The bard...

[The Sigil]

Robin Hood was CG, not LG had to point it out.
~~Brandon

Depends on how you interpret LG.

Which is your definition of Lawful?
1.) If the character obeys the laws of the land, he is lawful; if he breaks them he is chaotic.
2.) If the character obeys a consistent set of principles, he is lawful; if he breaks them he is chaotic.

I tend to think it's #2. Because it sets up:

What if the laws of the land are evil?

1.) A good character cannot in conscience obey the laws of the land. Since you cannot be good and obey the laws of the land, there can be no LGs in such a society.
2.) A good character can obey his consistent set of principles, even if he violates the laws of the land in doing. By doing no evil and obeying his principles, he is LG even if he is an outlaw.

Here's one for you:

In the stories I am familiar with, Robin Hood swore an oath of fealty to uphold King Richard.
King Richard left for the crusades, and Prince John attempted to usurp the throne, changing the laws of the land to "evil" ones in the process.

Where is Robin Hood's allegiance? It's still to King Richard. That makes him lawful, as he is obeying the laws that he (Robin Hood) swore to uphold and challenging the unlawful usurper to the throne.

I hear "Robin Hood is CG" a lot... and I'm not convinced.

A more extreme example:

The laws in hell are not very conducive to paladins obeying them... in fact, paladins visiting hell are breaking the law left and right... and yet a paladin in hell can be LG. "Breaking the local law" does not a chaotic character make.

/hijack

--The Sigil

 

[Merlion]

I agree with you very much Sigil but the funny thing is a lot of DnD stuff more or less states that breaking local law does...or at least often does...a chaotic character make. Have you seen the info on the god Tyr for the Forgotten Realms?

 

[Shadowdancer]

2.) If the character obeys a consistent set of principles, he is lawful; if he breaks them he is chaotic.

--The Sigil

It can be argued that all characters, except maybe those who are psychotic, obey a consistent set of principles. Sometimes that set of principles is one imposed by society; sometimes it is at great odds with those of society.

IMHO, the law-chaos axis breaks down as rights or needs of the society vs. the rights or needs of the individual. If you believe the needs of the society, or a culture, or a country, or an institution should take precedent over an individual's rights or freedom of choice, then you are lawful. If you feel that an individual's rights or freedom of choice supercede the needs of the society, or a culture, or a country, or an institution, then you are lawful.

Robin Hood is an interesting dilemma. He was against the evil laws of the land imposed by relatives of the king, yet supported the laws of the land created by the king. What is important is not that he opposed the laws, it's what laws he opposed. The laws he opposed took away rights of the individual in favor of the needs of the country, or in this case, the country's illegal leader. I say that makes Robin Hood chaotic.

A more timely example might be a soldier called to fight in his country's army. If he is lawful, he believes the needs of the country are more important than an individual's rights to do as he chooses, say stay home and care for his family. If he is chaotic (maybe a pacifist or conscientous objector), he believes his individual rights and beliefs are more important than the needs of the country. But if his beliefs coincide with the needs of the country, he would go fight anyway. Just because he is chaotic doesn't mean he wouldn't act in a way which benefits the lawful-aligned institution.

 

[Spatula]

IMHO, the law-chaos axis breaks down as rights or needs of the society vs. the rights or needs of the individual.

This is how I see things as well. It makes sense, doesn't dictate character personality, and doesn't lead to absurd situations like a paladin losing his abilities because he broke the laws of a LE kingdom.