What's Wrong With Lawful Good?

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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?

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.

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.