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

[EzekielRaiden]

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).

1: I don't see how that isn't a description of a value. From Dictionary.com: "value, 11: Ethics. any object or quality desirable as a means or as an end in itself." "X will secure desirable Y" sounds like a perfectly cromulent description of a value that is a means to something.

2: How does this address the "I am a man of my word, so I will keep my promise even though it leads to ends I don't like" criticism? Because that shows up an awful lot in stories with "Lawful Evil" characters.

3: Your argument is circular. "The LE person cares for nothing but his/her own self-interest, thus the LE person cares for nothing but his/her own self-interest." You have yet to show that that is actually the meaning of Evil. Personally, I would think it is much more cogently defined as "places one's own interests categorically before the interests of others." Doesn't mean you can't be interested in others' welfare, just that they're never more important than you are.

4: What about those who see Law as an end in and of itself, something to be pursued because organization is inherently valuable...and who pursue it with ruthlessness and malice? Consider someone like Inspector Javert, except that you add that he finds delicious, exultant joy in inflicting pain and misery on those deemed guilty by the Law. Is that not a coherent example? Sure, the real Javert goes mad because he's actually got a nascent tendency for Good which believes Law is always the correct path--but what if he did not have that tendency, and actually enjoyed the suffering caused by his pursuit of "justice"? The entire "Javert goes mad" thing disappears and the end is him dragging an old and dying man to prison, even though he owes that man his life, because he cares nothing for "morality" and only for seeing laws enforced (and enjoys punishing others for breaking them).

 

[Eric V]

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.

In all those situations above, Doom was at benefit teaming with Richards, but was ok with betraying him too (remember when he was dying, reached for an "honourable" handshake with Reed, then used that farce to kill Reed?). As for a code, well, that code let him kill the only love of his life to wear her skin to become more powerful magically so he could kill the FF.

He convinces himself he's got this strong code (LE), but when push comes to shove, out goes the code, so (IMO) he is NE.

 

[Frostmarrow]

From the words of a 13th century king, famous for prohibiting his soldiers from plundering the peasants' barns at will.

The law is established and instituted to the guidance of all people, both rich and poor, in the distinction between right and wrong. The law shall be observed and kept to protect the poor, ensure peace to the peaceful, but to the violent bring chastisement and fear. The law shall honor the just and wise, but correct the unjust and unwise. Were all people just, then no law should be required. The country shall be built with law and not with acts of violence. For all shall be well with the country when the law is followed.

How can a character be evil if the character believes in and lives by the above? A LE character could seek protection from the law and would probably not use direct violence by his own hand.

(Oh, Bats brings chastisement and fear to the violent. Huh.)

So let's say the law opposes violence. Not all kinds of violence of course. Violence that is part of upholding the law, self protection, war, etc is not opposed by law. But Law is against violence as a means of settling what is right.

If a character is shortchanged at the market a chaotic character is more likely to settle the score with the use of violence there and then whereas a lawful character would seek to settle the score in other ways.

Also a lawful character has a need to frame his violence by some sort of procedure or rules. A lawful charater needs to rationalize his violence where a chaotic character doesn't. So a duelist is probably lawful and a thug chaotic.

So Indiana Jones when he guns down a sword-wielding challenger shows his chaotic side. When Feyd Rautha enters a knife duel with Paul Muad'dib he is lawful (and evil with his secretly poisoned blade).

Darth Vader will fight in duels and he will kill wantonly. Interestingly Vader foregoes personally using violence even when he can (boarding the Tantive IV), capturing Han at Bespin), which goes to show he isn't chaotic. Han Solo on the other hand draws and shoots at Vader without a moments notice.

I guess my point is: A lawful character will need a recognised justification to use violence.

 

[pemerton]

How does this address the "I am a man of my word, so I will keep my promise even though it leads to ends I don't like" criticism? Because that shows up an awful lot in stories with "Lawful Evil" characters?"

What do you mean by "stories with LE characters"? If you're talking about D&D novels, I'm not familiar with them (other than the first few Dragonlance ones, and that was a long time ago).

I think a person who sticks to his/her word no matter what is either LG or, if not concerned with others' wellbeing but only with keeeping his/her word, LN. An evil person can't be fully honourable - as per Gygax's PHB (cited upthread), a LE person scorns truth.

"The LE person cares for nothing but his/her own self-interest, thus the LE person cares for nothing but his/her own self-interest." You have yet to show that that is actually the meaning of Evil.

I cited Gygax's DMG (p 23) upthread: "Evil, on the other hand, does not concern itself with rights or happiness; purpose is the determinant."

Personally, I would think it is much more cogently defined as "places one's own interests categorically before the interests of others." Doesn't mean you can't be interested in others' welfare, just that they're never more important than you are.

That does not seem to me to be consistent with "not concerning oneself with rights or happiness".

Of course the standard sorts of cases can be set up which put on a degree of pressure: eg if A loves B, then A's self-interest can include helping B. Gygax's alignment scheme doesn't really handle moral systems that try to generalise this sort of self-regarding other-regard so as to generate general moral obligations.

What about those who see Law as an end in and of itself, something to be pursued because organization is inherently valuable...and who pursue it with ruthlessness and malice?

I'm not really sure what "malice" adds here - it seems like it's just emphasising the ruthlessness of the ruthlessness.

Ruthlessly pursuing law and order seems like LN to me. Per Gygax (running together p 23 of the DMG and p 33 of the PHB):

Those of lawful neutral alignment view regulation as all-important. It is the view of this alignment that law and order give purpose and meaning to everything. This is because the ultimate harmony of the world - and the whole of the universe - is considered by lawful neutral creatures to have its sole hope rest upon law and order. Without regimentation and strict definition, there would be no purpose in the cosmos.

Therefore, whether a law is good or evil is of no import as long as it brings order and meaning. Evil or good are immaterial beside the determined purpose of bringing all to predictability and regulation.​

Upthread I've been saying that neither the LG or the LE regard law as valuable in and of itself. It's value is purely instrumental. The Lawful Neutral do regard law as valuable in itself - they insist on, and enforce, order whether or not it serves human wellbeing. This is why Gygax is able to say that the LN "tak[e] a middle road betwixt evil and good." They are not evil, because they recognise some external constraint upon the pursuit of self-interest (namely, law and order). But neither are they good, because they don't care about wellbeing, rights or happiness.

To use language that Gygax doesn't, one could say that the LN are rules-fetishists. They have mistaken a potentially valuable means (social order) for an end in itself.

In my view, this Gygaxian approach to alignment is coherent, though not useful for framing all moral conflicts. It captures a real conflict - namely, the social-theoretic disagreement over whether social order, or freedom and individualism, will lead to human wellbeing. And it provides labels for the nemeses of each view: the LE are the nemeses of the CG, because they realise the CG's worse fears about the consequences of social structures, while the CE are the nemeses of the LG, because they demonstrate the horrible consequences of untrammelled individual will. It also provides labels for those who mistake the means that are the focus of dispute for ends in themselves (the LN and the CN).

I recognise that this is not the aligment system found in Planescape, and probably not even that found in Gygax's PHB Appendix IV. But it has the benefit over them of being coherent and relatively straightforward in application, and in not purporting to capture all moral disputes but rather honing in one one particular site of conflict (social structure vs individualism).

 

[pemerton]

From the words of a 13th century king, famous for prohibiting his soldiers from plundering the peasants' barns at will.

The law is established and instituted to the guidance of all people, both rich and poor, in the distinction between right and wrong. The law shall be observed and kept to protect the poor, ensure peace to the peaceful, but to the violent bring chastisement and fear. The law shall honor the just and wise, but correct the unjust and unwise. Were all people just, then no law should be required. The country shall be built with law and not with acts of violence. For all shall be well with the country when the law is followed.

How can a character be evil if the character believes in and lives by the above?

It seems to me that the quote is a statement of LG creed. The CG don't object to it because they are hostile to peace, protecting the poor, etc; they object because they think that, in fact, the law cannot do the things promised in this statement. They think that the best way to protect the poor, ensure peace, etc is to have freedom rather than social structure.

The LE, on the other hand, have no interest in protecting the poor or ensuring peace. To the extent that they are interested in law and social structures, it's because they agree with the CG: those sorts of social arrangements are a yoke. But whereas the CG (being good) don't want people to be yoked in that way; the LE (being evil) want to impose their yoke upon the world.

In the system that Gygax sets out in his AD&D books, Darth Vader's alignment is determined by thinking about his attitude towards social organisation, and his reason for that attitude. Knowing only the six films, it seems to me that Darth is relatively indifferent to social organisation - he participates in it, but doesn't seem to regard it as essential for achieving what he wants - and he seems to recognise no limit upon his will other than his own desires and self-interest. To me that suggests NE.

If someone interpreted the films and the character in a different way - and reasonable people can certainly do that - they might reach a different conclusion. I think it would be hard to say that he's CE, because he doesn't actively chafe at working with a group. If someone takes the view that his relationship to the Empire is tighter than I've suggested, though, then they might think he is LE.

In these discussion of fictional characters, I think it's important to distinguish differences in alignment methodology, and differences of literary/cinematic interpretation.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Mal kicks his captive into a jet engine. Chaotic.

D'Artagnan challenges three people to duels upon entering Paris. Lawful.

Ned Stark beheads a deserter in accordance to the law. Lawful.

Harry Callahan says "go ahead punk, make my day". Lawful.

Julius Caesar crosses the Rubicon knowing civil war will be the outcome. Chaotic.

Trigger warning:
Hitler uses a falseflag operation as an excuse for war on Poland in a speech hours after the blitz is already underway. Chaotic, but engineered to look as Lawful as strategically possible, which makes it NE: "I will provide a propagandistic casus belli. Its credibility doesn't matter. The victor will not be asked whether he told the truth."

Pvt. Vasquez of the Sulaco. "I only need to know one thing: Where they are." Chaotic.

Lannister siblings: Jaimie slays the crazy king he is sworn to protect. Chaotic. Tyrion shoots his defenseless father to settle an argument. Chaotic. Cersei maneuvers her brother into a duel to death with the greatest warrior in the land. Lawful.

"Are you Sarah Connor?" Neutral.

 

[Frostmarrow]

It seems to me that the quote is a statement of LG creed. The CG don't object to it because they are hostile to peace, protecting the poor, etc; they object because they think that, in fact, the law cannot do the things promised in this statement. They think that the best way to protect the poor, ensure peace, etc is to have freedom rather than social structure.

The LE, on the other hand, have no interest in protecting the poor or ensuring peace. To the extent that they are interested in law and social structures, it's because they agree with the CG: those sorts of social arrangements are a yoke. But whereas the CG (being good) don't want people to be yoked in that way; the LE (being evil) want to impose their yoke upon the world.

In the system that Gygax sets out in his AD&D books, Darth Vader's alignment is determined by thinking about his attitude towards social organisation, and his reason for that attitude. Knowing only the six films, it seems to me that Darth is relatively indifferent to social organisation - he participates in it, but doesn't seem to regard it as essential for achieving what he wants - and he seems to recognise no limit upon his will other than his own desires and self-interest. To me that suggests NE.

If someone interpreted the films and the character in a different way - and reasonable people can certainly do that - they might reach a different conclusion. I think it would be hard to say that he's CE, because he doesn't actively chafe at working with a group. If someone takes the view that his relationship to the Empire is tighter than I've suggested, though, then they might think he is LE.

In these discussion of fictional characters, I think it's important to distinguish differences in alignment methodology, and differences of literary/cinematic interpretation.

Would you say Ayn Rand is chaotic? I ask this with great care, as I know Rand is highly controversial and I don't see the need to discuss her work here. I'm only asking about position on a fantasy chart.

You return to Gygax, and while that is only natural since this is D&D, I'm not convinced morality and ethics begin with Him.

Please explain the difference between alignment methodology and literary interpretation.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Just because people step outside of alignment for reasons, does not mean that the person is not that alignment. Take a noble and lawful good pacifist and murder his family in front of his eyes and he's very likely to snap and violently rip apart the murderer. People can act outside of their alignments. Dr. Doom is LE, even though he steps outside of LE. The same goes for the mafia, Superman who as acted outside of LG at times, and so on.

 

[Frostmarrow]

Oh, I think I get it: Yes that is important. Alignment is used as a shorthand for a character that should be played. A literary figure is governed by the authors intentions. We use literary characters as examples because we have no knowledge of our respective games and the characters and actions that are present in them.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

He cares for and takes good care of his people. That's why they love him (or did when I read comics). He may have taken over from strength, but that is not how he rules. He is not CE in his behavior.

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.

If you've read the books, Vader is a big proponent of taking care of those who follow him and building loyalty. He does that by being loyal back. Killing captains is part of his authority. He has the legal right to do it and it's part of the punishment for failure. He doesn't walk around just choking people to death because he can and/or in a chaotic fashion.