Between the two of us, who is lawful good?

[LooksClosely]

Greeting Goblins fans,

So I was rereading the archives and got to this page. There's a charming little contest of wills between Complains of Names and Big Ears, which Big Ears brings to conclusion by asking: "Listen, between the two of us who is lawful good?" Begrudgingly, Names yields and enters first.

So sure, I can see that Names is less lawful good than Ears. What I don't fully get is why that means he's supposed to yield here. Am I overthinking it? Ears just says, let me do it cause I'm more the nice-guy type? Is it a kind of paladin DND-joke that I don't quite get?

Thanks!

LooksClosely

PS: bonus points if you can explain the "Interceptor" ship reference on the previous page.
PPS: The little tulip-like plants around the rim of the sewer drain are a nice touch. I like the little details Thunt adds.

[Krulle]

It is a contest of will, both wish to do the best for the others and risk their own necks first.

"Lawful good" is expected to do things like this, while Names ("chaotic neutral"?) does not have the alignment forcing him to protect others....

And you are over analysing, IMHO.

PS. First paragraph.
PPS: I definitely like these details too, but Tulips are not what they remind me of.....

[thinkslogically]

Yeah, I assumed it meant that BigEars wouldn't (couldn't) back down because his LG alignment (and paladiny-ness) wouldn't let him. It's not that he 'beat' Names or that Names is a somehow a worse person; BE just pointed out there was no point in continuing to argue because he 100% wasn't getting in that pipe before the others. For Complains to keep insisting would just get them both shot so he conceded because he could.

Had it been 2 LG paladins, they might still be there.

EDIT: A very quick google indicates that the "interceptor" quote is from Pirates of the Caribbean:

Murtogg: Oh, the Dauntless is the power in these waters, true enough. But there's no ship as can match the Interceptor for speed.
Jack Sparrow: I've heard of one, supposed to be very fast, nigh uncatchable: The Black Pearl.
Mullroy: Well, there's no real ship as can match the Interceptor.

(http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0001263/quotes)

[BuildsLegos]

"Lawful good" is expected to do things like this, while Names ("chaotic neutral"?) does not have the alignment forcing him to protect others....

If Complains was neutral, he'd cast off the burden of protecting the clan and become a hermit. Thunt has taken huge strides to show that, as defined by the unlawful extremes he's willing to do the right thing, Complains is Chaotic Good.

[Urobolos]

"Lawful good" is expected to do things like this, while Names ("chaotic neutral"?) does not have the alignment forcing him to protect others....

If Complains was neutral, he'd cast off the burden of protecting the clan and become a hermit. Thunt has taken huge strides to show that, as defined by the unlawful extremes he's willing to do the right thing, Complains is Chaotic Good.

Neutral doesn't mean you can't do good things, it doesn't even mean you can't act altruistically. It just means you act according to your own conscience and not as society concludes what constitutes good or evil. Neutral aligned characters can still have friends and the desire to protect them, but in order to accomplish that goal they may be willing to also do acts which may be defined as evil by others.

[CooksACarrot]

I would agree with your characterization of neutral on the good-evil axis. I have always interpreted 'Lawful' as meaning that one subscribes to a code of honour or strict guiding principles, whether self-defined or defined by a deity or organization. Samara from Mass Effect would be an excellent example of Lawful Neutral, for example, whereas a high ranking Nazi official might have been Lawful Evil. Lawful characters don't necessarily follow the same code as everyone else, but if you understand their guiding principles, they are thoroughly predictable. Chaotic characters don't govern their behaviour, and Neutral characters don't always govern their behaviour. As a Lawful character, Names is bound by a code so that Ears can predict Names' behaviour. Names cannot deviate from the code, and they both know it.

As a house rule when I am DMing, I have paladins be Lawful-Whatever their Deity is rather than just Lawful Good. This always made more sense to me.

[Krulle]

EDIT: A very quick google indicates that the "interceptor" quote is from Pirates of the Caribbean:

Murtogg: Oh, the Dauntless is the power in these waters, true enough. But there's no ship as can match the Interceptor for speed.
Jack Sparrow: I've heard of one, supposed to be very fast, nigh uncatchable: The Black Pearl.
Mullroy: Well, there's no real ship as can match the Interceptor.

(http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0001263/quotes)

Beat you to it, same link even.... :)

[thinkslogically]

...oh yeah. Totally didn't see your link! Ah well, great minds think alike and all

[LooksClosely]

Thanks for clearing it up everyone! My lack of DND experience is showing.

Had it been 2 LG paladins, they might still be there.

Really? I don't think I could play this kind of character, then. It makes no sense at all. So if they didn't do this, would the DM actually call them on it and say: "hey you weren't LG enough there... your Paladin powers are revoked." Seems a little overkill. Or is it mainly the player's own sense of conforming to character that drives this?

[Wolfie]

Player's sense of conforming to character. LG characters won't allow another to be hurt if they can stop it, ergo they will always be the last through the hole.

However, if I were to play a Paladin next to another Paladin and that situation came up, I'd probably thank the other guy and let them know that I owe them a debt, albeit a small one, for guarding my back.

[CooksACarrot]

I've often felt that Paladin's are the crappiest characters to roleplay. In most games and with most DMs, you are pretty limited as to what Lawful Good allows you to do (hence my house rule I put above). There should have to be some tension between your code and what is right. Being a paladin all the time should be hard, but most conceptions of Lawful Good tend to make it an automatic thing, a class you can play on autopilot.

[Wolfie]

It should be hard. Doing what is right and what is by the rules are often two different things. Making the difficult choice shouldn't be automatic grounds for dismissal from paladinhood, but acknowledging the difficulty is what makes the class so good to play.

To me, paladins should be humble (but are often portrayed as arrogant and self-righteous). They know Good and they have their code (Law) and they stick to it faithfully. They are their code, or should be. There are always going to be situations that crop up that will test a paladin's faith to his code and to himself. He must go on what he knows, weigh it against what he feels is right and just, and act upon it.

[thinkslogically]

Had it been 2 LG paladins, they might still be there.

Really? I don't think I could play this kind of character, then. It makes no sense at all. So if they didn't do this, would the DM actually call them on it and say: "hey you weren't LG enough there... your Paladin powers are revoked." Seems a little overkill. Or is it mainly the player's own sense of conforming to character that drives this?

Sorry, my statement was meant to be tongue-in-cheek (a joke). I don't think anyone in their right mind would revoke paladin status over something like this (and if they did, I probably wouldn't play with them very long ). I think paladins can be fun to play if you play them as if they're real (and therefore fallible) people and don't worry too much about falling.

[Urobolos]

I would agree with your characterization of neutral on the good-evil axis. I have always interpreted 'Lawful' as meaning that one subscribes to a code of honour or strict guiding principles, whether self-defined or defined by a deity or organization. Samara from Mass Effect would be an excellent example of Lawful Neutral, for example, whereas a high ranking Nazi official might have been Lawful Evil. Lawful characters don't necessarily follow the same code as everyone else, but if you understand their guiding principles, they are thoroughly predictable. Chaotic characters don't govern their behaviour, and Neutral characters don't always govern their behaviour. As a Lawful character, Names is bound by a code so that Ears can predict Names' behaviour. Names cannot deviate from the code, and they both know it.

As a house rule when I am DMing, I have paladins be Lawful-Whatever their Deity is rather than just Lawful Good. This always made more sense to me.

I've always thought that Lawful was more of an external thing, while chaotic was internal.
In other words a lawful character acts according to a set of rules put in place by an external force (Society/God(s)/Family) whereas a chaotic character tends to act according to their nature with less regard for mores and taboos. I suppose the difference is that I would consider a chaotic character to be able to determine their own code of honor, but also be more flexible about how stringently they adhere to it depending on conditions and situational variables.

[CooksACarrot]

In my mind, the code can be external, but it can also be internally imposed. The point is the strict adherence, even in situations where they might want to act otherwise. This also means that there could be a deep, internal struggle between acting according to their nature and acting according to the principles they have imposed on themselves to prevent them from being the person they fear they could be. That is one of the reasons someone could impose this code on themselves. Ultimately, any code they adopt whether self-created or from the outside is something they have voluntarily agreed to self-impose for some reason.

I do agree that Paladins have the opportunity to be one of the most complex, interesting characters to play from a psychological standpoint when DMs and players want to put in the work to go down that route. Unfortunately, most experiences I have had with them haven't been like that. Paladins can also be the most two dimensional characters, and a lot of the rules can reinforce it.

[BuildsLegos]

I've always thought that Lawful was more of an external thing, while chaotic was internal.

And that's why I define Complains as Chaotic Good, because he's compelled to do good by the rules he defines for himself. This is of course a reaction to the laws of his clan being crappy.

[CooksACarrot]

For me, I always played chaotic as not having self imposed rules or a code at all. That made good, neutral and evil into tendencies rather than hard and fast rules. You know exactly what a Lawful character will do, you often know what a neutral character will do (although they will sometimes surprise you). You never know exactly what a chaotic character will do. Their motivations are mysteries sometimes even to themselves. They are ruled by instinct and gut reactions, rather than reason or codes. They do what they do because they do it, and find a reason for it afterwards.

For me, some of the most interesting lawful characters are played as being fearful of themselves, fearful of what they would be if they gave into the chaos inside themselves. Batman is lawful not because that is his nature, but because he is afraid of what he would be if he didn't have a code. The Joker's entire raison d'etre is to make Batman give in to the chaotic nature of his own soul. Two-Face is the ultimate lawful neutral character. He has the strictest code of all, dominated by one rule that he will always, invariably follow. Heads or Tails.

[Knucklekraken]

In 3rd edition, Barbarians cannot be Lawful.