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

[Hussar]

The thing is, D&D defines good and evil in modern senses, not medieval ones. We cannot really apply medieval moral sensibilities to the game when the game itself doesn't use those definitions. We can, for example, appreciate Roman civilization for a lot of things, but, in D&D terms, it's still an evil empire. Widespread slavery and circuses pretty much pin that down. Every single D&D civilisation that has those is considered evil. That I can think of, none of the good civilisations practice either of those things.

Which is why I'm fairly convinced that LN is untenable. The laws of the land will slide to either good or evil over time. Either morality and a respect for life will begin to enter into the laws of the land, pushing the civilisation good, or the laws will become more and more out of touch with morality and the civilisation will slide into evil. Modern US is not a LN society in the least. You have all sorts of laws protecting the weak - social programs for the feeding and care of those who can't help themselves, laws which work to prevent things like discrimination and whatnot, which are entirely based in morality, and criminal laws which have the idea of reform, not punishment, as their goal.

Now, how well society achieves those goals is another issue, and this is not the place to discuss that, but, that IS the goal of law in the US. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, all people are created equal" is a call to good, not neutral. Neutrals wouldn't give a toss about "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Why would neutrals care if the people were happy? That's a moral judgement.

I guess, I do agree with @Celembrim that LN isn't an oxymoron. It's not. But, it doesn't apply to most groups either. It's simply not stable.

The example, upthread, of the wandering samurai (ronin) working for different masters is a good case in point. Neutral is not "do good this time and that balances out the evil next time". That doesn't work. The LN Samurai works for one master and saves a village from a couple of oni. Great. No problem. The next master orders the samurai to burn a village and kill everyone in it because the head man insulted him. If that Samurai slaughters a village full of women and children, he's not neutral, he's evil. It doesn't really matter that he does nothing but non-evil things from then on. He's still evil because he slaughtered a village full of women and children.

This is why I think LN is ultimately unstable and untenable. LN becomes, in D&D terms, largely indistinguishable from LG in play because you have this character that does nothing but morally-neutral or good things for his entire career - but never does anything outright evil. How is he any different from a LG character who does exactly the same things for his entire career?

I remember having a player years ago, fairly new to my group, who insisted his character was CN. I wasn't really thrilled with the idea, since I'd seen disruptive players pull that one in the past, but, I let it slide. The player played a character that was entirely dependable, never did anything on a whim or irrational and behaved as a total team player. After four or five levels of this, I came back to the player and asked him why he thought the character was CN. He never really did come up with any real explanation, but, vehemently insisted his character was CN and that his character could do anything he wanted to do. He just wanted to be a team player. After a few conversations about this, I realized what the player was actually trying to tell me. In his mind, if the character was Lawful, that would empower me, as DM, to step in and force him to do things. He wanted to build a nice box around his character that would allow him to play his character however he wanted to play it without me interfering. Even though what he was playing was pretty much cut and dried LG, he didn't want to allow me any levers to dictate his actions to him.

I totally backed off, let him keep CN on his sheet and promptly dropped the whole thing. One of the best things out of 4e was the idea of Unaligned and I do wish that 5e had kept this. It's the perfect alignment for most players who aren't interested in playing up the moral angle of a character. But, LN, at the end of the day, is largely indistinguishable from LG over the course of a campaign. The two characters will behave in almost exactly the same fashion.

Why bother having a "slightly dirty" LG? Just call it LG, or maybe NG and be done with it. LE? Sure, I can see that. There's a ton of examples we can point to for that and lots of iconic characters and societies. But LN and CN? Meh, outside of a few very sketchily defined characters, I really don't think the game is better for having those alignments. And, really, thinking about it, you can wrap LE into NE quite often, since LE groups tend to be so corrupt and corruptible, that the L part of the alignment is just a stand in for self interest.

Again, when demons and devils look pretty much identical, what's the point in having two alignments for them? When you can have impulsive devils interested in destruction and planning demons with strong senses of organization, what's the point of distinguishing the two through alignment?

 

[Maxperson]

There are many degrees of evil. Not all evil characters commit murder. You can be lawful evil, or chaotic evil, and yet never have committed a murder in your life.

Many rich Wall Street bankers are probably complete psychopaths. They care not for others, and don't mind stealing from millions of people, as long as it benefits them. And yet they never commit murder in their life. Maybe that's because they are lawful, and respect the law. Maybe its because they simply think murder is wrong. Maybe a bit of both.

Correct. Which is why those things apply in general. There will be exceptions You seem to be set on pointing out the exceptions to the rule and saying that the general applications of the alignment no longer apply.

 

[Imaculata]

Correct. Which is why those things apply in general. There will be exceptions You seem to be set on pointing out the exceptions to the rule and saying that the general applications of the alignment no longer apply.

No, but I don't like it when people give a very narrow definition of the various alignments. You call them exceptions, but I call many of the definitions that I saw earlier exceptions in their own right.

Take for example this idea that all Lawful Evil characters seek to rule, rather than to serve. THAT is an exception. And that is why I immediately point out the error in any such generalizations. If you are going to try and give a very accurate description of what Lawful Evil really is, it should not include details that are only true for a small selection of Lawful Evil characters.

And the core reason I point it out, is because such a description of the alignment falls short of being a description at all. It doesn't touch upon what "Lawful" means, nor does it touch upon what "Evil" means. It tries to paint with very broad strokes, without ever coming up with a good answer to the original question. What makes a character Lawful Evil? Is it their lust for power? Clearly not. Is it there inability to pursue good goals, such as freedom, life and love? No, that's not right either. So what is "Lawful Evil"?

I'll try and define it myself, but as this long discussion clearly shows, it is not an easy question to answer.

Evil
An evil character values what is good for himself, higher than what is good for others. Some villains don't consider others at all, and others just don't consider them enough to be considered a good person. What also makes a person evil, is their willingness to harm others, or do bad things to them; either for the betterment of themselves, or simply because they feel like it. Evil characters don't feel compelled to do things out of the goodness of their heart. This does not mean that they can't ever do good things, or show affection, or show mercy at times. But its a sliding scale, that tips more to a lack of compassion, and less towards what we generally consider good acts. Evil characters are prone to selfish acts, corruption, cruelty, blood thirst, malevolence or greed. And what is also important, is whether such acts are intentional. Does the character cause harm because it is his intention to do so, or does it happen by accident, out of negligence or recklessness. A character such as Jurassic Park's Dennis Nedry for example, is not the typical kind of villain. Yes he is evil, but the death and destruction he unleashes on the park is mostly out of negligence, and due to his selfishness and greed. He did not intend to have people eaten by dinosaurs, and yet it is the direct result of his selfish actions. And yes, an evil character could also be a freedom fighter. In his pursuit for freedom, there might be civilian casualties due to negligence on the part of the villain. But he obviously values his goal higher than the risk for collateral damage. It is important to note that most villains do not consider themselves evil (unless they are a psychopath, or a cartoon stereotype). Everyone is the hero in his own story after all.


That's my definition. I know it's not perfect, but I've tried to leave out generalizations that are awfully specific.

Lawful
A lawful character follows a code, a set of tenets, and/or the law. Good and evil characters alike can follow the law and be considered 'lawful', or they can ignore the law, but follow a code, or creed, to also be considered 'lawful'. What makes a character lawful in my opinion, is whether this code or creed determines their decisions. Lawful characters tend to be rational, and to some extend predictable. They have a clear framework on which their behavior is based. A lawful good paladin might believe that delivering captured orcs to the local authority is the right thing to do, despite knowing that they'll probably be executed. This is not out of lack of mercy, but out of respect for local law, and/or a trust that justice will be served (however misguided that belief may be). A lawful evil character could have a similar respect for the law, or he/she might follow a personal code that he adheres to. Not all lawful evil characters are genocidal tyrants with a fondness of black capes and a castle surrounded by lava. They could be a local sheriff, who has never taken a life, but is relentless in his tax collecting. He's only following the law, but has little compassion for the poor family that can't pay up. They don't all aspire to be leaders, or servants. they could be either one, and could be perfectly happy in their position (take for example the ruthless tax collecting sheriff, who is happy to do what he does). A ruthless assassin could be Lawful, even if he is clearly breaking the law. Maybe he follows a set of personal rules, or the tenets of his temple.

 

[Maxperson]

Take for example this idea that all Lawful Evil characters seek to rule, rather than to serve. THAT is an exception. And that is why I immediately point out the error in any such generalizations. If you are going to try and give a very accurate description of what Lawful Evil really is, it should not include details that are only true for a small selection of Lawful Evil characters.

Evil individuals do not like to serve under others. That gives them two choices. Serve or lead. When they say rule, they don't mean as king. They just mean that they want to be in charge, which is true. Look at the Mafia. It was all about rising through the ranks to one day be Don. The same applies to dictatorships. The truly LE people are the ones that rule the country or are in the process of rising in the government and military.

And the core reason I point it out, is because such a description of the alignment falls short of being a description at all. It doesn't touch upon what "Lawful" means, nor does it touch upon what "Evil" means. It tries to paint with very broad strokes, without ever coming up with a good answer to the original question. What makes a character Lawful Evil? Is it their lust for power? Clearly not. Is it there inability to pursue good goals, such as freedom, life and love? No, that's not right either. So what is "Lawful Evil"?

Broad strokes have to be used in order for alignment to be a guide and not a sledge hammer. It's an individual who seeks to rule through power tempered by order that they establish, has already been established or both. Such an individual will serve as a means to an end, with that end being that they are in charge of whatever their goal is.

Evil
An evil character values what is good for himself, higher than what is good for others. Some villains don't consider others at all, and others just don't consider them enough to be considered a good person. What also makes a person evil, is their willingness to harm others, or do bad things to them; either for the betterment of themselves, or simply because they feel like it. Evil characters don't feel compelled to do things out of the goodness of their heart. This does not mean that they can't ever do good things, or show affection, or show mercy at times. But its a sliding scale, that tips more to a lack of compassion, and less towards what we generally consider good acts. Evil characters are prone to selfish acts, corruption, cruelty, blood thirst, malevolence or greed. And what is also important, is whether such acts are intentional. Does the character cause harm because it is his intention to do so, or does it happen by accident, out of negligence or recklessness. A character such as Jurassic Park's Dennis Nedry for example, is not the typical kind of villain. Yes he is evil, but the death and destruction he unleashes on the park is mostly out of negligence, and due to his selfishness and greed. He did not intend to have people eaten by dinosaurs, and yet it is the direct result of his selfish actions. And yes, an evil character could also be a freedom fighter. In his pursuit for freedom, there might be civilian casualties due to negligence on the part of the villain. But he obviously values his goal higher than the risk for collateral damage. It is important to note that most villains do not consider themselves evil (unless they are a psychopath, or a cartoon stereotype). Everyone is the hero in his own story after all.

The bolded portion do not need to be in a definition of evil. They are either self-evident, such as the part where you talk about evil people being able to do good/neutral acts, or examples that don't need to be there. As for Dennis Nedry, he intentionally shut down the grid and as the guy in charge of it, he knew that it could allow the dinosaurs to become free and kill people. That rather large possibility is why they had that grid up in the first place. So no, he didn't cause the deaths through negligence, but rather through deliberate act. He just didn't care if it happened so long as he got out and got his money.

What is left is a fairly good description of evil.

Lawful
A lawful character follows a code, a set of tenets, and/or the law. Good and evil characters alike can follow the law and be considered 'lawful', or they can ignore the law, but follow a code, or creed, to also be considered 'lawful'. What makes a character lawful in my opinion, is whether this code or creed determines their decisions. Lawful characters tend to be rational, and to some extend predictable. They have a clear framework on which their behavior is based. A lawful good paladin might believe that delivering captured orcs to the local authority is the right thing to do, despite knowing that they'll probably be executed. This is not out of lack of mercy, but out of respect for local law, and/or a trust that justice will be served (however misguided that belief may be). A lawful evil character could have a similar respect for the law, or he/she might follow a personal code that he adheres to. Not all lawful evil characters are genocidal tyrants with a fondness of black capes and a castle surrounded by lava. They could be a local sheriff, who has never taken a life, but is relentless in his tax collecting. He's only following the law, but has little compassion for the poor family that can't pay up. They don't all aspire to be leaders, or servants. they could be either one, and could be perfectly happy in their position (take for example the ruthless tax collecting sheriff, who is happy to do what he does). A ruthless assassin could be Lawful, even if he is clearly breaking the law. Maybe he follows a set of personal rules, or the tenets of his temple.

That's pretty good, but I will point out that the tax collecting sheriff is not a servant. He's a leader. The number of LE individuals who don't try to rise to the top of what they do so that they are beholden to no one or as few someones as possible is low. Those that are content to sit in their position and do evil are usually the NE ones who just like to do evil for the sake of evil and don't care if they are at the top or bottom, so long as they can do it, and the CE ones who just like to smash things and make great tools for the LE leaders. There are exceptions, but not many.

 

[Radaceus]

The current US government is Lawful Evil

yeah I said it

discuss

 

[Ovinomancer]

Evil individuals do not like to serve under others. That gives them two choices. Serve or lead. When they say rule, they don't mean as king. They just mean that they want to be in charge, which is true. Look at the Mafia. It was all about rising through the ranks to one day be Don. The same applies to dictatorships. The truly LE people are the ones that rule the country or are in the process of rising in the government and military.

Huh? No, sorry, I can't agree that being evil means that you're automatically ambitious. Not every evil person has dreams of megalomania. Your example of the Mafia is incorrect, as most members are perfectly happy in their current roles and don't wish to move up the ladder.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The current US government is Lawful Evil

yeah I said it

discuss

Shocking and edgy!

 

[Celebrim]

The thing is, it doesn't matter if WE think he fits our definition of a freedom fighter. If HE believes he is fighting for freedom, then he's a freedom fighter.

No. What he believes he is doesn't matter all that much. In the real world, people can argue over whether or not what you just said is true. In the real world, it's still a point of philosophical debate whether or not morality is relative or absolute. I've got no real interest in delving into that real world argument in this forum.

But since this is the D&D forum, we can state with absolute assurance that the alignments are real things and morality has absolute and real existence. If you don't actually believe in and conform to the things that are absolutely congruent to an alignment, it doesn't matter what you think you are upholding. If your idea of freedom is replacing the current regime with something that upholds even less the value of freedom, then you aren't fighting for freedom, and liberty, and natural human dignity and ergo aren't in fact upholding some chaotic good principle. You can call yourself a freedom fighter all you want, and inarguably within a world where things like freedom are tangible measurable traits of the universe, it doesn't matter if you aren't actually for freedom.

Lawful Evil characters CAN believe in freedom.

The point is that they don't, so no, they can't. That's one of the main ways that we know someone is lawful evil. Complete disregard of individual liberty, human rights, and human dignity is the mark of LE both in individuals and at the level of societies. LE sees everyone, including their own selves, as merely means toward a higher purpose - insuring the security and power of the collective. LE sees freedom as the source of all the worlds 'evils'. Freedom is the most loathsome thing in the world to a lawful evil person. Freedom is hateful. Freedom is the well spring of destruction, because it says to people that they don't have to do their duty, that they don't have to value their fealties higher than they value themselves, and that they don't have to submit to their lawful liege. LE believes a desire for freedom is a curse, and really one of the few things that can't be repurposed to the health of the collective. Does that sound strange?

Well, the philosophy espoused in the movie isn't evil necessarily, but in 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon' one of the main themes of the movie is the contradictory self-destructive nature of freedom. It's a bit of "lawful aligned" anti-freedom propaganda. The main character is seeking freedom, but every time she finds happiness, she realizes that it brings with it a fealty and therefore reduces her freedom. So she flees the very thing that would be good for her, each time destroying the very things she loves. Ultimately, only one sort of freedom brings with it no obligation, so a commitment to her own self-interest ends up destroying her is the moral of the movie.

Quite a few Chinese movies have lawful messaging that is contrary to the messaging we expect to see in the West. 'Hero' is another example that just doesn't end the way an American movie would.

Alignment doesn't define someone's ideals, it defines what someone is willing to do.

I don't see an effective difference between those two things. What you believes defines what you are willing to do, and what you do defines what you actually believe. This is the old 'faith'/'works' dilemma. If you believe something, the evidence of that is what you do. You can't actually have one without the other. Your real ideas and your actions are always inseparable.

Also keep in mind that a character can be lawful evil in other ways. You could have a character that truly wants to bring freedom, and yet is willing to hurt the innocent to reach that goal. Or someone for whom torture is a morally acceptable thing to do, if it helps get the intel needed to achieve freedom.

This is starting to skirt into territory that I want to avoid. The point is that what you describe in inherently in tension. It inherently creates a moral crisis. Something, some belief, some commitment eventually has to give. A character that truly wants freedom but is willing to hurt the innocent, is evil, but they aren't lawful.

 

[Maxperson]

Huh? No, sorry, I can't agree that being evil means that you're automatically ambitious. Not every evil person has dreams of megalomania. Your example of the Mafia is incorrect, as most members are perfectly happy in their current roles and don't wish to move up the ladder.

Then it's probably a good thing that I didn't make the claim that every evil person was like that or that you were automatically ambitious. Most are, but not all.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Then it's probably a good thing that I didn't make the claim that every evil person was like that or that you were automatically ambitious. Most are, but not all.

No, I'm arguing that most aren't. There's no reason to assume that evil means you break out of the standard distribution of ambition -- most people are going to rise to the level of their incompetence (which usually isn't terribly high, eventually manager of the neighborhood Fried Endangered Animals chain), a few will be bucking for the big game, and the rest are just happy to coast along whipping slaves.