Being Lawful

[Script Wrecked]

In a rescent event, Vrebel had to stand by and not help two Diets in harms way because it would have been againt the law of Rael to intercede.

I don't think being lawful means conceding the field because someone has written down a few rules and called it The Law([SIZE=10]TM[/SIZE]).

Rael is a tyrant. He uses The Law to control people, to impose his will upon them, to further his own purposes (Lawful Evil). This is the antithesis of what law is for a Lawful Good character, which is for the betterment, benefit and protection of all.

There is nothing wrong with a Lawful Good character resisting, opposing or breaking bad laws.

Regards,

Script Wrecked.

[willhoff]

A good point Script Wrecked and one that I think can be argued on both sides.

Lawful/good:

they may do things that they are not very comfortable with, if the moral rules require them. Thus, a Lawful Good soldier will be likely to obey the orders of a superior, even if he has concerns about their moral quality, because he has already committed to obedience.

Always work within the law.



Neutral/good:

They will twist or bend laws, or simply ignore them, when their ideals compell them, but will generally follow "Good" laws without complaint.

I think once a lawful good character starts to nit pick on whether to follow the law because "he thinks" its a bad law or because "he thinks" the govermnent is corrupt then he starts moving toward neutral good and away from lawful.

~Willhoff

[DiegoBastet]

I believe that the law/chaos axis is too complex in DnD and no two people think it's the same thing.

For me, being Lawfull is fully deciding to follow an arbitraty code, be what it is, believing that following self-imposed codes is better than living in anarchy, and believing that people should follow codes, be their or others. More important, a lawful person respects the needs of others for other codes. So the lawful good soldier follows the law, because following the laws of the country is the ethic code that he choose for himself. BUT he believes that soldiers who follow the codes of the other countries are right, because following your country and king is good.

And being Chaotic is a little diferent: If you follow a self-imposed code you believe this is the only right way to play things, and other ways are wrong. If you don't follow a code you believe that following self-imposed codes is wrong. In any case, a chaotic person does not fully respect other people's codes. The chaotic soldier follows his king because he decided that, but thinks that is foolish to follow any other code, and wouldn't accept any other idea.

These are extremes, and now you just mix with the Good - Evil axis, and you can have chaotic neutral vs chaotic good, and lawful good vs chaotic good...

For me lawful has nothing to do with being serious, or tedious, or capable or working together. And being chaotic has nothing of being creative, open hearted or these things. Piano is music, and it's supposed to be chaotic (look to the bard) but any person who even tried to take serious lessons would see it's perfectly symetrical math, a thing that people would consider pretty lawful.

[Script Wrecked]

A good point Script Wrecked and one that I think can be argued on both sides.

Lawful/good:

they may do things that they are not very comfortable with, if the moral rules require them. Thus, a Lawful Good soldier will be likely to obey the orders of a superior, even if he has concerns about their moral quality, because he has already committed to obedience.

First sentence:

they may do things that they are not very comfortable with, if the moral rules require them.

This seems to be the subject of some misunderstanding. The moral rules are the lawful good course of action here, the "being uncomfortable with them" is the character's own failings. Thus, the lawful good character turns in his lying, duplicitious brother (the right action), even though he loves him (his personal conflict).

Second sentence:

Thus, a Lawful Good soldier will be likely to obey the orders of a superior, even if he has concerns about their moral quality, because he has already committed to obedience.

One of the strengths and weaknesses of lawful good is the reliance of trust. You are relying on someone whom has previously shown themselves to be lawful good to continue to be lawful good. If every action had to be explained to everyone each time, then nothing would ever get done, and lawful good would be paralysed by the weight of its own moral code.

Always work within the law.

Whose law (see the points further down)?

Neutral/good:

They will twist or bend laws, or simply ignore them, when their ideals compell them, but will generally follow "Good" laws without complaint.

The neutral good character is not "following" the good laws, they just happen to be travelling in the same direction.

I think once a lawful good character starts to nit pick on whether to follow the law because "he thinks" its a bad law or because "he thinks" the govermnent is corrupt then he starts moving toward neutral good and away from lawful.

~Willhoff

Heaven forbid that a lawful good character should think for themselves.

This is not "nitpicking" some small point of incongruity.

Some laws a good, some laws are bad. Lawful good character don't follow the bad laws. If they do, they are not being good.

There seems to be a misconception that being lawful is adherence to all laws that were ever written down. This is a fallacy that seems to equate any law created by anybody with some "one true law" that might have been given down from on high.

This is not the case. It is the mission of the lawful good character to make that distinction. They do have to think for themselves(1). They do have to reject the bad laws.

Lawfulness is not about blind or dumb obedience to any old rules scribbled down by any-ol'-body.



(1)  This is why they seem uptight a lot of the time

[Alatriel]

Um... exactly what Script Wrecked said.

Rael is LE, and sanctions only the worship of Sulterio within Prantz.  Does that mean that the Lawful Good paladins of Rofirein and Toran and Vorax are going to go into that city and say "huh, well, the law is we have to follow Sulterio here.  Oh well, I guess we have to!"  Um... no.  In fact, they feel the oppression of their faiths is morally wrong, and the oppression of the people there morally wrong and against their beliefs.  (I include Rofies in this because in this game paladins have to be LG, even though Rofie is LN)  

Sooooo... being lawful good, do they simply stand aside and say "well the law says what the law says, so even though there are people there that are being mistreated, I guess we'll just have to go our merry way and leave them alone!"

No... in fact, (since I'm most familiar with this one) Toran's directive is to seek out the servants of evil and rid the world of them.  Well... Rael would certainly fit that profile.  Yes, he IS evil and he has servants, but the point is, he is serving evil as his greater cause, therefore he is a servant of evil.  So in that case, not only does Rael's rule and law no longer even matter, but it puts him as an enemy because 1) he is serving evil, and 2) he's making a mockery of any form of legal system by using it not for the protection and betterment and safety and order of people, but for his own ends and power and manipulation and oppression.

It may be widely accepted that the law of Rofirein is the law of the land, (most of them anyways) but as Script Wrecked said, your law is your code that you follow.  YOUR morals.  Believe it or not, you can have a lawful good character that simply his word is his bond.  If he says he'll do something, he'll do it.  He is reliable, he is trustworthy...  Perhaps, he is a mercenary.  Odd thought huh?

[Hellblazer]

Um... exactly what Script Wrecked said.

Rael is LE, and sanctions only the worship of Sulterio within Prantz.  Does that mean that the Lawful Good paladins of Rofirein and Toran and Vorax are going to go into that city and say "huh, well, the law is we have to follow Sulterio here. Oh well, I guess we have to!" Um... no. In fact, they feel the oppression of their faiths is morally wrong, and the oppression of the people there morally wrong and against their beliefs. (I include Rofies in this because in this game paladins have to be LG, even though Rofie is LN)

He recognizes on the other hand the authority of the rofiren court.. well partly when he feels like it. But he still does. Which in turn could put some pressure on the LG of Rofie paladins ( and non paladins) to follow the laws of the land.

Lawful just doesn't mean you keep your word, most of the good aligned will do so. It means that you adhere to the code of the law also as strictly as anyone else. One of the biggest difference is that A LG compared to a LN or LE, will have remorse to use death sentences, or sentences with corporal punishments compared to the two others. But they will follow the code of the law even then. They deal with their remorses later on.

[LightlyFrosted]

Ah, the classic debate of positive versus natural law.  In the positive law field (cribbing from the notes of famous Positive Law advocate Thomas Hobbes), to be moral (good) is to obey the law.  Hobbes, having witnessed the atrocities which occurred during the French revolution, saw the breakdown of law and order as something to be feared, because the consequences of that breakdown were civil strife.  A man's life in a place where such order were absent would be best described as "Nasty, brutal, and short."

Which, come to think of it, describes Rael nicely.  But moving onwards.

Among the more famous advocates of positive law, Thomas Aquinas, is famous for saying that "An unjust law is no law at all."  Aquinas, who let's face it, was a saint, believed that ethics came from a higher power - to wit, God.  Secular advocates of positive law may believe that such 'moral laws' come from the intrinsic 'goodness' of the human spirit, or from the kind of regulations we need in order to function best as a society.

(Trust me, I'm getting to a point here.)

In the original Grey Box version of D&D, there were three alignments, rather than nine.  Good, neutral, and chaotic.  The concept of this worldview, albeit simplistic, was understandable; your players, generally on the 'good' side, went out into the wilderness to encounter horrific beasts that would destroy the order that a society needs in order to exist.  In this 'pockets of light' sort of world, all that was hostile to humanity (elfmanity, dwarfmanity, etc.) was chaotic because the small villages, castles, thorpse, etc. relied upon order in order to survive.

Since then, our worldview has expanded a bit.  Law, it's been discovered, can be used for evil as well as for orderly living.  Equally importantly, chaos can be used for good.  But this doesn't mean that characters get to hide behind their alignments as reasons for acting or not acting in a certain way.

A chaotic good person, in a lawful good city...  probably behaves in a lawful fashion.  He doesn't pick a fight with the city guard, he doesn't break laws just to be contrary, and any indiscretions he may happen to commit along the way are strictly professional/personal - thieves aren't necessarily evil folk; neither are Casanovas.  Someone not professionally inclined to breaking the law probably doesn't, however - why bother?  If you're breaking the law simply to break the law, you're CN, or possibly CE.  If you're noticing that CG and NG are similar, then.. have a cookie.

A Lawful Good person, in a Lawful Evil city doesn't necessarily have to obey the local laws.  A Toranite Paladin (for instance) quite literally answers to a higher power; the law he follows is the one set down in the divine mandate that allows him his magical abilities of healing and smiting.  Even a Lawful Good person who isn't particularly religious still has the 'good' part of their alignment to contend with - is an unjust law a law at all?  Moreover, is a law that patently fails to serve the populace a law?  If someone is holding a reign of terror over a nation, then lawful or not, something seems to be wrong there.

Being Lawful isn't inherently easy, but at the end of the day, you and your character define what it means.  If you should happen to behave in a way that doesn't necessarily match the ideal form of 'Lawful Good', then relax a little.  Alignment - like Aristotle's idea of 'The Happy Life' - isn't created in a moment or a single action, but rather in the way you trend and behave.  People aren't perfect, and with the occasional exception of Paladins, aren't expected to be.  Yes, you have a truly heroic ideal to live up to - and if you slip, then plant your feet and try again.

[Pseudonym]

 . . . he's making a mockery of any form of legal system by using it not for the protection and betterment and safety and order of people, but for his own ends and power and manipulation and oppression.

Furthering one's own ends and power and the betterment, protection, safety and order of people aren't always mutually exclusive. It's what makes LE folks way more interesting to encounter than CE, in my opinion.

So Rael hates dwarves and magic-users. *shrugs* You may be hard-pressed to convince the honest merchant in his city (who enjoys no theft, no looting, no vandalism, no disadvantaged trade practices, no thugs/standover men knocking on his door, etc, etc) that Rael is a bad guy (dwarf) at all. The merchant probably thinks he's doing a pretty good job. That merchant may think you Toranites with your forgiveness and your soft justice and your ideas of rehabilitation and forgiveness are the really misguided ones. "Maybe that works in your Ivory Temple Milady Paladin but try living that philosophy on the mean streets of Vehl/Katherian/wherever and you and your family won't last long" he might say. Did I have a point? Can't remember. I think I started responding just to avoid doing homework.

Anyways, it is my understanding that Prantz is safe and law-abiding and orderly.

PS. HB, I think the plural of remorse is remorse.

[Hellblazer]

could be. Was typing and trying not to get killed at the same time

[Gulnyr]

Lawful just doesn't mean you keep your word, most of the good aligned will do so. It means that you adhere to the code of the law also as strictly as anyone else. One of the biggest difference is that A LG compared to a LN or LE, will have remorse to use death sentences, or sentences with corporal punishments compared to the two others. But they will follow the code of the law even then. They deal with their remorses later on.

Not necessarily.  Lawful is not just black-and-white law following. A Lawful character (LX, Lawful Anything) has a pretty good chance of trying to follow the local laws, but may have a specific code of conduct that is contrary to something in local law.  That character isn't obligated to break his personal code to follow that law, just as Alatriel and Lightly Frosted said: Toranites don't start following Sulterio just because they enter Prantz, law or not; their first "law" is from a different authority.  Also, the courts in Prantz are not Rofireinite courts, so you know OOC.  

Lawful is about keeping your word.  It's about honor and rules and duty and honesty and generally believing the world either is an ordered place or would be better  with more order (whatever "better" means to whichever character) or both.  Good has nothing to do with keeping your word.  Both Neutral Good and (especially) Chaotic Good characters would lie all day long and go back on promises they had made if it would be for the greater good somehow.  Lawful characters are far, far more likely to be honest and true to their word regardless of the cost.  Good characters might keep their word, though, sure, but they do it because they have empathy for others ("Do unto others...") while a Lawful character keeps his word because it is honorable and proper.  A Lawful Good character would do it for both reasons, probably.

A Lawful Good character could be more Good than Lawful, too.  In that case, when faced with a choice of doing the Lawful or doing the Good, she might more often choose to go against the law for the good of others rather than strictly adhere to the law as if she were some pre-programmed puppet.  One of the fun and challenging things about playing Lawful Good is the dilemma of choosing whether to follow head or heart on some decision, or trying to find a way to do both.

[DiegoBastet]

I've read once, by Frank Trollman (it's his name), a great phrase something like this: "No one understands what aligment is, but everyone has their opinion on what aligment is. To avoid discussions you should point out to your players what you think aligment and discuss it with your players so you all are on the same playing field. If one thinks that being chaotic is not allowing other people's codes upon then and other thinks it's being creative and other thinks it's being unrealiable (a.k.a. mental disorder) then you're bound to disaster". Frank Trollman is very agressive, so it was somewhat less nice than this, but that's the whole idea.

Since there's no DM here to discuss, we should put great weight on what LORE tells us. It's like what our DM says he thinks it is: If your RL dm tells you that in his game, being chaotic means bing crazy, and you don't want to be crazy and you don't want to fight you dm, would you play chaotic? We should interpret our own ways, but considering as the solid base the explanation of what layo tells us.

In that way, I don't agree on what being lawful on layonara means, but since this is a nice DM, I won't fight him.

[LightlyFrosted]

To a certain extent, I agree with what the Order of the Stick statement on alignments is: they're abstract ideals, useful as a guide rather than a yes/no of success.  Lawful people - and, indeed, chaotic and evil and good people - can all of them be tempted to behave in ways that don't mesh with their chosen alignments.

Which is fine.

At the end of the day, not every action you take needs to be perfectly in line with the abstract concept that you chose out of a selection of nine (well, eight here..) possible abstract concepts as a way of encompassing the entirety of your moral and ethical philosophy.  Yes, in a perfect world, populated exclusively by perfect people, lawful people would keep their word every time, and only get into honourable fights, and.. whatever.  Imperfect as we, all of us, are, and playing characters in a world that is not morally black or white (or perfectly grey, I suppose), we are forced to adapt.  To change.

To, in fact, develop character.  I'm not saying that you should burn down an orphanage and then open a homeless shelter for kittens - that's not even trying to play Lawful Good (*winks*).  But what Lawful Good means is entirely up to interpretation.  And if you fail to live up to the ideal form, try at least to exist as a character of whatever alignment you are in the imperfect world composed of complexities and choices.

[davidhoff]

When we talk about a "lawful" character, then that in its basic form means they are to obey the law.  Well then, it is important to define what the "law" is.  I believe the "law" is the law of the land in the geographic area you are in.  It is the law as given by the powers to be of that geographic area.  The law in Prantz is Rael law, the law in Creedo is by its ruler Mido Bidai Khai and for Audira the law is made by the Sedera Kingdom (tried my best to get this from Lore).

A lawful good character may have his own personal code of laws, the law of his deity or some other form of law he likes to follow, but this is not the "law" that is referred to when one asks if he is following the law.

So, my point is that a lawful good character must first see what the law of the land is telling him to do; then, his good side must kick in and decide whether it is the good thing to do as well.  This is where it gets tricky; when does the good side override the lawful side?  That is open to interpretation depending how much pull your good side has over the lawful side.

[s0ulz]

I've personally always been of the opinion that the two parts in an alignment are split apart and have nothing to do with each other, regarding what laws are good or bad or whatnot,

For example, Lawful characters for me have always been characters with strong moral beliefs and even codes that they adhere to. Since there are hundreds of different laws enforced by various authoritive bodies all across Layonara, you can't expect the Lawful characters to automatically adhere to all of them. Lawful characters' moral beliefs however generally align with the basic principles of law and therefore they are the most unlikely archetype of characters to overstep it, but it's not against their alignment to do so.

The second half of a characters alignment should show the tone of his moral (Lawful) beliefs and what he hopes to achieve through them. Naturally a character that is Lawful evil will have an easier time following "evil" laws, but if they contradict with what he's trying to achieve or his own "code" of how he thinks the world should work, he will overstep it.

Anyway that's how I've always seen it and how I've played my characters around it.

[willhoff]

I hope i wasnt implying that a lawful good person would just sit around and watch while human sacrafices were taking place because he was in a dark elf city and that was the law.

My understanding is a lawful good person should follow the law of the land that he is in unless it violates his own since of good.

There is a difference between a "bad" law and an "evil" law.  Good governments make bad law all the time...ones that are ineffient, ineffective, too costly etc.  "Evil" laws are laws that stand in direct contradiction to the Good persons set of morals.

Lawful good characters should never follow evil laws, but they should follow all the  laws of the area they are in even if they think they are bad, which is what i meant when i refered to nitpicking.

Just because the ruler is a tyrant (Rael) doesnt give you a blank check to disregard all his laws, some of the laws do benefit the society and the general welfare and should be followed while others are evil and should be disregarded.

least thats my take.

[DiegoBastet]

I believe that even chaotic charaters may follow a strict code of conduct. Think about the most basic barbarian' code: "I will not let a hand fall on me. I will not be ordered. I will not serve another against my will. I do not do these things to others and I don't allow this to be done to me. To be against this is to invite my wrath". It's very strict. The barbarian don't hit unarmed people, do not order people around, and does not take people as slave, and considers this high honor. He attacks people who do this.

If he was Good he would fight against people who do this to HIM and to OTHERS who can't defend themselves, because you also put in the mix the thing that good people care for others.

If he was Neutral, he would fight people who did this to HIM only, because he cares about himself and those he love. He could even fight for those close to him, or beause he had a reason to do this, but he wouldn't feel the moral "need" to fight for others.

And, of course, he would disdain the "Laws of man and not of lions" and this kind of thing, calling them inept, false, wrong and all that, while remaining on his "free spirit". He imposed himself a code, a strict one, a "law", but disregards as useless other people's laws that aren't like his own.


So I think that being honorable and following a strict code isn't what defines someone as Lawful. It surely IS part, but doesn't defines.

[mixafix]

a lonesome figure trudges wearily up a nearby overlooking hill carrying a crate in one hand and a mess of wood and canvass in the other.
 
 He puts down a crate and from his other hand lightly places a Gnomish assembly of light wood and canvass. With a single flick of his hand the stuff tumbles and some sort of seat is suddenly there.
 
 He sits down with a wry grin and absent mindedly drops a hand to the crate and pulls forth a bottle of dwarven ale.
 
 "This is going to be good."

[EdTheKet]

Rael is a tyrant. He uses The Law to control people, to impose his will upon them, to further his own purposes (Lawful Evil).

Aww, he's so misunderstood (or is he, hehe)

Consider this quote:

Hobbes, having witnessed the atrocities which occurred during the French revolution, saw the breakdown of law and order as something to be feared, because the consequences of that breakdown were civil strife. A man's life in a place where such order were absent would be best described as "Nasty, brutal, and short."
 
Which, come to think of it, describes Rael nicely.  But moving onwards.

I'd be lying if I said I hadn't read Hobbes

All hail Lord Rael the Benevolent!

You may be hard-pressed to convince the honest merchant in his city (who enjoys no theft, no looting, no vandalism, no disadvantaged trade practices, no thugs/standover men knocking on his door, etc, etc) that Rael is a bad guy (dwarf) at all. The merchant probably thinks he's doing a pretty good job. That merchant may think you Toranites with your forgiveness and your soft justice and your ideas of rehabilitation and forgiveness are the really misguided ones. "Maybe that works in your Ivory Temple Milady Paladin but try living that philosophy on the mean streets of Vehl/Katherian/wherever and you and your family won't last long" he might say.

One would indeed have a very hard time to convince said merchant of the evilness of Lord Rael. After all, Prantz -is- safe, something that cannot be said of a whole range of cities in Layonara.
Of course, there are scores of people in Layonara who would disagree with this, which is fine (and in fact intentional). But there is less crime then under King Karem, it just came at a cost.

*back on topic*
I would say that being lawful (in the alignment way of talking about lawful) doesn't necessarily mean following the laws of the land.
I am also of the opinion that you cannot separate the law-chaos axis from the good-evil one.

Example to illustrate.
The laws of the land can be terrible. Consider a law where everyone who can no longer take care of himself because of old age must be killed.
If you would just follow the law of the land, you'd have to do it, if you ignore Good-Evil. But the good part of a character would never actually commit himself to this, whereas the evil one would (unless perhaps if it's his own father).

My two pauper's coins

[lonnarin]

In my opinion, Lawful characters follow *a* set of laws, and while they would be reserved against breaking any laws in foreign lands, they would not recognize the legitimacy of the laws of their enemies.  A LG Voraxian would look upon Prantz as an enemy combatant, not a legitimate authority.  The very worship of Vorax in that city results in death, so Voraxian worshippers would very rightly wish death back upon the tyrant executing their brothers of the faith.  The war never ended for these two forces.  If a Voraxian Warparty is out in the mines and the come across a Prantz Warparty, they fight.  That's what happened to Gorm, Kurn and the rest of the "dwarven army" when we were ambushed by deep dwarves in the caves.  There was no talking, only war.

This is also why Bjornigar (LN) refuses to set foot in Prantz.  He's of the mind that the Bloodwars never ended, seeing as how there are still two generals of Sinthar left alive.  If he were ever to venture to Prantz in any fashion, it would be to attack it.  Rael executed starving deep gnomes whose only crime was petty theft; although technically lawful, this was a bastardization of true justice in his eyes.  The punishment must fit the crime, that's the LN approach.  The LE approach is more like "haha, we caught you breaking the law, now we can do anything we want to you because we are the power and authority" with greater levels of corruption stemming from those entitled to do so within their power structure.  A guard beating down a jay-walker and breaking his legs, having somebody executed for sedition after overhearing legitimate criticism of a ruling party, a spy network the has the authority of the state to eliminate "threats" covertly in the interests of the king; these are all Lawful Evil tactics.  Lawful Neutral people are more concerned with the letter of the law being performed as it is written, without consideration given to either the offender or the victim of any transgression.  The law is the law is the law, and all laws are to be uniformly applied, with punishment and crime being as close a fit as possible.

Lawful Goods I have always seen as those who not only obey and venerate the law themselves, but also do so specifically for the good of the people.  They are likely to stand up for an offender's rights if he has them, and would be very much against "railroading" somebody on trial, despite their own feelings towards them.  the punishment must not only fit the crime, but ideally must also make-up for the crime in some form of retribution.  Rather than Jimmy being sent to the salt mines for vandalizing somebody's fence, Jimmy would be given a brush and some whitewash and made to repaint all the fences in the neighborhood.  If Tod gets caught stealing pies from windowsill, he must reimburse the victim for the pie and serve time in the local soup kitchen, feeding those who hunger most.  Lawful Good legal systems use law to better the community as a whole as the focus, whereas Lawful Evil systems seek to make the community obey out of fear of punishment.  Lawful Good governments serve the people, and the people serve Lawful Evil governments.  With lawful neutral ones, there is a fair exchange of taxation & obedience vs. protection & services provided by the state.

How would a Lawful Good person Feel in a Lawful Evil land?  They would hate it, seeing the worst possible scenario of what a strong government could do with its power.  How did Indiana Jones' father (LG) view the Nazis (LE) in The Last Crusade?  Evil, brutal, disgusting, the very scum of the earth; a force which must be stopped.  I would venture to say that Lawful Good persons would be loathe to set foot in Lawful Evil lands, would not want to shop there and see their tax dollars go towards oppression, would not want to buy the goods manufactured by prison labor, etc. (one of the big reasons I don't shop at Wal-Mart)  And if they do have to venture there in the line of duty, sure they will obey the law of the streets, but if a paladin were to see a child having his hands chopped off in public for stealing bread, there would be blood.  To Lawful Goods, there is a marked difference between Justice and The Law.  All laws must be just if they are to be valid.  It is the code of law that their god has decreed that they adhere to.  Hence why you won't find them buying pleasure slaves in Kartharian, just because its legal per the law of the land.  Their gods juristiction extends to the entire world, and to be a paladin you could not serve any government which demanded you to make decisions which would offend the moral code of your own god.  The Will of the State, even your own king and country must take second priority to that.

And if you're a champion, multiply that by 5000.  You are your own nation, one nation of your god, and woe to those who would command you to do anything different to the divine will.

Edit: and I am pretty certain that Indiana Jones' father had paladin levels

[Dezza]

Lawfulness...Rofirein........Laws! This has to be something I post on!

Going waaaaaay back to Vrebels post about the 'incident'. You had more play for Vrebel to make different decisions to Sasha. Sasha was bound by quite a few issues here at this time and let me explain her motivations in her decision to fight at the side of the Rael army in taking that tower.

1/ Sasha has been recommended by Angela Swann to be a suitable Commander for a standing army in Lor therefore it was a good opportunity for Sasha to view how the Rael army operated, coordinated on the battle field, organised supplies, used discipline, tactics etc. So she was in the capacity of gathering information in case, heaven forbid she ever has to 'coordinate an attack against Rael troops '

2/ Sasha is a staunch LN Rofireinite, she does not like some of Raels methods, she does not like the man himself, she does not like the means he came to power but.....His position as ruler in Prantz has been ratified by the Rofireinites therefore he IS the legitimate government whether she likes it or not.

3/ Rael has committed to the Divine Laws...most of them anyway (even though he reserves the right to determine punishments for breaking those laws) as a realisation that without the Rofireinites approval literally every nation on Layonara might seek to overthrow him due to him NOT being the legitimate authority there.

4/ The Rofireinites have sacrificed a GREAT deal to get Rael just to agree to them being there, to him ascribing to the Divine Laws and letting the Rofireinites control the courts there still to the main degree. Given Sasha's turbulant past with the Rofireinites she is not about to upset or be blamed for upsetting that balance.

5/ The Law of the land says that the Rael army had right of way on the battlefield and we were commanded not to interfere. We were asked if we wanted to join their assault otherwise we had to just stand back as casual observers. For Sasha the best outcome in her mind would be Angela taking the members of the Diet out of the tower in secret and spiriting them away without the Rael troops knowledge. For Sasha she was committed to the Law of the Land, to not breaking the tentative trust that the Rofireinites have built up with Rael and to gathering intell about a potential future threat to the authority in Lor if a standing army ever gets approved.

6/ Sasha knows that the reason the Rofireinites have gone to such means is that can you imagine a place without the moderating effect of Law and proportional Justice. Can you imagine Rael in Prantz without any restrictions? Prantz is the birthplace of the Divine Laws, codified and ratified by nations all over the world and multiple Faiths. The Rofireinites are fighting a war in Rael, a war for stability, for moderation, for the future. The Rofireinites battle in Prantz is not a short term thing, its a constant wearing down of Rael, of small acceptances, of minor inroads, slowly but surely with the ultimate goal of providing a strong lawful nation with proportional Justice and fairness for all innocents.

So.....that explains Sasha's actions on that particular engagement