral (along the law/chaos) axis would be one who follows some set of ideals, but will occasionally break then when it's convenient, while chaotic is someone who acts purely on their whims. Thus, I'd put you as chaotic neutral with good leanings.

[Segev]

But suppose some people in D&D had additional needs. Suppose… they caught an incurable disease. Not contagious, caused by walking through Astral quicklings' wake or something.

I'll do you one better, because D&D enables (heh) us to look at some serious "differently-abled" races without any of them actually having any "disabilities."

Imagine a setting where merfolk are commonly allied with humans. Perhaps it's most common in port cities with massive canal networks instead of roads, but it's integrated enough that humans regularly dwell in merfolk cities, and merfolk regularly dwell in inland human cities.

Businesses which have ramps for the standard wheeled-cauldron conveyances that merfolk use to get around landlocked towns (and visit primarily-human buildings in even the canal-riddled ones) will simply have more business. If there's any public push for "acceptance" or against "racism," then having "merfolk accessability" will be a way to attract those who actively care about such things, and there may even be a stigma of being "old fashioned" or "bigoted" or even "ramshackle" to buildings that are meant for public access but lack these features.

Similarly, in the merfolk cities, buildings without air-rooms are considered a mark of poor hosts, and lacking at least some basic breather-replenishment is seen as being deliberately unwelcoming. Perhaps even racist against humans. Like having no women's restroom in a campus building at a college. (We regularly mock the physics building at my old school for being so old that it only has a women's restroom on the ground floor, and that clearly intended for the secretaries. The upper and lower floors have only men's rooms. It does meet legal requirements; there IS a women's restroom that is accessible. But it's still mock-worthy.)

If you have enough pressure from any sort of republic or democracy to pass such laws, you have enough pressure to do it with pure peer and social pressure. It's only in monarchies, aristocracies, and other such things where the minority who are the rulers have different values than the majority that laws to enforce such things are necessary. Or, I suppose, when the majority wishes to impose its will on a geographically distant minority who hold majority status in their geographically isolated locale.

It does take social pressure, generally, to make such things happen. This is, ironically, not a Lawful or Chaotic issue; social pressure is a factor in both kinds of societies.

[Aotrs Commander]

First of all let me high-five Red Fel, because I agree with about 95% of what he's saying. (And the other 5% is his contention that LG is more restrictive on party action than evil for the same "you can just not be an asshat" reason.)



(I don't bother with "purple text for evil," though, since posting every post in a funny colour gets you in trouble.)



Secondly, D&D attempt to take the entire breadth of sentient/sapient personality, drives, motivations and squeeze it into nine conveniant pidgeon-holes is unfathomably silly, and always was. As evidenced by being able to point at almost literally any single fictional character and ask "what alignment are they?" (WFRP's five hole were even worse.) 3.5's attempt to drga some semblence of meaning out of it by assigning mechanical benefits to it was ultimately a well-meaning, but misgiuded idea.

I say that as someone who does somewhat fit into the Lawful Evil mold.

Personally, I think any distinction beyond broad Good, Evil and non-good/non-evil is over-egging the pudding and that Rolemaster was entirely right by not bothering with it. Alignment is, as the saying goes, a silly place.

So I think that D&D's alignment stuff is more or less a complete waste of paper, only maintained in 3.x by the mechanical features of it and should entirely by agreed between an individual DM and their group as to what is acceptable and what not, sod the RAW, because it's stupid.



For my part?

Perhaps it's just our gaming group, but in thirty years of gaming, we have never had a problem with LG or paladins. The one and only exception was the time someone played good in an evil party (a party in which the DM was actively encouraging in-githing to boot). (Ironically, one of my two favourite campaigns ever - both were Rolemaster, by-the-by - had a character who was so Clearly Evil that he was favoured by the Dark Fortune Gods themselves (literally the only time in the campaign he took damage was when he fell off his own horse - and he was the best example of an Evil-character-in-good party I've ever seen.)

My attitude now as a DM is now very simple. If we are playing an evil campaign EVERYONE is Evil. Full stop. (If you don't want to play an Evil character, you have to not play that campaign.) If we are not playing an evil campaign, NO-ONE is Evil. Full stop. (If you don't want to play a non-Evil character, you have to not play that campaign.) Given that I have a fair number of parties on day-quests which are Evil (actually, now, both of the primary and half of the secondary, after one of the current ones retires in a month's time), there is plenty of chance to have a proper Evil party to play Evil. Yes, most APs - which we play on the weekly games - are largely assumed to be principally good aligned, tough; but I would like to run Way of the Wicked one day.

Regardless of party alignment, you are expected to play a character that will get on with the group. As Red Fel said earlier if "that's what my character would do" is being used as an excuse for being an asshat, you can always change your character. I mean, that's character growth, right? Or else. (I always have Maximised Disintegrate ready to use on players that don't listen. No, I DON'T mean on their characters.)

Special note: regardless of party alignment, I make a point to say "you will not have a criminal character." If your character concept includes only being motivated by wanting to rob banks/sack temples/run a gang whatever etc - find a different concept, as those are never appropriate concepts for my games. I don't find that sort of thing remotely entertaining. It wasn't even funny when I was a teenager, it is even less so now I'm a month off forty.

(This does not mean that the party can't perform criminal actions if they need to; but the important part here is "the party," and unless The Plot is putting you into the position or something, expect the Book of Appropriate (But Not Necessarily-Level Appropriate) Response thrown at you. So if the party just decides to rob a bank for no reason other than because they want to rob a bank, well, I've never had a TPK before so it might be an interesting experience...)

All that said, D&D's alignment-based restrictions (including the RAW paladin code) can go die in the same same fire as the death from massive damage rules, multiclass restrictions, favoured classes, AD&D and 3.0 psionics, demi-human level restrictions, starting ages and Shivering Touch.

I will still require Paladins - alone of any other class - to be LG, but I am not interested in throwing alignment dilemmas at you; if I want someone's character to police the other character's actions, I will say so. Feel free to play chaotic monks or lawful barbarians (and if you come up with a half-way plausible reason, I'm very liabel to ignore the requirements on PrCs, given how few of them I'm likely to allow in the first place, considering I thing many of them are Too Silly.) Otherwise, you can be as dysfunctional as much as you like provided you all get along at the end of the day. Ignore me when I say "okay, guys, seriously, out-of-character, stop bickering" or I can have and HAVE HAD your character's souls eaten. (And I have never had to do that again in the past twenty years...)

[Bartmanhomer]

This darker side of Lawful Good reminds me of the Amazon show The Boys. Where are superheroes are evil.

[Crake]

This darker side of Lawful Good reminds me of the Amazon show The Boys. Where are superheroes are evil.

Except none of those characters are even remotely lawful good, most of them in fact are the defintion of chaotic evil. Whimsical, acting in self interest, to the detriment of others, or even sometimes for the express purpose of hurting others for fun.

[Bartmanhomer]

Except none of those characters are even remotely lawful good, most of them in fact are the defintion of chaotic evil. Whimsical, acting in self interest, to the detriment of others, or even sometimes for the express purpose of hurting others for fun.

I see. And the bad guys are Chaotic Good.

[patchyman]

I see. And the bad guys are Chaotic Good.

I haven’t watched the series, so this is hypothetical, but it is entirely possible that the bad guys are Evil as well.

For me, the fact that the comic was penned by Garth “hates superheroes” Ennis, is enough for me to pass on it.

[Bartmanhomer]

I haven’t watched the series, so this is hypothetical, but it is entirely possible that the bad guys are Evil as well.

For me, the fact that the comic was penned by Garth “hates superheroes” Ennis, is enough for me to pass on it.

It's a good TV show. But let's go back on topic. Have anyone ever play a Lawful Good character who's not a jerk?

[Segev]

It's a good TV show. But let's go back on topic. Have anyone ever play a Lawful Good character who's not a jerk?

I played an LG paladin who only one player thought to be a jerk. She called insisting that the party let the paladin go first and tank hits from potentially unknown dangers "selfish" behavior on his part, and felt that he was "arrogant" for trying to mediate situations that would otherwise turn violent.

In general, he was a big believer in forgiveness and second chances, and rules lawyering to make the law work for good. It would be with great regret that he'd resort to violence, but as a paladin, when he did resort to violence, it was usually swift and overwhelming. He took prisoners when he could, but he wouldn't shy away from killing if he must. He also wouldn't revel in nor dwell on it, because if he has to kill, he wants it over with as swiftly as possible, with as little pain as possible for those who forced him to take their lives.

Encounters with him by bad guys were downright formulaic, because he had a pattern to the offers to negotiate, then surrender, then stand down at any point short of the final end of the fight.

[Aotrs Commander]

It's a good TV show. But let's go back on topic. Have anyone ever play a Lawful Good character who's not a jerk?

Every single LG character I have seen in thirty years, which includes a whole bunch of Paladins. And characters that were in systems without alignment who would likely fit into said alignment if that collar was forced onto them.

(Technically, I think, even that one instance of the good-character-evil-party, if he was Lawful Good.)

It's... Really not hard.

[Bartmanhomer]

Sounds like Lawful Good characters (Including paladins) isn't worth playing from what I heard from everybody. :frown:

[digiman619]

Sounds like Lawful Good characters (Including paladins) isn't worth playing from what I heard from everybody. :frown:
That's not the case at all; it's just that there are some who view it as "the most Good" alignment when it's really not, so they either be holier-than-thou with the alignment (Paladins enforcing their code on their party, etc.) or think that if you every action a LG takes isn't selfless/morally spotless, they're "doing it wrong" and need to fall.

[Crake]

I see. And the bad guys are Chaotic Good.

The "Bad guys", by which I assume you mean the protagonists, are just as evil, though I think they vary a bit from lawful to neutral to chaotic evil. The main character is willing to commit evil in his vendetta, but he does have lines he refuses to cross, while some of the others are all too happy to kill when it suits them.

There's almost nobody good in that show except maybe starlight.

[Particle_Man]

It's a good TV show. But let's go back on topic. Have anyone ever play a Lawful Good character who's not a jerk?

Yeah, I played a lot of LG characters that were not jerks, including a paladin. My paladin was accused of being stupid (which, I guess, compared to a wizard, fair cop), and foolhardy ("now I know why paladins die young!") but not of being a jerk.

Actually one fun version of this that you might not have seen is Benton Fraser, the Mountie on "Due South".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benton_Fraser

[Aotrs Commander]

Sounds like Lawful Good characters (Including paladins) isn't worth playing from what I heard from everybody. :frown:

*scrubbed*

[Bartmanhomer]

*scrub the post, scrub the quote*

I saw your post. Everyone is expressing their opinions about it.

[CharonsHelper]

It's a good TV show. But let's go back on topic. Have anyone ever play a Lawful Good character who's not a jerk?

I've never actually seen someone play LG as a jerk in-game. The closest was an LG Fighter (maybe Knight - it was over a decade ago) who sort of backed up the rogue in the group who was being a jerk to everyone else. But that was because the players were dating in real life; the character being LG had nothing to do with it.

Frankly - it always seemed like one of those tropes which is famous on the internet because the occasional horror story gets told & re-told. And it's funny enough to make it into nerd media, such as OOTS's Miko.

[Crake]

Sounds like Lawful Good characters (Including paladins) isn't worth playing from what I heard from everybody. :frown:

"Lawful good" isn't a character concept. It's a broad term that can account for MANY different play styles and character archetypes. Stop looking at alignment as some sort of character defining trait. Every time I hear someone describe their character, and include alignment in their description, I pretty much ignore them from that point on, because the only thing alignment tells me about a character is how they interact with alignment-specific mechanical functions.

So, to answer the thread's question "What's wrong with lawful good?", the answer is "It says nothing about a character beyond 'I fit into one of nine broad categories'". If your character's defining trait is "I'm lawful good", then go back to the drawing board. Drop all thoughts of alignment from your mind when making characters, build something interesting, and at the end of the process, ask yourself "Where does this character fit into the alignment spectrum". If at the end of that process you end up as a lawful good character, I can guarantee you, nobody will have any issue with your character, but if you're running around doing things with the reason "it's because I'm lawful good", that's what makes a terrible lawful good character.

If you rescue the children in a burning orphanage, and someone asks "why did you risk your life to save them" and you answer "because I'm lawful good", then you're the problem. Come up with an actual reason, like "those children deserved a chance at life, and if the cost for that was my own, then I would gladly pay that price". People use alignment as a crutch for character development, and eventually you get a situation like "Why did you kill our prisoner?" "Because he was evil and I'm lawful good", and boom, now you have people saying lawful good characters suck, when really, no, lawful good characters aren't the problem, characters who are nothing but lawful good (and who probably aren't ACTUALLY lawful good) are the problem.

[Aotrs Commander]

"Lawful good" isn't a character concept. It's a broad term that can account for MANY different play styles and character archetypes. Stop looking at alignment as some sort of character defining trait. Every time I hear someone describe their character, and include alignment in their description, I pretty much ignore them from that point on, because the only thing alignment tells me about a character is how they interact with alignment-specific mechanical functions.

So, to answer the thread's question "What's wrong with lawful good?", the answer is "It says nothing about a character beyond 'I fit into one of nine broad categories'". If your character's defining trait is "I'm lawful good", then go back to the drawing board. Drop all thoughts of alignment from your mind when making characters, build something interesting, and at the end of the process, ask yourself "Where does this character fit into the alignment spectrum". If at the end of that process you end up as a lawful good character, I can guarantee you, nobody will have any issue with your character, but if you're running around doing things with the reason "it's because I'm lawful good", that's what makes a terrible lawful good character.

If you rescue the children in a burning orphanage, and someone asks "why did you risk your life to save them" and you answer "because I'm lawful good", then you're the problem. Come up with an actual reason, like "those children deserved a chance at life, and if the cost for that was my own, then I would gladly pay that price". People use alignment as a crutch for character development, and eventually you get a situation like "Why did you kill our prisoner?" "Because he was evil and I'm lawful good", and boom, now you have people saying lawful good characters suck, when really, no, lawful good characters aren't the problem, characters who are nothing but lawful good (and who probably aren't ACTUALLY lawful good) are the problem.

Also, you can replace replace "lawful good" in the post above with any of the other "problem alignments" and you'll have solved pretty much all the problems. (Okay, maybe chaotic evil (note lack of capitalisation) is still a bit dubious, but the point still mostly stands.)

If you need to reference your character's alignment more than once in a blue moon outside of mechancial game effects, then you're doing alignment wrong.

[Zhentarim]

Also, you can replace replace "lawful good" in the post above with any of the other "problem alignments" and you'll have solved pretty much all the problems. (Okay, maybe chaotic evil (note lack of capitalisation) is still a bit dubious, but the point still mostly stands.)

If you need to reference your character's alignment more than once in a blue moon outside of mechancial game effects, then you're doing alignment wrong.

I’ve played the other 8 alignments in a party no problem (chaotic neutral and neutral evil are my favorites) but chaotic evil is still hard for me.

[ShurikVch]

How about to implement the rule from the Arcana Unearthed?


No Alignments

There are no alignments in Arcana Unearthed into which you must shoehorn your character's outlook. This rulebook does not attempt to define good or evil, nor does it address law or chaos. Characters should decide for themselves what is good and what is evil, the way real people do. There are no spells that reveal whether a character is evil or good - his actions and the perspectives of those around him determine that. No (or at least very few) characters think of themselves as evil. The truth is, such concepts are relative.

Yet even without alignments, villains still do terrible things to further their own goals. Heroes still make great sacrifices to stop them. The classic conflicts all remain. But now there are even more. Two noble and altruistic characters might oppose each other. Their personal ideologies might even cause each of them to define the other as "evil."

Characters with a conscience still act responsibly, and those with a code of conduct still adhere to it: having no alignment is not an excuse for all characters to act wantonly. As in the real world, things are much more interesting if there are not nine alignments but, in fact, an infinite number of them - each character becomes his own alignment.

[FaerieGodfather]

How about to implement the rule from the Arcana Unearthed?

There's a lot of work that has to be done uncoupling other mechanics from alignment-- which I suspect Monte Cook either did, or sidestepped, already-- but it's really what D&D should have done forty years ago, or thirty years ago, or twenty years ago... really at any point since they started attaching roleplaying restrictions and punitive mechanics to it.

[ezekielraiden]

It's a good TV show. But let's go back on topic. Have anyone ever play a Lawful Good character who's not a jerk?

Seeing as how I *usually* play LG characters, yes, I have played ones that weren't considered jerks. Of my last six characters, four were solidly Lawful Good, and only one was ever called anything like a jerk by any character--and that was specifically the player intentionally playing a character that would challenge my character's moral and cultural beliefs, who considered my character a frustrating impediment for a while. (My char won him over in the end. It was a truly heartfelt moment.)

I generally agree with the idea that you can't just write a two-letter acronym on your character sheet and call it a day, but I would also argue that it's not totally accurate to cleave archetypal LG and "personality" apart. Red Fel speaks of The Prince and the Dark Knight, archetypes of LE that (for me, anyway) are perhaps the purest two expressions of the alignment despite his comments on the disparate emphasis. I would likewise think of LG as having two really core counterparts: the Good King and the Shining Knight, and they're both really close to "pure" LG. As I argued previously, I don't really see either The Prince or The Good King working all that well as adventurers due to the problems of being a full-time adventurer *and* head-of-state/government, but I digress. For a lot of people when they play LG, I suspect part of their goal is to be the Shining Knight, epitome of justice and mercy, kindness and strength, humility and honor, etc. For many, to write LG on their sheer IS to say "I'm trying to be that." Of course, dragging implication out into the light where it can be seen and discussed is usually a Good Thing™, but not everyone is really aware that that's what they're doing. (I'd argue this is true for a lot of alignment stuff.)

So, yes, I agree that never actually thinking about your actions or asking whether you are actually Good (or Lawful) is a serious flaw that many fall prey to. But don't leap from there to assuming that alignment says nothing at all about personality. It should! It's just that it should do so in the way that, say, a menu should tell you what to expect when you order. It's a goal to be fulfilled, a pattern to be demonstrated. A chef who deviates too much from the customer's order is a poor chef. A player who deviates from their character's expressed alignment by failing to demonstrate behavior in keeping with it is a poor player. Of course, alignment is a pretty aggressive shorthand (as Red Fel's extensive yet non-comprehensive list of archetypes shows!), but really that just makes it all the more egregious that so many people mess it up.

[Crake]

But don't leap from there to assuming that alignment says nothing at all about personality. It should!

The issue I have here is that you've got it entirely backward. Alignment shouldn't say anything about personality. Personality should determine your alignment, not the other way around. To use your archetypal examples, you don't say "I'm the shining knight because I'm lawful good", you say "I'm the shining knight, therefore I'm lawful good"

[Bartmanhomer]

The issue I have here is that you've got it entirely backward. Alignment shouldn't say anything about personality. Personality should determine your alignment, not the other way around. To use your archetypal examples, you don't say "I'm the shining knight because I'm lawful good", you say "I'm the shining knight, therefore I'm lawful good"

What's the differences? :confused:

[Calthropstu]

The issue I have here is that you've got it entirely backward. Alignment shouldn't say anything about personality. Personality should determine your alignment, not the other way around. To use your archetypal examples, you don't say "I'm the shining knight because I'm lawful good", you say "I'm the shining knight, therefore I'm lawful good"

When you create your character and fill in alignment, you are stating."up until the start of the campaign my character acted in a way that corresponded to X alignment."
As your character, it is YOUR back story (within reasonable limits.) It is this back story that sets initial alignment. You're not wholly wrong, but it's not like your character sprang out of nothing at your starting age.
As such, starting alignment is not something the gm has control over, nor should it be. Also, the alignment should reflect bkth current and past actions, including backstory pre-adventure days where "My charcter spent many hours a week volunteering, helping people with daily tasks using cantrips and rescued puppies and kittens."

So while I agree with the purest principle of what you said, I basically strongly disagree on execution.

[Crake]

When you create your character and fill in alignment, you are stating."up until the start of the campaign my character acted in a way that corresponded to X alignment."
As your character, it is YOUR back story (within reasonable limits.) It is this back story that sets initial alignment. You're not wholly wrong, but it's not like your character sprang out of nothing at your starting age.
As such, starting alignment is not something the gm has control over, nor should it be. Also, the alignment should reflect bkth current and past actions, including backstory pre-adventure days where "My charcter spent many hours a week volunteering, helping people with daily tasks using cantrips and rescued puppies and kittens."

So while I agree with the purest principle of what you said, I basically strongly disagree on execution.

How does any of that conflict with the quoted statement? My entire point is that alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive. You're not the shining knight because you're lawful good, you're lawful good because you're the shining knight. The issue I have is when people start with the alignment and then say "because I'm this alignment I have to act this way", when really it should be "Because I act this way, I am this alignment".

If, however, you're actually responding to my previous post about how I handle alignments in my games, the who point was that there was no starting alignment, because it is irrelevant at that stage in the game. Higher powers are more interested in adherence to tenets than alignments, you may be lawful good for example, but still breaking all of your LG deity's tenets, and lose their favour. The only time it will really come into play is when engaging with literal incarnations of alignments, angels and demons for example, and they don't come up in every game. I've gone entire campaigns where alignment has literally never come up.

So it's not so much that I'm saying "this is what your alignment is" at the start of the game, and more "don't think about alignment, think about character ideals and philosophies. How you uphold those ideals and philosophies is more important, and if alignment ever comes up, then I'll figure it out at that time".

[Calthropstu]

How does any of that conflict with the quoted statement? My entire point is that alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive. You're not the shining knight because you're lawful good, you're lawful good because you're the shining knight. The issue I have is when people start with the alignment and then say "because I'm this alignment I have to act this way", when really it should be "Because I act this way, I am this alignment".

If, however, you're actually responding to my previous post about how I handle alignments in my games, the who point was that there was no starting alignment, because it is irrelevant at that stage in the game. Higher powers are more interested in adherence to tenets than alignments, you may be lawful good for example, but still breaking all of your LG deity's tenets, and lose their favour. The only time it will really come into play is when engaging with literal incarnations of alignments, angels and demons for example, and they don't come up in every game. I've gone entire campaigns where alignment has literally never come up.

So it's not so much that I'm saying "this is what your alignment is" at the start of the game, and more "don't think about alignment, think about character ideals and philosophies. How you uphold those ideals and philosophies is more important, and if alignment ever comes up, then I'll figure it out at that time".

Again, you fail to take into account the character.
Sure, the first couple of session a fighter kills a prisoner and hides 15 gold from the party. So you decide he is suddenly CE. Now he is struck with unholy blight. Can he still move? Does that negate all the years his character spent as a "good kid?" I would suggest not.

[The Insanity]

Alignment is prescriptive if for some reason you want or need your character to keep the alignment you chose for him.

[Crake]

Again, you fail to take into account the character.
Sure, the first couple of session a fighter kills a prisoner and hides 15 gold from the party. So you decide he is suddenly CE. Now he is struck with unholy blight. Can he still move? Does that negate all the years his character spent as a "good kid?" I would suggest not.

Uhh, well, I can't make a judgement without knowing the full story, but... yeah, murder kinda outweighs the small acts of good you probably did as a kid.

[Zhentarim]

Uhh, well, I can't make a judgement without knowing the full story, but... yeah, murder kinda outweighs the small acts of good you probably did as a kid.

That’s a sig-worthy quote.

[Duff]

Only if you've chosen a very specific kind of Lawful Good character. Once again so much of your position requires that every Good character (Lawful Good in this case) is a rigid, unyielding bastion of Law who's also maybe kind of good.




Again, statistically this is just more common than with Evil builds. Doesn't apply to all LG characters, but a significant chunk of them..

How much of this is because the players who play "the unyielding bastion of Law who's also maybe kind of good" are not allowed to play an evil character (at least not for a 2nd session)?

[PoeticallyPsyco]

Have anyone ever play a Lawful Good character who's not a jerk?

One of my favorite characters of all time was Jaun "Aegis", LG Paladin of the Crown/Cavalier Fighter (this was 5e; Oath of the Crown emphasizes the lawful, obeying authority aspect of the Paladin archetype). Now, admittedly there was no real kingdom or laws in the setting, just a wandering tribe that had hired him for protection, so he was able to be more devoted to protecting and advancing society as a whole rather than to a specific legal system or authority. But in a party of more gritty, flawed, morally grey characters, Jaun stood out as a paragon: honest, self-sacrificing, loyal to both his party members and the cause as a whole, with his mechanics really supporting and emphasizing those qualities. It was awesome, and way more fun than I actually expected it to be.

I will note that I've tried to recreate Jaun for other campaigns, and I think a crucial element of the character was the contrast with the gritty, flawed, almost neutrally aligned setting and party. This did three things. First, it made him stand out, feel larger than life and heroic compared to the NPCs. Secondly, it let him act as a foil for the other characters; the fact that they had flaws implied that Jaun had actively conquered/risen above his flaws rather than just being born good, conveying backstory and characterization essentially for free, and also made for good roleplay interactions on both sides. Thirdly, it meant that he regularly did fail; he wasn't some perfect hero, he struggled and failed just like anyone else, but still managed to retain his optimistic, self-sacrificing, good outlook, and that's once again essentially free characterization.

[Crake]

That’s a sig-worthy quote.

Haha, by all means, if you wanna sig it, go right ahead :smallbiggrin:

[ezekielraiden]

How much of this is because the players who play "the unyielding bastion of Law who's also maybe kind of good" are not allowed to play an evil character (at least not for a 2nd session)?

Honestly? It seems like a relatively smaller portion than the "uncodifiable enigma of Chaos who's also theoretically Neutral." For some reason, LG and CN seem to be the two alignments that people attach to when they want to play something Evil, whether consciously or subconsciously. Lawful Neutral has somehow gained the perception of passionless disinterest, when in truth it is the perfect alignment for people like Vhailor, a literal "unyielding bastion of Law" who really isn't all that Good. And Chaotic Good is basically seen as the alignment of heroes. I know people have argued, and I somewhat agree, that Lawful Good gets depicted by writers as the most Goodly Good, but as far as players are concerned, it's CG all the way--"Law" always means being less fully Good, but Chaos gets a pass just because, as somehow a LOT of people think being Chaotic doesn't ever hold you back from doing what you want ever for any reason. (Evil, likewise, gets special treatment here, but that's a different subject.)

So yeah, I do think you raise a good point, that some people play LG because it lets them actually be LE with a cloak of righteousness. Unfortunately, a lot of the time, they don't actually realize that it's only a cloak. I'm almost willing to say that it's more common to have it be a subconscious thing than intentional subterfuge. A large number of people see all Lawful characters as essentially totalitarian and draconian, and thus inherently evil--turning LG into something more like "Totalitarian Moralizing" when...that literally is a perfectly valid form of Lawful Evil.

[Segev]

"Law" always means being less fully Good, but Chaos gets a pass just because, as somehow a LOT of people think being Chaotic doesn't ever hold you back from doing what you want ever for any reason.

The mistake people are making there is that Chaos means doing what you want to do, and (unless you're Evil) respecting others' rights to do the same, for the most part. CG therefore is the least judgmental Good alignment, because it actually worries a lot about whether it's overstepping its bounds when imposing good on others.

Chaotic Good is perhaps the most merciful alignment, but the excess of mercy winds up being detrimental to good, because chaos usually cares more about the moment than the long term. (This is not guaranteed, just a tendency.) So sparing the Joker now because he's not actively threatening anybody is more likely with CG than NG. Admittedly, LG can fall to that trap, too, for other reasons.

But most of all, CG has trouble with impulsiveness and with leaping to conclusions. "What I want" is often "what I want now." And for the goodly chaotic person, they want to rectify what's wrong right this second, with none of that poncing about finding "evidence." They believe they know what's right, so they'll act on it, and not let evil get away with things just because it has good PR!

While CG can take measured responses, if they too frequently rely on procedure to check their impulses, they really are slipping away from Chaos. It's not that you must be impulsive, but you can't be a slave to any plans or protocols and be Chaotic. And therein lies the risk to your Good in the face of your Chaos. You may mean well, but you may well serve a non-good or even wicked cause if you're fooled or foolish.

[Aotrs Commander]

Honestly? It seems like a relatively smaller portion than the "uncodifiable enigma of Chaos who's also theoretically Neutral." For some reason, LG and CN seem to be the two alignments that people attach to when they want to play something Evil, whether consciously or subconsciously. Lawful Neutral has somehow gained the perception of passionless disinterest, when in truth it is the perfect alignment for people like Vhailor, a literal "unyielding bastion of Law" who really isn't all that Good. And Chaotic Good is basically seen as the alignment of heroes. I know people have argued, and I somewhat agree, that Lawful Good gets depicted by writers as the most Goodly Good, but as far as players are concerned, it's CG all the way--"Law" always means being less fully Good, but Chaos gets a pass just because, as somehow a LOT of people think being Chaotic doesn't ever hold you back from doing what you want ever for any reason. (Evil, likewise, gets special treatment here, but that's a different subject.)

So yeah, I do think you raise a good point, that some people play LG because it lets them actually be LE with a cloak of righteousness. Unfortunately, a lot of the time, they don't actually realize that it's only a cloak. I'm almost willing to say that it's more common to have it be a subconscious thing than intentional subterfuge. A large number of people see all Lawful characters as essentially totalitarian and draconian, and thus inherently evil--turning LG into something more like "Totalitarian Moralizing" when...that literally is a perfectly valid form of Lawful Evil.

In my own anecdotal experience, Chaotic Good is far less common than Lawful Good, and if there is a bias, it's more towards NG. (Looking through the character sheets of all PCs I have available as an interesting excercise in the sample I have to hand, there were slightly more characters who didn't have an alignment written down (I think this shows how much impact it has on our games, as one of those is EVEN for the weekly sessions) then there were CG.)

(The Evil parties are, almost to a sentient/sapitent, all LE (if they have an alignment at all because Rolemaster, and even then it'd basically be LE if given one), with maybe one that is only NE (but that's one of the "doesn't have one written downs...")

...

The Judge Dredd party are probably all LN or LE, depending on how you look at it (since we're all Judges...!))

Now, I DO wonder if there is not an actual cultural divide across those tendancies (since we're in the UK).

[Zhentarim]

In my own anecdotal experience, Chaotic Good is far less common than Lawful Good, and if there is a bias, it's more towards NG. (Looking through the character sheets of all PCs I have available as an interesting excercise in the sample I have to hand, there were slightly more characters who didn't have an alignment written down (I think this shows how much impact it has on our games, as one of those is EVEN for the weekly sessions) then there were CG.)

(The Evil parties are, almost to a sentient/sapitent, all LE (if they have an alignment at all because Rolemaster, and even then it'd basically be LE if given one), with maybe one that is only NE (but that's one of the "doesn't have one written downs...")

...

The Judge Dredd party are probably all LN or LE, depending on how you look at it (since we're all Judges...!))

Now, I DO wonder if there is not an actual cultural divide across those tendancies (since we're in the UK).

I believe there is a cultural divide.

I’m reminded of the show called liberty kids. Its themesong is very chaotic good, though you could make an argument for neutral good.




https://youtu.be/umiqTzn859c

[Lord Raziere]

Honestly? It seems like a relatively smaller portion than the "uncodifiable enigma of Chaos who's also theoretically Neutral." For some reason, LG and CN seem to be the two alignments that people attach to when they want to play something Evil, whether consciously or subconsciously. Lawful Neutral has somehow gained the perception of passionless disinterest, when in truth it is the perfect alignment for people like Vhailor, a literal "unyielding bastion of Law" who really isn't all that Good. And Chaotic Good is basically seen as the alignment of heroes. I know people have argued, and I somewhat agree, that Lawful Good gets depicted by writers as the most Goodly Good, but as far as players are concerned, it's CG all the way--"Law" always means being less fully Good, but Chaos gets a pass just because, as somehow a LOT of people think being Chaotic doesn't ever hold you back from doing what you want ever for any reason. (Evil, likewise, gets special treatment here, but that's a different subject.)

So yeah, I do think you raise a good point, that some people play LG because it lets them actually be LE with a cloak of righteousness. Unfortunately, a lot of the time, they don't actually realize that it's only a cloak. I'm almost willing to say that it's more common to have it be a subconscious thing than intentional subterfuge. A large number of people see all Lawful characters as essentially totalitarian and draconian, and thus inherently evil--turning LG into something more like "Totalitarian Moralizing" when...that literally is a perfectly valid form of Lawful Evil.

As someone whose favorite is the Chaotic Good alignment, and probably designs most of my characters subconsciously around it, I kind of agree with this assessment? at least for other people.

me, I am perfectly capable of playing LG without being totalitarian. its actually pretty easy. I find that the difference between the two is that when they overthrow a tyrant is the dialogue option:
CG: "I'm doing it cause people should be free man! now I'm gonna make a TTGL reference."
LG: "I'm doing it because your an illegitimate authority and civilization is about cooperation and equality, not force and supremacy."

and that? is the only difference between the two in my mind when they do that. while setting up a new government to replace it the difference is:
CG: "good thing I found this competent LG guy who really cares about reforming things to put in power for me, now I'm going to go off being CG elsewhere because I KNOW I'm not cut out for ruling people."
LG: "good thing I studied up on proper economic/civil rights legal reform and how to sell these ideas to others in a convincing manner, thankfully my CG friend can take my LG apprentice to accompany him on adventures and keep me in contact in case they need me to utilize armies to face some big evil without people complaining too much."

sure there are other situations, but generally the only difference between the two alignments should be that when rules are involved, the LG is going to make sure everything is fair and stop Evil from cheating the system. While CG is not going to take part (unless they have to) and lie in wait for Evil to cheat so they can cheat back so Good prevails. Good itself doesn't really care either way as long Evil doesn't win, and the CG takes a risk that they will fail by getting caught first if they take part in something involving rules, while LG takes a risk that their anti-cheating measures won't be enough to stop Evil. I like CG above all else, but there are trade offs to the alignment. civilization is founded upon certain rules and customs being observed and people do NOT like it when those rules are broken, there is prices to breaking them even if its the right thing to do, but CG is about knowing that paying that price is worth it, and that you can't ALWAYS pay it, because civilization needs stability to function. you can't have that stability without rules and laws people trust to be enforced and followed. its a little paradoxical, because to be CG is to recognize your existence is to change things until you are no longer needed and you can just leave things alone for more lawful people to establish something stable that doesn't NEED you to break the rules for good to happen, so that you can enjoy your own life on your own terms and not have to meddle with others lives for good to happen, which is the CG dream: to not have to meddle. to just be yourself without needing to be the revolutionary, the trickster, the inspiration, because people should be able to become those themselves.

[Quertus]

As someone whose favorite is the Chaotic Good alignment, and probably designs most of my characters subconsciously around it, I kind of agree with this assessment? at least for other people.

me, I am perfectly capable of playing LG without being totalitarian. its actually pretty easy. I find that the difference between the two is that when they overthrow a tyrant is the dialogue option:
CG: "I'm doing it cause people should be free man! now I'm gonna make a TTGL reference."
LG: "I'm doing it because your an illegitimate authority and civilization is about cooperation and equality, not force and supremacy."

and that? is the only difference between the two in my mind when they do that. while setting up a new government to replace it the difference is:
CG: "good thing I found this competent LG guy who really cares about reforming things to put in power for me, now I'm going to go off being CG elsewhere because I KNOW I'm not cut out for ruling people."
LG: "good thing I studied up on proper economic/civil rights legal reform and how to sell these ideas to others in a convincing manner, thankfully my CG friend can take my LG apprentice to accompany him on adventures and keep me in contact in case they need me to utilize armies to face some big evil without people complaining too much."

sure there are other situations, but generally the only difference between the two alignments should be that when rules are involved, the LG is going to make sure everything is fair and stop Evil from cheating the system. While CG is not going to take part (unless they have to) and lie in wait for Evil to cheat so they can cheat back so Good prevails. Good itself doesn't really care either way as long Evil doesn't win, and the CG takes a risk that they will fail by getting caught first if they take part in something involving rules, while LG takes a risk that their anti-cheating measures won't be enough to stop Evil. I like CG above all else, but there are trade offs to the alignment. civilization is founded upon certain rules and customs being observed and people do NOT like it when those rules are broken, there is prices to breaking them even if its the right thing to do, but CG is about knowing that paying that price is worth it, and that you can't ALWAYS pay it, because civilization needs stability to function. you can't have that stability without rules and laws people trust to be enforced and followed. its a little paradoxical, because to be CG is to recognize your existence is to change things until you are no longer needed and you can just leave things alone for more lawful people to establish something stable that doesn't NEED you to break the rules for good to happen, so that you can enjoy your own life on your own terms and not have to meddle with others lives for good to happen, which is the CG dream: to not have to meddle. to just be yourself without needing to be the revolutionary, the trickster, the inspiration, because people should be able to become those themselves.

I don't think "willing to stand up for individual rights" and "willing to take political office" are mutually exclusive.

The difference (IMO) between Lawful Good and Chaotic Good is that LG wants to give everyone 15 minute breaks twice a day, because that's fair and good; CG wants to give people breaks whenever they need them, for as long as they need, because, while that may be unfair, it's individualistic good. LG wants to give people 3 meals per day; CG wants to make food available for people to eat whenever they want/need to.

IMO, LG cares about "fair"; CG cares about the needs of the individual. Either could take political office.

[ezekielraiden]

The mistake people are making there is that Chaos means doing what you want to do, and (unless you're Evil) respecting others' rights to do the same, for the most part. CG therefore is the least judgmental Good alignment, because it actually worries a lot about whether it's overstepping its bounds when imposing good on others.
This--and the note about perhaps-excessive mercy--seems reasonable to me. I could see a Lawful character finagling a ridiculous emphasis on Mercy, but it would be just that, a finagling, via some previously-reasoned (or "reasoned") Judgment. (For example, believing that all people are truly good deep down and just need the right environment to let it shine.) Lawful connotes coming to the right judgments by the right means. (One might argue, though I wouldn't myself, that Chaos is represented by that quote from National Treasure: "To those who did what was considered wrong, in order to do what they knew was right.")


But most of all, CG has trouble with impulsiveness and with leaping to conclusions. "What I want" is often "what I want now." And for the goodly chaotic person, they want to rectify what's wrong right this second, with none of that poncing about finding "evidence." They believe they know what's right, so they'll act on it, and not let evil get away with things just because it has good PR!
Excellent point (snipped part included--just saving space). I just wish more people recognized these limitations on Chaos. Few do, in my experience.


Now, I DO wonder if there is not an actual cultural divide across those tendancies (since we're in the UK).
Purely anecdote, but I'm certain there is one. A good third of anyone I've talked to wouldn't touch a Lawful alignment with a ten foot pole, nearly all of them here in the States.


As someone whose favorite is the Chaotic Good alignment, and probably designs most of my characters subconsciously around it, I kind of agree with this assessment? at least for other people.
If only more were of like mind!


its a little paradoxical, because to be CG is to recognize your existence is to change things until you are no longer needed
Not much of a paradox for me, but that's because that's what tutoring does. Your goal as a tutor is always to make self-sufficient students who no longer need to pay for your services. Thankfully, there are always new students who would like tutoring, otherwise the business would dry up pretty quick!


the CG dream: to not have to meddle. to just be yourself without needing to be the revolutionary, the trickster, the inspiration, because people should be able to become those themselves.
I certainly think that's a Chaotic Good dream, but I'm pretty sure there are some who just like meddling. They're the ones who lean perhaps ever-so-slightly more Chaotic than Good, who can't settle down and get fidgety and frustrated if they try. You can see shades of it in quite a bit of entertainment media, where "continuing adventures" or the like happen because the hero finds settled, no-meddling-needed life to be stifling or hollow. Some of the Shrek sequels, for example, happen because Shrek doesn't feel comfortable in a settled life (and is severely afraid of becoming a father, perhaps the most personal form of anchoring to a settled life.)


I don't think "willing to stand up for individual rights" and "willing to take political office" are mutually exclusive.
Agreed.


IMO, LG cares about "fair"; CG cares about the needs of the individual. Either could take political office.
An interesting spin, since in many cases CG is often cited (at least by unofficial sources) as caring about individual-rights type stuff, which is often discussed in terms of fairness. I think the way I would present this would be:
Lawful Good values consistency and comprehensiveness: nobody gets special treatment, nobody gets left out. As a result, it has a tendency (when it goes wrong) to either "one size fits all," or to complicated systems with potential exploits.
Chaotic Good values openness and "customization" (as in, solutions tailored to each situation/person): nobody gets shortchanged, nobody gets forced. As a result, it has a tendency (when it goes wrong) to either "tragedy of the commons," or to tacit agreements with potential exploits.

Part of the reason I frame it this way is that it shows how neither of these is more Good than the other...and how NG also isn't any more Good. Having a mix of exploitable systems and silent exploitation doesn't mean you've gotten rid of the exploitation. You've just made it so both kinds of exploitation can produce results at least some of the time.

And, if we flip this around to talking about Evil alignments instead of Good ones, it gives us some interesting things to work with too, I think. Lawful Evil can be prevented from achieving its desired exploitation when the system doesn't go wrong, and actually produces the good outcomes intended (e.g. "My word is my bond" sort of things, or when a villain saves the hero's life because it would be "dishonorable" to just allow them to die.) Chaotic Evil, on the other hand, becomes a matter of impulse management...exactly as Roy does with Belkar. Showing him how, if he just holds his impulses for the right moments, not only does he not get bad consequences, people LIKE him and give him presents (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0687.html) for murder killing the bad guys.

(I almost think this makes the LN/TN/CN axis the hardest alignments to negotiate with or "manage"--they don't care about personal power or harming others, but they also don't care about making the world a better place or the like. Evil can exploit Good's desire to help others. Good can exploit Evil's desire for power and control.)

[weckar]

How is it that the longer these threads go, the longer the comments get?

[Eldonauran]

How is it that the longer these threads go, the longer the comments get?
Because any meaningful conversation that takes place after this long is required to be capable of expressing detailed ideas that are ill-suited to be expressed in short posts. Also, most people with shorter attention spans have come, said their piece, and gone. Opinions have been shared and real conversations are taking place.

[Remuko]

I don't think "willing to stand up for individual rights" and "willing to take political office" are mutually exclusive.

The difference (IMO) between Lawful Good and Chaotic Good is that LG wants to give everyone 15 minute breaks twice a day, because that's fair and good; CG wants to give people breaks whenever they need them, for as long as they need, because, while that may be unfair, it's individualistic good. LG wants to give people 3 meals per day; CG wants to make food available for people to eat whenever they want/need to.

IMO, LG cares about "fair"; CG cares about the needs of the individual. Either could take political office.

you just convinced me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that I am CG.

[ezekielraiden]

How is it that the longer these threads go, the longer the comments get?

Because I have participated in them.

(I'm only half joking. I have a problem with not being concise. I'm working on it.)

[Quertus]

How is it that the longer these threads go, the longer the comments get?


Because any meaningful conversation that takes place after this long is required to be capable of expressing detailed ideas that are ill-suited to be expressed in short posts. Also, most people with shorter attention spans have come, said their piece, and gone. Opinions have been shared and real conversations are taking place.

I really want to print out and frame these two comments. They explain so much in life.


you just convinced me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that I am CG.

Glad I could help you to declare your allegiance to the opposite of the team that I'm batting for. :smallamused:


An interesting spin, since in many cases CG is often cited (at least by unofficial sources) as caring about individual-rights type stuff, which is often discussed in terms of fairness. I think the way I would present this would be:
Lawful Good values consistency and comprehensiveness: nobody gets special treatment, nobody gets left out. As a result, it has a tendency (when it goes wrong) to either "one size fits all," or to complicated systems with potential exploits.
Chaotic Good values openness and "customization" (as in, solutions tailored to each situation/person): nobody gets shortchanged, nobody gets forced. As a result, it has a tendency (when it goes wrong) to either "tragedy of the commons," or to tacit agreements with potential exploits.

Your explanation makes more sense than mine / explains better what I was trying to communicate. Any "spin" is simply indicative of my legendary (lack of) communication skills.

[Lord Raziere]

I don't think "willing to stand up for individual rights" and "willing to take political office" are mutually exclusive.

The difference (IMO) between Lawful Good and Chaotic Good is that LG wants to give everyone 15 minute breaks twice a day, because that's fair and good; CG wants to give people breaks whenever they need them, for as long as they need, because, while that may be unfair, it's individualistic good. LG wants to give people 3 meals per day; CG wants to make food available for people to eat whenever they want/need to.

IMO, LG cares about "fair"; CG cares about the needs of the individual. Either could take political office.

Well pardon me, but CG sounds more nuanced in this example than LG. Why can't the LG person listen to the CG person and incorporate the individual needs into their lawful good idea of fairness, to make a system so comprehensive it helps every single individual? what makes the CG person Chaotic while still ruling above board? How would a CG person have the patience for such slow changes? how do they stop from turning LG in the process of being a good ruler?

Please explain, I'm curious. because the general thought from other sources I've read is that if a CG become a good ruler they turn LG in the process.

[Komatik]

Some of the early examples of Lawful and Good in the 1-4 pages or so sounded kind of odd. Like deep down they'd just want to do all the nasty stuff, like they were murderhobos, just in chains but essentially their wants didn't align with how they thought they should act, while the Evil people actually just were the way they wanted to be. But really?

Good people are big-G Good because they want to be that way. Big-L Lawful people, a large chunk of them anyway, are that way because it just feels right and natural to be that way.

It's most visible I think in how people described Lawfulness - going back to the murderhobo-in-chains thing, it's like LG people were murderhobo+ruleset rather than something actually, dispositionally prosocial.

It's not really about following the law, or even a law, but as a certain characteristic principledness.

I watched the Street Fighter-based web series Assassin's Fist (it's on Netflix, I think) a while ago: Both Goutetsu and Gouken are decidedly Lawful people, but both defied their tradition and didn't adhere to it strictly. Gouki, the one of the older generation who most strictly adhered to the old teachings of their style, is probably the least Lawful character of the three.

But they're wonderful, I think, in how they portray someone who's just by nature and inclination the way they are.


Indeed, it's a defining part, though not the only one. Sociopathic and psychopathic individuals are absolutely not the sum total of Evil people in D&D land (that would be far too few, even with my belief that a majority of people are neutral/unaligned). But it's pretty much impossible to be sociopathic or psychopathic and be Good, while it's very easy to be either of those and Evil, possibly guaranteed. "Altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings" is literally the antithesis of some of the criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder, the official medical diagnosis that covers both sociopaths and psychopaths, and it's worth noting that you don't need to disrespect the law to exhibit APD. (As of the newer DSM-5, sociopathy and psychopathy, while still not defined conditions as such, now do have some medical relevance; the manual's guidance suggests that sociopaths tend toward greater aggression and more instability, while psychopaths tend to be cold, unable to feel empathy or possibly any real emotions, and extremely adept at controlling and manipulating people. I'd argue that that's a very good description of most devils and demons!)

There's some interesting research being done on this:
https://news.vcu.edu/article/Inside_the_brains_of_psychopaths_VCU_research_aims _to_understand




furthermore, evil isn't always about GAIN. It can also be about, what other people LOSE. for example lets look at an evil racist character, who can't tolerate another races existence, who goes out and kills people for being that race. they don't gain anything from it, they might gain some enjoyment of out of it, but it feeds into their hatred to keep on killing and getting into stressful situations to kill more people. they don't care what they gain, its that other people exist that they don't like are there so they go out of their way to kill them to be rid of something they hate from the world. some evils doesn't just want to succeed- they want others who go against how they think the world works to be crushed.

One of the questions on a scale measuring "spitefulness", one of a bunch of personality traits that form an overall callous, "dark" disposition of which the Dark Triad of subclinical psychopathy, subclinical narcissism and Machiavellianism are a part, literally asks if it's eg. "sometimes worth a little suffering on my part to see others receive the punishment they deserve." The trait correlates highly with eg. Machiavellianism, moral disengagement and subclinical psychopathy. Basically, it can just be a maximization of their own utility.


Or, more fun, the smart Evil manservant may be *more* desperate to make sure that the party doesn't get into such a situation - simply to protect their own hide, for their master's reputation, or even to protect their master's "purity".

Honestly, the evil manservant is one of the coolest concepts that I've had the good fortune of getting to see from many angles.

I spit my toothbrushing water, that was a hilarious. Do I smell a bit of frantic yandere type thinking (not literal yandere) in there?




Honestly? It seems like a relatively smaller portion than the "uncodifiable enigma of Chaos who's also theoretically Neutral." For some reason, LG and CN seem to be the two alignments that people attach to when they want to play something Evil, whether consciously or subconsciously. Lawful Neutral has somehow gained the perception of passionless disinterest, when in truth it is the perfect alignment for people like Vhailor, a literal "unyielding bastion of Law" who really isn't all that Good. And Chaotic Good is basically seen as the alignment of heroes. I know people have argued, and I somewhat agree, that Lawful Good gets depicted by writers as the most Goodly Good, but as far as players are concerned, it's CG all the way--"Law" always means being less fully Good, but Chaos gets a pass just because, as somehow a LOT of people think being Chaotic doesn't ever hold you back from doing what you want ever for any reason. (Evil, likewise, gets special treatment here, but that's a different subject.)

So yeah, I do think you raise a good point, that some people play LG because it lets them actually be LE with a cloak of righteousness. Unfortunately, a lot of the time, they don't actually realize that it's only a cloak. I'm almost willing to say that it's more common to have it be a subconscious thing than intentional subterfuge. A large number of people see all Lawful characters as essentially totalitarian and draconian, and thus inherently evil--turning LG into something more like "Totalitarian Moralizing" when...that literally is a perfectly valid form of Lawful Evil.

In my own anecdotal experience, Chaotic Good is far less common than Lawful Good, and if there is a bias, it's more towards NG. (Looking through the character sheets of all PCs I have available as an interesting excercise in the sample I have to hand, there were slightly more characters who didn't have an alignment written down (I think this shows how much impact it has on our games, as one of those is EVEN for the weekly sessions) then there were CG.)

Now, I DO wonder if there is not an actual cultural divide across those tendancies (since we're in the UK).

Purely anecdote, but I'm certain there is one. A good third of anyone I've talked to wouldn't touch a Lawful alignment with a ten foot pole, nearly all of them here in the States.

I think a lot of that has to do with the kind of murderhobo-in-chains mentality - they view Lawfulness as a having a checklist-and-chain bound on their ankle rather than an actual, active disposition to think certain ways and actually really truly want certain things. There's so much "wants to, but must not vs. "won't even want to" going on. You can see it in hilarious quantities in all manner of Star Wars topics that try to contrive the Sith to not be evil and play up the Jedi as some kind of lawyerfolk while throwing all the Taoist influences to the trash. It's weird to see.

A combo of some of my recent TVTropes research wasting-of-life and reading academic research on malign and prosocial dispositions led me to watch the aforementioned Assassin's Fist and it really helped deepen my appreciation of LG types. Built the disposition into more than being Syr Goody Two-Shoes.