Does NG have more responsibilities than LG?
I've been thinking, does "Neutral Good" have more moral responsibilities than "Lawful Good"?
For a LG person, you believe the law will serve the good, so when facing a tough decision, you have something to rely on, even to justify your action by it, or if I may, "you can blame it on the law after things went downhill."
For a NG person, a good intention is all you've got, you're on your own, deepdown in your heart, you take full responsibility for the outcomes of your actions. You "can't blame it on anything after things went downhill."
Am I right?
For a LG person, you believe the law will serve the good, so when facing a tough decision, you have something to rely on, even to justify your action by it, or if I may, "you can blame it on the law after things went downhill."
For a NG person, a good intention is all you've got, you're on your own, deepdown in your heart, you take full responsibility for the outcomes of your actions. You "can't blame it on anything after things went downhill."
Am I right?
Post edited by LadyRhian on
0
Comments
Lawful Good have more responsibilities to the society he lives (if it's an good based society at least), so they uphold morale above all, while Neutral Good have more responsibilities to his own perception of what is right and wrong, so they uphold their ethics above morale, but do not discharge or oppose the need of order and moral customary habits (while Chaotic Good uphold their ethics and their own perception of what is right/good and what is wrong/evil above all).
A very good example is the Anarg quest of the fallen paladins, you get it in the Radiant Heart Headquarters if you have reputation 13+, it's asked from you by a paladin of the Radian Heart to destroy an order made of fallen paladins.
There, you will meet later Anarg, an true fallen paladin and a evident evil person whom endorse the pratice of slavery and corrupt others, but there you will also find in the start Reynald de Chatillon, a fallen paladin that is evidently a good person but get fallen status for breaking oaths of chastity apparently.
Even as fallen, Reynald de Chatillon still combat evil and is found in the bridge district fighting a group of evil smugglers, he's surely a force of good, but also is an outcast for the noble society morale views.
Does feel right to kill with Anarg? It's a problematic position in fact, while Anomen and Keldorn will see no problem with it and would endorse such acts, from an ethic point of view without the influence of society morale it's clearly an evil act to kill Reynald de Chatillon. My lawful good characters, based on my current roleplay would probally kill Reynald de Chatillon, but my neutral goods characters and specially my chaotic good characters would NEVER kill Reynald de Chatillon, cos for them that's an clear evil act to take.
I hope to have been of some help in the issue.
Lawful doesn't (always) mean legal. Favoring order and institutions as a means to make a just society is very different from favoring the current hypothetical government in the current land.
For example a monk is beholden to his own order and the code they pledge by, not to the governmental authorities of Amn or Baldur's Gate.
The "lawful" part of the alignment can refer to a strong personal code of ethics rather than the laws of the specific land they find themself in. Naturally they prefer to follow the rules of a just society but it's worth acknowledging that if these external laws conflict with personal morality or there are two sets of rules in conflict (e.g the law of the land and the tenets of their faith) then they may break one set of laws.
Managing the balance between different sets of laws and the drive to be just is what can make LG characters interesting.
"Lawful Stupid" is a bit of a stereotype. Finding a happy medium between order and good often requires a bit of thinking to do right, and may well need compromise or sacrifice. From what I understand though some people do play LG a something of a blunt instrument, unable to compromise.
I consider myself a very Lawful individual, but I don't follow laws to the letter. There are some laws that I don't agree with, and there are some that I don't think matter very much. Where my attitudes to Lawful/Chaos really show is in regard to the big questions that matter.
Corruption, nepotism, injustice and inequality (of opportunity) is rampant across the world. If I were a chaotic minded individual, I'd advocate revolution, tearing down the system in the name of 'freedom'. However, I have no idea what may emerge from the ruins of the current system, and human history has repeatedly demonstrated the terrible tragedy and suffering that result from breakdown of society and general anarchy, (China 1840s-1940s, Iraq 2003-Ongoing, Syria 2011-Ongoing, Sudan 1980s-Ongoing etc...) thus I consider the absence of chaos as a good in itself, and would be extremely reluctant and cautious about supporting any (armed) revolutionary movement.
Edit:
Oh and to bring this discussion back to topic...
No I do not think NG has more responsibilities. There is no difference in the 'extent' of goodness between the two. The Lawful guy simply has more constraints and considerations in what he does in pursuit of Good objectives, whereas the NG guy is only driven by the moral good. I'll copy-paste some examples from a previous discussion.
Regarding whether/how different alignments might try to rescue a friend from a jail, after being wrongly arrested by corrupt police officers.
Lawful Good
The first instinct of this character is to attempt to free his friend through legal channels. Perhaps attempt to seek the assistance of somebody higher up in the chain of command, who is not so corrupt.
If the entire organisation is obviously evil, and lawful channels are impossible, he will readily storm the police station to rescue his friend, even if doing so could be extremely perilous. In fact he feels an obligation to destroy the evil organisation and rescue his friend. In his righteous fury, he may even go as far as destroying the police station, and attempt to establish a new law enforcement order in its place. However, if he thinks innocents are likely to be killed in any attack on the police station, he may reluctantly decide that he cannot go through with it, because he cannot selfishly sacrifice the lives of strangers in order to rescue a friend.
Lawful Neutral
The loss of his best friend is clearly unacceptable. He will also attempt to go through lawful channels first, and he is going to be less picky about who he deals with, for example possibly bribing the corrupt officers to release his friend, or otherwise manipulating the system somehow to get what he wants.
If he cannot achieve his goals through Lawful channels, and assuming his friend matters enough to him, he would also consider storming the police station, if he is reasonably confident of success. In the course of the rescue effort, he would not intentionally cause collateral damage, but the possibility of harming innocents may not deter him from carrying out the raid, because for him, the ends justify the means.
Neutral Good
His first instinct is to rescue his friend asap, through lawful or unlawful means. For example he might also attempt to seek the assistance of a less corrupt superior officer, or maybe the assistance of a band of local Robinhood-style 'Good rebels'.
He would readily attack the police station to rescue his friend, whether he is confident of success or not, because he feels an obligation to try his best. However, like the Lawful Good character, he is also unwilling to place innocents at risk.
I think that makes sence, I guess I took "law" too literally.
A Lawful person prefers an ordered world, which implies hierarchy, rules and tradition. A Chaotic person values individual freedom above all else.
For example in the real world a "Lawful" person would probably be in favour of prohibition of harmful substances like recreational drugs, alcohol, tobacco etc, maybe censorship of information that might be harmful to society and possibly even support for intelligence surveilence of the population in the name of counter-terrorism/national security. (I am generalising here, since I am a lawful individual, but don't necessarily support all of the above)
A "Chaotic" individual might regard any such rules as a gross infringement of their individual liberty to do whatever they might wish. They would be principally opposed to any restrictions and rules, even if it was totally benevolent and in their own interest, like forcing them to go to school to obtain an education.
Incidentally, these two schools of thought is pretty central to Political Theory, and is at the core of the divide between the political 'Left' and 'Right' that you hear all the time in the news, though real world politics is polluted by party political interests, corporate interests and personal ambitions, to the extent that the 'original debate' is but a sideshow.
@OneAngryMushroom
Yes, Order and Chaos would make more sense and reduce some of the confusion.
'Chaos' technically just means 'disorder', which is absolutely right for the purpose of the alignment system. Unfortunately however, a lot of games use Chaos as a synonym for evil. (Think the Chaos Gods of the Warhammer Universe).
That's why you sometimes get kids who say things like "My warrior is Chaotic Good, so it's okay that he slaughtered Beregost cos the Town Crier looked at him funny! He is still Good though!" As if being Chaotic was a get-out-of-jail justification for doing bad things without being 'really' bad.
In truth, as I said, the Lawful to Chaotic axis implies nothing about moral good or evil.
Law and Chaos are pretty evocative words though. Calling your character Community-minded Good or Individualistic Good doesn't have the same ring to it.
*Edit* I'm not sure I agree with you with regards to politics @Heindrich1988. At the moment the US & Europe have very heavily "Lawful" (i.e. interventionist, powerful central government) at all points of their political spectra. While traditionally "right-wing" governments have been more in favor of market freedom this rarely translates into individual freedoms. But I'm mainly disagreeing because I like a bit of a friendly debate more than anything else
lol fair enough, I do that too sometimes. :P
*Tries to refrain from spewing essay*... Might fail.
Most political parties were founded on certain ideals...
Right wing parties start out with the principle of individual liberty. Taxation is considered a necessary evil for society to function, but in principle, government should interfere as little as possible in people's daily lives. Market forces should be allowed to distribute resources and wealth in the most efficient way possible. This can be thought of as a 'Chaotic' ideology.
Left wing parties start out with the principle of equality (of opportunity) and social justice. Taxation is necessary for government to redistribute wealth to give the disadvantaged a chance and government intervention, with good intentions, is generally a good thing. This is obviously a 'Lawful' ideology.
In practise both sides normally realise the pragmatic reality that makes their ideals impossible to implement, and they end up shifting their actual policies to something of a midway point. But if you pay attention to the rhetoric, especially when party leaders appeal to their own supporters, the left and right talk about very different things. And that's why real politics is very different to political theory. Real politics is about the acquisition and exercise of power, where you say what people want to hear, and do what you want to do. That's why in Western democracies, generations of governments are elected promising drastic reforms, and its mostly more of the same in practise.
"Left-Wing" politicians are more likely to champion human rights and liberties (which could be argued to be "chaotic", freedom-related ideas), and less likely to support strong law-and-order or military policies (which are more "lawful", traditional instituations).
"Ring-Wing" politicians are the opposite, often regarding human or civil rights as either secondary concerns or a threat to state security. The British Conservative Party is currently trying to pull out of the European Convention on Human Rights *facepalm*. They're also the traditional supporters of a strong military, police and intelligence presence.
So both conventional sides of the Left-Right political axis have both D&D Lawful and Chaotic sub-sections.
At present though it seems that 90% of developed countries have swung heavily toward very centralised governments with strong state surveillence. Barack Obama, originally seen as a left-wing reformer, has continued the secrecy, power and unaccountability of the NSA. The US and UK have both been eroding individual and group rights to protest over the past few decades.
Maybe we should elect some Druids to maintain balance?