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?
Not at all, Good and Evil are objective values in DnD. They're not relative to what each person thinks, but are universal, metaphysical/natural forces that have a noticeable effect on the world (through magic, mostly, but still). Thus it's possible for someone to think they are doing "good" while still having his actions pin as Evil on the greater scale.
Sarevok being an excellent planner and using the laws of society to ascend to a high rank within Baldur's Gate doesn't make him Lawful because his goals were anything but Lawful. He was basically building a power structure with the plan of busting its foundations and the profiting from the chaos as it tumbled to the ground. While a Lawful Evil character sees an ordered foundation as necessary for their own fulfillment, a Chaotic Evil character views the world as a wild scramble to get what is theirs and thinks power structures are fleeting and inhibit their own prosperity. Smart evil characters of any of the 3 alignments will work within the context of an ordered society or laws to achieve their goals. What is more important are those goals. Sarevok wanted to crash everything into the ground. A Lawful Evil character would definitely be more interested in maintaining a power structure and facilitating their own domination of the system. And Neutral Evil characters are just concerned with their own interests with little regard to how those interests are met.
Thinking about this in the context of some other people's posts, I wonder if a useful metric for non-philosophical law vs. chaos ("Weak Lawful" vs. "Weak Chaotic" in @Mitchfork's parlance) would be "tolerance for outside restrictions." A Weak Chaotic has little tolerance for restrictions on their behavior from other sources (though they may still set personal restrictions based on their personality/proclivities), while a Weak Lawful has a high tolerance for outside restrictions (and may even find them desirable as a check against mistakes of judgment).
So in this model, Sarevok is Chaotic Evil because he ultimately aspires to a position where he can do as he pleases without interference, despite having the personal discipline to play by the Iron Throne's rules (or at least give the appearance of such) long enough to propel him there. If he were Neutral or Lawful, he might be more inclined to preserve the Iron Throne or the City of Baldur's Gate as a base of power under his control (putting up with the restrictions having such leadership requires) instead of consuming them in the process of fulfilling his goals. Lawful Evil characters like Edwin and Renal, on the other hand, are far more willing to put up with a set of restrictions and rules in exchange for the power and security organizations provide (though Edwin clearly lacks the cunning to maintain his position in the Red Wizards through deception while working up the ladder).
That's pretty close to what I was thinking @Kaigen. A "Weak Chaotic" character as I was describing it would be chaotic due to their preferences, while a "Strong Chaotic" character would be chaotic due to their beliefs (which might seem a bit like playing semantics, but just take "preferences" and "beliefs" at their face value). So a character like Korgan would be a Weak Chaotic character just because he has little tolerance for dealing with rules and an ordered structure- he doesn't necessarily have strong convictions about the nature of order and chaos themselves. He's even a mercenary (so he operates under rules when it suits him), albeit one that doesn't play well with the group. Neera would also be a Weak Chaotic character, although not Evil.
@belgarathmth I wouldnt use Napoleon in the same sentence as Stalin or Hitler, he might have had delusions of grandeur, but it easier to make the case that the self-serving aristocratic kings he was fighting are better examples of lawful evil. At least he had *some* concern for his subjects, oh well it is difficult to make a comparison between historical leaders and the alignment system at any rate. People's actions often seems relative and their intent debatable. Otherwise, very interesting thread. The way I always think of the alignment system is that they represent large varied groups, similar to the "weak" and "strong" introduced by @Mitchfork.
Yeah, Napoleon never slaughtered civilians - oops I briefly slipped into an alternate reality where Mr. Bonaparte wasn't a tyrannical, bloodthirsty asshole.
He wasn't any better either - he made his bones by rolling artillery down the streets of Paris and painting the cobblestones with civilian protesters. Not his finest hour, but as a commander, it was his first.
I mean, not to condone what Napoleon did, but Paris was kinda screwy at that time. Lets not forget that prior to Napoleon, that era of French History was known as the "Reign of Terror".
Actually, i would agree that Napoleon was lawful evil. Because he was mainly self serving, even though he did a lot of good, like exporting democratic principles to the rest of Europe with his armies, to the detriment of the ancient regime. He was Just not very evil, maybe on the border with neutral and with hints of chaotic good. He was surely not as evil as Hitler. It would take a lot to beat that. There are degrees in everything that do not exist in the allignment system.
It's hitler's lawfulness i doubt. He ascended through legal means, yes, and maintained a power structure. Note that Napoleon did not ascend through legal means, but once he did, he put a lot of effort into organising social structures and law, and most of the continental legal systems are partly derived from the laws issued in France during Napoleons reign.
Hitler one the other hand had once been jailed for an attempted coup, which is a small thing compared to the successful french revolution. But he ultimately abused the system that brought him to power. He burned the Reichstag (the parliament, and blamed the communists), tried to replace the existing power structure with his own, created chaos in his own streets (think of Krystallnacht) and issued outright illegal orders (yes, many were illegal even by German law at the time).
Orders which, once he realised they would meet at least some resistance (they actually had to fire a judge that would not accept Hitlers written order for the "Action T4" euthanasia program as binding, but not before they were foreced to tone it down) were made informal and carried out through the military chain of command that run parallel to the weakened civil one (the SS were actually a party formation and the actual german army blamed politicians for the outcome of world war I). In other worlds, he did have an ideal state in mind, but he didn't use lawful means to get there.
Sorry i am being a bit political. But I just can't stand the idea of Napoleon and Hitler seen as alike. Stalin, on the other hand, i consider the paradigm of lawful evil (so bad even most communists felt the need to distance themselves from him after he died, but still dedicated to the idea of an ordered society).
Mao was probably the biggest butcher. If you take the most conservative estimates of casualties during the "Great Leap Forward" it amounts to 16 thousand people a day. The highest estimation is double that o.0
I think that trying to assign alignments to real life figures is rather counterproductive, not just because real people are much more complex than a two adjective phrase are described, but also because alignment relies to a certain degree (how much is subject to interpretation) on intentions. Attempting to figure out what a historical/political figure was trying to accomplish when they undertook a certain action is fraught with unsupported assumptions and conflicting ideology. At least with fictional characters we at least have some reliable access to their interior lives with which to make educated guesses about their motives (and we can rely on them being somewhat less complicated than an actual human being).
That being said, if we take the abstract idea of a tyrant, or an evil leader, we might be able to draw a useful distinction between lawful evil and neutral evil by their willingness to play by the rules of their own organization, whether they can get away with doing otherwise or not. A powerful individual who does not consider themselves above the rules of their organization/political unit likely leans towards Lawful; think along the lines of the ruling bureaucracies in 1984, V for Vendetta (the comic), or Battle Royale, who get minor privileges and kickbacks but must ultimately subject themselves to the system as much as anyone else. Whereas a dictator who puts on a front of following proper procedure and being equal under the law but secretly subverts the legislative/judicial process may be considered more Neutral or even Chaotic.
I've never subscribed to the notion of ordering whackjob dictators according to the quantity of people they killed, (how many people is it okay to kill?), but if that's what we're talking about, then I'm pretty sure Mao "wins".
Okay, its decided. My Black Pits 2 party will be Genocidal Tyrants of the 20th Century Hitler Stalin Mao Napolean (has to be a halfling) Moussolini Tito
I was thinking of a bard named Adolf. For the theatrical speeches. I'd like to make him a dwarf. Stalin gotta be some kind of wizard (the 'stache) Mao is probably the most Inquisitor-like Tito is a Blackguard or an Assassin since he tried to have Stalin poisoned. Napolean is a halfling cleric. Moussolini is tough
Mao has the highest absolute number of kills but I think Pol Pot was the 20th century's most successful slayer of his own people. He may only have killed a couple of million people (estimated head count ranges from one to three million), but then Cambodia only had about eight million inhabitants to begin with.
@booinyoureyes: I think Mussolini should be a Jester. ;-)
I agree that Napoleon is not a saint, but this is a classic case of the victors write the history books. There is not even any proof that Napoleon was particulary short.
The butt-hurt neighbouring kings in europe went to war against France because they were afraid that the populace would actually rise up against them when they realized that it was actually possible to overthrow the ubelievable oppression they were subjected to by the aristocratic houses of Euorpe. I would rather call the George III or the Tsar of Russia lawful evil - Napoleon is closer to Neutral IMHO. Definately not in line with Hitler or Stalin.
As for LE conversation there is not much debate as they really are simple. Yes you mentioned how Edwin and Kagain act differently but you forgot one major issue here, both act within rules of the society and both do all they can to "bend" aka follow the rules as much as it goes in their favour. So in short LE are all those who follow the rules set by society but strictly only as they go for their own personal gain. Just like bankers. You put your house on morgage and you (and they) know you'll be able to pay in a month but bank takes your house because you couldn't pay it this month, why? Because it is worth more then to let you pay for it next month. It is a simple way of following the law for their personal benefit. It is a stupid example maybe, but it is exactly what LE character are. Did they follow the law? Yes. Was it an evil act? Yes. No debate needed as confines of the allignement are simple. You can be a pragmatist or a genius, but all have one same desire, lust for power in confines of the rules.
Lawfull Evil Is most deviust yes they live for law and law is important factor in there life but they will use all law agenst others when they have chance they will allso try get new laws that benfit them. They allso uses guild as i alowd by law to use so if they want some thing they use guilds to acive what they want they will do any thing as long is suported by laws. Lawful evil is offten found corts and or in seat of power or are nobel men.
Okay, its decided. My Black Pits 2 party will be Genocidal Tyrants of the 20th Century Hitler Stalin Mao Napolean (has to be a halfling) Moussolini Tito
Yeah Napolean doesn't fit in that time period... but Franco was simply not homicidal enough. Perhaps I'll expand the time period to... whenever Attila could be my barbarian. Might make Genghis Khan a shortbow using fighter/thief Alexander the Great will by my Cavalier. He's the only good character because he's Greek and therefore any genocide he may or may not have committed (did you actually see him do it?) was completely justified. Caesar will be my Diviner since he thought he was an omnipotent god Cleopatra will be my Cleric since she claimed to be the reincarnation of Isis Hannibal will be a Beast Master because.... elephants
Comments
So in this model, Sarevok is Chaotic Evil because he ultimately aspires to a position where he can do as he pleases without interference, despite having the personal discipline to play by the Iron Throne's rules (or at least give the appearance of such) long enough to propel him there. If he were Neutral or Lawful, he might be more inclined to preserve the Iron Throne or the City of Baldur's Gate as a base of power under his control (putting up with the restrictions having such leadership requires) instead of consuming them in the process of fulfilling his goals. Lawful Evil characters like Edwin and Renal, on the other hand, are far more willing to put up with a set of restrictions and rules in exchange for the power and security organizations provide (though Edwin clearly lacks the cunning to maintain his position in the Red Wizards through deception while working up the ladder).
Otherwise, very interesting thread.
The way I always think of the alignment system is that they represent large varied groups, similar to the "weak" and "strong" introduced by @Mitchfork.
It's hitler's lawfulness i doubt. He ascended through legal means, yes, and maintained a power structure. Note that Napoleon did not ascend through legal means, but once he did, he put a lot of effort into organising social structures and law, and most of the continental legal systems are partly derived from the laws issued in France during Napoleons reign.
Hitler one the other hand had once been jailed for an attempted coup, which is a small thing compared to the successful french revolution. But he ultimately abused the system that brought him to power. He burned the Reichstag (the parliament, and blamed the communists), tried to replace the existing power structure with his own, created chaos in his own streets (think of Krystallnacht) and issued outright illegal orders (yes, many were illegal even by German law at the time).
Orders which, once he realised they would meet at least some resistance (they actually had to fire a judge that would not accept Hitlers written order for the "Action T4" euthanasia program as binding, but not before they were foreced to tone it down) were made informal and carried out through the military chain of command that run parallel to the weakened civil one (the SS were actually a party formation and the actual german army blamed politicians for the outcome of world war I). In other worlds, he did have an ideal state in mind, but he didn't use lawful means to get there.
Sorry i am being a bit political. But I just can't stand the idea of Napoleon and Hitler seen as alike. Stalin, on the other hand, i consider the paradigm of lawful evil (so bad even most communists felt the need to distance themselves from him after he died, but still dedicated to the idea of an ordered society).
That being said, if we take the abstract idea of a tyrant, or an evil leader, we might be able to draw a useful distinction between lawful evil and neutral evil by their willingness to play by the rules of their own organization, whether they can get away with doing otherwise or not. A powerful individual who does not consider themselves above the rules of their organization/political unit likely leans towards Lawful; think along the lines of the ruling bureaucracies in 1984, V for Vendetta (the comic), or Battle Royale, who get minor privileges and kickbacks but must ultimately subject themselves to the system as much as anyone else. Whereas a dictator who puts on a front of following proper procedure and being equal under the law but secretly subverts the legislative/judicial process may be considered more Neutral or even Chaotic.
Hitler
Stalin
Mao
Napolean (has to be a halfling)
Moussolini
Tito
What classes should I choose?
Edit: okay, 5 + a barbarian.
Stalin gotta be some kind of wizard (the 'stache)
Mao is probably the most Inquisitor-like
Tito is a Blackguard or an Assassin since he tried to have Stalin poisoned.
Napolean is a halfling cleric.
Moussolini is tough
@booinyoureyes: I think Mussolini should be a Jester. ;-)
The butt-hurt neighbouring kings in europe went to war against France because they were afraid that the populace would actually rise up against them when they realized that it was actually possible to overthrow the ubelievable oppression they were subjected to by the aristocratic houses of Euorpe. I would rather call the George III or the Tsar of Russia lawful evil - Napoleon is closer to Neutral IMHO. Definately not in line with Hitler or Stalin.
They allso uses guild as i alowd by law to use so if they want some thing they use guilds to acive what they
want they will do any thing as long is suported by laws.
Lawful evil is offten found corts and or in seat of power or are nobel men.
Attila could be my barbarian.
Might make Genghis Khan a shortbow using fighter/thief
Alexander the Great will by my Cavalier. He's the only good character because he's Greek and therefore any genocide he may or may not have committed (did you actually see him do it?) was completely justified.
Caesar will be my Diviner since he thought he was an omnipotent god
Cleopatra will be my Cleric since she claimed to be the reincarnation of Isis
Hannibal will be a Beast Master because.... elephants