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

[Sunseeker]

If that is the case, and a lawful person feels uncomfortable with certain laws of his homeland, he's likely to think that the fault lies with himself and not with the laws. A lawful person will tend to see it as their own moral failing that they are attempting to pass judgment on something higher than they are themselves. They'll tend to doubt their own wisdom and tend to assume that the higher power (whatever it is) is likely wiser and more correct than they are. And even if they doubt that this is true, they will still tend to see it as their duty to continue to be obedient even when the ruler(s) is in the wrong.

I agree that this is a very alien philosophy to the average modern Westerner, but its not at all an unusual one historically or generally. In general, modern Western thinking tends to make following the dictates of one's own consciousness heroic, particularly when it goes against the grain of the larger society. But that's not the only way to think about this.

I agree that there are certainly multiple ways to think about it but considering your very point of such, it only underscores how problematic the alignment system is.

That aside, my point was more about following the rules of other lands as opposed to your own. I don't see why a lawful good person would feel obligcated follow those laws, certainly they could simply leave said country but again that's another one of those "gotcha" moments. There's no way a lawful good person is going to regard all laws are inherently equal as some of them will quite clearly violate the latter part of "good". A lawful person who follows every law would be lawful neutral. The law is the law because it's the law, therefore I follow it.

 

[Celebrim]

I agree that there are certainly multiple ways to think about it but considering your very point of such, it only underscores how problematic the alignment system is.

I don't understand.

That aside, my point was more about following the rules of other lands as opposed to your own.

Sure. But you also extended the complaint to 'the homeland'. That said, while I responded with the assumption the person in question gave their fealty to their nation and saw that as the source of lawful authority, it's possible to be a lawful lawbreaker. In point of fact, while there are lawful characters primarily defined by their patriotism or loyalty to the person of the state, I'd suggest the vast majority of lawfuls are lawful to a Platonic ideal of some sort, or to a divinely ordained law, or even more so to the lawful precepts that even the Lords of Law hold they are embody or are subject to. This law takes the form of some understood or well known code of honor.

And this shouldn't in any fashion strike you as a contradiction if you are coming to this discussion with the idea of Law as it was presented by say Michael Moorcock. When we are speaking of Law, we aren't primarily speaking of mortal law, but of the notion that there are things which one ought to do, which are universal to everyone, and which can be encoded into a communicable list. Lawfuls might disagree over the specifics of the list, but they are united in their belief that the list is the source of rightful conduct and authority. To that extent, you'd expect Lawfuls to respect one another, even when they violently disagree. For example, note the general respect accorded by many to individuals like Robert E. Lee and Erwin Rommel. Or if a safer fantasy example is wanted, consider the conflict between Ammar and Rodrigo in GGK's 'The Lions of Al-Rassan'.

A lawful person who follows every law would be lawful neutral. The law is the law because it's the law, therefore I follow it.

There is a notion here that is important which you are neglecting which is fealty. Indeed, the entire language of duty, honor, fealty and so forth is necessary to really understand what is going on here in the minds of people who think like this. It would be wrong to think that because you've espied some obvious contradiction that the very thing you've spotted hasn't been thought about in very great detail.

It's quite impossible to obey every law even if you would wish to do so, as quite obviously, two laws may come in contradiction. In this case, the LN person is supposed to examine his fealty, and obey the law to which has the greater proper claim on his duty. The LN person will naturally organize his fealties in a hierarchal manner according to what is prescribed by the external code he adheres to. In medieval terms, it's not a violation of loyalty to swear fealty to many lords, provided that everyone understands who your Liege is - the one that you owe the utmost duty - and that you can't do anything in anyone's service that would violate your obligations to your Liege.

There is a really good scene on this theme early in the book 'The Diamond Age' by Neil Stephenson (which among other thing, has lots of exploration of what is to the modern reader 'alien' lawful ideas). A thief is brought before a judge, and the judge has to consider what to do with him. The judge partially exonerates the thief because he feels that thief might have been acting out of proper familial obligation to his sibling, and as such might not be completely a lost cause. In other words, while the thief has broken a law and done so in error, if he did so thinking that he was obeying a duty to a higher law, the error isn't mortal or even venial. The thief is owed a slap on the wrist, as it were, whereas if he'd stolen out of naked self-interest then his life would have been forfeit.

A lawful person sojourning in a foreign land may or may not feel he has some obligation to obey the laws of the foreign land. Very likely his own legal code will specify to what degree he is expected to do so! But certainly he won't hold the foreign law or its ruler to be his liege and owe his final obligation. If caught in violation of some law, he will confess that he violated the law (if honesty is part of his code for this situation) but claim he did so ought of some higher obligation. If the other ruler is lawful and their codes of honor are reasonably similar, this reasoning may even impress the judge, who would then bid him return to his master as a faithful servant in recognition of his honor. And this could well be the honorable 'lawful' thing to do, even if it meant setting an enemy free. (Of course, if the judge is LE, all the respect in the world this story engenders at best just means your death will be honorable.)

 

[I'm A Banana]

I never understood this requirement for Lawful characters, why would they follow someone else's rules? Neutral positions notwithstanding, even in your homeland there are likely laws you disagree with and certainly in other lands there are likely laws that do not fit with your code of conduct. Typically, I have only ever seen a DM require people to "follow the laws" of another land when those laws clearly go against the LG aligned person who ends up having to risk everything simply taking their next breath.

Personally, I never have interpreted "lawful" as meaning, necessarily, "obeys the law."

It's more that they respect the principle of law and order, that they value the codification of actions, that they recognize the obligation to each other that laws represent.

So, consider the LG fighter who is in a corrupt order of knights lead by an LE villain. The villain will make disobedience punishable by death according to the law. The fighter will still not obey the villain's command to kill some orphans, and won't usually accept the punishment, but their challenge will be that the villain isn't legitimate, not that the villain doesn't have the authority. So, for instance, they might get excommunicated from the Order, and found a new Order, one said to "restore the honor these knights once had," and develop a group of people with whom to dethrone the villain, replacing him with someone less evil who can then undo the wicked laws. While a CG fighter in the same position might instead say that the villain has no right to tell us what to do, and will focus mostly on overthrowing the villain, rather than building an alliance.

This might mean that the CG hero's crusade is quick and effective, but lacks staying power (the villain goes into hiding and comes back next year with a group of well-meaning people who are invested in the knights and what they stand for), while the LG hero's crusade takes longer and involves winning hearts and minds, but, once launched, can be sustained, because there's an organization behind it.

The NG hero, meanwhile, curbs the excesses of the others and so loses certain benefits and certain weaknesses - slower than the CG hero's crusade, but more sustainable; not as lasting as the LG hero's crusade, but more practical.

My view of alignments is probably best codified HERE.

A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.

This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.

Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.

Lawful evil is sometimes called "diabolical," because devils are the epitome of lawful evil.

Lawful evil creatures consider their alignment to be the best because it combines honor with a dedicated self-interest.

Lawful evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents methodical, intentional, and frequently successful evil.

 

[Shasarak]

In this thread, I'm having more trouble telling the difference between LN and LE in many posts.

So how do you make sure at the table that Players are not confused about who is Neutral and who is Evil?

Or are they all just grist for the PC mill?

 

[Imaculata]

My view of alignments is probably best codified HERE.

I agree with some parts of that piece of text, but not all of it, and certainly not with all it says about lawful evil.

A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life.

Right off the bat I disagree. I don't think you can say anything about what a lawful evil character doesn't care about. Could a lawful evil character care about freedom, dignity or life? Sure he could. But his means of achieving what he wants pay less attention to the needs of others.

He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion.

I think if anyone would be able to show mercy, it would be a lawful evil character. It all depends on what he believes in. I think if the lawful evil character is acting purely on the lawful side of things, this may lead him to commit merciless acts. But I wouldn't dare say that a lawful evil character is entirely unable to show mercy. This point is even contradicted within this very text, so more on this later.

He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve.

This I completely disagree with. Hierarchy/rules/laws/order, yes. But wanting to rule? Not all lawful evil characters want to rule.

He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.

He could condemn others based on just about anything, just as any neutral or good character could. It all depends on what he believes in. He could be true to his word and keep his promise, or he might not. Lawful, does not mean honest, nor does it mean dishonest. It just means he follows a code, a series of rules, laws or tenets.

This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds.

I highly doubt the latter holds true as well. Certainly not for all lawful evil characters.

Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.

You might even say that they could be merciful. See? This is what I meant earlier.

Lawful evil creatures consider their alignment to be the best because it combines honor with a dedicated self-interest.

Characters don't consider their alignment at all, if they are actual characters. Have you ever woken up one morning and thought to yourself: "Boy, it sure feels pretty swell being lawful good. I wish more people had my alignment, because it is the bestest alignment of them all!"

Lawful evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents methodical, intentional, and frequently successful evil.

No. If I would consider any evil alignment the most dangerous one, it would be chaotic evil. You can always count on a lawful evil character, because he is consistent in his actions, and follows certain rules and beliefs. But a chaotic evil character is like The Joker. They are wildly unpredictable, and will even betray their own allies.

Lawful evil characters are not alone in committing intentional evil either. All evil characters commit intentional evil, because they are evil. That is why their alignment is evil. But none of this says anything about whether they are frequently successful at it. They could be complete failures. There's plenty of characters from cartoons and movies who would probably be considered lawful evil, yet fail all the time. Think of Skeletor, or Venger.

 

[Hussar]

I'm not really convinced that "an eye for an eye" is a lawful precept. Seems pretty personal and individualistic to me. Societies that swing this way invariably end up evil as you wind up having laws without mercy. So you wind up with things like slavery or state sanctioned murder in order to protect laws that are inherently immoral.

You can't have an amoral legal system.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I agree with some parts of that piece of text, but not all of it, and certainly not with all it says about lawful evil.

We all got our interpretations!

I don't think you can say anything about what a lawful evil character doesn't care about. Could a lawful evil character care about freedom, dignity or life? Sure he could. But his means of achieving what he wants pay less attention to the needs of others.

I believe that the idea is that freedom is a Chaotic value, not a Lawful one. Dignity and Life are Good values, not Evil ones. If you value freedom, you're not Lawful (that allows for personal choice and individual influence); if you value dignity and life, you're not Evil.

I think if anyone would be able to show mercy, it would be a lawful evil character. It all depends on what he believes in. I think if the lawful evil character is acting purely on the lawful side of things, this may lead him to commit merciless acts. But I wouldn't dare say that a lawful evil character is entirely unable to show mercy. This point is even contradicted within this very text, so more on this later.
...
You might even say that they could be merciful. See? This is what I meant earlier.

Mercy is a Good concept, and having a taboo doesn't mean you're merciful. Mercy is when you relent from punishment - Lawful Evil characters revel in punishment of the violations of their taboos. Sort of, they can have a taboo that says "I won't hit you if you don't come near me," but if you come near them and are weak enough to be broken with their hit, they won't show you mercy, they'll hit you and break you and claim its your fault ("I was just standing here, and YOU came near ME!").

This I completely disagree with. Hierarchy/rules/laws/order, yes. But wanting to rule? Not all lawful evil characters want to rule.

Wouldn't being the ruler be better than being the server? They're willing to serve, but I bet most of 'em think it'd be better if they were the ones calling the shots.

He could condemn others based on just about anything, just as any neutral or good character could. It all depends on what he believes in. He could be true to his word and keep his promise, or he might not. Lawful, does not mean honest, nor does it mean dishonest. It just means he follows a code, a series of rules, laws or tenets.

I think Lawful implies a value in promises, since the law is just an outgrowth of promises. Oaths. Judging a character by their qualities and not their actions is another trait of Lawfulness - Dwarves are X, and individual dwarves don't change that, in general.

I highly doubt the latter holds true as well. Certainly not for all lawful evil characters.

I actually think that's one of the meaningful narrative traits of an LE villain - they make a world where by opposing them, YOU are the one in the "wrong."

Characters don't consider their alignment at all, if they are actual characters. Have you ever woken up one morning and thought to yourself: "Boy, it sure feels pretty swell being lawful good. I wish more people had my alignment, because it is the bestest alignment of them all!"

Historically, D&D is a world where you'd know your alignment (there are detection spells, there are languages), so yeah, you'd know where you stand, cosmologically, and there's a reason you'd stand there as opposed to anywhere else.

No. If I would consider any evil alignment the most dangerous one, it would be chaotic evil. You can always count on a lawful evil character, because he is consistent in his actions, and follows certain rules and beliefs. But a chaotic evil character is like The Joker. They are wildly unpredictable, and will even betray their own allies.

But they don't form systems, they don't create lasting cancers. The Joker's just one loon - off him, and the world continues on normally. But the wicked empire can bring novel forms of suffering to entire nations of people, and if they're not opposed, they will.

Also, keep in mind that EVERY alignment on that page gets a best/worst sentence - simply a statement from the perspective of that alignment, or the enemies of that alignment, about why this one is good or bad. For instance:

Chaotic evil beings believe their alignment is the best because it combines self-interest and pure freedom.

Chaotic evil is the most dangerous alignment because it represents the destruction not only of beauty and life but also of the order on which beauty and life depend.

So it's less that Lawful Evil is OBJECTIVELY the most dangerous alignment, and more that one could consider it the most dangerous alignment, for those reasons.

 

[Imaculata]

I believe that the idea is that freedom is a Chaotic value, not a Lawful one.

I don't think it's that black and white. Can you not value freedom, while still adhering to some code or set of rules? For example, a hired swordsman. He believes in his duty, and in always completing his job. He could be ruthless in his methods (evil), yet be true to his word, and always finish what he was hired to do (lawful). And yet, he could also value freedom, and value not being in the permanent service of anyone. He picks his own jobs, and goes where he likes.

Dignity and Life are Good values, not Evil ones.

Couldn't any value become corrupted?

Mercy is a Good concept, and having a taboo doesn't mean you're merciful. Mercy is when you relent from punishment - Lawful Evil characters revel in punishment of the violations of their taboos. Sort of, they can have a taboo that says "I won't hit you if you don't come near me," but if you come near them and are weak enough to be broken with their hit, they won't show you mercy, they'll hit you and break you and claim its your fault ("I was just standing here, and YOU came near ME!").

What of a lawful evil knight who shows mercy to unarmed peasants, yet is merciless to his armed opponents, and still burns the village down as he was ordered to do? Lawful evil behavior if you ask me, yet not so black and white. Mercy can be shown out of goodness (not wanting to do harm) or out of principle (only killing worthy armed opponents). An evil character could also spare the lives of peasants, so they can tell others what they saw that day. An evil kind of mercy, but mercy none the less.

Wouldn't being the ruler be better than being the server? They're willing to serve, but I bet most of 'em think it'd be better if they were the ones calling the shots.

I completely disagree. I don't believe you can make any assumption about that at all. Plenty of lawful evil characters may think twice about being a ruler, since it also burdens them with a lot of responsibility, and makes them a target. A lawful evil character could follow an evil leader (for example, a stormtrooper in service of the evil empire), without wishing to take the place of their superior (who often get choked by Darth Vader if they fail their job.) There are also plenty lawful evil characters who do not serve anyone, yet do not rule anyone either.

But they don't form systems, they don't create lasting cancers. The Joker's just one loon - off him, and the world continues on normally. But the wicked empire can bring novel forms of suffering to entire nations of people, and if they're not opposed, they will.

You are conflating one lone villain, with an army of villains. Give the Joker an army, and you have a force that can cause just as much suffering as your example wicked empire. If you are talking about whether one form of evil is more dangerous than another, you must look at them as individuals.

Yes, a lawful evil character might inspire loyalty, and command many evil minions towards a single purpose. But so could a chaotic evil character. But a lawful evil character is consistent in their motives. A chaotic evil character is unpredictable.

So it's less that Lawful Evil is OBJECTIVELY the most dangerous alignment, and more that one could consider it the most dangerous alignment, for those reasons.

I understand, but I think the argument for it is not very strong.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Wouldn't being the ruler be better than being the server? They're willing to serve, but I bet most of 'em think it'd be better if they were the ones calling the shots.

Just picking this out because I've seen similar across a few pages of this discussion, so not targeted directly at you.

What part of alignment specifies ambition? I can think of many cases where someone doesn't wish to rule, but is part of a fundamentally rigid social structure that is evil. Consider the head slave from Django. Certainly vile and evil, and certainly dedicated to the maintaining of the social order that gives him power, but perfectly content to be both a slave and remain in his position. His power derived from his position -- a lawful trait -- and he was dedicated to maintaining the order that both oppressed him and gave him his power.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm not really convinced that "an eye for an eye" is a lawful precept.

I didn't assert that it was. I asserted that it was a neutral precept.

Seems pretty personal and individualistic to me.

In what way?

Societies that swing this way invariably end up evil as you wind up having laws without mercy.

Wait? What???

You do realize that "Eye for an eye; tooth for a tooth" is the first historical expression of judicial mercy? The whole point of Hammurabi's decree is to limit the maximum punishment that the law may allow, and reduce recourse in the society to vengeance.

So you wind up with things like slavery or state sanctioned murder in order to protect laws that are inherently immoral.

What are you even talking about? Do you think that slavery was created post Hammurabi? Do you have any ideal what sort of systems were practiced pre-Hammurabi? What laws of inherent immorality are we talking about?

You can't have an amoral legal system.

So LN is also an oxymoron?