Thread 96334514

I'm so fucking mad that people get this wrong! If a law is written by a corrupt evildoer, then it is not a good law! And to obey that "law" is not upholding order, it's just surrendering to chaos disguised as a law!

There was once a law, a decree that said that every firstborn child shall be killed. Do we kill BABIES to obey the law? What good is a law if it is indistinguishable from evil or even no law at all?
I believe blind obedience to law without question is itself an evil act. We obey the laws, IF they are just. We obey the laws, IF they are kind. We obey the laws, IF it is the right thing to do! Those are the laws that must be upheld to the best of our ability!

>>96334514 (OP)
Yeah it does shut up bitch

>>96334514 (OP)
That is what it means in D&D and other games retarded enough to use alignments in 2025.

If you don't like it, play a less faggoty game.

>>96334538
>>96334554
Are you being serious? You'd really obey an evil law? That doesn't sound very GOOD to me. How is that any different than Lawful Neutral in that case? You need to take morals into account.

If I know Evil McSchemington wrote the law, and passed it, I'm not obeying that law just because it is law. If you obey the laws written by those people, you're a fucking CUUUUUCK!

>Oh yes evil daddy! Please pervert my laws! Please fuck my wife! I love evil dick in my asshole!

>>96334584
cry about it FAGGOT

>>96334584
Who do you think you're replying to? Neither of those posts say anything about obeying anything. Are you a bot?

Alignment is shitty and doesn't mean much of anything.

>>96334514 (OP)
Which moral system should you use to decide which moral system to use?

>>96334598
>Neither of those posts say anything about obeying anything
>Yeah it does shut up bitch
>That is what it means in D&D: If you don't like it, play a less faggoty game.

In DIRECT RESPONSE to the op which was "LAWFUL GOOD DOESN'T MEAN "I OBEY THE LAW NO MATTER WHAT!"

Meaning yes, they believe it actually does mean that.

Hence >>96334587 calling me a faggot. And by the way, YOU'RE the faggot, glorbing on evil dick when as the Lawful Good alignment, you literally have no reason to obey harmful laws.

>>96334603
I personally believe people just don't understand what moral alignments even mean.

>>96334617
Agh, stop that makes my head hurt.

Retard.

>>96334603
The average person is too fucking stupid for alignments and wanted a hammer to drive a screw.

Nope alignment is stupid

>>96334629
Its actually the opposite of retarded to obey the fucking law and not be a cuck to evildoers.

Good is whatever benefits me, cuck.

>>96334711
Yeah you say that now, but when someone steals from you. And decides to fuck you over with that very same mindset. You'll understand why law is important.

Stealing from me doesn't benefit me, so it's evil, RETARD.

>>96334730
Oh so now the law matters, but only when you're on the losing end of it? Sounds like a skill issue. Maybe obey the law and you'll come to find the laws protections actually DO benefit you in the long run. And they're worth sanctifying with your loyalty and commitment to them.

I didn't say anything about the law, dumbass. If it benefits me it's good, and if it doesn't it's evil. The law doesn't determine what's right, I do. By force.

>ITT: People who don't know the difference between good and evil
Grim

>>96334744
But stealing IS against the law pretty consistently in most systems. So its a good barometer to go by. So ask yourself, do you want to be stolen from? Yes or no? If you don't want to be stolen from. Or heck, even murdered outright, then having a system of laws in place to disincentivize people from doing those things to you will help you.

Why wouldn't someone kill you for pocket change? Because of the threat that they'll be hunted down and thrown in a cell/killed. And at the end of the day, order is what truly benefits you, and everyone. So long as you continue to uphold its precepts.

I don't care, retard. I don't follow the law. If someone crosses me, I kill them.

>>96334771
Whoosh.

>>96334584
There is no such thing as an "evil law". Lawful Good is explicitly about following the law and order laid down by legitimate systems of governance.

>>96334796
>Lawful Good is explicitly about following the law and order laid down by legitimate systems of governance.
And I agree with you 100 percent. If the law is just, then it must be followed. I will happily follow those laws.

However, not all systems of governance are just. If corruption is seen, and the governance is mismanaged, and evildoers get into seats of power. Then it is no longer morally good to obey such laws. Theres a difference between Lawful Good, and Lawful STUPID.

You cannot have a system of laws that hurts the very people it is sworn to protect. You cannot abide by evil or viciously written laws that only benefit the noble classes. There must be equality and fairness for all citizens.

>>96334771
I agree with you, we are truly living in dark times.

>>96334851
Whoosh.

>>96334514 (OP)
Yes, lawful good kills babies belonging to evil alignment races as Gary Gygax intended. RVTVRN.

>>96334514 (OP)
My DM made a ruling where a personal code of honor or ethics could satisfy as lawful good since "good" can be subjective.

>>96334888
You'd have to make an unequivocal argument that these spawn have no potential to be good at all. Like Sauron muck monster tier creatures that don't display any goodness in them whatsoever. Such things require heavy amounts of oversight in my eyes to be absolutely certain that we are doing the right thing. And anything less than those parameters is genocide, and basically just codified evil.

Also, while you can kill your enemies if they break the law. Acting with a level head and not immediately murderhoboing the moment you are given the technical legal go-ahead to do so.

>>96334892
Fucking based. Now thats what I'm talking about.

>>96334514 (OP)
Lawful Good means "(Good) God's Law"
So it's not a surprise most modern people don't get it because they are either atheists or crypto-atheists ( most 1st world """Christians""" ever since about the 1950s are merely crypto-atheists )
The either can't conceive or resist the idea that there is are divinely imposed laws on man and that it's man's duty to enforce divine law on earth.

>>96334948
>You'd have to make an unequivocal argument that these spawn have no potential to be good at all.
No, you don't. You just made that shit up.
>No but the murderer COULD repent so punishing them for the murder isn't merciful therefore it isn't good!
Mental gymnastics demon """logic""""

sloppa

>>96334514 (OP)
>I believe
Noone cares. You dont know how allignment works and your concept of ethics is rudimentary at best. Go read any of the thousands of posts made over the last 40 years that explain how it works

>>96335506
"Blind obedience to local laws was not required by those of the lawful good alignment. For example, a paladin would not be in violation of their alignment if they took up arms against the usurper of a throne, on behalf of the rightful king, even if it meant breaking the laws enacted by the usurper.[3]

It should be noted that a lawful good character did not actually have to obey all local laws, but rather preferred, a structured life to any other."

>>96335545
the spiel in your pic is still wrong. feeding the hungry and guarding the weak have nothing to do with justice; the former is charity and the latter is vigilance.

Justice is entirely concerned with tit for tat and what the aggrieved are entitled to. If there is no victim, there is no place for justice. Being hungry or weak doesn't automatically make you a victim entitled to things.

>>96334796
Lawful Neutral hands typed this post.

>>96335606
Yup, the "law is the law" is peak lawful neutral.

>>96335603
I mainly like the quote because it distinguishes the very nature of what is law, and what is good. And what it means to obey both. As far as justice I concede that justice is generally "tit for tat" as you said.

I understand that if you're on a long march to fight evil, you're under no obligation to share your bread with a stranger. Or to give charity in every case. Plenty of pragmatic reasons why you wouldn't behave charitably or help someone.

While under the strictest terms, it may not be a neglection of duty to provide for others. If you can afford to do so, it is almost always the right thing to do.

Plus, at least for me. It feels good to do something nice. Even if I don't see an immediate gain. Doing a good deed, is oftentimes in itself, worth the reward.

>>96334948
No you don't. They're evil now, so you kill them now. The future doesn't exist.

>>96335697
weak bitch

Why are so many "lawful good" people like this?

>>96335727
Because it's good and right, retard. Force is morality.

>>96335744
Yet people like you always cry the loudest when it gets turned on you.

>>96334514 (OP)
AI slop is neutral evil btw

>>96335782
If you really believe this, feel free to try and find out what I actually do when you choose to become an obstacle for me.

>>96334514 (OP)
>Do we kill BABIES to obey the law?
Humanity deserves to go extinct for what it's done and what it's doing.

No it doesn't.

>>96334514 (OP)
>If a law is written by a corrupt evildoer, then it is not a good law!
If a corrupt evildoer enacts a law to feed the starving, is it suddenly a bad law?
>There was once a law, a decree that said that every firstborn child shall be killed. Do we kill BABIES to obey the law?
In the old days (and even today), blood feuds were a serious issue. Generations of conflict could results in thousands of deaths over years. Ancient rulers would resort to brutal measures such as mass slavery to eradicate these issues and ensure lasting peace.

You're actually describing Neutral Good, not Lawful Good. The real mark of Lawful Good is that you follow the law if the laws were made properly. An unjust king disregards past precedent without the consent of the governed. A wicked judge refuses to give both parties a voice.
So long as robust processes exist (i.e. that there are laws which can be followed), a Lawful Good character has a duty to follow the law. He does not have a duty to support every law or even enforce it; he could even be duty-bound to oppose it. However, he must do so through lawful means whenever possible.

Selectively following the law only when one agrees with it is unlawful. It may be morally superior at times, but a truly lawful individual would only go against the law if it is clear that the law is not only unjust, but impossible to correct.

>>96334514 (OP)
How do you know that your beliefs are the correct ones?

>>96335089
>Lawful Good means "(Good) God's Law"
Good is etymologically unrelated to god so you're throwing in a very subjective opinion about good meaning god.

Why are law vs chaos discussions so autistic compared to good vs evil?

>>96336834
You can't just disregard the cultural context in which D&D was created and who created the concept of alignment.
You know religion didn't used to be a joke?

>>96336837
>Why does law, the metaphysical embodiment of autism, attract autists?
You tell me

>>96336847
I can disregard whatever the fuck I want, in fact. Watch me.

>>96334514 (OP)
If a Lawful Good player enters an area where Evil makes the laws, then they are Chaotic Good in that area. You can't go to some other country and try to enforce the laws from your country that don't exist there, especially if punishing them for doing so is against the laws of that area.

>>96336660
>If a corrupt evildoer enacts a law to feed the starving, is it suddenly a bad law?

If a known corrupt evildoer, who is known for making corrupt and evildoing laws and things suddenly throws some random ass good law that feeds the starving, I can guarantee you that was not the intention. In fact doing surface level and cheap good things while doing really nasty shit behind closed doors is par for the course in political corruption.

Even if he wanted to have some change of heart, nobody would believe him.

>>96336900
But that wasn't the question. Would the law, itself, be good or would it be evil?

>>96336900
>If a known corrupt evildoer, who is known for making corrupt and evildoing laws and things suddenly throws some random ass good law that feeds the starving, I can guarantee you that was not the intention. In fact doing surface level and cheap good things while doing really nasty shit behind closed doors is par for the course in political corruption.
Even so, does that mean you should refuse to obey that law?

>>96336847
Yes, I'm sure Gygax was heavily invested in upholding the ostensibly monotheistic culture you are imagining was the social norm at the time. His religion, though he apparently said to a fan shortly before dying that he had found Jesus Christ after many wrong paths, was mutable through his life. He's also on record as having said he didn't want Christianity to get a bad name from D&D being associated with him and him being nominally Christian because he knew D&D was unchristian. There's context in which D&D was created and you are the one needs not to disregard it.

>who created the concept of alignment
That would be Anderson and Moorcock.

>>96336834
NTA, it's not about fucking etymology but how the D&D alignment system works at its core, you retard? Have you ever played this game?

>>96334514 (OP)
"Lawful" shouldn't have anything to do with the law at all. It is beyond retarded that a fundamental force intertwined with the fabric of the universe would somehow be based around following human-made rules and regulations. Considering that its opposite is "chaos" rather than "lawlessness", it's pretty fucking obvious to me that a "lawful" character is someone who values order, stability, reliability and principles, not someone who dogmatically follows whatever law happens to be printed in this locality at this point in time.

>>96336660
>If a corrupt evildoer enacts a law to feed the starving, is it suddenly a bad law?
It is if he's feeding them to each other in the name of efficiency.

>>96334514 (OP)
>LAWFUL GOOD DOESN'T MEAN "I OBEY THE LAW NO MATTER WHAT!"
welcome to 2025 slowpoke
>lawful
order and structure are good things and generally beneficial
>good
I generally do virtuous things, even at the detriment of myself.
>together
I think a rules based system based on ideals of virtue is generally best.
A LG character would seek to remove baby killing law or, if necessary, overthrow the king that instilled such a law in order to instill a LG system.
>>96334659
is that you, Driving?

>>96334514 (OP)
Reminder that in the early rules for Paladin atonement doing evil acts was punish much more severely than unlawful acts.
If you turn a blind eye to the thief in the party stealing something for the greater good then all you had to do was the next time there was downtime go to a priest of your god and basically do a catholic style confessional.
If you did an evil act you had to go on a much longer and arduous quest of atonement and then get a high ranking members of your gods clergy.

>>96336900
Answer me.

>>96337663
NTA but if the rules does mostly evil things then you overthrow the evil leader but keep the good law.
If the leader does mostly good laws then it becomes more neuanced.

>>96337669
All I asked was whether the law was good or not.
Why can't you just answer that question without adding a lot of bullshit on top? Is it some sort of mental illness?

>>96337675
Good is good so a good law is a good law.

>>96337675
Your question is meaningless and only serves to expose you as an autist with no communication skills.

>>96334514 (OP)
Lawful Good, Neutral Good, and Chaotic Good are to be doing good things. Full Stop. There is no one who is both Lawful and Good. He is a lawful version of Good. There is not letting evil despots free if you are on any part of the Good aligned exis. Why? It's obvious. You are good.

Now, if you want to talk about how they do it. Since Lawful good may have a personality that inclines himself to more long term planning, that is certainly an angle. The chaotic good man will probably be more in the moment with their decisions. Finally, one who is neutral good is weighing their options.

Here's an example. There is a man accused of a grave crime and must spend time in jail before the true trial. The 3 good men also have good evidence that he is not innocent. The Lawful good man believes the accused is innocent, but ushers the accused to take prison time and to rely on them to sort the complications on their end to clear his name for good. However, this takes time. The chaotic good man thinks the accused should skip town for the time being. It's not worth him being in jail even a little. In the end, he reassures the accused that it will be over soon. When he is welcomed back it will be to open arms and forgiveness. Our Neutral Good Man is more of a wild card in this sense. He can see both options as legitimate.


Ultimately, The real problem with alignment is that people see the axis as something that is both connected, but separate to each other (Something being lawful AND good). When it is more accurate that is is closer to a spectrum. Where there are simply different kinds of good, but there is no doubt about them all being Good. This is Ironic because the chart is technically an axis.

Also if you are using the 9 point axis system, then the Great holy war and its divide needs to be fought on the grounds of Good versus evil and not Law versus Chaos.

>>96334514 (OP)
based

>>96334796
>no such thing as an evil law
You're as stupid as the people who genuinely ask..."Why would the government lie?".

People these days are fucking retarded.

In response to OP...

A lawful good person would obey the letter of the law until the law conflicted with goodness and virtue. Paladins are first and foremost GOOD and lawful after.

They will try to uphold just laws and root out corruption wherever they find it. This is what makes them lawful.

First they will try to get unjust laws repealed. If that fails, they will simply reject that corrupt society. If that fails and the paladin is persecuted, he will seek guidance from his church or deity.

Usually a Lawful Good deity will tell him to burn it all down and spare only the innocent. Afterall, a deity, especially his deity, is the final word in all things LAWFUL.

>>96334514 (OP)
>>96334584
This is pretty bad even by slop standards

...also, do people actually argue about this at your table? Alignment rarely comes up at all in my group.

>>96334888
>Asking a Chaotic Neutral to define what lawful Good means.
Gygax's own alignment tended to change from day to day depending on what he was snorting. He has argued different things at different times.

>>96338133
Well said anon.

>>96338220
Sometimes happens, usually when there is a murderhobo in the group and the Paladin/LG characters point out that maybe he shouldnt fireball the orphanage because one of the kids looked at him funny.

>>96337669
>if the rules does mostly evil things then you overthrow the evil leader but keep the good law
Then you're acknowledging that OP is wrong, because he claims that if "a law is written by a corrupt evildoer, then it is not a good law." Furthermore, you're rejecting OP's claim that such laws should not be obeyed.

The discussion of whether one should support an evil ruler is a separate matter. It's also simpler, because there are ways to follow the law and still oppose an unjust ruler.

>>96338133
You seem like a schizophrenic who can't read.

>>96334851
>However, not all systems of governance are just.
We call those ones illegitimate, anon.

>and evildoers get into seats of power
And how do you imagine this happening?
In a Democracy where legitimacy is predicated on popular sentiment, such a government would not be "evil because its evil" (The circular logic you're no doubt relying on), but evil because it is illegitimate.

>You cannot have a system of laws that hurts the very people it is sworn to protect.
There is no law system whatsoever that swears to protect law breakers.

>>96334514 (OP)
No, but it would suggest using lawful means to disrupt or end that law, rather than outright violence or resistance.

>>96334514 (OP)
>Do we kill BABIES to obey the law?
Yes, because these babies will surely grow into evildoers thanks to the twisted regime they were born into. By killing them, we rid the world of evil and thus are doing good.
QED

>>96337825
No it isn't. A law is either good or it isn't. There's no paradox and there's no contradiction. Is the law good or not?

>>96338133
All laws are good stay mad

>>96339317
>gets angry because he's a fucking moron and projects it on others
Yes. I assumed your gender.
YWNBAW
>>96341883
There is literallt a law that permits me to lawfully rape and murder you. Do you consider that a good law?

Idiot. Laws are either Lawful Evil, Lawful Neutral, or Lawful Good.

The fact that you have zero comprehension of that tells me you're just some edgelord faggot trying to push moral relativism.

>>96341876
Laws can be situationally good, bad, or neutral. It depends on the specific law in question.

>>96334617
This sole question explains why alignment is a confusing and highly debated system.

>>96342913
>Do you consider that a good law?
Yes, because the law also allows me to rape and murder you. Doing so would make the world a better place.

>>96337091
The majority of the bible was written by amoral legalistic psychopaths and frankly it is probably best understood by volume as an example of law rather than good if you want to use it as a reference point for your d&d game. The god in it routinely orders the slaughter of children when he isn't doing it himself and is obsessed with laws, codes, and covenants, and retribution. He even punishes people for doing what he told them to do because doing so broke another one of his rules in a classic psycho girlfriend manouver. The old testament simply isn't useful for defining good except as "well if god does it then it is good" which means your lawful good character should kill a lot of people over minor slights their parents did.
They used to have schisms over this stuff. I guess it probably isn't a coincidence that the people who thought the butcher of the old testament was morally good were the ones who ended up killing the people who disagreed with them.

>>96334796
This is the kind of person who will claim he was just following orders.

>>96343418
You're a retard and belong in a zoo.

>>96343556
www.evilbible.com illustrates all of it nicely.

>>96343639
Yep

>>96344437
I don't know about evil, but the god in the old testament sure isn't good. Any argument that he is relies on projecting Christian ideas inherited from middle platonism back in to the text. Good and evil just don't come in to it, yahweh is a legal entity, not a moral one. That's why the interpretation that jesus must have been sent by someone else was so popular.
The /tg/ point being that if we actually took the character of yahweh as an example of lawful good behaviour then no one has been playing lawful good correctly because "lawful good" would mean "following the law is good in that it is a good idea because if you don't I will kill you and your children down three generations".
Alignment was maybe an ill conceived notion to begin with and d&d alignments only virtue is that at least it isn't palladium's.

>>96334514 (OP)
>slop picture
>retarded question
Was this thread posted by a bot?

>>96344435
>Anon is so butthurt from the rape that he is no longer capable of rational thought
More proof that the law is morally good

>>96346319
Stfu freemason filth LOL I will make it legal to piss on your face and then you will cry

>>96346929
So I need to piss over you after I rape you? Got it.

>>96343639
Based?

>>96346947
Watching you rape anon and then piss on him would be kinda hot ngl

>>96334514 (OP)
9 Point Alignment is a scourge upon the RPG hobby and faggots still arguing over it deserve to choke on their dice.

>>96346319
>edgelords and projects
Why do you type like a woman?
YWNBAW

>>96346947
>copes and seethes

>>96346965
>thinks golden showers are hot
How long have you been a worthless faggot?

>>96346970
>scourge
It was always intended to be a basic guideline, not the straightjacket you unimaginative faggots make it out to be.

>>96334771
Many such cases. Right-wing thought ruins morality, I'm afraid to say.

>>96347089
>>96347096
>>96347109
>Losing the argument and replying to the same posts again
NTA but you were dominated, spiritually mentally, and someday physically.

>>96346954
No, retard.

>>96346954
>When I was sixteen, I won a great victory. I felt in that moment I would live to be a hundred. Now I know I shall not see thirty. None of us know our end, really, or what hand will guide us there. A king may move a man, a father may claim a son, but that man can also move himself, and only then does that man truly begin his own game. Remember that howsoever you are played or by whom, your soul is in your keeping alone, even though those who presume to play you be kings or men of power. When you stand before God, you cannot say, "But I was told by others to do thus," or that virtue was not convenient at the time. This will not suffice. Remember that.

>>96347122
And yet, 50 fucking years later, people are still arguing about it, being misguided by it, and bitching about it.

>>96343418
rape is objectively evil though

>>96348592
The only objective part of it is my dick in your ass

>>96348592
animals do it so rape is neutral at best

If your interpretation of lawful good is that they have to follow the law regardless of morals or whatever, wouldn't that also apply to lawful evil or neutral? Like you're all just following the same laws. How can you do that in a good or evil way?

So it'd just be lawful, independent of the rest of the chart.

>>96351192
Simple. You packed that kid an extra chicken nugget to make him happy, I packed him that extra chicken nugget because they are bad for him.

>>96351192
The morality comes into how you construct the law. It's very easy to underestimate just how much time and effort goes into enacting a law, interpreting it, and reconciling it with seemingly-contradictory rules.
A Lawful Good person seeks to reconcile laws to produce the best outcomes, or pushes for socially beneficial laws. A Lawful Neutral person would be a formalist, caring more about things like consistency, efficiency, and administrability. A Lawful Evil person would see the law as a means of insurance and protection, which can benefit them.

There can be no good and moral law that allows any person to rule over others. So a true lawful good character doesn't work in most societies, least of all a monarchy

>>96334888
This sounds really hardcore, but it's really just conveying that Good =/= modern western/european/globohomo social mores, and does not preclude capital punishment. You are playing in a pre-modern fantasy setting and no one is axiomatically anti-death-penalty or pacifist.

It's also to do with actual tangible crime, theft, murder, assault, rape, and not to do with cultural issues of microaggressions or pronouns.

Are there any similar gygax writings on Chaotic Good?

>>96344437
Why does that page have a link to a schizopost about Kavanaugh?

Isn't this why the Lawful vs Chaotic scale is used as a benchmark of how much your character defers to authority? The exact authority a character defers to might not necessarily be the state but they're going to follow those laws by that authority regardless of what outsiders may think of their morality.

>>96334514 (OP)
Bring lawful good means you follow the law.
>It's a bad law
Get it changed. Don't break it like a retard, change it.

>>96357732
Reformation is part of the recovery process after evil is deposed but you got to oust the bad actors first.

>>96334514 (OP)
So Evil Overlord runs a city. One of his laws no peasant may have a bladed weapon over 5 inches long and visitors to his realm must peacebond their swords. Does the Lawful character not follow the law? There is a reason Alignments in D&D were 2 part. and why no one really played True Neutral correctly. Lawful = Likes rules and order Chaotic = Doesn't. Good and Evil we all know what they represent. You're taking to preaching in regards to a game and getting hyperbolic with it. here's a counter to your babies example. Lawful Good Adventurers will rise in oposition to the murder of one set of babies but then go into a dungeon and kill the babies of the humanoids found within, and Yes this was a thing in many D&D dungeons in the early years of the game. Why is it okay? Hmmm?

>>96334514 (OP)
The Alignment system in D&D 5E was basically included as a side note and is condensed so as not to overwhelm infantile minds who don't even understand the basics of right and wrong.

In every edition before D&D 4th edition Lawful alignments are meant to represent how the character values, recognizes, and utilizes the concept of law itself and doesn't mean obeyance to specific laws.

Lawful Good means a character respects and adheres to laws that are just and not tools of corruption.

While the opposite is the case for Lawful Evil. These characters only see the benefit of laws they impose on others or ones they can use for their selfish and evil intentions.

>>96360629
>Lawful alignments are meant to represent how the character values, recognizes, and utilizes the concept of law itself and doesn't mean obeyance to specific laws.
Generally speaking, the former and the latter are identical. If you acknowledge the existence of natural law and are bound by it, then natural law dictates which laws are legitimate and which ones are not. A lawful character need only follow valid laws, but that does not mean they can disregard a law.

>Lawful Good means a character respects and adheres to laws that are just and not tools of corruption.
A Chaotic Good character would also respect laws if they are just and not tools of corruption. How does a Lawful Good character differ from a Chaotic Good one under this construction?

>>96360694
>A Chaotic Good character would also respect laws if they are just and not tools of corruption
No, he wouldn't.

>>96360705
Why? If a law does good, why should a chaotic character disregard that application?

>>96360717
Because daddy government doesn't need to be involved in every facet of my life.

>>96360733
>daddy government doesn't need to be involved in every facet of my life
So if a government runs an orphanage, you'd support defunding it? That sounds Chaotic Evil, not Chaotic Good.

>>96360763
All laws are just a prelude to an abuse of power. Society can function without laws. They don't need to exist.

>>96360774
>Feeding orphans is a prelude to an abuse of power

>>96360779
You don't need a law to feed orphans.

>>96360783
So how do you feed them in your wonderland?

>>96360792
>lawKEK literally cannot fathom doing something without a law forcing him to do it

>>96360803
>Lolbertarian can't conceive of a working alternative

>>96360717
On a different path of argument the role a chaotic good individual has in relation to good laws is indifference and abandonment.

As an example after an evil lord is deposed LG will work to enforce or develop new good aligned laws or serve the new good aligned ruler, NG will do whatever good needs to be done in the day to day on the ground, and CG will see that the situation is sorted and fuck off to go live in the woods and keep that safe or if they do engage in society live as a passive actor until the time when evil starts creeping in again.
The Law-Chaos dichotomy in this situation is one of being passive or active depending on the environment.
In Lawful aligned areas Chaotic individuals that do not seek to disrupt the system will become passive actors (barring sometimes one in a spymaster role) but in Chaotic areas like the wilderness Chaotic persons will take a more active track in defending it.

>>96360694
>then natural law dictates which laws are legitimate and which ones are not
Natural law deals with the "laws" of nature (all nature that exists) and/or laws derived from a higher power. Their is a multitude of gods and other higher powers in D&D so which laws are valid and which gods get to establish these laws?

>but that does not mean they can disregard a law.
Yes that is what it means if those laws are corrupt and unjust.

>>96360989
>Their is a multitude of gods and other higher powers in D&D
The Romans were polytheists but still acknowledged the existence of natural law. You can acknowledge the existence of multiple higher powers and also acknowledge the existence of natural law woven into the cosmos.
>so which laws are valid and which gods get to establish these laws?
It's about reasoning from first principles. At some level, there are unquestionably "good" and "evil" principles. Even in D&D settings, there are unambiguously "good" and "evil" gods.
At that point, it's just a theological version of modern-day constitutional analysis, which is fairly effective at identifying valid/invalid laws.

>>96361030
Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil are alignments that view and value the concept of Law differently.

Just as Chaotic Good, Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Evil view and value the concept of order differently.

This is how D&D Alignments involving Law/Chaos work and all your historical and wannabe philosopher rants don't change that. All you've done is prove to me that most of the idiots who don't understand how Alignment works insist on making it more complicated that it is was designed to be.

>It's about reasoning from first principles.
More proof you don't have a fucking clue how Alignments work much less Lawful Alignments.

>>96361144
>Anon asks which laws are valid and how they are established
>Gets answered
>"all your historical and wannabe philosopher rants don't change that"
Cope

>>96334603
Alignment is about the soul, not the person.

>>96361159
>Anon asks which laws are valid and how they are established
No he made a statement that didn't have anything to do with Lawful Alignments at all.
The need to determine "valid laws" is irrelevant because it depends on where your character rests on the Lawful Axis.
Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral and Lawful Evil will have different views on which laws should or shouldn't be followed and how Laws in general are established.

>>96361274
It's even more irrelevent because their views will be very widely different in how the go in their daily lives. Because at the end of the day, 1 is good, another evil, and another neutral.

Seriously, I feel like people put waaaay too much stake in the Lawful v Chaotic dichotomy. When you are talking about people who are by in large either Good or Evil at heart. It's stupid to even entertain arguments like, "well, the Lawful Good person is obviously going to do the obviously evil act because then it wouldn't be lawful, I am a smart person". It's fucking retarded. It's a good person. Who cares if the chaotic good character allows the good law to be enacted. It's fucking Captial G Good.

The Good versus Evil Dichotomy is a lot more important than the law versus chaos in this instance of a 9 point alignment axis. Because Good people are going to have a lot more in common.

>>96360792
No one will stop them from eating.

>>96362882
>people put waaaay too much stake in the Lawful v Chaotic dichotomy
Because it predates Good vs. Evil. Lawful vs. Chaotic is fundamental to D&D's identity to an extent more than Good vs. Evil.

>>96334538
I think D&D morality is retarded but I think Lawful morality should give you privileges and bonuses for a more rigid roleplaying experience, and chaotic should allow more flexible playstyle but people don't trust you the more famous you get. Good and evil should work similarly. Evil should be worse to play as but allow more options without penalty. Also evil characters should not trust good characters. They should not trust evil characters either, but they should at least trust the evil characters to be selfish and not care about morality, so teamwork should be possible for evil where there is shared goals.

No alignment means you act that way no matter what. Only idiots who don't understand the system believe so.

>>96363216
Law v Chaos is fundamental. It's fundamental to the 3 point alignment axis. It's just fundamental in a different way now. It's just not all encompassing as it were. Lawful Good, Chaotic Good, and Neutral Good different flavors of good. But, above all else, they are good. That is what matters most.

>>96334514 (OP)
>LAWFUL GOOD DOESN'T MEAN "I OBEY THE LAW NO MATTER WHAT!
Why not?
In a world of lawful gods of laws surely all laws are LG? You can dismiss despotic edicts not endorsed by the church as these are not laws.

>>96364032
Because the laws are not enacted or enforced by said gods, but by corruptible mortals and mortal institutions.

>>96364064
>Because the laws are not enacted or enforced by said gods
They literally have Angels (or angel likes) and Clerics that DO enforce these in most TTRPGs.

>>96334538
>>96334554
The Law in Lawful is not some random human written law. It's the moral Law. Being lawful means having a stick up your ass or something.

Anyway the Lawful/Chaotic choice is retarded and only serves in making characers shallower. I just ignore it.

>>96334538
fpbp
else it would be called neutral good