Is this monk still Lawful?

[Philip]

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
etc....

Next thing you know, somebody comes up with a list of gods with murder, slaughter, killing etc. in their portfolio, and claims that any adventurer who kills and murders is evil. That would be clear nonsense. Poison and disease are not inherently more evil than a sword or a bow, its how you use them that matters.

 

[Philip]

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.

There have been no detrimental effects yet. I the monk doesn't act as a team player with these gauntlets, sure. But that goes for any actions detrimental to the group that could have been avoided but weren't for selfish purposes.

The gauntlets have more in-game potential for disrupting team play than a sword or fireball (and just as much as a stinking cloud). Don't judge characters just for in-game effect and for potential, just for actual behaviour.

If the monk saves the party lives by using the gauntlets against the enemy, even if some of the party is hindered by the stench, why would any party member complain. Complaining is chaotic, because the monk fought for the greater good, even though an individual party member may not have been as effective as he or she could have been.

 

[Sammael]

Next thing you know, somebody comes up with a list of gods with murder, slaughter, killing etc. in their portfolio, and claims that any adventurer who kills and murders is evil. That would be clear nonsense. Poison and disease are not inherently more evil than a sword or a bow, its how you use them that matters.

There is QUITE a bit of difference between killing and murdering, as the players in all my campaigns well know. This is why Bhaal was a god of slaughter and murder in FR, but not a god of killing per se.

 

[moritheil]

Lawful? Sure. Good, certainly not. If he only purposely infects his enemies and takes reasonable precautions to protect his friends, Lawful Neutral would certainly apply.

I've read this entire thread and seen precious few direct responses to this central issue.

Biowarfare, real life or not, is a very touchy issue. Some point out that it makes little difference to the dead how they are killed, aside from how much they suffer. Some point out that in many cases it is suggested that using poison and disease is an evil act. The exact details of why that is implied are really beyond the scope of this discussion.

Lawful neutrals care about the law. They do not care about mercy, unless their concept of the law includes it (which is rare, as mercy implies altering the harsh and unswerving dictates of the law.) They do not, unless they are leaning to good, care about the suffering of people who are their enemies anyhow. Nor do they care that they are doing evil, as long as it is in accord with the law. A lawful neutral person is plausibly entitled to slaughter villages as long as it is in perfect accord with the law he or she follows. Granted, that's a stretch, and it would have to be some pre-existing rule in order to not be a complete cop-out in a game, but it's true. LNs will do good or evil so long as it upholds their concept of the law. Good is easier to work with and causes less of a mess, so they might favor it for operational reasons, but pure LN isn't concerned with good/evil morality, only the pursuit of law.

No one doubts that the monk only intends to infect enemies. That's fine. The only issue here is whether or not he is taking all reasonable precautions to protect his allies.

So this boils down to: what's reasonable? I think this thread pretty clearly shows that everyone has different ideas about that. Some people believe that a powerful weapon makes it worth the risks of accidentally contaminating teammates; some people don't believe that, and they argue that even using the thing constitutes an unreasonable risk to his allies.

Note that the fact that the character is LN and personally unconcerned with good and evil doesn't change the fact that paladins will still want to see him executed for not caring about the deaths of countless innocent children who caught the plague and died in the weeks after his passing. It's still an evil act, and the DM is within his or her rights to send angry paladins after the character.

 

[irdeggman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by irdeggman
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?

Not trying to be rude either but per the definition of good 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

Basically caring about others' needs is the definintion (or part of) of Good and not Law.

[/quote]

 

[irdeggman]

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.

Not really.

Most of the time a paladin (LG) in a party makes for a great amount of tension due to his presecence and insistance on a certain code of behaviour that other characters don't share.
To a paladin his code is of greater importance than getting along with others and keeping to his code will never cause him to have an alignment problem.

Lawful character don't necessarily get along with other characters, they are however predictable while chaotic characterss are not and that is real big difference.

 

[moritheil]

Not trying to be rude either but per the definition of good from the SRD:

Basically caring about others' needs is the definintion (or part of) of Good and not Law.

Are you determined to win via continually quoting the definitions of Good and Lawful? I won't stop you, as I don't disagree with you, but I'm just completely baffled by your posting them again when they've already been posted and the issue has been discussed.

 

[irdeggman]

Are you determined to win via continually quoting the definitions of Good and Lawful? I won't stop you, as I don't disagree with you, but I'm just completely baffled by your posting them again when they've already been posted and the issue has been discussed.

First off alignment is probably the most oft differing subject in the game. That is to say it is extremely subjective and mostly handled by game specific traditions.

Now the only thing we have to go on as a community for comparison is what is published. So for sake of arguements over a standard it is all we have.

So when people keep on inserting an arguement based on opinion (very often the case for alignment issues because of the subjectivity of the topic) the only thing that can be used as a basis for arguement is what is published - which is why I keep going back to the the "definitions" instead of making definitive statements without having a rules basis. Now if it is my opinion and not a fact I almost always preface it with IMO or the like.

If you notice my quotes are almost always (after the first one) in response to questins like "How can you not see this?" or the like.

 

[moritheil]

First off alignment is probably the most oft differing subject in the game. That is to say it is extremely subjective and mostly handled by game specific traditions.

Now the only thing we have to go on as a community for comparison is what is published. So for sake of arguements over a standard it is all we have.

So when people keep on inserting an arguement based on opinion (very often the case for alignment issues because of the subjectivity of the topic) the only thing that can be used as a basis for arguement is what is published - which is why I keep going back to the the "definitions" instead of making definitive statements without having a rules basis. Now if it is my opinion and not a fact I almost always preface it with IMO or the like.

If you notice my quotes are almost always (after the first one) in response to questins like "How can you not see this?" or the like.

Interesting. DnD is the game with the most objective alignment system I know of.

Nevertheless, I understand from this that you are forced to quote it repeatedly for the sake of bludgeoning people about the head who otherwise just wouldn't get it. Thanks.

 

[ARandomGod]

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

I suppose that depends heavily on the laws of the land, or the laws that the Monk in question adheres to. I'm not even certain that in America (where I live) there are laws against speading disease. Although I do know that there is a Center for Disease Control, and some laws to enable them to function.

But basically, unless there are actual laws against it, then it is completly a lawful thing to do. Non-evil? Well, Definitly non-good, but whether or not it's evil depends a lot on the intent. And don't forget that a neutrally aligned character can do plenty of evil without becoming evilly aligned. In fact, he'd practically HAVE to do at least some evil in order to not become good aligned, wouldn't he?

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

Certainly. He'd probably try to not touch the party, but as long as he's taking every reasonable precaution he's not a team player if he refused to use 'em! After all, they make him more effective, a better part of the team.

Don't forget that lawful can be very evil indeed, and neutral can do evil in the cause of good without a qualm. Or good in the cause of evil. As long as the character isn't too consistently good or evil, it's all neutral baybee.