PDA

View Full Version : Misinterpretation of Alignment? LE #3.5#



Machiavellian
2010-05-24, 11:36 AM
From my understanding, being Lawful Evil means you can do whatever you want, so long as the Law allows it. So that means if you could change the laws so you can just on a whim kill people at random, you can?

Yuki Akuma
2010-05-24, 11:38 AM
Being Lawful does not mean "obey the law".

It means being orderly. Having a code you follow. So no a Lawful person isn't likely to just kill people at random even if the law allows it.

"Doing whatever you want" is Chaotic Evil's thing.

Machiavellian
2010-05-24, 11:39 AM
Being Lawful does not mean "obey the law".

It means being orderly. Having a code you follow. So no a Lawful person isn't likely to just kill people at random even if the law allows it.

"Doing whatever you want" is Chaotic Evil's thing.

so if my code says "In order to save humanity, you must destroy it," That logic isn't LE?

Greenish
2010-05-24, 11:41 AM
so if my code says "In order to save humanity, you must destroy it," That logic isn't LE?Why would LE want to save the humanity?

Machiavellian
2010-05-24, 11:43 AM
Why would LE want to save the humanity?

Think Hitler greenish. Think Hitler.

He wanted to make humanity perfect, so he changed the laws so hecould wipe out almost an entire civilization. That is textbook LE

Jair Barik
2010-05-24, 11:53 AM
Well as an example of chaos/law in action i have a CN (borderline evil). He follows the law because it is beneficial to him (he is hired by the main power) and thinks in a logical manner. However for him 'logical' has a hint of insanity to it leading to him to often believe that his violent, sometimes erratic actions follow the word of the law exactly. As an example one of his superiors hinted that an expolsion could make a good distraction. His response? He manifested an explosion almost instantaneously directly on top of the people they wanted distracted.

Drakefall
2010-05-24, 12:08 PM
Think Hitler greenish. Think Hitler.

He wanted to make humanity perfect, so he changed the laws so hecould wipe out almost an entire civilization. That is textbook LE

I call Godwin's law on you!:smalltongue:

When thinking lawful evil I tend to use the follwing media characters as my icons:
- Darth Vader
- Megatron
- Dexter
- Artemis Entreri

They pretty much stretch the breadth of the lawful evil pool to me. Rational and pragmatic without many morals in their way (but not completely without them), temperred by a sense of honour and/or a personal code. Then again I've always seen the embodiment of lawful evil as the "black knight" concept, so maybe that doesn't fit with you. Alignment is the subject of many a flame war after all.

Avilan the Grey
2010-05-24, 12:27 PM
Lawful Evil would be the character that not only (ab)uses the law and order, but actually believe in it. He probably abhors chaos, which he sees as Anarchy, and fights against it. This, of course does not mean he is a nice person.

A typical low-level Lawful evil person might be almost anyone; shopkeeper, guard captain, Assassin guild member (providing the guild is guided by some sort of strong rules), informant, anyone. High level Lawful Evil might be Chief of Police, Head Assassin, Lawmaker, Lawyer... Or if he is lucky he will be Dictator-for-life... Or Head Wizard in the local guild. Or something.

Telonius
2010-05-24, 12:27 PM
CE Hitler: Beer Hall Putsch.
LE Hitler: Gets self elected Chancellor.

There is a difference. LE tends to use the existing structure to forward its goals. CE tends to ignore the existing structure.

Greenish
2010-05-24, 12:33 PM
CE tends to ignore the existing structure.…Or lit it on fire.

Telonius
2010-05-24, 12:41 PM
…Or lit it on fire.

That's true of all PC alignments, I think.

Irreverent Fool
2010-05-24, 12:51 PM
Yet another alignment debate! Yay!

I have an issue with the misinterpretation of "follows a code". That phrase gets thrown out and some seem to regard it as "the character has an actual specific code of rules they follow". I find this clunky and unrealistic. "Principles" works better, I think.

I view Lawful Evil not as "one who respects order", but one that manipulates circumstances favorably for personal gain. A LE character's actions have motives. He isn't wantonly cruel and doesn't go around burning down orphanages and forclosing on nunneries unless he has a good reason. He might be a sadist and enjoy torturing people, but he's not going to grab random people and do it for no good reason. Not only does that tend to be bad for PR, but nothing is furthered by such action.

A LE ruler might actually be running a city well and keeping the people happy, but it probably isn't out of desire for welfare, but for the end result. The fact that methods used to keep the people in-line and productive also makes them happy is a side-effect that will be ignored if more efficient/practical methods become available.

Heck, the LE character might even be a nice guy if you know him personally. He might even frequent the local tavern and laugh and drink with the best of them. But he's almost always going to have a selfish streak. The world probably owes him something in his mind, and reciprocity has no place in that sort of mentality.

hamishspence
2010-05-24, 12:52 PM
This site:

http://easydamus.com/alignment.html

seems to draw heavily on earlier editions, as well as 3rd ed, in its interpretations.

I like Savage Species's emphasis on how evil beings tend to compartmentalize- treating those they see as enemies or opponents in the traditional Evil fashion, but exhibiting the typical Good virtues when dealing with friends, allies, family, and so on.

So it's quite possible for an evil being to be altruistic and self-sacrificing (toward certain sections of the population)- but still Evil.

That said, having a strong selfish streak- doing nothing that helps others without believing that they will gain as well, does probably prevent a Good alignment. Neutral characters can be that self-centred, but not Good ones.

In a sense, Evil is more flexible, because an evil character can be selfish or altruistic or a bit of both- whereas a Good character must be basically altruistic- they might show occasional selfish moments- but these would be the exception, not the rule.

JGoldenberg
2010-05-24, 01:30 PM
This site:

http://easydamus.com/alignment.html

seems to draw heavily on earlier editions, as well as 3rd ed, in its interpretations.

I like Savage Species's emphasis on how evil beings tend to compartmentalize- treating those they see as enemies or opponents in the traditional Evil fashion, but exhibiting the typical Good virtues when dealing with friends, allies, family, and so on.

So it's quite possible for an evil being to be altruistic and self-sacrificing (toward certain sections of the population)- but still Evil.

That said, having a strong selfish streak- doing nothing that helps others without believing that they will gain as well, does probably prevent a Good alignment. Neutral characters can be that self-centred, but not Good ones.

In a sense, Evil is more flexible, because an evil character can be selfish or altruistic or a bit of both- whereas a Good character must be basically altruistic- they might show occasional selfish moments- but these would be the exception, not the rule.

The Pathfinder Core Rulebook seems to quote that page word for word. It's a very in-depth page that I use for my players when they need definitions on alignments.

Sliver
2010-05-24, 01:46 PM
CE wants it small and wants it now. Little thinking ahead, actions following impulses.
LE wants it big and wants it when in reach. Thinks stuff ahead, obviously. May have long term goals and plans.
NE wants it.

Machiavellian
2010-05-24, 01:51 PM
CE wants it small and wants it now. Little thinking ahead, actions following impulses.
LE wants it big and wants it when in reach. Thinks stuff ahead, obviously. May have long term goals and plans.
NE wants it.

so a character who's goal to save humanity by annihilating it isn't Evil?

Prime32
2010-05-24, 01:59 PM
so a character who's goal to save humanity by annihilating it isn't Evil?Why does he believe that annihilating humanity will save it? Does he just hate humanity?

Machiavellian
2010-05-24, 02:02 PM
Why does he believe that annihilating humanity will save it? Does he just hate humanity?

Like VIKI from I Robot. She believes the only way to protect humanity from itself is to destroy it.

Sliver
2010-05-24, 02:08 PM
so a character who's goal to save humanity by annihilating it isn't Evil?

I'm not sure how this relates to my post but... Yes, they are evil. They might think they are good, or that it is a necessary evil. But it is Evil.

Kish
2010-05-24, 02:09 PM
That sounds more like an Intelligence/Wisdom thing than an alignment thing.

hamishspence
2010-05-24, 02:09 PM
so a character who's goal to save humanity by annihilating it isn't Evil?

In Watchmen, Ozymandias's "save humanity by murdering 3 million people" plot might qualify as enough to push him as far as Evil alignment.

Machiavellian
2010-05-24, 02:10 PM
I'm not sure how this relates to my post but... Yes, they are evil. They might think they are good, or that it is a necessary evil. But it is Evil.

I can't tell which spectrum of evil that is...

Yora
2010-05-24, 02:12 PM
Vicky doesn't want to kill anyone. She just thinks that certain freedoms should be restricted so that humanity can remain as it is. With some minor adjustments for the better.

She takes lots of care to prevent harm to anyone and tries to minimize casualties as much as she can. So I'm not sure she could even be called evil.

Drakevarg
2010-05-24, 02:28 PM
I think it's inappropriate to assume that all LE characters are of the "big plans" type. I play a LE character who literally has no long term goals whatsoever - he just wants to kick ass and take names. The thing that makes him Lawful is that he has a code of honor that he refuses to bend from and will tear your bloody throat out for violating. He's undeniably a psychopath, which is usually assumed to be CE - it's doesn't need to be.

I would define the Lawful-Chaotic axis as follows:

Lawful - Has standards that they won't bend from, even if it's inconvienient.
Neutral - Pragmatic. Does whatever seems the most advantagous.
Chaotic - Does things on a whim, and will resist being subjugated by someone else's will on general principle.

Course, this is an oversimplification, but given that textbooks could easily be written exploring this philosophical system designed arbitrarily by a gaming company, that's not saying much.

Mystic Muse
2010-05-24, 02:29 PM
so a character who's goal to save humanity by annihilating it isn't Evil?

How do yous save something by annihilating it?

Drakevarg
2010-05-24, 02:31 PM
By being bat**** crazy, most likely.

Boci
2010-05-24, 02:31 PM
How do yous save something by annihilating it?

Save humanity from itself? Kill everyone and send them to their diety's realm before humanity unleashes a horde of devils who will steal their souls and torture them for all eternity?

Avilan the Grey
2010-05-24, 02:55 PM
A LE ruler might actually be running a city well and keeping the people happy, but it probably isn't out of desire for welfare, but for the end result. The fact that methods used to keep the people in-line and productive also makes them happy is a side-effect that will be ignored if more efficient/practical methods become available.

Someone once said that a sufficiently skilled Evil Overlord would be finding himself a Beloved Ruler, since his country or city would run so perfect.

Kalirren
2010-05-24, 03:13 PM
Short-term vs. long-term has nothing to do with LE vs. CE. Neither, in fact, does killing people.

The LE approach is to build social structures and institutions to achieve power. To use an example from Vampire, most Camarilla elders are of this sort.

The CE approach is taking those structures down to achieve power. Most Sabbat are of this sort.

NE goes both ways.

Mastikator
2010-05-24, 03:29 PM
You can't infer how someone is from their alignment. You can only infer someone's alignment from how they are. And if you start off with the alignment, then frankly you are doing it wrong.

This whole thread is moot.

Altair_the_Vexed
2010-05-24, 03:38 PM
Like VIKI from I Robot. She believes the only way to protect humanity from itself is to destroy it.
I've always found this to be a lazy and dumb plot line - not just for this movie, which sucked so hard my ears popped, but in general.

A person who thinks they are "saving" anyone by killing them isn't "misguided, but with their best interests at heart" - they are horrifyingly evil, and must be stopped.

Mastikator
2010-05-24, 03:48 PM
Horribly evil? More like stark raving mad and with a int and wisdom score of 3, i.e not enough to even follow the most basic logic (non-contradiction).

The only way I'd accept a character like that is if he only thinks so because the voices tell him so. Which is never the case :/

nedz
2010-05-24, 04:01 PM
How do yous save something by annihilating it?

Like the classic 'Nam line "We had to destroy the village to save it"

Drakevarg
2010-05-24, 04:08 PM
You can't infer how someone is from their alignment. You can only infer someone's alignment from how they are. And if you start off with the alignment, then frankly you are doing it wrong.

That's how I determined my LE character's alignment. I knew how he acted, but prior to actually going through a character analysis I assumed he was actually CN.

Optimator
2010-05-24, 06:01 PM
In what way is Vader Lawful?

Kalirren
2010-05-24, 06:08 PM
When did Vader ever take down a structure to gain power? Never. The Emperor does that, that's why he's closer to neutral evil. Vader, in contrast, defends his own position as apprentice and tries to supplant the Emperor as master - as a Sith Lord, he works within the Sith hierarchy. As Executor, he projects the Emperor's power over the Empire. Quite lawful.

Bob the Fighter
2010-05-24, 06:12 PM
Alignment is pretty much dependent on the perspective from which one views it. Lawful Evil, in a very basic sense, is someone who actively goes out of his way to hurt people or gain power but holds to some tradition, moral code, or rule.

For example, a conqueror determined to have complete control over the city/nation/world etc., but refuses to harm women, children, or anyone else who cannot defend themself is Lawful Evil.

Dairun Cates
2010-05-24, 07:06 PM
Alignment is pretty much dependent on the perspective from which one views it. Lawful Evil, in a very basic sense, is someone who actively goes out of his way to hurt people or gain power but holds to some tradition, moral code, or rule.

For example, a conqueror determined to have complete control over the city/nation/world etc., but refuses to harm women, children, or anyone else who cannot defend themself is Lawful Evil.

...Or to put it into more infernal terms, the devil will make a deal with you to screw you over (or challenge you to a fiddle contest for your soul) while the demon will just simply set you on fire because it amuses and pleases him.

Lawful Evil is a corrupt politician while Chaotic Evil is the uni-bomber. One uses and abuses a hierarchy and deals with people to legitimately gain power while the other just seeks destruction.

WorstDMEver
2010-05-24, 07:11 PM
Like VIKI from I Robot. She believes the only way to protect humanity from itself is to destroy it.

No, no - she wanted to impose martial law and literally coddle humanity. She wanted to post a robot in direct contact with every human alive to protect us from ourselves. The people who were hurt or killed during the "transitional period" were unfortunate but necessary to achieving the greater goal and therefore didn't violate the First Law as interpreted by VIKI - "a robot may not injure humanity, or through inaction allow humanity to come to harm" - since the welfare of humanity as a whole had precedence over any individual human's welfare.

Anyway - from the SRD;

GOOD VS. EVIL
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.
Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good–evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.

LAW VS. CHAOS
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.
Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.
“Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.
“Chaos” implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.
Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.
Devotion to law or chaos may be a conscious choice, but more often it is a personality trait that is recognized rather than being chosen. Neutrality on the lawful–chaotic axis is usually simply a middle state, a state of not feeling compelled toward one side or the other. Some few such neutrals, however, espouse neutrality as superior to law or chaos, regarding each as an extreme with its own blind spots and drawbacks.
Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.

So, the ruler who keeps his city or nation running smoothly under draconian martial law that quashes the rights of his citizens for his own gain is probably Lawful Evil. His laws are rock solid, strict and harsh, but followed by all. He requires, demands, order and obedience and is swift and merciless in his punishments. He has long range goals and plans for achieving them. He will crush anyone who stands in his way, and have fun doing it.

I especially like the second sentence - "Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit." Sounds like an advertisement....

Most professional assassins would probably be Lawful Evil - stakeouts, planning entry and exit routes, etc would require careful planning but also require a decided lack of concern for life or the public welfare.

There - my ramblings on the topic... take with a grain of salt.

Drakevarg
2010-05-24, 07:32 PM
Most professional assassins would probably be Lawful Evil - stakeouts, planning entry and exit routes, etc would require careful planning but also require a decided lack of concern for life or the public welfare.

I don't even think the emphasized part is entirely nessicary. Evil people don't need to be all evil at all times. Unlike Card Carrying Villains (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CardCarryingVillain) like Xykon who won't even use the phrase "a good idea" because it has the word "good" in it, some Evil characters - especially Lawful ones - might have standards that include "no harming bystanders". They might be a twisted sadistic scumbag to their targets and have no problem torturing them for hours on end... but harm someone that has nothing to do with your contract? That's just wrong. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvenEvilHasStandards)

WorstDMEver
2010-05-24, 07:53 PM
I don't even think the emphasized part is entirely nessicary. Evil people don't need to be all evil at all times. Unlike Card Carrying Villains (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CardCarryingVillain) like Xykon who won't even use the phrase "a good idea" because it has the word "good" in it, some Evil characters - especially Lawful ones - might have standards that include "no harming bystanders". They might be a twisted sadistic scumbag to their targets and have no problem torturing them for hours on end... but harm someone that has nothing to do with your contract? That's just wrong. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvenEvilHasStandards)

In fact, I'd like to carry that a little further. If you're an assassin, and you assassinate an evil dictator who's rule is vile and oppressive so that a good ruler can take his place, are you not acting in the public welfare through an evil act? Reminds me of the "villain" from Serenity - performing evil acts for the greater good.... :smallsmile:

krossbow
2010-05-24, 07:57 PM
meh, i disliked the movie. they got rid of alot of the moral grey areas and jumped straight to black and white differences between the antagonists and the protagonists.




but for a good example of lawful evil, try the emperor from ff: dissidia. He wanted to finally end the cycle of conflict that was occuring for good, and manipulate the heroes to destroy the insanely destructive CE villians. however, he did this partially good plan simply so he could dominate and control everything, not for altruism.

huttj509
2010-05-24, 09:44 PM
In Watchmen, Ozymandias's "save humanity by murdering 3 million people" plot might qualify as enough to push him as far as Evil alignment.

Eh, The point of Watchmen was sorta to take the comic book good/evil divide, throw real type people in there, and twist it inside out while bringing to light the psyche involved, and causing the reader to have a mind twist and sit there saying "wait, but he, and then, genetically engineered dimensional alien...psy-nuked New York...to bring everyone together..." *SNAP*

Trying to apply an alignment chart to it kinda defeats the purpose, once you get into Ozy territory. "Raw Shark" is more doable.

Hiest, monkey
2010-05-24, 09:48 PM
Warning: subjective opinions ahead!

I find the easiest method to determine alignment is to treat the Good-Evil scales as "ends" and law-chaos as "means".

A Lawful character uses structure, order, existing or changing laws, traditional thinking, teamwork, and discipline and conservative or traditional ideas.

A Chaotic character uses independent or flexible ideals, raw emotion, non-standard beliefs, and underhanded tactics.

A Good character seeks to aid without reward, but will still accept rewards. A good character helps the needy, and finds the evil to be repulsive.

An Evil character always seeks to further their own, selfish, goals of their own free will. Examples include the high priest of an evil god who tries to bring his god power to gain power for himself is evil. A brainwashed from childhood priest that commits the same atrocities without grasping their impact is not necessarily evil (but probably).

Some strange examples:

A girl is raised from infancy by an aging druid in the woods. She manifests supernatural powers at childhood, and as the druid ages uses these powers to protect and feed a now paralyzed druid. After observing the behavior of wild animals, as taught by her guardian, she is willing to murder any who try to approach her territory, and to kill and steal for food. She loves only her guardian, and may well commit atrocities to scare off anyone who would harm that guardian. This girl is true neutral: she seeks a goal of neither selflessness nor selfishness, one of survival. She also follows what path is apparent, but adheres to no ideals. Should she use her magic to set herself up as a god and demand sacrifice to protect her guardian she would be evil. Should she use her knowledge of animals to help villagers understand the forest like her guardian did, she would be good. As such she is neutral.

A politician is conservative: he adheres to all old ideals because they have worked. He verbally abuses his kids because he feels that such abuse led him to perform as he has, and politically supports a president/dictator who can be considered a war criminal. This politician does not wish to depose the president because he fears revolution, and the spread of a different idealogical system will harm his country. He trains his dogs through negative reinforcement, because his father trained his hunting dogs that way. This politician is Lawful neutral: he adheres to a set of ideals or a desire to avoid upheaval. While he supports a terrible leader, he does not support his actions. The ends of this person's actions are meant to be good, but result as mildly evil, balancing as neutrality. The means he uses are undeniably lawful. A good example would be Andrew Johnson.
Lawful evil:
A good Lawful Evil example would be Andrew Jackson: a conservative who used his power as a war hero to gain a presidency which he used to commit genocide (against Native Americans), and promote all his closest friends into power. He did, however, adhere to a system of ideals, aided his allies and fought in close quarters for his nation, though he was glad to pillage benefits from his political system.

Mastikator
2010-05-24, 11:34 PM
In fact, I'd like to carry that a little further. If you're an assassin, and you assassinate an evil dictator who's rule is vile and oppressive so that a good ruler can take his place, are you not acting in the public welfare through an evil act? Reminds me of the "villain" from Serenity - performing evil acts for the greater good.... :smallsmile:

Just a minor detail though, the greater good was a lie.

Gensh
2010-05-25, 12:03 AM
Well, there are really four different versions of Law Vs. Chaos, so let's look at each of them.

Societal Law: The character follows a standardized set of codes, from which he/she does not falter and attempts to impose this code on others.
Societal Chaos: The character believes any codes at all restrict freedom and attempts to destroy established government.

Planar Law: The character believes in the ability of logical systems to perfectly predict and control all actions, resulting in peace.
Planar Chaos: GIANT FROG! (The character acts purely on whimsy with no regards to even personal safety.)

Moorcockian Law: The character believes that things should be codified so that unfavorable random circumstances cannot happen.
Moorcockian Chaos: The character believes that things are boring without sudden quirks in standard behavior.

MegaTen Law: The character believes that living creatures have difficulty living without an organized system and should form a hierarchy in order to have greater strength as a group.
MegaTen Chaos: The character believes that the strength of the individual is foremost and if one cannot grow stronger, the victim forfeits his/her right to life.

So Machiavellian, in response to your question, it looks like your guy is most likely Moorcockian Law, as that's the one most likely to gravitate towards genocidal nihilism, judging from that one short story about the Red Archer.

Yora
2010-05-25, 05:26 AM
Then there must be more than four concepts of law and chaos, because none of them fits what I think about it.



I find the easiest method to determine alignment is to treat the Good-Evil scales as "ends" and law-chaos as "means".

A Lawful character uses structure, order, existing or changing laws, traditional thinking, teamwork, and discipline and conservative or traditional ideas.

A Chaotic character uses independent or flexible ideals, raw emotion, non-standard beliefs, and underhanded tactics.

A Good character seeks to aid without reward, but will still accept rewards. A good character helps the needy, and finds the evil to be repulsive.

An Evil character always seeks to further their own, selfish, goals of their own free will. Examples include the high priest of an evil god who tries to bring his god power to gain power for himself is evil. A brainwashed from childhood priest that commits the same atrocities without grasping their impact is not necessarily evil (but probably).

Some strange examples:

A girl is raised from infancy by an aging druid in the woods. She manifests supernatural powers at childhood, and as the druid ages uses these powers to protect and feed a now paralyzed druid. After observing the behavior of wild animals, as taught by her guardian, she is willing to murder any who try to approach her territory, and to kill and steal for food. She loves only her guardian, and may well commit atrocities to scare off anyone who would harm that guardian. This girl is true neutral: she seeks a goal of neither selflessness nor selfishness, one of survival. She also follows what path is apparent, but adheres to no ideals. Should she use her magic to set herself up as a god and demand sacrifice to protect her guardian she would be evil. Should she use her knowledge of animals to help villagers understand the forest like her guardian did, she would be good. As such she is neutral.

A politician is conservative: he adheres to all old ideals because they have worked. He verbally abuses his kids because he feels that such abuse led him to perform as he has, and politically supports a president/dictator who can be considered a war criminal. This politician does not wish to depose the president because he fears revolution, and the spread of a different idealogical system will harm his country. He trains his dogs through negative reinforcement, because his father trained his hunting dogs that way. This politician is Lawful neutral: he adheres to a set of ideals or a desire to avoid upheaval. While he supports a terrible leader, he does not support his actions. The ends of this person's actions are meant to be good, but result as mildly evil, balancing as neutrality. The means he uses are undeniably lawful. A good example would be Andrew Johnson.
Lawful evil:
A good Lawful Evil example would be Andrew Jackson: a conservative who used his power as a war hero to gain a presidency which he used to commit genocide (against Native Americans), and promote all his closest friends into power. He did, however, adhere to a system of ideals, aided his allies and fought in close quarters for his nation, though he was glad to pillage benefits from his political system.

I'd support all of that.

The Big Dice
2010-05-25, 05:48 AM
Face it, Alignment is a terrible idea. It's confusing, self contradictory and doesn't really bear up to close scrutiny. It's a messy construct, one one hand based on half baked ideas about morality, on the other stolen completely from a writer who was using the idea of order and anarchy as extremes to be avoided.

When you look more closely at it, the Alignment system doesn't even support the way adventurers act. Breaking into someone's home, killing everyone in there and then looting the place for anything valuable that you can find isn't exactly lawful or good. And it's thinly veiled racist (speciesist? Is that a word) overtones don't help.

It's ok to kill these guys because they're one species, but not ok to kill these guys because they're a different one? How does that make any sense? Because their entry in the Monster Manual says it's ok doesn't work as in-game justification.

Alignment is a rule that's not a rule, except for the way it's deeply embedded in the rules. It's a hold over from the 70s, and doesn't really belong in a modern game.

Bharg
2010-05-25, 06:41 AM
Face it, Alignment is a terrible idea. It's confusing, self contradictory and doesn't really bear up to close scrutiny. It's a messy construct, one one hand based on half baked ideas about morality, on the other stolen completely from a writer who was using the idea of order and anarchy as extremes to be avoided.

When you look more closely at it, the Alignment system doesn't even support the way adventurers act. Breaking into someone's home, killing everyone in there and then looting the place for anything valuable that you can find isn't exactly lawful or good. And it's thinly veiled racist (speciesist? Is that a word) overtones don't help.

It's ok to kill these guys because they're one species, but not ok to kill these guys because they're a different one? How does that make any sense? Because their entry in the Monster Manual says it's ok doesn't work as in-game justification.

Alignment is a rule that's not a rule, except for the way it's deeply embedded in the rules. It's a hold over from the 70s, and doesn't really belong in a modern game.

In a fantasy world good and evil are not as abstract concepts as in real life. You even have embodyments of them like angels, devils, demons and so forth. It is very simple. Some races are good and some are just evil. If you see a group of orcs you are almost obligated to kill them because you know that they will kill innocents - sooner or later - and even if you try to negotiate it will be of no use. They are also very likely to attack you right away if they think only they can defeat you.
Of course no character is able to stick to his alignment all the time and after all alignments are nothing more than guidelines.

pingcode20
2010-05-25, 06:46 AM
Ideally, the best way to do alignment is divorce it from the usual concepts of ethics entirely, and define them based on their respective planes.

So Lawful Good is not so much lawfulness and goodness as it is Pro-Celestia, while Lawful Evil is less lawful + evil as it is Pro-Baator. Basically, your views and actions are closest to the dogma of the respective plane.

That way, it's not quite so subjective, and it peels away the loading of the words. Sure, 'Good' will often be good, but sometimes Good isn't necessarily all that good, depending on the doctrines of the outsiders.

Hiest, monkey
2010-05-25, 08:45 AM
When you look more closely at it, the Alignment system doesn't even support the way adventurers act. Breaking into someone's home, killing everyone in there and then looting the place for anything valuable that you can find isn't exactly lawful or good. And it's thinly veiled racist (speciesist? Is that a word) overtones don't help.

That depends on the particular adventurers: I once played a game where a good character refused to kill even those who attacked him, and extorted others. He ended fights by virtue of +16 to grapple (+18 while raging) and yelling at a pinned opponent to surrender. This character always paid for goods, returned lost property to its owners (or the party rogue if he made a decent bluff check), and would not touch the equipment of he dead unless he felt that the disrespect of not taking it would outweigh the dishonor of taking it.

I have also played with an evil character who took few evil actions, and preferred to be a passive healer in a group of good characters. He also held plans of tyranny and dramatic coup d'etats close to his heart, always using his repute as a hero to gain political clout.

The actions described above most closely resemble an evil alignment, however, should the above inhabitants be looting and pillaging the countryside to survive, their wholesale mass slaughter could be justified to a LG character who has been entrusted with the protection of the countryside.

the main issue is that players so often forget that their everyday actions in a game world (looting, kicking in the door, etc.) should all factor in to an alignment. Good RPing is remembering that not all fights need to be to the death, and that not all dropped property can be claimed.

Riffington
2010-05-25, 08:52 AM
So, the ruler who keeps his city or nation running smoothly under draconian martial law that quashes the rights of his citizens for his own gain is probably Lawful Evil. His laws are rock solid, strict and harsh, but followed by all.

This is true, and a key to it is "all".
The Lawful Evil ruler follows (and expects his friends to follow) the same rules he wants others to. He may pay himself a large salary at the taxpayers' expense, but if he wants a loaf of bread from the market, he's still going to pay for it.

Note that most people (including LE people) are not rulers. They are people who respect laws and traditions that they never wrote. But within the scope of those laws and traditions, they harm others for fun or personal gain.

hamishspence
2010-05-25, 09:51 AM
In a fantasy world good and evil are not as abstract concepts as in real life. You even have embodyments of them like angels, devils, demons and so forth. It is very simple. Some races are good and some are just evil. If you see a group of orcs you are almost obligated to kill them because you know that they will kill innocents - sooner or later - and even if you try to negotiate it will be of no use. They are also very likely to attack you right away if they think only they can defeat you.

Later D&D books moved away from this.

After all, orcs are only "Often Chaotic Evil" in the MM, and MM5 mentions that the most common alignment after that is Chaotic Neutral.

BoED points out that even if the orcs in question are evil- you can't attack them without a better justification than that. And "protecting people from future orc acts" is not good enough.

In essence, you need to be responding to acts by the orcs- if they've raided a town and you're putting a stop to the raids, that's fine, but not otherwise.

Bharg
2010-05-25, 09:56 AM
I'm not familiar with 4th E. But I guess it still will be enough to go to them waving cheerfully and as long as your magic +10* sword isn't singing the Sephiroth Theme they will attack you.

Debihuman
2010-05-25, 10:04 AM
so if my code says "In order to save humanity, you must destroy it," That logic isn't LE?

That's only partially the logic: In order to save all of humanity, some of humanity. Generally that implies that one must have a criteria for the weeding out process. If the criteria applies to everyone, then it would be expected that you are looking for an enlightened death and that you would probably be the first to go. That was first suggested Sophocles, who said, "The best thing for man is not to be born at all, but the next best is to die as soon as possible." This doesn't leave room for middle ground.

If your motto is, "if they aren't with you, they're against you, " you'll always have to be on guard for potential betrayals and conspiracies against you because it is virtually impossible to convince everyone to drink the grape-flavored cyanide.

A better model and one that lasted longer, was that of Ghengis Khan who invaded, conquered and incorporated his enemies. Of course, if you can't leave behind a functional dynasty well, it all goes to waste.

Debby

hamishspence
2010-05-25, 11:44 AM
I'm not familiar with 4th E. But I guess it still will be enough to go to them waving cheerfully and as long as your magic +10* sword isn't singing the Sephiroth Theme they will attack you.

Depends on the setting. If you're playing in Eberron or Faerun, orcs have their own civilizations which are on diplomatic terms with the others.

The shift away from "orcs can be killed on sight with no moral repercussions" began in 3.0/3.5 though.

Kish
2010-05-25, 11:57 AM
It is very simple. Some races are good and some are just evil.

It hasn't been that simple in a very, very long time.

If you see a group of orcs you are almost obligated to kill them because you know that they will kill innocents - sooner or later - and even if you try to negotiate it will be of no use.
Well, right thread for it. What you're describing is the thinking of a Lawful Evil character.

The Cat Goddess
2010-05-25, 02:20 PM
Like the classic 'Nam line "We had to destroy the village to save it"

Actually, in that sense the meaning was "save it" = "keep it out of enemy hands". The old "Better Dead than Red" comment.

Save the World by Destroying Civilization (i.e. wipe out all races that build villages/cities) would be Neutral at best, Chaotic Neutral more likely.

WeLoveFireballs
2010-05-25, 02:35 PM
Lawful does not mean "Follows the Law" Lawful means "Follows a code of conduct" in the case of good this is often any laws set in place by good people in the case of evil I think organized crime is the best example. None of them will break the organization's code but will break any other code of conduct quite willingly.

The Cat Goddess
2010-05-25, 02:46 PM
Lawful does not mean "Follows the Law" Lawful means "Follows a code of conduct" in the case of good this is often any laws set in place by good people in the case of evil I think organized crime is the best example. None of them will break the organization's code but will break any other code of conduct quite willingly.

^ This.

Plus, members of organized crime would likely help to stop invaders, etc. A criminal can (and often is) patriotic, after all.

hamishspence
2010-05-25, 02:59 PM
The mobster in the movie The Rocketeer is a pretty good example of this- not at all a nice guy- but still willing to side with the heroes once his employer's nature becomes apparent.

Yora
2010-05-26, 03:48 AM
^ This.

Plus, members of organized crime would likely help to stop invaders, etc. A criminal can (and often is) patriotic, after all.

In some areas organized crime is the only social service provider people have.

Bharg
2010-05-26, 10:53 AM
[...]
Well, right thread for it. What you're describing is the thinking of a Lawful Evil character.

No, I am certainly not and a chaotic character no matter if it is a good or an evil character is even more likely to think that way. Getting rid of an immediate threat. I want to point that by a group of orcs I mean an independent war band armed to the teeth - no women or children - roaming through the wild possibly near a human town or a trade road that lies in human territory optionally.
A chaotic character will not be satisfied with waiting until it is already to late ,until the first body turns up, before taking action - at least not in my book.
The difference between a good and an evil character is that the good character may show mercy or may be satisfied with just driving the orcs away while the evil character may try to eliminate the threat by all means necessary and not even refrain from killing innocent women or children. The funny thing is that both characters may think that they are actually fighting for the cause of good which ''often expects and demands that violence be brought to bear against it's enemies'', but in the end only your deeds matter not your intentions.
To a lawful character preserving order is most important and, yes, they may also slaughter the immediate orc threat following their own morale. They often have an own personal code of conduct, but they don't have to follow the law or always say the truth if their code of conduct doesn't say anything about it though their personal code shouldn't be too slacky. A lawful character doesn't have to be more predictable than a chaotic character. In gerneral they are unlikey to 'change (or rather desroy) a running system' by for example overthrowing an unjust king if it would leave the country in chaos. They would rather try to use legal means.
A chaotic character is the radical, the rebel, the idealist, while a lawful character is more... moderate, liberal, maybe?
The D&D world is still more black and white and than our grayish reality with our high proclaimed standards that we tend to boot now and then.

Kish
2010-05-26, 10:59 AM
No, I am certainly not and a chaotic character no matter if it is a good or an evil character is even more likely to think that way. Getting rid of an immediate threat. I want to point that by a group of orcs I mean an independent war band armed to the teeth - no women or children - roaming through the wild possibly near a human town or a trade road that lies in human territory optionally.
This is called "moving the goalposts." You made a clear, explicit claim that "Orcs? KILL!" was the appropriate and expected response of good-aligned adventurers. You asserted that "some races are just good and some are just evil," ironically demonstrating what the Player's Handbook calls an example of Lawful Evil thinking--"judge by race rather than individuals."

You want to change your claim to state that "A hostile warband? KILL!" is an appropriate response? Go ahead. Note that it's completely unnecessary to specify the race of the warband now--it works equally well if the warband is made up of humans, elves, gnomes, dwarves, or mixed races--although it is necessary to tautologously specify "You know they're out to kill innocents, and you know you can't accomplish anything by negotiating with them," if you wish to conclude, "You know they will kill innocents, and you know if you negotiate with them it will be no use." It has nothing to do with what you said initially, which is still plain to see by scrolling up the thread.

Bharg
2010-05-26, 02:04 PM
This is called "moving the goalposts." You made a clear, explicit claim that "Orcs? KILL!" was the appropriate and expected response of good-aligned adventurers. You asserted that "some races are just good and some are just evil," ironically demonstrating what the Player's Handbook calls an example of Lawful Evil thinking--"judge by race rather than individuals."

You want to change your claim to state that "A hostile warband? KILL!" is an appropriate response? Go ahead. Note that it's completely unnecessary to specify the race of the warband now--it works equally well if the warband is made up of humans, elves, gnomes, dwarves, or mixed races--although it is necessary to tautologously specify "You know they're out to kill innocents, and you know you can't accomplish anything by negotiating with them," if you wish to conclude, "You know they will kill innocents, and you know if you negotiate with them it will be no use." It has nothing to do with what you said initially, which is still plain to see by scrolling up the thread.

I hope you are getting your kicks out of this even though I see no reason for you to be offended by any of my previous posts. I didn't claim to be absolutely right.

"Moving the goalposts"? From the beginning I thought of an encounter with an orc warband, farly more common than an encounter with an orc kindergarden. You are nitpicking, generalizing and also ripping my statements out of context. I just wanted to point out my original statement more clearly and also to rethink it. I didn't know I needed your proper approval to do that.

You asserted that "some races are just good and some are just evil," ironically demonstrating what the Player's Handbook calls an example of Lawful Evil thinking--"judge by race rather than individuals."
With my statement I was exaggerating obviously and simplifying the matter. So orcs are chaotic neutral now? Not less dangerous than Chaotic Evil or than all extremes.
If you interpret that passage as lawful evil characters often are conservative and/or have prejudices rather than having the idea of a greater order I would have to disagree.

If you see a group of orcs you are almost obligated to kill them because you know that they will kill innocents - sooner or later - and even if you try to negotiate it will be of no use.
Originally you quoted this sentence before announcing that this is the thinking of a lawful evil character.

It was never "Orcs? KILL!", "A hostile warband? KILL!", the urge to kill. That accusation is inappropriate, I guess you like that word, and small-minded. I think I also corrected that in my last post. It was always the urge to protect your own people. Solidarity and self preservation or at least preversation of your own kind. Condemnable.

So far you only commented on other posts stating that they're bad or that you do not agree. I can't wait to see your point of view on the whole alignment debacle, your own opinion, or what exactly your point is, anyway. So, oh, please share it with us!

You disapprove of the maybe too "easy" approach on alignments?

hamishspence
2010-05-26, 02:09 PM
Orcs are only "Often Chaotic evil"- which means less than 50%. And the most common alignment after CE is CN.

If you meet an orc in town, you can't just conclude "he's going to do evil in the future" and kill him.

Even if you meet an orc in the wilderness- it's still a case of innocent until proven guilty.

If it's "a group of orcs"- ideally, you're still supposed to find out what they are doing- if they are indeed a warband, or a harmless grouping.



"Moving the goalposts"? From the beginning I thought of an encounter with an orc warband, farly more common than an encounter with an orc kindergarden. You are nitpicking, generalizing and also ripping my statements out of context.

the original statement didn't have context- it simply said "a group of orcs" with no mention of the composition of the group, or their closeness to civilization.

Bharg
2010-05-26, 02:31 PM
Orcs are only "Often Chaotic evil"- which means less than 50%. And the most common alignment after CE is CN.

If you meet an orc in town, you can't just conclude "he's going to do evil in the future" and kill him.

Even if you meet an orc in the wilderness- it's still a case of innocent until proven guilty.

If it's "a group of orcs"- ideally, you're still supposed to find out what they are doing- if they are indeed a warband, or a harmless grouping.

the original statement didn't have context- it simply said "a group of orcs" with no mention of the composition of the group, or their closeness to civilization.

So correcting something to avoid further missunderstandings is "cheating"? I'm sorry that wasn't my intention.

I agree that the threat always has to be confirmed. But you will probably know if they are hostile if you approach them. I do not want to tell you to kill every orc on sight.

Drakevarg
2010-05-26, 02:35 PM
So correcting something to avoid further missunderstandings is "cheating"? I'm sorry that wasn't my intention.

I agree that the threat has always to be confirmed. But you will probably know if they are hostile if you approach them. I do not want to tell you to kill every orc on sight.

Or, they might just be attacking you because YOU'RE the intruder entering THEIR camp. I wouldn't consider a hostile response at that point to qualify as evil. But listening to you talk, it seems like you think in terms of Protagonist Centered Morality. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ProtagonistCenteredMorality)

Bharg
2010-05-26, 03:01 PM
Or, they might just be attacking you because YOU'RE the intruder entering THEIR camp. I wouldn't consider a hostile response at that point to qualify as evil. But listening to you talk, it seems like you think in terms of Protagonist Centered Morality. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ProtagonistCenteredMorality)

You are allowed to defend yourself and attacking you because you entered their camp without any weapons drawn would be an overreaction and not justified. Speaking orcish may help and solve the situation without violence what is always preferable.
That applies in the wilderness though simply avoiding them would be smarter. If it could pose a threat... at least scout and watch over it. That's what rangers usually do.
An orc warband camping on your territory, your county maybe, or that of a town has to be informed about what they are doing, that it can and will be interpreted as an hostile act, if they do not ask for permission to set foot there for a certain period of time, and that they have to move on immediately if permission is not granted.

I know the concept but that's not the way I am ticking.
Do you think I lack empathy and love for orcs?

hamishspence
2010-05-26, 03:10 PM
It's quite common in fantasy for even "Good" factions to be more than a little hostile to trespassers.

When The Fellowship in LoTR are found in Lorien, they are greeted at arrowpoint, blindfolded, and taken before the ruler.

The nicest factions might warn you off if you're at the borders of their territory, but if you're deep in their territory without their leave, you can expect to be restrained and questioned at the very least.

Even Neutral factions have been known to take a "kill on sight" reaction to trespassors found deep in their territory, or "execute after questioning".

Drakevarg
2010-05-26, 03:29 PM
You are allowed to defend yourself and attacking you because you entered their camp without any weapons drawn would be an overreaction and not justified. Speaking orcish may help and solve the situation without violence what is always preferable.
That applies in the wilderness though simply avoiding them would be smarter. If it could pose a threat... at least scout and watch over it. That's what rangers usually do.
An orc warband camping on your territory, your county maybe, or that of a town has to be informed about what they are doing, that it can and will be interpreted as an hostile act, if they do not ask for permission to set foot there for a certain period of time, and that they have to move on immediately if permission is not granted.

I know the concept but that's not the way I am ticking.
Do you think I lack empathy and love for orcs?

You seem to have been making your veiwpoint from a very specific scenario that you have neglected to fully illuminate. Adding caveats to it and complaining that they should have been assumed only weakens your points. Your original point was "in DnD, some races (such as Orcs) are simply evil and that's all there is to it." Your current point is "an orc warband, with no noncombatants, deep in your territory, attacking you for entering their encampment while unarmed and surrendering is evil, and that's all there is to it." Which is far less relevent a point to be making.

Bharg
2010-05-26, 03:55 PM
You seem to have been making your veiwpoint from a very specific scenario that you have neglected to fully illuminate. Adding caveats to it and complaining that they should have been assumed only weakens your points. Your original point was "in DnD, some races (such as Orcs) are simply evil and that's all there is to it." Your current point is "an orc warband, with no noncombatants, deep in your territory, attacking you for entering their encampment while unarmed and surrendering is evil, and that's all there is to it." Which is far less relevent a point to be making.

You asked for it.

Drakevarg
2010-05-26, 03:58 PM
You asked for it.

I asked for what, exactly? For you to continue elaborating a hypothetical situation until the very point it was making was invalidated? Or was that supposed to be pre-asskicking bravado?