Law and Chaos

[Aliquid]

Alignment threads always seem to devolve into a discussion on the meaning of good and evil. I have seen this on a variety of boards.

Law and Chaos on the other hand always seem to be an afterthought. So, I would like to dedicate this thread to discussing the meaning of the Lawful and Chaotic alignments.

I will start it off with an observation:
From my perspective, the perfect alignment for a utopian society would be Neutral. Too much ‘Law’ is just as dangerous as too much ‘Chaos’

--Edit--
Maybe a question too:
A common question is about a LG paladin, who is in a country where there is a state law that goes directly against the laws of his church. How does he deal with this?

[Wardog]

I tend to view "Law" meaning "You think laws, rules, hierarchies, regulations, etc are a good thing" and "Chaos" means that you think that you think laws, rules, hierarchies, regulations, etc are bad things.

Being Lawful doesn't necessarily mean someone will obey all laws or authorities - but if a Lawful person rebels, its because they want to replace a bad law of government with a better one. (Not necessarily a [Good] one - maybe just a more effective one, or in the case of someone LE, one that better serves their desires). I consider the Rebel Alliance in Star Wars to be a mostly Lawful rebellion - it was largely substantially of former senators and nobles of the old regime, graduates of the military academy, magic monks, etc, who considered the current regime to be illegitimate and wanted to overthrow it and replace it with something better.

Likewise, being Chaotic doesn't necessarily mean you will rebel against all laws. Some Chaotics (mainly GN or CN) might have a grudge against society and authority, and break laws just because doing so is illegal, but most will probably do what they would have done anyway without the existence of law. CG people won't mug random strangers, because it's a jerk move. CE people will, either because they like being a jerk, or because they want someone else's stuff and don't care about it. CG, CN and CE people will all point out that the law was unnecessary to stop the CG person, failed to stop the CE person, and means everyone is forced to pay taxes to support a pointless police force.


Essentially, when confronted with a tyrannical (or just incompetently bureaucratic) system, a Lawful person will think "the law has been perverted - it needs improving" (or "this was caused by people not actually doing what the law says, so this isn't a problem caused by Law"), while a Chaotic person will think "See - this is what happens when you give people power over others or try to regulate everything". Conversely, when confronted with an anarchy (in the sense of disorder and rampant crime, rather than the political/philosophical sense), a Lawful person will think "See - this is why you need law and governments", while a Chaotic person will blame it on the circumstances (or meddling by outside forces, or claim that the crime families running everything are effectively a form of government, and so this actually proves that its Law that's the problem, not Chaos).


Also, given that there are so many different ways to be Lawful or Chaotic (including multiple interpretations of whether a particular act or motive is Lawful or Chaotic), I think that Law/Chaos axis is more suited to a Bioware-style points-meter than the Good/Evil axis is. You don't determine whether someone is Good, Neutral or Evil from the ratio of "People saved" to "People murdered", but you probably can determine if thy are Lawful or Chaotic by the ratio of "Things done to support the concept of law" to "things done to undermine the concept of law".


Edit: to answer your question, that will depend massively on what the law of the church and the land are.

• If the paladin's religion says "no sex outside marriage", and the law of the land says "have as much as you like!", then a decent paladin would simply follow the rules of his religion without imposing them on others, while a Miko-alike would probably start lecturing people.
• If the paladin's religion says "you must wear blue clothes" and the law of the land says "you must not wear blue clothes", then that will probably be down to the paladin's personal choices (and how strict the religion and the law are about it).
• If the law of the land says "nobles can kill as many peasants as they like, whenever they like, for whatever reason", then a good paladin ought to do the best his means and opportunity allow to oppose it.

[Seto]

Actually, the point about the utopia of Neutrality is interesting. I think that Law or Chaos cannot be as extreme as Good or Evil : if you go too deep into Law (becoming essentially tyrannical and uptight without listening to arguments, even reasonable, that go against your principles) or into Chaos (having no boundaries and being able to destroy anything or anyone), you don't stay LN or CN but enter the territory of Evil. CE Slaadi and LE higher devils (who originally devoted themselves to eliminating Chaos, not Good) are the exemplification of that. And Mechanus not being made of creatures but of Constructs should not be assigned an alignment individually (or else most would be Evil IMO), but only collectively and as a result of anthropomorphism.

That's the reason why, in order to stay LG, a Paladin always has to let Good override Law. As for the conflict between two laws, it mostly comes down to which is the most Good, or personal choice (allegiance or other reasons) if that can't be decided.

Too much of anything is bad, except, by definition, too much Good. But that's the point of view of a TN person speaking. (Aristoteles much ?)

[Ettina]

A common question is about a LG paladin, who is in a country where there is a state law that goes directly against the laws of his church. How does he deal with this?

Depends. Which laws take precedence for him? Lawful characters don't need to follow any set of laws they come across - only a particular set that serve as their guiding principles.

[ReaderAt2046]

While I agree with much of what Wardog said, I think that there are a few points to be made.

First, an important note is that Chaotic alignments will probably still follow laws most of the time, just because it's often more convenient to follow the laws than to suffer or evade the consequences of breaking them. This applies even in the case of the most trivial laws (i.e., if the government says everybody must drive on the right side of the road, a chaotic individual might choose to do so simply to avoid colliding with other cars all the time). A Chaotic individual does not feel that he has any moral obligation to follow the law, but will often find that doing so produces the best outcome.

Also, it should be noted that Lawful alignments (of all stripes), will often have to deal with contradictory legal codes. There are several ways to do this.

1. Determine that one of the laws overrides the other (whether through being imposed by a higher authority, being written as a specific exception to the other law, etc.)
2. Determine that one or more of the laws is invalid (imposed by someone who lacks authority, contradictory to higher levels of law, etc).
3. Determine some way to fulfill both laws.
4. Alert the relevant authorities and have one or more of the contradicting laws amended/repealed to remove the contradiction.

It's also worth noting that LG types (such as myself), will often see Good as a set of laws, laws imposed by God. This can often lead them to conclude that mortal laws are rendered null when in direct contradiction to God's law. For example, many Christians believed slavery was forbidden by God during the period when it was legal in America. Some of these Christians felt that the laws in favor of slavery were invalid, being contradictory to God's laws, and thus violated American law by helping slaves to escape.

[Totema]

Too much of anything is bad, except, by definition, too much Good. But that's the point of view of a TN person speaking. (Aristoteles much ?)

I don't mean to derail the thread, but, why then would you refer to it as too much good? When does a quantity of goodness become no longer appropriate? ...This is starting to sound like the sorites paradox, actually.

[MrConsideration]

I think one of the major reasons law versus chaos has less precedence is the absolute disconnect between Prime Material plane 'chaos' - libertarians, rogues, noble savages etc and Outsiders devoted to chaos like Slaadi who literally aim to overturn the physical 'laws' of existence. Pretty much every character you'll play, even if they're Chaotic, presumably wants the universe to continue to function, so there's no potential identification with Chaos the cosmic force in the same way evil or good Outsiders can be related to more mundane evil and good acts.

There's also the fact that most people are unlikely to be extreme in their opinions about Law and Chaos. Your archetypal chaotic good rogue-with-a-heart-of-gold probably doesn't want to live in a totally 'lawless' society. Even your Lawful Evil despot probably recognises codifying a law on every aspect of life is unworkable, unenforceable and unnecessary - and most legal systems have legal methods of appeal, or changing the laws, yet so many Lawful characters apparently have to abide by some monolithic, Platonic ideal of Ur-Law or alternatively any law they decide is just

I also think 'Chaos' is a bit of a pejorative name. Why not 'liberty' or 'freedom'? Why is it Lawful and not 'Ordered'? Because since 1e there's an implicit semantic assertion that Lawful Good is Proper Actual Good. Chaotic seems to cover only people who prefer a decentralised, hands-off government or actual criminals, despite those two being nothing alike.

I also don't buy into the idea that Neutrality is superior in any way. How can you have an extreme of Good? Is everyone is acting too selflessly what is the damage? I can buy into an excess of mercy being damaging when actually confronting Evil, but in a society which is mainly Good where's the issue?

[veti]

I think Wardog covered it pretty well.

I think of "lawful" personalities as systematic, methodical - they believe in doing things in a certain way, not taking shortcuts just because they happen to look convenient. The "correct" way of doing something may have been established by painful experience, or handed down by tradition (which is another way of saying "established by someone else's painful experience"). Or they may simply have been made up by someone who had only the vaguest idea of what they were talking about, in which case you might well be able to improve on them (but there'll be a correct way of doing that, as well, to make sure the improvement gets handed down to anyone else who finds themself in the same position).

Lawful behaviour is like a cookbook, or quality assurance. It's repeatable.

Chaotic personalities have no patience for all that. They may know the "procedure" (but they may also have been thinking of something else when it was explained to them, because they don't think it's important), but they'll take shortcuts. When cooking, they're the people who'll try to remember the recipe rather than looking it up, eyeball rather than actually measuring ingredients, and chuck in an extra carrot because it's what they've got on hand. Chaotic behaviour is often successful and more efficient than being lawful, but it's not repeatable. Ask the chaotic cook what they did differently from normal to make the sauce so delicious today - and they likely won't be able to tell you, because they simply weren't paying enough attention.

[Aliquid]

I tend to view "Law" meaning "You think laws, rules, hierarchies, regulations, etc are a good thing" and "Chaos" means that you think that you think laws, rules, hierarchies, regulations, etc are bad things.

Do honesty, keeping your word, and being reliable fit into this too?

I consider the Rebel Alliance in Star Wars to be a mostly Lawful rebellion

I like this. I agree that rebels can be lawful. I was even pondering taking that further with a lawful thief that is completely dedicated to the rules and hierarchy of the thieves guild.

Likewise, being Chaotic doesn't necessarily mean you will rebel against all laws.

I can imagine a self absorbed Chaotic individual who believes that the law is important to keep the average Joe in line, but he/she is above average, and above such things.

I think that Law/Chaos axis is more suited to a Bioware-style points-meter than the Good/Evil axis is. ...... you probably can determine if thy are Lawful or Chaotic by the ratio of "Things done to support the concept of law" to "things done to undermine the concept of law".

True, assuming when you say "law" you mean lawful, rather than legal.

I'm actually surprised the first response was so concise and agreed upon.

[Aliquid]

Actually, the point about the utopia of Neutrality is interesting. I think that Law or Chaos cannot be as extreme as Good or Evil : if you go too deep into Law (becoming essentially tyrannical and uptight without listening to arguments, even reasonable, that go against your principles) or into Chaos (having no boundaries and being able to destroy anything or anyone), you don't stay LN or CN but enter the territory of Evil.

I don't know

I can see a robot dictator that is incapable of emotion or values and enforcing the rules without consideration of the ethical impacts... that wouldn't touch the good/evil spectrum.

No matter your intentions, too much hierarchies, structure, rules, etc is a bad thing, and too little is a bad thing too. (my opinion)

[Aliquid]

I also think 'Chaos' is a bit of a pejorative name. Why not 'liberty' or 'freedom'? Why is it Lawful and not 'Ordered'? Because since 1e there's an implicit semantic assertion that Lawful Good is Proper Actual Good. Chaotic seems to cover only people who prefer a decentralised, hands-off government or actual criminals, despite those two being nothing alike.

I also don't buy into the idea that Neutrality is superior in any way. How can you have an extreme of Good? Is everyone is acting too selflessly what is the damage? I can buy into an excess of mercy being damaging when actually confronting Evil, but in a society which is mainly Good where's the issue?

I think I can comment on both of these paragraphs with the comment that I believe that Neutral Good is the 'best' alignment. I agree that Chaotic is unfairly suggested as being 'bad', and I was only suggesting that neutrality is preferable on the law/chaos spectrum, not the good/evil one.

[jedipotter]

A common question is about a LG paladin, who is in a country where there is a state law that goes directly against the laws of his church. How does he deal with this?

Remember that 'Law' is more 'Order' and Alignment is more a Way of Life. A lawful person does not have to follow any or all laws. Laws are man (creature) made. While the lawful person likes laws and approves of laws, they don't follow them blindly. It's perfectly fine for a lawful person to be a law zombie, but they don't have to be.

Church law will always trump State Law....but there should not be too much conflict. Church Law should not really dwell on mundane things, and State Law should not cross over into spiritual things.

And really, if the state was Chaotic Evil...why would a church that did not agree with that even be there? This is why you find find any Jedi in the Empire, for example.

[Seto]

I don't mean to derail the thread, but, why then would you refer to it as too much good? When does a quantity of goodness become no longer appropriate? ...This is starting to sound like the sorites paradox, actually.

That was actually my point, sorry for having expressed it badly. "Too much good" cannot be Evil, because firstly Good is never Evil, and there's no such thing as too much Good. Although too many good intentions carried out in a bad way (see Well-Intentioned Extremist) can be Evil, the point of a Good character is to always uphold the ideals of Good and stay Good. Too much Evil doesn't exist either. What I was saying is, IMO if you dig till you reach the extreme of Lawful or Chaotic, you become something else (Evil), which doesn't happen with Good or Evil.

I don't know

I can see a robot dictator that is incapable of emotion or values and enforcing the rules without consideration of the ethical impacts... that wouldn't touch the good/evil spectrum.

No matter your intentions, too much hierarchies, structure, rules, etc is a bad thing, and too little is a bad thing too. (my opinion)

Yeah... That's why Inevitables are Constructs. No moral conscience and just a program was the only way you could get across truly extreme LN beings. I, for one, have a problem with assigning an alignment to something that doesn't have values of its own or freedom of choice (i.e., Constructs should be "Always Neutral")*. But if they did, and your robot dictator was actually human-like, I'd consider it Lawful Evil.

* : or you could argue that their alignment is determined by the Forces that benefit from their actions : for example, if a Construct hurts a lot of people, residual Evil from its actions starts to wrap around it and makes it Evil. But there we touch the most problematic, if not most blatant, contradiction in the way D&D handles alignments : trying to make them both subjective and objective at once. (Or one at a time, which is even worse)

[hamishspence]

I also don't buy into the idea that Neutrality is superior in any way. How can you have an extreme of Good? Is everyone is acting too selflessly what is the damage? I can buy into an excess of mercy being damaging when actually confronting Evil, but in a society which is mainly Good where's the issue?

Possibly it's an idea that acting too selflessly results in dying of starvation - if one never eats but gives all food obtained to "others" - and declines all offers of food.

[Jay R]

Alignment threads always seem to devolve into a discussion on the meaning of good and evil. I have seen this on a variety of boards.

Law and Chaos on the other hand always seem to be an afterthought.

Not an afterthought - just not as controversial.

The idea of Good and Evil as objective forces that can be detected is a D&D construct, completely inconsistent with the real world. But good and evil are in fact part of every real-world moral, ethical, or philosophical system. Therefore there is always a great deal of disagreement available.

The idea of Law and Chaos as objective forces that can be detected is equally a D&D construct, and equally inconsistent with the real world. But they are not a distorted version of real-world ethical systems; they are merely a badly applied concept from Michael Moorcock's fantasy books. There is therefore far less to argue about.

The length of a thread is not based on whether the concept being discussed is important or unimportant, or a main topic or afterthought. It is based on the amount and level of disagreement.

[ghendrickson]

You ever read any Michael Moorcock? The struggles in his book usually deal with the fight between Law and Chaos, with the main character dealing in neutrality.

[Frozen_Feet]

A common question is about a LG paladin, who is in a country where there is a state law that goes directly against the laws of his church. How does he deal with this?

A Paladin does the Good thing first and foremost. The concept of natural rights, independent of any single governing body or set of laws, goes hand-in-hand with Lawful Good. A law that violates said natural rights is hence ignored.

Now, if we're in a situation where neither of the conflicting orders violates said rights, it depends on teachings of the Church; if we're talking about the Church that actually inspired the Paladins, then the Paladin should follow the laws of the land, as religious law is subservient to secular law where it pertains to non-moral functions.

[Joe the Rat]

Part of the de-emphasis of Law/Chaos comes from how it relates to decision-making, at least in the D&D perspective. These two axis were referred to as the Moral (Good/Evil) and Ethical (Law/Chaos). Think of it like this: Good and Evil are about your Motives, while Law and Chaos is about your Means. It's not a perfect explanation (see also: good intentions, paving; alignment debates), but it's a workable frame.

Yeah... That's why Inevitables are Constructs. No moral conscience and just a program was the only way you could get across truly extreme LN beings. I, for one, have a problem with assigning an alignment to something that doesn't have values of its own or freedom of choice (i.e., Constructs should be "Always Neutral")*. But if they did, and your robot dictator was actually human-like, I'd consider it Lawful Evil.

* : or you could argue that their alignment is determined by the Forces that benefit from their actions : for example, if a Construct hurts a lot of people, residual Evil from its actions starts to wrap around it and makes it Evil. But there we touch the most problematic, if not most blatant, contradiction in the way D&D handles alignments : trying to make them both subjective and objective at once. (Or one at a time, which is even worse)

I agree on the Neutrality of Constructs in general, but Inevitables are a special case as Outsiders. Consider that D&D treats L/C/G/E as objectively quantifiable properties, and that the outer planes are each defined by their mix of these properties. In a sense, Outsiders are literally made of Law or Chaos (and Good and Evil, for that matter). Depending on your edition and/or preferences, Outsiders may not have free will in regard to their alignments - barring exceptional circumstances, they may literally be incapable of conceiving of a way to act other than how they act. Guardinals may be self-sacrificing because as Good beings, that is what they are about. Breaking that behavior may produce things like our esteemed Succubus Paladin (who is still materially Evil), or that said entity is no longer the same thing - A Planetar doesn't become an Evil Planetar, but becomes another creature entirely.

Yeah, there's a lack of option, a lack of complete free will with this perspective. Stories often treat free will as the domain of mortals - what makes humans (or other inner plane / Prime sophonts) special is having the choice. I would agree that if you cannot (or will not) choose, you are Neutral. But you're not made out of concentrated Law or Evil. Maybe these elements do start accumulating like so much Dust as a consequence of your choices, and becomes the how that determines your post-mortal destination, and why magic can detect and manipulate it, and why mortals always have the option to "shake it off" and become something new.

Personally, I like the idea of free will in Outsiders, with the catch that changing their alignment means they cease to be that particular type of Outsider. You don't want to stop being Chaotic, because doing so changes both who and what you are.

[Seto]

Yeah, I get that, but I also get the impression that Outsiders from Mechanus are the only ones who really can never choose at all. Being more robots than creatures and everything. Maybe the highest, those that are not Constructs, can (that's one version of Asmodeus' birth), but not your average Inevitable. Succubus Paladin is one in a million of millions, but Mechanus' guys are zero in an infinity, period. The Abyss, or Elysium, or most of the planes, are planes that (although they are similar to Great beings with their own motives) produce creatures made of pure Evil/Chaos/Good/Law, but with an existence and an agenda of their own, which makes a change possible, if extremely unlikely. Mechanus is a plane that doesn't produce individuals with any measure of free will ; it produces cogs in the endless pattern that is the Plane itself. An Inevitable suddenly changing its mind is, to me, much more unbelievable that a demon hoping to find redemption (and that's already pretty unlikely).

I may be wrong or incompletely informed (that would be a matter for Afroakuma to discuss), but that's how I see it anyway.

[Aliquid]

they are merely a badly applied concept from Michael Moorcock's fantasy books. There is therefore far less to argue about.

I guess that sums up most of my problems in one statement... not to mention that they are applied differently in each edition of D&D

The length of a thread is not based on whether the concept being discussed is important or unimportant, or a main topic or afterthought. It is based on the amount and level of disagreement.

Yes, but I guess my concern was that a discussion of law and chaos never gets to happen at all, since all comments get lost in a sea of people defining 'good'.

[Aliquid]

Now, if we're in a situation where neither of the conflicting orders violates said rights, it depends on teachings of the Church; if we're talking about the Church that actually inspired the Paladins, then the Paladin should follow the laws of the land, as religious law is subservient to secular law where it pertains to non-moral functions.

What if the king demands that a Paladin swears 100% secrecy about a subject (for state security reasons), but his church has a rule of full disclosure when debriefing on a mission? Does he break his loyalty to the king or to the church?

Note that he isn’t even allowed to tell the church that there is a secret, let alone discuss the content of the secret.

Think of it like this: Good and Evil are about your Motives, while Law and Chaos is about your Means.

So LG says "The ends don't justify the means", where as CG will say "Actually...often they do"?

Yeah... That's why Inevitables are Constructs. No moral conscience and just a program was the only way you could get across truly extreme LN beings. I, for one, have a problem with assigning an alignment to something that doesn't have values of its own or freedom of choice (i.e., Constructs should be "Always Neutral")*. But if they did, and your robot dictator was actually human-like, I'd consider it Lawful Evil.

Maybe the robot wasn't the best example.

But what about the difference between LG, NG and CG? They are all good by definition, so what is the difference? Do you believe they are all equally good, just different, or is LG the best?

I would still say that NG is the best, because it would use the best methods to achieve the 'good'.

[Wardog]

Do honesty, keeping your word, and being reliable fit into this too?

I'm not sure. (Well, they do by RAW, but I'm not sure if this ought to be the case).

I suppose at an individual level, someone who disregarded all those would be extremely chaotic.

But I think a chaotic society would depend on them to function, even more than a lawful one would.

When you don't have rules telling people what to do, or a hierarchy to issue instructions, or a police force to, well, force people to behave (or not behave) in a certain way, being able to trust people to do whatever they agreed to do, or not to abuse hospitality, etc is necessary to prevent society collapsing.

[Seto]

But what about the difference between LG, NG and CG? They are all good by definition, so what is the difference? Do you believe they are all equally good, just different, or is LG the best?

I would still say that NG is the best, because it would use the best methods to achieve the 'good'.

They're equally Good, in different ways. But it actually depends on the characters : for example, I'm currently playing a CG character who's more Chaotic than Good. On the other hand, some characters are first and foremost Good.

So let's talk about Exemplars. They should tell us if LG, NG and CG are equally Good, right ? Arcadia is interesting in that regard. It's extremely Lawful and moderately Good, and fell out of Celestia because it was too Lawful. So I think the condition in order to be completely Good, as I was saying in my first post, is to put Good above Law and Chaos.
- So NG really is more Good than the others ?
- Well, no. They're all equally Good, because they all put Good above all else. They'd all do anything non-Evil to make Good prevail. That doesn't prevent them from each having their views about how Good should be implemented ; but if they are required to do the NG action because it's Good, or even if an Archon is required to do something Chaotic in order to do the right thing, he will. He'll hate it, but he will, and he'll stay LG because he firmly believes in infinite Good and a lot of Law. He is Good and Law.
Proof is : they all get along for the sake of Good, albeit reluctantly. That used to be different : during the great war between Law and Chaos, Good and Evil were an afterthought. LG and LE warred against CG and CE. Then NG was the most Good, because it didn't have any bias. Now that Good and Evil have taken precedence, that's not the case anymore.

[Frozen_Feet]

What if the king demands that a Paladin swears 100% secrecy about a subject (for state security reasons), but his church has a rule of full disclosure when debriefing on a mission? Does he break his loyalty to the king or to the church?

Note that he isn’t even allowed to tell the church that there is a secret, let alone discuss the content of the secret.

You should've been able to infer the answer from my previous post, but to reiterate: we are presuming the King's secret is not a moral issue, and that religious law is subservient to secular law. Because of these two things, the proper answer to the Church's inquiry is "I'm under legal orders to not tell", and the proper answer from the Church to that is "okay", because it's none of their business. There is no breech in loyalty; the Church simply doesn't have the authority to know what the Paladin knows. Insisting on getting to know would mean they are breaching their loyalty to their King and dogma.

If the King throws a fit about the Paladin saying the above, he's being asinine; a Paladin's code forbids them from lying, and that included lying by omission. "I'm under legal order to not tell" is the both the most and the least the Paladin can say on the subject if asked.

[hamishspence]

a Paladin's code forbids them from lying, and that included lying by omission.

That one I'm not so sure about. In the D&D novels "lies of omission" are very common among paladins.

[Jay R]

That one I'm not so sure about. In the D&D novels "lies of omission" are very common among paladins.

It's important to distinguish between "lying by omission" and simply not speaking.

If the party killed four orcs and an elf, and the paladin says, "We slew four orcs," he is technically telling the truth, but he is lying by omission, since there is an implication that that's all they killed. I would at least warn a paladin for that.

But if he doesn't mention any of the deaths, he isn't deliberately giving a false impression; he's merely not communicating.

[ArtlessMammet]

You should've been able to infer the answer from my previous post, but to reiterate: we are presuming the King's secret is not a moral issue, and that religious law is subservient to secular law. Because of these two things, the proper answer to the Church's inquiry is "I'm under legal orders to not tell", and the proper answer from the Church to that is "okay", because it's none of their business. There is no breech in loyalty; the Church simply doesn't have the authority to know what the Paladin knows. Insisting on getting to know would mean they are breaching their loyalty to their King and dogma.

If the King throws a fit about the Paladin saying the above, he's being asinine; a Paladin's code forbids them from lying, and that included lying by omission. "I'm under legal order to not tell" is the both the most and the least the Paladin can say on the subject if asked.

Depending on the Paladin's adherence to his religion (has he sworn oaths etc) swearing such an oath to the king might be a breach of his code in and of himself.
Lying is lying is lying, in the end, and while there might be mitigating circumstances when dealing with devils and demons, and I could certainly see the Paladin being in breach of his code simply swearing the oath to the king.

But this isn't actually a matter of Law vs. Chaos; it's just to do with the Paladin. Just because a Paladin has to do something doesn't mean another LG character is arbitrarily bound to do the same things.

I've never really got into discussions about Law and Chaos in the way that I've done with Good vs. Evil; they're just not something I feel like I understand in the same way. I imagine the reason for this is that Law and Chaos are somewhat subsumed into Good/Evil in traditional ethical discussion.

[Aliquid]

we are presuming the King's secret is not a moral issue, and that religious law is subservient to secular law.

I wouldn't assume that. In many points in history religions have not considered themselves subservient to secular law, where as the royalty thought otherwise. I was under the assumption that church and state could conflict in law.

Because of these two things, the proper answer to the Church's inquiry is "I'm under legal orders to not tell.

But I said he couldn't say that, and the King would be perfectly right to expect this. For example, If the Paladin was asked "Did the king do (something controversial but not immoral) when you were with him?" If the Paladin said "I am not allowed to say", he pretty much just said 'yes'.

[Frozen_Feet]

The joke's on the King for making an unreasonable demand. Under your logic, would it be any less revealing if the Paladin would just shut up?

[illyahr]

I don't like using the word "Law" as it's too much open for confusion. I prefer using the word "Order" as it better represents the concept. Namely: discipline and structure.