Alignment Pings: The DM's Burden

[missmvicious]

I'm asking this for my husband as much as myself. He's the DM, and I'm playing in his campaign as a Field Marshall in a military special operations type campaign. It's in D&D 3.5... just so we're all on the same page:

Spoiler

Show

We're required to be Lawful, but our morality (G,N,E) is up to us. We just need to be able to follow orders. But I haven't been, and I'm the group's leader. I've been letting my DM know what I'm going to do, and he often warns me that what I'm doing is technically against orders. He hasn't made me do anything that isn't what my character wants, but I've finally decided to do something that I know in advance will directly jeopardize the mission. The DM has warned me that what I'm doing goes beyond technicalities to disobeying direct orders and that I'm jeopardizing the mission for my own personal gain. He told me I can do what I want, and he won't stop it, but there may be in game consequences for my actions if I get caught. I asked what...

First, he says this will anger my superior officers and could cause a demotion or worse. Second he says it will cause an alignment ping from LG to NG or possibly NN. I wasn't initially concerned, except for the fact that my second in command is militantly LN and will not follow my orders if he discovers that I am disobeying orders from superior officers. In fact, he may brand me a traitor and goodness knows what will happen.

I'm okay with these consequences, because I know what I want to do, and I'm not deviating from it. But we don't know how to handle this.

We don't know if it's fair to let the other player's know, out-of-game, that I'm going rogue so they can be on the lookout for alignment shifts in-game, or if we should keep it quiet and let it play out. What I'm doing will be pretty obvious, and they'll figure out soon enough that what I'm doing is contrary to our mission, but I'm not sure if it will occur to them that they are allowed to act in the best interest of the completion of their mission. This is a weird case where meta-gaming will free their minds to make sandbox decisions. But then... it's meta-gaming.

What's the right thing to do here?

[Toofey]

I think it would diminish the dramatic tension but after they catch you in ooc play make it clear that you are not just acting out some plot as you and the DM are a couple and such a thing could happen. (although you clarifying this might make it worse)

[Crossblade]

The right thing to do would to have not been selfish and made a character like the DM requested; Lawful.
From the way I've read it, you're being a problem player and the DM is letting it slide because he's either very relaxed, very good at compensating, or because you're his wife and he has to live with you. Or potentially a combination of the above.

DnD is a team game. Players and DM play together. Your setting is even specifically to work in a military team. You're not playing as a team member IC or OOC.

The only thing you haven't mentioned in your post is if anyone other than you is having fun with your actions. If so, then by all means continue and see how your fellow players react, then accept their IC decision graciously OOC. If your players and husband aren't having fun with you not play a Lawful character when your DM (yes, I interchanged the reference of DM to husband on purpose); then see my opening statement.

[W3bDragon]

It seems the main concern here is whether to let the other players know OOC about what's going on or not.

I would say that you should definitely let them know. If the players are any good, then at least some of them will be going out of their way to not step on your toes or steal your spotlight, since you're playing the leader. In doing so, they may end up putting their characters in a spot they didn't want to, just because the player was being nice and not messing with your character's method of play. They should know.


In fact, you can play it out in dramatic fashion. Assuming the DM is on board, you can play out a short solo with your character that MUST take place in front of the other players. In that solo, your character makes it completely clear what his intentions are. This could be a dream your character has where he talks to his "father" about his current problem, or it could be your character penning a letter to a loved one, explaining what he has been doing, in case he seals his own fate with his actions.

[missmvicious]

The right thing to do would to have not been selfish and made a character like the DM requested; Lawful.

I know... I admit that I epic failed at LG. But, for the record, I really tried. Still I think I'm being grown up enough to at least accept the consequences of my actions. I don't want my character to get killed off, but if she ends up being arrested and dragged back to town to face a trial and what-have-you, I accept that as part of the development of my character.

However, if I really am being a problem player, then I definitely want to stop that immediately. I'm no fan of problem players, and I never got the impression that I was killing the team's buzz. If I am, than I'll retract my most recent plan and probably step down as ranking officer to someone more capable of following orders. I'll ask the group if I'm killing the fun before the next session, k?

But all that aside, it looks like the general consensus is that we should tell the players about my alignment ping so that they may feel free to question my orders accordingly. Thanks for the advice. I'm going to let my hubby read this. He doesn't like to railroad plots, step on RP, or permit meta-gaming, and we love him for it. He tries really hard to create a fair, open world for us to play in. So, naturally, an ethical conundrum like this would keep him up at night.

[Yora]

I don't think alignment really is not a factor in this whole thing.

The actual question is if you should tell the other players that your character naturally developed to something their characters wouldn't like or not. You have the same problem with any other combinations of alignment as well, and even if nobody changes alignment.

I think the answer is, that it depends a lot on the group you are playing with. If you think they would have fun with dealing with different goals and oppinions in the party, than just continue playing and let them discover it as it goes. If you think they would assume that you are just trying to annoy them with it, telling them what is likely going to happen makes it easier for them to deal with your character.
It really comes down to what you expect them to react.

[aberratio ictus]

I'll ask the group if I'm killing the fun before the next session, k?

The problem being, they can't know that yet. They don't know what you are planning and how this would affect their own characters and the game itself. They could tell whether you're killing the fun or not if you told them your plan, but I can understand if that's not what you want.
For us, it is kind of hard to tell without additional information if it is a problem what you're doing or not.
Myself, I often play lawful characters, and I would in principal be okay with you furthering your own goals and disobeying superiors. IC I would get mad, of course, but how that affects the campaign would very strongly depend on the relationship between our characters, but OOC that on its own would be ok with me. On the other hand, if your actions lead to us being dismissed from the military or even declared traitors, that may not sit too well with me.

The point I'm trying to make is - is there a possibility that your actions could take the campaign in a direction different to the original concept everyone agreed to?

[bloodtide]

What's the right thing to do here?

Well, you can stop being the problem player. Just about everything you wrote just screams 'i'm having fun with my DM by messing with the other players'. And it's sad this sort of thing is so common, but it is in RPGs.

1.If you say nothing- Chances are if you just role-play along and do whatever it is you want to do, then no one will say anything. It's bad enough in a 'normal' game when a DM and player 'keep secrets' and 'gang up' on the other players, but it's impossible when it's husband and wife. After all what good would it be for a player to even speak up? Both you and the DM will automatically be on the same side. And no matter what is said, well all know that most DMs will fall back on the old ''Look guys she is my wife, so if she wants to ruin our game i have to let her do so, ok'' kind of mentality. And that's if it does not go as far as an argument where someone is asked to leave for ''disrespecting my wife''.

2.You tell them- Well, if you can explain how it would be fun for everyone and all, it might work. But if it's more 'I just want to do this screw the group', you can guess the other players won't be happy. And in any case, even if they know, the players can't say much...as again you have the marriage problem.

[kyoryu]

1.If you say nothing- Chances are if you just role-play along and do whatever it is you want to do, then no one will say anything. It's bad enough in a 'normal' game when a DM and player 'keep secrets' and 'gang up' on the other players, but it's impossible when it's husband and wife. After all what good would it be for a player to even speak up? Both you and the DM will automatically be on the same side. And no matter what is said, well all know that most DMs will fall back on the old ''Look guys she is my wife, so if she wants to ruin our game i have to let her do so, ok'' kind of mentality. And that's if it does not go as far as an argument where someone is asked to leave for ''disrespecting my wife''.

This point bears repeating. And it's valid even in cases where it's not true, as players will act as if it were true.

[NikitaDarkstar]

Honestly, retire the character. Do what you want to do, but agree with your husband/the DM that afterwards the character WILL get in trouble, it WILL come down on your characters head a lone, it WILL get them thrown into jail (and/or possibly executed) and you WILL re-roll a character that actually falls within the perimeter of the game.

Why? Because you're being a problem player, and has been pointed out, most people won't call you on it because it's pointless because you and the DM are married. But doing what you want to do with this character and then taking a severe punishment for it gives you the re-roll option, and it also lets the other players either accept it IC and OOC and move on, or if they're really fine with it and are having fun playing along with your shenanigans, gives them the option of saving your sorry butt and well, then the game can go from there. (Obviously it wouldn't exactly be a military campaign anymore, but at least by that point it is everyone's choice.)

[missmvicious]

It's bad enough in a 'normal' game when a DM and player 'keep secrets' and 'gang up' on the other players, but it's impossible when it's husband and wife. After all what good would it be for a player to even speak up? Both you and the DM will automatically be on the same side. And no matter what is said, well all know that most DMs will fall back on the old ''Look guys she is my wife, so if she wants to ruin our game i have to let her do so, ok'' kind of mentality. And that's if it does not go as far as an argument where someone is asked to leave for ''disrespecting my wife''

To be honest, this isn't the case. Everyone in my setting already knows that, while he won't tolerate anyone disrespecting me, he doesn't automatically take my side just because we're married. He only takes my side in a ruling if he thinks I'm right.

One case in point:

Spoiler

Show

Session 1: We were fighting our instructor in a final exam type situation. The PC who showed the best use of strategy, teamwork, and could keep the team organized, or adjust accordingly if not, won the title of Field Marshall, which resulted in higher pay, the acquisition of a special artifact, and personal responsibility for the completion of our first mission. After our session, our trainer (the DM, obviously) was suppose to select one of us for that honor. Instead, he called a vote. Everyone except one person voted on me. The DM said that he initially thought that I was the right choice but didn't want it to seem biased, so he decided the only fair way was to call a vote.

In many other cases, he's ruled against my preference because I wanted something I couldn't have, and even in this case, he's going to rule against me for an alignment ping. We all trust in his sense of fairness. That's not an issue. We each do our fair share of calling each other out. So, I don't think anyone who knew him would imply that he's whipped and won't make a fair decision just because I'm his wife.

I appreciate everyone's input on this though. I promise to try not to be a problem player anymore. I just... love rebelling so much. It's kind of who I am, so it's going to be hard for me to fit into that role.

[valadil]

If I were another player in that game, I'd be 100% okay with you not telling me your character's secrets. I have more fun roleplaying when I believe the same thing the character does. I'd rather not have to pretend I'm not aware of another PC's secret agenda and always second guess whether each decision I make was somehow influenced by that knowledge.

But, you need to be responsible for your character's treachery. If the alignment change would break the party, then your character should leave the party. The party shouldn't change to accommodate you. The GM shouldn't alter the premise of the game so your character can fit. You got a cool experience by going against the grain of the game, but that can only last so long. Once your cover is blown, your character should be the one that suffers. That may mean a demotion and someone else can lead the group (which could be a cool way to alter the group dynamic or it could be seen as a half measure to compromise with the GM's wife - depends on your group) or it could mean your character has to leave the group in some fashion.

[NowhereMan583]

I don't see that the OP is being a "problem player" in any way. She created a LG character, but over the course of the campaign, presumably for in-game reasons, her character has started disobeying the orders of her superior officer. A few points apply:

First: Are you sure you're not still playing LG? If your character made her decision to disobey due to a personal code of honor, that's still a Lawful act. (Of course, if your GM says you're not being Lawful, then it's best to just accept that ruling.)

Second: It's okay if your character started as LG and is now NG. As they say, alignments are descriptive, not proscriptive. Character development can result in alignment change, and nobody should have a problem with that. Character development is good.

Third: There's not really any reason to notify your fellow party members of your alignment change. They wouldn't know in character unless someone cast detect law. Let them figure it out.

Fourth: Your character has changed since the start of the game. This issue should be addressed by the other characters. This is an in-game issue, not an out-of-game one.

Fifth: If there's any evidence that the other players aren't having fun, then you should rethink your behavior. If everyone seems to be enjoying themselves, then there's no reason to change anything. I'm not sure you have to come out and ask -- it would likely become obvious if people had a problem with where the story was going.

Personally, if I were GMing this game, I'd think this was a great plot development. I love it when my players come up with twists to the story for which I hadn't planned.

[nedz]

I don't see that the OP is being a "problem player" in any way. She created a LG character, but over the course of the campaign, presumably for in-game reasons, her character has started disobeying the orders of her superior officer. A few points apply:

First: Are you sure you're not still playing LG? If your character made her decision to disobey due to a personal code of honor, that's still a Lawful act. (Of course, if your GM says you're not being Lawful, then it's best to just accept that ruling.)

Second: It's okay if your character started as LG and is now NG. As they say, alignments are descriptive, not proscriptive. Character development can result in alignment change, and nobody should have a problem with that. Character development is good.

Third: There's not really any reason to notify your fellow party members of your alignment change. They wouldn't know in character unless someone cast detect law. Let them figure it out.

Fourth: Your character has changed since the start of the game. This issue should be addressed by the other characters. This is an in-game issue, not an out-of-game one.

Fifth: If there's any evidence that the other players aren't having fun, then you should rethink your behavior. If everyone seems to be enjoying themselves, then there's no reason to change anything. I'm not sure you have to come out and ask -- it would likely become obvious if people had a problem with where the story was going.

Personally, if I were GMing this game, I'd think this was a great plot development. I love it when my players come up with twists to the story for which I hadn't planned.

this

If I were playing in this game, and I have played in several much more backstabby, then I would resent being told this information OOC.
I would want to work it out for myself, and I would find it much easier to roleplay my characters uncertainty.

Further: you are removing the drama of the reveal.

Basically: Knowing this stuff OOC spoils the fun.

[Endarire]

Frank and K have their own opinion on the ambiguous mess that is 'alignment.' Their argument starts on page 24.

[missmvicious]

I've been thinking. The DM says that if I were anyone other than the team leader, it wouldn't be a big deal. But a leader, especially an LG leader, should uphold a certain degree of responsibility for my team. If I were just one of the subordinates, the subject of an alignment ping would be between me and the DM only.

He supports character development and allows for alignment adjustments, but the team leader plays a bigger role in the progress of the story than the average player does. To quote Spiderman's uncle, "With great power comes great responsibility."

So, rather than cause a scene IC and OoC, I'm thinking about stepping down from a leadership role. That way the whole issue can be avoided. The reason's why will be up to us to RP out if the other PCs are even interested in knowing why. I think this will tidy up the mess much more easily.

But Yora, and some other posters were right. I wasn't really trying to figure out how to RP my character, but rather find out whether or not the alignment ping I got should be announced OoC or not so that the other players can understand that, if they chose, they can challenge my authority. Thanks for all the advise though.

Now, I've got some thinking to do. Here's the DM's ruling, in case you're curious:

Spoiler

Show

If I change my actions before the next session, I won't get the alignment ping and none of this will come up anyway.

If I step down as the leader, the DM will keep quiet about the change and I can keep doing what I want.

If I remain as a leader and continue on with my actions, the DM will announce to the group my alignment shift.

[kyoryu]

Now, I've got some thinking to do. Here's the DM's ruling, in case you're curious:

Spoiler

Show

If I change my actions before the next session, I won't get the alignment ping and none of this will come up anyway.

If I step down as the leader, the DM will keep quiet about the change and I can keep doing what I want.

If I remain as a leader and continue on with my actions, the DM will announce to the group my alignment shift.

Shouldn't your actions be sufficient to let the party know that your alignment is shifting, anyway? I mean, shouldn't a party of lawful folks be a bit nervousy about their CO blatantly disobeying orders?

[Tyndmyr]

Well, there's a few points to this.

First, is this the kind of group where prioritizing char desires over group desires is accepted? Pvp, stealing from the party, that kind of thing...if so, then by all means a bit of deception is par for the course. Carry on.

Second, does the group WANT to change to this style of play. If so, this can provide an interesting segue into it. Enjoy.

If the above are both false, then it's unfortunately not a great course of action. Try to find ways to minimize the conflict between personal goals and group goals like obeying orders.

Out of curiosity, what's the specific goals in conflict?

[missmvicious]

We're on a stealth mission. We're in a 500 year long theocratic war with a neighboring isolated "village." It's a village by population size only. Both villages are so militarized by now that nothing about it seems to have the quaintness of a village anymore.

At any rate, we're supposed to infiltrate their village, get into their temple, and seal their power source... a mana spring believed to have a planar rift which connects to the Abyssal Plane.

First Offense:

Spoiler

Show

I got my first yellow flag about following orders because I spent the first 3 days of my mission assignment hardly interacting with with my party at all. I was hobnobbing with socialites and other influential members of the town. I had mission-centric reasons, and selfish reasons. I thought having the wealthy and influential in Helpful status would help give us the deep pockets we need to load up on awesome magical gear. But also, I wanted my character to marry the prince when we returned home triumphantly. Our Captain saw that we were wasting time, chastised me and gave me until the first light of dawn to be packed, ready and heading out the door.

Second Offense:

Spoiler

Show

I'm a crafter Wizard. I started using the groups finances crafting things that weren't relevant to the mission. The group was starting to get concerned that I wasn't taking the mission seriously, and that we could've used the finances toward buying items that can get us into town unnoticed, or at least fair better in a fight with the Abyssals (none of us were carrying cold iron weapons.)

Third Offense:

Spoiler

Show

The mission was coded Time Sensitive. The longer we dallied, the bigger the rift got, and therefore the lower our chances were of success, because bigger and bigger Abyssal creatures were getting through the rift. I dallied anyway. I wanted to stat crunch and we needed more GP for me to keep crafting things. I played it up as, "They're evil and we need to stop them from harming innocent people!" Now, Large Abyssals are getting through, and summoning Huge Abyssals. It would appear other Abyssals are raising the dead to fight for them. Even if we complete the mission, both towns may have to evacuate now anyway, just because of how many evil creatures are saturating the region.

Fourth Offense:

Spoiler

Show

The Druid and I split off back to our hometown to gather information and resupply. Half of the group was upset about the split, since we were struggling to stay alive as it was. We went as fast as I could, and left my familiar, a bat, stay behind with the group that is still pressing on to give me a feel of the area so we could use Greater Teleport to get back to them as soon as I have what I need from town. I decided while in town that I wanted to take the Improved Familiar Feat to get a Dire Tiger. This time, my Druid stopped me, saying that would dismiss George (my bat) and we'd never get back to our party.

Fifth Offense... the Red Flag and Alignment Ping:

Spoiler

Show

So I agreed reluctantly but said that as soon as we get back to the party I'm swapping my bat for a dire tiger. Naturally, a dire tiger, if spotted could very easily blow the mission because it would (at the least) raise suspicions but most likely cause an alarm to sound because a dire tiger is a threat on it's own, let alone if it's accompanied by a clutch of special ops casters and a Ranger.

The DM said the alignment ping wasn't about any one thing, but rather a pattern of disobedient behavior that made it seem like I wasn't playing a very Lawful character, and my devious (and admittedly selfish) motives behind most of those acts did not fit under the category of Good aligned either. Yet, nothing I've done clearly wreaks of Evil... more just irresponsible.

The orders called for haste and stealth. For the most part, I've lead a bloody trail of enemies behind me, purposefully slowed the teams progress, and made decision that will make it harder to enter and leave stealthily, and in most cases, my decision have needlessly endangered the lives of myself and my team. In a real military (I've been told) that stuff like that could get me court marshaled and dishonorably discharged, if not worse. So, I can't say I'm surprised or upset by the ruling.

The group doesn't really seem upset by my style of play. Everyone in the group is a little zany:

Spoiler

Show

Our Ranger keeps hitting on the Cloistered Cleric and the Druid, keeping the Cleric wildly confused about her own sexuality as well as the dynamics of social interactions. Our Druid tends to play an easily distracted prankster with a violent temper in combat. Our Cloistered Cleric is shy and socially awkward since she has spent her entire young life cloistered away in the temple, and our Cleric/Crusader is what you'd expect a Paladin to be if Pally's could be LN. He's straight-laced, deliberate, contemplative and obsessed with duty. But for some reason, he keeps finding himself naked, or in other situations that could easily be taken out-of-context in the campaign, much to the Ranger's delight, who loves to catch him in this awkward state and make lewd catcalls and "greatsword" puns while he protests his innocence and demands that she turn away this instant.

We have fun with it. I'm not killing the buzz, but I may be killing the mission. Fortunately, this is a sandbox world. Killing the mission doesn't necessarily kill the campaign. It just adds a new dynamic to it. We were told before day one that we don't have to complete, or even begin the mission. We could do what ever we want as long as we realize that there are consequences for our actions.

He said, "To quote Paul, 'All things are permissible, but not all things are beneficial."

[Mike_G]

I don't thinks it's all that bad. If the players seem to be rolling with it, just go for it. The point is to have fun.

Now, the characters might be justifiably upset that you are endangering them and compromising the mission, but that's for in character drama.

Drama can be good. Depends on the group.

In a sandbox, the mission isn't the end all. The next adventure might be running away from your disgruntled superiors, or organizing the resistance since your village has fallen to the enemy, but the campaign goes on.

If everyone is having fun, just go for it.

In gaming, a fun and memorable session where you screw the pooch is better than a bland but successful mission.

Yeah, in an actual military mission, you'd be a nightmare, but this is D&D.

[Crossblade]

The group doesn't really seem upset by my style of play. Everyone in the group is a little zany:
Our Ranger keeps hitting on the Cloistered Cleric and the Druid, keeping the Cleric wildly confused about her own sexuality as well as the dynamics of social interactions. Our Druid tends to play an easily distracted prankster with a violent temper in combat. Our Cloistered Cleric is shy and socially awkward since she has spent her entire young life cloistered away in the temple, and our Cleric/Crusader is what you'd expect a Paladin to be if Pally's could be LN. He's straight-laced, deliberate, contemplative and obsessed with duty. But for some reason, he keeps finding himself naked, or in other situations that could easily be taken out-of-context in the campaign, much to the Ranger's delight, who loves to catch him in this awkward state and make lewd catcalls and "greatsword" puns while he protests his innocence and demands that she turn away this instant.

Ok, that changes the situation entirely. You could change to Chaotic Good and likely go unnoticed. I'm almost concerned that none of your party members are actually Lawful, to be honest.
Except the Cloistered Cleric, she sounds fine.

Actually, from that description:
Ranger: Neutral Good
Druid: Chaotic Neutral
Cloistered Cleric: Whatever she wants, likely Lawful something.
Crusader: True Neutral give or take WHY he's losing his clothes. If his fault, TN. If not his fault, LN.

And for yourself, True Neutral, as you put your own needs and wants above everyone else, while only slightly inclined to do the right thing; which may or may not be because you'll either be punished if you don't or the world will go to pieces if you don't eventually... if it isn't already there.

[kyoryu]

Sounds like you're drifting more towards Chaotic Neutral than anything.

[missmvicious]

Sounds like you're drifting more towards Chaotic Neutral than anything.

Maybe, but I've always viewed CN as anti-establishment to downright anarchistic. I'm not anti-establishment; I'm just pro-me in the campaign. NN sounds about right, but it's not suitable for a military leader, which is where the issue comes up. Still I'm leaning towards nixing the Dire Tiger idea for now and taking Leadership or Craft Wand instead. I like being the team leader. I guess it just gives me a power trip or something.

Warning: Text wall.

Spoiler

Show

Our Cleric/Crusader is about to hit Ruby Knight Vindicator (our god is Wee Jas), and He's all Law. It's funny, because his strait-laced character does seem to end up in a lot of compromising situations.

The Ranger acts the way we imagine soldiers tend to act. She has a strong sense of duty and is passionately patriotic, yet tends to be a bit of a... well... slut. She loves toying with the Cloistered Clerics innocence, and the Cleric Crusader's rigidity. She's theoretically LG, which works, because sexual orientation isn't regulated in our theocratic kingdom. She still cares about the greater good and her devotion to duty keeps her anchored in the spirit of the mission. She can be rough around the edges sometimes... even vulgar, but that's also expected of a soldier archetype.

Our Druid has been flagged a few times for alignment issues. He tends to play it a little on the CG to CN side, but he seems to know just how far to take it. His character is the Ranger's brother and kind of views me as a little sister. Because of that, he tends to tease us a little, and even flirts with my PCs mother when we're in town, just to get my character irritated. He doesn't get along particularly well with the Cloistered Cleric or the Cleric Crusader due to their blind dedication to rules and procedure. But their relationship with each other could be better described as a mutual disinterest rather than dislike.

The Cloistered Cleric plays it prissy. She doesn't like what she's doing, but she's the one who knows how to seal the portal, so she tries to keep a stiff upper lip about the whole thing. But, she's never slept outside, never been in a fight and never even gotten her dress significantly dirty before this mission, so she struggles a lot in ways that we all tend to find a bit amusing... except the Ranger, who tends to find her helplessness erotic. She's LN all the way, though. She'll live and die for procedure, and if we all attempted to desert today, she'd fight us with everything she's got if she had to, bind us, and drag us all back to town in chains for trial, or she'd die trying. She's got a basically good heart, but her devotion to duty overrides morality in cases where the two clash. She's this way because she was raised in the temple to think no other way. Unlike most character archetypes like hers, she refuses to question the edicts of her upbringing and remains belligerently faithful to procedure, ritual, and tradition. However, based on some circumstantially determined Diplomacy checks, her character is starting to fall in love with the Ranger who is gradually showing her the ways of a more carefree lifestyle of adventure out in the woods.

TL;DR:
Crusader and C. Cleric = definitely LN
Ranger = most likely LG
Druid = LN by technicalities, but CN or NN at heart.

[Need_A_Life]

This, IMO, is the problem with alignment: Personal definitions.

Every character has a personality and their own justifications for doing what they do. Chaotic might mean anarchist or it might mean morally flexible. Lawful might mean adhering to the law, a code of honor or simply consistent moral behaviour.
I won't even get into the question of Good and Evil, or my philosophy professor might influence me to write an essay

In my opinion, you could be anywhere from LG to CE, based on your intentions and priorities.

Spending time with nobility to help fund your mission and pursue romantic interests? Alignment-neutral.

Crafting magic items for party funds? Not a nice thing to do, but depending on your reasons for doing so, you could be perfectly justified or a dirty cheater.

Ignoring "Time-Sensitive" tag? Could be directly malevolent (you want the rift to expand), fear or incompetence.

New familiar-thingy? ... I seriously don't get it

Risking the mission by getting a tiger? Maybe you feel that being identified is less dangerous than being ripped to shreds by Abyssals, because you only had a bat between you and it?
Of course, if it was me, I'd go for a Quasit familiar for the irony of pitting demons against demons.

[gkathellar]

Can you talk to the other players about it OOC? Sometimes people don't make good roleplaying decisions on the spot, or make one of several good ones that aren't productive. If you talk it through with your party beforehand, you may be able to get something far more compelling out of it. I'm aware this won't work for every group, but that's a judgment call you have to make.

Also, I'd encourage you and your group not to just think of Lawful as following orders or the laws of the land. It can mean that, but it can also refer to loyalty to a personal code of conduct, or a set of beliefs, or a philosophy of "correct" behavior. Perhaps this event could make your second-in-command question what kind of Lawful he is, or introduce similar conflicts within the alignment itself? That's just an example possibility, but I think you should try to veer away from the often-unproductive "Lawful vs. non-Lawful" intraparty conflict, possibly in the direction of "different kinds of Lawful" one.

In any case, if you have the right kind of group (and you may not, which isn't a bad thing), consider talking to them OOC about it and about what kind of roleplaying experience you all think would be best to get out of this. Obviously it would be bad to be forceful in doing this, but giving them a heads-up may give them the chance to figure out more interesting routes to go.

[missmvicious]

The issue of alignment definitions was resolved by a house-rule we made as a group long ago:

"Alignment definitions are described by the DM before character creation."

Spoiler

Show

Basically, whoever the DM is lays down the law on alignments right up front, so we're all on the same page before we start rolling up a character. In my husband's case:

The first set (L, N, C) determines ethical/political principles.
The second set (G, N, E) determines moral principles.
Neutral is used to double up on a certain principle.
NN = Morally/Ethically balanced, or amoral/pre-moral (like animals).

Therefore:
LN = LL (the Law is all that matters)
NG = GG (the greater Good is all that matters)
CN = CC (breaking down the system is all that matters)
NN = NN (my own personal interests are all that matters)

so on.

Very rarely do we bother to vary from this concept of alignment, as it seems to work well enough with our own definitions of alignment and feels natural. But each DM has the right to change it as they see fit.

One DM defined "N" as "defender of" which provided for interesting role-play.

LN = Defender of Law
CN = Defender of Chaos
NN = Defender of Neutrality (balance, if you will... equal parts good/evil, equal parts Law/Chaos)

so on, but that particular translation hasn't been used since in our group.

[Tyndmyr]

The DM said the alignment ping wasn't about any one thing, but rather a pattern of disobedient behavior that made it seem like I wasn't playing a very Lawful character, and my devious (and admittedly selfish) motives behind most of those acts did not fit under the category of Good aligned either. Yet, nothing I've done clearly wreaks of Evil... more just irresponsible.

The orders called for haste and stealth. For the most part, I've lead a bloody trail of enemies behind me, purposefully slowed the teams progress, and made decision that will make it harder to enter and leave stealthily, and in most cases, my decision have needlessly endangered the lives of myself and my team. In a real military (I've been told) that stuff like that could get me court marshaled and dishonorably discharged, if not worse. So, I can't say I'm surprised or upset by the ruling.

Look at it this way. If a smart, evil mole had infiltrated your team with the instructions to subtly sabotage them, he'd probably be acting exactly the same as your char is.

So yeah, the alignment ping is entirely justified, and if your team or superiors discovers your actions, they're pretty justified in executing you on the spot as evil.

[Mnemnosyne]

I'll say that if I were a player, I would actively not want to be told the OOC information you're proposing revealing, because I think it would make it considerably more difficult to play my character with the knowledge the character has, and not with the knowledge I as a player have.

We all have to separate in character from out of character knowledge to some degree, but it's always made harder when we're told things our characters don't know.

If my character is going to discover what yours is doing, and act accordingly, I would prefer for it to be entirely in-character without any OOC 'heads up' about what's going on. Most of all, I would not want to be specifically watching your character for no reason (as far as my character is aware) waiting to catch you, which is something that's very difficult to avoid. If I'm told, when I do notice something, I have to second-guess myself: did I notice because I was told and therefore on the lookout for it, or would my character have noticed that anyway?

[kyoryu]

Maybe, but I've always viewed CN as anti-establishment to downright anarchistic. I'm not anti-establishment; I'm just pro-me in the campaign. NN sounds about right, but it's not suitable for a military leader, which is where the issue comes up. Still I'm leaning towards nixing the Dire Tiger idea for now and taking Leadership or Craft Wand instead. I like being the team leader. I guess it just gives me a power trip or something.

Admittedly, I'm only going based on your description of your infractions, which colors my perception.

A Chaotic individual believes in freedom, and believes that rules hamper the individual, and thus overall efficiency of people. A Chaotic individual will have little respect for rules or direction. They may follow rules if under coercion or when convenient.

A Neutral person will *generally* follow rules, but will break them if circumstances suggest it. They believe in a balance of rules in important areas, and personal freedom in others.

A Lawful person believes in the power of law and rules as an organizing principle. They may accept some latitude being given, but prefer it be as minimized as possible.

By your description, your character has ignored pretty much every order given. Additionally, she has even broken intra-party agreements such as party loot. I haven't really (by your descriptions, mind you) seen any indicator of any activity respecting any kind of rule or order, unless under duress (the captain telling you to get out by morning or else.) To me, that puts you into the Chaotic category pretty firmly. I don't think a chaotic person necessarily has to be anarchistic - that's probably more a CG trait than anything - a CG person will be more inclined to be concerned about others, and thus the entire social structure, while a CN/CE will just want to be left alone, and let everyone else fend for themselves (CE more on that last one).

On the GNE axis, a Good individual will put the welfare of others ahead of their own. A Neutral will generally be self-interested, while not actively harming/infringing on the rights of others. An Evil individual will be solely self-interested, regardless of the cost to others.

Again, based on your description, I see almost no concern for others. I do see a huge self-concern, which pretty much puts you into either Neutral or Evil. So the question is - do you seek self-interest at the cost of others, or without harming others? While you certainly haven't killed anyone, you have impacted others with your pursuit of individual power - taking money from the party treasury, delaying stopping the rift (causing civilian casualties) so you could grind more gold, being willing to (until talked out of it) dismiss your familiar jeopardizing your mission. What I *haven't* seen in any of your descriptions is any type of concern for the wellbeing of others.

So, on that axis, I'd probably put you on a Neutral-slipping-to-Evil mark.

As Tyndmyr put it, you're pretty much acting like an ideal saboteur.

Caveat: Again, all of this is based solely on your description of your character's actions, which have been primarily the cases of your alignment slippages. It may be that these are isolated incidents, and in other cases you're acting well in line with LG.

[Prime32]

The TVTropes Character Alignment page may help here.

If a law was unjust, a lawful person might think it needs retooling, or say that it prevents more problems than it causes. A neutral person might see the need for such a law, but would still think it should be scrapped and redone from scratch. A chaotic person would probably just break it.

What was your character's reaction to their orders?