What's Wrong With Lawful Good?

[Lord Raziere]

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.

As someone whose favorite is the Chaotic Good alignment, and probably designs most of my characters subconsciously around it, I kind of agree with this assessment? at least for other people.

me, I am perfectly capable of playing LG without being totalitarian. its actually pretty easy. I find that the difference between the two is that when they overthrow a tyrant is the dialogue option:
CG: "I'm doing it cause people should be free man! now I'm gonna make a TTGL reference."
LG: "I'm doing it because your an illegitimate authority and civilization is about cooperation and equality, not force and supremacy."

and that? is the only difference between the two in my mind when they do that. while setting up a new government to replace it the difference is:
CG: "good thing I found this competent LG guy who really cares about reforming things to put in power for me, now I'm going to go off being CG elsewhere because I KNOW I'm not cut out for ruling people."
LG: "good thing I studied up on proper economic/civil rights legal reform and how to sell these ideas to others in a convincing manner, thankfully my CG friend can take my LG apprentice to accompany him on adventures and keep me in contact in case they need me to utilize armies to face some big evil without people complaining too much."

sure there are other situations, but generally the only difference between the two alignments should be that when rules are involved, the LG is going to make sure everything is fair and stop Evil from cheating the system. While CG is not going to take part (unless they have to) and lie in wait for Evil to cheat so they can cheat back so Good prevails. Good itself doesn't really care either way as long Evil doesn't win, and the CG takes a risk that they will fail by getting caught first if they take part in something involving rules, while LG takes a risk that their anti-cheating measures won't be enough to stop Evil. I like CG above all else, but there are trade offs to the alignment. civilization is founded upon certain rules and customs being observed and people do NOT like it when those rules are broken, there is prices to breaking them even if its the right thing to do, but CG is about knowing that paying that price is worth it, and that you can't ALWAYS pay it, because civilization needs stability to function. you can't have that stability without rules and laws people trust to be enforced and followed. its a little paradoxical, because to be CG is to recognize your existence is to change things until you are no longer needed and you can just leave things alone for more lawful people to establish something stable that doesn't NEED you to break the rules for good to happen, so that you can enjoy your own life on your own terms and not have to meddle with others lives for good to happen, which is the CG dream: to not have to meddle. to just be yourself without needing to be the revolutionary, the trickster, the inspiration, because people should be able to become those themselves.

[Quertus]

As someone whose favorite is the Chaotic Good alignment, and probably designs most of my characters subconsciously around it, I kind of agree with this assessment? at least for other people.

me, I am perfectly capable of playing LG without being totalitarian. its actually pretty easy. I find that the difference between the two is that when they overthrow a tyrant is the dialogue option:
CG: "I'm doing it cause people should be free man! now I'm gonna make a TTGL reference."
LG: "I'm doing it because your an illegitimate authority and civilization is about cooperation and equality, not force and supremacy."

and that? is the only difference between the two in my mind when they do that. while setting up a new government to replace it the difference is:
CG: "good thing I found this competent LG guy who really cares about reforming things to put in power for me, now I'm going to go off being CG elsewhere because I KNOW I'm not cut out for ruling people."
LG: "good thing I studied up on proper economic/civil rights legal reform and how to sell these ideas to others in a convincing manner, thankfully my CG friend can take my LG apprentice to accompany him on adventures and keep me in contact in case they need me to utilize armies to face some big evil without people complaining too much."

sure there are other situations, but generally the only difference between the two alignments should be that when rules are involved, the LG is going to make sure everything is fair and stop Evil from cheating the system. While CG is not going to take part (unless they have to) and lie in wait for Evil to cheat so they can cheat back so Good prevails. Good itself doesn't really care either way as long Evil doesn't win, and the CG takes a risk that they will fail by getting caught first if they take part in something involving rules, while LG takes a risk that their anti-cheating measures won't be enough to stop Evil. I like CG above all else, but there are trade offs to the alignment. civilization is founded upon certain rules and customs being observed and people do NOT like it when those rules are broken, there is prices to breaking them even if its the right thing to do, but CG is about knowing that paying that price is worth it, and that you can't ALWAYS pay it, because civilization needs stability to function. you can't have that stability without rules and laws people trust to be enforced and followed. its a little paradoxical, because to be CG is to recognize your existence is to change things until you are no longer needed and you can just leave things alone for more lawful people to establish something stable that doesn't NEED you to break the rules for good to happen, so that you can enjoy your own life on your own terms and not have to meddle with others lives for good to happen, which is the CG dream: to not have to meddle. to just be yourself without needing to be the revolutionary, the trickster, the inspiration, because people should be able to become those themselves.

I don't think "willing to stand up for individual rights" and "willing to take political office" are mutually exclusive.

The difference (IMO) between Lawful Good and Chaotic Good is that LG wants to give everyone 15 minute breaks twice a day, because that's fair and good; CG wants to give people breaks whenever they need them, for as long as they need, because, while that may be unfair, it's individualistic good. LG wants to give people 3 meals per day; CG wants to make food available for people to eat whenever they want/need to.

IMO, LG cares about "fair"; CG cares about the needs of the individual. Either could take political office.

[ezekielraiden]

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.

This--and the note about perhaps-excessive mercy--seems reasonable to me. I could see a Lawful character finagling a ridiculous emphasis on Mercy, but it would be just that, a finagling, via some previously-reasoned (or "reasoned") Judgment. (For example, believing that all people are truly good deep down and just need the right environment to let it shine.) Lawful connotes coming to the right judgments by the right means. (One might argue, though I wouldn't myself, that Chaos is represented by that quote from National Treasure: "To those who did what was considered wrong, in order to do what they knew was right.")

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!

Excellent point (snipped part included--just saving space). I just wish more people recognized these limitations on Chaos. Few do, in my experience.

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

Purely anecdote, but I'm certain there is one. A good third of anyone I've talked to wouldn't touch a Lawful alignment with a ten foot pole, nearly all of them here in the States.

As someone whose favorite is the Chaotic Good alignment, and probably designs most of my characters subconsciously around it, I kind of agree with this assessment? at least for other people.

If only more were of like mind!

its a little paradoxical, because to be CG is to recognize your existence is to change things until you are no longer needed

Not much of a paradox for me, but that's because that's what tutoring does. Your goal as a tutor is always to make self-sufficient students who no longer need to pay for your services. Thankfully, there are always new students who would like tutoring, otherwise the business would dry up pretty quick!

the CG dream: to not have to meddle. to just be yourself without needing to be the revolutionary, the trickster, the inspiration, because people should be able to become those themselves.

I certainly think that's a Chaotic Good dream, but I'm pretty sure there are some who just like meddling. They're the ones who lean perhaps ever-so-slightly more Chaotic than Good, who can't settle down and get fidgety and frustrated if they try. You can see shades of it in quite a bit of entertainment media, where "continuing adventures" or the like happen because the hero finds settled, no-meddling-needed life to be stifling or hollow. Some of the Shrek sequels, for example, happen because Shrek doesn't feel comfortable in a settled life (and is severely afraid of becoming a father, perhaps the most personal form of anchoring to a settled life.)

I don't think "willing to stand up for individual rights" and "willing to take political office" are mutually exclusive.

Agreed.

IMO, LG cares about "fair"; CG cares about the needs of the individual. Either could take political office.

An interesting spin, since in many cases CG is often cited (at least by unofficial sources) as caring about individual-rights type stuff, which is often discussed in terms of fairness. I think the way I would present this would be:
Lawful Good values consistency and comprehensiveness: nobody gets special treatment, nobody gets left out. As a result, it has a tendency (when it goes wrong) to either "one size fits all," or to complicated systems with potential exploits.
Chaotic Good values openness and "customization" (as in, solutions tailored to each situation/person): nobody gets shortchanged, nobody gets forced. As a result, it has a tendency (when it goes wrong) to either "tragedy of the commons," or to tacit agreements with potential exploits.

Part of the reason I frame it this way is that it shows how neither of these is more Good than the other...and how NG also isn't any more Good. Having a mix of exploitable systems and silent exploitation doesn't mean you've gotten rid of the exploitation. You've just made it so both kinds of exploitation can produce results at least some of the time.

And, if we flip this around to talking about Evil alignments instead of Good ones, it gives us some interesting things to work with too, I think. Lawful Evil can be prevented from achieving its desired exploitation when the system doesn't go wrong, and actually produces the good outcomes intended (e.g. "My word is my bond" sort of things, or when a villain saves the hero's life because it would be "dishonorable" to just allow them to die.) Chaotic Evil, on the other hand, becomes a matter of impulse management...exactly as Roy does with Belkar. Showing him how, if he just holds his impulses for the right moments, not only does he not get bad consequences, people LIKE him and give him presents for murder killing the bad guys.

(I almost think this makes the LN/TN/CN axis the hardest alignments to negotiate with or "manage"--they don't care about personal power or harming others, but they also don't care about making the world a better place or the like. Evil can exploit Good's desire to help others. Good can exploit Evil's desire for power and control.)

[weckar]

How is it that the longer these threads go, the longer the comments get?

[Eldonauran]

How is it that the longer these threads go, the longer the comments get?

Because any meaningful conversation that takes place after this long is required to be capable of expressing detailed ideas that are ill-suited to be expressed in short posts. Also, most people with shorter attention spans have come, said their piece, and gone. Opinions have been shared and real conversations are taking place.

[Remuko]

I don't think "willing to stand up for individual rights" and "willing to take political office" are mutually exclusive.

The difference (IMO) between Lawful Good and Chaotic Good is that LG wants to give everyone 15 minute breaks twice a day, because that's fair and good; CG wants to give people breaks whenever they need them, for as long as they need, because, while that may be unfair, it's individualistic good. LG wants to give people 3 meals per day; CG wants to make food available for people to eat whenever they want/need to.

IMO, LG cares about "fair"; CG cares about the needs of the individual. Either could take political office.

you just convinced me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that I am CG.

[ezekielraiden]

How is it that the longer these threads go, the longer the comments get?

Because I have participated in them.

(I'm only half joking. I have a problem with not being concise. I'm working on it.)

[Quertus]

How is it that the longer these threads go, the longer the comments get?

Because any meaningful conversation that takes place after this long is required to be capable of expressing detailed ideas that are ill-suited to be expressed in short posts. Also, most people with shorter attention spans have come, said their piece, and gone. Opinions have been shared and real conversations are taking place.

I really want to print out and frame these two comments. They explain so much in life.

you just convinced me, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that I am CG.

Glad I could help you to declare your allegiance to the opposite of the team that I'm batting for.

An interesting spin, since in many cases CG is often cited (at least by unofficial sources) as caring about individual-rights type stuff, which is often discussed in terms of fairness. I think the way I would present this would be:
Lawful Good values consistency and comprehensiveness: nobody gets special treatment, nobody gets left out. As a result, it has a tendency (when it goes wrong) to either "one size fits all," or to complicated systems with potential exploits.
Chaotic Good values openness and "customization" (as in, solutions tailored to each situation/person): nobody gets shortchanged, nobody gets forced. As a result, it has a tendency (when it goes wrong) to either "tragedy of the commons," or to tacit agreements with potential exploits.

Your explanation makes more sense than mine / explains better what I was trying to communicate. Any "spin" is simply indicative of my legendary (lack of) communication skills.

[Lord Raziere]

I don't think "willing to stand up for individual rights" and "willing to take political office" are mutually exclusive.

The difference (IMO) between Lawful Good and Chaotic Good is that LG wants to give everyone 15 minute breaks twice a day, because that's fair and good; CG wants to give people breaks whenever they need them, for as long as they need, because, while that may be unfair, it's individualistic good. LG wants to give people 3 meals per day; CG wants to make food available for people to eat whenever they want/need to.

IMO, LG cares about "fair"; CG cares about the needs of the individual. Either could take political office.

Well pardon me, but CG sounds more nuanced in this example than LG. Why can't the LG person listen to the CG person and incorporate the individual needs into their lawful good idea of fairness, to make a system so comprehensive it helps every single individual? what makes the CG person Chaotic while still ruling above board? How would a CG person have the patience for such slow changes? how do they stop from turning LG in the process of being a good ruler?

Please explain, I'm curious. because the general thought from other sources I've read is that if a CG become a good ruler they turn LG in the process.

[Komatik]

Some of the early examples of Lawful and Good in the 1-4 pages or so sounded kind of odd. Like deep down they'd just want to do all the nasty stuff, like they were murderhobos, just in chains but essentially their wants didn't align with how they thought they should act, while the Evil people actually just were the way they wanted to be. But really?

Good people are big-G Good because they want to be that way. Big-L Lawful people, a large chunk of them anyway, are that way because it just feels right and natural to be that way.

It's most visible I think in how people described Lawfulness - going back to the murderhobo-in-chains thing, it's like LG people were murderhobo+ruleset rather than something actually, dispositionally prosocial.

It's not really about following the law, or even a law, but as a certain characteristic principledness.

I watched the Street Fighter-based web series Assassin's Fist (it's on Netflix, I think) a while ago: Both Goutetsu and Gouken are decidedly Lawful people, but both defied their tradition and didn't adhere to it strictly. Gouki, the one of the older generation who most strictly adhered to the old teachings of their style, is probably the least Lawful character of the three.

But they're wonderful, I think, in how they portray someone who's just by nature and inclination the way they are.

Indeed, it's a defining part, though not the only one. Sociopathic and psychopathic individuals are absolutely not the sum total of Evil people in D&D land (that would be far too few, even with my belief that a majority of people are neutral/unaligned). But it's pretty much impossible to be sociopathic or psychopathic and be Good, while it's very easy to be either of those and Evil, possibly guaranteed. "Altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings" is literally the antithesis of some of the criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder, the official medical diagnosis that covers both sociopaths and psychopaths, and it's worth noting that you don't need to disrespect the law to exhibit APD. (As of the newer DSM-5, sociopathy and psychopathy, while still not defined conditions as such, now do have some medical relevance; the manual's guidance suggests that sociopaths tend toward greater aggression and more instability, while psychopaths tend to be cold, unable to feel empathy or possibly any real emotions, and extremely adept at controlling and manipulating people. I'd argue that that's a very good description of most devils and demons!)

There's some interesting research being done on this:
https://news.vcu.edu/article/Inside_..._to_understand

furthermore, evil isn't always about GAIN. It can also be about, what other people LOSE. for example lets look at an evil racist character, who can't tolerate another races existence, who goes out and kills people for being that race. they don't gain anything from it, they might gain some enjoyment of out of it, but it feeds into their hatred to keep on killing and getting into stressful situations to kill more people. they don't care what they gain, its that other people exist that they don't like are there so they go out of their way to kill them to be rid of something they hate from the world. some evils doesn't just want to succeed- they want others who go against how they think the world works to be crushed.

One of the questions on a scale measuring "spitefulness", one of a bunch of personality traits that form an overall callous, "dark" disposition of which the Dark Triad of subclinical psychopathy, subclinical narcissism and Machiavellianism are a part, literally asks if it's eg. "sometimes worth a little suffering on my part to see others receive the punishment they deserve." The trait correlates highly with eg. Machiavellianism, moral disengagement and subclinical psychopathy. Basically, it can just be a maximization of their own utility.

Or, more fun, the smart Evil manservant may be *more* desperate to make sure that the party doesn't get into such a situation - simply to protect their own hide, for their master's reputation, or even to protect their master's "purity".

Honestly, the evil manservant is one of the coolest concepts that I've had the good fortune of getting to see from many angles.

I spit my toothbrushing water, that was a hilarious. Do I smell a bit of frantic yandere type thinking (not literal yandere) in there?

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.)

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

Purely anecdote, but I'm certain there is one. A good third of anyone I've talked to wouldn't touch a Lawful alignment with a ten foot pole, nearly all of them here in the States.

I think a lot of that has to do with the kind of murderhobo-in-chains mentality - they view Lawfulness as a having a checklist-and-chain bound on their ankle rather than an actual, active disposition to think certain ways and actually really truly want certain things. There's so much "wants to, but must not vs. "won't even want to" going on. You can see it in hilarious quantities in all manner of Star Wars topics that try to contrive the Sith to not be evil and play up the Jedi as some kind of lawyerfolk while throwing all the Taoist influences to the trash. It's weird to see.

A combo of some of my recent TVTropes research wasting-of-life and reading academic research on malign and prosocial dispositions led me to watch the aforementioned Assassin's Fist and it really helped deepen my appreciation of LG types. Built the disposition into more than being Syr Goody Two-Shoes.

[Eldonauran]

I really want to print out and frame these two comments. They explain so much in life.

I am exceedingly grateful that my comment was taken for the attempt to share wisdom that it was intended to be, and not an overly snarky reply that it might have been seen as (which, if I was completely honest, it was only intended to be to a very minor degree). Listening, and communicating for the most part, is becoming a lost art.

[Quertus]

Well pardon me, but CG sounds more nuanced in this example than LG. Why can't the LG person listen to the CG person and incorporate the individual needs into their lawful good idea of fairness, to make a system so comprehensive it helps every single individual? what makes the CG person Chaotic while still ruling above board? How would a CG person have the patience for such slow changes? how do they stop from turning LG in the process of being a good ruler?

Please explain, I'm curious. because the general thought from other sources I've read is that if a CG become a good ruler they turn LG in the process.

Well, my example was explained better than I put it, but maybe an oversimplification will help: Law cares about rules; Chaos cares about exceptions.

Sure, you can attempt to codify all the exceptions, but that's just a Lawful approach to Good (whereas Chaos would just say, "why bother? People get breaks, done. Let the people, not the law, dictate exactly how many, how long, when.". Law says "that's not fair - and too easily exploited. We need to set standards, codify the exceptions, and create programs to vet exception holders".)

EDIT: Chaotic Good rulesets are simple. They're more like "be excellent to one another". Chaotic Good rulers aim to create Chaotic Good rulesets, not Byzantine tomes of law that require Necropolitans centuries to learn, and Autohypnosis DC 30+ to recall correctly.

EDIT 2: also, look at how far down the system one can push a decision. If the law dictates exactly how many toes lost necessitates exactly how much additional break time in which industries, it's Lawful. If it's more, "dude, when people need longer breaks, give them longer breaks - you figure it out", it's Chaotic. As people exploit that, you can go Lawful and codify more rules (I can see that being a common occurrence), or you can banish / execute those who cannot live by your simple rules of "be excellent to each other", and risk moving towards Chaotic Evil.

I spit my toothbrushing water, that was a hilarious. Do I smell a bit of frantic yandere type thinking (not literal yandere) in there?

Maaaaaybe.

Always glad when I can make people smile.

I am exceedingly grateful that my comment was taken for the attempt to share wisdom that it was intended to be, and not an overly snarky reply that it might have been seen as (which, if I was completely honest, it was only intended to be to a very minor degree). Listening, and communicating for the most part, is becoming a lost art.

I may not be terribly good at communication, but it is something that I care about. And something that globally caring about seems like it would carry global benefits.

[patchyman]

Well pardon me, but CG sounds more nuanced in this example than LG. Why can't the LG person listen to the CG person and incorporate the individual needs into their lawful good idea of fairness, to make a system so comprehensive it helps every single individual? what makes the CG person Chaotic while still ruling above board? How would a CG person have the patience for such slow changes? how do they stop from turning LG in the process of being a good ruler?.

I look at it a different way. Characters are very often required to make tough judgment calls on imperfect information. In those cases, where do they look for inspiration? If they look towards tradition, laws or external codes, they tend towards Lawful. If instead, they tend to rely on their own observations, feelings or their “gut”, they tend more towards Chaotic.

To use a more “neutral” example, suppose a tornado ripped through the village and destroyed people’s houses. The PC, being Good, wishes to help rebuild, and the nearest source of stone is a nearby quarry. The townspeople have a taboo that they do not take stone from that quarry, but no longer remember why.

A Lawful character would tend to respect the taboo, reasoning that there must be a reason for it. A Chaotic character would tend to defy the taboo, on the basis that their investigation hasn’t shown anything wrong with the quarry.

If it subsequently turns out that the origin of the taboo were the rights of a long dead king, then the Lawful character will be shown to be wrong. If it turns out that the rocks in the quarry were radioactive or necessary to keep an ancient evil sealed, then the Chaotic character will be shown to have been wrong.

Ultimately, Lawful or Chaotic is only meaningful in situations where there aren’t easy answers or the characters have to act without having the full story.

[Katie Boundary]

{Scrubbed}