@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.
You seem to have misunderstood me. I said that Lawful was not as disconnected from law as you were saying--you said there was absolutely no connection between the two. That is what I disagreed with.
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.
I do not think moopy was right. Clearly I have failed in making my meaning clear.
A Paladin would break a law if it was harmful to the innocent, but merely protecting the wicked is not cause enough, if you assume that the authority delegating the laws is legitimate. For example, in Western society, we are generally presumed innocent until proven guilty. If the Paladin in question has seen proof that a certain villain is guilty, but the law enforcers in the area where the villain is living have not, and the law states that guilt must be proven to a law enforcer, then the Paladin is required by his Code of Conduct to respect the legitimate authority of the law enforcer, and not act on his own. If he then discovers that the law enforcers are crooked, he would no longer consider their authority legitimate, and he could act.
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.
Disagree. I have a JD for what that is worth to the discussion, but there is real value to the order provided to our country by laws and you can see the difference in comparing it to other societies where lesser priority is given to the law. These laws protect against abuses in societies that are ruled by monarchs and other authoritarians because even our president and political leaders are subject to and limited by the laws.
As John Adams said:
Our country is a "a government of laws, and not of men."
Is the US legal system perfect? No. Is there corruption in government, law, police, etc.? Absolutely. (Imperfection and corruption are part of our basic human character.)
Nonetheless, arguing that the US legal system is inferior for promoting order and the welfare of its citizens to a system without laws or governments where the laws are at the discretion of a person or group of people is so far from my vantage point that it is tough to engage on that let alone argue it.
To me, one way of thinking about the difference between a "lawful good" and a "chaotic good" alignment is that a lawful good aligned person generally believes that mankind is benefited by a legal/social structure for the betterment of society and that supporting such a system (not supporting slavery or other systems which are designed to denigrate, abuse, exploit, etc. people rather than to promote their general welfare) is worth the effort because mankind is better for it while a chaotic good person generally believes that mankind is better without such systems and structures or that such systems should be ignored when they would lead to an injustice.
A classic dilemma on this might be an issue of evidence where a lawful good person recognizes that privacy rights for individuals benefit all of society and so will allow a criminal to walk where the evidence nailing that person was unlawfully obtained in violation of that criminal's privacy rights in order to protect the rights of all others who are part of the system whereas the chaotic good person doesn't see the value in the system and will seek appropriate punishment based on the illegally obtained evidence even though it may mean that the privacy rights of many others suffer with the undermining of the system. Both are good. Both are trying to do what they think is right and what they think it is right depends on the value they place on having an ordered system.
This discussion stopped being about Drizzt two pages ago.
If you want to discuss alignment conundra, please start a new thread. (Note that I'm not discouraging the discussion, just encouraging it in its own thread rather than as a derailment of this one.)
If the off-topic discussion continues, I'll have to close the thread.
The RP reason for killing Drizzt was mentioned earlier. Evil characters can do so on their whim. All others can do so after they tell him they have other responsibilities and that he can easily handle a few gnolls on his own and he then goes hostile and attacks.
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 fighter11 female shapeshifter druid. 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!!summon werebears. 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 attacksic your werebears on him. You be like whatcha say BOI?? and uthey 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!
Comments
A Paladin would break a law if it was harmful to the innocent, but merely protecting the wicked is not cause enough, if you assume that the authority delegating the laws is legitimate. For example, in Western society, we are generally presumed innocent until proven guilty. If the Paladin in question has seen proof that a certain villain is guilty, but the law enforcers in the area where the villain is living have not, and the law states that guilt must be proven to a law enforcer, then the Paladin is required by his Code of Conduct to respect the legitimate authority of the law enforcer, and not act on his own. If he then discovers that the law enforcers are crooked, he would no longer consider their authority legitimate, and he could act.
As John Adams said:
Our country is a "a government of laws, and not of men."
Is the US legal system perfect? No. Is there corruption in government, law, police, etc.? Absolutely. (Imperfection and corruption are part of our basic human character.)
Nonetheless, arguing that the US legal system is inferior for promoting order and the welfare of its citizens to a system without laws or governments where the laws are at the discretion of a person or group of people is so far from my vantage point that it is tough to engage on that let alone argue it.
To me, one way of thinking about the difference between a "lawful good" and a "chaotic good" alignment is that a lawful good aligned person generally believes that mankind is benefited by a legal/social structure for the betterment of society and that supporting such a system (not supporting slavery or other systems which are designed to denigrate, abuse, exploit, etc. people rather than to promote their general welfare) is worth the effort because mankind is better for it while a chaotic good person generally believes that mankind is better without such systems and structures or that such systems should be ignored when they would lead to an injustice.
A classic dilemma on this might be an issue of evidence where a lawful good person recognizes that privacy rights for individuals benefit all of society and so will allow a criminal to walk where the evidence nailing that person was unlawfully obtained in violation of that criminal's privacy rights in order to protect the rights of all others who are part of the system whereas the chaotic good person doesn't see the value in the system and will seek appropriate punishment based on the illegally obtained evidence even though it may mean that the privacy rights of many others suffer with the undermining of the system. Both are good. Both are trying to do what they think is right and what they think it is right depends on the value they place on having an ordered system.
If you want to discuss alignment conundra, please start a new thread. (Note that I'm not discouraging the discussion, just encouraging it in its own thread rather than as a derailment of this one.)
If the off-topic discussion continues, I'll have to close the thread.