The difference between Lawful Good & Chaotic Good is how they feel towards authority & tradition. Lawful Good feels dependability is the way forward, Chaotic Good feels that freedom is.
In your example of the hero's tomb, a Lawful Good character would take the items for a good cause but not for personal gain. He may feel a responsibility to see those items being used for good rather than gathering dust in an old crypt. When in doubt, consult a priest.
Lawful Good general philosophy in one sentence. "If we all help each other, everyone prospers."
Another sentence to sum up a paladin's beliefs. "Better to do right and die than to do wrong and prosper."
Take a look at this...
A lawful good character holds strongly to the principle that the good of the society can only be maintained via order. The exact specifications of what is "good" may vary wildly for this purpose, but on the whole "good" implies concern for the safety and comforts of others, and that all persons have a right to safety and comfort. The character may build up other definitions in their own moral code, but this is essentially the heart of the matter. Lawful Good, unlike the other Good alignments, also holds that it is sometimes necessary to sacrifice what is "good" for a few persons in order to preserve order, which is "good" for society in general.
On a personal level Lawful Good characters have a tendency to at least strive for an ordered lifestyle. Many, if not most of them, have an "everything has a time and place" attitude. Most tend to organize their behaviors to suit the group, although they are reluctant to do so at a personal loss unless something worthwhile can be obtained with the sacrifice.
A Lawful Good alignment does not rule out chaotic behaviors, particularly impulsiveness. Impatience is another fault that some Lawful Good characters are guilty of. On the other side of the coin, hedonistic behavior is not often observed in Lawful Good characters, unless in one or two activities.
While Lawful Good characters believe that order is the best way, they don't necessarily maintain it. A character with a particularly poor willpower may allow his life to get quite out of shape. And also remember that the character will maintain order from his point of view. A Lawful Good merchant's shop may look like an explosion in a mattress factory, with nobody other than the character able to find anything. But the apparent chaos is deceiving most of the time, ask him where something is and he'll usually be able to find it much faster than appearances would seem to dictate.
Lawful Good societies tend to avoid overdoing laws. The laws of the society are usually well coded, but one individual, or sometimes a council, has the right to overrule the law to achieve something "good" (or at least perceived as such). Lawful Good justices are more concerned with the spirit of the law and the intent of its author in achieving a worthy purpose. If the law does not achieve this most Lawful Good characters will dispose of it, although some more reluctantly than others.
And this.
The Chaotic Good mindset is a paradox of the desire for individuality and a benevolent concern for others. Chaotic Good characters are almost always strong minded and each tends to possess a unique moral compass about what exactly is right and what is wrong. These characters have a tendency to pass moral judgments based on their beliefs, and to hell with what anyone else thinks. Despite this individualism, the definition of good, for most Chaotic Good characters, doesn't hurt anyone else.
Chaotic Good characters tend to be popular among players since it is mistakenly viewed as the only good alignment with room to slip up once in a while. That isn't true, for all good alignments can waver quite a bit. Chaotic Good characters, consciously or not, resist authority because they have a tendency to equate law with evil. They have the universal precept that every man should be left to his own to make up his own mind. In this aspect Chaotic Good characters can be very anarchistic, since they have a trust that people are capable of governing their own behavior.
There is a lot of variety in Chaotic Good behavior. Some are hedonistic, others have a paladin-like piety, but lack the follow through of the members of that class, most are restless however and some are meticulous. Just as it is a mistake to believe Lawful Good characters to be devious of chaotic streaks, so too is it a mistake to believe Chaotic Good characters to be incapable of order. Indeed, often the characters of this alignment have to follow orders, even when they don't want to, but they can be quite capricious in their dealings with authorities they do not like. On the other hand, they can be quite methodical in order to get what they want. Still, the chaotic mindset is there. Chaotic Good characters who fall into a routine will break it occasionally for no apparent reason to anyone but themselves.
Chaotic Good societies tend to be widespread and lacking of any real central authority. These societies rarely have a set of laws set in stone, just a series of precedents and understandings. "Rule" per se, is often deferred to one person at a time. Large Chaotic Good societies will enact more laws, but they will still be very broad based. Often these societies are republics with a democratic (or at least semi-democratic) leadership elected from time to time. But no matter what the intentions of any proposed law in such a society, it will always have opposition from those who feel that too much government is wrong, or even evil in nature. Enacting any new law in such a society is often a long and laborious process (If all this sounds familiar, the United States is an example of a Chaotic Good society and government).
Another sentence to sum up a paladin's beliefs. "Better to do right and die than to do wrong and prosper."
Make that "Better to do right than to do wrong" - how committed characters are to their ideals is an entirely different matter.
4E doesn't have a CG alignment.
what! that's outrageous! no wonder a lot of people don't like 4th edition
lol. j/ki'm speaking from 3.5 edition rules. thanks for the replies. especially stormbrand. shed a LOT of light on the 2 alignments
Another sentence to sum up a paladin's beliefs. "Better to do right and die than to do wrong and prosper."
would that mean that a paladin would risk his life to save someone even if he knows he has little chance of success? or would he go for help even knowing that the longer it takes the quicker the captive will be slaughtered?
what! that's outrageous! no wonder a lot of people don't like 4th edition lol. j/k
Actually, the standard good alignment covers the former CG as well - you think everybody should be a decent chap and prefer some freedom to go with that.
would that mean that a paladin would risk his life to save someone even if he knows he has little chance of success? or would he go for help even knowing that the longer it takes the quicker the captive will be slaughtered?
Yay, paladin alignment debates reloaded!
IMO, there are quite a few different paladins - there may be hotheaded ones and those who think about what might be for the greater Good in the situation. There are those who sacrifice themselves for a single person even if their sacrifice may be in vain and there are those who are a little more calculating. After all, a paladin that throws away his life to protect one man from a demonic horde today will not be there to protect a whole village from a gnoll raid tomorrow.
IMO, the main thing about a paladin is that you think about these questions up front (and discuss them with your DM!) and then try to keep to this code of ideals you envisioned.
would that mean that a paladin would risk his life to save someone even if he knows he has little chance of success? or would he go for help even knowing that the longer it takes the quicker the captive will be slaughtered?
Some paladins would. One paladin who greatly impressed me stood against a tide of monsters protecting a woman and her son purely because they were innocent. Who knows? Maybe the enemy stopping to fight the paladin buys the other person time to escape?
Or, a paladin could find help and return in hope of bringing the evildoers to justice. If he does not believe the person can be saved, then no good will come from throwing his life away.
So long as the paladin is trying to directly do good in some form, he's on the right track.
Also, you're welcome.
Think Superman, Luke Skywalker, King Arthur, Optimus Prime, etc..
Good part is easy, they are moral people
Lawful has to do with ethics...
Go through the following list
Honorable
Does The Right Thing
Respectable
Loyal
Trustworthy
Faithful
Noble
Humble
If 4 or more of those describe you, you are on the right track. You don't need to follow EVERY one (no one is a saint), but lean more in those direction than the other.
Paladins are another issue which I won't go into, they have their own thing seperate from being LG (plenty of LG characters that are NOT paladins)
Taking items from a crypt? Your character might say no because grave robbing is wrong. That's lawful good. On the other hand, your character might say yes because his particular philosophy doesn't include any such restrictions. That could also be lawful good.
Risking your life to save another? Sure, your character could take the standard "leave no man behind" approach and stay to fight it out. But again, he might reason that his chances of saving that person would be better if he made a temporary retreat to gather his resources. Either way, the character is primarily motivated by a dedication to do the right thing. So both options could be considered lawful good.
Or as I've seen it phrased elsewhere, "Lawful good does not mean lawful stupid."
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/e/e1/Batman_Alignment.jpg
Here's the Lawful Good Alignment ("Whatever you like" works for every alignment): http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulGood
If you don't feel guilty about doing something but instead 1) know you should feel guilty or 2) want to do it on purpose to spite those who would feel guilty, you shouldn't do it.
Characters that are Lawful Good believe that a stable, well-ordered society is necessary in order to make the most people's lives happy and comfortable. When combating evil, they prefer to do so by enforcing just laws and fair legal systems, when possible. The justice system and government ensure that everyone is kept protected and well provided for.
Real world examples include doctors that genuinely care about the health of their patients, but obey the limits of the healthcare system, and policemen that enforce laws primarily in order to protect innocent lives.
Characters that are Chaotic Good believe that happiness comes about when people are able to act freely. They don't necessarily dislike government and order, but would prefer if it doesn't interfere overmuch with the day-to-day lives of the people. Chaotic characters often feel that the law gets in the way of keeping the greatest number of people happy. Every day a new medicine is invented, and so many people could benefit from it if you didn't expect to sell it at a profit in the end. Wouldn't it be better to treat as many people as possible, rather than deal with the costs and beauracracy of the medical system?
Chaotic Good characters despise most of all a tyrant or anyone who uses the law to oppress the basic freedoms and happiness of the common man. The freedom to follow your life's ambition; empowering not just yourself, but others as well, is Chaotic Good.
Real life examples might include people staging a demonstration or march against an unjust law, or someone that recklessly ignores a law in order to protect someone.
Also what is good to one deity is not necessarily good to another. As well the laws of one deity can be vastly different than another. Think of our own religions. We consider Islamic Terrorists for example as Evil for killing innocents. They consider themselves as good for killing infidels. The same thing can happen between Paladins of different orders. Now you might think that a Paladin that kill infidels is evil but consider, what if the religion in this case is right. What if the infidels are a vessels of evil waiting to fulfill their duty in bringing about the end of times where they help capture souls of the innocent. Now flip to the other side. They believe their God is the only way to Salvation and bringing more people into the fold is saving souls from eternal damnation. You could end up being good on either side of the fence here. Heck both groups might even worship the same good with a different set of interpreted instructions on what is truly good and lawful.
You can make a pretty interesting story to investigate the power of religion in what is good and evil. You just have to step back from Good equals X where X is a rule in the book and instead have X based on culture and religion.
What determines Good is really determined by the deity you worship.
Just because you worship a diety that is good doesn't mean you are. I would think that, with good examples from history; the crusades, the inquisition, and now the extremist attacks. None of these come from religeons that are evil. And in some viewpoints, they aren't evil.
Black and white isn't. I think I've post this before in a different thread asking about alignment too- there are only many shades of grey. How dark an act is depends on who is look at it.
House would be an example of NG or even LN.
That depends on which side of jerk/Heart of Gold debate you're on. You obviously think he's somewhere in the middle.
Black and white isn't. I think I've post this before in a different thread asking about alignment too- there are only many shades of grey. How dark an act is depends on who is look at it.
You two are arguing the same thing: Moral Relativism (also known as subjective morality).
This has a place in the new alignment because there is no mechanical connections between powers/morality. Previous versions of D&D do not support a Grey v Gray morality. The alignment system is designed to provide an Objective Morality (also known as Moral Absolutism).
If it's a Paladin and they swear to act in the name of truth, justice, and honour, then their alignment might clash with a world where people are more focused on "the greater good", perhaps even to the point of being prejudiced towards certain groups.
Paladins aren't big on morally gray, however. It's funny, because the gray area is where my campaigns thrive.
(Instead of lusting for power, she lusts to be 'right'. I fully expect to see her trying to kill the Gods because the gods themselves must be evil.)
Miko == LE. She just doesn't understand that.
(Instead of lusting for power, she lusts to be 'right'. I fully expect to see her trying to kill the Gods because the gods themselves must be evil.)
Nah, Miko is Lawfull Stupid. She did what caused her downfall because of the chaotic action that was taken.
Nah, Miko is Lawfull Stupid. She did what caused her downfall because of the chaotic action that was taken.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulStupidChaoticStupid
A Lawful Good Paladin is a holy knight, crusading in the name of good and order. Paladins are expected to demonstrate and embody goodness and law - they are not supposed to lie or use poison, and some interpretations say they should use stealth, missile weapons, and other forms of impersonal warfare only as a last resort. Paladin is a champion of justice and destroyer of evil; they are knights, working for their church or order. Paladins stand in the forefront of the battle against chaos and evil in the world, shining as a beacon of hope to all who fight the good fight.
Personally, you cannot be a Paladin if you choose not to play the Lawful Good alignment. The exception being a Chaotic Evil Paladin. Ku ku ku ku....
As for your example of the Paladin raiding the crypt, a Paladin could consult with their Deity through prayer or weigh the advantages and disadvantages of having or not having those items. If it is to be used for the destruction of evil or to fight the good fight and save lives, then a Paladin would do so to honor the departed dead.
A person who believes in structure, order, and rules. Believes in them as if they were fact.
A person who's belief in structure, order, and rules is tempered with the desire for Good (with a capital).
There is little discussion with a Lawful Good person of what is "Good" and what is "The Law". A lot of people take this as an arrogant, stubborn person (and it could be).. but taken to the extreme that begins to drift away from "Good".
Now, what is "Good"? Well, it is the defending of the weak, championing life, love, and justice.
The idea of a Judeo-Christian angel would likely be best seen as Lawful Good "You do what you are told, because what you are told, is Good."
OBEY is a good word. But what is it you obey? A diety? A code of ethics? A personal moral compass (that changes VERY slowly)?
Luke Skywalker OBEYS Obi-Wan and then later Yoda and finally, his own moral compass which is unshifting.
Whatever anyone does.. alignments aren't perfect. EVERYONE deviates from their alignment (I mean "In real life.") So many people who hate the idea of "Good" and "Evil" (usually to justify their own real life lack in morals and to sleep better at night) want to say that the Lawful Good person in particular can NEVER fail their alignment... it's foolish.
However.. a truly Lawful Good person WOULD seek to attone for their sins (or percieved sins). If they do not play the character as having remorse for a wrong.. then a drift in alignment should be closer.
A man obsessed with the "rule" will drift toward Lawful Neutral. Protecting all the "Good" virtues takes a back seat. ((A soldier might head off to war to save the world from tyranny.. and return less of a man for the things he was brought to do that were not good.)) OR.. a man is so obsessed with "Good" that it supercedes the Law. Thus, he becomes Neutral Good. (Because he is not directly against the Law, at least not yet). Mahatma Gandhi is a beautiful example of this... a man, Lawful Good, who believed in government and law and doing things by the rules, but as the liberation of India became a reality the people of India turned against his religious ideas. Thus, he abandoned the Law.. for the Good.
Anyway.. that's partly how I see Lawful Good.
--
The Paladin's Virtues are:
An organized approach brings the most good for all.
Laws exist to bring prosperity to those under them.
Unjust laws must be overturned or changed in a reasonable and positive fashion.
People rule; laws help.
Cause the most good through the least harm.
Protect the weak.
Goodness is not a natural state, but must be fought for to be attained and maintained.
Lead by example.
Let your deeds speak your intentions.
Goodness radiates from the heart.
Give others your mercy, but keep your wits about you.
--
If he opposes that on legal grounds than he is Lawful
If he opposes that on moral grounds than he is Good
If he opposes that for both reasons than he is Lawful Good
If he thinks the NPC is a slimy d-bag but doesn't care enough to do anything about it than he is probably Unaligned or Neutral
If he asks to get in on the action than he is probably Evil.
My NPC tells one of the PCs that he sells drugs to children.
If he opposes that on legal grounds than he is Lawful
If he opposes that on moral grounds than he is Good
If he opposes that for both reasons than he is Lawful Good
If he thinks the NPC is a slimy d-bag but doesn't care enough to do anything about it than he is probably Unaligned or Neutral
If he asks to get in on the action than he is probably Evil.
If he shivs the NPC for such immoral behavior, is he Chaotic Good?
If he shivs the NPC for such immoral behavior, is he Chaotic Good?
If he did it because he doesn't like the guy, it's CE.
What about a royal assassin who does his job not because he likes it, but because it is his duty to king and country to assassinate those who would threaten the stability and peace of the land?
James Bond? Depends on which one. The new one is pretty LN, imo.
Sean Connery is mostly CG.
after reading that
Replace 'royal assassin' with adventurer, 'head of rebellion' with a bandit leader just barely able to survive, and 'guerilla camp' with orc's that have been living there for over a hundred years in peace before civilization came.
Replace 'royal assassin' with adventurer, 'head of rebellion' with a bandit leader just barely able to survive, and 'guerilla camp' with orc's that have been living there for over a hundred years in peace before civilization came.
I refuse to give alignment declarations without knowing the mental processes.
I am NOT Deontological or Consequential in my ethical outlook.
What about a royal assassin who does his job not because he likes it, but because it is his duty to king and country to assassinate those who would threaten the stability and peace of the land?
It could potentially be LG if the character believes that the cause is just. But the way you describe it to me makes it sound more like lawful neutral. If his only motivation is because it's his duty and the law's the law, then that would be LN. But again, it's all about the character's motivation. You can make almost any action fit with almost any alignment depending on the character's reasons for doing it.
Of course, players can and will go on for hours debating the minute details of alignment definitions. A better question to think about may be what do you think it means to be lawful good?
And "Foundation" would be a great word for Law, Neutral, Chaos. The word foundation meaning: The platform upon which all other things are build.
SO, a Lawful Foundation is determined by rules. If it then coupled with an Evil motivation then those rules will be used for evil. "A corrupted beauracrat who uses a loophole to allow a villain to escape."
Example: Batman Returns. Crane (Scarecrow) sits on the stand and declares Zsazz insane and has him transfered to Arkham. Founded in Law (using the court) and motivated by evil (bringing a serial murderer to your asylum to make fear toxin).
Again, a foundation of Law and a motivation of Good. If I clued in the IRS (an organization of Law) to an organization I knew to be using child labor, experimenting on animals, and polluting national parks (acts of Evil) then my act can be considered.. Lawful and Good.
I've always felt the alignments should mean (This is what you do THE MOST). So.. a Lawful Good person would MOSTLY have a foundation of Law for MOSTLY Good motivations.
Good part is easy, they are moral people
Lawful has to do with ethics...
Except that, you know, not. Morality is about what is right and wrong, ethics is about ideas of what a good life is. Being "moral" does not necessarily mean that you are good, because your morals may be different from those of another.
I like how you explain it with foundations and motivations. I couldn't have said it better myself.
Being "moral" does not necessarily mean that you are good, because your morals may be different from those of another.
Moral = right and wrong. In d&d terms.. good and evil
Eithics = How you express your will
You can be ethical and immoral (LE), unethical and moral (CG), etc. It is unethical to break the law... but it can be the moral thing to do.
Moral = right and wrong. In d&d terms.. good and evil
Eithics = How you express your will
You can be ethical and immoral (LE), unethical and moral (CG), etc. It is unethical to break the law... but it can be the moral thing to do.
Except that the law has nothing to do with what is Lawful. Otherwise, you could not have Chaotic nations with Chaotic laws (and, hence, all criminals would have to be Chaotic, if lawful = law-abiding).
Whilst I find that Good and Evil certainly fall under morality, I find that Law and Chaos also do so -- just in a different way. The Chaotic Good person finds it to be a wrong thing to restrain people's freedom, whilst the Lawful Good person might find it okay if it is for the betterment of them.
Sadly, people's use of terms in everyday life is not always exactly what those words mean (some cusswords are notorious examples). Morality (what one thinks what is right and what is wrong) is a part of ethics (what one thinks is the way to live a good life). Alignments are all about morality.
good v evil - a moral arc. Good puts the wellbeing and goals of others above the wellbeing and goals of the self. Evil the opposite, putting the goals of the self above the goals of others. Neutral is somewhere inbetween. Won't make major sacrifices for the sake of others, but won't harm innocents to advance self, either. Alternatively, puts value in the wellbeing of a small set of friends, and is willing to sacrifice both self and strangers to help them.
Law v Chaos is more a utilitarian thing. Where good and evil are loose measurements of how the character is willing to interact with others, Law v Chaos is more about what methods they think will best reach their goals. Lawful believes that rules and order in general are the best way to achieve its goals, while chaotic believes rules and regulations mostly just get in the way. Neutral interacts with laws more as an environment, neither specifically supporting the concept nor opposed to the idea. They'll follow what rules are convenient (and, given the threat of punishment, most rules will be), and oppose the rules that go directly against their moral code or directly prevent their goals from being attained.
Lawful good, for instance, thinks that structure and order are necessary to ensure the safety and happiness of the people. Chaos and Anarchy will, in the long run, only bring misery. Organization takes the individually weak multitudes, and turns them into something strong, while anarchy simply lets the individually strong prey on those around them.
Chaotic Good thinks that people are inherently good, and that rules and restrictions and regulations only get in the way of that. Distracting the populace and letting them be led unknowing to their doom, or used as a tool in the doom of others. Freedom lets the goodness of the people show through, and unleashes their individual potential.
Of course, that was then, now Lawful good is mostly just 'extra good', and chaotic good doesn't exist. I myself would prefer if alignment didn't exist at all - good was just good, evil was just evil, and PCs would make their way through the imaginary world acting according to their character and being defined by those actions, rather then having to fit everything and everyone into some sort of grid or line.
Lawful good, for instance, thinks that structure and order are necessary to ensure the safety and happiness of the people. Chaos and Anarchy will, in the long run, only bring misery. Organization takes the individually weak multitudes, and turns them into something strong, while anarchy simply lets the individually strong prey on those around them.
Chaotic Good thinks that people are inherently good, and that rules and restrictions and regulations only get in the way of that. Distracting the populace and letting them be led unknowing to their doom, or used as a tool in the doom of others. Freedom lets the goodness of the people show through, and unleashes their individual potential.
I think this is an EXCELLENT description of the two mindsets. I refer people to this.
Despite what you might think about Judge Dredd from broad assumption.. if you ever actually read 2000AD. Judge Dredd comes across as what one should expect from lawful good.
Judge Dredd does not find the two mutualy exclusive. A just and decent society has laws, and enforces them. Even the villains **** bricks when he comes around. He commands respect, and you will not get away from his righteouss might.
Judge Dredd is above bribery, fear, and coercion. Your only hope is to kill him. But you can imagine that's not as easy as you'd like it to be...
Even on the outskirts of Earth, beyond Mega City One where the planet is a wasteland and animals roam freely and it's basically anarchy. He along with someone he was attempting to arrest took on the Angel Family. The thug was going to kill some of them dead indiscriminately with a rifle and Dredd stopped him.
Thug: Why are you stopping me?! This is justice! We're killing the badguys!
Judge Dredd: No! This is vengance, not justice...
Judge Dredd will kick your ass and give you a fair trial. Ofcourse since he's the sole authority, he makes all those calls in his head while he's kicking your ass..
No exceptions. No appalogies.
from "This was the possible future of ADOM"
<-Lawful: Empathy is doubled, Steam is halved
->Chaotic: Steam is doubled, Empathy is halved
/\Good: Music is doubled, Technics is halved
\/Bad: Technics is doubled, Music is halved
>
--Technics gives you lots of skills and skill levels
--Empathy helps you understand the working of many things in the world, including creatures, elements, status, and classes.
--Music is the key to enthousiasm, that is to say moral; with a high moral you can supercede your skill levels, and you can spend moral to achieve great deeds.
--Physics lets you understand the magics of reality, giving you access to spells (each class should have a spell list with unique spells attached to it);each spell is bound to a domain.
--Steam is your personal endurance reserve; with high stamina you can launch more spells, or sustain more non-critical blows.
About Paladinhood: sorry, but I don't think that your actual definition of the Paladin Path is accurate; of course at low levels (referring with Cavalier AD&D 1E) a lad may be teached on what to kill is about (then he gains a calling like "repentant"), but goodness, along with lawfulness (High Fidelity) gives you some of a "life giving" preference rather than that of a "life stealther" one (if you can bear my mind aheu)...
but don't forget that star n°7 rules (as a meta-star)
coolness (NG)
Lawful people generally follow the social rules as they understand them. They maintain that order, organization, and society are important, indeed vital, forces of the universe. The relationships between people and governments exist naturally. Lawful philosophers maintain that this order is not created by man but is a natural law of the universe. Although man does not create orderly structures, it is his obligation to function within them, lest the fabric of everything crumble. For less philosophical types, lawfulness manifests itself in the belief that laws should be made and followed, if only to have understandable rules for society. People should not persue personal vendettas, for example, but should present their claims to the proper authorities. Strength comes through unity of action, as can be seen in guilds, empires, and powerful churches.
Lawful Good is active and organised, working through officialised behaviour watched over by institutions.
Lawful Good is: The adherence to laws in the tradition and benefit of good.
Now, why's that so broad? 'Cause Lawful Good is broad.
I have a Minotaur Barbarian who's Lawful Good (4th Edition; perhaps the only player-side straight-up perk of the game). He is by no means a paladin who does everything right. He is a creature barely escaped from his race's own ideals. He does what he knows is right - and he does have a pretty solid compass -, but he is prone to weakness of character. He won't steal the shiny axe on the wall, but he's not gonna hurt his allies for stealing it. He grumbles and mutters and threatens. And if he deems you evil or undeserving, he feels no sorrow at the compulsion to crack your skull open with his mordenkrad. Yet he is pragmatic. Slaves? Knock them out. Slavers? Kill them. Coliseum Owner? Knock out, so that the law of Calimport doesn't come a-knockin'.
Is that Lawful Good? I should hope so. He lawfully adheres to traditions of good and justice. Does he slip up? Yeah. He's level 2. Of course he's gonna slip up. He's just off the boat.
here's my new defination of LG: 1671 i.e. Global level 71 with an extension level hook up to 89 (adamantine)===>leads to palatinhood (first you got to learn what real-time is all about (cf Amiga-related philosophy) (again sorry I missed the hook
)say it again 9 government types:
1 hack-n-slash (Nazi)
2 regency (cf Philippe d'Orleans)
3 Druidic way (sorry we in France don't know much of Druids; it is perhaps because we have more in commun with Celts (I said perhaps))
4 french term Féodalité(see Charles d'Orleans)
5 chivalry(like in the US during secession war, that I pretentiously translate approximately from french "Guerre de Sécession", and whose image is cavalry like in one version of Civilization (perhaps "Call to Power 2", or Civ 3))
6 french term Féodalisme
7 health care system (actually I know one type-7 government with french representative Guy Béart===>Portuguese)
8 fascism
9 dirty movies-type
type-9 government:
1 7 times a week look for luck
2 6 times a week hope to gain confidence
3 5 times a week you ****'em
4 4 times a week you initiate a toy
5 3 times a week you get dressed
6 2 times a week witch training
7 1 time per week for "un conte de fée"
Lawful refers to the character following a personal or external code. Good refers to their unwillingness to harm others for their own personal gain.
Superman. Superman is lawful good (in most his iterations) because he follows his own personal code of conduct and tries to save people, not sacrifice or hurt them for his own interest. (In contrast; Batman is not Lawful good as he's not adverse to ambushing his enemies and taking advantage of their ineptitude.)
Ever seen Star Wars? Another Lawful Good person is Qui-Gon Jinn. He sticks to an external code (The Jedi code), sacrifices himself for the good of others and doesn't exploit the weak in order to pleasure himself. The one time on screen that he does exploit someone was using their own gambling vice against them. Also, it was in the interest of a group of people and a good cause; his own interest wasn't a priority.
Whether the code is internal (and unofficial) or external (and official) isn't material; the lawful character follows it. The reason it isn't material is that a chaotic character could just as easily have an external code, but they would be very unlikely to follow it. If they have an internal one it's probably closer to a form of denial, and they might be prone to changing it when necessary.
Hope this helps.
(In contrast; Batman is not Lawful good as he's not adverse to ambushing his enemies and taking advantage of their ineptitude.)
You haven't seen the Adam West version of Batman, have you?
Batman's alignment changes based on who writes him. I posted the Bat-chart on the first page.
This guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimus_Prime
If I ever play a paladin, whenever I end up with an ethical dilemma I will think "What Would Prime Do" (WWPD)
http://jimprofitanon.livejournal.com/10534.html
http://jimprofitanon.livejournal.com/9885.html
http://jimprofitanon.livejournal.com/4887.html
I get bored and write about myself. (I'm narcistic, what of it? :P )
I got more works, but most of them are too wordy and are just an excuse to advertise what I believe to be right and wrong and how political linings should work. This is just me being my most natural. And I notice that..
A: I always depict my villains as neutral evil to chaotic evil. They don't seem to have a motive other then to be huge dirtbags. But then, this is how I see people I come into contact with.
B: Zach is depicted as neutral good to true neutral. His morality is never really put into light, but you can tell he's one of the goodguys. And is also the chew toy.
C: Julz is depicted as between lawful to true neutral. It's hard to say what with her existing primarily as a sexual outlet within my stories.
D: I'm depicted as chaotic neutral. Chaotic good would imply I was trying to fight for righteoussness, that never happens. Mostly I'm just involved because people don't know how to leave me the hell alone. And though I don't come off as particularly malevolant. I seem to be missing basic feelings such as mercy and selflessness..
So in my comics, good alignment is hard to obtain if rechable at all. Sortof a "black and gray" world of evil and neutral alignments lol!
Lawful Good is the classic Paladin outlook is it not? Reasonable selflessness, (usually unreasonably) adherence to laws. A general "Holier than thou art" attitude.
Short explanation? Lawful Good is the Dragonborn fluff.
http://jimprofitanon.livejournal.com/11035.html
Note: That comic's a bit more raunchy then usual. Mostly cause it expresses my actual opinion rather then just a means of entertainment. But to me, how James acts in it is lawful good. Livejournal is very cool about that where I can glorify nazis, ****, darwinism, and Ayn Rand. All at the same time..
James busted a gut over Scott Peterson and Princess Diana.
House would be an example of NG or even LN.
I have debated House for some time now, we get bored what can I say, the overall view is he is Chaotic. The true debate is on if he is Nuetral or Good..
Personally I feel he is Chaotic Nuetral with a tendancy to do good deeds.
There is no way that he is lawful, he doesn't care about the laws and infact knowingly and even some times goes out of his way to break them if he feels it will solve the case,usually saving his patient.
Since he normally doesn't care who the patient is, he just sees a strange case and has to solve it. He doesn't truely care how he solves his cases, just as long as he can solve them. For the most part he doesn't care about the patient. This is why he is not Good. At the same time he doesn't actively try to harm the patient any more then he absolutely has to to figure what is wrong with them , so this rules out Evil.
I place a tendancy to good, only because his work does infact save numberous lives and that he does atleast care about a couple of his patients..
House is Chaotic Nuetral.
He does have some redeeming qualities that pushes him more to good than evil.
Despite what you might think about Judge Dredd from broad assumption.. if you ever actually read 2000AD. Judge Dredd comes across as what one should expect from lawful good.
Judge Dredd does not find the two mutualy exclusive. A just and decent society has laws, and enforces them. Even the villains **** bricks when he comes around. He commands respect, and you will not get away from his righteouss might.
Judge Dredd is above bribery, fear, and coercion. Your only hope is to kill him. But you can imagine that's not as easy as you'd like it to be...
Even on the outskirts of Earth, beyond Mega City One where the planet is a wasteland and animals roam freely and it's basically anarchy. He along with someone he was attempting to arrest took on the Angel Family. The thug was going to kill some of them dead indiscriminately with a rifle and Dredd stopped him.
Thug: Why are you stopping me?! This is justice! We're killing the badguys!
Judge Dredd: No! This is vengance, not justice...
Judge Dredd will kick your ass and give you a fair trial. Ofcourse since he's the sole authority, he makes all those calls in his head while he's kicking your ass..
No exceptions. No appalogies.
I have read Judge Dredd , I have also discussed him with a few other friends. We all feel he is Lawful Nuetral.
He doesn't care why you commited the crime, he only cares about the sentence. He is never swayed by emotion. He simply doesn't care about anything above the fact that a crime has been broken.
would that mean that a paladin would risk his life to save someone even if he knows he has little chance of success?
All player characters, regardless of alignment, are willing to risk their lives in pursuit of their goals. This is a characteristic of adventurers in general.
In my view alignment would be how the person views themselves. Not some omnipresent outside presence.
As such. Lawful Good would be anyone who views their actions as being for the good of society and its people. Now... What they view as being good for society and its people can be certainly radically different, you could have a horrible dictator who thinks that society and his citizens need to be ruled over with a iron-fist to live "happy lives" and be productive in society. Another could be a rebel who believes that only through radical change can society change for the good of the people, so he could be doing terrorist bombings and assassinations.
In my view alignment would be how the person views themselves. Not some omnipresent outside presence.
This can function very well in the current non-mechanic take of 4th edition.
It does not function in previous editions.
Well... I don't use alignment to begin with, but if I was my view of it is somewhat different then some.
In my view alignment would be how the person views themselves. Not some omnipresent outside presence.
As such. Lawful Good would be anyone who views their actions as being for the good of society and its people. Now... What they view as being good for society and its people can be certainly radically different, you could have a horrible dictator who thinks that society and his citizens need to be ruled over with a iron-fist to live "happy lives" and be productive in society. Another could be a rebel who believes that only through radical change can society change for the good of the people, so he could be doing terrorist bombings and assassinations.
Problem with that is that very few people really think of themselves as bad guys. Nearly everyone would see themselves as Good and Lawful Good, both would become so common and broad as to be almost meaningless.
Also, I imagine good aligned gods such as Bahamut (sp?) would not condone horrible dictatorship or terrorist murders.
One subject I have been considering recently is that the alignment system can actually make playing a paladin-type Lawful Good character more difficult. Because hardcore evil makes more extreme measures justified.
For example, I don't think anyone chooses Lawful Good alignment with the aim of butchering prisoners or killing sleeping foes, but if your enemies are Chaotic Evil then you are placed with the dilemma of killing a helpless prisoner, releasing them to inflict more harm upon the world, or imprisoning them in some project that devotes extensive resources purely to keeping prisoners indefinitely.
Whereas medieval chivalry often emphasised respect for honourable foes. EG: Enemies could be treated well because they were enemies of circumstance (vassals to opposing lords for example), rather than baby eating monsters or something similar.
the episode is around Master Of Kung-Fu 80-92;
I bought the #93 issue because here in France we have stopped the serie from Aredit/Artima THOR Color;
my own approach of the saga took me in taking risks, like it is said from Yi King #1 "Khien" step 3 or 4
step 1: hidden dragon; don't move.
step 2: dragon visible in the country;
step 3( or 4): sometimes he dives into the abyss;
step (4 or 3): somtimes he treats royal affairs
step 5: the prince virtue.
step 6: if he moves, he will learns about what regrets come from...
I have read Judge Dredd , I have also discussed him with a few other friends. We all feel he is Lawful Nuetral.
He doesn't care why you commited the crime, he only cares about the sentence. He is never swayed by emotion. He simply doesn't care about anything above the fact that a crime has been broken.
Why?
"because a LG-type won't kill an unborn being..."
Problem with that is that very few people really think of themselves as bad guys. Nearly everyone would see themselves as Good and Lawful Good, both would become so common and broad as to be almost meaningless.
Also, I imagine good aligned gods such as Bahamut (sp?) would not condone horrible dictatorship or terrorist murders.
Your right most people I would hope would fall under Good or Lawful Good.
Unaligned would be for those who have little care for others but do not go out of their way to cause harm. So more likely then not recluse or people in not very attached relations to others be Unaligned.
Evil would be those who quite readily know what their doing is for their own personal gain at the expense of others. Your con-artist, burglars, etc.
Chaotic Evil would be those who are essentially psychotic they actively engage in acts that cause harm to others for no personal gain or advancement of a personal agenda. They simply do, your basic psychopathic killer would fall under this.
Now, this is just what these would fall under using 4e terminology, if I was to make my own alignment system using this. I would give more appropriate terms for each.
As for the Gods, well generally this is why I prefer to view the portfolios of the Gods rather then alignment. So if you still served the portfolio of said God then you would still be viewed fine by the God. Now this is because I find it makes the religions more interesting when you can have a more diverse set of characters residing within each religion.
Evil would be those who quite readily know what their doing is for their own personal gain at the expense of others. Your con-artist, burglars, etc.
I think more objectively good people would consider themselves evil than objectively evil people would consider themselves as such.
Prime reason is Guilt. Good people have guilt over betraying their principles.
What principles would an evil person feel guilty about betraying?
Also, read a book from Harry Harrison's "Stainless Steel Rat" series. Con artist/cat burglar/master burglar/inventor all in one for the hero. Yes, he knows he is gaining, while others are losing. He thinks the excitement is fair trade.
I think more objectively good people would consider themselves evil than objectively evil people would consider themselves as such.
Prime reason is Guilt. Good people have guilt over betraying their principles.
What principles would an evil person feel guilty about betraying?
Also, read a book from Harry Harrison's "Stainless Steel Rat" series. Con artist/cat burglar/master burglar/inventor all in one for the hero. Yes, he knows he is gaining, while others are losing. He thinks the excitement is fair trade.
well, you might consider teach betrayal:
this is all about freedom;
beyond freeness lies come in the abound;
from physical forces (as I said in a topic relative of FASERIP rules, Marvel defines Personal,Universal,Dimentional)
now if physical is 1, and level 5 is 4+1, and dimentional is also 4, then to unleash level 6 (which is sometimes related to Sorcerous twists), you need to forget physical
:??: (another opîc was == physics from ADOM refers to in dealing with physics (like what chemistry is all about +rigolard siffloteur ))
Yes, generally there can be evil individuals who adhere to codes of conduct and rigid discipline. Infact it's quite common in fiction that evil overlords never step beyond their invisible boundaries, or there's a "rule amongst theives" in organized crime. All the same, sometimes heroes break the rules to acheive their ends, or don't believe in the rules at all.
But when you take these things to their natural conclusions, what are you left with?
Fable 2 has a simaler system. Corruption/Purity=Lawful and Chaotic respectively. Atleast I think so. Gluttonus and otherwise unsophisticated behaivor leads to corruption. Outright evil acts like killing the innocent and abusing your dog leads to evil.
The thing about alignment is it doesn't scale with reasoning. Let's say I went up to a villager's house. I needed to ask them some questions about the town, I am the hero.. And since this is Fable, everybody must know I'm some kind of exalted character.. Then the ***** gets snobby with me telling me to go away or she'll call the guard before I can even open my mouth. If I stand there thinking for more then five seconds, bam, she's out the door whining to the guard to be her personal army. Is it any wonder I steal people's **** and wait for an oppurtunity to get them alone and use them as experiments for my spells?
Can't stand the guard either. I just say I'll do community service. And then never do. Screw them. Most of my crimes are accidental or simple incompetence. Like pressing the B button and scaring the crap out of everyone cause stuff starts flipping over. Magic isn't easy to control hurpdurp!
Or later on, I meet a ghost who was a vengeful spirit, looking to get back at his lover who he fealt betrayed him. I was prone to helping the ghost, "bros before hoes" is a common line I do in-game lol! I'm proud to say I'm a misogynist and distrust women for exactly this reason. But I also expect to hear both sides of a story so I can make a moral verdict. I don't want to rush into battle without the full disclosure of why I'm doing it. After hearing the lover's quandry. I had to actually think about whether or not I wanted to go through with this. Innately I feel like all girls are suspicious and evil, wanting to take away everything you have for their own sick pleasure.. On the otherhand, this didn't sound right, becoming the very thing that brings me so much greif.. And she didn't seem all that evil..
So at the last minute, I ripped the note up the ghost gave us for all the important info on her to sway her heart. I then gave her a mood ring, cause that's another thing, I'm fricking poor, and she just follows me around, I go out of my way to try and keep her and my dog happy to the best of my ability. When the dog finds treasure, I reward him with treats, when my girl's love meter is lowering, I play my mandolin or start flirting with her.
Basically I get the same complaints as I do irl.
"You need to lose weight! Think of your health!"
"Take better care of yourself! Those clothes are all ragged out!"
"When are we going to have a place of our own?!"
"Woof! You never feed me! Worst owner ever! --The dog"
So to myself, I'm good. Ofcourse I'm good. I'm not so self-loathing as to believe I'm evil..
To the girl and dog, I'm good. Maybe a bit unreliable and immature, but good.
So some people believe I'm good out of ignorance. If the girl had an inklink I was going to crush her but at the last minute I had a change of heart. Would she still see me as good? She'd probably atleast not trust me as much..
And yet, I only have good qualities becase I refuse to remain in ignorance. Because I ask questions and speculate, I am able to come to a moral conclusion. I don't settle for "gray". If it's not black or white, then I'm not going to get involved with it. Everything I do, I do objectively.
Unfourtanatly, observers of my morality are not quite so responsive. The wolf pack of a majority declares me as evil, so in the minds of everyone but myself and a few, I am evil. What can I do about it?
If I were to try and change their minds, I'd have thrown away all my principles. And what is a man without his principles? Less then an animal. Evil..
To be good by the majority's standards but it be a lie, or be good to the minority but it be the truth. Lies versus Truth has been a cornerstone of good versus evil. And this doesn't even begin to comprehend just how good or evil I am, or how chaotic/lawful I am. Especially if we use 3.5's abitary "lawful means you're obsessive about something". Atleast AD&D law equaled government and doing the majority's bidding!
Alignment is as unreliable and uncontrollable as quantamn physics. The only time alignment is at all worth considering is if you're going to have goofy alignment motivational posters over cliche depictions..
Like this lol! I find 3 doors down "be like that" fitting because Fable 2's all about you being this big hero, and hearing stories of heroes of past. I'm this poor S.O.B, running around with mundane weaponry, raggy clothes that I only changed recently because I wanted to improve my good alignment without having to kiss people's asses, (monk robes +10 good) and to get my fiance to stop *****ing at me about my old commoner clothes.
That's another thing. Don't plan on getting married. Houses are expensive, and so is keeping a woman from divorcing you, for that reason, I'm just going to stay in a perpetual state of engagement. Which I believe by womanly standards scores me uber evil points lawl!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e29MQFrj2_8
This is how I project though. Ragged out clothes, uncaring attitude, unconcern with people's feelings of me dropping N bombs. XD
When it comes to Paladins it's kind of like they actually have two alignments, they're lawful good...but then they have their own moral code on top of that, so a lawful good fighter doesn't have as much to worry about as a lawful good paladins who has the lg + moral code. Honestly, paladins should just have their own alignment.
Lawful good basically means you do everything you would do as cg that isn't illegal. For example, a cg character would steal a piece of bread to feed a starving child while a lawful good character would not. Someone mentioned taking from a crypt...as long as their were no laws about disturbing the dead, a lawful good character could do it, a paladin of Kelemvor however who has a moral code about disturbing the dead would not.
Contrary to popular belief, Superman is not lawful good, he's chaotic good. He's a vigilante, which is illegal...plus he's technically an illegal alien (in the sense of not being born in America not the...actual alien thing)
Any of the green lantern however is lawful good...and one could even see the laws of Oa as their paladin moral code. A cop or soldier in the military, assuming they aren't secretly corrupt or whatever would be lawful good, a cop like commissioner Gordon in the batman series would be chaotic good, he doesn't follow all the rules such as letting a vigilante run around the streets and allows crooked cops to work with him, but these aren't evil acts, just unlawful ones. The best and most classic example of cg is Robinhood...he steals, an unlawful act but gives the money to the poor, a good act.
Contrary to popular belief, Superman is not lawful good, he's chaotic good. He's a vigilante, which is illegal...plus he's technically an illegal alien (in the sense of not being born in America not the...actual alien thing)
If Superman became a registered citizen
A: The government would have leeway to control him, being able to threaten his nobody parents in Kansas unless he complied.
B: He'd be putting loved ones indanger.
C: He'd be under the public eye, unable to move about freely to protect those in need.
Superman keeping his iddentity secret and technically breaking the law doesn't make him chaotic good. Lawful good doesn't mean lawful stupid.
Ofcourse, I myself am not lawful and hardly good. But then maybe that's why. Because there's this unreachable standard of what lawful good is supposed to be, and ends up harming it's own cause. If something prevents you from doing good, then how good can it possibly be?
Any of the green lantern however is lawful good...and one could even see the laws of Oa as their paladin moral code.
Ironicaly the green lanterns are the shining examples of paladinhood, but the guardians themselves, (the little blue midgets) are lawful neutral. Alot of times the green lanterns are disgusted by and or suspicious of the gaurdian's intent..
The best and most classic example of cg is Robinhood...he steals, an unlawful act but gives the money to the poor, a good act.
It's more like communist propaganda. Robin Hood was chaotic to neutral good, but not because he stole "for the greater good". He was a social activist. "The rich" were not simply rich like say big tobbacco companies. They were rich because the government was corrupt and taxed it's citizens irrationaly. People lived like serfs while government officals had all the money. It was basically organized robbery. Robin Hood stood up to these guys.
Ofcourse, lawful good tends to think more inlines of "work within the system", where as chaotic good fears if you work in the system, you'll soon find you've become the system.
Where as I just feel like working within the system is like wearing pants a few sizes too small. Why force yourself? The pants don't fit, don't wear them. They can try to force you to wear them, they can try to force you to lose weight so you fit into them. They can try and get a sword inbetween their eye.
To be honest lawfulness annoys me more then evil. Lawfulness is basically cowardess. Submission to people who's principles are not your own. You can't stand them, but you tolerate them. Why? Because you're afraid of the consequinces if you don't.
That's no way to live. Ironically though, it'll be someone just like me who'd do me in. Because no lawful person would have the audacity to just lop of my head without a trial, or a warrant, or something..
Also I stick by my belief that love is a helmet of random alignment. (Sortof random, in my exprience the alignments never shift beyond one step in each category) Patrick turns into a lawful neutral prick when he's inlove, where as ussually he's a neutral evil prick lawl!
I'd say I act chaotic neutral to chaotic evil, depending on my mood. But when I'm around Julz, I'm chaotic good. I want to help people out, I actually feel bad for people's problems, I want to show my love for her, and damn anyone who says our love is indecent exposure lol!
Ofcourse love doesn't always have to make you "less evil". I've seen people be real sons a *****es to their girls/boys and been douchebags to everyone that comes into contact with them while around their girl/boy. Like my cousin for example.
I mean, he's always a narccistic, sarcastic, lawful neutral douche. But then when he has a girlfriend he's a narccistic, sarcastic, lawful evil douche.
Or like even my best friend Jeremiah. Chaotic evil neo-nazi when by himself, he don't care, he'll burn your house down just cause you're not white. To neutral evil neo-nazi when around Sapphire. He'd still burn your house down, but he'd rather not openly gloat about it, or get introuble with the law. So he'll just make snide comments behind your back.
I love Venture Bros. Those guys are pretty straight foward about their alignments and yet have character depth.
The Phantom Limb: Lawful evil.
David Bowie: Lawful neutral. (Even though he's incharge of a villain organization)
Brock Sameson: Chaotic neutral leaning chaotic good.
Hank and Dean: Neutral good.
Rusty Venture: Chaotic neutral to true neutral.
The Monarch: Chaotic evil.
Dr.Girlfriend: Neutral evil to true neutral.
Dr.Orpheous: Lawful good. (And a necromancer, go figure..)
The Alchemist/Twilight Jefferson: True neutral.
Sergent Hatred: Lawful neutral.
In hindsight, Robinhood actually is a bit more cn then cg...I dunno, I really only know it based on the movies so *shrugs* also in hindsight, I think LN might be the hardest alignment to play...I had a good time, but really struggled with my LN monk a few campaigns back, it certainly made for an interesting experience. I like how games like nwn and pst do alignment...based on numbers, I kinda try to do that with pnp games...burning down an orphanage would be 100 evil points while stealing an apple would be a couple of points...that way huge arguments don't erupt over alignment and the shifts become easier to identify.
*Quick edit* Yeah, the guardians are a classic example of LN, though they're starting to act more like LD (lawful douches) these days.
Contrary to popular belief, Superman is not lawful good, he's chaotic good. He's a vigilante, which is illegal...plus he's technically an illegal alien (in the sense of not being born in America not the...actual alien thing)
I'll point out that you, like others, are giving a subjective interpretation to the objective system of alignment. Now to dispute your claims;
Superman is a legal citizen for several reasons.
1st, he is adopted by legal Americans.
2nd, he has lived in America long enough to be considered a citizen.
3rd, Superman is an alias, and that alias is considered to live in Antarctica, which is outside the jurisdiction of most American Law Enforcement.
You are allowed to travel to America without a green card, just not live there, making the Superman persona a legal visitor.
Secondly, he is not a vigilante. Citizen's Arrest (a misnomer, as the term citizen is not actually required) gives Superman the power to stop law-breakers and hold them while police arrive.
This also answers why Superman stops bank-robbers, but not speeding cars; speeding is not a felony, while bank-robbery is.
In addition, several Superman incarnations has him getting Deputized by one or more law enforcement agencies, also empowering him to work on/with their behalf.
A vigilante is someone who takes law enforcement as their own responsibility, which is beyond that of their authorized ability. As Superman does not take this beyond his legal ability, he is not a vigilante. He is subject to criminal and civil trials, due to 'side-effects', but is not usually accountable for improper arrest.
Superman for tomorrow shows his cg nature pretty well, plus anytime he fights Darkseid he's technically being chaotic since Apokolips has laws, twisted as they may be...in Superman/Batman public enemies he's cg too since he's constantly avoiding arrest and umm...fighting the president, but those are obviously unusual circumstances :D
Umm...in any event *shrugs* alignment discussions are silly, alot of it is different interpenetration more then anything else. If you're really worried about it, ask the dm before hand if he agrees with your line of thinking as to avoid issues it saves alot of arguing time...sometimes.
but...he is a vigilante because he does take it as his own responsibility...I mean, it's Superman, it's what he does!
You're right, it is your responsibility to arrest people who are committing a crime!
I am not familiar with an incarnation of Superman who considers himself above the law.
You're mistaking "follows the law" with "Lawful" again.
Why?
"because a LG-type won't kill an unborn being..."
Unborn = inocent.
So...
Is it good to kill an inocent?
"Celui qui a plus qu'autrui doit prêter assistance."
For LG in general, you're asking the wrong question. Any alignment has an infinite number of ways to play it. Any behavior style, however, has only 1 or 2 possible alignments, so pick a behavior style and if it matches a given alignment better than any other, you're probably that alignment.
For example: The assassin's guild wants me to murder someone. Fair enough. I know his name, I have a basic idea of where he is. But finding this guy is like a needle in a haystack.
So I just figure I'll kill every male I see in the town. Thus, saving me the trouble of looking for him. Also it makes it easier to steal without everyone baaawwing about it and reporting me to the cops..
Inbetween my mass murder, (and not just against men, I also kill hookers) and total lack of respect for personal property.. I find time to keep a lookout for my family, watch my daughter growup, and treat my dog like a son the way I keep up more with his health then my own.
I immagine that even someone like me expriences "moments" of lawful good. If I were lawful good, I'd get my daughter a present that was healthy. Not like what she likes, which is cholesterol breeding cheese..
But since I'm not lawful, whatever she wants, she gets. Regardless of whether or not it's good for her, or society. Same goes with my wife. We slept together in other people's houses lawls! That's not really evil, just.. disturbing..
Evidently I believe that's the pinnacle of chaotic alignment...
When you give that expression.
And ussually it's lawful people giving that expression.:P
Unborn = inocent.
So...
Is it good to kill an inocent?
This is a road no one wants to go down.
Understand?
This is a road no one wants to go down.
Understand?
Why you getting a butthurt with blackhand? ugglyvan was the first to meation it.
If he said something that made you uncomfortable then maybe you shouldn't be discussing alignment in the first place.
Or paladins.
Infact, why not play Paranoia? There, now you don't have to think about ****.. Cause you're too busy getting vaporized for treason against Friend Computer.
The view on paladins is that they will not hurt an innocent being, reguardless of race.
If you play a Paladin and you hurt, injure, or kill any innocent being, you are no longer a paladin.
I'll give you some examples of Lawful Good in popular media, because Furryhowler is wrong in that they don't always need to be part of anything official, nor organized. In fact, the text he cites even says "generally", so it's not exclusive. A wanderer or hermit could be lawful, but they'd probably follow a personal code, not an external one.
I'm assuming we are discussing 4th Ed here....Lawful Good in which makes repeated points about leaders, system, authority, laws, subjects and civilisation.
Qui-Gon repeatedly disobeyed the council...showing greater preference for "the will of the force" than for the view of a group of force users
There is a difference between Natural Law and Positive Law; the former is about the universe being orderly and coherent, the latter is about a belief that the universe isnt orderly and coherent enough and that it needs to be made (allegedly) more so.
The latter, these days (4th ed) is "Lawful", the former is not.
If you play a Paladin and you hurt, injure, or kill any innocent being, you are no longer a paladin.
lol, people who aren't officers don't quite get the code of conduct.
I'm sure much like paladins, officers aren't born, they're made. People are trained that way..
Like I have this automatic response to attack with non-lethal force, not only do to the legalty of the issue, but the innate desire to want to see justice and give everybody a fair trial. If lethal force was ever used, it's because that person was so far gone, that if I hadn't used lethal force I'd be dead. And that's no good for anybody..
Paladins look at their code the same way I immagine. Only instead of adhering to the non-aggression principle, adhere to a more chivlarous principle of "save the women and children first" or "never kill innocent people".
The problem is, GM's never laydown groundrules as to how exactly paladins run. Let's face it, paladins aren't just vigilantes running amuck. They're a structured organization with hierachy and causes. The GM manages to find time to laydown rules of ethics for the clergies, so why not the paladin stalls?
I immagine an apprentice paladin would be given a bit more leeway then a mature paladin. "He's young, he doesn't know any better.." But again, the paladinhood might look at it like "evil shows it's roots at the youngest stagest of life!" So it's up to the GM to ground what exactly makes a paladin, or if the GM is too lazy, the player do it, and stick by it.
And ofcourse, it would definitely help if the paladin was not put in unwinnable situations. Ofcourse any game should involve moral challenges to deepen roleplay and expiriment with people's reactions and ideas. It promotes creativity and excitement. But flatout making a paladin "fall" for anything he does is stupid, immature, and anti-social. You shouldn't be DMing if that's what you're going to do.
Frankly, I'm suprised so many arguments raise from paladins. I think deepdown everyone is concerned morally about paladins, not so much their in-game effects. How many players do you know play paladins? I don't know any. And it has nothing to do with alignment. They just suck. lol!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e29MQFrj2_8
This is my definition of lawful good, lol!