Would a lawful creature ever go back on their word?

[Reliku]

Hey guys,

I have a discussion with one of my players (D&D 3.5). He's playing a lawful neutral character. His claim is that his character would lie, for the greater good. I told him that if that is the case, his character's alignment is true neutral, not lawful neutral. He disagrees, because he claims his character has a moral code (which makes him lawful), and that moral code allows him to lie for the greater good.

To me, that sounds like nonsense. The SRD says: "Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties."

Now I'm not saying a lawful character must always tell the truth on every case every single time. Only paladins do that. But if a lawful character makes a promise, a deal or an agreement with someone else, he must keep his promise, even if he doesn't want to anymore. Only if it is absolutely impossible to keep a promise, would a lawful character not have to keep it anymore. If the character doesn't keep his promise, for example because he just learned something new that changed the situation, then he would not be a lawful character, then he would be a neutral character. And if the character only keeps his promise when it suits him, and doesn't when it doesn't suit him, then he would be a chaotic character.

A similar question is what happens when you make a deal with a devil (Lawful Evil). He's evil, so he'll try to twist the deal in his advantage. But in my opinion, once the deal is made, the devil MUST keep his end of the bargain, because he is a lawful creature, he must keep his word.

So, great wise men of giantitp, what do you think? Would a lawful creature ever go back on his word? Would a lawful creature ever say he'll do "A" but in reality do "B"?

[MoiMagnus]

Alignment describe the "normal behavior" of a person. It is descriptive, not prescriptive (unless paladin or other similar oath, or creatures that are of that alignment due to magic, like devils)

A character which behave as a good, except with dwarfs against which he is fully evil, would be good aligned as long as he doesn't encounter too many dwarfs, and will fall to neutral and then evil if this behavior start becoming frequent.

Similarly, a lawful creature will go back on their word occasionally. Each time they do, they are nearer from neutral than before. And they will probably be haunted by their lies during their nightmare, even if they rationalize it as "it was necessary".

And I mean, this is unavoidable. Imagine a lawful character made two different promises that are contradictory, then he will have to break one of them. For example, he promised to his father to always work for the greater good, and promise to the guard to not break out of prison, but something horrible is happening right know, so whatever he does, one of the two promises will be broken.
Similarly, what happens if the only way to fulfill a promise is to make a fake promise to someone else? Well, either he will have to make a fake promise, either he will have to break a promise.

In other words:
+ As long at it is occasional, sure, a lawful character can lies and break promises.
+ However, even if he do so, he will probably regret having to do so, or at least would have prefer a solution that doesn't include lying or breaking promises (but sometimes, you do stuff you don't like doing because that's necessary).
+ Creatures like devil are Lawful because of their cosmic nature. Their free will is constrained by this "lawful energy".

[Hackulator]

Yes a lawful creature can lie sometimes. Except for things like certain outsiders everyone does things that are theoretically contrary to their alignment at times. Alignment in most cases is not a geas it's a guideline. He can certainly lie or break his word on rare occasions, if he's doing it all the time then it's questionable.

However, a Lawful Neutral character lying for "the greater good" seems off, is he Lawful Neutral or Lawful Good? The player is correct that it's possible to be Lawful but not necessarily truthful depending on your belief system, however in general "lying for the greater good" seems more like something a NG or CG character might do.

[Mystral]

Hey guys,

I have a discussion with one of my players (D&D 3.5). He's playing a lawful neutral character. His claim is that his character would lie, for the greater good. I told him that if that is the case, his character's alignment is true neutral, not lawful neutral. He disagrees, because he claims his character has a moral code (which makes him lawful), and that moral code allows him to lie for the greater good.

To me, that sounds like nonsense. The SRD says: "Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties."

Now I'm not saying a lawful character must always tell the truth on every case every single time. Only paladins do that. But if a lawful character makes a promise, a deal or an agreement with someone else, he must keep his promise, even if he doesn't want to anymore. Only if it is absolutely impossible to keep a promise, would a lawful character not have to keep it anymore. If the character doesn't keep his promise, for example because he just learned something new that changed the situation, then he would not be a lawful character, then he would be a neutral character. And if the character only keeps his promise when it suits him, and doesn't when it doesn't suit him, then he would be a chaotic character.

A similar question is what happens when you make a deal with a devil (Lawful Evil). He's evil, so he'll try to twist the deal in his advantage. But in my opinion, once the deal is made, the devil MUST keep his end of the bargain, because he is a lawful creature, he must keep his word.

So, great wise men of giantitp, what do you think? Would a lawful creature ever go back on his word? Would a lawful creature ever say he'll do "A" but in reality do "B"?

Your player is correct. Lawfull characters aren't unable to lie, lawfull characters live by a code (which may or may not coincide with local laws) and when that code doesn't include to always tell the truth, they can lie as much as they want to.

Also, lawfull alignment doesn't mean that one follows a certain set of rules like an automaton, just like chaotic alignment doesn't mean that you flip a coin every time you make a decision. It's just overall karma you accumulate thanks to your actions.

[Kaptin Keen]

To me, that sounds like nonsense. The SRD says: "Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties."

I'm lawful. I'm also truthful.

I also work in sales.

Also, don't force your players into straightjacket interpretations of something as totally inane as the 'Alignment'. It's bogus, it has zero real life parallel, it doesn't work as a game- or roleplay tool. It's bollocks.

Sorry =) I don't like alignments much, but I realise other views exist and are just as valid.

[hamishspence]

I have a discussion with one of my players (D&D 3.5). He's playing a lawful neutral character. His claim is that his character would lie, for the greater good. I told him that if that is the case, his character's alignment is true neutral, not lawful neutral. He disagrees, because he claims his character has a moral code (which makes him lawful), and that moral code allows him to lie for the greater good.

To me, that sounds like nonsense. The SRD says: "Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties."

Now I'm not saying a lawful character must always tell the truth on every case every single time. Only paladins do that. But if a lawful character makes a promise, a deal or an agreement with someone else, he must keep his promise, even if he doesn't want to anymore. Only if it is absolutely impossible to keep a promise, would a lawful character not have to keep it anymore. If the character doesn't keep his promise, for example because he just learned something new that changed the situation, then he would not be a lawful character, then he would be a neutral character. And if the character only keeps his promise when it suits him, and doesn't when it doesn't suit him, then he would be a chaotic character.

A similar question is what happens when you make a deal with a devil (Lawful Evil). He's evil, so he'll try to twist the deal in his advantage. But in my opinion, once the deal is made, the devil MUST keep his end of the bargain, because he is a lawful creature, he must keep his word.

Devils are capable of being treacherous. Baalzebul, Lord of the Seventh Layer of Baator, is called "Lord of Lies" as well as "Lord of the Flies".

Conversely, Chaotic people are capable of having a moral code that demands they never lie. Angels can be of any Good alignment - yet all normal angels "never lie, cheat, or steal" and "are impeccably honorable in all their dealings".

Lying "for the greater good" does not have to be intrinsically Chaotic. It's problematic for Good characters, and Lawful ones, but it's doable without jeopardising their alignment. At least, unless they're Lawful characters who have specifically adopted a "lawful code" that forbids lying, or are members of a culture where lying is illegal, or a major violation of social mores.

In which case, they have a certain amount of obligation to punish themselves, or "turn themselves in to the authorities" if they wish to stay Lawful.

As The Giant put it:

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.

[Koo Rehtorb]

I'd say it's sufficient to be the sort of person who believe that one shouldn't lie or go back on their word, and tries to life their life that way.

If you're forced to swear an oath at sword point. If you swear an oath on misleading information, particularly if that oath would lead to you breaking some other code of conduct of yours later. That sort of thing is fine. Just so long as intentionally swearing false oaths isn't part of the character's MO, and it doesn't happen too often, it seems fine to me. I would say though, a lawful character should probably be reluctant to swear oaths that he doesn't have a strong intention of following.

[Mr Beer]

If "I lie for the greater good" is a core personality trait, I think that goes against lawful.

If you press the player to answer the issue and he says "I would lie for the greater good", that's very different and probably fine.

Also this is why alignment is annoying. It's a bad system, it has no objective standards and there is widespread disagreement on how to interpret it. The only thing I like about it, is how it informs the structure of the Outer Planes which while cool frankly isn't enough to make it worthwhile.

[DeTess]

Yes, a lawful person can tell a lie once in a while, especially to hold up their values (lying to the orc warlord that captured them about the state of their city's defenses, for example). If lying becomes a matter fo first resort in any situation, they might not be lawful but there's nothing stopping them from telling the occasional fib without changing alignment.

Ask yourself this: For a lawful neutral guard, tasked with protecting a noble mansion, which would be the more lawful thing to do when being threatened by a would-be thief?

1. Tell the thief exactly where all the valuables are, as requested.
2. Lie to the thief, leading them to a trap where they can be easily captured or disposed off.
3. Keep silent, which'll likely result in being stabbed by said thief, and leaving them free to roam the mansion.

[Segev]

Lying is no more Chaotic than telling the truth is Lawful. You can have a Lawful-aligned spy or con artist. They will lie a lot in the course of their careers.

Lawfulness is about order and having rules (not just principles, but rules derived from those principles) which they follow. Lawful people are loath to break contracts, as they represent agreement to follow a particular set of rules. They are not necessarily bothered by lying about their intions, nor about what they're doing, so long as their rules call for it.

[Frozen_Feet]

Ask yourself this: For a lawful neutral guard, tasked with protecting a noble mansion, which would be the more lawful thing to do when being threatened by a would-be thief?

The obvious, expected behaviour of a guard is to tell the thief to get bent, not surrendering any information that'd make the thief's job easier. Though suggesting a course of action that'd cause the thief to get caught would be fine too, because a guard's lawful duty is to guard the mansion, and this overrides any duty to be truthfull to a clearly unlawful thief.

Which is the overarching answer to the titulae question: obligations aren't born equal. For Christ's sake, think of actual law! Duties serving higher principles will trump those serving lower ones and all promises are made within some boundary conditions. A lawful character is not obligated to follow through a promise if something turns up to make that promise untenable, and a lawful character is not obligated to treat with trust or honour those who break trust and honour first, such as in the case with a thief.

Lawful Evil types would be especially draconian about this. For example, a smart devil striking a deal would make that deal with very stringent conditions and in a way that allows them to screw over the other party if that party violates said conditions.

For Lawful Good types, the highest principle should be life and safety of other beings, implemented so that it leads to greatest good to the greatest number. So any order or any promise that needlessly puts lifes at risk should be considered illegitimate. This, by the way, is why Paladins can act against a Lawful Evil ruler.

[Tron Troll]

To Quote DR. Gregory House: Every Body Lies.

Yes, a lawful person is far, far, far, far, far more likely to ''keep their word'' and avoid lies.....but that does not mean they won't break their word or tell a lie ever.

A lawful person has a code, and quite often follows the local law. A cop is a great example: he has a code about lying or such to cops and obeys the law......mostly. But for example, he might lie to criminals...they don't meet the standard of their 'code'. And when they break the law, they will try to do it 'lawfully' (with plausible deniability).

And Lawful Evil...well, you can never trust an evil person. Ever. Sure they might not lie and might keep their word.....or not. And sure, they are likely to try a 'trick' or 'word play'....but they don't have too.

[redwizard007]

Saying liars are all chaotic is like saying murderers are all evil and then playing D&D.

Sure, lying is probably a chaotic act, but cumstances can easily make it the best option for a lawful character. If on the other hand lying is the default option for every situation, then we may have an argument for alignment change.

[Reliku]

Wow, thanks for all the feedback! :D

I think you are all misinterpreting my question though. I'm not saying a lawful character must never lie, because I do think a lawful character could make a lie or two in various circumstances (examples such as given above: the thief asking the guard where the gold is hidden, the orc warlord asking where the defences are the weakest), a lawful character would lie in that case, that seems perfectly acceptable to me. Unless he's sworn an oath of truth or something, in that case he would have to remain silent.

If lying becomes a default option, or something he does without care, then the character would have to be chaotic or neutral, in my opinion. But a lie occasionally (because they are faced with a situation like above) would not make them unlawful, as long as they're doing it reactively, not proactively. A lawful character can't go to the enemy and make a proactive lie, like say "I'm unarmed, let's just talk", then when he's up close draw a concealed dagger and stab him in the back. That would at the very least make him neutral, and lying about being unarmed would, in my opinion, go against his lawful nature. But a reactive lie, like being interrogated by the enemy: "where are your friends hiding?!" and answering "to the north" while in reality they're in the south, that sounds perfectly acceptable.

No, what I'm debating (with my player), would a lawful character break his promise? Would a lawful character ever, willingly, make a promise, or deal, to do something, and then willingly end up doing something else?

For example: a lawful character makes a deal with the enemy. The enemy keeps his end of the bargain. The character would enjoy a serious advantage if he were to break his promise, but the enemy kept his promise and they made a deal. In my opinion, if a lawful character would break his promise, he would automatically become neutral on the law-chaos spectrum, without question.

If the enemy didn't keep his end of the bargain, then the lawful character would be allowed to not keep his promise either, because you could rule that the deal is voided.

The SRD also says this about Lawful Evil:

"A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises."

The SRD says this about neutral (on the law-chaos spectrum):

"Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others."

The way I interpret this, is that only chaotic characters break their promises whenever they please.

Neutral characters are generally honest, but if it yields significant gain (for them or for their cause), they will break their promise. If faced with a dilemma or a conflict of interest they will break a promise without having to feel bad about it.

Lawful characters do not break their promises if they can do anything about it, and if they absolutely have to because of a conflict of interest or because they are faced with a dilemma, they will feel bad about it.

Does that interpretation make sense?

It is relevant to game mechanics, by the way. The character in question is using an item that requires him to be lawful neutral. If he were neutral neutral, he would not be able to use his item anymore.

[redwizard007]

Wow, thanks for all the feedback! :D

I think you are all misinterpreting my question though. I'm not saying a lawful character must never lie, because I do think a lawful character could make a lie or two in various circumstances (examples such as given above: the thief asking the guard where the gold is hidden, the orc warlord asking where the defences are the weakest), a lawful character would lie in that case, that seems perfectly acceptable to me. Unless he's sworn an oath of truth or something, in that case he would have to remain silent.

If lying becomes a default option, or something he does without care, then the character would have to be chaotic or neutral, in my opinion. But a lie occasionally (because they are faced with a situation like above) would not make them unlawful, as long as they're doing it reactively, not proactively. A lawful character can't go to the enemy and make a proactive lie, like say "I'm unarmed, let's just talk", then when he's up close draw a concealed dagger and stab him in the back. That would at the very least make him neutral, and lying about being unarmed would, in my opinion, go against his lawful nature. But a reactive lie, like being interrogated by the enemy: "where are your friends hiding?!" and answering "to the north" while in reality they're in the south, that sounds perfectly acceptable.

No, what I'm debating (with my player), would a lawful character break his promise? Would a lawful character ever, willingly, make a promise, or deal, to do something, and then willingly end up doing something else?

For example: a lawful character makes a deal with the enemy. The enemy keeps his end of the bargain. The character would enjoy a serious advantage if he were to break his promise, but the enemy kept his promise and they made a deal. In my opinion, if a lawful character would break his promise, he would automatically become neutral on the law-chaos spectrum, without question.

If the enemy didn't keep his end of the bargain, then the lawful character would be allowed to not keep his promise either, because you could rule that the deal is voided.

The SRD also says this about Lawful Evil:

"A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises."

The SRD says this about neutral (on the law-chaos spectrum):

"Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others."

The way I interpret this, is that only chaotic characters break their promises whenever they please.

Neutral characters are generally honest, but if it yields significant gain (for them or for their cause), they will break their promise. If faced with a dilemma or a conflict of interest they will break a promise without having to feel bad about it.

Lawful characters do not break their promises if they can do anything about it, and if they absolutely have to because of a conflict of interest or because they are faced with a dilemma, they will feel bad about it.

Does that interpretation make sense?

It is relevant to game mechanics, by the way. The character in question is using an item that requires him to be lawful neutral. If he were neutral neutral, he would not be able to use his item anymore.

Bro, it's not a straight jacket. It's a tool.

Dwarves drink ale. Elves drink wine. If an elf drinks ale does it become a dwarf?

For the LN magic item, you may want to allow some minor deviations. Maybe it takes an extra action to activate, or it's effect is delayed a round. Maybe it develops an irritating hum. Maybe reduce the bonus by 1. Something like that, until the player begins playing more of a classic LN. Personally, I'd find that an over reaction for this level of deviation, but it's your game.

[DeTess]

Wow, thanks for all the feedback! :D

I think you are all misinterpreting my question though. I'm not saying a lawful character must never lie, because I do think a lawful character could make a lie or two in various circumstances (examples such as given above: the thief asking the guard where the gold is hidden, the orc warlord asking where the defences are the weakest), a lawful character would lie in that case, that seems perfectly acceptable to me. Unless he's sworn an oath of truth or something, in that case he would have to remain silent.

Can you tell me what actually happened in your game so far? What promise has this character broken, or which lies have they told? If, so far, they've spoken mostly the truth, and kept their promises, they're lawful neutral. It sounds like you're having this debate with your player in a vacuum, which is problematic because your player can't tell how they'll react to a specific situation until it happens. If you ask a player whether they'd break a deal with an enemy, even if they came through on their end, and they say 'yes', they might be imagining something completely different to what you're thinking about.

[MoiMagnus]

The dictator that willingly make fake promises to the population (and possibly took power by betraying the previous dictator), but uses its power to enforces a respect of tradition and order, is one of the classical example of Lawful Evil.

I'm not 100% sure it is LE in D&D3.5, because I'm not used to it, though.

[Reliku]

Can you tell me what actually happened in your game so far? What promise has this character broken, or which lies have they told? If, so far, they've spoken mostly the truth, and kept their promises, they're lawful neutral. It sounds like you're having this debate with your player in a vacuum, which is problematic because your player can't tell how they'll react to a specific situation until it happens. If you ask a player whether they'd break a deal with an enemy, even if they came through on their end, and they say 'yes', they might be imagining something completely different to what you're thinking about.

Some background, this player is a good friend of mine. We actually take turns in being the DM and we run two separate games parallel to each other, he plays in my campaign and I play in his. We're both D&D enthusiasts, so we discuss hypothetical situations all the time, haha. His character hasn't lied yet, the character has pretty much lived true to his lawful neutral nature so far. It's just hypothetical! :)

The original discussion came from what happens when you make a deal with a lawful evil creature (such as a devil, or an efreeti). When the time comes for the devil to honor his end of the bargain, I ruled that the devil should keep his word. A devil would not say "HAH, I lied! Too bad!". That's what a demon would do (being chaotic evil), but a lawful creature would not, because the SRD says the following about LE creatures: "He is loath to break laws or promises."

He tried to disprove my point by stating his character would lie for the greater good, even though he is lawful neutral. That peaked my interest, because in my interpretation of lawfulness, lawful creatures do not make promises they do not intend to see through.

If a creature makes promises and only keeps them when it suits him, then he would at the very least be neutral, but even neutral creatures (by the SRD's description) are generally honest and only break their promises when they have a reason to break it. (contrast to chaotic creatures, which break their promises whenever it is convenient for them).

[redwizard007]

Some background, this player is a good friend of mine. We actually take turns in being the DM and we run two separate games parallel to each other, he plays in my campaign and I play in his. We're both D&D enthusiasts, so we discuss hypothetical situations all the time, haha. His character hasn't lied yet, the character has pretty much lived true to his lawful neutral nature so far. It's just hypothetical! :)

The original discussion came from what happens when you make a deal with a lawful evil creature (such as a devil, or an efreeti). When the time comes for the devil to honor his end of the bargain, I ruled that the devil should keep his word. A devil would not say "HAH, I lied! Too bad!". That's what a demon would do (being chaotic evil), but a lawful creature would not, because the SRD says the following about LE creatures: "He is loath to break laws or promises."

He tried to disprove my point by stating his character would lie for the greater good, even though he is lawful neutral. That peaked my interest, because in my interpretation of lawfulness, lawful creatures do not make promises they do not intend to see through.

If a creature makes promises and only keeps them when it suits him, then he would at the very least be neutral, but even neutral creatures (by the SRD's description) are generally honest and only break their promises when they have a reason to break it. (contrast to chaotic creatures, which break their promises whenever it is convenient for them).

Ah. The specifics always make a difference.

You are speaking of extraplanar creatures to whom alignment is a core part of their identities. He is speaking of humanoid realities where alignment is a loose guide. They are wildly different situations, and you are both right.


A humanoid is not a prisoner to alignment the same way a celestial or devil is. That means that while a devil won't likely break a deal (it is possible, but unlikely,) a mortal has considerably more freedom in the matter. That is not to say that Lawful beings routinely go back on their word, but doing so occasionally doesn't necessitate an alignment change. Nor would a chaotic character always break his word. Mortals almost never meet the ideals of an alignment. It's just the reality of the game.

[Jay R]

These are the kinds of questions that tend to lead people into sophistries and unconscious errors to defend their own desires.

I have a discussion with one of my players (D&D 3.5). He's playing a lawful neutral character. His claim is that his character would lie, for the greater good.

This might be true, but it also opens up a huge temptation for the PC to convince himself that something that benefits him is for "the greater good".

Also, bear in mind that in our world, there may be ultimate Good, but it is unknowable (or at least unprovable), as is proven by that fact that we disagree about it. In D&D, it is objective and measurable. So he would have to do it for the greater Good. [Note capital letter.]

And since he's Lawful Neutral, he has no particular focus on the greater Good.

Also, the Lawful character would intend to tell the truth all the time. While something might come up that forces him to break his strict code of truth-telling, if his code doesn't start out as strict, it isn't Lawful. Exceptions might come up, but the Lawful character would try to find a way to tell the truth anyway, perhaps failing to do so in an extreme case. And he would consider that a failure on his part. If he's comfortable with having broken his Lawful code, then he isn't Lawful.

A Neutral character would tell the truth in general, with a perfect willingness to lie when it seems like a good idea -- which is exactly what your player is describing.

I would tell him that if he started lying occasionally, then he wouldn't be the final judge. The gods would determine whether or not it was actually for the greater Good, and whether it was a Lawful action in each situation, and therefore the extent to which it could affect his alignment.

Being Lawful gives you some advantages and some restrictions. If he wants the advantages, he doesn't get to soften the restrictions.

[Mr Blobby]

In this case, I'd simply say: while a Lawful creature would be loathe to lie, a smart one may look for work-around solutions - such as 'failing to mention' key facts, providing 'escape clauses' in their promises or making ones which have criteria which means they can be technically fulfilled while in reality useless. A good example of this could be a Lawful Evil promising 'I will not kill [character]', but not raising a finger or word to stop their giant animal minions from killing them instead.

One of the characters I played - a Lawful Neutral Tiefling - was notorious for this. It got to the stage nobody accepted her word due to the fact she's nearly always find a way to get out of it.

[Segev]

For example: a lawful character makes a deal with the enemy. The enemy keeps his end of the bargain. The character would enjoy a serious advantage if he were to break his promise, but the enemy kept his promise and they made a deal. In my opinion, if a lawful character would break his promise, he would automatically become neutral on the law-chaos spectrum, without question.

This would be a chaotic act, certainly. But one chaotic act doesn't automatically make you go from Lawful to Neutral. A Lawful person will, in general, feel quite bad about doing such a thing (because if he didn't, he probably would be doing it more often and thus wouldn't be Lawful). But he CAN do it, for any reason he wants, and still be Lawful. He's just, not to put too fine a point on it, sinned against his alignment. Evil people can do selfless deeds for people - strangers or loved ones - for any reason they want; it's a good act, but it doesn't instantly redeem them to Neutral (though it might feel weird to them, and embarass them as if they'd done something shameful). Good people can occasionally do bad things without ceasing to be Good (though, again, they'll probably feel guilty about it).

Unless he makes a habit of it, this doesn't make him non-Lawful. It just means he's not a paragon of Lawfulness.

Now, depending how egregious this is, it might be more or less serious a violation. "I'm going to cut this corner or cheat this little thing; maybe he won't even notice" is more mild than "Nope, fooled you; not keeping my end of the bargain." The more he feels betrayed or tricked by the bargain, the easier it is for him to justify breaking his end of it "just this once," too, which would make it LESS of a sin in the sense that it probably doesn't denote a major tendency and comfort with oathbreaking.

If he is doing this frivolously and without qualm, it's a serious sign that he might not be Lawful. It still probably isn't enough, by itself, to nudge his alignment all the way to the middle of the graph, but if it becomes part of a pattern of non-Lawful behavior, especially without remorse or qualm, it does indicate a slide towards (or having always really been) Neutral, or even Chaotic, depending on the nature, frequency, and egrigiousness of his transgressions against Lawfulness.

[LibraryOgre]

Ever? Sure. But a Lawful character has a worldview where your word is generally important, and making too many exceptions starts pushing you towards Chaotic (through neutral, first, of course).

Alignment is not a straightjacket... it is an aggregate description of your ethical and moral choices. IF you are consistently violating your alignment, then you start to slide towards another... but alignments are big places.

If you think of the Great Wheel cosmology, someone who is "Lawful Good" could be found in three different planes... Mount Celestia/Seven Heavens, Arcadia, and Bytopia/Twin Paradises. Now, Arcadia will have some LNs and Bytopia will have some NGs, but if you're LG, you might wind up in any of those three, depending on whether you favored Law, Good, or balanced the two. A LN person might be in Arcadia, Mechanus, or Archeron. If he's lying sometimes for the greater good, it seems like he would be more "northerly", winding up in Arcadia... even though he might be LN. If he's lying a lot, that might shift him towards the Outlands/Concordant Opposition... and, at some point, he's going to find himself losing either the Lawful or the Neutral description, or both.

[MoiMagnus]

Now, depending how egregious this is, it might be more or less serious a violation. "I'm going to cut this corner or cheat this little thing; maybe he won't even notice" is more mild than "Nope, fooled you; not keeping my end of the bargain." The more he feels betrayed or tricked by the bargain, the easier it is for him to justify breaking his end of it "just this once," too, which would make it LESS of a sin in the sense that it probably doesn't denote a major tendency and comfort with oathbreaking.

Continuing on this, a Lawful creature (particularly a LE one) will rather find a way to make the contract invalid than straight up breaking it ("only written contracts count", "you didn't kept your word on that little unrelated stuff, so I don't have to keep my words on that stuff", "contract done when a relative is under death pressure are null of meaning", "I didn't put any time limit to respect my part of the contract", ...)

[zlefin]

Hey guys,

I have a discussion with one of my players (D&D 3.5). He's playing a lawful neutral character. His claim is that his character would lie, for the greater good. I told him that if that is the case, his character's alignment is true neutral, not lawful neutral. He disagrees, because he claims his character has a moral code (which makes him lawful), and that moral code allows him to lie for the greater good.

To me, that sounds like nonsense. The SRD says: "Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties."

Now I'm not saying a lawful character must always tell the truth on every case every single time. Only paladins do that. But if a lawful character makes a promise, a deal or an agreement with someone else, he must keep his promise, even if he doesn't want to anymore. Only if it is absolutely impossible to keep a promise, would a lawful character not have to keep it anymore. If the character doesn't keep his promise, for example because he just learned something new that changed the situation, then he would not be a lawful character, then he would be a neutral character. And if the character only keeps his promise when it suits him, and doesn't when it doesn't suit him, then he would be a chaotic character.

A similar question is what happens when you make a deal with a devil (Lawful Evil). He's evil, so he'll try to twist the deal in his advantage. But in my opinion, once the deal is made, the devil MUST keep his end of the bargain, because he is a lawful creature, he must keep his word.

So, great wise men of giantitp, what do you think? Would a lawful creature ever go back on his word? Would a lawful creature ever say he'll do "A" but in reality do "B"?

yes, a lawful creature might go back on their word. especially when you're talking about humans rather than outsiders who're made of the essential nature of lawfulness.
additionally, lawful isn't even well and coherently defined by the game.

to be extra pedantic:
in universe, the alignmentness of the game is defined by the cosmos rather than any deities/powers; and as the DM, one can literally choose to define how they'll act in that cosmology. and you'd be correct, for that cosmology.

[KillianHawkeye]

You said it yourself: "He is loath to break laws or promises."

That means a lawful character doesn't like to break a promise that he's made. It does not mean that he can't, or that he instantly becomes neutral by doing so.

Now, if he adopts a consistent pattern of breaking promises, he might eventually drop from lawful to neutral, but it will take a bit of time because that's honestly not a very big deal.

Remember that your alignment is based more on an amalgamation of everything a character does. It's kind of like taking the average of your intentions and all the things you've ever done. It's very rare that one single act or even a small number of incidents will have a huge impact on one's alignment contrary to one's typical behavior.

[dps]

Imagine an Inspector Javert-type character being assigned to go undercover to infiltrate organized crime. I think we can agree that such a character is LN (he is all about enforcing the law, regardless of whether enforcing the law leads to justice or to tyranny), but in this case, in order to carry out his undercover assignment, he must lie. (And not just to the members of the crime organization he is infiltrating; he will sometimes have to lie to 3rd parties or even other cops.)

[Dimers]

You could vow to never tell the truth and always break promises made to others. And if you follow that code come-what-may, even if it hurts you and your loved ones, whether it helps people or harms them, then you'd be acting Lawful Neutral. The rule comes above everything else!

If it helps, imagine a modron directed to steal, cheat, lie and sow confusion. The modron can't help but act according to its orders, because it's LN. So it does things we would normally associate with Chaotic. (Probably poorly, but that's irrelevant -- it tries.)

It doesn't sound like the character is extremely LN, but you don't need to be extreme to claim the alignment. A modron, he ain't.

[OmSwaOperations]

I think it depends how you conceptualise Law as an idea in your setting.

If you see law as following social and legal norms: probably not.

If you see law as upholding civilisation, order and conformity VS nature, freedom and disunity: it would depend on the circumstances (likely not, given a society where everyone lies to each other all the time is probably not a stable or well ordered one; but there are definitely circumstances where lying would advance order - for instance if you lied to a bunch of orcs about the whereabouts of the town they wanted to raze to the ground).

[redwizard007]

I think it depends how you conceptualise Law as an idea in your setting.

If you see law as following social and legal norms: probably not.

If you see law as upholding civilisation, order and conformity VS nature, freedom and disunity: it would depend on the circumstances (likely not, given a society where everyone lies to each other all the time is probably not a stable or well ordered one; but there are definitely circumstances where lying would advance order - for instance if you lied to a bunch of orcs about the whereabouts of the town they wanted to raze to the ground).

One could fairly easily argue that lies are essential to maintaining a civilized society. "Do these pants make me look fat?" "How are you?""Would you like to look at my vacation pictures?" I would posit that truthful answers are not always conductive to harmony.