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

[Ovinomancer]

You do realize that "Eye for an eye; tooth for a tooth" is the first historical expression of judicial mercy? The whole point of Hammurabi's decree is to limit the maximum punishment that the law may allow, and reduce recourse in the society to vengeance.

To be fair, most people wouldn't see it as such. Everyone in this discussion is WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic), and we've all only grown up in a society for which 'an eye for an eye' is a step backwards in judicial mercy. That, during Hammurabi's time, it actually limited the wanton revenge escalation of tribal feuding isn't immediately apparent to us.

So, for Hammurabi, an eye for an eye was a marked improvement in judicial mercy. For us WEIRD folk, today, it's a major step back. It all depends on which reference frame you're using.

 

[Celebrim]

[MENTION=6801286]Imaculata[/MENTION]. The biggest problem with your quibbles is that they depend on subtly misusing words.

I don't think it's that black and white. Can you not value freedom, while still adhering to some code or set of rules? For example, a hired swordsman. He believes in his duty, and in always completing his job. He could be ruthless in his methods (evil), yet be true to his word, and always finish what he was hired to do (lawful). And yet, he could also value freedom, and value not being in the permanent service of anyone. He picks his own jobs, and goes where he likes.

Valuing his own independence is not the same as valuing freedom generally. A mercenary that valued freedom generally would refuse to fight for tyrants. He'd refuse to assist in subjugating peoples. Yet you insist that he's clearly lawful and evil. If he is clearly lawful and evil, why would he refuse to fight for tyrants? Why would he care whether the jobs he took were just or kind, especially since by your own explanation he's personally ruthless and cruel. Of course you might value your own freedom, but the chaotic tends to value freedom generally. He doesn't work with the system, but against it. Claiming that his valuing his own independence indicates he values freedom is like claiming that a person that a sadist that values his own pleasure is compassionate.

Couldn't any value become corrupted?

Could every value become corrupted? What would that mean? Certainly people can do bad things with the best of intentions, but does that mean the value itself was corrupted? What values do you have in mind?

What of a lawful evil knight who shows mercy to unarmed peasants, yet is merciless to his armed opponents, and still burns the village down as he was ordered to do? Lawful evil behavior if you ask me, yet not so black and white. Mercy can be shown out of goodness (not wanting to do harm) or out of principle (only killing worthy armed opponents). An evil character could also spare the lives of peasants, so they can tell others what they saw that day. An evil kind of mercy, but mercy none the less.

That's not mercy. That's not even an act of mercy. Mercy implies that you give a person better than they deserve. The knight in question isn't showing mercy to unarmed opponents. He simply has a code that says peasants are unworthy foes for him. By not slaying them, he's giving them what he believes that they deserve owing to their station as peasants. Mercy has no part of that.

]Plenty of lawful evil characters may think twice about being a ruler, since it also burdens them with a lot of responsibility, and makes them a target. A lawful evil character could follow an evil leader (for example, a stormtrooper in service of the evil empire), without wishing to take the place of their superior (who often get choked by Darth Vader if they fail their job.)

This I agree with. A lawful character does not necessarily want to rule, but may be happy with their station.

There are also plenty lawful evil characters who do not serve anyone, yet do not rule anyone either.

This is utterly illogical and I'm struggling to even understand what this could mean. If a character has no relationship to something external to himself, how in the world could you consider them lawful?

 

[Celebrim]

To be fair, most people wouldn't see it as such.

I realize that, but I would expect people in a technical discussion like this one to be able to see it in context, especially when I introduced the subject in context and explicitly bracketed it with both more and less merciful examples legal codes. I'm not sure how I could have been more clear.

So, for Hammurabi, an eye for an eye was a marked improvement in judicial mercy. For us WEIRD folk, today, it's a major step back. It all depends on which reference frame you're using.

Sure. I understand that. We are a remarkably tolerant society from a historical standpoint, albeit a remarkably tolerant society with the highest incarceration rates in world history so maybe we should show a little humility regarding our judgments of others. In any event, we are discussing judicial systems in the context of a fantasy world normally grounded in tropes drawn from antiquity and the middle ages, where the reality of pre-Hammurabic ideas of justice is probably wide spread and criminal penalties are - because of the general poverty of society and inability to afford caring for non-productive members - generally quite harsh and cruel by comparison (and at least from some perspectives) to modern punishments. Or at least, if they are not more cruel they are definitely unusual to us and more vulgar - floggings and pillories for example are low cost relatively high deterrence 'solutions'. Its in context of a world like that that I sought to differentiate judicial codes on the good/evil axis, with Hammurabi's famous expression as an example of an obvious well-known 'middle way' where we clearly could be both more or less merciful.

 

[Maxperson]

I agree with some parts of that piece of text, but not all of it, and certainly not with all it says about lawful evil.

Right off the bat I disagree. I don't think you can say anything about what a lawful evil character doesn't care about. Could a lawful evil character care about freedom, dignity or life? Sure he could. But his means of achieving what he wants pay less attention to the needs of others.

I think if anyone would be able to show mercy, it would be a lawful evil character. It all depends on what he believes in. I think if the lawful evil character is acting purely on the lawful side of things, this may lead him to commit merciless acts. But I wouldn't dare say that a lawful evil character is entirely unable to show mercy. This point is even contradicted within this very text, so more on this later.

You're falling into the trap that many fall into. Those things are what the LE character generally believes. They do murder people, so they don't care about life. Can he care about his wife's life? Yes, absolutely. Just because they generally have no care for life, doesn't mean that they cannot ever care about a life. The same goes for mercy. They are perfectly capable of showing mercy when it suits them or in specific instances, such as to children.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I realize that, but I would expect people in a technical discussion like this one to be able to see it in context, especially when I introduced the subject in context and explicitly bracketed it with both more and less merciful examples legal codes. I'm not sure how I could have been more clear.



Sure. I understand that. We are a remarkably tolerant society from a historical standpoint, albeit a remarkably tolerant society with the highest incarceration rates in world history so maybe we should show a little humility regarding our judgments of others. In any event, we are discussing judicial systems in the context of a fantasy world normally grounded in tropes drawn from antiquity and the middle ages, where the reality of pre-Hammurabic ideas of justice is probably wide spread and criminal penalties are - because of the general poverty of society and inability to afford caring for non-productive members - generally quite harsh and cruel by comparison (and at least from some perspectives) to modern punishments. Or at least, if they are not more cruel they are definitely unusual to us and more vulgar - floggings and pillories for example are low cost relatively high deterrence 'solutions'. Its in context of a world like that that I sought to differentiate judicial codes on the good/evil axis, with Hammurabi's famous expression as an example of an obvious well-known 'middle way' where we clearly could be both more or less merciful.

I just wanted to use WEIRD. That and try to pull back a bit from the brink of incredulity that someone might not follow your scholarly logic.

 

[Celebrim]

You're falling into the trap that many fall into. Those things are what the LE character generally believes. They do murder people, so they don't care about life. Can he care about his wife's life? Yes, absolutely. Just because they generally have no care for life, doesn't mean that they cannot ever care about a life. The same goes for mercy. They are perfectly capable of showing mercy when it suits them or in specific instances, such as to children.

This is all correct, but it's worth noting that to a LE person, choosing to show mercy to one's children out of affection or similar motive would be a moral failing. A perfectly LE person showing great self-control and discipline and understanding of his beliefs would of course not spare his children. Such an act of weakness would harm his own honor while doing nothing "good" for the children, since kindness only promotes weakness and dependency (according to LE).

Again, The Order of the Stick shows some of the best examples of D&D alignment in all of media. Tarquin's execution of Nale is perfectly in theme with the beliefs of LE, and for me references things like David's The Lictors Bring to Brutus the Bodies of His Sons. Tarquin is a LE moral paragon and there is no better way to show that than to show he doesn't even see his own sons as anything but means to an end.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Imaculata]

Valuing his own independence is not the same as valuing freedom generally. A mercenary that valued freedom generally would refuse to fight for tyrants. He'd refuse to assist in subjugating peoples. Yet you insist that he's clearly lawful and evil.

What I'm saying, is that a lawful evil character could be a freedom fighter. Do you disagree?

Could every value become corrupted? What would that mean? Certainly people can do bad things with the best of intentions, but does that mean the value itself was corrupted? What values do you have in mind?

What I mean is that most values aren't inherently good. In other words, just because you hold a "good value" in high regard, does not automatically make you a good person. And neither does holding a "bad value" in high regard, automatically make you a villain. Good values can be upheld for the wrong reasons, and bad values can be upheld for the right reasons.

This goes back to my old slave master example.

The players delivered a bunch of Kturgian pirates to a slave master, and then debated the morality of slavery with him. The slave master argued that the country is at war, and that the Kturgian pirates are there for considered enemy combatants. By putting them to work, they are helping the war efforts. Where as, if they had been set free, they would soon return to their killing and plundering. Had they been put in jail, they would surely been subjected to cruel torture, and then probably hanged. So the slave master argued, that slavery was the merciful thing to do. And sure, some masters may treat their slaves badly, but most of them were alright. The players couldn't really disagree with the man.

That's not mercy. That's not even an act of mercy. Mercy implies that you give a person better than they deserve. The knight in question isn't showing mercy to unarmed opponents. He simply has a code that says peasants are unworthy foes for him. By not slaying them, he's giving them what he believes that they deserve owing to their station as peasants. Mercy has no part of that.

So an evil character is not capable of giving a person better than he deserves? Why not? Does one good deed automatically turn a villain into a good guy? Are villains incapable of doing good things, or showing kindness?

This is utterly illogical and I'm struggling to even understand what this could mean. If a character has no relationship to something external to himself, how in the world could you consider them lawful?

Lawful does not mean that a character follows the law. He could also follow a code, or a set of personal tenets. As such you could have a lawful evil character who rules over no one, and yet serves no one either.

 

[Hussar]

/snip


So LN is also an oxymoron?

[MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] and [MENTION=88539]LowKey[/MENTION] basically have my point of view right on this. I'm not about to assert any sort of scholarly expertise here at all, nor any real technical knowledge of the history of law. Don't care to be honest. My D&D is about as grounded in history as, well, something like Westeros or Donaldson's The Land or Erikson's Malazan books. Ie. not at all.

But, to this point, yup, LN is largely an oxymoron*. Lawful sees the organised society as a goal. But, any society which gets organized beyond a small group of family units will inevitably begin creating laws based on precepts of good or evil, at least as D&D defines them. Concepts of mercy will push the group towards Good while concepts of oppression will push towards evil. Thinking about it, it's not so much an oxymoron, just simply unstable. You cannot really have a society governed by law that doesn't go one direction or the other.

* Note, this does not apply to groups of hive mind or other organisations. I can certainly look at, say, Modrons, and see LN. But, I think that our discussion is mostly entered around the idea of fairly standard humanoids, so, while I can see LN organisations, I don't really see them in the context of humanoids.

 

[Celebrim]

I just wanted to use WEIRD. That and try to pull back a bit from the brink of incredulity that someone might not follow your scholarly logic.

Ah. Well, I'd quibble with the 'educated' part. I'm not certain I qualify as educated. I'd need two have command of a few languages and a couple 100,000 more pages of study behind me to even think about claiming the title. I'm an amateur dabbler at best. I'm literate; I'm reasonably numerate. I know enough to navigate Wikipedia with a certain purposefulness. But educated? Thomas Aquinas was educated. Leonardo DiVinci was educated. Francis Bacon was educated. Gene Wolfe is an educated man. I'm a half-educated nerd with a fondness for trivia and a natural inclination to be contrary.

I suppose in that context I should be less surprised to be wildly misunderstood.