need advice on playing lawful neutral

[Elf Witch]

I have just started a new character and I have never played lawful neutral before I have played lawful evil as well as all the good alingments. I don't want to play this as long as I don't break the law I can do almost anything.

The character is a fighter who belives in personal honor above everything else. Last night she joined the group her cousin is a member. They had captured a monk who had tried to kill or capture some of the party members the paladin detected no evil on him under questioning he claimed that he was not trying to get the PCs his group was hired as bounty hunters to capture known subversives. The PCs had asked this group for a safe house and this was where they were told to go. So they were in this subversive's groups house. The goverment of the city while in some eyes is corrupt it is the legal elected goverment.

The paladin of the group who is not from this area felt that he had the right to judge him. In the end the monk choose honorable combat with a pc who is a monk from the same order. He managed to kill the captive. Now the leader of the party had his cohort ready to take out the captive of it looked like the PC was going to lose. So she made sure she was always in a flanking postion which I think would have been pretty obivious to a trained 9 level fighter.

My character thinks that first of all that the paladin had no right to judge this man who had not broken any laws. And ahe is concerned that these people have no honor.

I know that if I was playing lawful good I would walk away from this group or have serious reservations about staying. I think my character feels this way so my question is would a lawful neutral feel this strongly?

 

[ejja_1]

My take on LN is that the character has a personal code or set of rules that govern thier actions, usually dictated by thier background story.
Characters who are LN may have had something in thier past happen to a friend or themselves that in thier minds sets a precident they must follow. Example: while a youngster times were hard, and the characters father had to steal to make a living. He only stole what they needed to live, wich was mostly food and clothing for his child. The character therefore may not consider theft of these objects as wrong, or it could be the other way around were the characters family had all thier possesions stolen and the father was killed during the theft. Now as an adult they have a very strong outlook concerning thieves, and will react in a manner reflecting this. IE killing all thieves that the party comes across, attacking enemy rogues in combat first and not giving them any quarter. Whatever the case, this character feels strongly in thier convictions. In your example, your character feels that the paladin was wrong in his actions. So his future interactions with the paladin will be heavily governed by his feelings of what he considers right and wrong.
This alignment to me has always represented the vigilante, a character who is willing to do what society may consider wrong or immoral if it helps him achieve what he considers the greater good.

Anyway thats my take on it.

 

[AnthonyJ]

Hm.

This depends on your character's specific interpretation of legality, but while LG characters may choose to break the law in pursuit of a higher good, LN characters generally should not. In terms of honor:

The situation with the cohort is clearly dishonorable.

The fact that the (presumably lawful) monk did not object is a failure of alignment. Given that it was supposedly honorable combat with a member of his own order, that is arguably sufficient cause to have him removed from the order and stripped of his alignment (a GM should normally warn the player in situations like that, however).

Did the characters assume that the bounty hunter was lying? If so, that was an attack on the honor of the NPC; again, this tends to be a strike against the monk. If trial by combat is normal for the order, however, there may be nothing wrong (in the eyes of the order) with the duel.

It would appear that the captive was in fact a bounty hunter working for the government; as such, unless the PCs feel that they are at war with the government (in which case he should be treated as a prisoner of war) the Lawful action is probably to go with him back to the authorities that hired him to try and sort out the situation (though merely releasing him and finding an advocate to check into the situation would be acceptable to many lawful characters, particularly if the government is known to be corrupt).

The paladin may, by the standards of his own religion, have the right to judge the prisoner. By the standards of the local government, he probably does not (though he might). Which authority one defers to depends on the character; however, characters who are not particularly religious, or who don't share the paladin's religion, should probably favor the standards of the local government. A similar situation exists for the monk; given that he's of the same order as the other monk, he probably feels he has the right to make a judgement (and there's a decent chance that the local government is fine with that), but he has no reason to defer to the paladin when it comes to judgement, unless they're both of the same religion.

In either case, one might question whether the judgement made was correct. What, exactly, was the NPC guilty of that merited death? This is possibly sufficient cause to get either the monk or the paladin stripped of status and alignment.

Finally, a lot of this stuff is a GM call. It's worth asking the GM for his attitude about what LN (and LG) means.

 

[Elf Witch]

Hm.

This depends on your character's specific interpretation of legality, but while LG characters may choose to break the law in pursuit of a higher good, LN characters generally should not. In terms of honor:

The situation with the cohort is clearly dishonorable.

The fact that the (presumably lawful) monk did not object is a failure of alignment. Given that it was supposedly honorable combat with a member of his own order, that is arguably sufficient cause to have him removed from the order and stripped of his alignment (a GM should normally warn the player in situations like that, however).

Did the characters assume that the bounty hunter was lying? If so, that was an attack on the honor of the NPC; again, this tends to be a strike against the monk. If trial by combat is normal for the order, however, there may be nothing wrong (in the eyes of the order) with the duel.

It would appear that the captive was in fact a bounty hunter working for the government; as such, unless the PCs feel that they are at war with the government (in which case he should be treated as a prisoner of war) the Lawful action is probably to go with him back to the authorities that hired him to try and sort out the situation (though merely releasing him and finding an advocate to check into the situation would be acceptable to many lawful characters, particularly if the government is known to be corrupt).

The paladin may, by the standards of his own religion, have the right to judge the prisoner. By the standards of the local government, he probably does not (though he might). Which authority one defers to depends on the character; however, characters who are not particularly religious, or who don't share the paladin's religion, should probably favor the standards of the local government. A similar situation exists for the monk; given that he's of the same order as the other monk, he probably feels he has the right to make a judgement (and there's a decent chance that the local government is fine with that), but he has no reason to defer to the paladin when it comes to judgement, unless they're both of the same religion.

In either case, one might question whether the judgement made was correct. What, exactly, was the NPC guilty of that merited death? This is possibly sufficient cause to get either the monk or the paladin stripped of status and alignment.

Finally, a lot of this stuff is a GM call. It's worth asking the GM for his attitude about what LN (and LG) means.

The PC monk did not know what the party leader had asked his cohort to do he fought with honor. The NPC monk agreed to the challenge I think because he thought it was is only chance that is my take on it.

The NPC monk did not break any laws of the city the party is in as a matter of fact the party has broken a hell of lot of laws. We are playing in the Kalamar setting and we are in Prombeldia which is called the city of thieves but their are laws you have to have a license to rob and you can buy insurence to protect yourself. Also the churches try to get along and keep the peace. On Tellene slavery is legal even in the country that the paladin is from. The group that the NPC monk was hired to hunt down is called the broken chain they are abolitionist and they usse violence if needed to free the slaves.

My old character helped the broken chain and tried to get the good temples to go to war with an evil temple. We started our own thieves block, our leader killed most of the mayor's staff while trying to kill him. Like I said we have done things we thought we needed to. When all this stuff happened the paladin was not in the group.

So anyway this non evil monk was captured and the paladin made it clear that he had the right to judge him and kill him out of hand if needed. This paladin is not even from this city. As a matter of fact his church does not have a temple here. We had no right to judge this guy.

When he tried to take the party they got away and got to the monks temple to ask for santuary which we got. The NPC monk was there he knew we where there he talked to his superior we tlaked to the superior. Nothing happen we did not see him again until we captured him and he told us that he was not after us.

 

[Kichwas]

I played a Lawful neutral not that long ago.

Her focus was on honorable action, making agreements and ensuring everyone stuck to them, and trust.

She prefered hobgoblins and kobolds over elves, because at least the first two keep their word and understand respect.

She tried to run the group like a military unit. She was very strict on advocating for an equal share of the spoils. She took the role of the local nobles and the stability to the local community very seriously.

It's an alignment about respecting the value of rules, order, and the group.

 

[Elf Witch]

I played a Lawful neutral not that long ago.

Her focus was on honorable action, making agreements and ensuring everyone stuck to them, and trust.

She prefered hobgoblins and kobolds over elves, because at least the first two keep their word and understand respect.

She tried to run the group like a military unit. She was very strict on advocating for an equal share of the spoils. She took the role of the local nobles and the stability to the local community very seriously.

It's an alignment about respecting the value of rules, order, and the group.

Thank you this very helpful.

 

[Aaron L]

I played a Lawful Neutral fighter once like Robocop





Probably wont help you though.

"Stay out of trouble"

 

[Derulbaskul]

Have you ever been to Singapore? It is a really, really, REALLY Lawful Neutral country. Good and evil are irrelevant; only the letter of the law matters.

Based on living there for four years, I would play a LN character as obsessed with the letter of any laws and codes of honour, but immune to the spirit. Also, any sort of independent or creative thought should be completely out of character.

 

[Creamsteak]

You don't play an alignment. You play a character. That character has the alignment...

Well, that's obvious... but what I mean is that you can take lawful neutral as vague or strict guidelines depending entirely on how the character is...

 

[Ogre Mage]

Need advice on playing LN

I tend to think of LN types as those who have definite personal codes which they adhere to faultlessly and/or those who feel very strongly that the laws and rules of society must be followed as closely as possible.

LG tends to see laws and rules as a way of fostering well-being and rights for all so that everyone prospers. LN, in contrast, thinks order should be maintained for its own sake. Law and order is paramount, without it everything breaks down. Whether or not the laws actually help people is secondary.

I think LN types are the most likely to stick to their personal code come hell or high water. LG might be willing to bend things to help people, while LE might do so for personal again. But the LN character is unlikely to be swayed either way.