Is this monk still Lawful?

[Teydyn]

This is certainly lawful. However, if you are in a town setting, and giving someone a disease intentionally or unintentionally violates a law, THAT would get him in some trouble.

Violating a law he doesnt know or care about is not going to get him into trouble alignment wise.

In response to TheEvil, during a war for the sake of this example, in our society it is considered evil to kill someone by intentionally inflicting disease as opposed to just shooting them, even though they end up dead either way. They're called crimes against Humanity.

Important... "in our society". D&D societies should NOT be seen as anything like ours...

 

[Infiniti2000]

Violating a law he doesnt know or care about is not going to get him into trouble alignment wise.

Sure it will. How could it not? Are you suggesting that knowingly and willingly violating laws is not chaotic? Isn't that the definition of chaotic? Lawful people care about the laws. That's their nature.

Important... "in our society". D&D societies should NOT be seen as anything like ours...

You have to start somewhere and our society is really the most reasonable place to start for a definition on morality and ethics. You'll note he said 'example' and was not offering anything has conclusive proof. I'm sure if Hannibal King had any specific differences in his D&D world, he would have told us.

 

[wgreen]

Sure it will. How could it not? Are you suggesting that knowingly and willingly violating laws is not chaotic? Isn't that the definition of chaotic? Lawful people care about the laws. That's their nature.

Not necessarily. They care about the idea of law. A paladin who travels to a society where it's legal to eat babies alive doesn't fall from grace when he abstains from infant-devouring, or, heaven forbid, resorts to violence to prevent others from having their cruel supper.

Law is also about discipline, focus, and obedience to authorities. A Lawful character doesn't need to have all of these traits, just a good number of them.

 

[shilsen]

Sure it will. How could it not? Are you suggesting that knowingly and willingly violating laws is not chaotic? Isn't that the definition of chaotic? Lawful people care about the laws. That's their nature.

Often, but not necessarily. To quote from the PHB description of the Lawful Neutral alignment, a LN character "acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her." Note the 'or'. As long as the monk has a strong personal code and follows it stringently, even where it violates the laws of her surrounding society, he's being lawful.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The aspect of this that I could see bothering a Lawful-minded character would be the fact that he might inadvertantly disease someone.

 

[irdeggman]

The aspect of this that I could see bothering a Lawful-minded character would be the fact that he might inadvertantly disease someone.

Would same emphasis on inadvertantly[/] also apply to hitting someone (not they target) with an arrow thus doing them harm? See the long discussion on cover for missile weapons.

I can see the indvertant causing of harm bothering a good person but it really doesnt haveanything to do with lawful. Since the person is attempting to behave according to his convictions and only by failing in an inadvertant manner (i.e., accidents will happen).

 

[irdeggman]

From the SRD:

GOOD VS. EVIL
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.
Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good–evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.

LAW VS. CHAOS
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

“Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

“Chaos” implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

Devotion to law or chaos may be a conscious choice, but more often it is a personality trait that is recognized rather than being chosen. Neutrality on the lawful–chaotic axis is usually simply a middle state, a state of not feeling compelled toward one side or the other. Some few such neutrals, however, espouse neutrality as superior to law or chaos, regarding each as an extreme with its own blind spots and drawbacks.
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.

Respect for life and concern for others is a trait of being "Good", while keeping your word and telling the truth are traits of being lawful.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

He's spreading disease indiscriminately-- even if he's only diseasing the creatures he's killing, someone or something has to clean up the corpse, and diseases spread. He's well on his way to Evil; however, the disease powers of the gauntlets are not going to affect his ethical alignment.

Causing and spreading disease is not a Chaotic act. On the other hand, hosing his teammates up with the ghast stench is-- and if he's ignoring both their desires and their functionality for his own individual benefit, he's leaving Lawful behind, too.

 

[Parlan]

Allow me to go against the flow here.

Lawful is often what is "honorable". Very few would see killing someone through diesease (or by close analogy, poison) as "honorable".

Is it effective, yes. But it would certainly be against the code of any lawful monastic order that I would allow as DM.

Using it once or twice might be okay, after that I would start stripping Mr. Monky-monk of his Monkish abilities.

 

[irdeggman]

Causing and spreading disease is not a Chaotic act. On the other hand, hosing his teammates up with the ghast stench is-- and if he's ignoring both their desires and their functionality for his own individual benefit, he's leaving Lawful behind, too.

Where do you get that doing what others want is lawful?

If they are all chaotic evil and they want to go out indescrimantly kill the innocent and randomly slaughter cattle - if the lawful character chooses to go against their wishes is he no not lawful?

Now if the lawful character gave his word to do something and then deliberately didn't do that he is going against his alignment. If he gave his word tried to keep it and and failed, he might feel bad about it but didn't go against his alignmennt.