I think I remember that thread.
I'd say that it's most likely neutral or chaotic. He lived originally in a lawless country, your example did not give any set of laws that he was living by, rather stated that he came up with his own.
Now, he could be lawful under many of the definitions of lawful, but under some of those definitions he has performed an act that is definitely non-lawful. He has broken a law. But then again, with other definitions of the term he has performed an act that is extremely lawful, he has upheld a law when it's potentially damaging to him.
It's unlikely that he's chaotic. He is acting in a consistent and ordered manner. And he does not seem to be going against the laws of the land simply because they are there, nor to be challenging them.
I'd probably go with neutral, based on the description of the person as following a strict code, coming from a lawless land, acting to defend "beliefs" (note: not acting to uphold "laws" or to enforce a code)
Now, a similar action *could* be considered lawful if that person was living by a code of laws... But your example stated that he "feels" one way. Sure, it also says that he lives a strict, ordered life, which seems to say lawful... but unless he's formulated his feelings into actual laws he can't say that he's following law, he's instead following his feelings in disregard of law, as would be the custom in a lawless land, a neutral or chaotic land.
If the character DID have a law set, however, that alters my opinion entirely. If, say, he came not from a lawless country but one with a law set wherein he would be allowed to execute a pedophile, and then moved to one with a different law set. Or if he lived in a "lawless" country but was of a particular order (perhaps even a paladin) wherein he was expected to BE the law, then he went to this new country... I'd say he could be lawful still.
Of course, Jooly Giant said:
"In my games lawful alignement does NOT equal "law-abiding"! That's just one of many possible "lawful"'s... "
And I see that as a correct interpretation of lawful.
And DragonLancer said:
"In my eyes, its a chaotic act because despite his lawful attitude (whether for good, neutrality or evil) he willfully went against the laws of the nation he was in to follow his own personal path."
Which is ALSO a correct interpretation of lawful.
The moral of this story? Obviously it's that "lawful" is a chaotic term, lawful is indeed a subset of chaos. But we can't usually look that deeply at things, so I recommend that each individual character pick one of these definitions of lawful (or a different one if needed) and then stick with it. It can be different for each character, but it has to remain consistent within each individual character.
For more examples, my view on Knoxgamer's opinions:
(I'm aware that you don't want "Paladin", so I'll respond as if it were instead "Person who is meant to be lawful")
"The answer depends upon whether or not the Paladin was aware of the laws. If the Paladin was aware of the laws, then he willfully defied the established authority of the land and performed a chaotic act."
This is one interpretation of lawful. And a good interpretation. But not the only one. It's also chaotic for a character to follow the laws of the land regardless of his own internal laws. And lawful for a person to maintain his own laws in spite of other people's "opinions" (laws).
"Part of being lawful is respecting traditional authority. A character that behaved solely according to his own code, without regard for the world around him would best be described as chaotic."
And part of being lawful is being consistent. Changing what laws you follow as you travel from land to land is the height of chaos, and any character who did this could logically and truthfully be labeled chaotic. A character who behaved solely according to the world around him, without regard for a set code, would best be described as chaotic.
I'll point out here also the use of the term "traditional". It can be easily argued that the code that the character started with is the traditional one, and any subsequent rules are new, or not traditional.
"If, however, the Paladin was ignorant of this law then he has performed a lawful act by acting in accordance with his own code lacking the guidance of an authority."
If, on the other hand, the character knows of the local laws, and did not enforce his traditional law as indeed is what that law states he must do, he has performed a chaotic act... an act that violates "traditional" law.
"To come at it from another perspective, a Vigilante is a person who enforces their own penalties for social transgressions without regard to the penalties established by the community (laws). While a Vigilante would have a code that she lives by, she is still Chaotic due to her direct violation of the laws of her community."
Completely true as well... which is why I would define the above scenario as chaotic as it was described. The character was enforcing his own belief, not his own law. In fact, it was explicitly stated that the character had no actual law to follow other than personal belief. Now, it was implied that there might be more, but without more definition, without codified law that belief isn't enough to hold the force of law, hence enforcement of those beliefs would be vigilantism not lawfulness.
I have to also add about Mr. Kaize's statement that:
"Public executions are lawful, private executions are not."
This, of course, depends on the law. It is conceivable that some countries could have laws where public executions are unlawful, but private ones are lawful. Or to say, this "fact" is merely a statement on some laws, not on Law.
Most appropriately interesting, and something I really wanted to end on, is the opinion posted by Le Shenron:
"A character who says "I am the law!" is definitely chaotic, not lawful..."
Which I find most appropriately ironic because, if not for a person (or group of persons) saying "I am the law" (We are the law), then there would be no such thing as lawful. Hence the apparent belief expressed here about Law's inherent chaotic-ness.
So inasmuch as people don't expect to be murdered, murder is unlawful. Inasmuch as they don't expect to be stolen from, stealing is unlawful. Inasmuch as they don't expect to be accosted by dirty old men when they're 5... you get the picture.
