What's Wrong With Lawful Good?

[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.