Lawful Good Alignment and Roleplaying

[Hand of Evil]

I am with BiggusGeekus, it is all about defination. The monk has his code/order with its teachings, which we could say reflects much like we see monks, then he would forgive but would not forget, seeking inner happiness but trying to teach the Gnome of Kama and how actions are paid for.

The one that most likey not to forgive, would be the Gnome, unless he was evil, he should feel something.

I see in a game the gnome needing help and the monk sitting down and explaning to him why he can not be helped.

 

[jgbrowning]

I think he would neither forgive nor forget - the monk is most likely to apprehend the gnome and bring him to justice by whatever means the law of the land dictates (ie., bring him to the proper authorities, to the Harpers, what have you).

The monk shouldn't seek revenge, he should probably feel a controlled anger and a sorrow at such a horrible evil taking place.

I'd back this reading.

joe b.

 

[WizarDru]

BG pretty much nailed it, but with so little information, it's difficult to say. The monk's order probably fosters certain ideals (which may not be necessarily good...merely lawful). Actions dictate alignment, not the other way around, as has been mentioned.

If I'm following this: the gnome is an unwitting accomplice to murder because he delayed or interrupted the rest of the group from aiding fellow Harpers (who are, to my limited understanding, essentially Cormyr's secret agents). He didn't commit the murder, and had no way of knowing (or even reasoably suspecting) that his organization would commit such an action. None of them knew, at the time, that either the gnome was a 'saboteur' so to speak, nor that their lack of presence could have prevented a double-murder.

If the gnome is remorseful, I personally wouldn't see the monk being anything other than somewhat mad with him. Now with the actual murderers, I see fists in their future, but that's not the question at hand. If we remove all organizations from the equation and have the gnome take the party out to a tavern for the evening, instead...what then?

Some LG characters might say he is responsible, and others might not. Being LG is not the crux-point. Technically, based on what we've heard, he may have been ethically wrong, but not in violation of any law, per se.

Being LG is a factor, but not the ONLY factor in this situation.

 

[DonAdam]

One more thing of interest, written by the player of said monk when some other players disagreed with how he had roleplayed it...

Originally written by Beldizar the Elven Monk/Wizard of Alignment Controversies

Monkness

As a monk Beldizar is learning to keep his anger under control, again he puts on a show about some things to boost party moral, and has lost his temper with a few other things from time to time, stupid villains. But he's not short fused like Aseid, or ready to do some Gnome Piñatas, like Bjorn. Beldizar really needed time to reflect after finding all of this out, time to look back on what's happened before he made a judgment. By next session he knows what he's going to do, he had that night to think about things. Again Beldizar had just seen my childhood friend turn into a vengeful and hateful person, he doesn't want to become that.

I think it basically fits Zogg's interpretation (Beld wanted to hand Gimble over the Harpers but didn't think he should be killed, by the party or the Harper higher-ups) except that Beld was willing to forgive Gimble on a personal level (while still handing him over for judgment).

 

[Umbran]

I'd have to go with Biggus and HoE. Alignment is not a unique determiner of behavior.

A Lawful character generally wants things to be orderly and regimented. He follows a set of rules himself, and would prefer that others do the same. Which set of rules we're talking about can vary, though. Some wil follow the rules of the land in which they find themselves. Others will follow the rules of the land of their birth, or of their monastic order, or what have you. We cannot judge what the monk will do unless we know exactly what rules he follows.

A Good character generally wants the best for everybody, wants to minimize suffering and pain, etc. We can't guess what the Monk will do unless we have a better sense of what is likely to be the greater good.

Does the monk's Law take ignorance as a defence? Does his Law say he's gotta turn Gimble over to the authorities, or is he allowed to judge on his own? It it generally seen that Gimble is repentant, unlikely to repeat the infraction, and likely to work against his former employers, or is he likely to ignore the fact that someone died, and continue as if his actions had no reprecussions? We can't say how the monk will react without anserws to these, and other questions.

So, basically, you could have a LG character in this situation who would forgive, and another who would seek vengeance. Which kind is the monk?

 

[The_Gneech]

I recently had a good, friendly argument with my DM about Lawful Good characters. Here's how it started.

We have an impish little Gnome named Gimble in our party who has been secretly working for a rival organization. He has been trying to undermine some of our activities as part of the Harpers. Now, the Gnome once booby trapped our rooms at night. This prevented us from helping a fellow NPC Harper who was killed, and his young daughter killed too. Now, the Gnome didn't know his organization was going to do this, but as part of his mission against us, he was an unwitting accomplice to the murders. We later all found out about this.

Now, we also have a Lawful Good Monk who was a close friend of the killed girl. My DM thinks that the Monk is the MOST likely to forgive and forget; but, I think the Lawful Good Monk is the LEAST likely to forgive and forget -- mainly because of his alignment.

What do you think?

Not knowing more about the personalities, nor the history between the characters, I would expect a LG character of any stripe to be pretty upset with the gnome. He didn't pull the trigger, perhaps, but he still bears some responsibility for the deaths, and as such has to atone for his part in the crime.

If the gnome is genuinely remorseful, the monk would probably do what he could to help the gnome make reparations -- but if the gnome isn't remorseful, I can't imagine the monk maintaining relations with the gnome of his own free will.

Remember that PC's don't have big Rimmeresque letters on their forehead denoting special treatment. How would the monk react if the gnome was an NPC who had done the same thing?

-The Gneech

 

[TenseAlcyoneus]

Thanks for the reply, BiggusGeekus.

I don't discount it. I just see other factors being more relevant. Lawful good can mean:
* The character believes the law of the land serves all for the greater good.
* The character thinks the law of the land SHOULD serve all for the greater good.
* The character does not believe in greater good, that what is good for one is good for all and the law is the final judge of that.
* The character believes that there is an ideal of good that the law should strive to achieve
* The character hopes that all will persue goodness on their own and that the law is but a reminder
* The character wants everyone to aspire to goodness and that the law should protect those seeking that enlighted state.

I see, this is where we disagree. His profession is certainly a more developed role-playing concept; but, his alignment is more fundamental. As an example, when we cast Protection From Law, what are we protecting ourselves from? A philosophy of governance? A transcendental aspiration for enlightenment? I don't think so.

I think it's a divine aspect that we seek protection from, and I think that this is a necessary interpretation because it is imbedded in the game mechanics of many spells. Alignment in D&D cannot just be an approach to a profession or a purely perspectival philosophy.

While I can agree that profession is relevant, perhaps even more relevant, I do not agree that profession is most important. In other words, I see alignment as a perspective that implies a character has "taken sides" in the cosmic order -- again, I base this on how alignments are treated by spells. A characters choice of sides leads them into a chosen profession, although I recognize that a character can change sides, or take side in the case of neutrals, as a result of their professions.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

 

[Sejs]

Now, we also have a Lawful Good Monk who was a close friend of the killed girl. My DM thinks that the Monk is the MOST likely to forgive and forget; but, I think the Lawful Good Monk is the LEAST likely to forgive and forget -- mainly because of his alignment.

What do you think?

Forgive? No.

Forget? Definitly no.

"Oh, ho-hum, sure you were involved in my friend getting killed, your role being to delay us so we couldn't help her. Sure, just water under the bridge and all that."

Not a chance in the world.

First thing that comes to mind, would be the monk beating this gnome to within an inch of his life, then if there's a powerful central authority that would want this guy for his involvement in said transgressions, turn the little rat over to them after fully explaining his connection with the culprits. If there wasn't such an authority available, probably strip him of all his gear, wealth, etc and tell him that if he ever darkens the monk's doorstep again, he's a dead man. Then ditch the gear. Sell it, give it away, or whatever.




But, you know.. just my oppinion and all.

 

[Zogg]

First thing that comes to mind, would be the monk beating this gnome to within an inch of his life, then if there's a powerful central authority that would want this guy for his involvement in said transgressions, turn the little rat over to them after fully explaining his connection with the culprits. If there wasn't such an authority available, probably strip him of all his gear, wealth, etc and tell him that if he ever darkens the monk's doorstep again, he's a dead man. Then ditch the gear. Sell it, give it away, or whatever.
But, you know.. just my oppinion and all.

Sounds more like that's something YOU would do. And it sounds neither lawful or good. More like chaotic neutral (or chaotic good on a bad day).

 

[reapersaurus]

Now, we also have a Lawful Good Monk who was a close friend of the killed girl. My DM thinks that the Monk is the MOST likely to forgive and forget; but, I think the Lawful Good Monk is the LEAST likely to forgive and forget -- mainly because of his alignment.

What do you think?

Since when does LG mean Forgive & Forget?

It sounds like this is partially caused by your DM having a simplistic understanding of LG types. (no offense)

Tense & DonAdam - discussion about this topic could go on and on, but your input is much more interesting than the theoretical LG-as-a-principle discussion.

Question to you 2:
Why would the monk be expected, in any way shape or form, to Forgive & Forget?
Does it make the campaign easier (for the DM and Gimble's player) if his PC does that?
What exact actions or statements has the monk player done IC that you guys had a 'problem' with? In other words, why did "some other players disagree with how he had roleplayed it..."?

Lastly: what the hell is with the name of Gimble? It certainly is a sign that the player of Gimble has no ... well, suffice to say, it's not a good indicator of the player's skills.