So as the title suggests, I'm looking for advice on playing a lawful good character in dnd. Basically a superman like personality who looks to help people however he can, would rather drag people from harms way than just take down the bad guy. He'd follow the rules of law (at least until breaking them becomes necessary, but usually saving this as a last resort). Any advice is appreciated to make this kind of character work.
Especially when the rest of my party is less "creative" lets say in terms of decision making or just a pure chaotic. Don't want to take away others agency or force them to play a certain way, so how can I have my character stay mostly by his personality without fully compromising to murder an npc to steal his outfit, but still let them enjoy the game?
I'm an eldritch knight aasimar if that matters at all
Ask the others to knock out the npc rather than killing them, for example. There are compromises you will likely have to make, but if murdering random npcs is one of them, that's their problem and not yours.
Perhaps your character is associating with the more chaotic group because he sees their potential and inner goodness. By being with them he can serve their potential by being an ethically and morally strident person.
"I help them because I see who they can become and we need heroes like that."
He can be the voice of reason, even to enemies.
"Surrender now and you'll live; continue on this path and my friends will not hesitate to kill you."
"He'd follow the rules of law (at least until breaking them becomes necessary, but usually saving this as a last resort)"
That is a great point and potentially one of contention. Basically a LG character can bring out some intense ethical quandaries. How far will a LG character go to sacrifice friends/family/etc. in the name of doing the right thing.
Will a true LG character ever consider breaking the rules/law/ethics?
In the US there is a new TV show about lifeguards in Hawaii. A main character has anger issues. In anger he separated a drunk guys shoulder on duty, a coworker got him physically off the drunk and everybody was silent. A few episodes later he found out that coworker is dealing drugs. He asked the coworker to turn himself in, the drug dealer said hell no and if he tries, he will report the violent fight. Episode ending with the angry guy self reporting and accepting a 30 day suspension.
Using that as an example, the dilemma is should the angry guy self reported the next work day? He obviously leans toward LG as he did self report, but that is because he was going to be called out anyway.
Everyone has their own version of LG, but playing LG in a party of true chaotic people is difficult. You might need a time out of the game to actually discuss how to deal with other players who want to do what they want, ethics/laws be damned. How far can the LG player go to stop the action. And how far will the other players go to go against the LG player?
As the DM is a "ref", they also need to put in their ruling of how an LG player is expected to be played in a party atmosphere.
Some LG people will (accidently) sacrifice everything and all people in order to do the correct thing. (this is what can tear a game night party apart)
Here is another LG example of self destructive morality. The US had Prohibition during the 1920s. That Law was to intended do the correct thing and stop people from ruining their families etc. etc. However, the execution of that law was not for the best in reality. It brought crime and corruption at a scale that destroyed more families and lives then letting people get drunk could ever do.
The people who lobbied and voted for Probation thought they where doing this in the best interest of the US. They where not hypocrites, but they were blinded to potential repercussions and unintended consequences.
Honestly, if your group is strongly murder hobo/"do whatever because there's no real consequences", then it's pretty hard to set a LG up with them if you're concerned with "why is my LG character spending time with these people?" type issues. The "try to get them to change and/or moderate themselves" suggestions only work if the other side is amenable to it; otherwise at best you just get ignored and at worst it starts building table tension. Your first step is really having a conversation with other players about how people are going to approach the game- if most of the group wants to approach things like it's a GTA game, there's not a ton you can do about it without getting into the messier issues of players interfering with each others' agency.
Honestly, if your group is strongly murder hobo/"do whatever because there's no real consequences", then it's pretty hard to set a LG up with them if you're concerned with "why is my LG character spending time with these people?" type issues. The "try to get them to change and/or moderate themselves" suggestions only work if the other side is amenable to it; otherwise at best you just get ignored and at worst it starts building table tension. Your first step is really having a conversation with other players about how people are going to approach the game- if most of the group wants to approach things like it's a GTA game, there's not a ton you can do about it without getting into the messier issues of players interfering with each others' agency.
This, I would absolutely start out with figuring out if the character you want to play would fit in with the party at all.
The way I see lawful good characters are characters who believe in the structure of law is there to generally bring about as much good as possible while trying to negate as much bad outcomes as possible. When it comes to following the rule of law or following their own heart they would generally follow the law or their tennent as they believe that breaking the law would lead to worse outcomes.
People talk about the LG character sacrificing everyone else.... but wouldn't a LG character sacrifice themselves first?
You misunderstand my point. The LG character is not sacrificing someone else intentionally. Actions may have unintentional consequences. It is the LG actions that result in that sacrificial action.
If someone testifies against a drug cartel. The cartel may assassinate people in your family. So either don't speak up of the family suffers. Is a person still LG if they stay silent to avoid the consequence.
Another alternative is the entire family goes into hiding. The family then loses all friends and other senses of familiarity. The family will sacrifices a lot.
Does that make sense on how the LG actions result in others being sacrificed?
I suggest something like a Paladin or a Fighter or a Cleric.
They should have IMO, a CHA about 13 or more so that rule will have sense. Then, from here, I suggest each person ( i mean the person instead of the character ) should build a backstory with those attributes, in example:
due to the family
due to the own pride self-raised by a strong WILL ¿¿??
due to the school the character went ""BEFORE he/she took a CLASS = Fighter / Cleric or Paladin"".......
Then, if the backstory anyone has created is 1 whole papersheet long, I think it will be enough for the DM to consider it available for further side-quests <---- ((spoilers added here))
People talk about the LG character sacrificing everyone else.... but wouldn't a LG character sacrifice themselves first?
You misunderstand my point. The LG character is not sacrificing someone else intentionally. Actions may have unintentional consequences. It is the LG actions that result in that sacrificial action.
If someone testifies against a drug cartel. The cartel may assassinate people in your family. So either don't speak up of the family suffers. Is a person still LG if they stay silent to avoid the consequence.
Another alternative is the entire family goes into hiding. The family then loses all friends and other senses of familiarity. The family will sacrifices a lot.
Does that make sense on how the LG actions result in others being sacrificed?
Actions always have consequences, it doesn't matter if the character making them is LG or CE. Both will act according to their personal views or morals and "sacrifices" will be made or not by them or others.
One character that I like thats LG is the fighter Roy in The Order of the Stick, a long running webcomic of a party trying to save the world/universe. He always tries to do the right thing and sometimes he nails it, sometimes he's not correct, it never stops him from being LG. He also is in a party with a CE halfling ranger "murder hobo" and they constantly bicker and act in opposition, but when shit hits the fan they work together. Roy even "justifies having him in the party as a way to temper his evil impulses and redirect his abilities for good" (for better or worse).
Order of the Stick isn’t a good example for actual group dynamics; it works because all the characters are ultimately controlled by one person who is managing the conflicts and fallout. In most groups a Belkar character is a pretty big red flag that the player is just going to make the game difficult for everyone else.
People talk about the LG character sacrificing everyone else.... but wouldn't a LG character sacrifice themselves first?
Yeah that wouldn't necessarily be my interpretation of lawful, if there is a law or tenant that would require the lawful character to sacrifice themself then they might do it but I think you are confusing "lawful" with "altruistic", it would be the good part of the lawful good alignment that would cause a character to sacrifice themself for the greater good not the lawful part.
How do you play a lawful good character? The hard way. By sticking to your principles and trying to do the right thing even when it's personally costly and by seeking the wisdom and foresight to reduce the costliness of your choices and by making restitution when you get it wrong which you inevitably will and by having the moral courage and integrity to try again having learnt from your mistakes--not avoided learning from them--having learnt from them in the awful, soul-searching existential questioning kind of way that leaves you a broken person for a time and means you authentically engage with your own capacity to do wrong and try to reckon with it which you never will sufficiently and by knowing that you will never make sufficient restitution for the wrongs you've committed and still trying to get it right because you don't get a day off from morality. By changing to bring your actions closer to the ideal which you would embody but not so much that you lose sight of that ideal and by understanding that even when you think you're doing right you have the capacity to do wrong so you must re-examine your motives constantly, but also by being ready and willing to act--always to act--to bring the world closer to that ideal which you hold to be the highest good. Lawful good is not for the faint of heart. And for my money by preferring persuasion to violence (even though the game prefers violence to persuasion) because what ideals are not better if no one needs to die to achieve them?
"He'd follow the rules of law (at least until breaking them becomes necessary, but usually saving this as a last resort)"
That is a great point and potentially one of contention. Basically a LG character can bring out some intense ethical quandaries. How far will a LG character go to sacrifice friends/family/etc. in the name of doing the right thing.
Will a true LG character ever consider breaking the rules/law/ethics? .
I think you are probably confusing a LN guy with a LG guy.
Being on the Good axis doesn't make you follow the Law to the rule without exceptions. You weight your morals and personal code against them to determine your actions. And even if you prefer to follow the Law, you raise your eyebrows or confront the ones that go agaisnt your morals/ethics... The main difference is the methods you apply that will normally contradict with what a more Chaotic or Evil inclined person would do, but thats where compromises arise.
Off course if your close friends are all chaotic murder hobos that disrespect the law and do whatever they want, you are in extreme contradiction morally speaking. Either you find middleground in your actions and objectives or you will eventually become adversarial with your own party (or other possible scenarios that could be played).
Be careful when discussing D&D Alignment and trying to justify certain actions as 'good' from a certain perspective. Some things should never be described as such nor attempted to be justified, and such discussions are certainly not appropriate for our forums.
So as the title suggests, I'm looking for advice on playing a lawful good character in dnd. Basically a superman like personality who looks to help people however he can, would rather drag people from harms way than just take down the bad guy. He'd follow the rules of law (at least until breaking them becomes necessary, but usually saving this as a last resort). Any advice is appreciated to make this kind of character work.
Especially when the rest of my party is less "creative" lets say in terms of decision making or just a pure chaotic. Don't want to take away others agency or force them to play a certain way, so how can I have my character stay mostly by his personality without fully compromising to murder an npc to steal his outfit, but still let them enjoy the game?
I'm an eldritch knight aasimar if that matters at all
Ask the others to knock out the npc rather than killing them, for example. There are compromises you will likely have to make, but if murdering random npcs is one of them, that's their problem and not yours.
Perhaps your character is associating with the more chaotic group because he sees their potential and inner goodness. By being with them he can serve their potential by being an ethically and morally strident person.
"I help them because I see who they can become and we need heroes like that."
He can be the voice of reason, even to enemies.
"Surrender now and you'll live; continue on this path and my friends will not hesitate to kill you."
"He'd follow the rules of law (at least until breaking them becomes necessary, but usually saving this as a last resort)"
That is a great point and potentially one of contention. Basically a LG character can bring out some intense ethical quandaries. How far will a LG character go to sacrifice friends/family/etc. in the name of doing the right thing.
Will a true LG character ever consider breaking the rules/law/ethics?
In the US there is a new TV show about lifeguards in Hawaii. A main character has anger issues. In anger he separated a drunk guys shoulder on duty, a coworker got him physically off the drunk and everybody was silent. A few episodes later he found out that coworker is dealing drugs. He asked the coworker to turn himself in, the drug dealer said hell no and if he tries, he will report the violent fight. Episode ending with the angry guy self reporting and accepting a 30 day suspension.
Using that as an example, the dilemma is should the angry guy self reported the next work day? He obviously leans toward LG as he did self report, but that is because he was going to be called out anyway.
Everyone has their own version of LG, but playing LG in a party of true chaotic people is difficult. You might need a time out of the game to actually discuss how to deal with other players who want to do what they want, ethics/laws be damned. How far can the LG player go to stop the action. And how far will the other players go to go against the LG player?
As the DM is a "ref", they also need to put in their ruling of how an LG player is expected to be played in a party atmosphere.
Some LG people will (accidently) sacrifice everything and all people in order to do the correct thing. (this is what can tear a game night party apart)
Here is another LG example of self destructive morality. The US had Prohibition during the 1920s. That Law was to intended do the correct thing and stop people from ruining their families etc. etc. However, the execution of that law was not for the best in reality. It brought crime and corruption at a scale that destroyed more families and lives then letting people get drunk could ever do.
The people who lobbied and voted for Probation thought they where doing this in the best interest of the US. They where not hypocrites, but they were blinded to potential repercussions and unintended consequences.
Honestly, if your group is strongly murder hobo/"do whatever because there's no real consequences", then it's pretty hard to set a LG up with them if you're concerned with "why is my LG character spending time with these people?" type issues. The "try to get them to change and/or moderate themselves" suggestions only work if the other side is amenable to it; otherwise at best you just get ignored and at worst it starts building table tension. Your first step is really having a conversation with other players about how people are going to approach the game- if most of the group wants to approach things like it's a GTA game, there's not a ton you can do about it without getting into the messier issues of players interfering with each others' agency.
This, I would absolutely start out with figuring out if the character you want to play would fit in with the party at all.
The way I see lawful good characters are characters who believe in the structure of law is there to generally bring about as much good as possible while trying to negate as much bad outcomes as possible. When it comes to following the rule of law or following their own heart they would generally follow the law or their tennent as they believe that breaking the law would lead to worse outcomes.
People talk about the LG character sacrificing everyone else.... but wouldn't a LG character sacrifice themselves first?
You misunderstand my point. The LG character is not sacrificing someone else intentionally. Actions may have unintentional consequences. It is the LG actions that result in that sacrificial action.
If someone testifies against a drug cartel. The cartel may assassinate people in your family. So either don't speak up of the family suffers. Is a person still LG if they stay silent to avoid the consequence.
Another alternative is the entire family goes into hiding. The family then loses all friends and other senses of familiarity. The family will sacrifices a lot.
Does that make sense on how the LG actions result in others being sacrificed?
I suggest something like a Paladin or a Fighter or a Cleric.
They should have IMO, a CHA about 13 or more so that rule will have sense. Then, from here, I suggest each person ( i mean the person instead of the character ) should build a backstory with those attributes, in example:
Then, if the backstory anyone has created is 1 whole papersheet long, I think it will be enough for the DM to consider it available for further side-quests <---- ((spoilers added here))
My Ready-to-rock&roll chars:
Dertinus Tristany // Amilcar Barca // Vicenç Sacrarius // Oriol Deulofeu // Grovtuk
Actions always have consequences, it doesn't matter if the character making them is LG or CE. Both will act according to their personal views or morals and "sacrifices" will be made or not by them or others.
One character that I like thats LG is the fighter Roy in The Order of the Stick, a long running webcomic of a party trying to save the world/universe. He always tries to do the right thing and sometimes he nails it, sometimes he's not correct, it never stops him from being LG. He also is in a party with a CE halfling ranger "murder hobo" and they constantly bicker and act in opposition, but when shit hits the fan they work together. Roy even "justifies having him in the party as a way to temper his evil impulses and redirect his abilities for good" (for better or worse).
Order of the Stick isn’t a good example for actual group dynamics; it works because all the characters are ultimately controlled by one person who is managing the conflicts and fallout. In most groups a Belkar character is a pretty big red flag that the player is just going to make the game difficult for everyone else.
Yeah that wouldn't necessarily be my interpretation of lawful, if there is a law or tenant that would require the lawful character to sacrifice themself then they might do it but I think you are confusing "lawful" with "altruistic", it would be the good part of the lawful good alignment that would cause a character to sacrifice themself for the greater good not the lawful part.
How do you play a lawful good character? The hard way. By sticking to your principles and trying to do the right thing even when it's personally costly and by seeking the wisdom and foresight to reduce the costliness of your choices and by making restitution when you get it wrong which you inevitably will and by having the moral courage and integrity to try again having learnt from your mistakes--not avoided learning from them--having learnt from them in the awful, soul-searching existential questioning kind of way that leaves you a broken person for a time and means you authentically engage with your own capacity to do wrong and try to reckon with it which you never will sufficiently and by knowing that you will never make sufficient restitution for the wrongs you've committed and still trying to get it right because you don't get a day off from morality. By changing to bring your actions closer to the ideal which you would embody but not so much that you lose sight of that ideal and by understanding that even when you think you're doing right you have the capacity to do wrong so you must re-examine your motives constantly, but also by being ready and willing to act--always to act--to bring the world closer to that ideal which you hold to be the highest good. Lawful good is not for the faint of heart. And for my money by preferring persuasion to violence (even though the game prefers violence to persuasion) because what ideals are not better if no one needs to die to achieve them?
I think you are probably confusing a LN guy with a LG guy.
Being on the Good axis doesn't make you follow the Law to the rule without exceptions. You weight your morals and personal code against them to determine your actions. And even if you prefer to follow the Law, you raise your eyebrows or confront the ones that go agaisnt your morals/ethics... The main difference is the methods you apply that will normally contradict with what a more Chaotic or Evil inclined person would do, but thats where compromises arise.
Off course if your close friends are all chaotic murder hobos that disrespect the law and do whatever they want, you are in extreme contradiction morally speaking. Either you find middleground in your actions and objectives or you will eventually become adversarial with your own party (or other possible scenarios that could be played).
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorStepping in here a bit folk:
Be careful when discussing D&D Alignment and trying to justify certain actions as 'good' from a certain perspective. Some things should never be described as such nor attempted to be justified, and such discussions are certainly not appropriate for our forums.
Remember the rules on Prohibited Content (Including real life religion and politics)
D&D Beyond ToS || D&D Beyond Support