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

[The Human Target]

People seem to get too hooked on the root word "Law" in "Lawful". It's alway been very clear to me that it's more about being orderly and following a code and not about "following the laws of the land".

This misconception shines most brightly when people think that having evil laws will make a LG paladin fall... no, they won't. He's following his own code of ethics and honor. He's consistent in his actions, that's why he's "Lawful".

On the flip side, according to this train of thought, someone committing "random acts of kindness" is evil.

It just boggles my mind that people can have such a narrow understanding of a word.

The problem being that Lawful means "sanctioned by the law."

And a Chaotic Good hero is also probably following his own code of ethics and honor.

Which is why it's all just nonsense.

 

[CaptainGemini]

I always thought of it as Lawful being following the laws, even if you disagree with them, while Chaotic are willing to break the laws. The Good or Evil part is what reflected how you felt about morality.

So, a Chaotic Good character would be willing to break a law for the greater good... while a Lawful Good character would have a problem with it. Which is why I never understood why paladins had to be Lawful Good in prior editions; it effectively hamstrung a lot of their ability to fight evil.

 

[Eric V]

There are a few good chapters on alignment in the "D&D and Philosophy" books that have been released. One of the essays points out some serious problems with the Neutral, Lawful Evil and Chaotic Good alignments. Anybody read it?

It's at my office now (I use it in one of my course packs) so I can't recall exactly, but I do remember that Chaotic Good doesn't make a ton of sense since "Chaos" as a thing that happens, tends to not favour good, but evil. It's hard to imagine endorsing chaos and thinking benevolence will result; maybe as a temporary measure against a Lawful Evil empire, but not as a philosophy of the world you'd like to see happen.

As well, are there examples of authentic LE organizations, who -don't- break the "lawful" part when it benefits them? Most examples I can think of end up being Neutral Evil when you look closely.

 

[Charles Wright]

The problem being that Lawful means "sanctioned by the law."

And a Chaotic Good hero is also probably following his own code of ethics and honor.

Which is why it's all just nonsense.

Except that the opposite alignment used is "Chaotic", not "Unlawful" and it's lifted straight out of "Order and Chaos" concepts from the Elric series. The second axis of "Good and Evil" were added later and "order" was changed to "chaotic".

Also, despite the exact definition of the word "lawful", that's NOT how the alignments are described.

 

[CaptainGemini]

TAs well, are there examples of authentic LE organizations, who -don't- break the "lawful" part when it benefits them? Most examples I can think of end up being Neutral Evil when you look closely.

The most famous examples existed in Nazi Germany. And in the Soviet Union.

And, for awhile, the FBI was an American example. It has since cleaned up its act.

 

[Eric V]

The most famous examples existed in Nazi Germany. And in the Soviet Union.

And, for awhile, the FBI was an American example. It has since cleaned up its act.

But the Nazis were completely corrupt, accepting bribes to look the other way on lots of issues, looking out for themselves before the concept of the 3rd Reich...maybe the philosophy was Lawful, but the Nazis themselves were largely Neutral Evil (in D&D terms).

 

[CaptainGemini]

But the Nazis were completely corrupt, accepting bribes to look the other way on lots of issues, looking out for themselves before the concept of the 3rd Reich...maybe the philosophy was Lawful, but the Nazis themselves were largely Neutral Evil (in D&D terms).

Depends on who you're talking about. There were also a lot that completely believed in the Third Reich, and actively hunted that corruption.

One thing that gets glossed over a lot is that the Nazis were not a single organization or group; they were a political party made up of a lot of organizations and groups. Some were better about the ideology than others.

 

[Eric V]

Basically, 'evil' usually involves putting oneself before others (people, ideas, organizations, etc). 'Lawful' at least implies that you won't always do that; some other force is present and demands to be met (aforementioned people, ideas, organizations, etc.).

But being evil should trump; IRL, evil people follow a code until it's not convenient (like the Nazis; a great many creature comforts would have to be sacrificed if one was to fully follow through on the philosophy of the Third Reich), so while I'll buy that people try to pass themselves off as Lawful Evil (like, say Dr. Doom), in practice they are Neutral Evil.

 

[Shasarak]

But the Nazis were completely corrupt, accepting bribes to look the other way on lots of issues, looking out for themselves before the concept of the 3rd Reich...maybe the philosophy was Lawful, but the Nazis themselves were largely Neutral Evil (in D&D terms).

I would wager, with a big enough bribe, you could get Asmodeus himself to look the other way on lots of issues too.

 

[Eric V]

I would wager, with a big enough bribe, you could get Asmodeus himself to look the other way on lots of issues too.

Yeah, I think that's true.

I think LE doesn't withstand rigorous analysis.