Is this monk still Lawful?

[Hannibal King]

Ok to cut a long story short the Monk (Alignment LN) in my campaign has acquired a pair of gauntlets called the Gauntlets of Pestilence. The player of the monk has decided to keep these gauntlets since a) they grant STR bonus and b) the monk is immune to disease.

The gauntlets grant the following abilities:
* +4 enhancement bonus to STR
* All attacks by the monk wearing the gauntlets force the target to make a Fort save or suffer a random debilitating disease instantly. This also applies when the monk simply touches someone.
* An aura of stench with the same game effects of that of a ghast's stench aura surrounds the monk at all times.

The gauntlets don't have any control over him or anything but the other players are concerned that their own characters may suffer the effects of the stench or even the diseased touch if the monk is forced to grab hold of them in a particular situation.

Would you say this monk is playing the class of the monk and the alignment of Lawful Neutral by choosing to wear these gauntlets?

Opinions?
HK

 

[Tatsukun]

Sure, why wouldn't he be?

He has the ability to cause diseases now. Notice that the spell isn't a Chaos spell or anything.

Maybe I'm not understanding. I am guessing that you think he's not Lawful anymore. Why?

-Tatsu

 

[dungeon]

is the monk still lawful

well, reading the stiuatation i beleave that the other players are indeed in danger of being hurt and/or killed cuz of this new item. if the monk knows that the gaunlets can hurt his/her friends then the monk can get rid of them by him self. if he doesn't and hurts his friends then he should no longer lawful.
nice question, that took some time to find the answer!

but remember... "cuz if u don't u will never explore the dungeon"
(if u like my slogun or just want to talk just email me.)

tatsukun: i like your avater ( picture) u also have a nice name.

 

[Hannibal King]

So spreading disease is a non-evil, totally Lawful thing to do?

It is quite likely the monk will accidently disease one of the other player characters at some point and this is an instant random disease effect, no onset time or anything like that.
Also in a tight combat several characters may be sickened by the monk's ghast-like stench and suffer penalties to hit, save etc.

I ask again is this something a Lawful Neutral Monk would do?

 

[irdeggman]

It seems to me that good and lawful are being confused here.

IMO spreading disease is not a good thing, but non-lawful? I don't see why.

Is it against the monk's moral code of honor? Probably not, since it is usually not something considered. Is it against the law of the land? Maybe, depends - but most likely is not addressed.

Causing harm to someone can be lawful, but not good.

Lawful usually refers to a code of conduct and keeping one's word, etc.

 

[Kodam]

Hi!

Are these gauntlets formally forbidden by someone who has authority over the monk? If that`s not the case, I don't see this as a problem of law vs. chaos. Its not particular nice to have this guy around but that's it.

Just my thoughts...

Kodam

 

[Krelios]

Lawful? Sure. Good, certainly not. If he only purposely infects his enemies and takes reasonable precautions to protect his friends, Lawful Neutral would certainly apply.

 

[Dryfus]

Lawful? Sure. Good, certainly not. If he only purposely infects his enemies and takes reasonable precautions to protect his friends, Lawful Neutral would certainly apply.

I agree. He is still lawful(unless, as has been stated by others, there is a law against it in the land or his code that his temple lives by), just evil. Coincidently, I may make him start to relize that e may be becoming evil in dream omens and other things. Have a witch in some town start to esspouse(sp?) the tenents of good and evil, and see if that shakes him a little.

 

[TheEvil]

I see no particular reason why it is evil, particularly if they are ending up dead no matter how he does it. I do agree that potentially sowing discord among the party with the ghast stench seems not to be a particularly lawful thing to do, but it isn't like he can't take the gauntlets off when not in combat to reduce the risk to party memebers and make himself more tolerable to be around.

Out of curiousity, does he keep his distance from party members when he has his stink on?

 

[mrtauntaun]

This is certainly lawful. However, if you are in a town setting, and giving someone a disease intentionally or unintentionally violates a law (ie he accidentially grazes a merchant when making a transaction, etc), THAT would get him in some trouble. Especially if he attempts fight the law or argue against the law.
And as far as good/evil is concerned, I wouldn't consider intentionally causing disease with these gauntlets a GOOD thing. Hard to argue it's even neutral, I would definately say it is an evil type of nature.
In response to TheEvil, during a war for the sake of this example, in our society it is considered evil to kill someone by intentionally inflicting disease as opposed to just shooting them, even though they end up dead either way. They're called crimes against Humanity.