How do you Lawful Neutral
Buttercheese
Member Posts: 3,766
I recently started a new P&P round (Pathfinder, Forgotten Realms/ Ravenloft) and for the first time, I am playing a lawful character ... and I am having problems with that 
So my character is a lawful neutral Cleric of Kelemvor (officially a Lightbringer Cleric) who is supossed to be a cold hearted, workaholic, professional undead hunter type. A very serious gal who dresses Van Helsing meets full plate meets Trinity Blood. She is not known to be compassionate and prefers putting souls to rest than taking care of the survivors left behind.
We did a test session last monday but I had the problem that I ended up playing her more lawful good than lawful neutral, because I have problems deciding when something is lawful and when something is good (that's why I always play chaotic characters in P&P ...).
Does anyone have experiences with playing lawful neutral characters and has some advice for me?
(And before someone suggests it, I am not going to change her alignment.)
So my character is a lawful neutral Cleric of Kelemvor (officially a Lightbringer Cleric) who is supossed to be a cold hearted, workaholic, professional undead hunter type. A very serious gal who dresses Van Helsing meets full plate meets Trinity Blood. She is not known to be compassionate and prefers putting souls to rest than taking care of the survivors left behind.
We did a test session last monday but I had the problem that I ended up playing her more lawful good than lawful neutral, because I have problems deciding when something is lawful and when something is good (that's why I always play chaotic characters in P&P ...).
Does anyone have experiences with playing lawful neutral characters and has some advice for me?
(And before someone suggests it, I am not going to change her alignment.)
4
Comments
I do agree, it is often hard to tell Lawful and Good apart, mostly thanks to how we're brought up in this world to believe that law = good and chaos = bad / evil. Most video games don't help either. Take Neverwinter Nights 2, it's a pain in the butt to be non-Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil in that game, so many Good choices have Lawful points as well, and so many Evil ones have Chaotic points...
But what is the the principle that a Lawful Neutral follows? I don't like RP it as someone that maintains the balance. If you are good to the good and bad to the evil, well then you're just a good guy. If you're bad to the good, and good to the evil, well then you're evil. I guess since you're P&P you can side with the underdog to maintain the balance, in BG that almost always means you're just being good though.
I don't have good experiences playing lawful neutral, or true neutral. I found them hard to connect with. They are a bit of a puzzle. I imagine a committed Lawful Neutral character as a Zen master. Someone who sees herself from behind her own head as a single point in a vast universe which will continue running based on immutable cosmic laws with or without her. What could possibly compel such a character?
Perhaps your best bet is to make the character a vampire hunter / accountant. Caring most about the lawfulness of actions without regard to personal profit or greater good.
You would rather bring a intoxicated man sleeping on the street to prison instead of to his house.
A dying man, with incurable wounds, is begging for water. You would put him out of his misery quickly rather than expend rations which are needed for those still alive.
You would rather perform the burial rights for the dead before helping with the wounded. In your mind, being sent to the afterlife as soon as possible is more important than helping someone who is suffering.
When approached by an intelligent undead, you would attempt to kill it as soon as possible, even if it put innocent lives at risk. If those innocents die, it is just part of the natural cycle and you will gladly perform a burial service for them.
You tend to let corrupt behaviour (theft, murder) go unpunished knowing that Kelemvor will judge them more harshly (but fairly) in the afterlife, than any punishment a mortal can give in this life.
Alignment is one of those game mechanics that can (especially in PnP) get, well, complicated. I'm from the 'shades of grey' camp rather than the strict 'black and white' camp when dealing with alignment.
I wrote up a good little quip on alignment here - https://forums.beamdog.com/discussion/comment/796398#Comment_796398
That post pretty much encapsulates my ideas on alignment and how it should function in a game setting.
Lawful good - you're teaching a man how to fish in an ecologically sound manner, consistent with national rules and regulations, to enable him to better provide for his family and contribute to society.
Lawful evil - you're waiting until you cross in to international waters before you gut your enemy and feed him to the fish for interfering in your business after that one veiled threat that gave him a chance to get out of your way
Lawful neutral - who the fuck cares about fish? You have a mission and nothing else matters
Good:
- Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day
- Teach a man to fish, and he'll eat for a lifetime
Neutral:- Teach the man to fish (good)
- Tell the man that he should learn how to fish and not rely on others, suggest a place where this could happen (neutral/neutral-good)
- Ignore the man (evil)
- Tell the man that it's against the law to beg, then promptly report the man to the authorities (lawful)
Evil:- Ignore the man
- Tell the man to stop bothering you
The reason why both good and evil can appear under neutral is due to balance. You might teach a man to fish one day and ignore requests in the future. Being good or evil requires consistently good or evil actions, whereas neutral can dabble in both. Good an evil are black and white, while neutral characters are This is also why I find questionnaires for character creation to be conflicting, questions are broad, most of the time I look at things on a case by case basis, make judgements based on what I can see rather than 'if this happened, what would you do?' The answer is: I don't know, what other circumstances were involved, what lead to the action happening, how many sides to the story are there, etc.? Let's take some real life examples. Someone tells you that they're not doing so well financially.Good characters will tend to be sympathetic no matter the circumstances, evil characters will say that they should have managed their money (or made contingency plans in case something happened) better regardless of the circumstances, while neutral characters will have different opinions based entirely on circumstance.
Example 1: They had a mortgage and lost their job, couldn't make the repayments, and subsequently lost their home.
Example 2: They got a new credit card, their provider has upper their limit to (£/$/€)15,000, and they have decided to splash out with no thought of repayment.
Example 3: They have engagements they were committed to prior to starting repayments and have decided not to change those activities; 'engagements/activities' can include going out to restaurants, pubs, spending money on cigarettes or alcohol, or purchasing other luxuries or needless items. It has come to a point where they can no longer afford one of the following things:- their luxuries, household utility bills, or the mortgage.
I'll give a stab at what I think the outcomes would be below:
Examples 1 and 2 are clear cut.
In Example 1, a good character will offer sympathy, possibly offering help. A neutral character will either sympathise—perhaps suggest a way to make money, help find a job, or make a reference—or show complete apathy, this depends on the person. An evil character probably wouldn't care, perhaps tell them that they should have thought ahead on this possibility before taking out a mortgage.
In Example 2, a good character will offer sympathy and possibly blame the conniving bank/institute for allowing them to get into debt. A neutral character will say that they should have gotten a debit card instead, so that they could only spend their own money rather than rely on credit with potentially high repayment interest rates—or avoid cards entirely.
Example 3 is less clear, but I'll give it a go.
In Example 3, a good character will offer sympathy and possibly even help. A neutral character will say that luxuries are secondary and that the mortgage must come first, else they be homeless. An evil character might suggest that they stop paying for luxuries and simply take them, or flatly ignore the person and walk away.
So... how you do lawful neutral will depend entirely on the circumstance. If something isn't against the law, then you can make your own opinion or perform your own actions—however, if that opinion or action is always, consistently, on one side of the good or evil scale then you're not neutral. If something is against the law, then the law trumps everything, even if you'd like your character to sympathise or rebuke.
LE: Telling the man he would feed him if he agreed to become his slave for set amount of time. The food provided wouldn't be enough or ill quality, but still within the negotiated terms.
NE: Tell him he will teach the man how to catch his own dinner if he follows him to this secluded spot. The NE character would then use the man for his own dark personal desires.
CE: Teach the man to fish, using parts of the beggars body as bait.
My interpretation of the alignment system goes: Good characters go out of their way to help others. Like, potentially put themselves at risk or inconvenience themselves to help. Neutral characters will help others if it's not too onerous and has little to no risk for themselves. They agree with Good ideals but usually restrict their actions to those close to them rather than society as a whole.
So realistically, most people would be some flavor of neutral. It's a very rare few who are actually Good (or Evil) because that requires more than normal people are willing to give. I think it also emphasizes how unique adventurers and heroes are, because they have stronger convictions in their moral actions than the average person.
Note, this is a broad generalization, and it's reflective on the G-N-E axis and not the L-N-C axis.
So my own interpretation of good vs neutral is:
Good: Give your last rations to a stranger who is starving. Volunteer to help refugees.
Neutral: Share your food if you have enough. Give money to charity if you can spare.
http://easydamus.com/lawfulneutral.html
He is evil, but he has his code, most of all in fighting. In fact, he always struggles trying to beat Drizzt in a fair combat match.
Most liberal democracies are essentially lawful neutral. They are based on rule of law under the assumption that laws exist for the greater good. Liberal democracies are founded on the belief that the society works best when people follow the letter of the law. It is acknowledged that sometimes the law leads to unfair outcomes and that the end result would be better for everyone by deviating from the law. The society prefers following the law even under such circumstances, if it cannot create an objective general rule stating when breaking the law is allowed. If you allow for common sense in interpreting the law, you also open the door for nepotism and corruption.
Under this interpretation, being lawful neutral is about thinking in the long term. If the laws are just, following them leads to the best outcome for the society, even though some individual situations could be resolved better by using common sense. A neutral good character, on the other hand, considers each situation individually. For them, the main source of conflict is the realization that sometimes good actions in the immediate situation may have bad consequences in the long term. The lawful good character is then the guy who wants to have their cake and eat it too.
Lawful neutral characters follow the law... But will mostly do "the good thing" within a society that condones such things, if it is easy to achieve, why not? They will owe you one...
However the path of least resistance or the most self-serving actions override any philanthropic or spiteful actions available.
This type of character demands gold or suitable renumeration at the end of a quest / adventure. They will usually be honest and ask for what reward or price offered by a client. However they are trustful that such due process will occur. When it does not, Lawful neutral adventures will attempt to settle that debt like a baliff, using force. Some may mistake this for evil, but through the eyes of the Lawful neutral it is simply taking what is owed and demonstrating to society at large that goods and services should be paid for in a lawful market economy. The poor should live within their means... To not take action is to invite chaos.
Lawful neutral characters can also have very specific goals to achieve, through which they will ignore any moralistic code. Lawful neutral characters can be power hungry, seek revenge, seek popularity or fame. They will do anything to achieve these goals... Within the Law.
For example the cleric Maggie has slept with all the higher ups to get promotion, then used her position to keep those with teal talent out of the loop. To the populace she shows compassion, then derides them in private, whilst taking a cut, through lawful if not transparent means, of charitable donations.
I love playing a power hungry mage with this alignment.
If the being lawful or chaotic is related to an inner law, a personal morale code and and a way of thinking there is no paradox, everything becomes easier.
A person will evaluate external laws and act according with his global alignment, not only the legal-chaotic aspect of the alignment. Being good or evil is relevant to that evaluation and being lawful or chaotic ( in the @subtledoctor perspective) is relevant to how he will act.
A pally (good alignment) sent in disguise to infiltrate himself in an evil organization can find himself in situations where is supposed to do evil things. The lawful-chaotic aspect of his alignment determine how he will accept to diverge from his inner code, the level of evilness that he can accept in his acts, after he has weighted the consequences of his acts against the goodness he is trying to pursue. The pally, being lawful, can maybe accept to steal, but not to kill innocent people. Another good oriented person but chaotic can diverge more from his inner code and accept to kill an innocent.
Same good-evil alignment, same situation but different lawful-chaotic alignment, different outcomes.
In this way there is no confusion and commixture between good-evil and lawful-chaotic. Good-evil sets the moral code and lawful-chaotic how much he will diverge from the moral code.
Lawful-chaotic sets also a "flavor" to the character, how much he is disciplined, regimented or prone to the impulse of the moment, how his presence in an environment contributes to the order or to the chaos, enthalpy against entropy.
I tend to imagine them as austere, logical, cold people. Robotic. Stoic. Predictable. Maybe even a bit dull?
The types that, even if they might not enjoy or go out of their way to be bumholes to people, they will if duty calls for it.
I think of them as the scientist that conducts their experiments despite any pain or suffering it might inflict on their victims if their employer or sponsor require it of them, and it is within the jurisdiction of law.
Traffic Wardens.
Criminal defence lawyers. I bet there are occasions when they know their clients are guilty of hideous crimes but defend them because that's their duty, and they don't feel guilty either way (guilt to me would imply more of a good alignment to me...)
I'm thinking the Red Woman from Game of Thrones (who does some horrific things without question in the name of her God, regardless of whether she thinks it is right or not).
The overly-beaurocratic Vogons from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
I can't imagine them being very easy to like.
While a lawful person is less often to come into conflict with people in general, don't confuse lawfulness with goodness. A lawful person might not actually be empathetic or caring of those around them. Or maybe to their immediate families but the suffering of strangers would fall on deaf ears.
Try to separate "Laws" from "Lawfulness" in every day existence. "Laws" may exist to create an ordered environment for people, but not all are successful and some even work against that, and in that kind of society a lawful person would probably be more than willing to break them. There's certainly the Judge Dredd archetype of a person who basically enforces the Law no matter what and they'd be lawful but they're less lawful because of their adherence to the law and more lawful because their single-minded pursuit of that mission and unwillingness to compromise.
It's one of the reasons I think the term "Lawful" is actually deceptive. It really should have been "Order" from the beginning.
As in [PS:T Spoiler]
I personally don't like the lawful neutral "stereotype" of bureaucratic pencil pushing, or hard-nosed rule-follower.
I see samurai and budhist monks as lawful neutral in a way that I would interpret high wisdom, high intelligence, and possibly high charisma (in the case of a samurai leader).
I see cronies and workers who just "do as they're told" for a higher authority or organization without question (good or bad) as lawful neutral in a way that I would interpret low wisdom.
Possibly you know someone at work who comes to work every day and absolutely hates his job and/or his employer, but still does the best he can while he is there because it is expected of him. That would be close to lawful neutral, imho.
I don't think that OCD, which is typically associated with lawful neutral, is accurate at all and would be more in line with a chaotic neutral character as a personality quirk.
Lawful isn't just "following the rules": Lawful could mean that you have a personal code of honor that you try to follow; whether or not that code of honor aligns with your character's society is open ended and up to you.
Now...chaotic...that's a nigh on impossible alignment to play. Even chaotic good is difficult to play properly, in my opinion. Lawful, neutral, and good...that's closest to how average normal people are anyways, if you can lump people into D&D alignments. Chaotic good is, in my opinion, the least understood and most widely, incorrectly played alignment in D&D. It has been my experience that most people play chaotic good characters as neutral good or even lawful good without even realizing it, and that many characters who are supposed to be chaotic or chaotic good are written incorrectly as well... I strongly disagree with both Haer'Dalis' (chaotic neutral) and Nalia's (chaotic good) alignment choices, and feel they are both closer to neutral or even lawful than chaotic.
My wife instinctively wants to obey rules. She will walk for miles to go around a "keep off the grass" notice. She finds it very difficult to break a rule, even when she knows it is silly and there are no adverse consequences for doing so.
But in the OP's case, with a cleric of a lawful god, you could have a character who tries to obey the laws because that is what their god says. They might actually find it quite difficult and have to battle with their conscience over making lawful decisions.
This could particularly come up where a character was inclined to be merciful to a wrong-doer (good) but their god demanded the law be applied (lawful).