Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Eyes in the Darkness 06-18-03, 07:14 PM	It seems to me sometimes that people try and justify various nonlawful actions for the lawful characters by saying, "Well, that's his personal code of conduct, and he sticks to it!" So now to prevent bad roleplaying and to get back at munchins, I suggest that every lawful character(especially paladins and monks) write out a code of conduct at charcter generation, and then stick to it at all times. Characters with good INT should be able to rattle off their code from heart (aka the player can have his code written out in front of him/her at all times), while characters with low INT will know the spirit and will feel awful if the later realize that they accidentally forgot a rule (aka the player can't have their code with them at all times). Now for the forum part: what would be some suggestions for what could go onto one of these lists? Obviously they will be different for every character, but what do you think some good suggestions would be in relation to the good/evil axis, religion, etc. What do you think of these as starting examples? 1 (Lawful good)- What is right is the ultimate authority. 2 (Lawful neutral)- What is the law of the land is the ultimate authority. 3 (Lawful evil)- I am the ultimate authority, unless there is someone more powerful than me, in which case he'll only remain so until such time as I can dispose of him with minimum harm to myself. P.S. Chaotic creatures can have codes of conduct too, it's just that they tend to be looser such as: "Distrust anyone with authority!"
Tzalice Minoladir 06-18-03, 08:46 PM	I'd love to see this thread develop. I definitely believe that a character (especially one stuck to a Code such as monks and pallys... even druids) should have their code known. I've been working one up for my paladin recently. (Really, it's "Th' Big Book o' Paladin Law", not real though :( ) It should cover things in regards to relations with others: relations with those of opposed alignments relations with the opposite gender relations with authority reasons to possibly go against authority attitudes towards slavery attitudes towards various other things attitudes towards drugs/diet/alcohol/etc. I'm just pulling stuff out the air at the moment. Feel free to add?
Eyes in the Darkness 06-18-03, 09:40 PM	Exactly. The best part is when you have a variety of disciplines for similar alignments, especially the paladin. Working with your DM you could come up with what order your paladin or monk comes from. For example, these are both lawful good (at least in the D&D alignment system) rules: 1- You must not kill in anger or malice, but the good must be upheld. When all other options are exhausted, be quickly and merciful with your smiting of evil OR 2- You must not kill at all. This paladin would show mercy to even the most vile of demons, dealing subdual damage at all times and restraining opponents after they have fallen unconcious. Makes for interesting roleplaying if such a paladin is forced into a situation where by accident or intent they are forced to kill a BBEG. While perhaps not an evil or chaotic action, this would break the paladin's code and the paladin would have to atone for their transgressions. Or for monks with a lawful neutral alignment: 1-Follow the laws of the land you are, in for it makes you an honourable person OR 2-The only law is that of the Path. Do not step off the Path and you shall find enlightenment, stray and obey the heedings of those off the Path and you shall never reach the end of the Path and true enlightenment. If choice #2 was taken at character creation then actions that might be considered unlawful (ignoring town guards, etc) would be acceptable for this character so long as he or she staid on the Path (whatever that might be). This lets DMs show someone who is abusing this roleplaying to act like a jerk and disrespect NPCs with authority to get back. If the player is happily going about doing chaotic things while sticking to the code, a member of the monastery might stop by and inform the character that it will soon be time for the Lotus Mind (or whatever) ceremony and unless he can wrap things up pretty quickly he'll miss out on a month long mediation period required by the Path. If you don't get your short term goals done soon, guess what? You've just strayed off the Path! Obviously this is a worst case scenario, but one can see it happening. Remember: follow the spirit along with the letter, and you won't ever get hammered by your lawful alignment (unless I'm DM:smirk: )
Xixt412 06-18-03, 10:23 PM	(Lawful evil)- I am the ultimate authority, unless there is someone more powerful than me, in which case he'll only remain so until such time as I can dispose of him with minimum harm to myself.[/B] Exactly! Everyone seems to think that LE has to keep his word and be honorable. The LE description in the PHB seems more like "Lawful Evil with Good tendencies." I like this better.:devil:
Dauntless 06-19-03, 12:51 AM	In my belief, lawful just means orderly or consistent. Chaotic = disorderly or inconsistent. I am currently playing a lawful good cleric of the Red Knight (FR goddess of war and strategy) and the party is fighting numerous evil clerics. We routinely disable, not kill people in combat, then interrogate them, then execute them. Sure it might not jive with modern day ethics and rules of war, but it still fits the character. Very orderly, no rash decisions or inconsistency. And they are EVIL CLERICS for crying out loud. We were just going to kill them in combat anyways, we might as well get something useful out of them instead of just issuing a coup de grace as soon as they are knocked out. --- Here is a perfect example of where being 'lawful good' doesn't mean being shackled by some sort of uptight puritanical code.
DeWayne 06-19-03, 02:05 AM	1 (Lawful good)- What is right is the ultimate authority. Uhhh...no. This implies that the character's personal ideas of right and wrong are the final authority, thus placing them higher than laws, church teachings, etc. However, following ones personal conscience is a chaotic good trait (ref PHB pg 89), not a lawful good trait. In most cases I don't think it would really hurt anything, but with characters that need to stick to their alignment (like a paladin) this could be a problem. However, I think the idea behind it is really good. If the player writes out a code of conduct in advance it will avoid arguments later about what is & usn't ok. But we need to make sure what they write out fits the alignment they claim to be playing.
Leap 06-19-03, 05:33 AM	(Lawful Evil as being a case of] I am the ultimate authority, unless there is someone more powerful than me, in which case he'll only remain so until such time as I can dispose of him with minimum harm to myself. IN 3rd ed, this is NOT LE; it is more NE or CE. Lawful (again, in 3rd ed) is about “honor, trustworthiness … and reliability” (at least according to the PHB), whilst Neutral folks “are honest, but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others” and Chaotics “do what they promise if they feel like it”. A lawful character is honest, is trustworthy, acts with honor, avoids cheating and generally is reliable and keeps their word, whilst the closer you get to chaotic the less trustworthy and honest you are. {Hey, don’t shoot me folks, this is what the PHB says!} Evil meanwhile is, as is shown by the PHB, when “characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life” whereas Neutral characters “have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others”, and Goods “protect innocent life . and … make personal sacrifices to help others”. Thus a Lawful evil character, by combining the honesty and honor of law and the debasement of evil, is a merciless and empathyless person who in the main punishes transgressors rather than offers the chance for redemption and reform as a Good character would. Where the good character is understanding of failings and allows space to recover, the evil person sees, as a standard, that failings are unforgivable. The neutral person is only willing to forgive and allow space for redemption when “committed to others by personal relationships”. So LE would be scrupulously honest and trustworthy but completely unforgiving of failings and “weakness”; expecting and demanding perfection at all times and punishing transgressors harshly. Where good and neutral see “warmth” as part of society (the good person to all, the neutral person to “me and mine”, the LE person is cold). For LE, someone you can trust implicitly so long as you do not transgress (in which case RUN!), think “Judge Dread”. The archetypal weasely lawyer, who twists and cheats in order to get ahead, is not lawful but is in fact Neutral or Chaotic, just as would be the person who believed “I am the ultimate authority, unless there is someone more powerful than me, in which case he'll only remain so until such time as I can dispose of him with minimum harm to myself”.
Xixt412 06-19-03, 05:03 PM	The problem is that, as described in the PHB, law is slanted toward good.
Bayushi Isao 06-19-03, 11:46 PM	The way I see Lawful Evil is that there's no rule-bending or treachery or the like at its most pure level; however, such a character may be an authoritarian that brutalizes his minions upon failure or his people when he is displeased with them. Another example is a Gestappo/KGB/Secret Police type who causes harm to the innocent or other good people upon being ordered to by his superiors, possibly taking pleasure in such actions. There is no attempt to manipulate or alter the system; rather, the system itself is inherently evil and calls for evil actions to be done.
Leap 06-20-03, 04:01 AM	Brutally Honest is perhaps a good way to present LE
Leap 06-20-03, 06:03 AM	XIXT – The problem is that, as described in the PHB, law is slanted toward good Law is the new good :) Actually you make a very good point here, law is indeed slanted (hey, more than slanted!) towards what has previous been considered “Good”: Community (through a common code, honesty, honor, slow change, reliability and trustworthiness). “Good” (in third ed) is limited to the “warmth” and empathy of the person. Of course this means that Chaos now contains what was previously considered “Evil”: Anti-sociality (through a lack of common code combined with dishonesty, instability, unreliability and untrustworthiness), and 3rd ed evil becomes a matter of brutality and coldness…………….In 2nd ed I would have been insulted to have been called LN (I was more CG), yet now I find that this is quite an accurate description….. :) To get a bit technical, lawfulness now represents more the polychronic societies [who typically have a strong sense of community and family, a greater valuing of “honor”, an orientation to slower and less change [and thus an aversion to “progress” and a strong liking of “tradition”], and less emphasis on “achievement” – examples being Mediterranean and Arabian cultures] with the community building values it puts forward. Chaoticness meanwhile now represents more the monochronic societies [who typically have a stronger sense of the individual, a casting aside of “honor” [just look at the divorce-for-adultery rate, drug-cheat athletes, the number of businesses convicted of fraud and the prevalence of the “weasel word” in legal contracts, advertisments and in govt press statements alike] in favour of sharp practice, an orientation to quicker and greater change [and thus an aversion to “tradition” and a strong liking of “progress”], and a greater emphasis on “achievement” – examples being Northern European and US cultures] with the anti-community values it promotes.
Eyes in the Darkness 06-20-03, 11:42 AM	Welcome Leap. I knew that you would be drawn towards this thread like a moth to flame. Now, I feel that my previous statement about how lawful evil works can in fact comply with the PHB definition, and it is how lawful works (at least in my opinion) among mortals. People who would be considered lawful do so for a very specific reason: the assimilate the law into themselves. A paladin becomes the ideals that he is upholding, and as such to break a law isn't so much an abstract thing to the paladin but a personal affront to the paladin's personal code. A lawful evil person is the ultimate authority even when that person is living within a code created by others. True, they want to get to the top, but a lawful evil person never places themselves above the system they create, even if they are at the pinnacle of the system and can do whatever they want. And remember, if you lay the dagger on the ground and pour oil around your superiors feet so that he falls onto the dagger, it's still a backstab. Sure, he was smuggling diamonds already, but you are an unscrupulous bastard, so you altered his book keeping about a little to include a little opium smuggling and slave trading, and then you brought it to the king to show your loyalty to the kingdom. That's lawful evil, especially if the funds from the diamonds went to the local orphanage. Also, frankly I would like it if they changed around the definitions of lawful a little bit, for due to our upbringing most of us have been raised in a lawful society (or at least that is what the media and the government wants us to believe) where honesty and trustworthiness is supposed to be one of the characteristics of a good person, even though that is not always the case. I kind of like the system of allegiances used in d20 Modern, which gives much more flexibility, and all "evil" mortals should have their number one allegiance read: ME.
Leap 06-20-03, 01:15 PM	Welcome Leap. I knew that you would be drawn towards this thread like a moth to flame. Flap, flap, fizzle! :) Now, I feel that my previous statement about how lawful evil works can in fact comply with the PHB definition, and it is how lawful works (at least in my opinion) among mortals. Shoot. People who would be considered lawful do so for a very specific reason: they assimilate the law into themselves. A paladin becomes the ideals that he is upholding, and as such to break a law isn't so much an abstract thing to the paladin but a personal affront to the paladin's personal code. Hmmmm….intervesting! A lawful evil person is the ultimate authority even when that person is living within a code created by others. True, they want to get to the top, but a lawful evil person never places themselves above the system they create, even if they are at the pinnacle of the system and can do whatever they want. And remember, if you lay the dagger on the ground and pour oil around your superiors feet so that he falls onto the dagger, it's still a backstab. Sure, he was smuggling diamonds already, but you are an unscrupulous bastard, so you altered his book keeping about a little to include a little opium smuggling and slave trading, and then you brought it to the king to show your loyalty to the kingdom. That's lawful evil, especially if the funds from the diamonds went to the local orphanage. I disagree [Hmmm, are you related to Arilou? ;) ] A lawful evil person is not an unscrupulous bastard, [who would have] altered his book keeping about a little because the very essence of Lawfulness is, as the PHB says, “honor, trustworthiness … and reliability” and this applies equally to ALL Lawfuls. The LE would get him legally and the punishment would be truly awful (in a LE society that is – in a LG one the criminal would be given the chance to repent and atone). For LE think Judge Dread and Inspector Javere [Les Miserables]. ABSOLUTELY honest and trustworthy but completely without mercy in the face of failings and weakness. The ULTIMATE perfectionist! Also, frankly I would like it if they changed around the definitions of lawful a little bit, for due to our upbringing most of us have been raised in a lawful society ROFLMOA….sorry [Leap composes himself once more, points to his own comments regarding monochronic society and collapses once more in fits of laughter] :) (or at least that is what the media and the government wants us to believe) where honesty and trustworthiness is supposed to be one of the characteristics of a good person, They ARE the characteristics of a good person. even though that is not always the case. I kind of like the system of allegiances used in d20 Modern, which gives much more flexibility, and all "evil" mortals should have their number one allegiance read: ME However, THAT is not alignment in DnDland…….
Leap 06-20-03, 01:40 PM	missed a bit................. LG believes you can atone for a chaotic act, LE believes you cannot.
AmbiguityX 06-20-03, 03:56 PM	I would have to say the law is an objective idea, which is totally seperate from the ideas of good and evil, hence the necessity to combine them. We must begin with the idea that the law are just rules, neither good nor evil. Now if you make a rule that is good(helped and protected people), it would be a lawful good rule. Now if a rule were made and it is bad( hurts people and punishes them then it is bad), it would be lawful evil. //questions 1) A lawful person would have to follow both. But what makes the difference between a lawful good person and a lawful evil person? 2) Do lawful evil societies have different rules from lawful good ones? //my answers 2- I would say they do have the same basic rules, but rules for enforcment would be different. 1- I think it is how one interacts with the law is the difference, eg. enforcement. A lawful good society/person would be inclined to mercy and ideas such as innocent until proven guilty. While a lawfule evil society/person would be inclined toward harsh punishment and not second chances, definitly enforces a death penalty, with perhaps little to know judicial proceedings. -hence the difference is the enforcment of the law not the law itself. Its the treatment of the law. Both sides would uphold, but both very opposed and their dynamics would rarely come into collision.
Eyes in the Darkness 06-20-03, 03:57 PM	However, THAT is not alignment in DnDland……. Did I ever say it was? Also, I think I got carried away with my example, so subtract the whole alteration thing to make it look worse and you'll see what I was getting at, especially if the breaking of the law was a chaotic good act. I totally agree with you lawful evil means that you are the ultimate perfectionist, which gives you a dual weakness/strength: a. When you do execute your plans they are at maximum effectiveness and efficiency, but b. It takes you a great deal more time to iron out the kinks, so someone could foil your plot 1 second before the universe comes into perfect alignment (shouldn't have made the magic mouth count out the time for you), because you took 10 years getting the set up just right Now what would a lawful evil character's code of conduct look like? Well, that's individual, but here's one that might work for someone lawful evil. I expect Leap to dissect this apart like he is so apt at doing. 1. Never, ever break your word Exception: If you must make it look like it was the other guy's fault and punish him for it 2. Always use fine print so that you don't have to break rule #1. 3. Never break the laws of the land 3a. Dupe annoying do-gooders to do it for you and then punish them for it 4. If a superior screws up, make sure he pays for it 4a. Unless he is really, really strong, even after the screw up 5. Never kill, except for in self defense 5a. For political assinations, see 3a 6. Never make a deal with a demon 7. Deals with devils are acceptable, but remember all above rules, cause the devil is probably playing the same game Oh, and who is Arilou? Never met him/her.
Leap 06-20-03, 04:44 PM	EITD – I expect Leap to dissect this apart like he is so apt at doing. Moi?! ;) 1. Never, ever break your word Exception: If you must make it look like it was the other guy's fault and punish him for it 2. Always use fine print so that you don't have to break rule #1. 3. Never break the laws of the land 3a. Dupe annoying do-gooders to do it for you and then punish them for it 4. If a superior screws up, make sure he pays for it 4a. Unless he is really, really strong, even after the screw up 5. Never kill, except for in self defense 5a. For political assassinations, see 3a 6. Never make a deal with a demon 7. Deals with devils are acceptable, but remember all above rules, cause the devil is probably playing the same game I agree with 1,4,6 and 7. The rest do not coincide with lawful being a matter of “lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word [and] honor tradition. Law implies honor, trustworthiness….and reliability” (PHB 88) :) Oh, and who is Arilou? Never met him/her. Arilou Skiff, a fellow dweller in the ether here in WOTC land :)
Eyes in the Darkness 06-20-03, 04:54 PM	Well those rules were from a specific individual, probably a crime lord or weasly bureaucrat. I especially stand next to the fine print one because you are being honest and I suppose trustworthy, because you are being totally open with whoever you are signing the contract with. If they happen to not read everything, well they should have! I especially like toying with paladins in these sorts of manners ("You see this line over here for the rescue the damsel gain a chunk of land agreement? Well, it includes all the traditions of this land, and one of them is that all landowners owe the overlord thirty days of service every year. Well, as the overlord I'm calling in a day right now. There's a bunch of orphans squatting in an abandoned building, and the just don't seem to want to come out at any cost, screaming on and on about how I'm going to kill them and sell their souls to some guy named Asmodeus."). This trick is mostly to make the paladin break his word or otherwise make him commit a nonlawful act, as a paladin is most likely to believe in the strength of good more than the strength of law (relatively speaking of course).
Leap 06-20-03, 05:03 PM	EITD – Hmmm, you could have chosen a more typogenic name :) Well those rules were from a specific individual, probably a crime lord or weasely bureaucrat. Weasely is an excellent word for a non-Lawful character – it is part of the dishonesty you find as you move away from Lawful (see PHB for details (page 88)). :) It is nothing to do with “Evil” though. I especially stand next to the fine print one because you are being honest and I suppose trustworthy, because you are being totally open with whoever you are signing the contract with. The whole point is that Lawfuls would not even take the “hehehe he aint seen it!” approach. That is the attitude of a Neutral (or more likely a Chaotic). LE is not deceitful, it is phenomenally extreme in the punishment of such (as opposed to LG which is more lenient and forgiving). a paladin is most likely to believe in the strength of good more than the strength of law (relatively speaking of course). I agree – in a situation where a Paladin must choose between Law and Good, he should chose Good (which is more important to him than Law – as can be seen by the fact that he can atone for a chaotic act but not an evil one).
The One and Only... 06-22-03, 01:14 PM	Leap: You are reading excerpts from the lawful description, but not from the lawful evil description. Lawful Evil "Dominator": A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard to whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order, but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules, but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but he is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religioin, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises. This reluctance is partly because of his nature and party because of his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains. The scheming baron who expands his power and exploits his people is lawful evil. The bold section is where my main argument lies. First, you notice the word "some". "Some" indicates that not all lawful evil characters have such taboos i.e. codes. Then, you'll notice the words in parentheses. These indicate that exceptions do occur, such as with killing children. So your "cannot alter books" argument flops. Futhermore, if you have ever read about FR, you know that the Zentarem (sp?) are a largely lawful evil order, but that assassinations between rivals are very frequent. Something that is surely not honorable. A lawful evil character need not be the ultimate holder of order. That job belongs to the lawful neutral characters. A lawful evil villain need only be a character that manipulates order and rules rather than outright breaking them. He realizes that this somewhat limits him: but he knows that the protection of the law on his side, as well as the fact that people will be more willing to work with him sense he can be trusted more than other evil characters, will work only to his advantage.
Leap 06-22-03, 03:53 PM	TOAO – “Leap: You are reading excerpts from the lawful description, but not from the lawful evil description” I realise that. The “Lawful Evil” section is utterly at odds with what is said in the “Law vrs Chaos” section on page 88 (it is almost as if 2 different people wrote the alignment section). “Futhermore, if you have ever read about FR, you know that the Zentarim (sp?) are a largely lawful evil order, but that assassinations between rivals are very frequent. Something that is surely not honorable” I realise that as well; by the basic standards of 3rd edition they should really be classed a NE. This is the biggest problem with 3rd edition alignment; the utter inconstancy of it. Hopefully the new revisions will sort these problems out (hey, I can hope), but right now I find the “good vrs evil” and law vrs chaos” sections make a great deal of sense, whilst the others seem cobbled on nonsense…………and unfortunately it is the cobbled on nonsense that most people look at :(
Eyes in the Darkness 06-22-03, 04:57 PM	Loop holes and fine print are a lawful evil characters best friend, because they let him or her never break laws while still being evil. Leap, you have called a lawful evil character the ultimate form of perfectionist. Well, "ignorance of the law is no excuse", and to a perfectionist ignorance is a serious flaw. With loopholes, fine print, and all those things, a lawful evil character can be a weasle, and still be honourable, in a sense. He's laying everything you need to know out in front of you, before you sign the deal. He expects you to go through it with a fine tooth comb, because he wouldn't do anything less if the roles were reversed. In the world of lawful evil, there are two kinds of people: other people like him and people to be exploited. Lawful evil never tries to cheat the system, a nonlawful act, but tries to milk the system for everything its worth. A lawful evil character sees the line, but never crosses it, preferring to do whatever evil deeds within the confines of the law, but if he needs something outside the lines done, he will get someone else to do it for him.
Qual-Kehk 06-22-03, 11:50 PM	This has become more a discussion on alignment, rather than a developing Codes of Conduct for Lawful Creatures. The first few posts were very helpful. I used some of what was said to help a cleric of Heironeous' player come up with a Code of the particular priesthood he was brought up in. Gracias :smirk:
Leap 06-23-03, 04:22 AM	EITD – Loop holes and fine print are a lawful evil characters best friend, because they let him or her never break laws while still being evil What do you mean by “evil” though? When honesty / dishonesty is a matter of law / chaos, what do you think “evil” is about? Would you agree with the “evil as utterly un-accepting of weakness and failings”? He's laying everything you need to know out in front of you, before you sign the deal. He expects you to go through it with a fine tooth comb, because he wouldn't do anything less if the roles were reversed. I think you may have a good point here; it would indeed be lawful evil to do this (taking evil as delineated above) although they would not go to such extremes as a chaotic evil bod would (the latter actually TRYING to be weasely whilst LE is unforgiving but would go to great lengths to avoid weaseliness). A lawful evil character sees the line, but never crosses it, preferring to do whatever evil deeds within the confines of the law, but if he needs something outside the lines done, he will get someone else to do it for him. I disagree; a lawful evil person would advocate breaking the law as often as a lawful good one would. They both agree that honor, trustworthiness and honesty are absolutely vital. They disagree in the approach to failings and weaknesses – LE sees weakness as unacceptable (and thus will punish weakness VERY harshly) whilst LG understands that failing is part of being human (and thus will punish failings, but such punishments will be tempered by mercy and compassion). Qual-Kehk – This has become more a discussion on alignment, rather than a developing Codes of Conduct for Lawful Creatures. The first few posts were very helpful. I can understand why you would say this but we are actually trying to flesh out the basics of a code without going the obvious route of 1,2,3,4….. The code would be made up of two parts; attitude to honor and attitude to mercy and forgiveness. Honor is a matter of good-sportsmanship, honesty and trustworthiness – do not cheat, betray of backstab: it is better to win with honor than to lose, but it is better to lose with honor than to win by cheating. Mercy and forgiveness is a matter of whether you would be Good (and hold that for all but the worst crimes, punishment must be tempered by the understanding that we are not perfect – that we all have failings and that to be unaccepting of this matter is foolish, for to punish to harshly is to destroy, through cold unfeeling, the society that law promotes) or evil (and hold that weakness is unacceptable and should be punished harshly to fight against it – or else the world would be full of weakness and collapse under its own lack of strength). Thus a Lawful Evil would be utterly dedicated to honor, and would be severely unforgiving of any failing from that. Like I said before, think Judge Dread or Inspector Javere from Les Mis’. They praise those who win with honor, are cool but ‘polite’ to those who lose with honor, and “come down like a ton of bricks” on those who abandon honor. Lawful evil walks on shaky ground though, for in being so unaccepting of weakness their attitude to those who lose with honor is a dangerous temptation to bad-sportsmanship. A Lawful Good meanwhile would be just as dedicated to honor as a Lawful Evil, but would judge failings less harshly; tempering punishment with mercy. They praise those who win with honor, support and applaud those who lose with honor, and seek the correction of those who abandon honor. Where a Lawful Evil punishes for the benefit of society (it is more important to avoid dishonour in the rest of society than to cure it in the individual who “sinned”), the Lawful Good punishes for the benefit of both (seeking the redemption, where possible, for the “sinner”, whilst discouraging further “sin” in society). Well, these are the standards I (try!!) to live by and teach my kids…….erm, the lawful good ones that is :)