Hi there,
Im currently playing two campaigns simultaneously. In one i play a neutral good Reach cleric in the other a Lawful good Paladin. Both campaigns are good vs. evil.
My issue is that the two characters feel too much alike in terms of handling evil and suffering of the commoners.
I therefore seek your advice as to how i can differentiate between the two characters. Any advice will be taken thankfully.
The key difference between LG and NG is that LG has more and firmer answers. LG wants the same as NG, a good life for all, but they see chaotic concepts such as freedom, conflict and disagreement as more universally a disruption of society. NG see these things as necessary FOR society, and are more willing to consider differing viewpoints, see conflict and disagreement as ways to improve society. LG can often be pegged as crusaders, builders and champions, while NG tends to work as healers, diplomats and redeemers. Granted, the differences can be subtle and difficult to apply, but try to put these things in action within the party. When differences of opinion arise, the LG will aim to convince of their view while the NG will make it a priority to let everyone voice their opinion and will weigh various options, leading more often to a situation where she may have to settle for the least bad option, perhaps because it is what people can agree to work toward. There will also be a difference in willingness to work with untrustworthy people, how you handle prisoners, and so on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure which thread is going to get nuked, so I'll post this twice.
Lawful is very much about the how. They will do Good in a certain way, because that is what's right to them. For a Lawful Good character you're not just trying to do good things, you're trying to do good things the Most Right and Proper way. Think the prettied up version of chivalric codes or other codes of honor.
Neutral Good is more about the what. They want to do Good, and by any means necessary. They'll certainly avoid any civilian casualties, being about the greatest good for the greatest number, but they'll play dirty when fighting evil.
A Lawful Good character might be honest to a fault, and very straightforward, fighting evil head on, mano e mano (though not necessarily).
A Neutral Good character says "Screw that noise", and punches evil right in the dick while it's not paying attention, then kicks it while it's down.
Both then go feed the orphans or whatever it is good guys do.
Alignment is perspective of the world. A LG character can do the exact same action as a CE character - it is all about logic and justification for that action.
That's CG Rynjin.
I think the point of Neutral is "not picking" a side. A NG person doesn't really care how you help people just as long as you do. The difficulty here is that neutral doesn't stand out as much as the more extreme alignments. So in play the neutral characters tend to appear much the same as those they adventure with. If your NG character travels with LG types he isn't going to look any different than they are. And this isn't really bad. It kind of IS the point of neutral that your character is all about other stuff than Lawful vs Chaotic.
Alignment is perspective of the world. A LG character can do the exact same action as a CE character - it is all about logic and justification for that action.
No.
Take this scenario:
A poor dockworker is sitting down to enjoy a sandwich in the shadow of the ship he just unloaded. Your character is walking by and is hungry. The two of you are alone. A lawful person has a code; if he wants the sandwich that code will dictate how he tries to get it. The LE character may offer the man an offer "he can't refuse" in exchange for the sandwich. The LG man may offer to help the man generously in exchange for the sandwich. CE may try to drown the man slowly so he can enjoy it while he eats the man's sandwich. They all act differently. Can the LG character try to drown the man slowly so he can enjoy it while eating the man's sandwich? NO absolutely not. Can the CE character offer to help the man generously in exchange for the sandwich? Yep (he IS chaotic) but why would he? There is no one around to catch him, he is far more likely to just take what he wants and cover up the crime... easier and funner in his eyes. Will the CE behave himself in the company of others? absolutely but these guys are all about the quick and dirty; give them a chance at an easy score? Many will grab at it. No LG would behave so dishonorably or with such evil intent.
In a city where it is disallowed to give food or money to beggars the LG guy will not feed the starving child because he isn't allowed to. The NG guy will tend to ignore non-good laws if it keeps him from saving someone. And because of that he will feed the starving child.
A CG might try to make other people break the law as well.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In a city where it is disallowed to give food or money to beggars the LG guy will not feed the starving child because he isn't allowed to.
I also disagree with this. Lawful is about following a code not about following laws. A paladin will NOT obey an evil law; he will oppose such a law and certainly never follow it. And a code against giving food or money to others certainly isn't a 'good' code. Doesn't sound at all like the sort of code a LG person would follow.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All good alignments have similarities. When confronted with evil all of them will fight against it. All of them will also try to help others. Even a lawful good, and a chaotic good character will agree that the evil outsider needs to be taken down, or that stopping the undead horde from destroying the village is a good thing. Often where they disagree is when it is a not a matter of good vs. evil.
The lawful good character will try to get people to act the way he thinks they should act. They have no qualms about imposing his will on others as long as it is for the greater good. Requiring everyone in the village to pay a tithe to support the church, so it can provide help to the poor is perfectly acceptable. Many of their plans and efforts are long term. They are willing to sacrifice for other and think that everyone should be required to do the same.
The chaotic good character does not believe in forcing other people to be good. To them freedom is equally important and no one should be required to do anything that do not want. They have no problems giving money to help the poor, but believe this is up to the individual and instead of requiring it they will try and convince people. They deal with situations as they come up and try and tailor each solution to the problem. They believe that a good deed comes from the heart and forcing someone to do it cheapens it.
The neutral good character is the middle ground between them. They look at what is most likely to work and solve the problem. If the people in the area are generous and there is enough money to help the poor they are good with leaving things as they are. If on the other hand the poor are not getting the aid they need they will not have a problem setting up a tithe to fund the church. They will have some plans for the future but not to the extent a lawful good will. To them what matters is what does it take to get the job done.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In a city where it is disallowed to give food or money to beggars the LG guy will not feed the starving child because he isn't allowed to.I also disagree with this. Lawful is about following a code not about following laws. A paladin will NOT obey an evil law; he will oppose such a law and certainly never follow it. And a code against giving food or money to others certainly isn't a 'good' code. Doesn't sound at all like the sort of code a LG person would follow.
In such a city a lawful good type may hire the beggar to do something for him. The easiest way would be to have the starving child get him something to eat, and to get one for child. He could even take a bite of the food and decide he is not hungry anymore and give the rest to the child to take home to his family.
Lawful types know how to work the system better than anyone else. Lawful good is no exception to this.
Let's go further and look at the city that disallowed giving food or money to beggars. There is a system to help those people. People would be better helped in a structured way rather then based upon luck.
The Paladin's LG code might agree with that and by his code he will not oppose this law. He might even chastice the beggar for undermining this system.
The NG character will might also agree with that law. However he listens to the beggar's story and might help him anyway because the need is high enough.
No?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In a city where it is disallowed to give food or money to beggars the LG guy will not feed the starving child because he isn't allowed to.I also disagree with this. Lawful is about following a code not about following laws. A paladin will NOT obey an evil law; he will oppose such a law and certainly never follow it. And a code against giving food or money to others certainly isn't a 'good' code. Doesn't sound at all like the sort of code a LG person would follow.
I disagree, the paladin code states that you must "respect legitimate authority" which would include following the laws of most cities. That's not to say that they cannot strive for the changing of those laws within the bounds of the law.
|
As a good example of LG vs NG - I'd go to the recent Batman movies. Especially The Dark Knight. (yes - Batman's alignment changes from incarnation to incarnation - in these he's LG)
He's all about fighting evil and saving innocents. But even when stopping The Joker will save hundreds or even thousands of lives, he doesn't break his own rules. He does everything he can to stop The Joker within his rules, and eventually he succeeds, but he would have had an easier time if he'd been willing to break his rules.
LG isn't always about following the law of the land, though it can be. It's about having rules that you live by.
If Batman were NG, he would have killed The Joker when on his bike if not earlier, and the movie would have been a heck of a lot shorter.
(Of note - I DO NOT think a paladin's code should include not killing anyone. If anything - he may be all about summary executions of those he knows to be murderers etc.)
|
|
I disagree, the paladin code states that you must "respect legitimate authority" which would include following the laws of most cities. That's not to say that they cannot strive for the changing of those laws within the bounds of the law.In a city where it is disallowed to give food or money to beggars the LG guy will not feed the starving child because he isn't allowed to.I also disagree with this. Lawful is about following a code not about following laws. A paladin will NOT obey an evil law; he will oppose such a law and certainly never follow it. And a code against giving food or money to others certainly isn't a 'good' code. Doesn't sound at all like the sort of code a LG person would follow.
I don't think a paladin would consider any authority which promotes the starving of her citizens to be 'legitimate'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A law against giving to others is a law that actively prevents someone from doing good, regardless of whether an alternative system exists. While it isn't directly evil in Fjuri's case is certainly isn't good either. I certainly wouldn't punish a LG person for ignoring it.
But keep in mind Cardz5000 that evil authority is NOT seen as "legitimate" by any paladins I have seen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ha! Beggars aren't citizens.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bluh... This again. EVERYONE has rules they live by. Everyone. The difference is where people find these rules. A lawful person gets these rules from an external, strictly codified source like a religious text, while a chaotic person thinks more in terms of traditions and an internal list of principles to juggle. These two do not match. A lawful person will consider a chaotic person dangerous specifically because they do not have a codified set of rules and are therefore unpredictable, something very problematic to a lawful person. A chaotic person sees the lawful person as dangerous to the freedom of action of the chaotic person, something the chaotic person isn't going to just accept. There is no common ground here, but these characters can work together on a case by case basis, because they share a more important goal, or because they respect one another.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i think the thing to realize is a lawful good character would potentially team up with a lawful evil character, while a neutral good character would not. mindful that paladins have their own system and rules they have to follow on top of being lawful good.
I don't think a paladin would consider any authority which promotes the starving of her citizens to be 'legitimate'.I disagree, the paladin code states that you must "respect legitimate authority" which would include following the laws of most cities. That's not to say that they cannot strive for the changing of those laws within the bounds of the law.In a city where it is disallowed to give food or money to beggars the LG guy will not feed the starving child because he isn't allowed to.I also disagree with this. Lawful is about following a code not about following laws. A paladin will NOT obey an evil law; he will oppose such a law and certainly never follow it. And a code against giving food or money to others certainly isn't a 'good' code. Doesn't sound at all like the sort of code a LG person would follow.
it would if the ruler was in fact supposed to be the ruler, and there are no claims that can be said he is a fraud or weaseled his way into the throne. he respects the lawful option of his alignment, which makes him not clash against authority that is lawfully in power.
Any alignments might team up in the right circumstances... But if you want a solid team then all disputes must default to the group's dominant alignment for resolution. And the player's of divergent alignments should understand this. And yes this may mean no paladins or other very strict codes in your group.
Any alignments might team up in the right circumstances... But if you want a solid team then all disputes must default to the group's dominant alignment for resolution. And the player's of divergent alignments should understand this. And yes this may mean no paladins or other very strict codes in your group.
not likely if you know each other's alignment. also, only lawful alignments would arguably stand by such conclusions.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
it would if the ruler was in fact supposed to be the ruler, and there are no claims that can be said he is a fraud or weaseled his way into the throne. he respects the lawful option of his alignment, which makes him not clash against authority that is lawfully in power.I don't think a paladin would consider any authority which promotes the starving of her citizens to be 'legitimate'.I disagree, the paladin code states that you must "respect legitimate authority" which would include following the laws of most cities. That's not to say that they cannot strive for the changing of those laws within the bounds of the law.In a city where it is disallowed to give food or money to beggars the LG guy will not feed the starving child because he isn't allowed to.I also disagree with this. Lawful is about following a code not about following laws. A paladin will NOT obey an evil law; he will oppose such a law and certainly never follow it. And a code against giving food or money to others certainly isn't a 'good' code. Doesn't sound at all like the sort of code a LG person would follow.
By that logic he'd have to obey the laws in a city of devils. Or a law which allowed for nobility to kill peasants at random if it were funny enough.
For a paladin - if a law hurts people, it's inherently not 'legitimate'.
not likely if you know each other's alignment. also, only lawful alignments would arguably stand by such conclusions.Any alignments might team up in the right circumstances... But if you want a solid team then all disputes must default to the group's dominant alignment for resolution. And the player's of divergent alignments should understand this. And yes this may mean no paladins or other very strict codes in your group.
I mean this in a metagame sense. If you don't want party in fighting at some level then the group needs a default side that wins the argument before the argument even happens. IC yes many alignments wouldn't get along together, but you can always find an excuse to back down if you already agreed your PC is suppose to lose the argument.
it would if the ruler was in fact supposed to be the ruler, and there are no claims that can be said he is a fraud or weaseled his way into the throne. he respects the lawful option of his alignment, which makes him not clash against authority that is lawfully in power.I don't think a paladin would consider any authority which promotes the starving of her citizens to be 'legitimate'.I disagree, the paladin code states that you must "respect legitimate authority" which would include following the laws of most cities. That's not to say that they cannot strive for the changing of those laws within the bounds of the law.In a city where it is disallowed to give food or money to beggars the LG guy will not feed the starving child because he isn't allowed to.I also disagree with this. Lawful is about following a code not about following laws. A paladin will NOT obey an evil law; he will oppose such a law and certainly never follow it. And a code against giving food or money to others certainly isn't a 'good' code. Doesn't sound at all like the sort of code a LG person would follow.
By that logic he'd have to obey the laws in a city of devils. Or a law which allowed for nobility to kill peasants at random if it were funny enough.
For a paladin - if a law hurts people, it's inherently not 'legitimate'.
that's not how the lawful alignment works, the paladin doesn't ignore it. saying someone is illegitimate because of them being evil, is a chaotic good action.
in fact he'd probably search for proof that any devil's town had it's previous ruler's ousted. but if he finds that the land was unoccupied previously and the town was created by the Devil's then they're entirely legitimate.
mindful that war/forceful takeover in Lawful good perspective is not legitimate, while it is for a lawful evil person.
not likely if you know each other's alignment. also, only lawful alignments would arguably stand by such conclusions.Any alignments might team up in the right circumstances... But if you want a solid team then all disputes must default to the group's dominant alignment for resolution. And the player's of divergent alignments should understand this. And yes this may mean no paladins or other very strict codes in your group.
I mean this in a metagame sense. If you don't want party in fighting at some level then the group needs a default side that wins the argument before the argument even happens. IC yes many alignments wouldn't get along together, but you can always find an excuse to back down if you already agreed your PC is suppose to lose the argument.
I mostly handle this with some kind of adventurer contract, with a predetermined leader. the contract is edited until all character's are happy with it, and lists what happens to someone if they break the contract.
things like how loot are handled, how decisions are handled, how enemies are handled, etc.
penalties might be as low as a few gold pieces in a heavy chaotic group, or as strict as abandonment in a heavy lawful group. (by heavy I mean extreme forms of those alignments) most of the time everything is just fairly balanced, with changes on how loot is divided, such as it being put into a community pot, or split to people, do people roll for loot two people want, or do they perform some other game or challenge for the loot.
|
|
that's not how the lawful alignment works, the paladin doesn't ignore it. saying someone is illegitimate because of them being evil, is a chaotic good action.in fact he'd probably search for proof that any devil's town had it's previous ruler's ousted. but if he finds that the land was unoccupied previously and the town was created by the Devil's then they're entirely legitimate.
mindful that war/forceful takeover in Lawful good perspective is not legitimate, while it is for a lawful evil person.
Really?
You're actually going to argue that a paladin would have to respect the authority of devils, and that it would be evil and/or chaotic for him to lead a crusade/revolution to overthrow them?
that's not how the lawful alignment works, the paladin doesn't ignore it. saying someone is illegitimate because of them being evil, is a chaotic good action.in fact he'd probably search for proof that any devil's town had it's previous ruler's ousted. but if he finds that the land was unoccupied previously and the town was created by the Devil's then they're entirely legitimate.
mindful that war/forceful takeover in Lawful good perspective is not legitimate, while it is for a lawful evil person.
Really?
You're actually going to argue that a paladin would have to respect the authority of devils, and that it would be evil and/or chaotic for him to lead a crusade/revolution to overthrow them?
A crusade perhaps not. A revolt clearly too chaotic for a paladin.
|
|
A crusade perhaps not. A revolt clearly too chaotic for a paladin.
that's not how the lawful alignment works, the paladin doesn't ignore it. saying someone is illegitimate because of them being evil, is a chaotic good action.in fact he'd probably search for proof that any devil's town had it's previous ruler's ousted. but if he finds that the land was unoccupied previously and the town was created by the Devil's then they're entirely legitimate.
mindful that war/forceful takeover in Lawful good perspective is not legitimate, while it is for a lawful evil person.
Really?
You're actually going to argue that a paladin would have to respect the authority of devils, and that it would be evil and/or chaotic for him to lead a crusade/revolution to overthrow them?
*shrug* Arguably. But at a certain point it's just semantics and perspective. I'm sure that the devils would call them invaders as opposed to crusaders anyway.
that's not how the lawful alignment works, the paladin doesn't ignore it. saying someone is illegitimate because of them being evil, is a chaotic good action.in fact he'd probably search for proof that any devil's town had it's previous ruler's ousted. but if he finds that the land was unoccupied previously and the town was created by the Devil's then they're entirely legitimate.
mindful that war/forceful takeover in Lawful good perspective is not legitimate, while it is for a lawful evil person.
Really?
You're actually going to argue that a paladin would have to respect the authority of devils, and that it would be evil and/or chaotic for him to lead a crusade/revolution to overthrow them?
yeah, so forceably dismantling a lawful and legitimate regime would be chaotic. my point with the lawful good considering war illegitimate, is likely the devils took the town by force/backstabbery and thus the paladin could crusade against them all he wanted, but if the devils we're really playing up their lawfulness and stabilizing the region and didn't take over someone elses town, then no he would be forced to think of them as legitimate rulers if he wanted to retain paladin-hood.
but we know devils, this is highly unlikely.
First, "respecting legitimate authority" does not necessarily mean obeying all laws. You cannot ignore the rest of the code: "act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents". All of these must be held in balance. You can respect the authority of a ruler, but politely refuse to obey laws that are contrary to the code.
Second, as for what is specifically expected from the Paladin, this debate is also deity specific.
Having a current Paladin character of Sarenrae, I would not obey a law that actively promoted suffering and evil. Lawful and good cannot be held in opposition with each other, and the deities of good that grant Paladin powers would almost certainly see it that way, imo.
Now, if you were a Paladin of a Lawful Neutral deity, one that specifically valued law over morality, you may be expected to obey the law over good, depending on what the law in question. So, in this case you may be expected to not assist widows and beggars, at least not within the letter of the law, or in the borders of where the law reaches (so I can set up a trust in another city maybe). However, even then, that deity knowing grants power to a lawful good Paladin knows that goodness is still a big part of that character's being. So that character should still not obey any law contrary to their code / oath / etc.
In a city where it is disallowed to give food or money to beggars the LG guy will not feed the starving child because he isn't allowed to.I also disagree with this. Lawful is about following a code not about following laws. A paladin will NOT obey an evil law; he will oppose such a law and certainly never follow it. And a code against giving food or money to others certainly isn't a 'good' code. Doesn't sound at all like the sort of code a LG person would follow.
The Paladin will follow the law in this case will not give the starving child money or food. What the Paladin could do is hire the child to do a job. The child now is no longer a beggar but a hireling. Feeding, clothing, and paying your hirelings is completely legal. This way the Paladin did the good thing and remained lawful to the laws. The Paladin can still oppose the law and would fight that law using legal channels. A law like this may not be evil but an attempt to get rid of beggars who aren't actually in need but instead work the streets for the local thieves guild. By violating this law the Paladin would be at risk of falling for supporting a evil organization.
yes lawful people don't necessarily follow every law, that doesn't mean they support the overthrowing of kingdoms. a lawful character will try to support stability and entrenchment.
also
"respecting legitimate authority" does not necessarily mean obeying all laws. You cannot ignore the rest of the code: "act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents".
the lines you listed don't allow you to ignore the respecting legitimate authority just as much. overthrowing legitimate authority is not very respectful.
also, paladin's don't need gods and do not gain their powers from gods.
The Paladin will follow the law in this case will not give the starving child money or food. What the Paladin could do is hire the child to do a job. The child now is no longer a beggar but a hireling. Feeding, clothing, and paying your hirelings is completely legal. This way the Paladin did the good thing and remained lawful to the laws. The Paladin can still oppose the law and would fight that law using legal channels. A law like this may not be evil but an attempt to get rid of beggars who aren't actually in need but instead work the streets for the local thieves guild. By violating this law the Paladin would be at risk of falling for supporting a evil organization.
This is actually a very important point. Don't assume that a law is EEEEEVIL and can be disregarded merely because you don't like some of the consequences of that law. That's actually the antithesis of a lawful viewpoint. Yes, every law will have unintended consequences, and not all laws are perfectly thought out, but there's generally a sensible reason behind every law, which is why they should be obeyed in the first place. Or, at least, that's a lawful good person's general take on it. That you don't know what the sensible reason is doesn't excuse you from the duty of following the law, or as the cliche has it, "ignorance is no defense."
There are several reasons for this. First, as a new visitor to Tralfamadore, you probably don't know what the actual reasoning of the Council of Burghers was when they passed this law. Second, abiding by the law is good per se, as it enhances social stability and well-being. As a paladin, part of your duty is to provide a good example by upholding the law even when you don't fully agree or understand it, because you don't want other people putting their own judgment ahead of the law. ("Hey, if Sir Loin of Beef can support the Beggars' Guild, why can't I support the Whoremasters' Guild and enslave women?")
There was a statement made above, something like "a paladin would not consider an evil ruler to be `legitimate.'" This statement totally misunderstands legitimacy. In a hereditary monarchy, for example, the legitimate ruler is the eldest son (or otherwise heir) of the previous ruler. In a democracy, the legitimate ruler is the person who was elected via normal processes. If the ruler is a devil-worshiping psychopath, the 'lawful' response is to to work within the system to elect someone else. The idea that, because I disagree with the person chosen by legitimate means, I have carte blanche to disregard his edits or actively overthrow the government means that there will never be a stable government, because there will always be someone in disagreement.
In a city where it is disallowed to give food or money to beggars the LG guy will not feed the starving child because he isn't allowed to. The NG guy will tend to ignore non-good laws if it keeps him from saving someone. And because of that he will feed the starving child.
A CG might try to make other people break the law as well.
The LG guy will hire the beggar to perform some trivial task, giving food as payment. The NG guy will just give the beggar some food.
There was a statement made above, something like "a paladin would not consider an evil ruler to be `legitimate.'" This statement totally misunderstands legitimacy. In a hereditary monarchy, for example, the legitimate ruler is the eldest son (or otherwise heir) of the previous ruler. In a democracy, the legitimate ruler is the person who was elected via normal processes. If the ruler is a devil-worshiping psychopath, the 'lawful' response is to to work within the system to elect someone else. The idea that, because I disagree with the person chosen by legitimate means, I have carte blanche to disregard his edits or actively overthrow the government means that there will never be a stable government, because there will always be someone in disagreement.
thank you, i was about to start going into what the term legitimacy means with regard to governments since people seem to think it meant nothing.
First a note on "legitimacy" - in political science, "legitimacy" refers to having consent of the governed.
A regime is legitimate if the ruler is widely recognized as being the rightful ruler. If most of the people of that land reject being ruled by an authority, that authority is illegitimate. So, a paladin must respect authority when the people respect it, but can fight against it if the people do as well. If they know a ruler is evil but the people still love that ruler, the paladin can't start a revolution even against the evil ruler because the ruler is legitimate. However, they would be able to join a revolution already in progress, because the ruler has lost their legitimacy.
As an example, if a paladin went to North Korea and tried to start a revolution, that would be non-lawful because Kim Jung-Un, however cruel and insane, is loved and worshiped by his people and therefore is a legitimate ruler.
My take on lawful/neutral/chaotic: Lawful characters want to establish order, chaotic characters fight for freedom, and neutral characters could go either way as long as they think it's for the greater good.
For example, say an evil person surrenders. A lawful character should balk at executing a prisoner, and typically would want to turn the evildoer into the authorities for trial. A chaotic character may have so little respect for the courts they would rather mete out justice themselves. A neutral character may want to do either, turn him in or play judge jury and executioner, depending on his analysis of what would be the best for the world.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
yes lawful people don't necessarily follow every law, that doesn't mean they support the overthrowing of kingdoms. a lawful character will try to support stability and entrenchment.
also
"respecting legitimate authority" does not necessarily mean obeying all laws. You cannot ignore the rest of the code: "act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents".the lines you listed don't allow you to ignore the respecting legitimate authority just as much. overthrowing legitimate authority is not very respectful.
also, paladin's don't need gods and do not gain their powers from gods.
That is certainly true, but you are making an unnecessary leap from "respecting legitimate authority" to "obeying all rules from legitimate authority". There are two terms here that are subjective: "respect" and "legitimate".
That is certainly true, but you are making an unnecessary leap from "respecting legitimate authority" to "obeying all rules from legitimate authority". There are two terms here that are subjective: "respect" and "legitimate".yes lawful people don't necessarily follow every law, that doesn't mean they support the overthrowing of kingdoms. a lawful character will try to support stability and entrenchment.
also
"respecting legitimate authority" does not necessarily mean obeying all laws. You cannot ignore the rest of the code: "act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents".the lines you listed don't allow you to ignore the respecting legitimate authority just as much. overthrowing legitimate authority is not very respectful.
also, paladin's don't need gods and do not gain their powers from gods.
yes but saying someone isn't legitimate because he is evil, is a chaotic good reason.
First a note on "legitimacy" - in political science, "legitimacy" refers to having consent of the governed.
A regime is legitimate if the ruler is widely recognized as being the rightful ruler. If most of the people of that land reject being ruled by an authority, that authority is illegitimate. So, a paladin must respect authority when the people respect it, but can fight against it if the people do as well. If they know a ruler is evil but the people still love that ruler, the paladin can't start a revolution even against the evil ruler because the ruler is legitimate. However, they would be able to join a revolution already in progress, because the ruler has lost their legitimacy.
As an example, if a paladin went to North Korea and tried to start a revolution, that would be non-lawful because Kim Jung-Un, however cruel and insane, is loved and worshiped by his people and therefore is a legitimate ruler.
this is from a modern political science perspective, during the 19th century, social darwinism was big, you know which meant, anyone who could maintain power, was the legitimate ruler.
First a note on "legitimacy" - in political science, "legitimacy" refers to having consent of the governed.
Of course, this is a modern interpretation. In the feudal period, legitimacy was somewhat more complex in that it meant largely that you had the consent of the rest of the feudal network.
For example, James the Narcoleptic, son of Charles the Incompetent, is still the legitimate ruler even if there's a peasant revolt in all of Loamshire. And Louis the Vain may send some troops to help preserve the legitimate rule.
In this case, Louis' paladins would be expected to participate, although (since they're good) they'd also do their best to make sure that the needs of the Loamshire peasants were addressed. (The system must be preserved, but it can also be changed.) As a less frivolous example, look at how the continental nobility preserved and supported the Stuart dynasty during the English Civil War, and how the British nobility returned the favor during the French Revolution.
In Pathfinder, this means that Her Infernal Majestrix, Abrogail II of the Thrice-Damned House of Thrune is, in fact, the legitimate ruler of Cheliax. While paladins might regret that there is an actively evil diabolist on the throne of Cheliax, the appropriate response is not to overthrow the structure of the Cheliax government, but to work within the system to ameliorate the evil, and to attempt to make sure that Abrogail III sees her way clear to abandoning Asmodeus.
this is from a modern political science perspective, during the 19th century, social darwinism was big, you know which meant, anyone who could maintain power, was the legitimate ruler.
In some cultures (such as China,) whoever was in power was considered to have the "Mandate of Heaven". If the people believe in this concept, then the current ruler is legitimate, no matter how evil he may be.
If the people do not consent to the ruler's authority, however, he is an illegitimate ruler (and in that case the paladin would be authorized to fight against him.)
I think the whole legitimate authority is actually referring to those who have authority over the paladin. Paladins are lawful good and that usually means they are part of an organization. While not all paladins serve a deity they can. If a paladin is a member of a religious order than the command of the order is what he considers legitimate. If he servers a secular lord than legitimate authority are those of higher rank than he is. If the organization he servers has alliances with other organizations he may respect them as legitimate authorities as long as they are not in conflict with his own organization.
Some organizations may be seen as neutral and would generally be respected if their orders do not conflict with the goals and orders of his own organization. Under no circumstance will the paladin consider enemies of his organization as legitimate authority.