Although I've given XP to [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] and [MENTION=22574]The Human Target[/MENTION], I think there is a tolerably coherent reading of LE. It's related to CG in an important way, too.
This reading is taken from Gygax's PHB and DMG.
First you need to characterise good and evil (DMG, p 23):
With this in mind, here is LE (PHB p 33 & DMG p 23, glommed together):
And here is CG (similarly glommed together from the same pages):
Basically, LE and CG believe the same things about the effects of laws and social order - they constrain individual self-realisation, imposing a burden and subordinating the welfare of some to that of others. But for the CG this is an undesired thing, because the CG are committed to universal happiness and wellbeing. Whereas for the LE this is a desired thing, because they do not share that commitment - rather, they want to be part of a system that will let them exercise power (however petty) by "imposing their yoke upon the world".
It is possible to see, in this Gygaxian framing, that NE differs a little bit from LE, though not all that much. From the same pages again:
The first of these two paragraphs I think is mostly garbled nonsense, but the second paragraph marks out the slight distinction from LE. Like LE, NE agrees that pursuing universal wellbeing holds back the deserving. But unlike LE, NE does not have a conception that social structures are the yoke by which to impose domination. They will use whatever means are expedient. You could say that the NE agree with the aspirations of the LE, but differ in their social theory.
This reading is taken from Gygax's PHB and DMG.
First you need to characterise good and evil (DMG, p 23):
[T]the tenets of good are human rights . . . life, relative freedom, and the prospect of happiness. Cruelty and suffering are undesirable. Evil, on the other hand, does not concern itself with rights or happiness; purpose is the determinant.
With this in mind, here is LE (PHB p 33 & DMG p 23, glommed together):
Creatures of this alignment are great respecters of laws and strict order, but life, beauty, truth, freedom and the like are held as valueless, or at least scorned. Lawful evil creatures consider order as the means by which each group is properly placed in the cosmos, from lowest to highest, strongest first, weakest last. Good is seen as an excuse to promote the mediocrity of the whole and suppress the better and more capable . . . .
By adhering to stringent discipline, those of lawful evil alignment hope to impose their yoke upon the world. [This] allows each group to structure itself and fix its place as compared to others, serving the stronger but being served by the weaker.
By adhering to stringent discipline, those of lawful evil alignment hope to impose their yoke upon the world. [This] allows each group to structure itself and fix its place as compared to others, serving the stronger but being served by the weaker.
And here is CG (similarly glommed together from the same pages):
To the chaotic good individual, freedom and independence are as important to life and happiness. The ethos views this freedom as the only means by which each creature can achieve true satisfaction and happiness. They place value on life and the welfare of each individual. Respect for individualism is also great.
Law, order, social forms, and anything else which tends to restrict or abridge individual freedom is wrong, and each individual is capable of achieving self-realization and prosperity through himself, herself, or itself.
Law, order, social forms, and anything else which tends to restrict or abridge individual freedom is wrong, and each individual is capable of achieving self-realization and prosperity through himself, herself, or itself.
Basically, LE and CG believe the same things about the effects of laws and social order - they constrain individual self-realisation, imposing a burden and subordinating the welfare of some to that of others. But for the CG this is an undesired thing, because the CG are committed to universal happiness and wellbeing. Whereas for the LE this is a desired thing, because they do not share that commitment - rather, they want to be part of a system that will let them exercise power (however petty) by "imposing their yoke upon the world".
It is possible to see, in this Gygaxian framing, that NE differs a little bit from LE, though not all that much. From the same pages again:
[N]eutral evil holds that neither groups nor individuals hove great meaning. The neutral evil creature views law and chaos as unnecessary considerations, for pure evil is all-in-all. Either might be used, but both are disdained as foolish clutter useless in eventually bringing maximum evilness to the world.
This ethos holds that seeking to promote weal for all actually brings woe to the truly deserving. Natural forces which are meant to cull out the weak and stupid are artificially suppressed by so-called good, and the fittest are wrongfully held back, so whatever means are expedient can be used by the powerful to gain and maintain their dominance, without concern for anything.
This ethos holds that seeking to promote weal for all actually brings woe to the truly deserving. Natural forces which are meant to cull out the weak and stupid are artificially suppressed by so-called good, and the fittest are wrongfully held back, so whatever means are expedient can be used by the powerful to gain and maintain their dominance, without concern for anything.
The first of these two paragraphs I think is mostly garbled nonsense, but the second paragraph marks out the slight distinction from LE. Like LE, NE agrees that pursuing universal wellbeing holds back the deserving. But unlike LE, NE does not have a conception that social structures are the yoke by which to impose domination. They will use whatever means are expedient. You could say that the NE agree with the aspirations of the LE, but differ in their social theory.
Last edited:
