This scenario works if the evil that has stricken the Order is blatantly obvious. In the case of a more surreptitious enemy, the Paladin would be the kind of guy that needed evidence to take any action. He wouldn't be able to go with his "gut feeling"
This is my view based on descriptions right out of the book:
Neutral Good
These characters believe that a balance of forces is important, but that the concerns of law and chaos do not moderate the need for good. Since the universe is vast and contains many creatures striving for different goals, a determined pursuit of good will not upset the balance; it may even maintain it. If fostering good means supporting organized society, then that is what must be done. If good can only come about through the overthrow of existing social order, so be it. Social structure itself has no innate value to them. A baron who violates the orders of his king to destroy something he sees as evil is an example of a Neutral Good character.
For some reason they felt the need to differentiate NG from LG with that example
1. Nothing about being Lawful Good prevents the Paladin from looking for evidence. If there is none to be found, and he can't get a We're Not So Different speech or similar monologue out of the one he suspects, then more drastic action will be taken.
2. The baron is not Neutral Good because he is willing to violate the orders of his king. The baron is Neutral Good because he never placed too great a value on the hierarchy to begin with. The king might even be a close friend, but he's not going to listen to his friend and king if his friend and king is being a jackass.
It implies that one will allow his or her morality to be constrained by whatever current legal context he or she is allowed in.
This means that, for example, if a lawful good character were in a country where it wasn't illegal to rape children, he or she would not interfere in a child being raped in front of his or her eyes. An extreme example, but I think it conveys the point. Laws are imperfect creations of imperfect societies; they are the product of morality, and should NEVER be interpreted as the origin, or center, or a moral system.
Essentially, lawful good means EVIL, because it means refusing to act on ones morality if doing so is counter to the law. Burke's "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" applies perfectly to the lawful good archetype.
And if the Nuremburg Trials taught us anything, it's that all men are beholden to a higher law than law.
I can't believe I missed this post. Perhaps I blacked out from how absolutely erroneous it is, and repressed it.
Is the reference to the Nuremburg Trials enough to call Godwin on this?
I think that the LG suffers from a distorted stereotype in part because of the LN. It is that "lawful" part that takes precedent. The "good" and the "neutral" make such a difference, though.
The LG would be more inclined to disobey a law, under all permutations. The LN considers not whether a law is fair, or just, but rather that all citizens are held accountable to the letter. Circumstance is of no concern to the LN. If the penalty is death for stealing, then death is the penalty carried out, whether it be a scoundrel caught with diamonds, or a mother caught with an apple for their hungry child. In that instance the LG may show compassion for the mother and discard the death penalty, to then inquire as to how such poverty befell her, and later still why those who govern are not providing better and more widespread aid for such folk. The LN would simply see two individuals who broke the law. The mother would suffer the same fate as the scoundrel. It is of no business to the LN to ask questions, nor be swayed by forthcoming pleas.
Neutral Good, would similarly aid the mother and her child. Chaotic Good, if the mood took them. The LG may impose that the mother serve community service to make a mends for her wrong doing, even though it was necessary, and with the best of intentions. The NG would find this strict and unnecessary. The CG would probably be knocking ten bells out of the scoundrel at this time, before confronting the LG about their curtailment of freedom with a befuddled speech laced with misplaced frenzy that had little to do with the case of the mother and her child.
LG when properly understood is a great alignment. Few could live up to it, though. Unfortunately they can be zealots. Nevertheless, their intentions are always good. The LN is less a zealot, which many consider an instant positive, but it is a mere byproduct of their being devoid of opinion, other than a passion for upholding the law, and their reliability to do so.
I enjoy discussions about alignment. It interests me. I don't pretend to know it all, far from it in fact, part of the enjoyment comes from putting myself out there to broaden my understanding on the subject.
@FinaLfront There's an interesting point in that quote that I think illustrates the difference between LG, NG, and CG.
Social structure itself has no innate value to them.
Neutral good characters see social structures as a means to an end. Their primary goal is a good world for everybody and if the trappings of civilization are necessary to bring that about, then so be it. But if they're getting in the way, then throw them out.
Chaotic good characters also want a good world for everybody, but see social structures as restrictive and an imposition on freedom. They want freedom for everyone and to them that includes freedom from laws and the obligations of society.
Lawful good characters want a good world for everybody but they see social structure as one of the components of that world. In their ideal, everyone would work together towards common goals to improve civilization and each person has a place where they belong.
All of these characters, even lawful ones, are willing to break laws that they see as evil and unjust and tear down evil empires. But lawful characters would want to see them replaced with good and fair laws under the banner of a reasonable and benevolent king while chaotic characters would not.
@nano I think Chaotic Goods being opposed to benevolent kings as a matter of course is a misconception. I think most Chaotic Good characters that aren't run by special snowflake "you can't control me" players recognize that regular people need leaders, guidance. The Chaotic Good character's just not into that sort of thing, and would likely serve as a fringe benefactor or vigilante hero in a newly formed Lawful Good king's community.
I think Chaotic Goods being opposed to benevolent kings as a matter of course is a misconception. I think most Chaotic Good characters that aren't run by special snowflake "you can't control me" players recognize that regular people need leaders, guidance. The Chaotic Good character's just not into that sort of thing, and would likely serve as a fringe benefactor or vigilante hero in a newly formed Lawful Good king's community.
Well we can agree on that. This aspect is what CG has always been appealing for me, the vigilantly. To me, it's saying, "Hey, I'm a good person, but if you mess with something I care about, I'm not going to wait around for the police, Imma take care of you right here and now"
This is what I feel the Paladin is in need of. He needs the flexible vigilantly, with his... ways... to acquire the proof he needs to take action. If only a "less than lawful" approach exists.
@Schneidend I'd argue that leaders are seen as a necessary evil for Chaotic Good characters, like breaking laws for a Lawful Good hero. Ideally, everyone would get along peacefully without the someone telling everyone what they can or can't do. Unfortunately there are a lot of stupid people and you need someone smart to keep them from killing each other, but there is no inherent value in having a person who just gives orders. It's not that Chaotic Good characters are opposed to benevolent kings. They would rather we didn't need kings in the first place.
I don't understand your comment about special snowflake players - the "vigilante CG hero who thinks he's above the law but the common folk aren't" is as much an overused cliche as the "teenage anarchist". Probably more so... everyone wants to be Batman.
there's no way a lawful-good character would feel compelled to obey corrupt or immoral laws. A corrupt or immoral government or legal system is something they would actively oppose. Even Lawful-Evil would likely object to laws that actually undermine social order (like legalized rape)
I think it depends on what the social order is. Legalized rape might be part of a lawful evil society in which women were slaves or non-persons. Similarly, murder or theft could be part of a lawful evil society if they followed certain guidelines, for example, if they are Jewish, the government can round them up, kill them, and steal all their stuff (that was definitely a lawful evil government style).
IMO, lawful evil governments sort of sneak up on people, primarily because most people are lawful neutral and don't care enough until it's gone too far in a certain direction. For example, I doubt that the average person wants to cause someone else to starve, but if lawful evil politicians can pass laws to cut off food stamps for the poor, and the average citizen can't be bothered to care, the entire society moves towards the darker end of the spectrum.
@Schneidend I'd argue that leaders are seen as a necessary evil for Chaotic Good characters, like breaking laws for a Lawful Good hero. Ideally, everyone would get along peacefully without the someone telling everyone what they can or can't do. Unfortunately there are a lot of stupid people and you need someone smart to keep them from killing each other, but there is no inherent value in having a person who just gives orders. It's not that Chaotic Good characters are opposed to benevolent kings. They would rather we didn't need kings in the first place.
I don't understand your comment about special snowflake players - the "vigilante CG hero who thinks he's above the law but the common folk aren't" is as much an overused cliche as the "teenage anarchist". Probably more so... everyone wants to be Batman.
Wishing we didn't need leaders and recognizing that not everybody is a self-sufficient badass are not mutually exclusive. Drizzt is an excellent example of this, as much as he is bemoaned. He is beholden to nobody, but understands not everybody can do what he does.
As for snowflakes versus vigilantes, it's not so much what's cliche or not as what's playing to alignment and what's edgy bullshit.
Wishing we didn't need leaders and recognizing that not everybody is a self-sufficient badass are not mutually exclusive.
Exactly my point. Otherwise you end up with chaotic stupid, the counterpart to the lawful stupid character who follows every order to the letter. Not every leader must be deposed because while governments are an evil they're holding an even greater evil at bay.
If you've ever read the Culture sci-fi novels I think they're a good representation of the ideals of CG characters. Their society is a post-scarcity society, where just about anything anyone could want can be made in seconds, travel is free and even if you want to indulge in darker pleasures there's hyper-realistic simulations or worlds dedicated to that sort of thing. There are almost no laws and no rulers in the traditional sense because they're not necessary - causing harm to others is both difficult and pointless, and external concerns and the maintenance of the empire is handled by others (though citizens can participate if they wish).
As for your last sentence... I guess I have no idea what you mean by "special snowflake" and "edgy bullshit". The "CG Mary Sue" is really no better of a character than the "chaotic stupid anarchist". They're equally valid ways to play the alignment but equally... shallow.
Oh, no. Not another thread where people confuse the alignment "Lawful" with "Legal/judicial".
::Hangs head and walks away::
I don't think anybody has thus far expressed that view, at least not until @FinaLfront. FinaLfront, you're mistaken. Lawful alignments are not necessarily about following the law at all.
IMO, lawful evil governments sort of sneak up on people, primarily because most people are lawful neutral and don't care enough until it's gone too far in a certain direction. For example, I doubt that the average person wants to cause someone else to starve, but if lawful evil politicians can pass laws to cut off food stamps for the poor, and the average citizen can't be bothered to care, the entire society moves towards the darker end of the spectrum.
Charity ceases to be charitable when government coercion is involved.
For me, it's simple: A lawful (good) character has his priorities set in stone.
A knight swears his oath to uphold the laws of the kingdom to help the peope. If said Kingdom is known to be corrupt, he will still try to uphold the law even though he knows, that there will be a dagger sprouting from his back before long. He will never shy away from his duty, wether the enemy of the country is a commoner or noble and he will use the laws to help the people of the land, might even turn a blind eye ones in a while, as long as no harm is done. Since a Knight has sworn loyalty to the crown first, and then the book of law, even here is a solid point that most Knights have to follow some orders, which might not be considered to be good. Hence there is an equal chance if said Knight is of good or of neutral alignment which solely depends on the influence of the current government (which just might cancel out the good deeds he does whenever he has free reign).
A Paladin has different priorities. For a Paladin the laws of it's diety are the ones he will uphold with the utermost will, it's mere coincidence that the laws and rules might just find themselfes in the book of law of that country - or not. He might have other duties to the country (for example a knighted Paladin), which he will uphold on some level, unless they clash with the rules and laws of his deity. A good example is a Paladin who choose to burn a certain drow cleric on the marketplace to root out evil, even though that might be concidered a murder in some countries. So he might not be lawful at all, even though he follows the codex of his deity to the letter.
That said, I seldom choose lawful for a character unless he/she is a Paladin or a Paragon of sorts. Even though you could interpret lawful in a different way, like a thief upholding the rules of the underworld (honour amoung thiefs?). But personally I would tend to choose chaotic in that case, because the emphasis is that he has choosen not to follow the rules exept the one he likes well aware that he will cause some mischief. How could that be a neutral alignment?
To sumarize it: Alignment is not how the character sees his actions, it's how the people around him percieve him.
This is true. Lawful in D&D does not mean "follows all laws." If a Paladin stormed into a Drow City to stop their evil plans, he wouldn't be compelled to obey the commands of Priestesses of Llolth, even though obeying them is the law in Drow cities. He'd also feel no need to cease worshiping his own God in Menzoberranzan even though the worship of any deity except Llolth is outlawed there. Lawful means that you're dedicated to a defined set of principles and the concept of order. Often those principles coincide with the law, such as "Murder and Thievery are wrong", but they are not one and the same. "Lawful" being a misleading name is the thing that most confuses people about the alignment sytsem.
I don't know about this.
This is the way I see it. Lawful Good is the epitome of goodness. Thus, is extremely rare. If we are going to use the paladin as an example, you must remember that they are champions of their diety. They are inherently zealots. They have to abide by every petty law.
The example with Llolth doesn't make sense, since a paladin wouldn't be beholden by Llolth.
Take the Paladin that feels his order is corrupt. Why does he outsource help in investigating the order? He can't take direct action against his laws. If he did so, he would become Neutral Good, hence becoming a fallen paladin, with no access to his powers. Paladins are in a word, prisoners of their alignment.
My outlook on this makes Lawful Good seem almost insane. No normal person would be so strict with laws. Which is why I feel this alignment choice should be extremely rare, almost exclusive to Paladins. On further note, it would make since to view Lawful Good as a form of insanity, being the polar opposite of Chaotic Evil. They are two extremes that require a degree of insanity I feel.
No. You're mistaking the most perfectly upper left corner Lawful Good behaviour of a Paladin for the rest of the alignment.
This is true. Lawful in D&D does not mean "follows all laws." If a Paladin stormed into a Drow City to stop their evil plans, he wouldn't be compelled to obey the commands of Priestesses of Llolth, even though obeying them is the law in Drow cities. He'd also feel no need to cease worshiping his own God in Menzoberranzan even though the worship of any deity except Llolth is outlawed there. Lawful means that you're dedicated to a defined set of principles and the concept of order. Often those principles coincide with the law, such as "Murder and Thievery are wrong", but they are not one and the same. "Lawful" being a misleading name is the thing that most confuses people about the alignment sytsem.
I don't know about this.
This is the way I see it. Lawful Good is the epitome of goodness. Thus, is extremely rare. If we are going to use the paladin as an example, you must remember that they are champions of their diety. They are inherently zealots. They have to abide by every petty law.
The example with Llolth doesn't make sense, since a paladin wouldn't be beholden by Llolth.
Take the Paladin that feels his order is corrupt. Why does he outsource help in investigating the order? He can't take direct action against his laws. If he did so, he would become Neutral Good, hence becoming a fallen paladin, with no access to his powers. Paladins are in a word, prisoners of their alignment.
My outlook on this makes Lawful Good seem almost insane. No normal person would be so strict with laws. Which is why I feel this alignment choice should be extremely rare, almost exclusive to Paladins. On further note, it would make since to view Lawful Good as a form of insanity, being the polar opposite of Chaotic Evil. They are two extremes that require a degree of insanity I feel.
No. You're mistaking the most perfectly upper left corner Lawful Good behaviour of a Paladin for the rest of the alignment.
I would say: Good bound by law can't be same as doing good wether or not the law allows it. Ask your goddess if she actually pays attention to the puny little people's laws ;-)
Charity ceases to be charitable when government coercion is involved.
Lawful good would say, I'm happy to pay taxes that go to programs to help other people, because the government can reach more people faster than I can. Chaotic good would say, government doesn't help people the way I would, so I want to do my own thing, but I'm going to spend as much or more than I would have paid in the taxes to do so. Neutral good would be somewhere in between.
People who say the government is forcing me to help other people who don't deserve to be helped are more likely chaotic neutral. They want the government out of their lives, and they don't want to help other people unless they have a personal stake in it.
This is true. Lawful in D&D does not mean "follows all laws." If a Paladin stormed into a Drow City to stop their evil plans, he wouldn't be compelled to obey the commands of Priestesses of Llolth, even though obeying them is the law in Drow cities. He'd also feel no need to cease worshiping his own God in Menzoberranzan even though the worship of any deity except Llolth is outlawed there. Lawful means that you're dedicated to a defined set of principles and the concept of order. Often those principles coincide with the law, such as "Murder and Thievery are wrong", but they are not one and the same. "Lawful" being a misleading name is the thing that most confuses people about the alignment sytsem.
I don't know about this.
This is the way I see it. Lawful Good is the epitome of goodness. Thus, is extremely rare. If we are going to use the paladin as an example, you must remember that they are champions of their diety. They are inherently zealots. They have to abide by every petty law.
The example with Llolth doesn't make sense, since a paladin wouldn't be beholden by Llolth.
Take the Paladin that feels his order is corrupt. Why does he outsource help in investigating the order? He can't take direct action against his laws. If he did so, he would become Neutral Good, hence becoming a fallen paladin, with no access to his powers. Paladins are in a word, prisoners of their alignment.
My outlook on this makes Lawful Good seem almost insane. No normal person would be so strict with laws. Which is why I feel this alignment choice should be extremely rare, almost exclusive to Paladins. On further note, it would make since to view Lawful Good as a form of insanity, being the polar opposite of Chaotic Evil. They are two extremes that require a degree of insanity I feel.
No. You're mistaking the most perfectly upper left corner Lawful Good behaviour of a Paladin for the rest of the alignment.
He's mistaken about Paladins, as well. A Paladin that doesn't take direct actions against evil is not doing his damn job.
This is true. Lawful in D&D does not mean "follows all laws." If a Paladin stormed into a Drow City to stop their evil plans, he wouldn't be compelled to obey the commands of Priestesses of Llolth, even though obeying them is the law in Drow cities. He'd also feel no need to cease worshiping his own God in Menzoberranzan even though the worship of any deity except Llolth is outlawed there. Lawful means that you're dedicated to a defined set of principles and the concept of order. Often those principles coincide with the law, such as "Murder and Thievery are wrong", but they are not one and the same. "Lawful" being a misleading name is the thing that most confuses people about the alignment sytsem.
I don't know about this.
This is the way I see it. Lawful Good is the epitome of goodness. Thus, is extremely rare. If we are going to use the paladin as an example, you must remember that they are champions of their diety. They are inherently zealots. They have to abide by every petty law.
The example with Llolth doesn't make sense, since a paladin wouldn't be beholden by Llolth.
Take the Paladin that feels his order is corrupt. Why does he outsource help in investigating the order? He can't take direct action against his laws. If he did so, he would become Neutral Good, hence becoming a fallen paladin, with no access to his powers. Paladins are in a word, prisoners of their alignment.
My outlook on this makes Lawful Good seem almost insane. No normal person would be so strict with laws. Which is why I feel this alignment choice should be extremely rare, almost exclusive to Paladins. On further note, it would make since to view Lawful Good as a form of insanity, being the polar opposite of Chaotic Evil. They are two extremes that require a degree of insanity I feel.
No. You're mistaking the most perfectly upper left corner Lawful Good behaviour of a Paladin for the rest of the alignment.
I would say: Good bound by law can't be same as doing good wether or not the law allows it. Ask your goddess if she actually pays attention to the puny little people's laws ;-)
No need to ask the goddess anything. A Paladin doesn't necessarily have to care about secular laws to begin with. A Paladin is only required to follow the code of their order and the tenets of their faith. But, as somebody else put it, Paladins are usually not total dickwads, and will thus follow the laws of the land that don't interfere with their work or are not in direct conflict with their order/faith.
IMO, lawful evil governments sort of sneak up on people, primarily because most people are lawful neutral and don't care enough until it's gone too far in a certain direction. For example, I doubt that the average person wants to cause someone else to starve, but if lawful evil politicians can pass laws to cut off food stamps for the poor, and the average citizen can't be bothered to care, the entire society moves towards the darker end of the spectrum.
Charity ceases to be charitable when government coercion is involved.
The LG Paladin will approve of law and social order only so long as it serves the innocent, and punishes the wicked. The very moment a law, or an order has been compromised, or corrupted, the LG Paladin would stand in direct opposition to it. They would attempt to find a peaceful solution, through dialogue, within the laws, but don't be fooled into thinking they would stand idle if the corruption continued. The LG Paladin will draw their sword with great conviction to uphold all that is right, and all that is just, it is merely a last resort for them. To make such an oath would require an unwavering passion for all that is good, as can best be achieved through law and order. When law and order flatters to deceive, the LG Paladin will strive to set it right, peacefully where possible. If they discard morality they face falling from favor with their deity. Other than that, they are beholden to no one.
The LG Paladin is akin to Superman. He protects the weak. He punishes the wicked. He seeks out evil! He looks to uphold the law, so long as that law is ethical and honorable.
This does not mean that the LG Paladin goes around the land sticking his nose into the business of every nation, and every city, and every citizen. This does not mean the Paladin is required to act on every instance where a law is beginning to creak with burden, if their assistance has not been asked. Their bread and butter is to offer aid to those who ask it, and to strike down evil where ever it may roam. They do not act outside the law because they actively try to set an example and support the ever present quest for good. There is no prerequisite to be a zealot. That is a choice that each Paladin makes.
In defending the LG, and now the Paladin, I find myself wishing to play one. I never thought it possible. I've grown to dislike a lot of aspects of CG. Certain aspects of freedom, sadly, can allow evil to prosper. Not all governments are corrupt, and those that are could be salvaged as oppose to over thrown. NG is fantastic. I love the NG alignment. They have no real downside, for me, because they are essentially a mix of the best parts of LG and CG. It strikes a real chord, though, when the LG contends that if they do not follow the law to achieve what is right, then what separates them from criminals.
These two paragraphs from easydamus helped me to (hopefully) understand the LG better:
Lawful good can appear to be a difficult alignment to uphold, but it must be remembered that lawful good characters are not necessarily naive or unrealistic. At the heart of a lawful good alignment is the belief in a system of laws that promotes the welfare of all members of a society, ensures their safety, and guarantees justice. So long as the laws are just and applied fairly to all people, it doesn't matter to the lawful good character whether they originate from a democracy or a dictator. Though all lawful good systems adhere to the same general principles, specific laws may be different. One society may allow a wife to have two husbands, another may enforce strict monogamy. Gambling may be tolerated in one system, forbidden in another. A lawful good character respects the laws of other lawful good cultures and will not seek to impose his own values on their citizens.
However, a lawful good character will not honor a law that runs contrary to his alignment. A government may believe that unregulated gambling provides a harmless diversion, but a lawful good character may determine that the policy has resulted in devastating poverty and despair. In this character's mind, the government is guilty of a lawless act by promoting an exploitative and destructive enterprise. In response, he may encourage citizens to refrain from gambling, or he may work to change the law. Particularly abhorrent practices, such as slavery and torture, may force the lawful good character to take direct action. It doesn't matter if these practices are culturally acceptable or sanctioned by well-meaning officials. The lawful good character's sense of justice compels him to intervene and alleviate as much suffering as he can. Note, though, that time constraints, inadequate resources, and other commitments may limit his involvement. While a lawful good character might wish for a cultural revolution in a society that tolerates cannibalism, he may have to content himself with rescuing a few victims before circumstances force him to leave the area.
The very problem with most of these arguments is one of correlation versus causation. People are trying to causally link (either directly or unconsciously) Law (the legal system) with Lawful alignment. There really is no causal relationship between the two other than a penchant for both to have similar goals.
A Lawful good will only follow the "Legal" edicts of a region in so far as those Legal edicts parallel the Lawful person's own belief system and no further. They don't follow the law, they follow their own personal (or order) code of conduct. If that code of conduct is the same as the law, there is no conflict. if it is different, there is no conflict, the person merely follows their code of conduct and ignores or breaks the law.
Yes, most Lawful codes of conducts "support order and society". This is a parallel and coincidence of 'Most' order structures supporting the same goals. But correlation does not equal causation.
Yes, it is possible that a Lawful person could dedicate themselves to 'The laws of the land' as their 'Order' or code to be followed. But a Lawful alignment is not REQUIRED to be directly tied to, or to believe in, support or in any way be associated with or even in agreement with the Judicial system. Again, there is no causation.
In conclusion, there is no required tie between a Lawful alignment and the legal system. There are apparent correlated instances and examples of how they have similar goals, but this is not causal in nature. Being lawful does not CAUSE you to follow the law. "If" your order follows the law, you follow your order. If it doesn't you don't.
In conclusion, there is no required tie between a Lawful alignment and the legal system. There are apparent correlated instances and examples of how they have similar goals, but this is not causal in nature. Being lawful does not CAUSE you to follow the law. "If" your order follows the law, you follow your order. If it doesn't you don't.
I purpose a sleight alteration. Law and order have much in common, alignment and law and order not nessecary. I grant you that. But there is a catch:
Someone who lived a secluded live where rules are enforced (strict training of body and mind) is much more likely to accept rules that seems to uphold order. But as I pointed out before: Wether an action is lawful or not is strictly speaking based on the people who see the action and then clasify it. If the highest Paladin in the order cleanses the street in a different country off all unbelievers, that it's plain as day for him, that he tries to retain order - as stated in his codex to smite the wicked. For the people around it might just look like a mass murderer is randomly killing and he is too well armed that anybody will even openly oppose him. If you ask them, do you really expect them to smile and say: yay, a law abiding foreigner, good to have him around?
I believe even the most evil kind of man will see his actions as justified, his reaction as benefitial. Does that make him good natured or even law abiding/lawful? Remember the "greater good" which is so often used to justify any action.
So I'm still convinced that the action of a lawful character is based on all the rules and customs in the country (and how the people in it see it), not only on his codex or personal agenda. If for example that Paladin set's the priority of his codex higher then that of the law, then by all means: he is not lawful. In your point of view he can by anything, even lawful.
@RazaDelrom - you are falling victim to my point. You are seeing correlation and thinking causation.
The example you gave about someone growing up in seclusion with loads of rules who is more likely to follow 'The laws', aren't following 'The laws'. They are following their own internal belief system which just happens to parallel the law.
And I see Paladins very different. For a Paladin, his Codex and his patron God are THE Highest Law. All other concerns are secondary. "If" the teachings of his Deity are in keeping with the legal system, he may appear to follow that legal system, but in truth, he is following his codex, Not the law. They just happen to be parallel.
Everyone puts up circumstantial examples as "Proof". Every single example boils down to the lawful character following their own internal code of conduct (or external if it happens to come from an order or patron) which just happens to parallel the wider laws or have similar goals as the legal system. this is correlation, not causation. They don't follow the law because they are lawfully aligned. They follow their code of conduct which just happens to not violate the law.
In conclusion, there is no required tie between a Lawful alignment and the legal system. There are apparent correlated instances and examples of how they have similar goals, but this is not causal in nature. Being lawful does not CAUSE you to follow the law. "If" your order follows the law, you follow your order. If it doesn't you don't.
You're preaching to the choir. Most in this thread are already of the opinion that being Lawful and being law-abiding are not intrinsically linked.
In conclusion, there is no required tie between a Lawful alignment and the legal system. There are apparent correlated instances and examples of how they have similar goals, but this is not causal in nature. Being lawful does not CAUSE you to follow the law. "If" your order follows the law, you follow your order. If it doesn't you don't.
I purpose a sleight alteration. Law and order have much in common, alignment and law and order not nessecary. I grant you that. But there is a catch:
Someone who lived a secluded live where rules are enforced (strict training of body and mind) is much more likely to accept rules that seems to uphold order. But as I pointed out before: Wether an action is lawful or not is strictly speaking based on the people who see the action and then clasify it. If the highest Paladin in the order cleanses the street in a different country off all unbelievers, that it's plain as day for him, that he tries to retain order - as stated in his codex to smite the wicked. For the people around it might just look like a mass murderer is randomly killing and he is too well armed that anybody will even openly oppose him. If you ask them, do you really expect them to smile and say: yay, a law abiding foreigner, good to have him around?
I believe even the most evil kind of man will see his actions as justified, his reaction as benefitial. Does that make him good natured or even law abiding/lawful? Remember the "greater good" which is so often used to justify any action.
So I'm still convinced that the action of a lawful character is based on all the rules and customs in the country (and how the people in it see it), not only on his codex or personal agenda. If for example that Paladin set's the priority of his codex higher then that of the law, then by all means: he is not lawful. In your point of view he can by anything, even lawful.
Your example is based on a bizarre scenario no Paladin in his right mind would ever undertake. Do you honestly think "cleanses the street...off all unbelievers..." is something Paladins actually do? It's not a Paladin of Helm's job to slaughter non-Helmites en masse. A Paladin of Helm would help defend caravans from bandits, bolster a fort's defenders, or serve as extra security for somebody targeted by assassins. His job is not to offer a convert-or-die ultimatum to an entire avenue and then start killing people.
Helm was a neutral power regarding truth, protection and balance. Last I've heard the emphasis is on was, not anymore.
Lets pick another one, shall we? What about Silvanus? The greater deity of wild nature? Would he not be enraged, if some settlers sully a holy place in the wilds? True neutral can be quite dangerous for these settlers. What about Tempus, the God of war? I'm pretty sure that his codex includes lines like "the weak shall parish" What about Cyric, the god of murder? His alignment is chaotic evil, but his followers will try to murder all he points out. Pretty sure their fellow Paladins are Blackguards, but I want to include all flavors.
To far away from lawful good? OK, what about another deity of the paladins perhaps? Torm, the god of duty, loyalty and obidience. He is lawful good, but why is he the god of obidience, if the law of men is equally important then their deity's rules? Wouldn't their Paladins fall from grace, if they chose not to be obidient? I've read a story once, where a fellow Paladin of Torm was send to kill the king of another City-state for the reason that he refused to build and maintain another deitys temple, even though he had already build a temple for Waukeen the goddess of Trade. Not all deals were stricktly aboveboard, but he was by no means a tyrann of his independent city.
If said city would have been a Duarger or Drow settlement, I'm pretty sure no follower of Torm would have been hesistant to use weapons against the whole settlement.
Don't confuse a Paladin with a Knight, even though a lot of Paladins got their good reputation, because they follow the law of men and the order of their deity on equal terms and were knighted for this very reason. The reason why there is a lot less strive between the rules of a certain deity and the law of men is usually, becaue the book of law includes a lot of "What if's". For example if you cast a arcane spell on Waukeens Promenade, then you will face the judgement of the cicle of magi. If you move against the wishes of a temple, they might inform the government of the issue and then sent out a Paladin or some Adventures, for example to investigate/terminate a source of disorder, as they percieve it. As long as the red tape is followed, the book of law actually garantees a low friction neighborhood between the mudane, the arcane and the divine sociaty. But not all deitys feel the same, and therefore not all Paladins will behave the same.
All said and done, there are zealous Paladins who will try to smite all wicked, and there are Paladins, who will try to find common ground based on the book of law and will stand against such things. The former ones are no less Paladins or maybe Blackguards, but they are not lawful. The later ones are.
Torm is more than the deity of obedience, really. He has a fourfold dogma: to faith, family, masters, and all good beings of Faerûn. Since masters are the equivalent of authority figures in this scenario, a Tormite probably should be obeying the laws of the land, because it's part of their divine mandate. However, the Tormite paladin's duty to an authority figure does NOT supersede his/her duty to the populace at large. Following orders so closely that you start shirking your responsibilities to the community in general is AGAINST the Tormite faith.
I'm not sure why you're commenting on Silvanus, Tempus, or Cyric, though, as none of them is remotely Lawful. or Good.
So Cyric doesn't have Paladins. Period! And no, blackguards are not a "Type" of Paladin. They may have Paladin-like abilities, but they are not required to be Lawful or good (in fact they are prohibited from Good because they are EVIL). Any follower of Cyric is going to murder and pillage and do all manner of stuff that their god would indicate is appropriate and that no Paladin ever would consider doing.
But let's take that exact example. A Lawful EVIL Blackguard of Cyric would murder and rape and pillage, all things that are (last I checked) frowned upon by most Legal systems. Are you claiming that they WOULDN'T do these things "Because they are Lawful and therefore would not violate the Law"? They would do them because in their Lawful capacity, they are following the code of conduct set down by Cyric and his church, NOT the law.
What I don't think you are getting is that No, Paladins are not Zealots. Yes, they are the Holy Knights of a given order (and as such HAVE to be BETTER than a normal Knight). Absolutely they will believe and follow the edicts of the church or order that they follow, even to the point of happily and easily violating any laws that conflict with that codex. But no, they aren't going out and busting 'Non-believers' heads simply because they don't follow the same Deity or religion.
Paladins are basically the epitome of goodness and light. There aren't any 'Sort of good' Paladins. There aren't "Well, he passed the written" Paladins. They are literally "The Best of the best of the BEST" and personify the God's divine goodness and lawfulness. People chosen to be Paladins (and the God chooses the person, not the other way around), don't "Try" to be good. They are chosen by their Deity BECAUSE they are Perfect in their devotion and in there unstintingness towards lawful and goodness. This isn't the real world where priests can get away with being pedophiles so long as no one notices. The Gods of Faerun can see into your soul and would never elevate someone to Paladinhood if they had that type of thing in their hearts.
A Paragon is the best of the best. I tried to give examples where your image of a Paladin (has to be the most angelic and devine being alive) will not fit, because the Paladin will choose to follow his teachings, his will of it's deity even though it might colide with the laws of the country he is in. Let's try again, even though you will shout "evil" before long.
If you enter a certain city which lies underground, and then behave different from the rest - in fact so different that you will be branded as an outsider. Will the one removing you from the premisses by transforming you into a drinne doing a deed which will restore order and is by all authorities in that city considered the right thing to do not also lawful and piety person?
We are discussing lawful good, that example is lawful evil, but you just might get my point. If you follow your own agenda, wether it's your deity's codex or your own, while neglecting the laws of the people, then you still might be a bringer (of light and) justice, one of the best of the good. But you still won't be lawful, you might even brake the law and face a court. On the other side: If you follow all rules and customs in a country, you might be lawful, but that still doesn't mean you are actualy doing a good deed - you just might doing what is expected.
To be lawful and good, you need to have laws, which are similar to the teachings of the deity. Only then will your actions be lawful, while you are doing your goodness.
If your description holds true, then there are no fallen Paladins. I know I have one in my save which actually managed to do just that by inviting too much erm, by giving wrongdoers a chance to redeem themselfes and by delievering justice for the wronged people. Isn't that what lawful good people do?
LG follows and abides to any law which he considers just and moral. LN follows any law or authority regardless of morality (E.G bounty hunters like Graywolf). LE uses any means possible to uphold lawful order, no matter how immoral those laws, the society, or their actions may be.
LG follows and abides to any law which he considers just and moral. LN follows any law or authority regardless of morality (E.G bounty hunters like Graywolf). LE uses any means possible to uphold lawful order, no matter how immoral those laws, the society, or their actions may be.
I would agree if you would replace LG with NG on the first line. If he has to decide which laws he follows based on his moral compass, than he is also prepared to break a law which he finds unjust. For example if he ventures to Luskan, sees a Slaver and strikes him down to free the slaves even though the slaver is protected by local law. A law abiding adventurer would not ignore local law, even though it might irk him to no end.
Comments
2. The baron is not Neutral Good because he is willing to violate the orders of his king. The baron is Neutral Good because he never placed too great a value on the hierarchy to begin with. The king might even be a close friend, but he's not going to listen to his friend and king if his friend and king is being a jackass.
The LG would be more inclined to disobey a law, under all permutations. The LN considers not whether a law is fair, or just, but rather that all citizens are held accountable to the letter. Circumstance is of no concern to the LN. If the penalty is death for stealing, then death is the penalty carried out, whether it be a scoundrel caught with diamonds, or a mother caught with an apple for their hungry child. In that instance the LG may show compassion for the mother and discard the death penalty, to then inquire as to how such poverty befell her, and later still why those who govern are not providing better and more widespread aid for such folk. The LN would simply see two individuals who broke the law. The mother would suffer the same fate as the scoundrel. It is of no business to the LN to ask questions, nor be swayed by forthcoming pleas.
Neutral Good, would similarly aid the mother and her child. Chaotic Good, if the mood took them. The LG may impose that the mother serve community service to make a mends for her wrong doing, even though it was necessary, and with the best of intentions. The NG would find this strict and unnecessary. The CG would probably be knocking ten bells out of the scoundrel at this time, before confronting the LG about their curtailment of freedom with a befuddled speech laced with misplaced frenzy that had little to do with the case of the mother and her child.
LG when properly understood is a great alignment. Few could live up to it, though. Unfortunately they can be zealots. Nevertheless, their intentions are always good. The LN is less a zealot, which many consider an instant positive, but it is a mere byproduct of their being devoid of opinion, other than a passion for upholding the law, and their reliability to do so.
I enjoy discussions about alignment. It interests me. I don't pretend to know it all, far from it in fact, part of the enjoyment comes from putting myself out there to broaden my understanding on the subject.
Chaotic good characters also want a good world for everybody, but see social structures as restrictive and an imposition on freedom. They want freedom for everyone and to them that includes freedom from laws and the obligations of society.
Lawful good characters want a good world for everybody but they see social structure as one of the components of that world. In their ideal, everyone would work together towards common goals to improve civilization and each person has a place where they belong.
All of these characters, even lawful ones, are willing to break laws that they see as evil and unjust and tear down evil empires. But lawful characters would want to see them replaced with good and fair laws under the banner of a reasonable and benevolent king while chaotic characters would not.
I'm willing to count it.
@nano
I think Chaotic Goods being opposed to benevolent kings as a matter of course is a misconception. I think most Chaotic Good characters that aren't run by special snowflake "you can't control me" players recognize that regular people need leaders, guidance. The Chaotic Good character's just not into that sort of thing, and would likely serve as a fringe benefactor or vigilante hero in a newly formed Lawful Good king's community.
This is what I feel the Paladin is in need of. He needs the flexible vigilantly, with his... ways... to acquire the proof he needs to take action. If only a "less than lawful" approach exists.
I don't understand your comment about special snowflake players - the "vigilante CG hero who thinks he's above the law but the common folk aren't" is as much an overused cliche as the "teenage anarchist". Probably more so... everyone wants to be Batman.
IMO, lawful evil governments sort of sneak up on people, primarily because most people are lawful neutral and don't care enough until it's gone too far in a certain direction. For example, I doubt that the average person wants to cause someone else to starve, but if lawful evil politicians can pass laws to cut off food stamps for the poor, and the average citizen can't be bothered to care, the entire society moves towards the darker end of the spectrum.
As for snowflakes versus vigilantes, it's not so much what's cliche or not as what's playing to alignment and what's edgy bullshit.
If you've ever read the Culture sci-fi novels I think they're a good representation of the ideals of CG characters. Their society is a post-scarcity society, where just about anything anyone could want can be made in seconds, travel is free and even if you want to indulge in darker pleasures there's hyper-realistic simulations or worlds dedicated to that sort of thing. There are almost no laws and no rulers in the traditional sense because they're not necessary - causing harm to others is both difficult and pointless, and external concerns and the maintenance of the empire is handled by others (though citizens can participate if they wish).
As for your last sentence... I guess I have no idea what you mean by "special snowflake" and "edgy bullshit". The "CG Mary Sue" is really no better of a character than the "chaotic stupid anarchist". They're equally valid ways to play the alignment but equally... shallow.
A lawful (good) character has his priorities set in stone.
A knight swears his oath to uphold the laws of the kingdom to help the peope. If said Kingdom is known to be corrupt, he will still try to uphold the law even though he knows, that there will be a dagger sprouting from his back before long. He will never shy away from his duty, wether the enemy of the country is a commoner or noble and he will use the laws to help the people of the land, might even turn a blind eye ones in a while, as long as no harm is done.
Since a Knight has sworn loyalty to the crown first, and then the book of law, even here is a solid point that most Knights have to follow some orders, which might not be considered to be good. Hence there is an equal chance if said Knight is of good or of neutral alignment which solely depends on the influence of the current government (which just might cancel out the good deeds he does whenever he has free reign).
A Paladin has different priorities.
For a Paladin the laws of it's diety are the ones he will uphold with the utermost will, it's mere coincidence that the laws and rules might just find themselfes in the book of law of that country - or not. He might have other duties to the country (for example a knighted Paladin), which he will uphold on some level, unless they clash with the rules and laws of his deity. A good example is a Paladin who choose to burn a certain drow cleric on the marketplace to root out evil, even though that might be concidered a murder in some countries. So he might not be lawful at all, even though he follows the codex of his deity to the letter.
That said, I seldom choose lawful for a character unless he/she is a Paladin or a Paragon of sorts. Even though you could interpret lawful in a different way, like a thief upholding the rules of the underworld (honour amoung thiefs?). But personally I would tend to choose chaotic in that case, because the emphasis is that he has choosen not to follow the rules exept the one he likes well aware that he will cause some mischief. How could that be a neutral alignment?
To sumarize it:
Alignment is not how the character sees his actions, it's how the people around him percieve him.
People who say the government is forcing me to help other people who don't deserve to be helped are more likely chaotic neutral. They want the government out of their lives, and they don't want to help other people unless they have a personal stake in it.
The LG Paladin is akin to Superman. He protects the weak. He punishes the wicked. He seeks out evil! He looks to uphold the law, so long as that law is ethical and honorable.
This does not mean that the LG Paladin goes around the land sticking his nose into the business of every nation, and every city, and every citizen. This does not mean the Paladin is required to act on every instance where a law is beginning to creak with burden, if their assistance has not been asked. Their bread and butter is to offer aid to those who ask it, and to strike down evil where ever it may roam. They do not act outside the law because they actively try to set an example and support the ever present quest for good. There is no prerequisite to be a zealot. That is a choice that each Paladin makes.
In defending the LG, and now the Paladin, I find myself wishing to play one. I never thought it possible. I've grown to dislike a lot of aspects of CG. Certain aspects of freedom, sadly, can allow evil to prosper. Not all governments are corrupt, and those that are could be salvaged as oppose to over thrown. NG is fantastic. I love the NG alignment. They have no real downside, for me, because they are essentially a mix of the best parts of LG and CG. It strikes a real chord, though, when the LG contends that if they do not follow the law to achieve what is right, then what separates them from criminals.
These two paragraphs from easydamus helped me to (hopefully) understand the LG better:
However, a lawful good character will not honor a law that runs contrary to his alignment. A government may believe that unregulated gambling provides a harmless diversion, but a lawful good character may determine that the policy has resulted in devastating poverty and despair. In this character's mind, the government is guilty of a lawless act by promoting an exploitative and destructive enterprise. In response, he may encourage citizens to refrain from gambling, or he may work to change the law. Particularly abhorrent practices, such as slavery and torture, may force the lawful good character to take direct action. It doesn't matter if these practices are culturally acceptable or sanctioned by well-meaning officials. The lawful good character's sense of justice compels him to intervene and alleviate as much suffering as he can. Note, though, that time constraints, inadequate resources, and other commitments may limit his involvement. While a lawful good character might wish for a cultural revolution in a society that tolerates cannibalism, he may have to content himself with rescuing a few victims before circumstances force him to leave the area.
A Lawful good will only follow the "Legal" edicts of a region in so far as those Legal edicts parallel the Lawful person's own belief system and no further. They don't follow the law, they follow their own personal (or order) code of conduct. If that code of conduct is the same as the law, there is no conflict. if it is different, there is no conflict, the person merely follows their code of conduct and ignores or breaks the law.
Yes, most Lawful codes of conducts "support order and society". This is a parallel and coincidence of 'Most' order structures supporting the same goals. But correlation does not equal causation.
Yes, it is possible that a Lawful person could dedicate themselves to 'The laws of the land' as their 'Order' or code to be followed. But a Lawful alignment is not REQUIRED to be directly tied to, or to believe in, support or in any way be associated with or even in agreement with the Judicial system. Again, there is no causation.
In conclusion, there is no required tie between a Lawful alignment and the legal system. There are apparent correlated instances and examples of how they have similar goals, but this is not causal in nature. Being lawful does not CAUSE you to follow the law. "If" your order follows the law, you follow your order. If it doesn't you don't.
Someone who lived a secluded live where rules are enforced (strict training of body and mind) is much more likely to accept rules that seems to uphold order.
But as I pointed out before: Wether an action is lawful or not is strictly speaking based on the people who see the action and then clasify it. If the highest Paladin in the order cleanses the street in a different country off all unbelievers, that it's plain as day for him, that he tries to retain order - as stated in his codex to smite the wicked. For the people around it might just look like a mass murderer is randomly killing and he is too well armed that anybody will even openly oppose him. If you ask them, do you really expect them to smile and say: yay, a law abiding foreigner, good to have him around?
I believe even the most evil kind of man will see his actions as justified, his reaction as benefitial. Does that make him good natured or even law abiding/lawful? Remember the "greater good" which is so often used to justify any action.
So I'm still convinced that the action of a lawful character is based on all the rules and customs in the country (and how the people in it see it), not only on his codex or personal agenda. If for example that Paladin set's the priority of his codex higher then that of the law, then by all means: he is not lawful. In your point of view he can by anything, even lawful.
The example you gave about someone growing up in seclusion with loads of rules who is more likely to follow 'The laws', aren't following 'The laws'. They are following their own internal belief system which just happens to parallel the law.
And I see Paladins very different. For a Paladin, his Codex and his patron God are THE Highest Law. All other concerns are secondary. "If" the teachings of his Deity are in keeping with the legal system, he may appear to follow that legal system, but in truth, he is following his codex, Not the law. They just happen to be parallel.
Everyone puts up circumstantial examples as "Proof". Every single example boils down to the lawful character following their own internal code of conduct (or external if it happens to come from an order or patron) which just happens to parallel the wider laws or have similar goals as the legal system. this is correlation, not causation. They don't follow the law because they are lawfully aligned. They follow their code of conduct which just happens to not violate the law.
Your example is based on a bizarre scenario no Paladin in his right mind would ever undertake. Do you honestly think "cleanses the street...off all unbelievers..." is something Paladins actually do? It's not a Paladin of Helm's job to slaughter non-Helmites en masse. A Paladin of Helm would help defend caravans from bandits, bolster a fort's defenders, or serve as extra security for somebody targeted by assassins. His job is not to offer a convert-or-die ultimatum to an entire avenue and then start killing people.
Lets pick another one, shall we?
What about Silvanus? The greater deity of wild nature? Would he not be enraged, if some settlers sully a holy place in the wilds? True neutral can be quite dangerous for these settlers.
What about Tempus, the God of war? I'm pretty sure that his codex includes lines like "the weak shall parish"
What about Cyric, the god of murder? His alignment is chaotic evil, but his followers will try to murder all he points out. Pretty sure their fellow Paladins are Blackguards, but I want to include all flavors.
To far away from lawful good? OK, what about another deity of the paladins perhaps?
Torm, the god of duty, loyalty and obidience.
He is lawful good, but why is he the god of obidience, if the law of men is equally important then their deity's rules? Wouldn't their Paladins fall from grace, if they chose not to be obidient?
I've read a story once, where a fellow Paladin of Torm was send to kill the king of another City-state for the reason that he refused to build and maintain another deitys temple, even though he had already build a temple for Waukeen the goddess of Trade. Not all deals were stricktly aboveboard, but he was by no means a tyrann of his independent city.
If said city would have been a Duarger or Drow settlement, I'm pretty sure no follower of Torm would have been hesistant to use weapons against the whole settlement.
Don't confuse a Paladin with a Knight, even though a lot of Paladins got their good reputation, because they follow the law of men and the order of their deity on equal terms and were knighted for this very reason. The reason why there is a lot less strive between the rules of a certain deity and the law of men is usually, becaue the book of law includes a lot of "What if's". For example if you cast a arcane spell on Waukeens Promenade, then you will face the judgement of the cicle of magi. If you move against the wishes of a temple, they might inform the government of the issue and then sent out a Paladin or some Adventures, for example to investigate/terminate a source of disorder, as they percieve it. As long as the red tape is followed, the book of law actually garantees a low friction neighborhood between the mudane, the arcane and the divine sociaty. But not all deitys feel the same, and therefore not all Paladins will behave the same.
All said and done, there are zealous Paladins who will try to smite all wicked, and there are Paladins, who will try to find common ground based on the book of law and will stand against such things. The former ones are no less Paladins or maybe Blackguards, but they are not lawful. The later ones are.
I'm not sure why you're commenting on Silvanus, Tempus, or Cyric, though, as none of them is remotely Lawful. or Good.
So Cyric doesn't have Paladins. Period! And no, blackguards are not a "Type" of Paladin. They may have Paladin-like abilities, but they are not required to be Lawful or good (in fact they are prohibited from Good because they are EVIL). Any follower of Cyric is going to murder and pillage and do all manner of stuff that their god would indicate is appropriate and that no Paladin ever would consider doing.
But let's take that exact example. A Lawful EVIL Blackguard of Cyric would murder and rape and pillage, all things that are (last I checked) frowned upon by most Legal systems. Are you claiming that they WOULDN'T do these things "Because they are Lawful and therefore would not violate the Law"? They would do them because in their Lawful capacity, they are following the code of conduct set down by Cyric and his church, NOT the law.
What I don't think you are getting is that No, Paladins are not Zealots. Yes, they are the Holy Knights of a given order (and as such HAVE to be BETTER than a normal Knight). Absolutely they will believe and follow the edicts of the church or order that they follow, even to the point of happily and easily violating any laws that conflict with that codex. But no, they aren't going out and busting 'Non-believers' heads simply because they don't follow the same Deity or religion.
Paladins are basically the epitome of goodness and light. There aren't any 'Sort of good' Paladins. There aren't "Well, he passed the written" Paladins. They are literally "The Best of the best of the BEST" and personify the God's divine goodness and lawfulness. People chosen to be Paladins (and the God chooses the person, not the other way around), don't "Try" to be good. They are chosen by their Deity BECAUSE they are Perfect in their devotion and in there unstintingness towards lawful and goodness. This isn't the real world where priests can get away with being pedophiles so long as no one notices. The Gods of Faerun can see into your soul and would never elevate someone to Paladinhood if they had that type of thing in their hearts.
I tried to give examples where your image of a Paladin (has to be the most angelic and devine being alive) will not fit, because the Paladin will choose to follow his teachings, his will of it's deity even though it might colide with the laws of the country he is in.
Let's try again, even though you will shout "evil" before long.
If you enter a certain city which lies underground, and then behave different from the rest - in fact so different that you will be branded as an outsider. Will the one removing you from the premisses by transforming you into a drinne doing a deed which will restore order and is by all authorities in that city considered the right thing to do not also lawful and piety person?
We are discussing lawful good, that example is lawful evil, but you just might get my point. If you follow your own agenda, wether it's your deity's codex or your own, while neglecting the laws of the people, then you still might be a bringer (of light and) justice, one of the best of the good. But you still won't be lawful, you might even brake the law and face a court. On the other side: If you follow all rules and customs in a country, you might be lawful, but that still doesn't mean you are actualy doing a good deed - you just might doing what is expected.
To be lawful and good, you need to have laws, which are similar to the teachings of the deity. Only then will your actions be lawful, while you are doing your goodness.
If your description holds true, then there are no fallen Paladins. I know I have one in my save which actually managed to do just that by inviting too much erm, by giving wrongdoers a chance to redeem themselfes and by delievering justice for the wronged people. Isn't that what lawful good people do?
LG follows and abides to any law which he considers just and moral.
LN follows any law or authority regardless of morality (E.G bounty hunters like Graywolf).
LE uses any means possible to uphold lawful order, no matter how immoral those laws, the society, or their actions may be.