If I remember all the things I want to say, this might get long. If you bear with me through it, thanks in advance.
I've noticed a thing: Whenever alignment is in play, the good <-> evil axis always seems dominant, while the lawful <-> Chaos axis seems to be latched on kinda randomly. So you're basically Good, but in a way that makes you indifferent towards Law, or you're Evil, but still sorta respectful of laws, particularly if you can bend or abuse them.
That's propably not universal, but it's all I've encountered, and all the published materials I've read.
Based on this - sort of in spite - I came up with the paladin order of the Grey Guard.
Now, a Grey Guard is just a paladin, in all ways except he or she is Lawful. Not good, they LN. The precept is that morals and ethics are unclear, shifting and subjective, and cannot function as a true measure of rightful behavior. Both sides in any conflict almost invariably consider themselves to be good, and doing the right thing - painting the enemy as devils who slaughter innocents while frothing at the mouth and laughing maniacally.
Hence, the Law. The Law is eternal and unchanging, it is written down, it binds everyone to it's word, it is everywhere, all the time, equal to everyone. Thus, it is divine.
As a sidenote, clearly laws change over time - but like a river. The river is always there, it is constant, even if the water itself isn't.
So the Order of the Grey Guard worship the Law. They will operate the same in good and evil lands, but will ultimately strive to bring to justice especially lawmakers. So a Grey Guard in Zenthil Keep would definitely help authorities maintain whatever draconian laws of that city - but would always keep an open eye for corruption, injustice (such as the law dictates) and double standards of all sorts.
A starting Grey Guard would possibly earn his stripes by going out in the world, hunting bounties (for fun, profit and xp), learning the laws of distant places, and fighting crime. At the Guard rises in power, they might be posted in a particular city, establishing a stronghold, and work over time to establish the Rule of Law.
If I were a homebrewer, I might have thought up different mechanics for them, but I'm not, so it's basically just a reflavor for paladins.
Maybe don't mind the poll too much. What I'm really wondering is whether this puts an interesting spin or focus on the whole Law <-> Chaos side of things.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Nothing wrong with a lawful neutral paladin but I was under the impression this already existed with oath of crowns.
Tenets of the Crown
The tenets of the Oath of the Crown are often set by the sovereign to which their oath is sworn, but generally emphasize the following tenets.
Law. The law is paramount. It is the mortar that holds the stones of civilization together, and it must be respected.
Loyalty. Your word is your bond. Without loyalty, oaths and laws are meaningless.
Courage. You must be willing to do what needs to be done for the sake of order, even in the face of overwhelming odds. If you don't act, then who will?
Responsibility. You must deal with the consequences of your actions, and you are responsible for fulfilling your duties and obligations.
But your GG sounds good to me as a lawful neutral focused order for paladins in your setting.
There is no reason this could not work form an alignment perspective - if is a sensible take on Lawful Neutral akin to Javert in Les Mis, (a likely a less violent version of) judges from Judge Dredd, and numerous other characters in pop culture.
Speaking from experience, I will note that those who study the law are less inclined to believe it is absolute. Part of studying law is studying how it came to be; how other legal systems might approach the same issue differently; how a few simple words could be read in multiple ways to completely change meaning of a statute or precedent. The idea of law as divine starts to fall apart with study and, even if it survives the study, experience with it in the real world will dispel any illusions of its divinity (see again Javert as a literary example).
That is not, of course, to say the idea would not work. You very easily could have an organisation with this set of beliefs or players ascribing to this set of belief. The above is less to dissuade you of your idea’s utility, and more to provide some additional considerations, personal m internal conflict, and/or inter-organisational conflict to take into account as you roleplay the character/NPCs.
Nothing wrong with a lawful neutral paladin but I was under the impression this already existed with oath of crowns.
Tenets of the Crown
The tenets of the Oath of the Crown are often set by the sovereign to which their oath is sworn, but generally emphasize the following tenets.
Law. The law is paramount. It is the mortar that holds the stones of civilization together, and it must be respected.
Loyalty. Your word is your bond. Without loyalty, oaths and laws are meaningless.
Courage. You must be willing to do what needs to be done for the sake of order, even in the face of overwhelming odds. If you don't act, then who will?
Responsibility. You must deal with the consequences of your actions, and you are responsible for fulfilling your duties and obligations.
But your GG sounds good to me as a lawful neutral focused order for paladins in your setting.
Well - sure it can be done. This isn't really about the crunch, but the fluff: It's about bringing an interesting angle to the idea of being primarily Lawful.
There is no reason this could not work form an alignment perspective - if is a sensible take on Lawful Neutral akin to Javert in Les Mis, (a likely a less violent version of) judges from Judge Dredd, and numerous other characters in pop culture.
Speaking from experience, I will note that those who study the law are less inclined to believe it is absolute. Part of studying law is studying how it came to be; how other legal systems might approach the same issue differently; how a few simple words could be read in multiple ways to completely change meaning of a statute or precedent. The idea of law as divine starts to fall apart with study and, even if it survives the study, experience with it in the real world will dispel any illusions of its divinity (see again Javert as a literary example).
That is not, of course, to say the idea would not work. You very easily could have an organisation with this set of beliefs or players ascribing to this set of belief. The above is less to dissuade you of your idea’s utility, and more to provide some additional considerations, personal m internal conflict, and/or inter-organisational conflict to take into account as you roleplay the character/NPCs.
This isn't about studying the law so much as considering the Law Divine. And some those who worship certainly do have a hankering towards the absolute - especially since this faith is rather absolute. You shall not be spared if the Law calls for execution. Here, allow me:
Part of studying divine texts is studying how it came to be; how other religious systems might approach the same issue differently; how a few simple words could be read in multiple ways to completely change meaning of a statute or precedent. The idea of any divine text as divine starts to fall apart with study and, even if it survives the study, experience with it in the real world will dispel any illusions of its divinity (see again Javert as a literary example).
As you can see, I don't feel those words are in any way exclusive to law =)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
I've noticed a thing: Whenever alignment is in play, the good <-> evil axis always seems dominant, while the lawful <-> Chaos axis seems to be latched on kinda randomly.
This really depends on your group and experiences. The second axis of alignment has always been important, and paladins have always tended to be exemplars of Law. How important this conflict is really depends on your DM and campaign, as well as the players' approach to their characters. My latest campaign focuses much more on law/chaos as the party builds and defends a new civilization in a chaotic land and navigates the good and ill that comes from imposing law.
I've noticed a thing: Whenever alignment is in play, the good <-> evil axis always seems dominant, while the lawful <-> Chaos axis seems to be latched on kinda randomly. So you're basically Good, but in a way that makes you indifferent towards Law, or you're Evil, but still sorta respectful of laws, particularly if you can bend or abuse them.
That's propably not universal, but it's all I've encountered, and all the published materials I've read.
This isn't a nit pick or intended to refute you in any way, just an observation, but I actually mostly play lawful-chaotic. The good-evil just kinda comes naturally and,.to be honest, seems a little...unhelpful. What good means, what evil means... it's so heavily contextualised to the individual that it doesn't help. Lawful-chaotic? That helps.
Anyway, just an observation and bit of a tangent really.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I've noticed a thing: Whenever alignment is in play, the good <-> evil axis always seems dominant, while the lawful <-> Chaos axis seems to be latched on kinda randomly.
This really depends on your group and experiences. The second axis of alignment has always been important, and paladins have always tended to be exemplars of Law. How important this conflict is really depends on your DM and campaign, as well as the players' approach to their characters. My latest campaign focuses much more on law/chaos as the party builds and defends a new civilization in a chaotic land and navigates the good and ill that comes from imposing law.
This is the basis of the 'orc child' problem. After a fight, the group finds a lone orcish child among the wreckage. The child may grow up to be evil - most likely will. Does the paladin kill the child.
And no one ever does. Because all paladins are, when it comes down to it, Good over Lawful. So, in other words, I don't agree =)
No, that's simply incorrect. I do agree that players may think the Grey Guard is some sort of license to play Lawful Stupid - but it really isn't. If we're to dig deeper into the lore of it (something I'd hoped to avoid), the Grey Guard really is LN but with a clear G undertone, seeing draconian laws as ... still laws, but laws that need to be changed, within the the law, to something less draconian.
What it comes down to is the Law of Laws - think the Platonic Ideal of Law: Ideally, the Law is always fair, and just, and equal to everybody. If asked directly, each individual under the Law would agree that this is so. So, while the Grey Guard will respect that slavery is legal in a given country, any law that allows for slavery deviates from the Ideal Law, since pretty much all slaves will agree that slavery is bad.
But it is no problem for the Grey Guard to work for years - even decades - within the law of an evil realm, upholding the law while waiting for the law makers to slip up and become themselves criminals the order can move against, to bring about a more just Law.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
No, that's simply incorrect. I do agree that players may think the Grey Guard is some sort of license to play Lawful Stupid - but it really isn't. If we're to dig deeper into the lore of it (something I'd hoped to avoid), the Grey Guard really is LN but with a clear G undertone, seeing draconian laws as ... still laws, but laws that need to be changed, within the the law, to something less draconian.
What it comes down to is the Law of Laws - think the Platonic Ideal of Law: Ideally, the Law is always fair, and just, and equal to everybody. If asked directly, each individual under the Law would agree that this is so. So, while the Grey Guard will respect that slavery is legal in a given country, any law that allows for slavery deviates from the Ideal Law, since pretty much all slaves will agree that slavery is bad.
But it is no problem for the Grey Guard to work for years - even decades - within the law of an evil realm, upholding the law while waiting for the law makers to slip up and become themselves criminals the order can move against, to bring about a more just Law.
That is a textbook example of Lawful Stupid behavior. There's a bad law, they know it's a bad law, but they're so addicted to following all laws that they refuse to consider the possibility of not following it under any circumstances and merely "hope that one day the law makers become criminals themselves."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
That is a textbook example of Lawful Stupid behavior. There's a bad law, they know it's a bad law, but they're so addicted to following all laws that they refuse to consider the possibility of not following it under any circumstances and merely "hope that one day the law makers become criminals themselves."
Yea. Politely agree to disagree. This is my brainchild, not yours, so I reserve the right to tell you - sorry, you are quite simply literally wrong.
What you're talking about is the bully paladin. The guy who thinks that since I'm a Lawful Paladin, the entire group must act as I would, and my Vow of Whatever means I cannot ever turn the blind eye, and I can wave my alignment in everyone's face and tell them they must be Lawful too - or fight me, or go to jail.
That's not what I'm talking about. I happen to know this, because I have privileged access to my brain and I know this with absolute certainty. So let's not waste any more time on that =)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Sounds like you're looking to make Judge Dredd without realizing that Dredd upholds The Law to the point of zealotry specifically because he believes that doing so is fundamentally good. Law for the sake of just being Law is a code and technically valid for an order of paladins to swear to. But without internally defining said laws such an order would be defining themselves as subordinate to whoever happens to be in a position to make the laws. Then you run into the question of what happens when somebody else declares themselves to be in charge and changes the laws...do your Gray Guards just blindly follow whoever most recently declares themselves to be in charge? By what objective standards do they recognize the authority they follow?
"The law of the land until it changes" means at some point the previous law ceases to have validity. If it doesn't then enforcing the new and "improved" laws that they've waited for means that they're turning their backs on their original oaths and loyalty. All that such an order stands for is the status quo and legal stasis. At best, they're useful if instated under a code defined by a good and just rule. At worst they're just wandering toadies who will mindlessly enforce the rule of whoever happens to be in charge wherever they may be. The latter is, as 6LG put it, a textbook definition of Lawful Stupid.
Even Judge Dredd has softened over the years and become willing to bend or on very rare occasions even break the law if he thought the circumstances warranted it. Like in the Dredd movie where he passed the rookie judge even though she'd failed her test by losing her gun because he saw that she had the potential to be a very good judge.
That is a textbook example of Lawful Stupid behavior. There's a bad law, they know it's a bad law, but they're so addicted to following all laws that they refuse to consider the possibility of not following it under any circumstances and merely "hope that one day the law makers become criminals themselves."
Yea. Politely agree to disagree. This is my brainchild, not yours, so I reserve the right to tell you - sorry, you are quite simply literally wrong.
What you're talking about is the bully paladin. The guy who thinks that since I'm a Lawful Paladin, the entire group must act as I would, and my Vow of Whatever means I cannot ever turn the blind eye, and I can wave my alignment in everyone's face and tell them they must be Lawful too - or fight me, or go to jail.
That's not what I'm talking about. I happen to know this, because I have privileged access to my brain and I know this with absolute certainty. So let's not waste any more time on that =)
The problem is that nobody can know what's in your head, only what you've written here. And what you've written here matches Lawful Stupid. If you want to convince people that this group is not Lawful Stupid, you need to actually show us, the readers, how they are not. When faced with a bad law, what actions would they take to avoid becoming the trope?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
OP poorly articulated their response to this complaint, so I will bite, with the hope that a more substantive response might help flesh out OP’s thought process on the idea.
In the real world, there is an entire profession dedicated to “subordinat[inf] themselves to whoever happens to be in a position to make the laws” - attorneys. At its core, our profession involves accepting the rules as they are, advising clients to follow the law when the law is clear (or on the most likely way to follow the law if the law is not clear), and on convincing others that our interpretation or application of the law is the version that should be followed.
Often this means we are in the position of advising clients to follow a stupid law or arguing for the application of a stupid law. It is for this reason law, even more than anything else, becomes less “divine” the more you look at it - nothing is quite as disillusioning as standing up and with a straight face successfully arguing for something you personally find idiotic.
This dedication to the law, even when the law is dumb, is not “Lawful Stupid” - it simply is a necessity for someone in society to shoulder the burden of making sure folks understand and can ask advice about the rules of this game we call life. Now, we also are more inclined to try and change the law, either through increased access to individuals or institutions with the power to change stupid laws or through arguing “this law is superseded by some more controlling law” but, at its core, utilising the systems already in place to enact change is just another way of being “subordinate” to the systems themselves.
Also, I would note that in the time period most D&D worlds were set in, there either would be a fairly strict understanding of Law OR there might be two (or more) completely different court systems, some dedicated to Law and others to Equity (a quasi-law that really, really only matters to legal scholars). If one were fascinated by legal history and the centuries of separation of courts, that could make for a fun addition to this idea - an order of Paladins dedicated to Law and an order dedicated to Equity - but, you would have to be a pretty darn big legal history nerd to play around with that.
Sounds like you're looking to make Judge Dredd without realizing that Dredd upholds The Law to the point of zealotry specifically because he believes that doing so is fundamentally good. Law for the sake of just being Law is a code and technically valid for an order of paladins to swear to. But without internally defining said laws such an order would be defining themselves as subordinate to whoever happens to be in a position to make the laws. Then you run into the question of what happens when somebody else declares themselves to be in charge and changes the laws...do your Gray Guards just blindly follow whoever most recently declares themselves to be in charge? By what objective standards do they recognize the authority they follow?
"The law of the land until it changes" means at some point the previous law ceases to have validity. If it doesn't then enforcing the new and "improved" laws that they've waited for means that they're turning their backs on their original oaths and loyalty. All that such an order stands for is the status quo and legal stasis. At best, they're useful if instated under a code defined by a good and just rule. At worst they're just wandering toadies who will mindlessly enforce the rule of whoever happens to be in charge wherever they may be. The latter is, as 6LG put it, a textbook definition of Lawful Stupid.
Valid question - although Judges are definitely not what I'm after.
There is a Law of Laws, a golden rule to strive for, which is: The law should be fair and equal for everyone. The Grey Guard are unwilling to break the law to change it, but operate under the conviction that evildoers will break even the laws they themselves put in place.
In case of an uprising, legitimacy of any law is in question, and the Grey Guard would follow the Law of Laws, supporting whatever side has views closer to this, and trying to convince them to shape their laws from it.
In other words, the Guard seek to change the world slowly, by evolution, rather than by suddenly by revolution. And along the way, be a force for order and a certain brand of law and justice.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
OP poorly articulated their response to this complaint, so I will bite, with the hope that a more substantive response might help flesh out OP’s thought process on the idea.
In the real world, there is an entire profession dedicated to “subordinat[inf] themselves to whoever happens to be in a position to make the laws” - attorneys. At its core, our profession involves accepting the rules as they are, advising clients to follow the law when the law is clear (or on the most likely way to follow the law if the law is not clear), and on convincing others that our interpretation or application of the law is the version that should be followed.
Often this means we are in the position of advising clients to follow a stupid law or arguing for the application of a stupid law. It is for this reason law, even more than anything else, becomes less “divine” the more you look at it - nothing is quite as disillusioning as standing up and with a straight face successfully arguing for something you personally find idiotic.
This dedication to the law, even when the law is dumb, is not “Lawful Stupid” - it simply is a necessity for someone in society to shoulder the burden of making sure folks understand and can ask advice about the rules of this game we call life. Now, we also are more inclined to try and change the law, either through increased access to individuals or institutions with the power to change stupid laws or through arguing “this law is superseded by some more controlling law” but, at its core, utilising the systems already in place to enact change is just another way of being “subordinate” to the systems themselves.
Also, I would note that in the time period most D&D worlds were set in, there either would be a fairly strict understanding of Law OR there might be two (or more) completely different court systems, some dedicated to Law and others to Equity (a quasi-law that really, really only matters to legal scholars). If one were fascinated by legal history and the centuries of separation of courts, that could make for a fun addition to this idea - an order of Paladins dedicated to Law and an order dedicated to Equity - but, you would have to be a pretty darn big legal history nerd to play around with that.
I've ... read this a couple of times, and I'm sorry, but I have to ask: Is there a point in there somewhere, that relates to what I'm saying?
It seems you re-iterate that laws are not divine, and less so the more you read them. I repeat that religious texts are even less so. Otherwise, you seem to be saying 'I'm a lawyer' - the relevance of which is lost on me. And 'historically things were X' - which might be relevant, but I don't really see how. I live in Denmark, we have the ordinary court system, we have a separate military court system, and we have a trade court - and others besides. This has precisely zero bearing on imaginary law knights.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
*shrugs* If read the first bit, it’s pretty clear that I was responding to others, offering a defense of your idea after you decided to provide a rather trite response.
The TL;DR is pretty clearly “following the law even if you do not agree with it is not always Lawful Stupid - it is something practiced both today and historically and an important part of how society functions.”
*shrugs* If read the first bit, it’s pretty clear that I was responding to others, offering a defense of your idea after you decided to provide a rather trite response.
The TL;DR is pretty clearly “following the law even if you do not agree with it is not always Lawful Stupid - it is something practiced both today and historically and an important part of how society functions.”
That was *not* clear to me - thanks for pointing that out. Since I was looking for an argument against me, maybe that's why I didn't seem to grasp the point.
I did not consider my response trite, tho. Nor intend it to be. Eh, languages. I try to be clear and specific, not rude or douchy. I can be dismissive, if someone makes a point I'm really not prepared to argue. At any rate - if I've come across as something I didn't intend, my apologies. To you, and everyone else.
This is not a unique, first-time occurence. Something in my leap from danish to english has a tendency to ... cause misunderstanding.
Oh, and on the Lawful Stupid thing - I wanted to add: Could some players take this as license to play that way? Yes. Absolutely. Some do, even with just the basic 2e paladin from way back when. But I'm not proposing a widely circulated homebrew. This is just for me and my group (and anyone else who might like it, but I'll never know either way).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Sounds like you're looking to make Judge Dredd without realizing that Dredd upholds The Law to the point of zealotry specifically because he believes that doing so is fundamentally good. Law for the sake of just being Law is a code and technically valid for an order of paladins to swear to. But without internally defining said laws such an order would be defining themselves as subordinate to whoever happens to be in a position to make the laws. Then you run into the question of what happens when somebody else declares themselves to be in charge and changes the laws...do your Gray Guards just blindly follow whoever most recently declares themselves to be in charge? By what objective standards do they recognize the authority they follow?
"The law of the land until it changes" means at some point the previous law ceases to have validity. If it doesn't then enforcing the new and "improved" laws that they've waited for means that they're turning their backs on their original oaths and loyalty. All that such an order stands for is the status quo and legal stasis. At best, they're useful if instated under a code defined by a good and just rule. At worst they're just wandering toadies who will mindlessly enforce the rule of whoever happens to be in charge wherever they may be. The latter is, as 6LG put it, a textbook definition of Lawful Stupid.
Valid question - although Judges are definitely not what I'm after.
There is a Law of Laws, a golden rule to strive for, which is: The law should be fair and equal for everyone. The Grey Guard are unwilling to break the law to change it, but operate under the conviction that evildoers will break even the laws they themselves put in place.
In case of an uprising, legitimacy of any law is in question, and the Grey Guard would follow the Law of Laws, supporting whatever side has views closer to this, and trying to convince them to shape their laws from it.
In other words, the Guard seek to change the world slowly, by evolution, rather than by suddenly by revolution. And along the way, be a force for order and a certain brand of law and justice.
The problem with your "Law of Laws" is that not all laws are fair and equal. In the case of a tyrannical and/or despotic government the laws in place are going to be written specifically to protect and enforce the power of the people already in charge. You're going to be hard pressed to find anybody who can make a convincing, good faith argument that such laws are fair. Oppressive rulers base their authority on "because I/we say so and can force you to comply." Any uprising against a government is going to be in direct violation of those laws. If your order of enforcers are going to follow the idea you laid out of enforcing the law of the land before and above all else they would be required to actively participate in putting down any such revolts even if the established laws are not fair to everyone.
This "Law of Laws" suggests an independent ideal, defined by the order itself that should be held above the definitively lesser local "laws of the land." That means they would be obligated by their own code to act directly against local laws if said laws are, by their definition, unfair. At that point you just have another faction within whatever setting they exist in who seeks to exert influence in a subjective manner that they believe is correct. Some people will agree with them and others will not. Such knightly, monastic, or otherwise organized orders are fairly common in fantasy and even have a solid basis in actual real world history, but it's definitely not what seemed to be the original intention of your first post here.
Sounds like you're looking to make Judge Dredd without realizing that Dredd upholds The Law to the point of zealotry specifically because he believes that doing so is fundamentally good. Law for the sake of just being Law is a code and technically valid for an order of paladins to swear to. But without internally defining said laws such an order would be defining themselves as subordinate to whoever happens to be in a position to make the laws. Then you run into the question of what happens when somebody else declares themselves to be in charge and changes the laws...do your Gray Guards just blindly follow whoever most recently declares themselves to be in charge? By what objective standards do they recognize the authority they follow?
"The law of the land until it changes" means at some point the previous law ceases to have validity. If it doesn't then enforcing the new and "improved" laws that they've waited for means that they're turning their backs on their original oaths and loyalty. All that such an order stands for is the status quo and legal stasis. At best, they're useful if instated under a code defined by a good and just rule. At worst they're just wandering toadies who will mindlessly enforce the rule of whoever happens to be in charge wherever they may be. The latter is, as 6LG put it, a textbook definition of Lawful Stupid.
Valid question - although Judges are definitely not what I'm after.
There is a Law of Laws, a golden rule to strive for, which is: The law should be fair and equal for everyone. The Grey Guard are unwilling to break the law to change it, but operate under the conviction that evildoers will break even the laws they themselves put in place.
In case of an uprising, legitimacy of any law is in question, and the Grey Guard would follow the Law of Laws, supporting whatever side has views closer to this, and trying to convince them to shape their laws from it.
In other words, the Guard seek to change the world slowly, by evolution, rather than by suddenly by revolution. And along the way, be a force for order and a certain brand of law and justice.
The problem with your "Law of Laws" is that not all laws are fair and equal. In the case of a tyrannical and/or despotic government the laws in place are going to be written specifically to protect and enforce the power of the people already in charge. You're going to be hard pressed to find anybody who can make a convincing, good faith argument that such laws are fair. Oppressive rulers base their authority on "because I/we say so and can force you to comply." Any uprising against a government is going to be in direct violation of those laws. If your order of enforcers are going to follow the idea you laid out of enforcing the law of the land before and above all else they would be required to actively participate in putting down any such revolts even if the established laws are not fair to everyone.
And furthermore, tyrannical rulers can easily write the laws so that they apply unequally: a peasant striking a noble can be punishable by death while a noble striking a peasant isn't a crime at all. Waiting for the king to slip up and leave himself open to prosecution doesn't work if the law says that it's not a crime if the king does it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
sounds interesting but after a moment of thought that's just lawful stupid: the faction. Would be more interesting as an NPC faction the players invariably find themselves opposing than a player option.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If I remember all the things I want to say, this might get long. If you bear with me through it, thanks in advance.
I've noticed a thing: Whenever alignment is in play, the good <-> evil axis always seems dominant, while the lawful <-> Chaos axis seems to be latched on kinda randomly. So you're basically Good, but in a way that makes you indifferent towards Law, or you're Evil, but still sorta respectful of laws, particularly if you can bend or abuse them.
That's propably not universal, but it's all I've encountered, and all the published materials I've read.
Based on this - sort of in spite - I came up with the paladin order of the Grey Guard.
Now, a Grey Guard is just a paladin, in all ways except he or she is Lawful. Not good, they LN. The precept is that morals and ethics are unclear, shifting and subjective, and cannot function as a true measure of rightful behavior. Both sides in any conflict almost invariably consider themselves to be good, and doing the right thing - painting the enemy as devils who slaughter innocents while frothing at the mouth and laughing maniacally.
Hence, the Law. The Law is eternal and unchanging, it is written down, it binds everyone to it's word, it is everywhere, all the time, equal to everyone. Thus, it is divine.
As a sidenote, clearly laws change over time - but like a river. The river is always there, it is constant, even if the water itself isn't.
So the Order of the Grey Guard worship the Law. They will operate the same in good and evil lands, but will ultimately strive to bring to justice especially lawmakers. So a Grey Guard in Zenthil Keep would definitely help authorities maintain whatever draconian laws of that city - but would always keep an open eye for corruption, injustice (such as the law dictates) and double standards of all sorts.
A starting Grey Guard would possibly earn his stripes by going out in the world, hunting bounties (for fun, profit and xp), learning the laws of distant places, and fighting crime. At the Guard rises in power, they might be posted in a particular city, establishing a stronghold, and work over time to establish the Rule of Law.
If I were a homebrewer, I might have thought up different mechanics for them, but I'm not, so it's basically just a reflavor for paladins.
Maybe don't mind the poll too much. What I'm really wondering is whether this puts an interesting spin or focus on the whole Law <-> Chaos side of things.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Nothing wrong with a lawful neutral paladin but I was under the impression this already existed with oath of crowns.
Tenets of the Crown
The tenets of the Oath of the Crown are often set by the sovereign to which their oath is sworn, but generally emphasize the following tenets.
Law. The law is paramount. It is the mortar that holds the stones of civilization together, and it must be respected.
Loyalty. Your word is your bond. Without loyalty, oaths and laws are meaningless.
Courage. You must be willing to do what needs to be done for the sake of order, even in the face of overwhelming odds. If you don't act, then who will?
Responsibility. You must deal with the consequences of your actions, and you are responsible for fulfilling your duties and obligations.
But your GG sounds good to me as a lawful neutral focused order for paladins in your setting.
There is no reason this could not work form an alignment perspective - if is a sensible take on Lawful Neutral akin to Javert in Les Mis, (a likely a less violent version of) judges from Judge Dredd, and numerous other characters in pop culture.
Speaking from experience, I will note that those who study the law are less inclined to believe it is absolute. Part of studying law is studying how it came to be; how other legal systems might approach the same issue differently; how a few simple words could be read in multiple ways to completely change meaning of a statute or precedent. The idea of law as divine starts to fall apart with study and, even if it survives the study, experience with it in the real world will dispel any illusions of its divinity (see again Javert as a literary example).
That is not, of course, to say the idea would not work. You very easily could have an organisation with this set of beliefs or players ascribing to this set of belief. The above is less to dissuade you of your idea’s utility, and more to provide some additional considerations, personal m internal conflict, and/or inter-organisational conflict to take into account as you roleplay the character/NPCs.
Well - sure it can be done. This isn't really about the crunch, but the fluff: It's about bringing an interesting angle to the idea of being primarily Lawful.
This isn't about studying the law so much as considering the Law Divine. And some those who worship certainly do have a hankering towards the absolute - especially since this faith is rather absolute. You shall not be spared if the Law calls for execution. Here, allow me:
As you can see, I don't feel those words are in any way exclusive to law =)
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
This really depends on your group and experiences. The second axis of alignment has always been important, and paladins have always tended to be exemplars of Law. How important this conflict is really depends on your DM and campaign, as well as the players' approach to their characters. My latest campaign focuses much more on law/chaos as the party builds and defends a new civilization in a chaotic land and navigates the good and ill that comes from imposing law.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
This isn't a nit pick or intended to refute you in any way, just an observation, but I actually mostly play lawful-chaotic. The good-evil just kinda comes naturally and,.to be honest, seems a little...unhelpful. What good means, what evil means... it's so heavily contextualised to the individual that it doesn't help. Lawful-chaotic? That helps.
Anyway, just an observation and bit of a tangent really.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
This sort of character was so common in older editions that there's a trope for it: https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulStupid
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
This is the basis of the 'orc child' problem. After a fight, the group finds a lone orcish child among the wreckage. The child may grow up to be evil - most likely will. Does the paladin kill the child.
And no one ever does. Because all paladins are, when it comes down to it, Good over Lawful. So, in other words, I don't agree =)
It does however lead to:
Quote from 6thLyranGuard >>
No, that's simply incorrect. I do agree that players may think the Grey Guard is some sort of license to play Lawful Stupid - but it really isn't. If we're to dig deeper into the lore of it (something I'd hoped to avoid), the Grey Guard really is LN but with a clear G undertone, seeing draconian laws as ... still laws, but laws that need to be changed, within the the law, to something less draconian.
What it comes down to is the Law of Laws - think the Platonic Ideal of Law: Ideally, the Law is always fair, and just, and equal to everybody. If asked directly, each individual under the Law would agree that this is so. So, while the Grey Guard will respect that slavery is legal in a given country, any law that allows for slavery deviates from the Ideal Law, since pretty much all slaves will agree that slavery is bad.
But it is no problem for the Grey Guard to work for years - even decades - within the law of an evil realm, upholding the law while waiting for the law makers to slip up and become themselves criminals the order can move against, to bring about a more just Law.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
That is a textbook example of Lawful Stupid behavior. There's a bad law, they know it's a bad law, but they're so addicted to following all laws that they refuse to consider the possibility of not following it under any circumstances and merely "hope that one day the law makers become criminals themselves."
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Yea. Politely agree to disagree. This is my brainchild, not yours, so I reserve the right to tell you - sorry, you are quite simply literally wrong.
What you're talking about is the bully paladin. The guy who thinks that since I'm a Lawful Paladin, the entire group must act as I would, and my Vow of Whatever means I cannot ever turn the blind eye, and I can wave my alignment in everyone's face and tell them they must be Lawful too - or fight me, or go to jail.
That's not what I'm talking about. I happen to know this, because I have privileged access to my brain and I know this with absolute certainty. So let's not waste any more time on that =)
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Sounds like you're looking to make Judge Dredd without realizing that Dredd upholds The Law to the point of zealotry specifically because he believes that doing so is fundamentally good. Law for the sake of just being Law is a code and technically valid for an order of paladins to swear to. But without internally defining said laws such an order would be defining themselves as subordinate to whoever happens to be in a position to make the laws. Then you run into the question of what happens when somebody else declares themselves to be in charge and changes the laws...do your Gray Guards just blindly follow whoever most recently declares themselves to be in charge? By what objective standards do they recognize the authority they follow?
"The law of the land until it changes" means at some point the previous law ceases to have validity. If it doesn't then enforcing the new and "improved" laws that they've waited for means that they're turning their backs on their original oaths and loyalty. All that such an order stands for is the status quo and legal stasis. At best, they're useful if instated under a code defined by a good and just rule. At worst they're just wandering toadies who will mindlessly enforce the rule of whoever happens to be in charge wherever they may be. The latter is, as 6LG put it, a textbook definition of Lawful Stupid.
Even Judge Dredd has softened over the years and become willing to bend or on very rare occasions even break the law if he thought the circumstances warranted it. Like in the Dredd movie where he passed the rookie judge even though she'd failed her test by losing her gun because he saw that she had the potential to be a very good judge.
The problem is that nobody can know what's in your head, only what you've written here. And what you've written here matches Lawful Stupid. If you want to convince people that this group is not Lawful Stupid, you need to actually show us, the readers, how they are not. When faced with a bad law, what actions would they take to avoid becoming the trope?
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
@6LG and Flushmaster
OP poorly articulated their response to this complaint, so I will bite, with the hope that a more substantive response might help flesh out OP’s thought process on the idea.
In the real world, there is an entire profession dedicated to “subordinat[inf] themselves to whoever happens to be in a position to make the laws” - attorneys. At its core, our profession involves accepting the rules as they are, advising clients to follow the law when the law is clear (or on the most likely way to follow the law if the law is not clear), and on convincing others that our interpretation or application of the law is the version that should be followed.
Often this means we are in the position of advising clients to follow a stupid law or arguing for the application of a stupid law. It is for this reason law, even more than anything else, becomes less “divine” the more you look at it - nothing is quite as disillusioning as standing up and with a straight face successfully arguing for something you personally find idiotic.
This dedication to the law, even when the law is dumb, is not “Lawful Stupid” - it simply is a necessity for someone in society to shoulder the burden of making sure folks understand and can ask advice about the rules of this game we call life. Now, we also are more inclined to try and change the law, either through increased access to individuals or institutions with the power to change stupid laws or through arguing “this law is superseded by some more controlling law” but, at its core, utilising the systems already in place to enact change is just another way of being “subordinate” to the systems themselves.
Also, I would note that in the time period most D&D worlds were set in, there either would be a fairly strict understanding of Law OR there might be two (or more) completely different court systems, some dedicated to Law and others to Equity (a quasi-law that really, really only matters to legal scholars). If one were fascinated by legal history and the centuries of separation of courts, that could make for a fun addition to this idea - an order of Paladins dedicated to Law and an order dedicated to Equity - but, you would have to be a pretty darn big legal history nerd to play around with that.
Valid question - although Judges are definitely not what I'm after.
There is a Law of Laws, a golden rule to strive for, which is: The law should be fair and equal for everyone. The Grey Guard are unwilling to break the law to change it, but operate under the conviction that evildoers will break even the laws they themselves put in place.
In case of an uprising, legitimacy of any law is in question, and the Grey Guard would follow the Law of Laws, supporting whatever side has views closer to this, and trying to convince them to shape their laws from it.
In other words, the Guard seek to change the world slowly, by evolution, rather than by suddenly by revolution. And along the way, be a force for order and a certain brand of law and justice.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
I've ... read this a couple of times, and I'm sorry, but I have to ask: Is there a point in there somewhere, that relates to what I'm saying?
It seems you re-iterate that laws are not divine, and less so the more you read them. I repeat that religious texts are even less so. Otherwise, you seem to be saying 'I'm a lawyer' - the relevance of which is lost on me. And 'historically things were X' - which might be relevant, but I don't really see how. I live in Denmark, we have the ordinary court system, we have a separate military court system, and we have a trade court - and others besides. This has precisely zero bearing on imaginary law knights.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
*shrugs* If read the first bit, it’s pretty clear that I was responding to others, offering a defense of your idea after you decided to provide a rather trite response.
The TL;DR is pretty clearly “following the law even if you do not agree with it is not always Lawful Stupid - it is something practiced both today and historically and an important part of how society functions.”
That was *not* clear to me - thanks for pointing that out. Since I was looking for an argument against me, maybe that's why I didn't seem to grasp the point.
I did not consider my response trite, tho. Nor intend it to be. Eh, languages. I try to be clear and specific, not rude or douchy. I can be dismissive, if someone makes a point I'm really not prepared to argue. At any rate - if I've come across as something I didn't intend, my apologies. To you, and everyone else.
This is not a unique, first-time occurence. Something in my leap from danish to english has a tendency to ... cause misunderstanding.
Oh, and on the Lawful Stupid thing - I wanted to add: Could some players take this as license to play that way? Yes. Absolutely. Some do, even with just the basic 2e paladin from way back when. But I'm not proposing a widely circulated homebrew. This is just for me and my group (and anyone else who might like it, but I'll never know either way).
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
The problem with your "Law of Laws" is that not all laws are fair and equal. In the case of a tyrannical and/or despotic government the laws in place are going to be written specifically to protect and enforce the power of the people already in charge. You're going to be hard pressed to find anybody who can make a convincing, good faith argument that such laws are fair. Oppressive rulers base their authority on "because I/we say so and can force you to comply." Any uprising against a government is going to be in direct violation of those laws. If your order of enforcers are going to follow the idea you laid out of enforcing the law of the land before and above all else they would be required to actively participate in putting down any such revolts even if the established laws are not fair to everyone.
This "Law of Laws" suggests an independent ideal, defined by the order itself that should be held above the definitively lesser local "laws of the land." That means they would be obligated by their own code to act directly against local laws if said laws are, by their definition, unfair. At that point you just have another faction within whatever setting they exist in who seeks to exert influence in a subjective manner that they believe is correct. Some people will agree with them and others will not. Such knightly, monastic, or otherwise organized orders are fairly common in fantasy and even have a solid basis in actual real world history, but it's definitely not what seemed to be the original intention of your first post here.
And furthermore, tyrannical rulers can easily write the laws so that they apply unequally: a peasant striking a noble can be punishable by death while a noble striking a peasant isn't a crime at all. Waiting for the king to slip up and leave himself open to prosecution doesn't work if the law says that it's not a crime if the king does it.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
sounds interesting but after a moment of thought that's just lawful stupid: the faction. Would be more interesting as an NPC faction the players invariably find themselves opposing than a player option.