Lawful Good Alignment and Roleplaying

[Sanackranib]

Out of all the good alignments, at least, I've always been under the impression Lawful Good is the least likely to forgive. .

I disagree, lawfull good is the mostlikly to forgive, but the LEAST likly to forget

 

[Trickstergod]

I disagree, lawfull good is the mostlikly to forgive, but the LEAST likly to forget

Of course, it's customary to explain ones position.

Anyway, to get away from that, and slip into the more mainstream conversation: I do not believe a player should have to adhere to certain actions. The character should be played as feels appropriate, and not be rigidly bound by alignment restrictions. After all, there's more then nine personalities in the world, so there's a good deal of leeway to be had in interpretating alignment.

However, if the personality fits another alignment better (and not just in isolated instances, but over-all), then it's entirely appropriate for the DM to say as much, and state that the alignment will be shifting. For some individuals...this isn't a big deal. For a Monk, however, who starts shifting away from Lawfulness, that becomes a problem. While I don't know if the Monk is shifting away from the general precepts of Lawfulness on the whole, in this instance, I'd say that he was acting more along the lines of a Neutral Good character. In a very general way, mind you. After all, even a Chaotic Neutral faith has traditions and opinions on morality, that the devout are expected to stick to, yet that faith is still Chaotic (and likely has extremely liberal, loose rules which can be interpreted a number of different ways).

Hopefully a more or less cognizant piece of writing, as I'm not entirely cognizant at the moment. A coffee-ing I go!

 

[TenseAlcyoneus]

However, if the personality fits another alignment better (and not just in isolated instances, but over-all), then it's entirely appropriate for the DM to say as much, and state that the alignment will be shifting. For some individuals...this isn't a big deal. For a Monk, however, who starts shifting away from Lawfulness, that becomes a problem. While I don't know if the Monk is shifting away from the general precepts of Lawfulness on the whole, in this instance, I'd say that he was acting more along the lines of a Neutral Good character. In a very general way, mind you.

I agree. His order is Lawful Neutral, and so there are some great role-playing opportunities with the tension between the Monk and his own order.

I do not believe a player should have to adhere to certain actions. The character should be played as feels appropriate, and not be rigidly bound by alignment restrictions. After all, there's more then nine personalities in the world, so there's a good deal of leeway to be had in interpreting alignment.

Here, I disagree for the same reasons that I mentioned to BiggusGeekus -- alignment is a difference in kind and isn't a matter of degree. This applies also to DonAdams remark

However, many people prefer to think of alignment as describing what a character has done. Think of it as a judgment of a character's status based on his actions. Thus there is no such thing as "acting against alignment." Rather, the sum of a person's actions determine where they are on the cosmic scales of good and evil, law and chaos.

because the alignments are opposed, excepting Neutral. An examination of the spell system clearly shows this. As I wrote to BiggusGeekus, when we cast Protection From Law it isn't protection from a philosophy but from a cosmic force. Further evidence lies in the Detect Evil/Good/Chaos/Law spells. When the Evil/Good/Chaos/Law aura is "overwhelming" the caster is stunned. This is not the case for detect magic. These cosmic forces of alignment are opposed, and they have real game effects by being opposed.

Now, the idea of alignment as a status seems to contradict this opposition. If we cannot "act against alignment" then there is no cosmic opposition. But I think this is only seeming and not actually the case. By analogy, an 'A' student has a status of 'A' in virtue of the sum total of his previous actions, and future actions certainly will affect the status of the student; however, not all actions will a significant effect on whether the student continues to maintain the status of an 'A'. For example, whether the student eats Tex-Mex food on Fridays is unlikely to have a material effect on his status. (No jokes please ;-) This is a matter of degree.

So it is with alignment. Alignments are matters of kind, whereas the effect of an action on alignment or the appropriateness of and action under alignment is a matter of degree. Characters do have a status, but by acting in accord with opposing alignments they may certainly change that status. Alignment isn't status; status is a way for us to grade whether a character is in a particular alignment with the cosmos.

I still conclude, therefore, that character action must necessarily derive most fundamentally from alignment, not as a "personality type" but as a cosmic perspective in opposition to a finite set of other perspectives. This cosmic perspective will rule out many kinds of activities as illogical or improbable for the character; however, it isn't a prescribed set of actions either, that is why confounding 'personality' and 'alignment' is a poor way to go.

The best way to look at it, IMHO, is by proscription -- what vices are prohibited in a Lawful Good character. Then we know how to 'grade' the character, to judge their cosmic perspective, which has real game effects for that character and his party.

 

[TenseAlcyoneus]

There is a typo in my previous post:

Alignments are not matters of kind,

should be Alignments are matters of kind.

 

[TenseAlcyoneus]

To be lawful is to follow a set of agreed-upon rules; for a monk this set of rules is a hybrid of the laws of the society and the rules of his order. I still haven't heard what either of these things are; obviously, an Orthodox Byzantine monk would have different ideas than a Taoist Chinese monk on a subject such as this.

Right you are. The Monk is in the Order of the Shining Hand. They follow the god Azuth who is somber and has a dry, sardonic wit. Followers of Azuth: embrace magic for constructive purposes; seek to acquire every spell ever made in order to keep the magic arts flourishing; they give away spell books and minor magic items to people with magical potential.

Most significantly for this thread the Church of Azuth advocates: reason as the best approach to magic; cautious and judicious use of magic; a very grave responsibility with the use of magic; trying to curb “destructive or deceitful” uses of magic.

The Gnome misused magic in his spying on the group, and the Monk knows it. The DM (DonAdam) ingeniously integrated this illicit magic with actual game play. The Gnome received a tattoo on his shoulder (I think it was the right shoulder.) that gave him a +12 to Bluff against us other party members. When the real player touched his right shoulder, the DM would automatically invoke the tattoo and conduct secret rolls without our knowledge. We never caught on, although I got suspicious once. Frankly, I thought the real player had odd habits about sitting around the game table. ;-)

Now this order stresses reason not compassion, and despises the “destructive or deceitful” use of magic. The Gnome did both, and indirectly caused the death of an innocent and another Harper agent. This clearly violates a key tenet of the Church: “Use caution in your spell casting and magic use to avoid making mistakes that even magic cannot undo.” The Monk would see the Gnome’s use of magic as a high crime against magic itself -- and remember this all resulted din the death of the Monk’s friend, the little girl, and the order stresses reason not benevolence.

The more I know, the less I can believe that the Monk would ever really forgive the Gnomes destructive and deceitful acts

 

[DonAdam]

The problem with analyzing it in terms of his order is that his order would be more likely to side with the cause that Gimble fought for than what the party fights for.

Since the order is LN, it's teachings about magic cannot be used to make the accusations that a LG character would make.

 

[DonAdam]

Now, the idea of alignment as a status seems to contradict this opposition. If we cannot "act against alignment" then there is no cosmic opposition. But I think this is only seeming and not actually the case. By analogy, an 'A' student has a status of 'A' in virtue of the sum total of his previous actions, and future actions certainly will affect the status of the student; however, not all actions will a significant effect on whether the student continues to maintain the status of an 'A'. For example, whether the student eats Tex-Mex food on Fridays is unlikely to have a material effect on his status. (No jokes please ;-) This is a matter of degree.

You are right if alignment is only status.

However, when speaking of a character's alignment, rather than the "ideal type" (ie, lawful goodness), status makes perfect sense. It denotes which of the nine perspectives one person's "karma" or "alignment score" matches up to.

You can act against your current status, but your status is not fixed, so there would be no penalty or problem with it, you would merely adjust your status accordingly.

In this regard, the universal principles of alignment still act as guiding principles, but it is the characters' actions that determine his particular status, or which perspective he is actually following.

Though I still dislike alignment, this allows for something that the "perspective-only" system does not: a character failing to live up to principles that he espouses. In a game where someone is slammed with XP penalties for not following what it says there outlook is, there can be no sense of perpetual human weakness or failure, the character would simply switch alignments and therefore outlook.

You are correct in noting, however, that there must be some external universal standard of lawfulness or goodness before speaking of characters' alignments at all makes any sense.

 

[WizarDru]

Tense, I'm curious...if you think alignment defines character, not the other way around, how do you account for ex-barbarians, ex-paladins and ex-monks? Clearly, the PHB expects that you'll have PCs who change alignment, and details the consequences there are. Is alignment something thrust upon characters, in your opinion, or something that they can change? If alignment is what they are, not HOW they are, how does it change...or do you think it never really does?


Given that we know so little about the gnome's situation, I'm still not inclined to see the gnome as being as far in the wrong as some would believe. It's been made clear that neither the gnome nor the others knew the consequences of his actions until considerably later, and it wasn't the gnome's intention to cause harm to the those NPCs, merely to inconvienence the players as befitting his personality. If we found out that the gnome was told that he needed to delay the characters as a matter of national security or that they players would be killed if he didn't do something to prevent them from being at the wrong place at the wrong time, what then?

 

[TenseAlcyoneus]

Tense, I'm curious...if you think alignment defines character, not the other way around, how do you account for ex-barbarians, ex-paladins and ex-monks? Clearly, the PHB expects that you'll have PCs who change alignment, and details the consequences there are. Is alignment something thrust upon characters, in your opinion, or something that they can change? If alignment is what they are, not HOW they are, how does it change...or do you think it never really does?

Well, I'm glad you began that as a supposition. ;-)

I don't think that alignment "defines character." I think that alignment is a fundamental part of what defines a character. By 'fundamental' I mean "serving as, or being an essential part of, a foundation or basis; basic; underlying," not "being an original or primary source" as you have taken it. (Random House Dictionary) I have made the claim that alignment is more fundamental than action in three ways: temporally, logically, and plot-wise. This in no way implies that alignment is a unique definition of a character. I do think that alignment is the primary source for a character's motivations, and the logical and probable actions of characters derive from their motivations.

Further, I do think that alignment can change. This also deals with DonAdam's remarks:

You can act against your current status, but your status is not fixed, so there would be no penalty or problem with it, you would merely adjust your status accordingly. In this regard, the universal principles of alignment still act as guiding principles, but it is the characters' actions that determine his particular status, or which perspective he is actually following.

But, "the characters' actions...determine his particular status" is exactly what we mean when we say "acting against alignment." A character's perspective is changing, he is changing sides and changing motivations, and this needs to be reflected in the game play, especially spell mechanics. My understanding of your claim, DonAdam, was that under a "status" approach there could be no acting against alignment. I pointed out that this only seems to be the case, because for the DM and the player to judge the change in status presumes some standard -- that standard is alignment.

So, WizarDru, I explain changing alignments as changing perspectives -- perspectives that have real game effects. But, we may be arriving at the point of the disagreement. If actions determine alignment, and alignment changes have no inherent penalty (there very well might be role-playing penalties/benefits) as DonAdam suggests, then how do we justify spells like Protection from Law? If alignment is action (“the sum total of actions”), then we are protecting ourselves from Lawful actions, right? How does a Lawful spear thrust differ from a Chaotic spear thrust? How does a Chaotic Hammer smite with "Chaotic power?" After all, Law and Chaos are just descriptions of the actions taken by a character in the past, right? He very well might go neutral in the next five minutes. ;-) (DonAdam, I know this isn't your position.)

Seriously, I don't have to give up flexibility, alignment changes, class changes, etc. just because I choose to buy into D&D's structure of cosmic conflict. In fact, if I don't buy into it, I will need to revamp the spell system.

 

[coyote6]

I couldn't disagree [with the statement that "Action dictates alignment, not vise-versa."] more.

Note that you're disagreeing with D&D. From the DMG, p. 134: "Actions dictate alignments." Also, "Alignments aren't commitments, except in specific cases (such as paladins and clerics)." Monks likely qualify as such a case; however, the allegiance in question is to the lawful part, and nothing the character's done seems un-Lawful.

Perhaps more to the point, regarding this monk's actions, the PH says, "Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent."

In particular, lots of people tend to behave somewhat inconsistently when it comes to friends or family; they'll tolerate behavior from people close to them that they'd never take from more distant relations or strangers. So it seems perfectly fine that a LG monk be merciful to a friend.