So, Malack...

[pendell]

It does not have any bearing here as Malack is not a judge, but a person who is theoretically capable of making the laws

Really? Tarquin has shown all the initiative in this relationship. When has Malak ever stood up and contested the way things are set up, and when has he simply accepted them as they were?

He is the cleric of death after all. Death is not fair. Death comes to all, good or evil, rich or poor. Death doesn't care whether you give to orphans or murder them. When it is your time, it is your time. It isn't a matter of right or wrong, it's a matter of Death.

And it is all too fitting that Death should accompany Tarquin very, very closely.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[pendell]

"Has compunctions against harming the innocent" is a general trait of non-evil alignment- not just Good. A Neutral person given an order that qualifies as "harming the innocent" - even a legal order- will at least have compunctions about obeying it.

"Has compunctions against" is not the same thing as "will therefore disobey a legal order, or the law." A good person would work for the good of other people and break the law if necessary. An evil person would be more than willing to harm the innocent using the law as a weapon, as Tarquin does. But to an LN person, neither of those things will happen. An LN person would not use the law as a weapon, but neither would they defend an innocent person being targeted by such means. To them it is not about good or evil but about Law.

And thus an LN Malack would be the perfect henchman and counterpart to the LE Tarquin. Someone dedicated to law above all is the perfect willing executioner for the one who makes the laws for his own ends.

ETA: This may be where D&D alignment breaks down. We call Malack evil because in OUR world's view he WOULD be evil; real-world ethics don't recognize a neutral alignment. But D&D does. And in D&D a neutral character can definitely be used as a tool for evil by someone who is a great deal more intelligent than they are. And Tarquin certainly seems to be the Alpha as far as brains go in their friendship.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[hamishspence]

There's also the "hybrid of Good and Evil" kind of Neutral character-

a little too cruel when punishing villains to be Good, but too high a ratio of Good behaviour to Evil behaviour, to be Evil.

[jere7my]

So...being BFFs with a psychopath who uses escaped slaves as a light show and is perfectly fine with attaining wives through coercion, as well as all the other brutalities of their empire, most likely having a direct hand in its creation and running, still lets you be LN?

Are you serious?

Absolutely, if the LN character thinks they're serving Law by doing so. Malack believes the terrible things that Tarquin does are necessary to keep the Empire from falling back into chaos. We have an alignment for people who only follow good laws: Lawful Good. Lawful Neutral says "Better a bad law than no law at all."

Again, Neutral is not Good Lite. Neutral characters can be pretty monstrous.

[pendell]

Absolutely, if the LN character thinks they're serving Law by doing so. Malack believes the terrible things that Tarquin does are necessary to keep the Empire from falling back into chaos. We have an alignment for people who only follow good laws: Lawful Good. Lawful Neutral says "Better a bad law than no law at all."

Again, Neutral is not Good Lite. Neutral characters can be pretty monstrous.

My argument elegantly summed in two paragraphs. Well done!

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[hamishspence]

LN is not necessarily "obeys all laws no matter what" though. Plenty of other things can distort that without pulling them out of Neutral alignment.

Save My Game: Lawful and Chaotic

First of all, let's be clear about one important concept: Lawful does not necessarily mean "adheres to the letter of the law." A law (or body of laws) is merely a rule that a government imposes on those who are subject to its power. A lawful alignment, on the other hand, represents an orderly approach to matters of ethics and personal conduct. Most lawful characters do respect the order that the laws of the realm represent, but adherence to local ordinances is only one way of demonstrating a lawful alignment.

To be lawful is to be in favor of conformity and consistency, to act in a systematic and uniform fashion, and to take responsibility. As a lawful person, you establish patterns and precedents and stick to them unless you can see a good reason to do otherwise. Methodical efficiency is your byword, and you believe in the concept of duty. You plan and organize your activities to achieve particular goals, not just to satisfy impulsive desires. You believe a proper way exists to accomplish any goal, though it may not always be the traditional, tried-and-true way. Likewise, you cultivate long-term relationships and endeavor to build trust between your associates and yourself. As a lawful person, you recognize that most laws have valid purposes that promote social order, but you are not necessarily bound to obey them to the letter. In particular, if you are both good and lawful, you have no respect for a law is unfair or capricious.

Being chaotic, on the other hand, doesn't necessarily mean you are incapable of adhering to the law. Though chaotic societies may seem disorderly, they exist in abundance. As a chaotic character, you are dedicated to personal and societal freedom. You pursue your dreams and don't try to put limits on your nature. You don't value consistency for its own sake; rather, you respond to every situation as you see fit without worrying about what you did before. The past is the past and the future is uncertain, so you prefer to live in the present. Each situation is new, so planning and procedures are pointless -- in fact, they restrain people from reacting quickly and decisively. You don't get tied up in exclusive relationships because they could hold you back from your destiny -- which might be right around the corner. You are always ready to try new techniques because you believe that experience is the best teacher, and you are always open to discovery.

In short, good and evil describe a character's ideals, and law and chaos describe the means she uses to work toward her goals. The law of the land in any given place is most likely designed to promote social order, so in general terms, lawful characters are more likely to respect it than chaotic characters are. However, the content of the law matters much more than its mere existence.

[pendell]

Thank you, Hamish, but I'm afraid I found the article unhelpful. It discusses lawful and chaotic in the context of what a paladin would do. The overwhelming focus of the article is on lawful good vs. chaotic good, and neutrality is an other beast entirely.

ETA: I contend that the things you underlined in the post above apply to lawful GOOD, not lawful neutral. A lawful neutral person should respect the law irrespective of its morality.

... or at least, ONE type of neutral. But I don't see Malack as "cruel good". If he is LN at all then he is LN the same way death is : Impartial, unconcerned with fairness or justice. Death will one day come for Tarquin just as it came for all his victims. The LN henchman of the LE villain, like so many Imperial officers in the Star Wars universe.


Respectfully,

Brian P.

[jere7my]

I don't have a good grasp of neutral alignment. I think because traditional fantasy usually involves good heroes overcoming some terrible evil. The focus is on the heroes and the villains, who are starkly good (Roy/Elan) and starkly evil (Xykon). In such environments neutral players (Tom Bombadil?) are bystanders and rarely get much screen time.

Do you know Javert from Les Mis? He serves and profits from a deeply corrupt regime, he hounds a good man for years because he stole a loaf of bread...but he's by no means evil (in D&D terms). His devotion to the law crowds out all moral considerations. He's an avatar of Lawful Neutral.

[hamishspence]

The overwhelming focus of the article is on lawful good vs. chaotic good, and neutrality is an other beast entirely.

Not that different.

Personal prejudices, if nothing else, will play a part. A dwarf, even a LN dwarf, is not likely to obey laws that involve massacring other dwarves, without a bit more justification than "because the government says so".

[Chantelune]

Well perfect example of a LN character would be Judge Dredd. The law is absolute. That it's good or not is irrelevant.

If Malack makes the Law, in the event were he was LN, he would makes law to correct and prevent any chance of chaos to spread around. So the laws might be on the oppressive side, but not only. Then I doubt he's the only one making laws, Tarquin must at least influence them, so this would lead to a very oppressive empire with harsh sentencing.

So yeah, Malack could still be both. In any case, i'm pretty sure he know exactly what Tarquin is and want. Tarquin seems pretty open about his alignement as it is.

[hamishspence]

Easydamus may be more helpful:

http://easydamus.com/lawfulneutral.html

while it takes a "above good and evil concerns" approach, it still has "a LN character will never harm the innocent"

[Chantelune]

Well, depends on what the LN character deems as "innocent".

[hamishspence]

"Not Proven Guilty" is a start

[Kish]

Again, Neutral is not Good Lite.

And, again, people who make that claim always seem to be arguing for a definition of "Neutral" which is more like "Uncaring Evil," and a definition of "Evil" which is restricted to "Sadistic Evil"

Neutral characters can be pretty monstrous.

...but you apparently own that position openly, so I don't know what more there is to say.

[Chantelune]

Exactly, and when the laws are opressive, like in the EoB, you might be found "guilty" of petty crimes. Like talking against the government. You would be found guilty in the eye of the Law, but most people would see the accused as innocent as this wouldn't be a crime in states with more freedom.

That's the thing with "never hurt an innocent". This lead to "technically guilty" as a workaround.

[hamishspence]

PHB: "Lawful Evil: plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion"

By implication, there must be at least some mercy and compassion in a LN person's "playing by the rules".

[Kish]

Exactly, and when the laws are opressive, like in the EoB, you might be found "guilty" of petty crimes. Like talking against the government. You would be found guilty in the eye of the Law, but most people would see the accused as innocent as this wouldn't be a crime in states with more freedom.

That's the thing with "never hurt an innocent". This lead to "technically guilty" as a workaround.

There is, indeed, a Lawful class described in the Player's Handbook as playing games with definitions and looking for workarounds, like "I won't hurt innocents (but my minions will)" or, "I won't let children be harmed (unless it's necessary for my plan)."

Unfortunately for your argument, that alignment is Lawful Evil, not Lawful Neutral.

[Raineh Daze]

In particular, if you are both good and lawful, you have no respect for a law is unfair or capricious.

Noticed this as I was reading through.

[hamishspence]

In some LE states, "being of a different species" might be a crime, punishable by death- perhaps in one ruled by priest of Zarus.

A LN character in such a state (maybe they got there by mis-teleport) who finds out about the local laws- would they immediately turn themselves in? I doubt that very much.

Noticed this as I was reading through.

Possibly missed out "that is"

"a law that is unfair or capricious"

LN characters, and Chaotic characters in general, might dislike it too, though.

[pendell]

In some LE states, "being of a different species" might be a crime, punishable by death- perhaps in one ruled by priest of Zarus.

A LN character in such a state (maybe they got there by mis-teleport) who finds out about the local laws- would they immediately turn themselves in? I doubt that very much.

They would leave, I think.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[hamishspence]

And if they're accosted before they get the chance?

[Raineh Daze]

And if they're accosted before they get the chance?

Probably try and get out of it without violence first?

Then self-preservation gets involved, though, and I'm not sure alignment would really matter.

Anyway, I was looking and the 'both Lawful and Good' part rather than the editing problems.

[Chantelune]

There is, indeed, a Lawful class described in the Player's Handbook as playing games with definitions and looking for workarounds, like "I won't hurt innocents (but my minions will)" or, "I won't let children be harmed (unless it's necessary for my plan)."

Unfortunately for your argument, that alignment is Lawful Evil, not Lawful Neutral.

True, I might have worded things wrong.

The definition of an "innocent" can be tied to the law. If the law is oppressive, then a LN neutral character might execute an innocent that is considered "guilty" by an opressive law.

Not sure if I'm clear, being french can makes communication difficult on some level. And this discussion tend to go a bit borderline again by forum rules, so I won't press this issue any further.

My point is that a LN might see the law above anything else. If the law says you're guilty, then you're guilty, even if that's a stupid/oppressive law. Then again, alignments tend to cover a rather large scope. Judge Dredd is a good example of an extreme LN, but a LN character can be less stuck up. Still regarding laws and loyalty as crucial, but more lenient in the application of those.

[Kish]

Malack made that argument. Durkon pointed out that Malack contributes to making the laws which get those people executed, and so this is effectively begging the question as badly as saying, "It's all right for me to kill people because after I do they're dead."

I am mystified at the number of people who seem to think Malack's argument was better than Durkon's counterargument. And no, you didn't word it wrong. You made a very good argument--that Malack is Lawful Evil. The only problem is that you don't seem to want to go where "he's the alignment that goes with arranging the rules so that he can do what he wants and still be following them" leads you.

[hamishspence]

Probably try and get out of it without violence first?

Then self-preservation gets involved, though, and I'm not sure alignment would really matter.

Depends on if "will not defend an innocent person being targeted by the law" includes themselves.

If a LN person's given a "legal order" to self-execute, does "will not disobey a legal order" apply?

[Raineh Daze]

Depends on if "will not defend an innocent person being targeted by the law" includes themselves.

If a LN person's given a "legal order" to self-execute, does "will not disobey a legal order" apply?

Depends on the rigidity of their moral code, I guess? Just like you have can have Good people who won't throw themselves into a hopeless, fruitless fight because there's an Evil person with much more power doing something wrong, you'll probably be able to push most LN people to the point they'll move from obeying because it's right to trying to save themselves.

Or they have as stringent a code as samurai, so...

[pendell]

The samurai was who I had in the back of my mind. A samurai must commit seppuku if ordered to do so. A samurai must kill his own children if ordered to do so. Right and wrong don't enter into it -- the daimyo's orders take precedence over everything else and any private judgement.

As towards both Kish's and Durkon's argument, I have not yet seen Malack have any executive authority or any say in Tarquin's Empire. He has been a henchman. He is not required to make lawful good laws, or lawful evil laws. He has only to insist on laws period, then enforce them once created.

Thus, the people he executes are not innocent. They are lawfully convicted, at least from his point of view. Whether the laws themselves are good or evil is irrelevant; they are the laws. Nor is an LN person required to make lawful GOOD laws. Only laws.

We're all agreed that Malack is Tarquin's willing henchman, and in OUR world this would make him evil. But by the somewhat weirder D&D structure it is possible for a being to be the lawful neutral henchman of a lawful evil tyrant. That would certainly be in character for a cleric of death. Death -- at least, the death represented by Nergal -- appears to be lawful neutral but is often used for evil ends. Malack, the "faithful servant" of Nergal, might be no different.

The preponderance of evidence is that Malack is Lawful Evil. But it is not yet absurd to argue that he is lawful neutral. At this point, I think we will need more information, and possibly a scene in Mechanus with the LN equivalent of a Deva to sort it all out.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Kish]

We're all agreed that Malack is Tarquin's willing henchman,

No. We're not. Possibly if you consider Durkon and Haley Roy's hench-people...but even if you do, I'd find that definition bizarre. Malack is Tarquin's partner. His slightly junior partner because Tarquin is the leader of the adventuring party...but much more than an employee.

[hamishspence]

And for all we know, Malack's been the "senior party" in several of the previous empires- this time round, Malack and Tarquin are paired- but what was it last time?

[pendell]

That's not how I perceive their relationship. Tarquin gives the orders and Malack obeys them . He may argue with them or discuss them, but in the end their relationship is that of King and Prime Minister. The one is the servant of the other . It may be leavened by friendship but they are NOT peers.

Also , you've read Origin of the PCs. The rules have changed but when this all started Durkon et al WERE Roy's employees. He hired them. The OOTS is not a democracy. The rules have changed somewhat since Roy tore up their contracts but Roy remains the unquestioned commanding officer in the group and Haley is his second-in-command. Belkar does not get an equal say in the party's goals or it's methods. His only part in the party is to kill people when Roy says "kill", but his opinions beyond that are definitely not wanted. Nor are Elan's , for that matter.

So, yes. Durkon is Roy's subordinate. That makes him Roy's henchman, even if they are also friends.

And for all we know, Malack's been the "senior party" in several of the previous empires- this time round, Malack and Tarquin are paired- but what was it last time?

Don't see it. From what we've seen on-panel Tarquin is Malack's superior mentally and Malack defers to him. Whatever they show to the outside world Tarquin is Mastermind, Malack is Trusted Lieutenant.

The only question is whether it is viable for the Trusted Lieutenant of an Evil Overlord to have a lawful neutral alignment or not.

ETA: And from the OOTS perspective, it's not important. In Star Wars, Admiral Piett and General Veers may have been lawful neutral -- heck, maybe even lawful good -- but they still needed to be killed just as Darth Vader was.

Respectfully,

Brian P.