Alignment debate

[Albignome]

I was having a heated argument with a friend of mine earlier about what constitutes Lawful Evil.

Take for example, a Lawful Good town or city.

He insists that the intent of the character has no bearing on alignment. That, at the end of the day, the actual deed is all that matters. Example being a Lawful Evil character will not murder because murder is against the law.

My argument is that Lawful Evil can murder whoever he/she wants as long as they intend to eliminate anything that might actually bring a charge against them(witnesses, evidence, etc). Which is still working within the Law, yes? As without those things no charges can be brought.

Are either of these right? Are we yelling(typing frenetically) at each other for no reason?

[M._A._Foxfire]

I feel as if the Lawful Evil character will murder as long as the law supports them doing so - killing a PC that broke into their house, citing self-defense and so on. It depends on the character, I suppose, and whether they're more Lawful or more Evil.

[Zincorium]

Well, your friend is confusing the dictionary meaning of 'lawful' with the D&D term. You appear to be confusing it as well, but to a lesser degree.

Lawful, in D&D, means that the person is organized and regimented in the way they go about their lives. They keep schedules, balance their accounts, and so forth. It does not mean they follow laws, that is a different question that isn't really about alignment.

Usually, lawful characters make sure that they at least appear to follow the laws/customs/traditions of a place. It has little to do with consequences and everything to do with fitting in and gaining influence. Many serial killers have very 'lawful' behavior, and tend to seem like upstanding members of society before the gruesome truth comes to light.

[Dan_Hemmens]

There are two ways to read the Law-Chaos axis of Alignment, and they're both stupid in different ways.

The first is the "Actual, literal Laws" definition. By this logic, a Lawful Evil character would never commit murder in a society in which Murder was illegal, and a Lawful Good character would never fight against a BBEG if said BBEG possessed any kind of legitimate authority. This makes Lawful characters stupid an unplayable.

The second is the "personal code of conduct" defintion. By this logic a Lawful Evil character can do what he likes, so long as it doesn't violate his personal (evil) code of conduct, and a Lawful Good character can do what he likes as long as it doesn't violate *his* personal (good) code of conduct. This makes a reasonable amount of sense for Lawful characters, but it makes Chaotic characters stupid and unplayable, because they can't believe in *anything* without losing their Chaotic status (particularly bad for Clerics of Chaotic deities, who technically should not be able to follow the tenets of their god without becoming Lawful, thereby violating the tenets of their God).

It's best to remember that Alignment is a guideline.

[Ranek the Bold]

From my readings out of the PHB 3.5 ed, a Lawful evil character is not concerned out life, freedom and dignity, but is concerned about order. According to the text he is loath to break laws and promises, because those protect him from those that oppose him on moral grounds. He might not kill those that oppose him in cold blood, but wouldn't have any problem with having someone else do it for him. Now, what happens in a formal duel, that is another matter. Read on pg105, this might give you a better idea. Your friends idea that at the end of the day, sounds very chaotic good. A lawful good character is lawful good alomost all the time, if you are playing them coeerctly. This a very hard alignment to run, if you have a DM that really looks at that( and I do). The intent of the character I feel is very important, even if things go bad.

[Pauwel]

It's best to remember that Alignment is a guideline.

It's even better to get rid of them.[/Opinion expressed as fact]

[Roupe]

Lawful Evil would loathe to break laws or promises.

But it also is important if the Lawful Evil regard the the town laws as honorable & important to follow. A criminal inside the city can have a diffrent set of rules to follow, than the sadistic city guard.

A indivdual can still break against his alignment Lawfull, and clean up the mess . but that would eventually move him from Lawful.

[Pestlepup]

My personal views coincide with Zincorium's; I interpret the Law-Chaos axis more as juxtaposition of restraint and impulse. A lawful character is likely more organized and consistent in thought and action, while a chaotic one would be more influenced by spur-of-the-moment. So wether or not said Lawful Evil character would kill, is more a question of personality. As for the view on morality, in my opinion it is only the intention that matters. If a person were to rescue a princess from a dragon (a deed assumed to be good) with only motivation being cashing in a hefty reward (a singularly selfish motivation), I would find myself hard pressed to consider the deed good. Even if the initial intention fails (the king is a cheapskate and won't pay a penny), it doesn't change the person's motivation. He/she is therefore not likely to undertake "good" quests in the future, unless a reward could somehow be insured.

I understand that morality is a complex issue, and these reflect only my personal views, not an intended objective truth. End disclaimer. :smallsmile:

[Neon Knight]

I am also a proponent of the "Lawful has nothing to do with laws!" approach.

Chaotic characters can work under this, by the way. Chaotic characters also have a personal set of behaviors and a code of conduct, but they change and deviate from both with alarming frequency. They deviate not only to duck inconveniences but also just because they feel like it.

Lawful people have a clearly defined code of conduct and adhere to it whenever possible. If they encounter something not covered by the code, they add bits to it to cover the new situation. A lawful person will not deviate from the code unless there is a very good reason for the deviation.

So, yes, I believe you are arguing over nothing.

[Tequila Sunrise]

Are either of these right? Are we yelling(typing frenetically) at each other for no reason?
In my opinion, yes. Here's my ideas on law/chaos. Note that they are completely different than yours or anyone else who has posted:

Law: You believe in at least one unifying force in the universe. This means that the majority of lawful folks follow some sort of code or dogma, but not always.

Chaos: You don't have any real faith in any unifying force in the universe. This means that the majority of chaotic folks only restrain their actions by the morals (if any) that they were raised with and/or the threat of retribution.

Note that a person with any amount of common sense who murders will do his/her best to avoid detection and retribution. If a character does not believe that they are capable of escaping/evading retribution, they will not murder regardless of their alignment.

[Aurion]

My personal take on lawful evil is as follows, it's a character who is willing to manipulate laws in order to gain power, someone like a Hitler or a Stalin who use loop holes which allow them to work the people and eventually, rise to the top ranks. But, there is also the way of looking at them as the type of person who will follow his own set of "laws", order or an honor code, but really he has no qualms about killing someone if the opportunity presents itself. A lawful evil character might try and rig a jury in a case against his opponent or he might try to exploit a law about importing/exporting in order to make a large gain of many for it. He is still following the laws, but he's twisting them and bending them for their own ends.

[Draz74]

One issue you're dealing with is what "Lawful" and "Chaotic" really mean, which is valid, because it can vary from campaign to campaign and needs to be defined.

But there's a whole different issue here, too: Objective vs. Subjective alignments.

Objective alignment systems are where it doesn't matter what someone's intentions are; only the deeds they do matter at the end of the day. A greedy merchant who is too cowardly to swindle anyone under the watchful eyes of the local elite police won't be evil. A hero who goes on daring quests and saves many innocent lives will be good, even if he's really just doing it all to get attention and glory.

Subjective alignment systems are where motivations speak louder than actions. The ends don't justify the means. A man who goes around slaughtering the evil -- even unredeemable evil such as most undead -- can still have this count against his alignment, if his motivations are revenge and hate. (Though he might still be neutral rather than evil ...) A paladin who commits a horrible murder because he was completely convinced, by an elaborate and flawless deception, that the killing was both just and necessary to protect the innocent, might feel guilty, but his alignment won't shift towards evil.

Which is correct?

In real life, I'd say subjective is more correct. (Of course, neither is perfect in real life ... because real life doesn't have clear cut mechanical alignement!)

D&D, by default, uses Objective Alignment. That's the assumption of the rules. That's how Order of the Stick works (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0068.html).
Side note on that topic: (Which is why Belkar might be drifting towards redemption. His motivations -- or at least, his conscious motivations for saving Hinjo might have been bad. But at the end of the day, he saved Hinjo's life in a way that aided Good and that's all that will affect his alignment.)
:belkar:

Does the default "D&D --> Objective Alignment" assumption mean you can't do it the other way in your campaign? Certainly not. Eberron and many other settings use a more Subjective version of the alignment rules. You might have to tweak the rules for spells and abilities relating to alignment if you do this (mainly, the consequences of using them -- Smite Evil isn't a good idea to go around using constantly in Eberron!), but it's not that hard.

[Dan_Hemmens]

D&D, by default, uses Objective Alignment. That's the assumption of the rules. That's how Order of the Stick works (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0068.html).

I'm actually not sure that's true. It's more correct to say that the D&D Alignment rules are the result of thirty years of tradition, and *nobody* is really sure what they mean any more (if they ever did). You can find examples to support both definitions, and indeed the *same* examples frequently support both definitions.

Take spells. The fact that some spells have an "Evil" descriptor supports "objective" morality, while the fact that casting spells with the Evil descriptor in no way affects your Alignment supports the "subjective" descriptor.

The Alignment descriptors also actually support the subjective descriptions. It says that good characters "respect life", it doesn't say that good characters never kill.

The waters are muddied because you would expect a person's motivations to affect their behaviour. A character who respects life won't go around slaughtering people willy nilly.

[Roupe]

But, there is also the way of looking at them as the type of person who will follow his own set of "laws", order or an honor code, but really he has no qualms about killing someone if the opportunity presents itself.

Even if he has the code & conviction to follow the law which states killing is wrong?

Lawful evil has examples of someone that refuses to kill children, unarmed,
why not an example that refuses to kill because its against the law?

As for undermining the law, that is a classic chaotic alignment.

[Dan_Hemmens]

As for undermining the law, that is a classic chaotic alignment.

What if you undermine the law because your personal moral code holds that laws are wrong?

[Brother_Franklin]

I like to think of DnD as using virtue ethics rather than action ethics.

This is why we talk about a characters alignment and not about an actions alignment (with the exception of certian spells.)

Therefore, if you have a charater who is clearly Lawful Evil (that is to say he clearly belives in authority and has a lust for power), and that charter finds a not uncharateristic reason for murder, than that murder is not Lawful Evil.

Now then you might ask, how can alignment change. Well there are two main ways:

1. The charater can be mistaken. If, like Miko, a charater is clearly mistaken about the facts of the case, then the charater might do something, like kill their leige, and thereby need seriously to atone.

2. The charater might just do something uncharateristic, espically under extreem emotional stress. i.e. your father dies and you flip out and kill everybody.

This way, alignment change keeps its dramatic punch. It's not some trap for players to fall into, and to break up games with name-calling and unfairness.

[Droodle]

What if you undermine the law because your personal moral code holds that laws are wrong?You wouldn't. You'd merely disobey the law.....or change the law through force. Chaotic characters undermine laws they don't like.

[DSCrankshaw]

Both? Neither?

As others have said, it's not clear cut. I think the way I see it is that lawful types see something beyond themselves as restraining their actions, while chaotic types rely mainly on their own personal convictions. I think that a Lawful Evil character can survive or even thrive in a Lawful Good city. He might be completely loyal to the city and its laws, while also being completely cut-throat in his ambitions and willing to take advantage of others in order to gain what he wants. In his view while order and the city's welfare are important, individuals can, and should, be sacrificed. Lawful Good types want the city's welfare as well, but they must also do their best to protect individuals, and anytime their duty and the welfare of individuals comes into conflict, it's a tough decision for them. In general, good people are motivated by compassion, evil people are motivated by selfishness.

What the lawful types are committed to varies from person to person. Many (such as clerics) are completely committed to their god, and thus while they won't go around breaking a city's laws, if the law violates their god's dictates, they won't be compelled to obey them. They have a clear hierarchy of which laws take precedence: their god's, their nation's, etc.

Chaotic types can be devoted to their gods as well, but they don't obey their god because he's in charge, they obey him because of their own love and devotion to him. If he asks them to do something they disagree with, they have more latitude than the lawful ones do. Their temples also tend to be less hierarchical, and it's more about each individual's one on one devotion. In the same way, chaotic characters may be devoted to their families, their countries, and their parties. But the motivation is different.

Like I said, it's pretty vague, but I don't think it's so vague that you can just do whatever you want.

[Roupe]

I think that a Lawful Evil character can survive or even thrive in a Lawful Good city. He might be completely loyal to the city and its laws, while also being completely cut-throat in his ambitions and willing to take advantage of others in order to gain what he wants. In his view while order and the city's welfare are important, individuals can, and should be, sacrificed.

I also think that a Lawfull evil could have the above code of conduct but kill, maim, torture, molest & (if he is unmarried) rape his countrys enemies
(unless he had orders or rules not to)

opposed to that a Lawful neutral & Lawful Good who would have qualms to do them( even if they got orders or rules to do those deeds)

[Jannex]

In my estimation, "Lawful" and "Chaotic" says less about whether or not a person follows the laws of the land, than about how a person approaches problems in general, as well as a bit about some of their values. My take is as follows:

A Lawful person is fairly methodical in his thought processes, trying (to the best of his ability, which may be limited by Int and Wis stats) to cover all possible eventualities. He doesn't like being caught off-guard, or being forced to improvise. He tends to be well-organized and well-prepared. Philosophically, he tends to favor traditional approaches over innovation, enjoys having a sense of stability, and may be uncomfortable with major change.

A Chaotic person is generally fairly spontaneous, allowing his gut instincts and his emotions to inform his decision-making, and may not have the patience to hammer out every detail of a plan before acting. This is not to say that a Chaotic character need go off half-cocked, but he is more at ease thinking on his feet, which can allow him more flexibility. He is fairly comfortable with trying new things, and strongly dislikes having his options limited. He may suffer from wanderlust, or simply be more curious than most. Philosophically, he tends to prefer personal freedom of choice, even to the extent of giving up a measure of stability and security. He may resent authority figures, or may just enjoy challenges.

That said, I think that a Lawful Evil person would murder if he thought he could get away with it, and if doing so was beneficial to his goals. It would almost certainly be a well-planned, premeditated murder, with several contingencies laid out to prevent himself from being caught and brought to justice. A Lawful Evil person is unlikely to murder in the heat of anger, without a means of avoiding the consequences already in place.

[Querzis]

Oh boy.

How can we define chaos? Change, improvisation, individualization, disorder and, their strength: freedom. Firstly, chaotic character dont trully hate law or organization, they just find it irrevelant. Rules that everyone must follow? What the hell is that! People who become king because their father was a good king? Are you kidding me! Rich and poor, apprentice and master, slave and citizens? Are you dumb? We are all equal. (which, for a chaotic evil character, could mean I'm gonna kill all of you equally). Chaotic character really usually dont have any cause and, if they have one, wont follow it that much. But that doesnt mean they dont have leader or cant be leader themselves but the leaders are always just those who are good at being leader. Someone who has the most charisma, wisdom and intelligence of the group instead of the guy with the authority or the son of the last chief. Thats why I say they dont hate law at all, if a king or even an entire society tell a chaotic character to do something and he doesnt do it, thats because he thought it was a bad idea not because he got a problem with authority. And if a slave tell him to do something against the law but the chaotic character think its a really good idea, he is gonna do it.

A chaotic character who venerate a god didnt decide to venerate this god because everyone in his society does but because he checked all the gods and though : «I really like that guy/girl and everything he/she did, he/she should have more followers.» or, if its a cleric: «Hey I believe you and me have lots in common, could you give me some power so I can save the world? (or destroy it if you are evil)». Of course, chaotic character wont venerate a god as much as a lawfull character but will threat him/her more like a friend who watch over them then a superpowerfull god that they should respect. Because I would say its one of the greatest downsize of chaos, you didnt do anything to deserve my respect? Then why should I respect you.

Chaotic character also means that they came with the moral axis of alignement (good and evil) on their own. Thats why some people from evil society can actually be good...but they have to be chaotic too. Lawfull and even neutral character would follow the traditions of their evil society and become just as evil as them (though I suppose it would be possible to become true neutral).

Anyway, the main thing to remember about chaotic character is that they act on a whim. «Why did you do that?» «Because I felt like it» is the answer that many chaotic character will give. They could be always doing the right thing to do (chaotic good), the best thing to do for him and/or his friends (chaotic neutral) or always doing the thing that will give them pleasure or power (chaotic evil) but they will all do it on a whim.

And now how do we define lawfull? Traditions, planning, generalization, order and, their strength: faith! Now I'm a bit tired and I dont want to write all of this again (you are probably smart enough to realize what is lawfull just by reading how I define chaos anyway) so I'm gonna go straigth to the point : the main thing to remember about lawfull characteris that they act how they were told to act or how they were raise. «Why did you do that» «Because it was my duty» is the usual lawfull answer (or if it wasnt their duty they can come up with a very detailled explanations in a matter of seconds.)

You want to know how a LE character act? You got a great example right in front of you. Redcloak was raised to protect all goblins, to hate humans and to serve the dark one. Its his duty, does that means he feel like he has to obey the law of another country or even his country? Of course not. There is a big difference between law and duty and lawfull character should really just be called dutyfull but since thats not a word...well, just try to remember that there is a big difference between laws and duty and that lawfull character follow their duty before the law.

By the way, if you dont agree with me, so be it. But keep in mind that I'm chaotic so its not because 20 peoples tell me «thats not true» that I'm gonna change my mind. Try to have good arguments. I'm sorry if I insult you by saying this, I'm sure I dont have to tell that to most of the people but last time I talked about alignement, 8 people told me «thats not true» without any real arguments. Its kinda annoying.

[Bagera]

I think you could define chaotic more as being inconsistent. Rather than not having a set of beliefs they just may interpret them in different ways at different times. A chaotic good character might kill a prisoner that was being tortured, he couldn't free and consider it respecting life where as a lawful good character would believe that was not respecting life.

[Dark Knight Renee]

In my estimation, "Lawful" and "Chaotic" says less about whether or not a person follows the laws of the land, than about how a person approaches problems in general, as well as a bit about some of their values. My take is as follows:

A Lawful person is fairly methodical in his thought processes, trying (to the best of his ability, which may be limited by Int and Wis stats) to cover all possible eventualities. He doesn't like being caught off-guard, or being forced to improvise. He tends to be well-organized and well-prepared. Philosophically, he tends to favor traditional approaches over innovation, enjoys having a sense of stability, and may be uncomfortable with major change.

A Chaotic person is generally fairly spontaneous, allowing his gut instincts and his emotions to inform his decision-making, and may not have the patience to hammer out every detail of a plan before acting. This is not to say that a Chaotic character need go off half-cocked, but he is more at ease thinking on his feet, which can allow him more flexibility. He is fairly comfortable with trying new things, and strongly dislikes having his options limited. He may suffer from wanderlust, or simply be more curious than most. Philosophically, he tends to prefer personal freedom of choice, even to the extent of giving up a measure of stability and security. He may resent authority figures, or may just enjoy challenges.

That said, I think that a Lawful Evil person would murder if he thought he could get away with it, and if doing so was beneficial to his goals. It would almost certainly be a well-planned, premeditated murder, with several contingencies laid out to prevent himself from being caught and brought to justice. A Lawful Evil person is unlikely to murder in the heat of anger, without a means of avoiding the consequences already in place.

Jannex pretty much sums up my opinion on the Law-Chaos axis. The only thing I feel a need to point out is that some LE characters will have personal beliefs that prevent them from murdering. That is, however, not an alignment trait, but a specific character trait which is supported by their Lawful alignment.




I think you could define chaotic more as being inconsistent. Rather than not having a set of beliefs they just may interpret them in different ways at different times. A chaotic good character might kill a prisoner that was being tortured, he couldn't free and consider it respecting life where as a lawful good character would believe that was not respecting life.

I happen to agree with this definition as well. It's also worth noting that this s one of the few good examples I've ever seen of a genuinely CG character toeing the line.

[Saph]

Jannex pretty much sums up my opinion on the Law-Chaos axis. The only thing I feel a need to point out is that some LE characters will have personal beliefs that prevent them from murdering. That is, however, not an alignment trait, but a specific character trait which is supported by their Lawful alignment.

This is a good point. A Lawful Evil character is much more likely than a Lawful Good character to be willing to murder, but it's still not guaranteed. A Lawful Evil person can be vicious, hateful, and cruel, while still being unwilling to actually kill anyone himself.

This is one of the reasons why Lawful Evil villains in D&D are dangerous; they do bad things, but they do it within the law and never go so far over the line that the authorities can punish them for it.

- Saph

[Wraithy]

lawful evil is a very....sticky alignment, try not to touch it too much.
it depends on which takes precidence: Law or Evil.
if you put evil before the law then you are probably a criminal who is kept in check by the law: i will kill this person as long as i am CERTAIN i will never be caught.
if you put law before evil you probably use the law to satisfy your evil needs, these people tend to have power, making others do evil for them, perhaps even being the leader of a criminal organisation. or leading a force of evil (i'm looking at you bill gates)
of course all of this is disregarding petty evil, otherwise called the diet coke of evil. these people are usually open to bribes, perhaps passive evil is a good term, they will be cruel, greedy, sometimes cowardly, and in rare occurences hypocritical. this law allows me to buy this house, which has been in your family for generations, off you without your consent as long as i pay you double its estimated market value, perfect place for a shopping centre.

i personally think intent is an important part of alignment, not the be all and end all, but important. eg: i play a lawful character who is willing to secretly murder a member of his party because they are a potential threat to the group, he has many reasons to believe that the person is a threat, and has actually planned out the murder: basically the whole taking guard shift alone with them, taking them out of range of the party, throwing poisoned stuff at them behind their back untill they are unconsious, coup de graceing them, burying them and telling the party that we were attacked by bandits etc. whether or not this is evil is up to you, he is doing it for the good of the group? *insert dramatic music here*

[Aurion]

Yeah, in general, the only time lawful evil is used is by DMs who make a corrupt ruler or something along those lines. Roupe, you misread my statement, if a personal follows his own moral code which states killing is wrong then obviously he is lawful GOOD, a lawful evils code will be much less friendly, usually. Lawful Evil is just one of the alignments that arn't really meant to be understood because the idea of an evil character who up holds the laws is nearly a contradiction on it's own. The only reason a lawful evil follows laws usually is because they work to their advantage, they arn't chaotic because they arn't trying to undermine the system and destroy it, they are just exploiting the laws to to their own advantage. Like I said, it's a Hitler or a Stalin who used the laws as a way of getting their own movements started so they could rule and make the laws more to their favor. Either way though its a ridiculously pointless alignment.

[aubrey]

{scrubbed}

[sleeping fishy]

{scrubbed}

um... WTF?!!

oh hey its 'scrubbed'... wow, you guys are quikc on the draw round here

[Dan_Hemmens]

lawful evil is a very....sticky alignment, try not to touch it too much.
it depends on which takes precidence: Law or Evil.

I'm quoting this because I think it highlights the difference between my understanding of Alignment and the one which, I think, prevails amongst most D&D players.

To me, "Lawful Evil" doesn't mean "Both Lawful AND Evil", it means "Evil, in an ordered, calculating way" whereas "Chaotic Evil" means "Evil in a disordered, destructive way."

A Lawful Evil character could be:

- An amoral tyrant. Such a figure would not abide by any code of laws, but would still be "Lawful Evil" because their desire is to rule, not to destroy.
- A devout follower of an Evil philosophy. Such a character would pursue a Lawful devotion to a set of Evil ideals. LE Monks are an obvious example here.
- A loyal servant of an Evil regime. Tainted by association, the tyrant's loyal servant is an agent of tyranny.

In none of these situations does the "lawfulness" manifest itself distinctly from the "evilness".

[Ulzgoroth]

Lawful and obeying the local law can't be the same thing, if you want lawfuls to have any opinions of their own.

There are a number of separate things Lawful can be used to refer to, most of which do mean a Lawful Evil character would be more likely than a non-Lawful to have some sort of compunctions about killing, but it's always a character-by-character thing.

EDIT: Theoretically speaking, if instead of being a 2-d grid into which any character can be mapped and metered the alignments are separate classifications, it becomes likely that characters will fall into more or less than one of them. How do you reconcile this?

[Dan_Hemmens]

Lawful and obeying the local law can't be the same thing, if you want lawfuls to have any opinions of their own.


You're dead right, unfortunately, a lot of the phrasing in the RAW muddies the waters. Like the classic "respect legitimate authority" thing.

My inner Gygaxian really wants to have a Paladin robbed of his powers for failing to "respect the legitimate authority" of an evil Lich-King who systematically slaughters his own citizens to fuel his undead armies.

[Brother_Franklin]

Not to bring logic into an alignment thread, but let me give this a shot.

1. Killing an intelligent being in order to eat them is murder.
2. Kobolds often kill intelligent beings in order to eat them.
---------------------------------------------------------
3. Kobolds often murder.

3. Kobolds often murder.
4. Kobolds are usually LE.
---------------------------------------------------------
6. LE beings sometimes commit murder.

7. IF LE beings sometimes commit murder, THEN it is not always un-LE to commit murder.
6. LE beings sometimes commit murder.
---------------------------------------------------------
... It is not always un-LE to commit murder.

Now I know Kobolds almost always kill non-Kobolds. So this argument only works on cross-racial murder. But that's still something right. I'm trying.

[Jorkens]

In my estimation, "Lawful" and "Chaotic" says less about whether or not a person follows the laws of the land, than about how a person approaches problems in general, as well as a bit about some of their values. My take is as follows:

A Lawful person is fairly methodical in his thought processes, trying (to the best of his ability, which may be limited by Int and Wis stats) to cover all possible eventualities. He doesn't like being caught off-guard, or being forced to improvise. He tends to be well-organized and well-prepared. Philosophically, he tends to favor traditional approaches over innovation, enjoys having a sense of stability, and may be uncomfortable with major change.

A Chaotic person is generally fairly spontaneous, allowing his gut instincts and his emotions to inform his decision-making, and may not have the patience to hammer out every detail of a plan before acting. This is not to say that a Chaotic character need go off half-cocked, but he is more at ease thinking on his feet, which can allow him more flexibility. He is fairly comfortable with trying new things, and strongly dislikes having his options limited. He may suffer from wanderlust, or simply be more curious than most. Philosophically, he tends to prefer personal freedom of choice, even to the extent of giving up a measure of stability and security. He may resent authority figures, or may just enjoy challenges.

Wow, that's about the first description of law vs chaos that's actually made much sense to me.

It also explains why lawful and chaotic also map onto a preference for ordered or anarchic society - in a strictly run society, a chaotic person is more likely to overstep a line and get into trouble (or if they're in a position of power, they're less likely to be able to keep things under control) while a lawful person will be better able to think things through in a more predictable environment and will be more likely to think carefully through how to use the system for their own ends.

Re consistency - I'd have said that a chaotic person could reasonably be consistent over time ie they could still have a personal code of conduct, but it wouldn't neccessarily be rational and consistent within itself - so a character who has no compuntions whatsoever about killing people but abhorrs all cruelty to animals could reasonably be chaotic.

[Neon Knight]

To me, "Lawful Evil" doesn't mean "Both Lawful AND Evil", it means "Evil, in an ordered, calculating way" whereas "Chaotic Evil" means "Evil in a disordered, destructive way."


I have a slight nitpick with this:

Lawful does not make you calculating. For example, I could have a Cleric of a Lawful Evil Deity that has sworn an oath to his good to slay all the clerics of another deity. Said theoretical cleric (we'll call him Steve from now on) enters a certain village protected by an powerful group of fighters. Disobeying the law here will get him killed. A large group of the clerics he has sworn to slay are having a meeting in the center of the village. Steve straps on his armor, buffs himself into CoDzilla, then goes into the village, and proceeds to kill them by walking up to them and beating them to death in plain sight. The fighters come and kill him, but he dies fulfilling his duty to his god.

Nothing calculating about that.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Not to bring logic into an alignment thread, but let me give this a shot.

1. Killing an intelligent being in order to eat them is murder.
2. Kobolds often kill intelligent beings in order to eat them.
---------------------------------------------------------
3. Kobolds often murder.

3. Kobolds often murder.
4. Kobolds are usually LE.
---------------------------------------------------------
6. LE beings sometimes commit murder.

7. IF LE beings sometimes commit murder, THEN it is not always un-LE to commit murder.
6. LE beings sometimes commit murder.
---------------------------------------------------------
... It is not always un-LE to commit murder.

Now I know Kobolds almost always kill non-Kobolds. So this argument only works on cross-racial murder. But that's still something right. I'm trying.

Quibbling a little bit, depending on your definitions of "often" and "usually", point six does not necessarily follow from points 3 and 4. If, say, 60% of Kobolds are LE, and 40% of Kobolds commit murder (which strikes me as "often" by most standards, if you compare it to, say, 0.01% of humans) it is theoretically possible that no LE Kobold commits murder. It's also possible that if a LE Kobold commits murder it commits an alignment violation.

[Dan_Hemmens]

I have a slight nitpick with this:

Lawful does not make you calculating. For example, I could have a Cleric of a Lawful Evil Deity that has sworn an oath to his good to slay all the clerics of another deity. Said theoretical cleric (we'll call him Steve from now on) enters a certain village protected by an powerful group of fighters. Disobeying the law here will get him killed. A large group of the clerics he has sworn to slay are having a meeting in the center of the village. Steve straps on his armor, buffs himself into CoDzilla, then goes into the village, and proceeds to kill them by walking up to them and beating them to death in plain sight. The fighters come and kill him, but he dies fulfilling his duty to his god.

Nothing calculating about that.

That's very true, my phrasing was bad. If you look further down my post I list a number of possible "Lawful Evil" characters, some calculating, some not. My overall point is that a "Lawful Evil" character isn't held to a specific standard of "Lawful" behaviour.

I'd also note that the same is true of a lot of Paladins. While the "behaves in an orderly, well thought-out manner" definition of Lawful behaviour is attractive, it doesn't fit a large number of Paladins whose response to any problem is Detect Evil/Smite Evil.

[Murongo]

The chaotic evil character kills the guy, the lawful evil character enslaves him to do his manual labor.

[Querzis]

I'd also note that the same is true of a lot of Paladins. While the "behaves in an orderly, well thought-out manner" definition of Lawful behaviour is attractive, it doesn't fit a large number of Paladins whose response to any problem is Detect Evil/Smite Evil.

Yeah but those dont play their class well. Those are Mikolike paladins. Real paladins always try to redeem someone and, even if that fails, real paladins wont kill evil people if they are not a threat to anyone. «Ok so that level 1 merchant is evil...what is he going to do, raise his price?» Hinjo, O-chul and Soon are real paladins, people like Miko should never become one in the first place.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Yeah but those dont play their class well. Those are Mikolike paladins. Real paladins always try to redeem someone and, even if that fails, real paladins wont kill evil people if they are not a threat to anyone. «Ok so that level 1 merchant is evil...what is he going to do, raise his price?» Hinjo, O-chul and Soon are real paladins, people like Miko should never become one in the first place.

I don't think that's actually true. The "stalwart warrior against evil" is a perfectly legitimate Paladin concept. And really Hinjo isn't much with the forward planning.

[Neon Knight]

Yeah but those dont play their class well. Those are Mikolike paladins. Real paladins always try to redeem someone and, even if that fails, real paladins wont kill evil people if they are not a threat to anyone. «Ok so that level 1 merchant is evil...what is he going to do, raise his price?» Hinjo, O-chul and Soon are real paladins, people like Miko should never become one in the first place.

I believe there are no set ways to play one's class. I feel Smite paladins are just as welcome and justified as those that resort to less violent methods.

[Ulzgoroth]

A few different visions of Lawful...mostly independent, all (IMO) potentially usable, none quite what the PHB wrote, because I don't think you can work with that.

-Code. A lawful character has a set of rules they they regard as fundamentally right and follow. Can be external, internal, or conceivably implicit. Flaw: what divides neutral from chaotic?

-Submission. A lawful character is capable of (and probably inclined to) truly loyal service to another being, while a chaotic character is very much not. Note: this implies that chaotic clerics aren't so much following their god as heading in the same direction.

-Logic. A lawful character is analytical, rational, and probably organized. They may still have 'irrational' premises, but they think things through from their own perspective. Flaw (subjective): I can't imagine what it means to play a character who is innately non-rational.

-Social Order. Law-Chaos = Authoritarian-Libertarian

I've seen most of these advocated, at various points. Not the second so much, though it's my favorite.

[Neon Knight]

-Code. A lawful character has a set of rules they they regard as fundamentally right and follow. Can be external, internal, or conceivably implicit. Flaw: what divides neutral from chaotic?



I define Neutral from Chaotic in that a neutral person has a general set of rules. These rules are less defined than those of a lawful but more defined than the thin guidelines of a chaotic. A neutral alters his code more easily than a lawful and less easily than a chaotic. They deviate from their code more than a Lawful would and less than a Chaotic would.

[Querzis]

I believe there are no set ways to play ones class. I feel Smite paladins are just as welcome and justified as those that resort to less violent methods.

Problem being that less violent method are more good on the moral axis? I'm not saying they are not lawfull by doing this, just that they are supposed to be always more good then lawfull and that killing (or smiting) inherently cant be a good act while trying less violent method is. The paladins destroy evil, not evil people and any paladin who understand the meaning of good also understand that he is doing more good with the less violent method. Smiting paladins usually become, if they are not already, like Kore from Goblins. Killing automatically anything they detect as evil is probably lawfull, but it definitly isnt good.

[Dan_Hemmens]

I've seen most of these advocated, at various points. Not the second so much, though it's my favorite.

The second one, regrettably, rules out LE Evil Overlords. Not self respecting BBEG would *ever* willingly serve another entity.

[Ulzgoroth]

The second one, regrettably, rules out LE Evil Overlords. Not self respecting BBEG would *ever* willingly serve another entity.

Uh? Do you never have a genuinely pious evil cleric? If you can follow Pelor with all your heart, why can't you give the same respect to Vecna? Gods and the like are beings too...

Alternatively, what about a BBEG who became what he is because he couldn't find a master 'good' enough? It's a bit conflicted, but having the potential for great loyalty doesn't guarantee you'll find someone to dedicate yourself to. (this one depends on whether you regard alignment as describing your life, or describing your identity. I prefer the second in general...the first only needed for PCs, who can lie to you about their thoughts.)

[Brother_Franklin]

Quibbling a little bit, depending on your definitions of "often" and "usually", point six does not necessarily follow from points 3 and 4. If, say, 60% of Kobolds are LE, and 40% of Kobolds commit murder (which strikes me as "often" by most standards, if you compare it to, say, 0.01% of humans) it is theoretically possible that no LE Kobold commits murder. It's also possible that if a LE Kobold commits murder it commits an alignment violation.

True, quite true. But it also seems clear (from the MM1) that the Kobold society condones the eating of prisoners. I would go on to argue that there is little differance in condoning an act and commiting it from a moral standpoint.

[fractal_uk]

Problem being that less violent method are more good on the moral axis? I'm not saying they are not lawfull by doing this, just that they are supposed to be always more good then lawfull and that killing (or smiting) inherently cant be a good act while trying less violent method is. The paladins destroy evil, not evil people and any paladin who understand the meaning of good also understand that he is doing more good with the less violent method. Smiting paladins usually become, if they are not already, like Kore from Goblins. Killing automatically anything they detect as evil is probably lawfull, but it definitly isnt good.

It's not really lawful either, since their code of conduct requires respecting legitimate authority - which rarely sanctions murder. Acting as judge, jury and executioner where existing legal precidents exist is most definately unlawful.

Paladins should be the greatest supporters of fair trail - judging people based on their actions is lawful but punishing them for having a certain outlook because it might cause them to do something wrong strikes me as very chaotic.

[Querzis]

It's not really lawful either, since their code of conduct requires respecting legitimate authority - which rarely sanctions murder. Acting as judge, jury and executioner where existing legal precidents exist is most definately unlawful.

Paladins should be the greatest supporters of fair trail - judging people based on their actions is lawful but punishing them for having a certain outlook because it might cause them to do something wrong strikes me as very chaotic.

I dont see how killing someone for their outlook or because of what they might do is lawfull or chaotic, it just strikes me as very stupid. But being the judge, jury and executionner is how many lawfull neutral or even lawfull evil people acts. I dont think killing everything you see as evil is anything else then just wrong and definitly not what a real good guy does.

Edit: But when I think about it, killing because of what they might do is prevention and planning (lawfull) and killing them because of their outlook definitly doesnt enter the freedom of though and expression that chaotic character have so its still more lawfull then chaotic anyway...but its mainly just stupid.

[Neon Knight]

Personnaly it just strikes me as very stupid. But being the judge, jury and executionner is how many lawfull neutral or even lawfull evil people acts. I dont think killing everything you see as evil is anything else then just wrong and definitly not what a real good guy does.

Of course, God can't whisper in your ear and say, "Hey, that dude over there? Yeah, he's evil. "

The whole bit on the relative goodness of smite style paladins, and the relative goodness of non-violent solutions verse violent solutions was an opinion. We're arguing opinions here.

We're arguing opinions about paladins in a thread NOT. ABOUT. PALADINS. If you want to have this discussion, I suggest you create a thread for it.

Why do all alignment threads end up with arguments relating to opinions about Paladins?

[Stephen_E]

Chaotic characters can work under this, by the way. Chaotic characters also have a personal set of behaviors and a code of conduct, but they change and deviate from both with alarming frequency. They deviate not only to duck inconveniences but also just because they feel like it.


The PHB specifically says a Chaotic person "Chaotic people follow their consciences." Since a "conscience" IS a personal code, albeit often operating on a emotional level, I don't think you can claim they necessarily "personal set of behaviors and a code of conduct, they change and deviate from both with alarming frequency".

I think the best description that I've seen for the Law/Chaos axis, that actually keeps to the PHB, is the poster who descibed it as "approach to doing things".

Example - A LG and a CG person come to a pond where a child is drowning. A seer calls out to let the child drown becuase if he's saved he grow up to do great evil. They both leap in and save the child. Afterwards the Seer asks them Why?

The LG responds by pointing out that his code requires him to do so, and can possibly even quote Paragraph and sentance where it's covered.

The CG responds, "that's what good guys do".

The Lawful person may seem more "consistient" because they're more likely to be able to articulate the whys and wherefors of their actions.

The Chaotic person runs things against the internal monitor of their conscience, which can be just as consistient in it's own way, but is much harder to articulate.

Additional note- Re: "Respect"
Respect does not = obey.
Respect the Law doesn't = Obey the law.
Respect Authority doesn't = Obey Authority.
If I respect someone I will listen to what they say and give it serious thought. It doesn't mean I automatically follow what they say.
"A Lawful person will respect legitimate authority." Even leaving aside the debate of what is "legitimate", this leaves a vast scope of responces available to the lawful character beyond mindless obediance to the laws/authority.

If Legitimate Authority tells a Chaotic and a Lawful person to do something, the Chaotic will, at least on the mental level, flip authority the bird. He may eventualy decide to do it for reasons of his own, but it won't be because authority told him. The Lawful person follow the order UNLESS he works out it's the wrong thing to do.

Chaos/Law is "Intent", and it isn't "actions", it how they make decisions.

Stephen

[Querzis]

Why do all alignment threads end up with arguments relating to opinions about Paladins?

Lol, I'm pretty damn sure its not an opinion that not killing someone if you dont have to is definitly more good then killing him because you can (or because its easier that way).

And about the topic of this thread, I already gave my opinions on page one, go read it. Until then I dont see why I shoudnt reply to the people who ask question or say something I disagree with.

By the way Stephen I love your defnition of Chaos/Law, it kinda match my definition.

[Ceres]

I suggest listening to The Streets' "The irony of it all". Pretty much sums up chaotic good and lawful evil :smallbiggrin:

[Neon Knight]

Lol, I'm pretty damn sure its not an opinion that not killing someone if you dont have to is definitly more good then killing him because you can (or because its easier that way).



You have to realize that morality is anything but universal. It is, in fact, just the opposite. Among certain cultures, acts you consider unspeakable are commonplace and accepted.

Originally, I was merely stating that the detect smite evil play style was acceptable. I was mainly saying this off the personal belief I hold that you should never attempt to claim that there is one way to play a character and/or class.

If you want my personal opinion on the the play style, it is rather boring because of how simplistic it is.

I find it difficult to assert this, but I can say that to a certain point of view, it is perfectly acceptable to execute based on detect evil. After all, the ability is granted by the gods for a reason. Perhaps that reason is the early detection of criminals? Who knows? Perhaps a society exists where Paladins patrol the streets casting detect evil left and right and dealing with those who turn up positive. Heh. Sounds like something out of 1984.

By the way, being judge, jury, and executioner is what anyone, regardless of alignment, can do. The phrase normally refers to agents of the law or vigilantes who do so operate outside the established court system. It also accurately describes about 95% of adventurers.

Here is a question for you: What if there are no courts, no higher authority? What if the paladin is the only legitimate judge, the only legitimate jury, and the only legitimate executioner present?

And if you think killing is always easier, you have not attempted many murders. Or played in an assassination campaign.

I'll get to the point. A certain viewpoint holds that certain things are required to be human. Among this is empathy for other humans. If an individual lacks empathy for other human beings (like a person of evil alignment), then they are fundamentally not human. They are little more than a wild animal in a human shell and can be executed without second thought. This viewpoint maintains that they lack a piece of human psyche that is essential to be human, and thus they are not truly humans and should have no legal rights.

I do not subscribe to this viewpoint. I have associates that do.



And about the topic of this thread, I already gave my opinions on page one, go read it. Until then I dont see why I shoudnt replie to the people who ask question or say something I disagree with.


My contention is that the current discussion should not be occurring in this thread. I am encouraging you that if you want to discuss this, you should make a thread specifically for it. That was what I was saying.

This current discussion if off topic. It belongs in either PMs or in another thread. I will not reply again to this topic in this thread. If you wish to continue the discussion, either PM me or create a new thread.

[Ditto]

Lawful. Means. ORDER.

Lawful has nothing to do with laws, except that laws happen to support order. It has NOTHING to do with a personal code of conduct. Everyone has a personal code of conduct. It makes zero sense to say a chaotic character doesn't have a code of conduct. Lawful is methodical, orderly, reliable.

Evil people kill babies. The end!
(That one was easy. >.>)

It's really not necessary to lay out this Lawful=/=Law thing every other day, is it?

[Neon Knight]

Lawful. Means. ORDER.

Lawful has nothing to do with laws, except that laws happen to support order. It has NOTHING to do with a personal code of conduct. Everyone has a personal code of conduct. It makes zero sense to say a chaotic character doesn't have a code of conduct. Lawful is methodical, orderly, reliable.

Evil people kill babies. The end!
(That one was easy. >.>)

It's really not necessary to lay out this Lawful=/=Law thing every other day, is it?

So, being Lawful is a list of attributes?

The list of attributes that are lawful is the most flawed methodology for determining lawful/chaotic. Please note that the difference between lawful and chaotic I set out was that they adhered to their codes with different tenacities, and they treated their codes differently. A lawful treats his code like the ten commandments. A chaotic treats his code as guidelines.

[Ditto]

I certainly appreciate the distinctions you draw between views of personal code - indeed, a very fine illustration of one of the differences between lawful and chaotic.

That said... it's an adjective. Describing attributes of something is how you -describe something-. I... er... don't know quite what the problem is with throwing three handy keywords out in the middle of my response. :smallconfused: Yes, being lawful is a list of attributes.

On the Evil side of things... not all evil people should be killed. Some people don't care if you live or die - that's evil. If they were neutral, they'd care. that's not to say they would put themselves out to do anything for you, but they'd still recognize you as a human being who probably doesn't want to die and such. I can see very easily a world with a substantial Neutral Evil population, doing whatever they can get away with, not caring in the least for any concept of right and wrong and nobility. LE and CE don't really play well with others, but that's not a function of them being Evil alone.

[Neon Knight]

That said... it's an adjective. Describing attributes of something is how you -describe something-. I... er... don't know quite what the problem is with throwing three handy keywords out in the middle of my response. :smallconfused: Yes, being lawful is a list of attributes.


My problem with the statement, and with other this alignment is this attribute lists, it might be possible to come up with a character who seems to be lawful except lacking that specific set of attributes listed. Or you could have a character who possesses some of the attributes supposedly only lawful characters have, but otherwise acts in a chaotic manner.

I just personally feel that attributes that normally seem to correlate with a lawful/chaotic alignment can actually be found in both, and attribute lists are not very helpful. By attribute lists, I mean lists of adjectives like the one you posted.


Lawful is methodical, orderly, reliable.

Methodical I can agree with. Orderly might not necessarily fit. If you mean orderly as in organized, then I would disagree based on my personal code of conduct view. Reliable? I reliable as in you can depend on him to do the same thing consistently, then yes.

Upon deeper thought and further review, I suppose my initial response came off harsher than I intended (and much harsher than what was deserved:smalleek: ) and I would like to apologize. I am opposed to the attribute list method of determining alignment (Comparing a list of attributes to a character, then selecting the alignment that the character shares the most attributes with) because I feel the majority of the attribute lists have qualities on them that best describe personalities, not alignments.

Your list was actually quite fine; I should have elaborated and specified that the format and method, (attribute lists) where what I was opposed to, not your list itself. (Which is very good, mainly because it is short. The longer the list, the more likely it will have a personality trait instead of an alignment trait)

I personally feel that alignment and personality, while related and affecting each other, are not one and the same, and feel certain attribute lists mix the two. Yours does not, and I reacted before fully processing the implications of your list. I am truly sorry; I have jumped the gun in this case.

[Dervag]

Now I know Kobolds almost always kill non-Kobolds. So this argument only works on cross-racial murder. But that's still something right. I'm trying.Well, I'm sure you can find examples in the sourcebook of Lawful Evil governments which murder some of their subjects for one reason or another.


Re consistency - I'd have said that a chaotic person could reasonably be consistent over time ie they could still have a personal code of conduct, but it wouldn't neccessarily be rational and consistent within itself - so a character who has no compuntions whatsoever about killing people but abhorrs all cruelty to animals could reasonably be chaotic.What is a disciplined anarchist?

A disciplined anarchist will have a coherent and internally consistent moral code, and yet be against all laws and governments. This is why I don't like making "discipline" part of the lawful-chaotic axis. I can easily imagine undisciplined lawful characters (though they might regret their own lack of discipline). And I can even more easily imagine disciplined chaotic characters.


I don't think that's actually true. The "stalwart warrior against evil" is a perfectly legitimate Paladin concept. And really Hinjo isn't much with the forward planning.The problem is that a pure Detect -> Smite paladin isn't just stalwart; they've got rocks in their head. They assume that everything with an evil alignment deserves to die. The problem is that killing an evil creature isn't always a good act. Sometimes it can be an evil act. Since a paladin's actions should be based on whatever makes them least likely to do evil and most likely to do good, running around detecting evil one round and smiting it the next is an unfit behavior for a paladin.


If Legitimate Authority tells a Chaotic and a Lawful person to do something, the Chaotic will, at least on the mental level, flip authority the bird. He may eventualy decide to do it for reasons of his own, but it won't be because authority told him. True. Of course "reasons of his own" may include "I don't want to get in trouble."


You have to realize that morality is anything but universal. It is, in fact, just the opposite. Among certain cultures, acts you consider unspeakable are commonplace and accepted.First of all, moral relativism undermines some of your other conclusions.

The D&D universe presupposes exact standards of good and evil. It also strongly implies that those standards roughly match up with the 'convention rules' that we can observe across multiple civilizations. If we find a rule of good that most cultures agree on, it's a fairly safe bet that that's a rule of good in D&D. So, for instance, casually killing people is probably evil in D&D.


I find it difficult to assert this, but I can say that to a certain point of view, it is perfectly acceptable to execute based on detect evil. After all, the ability is granted by the gods for a reason...Did it occur to you that this reason might not be so that bloodthirsty zealots with swords can run around slaughtering everyone who "looks evil"? Perhaps you are supposed to use it to identify people in need of advice, or people who need to be avoided, or to identify specific people who are suspected of committing an evil act such as murder.


I'll get to the point. A certain viewpoint holds that certain things are required to be human. Among this is empathy for other humans. If an individual lacks empathy for other human beings (like a person of evil alignment), then they are fundamentally not human. They are little more than a wild animal in a human shell and can be executed without second thought. This viewpoint maintains that they lack a piece of human psyche that is essential to be human, and thus they are not truly humans and should have no legal rights.

I do not subscribe to this viewpoint. I have associates that do.They make the fundamental mistake of assuming that evil-aligned creatures are in fact psychopaths and totally without empathy. This is almost certainly not true. Evil characters may be quite social. They may love their family. The one constant is that they will betray others for personal gain, but that does not require them to be totally without empathy.

[ArmorArmadillo]

This is as concise as I can possibly make my view of this question:
If you ask a lawful person and a chaotic person the same Hypothetical question:
A lawful person will have a calculated response and can provide a system of reasoning that leads to that conclusion.
A chaotic person will tell you that he doesn't know right now; he'd really have to be there.

[Matthew]

Interestingly, that's an Aristotelian answer, not likely Chaotic by default. There is a great deal of manoeuvrability within any given Alignment. A Lawful Neutral Character could be simply obediant to the Law, believing in it utterly, or he could have his own code of conduct that runs contrary to that Law. Both can exist in the same Lawful Society and still be Lawful.

[Droodle]

To me, alignments are about conflict. A lawful good character is going to run into a lot of incidents where his "good" alignment conflicts with his "lawful" alignment. Hence, a lawful good character may occasionally perform a "chaotic" act for the greater good, just as a chaotic good character may perform lawfully in a society which he feels appropriately defends the rights of the individual....or when the law is the most expedient means to reach his (good) goals. A lawful neutral character, however, is rarely going to allow anything to displace his loyalty to his cause or organization since he places law (order/loyalty) above the lofty ideals of "good" and even, in some instances, above his own self interest (evil).

[Stephen_E]

I think a lot of the so-called conflict between the Good-Evil axis and the Chaotic-Lawful axis disappears if you look at Chaos/Law as "How" you do things, and Good/Evil as "What" you're trying to achieve.

While there is some crossover the bulk of them are focused in different directions.

Stephen

[Aris Katsaris]

I mostly agree with Droodle's take on this. Each individual is a different set of priorities, and occasionally Lawful-Evil may be a means-and-goal thingy, but sometimes it may two distinct sets of priorities, the one conflicting with the other.

Count Dracula is to me a primary example of Lawful Evil, who's constrained by a personal code and does things against his self-interest such as not violating a person's house unless invited into it; he also seems to extend some sort of (limited) protection to his own guest (Harker).

Loki is a primary example of Chaotic Evil, who occasionally does things against his self-interest (such as mocking and insulting all the gathered gods together) because he wants to upset the established order.

I think that's a good way to determine an evil character's Lawful-Chaotic alignment -- to figure out in *which* circumstances they would do something against their self-interest.

[Stephen_E]

Loki is a primary example of Chaotic Evil, who occasionally does things against his self-interest (such as mocking and insulting all the gathered gods together) because he wants to upset the established order.



Loki isn't really a good example of Chaotic Evil.
While some of the christinised versions make him so, the mythology is rather vaguer on it. He was the Trickster god, and the God of Fire and could more fairly be placed as Chaotic Neutral. He was a good friend of Thor and helped the Gods in many ways. At Ragnorak he was fated to be on the other side to the Gods, but the Asenir/Gods weren't exactly "Good" either (Odin was a nasty peice of works when you get down to it) so that can't be used to place him firmly in an alignment camp.

Stephen

[Dan_Hemmens]

Loki isn't really a good example of Chaotic Evil.
While some of the christinised versions make him so, the mythology is rather vaguer on it. He was the Trickster god, and the God of Fire and could more fairly be placed as Chaotic Neutral. He was a good friend of Thor and helped the Gods in many ways. At Ragnorak he was fated to be on the other side to the Gods, but the Asenir/Gods weren't exactly "Good" either (Odin was a nasty peice of works when you get down to it) so that can't be used to place him firmly in an alignment camp.

Stephen

Loki wasn't god of fire, the entire association is a mistake based on (1) the fact that a firey trickster god sounds cool (2) a thing involving an eating competition and (3) the fact that the actual Norse god of fire has a similar sounding name.

And Loki absolutely *was* a malicious bastard.

[Stephen_E]

And Loki absolutely *was* a malicious bastard.

Yeah, if you got in his bad books you were in deep s**t, but he did help the Aseir quite a bit, despite been the adopted halfbreed.

Been a malicous bastard isn't evil on it's own. Odin had a nasty streak at least as bad, but then the Norse Pantheon wasn't really a good/evil pantheon. Indeed few were by DnD or modern standards.

Stephen

[Ulzgoroth]

They make the fundamental mistake of assuming that evil-aligned creatures are in fact psychopaths and totally without empathy. This is almost certainly not true. Evil characters may be quite social. They may love their family. The one constant is that they will betray others for personal gain, but that does not require them to be totally without empathy.

Even less than that. A Lawful Evil person, in particular, might very well not even consider betraying others for personal gain. Sacrificing innocent bystanders for personal gain perhaps being another matter entirely...

[Dan_Hemmens]

They make the fundamental mistake of assuming that evil-aligned creatures are in fact psychopaths and totally without empathy. This is almost certainly not true. Evil characters may be quite social. They may love their family. The one constant is that they will betray others for personal gain, but that does not require them to be totally without empathy.

That must be why the description of "Evil" in the SRD says:

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

Notice that they give you two choices. Either you have no compassion for others, and will kill without qualms if doing so is convenient, or else you kill because you actively enjoy it.

So no, Evil people do not love their families, they do not care about their friends. They are brutal, ruthless, and remorseless.

D&D Evil is not like real-world evil. It is absolute, and it is black and white.

[Stephen_E]

That must be why the description of "Evil" in the SRD says:

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

Notice that they give you two choices. Either you have no compassion for others, and will kill without qualms if doing so is convenient, or else you kill because you actively enjoy it.

So no, Evil people do not love their families, they do not care about their friends. They are brutal, ruthless, and remorseless.

D&D Evil is not like real-world evil. It is absolute, and it is black and white.

Dan, you aren't given two choices, you're given two examples.
It doesn't say "Evil creatures either do A) or B)".

"Some people have brown eyes, others have blue". This doesn't mean that people can only have brown or blue eyes.

Stephen