D&D General IMO, Alignment should be "Fill in the blank"

[Steampunkette]

Here is Gygax on Lawful Evil (PHB p 33; DMG p 23):

Creatures of this alignment are great respecters of laws and strict order, but life, beauty, truth, freedom and the like are held as valueless, or at least scorned. By adhering to stringent discipline, those of lawful evil alignment hope to impose their yoke upon the world.​

​

Lawful evil creatures consider order as the means by which each group is properly placed in the cosmos, from lowest to highest, strongest first, weakest last. Good is seen as an excuse to promote the mediocrity of the whole and suppress the better and more capable, while lawful evilness allows each group to structure itself and fix its place as compared to others, serving the stronger but being served by the weaker.​

We can elaborate on the second paragraph by inserting, as the subject of its second sentence, what Gygax means by good (DMG p 23):

the tenets of good are human rights, or in the case of ADBD, creature rights. Each creature is entitled to life, relative freedom, and the prospect of happiness. Cruelty and suffering are undesirable.​

Putting it all together, we get:

Lawful evil creatures respect law and strict order, as a means by which each group is properly placed in the cosmos, from lowest to highest, strongest first, weakest last. Life, beauty, truth, freedom and the like are held as valueless, or at least scorned; human/creature rights, life, freedom (including freedom from cruelty and suffering), and the general prospect of happiness, are seen as an excuse to promote the mediocrity of the whole and suppress the better and more capable. By adhering to stringent discipline, those of lawful evil alignment hope to impose their yoke upon the world, with each group structuring itself and fixing its place as compared to others, serving the stronger but being served by the weaker.​

This position is not compatible with any standard form of consequentialism, which (depending on details) places a great deal of value on life, freedom from suffering and the prospect of happiness and does not see these simply as an excuse to promote the mediocrity of the whole.

Nor is the position compatible with Kantianism or existentialism. It is radically at odds with the notion that each person is an end in him-/herself; and is at odds with the notion that each person is a unique site of value/goal creation.

It could be a form of nihilism. Or just an immoral person who enjoys being part of a group of like-minded bullies.

The point I was making is that Evil People can hold literally any philosophy and be evil or just hypocritical.

Like someone who holds Deontology as their philosophical beliefs, and does evil within the "Law" anyway, with either malice or indifference to the various interpersonal rules of goodness they break. Or a Consequentialist more concerned with the "Good of the Kingdom" than any of it's people and holds -that- consequence above any consideration.

What that person holds to be "Good" may not match up with Society or an External Viewer. Which is why they're Lawful Evil even if they're trying to uphold their ideals, or breaking whatever rules please them. Because their beliefs in their own righteousness, or wickedness, is irrelevant.

Right, Minister Frollo?

 

[pemerton]

The point I was making is that Evil People can hold literally any philosophy and be evil or just hypocritical.

Like someone who holds Deontology as their philosophical beliefs, and does evil within the "Law" anyway, with either malice or indifference to the various interpersonal rules of goodness they break. Or a Consequentialist more concerned with the "Good of the Kingdom" than any of it's people and holds -that- consequence above any consideration.

What that person holds to be "Good" may not match up with Society or an External Viewer. Which is why they're Lawful Evil even if they're trying to uphold their ideals, or breaking whatever rules please them. Because their beliefs in their own righteousness, or wickedness, is irrelevant.

I don't quite see how the first sentence - referring to hypocrisy - relates to the paragraphs that follow, which seem to set out forms of sincere conviction.

I'm also not sure what the good of the Kingdom means if we're taking that to be divorced from the wellbeing of its people.

 

[Steampunkette]

I don't quite see how the first sentence - referring to hypocrisy - relates to the paragraphs that follow, which seem to set out forms of sincere conviction.

I'm also not sure what the good of the Kingdom means if we're taking that to be divorced from the wellbeing of its people.

There are Rebels among the populace opposed to the King on the Throne and his loyal ministers. The LE Grand Vizier councils the king to crack down on the people to find the rebel leaders. To savagely curtail their rights, to beat them in the streets for the most minor infractions, to execute petty criminals who have been forced into confessing to be Rebels as a way to cow the people and force the Rebels to surrender to stop the horrific tyranny.

The "Good" in this individual's ideology is the continuation of the Kingdom and the Rulership of the Crown. This person considers themself to be a Consequentialist with the Good of the Kingdom to be the most important aspect of their beliefs, trumping the lives and civil liberties of the populace. During times when there isn't a Rebellion going on, this Vizier might uphold the laws he doesn't like about people's personal freedoms because it is the King's Wishes, and chafe under the yoke. But given license, he will use that End to justify any Means.


It's the same reason I posted the video of Frollo. He's a "Good Christian Man" who obeys the law to the letter, a Deontologist who accepts the laws exist and should be obeyed, but uses those same laws to do great evil and excuse himself of any wrongdoing, or in the song Hellfire to shift the blame for his actions and intentions upon others. He's an example of a Hypocritical Deontologist, who holds himself to laws when it suits him, and ignores them whenever they impinge on his intentions.


Any moral philosophy is predicated on what is considered to have Value. But the idea that every person who ascribes to a given moral philosophy holds the same Values and to the same degrees is a narrow perspective. Some people may hold stronger moral convictions as relates to the positivity of harming those they consider evil than protecting those they consider to be good, for example. And thus be more concerned with harming the outgroup than helping the ingroup. Even if harming the outgroup leads to helping the ingroup or creates more problems and violence against the ingroup.

Because that is what holds the greatest value to that individual.


Does that make more sense?

 

[Stattick]

Any reason this couldn't have been posted in the several recent threads about alignment?

I don't like posting in threads where I haven't read all the posts. I'm pretty sure that's what got me permabanned from some other rpg forum, that one of the mods had said, "Don't do thing", which I didn't see as it was a pages and pages behind my post, and then I did the thing.

 

[Charlaquin]

For a lot of people, ignoring alignment doesn't really matter. And some people find other details more useful in defining their characters. And that's cool? Don't use it if you don't like it/want it/need it/whatever.

But it's very useful for some of us. Particularly starting out.

In my experience, the people who want alignment to stick around aren’t starting out. And the people who are starting out are saying not only is it not helpful to them, it’s causing them problems.

 

[Charlaquin]

What if I wear a bacon necktie?

That’d be “neutral” on the bacon/necktie axis. But, like, the kind of neutral where you try to pursue both extremes in equal measure in a misguided attempt at “maintaining balance.”

 

[Charlaquin]

Here is Gygax on Lawful Evil (PHB p 33; DMG p 23):

Creatures of this alignment are great respecters of laws and strict order, but life, beauty, truth, freedom and the like are held as valueless, or at least scorned. By adhering to stringent discipline, those of lawful evil alignment hope to impose their yoke upon the world.​

​

Lawful evil creatures consider order as the means by which each group is properly placed in the cosmos, from lowest to highest, strongest first, weakest last. Good is seen as an excuse to promote the mediocrity of the whole and suppress the better and more capable, while lawful evilness allows each group to structure itself and fix its place as compared to others, serving the stronger but being served by the weaker.​

We can elaborate on the second paragraph by inserting, as the subject of its second sentence, what Gygax means by good (DMG p 23):

the tenets of good are human rights, or in the case of ADBD, creature rights. Each creature is entitled to life, relative freedom, and the prospect of happiness. Cruelty and suffering are undesirable.​

Putting it all together, we get:

Lawful evil creatures respect law and strict order, as a means by which each group is properly placed in the cosmos, from lowest to highest, strongest first, weakest last. Life, beauty, truth, freedom and the like are held as valueless, or at least scorned; human/creature rights, life, freedom (including freedom from cruelty and suffering), and the general prospect of happiness, are seen as an excuse to promote the mediocrity of the whole and suppress the better and more capable. By adhering to stringent discipline, those of lawful evil alignment hope to impose their yoke upon the world, with each group structuring itself and fixing its place as compared to others, serving the stronger but being served by the weaker.​

This position is not compatible with any standard form of consequentialism, which (depending on details) places a great deal of value on life, freedom from suffering and the prospect of happiness and does not see these simply as an excuse to promote the mediocrity of the whole.

Nor is the position compatible with Kantianism or existentialism. It is radically at odds with the notion that each person is an end in him-/herself; and is at odds with the notion that each person is a unique site of value/goal creation.

It could be a form of nihilism. Or just an immoral person who enjoys being part of a group of like-minded bullies.

It describes fascist ideology pretty perfectly.

 

[Maxperson]

That’d be “neutral” on the bacon/necktie axis. But, like, the kind of neutral where you try to pursue both extremes in equal measure in a misguided attempt at “maintaining balance.”

Now....................................what if I eat it? Muahahahahaha!

 

[Charlaquin]

Now....................................what if I eat it? Muahahahahaha!

True Chaotic Neutral

 

[Maxperson]

True Chaotic Neutral

But....but.......eating bacon is the natural order of things.