Differences between Lawful Good and Neutral Good

[DarklordKyo]

I have this story idea, and part of it has to do with three different versions of the same person in different universes. I'm hoping to make them different moral alignments highlighted by their choice of clothing (the Lawful Good one wearing a white coat, the Neutral Good one wearing a multi-colored windbreaker, and the Chaotic Good one wearing a black hoodie).

The thing is that the Lawful Good one seems to be more Neutral Good if I can tell correctly. Other than, obviously, being Lawful (which Neutral Good characters can be), what're the main differences between Lawful Good and Neutral Good?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Lawful Good believes in codification and the rule of law. They believe in the good that comes from order, and will strive to uphold that order. Eddard Stark is a perfect example of a Lawful Good character.

Neutral Good is more of a generic "good". This is your general good hearted chap who is neither bound to or by systems but just defaults to good behaviors because of a fundamentally kindly nature.

 

[Kae]

A lot really, a Lawful Good character is bound by a code or law that they have to follow, sometimes to degrees that may defy their morality or sometimes by forcing them to make a non-optimal choice, if they follow a code of pragmatism they have to remain pragmatic and do what must be done for the greater good even if they have to sacrifice their friends, family or even innocent people, while if they follow the code of the defender they have to do everything possible to save everyone even if it has a lower chance of success and takes a higher risk.

On the contrary a Neutral good character is allowed to be more fluid, they can act pragmatic in one situation and in another in the complete opposite way, because their morality is not bound by code, more like by feel, what they do more or less depends on the context of the situation than on their general code of law, honor or what the greater good means, in addition to that unlike a chaotic or a lawful good character if they do follow a code a Neutral good character is allowed to break it in favour of preserving their own life without it being considered out of character, because they don't have that extreme a personality, also due to this fluidity a Neutral good character is the more likely character to arrange deals with shady characters that they know to be villains if that does result in an overall good outcome.

Basically if you want to play a good Rogue a Neutral Good alignment is actually better than a Chaotic Good because it makes your tendencies less extreme and makes you more able to do what you need to do at any given time which will sometimes be shady and sometimes be good, and it allows you to accept shady deals and try to change them into good while also not penalizing that severely when you do have to make something morally questionable, also as a result of being more fluid it can make your character the easiest to corrupt or the hardest one to corrupt depending on how you play it.

 

[Necrozius]

What Kaleion said, really, sums it up quite well.

Lawful = will make sacrifices to uphold the code or law.
Neutral = more flexible about their ideology.

Both of them, being Good, will feel some regret, pain or even remorse if their ideological choices (Lawful vs Good) harm or sacrifice something that is important or dear to them. That's the important thing, I guess.

 

[sageoftruth]

Usually, a character who is neutral in anything prioritizes their other quality over whatever he's neutral about. Neutral Good means he doesn't really care if he's lawful or unlawful, as long as he's doing good. On the other hand, a Lawful Neutral person believes that law trumps good and evil, meaning he'll side with law, even if it means supporting evil regimes.

If a character is not neutral about anything, than it means he or she values both qualities (lawfulness and goodness for example), which can lead to difficulty when forced to choose between them, like when a Lawful Good person finds himself in a town run by a Lawful Evil tyrant.
In a situation like that, a Neutral Good person would have no trouble choosing to side with the unlawful resistance, as long as their cause is good. On the other hand, the Lawful Good paladin may feel that there is still a way to defeat the tyrant without breaking the law, and will have difficulty giving up his lawful nature if forced to. He may even decide that upholding the law is more important than stopping the tyrant.

 

[DarklordKyo]

I actually find the chaotic good the hardest to define, as good follows a pretty straight dichotomy of actions->reward, so I can't see a way to have a character do good things for shit and giggles, of course you can have an anti authority good guy, but even then it can be argued he does what he does by his own moral code that is just not inline with the rest of the world.

Ehh, I always saw Chaotic Good as a sort of "screw the rules, I'm doing what's right" kinda deal. Prime examples being Robin Hood (steal from the rich to give to the poor) and Yuri Lowell (murdered people in cold blood, but only did so because they're monsters that're untouchable otherwise).

 

[sageoftruth]

I actually find the chaotic good the hardest to define, as good follows a pretty straight dichotomy of actions->reward, so I can't see a way to have a character do good things for shit and giggles, of course you can have an anti authority good guy, but even then it can be argued he does what he does by his own moral code that is just not inline with the rest of the world.

Normally, I picture them as do-gooders who believe in an inherent goodness in people that only gets hampered by laws. They would likely harbor a bias that laws are only used by the wicked to suppress people, who are doing just fine without them. Basically, the Lawful Good believe order is necessary to ensure everyone's happiness, while the Chaotic Good believe that law and order is either a tool of evil and suppression, or is merely disruptive to those who want to do good.

Referring to my post up above, someone with an inclination towards goodness, who grew up in a town run by a Lawful Evil tyrant would probably be inclined to be Chaotic Good, since the law itself would be evil.

 

[happyninja42]

The problem you run into with most stereotypical representations of these alignments, is you get very 1 dimensional characters. The Lawful Good guy is the always annoying stick in the mud, who always plays by the rules, always "moderates" the other players in the traditional party, and basically is portrayed as being incredibly dull and uptight.

But there are plenty of examples of Lawful Good that seem to be popular with people, you just have to not go with the traditional view of them.

Some good examples from games/books/pop culture that I can think of, which might help you a bit more:

Michael Carpenter from the Dresden Files. He's a very good person. Virtuous, decent, loving, etc. But he's not a stuck up asshole either. He has his code of beliefs and behavior, and he sticks by it, no matter what the temptation, or the "easy path".

Superman. What else needs to be said? He's Superman. Pretty much every depicition of him is the poster boy for Lawful Good.

Eddard Stark, as mentioned above is another good example.

In fact, how about we provide examples of Lawful Good and Neutral Good characters, to help show the difference in the two.

But the short version would be, in my opinion.

Neutral Good will try and find a way to solve a problem in a positive way, and is willing to maybe make some bargains or concessions with his system of "Rules" that he normally operates by. "I normally don't steal a car, but I really need to get this person to a hospital." The Lawful Good would likely call the police, even if it means he would be arrested for what previously happened in the scene, but if it means emergency responders show up and take his friend to the hospital, well that's ok. "No I'm not going to steal a car, but I will walk 2 miles to find help, or let myself be caught and questioned, because I'm not going to leave you here by yourself until help arrives."

That's a rough example I can think of.

 

[Kae]

I actually find the chaotic good the hardest to define, as good follows a pretty straight dichotomy of actions->reward, so I can't see a way to have a character do good things for shit and giggles, of course, you can have an anti-authority good guy, but even then it can be argued he does what he does by his own moral code that is just not in line with the rest of the world.

Chaotic Good surprisingly has very little in common with Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Evil, a Chaotic Good character is generally a very extreme character that has good intentions but operates outside the norms paradigms of society, this could be defined as a Cleric that has a tendency to study biology to the degree that they perform autopsies, which would generally be considered Necromancy and against both the Law and most religions, besides that the most common example if a CG character would be Robin Hood, as somebody that actively and joyfully defies the law to help people but is not really a standard revolutionary that wants to change the system in a way that is good.

Besides all of this a CG character could also be a vigilante as in someone that does good, but does it outside the law and in a way that makes you question if they even are actually good, The Punisher would be a good example of this and even certain versions of Batman, in addition all of this a character that does very little good and is most definitely unlawful but when ultimately faced with a moral quandary does what is morally good without necessarily coming up as a hero, a character like Jack Sparrow from the Pirates of the Caribbean movies would be a good example of this, although this can also be considered as Chaotic Neutral with Chaotic Good tendencies.

To be honest it is quite a huge mess because too many things fall under it but the same could be said about LG and NG, but basically a Chaotic Good character is generally a character that is good but acts in a way that is outside of what is accepted by the norms of society which could include a code but not necessarily, a Lawful Good character is a character that is good and follows a very strict code or law and Neutral Good character is one that is good but is guided more by feel and instinct, not sure if my explanation makes sense.

 

[Mangod]

I actually find the chaotic good the hardest to define, as good follows a pretty straight dichotomy of actions->reward, so I can't see a way to have a character do good things for shit and giggles, of course you can have an anti authority good guy, but even then it can be argued he does what he does by his own moral code that is just not inline with the rest of the world.

I don't think Chaotic is that hard to define myself - Chaotic Good people simply don't trust institutions or those in power to not be corrupt. It's kind of like how Batman viewed most of the Gotham PD during his early career; Jim Gordon (and like 4 other guys) can be trusted. The rest are just various levels of police corruption.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

Whenever someone asks about D&D alignments, I like to direct them to this page [http://easydamus.com/alignment.html]. It's a good resource on the typical behaviour of each alignment, what their philosophy could be, what actions they would deem (in)appropriate and how they would relate to people of other alignments.

Maybe you agree with it, maybe you don't, but it should at least give you some ideas.

 

[FalloutJack]

I have this story idea, and part of it has to do with three different versions of the same person in different universes. I'm hoping to make them different moral alignments highlighted by their choice of clothing (the Lawful Good one wearing a white coat, the Neutral Good one wearing a multi-colored windbreaker, and the Chaotic Good one wearing a black hoodie).

The thing is that the Lawful Good one seems to be more Neutral Good if I can tell correctly. Other than, obviously, being Lawful (which Neutral Good characters can be), what're the main differences between Lawful Good and Neutral Good?

I have a very easy line of thinking for this.

Lawful Good, you have a specific code of honor you uphold for very strong reasons.

Neutral Good, "They're more like guidelines, really."

 

[DarklordKyo]

I have a very easy line of thinking for this.

Lawful Good, you have a specific code of honor you uphold for very strong reasons.

Neutral Good, "They're more like guidelines, really."

There's gotta be a more defined line, because, by that logic, I'm of a Lawful alignment. I'm pretty adamant when it comes to following a personal code that I've developed over the years, yet I'm a very neutral person otherwise. You could argue that I'm Lawful Neutral, but I'm also the type who agrees that some rules are meant to be broken for a greater benefit (though I'll still adhere to my own code to the letter).

There's also the fact that, for a number of things (such as the 2016 election), I tend to adopt a True Neutral mindset.

 

[Kae]

I have a very easy line of thinking for this.

Lawful Good, you have a specific code of honor you uphold for very strong reasons.

Neutral Good, "They're more like guidelines, really."

There's gotta be a more defined line, because, by that logic, I'm of a Lawful alignment. I'm pretty adamant when it comes to following a personal code that I've developed over the years, yet I'm a very neutral person otherwise. You could argue that I'm Lawful Neutral, but I'm also the type who agrees that some rules are meant to be broken for a greater benefit (though I'll still adhere to my own code to the letter).

There's also the fact that, for a number of things (such as the 2016 election), I tend to adopt a True Neutral mindset.

Boldly defined alignments are a game mechanic more or less set up to qualify a characters general nature, it is a loose label meant to categorize characters and to make the game mechanics regarding good and evil easier to manage, they are not applicable to real life, they might fit somewhat but they'll never be quite right, I mean as it is it is hard enough to define some fictional characters so it's pointless to attempt to do it with real people.

 

[Dizchu]

Lawful good = Is good because of a broader sense of morality, deliberately puts their own personal feelings aside for the greater good. Generally they respect rules and regulations if they believe them to be ethical, but may be pushed to disobey orders or tactically circumvent the rules if their own code of ethics is in jeopardy. Will be willing to sacrifice themselves and loved ones if the situation demands it ("the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few").

Neutral good = Is good because they're a decent individual, generally personal motivations are a primary factor and they may or may not be flawed. Generally follows the rules to avoid personal consequences rather than to uphold a greater sense of ethics. If a story is based around a protagonist who is a good person but will put the lives of their loved ones ahead of others, they're probably neutral good.

Chaotic good = Is good based on personal motivation alone, perhaps even unintentionally. Complete disregard or contempt for the rules, will either put the needs of loved ones far ahead of others to an unreasonable degree, will be quick to disregard the needs of loved ones or will have no loved ones to speak of due to extreme antisocial behaviour.

 

[Bobular]

Feel free to disagree with me but I think this will help.

Lawful Good, always tries to stick to procedure and what is 'logical'

Tries to do good and generally will stick to the rules, but isn't against going against them if needs to for the greater good. Will complain at the lawful character for being to lawful.

Doesn't care for the rules at all and will do whatever he wants his way. Lucky what he wants is good for the most part.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

Neutral Good is simply the character who can go either the Lawful Good route or the Chaotic Good route in any situation. If you have a problem where your lawful and neutral characters act similarly, well they will a lot of the time, except that the Neutral character will disregard the law before a breaking point. Its like the Lawful Good supehero who never EVER kills anyone.... Vs the neutral good superhero who doesnt kill anyone, usually.

These characters might act similarly a lot of the time, but theres a difference, one will break their code when it suits them, whilst the other would rather die before breaking their own personal rules(which may be the law of the land or not).

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

"These people need help, but if we go in swords drawn we could risk a war. We need to handle this cleanly and carefully."

"Look, we should help those folk, treaties be damned. We can sort out the fallout after."

"Fuck your treaty and fuck you if you think there will be another treaty. Hold my beer and watch this."

EDIT: I feel I should point out we seem to be talking about the extremes. The most extreme Paladin probably has a minor rule or three they don't always follow, and the most anarchic ranger probably isn't going to litter just because there are rules against littering.