What do the Lawful Good owe the Chaotic Stupid?

[Red Fel]

Hell, Red Fel would even be good here. Obligatory Red Fel Red Fel Red Fel.

Speaking.

Roleplaying Question for the Board:

Roleplaying answer for McStabbington.

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

Oh. Joy. Another one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theirs: This sucker gonna 'splode now! WOO!

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

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

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

Of course, there's always my preferred solution: