LG follows and abides to any law which he considers just and moral. LN follows any law or authority regardless of morality (E.G bounty hunters like Graywolf). LE uses any means possible to uphold lawful order, no matter how immoral those laws, the society, or their actions may be.
I would agree if you would replace LG with NG on the first line. If he has to decide which laws he follows based on his moral compass, than he is also prepared to break a law which he finds unjust. For example if he ventures to Luskan, sees a Slaver and strikes him down to free the slaves even though the slaver is protected by local law. A law abiding adventurer would not ignore local law, even though it might irk him to no end.
Sorry, but this is completely wrong. "Lawful" has absolutely nothing to do with law-biding. It's a moral issue. A lawful-good character, especially a cleric or paladin who is clearly following a divine calling and their deity's standards of what is lawful and right. They have zero interest in local laws. They will make war against a brutal slaver, and the nation that allows it, at every opportunity. Lawful-good will routinely make war against evil or unjust laws. It's often what they live for. Think Deitrich Bonheffer. (And that's my Godwin's law contribution for the day...)
LG follows and abides to any law which he considers just and moral. LN follows any law or authority regardless of morality (E.G bounty hunters like Graywolf). LE uses any means possible to uphold lawful order, no matter how immoral those laws, the society, or their actions may be.
I think that may be oversimplifying. The essence of lawful is that these people believe that order is essential to the achievement of their goals.
LG believe that the MOST good can be achieved when there is order and laws to protect people. Examples of this in modern society would be programs like Medicaid or food stamps - helping millions of people through government run programs that would be hard for the individual to reach.
LN believe that they are safe and secure in a lawful society. I don't have to worry about my house being broken into or being assaulted in the street, because there are laws to punish that behavior and police who will enforce those laws. They aren't as worried about people outside of their social circle, but they like that laws protect their property and their family.
LE believe that laws can give them power over others, and increase their wealth and/or influence. Example in modern society would be mega-rich business owners that use lobbyists and the legal system to maximize their profits irregardless of the impact on communities and who treat the employees terribly. For example, trying to abolish the minimum wage so they can legally pay their workers $2 an hour would be LE. NE would be more likely to just hire illegals so they could pay $2 anyway.
I think its a mistake to try to parallel modern issues too much, you're basically suggesting LGs are all socialist, which definitely doesn't work for me. I could just as easily see the LG individual setting up food or welfare programs through their church, and avoiding state entanglements entirely. The point of LG is not a big brother government, it's about some sort of order and organization to help people. I think especially those who are LG as a matter of faith (clerics, paladins) would much rather work through their church than the state. And in a fantasy setting where the various religions have an easier time remaining true to their patron deity's ideals (due to the granting of spells, and divination magic) it will be far easier for a religion to remain true to their ideals than a human government.
Sure, LG doesn't have to be connected to government, but an individual who believes that their church can do more good than they can due to size and structure wouldn't be much different from one who believes that the government should play a role. It's a matter of LG-religious vs. LG-nonreligious. LG doesn't mean big brother, but it means that there is a belief that structure and order will accomplish more good than the individual on their own.
Your point of setting up a nonprofit could range from LG to NG, depending. If they set up a nonprofit specifically because that gives them legal protection, oversight, and possible greater reach, then they are definitely LG - legal nonprofits gain a lot from government involvement. There is a difference between someone who creates a nonprofit to allow for fundraising, hiring of employees, and tax breaks vs. someone who just hands out food from their back porch.
Aside: I knew I would get a response if I used government assistance programs as an example.
LE believe that laws can give them power over others, and increase their wealth and/or influence. Example in modern society would be mega-rich business owners that use lobbyists and the legal system to maximize their profits irregardless of the impact on communities and who treat the employees terribly. For example, trying to abolish the minimum wage so they can legally pay their workers $2 an hour would be LE. NE would be more likely to just hire illegals so they could pay $2 anyway.
API, Monsanto, Walmart come to mind. Ugh, let's not go there.
I think I see the light. So far I've read some interesting points of view on this thread, and one encounter in BG has really thrown me to the other side of this thing.
So I get attacked by this Paladin at a tavern in Baldur's Gate. The Paladin gives no reason why he's attacking us, other than that we are "evil". Aside from that we did nothing wrong.
Ok so 1. He disregarded the law in the judicial sense and attacked my party for no real reason
2. He must have an intelligence of 9 if he think it's a good idea to attack 6 well armed people by himself.
3. If he succeeded, he would of essentially murdered 6 people in cold blood.
Here's the Irony. In a similar situation, my "evil" group didn't even attack the leaders of the Iron Throne in Candlekeep. No intelligent dialogue option existed to initiate the attack. It was either "DAI IRON THROWN!!!" or "sorry for bothering you" So we just let them live. Which brings us back to the OPs original quandary, Lawful stupid vs the world
No doubt that paladin in Baldur's Gate is Lawful-Stupid. I'd even call it really lousy role playing of a Paladin, he must have some sort of special dispensation for his below minimum wisdom...
I do not recall this Phandalyn. If he is a LG Paladin, which it appears there is dispute over, he is most definitely a disservice to both the alignment, and the class.
LG follows and abides to any law which he considers just and moral. LN follows any law or authority regardless of morality (E.G bounty hunters like Graywolf). LE uses any means possible to uphold lawful order, no matter how immoral those laws, the society, or their actions may be.
I would agree if you would replace LG with NG on the first line. If he has to decide which laws he follows based on his moral compass, than he is also prepared to break a law which he finds unjust. For example if he ventures to Luskan, sees a Slaver and strikes him down to free the slaves even though the slaver is protected by local law. A law abiding adventurer would not ignore local law, even though it might irk him to no end.
Sorry, but this is completely wrong. "Lawful" has absolutely nothing to do with law-biding. It's a moral issue. A lawful-good character, especially a cleric or paladin who is clearly following a divine calling and their deity's standards of what is lawful and right. They have zero interest in local laws. They will make war against a brutal slaver, and the nation that allows it, at every opportunity. Lawful-good will routinely make war against evil or unjust laws. It's often what they live for. Think Deitrich Bonheffer. (And that's my Godwin's law contribution for the day...)
Would you be so kind and actually read the descriptions of lawful good and chaotic good in the character creation screen? In BG2 the keywords are moral compass vs. the question "what must be done to unsure the quality of life". Why would they choose to phrase it exactly like I tried for the third time?
There are the rules und the descriptions, and there is the way you like to play the game. If your character believes differently, I will congratulate him for such benevolent thinking. But please, don't tell me I'm completly wrong just because I believe that the description fits perfectly with my way of playing a RPG.
@atcDave Indeed that behavior is the mark of low wisdom, not intelligence
@RnRClown He is an example of the over zealous Lawful-Stupid mentality that a Paladin can fall into.
@JLee Perhaps, his cre file or something may list him as TN, I don't know, but textually within the game, questlogs etc, I do believe he is referred to as a Paladin. "Rumors of a Paladin on the hunt for Evil within Buldur's Gate"
You can search the net for other forum posts about him. The consensus is that he is a Paladin
A Paragon is the best of the best. I tried to give examples where your image of a Paladin (has to be the most angelic and devine being alive) will not fit, because the Paladin will choose to follow his teachings, his will of it's deity even though it might colide with the laws of the country he is in. Let's try again, even though you will shout "evil" before long.
If you enter a certain city which lies underground, and then behave different from the rest - in fact so different that you will be branded as an outsider. Will the one removing you from the premisses by transforming you into a drinne doing a deed which will restore order and is by all authorities in that city considered the right thing to do not also lawful and piety person?
We are discussing lawful good, that example is lawful evil, but you just might get my point. If you follow your own agenda, wether it's your deity's codex or your own, while neglecting the laws of the people, then you still might be a bringer (of light and) justice, one of the best of the good. But you still won't be lawful, you might even brake the law and face a court. On the other side: If you follow all rules and customs in a country, you might be lawful, but that still doesn't mean you are actualy doing a good deed - you just might doing what is expected.
To be lawful and good, you need to have laws, which are similar to the teachings of the deity. Only then will your actions be lawful, while you are doing your goodness.
If your description holds true, then there are no fallen Paladins. I know I have one in my save which actually managed to do just that by inviting too much erm, by giving wrongdoers a chance to redeem themselfes and by delievering justice for the wronged people. Isn't that what lawful good people do?
You're waaaaay too hung up on the word "law." Laws are a code of conduct, but not all codes of conduct are laws.
LG are not beholden to all laws. That would be the LN. The LG can discard a law that is unjust, to oppose it how would best benefit the innocent, and best punish the mean spirited. The intrinsic nature of a law - if it is law then it must be obeyed - holds little sway with a LG. Again, that is the LN. The LG is the barometer that measures the virtue of a law, to determine if it is best serving the honorable, and the innocent.
NG will discard laws where and when they see fit, irrespective of the spirit of the law, if they feel more good can be achieved through such action. The NG will just as easily abide by law and work for the betterment of said law when that is how the most good can be achieved.
CG disagrees with law, order, social forms, and everything they stand for, on an instinctive level because they restrict freedom, and independence. They value their own personal freedom above all else. They distrust organizations, they disdain authority, and shall disregard law with reckless abandon in all that they do.
Charity ceases to be charitable when government coercion is involved.
Lawful good would say, I'm happy to pay taxes that go to programs to help other people, because the government can reach more people faster than I can. Chaotic good would say, government doesn't help people the way I would, so I want to do my own thing, but I'm going to spend as much or more than I would have paid in the taxes to do so. Neutral good would be somewhere in between.
People who say the government is forcing me to help other people who don't deserve to be helped are more likely chaotic neutral. They want the government out of their lives, and they don't want to help other people unless they have a personal stake in it.
Voluntary relationships are ethically superior to involuntary relationships, in which one party uses the leverage of power to force the terms of the relationship (Oh sure, there is always a choice, but one of those choices is "or else," whatever that may be).
If we are speaking of the United States specifically, the food stamp program creates an involuntary relationship in which one party is coerced into providing a portion of the fruits of their labor in order to finance a program that, at least in intent, is to feed people who cannot afford to purchase food. Even if the program is arguably good in intent, coercion is used to finance it, which is essentially an ends justifies the means approach.
Never mind the fact that the vast majority of tax revenue is not used to feed starving orphans or to build roads. The taxes that the lawful good person pays are mostly used to finance an empire that engages in endless wars, drone strikes on civilians, torture, militarization of law enforcement, unlawful domestic spying, secret courts, and countless other acts of corruption both grave and petty at all levels of society. There is also corruption within the food stamp program itself, committed by the government entity and even by some of the recipients.
Of course, only those of eeeeevil alignment (they want poor children to starve!) would even question the righteous nobility of the food stamp program and the manner of its funding. To be fair, perhaps the less bloodthirsty of them could be chaotic neutral - at best! If the food stamp program were to be ended, millions of obese Americans would starve to death, just like the last time Americans starved in vast quantities, like, um, at Jamestown during the early colonization of America. Too bad they didn't have food stamps back then.
LG follows and abides to any law which he considers just and moral. LN follows any law or authority regardless of morality (E.G bounty hunters like Graywolf). LE uses any means possible to uphold lawful order, no matter how immoral those laws, the society, or their actions may be.
I would agree if you would replace LG with NG on the first line. If he has to decide which laws he follows based on his moral compass, than he is also prepared to break a law which he finds unjust. For example if he ventures to Luskan, sees a Slaver and strikes him down to free the slaves even though the slaver is protected by local law. A law abiding adventurer would not ignore local law, even though it might irk him to no end.
Sorry, but this is completely wrong. "Lawful" has absolutely nothing to do with law-biding. It's a moral issue. A lawful-good character, especially a cleric or paladin who is clearly following a divine calling and their deity's standards of what is lawful and right. They have zero interest in local laws. They will make war against a brutal slaver, and the nation that allows it, at every opportunity. Lawful-good will routinely make war against evil or unjust laws. It's often what they live for. Think Deitrich Bonheffer. (And that's my Godwin's law contribution for the day...)
Would you be so kind and actually read the descriptions of lawful good and chaotic good in the character creation screen? In BG2 the keywords are moral compass vs. the question "what must be done to unsure the quality of life". Why would they choose to phrase it exactly like I tried for the third time?
There are the rules und the descriptions, and there is the way you like to play the game. If your character believes differently, I will congratulate him for such benevolent thinking. But please, don't tell me I'm completly wrong just because I believe that the description fits perfectly with my way of playing a RPG.
Actually the description pointedly describes the benefits of a GOOD government. Something a LG character would undoubtably be all in favor of. But in order to implement such a good government, and the description specifically says establishment of such is a goal, it means corrupt or evil government should be fixed/replaced/usurped. The requirement of a good government means there is a higher standard than said government that is defining good vs evil. And THAT, is the law they serve. Be it deity or philosophy, It is the principle of law and good that empowers the character to fight for or against any government or law based on how it measures up. The human institution itself can never be a standard. Okay, I'll take that back a little. The human institution could be a standard for a LG secular humanist. But in most fantasy settings, certainly in the Forgotten Realms, secular humanism is not really a relevant faith.
And why do I get a feeling that you switch the effect with the cause?
In my point of view a Paladin isnt born, he is trained: First as a Priest/Cleric then for battle. When he shows talent for fighting he might qualify for knighthood. To be knighted he has to swear an oath to the crown, followed be the oath to uphold the law and to defend the country against all enemys. Usually a good alignment Knight will also swear the oath to protect the weak. Only after that conditions are met he will be accepted in the Order of a temple as Paladin - which also means that he has to swear to uphold the codex of the deity/temple.
Now keep that picture in mind: half knight charged to uphold the law(mudane) half Priest (divine) charged to follow the codex.
If he balances out both, he will succeed in his profession as Paladin. Once he favours one over the other... that will be his undoing:
- If he favours the mudane (the law) over the devine, he will colide with the temple. They will brand him as outcast and that result is called a fallen Paladin. The fallen Paladin lost the right to speak for the temple and he lost the ability to cast his devine magic.
- If he favours the devine (the codex of his deity) over the mudane, then he will be able to use his devine powers, but since he committed a crime he will be charged as criminal by the crown because he broke his vow and will be facing the judge. Usually breaking a vow will not be taken lightly, he will face the block.
Some still tell me lawful has no connection with law. Well, care to explain to me why you always throw me a Paladin every time I try to define lawful-good? Is there no lawful good mage, or for example a LG Babarian? And moreover, I really am looking forward to your explanation, why you can't roll a lawful-good thief. I mean, for me it's simple: One who chooses a life of crime cannot be concidered a law abiding citizen, hence he can't in a sane mind be called lawful. But if I follow your reasoning, then by all means, there must be a lawful-good thief.
Don't get me wrong, I always expect everyone to follow rule number 1 in every RPG: Always play a Role-Playing-Game in a way you have fun, not in way others tell you how it has to played. You don't have to bow down and agree on everything I say, but please don't expect me to change my point of view without a good reason.
Now is your chance, I'm really looking forward to it.
edit @atcDave The sentence was: "To ensure quality of life, laws must be created and obeyed[...] Therefore LG citizens strife for these (...) things" For me it tells me that people who accept that law as fundation of life, will be called people who abide by the laws. In Short: lawful people. It is then followed by the means why they follow the rules, which should explain why they are called lawful good people.
edit2: @RnRClown Hopefully this will explain why I seem to confuse neutral and lawful alignment in your eyes. Both cases described are alignmentchanges from lawful to either neutral, or even chaotic alignment. This time I did refrain myself to jump to extremes like from LG to CE in one go.
Couple of things I see wrong in your assumptions. Mainly, a paladin is NOT a knight. He's a Holy warrior in service to his church, not the state. Although the name "paladin" is derived from the knights of Charlemagne, the class description would show them to be more like medieval Holy Orders. They were beholden to no secular authority. They served only the church and Pope. During the Crusades, they often served the states of Outremer as allies; but purely as allies. They occasionally refused to serve unworthy kings. And they were never involved in law enforcement work.
But ultimately the problem with your assumptions is that any of the "lawful" part comes from the state. The whole point of the divine powers is a measure of their devotion to their deity. They would not ordinarily take any vows to any secular authority, so there is no earthly oath breaking for them to fear. They could exist in an evil state, wholly at war with that state. Probably even as an underground institution declared illegal by the local authorities. They serve as champions of the oppressed and fight to bring about a new, just government, that ideally would actually be lawful and good. They could exist in a neutral state too; alternately supporting or opposing the government, depending on where said government stood on various good or neutral issues.
Paladins and LG clerics always draw the most attention, because alignment is so important to what they are. But all of this can apply to other LGs too. A LN MIGHT derive their principles and standards from a state, but even then it's a poor standard. Human institutions often fail to follow even their own rules.
I suspect a big part of this disconnect is between PNP and CRPG players. AD&D 1E was very clear the alignment had nothing to do with the laws of man. And I think the more human touch of playing a PNP game exposes the inconsistencies of trying to play it that way. But it shouldn't be a hard decision for any LG character to know what to do when confronted by an immoral law.
If you refer to knights of the realm, even knights who are made in our days, you should look upon the definition a bit closer. I did not include the exact phrasing, but the sequence when what oath is taken is correct. Also the medivial knights of our lands do usually also gain land with their title bestowed by the kingdom. And here he is charged to uphold the law of the crown. For example to protect the land, but also to collect the tax and to provide armed troops in case of a war. Paladins always prefer heavy armor and long weapons, since their closest profession, the knight of our medivial time, was almost always teached a lot of weapons, but was part of the heavy cavalry - which explains heavy armor as well, as the longer weapons.
The crusaders are not the moderate Paladins I discribed in the latest post, they are the ones where I cannot even begin discuss alignment at all, because that would be highy political, totally out of topic and maybe even considered offensive by a religion or minority. Let's just say that crusaders did not talk their enemies into giving up the "holy land", and since they where not knighted by the crown, but apointed by the clergy, they never had to break the law of their county. The church even gave them a lot of reasons why no law should be applied at all.
@RazaDelrom - Pretty much as atcDave so eloquently wrote, there is no direct causal relationship between the law and Paladins (or in fact any Lawful alignment). You quoted from the text in game about Lawful's feeling that laws are necessary, and that may be the intent. Where there is a significant disconnect is in that those laws may not (and often are not) "The laws of the land". They are the laws and rules of conduct (or codex) of their order.
The conflict you describe between the mundane and the church does not exist in a Paladin's world. It is Faith in their Deity/order and the laws of their order that are the only things that matter to a Paladin. These are never in conflict in Faerun because the Gods walk the earth and tell their churches in no uncertain terms what is expected and that becomes both tenants of faith and foundation of law.
Also, a lot of what you describe isn't "Lawful Good" but "Lawful Stupid". Paladins and other lawful goods are not so stupid and one dimensional that they can not suffer someone of different belief systems to live. They don't have overwhelming compulsion to slay anyone who is not as good and wholesome as they are. Yes, they strike to prevent atrocities. Yes, they stand up for the downtrodden and the less fortunate. But no, they don't create a fight that they have no hope of winning merely because they encounter 'Evil'.
A smart Lawful good would not rail against the gates of a Drow city merely because they are 'Evil'. He might seek ways to bring about change through diplomacy, or even join forces with others who fight against such evil. But they are not so blind and transparent that, if they see someone with an evil thought in their heads, that they MUST slay them. That is the mind set of a killer, not a Holy warrior.
Of course, only those of eeeeevil alignment (they want poor children to starve!) would even question the righteous nobility of the food stamp program and the manner of its funding. To be fair, perhaps the less bloodthirsty of them could be chaotic neutral - at best! If the food stamp program were to be ended, millions of obese Americans would starve to death, just like the last time Americans starved in vast quantities, like, um, at Jamestown during the early colonization of America. Too bad they didn't have food stamps back then.
You went way beyond what I actually said. I never said the food stamp program was perfect, or that the government of the United States was lawful good (I don't believe that at all). My point was that a lawful good individual would be happy to pay taxes if those taxes benefited the greater good - as you state, feeding the hungry or building roads. To continue with your argument, a lawful good person would try to reform the food stamp program, a neutral good person might look for another solution, like starting a neighborhood food drive, a chaotic good person would hand out food from their porch or even steal a truck of food and park it in a low-income neighborhood.
If you consider the discussions all the way down this forum, we've been discussing the actions of lawful good when a program has become corrupt. I don't believe lawful good blindly follow the laws of their government, but they recognize that the most good can be accomplished through a lawful society.
You obviously have some very strong feelings about the food stamp program, the government, and the poor, so I won't go further down this path with you. I will just note that many people pay taxes, not because they are lawful good, but because they feel they are forced to. This includes people in almost every alignment and even some in lawful good and lawful neutral who don't believe in the law's outcomes.
@RazaDelrom - Pretty much as atcDave so eloquently wrote, there is no direct causal relationship between the law and Paladins (or in fact any Lawful alignment). You quoted from the text in game about Lawful's feeling that laws are necessary, and that may be the intent. Where there is a significant disconnect is in that those laws may not (and often are not) "The laws of the land". They are the laws and rules of conduct (or codex) of their order.
The conflict you describe between the mundane and the church does not exist in a Paladin's world. It is Faith in their Deity/order and the laws of their order that are the only things that matter to a Paladin. These are never in conflict in Faerun because the Gods walk the earth and tell their churches in no uncertain terms what is expected and that becomes both tenants of faith and foundation of law.
Also, a lot of what you describe isn't "Lawful Good" but "Lawful Stupid". Paladins and other lawful goods are not so stupid and one dimensional that they can not suffer someone of different belief systems to live. They don't have overwhelming compulsion to slay anyone who is not as good and wholesome as they are. Yes, they strike to prevent atrocities. Yes, they stand up for the downtrodden and the less fortunate. But no, they don't create a fight that they have no hope of winning merely because they encounter 'Evil'.
A smart Lawful good would not rail against the gates of a Drow city merely because they are 'Evil'. He might seek ways to bring about change through diplomacy, or even join forces with others who fight against such evil. But they are not so blind and transparent that, if they see someone with an evil thought in their heads, that they MUST slay them. That is the mind set of a killer, not a Holy warrior.
Amoens quest shows, that the cleric seeks knighthood as a stepstone to become a Paladin. What is a knight, if he swears no oath to protect his country and it's laws? He would just be a soldier or mercenary.
Ferun is such a nice place, because the book of law actually devides the responsibilities. The temple deal in the devine, the circle of magi deal with the arcane, and the crown with it's soldiers and knights deal with the mudane. Ever wondered why there is a cleric and a paladin? If there is no need to uphold the law, why even bother with paladins at all? Which one is closer to the deity, the cleric or the Paladin? Who commands more divine power? For me the answer is simple, the cleric doesn't swear an oath to uphold the law, he only swears to uphold the codex. The paladin swears both oaths. And in terms of divine power, the answer should be obvious.
But let's return to the "a paladin would never smite the wicked". Tell me again, what quest is given in BG2 from the temple of helm? Something about comfirming wethere there is a new true god, or a false god? What exactly should we do if we find a false god? Shake hands?
LG are not beholden to all laws. That would be the LN. The LG can discard a law that is unjust, to oppose it how would best benefit the innocent, and best punish the mean spirited. The intrinsic nature of a law - if it is law then it must be obeyed - holds little sway with a LG. Again, that is the LN. The LG is the barometer that measures the virtue of a law, to determine if it is best serving the honorable, and the innocent.
NG will discard laws where and when they see fit, irrespective of the spirit of the law, if they feel more good can be achieved through such action. The NG will just as easily abide by law and work for the betterment of said law when that is how the most good can be achieved.
CG disagrees with law, order, social forms, and everything they stand for, on an instinctive level because they restrict freedom, and independence. They value their own personal freedom above all else. They distrust organizations, they disdain authority, and shall disregard law with reckless abandon in all that they do.
Im not sure I agree on your CG, that sounds more like CN. A CG would break any law / disobey order / carry out actions according to their own morality if doing such things was a benefit to others (E.G. Gandhi).
A CN is only concerned about what is best for him or herself, at any expense of others and will do whatever they can to fulfill their own desires with the limit of them causing direct suffering to anyone else. But if their actions were to inadvertently cause negative impacts on other people, they wouldn't care, while a CG wouldn't do anything that would cause a detriment to others in such a way.
So to summarise - CG = what's best for everyone regardless of law and order, CN = what's best only to the individual.
I suppose CE = I like to stab swords in people and watch them bleed and die, therefore Im gonna stab swords in people and watch them bleed and die and enjoy every second of it.
Also another thing to consider about CG vs CN - A CG would gladly rebel and disrupt order for the benefit of other people. A CN would be too self centered and draw the line at doing anything that would get them in trouble, because it wouldn't be in their interests to risk punishment. If a CG had the choice to be imprisoned for an action that benefitted hundreds / thousands of others, they would gladly carry out that action while a CN would not. If a CN had a choice to carry out an action that benefitted them at the cost of causing suffering for thousands of others, they would carry out that action (so long as they didnt get caught or their reputation ruined) while a CG would not.
CN = Yolo, do what's best for me and my own fulfilment, CG = do what's best for others no matter the consequences.
Another easy example of CG is 'If I see evil, I kill evil', regardless of what law or order say, eg Minsc.
Also another thing to consider about CG vs CN - A CG would gladly rebel and disrupt order for the benefit of other people. A CN would be too self centered and draw the line at doing anything that would get them in trouble, because it wouldn't be in their interests to risk punishment. If a CG had the choice to be imprisoned for an action that benefitted hundreds / thousands of others, they would gladly carry out that action while a CN would not. If a CN had a choice to carry out an action that benefitted them at the cost of causing suffering for thousands of others, they would carry out that action (so long as they didnt get caught or their reputation ruined) while a CG would not.
CN = Yolo, do what's best for me and my own fulfilment, CG = do what's best for others no matter the consequences.
Another easy example of CG is 'If I see evil, I kill evil', regardless of what law or order say, eg Minsc.
I would tend to agree, but maybe it's not a fixed value but a certain area. Neutral could also mean, that said character tries to balance good and evil to get the best result. Like traiding the lifes of few without telling them beforehand might just save the mission and therefore more lifes.
If memory serves right then the Hafners or Druids are the only ones, who think more about balance then themselfes
Druids and Hafners certainly are, but the moral compass of an CN just might swing in that direction. But still a valid point, we should also try not to include what if's in the discussion, or we will see no end to it.
Order and balance would be like a complete anti thesis to a Chaotic character.
If you played NWN, Qara and Safiya were perfect examples of CN and TN characters.
The balance thing is more to do with simply being a Druid, and little to do with being a TN anything else.
One thing that BG did wrong was neutral NPCs complaining if a parties reputation got too high. Reputation has little to do with being neutral, and for LN or CN, a high reputation would actually be preferred as a reward for an LNs obedience and loyalty, or due to a CN character being viewed as better by others which would be beneficial to them. A TN would not have any problem with either a high or low reputation.
You are correct @Mungri. I had clearly laced some CN in with my summary of a CG. It wasn't intentional. You cleared it up with aplomb. Thanks!
I am enjoying this thread. It has helped me to better understand the LG, and see them in a much better light. The most popular adventurer of said alignment - the Paladin - has also arrisen to a better standing in my book. A clearer distinction between the CG and the CN is an unexpected and welcome surprise, an important one too.
Comments
Lawful-good will routinely make war against evil or unjust laws. It's often what they live for. Think Deitrich Bonheffer. (And that's my Godwin's law contribution for the day...)
LG believe that the MOST good can be achieved when there is order and laws to protect people. Examples of this in modern society would be programs like Medicaid or food stamps - helping millions of people through government run programs that would be hard for the individual to reach.
LN believe that they are safe and secure in a lawful society. I don't have to worry about my house being broken into or being assaulted in the street, because there are laws to punish that behavior and police who will enforce those laws. They aren't as worried about people outside of their social circle, but they like that laws protect their property and their family.
LE believe that laws can give them power over others, and increase their wealth and/or influence. Example in modern society would be mega-rich business owners that use lobbyists and the legal system to maximize their profits irregardless of the impact on communities and who treat the employees terribly. For example, trying to abolish the minimum wage so they can legally pay their workers $2 an hour would be LE. NE would be more likely to just hire illegals so they could pay $2 anyway.
The point of LG is not a big brother government, it's about some sort of order and organization to help people. I think especially those who are LG as a matter of faith (clerics, paladins) would much rather work through their church than the state. And in a fantasy setting where the various religions have an easier time remaining true to their patron deity's ideals (due to the granting of spells, and divination magic) it will be far easier for a religion to remain true to their ideals than a human government.
Your point of setting up a nonprofit could range from LG to NG, depending. If they set up a nonprofit specifically because that gives them legal protection, oversight, and possible greater reach, then they are definitely LG - legal nonprofits gain a lot from government involvement. There is a difference between someone who creates a nonprofit to allow for fundraising, hiring of employees, and tax breaks vs. someone who just hands out food from their back porch.
Aside: I knew I would get a response if I used government assistance programs as an example.
I think I see the light. So far I've read some interesting points of view on this thread, and one encounter in BG has really thrown me to the other side of this thing.
So I get attacked by this Paladin at a tavern in Baldur's Gate. The Paladin gives no reason why he's attacking us, other than that we are "evil". Aside from that we did nothing wrong.
Ok so
1. He disregarded the law in the judicial sense and attacked my party for no real reason
2. He must have an intelligence of 9 if he think it's a good idea to attack 6 well armed people by himself.
3. If he succeeded, he would of essentially murdered 6 people in cold blood.
Here's the Irony. In a similar situation, my "evil" group didn't even attack the leaders of the Iron Throne in Candlekeep. No intelligent dialogue option existed to initiate the attack. It was either "DAI IRON THROWN!!!" or "sorry for bothering you" So we just let them live. Which brings us back to the OPs original quandary, Lawful stupid vs the world
There are the rules und the descriptions, and there is the way you like to play the game. If your character believes differently, I will congratulate him for such benevolent thinking. But please, don't tell me I'm completly wrong just because I believe that the description fits perfectly with my way of playing a RPG.
@RnRClown He is an example of the over zealous Lawful-Stupid mentality that a Paladin can fall into.
@JLee Perhaps, his cre file or something may list him as TN, I don't know, but textually within the game, questlogs etc, I do believe he is referred to as a Paladin. "Rumors of a Paladin on the hunt for Evil within Buldur's Gate"
You can search the net for other forum posts about him. The consensus is that he is a Paladin
LG are not beholden to all laws. That would be the LN. The LG can discard a law that is unjust, to oppose it how would best benefit the innocent, and best punish the mean spirited. The intrinsic nature of a law - if it is law then it must be obeyed - holds little sway with a LG. Again, that is the LN. The LG is the barometer that measures the virtue of a law, to determine if it is best serving the honorable, and the innocent.
NG will discard laws where and when they see fit, irrespective of the spirit of the law, if they feel more good can be achieved through such action. The NG will just as easily abide by law and work for the betterment of said law when that is how the most good can be achieved.
CG disagrees with law, order, social forms, and everything they stand for, on an instinctive level because they restrict freedom, and independence. They value their own personal freedom above all else. They distrust organizations, they disdain authority, and shall disregard law with reckless abandon in all that they do.
If we are speaking of the United States specifically, the food stamp program creates an involuntary relationship in which one party is coerced into providing a portion of the fruits of their labor in order to finance a program that, at least in intent, is to feed people who cannot afford to purchase food. Even if the program is arguably good in intent, coercion is used to finance it, which is essentially an ends justifies the means approach.
Never mind the fact that the vast majority of tax revenue is not used to feed starving orphans or to build roads. The taxes that the lawful good person pays are mostly used to finance an empire that engages in endless wars, drone strikes on civilians, torture, militarization of law enforcement, unlawful domestic spying, secret courts, and countless other acts of corruption both grave and petty at all levels of society. There is also corruption within the food stamp program itself, committed by the government entity and even by some of the recipients.
Of course, only those of eeeeevil alignment (they want poor children to starve!) would even question the righteous nobility of the food stamp program and the manner of its funding. To be fair, perhaps the less bloodthirsty of them could be chaotic neutral - at best! If the food stamp program were to be ended, millions of obese Americans would starve to death, just like the last time Americans starved in vast quantities, like, um, at Jamestown during the early colonization of America. Too bad they didn't have food stamps back then.
The requirement of a good government means there is a higher standard than said government that is defining good vs evil. And THAT, is the law they serve. Be it deity or philosophy, It is the principle of law and good that empowers the character to fight for or against any government or law based on how it measures up. The human institution itself can never be a standard.
Okay, I'll take that back a little. The human institution could be a standard for a LG secular humanist. But in most fantasy settings, certainly in the Forgotten Realms, secular humanism is not really a relevant faith.
In my point of view a Paladin isnt born, he is trained:
First as a Priest/Cleric then for battle. When he shows talent for fighting he might qualify for knighthood. To be knighted he has to swear an oath to the crown, followed be the oath to uphold the law and to defend the country against all enemys. Usually a good alignment Knight will also swear the oath to protect the weak. Only after that conditions are met he will be accepted in the Order of a temple as Paladin - which also means that he has to swear to uphold the codex of the deity/temple.
Now keep that picture in mind: half knight charged to uphold the law(mudane) half Priest (divine) charged to follow the codex.
If he balances out both, he will succeed in his profession as Paladin. Once he favours one over the other... that will be his undoing:
- If he favours the mudane (the law) over the devine, he will colide with the temple. They will brand him as outcast and that result is called a fallen Paladin. The fallen Paladin lost the right to speak for the temple and he lost the ability to cast his devine magic.
- If he favours the devine (the codex of his deity) over the mudane, then he will be able to use his devine powers, but since he committed a crime he will be charged as criminal by the crown because he broke his vow and will be facing the judge. Usually breaking a vow will not be taken lightly, he will face the block.
Some still tell me lawful has no connection with law. Well, care to explain to me why you always throw me a Paladin every time I try to define lawful-good? Is there no lawful good mage, or for example a LG Babarian? And moreover, I really am looking forward to your explanation, why you can't roll a lawful-good thief. I mean, for me it's simple: One who chooses a life of crime cannot be concidered a law abiding citizen, hence he can't in a sane mind be called lawful. But if I follow your reasoning, then by all means, there must be a lawful-good thief.
Don't get me wrong, I always expect everyone to follow rule number 1 in every RPG: Always play a Role-Playing-Game in a way you have fun, not in way others tell you how it has to played. You don't have to bow down and agree on everything I say, but please don't expect me to change my point of view without a good reason.
Now is your chance, I'm really looking forward to it.
edit
@atcDave
The sentence was: "To ensure quality of life, laws must be created and obeyed[...] Therefore LG citizens strife for these (...) things"
For me it tells me that people who accept that law as fundation of life, will be called people who abide by the laws. In Short: lawful people. It is then followed by the means why they follow the rules, which should explain why they are called lawful good people.
edit2:
@RnRClown
Hopefully this will explain why I seem to confuse neutral and lawful alignment in your eyes. Both cases described are alignmentchanges from lawful to either neutral, or even chaotic alignment. This time I did refrain myself to jump to extremes like from LG to CE in one go.
Although the name "paladin" is derived from the knights of Charlemagne, the class description would show them to be more like medieval Holy Orders. They were beholden to no secular authority. They served only the church and Pope. During the Crusades, they often served the states of Outremer as allies; but purely as allies. They occasionally refused to serve unworthy kings. And they were never involved in law enforcement work.
But ultimately the problem with your assumptions is that any of the "lawful" part comes from the state. The whole point of the divine powers is a measure of their devotion to their deity. They would not ordinarily take any vows to any secular authority, so there is no earthly oath breaking for them to fear. They could exist in an evil state, wholly at war with that state. Probably even as an underground institution declared illegal by the local authorities. They serve as champions of the oppressed and fight to bring about a new, just government, that ideally would actually be lawful and good. They could exist in a neutral state too; alternately supporting or opposing the government, depending on where said government stood on various good or neutral issues.
Paladins and LG clerics always draw the most attention, because alignment is so important to what they are. But all of this can apply to other LGs too. A LN MIGHT derive their principles and standards from a state, but even then it's a poor standard. Human institutions often fail to follow even their own rules.
I suspect a big part of this disconnect is between PNP and CRPG players. AD&D 1E was very clear the alignment had nothing to do with the laws of man. And I think the more human touch of playing a PNP game exposes the inconsistencies of trying to play it that way. But it shouldn't be a hard decision for any LG character to know what to do when confronted by an immoral law.
If you refer to knights of the realm, even knights who are made in our days, you should look upon the definition a bit closer. I did not include the exact phrasing, but the sequence when what oath is taken is correct.
Also the medivial knights of our lands do usually also gain land with their title bestowed by the kingdom.
And here he is charged to uphold the law of the crown. For example to protect the land, but also to collect the tax and to provide armed troops in case of a war. Paladins always prefer heavy armor and long weapons, since their closest profession, the knight of our medivial time, was almost always teached a lot of weapons, but was part of the heavy cavalry - which explains heavy armor as well, as the longer weapons.
The crusaders are not the moderate Paladins I discribed in the latest post, they are the ones where I cannot even begin discuss alignment at all, because that would be highy political, totally out of topic and maybe even considered offensive by a religion or minority. Let's just say that crusaders did not talk their enemies into giving up the "holy land", and since they where not knighted by the crown, but apointed by the clergy, they never had to break the law of their county. The church even gave them a lot of reasons why no law should be applied at all.
The conflict you describe between the mundane and the church does not exist in a Paladin's world. It is Faith in their Deity/order and the laws of their order that are the only things that matter to a Paladin. These are never in conflict in Faerun because the Gods walk the earth and tell their churches in no uncertain terms what is expected and that becomes both tenants of faith and foundation of law.
Also, a lot of what you describe isn't "Lawful Good" but "Lawful Stupid". Paladins and other lawful goods are not so stupid and one dimensional that they can not suffer someone of different belief systems to live. They don't have overwhelming compulsion to slay anyone who is not as good and wholesome as they are. Yes, they strike to prevent atrocities. Yes, they stand up for the downtrodden and the less fortunate. But no, they don't create a fight that they have no hope of winning merely because they encounter 'Evil'.
A smart Lawful good would not rail against the gates of a Drow city merely because they are 'Evil'. He might seek ways to bring about change through diplomacy, or even join forces with others who fight against such evil. But they are not so blind and transparent that, if they see someone with an evil thought in their heads, that they MUST slay them. That is the mind set of a killer, not a Holy warrior.
If you consider the discussions all the way down this forum, we've been discussing the actions of lawful good when a program has become corrupt. I don't believe lawful good blindly follow the laws of their government, but they recognize that the most good can be accomplished through a lawful society.
You obviously have some very strong feelings about the food stamp program, the government, and the poor, so I won't go further down this path with you. I will just note that many people pay taxes, not because they are lawful good, but because they feel they are forced to. This includes people in almost every alignment and even some in lawful good and lawful neutral who don't believe in the law's outcomes.
Ferun is such a nice place, because the book of law actually devides the responsibilities. The temple deal in the devine, the circle of magi deal with the arcane, and the crown with it's soldiers and knights deal with the mudane.
Ever wondered why there is a cleric and a paladin? If there is no need to uphold the law, why even bother with paladins at all? Which one is closer to the deity, the cleric or the Paladin? Who commands more divine power?
For me the answer is simple, the cleric doesn't swear an oath to uphold the law, he only swears to uphold the codex. The paladin swears both oaths. And in terms of divine power, the answer should be obvious.
But let's return to the "a paladin would never smite the wicked". Tell me again, what quest is given in BG2 from the temple of helm? Something about comfirming wethere there is a new true god, or a false god? What exactly should we do if we find a false god? Shake hands?
A CN is only concerned about what is best for him or herself, at any expense of others and will do whatever they can to fulfill their own desires with the limit of them causing direct suffering to anyone else. But if their actions were to inadvertently cause negative impacts on other people, they wouldn't care, while a CG wouldn't do anything that would cause a detriment to others in such a way.
So to summarise - CG = what's best for everyone regardless of law and order, CN = what's best only to the individual.
I suppose CE = I like to stab swords in people and watch them bleed and die, therefore Im gonna stab swords in people and watch them bleed and die and enjoy every second of it.
CN = Yolo, do what's best for me and my own fulfilment, CG = do what's best for others no matter the consequences.
Another easy example of CG is 'If I see evil, I kill evil', regardless of what law or order say, eg Minsc.
If memory serves right then the Hafners or Druids are the only ones, who think more about balance then themselfes
LN, TN, and CN all differ vastly in terms of the 'Neutral' aspect.
If you played NWN, Qara and Safiya were perfect examples of CN and TN characters.
The balance thing is more to do with simply being a Druid, and little to do with being a TN anything else.
One thing that BG did wrong was neutral NPCs complaining if a parties reputation got too high. Reputation has little to do with being neutral, and for LN or CN, a high reputation would actually be preferred as a reward for an LNs obedience and loyalty, or due to a CN character being viewed as better by others which would be beneficial to them. A TN would not have any problem with either a high or low reputation.
I am enjoying this thread. It has helped me to better understand the LG, and see them in a much better light. The most popular adventurer of said alignment - the Paladin - has also arrisen to a better standing in my book. A clearer distinction between the CG and the CN is an unexpected and welcome surprise, an important one too.