Essentially, as far as I can tell, a Lawful Neutral character is a character who obeys a recognized system of Authority in all their actions, that is a character pretty much without Autonomy, who does not have a morality as such, but simply an amoral obedience to a recognized system of Authority, which is based upon some amoral criteria. A Lawful Neutral character does not obey an Authority because he recognizes or trusts in it's moral goodness, (which would be Lawful Good), or because he judges it to serve his own personal interests against others (which would be Lawful Evil), but because he recognizes it as Legitimate, according to his own Political and Social Theory about the world.
Essentially such a character is basically the perfect pawn, a perpetual tool of others, incapable of actually exercising any kind of freedom, except perhaps the freedom to decide what constitutes Legitimacy and then slavishly follow it.
The most Dangerous Alignment?
They are potentially the most dangerous characters that actually exist, for this reason alone. Two Lawful Neutral factions, fighting over what is the Legitimate authority, would fight to the bitter end.
Two Lawful Good factions would reach a compromise, understanding that their conflicts hurts others and achieving peace would be the right thing to do.
Two Lawful Evil factions would eventually understand that the costs of continuing the conflict, outweigh the benefits of winning.
But since the Lawful Neutral character does place follow either his self-interest or the wellbeing of others, they potentially create the most devastating and lengthy wars, when the issue of the Legitimacy of government over a certain place (very common) is at stake. Precisely because a Lawful Neutral cares more for Legitimacy, than he does for his own or others wellbeing, he would fight to the bitter end.
The other thing is that Lawful Neutrals give stability to groups of Evil beings, because they remove the need for footsoldiers that care about there own interests, thus being tempted to betray their own masters. The Evil beings could occupy all the positions of Authority, with the Lawful Neutral beings, doing all the dirty work, thus stabilizing the Evil group, by giving all evil beings an incentive to co-operate, the maintenance of their Collective power.
Evil minions (especially Chaotic ones) are also unlikely to want make personal sacrifices for other beings, this would make them highly cowardly when their own power and wealth is not at stake. An army of Lawful Neutral beings on the other hands, would be extremely brave, while the Evil Beings, having their own power and wealth at stake, would be motivated not to run away.
What is a Lawful Neutral leader like?
An interesting dilemma for a Lawful Neutral being, is what would a Lawful Neutral ruler actually be like or do?
Well essentially such a Leader would be extremely weak. The reason is that incapable of making their own autonomous judgments, in other words incapable of Freedom, such a being would have to create or find a source of Authority higher to himself, even if no such Authority actually exists.
Because of the necessity of an external authority for such a being to function, they would become someone or others tool, because of their ability to manipulate and thus essentially become whatever external authority the Lawful Neutral being is following.
Since the being must serve an external code, in an entirely impartial manner, it basically means that whatever authorities decide the interpretation of whatever that code is, would have effectively complete power (indirectly) over the ruler.
The other option is to elevate some group, to a direct position of technical authority over them, in other words they see themselves as servants of the democratic or oligarchic assembly, or a religious organization. This has pretty much the same effects, but allows for a possibly more stable system to arise, by officially marginalizing the ruler.
The strongest Lawful Neutral ruler possible, would actually be one who bases his rule on something like a religious text and has a vast knowledge and understanding of the historical background and context of the text, which would allow him to arrive at his own (intellectual) judgments as to the meaning of the text, bypassing the normal reliance upon for instance clergy, for interpreting the text, thus stopping them getting any kind of influence over him.
In other words, the strongest possible Lawful Neutral leader, would a sort of DIY extreme religious fundamentalist, applying religious laws without moral judgment or advice from others.
Lawful Neutral, "Judge"
A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.
Lawful neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you are reliable and honorable without being a zealot.
I disagree vehemently with your interpretation. As noted in the alignment description, LN characters are not necessarily slaves to (or even guided by) the laws of any particular organization, but may instead cleave to a private sense of what is right. If a LN character receives an order from his leader that conflicts with the law, does he follow the order or does he follow the law? LN characters are no less capable of exercising free will than characters of any other alignment.
I think what you've presented is one possible interpretation of LN but it's not necessarily the only possible interpretation. As always, the alignment system is very broad and undefined.
For example, you seem to say Law = Always Obeys External Authority and Chaos = Always Obeys Inner Self. I don't think that's always true. The Law/Chaos axis is just as much about how much value a character places on order as it is about how they make decisions.
A lawful neutral king might declare murder to be punishable by death. Therefore if the king murdered someone he would be put to death as well because the law is above the king. Such a king would have specific exceptions to the rules such as murder in service to the state (assassins), but if one of these assassins murdered someone for reasons other than service of the state they would be held accountable.
One of the most helpful things I ever read about Lawful Neutral was in Complete Scoundrel. It declared that James Bond would be considered Lawful Neutral. This makes a lot of sense to me. James Bond is willing to kill or be killed in the service of his nation: the authority that he views as legitimate.
Lawful neutral characters make outstanding minions (as you correctly point out) for good or evil organizations. They bring stability and loyalty by buying into the legitimacy of the agency that they serve. They also would be willing to take actions to benefit the organization that the organization itself might not normally sanction (such as an evil act to serve a good agency).
Try to remember that cities are usually considered LN because they have laws and courts and expect all people to abide by them. A LN leader is useful if the campaign is set up that his reputation for not lying (assuming he doesn't) is able to come before him. Other then that, or a devotion to Law that is needed I don't find LN is any better or worse then any other alignment I have played. I've played them all. A LN ruler, such as a king, could be very strong in that he has expectations of his people or his country or that again his reputation could go out across the lands saying that he is a fair and just king. Lawful is a tendency not only to follow the local law, but an honour to tradition or a personal code, or a predictable tendency in their dealings. As for the Neutral part, well, it may mean that they simply do not put effort into being good, or evil, and find those notions silly. Or it may be that they find LN (the devotion to Law) transcends normal moral issues.
I disagree vehemently with your interpretation. As noted in the alignment description, LN characters are not necessarily slaves to (or even guided by) the laws of any particular organization, but may instead cleave to a private sense of what is right. If a LN character receives an order from his leader that conflicts with the law, does he follow the order or does he follow the law? LN characters are no less capable of exercising free will than characters of any other alignment.
I like the 2nd edition description of Lawful Neutral better actually, it makes more concrete sense. The new one actually states that Lawful Neutral is best, which really doesn't make sense, since an individual that fanatically follows a code without moral consideration IS the very definition of a Zealot.
A Lawful Neutral character cannot cling to a personal sense of what is right, else they would be Lawful Good.
The difference between the two alignments, is simply the amoral nature of the Lawful Neutral characters obedience, ruling out any kind of internal moral code.
I see a distinctive tendency to try and turn Lawful Neutral characters into Lawful Good characters, by moralizing their own codes. A Lawful Neutral character with a private sense of Moral Law, is a Lawful Good character.
You are correct, in that a Lawful Neutral character has a choice as to what Law to obey, but he cannot consciously exercise that choice, without ceasing to be Lawful Neutral. Lawful Neutral characters go to Mechanus when they die for a reason. That reason is that they turned their backs on their own free will during their lives. Thus for all eternity they will reside in a place where all is regimented and controlled and orderly.
Interesting take on Lawful Neutral, but I must disagree that a Lawful Neutral ruler would be inherently any weaker than any other alignment. A Lawful Neutral leader would not necessarily have to find a code of conduct outside of himself, he would however have to be consistent with the code that he put forth. In other words, he would hold his own laws above himself.
If you are referring to Lawful in general, the above follows, but Lawful Neutral characters in particular lack any internal code, except a code based upon something external. They are bound to obey something outside of themselves, some power or force that commands them. That something can also be 'inside' them as well and govern their moral decision but it is purely external in origin.
A lawful neutral king might declare murder to be punishable by death. Therefore if the king murdered someone he would be put to death as well because the law is above the king. Such a king would have specific exceptions to the rules such as murder in service to the state (assassins), but if one of these assassins murdered someone for reasons other than service of the state they would be held accountable.
A Lawful Neutral character however would never commit murder against the Law, if he did so he would become a different alignment.
The interesting issue however is the higher law thing, if they Lawful Neutral King murdered someone, you would consider himself as serving a higher law and thus would not be bound by "lesser" laws.
One of the most helpful things I ever read about Lawful Neutral was in Complete Scoundrel. It declared that James Bond would be considered Lawful Neutral. This makes a lot of sense to me. James Bond is willing to kill or be killed in the service of his nation: the authority that he views as legitimate.
James Bond is Lawful Neutral definitely, because he obeys his instructions without moral conscience, but is also lacking in evil intent or ambition. However he also murders his boss at one point, so you could simply consider him Lawful Evil, although he was obeying his bosses own instruction maybe (he had to get a certain number of kills).
Lawful neutral characters make outstanding minions (as you correctly point out) for good or evil organizations. They bring stability and loyalty by buying into the legitimacy of the agency that they serve. They also would be willing to take actions to benefit the organization that the organization itself might not normally sanction (such as an evil act to serve a good agency).
Actually, Lawful Neutrals are of doubtful use to a Good Agency because a great deal of oversight is required to ensure they don't end up committing acts of evil, because they misunderstood the nature of the instructions and in the worst case may decide to obey their own misunderstandings of the Good organizations rules, above the their individual Good bosses.
An interesting variation of Lawful Neutral would be the 'Changeling'. The Changeling is a character that simply adopts the alignment of whoever dominates the social environment he is in. So in an social environment dominated by criminals he becomes a criminal, while in a social environment dominated by Law-abiding people he is Law-abiding.
Such a character is not governed by an establish Law as such, but the implicit law of the social environment he is in.
Interviews with the soldier have been released saying they were, "Just following orders." Either out of fear or because it was their national government giving them orders, they did atrocious things.
This looks like a perfect example of Lawful Evil individuals ruling over a Lawful Neutral collective.
A Lawful Neutral character cannot cling to a personal sense of what is right, else they would be Lawful Good.
...snip...
I see a distinctive tendency to try and turn Lawful Neutral characters into Lawful Good characters, by moralizing their own codes. A Lawful Neutral character with a private sense of Moral Law, is a Lawful Good character.
This is just not true. A Lawful Neutral character can have a personal sense of what is right, their definition of right just might not fit the universal definition of good (as presented in D&D). That is they may believe that murder in the service of their code is right and just.
If you are referring to Lawful in general, the above follows, but Lawful Neutral characters in particular lack any internal code, except a code based upon something external. They are bound to obey something outside of themselves, some power or force that commands them. That something can also be 'inside' them as well and govern their moral decision but it is purely external in origin.
A Lawful Neutral character however would never commit murder against the Law, if he did so he would become a different alignment.
This same argument can be made for all of the alignments. Good and evil are external ideals in D&D represented by gods, angels, and fiends. A Lawful Neutral character certainly could commit murder against the Law if the Law (that is the legal system of the land) is not what he has sworn to uphold. A lawful neutral character would not likely commit murder against their own code, but their personal code might not preclude murder at all.
The interesting issue however is the higher law thing, if they Lawful Neutral King murdered someone, you would consider himself as serving a higher law and thus would not be bound by "lesser" laws.
This doesn't fit with a Lawful Neutral ruler to me, this is a lawful evil ruler (one who uses law to oppress others). A lawful neutral ruler puts order and law ahead of all things, so they would be bound by their own laws as much as anyone else.
Actually, Lawful Neutrals are of doubtful use to a Good Agency because a great deal of oversight is required to ensure they don't end up committing acts of evil, because they misunderstood the nature of the instructions and in the worst case may decide to obey their own misunderstandings of the Good organizations rules, above the their individual Good bosses.
Actually even lawful good agencies can turn a blind eye to things they don't want to know, so while you say a great deal of oversight is necessary it is equally possible that a complete lack of oversight is occurring. If the agency is only looking at the end result, that is the greater good achieved, then a lawful neutral agent can be very useful to achieve that goal. This might not be true of an order of paladins, but other lawful good agencies (governments for example) are held to so rigid a standard of performance. Also a government can be lawful good (the king himself), but some of his advisers, lords, etc may take lawful neutral actions without his knowledge to protect him and the kingdom. They put the safety of the kingdom and the crown ahead of the law of the land (which the king himself might not do) and so are willing to break the law in service to their higher calling.
I don't see Lawful neutral as weaker an any way than any other alignment because of the fact that any alignment can be said to be bound to something outside themselves and because being bound to something outside of yourself can be a tremendous source of strength, not necessarily a weakness. People bound to things outside themselves are likely the ones willing to sacrifice everything to achieve their goals because self is not their highest priority.
You bring up a compelling side of the LN archtype, but only a part I believe.
As was mentioned before, LN characters could also be the Judge type, or the Mercenary Commander. A LN character doesn't necessarily lack the ability to make his/her own decisions. They COULD, but not always.
In my eyes, a LN character could make a very good leader. Lawful implies they have some form of "code" they follow. Be it the law of the land, or their own honor system (which wouldn't be inherently evil/good).
The Neutral aspect would simply mean their code, or the way they interpret it, doesn't swing overly toward good or evil. The character acts on what he/she thinks is best (for them, team, party, etc) without bothering with traditional moral compunctions. This may lead to saving the princess fair, or the deaths of innocents (or both at the same time, who knows?). The fact is, said character is capable of making decisions, maybe even better than a LG of LE character. After all, the LN guy doesn't have to worry about what's wrong or right for everyone, just what works.
A Lawful Neutral character cannot cling to a personal sense of what is right, else they would be Lawful Good.
...
A Lawful Neutral character with a private sense of Moral Law, is a Lawful Good character.
Not necessarily. Who's to say that their personal sense of what is right doesn't contain a healthy dose of both good and evils acts? Moreover, what if a lawful neutral character has no established law to follow? By your definition, all lawful neutral characters must live in a society with set rules and laws. Lawful neutral hermits and wanderers would be unheard of and indeed, lawful neutral druids and adventurers without a "home base" would be rare.
It also raises an interesting question: would a lawful neutral character who was suddenly forced to follow his own personal sense of what is right cease to be lawful neutral? What if such a character was banished from his society or his homeland was entirely wiped out, leaving him as the sole survivor? Would he simply mindlessly wander the land looking for another established authority to follow? Would he continue to cling to the laws he no longer has to follow and if so, wouldn't that constitute a "personal sense of moral law?"
I've generally thought of lawful neutral as a blending of lawful good and lawful evil. A character who uses laws or codes to justify performing both good and evil acts, rather than a character who mindlessly obeys any law set before him.
His alignment would be most reflected in the laws of the kingdom, and also, in the policies enacted. More than any other alignment, a Lawful Neutral leader would be pragmatic and efficient. It is VERY important to realize that the Neutral part of his alignment means that he is NOT good; rather, he is amoral. A Utilitarian, very likely. Therefore, if there is a famine, he might pass an edict that those who contribute less to the continuation of society (artists and the like) will not be given food from the royal stores. Pragmatic and utilitarian. That's how I envision a LN kingdom.
A Lawful Neutral character cannot cling to a personal sense of what is right, else they would be Lawful Good.
The difference between the two alignments, is simply the amoral nature of the Lawful Neutral characters obedience, ruling out any kind of internal moral code.
I see a distinctive tendency to try and turn Lawful Neutral characters into Lawful Good characters, by moralizing their own codes. A Lawful Neutral character with a private sense of Moral Law, is a Lawful Good character.
Having an internal moral compass does not, in of itself make you good. Take for example the abortion clinic bomber. This is a man who adheres to a very strict moral compass. He only kills people he sees in violation of the law of God. The end result of his goals are good, but his actions are evil. The Good-Neutral-Evil axis of the alignment chart concerns itself with what essentially are the things you are willing to accomplish a goal. Good characters don't hurt others unless there is no other choice and it is a last resort. Neutral characters will not go out of their way to help you or hinder you and evil characters will resort to torture, mutilation, kidnapping, hostage taking and anything else they can dream up to get the job done.
If you are referring to Lawful in general, the above follows, but Lawful Neutral characters in particular lack any internal code, except a code based upon something external. They are bound to obey something outside of themselves, some power or force that commands them. That something can also be 'inside' them as well and govern their moral decision but it is purely external in origin.
Not so, Lawful characters would be creatures of habit. They would keep their word because they gave it, adhering to what they think is right because of societal reasons. Not because of an outside force necessary have to force them to adhere to that behavior. Take the example of the King in the above example. Here it is again as a refresher...
A Lawful Neutral character however would never commit murder against the Law, if he did so he would become a different alignment.
The interesting issue however is the higher law thing, if they Lawful Neutral King murdered someone, you would consider himself as serving a higher law and thus would not be bound by "lesser" laws.
Killing someone may be an evil act, but that doesn't make the person evil for doing so. Anyone is capable of Murder, even good people. It is not the action that makes the individual evil or not evil. It is the emotional reaction a person has to that act. Killing in one's own defense is acceptable in certain circumstances, in others it my not be deemed so. These are the issues that courts battle over. Was an action acceptable or not is the question of the day, not whether or not it was good of evil to do so. A Lawful Good person who has killed will feel remorse for taking life, a Lawful Neutral person would feel remorse for breaking the law and a Lawful Evil person will feel justified in doing so. The Law said that they have the right to kill so they must do so. So the king you stated in the example as "not being bound by lesser laws" is the perfect example of classic Lawful Evil behavior, the belief that laws or rather a lawful societal structure are meant to benefit the strong,and the King, being on the top of that structure is not bound to those laws, so the example given by Finarin Panjoro when he said that:
A lawful neutral king might declare murder to be punishable by death. Therefore if the king murdered someone he would be put to death as well because the law is above the king. Such a king would have specific exceptions to the rules such as murder in service to the state (assassins), but if one of these assassins murdered someone for reasons other than service of the state they would be held accountable.
He is dead right here. The King in this example does not hold himself above the law and therefore does not exempt himself from punishment. Certainly very few people would have the power to force him to be made subject to it because he is the king, but he is a man of his word.
I do agree that being Lawful Neutral makes one vulnerable to manipulation in a fashion, but then again so does being Chaotic Evil, being Neutral good or any other alignment. There is nothing inherent to a specific alignment that makes a person more or less vulnerable to manipulation but each one does have unique triggers that can be plucked to produce the desired results.
An interesting variation of Lawful Neutral would be the 'Changeling'. The Changeling is a character that simply adopts the alignment of whoever dominates the social environment he is in. So in an social environment dominated by criminals he becomes a criminal, while in a social environment dominated by Law-abiding people he is Law-abiding.
Such a character is not governed by an establish Law as such, but the implicit law of the social environment he is in.
This is more the behavior of a True Neutral or Chaotic Neutral character. Lawful Neutrals still have to answer to them self about breaking their own code of conduct where as the others do not.
Lawful Neutral is a much broader alignment then you it give credit for being. True, these people have the potential for being dogmatic in the extreme, but you also have a great deal of flexibility in the kinds of stories that you can run with a character like this. Take the example of Johnny Knoxville's character in the movie Grand Theft Parsons. Phil Kaufman (Knoxville's character) is a good example of a Lawful Neutral character who actually breaks the law, steals a corpse, defiles a body, and runs from the law and yet still manages to adhere to the alignment. For those of you who are not familiar with it, here is a story synopsis.
Grand Theft Parsons is a 2003 movie based on the true story of the legendary country musician Gram Parsons, who died of an overdose in 1973. Parsons and his road manager, Phil Kaufman (played by Johnny Knoxville) made a pact in life that whoever died first would be cremated by the other in the Joshua Tree National Park, an area of desert they both loved and cherished.
Parsons' death prompts Kaufman to fulfill his promise and a subtle black comedy unwinds, with Kaufman bribing mortuary personnel, renting a psychedelic hearse and trekking across the US, pursued all the while by Parsons' ex-girlfriend (Christina Applegate) and his father.
Now, at the end of the story after Kaufman burns the body of Gram Parson's in the where he made the promise to the fallen musician he turns himself in to the police and accepts his punishment like a man. He made a promise to a friend, didn't break his word to him and understanding what he did was wrong he turned himself into the authorities.
In short, don't sell the Lawful Neutral alignment short by dumbing down their options. Lawful Neutral has just as many philosophical possibilities to explore as any other alignment. Possibly even more.
BTW. If you've never seen Grand Theft Parsons I highly suggest you get it off net flicks or something, it's a great movie.
A great example of a Lawful Neutral leader is the head of a Mercenary Unit that never breaks a contract, always completes the assignment, has a specific code that every member will follow or pay the consequences and will do whatever is necessary short of violating that code, to achieve the objective.
Such a Leader is not really independent enough to bring about the moral problem though. Because he is always bound by the Law of those under whom he serves.
Actually even lawful good agencies can turn a blind eye to things they don't want to know, so while you say a great deal of oversight is necessary it is equally possible that a complete lack of oversight is occurring. If the agency is only looking at the end result, that is the greater good achieved, then a lawful neutral agent can be very useful to achieve that goal. This might not be true of an order of paladins, but other lawful good agencies (governments for example) are held to so rigid a standard of performance. Also a government can be lawful good (the king himself), but some of his advisers, lords, etc may take lawful neutral actions without his knowledge to protect him and the kingdom. They put the safety of the kingdom and the crown ahead of the law of the land (which the king himself might not do) and so are willing to break the law in service to their higher calling.
However, a Lawful Good agent is always better, because he understands the Spirit of the instruction and is less likely to misunderstand the instructions based upon a linguistic ambiguity.
I don't see Lawful neutral as weaker an any way than any other alignment because of the fact that any alignment can be said to be bound to something outside themselves and because being bound to something outside of yourself can be a tremendous source of strength, not necessarily a weakness. People bound to things outside themselves are likely the ones willing to sacrifice everything to achieve their goals because self is not their highest priority.
The argument was that they make weak leaders, not weak characters per se. They make very strong followers, because they are fanatically loyal to their bosses.
This doesn't fit with a Lawful Neutral ruler to me, this is a lawful evil ruler (one who uses law to oppress others). A lawful neutral ruler puts order and law ahead of all things, so they would be bound by their own laws as much as anyone else.
However, what about the idea the Lawful Neutral considers there as being a Higher Law, something upon which he based his Laws, which presently disagrees with the Law, in this particular instance.
This is just not true. A Lawful Neutral character can have a personal sense of what is right, their definition of right just might not fit the universal definition of good (as presented in D&D). That is they may believe that murder in the service of their code is right and just.
He does have a personal sense of what is right. Obeying the 'True' Law. Anything else and he ceases to be Lawful Neutral and becomes Morally aligned. The externality of Laws is a key part of maintaining the A-Morality of Lawful Neutrals.
Not necessarily. Who's to say that their personal sense of what is right doesn't contain a healthy dose of both good and evils acts? Moreover, what if a lawful neutral character has no established law to follow? By your definition, all lawful neutral characters must live in a society with set rules and laws. Lawful neutral hermits and wanderers would be unheard of and indeed, lawful neutral druids and adventurers without a "home base" would be rare.
It also raises an interesting question: would a lawful neutral character who was suddenly forced to follow his own personal sense of what is right cease to be lawful neutral? What if such a character was banished from his society or his homeland was entirely wiped out, leaving him as the sole survivor? Would he simply mindlessly wander the land looking for another established authority to follow? Would he continue to cling to the laws he no longer has to follow and if so, wouldn't that constitute a "personal sense of moral law?"
I've generally thought of lawful neutral as a blending of lawful good and lawful evil. A character who uses laws or codes to justify performing both good and evil acts, rather than a character who mindlessly obeys any law set before him.
1. I am rather intrigued by your description of them as having a 'healthy dose of good and evil acts', as far as I can see 'Conflict Neutrality' is probably the least healthy alignment possible, because the contradictions would tear one apart.
2. He would cling to the laws he no longer has to follow and would try to live his whole life according to the 'Spirit' of those Laws, making new laws for himself according to the spirit of the old laws. He would not become 'Good' because he doesn't evaluate the moral consequences of his own moral code, he would faithfully obey the letter and perceived spirit of the laws.
3. That is a possible version of Lawful Neutral. That would be the Conflict Neutral version of Lawful Neutral, while I am working on a more harmonious version of the same.
His alignment would be most reflected in the laws of the kingdom, and also, in the policies enacted. More than any other alignment, a Lawful Neutral leader would be pragmatic and efficient. It is VERY important to realize that the Neutral part of his alignment means that he is NOT good; rather, he is amoral. A Utilitarian, very likely. Therefore, if there is a famine, he might pass an edict that those who contribute less to the continuation of society (artists and the like) will not be given food from the royal stores. Pragmatic and utilitarian. That's how I envision a LN kingdom.
No, quite possibly the opposite. The Lawful Neutral character would consider himself as legally responsible for the deaths of the people.
Pragmatism or lack thereof, is a question of Wisdom score, not Alignment.
Having an internal moral compass does not, in of itself make you good. Take for example the abortion clinic bomber. This is a man who adheres to a very strict moral compass. He only kills people he sees in violation of the law of God. The end result of his goals are good, but his actions are evil. The Good-Neutral-Evil axis of the alignment chart concerns itself with what essentially are the things you are willing to accomplish a goal. Good characters don't hurt others unless there is no other choice and it is a last resort. Neutral characters will not go out of their way to help you or hinder you and evil characters will resort to torture, mutilation, kidnapping, hostage taking and anything else they can dream up to get the job done.
However, look at it in a different light. Consider that you agree with the death penalty for Murderers and Abortionists are Murderers (and anyone helping them is an accomplice). From this standpoint, what Abortion Clinic Bombers are is VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY CHAOTIC GOOD.
Because all Abortion opponents are advocating that violence be used against Abortionists. It's just that most of them are Lawful enough not to take things into their own hands.
In other words, they are enforcing their own personal moral law, without any regard whatsoever for Law in the D&D sense. They care nothing for what the Law says, the Law is corrupt and thus not worthy of obeying.
They are Chaotic Good. The enforcement of a personal moral law, that is 'Good' against that of society. The deaths of the abortionists is not Evil from their stance, they are in fact dispensing their own Chaotic form of Justice against Murderers without regard for wider societal laws.
Not so, Lawful characters would be creatures of habit. They would keep their word because they gave it, adhering to what they think is right because of societal reasons. Not because of an outside force necessary have to force them to adhere to that behavior. Take the example of the King in the above example. Here it is again as a refresher...
Only Lawful Good characters are necessarily scrupulously honest. Hence why they can't be Rogues.
Killing someone may be an evil act, but that doesn't make the person evil for doing so. Anyone is capable of Murder, even good people. It is not the action that makes the individual evil or not evil. It is the emotional reaction a person has to that act. Killing in one's own defense is acceptable in certain circumstances, in others it my not be deemed so. These are the issues that courts battle over. Was an action acceptable or not is the question of the day, not whether or not it was good of evil to do so. A Lawful Good person who has killed will feel remorse for taking life, a Lawful Neutral person would feel remorse for breaking the law and a Lawful Evil person will feel justified in doing so. The Law said that they have the right to kill so they must do so. So the king you stated in the example as "not being bound by lesser laws" is the perfect example of classic Lawful Evil behavior, the belief that laws or rather a lawful societal structure are meant to benefit the strong,and the King, being on the top of that structure is not bound to those laws, so the example given by Finarin Panjoro when he said that:
Except for Abortion Clinic Bombers, who despite their apparently Chaotic Good nature, automatically become Evil because they kill?
Actually, what you describe is not a case of Lawful Evil, but simply Political Theory. The idea that the King is above the Law, is Absolutism, which is arguably more honest than the concept of the rule of law (at least where I am standing). But I don't want to get too deep into politics because that's not allowed.
This is more the behavior of a True Neutral or Chaotic Neutral character. Lawful Neutrals still have to answer to them self about breaking their own code of conduct where as the others do not.
Lawful Neutral is a much broader alignment then you it give credit for being. True, these people have the potential for being dogmatic in the extreme, but you also have a great deal of flexibility in the kinds of stories that you can run with a character like this. Take the example of Johnny Knoxville's character in the movie Grand Theft Parsons. Phil Kaufman (Knoxville's character) is a good example of a Lawful Neutral character who actually breaks the law, steals a corpse, defiles a body, and runs from the law and yet still manages to adhere to the alignment. For those of you who are not familiar with it, here is a story synopsis.
That character is highly dogmatic though. He is obeying his Law.
As an example, I'll use the character Cornelia from the recent anime series Code Geass. She believes, like many of the antagonists in that series, that the natives of the land her country has subjugated (Japan) are second-class citizens. However, unlike many others, she rewards those who accept this position and takes a very dim view towards people who harass them without provocation. At one point, she orders an entire ghetto purged, however she does so because they are harboring terrorists and she considers that to be guilt by association. Again, unlike her peers, she does not afford herself any special status beyond that granted by her legal station, and expects the same standards from herself (if not more) than she expects from any other soldier.
This leads her to be pretty clearly a Lawful Neutral character, but even then she demonstrates that she's only human in the one case that she does break her own standards - to protect the life of her little sister. And I think we can all agree that any mortal character is likely to break from their alignment in one or two special cases.
Remember that in D&D, Good and Evil are defined from an objective standpoint, not from personal perspective. Therefore, if someone has a personal moral code that encourages both good and evil acts, they are Lawful Neutral even if they think they are Lawful Good.
That is true, however this does not require all characters of the same alignment to be in perfect agreement with one-another about the moral law. Essentially, the problem is whose standard are you adopting, standards particularly related to stuff like 'Just punishments' vary a great deal.
In the name of justice, a Good being may carry out acts that would normally be considered Evil, and indeed will be considered Evil by other Good beings that have a different moral system. Perfect harmony in opinions between Good beings is not necessary for them both to be Good.
It is just necessary that they have a moral code and that it not be entirely self-serving.
Is someone who thinks Murderers should be executed as the just punishment for their crimes Good? I would say yes, because the death penalty in this case an internal dispute between Good beings, not a question of their alignment.
Now starting from the basic position that Abortion is Murder and Death is the Just punishment for Murder.
In this case, it becomes pretty clear the moral distinction between a normal Pro-Lifer and an Abortion-Clinic bomber, is a question of Law/Chaos not Good/Evil, because they are both intending to kill the Abortionists, just that the 'normal' Pro-Lifer respects the law that he wishes to change, while the bomber has no respect for the law and enforces his own personal judgments without respect for it.
This leads her to be pretty clearly a Lawful Neutral character, but even then she demonstrates that she's only human in the one case that she does break her own standards - to protect the life of her little sister. And I think we can all agree that any mortal character is likely to break from their alignment in one or two special cases.
A purely Lawful Neutral character would not break her own standards on personal whim, because that would make them either Good or Evil. Thus Cornelia is actually Lawful Evil (but perhaps not by a large margin).
The reason I say she is Evil (rather than Good), is that she never showed that kind mercy to anyone but her sister, who is someone close to her and a part of her family.
For the 'Following Orders' to work, orders must be followed without moral questioning. As soon as your character demonstrates a capacity for moral questioning, in other words that they are making a 'moral' decision after all, they have be slightly biased either towards Chaotic (Cornelia's legalistic ruthlessness doesn't allow this) or towards a moral alignment, either Good or Evil.
Because of the fact she only saved her sister, she is Evil because now it is demonstrated that proves that actually the reason she behaved as she did was because she didn't care about the people she was killing.
Even Evil people protect those they are close too. Their friends and family.
If she had instead saved a group of strangers, she would be Good because it would prove that she actually did show some 'Good' when in conflict with the Law. In that instance, the Good had prevailed over the Law.
Lawful Neutral is actually a pretty fragile alignment, because in order for it maintained, obedience to a guidance must be completely without regard to conflicting personal interests or desires, or conflicting moral conscience.
The only way to have complete obedience to a guidance without moral questions is for the guidance to be external. An internal code must have a moral character, either it is motivated by selfish interests or the interests of right or justice. There must be a reason, something that makes that code desirable to the one holding it.
If it is commanded that the Lawful Neutral character die, they will die. If it is commanded that the Lawful Neutral character kill a million people, they will kill a million people.
However, if the code is purely internal, they run into trouble. Because there are now two possible codes, a 'Good' code and a 'Bad code'. Now the Lawful Neutral character is divided, he doesn't have a code to follow, but two codes to follow. A Good and an Evil code.
However, because without becoming more Chaotic in nature, balancing the codes is impossible, the character must become Chaotic Neutral or True Neutral.
Because they are now obeying their own internal whim of the moment not any kind of code, because it not the code they are now obeying BUT THEIR PERSONAL WHIM AT THE MOMENT TO OBEY ONE CODE OR THE OTHER!!!
The only situation in which a being could be Lawful Neutral and follow a purely internal code, is something like a robotic machine that must obey programming, rather than making decisions of any kind.
Only by placing their will completely at the hands of something else, something external to themselves, can a being with Free Will be Lawful Neutral.
1. I am rather intrigued by your description of them as having a 'healthy dose of good and evil acts', as far as I can see 'Conflict Neutrality' is probably the least healthy alignment possible, because the contradictions would tear one apart.
Why would it tear them apart? Your definition of "conflict neutral" implies that the person feels remorse for the evil acts that he or she performs. What reason do we have to believe this is true? In fact, what reason do we have to believe that such a person even knows that some of their actions are evil? Hitler certainly believed that his actions were good and yet they're universally accepted to be evil. Unlike in the real world, in D&D, good and evil are black and white. Certain actions are inherently good and certain actions are inherently evil, regardless of majority opinion or personal justification. Thus it stands to reason that a person who commits some good acts and some evil acts are neutral. This concept is perpetuated in D20-based video games where performing a good or evil act shifts your character a number of points towards that alignment (so a good character in such games who performs too many evil acts FIRST becomes neutral and THEN evil).
I would also like to point out the following line from the Law vs. Chaos section of the Player's Handbook:
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.
So the lawful neutral character that you describe as lacking, "any kind of internal moral code," isn't lawful at all, he's true neutral and actually no better than an animal. The choice to obey the law, while much easier and more natural than the choice to disobey it, is still a moral choice. And even though a character may be neutral on the good/evil axis, he is still capable of making moral choices in regards to law and chaos. He is not the mindless automaton that you make him out to be. He chooses to obey the law of his own free will.
As defined in the PHB:
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.
Take the following scenario as an example. Perhaps a Lawful Neutral character decides, of his own free will, that the government he once trusted has become corrupt and he can no longer stand to follow their laws. Suppose the character joins a movement to overthrow the now evil government. Has he suddenly become chaotic? We can answer this question using the definition above. Has he ceased being honorable and trustworthy? Of course not. He still values honor and his friends in the movement can count on him more than anyone to keep his word. Has he ceased respecting authority? Of course not. He no longer recognizes his corrupt leaders as a valid authority and moreover, he fully respects the leaders of the movement and recognizes them as his new authority. Has he ceased honoring tradition and judging those who fall short of their duties? Of course not. Overthrowing the government to restore honorable traditions and judging the corrupt leaders who have failed their society is the pinnacle of a lawful character.
The point is, lawful neutral characters have as much free will as characters of any other alignment and their neutrality in regards to good and evil does not preclude them from making moral decisions or having an internal moral compass.
The alignment for any action depends on the "secret code of good" of your world. People who follow moral theories that are correct according to your code are good, if they follow incorrect theories it's neutral or perhaps evil, if they follow really bad theories it's evil. So the bomber's morality axis depends on the DM's opinion of abortion and the death penalty. I would say they are chaotic because they take the law into their own hands, so CG, CN, or CE.
That doesn't work, because what matters is the motivations behind the codes themselves, not their truth or falsity, which depends simply on such criteria as consistency.
The problem remains that often moral positions are dependent upon the world view of the person holding them; a Pro-Lifer's and a Pro-Choicer's positions rise or fall based upon the accuracy and consistency of the arguments, not upon any basic moral difference in their positions.
To put it very simply, only Good beings would need to have an Abortion debate -- without murder being held to be definitively wrong, then there is no debate.
This is overall a good post. I especially liked the part about a LN society with LE rulers - you're right, it wouldn't be pretty.
I tend to think that the NGs are ruled by the LGs (who are more organised, but still good), the LGs by the LNs (who are more organised still), the LNs by the LEs (who use the organisation to their personal advantage), and the LEs - ultimately - by the NEs (who see through the whole game and act selfishly without constraint).
Thus, any hierarchical society has bad guys at the top. The more layers there are, the more inevitable this is.
The solution is that leaders should be TN. A great example of a TN leader is Lord Vetinari, of Ankh-Morpok.
I tend to think that the NGs are ruled by the LGs (who are more organised, but still good), the LGs by the LNs (who are more organised still), the LNs by the LEs (who use the organisation to their personal advantage), and the LEs - ultimately - by the NEs (who see through the whole game and act selfishly without constraint).
Thus, any hierarchical society has bad guys at the top. The more layers there are, the more inevitable this is.
The solution is that leaders should be TN. A great example of a TN leader is Lord Vetinari, of Ankh-Morpok.
A very pessimistic view of things. I am not sure that Lawful and Organized have any necessary relation though.
The actual ordering of society pretty much puts the Lawful Neutrals always at the bottom, because they lack any ambition.
The top people tend to be aligned either Good or Evil. Neutrals rarely rule any society.
Except perhaps societies where rulers are born not made, i.e. monarchies and the ilk.
The ultimate rulers will tend to be Neutral/Chaotic Good or Lawful/Neutral Evil I think in most societies where rulers are made rather than born.
The lowest ranking people will usually be Lawful Neutral.
But those Lawful Neutrals that do rise will tend to be particularly competent and able, because they got where they did on meritocratic grounds, not because of ambition.
I have to go soon so I haven't had a chance to catch up on everything but the little I read suggests that you are talking about Lawful-Stupid instead of LN.
I was thinking the OP is describing more "Lawful-Mindless", e.g. an automaton that cannot think for itself but rather observes an action and then checks a table for the appropriate reaction. Like an IF/THEN statement in programming.
I see LN characters as rationalists, those who are only interested in the facts and evidence, which is why, I think, it's a fairly common alignment for wizards. Wizards study the way arcane magic works. It's established that arcane magic works in predictable ways when certain procedures are followed. There is nothing inherently good or evil in it, because the arcane spell will function equally well regardless of the motives of the person casting it. When a wizard attempts to create a new spell he doesn't just throw material components together willy-nilly, wave his arms about randomly, and bark nonsense syllables hoping that something will work. Instead, he looks for a spell or spells that relate in some way to the effect he's trying to create. He'll study those spells, which he knows work in established, consistent, predictable ways. He'll combine that study with what he already knows about how magic works. Then he'll make logical, educated deductions and channel his existing knowledge into something new.
It's a lot like cooking. :D
I would add that "Law", when applied to alignment, does not always refer to the legal system, aka "the law of the land". Rather, "Lawful" concerns itself with consistency and procedure.
If "Lawful" means "consistent", then "neutral" means "pragmatic" (dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations). In other words, the Neutral character asks himself, "Are my actions accomplishing my intended goal?" If the answer is "yes", they he'll continue with those actions. If the answer is "no", then he'll either cease or modify his actions.
I recently played a LN wizard in a campaign. In the final battle against the BBEG and his minions, I found myself in an unfortunate position where every enemy I could attack was buffed with high resistance or immunity to fire, and I was down to nothing but fire-based spells and magic items. At that point, I was having no effect whatsoever on the outcome of the battle. So what did I do? Because I was LN, I withdrew from the battle and got myself to safety. My presence was accomplishing nothing; I could do my allies no good by remaining, and I was putting myself in danger of life and limb by continuing to fight (not to mention risking leaving my character's wife and children without a father). I had not pledged to fight to the death (we were protecting a small town). Rather, I had pledged to do "what I could", and I fulfilled that pledge to the best of my ability. When I could do no more, there was no good reason to continue. My character had no emotional or moral attachment to the rest of the adventuring party; he joined them mid-campaign after the supply wagon he was accompanying was attacked and he was knocked unconscious, and the party arrived and finished off the attackers. From his perspective, he had already more than repaid that debt in a couple subsequent encounters where his spells and wands were the only effective defense. By repaying his "debt" he satisfied the "Lawful" part of his alignment. Staying with the party beyond that was a Neutral decision, based in the practical fact that it would be foolhardy to attempt to travel back to his homeland alone under the circumstances.
By the OP's definition of LN, I should have continued to fight, despite my ineffectiveness.
In "Sokka's Master", he also seems more honest, or at least the most troubled by deceiving others, regardless of their motives.
"The Painted Lady", though, is one of the best examples of his (and his sister's) alignment - he will not deviate from the plan to help strangers in dire need, but will still help his friends.
Did I mention he was stubborn?
I see LN characters as rationalists, those who are only interested in the facts and evidence, which is why, I think, it's a fairly common alignment for wizards. Wizards study the way arcane magic works. It's established that arcane magic works in predictable ways when certain procedures are followed. There is nothing inherently good or evil in it, because the arcane spell will function equally well regardless of the motives of the person casting it. When a wizard attempts to create a new spell he doesn't just throw material components together willy-nilly, wave his arms about randomly, and bark nonsense syllables hoping that something will work. Instead, he looks for a spell or spells that relate in some way to the effect he's trying to create. He'll study those spells, which he knows work in established, consistent, predictable ways. He'll combine that study with what he already knows about how magic works. Then he'll make logical, educated deductions and channel his existing knowledge into something new.
However, your position doesn't make sense, because it only describes Lawful Neutrals that are of high Intelligence. What about low intelligence Lawful Neutrals, they are likely to be attatched to structures and rules for superstitious and entirely irrational reasons and follow rules without regard for the sitution.
Alignment has no relation to such things as "pragmatism", "rationality" or so on, because those things are questions of stats.
If "Lawful" means "consistent", then "neutral" means "pragmatic" (dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations). In other words, the Neutral character asks himself, "Are my actions accomplishing my intended goal?" If the answer is "yes", they he'll continue with those actions. If the answer is "no", then he'll either cease or modify his actions.
What about stupid Neutrals?
Essentially, Alignments provide motive and put brakes on behavior. How the character persues those goals, depends on Intelligence, Wisdom, Class and a whole raft of other things.
Your Neutral character, is simply a Wise character. A Wise Lawful Neutral characters goals ARE Stability and Order. This is all he really cares about, he fears any manifestation of independant thought and action, outside of the socially proscribed boundries.
A Wise Lawful Neutral character, could indeed ask deep questions about whether his actions are furthering his goals. However his goals for the most part are the maintainance of what he considers to be the proper order, he will not act either for the good of others or for the good of himself, if by doing so he risks disrupting the 'social order' that he happens to believe in.
.
I recently played a LN wizard in a campaign. In the final battle against the BBEG and his minions, I found myself in an unfortunate position where every enemy I could attack was buffed with high resistance or immunity to fire, and I was down to nothing but fire-based spells and magic items. At that point, I was having no effect whatsoever on the outcome of the battle. So what did I do? Because I was LN, I withdrew from the battle and got myself to safety. My presence was accomplishing nothing; I could do my allies no good by remaining, and I was putting myself in danger of life and limb by continuing to fight (not to mention risking leaving my character's wife and children without a father). I had not pledged to fight to the death (we were protecting a small town). Rather, I had pledged to do "what I could", and I fulfilled that pledge to the best of my ability. When I could do no more, there was no good reason to continue. My character had no emotional or moral attachment to the rest of the adventuring party; he joined them mid-campaign after the supply wagon he was accompanying was attacked and he was knocked unconscious, and the party arrived and finished off the attackers. From his perspective, he had already more than repaid that debt in a couple subsequent encounters where his spells and wands were the only effective defense. By repaying his "debt" he satisfied the "Lawful" part of his alignment. Staying with the party beyond that was a Neutral decision, based in the practical fact that it would be foolhardy to attempt to travel back to his homeland alone under the circumstances.
By the OP's definition of LN, I should have continued to fight, despite my ineffectiveness.
Now we are confusing insane suicidal recklessness or lack thereof with Alignment.
In your case, as you put it, you could have no effect on the outcome of the battle. In which case what you did was irrelavant to your alignment, throwing your life away for a cause you cannot effect one way or another is simply called recklessness. There is nothing aligned about it.
What is wrong with your view of your character's motivations however, is that what you are describing is a True Neutral character.
Lawful Neutral characters DO NOT SERVE BECAUSE OF MORAL OR EMOTIONAL ATTATCHMENTS. They don't fight for people because they personally like them, or because they feel that their fate is of particular moral interest.
They serve them beacause they are authorities that they are pledged to obey. In the case his old Authority (the supply wagon) is no more, so he has to adopt a new Authority (the party). The whole thing with "Debts" is not how it works, because a Lawful Neutral character DOESN'T think that way. A True Neutral character does only what is neccesery to meet a percieved debt, because they aim to get free. A Lawful Neutral character doesn't want a free, aimless existance, he dreads it. The first thing he finds, is something or something to serve in the present situation.
If your character had to justify his actions other than "I didn't want to die, so I ran", then he would justify it in terms of his duty as a Father to his Family, the contrasting authorities of Family and Party. He couldn't really serve his Party, so his duty to his Family 'kicks in' so to speak.
However, he would never think "my debt to the Party was done", unless it was to strengthen some other Authority's case in comparison.
A Lawful Neutral characters reasoning is full of 'Authority tradeofs', that is making compromises between different percieved Authorities. If he finds himself in a sitation where there isn't any Authority, then he has to 'Aquire' one. The prime directive of a Lawful character would be his 'Duties' or his 'What needs to be done's'.
Not the good "What is the Right Thing to do", or the Evil "What benefits me the most". Left to their own devices, Lawful Neutral characters usually degenerate quite badly into a kind of routine based existance, in which the routines of life itself become a sort of Authority in themselves. They start doing things simply because they used to do them in other words.
The solution is that leaders should be TN. A great example of a TN leader is Lord Vetinari, of Ankh-Morpok.
Vetinari is N?
I hate to disagree, but he's LE. He's very devoted to Ankh-Morpork and has little to no personal ambition, but he's still LE.