Need help playing my alignment

[TheWildQ]

I'm quite new to the d&d world and some months ago I started my first real campaign.

I'm playing a lawful neutral cleric of Tyr and I'm finding really difficult playing the alignment.

We got assigned a mission that lead us to uncover a new cult of an evil god that did atrocious things to common people.

I feel like I should give no mercy to the various leaders of the cult, that if I cannot bring them to "justice" I have the duty to kill them if I have the opportunity.

What do you think?
And do you have any tips on playing such a character?

[hamishspence]

This thread has plenty of "D&D-related alignment statements":

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?241789-Alignment-related-3-0-3-5-book-statements-summary

inflict violence without just cause
inflict violence without good intentions
direct violence against noncombatants
use evil spells
use torture
use practices that inflict undue suffering on the victims
participate in coercive or exploitative relationships
turn a blind eye to evil acts by comrades
hand people over to be tortured
kill enemies who surrender
knock prisoners out every time they wake up (amounts to cruelty)

show mercy to defeated opponents
truly forgive someone who has wronged you

tell the truth
keep your word
respect authority
honor tradition
judge those who fall short of their duties
feel a compulsion to obey

be arrogant - proud, vain, and full of self-importance
be trustworthy - your word is your bond
be intolerant, persecuting others for their differences
be direct, explaining exactly what you expect of others
be obsessive, focusing on something and not letting it go
be slothful, relying on others to carry out your schemes, but expecting them to be obeyed
be vain, consumed with appearances
be vindictive, never forgetting a slight or letting go of a grudge

Some LN characters are more merciful than others. Mercy is a Good trait - but can be counterbalanced by Evil traits, allowing someone to be merciful and maintain an Evil alignment.

[redwizard007]

I'm quite new to the d&d world and some months ago I started my first real campaign.

I'm playing a lawful neutral cleric of Tyr and I'm finding really difficult playing the alignment.

We got assigned a mission that lead us to uncover a new cult of an evil god that did atrocious things to common people.

I feel like I should give no mercy to the various leaders of the cult, that if I cannot bring them to "justice" I have the duty to kill them if I have the opportunity.

What do you think?
And do you have any tips on playing such a character?

Play the character, not the alignment. What I mean by that is simple. You have things backwards. You want to know how a LN character would react. I want to know what makes your character LN. Here are a couple examples of what I mean.

Example 1: Bob is a very conservative man. He follows the laws of the church to the letter. Tithing 10%, volunteering at the orphanage to teach the children basic carpentry, remaining faithful to his wife. He is also the town executioner, and is perfectly happy taking the head, hand, or nose from criminals as directed by the local magistrate. As a religious man, Bob would be more than willing to use lethal force to prevent cultists from escaping, even if there are no legal protections for concerned citizens doing so. Capturing several to make an example of would be a priority, but not at risk of life or limb.

"Deus vult!" - Bob



Example 2: Steve is a former soldier that did well in the military, but was discharged after the last war ended. He respects and values authority, but he does not seek it out. Steve generally follows the laws of the land, but doesn't care much for spiritual matters. If the city watch called for help capturing or killing the cultists, Steve would chip in with his sword and not worry about which cultists lived or died.

"If they wanted a trial they should have surrendered." - Steve



Example 3: George is a guard in the town watch. He can't believe he asked these two murderous sons of a dog for help. Why are they killing everybody? Don't they understand that cultists are guaranteed a trial by town law? They are citizens after all. George is going to recommend a mild disciplinary action for both Bob and Steve and be darn sure never to ask these lunatics for help with anything important ever again. Maybe a day in the stocks will chill them out.

"Stop killing everybody!" - Steve



Example 4: Pat is the local church Inquisitor. S/he burns with rage that such corruption was allowed to fester here, under the eyes of mother church. Pat watches with glee as the cultists are slaughtered. Such blasphemy must be culled without mercy. It is God's will that these unclean spirits be sent to hell for damnation. S/he checks the fallen for signs of life because a prisoner or two for torture may lead to additional blasphemers, but they will all die sooner or later.

"They are barricaded inside? Burn them out." - Pat



So which one isn't LN? I mean, sure, there are elements of good or evil in all 4 of those examples, but they could all be LN characters. I know someone like #4 that would give you the shirt off his back, but will always protect the faith over his own humanity. You play your character's PERSONALITY, not their alignment. The alignment is a framework that you assign AFTER you know who your character is. It allows the game to arbitrate rules issues (largely regarding magic,) and should never affect game play.

[Darth Ultron]

First off, you should not have a hard time playing your alignment. You should pick the way you want to play, then be the alignment that matches what you pick.

First off I would build you characters back story and personality before looking into alignment. You alignment should be decided based on the character, not the other way around.

Second, remember that the terms "Lawful" and "Neutral" should be treated somewhat separate.

A Lawful character sticks to a code. It doesn't necessarily need to be the actual law that they adhere to. It could be a code of honor, or maybe your character is a member of an organization that follows a set of rules.

Neutral means the don't lean one why or the other in a moral spectrum. Their decisions and actions are not going to be based of a concept of good or evil. Think about your average everyday person. You might go down the road, see a homeless person begging, and decide to give him a few gold. The next day you see him getting beaten down by a group of thugs. Because you are not an inherently good character, you might just decide to move along or warn the guards instead of directly helping.

Neutral doesn't give you the freedom to take both good and evil actions, but it gives you the freedom to take actions without a moral compass coming into play. You might save an orphan from an abusive family because your character had a similar experience, but you might also ignore a mans pleas for help because you simply don't care.

A Lawful Neutral character is someone who sticks to a code and is not held down by moral obligations. If you were to sentence someone to death and they plead their innocents without any proof, you probably won't care that much. Your job is to carry out your duties to the best of your ability. But if they provided proof, you might be swayed to absolve them.

Keep in mind, alignment should govern your default outlook on the world, not influence EVERY decision you make.

Like I said before, build your character and motivations first, and then look into alignment.

Some examples of Lawful Neutral characters: Frank Castle the Punisher, Judge Dredd, James Bond, Captain Picard, Rick Grimes, Worf, Agent Phil Colson, or Sheldon Cooper.

[redwizard007]

Some examples of Lawful Neutral characters: Frank Castle the Punisher, Judge Dredd, James Bond, Captain Picard, Rick Grimes, Worf, Agent Phil Colson, or Sheldon Cooper.

Great advice.

I question Castle, Bond, and Colson, but I see how an argument could be made.

[hamishspence]

The Punisher, depending on the comic, is also pushing it a bit - closer to LE than LN. After all, D&D sources do mention that Evil characters can be extremely sympathetic in their desire for, for example, vengeance.

[Tanarii]

What edition? Alignment works differently in 3e and 5e.

[Quertus]

Play the character, not the alignment.

This is pretty much what I came here to say.

Decide on your personality. If you have to have an alignment, pick the one that most matches your character's personality.

[TheWildQ]

Wow, thanks a lot for all the replies, I'm learning a lot!


What edition? Alignment works differently in 3e and 5e.
3.5


Play the character, not the alignment.
Is what I'm trying to do. I built a background for the character and I thought how the character would behave and then I picked lawful neutral as alignment.
My character has a personal code that is a mix of his personal beliefs and experiences plus Tyr teaching / dogma.

The hard part is dealing with party members who might think in a different manner. I don't wanna fight them all the time.

[hamishspence]

The hard part is dealing with party members who might think in a different manner. I don't wanna fight them all the time.

The Giant had some wise words on this:

Making Tough Decisions (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html)



Decide to React Differently: Have you ever had a party break down into fighting over the actions of one of their members? Has a character ever threatened repeatedly to leave the party? Often, intraparty fighting boils down to one player declaring, "That's how my character would react." Heck, often you'll be the one saying it; it's a common reaction when alignments or codes of ethics clash.

However, it also creates a logjam where neither side wants to back down. The key to resolving this problem is to decide to react differently. You are not your character, and your character is not a separate entity with reactions that you cannot control. I can't tell you how many times I've heard a player state that their character's actions are not under their control. Every decision your character makes is your decision first. It is possible and even preferable for you to craft a personality that is consistent but also accommodating of the characters the other players wish to play.

When you think about a situation, ask yourself, "Is this the only way my character can react to this?" Chances are, the answer is, "No." Try to refine your character so that you can deal with situations that conflict with your alignment/ethos without resorting to ultimatums, threats, etc. This will often mean thinking in terms of compromise and concession to your fellow players, or at the very least an agreement to disagree.

Here's another example: In a campaign I DM'd, the party's bard lifted a magical sword behind the back of the party's Lawful Good monk. The monk had basically decided that the bodies of several fallen knights would be buried without looting, and rather than argue, the bard just grabbed the sword. The bad news was, the sword was cursed; it was the blade that had belonged to a ghost that roamed the castle, and whenever the bard drew it, the ghost materialized and attacked him (and only him). Eventually, the bard 'fessed up that he had stolen the sword. The monk (and the monk's player) became furious, and declared that he could no longer travel with the bard. Either the bard had to leave, or he would. It became a huge argument between characters and players, and it was entirely unnecessary. The monk did not have to react with an ultimatum; the monk did not even have to be angry, no matter what his alignment was. The bard had already suffered the misfortune of having his Charisma drained by the ghost repeatedly; the monk could have chosen (for example) to lecture the bard on how his theft had brought him nothing but misery. He chose to create player conflict when it was just as easy to not.

Personally, I blame the paladin for this. The original paladin class created the precedent for one player thinking he has the right to dictate the morality of other players. That drives me nuts. Ever since, players who select a Lawful Good character automatically assume it is up to them to police the rest of the party, and too often, the rest of the party lets them. As far as I'm concerned, no player has the right to tell another player how to act. Lawful Good is not the "right" way to be, and it is unacceptable to push your character's ideals on other players whether they want them or not.
while focusing on LG, it's just as valid for other alignments.

[Corneel]

Wow, thanks a lot for all the replies, I'm learning a lot!


3.5


Is what I'm trying to do. I built a background for the character and I thought how the character would behave and then I picked lawful neutral as alignment.
My character has a personal code that is a mix of his personal beliefs and experiences plus Tyr teaching / dogma.

The hard part is dealing with party members who might think in a different manner. I don't wanna fight them all the time.
If the hard part is dealing with the other people, then playing your alignment might not be the principal problem. You might be playing your alignment all right and as intended but it might just not sit well with the others.

So in that case, it would be interesting to know a bit more about the rest of the party, their alignments, and how they play them.

[TheWildQ]

The Giant had some wise words on this:

while focusing on LG, it's just as valid for other alignments.
I understand... it makes perfect sense.



If the hard part is dealing with the other people, then playing your alignment might not be the principal problem. You might be playing your alignment all right and as intended but it might just not sit well with the others.



So in that case, it would be interesting to know a bit more about the rest of the party, their alignments, and how they play them.
The other two members are:
- a lawful neutral warblade that will not attack a person if that person is not a threat to him. E.g. if we incapacitate the current evil guy he will not try to finish him off
- a rogue that is probably chaotic neutral (but I'm not 100% sure) that will try to kill the incapacitated evil guy
We usually fight over this.

[Corneel]

I understand... it makes perfect sense.





The other two members are:
- a lawful neutral warblade that will not attack a person if that person is not a threat to him. E.g. if we incapacitate the current evil guy he will not try to finish him off
- a rogue that is probably chaotic neutral (but I'm not 100% sure) that will try to kill the incapacitated evil guy
We usually fight over this.
Look, even with the same alignment, you and the warblade player have already different approaches (which might each be valid in view of your characters) so this is not an alignment problem. I think you need to sit down with the other players and/or with the DM to discuss the issue out of session, unless you feel that in character discussion during the game might lead to a compromise acceptable for all parties in this and other issues. Also, when you say that you're fighting over this, is this IC (between characters) or does it spill over in OOC (between players)?

[TheWildQ]

Also, when you say that you're fighting over this, is this IC (between characters) or does it spill over in OOC (between players)? Just in game, and nothing really major... The warblade usually try to stop the rogue by grabbing him and pull him to the side while the rogue try to dodge him. Out of game we are all old good friends. This is the first time playing d&d for all of us. Only the DM (also a good friend) has experience.

[Corneel]

Just in game, and nothing really major... The warblade usually try to stop the rogue by grabbing him and pull him to the side while the rogue try to dodge him. Out of game we are all old good friends. This is the first time playing d&d for all of us. Only the DM (also a good friend) has experience.
OK, that is then less of a problem. Though even old friends can get into a shouting match when getting caught up in a game. In this case I'd suggest, if you find the bickering a bit annoying, you could try to establish some ground rules IC in how to deal with these situations. After all you are playing a cleric of a god of Law and Justice.

[Quertus]

Personally, I enjoy PC vs PC conflict - so long as the players are onboard and enjoying it. Clashing modus operandi make for interesting stories.

[dps]

Generally speaking, a LN character will be focused of following the rules, rather than good or evil. But exactly which rules they are concerned about, and how they react in situations in which different rules dictate conflicting actions can vary widely.

[Kaptin Keen]

My first advice would be to never let alignment dictate how you play.

A game of mine has an order of LN knights - the Grey Guard, actually a sort of LN paladins, who hold that 'morals and ethics are subjective and shifting, law however is final, objective eternal and thus divine!' I love them dearly, but I also consider them to be all but unplayable as anything but NPC's.

On your specific question, I don't really see anyway you'd ever be obliged to kill anyone. Basically, any set of ethics that actually require bloodshed and/or death would be evil. Requiring to fight for good is one thing - demanding that you slay is another. The possibility of mercy, surrender, redemption and reformation seems pretty damn key to being good. IMO.

[2D8HP]

...3.5...


I suppose that they may be some in-game "crunch" effects, that I'm unaware of, but if not, get a pencil, then with the erasure part get rid of the part that says "Lawful", then add a "?", so the entry reads either "? Neutral" or "Neutral ?", if the DM calls you out on this ask the DM, "You've seen how I play the character, what do think I should put under 'Alignment'?", and then go back to playing your character in a way that's fun for you and the rest of the table, problem solved!


...The hard part is dealing with party members who might think in a different manner. I don't wanna fight them all the time.


Follow these steps:

http://i.imgur.com/IVljfT9.jpg

[TheWildQ]

Thanks all for the inputs... they really helped playing my character.
The key part was just to not worry about the alignment since it's just a result of your action.