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

[Greenstone.Walker]

I wish they'd chosen different words. "Lawful" alignment has little to do with "following the laws".

I feel better terms are "Ordered" and 'Chaotic".

"Ordered" people like tradition, predictability, boundaries, rules, logic. "You're so predictable" is a compliment.

"Chaotic" people like unpredictability, randomness, creativity, no limits.

 

[Shasarak]

That's the thing...someone's word in organized crime means nothing. I tend to think of the mob as a very good example of neutral evil, because I don't think they "methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order." Rather, said order goes out the window when it benefits them more (more money, for example).

Maybe the real old-school mobsters were LE...but they turned on each other too when caught, so I still think they are closer to NE.

You make some good points - institutions make the best LEs, families seem a little too 'chaotic"

 

[seebs]

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).

Implicitly, "as real as any of the other alignments". It's a nomenclature. But there's no way in which LG is more-real than CG.

 

[Maxperson]

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

No worries! It can be hard to tell with text.

 

[Hussar]

Lawful Evil examples:

Dr. Doom
Magneto
Fascists
Dictatorships (LN are benevolent dictatorships)
Darth Vadar

-nothing weird or incoherent here. Want to be in charge, use rules for a reason. Use laws for their own advancement. Use laws to be oppressive. Have a personal code of conduct that you will not violate.

From TV Tropes:

Doom's not really LE though. He rules because he is the strongest, not because he was chosen to rule by those he rules. Doom has no actual legitimate claim on rulership (other than perhaps Laterveria) and cares nothing for any sort of rules other than the ones that he, himself, imposes on others. He's very capricious, murdering underlings for failing one time and not another. He's the perfect example of a CE dictator.

Why would Darth Vader be considered Lawful at all? He's not a planner. He doesn't organise anything and in fact ignores the organization he belongs to one a whim (there's no evidence that Moff Tarkin murders captains for failing for example). He's not really capricious, but, he's also not orderly either. Vader is NE.

 

[CaptainGemini]

Why would Darth Vader be considered Lawful at all? He's not a planner. He doesn't organise anything and in fact ignores the organization he belongs to one a whim (there's no evidence that Moff Tarkin murders captains for failing for example). He's not really capricious, but, he's also not orderly either. Vader is NE.

Vader obeys a set code of ethics, not the law of the land, and sticks to it.

One thing to remember is that LE alignment in 5E doesn't have to obey the laws of the land so much as they stick to a set code of some sort and stick to it quite rigidly.

Basically, Vader is an evil paladin.

 

[pemerton]

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).

Are you referring to James Wyatt, or someone else?

 

[Frostmarrow]

Vader obeys a set code of ethics, not the law of the land, and sticks to it.

One thing to remember is that LE alignment in 5E doesn't have to obey the laws of the land so much as they stick to a set code of some sort and stick to it quite rigidly.

Basically, Vader is an evil paladin.

It can be important to keep in mind that characters break their alignment all the time. This has no repercussions at all. I seem to remember that in 1st ed you could lose a level, and that paladins suffers som major setbacks. -But other than that characters get sidetracked due to circumstance and vice.

So when does alignment matter? I guess that alignment plays a role in defining a character's agenda which by the way can be a closely guarded secret.

So is Vader lawful? Vader's motivation for turning to the dark side in the first place was to ensure Amidala was safe from harm and even death. He wanted to acquire the power to bestow eternal life on her. Anikin wasn't very concerned with his own wellbeing. He was foolhardy and reckless but made up for this with extraordinary skill and prowess.

Once Amidala is dead, and Anikin was betrayed, in his mind by Obi-Wan, Darth Vader rises. An empty shell of a man fueled only by hate. Somehow he becomes an enforcer within the imperial organization, charged with the mission to crush the rebellion and making sure the Death Star becomes operational.

Vader is just a tool. A weapon in the hands of the emperor. He will wake up from his hatefulness on account of actually being a father of two, but before his demise Vader is a force of pure evil. Vader's hand in building the Death Star is limited to putting pressure on the people actually doing the work probably on the direct order of the emperor. It is hinted that the emperor holds the power of resurrection ransom and uses this to ensure Vader's loyalty.

In the end it is revealed that the emperor never held the key to eternal life. It was never a power of the Sith. It was a jedi power and it was just eternal peace in ghost form, and Anikin found that out on death's door.

 

[pemerton]

I am not sure how a LG and LE person agreeing that, for example, having a society with a King on top and Peasants on the bottom is desirable but disagreeing on what kind of things goes on within that structure is incoherent.

Both of them do not want Peasant farmers wandering off their land and doing what ever they wanted to, but how they deal with the wandering Peasant differentiates a G(ood), N(eutral) or E(vil) character.

I don't think this is a really accurate description of what LG people want - or, at least, it is a very cynical redescription of it.

In utopia, as conceived of by LG, the peasants are not "at the bottom" in any literal or value-laden sense. They are in their place, fulfilling their duties and accruing the benefits to which they are entitled, just as a king is. Nor does a LG person just want to keep peasants on their land. In a LG utopia, peasants will want to stay on their land (unless misinformed or irrational) because they will recognise that this is how all wellbeing, including their own, is best secured.

The idea that a LG and a LE person might accord respect to the very same kingdom or the very same social structure strikes me as incoherent. Within the Gygaxian framework I referred to upthread, this can be set out fairly clearly: if the social structure is actually delivering the sort of wellbeing the LG person hopes and believes that it will, then the LE person is not able to use it to impose his/her yoke upon the world. Whereas if, in fact, a social structure has become a yoke then the LG hope that structure will produce universal wellbeing has been refuted!

Both the LE and the LG character believe that clearly-defined, principled restrictions are for the "good" (read: betterment, NOT righteousness) of society. But they have deep--fundamentally deep--disagreements about which restrictions there should be, and what specific principles those should follow.

<snip>

LG and LE think social groups fundamentally need to be organized in order to accomplish anything meaningful. That's a value agreement right there.

The only bit of this I agree with is that where you make the same point that I have just made in replay to Shasarak, namely, that a particular given social structure cannot (coherently) be the object of simultaneous admiration by a LG and a LE person.

But I don't think that LE people believe that social order is for the good/betterment. They believe it will suit them, helping them get what they want for themselves (ie to impose their yoke upon the world).

I also don't agree that a common belief that social organisation is a necessary tool constitutes any sort of value agreement. For both, the interest in social organisation is purely instrumental. (Within the Gygaxian AD&D framework I quoted above. I don't pretend to understand the approaches that do treat Law and Chaos as distinct values rather than instrumental considerations, but I agree with some other posters in this thread that they don't really make sense.)

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.

This seems to me to give rise to another confusion: namely, it presents Evil as if it were a value to which the LE person is committed; and hence frames the conflict between Good and Evil as a conflict between two value-systems. Whereas it seems to me that the LE person rejects values (per Gygax, s/he scorns beauty, truth, freedom, and the wellbeing of others). The LE person pursues only his/her own self-interest.

Using the language typical of moral philosophy, within the Gygaxian AD&D framework the LE, NE and CE are all amoralists. They reject the idea that any values beyond their own self-interest have any claim upon them. The disagreement between them is not in respect of value but in respect of social theory - they have conflicting view about whether social order or individual whim is the best way to realise their self-interest.

Doom's not really LE though. He rules because he is the strongest, not because he was chosen to rule by those he rules. Doom has no actual legitimate claim on rulership (other than perhaps Laterveria) and cares nothing for any sort of rules other than the ones that he, himself, imposes on others. He's very capricious, murdering underlings for failing one time and not another. He's the perfect example of a CE dictator.

For me, this is another illustration of the conceptual tension that is generated by treating Law as a distinct value to which the LE person is committed.

I think the more helpful way of approach Doom is this: does he believe that social structures are the best way for him to impose his yoke upon the world? Given that he seeks to impose his yoke by means of rulership of a small but technologically advanced Central/Eastern European country, I think the plausible answer is yes.

Whereas, if you take the view that to be LE means to treat Law as a value in itself, which means (for instance) not killing underlings on a whim, then you are back to the original idea that LE is oxymoronic, because in order to be Lawful you have to move towards Good (eg by not just killing on a whim).

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.

For me, this is exhibit A for why LE is oxymoronic once you set up Law as an independent and self-standing value. To reiterate Eric V's argument as I understand it:

* The LE person is E;
* Hence, the LE person cares for nothing but his/her own self-interest;
* Hence, the LE person acknowledges no other constraints on his/her action;
* Hence, the LE person doesn't acknowledge the law as any sort of external constraint;
* Hence, the LE person is NE;
* Hence, LE is oxymoronic.​

Whereas the Gygaxian AD&D approach I'm describing, whatever it's limitations (eg it can't distinguish between Rawls and Bentham), doesn't have this particular problem. On that approach, the LE person is not committed to law. Rather, s/he has a belief that order will let him/her impose his/her yoke upon the world. The "L" part of the LE alignment isn't a value to which the LE person is committed. It is a marker that the person believes that social order will secure the person's self-interest (just as, for the LG person, it is a marker that the person believes that social order will secure G).

 

[Shasarak]

I don't think this is a really accurate description of what LG people want - or, at least, it is a very cynical redescription of it.

In utopia, as conceived of by LG, the peasants are not "at the bottom" in any literal or value-laden sense. They are in their place, fulfilling their duties and accruing the benefits to which they are entitled, just as a king is. Nor does a LG person just want to keep peasants on their land. In a LG utopia, peasants will want to stay on their land (unless misinformed or irrational) because they will recognise that this is how all wellbeing, including their own, is best secured.

The idea that a LG and a LE person might accord respect to the very same kingdom or the very same social structure strikes me as incoherent. Within the Gygaxian framework I referred to upthread, this can be set out fairly clearly: if the social structure is actually delivering the sort of wellbeing the LG person hopes and believes that it will, then the LE person is not able to use it to impose his/her yoke upon the world. Whereas if, in fact, a social structure has become a yoke then the LG hope that structure will produce universal wellbeing has been refuted!

Well I guess that depends if we are talking about the literal LG 'Heaven" or if we are talking about a normal Kingdom found in a DnD world.

I was assuming the later, in which case a "normal" monarchy system would be acceptable to all Lawful alignments although in practice life would be a lot different if King Arthur was the Monarch compared to Tywin Lannister.