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

[Maxperson]

I do to in a way, but we must be very clear by what we mean by 'selfishness'. Selfishness means to care for self at the expense of others, or to value oneself much more highly than others. As my essay on Evil indicates, that would be evil in its nature.

You've just described almost every human on earth as evil. Very few people will risk their lives to save another person from death. That qualifies as valuing oneself more highly than others and caring for yourself at the expense of another. Just look at all the stories of people dying in public while dozens or hundreds walk by. Selfishness isn't evil. Extreme selfishness is.

 

[CaptainGemini]

You've just described almost every human on earth as evil. Very few people will risk their lives to save another person from death. That qualifies as valuing oneself more highly than others and caring for yourself at the expense of another. Just look at all the stories of people dying in public while dozens or hundreds walk by. Selfishness isn't evil. Extreme selfishness is.

That is also the start of a very good argument that humans are neutral evil. Just take a look at what we've done to the planet, or to each other repeatedly, or pretty much our entire history of abusing each other, or the current ongoing massive discrimination issues...

 

[Maxperson]

First, how do we know this man is lawful? What part of his description indicates his lawfulness? Could not a chaotic evil person also bilk people out of their homes through predatory lawsuits? Are we to take the existence of predatory lawsuits as proof of respect for the law? We really know nothing about this barrister's motivations, and all you've given us is a very superficial trait - a profession. I would argue that there is a very big difference between an evil lawyer bilking people out of their homes because he desires to enrich himself, and an evil lawyer bilking people out of their homes because he honestly believes that they don't deserve them and that they deserve the treatment. The later lawyer could presumably be working pro bono out of conviction that what he was doing was right, and not out of selfish regard at all.

It's highly unlikely that a CE person will make a living through lawsuits. They are a might makes right and into more instant gratification. They are the ones who will rob banks to get that money, rather than take 2+ years to sue someone and go through the lawful motions. You also mistake using the law with respect for the law. Someone who is good will respect the law when lawful. Someone who is evil will use it for their gain and needs.

It's worth noting CE persons can thrive within a LE society by merely pretending to respect authority and giving the outward appearance of serving the group. It's particularly easy for a CE ruler to do this, because as the ruler, the whole rest of the society is geared to obey the ruler and so the ruler alone is in a position where indulging his whim is at least somewhat expected as his prerogative as the one that rules himself. I brought up Asmodeus earlier because as a non-mortal and actual incarnate embodiment of LE, that's not what we would expect is actually happening there.

There is a very large and easily recognizable difference between a CE ruler and a LE ruler. Putin is a great example of a LE ruler. He uses Russian law and might to throw his weight around. Kim Jong Un is a great example of a CE ones. He just does whatever he wants on a whim because might makes right, not because the law is there to serve him.

 

[Maxperson]

That is also the start of a very good argument that humans are neutral evil. Just take a look at what we've done to the planet, or to each other repeatedly, or pretty much our entire history of abusing each other, or the current ongoing massive discrimination issues...

Now it's getting a bit too politicky for the non-politics forum. I'll be happy to discuss this with you privately if you like.

 

[Celebrim]

You've just described almost every human on earth as evil. Very few people will risk their lives to save another person from death. That qualifies as valuing oneself more highly than others and caring for yourself at the expense of another. Just look at all the stories of people dying in public while dozens or hundreds walk by.

Sounds like evil to me.

It always bemuses me when people makes this complaint against my definition of evil. When you add up all the worlds Christians, Buddhists, Jews, Moslems, and Sikhs it comes to a rather large percentage of the world's population. And it should come to no surprise to anyone with even the basic familiarity with the beliefs of those religions that were you to ask them what percentage of the world's population is righteous and justified or however they phrase it, that the answer comes out as "darn few" or "none". Nor indeed should it be any surprise that Diogenes famous quest for an honest man wasn't solved by walking across the street, or that it's been generally observed by a lot of humans everywhere of all beliefs and ideologies that most humans aren't very nice to each other or anything else. Yet some people always seem a bit outraged that anyone should suggest, "You know, in all fairness, we aren't much better than orcs... or at all."

But anyway, since we aren't terribly worried about the real world in this discussion, suffice to say that for the purposes of the game only those one standard deviation of evil above the normal for humans (since humans are always baseline) would be considered Evil and have to put it on their character sheet. The rest could get away with Neutral. Those guys that don't walk by, the ones that run to trouble, the ones that care - they can put good on their character sheet.

Selfishness isn't evil. Extreme selfishness is.

No, selfishness is evil and extreme selfishness is extremely evil. The very fact that people tend to want to excuse evil unless its a standard deviation more evil than they are, particularly if its some extreme vices that they don't really have, that's well... more evil. Just because it's 'normal', doesn't mean it isn't evil.

 

[Maxperson]

Sounds like evil to me.

It always bemuses me when people makes this complaint against my definition of evil. When you add up all the worlds Christians, Buddhists, Jews, Moslems, and Sikhs it comes to a rather large percentage of the world's population. And it should come to no surprise to anyone with even the basic familiarity with the beliefs of those religions that were you to ask them what percentage of the world's population is righteous and justified or however they phrase it, that the answer comes out as "darn few" or "none". Nor indeed should it be any surprise that Socrates famous quest for an honest man wasn't solved by walking across the street, or that it's been generally observed by a lot of humans everywhere of all beliefs and ideologies that most humans aren't very nice to each other or anything else. Yet some people always seem a bit outraged that anyone should suggest, "You know, in all fairness, we aren't much better than orcs... or at all."

But anyway, since we aren't terribly worried about the real world in this discussion, suffice to say that for the purposes of the game only those one standard deviation of evil above the normal for humans (since humans are always baseline) would be considered Evil and have to put it on their character sheet. The rest could get away with Neutral. Those guys that don't walk by, the ones that run to trouble, the ones that care - they can put good on their character sheet.

No, selfishness is evil and extreme selfishness is extremely evil. The very fact that people tend to want to excuse evil unless its a standard deviation more evil than they are, particularly if its some extreme vices that they don't really have, that's well... more evil. Just because it's 'normal', doesn't mean it isn't evil.

Show your proof that selfishness all by itself qualifies as evil. In my experience, people are quick to claim every little negative as some big, bad EVIL. A lot of acts are neither good, nor evil, and a little selfishness is one of them. It takes a whole lot of bad to qualify as evil.

 

[Celebrim]

Show your proof that selfishness all by itself qualifies as evil.

Evil is a quality. A quality divided remains the same quality, differing only in degree and not in kind. Even if it were true that the quantity of evil were insufficient to outweigh the balance of good, nevertheless the evil remains. Less selfish would still be selfish, and therefore a blemish on the characters. Theft of a little remains theft. Slightly dishonest remains dishonest. A little bit drunk, is still not sober. A little bit unfair or a little bit unjust, is still unfair and unjust. And incidentally, that's what selfishness inherently is and inherently what it's product is - unfair and unjust.

Or looking at it another way, since evil is a quality of relating to abrogation of worth leading to a false judgment, any misjudgment however small remains evil. Small misjudgments of worth would tend to lead to small evils, and larger misjudgments of worth would lead to larger ones. But again, any non-zero error would remain evil and be a blemish on the judgment.

It is the deceit of evil to say, "Just a little won't hurt." But it is a cancer, it grows and grows. And the Dunning-Krugar effect applies to errors of all sorts. Everyman looks until he finds someone he thinks is worse than he is, and so justifies himself. But that's not the standard.

Or alternately, the general approach I'm taking here is not novel. How much evil existing in a man's heart weighted him down to damnation? According to Egyptian myth - no more than a feathers worth? How great of offense against Dharma is necessary to force a soul to remain in the cycle of rebirth and death - any amount at all. How much sin makes a man unrighteous? Again, any amount at all. Why should you rely on me for instruction? Are there not many greater philosophers, poets, thinkers and prophets than I am? Go and heed some of them, and then I'd be flattered if you returned and asked questions.

Here is my experience. It doesn't matter what I say to you. You aren't going to listen. To listen would require you to accept that your own selfishness - and whatever other failings you may have - was evil. And while people may be quick to claim other peoples faults are wrong, they are little inclined to claim their own.

In my experience, people are quick to claim every little negative as some big, bad EVIL.

No, I'm happy to call a little evil a little evil. But, if I could choose to rid the world of all the little evils, or all the great ones, I think I'd be inclined to get rid of all the little ones. I think that there is probably more evil in the great long tail of evil, than in the more salient events that draw or attention, and that without this mass of mundane evil the great evils of the world would be diminished because an army would exist to resist them at every hand. But because people are at best a little bit selfish...

 

[Shasarak]

Evil is a quality. A quality divided remains the same quality, differing only in degree and not in kind. Even if it were true that the quantity of evil were insufficient to outweigh the balance of good, nevertheless the evil remains. Less selfish would still be selfish, and therefore a blemish on the characters. Theft of a little remains theft. Slightly dishonest remains dishonest. A little bit drunk, is still not sober. A little bit unfair or a little bit unjust, is still unfair and unjust. And incidentally, that's what selfishness inherently is and inherently what it's product is - unfair and unjust.

Does that mean that if you are a little bit fair then you are still fair, and a little bit generous then you are still generous and a little bit compassionate then you are still compassionate?

Or in other words if you look for something then you are going to find it.

 

[Imaculata]

Sounds like evil to me.
No, selfishness is evil and extreme selfishness is extremely evil. The very fact that people tend to want to excuse evil unless its a standard deviation more evil than they are, particularly if its some extreme vices that they don't really have, that's well... more evil. Just because it's 'normal', doesn't mean it isn't evil.

What it really comes down to is whether this evil quality defines the character. I believe all characters are capable of doing some good and some evil. A character could be good, yet extremely selfish. That character could still be considered good, unless his selfishness causes harm to others. Its a scale, and if it tips too far in the other direction, the quality starts to define the character.

Vanity is a bad quality, but probably doesn't cause harm. Selfishness could definitely cause harm if taken to a certain extreme. And there are many other such qualities that do not put a character in a positive light. But at what point do you label someone as evil?

Is someone who kills the innocent, evil? Probably. But what if he kills them indirectly, or accidentally? What if killing innocent people is part of what is expected of him in his position? The current US president is surely guilty of killing a lot of innocent people with his drone program, in his attempt to fight Isis. So does this make him evil? Or does all the good he does also hold some weight before we brand him as such?

And what of a group like Isis? We would certainly call them evil. But they probably believe that they are acting in accordance to what their holy scripture dictates (and they are probably right), and many of them are probably fighting back against Assad because they are oppressed by him (can't really blame them, since Assad used chemical weapons against his own people). So here you have a difficult situation. They believe they are fighting according to holy scripture (Lawful), and are fighting to establish their own Islamic state (Freedom fighters), and yet committing horrible atrocities along the way (Evil).

I realize that drawing real world comparisons makes some people uncomfortable, so I'll leave it at that. D&D tends to stick to a more black and white version of good and evil, where there is very little space for gray. The book of vile darkness (3rd edition) has a specific paragraph that concedes that it is often not easy to draw a clear line between good and evil. I do like what it considers to be evil acts, its a pretty good list:

Lying, cheating, theft, betrayal, murder, vengeance, worshiping evil gods or demons, animating the dead or creating undead, casting evil spells, damning or harming souls, consorting with fiends, creating evil creatures, using others for personal gain, greed, bullying and cowing innocents, bringing despair, tempting others.

All of these have context paragraphs, to explain why they are evil acts. Stealing to feed the poor, isn't an evil act of course. But stealing for personal gain is. And stealing from the rich, to give it to the poor, is somewhere in the middle. Context always matters.

 

[Maxperson]

Evil is a quality. A quality divided remains the same quality, differing only in degree and not in kind.

Evil is a matter of degree. You are correct that the quality is there in any amount, but the description of what that quality means can and does often change. Someone with 10 cents to his name is poor. Someone with 10 billion dollars is wealthy. Change wealthy to evil and you'll see what I am saying. Something has to rise to a certain threshold to be evil. Stealing some candy from a baby is bad, but not evil. Stealing the medication that someone needs to live is evil. The quality is selfish. The descriptor is evil, and evil doesn't describe all levels of selfish. It only describes the ones that rise beyond the pale.

Even if it were true that the quantity of evil were insufficient to outweigh the balance of good, nevertheless the evil remains. Less selfish would still be selfish, and therefore a blemish on the characters. Theft of a little remains theft. Slightly dishonest remains dishonest. A little bit drunk, is still not sober. A little bit unfair or a little bit unjust, is still unfair and unjust. And incidentally, that's what selfishness inherently is and inherently what it's product is - unfair and unjust.

Selfishly eating my candy bar without sharing it will never, ever, in any way or amount, be an evil act. Someone who runs around stabbing people is evil. Someone who runs around spanking people is not.

Or looking at it another way, since evil is a quality of relating to abrogation of worth leading to a false judgment, any misjudgment however small remains evil. Small misjudgments of worth would tend to lead to small evils, and larger misjudgments of worth would lead to larger ones. But again, any non-zero error would remain evil and be a blemish on the judgment.

Or alternately, the general approach I'm taking here is not novel. How much evil existing in a man's heart weighted him down to damnation? According to Egyptian myth - no more than a feathers worth? How great of offense against Dharma is necessary to force a soul to remain in the cycle of rebirth and death - any amount at all. How much sin makes a man unrighteous? Again, any amount at all. Why should you rely on me for instruction? Are there not many greater philosophers, poets, thinkers and prophets than I am? Go and heed some of them, and then I'd be flattered if you returned and asked questions.

Any amount of evil, sure. Any amount of selfishness? No.

Here is my experience. It doesn't matter what I say to you. You aren't going to listen. To listen would require you to accept that your own selfishness - and whatever other failings you may have - was evil. And while people may be quick to claim other peoples faults are wrong, they are little inclined to claim their own.

There hasn't been a person born in the past, present, and probably future, who hasn't had some selfishness. I don't accept any theory, and everything you have said is theory, that includes it being impossible for anyone to be anything other than evil.