My gaming group is beginning a new adventure tomorrow afternoon.  And I have a bit of a quandry.  I preface this all by saying that we have been playing together for over three years now and one of the players is my brother, so a little longer.  We all love each other and are our brothers by blood or otherwise.

Now, one member came to me today, not two weeks ago when I sent out an email to each individual member of the group, and informed me of his character choice.  Wizard, Lawful Good (I know, alignment is pretty much window dressing now).  His wizard WILL NEVER kill another being because of horrors in his younger days.  WILL NEVER KILL.

So, I am trying to wrap myself around how this character will work WITH the rest of the group.  He insists that he will not kill anything.  Then it became unless it was absolutely necessary.  When asked how this character could possibly allow killing to stand in his group of fellow adventurers his response was he would turn a blind eye, as long as the death was not at his hands.  Pointed out that his actions were aiding in cold blooded murder.  He said as long as he did not give the killing blow.  So, basically I got around to stating to him, "So, you're playing a neutral character then, right?"  Answer: "Lawful Good."  I asked him to tell me how the character would work, he only further described how his character would affect him, not seeming to consider how it would work, or that it might not.  I hope I can find a way to make this happen.

I then told him that we would make the character work.  I repeated this to him repeatedly.  It is my job to take the character he WANTS to play and make him shine as he and the others tell their story in the world I have created for him.  And told him I would have liked a little more advance notice of choosing such an unorthodox character than 24 hours before game time.  My brother is playing an unorthodox character, severe anti-hero type.  But we got together last weekend and hammered it out so I know ho to make it work.  But I need time to make this other player's work as well.  It is so frustrating.  And we ARE playing tomorrow.  We have put it off a couple times and no more.

Questions.

1. In your opinion, what alignment would his character fall under?  (I hate this question as I do not even insist a player choose an alignment unless they decide the way they play their character tends toward an alignment in particular.)
2. Is it in my pervue as DM to have an NPC point out to him that his beliefs seem kind of on the convenient side?
3. He insists that this behaviour by his character is lawful good, he stands be his alignment vehemently.  Should I, as DM, hold him to his "Lawful Good"?

I love this guy.  He is like a brother to me.  He is a great gamer.  A wonderful father and husband.  *edit-removed*  I would have liked a little time to wrap my noodle around the idea.  It frustrates me so.  I think that what this boils down to is that he would travel back in time five days and get up with me and have a pow wow.  Since this is an impossibility, I guess I am just venting and appreciate the forum on which to do so.

Thanks, guys.

*edit - removed*

Alignment can be kind of complicated to pin down. On the one hand this character sounds like they have a strong personal moral code that they will not break, that describes Lawful Neutral. On the other hand, this character sounds like they have a strong conscious and wants to help others, that describes good characters (neutral and chaotic).

So you can describe this character as lawful and good, even if it doesn't sound "lawful good."

1. I would say Lawful Neutral. Clearly there are personal rules which matter a great deal to them, but he's willing to let a cold blooded murder occur, so long as he doesn't cross his assumed "Law". Clearly good is not a moral consideration here.

2. You can have an NPC express an opinion on his, or anyone's moral code. I don't think you should, and I wouldn't unless if made sense from the perspective of the personality / beliefs of the NPC to do so. I would not use an NPC as a "DM mouthpeice" to express your personal opinion about the Character's moral code.

3. I allow Players to write anything they want down under alignment. I then ignore it. If their alignment ever becomes relevant ( which it seldom actually does ), I do an "on the spot" evaluation as to how they have been acting, not what's on the sheet. If he plays this Character the way he intends, then he would be evaluated as Lawful Neutral. You most likely won't ever need to evaluate it.

I don't see how his choices are  a "wangrod move". 

It sounds like you find this unorthodox choice personally frustrating. Why? It should not matter to you as a DM what he chooses for personal Character motivation. 

You do not have to "wrap your noodle" around anything. It is not your job to make his - or any other Player's - Character work, or fail. Have the NPCs treat his Character in a plausible and consistent manner, based on the Character's behavior. Treat his Character like you would any other. You opinions of his Character design should not enter into how the denizens of your campaign world react to him - they should react based on what he says & does, and their own personalities ( not yours ).

The only time you have any right to intervene with a Player about their Character, is if the way that Character is being played is causing issue with the other Players. Note - that's the Players, not their Characters. Sometimes, inter-party friction can lead to some great role-playing. Having their Character expression making another Player unhappy is a "wangrod" thing to do, and needs to be addressed by the DM - but otherwise, leave well enough alone.

I'm somewhat alarmed that you are apparently already targeting his Character, by planning on having your villain force him specifically to violate the moral code you dislike. Why? Does the villain have any means of discovering this Character's moral code? Do they have a particular - in character - reason for targeting it? If not, then you're using the villain to express your own personal dislike. That's what we call a "dick move". So is retrofitting your villain to give them such knowledge, or motive.

Vedexent, you are completely on mark. I needed a good stiff reminder. It is my job to let him play and to, fairly, let his IC actions and associations bear out. The wangrod part was a personal vent that made it past the editor. As I said, he is a great guy. I guess we all have a bit of wangrod in us.

As to targetting him, though. Don't worry. Everyone will have a conflicting part to play in the end game overarch, his just became the most simple to fit. Another player, a Cleric, will help his diety only to find betrayal. Etc etc. Don't worry. I have not gone to the dark side.

Thanks again, for every word. Bend myself and the world to accommodate the story and, thus, the characters. I needed to read that.