Quote Originally Posted by malagigi
Umm, it's always seemed to me that one could go through the core book and replace 'lawful' with 'consistent' and have it be just as accurate if not more so. I point this out to illustrate the fact that if you hold that your honor should not be broken and follow that dictate, then you are adhering to a 'law,' thereby making you 'lawful'.
Exactly. Being Lawful in D&D means following a set of codes and rules—not obeying every law of every nation you ever find yourself in. As I've said before, when your paladin enters the evil Orc Warlord's swamp and starts killing orcs who are raiding a nearby human village, does he turn himself in to be tried by the Warlord for murder? No, because he doesn't recognize the Warlord's authority as a head of state. As far as he's concerned, that swamp belongs to the King whose nation it's in, regardless of what the orcs who live there think.

Likewise, if a paladin has a strict code of honor, they can easily view that as more important than secular laws. They might agree to obey laws when possible, just because it's a nice thing to do, but in the end, their calling to serve the Power of Good may cause them to break those laws in an emergency (an emergency like a pint-size psychopath on the loose). If they continue to follow their core belief of "lawfulness"—their honor code—then the single breaking of a secular law will not cause them to change alignment. It is a nonlawful act, yes, but one does NOT change alignment from one nonlawful act. Only a consistent pattern of behavior will shift alignment, and contrary to popular belief, only a true switch to a nonlawful alignment will cause a paladin to fall. One evil act, and you fall; one nonlawful act, and you don't.

On the other hand, I could post a comic with Miko standing still for 12 panels, and within 5 minutes there would be someone posting, "Miko should Fall for her inaction!" ::)