Advice on Neutral Evil and Lawful Evil

[JobsforFun]

I am in 2 different campaigns currently and I was wondering if you all could give me some advice when playing neutral and lawful evil alignments. I Have a better understanding of lawful with having a code to follow such as not harming children and keeping my word etc but neutral evil I am not so sure about.

[SharkForce]

evil is basically selfish taken to an extreme. lawful or chaotic mostly just modifies how you feel about things like structure, tradition, community, authority, honor, etc.

a neutral evil character will be more or less ambivalent about those things. they don't hate them. they don't love them. they will mostly just care about themselves.

a chaotic evil character will tend to hate those things, except to the extent that they can abuse them in their own favour; for example, they may tend to hate all authority except their own authority over others.

a lawful evil character will tend towards loving those things. they may not value the lives or well-being of others highly, but they may value their traditions as highly as they value themselves. they may not care for the individuals within a community, but the overall community might be seen as something important and worth protecting.

one key thing to remember though is that we are talking about tendencies here, not absolutes. death knights are chaotic evil, but care deeply about following a certain code typically, just as an example. just because you fit more within a part of the alignment chart doesn't mean everything about that alignment fits you, or vice versa.

[JobsforFun]

evil is basically selfish taken to an extreme. lawful or chaotic mostly just modifies how you feel about things like structure, tradition, community, authority, honor, etc.

a neutral evil character will be more or less ambivalent about those things. they don't hate them. they don't love them. they will mostly just care about themselves.

a chaotic evil character will tend to hate those things, except to the extent that they can abuse them in their own favour; for example, they may tend to hate all authority except their own authority over others.

a lawful evil character will tend towards loving those things. they may not value the lives or well-being of others highly, but they may value their traditions as highly as they value themselves. they may not care for the individuals within a community, but the overall community might be seen as something important and worth protecting.

one key thing to remember though is that we are talking about tendencies here, not absolutes. death knights are chaotic evil, but care deeply about following a certain code typically, just as an example. just because you fit more within a part of the alignment chart doesn't mean everything about that alignment fits you, or vice versa.

Chaotic Evil relies on impulses correct? LE I know won't betray true friends and family without reason NE will betray them without reason to advance themselves but wont betray them if they feel they need the person to further their cause in the future. Where CE will betray the person regardless?

Am I correct about this?

[Z3ro]

Chaotic Evil relies on impulses correct? LE I know won't betray true friends and family without reason NE will betray them without reason to advance themselves but wont betray them if they feel they need the person to further their cause in the future. Where CE will betray the person regardless?

Am I correct about this?

That's how lots of people play it, but I think SharkForce is closer to how the system should ideally work. Evil doesn't mean stupid, as most players seem to think; evil characters (even CE) are more than capable of recognizing authority when it suits them (such as following a strong leader who would kill the disobedient). Consider orcs; they're all CE, but you don't see them constantly murdering each other. Occasionally sure, but in your summation of CE they shouldn't be able to form tribes or raid others, as these thing require some level of cooperation and trust.

[Ninja_Prawn]

The simplest way to look at it is to say that all evil characters are essentially in it for themselves. An LE character seeks to advance themselves within the system, exploiting loopholes and existing structures of power for their own gain. Classic example: greedy robber-baron. A NE doesn't care about the law, and does whatever seems most expedient. They follow the path of least resistance. Classic example: small-time pickpockets and burglars. CE characters (which you didn't ask about but complete the picture) hate rules and regulations, and don't like to let anyone tell them what to do. A NE character can be bought, for the right price, but a CE character can only be kept in line by naked power. A LE character probably wants to be bought half the time.

[Fflewddur Fflam]

Yeah, Chaotic Evils are basically total sociopath-psychopath Murder-Hobos. Which is why DMs get headaches when a party consisting of non-chaotic evil PCs decide to be total Murder-Hobos. It not only completely disrupts 99% of campaigns but it's not remotely in-character for parties that aren't CE. This is also why CE is not an alignment you can pick in AL games.

[Douche]

I personally don't like the definition most people have of Lawful vs Chaotic. People think it means "one follows all the rules, the other is lolz so randum" but I disagree.

I can't be bothered to go find it atm, but I'm pretty sure the book says something about lawful/chaotic pertaining to your stance toward society. A lawful person wants to bolster society & make their kingdom stronger, etc. A chaotic person wants people to be free, or anarchist.

In that regard, a lawful evil character, in my mind, is someone who wants to wield the power of society to oppress people for his own goals. That's a pretty standard definition, but the distinction I'm trying to make is that it's not that they're abusing the system for their own ambition... it's that they think the best way for society to become better is through oppression & stuff like that. So they are limiting freedoms, squelching all religion except the one they approve, enforcing curfews, making people all dress the same to dehumanize them and abolish any differences in social class & income... stuff like that. Basically just imagine yourself as the leader of North Korea, or V for Vendetta if it makes you feel better.

A Chaotic Evil character, on the other hand, would believe that society, in it's essence, is a useless construct. There's no need for kingdoms, laws, any of that stuff. They only serve to protect the weak & make the powerful submit themselves.... stuff like that. I don't think it's as rigidly defined - you could have a lot of reasons to be chaotic evil, but I think the main theme is that you want anarchy in some form. The Joker is a good instance of this. A lot of people would probably, in some form, boil his character down to "LOL SO RANDOM" in the way he commits his terrorist acts. But at his core, he wants to expose the facade of society, to show that it's all meaningless, and that we're all really just animals in our hearts.

I think looking at it this way eliminates people's perception of "Chaotic has to be random & whimsical, Lawful has to be pedantic" You can be lawful & still be whimsical, or you can be chaotic & still be super methodical


So anyway, by that binary, I always figured that Neutral just doesn't care about his/her role in society. That's why Neutral characters are often portrayed as mercenaries. If you're paying, he doesn't care if you want him to protect the king, or assassinate the king - as long as he's getting what he's owed out of it. Or you could consider Neutral to be someone who wants balance in society (the way most of us are, in real life). Maybe he thinks that laws are important, but so is freedom of religion or whatever.... That people should submit to the rule of law, but also break it when it doesn't make sense.

That's why in games like Fallout (with a karma meter), I usually find myself being Neutral... Because in some cases it makes sense to do the evil thing & blow up a city for sweet cash, but then you come across a slaver settlement & decide that no one should have to live as a slave


EDIT: Someone mentioned Death Knights & it bought up another thought of mine. I don't think having a "personal code" makes you lawful or chaotic. It still pertains to the stance toward society. If your Paladin oath requires you to protect the rule of law, then you're lawful. If your Paladin code requires you to destroy the nobility to break the shackles of oppression, then you're chaotic... But the idea of a code on it's own, nor how rigidly you follow it, has nothing to do with being Lawful or Chaotic.

[ClintACK]

A character's motivation is going to be much more complicated than an alignment.

Lawful Evil can even be an incredibly unselfish person -- one who has given over his life completely to a noble cause. The difference between this LE character and a LG one is his willingness to cross all kinds of moral lines for his noble cause. Consider Magneto, willing to murder one of his closest friends in order to protect Mutants from their Holocaust. He would say that Charles Xavier is a naive fool and only he (Magneto) is willing to do what needs to be done to protect their people. (Motto: My end justify any possible means, no matter how unsavory. "Good" people sleep soundly in their smug moral superiority because I'm willing to get my hands dirty so they don't have to.)

Or Lawful Evil can describe a ruthless mercenary who stays bought and follows his code to the letter. Like that guy in Serenity. Or someone like Dexter Morgan with a rigid code but doing horrible things.

Neutral Evil is an even broader catch-all.

Anyway, for playing an evil character: The Character probably doesn't think of himself as "evil" -- he has reasons and motivations for everything he does. Figure out what he wants and what he believes in -- and play him like that.

[Dr.Samurai]

In addition to what has already been said, I think it can be somewhat useful to separate the two parts of the alignment at times. One won't always necessarily inform the other in neat ways.

If you have a lawful character, try to pin down why you're ascribing that designation to him. What about him makes him lawful? What is it about that part of the alignment grid that he appreciates or adheres to?

Then, do that for the evil part as well.

In some situations, the two might come together to inform each other. But on their own they are rather distinct, so I don't think it's always helpful to think of a lawful evil person as "lawful evil" as opposed to "lawful" and "evil".

If that makes any sense. I'm speed-typing this in a spare second I have :smallannoyed:.

[Specter]

Chaotic Evil is The Joker, Lawful Evil is The Emperor in Star Wars. Neutral is something in between.

[Millstone85]

I believe this thread has already produced five competing definitions for a lawful evil character:

* Selfish except for some lines they won't cross.
Example: a contract killer who won't target children.

* Selfish but expert at exploiting the system.
Example: a greedy robber baron.

* Selfless but willing to use awful methods.
Example: many "visionary" villains.

* Selfless to the extreme, the individual is nothing.
Example: the Borg, unless they are too alien.

* A true believer in an evil society.
Example: one whose "kiss up, kick down" behavior would be genuine.

[pwykersotz]

I would submit another as a possibility for evil. An evil person is one who makes value judgements about the worth of other people's lives and then acts on that. You get your classic evil villain when you combine this with the idea of selfishness, basically valuing your own life and comfort and designs well above other people. You get a different but still classic evil if you take it in isolation where the otherwise good king does not value the forest elves and is waging a genocidal war against them, even if he treats his own subjects well.

In my understanding, chaotic in the mortal perspective comes not from being random, but by believing in the freedom to do what one wants as the highest goal. Law in the mortal perspective would be the "tiny cogs, big machine" ideal.

So chaotic evil in my definitions would be someone who assigns their own values to life and acts on them in a way that tears down society.
Lawful evil by the same token would be someone who assigns their own values to life and uses them to create a social structure to enforce those values.

I'm sure my definitions are incomplete, but that's where they are right now.

[Tanarii]

In 5e, Alignments describe your characters attitudes to morality and society and order. This result in typical, but not perfectly nor consistent, behavior associated with the Alignment:
Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order.
Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms.

How you chose to interpret that and apply that when making in-character decision making (aka Role-Playing) is up to you as a player.

My advice on how to play Neutral Evil or Lawful Evil.:
Write down the corresponding typical behavior sentence for your character's Alignment.
Write down the sentences for your character's Personality, Ideal, Bond and Flaw.
Before the game reread them all, to help get in character.
Play the game, keeping them in mind while making in-character decisions. If you need to for critical decisions reread them first.


Edit: Be aware that anyone telling you such-and-such is evil, and not using the behavior descriptions I used above, is giving you non-canon personal opinion or old edition definitions for good & evil. The only canon for Alignment in 5e is what I quoted above. (If someone is discussing how to interpret that canon description, that's a different thing. But so far no one is.)

[Ghost Nappa]

If you're not afraid of TVTropes, here are its thoughts on NE (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NeutralEvil) and LE. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LawfulEvil)

[pwykersotz]

In 5e, Alignments describe your characters attitudes to morality and society and order. This result in typical, but not perfectly nor consistent, behavior associated with the Alignment:
Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order.
Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms.

Edit: Be aware that anyone telling you such-and-such is evil, and not using the behavior descriptions I used above, is giving you non-canon personal opinion or old edition definitions for good & evil. The only canon for Alignment in 5e is what I quoted above. (If someone is discussing how to interpret that canon description, that's a different thing. But so far no one is.)

This is very true. Of course I've never seen a DM go by the book for table alignment, but if JobsforFun's DM is, then this is so far the most accurate advice.

[Tanarii]

This is very true. Of course I've never seen a DM go by the book for table alignment, but if JobsforFun's DM is, then this is so far the most accurate advice.It only matters if the DM is not going by the book if she's removing Alignment from being a Player tool for helping them roleplay their character's personality. OTOH if she does do that, then it matters a lot. :smallbiggrin: Otherwise it's up to the player to either use the 5e Alignment as written, or not and do whatever the hell they want.

[ClintACK]

I believe this thread has already produced five competing definitions for a lawful evil character:


Not "competing". Just different characters who all fit in the same generic box.

Like Legolas and Dobby both fit in the box labeled "Elf". Or Gimli and Flint Fireforge and Sleepy all fit in the box labeled "Dwarf".

The world of different character motivations is much larger than a tic-tac-toe board with nine pigeonholes.



In 5e, Alignments describe your characters attitudes to morality and society and order. This result in typical, but not perfectly nor consistent, behavior associated with the Alignment:
Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order.
Neutral evil (NE) is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms.

Technically true, but while the book definitions are canonical, they aren't terribly useful. (I think they're not meant to be -- your Ideals and Bonds and Flaws are supposed to be more important in 5e characters than which alignment box you check.)

[Tanarii]

Technically true, but while the book definitions are canonical, they aren't terribly useful. (I think they're not meant to be -- your Ideals and Bonds and Flaws are supposed to be more important in 5e characters than which alignment box you check.)
I find a one sentence descriptor of typically associated behavior, that specifically doesn't override your Personality, Ideal and Bond, but instead generally works in conjunction with them, and occasionally is at odds with your Flaw, to be the most useful version of D&D Alignment to date.

Edit: That said, while I think the 5e D&D 'personality system', which includes Alignment, is awesome ... I think it's possible to make a character with totally usable motivations without it. I just find that most players, even veteran ones, don't. They usually have a mixed up mishmash of backstory (which is mostly useless for in-character decision making) and unclear, poorly defined motivations. The 5e way is so good because it covers 4 different categories of different but inter-meshing motivations, and they're relatively simple, clear and distinct. (I say 4 categories because Ideal and Alignment are generally fairly closely linked, if different things. So it's 5 categories if you count them separately.)

Edit2: But I digress. This thread is supposed to be about Lawful Evil & Neutral Evil in particular. IMO it's important to understand the point of Alignment in 5e as it relates to personality as a whole, but that doesn't mean I should drag the entire thread down that path at length.

[SharkForce]

EDIT: Someone mentioned Death Knights & it bought up another thought of mine. I don't think having a "personal code" makes you lawful or chaotic. It still pertains to the stance toward society. If your Paladin oath requires you to protect the rule of law, then you're lawful. If your Paladin code requires you to destroy the nobility to break the shackles of oppression, then you're chaotic... But the idea of a code on it's own, nor how rigidly you follow it, has nothing to do with being Lawful or Chaotic.

to some extent.

basically, a lawful character is likely to think of their code in absolutes. the code is what is important. a chaotic character still has a set of standards that they live by, more or less, but the code isn't important, it's just a list of things they've decided not to do.

to put it another way: a lawful person who comes across something not covered in their code will likely try to fit that situation into their code of behaviour. a chaotic person who comes across something not covered in their code will change their code or add to it to cover the new situation, possibly (but not necessarily) based on the code.

though as i said, just because a certain behaviour is lawful or chaotic, that doesn't mean that a person with that behaviour matches the alignment, nor does it mean that everyone who matches the alignment matches the behaviour.

[Sigreid]

My take:

Lawful Evil: It's best for society if everyone follows the rules with strong leadership. Ideally with themselves as that strong leadership. The individual is inconsequential to the state, and the leadership is the state. Random violence is wasteful. Violence should always have a purpose that serves the society and it's leadership. Elimination of threats and entertainment of the elite and or the masses are both perfectly valid.

Chaotic Evil: Their own personal freedom is the only thing that really matters. While it's true some CE beings engage in violence randomly and without thought, others engage in violence primarily as a means to ensure that others don't mistakenly think they can be controlled. If CE wants something, they will take it. If someone threatens or offends them, they'll kill them. All with no regard for the other person. After all, if someone isn't strong enough to look after themselves, what are they worth anyway?

Neutral Evil: All about themselves, but with some thought behind it. Society and sudden violence may both be used, but to advance their own agenda. A nation could be used for years or centuries, and sacrificed because it's the most benefit at a given moment without hesitation or regret.

[rollingForInit]

I don't think Evil has to necessarily mean that you enjoy hurting others, that you want to profit from oppressing others, or anything similar. It's just that you put your own wellbeing, and that of those you care about, above others. And that you don't mind getting dirty to do it.

I played a Lawful Evil wizard who was a member of the Zhentarim. He joined the Zhentarim because they helped his family, that he cares about a lot. So, he does whatever the Zhentarim wants, because they'll ensure that his family remains safe and sound. He doesn't like harming others, and he's very much aware that doing so is something others might violently object to. Still, if the Zhentarim tells him to murder someone, he will. If he has to burn down a village to protect his family, he wouldn't hesitate, and he wouldn't feel guilty about it. He doesn't like torturing people, but if it were the only way, he wouldn't hesitate. He's got no moral qualms about doing anything like that. It's just not something that he enjoys, and he's very pragmatic. Outside of those situations, he's a charming, pleasant person to be around, and if you're his friend, you'd know he'd support you, whatever you do, in whatever way he can. He even enjoys helping people in need, especially children (for backstory reasons).

He's Lawful because he believes that order and structure are necessary. He might disregard laws when it's needed, but he still thinks they serve a very important purpose. He tends to keep his word. He follows the hierarchy within his organisation, not because those above him are necessarily more powerful and threatening, but because having a hierarchy is important.

I see Lawful Evil characters a bit like corporate evils or mobsters. They've got lives, people they love and care about, they can be pleasant, charming, nice to be around. They could be big on charity, help others, want to make society a better place ... but they prioritise their own needs and their family's needs above everything else, and they'd murder or ruin the lives of others without looking back, if needed.

[90sMusic]

One of the great things about 5e is alignment doesn't really matter anymore.

In older editions it was hard coded and very specific. You had class restrictions based on it and spells and items that react differently based on your alignment.

5e got rid of all of that. Alignment in 5e exists simply for the old school players to pretend it is still relevant. There are no longer spells that interact with it, there are no longer class restrictions that depend on specific alignments, and so on.

Just play the character you want to play and don't worry about the stringent, stuffy, outdated alignment system. People are far too complex to be summed up by an alignment, and some nutbag DMs go crazy and say you're acting out of your alignment when you do something realistic that your character would do.

I mean look at Mace Windu from starwars for example. The guy is essentially Lawful Good. He lives by a VERY strict code of behavior, and he and his order go around helping people selflessly whenever they can. He was also the elected leader of the entire Jedi order, so obviously if he wasn't living up to his Lawful Good expectations he wouldn't have been chosen for that position. But he was going to kill Palpatine instead of arrest him because he believed he could worm his way out of justice and a proper conviction. He chose to strike down an unarmed man begging for his life. In older editions of D&D that kind of action would have DM's raging at you about violating your alignment and would say you can't do it or if you were a paladin or monk or anything else that relied on that alignment, they'd shift your alignment and make you lose all your class features.

It was a bad way to handle things honestly. People are far too complex.

As far as what alignments allow...

I think the best way to explain Neutral Evil is to talk about deals and contracts. A lawful evil person (or entity, like Devils notably) will usually honor their word and keep deals they make. They will try to word things or interpret things in their favor and twist it into ways you weren't really expecting generally, but they stay true to their word none the less. Chaotic Evil on the other hand will basically always break a deal or a bargain. Their word is worth absolutely nothing because they would say or do or agree to anything with no intention of actually fulfilling their end, or at least no more than they had to in order to get what they want.

Neutral Evil on the other hand is more of an intelligent, schemer evil. You might stay true to nearly all of your deals and contracts. Not because you have a code of honor or ethics, but because you believe it to be logical. You know if you run a business and have a reputation for breaking your word, no one is going to believe you after a while, but if you always fulfill your end of the bargain, you'll get a reputation for that. You do it because it is smart. You don't care if everyone in a village dies, you'd even kill them yourself if given half a reason, but you wouldn't just walk in there and massacre all of them if there was nothing to be gained from it. There are consequences to that, the local authorities would start hunting you, it could damage your reputation, etc. However if a village had some artifact you wanted and they wouldn't tell you where it was, well you would probably start flaying them or burning them until they told you where it was. It's all about risk vs reward. You keep most of your deals because it proves more profitable in the long term, but you might violate a few here or there and make all evidence those people and your deal ever existed because maybe they had something very valuable you wanted for yourself.

Neutral Evil is the most insidious of all evil because it can and will do absolutely anything. It can hide in plain sight, posing as a local merchant who donates gold to orphanages to feed needy children... Because what you don't realize is he uses those children as spies and thieves throughout the city, and when they are old enough they start doing armed robbery or even intentional murder.

Lawful Evil can be typically be reasoned with and you have certain things to expect. You expect them to try to screw you over within the confines of the deal you made, but that they will stick to the deal though not the intent of the deal. Chaotic evil you know will be impulsive and destroy, kill, lie on a whim. Neutral is so much worse because you never know what to expect. You don't know if he's going to keep that deal at all or if he's going to have you murdered in your sleep. You probably won't be able to bait him into revealing himself by making him angry.

This general concept is why things like Succubi were moved to neutral evil from chaotic (which never made any sense) because they are manipulators, deceivers, and tend to hide in plain sight. Something truly chaotic can't do that. You can't have a secret scheme behind the scenes because it requires too much thought and planning and sticking to the plan. Etc.

Also Lawful and Neutral evil can easily have friends and loved ones. You don't have to want to kill everyone just because you're evil. Even Hitler loved his pet dogs. I think that is another important distinction too... Most of the time, unless you're a devil or a demon, you don't think that you are evil. Evil dragons do whatever they want because they feel like they deserve it, like it is their right, they don't think that the behavior is evil usually. People are the same way, most truly horrible and evil people think that what they are doing is either good or neutral.

[Herobizkit]

Speaking of TV Tropes...

Any decent Lawful Evil character will be modeled after, say, Dinobot from Beast Wars (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Characters/BeastWarsMaximals) and/or be a Magnificent Bastard (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagnificentBastard).

If one defines the law/chaos axis as structure/freedom, the alignments tend to make more sense.

Neutral Evil, otoh, tends to be more of of the mustache-twirling, double-crossing, "get away with whatever I can, however I can" kind of Evil. It tends to get the rep for being the most selfish of the alignments as they are generally only concerned with self-aggrandizement. If there's a cartoon villain who toadies, rubs his hands and is generally being a weaselly/ratty kind of character, he's probably Neutral Evil.

Lawful Evil is generally the "best" kind of "hero" to be among goody-goodies because he's always the guy they'll turn to to do what they can't (from a moral standpoint). He's edgy without being obnoxious about it. :3

[SharkForce]

the mace windu is kind of a lousy example. first off, it's pretty sketchy to describe someone as unarmed when they are literally currently shooting lightning out of their bare hands in an attempt to kill you. secondly, i'm not sure i would describe it as mace windu killing the guy when he is simply bouncing the lightning said guy is attacking him with back at that guy. at any moment, palpatine could have just stopped trying to murder mace windu with lightning and he would also stop being hit by lightning.

but apart from that, i would agree with most of that... just because someone is evil, doesn't mean they can't care about someone or something else. just because someone is evil, doesn't mean they're going to run around murdering everything in sight (even if they are also chaotic). it generally means that they'll kill, steal, torture, etc when they see a benefit to themselves or whatever they value, and only for the very worst of the worst will just kill for fun (even chaotic evil generally won't do that, although the few people who are like that are very probably chaotic evil).

[Tanarii]

secondly, i'm not sure i would describe it as mace windu killing the guy when he is simply bouncing the lightning said guy is attacking him with back at that guy. at any moment, palpatine could have just stopped trying to murder mace windu with lightning and he would also stop being hit by lightning.Not to get side-tracked, but the impression I got in that scene was that he couldn't stop. That palpatine was trapped in a feedback loop of some kind.

But whatever, the intent behind the use of the example, to whit that not all actions stem from a one-dimensional aspect/facet of personality, is appropriate for 5e. That's certainly my reading on Alignment's intended use, as opposed to being some kind of mechanical construct.

Personally I don't interpret that lack of mechanical construct and focus on being one facet of personality as "alignment doesn't matter anymore". I interpret it as "alignment finally matters as a Roleplaying tool". But each unto their own outlook on that. :smallamused:

[N810]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/e8/e4/e0/e8e4e0507562f2c14ac507a44c19de07.jpg

[Tanarii]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/e8/e4/e0/e8e4e0507562f2c14ac507a44c19de07.jpgMan, I hate what the movie did to V so much.

[Sigreid]

Neutral Evil is the most insidious of all evil because it can and will do absolutely anything. It can hide in plain sight, posing as a local merchant who donates gold to orphanages to feed needy children... Because what you don't realize is he uses those children as spies and thieves throughout the city, and when they are old enough they start doing armed robbery or even intentional murder.


Not to mention that if you are known for your good works, people won't look to closely into whatever else you're up to. Mother Teresa could have very easily gotten away with being a serial killer mob boss kingpin because no one would look twice at her in that context. Or once even.

[Segev]

Evil in general, as has been said, is about YOU. What YOU want is all that really matters. Now, of course, there are considerations in a practical sense: what YOU want conflicts with what other beings might want, and they'll try to thwart you, so you have to figure out how to overcome them. Maybe punish them so others won't dare oppose you.

Neutral Evil will embody this most purely. Any tool that works is to be used. Rules have the excellent property of making others kowtow to you even when you don't have a knife to their throat or otherwise have something they want and cannot get without appeasing you. So having rules and a reputation for following them is useful. But don't get carried away; the cost/benefit analysis of following the rules vs. ignoring them must be maintained. Some drawbacks are acceptable. Certainly, when it's no skin of your back either way, follow the rules because it will avoid borrowing trouble for yourself. But never let the rules get in the way of your survival or your true goals.

Lawful Evil doesn't just consider rules useful. Lawful Evil considers them essential. They're how you enforce your control over everybody else. They also protect you, if you're NOT the biggest and baddest guy in charge, as long as you know how to manipulate them. The LE person isn't going to consider being caught in a situation where the rules screw him over to be a time to break them; in his mind, he lost when he let himself be trapped like that, and he'll look for the loophole to let him eke out a chance to fight another day.

Where NE sees rules as something to follow because it's less trouble and useful to his reputation, LE sees rules as his primary focus and tool to achieve what he wants. NE will cheat when he thinks nobody is looking. LE will find a way to abuse the rules so that he's not cheating, no matter how corrupt he's being.

[Tanarii]

Evil in general, as has been said, is about YOU. What YOU want is all that really matters.I liked the Palladium alignment system in this regard. It made it clear that being about YOU was not Evil. It was Selfish. It took something special to be Evil. The axis was Good-Selfish-Evil.

Which is far more reasonable than being about YOU = Evil.

[Segev]

I liked the Palladium alignment system in this regard. It made it clear that being about YOU was not Evil. It was Selfish. It took something special to be Evil. The axis was Good-Selfish-Evil.

Which is far more reasonable than being about YOU = Evil.

You're committing the "all blackbirds are crows" fallacy, here, but I will acknowledge that I can see why you'd make that mistake.

Evil is all about YOU. Being all about YOU isn't enough to be evil, no. But if you don't START from that point, you're probably not going to reach "Evil."

Being all about YOU without being evil is easy, if "all about YOU" is a slight bit of hyperbole. If you are always asking, "what's in it for me?" that doesn't make you evil. But the evil man will be willing to do anything for his own sake, no matter who he has to hurt. The neutral but selfish man will balk at causing others "excessive" harm. (How much is "excessive" is subjective, and likely will determine how people judge him - as evil or not.) He's not going to kill the small child to gain immortality; that's an evil thing to do, and no matter how badly the neutral guy wants to be immortal, his conscience wouldn't let him commit cold-blooded murder for it.

[pwykersotz]

You're committing the "all blackbirds are crows" fallacy, here, but I will acknowledge that I can see why you'd make that mistake.

Evil is all about YOU. Being all about YOU isn't enough to be evil, no. But if you don't START from that point, you're probably not going to reach "Evil."

Being all about YOU without being evil is easy, if "all about YOU" is a slight bit of hyperbole. If you are always asking, "what's in it for me?" that doesn't make you evil. But the evil man will be willing to do anything for his own sake, no matter who he has to hurt. The neutral but selfish man will balk at causing others "excessive" harm. (How much is "excessive" is subjective, and likely will determine how people judge him - as evil or not.) He's not going to kill the small child to gain immortality; that's an evil thing to do, and no matter how badly the neutral guy wants to be immortal, his conscience wouldn't let him commit cold-blooded murder for it.

How does the genocidal emperor fit into this scheme? Earnestly wanting the best for his people and willing to sacrifice himself and all his wealth to eradicate those pesky gnomes who refuse to let the kingdom expand as it must? Is he not evil, or is his dream necessarily selfish?

[Theodoxus]

@OP, as a DM who has been dealing with LE characters because the players are new and evil is "cool" - don't. Just. don't.

It's not fun, it doesn't make you edgy, it's a pain in the butt not just for the DM but for anyone else in the party who isn't evil.

The only caveat is, if the whole party is evil and that's the theme, great - get it out of your system and go nuts.

But otherwise, so. f'n. done. with. evil.

[Sigreid]

@OP, as a DM who has been dealing with LE characters because the players are new and evil is "cool" - don't. Just. don't.

It's not fun, it doesn't make you edgy, it's a pain in the butt not just for the DM but for anyone else in the party who isn't evil.

The only caveat is, if the whole party is evil and that's the theme, great - get it out of your system and go nuts.

But otherwise, so. f'n. done. with. evil.

I kind of disagree, but only because I've played with many people who can play an evil character without being an disruptive a-hole about it. They steal when they can get away with it. They don't betray their friends because dependable allies are a valuable resource and shouldn't be squandered. Their solutions to problems are perhaps brutal, but they'll point out they didn't cause the problem, etc. They can even be the hero. Spike on Buffy the Vampire Slayer helped her save the world once and when Buffy asked why he was helping he responded "I don't want the world to end. I live here too you know, and I'm rather fond of it."

[JellyPooga]

Yeah, Chaotic Evils are basically total sociopath-psychopath Murder-Hobos.

No. Just no. I'm guessing you think that all Chaotic Neutral characters are idiotic lunatics too. Chaotic =/= Insane or Random. Yes, a "sociopathic-psycopathic Murder-Hobo" is probably Chaotic Evil, but that does not necessitate the reverse also being true. As Segev mentioned a couple posts up-thread, not all black birds are crows.

The two alignment spectra intersect in a variety of different ways, so there's no "one true interpretation" for any given alignment combination; it's rather the point of alignment being a spectrum. There are many shades of grey between Good and Evil, Law and Chaos and even more shades for each given combination of them all.

A Lawful character could have a personal code, or obey the laws of the realm or never break a vow. The same can also be said for a Chaotic character too. Or a Good or Evil one, for that matter. What dictates the alignment of a character is not his or her actions, but the motivation behind those actions. As has been mentioned, a character can give to charity and help his fellow man, but his motivations for doing so will determine whether that act is Good, Evil, Lawful or Chaotic. A Good man might do it out of generosity, a Chaotic person might do it on a whim. An Evil character probably has an ulterior motive and a Lawful one might do it because it's expected of someone of his station.

So I somewhat disagree with the poster that gave the example of Magneto being Lawful Evil; not because I disagree that he is Lawful Evil, but for the reason why he is. He's Evil because his goal is the advancement of his own people (mutants) at the expense of another race (humans) and that prejudice is Evil. That he also takes so-called "evil" measures like killing, manipulation and intimidation to pursue that goal is beside the point and isn't what makes him Evil. After all, your typical Lawful Good Paladin can kill, manipulate and intimidate others and stay Good; because the actions in and of themselves are not Evil and his motivations are pure. When the motivations of a character changes, such as the Paladin who needlessly kills a prisoner, that's when his alignment changes, not because he's killed one too many demon-possessed innocents.

[smcmike]

You're committing the "all blackbirds are crows" fallacy, here, but I will acknowledge that I can see why you'd make that mistake.

Evil is all about YOU. Being all about YOU isn't enough to be evil, no. But if you don't START from that point, you're probably not going to reach "Evil."

Being all about YOU without being evil is easy, if "all about YOU" is a slight bit of hyperbole. If you are always asking, "what's in it for me?" that doesn't make you evil. But the evil man will be willing to do anything for his own sake, no matter who he has to hurt. The neutral but selfish man will balk at causing others "excessive" harm. (How much is "excessive" is subjective, and likely will determine how people judge him - as evil or not.) He's not going to kill the small child to gain immortality; that's an evil thing to do, and no matter how badly the neutral guy wants to be immortal, his conscience wouldn't let him commit cold-blooded murder for it.

A person can be evil and also self-sacrificing. Imagine, perhaps, a worshiper of a dark god, who is completely selfless in his pursuit of Armageddon.

Or, let's say you start from the point of loving your young child very much. So much, in fact, that when they come down with a bad case of vampirism, you keep them alive by kidnapping fresh meals for them on a weekly basis.

Or maybe your just a soldier, someone who would do anything for your comrades-in-arms. You are commanded to start executing innocents, and you know that refusing will result not only in your own death (something you might consider), but likely the death of your entire unit.

Evil is easy to get to.

[Segev]

How does the genocidal emperor fit into this scheme? Earnestly wanting the best for his people and willing to sacrifice himself and all his wealth to eradicate those pesky gnomes who refuse to let the kingdom expand as it must? Is he not evil, or is his dream necessarily selfish?


A person can be evil and also self-sacrificing. Imagine, perhaps, a worshiper of a dark god, who is completely selfless in his pursuit of Armageddon.

Or, let's say you start from the point of loving your young child very much. So much, in fact, that when they come down with a bad case of vampirism, you keep them alive by kidnapping fresh meals for them on a weekly basis.

Or maybe your just a soldier, someone who would do anything for your comrades-in-arms. You are commanded to start executing innocents, and you know that refusing will result not only in your own death (something you might consider), but likely the death of your entire unit.

Evil is easy to get to.
I'll grant that those seem like pretty good candidates for "Evil doesn't have to be selfish."

I suppose a better way to put it would be that evil is when you don't CARE whether others (whether this be "all others" or just "certain groups of others") are sentient people with their own hopes and dreams. Where you are willing to forcibly sacrifice other people for your goals.

Though the soldier's an interesting case, and not one I really want to argue right now, but one I can see argument for "not really his sin" being made. (Not 100% convinced he gets any absolution, but not 100% convinced he doesn't, either.)

[smcmike]

Though the soldier's an interesting case, and not one I really want to argue right now, but one I can see argument for "not really his sin" being made. (Not 100% convinced he gets any absolution, but not 100% convinced he doesn't, either.)

Yeah, not really worth arguing about the state of a hypothetical soldier's hypothetical soul, agreed. It is worth mentioning, though, that this sort of comradeship is a motivation cited by the (low-level) perpetrators of some of the worst atrocities in human history. There is even a perverse social pressure to participate in the evil that your comrades are participating in, so as to share the moral burden.

I agree that a lack of concern about the personhood of others is a good starting point for evil.

[pwykersotz]

I'll grant that those seem like pretty good candidates for "Evil doesn't have to be selfish."

I suppose a better way to put it would be that evil is when you don't CARE whether others (whether this be "all others" or just "certain groups of others") are sentient people with their own hopes and dreams. Where you are willing to forcibly sacrifice other people for your goals.

Though the soldier's an interesting case, and not one I really want to argue right now, but one I can see argument for "not really his sin" being made. (Not 100% convinced he gets any absolution, but not 100% convinced he doesn't, either.)

Good times. :smallsmile:

And yeah, that's why I put in my idea earlier about making a judgement about the value of life and then acting on it. As with all philosophical stances, it's not perfect, but I feel it encompasses my feeling on the matter adequately.

[Tanarii]

You're committing the "all blackbirds are crows" fallacy, here, but I will acknowledge that I can see why you'd make that mistake.Youre absolutely right. I didn't even realize I was reversing your statement.

Amazing how easy it is to slip into what should be a blindingly obvious fallacy without even realizing it.

[JobsforFun]

@OP, as a DM who has been dealing with LE characters because the players are new and evil is "cool" - don't. Just. don't.

It's not fun, it doesn't make you edgy, it's a pain in the butt not just for the DM but for anyone else in the party who isn't evil.

The only caveat is, if the whole party is evil and that's the theme, great - get it out of your system and go nuts.

But otherwise, so. f'n. done. with. evil.

My intention isn't to harm other plays, sure I might attack them if I have to but I wouldn't kill them. And also I am edgy, I am the real edge master.

[Segev]

Youre absolutely right. I didn't even realize I was reversing your statement.

Amazing how easy it is to slip into what should be a blindingly obvious fallacy without even realizing it.

It is. It's one reason rhetoric can be so very powerful even when the audience knows better (or at least, should know better). It's also a reason why, even when you're using impeccably good logic and reasoning, knowing HOW to phrase it is important so that people don't draw the wrong conclusions and DO draw the right ones. That is, DO see that your reasoning is good.

And, when dealing with argument-to-persuade, it makes things very difficult because if the motives of the person doing the persuading include things which benefit themselves, you have to be very careful to analyze what they're saying to catch logical fallacies.


Finally, even people who are RIGHT in their conclusions can use fallacious reasoning to get there, and that itself can be problematic because it makes those who know what to look for misjudge them to be deceptive and reject their true conclusion without re-examining it with accurate logic.

Logical reasoning is hard work.

[JobsforFun]

@OP, as a DM who has been dealing with LE characters because the players are new and evil is "cool" - don't. Just. don't.

It's not fun, it doesn't make you edgy, it's a pain in the butt not just for the DM but for anyone else in the party who isn't evil.

The only caveat is, if the whole party is evil and that's the theme, great - get it out of your system and go nuts.

But otherwise, so. f'n. done. with. evil.

In all seriousness I am making this post so I can get a better understanding of how to play evil alignments correctly. I can understand that some people have had bad experiences with people who have played evil alignments because they can't play them properly or they're just annoying about it. All in all if I become annoying to my group they'll tell me and I will either tone it down or just change my alignment completely.

[Tanarii]

In that case, I recommend doing it the 5e "official" way.

Start with Alignment typical behavior description:
Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order.

Now choose a Personality, Ideal, Bond and Flaw that match your background, or choose them to create a personality of your own. Since you're selecting LE as your alignment but aiming not to annoy your party/DM, I'd highly recommend going with a Lawful ideal. And selecting Personality & Bond & Flaw that will be entertaining and reinforce that desire to not be annoying.

Edit: I left out the obvious step: Then use those while you're playing to inform your in-character decisions.

Edit2: Not being annoying that usually means having a good reason to work with your group and not screw with them. But not always. YMMV based on campaign.

[JobsforFun]

In that case, I recommend doing it the 5e "official" way.

Start with Alignment typical behavior description:
Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order.

Now choose a Personality, Ideal, Bond and Flaw that match your background, or choose them to create a personality of your own. Since you're selecting LE as your alignment but aiming not to annoy your party/DM, I'd highly recommend going with a Lawful ideal. And selecting Personality & Bond & Flaw that will be entertaining and reinforce that desire to not be annoying.

Edit: I left out the obvious step: Then use those while you're playing to inform your in-character decisions.

Edit2: Not being annoying that usually means having a good reason to work with your group and not screw with them. But not always. YMMV based on campaign.

I followed that, such as keeping my word when I say it and not harming children. Not sure if I should have my flaw as that he would kill for a royal title or he does not respect the weak and doesn't have qualms about destroying them. (Of course not destroying every single NPC I come in contact with)

[Segev]

I followed that, such as keeping my word when I say it and not harming children. Not sure if I should have my flaw as that he would kill for a royal title or he does not respect the weak and doesn't have qualms about destroying them. (Of course not destroying every single NPC I come in contact with)

Honestly, again, don't let "I want to be this alignment" make the decision for you. Just ask yourself if he would or not. Let his alignment fall where it may. (I also recommend asking whether him being the sort who would do something would cause problems for the group. Play a character who doesn't reduce the fun and playability of the party.)

[bid]

Good vs Evil is how much you care about others. If you have no qualms about seeing someone dead, you lean toward Evil.

Chaotic vs Lawful is how much you restrain yourself. If, as a player, you always find an excuse for your character to do as you please, you lean toward Chaotic.

[JobsforFun]

Honestly, again, don't let "I want to be this alignment" make the decision for you. Just ask yourself if he would or not. Let his alignment fall where it may. (I also recommend asking whether him being the sort who would do something would cause problems for the group. Play a character who doesn't reduce the fun and playability of the party.)

We recently went into a town and the last campaign left off as the town was being attacked and on the streets they have covered bodies of people killed fighting to defend the town (I think?). Would it be against LE for my character to raise those people with animate dead? The DM said people in the town would hate me afterwards and personally I would be fine with it since they'd hate me not everyone else I was just wondering would that be against LE to do so?

[pwykersotz]

We recently went into a town and the last campaign left off as the town was being attacked and on the streets they have covered bodies of people killed fighting to defend the town (I think?). Would it be against LE for my character to raise those people with animate dead? The DM said people in the town would hate me afterwards and personally I would be fine with it since they'd hate me not everyone else I was just wondering would that be against LE to do so?

Want to be lawful about it? Let them hate you, but have an ironclad way in which they can't possibly retaliate through social means. Walk up to the mayor. Explain that you are an adventurer with some great power, and that you are familiar with death and it's terrible consequences. Tell him that you would like to offer your services to take care of the bodies so that the people will not have to look out their windows and see the horrors of battle, and so that disease will not claim yet more innocent victims. Tell him that you will charge only a minor fee for your services, as your heart goes out to these poor people and their loss and you worry for the town's safety and security. Insist that you will meet with the townsfolk affected to make them aware of the arrangements with the body so that you can deal with each one properly. Get a contract with the mayor's signature.

Then do just that, meet with the families. Sympathize with their loss. Tell them that the mayor has paid you to help take care of the dead. Ask if they would like any special arrangements for headstones or heirlooms to be kept with the bodies. Ask them to sign a contract stating that you will take care of the bodies in accordance with their wishes and that you will provide full expenses for gravestones and other arrangements (make no allusion to a grave, just the stones). Make it clear though, that things must be done quickly, and while the deceased are to be treated with the highest regard, that it will be necessary to use magic to move them, and that you need full dispensation to do so, lest you be set upon by the same people who attacked the town. Get a signature.

Now take the bodies outside of town and animate them. Cut gravestones but dig no graves, and place the memorial markers upon a secluded hill. Equip the animated dead with any heirlooms you were provided. Keep them away for the time being, and then if the town is attacked again, fend off the attackers with the zombie army. Amidst the horror and the weeping, remind them of their contract. The mayor paid your fee, and the townspeople all signed. If they try to fight you, have their loved ones stand against them. Not attacking, just in their way. Remind them that you have saved the town. You have upheld the contract, and to move against you would be a punishable crime, and how dare they disrespect the dead? If they wish to pay their respects, the gravestones are on that hill over there.

Obviously this is a generic method, you may have to tweak it to fit the campaign. But the point is that you didn't just do a thing with no regard for others, you made sure to do it by the rules. It was a job you were paid for, one for which the mayor is now also culpable, and you got explicit permission from the families to use magic on the deceased. The social order has been upheld, and you have gotten what you want.

[Envyus]

It's actually pretty simple.

https://pics.onsizzle.com/plays-by-rules-nice-person-prick-does-not-play-by-2567617.png

[Sigreid]

It's actually pretty simple. Then everybody falls at some point on this chart.

https://pics.onsizzle.com/plays-by-rules-nice-person-prick-does-not-play-by-2567617.png

Well, no. You can have high ideals, a strong moral code and believe in making the world a better place and still be a prick.

[EvilAnagram]

How does the genocidal emperor fit into this scheme? Earnestly wanting the best for his people and willing to sacrifice himself and all his wealth to eradicate those pesky gnomes who refuse to let the kingdom expand as it must? Is he not evil, or is his dream necessarily selfish?
There has never been a ruler in history that has been genocidal without also being incredibly self-serving. Racial ideologies are not about serving the common good, but rather about elevating an in-group at the expense of an other. Certainly, fantastic fiction can concoct strange scenarios in which genocide is not the product of self-aggrandizing motivations, but Ender's Game scenarios do not reflect historical reality.

[Hawkstar]

There has never been a ruler in history that has been genocidal without also being incredibly self-serving. Racial ideologies are not about serving the common good, but rather about elevating an in-group at the expense of an other. Certainly, fantastic fiction can concoct strange scenarios in which genocide is not the product of self-aggrandizing motivations, but Ender's Game scenarios do not reflect historical reality.

But we're not playing in reality or history.

[EvilAnagram]

But we're not playing in reality or history.

True. In fantasy, you can concoct a lawful neutral ruler doing something unspeakably evil because he thinks it's for the common good, but you can't really rectify goodness with knowledgeable malice. That is, if the king knows gnomes can speak and think, then killing them is necessarily not a selfless or good act.

[SharkForce]

We recently went into a town and the last campaign left off as the town was being attacked and on the streets they have covered bodies of people killed fighting to defend the town (I think?). Would it be against LE for my character to raise those people with animate dead? The DM said people in the town would hate me afterwards and personally I would be fine with it since they'd hate me not everyone else I was just wondering would that be against LE to do so?

there is nothing inherently lawful nor chaotic in the act of creating zombies (or skeletons) from corpses. at least in the current D&D settings, it is typically an inherently evil act, but you've already said that your particular evil character has no issues with that, so you should be fine on animating the dead.

i would ignore the long, drawn-out process suggested above to trick everyone into agreeing to let you animate corpses. that isn't lawful evil, that's lawful stupid. the key is ultimately your motivation. from the sound of it, you've decided that animating the corpses in question is necessary to preserve other things you value. depending on what those things are, it could be lawful, chaotic, or neither (most likely it isn't particularly lawful or chaotic, but of the two it doesn't sound like it's remotely likely to be chaotic... an example of a chaotic motivation would be that you are animating the dead townsfolk and refuse to use any other available corpses out of pure spite or as an extreme chaotic motivation, just because you feel like it - but when i say extreme i mean as in "being of pure chaos" or "is literally unable to control themselves, probably because of insanity"). self defense is a fairly neutral motivation. a lawful motivation might be that you consider this particular village or location essential to defend, and you consider that the sacrifice of the few present is less important than ensuring the survival of something else (whether that be stopping an invading army in a pass before it can get out into the open and destroy more critical locations, or to prevent crucial information from getting past, or even because this particular town has a crucial resource which must not be lost to the enemy).

the fact that you are concerned for how this reflects on your group as well would seem to imply to me that you're playing as a fairly lawful individual. personally, i suspect this particular act that you're asking about is likely to be more neutral evil than anything, probably with a slightly lawful element to it (you probably intend to use them to protect your "community" of the adventuring group as well), which is perfectly fine. just because you are lawful evil, doesn't mean that every single act you do must be the epitome of lawful evil as opposed to neutral evil or lawful neutral, and indeed should not prevent you from doing something even if it is chaotic good, provided it is in character... your alignment should reflect tendencies, but it doesn't mean you can never do anything that isn't 100% fitting for that alignment.

[pwykersotz]

i would ignore the long, drawn-out process suggested above to trick everyone into agreeing to let you animate corpses. that isn't lawful evil, that's lawful stupid.

:smallsigh:

Technically, yes. But it illustrates a point which your suggestion misses. Be interesting. Do things. Act in accordance with your motivations. Reasons that only ever stay in your head may as well not exist. The game exists to express these ideals, there is no difference between animating undead for self defense, because the town is strategically located, or for the laughs. It needs to be displayed to have value.

Not going to lie, your accusation made me pretty mad since you didn't even have the courtesy do direct it at me coupled with advocating ignoring it entirely. I'd appreciate it if you didn't do that.

[SharkForce]

spending hours in the spotlight while sidelining everyone else to do something all so that you can trick the villagers into signing a contract that allows you to "legally" animate dead is not doing something interesting, it is trolling the entire group.

and it has next to nothing to do with lawful. lawful does not mean you obey laws, or that you even use laws to accomplish your goals. it has very little to do with whether your actions are legal or illegal. you can have a chaotic judge, you can have a lawful criminal, and the legal system of any given nation (real or fictional) has very little to do with alignment.

also, you don't need to be a caricature to do something interesting. in particular, being a caricature of the things that most people dislike most (like the way people feel about paladins in older editions) is almost never going to be a good idea, unless you're making a D&D-themed comedy. which you should do in a format that doesn't troll anyone... for example, if you decide to write a play or make a short film, or a story, etc. not in a situation where everyone is expecting you to be a constructive part of a group.

[pwykersotz]

spending hours in the spotlight while sidelining everyone else to do something all so that you can trick the villagers into signing a contract that allows you to "legally" animate dead is not doing something interesting, it is trolling the entire group.

and it has next to nothing to do with lawful. lawful does not mean you obey laws, or that you even use laws to accomplish your goals. it has very little to do with whether your actions are legal or illegal. you can have a chaotic judge, you can have a lawful criminal, and the legal system of any given nation (real or fictional) has very little to do with alignment.

also, you don't need to be a caricature to do something interesting. in particular, being a caricature of the things that most people dislike most (like the way people feel about paladins in older editions) is almost never going to be a good idea, unless you're making a D&D-themed comedy. which you should do in a format that doesn't troll anyone... for example, if you decide to write a play or make a short film, or a story, etc. not in a situation where everyone is expecting you to be a constructive part of a group.

First, of course you don't derail the table. Do it in downtime or between adventures as an email to the GM. I didn't think I needed to spell that out. Your assumption otherwise indicates a frustrating level of willingness to believe that I have terrible intentions or am a bad gamer.

Second, of course lawful CAN have to do with using the actual law. Read up on Asmodeus and his fall. Why do you think devils use contracts and bargains? It's not ironclad or anything, but it's an easy and relatable way to portray the lawful aspect. Yes there are other ways that could potentially be much better, but for crying out loud, don't assume that a common trope is inherently bad. You don't like my implementation, that's no problem. It wasn't designed to be a treatise on law, just a post to generate more ideas. But I would have thought my second post would have clarified things. I suppose I was wrong.

Your third paragraph is entirely out of left field and not related in the slightest to anything I was saying or intending to say. What I said above is the broad strokes. Implementation is what makes it either a caricature or a dramatic story moment. Nothing about it is inherently destructive or trolling, though of course any act can veer that direction.

[90sMusic]

the mace windu is kind of a lousy example. first off, it's pretty sketchy to describe someone as unarmed when they are literally currently shooting lightning out of their bare hands in an attempt to kill you. secondly, i'm not sure i would describe it as mace windu killing the guy when he is simply bouncing the lightning said guy is attacking him with back at that guy. at any moment, palpatine could have just stopped trying to murder mace windu with lightning and he would also stop being hit by lightning.


I recommend watching the scene again :)

Palpatine, while firing lightning says "Don't let him kill me". He then says "I can't hold him any longer... I can't... I'm too weak... Anakin, help me, help me."

Then he stops firing lightning and lays there defenseless.

Mace says "I'm going to end this, once and for all."
Anakin, "You can't, he must stand trial."
Mace, "He has control of the senate and the courts. He's too dangerous to be left alive."
Palpatine, "I'm too weak... Don't kill me, please!"
Anakin, "It's not the Jedi way. He must live."
Palpatine, "Please don't!"

Then mace pulls back his weapon to strike him down.

The conflict was already over, palpatine was literally laying on the ground helpless, begging for his life and Mace made the conscious decision that he was going to kill this guy despite it being against all of the laws they are supposed to uphold. Whether this was a rouse or not is debatable, but at that moment all they knew was he was incapacitated on the ground, begging for mercy and Mace chose to instead kill him despite it violating the law and being against jedi beliefs. (Killing unarmed prisoners is typically frowned upon in most civilized cultures)

I have absolutely no doubt Mace made that choice because he believed it was the right thing to do for the greater good. But that is how most villains begin their careers honestly, they think what they are doing is right and just or at the very least justifiable. There's even one of those crazy star wars theories that says Snoke from the new movie is actually Mace Windu :P but I won't get into all that (nor do I believe it).

Bottom line though, Mace was totally about to kill someone laying on the ground, unarmed, begging for their life.

As far as the plot to animate dead in town... I mean... Player's choice I guess? I wouldn't consider that action to be lawful evil, in fact it wouldn't have to be a lawful alignment in the first place, they just happen to be trying to use "law" and people's words as a shield against retaliation. It wouldn't make the person responsible lawful, he would simply be relying on lawful people to uphold their end of the deal and get away with it essentially.

Speaking of alignments, I have seen a lot of alignment charts that use examples and pictures of fictional characters to show illustrations of various alignments and I often see Batman labeled as Chaotic Good. I disagree with that wholeheartedly. They are the types who confuse Lawful with "obeying the law". If that is what it meant, sure he would be chaotic because he breaks the law all the time. But the key distinction is Batman has a very strict personal code of ethics and has various lines he will not cross, various things he won't involve himself in, and so on. If he was truly Chaotic Good, his personal code would be invalid or at-best simply be guidelines instead of a hard code. But Batman has proven time and time again he sticks to his code like religion and there have been countless comics dedicated to that fact and people like the joker trying to get him to break his code. Batman won't kill people and he also won't use guns. Those are two things he has always refused to do. This was of course after the rule was established, there are plenty of the earlier versions of the character where he did kill and didn't care about it much, but that's the problem with comic books and their characters, they change constantly. Superman is also Lawful Good, but you can see a huge distinction between the personalities of Batman and Superman. It's no different than the huge distinction of personalities you get with a Lawful Good cleric who goes around helping people any way he can, giving up all his gold to charity and so on vs a Lawful Good Paladin of Vengeance who has dedicated themselves entirely to the eradication of evil and will stop at almost nothing to attain that goal.

Even within the same alignment you can have a huge difference between personality, motivations, goals, and so on.

I wouldn't bother trying to trick townsfolk into signing contracts to give me the right to take their loved ones' bodies and so on because it would be rather pointless. Unless the letter of that contract is being enforced and upheld by the divine will of a deity (as Asmodeus does with devil contracts), those people can simply decide to attack you anyway. If taken to a court, any reasonable judge or jury would rule the contract as being either misleading or at the very least an Illegal Agreement which basically means it wouldn't be enforced simply because it leads to an unlawful end. If animating the dead is indeed illegal there, if stealing bodies is illegal there, it would be an illegal contract and not be enforced or upheld unless the kingdom has an absolutely terrible legal system in which case why would you bother making contracts in the first place?

The best thing to do is just steal the bodies. Take them at night when no one is looking or just wait until they are buried and everyone moves on with their lives, then dig em up and animate them under the cover of darkness. Fill the holes back in and the townfolk will be none the wiser. If you're concerned with people recognizing them, then disfigure them. Rip their faces off. Boom, Uncle Joe just became a faceless zombie. Without facial features or hair, that body could belong to anybody. And again, if undead are illegal there, it wouldn't matter if they were recognized or not.

Animating undead usually has consequences and you usually have to jump through hoops to get away with it one way or another, so I wouldn't worry too much about all that. If your DM lets you play an evil alignment and lets you get the spell Animate Dead, that is essentially his way of consenting to you being a necromancer and raising corpses. How you want to try to get away with it without being labeled a threat to the kingdom and having adventurers or mercenaries being sent after you is up to you. A DM that doesn't want you raising zombies isn't going to let you get the spell in the first place, just like a lot of inexperienced DMs who aren't very good at their position don't allow players to use spells like Wish or True Polymorph.

[Segev]

We recently went into a town and the last campaign left off as the town was being attacked and on the streets they have covered bodies of people killed fighting to defend the town (I think?). Would it be against LE for my character to raise those people with animate dead? The DM said people in the town would hate me afterwards and personally I would be fine with it since they'd hate me not everyone else I was just wondering would that be against LE to do so?

Again, if you know your character would do it, don't worry over whether it is LE or not. If you're trying to decide based on whether he would based on the fact that he's LE but you don't know if he would...

LE would do it if it had a right under the code by which it lives. Or if it had a responsibility. If it has no right, but wants to, LE would find a way to gain that right. If it doesn't want to, LE would not do it unless it had a responsibility, and would seek a way out of the responsibility if it could.

[bid]

LE would do it if it had a right under the code by which it lives. Or if it had a responsibility. If it has no right, but wants to, LE would find a way to gain that right. If it doesn't want to, LE would not do it unless it had a responsibility, and would seek a way out of the responsibility if it could.
You cannot be Lawful if you do what you want. Your moral code has to stop you from taking the easy way out. Lawful is a roleplay tool used to put youself in an unnecessary quandary.

[Segev]

You cannot be Lawful if you do what you want.Sure you can. Within the discretion granted you by the rules by which you live. You absolutely can determine that you're NOT giving a license for that "orphanage" to Snidely Whiplash as part of your personal judgment of his fitness to run it. And if there's no rule against you getting a sweetheart loan from Mr. Whiplash's bank, there's nothing preventing you from revising your opinion after getting that loan demonstrates that he is financially responsible enough to run such an orphanage.


Your moral code has to stop you from taking the easy way out.Nonsense. Your moral code code of ethics is there to stop you from doing something stupid and causing society (and yourself) more trouble than you need to. It provides you guidance and safety in knowing what YOUR role is, what YOUR responsibilities and rights are, and what you can and cannot be held accountable for.


Lawful is a roleplay tool used to put youself in an unnecessary quandary.While it can seem that way, it really isn't. No more than "Chaotic" is a roleplay tool used to make your character engage in breaking things unintentionally (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NiceJobBreakingItHero).