How is it possible to reconcile Baalzebul's alignment with his portfolio of Lies?

[Malistrae]

This is a question that has been bugging me lately. Baalzebul is an archdevil, thus Lawful Evil by default. However, his primary association is with lies. The problem is that in most sources about alignments, including online interpretations (and D&D video game adaptations), outright lies are distinctly chaotic (Lawful deceivers preferring half-truths, exact words, distortions, etc.). This doesn't mean that Lawful characters can't lie from time to time, but having an incarnation of Law and Evil to be a compulsive liar is just strange to me.

This issue is further muddled by the description of the Disciple of Baalzebul prc in Book of Vile Darkness:
"The disciple of Baalzebul is a liar, a cheat, and a thief. She is more likely to kill a paladin while he sleeps than face him in direct combat. She uses deceit and trickery to get what she wants, betraying even her family or closest friends to achieve her goals. Her abilities make her an astute prevaricator and a sneaky backstabber, but she can wield her lord’s powerful influence with everything from devils to flies if she needs to. Rogues, assassins, bards, and sometimes rangers become disciples of Baalzebul. Clerics of evil also adopt the class occasionally, if they are particularly taken with Baalzebul. Disciples of Baalzebul rarely have allies. They use and manipulate others but eventually betray them."

While this prc can be of any evil alignment, Lawful Evil would be the most logical association, yet it makes the least sense based on the description (it fits a NE or a CE character much better). Especially if you pay attention to the words/phrases I bolded in the quote. Lawful Evil is many things but a cheating, lying, chronic backstabber thief is certainly difficult to fit into it.
Could someone please help me resolve this (in my opinion) massive contradiction?

Edit: edited for better separation of paragraphs.

[Âmesang]

He lied about his alignment? How's his Bluff? :smalltongue:

[Malistrae]

He lied about his alignment? How's his Bluff? :smalltongue:
Probably.
What actually prompted this question from me is that I am doing a character in NwN, who is a rogue/disciple of Baalzebul (thanks to the Player Resource Consortium pack), but I am simply unable to remain Lawful, since almost all decisions that fit a minion of Baalzebul is considered chaotic. At first, I thought it was some idiocy by the game, but I distinctly remember "liar=chaotic" in all D&D based games I ever played. Then I looked at 3e materials and various philosophical internet sources concerning lies and the Alignment system, and it consistently showed to me that lies are heavily associated with Chaos, thus having a Lawful Evil archdevil whose most important characteristic is that he is the patron of lies is wildly out of place.

[Nifft]

LE lies would be things like:

- Treaties which look fair but are actually very bad for one party.

- Laws which place an unreasonable burden on one side over another.

- Verdicts which adhere to the letter of the law while enthusiastically violating the spirit of the law.

- Advertising.

- Political speeches.

- Click-through software contracts.

[Malistrae]

LE lies would be things like:

- Treaties which look fair but are actually very bad for one party.

- Laws which place an unreasonable burden on one side over another.

- Verdicts which adhere to the letter of the law while enthusiastically violating the spirit of the law.

- Advertising.

- Political speeches.

- Click-through software contracts.
Yeah, but none of these are lies in the traditional sense. They are omissions, blackletter lawyering, distortions, half-truths and exaggerations. And Baalzebul is advertised as the "King of Lies" in the general sense, and the disciple description also supports the interpretation that Baalzebul likes to use the straightforward version of Bluffing (aka outright falsification of information), which is most certainly not something which we could call Lawful.

[Nifft]

Yeah, but none of these are lies in the traditional sense. They are omissions, blackletter lawyering, distortions, half-truths and exaggerations. And Baalzebul is advertised as the "King of Lies" in the general sense, and the disciple description also supports the interpretation that Baalzebul likes to use the straightforward version of Bluffing (aka outright falsification of information), which is most certainly not something which we could call Lawful.

Lying by omission is the best kind of lying, in the same way that being technically correct is the best kind of correct.

He's not the King of Lies because his lies are easy to find.

He's the King because he's the best at using that tool in all possible ways.

The fact that he's Lawful means that -- in your game at least, since you associate outright untruths with Chaotic -- there is a kernel of truth to his lies. Or that he tells the truth in a way that is deceptive. Or that he tells the truth in a forthright way but people don't believe him because he's the King of Lies.

"He tricked us by telling the truth!" -- music to Baalzebul's ears

- - -

In my games, Lawful is not averse to lying, because in my games Lawful means organizationally focused (rather than individualistic, which in my games is Chaotic).

Organizations tell different kinds of lies than individuals, but they're not any more bound to honesty.

[Malistrae]

Lying by omission is the best kind of lying, in the same way that being technically correct is the best kind of correct.

He's not the King of Lies because his lies are easy to find.

He's the King because he's the best at using that tool in all possible ways.

The fact that he's Lawful means that -- in your game at least, since you associate outright untruths with Chaotic -- there is a kernel of truth to his lies. Or that he tells the truth in a way that is deceptive. Or that he tells the truth in a forthright way but people don't believe him because he's the King of Lies.

"He tricked us by telling the truth!" -- music to Baalzebul's ears

- - -

In my games, Lawful is not averse to lying, because in my games Lawful means organizationally focused (rather than individualistic, which in my games is Chaotic).

Organizations tell different kinds of lies than individuals, but they're not any more bound to honesty.
You are making fair points. However, I would argue that the Law-Chaos should not be reduced to an organization-individual axis, which while completely true, is still too limited. This is because we can observe (from various supplements, adventure modules, video games, etc.) that both Lawful and Chaotic have certain behavorial patterns that can be associated with them. These patterns need not be present in a single individual, obviously, but they should not be dismissed. Lying by an individual (and Baalzebul and his disciples are not organizations) is an inherently chaotic pattern, because it represents the superimposition of a false reality by the individual over the reality of society/civilization/whatever.

As I said, I am working here with a very strict definition of lying. Most of the examples you brought in your first post are not lies in my eyes (perhaps because I am a lawyer), because they do not create false information ex nihilo. Rather, they are creative ways of telling the truth. What you described (Baalzebul lying through the truth) is not lying, it is simple deception/manipulation because you logically can't lie and tell the truth at the same time. A lie is a statement that is objectively false. Half-truths, omissions, etc. are not lies because they are not objectively false, they only create a false perception in the victim. Therefore we have two components: objective status and perception. A lie is both objectively false and creates a false perception. The examples you presented are objectively true but create a false perception. The end result is pretty much the same, but the the essence is very different. A Chaotic will take the first route and "lie", simply because that is usually the most expedient way of realising his individualistic goal. The Lawful will choose the second route, not because he is honest, but simply because he believes in a certain order of things, or laws, or whatever thus he works "within the system". He will deceive, distort and play with the wording but he will not outright lie. This is strongly related to why you can trust a devil to obey the letter of the contract, while a demon will have no problem with outright lying to you.

In conclusion, Baalzebul's central portfolio clashes with his alignment in my opinion. Had he been the King of Deception/Manipulation/etc., this would not be a problem, since those are much broader categories. But King of Lies, due to what I explained above, is an inherently Chaotic title with very narrow boundaries.

[Anlashok]

It's just one of the quirks of 3.5 lore in general, WOTC often forgets the L component of LE and instead writes NE characters that pretend to be trustworthy with elaborate faux contracts and agreements.

They tend to write CE pretty one dimensionally as well.



In my games, Lawful is not averse to lying, because in my games Lawful means organizationally focused (rather than individualistic, which in my games is Chaotic).

That's a good way to spin it, but that's still table variance and by the book the lawful alignment is defined by honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority and reliability.

The only one of those the character in question particularly adheres to is the latter and only insofar as that you can reliably expect him to betray you, which doesn't a lawful character make.


He's the King because he's the best at using that tool in all possible ways.

All LE outsiders are manipulators to one degree or another. Baalzebub's description goes beyond that though and outright fingers him as an outright liar and even beyond that, a cheat.

That's not hiding the fine print in the contract. That's ripping the contract in half when it doesn't suit you anymore.

It's a nice way to remake the character to make more sense within his portfolio though.


... It's also pretty telling that one of Baalzebub's associated classes is one that cannot possess a lawful alignment.

[FocusWolf413]

Thread about lawful evil? Only one thing to do.

Red Fel, Red Fel, Red Fel

[Nifft]

You are making fair points. However, I would argue that the Law-Chaos should not be reduced to an organization-individual axis, which while completely true, is still too limited. Well, sure.

The other thing I do -- which is in harmony with the game mechanics, but not lore -- is make LE about duty beyond life (i.e. they don't mind killing you and raising you as an undead slave), while CE is more about abhorrent life (i.e. they don't mind mutating you into an Aberration).

Law is about contracts, which are a form of debt that can be bought & sold, while to Chaos a debt is a thing that's specific to two particular individuals.

Law respects the office and title; Chaos respects the person.

Law honors treaties and promises of your predecessor; Chaos sees the passing of power as an opportunity to renegotiate.



In conclusion, Baalzebul's central portfolio clashes with his alignment in my opinion. Had he been the King of Deception/Manipulation/etc., this would not be a problem, since those are much broader categories. But King of Lies, due to what I explained above, is an inherently Chaotic title with very narrow boundaries.
If you feel this way, then you're not wrong, but neither are your views correct for everyone else.

My advice would be to change Baalzebub's portfolio to match your opinion about his alignment.

All games and works of fiction use a different interpretation of Law & Chaos, so you're not going to succeed in finding the "true" meaning of either. There is no single true meaning. There are a lot of meanings which can be appropriate, and which don't offend reason, but which don't agree with each other -- so if you can get your players to agree with yours, then you're doing fine.


That's a good way to spin it, but that's still table variance and by the book the lawful alignment is defined by honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority and reliability. Obedience to EVIL authority can be plenty evil... but yeah, it's totally table variance. It's my own personal interpretation.


The only one of those the character in question particularly adheres to is the latter and only insofar as that you can reliably expect him to betray you, which doesn't a lawful character make. Nah, you can expect him to betray SOMEONE.

Maybe you, or maybe you're his cat's-paw in a long-running plot which betrays someone else.

Maybe you're not important enough to betray (yet).

[XionUnborn01]

You're forgetting one of the biggest parts of being lawful in D&D. You don't have to follow a nation's laws, you have to have a strict inner code of conduct or tradition you follow. Lawful Evil also relish in order and value loyalty because it's a means to an end.

Baalzebul doesn't just lie to tell a lie, he lies because it's the best way to do things in secret. He would be more likely to tell half truths than an outright fabricated lie.

So basically yeah, a LE person would likely sacrifice a loved on or friend if it meant they could finish something they've been working towards. It's not saying that they'd betray their brother to get ice cream, it says that they can betray them to achieve goals, so bigger things like taking over a city or bringing back a fallen master using an arcane ritual.

Being a thief, liar, and a cheat is a similar manner. Is stealing wrong if they person you're stealing from will be dead shortly? Probably not to a LE person. Same for the others. Lies aren't lies if the person told them never learns the truth, and cheating is only cheating if you get caught.

[KillianHawkeye]

Another thing to keep in mind is that "King of Lies" is a title. It may not be 100% descriptive. Rather, it may just have been a lot catchier than "King of Half-Truths" or "King of Omissions."

Let's shift gears for a minute and take a look at our old friend, Orcus. Among other things, Orcus is the Demon Prince of the Undead. Now Orcus, he hates the undead. I mean, he really HATES them! A lot. Probably because he was dead for a while himself. But those undead are totally into him and Orcus has got too many big plans to just throw out perfectly good expendable minions.

So what I'm saying here is that maybe Baalzebul is sorta like Orcus. Maybe his title isn't really telling the whole story. Maybe Baalzebul just has a bad reputation, because who'd want to be known as the multiverse's least honest devil? Maybe the other Archdevils spread rumors behind his back because he's a giant, disgusting slug.

Or MAYBE just because everyone agrees on something, that doesn't make it the truth. Maybe it's only half. :smallwink:

[Malistrae]

Thank you all for your replies. These answers helped me to accept Baalzebul himself as potentially LE in some roundabout/unconventional manner.

However, I still have an issue with his disciples, since in my opinion, it is very difficult to play the prc (faithfully to its description) and not become NE or even CE. The only disciples I can see being LE are those who are members or leaders of some evil organization. And even then, the last line about not having allies and the inevitability of betrayal makes this prc unsuited to working in a group. I mean I can see a Disciple having minions, but these would be treated as disposable pawns who are probably kept in line with a few well-placed lies, making a long-term relationship unviable. While this is mechanically acceptable, from a rp perspective it is extremely bizarre that an Archdevil's chief mortal minions are NE or CE.

For example, if I substitute Baalzebul with Fraz-Urb'luu in the prc description (who himself has a thrall prc with a pretty similar description), would you believe the prc to be CE inclined? In my opinion the only hint of LE comes from Baalzebul's mention, while the rest of the prc screams stereotypical CE (or maybe NE) con man.

Observe:
"The thrall of Fraz-Urb'luu is a liar, a cheat, and a thief. She is more likely to kill a paladin while he sleeps than face him in direct combat. She uses deceit and trickery to get what she wants, betraying even her family or closest friends to achieve her goals. Her abilities make her an astute prevaricator and a sneaky backstabber, but she can wield her lord’s powerful influence with everything from demons to bats if she needs to. Rogues, assassins, bards, and sometimes rangers become thralls of Fraz-Urb'luu. Clerics of evil also adopt the class occasionally, if they are particularly taken with Fraz-Urb'luu. Thralls of Fraz-Urb'luu rarely have allies. They use and manipulate others but eventually betray them."

See? The disciples of Baalzebul description fits thralls of Fraz-Urb'luu perfectly. It might have been poorly thought out on the part of WotC but I find it extremely silly that the mortal minions of an Archdevil and a Demon Lord are completely interchangeable with each other.

[Kurald Galain]

Recommended reading material: Lucifer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer_(DC_Comics)), the comic book series by Mike Carey, a spin-off from Neil Gaiman's Sandman series.

The titular Lucifer is indeed the prince of lies. However, he's also immensely proud and never tells a lie himself because that's beneath his dignity. Read in awe as he spends eleven books ruthlessly manipulating everybody without teling a single lie :smallcool: