Rules Lawyers come in different flavors; from Lawful Evil, Lawful Good or Lawful Stupid, although the term usually carries a negative connotation. What all versions have in common is a nigh-encyclopedic knowledge of every single aspect of the rules within the game system. The difference between the three is largely down to attitude and how it affects the overall game. Lawful Evil Rules Lawyers manipulate the rules to give themselves advantages even if it ruins the game for everyone else, Lawful Stupid Rules Lawyers will always insist on following the rules even when it's to the detriment of fun, while Lawful Good Rules Lawyers play by the rules even if that puts them at a disadvantage, and generally try to use the rules to make things more fun for everyone.
The Lawful Evil Rules Lawyer is a particularly annoying kind of player who believes that because he can find a rule about some action in one of the manuals, the Game Master is bound to allow him to take that action, even if it doesn't make sense, or would screw with what's going on. He's convinced that, with the power of the rules, he can outmaneuver the GM and get what he wants. He will attempt to employ every loophole, every odd circumstance, and every footnote he can. Expect the Rules Lawyer to have pored over most of the manuals, even those that players aren't supposed to read. And most annoyingly, he seems to remember only the parts that support whatever he's doing at that moment, intentionally ignoring whatever doesn't support his own case. (And insists on Exact Words.)
Usually, the first rule the Rules Lawyer conveniently "forgets" while making his arguments is Rule Zero: that the GM is always right. Squashing him with this early is the best bet; attempting to argue about rules with him only encourages his behavior. If invoked, he might dare to argue that Rule Zero is an unwritten rule, despite it being a foundation of good play.
One of the basic tactics of Munchkins everywhere, and part of the reason some games in fact have a Metagame. They are among the few people who Read The Fine Print. See My Rule Fu Is Stronger than Yours for the argument that is going to happen with the GM at some point. If a rule in a book ever seems to be written rather verbosely, or explain things that seem like common sense, it's the writers trying to stop these guys.
The Lawful Stupid Rules Lawyer is incompetent instead of malicious. They'll constantly grind play to a halt to make sure that everyone is following the rules even if the end result would be the same anyway. They won't allow any technique that isn't specified in said rules to be used, causing the game to become rigid. If the GM decides to make some well designed and balanced homebrews than this lawyer will start throwing a fit.
However, this trope does come in a positive variant referred to as the Lawful Good Rules Lawyer: they always stick to the rules, no matter how bad it might be for them personally. And they'll point out exactly the proper rules that state that, no, they didn't escape the deathtrap, they died.
Conversely, in a tabletop setting, the rules are the Player Characters' primary means of interacting with the world, and if a GM is constantly changing the rules mid-game, the players cannot play. Gaming groups must, by necessity, be a mutually policing force. Sometimes a Rules Lawyer is necessary when the GM is repeatedly sending waves and waves of homebrewedmooks who are immune to everything except the powers of that one super duper archmage the GM has been writing a novel about for the last seven years and if you try to fight them without the archmage GMPC, you die. No save.
In this instance, the Rules Lawyer is one check against GM misbehavior, as in a healthy gaming group, the GM is answerable to the players as much as the players are answerable to the GM, because it is everybody's game.
A Lawful Good Rules Lawyer can also be a valuable thing to have in your gaming group if one or more of the players in your gaming group cheats or doesn't RTFM. Even when the rest of the group is on the level, the fact that a Rules Lawyer will, by definition, know all of the rules can make them useful for a gaming group as the ultimate natural language database.
open/close all folders
Anime and Manga
Lelouch vi Britannia from Code Geass often applies this to his geass powers (mostly in season 1). Best example (in season 1) would be when he used his Geass on himself to alter his own memories, so the mind-reader he was fighting wouldn't grasp Lelouch's real plan until it was too late. In season 2 he just outright cheats. or at least this is how he sees it. He starts commanding people to follow all of his orders. Basically wishing for unlimited wishes.
Light Yagami from Death Note is constantly exploiting the rules of the Death Notes in obscure and bizarre ways to accomplish his goals. Arguably, the entire series is about Rules Lawyering.
Example: a victim can't be made to write things about Death Notes before they die because they don't know about them and so wouldn't reasonably write about them. But what they can be made to do is write a poem where the first letter of each line "just happens" to form a message about Death Notes or just about anything else.
One rule that seems to be about stopping Rules Lawyering (and doesn't come up in the story): If you misspell someone's name they don't die, and if you do so by accident four times in a Death Note, they can no longer be killed by that Death Note. But if you misspell their name deliberately four times, then you die. Yeah, the book knows the difference.
Parodied (naturally) in the card game Munchkin with the card Invoke Obscure Rules. This card has been translated as Regelneuker in the Dutch version, which is actually the Dutch word for a Rules Lawyer and literally translates as "rule fucker."
It is completely legal to play Go Up A Level cards on your opponents while they are facing monsters that have a "Will not pursue under level X" restriction. (This wasn't the original intention of the card when it was made, but the creators of the game deliberately decided to allow it, as it was in the spirit of the game.)
Or, after several cards have been played to jump to a level that can actually kill the enemy in question, dumping a "Friendly" on it. No treasure, no fight, no level up.
If you fail to defeat/run away from the Orcs, you lose levels equal to the number you roll on a die, unless it's a one or a two, in which case you die. However, if you are "unlucky" enough to have a Chicken-on-your-Head (subtract one from all die rolls) you can actually roll a zero, which is neither a one or a two so you don't die, and you lose zero levels.
In Munchkin Cthulhu, the Cultist class gets a bonus for each other Cultist in play. It's possible to multiclass using Super Munchkin and become a Cultist Cultist, which gives you a +4 bonus for being yourself. Twice.
One card even specifies 'reveal your hand' as 'your cards, not the thing at the end of your arm'.
Similarly to Munchkin, much of the point of Magic: The Gathering is to find unusual ways to twist the rules to win. While any Game Breaker will eventually be banned, Magic is notably different from roleplaying games like D&D because there is no "rule zero" enforcing the spirit of the rules or prohibiting things that don't make sense according to the game's story. If you can figure out a legitimate loophole in the letter of the rules, there's nothing to prevent you from exploiting it until the rules are officially changed.
Magic tournament judges can impose penalties on players who push their rules lawyering too far if they deem to be disruptive to the tournament or as stalling to run out the clock. Over the years the tournament rules have evolved a lot to give judges a lot of leeway when handling stuff like this.
A famous example of a judge cracking down on rules lawyers occurred at French Nationals when a few players discovered that the DCI (ruling body of sanctioned tournament Magic) made a mistake when posting updated card wordings on their webpage. One card was posted with an old, obsolete wording which allowed for a obscenely powerful combo. Since the wording on the webpage was considered to supersede any other wording, the players tried to use it in the tournament. The Head Judge disallowed the combo and when some of the players played it anyway, he expelled them from the tournament. The DCI backed him on it and upheld the penalties.
One that was patched within a couple days of discovery: a player used an existing ruling on the Time Vault card to argue that mana generation cards could be used between turns as well as during them. A particular card had the limitation that it could not be used more than once during a single turn. Hello, infinite mana (with a card combo to prevent infinite damage from mana burn.)
Chaos Orb is a rather bizarre card that lends itself to rather bizarre interpretations of the rules—its effect is that you flip it up in the air, and it destroys any cards it lands on. One quick glance at the errata gives you an idea of the headaches it has caused but the example has to be the player who ripped the card into pieces and then scattered it over his opponent's cards.
In late 2011, a tournament rules document was revised to no longer penalize players for missing their own beneficial triggered abilities. The accompanying caveat was that even if you remembered the ability, you could choose to ignore it, and your opponent couldn't point it out and force you to resolve it either. This revision was quickly yanked when people realized that you could play the card Transcendence and refuse to ever gain life (a "beneficial ability"), making you effectively unkillable by damage.
It's worth noting that Rules Lawyers are considered a legitimate demographic by WotC (they're referred to as "Melvin").
Yu-Gi-Oh! has a few ways of exploiting its very odd rules. For example, there's a card that requires you to discard a monster from your hand to summon it. Said card can discard itself to summon itself.
There's also the Synchro Monster 'Colossal Fighter' which, when destroyed, can special summon a warrior-type monster from either player's Graveyard. Since 'Colossal Fighter' activates this effect while itself is in the graveyard, it can actually summon itself back onto the field.
One card (before it had its wording changed) called Magical Blast is a moderately useful card on its own. It deals damage to your opponent by an amount dictated by how much Spellcasters you have on the field, for a max of 1000 damage in a game where the players start with 8000 life. However you could skip your next draw phase to get the card back into your hand. But if someone wanted to take it by the wording rather than the intent, then it becomes obvious you can do this any time, like right after casting it once, allowing you to do infinite damage (on turn one no less if you draw it and a spellcaster monster) if your opponent doesn't have a way to counter and remove the spell from the game. The errata'd version of the card states that you can only return it to your hand at your draw step (instead of drawing) which is how it was supposed to work.
Discord in The Great Slave King uses his knowledge of the rules to allow the Slave King to take over as Lord of the Earth without any interference from the rest of the pantheon.
In the Discworld Tarot chapter The Ace of Swords, there is a different twist on this trope. Miss Alice Band is able to tame a rogue unicorn where others have failed, despite being sexually experienced. The reason Alice gets away with it is because her sexual experience is only with other women. She still technically qualifies as a maiden, unsullied by contact with men, and therefore fully meets the strict specification for unicorn-wrangling - because she has never had contact with men. It is possible that while the unicorn was trying to make its mind up as to whether she qualified, she got a silver-ornamented bridle over its head and settled the question definitively.
In The Wrong Reflection Eleya sidesteps any potential trouble with Starfleet Command (she's sort of on their shit-list at the moment) on her request to get a MACO unit assigned to her ship by cutting them out of the loop and going straight to the regional commander, which is allowed according to a strict reading of the regs.
Films — Live-Action
In the opening scene of The Wild Hunt, Argyle and Bjorn's duel devolves into a argument over LARP rules.
Tin Cup: Roy, the hero, makes a bet with his smarmy jackass of an antagonist: the guy who hits a golf ball the furthest wins. Roy nails his shot, hitting it about 225 yards down the driving range. The antagonist smiles, turns around and hits the ball out of the course, down a long asphalt road. It's still bouncing when the scene ends.
Senator Lott Dod of the Trade Federation in Star Wars Episode I:The Phantom Menace. When Queen Amidala addresses the Senate about the invasion of Naboo, Dod tries to use every loophole and legal trickery available in order to prolong the invasion, including proposing a committee validate that the invasion is actually happening.
In the Robert A. Heinlein novel Space Cadet, one of the heroes early in the story attempts to exploit military regulations to make it too inconvenient for his superiors to give him orders he does not like. He is soon warned about what happens to "space lawyers."
Rhysling's final voyage in "The Green Hills of Earth" — spaceship regulations are getting more stringent about allowing him to catch informal rides, so he invokes the "Distressed Spaceman" clause entitling stranded spacers to a ride home, pointing out to the skeptical captain that there's no time limit on invoking the rule.
In the short story And Then There Were None, a ship from Earth lands on a remote planet that has been out of contract for centuries and starts trying to reopen contact with the inhabitants. They have a very hard time understanding the native Gands, but since they're not hostile by the regulations definition, the men can't legally be denied leave. Problem is, so many like the planet they go AWOL. Too many Space Lawyers on his crew know the regs by heart, so despite much attempted wrangling to make the natives fit the definition of hostile, they fail, but find that leave can be postponed continually — though it only makes the crew more mutinous.note The ship serves a dictatorship, and "Gand" is derived from Gandhi.
The Supernatural Community in The Dresden Files is rife with this kind of thing. Being a proficient Rules Lawyer is considered a necessary skill when it comes to keeping your head on your shoulders.
A great deal of the plot of Njál's Saga revolves around playing with the legal code of the Icelandic Commonwealth, not always successfully. Njál is best at this, but many of the other lawyers in the saga are pretty good at manipulating the law as well. At a moment of climax in the saga, the wily Eyjolf gets the entire prosecution of the burners thrown out of court on a technicality, which angers Thorhall so much that he strides into the courtroom with a spear and ganks the first guy he sees. The biggest battle in the saga breaks out immediately after, which is all the more dramatic given that violence was taboo at the Althing.
In the Vorkosigan Saga, the only person who has the authority to countermand an order given to a Count's Armsman is the Emperor. So when Cordelia needs to leave Tanery Base to rescue her son from Vordarian, the fact that Bothari, the Armsman seconded to her, is under orders to stay there is a problem. Then Bothari explains that when the Count's heir seconded him to her, he said to obey her orders as if they were his own. And since that heir, Aral Vorkosigan, was the Imperial Regent (even if he wasn't thinking of himself in that position when giving the order), that meant Cordelia has the legal authority of the Emperor as far as Bothari is concerned.
In Something Rotten, a professional croquet team includes a squad of lawyers, since Rules Lawyering is a significant (and expected) part of the game in that universe.
In Star Carrier: Center of Gravity, as the America battlegroup is preparing to leave for Alphekka to undertake Operation Crown Arrow, a message drone arrives from the colony at 70 Ophiuchi saying the Sh'daar have arrived. Based on past performance Koenig knows that the Confederation Central Command will scrub Crown Arrow in favor of sending him to defend the colony, so he has the battlegroup leave early before the orders can be transmitted.
As below in Real Life, Model UN's on TV tend to play with this as well:
On Community, Asian Annie tries to win by default, rejecting an offer of peace from her opponent. The moderator reminds her that the real UN appreciates impractical gestures, handing the victory to the study group.
In the Bubble Boy episode of Seinfeld, George and the Bubble Boy are playing Trivial Pursuit, when George draws a card with a misprint. The question is "Who invaded Spain in the 8th century?" The misprinted card reads "The Moops". George, eager to see his opponent miss for a change, insists that the Bubble Boy's answer of "Moors" is incorrect, leading to hilarity ensuing.
In The Phil Silvers Show, Sgt. Bilko is a master of the obscure rule. He's apparently memorized all the army regulations, dating back to the Spanish-American war. He has no interest in keeping the rules, but finds it useful to be able to use them against his opponents.
Captain Sharon Raydor of Major Crimes has this as one of the main weapons in her arsenal. Nobody has managed to outmaneuver her yet.
Several of the protagonists in Babylon 5, but most famously, Commander Sinclair, from the first season (The most notable example being ordered to use 'any means necessary' to force striking workers to return to work, which he then does by giving them the concessions they were asking for). Captain Sheridan and Captain Lochley both had their moments as well, and all of the ambassadors were known to twist reality and language as far as the rules and circumstances would let them for their own nations' political gain.
Martin Bryce in Ever Decreasing Circles embodies the Lawful Good version of this, obsessively following the letter of the law even if it works against him. For example, in "The Footpath", he discovers that his house is built over a public footpath, and takes it upon himself to put a sign indicating the footpath in his front garden and a stile over the fence in his back garden, ignoring his wife's concerns about a steady stream of ramblers walking across their property. It isn't until a member of the local Council tells him that only they can erect footpath signs, and they have no plans to do so since the footpath through the Bryces' garden became defunct when the house was built in the 1970s, that he removes the sign.
Friends: Played for laughs in Season 6. When Chandler and Monica decide to move in together, Rachel has to move out and Ross, who's secretly back in love with her, agrees to take her in. When she brings him the news that she's no longer moving because Chandler and Monica had a big fight over what do with her room and have called the whole thing off, Ross steps in to try and get them to make up and move in together so he can get Rachel. After trying to win them over verbally, Ross ends up resorting to some obscure New York contracting rules to enforce their agreement before storming off to find Rachel and tell her the move's back on.
Ross: "Okay! All right! Now, Chandler. You want to live with Monica, right?"
Chandler: "Yeah, I do."
Ross: "And, Mon. You want to live with Chandler, don’t you?"
Ross: "Good! A verbal contract is binding in the state of New York!" (Storms out.)
In Never Wipe Tears Without GlovesPaul told the tale of him getting a blow-job by an Orthodox Jew. When he pointed out the paradox of this the man said — in complete seriousness — that he had indeed "Never laid with a man as one lies with a woman" — he had stood on his knees the whole time.
How I Met Your Mother: Barney tries to do this with The Bro Code to make himself feel better about sleeping with Robin, Ted's ex-girlfriend. Unfortunately for him, Marshall, who is an actual lawyer, cannot even find a suitable loophole because the rules are that well-written.
Will on Sons Of Guns occasionally has to work around some legal issues for clients. Such as, you can't own a spring-loaded knife that shoots out. But you can own a knife-shooting gun that uses gunpowder as a propellant.
Musicians in countries that have major issues with censorship (whether at the business/corporate level with the record label or venues or whatever or at a government level where Moral Guardians are in power) often have to be this to get songs with somecertainthemespast their censors, whomever those censors may be. Some of the more common methods are changing the lyrics, going with implication instead of explicitness, or using Double Entendre or words with multiple meanings and then claiming the more innocent meaning of the Double Entendre or the word while the artists and actual listeners know the intended meaning.
An early edition of Champions had a section titled "Are you a powergamer?" featuring 5 characters who bent the rules into a Gordian knot. Some examples included:
The Landlord. When purchasing a Base, for every +5 points your Base doubles in size. After spending a couple hundred points in this manner, you'll have a Base whose grounds cover the known universe. Furthermore, when purchasing Henchmen to man your Base, every +5 points doubles the number of henchmen you have; so at 170 points you can have 8 billion loyal followers (the entire population of Earth and then some).
Nova Man. If anybody disturbs him in his private hospital ward, he explodes, doing 700d6 damage (to which he has personal immunity). He could afford such a big blast because he took enough physical limitations, vulnerabilities, and susceptibilities to be threatened by every molecule in the known universe.
Azathoth. He has X-ray vision, scads of Telescopic vision, and a powerful Mental Attack. Since mental powers suffer no range penalty and only require line-of-sight, he can attack anyone anywhere in the universe without moving.
Obviously, Dungeons & Dragons. People are fond of finding incredibly powerful abilities and combos that would allow them to create practically unbeatable characters. Two which stand out as blatant loophole exploitations are Pun-Punnote A kobold that literally ascends to capital G, Godhood at 1st level, and the Locate City Bombnote A questionable combination of metamagic feats from a few different splatbooks that turns a simple navigation spell into the 3.5 equivalent of a Kill Sat.
The most egregious example (although it is usually played for laughs) is the fact that while it has rules restricting what you can do while you are dying, there are no such rules for dead characters. By a completely literal interpretation of the rules, you could argue that there is no reason a dead player can't get right back up and continue adventuring without having to worry about hp anymore.
The Peasant Railgun. Since a person can pass a single object to another person adjacent to them as a standard action, that means an object can travel 5 feet per person. But a combat round is six seconds, no matter how many people are actually involved in the combat. You have 1200 peasants (ie, the entire population of a large village) in a non-looping line, five feet apart from each other, and they hand off a rock from the first peasant to the last. By the time it reaches the end of the round and all the peasants have used their standard actions, the rock will end its run when the last peasant uses a free action to drop the rock in an adjacent square after it has accelerated to moving 6000 feet in six seconds, or 1000 fps, just shy of the speed of sound. Unless common sense steps in to intervene, there's no upper limit to this concept as long as you've got enough room for all the peasants.
Nomic is a game for which (at least among most devotees of the game) rules lawyering is generally encouraged.
Paranoia averts this: the players aren't even supposed to know the rules. If they show any sign that they do (a requisite of Rules Lawyering), the GM is basically authorized (And encouraged) to kill them on the spot.
The above is, of course, a ludicrous slur on the game; GMs are encouraged to kill characters, period. (The rulebook's advice on what to do with PCs is, and I quote, "Kill the bastards".) That's why, unlike in other games, they come in convenient identical six-packs, it reduces the amount of time spent rolling up replacements.
Some of the more complex strategies involve using one's (secret) knowledge of the rules to either manipulate an enemy into breaking a rule or make them look like they've read the rules. The rulebook encourages this, as "reading the rules and lying about it" is perfectly in the spirit of the game.
There's a saying among players of Star Fleet Battles: "Legal Officer, report to the bridge!" The fact that the rulebook is the size of the Manhattan phone directory doesn't help.
Players have been spotted with buttons reading "Scotty, I need a rule in five minutes or we're all dead!" (From Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, suitably tweaked).
In one of the books for The Dresden Files RPG, there is a section on the Unseelie Accords, the rules that govern interactions between the supernatural "nations". The Accords were written by Queen Mab, who set them up so that there is no "spirit of the Law", just the literal wording. A note by one of the characters in the margins even calls Mab a Rules Lawyer.
They're like this in the books (and mythology, for that matter) as well. In Summer Knight, after agreeing not to try to use the threat of retribution to coerce Harry into accepting her job, Mab tweaks his injured hand; when Harry complains that she agreed not to do any of that, she points out that that wasn't coercion, that was just for spite, which was completely acceptable according to the terms of their agreement.
Some background states that the Chaos Gods in Warhammer Fantasy and Warhammer 40,000 do this when they fight each other. They are each basically omnipotent in their own universe, so they cobble together a set of House Rules for each battle and then proceed to bend them as far as possible in their own favor.
Due to a combination of poor proofreading and lack of common sense on the player's part, it's fully possible to successfully argue a hilariously long list of crazy rules. Namely, you can argue that Walkers without actual sculpted eyes cannot shoot or "see" things because they have no actual eyes, a model with Rage does not follow it's rules because "visible" and "line of sight" are clearly two different terms, and it's perfectly legal to deploy my army on the bookshelf and not on the table. One of the Warhammer40000 army books has a weapon where the player has to draw a line from the gun to the target, and everything along the line is hit... The newer editions explicitly state that it's a straight line. Naturally, any tournament-level discussion board will devolve into insane rantings the minute new rules come out.
Do the updated rules specify the maximum width of the line? The area of effect could change dramatically depending on if you're depicting the line with a length of string or with a yardstick.
The Sisters of Battle are an in-universe example; the Ecclesiarchy is forbidden by law from maintaining men under arms. They decided to maintain women under arms instead.
XDM: Xtreme Dungeon Mastering has a recommended tactic for dealing with players who do this obnoxiously. Borrow the player's character sheet under some pretense. Tell them that they're welcome to bring up rules and comment on how the DM isn't playing properly, but they're also going to have to quote the character's statistics during the game and being wrong will get their character killed. Admittedly, more a wishful fantasy than an effective tactic, but it does bring home the difficulty GMs trying to keep track of all of the possible rules and their interactions.
Chess has had a few... interesting interpretations of the rules over the centuries:
The pawn promotion rule is now specified very carefully to avoid certain abuses — such as remaining a pawn or promoting to an enemy piece. Yes, there are positions where those options are good, although it's vanishingly unlikely that they'd ever occur. See here for an example of when promoting to an enemy piece is more beneficial (to checkmate, blocking the king's escape with something he can't capture), and here for an example of when remaining a pawn is more beneficial (to run yourself out of moves and force a stalemate quicker than your opponent can force a checkmate).
There's one story where a student promoted his pawn to a king because his teacher, George Koltanowski, had forgotten to mention this was illegal. George says he responded by checkmating both kings at once.
To patch an Up to ElevenLoophole Abuse, a patch was added that the move producing the checkmate should be a legal move. Before this patch, a player could produce a checkmate with an illegal move and get away with it because of the rule that any violations cannot be reported after the game is over, and the game is over the moment you checkmate.
A chess puzzle revealed that castling could be done in three directions: queen-side, king-side, and vertically—that is, if a pawn was promoted to rook on the same file as the king, castling could then occur vertically if the new rook had not yet moved. The rules were clarified to say the rooks had to be on the same rank as the King.
A meta-example is thisTool Assisted Speedrun of Donkey Kong Country 2. Unlike its predecessor, this run's main trick is using a debug sequence to acquire all the bonus coins early. This allows the speedrunner to get the last DK coin and see the True Endingfirst, then get the normal ending. This does save a bit of backtracking, but ultimately would take longer to reach the end of the credits. Since TASVideos rules (as interpreted for this game in particular) state the clock stops at the start of the end credits, and this run starts the end credits earlier, it's technically faster.
In the first Donkey Kong Country, the player "puts the controller down" (which counts as finishing) when K Rool still has one hit point. The Kongs stand there for a few seconds before K Rool runs into them, hitting one Kong and triggering the other to tag-in... right on top of Rool's head.
These and other situations are legit, even though they appear to be Rules Lawyering from an outside perspective. Some games, especially Game Boy games, allow the player to poke at and overflow certain memory addresses that causes the game to instantly flip to the credits, and in some cases the resulting credits are glitched out, but it still counts. Pressing left and right or up and down at the same time is ok, even though you couldn't practically do it on a standard, unmodified controller. However, if the non-"Lawyer" run is sufficiently different and interesting, it will be showcased as a separate entry.
Metal Gear Solid dealt with several supersoldiers who were "created" due to the Government and military splicing their DNA with that of Big Boss's DNA. When Snake mentions that such an act is supposed to be banned under international law, Naomi Hunter explains that it is, but they don't apply as they were merely declarations, and not actual treaties.
Also with the Metal Gear launching nukes. Since it uses a rail gun and not fuel, it technically wasn't launching a rocket, so treaties wouldn't cover it.
Homestuck: undyingUmbrage manages to "beat" his sister uranianUmbra at chess by putting a set of decorative crowns on his king and queen so that they looked like each other, even going so far as to play both pieces as kings and to ask to have their starting positions swapped. There's no rule against decorating one's pieces - which is good for uranianUmbra, because she apparently does it all the time.
Repeatedly in The Water Phoenix King — justified in that one of the heroes is a lawyer, and the story largely hinges on questions of rightful authority and jurisdiction, which means Bureaucracy. It's still hilarious every time it happens. (Especially when it's in the middle of a battle with a cyborg.)
Mr. Welch seems to be a loonieRules Lawyer. Many of the things he has tried are legal within the rules, which are indicated when he says he can't do something "even if the rules allow it." For example, making a pistol belt fed.
In SCP FoundationSCP 738 is a supernatural entity that can grant wishes in exchange for suffering, naturally granted to the letter. Eventually they send the installation's legal counsel to bargain with it, and they engage in an extended bout of My Rule Fu Is Stronger than Yours, ending only when the legal counsel, having human limitations the entity doesn't possess, collapses from exhaustion. The last thing he remembers is that they were discussing the technical definition of the word "shall", and the document had reached 900 pages. He received a letter from it inviting him to come back any time.
The Other Wiki officially discourages this, though the practice is still widespread.
Whateley Universe has Elaine Nalley, codenamed "Loophole." She earned her codename days into her first term by constantly abusing loopholes in the school rulebook. Her lawyering is so extensive that her Mutant ID has no actual details beyond "Homo Sapiens, Further notations pending court trial." She doesn't fully manifest her powers until her sophomore combat final because she'd managed to talk her way out of everything that could cause her to manifest up to that point.
Kelly from We're Alive gets caught sleeping on guard duty and points out that, while there is a rules that everyone has to "pull guard duty," there is no rule against falling asleep in the guard room. She is an actual lawyer after all, so it shouldn't be a surprise.
King of the Hill - Hank has to tell Bobby to stop playing 'lawyerball' instead of actually trying to win.
Hank: You can't get on base if you don't swing.
Bobby: You can get a base on balls.
Hank: Do you want to play baseball or lawyerball?
Ironically, Hank is the Johnny Cochrane of this trope.
In a particular Futurama episode, both the Professor and his son, Cubert, are in danger of being convicted in court. The prosecution drops the charges against Cubert because he is a child. Bender then points out that because Cubert is the Professor's clone, they are technically the same person. Therefore, the Professor must not be found guilty, since he cannot be tried twice for the same crime.
In The Fairly Oddparents, when faced with a devious genie, realizing he wasn't a match for the 5,000 year old trickster, Timmy wished for a lawyer to help him get what he really wanted. It worked.
In one episode of American Dad!, after a sketchy Jenga move, Roger tells Hayley that he called Hasbro in advance and they told him that what he was doing was against the spirit of the game, but technically legal.
In Model United Nations, rules lawyering is called "parliamentary maneuvering" and is considered to be a valuable skill in some circles. Additionally, since Model UN is supposed to be a simulation of real parliamentary-style debate, in which the rules are everything, Rule Zero gets twisted around. Many chairs will ignore "parliamentary maneuvering" and force the debate forwards via force of personality. Indeed, it is widely considered to be irritating and spiteful to make incessant points of order, parlimentary procedure etc, because it slows the debate to a crawl and generally makes everyone bored. It is also frequently exploited by WAAC (win at all costs) MUNers/Gavelhunters in order to give themselves the maximum amount of speech-time. Of course, this can often lead to My Rule Fu Is Stronger than Yours—if the Chair tries to fight back against a delegate making these maneuvers, that delegate may appeal to the rulebook—and since the Chair typically has an Undersecretary-General and Secretary-General above him/her as arbiters of the rules, they may not get their way.
High school debaters will, on occasion, delve into arguing about the process and rules of debate itself rather than the topic (either because they have no evidence that is on-topic to the specific case their opponent is running, or because they simply dislike the topic itself).
In the specific subdiscipline of policy debate, this is so highly developed, several of these arguments are taught as standard. The most common is Topicality: The Affirmative (the guys proposing a solution to the official problem, called the resolution) are actually off-topic. This usually rests on abuse of the dictionary, but if the Negative (the guys trying to shoot the Affirmative down) can prove it and convince the judge that it's worthwhile to consider, they win: if the Affirmative is off-topic, then they haven't "Affirmed" the resolution, and thus failed. Weird enough for ya? Other rules-lawyer arguments (called "Theory" in the jargon) are weirder.note Somebody once nearly won by arguing they should lose and then backing it up with cogent arguments on theory; they only lost because they actually were trying to throw the round, and brought in a different argument to ensure defeat.
Thankfully not allowed in debates with the "World Schools" (three speakers per side, with one making two speeches) and "British Parliamentary" (four speakers per side, one speech each) formats, where the rules and conventions are very clearly defined and rules lawyering or breaking will get you marked down by the judge.
Carried out twice by Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper. In late 2008, with a minority government, due in large part to questionable tactics he'd tried during budget planning, he was facing a motion of no-confidence that would bring down his government. So he prorogued Parliament, preventing the vote. Proroguing is only supposed to be used at the end of a parliamentary session, when the government has completed the agenda it set in the throne speech; using it to shutter Parliament is distinctly not on. When the new Parliament reconvened sometime later, the opposition unity had fallen apart. In late 2009, facing calls for an inquiry on Canadian involvement in torture in Afghanistan, questions about the economy and a bunch of other issues, he did it again (having gotten away with it the first time), claiming it was because of the Olympics distracting everyone (although the government seemed to manage okay the last time the country hosted the Games). The motion of no-confidence was successfully held and the parliament dissolved- only for Harper's party to gain more seats.
Union General Benjamin Butler was a general ... and a lawyer ... and a politician, so he was awfully good at this. A full year before the Emancipation Proclamation, he made it policy to never return runaway slaves who made it into Union lines. It was a sort of "emancipation lite" for the area. When Butler was scolded for playing with the political powder keg of slavery, he logically, and with tongue-planted-firmly-in-cheek pointed out that slaves were no more then animals, and like any animal being used by the enemy, were legitimate contrabands of war. The ex-slaves stayed in Union lines, often took paid jobs, and got a basic education.
This logic was eventually adopted by the whole Union Army, and was made general policy in the Emancipation Proclamation. Yes, this is what Lincoln's famous freeing of the slaves is based on: lawyering. It also made this massive change easier to swallow in the slave states that stayed in the Union.
Since the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to slaves in states that had seceded (so as not to offend loyal slave states) it freed exactly no one at its time of issuance, since they were outside US control. Only later was it applied to free slaves, when the US Army seized territory from the Confederates.
Truth in Television: Every major religion has at least a few people who read the holy texts or commandments of their particular religion this way. Possibly even worse, however, are people who don't even belong to the religion in question selectively misreading and cherry-picking a given holy text (usually the Bible) in order to attack its followers. As bizarre as it can get when somebody tries to Rules Lawyer their own God (seriously, do they think God isn't going to notice?) it becomes a thousand times stranger when someone who doesn't have an intimate knowledge of the text and the context starts doing it. Non-believers criticising Christians for not following ancient Orthodox Jewish laws superseded by the New Testament is one of the most common mistakes. Unfortunately, the other side of this coin is Christians who pick and choose from these laws to justify homophobia.
The Orthodox Jews are especially notorious in this regard, they police their own day off.
At the time of writing, Westhampton on Long Island is in a religious debate over the construction of an eruv, a small string which Orthodox Jews use to signify areas where some Sabbath laws can be tweakednote Essentially, the area inside the eruv counts as being "at home", thus increasing the range one can walk or carry things without violating restrictions on travelling or working on the Sabbath. The Orthodox want to put a small, relatively inconspicuous string around town. The opponents, many of them Reform Jews, do not want this eruv built. One of many articles on the topic.Jon Stewart naturally had a field day with this on The Daily Show, mocking the "Thin Jew Line."
There's a philosophy that says that the whole point is to figure out exactly how Jewish law applies to every situation and exactly what its boundaries are; that's how you show respect to G-d. This is one of the things that Jesus took issue with in the Gospels.
And since many situations are not covered by the religious laws directly, you need to be or ask a Rules Lawyer what applies in your particular situation.
The Westboro Baptist Church mixes this trope with a fair amount of cherry picking to justify its founder's hatred for Jews, homosexuals and pretty-much every sentient being that is not part of the church. It doesn't help that said founder was actually a (disbarred) lawyer, and a peculiar number of his followers are members of the Bar as well.
Not only was Fred Phelps an attorney, but he practised civil rights law, suing many establishments in Kansas City to make them admit black people. However, obviously he didn't think gays have civil rights...
There's a sect of Christianity which preaches teetotalism as holy. And since it's holy, clearly it's in the Bible. Oh wait - there's all kinds of verses talking about Jesus and everyone drinking wine. No, they're drinking unfermented grape juice; that word only means "wine" when it's talking about how alcohol can be bad. This neglects of course to acknowledge that unfermented grape juice makes no logical sense; it doesn't keep, is less sanitary, and grape juice naturally ferments. Grape juice as it exists today is pasteurized, that is, heated till the yeast dies.
The word used in the Hebrew texts definitely means wine, not unfermented juice. And ancient presses used for grapes were not clean enough for fermentation to be avoided; they simply lacked the means and desire.
It can be argued from the New Testament that the Christian is commanded to drink alcohol. Not only does the Virgin Mary tell her son to turn the water into wine (the Miracle at Cana), 1 Timothy 5:23 reads Drink not only water, but take also a little wine for thy stomach's sake. There is also the Mass itself, where alcohol is central - Do this in rememberance of me. Ignoring this clear Biblical commandment would, in theory, render the entire Methodist Church heretical.
As the title character from The Merchant of Venice pointed out, The Devil can cite Scripture to his own purpose (he even has a debate over it with Jesus in the New Testament). Quoting individual lines or phrases devoid of context is generally a good indication of this behaviour, since if the full story or lesson was really saying that it would be more effective to use than just the quote.
Which is why quoting only part of a Biblical verse is frowned upon. There are, however, examples of rabbis doing this occasionally in the Talmud, and the interpretations they come up with are sometimes...interesting.
Then again, there is the principle of "a verse is never removed from its context". Any.... interesting interpretations are in addition to, not in replacement of, the plain meaning.
Islam is not the religion of peace, nor (as its detractors would have it) is it the religion of war. Islam is the religion of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Anyone who's been a Muslim for more than five minutes has had to deal with a nosy uncle or auntie getting all up in their grill over something or another. Comedy blogger Maniac Muslim points out a few particularly annoying ones here and here and here and - well, it's a really big issue among the ummah (Muslim community).
Also, you would not BELIEVE the drama surrounding which day marks the end of Ramadan. Muslims worldwide basically pick one of like three days to start Eid on. Somehow we manage to agree on every single other day of the calendar, but Eid? Never.
This makes a great amount of sense, considering the explicit connections between Islam and Judaism. Jewish law and Islamic law work more or less the same way: rabbis and imams are basically all lawyers and judges in the courts of God's Law; the spiritual-advice thing started out as secondary. Or to be more succinct: Christian seminaries teach theology, with a bit of religious law on the side. Islamic and Jewish ones tend to focus more on religious law, with theology on the side. Additional problems in Islam appear because there are literally over 100 times as many Muslims as there are Jews (13 million vs. 1.6 billion), and there are correspondingly more religious opinions (even with the Jews working overtime on having opinions), codified into four major Sunni schools of jurisprudence, plus one major Shiite one, plus several smaller Shiite ones, plus dissenters, and of course every Muslim is perfectly free to pick and choose from the smorgasbord of opinions, so long as they don't contradict each other (except for mainstream "Twelver" Shias, who typically follow one marja or ayatollah, but tend to pick and choose on the more minor matters addressed by lesser clerics).
This also however, seems to be an artifact of South Asian Muslims, who have a predisposition towards being "Lawful" above all; other Muslims in different regions (particularly Indonesia, being notoriously syncretist) are much more relaxed. Despite fatwas being meant to be only softly-binding resolutions (fatwa literally means "opinion") from scholars who are more knowledgeable about the rules, some have sworn oaths (sometimes literally) to defend a fatwa no matter what and will get into flame wars on questioning the authenticity of contradicting fatwas, or worse, ad hominem attacks on other jurists/scholars.
On that note, Islam prescribes a hierarchy of which rules to follow in any given situation, starting from any directly-related clause quoted in the Qur'an (if any are applicable), then the hadith (the Prophet's Traditions), then opinions of jurists, up until lastly, one's personal take on the situation. Some Muslims even believe in some sort of God's Rule Zero: "God is Perfectly Just and All-Knowing. Thus, He will know what circumstances you are in when encountering this type of situation; Inshallah, He will understand." Conversely, Rule Zero Corollary is thusly said as: "God will always know any attempts to Rules Lawyer for one's personal benefit. Don't try it."
To show how meticulous his Rules Lawyering went: before issuing that statement, he requested a legal definition for every single word he might use, even the legal definition of "the".
As pointed out by the Dutch Formula 1 commentator Olav Mol; if the car ahead of you is faster then you can spend a lot of time, effort and money developing new innovations that make your car faster as well or you can spend just as much time but far less money finding a rule that forbids some aspect of your opponent's car.
Henry "Smokey" Yunick was the king of this trope in NASCAR. He did everything from lowering the roof of the car (to improve the aerodynamics) to using an 11-foot coil of 2-inch tubing in lieu of a standard fuel line (to add 5 gallons of gas to the car's capacity). His reasoning was that everyone else was cheating at least 10 times as hard as his crew was, so it was self-defense.
American tax protesters often attempt this trope with <ahem> non-standard readings of many laws, such as claiming that their salary is not "income" since it is only paper money and not gold or silver, or that the tax bill is for JOHN DOE, who is a totally different person from John Doe.
The most famous being that paying income taxes is optional because the U.S. code uses the word "voluntary" to refer to the system. In this case, though, "voluntary" does not mean "optional"; it means "You are going to volunteer (i.e. provide) your information to us. The IRS is not going to compute your taxes for you and send you a bill. You have to do your own paperwork."
Similarly, the 'birther' movement surrounding Barack Obama's eligibility for the presidency. Most of the movement centred the argument around his birth certificate and the claim that he wasn't born in the United States. When Obama produced his birth certificate, they largely either backed down or claimed the certificate was a fake. But an even more extreme section of the movement insisted that the birth certificate was irrelevant because according to the constitution a president must be a natural-born citizen, whereas Obama is only a native-born citizen (yes, apparently these are different things). This is apparently because Obama's father was from Kenya, then a British colony, and British law at the time said that all colonial subjects and their children were British citizens. Apart from this not in any way affecting Obama's US citizenship (as many people have joint nationality), Britain retrospectively repealed the British citizenship of colonial subjects after those colonies became independent (unless they were eligible for British citizenship on other grounds, which neither Obama nor his father were).
It should be noted that this isn't really rules lawyering in the technical sense because these aren't the rules. "My birth certificate isn't actually me because they wrote my name in capitals" isn't a "creative interpretation" of the law, it is complete and utter bollocks on a stick.
Capon was originally conceived by the Romans to get around a law forbidding the fattening of hens (the law was intended to conserve grain rations). The Romans simply castrated roosters and fattened them instead... with delicious results.
In countries with written constitutions, challenging the constitutionality of a law is essentially this. Of course, whether it is the Lawful Evil or Lawful Good version depends on the circumstances of the law and one's own personal politics. And we'll leave that there.
The entire purpose of the Constitution is to delineate certain basic powers and rights. The US Constitution, for instance, strictly limits the power of the various branches of government, and prohibits infringement upon certain rights. As such, rules lawyering on this basis is to be expected, as infringement upon any right in the Constitution is to infringe upon the power of the Constitution, which is what empowers the government to act in the first place.
If an animated show goes past a certain number of episodes (around sixty) then the regular voice actors are entitled to a share of the profits under guild regulations. This is why many cartoons are cancelled after two seasons, so the networks can avoid paying out the extra money. However, technically, Ben 10 (52 episodes), Ben 10: Alien Force (46 episodes), Ben 10: Ultimate Alien (52 episodes) and Ben 10: Omniverse all count as different shows; Cartoon Network keep reworking and retitling the series before it qualifies. This may also be why Justice League was retooled into Justice League Unlimited, why Batman: The Animated Series became Batman and Robin and then then New Batman Adventures, why Scooby-Doo keeps getting rebooted, and so on.
The deed of gift governing the rules of the America's Cup yacht race is governed by the New York State Supreme Court (which is actually a trial court in New York). Disputes are argued by actual lawyers and have gone before actual New York state judges. The most recent time the courts got involved occurred in 2010.
Barney Curley was apparently so good at abusing the rules of horse race betting, he made over ten million dollars off it (and by selling his mansion in a raffle). The article's writer specifically calls him a Magnificent Bastard.
In the United States, jury verdicts in cases where the dispute is over something exceeding a given dollar value are not typically subject to judicial review. However, there is a type of judgment called "judgment notwithstanding the verdict", which requires that a motion for judgment as a matter of law had been filed and denied during the trial. The logic behind judgment notwithstanding the verdict is that it is not a reexamination of the verdict, but rather of the previously-rejected motion.