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

[Celebrim]

Prosecutorial discretion is lawful, though. It's the clear delegation of authority to named officials within a narrow bailiwick.

With the presumption that those officials will carry out that authority as if it were a duty, and not use their discretion as an excuse to evade their duty to prosecute on mere whim or out of consideration of those things which the law says it does respect - such as the social station of the person to be prosecuted. It's not lawful if the purpose of the discretionary authority ends up being de facto to ensure the law does not apply to the prosecutor's friends and allies, or that the only applies to groups that the prosecutor doesn't favor. The greater degree to which the law is made to assert that there is not one law for all, but a law which applies to only some and only upon personal whim, the less degree that you can claim the law is actually what holds sway. Particularly as offenses multiply, you are reaching a state where all are guilty under the law, but none are prosecuted (that is held accountable) unless if they are not friends of the prosecutor. That's not an example of the law being equally applied. If the law is to be unequally applied, then at least let it say that is it's purpose so that the law may be known and does not exist entirely within the head of this prosecutor or another.

In the case of a federal prosecutor, that bailiwick is not as limited to a very great degree at all. And there are what, 4500 Federal felonies?

But we digress.

 

[Shasarak]

So LN is also an oxymoron?

Oxymoron is the new Black - everyone is into it.

 

[Celebrim]

Oxymoron is the new Black - everyone is into it.

The power of the Slaad Lords is on the rise.

 

[Shasarak]

The power of the Slaad Lords is on the rise.

CN is so Oxymoronic.

 

[Zorku]

If he is clearly lawful and evil, why would he refuse to fight for tyrants?

Oh that's easy: they're the wrong tyrants. It seems pretty straightforward since we're talking freedom fighters. This lawful evil guy was either very loyal to a particular regime that no longer controls his homeland, or has suffered greatly under the new regime. Maybe he lost noble titles when a new duke under a formerly foreign king took up control of the land or maybe the local culture finds some aspect of the ruling culture to be abhorrent or any number of conflicts that aren't based on there being good guys and bad guys. The part where this guy becomes evil would be the depths he's willing to sink to in order to bring back the old rules, the ones he thinks are truly the law.

 

[Celebrim]

Oh that's easy: they're the wrong tyrants. It seems pretty straightforward since we're talking freedom fighters.

I'm one of those weirdoes that insists that though one man's terrorist may be called by another guy a freedom fighter, they are actually only freedom fighters if they are fighting for freedom. Thus, you can claim you are fighting for your homelands freedom all you like, but if you actually prioritize murdering patriots that don't follow your lead over say fighting the invader, or if you actually welcomed the invasion and occasionally insist the invaders because only through the invasion did you have any hope of claiming power, or if the first thing you do upon taking power is engage in a democidal purge, I'm never ever going to recognize you as a freedom fighter no matter what you claim. I'll grant you that you are a revolutionary. I'll grant you that you are a patriot (of a sort). But no way am I going to describe that as a 'freedom fighter'.

Actual historical cases in point forgone to avoid controversy.

This lawful evil guy was either very loyal to a particular regime that no longer controls his homeland, or has suffered greatly under the new regime. Maybe he lost noble titles when a new duke under a formerly foreign king took up control of the land or maybe the local culture finds some aspect of the ruling culture to be abhorrent or any number of conflicts that aren't based on there being good guys and bad guys. The part where this guy becomes evil would be the depths he's willing to sink to in order to bring back the old rules, the ones he thinks are truly the law.

Again, unless the old regime was actually liberty loving and he wants to restore it, I don't credit the idea that this reactionary terrorist aristocrat is actually entitled to be called a freedom fighter. See my above discussion of the strangeness of fighting for a cause you are loyal to, but ultimately don't believe in. Even if the former society was freedom affirming, I'd more likely expect this reactionary LE deposed aristocrat to see the weakness, folly and decadence of that former culture proved by its defeat and regardless of how he rallied his troops around his banner with patriotic talk and declarations, his actual ambitions would be very far indeed from spreading freedom.

Remember, even if you define "Freedom Fighter" in some tortured fashion to mean something other than "affirming the value of liberty", you've conceded my point.

 

[Imaculata]

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. Doesn't matter if he's lawful evil, and if his idea of freedom is replacing the current regime with something far worse. Lawful Evil characters CAN believe in freedom. Alignment doesn't define someone's ideals, it defines what someone is willing to do.

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.

 

[Shasarak]

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. Doesn't matter if he's lawful evil, and if his idea of freedom is replacing the current regime with something far worse. Lawful Evil characters CAN believe in freedom. Alignment doesn't define someone's ideals, it defines what someone is willing to do.

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.

I had to laugh at the thought of a LE character fighting against the old regime because it was not oppressive enough, allowing Dwarves to own land and Cats and Dogs to live together and some such.

 

[Imaculata]

I had to laugh at the thought of a LE character fighting against the old regime because it was not oppressive enough, allowing Dwarves to own land and Cats and Dogs to live together and some such.

Hahaha, it could happen though. There's all kinds of evil.

 

[aramis erak]

That is just impenetrable.

Neutral Evil: helping the weak hurts me, so it's wrongful. Making a big deal about order is as bad as none at all.