D&D 5E The "Lawful" alignment, and why "Lawful Evil" is NOT an oxymoron!

[seebs]

Honest question, how is the clearer and simpler 4e version of alignment less good for roleplaying?

I found it frustrating because it took away a significant number of meaningfully distinct cases, and made it impossible to talk separately about "law vs chaos" and "good vs evil". They might as well just have called it "very good/good/neutral/evil/very evil". Law and Chaos were not at all components of it anymore, really.

But LE and CG are real things, and so are LN and CN.

 

[Parmandur]

If you want to remove a particular group from society then a LE is going to do it a lot better then a CE killing one person at a time.



So what is worse, killing one person or 1000 people? And does killing 1000 people make society literally better?

Yes, Michael Corleone is able to kill more people, and accomplish larger crimes in general, in no small part because of his greater virtues (twisted as they may become).

 

[Parmandur]

I found it frustrating because it took away a significant number of meaningfully distinct cases, and made it impossible to talk separately about "law vs chaos" and "good vs evil". They might as well just have called it "very good/good/neutral/evil/very evil". Law and Chaos were not at all components of it anymore, really.





But LE and CG are real things, and so are LN and CN.

Well, no, they are not real things; if we want to break things into dualism, 4E is way more reflective of philosophical discourse (and I know that at least one of the people responsible for this in 4E has major theological and philosophical training).



Though, again, I do agree that for an acting and role-playing shorthand the 9 point system is handy to slip into a character. But it is not reflective of actual ethical analysis.

 

[Eric V]

I would assert that you're viewing that the wrong way. Both the LE and the LG character believe that clearly-defined, principled restrictions are for the "good" (read: betterment, NOT righteousness) of society.

Wait, why does an evil person care about the betterment of society besides how that betterment affects him?

I don't think he does...he's evil. I can see him supporting laws that benefit him, sure. Again, because he's evil. But what about laws that don't? Does he still support those? Or does he ignore them (even on the sly)? I can't see him supporting a rule of law that doesn't benefit him...he'd ignore it. Hence, NE.

Dr, Doom is not LE. He plays at honour, sure, but he'd throw it all away just to prove he was smarter than Richards. Or to gain power. Yeah, he repays debts to maintain an internally consistent self-image, but that's not enough, IMO, to be authentically LE.

 

[The Human Target]

I found it frustrating because it took away a significant number of meaningfully distinct cases, and made it impossible to talk separately about "law vs chaos" and "good vs evil". They might as well just have called it "very good/good/neutral/evil/very evil". Law and Chaos were not at all components of it anymore, really.

But LE and CG are real things, and so are LN and CN.

I agree with the first paragraph and couldn't disagree more with the last sentence.

 

[Krakenspire]

Dr, Doom is not LE. He plays at honour, sure, but he'd throw it all away just to prove he was smarter than Richards. Or to gain power. Yeah, he repays debts to maintain an internally consistent self-image, but that's not enough, IMO, to be authentically LE.

Definitely LE. There are many times that he teamed up with Richards vs a greater crazier evil, and also times he spared Richards because in harming him it might harm his family (dead mother), people, country and my favourite... art collection. He has a personal code of honour (Lawful), won't use his suit weapons on the hired help (that's what the Luger is for) and basically is all class. He doesn't kill for fun, he does it because its an unfortunate side effect of his goals or someone has disrespected him. You follow the rules and do your job, you can have a long career serving Dr. Doom. He doesn't do things on a whim ever. Very very lawful.

 

[Slamm-O]

Strict alignments just don't seem to represent most people. I'm sure most of us try to follow the laws of the society we live in (lawful or neutral) and either help or not harm others (good or neutral). But how many can say they haven't bent or broken the rules to help someone (NG or CG) or stuck to the rules regardless of how it affected others (LN or LE). Trying to fit into a defined alignment region doesn't seem normal.
Alignments are ok as a guideline but not as the straight jacket some think they are.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Wait, why does an evil person care about the betterment of society besides how that betterment affects him?

I don't think he does...he's evil. I can see him supporting laws that benefit him, sure. Again, because he's evil. But what about laws that don't? Does he still support those? Or does he ignore them (even on the sly)? I can't see him supporting a rule of law that doesn't benefit him...he'd ignore it. Hence, NE.

Dr, Doom is not LE. He plays at honour, sure, but he'd throw it all away just to prove he was smarter than Richards. Or to gain power. Yeah, he repays debts to maintain an internally consistent self-image, but that's not enough, IMO, to be authentically LE.

Because a better society by definition is better for him. That's part of the definition of Lawful.

And yes, an LE person could support laws that don't benefit her, or even that are detrimental to her. She may pursue the power to remove, modify, or limit those laws, but she will still respect those laws. Because legitimacy is fundamentally important.

Does that mean that she will always support such laws? No. But that's not because she isn't LE. It's because LE has *exactly* the same fundamental problem as LG: having two central values. Lawful Good characters have to ask themselves "do I adhere to the Law, even if it says to do not-Good things? Or do I do the Good things even though they are against the Law?" Does that mean that you cannot "authentically" play a Lawful Good character? I would say no. I think it's perfectly possible.

The LE person genuinely believes that the Law is the best way to pursue Evil, and that Evil is the best (or at least the most natural) expression of the Law. Sometimes, though, the Law will require you to do things you don't like doing. What's the most stereotypical characteristic of a rigorously Lawful Evil villain? Keeping a promise to the hero(es). Even when it costs them, even when they had hoped to find a legitimate means to get out of it--they keep the promise, because "they have standards" or "my word is my bond" or whatever.

So the real problem, I think, is that you're asserting that there can only be one core value, which throws ALL "corner" alignments into being "incoherent," not just LE. I, on the other hand, am perfectly content with the concept of incommensurate but real and important values (I'm strongly persuaded by more modern versions of virtue ethics, which postulates pretty much exactly that).

 

[The Human Target]

Doctor Doom turned an exgirlfriend into a new suit of human skin leather armor.

Man's got problems.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I found it frustrating because it took away a significant number of meaningfully distinct cases, and made it impossible to talk separately about "law vs chaos" and "good vs evil". They might as well just have called it "very good/good/neutral/evil/very evil". Law and Chaos were not at all components of it anymore, really.

But LE and CG are real things, and so are LN and CN.

I agree that it's frustrating that pure Law and pure Chaos became relegated to a secondary status, especially since you see obvious examples of it in the core books. Erathis vs. Melora, for instance, or even Kord vs. Bahamut/Moradin (they form a new, but uneasy, triumvirate because Kord is totally CG, but has to be just "Good" because there is no such thing as CG). I disagree that it reduces to "very good/good/etc." Lawful Good and (flat) Good are equally Good, and Lawful Good can put you in tough spots that Good wouldn't.

And I deeply, emphatically disagree that "LE" and "CG" are "real things." Alignment ABSOLUTELY is not real. Exclusively within the context of an entertainment medium, such as a game, a book, a movie, a comic, etc., it is a useful tool. Applied to the real world? Not at all useful. Often anti-useful, since it tries to simplify all of ethics into a perfectly cut-and-dried form, and grossly oversimplifies the views of a huge number of people (and tends to assign labels that the recipients would dislike or even outright hate).