Lawful Good Alignment and Roleplaying

[TenseAlcyoneus]

Note that you're disagreeing with D&D.

Actually, I am in a sense, and I'm not in a sense because D&D disagrees with itself. The position D&D has taken on alignment is inconsistent, because every quote you mentioned is belied by the spell system. For similar reasons, alignments cannot be "personality types or personal philosophies." This is my whole point. these disagreements over alignment in D&D are legitimate precisely because D&D has done such a poor job of explaining and integrating it. I've chosen an intrinsic view of alignment because I think it makes more sense given the spell system.

If the question is whether the monk is acting Lawfully, then by what version of Law? You are failing to take account of your own point -- "two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other." I've already addressed the point of view his order would likely take. Presumably, this is from where his idea of "Lawfulness" would derive, but considering just "Law" as you have done is inadequate under your own conception of alignment.

And, where have I claimed that alignment ought to be a "straightjacket" or that characters ought not be able to change alignments or not ever be inconsistent? Your aren't boxing at a straw man are you? You wouldn't be poisoning the well, now would you?

On inconsistency, I've found most DM's to be entirely unwilling to allow this. For example, if a Chaotic Good character begins to commit an evil act in a fit of anger, DM's typically will not allow it or will assess some kind of alignment penalty/change. You hear "that's an evil act, it's against your alignment" or something to that effect. In practice, we typically do understand alignment as a delimiter of conduct. In fact, alignment only makes since if this is the case, and so I think it is necessary to interpret it this way. Good characters have different limits on their conduct than Evil characters. I think most would stipulate this.

The problem comes up when Law and Chaos are introduced. Somehow, these limits on conduct are labeled "straightjackets" by some. I obviously don't agree with that. When you wrote, "nothing the character's done seems un-Lawful" you also presume that there are acts that are not Lawful, that is proscribed by a Lawful alignment. Here, as seems always the case, my opponents must smuggle in the concept of alignment as proscription on conduct, even as they rail against "straightjackets."

 

[Umbran]

On inconsistency, I've found most DM's to be entirely unwilling to allow this. For example, if a Chaotic Good character begins to commit an evil act in a fit of anger, DM's typically will not allow it or will assess some kind of alignment penalty/change. You hear "that's an evil act, it's against your alignment" or something to that effect. In practice, we typically do understand alignment as a delimiter of conduct. In fact, alignment only makes since if this is the case, and so I think it is necessary to interpret it this way. Good characters have different limits on their conduct than Evil characters. I think most would stipulate this.

Okay, note that there's a difference between noting an alignment change, and making alignment limit actions. I rarely see a DM these days who says, "You are Good, you cannot do that."

Alignment is the result of actions. If you take an action against your current alignment, your alignment may change. The DM is within rights to say, "You are Good. If you take this action, you may cease to be Good." That's not limiting your action, it's merely making the consequences of your actions plain.

Good characters don't have any more limits upon their conduct than anyone else. Good characters choose to behave in a particular way of their own accord. There is nothing enforcing that mode of behavior, other than their personal wishes.

 

[molonel]

I grow tired of "Lawful Good as straight-jacket" opinions. I understand the disagreement was friendly, but one of the reasons I never play Lawful Good is because I get tired of being bent over a barrel and told how I am supposed to roleplay. If I'm a Paladin, fine, but even then: is it _really_ necessary to put Paladins in moral quandries all the time?

The monk need not either forgive, or forget. The gnome was unwitting - he says - but culpable. His actions are his own, and his choices are his own responsibility. That is the lawful approach. Lawful good is both lawful and good. The gnome was an accomplice to murder. Someone who is Neutral Good, perhaps, might tend to think more in terms of, "Well, he didn't _mean_ to hurt anyone." But that is because such a person is more concerned with goodness than with order. A Lawful Good person is concerned with both. "I'm sorry" just doesn't change the fact that someone was murdered, and those who might have helped her were prevented by the gnome.

A DM should remind a player who constantly plays out of character or alignment. But insisting that a character should react in such-and-such a way smacks a bit of DM micromanagement.

 

[Umbran]

....That is the lawful approach.....
[...snip...]
A DM should remind a player who constantly plays out of character or alignment. But insisting that a character should react in such-and-such a way smacks a bit of DM micromanagement.

By your own argument, then, shouldn't you have said, "That is one possible lawful approach"?

 

[Hejdun]

Here's what I think a Lawful Good person would do in this case.

Take Gimble to the authorities, tell them chapter and verse on what exactly happened, and have him charged with murder/accessory to a murder/whatever would work in the town. Testify against the gnome, let the authorities know you intend on raising the victims, and argue that Gimble's possessions could help pay for those resurrections.

After that, let Gimble rot in prison, raise your friends, and have the player roll up a new character, or let him break out of jail and beg forgiveness, but I seriously can't see how anyone would forgive him.

Seriously, he just purposefully killed your friends. Would YOU forgive him? I wouldn't. Neither would anyone I know.

 

[S'mon]

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?

LG - he might forgive but he'd never forget!

I think the Monk would want to see the gnome show genuine remorse and at least do something to put the scales of justice right.

 

[LuYangShih]

We do not have full details on the situation (and I doubt we will, since this is probably an ongoing conflict within the party), but it seems clear to me that the Gnome, at the very least, has decieved the party for a long time, been working against their interests, and indirectly caused the death of two innocent people, one a child. I do not see how one should be inclined to forgive this Gnome. At the very least the Monk should be requesting restitution be made by the Gnome for his actions.

 

[Rawwedge]

Hi;
Alignment based behavior is always a sticky subject.
I don't know what its like in your campaign but the group I game with have a serious problem with viewing D&D alignment through a modern day moral compass.
What would constitute a Lawful Good moral philosophy on 21st century earth is very different from that same alignment in a Magical Medieval Society.
The world around you decides what is right and wrong and dictates the behavior you must follow to live up to a certain moral code.
Today the sacrifice of virgins to a volcano god would certainly be seen as Evil by many but in a time past this was a pious act for many 'primitive' religious cultures.
Let's not even talk about how those 'pious' real world paladins behaved during the real world crusades.
The first indicator for a D&D monk is the fact that the Lawful alignment requirement reflects a strong self discipline and adherence to self-imposed, internal laws on how to live his every day life and practice his martial art. It is all about self discipline.
Lawful does not predict attitude towards outside law for a monk; for that you need to look to the deity that the monk worships and wether this monk is pious. Afterwards you have to look to the DM for indications of how law is interpreted in the society that the party is currently adventuring.
In my opinion the best way to build any character's moral compass is to look to their deity's dogma and teachings and then follow them in a consistent way.
In any case, don't use your modern ideas of right and wrong to inform you on what is right and wrong in a magical medieval society.
There's my two cents.

 

[Anubis the Doomseer]

Originally posted by Dakkareth
As the gnome a) didn't do it himself and b)didn't know, what was going to happen, he have been and unwitting accomplice, but not a murderer himself.

True, but working against the best interest of his friends should be cause for some conscience troubles. This is where self-rationalizations comes in as a defensive mechanism. Gimble is likely thinking** "the Harpers were good in their time but times change, they have lost their way but are too proud/too powerful/too loved for past acts to realize it. Undermining their organization isn't betrayal, but merely helping them realize that they can't face the needs of today."

** (if he was deluded as to the aligned nature of the 'rival org' if he knew full well he was working for the Zhents or the Dragon Cult then alignment change is in order)

 

[LuYangShih]

If the Gnome really was misled as to the purpose of his employers, than he should feel a great deal of remorse and make a concious effort to change. Only if that was the case, and if the Gnome took that position, should a Lawful Good character forgive and forget.