LG or LN?

[RndmNumGen]

Just something I've been wondering about for a while. Say a character had a strict code of honor they followed; they always kept their word, didn't lie to others(though withholding information was allowed), found the idea of betrayal or backstabbing horrid, etc. Such a character would obviously be Lawful.

This same character believes in doing what is best for others. They are kind and courteous, not because they want to improve their own standing, but because they feel that is how people should be treated. When they see someone in need of help, they assist them. When someone asks for their advice or assistance, they usually give it, even if they don't know the person.

However, while they help others if the opportunity comes up, they do not actively seek out opportunities to help others. They rarely donate to charity or volunteer. For example, if they see trash on the side of the road, they would pick it up and throw it away, but they don't walk along roads looking for trash to pick up.

Based on the 3.5 descriptions, LG characters have a commitment to do the right thing, the discipline to serve their cause relentlessly, etc. Almost as a never-ending fight to do good. This character might not be LG because they don't actively go out of their way to do Good, they only do Good when the opportunity arises.

LN characters are generally described as favoring Good over Evil, but they lack the conviction to truly do Good and generally only help friends and family, or strangers when it would benefit them directly. This character might not be LN because he helps strangers with no expectation of getting rewarded, and occasionally does go out of his way to volunteer or donate resources if he supports the cause, but doesn't do it too often.

What do the playgrounders think?

[Coplantor]

I'd say LG.
Think about the other way round, do you think that every evil character is actively looking to do evil?

Or what about a retired LG adventurer? He spends most of his time alone in his house/base/castle/ivory flying tower that shoots bears, yet he would still be LG, right?

[Serpentine]

Softly LG. Lawful Lawful Good, as the emphasis seems to be on upholding Law rather than spreading Good.

[Azernak0]

Alignment is impossible to narrow down into 9 simple stamps because very, very few things fit so neatly into it; "you mean to tell me that there are no compassionate followers of Asmodeus?" For example, Lawful Neutral characters can simply follow a strict Code of Conduct and commit all kinds of atrocities. I once played a Monk in an Evil Campaign who was LN, but followed a Code that stated that "Loyalty and Order is more important than what is right." He had no qualms about killing the innocent, but he wouldn't hurt anyone that he promised not to. In this case, LN and LE are very close, and the same is true for LG and LN.

Whenever the groups I have played with wanted to actually keep track of alignment, we always included a "With X tendencies." Basically, a "Lawful Good Rogue with Chaotic tendencies" would be willing to welch on a deal or break the law if it was the greater good. Think of this like a police officer that follows the Rule of Law strictly, but every once in a while he won't arrest someone for committing an insignificant crime. The "Chaotic Neutral Rogue with Good tendencies" is willing to steal to feed himself, but he might donate to an orphanage because they like kids.

[Fiery Diamond]

I'd go for LG as well.

[Oracle_Hunter]

LG, but you're making a few misconceptions:

"Lawful" does not require "strict personal code." Chaotics (particularly CG) are often depicted as having strict personal codes as well - in fact, "personal codes" aren't even considered on the L/C Axis

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

Secondly, there is no requirement that LG be more "active" than LN - merely that Neutrals tend not to "make personal sacrifices to protect Innocents." Good certainly requires more action than Neutral, but not to the extent of requiring Good to be proactive and Neutrals to be reactive.

Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
. . .
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.

[Telonius]

I'd say LG as well. Going far above and beyond the call of duty is for Exalted Deeds characters. The character you're describing wouldn't qualify for that, but I'd say would qualify as Lawful Good.

[Coplantor]

Alignment is impossible to narrow down into 9 simple stamps because very, very few things fit so neatly into it; "you mean to tell me that there are no compassionate followers of Asmodeus?" For example, Lawful Neutral characters can simply follow a strict Code of Conduct and commit all kinds of atrocities. I once played a Monk in an Evil Campaign who was LN, but followed a Code that stated that "Loyalty and Order is more important than what is right." He had no qualms about killing the innocent, but he wouldn't hurt anyone that he promised not to. In this case, LN and LE are very close, and the same is true for LG and LN.

I'd say that if he had no problems killing inocent people then he was, most likely, lawful evil. The good-evil axis is all about how lowyou are willing to go. Actually, I would say that his particualr code is pretty much the embodiment of LE.
Also, why would a compassionate guy follow Asmodeus?

Whenever the groups I have played with wanted to actually keep track of alignment, we always included a "With X tendencies." Basically, a "Lawful Good Rogue with Chaotic tendencies" would be willing to welch on a deal or break the law if it was the greater good. Think of this like a police officer that follows the Rule of Law strictly, but every once in a while he won't arrest someone for committing an insignificant crime. The "Chaotic Neutral Rogue with Good tendencies" is willing to steal to feed himself, but he might donate to an orphanage because they like kids.

Stealing is a chaotic act, it does not involve being good or evil. Stealing food to survive is a neutral act, stealing food for orphans? A good act. He is risking his neck for those poor kids, without further evidence, I would say that the guy is CG.

[Psyx]

Lawful Neutral, with good tendencies. Or LN(g), in old money.


Certainly not good enough to be Good. They're just being a decent, productive member of society. That's not 'good' in itself.

[Blue Ghost]

This guy sounds a lot like me in real life...
I would say whether they're Neutral or Good depends on how far they're willing to go out of their way or to sacrifice for the sake of doing good. Not necessarily actively seeking people to aid, but if an opportunity to do good comes up, but will require a good deal of personal sacrifice, would they do good at the cost of their own comfort?

[MrGoodCat]

The only way alignment can even make sense in D&D is if it is a "for the most part" kind of thing. You can have a LE fighter burn, destroy, and kill but when he goes home he may return to a wife and kids who he loves very much. Characters are going to do things outside of alignment, as long as what they mostly do is within alignment.

I would say LG because he doesn't have to pick up the trash. It is a very small personal sacrifice but he is sacrificing his time and energy to something that he has no obligation to.

[hamishspence]

If you take the view that Neutral is not 90%-odd of the population- but more like 1/3

(consistant with the fact that "Usually Neutral (any)" would be an "alignment tendency" and "humans tend toward no alignment")

then- would this guy fall into the roughly 1/3 of humanity that is Good by this interpretation?

I think he would.

Of course, if you ignore that PHB line, and have most of humanity be Neutral despite the fact that humans are not supposed to tend toward any alignment, then he might not qualify as Good.

The only way alignment can even make sense in D&D is if it is a "for the most part" kind of thing. You can have a LE fighter burn, destroy, and kill but when he goes home he may return to a wife and kids who he loves very much. Characters are going to do things outside of alignment, as long as what they mostly do is within alignment.

This. Savage Species makes a big thing out of how Evil characters can be very kind, loyal, loving, etc to members of their "group" and rationalize atrocities to those outside it.

[Coplantor]

The only way alignment can even make sense in D&D is if it is a "for the most part" kind of thing. You can have a LE fighter burn, destroy, and kill but when he goes home he may return to a wife and kids who he loves very much. Characters are going to do things outside of alignment, as long as what they mostly do is within alignment.

I would say LG because he doesn't have to pick up the trash. It is a very small personal sacrifice but he is sacrificing his time and energy to something that he has no obligation to.

Funny, I always read alignment like this.

[Mando Knight]

He's like right on the edge of LG/LN, probably. Scribble one down, and play with that. If you need him to take Paladin levels, get him to act a little nicer and write down LG.

[Person_Man]

However, while they help others if the opportunity comes up, they do not actively seek out opportunities to help others. They rarely donate to charity or volunteer. For example, if they see trash on the side of the road, they would pick it up and throw it away, but they don't walk along roads looking for trash to pick up.

On the issue of charity, I would note that many religions have mandatory tithes, and that many people donate money in order to further their pet political issues and/or to get positive PR and/or to feel good about themselves. Charity is not primarily a function altruism, it's a function of self interest. (I used to be a fundraiser for a non-profit).

But I get your general point: Is Good a verb (something you do) or a noun (something you are)?

My 2 cp is that it depends on the gods (ie, the DM) in your campaign world. Good is not a scientifically measurable phenomenon. It's a belief.

[hamishspence]

But I get your general point: Is Good a verb (something you do) or a noun (something you are)?

It's probably a bit of both. A newborn metallic dragon is Good despite not yet having done a good act. So here, it's Good by personality.

And a Good person confronted with people in need- who passes up the opportunity to do good acts, will probably eventually cease to be Good- so here, it's Good by deed.

[hamlet]

Character is Lawful Good, but tetering on Neutral Good and Lawful Neutral. Not good enough to be a Paladin, but generally an upstanding and good member of the community.

As was pointed out, having a strict moral code is not really neccessarily lawful. Lawful is more about respect for order imposed by society. For instance, the belief that the best general good can be had by a system of strong and well made laws imposed evenly upon the populace even if it might be somewhat inequitable in some ways. The good of the many outway the need of the few.

The alignments are poorly written in all versions of D&D, actually. Best version of them is, sadly, over on TVTropes.

[Yora]

Funny, I always read alignment like this.

Because every other interpretation just doesn't make sense when you still want to call characters "good" or "evil".
Anything else means that there are exactly 9 types of people, which are all completely the same within their group.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Because every other interpretation just doesn't make sense when you still want to call characters "good" or "evil".
Anything else means that there are exactly 9 types of people, which are all completely the same within their group.

It also violates the RAW

Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.

I sometimes wonder if anyone actually bothers to read the Alignment chapter

[Caliphbubba]

Either.

without some instance that would high light the difference between LG and LN it'd be very hard to tell the difference.

As an example: A city in which it is perfectly lawful for you to beat your spouse. A LN would likely not show undo concern about witnessing such an event. While a LG person likely would.

It throws the difference into contrast.

[Theodoxus]

The only way alignment can even make sense in D&D is if it is a "for the most part" kind of thing. You can have a LE fighter burn, destroy, and kill but when he goes home he may return to a wife and kids who he loves very much. Characters are going to do things outside of alignment, as long as what they mostly do is within alignment.

That's always been my issue with the Paladin of Tyranny... one good deed, like loving a wife, and he falls. Lame.

To the OP, I see it as LG (n). Kinda like the Gray Guard...

[hamishspence]

That's always been my issue with the Paladin of Tyranny... one good deed, like loving a wife, and he falls. Lame.

No source explicitly states "loving someone" is a Good act.

Savage Species does mention that evil characters can love (child, spouse, sibling, friend)- and still be no less Evil.

[Yora]

It also violates the RAW

The RAAAAW!!!!

I belong to the line of thought that RAW can not claim to be playable but only serves as a basis for dms to make good judgement calls.

[hamishspence]

The RAAAAW!!!!

Maybe in a less RAW game, the RAW could manifest as an Inevitable for the PCs to fight?

"I am. The RAW! Drop. Your Weapons!"

[Theodoxus]

No source explicitly states "loving someone" is a Good act.

Savage Species does mention that evil characters can love (child, spouse, sibling, friend)- and still be no less Evil.

No less Evil is not the same as 'Can not ever do a good act, ever. Ever.'

I don't know what your definition of love is; I suppose going around beating your wife and having her wait on you hand and foot could be construed as love, but I don't. Selflessly making a meal at 2 in the morning because she's got the munchies and you've been out slaughtering Clerics of Lothander and are bone dead tired... Fall.

[hamishspence]

Wouldn't an evil character who occasionally does Good acts, be slightly less evil than an almost identical one, who doesn't, hence breaking the "not any less evil" bit?

Making an outright sacrifice for another (without thought of personal gain) is a Good act- but simply treating someone they love well, might not cause a Paladin of Tyranny to Fall.

Selflessly making a meal at 2 in the morning because she's got the munchies and you've been out slaughtering Clerics of Lothander and are bone dead tired... Fall.

This might qualify as such a sacrifice, depending on the DM. But if they do nice things for the loved one because they believe they will benefit (by ensuring that the loved one will stay loyal, and not get temperamental and touchy) it may be closer to Neutral.

Hmm- might be interesting in an Evil campaign to play a "nice to loved ones" Paladin of tyranny, who's constantly justifying his nice acts in selfish terms.

If they're always nice when not doing evil (but Nice is not Good) they'd be a bit like the Auntie Paladins in Munchkin.

[Theodoxus]

Ok, that would be epic. +1

[Oracle_Hunter]

The RAAAAW!!!!

I belong to the line of thought that RAW can not claim to be playable but only serves as a basis for dms to make good judgement calls.

Even when the RAW states what your RAI-senses tell you?

I like Hamishspence's Inevitable; particularly as they must have been a Gygaxian invention for forcing the PCs to toe the line

Also: are people really arguing that a character who fails to find litter to pick up must be Neutral

I mean, I've already said my piece, but there are a lot more people crying "Neutral" than I would have expected. Even on the Internet

[hamishspence]

Also: are people really arguing that a character who fails to find litter to pick up must be Neutral

I mean, I've already said my piece, but there are a lot more people crying "Neutral" than I would have expected. Even on the Internet

If a character who's all-around nice, but doesn't really do big Good acts- just little ones can be Good,

Then maybe a character who's all-around nasty, but doesn't really do big Evil acts, only little ones, can be Evil?

If Neutral means most of the population, maybe this guy is neutral- but if you think, as I do, that Neutral is more like a third of the population, then it's much easier to call this "ordinary decent guy" Good.

[Oracle_Hunter]

If a character who's all-around nice, but doesn't really do big Good acts- just little ones can be Good,

Then maybe a character who's all-around nasty, but doesn't really do big Evil acts, only little ones, can be Evil?

That's flipped.

Jerks can be of any Alignment; so can nice guys.

However, if you ain't protecting Innocents (or willing to make sacrifices to do so) then you ain't Good. Likewise, if you ain't debasing or destroying Innocent life (and ain't willing to do so when covenient) you ain't Evil.

So no, a Paladin that spends all day protecting babies from Rape Demons doesn't Fall because he neglected to go on trash patrol that evening.