1- LN characters never betray a peer, and also respects them.
2- LN characters uphold the law and report crimes to the authorities.
So this caused me to consider this question.
What happens when a party member commits a crime, and the LN character knows? Do they tell the authorities and betray their peer? Or do they stay silent and betray their moral code (aka honor)?
This is one of the reasons I prefer actions to dictate alignment and not alignment to dictate actions, but that stated, it's just one interpretation of LN.
Still, how can one be a peer to an LN while committing crimes? A party member who commits crimes seems to be outside the realm of being a peer to a LN. A LN can lose respect for someone they once considered a peer. It's not a betrayal of the other person. It's more like a betrayal to the LN in my opinion. (This whole response is just IMO.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Hmmm. I don't personally like that site's description. First because I think you need to have a concept of the character first, and then you can decide to apply a "label" for their alignment based on what category they fit best. Actions dictate alignment, not the reverse.
Aside from that, there are too many absolutes in this description. What laws does the character uphold? All of them? Even contradictory ones from differing and competing organizations?
Instead, I think of a character that fits lawful neutral. A soldier in a mercenary company. She follows the code of the *mercenary company* and is loyal to other members of the company. If her superior says "neutralize this target" or "secure this area" she does, no questions. If her superior says "we're guarding this merchant's caravan because we've been paid to do so" she does, no question. If her superior says "this merchant swindled our guys out of money. Break into his shop, rough him up, and steal back all our money," she does, no questions asked.
In the last situation there's zero conflict between following the superior's orders and the legality of the action because her code only ties her to the company. She's not a goody-two-shoes, and she's not evil. She follows her orders. Lawful neutral.
Actions determine alignment, not the other way around.
Additionally, alignment is obsolete, stupid, and essentially meaningless in 5e. Just play your character and have him react according to his experiences and personality.
As an attempt to answer the question at hand, rather than disparaging the alignment system or how you’ve chosen to use it I would answer like this:
Lawful really means rule following. Obviously that will mean following the rules of the land (laws) but it can also mean following rules of respect and honor (as you said). The LN PC might behave differently whether he cares more about the laws of the land or his social rules.
If the law breaker has good reason to break a law and had earned the respect of the LN PC then he might consider it ok to break the law of the land.
If the law breaker is just a jerk then he probably hasn’t earned the respect of the LN PC automatically and therefore could easily be reported.
Also, losing respect for someone doesn’t mean that you are going to drag them off to the constabulary immediately. It might just mean that you have to work with someone you don’t like for a while to achieve a goal.
Another way of looking at this is through the lens of deities. Both the Raven Queen and Helm are ostensibly LN and they certainly privilege order above all else. However, their understanding of order and the violations of that order are quite different. So a PC devoted to one will have a different understanding of what it means to lawful than one devoted to another. This is different than say a CG PC who has an internalized sense of the good. Imo, LN represents an externalized order to things that must be maintained. However, the character of that externalized order is not universally the same for all LN PCs or deities. So a lot of it depends on what that PC believes that externalized order looks like or ought to look like.
Chiming in with an interpretation of the Alignment structure:
Lawful/Chaotic: This is how a creature treats following the legal, religious, and social structures. Lawful will try to follow them to the best of their ability. Chaotic will do whatever they want in the moment with little regard to those rules.
Good/Evil: This is how a creature handles moral, religious and social ideals. A Good creature will try to do what is seen as beneficial to those ideals. An evil person may do things that go against those ideals.
Neutral: Creatures of this trait will do what they feel is best in the given situation. They are not caught up in the structures or ideals, rather the situation is their guide.
--
So in your situation, by law they did something wrong and should be held responsible for those wrong doings. However, due to the Neutral part of the alignment, your character would be able to find the grey area in the decision and either justify it or not. If you hold them in high enough esteem you'll be willing to forgive a transgression as long as the person repents. If you don't hold them in high regards, there's the constabulary, let's have a chat.
As usually when I create characters, I search the alignment so I can better play the character.
This is the site I use http://easydamus.com/lawfulneutral.html
While reading on LN I saw that:
1- LN characters never betray a peer, and also respects them.
2- LN characters uphold the law and report crimes to the authorities.
So this caused me to consider this question.
What happens when a party member commits a crime, and the LN character knows? Do they tell the authorities and betray their peer? Or do they stay silent and betray their moral code (aka honor)?
This is one of the reasons I prefer actions to dictate alignment and not alignment to dictate actions, but that stated, it's just one interpretation of LN.
Still, how can one be a peer to an LN while committing crimes? A party member who commits crimes seems to be outside the realm of being a peer to a LN. A LN can lose respect for someone they once considered a peer. It's not a betrayal of the other person. It's more like a betrayal to the LN in my opinion. (This whole response is just IMO.)
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Hmmm. I don't personally like that site's description. First because I think you need to have a concept of the character first, and then you can decide to apply a "label" for their alignment based on what category they fit best. Actions dictate alignment, not the reverse.
Aside from that, there are too many absolutes in this description. What laws does the character uphold? All of them? Even contradictory ones from differing and competing organizations?
Instead, I think of a character that fits lawful neutral. A soldier in a mercenary company. She follows the code of the *mercenary company* and is loyal to other members of the company. If her superior says "neutralize this target" or "secure this area" she does, no questions. If her superior says "we're guarding this merchant's caravan because we've been paid to do so" she does, no question. If her superior says "this merchant swindled our guys out of money. Break into his shop, rough him up, and steal back all our money," she does, no questions asked.
In the last situation there's zero conflict between following the superior's orders and the legality of the action because her code only ties her to the company. She's not a goody-two-shoes, and she's not evil. She follows her orders. Lawful neutral.
I see, thanks.
Actions determine alignment, not the other way around.
Additionally, alignment is obsolete, stupid, and essentially meaningless in 5e. Just play your character and have him react according to his experiences and personality.
As an attempt to answer the question at hand, rather than disparaging the alignment system or how you’ve chosen to use it I would answer like this:
Lawful really means rule following. Obviously that will mean following the rules of the land (laws) but it can also mean following rules of respect and honor (as you said). The LN PC might behave differently whether he cares more about the laws of the land or his social rules.
If the law breaker has good reason to break a law and had earned the respect of the LN PC then he might consider it ok to break the law of the land.
If the law breaker is just a jerk then he probably hasn’t earned the respect of the LN PC automatically and therefore could easily be reported.
Also, losing respect for someone doesn’t mean that you are going to drag them off to the constabulary immediately. It might just mean that you have to work with someone you don’t like for a while to achieve a goal.
Another way of looking at this is through the lens of deities. Both the Raven Queen and Helm are ostensibly LN and they certainly privilege order above all else. However, their understanding of order and the violations of that order are quite different. So a PC devoted to one will have a different understanding of what it means to lawful than one devoted to another. This is different than say a CG PC who has an internalized sense of the good. Imo, LN represents an externalized order to things that must be maintained. However, the character of that externalized order is not universally the same for all LN PCs or deities. So a lot of it depends on what that PC believes that externalized order looks like or ought to look like.
Chiming in with an interpretation of the Alignment structure:
Lawful/Chaotic:
This is how a creature treats following the legal, religious, and social structures. Lawful will try to follow them to the best of their ability. Chaotic will do whatever they want in the moment with little regard to those rules.
Good/Evil:
This is how a creature handles moral, religious and social ideals. A Good creature will try to do what is seen as beneficial to those ideals. An evil person may do things that go against those ideals.
Neutral:
Creatures of this trait will do what they feel is best in the given situation. They are not caught up in the structures or ideals, rather the situation is their guide.
--
So in your situation, by law they did something wrong and should be held responsible for those wrong doings. However, due to the Neutral part of the alignment, your character would be able to find the grey area in the decision and either justify it or not. If you hold them in high enough esteem you'll be willing to forgive a transgression as long as the person repents. If you don't hold them in high regards, there's the constabulary, let's have a chat.