D&D General Should D&D Rethink The "3-Core" Model?

[CreamCloud0]

I'm not sure that definition works only because the incompatibility between lawful and evil. Lawful is putting the law first while evil has putting one's self first. They can't both be true. But clearly lawful evil is a thing. I get generally, in the game, that's using the law to one's own benefit. But that's not really a thing in your setup.

-being lawful is believing that putting a structure of rules or principles before your own personal desires is the way to make things work.
this doesn't say that lawful values 'the law' as such, it values things like rules, structure and precise dividing lines, what set of 'laws' or rules any individual lawful being may be entirely different from another, paladins are all about being lawful, beholden to the tenets of their oath, but any given paladin might have no qualms about breaking the law.

and yes, like @Corinnguard said before me, devils are some of the most classic examples of lawful evil, adhering to the letter of the law to screw others over, there's no conflict between lawful and evil,

consider it like this:
good and evil are the axis about who you think should preferably benefit from what's being done,
law and chaos are the axis on how you think what's being done should preferably be accomplished.

EDIT: no wait, okay i see what you were saying with how those conflicted, but what i meant was that lawful has like, self control over their desires, lawful evil does act to get what they want but they're methodical and careful about it rather than acting on impulse, a lawful evil person who wants money will likely look for tax fiddles, ways to scam benefits for themselves or set up a mafia rather than robbing a bank or becoming a thief.

 

[overgeeked]

Lawful Evil is knowing the Ins and Outs of the rules and principles that govern a single individual or a community of individuals and being able to exploit them for one's own benefit. Devils are probably the best example of Lawful Evil. They have spent untold millennia studying mortals and their systems of governance to make ironclad contracts that can't be easily wiggled out of.

Yeah. I'm aware. I'm not arguing against the classic setup in the books. Just the particular way it was framed here.

-being lawful is believing that putting a structure of rules or principles before your own personal desires is the way to make things work.

Right. And...

-being evil is valuing and prioritizing your own (and usually also the people you personally care about) needs, desires and wellbeing over others to the extent that you would take or exploit others needs and wellbeing to content yourself.

So those two are incompatible. Your priority can either be "a structure of rules or principles" or it can be "your own needs, desires, and well being." It can't be both. That's my point.

this doesn't say that lawful values 'the law' as such, it values things like rules, structure and precise dividing lines, what set of 'laws' or rules any individual lawful being may be entirely different from another, paladins are all about being lawful, beholden to the tenets of their oath, but any given paladin might have no qualms about breaking the law.

Maybe in modern editions of D&D where being lawful isn't required, but in older editions that doesn't work.

consider it like this:
good and evil are the axis about who you think should preferably benefit from what's being done,
law and chaos are the axis on how you think what's being done should preferably be accomplished.

Yes, that's a good conception. But it's not what you originally put up.

Good, benefits everyone or as large a group as possible.
Evil, benefits me personally and everyone else is irrelevant.
Law, order and structure.
Chaos, disorder and freedom.

Yes, I get it. I was only pointing out that as you originally phrased it there was an incompatibility that prevented lawful evil from being a thing.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Yeah. I'm aware. I'm not arguing against the classic setup in the books. Just the particular way it was framed here.

Right. And...

So those two are incompatible. Your priority can either be "a structure of rules or principles" or it can be "your own needs, desires, and well being." It can't be both. That's my point.

Maybe in modern editions of D&D where being lawful isn't required, but in older editions that doesn't work.

Yes, that's a good conception. But it's not what you originally put up.

Good, benefits everyone or as large a group as possible.
Evil, benefits me personally and everyone else is irrelevant.
Law, order and structure.
Chaos, disorder and freedom.

Yes, I get it. I was only pointing out that as you originally phrased it there was an incompatibility that prevented lawful evil from being a thing.

i just made this edit to the last post right as you replied so hopefully this clears up what i meant.

okay i see what you were saying with how those conflicted, but what i meant was that lawful has like, self control over their desires, lawful evil does act to get what they want but they're methodical and careful about it rather than acting on impulse, a lawful evil person who wants money will likely look for tax fiddles, ways to scam benefits for themselves or set up a mafia rather than robbing a bank or becoming a thief.

 

[WayneLigon]

If you can't do a complete RPG in 100 pages, your material is hideously overwritten. Have 1 100-page book, everything else is optional supplement stuff.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Have 1 100-page book, everything else is optional supplement stuff.

Who determines what is "optional supplemental stuff" and what is actually useful and important to the game?

How many magic items are useful and important, and at what count does it turn to "optional"? How many classes? How many levels or monsters? How many spells are needed for each casting class, the rest now becoming "supplemental"? How much art is useful to have in the book and at what point does the art become "optional"? What about maps? What about traps, poisons and diseases?

It's real easy to throw out a term like '100-page book'... without ever actually determining what is filling those 100 pages and whether the game even looks like Dungeons & Dragons at that point. Because once you start in on actually culling the material... one might find that random choice of '100' is not exactly the paramount of usefulness one might think it is.

 

[Remathilis]

If you can't do a complete RPG in 100 pages, your material is hideously overwritten. Have 1 100-page book, everything else is optional supplement stuff.

It could have things like:
Classes: DM make your own.
Species: DM make your own.
Magic system: DM make your own.
Monsters: DM make your own.
Setting: DM make your own.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Who determines what is "optional supplemental stuff" and what is actually useful and important to the game?

Why Enworld of course. Who could be more fit to determine the fate of D&D then us??

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Lawful Evil is knowing the Ins and Outs of the rules and principles that govern a single individual or a community of individuals and being able to exploit them for one's own benefit. Devils are probably the best example of Lawful Evil. They have spent untold millennia studying mortals and their systems of governance to make ironclad contracts that can't be easily wiggled out of.

Lawful Evil that does not yet have power over the system has two goals: Insulate self from harm, and acquire more power, in that order.

Lawful Evil that does have meaningful power over the system shapes the rules so that they will be more convenient for themselves, and more efficient/consistent/focused, in that order.

I always viewed lawful as having a strict code and set of rules to follow. It doesn't mean they follow the laws of the land they're in.

While true, I would expect the vast majority of Lawful characters to try to follow the laws of the nation where they live, to disobey them only in favor of higher personal commitments; and to have a process for justifying their violations of the former, or at least for how to "compensate" for it.

It's perfectly possible to have a Lawful rebel. They just have to reach that conclusion through rigorous application of reason to a set of rules, rather than appealing to individual worth or demonstration of personal qualification. The Lawful Good person says that there is one and only one valid purpose for which laws may be made: to serve Good, or at least to avoid harming it. The LE person says the reverse: laws should be put toward Evil ends, so long as the person pushing for those evil laws is in the winner's camp overall...or at least, they believe they are and/or will be.

A hit man for the mafia can be LE. Killing is just business, nothing personal. Even a serial killer can be LE if bound to ritual and structure.

Absolutely! It's a classic construction. But I would say it's pretty uncommon. In most cases, "it's just business" would be Lawful Neutral. "I always honor my contracts", or "That wasn't in the contract, sorry" would be much more LE in my opinion.

Believe it or not, I actually love a well-written Lawful Evil character, because they stand the best chance of implementing one of my favorite tropes: the Antivillain. Where the (modern) antihero is someone who pursues heroic ends for unheroic reasons and/or via villainous methods, an antivillain is someone who pursues villainous goals for unvillainous reasons and/or via heroic methods. When written well, this makes for villains with incredible depth: we know they nurture something we oppose inside their hearts, but so much of them is already so close to heroism, so we can oddly both root for them to be great villains and root for them to "switch teams". Of course, that rarely happens, and when it does that usually gets them put on a bus or "promoted" to random guest star when the protagonists need special extra help.

The real problem is that the vast majority of strong Lawful Evil characters get flattened into dull, irritating faux-Machiavellian lying schemers who clearly give no poops about their reputation or what others will think of them....which is pretty foolish and makes a lot of LE characters, whether mortals or devils, look foolish.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It could have things like:
Classes: DM make your own.
Species: DM make your own.
Magic system: DM make your own.
Monsters: DM make your own.
Setting: DM make your own.

Yeah...that's one of the most irritating things about "lol you couldn't condense below X pages?!" argument. It's outsourcing more than half the game, but expecting you to pay full game price.

 

[Corinnguard]

Believe it or not, I actually love a well-written Lawful Evil character, because they stand the best chance of implementing one of my favorite tropes: the Antivillain. Where the (modern) antihero is someone who pursues heroic ends for unheroic reasons and/or via villainous methods, an antivillain is someone who pursues villainous goals for unvillainous reasons and/or via heroic methods. When written well, this makes for villains with incredible depth: we know they nurture something we oppose inside their hearts, but so much of them is already so close to heroism, so we can oddly both root for them to be great villains and root for them to "switch teams". Of course, that rarely happens, and when it does that usually gets them put on a bus or "promoted" to random guest star when the protagonists need special extra help.

I have seen this trope played out a lot in the superhero genre. They will commit crimes, but they don't do them to enrich themselves or gain power over others. Instead, they will commit a crime and will use the proceeds of their crime for someone else's benefit. Like a charity that helps less fortunate people seek a better life. They will help out the hero from time to time, but not enough that they will make the switch to be a law-abiding good guy. However, the hero will still see them as a potential ally and maybe even understand where they are coming from.