I like playing good characters but am trying to go with a Grey-Guard esque assasin type. Taking out high powered leades who mistreat their people or abuse their power.
This is not the problem though. My problem is that I have always wanted to make a "Nakor" like monk in spirit (from Feist's Sagas, yes I know he could do magic aswell), for those who have not read the books he's a expert cheat, a brilliant gambler and quite, quite mad. He respects people in power but is never formal. It would not be unlike him to beguile the local guards purely for laughs or to steal - but not from the poor, only unneeded things like an orange from a market.
He is in every way a scoundrel, but I have always seen "lawful good" aligned characters as ones who respect the guards and never steal or cheat unfairly. Yet these quirks are what makes these characters so fun and never inteand it cruely.
Do you think a character like this could truly be "lawful", or am I thinking in the wrong way? Your Ideas would be much appreciated.
It has to do with Order, either external or internal.
Internal Order is discipline, or a personal set of guidelines/codes. You can be 'Lawful' and break every law written.
Probly somthing like never staeling from the poor, that sort of thing?
Not stealing from the poor doesn't make you Lawful. It just means you have good intentions (Good-Evil determinant).
Now a second thing concerning my Monk.Rouge charager, what if my Lawful character followed a mad god. Not a evil god but say a CN or CG god, and so might openly opose Laws and Order, not to a point of putting himself at risk but activly trying to disrupt the law of the land and country, not to cause evil, but just a bit of chaos. Could he do so and still be of a Lawful alignment?
Not stealing from the poor doesn't make you Lawful. It just means you have good intentions (Good-Evil determinant).
But doesn't specifying who you can and can't stel from show a degree of lawful adhearance to a personal set of morals and rules.
You could ask your DM to houserule that Monks don't need to be lawful.
The iconic argument would be the Drow in the R.A. Salvatore books. Their adherence to Chaos is so strict, its almost lawful.
Nakor was in no way a D&D-Monk -try a Beguiler (PHB2)
I was thinking more like Nakor in spirit and personality, monk was just somthing I felt fit, mainly because I don't have the BHB2 or DMG2. Though I shall check it out if I get the chance.
Most folks "get" the moral component of D&D's absolute alignment system. Good and Evil are not relative in D&D. Moral relativism does not translate well into D&D; many spells become less effective or downright useless without absolute morality.
The ethical concepts of Law and Chaos, on the other hand, tend to confuse people. Ethical alignment cares nothing for morality; Good and Evil are equally irrelevant went considering ethical alignment. Law is about order, consistency, and predictability. By its very nature Law is static. Law does not create. It does not innovate. It does not deviate. Law has little to do with following the rules or direct respect of authority and/or power.
This at first may seem contradictory, but ethical alignment should always be viewed from the individual perspective. If I live my lift according to a fixed set of beliefs, have order in my life, and generally seem happiest when living my life according to a set routine, then Law is a governing force in my life. It doesn't matter whether my beliefs benefit or harm others, or whether my daily routine involves serving the homeless or killing them.
A Lawful character can completely ignore every rule devised by mortal minds and still be Lawful. If fact, an inwardly-focused character wouldn't think twice about breaking a rule that conflicts with their personal ethical code. A lawful character may respect someone in power because doing so maintains the status quo (remember: change is anathema to Law). Another Lawful character may respect the power inherent in the position, but despise the person in the position. A third may feel that the person in power is there by right. All are Lawful points of view colored by different moral components. (Neutrality, Evil, and Good respectively)
Chaos opposes Law. Freedom, change, and flux are concepts held highest by Chaos. Only though new experiences can one truly grow. Chaos constantly creates, improves, changes, and destroys. But Chaos cannot maintain, cannot truly build, cannot not change. To stay the same is worse than death (for even in death things change)!
A chaotic character isn't mad by nature. (A madman may in fact have a chaotic alignment, but one does not necessarily cause the other.) Rather, he sees the benefit of change in all its forms. He may follow rules because they make sense at the time, because they don't affect him, or out of fear - but he never truly believes in them. He is open to new experiences, regardless of whether the experience may ultimately benefit or harm (such judgments are based on moral components).
Considering that, the idea of a lawful good scoundrel doesn't seem quite so odd. Complete Scoundrel has this to say on the subject:
Lawful good scoundrels have their own personal, implacable code of honor and righteousness. They have good intentions, but they aren't above breaking minor rules that get in the way of the greater good, especially when helping the downtrodden. The former law enforcer who challenges a corrupt government or an adventurer who wants to liberate great works of art for the enjoyment of the world is a lawful good scoundrel.
I also realise that this is stongly effected by his good alignment but it would be had for him to make a lawful code of conduct if he only worshiped the force of good. Would then his Lawful code be to do the greater good, or do you think that is less f a lawful code of conduct, because it it affected too much by is good alignment.... or somthing.
DrMorganes or others would you then agree that as long as my character could breach any law he saw fit even if it causes chaos in the masses as long as he was - in the bigger picture - doing what he thought was th way to do it. (him not having a specific code of conduct but rather it being his own compas of what was right to him). Or do you disagree?
The problem is that no one on the board can answer that. That is a question for your DM. Our answer isn't really relevant. You won't retain paladin status because you convince US you are lawful.
Convincing you in no way aid's the talk I will be having with my DM but at least will give me somthing to help about.. isn't that what these forums are for.
If we all went about with the attitude that the writter should not be talking to us but to there DM then there would be very few long threads.
I say again this is just to help me through my own personal decisions.
This is not the problem though. My problem is that I have always wanted to make a "Nakor" like monk in spirit (from Feist's Sagas, yes I know he could do magic aswell), for those who have not read the books he's a expert cheat, a brilliant gambler and quite, quite mad. He respects people in power but is never formal. It would not be unlike him to beguile the local guards purely for laughs or to steal - but not from the poor, only unneeded things like an orange from a market.
He is in every way a scoundrel, but I have always seen "lawful good" aligned characters as ones who respect the guards and never steal or cheat unfairly. Yet these quirks are what makes these characters so fun and never inteand it cruely.
Do you think a character like this could truly be "lawful", or am I thinking in the wrong way? Your Ideas would be much appreciated.
He isn't a Monk. So why you trying to be him as a Monk?
Beguiler fits him best. He isn't lawful. He isn't a Martial artist: he is a spellcaster.
He is best known both for mysticism and thievery. I don't understand the Monk theme?
He isn't a Monk. So why you trying to be him as a Monk?
Beguiler fits him best. He isn't lawful. He isn't a Martial artist: he is a spellcaster.
He is best known both for mysticism and thievery. I don't understand the Monk theme?
Sorry... I don't have PH2, I didn't understand that I was not alowed to try and create a character without it. I obviouly missed it in the first one. I'm dreadfully sorry for being ill equiped, I was iunder the assumption that I would be treated fairly and alowed the option to try and do the best I can with what I got. I thought, considering that I want to specialise in high powered unarmed combat and also wanted rougle like abilities for a possible assasin carrer choice (ALIGNMENTS CAN CHANGE FROM GOOD TO EVIL UNLESS I MISSED THAT TOO). I simple thought a monk.rouge would be the best way to go.. most obviosly you disagree but try offering some helpfull comments.
Also having re-read the wikipedia article I can see how you might see him as a bard, but I also belive you get Fighters, or Wizards or and other classes who play cards and gamble. As for magic ability this is in no way rebresented be the bards on and casts more arcane spells than divine. Anyone who disagrees is free to argue but in my personal opinion his great skills in hand to hand combat and his general sneeking and trickery are characterised in the Monk and rouge abilities.
I understand this but um.. due to a few conditions my DM's are unable to give any insightfull comments into this subject. I understand that you are not my DM, but you are - at least most of you I hope - experianced mature players who can understand and comment on this issue, to help me resolve it.
Your best bet is to write up a short Code of Conduct that demonstrates how your character is lawful. The hard part for you will be to find out from your DMs how exactly they define the lawful alignment. As you have multiple DMs, this could verge on the impossible. But assuming you can get a uniform answer from your DMs, all you have to do is make your Code of Conduct fit within their definition of lawfulness.
Another option is to convince your DMs to simply do away with alignment restrictions. This would be my preferred solution, but a lot of gamers are irrationally resistant to removing the classes' arbitrary alignment restrictions so it may be a long shot depending on your DMs' attitudes. On the other hand, this might be the easier option for you since you have multiple DMs. If they disagree on the definition of lawfulness (which is entirely possible), you can point out to them how vague law/chaos is and that it is therefore silly to force certain classes into their traditional and needlessly restrictive archetypes. If you can convince your DMs to do away with alignment restrictions, it won't matter if your monk/rogue is lawful good or chaotic good.
Hope that helps,
TS
The character you want is Chaotic or, at best, Neutral.
You played a Paladin and don't understand what is and isn't Lawful? Give up now
The character you want is Chaotic or, at best, Neutral.
GRRR I unserstand Lawful, I played a paladin well for four year I just wanted to expand my knowlege.
Thank you so much Tequilla Sunrise that was the kind of responce I wanted. I feel almost obliged to give you somthing for pulling this thread out of a rut.
Thank you so much Tequilla Sunrise that was the kind of responce I wanted. I feel almost obliged to give you something for pulling this thread out of a rut.
I take certified checks and money orders. :D
But doesn't specifying who you can and can't stel from show a degree of lawful adhearance to a personal set of morals and rules.
I'm not quite sure how theft could ever be considered Lawful. Any "code" that espoused the use of theft would inherently result in a chaotic society.
Playing pranks upon, or jesting with, figures of authority for no apparent reason wouldn't be Lawful, either.
I think your best bet here is to get your DMs to relent on the alignment requirement for the Monk class. I personally wouldn't allow a Monk to progress pass a certain level with a non-Lawful alignment (maybe 10 for Neutral, and substantially lower for Chaotic).
Law is about order, consistency, and predictability. By its very nature Law is static. Law does not create. It does not innovate. It does not deviate. Law has little to do with following the rules or direct respect of authority and/or power.
Indeed, but Law does unfold towards a perfection which, when it reaches, is about maintaining/being, rather than "becoming" anything new....and Law in rational creatures is passed along through codes and words that teach of the orderliness.
Chaos opposes Law. Freedom, change, and flux are concepts held highest by Chaos. Only though new experiences can one truly grow. Chaos constantly creates, improves, changes, and destroys. But Chaos cannot maintain, cannot truly build, cannot not change. To stay the same is worse than death (for even in death things change)!
Chaos is what the unfolding of law looks like when you look too close. Law is what the chaos of change looks like when you stand back and take in the whole picture :D
Those who embrace chaos as chaos are like leaves blown on the wind; they can see no bigger picture simply jump from one thing to another.