In Defense of Lawful Good

Some of the comments to Mightygodking's superhero/villain alignment thingy got me thinking. (It's an old post, but I found it via Rich. Thanks Rich!)

Of course some of the logic in the comments is pretty crazy. Batman as lawful good? Have vigilantism and civilian terror tactics become legal in the DCU now? Superman as neutral good because he protects everyone from floods and crime and the like (because apparently following the law means that if I see a person caught in a flash flood, I'm going to leave him behind?). Personally I agree with MGK's take on pretty much every character there except possibly John Constantine, who, depending on the writing and the story, occasionally creeps into chaotic good for me.

Occasionally.

But what really got me is how misunderstood "Lawful Good" as a concept really is.

Lawful Good characters fascinate me, because ultimately they are, I think, in a very precariously balanced position. Lawful good does not mean following the laws to the exclusion of common sense or morality. It doesn't mean following laws that are plain unjust or unfeasable. It doesn't mean ignoring evil or misfortune because everything is accordance with the laws. That's Lawful Neutral.

It also doesn't mean you can break laws just because you disagree with them. Laws are, at least ideally, designed to protect and serve the rights of the populace. And violating those laws is violating that protection and those rights. Even if the end result is good. A neutral or chaotic good character can take those liberties, a lawful good character cannot.

In the case of Batman, for example, it's simple. Vigilantism is illegal. VERY illegal. He may have a less antagonistic relationship with Gotham's police than otherwise, but that doesn't make him lawful. Personally, I'd argue Batman as Neutral Good. He's aware of the laws, will uphold them when it is good to do so, and will break them when he sees the need.

A lawful good character really cannot do that. It's a balancing act in which the character is often torn between ethics (law, chaos) and morality (good, evil) and find some way to reconcile the two. (Mind you, a lawful good character is not perfect and may have to make a choice occasionally one way or another, but it should never be EASY.)

Superman, I agree with MGK, is Lawful Good. Though to be fair, it's remarkably rare that Superman is involved in stories that really involve conflicts between ethics and morality without there being an easy answer. I haven't read very many stories like this and its possible that, once I've read more of these sorts of stories, that my opinion will change.

The single greatest example of the pinnacle of a Lawful Good character, to me, is Captain America, original flavor. Steve Rogers was CONSTANTLY caught in the struggle between ethics and morality. He followed and upheld the laws. When the law violated his morality, he left, became Nomad, fought for change to the law, or found some other means to reconcile the conflict. Even in Civil War, when he was so flagrantly against the Government, he remained lawful. To him, the Registration Act was unlawful, unconstitutional and an abuse of power. In essence, to Cap, the Government was acting unlawfully.

Bucky Barnes as Captain America makes for an interesting contrast, but it's clearly temporary. Even if we're not looking at the fact that this is COMICS and thus resurrection is inevitable anyway, Bucky's not lawful good. There's never going to be any conflict between acting according to the law and doing what's morally right.

It annoys me when gamers and geeks paint lawful good characters as idiot frothing at the mouth fanatics. We've all seen the Quixotic Paladin stereotype charging idiotically into danger on the white horse. But that's an over simplification. Morality is simple: good, evil, right, wrong, do unto others... and all that. Ethics are hard. Laws are made by humans and humans are flawed and in as much as they're ideally supposed to protect people, they are also used by those in power to keep their power. To be both lawful AND good requires contemplation and deep thought, balance and rationality, and most of all sacrifice.

Besides, trying to attack windmills is probably in violation of some law or another anyway.

Ultimately, when it comes down to it, given the choice I will, most of the time, prefer to read about a Lawful Good character rather than a Chaotic Good one. It's the Cyclops vs. Wolverine thing to me. I'm not sure I'd consider Cyclops to be "lawful good" per se, given the whole illegal secret army aspect to the X-Men, but of any character in that group, I'd say he comes closest. (While Cyclops and Batman both take part in illegal activities, I would be more inclined to see Scott as Lawful over Bruce. There's a difference between being an oppressed and villified minority fighting against an unjust and possibly evil regime that sends killer robots after you and being a filthy rich millionaire out to scare the life out of some lunatic in white greasepaint.)

Anyway, I know most people I know prefer Wolverine. As he is more badass and awesome and this is pretty undeniable. But personally, I think it's EASY to be Wolverine. Not that I think it's easy to have suffered through his insane backstory, tragedies, injuries and loss or anything like that. But when it comes to morality and ethics...he does what he wants. He's a moral guy and certainly has to make hard decisions, but I don't ever get the sense that he's bound by anything outside of that.

Cyclops is conflicted and angsty and brooding and makes an outright tangle of his relationships and is a repressed and sometimes assholish sort of fellow. But I find his struggle to do what's right and balance all the responsibilities and pressures and other issues in the great taffy pull of life. I think it's HARD to be Cyclops. I certainly wouldn't want to do it. And that's what makes him more compelling to me.

(Remind me to blog sometime about my sudden realization that Guy Gardner-post-brain-damage-getting-fixed may be the most lawful good of the four Earth Lanterns. In a very bizarre, brain-hurty kind of way.)

In the end, I just think the entire concept tends to get an unfair shake. It's HARD to stay within the rules, do the right thing and still WIN. There are very few opportunities for badassery, you get labeled as being uptight or sanctimonius, and it's certainly not as much fun. In the end though, it can be VERY interesting.