Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Tyreal_human_fighter 02-15-08, 12:20 PM	I am playing a half-orc monk and when I start to Roleplay I hit a brick wall in saying things that don't perticularly pertain to my allignment, I want to stay lawful good so any advice on how to play lawful good character better?
darkneolink 02-15-08, 12:32 PM	what things do you say? Remember that LG isn't Lawful-boring orboring good. I had a Pallywho spent as much time aspossible at the local pub (due to a really nice looking lady) joked around about everything (laugh so you don't cry) but if there was a problem and he could do something about it he was the first to get there
Tyreal_human_fighter 02-15-08, 12:40 PM	what things do you say? Remember that LG isn't Lawful-boring orboring good. I had a Pallywho spent as much time aspossible at the local pub (due to a really nice looking lady) joked around about everything (laugh so you don't cry) but if there was a problem and he could do something about it he was the first to get there well I sugested to kill these two corupt guards that were leaving behind items for this caravan that was following us ,and generally things that don't scream crusader of good
kelvinaw273 02-15-08, 01:01 PM	So Lawful = acts in an orderly, methodical and logical fashion. Good = always try to do the right thing. No one says you have to talk nice to people. You can be nasty as hell, hard as nails and give people 'tough love' for their own good.
StevenO 02-15-08, 01:49 PM	To me a lawful good character is someone who puts the good of others ahead of their own. They also follow the respected authority as a representation of the people's will. Despite these two ideas there are a number of ways to play a LG good character and the real key is to stay away from Evil and Chaotic choices. Suggesting you kill some corrupt guards is NOT LG in my book. It may be lawful because they are hurting the group but the Good should tell you that they should be stopped with the least physical harm. Killing them is probably LE and should be avoided. Holding them for judgment by a higher power is probably LN although it can be viewed favorably from either side. The LG approach may be to just banish them although that solution does veer toward a chaotic action as well. Perhaps the most LG solution would be to confront the guards nonviolently if possible to find out the problem and determine the solution from there.
LSMFT 02-15-08, 01:58 PM	When I play a good character, he always tries to consider a non-lethal alternative if possible. Charging orc with a big ax trying to kill me, no. I'm going to fight back in the most efficient way possible, and that is typically with lethal force. Two guys we captured after they left things behind for our enemies? Well, I'm certain that there are other ways to prevent this and keep it from happening again besides killing them. When I play Lawful, the character generally believes that rules, laws, and social order are the best way to get things done. So, when faced with prisoners, he would probably want to deliver them to some sort of legitimate authority. A LG character then is one that generally tries to do good things, avoid evil things, and figures the best way to do that is, 99.99% of the time, through the laws and rules of whatever society he is in. He's not an idiot who thinks that every law will result in good things. Some laws are evil, made by evil guys to do evil things. He doesn't feel some slavish devotion to uphold or follow an evil law.
cjhobbitbane 02-15-08, 02:05 PM	well I sugested to kill these two corupt guards that were leaving behind items for this caravan that was following us ,and generally things that don't scream crusader of good Yeah, killing guards, corrupt or not, is not LG, its more along the lines of LN, or even possibly evil. Paladins are certainly the #1 example of LG chars, but you don have to follow that example of righteousness, you can be lawful by being a hardass on criminals, but good by not just slaying them on the spot. On the other hand, maybe your char has a thing out for a certain type of criminal, say, murderers, its still ok for him to be a little more violent towards them, as long as he doesnt kill them on sight. Innocent until proven guilty, you may detain them, but not charge them.
Shadowshimmer 02-15-08, 03:30 PM	Ahh, the LG Monk question. I consider Kane from the TV show Kung Fu the perfect example of a LG or at least a LG Monk. Use that character as an example and you cannot go wrong.
toucanbuzz 02-15-08, 03:48 PM	Killing guards when they could more easily be brought to justice isn't a LG notion, neither lawful nor good. The Good comes first and the Lawful describes how you go about accomplishing Good. If the Laws would not accomplish Good, then the laws need to be questioned. In any case, that's not your dilemma. If your character was joking around: "Man, the Redskull Tribe woulda just killed these guys," but you indicate you'll be bringing them to justice, you're probably fine. LG folks do crack jokes, they drink, they womanize, they go crazy, but they do it without harming others. If your character was serious, then LG may not be the road your monk is on. Not everything is going to require you use non-lethal damage to see good done, but in a situation where you really have no reason to use violence (yet), there's better ways to illustrate a LG nature.
wonlee76 02-15-08, 04:06 PM	Generally for any lawful PC, I try to set up "10 rules" that he follows. Of course the "rules" will be colored towards the G/N/E angle of the alignment. Example: LG 1 - Killing intelligent creatures is a last resort and/or done only in self defense of myself or others. 2 - I respect and follow the authority of my (insert appropriate organization, group, monastary, school, etc.). 3 - I will not cavort with evil beings unless there are extreme circumstances where I must do so for the greater good. 4 - Torturing, ridiculing or embarressing my enemies is not an honorable way to treat my enemy. 5 - Do unto others as you would want them to do to you. etc. etc. The scope or how strict the rules are is up to your PC. The "key" to being lawful is that once you set the code down, you follow it all the time. Don't veer from it, just do what you wrote. Feel guilty if you ever had to break one of the rules (ie. Seek atonement or forgiveness or whatever).
bloodtalon 02-15-08, 04:37 PM	besides kane look at superman he all ways does the lawfull and good thing even if it comes back and bites him in his butt.
Tequila_Sunrise 02-15-08, 05:51 PM	I am playing a half-orc monk and when I start to Roleplay I hit a brick wall in saying things that don't perticularly pertain to my allignment, I want to stay lawful good so any advice on how to play lawful good character better? What's the character's general personality? I ask because some players have rp trouble because they try to rp their alignment first, which is a problem because alignment is very vague and loose. TS
Shiftkitty 02-15-08, 09:19 PM	Ask yourself "What would Superman do?" I'm not up on if they tweaked his personality for his latest incarnation, but I find myself inspired by the older Superman stories when faced with a moral crisis. If I want to do the right thing, I just wonder what the Man of Steel would do. (My moral choices are also heavily influenced by this game, long story but not as creepy as it sounds.) Superman is a great basis for what LG behavior should be like, IMHO. You just don't have to be a boy scout 24/7. You can be a booze swigging atheist biker hanging out in the seediest joints in the land and still be a good guy.
twad 02-15-08, 09:56 PM	I am playing a half-orc monk and when I start to Roleplay I hit a brick wall in saying things that don't perticularly pertain to my allignment, I want to stay lawful good so any advice on how to play lawful good character better? Play you character like the nice, helpfull, honest, smart, clever and ressourcefull individual he is. And dont forget; lies can get you far when used against your ennemies. The laws of the land are not YOUR laws, but you might tend to follow them, if only to stay on the guards good side.
the dmg 02-16-08, 03:03 AM	well I sugested to kill these two corupt guards that were leaving behind items for this caravan that was following us ,and generally things that don't scream crusader of good Aside from them leaving a trail for the enemy, was there any other actions they may have done that would have warranted your LG Monk to propose killing them?
KyoMamoru 02-16-08, 05:04 AM	Asking what would Superman do would be placing your character into near Exalted status...
Vaelan 02-16-08, 12:34 PM	Attitude does not follow from alignment; alignment follows from attitude. Rather than starting with a personality and assigning an alignment, you are starting with an alignment and trying to assign a personality. Not only is this highly ineffective, as you have already noticed, but it also tends to lead to one-dimensional personalities that most people do not find even remotely interesting. I would suggest altering your approach, possibly even starting from scratch. Personality first, then alignment as a descriptor.
Zappy 02-16-08, 01:45 PM	Innocent until proven guilty, you may detain them, but not charge them. Only if your game takes place in the American Justice System. Actual laws in other places may vary. The campaign may take place in a land where killing murderers on the spot is acceptable. As would chopping the hands off of thieves.
Shiftkitty 02-16-08, 07:31 PM	Zappy has a good point. As an American playing in America with American players, we tend to throw at least a light dusting of the Constitution onto things when they aren't specifically described otherwise. It can make for some interesting expressions on players' faces when they assume American rights in a game world that never heard the phrase "We the People..." NPC: What the heck did you do that for? You know they're gonna bust you! ROGUE: They've got no proof. NPC: They don't need proof! ROGUE: 'Innocent until proven guilty', you know. NPC: What the hell are you smoking? When the duke says you did something, you did it! My favorite line from an actual session came from a 2e Fighter/Thief who was ordered to place himself in the King's service at the start of a war (read: he got drafted): PC: Yeah right. Like the King can tell me what to do! This was followed by stunned silence. PC: What? He awoke the next morning in a cell with an aching head and a bellowing sergeant standing over him.
bobothechimp 02-16-08, 07:50 PM	I played a LG psychic warrior as a "detect + smite" kind of guy, except without the detecting or smiting, just getting ****** off and attempting to hack up anyone who did evil things around him. I learned that noblemen really don't like adventurers attacking them in their own homes. Jerk asked for it.
Urithair 02-16-08, 10:43 PM	What would Samurai Jack do? "You can be nasty as hell" Disregard for the personal feelings of others is a neutral or evil trait, not a good one.
justicar347 02-17-08, 12:26 AM	Being Lawful Good is easy if you remember these simple tips: GOOD: You do the right thing even if it ain't easy or you don't want to. LAWFUL: You are consistant and put a lot of stock in honor. LAWFUL GOOD: You don't break laws unnesisarily and try to protect people. That is a simple guide line. You don't have to be nice, polite, or even empathetic. Just show a little mercy, be honest, and act like your mother is watching your every step.
Roivas 02-17-08, 07:37 PM	3 examples of lawful good characters I have played. #1 Mithos Yggdrasil, lawful good paladin of Heironeous: Complete and total wuss when it came to any matters outside fighting evil, always more than willing to forgive and actively tried to save every creature we encountered, refused to kill any sentient creature [or allow the killing of]. #2 Reiard Jenova, lawful good psion [telepath]: Raised from birth in an evil society by her mother [who secretly taught her the value of being good and just using telepathy] Reiard was a powerful force against evil. She had few qualms about killing foes but would accept their surrender if they tried to give up, but would frequently charm or dominate people she saw as threats to better control them. While having problems with evil actions she saw no reason to allow evil to have free will and would rob them of it with a thought. Also considered lying to others an acceptable alternative to them knowing the full truth and being harmed by it. #3 Deacon Vorbis, lawful good knight: Seemingly cruel and callous Deacon was a warrior with whom a person could find little middle ground enemies were dealt with through all the force he could muster, while those who needed protection were given little choice in the matter. He had no desire to explain his actions to other instead letting the gods judge his actions as they saw fit. In combat little would escape his blades and he rarely told his enemy that mercy was an option. His cold demeanor kept him, in his mind pure to judge and meat out justice according to his own personal ethics without debate, a better proposition for all since he was in favor of righteous anger. All three were in my opinion perfect examples of how alignment does not dictate action. Play your character as best you can but feel free to do things that are not perfectly consistent with your alignment.
Wargamer 02-18-08, 10:32 AM	This is where I think just sitting down and discussing what "Lawful" and "Good" mean with the DM. I have long since given up on the idea that "Good", in its purest and most altruistic form, has any place in D&D, particularly when just about any and every spinoff uses the simple maxim of "it's okay to murder women and children, so long as they are Evil Alligned women and children." So, here's my take. Good is, as said earlier, acting for the benefit of others before yourself. Neutral, in my mind, is acting for yourself above others. Evil, conversely, is acting for yourself with no regard to others. So, in this example; killing the Guards because they are corrupt and evil is Good, in my view. Killing them because they standing between you and rescuing Generic Princess #3 is Neutral. Killing them because you got bored is Evil. Now as for Lawful... again, we can argue the toss here. I generally define Lawful as someone who rigidly adheres to "The Rules". Invariably, these Rules will not be written down, and quite often never exist anywhere outside of said person's head. So, here we have a trickier time. According to The Rules by which your Monk lives, is it wrong to kill someone who is 'bad' when you could potentially arrest them? Is arresting people even his job (and therefore part of "The Rules")?
Lincoln Hills 02-18-08, 02:56 PM	Choose to do what is right... not what is easy. (Sometimes they're the same thing, but that's so darn rare that I think you can generally assume that it's not going to happen.) :( Remember: it's better to buy the farm yourself than for others to suffer because you held back. Be a good soldier. While your character (assuming he's reasonably intelligent) knows he will never achieve personal moral perfection, he should wake up each morning with the ambition of making Good and/or Law just a little bit stronger in the world by the time he goes to sleep.
GroundZero0523 02-18-08, 03:26 PM	I played a Half-Orc Monk once. One of my most favorite characters of all-time, mostly because my DM allowed me to dip into a few of OA's and Rokugan's feats. But, alas, if you actually read through the Hero Builder's Guidebook(HeeBeeGeeBee as some of us know it), you'll see that Half-Orc Monks make far better LN and LE alignments. Klevok(Clay-vawk), was LN in my case, and I haven't played a more fun character since :)
Roivas 02-18-08, 03:36 PM	Choose to do what is right... not what is easy. (Sometimes they're the same thing, but that's so darn rare that I think you can generally assume that it's not going to happen.) :( Remember: it's better to buy the farm yourself than for others to suffer because you held back. Be a good soldier. While your character (assuming he's reasonably intelligent) knows he will never achieve personal moral perfection, he should wake up each morning with the ambition of making Good and/or Law just a little bit stronger in the world by the time he goes to sleep. Self sacrifice sounds good on paper but in practice is rarely as good as it sounds. Just because you're lawful good doesn't mean you can't fear death and will happily leap into the dragon's mouth for your friends. Some characters might be this altruistic but if all lawful good characters were this eager to please you wouldn't have too many kings of this alignment. Just because you want to do good in the world doesn't mean you are willing to sacrifice yourself for it. Personally I wouldn't step up to die to save the rest of the party but would try as hard as possible to save everyone. A blanket statement for any alignment doesn't work, people vary too much in belief, values, and personality to say what an alignment will always do in any given situation.
Shiftkitty 02-18-08, 03:49 PM	In one of his rare fits of decent roleplaying, my brother had a rogue character who sacrificed himself out of spite. They had to ram this magical lance into the heart of the BBEG to fully kill him, but I inadverntently made the BBEG too powerful for the party. His zone of defense was too great and the party couldn't get near him without dying. His NE rogue, for whom life sucked anyway (too many people looking for his head on a platter), grabbed the lance from the cleric (who was about to sacrifice himself for the good of the party, said something like "You're a good man, padre. You need to keep up your good work." He then gave a hellacious battle cry that my folks heard upstairs and came down to investigate who'd gotten hurt, and charged the BBEG in an insane, over-the-top frontal assault. He made his rolls and just before the BBEG disintegrated him, the lance struck home. It was a truly cinematic event. The surviving party members had to get out as the caverns started collapsing around them (they were held up by the evil power of the BBEG), and as they pulled themselves from the rubble, the cleric erected a small plaque in honor of Zedick's sacrifice. I'm not sure what alignment that fell into. It was sort of self-serving, since his life was the pits anyway, but it was definitely a good act.
Optimator 02-19-08, 07:31 AM	One trick I use and tell others I know to use is this: Don't picture your character as one alignment (LG). Picture him as Good as well as Lawful. Separate the two and go from there. What is a Lawful character like? Orderly, consistent, potentially stubborn, cares about the "rules", etc. What is a Good character like? Altruistic, um... well, that one isn't too hard to picture. The alignment-splitting works wonders for me.
High Octane 02-20-08, 08:49 PM	You feel a great obligation to help others. - Lawful Good Helping people is in your nature. - Neutral Good You help when you can cause you like to not cause you have to. - Chaotic Good
arizonahotrock 02-20-08, 09:41 PM	I'm not sure I can offer you much help on the "good" side of things...because I tend to play "good" characters like a human dealing with an orc in the Warcraft universe...I will kill the orc because he is "evil" thus I am "good." That's not really the best example of a good human being...which is why I tend to stay neutral. In regards to lawful, the two characters I have played the most were both Lawful (a samurai and a knight...stereotypical, huh?) but my DM and I had a long discussion of what it meant to be "lawful" especially since this current character and campaign has us breaking a lot of an empire's laws, despite the empire being corrupt. But, the way he and I decided to handle "lawful" is being true and strict to a code or system of beliefs. If I'm not breaking my knight's code, but am breaking the law...it's good in his eyes. As for a monk, I believe that if you are lawful, you are true to your deity and your order above all else.
Revan54115110 02-20-08, 10:24 PM	Well my best example of lawful good is Lancelot from Monty Python and the Holy Grail and just ask yourself what would he do ?
nowiwantmydmg 02-21-08, 03:12 PM	3 examples of lawful good characters I have played. #1 Mithos Yggdrasil Booooo! Get your own name. In response to the topic at hand: Good comes first(and not the end justifies the means; kill one to save a thousand kind-That's LE) And the lawfulness-an adherence to some sort of codified behavioural structure whether of the land or self ingranied. Within that framework you can play it a myraid of ways, from pompous asshat. to merciful convert my enemies. to nice to everyone guy. to clueless goober with his head so far up his ass........
Lincoln Hills 02-22-08, 04:47 PM	...Just because you're lawful good doesn't mean you can't fear death and will happily leap into the dragon's mouth for your friends. Some characters might be this altruistic but if all lawful good characters were this eager to please you wouldn't have too many kings of this alignment... All right, Roivas: I'll concede that somebody can be Lawful Good without seeking out destruction. In fact, a Lawful Good character will not do so blindly - life is as sweet to a LG character as it is to a NE one - and will use whatever power, brains and skill he's got to figure out a way to win with less sacrifice. But the essence of lawful good, particularly for a powerful hero, is the willingness to pay that price if it becomes unavoidable. In part I was using the "Soldier" terms of Lawful Good because I heard the OP say "half-orc". Perhaps this is a Gandhi-style half-orc who believes that any non-violent means of resolution is preferable to the sinful stain of violence...? Perhaps.
Kimokeo 02-22-08, 11:03 PM	You have a standard group. Four characters. The DM states "no evil characters. The campaign is good vs. evil. Choose good-aligned or leaning characters." So, the party has four characters. Paladin-LG Wizard-CG Rogue-CG Cleric-NG Corrupt guards up ahead. So, you think the Paladin shouldn't and wouldn't kill the guards. But, the others party members will. That's typical in the game. Does any of the three other characters get a warning from the DM for their act? I doubt it. That's the problem with Alignment and Paladins. It's easy to point to the Paladin and declare violations of alignment. But, when you have no Paladins in the group and you have LG, LN, CG, NG, they will do everything a Paladin wouldn't that violates either Lawful or Good and there is no penalty whatsoever. I have seen characters who definitely are not playing strictly by alignment. Generally, a good group will have bad thoughts and actions -but is it dominating the game? Most games I've been in, it isn't. So, the characters are usually Lawful and usually Good - most of the time. There are the occassional flawed acts. If the DM doesn't punish them, the Paladin shouldn't be either. There has to be some common sense used. Would a Paladin flank? Attack from behind or higher elevation? How about burning oil? Does the party ever do anything that would make a Paladin leave the group? That last question is significant. I can't imagine a group a Paladin could stay in, ever, if the occassional sin requires atonement. By such strictness, the Paladin should bring the party members to justice.
themocaw 02-24-08, 03:44 PM	I once played a character named Roy Siegfried (yeah, I know) who was a lawful good paladin who started off with two levels of fighter. My argument for why that was (aside from needing the bonus feats) was that he had been a mercenary soldier who, after nearly dying in battle, cried out to Torm that he would devote his life to the god's service if he'd save his life. Afterwards, he was kinda stuck in it, and because he was a decent sort, and he didn't really like the idea of a god being mad at him, he went and became a paladin. Roy was, honestly, a bit of a jerk. He was a womanizer, prideful, and constantly tended to focus more on destroying evil than trying to uphold the standards of a paladin. His commander basically beat him over the head when he proposed things like "Maybe we should murder the orcish prisoners," and told him to go and do penance for it. Which he would gladly do, knowing what he'd done was wrong. When it came to battle, however, he was a force of nature. He struggled through the more ambiguous situations, never able to quite understand what he had to do in order to uphold his vows, but when it came to evil that was just so pure that there could be no ambiguity (like the dragon that went around eating babies) he would just go to town. I like the idea someone came up with earlier of coming up with ten principles your character will live by, then running them by your DM and seeing if he agrees.
Vaelan 02-24-08, 07:14 PM	Corrupt guards up ahead. So, you think the Paladin shouldn't and wouldn't kill the guards. But, the others party members will. That's typical in the game. If the corrupt guards attack them, the Paladin would certainly fight back. As for killing corrupt guards, many Good characters would choose not to kill them in such a coincidental meeting and would instead plan a campaign of killing corrupt guards. There are the occassional flawed acts. If the DM doesn't punish them, the Paladin shouldn't be either. First of all, an alignment change isn't a punishment. Second, Paladins are held to higher standards than normal people. Any Evil act causes them to fall, while Good people have more leeway. There has to be some common sense used. Would a Paladin flank? Attack from behind or higher elevation? How about burning oil? Yes. Does the party ever do anything that would make a Paladin leave the group? No. There is no One True Path of Good. The Paladin should be capable of seeing that while he may personally disagree with their views, they are all trying to do Good. That last question is significant. I can't imagine a group a Paladin could stay in, ever, if the occassional sin requires atonement. By such strictness, the Paladin should bring the party members to justice. Well apparently you think a lot of really odd things are 'sins'.