This thread is spawned out of one of my many unanswered questions.

We all know that to be any kind of monk, you've got to stick yourself in the Lawful allignment tree or be locked out of progression as a Monk. There are a lot of books, articles, characters, and source materials to denote why and how monks are lawful, but few that touch on how it mixes with actual characters and gameplay. For instance, if a monk character followed the order of long death, religiously studied the time of trespassing where-in their victim dies, and used that as a basis for their lawfulness... would they be considered lawful for their personal code if they continued to go out into the greater society and cause mayhem with their actions? How far does lawfulness for "personal code" stretch?

Can you follow your personal order code to a T, and still be chaotic in other ways? How about neutral to any matter outside of your specific beliefs? I realise that these are imperfect game limitations that may be interpreted many ways, and that true allignment is shown through strength of character and roleplay. However, I've always wondered if Monks can be lawful for the means of their monklyness, and chaotic or neutral in other ways.

Just assuming a Monk's daily operations in a fantasy setting not revolving around their monkhood, especially with the random nature of events including villains and heroes (though perhaps this separates the men from the boys in terms of stoicism.)

Anyone got an idea?

I'm pretty sure Lawful only really cares about either following Law and Order (the show) or following a strict code (society be damned).

Short answer, sorry! Best I have right now, wait for others!

_________________
Whomst've'll'd'mn't I play:
Salema Nefahri :: A penny for your thots
Zrae'a'stra'fryn :: That which nightmares are made of
Khasir :: From the East a storm is coming

Yes, Lawlful means adhering to a code of some sort. It doesn't necessarily mean you follow the laws of men or settlements. I'm wary to agree to the "chaotic in other ways" part, because even a Lawful character that doesnt care for others' laws likely won't break them for the sake of breaking them like a Chaotic might.

When it comes down between following an external law vs following their code (be it divine, philosophical, or personal), they'll choose the latter with little hesitation. Not because they have a disdain for other laws, rather they simply have other laws that they follow that supersede the rest.

_________________

To pull a cheese character out, just for example, would then a half-fiend pale master monk who is part of a sect of an intense undeath-worshipping "become the skeleton" order/cult still be considered lawful if he adhered to his order's code above all other options when confronted? If he harvested the skeletons of the unfortunate and acted in a chaotic or neutral way when NOT represented with a way to further his training or ideals, would he still be lawful? I don't know, is this kind of a blurry line since allignments aren't particularly realistic?

I could see him "falling" in his training and not being capable of advancement if he ever let his tenants or personal code falter, but he'd be unlikely to do that in the first place, as lawful, without a lot of reasoning behind it. I suppose... what is neccesary to consider a monk lawful and still progress monk, without regards to how they operate in society when not facing conflict of interests?

I do not believe there is time in monk life when he either:
- isn't training or meditating
- isn't pursuing his order's dogma or directives of his superiors
Dedication to "monkyness" isn't like work (you finish your gravedigging-skeleton gathering shift and then you have free time to burn villages, mug people, go get drunk and get into bar brawls, make giant line in McDonald's etc.).
It's 24/7 thing, you live it every second of your life. That's why monks are mostly recluse groups hidden in some monastery in the mountains, who leave it only for duty. Even good aligned monks who protect villages from beasts or help grannies pass across the road ain't big on socializing. They come, do what they need to do, and move onto another objective/return to meditation.
Of course, that doesn't mean you don't need to actually talk to anyone, and some can indeed enter into conversations if they consider them interesting from philosophical or educational value, but you won't see them engaging in chit-chat or any excessive behavior.




That's why monks are usually busy with what I mentioned above all the time. While they may change their views (especially while on beginning of the training) they don't tend to do that. To become monk you must posses certain strength of both body and mind, and if they are easily swayed when confronted with some temptation. they probably ain't monk material in the first place.



I don't this can't be separated. Monks way dictates both way of training and way of acting, communication with rest of the society included. Some ignore it and try not to get involved in "mundane" matters, some try to help communities by protecting them or/and offering education, others may seek systematic subjugation/conversion of those people to better serve their (or their gods') grand plans.
This is just my opinion, though.

_________________
"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupry

I sort of get what you're asking. I'll try and explain it the best I'm able to and either you'll like it or you won't, haha. I'm going to go ahead and explain the same situation from four different views - that is, a kingdom is being taken over by a tyrant and I'll explore CE, CG, LE, and LG (I'll be using level 30 characters, so we all know they can do as they please in this scenario).

Chaotic Evil
In this situation, the chaotic evil character comes up the castle that's being taken over and grins with amusement. Now being chaotic and uncaring for the sways of either the code of man or any sort of personal code, he's going to go with the swing of emotions (selfishness) and do what he feels like. This can include helping the evil guy out and trying to kill as many villagers as he wants - maybe even going too far, but he doesn't really give a damn because he's doesn't care about ruling. Perhaps instead he feels like he wants to try and take the big baddie out as fun and then turn on all the villagers, or turn the entire kingdom into a free for for all and make everyone fight in giant arenas. At any time during this, he can change his mind and go the other way completely - he's chaotic, but definitely evil.

Chaotic Good
Chaotic good characters are normally huge on freedom and thus would be the biggest opponent of tyrants. Despite being good they will, as above, use any means they feel is necessary to save the people of the kingdom. They may swing anywhere from trying to use politics to even enlisting aid from the local monsters if they think it's their only choice - more or less the means justifying the ends so long as the people are safe. This doesn't mean they're unwise, they are just willing to do anything and everything to complete their task "so long as the people are safe."

Lawful Evil
Of course, this character is either likely the tyrant himself or someone that would be either willing to join him or try and take his place. He is noticeably different than our chaotic evil friend though because he has a set of principles or codes he follows, whether this be trying to twist and manipulate the local laws to fit his needs and thus protect himself from all but those willing to break laws, or following personal codes that force him to save children when confronted. Unlike the chaotic characters that will do anything they feel is necessary, he will do anything in his power to keep to his personal code to the tee. Even if this means risking the loss of his kingdom - if he has a personal set of ethics that make him refuse to hurt a woman, then the woman adventurer would be his bane and he will - with deep regrets - back down unless he has trap her, stun her, or otherwise make her immobile. He will try and finds other ways around his code, but he will not hurt her.

Lawful Good
Much like the tyrant, the lawful good character is bound by a strict code of ethics. Again, anywhere ranging from following local laws to having his own personal code he follows. If he feels that he needs to be beholden to local laws, then he will try and bring the light of truth to how they work and how they were 'supposed' to work rather than trying to twist them to meet his own needs - and he will do this above all else, even if it means the death of a companion. The same goes for a personal code, a perfect example being "I will not murder anyone." If this character is forced into a situation where the tyrant or any evil character gives him two choices; either kill an innocent man or watch the baddie kill his love, he is obligated to follow his personal code and refuse to murder, regardless of what the tyrant does.

_________________
"How a person masters his fate is more important than what his fate is." - Karl Wilhelm von Humboldt


(Teriana Alow)

I wouldn't worry too much about alignment. Think of a psychologically and historically believable regiment for your monk to follow, and everything falls into place. Good and evil are unclear enough, there's no hope of making sense of lawful and chaotic. You can be lawful in a bazillion ways, and the lawfulness of a paladin is not the lawfulness of a judge is not the lawfulness of a monk, any more than the chaoticness of a barbarian is the chaoticness of an elf is the chaoticness of a bard. Law and chaos can manifest themselves in many ways in a character's behaviour, such as liberal/conservative, authoritarian/anarchist, unpredictable/consistent, law-abiding/renegade, disciplined/slacker, etc.

I don't really want to get into specifics. Interpreting alignment is always up to you, and I'd steer clear of the garbage generalizations uneducated game designers try to force on you in the source books. If you can create a believable ethos for your PC to follow, then you should be satisfied. DMs are the only ones you need to convince, and even they aren't too anal on Amia about monitoring your behaviour.

_________________

Thanks for that; However, when there is a PC of a less than lawful race that wants to be a monk, figuring out the little particulars of allignment are important. How would you try and make a fiendish monk, or one from a strictly neutral race? I believe Amia uses the policy of tolerating one step in any direction as long as it makes sense within the roleplay. Elves are chaotic, but lawful elves are severely more common (and thus elven monks) than that of fiends.

I believe that is only in terms of divine caster classes (not including Paladins, of course). The rest can all do whatever. Still, you have to make things make sense.

_________________
Whomst've'll'd'mn't I play:
Salema Nefahri :: A penny for your thots
Zrae'a'stra'fryn :: That which nightmares are made of
Khasir :: From the East a storm is coming

I've had a few replies here mentioning how a monk is never NOT training, which is a concept that I understand. I did not mean to say that a monk works 9-5 and then has time off from training, only that not every instance of society applies to the specific thing monks do.

Let me use a basic example; Say we have a "good" monk who believes in righteousness and cleanliness to the extreme, and the order is about purification and perfection in form without ever sullying the body-- body is a temple, etc. If the order's dogma was to perfect their bodies and purge taint from themselves and others (including alcohol, magic, body modification, etc.) These monks would abstain from many worldly desires while keeping an upright rigid code on what they accept and do not accept, both in themselves and company. Now, say they take a hostile stance on anyone dumb enough to willingly taint themselves, believing it to be in the best interest of both themselves (removing nearby taint and temptation) and others (purifying society.)

Now that we have a basis, what if the monks then find out about some evil at work in the town near their monastery, and go about dealing with that threat in a manner that may or may not be seen as "good" by the people living there, such as burning everything down to start anew rather than try and weed out corruption... wouldn't such actions be chaotic, while keeping in the lawfulness of their order's code?

Re-iterating the question: Can the monk be lawful in regards to their code, and chaotic or neutral in dealing with things otherwise? I'm willing to say that all monks come from more or less chaotic or neutral races, and it's only through severe training that they become more "lawful" in terms of their code. Monks of the Long Death come to mind, who kill-- at random with no regard for law or status-- for use in their studies of the time of death.

Yes, absolutely. There are many ways to be chaotic or lawful, many different areas of life where you can practice chaos or law. They may overlap or they may contradict. Lawfulness in one aspect may require chaos in another. Loyalty to kin and tradition is undoubtedly lawful, but can easy conflict with the normalization practices of an orderly, bureaucratic society - something also clearly lawful.

To rephrase my previous drunk post I barely recognize: it's not important to figure out the details of alignment, but it is important the figure out the details of your character's cultural background, personality traits and ethos. These are the kind of things that make your alignment, but they're primary. Alignment is a description you apply to a character afterwards. You have to figure out how a Tanar'ri tiefling or an air genasi makes sense of the monk discipline; you have to play a believable character. You don't have to play a "lawful character" or speculate whether the character ticks all the boxes of lawfulness in someone's OOC interpretation of alignment.

Monks are only lawful insofar as that's part of their monastic discipline. If your monk is completely believable and yet acts unlawfully in society, that's OK.

I can't really give examples as I've never played a monk for very long, and every character is different. But it's certainly believable that some monks would scoff at human society and believe artificial social order twists the natural potential of the human mind and body. Anarchist monks seeking to free themselves of all power and limitations imposed by their surroundings could very well appear chaotic in many aspects.

Law and chaos describe a variety of attitudes and practices that have varying degrees of relevance to eachother. Nobody is lawful in every aspect, and no one is fully chaotic either. That's not just because humans are imperfect mortals yadda yadda (though that's also true), but most of all it would be a logical impossibility: all kinds of lawfulness simply aren't compatible with eachother.

_________________

There are some good posts here, thanks for the information so far.

_________________

Yes.
Example: paladin leading resistance/rebellion in country occupied/run by tyrant. Is he against the system? Yes. Does that make him "chaotic"? Don' think so.
Example: monk is member of Order of Changeless Face (who oppose change and protect tradition) and comes to a city where bunch of people protest against centuries old government. Monk asks them to go away. They say no. Monk beats shit outta them, despite it being against the law (probably getting himself thrown in jail).
Could make bunch of examples, but just being lawful doesn't mean you must automatically follow and obey laws in every place you visit. Lawful alignment for me represents people with methodical, structured, organized way of living and dealing with his surroundings. Since such people prefer to follow well defined and structured dogmas, work within organized groups and societies with strictly defined laws, it's called "lawful".

_________________
"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupry

Absolutely 100% yes.

_________________

Thanks everyone, I love it when discussions go on for a while. I've got more questions, but I'll try and space them apart.

_________________
Amia Minecraft Server Ip: vps1602.directvps.nl
NWN Damage Calculator: http://www.afterlifeguild.org/Thott/dnd/
NWN Build Calculator: http://nwvault.ign.com/View.php?view=Other.Detail&id=856

You'd think Monks of the Long Death are connected to Velsharoon, but their dogma states that they are more concerned with the moment of death as opposed to the pursuit of unlife. Since Velsharoon is the god of the pursuit of unlife, Monks of the Long Death have more in common with gods like Jergal and Shar who are more about death and endings than about the continuance thereof.

Canonically, I'd have to look, but that's how I feel about their dogma.

_________________
Mathus, Void Apostle of the New Moon

None. The Monks of the Long Death are not connected to any deity as an Order. Individual monks of the Order can have whatever patron they like, but it's likely they fall in a fairly narrow scope that matches their paradigm.

"Long Death (Evil): The Long Death order worships the principles of death without caring much which deity currently owns the portfolio. They are more than willing to share death and its antecedent pain with others. Clerics of the previous god of death, Myrkul, chose to view them as part of their god's long range plans. Kelemvor (the current god of the dead) views them as enemies, but is at least pleased that they do not actively promote undeath. Velsharoon (the god of necromancy and undeath) wants to woo them, but has not figured out how. Monks of the Long Death may multiclass freely as fighters, assassins, and blackguard. This order with quite strong in Thay, thought not with the sanction or cooperation of the Red Wizards."
- FRCS, pg 25