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

[Ovinomancer]

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".

Then let me be perfectly clear: I do not define lawful as 'follows the laws.' Instead, I define lawful as 'defines self based on social constructs.'

As far as confusion on this matter, I believe that when I say I do a thing, that's the thing I do. So, when I say that I define lawful as 'defines self based on social constructs' that's exactly what I am doing. I am not pretending something else, or lying to you, I am clearly and directly giving you my position. If, at some later time, I appear to contradict myself, you should ask directly 'why does it seem you are contradicting yourself' and not tell me that I believe or think something that I have clearly stated I do not.

I hope that I have made myself abundantly clear. I welcome questions, I do not welcome being told what I think.

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?

I don't see the conflict here. He defines himself as a part of a social construct. He defines himself via his social status (a social construct). Further, he defines himself according to the law (a social construct). He exhibits these definitions by performing actions according to his social status (being friends with the banker, engaging in sports, acting to keep his privileged area from from undesirables) and by using the law (suing orphans out of their orphanage is not the extent of his actions, merely the one chosen to highlight his evil tendencies). He is successful at both, and happy at both, something a chaotic person would not be.

He is evil because he uses those social constructs for his personal benefit, and acts to subjugate others using those social constructs so that they provide him with more lucre and do not become a challenge to his position.


[snip, stuff about good and evil, which I've stated and have nothing further to add along the lines traveled.]

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.

You should ask me what I mean instead of telling me what I mean.

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.

No, I disagree. Being a member of a social construct does not mean that you are, in all ways, dedicated solely to that construct. Nothing the barrister does threatens the construct, or is opposed to it. That he can both belong to it and use it for his own benefit doesn't mean he can't be a member of it.

You seem stuck on the concept that Lawful requires overwhelming dedication to the organization. While that fits, and zealots can be lawful, it's not necessary to be a zealot if you are lawful.

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.

The whole conversation is based on modern, Western morality. This has all been nonsense if it isn't. Resorting to a relativism that a system can't recognize itself as evil doesn't remove the fact that we're actually using a baseline understanding that is outside that system to judge it.

If that's your underlying point, I have no response. I had thought it was understood (especially since I explicitly said it a few posts ago) that we were using modern Western morality as our baseline. If we're not, specify the baseline and perhaps I'll choose to re-engage. No promises, as I may not agree with or find the new baseline particularly moving. Also, my table isn't going to use that baseline, nor are most posters, so it's just a mental masturbation to discuss it (although, to be fair, most all of this is mental masturbation).

 

[Celebrim]

Then let me be perfectly clear: I do not define lawful as 'follows the laws.' Instead, I define lawful as 'defines self based on social constructs.'

Good. Because I had based on that statement thought we'd defined "lawful" in a way that is congruent. Now, though I'm thinking that, congruent as it is, we've still got our own flavor.

As far as confusion on this matter, I believe that when I say I do a thing, that's the thing I do. So, when I say that I define lawful as 'defines self based on social constructs' that's exactly what I am doing.

I feel like we are having a conversation rather like Alice and Humpty Dumpty.

I don't see the conflict here. He defines himself as a part of a social construct. He defines himself via his social status (a social construct). Further, he defines himself according to the law (a social construct).

I don't necessarily see a conflict either, but we'll get to that later. For now, for me, the question is, "Which is to be master?"

He exhibits these definitions by performing actions according to his social status (being friends with the banker, engaging in sports, acting to keep his privileged area from from undesirables) and by using the law (suing orphans out of their orphanage is not the extent of his actions, merely the one chosen to highlight his evil tendencies). He is successful at both, and happy at both, something a chaotic person would not be.

- emphasis added

I don't see the conflict here.

He is evil because he uses those social constructs for his personal benefit, and acts to subjugate others using those social constructs so that they provide him with more lucre and do not become a challenge to his position.

That your barrister was evil is something I never challenged.

No, I disagree. Being a member of a social construct does not mean that you are, in all ways, dedicated solely to that construct. Nothing the barrister does threatens the construct, or is opposed to it. That he can both belong to it and use it for his own benefit doesn't mean he can't be a member of it.

But I didn't say that I required the barrister to be perfectly lawful and undivided in his desires and fealties either. All I want to know is whether he defines himself by the social construct, or if he defines the social construct by himself (or something betwixt the two, and in between these extremes. The problem I'm having with your construction, "defines self based on social constructs", is that it seems to me rather vague. I'm inclined to think that a CE person can both belong to a social construct and use it for his own benefit. The question is, in a moral crisis, which rules? What comes first?

You seem stuck on the concept that Lawful requires overwhelming dedication to the organization. While that fits, and zealots can be lawful, it's not necessary to be a zealot if you are lawful.

Not so much, or to the extent that what you say about the "overwhelming dedication" is true, I am not making that any special attribute of lawfulness but of alignment itself. Your criticism that this description sounds like zealotry, is a criticism made from the middle (a neutral perspective). From the perspective of the Neutral, all of the other 8 alignments seem like extremists in their beliefs. My assumption is that you must be a standard deviation or two outside the normal, before you are strongly enough aligned to be considered of a non-neutral alignment. To the average person, every single aligned person would appear to be something of a zealot, an idealist, and a bit of a weirdo that was just taking things too far. But this viewpoint is I think being exaggerated because I'm wanting to speak of purer forms rather than something that is say 80% lawful and 20% chaotic, lest there be confusion regarding what is fundamental to an alignment and what is actually a complication of character.

The whole conversation is based on modern, Western morality. This has all been nonsense if it isn't.

You refuse to discuss good and evil any further, and I'm somewhat at a loss of what you mean by "modern, Western morality". The modern West is marked by great pluralism and cultural conflict, so that I don't know which morality you mean specifically. While there are certain older principles that tend to be universal, there are a great many principles on which there is absolutely no agreement. I'm not even entirely sure what you mean by "modern". Do you mean now? Do you mean since the counter-culture? Do you mean post-Hegelian? Do you mean since the Enlightenment? Do you mean post-Renaissance? All would be acceptable definitions of "modern" in context.

When I wrote my Essay on evil, one of the criticisms I received was that it was too narrowly dependent on Western conceptions of mortality. I certainly didn't intend any other thing. Yet I note that you rejected the definition outright as a thing worthy of mockery. So while I've generally been working on the assumption that for most examples of good and evil, we'd be able to accept the example without quibbling (again, I never found a reason to question whether your barrister was evil), I'm beginning to wonder if I've also misjudged how close we are on those concepts as well. You want me to ask questions about what you really mean, but you are also refusing to answer my questions. And I'd rather prefer you took my restatement of what I think you are saying as, "This is what I think you are saying. Is that right?", and just say when I get your position wrong, "No. That's not at all what I meant." So, toward that end, are you insisting that "Evil is selfishness" is the core of this "western, Modern morality" you are speaking of?

Resorting to a relativism...

I'm certainly never doing that. And I'm not upset, but you here and elsewhere in your response seem to be doing the very things that you are taking such vehement umbrage over. Certainly none of that was phrased in the form of a question.

Also, my table isn't going to use that baseline, nor are most posters, so it's just a mental masturbation to discuss it (although, to be fair, most all of this is mental masturbation).

I prefer the term mental calisthenics.

 

[Uchawi]

I can accept alignments as social norms, customs, or something that defines a larger ideal a group of people rely on to co-exist. But it falls apart with an individual that can be a rainbow of motivations in comparison. In that sense you can have a lawful good person work for a lawful evil empire. Or a lawful evil person in one culture may be lawful good in another. But in no way do I claim to be on expert on the subject, so I will leave it to others to use or debate as they want. From a universe perspective, there is law, chaos, and the void.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I can accept alignments as social norms, customs, or something that defines a larger ideal a group of people rely on to co-exist. But it falls apart with an individual that can be a rainbow of motivations in comparison. In that sense you can have a lawful good person work for a lawful evil empire. Or a lawful evil person in one culture may be lawful good in another. But in no way do I claim to be on expert on the subject, so I will leave it to others to use or debate as they want. From a universe perspective, there is law, chaos, and the void.

Alignments in non-outsiders deal in tendencies. If you tend towards an alignment more often than not, say more than 60% of the time, that's your alignment. In 5e, it's not like it has any game implications anyway.

 

[Shasarak]

I can accept alignments as social norms, customs, or something that defines a larger ideal a group of people rely on to co-exist. But it falls apart with an individual that can be a rainbow of motivations in comparison. In that sense you can have a lawful good person work for a lawful evil empire. Or a lawful evil person in one culture may be lawful good in another. But in no way do I claim to be on expert on the subject, so I will leave it to others to use or debate as they want. From a universe perspective, there is law, chaos, and the void.

I could easily imagine a LG individual working for a LE group but I am not sure how a LG person can change alignment by being in a different culture? Does it happen at the border or does it change slowly as you get closer to the center of the new culture?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Good. Because I had based on that statement thought we'd defined "lawful" in a way that is congruent. Now, though I'm thinking that, congruent as it is, we've still got our own flavor.



I feel like we are having a conversation rather like Alice and Humpty Dumpty.



I don't necessarily see a conflict either, but we'll get to that later. For now, for me, the question is, "Which is to be master?"

- emphasis added

I don't see the conflict here.



That your barrister was evil is something I never challenged.



But I didn't say that I required the barrister to be perfectly lawful and undivided in his desires and fealties either. All I want to know is whether he defines himself by the social construct, or if he defines the social construct by himself (or something betwixt the two, and in between these extremes. The problem I'm having with your construction, "defines self based on social constructs", is that it seems to me rather vague. I'm inclined to think that a CE person can both belong to a social construct and use it for his own benefit. The question is, in a moral crisis, which rules? What comes first?



Not so much, or to the extent that what you say about the "overwhelming dedication" is true, I am not making that any special attribute of lawfulness but of alignment itself. Your criticism that this description sounds like zealotry, is a criticism made from the middle (a neutral perspective). From the perspective of the Neutral, all of the other 8 alignments seem like extremists in their beliefs. My assumption is that you must be a standard deviation or two outside the normal, before you are strongly enough aligned to be considered of a non-neutral alignment. To the average person, every single aligned person would appear to be something of a zealot, an idealist, and a bit of a weirdo that was just taking things too far. But this viewpoint is I think being exaggerated because I'm wanting to speak of purer forms rather than something that is say 80% lawful and 20% chaotic, lest there be confusion regarding what is fundamental to an alignment and what is actually a complication of character.



You refuse to discuss good and evil any further, and I'm somewhat at a loss of what you mean by "modern, Western morality". The modern West is marked by great pluralism and cultural conflict, so that I don't know which morality you mean specifically. While there are certain older principles that tend to be universal, there are a great many principles on which there is absolutely no agreement. I'm not even entirely sure what you mean by "modern". Do you mean now? Do you mean since the counter-culture? Do you mean post-Hegelian? Do you mean since the Enlightenment? Do you mean post-Renaissance? All would be acceptable definitions of "modern" in context.

When I wrote my Essay on evil, one of the criticisms I received was that it was too narrowly dependent on Western conceptions of mortality. I certainly didn't intend any other thing. Yet I note that you rejected the definition outright as a thing worthy of mockery. So while I've generally been working on the assumption that for most examples of good and evil, we'd be able to accept the example without quibbling (again, I never found a reason to question whether your barrister was evil), I'm beginning to wonder if I've also misjudged how close we are on those concepts as well. You want me to ask questions about what you really mean, but you are also refusing to answer my questions. And I'd rather prefer you took my restatement of what I think you are saying as, "This is what I think you are saying. Is that right?", and just say when I get your position wrong, "No. That's not at all what I meant." So, toward that end, are you insisting that "Evil is selfishness" is the core of this "western, Modern morality" you are speaking of?



I'm certainly never doing that. And I'm not upset, but you here and elsewhere in your response seem to be doing the very things that you are taking such vehement umbrage over. Certainly none of that was phrased in the form of a question.



I prefer the term mental calisthenics.

I'm rather exhausted by saying "here's my argument: A -> B -> C" and your response being something along the lines of "sure, but what if you change B to F, then A !-> F !-> C, so that doesn't work for me." And then I reply, "but I clearly said B, not F. F isn't anywhere close to the example I was talking about." And then you go, "but F, man, F. F makes what you say not work."

It's very frustrating to continue to have a conversation where the basic premises I use are changed in the counter argument, which is then used to say that my basic premises are incorrect. It's this crazy circle of an argument. Especially when you show up at the last bit and say "but you must show that the barrister deviates from neutral by two standard deviations in order to claim that he's lawful [this is a paraphrase, of course]." I don't even know how to respond to that. What's a standard deviation? Heck, what are we using to measure the samples? Likert scales? A Briggs-Myer instrument? If we can't agree on the definitions, I have absolutely no idea how to agree on a standard deviation. Scratch that, I have no idea how to determine a standard deviation of alignment at all. Plus, the probability distribution is unlikely to be well behaved. Feh, my head spins.

So, when you complain that I'm not answering your questions, I have no idea how to even get into the neighborhood of answering some of your questions. I suppose that's a personal failing on my part, but I'm quite happy with the work I've done in this thread at the moment re: alignment. Solidified a few things that have been kicking around in the old noggin for a bit. That, and I got an idea for this great new NPC in my game. Oddly enough, he's a LE barrister.

 

[Celebrim]

If you tend towards an alignment more often than not, say more than 60% of the time, that's your alignment. In 5e, it's not like it has any game implications anyway.

Heck, what are we using to measure the samples? Likert scales? A Briggs-Myer instrument? If we can't agree on the definitions, I have absolutely no idea how to agree on a standard deviation. Scratch that, I have no idea how to determine a standard deviation of alignment at all. Plus, the probability distribution is unlikely to be well behaved. Feh, my head spins.

Ok, we can use percentages when talking about tendencies, but the idea of standard deviations from the norm... apparently that just blows a fuse.

 

[kerleth]

I think I'm just going to have players start picking a color of magic card to determine alignment. Seems more useful.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

In that case selfishness is not the problem. It's the intentional decision to mess with the boy, which is separate from selfishness.

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.

No. It only shows that you can turn anything bad if you have other circumstances modifying it.

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

No I didn't. I could only have outlined such a theory if I were theorizing that selfishness is evil. Given that I didn't do that, I put forth no theory that says everyone is evil and selfish.

By the way, everything is selfish, even good. People do good and selfless acts because of how good it makes them feel about themselves, which is selfish. If you are correct, there is only evil. No good exists.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Ok, we can use percentages when talking about tendencies, but the idea of standard deviations from the norm... apparently that just blows a fuse.

Percentages of actions, yes. Using the definitions I've given for good/evil/law/chaos, actions can be evaluated. I'm still not even sure what the 'norm' is for an alignment distribution function. It's not neutral, as few characters select neutral. I'm my experience, it's neutral good or chaotic good, because I generally end up playing with people that want to play good characters but don't want to be beholden to anything except themselves. So my 'norm' falls heavily on the good side, and is tilted towards chaotic. What's the norm in your games? I'd be surprised if it was neutral.