RPing Lawful Evil

[Drelua]

So, I've been thinking of playing a character, sort of inspired by Dexter, that gets into adventuring not because he wants to be a hero or because he's greedy, but because he really likes to kill, and adventuring not only allows him to do so legally, but to be looked up to and admired for brutally murdering all manner of sentient creatures. Basically, he strictly follows the law but only because it makes his life so much easier. The problem is, well, my groups views on alignment.

We've played 'evil campaigns' before, and my group basically takes that to mean they can commit whatever horrible acts of depravity they can imagine. We're also usually all Chaotic because my group sees Lawful as meaning strictly following all the rules and having no sympathy for anyone that breaks them; or rather, the sheets say CN or CG, but the characters really aren't half the time, the players just see them that way. I played a Lawful Evil character once because the group wanted to be evil, so I figured I'd just go along with it. Then, my character starts acting a little crazy and I'm told that if I don't stop that I'll have to change my alignment to NE or CE and stop advancing as a Monk, with next to no room for argument. :smallannoyed:

Apparently 'Lawful' means 'mentally balanced'. I'm afraid that if I don't explain to my DM that alignment doesn't work that way I won't be able to play this character, and I have no idea how to do that. I was thinking of saying that Chaotic would be better named Free-thinking or something like that, and Lawful should be... Ordered? I don't know, I can't really think of an alternative to Lawful. My DM's a smart guy, but he can be really thick-headed sometimes. He'll basically just ignore my arguments if he thinks I'm wrong, and I don't know how to get around that. Of course, I could just call him a different alignment and roleplay it like LE, but there might be some alignment requirements depending on how I build the character.

TL;DR How do I roleplay LE in a normal party without being either too evil or uptight or just 'not Evil/Lawful enough'?

[AntiTrust]

I've used these reinterpreted alignments in my games with good success so perhaps reading the LE description they have will help you form some clear thoughts on the matter.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=178169

[Andreaz]

Your party is not normal, because of their stance on alignments.
If the alignments worked like they said, a third of the human population would be insane, another third would be unrepentant *******s, another third would have Gargantuan sticks up their asses and another third would be martyrs and saints.


My recommendation is to just drop the alignment system altogether.

[ArcturusV]

Well, the problem they might be having with Law-Chaos and "Sanity" comes from older editions. 2nd Edition in particular I recall define all Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Evil as pretty much "Bat**** looney tunes". The only difference was the Chaotic Evil guy did it with a big glorious bastard grin and knew he was evil while being crazy. Not even hyperbole or exaggeration. I cannot recall a single example in any first party printed example of Alignments (And almost every book at them) of the two being anything else.

Even though 3rd Edition doesn't define it like that, the concept might have carried over in their minds. But you can clearly point to just about every example in the books in 3rd edition to show that Lawful Evil (And Chaotic) no longer have those requirements.

I don't know how you can really convince them if they fail to realize this. Because the thing is... if you're playing Lawful Evil WELL... no one should even know you're evil until it's far too late. You cloak yourself in terms like Honor and Respectability. You uphold the powers that be, defending the status quo, etc.

For example, I played Lawful Evil quite well in a campaign. I TOLD everyone I was Lawful Evil to start off with. I never hid it. I acted within my alignment. About 20% of the way through the campaign however despite being Lawful Evil my teammates all forgot that I was in fact evil. It allowed me, at the end of the campaign, to pull my glorious mastestroke where my Lawful Evil villain revealed everything he had been doing, at a point where no one could stop his plans anymore. He had WON. He was unabashedly evil, no one doubted it at the end. None of his Teammates as least. The rest of the civilized world, the NPCs, were all worshiping my Lawful Evil villain as a savior.

And that's about the best parallel you can draw towards them. Say:

Here's the difference in Evil.

Everyone knows the Neutral Evil person is a Bad Guy. They don't take him "seriously" as a Villain because he's often petty and driven by greed and the like. The Neutral Evil guy is something like the ruthless mobster who will break legs to get the money he wants. He's evil, they all know it. But no one considers him a real danger to reality as we know it.

The Chaotic Evil person is a bad guy, and everyone knows it, because the Chaotic Evil guy TELLS everyone about it. They go around being damned Anarchists, blowing things up, setting them on fire, twirling their mustaches and laughing maniacally as they destroy everything around them... and eventually themselves if some hero doesn't put them down first.

The Lawful Evil person is a bad guy, and no one really knows it except for those who are closest to the person in question. The Lawful Evil guy is often in a position of authority, or at least part of the social order. He works within society, not seeking to randomly upset it like the Chaotic Evil guy, or ignoring it completely for their own purposes like the Neutral Evil guy. They make the system work for them. People consider them at worst just "Another guy". At best they are worshiped as heroes and beloved by the very people they practice their evil against. In the end, the Lawful Evil person is the bad guy who gets everything they wanted, because no one knows to even try to thwart them.

[Shining Wrath]

Your party is not normal, because of their stance on alignments.
If the alignments worked like they said, a third of the human population would be insane, another third would be unrepentant *******s, another third would have Gargantuan sticks up their asses and another third would be martyrs and saints.


My recommendation is to just drop the alignment system altogether.

That sounds like a chaotic neutral form of mathematics, where 133% of the population has an alignment!

[Shining Wrath]

Lawful Evil guys follow the rules. The question is, whose rules? A Lawful Evil guy can be completely dedicated to the local assassin's guild, and follow their rules for who to kill, when, and for how much money to the letter. The local king views him as a law breaker, of course, because murder is not lawful to the king. To the assassin, murder is lawful, so long as you follow the dictates of your guild.

[Andreaz]

That sounds like a chaotic neutral form of mathematics, where 133% of the population has an alignment!INTERSECTIONS!

[QuidEst]

Since this is more about having your DM convinced that you are lawful, there are certain token actions you can take to demonstrate general lawfulness. Occasionally describe your character meditating, or repeating a training exercise for several hours of downtime. If there's a nice little mantra he can recite, then give him that. None of these interfere with the party, but they emphasize the personal code aspect. To emphasize evil, "put things out of their misery" (possibly for occasionally dubious values of "misery", such as the shame of defeat or something that could be healed), bully unpleasant people where possible, and smile a little when somebody dies.

[Drelua]

There's a lot of interesting points here, thanks! I've heard the alignment system was pretty messed up in earlier editions, but I'm pretty sure that has nothing to do with it; no one in my group's played anything but 3.5, Pathfinder, and a bit of 4E. I like the idea of having some long term goal that the party might not like, but I wouldn't want to be actively working against them. I wouldn't want to take away their belief that if you meet someone in a tavern and agree to kill things together, you can trust them implicitly! I might make it my end goal to become some sort of lord; that way I could lead battles while pretending to be fighting valorously and execute people myself because he who passes the sentence should swing the sword, not because it's fun... no, not at all. :smallamused:

I do like the idea of entirely removing alignment, but unfortunately my group probably wouldn't. They don't necessarily think all Chaotic people are crazy, but they do seem to think all crazy people are Chaotic. They'll call themselves CG and then torture people for information without even trying to talk to them, acting like it's okay because it's for the greater good; he once had a CG character blood-board someone. That's like water-boarding, but you use someone's blood instead. I don't even remember who's blood it was. He's actually called paladins A-holes, and that view reflects on the occasional Paladin NPC. I think my group gets their views on alignment from him, since none of them really play with other people. Unfortunately, he's the only one that's interested in DMing. I guess the best way to change their minds might be to just play LE and whenever someone says I'm not playing my alignment tell them to point me to the spot where it says LE people don't do precisely what I just did. I think the problem might just stem from my group being really low on the role-playing, but seeing themselves as being the opposite. Maybe I should point that out to them.

[Rhynn]

Not gonna get into Dexter's alignment, not gonna get into Dexter's alignment...


TL;DR How do I roleplay LE in a normal party without being either too evil or uptight or just 'not Evil/Lawful enough'?

Just play your character how you want (the way you described, I guess), and ask the other players "Well what alignment is my character, then?" if they have a problem.

Alignment describes, it does not prescribe. Characters are perfectly free to act "out of alignment" - it's not personality, it's a classification for purposes of magic use. The result of "acting out of alignment" is that your alignment eventally changes.

Edit: Incidentally, I always thought Dark Sun 2E had the best description of alignments. What do you do when the water is running out?


"Everyone has to get an equal share, even the dying. Water can be divided unequally if it is for the good of the group, but the weak and the dying cannot go without."
Lawful Good.

"Everyone gets an equal share, but I don't care about the dying. Water can be divided unequally if it's for the good of the group."
Lawful Neutral.

"Everyone able-bodied gets an equal share,the dying get nothing. Water can be divided unequally if it's for the good of the group, especially if I get more."
Lawful Evil.

"Everyone gets an equal share, even the dying. Water can be divided unequally if it's for the good of the group and doesn't hurt me."
Neutral Good.

"I want my fair share and might not help the dying. Water can be divided unequally if I get more and the group benefits."
Neutral.

"I want my fair share, and the dying get none. Water can be divided unequally if I get more."
Neutral Evil.

"Everyone gets an even share, even the dying. Water can only be divided unequally if me and mine get more."
Chaotic Good.

"I get my share, I don't care about the dying. Water can only be divided unequally if I get more."
Chaotic Neutral.

"I will lie, cheat, and kill to get all the water. I have another great idea for why I should get all the water, and I promise it will benefit everyone..."
Chaotic Evil.

Dying of thirst is definitely the kind of situation that gets to the core of your ethics and morals, I'd think. :smallamused:

It's a bit simplistic, obviously, but basically the Lawful-Chaotic axis is about the importance of the group, and the Good-Evil axis is about altruism and what sort of things you're willing to do for your goals.

[Squirrel_Dude]

From Batman: Ras Al'Ghul might be one way to say it. You have your goals, which are probably evil/insane, and won't harm those who are innocent, but will do anything to those that get in your way.

Lawful Evil is normally in the form of secret organizations working to make their plans happen.

[Drelua]

Yeah, I guess it shouldn't be too much of a problem; like I said, my DM's a smart guy, he just hasn't put too much thought into the alignment system and after playing for a few years I think he kind of forgets that his assumptions aren't fact, or even vaguely supported by... anything really.

I think I'll just play him as a polite guy that everyone likes who works the system in his favour so he gets to kill things. His end goal will be to gain political power, possibly starting with getting knighted. I'll also use bluff and diplomacy to turn the friends of my enemies against them if I can't get rid of them legally. Or kill them myself if there's no other way and I'm absolutely certain I won't get caught. People will see him as a great man, a hero, until they see who he really is... Okay, I may be getting a bit too into this.

Oh, and feel free to get into Dexter's alignment. I generally consider him to be Lawful Evil because of the whole need to kill and all the revenge, but I could see an argument for another alignment, possibly even Lawful Good, if you rule that mental conditions are separate from alignment since he can't really help himself and he felt terrible when he found out he had killed an innocent man. He also really wants to repent, but still, he's a murderer who has been known to actively keep criminals away from the police so he can get them on his table. The only part I can't really see much debate about is that he's Lawful, what with all the rules and procedures he follows; they may not be the rules most people follow, but his rules are about the most important thing to him. So... as you can see, I'm not opposed to getting into his alignment. :smallbiggrin:

[Drackstin]

at the moment i am playing in a evil campaign, a few things to realize in a setting like this is, Good alinement heroes fight for what they believe is good, where evil alinement "heroes" fight for what they believe is right. also, although some know "or care" what they are doing might be evil, lawful evil never really see themselves as evil. they see it as something that has to be done, for the betterment of themselves of they leader. lawful evil always follow the rules, what those rules are and who made those rules are the same as lawful good, someone else did, so you just agree with those or fine them to your liking, my DM docent use the blackguard class because its a prestige class, and he believes there can be evil paladins, your just working for someone else.

also remember that lawful evil is always looking out for number one, and that's yourself. if you have companions find use for them, tell them enough to accept you but never enough to know your true ends, because in a evil group they are most likely doing the same to you. your not really screwing each other over, but more using each others skills to get what you want. its kinda win win, but like in all things, don't forget to crush what gets in your way, you are number one k you know, so all those number twos really mean nothing to you.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Lawful Evil has several interesting roleplay potentials.

The LE Paladin is 'Paladin of Tyrrany', which pretty much tells you what he does. He's in charge, if you have a problem with that then you'll likely get executed.

Having said that, a tyrant isn't necessarily a bad thing when you are in a desperate situation. Having someone who can make the tough choices can ultimately save more lives than someone who has to deliberate to make a more moral decision.

That's not to say he's a good guy, he's still looking after himself first, however he also acknowledges that a tyrant cannot stand on his own, so he needs a group to help support him. So he can be a surprisingly good party member, because he's smart enough to realize that he can't do everything himself, and buying favors now can reap surprising benefits later on.

He's also going to be really good at setting up NPC resources, because he'll also realize that a tyrant without a population to be an overlord over is just some shmuck. Find an idiot administrator who is doing a piss-poor job, and knock him off. Why find a piss-poor one? Simple, odds are your overthrow will be more popular, so you will not have to deal with the hassle of putting down rebellion. Granted, you won't shirk at slaughtering people by the gross, if that is what is needed, however accomplishing it without needing to do so is more economical, and you can conserve your power and strength to deal with other challenges.

Another aspect of LE alignment is husbandry of resources paired with ruthlessness. Basically, a CE character might well end up buying anything that tickles their fancy. You have a very specific list of useful items, ordered in how useful they are cross-referenced by how expensive they are. If it isn't on your list, you are likely to save your money for something that is, because those are the things you need.

LE also tends to be more truthful, not because there's anything wrong with telling people what they need to know, but because you are well aware of how intricate a 'web of lies' is and how easy it is to get tripped up. Besides, half a truth is often more devastating than an outright lie anyways.

[Rhynn]

Oh, and feel free to get into Dexter's alignment. I generally consider him to be Lawful Evil because of the whole need to kill and all the revenge, but I could see an argument for another alignment, possibly even Lawful Good

Oh, I'm not that contrary. And since you asked, I open the can of worms: I say Neutral Evil. He kills because he feels a need, it's just been harnessed to serve "a greater good" (supposedly). He doesn't actually care about the good of society and justice, they're just an excuse to get his kicks. (Well, the TV series depiction does get wussified and turned more into a good guy than a harnessed monster. They even dropped the obvious sexual component - which is what defines classic male-type serial killers in the style of Ted Bundy, etc., which is what Dexter was.)

IMO, "Lawful" does not mean "orderly" (and absolutely does not mean "law-abiding"), it means "group-minded."

[Pickford]

Drelua,

Lawful implies the character keeps their word, and evil implies they are more inclined to take advantage of others than to be altruistic. Motivation is what alignment describes, not actions. Both evil and good characters might be inclined to give money or healing potions to someone in distress, but whereas a good character might do it simply to help, the evil character might do it to guilt the assisted person into providing some kind of help themselves down the road.

So some examples of Lawful Evil:

'Angel Eyes' from The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
'Vetinari' ruler of Ankh-morpork from Discworld.

Following a code, or attempting to impose order (their kind of order) on others.

So you could easily be the kind of person who thinks orphans or commoners need to be protected, and react unnecessarily violently against those who abuse them, and/or take pleasure in harming abusers.

[hamishspence]

What about the more solitary kind of Lawful character?

One doesn't have to be group-minded to be Lawful.

You can have a collective of the Chaotic (elf city), and individually-minded Lawful characters (lone wandering monks).

[dysprosium]

i always used Darth Vader as my archetype of LE

[Drelua]

Yeah, I'm picturing him more as the solitary type, possibly even with two, and only two, levels of monk. He doesn't necessarily care about innocent people but he will protect them for the chance to kill who ever tries hurt them, and maybe even help them for the sake of his public image; after all, how's he gonna get knighted and granted a castle and some land to rule over if people see him as the cold-blooded killer he is? He would be fairly solitary because he can never really trust anyone, even if he does rely on them to watch his back. He would also be fairly loyal, much like Dexter would do anything for his son or sister. Being evil doesn't rule out caring about people, after all.

Oh, and I should point out that I wouldn't likely be using this character in an evil campaign, as he'd certainly oppose the sort of wanton slaughter my group's evil characters tend to perpetrate.

As for Dexter, I still see him as Lawful Evil because like I said, he may not care about the rules everyone else follows, but his rules are very important to him; probably much more important than the law is to most people. Then again, I still haven't gotten around to reading the books, so there might be something there that would make me see him differently. Although, I do think the sexual component is pretty clear in the show, if only from the look on his face when he kills someone. That is, assuming you mean the pleasure he takes in killing people not... the other kind of sexual. :smalleek:

[Rhynn]

What about the more solitary kind of Lawful character?

One doesn't have to be group-minded to be Lawful.

You can have a collective of the Chaotic (elf city), and individually-minded Lawful characters (lone wandering monks).

You don't have to belong to any groups at all, but if you're Lawful, you are not automatically disciplined, honorable, etc. etc. You just put group before individual (your good-evil axis affects how much you put group before YOU particularly). A Lawful monk could be one to whom tradition is important (tradition is group cohesion). Discipline may go along with it, because groups need discipline. Honor can be part of it, because that's a social thing again - how others perceive you. And so on.

IMO a Chaotic Evil character could have enormous degrees of self-control, self-discipline, etc., but they would care absolutely nothing for group cohesion, probably not for tradition (if it go in their way), etc. You can be completely immoral and selfish with no regard for anyone else (Chaotic Evil), yet have monk-like personal discipline, self-control, etc., but it's for utilitarian reasons like "Discipline and self-control make me stronger and help me get what I want" rather than reasons like "Discipline is good and leads to a good life (for all)."

Comes back to group or individual.

Edit: This totally applies to Dexter, too. The only reason he cares about the rules is because they protect him. They are utilitarian. Following them keeps him safe and secret and from slipping up and getting caught and losing his life. That's entirely selfish - Neutral at best.
EditEdit: Also, to a lesser degree, repetition/habit (now Lawful in itself) and a twisted daddy relationship (not Lawful in itself).

[Drelua]

if you're Lawful...you just put group before individual

Well, that explains why we disagree on Dexter's alignment; we completely disagree about what being Lawful, especially in conjunction with Evil, means. I don't see anything in the description of Lawful Evil that says they care about groups over individuals. It's more that they just don't care about anyone. All they care about is themselves, both in terms of their own well-being and whatever code they follow. It also implies a certain arrogance, and that's really as far as it goes. The problem with alignment as I see it is that it is deliberately vague, and some people choose to fill in the blanks when they were left blank for a reason. Lawful Evil doesn't mean they put the group first, that's just what good people do; the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few is not a Lawful principle, it is a good one.

An evil person will be selfish, only caring about themselves whereas a Good person recognizes the existence of, well, the greater good. Sure, Evil people can care about some people and give value to those individuals' lives, maybe even more than their own. Dexter would gladly let 100 people die to save Debra, but he also lives by a strict code, as explained in the PHB description of Lawful Evil, which makes no mention of any sort of group mindedness. Now, I don't see anything inherently wrong with your view on Law vs. Chaos, but the fact is it simply does not exist in any of the rules I've seen.

[Krobar]

An evil person is not always a selfish person. Example: a group of marauding bandits from a certain city-state attack and kill a small trade caravan headed to another city-state, ruled by a lawful evil dictator.

In retaliation the dictator of the city state to which the caravan was headed assembles his army and attacks the city state from which the marauders came, and puts every man, woman, child and animal to the sword, burns the buildings and poisons the land as a lesson to others.

That's not selfish since it wasn't motivated by profit. It was motivated by 1) vengeance and 2) showing what happens when you mess with him as a lesson to others.

[Rhynn]

Well, that explains why we disagree on Dexter's alignment; we completely disagree about what being Lawful, especially in conjunction with Evil, means. I don't see anything in the description of Lawful Evil that says they care about groups over individuals. It's more that they just don't care about anyone. All they care about is themselves, both in terms of their own well-being and whatever code they follow. It also implies a certain arrogance, and that's really as far as it goes. The problem with alignment as I see it is that it is deliberately vague, and some people choose to fill in the blanks when they were left blank for a reason. Lawful Evil doesn't mean they put the group first, that's just what good people do; the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few is not a Lawful principle, it is a good one.

I've given examples but they must not have been good enough, because that's not at all what I meant by "group-minded."

A Lawful character believes groups and cooperation are good. Thus things that keep groups together and cause cooperation are good. This often includes things like honor, keeping your word, discipline (not just self-discipline), rules, laws, etc.

Who you care about is a matter of Good-Evil axis. "Good" means you care about basically everyone. "Neutral" means you care about your monkeysphere - your friends, family, and so on. This is the default for most people, especially when push comes to shove - it's why people who risk their lives for strangers are usually regarded as exceptional. (That'd be Good-aligned in D&D, although one action does not an alignment make.) "Evil" means you care about you.

Alignments aren't just about personality traits (altruistic, selfish, etc.), although they may be somewhat informed by them. They're about how you're aligned toward some basic concepts. Maybe "group" is a bad term here, but "community" isn't right either.

These interact in many ways. LG means you think groups are the best for everyone: by working together, you help the most people, you cause the most good, you reduce suffering to a minimum, or whatever. LN means you think groups get things done, but you're not that concerned with doing good, being kind, reducing suffering, and so on. LE means you think groups are a great way to get things done and you can reap their benefits, hopefully while leading said groups.

CG means you think groups aren't that great - maybe they're stifling, maybe you just don't like other people much, maybe you think freedom and individualism are everything, maybe you think organizations lead to bureaucracy and corruption and that always ends up doing more harm than good, and you care about good and other people as individuals. CN means you think whatever, I'm out for me and mine (although I might not be very reliable for them), but you don't really want to hurt anyone if they're not in your way. CE means ultimate selfishness, doing anything you can get away with (or, in the most extreme cases, things you can't get away with, although self-destructive evil is kind of stupid evil), killing, stealing, hurting, violating just for your own reasons (which can be very long-term reasons - a CE villain can be methodical, patient, slow-planning, but they are ultimately and absolutely selfish) - rules and groups and thinking about others just holds you back from doing what you want.

NG, N, and NE strike balances between these.

The Dark Sun examples get all this across pretty well, IMO.


See, I told you it'd be a giant derail.


Edit: A second stir of the pot: post-AD&D two-axis alignment (nine alignments) is inferior to OD&D cosmic Law-Chaos alignment (based on Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions and maybe Michael Moorcock a little bit but not a lot). Law is the forces of civilization and taming the world, controlling it, harnessing things; Chaos is everything opposed to it from the hostile wilderness, the natural monsters, the (unharnessed) powers of magic, entropy, the Faerie, primeval and primal forces... Clerics had to align themselves with Law at a certain level, or align with Chaos and become Anti-Clerics. None of it says anything about good or evil, much less about personalities.

[hamishspence]

Who you care about is a matter of Good-Evil axis. "Good" means you care about basically everyone. "Neutral" means you care about your monkeysphere - your friends, family, and so on. This is the default for most people, especially when push comes to shove - it's why people who risk their lives for strangers are usually regarded as exceptional. (That'd be Good-aligned in D&D, although one action does not an alignment make.) "Evil" means you care about you.

According to Savage Species, Evil characters can care about their monkeysphere just fine.

[Rhynn]

According to Savage Species, Evil characters can care about their monkeysphere just fine.

Yeah, okay, I think you've got a point. The Good-Evil axis can probably be simplified to "how far are you willing to go?" at the core of it. Obviously you can be Evil and completely fanatical about a cause external to you. (Although I think there's always some way that sort of fanaticism comes back to people thinking it's in their advantage somehow.)

A Good character will not do evil to get what they want. A Neutral character might, but will feel bad. An Evil character absolutely will and won't feel bad afterwards. (Simplifications, one act does not an alignment make.)

[ArcturusV]

Well, I can't really find anything anywhere that really defines "Law" as group based. I mean I looked, I tried. I see a lot in "Law" about honor, trust, reliability, tradition, judgement, close mindedness, etc. But not really anything about the "Group".

In fact the Group concern is usually defined in terms of Good vs Evil. A Good character (Of any alignment) favors the good of all people. Chaotic Good isn't "What's good for me" necessarily (Though that's how it's played out often I admit). This is why most sources say "Good Outsiders do not fight wars against one another". Unlike the Evil side, and the endless Blood War, the Good Side puts the cause of Good, and the group as a whole, over the "petty" concerns of their differing methods.

Thus when you model some real world examples, the Chaotic Good guy would not be the one saying "you A-hole" to paladins and punching them in the nuts/taco just for the hell of it, or resulting to Torture and such as anything but a last resort. The Chaotic Good guy would be more akin to say... Malcolm X or various Saboteurs, Traitors, and Defectors which are motivated by ideals rather than greed. The Lawful Evil types would be... say 1980s Era Stock broker ideals in America. Buy low, sell high, lie, cheat, do everything you can to get at the top of the heap, including and especially kicking everyone else off the ladder. But do not actually CHALLENGE the system, the system is what let you get ahead and mastery of the system is what lets you prevent others from kicking you down and taking your stuff. It also includes ideals like various "honor bound" thieves and criminals. Organized Crime is very Lawful Evil. Even as it breaks local laws, and even if really the ultimate rule of the organization is "whoever has the most power and leverage makes all the rules".

[Callin]

I pick and choose and form a set of rules for my Characters alignment using the RIFT's system. Still use standard DnD LG-CE to describe it, but i follow the 10 or so "Rules of Conduct" i created.