PDA

View Full Version : Lawful being non-Lawful



The Insanity
2014-05-28, 12:27 PM
If a Lawful aligned character would be forced into non-Lawful actions, how long would it take for him to become non-Lawful (at least in your games)? The Lawful character tries to follow his code/laws whenever possible, but his teammates are all Chaotic/Neutral and outvote him. He doesn't like it and complains a bit, but he's not a Paladin, though, so he's not anal about it.

Yora
2014-05-28, 12:33 PM
Depends entirely on what the nature of alignment is in your campaign and what it means for that particular game.

My take would be that being forced to act in a way that goes against the ideals of Law is not a choice or free descision, so it does not affect alignment at all.

Red Fel
2014-05-28, 01:03 PM
Here's the bottom line - he may not have a choice when it comes to overruling the party, but he has a choice to remain with them. At a certain point, he is willingly subjecting himself to being forced to commit non-Lawful actions. And at a certain point, he is no longer Lawful.

And it doesn't matter that the majority voted in favor of something. Lawful doesn't only mean "majority rules." And it doesn't matter that abandoning his allies would be less-than-Lawful. At a certain point, it's like choosing the greater Good, except here it's the greater Law. (Think of it along the lines of "You are my comrades, and you know I would do anything for you, but if I continued to journey with you I would betray everything I am. I am so sorry, but I simply cannot go on like this.")

That's the bottom line. If you're an ultra-Lawful in an all-ultra-Chaotic party, it's like being the only Good in an Evil party, or the only Evil in a Good party - even if there's no conflict, somebody's going to have an alignment shift. It will happen. Or, alternatively, the character walks away.

Seriously, why is he adventuring with them? He clearly doesn't like it. He clearly knows it's wrong, he knows it will impact his alignment.

Tl;dr version: It depends on how non-Lawful the actions are. But if he is habitually committing non-Lawful actions, and choosing to remain in a situation where he has to do so, it is inevitable that his alignment shifts.

Gildedragon
2014-05-28, 01:33 PM
Also note the nature of legality of the act in Lawful's legal code, for example:
A paladin from a non-slavist faith oughtn't fall for breaking a slaver ring or freeing slaves, even if slavery is legal.

Also as long player makes a sincere attempt at remaining lawful I'd not have them shift. Holding to the party's democratic social contract is in itself a lawful act: to leave or impose their rule of law would be a breach of their word

The Insanity
2014-05-28, 01:39 PM
It's not Ultra-Lawful. If it was, there would be no discussion.

He adventures with them because they're his friends.

Red Fel
2014-05-28, 01:53 PM
He adventures with them because they're his friends.

Don't get me wrong, I like my friends. But there are things I would and wouldn't do with different friends, friends with whom I engage in some activities but not others, and friends with whom I wouldn't spend large amounts of time for various reasons.

That's basically the core issue. At what point does this character's choice of spending time with his friends bleed over into compromising his personal code? If it never does, no problem. But the language of the OP suggests otherwise. For example, the statement that his party outvotes him when he tries to adhere to his code/laws suggests that they cause him to break his code/laws. The statement that he doesn't like it and complains suggests that he knows or believes that it's wrong, but he's still doing it anyway. At a certain point, even if he's not ultra-lawful, he is compromising on his principles for the sake of friendship. So unless those principles have "Friendship > Everything" written at the top, he is breaking his code, and that suggests an impending alignment shift.

The Insanity
2014-05-28, 02:40 PM
Don't get me wrong, I like my friends. But there are things I would and wouldn't do with different friends, friends with whom I engage in some activities but not others, and friends with whom I wouldn't spend large amounts of time for various reasons.
I don't like everything my friends like, but doing it with friends makes it tolerable and as long as my friends are having a good time, I'm happy.


That's basically the core issue. At what point does this character's choice of spending time with his friends bleed over into compromising his personal code?
It's not an issue of whether he wants to spend time with them or not. They work together. Because that's what adventuring basically is, work.


If it never does, no problem. But the language of the OP suggests otherwise. For example, the statement that his party outvotes him when he tries to adhere to his code/laws suggests that they cause him to break his code/laws.
Um, I thought it's clear that the "forcing into non-Lawful acts" is adventure related, as in, when acting honorable or something like that might be less important than doing the job done. Because why would his teammates prevent him from acting Lawful otherwise?

Airk
2014-05-28, 02:50 PM
I have a different take.

I think it's more interesting to have the laful/unlawful intra-party friction (as long as everyone is enjoying themselves) than it is to have a big nasty penalty on someone for changing alignments. Therefore, he stays Lawful because that leads to long term play that sounds more interesting to me.

Segev
2014-05-28, 02:54 PM
Define "non-lawful action" in this context, please? Lawful alignment is not (necessarily) the same as "obedient to the laws of the land." If one has accepted the laws of the land as part of one's outlook, then it would be, but a man from Samurailand is not going to suddenly feel he must bow and scrape to women just because he's walked into Drowville; he will act according to the laws and traditions with which he is familiar and which he has sworn to uphold.

If this PC is a faithful adherent to the mores, traditions, and laws of the land and his party is violating them left and right, however, I imagine he'd be incredibly uncomfortable hanging out with them. If you grew up Amish and your friends all want to use the latest videogames, you probably feel a little off-put by it. If you grew up in a household where swearing was a major taboo, you probably aren't comfortable joining your friends in their "cuss like a sailor" contests. If you're mormon, you probably aren't comfortable with beer stands at your frat house. If you're raised to believe in non-profits and that corporations are evil, you might be a little uncomfortable with your heroic friends deciding they're going to incorporate their company as mercenaries. If you're the son of a police officer who grew up respecting the letter and spirit of the law as the glue that binds together society, you might not exactly enjoy hanging out with your friends as they go engage in hooliganism such as shoplifting and graffiti artistry.

But "Lawful" is about how much you adhere to tradition, how much you value your word, and how much you stick to a code of behavior in order to govern your life and help others know how to interact with you. You're about trust and consistency and honor. You're not necessarily about laws-of-this-particular-land.

The Insanity
2014-05-28, 03:25 PM
I have a different take.

I think it's more interesting to have the laful/unlawful intra-party friction (as long as everyone is enjoying themselves) than it is to have a big nasty penalty on someone for changing alignments. Therefore, he stays Lawful because that leads to long term play that sounds more interesting to me.
Yup. That's the point. As a player I would tell the DM my intentions beforehand. As a DM I would allow it.


Define "non-lawful action" in this context, please? Lawful alignment is not (necessarily) the same as "obedient to the laws of the land."
I know. It's more "respects the laws of the land", which isn't the same as absolutely following them. Either way, it's not really about the law. "Non-Lawful action" means lying, braking promises, not respecting authority, recklessness, irresponsibility, being dishonorable.
And to reiterate, the Lawful character isn't prevented from being Lawful, simply when the greater good (of the team) is at stake, he's forced to abandon his principles. And he's not some ultra-embodiment-of-Lawful-guy, like Batman's "never kill" code. He's just Lawful.

Segev
2014-05-28, 03:40 PM
Either way, it's not really about the law. "Non-Lawful action" means lying, braking promises, not respecting authority, recklessness, irresponsibility, being dishonorable.
And to reiterate, the Lawful character isn't prevented from being Lawful, simply when the greater good (of the team) is at stake, he's forced to abandon his principles. And he's not some ultra-embodiment-of-Lawful-guy, like Batman's "never kill" code. He's just Lawful.

So it's mostly that he's an honest, honorable man who keeps his word...and is forced to lie to protect the party from their own lies and misdeeds? He's had to break his word to others to help the party?

That sort of thing definitely would strain friendships. I might even go so far as to have him tell the party that he's not going to do it this time. If they're his friends, they shouldn't be constantly putting him in that position. "Majority rule" and "friendship" can easily go together, but only if the majority is not going to always simply scoff at their "friend" and ignore his wishes. He's not their friend at that point. He's their servant.

Obviously, going fully the other way and having the party always do things your character's way is no better (and may be worse), but they could at least go to lengths to not put your character in a position to compromise his own ethics. If they wish to act without respect for law, order, tradition, or their word of honor, then they should not demand that he be party to it.

I would also seek to reinforce the "trust-worthy" aspect of your character. Don't bend on keeping your word, and expect your friends not to put you in a position where you must lie for them. Then, capitalize on this reputation. Get to be known as "the honest/honorable one" in your group, such that, if ever the party needs the trust of an outside group or individual, the consequences of the party's less-than-lawful reputation are that they're not going to easily earn that trust. However, "Have him swear to it. We'll believe him." Speaking of your character, of course.

The flip side is, if you are in that position of having vouched for the party, they SHOULD do their best to support not making a liar of you, and expect you to be very, very hurt and angry if they use you by making a liar of you.

There's lots of rich RP potential here, but it will work best if the rest of the party is at least willing to compromise a little, in the manner of friends, so they aren't constantly bruising your ethics. They can be themselves...but they shouldn't demand you participate in the ignominious behavior, and should recognize that you neither condone nor wish to support it.

shadow_archmagi
2014-05-28, 03:46 PM
But "Lawful" is about how much you adhere to tradition, how much you value your word, and how much you stick to a code of behavior in order to govern your life and help others know how to interact with you. You're about trust and consistency and honor. You're not necessarily about laws-of-this-particular-land.


Oh wow I was just dropping in to repost the definition of Lawful because everyone always sees the word Law and thinks they're done and you-

You've beat me to it. Maybe there is still light in the world?



That aside, I'd say that his alignment doesn't change unless his nature is changing. Worf can hang out with thieves and cutthroats, but if he scowls all the way through and at the end of the day he still has perfect posture and believes in honor, then he's still the same old Worf.

The Insanity
2014-05-28, 04:37 PM
So it's mostly that he's an honest, honorable man who keeps his word...and is forced to lie to protect the party from their own lies and misdeeds? He's had to break his word to others to help the party?
Rarely. Mostly he just have to tolerate them lying & stuff.


I might even go so far as to have him tell the party that he's not going to do it this time.
Well, then he would be the bad/unreasonable guy. Potentially putting your friends in trouble (which in this type of game often means bodily harm or even death) just to because you feel uncomfortable telling a lie?


If they wish to act without respect for law, order, tradition, or their word of honor
They don't, if they don't have to.

Segev
2014-05-28, 05:07 PM
Rarely. Mostly he just have to tolerate them lying & stuff.That's within the realm of "sigh, fine, I'll be over here, biting my tongue so as not to out your fibs." Probably fine, as long as it's not harming your fun.


Well, then he would be the bad/unreasonable guy. Potentially putting your friends in trouble (which in this type of game often means bodily harm or even death) just to because you feel uncomfortable telling a lie?I think you misunderstand: tell them BEFORE they put themselves in a position where they're relying on him lying for them that you're not going to do it. Maybe after doing it one more time, let them know it was the last. Show them IC that they're pushing him too far on this, and that while he's a good friend, they need to recognize that friendship goes both ways. And friends don't hold themselves hostage to manipulate their friends into violating their standards.

Sean Spencer is funny, but it's actually a rather lousy friend to Gus.


They don't, if they don't have to.That's good.


It doesn't sound like there's really a problem, as long as it's not bothering you OOC. IC, your character is uncomfortable at times, and is compromising...but most people have neutral tendencies, so he's not really slipping from counting as "Lawful." Just isn't acting a paragon of Law.

Thrudd
2014-05-28, 05:22 PM
If a character consistently compromises their stated alignment, for whatever reason, their alignment should be changed.
I'm not in favor of imposing penalties for this, as long as the player tried to role play his original alignment and has naturally shifted more neutral in the course of play. If a character who started out lawful is constantly convinced to compromise his values, he should shift a step closer to his friends.

If the character does not personally do anything unlawful, but simply turns a blind-eye to his friends doing so, that may be different. As long as he tries to convince them not to do unlawful things, or at least expresses his displeasure that they are doing so and suggests lawful actions whenever possible, and never actually participates in unlawful activity himself, then he should keep the alignment.

The Insanity
2014-05-28, 05:55 PM
@ Segev
Maybe you missed it, but I said that the intra-party conflict is the point here. Well, less conflict and more me just roleplaying my character dealing with it. All I asked in this thread was what impact it would have on his alignment.

jedipotter
2014-05-28, 06:11 PM
The Lawful character tries to follow his code/laws whenever possible, but his teammates are all Chaotic/Neutral and outvote him.

I just saw this.....they...vote? Voting is Lawful! It is fair. So if everyone votes to ''act Chaotic'' that s fine.

I'd say never for an alignment change. Look at it like this:

Player 1 makes an interesting lawful character.
Players 2-5 make 10 year old ''neural/chaotic'' Hulk-slayer-insane-wish -fulfillment types.

You don't target player one....

Vedhin
2014-05-28, 06:20 PM
If a Lawful aligned character would be forced into non-Lawful actions, how long would it take for him to become non-Lawful (at least in your games)? The Lawful character tries to follow his code/laws whenever possible, but his teammates are all Chaotic/Neutral and outvote him. He doesn't like it and complains a bit, but he's not a Paladin, though, so he's not anal about it.

Well, I'm of the opinion that he's trying (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html), and that should count for quite a bit. Besides, voting only happens in something with at least some semblance of structure and organization. Going along with the vote seems Lawful enough to me, as long as there's some sort of system.

The Insanity
2014-05-28, 06:38 PM
They're not literally voting... it's simply "majority rules", especially when the minority is just one person.
And "majority rules" is only relevant on important stuff. When they choose which inn to rent a room in, they can go with Lawful-dude's wish, but when they can save the lifes of a dozen orphans by lying to an Evil guy that they don't know where they are (but in reality they hid them just a few hours ago), they're gonna expect him to be silent or lie when he's asked.

veti
2014-05-28, 07:01 PM
Sounds to me like a classic Conflict of Loyalties character arc.

"Loyalty to friends" isn't a particularly lawful trait, unless the friends have been selected for you by authority or tradition rather than free choice and personal convenience. Why exactly is he staying with these people? (Yeah, I know - "don't split the party" - but that's an out-of-game reason, your character can't reason like that.)

"Compromising your code of honour to further the greater good" is one thing. But "compromising your code of honour to protect your associates from the consequences of their own unlawful actions" is something else entirely. It's hard to judge without being there, of course, but from what you say - I think I would make more of an effort to stand up for my principles.

jedipotter
2014-05-28, 07:13 PM
but when they can save the lifes of a dozen orphans by lying to an Evil guy that they don't know where they are (but in reality they hid them just a few hours ago), they're gonna expect him to be silent or lie when he's asked.

It sounds like you have an Evil group then. So as long as your Lawful Evil, you have no problems. Your group is not chaotic, they are evil. A chaotic person does not allow the murder of innocents for fun. Your group might even be chaotic evil....

The Insanity
2014-05-28, 07:29 PM
Why exactly is he staying with these people?
Because... they're friends, like I already said?


But "compromising your code of honour to protect your associates from the consequences of their own unlawful actions" is something else entirely.
And not what's going on here, might I add. As I already explained, there's really a problem only when it's important and a "non-Lawful action" is the best option.


It sounds like you have an Evil group then. So as long as your Lawful Evil, you have no problems. Your group is not chaotic, they are evil. A chaotic person does not allow the murder of innocents for fun. Your group might even be chaotic evil....
Lying to bad guys to save orphans is Evil? :smallconfused:

Thrudd
2014-05-28, 07:50 PM
They're not literally voting... it's simply "majority rules", especially when the minority is just one person.
And "majority rules" is only relevant on important stuff. When they choose which inn to rent a room in, they can go with Lawful-dude's wish, but when they can save the lifes of a dozen orphans by lying to an Evil guy that they don't know where they are (but in reality they hid them just a few hours ago), they're gonna expect him to be silent or lie when he's asked.

Well, that particular example is really a no-win situation, if any sort of lie is considered unlawful to you. What would your lawful character have chosen to do with the orphans, besides get them to safety and hide them from an evil guy who wants to kill them? I think that a strict prohibition on lying of any sort is a very extreme interpretation of being lawful, and not really necessary. A lawful person follows the rules of society in general. This does not mean you cooperate with evil people, especially when they are trying to harm you or innocent people. Perhaps a paladin would have said to the child killer, "Those children are under my protection, and I will never give them to you! Take up your arms and fight me, villain!"
But being prudent and trying to avoid confrontation by lying to the bad guy should not be considered unlawful, so long as you intend to take care of him properly as soon as you are able to. Inform the proper authorities of him? Meet justice upon him according to your personal code? Arrest him and turn him over to a king or somebody for a trial?

The Insanity
2014-05-28, 08:31 PM
Well, that particular example is really a no-win situation, if any sort of lie is considered unlawful to you.
Lying isn't Lawful. That's pretty much the definition.
I don't know what you mean by "no-win situation".


What would your lawful character have chosen to do with the orphans, besides get them to safety and hide them from an evil guy who wants to kill them?
But, uhm... he did. :smallconfused:


I think that a strict prohibition on lying of any sort is a very extreme interpretation of being lawful, and not really necessary.
That's true.


A lawful person follows the rules of society in general. This does not mean you cooperate with evil people, especially when they are trying to harm you or innocent people.
And... where did I say otherwise?


But being prudent and trying to avoid confrontation by lying to the bad guy should not be considered unlawful, so long as you intend to take care of him properly as soon as you are able to.
Except it is.


Inform the proper authorities of him? Meet justice upon him according to your personal code? Arrest him and turn him over to a king or somebody for a trial?
That's outside of the scope of the example. In that situation the heroes' best option was to lie to the bad guy.

Jay R
2014-05-28, 08:54 PM
Most questions about alignment cannot be answered generally. It depends on the situation.

Situation A: The Lawful character has discovered that a party member stole something in the last town, which is needed to defeat the villain. There is no easy way to return to town, or to find the original owner.

Situation B: The party has decided to burn down the orphanage, and have assigned the Lawful guy to keep the children from escaping.

These both fit the OP's description. They must be treated very differently.

The Insanity
2014-05-28, 09:00 PM
That's because only the "Lawful vs. non-Lawful" is relevant to my question.

Studoku
2014-05-28, 09:09 PM
Could you post some actual examples of this happening?

Thrudd
2014-05-28, 09:12 PM
Lying isn't Lawful. That's pretty much the definition.
I don't know what you mean by "no-win situation".


But, uhm... he did. :smallconfused:


That's true.


And... where did I say otherwise?


Except it is.


That's outside of the scope of the example. In that situation the heroes' best option was to lie to the bad guy.

I thought you gave this as an example of how a lawful character had to perform an unlawful act. I was saying that it wasn't really an unlawful act, unless you are using an extremely strict definition of lawful. What do you think the character could have done differently in this situation in order to remain true to the lawful alignment, according to your definition of it?
I agree, it sounded like lying was the best thing to do in that situation, and I also think it was not unlawful to do so, since the person being lied to is looking to harm innocents. Why in the world would anyone be expected to reveal where they had just hidden the children? Why bother hiding them, if you were just going to give up their location as soon as you were asked? What would have been the lawful way to save the children?

Not lying is not the definition of lawful. Obeying the law is the definition of lawful. Unless your character is part of an organization which expressly forbids lying in all situations and has taken an oath, like some type of religion, you can be lawful and also tell lies sometimes. You should keep your word when it is given, and be loyal and follow through with your promises. If you say you are going to do something, you do it. You don't evade lawful processes, like paying tolls and taxes and reporting to the magistrate when you are the witness to a crime. But you aren't automatically forced to tell the truth whenever anyone asks you any question unless you have sworn to do so, like in court. You won't lie without a good reason to, but there are certainly cases where it is permissable and warranted. Cops lie to criminals all the time, in order to protect the innocent and catch more criminals.

Grod_The_Giant
2014-05-28, 09:19 PM
Better question: how important are alignments in your game? Is sticking to your alignment supposed to be a big deal, or is it more of a "well, the rules say..." thing? Because if it's not supposed to be a big theme this campaign, I'd honestly ignore the issue. The guy is putting forth a good faith effort; that's enough for most purposes.

The Insanity
2014-05-28, 09:20 PM
Not lying is not the definition of lawful. Obeying the law is the definition of lawful.
Respecting the law is part of the definition of Lawful. Telling the truth is also part of the definition. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#lawVsChaos)


Better question: how important are alignments in your game? Is sticking to your alignment supposed to be a big deal, or is it more of a "well, the rules say..." thing? Because if it's not supposed to be a big theme this campaign, I'd honestly ignore the issue. The guy is putting forth a good faith effort; that's enough for most purposes.
As the DM I would be okay with doing nothing if the player wanted it to be so. If he didn't have any particular wishes regarding it, it would depend on how he roleplayed it.

Thrudd
2014-05-28, 09:41 PM
Respecting the law is part of the definition of Lawful. Telling the truth is also part of the definition. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#lawVsChaos)


So how would the character have saved the children in a lawful manner?

If you and your table have ruled that any lie under any circumstances is non-lawful, then I guess the character should shift to neutral if he continues to tell lies. If he doesn't tell lies, but lets his friends lie to everyone and goes along with it, maybe not. Again, so long as he encourages them not to lie but they do it anyway.

Grod_The_Giant
2014-05-28, 10:23 PM
As the DM I would be okay with doing nothing if the player wanted it to be so. If he didn't have any particular wishes regarding it, it would depend on how he roleplayed it.
Yeah, that seems about right. So what's the player feeling/doing about the situation? (And, I guess also relevantly, would a change in alignment have any mechanical effect for him, such as lost monk levels?)

dps
2014-05-28, 10:26 PM
Rarely. Mostly he just have to tolerate them lying & stuff.


If that's mostly the extent of if, it shouldn't cause an alignment shift. Tolerating unlawful actions on the part of others is different from performing unlawful acts oneself.

DeadMech
2014-05-28, 11:57 PM
A lawful person isn't required to follow laws or ideals that he doesn't believe in. In the case of a villain planning to kill children that the party is hiding, a lawful person should feel no drive to open his mouth and tell them where the kids are.

One may argue that he wouldn't lie directly to the villains face though. Perhaps the correct response is to say "I wouldn't tell you even if I did know." Or "If you want them you'll have to go through me first." Though those options are likely to cause a fight.

Maybe he should say. "Are you done here or not?" to the villain when he is asked to avoid answering the question at all. Or say nothing. Or "Do you see any kids?"

Maybe he will lie because the villain is not a legitimate authority to him. The kids are in the basement but do to quantum mechanics it's possible that they are no longer there since they are no longer being observed so the lawful guy says "No, Not as far as I know."

I've never GM'd a game with absolute alignments like D&D before so I don't have much experience telling you how to deal with a character forced for one reason or another to act outside his alignment. If it were me though I'd try to be understanding about it.

It might not take away the character's class features if he switches alignment but I still wouldn't take a persons alignment away from them without good reason and never without warning them in advance. After all maybe the character is sticking with his friends out of loyalty, actively proposing alternative actions, and involving himself as little as possible in the mis-deeds.

At the end of the day the character is still thinking like a lawful character. And not in the Miko sense where he or she believes that they are right but in the sense that if removed from the negative influences he or she would default to lawful behavior. A fall to the middle or the far end of the alignment spectrum should be reserved for when this is no longer true.

At the very least you should be working with the player to help them stay in their alignment if that is something they want. Punishing the players for making an LG character when the rest of the party came to the table with CN isn't going to make the game more fun. Forcing him to leave the party or else forcing him to make the rest of the party follow his alignment only highlights the reasons why black and white alignment systems are bad.

zinycor
2014-05-29, 12:14 AM
If a Lawful aligned character would be forced into non-Lawful actions, how long would it take for him to become non-Lawful (at least in your games)? The Lawful character tries to follow his code/laws whenever possible, but his teammates are all Chaotic/Neutral and outvote him. He doesn't like it and complains a bit, but he's not a Paladin, though, so he's not anal about it.



On my Games being lawful means that he follows A CERTAIN code, fo example, my lawful neutral dwarf obeeys every order their dwarven superiors give him, so he would risk his life for the well being of the dwarves. But he doesn't really care about lying to other people, or respecting any non-dwarven law of the place he is. he only cares about dwarves and his traditions.

So answering your question, he shouldn't change his alignment from lawful unless he doesn't really feel like following the code he did set himself to follow.

on the lying thing: Lawful evil chracters lie all he time, but that doesn't make them non-lawful, because it's not in their code to not lie. other lawful alignments aren't different

hamishspence
2014-05-29, 02:12 AM
On my Games being lawful means that he follows A CERTAIN code, fo example, my lawful neutral dwarf obeeys every order their dwarven superiors give him, so he would risk his life for the well being of the dwarves. But he doesn't really care about lying to other people, or respecting any non-dwarven law of the place he is. he only cares about dwarves and his traditions.

The Giant has some interesting things to say about "personal code" Lawfulness:




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.

Studoku
2014-05-29, 08:36 AM
So how would the character have saved the children in a lawful manner?
Not lying doesn't mean you have to answer every question.

"Screw you, I'll never tell you where they are!" is a perfectly acceptable, honest response.

NichG
2014-05-29, 08:52 AM
With alignments, as with everything, you don't generally get to have your cake and eat it too. In any given situation, there's a ton of options and those get narrowed down by priorities. For some characters, their cosmic ideological stance is less important than 'this guy is my friend, so I'll help him' - thats fine, nothing right or wrong with that choice, but it is a choice. It means that the fact that they're 'Lawful' or 'Evil' or whatever is less important to them than 'this guy is my friend'. What that means is that their cosmic ideological stance is the thing that's going to budge. If that guy has evil friends, he'll lean evil relative to his natural inclinations. If that guy has chaotic friends, he'll lean chaotic compared to his natural inclinations.

Thats not a big cause for concern or a travesty or anything like that, on either side of the screen. There's nothing inherently wrong with a character that you personally see as ideologically lawful ending up with an 'N' on their sheet instead of an 'L', just because he puts his friends above his ideology. That 'N' isn't a punishment, its a reflection of the character's underlying priorities.

(what it really means is that no one should play classes that can 'fall' for having the wrong alignment, because it forces them to play a caricature)

The Insanity
2014-05-29, 11:06 AM
So how would the character have saved the children in a lawful manner?
I'm not sure why you insist on my answering. It's not really relevant to this thread.


If you and your table have ruled that any lie under any circumstances is non-lawful
No ruling involved. It is a fact of the game. A lie is a lie and it's always non-Lawful, as described in the rules I linked.


Yeah, that seems about right. So what's the player feeling/doing about the situation? (And, I guess also relevantly, would a change in alignment have any mechanical effect for him, such as lost monk levels?)
I'm the player.
I want to stay Lawful, because that's the whole point of this character - being Lawful in a group of non-Lawful and dealing with it.
There's no mechanical penalty for being non-Lawful, I just want to be Lawful.

Studoku
2014-05-29, 11:50 AM
How does your character feel about being forced to lie to people?

Red Fel
2014-05-29, 11:58 AM
I'm the player.
I want to stay Lawful, because that's the whole point of this character - being Lawful in a group of non-Lawful and dealing with it.
There's no mechanical penalty for being non-Lawful, I just want to be Lawful.

Bottom line? It is possible to stand by and watch your chaotic partymembers engage in chaotic actions and not be impacted, provided your code does not require your intervention.

But when the partymembers persuade your lawful PC to break his lawful code, and to do so on a regular basis, and with the justification of "these are my friends and I want to help them," you will experience an alignment shift.

I doesn't matter that he's trying to be lawful. As soon as you accept that there is a reason to compromise on a principle, it ceases to be a principle and becomes more of a guideline. And your character has apparently accepted the notion that it is acceptable to engage in chaotic behavior - breaking his lawful code - on a regular basis, because he wants to help his friends.

I'm not judging. Wanting to help your friends is as fine a motivation to break your code of conduct as any. It's admirable. It's still breaking the code. "It's really important" is also a great motivation. It's still breaking the code.

Let me be clear. Lying because the lives of orphans are at stake is still lying. By your own admission, that's a non-lawful action. Law, as an alignment extreme, is not interested in the good or bad of a situation; it's interested in principle, honor, and obedience, and things like that. There are alternatives to lying that are not non-lawful. (As Studoku suggested, offering an anatomically improbable course of action to the bad guy would have been completely within your alignment.) Your character chose to lie because it was the "best option." That's a justification, not an excuse. Your PC broke code, and according to you does so regularly "when it's important."

Your PC has accepted that there are times that the rules don't apply. That's not lawful mentality. Lawful mentality is that the rules - be they societal obligations, personal code, religious dogma or whatever you've embraced as defining "Law" for your character - are not to be broken. They exist for a reason. And even if it means we have to live with an undesirable outcome, the law should be respected. Your PC has accepted the opposite - that the law is only there until and unless it becomes inconvenient. That's non-lawful.

Wanting to be lawful is almost extraneous at this point. Your PC can want to have (Ex) flight, for all the difference wanting makes. If you are regularly, voluntarily engaging in non-lawful conduct, I'm not convinced that your justifications let you retain the alignment.

The Insanity
2014-05-29, 12:08 PM
How does your character feel about being forced to lie to people?
How should he feel? He's annoyed.


But when the partymembers persuade your lawful PC to break his lawful code, and to do so on a regular basis, and with the justification of "these are my friends and I want to help them," you will experience an alignment shift.
I said nothing about any "regular basis".
And it's not just for my friends. Remember, we work together, so it's also in my interest.

Red Fel
2014-05-29, 12:17 PM
I said nothing about any "regular basis".

Isolated incidents of conduct, unless they're truly egregious ones, tend not to have an impact on alignment. But you've been painting this as if it's an ongoing issue - the perils of adventuring with a chaotic party, as it were.

If it's not on a regular basis, if your PC has only ever acted in a non-lawful way once or twice, then why is this even an issue?


And it's not just for my friends. Remember, we work together, so it's also in my interest.

Excuses. "I'm going to break my personal code because it's in my interest" is still breaking your personal code. Non-lawful.

The Insanity
2014-05-29, 12:53 PM
It's not once or twice, but it's not on a regular basis.
I'm not arguing it's not non-Lawful. I know it's non-Lawful. I was saying as much from the beginning.

Garimeth
2014-05-29, 01:11 PM
@OP:

I'm not sure I even understand what you are wanting out of this thread. Red Fel and several others have answered the question in your OP but the thread just seems like a low-grade argument to me at this point. Maybe try rephrasing your topic?

zinycor
2014-05-29, 01:23 PM
It's not once or twice, but it's not on a regular basis.
I'm not arguing it's not non-Lawful. I know it's non-Lawful. I was saying as much from the beginning.

As long as your character doesn't feel fine doing non-lawful things he will be lawful, if he starts to feel comfortable with the idea he will go from lawful no neutral, if he prefers that kind of behavior he will go from neutral to chaotic

The Insanity
2014-05-29, 01:33 PM
@OP:

I'm not sure I even understand what you are wanting out of this thread. Red Fel and several others have answered the question in your OP but the thread just seems like a low-grade argument to me at this point. Maybe try rephrasing your topic?
No rephrasing needed, because in the OP I was asking how you do it in your games. Most of the discussion was simply about my game.

hamishspence
2014-05-29, 01:37 PM
WOTC on LG:

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.

veti
2014-05-29, 05:37 PM
No rephrasing needed, because in the OP I was asking how you do it in your games. Most of the discussion was simply about my game.

If you really want - well, just about any kind of advice really - it would be a lot of help if you'd be a bit more forthcoming in response to requests for further information and elaboration. You phrased your initial question in incredibly abstract terms, and numerous people have asked you for more specifics. So far, you've said things like:


Um, I thought it's clear that the "forcing into non-Lawful acts" is adventure related, as in, when acting honorable or something like that might be less important than doing the job done.


Maybe you missed it, but I said that the intra-party conflict is the point here. Well, less conflict and more me just roleplaying my character dealing with it. All I asked in this thread was what impact it would have on his alignment.


Because... they're friends, like I already said?

And not what's going on here, might I add. As I already explained, there's really a problem only when it's important and a "non-Lawful action" is the best option.


I'm not sure why you insist on my answering. It's not really relevant to this thread.


I said nothing about any "regular basis".

See the common trend here? You keep referring back to earlier posts as if they should, in your opinion, explain everything anyone could possibly want to know to answer your question. But they manifestly don't, because if they did, people wouldn't keep asking.

It's up to you. We can go back and forth with you asking a question that's apparently about "the rules" (except it's not, because you already know those as well as we do), and stonewalling every request for more information; or you could actually tell us what the heck is going on, and maybe get some useful insight.

The Insanity
2014-05-29, 06:06 PM
You keep referring back to earlier posts as if they should, in your opinion, explain everything anyone could possibly want to know to answer your question. But they manifestly don't, because if they did, people wouldn't keep asking.
All but one of those bolded sentences do indeed reference to my posts that do actually answer their questions. And anything that I was asked, and there was no prior answer to, I did give info on.
Now, do you have anything useful to add or are you gonna just throw more baseless accusations?

zinycor
2014-05-29, 07:52 PM
All but one of those bolded sentences do indeed reference to my posts that do actually answer their questions. And anything that I was asked, and there was no prior answer to, I did give info on.
Now, do you have anything useful to add or are you gonna just throw more baseless accusations?

Has your question been answered yet?

The Insanity
2014-05-29, 08:13 PM
Considering that it's not a question that can be objectively answered? No. More people can still post their opinions, if they like.

zinycor
2014-05-29, 08:22 PM
Considering that it's not a question that can be objectively answered? No. More people can still post their opinions, if they like.

then, are you satisfied with the answers given so far?

The Insanity
2014-05-29, 09:29 PM
What do you mean by "satisfied"? They're lengthy, so that's a plus, I guess. And most of them are insightful.
But I didn't make this thread to "satisfy" myself, whatever that means. I made it to discuss a Lawful character in a non-Lawful group and the potential RPing opportunities and challenges it provides.

JeenLeen
2014-05-30, 08:58 AM
What do you mean by "satisfied"? They're lengthy, so that's a plus, I guess. And most of them are insightful.
But I didn't make this thread to "satisfy" myself, whatever that means. I made it to discuss a Lawful character in a non-Lawful group and the potential RPing opportunities and challenges it provides.

To the question, my groups never did alignment too strongly, although we did at times enjoy (and at times get disgruntled by) intra-party conflict due to it. Often, having Chaotic and Lawful people in the same group didn't matter, as long as a chaotic rogue kept his activities secret. The only time it really caused problems was when one player was a lawful Incarnate (or whatever the Incarnum class is where you epitomize an alignment) and I was a CG Slayer of Domiel (refluffed to be invested by the eladrin instead of the archon Domiel). We had a magic dagger that gained power and sentience as it killed evil people, and I wanted to go track down and kill evil folk in the slums. (Detect Evil, then kill. Yes, the worse type of paladin-ishness, but it was funny and did not bother the group.) He objected, and it wound up in a fight and my character going to a Anti-Magic field jail.

But I don't think we would have counting lying as against a lawful code, if it was for good and was not lying to an authentic authority figure. If it was to cover up a thieving comrade or just for personal gain, it probably would be non-lawful.

As for alignment changes, I reckon our DM would warn us if we started to slide. For a paladin, we would probably be fairly lenient as long as they avoid the explicit things the paladin code forbids, like using poison or working with evil individuals. (Partially because our group was rather high-op, so if anyone was running paladin, we would probably decide there was no reason to punish them more for using their class when they already have a weak class.)

Our biggest alignment clashes actually happened in a Mage: The Ascension game. A character built as with a D&D paladin personality wound up killing the other PCs due to disagreements about what is right or wrong.
But really it was due to having characters who really disagreed with each other on fundamental ways of operation (okay to torture for info or not; does it matter if normal humans die; how important is it to obey Tradition rules; etc) and we didn't work well as a team. If we had been more willing to make characters designed to work together well, it would have been better. Alignment was only an issue because we let it be. I think that often it can work well for fun roleplaying, even when there's conflict.

Segev
2014-05-30, 01:24 PM
Discussions such as this inevitably require examples and sample situations, because discussing it in the abstract is simply uninformative.

Your case of orphans being in danger is puzzling, because it would seem that there are other alternatives to lying in order to save them.

An LG character will be more willing to bend rules for "greater good." Or, rather, he will be more discriminating about what rules he chooses to take as part of his own personal code. Laws, to the LG, exist to promote harmony and the well-being of all protected by them. They value order because it brings safety to the innocent.

An LN character is more likely to accept any set of rules wholesale; his concern is that they provide order and predictability above all else. LN characters are least likely to reject a rule based on any moral compunction.

LE characters will also reject rules relatively rarely; instead, they are the masters of the loophole and the technicality. They will bend the spirit to make the letter serve their personal ends.

All three tend to value honesty, at least in word. And they all DO value honor in deed. An LE character will deceive with twisted words, where an LG or LN one might simply refuse to answer. An LG character will certainly feel no compunction about rejecting the proclaimed authority of evil men, but they would still hesitate to give their word if they knew they wouldn't keep it, even to such men.

An LN character will not give his word if he doesn't intend to keep it, as a general rule, though there may be exceptions within or without Law. (A certain real-world religion has a derrogatory term for those who are not and will not convert to it, and gives a long list of explicit exceptions to normal rules of conduct that can allow for all sorts of normally unacceptable-by-that-faith's tenets behaviors. These are things a faithful member of the religion is explicitly allowed to do to the non-beleivers. "Lying" - normally proscribed - is on that list.)

An LE character will also hesitate to give his word unless he's pretty sure he won't have to violate the letter of his promise. His word is what keeps him respected and respectable, and enables him to make deals based solely on its strength. This is not a tool to give up casually.




In all, I think a Lawful character is far more likely to flat-out refuse to answer a question whose truthful response could lead to the harm of those he seeks to protect, than he is to lie in response. Protecting orphans by keeping their location a secret? "I will never tell you, you monster!" Protecting his own phylactery (say, as an LE lich)? "Now, why would I tell you that? It doesn't benefit me at all to do so."

Neither case requires lying.

MLMII
2014-05-30, 09:51 PM
Ok ... quick disclaimer, I tend to dislike morality rules in general and happen to be of the opinion that the DnD alignment system is among the worse of the morality rules systems. I do however enjoy morality discussions and this thread has gotten me thinking that perhaps the "alignments' labels" need to be reversed so instead of Lawful/Good you have Good/Lawful, because quite frankly I fail to see how your example of "lying to save innocent orphans from certain death" should even remotely cost a "Lawful Good" character any sleep at all, heck ... I'd argue that even a Paladin wouldn't have to worry about your example. Could you provide an in-play example that doesn't expect your character to be "Lawful Stupid" by being bothered by saving innocent children with a lie to the Big Bad?


A "Lawful Neutral" character on the other hand ... maybe I could see "truth above all else" as fitting to the point of being bothered by your given example, but quite honestly even in that case I don't think the tiny "blimp" of the given example should even warrant a second thought. I mean ... what other "real" option did they party have? Kill the orphans? Fight and kill the Big Bad? Neither options strike me as either Good or Lawful.

TriForce
2014-05-30, 11:12 PM
our group usually doesnt bother keeping track of alignments. they have characters that have a certain mentality, and as long as that is consistent, the alignment box is just there for show.

however, if i do have to say anything about it, id say that INTENTION matters a lot. if a character keeps trying to make the rest of the party murder innocent people but keeps failing, all the while maintaining a helpful and friendly front. it would basically mean that its a character that does good deeds. but since he only does them for other reasons (namely, the party) he would obviously be evil, since those are his intentions.

you character would be considered a less extreme example of this. he sometimes needs to do or tolerate chaotic acts, but overall he wants to try the lawful ways first, and i assume he tries (and fails) to convince the rest of the party of his viewpoint.

i see no reason why this character could ever be anything else then lawful

Angelalex242
2014-05-30, 11:48 PM
Depends on which kind of Lawful it is.

The Lawful Monk is lawful because of his self discipline. If the monk does his katas every day, meditates every day, and in general behaves as the laws of martial arts demands, then he is lawful, even if he has to lie out his ass for his undisciplined friends.

The Lawful Paladin, on the other hand, is devoted to king and country and citizenry and other external things. But more then that, he is devoted to the greater good. In the unfortunate situation where the Law is evil, he is perfectly within his rights to oppose that evil law. He follows just laws, however. It's the slavery thing. He's within his rights to smite the hell out of a slaver, no matter how lawful it may be, because it's EVIL. In fact, he's within his right to do his best to make slavery illegal if he can.

This will, of course, be in a foreign country, because the Paladin won't swear allegiance to a king that allows slavery in the first place. In fact, a King that declares slavery legal can count on losing the support of every good aligned church in town, and the paladins along with them. Of course, he'll get a temple of Hextor in exchange, and that should give said King a good idea about who's happy with him and who is not.

On friends, the Paladin first judges if the chaos of his friends is doing people actual harm. If it isn't, then he need not interfere with his friends' fun. He can even participate in that fun, as long as it doesn't break any of his rules. Spontaneity doesn't break the paladin code. Having fun doesn't break the Paladin code. Enjoying time spent with your friends doesn't break the paladin code. The important thing to remember, here, is that your friends should not be judged by your own standards. They should be judged by THEIR stands. You've got lots of ranks in Knowledge Religion for that exact reason, to know what their standards are. If your friends follow Kord or Corellon, then you judge them by Kord or Corellon's rules.

Driderman
2014-05-31, 07:58 AM
You obviously need to find an inopportune (and dramatically correct) moment to say "No. I have stood by and watched you lie and cheat for our friendships sake, on numerous occasions but this is important to me. If you have any respect for me as your friend and comrade-in-arms, you will all agree to swear the Inconvenient-Oath-Of-Something-Game-Related-To-A-Plot-Point". Don't make it a matter of abstract philosophy, but rather a matter of the bonds of friendship. Surely your friends are willing to compromise themselves for your sake, as you have for theirs?

NichG
2014-05-31, 09:03 AM
Ok ... quick disclaimer, I tend to dislike morality rules in general and happen to be of the opinion that the DnD alignment system is among the worse of the morality rules systems. I do however enjoy morality discussions and this thread has gotten me thinking that perhaps the "alignments' labels" need to be reversed so instead of Lawful/Good you have Good/Lawful, because quite frankly I fail to see how your example of "lying to save innocent orphans from certain death" should even remotely cost a "Lawful Good" character any sleep at all, heck ... I'd argue that even a Paladin wouldn't have to worry about your example. Could you provide an in-play example that doesn't expect your character to be "Lawful Stupid" by being bothered by saving innocent children with a lie to the Big Bad?

I would say that for many LG characters, it would cost them sleep (and they'd do it anyways). It would cost them sleep not because 'I lied!', but because the universe showed them a chink in their beliefs - they encountered a case where the law was not in fact the best tool to achieve an overall good. It'd be sort of the 'why do bad things happen to good people?' crisis, except instead its 'why are there situations where truth and law and order are bad?'. Maybe they'll ask 'could I have saved the orphans without lying? Maybe the problem is me and not the universe?' and so on.

That doesn't mean they won't make that compromise. But a sensible compromise is still a compromise, and if they really believe in both the lawful and good parts of their philosophy then its reasonable for them to be bothered by the necessity of it.

Wardog
2014-05-31, 10:52 AM
A Lawful alignment doesn't (necessarily) mean you are Absolutely Lawful All The Time. Just as Chaotic doesn't mean Absolutley Chaotic All The Time.

Of course, such characters might exist, but they're going to be pretty rare, and mostly denizens of appropriate outer planes.

And unless your character is Kant, then I doubt they are going to feel bad about lying to protect orphans from murderers.

Speaking of which: http://existentialcomics.com/comic/23


Apart from the "saving orphans" example, what sort of lies is this person having to tell (or at least tollerate)?
If, for example, the party is regularly promising to help people, and then I would expect a Lawful party member would get increasingly frustrated with his friends, possibly to the point that he stops seeing them as friends.

But if it is just the occasional white lie to protect innocents, then anyone who is not Lawful Stupid would probably be okay with it.



One way to look at it might be this:
An important part of Lawfulness, honour, etc is trustworthiness and reputation.

If as a result of hanging out with these people and covering for them, your character loses his reputation for trustworthiness, then that would be cause for conflict. And if he's ok with that, that might be cause for an alignment shift.

But if all that happens is that he gets a reputation for saving orphans from evil guys - then (again, unless this character is Kant) I doubt he would have a problem, and I don't think it would be grounds for an alignment shift.

Alberic Strein
2014-06-01, 04:38 AM
Careful Wardog, you are treading on the very fine line between lawful and good.

I, for one, would say pretty much the same thing as Angelalex.

Being "Lawful" entrails many, many things and different behaviors. So, as a DM, I would go for an alignment shift if the player was active in discarding his "lawfulness".

If he hung out with chaotic characters, accepted to give half truths, to remain silent while the rest of the team blatantly lies and pulls off a con, etc... But when questioned about his character's beliefs would strongly claim he is still as lawful as ever, still does his prayers every morning, still has a very strict dietetic regimen, still values hierarchy and advocates federated states, and accepts the law as being an actual and powerful force, I would not shift his alignment.

Actually, even if he did not have any arguments, but he still, in character, slammed his fist on the table and proudly claimed "I AM LAWFUL!" I would not shift his alignment. Because he tries, and the "lawful" part of his alignment still accurately describe his views of the world, or at least how the world should be. It's still the alignment with which he identifies himself.

As a rule of thumb, I would start strongly thinking about the alignment shift to reflect a character stopping to play parts of his character's alignment, not on a "time" basis, but on an "event" basis. Like the third occasion in which he failed to bring up his disagreeing with an act he especially stated as being an issue to him before, and which falls under the hat of the "LawVsChaos" thingie.

Tired, ill, don't know if I'm being clear, but here it is.

veti
2014-06-02, 05:49 PM
You obviously need to find an inopportune (and dramatically correct) moment to say "No. I have stood by and watched you lie and cheat for our friendships sake, on numerous occasions but this is important to me.

Yeah, this is the sticking point for me. When asked why the character connives at their friends' behaviour, all the OP can really come up with is "because they're my friends". Loyalty to friends is a very Neutral, not Lawful, trait. The fact that the friends are also working with you - is utterly irrelevant. Even if The Mission (which hasn't been mentioned once) is of paramount importance and can't be jeopardised for anything, then surely you have a duty to stop your friends from endangering it by their randomly chaotic behaviour?

The one counter-example being the (very ill-defined) case where, apparently, it was absolutely necessary to lie in order to save some orphans. I can't imagine how such a scenario came about, but let's assume it did - it's still only one case, and the OP was complaining about a lengthy pattern of behaviour, not a one-off.

I think the biggest question I have, to the OP, is: why did you write "lawful" on your character sheet in the first place? What did you imagine playing, what was going through your mind at that time? And is what you are doing now consistent with that?

Angelalex242
2014-06-02, 06:16 PM
Again, it depends.

In the Lawful Monk's case, the only behavior that matters is his own. He could care less how random and unpredictable his friends are, so long as they do not interfere with HIS personal discipline and katas and so on. What other people do to the outside world has no relevance whatever to his own personal harmony of self, to the innate order the martial arts requires.

The Insanity
2014-06-03, 11:22 AM
I think the biggest question I have, to the OP, is: why did you write "lawful" on your character sheet in the first place?
Was already addressed, more than once. I made the character Lawful because I wanted to roleplay the conflicts with his Chaotic and Neutral friends. It was the whole point.

Red Fel
2014-06-03, 12:08 PM
Was already addressed, more than once. I made the character Lawful because I wanted to roleplay the conflicts with his Chaotic and Neutral friends. It was the whole point.

Now, that kind of thing makes me curious. I'm not opposed to certain kinds of conflict. For example, I love writing characters with internal conflict, or working on characters who have ideological issues (but not personal ones) with other characters in the party. So I get that.

What I'd like to know, if it's alright, is this: How did you see those conflicts playing out? A Durkon-and-Malack-style polite discourse on the nature of Lawful alignments? An initial hostility giving way to grudging respect? Where did you see it going?

Because, from the sound of it, I don't hear any actual conflict. Yes, your PC is Lawful, and theirs aren't. But from what you describe, the outcome appears to be that the party decides to do something non-Lawful, your PC complains a bit, and then the party does something non-Lawful, as originally decided. That's not so much "conflict" as it is "are we doing this dance again?"

Which leads to my second question - has the conflict, if any, that resulted from your decision to play Lawful played out the way you saw it? Was it less or more satisfying than you anticipated?

By way of comparison, and in a partial response to your original question, I have played Lawful in primarily non-Lawful parties. I was in a Dragonlance campaign once where both of my characters (one died) were Lawful; the first was LE, the second LG. Only one other member of the party was Lawful, and he was LN. All other partymembers were CG, with the exception of one who I think was NE. The LN handled it by being a divine construct in service to his CG gnome patron; he was obedient and efficient, satisfying certain categories of Lawful. (He also disliked fleshbags generally, but was on orders not to murder indiscriminately.)

My LE character managed the same way. He owed a life-debt to the deceased older sister of one of the party members, and therefore agreed to protect him. He did not "serve" the party, however, so much as act as muscle. Highly principled, honorable muscle. He would openly refuse to cooperate on matters that compromised his principles. (Admittedly, they were rare.) And, naturally, he died an honorable death defending the party, despite his misgivings about such an act.

My LG character was similarly principled. He worked with the party because he liked them as people, and because they had a noble goal (his emphasis was on the G, not the L, and the party was in possession of an artifact which may or may not have contributed to the title of the setting). Again, he could not bring himself to participate when they did something blatantly dishonorable, although he helped them as best he could otherwise. Fortunately, the plot didn't provide many situations where dishonor was required, and the party was respectful of his principles. (Heck, they were respectful of the Evil necromancer who reanimated the bodies of fallen enemies and sewed them into her Robe of Bones. They could afford to respect his honor.)

I didn't write these characters for conflict, although some emerged. When it did emerge, my characters had to decide whether their principles outweighed the immediate goal. Where principles won out, my characters had to abstain, or find another way to accomplish that goal. And it worked, because the partymembers respected one another and could think laterally.

MLMII
2014-06-03, 12:36 PM
Yeah, this is the sticking point for me. When asked why the character connives at their friends' behaviour, all the OP can really come up with is "because they're my friends". Loyalty to friends is a very Neutral, not Lawful, trait. The fact that the friends are also working with you - is utterly irrelevant. Even if The Mission (which hasn't been mentioned once) is of paramount importance and can't be jeopardised for anything, then surely you have a duty to stop your friends from endangering it by their randomly chaotic behaviour?

The one counter-example being the (very ill-defined) case where, apparently, it was absolutely necessary to lie in order to save some orphans. I can't imagine how such a scenario came about, but let's assume it did - it's still only one case, and the OP was complaining about a lengthy pattern of behaviour, not a one-off.

I think the biggest question I have, to the OP, is: why did you write "lawful" on your character sheet in the first place? What did you imagine playing, what was going through your mind at that time? And is what you are doing now consistent with that?



Veti I think part of the confusion over the situation is that "lying to save the orphans" is the only defined example that the OP has given us about how the OP's "Lawful Good" character is forced to lie for his friends, OP seems to me to be trying to remain as vague as humanly possible on the situation in general (three pages into the thread) which when combined with OP's stated goal of playing out "interparty conflict" is starting to send up red flags in my mind.


I'd personally like to hear more examples of chaotic behavior that the "Lawful Good" character is forced to endure on a regular basis, because so far we only have vague "they lie" followed by an example where the party lied to save a bunch of orphans.

The Insanity
2014-06-03, 12:49 PM
What I'd like to know, if it's alright, is this: How did you see those conflicts playing out? A Durkon-and-Malack-style polite discourse on the nature of Lawful alignments? An initial hostility giving way to grudging respect? Where did you see it going?
I had no particular expectations. Whatever was going to happen, would happen and I would try making the best of it.


Because, from the sound of it, I don't hear any actual conflict.
It's a conflict for my character.


Which leads to my second question - has the conflict, if any, that resulted from your decision to play Lawful played out the way you saw it? Was it less or more satisfying than you anticipated?
I had no reason to complain thus far.

Berenger
2014-06-04, 06:10 AM
I just saw this.....they...vote? Voting is Lawful! It is fair.

Four thugs and one traveller voting on who should be knifed, robbed and ditched in the river don't make for a lawful and fair society, imho.

zinycor
2014-06-04, 04:39 PM
Four thugs and one traveller voting on who should be knifed, robbed and ditched in the river don't make for a lawful and fair society, imho.

it does make a great lawful society!! not a lawful good one, but a lawful nonetheless!! that does describe lawful rogues who are members of thieves/assassins/thugs guild. completly lawful according to me

Synar
2014-06-04, 05:15 PM
Since they are actually people here advocating that such a character should be faced with the choice of switching alignement or dropping the party, I would to bring up a gaming article, which I believe was hosted on this very website (on second thougth, it's still here (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html)), which argued that you should try to find a reason why in fact the actions taken by the party are not contradictory but within bounds of your alignement.
I guess if everyone signed up for this, a little party conflict, a lot of it, or even pvp can be great, but it is not everyone cup of tea.