What's Wrong With Lawful Good?

[Segev]

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?

I played an LG paladin who only one player thought to be a jerk. She called insisting that the party let the paladin go first and tank hits from potentially unknown dangers "selfish" behavior on his part, and felt that he was "arrogant" for trying to mediate situations that would otherwise turn violent.

In general, he was a big believer in forgiveness and second chances, and rules lawyering to make the law work for good. It would be with great regret that he'd resort to violence, but as a paladin, when he did resort to violence, it was usually swift and overwhelming. He took prisoners when he could, but he wouldn't shy away from killing if he must. He also wouldn't revel in nor dwell on it, because if he has to kill, he wants it over with as swiftly as possible, with as little pain as possible for those who forced him to take their lives.

Encounters with him by bad guys were downright formulaic, because he had a pattern to the offers to negotiate, then surrender, then stand down at any point short of the final end of the fight.

[Aotrs Commander]

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?

Every single LG character I have seen in thirty years, which includes a whole bunch of Paladins. And characters that were in systems without alignment who would likely fit into said alignment if that collar was forced onto them.

(Technically, I think, even that one instance of the good-character-evil-party, if he was Lawful Good.)

It's... Really not hard.

[Bartmanhomer]

Sounds like Lawful Good characters (Including paladins) isn't worth playing from what I heard from everybody.

[digiman619]

Sounds like Lawful Good characters (Including paladins) isn't worth playing from what I heard from everybody.

That's not the case at all; it's just that there are some who view it as "the most Good" alignment when it's really not, so they either be holier-than-thou with the alignment (Paladins enforcing their code on their party, etc.) or think that if you every action a LG takes isn't selfless/morally spotless, they're "doing it wrong" and need to fall.

[Crake]

I see. And the bad guys are Chaotic Good.

The "Bad guys", by which I assume you mean the protagonists, are just as evil, though I think they vary a bit from lawful to neutral to chaotic evil. The main character is willing to commit evil in his vendetta, but he does have lines he refuses to cross, while some of the others are all too happy to kill when it suits them.

There's almost nobody good in that show except maybe starlight.

[Particle_Man]

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?

Yeah, I played a lot of LG characters that were not jerks, including a paladin. My paladin was accused of being stupid (which, I guess, compared to a wizard, fair cop), and foolhardy ("now I know why paladins die young!") but not of being a jerk.

Actually one fun version of this that you might not have seen is Benton Fraser, the Mountie on "Due South".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benton_Fraser

[Aotrs Commander]

Sounds like Lawful Good characters (Including paladins) isn't worth playing from what I heard from everybody.

*scrubbed*

[Bartmanhomer]

*scrub the post, scrub the quote*

I saw your post. Everyone is expressing their opinions about it.

[CharonsHelper]

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?

I've never actually seen someone play LG as a jerk in-game. The closest was an LG Fighter (maybe Knight - it was over a decade ago) who sort of backed up the rogue in the group who was being a jerk to everyone else. But that was because the players were dating in real life; the character being LG had nothing to do with it.

Frankly - it always seemed like one of those tropes which is famous on the internet because the occasional horror story gets told & re-told. And it's funny enough to make it into nerd media, such as OOTS's Miko.

[Crake]

Sounds like Lawful Good characters (Including paladins) isn't worth playing from what I heard from everybody.

"Lawful good" isn't a character concept. It's a broad term that can account for MANY different play styles and character archetypes. Stop looking at alignment as some sort of character defining trait. Every time I hear someone describe their character, and include alignment in their description, I pretty much ignore them from that point on, because the only thing alignment tells me about a character is how they interact with alignment-specific mechanical functions.

So, to answer the thread's question "What's wrong with lawful good?", the answer is "It says nothing about a character beyond 'I fit into one of nine broad categories'". If your character's defining trait is "I'm lawful good", then go back to the drawing board. Drop all thoughts of alignment from your mind when making characters, build something interesting, and at the end of the process, ask yourself "Where does this character fit into the alignment spectrum". If at the end of that process you end up as a lawful good character, I can guarantee you, nobody will have any issue with your character, but if you're running around doing things with the reason "it's because I'm lawful good", that's what makes a terrible lawful good character.

If you rescue the children in a burning orphanage, and someone asks "why did you risk your life to save them" and you answer "because I'm lawful good", then you're the problem. Come up with an actual reason, like "those children deserved a chance at life, and if the cost for that was my own, then I would gladly pay that price". People use alignment as a crutch for character development, and eventually you get a situation like "Why did you kill our prisoner?" "Because he was evil and I'm lawful good", and boom, now you have people saying lawful good characters suck, when really, no, lawful good characters aren't the problem, characters who are nothing but lawful good (and who probably aren't ACTUALLY lawful good) are the problem.

[Aotrs Commander]

"Lawful good" isn't a character concept. It's a broad term that can account for MANY different play styles and character archetypes. Stop looking at alignment as some sort of character defining trait. Every time I hear someone describe their character, and include alignment in their description, I pretty much ignore them from that point on, because the only thing alignment tells me about a character is how they interact with alignment-specific mechanical functions.

So, to answer the thread's question "What's wrong with lawful good?", the answer is "It says nothing about a character beyond 'I fit into one of nine broad categories'". If your character's defining trait is "I'm lawful good", then go back to the drawing board. Drop all thoughts of alignment from your mind when making characters, build something interesting, and at the end of the process, ask yourself "Where does this character fit into the alignment spectrum". If at the end of that process you end up as a lawful good character, I can guarantee you, nobody will have any issue with your character, but if you're running around doing things with the reason "it's because I'm lawful good", that's what makes a terrible lawful good character.

If you rescue the children in a burning orphanage, and someone asks "why did you risk your life to save them" and you answer "because I'm lawful good", then you're the problem. Come up with an actual reason, like "those children deserved a chance at life, and if the cost for that was my own, then I would gladly pay that price". People use alignment as a crutch for character development, and eventually you get a situation like "Why did you kill our prisoner?" "Because he was evil and I'm lawful good", and boom, now you have people saying lawful good characters suck, when really, no, lawful good characters aren't the problem, characters who are nothing but lawful good (and who probably aren't ACTUALLY lawful good) are the problem.

Also, you can replace replace "lawful good" in the post above with any of the other "problem alignments" and you'll have solved pretty much all the problems. (Okay, maybe chaotic evil (note lack of capitalisation) is still a bit dubious, but the point still mostly stands.)

If you need to reference your character's alignment more than once in a blue moon outside of mechancial game effects, then you're doing alignment wrong.

[Zhentarim]

Also, you can replace replace "lawful good" in the post above with any of the other "problem alignments" and you'll have solved pretty much all the problems. (Okay, maybe chaotic evil (note lack of capitalisation) is still a bit dubious, but the point still mostly stands.)

If you need to reference your character's alignment more than once in a blue moon outside of mechancial game effects, then you're doing alignment wrong.

I’ve played the other 8 alignments in a party no problem (chaotic neutral and neutral evil are my favorites) but chaotic evil is still hard for me.

[ShurikVch]

How about to implement the rule from the Arcana Unearthed?

No Alignments

There are no alignments in Arcana Unearthed into which you must shoehorn your character's outlook. This rulebook does not attempt to define good or evil, nor does it address law or chaos. Characters should decide for themselves what is good and what is evil, the way real people do. There are no spells that reveal whether a character is evil or good - his actions and the perspectives of those around him determine that. No (or at least very few) characters think of themselves as evil. The truth is, such concepts are relative.

Yet even without alignments, villains still do terrible things to further their own goals. Heroes still make great sacrifices to stop them. The classic conflicts all remain. But now there are even more. Two noble and altruistic characters might oppose each other. Their personal ideologies might even cause each of them to define the other as "evil."

Characters with a conscience still act responsibly, and those with a code of conduct still adhere to it: having no alignment is not an excuse for all characters to act wantonly. As in the real world, things are much more interesting if there are not nine alignments but, in fact, an infinite number of them - each character becomes his own alignment.

[FaerieGodfather]

How about to implement the rule from the Arcana Unearthed?

There's a lot of work that has to be done uncoupling other mechanics from alignment-- which I suspect Monte Cook either did, or sidestepped, already-- but it's really what D&D should have done forty years ago, or thirty years ago, or twenty years ago... really at any point since they started attaching roleplaying restrictions and punitive mechanics to it.

[ezekielraiden]

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?

Seeing as how I *usually* play LG characters, yes, I have played ones that weren't considered jerks. Of my last six characters, four were solidly Lawful Good, and only one was ever called anything like a jerk by any character--and that was specifically the player intentionally playing a character that would challenge my character's moral and cultural beliefs, who considered my character a frustrating impediment for a while. (My char won him over in the end. It was a truly heartfelt moment.)

I generally agree with the idea that you can't just write a two-letter acronym on your character sheet and call it a day, but I would also argue that it's not totally accurate to cleave archetypal LG and "personality" apart. Red Fel speaks of The Prince and the Dark Knight, archetypes of LE that (for me, anyway) are perhaps the purest two expressions of the alignment despite his comments on the disparate emphasis. I would likewise think of LG as having two really core counterparts: the Good King and the Shining Knight, and they're both really close to "pure" LG. As I argued previously, I don't really see either The Prince or The Good King working all that well as adventurers due to the problems of being a full-time adventurer *and* head-of-state/government, but I digress. For a lot of people when they play LG, I suspect part of their goal is to be the Shining Knight, epitome of justice and mercy, kindness and strength, humility and honor, etc. For many, to write LG on their sheer IS to say "I'm trying to be that." Of course, dragging implication out into the light where it can be seen and discussed is usually a Good Thing™, but not everyone is really aware that that's what they're doing. (I'd argue this is true for a lot of alignment stuff.)

So, yes, I agree that never actually thinking about your actions or asking whether you are actually Good (or Lawful) is a serious flaw that many fall prey to. But don't leap from there to assuming that alignment says nothing at all about personality. It should! It's just that it should do so in the way that, say, a menu should tell you what to expect when you order. It's a goal to be fulfilled, a pattern to be demonstrated. A chef who deviates too much from the customer's order is a poor chef. A player who deviates from their character's expressed alignment by failing to demonstrate behavior in keeping with it is a poor player. Of course, alignment is a pretty aggressive shorthand (as Red Fel's extensive yet non-comprehensive list of archetypes shows!), but really that just makes it all the more egregious that so many people mess it up.

[Crake]

But don't leap from there to assuming that alignment says nothing at all about personality. It should!

The issue I have here is that you've got it entirely backward. Alignment shouldn't say anything about personality. Personality should determine your alignment, not the other way around. To use your archetypal examples, you don't say "I'm the shining knight because I'm lawful good", you say "I'm the shining knight, therefore I'm lawful good"

[Bartmanhomer]

The issue I have here is that you've got it entirely backward. Alignment shouldn't say anything about personality. Personality should determine your alignment, not the other way around. To use your archetypal examples, you don't say "I'm the shining knight because I'm lawful good", you say "I'm the shining knight, therefore I'm lawful good"

What's the differences?

[Calthropstu]

The issue I have here is that you've got it entirely backward. Alignment shouldn't say anything about personality. Personality should determine your alignment, not the other way around. To use your archetypal examples, you don't say "I'm the shining knight because I'm lawful good", you say "I'm the shining knight, therefore I'm lawful good"

When you create your character and fill in alignment, you are stating."up until the start of the campaign my character acted in a way that corresponded to X alignment."
As your character, it is YOUR back story (within reasonable limits.) It is this back story that sets initial alignment. You're not wholly wrong, but it's not like your character sprang out of nothing at your starting age.
As such, starting alignment is not something the gm has control over, nor should it be. Also, the alignment should reflect bkth current and past actions, including backstory pre-adventure days where "My charcter spent many hours a week volunteering, helping people with daily tasks using cantrips and rescued puppies and kittens."

So while I agree with the purest principle of what you said, I basically strongly disagree on execution.

[Crake]

When you create your character and fill in alignment, you are stating."up until the start of the campaign my character acted in a way that corresponded to X alignment."
As your character, it is YOUR back story (within reasonable limits.) It is this back story that sets initial alignment. You're not wholly wrong, but it's not like your character sprang out of nothing at your starting age.
As such, starting alignment is not something the gm has control over, nor should it be. Also, the alignment should reflect bkth current and past actions, including backstory pre-adventure days where "My charcter spent many hours a week volunteering, helping people with daily tasks using cantrips and rescued puppies and kittens."

So while I agree with the purest principle of what you said, I basically strongly disagree on execution.

How does any of that conflict with the quoted statement? My entire point is that alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive. You're not the shining knight because you're lawful good, you're lawful good because you're the shining knight. The issue I have is when people start with the alignment and then say "because I'm this alignment I have to act this way", when really it should be "Because I act this way, I am this alignment".

If, however, you're actually responding to my previous post about how I handle alignments in my games, the who point was that there was no starting alignment, because it is irrelevant at that stage in the game. Higher powers are more interested in adherence to tenets than alignments, you may be lawful good for example, but still breaking all of your LG deity's tenets, and lose their favour. The only time it will really come into play is when engaging with literal incarnations of alignments, angels and demons for example, and they don't come up in every game. I've gone entire campaigns where alignment has literally never come up.

So it's not so much that I'm saying "this is what your alignment is" at the start of the game, and more "don't think about alignment, think about character ideals and philosophies. How you uphold those ideals and philosophies is more important, and if alignment ever comes up, then I'll figure it out at that time".

[Calthropstu]

How does any of that conflict with the quoted statement? My entire point is that alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive. You're not the shining knight because you're lawful good, you're lawful good because you're the shining knight. The issue I have is when people start with the alignment and then say "because I'm this alignment I have to act this way", when really it should be "Because I act this way, I am this alignment".

If, however, you're actually responding to my previous post about how I handle alignments in my games, the who point was that there was no starting alignment, because it is irrelevant at that stage in the game. Higher powers are more interested in adherence to tenets than alignments, you may be lawful good for example, but still breaking all of your LG deity's tenets, and lose their favour. The only time it will really come into play is when engaging with literal incarnations of alignments, angels and demons for example, and they don't come up in every game. I've gone entire campaigns where alignment has literally never come up.

So it's not so much that I'm saying "this is what your alignment is" at the start of the game, and more "don't think about alignment, think about character ideals and philosophies. How you uphold those ideals and philosophies is more important, and if alignment ever comes up, then I'll figure it out at that time".

Again, you fail to take into account the character.
Sure, the first couple of session a fighter kills a prisoner and hides 15 gold from the party. So you decide he is suddenly CE. Now he is struck with unholy blight. Can he still move? Does that negate all the years his character spent as a "good kid?" I would suggest not.

[The Insanity]

Alignment is prescriptive if for some reason you want or need your character to keep the alignment you chose for him.

[Crake]

Again, you fail to take into account the character.
Sure, the first couple of session a fighter kills a prisoner and hides 15 gold from the party. So you decide he is suddenly CE. Now he is struck with unholy blight. Can he still move? Does that negate all the years his character spent as a "good kid?" I would suggest not.

Uhh, well, I can't make a judgement without knowing the full story, but... yeah, murder kinda outweighs the small acts of good you probably did as a kid.

[Zhentarim]

Uhh, well, I can't make a judgement without knowing the full story, but... yeah, murder kinda outweighs the small acts of good you probably did as a kid.

That’s a sig-worthy quote.

[Duff]

Only if you've chosen a very specific kind of Lawful Good character. Once again so much of your position requires that every Good character (Lawful Good in this case) is a rigid, unyielding bastion of Law who's also maybe kind of good.

Again, statistically this is just more common than with Evil builds. Doesn't apply to all LG characters, but a significant chunk of them..

How much of this is because the players who play "the unyielding bastion of Law who's also maybe kind of good" are not allowed to play an evil character (at least not for a 2nd session)?

[PoeticallyPsyco]

Have anyone ever play a Lawful Good character who's not a jerk?

One of my favorite characters of all time was Jaun "Aegis", LG Paladin of the Crown/Cavalier Fighter (this was 5e; Oath of the Crown emphasizes the lawful, obeying authority aspect of the Paladin archetype). Now, admittedly there was no real kingdom or laws in the setting, just a wandering tribe that had hired him for protection, so he was able to be more devoted to protecting and advancing society as a whole rather than to a specific legal system or authority. But in a party of more gritty, flawed, morally grey characters, Jaun stood out as a paragon: honest, self-sacrificing, loyal to both his party members and the cause as a whole, with his mechanics really supporting and emphasizing those qualities. It was awesome, and way more fun than I actually expected it to be.

I will note that I've tried to recreate Jaun for other campaigns, and I think a crucial element of the character was the contrast with the gritty, flawed, almost neutrally aligned setting and party. This did three things. First, it made him stand out, feel larger than life and heroic compared to the NPCs. Secondly, it let him act as a foil for the other characters; the fact that they had flaws implied that Jaun had actively conquered/risen above his flaws rather than just being born good, conveying backstory and characterization essentially for free, and also made for good roleplay interactions on both sides. Thirdly, it meant that he regularly did fail; he wasn't some perfect hero, he struggled and failed just like anyone else, but still managed to retain his optimistic, self-sacrificing, good outlook, and that's once again essentially free characterization.

[Crake]

That’s a sig-worthy quote.

Haha, by all means, if you wanna sig it, go right ahead

[ezekielraiden]

How much of this is because the players who play "the unyielding bastion of Law who's also maybe kind of good" are not allowed to play an evil character (at least not for a 2nd session)?

Honestly? It seems like a relatively smaller portion than the "uncodifiable enigma of Chaos who's also theoretically Neutral." For some reason, LG and CN seem to be the two alignments that people attach to when they want to play something Evil, whether consciously or subconsciously. Lawful Neutral has somehow gained the perception of passionless disinterest, when in truth it is the perfect alignment for people like Vhailor, a literal "unyielding bastion of Law" who really isn't all that Good. And Chaotic Good is basically seen as the alignment of heroes. I know people have argued, and I somewhat agree, that Lawful Good gets depicted by writers as the most Goodly Good, but as far as players are concerned, it's CG all the way--"Law" always means being less fully Good, but Chaos gets a pass just because, as somehow a LOT of people think being Chaotic doesn't ever hold you back from doing what you want ever for any reason. (Evil, likewise, gets special treatment here, but that's a different subject.)

So yeah, I do think you raise a good point, that some people play LG because it lets them actually be LE with a cloak of righteousness. Unfortunately, a lot of the time, they don't actually realize that it's only a cloak. I'm almost willing to say that it's more common to have it be a subconscious thing than intentional subterfuge. A large number of people see all Lawful characters as essentially totalitarian and draconian, and thus inherently evil--turning LG into something more like "Totalitarian Moralizing" when...that literally is a perfectly valid form of Lawful Evil.

[Segev]

"Law" always means being less fully Good, but Chaos gets a pass just because, as somehow a LOT of people think being Chaotic doesn't ever hold you back from doing what you want ever for any reason.

The mistake people are making there is that Chaos means doing what you want to do, and (unless you're Evil) respecting others' rights to do the same, for the most part. CG therefore is the least judgmental Good alignment, because it actually worries a lot about whether it's overstepping its bounds when imposing good on others.

Chaotic Good is perhaps the most merciful alignment, but the excess of mercy winds up being detrimental to good, because chaos usually cares more about the moment than the long term. (This is not guaranteed, just a tendency.) So sparing the Joker now because he's not actively threatening anybody is more likely with CG than NG. Admittedly, LG can fall to that trap, too, for other reasons.

But most of all, CG has trouble with impulsiveness and with leaping to conclusions. "What I want" is often "what I want now." And for the goodly chaotic person, they want to rectify what's wrong right this second, with none of that poncing about finding "evidence." They believe they know what's right, so they'll act on it, and not let evil get away with things just because it has good PR!

While CG can take measured responses, if they too frequently rely on procedure to check their impulses, they really are slipping away from Chaos. It's not that you must be impulsive, but you can't be a slave to any plans or protocols and be Chaotic. And therein lies the risk to your Good in the face of your Chaos. You may mean well, but you may well serve a non-good or even wicked cause if you're fooled or foolish.

[Aotrs Commander]

Honestly? It seems like a relatively smaller portion than the "uncodifiable enigma of Chaos who's also theoretically Neutral." For some reason, LG and CN seem to be the two alignments that people attach to when they want to play something Evil, whether consciously or subconsciously. Lawful Neutral has somehow gained the perception of passionless disinterest, when in truth it is the perfect alignment for people like Vhailor, a literal "unyielding bastion of Law" who really isn't all that Good. And Chaotic Good is basically seen as the alignment of heroes. I know people have argued, and I somewhat agree, that Lawful Good gets depicted by writers as the most Goodly Good, but as far as players are concerned, it's CG all the way--"Law" always means being less fully Good, but Chaos gets a pass just because, as somehow a LOT of people think being Chaotic doesn't ever hold you back from doing what you want ever for any reason. (Evil, likewise, gets special treatment here, but that's a different subject.)

So yeah, I do think you raise a good point, that some people play LG because it lets them actually be LE with a cloak of righteousness. Unfortunately, a lot of the time, they don't actually realize that it's only a cloak. I'm almost willing to say that it's more common to have it be a subconscious thing than intentional subterfuge. A large number of people see all Lawful characters as essentially totalitarian and draconian, and thus inherently evil--turning LG into something more like "Totalitarian Moralizing" when...that literally is a perfectly valid form of Lawful Evil.

In my own anecdotal experience, Chaotic Good is far less common than Lawful Good, and if there is a bias, it's more towards NG. (Looking through the character sheets of all PCs I have available as an interesting excercise in the sample I have to hand, there were slightly more characters who didn't have an alignment written down (I think this shows how much impact it has on our games, as one of those is EVEN for the weekly sessions) then there were CG.)

(The Evil parties are, almost to a sentient/sapitent, all LE (if they have an alignment at all because Rolemaster, and even then it'd basically be LE if given one), with maybe one that is only NE (but that's one of the "doesn't have one written downs...")

...

The Judge Dredd party are probably all LN or LE, depending on how you look at it (since we're all Judges...!))

Now, I DO wonder if there is not an actual cultural divide across those tendancies (since we're in the UK).

[Zhentarim]

In my own anecdotal experience, Chaotic Good is far less common than Lawful Good, and if there is a bias, it's more towards NG. (Looking through the character sheets of all PCs I have available as an interesting excercise in the sample I have to hand, there were slightly more characters who didn't have an alignment written down (I think this shows how much impact it has on our games, as one of those is EVEN for the weekly sessions) then there were CG.)

(The Evil parties are, almost to a sentient/sapitent, all LE (if they have an alignment at all because Rolemaster, and even then it'd basically be LE if given one), with maybe one that is only NE (but that's one of the "doesn't have one written downs...")

...

The Judge Dredd party are probably all LN or LE, depending on how you look at it (since we're all Judges...!))

Now, I DO wonder if there is not an actual cultural divide across those tendancies (since we're in the UK).

I believe there is a cultural divide.

I’m reminded of the show called liberty kids. Its themesong is very chaotic good, though you could make an argument for neutral good.