D&D trolley problems

[hamishspence]

If your perspective is that obeying the law should not trump all other concerns for a lawful good character, then I agree that it need not always do so (there are two axis to alignment). If you envisage your paladin as someone who lives within a society but secretly seeks to undermine it an oppose it because he or she considers it unjust, then there are variant rules to create a Paladin of Freedom - "The paladin of freedom is chaotic good, dedicated to liberty and free thought". If you want a character who is otherwise lawful but who disdains society's laws then you have two options - play that as a source of conflict for the otherwise lawful character or homebrew the rules so that obedience to authority is not part of what makes one lawful (I guess your fudging is a way of doing this).

The point is that respecting legitimate authority doesn't mean respecting all authority.
Nor does it mean obeying all authority.

And that a character who seeks to undermine a truly unjust society can be Lawful Good - they don't have to be Chaotic.

[PhantasyPen]

Oh hey! I've seen this movie. And yeah, this is a Chaos/Law issue, not Good/Evil.

[Doctor Awkward]

Save My Game: Lawful & Chaotic
http://archive.wizards.com/default.a...d/sg/20050325a


To be lawful is to be in favor of conformity and consistency, to act in a systematic and uniform fashion, and to take responsibility. As a lawful person, you establish patterns and precedents and stick to them unless you can see a good reason to do otherwise. Methodical efficiency is your byword, and you believe in the concept of duty. You plan and organize your activities to achieve particular goals, not just to satisfy impulsive desires. You believe a proper way exists to accomplish any goal, though it may not always be the traditional, tried-and-true way. Likewise, you cultivate long-term relationships and endeavor to build trust between your associates and yourself. As a lawful person, you recognize that most laws have valid purposes that promote social order, but you are not necessarily bound to obey them to the letter. In particular, if you are both good and lawful, you have no respect for a law (that) is unfair or capricious.

Now let's address the question of how the paladin's code of conduct governs her actions. A paladin is both lawful and good, and she must uphold both aspects of her alignment. Thus, if the laws in a particular realm are corrupt and evil, she is under no obligation to obey them.




A paladin has no obligation to obey "evil laws" And there is such a thing as "evil laws".

Well if a random freelance designer who used to write for Dungeon Magazine says something about the rules working a certain way...

...There's a good chance he is talking out of his ass.

Again, there is no such thing as an "evil" law. There are only laws that you may subjectively judge as being unjust. So already he is arguing from a false premise.

Nelson's sophistry in that article is an obvious effort to describe a lawful character in the least offensive way possible. There are downsides to being a lawful person. In addition to possibly being dependable, honest, and trustworthy, a lawful character can also inflexible, close-minded, and possibly judgmental. In writing, these are known as "character flaws", and they are things that should be embraced when creating a character.

The biggest problem is right here:

Now let's address the question of how the paladin's code of conduct governs her actions. A paladin is both lawful and good, and she must uphold both aspects of her alignment.

A paladin's code is much more complicated than acting "lawful good." A paladin's code is 1) respect legitimate authority, 2) act with honor, 3) help those in need, 4) punish those who harm innocents. In addition, a paladin is forbidden from ever willingly committing an evil act.

This code is loosely based on the medieval code of chivalry, which was an informal code of conduct loosely associated with the medieval {scrubbed} institution of knighthood. It was a vaguely defined set of social and moral principles that combined a warrior ethos, knightly piety, and courtly manners to establish a notion of honor and nobility.

Maintaining this level of discipline while still striving to do the most good possible is a very difficult thing to do. A paladin who devotes himself to helping other and ignores the orders from authority not to engage in that behavior is not being lawful good. He is being neutral good. He is in violation of his oaths, and yes, does risk falling if he continues to engage in that behavior. In order to uphold his ideals, he must find a way to help those people legally. That is the whole point of being a paladin. They are examples to follow. To show other people that you can do what is both good and just without having to compromise your principles.

I believe The Giant summed it up best here:

And as a human being the Giant is allowed to make mistakes.

Like this one:

I've used this example before, but if a paladin walks into the orc's swamp to do battle, he is not suddenly bound to obey the Orc King's laws or lose his paladinhood. It is entirely possible to have a code that you believe supersedes the written law wherever you are and still be considered Lawful.

No it's not.

If your character is someone who says that their personal belief systems on how they should be allowed to act trumps the laws of any land they walk into, then they are not lawful. They are chaotic. The reason for this is that they are acting solely in accordance to their own conscience, and anyone else be damned. This is explicitly spelled out in the rules as chaotic behavior. Even if you want to argue that they still never violate their personal code, fine... then at best they are neutral with respect to law and chaos. You cannot have a character whose ethics consistently and repeatedly chafe at the idea of following any rules besides their own and be considered lawful because alignments don't work like that.

In the Giant's own example, if the Orc King charges the paladin as trespassing on his tribe's land, then the paladin's first duty is to find out if the Orc King is telling the truth. If it turns out the Orc King is telling the truth, then he has a decision to make. Is he going to slay them all anyway because they are evil? Is he quite certain they are all evil? What if the baron that sent him their in the first place is also evil? Did he even bother to find out before he agreed to come here and slay all the orcs?

The Giant is also boiling down some extremely complex philosophical problems to a very generic situation that the paladin probably should not find himself in the first place:

Baron: "I wish you to go slay these orcs."
Paladin: "Because they are attacking your land and threatening your people?"
Baron: "No, because they are there."
Paladin: "That's not what I do. I am not a murderer. If you have thus far coexisted peacefully, then continue to do so."
Baron: "But they are evil! One day they might attack!"
Paladin: "And on that day I will be there to defend your people against them."

"Punish those who harm innocents" is not the same thing as killing NPC's for just being evil. Nowhere in the paladin code does it require you to "seek out and vanquish evil" in order to retain your class features. Miko used to do this and look how that turned out for her.

In fact, consider the last five panels of this comic here; "Miko, you're scaring me. The laws say--", "The laws have no meaning! They were rewritten by the enemy himself over his 47 years on the throne!"

That was the moment one of those two characters stopped being a paladin. The lightning bolt from the sky in the subsequent comic was a formality.

[Saintheart]

If your character is someone who says that their personal belief systems on how they should be allowed to act trumps the laws of any land they walk into, then they are not lawful. They are chaotic. The reason for this is that they are acting solely in accordance to their own conscience, and anyone else be damned. This is explicitly spelled out in the rules as chaotic behavior. Even if you want to argue that they still never violate their personal code, fine... then at best they are neutral with respect to law and chaos. You cannot have a character whose ethics consistently and repeatedly chafe at the idea of following any rules besides their own and be considered lawful because alignments don't work like that.

Well...

A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government.

That's from the SRD itself on what constitutes a lawful neutral character. The 'neutral' is with respect to good and evil. Someone who never violates their personal code - even when that code falls into conflict with a local law - surely is Lawful on WOTC's own definitions, are they not?

Is it possible you might be mistaking the character who acts according to their whims for the character who acts according to a personal code, i.e. a set of amoral ethics or principles? I had understood the former to be Chaotic, mainly because a Chaotic character is acting on their feelings, but the latter would be Lawful. In particular would prefer the word 'feelings' rather than 'conscience', mainly because conscience on the dictionary definition is a person's moral sense of right and wrong, i.e. the concept of conscience is more aligned with the Good/Evil axis than the Lawful/Chaotic one. Chaotic Good characters don't free people because of an ethical principle, they do it because they feel bad about imprisonment, and they act on those feelings regardless of what the law says about said imprisonment.

Notice how WOTC give the alternative of a person who believes in personal order as opposed to a person who believes in order for all. Both are Lawful characters, the difference being that the former believes only in imposing rules on his own behaviours, while the latter believes in imposing rules on the behaviour of others. The Lawful character might have mixed or even resentful feelings about the personal code he lives by, but he lives by that code nonetheless. By contrast the Chaotic character is less likely to or flat-out doesn't live by that personal code, because of his feelings about that code.

[Liquor Box]

The point is that respecting legitimate authority doesn't mean respecting all authority.
Nor does it mean obeying all authority.

And that a character who seeks to undermine a truly unjust society can be Lawful Good - they don't have to be Chaotic.

I note that the definition of lawful in the PHB does not include the word legitimate, it says "obedience to authority".

But where we disagree may only be a matter of degree. I think you are right that a lawful character could seek to undermine a truly unjust leader who has no legitimate authority (like an occupying force, where there has been no surrender). But, where an authority is properly in place according to the law (whether a monarchy or an elected authority) I don't think the lawful character would seek to undermine it just because there were particular laws that the character felt were unjust.

[Meditation]

This isn't what a trolley problem is. A trolley problem is a moral arithmetic problem explaining what utilitarianism is. The traditional example is switching rails on a trolley so it runs over 1 person or >1 person.

in any instance:

alignment in dnd is dumb. it actually doesn't care about your reasoning or rationale behind actions, it is entirely dependent on ends and objective reality, regardless of your character's knowledge


If she is factually innocent (as she is in your example) then helping her flee unjust punishment is a Good action

Venger is right. This isn’t the trolley problem; if the title of this thread can be changed, it should be. Venger is further correct in stating that the actions are good if injustice is avoided. Venger is slightly less correct in stating that alignment in D&D is dumb due to magnitude: alignment in D&D is gibberish-absurd-nightmare-hellscape-inane-stupidity because the alignments are actually ancient cosmic forces that have the names of moral and philosophical concepts in English but are demonstrably not those things.

And, of course, if you actually take the setting seriously, paranatural abilities would make the moral outcome here trivial to determine. You can literally talk to corpses in D&D-land.

[Venger]

Venger is right. This isn’t the trolley problem; if the title of this thread can be changed, it should be. Venger is further correct in stating that the actions are good if injustice is avoided. Venger is slightly less correct in stating that alignment in D&D is dumb due to magnitude: alignment in D&D is gibberish-absurd-nightmare-hellscape-inane-stupidity because the alignments are actually ancient cosmic forces that have the names of moral and philosophical concepts in English but are demonstrably not those things.

And, of course, if you actually take the setting seriously, paranatural abilities would make the moral outcome here trivial to determine. You can literally talk to corpses in D&D-land.

I'm glad you seem to mostly agree with me.

I'm not sure where you're getting magnitude from. That wasn't really what I was talking about. What I'm referring to is that if two people undertake identical courses of action, the alignment of this act changes based on objective factors they have no knowledge of and have no way of taking into account when they make their decision.

Russel frees his wife who, unknown to him, is innocent. He has committed a Good act.
Vincent frees his wife who, unknown to him, is guilty. He has committed an Evil act.

both of them are acting out of loyalty and because they like their wives. For the purpose of the exercise they don't have divination magic or whatever to learn objective truth of her culpability, so it's not a question of negligence.

that's a neat post on alignment threads there. I more or less agree, which is why when I post in alignment threads I capitalize Good and Evil when talking about game terms like casting summon spells and don't capitalize it when speaking non dnd rulebook english.

[hamishspence]

there is no such thing as an "evil" law.

Says you. D&D may disagree.


A law that makes certain Evil acts compulsory, or a law that punishes people for committing certain Good acts - is an Evil Law.

That is, presumably, what was meant by the term "Evil law" in that article.

Nowhere in the paladin code does it require you to "seek out and vanquish evil" in order to retain your class features. Miko used to do this and look how that turned out for her.

The Giant did say that Personal Code Lawful characters need to be held to extremely high standards, and that there can be a slippery slope:

In my personal interpretation of Lawfulness in D&D, I believe that yes, it is possible to be Lawful using a personal code rather than the societal definitions of law and order. However, I believe that the burden of upholding that code has to be much stricter than that of the average person in order to actually qualify as Lawful. You must be willing to suffer personal detriment through adhesion to your code, without wavering, if you want to wear the Lawful hat.

Because almost everyone has a personal code of some sort; Robin Hood had a personal code, and he's the poster child for Chaotic Good. The reason his code doesn't rise to the level of Lawful is that he would be willing to bend it in a pinch. And since he's already bucking all the societal traditions of his civilization, there are no additional penalties or punishments for him breaking his own code. He's unlikely to beat himself up if he needs to violate his own principles for the Greater Good; he'll justify it to himself as doing what needed to be done, maybe sigh wistfully once, and then get on with his next adventure.

Conversely, a Lawful character who obeys society's traditions has a ready-made source of punishment should he break those standards. If such a character does stray, she can maintain her Lawfulness by submitting to the proper authorities for judgment. Turning yourself in effectively atones for the breaking of the code, undoing (or at least mitigating) the non-Lawful act.

A Lawful character who operates strictly by a personal code, on the other hand, is responsible for punishing herself in the event of a breach of that code. If she waves it off as doing what needed to be done, then she is not Lawful, she's Neutral at the least. If she does it enough, she may even become Chaotic. A truly Lawful character operating on a personal code will suffer through deeply unpleasant situations in order to uphold it, and will take steps to punish themselves if they don't (possibly going as far as to commit honorable suicide).

People think that using the "personal code" option makes life as a Lawful character easier. It shouldn't. It should be harder to maintain an entirely self-directed personal code than it is to subscribe to the code of an existing country or organization. This is one of the reasons that most Lawful characters follow an external code. It is not required, no, but it is much, much easier. Exceptions should be unusual and noteworthy. It should be an exceptional roleplaying challenge to take on the burden of holding yourself to a strict code even when there are no external penalties for failing.

So as far as vigilantism goes, if a character has a specific pre-established personal code that involves personally punishing those who commit offenses, then yes, they could still be Lawful. Most characters do not have such a code; most characters simply follow general ideas of their alignment on a case-by-case basis. Certainly none of the characters in OOTS have such a code except perhaps for Miko. And we all saw what a slippery slope that turned out to be.

What I'm referring to is that if two people undertake identical courses of action, the alignment of this act changes based on objective factors they have no knowledge of and have no way of taking into account when they make their decision.

Russel frees his wife who, unknown to him, is innocent. He has committed a Good act.
Vincent frees his wife who, unknown to him, is guilty. He has committed an Evil act.

From the above Save My Game article:

Though a paladin must always strive to bring about a just and righteous outcome, she is not omnipotent. If someone tricks her into acting in a way that harms the innocent, or if an action of hers accidentally brings about a calamity, she may rightly feel that she is at fault. But although she should by all means attempt to redress the wrong, she should not lose her paladinhood for it. Intent is not always easy to judge, but as long as a paladin's heart was in the right place and she took reasonable precautions, she cannot be blamed for a poor result.

So, there's an element of "if you could not be expected to know, then the act is Not Evil, and does not cause Paladin Falling"

So, "freeing a guilty person" might not actually qualify as an Evil act - not if the paladin (or other alignment-restricted character) had every reason to believe that they were innocent.

[Meditation]

I'm glad you seem to mostly agree with me.

I'm not sure where you're getting magnitude from. That wasn't really what I was talking about.

For clarity's sake, I was referring to the fact that alignment is literally not what it says it is, such that saying alignment is "dumb" is too gentle. Alignment in the D&D universe is a literal cosmic monster what can kill you dead and torture you for eternity and you can't even easily talk about it directly because each part of it has a benevolent-sounding fake name. The "good" alignment is "good" in the same way a dictatorship is a "people's republic."

that's a neat post on alignment threads there. I more or less agree, which is why when I post in alignment threads I capitalize Good and Evil when talking about game terms like casting summon spells and don't capitalize it when speaking non dnd rulebook english.

That's not a bad habit -- decades ago I did the same -- but alignments are so far afield from their actual, physical reality that even conceding that much ground to their names is terribly misleading (not that that's your fault, or any non-designer's). It would be best if we could come up with codenames for them; I like Bifrocated Tapioca for Lawful Good, but I am notoriously bad at naming things. So even though calling evil "Eeeevil!!!" still is a bit deceptive, it can't be denied that it's faster communication.

[Doctor Awkward]

That's from the SRD itself on what constitutes a lawful neutral character. The 'neutral' is with respect to good and evil. Someone who never violates their personal code - even when that code falls into conflict with a local law - surely is Lawful on WOTC's own definitions, are they not?

The problem is that you are taking a specific description of a specific combination of the nine alignments and attempting to apply it in reverse to the broad concept of what constitutes being lawful.

What you are actually arguing is that a character who adheres to a rigidly defined personal code is a candidate for being lawful. It's what that personal code actually entails that dictates whether or not they are lawful. Lawful is an objective absolute in D&D standards. It's not about having rules. It's about what you consider those rules to be. If the rules as you see them do not line up with the defined rules of the book says is lawful, then you are not lawful.

Consider Bankotsu of the Band of Seven from the anime InuYasha. He is the poster child for Chaotic Evil. He is bloodthirsty, exalts violence, and loves fighting. His self-stated life goal is to "kill as many people as humanly possible." He flits through life acting on his whims, and will readily drop his current plans if he thinks going in another direction will lead him to a strong opponent. He can be quoted as once stating, "In a match to the death, there's no such thing as fair or foul." He is the leader of his group for no reason other than he is nice to them and is the most physically powerful among them. At the same time he has one rule: "I would never betray a comrade." He explains this rule as he kills a member of the group as punishment for betraying them.

Now ask yourself when considering everything else about the character if having "a rule that he never breaks" is enough to qualify him as lawful by D&D standards.

The Giant did say that Personal Code Lawful characters need to be held to extremely high standards, and that there can be a slippery slope:

Alright, let's spot the mistake this time:

Because almost everyone has a personal code of some sort; Robin Hood had a personal code, and he's the poster child for Chaotic Good.

No, he didn't.

Historically, the character of Robin Hood did not have a personal code, and neither does the one from popular culture. The popular presentation of the character had one specifically defined goal: "rob from the rich and give to the poor." This was not a code but a method by which he achieves his larger goal which was to get revenge on the Sheriff of Nottingham, and ultimately bring about change in society for the better. The reason why he is the poster child for Chaotic Good today is because he is a revolutionary; fighting the "good fight" and striving to help the downtrodden rise up against the oppressive authority of the land.

If you examine the oldest known ballad of the character, "A Lytell Geste of Robyn Hode" (c. 1470), there are several lines where he responds to Little John with a specific set of rules that his band are expected to follow: chiefly that they are never to harm any company where women are present and protect those that work the land as well as yeoman, knights, and squires. It also states that their two main enemies are the church and the Sheriff of Nottingham, and that his men have free reign to "beat and bind them." You'll also note that the bit about stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is entirely absent from this ballad.

This is not a personal code, but a structured set of conduct under which his fellows were to operate if they wanted to be considered members of his gang. It is essentially the same as the codes of conduct that the Italian mafia, yakuza, and other organized crime groups hold themselves to, such as when they have a list of crimes that their members are forbidden from committing. You could make a compelling argument that this ballad is glorifying organized crime in the same way as movies like "Goodfellas" do today.

In proper historical context, Robin Hood probably should not be chaotic good by D&D standards, depending on how strictly he enforces these rules on his gang. Perhaps even neutral evil since he is encouraging his gang to specifically commit unprovoked violence against certain individuals. Diluting the definition of lawful to the extent the Giant wants to with his Personal Code argument opens the door to labeling obvious criminal organizations and tyrannical regimes as "lawful good" simply because "they have rules" and "sometimes don't do all of the evil". This essentially renders the alignments devoid of meaning. You might as well not use them at that point.

Considering whether or not to follow a society's established laws is part and parcel of being considered "lawful". At a minimum they must be a factor, however small, in your character's decisions. A lawful character must always at least consider the existence of local laws before he acts. If there exists a set or category of laws that your character will, as a matter of course, never ever at least stop and think about then the character is not lawful. Period.

Paladins have a more difficult time because they have a strict personal code of conduct that requires them to consider these local laws. It is, in fact, the very first personal rule that they must obey. At all times.

[hamishspence]

Paladins have a more difficult time because they have a strict personal code of conduct that requires them to consider these local laws. It is, in fact, the very first personal rule that they must obey. At all times.

The most fundamental rule of being a paladin is don't commit evil acts.

"consider the local laws" is much less important.

That's why paladins have a strong Good aura but a weak, "regular person" Lawful aura. Because being Good is more important to them than being Lawful.



Even in past editions, when a Paladin fell for any Chaotic act, there was an element of this. Paladins could atone for Chaotic acts and become Paladins again back then, but they couldn't become a Paladin again after committing an Evil act.

It has everything to do with laws.

Lawful characters follow the rules.

If your character is someone who says that their personal belief systems on how they should be allowed to act trumps the laws of any land they walk into, then they are not lawful. They are chaotic.

A lawful character must always at least consider the existence of local laws before he acts.

As to "respect for local laws" - take Inevitables - the enforcers of cosmic law. A marut's job is to destroy people who exist "too long" (by magically extending their lives, or by becoming undead).

Now, is a Marut really going to care that their act is Murder under local laws? Of course they won't.

if the Orc King charges the paladin as trespassing on his tribe's land, then the paladin's first duty is to find out if the Orc King is telling the truth. If it turns out the Orc King is telling the truth, then he has a decision to make. Is he going to slay them all anyway because they are evil? Is he quite certain they are all evil? What if the baron that sent him their in the first place is also evil? Did he even bother to find out before he agreed to come here and slay all the orcs?

The previous time the Orc King topic came up with The Giant, it was:

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.

The very first time the topic came up, appeared to be this one:

Remember, folks, being Lawful has NEVER meant you obey every law for every nation whose borders you cross. You can choose to have a character that acts like that, but it is NOT part of the alignment description. After all, such a character would be required to obey the mandates of an orc chieftain the moment she entered his swamp. They would be seen as wishy-washy and easily swayed, kowtowing to whatever person could assert themselves the strongest.

Most lawful characters, though, will pick a certain set of authorities that they respect and ignore all others as illegitimate. An LG cleric of Pelor doesn't obey the authority of the High Priest of Vecna, for example. That doesn't make the cleric not Lawful.

[Kyutaru]

Citing that duel is a terrible idea. The reason being that people had more trust in fairplay when there would be consequences for violating the legal terms. Once duels became illegal, your opponent is about as likely of honoring the terms as the dude at McDonalds who wants to fight out back will. The authorities aren't going to do nearly as much for you when you were participating in something they warned you was opposed to the law. That's the risk you take getting involved with the underground. You can't call the police to solve your problems so you have to solve them yourself. Even if the cops show up and shutdown the place you're still not going to get any justice for yourself. Heck, you might get charged for participating in something illegal and sent away with them.

In this case, even though she's innocent the woman has a lot going against her evidence wise. A truly Lawful Good paladin would have faith in the legal system to allow for it to work as it should. Even should she go to jail, that's not the end of the game. There's a process for appeals and continuing to work legally within the system to clear her name. Chaotics prefer the 80s action movie way of doing things where every bad guy ends up dead or arrested and somehow that makes it all okay because you proved yourself innocent in the process and got evidence. It's hard to do the right thing when no one believes your story but it's still the right thing to turn yourself in and trust the system. A paladin would know that. Harboring fugitives is not the right thing, there's no implication of guilt of the original crime in the term fugitive only of their current crime of running from possible conviction.

Innocent people get sent to court on false charges all the time. Some even end up in jail. It happens, the system is flawed but it's also fair to everyone in this way. The righteous people will still see their day in court and explain their side and the court will judge them literally on whether or not their testimony is believed over the facts. A person of moral standing placed into a likely situation with a more likely murderer junkie can as has been excused before. When the authorities are on your side they will even go the extra mile to prove your story, while if you fit their profile of a murderer then they aren't going to look very hard for evidence they don't believe exists. Sometimes if you don't have proof and the facts point to you then you're the scapegoat the system uses to seek out justice where there needs to be some. Someone's getting punished even if it's not the right person. But to say they should run makes a mockery of all the people sitting in prison pleading innocence with outside investigators digging up evidence to set them free.

A paladin would make the tough choice and not let her leave. With a saddened heart he would bar the door and insist on bringing her in to stand trial. His faith in seeking out justice the RIGHT WAY is that extreme because too often people forget that courts are not a place to punish the wicked but instead a place to determine whether the innocent are in fact guilty. All are innocent until proven guilty and merely being on trial does not mean you did it. It means there needs to be a formal hearing of the facts to determine whether or not you did.

[hamishspence]

If your perspective is that obeying the law should not trump all other concerns for a lawful good character, then I agree that it need not always do so (there are two axis to alignment).

Even a Lawful Neutral character might have reasons not to obey "local law". They might think "Cosmic Law trumps local law". Or the "local law" might in fact have been shaped by a CE tyrant's whims - and so, not very Lawful in nature.

Book of Exalted Deeds had an interesting discussion of paladin divided loyalties - on the subject of Guilty People Who Have Been Acquitted:

Divided Loyalties

For better of for worse, a paladin is not just good: she is lawful good, sworn not just to uphold the principles of good but also bound by a code of conduct, and subject to local law as well. Many paladins are also members of a specific deity's church, a knightly order of some sort, or both. At the best of times, these various loyalties - her code of conduct, her church's laws, her order's demands, the laws of her nation, and the abstraction of her alignment - are all in harmony, and her path is clear before her. When circumstances are not so ideal, she finds herself torn between conflicting demands: her superior in her knightly order commands her to kill a brutal murderer who has escaped punishment in court on a legal technicality, for example. Her personal code requires that she punish those that harm innocents, and this killer certainly falls in that category. However, her personal code also instructs her to respect legitimate authority, which includes both her knightly superior and the local law that has let the killer go free. The demands of her good alignment suggest she should punish the wrongdoer, but the demands of her lawful alignment insist that she obey the judgement of the court. It is entirely possible that either her superior or the magistrate in the case is corrupt or even possessed. Whom does she obey? How does she sort out the conflicting demands of her loyalties?

Paladins are by no means alone in this situation. Any character who tries consistently to do good eventually finds himself in a situation where different loyalties are in conflict. Chaotic Good characters might care far less about a potentially corrupt or at least ineffectual court system, but they might have other personal standards or obligations that cause conflict in similar or different situations. In the end, however, many such conflicts boil down to a question of priorities, and for a character who aspires to exalted deeds, good is the highest priority. In the example above, the murderer must at least be captured, if not killed, before he can kill again. If she has reason to suspect corruption, either in the court or in her own order, the paladin must attempt to uncover it, though it might mean being cast out of her order, punished under local law, or both. Her paladinhood and her exalted status remain intact, since she acted in the cause of good even when that required questioning the legitimacy of authority. Magistrates or knightly superiors who serve the cause of evil while posing as agents of good are not legitimate authority, and the paladin is right for exposing their corruption.

Similar logic may apply if someone the paladin knows is innocent, has been convicted, framed, etc.

[Liquor Box]

Even a Lawful Neutral character might have reasons not to obey "local law". They might think "Cosmic Law trumps local law". Or the "local law" might in fact have been shaped by a CE tyrant's whims - and so, not very Lawful in nature.

Book of Exalted Deeds had an interesting discussion of paladin divided loyalties - on the subject of Guilty People Who Have Been Acquitted:

Sure, I don't disagree with that. It is possible that some other aspect of the lawful good (or lawful or lawful neutral) character's personality/motivation might trump their lawful desire to follow the law. But that doesn't change the fact that part of being lawful is a propensity to follow the law for the law's sake. Just like a good character might do an evil thing (say steal) if her goodness is trumped by another motivation, but generally good characters don't do evil things (don't steal).

As your book of exalted deeds quote says - its not that it suddenly becomes lawful to break the law - it's just that another motivation trumps it. Of course lawfulness might trump goodness for some lawful good characters - it just depends whether, for the particular character, lawfulness or goodness is the stronger facet of their personality.

Similar logic may apply if someone the paladin knows is innocent, has been convicted, framed, etc.

A paladin might. Another motivation might overcome his lawful nature. It would still not be a lawful act though.

Whether he or she should fall though depends on the circumstances. In the OP example, there is no hint of corruption (even amongst the alternatives) and the husband does not 'know' his wife is innocent he just believes it. The scenario is clear that he has no evidence of her innocence, and the word 'personally' implies that he believes it based on a gut feel - you yourself say it makes no difference whether he is correct or not. Surely you can see the problem if every person who has a relative in prison who they think is innocent (a fair portion of the prison population I imagine) tried to break them out. There is also no inherent 'good' in breaking the wife out - the paladin should know that he is no better placed to determine his wife's innocence that the court. In this circumstance the Paladin should potentially fall if he breaks his wife out of prison (perhaps depending on how much he has adhered to the lawful part of his alignment to that point).

On the other hand, i agree in your example. If a Paladin believed that there was corruption in his order and sought to expose the corruption that would be a good action. Arguably it would not be unlawful because the corruption is presumably contrary to the order's values and rules. So in this case, I agree with the Book of Exalted Deeds, the paladin should not fall, and perhaps it should not be a black make against him or her at all.

[hamishspence]

In this circumstance the Paladin should potentially fall if he breaks his wife out of prison (perhaps depending on how much he has adhered to the lawful part of his alignment to that point).

I'd rule an automatic Fall if any prison guards are harmed during the breakout - but otherwise I'd be cautious about what constitutes a gross violation of the "respect legitimate authority" facet of the Code.

It is essentially the same as the codes of conduct that the Italian mafia, yakuza, and other organized crime groups hold themselves to, such as when they have a list of crimes that their members are forbidden from committing. You could make a compelling argument that this ballad is glorifying organized crime in the same way as movies like "Goodfellas" do today.

Diluting the definition of lawful to the extent the Giant wants to with his Personal Code argument opens the door to labeling obvious criminal organizations and tyrannical regimes as "lawful good" simply because "they have rules"

Being Lawful Evil is quite compatible with being a crimelord who "binds themselves with strict rules".

Dig around in D&D splatbooks and you will find plenty of Lawful-aligned criminals of this kind.

[Kyutaru]

I think you're grossly confusing corruption within the courts presenting an unfair trial that is by design meant to convict an innocent person with a legitimate trial that has all the evidence it needs to convict an innocent person.

The paladin has the moral authority to oppose unfair play. He does not have to right to overthrow the justice system without evidence.

[hamishspence]

It really depends where you set the bar for grossly violating the "respect legitimate authority" facet of the paladin's code.

[Saintheart]

The problem is that you are taking a specific description of a specific combination of the nine alignments and attempting to apply it in reverse to the broad concept of what constitutes being lawful.

We've already established the "neutral" in "Lawful Neutral" is neutral along the good/evil axis, not neutral on the lawful/chaotic axis. What is left is Lawful without being constrained by Good or Evil. If a Lawful Neutral character is not lawful - and as said, acting as a personal code directs a character qualifies that person as Lawful Neutral - then the concept of Law has no meaning and D&D's own examples contradict the system it's setting in place. Is that your argument?

What you are actually arguing is that a character who adheres to a rigidly defined personal code is a candidate for being lawful. It's what that personal code actually entails that dictates whether or not they are lawful. Lawful is an objective absolute in D&D standards. It's not about having rules. It's about what you consider those rules to be. If the rules as you see them do not line up with the defined rules of the book says is lawful, then you are not lawful.

And that is an arbitrary definition of the rules, because a character's personal code could certainly be in conflict with local laws and the character would still be Lawful. Period.

Consider Bankotsu of the Band of Seven from the anime InuYasha. He is the poster child for Chaotic Evil. He is bloodthirsty, exalts violence, and loves fighting. His self-stated life goal is to "kill as many people as humanly possible." He flits through life acting on his whims, and will readily drop his current plans if he thinks going in another direction will lead him to a strong opponent. He can be quoted as once stating, "In a match to the death, there's no such thing as fair or foul." He is the leader of his group for no reason other than he is nice to them and is the most physically powerful among them. At the same time he has one rule: "I would never betray a comrade." He explains this rule as he kills a member of the group as punishment for betraying them.

Now ask yourself when considering everything else about the character if having "a rule that he never breaks" is enough to qualify him as lawful by D&D standards.

Cherry-picking an arbitrary character from another culture and from a genre and franchise with zero connection to a Western roleplaying game and then arbitrarily tagging that person as the exemplar of Chaotic Evil in order to prove your point is an intellectually dishonest debating tactic. That said, based off that overlong Wiki page I've been directed to, it looks to me like Bankotsu is a hypocrite, exemplified by the fact he supposedly has unswerving loyalty and compassion towards his companions, but goes ahead and murders one of them. "I would never betray a comrade!" Well, your actions speak louder than words, you jackalope, you killed him, that's the biggest betrayal you can inflict on a person. Never mind the fact the Wiki indicates that's not a statement of his rule - in context, it's what he says is the difference between himself and the character who committed the murder. That is, the statement is the normal response to another character inflicting a narcissistic injury upon him - denial. It is not some statement of a personal code he follows.

So, no, he's not lawful, but neither is he citing a rule nor a personal code he lives by, so the example is invalid.

[Liquor Box]

I'd rule an automatic Fall if any prison guards are harmed during the breakout - but otherwise I'd be cautious about what constitutes a gross violation of the "respect legitimate authority" facet of the Code.

Deliberately subverting one of the most important laws of the land would qualify if anything does.

[SangoProduction]

There is a mass murderer who has been brought before a court of law. He has been positively identified through magical means as having committed no fewer than 5 murders without proper justification. However, due to some...over eager adventurers who wanted to see this man put to justice, the case was tampered with in such a way that it is not possible to prosecute.

If he is let go, he will undoubtedly kill someone again. But if he isn't let go, it breaks the tenets of the court system.

What is the paladin of the town supposed to do?

(Obviously, keeping watch over him, and try to intervene when it's attempted, but let's just say wasn't just the incompetence of the guards that caused it to take 5 murders to get this guy. And yes, the town's paladin sees the legal system as legitimate.)

EDIT: So there have been a couple complaints about the case not making sense, because the murderer is known to have murdered at least 5 people and what not. People have jumped to "It's corruption, and therefore not legitimate," which was not the intent.

But, there have been cases where a trail had to be thrown out because of various problems with either the investigation, or the court proceedings, and so on. The most famous one is OJ Simpson's trial, where evidence was collected illegally.

I kept the specifics of what went wrong in this case vague precisely because it doesn't matter what caused it, but simply that it's been caused.

[radthemad4]

Hire someone to cast Commune (it costs 950 GP, 450 GP for being a 5th level spell at CL 9, and 500 GP for the 100 XP cost). That should be admissible as strong evidence in a court of law (possibly paired with a Zone of Truth and/or Detect Thoughts on whoever is casting the commune). Just ask any deity you trust if he's guilty.

[lord_khaine]

That setup is kinda dumb.
If its identified with 100% certainty that this guy killed 5 others for the lulz, then i cant imagine any realistic court letting him go.

But on the other side, if the court lets confirmed murderes go, then its easy to decide its not legitimate.
I would either get the church of my god to intervene in this case with an obviously corrupt judge.
Or handle stuff myself if they wont. Depending on my power level.

[GrayDeath]

YOur setup once again (as is mostly the case with Make the Paladin fall" Setups^^) not really logicallly sound.

If he is THE Paladin of the Village/Town, and the Village/Town authority lets a guilty killer go for "methodology reasons like intervenin adventurers, the Paladin is supposed to supersede the obviously misused local Law with his own/his Gods/his Orders and keep the dangerous guy in prison.

If its the Law of the Country that let him go free, the Paladins Order and/or other Paladins should be consulted prosecute it themselves, and the end result should be the same.

Either the law has been corrupted/people have been payed to let him go, or they made a mistake in their decision (they believe in their own right that the tampering made it invalid) and a simple commune/Zone of truth is the solution.


But yeah, the setup is kinda....surreal.

After all, there is no known medieval inspired setting where our modern court of law methods" are implimented, so the tampering should not be a problem at all...

[Malphegor]

Release him, and risk people being killed.

Keep him, and the legal process is ignored.

Seems like a standard Lawful Vs Good situation, in which case, it's almost always best to contact the supervisor. Aka either a higher ranking member of the Lawful Good Religio-Legal System, or the God that empowers these people to act in its name, as it's outside the Paladin's jurisdiction at this point.

In the event that there is no answer, Paladins are usually Good first, Lawful second. So they're probably going to imprison the geezer without due process being fully observed, and seek guidance on this matter once the situation is over with.

They could of course make a deal with the killer. This is the super-lawful action. They get released, but due to the uncertainty of the case, have to do a task for the paladin whilst temporarily under the same oaths the paladin follows. The paladin can then judge for themselves the worthiness of the killer based on their actions on a small quest.

a Retrial by Adventure seems sensible. You can tell much about the character of a man when you send him into the catacombs to rout out giant rats.

[Cygnia]

Get ranks in Grey Guard.

[MisterKaws]

Paladins only immediately fall for committing Evil acts, not Chaotic ones. Letting him go would mean risking innocents, which is Evil by omission. Killing him would be unlawful, but wouldn't make you fall, because it was for the sake of innocents.

All of this is ironically described in the Book of Vile Darkness.

[zlefin]

Get out your phylactery of faithfulness and use it to see what actions are deemed acceptable.

btw it's "tenets" not "tenants"

[StevenC21]

Obviously, you whack him. It was never stated that the court ruled magical confirmation illegitimate - and why would they?

When the dude's emanating a Strong Aura of Evil and the Paladin's Detect Evil passes anyways... Then yeah. The Paladin should whack him.

[RedMage125]

Paladins only immediately fall for committing Evil acts, not Chaotic ones. Letting him go would mean risking innocents, which is Evil by omission. Killing him would be unlawful, but wouldn't make you fall, because it was for the sake of innocents.

All of this is ironically described in the Book of Vile Darkness.

The Book of Vile Darkness also defines "murder" as "killing a sentient being for selfish or nefarious purposes". If a paladin kills this guy because it's "easier" or "more convenient" than due process...that wanders into that territory, and a paladin is held to a high enough standard that once this guy is in custody (and therefore not armed or an immediate threat to anyone), killing him becomes less cut and dry.

I do agree, however, that the OP's premise is whacked. If there is evidence that 100% proives this guy murdered 5 people, how is the system going to let him go? That is immediately stupid, immersion-breaking, and a non-starter for most people. Is this like Cliffport in OotS? Are magical means not admissible in a court of law? That's about the only way I see this working.

Finally, this has nothing to do with Foot's Trolley Problem. How is that relevant to the topic?

[MisterKaws]

The Book of Vile Darkness also defines "murder" as "killing a sentient being for selfish or nefarious purposes". If a paladin kills this guy because it's "easier" or "more convenient" than due process...that wanders into that territory, and a paladin is held to a high enough standard that once this guy is in custody (and therefore not armed or an immediate threat to anyone), killing him becomes less cut and dry.

I do agree, however, that the OP's premise is whacked. If there is evidence that 100% proives this guy murdered 5 people, how is the system going to let him go? That is immediately stupid, immersion-breaking, and a non-starter for most people. Is this like Cliffport in OotS? Are magical means not admissible in a court of law? That's about the only way I see this working.

Finally, this has nothing to do with Foot's Trolley Problem. How is that relevant to the topic?

If this is indeed a case of the murderer getting a free pass out of jail because daddy's rich or whatever, then the Paladin wouldn't be killing him for selfish reasons, but to fix a flaw in the system. Paladins need not comply to corrupt systems.