@the_spyder - Thanks for reading, I was reading this thread and couldn't resist getting involved with my own two cents.
To your points, I don't feel I explained myself as explicitly as I should have, I just feared rambling on into a thesis statement that no one would be interested in reading.
When I said that an act cannot be considered 'good' without some risk of and/or tax to ones own health and resources, I only meant that the essence of good is either helping others, or combating evil. Both tasks demand strength and resource of a character, even in infinitely small amounts, for example:
The character who stops to give a cup of water to a thirsty begger is, if nothing else, giving of his time, even if only a minute.
The character who stands up to declare a particular law as immoral or wrong is risking scorn by his peers at the very least (or worse depending on who wants the law to pass).
Both of these actions are the essence of what it means to be 'good'. Avoidance of evil does not suffice, it only serves to make one neutral.
As to my point on Wisdom being a hallmark of the Lawful Good character, I was drawing a correlation between Wisdom and classes which are considered exemplars of such behavior; the Monk and Paladin, and (perhaps) a good Cleric.
The Monk (a lawful creature if ever there was one) benefits greatly from wisdom and insight for it allows him to better fulfill his duties and not be deceived into straying from his code.
The Paladin (the exemplar of Lawful Good) uses Wisdom to serve as a better vessel for the power of his God, and recognize good from evil in situations that seem morally gray.
The Cleric (who must be wise above all else) spends all his time meditating upon his God, and questions of good versus evil as dictated by the tenets of that deity. This suggests Wisdom is the prime score for determining their ability to do so. Just as a Fighter needs muscles to lift heavy weapons, so too does a Cleric need insight in order to serve a good deity.
In these champions of good or law (or both), whose lives are defined by these powers, they clearly all share the common root of exceptional wisdom. This does not mean all good characters must be wise, only that the leaders and champions of the righteous commonly have high wisdom.
Then again, there is something to be said for the very low wisdom half-orc Barbarian, who simply can't engage the intrigues of evil but still can call a thing for what it is. Those mean men hurt small, pretty things? Krunk smash.
EDIT: I just realized something else -- Aasimar, who are descended from good-aligned Outsiders, receive a racial bonus to Wisdom. That is, if nothing else, suggestive of a relationship between the two.
@Blackhawk - again I don't disagree holistically. And maybe where I do disagree it is in translation, but your examples are predicated upon the notion that Action is required in order for someone to be 'Good'. This is where I disagree.
Take the example of a child, raised from birth in the confines of a monastery. Regardless of if you believe in Good and evil being either Nature or Nurture (and that is a whole other discussion), given the seclusion of the upbringing, the child may never have opportunity to interact with people, nor take any action which would define them as 'good' or 'evil'. This doesn't make the person 'neutral'. Their nature and desires would do that. such a being could conceivably be 'Good' without ever encountering another living being.
As far as the Wisdom thing, either I am not understanding what you are saying, or you aren't giving definition but rather using potentially anecdotal examples. True a Paladin must have Wisdom. So to a Blackguard. True a Cleric has WIS as their primary ability, yet still they may worship Talos or Umberlee.
You use the example of a Monk. Herein lies the ultimate test. Certain philosophies preach non-interference in all things and effectively neutrality and contemplation. These are often considered The Most Wise. all I was saying was that you appear to be trying to draw a causal link between Wisdom and goodness. I do not agree there is one. Correlative? Possibly. But not causal.
Lawful Good is representative of the ideas of moral universalism/objective morality (ie there is a clear right and wrong based on fundamental principles) as in right and wrong can only be determined through logic and are therefore purely objective. Like the ideas of natural rights being derived from our humanity or a higher power, etc.
whereas
Chaotic Good is based on Utilitarian and Epicurean theories on ethics (ie the greatest good for the greatest number, moral relativism, etc.) as in the idea of right and wrong is very clear, yet applies to each situation in a way that requires intuitive reasoning in regards to particular or peculiar circumstances rather than basing action on a standard axiom
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... or the one."
I've always felt that was a slippery slope. Sacrifice one life to save 100? 500? how many lives do you sacrifice (read "murder") if 10,000 or 100,000 are at stake, all in the name of Lawful Good?
I always read it as "Do the right thing, no matter what the cost". From a certain perspective, they are the same. But not from every direction. 'Doing the right thing' should never involve murdering. but then at 10,000 feet people tend to look like numbers on a balance sheet.
Someone once made the argument that 'If there is a heaven and that life was all about suffering', the 'Greatest possible good for the greatest number of people' was mass genocide. That way you stop the most suffering.
@Schneiden There are traditionally two views on the idea of "the greatest good for the greatest number" Utilitarians say that this is situational. That is that the "greater good" is the immediate goal, and is what determines right and wrong Whereas people who view morality objectively are more prone to believing that "a greater good" can only be achieved by strict adherence to principles. So they think that what some might consider to be working for the greater good in a situation (such as being a vigilante) may undermine the long term goals of having a moral society (as in, "what if everyone was a vigilante?"). They think that in order to have a just society, which would in turn serve the greater good, you need to have laws that may force them to take far less expedient paths to dealing with a certain situation.
So I'd say CG would view greatest good for the greatest number as an immediate end, where as LG would view a situation in how it relates to the long-term interest of his society. The thing is they usually would agree on most extreme situations, so there will definitely be crossover between the two.
@booinyoureyes This is why BG1 & 2 tack on a bit about, and I'm paraphrasing here, 'while harming the least amount of people.' Any amount of Chaos is generally harmful for people who aren't self-sufficient badasses.
Nah moral relativism doesn't exist in the canon D&D setting. Good and evil (and to a lesser extent law and chaos) are absolutes, and absolutely exist in tangible forces that are constantly struggling against each other where polar opposites collide in the Prime Material plane. The alignment scale is all about how each being falls into the governance of those forces.
Nah moral relativism doesn't exist in the canon D&D setting. Good and evil (and to a lesser extent law and chaos) are absolutes, and absolutely exist in tangible forces that are constantly struggling against each other where polar opposites collide in the Prime Material plane. The alignment scale is all about how each being falls into the governance of those forces.
some would say moral relativism doesn't exist in real life too
Nah moral relativism doesn't exist in the canon D&D setting. Good and evil (and to a lesser extent law and chaos) are absolutes, and absolutely exist in tangible forces that are constantly struggling against each other where polar opposites collide in the Prime Material plane. The alignment scale is all about how each being falls into the governance of those forces.
some would say moral relativism doesn't exist in real life too
Yes, but those increasingly improbable some would not include me.
@booinyoureyes This is why BG1 & 2 tack on a bit about, and I'm paraphrasing here, 'while harming the least amount of people.' Any amount of Chaos is generally harmful for people who aren't self-sufficient badasses.
In my opinion, the distinction between LG and CG has nothing to do with how many people were helped or how many people were harmed in the helping. It has to do with a core belief that order facilitates good works vs. a core belief that order limits good works.
Lawful good would say that the most good can be accomplished when there is a system of laws and a government that promotes good works. As an example, a ruler taxes his subjects and then uses the money to build schools to educate his people's children. Through the direction of the ruler and the levying of taxes, more people have access to this resource. More good is accomplished through government because more people can be reached and there is organization to maximize efficiency.
Chaotic good would say that the most good can be accomplished if people are free to make their own decisions. They would argue that laws, regulations and government restrict people or discourage them from doing good. The flip side of the example above, chaotic good would say that because people are taxed to build the schools, they are less likely be charitable with their remaining money. Chaotic good would argue that, absent the structure, the citizens of this country might be more generous. In addition, they might donate to feed the hungry or to build a hospital instead of just to build schools.
Both sides could be right, to some extent. Both want what is best for others, but they disagree about the role of government, order, and laws/rules in accomplishing that good. In both cases it's possible that the same number of people are helped (although helped differently) and it's doubtful that anyone is hurt at all.
To be completely honest, as far as a Paladin is concerned, I don't think that they would do the most good for the most people. I think that they would do the right thing no matter what the consequences. these two are not the same thing.
To be completely honest, as far as a Paladin is concerned, I don't think that they would do the most good for the most people. I think that they would do the right thing no matter what the consequences. these two are not the same thing.
Completely agree. It is like the end of Watchmen.
Rorschach (Objectivist) thought that it was morally wrong to lie, even with the possible consequences
The others took a view more in line with moral relativism
Probably because of the Lawful Stupid part yeah. That and paladins and some other LGs tend to be very annoying to deal with for anyone that's not LG/LN, as they try to impose their own code and values upon everyone else, and they'll keep harassing you until your acts are deemed right or honorable in their eyes. They also don't tend to you know... search for and understand the reasonings behind acts that are outside their own codes/values, and like to deem certain acts as inherently evil/wrong. I'd really have no problem dealing with a LG char like Aerie, but Keldorn or LG Anomem? Talking to them would be like having a mindflayer slowly sucking at your brain.
Why so many gamers are mean spirited and mocks lawful good characters?
... because lawful good is NOT trendy anymore... chaotic evil IS the new fashion to follow and have fun with now(or better; lawful evil, much better & profitable nowadays, btw.. to control & use all the well trained others.. *// ).
I think LG could be interesting, frankly what makes Keldorn compelling to me as a character is that he is a deeply flawed lawful good. My issues with Anomen are less his lawful good, order this, order that, and more his outright misogynism towards female PCs, especially in a romance. My cavalier thoroughly enjoyed telling him off all the time.
That said I'm considering running a new LG type party based around my Dwarven Wizard Slayer, who is a wannabe paladin of Mystra I'm thinking. I plan on running Keldorn, Anomen, Rasaad, Valygar and probably Yoshimo -> Imoen, but that's just cause I don't feel like I have a good fit until then.
I also need to think of a good BG1 party for this character. And yes it is purposely light on casters for a reason . (There was a massive debate on taking Aerie over Anomen, and I just decided that Anomen would prolly fit the party more. And some part of me takes perverse joy is telling off his misogynistic ego.
Probably because of the Lawful Stupid part yeah. That and paladins and some other LGs tend to be very annoying to deal with for anyone that's not LG/LN, as they try to impose their own code and values upon everyone else, and they'll keep harassing you until your acts are deemed right or honorable in their eyes. They also don't tend to you know... search for and understand the reasonings behind acts that are outside their own codes/values, and like to deem certain acts as inherently evil/wrong. I'd really have no problem dealing with a LG char like Aerie, but Keldorn or LG Anomem? Talking to them would be like having a mindflayer slowly sucking at your brain.
I think this is largely a miss-perception, that Paladins and Lawful Goods in general are overbearing and attempt to force their outlooks on life on other people. I don't suspect that is any more true of Lawful goods as it is of any other alignment/religion/ideology. Sure, there are those who will attempt to force their way of thinking down your throat, but that is not 'Because they are Lawful Good/Paladin'. It is merely one flavor of that philosophy.
The day an horde of rampaging orcs attacks your town we'll se who thinks the guy who screams "By Torm, brothers, hide while I destroy these creatures" is annoying or stupid. Okay, perhaps a bit stupid, but still...
Anyway, my explanation is quite simple. People can't read. Alignments are an artificial creation, and if the manual says LG means X, that's what it means. Not more, nor less. It does not say anything about their intelligence, personality, annoyingness, how they answer to infinte variations of a prisoners dilemma or whatever. A LG can be humorless, witty, intelligent, retarded, suicidal, optimist, cynic, courageous, coward, obnoxious, wise, thick, psychotic (¿Don Quijote?), humble, arrogant, extrovert, introvert, shy, sex addict, liberal, conservative, a paladin or a pig farmer... It's the common mistake about alignment being a perfect and sufficient description of a character, and that they -because they are oh so good- should be flawless in their character. Yeslick, Dynaheir, Aerie, Rasaad, Ajantis and Keldorn, what do they have in common besides alignment and two of them being paladins? Few things (the first three are prisoners of some sort, though)
Besides, many people believe the odd proposition that being "good" is a natural/naive and static behaviour/personality and not something one is always striving for. Something that is difficult and requires strenght, dedication and wisdom. And mistakes.
Probably because of the Lawful Stupid part yeah. That and paladins and some other LGs tend to be very annoying to deal with for anyone that's not LG/LN, as they try to impose their own code and values upon everyone else, and they'll keep harassing you until your acts are deemed right or honorable in their eyes. They also don't tend to you know... search for and understand the reasonings behind acts that are outside their own codes/values, and like to deem certain acts as inherently evil/wrong. I'd really have no problem dealing with a LG char like Aerie, but Keldorn or LG Anomem? Talking to them would be like having a mindflayer slowly sucking at your brain.
I think this is largely a miss-perception, that Paladins and Lawful Goods in general are overbearing and attempt to force their outlooks on life on other people. I don't suspect that is any more true of Lawful goods as it is of any other alignment/religion/ideology. Sure, there are those who will attempt to force their way of thinking down your throat, but that is not 'Because they are Lawful Good/Paladin'. It is merely one flavor of that philosophy.
Agreed - for one, evil usually takes great joy in corrupting people to its cause. If you're a weak-willed paladin you can bet there are demons and devils and other villains lining up to take advantage of that.
Agreed - for one, evil usually takes great joy in corrupting people to its cause. If you're a weak-willed paladin you can bet there are demons and devils and other villains lining up to take advantage of that.
Fun fact: evil Clerics in 2e AD&D could turn Paladins with their Turn Undead ability, albeit at a heavy penalty.
I think LG could be interesting, frankly what makes Keldorn compelling to me as a character is that he is a deeply flawed lawful good. My issues with Anomen are less his lawful good, order this, order that, and more his outright misogynism towards female PCs, especially in a romance. My cavalier thoroughly enjoyed telling him off all the time.
That said I'm considering running a new LG type party based around my Dwarven Wizard Slayer, who is a wannabe paladin of Mystra I'm thinking. I plan on running Keldorn, Anomen, Rasaad, Valygar and probably Yoshimo -> Imoen, but that's just cause I don't feel like I have a good fit until then.
I also need to think of a good BG1 party for this character. And yes it is purposely light on casters for a reason . (There was a massive debate on taking Aerie over Anomen, and I just decided that Anomen would prolly fit the party more. And some part of me takes perverse joy is telling off his misogynistic ego.
Well, Ajantis is a given. I think Yeslick might be as well. Imoen is not a bad choice for thieves (she is as "lawful" as a thief will get right?). Xan might be a good fit for a caster. and then Rasaad.
I feel your pain on the Yoshimo question (I always take him anyway). I think a cool NPC would be a Lawful Neutral (or maybe even good if you can justify it) Scout-type thief. Like someone who was in the army, similar to Valygar, except as a kitted thief instead. Bounty Hunter might also fit as a "lawful" type thief who would not be evil.
@Booinyoureyes I think I finally narrowed down my BG1 party for that character to:
WS Dwarf using axes Ajantis Kivan -> Coran Imoen (The only real magical caster I'll have, although you definitely bring up a good point with Xan as he is a member of the Greycloak guard military whatever) And probably Brawen -> Yeslick. The issue with taking Xan would be that Rasaad is SoL then and I'm really trying to take him. The ONLY reason I'm changing Kivan for Coran is that Coran does what I need better than Kivan does (if they both use longbows), and that's about usually when I dual imoen to mage.
Yoshimo will at least be going along story wise for Spellhold, well, that's pretty explanatory.
Comments
To your points, I don't feel I explained myself as explicitly as I should have, I just feared rambling on into a thesis statement that no one would be interested in reading.
When I said that an act cannot be considered 'good' without some risk of and/or tax to ones own health and resources, I only meant that the essence of good is either helping others, or combating evil. Both tasks demand strength and resource of a character, even in infinitely small amounts, for example:
The character who stops to give a cup of water to a thirsty begger is, if nothing else, giving of his time, even if only a minute.
The character who stands up to declare a particular law as immoral or wrong is risking scorn by his peers at the very least (or worse depending on who wants the law to pass).
Both of these actions are the essence of what it means to be 'good'. Avoidance of evil does not suffice, it only serves to make one neutral.
As to my point on Wisdom being a hallmark of the Lawful Good character, I was drawing a correlation between Wisdom and classes which are considered exemplars of such behavior; the Monk and Paladin, and (perhaps) a good Cleric.
The Monk (a lawful creature if ever there was one) benefits greatly from wisdom and insight for it allows him to better fulfill his duties and not be deceived into straying from his code.
The Paladin (the exemplar of Lawful Good) uses Wisdom to serve as a better vessel for the power of his God, and recognize good from evil in situations that seem morally gray.
The Cleric (who must be wise above all else) spends all his time meditating upon his God, and questions of good versus evil as dictated by the tenets of that deity. This suggests Wisdom is the prime score for determining their ability to do so. Just as a Fighter needs muscles to lift heavy weapons, so too does a Cleric need insight in order to serve a good deity.
In these champions of good or law (or both), whose lives are defined by these powers, they clearly all share the common root of exceptional wisdom. This does not mean all good characters must be wise, only that the leaders and champions of the righteous commonly have high wisdom.
Then again, there is something to be said for the very low wisdom half-orc Barbarian, who simply can't engage the intrigues of evil but still can call a thing for what it is. Those mean men hurt small, pretty things? Krunk smash.
EDIT: I just realized something else -- Aasimar, who are descended from good-aligned Outsiders, receive a racial bonus to Wisdom. That is, if nothing else, suggestive of a relationship between the two.
Take the example of a child, raised from birth in the confines of a monastery. Regardless of if you believe in Good and evil being either Nature or Nurture (and that is a whole other discussion), given the seclusion of the upbringing, the child may never have opportunity to interact with people, nor take any action which would define them as 'good' or 'evil'. This doesn't make the person 'neutral'. Their nature and desires would do that. such a being could conceivably be 'Good' without ever encountering another living being.
As far as the Wisdom thing, either I am not understanding what you are saying, or you aren't giving definition but rather using potentially anecdotal examples. True a Paladin must have Wisdom. So to a Blackguard. True a Cleric has WIS as their primary ability, yet still they may worship Talos or Umberlee.
You use the example of a Monk. Herein lies the ultimate test. Certain philosophies preach non-interference in all things and effectively neutrality and contemplation. These are often considered The Most Wise. all I was saying was that you appear to be trying to draw a causal link between Wisdom and goodness. I do not agree there is one. Correlative? Possibly. But not causal.
Lawful Good is representative of the ideas of moral universalism/objective morality (ie there is a clear right and wrong based on fundamental principles) as in right and wrong can only be determined through logic and are therefore purely objective. Like the ideas of natural rights being derived from our humanity or a higher power, etc.
whereas
Chaotic Good is based on Utilitarian and Epicurean theories on ethics (ie the greatest good for the greatest number, moral relativism, etc.) as in the idea of right and wrong is very clear, yet applies to each situation in a way that requires intuitive reasoning in regards to particular or peculiar circumstances rather than basing action on a standard axiom
Actually, Lawful Good is the "greatest good for the greatest number" alignment.
I've always felt that was a slippery slope. Sacrifice one life to save 100? 500? how many lives do you sacrifice (read "murder") if 10,000 or 100,000 are at stake, all in the name of Lawful Good?
I always read it as "Do the right thing, no matter what the cost". From a certain perspective, they are the same. But not from every direction. 'Doing the right thing' should never involve murdering. but then at 10,000 feet people tend to look like numbers on a balance sheet.
Someone once made the argument that 'If there is a heaven and that life was all about suffering', the 'Greatest possible good for the greatest number of people' was mass genocide. That way you stop the most suffering.
There are traditionally two views on the idea of "the greatest good for the greatest number"
Utilitarians say that this is situational. That is that the "greater good" is the immediate goal, and is what determines right and wrong
Whereas people who view morality objectively are more prone to believing that "a greater good" can only be achieved by strict adherence to principles. So they think that what some might consider to be working for the greater good in a situation (such as being a vigilante) may undermine the long term goals of having a moral society (as in, "what if everyone was a vigilante?"). They think that in order to have a just society, which would in turn serve the greater good, you need to have laws that may force them to take far less expedient paths to dealing with a certain situation.
So I'd say CG would view greatest good for the greatest number as an immediate end, where as LG would view a situation in how it relates to the long-term interest of his society. The thing is they usually would agree on most extreme situations, so there will definitely be crossover between the two.
This is why BG1 & 2 tack on a bit about, and I'm paraphrasing here, 'while harming the least amount of people.' Any amount of Chaos is generally harmful for people who aren't self-sufficient badasses.
Sheldon Cooper: Evolution isn't an opinion, it's fact.
Mary: And that is your opinion.
Lawful good would say that the most good can be accomplished when there is a system of laws and a government that promotes good works. As an example, a ruler taxes his subjects and then uses the money to build schools to educate his people's children. Through the direction of the ruler and the levying of taxes, more people have access to this resource. More good is accomplished through government because more people can be reached and there is organization to maximize efficiency.
Chaotic good would say that the most good can be accomplished if people are free to make their own decisions. They would argue that laws, regulations and government restrict people or discourage them from doing good. The flip side of the example above, chaotic good would say that because people are taxed to build the schools, they are less likely be charitable with their remaining money. Chaotic good would argue that, absent the structure, the citizens of this country might be more generous. In addition, they might donate to feed the hungry or to build a hospital instead of just to build schools.
Both sides could be right, to some extent. Both want what is best for others, but they disagree about the role of government, order, and laws/rules in accomplishing that good. In both cases it's possible that the same number of people are helped (although helped differently) and it's doubtful that anyone is hurt at all.
You quoted me like that out-of-context statement is my personal opinion, when it is not.
Rorschach (Objectivist) thought that it was morally wrong to lie, even with the possible consequences
The others took a view more in line with moral relativism
They also don't tend to you know... search for and understand the reasonings behind acts that are outside their own codes/values, and like to deem certain acts as inherently evil/wrong.
I'd really have no problem dealing with a LG char like Aerie, but Keldorn or LG Anomem? Talking to them would be like having a mindflayer slowly sucking at your brain.
I think LG could be interesting, frankly what makes Keldorn compelling to me as a character is that he is a deeply flawed lawful good. My issues with Anomen are less his lawful good, order this, order that, and more his outright misogynism towards female PCs, especially in a romance. My cavalier thoroughly enjoyed telling him off all the time.
That said I'm considering running a new LG type party based around my Dwarven Wizard Slayer, who is a wannabe paladin of Mystra I'm thinking. I plan on running Keldorn, Anomen, Rasaad, Valygar and probably Yoshimo -> Imoen, but that's just cause I don't feel like I have a good fit until then.
I also need to think of a good BG1 party for this character. And yes it is purposely light on casters for a reason
Anyway, my explanation is quite simple. People can't read. Alignments are an artificial creation, and if the manual says LG means X, that's what it means. Not more, nor less. It does not say anything about their intelligence, personality, annoyingness, how they answer to infinte variations of a prisoners dilemma or whatever. A LG can be humorless, witty, intelligent, retarded, suicidal, optimist, cynic, courageous, coward, obnoxious, wise, thick, psychotic (¿Don Quijote?), humble, arrogant, extrovert, introvert, shy, sex addict, liberal, conservative, a paladin or a pig farmer... It's the common mistake about alignment being a perfect and sufficient description of a character, and that they -because they are oh so good- should be flawless in their character. Yeslick, Dynaheir, Aerie, Rasaad, Ajantis and Keldorn, what do they have in common besides alignment and two of them being paladins? Few things (the first three are prisoners of some sort, though)
Besides, many people believe the odd proposition that being "good" is a natural/naive and static behaviour/personality and not something one is always striving for. Something that is difficult and requires strenght, dedication and wisdom. And mistakes.
Now, now what did I tell you about speaking in such a manner regarding the Council of Six and the Cowled Wizards?
I feel your pain on the Yoshimo question (I always take him anyway). I think a cool NPC would be a Lawful Neutral (or maybe even good if you can justify it) Scout-type thief. Like someone who was in the army, similar to Valygar, except as a kitted thief instead. Bounty Hunter might also fit as a "lawful" type thief who would not be evil.
I think I finally narrowed down my BG1 party for that character to:
WS Dwarf using axes
Ajantis
Kivan -> Coran
Imoen (The only real magical caster I'll have, although you definitely bring up a good point with Xan as he is a member of the Greycloak guard military whatever)
And probably Brawen -> Yeslick.
The issue with taking Xan would be that Rasaad is SoL then and I'm really trying to take him. The ONLY reason I'm changing Kivan for Coran is that Coran does what I need better than Kivan does (if they both use longbows), and that's about usually when I dual imoen to mage.
Yoshimo will at least be going along story wise for Spellhold, well, that's pretty explanatory.
btw, what do you mean by "Rasaad is SoL"?