What's Wrong With Lawful Good?

[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.

[KIDDING] 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. [/KIDDING]

[Kraynic]

[KIDDING] 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. [/KIDDING]

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.

[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. 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?

[Elkad]

Vegetarianism? What? How is this even relevant to this thread?

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?