a rogue should never be lawful, while a pally is always and should be lawful. they should not mix and match.
I don't agree with that one entirely. Can a rogue not be a scout or an archer for the king's army? The things with rogues is their name implies a dark-side. Rogues can be thieves and asassins, but also highly trained support personel.
There are hackers who work with companies to identify holes in their system.
People with the awareness and skills of a criminal can choose to use those skills illegally, or work for the police force.
That's the way I see it. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
well, i personally think those aligments are subject to interpretation, so they can be highly subjective. i may not have expounded on it adequately or clearly. what i'm trying to say is that any character can have any alignment. however, there are certain restrictions imposed in the d&d universe for the sake of roleplaying. as you said, the "rogue" class has a certain dark side attached to it, and i agree with that wholeheartedly. i'm speaking in general terms, and of course, i respect your opinion.
generally speaking, the paladin & rogue class don't mix imho. of course, a rogue can be a "scout or a diplomat in a king's army" as you put it. but as to how they go about doing their job, it's another matter. what if diplomacy fails, for example? this is how i see it: if a pally does the negotiation with the opposing army, he has a better chance of succeeding, because well, he is perceived to be charismatic. however, if negotiations with the opposing army fail, i see the pally going back to his king and reporting to him that he has tried his best but failed to accomplish his job. if the rogue did the negotiating and also fails, most likely he will backstab his opponent.
applying your "real-life" example of the hackers, well yes, they work for companies to develop anti-hacking processes. but how did they know about their job? obviously, they hacked in the first place, and that wasn't "lawful".
let's take another example, that of robin hood, who stole from the filthy rich to give to the poor. that is very good, but it's hardly lawful.
so bottomline, a rogue may do some things that may be good or lawful, or both lawful good acts, but it's not enough to make him/her a full-time paladin, a class which has strict alignment restrictions. because when things get out of hand, a rogue will most likely follow his own natural instincts, while a pally will consider his devotion to his faith rather than his personal preference in determining the course of his action. all these of course in the name of roleplaying.
in the context of d&d roleplaying, if you have a lawful good rogue, it might be best to multi-class him with a monk. the monk & rogue class do mix in very well. they share many class skills. i've played such in nwn, and constantly knocking down an opponent & sneak sttacking him is a deadly combo.
cheers. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
