Lawful Good done right?

[Mr.Moron]

IMO, not correct. Lawful Neutral specifically "act in accordance with law, tradition, or personal codes."

The mandates can be internal or external. The key is that they are defined. That's what a code is. Any exceptions are built in to the code. Or it is ignored and actions are taken in violation of it.

I would say that a true code must be external to the self, otherwise it's just a feeling or emotion. In this case "personal" only defines a narrow scope of adherents. The code is something constant and exists independent of your emotional state and moment to moment judgment.

A "personal code" that amounts to just following ones heart or intuition is no code at all. The code stands alone like anything external that you create, like a work of art or a poem.

Edit: Also, I'll note that not all Lawful is about defined codes. For example, Lawful good is about what society expects. That's broadly worded. I'm specifically talking about Lawful Neutral and 'internal' personal codes. Lawful evil is similar worded about codes: "within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order." That could be internal or external.

This is far too literal or strict a reading of the text I think. In the society of the Blood Skull empire, it is expected that all puppies be juiced and that juice used to drown all children with larger than average thumbs. This would suddenly make juicing puppies and drowning children good acts, because the society Lord BloodSkull has created demands it.

Since that's patently silly, I think it's safe to say that "what society expects" is being used as short hand or code for something a bit more concrete.

[mephnick]

5e basically killed alignment so we didn't have to have these conversations any more.

[Tanarii]

I would say that a true code must be external to the self, otherwise it's just a feeling or emotion. In this case "personal" only defines a narrow scope of adherents. The code is something constant and exists independent of your emotional state and moment to moment judgment.

A "personal code" that amounts to just following ones heart or intuition is no code at all. The code stands alone like anything external that you create, like a work of art or a poem.

I fail to see the difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying. I clearly delineated the difference between a defined personal code that holds regardless of your emotional state and moment to moment judgement, and following your moment to moment judgement or emotional state. The former is Lawful, the latter is Chaotic. (IMO, and extrapolated from the text. No RAW clarification on this, obviously.)

Whether or not the predefined code is one you created personally, and then adhere to regardless of your emotional state or moment to moment judgement, or it's completely externally defined by someone else, is irrelevant to it being a predefined code.

Since that's patently silly, I think it's safe to say that "what society expects" is being used as short hand or code for something a bit more concrete.

Absolutely. That was pure CYA on my part, in case someone came along and pointed it out after I said Lawful is about predefined codes. ;)

[Mr.Moron]

I fail to see the difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying. I clearly delineated the difference between a defined personal code that holds regardless of your emotional state and moment to moment judgement, and following your moment to moment judgement or emotional state. The former is Lawful, the latter is Chaotic. (IMO, and extrapolated from the text. No RAW clarification on this, obviously.)

Whether or not the predefined code is one you created personally, and then adhere to regardless of your emotional state or moment to moment judgement, or it's completely externally defined by someone else, is irrelevant to it being a predefined code.

Absolutely. That was pure CYA on my part, in case someone came along and pointed it out after I said Lawful is about predefined codes. ;)

Right. I guess it's just you seemed to be calling such a code "internal" as a disagreement with my framework as I put forward in my previous post. As you said I was "not correct". However this really might just boil down to semantic nitpicking. Potayto potahto and all that.

[Tanarii]

5e basically killed alignment so we didn't have to have these conversations any more.

It didn't kill Alignment. It made Alignment actually useful as an Roleplaying tool.

It works the same way as many actors get into character. You have 5-6 sentences you keep in mind as your characters personality ... his motivations. Alignment is merely one of them. That's a small enough number of motivations that it's easy to figure out what this character would do in a given situation, in your judgement. But not so small a number of motivations as to make a one-dimensional character.

"I'm Lawful Good" is one dimensional. Pages of backstory is hard to remember. And IMX, players often leave out clearly defined motivations that will help Roleplay, meaning every decision you make in game, anyway. 6 sentences, covering everything from moral & social attitudes, to basic personality behavior, to your ideals, what you hold dearest, and your flaws, covers the gamut nicely, is easy to remember, and is useful in ALL aspects of Roleplaying (ie even Combat decisions), not just the storytelling parts.

Right. I guess it's just you seemed to be calling such a code "internal" as a disagreement with my framework as I put forward in my previous post. As you said I was "not correct". However this really might just boil down to semantic nitpicking. Potayto potahto and all that.

Yah, saying correct or not correct isn't a good choice of words. I ended up leaving that in, even though I should have changed it to "I disagree". And yes, I think it does boil down to nitpicking. We seem to view the difference between Lawful and Chaotic fairly similarly. That said, I really think it's down to how an individual player defines the sentence for typical behavior the PHB provides, and how often they decide it applies to their character over the other personality traits. After all, it's the player's RP tool.

[Millstone85]

Then basic questions here is how do we know what is right?

At their distilled extremes:
Law points to external evidence, external codes, external mandates.
Chaos points to personal experience, feelings and internal judement.
Neutral kind of takes whatever.

All three arrive at the same fundamental, tangible good. However the roads there are different.

At the risk of sounding like a middle ground fallacy, I still think NG took the best road to goodness by trying not to neglect any of these.

5e Alignment is about what a character wants to do, in terms of morality & society/order. The character's attitudes about them. Not what they actually do.

By that logic, all characters of evil alignment are of the "Yes I am eviiiiil mwahahah!" variety, while other villains can be horribly deluded but still technically of good alignment. And you know what? I like it that way.

[Mad_Saulot]

dat concession.



Enter:

• Tom the Lawful Good Paladin
• **** the Neutral Good Cleric
• Harry the Chaotic Good Rogue

At the final planning session the night before the raid of the lawful evil tyrant Lord Blood Skull's fortress-city.
....
Tom: Yes, and with good fortune the justice of the grand code will be done by sundown.
Harry: Need I remind you all we're fighting against has been done under the banner of justice and great laws? We needn't march with the same motivation as our foe.
Tom: Again, you insist on such groundless disrespect. You mean to compare the mandates of fairness, generosity and protection of the innocent to blood skull's vile creed?
Harry: No. I am saying it is absurd to only do the right thing because you're told to do so.
Tom: I am not simply told. The grand law is righteousness itself, it is plain that it is two are inseparable. I've seen for all your bluster and ego you're a man of the code yourself.
Harry: Hardly. I do what is right because I know it to be right.
Tom: And how have you come to know this?
Harry: With my own two eyes, by my own judgement.
Tom: You are judge of all that is right and wrong then? You claim to be god?
Harry: I claim to have empathy.
Tom: And you say I lack it?
****: Gentlemen. Keep perspective. Whatever our differences, it's plain to us all that BloodSkull is an intolerable evil.
Harry: Yes. A keen example of a man with too much power.
Tom: A man abusing his power.
Harry: As if there is any difference? No one can know what is right for another, such power is inherently abusive.
Tom: Then you advocate for anarchy? That no one should have the right to command another.
Harry: No. I advocate for a healthy amount skepticism, that one always has the right defy what they disagree with.
Tom: Lord Bloodskull certainly disagrees with you. Is he in the right to defy what you know is good simply because he feels like it?
Harry: First off, obviously not. Secondly, Lord Bloodskull is no random thrill-seeker doing only what pleases him he follows his code, just as you do.
****: GENTLEMEN. The matter at hand please?
Tom: My code demands I help, not harm!
Harry: Oh and what if it did command you to harm? Would readily bring down your sword down on the innocent, as good soldier does?
Tom: That is absurd! If you must engange in this...
****: TOM!
Tom: What!?
****: Upon what does Lord Blood Skull Ride?
Tom: His flying black chariot.
****: HARRY!. What fuels the black chariot
Harry: The souls of orphans.
****: Do we want to stop the man that has chariot that runs on orphans, or do we want to argue with each other?
Tom & Harry Stop the orphan chariot.
****: Great. Tom? You ready with the reinforcements from Sir Greyhead?
Tom: Yes. Along with me, the good knights number twelve dozen we are ready to ride a dawn.
****: Great. Harry? Those explosives you got from connections back in Mukport, have them all set?
Harry: Yeah, and my resistance buddies have already dug the tunnels under the west wall. It won't be keeping us out for long.
****: Excellent. Moving on to the matter of the dragon...
<Tom & Harry's eyes continue to shoot daggers at each other from across the table. A productive, if not particularly enthusiastic tactics discussions continues for the rest of the night>


EDIT: Oh bother. That is actually a man's name, forum censorship tool.

What is the name of the ****?

I must know!

Did you let a player name themselves after an expletive?

[CharonsHelper]

Seriously though, act like ... Batman.

Depends upon the incarnation of Batman. (I think that he's had versions which qualify for nearly every non-evil alignment.) But generally - yes.

[Tanarii]

By that logic, all characters of evil alignment are of the "Yes I am eviiiiil mwahahah!" variety, while other villains can be horribly deluded but still technically of good alignment. And you know what? I like it that way.

Sounds like real life to me. Of course, some D&D campaigns include eternal judgment. So they may be surprised when judged after death. Depending on the way it works.

For example, in FR the morality of your actions doesn't seem to apply, so much as your Patron Deity (or his servants) judgment you've held to their tenets. And not all of them care about morality.

What is the name of the ****?

Richard.

[Mr.Moron]

What is the name of the ****?

I must know!

Did you let a player name themselves after an expletive?

Sounds like real life to me. Of course, some D&D campaigns include eternal judgment. So they may be surprised when judged after death. Depending on the way it works.

For example, in FR the morality of your actions doesn't seem to apply, so much as your Patron Deity (or his servants) judgment you've held to their tenets. And not all of them care about morality.

Richard.

To be just a tad more specific the nickname for Richard. Just as "Tom" is a common nickname for "Thomas" and "Harry' for Harold. From the old phrase "Every Tom, **** and Harry" as I guess these were once really common names. They're just generic substitutes for the every man.

[Killer Angel]

A lawful character wouldn't feel entitled to break the law. Even if the Lawful character disagreed with the law, they would still understand and respect it.

I don't think it's true. A paladin respects and obeys legitimate authority... and by "legitimate", I mean "an authority that acts in the path of Good".
Entering a kingdom based on slavery, the paladin will certainly break the local law.

[2D8HP]

I'm probably not qualified to speak on this since I haven't got to play 5E yet, but I played a bunch of brown books D&D, blue book D&D (Thank you Mr. Holmes RIP), and after I got the DMG in '79 1E AD&D (mostly brown books plus monster manual). Since non of us could roll 3D6 in order well enough to play Paladins or Rangers we pretty much ignored alignment, but since I dug up the Dragon article ''THE MEANING OF LAW AND CHAOS IN DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO GOOD AND EVIL" where Gary Gygax first makes up ''lawful good'' I'm going to quote it, ''most of humanity falls into the lawful category, and most of lawful humanity lies near the line between good and evil. With probed leadership the majority will be prone towards lawful/good"."The lawful/good classification is typified by the Paladin" (and you needed to be a human with at least 17 CHA to be one, Gold Dragons were slightly more lawful and good on the chart then Paladins). "Good: Harmless/Friendly/Kind/Honest/Sincere/Helpful/Beneficial/Pure". So I interpret that to mean since most humans are already lawful and "Few humans are chaotic, and very few are chaotic and evil" then be like most humans are but less selfish then average and your "lawful/good". Simple! But how you can be a "holy warrior"and also be "harmless" puzzles me. I hope that was "Helpful" and "Beneficial".

[busterswd]

I don't think it's true. A paladin respects and obeys legitimate authority... and by "legitimate", I mean "an authority that acts in the path of Good".
Entering a kingdom based on slavery, the paladin will certainly break the local law.

I think the "legitimate authority" is probably the most important aspect of a lawful good character, and the one that causes the most debate, primarily because legitimacy is subjective, and one can always invent a gray morality situation where there's no clear right answer and about half a dozen wrong ones. (But what if they only enslave chaotic neutral criminals, and it's in order to keep the soup kitchens running for hundreds of starving orphans with doe eyes - but the orphans are also orcs and need to eat living human flesh to survive?! WHERE IS YOUR ALIGNMENT SYSTEM NOW?!)

@OP: As always, the final answer to "is this Lawful Good?" depends on the DM running the game. The way I'd rule in most cases: unless the actions are so bizarre that I do a mental spit take, I don't question them. If there ends up being a track record of a Lawful Good character resisting authority, breaking promises, and doing clearly evil things when there is a good alternative, I might have a word with the player.

[Tanarii]

Legitimate Authority has nothing to do with Lawful Good. It's something from the Paladin's Oath of Devotion.

And unless the DM is house ruling the base 5e rules, Alignment has nothing to do with the DM. It's an RP tool for the players to use to help inform their decisions about how their character behaves.

Edit: house-ruling *or* setting campaign guidelines. 'No Chaotic Evil' might be in there along with 'No Warlocks' for example. Or even just 'No disruptive characters'.

[busterswd]

Legitimate Authority has nothing to do with Lawful Good. It's something from the Paladin's Oath of Devotion.

And unless the DM is house ruling the base 5e rules, Alignment has nothing to do with the DM. It's an RP tool for the players to use in determining how their character behaves.

Disagree, but it may come down to semantics. Probably shouldn't have used capital letters for that. The concept of legitimate authority for me involves a judgment call on whether a set of rules has, well, legitimacy. A lawful person may not agree with or like a couple of laws in a society, but if they regard the legal system of that society as valid on a whole, they're going to follow the rules.

And if the character is behaving in a bizarre fashion, it's absolutely the DM's discretion to point it out. Alignment is as much a guideline for what people playing with the character can expect, as it is a tool for the player to use; it's one of the reasons AL bans NE and CE. "Your character is Lawful Good; are you SURE you want to murder the mayor of the town and set his house on fire instead of helping him deliver a message? Or maybe just turning him down?" Just because there is no one right way to play a Lawful Good character, it doesn't mean there's not a ton of wrong ways to do it.

[Tanarii]

Disagree, but it may come down to semantics. Probably shouldn't have used capital letters for that. The concept of legitimate authority for me involves a judgment call on whether a set of rules has, well, legitimacy. A lawful person may not agree with or like a couple of laws in a society, but if they regard the legal system of that society as valid on a whole, they're going to follow the rules.

5e on what LG means:
"Lawful good (LG) creatures can be counted on to do the right thing as expected by society."

Where in that is there anything about "legitimate authority"?

"Legitimate authority" is something in the Oath of Devotion. Specifically. (Edit: Well ****. Guess the Paladin Oath thing is "just authority". Color me wrong about that. )

And if the character is behaving in a bizarre fashion, it's absolutely the DM's discretion to point it out. Alignment is as much a guideline for what people playing with the character can expect, as it is a tool for the player to use; it's one of the reasons AL bans NE and CE. "Your character is Lawful Good; are you SURE you want to murder the mayor of the town and set his house on fire instead of helping him deliver a message? Or maybe just turning him down?" Just because there is no one right way to play a Lawful Good character, it doesn't mean there's not a ton of wrong ways to do it.

That's fair enough. But it's still the PCs decision that for whatever reason, taking that action fits their character.

Now if the campaign rule is "don't play your character as an asshat", or "no NE and CE", then you're not playing within the guidelines that have been set if you take the actions. It's definitely on the player to play within the guidelines for whatever campaign he's in. As opposed to being a problem player.

[Killer Angel]

(But what if they only enslave chaotic neutral criminals, and it's in order to keep the soup kitchens running for hundreds of starving orphans with doe eyes - but the orphans are also orcs and need to eat living human flesh to survive?! WHERE IS YOUR ALIGNMENT SYSTEM NOW?!)

"Sir Paladin, the starving orphans need to eat human flesh!"
"Sir Paladin, we have enslaved another bunch of chaotic criminals!"

"...maybe I see a solution..."

[Theodoxus]

Thankfully, 5e threw out all mechanical need for alignment. It's as meaningless in the game as to whether the star your make believe planet is orbiting is blue, yellow, molten cheese or a flaming dog turd.

I agree with that one guy who said 'let your DM decide, if it's really that important for you to pick an alignment. I agree with that other guy who said this will devolve into meaningless discourse on morality (see all replies above mine for evidence.)

Fortunately, meaningless discourse of morality fits exactly with the meaningless paradigm that alignment has now thankfully assumed.

yay, circularity for it's own sake.

Carry on with your intriguing, if ultimately nonsensical, rambling over what alignment purports to mean...

[p_johnston]

strip number 651. O-chul is lawful good done well. Be like O-chul.
strip number 406. Miko is lawful stupid done well. Don't be like Miko.

[KorvinStarmast]

If you want to understand Lawful, go back to the pre-nine axis alignment set up.

Trying to fit the two axis model together was probably necessary, as the archetypical struggle is between good and evil in a lot of stories (Thank you Joseph Campbell) but it seems to have caused as much trouble as it tried to solve.

[Ravens_cry]

Justice and Mercy. Without the latter, the former is merely base revenge.
Learn to know the difference between those to whom you can say 'Go and sin no more', and those who best benefit the world be leaving it.
Follow just laws, but do not be deceived by appeals to authority.
Don't be afraid to be kind, but don't let others take advantage of your good nature.
Make the hard decisions, and, if someone's got to take the short end of the stick, do it yourself.

[djreynolds]

"Sir Paladin, the starving orphans need to eat human flesh!"
"Sir Paladin, we have enslaved another bunch of chaotic criminals!"

"...maybe I see a solution..."

This is why I made the thread. You guys and gals are the best.

[Spacewolf]

Isn't Sam Vimes from Discworld usually held up as a good example of LG?

[djreynolds]

Isn't Sam Vimes from Discworld usually held up as a good example of LG?

I think Mr Malifice's example of Hector from the movie Troy is a very good example of Lawful Good. He is pro family, pro country, pro soldier. He allows the dead to be taken of the field. He berates Achilles for the despoiling of the temple. He even fights when he knows he will lose to Achilles, and was remorseful for killing Patroclus.

But alignment discussion is needed. We just fought two dragons, and part of the mission was to remove eggs. I felt, though they were evil dragons, why are we removing the eggs? Why does any goodly person want them? What are their plans with them? Should we have just destroyed them? Now the character I have at this table is lawful neutral and the benefactors were good. I would have just destroyed the eggs. Alignment helps with discovering motivations of others. Or at least provides a clue to go on.

Its very likely we were being used. We all failed our insight checks.

[Socratov]

I think Mr Malifice's example of Hector from the movie Troy is a very good example of Lawful Good. He is pro family, pro country, pro soldier. He allows the dead to be taken of the field. He berates Achilles for the despoiling of the temple. He even fights when he knows he will lose to Achilles, and was remorseful for killing Patroclus.

But alignment discussion is needed. We just fought two dragons, and part of the mission was to remove eggs. I felt, though they were evil dragons, why are we removing the eggs? Why does any goodly person want them? What are their plans with them? Should we have just destroyed them? Now the character I have at this table is lawful neutral and the benefactors were good. I would have just destroyed the eggs. Alignment helps with discovering motivations of others. Or at least provides a clue to go on.

Its very likely we were being used. We all failed our insight checks.

well, if you knwo that chromatic dragons are usually evil you might make a cae for an experiment where the right training might turn them into good red dragons. Now that woudl be a good act. Wether or not this is plausible and probable is up to you.

On the subject of Sam vimes, he is definitely Lawful. Wether or not he is good is quite another matter. If I had to select a Ank Morporkian Guarsman to be LG it would be Carrot. And a downright perfect example as can be.

to illustrate, Sam vimes is not against cutting corners or doing some nasty stuff, if his lawful side wasn't so strong in objecting to going against protocol as his lawful side considers him to THE driving force behind justice. Sam vimes is pretty much akin to judge dredd in the fact that he knows he is the LAW, and it is unbecoming for the LAW to sometimes do certain things.

Carrot on the other hand does things because it's RIGHT. He knows very well (and he's smarter then he gives away on first sight, something Vetinary and Vimes have pondered to great effect) that somethings ahve to be done, but that they have to be done the RIGHT way. Not becuase that's the way the world works, but beucase it's the RIGHT thing to do and someone has to do the RIGHT thing, and if someone has to, well, he might as well be the RIGHT person to do it. If I (as a future incarcerated person in Ankh Morpork) had the choice of Sam Vimes or Carrot to take me away, I'd choose vimes in a heartbeat. I can depend on him doing the right things beucase it's the law. Carrot might choose to do the RIGHT thing instead of the Lawful thing to do. Carrot scares me and seeing how he can break up a fight between two archenemies (trolls and dwarves) by jus tarriving on the scene I'm not alone in that. The fact that Carrot has a Troll carrying a hand-held ballista on a hair trigger on standby makes my excrement that much more technicoloured.

[djreynolds]

I apologize for my ignorance, but who is Sam Vimes?

[Killer Angel]

I apologize for my ignorance, but who is Sam Vimes?

He is the Commander of the City Watch, the police force of Ankh-Morpork (The City from Terry Pratchett's Discworld series).

You must read it.

[djreynolds]

He is the Commander of the City Watch, the police force of Ankh-Morpork (The City from Terry Pratchett's Discworld series).

You must read it.

Sound good, is it on the web or do I buy it?

[Socratov]

Sound good, is it on the web or do I buy it?

You can buy it at most bookstores. Look for books in this series: https://www.goodreads.com/series/106...ork-city-watch

[Tanarii]

On the subject of Sam vimes, he is definitely Lawful. Wether or not he is good is quite another matter. If I had to select a Ank Morporkian Guarsman to be LG it would be Carrot. And a downright perfect example as can be.

Agreed. Vimes is Lawful Neutral. His Flaw is 'Righteous Wrath'. His Ideal is 'The Law'. His personal code is extremely strong exactly because he fears (accurately) that he would become Evil without it. He will always do the right thing, as defined by his personal ideal. Often the right thing is even a 'good' thing, but not always. (He also has Bond 'The Watch', and Personality 'Bullheaded and stubborn, especially in the face of authority'.)

He's a good example of a complex character who's Flaw causes a battle within, being held in check by his Ideal and moral and social attitudes (Alignment). His Flaw is particularly interesting because 'evil' usually triggers it, but he would become Evil in response if his Flaw wasn't held in check and channeled properly.

Strangely, despite being a law enforcement officer and Lawful Neutral, 'chaos' and generally breaking the law doesn't usually make him angry. He just arrests people without prejudice who's lawbreaking is not also of the 'evil' type. He only triggers his Flaw and takes it personally when it's an 'evil' crime, like Murder. Then he goes by the book as much as possible in response, to keep his wrath in check.

Sam Vimes is a great example of why you shouldn't try to define the entirety of your character's personality by Alignment. Why treating alignment as the root cause (or worse, result) of ALL a character's actions is the wrong approach, whether for getting in character during play, or trying to back-fill an existing character's Alignment. Personality is more than just Alignment.