The evil of Lawful Good

[Quertus]

Alignment is the worst thing to happen to role-playing in the history of RPGs.

Having moral compunctions can interfere with cooperation & teamwork. This is why the best team members are evil - they have no moral compunctions to get in the way of working together.

What I commonly see (as player and DM) is Lawful Good characters act out against players who don't meet their alignment in an evil way.

Well, I've never seen characters act out against Players before…

Killing a corpse looter. This is a perfectly fine thing for a Lawful Good person to do. It sure is moraly wrong to loot the dead.

You may want to rethink that. Gandalf, Bilbo, Frodo? All looted the dead. Drizzt? Yeah, some of his items came off corpses. Of all the iconic characters I can think of, I only know 1 who supposedly exclusively looted the living rather than the dead.

D&D is pretty firmly based on loot, and only slightly less firmly based on killing stuff. By your logic, I imagine all the big names from Mordenkainen to Bigby are Evil.

Go team evil.

I always felt that any LG character with no sense of mercy does not understand their alignment.

+1 this. Well, for any Good, really.

[Lord Torath]

In 2nd edition there was a little known rule Palsdins could not strike the first blow. They must be attacked first hit or miss. They both should have fallen then and there

Citation needed. Can you tell me where that's written? I don't recall reading it.

Thanks!

[Cygnia]

In the 2nd scenario, as a GM, why would even allow an LG pally to group with an Evil PC in the first place. Since, in D&D, aren't they banned from doing so?

[jjordan]

Just curious if anyone else has witnessed the evil of Lawful Good characters attempting to smite evil...

Seen it? I've written it into settings. My current setting has a lawful good order that follows an Angel and is led by Aasimar which is noted for enforcing their view of morality upon others. They are considered terrorists in one Kingdom and pretty much deserve the label.

[Segev]

Seen it? I've written it into settings. My current setting has a lawful good order that follows an Angel and is led by Aasimar which is noted for enforcing their view of morality upon others. They are considered terrorists in one Kingdom and pretty much deserve the label.

They're not exactly Lawful Good, then. Lawful Neutral with good intentions, at best. Tyranny is the province of LE, and "live as we mandate or we'll blow up your home/business" is tyranny.

[jjordan]

They're not exactly Lawful Good, then. Lawful Neutral with good intentions, at best. Tyranny is the province of LE, and "live as we mandate or we'll blow up your home/business" is tyranny.

You make a very valid point but the subject is very much open to debate, which was my thought when I put this together.

The behavior of this particular group was modeled on the Awful Good behaviors I frequently saw (a long time ago and, ironically, far, far away). I'll try to brief in my explanation.

LG and LE (Angels and Devils) share a common background. Some LG factions believe they must proactively protect sentients from the predations of evil. This LG faction believes that there must be organized institutions to prevent evil from gaining a foothold. So they act to foster such institutions, without becoming part of those institutions. They also act in individual cases where the institutions are incapable/unwilling to act.

Contrast this with the LE religion that is the state religion of one of the kingdoms. They openly espouse a rigidly structured society that places the good of the many above the needs of a few. But they refuse to act outside the law and actively work to better the lives of the many, albeit those in power (those with fiendish blood and, ultimately, fiends) have it better.

Both groups are vehemently opposed to chaos and can even, on occasion, put aside their other differences to cooperate in combating the spread of chaos.

All of which is meant to be gray area from the standpoint of alignment and encourage the players (and, I suppose now that I come to think about, any outside observers) to think about the subject and what it really means to be whatever alignment a character is.

[LibraryOgre]

I don't know. If they are sane individuals, there should be no need.
And against problem players, nothing works.

I disagree with your first statement (the second is spot-on, of course).

There's ALWAYS questions about alignment and how you're playing it. A simple one, existing from the beginning of the game, is "Are [goblins] innately evil?" Is it evil to kill young goblins? What about female goblins who are ostensibly non-combatants?

A common thread with "old-school" players is that Goblins are Evil, because they were born Evil, and that rare exceptions don't redeem the entire race. You might meet a singular goblin who is Not-Evil, but killing goblins is always Good, because you are reducing the amount of Evil in the world.

A more modern take is that goblins may be culturally evil, so the majority you meet are, but that they have an equal amount of agency as any other mortal race, so goblins raised to be good likely will turn out good.

At the very least, a DM needs to communicate where on that spectrum he falls. He needs to communicate what "Lawful" and "Chaotic" means, because plenty of people think "Lawful" means following all laws, all the time, and "Chaotic" means "Lolrandom"

[patchyman]

I have definitely seen “Lawful Good” characters (including paladins) act in abhorrent ways to combat Evil.

Specifically, I have seen a Paladin slit the throat of an unarmed prisoner of war, he believed was Evil, against the objections of every member of the party, including the Chaotic Neutral Rogue. Note that the alternative in that case (proposed by my Neutral Good Fighter), was single honourable combat to the death against my Fighter. (If the orc won, he would go free).

The Paladin’s player subscribed to the ethos that you are responsible for any Evil you do not prevent. If through your action (or inaction) an Evil person goes free, you are responsible for the Evil done because you did not stop them.

These were all played by mature adults and experienced role players.

Also, it turned out that orcs were not always evil in this setting, and that particular orc was fighting back against people destroying his home.

[shawnhcorey]

If "evil" creatures are innately evil, they would die off in a generation or two. They have to act "good" to their families in order for the next generation to survive.

[Psyren]

I have definitely seen “Lawful Good” characters (including paladins) act in abhorrent ways to combat Evil.

Specifically, I have seen a Paladin slit the throat of an unarmed prisoner of war, he believed was Evil, against the objections of every member of the party, including the Chaotic Neutral Rogue. Note that the alternative in that case (proposed by my Neutral Good Fighter), was single honourable combat to the death against my Fighter. (If the orc won, he would go free).

The Paladin’s player subscribed to the ethos that you are responsible for any Evil you do not prevent. If through your action (or inaction) an Evil person goes free, you are responsible for the Evil done because you did not stop them.

These were all played by mature adults and experienced role players.

Also, it turned out that orcs were not always evil in this setting, and that particular orc was fighting back against people destroying his home.

At some point you need a DM to actually uphold the rules of the game. This is no less true for alignment than it is for anything else that requires a modicum of judgment.

[jjordan]

If "evil" creatures are innately evil, they would die off in a generation or two. They have to act "good" to their families in order for the next generation to survive.

Not sure I agree with this for a lot of nit-picky reasons. For my purposes, looking at chaotic evil creatures, I posit a parasitic model of existence. Evil spreads by consuming and, in the process, creates 'new' sentient beings that serve as tools but can become greater than their creator intended.

I think of vast frozen wastelands of space-time floating through the multiverse, populated by corrupted creatures and beings of pure, selfish malevolent thought, and seeking only to find warm new universes to consume.

[shawnhcorey]

Not sure I agree with this for a lot of nit-picky reasons. For my purposes, looking at chaotic evil creatures, I posit a parasitic model of existence. Evil spreads by consuming and, in the process, creates 'new' sentient beings that serve as tools but can become greater than their creator intended.

I think of vast frozen wastelands of space-time floating through the multiverse, populated by corrupted creatures and beings of pure, selfish malevolent thought, and seeking only to find warm new universes to consume.

If they're that selfish and greed, they would not take care of their young. Their young would die to diseases, accidents, and their neighbours.

[Koo Rehtorb]

If "evil" creatures are innately evil, they would die off in a generation or two. They have to act "good" to their families in order for the next generation to survive.

I don't think that follows at all. You can be evil while still having neutral or good traits. And even if that wasn't true then it's not like orcs savagely beating their children is going to cause the species to collapse.

[Cygnia]

So, can we also talk about the evil of Chaotic Good as well? Like when a willfully ignorant mage lets a hungry, angry ettin go free to ravage the surrounding countryside because she thinks it's a slave and refuses to listen that maybe putting it down would have been the smarter choice in the long run?!

"I'm Chaotic Good -- I don't HAVE to listen to you!" is her only frelling excuse...

[LibraryOgre]

If "evil" creatures are innately evil, they would die off in a generation or two. They have to act "good" to their families in order for the next generation to survive.

Not everyone is a paladin... evil creatures can commit good acts without instantly becoming good. Alignment describes the aggregate of someone's actions and intentions, and is seldom defined by a single act. An evil creature is perfectly capable of taking care of its children without becoming good.

[jjordan]

If they're that selfish and greed, they would not take care of their young. Their young would die to diseases, accidents, and their neighbours.

You're thinking in terms of conventional biology. Please let me raise a different view point by asking: how much care viruses take with their 'offspring'?

[Psyren]

You're thinking in terms of conventional biology. Please let me raise a different view point by asking: how much care viruses take with their 'offspring'?

Viruses don't have "offspring," they replicate. There is no childhood phase to nurture, even if they had the mental capacity to do so. Orcs and Drow are pretty different; hell, even Mindflayers care for their offspring to a degree.

[shawnhcorey]

You're thinking in terms of conventional biology. Please let me raise a different view point by asking: how much care viruses take with their 'offspring'?

Viruses have lots and lots of offspring so they don't have to care for them. For creatures with few offspring, care is necessary for them to reach maturity.

[Max_Killjoy]

Obviously I can't name names, but in the real world there have been actively evil cultures and ideologies that internally cared about their own to a sometimes extreme degree. Reducing evil to "always kicks babies, even their own" is not a functional way of looking at the matter.

[Pleh]

Essentially, it's "morality as a team", rather than an actual description of behavior. If your "good" doesn't actually act "good", only oppose "evil", then you're playing Team Morality, not morality-as-written.

The solution is to make clear to your players how you're playing good, evil, law, and chaos. What do those mean, and how do you view them acting.

Alignment is just the colour of your team's shirts. They all employ the same actions with the same results. Alignment is nothing but a way to screw over the players.

This is a big part of why I did some work in developing my campaign setting to make sure different cultures that PCs meet are all different kinds of jerks. They are each aggressive and self serving in different ways, and most will unflinchingly take anything that isn't adequately guarded (or already part of their territory).

But they aren't actually evil. They live in a harsh environment and belong to self centered cultures filled with nationalistic propoganda that justifies their aggressive behavior. It's basically the Wild West tropes in D&D turned up to eleven. It's not like there aren't good people or justice systems, just that they usually can't afford to be as altruistic as they might prefer. There's also no one better to turn to. The PCs can war with everyone, championing truth and justice in the land single handed, but it'll be a truly lonely path and who are you actually helping if there are no survivors? The real reason for the pervasive brutality is the general lack of resources, which isn't a problem that PC skills can simply resolve (I usually run this game in low level setup so magic isn't powerful enough to eliminate material need).

The second really important change I make is keeping the gods more distant (sort of like the lovecraftian old ones, if they were more just uncaring and less maddeningly flesh hungry). With the gods and magic a bit harder to reach, wizards tend to be more reclusive from needy peasantry, rarely becoming powerful world leaders, and clerics/paladins tend to act like sheriffs and village elders. They aren't so much definitive authority figures as much as local guardians who protect a small community from bandits and goblins.

It seems to fix most concepts of D&D morality. Fewer things are truly black and white in a way that feels rather natural.

[shawnhcorey]

Obviously I can't name names, but in the real world there have been actively evil cultures and ideologies that internally cared about their own to a sometimes extreme degree. Reducing evil to "always kicks babies, even their own" is not a functional way of looking at the matter.

There are isolated exceptions, of course, but if those cultures and ideologies were as successful as normal human behaviour, they would be a lot more of them.

[jjordan]

Viruses have lots and lots of offspring so they don't have to care for them. For creatures with few offspring, care is necessary for them to reach maturity.

And I can think of lots of different ways to achieve that based on culture and biology.

-The creature might be born capable of independence and taking care of itself (e.g. Sharks). I use this model with goblins.
-The creature might be abandoned before birth and rely on other creatures to nurture it (e.g. the Cuckoo). I use this model with cambions.
-The creature might be abandoned and left to hatch on it's own. (e.g. some turtles and frogs).
-Offspring may be viewed as dynastic tools (pawns or commodities) and keeping them alive may accrue purely selfish benefits to their parents. Drow, I'm looking at you.
-There could be a biological or cultural factor at play where the more closely related members of a group are the more they are able to trust each other and cooperate. This gives an advantage to groups that reproduce. Possibly a model for Orcs?
-And some creatures simply recognize the strength of the pack. Hyenas are well documented cannibals that will eat their own young when food is scare. They're the basis of gnolls. Heck, rabbits will eat their own young just because they're bored.
-Is there a model whereby the more violent males are cast out into bachelor bands while extended families of females work together to ensure their protection? (e.g. elephants or lions).

That for biology. Then you've got creatures that reproduce via contagion (Ghouls, Viruses), created creatures, awakened creatures, abominations, and insanity. If we get to memetic reproduction then we can get into some truly terrifying examples (from fiction we can possible draw from the Reavers of the Firefly-verse, from real life we can look at the multi-generational chains of abuse that arguably are equivalent to reproduction).

While it may work well for your setting to say that no creatures that can reproduce are truly evil, it works well for me to say that they can reproduce. If for no other reason than the cool lore behind that reproduction.

[Talakeal]

In 2nd edition there was a little known rule Palsdins could not strike the first blow. They must be attacked first hit or miss.

Was that really a rule? I have no memory of it, and it makes apaldins ludicrously innefectual at preventing actual atrocities.

[Max_Killjoy]

There are isolated exceptions, of course, but if those cultures and ideologies were as successful as normal human behaviour, they would be a lot more of them.

Some of them lasted hundreds of years.

The hypothesis that cultures / civilizations cannot be evil and survive is simply not born out by the facts. Slavery, human sacrifice, brutal repression of women (beyond even the low bar of the norms of their times), etc, have sadly all been aspects of civilizations that lasted for many many generations.

[Segev]

It's often termed "tribalism," that to which Max is referring, and it remains a thing even to this day, and is also often ideologically tied to defining "us" as "good" and therefore anything "we" do must be "good," and anything "they" do as "evil." Even if they're the same thing. Because "we" are "good" and thus anything "we" do is "good," and those "evil them" are absolute monsters for doing it because, well, they're "evil."

It tends to lead to the possibility of the "father to his men" horribly evil villain-king/warlord. It's one of those things that sometimes seems to complicate alignment debates. In practice, though, it's about what you're willing to do to "them" not in defense of "us," but to "improve" the lot of "us" at "their" expense. That's how you generally determine whether it's really good, neutral, or evil. Genuinely good groups may be willing to do a lot in the name of war, but they do so defensively, or to put down a threat; their goal is rarely if ever to actually gain something (other than peace) that "they" aren't willing to provide.

[shawnhcorey]

Some of them lasted hundreds of years.

The hypothesis that cultures / civilizations cannot be evil and survive is simply not born out by the facts. Slavery, human sacrifice, brutal repression of women (beyond even the low bar of the norms of their times), etc, have sadly all be aspects of civilizations that lasted for many many generations.

The Romans had more slave rebellions in the city than in the country. Yes, slavery is bad but some slaves had it better than others and farm slaves had it better than city slaves. They had lots of food and the winter off. Even in the Middle Ages, the serfs had lots of free time.

Human sacrifice was very rare and those who practised it systematically only did it on special occasions and to victims not from their communities (unless they were criminals).

Brutality to women and children is about as common now as it was in the past. Those that were brutal to their mates and offspring didn't have many offspring.

You are looking at rare incidents and claim they are the norm. And innately evil creatures would be far worst.

[patchyman]

In a time when the laws are even more subject to the whims of the enforcer, if the law quite literally says "you can choose to enforce it, or not, and to what degree" then the paladin is at least on the legal spectrum, within their rights to do any of those things or none. Judge, jury, executioner. Or maybe just probation officer and social worker.

Which is again why it's important to note what the paladins legal authority is, which most games never do, which is why we often have reports of "lawful stupid" or "lawful jerkface". What the laws are matter far less than what the paladin is authorized to do about them.

Most paladins *do* have the authority to enforce laws: they are empowered by their order and/or their god to act as avatars of justice.

The problem is paladins who have thrown out mercy, discretion and any sense of proportion in enforcing the law.

Also, players who probably have no training in “judge, jury and executioner” playing characters who presumably have some training before they are sent out to smite the Unholy.

[Max_Killjoy]

The Romans had more slave rebellions in the city than in the country. Yes, slavery is bad but some slaves had it better than others and farm slaves had it better than city slaves. They had lots of food and the winter off. Even in the Middle Ages, the serfs had lots of free time.

Human sacrifice was very rare and those who practised it systematically only did it on special occasions and to victims not from their communities (unless they were criminals).

Brutality to women and children is about as common now as it was in the past. Those that were brutal to their mates and offspring didn't have many offspring.

You are looking at rare incidents and claim they are the norm. And innately evil creatures would be far worst.

Well, at this point, we'd have to get into real politics, so all I can say is that you're mistaken on each point.

[patchyman]

At some point you need a DM to actually uphold the rules of the game. This is no less true for alignment than it is for anything else that requires a modicum of judgment.

Eh, 5th ed doesn’t really have hard and fast rules concerning paladins falling, and as both a DM and a player, I am not a big fan of DMs twisting reality to force a comeuppance on players.

Honestly, we probably should of booted the character (not the player) from the party at that point. My impression was that the player would have been OK with changing his character after that.

[Talakeal]

Remember, 3E describes both paladins and themLG alignment as merciless and demands they not let wrongs go jnpunished, and some DMs will have you fall for being too leniant.