@jesterdesu, I can't help but note you have an extremely restrictive view of alignment. That seems odd to me. I'm pretty sure the game was made to accommodate more than nine possible personalities.
I have a restrictive view of restrictive alignments, that's all. Neutral whatever are the alignments of freedom, lawful alignments are by nature rigid.
Alignments in even the most restrictive DnD systems are not an exclusive defining characteristic. Some Good people can be huge jerks, ie @elminster has been known to be decidedly not nice in some stories. Alignments in 2nd Ed ard there to give you a guideline for RPing. DMs were encouraged to reward really good RPing, and to consider assigning a new alignment if a character repeatedly and consistently violates their alignment.
Remember, you could very easily end up as a LG Fallen Paladin. Not all LG folks are as LG as a Paladin!
Elminster is always a gentlemen. He's so nice in fact that he even took time out of his year to visit the residents of hell. How much nicer do you get?
(Needing to enter hell to save all of Faerun from a portal to the Nine Hells was just a cover story)
At the end of the day to me they are a roleplaying guideline but not absolutes.
Alignments in even the most restrictive DnD systems are not an exclusive defining characteristic. Some Good people can be huge jerks, ie @elminster has been known to be decidedly not nice in some stories. Alignments in 2nd Ed ard there to give you a guideline for RPing. DMs were encouraged to reward really good RPing, and to consider assigning a new alignment if a character repeatedly and consistently violates their alignment.
Remember, you could very easily end up as a LG Fallen Paladin. Not all LG folks are as LG as a Paladin!
You are right about "there can be many shades of good". However, this does not apply to Law and Chaos, otherwise this whole DnD alignment system wouldn't make sense.
If a good-hearted character thinks that a structured, organized society, where laws are being uphold and respected by everyone, is crucial for well-being of people, this character is LG.
If a good-hearted character thinks that a structured, organized society is important, but laws can be bent here and there, for the Greater Good, this character is NG.
---
If a guard captures and turns in an escaped prisoner, knowing that he was wrongly accused and he will be executed, this guard is LN.
Your alignment is already defined, that's the point. You, usually, don't start with a 1 yer old baby , you start with an individual. His/Her world-view is already formed. But it can be changed.
Lawful can be incredibly different in a different society. And Lawful never means 'I recognize any Law ever legislated anywhere, ever as universally binding', nor anything close to that. Lawful beings like to operate in an organized, structured faction rather than an 'everyone is equal except the big, scary, powerful boss', aka a chaotic organization.
Extreme Example: An Afghan Taliban-supporting Imam will definitely be Lawful, but so would a human rights based Lawyer. You can't possibly think all lawful people operate on the same guidelines. Heck, the Imam could very easily be LN, same as the example Lawyer.
Any lawful alignment is likely to disregard or subvert a legal system they do not view as 'legitimate'; Lawful Good will not support unjust laws, Lawful Evil will overthrow an establishment if they feel they are capable, and Lawful Neutral still has self-interest, so a really stupid law will end up being ignored/circumvented.
Now, I agree more with your position if you are talking about people that are all members of the same organization... a Lawful aligned Flamming Fist member would turn Samuel in almost definitely.
That's a given, I'm talking more about our specific case, I guess. It's not like the CHARNAME is in alien environment.
I must disagree, he's lived his entire life in Candlekeep, and the Flamming Fist have no authority in Candlekeep. While I suspect an upstanding Lawful citizen of Beregost would likely turn in Samuel, but Charname is very much in an alien enviroment.
I can see a LG turning him in, but I'm not convinced everyone would.
I should also point out that I have some difficulty with the idea that your alignment depends on the culture you're in. Take that human rights lawyer and stick him in the middle east, and he might not be so law-abiding, with no changed to his personality or morals whatsoever. His alignment stays the same, because he's adhering to the same strict moral code. It just doesn't happen to align with his local laws anymore. Importantly, we can now imagine a new person who is born in the middle east and has the exact same moral code as our lawyer friend. Because he has the same morals, he must be the same alignment, and is therefore still lawful even though he's not acting according to the laws of his culture and never has been.
Feel free to debate some/all of that. I'm not sure I've ever found two people who agree 100% on what alignment means.
A lawful good paladin would still respect the fact that an evil tyrant maintained a sense of law and order, though the good part of them would not agree with the fact that they were using the law for selfish means. Would they break the law of the land to overthrow said tyrant? If the evil outweighed the benefits of said lawful society they probably would, though they'd rather find a solution within the law. A neutral good person would simply see the evil and try to end it, law be dammed.
I've noticed many people who play lawful alignments rarely have the stomach to be truly lawful... I certainly don't but I never play lawful characters accordingly. Suggesting lawfulness is a mere guideline is a neutral/ chaotic idea.
See, I just don't think lawfulness has much of anything to do with the law. It has everything to do with order and moral codes, but I don't think it has much to do with the law, or rather, with any specific set of laws. Certainly a lawful character is going to be in favor of laws in concept, since they promote order and codify morals, but any given set of laws may promote disorder more than order, or codify morals that the lawful character finds abhorrent. I have trouble imagining a lawful character being willing to promote disorder, or betray their own supposedly-unbending moral code, just because some guy in a castle somewhere wrong a thing down. Note that this is not viewing lawfulness as a "mere guideline," which I agree is neutral/chaotic. This is adhering unfailingly to a set of rules and principles that you're utterly unwilling to compromise. I just don't see why it should only count if those rules and principles are the law of the land.
Obviously some lawful characters (particularly lawful neutral ones) will have obedience to authority as part of their personal code, and these characters are unlikely to break the law under any circumstances, even if they find it unjust. But that's because the obedience is one of their own rules, not just because they're lawful.
I should also point out that I have some difficulty with the idea that your alignment depends on the culture you're in. Take that human rights lawyer and stick him in the middle east, and he might not be so law-abiding, with no changed to his personality or morals whatsoever. His alignment stays the same, because he's adhering to the same strict moral code. It just doesn't happen to align with his local laws anymore. Importantly, we can now imagine a new person who is born in the middle east and has the exact same moral code as our lawyer friend. Because he has the same morals, he must be the same alignment, and is therefore still lawful even though he's not acting according to the laws of his culture and never has been.
Feel free to debate some/all of that. I'm not sure I've ever found two people who agree 100% on what alignment means.
Well, Lawful characters will tend to uphold an establishment they are a part of, if they see it as legitimate (LN), personally beneficial (LE), or benevolent (LG). I agree a LG character, or LN character would be willing to break the local law in some circumstances. Ghandi was fairly lawful imo, and ignored laws he saw as lacking legitimacy.
I think alignment gives *a* guideline to an individuals choices and behavior, but not even Paladins will all make identical choices.
I think a Paladin might tolerate a LE leader, but only if his laws were never evil. Which is unlikely.
I disagree with a paladin supporting a LE ruler. They have "Detect Evil" for a reason. And they do not have "Detect Lawful".
There was a chart in the AD&D core books that showed the alignments as a chart. Every one of them had a range that allowed for more or less in both good/evil axis and law/chaos. None of these things were absolute. A character's alignment absolutely could shift over the course of game play. And a single "out of character" action was unlikely to move the chart too far unless it was a truly radical action. Characters were always seen as complex beings, capable of a range of reactions and responses to every situation. As for a paladin; good was always seen as more important than lawful (as a DM, I would say this may vary some based on the exact religion). But a chaotic act was said to possibly require atonement and penance. While an evil act caused the immediate loss of paladin status. Again, this could vary a lot based on the specific faith. The Realms have several religions that have paladins. Some may be more "law and order", while others may be more about defending the weak. But ultimately the "defending the weak" part is what a paladin was usually considered to be all about.
And again, alignments in AD&D are defined by universal truths, NOT by local governments. So if the law of the land says "pay your taxes" to the evil local warlord; and a paladin's church says "do not support any evil cause"; well guess what, the paladin will be an outlaw. It probably isn't even a hard decision, after all they are a warrior sect. They know how to deal with the evil warlord, and it won't involve paying taxes.
For a Paladin and a lawful evil leader...I don't see why he couldn't tolerate him. Heck, unless a ruler is Stupid Evil, I don't see what a paladin could even do about it. Ok, so you have a politician who lives a more than comfortable life by gaming the system...so what? What is a paladin going to do? Kill him?
"You killed the senator!"
"He was abusing the zoning regulations to set up a district in which, based on demographics, he can't lose."
"You put a sword through his head."
"Yes. Did you see his district? It looks like a toddler's scribbling. Let this be a lesson to evil-doers everywhere!"
"He...he's dead. I can't believe you actually killed him."
"Look. He came up as evil when I scanned him, and all of my powers are for smiting. Anyways, you're welcome."
Paladins use swords to solve problems. They are holy warriors. A lawful evil ruler who doesn't overtly do anything that is stab-worthy doesn't really fall into a paladin's purview. The best that a paladin could do is complain to his church and hope that a cleric with some political pull can do something.
On the other hand, I can see a paladin ignoring laws made by a lawful evil ruler if he saw them as unjust. Because Lawful Good does that. Lawful neutral would follow the law regardless. Lawful evil would find a way to make the laws work for them.
---
To get back on track though:
Question: Would a paladin save Samuel or turn him in?
Lawful- The paladin would ask himself: "Do I see the Flaming Fist as the proper lawful authorities, and did Samuel commit a crime?" If the answer is yes to both questions, then he will lean towards turning Samuel in.
Good- The paladin would then ask himself: "Is the law, and the punishment that Samuel faces, just?" This is the tougher question. And it will come down to the Paladin and his God(dess).
Once the paladin recognizes the lawful nature of the action, he has to make sure it is good. A paladin of Ilmater may believe in second chances, and will try to save the man and teach him the error of his ways. A paladin of Helm might see the man as having broken his vows and turned his back on duty, and would turn him in for just punishment. Both can be 'good' actions, but it is an individual choice.
There was a chart in the AD&D core books that showed the alignments as a chart. Every one of them had a range that allowed for more or less in both good/evil axis and law/chaos. None of these things were absolute.
I'm not certain about a chart but if you want to read about alignments are handled a good source is Chapter 4 of the Dungeon Masters Guide for 2nd edition. In that case it talks about a change of alignment being more something to discuss with a DM during an adventure than a kind of fixed threshold.
@atcDave I see your point, and I completely agree a 2nd Ed Paladin cannot aide or work with a LE ruler, but tolerate I think *could* happen, if as I stated, the LE ruler was not an evil ruler, just a bad person seperately.
I think neither choice is strictly 'Good' in this connundrum, as @Grum seems to be saying. Helping him is Nice though, not Good.
Oh I do agree a corrupt or evil monarch may get a pass (or at least ignored) if their evil is mostly a matter of personal vice and their government is otherwise benign. And I always figure a paladin and their sect may be selective (or wise!) about deciding when to take a stand. It can all get quite complicated. But I just wanted to be clear that such earthly authorities are not where as paladin's "law" comes from. They answer to a "higher calling".
A more generic knight on the other hand would more likely have their loyalties and responsibilities tied up in political patronage and causes.
Even Lawful Good governments might - although perhaps with a heavy heart - hang deserters regardless of their reason, if it helps to inform a social structure of loyalty and duty to the crown/kingdom: these things can be taken into the wider social context.
All people err from their principles at time, so while some might consider this an 'evil' thing to do, and some might not, in any case it is unlikely that the Lawful Gods are going to conspire for the ruination of a kingdom based on the treatment of one person who empirically has defied their oath.
This is the deserter's problem - in this case Samuel. It is not about the PC's responsibility, it is about Samuel's responsibility, which he failed to fulfill, and so he must be punished. At least, this is how a Lawful character would see it. Samuel's reason might appeal to a Sunite Paladin, but generally there is no reason why 'love' need be considered a fundamentally Good thing because it's Deity is good, as it is universal to people of all alignments in the D&D world. Tyr, Helm, or whatever other Lawful/Lawful Good deity doesn't need to accept love as a valid reason for the failure of a person to adhere to their duties or promises.
Arguing about alignments is one of the worst things in D&D. This is matter of an opinion in most cases. I believe that the definitions of law, chaos, good, evil are all open for interpretation and fluid. No one is having it written on their forehead "I'm lawful good".
The way I see it and explain it to the new players is that it's more about your inner 'moral code', way of thinking, view of the world etc., rather than the outside actions themselves. The alignment does not defy the character, it's a mere compass, besides people act differently in a difficult situation. Stress, danger, emotions, relations to the other people involved - all have a significant influence on the decision that a character will make. So, I can't fully predict how each character would react to a given situation, no matter what their alignment is.
Example: character's companion has just been killed, I don't think he/she will act rationally and according to his/her alignment for a bit. Later he/she may reflect on his/her past actions and try to atone for, or not. I don't see paladins as a robots that abide law and goodness no matter what.
Comments
Remember, you could very easily end up as a LG Fallen Paladin. Not all LG folks are as LG as a Paladin!
(Needing to enter hell to save all of Faerun from a portal to the Nine Hells was just a cover story)
At the end of the day to me they are a roleplaying guideline but not absolutes.
If a good-hearted character thinks that a structured, organized society, where laws are being uphold and respected by everyone, is crucial for well-being of people, this character is LG.
If a good-hearted character thinks that a structured, organized society is important, but laws can be bent here and there, for the Greater Good, this character is NG.
---
If a guard captures and turns in an escaped prisoner, knowing that he was wrongly accused and he will be executed, this guard is LN.
Etc, etc.
There can not be Lawful-Neutral-Good in DnD
Extreme Example: An Afghan Taliban-supporting Imam will definitely be Lawful, but so would a human rights based Lawyer. You can't possibly think all lawful people operate on the same guidelines. Heck, the Imam could very easily be LN, same as the example Lawyer.
Any lawful alignment is likely to disregard or subvert a legal system they do not view as 'legitimate'; Lawful Good will not support unjust laws, Lawful Evil will overthrow an establishment if they feel they are capable, and Lawful Neutral still has self-interest, so a really stupid law will end up being ignored/circumvented.
Now, I agree more with your position if you are talking about people that are all members of the same organization... a Lawful aligned Flamming Fist member would turn Samuel in almost definitely.
I can see a LG turning him in, but I'm not convinced everyone would.
Feel free to debate some/all of that. I'm not sure I've ever found two people who agree 100% on what alignment means.
I've noticed many people who play lawful alignments rarely have the stomach to be truly lawful... I certainly don't but I never play lawful characters accordingly. Suggesting lawfulness is a mere guideline is a neutral/ chaotic idea.
Obviously some lawful characters (particularly lawful neutral ones) will have obedience to authority as part of their personal code, and these characters are unlikely to break the law under any circumstances, even if they find it unjust. But that's because the obedience is one of their own rules, not just because they're lawful.
Neutral will follow or break laws as they feel is best.
Chaotic go further still and have natural aversion to laws, preferring anarchy.
Most of us are very likely neutral.
I think alignment gives *a* guideline to an individuals choices and behavior, but not even Paladins will all make identical choices.
I think a Paladin might tolerate a LE leader, but only if his laws were never evil. Which is unlikely.
There was a chart in the AD&D core books that showed the alignments as a chart. Every one of them had a range that allowed for more or less in both good/evil axis and law/chaos. None of these things were absolute.
A character's alignment absolutely could shift over the course of game play. And a single "out of character" action was unlikely to move the chart too far unless it was a truly radical action. Characters were always seen as complex beings, capable of a range of reactions and responses to every situation.
As for a paladin; good was always seen as more important than lawful (as a DM, I would say this may vary some based on the exact religion). But a chaotic act was said to possibly require atonement and penance. While an evil act caused the immediate loss of paladin status.
Again, this could vary a lot based on the specific faith. The Realms have several religions that have paladins. Some may be more "law and order", while others may be more about defending the weak. But ultimately the "defending the weak" part is what a paladin was usually considered to be all about.
And again, alignments in AD&D are defined by universal truths, NOT by local governments. So if the law of the land says "pay your taxes" to the evil local warlord; and a paladin's church says "do not support any evil cause"; well guess what, the paladin will be an outlaw. It probably isn't even a hard decision, after all they are a warrior sect. They know how to deal with the evil warlord, and it won't involve paying taxes.
For a Paladin and a lawful evil leader...I don't see why he couldn't tolerate him. Heck, unless a ruler is Stupid Evil, I don't see what a paladin could even do about it. Ok, so you have a politician who lives a more than comfortable life by gaming the system...so what? What is a paladin going to do? Kill him?
"You killed the senator!"
"He was abusing the zoning regulations to set up a district in which, based on demographics, he can't lose."
"You put a sword through his head."
"Yes. Did you see his district? It looks like a toddler's scribbling. Let this be a lesson to evil-doers everywhere!"
"He...he's dead. I can't believe you actually killed him."
"Look. He came up as evil when I scanned him, and all of my powers are for smiting. Anyways, you're welcome."
Paladins use swords to solve problems. They are holy warriors. A lawful evil ruler who doesn't overtly do anything that is stab-worthy doesn't really fall into a paladin's purview. The best that a paladin could do is complain to his church and hope that a cleric with some political pull can do something.
On the other hand, I can see a paladin ignoring laws made by a lawful evil ruler if he saw them as unjust. Because Lawful Good does that. Lawful neutral would follow the law regardless. Lawful evil would find a way to make the laws work for them.
---
To get back on track though:
Question: Would a paladin save Samuel or turn him in?
Lawful- The paladin would ask himself: "Do I see the Flaming Fist as the proper lawful authorities, and did Samuel commit a crime?" If the answer is yes to both questions, then he will lean towards turning Samuel in.
Good- The paladin would then ask himself: "Is the law, and the punishment that Samuel faces, just?" This is the tougher question. And it will come down to the Paladin and his God(dess).
Once the paladin recognizes the lawful nature of the action, he has to make sure it is good. A paladin of Ilmater may believe in second chances, and will try to save the man and teach him the error of his ways. A paladin of Helm might see the man as having broken his vows and turned his back on duty, and would turn him in for just punishment. Both can be 'good' actions, but it is an individual choice.
I think neither choice is strictly 'Good' in this connundrum, as @Grum seems to be saying. Helping him is Nice though, not Good.
But I just wanted to be clear that such earthly authorities are not where as paladin's "law" comes from. They answer to a "higher calling".
A more generic knight on the other hand would more likely have their loyalties and responsibilities tied up in political patronage and causes.
All people err from their principles at time, so while some might consider this an 'evil' thing to do, and some might not, in any case it is unlikely that the Lawful Gods are going to conspire for the ruination of a kingdom based on the treatment of one person who empirically has defied their oath.
This is the deserter's problem - in this case Samuel. It is not about the PC's responsibility, it is about Samuel's responsibility, which he failed to fulfill, and so he must be punished. At least, this is how a Lawful character would see it. Samuel's reason might appeal to a Sunite Paladin, but generally there is no reason why 'love' need be considered a fundamentally Good thing because it's Deity is good, as it is universal to people of all alignments in the D&D world. Tyr, Helm, or whatever other Lawful/Lawful Good deity doesn't need to accept love as a valid reason for the failure of a person to adhere to their duties or promises.
The way I see it and explain it to the new players is that it's more about your inner 'moral code', way of thinking, view of the world etc., rather than the outside actions themselves. The alignment does not defy the character, it's a mere compass, besides people act differently in a difficult situation. Stress, danger, emotions, relations to the other people involved - all have a significant influence on the decision that a character will make. So, I can't fully predict how each character would react to a given situation, no matter what their alignment is.
Example: character's companion has just been killed, I don't think he/she will act rationally and according to his/her alignment for a bit. Later he/she may reflect on his/her past actions and try to atone for, or not. I don't see paladins as a robots that abide law and goodness no matter what.