I am not trying to start a is killing baby goblins wrong thread i am trying to get practical advice and honest feedback to what I understand Lawful good to be. let me start with an example that some one used
I am a paladin and the land lord is just about to evict a old women and her children because they can't pay the rent. Her husband died in the last war as a paladin I have a few options
1. sell my gear to pay for her rent
2. ask my church to help her
3. ask the landlord to have a heart.
4. help the land lord evict them ....READ FURTHER BEFORE REPLYING
If i am the only legitimate law in some po-dunk town isn't it my sworn duty to uphold the law? and if all other options fail and the land lord asks me to execute a lawful legal request don't i have to comply? I may hate it but it s my duty so it wouldn't be lawful evil because I take no pleasure in it. right?
that is where I see the kryptonite of LAWFUL GOOD having to obey the law that is awful or against your moral code. I admit this is an extreme circumstance. but police in my country have to do it every day. as long as i give to charity help the needy and be a shining night to ladies and all that jazz. I Am still lawful good?
what if i catch a run away slave and his master catches up with me and him and he provide she a legal Writ of ownership I am then bound to return the slave Correct? this situation to me is much more frustrating to a paladin then the goblin baby scenario
I may have this all wrong and I am open to helpful feedback. the reason this came up is we are playing Serpents Skull and I have been watching a lot of Westerns in my free time. I was thinking of a lawful good gunslinger who works for the sargavians. they give him a writ of law or what ever you want to call the legal document. he brings law to the lawless, so many time in serpents skull we have been ambushed by who ever or what ever and we are 100 ,miles from any Lawful entity, watch, guards ECT. I was thinking a way around this is if i am a paladin i could execute the criminals on the spot. they are clearly guilty of attempted murder. and paying a fine for stabbing my party in the back during the night and paralyzing them while you try to kidney stab them is certainly not going to cut it. SO what if the Sargavians gave me a badge and said I represent their law because technically/legally they are the only form of civilization (obviously this is an awful world view that I don't think is legitimate today. but could it fly?) think judge dred his only problem is law breakers his social skills are missing but he is good and lawful in my mind(not judge dread fanboy) i may be wrong
I am thinking of the stand alone sheriff figure who is trying to bring law to a lawless town. obviously i could find the bandits and lock them in the barn and burn them down. but that is not fair or legal I would have to catch them them hang them after giving them a trial.
as you can tell so far this is a kinda Lawful good type rant. that was my character idea a good guy with a gun who is able to dispense justice. fairly and legally maybe to so much ACLU justice or what we would deem fair in todays society but "back then" we all didn't have miranda warning or the Constitution.
let me know If I am over thinking it this discussion can apply to any lawful good character.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is likely to explode quickly. Alignment, especially Lawful Good, is a prickly topic at the best of times.
My take:
Good/Evil is your Moral motivation. Good characters are altruistic, generous, out for the common good, and the best tend toward selflessness. The most Good character will do something for another without concern for the cost to himself. Evil characters are the opposite; everything is about "what do I get out of it". They do nothing without seeing some kind of reward in it (though it does not need to be immediate; they can make long-range plans, and even pretend to be kind and charitable if it eventually leads to a payoff). Neutral characters are neither of those extremes, perhaps swinging back and forth between them, or striking a balance.. such as seeking reward for himself and a few select others, but not everyone or anyone.
Lawful/Chaotic is your Ethics; what you will, or will not, scruple to do in the pursuit of your goals. A Lawful character is as concerned that things be done the right way as he is that they be done at all. A Chaotic character has little or no concern for the method.. the end justifies the means, for example, is something I would consider a Chaotic's attitude. At the same time, a Lawful character is "institutionl-oriented". He expects some kind of formal organization to be around.. poor-houses or the church to take care of the poor, orphanages to take care of orphans, and so on. The Lawful person is loyal to the office, regarless of who holds it (to the King, who happens to be Charles, as opposed to Charles, who happens to be the King). Chaotic characters, to the contrary, are loyal to persons first and offices/positions second .. so the Chaotic person is loyal to Charles whether or not he is King; and he expects individuals to do more about the poor or orphaned.
As you can see, there are more twists to Lawful/Chaotic than to Good/Evil.
The GM has to make clear how he views these elements. Only when the GM's view is clear to the players can they define their character's alignment clearly, and expect not to be in conflict with the GM later.
Have a talk with the landlady. Nothing says that you can't object to an unjust lawful act.
Keep in mind your alignment is the General Guidline of how you act.
when you face a choice between conflicting sides of your alignment rely on the "what would a generally good person do" also try to gather more info.
Aslo think outside the box here.
You can lean on the law part of your alignment to help you sleep if you do kick out the old lady and kid.
You can aslo rely on your good side to justify telling the land lord to find someone else to do it.
Or you could take them with you and set them up at the next church of you god as wards of the church if you like.
Or you could offer to preform a service for the land lord on their part to pay for permint residance.
Or you could even squire the child and take the old woman along to run your camp.
There are tons of things you can to to satify your alingment in that case, the unfairness of such a request to a "generally good person" in how you worded it is whats effecting you.
Try this "An old hag and her spawn are interloping on my land. Please help me to remove them without futher incident".
Sunds alittle more like a calling to protect the landlord now.
Not that hedge witches or sorcress is a bad person... uless you view them to be...
Enter the lawful good Tyrant. <--- yes thats a lawful good Bad Guy
kill everyone who does not share your beleif for they are unclean and bread evil whether or not they register as evil or not.
my take on it is:
good : make people happy, don't scheme for a long time, just if you know your action hurt someone, don't do it.
lawful: respect authority, don't follow it blindly, just respect it.
in my experience, the shorter the definition, the better.
for your example, do 1-3, 4 hurts someone, respect just means that you can't kick the nobles butt.
don't return the slave if he is mistreated, respect authority, don't follow it, if the master comes and asks you, tell him politely what you did, and why.
Edit: selling your gear is of course optional, but at lvl 5 your spare change should be enough for a person to last till the end of her life.
And this where alignment gets tricky. I really wish there was more of a Knight who is loyal to their liege, and a Holy Champion who is loyal to their god. Unfortunately, a Paladin is loyal not to a single entity but to an ideal, but not just one, two ideals which can clash. It's really for the Paladin to decide which ideal takes priority, and the GM to decide if he/she agrees. I personally which rather have Paladins follow the whims of their gods, but in the end it's the GMs hand to decide which is right, or if there is even a right choice.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Enter the lawful good Tyrant. <--- yes thats a lawful good Bad Guy
kill everyone who does not share your beleif for they are unclean and bread evil whether or not they register as evil or not.
Fail. Nearly Epic Fail.
That's not "Lawful Good", that's only someone that thinks he's "Lawful Good".
The Tyrant who kills everyone who does not share his belief, on the belief that they are unclean and breed evil (with no other particular evidence to show that they are indeed evil, not simply of different faith/beliefs), is himself evil. He may still be Lawful, and he may [i[believe[/i] he is good, but he's still really evil.
The rest of your examples aren't exactly what I'd go by, but they're not way off.
lol, i was just saying that the idea of lawful good is actually subjective.
The Lawful good Tyrant is and old idea, that if a lawful good ruler is not kept in check that they risk becoming what the general populas (nuetral good with evil tendancies) beleave to be bad.
But the choices they make seem well and good to them.
"Burn the evil witches they bring death upon use and curse our soil."
So a law is made that witchcraft... later magic is unlawful.
Poor naturally born sorceress, she has magic she's bears the seed of evil she must die.
The law "made with the best of intentions" now becomes against the well being of the general populace. The laws not evil the intent is not evil.
Your ethics define what you beleave to be good and evil. THERE exists several different ethical codes.. whos right? whos wrong? They both are right and they both are wrong. It's subjective.
"so, What you say is True... From a certain point of view."
Go go ethics.
So if a palidin choses to evict the old lady he need only convince the gm he was preforming within his ethical view of right and wrong. Same if he choses to ignore the land lords request, or even defend the womens right to live there.
Thats also why alignment is a "guidline" not a rule.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not trying to start a is killing baby goblins wrong thread i am trying to get practical advice and honest feedback to what I understand Lawful good to be. let me start with an example that some one used
I am a paladin and the land lord is just about to evict a old women and her children because they can't pay the rent. Her husband died in the last war as a paladin I have a few options
1. sell my gear to pay for her rent
2. ask my church to help her
3. ask the landlord to have a heart.
4. help the land lord evict them ....READ FURTHER BEFORE REPLYING
If i am the only legitimate law in some po-dunk town isn't it my sworn duty to uphold the law? and if all other options fail and the land lord asks me to execute a lawful legal request don't i have to comply? I may hate it but it s my duty so it wouldn't be lawful evil because I take no pleasure in it. right?
that is where I see the kryptonite of LAWFUL GOOD having to obey the law that is awful or against your moral code. I admit this is an extreme circumstance. but police in my country have to do it every day. as long as i give to charity help the needy and be a shining night to ladies and all that jazz. I Am still lawful good?
what if i catch a run away slave and his master catches up with me and him and he provide she a legal Writ of ownership I am then bound to return the slave Correct? this situation to me is much more frustrating to a paladin then the goblin baby scenario
I may have this all wrong and I am open to helpful feedback. the reason this came up is we are playing Serpents Skull and I have been watching a lot of Westerns in my free time. I was thinking of a lawful good gunslinger who works for the sargavians. they give him a writ of law or what ever you want to call the legal document. he brings law to the lawless, so many time in serpents skull we have been ambushed by who ever or what ever and we are 100 ,miles from any Lawful entity, watch, guards ECT. I was thinking a way around this is if i am a paladin i...
A lot of what you're talking about here seems to fall under Lawful Neutral IMHO.
the land lord and the slave example are just examples.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A couple of things:
First, keep in mind that Lawful (the alignment) does not simply mean lawful (the legal term). Many players interpret the Lawful alignment to mean "always obeys the law," but that's a mistake. In truth, the Lawful alignment is a much broader concept, which just happens to often (but by no means always) overlap with the legal term.
Second: alignments are really big bins. Two lawful good characters might each choose different but equally valid responses to the same situation. There isn't a single correct answer.
The last paladin I played would respond to this problem by trying to organize the community around the woman: "This poor woman has fallen on hard times. That can happen to any of us. But as people of Golarion, our strength is in our connection to each other. Alone, we are vulnerable to the whims of fate, but together, we are strong! Won't you stand together to help your neighbor in her time of need?" The idea that by helping the least of us, we help all of us is a very lawful good concept. Maybe the community passes a collection plate on her behalf. Maybe other local people of note can be convinced to exert economic pressure on the landlord by refusing to do business with him or perform work for him. Maybe someone else offers to put the woman up until she gets back on her feet. There are a lot of options.
I'm waiting for Ashiel to show up.
Edit: Oh and Dr Tom that was beautiful. Perfect example of a genuinely good character working within the bounds of the legal system.
As far as slavery, a lawful good character would never think slavery in its traditional form (captured through war, sold into it, pressganged etc) was acceptible. Let's not get into the silly semantics of what is and isn't slavery also. A convict who was sentenced to indentured servitude is not a slave. He's a convict serving out a sentence.
Paladins love law because they fear anarchy. Anarchy is terrifying, bringing more suffering down upon the people than whatever small ills societies restrictions might impose. For that reason, a paladin cna and should defend property laws, the basis of almost all civil order. This isn't top say that the paladin shouldn't do so compasionatley, in the case of the widow woman.
There are possible situations in which the sanctioned evil in a society can outwiegh the need to maintain order, or render the lawful obligation irrelevant. Most people find the idea of ownership of people as chattel distasteful, and for good reason. Some slave-holding societies have better systems in place than others, however.
That said, there are some things to consider. Are the laws in the slave holder's municipality the same as in the paladin's? He likely has no obligation to enforce foreign laws upon someone in his own jurisdiction. If they are, he may have some obligation to the slave owner. If laws exist that protect the slave's rights, and they have been followed, well, there may be some legitimacy to slavery. It has sometimes been used to punish criminals, for example.
Ultimately, though, D&D isn't supposed to be a courtroom drama. If the situations involvced get to mired down in legal details, it can just lead the game off track. Conflicts of that sort should be more clear cut in the game setting. The slave owner cuts off everyone's feet to insure none run away. Clearly he's an ass, go ahead and kill him and free his slaves. Or, whatever passees for legal in your kingdom.
I apologize I think i need to have a difference between the paladins code and a lawful good character those are 2 different things. the situation can apply to any lawful good character.
thanks so far for all the great responses.
EDIT my original intent with this post was to see what the consensus was of a gunslinger/paladin type character who after the battle could execute the mooks because he was legally able to by the sovereign governmental authority granted to him. he would have to have a trial first with witnesses (the party) but the only difference in a character cutting off the head of a captured enemy is if he is legally able to. aslogn as he was fair in his trial and was good in all other things i see that has lawful good. like i said a western sherrif cleaning up a bad town. or maybe i have that mixed up with some other alignment.
the 2 acts committed can be good or evil depending on the legality of the situation.
Break into the landlord's house at night, kill him, castrste him and burn down his premises?
the old K_B_C routine huh?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My two LG C-bils
"Mercy, detached from Justice, grows unmerciful.-- CS Lewis"
"Ray Vecchio: Well, where is he?
Benton Fraser: Who?
Ray: The kid! The purse-snatcher! Where is he?! I wanna book him.
Fraser: I let him go.
Ray: You let him go ?
Fraser: Well he apologized and promised never to do it again.
Ray: [incredulous] You just let him go?
Fraser: Not without a stern warning. Also, he gave me this.
Ray: Does the word "incarcerate" mean anything to you?
Fraser: Well, it's from the Medieval Latin, "incarcerata" ...
Ray: Medieval Latin? You let a perp go and and you're giving me Medieval Latin?
Fraser: Actually, "perpetrator" is also Latin from "perpetrare" ...
Ray: Shut up, okay? Just shut up. "
Why can't the widow pay the rent? Good is an act of charity, but that only solves the problem temporarily.
A Lawful Neutral character would throw her out. So would a Lawful Evil character. A Lawful Good character would work to find a long term solution allowing her to stay (lawful) and provide for herself (good). Perhaps she or her kids* could work for the church in exchange for help? Or your Paladin could take one of the kids under his wing as a squire, paying for the room and board?
Like the CS Lewis quote above though, Justice has to be part of Mercy (especially to a LG character). If she can't pay the rent for circumstances in her control (spent all her rent money on flayleaf) then helping her out once won't solve the issue unless the problem is corrected.** One of the things I've had to learn the hard way, you can't save everyone.*** Lawful good doesn't change that. So yeah, in your job as a Sherrif you might have to give her the boot. Trying to arrange a new location would be a good act, but throwing her out isn't automatically evil.
An evil law shouldn't need to be followed. If Slavery violates your code, then letting a run away slave go would be fine. Not recognizing a writ would be fine "I'm not going to kill you. I don't have to save you." - Batman.
Again, all IMHO.
*
**
***
My two LG C-bils
"Mercy, detached from Justice, grows unmerciful.-- CS Lewis"
"Ray Vecchio: Well, where is he?
Benton Fraser: Who?
Ray: The kid! The purse-snatcher! Where is he?! I wanna book him.
Fraser: I let him go.
Ray: You let him go ?
Fraser: Well he apologized and promised never to do it again.
Ray: [incredulous] You just let him go?
Fraser: Not without a stern warning. Also, he gave me this.
Ray: Does the word "incarcerate" mean anything to you?
Fraser: Well, it's from the Medieval Latin, "incarcerata" ...
Ray: Medieval Latin? You let a perp go and and you're giving me Medieval Latin?
Fraser: Actually, "perpetrator" is also Latin from "perpetrare" ...
Ray: Shut up, okay? Just shut up. "Why can't the widow pay the rent? Good is an act of charity, but that only solves the problem temporarily.
A Lawful Neutral character would throw her out. So would a Lawful Evil character. A Lawful Good character would work to find a long term solution allowing her to stay (lawful) and provide for herself (good). Perhaps she or her kids* could work for the church in exchange for help? Or your Paladin could take one of the kids under his wing as a squire, paying for the room and board?
Like the CS Lewis quote above though, Justice has to be part of Mercy (especially to a LG character). If she can't pay the rent for circumstances in her control (spent all her rent money on flayleaf) then helping her out once won't solve the issue unless the problem is corrected.** One of the things I've had to learn the hard way, you can't save everyone.*** Lawful good doesn't change that. So yeah, in your job as a Sherrif you might have to give her the boot. Trying to arrange a new location would be a good act, but throwing her out isn't automatically evil.
An evil law shouldn't need to be followed. If Slavery violates your code, then letting a run away slave go would be fine. Not recognizing a writ would be fine "I'm not going to kill you. I don't have to save you." - Batman.
Again,...
MR morris, we must have the same Carpenter as a boss but I think you made it clear for me. thank you very much I think I have my answer.
as this thread deteriorates please remember that I am now clear and I think i have my answer.
|
I am a paladin and the land lord is just about to evict a old women and her children because they can't pay the rent. Her husband died in the last war
You negotiate with the landlord and try to find other interested parties you could provide for the old lady once you have left town. If your negotiations fail, you supervise or perform the eviction yourself to ensure that it is fair and non-violent. You provide for her from your own pocket as much as you are reasonably able. If the town seems uncaring as to her fate, you might find a soapbox and deliver a resounding rebuke to them from the town square as to their lack of heart.
You lead by example.
I was thinking of a lawful good gunslinger who works for the sargavians. they give him a writ of law or what ever you want to call the legal document.
Perfectly fine. Since you are LG not LN, you might be interested in determining why they are bandits. If one surrendered and sued for mercy, you might allow him a chance. You would be ok with dispensing harsh law in the wilderness, but you would want to make sure that it was also justice.
I am not trying to start a is killing baby goblins wrong thread i am trying to get practical advice and honest feedback to what I understand Lawful good to be. let me start with an example that some one used
I think the key to understanding lawful good is to recognize that, to some extent, it is a slippery slope logical fallacy. It focuses on the big picture and the consequences of "what would happen if everyone did that". Lawful good is worried about the preservation of the system, not for its own sake, but because of the belief that the system serves the greater good. Kicking in the door and dragging the bad guy out of his home on your own say so may be effective: but if every adventuring party did that to whoever they want then it would lead to adventuring parties declaring anyone with wealth the bad guy, kicking in the door and taking their stuff.
I am a paladin and the land lord is just about to evict a old women and her children because they can't pay the rent. Her husband died in the last war as a paladin I have a few options
Its not technically evil unless its the middle of a blizzard or something. Its one of the nastier aspects of neutral. She didn't pay, If you're the law you have to help evict her, but only because you're the sherrif of those parts. That's the lawful part of your alignment. Under other circumstances a paladin could justifiably say " I don't have the authority to do that"
Look what would happen if everyone could squat and not pay rent. No one would build housing, and then no one would have anywhere to live. Landlords need to be able to keep their rent to keep the city going.
The paladin has a few options:
let her stay at his place , while the paladin camps outside in a tent.
arrest her for vagrancy. Presumably as the law you have a budget for feeding and housing prisoners.
Pawn a magic item and go adventuring for cash.
what if i catch a run away slave and his master catches up with me and him and he provide she a legal Writ of ownership I am then bound to return the slave Correct? this situation to me is much more frustrating to a paladin then the goblin baby scenario
This is a really rough one. I personally, do not think that a paladin can help catch a slave unless that person is really an indentured servant or apprentice, or being held as a slave as just punishment for a serious crime. It is no different, on the good/evil axis, as catching the slave yourself and selling them. It is immoral. When a paladin's good and lawful natures conflict to the point that the paladin has to commit an evil act , they choose to not do evil over the law.
I was thinking a way around this is if i am a paladin i could execute the criminals on the spot. they are clearly guilty of attempted murder. and paying a fine for stabbing my party in the back during the night and paralyzing them while you try to kidney stab them is certainly not going to cut it. SO what if the Sargavians gave me a badge and said I represent their law because technically/legally they are the only form of civilization (obviously this is an awful world view that I don't think is legitimate today. but could it fly?) think judge dred his only problem is law breakers his social skills are missing but he is good and lawful in my mind(not judge dread fanboy) i may be wrong
That works as far as the lawful part works, just make sure that the punishment fits the crime. Highway robbery was indeed, punishable by death so you're probably covered as far as he law goes. You're also probably covered on the good axis: letting the bandits go is just inviting them to kill someone else next time. You might try to redeem some or put them to useful work , but its at your own personal discretion. Even 2 lawful good paladins would disagree on whether to execute them, brand them, let them go unarmed, or set them to building/improving a road under threat of
If you get some time look into the Warhammer Fantasy Setting/Game and look up the "Witch Hunter" class and some of the information on that class.
We have always used that as an example of what happens when a Lawful Good person takes it to the extreme and crosses that line.
Rather than sweating the symantics of the align I always tell the paladins who play in my game to focus on "doing the right thing" whenever possible.
I have a paladin wwriet out a strict code of conduct and use that as a parameter rather than an arbitrary alignment.
If you get some time look into the Warhammer Fantasy Setting/Game and look up the "Witch Hunter" class and some of the information on that class.
We have always used that as an example of what happens when a Lawful Good person takes it to the extreme and crosses that line.
Rather than sweating the symantics of the align I always tell the paladins who play in my game to focus on "doing the right thing" whenever possible.
I have a paladin wwriet out a strict code of conduct and use that as a parameter rather than an arbitrary alignment.
I think writing out the code of conduct is a good idea it gives you specifics to follow. a creed like always be fair, always be just, apply mercy when you can, protect the weak be a FRIEND TO ORPHANS AND WIDOWS, to the best of your ability be an example of your GOD, but always be willing to bring law to the unlawful, destroy evil, and redeem the redeemanble. and above all use common sense.
EDIT and in a pinch be ready to scream "I AM THE LAW"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miVoe7U6Lx4&feature=related
I'm waiting for Ashiel to show up.
Edit: Oh and Dr Tom that was beautiful. Perfect example of a genuinely good character working within the bounds of the legal system.
As far as slavery, a lawful good character would never think slavery in its traditional form (captured through war, sold into it, pressganged etc) was acceptible. Let's not get into the silly semantics of what is and isn't slavery also. A convict who was sentenced to indentured servitude is not a slave. He's a convict serving out a sentence.
I agree with you whole-heartedly, but I'd like to add that I think the treatment of the slave would also come into account on how the Paladin reacts. Even someone sentenced to servitude shouldn't, say... be tortured for every slight grievance.
To the OP - Your character is a good person who upholds and works with the framework of the tennants of his church (and not just that, but his own interpretation of them).
He's not Robocop before the chip glitched... and definitely not ED-209. (ooo! Look at me date myself!)
|
|
lol, i was just saying that the idea of lawful good is actually subjective.
The Lawful good Tyrant is and old idea, that if a lawful good ruler is not kept in check that they risk becoming what the general populas (nuetral good with evil tendancies) beleave to be bad.
But the choices they make seem well and good to them.
"Burn the evil witches they bring death upon use and curse our soil."
So a law is made that witchcraft... later magic is unlawful.
Poor naturally born sorceress, she has magic she's bears the seed of evil she must die.
The law "made with the best of intentions" now becomes against the well being of the general populace. The laws not evil the intent is not evil.
Your ethics define what you beleave to be good and evil. THERE exists several different ethical codes.. whos right? whos wrong? They both are right and they both are wrong. It's subjective.
"so, What you say is True... From a certain point of view."
Go go ethics.
So if a palidin choses to evict the old lady he need only convince the gm he was preforming within his ethical view of right and wrong. Same if he choses to ignore the land lords request, or even defend the womens right to live there.
Thats also why alignment is a "guidline" not a rule.
Except that, if you treat alignment in D&D as entirely subjective-- if you go with the School of Ethics that every person's alignment is based on what that person believes about good and evil, then just throw out the D&D alignment system, because it does not work as a purely subjective morality system. It's been repeated a lot of places, in a lot of different threads-- hardly anyone actually sees themselves as "Evil". Most people want to think of themselves as "Good". Many of the cruelest and harshest tyrants, brutal overlords, and vicious oppressors still think of themselves as good and also think of their actions as doing what's best for everyone. Yet, in D&D, there is still clearly good and evil in the game world-- and it is not determined by what the individual thinks of himself as, and/or what the individual thinks his actions were... his alignment (including the good/evil axis) is determined by how his attitude/understanding/outlook on things like right and wrong, and order vs anarchy, individual vs collective, etc.-- and his actions in light of all that, relate to the nature of good and evil (and the other issues) in much more absolute/non-relative terms (in the game universe). And his alignment, when people use 'detect' spells and such, isn't going to be determined by what he thinks he is (see above-- if it worked that way, no one is going to be "evil" in your game-- he's going to show up as evil if he's been doing evil and his intentions have been evil (in a more absolute/non-relative sense) regardless of what he thinks the morality of his actions have been.
While alignment in D&D is to a large extent guidelines rather than absolute rules for the player and GM, and I do tend to agree that intent is a little more important than results-- nonetheless, D&D's alignments are not part of a 'relative' morality system. A Paladin who does evil, even if he is thoroughly convinced that he was acting within his ethical view of right and wrong, even if he is totally convinced he was doing the right thing, is still going to wind up a fallen Paladin very quickly (it's not up to the Paladin to determine the ultimate nature of good and evil for himself-- it's up to his God and the nature of Good and Evil in the game universe). Your tyrant may have genuinely started as "Lawful Good", and I'm sure (in character) the tyrant still thinks of himself as doing what's right (I sincerely doubt characters actually apply the nine artificial alignment labels that D&D uses to themselves, but he probably does still think of himself as a good man), but he has clearly (in D&D terms) fallen away from the Lawful Good alignment to Lawful Evil (or maybe, if he's doing enough other things all across the map) only fallen to Lawful Neutral. There is an exception: if there's clear evidence in your game world that witches are evil and always bring death and curses on the land, and that magic is truly bad and corrupts everyone to demonic service (or clear reasons and evidence, not just fanaticism and prejudice, to believe that even if it's not entirely true), then maybe his laws and actions would fall within good actions in the game-- your example pretty clearly states that that isn't the case.
The point in D&D is that if a Lawful Good ruler is not kept in check, he may be tempted and/or misguided, and fall away from Lawful Good in both actions and intentions, without ever realizing it himself (unless some heroes come along to rub his nose in it). In the real world, rulers must be kept in check lest they be led into harmful actions with good intent, or get away with self-aggrandizement at the expense of others-- but the real world does not work in accordance with D&D alignments. You do have to separate the two-- the D&D alignment system is an artificial structure imposed on the game to allow for such niceties as holy and unholy weapons, smite spells, detect spells, etc., that work because your target IS evil or good, not because he thinks he's good (because hardly anyone actually believes that he is evil).
The old cliche, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions", is another example for this-- it doesn't mean that people are actually doing good all the way down to a very bad result, it means that people usually still think they're doing good while doing wrong the whole time and winding up at a bad end (and probably dragging the people around them down with them).
Your statements about ethics are true, according to quite a few philosophers, but are not true in the game (except maybe under your table rules)(I don't agree with the schools which think that all ethics-- and therefore morality-- are subjective, outside the game-- and I have studied ethics, among other parts of philosophy). However, the subjective schools of ethics were not what the D&D alignment system is based on. There are areas in game where there are grey areas-- where there can be disagreements about right and wrong between characters in the game (both PCs and NPCs)-- many situations are possible where people can come into conflict over these issues without relying on subjective ethics.
I would emphasize that Lawful does not necessarily equate with legal. It could, but it doesn't have to do so.
To me, Lawful could just as easily mean he has a particular specified code of behavior he has to live by. Even if that disagrees with what is legal in this particular town.
A Paladin is a good guy first and foremost.
"Lawful" just means he does things honorably and honestly. This may mean following local laws/customs/traditions... so long as those laws/customs/traditions allow one to act for the sake of Good. If they prevent acting for the sake of Good, then those laws are an abomination.
Devils are Lawful evil. Paladins sure as heck don't respect the laws of Hell, do they? Of course not.
How would a Paladin behave if the lords and law were wrong? The only way an honest and honorable holy warrior would: Try to change things or, if unable to by peaceful means, use force: lead the oppressed people in a revolution, overthrow the government, and put good people in charge.
Don't let "law" deceive you. Law only counts when it works within the framework of goodness. Those that don't... let them be stricken from the record, even if by blotting them out using the blood of evildoers and monsters.
=======
So for your particular scenario, you should try to find a way to make sure the family is allright.
The right of property ownership is just. The landlord has a right to kick out tenants; he is not obligated to be a Paladin like you, and need not be generous and selfless.
What would I do if I were Paladin (despite my name)? Ask the landlord for an extension, and I'll get him the rent owed, plus some extra. Then go do adventure stuff, and come back and pay off the family's rent plus extra (as promised). If I could afford it, I'd go one further and get the family the means to take care of themselves - buy them tools to do work around the town (a broom, mop & bucket, whatever) and even some camping gear in case they're really screwed down the road.
In the case of a slave... well what does your code, or faith, or god, or even conscience, tell you about slavery? If it's bad, the writ of ownership is akin to a devil's contract - an abomination of law. Especially if that slave is being abused. Abuse of the law, causing the suffering of others, is Lawful Evil activity, and should be stopped. Peaceably if convenient, forcibly if peaceful means are unrealistic.
As for killing criminals, trials are meh. When you're in a patrolled region of a society governed by a respectful and just government, yes trials are applicable. If you catch them red-handed and they're too dangerous, and you're not stepping on the toes of a just and righteous authority, deal them a quick death. Even if in lawless lands, and there's a chance they can be spared and redeemed (without significantly threatening the safety of comrades or innocents), grant them conditional mercy, such as making them promise to do good deed X, before letting them go (turn the other cheek, as it were). But if they take advantage of your mercy, let their corpses feed your sword.
I am not trying to start a is killing baby goblins wrong thread i am trying to get practical advice and honest feedback to what I understand Lawful good to be. let me start with an example that some one used
I am a paladin and the land lord is just about to evict a old women and her children because they can't pay the rent. Her husband died in the last war as a paladin I have a few options
1. sell my gear to pay for her rent
2. ask my church to help her
3. ask the landlord to have a heart.
4. help the land lord evict them ....READ FURTHER BEFORE REPLYING
4.“...and let her move in with you and/or find her another home with a landlord who is less of a jerk”
Dont forget Good.
If i am the only legitimate law in some po-dunk town isn't it my sworn duty to uphold the law?
That would depend if it is a Lawful Good law.
and if all other options fail and the land lord asks me to execute a lawful legal request don't i have to comply? I may hate it but it s my duty so it wouldn't be lawful evil because I take no pleasure in it. right?
Nope. If your Chaotic Evil lord starts telling you to go out and do Chaotic Evil things, then the proper response is to not do them.
what if i catch a run away slave and his master catches up with me and him and he provide she a legal Writ of ownership I am then bound to return the slave Correct? this situation to me is much more frustrating to a paladin then the goblin baby scenario
I would say no in most cases. Unless the slave is a convict serving off a sentence there could be some merit to this argument, but if it was your stereotypical chattel slavery, not a chance.