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

[EzekielRaiden]

This may work best: Lawful is moral absolutism, while Chaotic is moral relativism.

Though that, too, runs into a problem. Namely that Chaotic individuals think that their values-system is straight-up better than the Lawful one: that formal hierarchies are inherently Bad News and only lead to desirable ends by accident or because one (or more) actually effective person(s) constantly interferes, making the hierarchy a superfluous 'parasite' on the real power (the interfering person).

 

[CaptainGemini]

Though that, too, runs into a problem. Namely that Chaotic individuals think that their values-system is straight-up better than the Lawful one: that formal hierarchies are inherently Bad News and only lead to desirable ends by accident or because one (or more) actually effective person(s) constantly interferes, making the hierarchy a superfluous 'parasite' on the real power (the interfering person).

Which is a real-world morality argument that has been raging, off an on, for probably about two centuries or better now. There are people in the real world who very much believe in that stance as part of their backing of moral relativism.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Which is a real-world morality argument that has been raging, off an on, for probably about two centuries or better now. There are people in the real world who very much believe in that stance as part of their backing of moral relativism.

Well, whoever is doing that is being silly. For this argument, are we agreed that in order to qualify as "Chaotic X" rather than "Neutral X," the person being referred to must have a deep and thoroughgoing commitment to the principles associated with "being Chaotic"? If so, then what you're saying is that a really hardcore moral relativist is first saying, "all moral value judgments only make sense relative to a specific culture," and then turning around and saying, "relativism is morally superior to absolutism." Those two things are incompatible--because the latter is a statement made about moral values, sans cultural context--true for ALL cultural systems. But...that's exactly the kind of moral statement the hardcore relativist cannot accept! It makes a moral value judgment that applies across all cultures, social groupings, etc. In other words, it is a moral absolute, which hardcore relativism cannot abide.

Now, if they were to make a much weaker and more narrow argument, e.g. "within culture X, relativism leads to better results than absolutism" (weakened both because it specifies a single culture, and because it makes an empirical rather than philosophical standard), that would be a very different story...but that's not at all how the Law/Chaos dichotomy is presented in literature, D&D or otherwise. Instead, it's very clearly presented as the "hardcore" Chaotic people thinking that their system is universally better--better for all people in all places and times--than Law, and vice-versa. Such a two-way "sneering" contest flat out isn't possible if one side is ardently committed to the idea that moral value ONLY has significance when constructed within one specific cultural group among many (potential*) groups.

*It's important to note here that at least the potential for other cultural groups is necessary for an ethical theory to remain "relativist." If an ethical theory posits that in truth there is really only one gigantic culture, shared by all of its individual members and merely giving the appearance of subdivision, it's no longer relativist--it's subjectivist, which is an entirely different beast.

 

[seebs]

Sure. I just think it makes more sense, IMO, to say something like "Dr. Doom is NE" rather than "Dr. Doom is primarily LE, but sometimes LN, sometimes CE."

I don't mind descriptors, obviously, I just think philisophically, LE doesn't make sense. All examples of LE that I can think of end up being NE upon closer inspection.

I'm not convinced at all. The thing about values is that they can and do conflict, and that doesn't mean you don't value them. If someone has law and order and truthfulness as values, and also personal advancement regardless of harm to other people, they're lawful evil, even if sometimes they lie or sometimes they help people.

 

[Warbringer]

In general regard to alignment I see it as "overall the X will act like this in a situation". It doesn't mean always, it doesn't mean with out conflict with other beliefs.

A hero whose traits peg him as wholly evil - will use any means to achieve their owns goals; is mistrusting of those not close to them; beliefs might trumps right; do unto other before they do to you ... Etc are not evil in any way, but an individual that constantly acts in this way (especially when the first turns into theft and murder) we'd agree is acting in an evil fashion.

Further, what if all those acts are motivated by the tragedy of upbringing, parental lost, the death of a child, a fear of unworthiness rather than the act, and our evil doer now is put in the situation to right a wrong and partially redeem and suddenly we have the trait "protect the innocent"' still the other hodgepodge, is he still evil?

The granularity of these changes empowers alignment to be a tool and not a label.

 

[Eric V]

I'm not convinced at all. The thing about values is that they can and do conflict, and that doesn't mean you don't value them. If someone has law and order and truthfulness as values, and also personal advancement regardless of harm to other people, they're lawful evil, even if sometimes they lie or sometimes they help people.

Ok, so just for whatever (since you're not going to be convinced), convince me: How is Doom not Neutral Evil?

 

[seebs]

Ok, so just for whatever (since you're not going to be convinced), convince me: How is Doom not Neutral Evil?

I don't have a strong opinion on Doom in particular, not being an expert on the comics. I'd tend to regard him as Lawful Evil in that he has a consistent code of honor. And yes, it allows for betrayals, but it also has circumstances under which he is very unlikely to betray people, even when it is in his best interests to do so. So that would be my guess, but I am not expert enough in his behavior to be sure of it.

My point isn't so much the specific character, as that I can easily describe a set of behaviors or ideals which are clearly Lawful Evil, and are clearly distinct from Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil. Same for Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic Good. Classic Transformers Megatron? I'd say Neutral Evil; will offer promises but will often break them, but does not specifically seek to break promises as an end in itself, it's just that he doesn't adhere to them.

In a recent game, we encountered someone who made arrangements between buyers and hit men. She was lawful evil. We made a deal with her. She adhered precisely to the deal. We had neglected to specify "don't tell the people who were *already* hired to go after us where to find us", so she did that, and we got ambushed, which was inconvenient, but we won.

But as long as we were very careful about what we were agreeing to, she was completely reliable. And when we pulled a similar trick on her, she didn't get all whiny about it, she congratulated us on the clever strategy. Still basically in the business of hiring hit men, still willing to kill innocents for personal advancement, but definitely Lawful about it.

 

[CaptainGemini]

Well, whoever is doing that is being silly. For this argument, are we agreed that in order to qualify as "Chaotic X" rather than "Neutral X," the person being referred to must have a deep and thoroughgoing commitment to the principles associated with "being Chaotic"? If so, then what you're saying is that a really hardcore moral relativist is first saying, "all moral value judgments only make sense relative to a specific culture," and then turning around and saying, "relativism is morally superior to absolutism." Those two things are incompatible--because the latter is a statement made about moral values, sans cultural context--true for ALL cultural systems. But...that's exactly the kind of moral statement the hardcore relativist cannot accept! It makes a moral value judgment that applies across all cultures, social groupings, etc. In other words, it is a moral absolute, which hardcore relativism cannot abide.

Agreed. But, people actually do believe both of those. So, while they're being silly, it's still a real-world belief.

Then again, consider the opposite... the moral absolutism believing that only their morality is right, that it must apply to all cultures even if the moral code itself says otherwise, and that all other moralities are inferior. That also comes up in reality.

Now, if they were to make a much weaker and more narrow argument, e.g. "within culture X, relativism leads to better results than absolutism" (weakened both because it specifies a single culture, and because it makes an empirical rather than philosophical standard), that would be a very different story...but that's not at all how the Law/Chaos dichotomy is presented in literature, D&D or otherwise. Instead, it's very clearly presented as the "hardcore" Chaotic people thinking that their system is universally better--better for all people in all places and times--than Law, and vice-versa. Such a two-way "sneering" contest flat out isn't possible if one side is ardently committed to the idea that moral value ONLY has significance when constructed within one specific cultural group among many (potential*) groups.

Unfortunately, it very much is possible. Wars have been fought over moral relativism and moral absolutism not getting along where the relativism just viewed that it was simply best for the culture. That's one of the sources of the hardcore moral relativists; they become convinced that moral absolutism is not only bad for them, but bad for the world because of their experiences with it.

*It's important to note here that at least the potential for other cultural groups is necessary for an ethical theory to remain "relativist." If an ethical theory posits that in truth there is really only one gigantic culture, shared by all of its individual members and merely giving the appearance of subdivision, it's no longer relativist--it's subjectivist, which is an entirely different beast.

I try to dodge that headache.

 

[Shasarak]

Unfortunately, it very much is possible. Wars have been fought over moral relativism and moral absolutism not getting along where the relativism just viewed that it was simply best for the culture. That's one of the sources of the hardcore moral relativists; they become convinced that moral absolutism is not only bad for them, but bad for the world because of their experiences with it.

I guess it is better then the usual wars fought over the inconvenience of someone having something that someone else wants.

 

[Maxperson]

Ok, so just for whatever (since you're not going to be convinced), convince me: How is Doom not Neutral Evil?

A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.

This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.

Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.

I bolded the parts that apply to Dr. Doom.

A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.

Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies

I bolded the parts that apply to Dr. Doom. Notice the difference.