Does/Can Lawful Evil make good rulers?

[Zerter]

The empires of Tarquin are the obvious example. There is a lot of conflict and supression going on, but the conflict seems inherent to the region as a whole and the supression also comes with order (the trains running on time so to speak). If Tarquin succeeds in conquering the entire region, he will likely bring an end to the conflict, thus improving the lives of the inhabitants in a signifcant way.

Another LE example is Redcloak ruling the goblinoids. He seems to bring good to his people.

On the other hand: Tarquin burned those slaves. Malack wanted to sacrifice those people. Redcloak wants to see a lot of Goblins dead to cover up his betrayal of Xykon.

There is a real down side to a LE ruler. The extent of which seems to depend on the individual (Redcloak --> Tarquin --> Malack in my opinion).

We have seen other types of rulers (Xykon as the Chaotic Evil influence on Redcloak, Shojo as Chaotic Good, Hinjo as Lawful Good). CE seems a fatal flaw in a ruler, the empire of Xykon would not last. Shojo does a great job for 50 years and also highlights the flaws of LG: its the inflexibility that kills them. Quite literally almost as Hinjo can not see through the false Xykons or as demonstrated by giving everyone a trial and capturing them, thus keeping enemies alive that come to hurt them or other people (Miko, Belkar, the LG, that lord that got disintegrated, seriously, a decent prison would have been the best investment ever).

LE and CG seem to be the workable alignments. The difference seems to be this: when in a high resource / low conflict environment (without a need to do ugly stuff) LE works pretty good. When in a low resource / high conflict environment (when a lot of ugly stuff needs to get done), you are best off with a CG good ruler. Kind of like how Lincoln rocked more the more chaotic the civil war got (that was a great movie).

[Excise]

Personally I wouldn't vote for the slave owner/mass murder condoning candidate. That would be a deal breaker for me.

[Katuko]

As Redcloak demonstrates, an evil ruler works fine for you so long as his evil is directed towards other people. After Redcloak got over his racism towards hobgoblins, he has tried to keep the soldiers alive if possible. He also wants Gobbotopia to be a stable nation, and his people to be able to live alongside other species in peace.

Except the humans - and especially paladins, those pricks can all go die in a fire.

So if you're a goblin, Redcloak is an Evil ruler who is also pretty good for you. If you're a human, Redcloak is an Evil ruler that you will reap no benefit from.

[Synesthesy]

I think that is a too big topic for a oots forum. We'd need to talk about something more then fictional ruler, we'd talk about real goverment, like fascism (LE), democracy (LG), Berlusconianism (CE), communism, etc.

I could write pages, and pages, and pages. Maybe in my native language would be clearer :smallwink: however, I think it's just to big.

[Jade_Tarem]

LG does not exclude flexibility or insight, save on certain key points. Hinjo's inability to see the shell game was a personal flaw, not a flaw of his alignment - the 'army of paladins' comment was Haley's opinion on the subject, not an objective truth. Tarquin's Empire doesn't work because he's LE, it works because he's very, very intelligent and highly genre savvy in a world where that's literally a superpower.

This is ultimately true across the board - personal ability and reason trumps alignment every time. The Drow of Menzoberranzan have, within the Forgotten Realms setting, been making a CE government work for thousands of years. Sure, there's a high turnover rate among nobles in power, but the system itself stays intact.

[Porthos]

The empires of Tarquin are the obvious example. There is a lot of conflict and supression going on, but the conflict seems inherent to the region as a whole and the supression also comes with order (the trains running on time so to speak). If Tarquin succeeds in conquering the entire region, he will likely bring an end to the conflict, thus improving the lives of the inhabitants in a signifcant way.

Stability can be overrated.

Quoth the Giant:


.... Shojo's instability increased the quality of life for his citizens, at least while he was alive; Tarquin's stability decreases the quality (and duration) of life for his people. Conversely, Ian Starshine would, if able, bring more Chaos into the Western continent (and thus improve everyone's fate), while Kubota would have brought more Law to Azure City (and made everyone miserable).

Basically, if your argument is that Law is inherently Good and someone who increases the amount of Chaos in a system is incompatible with the idea of doing Good, you are playing with a very different alignment system than the one that has been published.

OK, no more war in (that section of the) Western Continent (allegedly). Great. Shame about all of the slavery, ninja death squads, horrific judicial system, and everything else that is going on in Tarquin's regieme.

But at least the death and suffering will be orderly, eh? :smallwink:

[Kish]

"Can evil be good?"

"Can cold be hot?"

"Can something that is all blue also be all red?"

[Dumbledore lives]

"Can evil be good?"

"Can cold be hot?"

"Can something that is all blue also be all red?"

Yes to all three, it's just a matter of perspective.

[Zerter]

View Post
.... Shojo's instability increased the quality of life for his citizens, at least while he was alive; Tarquin's stability decreases the quality (and duration) of life for his people. Conversely, Ian Starshine would, if able, bring more Chaos into the Western continent (and thus improve everyone's fate), while Kubota would have brought more Law to Azure City (and made everyone miserable).

Basically, if your argument is that Law is inherently Good and someone who increases the amount of Chaos in a system is incompatible with the idea of doing Good, you are playing with a very different alignment system than the one that has been published.
OK, no more war in the Great Western Desert (allegedly). Great. Shame about all of the slavery, ninja death squads, horrific judicial system, and everything else that is going on in Tarquin's regieme.

But at least the death and suffering will be orderly, eh?

What you are saying is true. It is also why I wrote about the difference between a high conflict and a low conflict environment. Shojo thrives because there are a lot of problems, Redcloak had no real problems for a while and his people seemed to be the happiest. Contrast this with the CG guys (Ian Starshine, the epic Illussionist guy) when they are shown situations without a problem (Elan dating his daughter, the Paladins knowing stuff about his gate), they create or see themselves because they are chaotic like that.

[mhsmith]

It probably depends on how far into the deep end you get before you're considered "evil." If you're someone who has a code of honor, keeps word etc (Lawful) and is blatantly and unrelentingly selfish ("Evil"?), that kind of character could make an effective ruler, and arguably better than plenty of "Good" alternatives. In-comic, think Tarquin without the overt sadistic tendencies (so still doing it for himself, still somewhat oppressive, but no "execute slaves for jollies" or other really evil stuff).

Heck, if you're willing to call "Evil" what amounts to just extreme selfishness, you could probably come up with an effective and "better for the people than most others" rulers who are Neutral Evil or even Chaotic Evil.

[Porthos]

"Can evil be good?"

"Can cold be hot?"

"Can something that is all blue also be all red?"

Now, now. Be fair. It's not that bad to live in Tarquin's regime. All one has to do to surive is keep one's head down and live your life.

Well, and not accidently say the wrong thing out loud (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0755.html).

Or have something (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0817.html) that someone higher in the power structure of the city than you covets.

Or accidently break a law that you didn't know about (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0731.html).

Or break any law at all, for that matter (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0734.html).

Or piss off the wrong person (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0735.html).

Or a few other things that I'm sure most people can reasonably avoid.

Why, living in Tarquin's regime sounds like a paradise to me, considering the alternatives! :smalltongue:



What you are saying is true. It is also why I wrote about the difference between a high conflict and a low conflict environment. Shojo thrives because there are a lot of problems, Redcloak had no real problems for a while and his people seemed to be the happiest. Contrast this with the CG guys (Ian Starshine, the epic Illussionist guy) when they are shown situations without a problem (Elan dating his daughter, the Paladins knowing stuff about his gate), they create or see themselves because they are chaotic like that.

I was saying you picked a pretty bad example by saying that Tarquin would improve the quality of life of people who were under his rule, either in a high conflict or low conflict enviornment. :smallwink:

For instance, lots and lots of people are dying via war as Tarquin is setting up his little regime. I also tend to think lots and lots of people will die in all of arenas and victims of ninja death squads and good ol' fashioned suppression of society once everything has solidified.

Hence my, "Stability can be overrated" comment. Frankly we have no idea how many people died in 'normal circumstances' before Tarquin decided they needed "his type of order". Nor do we have an idea of how much suffering there was in those little small countries.

But I'm gonna place a bet that they weren't as bad as Tarquin's view of a society. Might lose that bet, but it's one I'm willing to make. :smallwink:

[Chuikov]

Rather depends on where their 'evil' side is focused. A ruthless ruler who wipes out his opposition but ultimately leaves the rest of the population with peace and prosperity is certainly preferable to a principles zealot whose attempts to make the rest of society align with his moralistic views result in everyone despising him.

[Kish]

Yes to all three, it's just a matter of perspective.
Really, why is your screen name not Voldemort lives?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Yes to all three, it's just a matter of perspective.

Unless you are building up to referencing omniquantism (http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff1400/fv01386.htm), or speed of light shenanigans, I'm afraid that I can't imagine what perspective will make an all-blue item all-red.

Grey Wolf

[Zerter]

Well, I guess you are right Porthos. Tarquin might not make the best example. I meant more Tarquin but less extreme. Redcloak comes closer I guess.



"Can evil be good?"

"Can cold be hot?"

"Can something that is all blue also be all red?"



Really, why is your screen name not Voldemort lives?

Thanks for bumping this thread twice. Pretty sure you are supposed to have actual content though :D.

[GreyHound]

Unless you are building up to referencing omniquantism (http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff1400/fv01386.htm), or speed of light shenanigans, I'm afraid that I can't imagine what perspective will make an all-blue item all-red.

Grey Wolf

You could be color blind. :smalltongue:

[ranagrande]

Unless you are building up to referencing omniquantism (http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff1400/fv01386.htm), or speed of light shenanigans, I'm afraid that I can't imagine what perspective will make an all-blue item all-red.

That's easy. Just get something purple: all-blue and all-red.

[AstralFire]

Yes, Lawful Evil can make a good ruler so long as the evil is purely secondary to the pragmatism of running an effective, happy society, and (more importantly) the power and freedom that that brings with it.

However, as people are creatures of their circumstances, I feel such an LE ruler would eventually come to be LN or LG over time. Havelock Vetinari in the Discworld series is pretty much an example of that; while he was very clearly a utilitarian Lawful Evil or LN leaning to LE initially, the way the character is written shows a blossoming (if thoroughly pragmatic) goodness over the life of the series.

Similarly, though Shojo was a CG ruler, he was CG in such a self-disciplined, thoughtful and methodical manner that as a DM I would not feel uncomfortable with a player listing himself as NG or LG. Shojo being Chaotic is less an expression of how he worked and more an expression of what made him happiest. IMO.

[Toy Killer]

Unless it's purple..?

Or am I over simplifying the exercise?

:smalltongue:

EDIT: Swordsage'd!

[Dumbledore lives]

Unless you are building up to referencing omniquantism (http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff1400/fv01386.htm), or speed of light shenanigans, I'm afraid that I can't imagine what perspective will make an all-blue item all-red.

Grey Wolf

I was actually going for speed of light shennanigans, that or color blindness.

On topic however I don't see why not. I'm sure Darth Vader could make a good ruler without all the choking. If people are professional enough I think a LE ruler could work well. I mean like someone said above alignments don't actually dictate that much, it's really the individual that matters.

[Math_Mage]

A ruler who rules competently and well, but also has some horrifically evil secret personal habits, could be a 'good ruler' and maintain a LE alignment.

Also, an object that is cold at room temperature might be hot in a freezer, and a red giant could be blue-shifted to appear blue at a significant fraction of lightspeed.

[Vinsfeld]

THIS is a good ruler:

http://www.custom-wholesale.co.uk/upload/upimg2/Recycled-Ruler-9042.jpg

[AstralFire]

Example that just came to mind: ruler ensures that all trials are carried out in a fair and just manner so as to remove any chance of corruption. Executions are not a public spectacle because he doesn't want to encourage violence or frighten children. However, he personally carries out every execution by hand-strangling so he can revel in their slow death.

Very evil personal practice. Selfish reason that he does it. Practical effect is that he is an effective and wise ruler.

[Chuikov]

Here's a related question: can a Lawful Evil character, or even an Evil character in general, be a good parent?

I think most people would answer 'yes.' A man can be absolutely brutal to everyone else but kind and gentle and supportive of his children.

What that implies is that 'evil' and 'good' can be situational in a person's behavior. You can be evil towards one group and good towards another and, if the magnitude of your good or evil is still tilted heavily enough, still be Lawful Good or Lawful Evil and not Lawful Neutral. Tarquin isn't good or neutral just because he's treated Elan rather well, for example.

As such, yes, a Lawful Evil character can be a good ruler if his 'evil' aspect isn't directed towards his subjects. He can keep the proverbial trains running on time, keep people fed, keep people housed, do his best to make his country thrive economically and culturally...but still be an 'evil' person if he abuses and torments his family or his advisors or some small segment of the population in some irredeemable way.

Besides:

"The true interest of an absolute monarch generally coincides with that of his people. Their numbers, their wealth, their order, and their security, are the best and only foundations of his real greatness; and were he totally devoid of virtue, prudence might supply its place, and would dictate the same rule of conduct."
- The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire

Abusing your people is, in many ways, as much a symptom of stupidity as it is of villainy. If you want to be a Caligula and murder and torture people for sadistic kicks, you're going to have a longer lifespan doing it if the great mass of the people nevertheless think your rule benefits them.

[137beth]

I think that is a too big topic for a oots forum. We'd need to talk about something more then fictional ruler, we'd talk about real goverment, like fascism (LE), democracy (LG), Berlusconianism (CE), communism, etc.

I could write pages, and pages, and pages. Maybe in my native language would be clearer :smallwink: however, I think it's just to big.
Democracy is obviously CG, maybe NG. No, I don't have a reason for saying that.

"Can evil be good?"

"Can cold be hot?"

"Can something that is all blue also be all red?"
Can something which is Morally Justified also be Not Morally Justified? Are asking these questions Morally Justified?


THIS is a good ruler:

http://www.custom-wholesale.co.uk/upload/upimg2/Recycled-Ruler-9042.jpg
Indeed, I'd vote for him/her/it to be the world Ruler!

[Mando Knight]

(Redcloak --> Tarquin --> Malack in my opinion).Redcloak is only any "good" for his own kind. In what he probably sees as poetic justice, all non-goblinoids are enslaved or imprisoned and treated just as brutally as Tarquin treats those who oppose his regime.
Shojo does a great job for 50 years and also highlights the flaws of LG: its the inflexibility that kills them.
Shojo highlights the fatal flaw of Chaotic Good rulers. He had relative stability while he was alive and playing everyone against each other, but as soon as he died, his entire system collapsed because it wasn't a system, it was a con.

Chaotic Good characters may make good rebels, but the ideas of "break the rules when they get in the way" and "the law is for protecting me from you" are terrible for governing people. They may believe they have the peoples' best interest at heart, but throwing away the rulebook when it "gets in the way" of "the greater good" isn't only lazy thinking, it's dangerous. (What happens when you're wrong about "the greater good?")

A truly Lawful Good ruler believes in the rule of law, which is necessary for a stable government. Belief in the rule of law includes believing that the rules exist for a reason, and a LG ruler would believe that reason is to protect the people... including (if wise enough to recognize it) from the ruler's own mistakes. If someone else's rights are guaranteed by law but those rights are inconvenient to the ruler at the moment, it is Lawful to concede the rights at the expense of expediency.

In short, the only good ruler would be the one who remembers that the phrases "To err is human" and "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" are talking about them.

Democracy is obviously CG, maybe NG. No, I don't have a reason for saying that.
Any system in which the whims of any one ruler is impeded by the law is Lawful.

[pendell]

The empires of Tarquin are the obvious example. There is a lot of conflict and supression going on, but the conflict seems inherent to the region as a whole and the supression also comes with order (the trains running on time so to speak). If Tarquin succeeds in conquering the entire region, he will likely bring an end to the conflict, thus improving the lives of the inhabitants in a signifcant way.

Another LE example is Redcloak ruling the goblinoids. He seems to bring good to his people.

On the other hand: Tarquin burned those slaves. Malack wanted to sacrifice those people. Redcloak wants to see a lot of Goblins dead to cover up his betrayal of Xykon.

There is a real down side to a LE ruler. The extent of which seems to depend on the individual (Redcloak --> Tarquin --> Malack in my opinion).

We have seen other types of rulers (Xykon as the Chaotic Evil influence on Redcloak, Shojo as Chaotic Good, Hinjo as Lawful Good). CE seems a fatal flaw in a ruler, the empire of Xykon would not last. Shojo does a great job for 50 years and also highlights the flaws of LG: its the inflexibility that kills them. Quite literally almost as Hinjo can not see through the false Xykons or as demonstrated by giving everyone a trial and capturing them, thus keeping enemies alive that come to hurt them or other people (Miko, Belkar, the LG, that lord that got disintegrated, seriously, a decent prison would have been the best investment ever).

LE and CG seem to be the workable alignments. The difference seems to be this: when in a high resource / low conflict environment (without a need to do ugly stuff) LE works pretty good. When in a low resource / high conflict environment (when a lot of ugly stuff needs to get done), you are best off with a CG good ruler. Kind of like how Lincoln rocked more the more chaotic the civil war got (that was a great movie).


Yes. I can't use IRL examples, but from fiction I would point to "The Mote in God's Eye" by Pournelle. Or the Hammer books by David Drake.

Sometimes a lawful evil ruler is ideal IF he can be made to conceive of the entire kingdom as "his". Therefore he looks after them just as if they were his own flesh and blood. I suspect that's why IRL monarchs were encouraged to think of the entire kingdom as their personal estate -- so that they would cherish it and look after it.

And sometimes a lawful evil ruler is willing to do what a lawful good ruler does not. If dirty work is necessary so that people can sleep in beds at night, and heroes are too clean and pure to sully themselves with it, if Villains Do The Dirty Work, then you need a Villain and not a Hero.

ETA: And that's why there will always be villains. Because unless you're reading pure escapist fiction, dirty work is necessary. If heroes won't do what needs doing, villains are required .

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[zlefin]

Yes.
I nominate Gaul'doth half-dead from one of the heroes of might and magic IV campaigns.

[Math_Mage]

Redcloak is only any "good" for his own kind. In what he probably sees as poetic justice, all non-goblinoids are enslaved or imprisoned and treated just as brutally as Tarquin treats those who oppose his regime.
Shojo highlights the fatal flaw of Chaotic Good rulers. He had relative stability while he was alive and playing everyone against each other, but as soon as he died, his entire system collapsed because it wasn't a system, it was a con.
Word of God is that the system didn't collapse because Shojo ruled Chaotically, but because Shojo was disemboweled and an inexperienced ruler put on the throne with a massive army of goblins on the horizon, who planned to fight the invasion when the nobles thought they didn't have to. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15385351#post15385351) In the absence of said disemboweling and invasion, the transition would have been just fine. That is to say, your theories may be correct, but OotS doesn't support them and isn't intended to.

[Rakaydos]

By modern sensibilities, Rome was a Lawful Evil empire... and they conquered half the known world, with even the slaves happy that whatever their circomstances, at least they were Roman and not barbarians. And even Barbarians could become Roman, if they serve in the army first. The laws were there and enforced- and only the top level had the kind of NeutralEvil politics that were eventually named after Byzantium.

[Dark Matter]

The empires of Tarquin are the obvious example. There is a lot of conflict and supression going on, but the conflict seems inherent to the region as a whole and the supression also comes with order (the trains running on time so to speak). If Tarquin succeeds in conquering the entire region, he will likely bring an end to the conflict, thus improving the lives of the inhabitants in a signifcant way..All evidence that Tarquin is reducing the level of violence (or for that matter, that he's in any way helpful to the people) comes from Tarquin.

After that we've got Roy (etc) buying those maps, and the level of violence there didn't seem omnipresent there.

For that matter, all the "inherent to the region" violence also seems to come from Tarquin. Those dictators being overthrown every few years? That's him. The other wars? That's him too.

[Mando Knight]

Word of God is that the system didn't collapse because Shojo ruled Chaotically, but because Shojo was disemboweled and an inexperienced ruler put on the throne with a massive army of goblins on the horizon, who planned to fight the invasion when the nobles thought they didn't have to. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15385351#post15385351) In the absence of said disemboweling and invasion, the transition would have been just fine. That is to say, your theories may be correct, but OotS doesn't support them and isn't intended to.

The quote there was to refute that the nobles rebelled because Hinjo was weak rather than that he was leading them into a battle they thought was not only unwinnable but also completely avoidable (though him being half their age didn't help).

By running his con, Shojo kept the nobles in check by pitting them against another and by making them think they controlled him. The con allowed them perceived power, which they then attempted to impose on Hinjo when there was an immediate crisis after his succession.

Or, at least, that's how I interpret it. He also later said (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15385919#post15385919) that Azure City wasn't meant to be a social commentary on the effectiveness on Chaotic leadership, so it's not necessarily a robust model.

For that matter, all the "inherent to the region" violence also seems to come from Tarquin. Those dictators being overthrown every few years? That's him. The other wars? That's him too.
The system of frequent tyrant turnovers was in place before he got there, he just figured out how to exploit it.

[AstralFire]

The quote there was to refute that the nobles rebelled because Hinjo was weak rather than that he was leading them into a battle they thought was not only unwinnable but also completely avoidable (though him being half their age didn't help).

By running his con, Shojo kept the nobles in check by pitting them against another and by making them think they controlled him. The con allowed them perceived power, which they then attempted to impose on Hinjo when there was an immediate crisis after his succession.

Or, at least, that's how I interpret it.

I've seen nothing in the comic to suggest that the problem with Shojo's style of ruling was that he was chaotic, and everything to suggest that Hinjo was just not ready. A lawful good leader in that position would have still had just as hard a time getting a good following act.

[Math_Mage]

The quote there was to refute that the nobles rebelled because Hinjo was weak rather than that he was leading them into a battle they thought was not only unwinnable but also completely avoidable (though him being half their age didn't help).

By running his con, Shojo kept the nobles in check by pitting them against another and by making them think they controlled him. The con allowed them perceived power, which they then attempted to impose on Hinjo when there was an immediate crisis after his succession.

Or, at least, that's how I interpret it. He also later said (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15385919#post15385919) that Azure City wasn't meant to be a social commentary on the effectiveness on Chaotic leadership, so it's not necessarily a robust model.
Yes, Shojo's con decreased central authority. Here's the thing: Decreasing central authority is not always a bad thing. Can it buckle under sufficient external pressure? Sure, just as an excessive central authority can decay from within. Regardless of what the quote was trying to refute, it states that Hinjo could have taken over and reestablished central authority in the absence of Miko's insanity and Redcloak's invasion.


The system of frequent tyrant turnovers was in place before he got there, he just figured out how to exploit it.
And (again by Word of God) decreased the quality of life by so doing. Which is not to say that the scheme was necessarily Evil, but that however Tarquin went about executing it was.

[angry_bear]

I'm not sure if they can be good rulers as much as they can be effective rulers. They can create an education system, create jobs, and put people in beds. I mean sure, that education system is typically centered around the LE ruler being a living god, those jobs are typically as members of the secret police, and people can be dragged out of the beds by the aforementioned secret police; but a lawful evil ruler can still be effective. :smallsmile:

[Mando Knight]

I've seen nothing in the comic to suggest that the problem with Shojo's style of ruling was that he was chaotic, and everything to suggest that Hinjo was just not ready. A lawful good leader in that position would have still had just as hard a time getting a good following act.

Yes, Shojo's con decreased central authority. Here's the thing: Decreasing central authority is not always a bad thing. Can it buckle under sufficient external pressure? Sure, just as an excessive central authority can decay from within. Regardless of what the quote was trying to refute, it states that Hinjo could have taken over and reestablished central authority in the absence of Miko's insanity and Redcloak's invasion.
The decreased central authority is closer to my sticking point... the power didn't actually decentralize until after Shojo died (though his con gave the impression of decentralization). The assassination and imminent invasion were the hammer and chisel, but Shojo's con helped the city's nobility (both before the invasion and the various resistance leaders afterward) fracture among themselves the way they did. Of course, I suppose since we don't have an alternate version of the events to compare it to and because Rich didn't want to make the Azure City subplot a political commentary, there's not really all that much to work with.

Another note: Chaotic rulers would probably tend not to like being subjected to check and balance systems, which would be a key to a stable decentralized government... but ever paranoid of another person with actual power, they'd want such a system to be in place should they ever not be in charge.

And (again by Word of God) decreased the quality of life by so doing. Which is not to say that the scheme was necessarily Evil, but that however Tarquin went about executing it was.
Again, the tyrant turnover was in place already, Tarquin just figured out how to exploit it, and then did so in order to bring the continent under the heel of his steely boot. This is more an Evil thing than a Lawful thing.

[AstralFire]

I think awareness that you potentially need to be held in check is more a function of Wisdom and Good/Evil than Chaos/Law.

[Amphiox]

Lawful Evil good rulers?

How about Havelock Vetinari?

I think it is possible for any of Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic or Good-Neutral-Evil to make a good ruler.

The alignment system is flexible enough to accommodate good rulers in all 9 categories.

It all depends on circumstances.

[Adanedhel]

Whatever can be said of Redcloaks blatant racism, he at least doesn't kill non-Paladin humans for fun, which puts him miles above Tarquin as far as a ruler goes, even for humans. He may be a cold bastard, whose sunken cost fallacy pushes him to ever new depths, but at least RCs evil has a goal, rather then RCs personal enjoyment, and RC doesn't revel in death and spectacle as Tarquin does. I think even as a human, living under RC regime might still be better then under Tarquins regime. Which of course only means that Tarquins is even worse, and is no statement on living under RC as seen in vacuüm. (Hint, not a good place to live.) But if Redcloak could push his speciesism aside, he'd be a pretty 'good' LE ruler to live under.

[nobodyknows]

It seems fair to think it plausible.

I mean, a rational dictator is going to want to maximize his power to achieve his ends. Often this goal is going to be tied with providing good motivations to his people to gain more resources, so those resources will be his.(through appropriation in times of war, taxation, trade, etc) Because slaves can occasionally be rebellious or have questionable loyalty, this means that free people, perhaps even highly compensated ones would also often have to be used. Because people are more productive not being punished than punished, it's reasonable to gear punishments to be minimal or to only destroy those truly considered undesirable for the success of that society.

So, I mean, sure... there would be a ruthlessness a lot of people would find unacceptable, but it could be a relatively good place to live. Needless harm to people who are productive and can potentially pay taxes, fight in the armies, or simply produce desired goods for the palace, would be curtailed. Some part of me wants to say that it'd be like working for a major corporation. :smalltongue:

[veti]

Here's a related question: can a Lawful Evil character, or even an Evil character in general, be a good parent?

I think most people would answer 'yes.' A man can be absolutely brutal to everyone else but kind and gentle and supportive of his children.

Another way of looking at that question and answer is: you haven't defined what you mean by "a good parent", or "a good ruler".

I think "being a good parent" requires more than "being kind and gentle and supportive of your children". It's also about what lessons you teach them, what sort of people you try to shape them into, and what sort of people they grow up to be. And in general, I think, children raised by evil parents tend to turn out pretty rotten.

Look at Nale, for instance. Where was he ever going to pick up any sort of moral sense from? No matter how "kind and gentle and supportive" Tarquin was towards him, without anyone to teach him concepts such as empathy and integrity, he was morally screwed. Tarquin himself seems to realise this - that's why (he said) he refrained from having any more children.

So the question hinges on - what do you mean by "a good ruler"? How do you distinguish between good and bad rulers - what are your criteria?

[Kish]

Here's a related question: can a Lawful Evil character, or even an Evil character in general, be a good parent?
At the risk of sounding like Sir Leorik, there's a Ravenloft lord whose past history addresses that question.

The answer, for him anyway, is "No." He tried very hard to be a good husband to his wife and a good father to his three children. They all grew to hate him or died horribly or both, because he couldn't or didn't restrain impulses like (trigger warning for animal cruelty) when his son's puppy tried to bite him, brutally killing the puppy in front of his son. That's just one example; the full history is really a very well done demonstration of how his desire to have a type of happiness that didn't come from cruelty and the brutal exercise of power was thwarted, all throughout his lifetime, by simply the fact that he was a terrible person.

[Chuikov]

Another way of looking at that question and answer is: you haven't defined what you mean by "a good parent", or "a good ruler".

I think "being a good parent" requires more than "being kind and gentle and supportive of your children". It's also about what lessons you teach them, what sort of people you try to shape them into, and what sort of people they grow up to be. And in general, I think, children raised by evil parents tend to turn out pretty rotten.

Oh? I beg to differ. A common stereotype of the mob boss is that they raise their kids so they won't have to go into the same ugly business. A parent who is ruthless in their private affairs doesn't necessarily raise their kids to kick puppies. Parents who do bad things for a living do not necessarily raise kids who turn out to be equally immoral people, nor do they necessarily want them to turn out equally immoral. They might see the awful things they do as necessary for the betterment of their children's lives, but never once consider those awful things as something they should encourage their kids to do as well.

Of course, they can, as Tarquin demonstrates. And their lack of ethics may spill over into their private lives, leading to children getting a bad example or being spoiled or what-not. But it isn't a certainty by any means and the moment it's not a certainty we have to concede evil people can nonetheless be good parents. Someone can be 'evil' in one environment and 'good' in another.


So the question hinges on - what do you mean by "a good ruler"? How do you distinguish between good and bad rulers - what are your criteria?

A fair definition, I would say, is a ruler who benefits the vast majority of the population of his realm through his rule, protecting their lives and property and helping to encourage their prosperity, enforcing just laws and keeping the peace. Can an evil person do all that? Sure, if he's pragmatic enough to realize that doing all those things helps him keep his power.

[Synesthesy]

The first think we have to say it's that the alligment is not absolute for everything. We know that a paladin MUST be LG for gain acces to paladin's power, but from the Redcloak point of view they aren't good at all.

For the paladin, Gobbotopia is the most evil nation in the world, who has conquered their civilized nation and killed his innocent population.
For the goblinoid, Azure City was a fascist place from where an army of merciless warrior goes to kill every innocent creatures are tagged as 'evil', even women and children; Gobbotopia insted is the revenge of the oppressed creatures who are trying to found out their place in the world.

We know that there is a bigger force that tagges one as 'good' and the other as 'evil' (where both are lawfull), but who is right?

I remember when Redcloak argued with Miko. Who was the more inhuman, Miko or Xykon? I thought that Reddy was right.

From the goblin's point of view, good and evil doesn't mean what we think from our point. But even for the paladins, good and evil doesn't mean what we think they should.

So, can a LE be a good goverment? It depends.

From a d&d point of view, the answer is: yes. It is good for any evil creatures.

From a more real point of view, the answer is: never, but not always good means good and evil means evil.



For the law vs chaos point of view, I think that the best goverment should be 'Lawful but with chaotic leader'. Shojo wasn't righter then a LG leader: he was smarter. This is why Azure City was a good place to be: because Shojo used the rules when it was right to use them, and he didn't use them when it was wrong to use them. Because the important thing, for him, was that Azure City was a good place, nothing else. Belkar understood it wery well.

[Klear]

A fair definition, I would say, is a ruler who benefits the vast majority of the population of his realm through his rule, protecting their lives and property and helping to encourage their prosperity, enforcing just laws and keeping the peace. Can an evil person do all that? Sure, if he's pragmatic enough to realize that doing all those things helps him keep his power.

This is a dangerous definition - benefiting majority can (and often was) done at the cost of actively persecuting a minority. As a matter of fact, finding a scapegoat minority is an excellent way to keep in power, and can be found in pretty much all evil governments.

A good government should benefit all. Not sure about ruler, but I think I'd argue for a true neutral government as a whole.

[AKA_Bait]

Oooh Riddles!


"Can evil be good?"

I may be bad, but I feel, good. (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDQQtwIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dbjo ks83N5EM&ei=DVkXUpWvHrXi4APL54DoDg&usg=AFQjCNHZCMIuRjrtgCvTWYA4EiR5NniqPg&sig2=4efHkZilRG614g2doD_Ykg&bvm=bv.51156542,d.dmg)


"Can cold be hot?"

The White Witch or an ice sculpture of Alyson Hannigan.


"Can something that is all blue also be all red?"

Joni Mitchell with a bad sunburn or an embarrassed Henry McCoy.

I'm sorry. I just couldn't help myself.

[masamune1]

I think that is a too big topic for a oots forum. We'd need to talk about something more then fictional ruler, we'd talk about real goverment, like fascism (LE), democracy (LG), Berlusconianism (CE), communism, etc.

I could write pages, and pages, and pages. Maybe in my native language would be clearer :smallwink: however, I think it's just to big.

Fascism aspires to Lawful Evil; it doesn't necessarily work that way in practice. Neither Fascist Italy nor Nazi Germany were the brutally efficient, smoothly run police states they presented themselves as. Both were crippled by incompetence, opportunism, cronyism, mismanagement, rampant egos, etc.




For the paladin, Gobbotopia is the most evil nation in the world, who has conquered their civilized nation and killed his innocent population.
For the goblinoid, Azure City was a fascist place from where an army of merciless warrior goes to kill every innocent creatures are tagged as 'evil', even women and children; Gobbotopia insted is the revenge of the oppressed creatures who are trying to found out their place in the world.

I think that might be more Redcloaks POV than the POV of goblinoids in general. The average goblin seems rather amoral, at best- they love Redcloak and that he has given them their own city and stuff, but they never really hated Azure City or humans as much as he does. They just see them as the squishy, not yellow / green things on the wrong end of their sword. They follow Redcloak because they know that he is smarter than them and is looking out for them, but I don't think they really share his agenda beyond that. Most probably don't give humans any thought at all, nor see any inherent problem with humans killings goblins and vice-versa- that's just what they do.



I remember when Redcloak argued with Miko. Who was the more inhuman, Miko or Xykon? I thought that Reddy was right.

From the goblin's point of view, good and evil doesn't mean what we think from our point. But even for the paladins, good and evil doesn't mean what we think they should.


Redcloak was specifically arguing that Miko was unnatural (not "inhuman"- why would he complain that she didn't act human?) because she refused to beg for mercy. Which is likely hypocritical, unless he would say the same of a goblin who refused to beg for mercy from a Paladin, which is unlikely to say the least. Given his own unnatural long life and all the terrible things and betrayals he has committed in pursuit of his goal, its not hard to think that he is at heart a coward (or fears that he is) and is trying to mock her for not being one, thus justifying himself.

To put it another way, if she had begged for mercy, he might have just ran into a rant about how much of a coward she is, even though she is supposed to be a brave Paladin. In other words, no matter what Miko said or did, Redcloak would still find some way to put her down, because he's prejudiced against humans and Paladins in particular and there is one right in front of him.

He wasn't making a commentary on morality or Lawful Good. I think he feels that goblins can be as Good as anyone else, but they aren't given a chance to be and are simply deemed Evil. I think he has a pretty good idea of what good and evil are (hence his freak out that he is turning into Xykon), but chooses to be Evil because that is the only way he'll achieve his mission, and because the rest of the world has it coming for all they have put goblins through. Though I do think he is slightly deluded there- he might be right, but Good goblins seem to be a minority- most might actually be evil and he doesn't realize it, even if they are evil seemingly by design.

Bit of a tragedy, really, if he is one of the few goblins who actually had a chance of being something other than evil; and because of that, he is evil. Which ironically makes him the most human.

[Unisus]

Redcloak was specifically arguing that Miko was unnatural (not "inhuman"- why would he complain that she didn't act human?) because she refused to beg for mercy. Which is likely hypocritical, unless he would say the same of a goblin who refused to beg for mercy from a Paladin, which is unlikely to say the least. Given his own unnatural long life and all the terrible things and betrayals he has committed in pursuit of his goal, its not hard to think that he is at heart a coward (or fears that he is) and is trying to mock her for not being one, thus justifying himself.

Actually Redcloak did not argue that Miko was unnatural because she refused to beg for mercy - if she had done this out of pride, he may even have respected her. It was the fact that she simply had no fear at all - that she was unable to fear - which caused him to call her unnatural.

[masamune1]

My bad. Still think he was just looking for excuses to hate her though, and I don't think pride would have earnt her his respect. If anything, its what he hates most about them.

[Branco]

Fascism aspires to Lawful Evil; it doesn't necessarily work that way in practice. Neither Fascist Italy nor Nazi Germany were the brutally efficient, smoothly run police states they presented themselves as. Both were crippled by incompetence, opportunism, cronyism, mismanagement, rampant egos, etc.

What exactly are you trying to say? None of these circumstances contradict the idea of lawful evil. Most of these even seem to be very much in line with a lawful evil mindset.




I think that might be more Redcloaks POV than the POV of goblinoids in general. The average goblin seems rather amoral, at best- they love Redcloak and that he has given them their own city and stuff, but they never really hated Azure City or humans as much as he does. They just see them as the squishy, not yellow / green things on the wrong end of their sword. They follow Redcloak because they know that he is smarter than them and is looking out for them, but I don't think they really share his agenda beyond that. Most probably don't give humans any thought at all, nor see any inherent problem with humans killings goblins and vice-versa- that's just what they do.

Hitler, man. Adolf Hitler. You are trying to relativize the forced migration of the Azurites during the Goblin-Azurite War of #422 to #484. Also the subsequent genocide of the survivors and the establishing of the fascist goblin regime thereafter.
The goblin people accepted Redcloak as rightful and absolute ruler to their nation. They have absolutely accepted his agenda and thereby are just well to blame as Redcloak, man. Redcloak.


Hitler.
Redcloak.
Hitler.

[MReav]

Whatever can be said of Redcloaks blatant racism, he at least doesn't kill non-Paladin humans for fun, which puts him miles above Tarquin as far as a ruler goes, even for humans. He may be a cold bastard, whose sunken cost fallacy pushes him to ever new depths, but at least RCs evil has a goal, rather then RCs personal enjoyment, and RC doesn't revel in death and spectacle as Tarquin does. I think even as a human, living under RC regime might still be better then under Tarquins regime. Which of course only means that Tarquins is even worse, and is no statement on living under RC as seen in vacuüm. (Hint, not a good place to live.) But if Redcloak could push his speciesism aside, he'd be a pretty 'good' LE ruler to live under.

I think you forget Xykon. What RC lacks in casual brutality, Xykon happily makes up for.

[masamune1]

What exactly are you trying to say? None of these circumstances contradict the idea of lawful evil. Most of these even seem to be very much in line with a lawful evil mindset.


It contradicts when its different from the Lawful Evil society they set out to create.

And generally speaking; no, they aren't in line with a Lawful Evil mindset. Lawful Evil tends to prize efficiency, hard work, discipline etc. These things were, at best, only partly present in those two societies.


Hitler, man. Adolf Hitler. You are trying to relativize the forced migration of the Azurites during the Goblin-Azurite War of #422 to #484. Also the subsequent genocide of the survivors and the establishing of the fascist goblin regime thereafter.
The goblin people accepted Redcloak as rightful and absolute ruler to their nation. They have absolutely accepted his agenda and thereby are just well to blame as Redcloak, man. Redcloak.


Hitler.
Redcloak.
Hitler.

Redcloak is not Hitler.

And just because they accept Redcloak as their leader doesn't mean that they shared his beliefs prior to or after the fact.

[BlackDragonKing]

Lawful Evil good rulers?

How about Havelock Vetinari?

I think it is possible for any of Lawful-Neutral-Chaotic or Good-Neutral-Evil to make a good ruler.

The alignment system is flexible enough to accommodate good rulers in all 9 categories.

It all depends on circumstances.

Vetinari, despite his immense cynicism, reads to me as far more of a Lawful Neutral ruler. He is a TYRANT, but this is not the same thing as an EVIL ruler, as a Lawful Evil character would not concern himself with the things that Lord Vetinari does. The plight of Orcs and Goblins in Discworld would not be of any particular interest to Lawful Evil authorities, nor would corruption and stagnation in the upper echelons of society. Vetinari desires order for EVERYONE, and the law applies to EVERYONE in his city, not just the people too poor and/or stupid to evade it. I looked up an example of Lawful Neutral verus Lawful Evil, and to me it reminds me of Vetinari's conflict with numerous Discworld villains:


Lawful evil and lawful neutral characters will have conflicts over the nature of laws. Lawful evil characters will support laws that further their own cause, normally meaning the gaining of wealth and power. They will want laws which ensure that their regime gets the upper hand in society. Any laws that oppress the weak will not concern them, unless they receive no benefits from this oppression. A lawful neutral character will resent a lawful evil character's attempt to control laws to benefit their own group. Lawful neutral characters want all laws to apply equally to everyone, for good or ill. They will also have contempt for the way that lawful evil characters use laws to injure or harass their enemies. To lawful neutral characters, laws exist to provide order and stability for society. To lawful evil characters, laws exist to elevate the strong and cunning to positions of power over others.

You can see this exemplified in how Vetinari homes in on people that are abusing his laws for their own profit and greed, like the Lavishes, Reacher Gilt, or Lord Rust, and arranges for the "little guy" such men would normally ignore or crush to set their downfall in motion so he can exercise his power with minimum visibility and bring the law down on men who would exploit it.

--

More on-topic, in a D&D setting where good and evil have objective qualities, by definition a Lawful Evil ruler is not a good ruler because he'd be Lawful Good if he was. :smalltongue: They can, however, be effective rulers when their ambition, violent tendencies, and greed is balanced by personal codes and not directed solely at their own people. A LE ruler with a lot of enemies can be quite effective, as he will work tirelessly towards raising his entire nation up above those enemies and LE rulers are rarely inclined towards Caligula behavior, which is the worst thing you can get in a ruler. When there's no one to fight, however, the LE character's lawful side might keep the peace, but their evil side will usually make that an unpleasant peace to keep. I have little doubt the system that proceeded Tarquin was lousy, but I'm thinking of this in terms of bad and worse, not bad and good. The system of violence and revolution Tarquin started to exploit was horrible and is not a desirable state for the region to return to after Tarquin is dealt with, but Tarquin's solution is hardly an improvement; a better improvement would be to implement some sort of system that led all of the tribes and nation-states to settle their differences in a less violent manner and create a stability based on conscience and understanding, not lies and intimidation. It's a lot HARDER, yeah, but Good is hard. Evil is easy.

[Branco]

It contradicts when its different from the Lawful Evil society they set out to create.

And generally speaking; no, they aren't in line with a Lawful Evil mindset. Lawful Evil tends to prize efficiency, hard work, discipline etc. These things were, at best, only partly present in those two societies.

I think I see where you're coming from. Your point is that the striven for lawful evil society can never be fully achieved, am I right?

J'accuse. You seem to be mixing up categories. You see you can't suppose an ideal lawful evil society. Maybe you could in the OOTS world but we are speaking of the OOTS world. The concept of alignment is designed to employ on a fictional world. For obvious reasons, roleplaying reasons; and it's a lot of fun! There are solely nine alignments. You are at fault when you speak of an ideal lawful evil society because lawful evil is by design a broad term meant to encompass a lot of different concepts. Nitpicking different attributes will lead to no results:


Lawful Evil tends to prize efficiency, hard work, discipline etc.

Efficiency, hard work, discipline? 3rd Reich society definitely had all these traits; it's not just rumors. I'm not even talking about fighting! Logistic-wise the Wehrmacht reached a degree in efficiency on par with the Roman army!
But I digress...
Also, where is the evil in what you named?



Redcloak is not Hitler.

And just because they accept Redcloak as their leader doesn't mean that they shared his beliefs prior to or after the fact.

They dont necessarily have to. What I'm saying is that the goblin people are still responsible for the deeds committed. The germans have a word for this: collective guilt.

[hamishspence]

Vetinari, despite his immense cynicism, reads to me as far more of a Lawful Neutral ruler.Vetinari's one of those characters that's evolved a lot over time.

I don't think he's ever lost his habit of hanging mimes upside-down in a scorpion pit, opposite a "Learn The Words" sign, though.

[jidasfire]

Can lawful evil be good rulers? I think the fairest answer is, at best, yes, but only for some. Since lawful evil clearly has an evil component, there must be some portion of it that involves the standard definition of hurting, oppressing, and killing others. It could go a lot of ways, but common ones tend to be treating citizens well but conquering and enslaving people of other nations, treating particular ethnic groups well while oppressing others, or creating an overall sense of prosperity for the nation and those who rule it but squeezing every drop out of the citizens, or having a fair and just set of laws, but enforcing them so unevenly that they may as well not exist. Each of those systems uses the rule of law to create a sense of stability, and could even be perceived by some as a good government, but in every case, it builds up some at the price of tearing down others. Now it's true that in politics, you can never make everyone happy, but the problem with lawful evil is that it doesn't even try, or, as Tarquin put it, it just doesn't consider everyone a someone.

And again, I point out that this is lawful evil at its best. At its worst, a lawful evil regime can be a thousand times worse than a chaotic or neutral evil one.

[sihnfahl]

And again, I point out that this is lawful evil at its best. At its worst, a lawful evil regime can be a thousand times worse than a chaotic or neutral evil one.
Expanding on it - a lawful evil government can legitimize slavery...

... and hold the law so rigidly that even a minor offense can result in someone becoming a slave permanently.

[masamune1]

I think I see where you're coming from. Your point is that the striven for lawful evil society can never be fully achieved, am I right?

J'accuse. You seem to be mixing up categories. You see you can't suppose an ideal lawful evil society. Maybe you could in the OOTS world but we are speaking of the OOTS world. The concept of alignment is designed to employ on a fictional world. For obvious reasons, roleplaying reasons; and it's a lot of fun! There are solely nine alignments. You are at fault when you speak of an ideal lawful evil society because lawful evil is by design a broad term meant to encompass a lot of different concepts. Nitpicking different attributes will lead to no results:

Speaking in terms of the rules the Giant has laid down at least, there is a clear difference between striving for an alignment and actually being said alignment.

The Fascists and the Nazi's strived for what we'd all consider a Lawful Evil society. And they failed, because they let their own selfishness and behaviour get in the way.

And even in terms of the type of society they wanted to build or imagined they were building, they failed. Badly. Mostly because the leaders cared more about themselves and their own- conflicting- agendas, which were often selfish.


Efficiency, hard work, discipline? 3rd Reich society definitely had all these traits; it's not just rumors. I'm not even talking about fighting! Logistic-wise the Wehrmacht reached a degree in efficiency on par with the Roman army!
But I digress...
Also, where is the evil in what you named?

The Wehrmacht is not the Third Reich. The Third Reich is Hitler and the regime he created. Hitler himself was a lazy ruler who allowed, even encouraged, his underlings to carve out rival bureaucratic empires that frequently did the exact same job; nearly crippled the German economy (for what would have been the third time) because he spent everything on public works (giant, tasteless architecture often of his own design) and military armament, even though there was no money; promoted or dismissed people based on how much or little they praised or agreed with him or toed the party line, regardless of their competence; lied, frequently and compulsively, heedless of the long term consequences; bungled into a world war because he thought the rest of the world would just let him invade yet another country.....

And I should think if I talk about the Nazi's and whether or not they were Lawful Evil, I don't need to explain the Evil part. I was only trying to talk about the Lawful part anyway.


They dont necessarily have to. What I'm saying is that the goblin people are still responsible for the deeds committed. The germans have a word for this: collective guilt.

I wasn't talking about anything like that.

I was saying that Redcloak believes one thing and the Goblins believe another. That's it. It was a separate issue. I was casting doubt on the idea that the Goblins thought of Azure City as this oppressive, fascist place and themselves as the vengeful victims of oppression, at least before Redcloak came along and told them that was the case.

I wasn't talking about their responsibility one way or the other. I was talking about Redcloak and his character.

[masamune1]

Vetinari's one of those characters that's evolved a lot over time.

I don't think he's ever lost his habit of hanging mimes upside-down in a scorpion pit, opposite a "Learn The Words" sign, though.

Not sure we're meant to think of that as "evil" though.

[ChaosArchon]

I think Tarquin is an objectively good leader. Hmm perhaps I should reword that as an effective leader. Sure people die for a variety of reasons for random acts but that is society in general. Here people die in the arena, in NYC they die in the alley ways getting mugged, raped, etc. However the crime-rate in the EoB seems nonexistent, and for a good reason, if you commit a crime you will either be summarily executed or sent to the arena to die.

So while yes, Tarquin rules with an iron fist, at least crime seems to be eliminated in his domain. Personally I find that to be a good thing because it provides some security to the populace. If we look at cities where crime was rampant (ie Greyski City) where mugging and murder were fairly common place.

Another aspect of Tarquin's campaign is that he is unifying the continent under a central authority. Is that so bad when this continent has been in a constant state of war for countless centuries? We know this series of unstable governments was in place long before Tarquin as that was the reason he came to the continent in the first place. So while yes, war continues and people die, there are arguably less nations at war, so less people will be dying. Eventually, once total control has been achieved the wars may stop all together or continue in an even more limited context.

So yes, people still die, but that would happen anyway, just look IRL at the wars we "civilized" nations wage for our ideologies and the crime rampant in our countries. What Tarquin is doing is bad but it also serves a greater purpose in bringing peace to the continent. And now that Malack is death, the whole regime of sacrificial slaughter is off the table.

[Smolder]

Historically, every good ruler was Lawful Evil. The Chaotic ones tend to fiddle while their empire burns down.

[Branco]

Speaking in terms of the rules the Giant has laid down at least, there is a clear difference between striving for an alignment and actually being said alignment.

The Fascists and the Nazi's strived for what we'd all consider a Lawful Evil society. And they failed, because they let their own selfishness and behaviour get in the way.

And even in terms of the type of society they wanted to build or imagined they were building, they failed. Badly. Mostly because the leaders cared more about themselves and their own- conflicting- agendas, which were often selfish.

The point about Word of Giant is very interesting, I would love to read it.

Saying the 3rd Reich failed because of there selfishness sounds like something out of a saturday morning cartoon and is vague at best. But instead of me ineffectually rebutting, I'd just like to ask you a very poignant question:

If they weren't a lawful evil society (because they "failed" at it), what other alignment would you assign to them?



The Wehrmacht is not the Third Reich. The Third Reich is Hitler and the regime he created. Hitler himself was a lazy ruler who allowed, even encouraged, his underlings to carve out rival bureaucratic empires that frequently did the exact same job; nearly crippled the German economy (for what would have been the third time) because he spent everything on public works (giant, tasteless architecture often of his own design) and military armament, even though there was no money; promoted or dismissed people based on how much or little they praised or agreed with him or toed the party line, regardless of their competence; lied, frequently and compulsively, heedless of the long term consequences; bungled into a world war because he thought the rest of the world would just let him invade yet another country.....

And I should think if I talk about the Nazi's and whether or not they were Lawful Evil, I don't need to explain the Evil part. I was only trying to talk about the Lawful part anyway.

Well, that's already kind of an answer to my aforementioned question, now is it? Here's another one:

How can you say a society like third Reich which executed an orchestrated genocide of a magnitude never seen before, fought on two battlefronts and whose authoritarian disposition permeated all areas of everyday live wasn't effective or lawful? It crumbled eventually but what about when it existed?



I wasn't talking about anything like that.

I was saying that Redcloak believes one thing and the Goblins believe another. That's it. It was a separate issue. I was casting doubt on the idea that the Goblins thought of Azure City as this oppressive, fascist place and themselves as the vengeful victims of oppression, at least before Redcloak came along and told them that was the case.

I wasn't talking about their responsibility one way or the other. I was talking about Redcloak and his character.

True, I misunderstood.

[Klear]

So while yes, Tarquin rules with an iron fist, at least crime seems to be eliminated in his domain. Personally I find that to be a good thing because it provides some security to the populace. If we look at cities where crime was rampant (ie Greyski City) where mugging and murder were fairly common place.

What was the quote about giving up liberty for security? Anyway, if you really want to abolish crime, there's nothing more effective than to abolish criminal law as a whole.

I'm not sure whether such anarchy is preferable to a fascist police state, though. And Tarquin's empire still has plenty of crime - where do you think he gets all the slaves? In any case, the fact that police states tend to have low crime rates is well known and in no way constitutes an argument for such a kind of governance.

On another note, I feel kinda sad that after barely lurking for quite some time, I begin to post in a thread that will inevitably get thoroughly scrubbed and maybe even locked very soon. I guess this kind of discussion attracts chaotic people who don't read the rules? =P


Historically, every good ruler was Lawful Evil. The Chaotic ones tend to fiddle while their empire burns down.

I was about to ask "Why evil?", but never mind. Power corrupts, and all that jazz. I agree.

[Geordnet]

Define what makes a "good ruler". If you mean an efficient or effective ruler, then definitely. (In the right context, at least...)


But generally I prefer not to place anything related to government on the Good-Evil axis. Too many strong political opinions, way too easy to offend people. It's just a hot-button topic which is best avoided IMO.

Although, I will liken the Law/Chaos axis to a government being founded on either enforcement by a central power vs. the people governing themselves. But that's it: governments can only be Lawful or Chaotic, it's the people in government whom are Good or Evil.

[Klear]

Although, I will liken the Law/Chaos axis to a government being founded on either enforcement by a central power vs. the people governing themselves. But that's it: governments can only be Lawful or Chaotic, it's the people in government whom are Good or Evil.

I would assign that axis to personal freedom, myself, ranging from anarchy to totalitarian states. I guess this axis can be applied in several ways too...

And the problem with the good/evil axis is also that in politics (and a lot of other things) evil lies on both ends, while good is somewhere in the middle. Not necessarily exactly in the middle, but somewhere far from extremes.

[masamune1]

The point about Word of Giant is very interesting, I would love to read it.

Saying the 3rd Reich failed because of there selfishness sounds like something out of a saturday morning cartoon and is vague at best. But instead of me ineffectually rebutting, I'd just like to ask you a very poignant question:

If they weren't a lawful evil society (because they "failed" at it), what other alignment would you assign to them?

Frankly, they were well on the way to Chaotic Evil.

Though of course, different aspects of said society fall all over the scale.


Well, that's already kind of an answer to my aforementioned question, now is it? Here's another one:

How can you say a society like third Reich which executed an orchestrated genocide of a magnitude never seen before, fought on two battlefronts and whose authoritarian disposition permeated all areas of everyday live wasn't effective or lawful? It crumbled eventually but what about when it existed?


"Orchestrated" is a strong term. The original plan was to decimate the Polish Jewish population (and other sectors of Polish society) by killing a % and then dealing with the rest later. The SS and the army probably killed more than intended, sometimes for pragmatic reasons, sometimes for slights, and occasionally just because.

The problem was since they imposed anti-Jewish (and anti-non-German) laws on the occupied territories, they found themselves with a large ethnic group- as well as other undesirable ethnic groups- that wasn't contributing to the economy (because they were forbidden to take part in it) but which was still a drain on resources (since, you know, they were still there). So they tried working out what to do with them (eg. holding them ghettoes and prison camps in anywhere from Russia to Madagascar- which was actually a Polish plot-, partly for use as hostages against the United States (which was, of course, "run by Jews"). Hitler said he wanted a "Final Solution to the Jewish Question" probably in June 1942, but later in the year he could still laugh that the rest of the world thought he intended to destroy all Jews ("let them think that"). Basically, the whole thing was radicalised racism getting out of hand. And of course, such genocide was only wasting time, money and resources as well.

They fought wars on two battlefronts because Hitler was an idiot. That was precisely what he wanted to avoid doing, hence his Pact with the Soviet Union. But he was determined to invade them anyway and did so after everywhere in Europe but Britain had fallen, but before all the logistical issues were worked out (and he was lucky Stalin ignored all the blatant evidence that the Nazi's were preparing to invade). He then declared war on the United States for no reason other than the United States declared war on Japan (he was under no treaty obligations to do so; he was just mad with power that particular day). Then he meddled in the affairs of his generals and screwed the war effort further.

German society had been inherently lawful for some time, ever since the days of Imperial Germany at least. The Nazi's permeated everyday life because of that and because of truly massive propaganda and the suppression of all opposition. But they weren't effective. They were messing up the economy, exaggerated their power (eg. the Gestapo was actually a lot weaker than it pretended to be and had to rely heavily on informants), had insane and unworkable building plans that cost wasteful billions, ruined the once-world class education system, promoted infighting across and between all government and Party departments (more cost to efficiency)...They were just really good at pretending everything was better than it actually was, or that they hadn't undermined their good works (eg. lowering unemployment) in the long term with their own incompetence and stupidity. Hitler himself once grimly told his architect Speer that some of the measures he was planning to take in the future might spark riots.

TL;DR- Nazi Germany was no where near as lawful or effective as it pretended to be. It was just good at faking it.

[masamune1]

And the problem with the good/evil axis is also that in politics (and a lot of other things) evil lies on both ends, while good is somewhere in the middle. Not necessarily exactly in the middle, but somewhere far from extremes.

Only if you use a typical Left / Right Axis (or something similar). Which can paint a misleading picture.

[bluntpencil]

Didn't Hobbes cover this in Leviathan centuries ago? :smalltongue:

Also, re: Nazi Germany it could be considered a Lawful Evil society, but with Chaotic Evil people in charge. Much like Azure City was a Lawful Good society, with a Chaotic Good Shojo in charge.

[masamune1]

Doesn't mean he was right.

[bluntpencil]

Sorry, edited my previous post to be slightly more relevant. :smallwink:

[Unisus]

Also, re: Nazi Germany it could be considered a Lawful Evil society, but with Chaotic Evil people in charge. Much like Azure City was a Lawful Good society, with a Chaotic Good Shojo in charge.

Did you know that Hitler's second (and sucsessful) try to get to rule Germany was all legal? Actually he used the laws to reach his aim, and afterwards altered the laws to fit his needs. And his decisions followed a very detailed plan to which he stuck. So, not much Chaos there.

[Geordnet]

I would assign that axis to personal freedom, myself, ranging from anarchy to totalitarian states. I guess this axis can be applied in several ways too...

And the problem with the good/evil axis is also that in politics (and a lot of other things) evil lies on both ends, while good is somewhere in the middle. Not necessarily exactly in the middle, but somewhere far from extremes.
And sometimes what seems extreme enough to us that it "has to" be bad actually can be good. For instance, a Totalitarianism where the guy in charge sincerely is fair and just. I for one would rather live under a despot whom actually thought of the people than an elected official whom only became popular because he thought of his career first.

(Of course, you don't get to choose the despot... :smallwink:)



@V (http://xkcd.com/285/)

[Porthos]

I think Tarquin is an objectively good leader. Hmm perhaps I should reword that as an effective leader. Sure people die for a variety of reasons for random acts but that is society in general. Here people die in the arena, in NYC they die in the alley ways getting mugged, raped, etc. However the crime-rate in the EoB seems nonexistent, and for a good reason, if you commit a crime you will either be summarily executed or sent to the arena to die.

As they say on Wikipeida: [Citation Needed]

As for the rest? Ain't touching it in the slightest.

[masamune1]

Did you know that Hitler's second (and sucsessful) try to get to rule Germany was all legal? Actually he used the laws to reach his aim, and afterwards altered the laws to fit his needs. And his decisions followed a very detailed plan to which he stuck. So, not much Chaos there.

Obeying the laws does not make you LE. Lots of Lawful characters of any alignment don't obey the laws, for different reasons.

His takeover of Germany was (mostly) legal, if you discount that his party was inciting street fights, and his SA was assaulting and murdering their rivals, and that he himself was involved in a lot of dubious and shady political deals. Amongst other things. He mainly succeeded because the people at the top hated the Weimar Republic (that they were in charge of) and wanted rid of it too. Even then, he said (to the leaders of the Republic, as well as to his fellow Nazi's) that if he couldn't obtain power legally he would start a civil war. He meant it, and a lot of Nazi's were disappointed it didn't come to that. After that, he repeatedly violated international law and treaties, both ones that his predecessors signed and ones that he himself agreed to.

And no, he didn't have a detailed plan, and to the extent that he did he didn't follow it. He had a few aims and objectives, but he had to be pressured into achieving them and many of his decisions were made on the fly. He always talked about unifying Germany with Austria, for instance, but when it actually happened the main architect was Hermann Goring and he had to talk Hitler into it, because Hitler feared that the other countries (especially Italy) might go to war over it. Goring was also the main architect of the Night of the Long Knives, the purge of Hitler's enemies, which Hitler also kept putting off.

Hitler talked a big game but he was usually very reluctant to actually act.

[SMEE]

The Rainbow Mod: Thread locked for review.