"What IS Lawful Good?" Topic

Serious question, what is Lawful Good?

Been toying with this for a bit of time, but what has made me ask on the Net is a post on Quora, where Javert was given as the LG example.

I would say he is Lawful Neutral; he takes no position on if a law is a good thing, he upholds it because it is a law. It is this that leads to his breakdown – he finds that the Lawbreaker Valjean is in fact a good person.

So what I'd LG? What should a GM expect from a LG where Law and Good are in opposition? For instance Nazi law around the treatment of Jews?

(I know Nazis aren't D&D, but I use them as we all understand they are Evil, and that labelis non-controversial)

You are a householder in Germany in the Nazi era. A young Jewish girl pleads with you to hide her. What does a LG character do?

For my games, I define LG differently than the books' official explanation.

To me, Byzantium was a textbook case of a Lawful society: they had protocols (rituals) which were slavishly adhered to, to get things done, in a proper manner -- they wondered how the with their wild, come-what-may, approach!

When the European Crusaders arrived, they were gobsmacked at how ritualistic the Byzantines were, wondering how they ever accomplished anything because they had to observe so many meticulous rituals!

For my games, LG societies have strict rules of etiquette which must be followed, if possible. If a Law is wrong, it is wrong -- full stop! Evil laws need not be obeyed.

Lawful societies place the whole society's needs above those of the individual, who can, and will be, sacrificed for the (relative) good of the many. The betterment of society, as a whole, is more important than the individual.

In Chaotic societies, the individual is more important than the whole of society. The individual cannot be sacrificed for the (relative) good of the many, as individual rights trump society, as a whole.

Neutrals believe that the general cause (Good/Evil/Neutrality) is more important than how you achieve those goals! If achieving those goals by sacrificing individuals is necessary, do it; if sacrificing the wants/desires of the society, to achieve the over-arching goals, then the whole of society must be sacrificed, to achieve the main goal of Good/Evil/Neutrality.

This is a simplistic overview, but it covers my main points on how I view Good/Evil/Neutrality and Lawful/Chaotic/Neutrality aspects of alignment.

The idea that Chaotic alignments mean randomness, is an old Sci-Fi trope. Chaos, in that sense, is of zero interest to me. It works in Sci-Fi stories for Elric of Menlnibone', but it does not work for me, in my RPG's (I find it foolish, to be honest). Cheers!

To be lawful / good you must be both lawful and good.

An illegal law need not be obeyed, and God's law, or Natural law is the highest law.

So helping someone escape persecution is a higher law than the national civil law. And so you are still lawful and good. However you would still obey all the other laws of that society.

The American founders knew this when they wrote down their reasons for breaking the statutory and common laws of England to revolt against the King. They believed they were following a higher law. Just as abolitionists helped slaves to escape before and during the American Civil War. They were obeying a higher law.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek

In the original D&D, there were simply three alignments: Law, Chaos, Neutral. That's it. They were "alignments" because they showed who a PC was literally "aligned" with— those on whose side your were and who would ally with you in battle. They thus also showed whom you were always against— who were your enemies in all circumstances. Neutrality simply meant the being could go either way— he would ally with either Law or Chaos depending on what seemed best at the moment.

In essence, alignment established who could hire whom. The only other mention of it is with regards to the Quest spell, where the curse resulting from refusing/failing the Quest would be partially based on the alignment of the quested individual, with no further explanation.

There was absolutely nothing about the nature of society or the behavior of the PC in the mix. The idea, obviously, rises from miniatures wargaming and fantasy army lists for Chainmail, borrowed from works like Three Hearts and Three Lions and comic book characters like Doctor Fate.

Only as Gygax tagged to the idea that people would very much role play behavioral qualities from alignment that he expanded it into having an actual social, societal and personal significance in the game, and added the Good-Evil axis. And thus he created endless hours of arguing and (eventually) online debate as to what each of the alignments mean, how each "should" be played, which characters are examples of any given alignment in literature, history, media and real life, and which one sucks and how you suck to if you play that alignment (usually leveled against "lawful good" by people who have issues out the wazoo and will automatically backstab or fireball any paladin PC who asks to join the party, and then storm off from the table (or discussion) when anyone calls ‘em out for it).
(Joking. Mostly.)

As a result, there are an infinite number of opinions as to what each alignment is. The best thing a DM can do is sit down with the players and make it clear what the DM expects the alignments to mean in his game and setting. If a player would make a choice which the DM holds would be against the alignment, the DM informs the player that under these understood meanings that would be a deliberate act against the PC's alignment. The player can then decide whether to make the choice anyway and suffer any consequences, or can offer a brief and reasonable counter as to why the action is in keeping with the alignment.

In the case of paladins, I would suggest using the Chivalric Code as a good basis for how LG paladins should behave, modified to the group's taste.

For the record, it's rather clear that Gygax was using modern 20th Century American ideals as his measuring stick for defining alignments. So a bit anachronistic to the presumed cultures of the game's setting.

As for your scenario, the lawful good person takes steps to hide the Jew. God's Law is superior to man's law. When the two depart, it is always man's law which is in the wrong.

Well I would look at it polar opossite. Lawful Evil best explaned as "the ends justify the means" So LG would be the ends are Justified only if it is within the Law or code.

I always considered Sir Galahad as the epitome of Lawful Good. He always does what is Right, even to his own detriment. What we used to refer to as 'Lawful Dumb'. I would agree with much of what was written above about God's Law, ignoring bad laws, and using the Code of Chivalry as a guide.

I always used to play paladins when I was playing D&D 40 odd years ago. Probably explains why I became a police officer.

"A young Jewish girl pleads with you to hide her. What does a LG character do?"

Ethical questions like this came up continuously when we played and resulted in heated arguments. What if you are on an undercover mission in enemy territory and the greater good is to let her die to keep your cover and save more lives?

I did away with alignment completely and only used it as a guideline for how NPCs would act. There is a difference between Lawful and "Awful" good. One of my groups had a Paladin that was constantly threatening to kill the other players if they did not adhere to his Chivalric code.

I actually ended up murdering the Paladin in our gaming group. I slit his throat while he was sleeping. I was running a thief and the Paladin threatened to kill me every time I tried to pick pocket, back stab or pretty much play to any of my characters strengths or alignment. I was so concerned the other players would try to resurrect him I cut off his head and fed it to a shark.

The Paladin would start fights because of his "Chivalric Code" that ended up getting players, NPCs and henchmen killed. He was just fine of course in his plate armor, shield and helmet with his huge HP to soak up damage.

Who defines which laws are good? If a society has laws for their society and a LG person from outside their society comes in, does the outsider decide which laws he will follow or not? I saw a couple of statements saying "If the law is illegal…." my question is, who deems it illegal?

"If the law is illegal…." my question is, who deems it illegal?"-Raynman

The Paladin in our group claimed to have a direct pipeline to HIS god so only he could interpret what the law was…

He was such a nutjob job he even demanded to review what spells players would select before a game to determine if they were "righteous and honorable" and could be cast in his presence.

The Paladin at the end of every adventure would demand to review the treasure. If he deemed it was stolen it had to be returned to its rightful owners. Sometimes he would demand we tithe our loot to his church. There were times he would not let us accept payment for a job if he determined it was not what his god would do. Magic items of less than righteous origin (or effect) had to be destroyed.

Dragon Gunner, none of that is "the Paladin's" fault. It's the player's fault. You had a sucky player who was out to deny everyone else their fun, because he himself was obviously a jerk.

His character, as defined by him, had no business in your campaign from the getgo, and the DM and the rest of you should have said so. Also, by rule, the Paladin shouldn't have been adventuring with any of you, as it seems your characters weren't Good, but at best Neutral.

Paladins will have henchmen of lawful good alignment and none other; they will associate only with characters and creatures of good alignment; paladins can join a company of adventurers which contains non-evil neutrals only on a single-expedition basis, and only if some end which will further the cause of lawful good is purposed.

— Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Players Handbook 1978, pp. 24. (Emphasis and underlining mine.)

So your DM screwed up big-time, and so did the paladin's player. None of what you complained about should have ever happened, according to the rules of the game.

"Dragon Gunner, none of that is "the Paladin's" fault. It's the player's fault"- Parzival

I never blamed the Paladin class how did you arrive at that conclusion?

"Also, by rule, the Paladin shouldn't have been adventuring with any of you,"-Parzival

The DM told us to roll up characters with no guidelines. Each of us showed up with characters of various classes and alignments. My chosen alignment was neutral (I like having some leeway to do questionable things to get the job done…). The choice was tell some of us we could not play our characters or bend the rules. The justification was an extension of "a single expedition basis" to become a permanent member.

I didn't say you blamed the class. You kept citing "the Paladin," when everyone of the decisions being made was done by the player. So it wasn't that the character was a Paladin, it's that the player was going overboard and claiming it was "what a paladin must do"— when that latter point of view was clearly wrong. "What a paladin must do" by the rules of the class in the circumstance you describe, is leave the party altogether. But even then, none of what the player insisted the paladin had to make the party do was correct.

— The paladin owes a tithe; the party does not. The party has no right nor duty to force a tithe on anyone else. That's the player, not the class expectation.

— The paladin has no inherent right to review the party treasure. That's nowhere stated in the class or the alignment rules. Again, the player.

— The paladin can detect evil on the treasure, but only magic which holds an actual evil alignment would be detectable as such. All other magic would not create any sensation at all. So what was the player claiming was "evil," except actual evil devices? And note that only the DM rules whether a magic item is "evil" or not— which means that determination was on the DM, not the player. The DM had to have actually have told the paladin's player that the magic item was of evil alignment for it to have actually been so. (And, by rule, "hazardous" is not evil. A poison does not detect as Evil; danger (even deadly danger) doesn't have an alignment. Nor does a cursed item, or a trick item like a Helm of Alignment Change. They aren't evil— they're just inconvenient.)

— The paladin has no "direct link" to his god and does not know what his god would demand unless he uses magic to contact the god. Otherwise, he's operating on his understanding of the faith. But that faith's rules aren't set by the player, they're set by the DM! The DM determines what the code of the paladin class are supposed to be, and what the expectations of the Lawful Good alignment (and its gods) are. Thus, it is on the DM to explain these expectations to the player.

So your DM screwed up. And screwed up big time. He should never have created the absurd situation you described, or allowed it to continue. And if he played with you consistently, he would have known you prefer neutral characters and either told you to instead choose a Good alignment, or told the paladin player to choose a compatible class to the rest of the party. It was careless and foolish of him to allow such an incompatible party to exist, or to restrict all of you to gaming in that circumstance. In essence, your party was the exception which proved the necessity of the rules he chose to ignore.

(Actually, I would rule your PC was Neutral Evil.— "getting to do what one thinks needs to be done" presumes a justification for evil actions from the start. That's not Neutral, in my book. It's Evil. And when your character "slit the throat" of the paladin character, I would have announced that your character was now indeed Evil in all respects— because killing the paladin wasn't the Neutral solution. A Neutral solution would be to tie him up and leave him naked in the town square with a Dear John note shoved in his mouth. No need to kill him existed; your PC broke the expectations of his declared alignment.

Neutral doesn't mean "I get to do anything." That's an evil point of view in all circumstances. In fact, it's Chaotic Evil— the alignment of the sociopath.

Again, my interpretation. YMMV.

I played a Paladin for a while, it was quite a laugh. I just got a bit sniffy when the other players did bad stuff and occasionally lead them off to perform good deeds as atonement while making noble speeches, largely inspired by Tony Curtis in "The Black Sword of Falworth". Yondah lies the cassle of my foddah!

Perhaps in the UK we treated D&D as light entertainment rather than a competitive sport? The DMs rule was generally law however.

"You kept citing "the Paladin," when everyone of the decisions being made was done by the player."-Parzival

To put it in context of that players justifications for his actions. I could say Edward did this but it would lack meaning.

"So your DM screwed up. And screwed up big time."- Parzival

Agreed!

"presumes a justification for evil actions from the start."-Parzival

Your opinion, my interpretation is not being bound to do the good thing in every circumstance. If I did good, would you hold me as equally accountable and say I was no longer neutral?

"because killing the paladin wasn't the Neutral solution"

He threatened to murder me and others every time we did not adhere to his desires. His Chivalric Code interpretations actually got party members, henchmen and NPCs killed so he could feel good about himself. He essentially robbed party members through intimidation and threats of violence. What would you say about him being Lawful Good? Would you have stripped him of his Paladin status and severed his divine powers?

Is your objection the way I killed him? It wasn't a straight up fair fight? (and never could have been…) I view it as self-defense. If I tied him up, he would have been rescued, sought me out and used some flimsy excuse to murder me. (A fair fight on his terms so probably not evil…)

" Neutral doesn't mean "I get to do anything."-Parzival

Neutral means I am not bound to do good in every circumstance, or some weak obligation to walk away from conflict or deliver some feeble measure that means nothing.

YouTube link

3:25

The circumstances you describe indicate that neither the player nor the DM understood what is meant by the concept of Lawful Good.

No, those things he had the paladin do were neither Lawful nor Good nor worthy of a paladin on ANY level. That the player did not realize this speaks to my assertion that he wasn't "playing a paladin"— he was being a self-centered , trying to mess up everyone else's fun for his own little sadistic power trip. As a DM, I'd have told him to shape up or ship out. And I'd probably have never invited him to play again.

So as I said, it's also on the DM. The DM should have known that none of this behavior was acceptable for a Lawful Good individual, much less a paladin. He should have nailed this player's choices from incident one. Hey, losing paladinhood is part of the rules, too. The second this guy bullied the party into turning over its treasure to him, or threatened another party member with death, all of his paladin powers should have instantly ended. The DM failed to be the fair and impartial referee he's supposed to be.

As I said, bad player. Worse DM.

I would rule that slitting the paladin's throat was evil because such an act IS evil. It's a decision that has no reversal, nor excuse, and is effectively irreconcilable. But it's also evil because it ignores equally effective solutions— the least of them being simply leaving the party oneself. Murder is a BIG evil. Punching the paladin in the face, casting dispel magic on his favorite magic item, getting him drunk, stripping him naked, and smuggling him into the local vestal virgin dorm to be discovered by the priestly guard— that sort of stuff is just as effective (and a lot more fun), and while evil in a sense, are not Big Evils.

So the same goes for Good acts— are they Big Good or just minor good acts? Big Good acts would be self-sacrificial moments— providing one's last healing potion to an injured child, willingly donating items of significant value to charity with no expectation of reward, risking one's life or body in the defense of others. All Big Good, and calling for a change of alignment. Tossing an extra copper to a beggar, paying for healing for the party when one knows this will directly benefit oneself during the upcoming adventure, etc..— these are smaller goods, which would not call for an alignment change unless they became a significant pattern in the PC's behavior.

By the way, in the 9-way alignment system, I hold that Neutral has two distinct characteristics— the True Neutral, who operates under a philosophical belief in the duality of nature and the need for Balance above all things (such as might be professed by a Druid), and the Casual Neutral, who goes about life with no explicit philosophy other than "getting by" or "what's in it for me." He obeys laws because (and when) it's foolish not to do so, or breaks them if the value to him is greater. But if he breaks ‘em, he's not going to go full bore evil. Killing in the instant (even without "fighting fair") yeah. But premeditated, planned out murder? No. Han Solo (at the start of Star Wars) is pretty much a Casual Neutral as presented. He's a smuggler, and he's more than willing to shoot Greedo from under the table when threatened on the spot. But he's not evil; he didn't plot Greedo's death. By the end of the movie he has changed to Good— behaving self-sacrificially and seeing that the well-being of others is more important than money.

Alignment change doesn't always have to be bad, or bear negative repercussions.

Game of Thrones, huh? Pass. Not my cuppa, even in a clip. (Read the books, ‘til they got out of hand and became bloated and boring. Have negative desire to see the show, if that's possible.)

"the least of them being simply leaving the party oneself."

And that meant not playing D and D anymore. It would also have been a win for Edward our groups Paladin to continue as he was and that infuriated me so much at the time I could not let it go.

"But he's not evil; he didn't plot Greedo's death."

No, it was self-defense.

In my case I was not facing someone of Greedo's stature it was more like Darth Vader. To engage him on the spot every time he threatened me could have been justified as self-defense but it would have been suicide. Premeditated murder was the only way to be rid of him.

I understand what you are saying Parzival. The fact it escalated to where it did was a profound failure on the DM to address Edward the Paladin's behavior over many game sessions.

"Perhaps in the UK we treated D&D as light entertainment rather than a competitive sport?"-Martin

All the groups I played in were blood thirsty maniacs and power climbers, even the good aligned characters.

Yeah, you had group problems, big time. Really, this required an out-of-game solution, with a conversation between all the participants.

Me, I'd have said, "Okay, time out guys. We need to talk." And then calmly explained my preference. And if everybody else was good with what was going on, then I'd respectfully bow out of the game. Life is too short to play with jerks.

Here you go:

Wiki – High Treason

D&D is set in mediaeval times? The Treason Act was passed in 1351ce – to protect the King/Crown.

So – Lawful Good = upholding the King's Peace.

Simples.

Lawful Good is paying the fine on your overdue VHS cassettes instead of delaying until the store goes out of business because of streaming services.

Lawful Good is defying and breaking an unjust law and then submitting to being arrested and tried for the crime. Civil disobedience.

When you can summon a legion of angels and yet submit to being condemned and executed, for a higher purpose, THAT is Lawful Good.

Sacrificial love, as in laying down one's life for another, is Lawful Good.

The king is Lawful Good, and so, ultimately, is the baron:

Gold is for the mistress – silver for the maid" -
Copper for the craftsman cunning at his trade! "
" Good! " said the Baron, sitting in his hall,
But Iron – Cold Iron – is master of them all."

So he made rebellion 'gainst the King his liege,
Camped before his citadel and summoned it to siege.
" Nay! " said the cannoneer on the castle wall,
" But Iron – Cold Iron – shall be master of you all! "

Woe for the Baron and his knights so strong,
When the cruel cannon-balls laid 'em all along;
He was taken prisoner, he was cast in thrall,
And Iron – Cold Iron – was master of it all.

Yet his King spake kindly (ah, how kind a Lord!)
" What if I release thee now and give thee back thy sword? "
" Nay! " said the Baron, " mock not at my fall,
For Iron – Cold Iron – is master of men all."

" Tears are for the craven, prayers are for the clown
Halters for the silly neck that cannot keep a crown."
" As my loss is grievous, So my hope is small,
For Iron – Cold Iron – must be master of men all! "

Yet his King made answer (few such Kings there be!) "
Here is Bread and here is Wine – sit and sup with me.
Eat and drink in Mary's Name, the whiles I do recall
How Iron – Cold Iron – can be master of men all."

He took the Wine and blessed it. He blessed and brake the Bread
With His own Hands He served Them, and presently He said:
" See! These Hands they pierced with nails, outside My city wall,
Show Iron – Cold Iron – to be master of men all. "

" Wounds are for the desperate, blows are for the strong.
Balm and oil for weary hearts all cut and bruised with wrong.
I forgive thy treason – I redeem thy fall
For Iron Cold Iron – must be master of men all! "

'Crowns are for the valiant – sceptres for the bold!
Thrones and Powers for mighty men who dare to take and hold!'
" Nay! " said the Baron, kneeling in his hall,
" But Iron – Cold Iron – is master of men all!
Iron out of Calvary is master of men all! "

A lot of interesting viewpoints expressed above; with many, I find myself in alignment (intentional pun LOL) but not all.

Lawful means following a code or set of rules larger than yourselves and accepting judgement for your deeds by an authority.

Good means you act for the benefit of others as well as yourself.

Neutral feels there has to be balance between laws and freedom, helping others and being selfish.

Evil represents willful selfishness, hurts others for benefit, and sometimes for enjoyment.

Chaotic values personal freedom over authority.

I would actually expand the axes at both ends and the center:
– Malevolent evil hurts others intentionally.
– Altruistic good helps others to the detriment of self.
– Ritualistic lawful cannot deviate from laws regardless circumstance.
– Austere neutral accepts no new authority or morality.
– Anarchic chaotic acts solely by whimsy.

And I would add 3 more behaviors characterizing response to authority:
– Hierarchical lawful recognizes only one authority at a time.
– Obdurate neutral is constrained within a range of behaviors, but elsewhere acts freely according to morality.
– Wayward chaotic will not accept orders.

And chaos being chaos adds another:
– Intractable chaotic deliberately acts in rebellion or defiance of orders.

Anyway,

Lawful Good believes laws and order and authority are the best way to help the most people. A lawful good person confronted with a law that produces hurtful outcomes may work within society to change the law, and may help the victims towards recompense. With internal conflict, they may choose to not obey a law that gives hurtful outcomes.

I know Nazis aren't D&D,

Nazis personify Lawful Evil, where the laws are hurtful and the agents of authority are selfish or outright malevolent.

You are a householder in Germany in the Nazi era. A young Jewish girl pleads with you to hide her. What does a LG character do?

For certain, plead with authority on behalf of the Jewish girl. A cowardly character would feed and provision the girl and look the other way. A brave character would help her escape.

This: link

once was playing in a gaming club in Oregon, and the group decided that we should all make Chaotic Evil characters and play as them for a while. After a very short time, people realized that it wasn't that different then when everyone was playing Good characters!!!!!