Re: Re: Lawful Good Alignment and Roleplaying
reapersaurus said:
Since when does LG mean Forgive & Forget?
I don't think forgive and forget is necessary, but I think it is allowed by the monk. The monk's personality fits LG (IMO) and forgiving Gimble fits his personality (we all agree that he has acted very consistently, the debate is whether he has acted LG).
It sounds like this is partially caused by your DM having a simplistic understanding of LG types. (no offense)
No offense taken. In fact, this was exactly the point of the argument. I take the plain, loose sense of the words "lawful" and "good," putting the two together, because I think that with the PHB definitions of the nine alignments you're limiting the spectrum of personalities that will ever appear in the game.
Tense was going by the PHB definitions, which I never bothered to look at closely. If you want what I think about alignments, the Book of the Righteous' explanations (on page 222-223) pretty much fit what I think they should be. Of course, with those definitions, there is no way that you can justify barbarians, bards, or monks being limited on the law/chaos axis.
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.
Well, the way we discuss things, it ALWAYS takes on a theoretical, abstract bent. It's a habit for us, and this discussion was no exception.
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..."?
It was not expected for metagame reasons, but because I know the characters (it was "expected" as in "predicted," not as in an ought statement). The party represented a spectrum of preferences for dealing with the little bugger. Tense favored killing or abandoning him, which made alot of sense given the interactions those two characters had had. Beld's personal relationship with Gimble, and his recent experiences with his vengeance-mongering former best friend, led me to think that he would be the most merciful. Tense is the one who brought alignment into consideration, which, admittedly, we had sidelined.
Something that we didn't bring up in our discussion, though, is that, though Beld is reclusive (being a monk), if he had a best friend in the party it was probably Gimble. They had worked as a kind of "sub-team" for infiltrations the party did early on, and they are often of one mind when the party is making plans (which is roughly 1/6 to 1/5 of the campaign, literally).
Also, Beld, though LG, comes from a LN order. Gimble is LN (having worked for Khelben's splinter harper group) so most of Beld's other colleagues are alot like Gimble, so they got along well.
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.
He picked it out of the PHB, LONG before the little bard showed up.
P.S. Story hours for this should be coming soon.