Is this monk still Lawful?

[Scion]

spreading disease is evil and not something a lawful character would do.

Note that these are two completely different things. I am not sure if you meant it as a continuation or as a seperate thought.

I can see someone making the arguement that it is not a 'lawful' act, but saying it is a 'chaotic' act seems like a stretch.

It is evil to cause suffering, and diseases definately cause suffering.

anyone can argue that killing an innocent child is a lawful good act if it serves the greater good

Killing someone for the greater good tends to go on the evil side as well. Lesser of two evils and all that.

If you kill an innocent that is evil. One could argue about its lawful or chaotic nature (depending this could go either way) but it is definately evil. No way around that.


Unless the character does something directly chaotic with these guantlets I certainly see nothing to make him lose his monk status.

If anything, they sound 'perfect' for an order of monks whose goal is to spread plague across the land in order to bring some sort of odd order to everything. I believe there was a monk somewhat like this in NWN actually.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Suppose he was a diabolist, a devil worshipper. Has feats from the book of vile darkness, and everything. Wants to make Hell on earth, so that things will be "better run" and "organized" and "not so messy." All militaristic and bureaucratic and efficient. In other words, Lawful Evil to the core.

Would such a character wear those gauntlets? If he did, would you be asking whether this was incompatible with being lawful?

I give this example because I think you are taking "lawful" to mean "good." The point has been raised that the gauntlets are evil; several folks have suggested that the monk might be on the road to becoming lawful evil himself. I agree. But chaotic? I don't think so.

 

[Zandel]

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

If you're evil or neutral and don't care about your 'teammates' needs thats not chaotic. Random behavior is chaotic, Lawful behavior is planning and forethought but neither good or evil.

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

No not chaotic just selfish and VERY lawful if it's going to work and has been thought out. The fact that you said "to improve your tactical situation" means that thought and planning has gone into it even if it was only for a second, some only need a second to consider tactics. Now if you did it just for the hell of it with no thought as to what it will get you or what will happen if your allies are effected then it's chaotic.

 

[Brimshack]

I think one important angle depends on a number of other variables that are not clear at present, namely the possibility of obligations to the other characters. Is the Monk already obligated to work with them, or is he already obligated in any sense to follow the wishes of any other members in the party? If the answer the answer is yes, then the Monk is violating the trust already placed in him by other characters. If on the other hand, he has no such commitments, then I see no reason why he could not keep the gauntlets and warn everyone to keep their distance. His obligations toward law might then take the form of a need to be upfront about the danger he poses to others, and perhaps a respect for any decisions they make as a result of that.

One problem with this is that it may present a situation in which the other characters tell the monk they don't want him around anymore. In other words, the real negative consequence here might be more along the lines of a deal breaker for party membership. Then it's, "...okay, your monk has cool gauntlets, and now he's retired. What do you have in mind for a replacement character?"

 

[Hannibal King]

Ok just to end the thread. I've decided that the monk will start to turn to Evil if he doesn't get rid off (preferably destroy) the gauntlets. He can retain the Lawful part of his alignment and thanks to those of you who argued for that.

Something he hasn't considered is that if word gets out he has these, in a main city for instance, he could be banned from entering and possible have several Evil Cults wanting the gauntlets for themselves. These items are bordering on artifact level and may get more powerful as the campaign progresses...

 

[Zandel]

Now that's thinking like a true DM! Great thoughts but don't forget that any paladins within a 100 mile radius who hear about these things will also be after him to find and destroy them (including any in the party) and most good churches as well.

 

[RisnDevil]

With the Monk, I sometimes think it is best to look at the Lawful aspect as directly related to the class, and the discipline required to learn and advance in it. For a Monk to be lawful, he must be absolutley disciplined and strictly follow the tenaments set down by his order. If his order has nothing against causing/spreading disease, or harming people unless provoked/in direct combat, then he is still Lawful. Maybe not Good, but Lawful.

 

[Taloras]

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.

You also forget that during the Middle Ages, it was considered good tactics to throw diseased cattle into a castle under siege. They didnt consider it an evil act. It was considered necessary to end the siege. Granted, the besieged probably didnt like it, and thought it evil. But over the course of history, mankind has used disease as a weapon for millenia. Nowadays, yes, its a crime against humanity. In the middle ages, it wasnt.

 

[nameless]

I am going to go against the flow and say that it is a bit chaotic to use disease in combat.

Perhaps the gauntlet affects enemies instantly, letting the monk beat a weaker foe. But as soon as disease is inflicted, the monk loses control over who it affects. Disease is a random and indiscriminatory killer. One person can infect a whole village just by passing through. The monk wouldn't be directly responsible for the chaos that ensues in a plague, but he is the one who made it possible in the first place. It certainly isn't causing stability.

 

[Aeric]

Lawful characters are supposed to be team players. A team is an organization, after all, and if there's one thing Lawful characters are, it's organized. Law and order and all that.

By using these gauntlets regardless of their detrimental effects on the rest of the team, the monk is being selfish. He's not working with the group, he's doing his own thing. We call that "Chaotic."

The danger the gauntlets pose is uncertain and uncontrollable. That's Chaotic too.