Note: this is related SPECIFICALLY to clerics - who are more restricted in their behaviour than non-clerics since they draw their powers from their diety. Behaviour inconsistent with their diety's dogma can and should be punished by the DMs (hint hint).

With regard to lawful good clerics, what should they be limited to with regards to PvP - I mean, if someone has ticked them off enough and given them just cause, is a LG cleric allowed to open a can of holy whoop-ass on someone?

For example, if someone is known to be a murderer (multiple reliable witnesses, etc), has made death threats against a friend PC, and additionally is a follower of an opposed diety... is assassinating them in some recluse place allowable?

I am inclined to think it is - being good doesn't necessarily mean turning the other cheek. It sometimes involves removal of dangerous people even if doing so is against the law. While some people see "lawful" as meaning "follows the law", I see it more as "behaviourally consistent" and not inclined to random acts.

Thoughts?

I think they'd try to make sure the bad guy got caught. If they saw them causing harm to someone they'd be free to intervene of course. But then they could also turn to some less lawful folks who are also determined to see evil be punished and tip them in the right direction. (hint hint)

I'm almost certain 90% of the server realise lawful does'nt mean follows the laws. Laws are written by man after all.

If a well known murderer threatens one of your friends and your almost certain he's going to kill him. Killing the guy before he can kill your friend or another would be a good idea.

Now on the other hand if you don't know for sure and this guy just seems like he throws out threats like candies (those exist in real life too :) ) then it may not be right to attack them.

Just remember that hostile key before you iniatiate the actual combat.

This applies to all LG people not just clerics. Infact saying "LG clerics" is confusing. Since no two clerics of two different diety should react the same ot most situations.

I agree with Naga. A cleric's actions should (almost always) concur with the dogma of his patron, and should usually override alignment. For example, a cleric of Torm and a cleric of Ilamter could both be LG. However, the Tormtar cleric, congruent with Torm's dogma, would be much more likely to kill an evil person then the Ilmateri. Of course, this isnt to say that both wouldnt. Essentially, a patron's dogma would be the prime motivation behind a cleric's deeds. With other classes though, I'd say alignment would be the prime motivating factor.

MadCads

Alignment should not motivate your actiosn what so ever. Alignment is just a tag you get for acting a certain way. Although generally you should choose an alignment from day one and say that is what I THINK my character would always act like. You should'nt think of it as a restraint.

I had a gnome guard. He started Lawful Neutral deed a few heroic deeds helped people out risked his life etc, became Lawful Good. Became a guard started to take to laws in an extremly strict sence of the word (due to certain ic interactions) became lawful neutral, got constantly walked over by certain tigereyes and there cronies.

Finally had enough of a certain someones constant threats and killed him becoming NN (reconsilor) Some poor sod came along witnessed the whole thing and then reported it to my guard when he got back to town. He used his guard position to lure the man back out to the scene and cut him down. Disposing of the body in a similiar fashion to the last. That was enough to Shift him to CE.

What I'm trying to say is certain ic interactions may change the way you look on things regardless of alignment, with clerics you can still do these things but keep in mind if you do your likely to lose your powers. Oh and anytime you do something you feel may be VERY different from something your alignment might do, toss a dm a tell before taking the action or don't take it (this applies especialy for clerics) so that way you can recieve appropriete shifts for your actions.

To summerize, alignment should never be used as a constraint to ic actions. Just try to make sure theres a dm about if you plan on doing something that may oppose your alignment.

Yes, I see your point. Your char's story I think is an excellent protrayal of shifting alignment brought about by IG actions.

I don't think of alignment as a tag. It's the way your character views things when they are created.

There are two, distinct issues here. The first, which is what the intitiator of the thread wanted to discuss, was what a LG character can and can't do. Specifically, the dogma of the cleric.

Lawfulness means following the laws. A LN person follows the laws above all. And in a society with laws, someone being a prick and/or attacking you doesn't justify killing if it's avoidable. So if that cleric can subdue or better yet, cast a Hold Person spell - that's what they are obligated to do.

Now, if you have a LG character, at some point they have to evaluate whether the laws are good and valid. If it's a corrupt society where evil is protected by law, then the Good part of the LG alignment kicks in. It is their job try to change the laws so that at the very least, they don't benefit evildoing. And if they law won't stop evil, then a LG character is perfectly within their rights to think that justice isn't being served, that the law isn't valid and to take their own steps to correct the situation.

I may differ in this with some, but in a society with laws, just being evil doesn't give LG characters the right to smite them willy-nilly. A monster in the Underdark - yes. Another citizen of a Lawful society - no. Unless it's pure self-defense and/or the character has attempted to work within the law and it was ineffective.

The second issue that Naga discusses is RP your character and alignment. I think it's great that someone responds to conflict and their alignment changes as a result. But that's a RP decision. If you want to play a paladin who must be LG, you have a choice. You either resist the temptation to cut the leering evil gnome in half (which they probably deserve) at the Bazaar and follow the law, or you risk losing your paladinhood by breaking the law.

Now if the dogma of the cleric or paladin states that you are free to make your own law as you see fit, then they are OK. Otherwise, keeping that LG "tag" is an important RP decision and depends on the aims and goals of the player.

In this game good and evil are not philosophical. Good and Evil are actual forces in the world and they are the direct opposites of each other. Evil can have sway over a character the same as good can have sway over another. Eve Forward's Villians by Necessity is an entertaining look at it and even though it's not set in Faerun the concept is basically the same.

Gwydion

Lawfulness means following the laws. A LN person follows the laws above all. And in a society with laws, someone being a prick and/or attacking you doesn't justify killing if it's avoidable. So if that cleric can subdue or better yet, cast a Hold Person spell - that's what they are obligated to do. .

Could'nt be more wrong on this. A lawful good paladin will not follow the law if it was in itself evil or unjust.

Or for example a lawful neutral character would not start sacrafising his first born child to Cyric because the law states an offering of your first born must be made once every five years.

Lawful means following your own code of rules. Laws are made by men (sometimes choatic and evil men) for this reason lawful can't possibly mean following laws in general.

I'm actually pretty sure that this has been pointed out by the dms once or twice in the information for new players and "Vital statistics: alignment" section of the forums.

Gwydion, your "lawful means following written laws" falls apart when you consider that there are evil laws for evil nations. Would a LG Cleric follow them? Certainly not.

If your patron is Torm or Tyr and you decide to translate their dogma as following the letter of the law, then you should understand that it is in your specific deity's dogma to follow the laws of man, perhaps because the deity believes that in doing so you live in a healthy society.

A LG Cleric of Hoar would most certainly not let a man's law stand in the way of his God's decree.

LG Clerics might tend to lean more toward obeying laws and requests of authority figures, but this does not mean they have to, especially when it contradicts his Deity's edict.

Had the two of you read my response in its entirity, you would understand my post and wouldn't have made the above comments.

Now, if you have a LG character, at some point they have to evaluate whether the laws are good and valid. If it's a corrupt society where evil is protected by law, then the Good part of the LG alignment kicks in. It is their job try to change the laws so that at the very least, they don't benefit evildoing. And if they law won't stop evil, then a LG character is perfectly within their rights to think that justice isn't being served, that the law isn't valid and to take their own steps to correct the situation.

Never said a LG cleric had to back laws that opposed their faith.

But there is NO WAY being LG justifies a character from assassinating or murdering an evil character. Which in effect, is what the original poster asked.

There are a LOT of blatantly evil types walking around Sanctuary, and I don't see paladins or LG clerics buffing at the sight of them and slaughtering them. Why not? Because if they did, IT WOULD BE AGAINST THE LAW. They'd be thrown in jail.

A CG character doesn't try to kill characters because they would go to jail. They don't give a shit about the law, but don't want to go to jail. If they can kill the SOB somewhere else, then they would be content in serving the greater good and taking the prick out. But a LG character tries to work WITHIN the law, or tries to change the law if they are unjust. If they can't do either, then the incite revolution or simply leave.

I'm pretty sure my take is right on this, despite the smug assertions to the contrary.

There are a LOT of blatantly evil types walking around Sanctuary, and I don't see paladins or LG clerics buffing at the sight of them and slaughtering them. Why not? Because if they did, IT WOULD BE AGAINST THE LAW. They'd be thrown in jail.

No they don't do it because they'd get caught same as choatic folk, its the same reason why us villians catch you outside of town because we think "Oh gee I don't think killing that guy infront of tons of witnnesses is a very good idea especialy since some of the wtinesses are guards"

Its common sence not to kill someone infront of aton of witnesses.

There is infact one npc a very lawful one that is out there that would almost get you a promotion if you were a watchman and managed to catch him. I won't say exactly who you'll have to find that ic.

I'll also refer you to the dogma of hoar.

Hoar

The Doombringer, Lord of Three Thunders Symbol: Black-gloved hand holding a coin with a two-faced head Home Plane: The Barrens of Doom and Despair Alignment: Lawful Neutral Portfolio: Revenge, retribution, poetic justice Worshipers: Assassins, fighters, rogues, seekers of retribution Favored Weapon: "Retribution's Sting" [javelin of lightning] (javelin)

Cleric Alignments: LE, LG, LN NwN Domains: Travel, War

History/Relationships: Hoar is actually the ancient Untheric deity worshiped in the eastern Inner Sea lands as Assuran. Centuries ago, he was driven from Unther by Ramman, although his cult remained strong in Chessenta. He eventually slew his rival during the Time of Troubles, but Anhur stole Ramman's unclaimed portfolio before Hoar could act, earning Hoar's ire. Both Tyr and Shar contest for Hoar's tormented soul, as the Dark Goddess seeks to turn him into a servant of blind vengeance and bitterness while the Maimed God seeks to unlock Hoar's bittersweet humor and shift his portfolio to favor irony and poetic justice. Meanwhile, Hoar conspires with Beshaba in unleashing bad luck on the deserving.

Dogma: Uphold true and fitting justice and maintain the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. Fitting recompense will always accrue for one's actions. Violence will meet violence and evil pay back evil, but good will also come to those who do good. Walk the line of the Doombringer's teachings, seeking retribution, but do not fall into the trap of pursuing evil acts for evil's sake, for that way is seductive and leads only to one's downfall. Vengeance must be sought for all injustices, and all punishments must fit the crime. Revenge is sweetest when it is sharpened with irony. All attacks must be avenged. Those who do not respond to attacks against their person or that which they hold dear only invite future attacks.

There you are a LAWFUL NEUTRAL GOD

Alright, let my try this. Do you people think all monks follow laws? Hm? Hell no. They still must be lawful, and this is why? This is because it takes commitment to the training and order and discipline. Lawful also means that you are following certain personal boundaries and do not just suddenly jump from goody goody acting to robbing graves.

Just correct me if I'm wrong, but Lawful does not mean that you have to follow the laws.

Your correct paha we're trying to convince Gwydon still though :/

If you think of Tyr, which is the god of justice, you are in fact allowed, if in the course of justice, to kill another.

In your case of murder and witnesses, bring them in for trial would be the first option. However if they resist or attack, death can be implemented as it is another form of justice, though its not the ideal one.

So yes in certain circumstances I can see where slaying another is warranted and thus allowed as you are following the law for a good cause.

LOL at you all.

Being lawful doesn't mean you have to follow the laws?

So by that logic, being good means you don't have to do good things?

Ridiculous.

If the laws of a town are created for the benefit of all and are generally a GOOD thing to have, then heck yes a lawful character has to follow them.

The monk has a strict code of behaviors, discpline and such that is outside of the laws of the town. If that code generally furthers the cause of good, ie helps people, then they are LG.

I assert that if a player is Lawful and the laws of a town or society can't be deemed unjust or against the precepts of good, then they are obligated to follow them. I CHALLENGE anyone to find any dogma of a lawful faith system that encourages a character to break laws that are just and fairly implemented.

Naga, your example of the dogma of Hoar is a perfect example of a LG character taking things into their own hands when the existing laws do not result in justice. But the very definition of chaotic good on this site seems to be what you are implying a lawful good character is free to do...

Chaotic Good, “Rebel”: A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he's kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.

The converse of chaotic good therefore, would have a strong regard for laws and regulations. He is also obligated to work within the system first in the established laws of society. IMO, only when those laws allow for evil or chaos can they be deemed invalid and the LG character can act as they see fit.

(Contentious crap deleted)

Naga

Lawful means following your own code of rules. Laws are made by men (sometimes choatic and evil men) for this reason lawful can't possibly mean following laws in general.

I can't agree with this statement for the following reasons. Lawful is NOT following your own moral compas. It is working and using the existing system as a framework to do your job. A LE person would use the laws to keep people under their thumb. They stick to those rules regardless of their foundations and manipulate or enforce them as they see suits them.

A chaotic person is the one who don't give a damn about the laws or tradition or structure and instead 'follows their own code of rules'. They follow the rules only when the rules coincide with whatever goals they have in mind. Otherwise they do what they want when they want.

Lawful people not only obey their gods dogma, but must also do so within the framework of man's laws. Because of this contradiction of sorts, they have a very big problem when those two mantra's come in conflict. Paladins often have this problem and thats why a paladins life is supposed to be so hard. I hate to reference the OC but Aribeth had thsi very conflict and it proved that mans law was flawed as was her devotion to her gods law and she was unable to strike a balance between the two.

So lawful characters can get away with whatever the lawmakers of the city/country/realm feel is acceptable within the law of man. Lawful clerics and paladins use the 'law of their gods' to empower them, but they still act within their socieities boundaries.

In Sanctuary, it is legal to stone someone to death. That in itself is barbaric and could be seen as an evil act since it's a somewhat inhumane way to kill a person. BUT since it's the law, the Paladin/Cleric can uphold that law without an alighnment change for throwing a stone at someone. Now how the character personally views stoning, that is a different story. Perhaps they are appauled by the act, and so they do not participate, but they do not object to the sentence that has been ordered to be carried out.

This is the description of a lawful good character in the general knowledge section.

Lawful Good, “Crusader”: A lawful good character acts as a god person is expected or required to act. She combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. A paladin who fights evil without mercy and who protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good.

A chaotic good would be more likely to kill them I think but a lawful good can do so as a last resort IMO.

Ladocicea Gwydion, your "lawful means following written laws" falls apart when you consider that there are evil laws for evil nations. Would a LG Cleric follow them? Certainly not..

Of course that LG character would either leave or be dead within a week of he stayed there. So that situation would be extremely rare. And any LG character who stayed to 'fight the system' there is a fool and soon to be a corpse.

My guard followed laws better than anyone in the town. I was 100 good, but I was nearly turned to Chaotic from Lawful.

If you think being lawful means that you obey or has to obey laws, then I simply say that it's not true. Check any book or link from internet that tells about lawful and you would see.

This link would teach you alot: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm#alignment

We have a winner...

"A chaotic good would be more likely to kill them I think but a lawful good can do so as a last resort IMO."

I want a DM ruling on this one, or even possibly a DM discussion and subsequent consensus statement covering it.

Can a LG priest slay evildoers that happen to be Sanctuary citizens as they see fit? If a paladin uses detect evil on someone that threatens them, is it LG to slay them in the Underdark? What if the evil character attacks them and there is an opportunity to slay them in the future, can they do it? Or do they have to turn them in and let the legal system run its course.

And I want to know what engenders or could suggest an alignment shift from LG to NG or CG.

Thanks.

Alignment is important to me, and actually I use it as a defining feature on character creation to base how that character views the world and how he interacts with it. To me, it is the root of his/her personality which is a reflection of how that individual both presents themselves to others naturally and how that person interacts with the world around him. For me, and I say that as for me only, I likely will not have much of an alignment shift with a character. Even if I did I would expect it would come from a multitide of interactions over an extended period of time that would amount to life altering events so profound that it would not only alter behaviors (a superficial and controlable) but also personality (deep seated and rarely changeable, due to being based on character traits).

As to the LG question, you are bound to order (your own god's dogma as a cleric, but also to some extent I would argue any LG character would be loathe to go against extablished order to accomplish something) to accomplish good. If you knew a character was evil and going to do evil, I beleive the CG would cut his throat at the earliest opportunity, the NG might kill him and might not depending on the situation, and the LG (I think) would attempt to kill him within the bounds of order with some likey questions on the moral abiguity of the situation. (ie a duel, getting him to strike first so it technically counts as self defense, etc.).

Just 2 cents from my old dixie cup.

Paha, I don't think that link supports your argument at all. I didn't say it was a straight jacket...

And I'd like for you to explain to me this sentence from your own link....

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority

How can you justify breaking the law, vigilante style, and consider that obeying authority?

Here is the definition of a vigilante....

"One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands."

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vigilante

Is taking the law into your hands allowable if you are "obedient to authority"?

Paha, with all due respect, I disagree with you take on this.

I think that unless the lawa are proven ineffective, corrupt or beneficial to evil / harmful to good, that it has to be followed.

*removed irrelevant info (since it was just argueing and it really did'nt need to be left os public)*

Couple of thoughts. While the word Law is in Lawful it doesn't necessarily mean only following Laws. It's more a sense of discipline, duty, following a moral code, not just laws. When the legal system is corrupt, someone lawful would strive to change it according to their own ideals. You could very well have a lawful evil and a lawful good character trying to change the legal system according to their own ideals and beliefs, so just because the word law is in lawful doesn't mean they would always follow the letter of the law.

Secondly, there are lots of shades and variations here as well. That's why there are 100 points to be able to move and ebb and flow from lawful to chaotic, evil to good. It's not like a lawful good paladin of Tr0m has to be 100 100 LG every waking moment. Even a paladin could have moments of indecision and internal conflict thus wavering from 85 85 or 100 85, etc. Just like life, no rule or law is absolute as there can always be an exception to any of them. Don't kill, until someone is trying to come into your house and kill you. Don't steal, unless your child is going to die of starvation. And on and on, so, yes, a Lawful character would follow their beliefs and dogma (especially a cleric) as they interpret it. It's not like even they can't misinterpret their own dogma and waver in their alignments. We all do that. And a cleric doesn't have a handy dandy handbook that covers every possible situation or issue of faith. In fact that's what faith is, doing the best you can with your understanding in a variety of scenarios, that may very well test your faith.

*ching ching*

ok...that was a fun exchange. Lets see if we cant bring this back around eh? To the topic that is

Yes, back to the topic. And Gwydion, I'd suggest you read a bit more. I am well aware what lawful means, but things always have two sides. There were rather many good points on what you normally think Lawful is.

Can a LG priest slay evildoers that happen to be Sanctuary citizens as they see fit?

No, that's chaotic at best, evil at worst, depending on the motivations.

If a paladin uses detect evil on someone that threatens them, is it LG to slay them in the Underdark?

No.

What if the evil character attacks them and there is an opportunity to slay them in the future, can they do it? Or do they have to turn them in and let the legal system run its course.

The latter is generally option A, B, C, and D. If they decided to take lethal action, it's best done honorably in a duel, or at least giving the intended victim a fair chance. Murdering someone in an alley isn't really good form.

And I want to know what engenders or could suggest an alignment shift from LG to NG or CG.

Acting rashly, instigating brawls, committing murder, harming others for selfish reasons, lying, stealing, among others, are good fast tracks to CG.

Blanthis Couple of thoughts. While the word Law is in Lawful it doesn't necessarily mean only following Laws. It's more a sense of discipline, duty, following a moral code, not just laws. When the legal system is corrupt, someone lawful would strive to change it according to their own ideals. You could very well have a lawful evil and a lawful good character trying to change the legal system according to their own ideals and beliefs, so just because the word law is in lawful doesn't mean they would always follow the letter of the law.

A lawful character needn't follow the laws more than a chaotic character, assuming the character in question didn't put down those laws herself. My current character, for example, happens to like the idea of warded areas. Had he been lawful he'd respect that law to the letter. As it happens, he isn't, but that doesn't mean he won't obey the laws regarding spellcasting - it simply means that, if it becomes a necessity, he will use magic, whatever the situation. With that said, he'll still feel bad about breaking the law. Now, all this is, as I said, because he likes that certain ruling. If he hadn't cared for it, lawful or not, he quite surely wouldn't respect it (exception being if an authority is in the neighbourhood).

I got the solution to all of you - play chaotic or neutral characters and don't play clerics or paladins.

That way who cares what you do .

djspectre I got the solution to all of you - play chaotic or neutral characters and don't play clerics or paladins.

That way who cares what you do .

Falling from grace, or losing the favour of your god can make for some exceptional roleplay and storylines. Just play your character, do what he or she would do, and let the good times roll.

-SherryHippy

It makes so much more sense when instead of saying lawful/chaotic you say ethical or unethical. Instead of saying good/evil say moral/immoral.

Ethical people tend to follow morals and rules that they hold themselves to.

Moral people tend to obey the mores of their society in such a manner that is least harmful to the most people possible.

(more crap)

Dude, you need a smoke or something. Anyways, keep that stuff private man!

Wow, what a crazy thread.

All right, on the internet it's really easy to be misunderstood -- I'm certain no one intended on offending anyone else. Opposed checks -definitely- shouldn't be insisted upon by PCs (only DMs), however an unsolicited intimidate (or persuade, etc.) roll is fine to reflect that your PC has substantial investment in the skill, however when done it is best to pair that with an OOC tell "no opposed check required, feel free to ignore, just demonstrating the skill investment." That said, it really just looks like there was some misunderstanding between two good players that I hope has been settled!

Anyway, no more needs be said on the subject -- take it to PMs or contact a DM.

As to the question, you should always do what your character would do first and foremost. A LG character, even in the neutral settlement of Sanctuary (which has aspects of both good and evil), would I think almost always attempt to work within the law to bring down citizens of the town. If the Watch proves unable or ineffective in dealing with a particular criminal, there's still quite a bit you can do -- challenging to a duel, working to gather more evidence, working to figure out why the Watch won't (or can't) arrest, spreading knowledge about these crimes, and so on and so on. But innroom or back alley assassinations would definitely be fairly chaotic, and something that the dieties of most paladins/LG clerics would disapprove of.

LG characters are certainly under no expectation or obligation to follow an evil law, however it's pretty true in all settlements (even LG ones) that every once in a while there's an evil guy who's committing acts of wickedness but still legally avoiding arrest somehow, and most LG characters would accept that it is of higher importance to maintain an orderly and lawful society than it would be to eliminate him illegally.

*removed irrelevant info*

As for the lawful following laws thing I just could'nt possibly ever agree with it. I was pulling out bits and peices of info to show you why I thought as such. I used to think the same way but when I really looked into the alignments (and played the oppossing alignments) I figured out how "non descript" each alignment was.

The opinion I developed for the non descript alignments

Choatic to me has always been not so much goes against laws but more so is not a great person to trust. For example in an town where an evil baron rules over all. A choatic character finds out about some gnolls who are strong enough to take down the evil baron, he tells the baron he's going to work as a spy for him with the gnolls but secretly does'nt care who wins. If the gnolls win he'll say he was with them if the baron does he'll say he was always on the barons side.

Lawful to me in this situation would keep is word. He would side with one side or the other. He may decide his loyalty should lie with the baron or his loyalty would lie with the gnolls as they have the power to free the people of the evil baron.

A neutral on the other hand either won't get involved or won't get involved unless somebody asks him. If the barn approached him and asked him his help he may say. Sure what the hell so long as it benifits me. Vice versa with the gnolls.

*removed irrelevant info*

on the topic of opposed checks, where can we find a list of those at?

Yah, I'm being a prick.

sent Naga a PM about it.

Apologies to anyone that suffered through reading this.... :shock:

Playing a lawful good character who follows the laws of society is not something I as a player can handle, its too much. I can not be constrained by some giant invisible hand always over my shoulder AND work for "good". For me as a player, it conflicts too damn much.

When I play both lawfull AND good(I can handle lawfull neutral and evil way easier, when the law is for society), I always focus on the law aspect as strongly following a personal code, which is one of the often ignored aspects of the alignment.

When playing Lawful Good I always have that Canadian Mountie in mind, from those odd movies with the evil-moustache-dude, if anyone knows what I mean (Fallout-players might also understand).

They're good in an almost naive way .. like, "Lies make baby jesus cry!" Unable to understand how anyone else could not be. However, that also means they'd punish the evildoers without mercy or regret. In Fantasy settings I suppose sometimes killing CAN be a "good" deed, since some creatures just are "set" evil and one can't assume they would -ever- change (e.g. the infamous Black Dragon, also, the Drow can be seen as all-evil, exceptions of that rule is the stuff for legends or fairy tales). But yes - those characters probably wouldn't get down onto the same filthy level as the real evil perps, they probably always take responsibility for their actions, so they are either enforcers or martyrs but probably no assassins, which can be a shame sometimes. <.<

But it's a rather liberal system and you get as many various views of alignments as you have players playing them so I stopped arguing. I always can per-fectly explain my actions being true to my alignment but I don't like having to argue them in the first place either.