"People are subject to the laws of their surroundings" has literally nothing to do with class or alignment. What it means is that if there is a law of the land, and you are in that land, the normal expectation is for you to follow those laws. Characters of differing alignments may have differing feelings regarding adhering to that norm, but their alignment doesn't exempt them from the expectation.
If you're just saying that the people who enforce the law expect them to follow it and might arrest them if they don't, then sure, that's true of every character. But I'm not sure how that proves anything. As you say, characters of differing alignments can feel differently about following the law, and there's nothing to indicate that a lawful good character should feel obliged to follow a law that is not good. Not to keep beating a dead horse, but their convictions are
not neutral on the whole "is it good?" question.
It is interesting, though your choice of the phrasing in "alignment selection." It's been my interpretation, thus far, that alignment is intended to describe how others view the actions of the character; these "others" may be characters in game, or the players and DM at the table. If the assumption here is that it's really how the character sees themselves, I see better where you are coming from. There would still be problems (I suspect most people and D&D creatures would see themselves as basically lawful and basically good, at least within whatever context matters to them), but I'd understand better the basis.
It's a bit of both, really. A character decides what ideals to espouse and what actions to perform. A paladin, in particular, chooses to swear an oath to behave in a specific way. That's what I mean by alignment selection. But the label we give the character's ideals and actions is from us, the players. A character who works as a professional assassin for a criminal cartel but sees themselves as "basically good"... isn't.
That said, if there is this "transcendant law" that paladins are required to follow, it's pretty important to specify what/where it comes from (as the presence of this transcendant lawful force..or whatever.. should have some kind of cosmological implication on the world) and whether it is written down (as following an unrecorded "transcendant law" just means you're lawful because you say you are lawful).
Again, paladins swear an explicit oath. Other characters who follow a higher law rather than the laws of society, like archetypical monks for instance, might evince their lawfulness implicitly by acting in a rigorous and consistent manner.
Are you meaning to say that a character is a paladin because they are lawful and good, or that a character is lawful and good because they are a paladin. Or are you saying some other, third thing (For example, if you contend that a chaotic or neutral good paladin are possible, then we're probably just talking past each other).
I don't even understand the question. Not all lawful good characters are paladins. Perhaps not all paladins are lawful good, but it's the lawful good ones who are relevant to this discussion. And certainly not all lawful good paladins behave the same way. Depending on the campaign setting, they may or may not all swear the same oath, but even those who do swear the same oath are different characters with different backgrounds, personalities, and outlooks.
By virtue of all being lawful good paladins, however, they do share
some common traits. They all frown upon butchering random people in dark alleys, to give a trivial example.
I'm assuming you just didn't read the list, I'm not really sure what actions they fail to describe.
1. Follow and enforce the laws
2. Follow and enforce the "spirit of the law."
3. If the "spirit of the law" sucks too, ignore/break the law.
Conclusion: If a paladin does any of these, they are lawful good.
Perhaps I should have added "actively subvert or rebel against the laws" in order to cover the complete range of activity, but it didn't really seem necessary at the time. (Note, these bullets only presume the existence of laws, not the morality of those laws and reflect my understanding of the ways you feel a paladin may act and your conclusion that they are in all cases to be considered lawful good).
Where do I come to the conclusion that they are in all cases to be considered lawful good? I have given no less than five cases in which they are
not to be considered lawful good. Your choosing not to regard the morality of the laws is causing you to miss the point entirely.
A paladin who follows and enforces the law is lawful good...
if and only if the law is good.
A paladin who follows and enforces the spirit of the law is lawful good...
if and only if the spirit of the law is good.
A paladin who ignores or breaks the law is lawful good...
if and only if the law is not good.
So if there is a law that abolishes slavery, then a paladin who follows and enforces it is lawful good, and an alleged paladin who ignores or breaks it is not lawful good. But if there is a law that
allows slavery, then an alleged paladin who follows and enforces it is not lawful good, but a paladin who ignores or breaks it is lawful good.
In short, lawful good = wants good laws. I am not sure what part of this is getting lost between me and you.
