Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Mr_thou 06-09-06, 02:23 PM	Just to start off I’m really against this already, its just that one of the players got killed recently and says he would rather just bring in a new person in then just getting resurrected(he’s also starting out 2 lvls lower then the others.) however the main thing is he’s been wanting to play a good character for awhile,(he mainly plays NE or just N) moving along though the main problem with this though is two of the other party members are LE and he says that they could work together for a common cause just as long as they don’t do any evil in front of him, also hes playing a knight so he cant cast detect evil, however I said you can still play LN for the knight, but hes really trying to get his way here, and no matter how I stress that their over all nature as well as yours would just flat out go against each other even with him being lawful in the long run I can for see PK’ing. I’m not gonna allow it but I just wanted to get some feed back about it.
00_Whupass 06-09-06, 02:30 PM	mmmmmm, Lawful food! I'll take an Axiomatic Cheeseburger with a side order of Fries of Order. Excellent typo. Can lawful Good and Lawful evil work together? Absolutely! Not all lawful good character have sticks up their bottoms and a penchant for smiting. The real question is: How will this effect party cohesion? If the answer is that it won't, then go for it, it can be great fun. Involve all your players in this decision, make everyones expectations known and if nobody sees a problem go for it! Even Lex Luthor and Superman have had occasion to work towards common goals. Same goes for Raistlin Majere and his brother Carman. Its not that uncommon a motif.
mojorooks 06-09-06, 02:33 PM	It's fairly common for it to happen. LG and LE have a lot in common in that they both obey the laws. LE just tries to find ways of using the laws against people. Politicians and other people in power are great examples of LE. LG and LE can easily align against any chaotic.
olshanski_home 06-09-06, 02:34 PM	I'm not exactly sure what "lawful food" is. It must be some sort of USDA inspection or something. Regarding lawful good and lawful evil? I don't see why they couldn't work together. I've seen parties of good roleplayers of all alignments working together... as long as they have some shared goals: Fame & Fortune are both reliable... the party can work together. A player doesn't play an "alignment"... a player does whatever he wants or whatever he believes his character would do. Unless the character has class abilities that are dependant on a specific code of conduct, it shouldn't matter at all. If he does good deeds one week and evil deeds the next, there is no problem. The DM can state that the character sheet should reflect a "neutral" character, but really that's about all there is. If the DM is penalizing people for not playing their alignment, he should re-read the rules.
r337ard 06-09-06, 02:39 PM	I've always been of the mind that a Lawful Good character may choose to embark with Lawful Evil characters for a common goal, but would quickly start to regret the decision. An honorable man will not tolerate the wicked. If roleplayed, the LG Knight would either confront the LE characters or do some digging and try to uncover evidence so he could turn them into the authorities (since most LE won't break the laws of the land overtly). Lawful Evil characters are corrupt and selfish, and normally they would have no business in the company of a Knight or honest official. The Knight would quickly turn out to be more of an impediment then he is worth and they would try to have him eliminated (Framed for a crime, called to duty somewhere far far away, killed protecting an innocent from a mob, etc). If there is some kind of catastrophic situation, all sides may put aside their differences and band together for the welfare of all people. But usually a dungeon crawl or adventuring party won't be in that situation, and the group would not last long before they turned on each other. As you suggested, a Lawful Neutral alignment would work for his chosen class, and could also tolerate the rest of the party sufficently.
Shaggy_Shaggs 06-09-06, 02:45 PM	...except when a character is honourable and wicked. Ethical and moral alignment are two different axes. LG and LE can work together just fine as long as neither side is a zealot about their moral outlook. So you've got a disciplined, orderly party and some members are selfish and perhaps a bit cruel while others are altruistic and kind. So what? There will most likely be some friction, but it certainly needn't come to blows. Do the LG monk and the CG barbarian stomp each other into the ground simply because they oppose each other on one alignment axis? If one's really concerned about it, one can always write up a nonaggression contract and have all members of the party sign it.
Mr_thou 06-09-06, 02:53 PM	I know that Lex Luthor and Superman have worked together before, but how long was it until Lex Luthor by "accident" dropped a brick of kryptonite into Supermans lap or something along those lines, what I meant to say (besides good in the title…) is can they work together for an extended period of time with out fighting, which is really no they cant. I at a time didn’t mind pk’ing but it really takes away from the game, when 3 people try to kill each other over like 4 hours or so, and when they do kill each other then its time to write up new characters which also slows things down a bit as well.
Shaggy_Shaggs 06-09-06, 02:59 PM	Lex Luthor and Superman are both caricatures, though. They may make for good stories now and then, but they're not the best, only, or even particularly effective examples of their respective alignments. Basing your expectations for your PCs on those clowns is unlikely to lead to realistic conclusions, unless the PCs are similarly two-dimensional and extreme.
r337ard 06-09-06, 03:03 PM	In my mind, being a zaelot for your moral outlook, and being a Knight kind of go hand in hand. If your group is not heavy into roleplaying then it's not going to matter at all, it's easy to look the other way. Even if the LE characters used some of their less reputable contacts to garner information or assistance, a Knight might choose to turn a blind eye. But someone who chooses to uphold what is right and true, and becomes a Knight to help stamp out injustices (the usual code), tends to not compromise his honor/beleifs/code whenever it is convenient. An example: Good cops (LG), and cops on the take (LE). Generally, they work together and get along, one group does not openly object to the other, but they do not see eye to eye and often there is friction and conflict between the groups. Not all good cops are whistleblowers, but one of them invariably does blow the whistle if the problem gets out of hand in their eyes. Eventually there is conflict.
Bukowski 06-09-06, 03:21 PM	An example: Good cops (LG), and cops on the take (LE). Generally, they work together and get along, one group does not openly object to the other, but they do not see eye to eye and often there is friction and conflict between the groups. Not all good cops are whistleblowers, but one of them invariably does blow the whistle if the problem gets out of hand in their eyes. Eventually there is conflict. I disagree about good cops not being whistleblowers. In your example most of those "good cops" who turn a blind eye unless "the problem gets out of hand in their eyes" would be LN, not LG.
r337ard 06-09-06, 03:34 PM	I disagree about good cops not being whistleblowers. In your example most of those "good cops" who turn a blind eye unless "the problem gets out of hand in their eyes" would be LN, not LG. I can't disagree with your logic, I would imagine the line of work would turn a lot of good people to rather neutral :P Still, it's a garuntee that not every LG cop would be a whistleblower, but some will invariably do it. This has gotten somewhat beyond the scope of the discussion (mostly my fault :D). At risk of derailing it further, what would keep a LG Knight from turning in a band of LE characters when they invariably do something he feels was too disagreeable. Also, how long would the LE characters put up with a LG's objections to plans or methods which are distasteful?
Shaggy_Shaggs 06-09-06, 03:43 PM	In most places merely being evil isn't illegal. You usually can't just "turn in" someone for being LE.
Shaggy_Shaggs 06-09-06, 03:48 PM	Amusingly enough, however, a LG zealot who attempted to "turn in" his LE associates for being evil might just find himself jailed for wrongful imprisonment. And I doubt his former traveling companions would post bail. ;)
Arganis 06-09-06, 03:52 PM	LG and LE have a lot in common in that they both obey the laws. LE just tries to find ways of using the laws against people. This is not quite right I don't think. While Lawful Good is usually respectful of political laws, Lawful is more like systematic/predictable than adherent to authority, and LE people can easily be murderers in a society where murder is illegal. I disagree about good cops not being whistleblowers. In your example most of those "good cops" who turn a blind eye unless "the problem gets out of hand in their eyes" would be LN, not LG. I don't know that the Sin of Omission is enough to force an alignment shift. While a LG Paladin would be hard pressed to justify "letting it slide" a LG "anyone else" might believe that it won't do any good to turn them in. As for the OP's original question, my answer would be: I don't know. So much about alignment conflicts has to do with the players. It should be easy to see why: The boards are full of people disagreeing about alignments. I just did it twice in this post. It's almost impossible to guage how it will go down the first time it comes up. I would recommend resolving with all players (out loud) to keep alignment conflicts in-character. Might help keep the table civil... and by all means: good luck!
Darkuwa 06-09-06, 03:58 PM	Gordon in the new batman movie would be LG. His partner and most of the force were LE. He wasn't a snitch, he didn't really approve of what the other cops were doing, but as long as he didn't blow the whistle they weren't going to destroy him, and as long as he was still able to do some good he would continue to work in the corrupt system. Only when the chips were down and he had help did he work against them. The real question is what was Rhaz's alignment? Was he good or evil?
The man they call Boxhead 06-09-06, 04:07 PM	It really depends on what the LE characters do. If they are just greedy and manipulative, they may coerce the knight into seeing things their way. The group will be bound to their own codes, so make sure they jive and you should be good to go. Wise LE characters will simply do things when the knight isn't looking. The knight could also spend many a session trying to convince the others to see the errors of their ways. If it were a Paladin on the other hand...
00_Whupass 06-09-06, 04:10 PM	Well this thread has gone fairly far afield, and I'll take the blame squarely on my shoulders as the first person to sight a superhero example. As Shaggy_Shaggs points out superheroes are by definition caricatures, and far from the average representation of the alignment. I feel both the example using the generic good cop, generic dirty cop, and the citation of Sgt. Gordon from Batman begins show exmples of LG characters working with a LE systems, and consequently LE characticers. However as has been said views on alignment vary widely from group to group and even individual to individual, or even between two diferent characters played by the same player, therefore the best option is to bring it up before a session and let all the players hash it out, see if they foresee any difficulties. The real question is what was Rhaz's alignment? Was he good or evil? In my opinion LE, very LE.
Gedrin 06-09-06, 04:11 PM	If you've got LG and LE working together...you better have The Rules set out ahead of time. They'll both follow The Rules. The Rules will bind them. As long as they act within The Rules, they'll be okay. Mostly, they'll probably do that. After all, they agreed to The Rules. Your rules may come from the town guard, the army, or any other orginization of which they could both be a part. Be sure to write out the Rules. If you don't have The Rules, expect the LE guy to kill someone who the LG guy would want to see live at some point. After that BOOM.
Wood 06-09-06, 04:16 PM	damnit... I thought this was gonna be about food.
Solik 06-09-06, 04:19 PM	In the long run, it will almost definitely lead to party conflict -- or alignment changes. And since the LG would be outnumbered, "lawful food" might be an entirely fitting typo :p Good and Evil have much more difficulties getting along than Lawful and Chaotic.
Darkuwa 06-09-06, 04:23 PM	In my opinion LE, very LE. But hes trying to remove the corrupt from the world. Like a doctor cutting off the arm with gangrene before it spreads to the rest of the body.
Millennium 06-09-06, 04:28 PM	Are you asking about Lawful Good characters working with Lawful Evil characters, or are you asking about paladins working with Lawful Evil characters? Paladins can't knowingly work with Lawful Evil characters, because it's against the paladins' code. LG characters other than paladins, however, may certainly work with LE characters as long as they stay within the bounds of their alignment. Or not, in which case they cease to be LG one way or another, but still work with the LE characters. I would guess, however, that there would probably be a fair amount of low-level inter-party conflict between most LG and most LE characters. Not necessarily enough to get to player-vs-player combat, but certainly enough that there should probably be some pretty heated in-character argument from time to time. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as the players can handle it.
Cifer 06-09-06, 04:28 PM	Things very much depend on your take of the alignment. If you go with the idea of many people who say that you can become evil by having a "The cause justifies the means"-attitude, it is completely possible for a knight and a group of LE people to work together, especially when the DM creates a purpose for this alliance. Examples: The LE character is a spy for his government. He will murder and betray for it, seeing that it is better for the masses if they don't know about the things that "have to be done". His government now hears about a threat by [insert favorite monsters] and also hears about a noble knight already working on the problem. Knowing that this knight will have too many scruples to deal with the problem efficiently, the government sends their trusted spy to help him. There is a BBEG on his way to destroy the world on behalf of some god of destruction. The LE character is a spoiled noble who is out for his own fun, but when the world ends, there most certainly will be no way to enjoy oneself anymore... and those goody-two-shoes certainly won't manage to stop the BBEG. In any way, the knight will probably be thankful for having help with his problems. He will try to convert his new friends to "good" ways but probably won't go so far as to completely alienate them. The only character-class that almost always has problems with that is the paladin since his CoC requires him to stay away from evil people. http://boards1.wizards.com/archive/index.php/t-230824.html is a good treatise on the combination of good and evil characters.
Gedrin 06-09-06, 04:38 PM	BTW, I think LF is food that meets the archtype of its kind. LF fruit would be fresh, and fruity. Tomatos, while technically a fruit, are not LF fruit due to thier deviation from what is traditionally fruity. CF is more like fusion cuisine, or experimental dishes. Fish pizzas are CF, some people may enjoy them very much, but they are certainly not traditional pizzas. Along the other axis FG and FE, this is primarily a nutritional matter. FG is nutritional in some way. Iceberg letuce is not FG, as it has low nutritional value, but baked salmon is FG. FE is usually reserved for food with no redeeming nutritional value. Most candy is FE, though some will argue that chocolates have emotional effects that bring them closer to FN. Vile Food is mostly found at the state fair. Fried Twinkies are VEF. Exalted Food is mostly found in the more expensive groceries and whole foods stores. Granola has been argued to be EGF by many.
Wood 06-09-06, 05:48 PM	Fair enough, BUT... Is it possible to eat granola, a fish pizza, and a fried twinkie in the same sitting without having to atone afterwards? (or without having to commune with the swirling god while kneeling before the Great White Porcelain Throne.) And how many sanity points do you risk losing by eating a granola pizza?
Gedrin 06-09-06, 05:55 PM	An errata was released that removed Granola Pizza from the core books.
Wood 06-09-06, 06:21 PM	Curse the revisionists! Viva La Granola Italia!
Cifer 06-09-06, 06:50 PM	@Gedrin Well, of course granola pizza is not in the core books... it's exalted, so it fits into the book of exalted feeds. There is also the description how the pizza can be sliced into thin pieces using a kewl kata- er, masterwork bastard sword! By the way, if a paladin gives sweets to innocent children (usually considered a good act), does he fall because of distributing evil food? My DM said so, but in my opinion the act of gifting cancels out the inherent taint of sweets.
tharivol266 06-09-06, 06:52 PM	2 biggest misconceptions of the game: 1)Lawful means following the laws- no it means having a set pattern and sticking to it and having limits on what you are willing to do. likewise chaos is simply having no patterns you could break every law known to man kind and still be lawful or abide by them all and still be chaotic. 2)good=saving babies//evil=killing every living thing you see. -- i hate this assumption good simply means that the person acts with the interests of the survival of their species and generally all other intelligent living things in our world. likewise evil isn't out to get everyone and rule the world(although some are) evil just means that they value themselves over all else. now then LG and LE could work well together indeffinetly so long as the evil character wasn't a kill everything evil but rather a greedy little son of a ***** that the good one keeps trying to convince to help the rest of life kind and the good character would just have to not annoy the evil character too much.
__DnD4Life__ 06-09-06, 07:39 PM	Lawful food is good. I hate chaotic food, it gives me stomache aches.
Last City 06-09-06, 09:36 PM	Im sorry, i just cant help but pitch in. I didnt know your food can be lawful... LOL anyway back to the topic: yeah,why not? I take if both characters are fighting for the same goal. Patriots going overboard is what 1st came to my mind. In fact i think its good drama to watch the LG & LE fellow talking about their common and uncommon agreement on law/good/evil. So yeah, its possible IMO.
MasterRookie 06-09-06, 11:24 PM	Actually this could be a pretty interesting game. Have the PC's essencially forced to work together by some twist of fate. It can ad an interesting dynamic of two people who hate each other but still need to work together.
zodiki 06-10-06, 12:05 AM	Sure they can work together. In literature, movies, comics, it's not unusual for the hero and the villain to be put in a situation where they have to work together to defeat a greater menace. Once the crisis is over however, they'd part ways - maybe even turning on each other.
Dekion Acheronus 06-10-06, 12:33 AM	I have to agree that Lawful Good and Lawful Evil can work together, but it is likely that there will be some differences in their approach to a given situation. Both being lawful, it is likely that they will work together, but it is also likely that their ethical views will be in conflict on a regular basis. Both will strive to achieve their goal, but one will focus on the benefit to the masses, while the other will be most concerned with their own wellbeing and the easiest way to accomplish the restoration of order or completion of task. It is more likely that Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil would work together. The self-preservation or easiest route to restore order mentality of the Lawful Evil character would more easily mesh with the ends justify the means attitude of a Chaotic Good character. I've always found it interesting that this particular pairing of a diametric opposition so well compliments itself.
belthazzar1113 06-10-06, 12:38 AM	lawful food.... yeah sounds right. remember that alignment is just a guide to genral behavior. a chaotic character can follow a plan if the situation calls for it. a lawful character can break the rules if there is no other option. good characters can fly into a rage and commit horrible acts and the most vile of blackguards might push a child out of the way before casting a lightning bolt. The alignments arn't a cage that you are persistantly in, they are a guide to how your character sees the world and relates to the things around them. If a lawful good and lawful evil character had goals in common and working together would make those goals come about faster then there isn't a reason they shouldn't be able to get along. I wouldn't turn my back on that lawful evil guy, but thats just common sense... EVIL.
Senevri 06-10-06, 03:01 AM	LG & LE? Easily! Any government, and practically any company board is a mixture of G, N and E people, after all. Remember, evil folks are _not_ specifically out to get you --- they're just very selfish and unempathic. They go for their goals and don't particularily care who they hurt in the process... But, they stick to their own moral code or rules --- sometimes these may be the society's rules, even. For an example, a powergamer out to make the DM cry is LE --- he wants to effortlessly destroy everything and anything the DM sends against the group. He might not fight against every plot hook, and he's certainly not going to break any set rules (as written, anyway.) On the other hand, a Munchkin is chaotic - as is anyone who cheats (pretends to play by rules while breaking them.)
Zombie Carl 06-10-06, 06:53 AM	Can lawful Good and Lawful evil work together? Absolutely! Not all lawful good character have sticks up their bottoms and a penchant for smiting. More to the point, not every Lawful Evil person conducts secret, forbidden , baby-eater rituals at the stroke of midnight in the lowest portion of the city sewers...
aurellia 06-10-06, 07:09 AM	I usually find the decider between good and evil (or even neutral and evil) is whether the character would sacrifice innocents to reach their goals. Why is it always the evil characters that have to be flexible in order to work with a good party? In this case we have one good character and several evil, so its more likely that he's trying to conceal his alignment from them - infiltrating their organization, gathering evidence, or simply on the run and figured this would be the last place anyone would look for him.
PurpleWorm 06-10-06, 07:16 AM	More importantly, if Lawful Good and Lawful Evil characters work together, can they influence each other? Would a good character perhaps not observe the benefits of working for one's own goals only? Or an evil character would have his heart softened at the sight of good deeds? There's plenty of reasons they could work together too, especially if one or the other hides his motivations. If the quest is clear-cut, like just killing a cave full of demons, then there won't be any points of argument either. Or if the evil character is outnumbered by good party members, he might just grumble and "accept" their decisions. By which I mean do everthing behind their backs.
Drachasor 06-10-06, 01:39 PM	Gordon in the new batman movie would be LG. His partner and most of the force were LE. He wasn't a snitch, he didn't really approve of what the other cops were doing, but as long as he didn't blow the whistle they weren't going to destroy him, and as long as he was still able to do some good he would continue to work in the corrupt system. Only when the chips were down and he had help did he work against them. Gordon is a good example of what can let a party work. He is of course, an example of a situation you want to avoid; namely the Lawful Evils having more power and authority than the Lawful Good. The only reasons Gordon didn't turn those b***ards in immediately was because he knew they'd kill him and he knew they would get away scott free. Gordon was operating in a completely corrupt system, which is very frustating for a LG, so he was doing the best he could given the circumstances. In a party, like in the Batman movie, this sort of situation would lead to interparty conflict rapidly. Unless of course, everyone metagamed (in a bad way, imho) and ignored or let slide what other party members did. LG and LE characters generally don't get along well, as LE pervert and twist laws and justice to their own ends. Since Good vs. Evil is usually a much strong component in a game than Law vs. Chaos (and rightfully so in most games), this only makes sense. As such LGs can get along with an LE only if that LE is nearly LN (e.g. the "super greedy" person rather than someone willing to plot and execute murder for cash). Remember, by the Core Books evil people hurt and injure others; it isn't just greed. It would abandoning the party if it served their ends better. It would even be betraying the party. It would be killing innocents for gain. Evil isn't something merely dislikeable in D&D; it's horrid. To end with something from the SRD: '“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. ' -Drachasor
Solian 06-10-06, 03:57 PM	The enamy of my enamy is my friend! just remember that and it should go quite smoothly, though with the odd tiff between PC's!
Senevri 06-10-06, 07:32 PM	LG and LE characters generally don't get along well, as LE pervert and twist laws and justice to their own ends. Mmmnnno, I don't think so. That's more of a NE - doing what they can get away with, that benefits them. I mean, I can see something like that as a more of zealous evil... For an example, an assassin with a code of conduct could get quite far in a mixed-alignment party -- and nothing prevents evil people from having friends, or loved ones, or exempting(trying to, anyway) them from suffering the consequences of their actions. Keep in mind, that Evil, as defined by D&D doesn't mean they go out of their way just to be evil --- it's just that they are willing to accept some losses to reach their goals. Sacrificing a few for the greater good is an example of a subtle form of evil, for an example. Since Good vs. Evil is usually a much strong component in a game than Law vs. Chaos (and rightfully so in most games), this only makes sense. Well, good and evil, when they're not painted in such bold, black-and-white strokes are not nearly as easily evident as Law vs. Chaos...
Solik 06-10-06, 07:44 PM	Sacrificing a few for the greater good is an example of a subtle form of evil, for an example. Nope. Sacrificing a few for the good of yourself is an example of evil. It may have been a 2nd edition book, but one D&D book somewhere dealt with the "sacrifice a few for the greater good" specifically. The example was burning a village infested with the plague to keep it from spreading to the big city nearby and killing thousands. It stated that the paladin's code would prevent him from ever taking part in such a thing; however, many standard Good characters (particularly the less Lawful ones) may consider it necessary. It's tricky, and it always boils down to "just what is it that he's calling 'the greater good'?"