@Moopy Fair point that I might not be playing my Blade's alignment correctly, but am I wrong that an "Unaffiliated" character is True Neutral without necessarily striving for balance? I was under the impression that an average farmer would often be True Neutral.
I figured that Charname as a bland fighter exiting Candlekeep with the sole motivation of self-preservation and no higher values or goals could easily be True Neutral without being a balance-worshipper. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Regarding LN, I understand that a true LN character wouldn't differentiate between "good" laws or "evil" laws. But does that mean that they'd advocate the Drow's laws? Typical Drow are chaotic evil, and their ideas of laws are almost an insult to order. Drow law is more of a system of rules to a game. There's a big difference between upholding a corrupt magistrate's edicts and a surface-dweller enforcing Underdark law.
I understand that different people can have different points of view within a single alignment, I just can't help but play a little devil's advocate in discussions like this.
From looking at the player handbook I think you have true neutral right, I was looking at only those obsessed with balance, which isn't only reserved for druids, but some true neutral are just undecided so my bad.
A lawful character wouldn't care too much of the law was from a corrupt magistrate or not. They'd abide by it anyway. If a LN consistently took a drows law perspective or other evil beings they'd be shifted to LE pretty quickly, so I do doubt a LN would murder Drizzt. I could see them getting away it it once or twice as opposed to a CG character that could never get away with it.
You are the spawn of a GOD OF MURDER! What more excuse do you need to MURDER him?
You were stricken by an overwhelming desire to KILL something. As if in answer to your needs... Drizzt appears... His friends will find him and resurrect him... They always do... Well they do in BG2... Sure it happens in BG1 when your not looking...
@Moopy Fair point that I might not be playing my Blade's alignment correctly, but am I wrong that an "Unaffiliated" character is True Neutral without necessarily striving for balance? I was under the impression that an average farmer would often be True Neutral.
More likely the average farmer is somewhere between neutral good and true neutral. Communities tend towards good rather than evil, due to enlightened self-interest.
I figured that Charname as a bland fighter exiting Candlekeep with the sole motivation of self-preservation and no higher values or goals could easily be True Neutral without being a balance-worshipper. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Could be, but it is rather unlikely that a person could grow to become an adult without developing a full belief system, and it is very unlikely that someone with a full belief system would have "no higher values"--he'd have to be basically a sociopath for that.
There's no reason why he couldn't have a full belief system that averages out to be True Neutral.
Regarding LN, I understand that a true LN character wouldn't differentiate between "good" laws or "evil" laws. But does that mean that they'd advocate the Drow's laws? Typical Drow are chaotic evil, and their ideas of laws are almost an insult to order. Drow law is more of a system of rules to a game. There's a big difference between upholding a corrupt magistrate's edicts and a surface-dweller enforcing Underdark law.
Lawful Neutral characters do not have to consider the law at all--that is not what "lawful" means. "Lawful" basically implies structure -- tradition, strict behavioral system, respecting authority, etc.
Drow law is inherently Chaotic; it is enforced only by the strongest, and only on their terms.
Lawfull Good: He stepped on a squirrel and smiled. True Neutral: He stepped on a squirrel. Lawfull Evil: He stepped on a squirrel before me. or - He and his 12 thorwalian friends crossed your path and asked you for all your ale, when you answered you have none they attacked you in cold blood. And this is how it was really, your honorary.
Lawfull Good: He stepped on a squirrel and smiled. True Neutral: He stepped on a squirrel. Lawfull Evil: He stepped on a squirrel before me. or - He and his 12 thorwalian friends crossed your path and asked you for all your ale, when you answered you have none they attacked you in cold blood. And this is how it was really, your honorary.
guys guys guys... bring it down to my level of understanding.... you dont need any reason to kill him even IF you are RPing... let me xplain. YOU r playing a role of a character and all u know is how netural, evil or good ur character is. Thats ALL you know! i mean if u really wanna roleplay lets get into details here... lets say ur a lvl 7 female fighter. Its her time of the month, she feels pissed off and than drizzt just shows his face right in ur face and ur like what! bro stay away am a female on my period! But u think he cares about ur woman needs?? HELL NO sisters he dont care at all he just tries to much, talks to much and being a needy twat. So u tell him hey dude get outa of here or il chop ur balls off... He's like haha u serious ur like lvl 7 and am like lvl 16 whatcha gonna do bitch? Than u pull out ur orgasmial dagger +2 and attack him where it hurts the most. 2 seconds late he's like ouch girl why u stab me in the balls!! THE BALLS!! Than u be like dont show u face around here no more ya hear? He be like ok ok take it easy crazy b%tch. THATS when u see red and goes on an all out whirlwind babarian diablo 2ish attack. You be like whatcha say BOI?? and u cut him up and stab him in the face until he's dead! DEAD!
Why make rping complicated, just use ur imganination thats what its all about! kill that son of a gun!
From looking at the player handbook I think you have true neutral right, I was looking at only those obsessed with balance, which isn't only reserved for druids, but some true neutral are just undecided so my bad.
A lawful character wouldn't care too much of the law was from a corrupt magistrate or not. They'd abide by it anyway. If a LN consistently took a drows law perspective or other evil beings they'd be shifted to LE pretty quickly, so I do doubt a LN would murder Drizzt. I could see them getting away it it once or twice as opposed to a CG character that could never get away with it.
@moopy. You make the same mistake a lot of folks do. "Lawful" alignment has zero to do with 'The law'. A Paladin will oppose/not follow unjust laws just as easily as s/he will follow just laws. And being of Lawful alignment has no bearing on the laws of the land. In fact, most laws and legal systems that exist on this planet are much more chaotic in nature than they are 'Ordered'.
So it is a total Miss-nomer that a Lawful character cares about the law more than a chaotic character does.
Now, Lawful characters will more often follow a code of conduct. They may believe in an ideal and adhere to it strictly. And that "Could" be a code of laws. But, with different nations having different and sometimes contrary laws, playing a "Lawful" character by saying "It's the law and I won't break it" is not playing Lawful in it's true nature.
Read some of the Michael Moorcock stuff to see where that alignment came from. You will better understand it.
Lawful does not equal legal. It means Order (which 99% of the time 'The law' isn't).
As much as I applaud any attempts to separate "lawful" from "law", they are not quite that separate--Lawful characters do respect legitimate authority, because it reinforces their own beliefs in tradition, order and structure, which does lead them to generally care more about laws than Chaotic characters--they just want lawful laws. Consistency.
That being said, I totally agree with the general sentiment you're expressing. A Lawful character would only respect laws that a) adhere to lawful behavior in general, and b) are not too opposite his moral outlook.
Chaotic Neutral: Maybe, who knows...they're insane.
Evil alignment: Probably
Your background:
- For the purposes of your character in BG, you grew up in Candlekeep. It's the center of learning in the Sword Coast. The stories of Drizzt and his accomplishments are known to you. Enough to know that if your'e good natured he's probably a hero to you. Your foster father was Gorion who oversaw your education... do you really think you can legitimately role play a good character who is so prejudiced and ignorant that he or she will attack a non-threatening Drow who is KILLING Gnoll's with TWO SCIMITARS and making short work of them? So if it looks like a Drizzt, talks like a Drizzt, behaves like a Drizzt... we are going to kill him because we are good and our background was growing up in Candlekeep where we were told stories and reports and legends of Drizzt the goodly Drow elven ranger who surpassed the wickedness in his heritage and overcame the evil in his own race only to face the evil in a Candlekeep child who declares themselves good yet is deliberately clinging to ignorance? The very action of attacking Drizzt in the face of this knowledge is evil!
The normal response from even a semi-intelligent good character would be something along the lines of, "Hey look! That must be Drizzt the drow ranger we grew up hearing about! He's even calling out to us for help. Let's help lend him a hand and rid the area of these Gnolls who are attacking both of us!"
Good and evil behavior are defined by actions. By rejecting the wisdom and learning of Candlekeep and killing Drizzt out of claimed ignorance, which you are not, you are playing evil. If your characters alignment is good and kill him, you're powergaming...not roleplaying. Nothing wrong with powergaming! But call it for what it is...
Even the moon elves as a race held off from shooting Drizzt on sight and they have at least some excuse to be prejudiced towards the drow considering the devastaion of Drow raiding parties against them. Even they can see that Drizzt is no ordinary Drow and while they may not be all warm and fuzzy with him, they can respect him and give him the benefit of the doubt and that is something most goodly characters would do.
As much as I applaud any attempts to separate "lawful" from "law", they are not quite that separate--Lawful characters do respect legitimate authority, because it reinforces their own beliefs in tradition, order and structure, which does lead them to generally care more about laws than Chaotic characters--they just want lawful laws. Consistency.
That being said, I totally agree with the general sentiment you're expressing. A Lawful character would only respect laws that a) adhere to lawful behavior in general, and b) are not too opposite his moral outlook.
Again, I would strongly suggest that you read some of the Michael Moorcock books. Lawful alignment does not equal Legal. What so ever. Not even a little bit.
Elric's people were worshipers of Chaos. They were in fact the embodiment of the Lords of Chaos and their representatives on that world. They Ruled over the 'Young Kingdoms' with an iron fist and an extensive legal system. There is no disparity here. And the forces of Law cared nothing about the laws of man. Less than zero. They cared about ORDER.
And as I stated in my post, a Lawful character "Might" follow a code of conduct. But Just because there may be some overlap between that code of conduct and "Just" laws, only means they are correlated. Not Causally connected. A "Code of conduct" is just as likely to be contrary to the laws of the land.
A Lawful Evil tyrant will think nothing what so ever about violating the laws of the land in pursuit of his/her goals. A Lawful Good Paladin will pursue a murder or a slaver to the ends of the earth, even if the laws of the land protect the vile creature and with zero moral or ethical qualms. And a Lawful Neutral will absolutely ignore the Laws of the land, or even violate them in pursuit of their neutrality to the point of obstructing the authorities if they feel that their own codes are being violated.
And a Chaotic individual might very well be an extreme supporter of the laws of the land due to the very chaotic nature of those same laws and the opportunities they afford.
In short there is zero causal link between alignment and legal stance. It is a very unfortunate choice that they use the term "Lawful" because it does not mean what it appears. And again, Every single legal system that has existed for man has been MUCH more chaotic than lawful by VERY large degrees. laws arise in a very chaotic manner and are equally applied in a chaotic manner. Pick any legal system you want and do the research. You will see.
No, there is definitely a correlation between alignment and "legal stance", as you put it; it is just not as simple as "lawful = law" or "chaotic = anarchy".
Tradition, structure, order; the general concept of laws imply all of those. It is not DEMANDED, but it is implied.
That does not mean that individual laws automatically get approved of by Lawful characters, but it does mean that in general, Lawful characters tend to favor the existence of laws over the absence of laws, as a Chaotic person would.
A Lawful Good Paladin will NOT ignore laws that protect evil-doers, unless said laws are put forth by an authority he deems illegitimate. He would work within the law to pursue them, even if it is inconvenient to him, because his Code of Conduct demands that he do so. If he breaks such a law, he breaks the tenet that says he must respect legitimate authority. Depending on the GM, that could mean a fall.
All bets are, of course, off when the laws themselves are Chaotic in nature. A Lawful Good paladin would probably not consider anyone with inherently Chaotic laws as a legitimate authority (and they certainly would not consider anyone with Evil laws legitimate), which allows them to do what they have to.
It is more than possible to have a Lawful character who abhors laws, and a Chaotic character who loves them. But that would require them to have very strongly aligned traits aside from their consideration of laws, because in general, it would be the opposite.
@IDanielHolm. We are going to have to agree to disagree. Because what you are seeing is correlation, not causation. There is a big difference.
But I would strongly recommend you read the Michael Moorcock stuff I recommended. You might find a different perspective once you do. That was the source of the alignment system in D&D.
Also, if you honestly believe that the legal systems created by man are ordered, in intent or in execution, you should do some research. Ask a lawyer or a cop or a judge or a social worker or anyone who has had even one law class. Or better yet, ask anyone who was found guilty of a crime that they didn't commit, or got off when they did do something wrong. Or even someone who has gone through a divorce or other legal proceeding and had to deal with all manner of tangential and unrelated factors just to achieve a given goal. I guarantee they will be able to show you quite a different perspective.
But let me ask you. If a Paladin lives in a land where slavery is both legal and common place, do you imagine that the Paladin would participate in this activity? If not, why not? It would be following 'The law'.
@IDanielHolm. We are going to have to agree to disagree. Because what you are seeing is correlation, not causation. There is a big difference.
I am arguing generalities, not specifics. Causation is neither here nor there; I am not looking for reasons behind why people are Lawful; I am looking at what they do when they are.
Laws do not necessarily imply Lawful, but Lawful does necessarily imply laws. Do you see the difference? It may not be laws of any given region or society; it can be a personal code of conduct. But without laws of some sort, a character cannot really be Lawful.
As I said originally, I am all for separating "Lawful" from "laws" as much as possible, but there is a connection between the two, whether you like it or not.
But I would strongly recommend you read the Michael Moorcock stuff I recommended. You might find a different perspective once you do. That was the source of the alignment system in D&D.
Alignment drew partial, not complete, inspiration from Moorcock's material, though frankly, I don't see the relevance.
Also, if you honestly believe that the legal systems created by man are ordered, you should do some research. Ask a lawyer or a cop or a judge or a social worker. I guarantee they will be able to show you quite a different perspective.
I didn't say they were. I said laws imply order, as well as tradition and structure. This is not my opinion, it is fact. Order without rules is essentially impossible due to entropy.
Lawful characters will tend to favor a society with laws rather than one without laws because they favor order, structure and tradition over freedom. If they didn't, they wouldn't be Lawful.
You are the spawn of a GOD OF MURDER! What more excuse do you need to MURDER him?
You were stricken by an overwhelming desire to KILL something. As if in answer to your needs... Drizzt appears... His friends will find him and resurrect him... They always do... Well they do in BG2... Sure it happens in BG1 when your not looking...
For those that have read the novel, I doubt Abdel Adrian would need a reason to kill Drizzt...
@IDanielHolm. How can causation be neither here nor there? Either a person obeys they law Because of being lawful OR a Lawful person chooses obey the law. If it isn't causal, then a lawful person may or may not obey the law and your entire argument falls to pieces.
As for this:
Lawful characters will tend to favor a society with laws rather than one without laws because they favor order, structure and tradition over freedom. If they didn't, they wouldn't be Lawful.
Only if those laws promote order and structure. In no way is that a guarantee. And as soon as you put conditions like that on it, all bets are off. Then you are reduced to "Lawful people will follow those rules that they perceive as being order and structure related" which is a whole different ball game than "Lawful beings will follow the law".
I ask again, if a Paladin were to grow up in and live in a society where slavery was both legal and abundant, would they remain lawful good by participating in it? Why or why not? And why are you holding a lawful good person to a different standard than a lawful neutral or lawful evil as pertains to the Lawful aspect of their alignment?
if you have Viconia in your party then that is all the reason to kill Drizzt. When you meet Baeloth, Vicconia is insulted when he asks if she is from house Do'Urden. Any drow will see someone from House Do'Urden as someone to kill. Anyone from house Do'Urden is shamed and fair game to be killed. It's a society thing.
if you have Viconia in your party then that is all the reason to kill Drizzt. When you meet Baeloth, Vicconia is insulted when he asks if she is from house Do'Urden. Any drow will see someone from House Do'Urden as someone to kill. Anyone from house Do'Urden is shamed and fair game to be killed. It's a society thing.
Regardless of how much of a pariah Drizzt is among the Drow, Viconia DeVir should have a personal vendetta against him. After all, House Do'Urden wiped out House DeVir in battle, with Drizzt's mother using the act of giving birth to Drizzt as a catalyst for a massive spell that wiped out most of DeVir's magical defenses. Drizzt is basically the physical embodiment of Viconia's banishment from the Underdark.
@IDanielHolm. How can causation be neither here nor there? Either a person obeys they law Because of being lawful OR a Lawful person chooses obey the law. If it isn't causal, then a lawful person may or may not obey the law and your entire argument falls to pieces.
A Lawful person is free to do as he wishes, which I have said over and over again, but in general terms, Lawful people--i.e. not any specific person--will tend to favor obeying laws. Whether they do so because they are Lawful and have a preexisting desire for order and structure or they become Lawful because they like laws specifically is immaterial.
Lawful characters will tend to favor a society with laws rather than one without laws because they favor order, structure and tradition over freedom. If they didn't, they wouldn't be Lawful.
Only if those laws promote order and structure. In no way is that a guarantee. And as soon as you put conditions like that on it, all bets are off. Then you are reduced to "Lawful people will follow those rules that they perceive as being order and structure related" which is a whole different ball game than "Lawful beings will follow the law".
I ask again, if a Paladin were to grow up in and live in a society where slavery was both legal and abundant, would they remain lawful good by participating in it? Why or why not? And why are you holding a lawful good person to a different standard than a lawful neutral or lawful evil as pertains to the Lawful aspect of their alignment? I am speaking in general terms, not specifics.
I am not holding Lawful Good people to a different standard, I am holding a Paladin to a different standard. They have a Code of Conduct which they have to obey, above and beyond being Lawful Good.
Slavery is not, in and of itself, Good or Evil. It is primarily Lawful. You can have a Lawful Good society with legalized slavery, if those slaves are protected by law from abuse.
Isn't Keldorn a good example of what happens when a lawful character faces a lawful decision that conflicts with his good alignment? Keldorn is distraught about having to turn his wife in and have her executed. His good alignment tells him he shouldn't, but his lawful side says he must according to the rules. I think a lawful good character could go either way, but it won't be an easy choice for them and might drive them to madness.
@IDanielHolm, I think this got needlessly off topic. I started by commenting to Moopy that a "Lawful" person would not necessarily abide by "The Law" for no other reason than being lawful. You countered by telling me that my view of "Lawful" not necessarily being associated to "The law" was incorrect. I see nothing that you have posted that further supports this position.
In general a "Lawful" person may very well want to be part of an Ordered society. In that we agree. However, i disagree that means that moopy was right and I was wrong. And I don't think that "The Law" is the ordered structure that you apparently seem to think it is. And I absolutely think that a Paladin (the pinnacle of all things Good and Lawful) would go against, ignore and generally break laws that were unjust and protected the wicked, while harming the innocent.
Comments
I figured that Charname as a bland fighter exiting Candlekeep with the sole motivation of self-preservation and no higher values or goals could easily be True Neutral without being a balance-worshipper. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Regarding LN, I understand that a true LN character wouldn't differentiate between "good" laws or "evil" laws. But does that mean that they'd advocate the Drow's laws? Typical Drow are chaotic evil, and their ideas of laws are almost an insult to order. Drow law is more of a system of rules to a game. There's a big difference between upholding a corrupt magistrate's edicts and a surface-dweller enforcing Underdark law.
I understand that different people can have different points of view within a single alignment, I just can't help but play a little devil's advocate in discussions like this.
From looking at the player handbook I think you have true neutral right, I was looking at only those obsessed with balance, which isn't only reserved for druids, but some true neutral are just undecided so my bad.
A lawful character wouldn't care too much of the law was from a corrupt magistrate or not. They'd abide by it anyway. If a LN consistently took a drows law perspective or other evil beings they'd be shifted to LE pretty quickly, so I do doubt a LN would murder Drizzt. I could see them getting away it it once or twice as opposed to a CG character that could never get away with it.
You were stricken by an overwhelming desire to KILL something. As if in answer to your needs... Drizzt appears... His friends will find him and resurrect him... They always do... Well they do in BG2... Sure it happens in BG1 when your not looking...
There's no reason why he couldn't have a full belief system that averages out to be True Neutral. Lawful Neutral characters do not have to consider the law at all--that is not what "lawful" means. "Lawful" basically implies structure -- tradition, strict behavioral system, respecting authority, etc.
Drow law is inherently Chaotic; it is enforced only by the strongest, and only on their terms.
True Neutral: He stepped on a squirrel.
Lawfull Evil: He stepped on a squirrel before me.
or - He and his 12 thorwalian friends crossed your path and asked you for all your ale, when you answered you have none they attacked you in cold blood. And this is how it was really, your honorary.
Why make rping complicated, just use ur imganination thats what its all about! kill that son of a gun!
(Satyrion's satiric "voice", and Sylvus' comment, both.)
So it is a total Miss-nomer that a Lawful character cares about the law more than a chaotic character does.
Now, Lawful characters will more often follow a code of conduct. They may believe in an ideal and adhere to it strictly. And that "Could" be a code of laws. But, with different nations having different and sometimes contrary laws, playing a "Lawful" character by saying "It's the law and I won't break it" is not playing Lawful in it's true nature.
Read some of the Michael Moorcock stuff to see where that alignment came from. You will better understand it.
Lawful does not equal legal. It means Order (which 99% of the time 'The law' isn't).
That being said, I totally agree with the general sentiment you're expressing. A Lawful character would only respect laws that a) adhere to lawful behavior in general, and b) are not too opposite his moral outlook.
Any alignment... doesn't matter
Roleplaying:
Good alignment: No, you wouldn't kill him
Neutral alignment: No, you wouldn't kill him.
Chaotic Neutral: Maybe, who knows...they're insane.
Evil alignment: Probably
Your background:
- For the purposes of your character in BG, you grew up in Candlekeep. It's the center of learning in the Sword Coast. The stories of Drizzt and his accomplishments are known to you. Enough to know that if your'e good natured he's probably a hero to you. Your foster father was Gorion who oversaw your education... do you really think you can legitimately role play a good character who is so prejudiced and ignorant that he or she will attack a non-threatening Drow who is KILLING Gnoll's with TWO SCIMITARS and making short work of them? So if it looks like a Drizzt, talks like a Drizzt, behaves like a Drizzt... we are going to kill him because we are good and our background was growing up in Candlekeep where we were told stories and reports and legends of Drizzt the goodly Drow elven ranger who surpassed the wickedness in his heritage and overcame the evil in his own race only to face the evil in a Candlekeep child who declares themselves good yet is deliberately clinging to ignorance? The very action of attacking Drizzt in the face of this knowledge is evil!
The normal response from even a semi-intelligent good character would be something along the lines of, "Hey look! That must be Drizzt the drow ranger we grew up hearing about! He's even calling out to us for help. Let's help lend him a hand and rid the area of these Gnolls who are attacking both of us!"
Good and evil behavior are defined by actions. By rejecting the wisdom and learning of Candlekeep and killing Drizzt out of claimed ignorance, which you are not, you are playing evil. If your characters alignment is good and kill him, you're powergaming...not roleplaying. Nothing wrong with powergaming! But call it for what it is...
Even the moon elves as a race held off from shooting Drizzt on sight and they have at least some excuse to be prejudiced towards the drow considering the devastaion of Drow raiding parties against them. Even they can see that Drizzt is no ordinary Drow and while they may not be all warm and fuzzy with him, they can respect him and give him the benefit of the doubt and that is something most goodly characters would do.
Elric's people were worshipers of Chaos. They were in fact the embodiment of the Lords of Chaos and their representatives on that world. They Ruled over the 'Young Kingdoms' with an iron fist and an extensive legal system. There is no disparity here. And the forces of Law cared nothing about the laws of man. Less than zero. They cared about ORDER.
And as I stated in my post, a Lawful character "Might" follow a code of conduct. But Just because there may be some overlap between that code of conduct and "Just" laws, only means they are correlated. Not Causally connected. A "Code of conduct" is just as likely to be contrary to the laws of the land.
A Lawful Evil tyrant will think nothing what so ever about violating the laws of the land in pursuit of his/her goals. A Lawful Good Paladin will pursue a murder or a slaver to the ends of the earth, even if the laws of the land protect the vile creature and with zero moral or ethical qualms. And a Lawful Neutral will absolutely ignore the Laws of the land, or even violate them in pursuit of their neutrality to the point of obstructing the authorities if they feel that their own codes are being violated.
And a Chaotic individual might very well be an extreme supporter of the laws of the land due to the very chaotic nature of those same laws and the opportunities they afford.
In short there is zero causal link between alignment and legal stance. It is a very unfortunate choice that they use the term "Lawful" because it does not mean what it appears. And again, Every single legal system that has existed for man has been MUCH more chaotic than lawful by VERY large degrees. laws arise in a very chaotic manner and are equally applied in a chaotic manner. Pick any legal system you want and do the research. You will see.
Tradition, structure, order; the general concept of laws imply all of those. It is not DEMANDED, but it is implied.
That does not mean that individual laws automatically get approved of by Lawful characters, but it does mean that in general, Lawful characters tend to favor the existence of laws over the absence of laws, as a Chaotic person would.
A Lawful Good Paladin will NOT ignore laws that protect evil-doers, unless said laws are put forth by an authority he deems illegitimate. He would work within the law to pursue them, even if it is inconvenient to him, because his Code of Conduct demands that he do so. If he breaks such a law, he breaks the tenet that says he must respect legitimate authority. Depending on the GM, that could mean a fall.
All bets are, of course, off when the laws themselves are Chaotic in nature. A Lawful Good paladin would probably not consider anyone with inherently Chaotic laws as a legitimate authority (and they certainly would not consider anyone with Evil laws legitimate), which allows them to do what they have to.
It is more than possible to have a Lawful character who abhors laws, and a Chaotic character who loves them. But that would require them to have very strongly aligned traits aside from their consideration of laws, because in general, it would be the opposite.
But I would strongly recommend you read the Michael Moorcock stuff I recommended. You might find a different perspective once you do. That was the source of the alignment system in D&D.
Also, if you honestly believe that the legal systems created by man are ordered, in intent or in execution, you should do some research. Ask a lawyer or a cop or a judge or a social worker or anyone who has had even one law class. Or better yet, ask anyone who was found guilty of a crime that they didn't commit, or got off when they did do something wrong. Or even someone who has gone through a divorce or other legal proceeding and had to deal with all manner of tangential and unrelated factors just to achieve a given goal. I guarantee they will be able to show you quite a different perspective.
But let me ask you. If a Paladin lives in a land where slavery is both legal and common place, do you imagine that the Paladin would participate in this activity? If not, why not? It would be following 'The law'.
Laws do not necessarily imply Lawful, but Lawful does necessarily imply laws. Do you see the difference? It may not be laws of any given region or society; it can be a personal code of conduct. But without laws of some sort, a character cannot really be Lawful.
As I said originally, I am all for separating "Lawful" from "laws" as much as possible, but there is a connection between the two, whether you like it or not. Alignment drew partial, not complete, inspiration from Moorcock's material, though frankly, I don't see the relevance. I didn't say they were. I said laws imply order, as well as tradition and structure. This is not my opinion, it is fact. Order without rules is essentially impossible due to entropy.
Lawful characters will tend to favor a society with laws rather than one without laws because they favor order, structure and tradition over freedom. If they didn't, they wouldn't be Lawful.
As for this: Only if those laws promote order and structure. In no way is that a guarantee. And as soon as you put conditions like that on it, all bets are off. Then you are reduced to "Lawful people will follow those rules that they perceive as being order and structure related" which is a whole different ball game than "Lawful beings will follow the law".
I ask again, if a Paladin were to grow up in and live in a society where slavery was both legal and abundant, would they remain lawful good by participating in it? Why or why not? And why are you holding a lawful good person to a different standard than a lawful neutral or lawful evil as pertains to the Lawful aspect of their alignment?
So, having her in the group is not reason to kill drizzt.
I ask again, if a Paladin were to grow up in and live in a society where slavery was both legal and abundant, would they remain lawful good by participating in it? Why or why not? And why are you holding a lawful good person to a different standard than a lawful neutral or lawful evil as pertains to the Lawful aspect of their alignment?
I am speaking in general terms, not specifics.
I am not holding Lawful Good people to a different standard, I am holding a Paladin to a different standard. They have a Code of Conduct which they have to obey, above and beyond being Lawful Good.
Slavery is not, in and of itself, Good or Evil. It is primarily Lawful. You can have a Lawful Good society with legalized slavery, if those slaves are protected by law from abuse.
In general a "Lawful" person may very well want to be part of an Ordered society. In that we agree. However, i disagree that means that moopy was right and I was wrong. And I don't think that "The Law" is the ordered structure that you apparently seem to think it is. And I absolutely think that a Paladin (the pinnacle of all things Good and Lawful) would go against, ignore and generally break laws that were unjust and protected the wicked, while harming the innocent.