My explanation of alignments to my players

[Bagpuss]

Or they determine that it's acceptable to structure society such that it's great for the 95% (of which they happen to be a member), while utterly destroying the small minority that makes up the remaining 5%.

I think a lawful evil character would be fine in a society that is set up to support the top 5% at the expense of the other 95% to be fair, so long as it was stable and they were in the top 5%.

I think "many" can be taken to literally, it makes a great sound bite, but I think it basically means the society structure, the rule of law, is more important than exceptions to it. Lawful characters will normally pick something that benefits the group rather than an individual (lawful evil characters make an exception when the individual is themselves).

 

[Ferghis]

Lawful evil has always been the difficult alignment to define, and it's no surprise that many alignment definitions break down at that corner.

My old definition for the law-chaos axis is a measure of loyalty to large and formal institutions that are familiar to the character, be it the judicial system, the king, the guild, a church, or any other large and formal institution. The good-evil axis is defined by altruism and egoism, or a character's desire to assist others before him or herself. So the horizontal axis is replete with cultural bias, while the vertical one is not necessarily so. This also helps explain why barbarians are so rarely lawful, since they have so few large and formal institutions. They may have chiefs and shamans, but these are neither large nor institutional, however formalized they might be. On the other hand, thieves and assassins can belong to large and formal guilds, and therefore be lawful.

 

[adembroski]

One of my problems with this is that it makes real-world libertarians like Hayek and the Cato Institute impossible to classify. They do not believe in society. But they are very firm advocates of the rule of law, and tend also to stress the importance of social conventions and "social capital".

As a libertarian myself, I must argue this.

Libertarians are not against living in society, but against living in society as a slave. We believe that law exists to protect the rights of the individual against the tyranny of the majority. To make a real world example; it doesn't matter how many people decide that smoking is bad for you, that majority has no right to dictate whether I smoke in my own home. It's my home, my health, my choice, and the Rule of Law exists to ensure that those truths are protected.

Libertarianism, classical liberalism, social capitalism, and objectivism are highly lawful.

I prefer not to think of the ethics axis in political terms because it breaks down far too easily there. Collectivism vs. individualism, socialism vs. capitalism, etc., exist outside the alignment spectrum... or perhaps better put, within the lawful spectrum. I don't think Chaotic can be defined by or defined a specific political philosophy because, to some extent, chaotic is distinctly apolitical.

I prefer to think of the ethics axis as applicable to one's personal behavior. For instance, as I said, I'm a libertarian, and I value law as the protector of my rights; however, I'm extremely disorganized. I act on whims. I tend to have a cluttered, seemingly unmanageable workspace. I would classify myself as chaotic in my personal life.

 

[haakon1]

Lawful evil has always been the difficult alignment to define, and it's no surprise that many alignment definitions break down at that corner.

My old definition for the law-chaos axis is a measure of loyalty to large and formal institutions that are familiar to the character, be it the judicial system, the king, the guild, a church, or any other large and formal institution. The good-evil axis is defined by altruism and egoism, or a character's desire to assist others before him or herself. So the horizontal axis is replete with cultural bias, while the vertical one is not necessarily so. This also helps explain why barbarians are so rarely lawful, since they have so few large and formal institutions. They may have chiefs and shamans, but these are neither large nor institutional, however formalized they might be. On the other hand, thieves and assassins can belong to large and formal guilds, and therefore be lawful.

This makes sense to me.

But I have no troubles role playing Lawful Evil. Organized evil is pretty common in 20th century history.

Chaotic Evil that's more organized than the Manson Gang is what I have trouble with . . . then I remember Chaotic doesn't mean no institutions or organizations at all, just "not everyone and everything in their place" like LE.

I'd also say we should steer away from turning this conversation political. As a fan of British politics "there is no society, only individuals" in describing chaotic sounded very familiar, but I wouldn't have described Thatcher as chaotic. Best not to try to assign an alignment at all to real people or movements, I think.

But Hitler and Stalin were both clearly LE -- there I win the internet!

 

[Rakusia]

lawful good- is always the hard one for me.
lawful neutral- im just doing my duty
lawful evil - hitler, stalin, chairman mao, kim jong ill,
neutral good- kinda like a medic they wont get involved as much but theyll pick up the pieces afterwards
true neutral- either, im going to stay out of it, or im going to pick the side thats in the minority to even it out(this is the way i usually go with it)
neutral evil- whats in it for me- they wont get involved unless they see the payoff
chaotic good- ghandi, ill do whats right regardless if its legal or not
chaotic neutral- ill do what i please
chaotic evil- hardest to play most correctly theyre pretty well defined as sociopaths/ psychopaths theyre the jokers after their own amusement regardless of what anyone else suffers from it. they dont care about things they just want to see the world burn

 

[Starfox]

Libertarianism, classical liberalism, social capitalism, and objectivism are highly lawful.

I don't agree here. Respect for laws does not make one lawful when living in an organized society - because laws are also guarantees for freedom. I know several lawyers that I'd classify as chaotics, more interested in advocating the individual rights (of themselves and/or clients) than any sort of common good.

An example is free speech. Guaranteed by law, but not lawful. The lawful approach is that information ought to be regulated.

Not sure how far we can go down this venue before the discussion becomes political.

 

[Sunseeker]

On this account isn't Lawful Evil incoherent (on the assumption that I am just one).

Depends on how you look at it. Lawful evil could be highly nationalistic or xenophobic. You have a very personal, narrow set of inwardly focused ideals and people who are willing to side with you and submit to your ideas are people you're willing to "help" achieve your new world order.

 

[Hussar]

I always find it easier to work the other direction. Descriptive instead of proscriptive.

An orc doesn't do what he does because he's evil. He's evil because of what he does. In other words, you can call yourself whatever you want, but the greater universe judges your alignment based on your actions. Sure, there's all sorts of bleed over between one alignment and another, but, I generally find that if you have a well developed character, it becomes easier to assign an alignment to them.

Then again, I find the Star Trek Next Generation and DS9 characters to be very handy for describing alignment:

Picard: LG
La Forge: NG
Deanna Troi: CG
Guinan: N
Q: CN
Vulcans: LN
Borg: LE
Garrack: NE
Not sure about CE to be honest.

 

[Sunseeker]

I always find it easier to work the other direction. Descriptive instead of proscriptive.

An orc doesn't do what he does because he's evil. He's evil because of what he does. In other words, you can call yourself whatever you want, but the greater universe judges your alignment based on your actions. Sure, there's all sorts of bleed over between one alignment and another, but, I generally find that if you have a well developed character, it becomes easier to assign an alignment to them.

Then again, I find the Star Trek Next Generation and DS9 characters to be very handy for describing alignment:

Picard: LG
La Forge: NG
Deanna Troi: CG
Guinan: N
Q: CN
Vulcans: LN
Borg: LE
Garrack: NE
Not sure about CE to be honest.

CE: Lore?

 

[Hussar]

CE: Lore?

Good call. Been a while since I watched the shows.