Another Paladin Quandary [Archive] - Wizards Community

Another Paladin Quandary [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
The Voice of Sauron
11-06-03, 11:50 PM I know we beat the poor paladin to death on this forum, but I have one question: Does a paladin have to obey the laws of a land ruled by an evil tyrant?
I ask because IMC, the peasants of said land are revolting against their lawful evil baron. The rest of the party is siding with the peasant rebels; the paladin feels that he is in a moral quandary because the Code requires him to respect legitimate authority (which the baron technically is), but also to smite evil wherever it is found (which the baron unquestionably is).
My gut feeling on this is that the paladin, being the paragon of good, is more interested in justice than in legality in this situation; since the peasants are being unjustly and cruelly oppressed, the paladin is obligated to aid them.
Any input would be appreciated.
Dartanel
11-07-03, 12:00 AM A Paladin is not obligated toward unjust laws, nor to those with legal power that use that power for evil ends.

In this case the Paladin would be obligated to end the Baron's evil activities. He should seek to do this in the most peaceful manner possible. If the lord of the land is a just ruler, he would likely attempt to reveal the Baron's activities to the King and have the Baron removed peacefully.
DrakeRunner
11-07-03, 12:46 AM Lawful Good is not Always Law Abiding Good. The Paladin has a strict code of conduct. That is all is really required to be Lawful. As long as he does not break it, he can fly into the Baron's window and pee in his wine goblet.

Of course, since this Paladin does have that in his CoC, he would attempt to calm the citizens and solve the problems within the system.
Leap
11-07-03, 05:02 AM A Paladin would see all non-lawful good ‘authorities’ as to some degree illegitimate (although would respond to each in a different way – LN, NG tend to be open to suggestion, CG, LE tend to need serious correction (CGs need to learn to about wider concerns and ongoing situations, LEs need to learn to trust and respect the agency of most folks), NE, CN tend to be unwilling to listen and typically need the application of appropriate force (*whack*) whilst CE is open season.

Generally

:)
the_heart
11-07-03, 06:57 AM Originally posted by The Voice of Sauron

My gut feeling on this is that the paladin, being the paragon of good, is more interested in justice than in legality in this situation; since the peasants are being unjustly and cruelly oppressed, the paladin is obligated to aid them.
Any input would be appreciated.

my opinion is follow your gut instinct. often paladins have to decide which part of the code is more important and as long as they adhere to the spirit of the code, no harm no foul. it isn't evil to oppose an evil ruler.

but you are talking to a guy that has no problems with paladin/shadowdancers.
Roxlimn
11-07-03, 09:32 AM In this case, it would be important to the Paladin why the peasants are revolting against the said tyrant. To be sure, the Paladin would most likely view such a course of action as being highly undesirable and the absolute last recourse against an evil ruler, but if he sees that justice is on the side of the rebels, then he should have no problems siding with them.

He can still show respect to the Baron's authority even while advancing his revolution. He can have the peasants respectfully allow the Baron to retire after the coup, grant him a last request or some other significant recognition of the Baron's former rule.
OrigamiCommando
11-07-03, 10:44 AM Roxlimm beat me to it, I see. It depends on why the peasents are revolting.

"The baron forces us to have babies so he can collect them, skin them, and make their flesh into fine garments."

If it is something akin to that, he has to be stopped because he is no longer just an evil ruler, he is an all-out monster in kings clothing. He probably won't be dealt with and in the D&D world of magic, gods, and devils, chances are, he has already gotten the attention of some evil outsider, so I wouldn't try reasoning with him. Just deposing him.

"He overtaxes us and demands to sleep with our women before they get married."

In this case, he sounds like a greedy old bugger, but certainly reasonable enough to deal with. I'd urge the paladin to maybe barter for better treatment on behalf of the barons people. Everyone has a price. Maybe some ogres are raiding his caravans, or some abyssal ants have taken residence in the castle basement, or a black dragon plagues the land. It could prove to be a great adventure hook.

There is (or should) always be a way for a paladin to solve a problem and retain his LG alignment. Rebellion is CG though, under most circumstances.
Leap
11-07-03, 10:53 AM I disagree with the claim that rebellion is CG; rioting or destabilising society for its own sake is Chaotic – replacing an Evil order with a Good one is most certainly not.
xect
11-07-03, 04:01 PM If the rules is evil, the paladin would certainly try to stop him. Only if the situation was very grave though, would the paladin resort to violence to resolve the matter (getting the bad guy off the throne by simply getting him in front of a judge would work better, if that's possible).
Voran
11-07-03, 09:01 PM Hmm. What would the Paladin do if the CG peasants were revolting against a LG fighter king?
MinusInnocence
11-07-03, 11:39 PM The key word is "legitimate". In your example of a LG ruler and CG peasants, both sides of the coin need to be carefully examined.

If their complaints against the ruler are reasonable and within the bounds of the law (and, more importantly, his Code), he very well may lead the petitioning for things to change. On the other hand, you have to consider what this LG person is really doing. Conceivably, if he's been up to no good for quite some time, he would cease to be LG and so it may or may not be appropriate to go in with crossbows blazing.

In this case, if the peasants are just complaining that the king is taking a vested interest in the goings-on of his country (as every reasonable person should), or that the taxes are too high (but not unbelievable; and, not SO high that the peasants are starving), it's time to move on to greener pastures.

The Paladin is the number one most conflicted character in D&D. You see, they deal with conundrums, paradoxes and moral crises every day that most normal people (other adventurers included) never think about in entire lifetimes. There is great potential to foul up and cost him the sanctity of his soul... but a true Paladin takes this burden willingly.

If the original example of the baron and revolting peasants (that's a funny phrase) is true to form; i.e., if the baron really is LE... then I don't think the Paladin would consider his authority to be legitimate at all. As such, it's time for some baddie-whackin'! Now, certainly, there are easier and less violent ways to resolve the conflict... but even though bloodshed is always the last option, it's STILL an option.
OrigamiCommando
11-10-03, 09:57 AM Originally posted by Leap
I disagree with the claim that rebellion is CG; rioting or destabilising society for its own sake is Chaotic – replacing an Evil order with a Good one is most certainly not.

Then look at it this way. If the paladin goes along with the rebellion he will be helping peasents throw themselves to their deaths at the hands of trained, equipped knights.

Unless the paladin is willing wo take on a whole army by himself he is helping in the slaughter of a large group of people when he could do the smart thing and go to the king who controls this baron and inform him of what's going on. If the king is evil, well, that is another debate altogether.
Leap
11-10-03, 10:15 AM OC –

Not so. You are assuming “fighting in open field against redcoats” when your own history should teach you the value of guerrilla tactics a la Francis Marrion…..

And a king who is not aware of the alignment of his barons is a poor king! You do not need “know alignment” to guess someone’s general attitude to life and to give them power when you know of their proclivities is itself an evil act most of the time! If you have to tell the king about the baron’s abuses that to me gives cause to worry about the king!
OrigamiCommando
11-10-03, 10:29 AM Well, now, its a bit early to hang the king. It really depends on how many barons he has beneath him. If this is a guy with like a couple dozen barons spread throughout the land then it would be easy to see a baron abusing this anonymity for evil ends.

And if the baron is smart he's doing his deeds privately rather than publicly, so that the king never gets any warning of what's happening. Kind of like the mafia, so no one can prove its him, but everyone under his command knows the truth.

Hey, accidents happen, after all... :D
Leap
11-10-03, 10:35 AM OC –

I meant more a case of a king who appoints a dodgy baron is either entangled in alliances that leave him unable to act, or he is uncaring of the behaviour of the baron so long as taxes are paid. Or he is too stupid to be a good king.

In a society where complaining to the king leads to dark stares from the baron, it is not a problem to take “legitimate routes”, but when such action leads to members of you family disappearing all bets are off and legit routes are cast aside in a “lets see who can be first to string him up” contest. :devil:
NeutralNeutral
11-10-03, 12:14 PM Im unclear - is the Baron completely in charge or is he in turn under the control of a king?

If there is a king/overlord, and they are Good or at least Neutral, then won't the Barons actions be breaking the Law?

If the Baron is the supreme authority, or the king/overlord doesnt care, why and how are they the legitimate ruler(s)? Are there other candidates for the Baroncy?

One solution for the Paladin: since the Baron is legitimate, but is doing evil, this must be due to the influence of evil advisors, who must be exposed and removed.

What if a neighbouring decent lord has a claim to press? Or has been effected by the Baron's Evil?
The Voice of Sauron
11-13-03, 11:22 PM To clarify the situation, the baron is actually fairly low on the feudal heirarchy overall, but he's near the fringes of the kingdom and the king has other things that are more important (keeping the local barbarian tribes and neighboring kingdoms at bay). The baron is overtaxing his people almost to the point of starvation (leaving them just barely enough to survive), both in coin and goods, meaning his castle is extensively fortified and has food stores to survive a protracted siege with ease, and that the baron has the money to hire almost unlimited numbers of mercenaries. This baron is also not really concerned about the casualties the peasant rebels are inflicting on the forces he's sent out, since the they're either mercenaries (primarily hobgoblins and ogres) or, more recently, undead (which finally pushed the paladin firmly into the rebel cause).
NeutralNeutral
11-14-03, 12:13 PM Since the Baron is using evil humanoids and even worse undead, he has lost his legitimacy, and the Paladin can act. Even better if
the more pragmatic characters in the party can play some politics and get the nod from above to depose the baron, and replace him with a loyal royal appointee.
NeutralNeutral
11-14-03, 12:14 PM Since the Baron is using evil humanoids and even worse undead, he has lost his legitimacy, and the Paladin can act. Even better if
the more pragmatic characters in the party can play some politics and get the nod from above to depose the baron, and replace him with a loyal royal appointee.
NeutralNeutral
11-14-03, 12:14 PM Since the Baron is using evil humanoids and even worse undead, he has lost his legitimacy, and the Paladin can act. Even better if
the more pragmatic characters in the party can play some politics and get the nod from above to depose the baron, and replace him with a loyal royal appointee.
Santini
11-14-03, 11:05 PM Here's my $0.02 on the subject...

Paladins are lawful, which means that they adhere to a strict code of conduct. They are spiritually and morally obligated to this code -- but are not 100% perfect (Lancelot - the archetypical Paladin, had an affair with a married woman).

The also uphold the values of good in all instances.

This does not make all Paladins "obligated" to anything -- they are human and do everything they can to stay to their moral and ethical code.... It is a judgement call - and is 100% based on the way the character plays the Paladin.

Paladins can be haughty, distainfull and arrogant -- as long as they stay true to their code and do their best to be morally pure.

To make a long response short - the Paladin should side with whichever side he feels appropriate, but should not be swayed by what other people (including other PC's) feel he should be doing. Once the Baron is defeated, he should want to do everything in his power to ensure that the Baron gets a fair trial by whatever legal system he believes in...
Northen_Spur
11-15-03, 09:01 AM Yes but Lancelot paid for his breaking the code, he had a wound in his side that wouldn't quite heal. That why I always tell my players to pick a patron deity so if they stray to much they can recive punishment.

In my view, the Paladin must obey the law of the land and obey his code. Only if he can moraly justify the reason why he's breaking the law he could do it.

I see Paladins working a little like cops, even if they know that Baron X is evil they can't move on him until he does a evil (or un-lawful) action. Because a country could have un-just laws but their not been applied (un-less of the worst case senario). So if he sees the baron commit heinous crimes now the Paladin can act.

I say this to avoid problems arising in D&D regions like Calisma or Kara-tur. A Paladin could walk in Kara-tur (based of asian cultures) and see woman with tighly bound feet. He declares that counts as torture and decided to make a move on the local ruler to stop an un-just law.

as for the rebelion, the paladin would have to make a moral choice (he'll probebly side with the peasant) if the Baron is that bad. But the Paladin would try to orginise the rebelion ("nothing worst than 300 unprepared peasents meating arrows). But if captured and juged by the Baron the Paladin would accept the Lawful jugement.
Ilanthe
11-15-03, 09:58 AM Our group have always had problems with paladins, particularly with the lawful part of their alignment. Partly this is because the sources of inspiration to play a paladin - characters like David Edding's Sparhawk and Elizabeth Moon's Paxinarion - don't seem to fit within the strictures of a D&D LG paladin.

In the end we solved it this way. We view the lawful part of the paladin's alignment as being a belief in 'order'. A chaotic society favours the strong over the weak, and fails to protect the vulnerable. Hence a lawful society is preferred and adds to the general 'good'. However, the paladin is above all a warrior for good and for his god. His or her own moral code is ultimately the guide by which they will act - and standing around saying oh dear but the baron is a legitimate ruler if the baron's actions are evil just isn't going to happen. Although then we might get into what counts as evil.

What I and my group find frustrating, is the idea that a warrior for good, one chosen and legitimised by god, should find themselves impotent in the face of LE society because it is 'legitimate'. My own feeling is that the paladin should be in the forefront of the battle against evil ... he should be the one convincing his companions to put personal wealth or risk aside and help anyone in need to battle evil. (Well maybe a little overstated, but you get the gist.)

It's probably a bit removed from most people's idea of a paladin, but it works for us.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
The Voice of Sauron 11-06-03, 11:50 PM	I know we beat the poor paladin to death on this forum, but I have one question: Does a paladin have to obey the laws of a land ruled by an evil tyrant? I ask because IMC, the peasants of said land are revolting against their lawful evil baron. The rest of the party is siding with the peasant rebels; the paladin feels that he is in a moral quandary because the Code requires him to respect legitimate authority (which the baron technically is), but also to smite evil wherever it is found (which the baron unquestionably is). My gut feeling on this is that the paladin, being the paragon of good, is more interested in justice than in legality in this situation; since the peasants are being unjustly and cruelly oppressed, the paladin is obligated to aid them. Any input would be appreciated.
Dartanel 11-07-03, 12:00 AM	A Paladin is not obligated toward unjust laws, nor to those with legal power that use that power for evil ends. In this case the Paladin would be obligated to end the Baron's evil activities. He should seek to do this in the most peaceful manner possible. If the lord of the land is a just ruler, he would likely attempt to reveal the Baron's activities to the King and have the Baron removed peacefully.
DrakeRunner 11-07-03, 12:46 AM	Lawful Good is not Always Law Abiding Good. The Paladin has a strict code of conduct. That is all is really required to be Lawful. As long as he does not break it, he can fly into the Baron's window and pee in his wine goblet. Of course, since this Paladin does have that in his CoC, he would attempt to calm the citizens and solve the problems within the system.
Leap 11-07-03, 05:02 AM	A Paladin would see all non-lawful good ‘authorities’ as to some degree illegitimate (although would respond to each in a different way – LN, NG tend to be open to suggestion, CG, LE tend to need serious correction (CGs need to learn to about wider concerns and ongoing situations, LEs need to learn to trust and respect the agency of most folks), NE, CN tend to be unwilling to listen and typically need the application of appropriate force (whack) whilst CE is open season. Generally :)
the_heart 11-07-03, 06:57 AM	Originally posted by The Voice of Sauron My gut feeling on this is that the paladin, being the paragon of good, is more interested in justice than in legality in this situation; since the peasants are being unjustly and cruelly oppressed, the paladin is obligated to aid them. Any input would be appreciated. my opinion is follow your gut instinct. often paladins have to decide which part of the code is more important and as long as they adhere to the spirit of the code, no harm no foul. it isn't evil to oppose an evil ruler. but you are talking to a guy that has no problems with paladin/shadowdancers.
Roxlimn 11-07-03, 09:32 AM	In this case, it would be important to the Paladin why the peasants are revolting against the said tyrant. To be sure, the Paladin would most likely view such a course of action as being highly undesirable and the absolute last recourse against an evil ruler, but if he sees that justice is on the side of the rebels, then he should have no problems siding with them. He can still show respect to the Baron's authority even while advancing his revolution. He can have the peasants respectfully allow the Baron to retire after the coup, grant him a last request or some other significant recognition of the Baron's former rule.
OrigamiCommando 11-07-03, 10:44 AM	Roxlimm beat me to it, I see. It depends on why the peasents are revolting. "The baron forces us to have babies so he can collect them, skin them, and make their flesh into fine garments." If it is something akin to that, he has to be stopped because he is no longer just an evil ruler, he is an all-out monster in kings clothing. He probably won't be dealt with and in the D&D world of magic, gods, and devils, chances are, he has already gotten the attention of some evil outsider, so I wouldn't try reasoning with him. Just deposing him. "He overtaxes us and demands to sleep with our women before they get married." In this case, he sounds like a greedy old bugger, but certainly reasonable enough to deal with. I'd urge the paladin to maybe barter for better treatment on behalf of the barons people. Everyone has a price. Maybe some ogres are raiding his caravans, or some abyssal ants have taken residence in the castle basement, or a black dragon plagues the land. It could prove to be a great adventure hook. There is (or should) always be a way for a paladin to solve a problem and retain his LG alignment. Rebellion is CG though, under most circumstances.
Leap 11-07-03, 10:53 AM	I disagree with the claim that rebellion is CG; rioting or destabilising society for its own sake is Chaotic – replacing an Evil order with a Good one is most certainly not.
xect 11-07-03, 04:01 PM	If the rules is evil, the paladin would certainly try to stop him. Only if the situation was very grave though, would the paladin resort to violence to resolve the matter (getting the bad guy off the throne by simply getting him in front of a judge would work better, if that's possible).
Voran 11-07-03, 09:01 PM	Hmm. What would the Paladin do if the CG peasants were revolting against a LG fighter king?
MinusInnocence 11-07-03, 11:39 PM	The key word is "legitimate". In your example of a LG ruler and CG peasants, both sides of the coin need to be carefully examined. If their complaints against the ruler are reasonable and within the bounds of the law (and, more importantly, his Code), he very well may lead the petitioning for things to change. On the other hand, you have to consider what this LG person is really doing. Conceivably, if he's been up to no good for quite some time, he would cease to be LG and so it may or may not be appropriate to go in with crossbows blazing. In this case, if the peasants are just complaining that the king is taking a vested interest in the goings-on of his country (as every reasonable person should), or that the taxes are too high (but not unbelievable; and, not SO high that the peasants are starving), it's time to move on to greener pastures. The Paladin is the number one most conflicted character in D&D. You see, they deal with conundrums, paradoxes and moral crises every day that most normal people (other adventurers included) never think about in entire lifetimes. There is great potential to foul up and cost him the sanctity of his soul... but a true Paladin takes this burden willingly. If the original example of the baron and revolting peasants (that's a funny phrase) is true to form; i.e., if the baron really is LE... then I don't think the Paladin would consider his authority to be legitimate at all. As such, it's time for some baddie-whackin'! Now, certainly, there are easier and less violent ways to resolve the conflict... but even though bloodshed is always the last option, it's STILL an option.
OrigamiCommando 11-10-03, 09:57 AM	Originally posted by Leap I disagree with the claim that rebellion is CG; rioting or destabilising society for its own sake is Chaotic – replacing an Evil order with a Good one is most certainly not. Then look at it this way. If the paladin goes along with the rebellion he will be helping peasents throw themselves to their deaths at the hands of trained, equipped knights. Unless the paladin is willing wo take on a whole army by himself he is helping in the slaughter of a large group of people when he could do the smart thing and go to the king who controls this baron and inform him of what's going on. If the king is evil, well, that is another debate altogether.
Leap 11-10-03, 10:15 AM	OC – Not so. You are assuming “fighting in open field against redcoats” when your own history should teach you the value of guerrilla tactics a la Francis Marrion….. And a king who is not aware of the alignment of his barons is a poor king! You do not need “know alignment” to guess someone’s general attitude to life and to give them power when you know of their proclivities is itself an evil act most of the time! If you have to tell the king about the baron’s abuses that to me gives cause to worry about the king!
OrigamiCommando 11-10-03, 10:29 AM	Well, now, its a bit early to hang the king. It really depends on how many barons he has beneath him. If this is a guy with like a couple dozen barons spread throughout the land then it would be easy to see a baron abusing this anonymity for evil ends. And if the baron is smart he's doing his deeds privately rather than publicly, so that the king never gets any warning of what's happening. Kind of like the mafia, so no one can prove its him, but everyone under his command knows the truth. Hey, accidents happen, after all... :D
Leap 11-10-03, 10:35 AM	OC – I meant more a case of a king who appoints a dodgy baron is either entangled in alliances that leave him unable to act, or he is uncaring of the behaviour of the baron so long as taxes are paid. Or he is too stupid to be a good king. In a society where complaining to the king leads to dark stares from the baron, it is not a problem to take “legitimate routes”, but when such action leads to members of you family disappearing all bets are off and legit routes are cast aside in a “lets see who can be first to string him up” contest. :devil:
NeutralNeutral 11-10-03, 12:14 PM	Im unclear - is the Baron completely in charge or is he in turn under the control of a king? If there is a king/overlord, and they are Good or at least Neutral, then won't the Barons actions be breaking the Law? If the Baron is the supreme authority, or the king/overlord doesnt care, why and how are they the legitimate ruler(s)? Are there other candidates for the Baroncy? One solution for the Paladin: since the Baron is legitimate, but is doing evil, this must be due to the influence of evil advisors, who must be exposed and removed. What if a neighbouring decent lord has a claim to press? Or has been effected by the Baron's Evil?
The Voice of Sauron 11-13-03, 11:22 PM	To clarify the situation, the baron is actually fairly low on the feudal heirarchy overall, but he's near the fringes of the kingdom and the king has other things that are more important (keeping the local barbarian tribes and neighboring kingdoms at bay). The baron is overtaxing his people almost to the point of starvation (leaving them just barely enough to survive), both in coin and goods, meaning his castle is extensively fortified and has food stores to survive a protracted siege with ease, and that the baron has the money to hire almost unlimited numbers of mercenaries. This baron is also not really concerned about the casualties the peasant rebels are inflicting on the forces he's sent out, since the they're either mercenaries (primarily hobgoblins and ogres) or, more recently, undead (which finally pushed the paladin firmly into the rebel cause).
NeutralNeutral 11-14-03, 12:13 PM	Since the Baron is using evil humanoids and even worse undead, he has lost his legitimacy, and the Paladin can act. Even better if the more pragmatic characters in the party can play some politics and get the nod from above to depose the baron, and replace him with a loyal royal appointee.
NeutralNeutral 11-14-03, 12:14 PM	Since the Baron is using evil humanoids and even worse undead, he has lost his legitimacy, and the Paladin can act. Even better if the more pragmatic characters in the party can play some politics and get the nod from above to depose the baron, and replace him with a loyal royal appointee.
NeutralNeutral 11-14-03, 12:14 PM	Since the Baron is using evil humanoids and even worse undead, he has lost his legitimacy, and the Paladin can act. Even better if the more pragmatic characters in the party can play some politics and get the nod from above to depose the baron, and replace him with a loyal royal appointee.
Santini 11-14-03, 11:05 PM	Here's my $0.02 on the subject... Paladins are lawful, which means that they adhere to a strict code of conduct. They are spiritually and morally obligated to this code -- but are not 100% perfect (Lancelot - the archetypical Paladin, had an affair with a married woman). The also uphold the values of good in all instances. This does not make all Paladins "obligated" to anything -- they are human and do everything they can to stay to their moral and ethical code.... It is a judgement call - and is 100% based on the way the character plays the Paladin. Paladins can be haughty, distainfull and arrogant -- as long as they stay true to their code and do their best to be morally pure. To make a long response short - the Paladin should side with whichever side he feels appropriate, but should not be swayed by what other people (including other PC's) feel he should be doing. Once the Baron is defeated, he should want to do everything in his power to ensure that the Baron gets a fair trial by whatever legal system he believes in...
Northen_Spur 11-15-03, 09:01 AM	Yes but Lancelot paid for his breaking the code, he had a wound in his side that wouldn't quite heal. That why I always tell my players to pick a patron deity so if they stray to much they can recive punishment. In my view, the Paladin must obey the law of the land and obey his code. Only if he can moraly justify the reason why he's breaking the law he could do it. I see Paladins working a little like cops, even if they know that Baron X is evil they can't move on him until he does a evil (or un-lawful) action. Because a country could have un-just laws but their not been applied (un-less of the worst case senario). So if he sees the baron commit heinous crimes now the Paladin can act. I say this to avoid problems arising in D&D regions like Calisma or Kara-tur. A Paladin could walk in Kara-tur (based of asian cultures) and see woman with tighly bound feet. He declares that counts as torture and decided to make a move on the local ruler to stop an un-just law. as for the rebelion, the paladin would have to make a moral choice (he'll probebly side with the peasant) if the Baron is that bad. But the Paladin would try to orginise the rebelion ("nothing worst than 300 unprepared peasents meating arrows). But if captured and juged by the Baron the Paladin would accept the Lawful jugement.
Ilanthe 11-15-03, 09:58 AM	Our group have always had problems with paladins, particularly with the lawful part of their alignment. Partly this is because the sources of inspiration to play a paladin - characters like David Edding's Sparhawk and Elizabeth Moon's Paxinarion - don't seem to fit within the strictures of a D&D LG paladin. In the end we solved it this way. We view the lawful part of the paladin's alignment as being a belief in 'order'. A chaotic society favours the strong over the weak, and fails to protect the vulnerable. Hence a lawful society is preferred and adds to the general 'good'. However, the paladin is above all a warrior for good and for his god. His or her own moral code is ultimately the guide by which they will act - and standing around saying oh dear but the baron is a legitimate ruler if the baron's actions are evil just isn't going to happen. Although then we might get into what counts as evil. What I and my group find frustrating, is the idea that a warrior for good, one chosen and legitimised by god, should find themselves impotent in the face of LE society because it is 'legitimate'. My own feeling is that the paladin should be in the forefront of the battle against evil ... he should be the one convincing his companions to put personal wealth or risk aside and help anyone in need to battle evil. (Well maybe a little overstated, but you get the gist.) It's probably a bit removed from most people's idea of a paladin, but it works for us.