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

[Maxperson]

Mal kicks his captive into a jet engine. Chaotic.

I disagree. It wasn't a random act. It was a calculated act after he gave the captive a chance to agree to Mal's plan designed to ensure that the next guy would agree to take the message back. It wasn't chaotic, but it was evil.

 

[Parmandur]

Are you referring to James Wyatt, or someone else?

Yup, Wyatt; I am familiar with his educational environs.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I disagree. It wasn't a random act. It was a calculated act after he gave the captive a chance to agree to Mal's plan designed to ensure that the next guy would agree to take the message back. It wasn't chaotic, but it was evil.

I'm trying to make a case where chaotic means a willingness to use violence to solve ones problems without having to be righteous about it. A lawful character would not kill a captive. Evil or not, Mal chose not to wait around for the captive, once freed, to hunt Mal down with a blade. The scenario is a dilemma for any character.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm trying to make a case where chaotic means a willingness to use violence to solve ones problems without having to be righteous about it. A lawful character would not kill a captive. Evil or not, Mal chose not to wait around for the captive, once freed, to hunt Mal down with a blade. The scenario is a dilemma for any character.

I don't agree that a lawful character would not kill a captive. Lawful doesn't equal laws of men. A lawful good individual would not because he is good. An evil person with a very specific code that includes allowances for killing captives would be both lawful and evil.

 

[the Jester]

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.

I don't buy this. I'll point to Iron Man #150 and the What If? issue that changed it as evidence.

In IM150, Iron Man and Doom end up trapped back in Arthurian times. In the end, Doom proposes they work together to build a time machine that will take them back to the present.

"How do I know I can trust you?" asks Iron Man.

"Because, Avenger- I give you my word," Doom replies.

And they work together, build the time machine and return to the present.

But in an issue of What If? that starts at that point, the key difference is Doom's reply: "Because, Avenger- you have no choice." So when teh time comes, he betrays Iron Man and leaves him in the past at Camelot. The key difference is that he keeps his word, which is an enomously lawful trait (IMHO).

 

[the Jester]

I'm trying to make a case where chaotic means a willingness to use violence to solve ones problems without having to be righteous about it. A lawful character would not kill a captive.

I'm gonna disagree with your premise here. Lawful characters might have no problem executing captives if it's the legal thing to do, while a chaotic creature might not be willing to resort to violence except in the extreme. You're trying to simplify some very complex ideas; IMHO there's not just one set of behaviors that defines "lawful". There are tons of ways to be lawful (or any alignment), many of which exclude others.

 

[Eric V]

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.

If that were an isolated, case, yes. However, I think that Doom will throw out his "honour code" every time doing so will result in greater power or the chance to prove he's smarter than Richards. Since I can count on Doom doing that, I don't think he's stepping out of a LE alignment, I think he's NE but a bit of a Lawful poseur.

 

[Eric V]

I don't buy this. I'll point to Iron Man #150 and the What If? issue that changed it as evidence.

In IM150, Iron Man and Doom end up trapped back in Arthurian times. In the end, Doom proposes they work together to build a time machine that will take them back to the present.

"How do I know I can trust you?" asks Iron Man.

"Because, Avenger- I give you my word," Doom replies.

And they work together, build the time machine and return to the present.

But in an issue of What If? that starts at that point, the key difference is Doom's reply: "Because, Avenger- you have no choice." So when teh time comes, he betrays Iron Man and leaves him in the past at Camelot. The key difference is that he keeps his word, which is an enomously lawful trait (IMHO).

It is, I suppose...but it needs to be noted that it was in his best interest to do so. That still qualifies him as NE.

To further my point, in the Mighty Avengers arc wherein he, Iron Man and Sentry are caught in the past, he makes a similar pact, but this time he's learned and does betray them.

I don't doubt that Doom talks LE (I sorta miss alignment languages...), but he's only lawful until it's not convenient. Which is a good working definition of Neutral Evil.

Surely, if Doom were lawful, he'd have respected succession rights in Latveria. Instead, he murders Zorbo, the rightful heir, in a might-makes-right kind of way. The FF go along with things because they started channeling their inner Jeremy Bentham instead of their inner Immanuel Kant.

Doom is NE with a personality quirk (the on-again, off-again "honour").

 

[Maxperson]

If that were an isolated, case, yes. However, I think that Doom will throw out his "honour code" every time doing so will result in greater power or the chance to prove he's smarter than Richards. Since I can count on Doom doing that, I don't think he's stepping out of a LE alignment, I think he's NE but a bit of a Lawful poseur.

Which is 100% fine for a LE individual to do. If there are 100 things he keeps his honor code for and 2 things that he'll throw it out ever time for, that makes him human, not something other than LE. Nobody is perfect or keeps inside of their alignment for everything. It's why Batman is LG/CG/NG/LN. He has solid and consistent behaviors that fall inside of each of those alignments. Which one is his primary? I would say CG, but LG is very close behind. Dr. Doom's primary is LE, even if there are a few behaviors that consistently fall outside of it.

 

[Eric V]

Ok, well if people can have multiple alignments, then sure, one of Doom's is LE.

While still looking at [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s analysis, I just don't think LE makes sense under moral philosophy.