Post/Author/DateTime	Post
LCD2YOU 10-09-05, 01:22 AM	I've seen more than a few posts here talking about how a Paladin, I use them because they are so esy to use, and how if they don't do what the "guy in charge" says to do, they can lose their Paladinhood. That got me wondering. When does a Lawful person, especially LG,ignore the law as it is not spreading justice just rules? Law: Set of rules. If a person steals, they lose a hand. Justice: Rules tempered. If a person steals, but it is a loaf of bread to feed their starving family, non-lawful ideas kick in. The guy in charge: A bandit leader takes over a small town and runs it like his own personal property. Legitimate Authority: Well, what is legitimate authority? Is it only democracies? What about Communism? Any other ideas? There are many more, but I'd like to hear what others are thinking about this subject.
Cymraegmorgan 10-09-05, 01:40 AM	Law: Set of rules. Justice: Rules tempered. Remember, for a Paladin, Good trumps Law. So Mercy is a more important consideration than rules. Legitimate Authority: Well, what is legitimate authority? I would think each Paladin's Code would enumerate his Order's ideas about legitimate authority. In an Order that is international in scope, such things could change fast depending on the political situation.
LCD2YOU 10-09-05, 01:45 AM	Thanks for the response. I agree that to a Pally Good triumphs the law. But I guess I was not explaining myself well. I was looking more for any character who is lawful and just what is "legitimate authority" and does it differ for the various flavors of the lawful types? Could LN and LG have very different ideas on what "legit" is and is not? Same goes for "Justice" vs "Law" and when is the "Guy in charge" legit?
Lord Schpungus 10-09-05, 01:48 AM	Good does not have to trump Law for a paladin. I don't see that stipulation anywhere.
Cymraegmorgan 10-09-05, 01:51 AM	Could LN and LG have very different ideas on what "legit" is and is not? Absolutely. For LN, tradition and heredity would trump anything else. Evil actions would be of little concern to LN, so long as the one in authority was the child of the right parents, or elected acoording to tradition. In most campaigns, it would be hard for LG to accept an evil boss, no matter who their parents.
WCH 10-09-05, 02:17 AM	Want a good example of an atypical Lawful Good character? Malcolm Reynolds, from the TV series Firefly/ new movie Serenity (which is very good and y'all should see, btw). He's essentially a Lawful Good bandit... exceedingly loyal and very straight-laced, and yet he's a rebel. Cares for the good of people and repeatedly puts his own life in considerable danger so that he can do what he thinks is the right thing to do, and yet he's a criminal, stealing, smuggling and shooting people people who get in his way. Very interesting character, complicated motivations. What it comes down to is that his LG nature was unwilling to accept being ruled over by an Alliance he saw as oppressive, so he fought against them, and, after losing, didn't know what else to do so became a criminal. Key quotes of his relating to his alignment: Simon: "How can I be sure you won't kill me in my sleep?" Mal: "If I ever kill you, you'll be awake, you'll be facing me, and you'll be armed." {after stealing some boxes, finding out they were much needed medical supplies and returning them, but being caught in progress by the sheriff} Sheriff: "You were truthful back in town -- these are tough times. A man can get a job, he might not look too close at what that job is. But a man learns all the details of a situation like ours.... well, then he has a choice." Mal: "I don't believe he does." Simon: “Why did you come back for us?” Mal: “You're on my crew.” Simon: “Yeah, but you don't even like me. Why'd you come back?” Mal: “You're on my crew. Why are we still talkin' about this?” etc... so what do you make of a guy who's so obviously Lawful, and yet likes to get into fights just for the sake of fighting, fights against the authorities, etc? Point of all this is that Lawful Good doesn't mean "sides with authorities." Lawful has to do with following a code, being honest and staying loyal to those you have a responsibility to (family, countrymen, coworkers, etc). Those things come first, and if doing what's right by your country means fighting against those that rule your country, then that can be a Lawful thing to do.
20goingon1232 10-09-05, 04:19 AM	To me, this is what the Lawful thing means: Lawful Good - Like the Knights of the Round Table. You are good, kind, compassionate and are willing to fight Evil wherever it rears its head. You also respect authority IF it meets the above criteria. Chivalry is your watch word. Justice is aimed for, but is subordinate to compassion. Lawful Neutral - The law is all. Doesn't matter what mitigating circumstances there are. Compassion is irrelevant. Intent is irrelevant unless the letter of the law allows for it. This is the alignment that will jail Mother Theresa for stealing when she is asking for money for the poor in a place that outlaws begging. Lawful Evil - Whatever I can get away with so long as I don't break a personal rule. Raping, killing babies, etc.
KJW 10-09-05, 08:30 AM	All lawful societies would be "an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth" system of law. Though this phrase is misunderstood out of its context. Originally, it was a call for compassion. Ancient law (real world) was extreme, in the Hamarabi Code for example if you did not maintain you dikes and they broke and flooded other people's farms you could be executed. Also feuds were very common, if one man killed another, then the family of the decedent would go out and kill two or more members of the murderer's family. "An eye for an eye" simply means that the punishment should reflect the crime, which was actually kinda novel at the time. (end of historical lesson) Though as well know "an eye for an eye" (i.e. punishment should match the crime) mentality can have a wide range in a lawful society. A LG society would have justice with mercy, so for the man who stole the bread he wouldn't lose his hand, but he would spend a few days in the dungeons. The punishment has to match the crime. There still has to be punishment, but extenuating circumstances have to be taken into account. A LN society would have just justice, like the removal of the hand for stealing bread. If every law is enforced equally then it will deter all offenses, whether small or grand. Of the three alignments I think this would actually be the harshest to all members of the society. A LE society would have justice with technicalities, that can be exploited by those in power or with sufficient resources. "Your honor the guardsman who arrested him did not have a search edict for the diviner who located the bread. Therefore he must be released." Well as for what societies are legitimate authority for a paladin, I would say that his order has a list of lands in which he must honor their laws. That's what I do, in those lands respected by his order he must honor their laws. In fact he is considered to apply the laws of those lands in those lands not on the list, whenever possible.
prettyripples 10-09-05, 09:01 AM	I think you're all maligning the LE alignment. You're making it sound like LE is all about technicalities, and letting people off - that's not lawful. If anything, that's chaotic. In a LE society, there would be laws. They would be followed. But there would also be... other laws. Unwritten ones. For example, that you don't actually prosecute the baron (note: even in several countries today - Italy and France, for example - it's illegal to prosecute the prime minister). As it says in the players' handbook, LE characters might be the the self-centred aristocracy, striving to maintain tradition. They might be the zealous and methodical spreaders of evil. And, as it says, the eptimome or pinnacle of Lawful Evil is the Devil sent down to Earth to do the work of his master. My point: just as, famously, "Lawful Good isn't Lawful Stupid", I'd like to add that "Lawful Evil isn't Lawful Petty". It's just a little self-centered.
Kaligrad 10-09-05, 10:45 AM	I would like to add that no paladin is under any obligation to follow "the guy in charge." The guy in charge is not a lawful ideal; even chaotic evil orcs will take orders, lawful evil kobolds will follow their king, and chaotic good elves have rulers. A legitimate authority is one that has been accepted by its people. A paladin must respect that choice, but he doesn't have to accept that authority's laws. An illegitimate authority is one who has usurped power from the legitimate authority, and thus does not have the mandate of either the people or the system. Paladins are free to oppose illegitimate authorities. Also, if a legitimate authority loses the mandate of the people, he is free to oppose that as well, good overriding law in this case. Note that other lawful good characters are free to oppose legitimate authorities that maintain the mandate of the people if they completely disagree with them, so long as they have a strict internal code of conduct for themselves. And why does it seem like so many of you assume paladins have an order? Not all paladins need an order. Heck, not all paladins need a god unless they live in Forgotten Realms.
KJW 10-09-05, 11:05 AM	I think you're all maligning the LE alignment. You're making it sound like LE is all about technicalities, and letting people off - that's not lawful. If anything, that's chaotic. In a LE society, there would be laws. They would be followed. But there would also be... other laws. Unwritten ones. For example, that you don't actually prosecute the baron (note: even in several countries today - Italy and France, for example - it's illegal to prosecute the prime minister). As it says in the players' handbook, LE characters might be the the self-centred aristocracy, striving to maintain tradition. They might be the zealous and methodical spreaders of evil. And, as it says, the eptimome or pinnacle of Lawful Evil is the Devil sent down to Earth to do the work of his master. My point: just as, famously, "Lawful Good isn't Lawful Stupid", I'd like to add that "Lawful Evil isn't Lawful Petty". It's just a little self-centered. What you described are technicalities. I'm sorry you cannot prosecute him as he is the Baron and he is allowed to steal bread by tradition as the barons of his line have always done it, and it was actually enshrined in this obscure law. Those are technicalities from the universal application of the law. In a LE society those in power are shielded from the law, there is justice, but technicalities protect those in power. I agree LE individuals can be honorable, but as a society it would be geared to maintain order while at the same time protecting those in power. In other words justice with technicalities. It is an evil alignment after all, so wouldn't maligning it be the point. :D
KJW 10-09-05, 11:24 AM	And why does it seem like so many of you assume paladins have an order? Not all paladins need an order. Heck, not all paladins need a god unless they live in Forgotten Realms. Its a conceptual thing, many DMs, myself included, believe that paladins need to serve, kinda necessary with a lawful alignment. In my campaign, a paladin either serves a king, kingdom, god, or order. Any paladin who is just following his own inner code of conduct is actually, chaotic, maybe an alternate paladin, but not a traditional LG paladin. Also as for legitimate authority, being mandated by the people is a tricky proposition. So in orc lands, to oppose the orc rulers, would be to oppose legitimate authority, thus not permitted to your paladin. Also humans are a strange lot and what if the 'people' truly support a campaign to enslave and even kill a minority population within the land (sadly not an outlandish thought), thus the paladin is bound to recognize the legitimate authority and not interefere. Maybe you are fine with that, but I think that is LN and not LG.
prettyripples 10-09-05, 11:28 AM	KJW: Good call on 'maligning', I really used the wrong word there. :) I guess you more or less got my point, it was simply that from your first description the LE society sounded petty (like a bunch of lawyers, really - I mean, the US fits that description), but LE is often honorable, glorious and just incidentally not very nice. It might be that instead of the Baron being an 'exception' to the rule, it just isn't seen as a crime if the Baron mistreats his property (say, a slave). I was also referring to what 20 said, though, that you didn't have to rape and kill babies to be evil. In fact, the PH gives as an example someone who would try avoid those things when possible... and if, sadly, it was necessary to kill a baby then he'd be terribly sorry :( (It's put as "Not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped).) The good version is simply "Not letting children come to harm".
Kaligrad 10-09-05, 11:32 AM	Also as for legitimate authority, being mandated by the people is a tricky proposition. So in orc lands, to oppose the orc rulers, would be to oppose legitimate authority, thus not permitted to your paladin. Also humans are a strange lot and what if the 'people' truly support a campaign to enslave and even kill a minority population within the land (sadly not an outlandish thought), thus the paladin is bound to recognize the legitimate authority and not interefere. Maybe you are fine with that, but I think that is LN and not LG. I'm sorry, I should clarify. When I was talking about opposing authority, I meant it in a sense of doing so for the sake of the people, and with the specific intent of changing the system. In other words, opposing authority because it is not legitimate. There are plenty of other reasons to oppose authority and people with authority, and I did not mean to preclude that the paladin is limited to that one reason.
KJW 10-09-05, 02:18 PM	In my campaigns, I have a Church of the Dead, which has LG, LN, and LE clerics. This church, is very political, very traditional, and very powerful. My wife is running a LG cleric in a long-running solo campaign in this church, which has forced me to look very closely at these alignments. The LN clerics want to honor the faith by pretty much doing what has always been done. Both the LG and LE clerics want to expand the faith, on one side to make the faith more humanitarian and the other more profitable. Who does my wife's PC get along best with? Well the LE clerics. Sure she doesn't completely trust them, but for reform purposes she needs their support to overcome the majority LN clerics, also most of LG clerics are not that practically minded for her ideas. So how does this relate? Well for all of these clerics they have the same code, to loyally serve the God of the Dead. They all work together, good and evil towards a common goal. In fact the faith is that much stronger because of being able to pull all the alignments together. I think realistically, kingdoms, would be the same. Just because a kingdom may have a LE ruler, may not mean that the paladin opposes it, maybe the nobility is LG, or there are other institutions that check the ruler. In this case you have to look at the entire kingdom and its society. Sometimes its clear cut, sometimes I don't think a paladin can make that decision alone. This is why I think paladins are good at handling the moral issues of specific evils, but when it comes to kingdoms and global politics they need someone else, who is better orientated to deal with these issues, to direct them. Paladins are best when used in service to an honorable order, church, or liege, as long as the DM doesn't abuse this.
2E Ranger 10-09-05, 04:35 PM	It seems to me that the majority of the issues raised here can be resolved by a quick flip through the Book of Exalted Deeds. Good = selfless....evil = selfish. Lawful good societies, then, would be full of rules that promote or reflect selflessness. Lawful evil societies would contain basic rules of governance with what we in America call "pork bellies" added on for the gain of the powerful individuals who put the law in place. Lawful evil isn't petty so much as it is self-serving. Self serving people are capable of apparently good things, but they are really doing it for selfish reasons. That being said....Paladins are not hippies. They don't decide what is right and then lawfully follow that path. Paladins, even if not tied to any organization, still would behave as though they were a part of a lawful good society. In effect, they have a 5' square of a lawful good society around them at all times. Ok....maybe 10'. So, what happens when a paladin in vacationing in, let's say, Elfville? The place is mostly good, but he wouldn't be able to come to grips with the inconstancy of their system. This doesn't mean that he starts smiting wrongdoers or has to convince the elven council to adhere to the tax code...it just means that he's out of his element. And when he's in an orc village, what's he do? Let's say a half-orc is getting beaten up for being a half-breed. There's nothing against the social construct of the orcs to say this is unacceptable...but the Paladin sees it as wrong. It would be wrong if it happened in his Lawful Good construct, so it is wrong here. He would have to intervene in some way. Whether he chops the offenders heads off or talks to the leader...or whatever....that's a matter of choice. BUT, he would have to see justice done before he could let the matter rest.
Andrew_980 10-09-05, 05:12 PM	LG beleives in order to bring the most good to the most people. They keep their word to help keep things honest and fair LN believes in order for its own sake, to maintain stability They keep their word out of honor, because that is what is done LE beleives in order to protect themselves and let the best rise to the top They keep their word, to the letter, but try to twist it to their advantage LG law believes in mercy and "giving a break" Punishments are tailored to reasons/severity LN law involves absolutes and probably strongly evidence based punishments are absolute and as often fair as strict LE law is all about the wording of things, lawyers strive to find loopholes to get the clients money Punishments are severe to scare others away from crime
Talonz 10-09-05, 05:23 PM	To me, this is what the Lawful thing means: Lawful Good - Like the Knights of the Round Table. You are good, kind, compassionate and are willing to fight Evil wherever it rears its head. You also respect authority IF it meets the above criteria. Chivalry is your watch word. Justice is aimed for, but is subordinate to compassion. Lawful Neutral - The law is all. Doesn't matter what mitigating circumstances there are. Compassion is irrelevant. Intent is irrelevant unless the letter of the law allows for it. This is the alignment that will jail Mother Theresa for stealing when she is asking for money for the poor in a place that outlaws begging. I take no issue with your LG definition. I take minor issue with your LN definition. It might seem uncaring, but there is a balance to be maintained in the name of order as well. Jailing mother theresa for asking for money when begging is outlawed? Sounds like LE to me. Lawful Evil - Whatever I can get away with so long as I don't break a personal rule. Raping, killing babies, etc. There are typically laws against such acts. That sounds CE to me. LE is more about corruption and working within the law for personal gain, not out and out acts of depravity.
Ut-Napishtim 10-09-05, 07:46 PM	Personally I prefer not to browbeat my players with alignment, and don't usually have to chat with them about it unless they're going totally against it. I also allow Paladin's to be of any alignment, so that's not as big of an issue either. Some people don't like that, but I've found it makes things much simpler and have never had anyone who actually played it complain.
celtredleg 10-09-05, 08:53 PM	I tend to be a bit alignment light because they system is just to open to argument for definitive answers. Witness this thread, which has been rather civil for for an alignment discusion. Legitimate authority should be a bit eaqsier, but isnt really. Democracys??? OK we all seem to like those. But what about kingdoms???In a historical setting, I doubt real peasants like the situation very much at all. So there is probably not a consensus of the citizens that the system is OK. More like the peasants feel they will get chopped if they try to rebel. So should a paladin go around trying to topple kingdoms because the majority doesnt like how things are run??? But how would he know??? He can talk to peasants to find out, but thats going to take some time. He can assume the peasants dont like it, but thats probably not a very good idea, or very paladiny. Also, I would like to adress the issue of good trumping law. I think it should, but its not in the rules anywhere. It just feels right.
20goingon1232 10-09-05, 09:07 PM	I take no issue with your LG definition. I take minor issue with your LN definition. It might seem uncaring, but there is a balance to be maintained in the name of order as well. Jailing mother theresa for asking for money when begging is outlawed? Sounds like LE to me. There are typically laws against such acts. That sounds CE to me. LE is more about corruption and working within the law for personal gain, not out and out acts of depravity. Read the PHB again. It says that a LE villian would not do something that is against his code of honour (like killing babies) and that somehow makes him one step above the other bad guys out there (which is true, sort of). Most times, LE guys don't even believe they are E. They just twist and turn WITHIN the confines of the law, and never step out of it. A Baron that takes another's wife during the marriage ceremony so that he can bed her before the husband does is LE during a rather infamous period in British history.
Al2902 10-09-05, 09:15 PM	The aspect of the alignment which needs to be borne in mind, and is often ignored, is the "Lawful" segment. "Lawful" doesn't mean merely that you use the law to further your ends. There is no reason why a Neutral or Chaotic Good character could not deal amicably with authorities with whom he agreed; nor does it preclude Neutral or Chaotic Evil characters abusing the law and established authority to entrench their social position. "Lawful" means more than a mere willingness to use the law: it reflects the attitude of that character to society and traditions per se. Moreover, it can demonstrate where that character's beliefs come from - the so-called epistemological approach to law and chaos. Lawful good characters therefore do not only regard tradition as important when it furthers their ends. Any good character will support a law he perceives as good. The dilemma for the lawful good character is if and when he is torn between Law and Good. I thus reject wholeheartedly the idea that Good always trumps Law for all paladins. The Lawful Good character will see an unjust law, but only use established social mechanisms to combat it. He may lobby the monarch or stand for election, as appropriate. By contrast, a Chaotic Good character will tend to act more radically and simply aim to remove the injustice at root, caring not a whit for the methods undertaken. The opposite applies for Evil characters. Lawful Evil characters are not just evil characters who happen to use the law. The sensible Chaotic Evil character (i.e. not the Psy-chaotic Evil character) appreciates that breaking the law has direct repercussions which could prove detrimental to him, and will therefore be just as likely to undertake quasi-legal scams, exploit loopholes and the like. The Lawful Evil character is different. He actually appreciates that law, traditions and prevailing societal norms. Often, he will deploy custom as a prima facie defence against injustice - not merely to bolster his position, but because this is a deep-rooted prejudice. A Lawful Evil character living in a country with a long-standing tradition of baby-eating might defend it merely on grounds of heritage and culture even if he is personally indifferent to the activity. Likewise, he is prepared to inflict brutal and grinding oppression upon others as a result of a prevailing orthodoxy. Law isn't just about a preferred modus operandi. Such a view is reductionist and crude, and fails to note that rational Chaotic characters can and should use the law to their advantage. Lawfulness has to entail more than that to be a meaningful alignment. A Lawful alignment means respect for traditions, adherence to ideology and faith in customs and norms, making Good characters have to constantly weigh the value of stability against that of altruism and impelling Evil characters to commit gross atrocities in the name of those doctrines. The Law/Chaos axis needs to be taken seriously, as an integral part of the alignment as serious as the Good/Evil dimension, not as a mere appendage that might lean towards one's predilection towards petty legalistic scams.
Cymraegmorgan 10-09-05, 11:33 PM	I thus reject wholeheartedly the idea that Good always trumps Law for all paladins. A Paladin loses her abilities if she willingly commits a single evil act. She does not lose her abilities if she willingly commits a single chaotic act. Thus, by RAW, Good trumps Law in the case of the Paladin. :)
Al2902 10-10-05, 05:25 AM	A Paladin loses her abilities if she willingly commits a single evil act. She does not lose her abilities if she willingly commits a single chaotic act. Thus, by RAW, Good trumps Law in the case of the Paladin. :) Moot point. The paladin should avoid having to commit either. If Good always trumped Law in every occasion, why wouldn't paladins be Neutral Good?
Cymraegmorgan 10-10-05, 05:51 AM	Moot point. The paladin should avoid having to commit either. If Good always trumped Law in every occasion, why wouldn't paladins be Neutral Good? Neither I, nor RAW, said every occasion. But in those weird murky areas DMs on these boards seem to love putting Paladins in, a chaotic slip-up is, by RAW, not carrying the same weight as an evil slip-up. And now that you mention it, a very good case could be made for the exemplar of good dropping the lawful bit and going for straight good. :thinks: :thinks: That actually might be an interesting experiment...
Al2902 10-10-05, 05:55 AM	Neither I, nor RAW, said every occasion. But in those weird murky areas DMs on these boards seem to love putting Paladins in, a chaotic slip-up is, by RAW, not carrying the same weight as an evil slip-up. And now that you mention it, a very good case could be made for the exemplar of good dropping the lawful bit and going for straight good. :thinks: :thinks: That actually might be an interesting experiment... Well, if Good trumps Law, then it is not so far to say that it should trump it consistently :). The second part of your post is revealing - it seems to indicate that you regard paladins as the "exemplar[s] of good". Whatever happened to the Lawful part of the alignment?
Leap 10-10-05, 09:42 AM	Well, if Good trumps Law, then it is not so far to say that it should trump it consistently :). The second part of your post is revealing - it seems to indicate that you regard paladins as the "exemplar[s] of good". Whatever happened to the Lawful part of the alignment? I think the essence of this is that you can atone for a chaotic act (and regain paladinhood) but not for an evil act (paladinhood is gone the way of the gold standard)..... If you make repeated chaotic acts you lose paladinhood by ceasing to be LG but they are occasionally allowed in extremis. Evil is most certainly not. :D Back to the original point of all this...the "legit authority" question.... Legitimate authority is an internal consideration - you can only be legit within a certain way of code of laws and as that code of laws permits.
celtredleg 10-10-05, 10:18 AM	Neither I, nor RAW, said every occasion. But in those weird murky areas DMs on these boards seem to love putting Paladins in, a chaotic slip-up is, by RAW, not carrying the same weight as an evil slip-up. And now that you mention it, a very good case could be made for the exemplar of good dropping the lawful bit and going for straight good. :thinks: :thinks: That actually might be an interesting experiment... Funny you should say that, as I just helped a guy create a Good only paladin for my upcoming game.He usually plays one of those hyper rigerous pallys that drive the rest of the party crazy, so it should be interesting to see how it goes. I must add that I am not a very good test of absolute alignments, I rarely strip pallys for less than blatant behavior.
JamesDruidDM 10-10-05, 10:22 AM	for a LG pally would violating honor combat make him loose his abilities?
LCD2YOU 10-10-05, 10:35 AM	I'd say it seems that many feel LE and LG and just as "lawfull minded" as your LN character. I disagree. As the saying goes, "You can't serve two masters". This is especially true when the masters have divergent interests such as Law, Good, Chaos, Evil. So a LG person must "pick and choose". If the Law says, "Chop off the hand of a theif", and the theif in question stole to feed his family, a LG person would scoff at such a notion. They wouldn't do it at all. Likewise, some LE people sit as a judge to a members of their own group. In this case, it's a person who embezzled (sounds a lot nicer than stealing, doesn't it?) public funds for their own use, would likewise have an issue. The law says hard labor, but they can't chance that can they? If the person in question knows about some of the sticky finger aspects, all not quite legal but none blatantly criminal, of many others and speaks of it, then the whole social structure can come tumbling down. Of course if the social order comes down, so goes the laws. So the jury has to make a choice. Let him go, hard labor or kill him in a "jail fight incident". As the person in question has already shown to be incompetent, death seems to be the order of the day. He's found guilty of course, he can't speak out on the corruption in the area and he paid the price for his incomptence. His family is left on the street, another warning to others on what price failure brings. In a LN society, the law is clear cut. The bread stealer loses his hand and the embezzeler has a sentence of hard labor. PEriod. As for "Legitimate Authority" vs "The Guy in Charge", I hate to use Paladins again, but they are so convenient. One post not to long agodealt with a Paladin being accused of chaotic actions because he didn't listen to a cleric who had a knife to a girl's throat. The DM essentially said that the Paladin should have listened to the cleric. After the girl died and the cleric blamed it on the Paladin, the Paladin became a wanted man. Now, I don't really know the details of where he was wanted, the description of what happened seemed to change a bit. It does seem that the Paladin should never have been required to give the cleric a moments thought about obeying him, once the Paladin realized he was not right. So when does a Paladin or any Lawful person ignore the "local authority"? Is a lawful person required to maintain their ideals of lawfulness from where they were raised or understand in the face of a different set of rules in a distant land? Now, if one says that a lawful person needs to obey the laws of the land, ie when in Rome, then there is no objective "universal Law". If laws are subject to local sensibilities, then they are subjective. That would most indicate that there is no objectivity in "Chaos", "Good" nor "Evil". Yes, I am aware of the oxymoron of "Obiective Chaos" but let's leave it at that. If there is an objective law, then that would lead to basically one form of "legitimate authority". That would lead to another question, namely how does one know that they are following a "legitimate authority"? The questions run deep. Of course it is easier to leave it totally subjective but under a wide umbrella. In that situation, two different cultures are both lawful though each of them do not recognize the other. That would be interesting when a cleric reigns down some lawful spell that affects only chaotics (to them they are) and nothing happens. Then again it can be keyed into the caster's perceptions and hurt the other side. Yeah, this is a can o' worms.
LCD2YOU 10-10-05, 10:42 AM	for a LG pally would violating honor combat make him loose his abilities?Define "honorable combat". Is it where the Paladin and his opponent have equal weapons? Is it where the Paladin and his opponent have equal armor? Is it where the Paladin can't ride his Warhorse and get on the ground to fight infantry on the same footing? Is it where the Paladin can't use ranged weapons? Is it where the Paladin must march up to the front gates of the Castle of Evil instead of stealthly approaching it from a sewer being led by a rogue? Is it where the Paladin can't use poison? Is it where the Paladin has to make a choice between fighting the bad guy and having his henchment kill the townsfolk or letting the bad guy go to kill others in another place? So i think "honorable combat" needs to be defined.
Al2902 10-10-05, 11:10 AM	I'd say it seems that many feel LE and LG and just as "lawfull minded" as your LN character. I disagree. As the saying goes, "You can't serve two masters". This is especially true when the masters have divergent interests such as Law, Good, Chaos, Evil. So a LG person must "pick and choose". If the Law says, "Chop off the hand of a theif", and the theif in question stole to feed his family, a LG person would scoff at such a notion. They wouldn't do it at all. Likewise, some LE people sit as a judge to a members of their own group. In this case, it's a person who embezzled (sounds a lot nicer than stealing, doesn't it?) public funds for their own use, would likewise have an issue. The law says hard labor, but they can't chance that can they? If the person in question knows about some of the sticky finger aspects, all not quite legal but none blatantly criminal, of many others and speaks of it, then the whole social structure can come tumbling down. Of course if the social order comes down, so goes the laws. So the jury has to make a choice. Let him go, hard labor or kill him in a "jail fight incident". As the person in question has already shown to be incompetent, death seems to be the order of the day. He's found guilty of course, he can't speak out on the corruption in the area and he paid the price for his incomptence. His family is left on the street, another warning to others on what price failure brings. In a LN society, the law is clear cut. The bread stealer loses his hand and the embezzeler has a sentence of hard labor. PEriod. As for "Legitimate Authority" vs "The Guy in Charge", I hate to use Paladins again, but they are so convenient. One post not to long agodealt with a Paladin being accused of chaotic actions because he didn't listen to a cleric who had a knife to a girl's throat. The DM essentially said that the Paladin should have listened to the cleric. After the girl died and the cleric blamed it on the Paladin, the Paladin became a wanted man. Now, I don't really know the details of where he was wanted, the description of what happened seemed to change a bit. It does seem that the Paladin should never have been required to give the cleric a moments thought about obeying him, once the Paladin realized he was not right. So when does a Paladin or any Lawful person ignore the "local authority"? Is a lawful person required to maintain their ideals of lawfulness from where they were raised or understand in the face of a different set of rules in a distant land? Now, if one says that a lawful person needs to obey the laws of the land, ie when in Rome, then there is no objective "universal Law". If laws are subject to local sensibilities, then they are subjective. That would most indicate that there is no objectivity in "Chaos", "Good" nor "Evil". Yes, I am aware of the oxymoron of "Obiective Chaos" but let's leave it at that. If there is an objective law, then that would lead to basically one form of "legitimate authority". That would lead to another question, namely how does one know that they are following a "legitimate authority"? The questions run deep. Of course it is easier to leave it totally subjective but under a wide umbrella. In that situation, two different cultures are both lawful though each of them do not recognize the other. That would be interesting when a cleric reigns down some lawful spell that affects only chaotics (to them they are) and nothing happens. Then again it can be keyed into the caster's perceptions and hurt the other side. Yeah, this is a can o' worms. How, then, does the Lawful Good character or the Lawful Evil character differ from the Neutral Good or Neutral Evil one? As I have stated previously, the "Lawful" element cannot be simply disregarded, nor can the notion that the Good/Evil axis always trumps the Law/Chaos one be credibly sustained* in all situations. * Paladins are a slightly special situation, but even here, they need to keep a Lawful, as well as a Good, alignment. Rejecting societal norms out of hand simply to rectify what they (subjectively) perceive as injustice is going to lose them some powers.
Cymraegmorgan 10-10-05, 11:44 AM	As the saying goes, "You can't serve two masters". This is especially true when the masters have divergent interests such as Law, Good, Chaos, Evil. :cheer: :w00t: I have been hunting for that elusive gem for some time now. :D How, then, does the Lawful Good character or the Lawful Evil character differ from the Neutral Good or Neutral Evil one? As I have stated previously, the "Lawful" element cannot be simply disregarded, nor can the notion that the Good/Evil axis always trumps the Law/Chaos one be credibly sustained* in all situations. I think there is a natural clockwise philosophical turning in all four schizophrenic alignments. For LG, the slide toward NG is natural, as per a life of the aforementioned "bread thief" examples. For CG, the slide toward CN is natural, since the importance of self and independence is paramount. For CE, the tendency to evil is habitual, so a NE trend develops. And for LE, structure and authority regularly trump the doing of evil, so LN becomes the more obvious philosophy. I think over time, "legitimate authority" has more meaning to LE/LN than to the rest of the wheel. How can LG regard any authority as legitimate if it fails to act with mercy and goodness on a regular basis. And certainly, to any Chaotic type, no authority is legitimate that steps on even the smallest of their freedoms. But to LE, that legitimate authority is the basis of all ethics, personal and public. "Discipline must be maintained," said W. Shakespeare, and it seems a decent rallying cry for both LE and LN.
LCD2YOU 10-10-05, 04:20 PM	How, then, does the Lawful Good character or the Lawful Evil character differ from the Neutral Good or Neutral Evil one? As I have stated previously, the "Lawful" element cannot be simply disregarded, nor can the notion that the Good/Evil axis always trumps the Law/Chaos one be credibly sustained* in all situations.And now we really get to the crux of the whole situation. The difference, to me, between LG and NG is smaller than say LG and LN. But what makes a LG community still a LG community? Idealistic laws. The US has such an "idealistic" set of laws. I'm not saying that once a culture develops Idealist or Utopian guidelines they start acting like that or even stay that way. As the problem with the preamble of the US constitution starts, "We the people", one has to ask "what people?" Is it only the rich, land owning white males cause women and minorities sure didn't vote. (No this is not an attack on the US, just history. Other countries, especially in Europe were not even close at the time the US started the experiment.) But in a fantasy game, where Angels, Devils and others are real, one could see where a society could remain LG over a period of time. There would be frequent changes of power, all bloodless and orderly, to keep power from accumulating. How a country good remain good, LG, after a long period of autocratic rule, monarchy or otherwise, seems unlikely. There'll be times and places where the noble and just blood runs true for periods of time. There will be goodness still in the veins in the heirs of the great and noble King Thallonious Monk I, but rest assurd there will be a weasal in the wood pile. Without an effective and seperate counter weight or two, consolidated power seems to become uncaring at best. But that is my opinion. So the differeence between a LG and a NG society is thus: NG societies have a sort of benign neglect towards their government. The government makes broad edicts but relies on local control. The government is not above going into situations when it becomes apperant that something is wrong on it's own. It will not need to wait for someone to ask for help, something I see a CG society doing and then only after much debate, if there is a perceived problem that makes everyone aware of the issue. Transfers of power in an NG society is semi-standard and watched carefully. There is no real line of succession issues as they don't go that deep. Governments may last a short time or a lifetime depending on how well the ruler(s) rule while maintaining some form of loose confederation but still providing for public well being. There are no offices nor ministries to take care of people as that is a personal choice to help out that would be best kept to the local level. While the local leaders may be skeptical of oversite from officers of the larger government, most locals feel tht is ok to make sure that the local leadres don't try to grab power. LG societies have government in place. Their edicts are much less broadly defined and "justice" is written into the laws. Laws are not harsh or cruel, though hard labor for crimes against a person's well being would be common, a few may have a death penalty for certain heinious crimes and they are not always uniformly applied. That would not be from malice but based on extenuating circumstances on the guilty's part. There are ministries and offices in the government, but their powers and reach are stronger than anything you'll see in a NG society. Their powers are more broadly defined and not even as specific as a LN society. While a LG society will most likely have a Ministry of Health, a LN society has the Office of Sewers, Ministry of Baths, Department of Street cleaning, Cabinet for the Prevention of Disease and most likely more. There's more, but I still have real work to do.* Paladins are a slightly special situation, but even here, they need to keep a Lawful, as well as a Good, alignment. Rejecting societal norms out of hand simply to rectify what they (subjectively) perceive as injustice is going to lose them some powers.Which is why the DM must take special pains to either give the player a list of what is expected of the Paladin or better yet, tell them when things arise as needed.
Al2902 10-10-05, 05:21 PM	LCD2YOU - A very interesting post but I fear that I must disagree with you on a number of issues. The difference, to me, between LG and NG is smaller than say LG and LN Why? The two are equally removed (i.e. one alignment step) and LG/LN can cooperate with each other just as easily as LG/NG. The subordination of the Law/Chaos axis to the Good/Evil one is a historic curiosity, but one that is justified neither in the RAW nor be prima facie logic. After all, the most bitter and bloody war in Planescape is fought along the Law/Chaos axis, not the Good/Evil one. Idealistic laws Doesn't a Lawful Neutral country have idealistic laws? Even a Lawful Evil one could do so (though the ideals might be dissimilar to what we would term as "virtuous"). Surely the question is not whether they are idealistic or not, but what ideals they exemplify. A Lawful Evil code could glorify strength and power at the expense of the weak, humble and poor, but these could nevertheless be held up as "ideals". NG societies have a sort of benign neglect towards their government. Why? If I'm a NG character who believes in the ideals of altruism, charity and compassion, and my government does like, am I really antipathetic towards it? If a country champions the ideals that I hold dear, will I not battle for them and fight for my government to preserve these cherished goals? The difference is not the attitude towards the prevailing government, but towards government per se. Anyone can agree with the government if it does what they believe is right. The crux is what happens when things turn sour. If a government passes a law with which a chaotic character disagrees, he will disobey it, agitate against it, incite others to violate it, sabotage government buildings and structure, exert extra-legal pressure and potentially violence and even go into revolution to stop it. The lawful character tries to reform, cajole, negotiate and persuade within the confines of the established constitution. Where the lawful character heads for the hustings, the chaotic character mans the barricades. Transfers of power in an NG society is semi-standard and watched carefully. There is no real line of succession issues as they don't go that deep Again, why? Why can't a NG society be stable? Elven kingdoms have hereditary succession and are treated as archetypally Chaotic Good. The real difference, as I've argued above, is when things go wrong. A Chaotic kingdom survives by winning over the population; a Lawful one relies on tradition, constitutionality and stability to keep afloat even when the mood turns against it. Of course Chaotic societies are more prone to revolution and reform than Lawful ones - but that alone doesn't preclude a Neutral society being fundamentally stable. There are no offices nor ministries to take care of people as that is a personal choice to help out that would be best kept to the local level. While the local leaders may be skeptical of oversite from officers of the larger government, most locals feel tht is ok to make sure that the local leadres don't try to grab power. I profoundly disagree. Anyone follow a leader that they believe is right. A Chaotic Good character will not reject a leader whom he admires and shares his ideals out of a perverse sense of antipathy to authority. Rather, he will eject him as soon as there is a disagreement. Chaotic characters are fickle, but they are not somehow unleadable. While a LG society will most likely have a Ministry of Health, a LN society has the Office of Sewers, Ministry of Baths, Department of Street cleaning, Cabinet for the Prevention of Disease and most likely more. I find this fundamentally incorrect. Why is Law equated to Bureaucracy? Is it the lazy stereotype of the modrons that has captivated the collective imagination of posters that they do not even challenge this absurd proviso? If Law is interested is efficiency, functionality and constitutionalism, there is no reason why rigid rigmarole follows from that. The popular conception of Byzantium, notorious for its labyrinthine layers of stultifying bureaucracy, is far from "lawful". Is the tribal tradition of obeying the Head Chief not lawful? Merely because it does not subdivide its duties in an absurd multiplicity of quangos? Law is about tradition, constitutionalism and a cultivation of established societal norms. If a stable and long-lived regime has survived with a minimum of departments, the maverick who tables a plan for 873 separate Cabinet positions is not Lawful. He is Chaotic. It is only Lawful to presuppose bureaucracy if that is the existing position. In conclusion, Law and Chaos need to be re-thought. Law and Chaos are about attitudes to the prevailing societal orthodoxy or heterodoxy (but not unorthodoxy) to which one subscribes. If one signs up to a doctrine for traditional, deferential or conventional reasons, one tends towards Law. The rejection of these norms and customs will tilt one towards Chaos. What is Lawful in one society might be Chaotic in another. When democracy was introduced, it was radical - even revolutionary to the ancien regime. Now it is entirely usual. The "conventional wisdom" about Law and Chaos needs to be replaced by a more robust approach. I hope that this one proves to more closely approximate to a workable position that is more impervious to critique than the current notion.
revnk 10-10-05, 05:48 PM	1) There is a difference between "Law" and "the law." "Law" is an abstract ethos based on respect for order, organization, hierarchy. "The law" is a set of local/regional codes promulgated by authority figures for the purpose of organizing/regulating a society. The distinction is crucial for paladins and monks because there is a difference between their organizational/individual conception of "Law" and whatever passes for "the law" in the places they work, live or visit. "The law" could, in fact, be anarchic--e.g., the local crazed king could make "do as thou wilt" or "whatever Baron Underbite says, goes" serve as "the law." I personally see no reason a paladin would have to respect "the law" if and where it conflicts with "Law." (Parenthetically and of no particular importance, in the meatworld, I'm a lawyer. Which Ambrose Bierce defined as "one skilled in circumventing the law.") 2) Just as a paladin's calling is to a higher ideal of "Law" versus "the law," the Paladin is answerable to a higher good: "Good" as defined by his deity and/or religious order. In the Dungeons and Dragons setting, this is not an abstraction. Good is something that is definable, quantifiable; Good is a part of the natural world (as is Evil). Evil things that believe they are doing the "right" or "good" thing are not doing Good, and relativistic arguments that their beliefs are relevant are missing the fundamental difference between the fictional game universe--where Good is definable--and our own real universe, which appears to be essentially amoral (making theological arguments and wars all but inevitable). 3) The limitations of the English language (and perhaps languages, generally) means that debates over big-L versus little-l law and big-G versus little-g good are inevitable. The fact that our real world experiences predispose us to assume that the laws and good we know are also Law and Good doesn't help, either; nor does our human tendency to conflate the morals, laws, rights and strictures that stabilize and define our day-to-day existence with something that is Fundamentally Good and Right. The truth is that injustices are defined by the gaps in what can be covered by the morals and laws we know, and they offend us in some part because we don't like the gap we see there: if stealing is wrong, and letting children starve is wrong, how do we address that actions of a Valjean stealing to feed his sister's children. He has violated the law, but only to do good. But to conflate Law and the law and good with Good is to invite the madness that Victor Hugo ultimately inflicted upon Valjean's nemesis, the policeman Javert: one can see in many of Valjean's "chaotic" acts an accountability to Law as defined in absolute terms by Hugo's Christian God. For Hugo, as for an RPG paladin, big-L law trumps the petty little-l laws of France (or any other place for that matter). Javert's inability to reconcile this leads to his suicide. 3) But away from 19th-century French literature (and 20th century musicals!) and back to this board: what, indeed, is a DM to do? And the answer, surprisingly, is simple in my personal opinion. The DM must quantify the world and reduce it to absolute terms as Hugo's God does (or reject all absolute terms and effectively do away with the alignment system, which is certainly his option). The DM defines what the deities of his campaign see as Good and Evil (versus good and evil) and Law and Chaos (versus law and chaos)--and lets the players know as best he can where those boundaries are. So, can a paladin disobey law? Yes, but never Law: the paladin answers to Cosmic Order. Lawful Evil is much harder, because we tend to conflate "evil" and "chaos," but the principle is the same: the Law of the blackguard is as immutable and rigid as gravity or entropy or the line-of-sight rules for magic use. And is an Evil character who thinks he's doing the right thing therefore Good? No, because what he thinks is as irrelevant to Cosmic Good as thinking of a dollar is to actually having a dollar. 4) Looking at all of this, I suspect it's useless garbage. If any of you can glean anything from the rubbish, consider the point that prompted me to post: that semantics are tricky, and there might well be a difference between the statutes of a kingdom and the properties of the universe, even if a human refers to both with the word "laws."
Talonz 10-10-05, 07:54 PM	Read the PHB again. Really? The whole thing? Did I miss something that you could perhaps quote? No? Then allow me.... ;) It says that a LE villian would not do something that is against his code of honour (like killing babies) and that somehow makes him one step above the other bad guys out there (which is true, sort of). Most times, LE guys don't even believe they are E. They just twist and turn WITHIN the confines of the law, and never step out of it. A Baron that takes another's wife during the marriage ceremony so that he can bed her before the husband does is LE during a rather infamous period in British history. I *think* we are actually in agreement here...I may have misinterpreted your original post to mean that a LE *could* kill babies and rape at will, when perhaps you were saying the opposite, as implied here. A few relevant quotes, because you seem focused on his personal code of honour; Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. “Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should. Emphasis mine. This clearly shows that the law of the land, not merely a personal code, holds power over a LE character. (*Again, I think we agree here, I'm just exploring further for clarity)
2E Ranger 10-10-05, 08:33 PM	But I haven't taken the time to read all these posts. I have, however, thought of a way to restate my earlier comments. A LG character, I think, is best thought of as having a Good philosophy of Law. A LE character would have an Evil one. I think, then, that as far as objectively observable behavior, a Paladin can be breaking the law and still be LG. The law, though, would have to have its roots in a different alignment. For example, a Pally can fight against the evil law that grants the Lord of the Land sexual rights on the wedding night. That's an evil law. Or, in the other direction, I suppose, a Pally could be moved to bring some kind of order and consistency to an inconstant or anarchic system of law (Elves). It's not that said Pally would want the same treatment for everyone who committed the same crime (that's LN, I think), but more so that they want some kind of legal mandate saying that the guy who steals because he is hungry and the one who steals because he is greedy have committed two different crimes and should be punished differently. Mercy and Compassion. Love and Peace. OH! Afterthought! The Pally acting against legit authority still thinks authority is a good thing. He would either be trying to reform said authority or overthrowing it, depending, of course, on its projected or actual response to his attempted reform.
yellowdingo 10-14-05, 12:50 AM	Democracy is a senile second to Commonwealth. Over here we have a little crime called Sedition which is defined as "any act which will cause Government, Law, Constitution, and/or Sovereign to be held in hatred and/or contempt." It is very much ignored by Government because it protects the individual from even acts of Government, Law, Constitution, and/or Sovereign. These are very much foundation of human rights kind of stuff. The dillema of the Paladin is one where you would be confronted by the right to freedom from Church and state upon whom the obligation of pleasing everyone all the time suddenly falls. So tomorrow when the Paladin's church levels a dozen shacks and errects some stone monstrosity, He or she can look forward to either joining the ranks of the revolution and leading the civil war in a fight for equality, or overseeing the work crew digging the mass graves of all those heretics who would not believe.
Millennium 10-14-05, 10:19 AM	Good does not trump Law for paladins, but neither does Law trump Good. They are equal concerns, and when they conflict the proper answer is to find a way to prevent them from conflicting. Although your average LG person would disagree with this, LG is in fact neither purely Lawful nor purely Good. Each introduces concepts to the other which "taint" both. When Law meets Good, it takes the concept of mercy and turns it to justice: those who have done good should recieve good, and those who have done no harm should receive no harm, but this does not hold for those who do evil or harm others. Similarly, when Good meets Law, it takes the concept of order and turns it to legitimacy: order is only good as long as it continues to spread good among those it governs, and when it ceases to do that then a new order should replace it. yellowdingo's example gives a good example of a dilemma, but it is not completely unwinnable. Some of this depends on the paladin's church: why is it erecting a temple over the the ruins of people's homes? Is there some particular reason that the temple must be built in that particular spot? Perhaps the homes were built on a sacred site, and the church is merely reclaiming land which is rightfully its own. Perhaps the paladin's church has truly gone corrupt, in which case the proper solution is to expose that corruption and either fight to change the church's leadership or find another church entirely. Would a Lawful Evil character kill babies and rape at random? Not truly randomly, no. He might seem to be doing it randomly, and he might even first select a group and then pick his victims randomly from that, but there will be some sort of purpose in mind, some reason besides "I just felt like it". I'm probably going to get flamed for using a Biblical source, but consider King Herod, who ordered all male children under the age of two in the area of Bethlehem to be slaughtered shortly after the birth of Christ. This was not an arbitrary order: he feared that the Messiah had been born and would grow up to depose him. He had originally intended to kill only that particular child, but that was foiled when his unwitting informants, sent to give him the child's location "so that he could worship also" found out his real reason for wanting to find the child and never returned. Not knowing which child he needed to kill, he killed them all. He did not count on the child's parents being able to flee the region, but if they hadn't been able to flee then this would have worked.
Cymraegmorgan 10-14-05, 10:34 AM	Good does not trump Law for paladins, but neither does Law trump Good. They are equal concerns, and when they conflict the proper answer is to find a way to prevent them from conflicting. As I said before: A Paladin loses her abilities if she willingly commits a single evil act. She does not lose her abilities if she willingly commits a single chaotic act. Thus, by RAW, Good trumps Law in the case of the Paladin. Sometimes there is no proper way to make them not conflict. So, by RAW, Good should win out over Law. Example: It is Good to help the starving wounded Gnome in the street. The Law says Gnomes are second class citizens and are to be shunned. A Paladin would help the Gnome, regardless of the law of the land, because to follow the law would be to commit an act that that is unGood, which is the first step toward Evil.
pwatson1974 10-14-05, 01:14 PM	Example: It is Good to help the starving wounded Gnome in the street. The Law says Gnomes are second class citizens and are to be shunned. A Paladin would help the Gnome, regardless of the law of the land, because to follow the law would be to commit an act that that is unGood, which is the first step toward Evil. That is the law, not Law. A law is not necessarily Lawful. As an example, 'do as thou will' can be law, but it is not Lawful. It has not consistency, nor stability, two characteristics that are nearly essential for Law. Law tends to be more concerend with the majority than the idividual, but in an LG character that is tempered by the Good that the minority should not be oppressed. In this case, unless there is something REALLY wrong with gnomes in the campaign, the law is not just, and so LG wouldn't follow it. This is not a Chaotic act. It is illegal. however. The Paladin would almost certainly try to get the law changed, probably by showing that whatever reason gnomes are ostracised is now invalid. But if he could not change the law, he would accept his punishment. Lawul doesn't mean obeying the law.
Gedrin 10-14-05, 03:41 PM	First, I'm not going to talk about paladins. They are extreme examples and it is not practical to use them as the standard for a discussion about the concept of Law vs. Legitimate Authority. It would be like using a diamond as your standard for the discussion of rocks. Because I believe people should be left alone to live life as they wish, I believe that, to be legitimate, all authority to rule must be derived from the consent of those to be ruled. I'm inclined to believe that the form of consent can vary from place to place and time to time, but there are very few forms of governance that incorporate this idea on a fundamental level. Without a government of consent, things seem a bit more complicated in regard to the legitimacy of an authority. Of course, that's my view of what makes an authority legitimate. Other people may believe that authority is derived from strength or by a bloodline. No matter what you believe the ideal is for a legitimate authority, it seems that to remain a legitimate authority, a power must abide by a certain set of obligations to the governed. To my mind, a legitimate authority will provide for the protection of its subjects, let them live their lives as they wish, allow them to do as they wish with the fruits of their labor, and treat with them honestly in civic dealings. No matter what the method of selecting the authority, these things can come into conflict, and the more people you need to live together as a community, the less "customization" you can have in how the authority deals with its subjects. As an example, a monarch who is a good king (the legitimate authority) has two children, they both inherit lands and, by the custom of the land, the children become the legitimate authority of those lands. One prince follows his father's lead and keeps a reasonable army, maintains civil order, refrains from interfering in peoples homes when possible, taxes relatively fairly, and hears the greviences of his subjects in open court. He is generally upholding his obligations as a ruler, and retains his legitimacy. The other prince goes another way. He lives a decadent life with little regard to the readiness of his armies or to civil order, what officers he does have are able to molest his subjects unprovoked, his taxes must be kept high to support this lifestyle, and he does not allow his subjects any insight into the progress of the law or the court. He has failed in his obligations as a ruler, and lost his legitimacy. That's the way I see it.
storybookknight 10-14-05, 06:36 PM	To me, the alignment "Law" has far more to do with the intellectual idea of "Order" than "law" in a legal sense. A Lawful character will tend, in general, to be disciplined, organized, and to respect societal norms. Probably, they will avoid excessive drinking, drugs, gambling, and other such (although everyone has a vice). Possibly, they will also respect the laws of the land, especially inasmuch they make sense, promote social order, and are believed to be just. When encountering an unjust law, Lawful characters are more likely to work within the system than to circumvent it. Half a paladin's oath to Law is the "clean body, clean mind" - a drunken, gambling paladin would be extremely inappropriate. The other half is stickier, and deals with Honor. Simply put, 1) always keep your word, and doubly so your sworn oath; and 2) always give your adversaries a fair chance, especially in personal combat. By that sort of definition, a paladin would have no issue with sneaking into the citadel of an evil warlord - indeed, the paladin might want to minimize unnecessary bloodshed. As long as the warlord was armed and ready to fight the paladin, there would be no conflict of alignment... Lawful Evil I have always seen in a few distinct ways: 1) Machiavellian. Uses the Prince as a primer. Works best for intelligent enemies, though. 2) Disciplined. Works within a power structure with selfish goals, and shares those ambitions. 3) Dominating - expresses self through the subjugation of others, in contrast to destroying them. In contrast to CE, LE does not require the character to be cruel. Perfect example from ECS - King Kaius, the vampire. His goals are to free his nation from rule by an undeath cult; he refrains from killing those he feeds on, and in all probability wishes he were human. Why is he LE? Not because he's a vampire and a bloodsucking demon of the night, but because he is absolutely ruthless in accomplishing his goals. Ethics, morals; these simply are not considerations for a man like him. If a plan is effective, it will be implemented regardless of human cost. Arguably, Heero Yuy from Gundam Wing is Lawful Evil; many of the most successful generals from any time period were the same. Lawful Neutral is tricky - one of the most compelling villains I've ever seen, one who the party grew to absolutely detest, was Lawful Neutral. He was a samurai/kensai oathsworn to the opposition, and a former party member who nearly destroyed the entire party - who still managed to kill the most important (plot-wise) member. Some people treat it as simply Ordered with no moral bias - which winds up being something like "Lawful Wimpy Good" - i.e. he doesn't give to charity but he never does anything evil or cruel. To me, this is watered-down - I far prefer the idea of those who severely punish anyone who violates their views of an ordered system, no matter the cause - or the severe traditionalist... Basically, to me, LN should be played as extremely as LG and LE. Tradition bound, following orders, unforgiving - if you think "eye for an eye" justice is too harsh or that it could be mitigated, you're LG. If you will do absolutely anything in the service of your heirarchy without regard to its morality, you're LE. Feel free to think differently.
Voran 10-14-05, 06:39 PM	I think LG, non-theocracy type, governments are harder to sustain. The way I see it, you have a LG king, who would possibly be inclined to grant privileges based on merit, rather than prestige/'the way things have been done before' kinda thinking. This means that its possible for non-LG type people to get involved, particularly LN and NG. Thus you have a LG king who made LG laws, but his ministers, generals, nobles, whatever can be other alignments, who, not necessarialy selfishly, will have an effect of the system. The king may push for an ideal, but the nobles below may want to keep entrenched in power, establishing a more LN type heriditary based system. By contrast, I feel a LE government will STAY a LE government more easily. More of an iron fist attempt to sustain individual caste/noble power setups. Assassinations would be a more common way to change social status :)
yellowdingo 10-15-05, 12:16 AM	As absolute as the rule of law is, it must meet the needs of all. The sanctity of life is absolute above all things. Therefor the right of the individual to say no to even majority rule is the ultimate precept of Good. If it is not to the benifit of all, it is of benifit to no one. Commonwealth trumps Democracy because law must have the support of all, to be of benifit to all. Anything else is tyranny. Frankly the Paladin confronted by the Law requiring all gnomes to be shunned must instantly reach a point where he/she must fight for the sanctity of life. The Paladin's responsibility is entirely on the edge of civilization anyhow. You are the shield of the living world. Your job is to battle unlife and having crossed the boundary, accept your tainted, outcast status and fight for what is important. Life. You fight for life from the world of the dead, the outcast, the spirit world where the living do not tread least they are outcast.
Gedrin 10-15-05, 01:47 AM	[QUOTE]Therefor the right of the individual to say no to even majority rule is the ultimate precept of Good. If it is not to the benifit of all, it is of benifit to no one. Commonwealth trumps Democracy because law must have the support of all, to be of benifit to all. Anything else is tyranny.QUOTE] If you're saying that people have the right to leave the land of their birth and find a new place to live, where they can live as they like, I agree. If on the otherhand you say that the authority of law, which has been consented to by the majority of the populace, becomes illgitimate simply because a single person doesn't like the law, that would be silly. After all, you can probably take 100 people and find at least one that's contrarian regarding any idea, much less the hundreds of thousands that would be ruled by a nation state. Once people start being born in your land, you'll have people who never formally signed on, and some of them will likely have different ideas about the way things should be. In the end, you won't get everyone to agree to every law unless you've got a very small group of people with very similar world views. Just because one guy doesn't consent to a law doesn't make it illegitimate. Take a group like NAMBLA. The fact that they don't support laws punishing pedophelia, doesn't make laws against pedophelia illegitimate.
yellowdingo 10-22-05, 09:53 AM	If on the otherhand you say that the authority of law, which has been consented to by the majority of the populace, becomes illgitimate simply because a single person doesn't like the law, that would be silly. Not silly. Respectful of the right of everyone to not be a part of the group and the law that protects that right. You suggest the very policies that forced Native peoples to flee the tyranny of others. Imagine what would have happened in America in its foundation years had all its citizens been forced to recognise the right of the one to say no. Texas would be defined not by an all encompassing border, but rather by the boundaries of individual land holders. The Mexican families would have never been dispossessed and you would have had a Patchwork Texas where those who would live by a certain way of life (as long as they respect the right of others to be confined by their boundaries) would never have to pick up and leave due to the prospect of tyranny. Native Americans would still have what is their share, and would be protected by law even from government who would come in and Mine for resources or build towns. The Government doesnt have the right to take your home even for some assumed compensation. You share is indivisible and equal to all others. Commonwealth is not Democracy. It is better. For the citizens of the Commonwealth it is the right to freedom from any act that will cause government, law, constitution, and/or sovereign to be held in hatred and or contempt (including by its broad scope, acts of government, Law, Constitution, and/or Sovereign). The rule of law is absolute. You have the right to an equal share of the benifits and responsibilities of citizenship. This is the fundamental human right from which all lesser interpretations extend. For the Paladin this would be difficult because it outlaws inequality and hierarchy. Kings and churches would be criminals just for attacking the way an individual lives. Considering the Paladin is not the sword of the Church but the guardian of Life itself, A paladin would overthrow kings, burn down churches, and drive off and expell the perpetrators of these trespasses.