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

[Maxperson]

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.

You forgot truth. Truth causes a great deal of harm and harm is evil, so both truth and lies are evil. Aaaaaaagh!

 

[Celebrim]

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?

I think I see the problem, and it's a repeated one that has been coming up lately on the boards.

You didn't quite say the same thing I did. If you were going to repeat back to me what I said, you'd have said something like:

"Does that mean that a little bit fair of fairness is still fairness, and a little bit of generosity is still generosity, and a little bit of compassion is still compassionate?"

And the answer to those questions is, "Yes."

You see in the English language there are two ways of constructing a sentence that are similar, but have very different meanings.

I can say, "What you did was foolish."
Or I can say, "You are a fool."

The first is something which we could reasonably express about everyone. At some time or the other we'd expect everyone to do something that could be characterized as foolish. But this formation only characterizes the action itself. It doesn't characterize the actor. I could say to a person I considered very wise, "What you did was foolish.", and imply this act was out of character.

The second formation means that the actor's nature and not the action's nature is characterized by foolishness. By this formation I mean that the person is characterized by repeated and extreme acts of foolishness stemming from his own flawed nature.

So when I saw that a little bit selfish is still selfish, I merely mean to describe a particular action as being imperfect. I'm making no comment on the usual actions of the person or their fundamental nature. Now, what I might say with some confidence is that everyone's actions are characterized by imperfection almost all of the time, as each person's desires and will and foresight are flawed at each given moment to a greater or lesser degree. In the real world, unlike the game world, I don't have to describe a person as 'good' or 'evil' if only because I have no way to accurately measure that anyway. This is why I said that the game world was different than the real world in that good and evil are probably defined at least in part by being "one standard deviation" above or below the norm, with everyone else being in the muddled middle. If you want to think of the real world as being like that, then one little selfish act probably doesn't make you selfish (or evil) because a little bit of selfishness is probably well above the norm. If your only flaw is an occasional small act of selfishness, chances are you'd be or are widely recognized as a very and exceedingly generous person.

 

[Celebrim]

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.

See my previous post.

I'm at a bit of a disadvantage here, in that I have to describe both the fantasy world of D&D and also address various claims about morality in the real world. This later is particularly hard because not only are those various claims often rooted in real world controversies that I neither have an inclination to discuss with the poster nor the ability to do so while abiding by board rules.

Vanity is a bad quality, but probably doesn't cause harm.

You don't think vanity causes harm? Did you read my essay on evil? Wikipedia describes vanity as, "Vanity is the excessive belief in one's own abilities or attractiveness to others." I basically defined evil as an impulse to misjudge a things worth. Vanity is the original word used by the medieval to describe the chief of the seven deadly sins which is now more frequently translated as Pride. If you don't think vanity is a destructive quality, I'm at a loss. In my essay on evil, I didn't once mention murder or anything of the source. Murder is just one of evils fouler fruits. The things roots and nature are of a more ordinary and familiar form.

That's not an unusual observation either. I famous teacher of morality once said, and here I paraphrase a bit, "You think you are good because you don't murder people. But I tell you that if you've ever slandered anyone or spoken angrily to them, that you are guilty like a murderer."

If you prefer a less mystical and more scientific approach to the problem of human evil, then narcissism is considered one of the three indicators of a psychopathic personality.

stealing to feed the poor, isn't an evil act of course

I don't think that is in the slightest bit obvious. I'm inclined to think most philosophies that believe that there is such a thing as evil would reject that statement to at least some degree. I would say that stealing to feed the poor is not necessarily, depending on the context, a very depraved act in that the person who did it would not appear to be very ruined by evil. But most philosophies would still account it an evil act, but one which may have been the person's best choice if all other possibilities had been removed and you were given a choice between the evil of theft and the evil of letting another starve. Only to affirm something as valuable as a human life could the evils of a theft be endured and excused. I'm pretty sure that that's fairly well in line with what a Jewish Rabbi would say, but you'd have to ask one to be sure. As for say Buddhism, the action would need to clear all eight hurdles of the noble eight-fold path, which means that at the very least the person would have to be correct that this was the only possible recourse, that it would have to been undertaken with only pure intentions, and that the person would have had to taken every pain to ensure that they had no other recourse. I can imagine situations where the generosity, valor, and compassion of a theft far outshines its perfidy, but in the vast majority of cases I'd be inclined to think stealing the feed the poor is actually an evil act worthy of reproof.

 

[Celebrim]

Selfishly eating my candy bar without sharing it will never, ever, in any way or amount, be an evil act.

Sure it can. Suppose you selfishly eat your candy bar in front of a boy in striped pajamas who is on the other side of the fence?

This isn't hypothetical really. Do you know who Francine Christophe is? I'd tell you about her, but it would be better to hear the story from her own lips. Try looking around youtube.

Now, this story only shows how great of an evil a small act or selfishness can be. Most people are not so depraved or so ignorant to miss the damage a small act of selfishness will do in a critical context. But all those small evils that escape our notice do add up.

Someone who runs around stabbing people is evil. Someone who runs around spanking people is not.

Ok.... so there is a theory of justice and righteousness that I advise you not to put into practice.

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.

You just outlined such a theory. I think you are just failing to accept the implications of what you already believe.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No. I've been trying to draw a distinction between "selfish" and "self-centered". I grant that the second term is not the most expressive, but I'm unaware of a better one. I'm very much doing the opposite of what you suggest.

Okay, but then I don't follow at all. Is this is relation to your use of 'selfless' below? I address that use below, but if this is different, I'm not following.

No, I was expecting you to provide some of the examples that lead you to this conclusion.

Relativism is the belief that there is no objective standard by which to judge something. Each person/group creates their own standards, and all standards are equally valid if viewed from within their respective origins. That doesn't sound lawful to me (using my definition, of course), in that it's expressly refusing to use something outside the individual to judge something, but instead focuses only on the philosophy that all believes are valid for the people that hold them.

I think that's the heart of it, made more difficult by certain negative connotations that self words have in the English language.

Sorry, but, huh? Some have a negative connotation, but self doesn't. Selfless doesn't. Selfish does, but it also has a negative denotation, so that's expected. Self-centered has a negative connotation, yes, without a necessarily negative denotation, so that one fits. But overall, I'm not sure I can agree with this statement.

I don't mean by selfless the absence of the awareness of self (though the modrons in my game world exhibit this property as an extreme of lawfulness), but rather the property of not putting self in a central place. By selfless I mean the being doesn't value self as an intrinsic good, but only values self according to his relation to the not self. All or at least most of his affirmation is drawn from what is not self, and all or at least most of the meaning he finds in the universe is drawn from the not self. The selfless person defines himself, if he thinks about himself at all, in terms of how others define him and he thinks this is entirely proper. The selfless person may not be selfish (indeed, I think it is obvious that he is not), but very importantly for this discussion he may not be necessarily good either.

Oh. I was using the dictionary, which says that it's putting others before yourself. I think that's sufficient for the definition of good/evil as selfless/selfish. I see what you're doing, but I don't think it's necessary to delve into philosophy to find a condition where you try to separate your essence from your physical self. That's cool and all, and a great idea for a character philosophy, but I don't see how it bears on the discussion.

I know how you have been using it, but your use of selfless to mean that is to me as strained as my usage of the word. I would prefer instead of selfless you used a word like compassionate or kind heartedness to mean that because your usage is implying good intent with regards to the needs of others and particular you are including 'the other' within your definition of 'other'. In this way, I think you are being blind to the possibilities of selfless evil, that is, lawful evil. And being blind to those possibilities, I think you are asserting an overly narrow definition of lawful evil in place of what could be there, and which more logically should be there.

Okay, again, I used the dictionary. Still, you have a valid point -- the conjecture that there's a LE society that subsumed individual desire for group desire -- a collective evil, as it were. Interesting. However, I would say that, as a society, it's still clearly LE -- it's organized and structured according to a social construct outside the individuals and it's goals are to act in way that are collectively selfish. The individuals in this society, since you label them as absolutely without individual evil intent, just blindly following the collective urge, could be anything. Would they have any existence outside of the collective? If they do, then their individual alignment is whatever it would be outside the collective. If they don't, then they're intrinsically part of the collective and would still be LE. A gear removed from a machine is still part of the machine if it's nothing but a gear outside of the machine.

I had read that several times, and I anticipated that this would likely be your objection. But I have two objections to it. First, you haven't shown that the stratification of society into "have and have nots" is inherently evil and particularly incompatible with Lawful Good. Lawful Good I would argue isn't interested particularly in 'fairness' and 'equality' or even 'freedom'. It doesn't concern itself too much that those higher in the stratification have more of something (power, glory, affirmation, resources, ostentation, servants, priviledges, etc.) than those lower. It is only concerned that those in the lower strata are content with their position and enjoy the pleasures and dignity which ought to be inherent to their position. As such, the declaration that this is unfair, strikes me as coming primarily from chaotic values.

Likewise, the word harsh serves no purpose really but to reinforce this bias and isn't really descriptive without clarifying detail. Chaotic Good would chastise their Lawful Good counterparts as being unnecessarily harsh simply because it produced a caste system and enforced the law in an authoritarian manner, so again, I can't tell for what attribute of the society the society is being condemned - law or evil. The mere fact that LG would have some part of its society 'condemned' to servitude sounds incredibly harsh to a person espousing CG, but I don't think that fact alone makes it obvious that the society is evil. What exactly is being done that is harsh?

In any event, my point is that it is not obvious that this society you've described is evil.

Okay. I'm not terribly interested in providing a case study when the particulars can be assumed -- the lower castes are treated harshly by the upper castes in order to maintain power and exploit the lower castes -- without me going into detail.

Presumably in LE societies, there is some mobility between ranks based on meritocratic principles as well. The vast majority of what you describe doesn't distinguish the society from being good or evil. Presumably LE servitors need not be jealous or envious of their lords, and can be in full agreement with the goals and means. Of course they would be thrilled with recognition and promotion to a superior rank and of course they would contend with their peers to the limits provided by society and their liege, even up to and including formal duels to the death perhaps, but such a society need not be rife with betrayal and indeed in its perfect form betrayal - a chaotic vice - wouldn't exist. Out of fear and respect for authority, each vassal would ideally be completely loyal to his superior.

Right, yes, but please remember that the statement you're responding to was discussing celestial LG societies, which are a paragon of LG. That non-paragon societies of any alignment would have imperfect characteristics is obviously true, and beside teh point.

I agree with Hussar than in the typical portrayal of the Abyss and the Nine Hells, and their denizens, there is no discernible difference in motive or mode of behavior. This is I think rather telling proof that the nature of evil (and also law and chaos) is not being completely understood by those that write on it.

Yes, the source material is all over the place on this.

They may well think that, but they still won't assume power until forced to do so by the pleas of those they'll assume power over. The CG person doesn't inherently desire to lead. The idea CG world is a world of equals without divisions or stratification. So assuming leadership first won't necessarily be needed in the ideal CG world, and secondly will be something that is taken up reluctantly because the very fact that you need a leader suggests there is some problem with your theory of being. And having assumed leadership, they'll typically be anxious to relinquish it.

Nope, disagree. I'm perfectly okay with a CG person even forcibly seizing power if they think that, by doing so, they are acting selflessly. An example would be the overthrow of an evil ruler and the assumption of power to make sure that the previous regime could not come back.

I agree, but rulership is not something that is universally aspired to. The purer sorts of chaotics think that it is something no one should aspire to and ultimately the desire to rule over others is what is wrong with people.

i would agree that there's room for a chaotic philosophy that decries all forms of power over others. Perfect anarchy is very chaotic, to me. However, I disagree that that is the ultimate expression of chaos. Chaos is just fine with power determined by egalitarian principles (the smartest among us leads because we value intelligence) or brutality (the strongest among us leads because we fear him). The scope of the leadership could further be graduated from mere advice to total power. Chaos isn't adverse to power.

I would note that Gandalf very explicitly, though he did have the ability to improve the lives of others, nonetheless refrained from assuming power over them precisely because - with or even without The One Ring - doing so would tempt him to evil. Gandalf even refused to yield to the White Council's demand that he should head it. But failure to heed the warning that they should not seek to rule over others, was rather precisely what lead to Saruman's downfall as an Istari.

And I wouldn't even necessarily call Gandalf CG. So I think you are trivializing the response Good generally and CG specifically has to leadership.

You can't argue a specific case into the general. Gandalf is a great study, but he remains a single data point and not representative of anything other than Gandalf.

Ok. I would argue that it would be impossible to tell whether or not Asmodeus does desire personal power, as there is no conceivable situation that is going to be put forward where Asmodeus will judge that it is in the best interest of Hell for Asmodeus to be sacrificed. However, from the fact that he's presented as LE, we can conjecture that just like any other LE entity, Asmodeus would ultimately put the interests of the collective ahead of his own regardless of his desire for personal power. It's just in this case, the collective he leads has as its mission the subjection, assimilation and torture of all of reality for all eternity so this selflessness on his part could never be called good.

No, I think it's clear Asmodeus values his personal power because he takes extreme care to see that it is maintained. There are others that can do the same job, and want to, but Asmodeus makes sure that it is exceedingly difficult to oust him from the position. There are always machinations in Hell to unseat the ruler of this plane or that, or their lieutenants, all the way down to the manes at the bottom (or is it dretches, I don't recall). Hell is a place where treachery is expected. Failure to be treacherous is a great way to not be in power. So, without personal ambition, it's difficult to assume that Asmodeus could possibly maintain his position.

Note that this is drawn from the source material. The way Hell is organized is certainly not the only way a paragon LE society could organize. You seem to be pushing the collective LE organization -- every cog understands it's position and doesn't wish to change -- vs the combative LE organization that Hell represents. If I were to opine, I would say that the collective LE prioritizes the Lawful aspect over the Evil one, whereas Hell prioritizes the Evil over the Lawful. That may not sit well, but remember that the source materials are not exactly coherent on alignment.

In Heinlein's 'Stranger in a Strange Land', he introduces us to a character who is both a follower of Mike and a Moslem. However, based on the testimony of the book about Mike, and on what we know of Moslems theology, this claim appears to be self-contradicting. There appears to be no way to piously follow Mike and to piously follow the teachings of Mohammed. He can't be both a good Michaelist and a good Moslem, and Heinlein never attempts to explain how he could mouth things that violate core Islamic values and still be a good Moslem. Thus it is reasonable for a reader to infer that what Heinlein has declared is either nonsense, or else that the character in the story is self-deceived.

Loved that book.

Likewise, when you just declare that this barrister is LE, but provide zero evidence of it, it's reasonable for me to wonder whether alternatively what you've written is just nonsense, or that the character you described is self-deceived regarding his actual beliefs. This is particularly true because the only traits you've give the character are superficially associated with lawfulness ("he's a lawyer") and not lawfulness itself. That's a huge red flag.

Ah, but if we're following your example, I would also have had to add that the barrister had a incongruous aspect. I did not. I stated the barrister was LE and gave no other information that would contraindicate that. You're welcome to invent something that might make him not LE, but at that point you're adding the additional information and my example doesn't have to accomodate that.

The barrister is LE. He has the Lawful and Evil traits as I have defined them. He places his believe and faith in a social construct (the law) and uses it to act selfishly by oppressing others with it (Evil). He doesn't feed stray animals, or care for the elderly. He does enjoy a snack at the Fried Endangered Animals, but he never donates to the Injured Fire Brigade Members Fund when he buys his Dodo meal. He is a jovial, sort, though, and laughs himself silly all the way to the bank to deposit the proceeds from his latest case, where he sold the orphanage out from under the orphans on a legal technicality, leaving them destitute and homeless, and glad-hands the bank manager who is often his partner in doubles Half-Stick on Tuesdays. On his way home, he sees a young, emaciated man in shabby clothes digging in a refuse bin. He approaches the young boy and asks if what's happening. The young boy, very embarrassed, tells the barrister that his orphanage was just closed and he's looking for some food. The barrister asks the boy if he'd like some food. The young boy lights up and thanks the barrister, who smiles at the young boy and tells him, very kindly, to wait just a moment. He then goes to the corner watchstand and reports an unlicensed beggar in the street. He whistles the theme to the latest popular minstrel act on the way home.

And you do nothing to dissuade me that it was wrong for warning bells to go off when you suggest, "using the system for personal benefit". If he's using the system for personal benefit, he's probably CE and your assertion that he's LE is at least superficially wrong. By that definition, again, Belkar Bitterleaf is now lawful evil rather than chaotic evil, now that he's realized that he can trick the system into benefiting himself rather than fight against it. Instead, we have to look now for contraindications that your lawyer is not CE, since the motivation you subscribe to him and even the methodology is quintessentially CE.

Yes, it's possible, except I said he was LE, not CE.

I accept both of these things are often true of governance within the mortal realm where perfect expressions of moral principles won't exist. When you get up to the outer planes in the realm of reified forms, you'd expect the governing system to more and more perfectly reflect the principles that the philosophy is grounded in. Thus, you might find a CG society de facto acting like a dictatorship, but only because everyone loved the affable king, the king never dictated anything anyone didn't want to do anyway (and to the extent that his dictates weren't obeyed, this was expected and provoked no wrath by him), and no one else wanted to be the king. You'd more likely find democracies and councils were no one was in charge, and even more likely societies that self-organized without any central governing principles or leaders at all, simply because each individual member behaved as one might wish them to behave were one inclined to give orders already.

For example, it's been shown by military theorists that close to the theoretically optimal muster and response time can be achieved by simply everyone getting a gun and moving toward the sounds of battle, even though and maybe because no one waits on an order to do so.

Yes, of course. My example was not meant to be an exhaustive list, merely a possibility.

 

[Celebrim]

Okay, but then I don't follow at all.

I don't blame you. I'm having a hard time finding the language I need to express myself. You are right about the dictionary usage of the words. But I don't think I'm quite conveying how problematic that they are in their bias. You complain for example that my observation on the bias of self words is false, because the word "selfless" has a positive connotation. But if their is a bias that self is bad and that being in self is bad, then we would expect the word for not self and noting being in ones self to imply good. Whereas the words that mean being in ones self and the quality of self are negative. I believe that there is a subtle "lawful good" bias to the English language in this respect that is making this concept hard to discuss because the language inclines us to overlap law and good as being inseparable.

And to be fully clear with where I'm going, I believe that this bias toward rejection of self being good, creates a problem where people reject Good as being their good, because it seems to require the rejection of self. And I believe this rejection of self is not an essential aspect of Good and misses Good's take on the self. Obviously, I think this bias applies to how D&D has typically been discussed for example both the positive bias Paladin as strictly LG because LG is "most good", and in rejection of Good as being good in things like Gygax's description of Pholtus the first LG god as being effectively a cruel deity or the general stereotype of Paladin jerks, or later the tendancy for 2e and later generation writers to focus on Selfishness as the quintessential aspect of Evil. And I also think this bias infects our real world views.

Is this is relation to your use of 'selfless' below?

Yes. I'm casting around for a way to talk about self that is distinctive from the connotation of good and evil.

Relativism is the belief that there is no objective standard by which to judge something.

I understand what it is. I'm wanting to see your examples of Chaotic that are relativists at least in some degree, as to me expressly refusing to use something outside the individual to judge something is the essential nature of the Chaotic moral world view.

I think that's sufficient for the definition of good/evil as selfless/selfish.

I don't agree with the definition, nor am I convinced that literal selflessness ought to have the connotation it has. I don't necessarily see sacrificing the self as the central aspect of good. Good neither denies that the self has worth or that the not self has worth. It approves of the self placing itself in the service of others, but doesn't approve of this if the basis of that appraisal is simple self-abasement.

To simply what I think is going on here, Evil sees no worth in anything. Lawful rejects that anything has inherent worth or qualities, but instead sees that everything could have worth through its potential proper relationship to everything else and is working toward what it sees as the perfect state of those relationships. Chaos believes the opposite, that the relationships between each thing and every other thing are meaningless, governed by chance, and transitory, but the that each bit of everything is unique, has its own qualities, and therefore worth something. Good says, you are both half-way right, both the thing itself and its relationships are things of potential worth. The four combined philosophies take parts of each position and combine them; chaotic evil for example asserts that each thing only has any worth to itself and so the only thing of meaningful value is your own self. Lawful good says, that yes, it's a great idea to have everything have inherent worth, but the inherent worth of anything being less than the worth of the whole, that can only be brought about when each component of the whole recognizes that. And so forth.

Okay, again, I used the dictionary. Still, you have a valid point -- the conjecture that there's a LE society that subsumed individual desire for group desire -- a collective evil, as it were.

I would say that this is the essential nature of LE, and lacking this view point, neither the society nor its members are actually LE.

Interesting. However, I would say that, as a society, it's still clearly LE -- it's organized and structured according to a social construct outside the individuals and it's goals are to act in way that are collectively selfish.

And notably, collectively horrifying. This society doesn't want people to value others more than themselves so that everyone collectively will be affirmed and happy. It's goal isn't merely order, but a state of permanent fear and suffering. In short, this is the world view that sees what you or I would consider a dystopia as the desired end state. This reoccurs in all sorts of fiction from 1984 to A Wrinkle in Time, but I think that you can find examples of that dystopia held up as the ideal and advanced as a goal in the real world, both historically and in modern times.

Would they have any existence outside of the collective?

In their own minds, they wouldn't. In the perfectly LE state, they'd see themselves as machine components whose existence was validated by their suffering. It would be a world of perfectly loyal perfectly abased beings, in total submission to their slavery, forever in torment but unable to even imagine or hope for any other existence.

If they do, then their individual alignment is whatever it would be outside the collective. If they don't, then they're intrinsically part of the collective and would still be LE. A gear removed from a machine is still part of the machine if it's nothing but a gear outside of the machine.

I think that largely covers it, save that if the gear wants to be part of the machine because that's what it believes it is, then its individual alignment (to the extent we can even speak of such a thing) is going to be the same as the machine also. It's completely subsumed to the machines purpose.

Okay. I'm not terribly interested in providing a case study when the particulars can be assumed -- the lower castes are treated harshly by the upper castes in order to maintain power and exploit the lower castes -- without me going into detail.

Exploit is a fairly good word, since I don't think LG's exploit their lower castes (though a CG critic would certainly claim that they did). I think it would be sufficient to assert that the social order is maintained through fear and cruelty, and that the rulers have no true regard for the health and weal of the lower castes, but think of them only as how they can serve either themselves or the society as a whole.

Nope, disagree. I'm perfectly okay with a CG person even forcibly seizing power if they think that, by doing so, they are acting selflessly.

I disagree. I would see this of a case of a CG who just failed a 'wisdom check' and acted in a way that violated their own principles, and that in so acting they were inherently putting themselves in a place of moral crisis where either they'd eventually have to repent of the action or change their alignment.

An example would be the overthrow of an evil ruler and the assumption of power to make sure that the previous regime could not come back.

A right-minded chaotic person would overthrow the evil ruler, but then not assume power - even if it meant a greater risk the previous regime could come back. In their mind, it would be a greater moral failing to risk becoming the very thing that they hate, than to allow society to fall into folly yet again and then have to try to save their fellows from themselves all over again. Only by providing an example of a victor who didn't assume authority, would there be any hope of breaking out of the cycle of tyranny and violence. To the extent that they would concede some system needs to be put in place, they'd try to establish a non-lawful social structure that didn't have them inherently in the top spot. A good example of this in fantasy literature is the resolution of the conflict in the novel 'King Rat' by China Mieville.

i would agree that there's room for a chaotic philosophy that decries all forms of power over others. Perfect anarchy is very chaotic, to me. However, I disagree that that is the ultimate expression of chaos.

Ok, so what is?

Chaos is just fine with power determined by egalitarian principles (the smartest among us leads because we value intelligence) or brutality (the strongest among us leads because we fear him). The scope of the leadership could further be graduated from mere advice to total power. Chaos isn't adverse to power.

Well, Choatic Evil certainly isn't, but then we no longer have an ultimately and pure expression of chaos.

No, I think it's clear Asmodeus values his personal power because he takes extreme care to see that it is maintained. There are others that can do the same job, and want to, but Asmodeus makes sure that it is exceedingly difficult to oust him from the position.

We can't be sure that he does this for selfish reasons unless we know his own internal reasoning. If he legitimately feels he's the best for the job and no one else can do it as well (and in particular, if this isn't an assessment based on personal vanity alone), then it's perhaps not the case he's being selfish. Since I would prefer to have each of the paragons of each alignment embody the ideals of that alignment, an since this is the LE paragon, I propose that his actual reasons aren't selfish, however cruel and horrible his goals may be, they aren't being done merely to advance his personal power relative to others, but the absolute power of Hell.

There are always machinations in Hell to unseat the ruler of this plane or that, or their lieutenants, all the way down to the manes at the bottom (or is it dretches, I don't recall). Hell is a place where treachery is expected. Failure to be treacherous is a great way to not be in power. So, without personal ambition, it's difficult to assume that Asmodeus could possibly maintain his position.

Maybe, but D&D divides demons from devils and says they are fundamentally different things. As I noted, I think this is frequently disregarded and we are left with no discernible difference in motive or goals between the two factions. Dante's Inferno describes a hell were treachery is expected. But if the Nine Hell's aren't exactly Dante's Inferno, then I suggest that it's not actually a place where treachery is expected - because treachery embodies a chaotic concept, not a lawful one. the Nine Hells are a place where struggle, cruelty and slavery is expected, but not actually strife.

That may not sit well, but remember that the source materials are not exactly coherent on alignment.

Well yes, but in play I prefer to actually be coherent on alignment.

Ah, but if we're following your example, I would also have had to add that the barrister had a incongruous aspect. I did not.

I think you did. You described a LE barrister acting out of pure self-interest with no apparent loyalty to anything but himself. Without any mention of belief in something higher than his own self-interest, I would default to thinking the barrister is CE and find his LE alignment surprising and indeed contradictory.

The barrister is LE. He has the Lawful and Evil traits as I have defined them.

I disagree. You've given him not one single lawful trait.

He places his believe and faith in a social construct (the law)...

You've given no examples that he believes in the worth of the law and places his faith in it. You are describing someone using the law for his own selfish purposes. This is not an example of believing in or having faith in the law, and good reason to believe that the law is not worth having faith in. After all, we can clearly see that the law is being misused, and that the outcome is injustice. Quite likely the barrister you describe also knows the law is unjust and sees that the system is effectively stupid, and that only a fool would place his faith in the law given how a selfish person like himself misuses the system. None of the things you describe give me any indication of anything but a CE man who sees himself as smarter than all those poor fools and reveals in his own sadistic pleasures. You've given me plenty of proof of his evil, but none of his lawfulness.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't blame you. I'm having a hard time finding the language I need to express myself. You are right about the dictionary usage of the words. But I don't think I'm quite conveying how problematic that they are in their bias. You complain for example that my observation on the bias of self words is false, because the word "selfless" has a positive connotation. But if their is a bias that self is bad and that being in self is bad, then we would expect the word for not self and noting being in ones self to imply good. Whereas the words that mean being in ones self and the quality of self are negative. I believe that there is a subtle "lawful good" bias to the English language in this respect that is making this concept hard to discuss because the language inclines us to overlap law and good as being inseparable.

And to be fully clear with where I'm going, I believe that this bias toward rejection of self being good, creates a problem where people reject Good as being their good, because it seems to require the rejection of self. And I believe this rejection of self is not an essential aspect of Good and misses Good's take on the self. Obviously, I think this bias applies to how D&D has typically been discussed for example both the positive bias Paladin as strictly LG because LG is "most good", and in rejection of Good as being good in things like Gygax's description of Pholtus the first LG god as being effectively a cruel deity or the general stereotype of Paladin jerks, or later the tendancy for 2e and later generation writers to focus on Selfishness as the quintessential aspect of Evil. And I also think this bias infects our real world views.

Interesting, and I wish you luck in figuring out what you mean, but I'm quite happy with the dictionary definition and have no problems applying it.

As for you concern about the negative connotation of self, I don't think that exists except in the way you're attempting to frame it. Individual freedoms and personal rights are deemed correct and proper goods in modern Western morality (upon which both the D&D alignment and our discussion rests it's foundations upon), and both of those are uniquely tied to the self.

Yes. I'm casting around for a way to talk about self that is distinctive from the connotation of good and evil.

Okay... but you realize that the definition of good and evil that I've been discussing the post few posts is rooted in selfish and selfless motives, yes? I think you're looking for a definition of self-determination that isn't good or evil, and I don't think you really have to find some definition of self-determination that is separated from self to avoid conditions of good and evil. WHAT you self-determine can be good or evil, but the act of using your own views to define yourself isn't the same a selfish or selfless. Those views can be characterized as such, but the act of finding them within yourself isn't. It's just personal.

I understand what it is. I'm wanting to see your examples of Chaotic that are relativists at least in some degree, as to me expressly refusing to use something outside the individual to judge something is the essential nature of the Chaotic moral world view.

That's perhaps an interesting side jaunt, but please forgive me in saying that I'm not super interested in wandering down that hallway right now.

I don't agree with the definition, nor am I convinced that literal selflessness ought to have the connotation it has. I don't necessarily see sacrificing the self as the central aspect of good. Good neither denies that the self has worth or that the not self has worth. It approves of the self placing itself in the service of others, but doesn't approve of this if the basis of that appraisal is simple self-abasement.

Ah, see, but sacrificing the self for others is what's good. Good requires giving, evil requires taking. One can give of oneself or take for oneself. The actual value of the self isn't what's judged for good or evil, it's just what you choose to do with that self.

To simply what I think is going on here, Evil sees no worth in anything.

I disagree. Although... I have to admit the idea of nihilist demons depressing the PCs with long rants on the futility of it all did get a chuckle out of me.

Lawful rejects that anything has inherent worth or qualities, but instead sees that everything could have worth through its potential proper relationship to everything else and is working toward what it sees as the perfect state of those relationships.

Eh, I have to disagree, again. If you're talking about ideas, concepts, or ideals, then yes. If you're talking about the material world, then mostly no. Of course, a lawful society could collectively choose to devalue something like gold, but, in general, they are not going to do that. Gold is valuable because it's rare and pretty. Those are things the lawful society doesn't assign.

Chaos believes the opposite, that the relationships between each thing and every other thing are meaningless, governed by chance, and transitory, but the that each bit of everything is unique, has its own qualities, and therefore worth something.

I can see a specific chaotic person thinking that exact thing, but I don't think it's a good blanket definition of chaos.

Good says, you are both half-way right, both the thing itself and its relationships are things of potential worth.

No, can agree, as you just defined good as dependent on the same thing as chaos and law. Good doesn't sit in between chaos and law, it exists separate from them.

The four combined philosophies take parts of each position and combine them; chaotic evil for example asserts that each thing only has any worth to itself and so the only thing of meaningful value is your own self. Lawful good says, that yes, it's a great idea to have everything have inherent worth, but the inherent worth of anything being less than the worth of the whole, that can only be brought about when each component of the whole recognizes that. And so forth.

Again, your definitions of the axis are not independent, so this isn't coherent. You can reach the same conclusions at different points of the grid because the values are so similar in many areas.

I would say that this is the essential nature of LE, and lacking this view point, neither the society nor its members are actually LE.

I would not. I would say that such a society is clearly Lawful Evil, but not that such a society is the only paragon of lawful evil.

And notably, collectively horrifying. This society doesn't want people to value others more than themselves so that everyone collectively will be affirmed and happy. It's goal isn't merely order, but a state of permanent fear and suffering. In short, this is the world view that sees what you or I would consider a dystopia as the desired end state. This reoccurs in all sorts of fiction from 1984 to A Wrinkle in Time, but I think that you can find examples of that dystopia held up as the ideal and advanced as a goal in the real world, both historically and in modern times.

I don't think you can accurately describe the dystopias of those books as the same as your LE society above. I think that the majority of dystopias are lawful in nautre, as the perfect society of a utopia is generally lawful, and the goal of the dystopian society is to highlight how the utopia failed, but I don't think it's required. Dust has a lovely dystopia, that's difficult to classify because the society is very structured and has harsh controls for breaking it's structure, but the overall intent isn't necessarily evil. Not going any further on that train of thought for spoilers, because Dust is something everyone should read.

I disagree. I would see this of a case of a CG who just failed a 'wisdom check' and acted in a way that violated their own principles, and that in so acting they were inherently putting themselves in a place of moral crisis where either they'd eventually have to repent of the action or change their alignment.



A right-minded chaotic person would overthrow the evil ruler, but then not assume power - even if it meant a greater risk the previous regime could come back. In their mind, it would be a greater moral failing to risk becoming the very thing that they hate, than to allow society to fall into folly yet again and then have to try to save their fellows from themselves all over again. Only by providing an example of a victor who didn't assume authority, would there be any hope of breaking out of the cycle of tyranny and violence. To the extent that they would concede some system needs to be put in place, they'd try to establish a non-lawful social structure that didn't have them inherently in the top spot. A good example of this in fantasy literature is the resolution of the conflict in the novel 'King Rat' by China Mieville.

If the society would crumble and fall without his intervention, or he believed that by taking power he could help the most people, then he would be obligated to take the power. Turning his back on the people because he didn't feel like he should take the power isn't good, it's at best neutral. He may make that choice, and I wouldn't call it horribad, but if he chose to sacrifice himself to assume power and help people, and take actions to increase individual freedoms while he was at it, then, yes, I see a CG person taking the power.

Ok, so what is?

I don't think there has to be only one. Just as I don't think there's a perfect Lawful paragon, or a Good one, or an Evil one. There's enough room in my definitions for there to be multiple such things and still be coherently useful. Which, to me, is the point -- useful categorization without useless restrictions.

Well, Choatic Evil certainly isn't, but then we no longer have an ultimately and pure expression of chaos.

Why would CE be that, anyway? But, see above.

We can't be sure that he does this for selfish reasons unless we know his own internal reasoning. If he legitimately feels he's the best for the job and no one else can do it as well (and in particular, if this isn't an assessment based on personal vanity alone), then it's perhaps not the case he's being selfish. Since I would prefer to have each of the paragons of each alignment embody the ideals of that alignment, an since this is the LE paragon, I propose that his actual reasons aren't selfish, however cruel and horrible his goals may be, they aren't being done merely to advance his personal power relative to others, but the absolute power of Hell.

GAH! He's my guy. I made him up. I say that those are his motivations. We're not discussing a randomly sampled character and analyzing him to see how we can categorize him, we're discussing my example guy, and guy that's LE through and through. He loves the law, because it makes sense to him. He loves it because he can take things from other people without risk, because the law is great like that. He loves living in his safe house, with the watch patrolling the streets, and the knowledge that society is looking out for him while he robs it blind using it's own rules. He likes being a respectable gentlemen, invited to the correct parties with the correct people, and he likes that people owe him things because of his position and ability in the system. He likes be lawful, and he likes using the law for his own selfish ends. This is all 100% true because he's my guy and I say so.

Maybe, but D&D divides demons from devils and says they are fundamentally different things. As I noted, I think this is frequently disregarded and we are left with no discernible difference in motive or goals between the two factions. Dante's Inferno describes a hell were treachery is expected. But if the Nine Hell's aren't exactly Dante's Inferno, then I suggest that it's not actually a place where treachery is expected - because treachery embodies a chaotic concept, not a lawful one. the Nine Hells are a place where struggle, cruelty and slavery is expected, but not actually strife.

Yes. A devil will act within the rules of the system. It will establish that his claim to the position is legitimate. It will gather the necessary support to make it's move (paperwork, coalitions, etc.). It will make it's attempt within the rules -- be that a formal challenge or maneuvering the opponent into a position of weakness and using the system to oust them. If it doesn't, then the system will not tolerate him long. Devils play the game.

Demons can be just as cunning, but there are no rules to their game. Ambush, backstabbing, direct confrontation, arranging an accident, all of these are 100% valid methods because the demon doesn't rule through vested authority and position, but through power and threat of force. It doesn't matter how a demon takes out a rival and assumes power because he'll only maintain that power as long as he can personally enforce it.

Well yes, but in play I prefer to actually be coherent on alignment.

As do I, which is why most of my cosmology is a bit different from the sources. Hell, in my current game, it looks nothing like the wheel, because it's a game based on creation and dissolution as the core conflict, not good, evil, chaos, and law. Those exist, because so much of D&D is premised on those concepts and it's too much to extract them, but they're secondary to the thrust of the campaign and there is no great wheel. There's the Shadow, the Wilds, the Elemental Planes, the Astral, the Ethereal (both only because it's too much work to take them out) and the Heavens. Demon, Devil, and Angel all reside in the Heavens. It's not a quiet place.

I think you did. You described a LE barrister acting out of pure self-interest with no apparent loyalty to anything but himself. Without any mention of belief in something higher than his own self-interest, I would default to thinking the barrister is CE and find his LE alignment surprising and indeed contradictory.

No, I described a barrister that followed the law to a tee, used it, loved it, lived it. Who used the banks because they are safe. Who relied on the watch to clean out the riff-raff from his street. I described a man that always turned to the law, in every case, to achieve his goals. Those goals were all selfish, but the manner in which he achieved them were all lawful (heh, in both senses of the word).

I disagree. You've given him not one single lawful trait.

Obviously, we violently disagree here.

You've given no examples that he believes in the worth of the law and places his faith in it. You are describing someone using the law for his own selfish purposes. This is not an example of believing in or having faith in the law, and good reason to believe that the law is not worth having faith in. After all, we can clearly see that the law is being misused, and that the outcome is injustice. Quite likely the barrister you describe also knows the law is unjust and sees that the system is effectively stupid, and that only a fool would place his faith in the law given how a selfish person like himself misuses the system. None of the things you describe give me any indication of anything but a CE man who sees himself as smarter than all those poor fools and reveals in his own sadistic pleasures. You've given me plenty of proof of his evil, but none of his lawfulness.

See above. Yes, I did not say 'this barrister believes X', instead I showed him using the law and engaging in society properly at every turn. Nothing the man did was chaotic. He used banks. He had appropriate friendships with his social peers. He played organized sports. He trusted the watch. He was part of the entire legal system (and obviously a member in good standing as he is able to practice). EVERYTHING he did is lawful. While I didn't explicitly say what he believed, it's trivial from context to note that his every action was bent towards being a part of a society and not being individualistic.

 

[Celebrim]

We are at an impasse.

And there are tons of different ways I could show where I disagree with your conception, but the most obvious is you've apparently defined "lawful" as "follows the law" and "chaos" as doesn't follows the law. Which leads to your apparent conclusion that because the character is a lawyer, he's lawful. Presumably all thieves are chaotic. The problems that viewpoint causes and the contradictions that arise from it are well documented and endlessly discussed, so there is no need to repeat them.

Likewise, I don't agree that sacrificing the self for others is "what's good". I agree that it can be good or even that it is good, but I don't agree that it defines what good actually is. I think taking your viewpoint seriously would make predictions about good that wouldn't conform to what we'd see as good, and that one example of this is that my dystopia is absolutely filled with people sacrificing themselves for others and yet it has no good in it. Nor, to point a finer point on it, do we credit the kamikaze pilot with understanding goodness but merely understanding honor and sacrifice. If sacrifice defined what is good, we'd see the kamikaze pilot as an ideal to emulate.

If good requires giving and evil requires taking, does that mean the giver of charity is good and the receiver evil? I think that your statement is nonsense. It's not the giving itself at that is good, nor the taking itself that is evil.

You can assert nonsense as true all you like, but it doesn't make it less nonsense. You've proposed a thin wall that is thick, entirely red but also entirely white, made of only bricks but also made of wood. If I ask how that is true, "Because I said it is.", is not a satisfying response. And if you say, "Well but he's a lawyer, he follows the law, of course that makes him lawful", then we are back to the first point. None of your barristers motivations for following the law are the respect for the law. Presumably a person with real respect for the law would obey it even when inconvenient and even when it wasn't in his self-interest. Your entirely self-interested lawyer would presumably happily break the law to preserve himself because it is convenient, just as he find at present obeying the law congenial and convenient.

 

[Ovinomancer]

We are at an impasse.

And there are tons of different ways I could show where I disagree with your conception, but the most obvious is you've apparently defined "lawful" as "follows the law" and "chaos" as doesn't follows the law. Which leads to your apparent conclusion that because the character is a lawyer, he's lawful. Presumably all thieves are chaotic. The problems that viewpoint causes and the contradictions that arise from it are well documented and endlessly discussed, so there is no need to repeat them.

I was fine at being at an impasse until you grossly misrepresented my position. I clearly did NOT define lawful and chaotic that way, you're just taking the example I gave of a lawyer and assuming that was the entirety of my position. The barrister is lawful, yes, and in his case that exhibits as following the law of his society and in maintaining his social position and standing within that society. Considering I define, clearly, Lawful as being defining yourself according to a social construct, I fail to understand why you would think that a barrister defining himself by the legal system he lives in and the social structure of his society is somehow a) me defining Lawful as following the law; or b) me saying this is the only possible lawful.

The rest of your post is similarly mischaracterizing my position so that you can conveniently dismiss them. You should have stopped at 'we disagree'.

Likewise, I don't agree that sacrificing the self for others is "what's good". I agree that it can be good or even that it is good, but I don't agree that it defines what good actually is. I think taking your viewpoint seriously would make predictions about good that wouldn't conform to what we'd see as good, and that one example of this is that my dystopia is absolutely filled with people sacrificing themselves for others and yet it has no good in it. Nor, to point a finer point on it, do we credit the kamikaze pilot with understanding goodness but merely understanding honor and sacrifice. If sacrifice defined what is good, we'd see the kamikaze pilot as an ideal to emulate.

There's nothing good in what the kamikazee does because he sacrifices himself to kill others. There may not be evil in that act, but there's little of good. I was clear that it wasn't just sacrifice that was the good, it was the intent of the sacrifice. Giving of yourself is not characterized by the kamikazee pilot.

If good requires giving and evil requires taking, does that mean the giver of charity is good and the receiver evil? I think that your statement is nonsense. It's not the giving itself at that is good, nor the taking itself that is evil.

No, because accepting something freely given is not the same as taking something without regard. Taking implied taking without permission, by force or deceit.

You can assert nonsense as true all you like, but it doesn't make it less nonsense. You've proposed a thin wall that is thick, entirely red but also entirely white, made of only bricks but also made of wood. If I ask how that is true, "Because I said it is.", is not a satisfying response. And if you say, "Well but he's a lawyer, he follows the law, of course that makes him lawful", then we are back to the first point. None of your barristers motivations for following the law are the respect for the law. Presumably a person with real respect for the law would obey it even when inconvenient and even when it wasn't in his self-interest. Your entirely self-interested lawyer would presumably happily break the law to preserve himself because it is convenient, just as he find at present obeying the law congenial and convenient.

Again, I'm dumbfounded that you would be angry that an example of a lawyer that believes in the social construct of the law is someone evading my definition of Lawful as defining yourself according to a social construct. The barrister was a quick example. If you recall, I didn't even spend more than a few sentence on him until you started wanting to know his entire life story. Further, I have, at no point, ever defined chaotic as 'doesn't follow the law'. I can easily envision a chaotic person that generally follows laws because it's just easier to get along that way, but never really agrees with the need for the laws.

Let me give you a suggestion, the next time you think I'm skating off into weirdville -- ask me directly your question. Don't spend post after post going around obliquely asking for more details on narrow front to try and discover what I mean -- that's a great way to not discover it. Ask me. We could have solved the barrister bit a long time ago -- it's a throwaway example for me, and not the pinnacle of what I think LE is.

 

[Celebrim]

I was fine at being at an impasse until you grossly misrepresented my position.

I quite understand your anger at being misrepresented, as it is generally one of the few things that gets my blood boiling as well, but while I apologize, I certainly am not intentionally misrepresenting your position. Nor is it yet clear to me what exactly your position is if I have not restated it. Certainly I don't agree that it has been perfectly clear you haven't defined lawful "as follows the laws".

Considering I define, clearly, Lawful as being defining yourself according to a social construct...

We seem to be pretty close on this, in as much this seems to mean that the person would see the social construct as having primacy. But nothing about your barrister example seems to suggest he is not defining the social construct by himself. He sees the purpose of the law as being to enrich himself at the expense of others - particularly the weak and powerless. Is that what the social construct he defines himself by declares as its purpose? Is that placing the society higher than himself so that he's really defined by the society, or is he thinking the whole thing - society, the law, even the orphans - exists to make him personally happy, powerful, and comfortable?

There's nothing good in what the kamikazee does because he sacrifices himself to kill others.

Then we can dismiss the idea that it is the sacrifice itself that is good. After all, while it is true that he does sacrifice himself to kill others, it is equally true that he is sacrificing himself on the behalf of others.

I was clear that it wasn't just sacrifice that was the good, it was the intent of the sacrifice.

I didn't draw that from your statement. The only motive or intent that I understood from your prior post was that it was selfless. What additionally must be true about your intent or the outcome of your action?

Giving of yourself is not characterized by the kamikazee pilot.

I think it is obvious that that it is.

No, because accepting something freely given is not the same as taking something without regard. Taking implied taking without permission, by force or deceit.

Force and deceit wasn't mentioned. But with this addition, isn't the taking or the giving irrelevant? Isn't it the force and deceit that is the problem regardless of the action it is associated with?

Again, I'm dumbfounded that you would be angry...

I'm not angry. I was a bit frustrated with Maxperson earlier, but I certainly have had no feelings of frustration with you.

The barrister was a quick example.

It was a quick example that seemed to contradict your earlier positions. And indeed, seems to contradict your reiterated positions.

Let me give you a suggestion, the next time you think I'm skating off into weirdville -- ask me directly your question. Don't spend post after post going around obliquely asking for more details on narrow front to try and discover what I mean -- that's a great way to not discover it. Ask me. We could have solved the barrister bit a long time ago -- it's a throwaway example for me, and not the pinnacle of what I think LE is.

I'm confused. What am I supposed to ask you? I am directly asking my questions. I'm even trying to clarify why I ask the questions. I understand you think the example is unimportant. I understood that right from the start.

I still see the following statement (and related ones) as a self-contradiction: "I was presenting an example of a LE barrister using the system for his own, personal benefit." If he's lawful, he defines himself by the system. I think we both agree with that. I'm saying, if that is true, then he ought to see that the system is supposed to use him for its benefit. If he thinks the system exists for his benefit and uses it that way, then he thinks he's more important than the system is. He defines the system by his personal needs. I don't see that as lawful; I gather that you do, but feel that eventually if we accept your LE barrister as lawful, it will lead to a contradiction where LE is an oxymoron.

So I immediately made a counter-example of a Barrister acting in the exact same way, but with a radically different impersonal motivation such that the needs of the system were more important than his own, and he was sacrificing himself to it to obtain those ends, but those ends and means were both clearly evil and clearly not-chaotic. And my point in doing so is that I think if you insist on selfishness being the trait that defines evil, you miss the possibility of evil where no component of the system is selfish. (Though I suppose you could say the system as a whole was selfish with regards to other systems, this I think would run into a contradiction as each system has something it can't tolerate, if only intolerance itself). Naturally, mortal systems that were on the aggregate LE would be made up of people of mixed motives, but I don't want to classify systems that are on the aggregate lawful or lawful evil until I'm sure of the definition of those terms.