The exact meaning of the Law/Chaos alignment, as I said in some other comments, is campaign-dependent. So is something like leeway when working with opposed alignments. If the paladin gets powers directly from a god -- they don't in my world -- then you, the GM, are playing god and must decide what the god is looking for in terms of behavior. Again, it's about a relationship.

In my campaign, which only uses Law/Chaos and not the ninefold scheme, Law is about Civilization, Truth, Justice, and Decency in a rational universe. Chaos is selfishness, rebellion, or anarchy. If a paladin is fighting injustice and gets help from a Chaotic, it's still OK as long as the paladin isn't aiding the Chaotic's selfish cause.

Well, actually, I did a couple much-better blog posts on how I specifically handle paladins in my campaign.

The Paladin's Code

Transgressions and Betrayals

tl;dr version: I use a four-tier code that works like the Laws of Robotics.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;820000Would you guys say a Paladin trying to overthrow someone that stole the throne to a kingdom by assassinating the king would be LG? Or chaotic?

Depends on whether the Paladin succeeds; try there is not.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;820057Would you guys say a Paladin trying to overthrow someone that stole the throne to a kingdom by assassinating the king would be LG? Or chaotic?
------------
But the power vacuum is more an issue about consequences. And you can't predict that beforehand; a Paladin would be allowing evil for the sake of expediency.

Would a paladin assassinate an evil king who stole the throne? Of course not.
A paladin would probably challenge the king in open combat or assist whatever rebellion is forming to restore the rightful rulers or whomever looks like they were up to the task.

That is assuming the player is not playing a Paladin as some kill crazed nut or playing the paladin as effectively Lawful Neutral. The law is the law.

Same as with alignment. I have yet to see any paladin played the same from group to group.

Nor Druids for that matter.

One players is going to play the Druid as if they were really Chaotic Neutral. They might help, they might not. Another is going to play it as a balancing act. For every good thing they do, they have to do something evil. Someone else is going to play it as reactionary. and so on.

what omega said a paladin is not going to use subterfuge palidans are allowed to be lawful stupid thats there thing (its a very specific type of lawful stupid though)

as omega also said its also important to remember they are lawful good not lawful neutral you should always focus on the good evil axis before the law chaos axis.

Depends on what you mean by subterfuge. Remember, even within alignments there is room for disagreement (namely priority & manner, but other sources of friction are very possible). It all depends on your GM's moral+ethical spectrum within an alignment.

I never got the whole "lawful stupid" argument about paladins, though it is a very common complaint. I just think of it as a rather crass GM interpretation of alignment spectra with little in the way of actual theosophical nuance. Just the theoretical v. applied angle leaves umpteen debates within real world religions, i.e. within the same religion, the same sect, and of the same theosophical tradition.

But a flat stereotype is always an easy goto solution for everyone. Its why such ideas are used in the first place, it communicates so easily. Adding the contour and shading to it, like anything, takes work and practice.

well i really only say lawful stupid because its a commonly used phrase the palidans stupid is just a very specific type of stupid but we love it for it

I suspect one of the reasons some players deviate so much in alignment is when there is little or no penalty for it. The PC is a LG paladin but the player is playing it as a CE Assassin. And the DM is not penalizing this. Or doesnt believe the actions are outside the alignment somehow.

Again, the myriad ways alignment can be interpreted.

That's a very good point. Without the GM setting their alignment expectations openly, including any intra-alignment nuance, and leaving "office hours" to answer questions, the players are left with only their assumptions. 'Guess What I'm Thinking' isn't that fun of a game, so the GM (the voice of the world) should not sit back and let players fumble around.

PCs are assumed to be part and parcel of the world, and hold core world views that shape their actions. It is like any situation where the GMs fill players in on their PCs' world knowledge. Any disconnect should be clarified and players should feel comfortable to rely on the GM for such information. Then they can make an informed choice whether or not to breach their ethos.

Captain America is Lawful Good. Captain America has opposed the "law of the land" before. He was not acting chaotically.

What is with this insistence that paladins are idiots? Justice has nothing to do with written law; sometimes they are at odds.

Quote from: Brad;820465Captain America is Lawful Good. Captain America has opposed the "law of the land" before. He was not acting chaotically.

What is with this insistence that paladins are idiots? Justice has nothing to do with written law; sometimes they are at odds.

I think that some people have stricter thought patterns than others and prefer that words have strict, unvarying meanings. So, Law must have something to do with laws passed by the local government. See today's Dinosaur Comics for another example of interpreting "law" the same in all contexts, or the creationists who argue that evolution is "just a theory". Or any argument about which books belong to which genres.

As a DM. If a LG player insisted on following LE or CE laws without a valid reason (like a disguise). Then Id definitely dock their alignment towards that. Which is something I explain at the start. Dont take an alignment you have no intention of actually playing by.

Quote from: Brad;820465Captain America is Lawful Good. Captain America has opposed the "law of the land" before. He was not acting chaotically.

What is with this insistence that paladins are idiots? Justice has nothing to do with written law; sometimes they are at odds.

to be clear i understand that perfectly when i say paladins are stupid im referring mostly to the not using poisons and things

there not lawful stupid there honourable stupid and i love them for it

since when is using poisons LG

its not but the paladins code is separate from its alignment its based on foolish concepts of honour.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;820602since when is using poisons LG

Anesthesia, therapy, lethal injection execution, isolation of innocents from danger, etc. It is completely dependent upon context and GM definitions of theosophy. Remember, when it comes to Drugs the only difference between "medicine" and "poison" is perception & dosage.

And remember, the entirety of LG was never bound to "do no harm." It goes to war. Now the word 'pacifism' or 'Hippocratic oath' is another story. What alignment encompasses is bigger than those words.