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

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[CaptainGemini]

Darth Vader on the other is a bit more unclear. He seems to be in between Lawful Evil and Chaotic Evil. He follows the commands of the emperor, but is a bit unpredictable, and in Empire he even suggests to Luke that they could overthrow the emperor together. Whether he means it, or is simply using it to try and draw Luke to the dark side, is up for debate.

Darth Vader started out as Chaotic Good, but slid solidly into Lawful Evil.

The thing is, that whole bit about trying to overthrow the Emperor, who is his master? That's part of the Sith Code. All Sith are expected to be this way. So it was both trying to tempt Luke to the Dark Side and obeying his code as a Sith. It's not until he saves Luke's life that he in any way breaks that code. The rest of the time, he adheres to it pretty solidly, even when it has him trying to kill his son.

There is the issue of that little prophesy of him trying to balance the Force, so his morality may be harder to pin down because of that. Of course, the Jedi were stupid enough to never consider they might be part of the problem he was needed to solve, so they kinda had it coming...

 

[pemerton]

That is just impenetrable.

Do you have the 1st ed AD&D books? By putting together the text from the PHB and DMG I think I've got something less impenetrable than Gygax's original!

I agree the first of the two paragraphs is basically nonsense. It is the second that I think conveys something about NE - like LE the NE is concerned with domination; like LE the NE believes that "good" (ie principled respect for and pursuit of the wellbeingof others) is just a charade for holding back the "deserving); but unlike the LE the NE don't believe that social order is the tool for imposing their yoke upon the world.

you could write a story about Law versus Chaos, where Good and Evil play second fiddle.

Sure, but then I don't think the AD&D alignments would be very helpful - at least, not the ones set out by Gygax in his PHB and DMG.

I think a lot of headaches come out of the view that the 9-point alignment system is a universal scheme for classification. Whereas, as actually presented by Gygax in those books, it focuses on a particular conflict: is it social order, or is it individual freedom and self-realisation, that is the path to universal wellbeing?

To give another example of an interesting conflict that Gygax's 9-point alignment doesn't help frame: rights vs welfare. Gygax treats these both as good without distinction, so his alignment labels don't capture that point of disagreement. If you wanted a campaign or a story that was (say) Bentham vs Rawls, you would need a different set of labels from the ones that Gygax provides.

a strong case could be made for Vader being neutral evil. But is his organization LN? I think an organization that blows up planets, and kills civilians randomly (Luke's uncle and aunt), is definitely evil.

I think that once you start (i) trying to apply alignment labels to organisations, rather than to individuals, and (ii) take the view that everyone who belongs to or serves that organisation is of that alignment, you are going beyond what alignment can usefully do.

In the Star Wars context, for instance, what makes all Imperial officers LE rather than LN? Where is the evidence that they scorn truth, beauty and human wellbeing? Where is the evidence that they are trying to impose their yoke upon the world? That might be true for some of them but the personalities and beliefs of most are just not explored in enough detail to tell one way or the other.

 

[Frostmarrow]

To give another example of an interesting conflict that Gygax's 9-point alignment doesn't help frame: rights vs welfare. Gygax treats these both as good without distinction, so his alignment labels don't capture that point of disagreement. If you wanted a campaign or a story that was (say) Bentham vs Rawls, you would need a different set of labels from the ones that Gygax provides.

Rawls was the guy that thought if you have to have injustice, in case of a tie in rights, the favor should go to the underpriviledged? I'm not familiar with Bentham. Will look him up, though.

 

[Frostmarrow]

But Batman... You know. Clearly CG. Works from the shadows, total secrecy, punishes evildoers by punching them hard, even lets them defend themselves. Protects the innocent - that's his raison d'etre. If push come to shove Bats will opt to protect rather than punish every time. That spells g.o.o.d. The dark knight is not lawful in the slightest degree. Ruthlesly efficient, singular resolve, will not be swayed by anything. Not even Superman. Not the President. Maybe his butler. Will beat up Judge Dredd. And he is the law.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

Jedi are any lawful - LG Obi Wan, LN Yoda, and LE Darth Vader - the Sith are dark Jedi.
But they are all, essentially, sci-fi monks out of a Kung Fu movie, and as such have teachers, ranks, and structure which implies a belief in and adherence to an ordered way of life/view of the universe...order can be reflected in balance also, in fact perfect balance needs a very careful control to achieve.

I mean, Lawful, Neutral is.

 

[pemerton]

Jedi are any lawful - LG Obi Wan, LN Yoda, and LE Darth Vader - the Sith are dark Jedi.
But they are all, essentially, sci-fi monks out of a Kung Fu movie, and as such have teachers, ranks, and structure which implies a belief in and adherence to an ordered way of life/view of the universe

I think this is another area where Gygax's alignment descriptions in the AD&D books don't offer a lot of guidance. (And personally I don't find later books much better help.)

Gygax treats "lawful" as covering both those dedicated to upholding the (good/benevolent) social order - say, Knights of the Round Table - and as covering those for whom self-discipline is paramount - say, monks and samurai.

That means that as soon as you have a monastery that is dedicated to revolution, or a monastic or knightly order whose members are very individualistic, the categorisation of them as lawful or chaotic starts to become a little bit arbitrary.

I think that, in practice, this is something where it just makes sense for each table to find its own way. Staring harder at the texts and hoping that an answer will emerge won't offer much help.

 

[DMCF]

Hitler was lawful evil.

 

[Maxperson]

But Batman... You know. Clearly CG. Works from the shadows, total secrecy, punishes evildoers by punching them hard, even lets them defend themselves. Protects the innocent - that's his raison d'etre. If push come to shove Bats will opt to protect rather than punish every time. That spells g.o.o.d. The dark knight is not lawful in the slightest degree. Ruthlesly efficient, singular resolve, will not be swayed by anything. Not even Superman. Not the President. Maybe his butler. Will beat up Judge Dredd. And he is the law.

Except that he's extremely disciplined and has a very rigid personal code, which you know, makes him very lawful. He also does what needs to be done for the greater good without regard to law or chaos, which you know, makes him NG.

Alignments are simplistic aids that can't handle a complex personality like Batman has, or for that matter, like most of us here have. It's the main reason I don't require alignments to be used in my games and haven't since near the beginning of 3e.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Except that he's extremely disciplined and has a very rigid personal code, which you know, makes him very lawful. He also does what needs to be done for the greater good without regard to law or chaos, which you know, makes him NG.

Alignments are simplistic aids that can't handle a complex personality like Batman has, or for that matter, like most of us here have. It's the main reason I don't require alignments to be used in my games and haven't since near the beginning of 3e.

Yeah. It was all tongue in cheek anyway. I'm aware Batman is above alignment.