Post/Author/DateTime	Post
beowulf13 10-15-06, 07:41 PM	so my friend and I are in a debate about his class he has a half-elf monk which is lawful nuetral...which in my idea has to act according to societies law but he says that he is only bound by the law of himself as in he can do what he wants as longs as it is not wrong in his characters eyes....which one of us is correct?
Fithero 10-15-06, 08:12 PM	oh god... youve opened pandora's box here kid...:gah: As for your questiong, id say your both right... a lawfull alignment to me means that you are just a steady, if not predictable person. You dont act eratically and your actions tend to be pretty linear (spelling?) Thats just the way its played in my groups games.... monks tend to follow their own set of codes and laws, only abiding a town/cities laws out of convienance. Hope this helps some. Peace
Branto 10-15-06, 09:33 PM	Well, the definition of Law and Chaos (as well as good and evil, too) are all subject to interpretation. Before deciding which a character is, it's typically a good idea to check with how they are defined in the DM's campaign, for consistency... otherwise, pick a definition and stick with it. Personally, I define Law as basically the essence of peace and order. So going by that definition, a lawful neutral character would try and do whatever possible to keep the peace and prevent drastic change... which is most often simply to follow the actual written laws that the kingdom he's in or the religion he follows has set. The difficult thing about playing a lawful neutral is when maintaining order demands an exceedingly good or evil act.. since an invasion of demons into a kingdom or a group of noble-hearted rebels trying to overthrow a kingdom's evil dictator would BOTH be chaotic events (one obviously good and the other obviously evil, however), your character would be just as likely compelled to stop either.
Stormbrand 10-15-06, 10:44 PM	Lawful is believing in the inherent RIGHTNESS of rules and order. They believe society is entitled to make laws and they are the best way to make things work. Lawful is similar to the belief that 'personal is not the same as important' - that you cannot just go with what you want to do - you have responsibilities, duties, and honour. Inconvenient things like that. The alignment your character is proposing is Chaotic Good, although unlikely to want to play it that way.
steenan 10-17-06, 03:03 AM	There is one more way to see it. Our DM defines ethical axis as reflecting rather temperament, than attitude: Lawful character generally thinks before he acts, makes plans and follows them, is consistent. He lives ordered life, doesn't like mess and disorder. He appreciates physical and spiritual purity. He takes most things very seriously, doesn't have good sense of humor. He tends to judge others and their acts, clearly pointing good and wrong. He respects tradition and social order. He generally upholds local laws, either out of conformism or not to cause discord. He is concrete and precise; he doesn't care about intentions and ideas, only facts. He is curteous and polite, even when strongly opposing his interlocutor. He respects and obeys his superiors; he demands the same respect and obedience from his subordinates. He respects his own word; he rarely gives oaths and promises, but when he does, he keeps them, even when it's inconvenient. Of course, the behaviour determines alignment, not the other way around. It means that a lawful character doesn't have to show all the traits listed above - but to stay lawful he should have at least half of those characteristics.
EcthelionKarakse 10-19-06, 08:18 PM	so my friend and I are in a debate about his class he has a half-elf monk which is lawful nuetral...which in my idea has to act according to societies law but he says that he is only bound by the law of himself as in he can do what he wants as longs as it is not wrong in his characters eyes....which one of us is correct? I didnt say necessarily the "law of myself" I meant my character's code of honor, which he learned in his dojo/monastery from his sensei. Fithero and Steenan are both right, in my interpretation.
camirblu 10-19-06, 08:36 PM	Another interpretation is a partial loss of self. A lawful society could emphasize the importance and well-being of the greater whole rather than the individual. For example, a lawful church could be seen as more likely to be organized, have more specific ranks for its clergy, and so on and so forth. IE, there's a focus on the organization and the order it brings. They may disagree with another organization, or a lawful individual may disagree with another lawful individual, but they agree that a system of order is better than none. Now, they might fight over what that "system" should be, but. ;) Members of a chaotic organization or alignment might believe something strongly but theirs is more the shining moment of an individual's forceful effort. I would think, since chaos tends less towards organization, theirs would naturally be a "looser" organization and therefore have to rely more on individual effort. Not that a lawful character couldn't still take the spotlight, they're just more likely to bring their friends/organization with them, and everything that entails. That's another interpretation.
Branto 10-20-06, 12:30 AM	Another interpretation is a partial loss of self. A lawful society could emphasize the importance and well-being of the greater whole rather than the individual. Your interpretation is interesting, but to me that sounds too much like a Lawful = Good and Chaotic = evil sort of thing. I mean, how exactly can someone be Lawful Evil if the Lawful part means they are concerned with the greater good? :P
EcthelionKarakse 10-20-06, 02:57 AM	Your interpretation is interesting, but to me that sounds too much like a Lawful = Good and Chaotic = evil sort of thing. I mean, how exactly can someone be Lawful Evil if the Lawful part means they are concerned with the greater good? :P poor wording on his part, he should have said concerned with the greater order. however he is right in the message of his post, a lawful evil character could be a twisted politician, he plays the game, but does so to his advantage, or plays it well enough to hurt others for pleasure
roll8dn 10-20-06, 10:14 PM	My personal take on Lawful Neutral is that it is the everyman's alignment. Take Bill the Blacksmith. He loves his family and cares for his close friends. His acquaintances he'll do a favor for every now and again, but he won't go out of his way for those that he doesn't know. He follows the laws of the land, for he believes that they are mostly just and are the laws in any case. He believes that they bring order to the land and keep ne'er-do-wells from becoming larger problems than they already are. Bill is probably interested in work, family, beer, and stability (most likely in that order). Of course, that's just my personal opinion.
beowulf13 10-20-06, 10:28 PM	My personal take on Lawful Neutral is that it is the everyman's alignment. Take Bill the Blacksmith. He loves his family and cares for his close friends. His acquaintances he'll do a favor for every now and again, but he won't go out of his way for those that he doesn't know. He follows the laws of the land, for he believes that they are mostly just and are the laws in any case. He believes that they bring order to the land and keep ne'er-do-wells from becoming larger problems than they already are. Bill is probably interested in work, family, beer, and stability (most likely in that order). Of course, that's just my personal opinion. that was my take on it and this isnt a im right your wrong aspect its just a guide fyi sort of thing
MalakiTyrel 10-21-06, 12:53 AM	I've always played Lawful Neutral as characters that adhere to laws because they are laws and not because those laws are good or evil. The character is more concerned with upholding the law (whatever that law may be) and less concerned whether the laws are just or fair. In other words, I've always played them like an IRS agent or other government worker. :P Bureaucrats are the perfect model for lawful neutral IMO. Police officers fit here as well. If the law is changed (by those with the power to do so), the character will continue to uphold the law -- even if change makes the law the exactly opposite of what it was before. The idea is that laws give order and prevent chaos. Good and evil is not a concern.
camirblu 10-23-06, 11:20 PM	<Quote> awful = Good and Chaotic = evil </quote> Could be one interpretation, but the chaos could also be the actual force of good. IE, the one who goes in there and can see the defects in the system, and has enough charisma/force of personality/belief to be the hero and go in there and fix them. In some interpretations, it could be said that the LN character has one of the most difficult roles. Imagine a society that has to work with both good and evil factions and virtues. The lawful neutral character then has to work with both sides, but can become attached to neither one nor the other. Say that they have to work with and develop a system that supports both. In this role, they are more than a "balancing force;" their focus is on keeping the society operating. It's believing that a balance of what they view as "extreme" ideals is the ideal. Think of it as someone trying to find a balance between two extremes, within a set of laws, and trying to make it all work. It's one hell of a balancing act. It's one helluva headache. There are lots of ways the LN concept can be played, it just depends on your interpretation and goals. Myself, I view them as one of the most challenging alignments out there, and enjoy the execution. ;)