Is this monk still Lawful?

[Philip]

Ok to cut a long story short the Fighter (Alignment LN) in my campaign has acquired a flaming, smoke spreading longsword called the Burning Doom. The player of the fighter has decided to keep the sword since a) it grants a STR bonus and b) the fighter is immune to the flame and smoke.

The sword doesn't have any control over him or anything but the other players are concerned that their own characters may suffer the effects of the smoke, flame or even the an errant blow of the sword.

Would you say this fighter is playing the class of the fighter and the alignment of Lawful Neutral by choosing to use this sword?

My Point: sure, disease is dangerous, but so are flaming swords, fireballs spells and a host of other items. Adventuring is dangerous business, regardless of whether. Just because by the rules you cannot be accidentally killed by a blow from your friend's sword, but can be accidentally killed by the monk's gauntlets doesn't make a difference to the characters themselves (unless they are using OOC knowledge).

If the Monk chooses to wear/use the gauntlets in places where is is dangerous or not neccessary, then you have another story. That's similar to a fighter brandishing is greatsword inside a crowded bar.

 

[CronoDekar]

I have to agree that it's a matter of Good vs. Evil, not Law vs. Chaos. As long as he doesn't carelessly or intentionally make his allies diseased, it seems quite fine with me for Neutral on the Good/Evil axis. The only thing that would hamper his lawfulness is if employing disease somehow went against his personal or monastic code. He may live "honorably", but that doesn't mean his definition of honor includes "cannot use disease." I don't think it's non-lawful, for example, for an LE dictator to kill lawbreakers through inflicting upon them a slow, agonizing plague.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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.

Yep. Note that, in 3.5, there's no chance to hit anyone other than your intended target unless you're using variant rules.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

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

Not to be rude, but where don't you get that ignoring your teammates' needs, particularly in a tactical situation, is Chaotic behavior?

The sword doesn't have any control over him or anything but the other players are concerned that their own characters may suffer the effects of the smoke, flame or even the an errant blow of the sword.

If the smoke is interfering with their abilities in combat, then yes, insisting upon using it is Chaotic, unless the character takes a forward position or in some other fashion keeps them out of the area of effect-- the gauntlets (or sword) would be fine if the character only used them when seperated from the others.

Dropping a stinking cloud on your allies in the middle of combat to improve your tactical situation is Chaotic.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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.

Well put.

Especially in the rough and tumble worlds we play D&D in, there are very often going to be conflicting authorities. As long as the monk is generally consistent, he should be given the benefit of the doubt.

 

[IcyCool]

Dropping a stinking cloud on your allies in the middle of combat to improve your tactical situation is Chaotic.

No, that's not chaotic, that's just stupid.

At the worst, I'd say this monk is heading towards evil if he repeatedly weakens his companions with the Gauntlets in combat. Of course, then he'd just be a Lawful Evil Monk.

Hannibal, what is the problem with the monk? Is he constantly screwing over your characters? Is the concern just "what happens if he gets dominated"?

 

[werk]

Just to chime in, from the gods list at crystalkeep, I looked for gods with disease in their portfolio...

Ahriman CN
Guana CE
"The God of Pestilence" CE
Hel NE
Kiputytto CE
Morgion NE
Rotlord CE
Rudra NE
Sonponno NE
Talona CE
Yurtrus NE

So it would look like disease really doesn't easily fall under the 'lawful' column, and, as we've all pointed out, definitely on the evil side.

The issue isn't the monk diseasing people himself, it's that diseased people are carriers and the ensuing spreading of the disease, since outside of the monk's control is very chaotic.

.02

 

[Hannibal King]

No, that's not chaotic, that's just stupid.

At the worst, I'd say this monk is heading towards evil if he repeatedly weakens his companions with the Gauntlets in combat. Of course, then he'd just be a Lawful Evil Monk.

Hannibal, what is the problem with the monk? Is he constantly screwing over your characters? Is the concern just "what happens if he gets dominated"?

There technically is no 'problem' I'm just wondering if having these gauntlets would cause him to shift in alignment that would cause him to no longer be a monk. I guess if a paladin had these gauntlets he would definately lose his paladinhood, right?

I think being careful with the gauntlets is not the solution, as werk pointed out spreading disease is evil (and there a evil Gods that have it as their portfolios) and not something a lawful character would do. I prefer to be more black and white with alignment cause basically with this new fangled 'grey side' that people prefer, anyone can argue that killing an innocent child is a lawful good act if it serves the greater good and I'm sorry but I don't agree with that at all. Sure they can do it but at the end of the day, such an act should stain their soul.

The setting by the way is the Forgotten Realms and the monk got these gauntlets at the end of last session and we haven't played since. I'm just wanting to hear people's opinions before I decide to throw in the "you have a bad dream/vision...." schtick.

HK

 

[Zandel]

Let's see paladins with remove disease Xper week using gauntlets that cause disease..... Yep that's breaking his code.

Your monk in the example is LN but if he keeps using those gauntlets then he's going to change to LE. Harming his friends with the stench to keep something that makes him better is evil, spreading disease is evil. Nothing mentioned here turns him non-lawful though. Sure he's breaking the law of SOME cities but most are not going to have any laws on this sorf of thing just a Taboo. If his own moral code allows him to spread disease and look after only himself then he's fine.

 

[reveal]

So spreading disease is a non-evil, totally Lawful thing to do?

It is quite likely the monk will accidently disease one of the other player characters at some point and this is an instant random disease effect, no onset time or anything like that.
Also in a tight combat several characters may be sickened by the monk's ghast-like stench and suffer penalties to hit, save etc.

I ask again is this something a Lawful Neutral Monk would do?

Why ask a question if you've already made up your mind? You obviously think it's not Lawful. What's the point of criticizing peoples answers?