Lawful Good Alignment and Roleplaying

[Beelzebub]

I'm going to have to agree with DanMcS and Petrosian on this one. Action dictates alignment, not vise-versa. The more true the player plays to his character, not some abstract morality system, the better.

 

[med stud]

I think no matter what interpretation of LG that is used, the monk shouldnt accept Gimble hanging out with people that kills children like that. From a political perspective, it might be effective to kill children, but it's certainly evil to do so.

If Gimble is smart (like in high Int and/or Wis) he should have known that the group he was cooperating with was capable of just that, so he hasnt got much going for him.

If he didnt know that, though, I think his sincere remorse and that he of course leaves the group in question would be enough.

 

[TenseAlcyoneus]

It sounds like this is partially caused by your DM having a simplistic understanding of LG types. (no offense)

Reaper, believe me -- DonAdam hasn't simplistic notions on anything. He is a fine DM and always thinks things through very well. I think we have a legitimate disagreement based on what 'alignment' actually represents in the game.

Why would the monk be expected, in any way shape or form, to Forgive & Forget?

Well, I can see no reason for the monk to forgive and forget. Lawful Good characters, I think, ought to react to betrayals in a very serious way. I've previously explained my views on what alignment is; and, this would be a definite tendency of an LG character. However, I've also stipulated to BiggusGeekus that profession can affect this. DonAdam has rightly pointed this out regarding the monk's alignment change, and the different alignment of the monk's order.

Even with all of those qualifications, there is simply no reasonable way, IMHO, for the monk to continue to confide and place his life in the hands of Gimble, without significant time and effort on the Gnomes part. Some "atonement" has already happened with the Gnome taking some rather unlikely self-less acts (themselves suspect for a Lawful Neutral character). Nevertheless, the tension of the betrayal ought to not leave the monk for a second. Certainly, taking the word of the Gnome over other untainted party members, continuing to practice infiltration missions without any reservation, and generally acting as if nothing ever happened seems inappropriate to me.

More importantly, we all lose some nice role-playing opportunities while trying to continue to adventure with the betrayal in our recent history -- think of tension in the Treasure of the Sierra Madre style.

 

[TenseAlcyoneus]

Action dictates alignment, not vise-versa. The more true the player plays to his character, not some abstract morality system, the better.

I couldn't disagree more. First, alignment is temporally primary in that we must select one before we can use spells etc. Alignment is selected before any action is ever taken in the game. It will inevitably condition all future action. Second, alignment is logically primary to action. Action derives from a character's motivations, those motivations are a product of his experiences and desires. Both are heavily conditioned by alignment in a fundamental way, especially desires. Third, game play is plot driven. Good plots derive from logical and probable actions of the characters, which ultimately are heavily conditioned by alignment.

So, whether it's temporal primacy, logical primacy, or narrative primacy -- alignment is quite fundamental and preceeds the action of the characters, even when the campaign story is not developed using alignment main focus.

 

[Beelzebub]

You are absolutely right; alignment choice does precede player action. It does not, however, precede character action. It is assumed that every PC has had several years of self-determined acts under her belt before she starts adventuring. I would like to think of a 1st level character’s alignment as the sum of these youthful actions.
Part of the fun of gaming, for me, is watching the characters grow materially and ideologically as the growth might make for a shift in alignment. I seem to remember somebody stating that the monk in question was initially LN and was later determined to be lawful good. The decision, from what I heard, seemed to be open to some sort of group discussion. I wasn’t there, so I don’t know how the monk managed to have his alignment shifted. I can only guess that the group came to such a drastic conclusion based on his actions.

Please correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[DonAdam]

I couldn't disagree more. First, alignment is temporally primary in that we must select one before we can use spells etc. Alignment is selected before any action is ever taken in the game. It will inevitably condition all future action. Second, alignment is logically primary to action. Action derives from a character's motivations, those motivations are a product of his experiences and desires. Both are heavily conditioned by alignment in a fundamental way, especially desires.

I think you are right from the PHB definition.

However, many people prefer to think of alignment as describing what a character has done. Think of it as a judgment of a character's status based on his actions. Thus there is no such thing as "acting against alignment." Rather, the sum of a person's actions determine where they are on the cosmic scales of good and evil, law and chaos.

It's a common way of approaching alignment. The PHB definition is closer to an outlook than a status, but I think the status system is just as good.

 

[Haradim]

And yet, regardless of alignment, people will still play their character as they see fit. Being LG doesn't mean that a character has to behave that way all the time, nor does it mean he can't become something else (even if it seems to be entirely out of character; people *do* change for seemingly no reason sometimes).

And, if being tagged as something else, it is his actions that tell the Powers That Be what he ends up as. The character has no say at all as to what his alignment is; indeed, the most vile, Evil person can believe that he his LG, even act in the name of Good (ie, no eating babies or oppressing and such), but because of his actions (torturing, no mercy, genocide), is still Evil. Other people may not see it that way (those under his leadership may think him a saint!), but alignmentwise, he is still an Evil person.

The character is intended to come before alignment, and alignment is a largely powerless tag slapped on characters because of what they do, and sometimes, why they do it. Characters are always supposed to simply act; alignment is not really supposed to dictate what a character does, or thinks.

 

[FireLance]

In my own simplistic view of the alignments, Lawful means that the character believes social relations should be governed by rules and life should be orderly and predictable. Good is a measure of how self-sacrificing the person is - a truly good person would give of his time, wealth and even life to help another.

Based on these definitions, being Lawful Good in itself would make you neither more nor less likely to forgive and forget. A Lawful Good character would certainly want to ensure that justice is done, and conducted according to due legal process. Beyond that, it is really up to the character. One may choose not to associate with the offending character any longer, while another may choose to try and reach out to him and rehabilitate him.

 

[DonAdam]

Based on these definitions, being Lawful Good in itself would make you neither more nor less likely to forgive and forget. A Lawful Good character would certainly want to ensure that justice is done, and conducted according to due legal process. Beyond that, it is really up to the character. One may choose not to associate with the offending character any longer, while another may choose to try and reach out to him and rehabilitate him.

This is essentially what I said. As I noted before, I go by the plain sense of the words rather than the lists of virtues and vices in the PHB.

 

[fusangite]

To be lawful is to follow a set of agreed-upon rules; for a monk this set of rules is a hybrid of the laws of the society and the rules of his order. I still haven't heard what either of these things are; obviously, an Orthodox Byzantine monk would have different ideas than a Taoist Chinese monk on a subject such as this.