>>96334514
>If a law is written by a corrupt evildoer, then it is not a good law!
If a corrupt evildoer enacts a law to feed the starving, is it suddenly a bad law?
>There was once a law, a decree that said that every firstborn child shall be killed. Do we kill BABIES to obey the law?
In the old days (and even today), blood feuds were a serious issue. Generations of conflict could results in thousands of deaths over years. Ancient rulers would resort to brutal measures such as mass slavery to eradicate these issues and ensure lasting peace.

You're actually describing Neutral Good, not Lawful Good. The real mark of Lawful Good is that you follow the law if the laws were made properly. An unjust king disregards past precedent without the consent of the governed. A wicked judge refuses to give both parties a voice.
So long as robust processes exist (i.e. that there are laws which can be followed), a Lawful Good character has a duty to follow the law. He does not have a duty to support every law or even enforce it; he could even be duty-bound to oppose it. However, he must do so through lawful means whenever possible.

Selectively following the law only when one agrees with it is unlawful. It may be morally superior at times, but a truly lawful individual would only go against the law if it is clear that the law is not only unjust, but impossible to correct.