Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6735063" data-attributes="member: 4937">I don't understand.Sure.  But you also extended the complaint to 'the homeland'.   That said, while I responded with the assumption the person in question gave their fealty to their nation and saw that as the source of lawful authority, it's possible to be a lawful lawbreaker.  In point of fact, while there are lawful characters primarily defined by their patriotism or loyalty to the person of the state, I'd suggest the vast majority of lawfuls are lawful to a Platonic ideal of some sort, or to a divinely ordained law, or even more so to the lawful precepts that even the Lords of Law hold they are embody or are subject to.   This law takes the form of some understood or well known code of honor.And this shouldn't in any fashion strike you as a contradiction if you are coming to this discussion with the idea of Law as it was presented by say Michael Moorcock.  When we are speaking of Law, we aren't primarily speaking of mortal law, but of the notion that there are things which one ought to do, which are universal to everyone, and which can be encoded into a communicable list.   Lawfuls might disagree over the specifics of the list, but they are united in their belief that the list is the source of rightful conduct and authority.  To that extent, you'd expect Lawfuls to respect one another, even when they violently disagree.  For example, note the general respect accorded by many to individuals like  Robert E. Lee and Erwin Rommel.  Or if a safer fantasy example is wanted, consider the conflict between Ammar and Rodrigo in GGK's 'The Lions of Al-Rassan'.There is a notion here that is important which you are neglecting which is fealty.  Indeed, the entire language of duty, honor, fealty and so forth is necessary to really understand what is going on here in the minds of people who think like this.  It would be wrong to think that because you've espied some obvious contradiction that the very thing you've spotted hasn't been thought about in very great detail.It's quite impossible to obey every law even if you would wish to do so, as quite obviously, two laws may come in contradiction.  In this case, the LN person is supposed to examine his fealty, and obey the law to which has the greater proper claim on his duty.  The LN person will naturally organize his fealties in a hierarchal manner according to what is prescribed by the external code he adheres to.  In medieval terms, it's not a violation of loyalty to swear fealty to many lords, provided that everyone understands who your Liege is - the one that you owe the utmost duty - and that you can't do anything in anyone's service that would violate your obligations to your Liege.   There is a really good scene on this theme early in the book 'The Diamond Age' by Neil Stephenson (which among other thing, has lots of exploration of what is to the modern reader 'alien' lawful ideas).  A thief is brought before a judge, and the judge has to consider what to do with him.  The judge partially exonerates the thief because he feels that thief might have been acting out of proper familial obligation to his sibling, and as such might not be completely a lost cause.  In other words, while the thief has broken a law and done so in error, if he did so thinking that he was obeying a duty to a higher law, the error isn't mortal or even venial.  The thief is owed a slap on the wrist, as it were, whereas if he'd stolen out of naked self-interest then his life would have been forfeit.  A lawful person sojourning in a foreign land may or may not feel he has some obligation to obey the laws of the foreign land.  Very likely his own legal code will specify to what degree he is expected to do so!  But certainly he won't hold the foreign law or its ruler to be his liege and owe his final obligation.  If caught in violation of some law, he will confess that he violated the law (if honesty is part of his code for this situation) but claim he did so ought of some higher obligation.  If the other ruler is lawful and their codes of honor are reasonably similar, this reasoning may even impress the judge, who would then bid him return to his master as a faithful servant in recognition of his honor.  And this could well be the honorable 'lawful' thing to do, even if it meant setting an enemy free.   (Of course, if the judge is LE, all the respect in the world this story engenders at best just means your death will be honorable.)</blockquote>

Verification