People always argue over Lawful Good... but how about Lawful Evil???
booinyoureyes
Member Posts: 6,164
I've seen a bunch of debates about what is "Lawful Good". Some people throw all LG characters into a bin together by saying they are alike or depend upon a certain specific set of laws. Yet how about Lawful Evil.
There is a big difference I see between the Edwin and Kagain side of being Lawful Evil and that which is represented by a god like Greyhawk's Hextor (God of Tyranny) and of characters like Tywin Lannister from Game of Thrones/A Song of Ice and Fire. Certainly characters like Aribeth from NWN and Artemis Entreri are very, very different.
It seems like both fervent tyrants and greedy scoundrels are given lawful evil as an alignment. yet the various demon-cults and the Zhentarim can be very different. So which is it: pragmatic evil or belief in order at all costs? A mixture? Or either/or?
There is a big difference I see between the Edwin and Kagain side of being Lawful Evil and that which is represented by a god like Greyhawk's Hextor (God of Tyranny) and of characters like Tywin Lannister from Game of Thrones/A Song of Ice and Fire. Certainly characters like Aribeth from NWN and Artemis Entreri are very, very different.
It seems like both fervent tyrants and greedy scoundrels are given lawful evil as an alignment. yet the various demon-cults and the Zhentarim can be very different. So which is it: pragmatic evil or belief in order at all costs? A mixture? Or either/or?
0
Comments
Edit: Prepositions!
The Tyrant-type LE would fit with someone seeking to become the new Bhaal, but without the whole Sarevok CE "mwahahaha the Sword Coast will run red with blood, yes" part
More a evil mastermind type of character than the Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil who will go out do whatever they want not caring about consequences...
Strong Lawful, Strong Evil: This character might believe in their inherent superiority to others and believe in a powerful, well-ordered structure to maintain this superiority. This character does not simply use an organization (like a government or corporation) to accrue wealth and power- they believe in the organization, and believe that they can steer it better than anyone else. This character may even make personal sacrifices (a traditionally non-evil action) if it serves the organization, but not always. Characters like this are likely to be tyrants, fascists, and merchant lords. I think a good example of this alignment is Ozymandias from Watchmen- someone who is clearly selfish and egocentric, but has a strong belief in the role of order and rule in his "ideal" society. Because of their convictions I think this archetype is unlikely to view themselves as evil- they regard their actions as necessary to a greater good.
Weak Lawful, Strong Evil: This character might believe in their own superiority, and aligns themselves with an ordered structure, but has no particular allegiance to it. They are not Neutral Evil- they see the structure of a criminal organization or corrupt government as beneficial to their own purposes- but they do not have any dedication to individual institutions. They may be a member of a powerful, morally questionable mercenary group and ditch it when they believe they have nothing more to gain from it. They move on to the next group that will serve their interests. This character would never make a personal sacrifice as they view themselves as the only one that matters. A good example of this is Edwin, who is ego-driven and selfish, but has no real sense of loyalty- he simply aligns himself with whatever power structure serves his purposes (Red Wizards, Shadow Thieves, or Charname's party).
Strong Lawful, Weak Evil: This character believes in a strong, ordered structure but does not have strong convictions about their role in such a structure. They differentiate themselves from Strong Lawful Neutral characters by their biases and predispositions- a Strong Lawful Neutral character believes that a strong structure will be impartial, while this character follows no such principle. They may believe in a racist or sexist (or otherwise evil) ideal, and they believe strongly that a society or organization should uphold these things. However, they are not motivated primarily by selfishness. A Strong Lawful, Weak Evil character is likely to be extremely loyal to the lord or king that agrees with their convictions, even to the point of self-sacrifice. A good example of this alignment would be Mikami Teru from Death Note- someone who has a fanatical devotion to an evil cause and would gladly be sacrificed or discarded should he ever cease to become useful.
Weak Lawful, Weak Evil: This character does not have real convictions about their own place in a structure or believe in a particular structure at all. However, their actions are motivated by self-interest and they may feel comfortable in an ordered environment. Kagain might be an example of this alignment- he does not have any particular loyalties, nor does he exhibit strong egocentricity, but he is definitely greedy and uses structures (such as his caravan company or Charname's party) to acquire more wealth.
This way you can categorize huge variations in character within the same alignment block.
A lawful evil character should approve of law and order for the shake of selfish motivations. Eg. the state is good "because a police force protects me and my property, because i am free but my slaves aren't and they also can't run away, because if I get cheated on a deal I can resort to the courts, and also I may twist the law to my own advantage. I will not break the law or break my word because I don't want to ruin a good thing". They should be advocates of the theory that state authority is needed to protect society and should supercede any claim for freedom (that does not involve themselves). They should seek to legally change the state of affairs to suit them.
Also, a destitute lawful evil character may become a rogue for the shake of survival and break the law, but should adhere to at least some sense of personal honour, yet would probably not stop any outright unlawful activity the minute things get better, unless they found their position tolerable (they would justify this as their "deserved" position in the world, whereas a chaotic evil character would justify this as "my limits" - both could go with "I am afraid to try for more").
Sarevok is Chaotic Evil, meaning he is Evil, he wants power for himself, does not care about others etc. And Chaotic, which means he doesn't give a f*** about authority, he doesn't care about his loyalty.
But at the same time Sarevok is really smart, which means that he knows that if he acts like a Chaotic Evil, he won't be able to do anything. So he's acting like a Lawful Neutral guy only to serve his purpose.
That's how i see it. Smart people change their tactics to match their opponents, it is somewhat similar for Sarevok.
Any evil alignment can have high or low intellect. People constantly confuse "chaotic evil" with "stupid evil", and "lawful good" with "stupid good".
Neutral evil is hedonism with some lines of cruelty that it won't cross.
Chaotic evil is hedonism with no boundaries whatsoever. It commits acts of cruelty because cruelty is fun, and for no other reason. Power is the means to pleasuring the self through cruelty and whatever else. Power is everything. A chaotic evil individual will use any means to gain power, for the end of pleasure, with no boundaries. The more torture and cruelty, the better, because torture and cruelty are fun, and turn them on.
Power is the currency that determines who gets to torture and dominate, and who is to be a tortured slave.
On the other hand, lawful evil sees order as paramount, with no boundaries on how it is to be obtained, because order minimizes the suffering of all. The lawful evil tyrant is to be in charge of this "utopia". Lawful evil people see themselves as "good". Their own imposed order leads to the minimum of suffering in the world.
Lawful neutral is the same, but has boundaries of cruelty that it won't cross.
Lawful evil, on the other hand, doesn't hesitate to commit acts of mass cruelty and murder, if doing so leads to the imposition of its own utopian vision. ("The needs of the "superior select uebermenshcen" outweigh the needs of the "rest" - and those "rest" are going to have to die of fire, radiation sickness, freezing and starvation, in the horrible nuclear catastrophe I'm about to cause, with only my select people being protected in the magical/technological biodome I'm constructing - but all for the greater "good".)
Classical lawful evil examples:
Darth Vader ("Join me, and we will *end* this destructive conflict! We will rule the galaxy together as father and son!")
Doctor Doom (is willing to use technology to turn the entire population of the world into automatons under his control, in order to eliminate suffering.)
Lex Luthor (wants to rid Earth of all superbeings, and to unite the world government under the control of the Luthors, in order to eliminate suffering.)
In real history, Napoleon, Stalin, Mao, and, heck, I'll just go ahead and Godwinize my own post and say Hitler.
Sarevok is not lawful evil, because he just wants to be a god in order to have absolute power, which he intends to use to cause maximum suffering in the world. He wants to do so because it's fun to cause others to suffer, and absolute power guarantees that he will be able to follow his whims, indulge his depravity, and torture others at will, just because he enjoys it. Using his genius level intellect to increase the blows of betrayal and deceit increases the fun.
Bringing "utopia" to a select group has nothing to do with it, because Sarevok doesn't care about anybody but himself.
Sarevok is chaotic evil to the core.
Looked at another way - chaotic evil is red hot. Neutral evil is lukewarm. Lawful evil is ice cold.
Chaotic good is red hot. Neutral good is lukewarm. Lawful good is ice cold.
True neutral is room temperature.
I guess that last metaphor ties into the "strong-weak" third axis proposed by @Mitchfork.
Devils are metaphysically lawful evil because they are compulsorily bound by their word. Same for genies. Although, notoriously, loopholes abound, and thus, you'd better have an awfully high wisdom while "making a deal with the Devil", or casting Wish. They'd love nothing better than to trip you up in your own words.
Demons are metaphysically chaotic evil because they'll lie and torture with glee, just for fun.
In D&D lore, you go to the afterlife of your alignment, judged by Jergal, or then Ao after Jergal abdicates, and you are supposedly born to that alignment. Not much room for arguing free will vs. determinism in the "let's just divide everybody into hard factions so we can play war games on the hex grid" cosmic alignment system.
I agree with most of what you both said.
I don't like using real-world (and by that I mean high-fantasy-with-magic-and-dragons-realms) examples here, because it seems like everybody has a different interpretation of the axises, but let's just look at some minor characters for fun (playing devil's advocate to Belgarathmth... your name sounds like someone sticking out their tongue
Renal Bloodscalp: Lawful Evil
Kagain: Lawful Evil
Edwin: Lawful
I don't think either of these really desire some sort of Utopia or see themselves as good. I also doubt they think their own system would reduce suffering considerably if adapted by the population at large.
I think Lawful Evil can be either the tyrant you described (like a Mao or for a fantasy setting, a Hextor) or a purely self-serving person (like an Edwin).
Its funny because on the second scale, Lawful Evil seems more in line with some Chaotic Neutral characters (another controversial diverse alignment) than with a Lawful Neutral or Neutral Evil character.
Edwin - does he not see a hypothetical rule over the world by the Red Wizards of Thay as being a better world than one where the Red Wizards of Thay do not rule? Does he really wish suffering upon "the simians", preferably inflicted by himself for fun, or does he not simply feel that "the simians" would be better off if they submitted to his rule as they should, for their own good?
If he doesn't care about the Red Wizards of Thay and their goals, but only about himself, then he is neutral evil, not lawful evil, because he does not care about organizations and hierarchies.
Renal Bloodscalp - he cares about an organization to which he is very loyal, the Shadowthieves of Amn. While he may not care about the overall welfare of humanity in general, he definitely cares about the well-being of his chosen organization, vs. the sadistic Maevar, who fits my definition of chaotic evil, tormenting others for the sheer pleasure of it.
Renal and Aran believe that the ultimate good of thieves comes from organization and even "honor among thieves,", perhaps influenced by a starving, poor "street urchin" background. And, an orderly economy and government are to their benefit, allowing them to use extortion , blackmail, and control over the thieves of the city, to increase their organizational wealth gradually through black market manipulation, and bribery.
They believe that the 'legitimate" government is a "necessary evil" against which they can operate their "shadow government." They may even believe that the entire system benefits from having a black market in operation. They certainly consider themselves better than vampires, or the likes of Maevar.
Kagain - This crafty mercenary depends on contracts for his living. He couldn't care less about "good", or "suffering", but he does depend on people keeping their word. If he agrees to slay x bandits for y amount of gold, but his employer can say "thanks for killing the bandits, but no gold for you, fooled ya, mwahaha", then he'd have no business, and no income.
I suppose Kagain is your strongest counter-example. The main reason why he is lawful evil instead of neutral evil has to do with the importance of contracts to his ethos - similarly to the metaphysically bound lawful evil devils. Loopholes are great if you can find them, but the letter of the contract, or the law, is the center of the lawful evil ethos.
So, one of the big dividers between lawful evil and the other two evils, as well as chaotic neutral, is that lawful evil never lies. You can take lawful evil at its word, every time. Unfortunately, you can only take it at the *letter* of its word, not the spirit of it.
EDIT: Here's an interesting personal example about how the good-evil alignments that match each other on the law-chaos axis shadow each other.
My beloved, dearly departed grandmother, who was lawful good to the core, and deeply religious, often shadowed briefly into lawful evil in some of her thinking.
She loved me unconditionally (oh, how I miss that, and her!), and often, when I was a child and a teenager, she would want to give me money, when she and I both knew that my lawful neutral grandfather would have strongly disapproved.
So, she would tell him "Dear, I promise you that I will not give Bel any money that he doesn't deserve." (She thought I "deserved" any money I asked for, and lots of money I didn't ask for.)
Or "Dear, I love you, and I will not indulge Bel unreasonably any more." (Nothing I asked for was an "unreasonable" indulgence to her).
Or "I won't take Bel to the toy store tomorrow." (She didn't say anything about the day after tomorrow.)
Or "I won't give Bel any more of our money." (She saw everything she earned from her own job as *her* money, not "our" money.)
Etc., etc.
but for now, to briefly continue in the Devil's Advocate role: I think this might just challenge the idea of the alignment table as a whole? I mean if wouldn't the entire table be subjective and based on the values of the person considering it? Is one man's Lawful Evil another man's Lawful Good? Is one man's Greed another man's basic self-interest? Is one man's Creed another man's Nickleback?
A few days later, the Blackguard returns triumphant. He presents the Wizard with the cloak of the sister. The Wizard gleefully dons the cloak, its protective qualities ensure the success of his next experiment. But then, woe and dismay, his blood curdles and his throat runs dry. A chill and not fire is what kills him.
"Poison," he chokes out. His eyes turn bloodshot as his body is wracked with paralytic spasms. "You've betrayed me, bastard!"
"You told me to kill the wearer and bring you the cloak. You didn't say what order I had to do it in," was the mortal fiend's reply as he facetiously rubbed the Wizard's shoulders. "Besides," he whispered, "Your sister made a better offer. Didn't even charge for the cloak's ingenious new enchantment."
Whistling a jaunty tune, the Blackguard took the cloak from the unnaturally stiffened corpse, laid it on the floor, and began placing the valuables from around the Wizard's home onto it. When he was satisfied with the collection, he bundled it all up and headed out into the dead of night once again. And thus it was that both the Wizard and the Blackguard got a lot more than they bargained for.
Please do give me more to work with later, after you've rested.
For now, I could say that each creature always works towards what it believes to be its own "good", such that there's "good", and "Good", which are two different things.
Let me try this little tabular exercise:
Chaotic Evil: Good is what I damn well please. My own pleasure is good. Torture is good because it's fun. Eating and drinking are good. Sex is good, but only for me and what I get turned on by. Betrayal is good, because it's so fun to see the expression on the fools' faces when I reveal it. Insults or any manner of emotional or physical abuse are good, as long as I'm the one who gets to do it to you.
Neutral Evil: Good is whatever is good for me. Plenty of food to eat, drink to drink, sex when I want it, and lots of money for those things is all good. I don't care about you. Get your own food, drink, sex, and shelter. My family, friends and I are the only things that matter to me. I won't break any laws to get what I want, unless I can get away with it. I probably won't hurt you or kill you either, because, ewww, blood, squick. I don't really like cruelty, because you might do it to me.
Lawful Evil: Good is the rule of people who know best over all you stupid apes. You are all so stupid, you're just going to kill yourselves anyway, unless you submit to our rule as you should. If you do not submit to the rule of The Empire, then you will be crucified. Sorry, sometimes cruelty is necessary to obtain the greater good. Exterminating all the deviant miscreants, in all their disgusting impurity, is also a noble goal. Organized religion is helpful to these goals, but only the one we approve, and of course, we don't actually believe in it - the religion is just for the simians to give them something to ooooh and aaah over, and to distract them from their necessarily miserable lives (all for the Good, mind you).
Chaotic Neutral: Hey, this is fun. No, that. Oooo, look, a squirrel! Let's go over here! No, there! Wheee! Aye Karumba! Don't have a cow, man! Mwahahah! Life is good!
True Neutral:
practical version: My own security, family and friends are good. I can defend these goods the best by staying out of conflict whenever possible.
philosophical version: Good and evil, yin and yang, push and pull, all opposites must stay in balance. Nature knows best. Never interfere with nature. Accept everything, and go with the flow. Suffering is an illusion. Meditate, and you will see the Truth that Good is only found in Nature, otherwise known as the Balance. All else is illusion. Suffering is caused by failing to meditate upon this Truth.
Lawful Neutral: Order is good. Please just give me law and order! I care about myself, my friends, my family, and my religion. My organization is the best way to take care of those things. Ummm, no, my organization never commits acts of cruelty. Cruelty is bad. That's why we're never cruel. Except against those who would chaotically cause chaos. We have to get those under control. But nosiree, no cruelty here. We are right, and just, and everybody should think just like us, yessiree, that's good. Organized religion is great to enforce order. ANY organized religion, just as long as it convinces those chaotic heretics who would cause chaos that they're going to hell! And if it doesn't, why, we'll just send them there ourselves.
Chaotic Good: Good is the pleasure and security of all people, but mostly for people who don't already have it. Those who already have it don't deserve it. Take it from them by any means necessary, and redistribute it until everybody has equal pleasure and security. If the sum total of that is less than if the maximum pleasure and security were had by only a fraction, even a big fraction, then so be it. Let those who want to work and raise crops and fight do it. Let those who wish to laze in the sun and compose poetry do it. All must have equal distribution of all the resources, no matter what. Violence may occasionally be required to enforce equal distribution of Good.
Neutral Good: Good is the maximum benefit for the maximum number of people. Suffering is bad and should be minimized. Meeting the basic needs of all creatures is good, and should be maximized. There are limits to how we should achieve the Good, though. Cruelty is (almost) never justified. The ends don't always justify the means. Sometimes an orderly government serves the good, but sometimes, there must be rebellion. There are very hard decisions to be made about discipline and use of force, as opposed to nurture and mercy. Neutral good has an uneasy alliance with lawful good. The two alignments tend to separate themselves into political parties within a single society. There are certain basic, inalienable human rights, such as food, clothing, and shelter, as well as freedom within rational limits.
Lawful Good: Good is the maximum benefit for the maximum number of people. Suffering is bad and should be minimized. Meeting the basic needs of all creatures is good, and should be maximized. The best way to achieve the Good is through the governance of an enlightened hierarchy, freely elected by a free people. The government of this Good Organization will ensure that all have their needs met fairly, and according to what they deserve, be it through normal societal participation, or non-lethal violence and imprisonment. Occasional lethal violence may be required against murderers and non-Good rival governments and their soldiers. Every one is expected to work, contribute, and pay taxes to the Organization (some more than others, according to contribution levels). Organized religion is almost always for the Good, and opposition to the organized religion is almost always Bad.
Lawful Good=Kantian Chaotic Good=Epicurean
As a parallel to American Politics (broadly): LG=Conservative CG=Liberal
I like it for the most part, but question whether positive rights can be "inalienable"
As for my definition of "chaotic good", I was clearly writing it as an American heavily influenced by American ideas about "communism,", and as an American who has studied Marx, Freud, Jung, and Nietzsche, as well as being heavily influenced as a musician by Wagner and Mahler (all of which German-speakers inform my interpretations of "Evil", which can be beautifully profound in its lawful form, as any "goth kid" perceives but will roll eyes and refuse to tell you).
(Also among heavy Germanic influences of my ideas of good, evil, law, and chaos: Schopenhauer, Kant, Hegel, Schiller/Beethoven, many others, as well as eastern philosophical ideas in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism.)
As for the myriad possibilities of spinning these alignment definitions into mass distortions of each other, as though they were crystals in a kaleidoscope, then, hell, yeah. The philosophical, Buddhist, "philosophical True Neutral" Point is where all the Truth is to be found, man. All the other alignments are in orbit around that Point of Truth. The Many become One, E Pluribus Unum, and all that jazz.
True Neutral: Good and Evil are just like, your opinion, man.
I think Taoism is definitely Neutral Good according to that scale (seems to be a bit of all the good alignments)
I like to somewhat think Neutral Evil as a villain is basically the "Stupid Evil"... Except rather than doing the stuff because "lol evil." but they think about the overall situation and realize it's actually the most efficient and easiest to do option.
No burning down towns at random, but burning down a town to get one person in there because it'll be faster than looking for him in there and you'll avoid a possible fight with him...
Neutral Evil can actually work as a hero too, not really doing good things to be the hero, but you go through lairs of whatever might be causing troubles for a local town looking for loot or take down certain kinds of individuals because someone somewhere will pay for their heads...
LG for his strict adherence and executing the established rules of the land regardless of extenuating circumstances or LE for his strict strict adherence and executing the established rules of the land regardless of extenuating circumstances?
Or perhaps LN for the above reasons?