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

[The Human Target]

[N]eutral evil holds that neither groups nor individuals hove great meaning. The neutral evil creature views law and chaos as unnecessary considerations, for pure evil is all-in-all. Either might be used, but both are disdained as foolish clutter useless in eventually bringing maximum evilness to the world.

This ethos holds that seeking to promote weal for all actually brings woe to the truly deserving. Natural forces which are meant to cull out the weak and stupid are artificially suppressed by so-called good, and the fittest are wrongfully held back, so whatever means are expedient can be used by the powerful to gain and maintain their dominance, without concern for anything.

That is just impenetrable.

 

[Imaculata]

I agree. Darth Vader is quite an interesting case study. Let's assume that the Jedi Order strives for a good society. They are mystic peace keepers and mediators. -Star Wars is a tale of good versus evil, after all. I'm inclined to say the jedi are neutral good. They are always going on about bringing balance to the force. They have a council and guidelines but they are not about building structure and order.

I think most Jedi could also be considered lawful good. They don't follow imperial law, but they do follow a code, and tenets. The jedi are an order, and the rules of that order is what good jedi try to follow. On the other hand, I'm not sure if Yoda would be considered lawful good. When Luke has to choose between his friends or continuing his training, Yoda advises him to continue his training (and sacrifice his friends in the process, so he does not destroy what they fought for). This seems more like a neutral good thing to do.

I'd say Darth Vader is neutral evil. He is operating in an LN organization. He is clearly set apart from regular chain of command. His armor is in a different color that other officers. He can kill other officers at will without repercussions. Vader displays behaviour consistent with a chaotic evil character but can still cooperate with his more lawful colleagues. I'd pin him as NE any day. In fact, had Vader been chaotic evil I'd expect him to try and topple the Emperor at an earlier state. I'm fairly confident Vader thinks of himself as the best suited person for the imperial throne.

I think you are right, a strong case could be made for Vader being neutral evil. But is his organization LN? I think an organization that blows up planets, and kills civilians randomly (Luke's uncle and aunt), is definitely evil.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

Anyone caught varging a dwarf has got to be chaotic neutral at best.

#anotherhelpfulcomment

 

[Frostmarrow]

I think most Jedi could also be considered lawful good. They don't follow imperial law, but they do follow a code, and tenets. The jedi are an order, and the rules of that order is what good jedi try to follow. On the other hand, I'm not sure if Yoda would be considered lawful good. When Luke has to choose between his friends or continuing his training, Yoda advises him to continue his training (and sacrifice his friends in the process, so he does not destroy what they fought for). This seems more like a neutral good thing to do.

I'd suggest Obi-Wan is LG. He is trying so very hard to be right and good, and this is why he struggles. Qui-Gon had it easier.

Luke on the other hand. What is his problem? I'd say he is unaligned and that his story is about whether he will end up good or evil or be influenced by Han Solo and become neither. Obi-Wan steers him towards good, Yoda hopes Luke will make the right choice on his own accord, and the emperor wants to corrupt Luke. Vader thinks he wants that too but finds in the end that he wants Luke to be a symbol of hope. And this redeems him.

The Jedi Order has some pretty specific rules that must be followed, but other than that it seems that they are more about their intentions than their actions. They are never "go there and do this" they are more "go there and do some good, what ever that is".

The Rebels on the other hand are a collection of do-gooders of the full spectrum.

 

[Frostmarrow]

But is his organization LN? I think an organization that blows up planets, and kills civilians randomly (Luke's uncle and aunt), is definitely evil.

Yes. My mistake. I meant LE. At least Grand Moff Tarkin is.

 

[Parmandur]

The issue isn't that "Lawful" is read as "Legitimate," but that order is, in fact, a good: evil is the privation, that is the lack, of some good. Ontologically, Law vs. Chaos is Good v. Evil with a different paint job. Hence the 4E system is more coherent in logical terms.

As used in 5E, however, as more of an acting short-hand, the 9 point system works strangely well as a way of quickly delineating behavioral differences between Orc Pirates and the KGB. As [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] says above, in practice the law and chaos distinction is more about instrumentality: it's when you get Platonic planes of Lawful Good juxtaposed with Chaotic Good that it is silly.

 

[Frostmarrow]

The issue isn't that "Lawful" is read as "Legitimate," but that order is, in fact, a good: evil is the privation, that is the lack, of some good. Ontologically, Law vs. Chaos is Good v. Evil with a different paint job. Hence the 4E system is more coherent in logical terms.

As used in 5E, however, as more of an acting short-hand, the 9 point system works strangely well as a way of quickly delineating behavioral differences between Orc Pirates and the KGB. As [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] says above, in practice the law and chaos distinction is more about instrumentality: it's when you get Platonic planes of Lawful Good juxtaposed with Chaotic Good that it is silly.

But you could write a story about Law versus Chaos, where Good and Evil play second fiddle. Say you have an ordered society that is under siege from an expanding population sprawling out of control, threatening the upkeep of the ordered society. Conflict ensues. Good and Evil are on both sides. The Warhammer worlds are based on this conflict.

Save Sacrifice Forgive
Rule Ignore Provoke
Punish Enslave Kill

So the ordered society is all about saving the population, ruling through law and punishing any transgressions. Whereas the chaotic force offer forgiveness, when not provoking conflict and trying to destroy everything.

Granted: This would be a stupid setup for a story.

 

[Maxperson]

Lawful good - Superman
Acts as a good person is expected or required to act, with honor, duty, commitment to oppose evil. Tells the truth, keeps his word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. Hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

Neutral good - Spiderman
Acts without regard for or against lawful rules or traditions. Devoted to helping others, works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them. When breaking rules, they do not suffer inner conflict lawful character would.

Chaotic good - Batman
Hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. Follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with society. Favors change for a greater good, places high value on freedom. Does the right things, but generally disorganized.

Lawful neutral - Argus Filch
Believes strongly in lawful concepts such as honor, order, rules, and tradition, and often acts as law, or a personal code directs her.

Neutral - Severus Snape
Is neutral on both axes and tends not to feel strongly towards any alignment, or actively seeks their balance. Doesn't feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos.

Chaotic neutral - Captain Jack Sparrow
Follows their own heart and shirks rules and traditions. Is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn't strive to protect others' freedom.

Lawful evil - Dolores Umbridge
Takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct. Cares about order but not about freedom. Condemns others according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. Loath to break laws or promises. Depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Might have particular taboos, such as not letting children come to harm. They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.

Neutral evil - Lucius Malfoy
Selfish, no qualms about turning on its allies, and usually makes allies to further their goals. Has no compunctions about harming others to get what they want, but neither will they cause mayhem when they see no direct benefit. Does whatever can get away with. Is pure, simple. Some hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities.

Chaotic Evil - Belatrix Lestrange
Does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. Is hot-tempered, vicious, violent, unpredictable, ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to assassinate him.
-------
Note:
Possibly there should be 4 more - Social (between Lawful & Neutral), Rebel (between True & Chaotic), Moral (between Good and Neutral), Impure (between Neutral and Evil), making it 20 alignments. However, that is hell complicated.

Batman is solidly LG/CG/NG/LN. His personality is so complex that he meets each of those alignments, at least as they are written for D&D.

 

[Maxperson]

I think most Jedi could also be considered lawful good. They don't follow imperial law, but they do follow a code, and tenets. The jedi are an order, and the rules of that order is what good jedi try to follow. On the other hand, I'm not sure if Yoda would be considered lawful good. When Luke has to choose between his friends or continuing his training, Yoda advises him to continue his training (and sacrifice his friends in the process, so he does not destroy what they fought for). This seems more like a neutral good thing to do.

There are also Jedi who follow the Jedi code because that's what they are supposed to do, not because they or it is good. Those would be LN Jedi. Qui-Gon Jinn did his own thing in defiance of the order. He was CG. I would peg the Jedi as having to be any good alignment or LN.

 

[Parmandur]

But you could write a story about Law versus Chaos, where Good and Evil play second fiddle. Say you have an ordered society that is under siege from an expanding population sprawling out of control, threatening the upkeep of the ordered society. Conflict ensues. Good and Evil are on both sides. The Warhammer worlds are based on this conflict.



Save Sacrifice Forgive

Rule Ignore Provoke

Punish Enslave Kill



So the ordered society is all about saving the population, ruling through law and punishing any transgressions. Whereas the chaotic force offer forgiveness, when not provoking conflict and trying to destroy everything.



Granted: This would be a stupid setup for a story.

And that would make some sense: but that would, really, be good and evil with different names, or a conflict over instrumentality in the pursuit of flourishing. On the human, Sir Joe and Robin Hood arguing level it makes sense; Mt. Celestia contrasted with Bytopia is fairly nonsensical, however.

In 5E, we've gone with pinning down traits, ideals and bonds and then determining a best fit alignment short hand. Doesn't serve much in the way of a cosmic purpose, but good for role playing.