What does it mean to be Lawful? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Duke of Urrel

2014-01-25, 04:26 PM

I'm having a hard time following your DM's arguments. On the one hand, it is generally true that Lawful creatures tend to be more conformist and less individualistic than average. They're less likely to to play by highly individualistic, self-defined rules, because the more narrowly you define your rules as your own, the more they become a codification of your own personal preferences and desires, or simply an elaborate excuse for them. Chaotic creatures, on the other hand, revere their own personal preferences, inclinations, and emotions, and they don't care about any kind of consistency or social approval.

However, I wouldn't push this distinction so far as to say that a Lawful cleric of Wee Jas must simply conform, chameleon-like, to whatever law prevails in the country he or she happens to live in. Lawful-Neutral clerics of Wee Jas conform to the laws of their own community, which may live in sharp conflict with the rest of society. Probably it is the senior members of the LN worshipers of Wee Jas who decide what is Lawful and what is not for the entire community. Or maybe they have an internal governing council that makes communal decisions about what is Lawful and what is not. What the outside world thinks of this is none of their concern. But it should be of the utmost concern for every member of the LN community of Wee Jas worshipers what this community understands as its own Law.

If I were your DM, I would be more interested in knowing what distinguishes you, a Lawful-Neutral character, from a Lawful-Evil cleric of Wee Jas. So you believe that every creature has an appropriate time to die. What is that time? By what guiding principle do you decide when it is Lawful to kill, and when it isn't? Because if you answer that this principle is "whenever I say so," then I will have a hard time distinguishing you from a Lawful-Evil individual. On the other hand, I would suggest that the more often you decide it is unlawful to kill, the better you effectively distinguish yourself from Lawful-Evil.

Azea14

2014-01-25, 04:30 PM

well, Deophaun to clarify I wanted to make my Cleric be like a Fundamentalist, like he'd follow the "Wee Jas Bible" if there was one, I really don't know. The man has ethics, he won't desecrate a grave for his minions, he won't kill wantonly, but he won't stop someone from dying if its meant to be.

Blackhawk748

2014-01-25, 04:30 PM

Murder would probably switch you to LE, but you would still have your cleric powers. Also your god is Wee Jaas, your doing it right. She enforces a strict Hierarchy in her religion, and generally speaking this is the only rules that her clerics follow. Now this does mean that they usually follow the laws of the land they are in, but if a discrepancy comes up the rules of Wee Jaas win out.

Edit: Partially Ninja'd

Deophaun

2014-01-25, 04:39 PM

well, Deophaun to clarify I wanted to make my Cleric be like a Fundamentalist, like he'd follow the "Wee Jas Bible" if there was one, I really don't know.
This is more neutral. The use of the a "Wee Jas Bible" is a start, but a lawful person would seek out a social structure in which to study and integrate its teachings into a larger whole to go beyond his own personal understanding.

A chaotic person would probably just toss the "Wee Jas Bible" out the window and make it up as he goes, or at least willfully misinterpret and twist whatever it said to his own predetermined ends.

The character is still true neutral to me.

Azea14

2014-01-25, 04:41 PM

The way my DM made it sound is that if I don't stick to LN to the letter then I'd be LE and I, as a rule could not follow Wee Jas anymore as being LE would like undo my Cleric powers. To further elaborate I got my DM to agree that I could ask about when someone's time was up, although I can see him abusing that a lot. The way I rationalize things is my Cleric isn't looking to kill people, but he doesn't see killing as evil either, he sees it as a natural part of the cycle of life. He comes from an Order of "Priests of Death" who believe in the ultimate authority of death. So if Wee Jas told him that say, for example an orphanage full of kids had to die he'd be like "well I'll make it quick". Conversely he wouldn't just kill anyone and be like "Wee Jas told me I could". For him death and necromancy would be almost ritualistic.

OldTrees1

2014-01-25, 04:42 PM

Wee Jas was a good choice of deity. She fits the concept of Death much better than Nerull does.

What does it mean to be lawful?
Well at its base it means that you are code motivated. You have rules that you imposed upon yourself. This is not unique to Lawful but it is nearly universal among Lawful characters.

You are likely to have concepts like "proper place", "proper time", "proper way". While these certainly are used around your core focus (death), you probably use these concepts on other topics too. Perhaps you are at this particular temple of Wee Jas because this is your "proper place".

You also probably prefer things to be predictable. Laws create predictable societies by creating and enforcing conventions. In general you would be opposed to destabilizing these conventions unless there was a higher law involved. This aspect of Lawful is probably what will calm your DM.

Sidenote: Becoming LE would not cause Wee Jas to forsake you. The Ruby Goddess has both Paladins and Blackguards in her service.

Honestly though your character would probably be better suited to a Blue-Orange (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlueAndOrangeMorality) morality revolving around death. Death is a fun Blue-Orange morality.

Deophaun

2014-01-25, 04:51 PM

So if Wee Jas told him that say, for example an orphanage full of kids had to die he'd be like "well I'll make it quick".
At this point you need to stop and make sure you and your DM on the same page as regards the morality of Wee Jas, because what you just described is Nerull's territory, not Wee Jas's.

In the case of Wee Jas, the orphanage would have caught on fire through inadvertant means during a drought. You, being a cleric, might be able to conjure water to put out the blaze, but Wee Jas tells you it's time, so you do nothing. "It's time" should not mean that you have to take action, but rather that you abstain from action and allow nature to take its course. That is what distinguishes the god of death from the god of murder.

Azea14

2014-01-25, 05:00 PM

OK I see your point, perhaps the orphanage thing was not a good example. My argument would be the difference between Amorality and Immorality. My Cleric is amoral toward death and only that, he is for the most part law abiding, he won't steal or decieve and the like but he believes that death is universal and he would kill if he was "meant" to kill them. What my DM has decided Wee Jas' morality is of the stance of Murder= CE as a blanket statement. He says I cannot kill even if I were to go to a place where murder is legal because those are "Cahotic Laws". He says Wee Jas is against murder because murder is wrong I argue that Wee Jas wouldn't care HOW someone died as long as he wasn't desecrated or forced to become a zombie.

Blackhawk748

2014-01-25, 05:01 PM

At this point you need to stop and make sure you and your DM on the same page as regards the morality of Wee Jas, because what you just described is Nerull's territory, not Wee Jas's.

In the case of Wee Jas, the orphanage would have caught on fire through inadvertant means during a drought. You, being a cleric, might be able to conjure water to put out the blaze, but Wee Jas tells you it's time, so you do nothing. "It's time" should not mean that you have to take action, but rather that you abstain from action and allow nature to take its course. That is what distinguishes the god of death from the god of murder.

I agree with this, Nerull is a jerk and he would tell you to burn down a orphanage, Wee Jaas would just tell you to chill and watch it happen, maybe.

Edit: Wee Jaas is actually totally ok with unintelligent undead, as long as you didnt dig the body out of a consecrated area. Hell shes ok with Intelligent undead as long as they chose to be that.

Mando Knight

2014-01-25, 05:02 PM

The way my DM made it sound is that if I don't stick to LN to the letter then I'd be LE and I, as a rule could not follow Wee Jas anymore as being LE would like undo my Cleric powers.

The DM doesn't really know what he's talking about. A cleric can be one step removed alignment-wise from the deity he follows... Wee Jas allows LE and LG clerics.

Your idea of what a follower of a death-god would do appears to be appropriate, to me. Ritualized murder is more of an LE bent, though.

As a side note, a Paladin (or other LG religious devotee) who worships a death god fighting a LE devotee (Cleric, Blackguard, etc.) of the same deity might make for an interesting story.

Deophaun

2014-01-25, 05:22 PM

He says I cannot kill even if I were to go to a place where murder is legal because those are "Cahotic Laws".
First of all, I would like to know how you can have a place where murder is legal, because the basic definition of murder is "unlawful killing." So, if it's legal, it's not murder.

But besides the inartful construction, your DM has a point: there can be written laws that are ethically chaotic. Generally, when that happens, you will have informal rules spring up to compensate. In these situations, your lawful cleric would try to work within these informal rules. In fact, your lawful cleric would probably encourage the creation of such rules for a very simple reason: if everyone is freely killing whoever they want, a lot of people are dying before their time. That is something Wee Jas would also take exception to.

Now, there may be times when you're called upon by Wee Jas to take proactive measures. Let's say your mission takes you to places where people are soon to die, and an order of healers catches on to this and starts following you around to prevent deaths. Well, you might have to act to delay their arrival, or lead them away from areas of tragedy so they can't interfere. Let's say a member of your order has fallen hard in love with someone who was supposed to die, and saved this person from their fate. You might be called upon to correct the "error."

Each time, though, you would try to work within the whatever system was available to you. You wouldn't slaughter the healers, and you would probably make a good faith effort to redeem your fallen brother and maybe convince the victim that cannot continue to live. You do have to attempt to reconcile what two sources of law are telling you to do, as even if you fail in that, you have honored the law in the breach.

Azea14

2014-01-25, 05:30 PM

BrokenChord

2014-01-25, 05:33 PM

I'm in agreement with most of you guys and he fact that turning Evil won't cost me my powers is a relief. I think I'm mis-framing my PC, I don't want murder to be my go to solution to all my problems, I agree that he shouldn't be for murder all the time, but my main argument to my DM is that he doesn't see killing as evil and he's fine with murder, he's not in love with it but he's ok with killing. My DM is of the Killing=Bad school of though. I've argued that Soldiers, Executioners, Assassins could all be LN and they kill all the time, but he continues to refute it saying that if I commit murder a switch would be flipped and now I'm Evil.

Actually, Assassins (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/assassin.htm) can't be LN, but you are right on the whole. Your DM has a bit of a misconstrued idea of the alignment system, but in his defense, it is his game; if that's what he wants alignments to be interepreted as, as long as you aren't already playing the character, you should just try to avoid the issue altogether and play something else. You guys can still have a fun campaign if that happens, right?

Deophaun

2014-01-25, 05:34 PM

I've argued that Soldiers, Executioners, Assassins could all be LN and they kill all the time, but he continues to refute it saying that if I commit murder a switch would be flipped and now I'm Evil.
In that case remember that the same logic would hold with Wee Jas, which means that, by the DM's rules, Wee Jas will never have you murder anyone, ever, else Wee Jas becomes evil.

hymer

2014-01-25, 05:40 PM

@ OP: I'm with your DM on murder being evil. Unless there are some sort of mitigating circumstances, murder is evil, and sufficiently evil that neutrals become evil. If it also happens to be illegal (as it ought to be), Wee Jas will also be annoyed with you.

The SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm) has this to say (my emphasis):

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.

Murder is a clear line drawn between neutral and evil.

OldTrees1

2014-01-25, 05:46 PM

I'm in agreement with most of you guys and he fact that turning Evil won't cost me my powers is a relief. I think I'm mis-framing my PC, I don't want murder to be my go to solution to all my problems, I agree that he shouldn't be for murder all the time, but my main argument to my DM is that he doesn't see killing as evil and he's fine with murder, he's not in love with it but he's ok with killing. My DM is of the Killing=Bad school of though. I've argued that Soldiers, Executioners, Assassins could all be LN and they kill all the time, but he continues to refute it saying that if I commit murder a switch would be flipped and now I'm Evil. Also Murder=Breaking the Law so i'd also stop being Lawful.

1)
Your deity is Neutral which means that they are willing to use both good and evil towards their ends. However you have been describing your code only in terms of the evil it would do.
2)
Your deity is focus on Death. This is not the same as being focused on Killing. Death probably has some passionate opinions about the Proper Time, Place and Way for mortals to die. This might _exclude_ murder. In general murder is thought of as unnatural causes. The goddess of Death probably wants natural causes.
3)
Generally 1 action does not change an alignment unless it is of a magnitude much greater than the actions that the character normally does.
Ex: If you act moderately LN all day and suddenly Murder someone (severe NE-CE) then you might slide 1 step. However if you are vigorously LN all day then 1 Murder might seem weird rather than slide you 1 step.

BrokenChord

2014-01-25, 05:49 PM

Notice the word "innocent" in all of those examples in the SRD, though. A vigilante, though very difficult to make Lawful, is an example of somebody who would by legal standards be committing murder but can nonetheless be Neutral rather than Evil. There's nothing non-Lawful-Neutral about deciding not to go save innocents from something that would kill them anyway if your greater law (such as say, your god) tells you not to. As for non-innocents, even if they aren't actually Evil, well, there's your own proof of exception in the definition. No issue killing them. Really, you could get uber-critical with your definition of innocent depending on your character's mental scores and personality; "he didn't file his taxes" works to remove someone's "innocence" for characters with low intelligence and wisdom, while characters of any int/wis combination might decide somebody is no longer innocent because "his attempts to conserve his standard of living caused people to die from lack of necessities" based purely on personality. And killing those who can't be considered innocent isn't Evil according to the much-quoted SRD, so... Hooray, legitimate wiggle-room in RAW.

Azea14

2014-01-25, 06:02 PM

@OldTrees1 Well the whole murder thing is what is at issue, but the opposite is also true if Wee Jas said "this man must live its not his time!" then I would save him. My DM though has said "you murdered someone, now you are evil" regardless of what other actions I've done. As for murder being "unnatural" I'm tempted to say yes, but if we for example look at actual religions that deal with death, like the Aztecs, who'd sacrificed people for what they believed was a good cause, are they evil? Second murder in my book would be natural as its two animals killing each other, otherwise we get into the debate of like if a chimp kills another for territory is that also "unnatural"?

Azea14

2014-01-25, 06:06 PM

hymer

2014-01-25, 06:06 PM

Human(oid) sacrifice is Evil in D&D. Animals behaving in animal ways is not evil in D&D, because animals don't have moral capacity.
That you may save someone, or might not, does not affect that being a murderer makes you evil. Particularly since you feel no remorse, don't think you did anything wrong, and would do it again in a heartbeat.
You DM is perfectly within his rights to say so.

Azea14

2014-01-25, 06:13 PM

BrokenChord

2014-01-25, 06:18 PM

Azea14

2014-01-25, 06:23 PM

hymer

2014-01-25, 06:29 PM

OK hymer to play devil's advocate here but lets say the Aztecs were right and there was indeed an upcoming catastrophe that must be sated with blood, would the people committing the sacrifice be evil if they think killing would save the world?

Depends on the context. It just might be possible to create a case where human sacrifice did not cause the sacrificers to become evil by D&D standards, though it'd be another one of those endless debates about alignment. In most cases, however, the sacrificers might not think themselves evil, but murdering innocents to save yourself is still evil.
But generally, heroes are supposed to find the third option or uncover the Baatorian plot (or whatever is going on), and good will triumph in the end, if this is heroic fantasy.

OldTrees1

2014-01-25, 06:30 PM

Red Fel

2014-01-25, 06:37 PM

Hello, I'm about to begin playing my very first (3.5ed) DND game and after our first "try out" session me and the DM have come to a dissagreemet. I'm playing a LN Cleric who worships Wee Jas (I originally wanted to worship "Death" as a concept but he said I have to pick a god and this is as close as I could get with my alignment). Originally I my goal was to make a necromancer who believes that the universe has an plan for when everyone must die and if its your turn to get offed then so be it. He cares nothing for the mortal realm and worships only his God as the only and ultimate authority. The issue that arose is that my DM (who is turning out to be a serious rules lawyer) keeps insisting that I cannot play my character that way and that he is by definition CN. His arguments include things like "murder is chaotic" "a LN PC in a CE society would be the outlaw", "Lawful means the written law", "law can be abused by either side" "if we have chaotic laws then its no longer lawful" . He says taht as a LN I cannot break any laws and that I must obey Society's rules. My original intrpretation of Lawful was that it represented Oder as a force of nature and that Laws area tool of Order not Order itself. If someone could point to a rule that backs up his argument then I'll relent, but it feels like he keeps pushing me into this "if you wanna do this then you are CN" situation.

TLDR: first time player wondering if Lawful means follow laws or if its Order as a concept like Good is

A lot of what I have to say has been said, to varying degrees, in the thread above. So forgive me if it looks familiar.

First, on Lawful as an alignment. As others have mentioned, Lawful is about order, structure, rules. It is not necessarily about following the law of the land, but rather some sort of code, often self-imposed. It has nothing to do with concepts like murder, sacrifice, or noble deeds, except where the code in question explicitly mandates them - these are generally Good and Evil notions, not Lawful ones.

Consider, for example, the Inevitables - LN Outsider Constructs, brutally efficient, obsessively focused on their goals, generally resistant to pleas and totally without mercy. If dispatched to rectify a situation, it will be rectified; if dispatched to kill something, it will be killed. Despite their ruthless efficiency, and their willingness to destroy anything standing between them and their targets, they are not evil. Why? Because they aren't motivated by evil. They don't do what they do out of malice, or cruelty, or a sense of smug superiority. They do it out of a sense of duty, without regard to whether it is Good or Evil - and that is the definition (or a common one) of Lawful Neutral.

Your DM's definitions seem... Overly simplistic. In fact, I wonder if he's been playing 4e. I haven't played it, but as I understand, the C-L/G-E grid has been replaced with a CE-E-G-LG spectrum of some kind. By that logic, yes, LG is the ultimate Good, and CE the ultimate Evil. But that's not 3.5 logic. Murder isn't a Chaotic act - in fact, killing in general in D&D is neither Good nor Evil, although the murder of innocents ranks pretty high up on the Evil scale.

Similarly, Lawful Anything is not the same as Lawful Stupid, although this is a tragically common misconception. Although Lawful characters may respect the laws, they will follow what their sense of duty requires, even when that runs afoul of local laws. A classic comic book example of this is Marvel Comics' Captain America; although he prides himself on embodying American justice and order, he expressly disobeys laws he believes to be unjust.

Now, with regard to your character, it depends how active he is in advancing the cause of death. Wee Jas, as others have mentioned, is a more passive goddess of death. As such, a death-oriented follower of Wee Jas would respect the process of death, rather than seeking to actively accelerate it. (In the orphanage example above, letting the place burn rather than actively burning it.) By contrast, Nerull is a more vicious deity, seeking to actively inflict death. As noted above, a follower of Wee Jas would certainly be lawful, as the Stern Lady's churches are rigorously hierarchical; but Good or Evil, or Neutral, could be reflected. An LG follower of Wee Jas would seek to ensure that those who die pass peacefully into the next life, acting with tender mercy and compassion for the survivors. An LE Jasite would make a more personal study of the dead, practicing necromancy (as you may or may not know, Wee Jas also favors arcane magic, and the study thereof; a Lich or similar death-related wizard would be in her bailiwick) and raising their personal armies. The LN follower of Wee Jas would likely be less ambitious, but also less merciful; most likely, an LN follower of Wee Jas would take either a scientific or obsessive study and reverence for the process of death itself, again without regard to Good or Evil.

Remember also that as a Cleric, you retain your powers so long as you remain within one step of your deity. Wee Jas is LN; you must therefore be LG, LN, LE, or TN in order to retain your powers. (Although the Church might disown you if you're non-Lawful.)

All that said, as others have mentioned, there are certain acts which are explicitly evil, such as murder, ensnaring the soul, or human sacrifice. These will drive an LN character quickly to LE. It is very difficult to play an LN character who reveres death, specifically because of how easy it is to fall into the "killing and torturing" pattern of that mindset.

I like to think of it like this. Good is defined by actions - there are certain acts that are so evil that no Good character may perform them and remain Good. This is so regardless of justification. Human sacrifice, for example, is an Evil act. Even if it saved the world, a Paladin could not kill a baby and walk away with his powers. He might not drop to Evil, but he would take a quick hop into Neutral. For certain acts, there can be no justification - they are Evil, period.

Evil, by contrast, is defined by motivations - regardless of what they do, as long as it's done with Evil intent, it's Evil. An LE tyrant can open schools, hospitals, orphanages and churches, all noble things, but as long as his end goal is creating an educated, indoctrinated, healthy and well-trained citizenry prepared to conquer the world in his name, these are Evil acts.

When you describe your character as a "serial killer for a good cause," you are describing a Neutral character at best. One who commits Evil acts repeatedly should be Evil; yet, because he lacks the Evil motivation, he barely skirts that line. However, he cannot be Good, because a Good character cannot tolerate such action.

As an additional aside, Evil Clerics can cast heals. The spells are still on their spell list. They just can't cast spontaneous Heal spells.

BrokenChord

2014-01-25, 06:38 PM

I personally don't want to limit myself with my Alignment, but my DM stated that A) I'd lose my powers if I stray from LN. B) The other players wouldn't adventure with an Evil PC. C) The elements of my back story don't work if I'm Evil D)I can't cast heals as an Evil player. He keeps saying that LN is this one specific thing and the Character you want to play is impossible with such an alignment, but the other alignments work even less.

A) That isn't true. Tell you're DM that he's making a houserule, and if he decides to go through with it, you really should just play something else. Or somewhere else, because that's a really bad houserule and doesn't speak well of your DM, but eh.

B) If you start LN, and are still loyal to the group and don't actually do anything Evil aside from what you've already laid out to the group that you will do? Your alignment doesn't change your actions, though your actions might change your alignment. Your group really shouldn't care about your alignment.

C) Which elements of your backstory don't allow you to start out LN and switch to LE at DM's discretion later? During the entirety of your backstory, you were still LN, so there shouldn't be a problem.

D) Wrong. You can't spontaneously turn other spells into cure spells, but you can cast them just fine if you prepare them.

You're right, LN makes the most sense for your character and it's what I would agree with if I were DM, but hey, not every DM is perfect like me.

... Er, I mean, other DMs can definitely disagree with me and still be in the right, so your DM is entitled to his rulings *cough*.

As it stands though, just show him the rule that allows Clerics to be one step away from their deity, and everything should work out if he decides "LOL you're Evil". Being strictly loyal to your god and the church's hierarchy should protect you from being dropped off the Lawful train.

hymer

2014-01-25, 06:48 PM

B) If you start LN, and are still loyal to the group and don't actually do anything Evil aside from what you've already laid out to the group that you will do? Your alignment doesn't change your actions, though your actions might change your alignment. Your group really shouldn't care about your alignment.

He wants to be free to murder people, remember? It seems to me that the DM is (not in the best way) trying to keep OP from becoming That Guy, who throws the game off track, sucks attention to himself, and annoys the living four-letter-word out of the other players and the DM.
Once he commits a murder, the rest of the group will have to deal with him. If this is a no-PvP group, this is very difficult and can cause the game to come to a screeching halt. If he murders an important NPC (plotwise or sentimentally), the damage to the campaign could be particularly devastating.

This is a new player who seems to spend a lot of time arguing with the DM. Bad sign for the future.

BrokenChord

2014-01-25, 06:50 PM

He wants to be free to murder people, remember? It seems to me that the DM is (not in the best way) trying to keep OP from becoming That Guy, who throws the game off track, sucks attention to himself, and annoys the living four-letter-word out of the other players and the DM.
Once he commits a murder, the rest of the group will have to deal with him. If this is a no-PvP group, this is very difficult and can cause the game to come to a screeching halt. If he murders an important NPC (plotwise or sentimentally), the damage to the campaign could be particularly devastating.

This is a new player who seems to spend a lot of time arguing with the DM. Bad sign for the future.

But as has already been clarified, he'll only murder if he is explicitly told to do so by Wee Jas or a higher ranking member of the church hierarchy. It's the DM's fault if he commits a murder if those are the only reasons he will do so, considering that they're, y'know, NPCs.

EDIT: Now, if he stays in-character and chooses not to prevent a death, that might be a bit more problematic, but the DM shouldn't leave it in the hands of the Cleric of Passive Death to save the Important NPC Who Will Bring The Campaign To A Halt If He Dies unless the DM intends to bring the campaign to a halt.

Azea14

2014-01-25, 06:53 PM

@Red Fel you have a very articulate response, you mentioned the Inevitables, which I guess is how I want to play my PC. OK, lemme see if I can elaborate on what my stance would be: As I said I'm new played about 3 hrs of a "trial" game so I personally now very little of what Wee Jas' actual morality is. All I know for sure is that she's LN, and is the Godess of Death, Magic and other things. Now please correct me If I'm making assumptions here, but the interpretation of Wee Jas I have is that a goddess of death who is Neutral, would be unconcerned as to HOW a person dies (on a moral stance such as whether they deserved it or if it was a just death), but being Lawful would have concerns that it was done in concordace with a grand plan, I.E. there is a predetermined time and place where person X must die, whether person X gets a heart attack or is killed doesn't mater as much. Thus my rationale is that a Cleric who worships death, would also want to follow the plan set up, thusly if it is in fate's plan for him to kill something he would do it. Now as a caveat this isnt just a way for me to get a "kill anyone you want" excuse, my Cleric would either communicate direcly with Wee Jas, or failing that use a book that would "guide" him as to what the correct path is. I'm not looking to kill all the time I'm just trying to rationalizewhat a appropriate Neutral route to killing would be as I don't wish to play an Evil PC. When I mentioned my PC was a Serial Killer I was exaggerating, although he could be interpreted as one, but mostly he has a duty and a mission and he will carry it out dutifully and efficiently

OldTrees1

2014-01-25, 07:02 PM

Start as LN, have your DM (as Wee Jas) be in charge of telling you if it is or is not a person's time to die. Then accept the consequences if Wee Jas instructs you to become LE or LG.

hymer

2014-01-25, 07:21 PM

@ OP: If you tell your DM that you're not going to murder anyone unless explicitly instructed to do so, he may accept that - though you may not yet have been ordered to do so, and may never be.
I don't think that Wee Jas has any notion of people being destined to die at certain times or in certain ways. Her role is to usher (Suel) people into the afterlife and put them in their right and proper place there. But there should be no reason your PC could not believe that there is a grand scheme, as it isn't contrary to any Wee Jas doctrine I know of. But if you ever choose to let some non-enemy die when you could easily save them, particularly a PC, you run the risk of messing the game up for everyone. And I can certainly see why other PCs would not want to adventure with someone who won't try to help them if they're in risk of dying.
It's worth noting that there's a huge difference between murdering someone and killing them. If this is anything like a standard D&D game, you'll be killing enemies by the heap, and nobody's going to bat an eye at it.

Particle_Man

2014-01-25, 07:30 PM

For lawful characters, procedures matter. I don't see her as a God of shanking people, though, just because one of her clerics feels "his time is up" unless he is clearly extending his life by unnatural means (lots of potions of longetivity, becoming undead without the Church of Wee Jas's permission, etc.).

I don't see how a static holy book could tell one specifically when a particular person is to die, however. So I would rely upon the church or God (ie the DM through a higher level church official, or your God) to tell you when someone's time is up in this manner.

You would definitely obey the orders of your church, or your God.

This might also be helpful:

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#lawVsChaos

Blackhawk748

2014-01-25, 07:39 PM

Honestly, you should always try to save people, unless obviously Wee Jaas tells you not to, because it may be part of "the grand scheme" that you save them, but if you fail you shouldnt be broken up about it.

Red Fel

2014-01-25, 07:53 PM

@Red Fel you have a very articulate response,

Thank you! I aim to please.

you mentioned the Inevitables, which I guess is how I want to play my PC. OK, lemme see if I can elaborate on what my stance would be: As I said I'm new played about 3 hrs of a "trial" game so I personally now very little of what Wee Jas' actual morality is. All I know for sure is that she's LN, and is the Godess of Death, Magic and other things. Now please correct me If I'm making assumptions here, but the interpretation of Wee Jas I have is that a goddess of death who is Neutral, would be unconcerned as to HOW a person dies (on a moral stance such as whether they deserved it or if it was a just death), but being Lawful would have concerns that it was done in concordace with a grand plan, I.E. there is a predetermined time and place where person X must die, whether person X gets a heart attack or is killed doesn't mater as much.

First, I strongly advise you - or anyone playing a Cleric as more than merely a Divine-flavored spellcaster - to read more about your deity specifically. Deities and Demigods is a good source, although there are others.

Second... Wee Jas is complicated. She's almost as reserved as Boccob, and that's saying a lot. She's also a bit perverse. For example, she is described as having particular interest in arcane spellcasters. And kidnapping and killing them. As expressed in Manual of the Planes:

Inside Cabal Macabre, Wee Jas tests spellcasters kidnapped from across the planes, though none ever pass her exams. The penalty for failure is death at the Goddess's hands, though many of her worshippers consider this a great honor.
Yeah. Not a nice person. You should also consider her more doctrinal teachings. From Deities and Demigods:

Wee Jas tells her followers that magic is the key to all things. Wee Jas promises that understanding, personal power, security, order, and control over fate come with the study of magic. She admonishes her followers to respect those who came before, because they left their knowledge and died to make room for them. She reminds them that death is inevitable, but she promises that their learning and memory will be honored by those who come after.
Again, consult those sources (and others) in more detail to understand the Ruby Sorceress better. In essence, Wee Jas' message is this: Knowledge is Power. What distinguishes her from Boccob is that Boccob emphasizes knowledge for its own sake; Wee Jas emphasizes it for the sake of acquiring power and control. The respect for the dead was tacked onto her portfolio as a result of the Suel calamity during the Rain of Colorless Fire, or something to that effect; it's more of a respect for what they represent (a legacy of knowledge). Contrast her with Nerull (a reaper-deity) or Vecna (the secrets of the dead).

If your character's religious doctrinal views are a major component of the character, I strongly advise you to look into the doctrines of the various D&D deities, is what I'm saying.

Thus my rationale is that a Cleric who worships death, would also want to follow the plan set up, thusly if it is in fate's plan for him to kill something he would do it. Now as a caveat this isnt just a way for me to get a "kill anyone you want" excuse, my Cleric would either communicate direcly with Wee Jas, or failing that use a book that would "guide" him as to what the correct path is.

Here's the thing. First, until higher levels, you really have no way to communicate with Wee Jas except through your higher-ups in the Church. Canonically, Churches to Wee Jas are uncommon, and anyway the DM would control that outlet. Later, you could get spells like Commune, but again the DM would control that means of communication. And, frankly, if your character had a "book" or other item designed to guide him in Wee Jas' will, he would either (a) possess a valuable religious relic that his higher-ups in the Church would demand he fork over, or (b) be quite insane, and therefore more likely Chaotic than Lawful.

Second, Wee Jas has Clerics, but she actually prefers arcane spellcasters. So while you'll get your daily allotment of spells and powers, don't expect a lot of personal attention or handholding from a goddess of arcane magic.

I'm not looking to kill all the time I'm just trying to rationalize what a appropriate Neutral route to killing would be as I don't wish to play an Evil PC. When I mentioned my PC was a Serial Killer I was exaggerating, although he could be interpreted as one, but mostly he has a duty and a mission and he will carry it out dutifully and efficiently

Don't try to rationalize. LN doesn't rationalize. LN simply says "I'm following orders." I'd advise you to look up the Ruby Knight Vindicator PrC in Tome of Battle as an example. These are basically the knights of the Church of Wee Jas, and their job is to make enemies of the Church conspicuously dead, right after making it abundantly clear that death is coming for them. There's a great sense of what a Killer for the Church looks like from that.

The thing to remember is that, if you play this character right and the DM does too, there's a very good chance you'll be put into conflict with the other PCs. Not because you'll be Evil - you might not be - and not because you'll necessarily be told to kill the PCs. You'll probably be put into conflict because you will have your orders to do X, which as a loyal and obedient devotee of Wee Jas you will do, and the rest of the party may or may not want to do so. Be prepared to deal with that.

Devils_Advocate

2014-01-25, 10:24 PM

devil's advocate
You rang? :smallamused:

Remember also that as a Cleric, you retain your powers so long as you remain within one step of your deity. Wee Jas is LN; you must therefore be LG, LN, LE, or TN in order to retain your powers. (Although the Church might disown you if you're non-Lawful.)
WRONG, BUCKO! :P "A cleric may not be neutral unless his deity’s alignment is also neutral." Now, you can respond by asking "But does 'Neutral' in that passage refer to True Neutral?" (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=282725), but the answer to that question is "Yes; yes it does", so there ya go.

The other players wouldn't adventure with an Evil PC.
Whether their characters are willing to adventure with your character is entirely up to the other players to decide. Furthermore, that's true whether your character is Evil or not. It is entirely legitimate for them to decide not to pal around with a murderer, or even that if they're gonna kill anyone they see commit murder, including party members. Lots of adventurers are strongly inclined to kill murderers and take their stuff. So if that happens, don't be surprised.

I can't cast heals as an Evil player.
Well, negative energy channeling clerics can't spontaneously convert other spells to cure spells, and all Evil clerics channel negative energy, but nothing prevents them from preparing and casting cure spells normally.

On the other hand, all Lawful Neutral clerics of Wee Jas channel negative energy anyway, so if you've been playing a positive energy channeling LN cleric of Wee Jas, you've officially been doing it wrong regardless. In fact, it looks like maybe the Rules As Written might represent a reasonable compromise in this case, regardless of your character's alignment.

It's worth noting that there's a huge difference between murdering someone and killing them.
Man, what? Murdering is a subset of killing. It's not different from killing. If you're murdering someone, you're killing them. If you're not killing them, you're not murdering them.

TLDR: first time player wondering if Lawful means follow laws or if its Order as a concept like Good is
"A desire for order" basically means "wanting things to be a certain way", which is really hard to spin as a distinguishing characteristic because every character wants things to be the way that that character wants things to be. I guess you could say that Chaos is lacking strong preferences about most things... but that doesn't seem to fit, since e.g. a Chaotic Good character wants freedom in general, not just for herself, and thus would prefer for society to be "ordered" in favor of individual autonomy. So, nope. If anything, indifference would be Neutrality's deal. Hopefully you can agree that Lawful should not be the opposite of Neutral, with Chaotic as a type of Lawful!

So, no, Law is not Order. Law is Honor so far as I can tell, including being vague in all of the same ways.

Is it about being honest? Keeping your word? Obeying your superiors? Following tradition? Conforming to social convention? Adhering to a code of conduct?

Those are all good questions. And each one seems to be an equally good question about honor and about Lawful alignment. So I feel pretty comfortable saying that they're basically exactly the same concept.

Now please correct me If I'm making assumptions here
You're pretty clearly making assumptions. Some of them may be correct assumptions, but it's pretty obvious that you're assuming things. Like, you didn't get all of that stuff you said from an official source, did you? You basically made up some things you thought were appropriate.

The basic problem here is that that's not your role. If there's anyone whose job it is to pull details about canon NPCs out of his ass, it's the DM!

Honestly, if you wanted to define your character's dogma yourself, you'd probably have done better to respond to your DM's requirement of a god by saying "Well, is it okay if my character worships a little-known minor deity of death, whose details I provide?" Because describing non-canon things is acceptable for players. It's a fairly unavoidable part of creating a backstory. (It would be quite odd of a DM to forbid a player from detailing her character's parents, for example.)

a grand plan, I.E. there is a predetermined time and place where person X must die, whether person X gets a heart attack or is killed doesn't mater as much. Thus my rationale is that a Cleric who worships death, would also want to follow the plan set up, thusly if it is in fate's plan for him to kill something he would do it.
That which is fated to happen will happen. That's what "fate" means. It's not possible for predestined events not to happen, and everything that everyone does is necessarily in accordance with fate. Following your destiny isn't something that you need to try to do, because you'll do it whether you try to or not.

Saying "I am but an instrument of fate" is a great way to be all philosophical and poetic about killing someone, but it damn well ain't a justification. A dude who honestly thinks that fate requires his cooperation is just straight-up nuts, and probably has delusions of grandeur. Although someone might mistakenly think that words like "fate", "destiny", and so on to refer to something else.

Now as a caveat this isnt just a way for me to get a "kill anyone you want" excuse, my Cleric would either communicate direcly with Wee Jas, or failing that use a book that would "guide" him as to what the correct path is.
If you decide what the book says, it's still totally an excuse.

If you only kill people who Wee Jas tells you to kill, then where the heck is the problem? Wee Jas is a Lawful Neutral NPC under the control of your DM, who is of the opinion that LN characters do not murder. As such, she won't tell you to murder anyone. Furthermore, if she does tell you to murder someone, then clearly it's a case where murder can be acceptable to a LN character. Either that or Wee Jas ceased to be herself.

Following the edicts of a Lawful master should never by itself require a Lawful character's alignment to be different from the master's. (On the other hand, there may be such a thing as "too obedient to be considered Chaotic". But obviously that's not an issue here!)

Similarly, so long as your DM has the final say on what Wee Jas's specific written commandments are -- as should be the case -- following them needn't cause alignment problems either. Of course, a character might decide to follow a Neutral god's commandments in a needlessly Evil way, and a lot of Neutral gods might be fine with that.

There's a lot more I could say about interpreting what the PHB and other sources say about alignment, and about semantics (e.g. "murder" is a loaded word used to mean different things and best avoided for the sake of clarity), but really, none of it should be an issue at all if you play your character as you're describing here. The problem seems that the way you initially described your character sure sounded like "My character has no compunctions whatsoever about killing, but has a crazy philosophy that he uses to deny responsibility for his actions, so it's okay!"

So long as you make clear that fatalism is only your character's perspective on things that he does for non-insane reasons, rather than a crazy rationalization for behaving however he pleases, that should eliminate the argument.

If, on the other hand, you wanted to use fatalism as your character's crazy rationalization for behaving however he pleases, but were trying to spin it as not doing that: Bad player. No biscuit.

OldTrees1

2014-01-25, 10:40 PM

Following the edicts of a Lawful master should never by itself require a Lawful character's alignment to be different from the master's. (On the other hand, there may be such a thing as "too obedient to be considered Chaotic". But obviously that's not an issue here!)

Good post but I disagree with this point.

Ex:A LN goddess has 10,000 powerful servants that she give personal commands(edicts) to. She orders 100 of them to behave as paladins of honor (to oppose Vecna) and orders 100 more to behave as blackguards (to oppose Pelor). The remaining 9,800 were given various commands befitting standard LN clerics.

2% of her actions do not outweigh the 98% actions of equal magnitude. However those 200 servants are preforming a different ratio of Good/Evil to Neutral. So those 200 servants were requested by their goddess to be a different alignment than her.

Deophaun

2014-01-25, 10:41 PM

That which is fated to happen will happen. That's what "fate" means. It's not possible for predestined events not to happen, and everything that everyone does is necessarily in accordance with fate. Following your destiny isn't something that you need to try to do, because you'll do it whether you try to or not.
This isn't entirely true. Pretty much any story involving time-travel into the past has an element that says "history must be X," and would be greatly distressed if the Archduke Ferdinand did not get assassinated in 1914. Any fantasy setting that includes divinations and prophecy can deal with the same issues.

Duke of Urrel

2014-01-25, 11:23 PM

I agree with the advice to look up Wee Jas and to find out what kind of a deity it is you'll be worshiping. I would not expect the goddess herself to maintain a direct line of communication with you, so that you would always know, on every occasion, exactly what she wants you to do, and never have to exercise any independent judgement yourself. Only really high-ranking clerics are ever granted the privilege of direct communication with their deity (outside of obvious channels such as the Commune spell). I consider it much more likely that you will learn the Laws of Wee Jas indirectly, by way of priests of her temple, sacred (or profane) books, and of course divinations cast by you or another cleric of Wee Jas. A Phylactery of Faithfulness (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#phylacteryofFaithfulness) might also be a useful tool to have.

I would avoid the word "murder" to describe the work that you do for your goddess. The common understanding of this word, as others have pointed out, is that it simply means "unlawful killing." But Wee Jas has, to put it mildly, a very expansive notion of what kinds of killing are Lawful. Perhaps there are other words that you can use – euphemisms are perfectly legal, and perhaps even in good taste, for a Lawful cleric of Death. Think of Terry Pratchett's Assassins' Guild. They always refer to killing as inhuming, that is, putting somebody into the ground, as opposed to exhuming, which is digging them up.

Above all, I think it's important to know what your dungeon master imagines Wee Jas to be, and how your DM imagines Wee Jas will make her will known to you. Here's the problem: You want to be faithful to Wee Jas, but it's your DM who really decides what Wee Jas wants. Therefore, you and the DM both have to agree about what that is; otherwise, you'll never stop arguing with each other.

The other problem seems to be your need to get along with the other player-characters in your party. Wee Jas herself shouldn't have any problem at all if your behavior slips from moral Neutrality into Evil, but maybe your comrades would have a serious problem with that. So here are some ideas to consider:

Maybe there are ways to satisfy your requirement to kill for Wee Jas by choosing victims that your comrades also consider worthy of death.

Maybe you can be designated the one in the party whose duty it is to deliver Coups de Grâce against dying enemies.

Maybe there are other "dirty jobs" that you can do for your party that they may disapprove of, but not strongly enough to disassociate themselves from you, because your killings are calculated to benefit them, and perhaps even the local community as well.

Maybe your real interest as a death-enthusiast is creatures already killed by others, whose corpses you can animate, so that you can acquire useful Undead minions.

I think Wee Jas might be particularly pleased, as a goddess of Law, if you are able to draw up a contract with the other players that gives you the right to do a certain minimum amount of killing under circumstances that you all agree upon.

But in any event, you need to have some kind of arrangement with other players in the game.

Azea14

2014-01-25, 11:36 PM

The reason I picked Wee Jas rather than make up my own God was because the DM specifically stated I had to stick to the Player's Manual so my hands were tied there. I think about 60% of the issues that I had have been cleared up, I get to keep my powers if I do happen to turn Evil was what I was most worried about.I guess I don't fully understand alignment in some regards, but isn't intent important? Like doing charity with an evil purpose is Evil? or is it good because charity is good? Is alignment defined by motivation or perception? As far as I know the other players don't really care even if I did go on a killing spree, so I don't have to worry much in that regard. To reiterate as well I'm not looking for an excuse to kill or a loophole to not be evil, I am genuinely trying to make LN death worshiper, at least in theory.

OldTrees1

2014-01-25, 11:45 PM

Fiendish Codex II has very clear rules that enough evil acts causes evil alignment regardless of intent.

(same for enough Lawful actions causing lawful alignment regardless of chaotic intent)

Really the problem is trying to squish Murder Spree and LN together. Killing and LN are compatible.

RegalKain

2014-01-26, 12:06 AM

First off, I'd like to pre-face this by saying I've never agreed with the Alignment system in Core 3.5 mainly because out of the 6 people in our house who ran in our first campaign together, we ALL had different opinions on how alignments worked and operated, and we all interpretted the written word differently. (As is to happen when you take a person's background and upbringing and apply it to things like good and evil.) As such I've taken to using the Real Alignment system found here. :http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=283341 I'd recommend most people read through it. Moving on!

From what I'm gathering your DM is very, very new to being a DM, as he's very afraid of players stepping out of bounds in even the smallest of ways. (We commonly have half the party as evil, the other half good, it's an amazing tip-toe act on the evil people's part to avoid being caught in the act, and makes it all more fun for us.) I think he also doesn't understand the core tenants of Wee Jas, neithier do you for that matter, this is another reason it's hard to "DM" deities, especially when you haven't fully read the given deity's portfolio and record of actions to get a better "feel" for how they act. (Often why I run a custom pantheon within my campaigns, though to be fair none of us like being a Cleric so it's a dead point ofr us generally.) That said, I think you and your DM should sit down before game time next time, open up Deities and Demigods and give a good reading together of Wee Jas to get a better understanding of how she operates, or for that matter, google some official stuff on her and see what type of deity she really is. As the PHB gives a pitifully short description for someone who governs thousands of lives and has cosmic power.

My ideals of "lawful" are iffy, most people infact would disagree with me (Another reason I use the real alignment system.) First establish the laws (By that I mean figure them out with your DM after reading Deities and Demigods) of Wee Jas, from there, this is how I feel your character should operate. In order of importance.

Laws of Wee Jas- (These are her commandments more or less, the strictests of dos and don'ts so to speak.)

Laws handed down by the church, that do NOT directly oppose the laws of Wee Jas- Your church argueably has higher powered and more in touch with your deity's desires-clerics. As such they can better issue laws that work well with her commandments to the betterment of all yadda yadda.

Code of conduct- This is a threshold your character will not cross, except when the Church or Wee Jas demands they do so, in which case they adhere (Otherwise you're not Lawful)

Laws of the Land that do not interfere, or directly oppose the Church or Wee Jas- The local lord says you can't eat meat, so long as not doing so does not interfere with the laws of your Church or of Wee Jas, you adhere to these laws while you are in his land, if the lord asks or tells you to do something that doesn't go against Wee Jas or the Church, but does go against your personal code (Which should be rare since your character is more or less built around the church and Wee Jas) you can choose to ignore it completely, that is not acting unlawful, as you are still holding to the primary laws that SHOULD govern your character.

This is how I personally play all of my "Lawful" characters, especially those with deities. The order of operations changes without a deity, it then goes to their lord/master/commander etc and proceeds down from there. However as others have said, this is your DM's game, if he wants to say "Killing=evil" he can, by all rights, he should of course understand then that every single entity in D&D of note is pretty much evil (As all of the gods at some point have killed someone from what I remember of their fluff) however he's entitled to say it and run it that way as Rule 0>All sadly. It's up to you whether you want to try to change that opinion, or find a different group to game with.

Sorry for the slightly ranty post.

Hurnn

2014-01-26, 12:28 AM

If he is this big of a pain in your first time playing find a new group, get in a skype or pbp game or whatever save yourself the greif.

Particle_Man

2014-01-26, 01:14 AM

You know, if you got a job as "executioner" (assuming the local government has the death penalty) you could engage in lawful killing of prisoners that were convicted in a court of law and sentenced to death. You could make sure it was a "good" death, respectful of the criminal, not too painful, etc.

Kinda like Gene Wolfe's character in the New Sun series, but without the torturing part of it.

Mind you, that might not fit the "Wandering adventurer" trope that is fairly common to adventuring parties, but maybe you could talk with DMs and see if in-setting, clerics of Wee Jas are often called upon to officiate executions in various lands, etc.?

Werephilosopher

2014-01-26, 01:35 AM

His arguments include things like "Lawful means the written law".

He says taht as a LN I cannot break any laws and that I must obey Society's rules.

Ew, this is gross. Please, PLEASE tell him that Lawful does not mean "I follow all laws because herp derp-ee-derp." Personal laws are VERY different from societal laws, and following one does not mean following the other.

Devils_Advocate

2014-01-26, 01:35 AM

Ah, now RegalKain raises a good point! It's a complicated world, and there are so many different, conflicting authorities and traditions that it's impossible to follow all of them, and probably also impossible to avoid following each of them at any given moment! So "always following some rule or another" is another thing that fails to be a distinguishing characteristic; obviously that's not what it means to be Lawful. Yet it certainly doesn't seem that Lawful characters all follow the same rules, either. What to do?

The answer is to be consistent about which rules you prioritize over others. And for a religious character, the rules of his religion are going to be pretty high on the list! But a cleric of a Lawful deity shouldn't expect his goddess's commandments to regularly put him at odds with other authorities. A deity like that ain't very Lawful, now is she?

Second, Wee Jas has Clerics, but she actually prefers arcane spellcasters. So while you'll get your daily allotment of spells and powers, don't expect a lot of personal attention or handholding from a goddess of arcane magic.
Is that actually stated anywhere? Because I've seen it assumed before that all gods of magic are gods of arcane magic specifically, which... doesn't make sense? Divine magic is also magic. It is, for example, Mystra's privilege to revoke the spellcasting of any being she chooses, including clerics of other deities, and even other deities themselves. Not that this is something she won't get in trouble for abusing, but she can do it. She is the Twilight Sparkle of Faerunian powers.

This isn't entirely true. Pretty much any story involving time-travel into the past has an element that says "history must be X," and would be greatly distressed if the Archduke Ferdinand did not get assassinated in 1914. Any fantasy setting that includes divinations and prophecy can deal with the same issues.
One can write a time travel story in which, e.g., Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated in 1914 before 10:34 AM on May 1, 2052, but after 10:34 AM on May 1, 2052, Archduke Ferdinand was not assassinated in 1914.

One can also write a story in which it is raining in Tokyo in New York, but meanwhile it is not raining in Tokyo in London.

And those two stories will make exactly the same amount of sense. Which is to say, very little sense indeed. Tokyo is neither in London nor in New York. Similarly, 1914 is not in 2052. 1914 is in 1914.

Creating an alternate timeline where things go differently makes sense. "Changing the past" makes no sense. If you go into the past of your own timeline, you only do things that happened before you left. Because that's when you're doing the things. You can't make a single event "happen differently this time around" if there only is one time around.

The implicit premise of, for example, Back to the Future, is that different times basically aren't different times, but rather different places that are magically connected to each other in a wild and wacky way. Which is certainly interesting, but it's not remotely plausible.

I guess I don't fully understand alignment in some regards, but isn't intent important? Like doing charity with an evil purpose is Evil? or is it good because charity is good? Is alignment defined by motivation or perception?
Actually, while the "rules" about what each alignment is are sufficiently vague as to barely qualify as rules -- which is an oddly Neutral approach, come to think -- the PHB is rather clearer about what sort of thing alignment in general is: "A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment".

As far as I know the other players don't really care even if I did go on a killing spree, so I don't have to worry much in that regard.
Sounds like your DM might be in for a rude awakening.

"So, there's a local adventurers' guild, which is a great place to look for quests by design. Maybe you should start there."
"Cool, cool."
"Yeah, that's definitely good to know."
"So, just out of curiosity, exactly how well-defended is the local magic item shop?"

To reiterate as well I'm not looking for an excuse to kill or a loophole to not be evil, I am genuinely trying to make LN death worshiper, at least in theory.
Worshiping death doesn't necessarily require killing any more than the average adventurer. Worshiping fire doesn't necessarily require setting things on fire any more than the average adventurer. In both cases, that's certainly one possible approach, and an approach with a lot of appeal to a certain type of player. But it's more the approach one would expect of a Chaotic character. ;)

Good post but I disagree with this point.
Upon reflection, maybe I overstated my case. But the relevant point here is that a particular sort of act is only performed by Evil characters, then a Neutral master won't ask you to do such a thing, as having a servant do something on your behalf is just a way of doing it yourself, not a way of avoiding doing it yourself. It's a way of doing it less directly, but you're still responsible for what happens, both causally and morally.

And that point stands regardless, I think you'll agree.

A LN goddess has 10,000 powerful servants that she give personal commands(edicts) to. She orders 100 of them to behave as paladins of honor (to oppose Vecna) and orders 100 more to behave as blackguards (to oppose Pelor). The remaining 9,800 were given various commands befitting standard LN clerics.

2% of her actions do not outweigh the 98% actions of equal magnitude. However those 200 servants are preforming a different ratio of Good/Evil to Neutral. So those 200 servants were requested by their goddess to be a different alignment than her.
But alignment isn't really about what you've done in the past; more like about what you're liable to due in the future under various circumstances. If two different servants of one master behave in opposite ways because they're commanded to, but each would be perfectly willing to switch to the opposite if commanded to, then it certainly seems at least possible that they both have the same alignment, and maybe even all of the same values.

Thinking about it, I'm less confident of my claim than I was initially, but I don't think you've quite managed to construct a counterexample yet.

OldTrees1

2014-01-26, 02:44 AM

Upon reflection, maybe I overstated my case. But the relevant point here is that a particular sort of act is only performed by Evil characters, then a Neutral master won't ask you to do such a thing, as having a servant do something on your behalf is just a way of doing it yourself, not a way of avoiding doing it yourself. It's a way of doing it less directly, but you're still responsible for what happens, both causally and morally.

And that point stands regardless, I think you'll agree.

That I'll agree with (especially the master being morally responsible for the orders they give). Although it is a short list of actions that are only preformed by Evil characters. There are more actions that are rarely preformed by non Evil characters.

But alignment isn't really about what you've done in the past; more like about what you're liable to due in the future under various circumstances. If two different servants of one master behave in opposite ways because they're commanded to, but each would be perfectly willing to switch to the opposite if commanded to, then it certainly seems at least possible that they both have the same alignment, and maybe even all of the same values.

Thinking about it, I'm less confident of my claim than I was initially, but I don't think you've quite managed to construct a counterexample yet.

Hmm. That is a new take on alignment that I had not heard before.
Under that take on alignment, replace "command follower to become Paladins of Honor" with "recruit Paladins of Honor to her Paladin order". Ends up being a much weaker counterexample(not sure if it counters anything in this form).

Zale

2014-01-26, 03:03 AM

Man, what? Murdering is a subset of killing. It's not different from killing. If you're murdering someone, you're killing them. If you're not killing them, you're not murdering them.

It's not murder unless a PC Race is involved. :smalltongue:

Killing goblins only counts as pest control in D&D, after all.

To the OP, I personally dislike the Alignment system since it tends to cause these sorts of issues. I'd advise you talk to your DM about what they think various alignments mean, and try to talk them over to your side if possible.

This is why I don't like playing anything with powers contingent on alignments.

hymer

2014-01-26, 03:23 AM

Man, what? Murdering is a subset of killing. It's not different from killing. If you're murdering someone, you're killing them. If you're not killing them, you're not murdering them.

This is an alignment debate, so mind the context. Killing is something done all the time by adventurers, with any sort of possible alignment consequence, good, neutral, chaotic, evil, lawful, and none at all. Murder, however, is evil.

iceman10058

2014-01-26, 03:51 AM

your dm seems to be new, a moron, or both. i suggest you take dieties and demigods and read it and tell him you have been doing a rather good job of playing a cleric of wee jas and your alignment would be fine as LE. but i will say this.... your dm may not want and evil characters in his party and that could force him to kill your character, or ask you to retire it.

Devils_Advocate

2014-01-26, 04:54 AM

Part of the problem is that the Monster Manual uses a very different standard than the one laid out in the Player's Handbook. In the MM, things that will just kill or enslave you are generally classified as Neutral (regardless of intelligence), while Evil-aligned things are downright MEAN, and want you to suffer. But according to the PHB, just making a habit killing innocents is an Evil thing to do, and only some Evil characters pursue Evil for the sake of Evil.

Most of the monsters in the MM are Evil by the PHB's standards, and so are most real human beings. Because humans are intelligent omnivorous predators who totally kill innocent sentient beings even if they don't need to do so to survive, even when doing so is more wasteful and environmentally damaging than the alternatives. Humans will often keep these harmless creatures imprisoned in poor conditions. Most people don't directly do these things themselves, but that's just a division of labor thing. (Having others do Evil stuff for you doesn't take you out of Lawful Evil alignment, remember!) Humans behave this way because they crave the taste of innocent flesh. That's right; evil food tastes better (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0511.html)!

(Humans killing and eating creatures that lack "human-like intelligence" isn't any less Evil than mind flayers killing and feeding on creatures that lack "illithid-like intelligence". If that were all that mind flayers did, they'd be classified as Neutral. Because, once again, Neutral is as a rule the alignment given to monsters who don't want to do anything worse than kill you.)

I could get into the ways that humans treat each other too, but suffice to say that, as one might guess from the above, normal human beings are downright gratuitously Evil by PHB standards! Oh, they may interact mainly through the indirect threat of the use of force, rather than through outright shows of physical force, but make no mistake. There is no mental widget that makes the typical human look out for and avoid any activity that will cause something bad to happen to someone who doesn't deserve it. And so humans cause all manner of unpleasantness all the time.

Philosophically, it makes little sense to define Evil as a lack of a thing (in this case compunctions against harming the innocent). Neutrality is the obvious candidate to be a non-thing, with Good and Evil being things that oppose each other, and Neutrality the lack of either. But in the case of the PHB's alignment descriptions, there's the additional problem of Evil being defined as the lack of a thing that most people don't have, so while obviously Evil is intended to be something that normal people are adverse to, instead it's something that normal people are.

So the obvious thing to do is to go with MM alignment. But in that case it's worth noting that an assassin who kills people for money so he can spend it on hookers and blow, because he likes hookers and blow, probably isn't Evil. In fact, his job probably doesn't even involve killing innocents, because, as discussed above, adult human beings are rarely innocent. Even if you don't classify 'em as Evil, they sure ain't innocent! "Innocent" covers things like very young children.

Personal laws are VERY different from societal laws, and following one does not mean following the other.
Wait, are you saying that being Lawful is about "following personal laws", rather than "following societal laws"? Oh dear Boccob.

Look, the idea that "following a personal code" of your own devising makes you Lawful is ridiculous. Any character's personality can be stated in imperative form. Following the "code" of "Decide for yourself what to do without regard for what anyone else thinks" is Chaotic, not Lawful. (And just being methodical will not alone make you Lawful. Nor is planning ahead somehow Law-aligned. Certainly neither organizing nor disorganizing things is inherently Lawful nor Chaotic.)

Now, in AD&D in particular, not giving your character a proper personality was basically what Chaotic Neutral was for. It was the alignment of choice for those who wished to retain the inalienable right to have their characters do any damn thing they wanted. Oh, it was described as "whimsical and unpredictable", but that was just an in-universe justification for out-of-character decision making. ("Ooh, I'll have my character do this ridiculously dangerous thing because it looks exciting! If he dies, I can just roll up another one.")

Now, "GTFO of my game" is a perfectly valid response to extremely poor roleplaying. But if you're going to allow it in the hopes that a player will get better, sticking all terribly roleplayed characters into the Chaotic alignments makes a fair bit of sense, because lacking a (remotely normal) personality does make a sort of sense as an expression of Chaos, and because having spells that are particularly injurious to horribly RPed PCs is a desirable tool to have in one's DM arsenal.

Which I think goes a ways towards explaining some of the things that Azea14's DM said. Because what Azea14 initially described sounded suspiciously like "My character is Lawful because he does exactly what the voices in his head tell him to do. ;)" Trying to justify your character acting Chaotic as being Lawful is like trying to have your cake and eat it too. And we're talking about Chaos of the have your cake and eat it too variety, where bad roleplaying is basically legitimized by having people who act exactly like badly roleplayed characters as an official part of the setting! That's demanding three times the standard allotment of cake! O_O

Someone sends up a red flag like that, it's not too surprising for a DM to reply, with barely suppressed horror, "Um, no, that's Chaotic, not Lawful. Also Evil! (You don't want to be Evil, right?) And i-if you act like that, no one will like you! Uh, also, you can't be a cleric of a philosophy. You have to follow one of the gods! Yes, you have to do what your deity says, or your character gets his powers taken away. And since o-obviously you don't want to follow an Evil god, y-you'll be forbidden from doing Evil things, of course. Yeah, that's the ticket. (Whew!)"

Hmm. That is a new take on alignment that I had not heard before.
Alignment can't represent all of your actions up until now, because there are ways to magically instantaneously alter someone's alignment, and they can't instantaneously change the collection of all of that individual's actions up until now, because, as discussed above, changing the past isn't a thing.

(Here, we see Devils_Advocate employ the rare and powerful "Reuse an argument just made to support an entirely different point" technique. The crowd briefly gasps in amazement and then goes completely bananas!)

Under that take on alignment, replace "command follower to become Paladins of Honor" with "recruit Paladins of Honor to her Paladin order". Ends up being a much weaker counterexample(not sure if it counters anything in this form).
I feel like having an order of blackguards probably makes a character the sort of individual that paladins avoid associating with. Like, if tyranny and genocide are just a small part of what someone does, I guess that maybe technically that's not consistently offending paladins' moral code, but...

It's not murder unless a PC Race is involved. :smalltongue:

Killing goblins only counts as pest control in D&D, after all.

This is an alignment debate, so mind the context. Killing is something done all the time by adventurers, with any sort of possible alignment consequence, good, neutral, chaotic, evil, lawful, and none at all. Murder, however, is evil.
So, just to be clear, do you two realize that you're not contradicting what I typed at all? I didn't claim that all killing is murder, I just pointed out that all murder is killing.

Do you acknowledge that that's correct? That all murder is killing? I'm not saying that non-murder is never killing.

Azea14

2014-01-26, 05:13 AM

You make quite the compelling argument Devils Advocate. My original inclination was to have my Cleric have a consistent code of ethics, while having a more
"accepting" view of death. I think in the end all I really want is to not have the DM dictate what my Character is, I'm OK if the route I take makes my Cleric CE,if thats the choice I make fine, especially now that I know I won't lose my powers, but I take offense to the DM stating LN is never breaking any laws and never committing murder, anything stepping out of that def is CE by definition. At that point I'm not really playing a person, I'm just going through the motions.

hamishspence

2014-01-26, 05:14 AM

The Giant had some interesting things to say on how Lawfulness can, sometimes, be compatible with vigilantism:

In my personal interpretation of Lawfulness in D&D, I believe that yes, it is possible to be Lawful using a personal code rather than the societal definitions of law and order. However, I believe that the burden of upholding that code has to be much stricter than that of the average person in order to actually qualify as Lawful. You must be willing to suffer personal detriment through adhesion to your code, without wavering, if you want to wear the Lawful hat.

Because almost everyone has a personal code of some sort; Robin Hood had a personal code, and he's the poster child for Chaotic Good. The reason his code doesn't rise to the level of Lawful is that he would be willing to bend it in a pinch. And since he's already bucking all the societal traditions of his civilization, there are no additional penalties or punishments for him breaking his own code. He's unlikely to beat himself up if he needs to violate his own principles for the Greater Good; he'll justify it to himself as doing what needed to be done, maybe sigh wistfully once, and then get on with his next adventure.

Conversely, a Lawful character who obeys society's traditions has a ready-made source of punishment should he break those standards. If such a character does stray, she can maintain her Lawfulness by submitting to the proper authorities for judgment. Turning yourself in effectively atones for the breaking of the code, undoing (or at least mitigating) the non-Lawful act.

A Lawful character who operates strictly by a personal code, on the other hand, is responsible for punishing herself in the event of a breach of that code. If she waves it off as doing what needed to be done, then she is not Lawful, she's Neutral at the least. If she does it enough, she may even become Chaotic. A truly Lawful character operating on a personal code will suffer through deeply unpleasant situations in order to uphold it, and will take steps to punish themselves if they don't (possibly going as far as to commit honorable suicide).

People think that using the "personal code" option makes life as a Lawful character easier. It shouldn't. It should be harder to maintain an entirely self-directed personal code than it is to subscribe to the code of an existing country or organization. This is one of the reasons that most Lawful characters follow an external code. It is not required, no, but it is much, much easier. Exceptions should be unusual and noteworthy. It should be an exceptional roleplaying challenge to take on the burden of holding yourself to a strict code even when there are no external penalties for failing.

So as far as vigilantism goes, if a character has a specific pre-established personal code that involves personally punishing those who commit offenses, then yes, they could still be Lawful. Most characters do not have such a code; most characters simply follow general ideas of their alignment on a case-by-case basis. Certainly none of the characters in OOTS have such a code except perhaps for Miko. And we all saw what a slippery slope that turned out to be.

And WoTC's guide to Law & Chaos is also helpful:

Save My Game: Lawful and Chaotic (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a)

As a lawful person, you recognize that most laws have valid purposes that promote social order, but you are not necessarily bound to obey them to the letter. In particular, if you are both good and lawful, you have no respect for a law (that) is unfair or capricious.
...
The law of the land in any given place is most likely designed to promote social order, so in general terms, lawful characters are more likely to respect it than chaotic characters are. However, the content of the law matters much more than its mere existence.
...
Any character might fear the consequences of breaking a local law, especially when the authorities rule with an iron hand. Very few characters, however, should make important decisions based solely on the legality of the choices. For a lawful good character such as a paladin, achieving goals in the right way -- that is, in a way that promotes the general welfare and doesn't unnecessarily imperil others -- is the most important consideration.

So the obvious thing to do is to go with MM alignment. But in that case it's worth noting that an assassin who kills people for money so he can spend it on hookers and blow, because he likes hookers and blow, probably isn't Evil. In fact, his job probably doesn't even involve killing innocents, because, as discussed above, adult human beings are rarely innocent. Even if you don't classify 'em as Evil, they sure ain't innocent! "Innocent" covers things like very young children.

It may be "the obvious thing" - but not necessarily the right thing - given how the DMG portrays Assassins as Evil.

"Innocent till proven guilty" is a good starting point.

Devils_Advocate

2014-01-26, 06:08 AM

I think in the end all I really want is to not have the DM dictate what my Character is, I'm OK if the route I take makes my Cleric CE,if thats the choice I make fine, especially now that I know I won't lose my powers
Um, actually, becoming Chaotic means that you're not a cleric of Wee Jas anymore. It's Lawful Evil that was being discussed as a compatible alignment.

but I take offense to the DM stating LN is never breaking any laws and never committing murder, anything stepping out of that def is CE by definition. At that point I'm not really playing a person, I'm just going through the motions.
Saying that no Lawful character ever breaks any law is quite extreme, yes. I'm with you there. That goes against alignment representing only general tendencies and not being a straightjacket.

On the other hand... a killing being called "murder" generally indicates that it's something that both those in authority and your character's society in general strongly object to. Habitually murdering based purely on your own judgement that sometimes murder is acceptable, especially if your only standard of when it's acceptable is whether it feels acceptable to you personally at the time, is a very very strong indication that you're not Lawful.

Whether you're killing innocents is pretty much besides the point there. As I discussed, most people who you might kill are not innocents, and most killing of innocents isn't even considered murder. That's not the issue.

You can have your character do dubiously Evil (due to totally different standards of what Evil is) things and not worry about getting slapped with an Evil alignment, because that's allowed by your deity. But engaging in clearly Chaotic behavior will result in a deserved withdrawal of your cleric's goddess's favor.

The funny thing here is that... well, if that happens? It was because you were too Chaotic to play a Lawful character. Because you lacked sufficient respect for your DM's authority. Because you were too resistant to restrictions on your behavior.

Which seems poetic, at least, in a sad kind of way.

It may be "the obvious thing" - but not necessarily the right thing - given how the DMG portrays Assassins as Evil.
The DMG is obviously using PHB alignment there. My point was that MM alignment is better, both philosophically and practically, because

(1) the PHB defines Evil in a way that makes more sense for Neutral (i.e. as a lack of something else, rather than as its own thing),
(2) the MM has Evil as a monstrous thing that's bad news for normal people, rather than being normal

hymer

2014-01-26, 06:18 AM

@ Devils_Advocate: You asked what I meant:

Man, what?

I explained it. I'm done talking with you now.

OldTrees1

2014-01-26, 10:47 AM

Alignment can't represent all of your actions up until now, because there are ways to magically instantaneously alter someone's alignment, and they can't instantaneously change the collection of all of that individual's actions up until now, because, as discussed above, changing the past isn't a thing.

(Here, we see Devils_Advocate employ the rare and powerful "Reuse an argument just made to support an entirely different point" technique. The crowd briefly gasps in amazement and then goes completely bananas!)

I feel like having an order of blackguards probably makes a character the sort of individual that paladins avoid associating with. Like, if tyranny and genocide are just a small part of what someone does, I guess that maybe technically that's not consistently offending paladins' moral code, but...

I thought alignment was that alignment was determined by what has been (intent, action, consequences, being hit with a Helm of Opposite Alignment).

However I can see alignment being used as what is likely to be done.

I think the authors have used the past based alignment more often in RAW (Fiendish Codex II and [Evil] both come to mind). However I do not consider the authors to be a an authority on alignment.

NG gods can have Paladins of Honor and Paladins of Freedom. LN gods can have Paladins of Honor and Blackguards as long as the LN god does not become LE.
(I would not make the claim that they can have Paladins of Honor and Paladins of Tyranny)

Of course there is also Pelor of the Burning Hate with Paladins of Honor, Paladins of Freedom, Grey Guards, Black Guards, Paladins of Tyranny and Paladins of Slaughter

Sidenote: If we use the expanded alignment chart [Ex G g n N n e E V], I would consider Paladins of Honor to be lG at minimum, Blackguards to be _e at minimum and Paladins of Tyranny to be lE at minimum.

@hymer and Devils_Advocate
You both seem to agree that:
All Murder is Killing
But
Not all Killing is Murder

Blackhawk748

2014-01-26, 01:58 PM

whole lot of good stuff

Your argument reminds me of the Malazan Book of the Fallen Series, the author points out multiple times in the series that people are just a bunch of selfish jerks who do what the want with no thought of others or the repercussions of their actions. Meaning that humanity is either LE or NE hell some cultures may be CE. The point is by WotC's own definition virtually every race in DnD is probably Evil as a species. Now obviously on a personal level this can change greatly, but i would think that most people arent good as in all the Good alignments require you to be altruistic and selfless, which means that you should try to be nice to everyone, at least initially. Now if you try to negotiate with a goblin tribe a few times and every time they try to kill you, you should probably try something else

Vangor

2014-01-26, 02:25 PM

I think my main gripe with this whole deal is that if I wanted to be Evil the I'd be Evil, but I want to be Neutral, because I want to do Good as well. Correct me if I'm wrong but if I play a Character who is basically a serial killer (exaggerating here) but fights for a good cause and doesn't commit any other Evil things except the killings isn't he neutral?

Just to jump back some comments onto this, this is not a neutral character. Characters with neutral morality preserve a basic balance by being neither good nor evil, not by using evil means to good ends or good means to evil ends or performing both good and evil in equilibrium.

To be a serial killer for a good cause would still be evil if the intent of a good cause is to allow one to be a serial killer. The obvious character of this would be Dexter who chooses evil targets to kill not because those people are evil but because this is a need to kill and evil targets have long lists of enemies and the deaths of whom will not elicit massive police investigations. To be a serial killer for a good cause if the intent was the good cause itself, this would require there is proper vetting of evil targets, such as immediate threat or divine sanction or significant evidence, but then this would be good.

Being neutral also does not mean simply being disaffected by good or evil concerns, as an assassin might be due to being paid to kill regardless of the reasons behind. This would be evil because this is murder and both advance the cause of evil; consider good people are chosen by evil people, and evil people are still quite often chosen by other evil people because good people attempt to employ good methods. Even an assassin who accepts only evil targets would still be evil because the intent is to be paid rather than remove evil and again this often advances the cause of evil still.

Overall, what I have found for neutrality of order and neutrality of morals is you still do good and obey the law but you do not enforce good or the law.

Azea14

2014-01-26, 02:34 PM

I'm beginning to feel like CE seems to have the most agency out of the alignments, unless the opposite is also true, like if I'm an Evil player I'm also restricted from doing good. I mean if Evil players can do only Evil and Good players can do only Good and same thing for Chaotic and Lawful then the system is rather constricting. I originally picked Neutral because I though it allowed me to be unconcerned with morality and got me the most leeway.

Blackhawk748

2014-01-26, 02:41 PM

Hecuba

2014-01-26, 02:55 PM

I believe this thread has once more proven that the Alignment system means whatever we want it to be. Hell i once saw an argument meant that, by RAW, proved that Batman could be any of the 9 alignments

Well, in fairness, that may also have a great deal to do with varying characterization. There was also a time when Batman had a gun, after all.

For my 2 bits: "Lawful" requires a firm belief that order is, of itself, a desirable goal. This means that a lawful character would hold that laws and traditions are, in the abstract, inherently desirable things that helps order societies.

They may be, on occasion, willing to discard individual instances of laws or traditions when they conflict with other important goals (a LG Knight may work to overthrow a LE Government), but in such cases they should view the chaos that will bring as the lesser of two bad options.

Socratov

2014-01-26, 03:13 PM

You know, I always found Lawful vs. Chaotic interesting, but hard to lock down in defintion. I mean, Good vs. Evil is easy (though subjective), but Lawful vs. Chaotic is more abstract. Let's see what Lawful can be at best and at worst shall we?

The Worst!

LE: the advocate, the grandvizier (like, Jafar), the puppetmaster out for power, wealth and control. He is the tyrant that either crafts the law the way he wishes it, or twists it around in bend never before thought possible. he doesn't just use the law, he abuses it to get what he wants. He can be strict, unyielding and ruthless. It is, however, not averse to him to do some good if the laws demand it. If the law demands that you save any stray puppy you see, He will do so. Though not in the way you think. He might rob a child of his puppy because he thinks the boy neglects it. Thus under the law he takes the puppy off the boy and nurtures it. Just as the law demands. The suffering of children is a nice added bonus.

CE: The murderhobo. Nero (roman emperor), Stalin, Gollum. Perhaps insane but this character is in it for 'teh Evulsh'. Committing evil acts gives him joy and makes him glee. The terror he encounters on the faces of his (soon to be) victims bring an extatic joy for him. The character does as he pleases because the only one he will listen to is someone stronger to keep him in check.

(pop question: who can potentially deal damage of a greater order of magnitude?)

CG: the daring bucchaneer, the Robin Hood. The Chaotic Good character has ideals of freedom. Sure he beleives in laws as a concept and he knows they can do lots of good, but he knows laws can be twisted. Laws shoudln't dictate Man, Man should dictate the laws! If a law is wrong, then the law should be amended to a state that is more accomodating to justice. For a chaotic good character the ends justify the means and the individual is just as important as the group.

LG: Lucky Goldstar, great electronicsSorry about that. Anyway, Lawful Good. The soldier, the Paladin, Honour and Justice! Now, some of you will envision a stick of unyielding material to be inserted into the rectum. This is not true. A LG character will see how order and laws are there to protect the people and make sure everything runs smoothly. Sure the law might be unfair at times, but at least everyone is judged the same. Fair and just. Sure laws can be twisted but a real LG character will rather perish then lose their honour. To be recognised as a part of the whole is what a LG character wantsTo facilitate this LG people will have a complex social structure and castes, classes or ranks.

Now, thanks to seeing the extremes, we can take a guess how the abstract part would handle

Law: The things LE and LG have in common is a sense of order. A drive to follow the law to keep the order standing and to not devolve into chaos. Whether done for selfish or altruistic reasons, **** happens for a reason. Law(s) exist to keep stuff in order. Where there is order there is a course of action. In teh end you are subservient to the law, whatever that law may be.

Chaos: For chaos the neccessity for the law is less pronounced. Chaotic individuals understand that laws can be quite handy and nifty, but in teh end the law is just a tool and for their purpsoes other tools might be better. They instead focus on specific cases, persons and events.

so, your cleric is to me LN (though depending on de degree of murder), might shift a little towards LE.

Terazul

2014-01-26, 03:15 PM

This Save My Game article covers an interpretation of it I've always liked. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a)
This excerpt in particular:
To be lawful is to be in favor of conformity and consistency, to act in a systematic and uniform fashion, and to take responsibility. As a lawful person, you establish patterns and precedents and stick to them unless you can see a good reason to do otherwise. Methodical efficiency is your byword, and you believe in the concept of duty. You plan and organize your activities to achieve particular goals, not just to satisfy impulsive desires. You believe a proper way exists to accomplish any goal, though it may not always be the traditional, tried-and-true way. Likewise, you cultivate long-term relationships and endeavor to build trust between your associates and yourself. As a lawful person, you recognize that most laws have valid purposes that promote social order, but you are not necessarily bound to obey them to the letter. In particular, if you are both good and lawful, you have no respect for a law is unfair or capricious.

Being chaotic, on the other hand, doesn't necessarily mean you are incapable of adhering to the law. Though chaotic societies may seem disorderly, they exist in abundance. As a chaotic character, you are dedicated to personal and societal freedom. You pursue your dreams and don't try to put limits on your nature. You don't value consistency for its own sake; rather, you respond to every situation as you see fit without worrying about what you did before. The past is the past and the future is uncertain, so you prefer to live in the present. Each situation is new, so planning and procedures are pointless -- in fact, they restrain people from reacting quickly and decisively. You don't get tied up in exclusive relationships because they could hold you back from your destiny -- which might be right around the corner. You are always ready to try new techniques because you believe that experience is the best teacher, and you are always open to discovery.

In short, good and evil describe a character's ideals, and law and chaos describe the means she uses to work toward her goals. The law of the land in any given place is most likely designed to promote social order, so in general terms, lawful characters are more likely to respect it than chaotic characters are. However, the content of the law matters much more than its mere existence.