That's explicitly portrayed as them going overboard after the foreigners who introduced guns did something stupid. They aren't actually portrayed as being right about it. When it happened they were still studying guns and were preparing to have a trade agreement with the foreigners.
Strictly speaking, no it doesn't. Being Lawful does not require you to obey the law; it requires you to obey a law. Being Lawful means having a rigid, ordered outlook; Lawful people are the sort who plan out their day, and strongly believe in a personal code. A given person's code might include obeying the law, but what made Paladins Lawful was adhere to their Code, not to the laws of any given society.
Hell, the big thing my necromancer did was make contracts with all of the nearby knackeries and slaughterhouses (or individual contracts with nearby farmers in more rural areas). It's practical, it builds ties with local communities, and it makes it really hard for people to make moral cases against what you're doing on utilitarian grounds, because you're practicing the ultimate in green recycling.
It varies even within the settings. You have good liches (baelnorn), neutral ones (archliches, who become undead to fulfill some specific obsession), and evil ones (standard lich), you have Reverend Ones which are basically good elf death knights who appear from the afterlife to defend elven kingdoms, you have the Netherese Zombies who retained their minds and personalities, Watchghosts who devoted themselves to protecting their family lines, etc...
Uh. What 'take'? This isn't my personal opinion, this is what the player's handbooks have laid out about alignments as far back as 3.5, when Lawful Neutral characters, the ones who put Law above all else, were described as acting "... as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. Order and organization are paramount to her. She may believe in personal order and live by a code or standard, or she may believe in order for all and favor a strong, organized government." Monks are Lawful as well you know, and monks frequently have very little to do with the laws of society - when they aren't actively opposing it.
The entire Deathless concept as well which was a pretty interesting way to go about it.
Revenants have been around forever. There was even a short story in one of the collections with one as the viewpoint character.
D&D 5th edition said:
And yet we have things like Fall From Grace, the not evil Succubus. There was also a demon serving Lolth in the demonweb that was on the road towards "rising". For non-outsiders we have an entire tribe of pacifist orcs in FR that got enslaved by the Zhentarim. Then there's the Othlorx, "the uninvolved", a nation of both chromatic and metallic dragons who told Bahamut and Tiamat to fuck off when they came recruiting for the war between good and evil.
I'm gonna echo ManusDomine and express confusion and a desire to know where that's stated. 5e has done a lot to divorce itself from Good and Evil being tied to game mechanics. The Detect X spells and abilities now detect creature types not alignments. Paladins now follow codes of conduct specific to their Oath instead of needing to never willingly commit an Evil act. Paladins and Clerics don't do holy damage, they do radiant damage.
As far as I know, no characters have ever been made non-canon with the changing of editions, so your question is irrelevant
As a Rifts fan myself I largely agree with these assessments. I'd like to add.
Morag was a Marilith in service to Lolth and she ascended. Still female, but not a succubus.
