Lawful Evil alignment

[Feederman111]

I was confused by this alignment
I understand that a LE person is a bad king (or some1 like that)
But then i read that the "lawful" part is some code of tradition, loyalty,... like not killing children or helpless people
So i though that if you dont do that kind of thing, wouldn't you be a lawful neutral ? Like some cool guy do what he want but don't care too much for others (thinking of vengence paladins)

[War_lord]

Lawful Evils have a personal code of honor. The problem with personal codes of honor is that the person can very easily bend that code when convenient or even use it as an excuse to do evil.

A Lawful Neutral character says "I won't kill innocents no matter what". A Lawful Evil character says "I won't kill innocents, but an oracle told me that your infant daughter will grow up to destroy me, so she's not an innocent".

[Ninja_Prawn]

Do I want to get into an alignment argument today? Eh, why not?


not killing children or helpless people
So i though that if you dont do that kind of thing, wouldn't you be a lawful neutral ?

Just because you don't go around murdering children left and right, doesn't mean you're not evil. The core of D&D evil is selfishness: an Evil character puts themselves first and is willing to harm other people if it benefits them.

Lawful Evil seeks to abuse existing systems of power for its own ends, such as a politician who uses their position to enact laws that benefit themselves. They tend to play by the letter of rules, but not the spirit of them. They take bribes. They keep their word... but tend to avoid signing contracts or making promises that don't have loopholes or get-out clauses. "Your efforts will be rewarded" does not imply "you will like your reward," after all.

[Decstarr]

Don't get confused by the "lawful" phrasing, it does in now way mean lawful as in following the law. Maybe it's easier to understand if you compare it to a chaotic evil.
Chaotic evil imo would be someone like Heath Ledger's joker from The Dark Knight. A character whose only coherent trait is that he does whatever he wants to do for reasons and motives entirely his own and with little to no regard to anyone else's well being or rules/laws. Chaotic Evil characters are pretty unpredictable in that regard since they can do whatever they feel like doing (if they have a decent justification for themselves why they act like this right now). E.g. the chaotic evil murder hobo might just decide that for once he will not slay the little child. But if he decides that, he'd better have a good "use" in mind for later (e.g. selling it as a slave) which will bring himself more personal gain than murdering it would.

Opposed to that a Lawful Evil person follows some (most often personal) code of conduct within it operates (whereas a chaotic evil will just follow whatever fits the personal gain). I'd say most high ranked Imperials from Star Wars (Thrawn, Grand Moff Turkin, even Vader) would fit this category. They are "evil" in so far as having little to no regard for other people's life and well-being, but "lawful" in so far as they have a framework of rules within which they operate. In the case of the Empire, that framework would be (military) hierachy and command structures.

Personally, my main differentiation has always been to use the notion of "insanity" or "delusion" to differentiate between the two. A chaotic evil character might feel the need to justify his actions but his framework will always adapt to his current need, whereas a lawful evil character has a more coherent behavioural pattern and a more understandable framework of "rules" within which it operates.

On a side note: Many people are frustrated with the alignment system due to obvious limitations. In my groups when PCs describe their characters, we often use references to movie/tv/book characters rather than alignments since it just makes more sense. This is even more helpful with inexperienced players, since it's easier to ask yourself "what would the joker do?" than it is to ask "is that really chaotic evil behaviour?"

[Herobizkit]

I find it more helpful to think of the Law/Chaos axis as Discipline/Freedom.

A disciplined character will act in a specific, codified way when dealing with situations.
A free character will do what is necessary in the moment to reach their desired goal.

The Jedi Code vs. The Sith Code is accurate in this regard.

[Feederman111]

Do I want to get into an alignment argument today? Eh, why not?

I'm just curious, i was not looking for an argument but instead finding some help

[Herobizkit]

I'm just curious, i was not looking for an argument but instead finding some helpAlignment threads (especially Lawful Good Paladin threads) historically and invariably cause a lot of back and forth discussion in message boards.

It's often as controversial as talking politics IRL. ^_^

[Isaire]

Red Fel did a very good guide on how you could play Lawful Evil. So if you're interested:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448542-Compliance-Will-Be-Rewarded-A-Guide-to-Lawful-Evil

It does in part depend on whether the character emphasises Lawful, or Evil in their interactions. You'll get different results depending.

[Dr. Cliché]

If you want to see lawful evil, look up China under Chairman Mao.

[DragonSorcererX]

I always saw Lawful Evil = Terminator...

[Newtonsolo313]

a paragon case of the lawful evil allignment is someone who does evil stuff within the confines of the law. some modern examples are politicians you don't like, some corporation and dictators.

[hamishspence]

The core of D&D evil is selfishness: an Evil character puts themselves first and is willing to harm other people if it benefits them.

In the case of LE, Red Fel's "Dark Knight" and "Zealot" archetypes show how this can be stretched somewhat - LE characters who are much less interested in their own benefit, and more interested in "their Cause" or "their friends".

[Ninja_Prawn]

In the case of LE, Red Fel's "Dark Knight" and "Zealot" archetypes show how this can be stretched somewhat - LE characters who are much less interested in their own benefit, and more interested in "their Cause" or "their friends".

Yeah, I'm not opposed to that. It comes down to how a person defines their 'self', which could easily include friends, family and causes.

[Tanarii]

PHB:
Lawful evil (LE) creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order.

It's intentionally vague, because Alignment in 5e is supposed to be vague. It's not a straightjacket, it's a tool for the player to help determine in-character actions, along with Personality Trait(s), Ideal, Bond and Flaw. Do take into account, not every PC action is supposed to stem from Alignment. It's just a single sentence of typical, but not required, behavior for the player to take into consideration.

OTOH the LE description is more generally helpful than many of the other alignment behaviors, because it contains a guideline that has readily identifiable components. You can easily see the evil (take what they want) and lawful (methodical + limited by code of tradition, loyalty, or order).

[JackPhoenix]

Red Fel did a very good guide on how you could play Lawful Evil. So if you're interested:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448542-Compliance-Will-Be-Rewarded-A-Guide-to-Lawful-Evil

It does in part depend on whether the character emphasises Lawful, or Evil in their interactions. You'll get different results depending.

That, however, is based on 3e's take on alignment, which is different from 5e version.

[Red Fel]

Red Fel did a very good guide on how you could play Lawful Evil.


In the case of LE, Red Fel's "Dark Knight" and "Zealot" archetypes show how this can be stretched somewhat -

https://images.gr-assets.com/hostedimages/1442793480ra/16278844.gif

[Biggstick]

Do I want to get into an alignment argument today? Eh, why not?

This right here represents the eventual entirety of this thread, and made me full on laugh at work!!

People at my work are staring at me now. looks down at keyboard and pretends to work.

[Grand Arbiter]

I normally don't poke around in the 5e forum, but somebody had to do this:

Red Fel, Red Fel, Red Fel

[King539]

Red Fel's awesome abovementioned LE guide (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?448542-Compliance-Will-Be-Rewarded-A-Guide-to-Lawful-Evil)

EDIT: Whoops, beat me to it.

[Socratov]

That, however, is based on 3e's take on alignment, which is different from 5e version.

ehm... not quite. the main thing regarding alignment that changed is alignment prerequisites for classes or subclasses. dnd morality is not so different across editions.

[Hawkstar]

I normally don't poke around in the 5e forum, but somebody had to do this:

Red Fel, Red Fel, Red Fel

You blew it. We've said his name FIVE times now, instead of the requisite 3!

[Red Fel]

I normally don't poke around in the 5e forum, but somebody had to do this:

Red Fel, Red Fel, Red Fel

https://media0.giphy.com/media/13HdQUsXSa6QYU/200.gif

Let's get right into it.


That, however, is based on 3e's take on alignment, which is different from 5e version.

Admittedly, my work does use the 3.X alignment system. And I readily acknowledge my unfamiliarity with the 5e version, although of late I've been doing some reading on the subject. Wanna know what I've learned?

Apparently, 5e alignment is a single factor in the kind of person your character is. Shocking!

When I wrote the handbook initially, while I drew from 3.X definitions of alignment, I emphasized the need to make a character a person, not just an alignment. LE, like any other alignment, influences how you look at the world. It doesn't define you as a person, but it does shape the edges. From what I'm led to understand, this is true in 5e as well. (If someone would like to remedy my misunderstanding, I welcome the dialogue.)

Now, back to the OP.


I was confused by this alignment
I understand that a LE person is a bad king (or some1 like that)
But then i read that the "lawful" part is some code of tradition, loyalty,... like not killing children or helpless people
So i though that if you dont do that kind of thing, wouldn't you be a lawful neutral ? Like some cool guy do what he want but don't care too much for others (thinking of vengence paladins)

Let's parse this.

First: Yes, LE is a bad person. LE, by definition, is Evil.

You are correct that "Lawful" does not mean a leader or powerful individual, necessarily. It applies to anyone with a code of conduct, whether self-imposed, or derived from membership in some organization, or what have you. That said, having rules doesn't mean you're any less Evil.

Now, if your rules involve not killing people, or being selfless, or helping those in need, then yes, you're non-Evil. You're probably LG, because your rules are about being a Good person. Stop being a Paladin and get out of my way.

But not all rules are about being nice. Take, for example, a serial killer who follows a particular code. He never kills women or children. He only targets those with five letters in their name. He only strikes under a full moon. He never attacks within five hundred feet of a religious building. He never prolongs death, preferring instant or quick kills. He has a lot of rules, and if he feels he risks violating any of them, he will call off his kill and search for another target.

The guy is clearly Evil. He's a murderer. He kills innocent people without any justification. But he is also so bound by his own rules that he will actually not kill someone if it means breaking one. He cannot bring himself to break those rules. That's Lawful, too.

Take an order of Evil knights. Each one completely loyal and obedient. Each one will follow commands without question or pause, will lay down his life for his master. Each one has the blood of countless civilians on his hands, as the order of knights has marched over the countryside and put everyone to the sword. Again, clearly Evil. But his loyalty, his obedience, mark him as Lawful.

Does that make sense?

[JobsforFun]

a paragon case of the lawful evil allignment is someone who does evil stuff within the confines of the law. some modern examples are politicians you don't like, some corporation and dictators.

I wouldn't say Lawful Evil has to follow the law, I mean sure they can find loop holes within the law and wok within that. But 2 characters that I think fit the LE alignment are Frank Underwood and Dexter Morgan. Dexter murders people, that obviously isn't 'following the law' but he has his own code and only kills criminals. Frank Underwood from house of cards does follow the law he did kill someone at one point (can't exactly remember why and I guess Frank Underwood could fall into Neutral Evil as well since he wants to gain power and doesn't care who he hurts)

[JobsforFun]

https://media0.giphy.com/media/13HdQUsXSa6QYU/200.gif

Let's get right into it.



Admittedly, my work does use the 3.X alignment system. And I readily acknowledge my unfamiliarity with the 5e version, although of late I've been doing some reading on the subject. Wanna know what I've learned?

Apparently, 5e alignment is a single factor in the kind of person your character is. Shocking!

When I wrote the handbook initially, while I drew from 3.X definitions of alignment, I emphasized the need to make a character a person, not just an alignment. LE, like any other alignment, influences how you look at the world. It doesn't define you as a person, but it does shape the edges. From what I'm led to understand, this is true in 5e as well. (If someone would like to remedy my misunderstanding, I welcome the dialogue.)

Now, back to the OP.



Let's parse this.

First: Yes, LE is a bad person. LE, by definition, is Evil.

You are correct that "Lawful" does not mean a leader or powerful individual, necessarily. It applies to anyone with a code of conduct, whether self-imposed, or derived from membership in some organization, or what have you. That said, having rules doesn't mean you're any less Evil.

Now, if your rules involve not killing people, or being selfless, or helping those in need, then yes, you're non-Evil. You're probably LG, because your rules are about being a Good person. Stop being a Paladin and get out of my way.

But not all rules are about being nice. Take, for example, a serial killer who follows a particular code. He never kills women or children. He only targets those with five letters in their name. He only strikes under a full moon. He never attacks within five hundred feet of a religious building. He never prolongs death, preferring instant or quick kills. He has a lot of rules, and if he feels he risks violating any of them, he will call off his kill and search for another target.

The guy is clearly Evil. He's a murderer. He kills innocent people without any justification. But he is also so bound by his own rules that he will actually not kill someone if it means breaking one. He cannot bring himself to break those rules. That's Lawful, too.

Take an order of Evil knights. Each one completely loyal and obedient. Each one will follow commands without question or pause, will lay down his life for his master. Each one has the blood of countless civilians on his hands, as the order of knights has marched over the countryside and put everyone to the sword. Again, clearly Evil. But his loyalty, his obedience, mark him as Lawful.

Does that make sense?

This is what helped me understand this alignment more, now for me the Lawful alignments are easier for me to follow compared to the chaotic alignments. Most people believe Lawful Evil means they do evil within the law but that isn't the case all the time, most of the time it is someone like you described. (EX: Dexter Morgan)

[Dr. Cliché]

[IMG]
Now, if your rules involve not killing people, or being selfless, or helping those in need, then yes, you're non-Evil.

Just a point, but I don't think not killing people automatically makes you not evil.

There are a plethora of things you can do to inflict pain and misery on people without ever actually killing them. hell, if you're really good, you can get them to kill themselves.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiOFgbjlO9I

'Helping those in need' can also be twisted pretty easily.

[Segev]

The point of "if you're rules involve NOT killing people" wasn't that this was sufficient, but that rules against it are more commonly part of a good alignment than an evil one. Of course if you don't kill people because torturing them while leaving them alive is more fun, you're not good.

The more your rules revolve around not doing ill unto others, the more likely you are a good, rather than evil, person. At least, as long as you are also Lawful.



And Frank Underwood is NE, not LE. The law is a tool for him, but it is a tool that applies to other people. He will happily disregard it as long as he can get away with it. The only hold the law has on him is the threat of what happens if he gets caught violating it.

But he is not capricious, and he is purposeful. So he's not Chaotic. Thus: Neutral Evil.

[Red Fel]

And Frank Underwood is NE, not LE. The law is a tool for him, but it is a tool that applies to other people. He will happily disregard it as long as he can get away with it. The only hold the law has on him is the threat of what happens if he gets caught violating it.

But he is not capricious, and he is purposeful. So he's not Chaotic. Thus: Neutral Evil.

Going with this, but I still call him Francis Urquhart. He's manipulative, exploits and discards others, and doesn't seem to have a code to speak of except self-promotion. Once he gets where he wants to be, he is somewhat tyrannical, but that's less him being a tyrant and more him being paranoid, power-hungry, and manipulated by his Lady Macbeth-esque wife. So, overall, definitely E, but probably more N than L.

Then again, I don't watch these American dramas.

[JobsforFun]

Going with this, but I still call him Francis Urquhart. He's manipulative, exploits and discards others, and doesn't seem to have a code to speak of except self-promotion. Once he gets where he wants to be, he is somewhat tyrannical, but that's less him being a tyrant and more him being paranoid, power-hungry, and manipulated by his Lady Macbeth-esque wife. So, overall, definitely E, but probably more N than L.

Then again, I don't watch these American dramas.

Since he is a character he can sort of fit into both really, I just depends on the person's opinion...

[Segev]

Since he is a character he can sort of fit into both really, I just depends on the person's opinion...

No, he really isn't Lawful. He's not Chaotic, either. Hence, Neutral.

[Tanarii]

ehm... not quite. the main thing regarding alignment that changed is alignment prerequisites for classes or subclasses. dnd morality is not so different across editions.
It is. Because 5e Alignment is not associated with specific actions, nor is it derived from actions. It is about moral and social attitudes, which result in typical, but not required, behaviors. And those behaviors can be summarized in one sentence, and are broad enough they easily integrate with multiple other more specific motivations, ie personality traits, ideals, bonds and flaws.

In other words, other than the names, they're not really the same at all.

Edit: This isn't a comment on the original thing under discussion, ie Red Fel's guide. If it does, as he says "emphasized the need to make a character a person, not just an alignment" then it's already starting off much closer to 5e take on Alignment than any previous edition's take on Alignment.

That said, what really matters is old editions generally approached Alignment as Actions --> (possibly general behavior) --> Alignment, in parrallel to Actions --> consequences. 5e generally approaches is at Alignment & Personality --> Motivations & Typical/general behavior --> Actions --> consequences

[Sception]

Good/Evil relates to the character's overall goals being altruistic or selfish as they relate to other people. The good character acts in the best interest of other people, even to the point of being willing to act against their own self interest or put themselves in danger. The evil character acts in their own self interest, even to the point of being willing to harm others. The neutral is not overly concerned with the well being of strangers, but neither are they willing to harm others in their own self interest. Rather they take a 'live and let live' approach, and expect the same courtesy from strangers. When we speak of 'other people' here, were's specifically talking about people in the abstract or strangers. Even an evil character can have loved ones whose interests they value as highly or even more than their own, while even a good character can have a rival or enemy who they would go out of their way to oppose.

Lawful/Chaotic relates to how the character perceives civilization, social structures, and impersonal interpersonal organizations as they relate to their values on the Good/Evil spectrum. A lawful character sees the structure and clarity of civilization as necessary or at least useful in advancing their values and objectives, and as such will attempt to use social structures to advance their goals, and strengthen & spread the influence of those structures in order to make their use easier and more effective in the future, going so far as to establish civilizing social structures in places they do not already exist. A chaotic character sees civilization's reductiveness and arbitrary restrictions as inherently antithetical to their values, and as such they will attempt to work around social structures to advance their goals, and will seek to weaken or restrict those structures to make them easier to work around in the future, going so far as to fully dismantle social structures where possible. A neutral character does not see social structures as inherently helpful nor detrimental to their goals, and will generally follow a path of least resistance when it comes to interacting with social structures.

As with the Good/Evil axis and the concept of 'other people', the Lawful/Chaotic axis concerns the characters default disposition on civilization in the abstract. Even a lawful character can recognize when the social order is so corrupt or so bogged down in beurocratic minutia as to become unworkable, while even a chaotic character can appreciate the local military authority when their fighting off an invading hoard of darkspawn.


A Lawful Evil character, as an evil character, seeks to advance their personal interests - be they power, pleasure, knowledge, safety, the security of their blood lineage, etc - and has no compunctions against doing so at the expense of strangers, and is more than willing even to see others come to harm. Again, they may have friends or family who they would never harm, who they might even risk their own lives to protect, but that circle is probably relatively small, and the difference in their attitude for those inside and outside of that circle is like day and night.

Further, as a lawful character, they see civilization - legal codes, secret societies, binding pacts and agreements, loyalties, hierarchies, societal conventions, and so on - as an ideal tool for securing and protecting their personal interests. A Lawful Evil character may or may not have a discrete personal code - indeed even a chaotic character may have a personal code, though the emphasis there is on the personal part. But they will tend to follow (and certainly expect others to follow) agreements and contracts, and to pay debts and pay back favors. These are the building blocks of social order, a lattice of social bonds tying society together into a web, one that the lawful evil character sets up shop in like a spider. And like a spider, they use the web of the social contract to trap their victims.

No matter what, the Lawful Evil character will be, to the best of their abilities, a master of navigating the social contract. This doesn't mean they will always follow the law. A Lawful Evil character sees the enforcement and punishment for a rule as part of the rule. Not "don't do X", but rather, "If you do X, and you get caught by legal process Y, then you'll suffer Z consequence." If a rule isn't enforced, then in their mind it's only a rule against stupid people doing the thing. If it is enforced, then it's only a question of whether the risk of punishment is worth the reward. And since the lawful evil character is generally very familiar with both the local system or rules and its system of enforcement, the risk is relatively low.

They see the social order as a deadly trap, so they will take great care not to become ensnared themselves, carving out loop holes in their agreements, collecting blackmail material on potential friends and enemies alike, or setting up patsies to take the fall for any crimes they do commit and risk getting caught for. They might never lie, not because they have some personal code against it, but rather because a reputation for telling the truth is a useful weapon, one they may at any point wield with a big, if subtle, lie that catches their victims entirely unaware.

Curiously enough, the Lawful Evil character's perspective on civilization is most similar to that of the Chaotic Good character. They both see social order as a web that exists to exclude the marginalized, ensnare the weak, and empower and enrich those cunning and cruel enough to master it. But where the chaotic good character wishes to tear down the web in order to free those trapped within (whether they are aware of the fact that they've been trapped and want to escape or not), the lawful evil character resolves to become one of the cunning and cruel masters of the web themselves.

The tyrant who rules a kingdom of oppression. The slaver who profits while their 'property' toils in bondage and despair. The occupier who grabs up the land and treasure left behind by slaughtered or displaced peoples. The mafioso who uses the law to hedge out competition even as they break it themselves. The loan shark who preys on the despair of those marginalized by society. The corrupt city guard who use their authority to take advantage of those they are supposed to protect. The soldier who will follow any order, no matter how cruel, to advance their rank. These are all classic examples of Lawful Evil archetypes.

[Newtonsolo313]

I wouldn't say Lawful Evil has to follow the law, I mean sure they can find loop holes within the law and wok within that. But 2 characters that I think fit the LE alignment are Frank Underwood and Dexter Morgan. Dexter murders people, that obviously isn't 'following the law' but he has his own code and only kills criminals. Frank Underwood from house of cards does follow the law he did kill someone at one point (can't exactly remember why and I guess Frank Underwood could fall into Neutral Evil as well since he wants to gain power and doesn't care who he hurts)

thats why i said paragon they are the sort of people who cannot be construed as any other other allignment in d&d

[Breaklance]

I'm under the impression/though that my monk character is LE. He is heavily inspired, practically imported from The Jade Empire game.

In that game they tried to shift the good evil paradigm to be less blatant more nuanced. Outright good or evil actions still netted alignment points but there were always actions more aligned to their philosophies guys netted much higher alignment rewards.

The way of the closed fist seems to me to be very LE. It's tenants are very Darwinian survival of the fittest. The strong should rule because they are strong and if your stronger you will rule because your stronger.

An example from the game is the drowning man problem. Crossing a bridge overtop of a fast flowing river you hear the pleas of a man. He is clinging to the rocks barely holding on. If he lets go surely the river will sweep him away and he will drown. What do you do?

In the context of the game, as a follower of the way of the closed fist who value personal strength and survival of the fittest over everything you could tie a rope to a tree and the throw the rope to the drowning man and letting him climb out of the river on his own or not.

In this way you have given none of your own strength to him and minimal resources. If he drowns then he was not strong enough to live. If he climbs out then he has found a deeper inner strength to survive and made himself stronger as a result. You didn't make him stronger, he made himself stronger and you enabled him to do so.

I think in that context and reasoning he would be LE because the same reasoning could be applied to stealing.

If someone has something you want it's up to them and their strength to stop you. That strength could be on the form of a club under the desk or hired guards.

So in that way I think it's LE because the philosophy followed values personal well being above of even at the cost of others but still has tenets and rules in which to apply them.

[JobsforFun]

Quick question, I am playing a LE Cleric of the Death Domain and I put that he would not kill children but could I possibly change that to her wouldn't kill people near a church/temple?

[Sception]

Sure. Any character of any alignment can have taboos against particular behavior, especially divine classes who might be bound by pacts made between deities in the pantheon. A chaotic character might chafe at such restrictions (as might their patron), and an evil character might look for ways to turn these restrictions to their advantage, but regardless, sure.

[Newtonsolo313]

Quick question, I am playing a LE Cleric of the Death Domain and I put that he would not kill children but could I possibly change that to her wouldn't kill people near a church/temple?

there is no alignment conflict if that is what you mean

[JobsforFun]

there is no alignment conflict if that is what you mean
Yep, that is what I mean :)

[Hawkstar]

I'm under the impression/though that my monk character is LE. He is heavily inspired, practically imported from The Jade Empire game.

In that game they tried to shift the good evil paradigm to be less blatant more nuanced. Outright good or evil actions still netted alignment points but there were always actions more aligned to their philosophies guys netted much higher alignment rewards.

The way of the closed fist seems to me to be very LE. It's tenants are very Darwinian survival of the fittest. The strong should rule because they are strong and if your stronger you will rule because your stronger.

An example from the game is the drowning man problem. Crossing a bridge overtop of a fast flowing river you hear the pleas of a man. He is clinging to the rocks barely holding on. If he lets go surely the river will sweep him away and he will drown. What do you do?

In the context of the game, as a follower of the way of the closed fist who value personal strength and survival of the fittest over everything you could tie a rope to a tree and the throw the rope to the drowning man and letting him climb out of the river on his own or not.

In this way you have given none of your own strength to him and minimal resources. If he drowns then he was not strong enough to live. If he climbs out then he has found a deeper inner strength to survive and made himself stronger as a result. You didn't make him stronger, he made himself stronger and you enabled him to do so.

I think in that context and reasoning he would be LE because the same reasoning could be applied to stealing.

If someone has something you want it's up to them and their strength to stop you. That strength could be on the form of a club under the desk or hired guards.

So in that way I think it's LE because the philosophy followed values personal well being above of even at the cost of others but still has tenets and rules in which to apply them.

Since you brought it up, "Closed Fist' is actually "Discord", and it's essentially the philosophy of "Yeah, I just do whatever the **** I want. Deal with it." Whether "Whatever you want" is punching babies in the face, overthrowing an empire, making a deity your bitch, or punching an evil loan shark in the face. It is chaotic, not Lawful.

[Vogonjeltz]

I was confused by this alignment
I understand that a LE person is a bad king (or some1 like that)
But then i read that the "lawful" part is some code of tradition, loyalty,... like not killing children or helpless people
So i though that if you dont do that kind of thing, wouldn't you be a lawful neutral ? Like some cool guy do what he want but don't care too much for others (thinking of vengence paladins)

Within the context of D&D Evil generally corresponds to selfish and lacking Compassion for others.
Lawful simply means that the character believes in a code, tradition, loyalty, or social construct of some kind and that they typically prefer that.

So a Lawful Evil character is one who operates on some kind of Code and they are Self-centric.

Examples:

1) A Town Watch member who enforces the laws of their King without compassion for those who violate it. (Lacks mercy)
2) A Lord who collects taxes (or increases them) without regard for their subjects interests. Now, this could be balanced by the idea that, if they go too far they'll have a rebellion, or their subjects simply won't be able to continue to pay in the future, so moderation might be required, but only because the Lord is interested in future earnings, not because they care about the subjects per se.
3) A Merchant who exploits personal contacts for lucrative contracts to enrich themselves at the cost of the kingdom.

There's loads of variations.

[Dr. Cliché]

1) A Town Watch member who enforces the laws of their King without compassion for those who violate it. (Lacks mercy)

Could this not also be Lawful Neutral?

[djreynolds]

Your boss is probably lawful evil... at work

[ShikomeKidoMi]

Could this not also be Lawful Neutral?

With that succint a description it could be either, depending on the details. When hurting innocents, a Lawful Neutral guard is going to be thinking "I regret this but the law's the law" whereas a Lawful Evil one is usually going to be actively enjoying the cruelty and/or attempting to use the law for their own gain.

And of the two, the Lawful Neutral might (though more rarely than the Lawful Good) seek to reform the law to be less harmful, whereas the Lawful Evil will only change it in ways that benefit them.

[Sception]

The Lawful Evil guard doesn't just enforce the laws without compassion (unless the laws themselves are evil), but rather uses their position of authority to exploit and oppress the common people, while shielding themselves from any accountability for their actions.

[fbelanger]

A mafia godfather is LE.
The chief of a street gang NE.
A serial killer CE.

Even if the 3 have blood on their hands,
The Godfather is well installed in the society, is running a family and business what is lawful.

The street gang thug is on the edge of society, they are together by accident and sometime for a short time. Their commitment to the gang and business is unpredictable.

The serial killer, is totally selfish. Even he act along a code, he kill only to satisfy his own.

[Sception]

The Street Gang Boss might be Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic Evil, depending on the nature of the street gang. Larger, more organized gangs are basically organized crime institutions that become entrenched in their communities like the mafia or yakuza. Others are looser, more chaotic and antisocial.

The Mob Boss definitely falls under Lawful Evil, and serves as an excellent example of how a Lawful Evil character doesn't necessarily feel compelled to follow the letter of any particular legal system they find to be inconvenient.

[2D8HP]

Going with this, but I still call him Francis Urquhart...

....Then again, I don't watch these American dramas.

In case anyone missed the reference, Red Fel is referring to the original '90's BBC version of "House of Cards"

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/francis_urquhart1_5654.jpg

So Lawful or Neutral evil?

Urquhart: [while poisoning O'Neil's cocaine]
This is an act of mercy. Truly. You know the man now. You can see he has nowhere to go. He's begging to be set free. He's had enough. And when he's finally at rest, then we'll be free to remember the real Roger. The burning boy in the green jersey. With that legendary, fabulous sidestep and brave, terrified smile.....
....

Urquhart: Mattie, can I trust you?:

Mattie: You know you can.

Urquhart: Mattie. It gives me such pain to say this, but, I don't believe you. I don't believe I can trust you.

[Urquhart throws Mattie from the roof]

Mattie:[falling to her death]
Daddy!

.........

Urquhart: No, I have nothing to say. No. Don't you see? I had to do it. How could I have trusted her? You might very well think that. I could not possibly comment

Survey says?!

[Segev]

In case anyone missed the reference, Red Fel is referring to the original '90's BBC version of "House of Cards"

http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/francis_urquhart1_5654.jpg

So Lawful or Neutral evil?

Urquhart: [while poisoning O'Neil's cocaine]
This is an act of mercy. Truly. You know the man now. You can see he has nowhere to go. He's begging to be set free. He's had enough. And when he's finally at rest, then we'll be free to remember the real Roger. The burning boy in the green jersey. With that legendary, fabulous sidestep and brave, terrified smile.....
....

Urquhart: Mattie, can I trust you?:

Mattie: You know you can.

Urquhart: Mattie. It gives me such pain to say this, but, I don't believe you. I don't believe I can trust you.

[Urquhart throws Mattie from the roof]

Mattie:[falling to her death]
Daddy!

.........

Urquhart: No, I have nothing to say. No. Don't you see? I had to do it. How could I have trusted her? You might very well think that. I could not possibly comment

Survey says?!



Neutral evil. Through and through. He is methodical, and he uses organization and law to his advantage, but he's not concerned with it when it is in his way and costs him nothing to violate it.

[Vogonjeltz]

Could this not also be Lawful Neutral?

I was focusing more on the lack of compassion element when I wrote it, but we could refine that some. I was trying to avoid getting too moustache twirling so the OP could see that not everyone who is Evil is so blatant about it.


The serial killer, is totally selfish. Even he act along a code, he kill only to satisfy his own.

Well, I think Dexter would be a good example of a Lawful Evil serial killer, he's evil in that he harms people, but he's Lawful Evil in that he only goes after serial killers, he lives by a code.

Ooh, and Jack Nicholson's character (Colonel Jessup) in A Few Good Men is pretty spot on to Lawful Evil:

Jessup: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know, that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives! You don't want the truth, because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like "honor", "code", "loyalty". We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it! I would rather you just said "thank you", and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!


Thing is, by this definition, anything - creature or object - is bad for an illusion. Because the justifications for "mirrors don't reflect" leads inevitably to other, equally obvious flaws that make literally any illusion all to obviously fake.

Technically, they're a specific kind of image - a picture. Or are you also going to argue that, because a painting of an orc is an image of an orc, all images of orcs must be two-dimensional and have visible brush strokes?

No, I'm also not arguing that they can move because it would be more realistic. That's the whole point, these aren't real at all! But since we're not LARPing out the game, there's really no risk at all of the characters noticing the "obvious flaws" unless they choose to ask the questions of the DM to investigate some detail. If the DM says, there's a mirror on the wall, the players can choose to ignore or investigate. If they investigate they get the chance to notice it's not real, that's how that works.

Can you articulate why it matters that an illusion of mirror (or any illusion for that matter) won't hold up to scrutiny? I don't see the point of the complaint given how the game is played.

[Segev]

No, I'm also not arguing that they can move because it would be more realistic. That's the whole point, these aren't real at all! But since we're not LARPing out the game, there's really no risk at all of the characters noticing the "obvious flaws" unless they choose to ask the questions of the DM to investigate some detail. If the DM says, there's a mirror on the wall, the players can choose to ignore or investigate. If they investigate they get the chance to notice it's not real, that's how that works.This is a DREADFUL argument that basically justifies hiding details from the players by simply not describing them (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BehindTheBlack) even though they'd be perfectly obvious to a real person in the same situation.

"Oh, you didn't think to ask if there was an ogre about to smash you in the face, so you provoke an AoO from him as you walk into the room I just described without mentioning him."


Can you articulate why it matters that an illusion of mirror (or any illusion for that matter) won't hold up to scrutiny? I don't see the point of the complaint given how the game is played.Are you serious?

"Why should this spell actually do anything useful? What is the harm in assuming that the lines talking about it requiring an Investigation check to see through it are more than wasted wordcount? What's wrong with this spell being completely useless at doing what it says it does?"

Are you SERIOUSLY asking that? Because it's equivalent to "why [does] it matter[] that an illusion...won't hold up to scrutiny?"



...also, this seems like the wrong thread for htis argument. How did my quote on the subject even get in here? What was I responding to? @_@ I am so confused.

[Vogonjeltz]

This is a DREADFUL argument that basically justifies hiding details from the players by simply not describing them (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BehindTheBlack) even though they'd be perfectly obvious to a real person in the same situation.

Except, it wouldn't be perfectly obvious unless the person was fairly observant and investigated or if they interact with the illusion whereupon it's automatically revealed.

Which naturally leads to how does one interact with a mirror? By observing ones self or other things in it.

If the player doesn't ask about the subject, it seems obvious their character did not choose to investigate or interact with the object, that's how roleplaying works.


"Oh, you didn't think to ask if there was an ogre about to smash you in the face, so you provoke an AoO from him as you walk into the room I just described without mentioning him."

Are you serious?

"Why should this spell actually do anything useful? What is the harm in assuming that the lines talking about it requiring an Investigation check to see through it are more than wasted wordcount? What's wrong with this spell being completely useless at doing what it says it does?"

Are you SERIOUSLY asking that? Because it's equivalent to "why [does] it matter[] that an illusion...won't hold up to scrutiny?"

That's hyperbole, and not equivalent. You can take your transparent straw man away.

Damnit I think I cut and pasted at the wrong point, let's drop it from this thread.

[ShikomeKidoMi]

The Lawful Evil guard doesn't just enforce the laws without compassion (unless the laws themselves are evil), but rather uses their position of authority to exploit and oppress the common people, while shielding themselves from any accountability for their actions.

True, but the difference between a Lawful Evil guard and a Neutral Evil guy who happens to be employed as a guard is often how much effort they put into fitting their predation within the law and into twisting the law to support it.

[Sception]

To me, the difference would be how highly they value their own position, how central they see it to their own power and safety. The lawful evil guard sees the structure of the law as essential, even if they're more than willing to break it when they can get away with it. As such, the Lawful Evil guard will take personal offense not so much at others disobeying the law, but rather at them disrespecting it. The neutral evil guard enjoys the relative impunity that their position lends them, but while they might be concerned with their own reputation and influence, they're not concerned with the reputation and influence of the law more generally.


For an ideal example of the difference, consider that both the neutral evil guard and the lawful evil guard are part of the same corrupt city guard force, and a lawful good, if probably somewhat naive, guard joins the force with the intent of cleaning them up from the inside and healing the rift that's grown between the guard and the city's oppressed commoners. He becomes a thorn in the side of Lawful Evil Guard and Neutral Evil Guard, and the two work together to hamper and frame him. They might even murder him, but haven't had the chance to get him alone.

While the three guards are out in the poor district investigating the mysterious case of the pampered noble's stolen coin purse, Lawful Evil Guard and Neutral Evil Guard happen to notice members of a local resistance movement ambush Lawful Good Guard and drag him into an ally to beat him up, maybe even to kill him!

Neutral Evil Guard just laughs. How serendipitous, the thorn in their side eliminated, killed by the very people he's trying to help! What delicious irony! But his joy turns to shock when Lawful Evil Guard rushes past him, drawing her sword as she charges to rescue their adversary. 'Why are you doing this?' he asks. 'Just let them finish him off, then he'll be out of our hair forever!'

'Lawful Good Guard is a short term problem,' she responds. 'We can find another way to get rid of him later, but we can't allow those gutter vermin to openly attack guards in the street. Our power and privilege as members of the city guard will mean nothing if the commoners aren't too afraid to stand up to us, and I don't know about you, but I haven't worked so hard to advance my position just to let scum like that spit on the uniform.'

[Socratov]

It is. Because 5e Alignment is not associated with specific actions, nor is it derived from actions. It is about moral and social attitudes, which result in typical, but not required, behaviors. And those behaviors can be summarized in one sentence, and are broad enough they easily integrate with multiple other more specific motivations, ie personality traits, ideals, bonds and flaws.

In other words, other than the names, they're not really the same at all.
does that mean that murder is not inherently evil anymore? or treachery? Or helping the poor and downtrodden a good act? I think not. You still have good and evil acts. What has changed is that spells aren't inherently good or evil anymore, nor is alignment a specific prerequisite anymore. 3.5 did not only have morality in acts or spells/class prerequisites, but it was a moral and ethical compass as well.

Differences, yes, but a complete dissimilarity in all but name? Not at all.

Edit: This isn't a comment on the original thing under discussion, ie Red Fel's guide. If it does, as he says "emphasized the need to make a character a person, not just an alignment" then it's already starting off much closer to 5e take on Alignment than any previous edition's take on Alignment.
To be honest, 5e is one of the first edition to really put an emphasis on character depth through the employ of backgrounds and the personality/ideal/bonds/flaws sections. Mind you, that does not mean that 3.5 precluded you to do similarly, it just did not prompt you to do so. The absence of evidence does not mean the evidence of absence... Funnily enough the forums started the trend of "how to properly play [X]" where X could be any class, specific alignment, race, etc. with an emphasis on fluff and what makes an [X] specifically an [X]. But I digress. The whole thing why 3.5 had actions influence alignment is that alignment could be a hard restriction for some classes. And if you were acting against your alignment and it would seem that you would eat your cake and have it too that was a reason to prompt alignment changes. It was also generally frowned upon to change alignment after just one action.

That said, what really matters is old editions generally approached Alignment as Actions --> (possibly general behavior) --> Alignment, in parrallel to Actions --> consequences. 5e generally approaches is at Alignment & Personality --> Motivations & Typical/general behavior --> Actions --> consequences
As I understood it in 3.5 it was alignment --> general behaviour --> specific actions --> general behaviour --> alignment.

As for the day to day stuff: actions beget consequences which shape the next actions (but this is as much a truism as can be), and day to day actions shouldn't influence alignment a lot as long as you don't stray too much from your current alignment.

You could suddenly shift if your action was egregious enough (the famous example is the falling paladin) but most times you'd had to really do something long or often enough to change alignment.

What 5e did was take alignment out of the crunch or mechanics of the game.

[Tanarii]

does that mean that murder is not inherently evil anymore? or treachery? Or helping the poor and downtrodden a good act? I think not. You still have good and evil acts. What has changed is that spells aren't inherently good or evil anymore, nor is alignment a specific prerequisite anymore. 3.5 did not only have morality in acts or spells/class prerequisites, but it was a moral and ethical compass as well. They aren't Alignment Evil or Good specifically and individually. What has changed is specific actions don't hold Alignment. Alignment is a label that has an associated general behavior with it that the player can use to inform in character decisions. It may sound the same, but it's actually considerably different.


Differences, yes, but a complete dissimilarity in all but name? Not at all. yeah okay you're right. That was hyperbole on my part.


To be honest, 5e is one of the first edition to really put an emphasis on character depth through the employ of backgrounds and the personality/ideal/bonds/flaws sections. In my mind, it's one of the greatest innovations of 5e.


As I understood it in 3.5 it was alignment --> general behaviour --> specific actions --> general behaviour --> alignment. Its been a while since I've played 5e 3.5. But the difference is stark right there. 5e doesn't have those last two steps. Generally speaking. Unless the Player decides to intentionally add them and change the PCs alignment because reasons. There are some optional rules that have enforced alignment change related to planar environments. But there's no general feedback loop built in. Of course, given that there are effectively no mechanical alignment affects, there doesn't need to be. And that lack of a forced feedback loop / mechanics is important too, because ...


What 5e did was take alignment out of the crunch or mechanics of the game.... it is a critical part of allowing proper integrating of 5e Alignment with the rest of personality, to make them all a set of players motivations for player in-character decision making / RP.

Edit: fix quote tags

[Hawkstar]

does that mean that murder is not inherently evil anymore? or treachery? Or helping the poor and downtrodden a good act? I think not. You still have good and evil acts. What has changed is that spells aren't inherently good or evil anymore, nor is alignment a specific prerequisite anymore. 3.5 did not only have morality in acts or spells/class prerequisites, but it was a moral and ethical compass as well.
"Murder, Treachery, and helping the poor and downtrodden" are patterns of behavior and mindset, not actions.

[hamishspence]

"A pattern of behaviour" can still be broken down into individual actions - which taken as a whole over time, make up that pattern.

[Tanarii]

"A pattern of behaviour" can still be broken down into individual actions - which taken as a whole over time, make up that pattern.
Yeah, but for 5e alignment purposes, you've got it backwards. A pattern of typical, but not required, behavior is used by the player along with at least 4 other motivations to help determine what specific in-character decisions to make about taking actions. Aka roleplaying.

[Red Fel]

See, my position - even in 3.X - has always been that the individual actions impact alignment inasmuch as they reflect a mindset. For example, a Good character who regularly engages in cold-blooded murder will eventually go Evil, not because he murders, but because he sees murder as a perfectly reasonable option to which he may readily resort. Need to stop the villain? Murder. Got delayed by an obstructing bureaucrat? Murder. Long line at the grocery store? Murder. That's the mindset of an Evil character; it's not the murder that does it, but the personality and mindset of the person willing to do that.

Likewise, a villain who engages in acts of Good, such as charity or kindness, shouldn't automatically become Good as a result, depending on his motivation. The mob boss who runs charities to launder his money and create a good public image. The conquering general who runs orphanages for the victims of the war, where they will be indoctrinated into his way of thinking. The tyrant who creates hospitals and a strong health and law enforcement system, for the sole purpose of creating healthy, hard-working drones and soldiers. These are acts of Good with a distinctly Evil aim; the motivation is what defines the actor, not the actions themselves.

I'm led to understand that this is closer to the 5e perspective on alignment, and I rather like that.

And with respect to the handbook, it was written without regard to mechanics. It was designed to cover concepts, personalities, and the like, because I think those can be applied rather universally. But I encourage 5e players to take a look and share whether they agree.

[pwykersotz]

And with respect to the handbook, it was written without regard to mechanics. It was designed to cover concepts, personalities, and the like, because I think those can be applied rather universally. But I encourage 5e players to take a look and share whether they agree.

I'll chime in that I agree. I think your guide covers the lion's share of important information regarding LE. I like in particular that you focus on power as the goal instead of mere selfishness. Your assertions feel like more of a complete package of Lawful Evil than other theories which seem to have too many edge cases or conflicts.

I'm also a little sad I didn't know about this earlier. I've oft referenced some threads where you comment about the behavior of devils in very insightful ways when I need a boost to evil NPC's, and I've definitely bookmarked this guide for future reference. :smallsmile:

[Segev]

See, my position - even in 3.X - has always been that the individual actions impact alignment inasmuch as they reflect a mindset. For example, a Good character who regularly engages in cold-blooded murder will eventually go Evil, not because he murders, but because he sees murder as a perfectly reasonable option to which he may readily resort. Need to stop the villain? Murder. Got delayed by an obstructing bureaucrat? Murder. Long line at the grocery store? Murder. That's the mindset of an Evil character; it's not the murder that does it, but the personality and mindset of the person willing to do that.

Likewise, a villain who engages in acts of Good, such as charity or kindness, shouldn't automatically become Good as a result, depending on his motivation. The mob boss who runs charities to launder his money and create a good public image. The conquering general who runs orphanages for the victims of the war, where they will be indoctrinated into his way of thinking. The tyrant who creates hospitals and a strong health and law enforcement system, for the sole purpose of creating healthy, hard-working drones and soldiers. These are acts of Good with a distinctly Evil aim; the motivation is what defines the actor, not the actions themselves.

Overall, I am inclined to agree, though it tends to make for an unbalanced grid, which annoys me on a mechanical and aesthetic level. It makes Good "harder" to maintain.

By which I mean:

Good actions for Bad reasons => Evil
Bad actions for Good reasons => Evil
Bad actions for Bad reasons => Evil
Good actions for Good reasons => Good

The fact that only if you have both good intentions AND limit yourself to a (relatively) narrow list of "good" actions can you be Good. If you want to be Evil, you can do bad things for any reason at all, or do good things as long as you've got a "bad" reason to justify it.

While alignment is descriptive, it's hard to do more than observe how people actually engage in it. So the "evil" man who does a ton of good works and never seems to do anything actually malign, but who does it because, he says, "it's just pragmatic," and always has an excellent reason why it's totally selfish...there comes a point where you WANT to say, "Dude, you're not evil." But it's harder to make that point, because the Evil man's justifications actually should make a difference. "I only gave away that charity to the poor for the good PR." "Killing them would have risked making enemies I don't need." "Rescuing that miller's daughter from the dragon earned me his trust. And she's cute, so maybe I'll add her to my harem. ...I KNOW I haven't gotten around to building one, yet; I have to start somewhere!"

The Good man...doesn't get this kind of a pass. "Sure, I gave those orphans only a pittance; I needed the rest for my Holy Avenger, which will let me save far more lives." "The orc chieftan's wife was already swearing vengeance and could have gathered a horde. She wasn't going to repent. And it's not like she isn't an accomplice to her husband's war crimes. Yes, I killed her." "The CG thief was stealing from the Church, reducing our ability to care for the poor and risking the lives of our guards every time his thefts turned into violent confrontations. I couldn't catch him and hold him, and I couldn't let him get away, so I killed him while he fled." "I TOTALLY saved the princess just out of the goodness of my heart, and not *ahem* because I might possibly get her hand in marriage from the king." "It's just coincidence that my most charitable actions have always been the ones that were most public or most likely to win me rewards from powerful beings."

If a character wants to maintain his Good alignment, he can't just go out and do the occasional good deed in order to do so. He has to LIVE it.

If a character wants to maintain his Evil alignment, he CAN just go out and find a puppy to kick, a cruelty to perform, in order to do so, even if he does it only to "prove his evil" while otherwise being a really good guy.

This is because "I'm willing to perform a human sacrifice just to prove I'm evil, even though that's literally the only evil thing I do and anybody who didn't know this about me might think I was Good from my other actions" does, in fact, mean you're evil. "I'm willing to save a life at personal cost just to prove I'm good, even though that's literally the only good thing I do and anybody who doesn't know this about me would think I'm Evil from my other actions" doesn't make you good. In fact, all those other actions probably DO make you Evil.

[Red Fel]

Overall, I am inclined to agree, though it tends to make for an unbalanced grid, which annoys me on a mechanical and aesthetic level. It makes Good "harder" to maintain.

By which I mean:

Good actions for Bad reasons => Evil
Bad actions for Good reasons => Evil
Bad actions for Bad reasons => Evil
Good actions for Good reasons => Good

As I've previously stated, though, that's not quite true. Let me rephrase it so that it reflects my thinking.
Good Actions for Bad reasons => Not Good
Bad actions for Good reasons => Not Good
Bad actions for Bad reasons => Evil
Good actions for Good reasons => Good
Let's be clear. If your actions are Good, but your motivations are Evil, you're not a good guy. That doesn't mean you're a bad guy, but you're definitely no hero. Likewise, if your intentions are the best, but your conduct is antiheroic to put it charitably, you're no saint. Again, not necessarily the villain, but not the hero. It's a spectrum, and Neutral is a thing that exists.

Is it harder to be Good? Sure is. Doing all the right things for all the wrong reasons, or all the wrong things for all the right reasons, doesn't make you the scum of the earth, but it won't let you be the very best, either. Heroes are held to a higher standard.

Is it easier to be Evil? Not entirely. It's easy to be a jerk. Hard to commit to it, though, and that's where shades of gray come in. A guy who does good things for purely selfish reasons; who would totally perform a human sacrifice but, uh, just hasn't had a chance, you guys; who only really rescued that girl because she was hot, and will totally build a harem, totally, you guys; he may not be Evil. He's probably selfish enough to not be Good, but he may not be Evil.

It's not just a coin. It's a spectrum. And a lot of it falls somewhere in the middle. It kind of annoys me when people equate "Non-Good" and "Evil," or "Non-Evil" and "Good," as though that's all there is to it.

All of this, of course, is probably irrelevant in a conversation on 5e, where - I'm led to understand - individual actions are substantially less important than guiding overall motivations.

[Segev]

As I've previously stated, though, that's not quite true. Let me rephrase it so that it reflects my thinking.
Good Actions for Bad reasons => Not Good
Bad actions for Good reasons => Not Good
Bad actions for Bad reasons => Evil
Good actions for Good reasons => Good
Let's be clear. If your actions are Good, but your motivations are Evil, you're not a good guy. That doesn't mean you're a bad guy, but you're definitely no hero. Likewise, if your intentions are the best, but your conduct is antiheroic to put it charitably, you're no saint. Again, not necessarily the villain, but not the hero. It's a spectrum, and Neutral is a thing that exists.

Indeed. Neutral IS a thing. However I still find it noteworthy that we have "Not Good" twice, and never a "Not Evil."

We can tell that somebody is "not good." But if a guy who wants to be Evil says he's Evil, can we tell if he's really "Not Evil" and neutral, the way we can tell that a guy who wants to be Good is really "Not Good" and neutral?

[Red Fel]

Indeed. Neutral IS a thing. However I still find it noteworthy that we have "Not Good" twice, and never a "Not Evil."

We can tell that somebody is "not good." But if a guy who wants to be Evil says he's Evil, can we tell if he's really "Not Evil" and neutral, the way we can tell that a guy who wants to be Good is really "Not Good" and neutral?

It works when you consider that Good will generally not cross certain lines, and Evil will do so more readily. When you look at it through that lens, it makes sense that you can quickly label certain things "Not Good." Hence why it appears on that list twice. It is much easier to look at an explicitly bad act or motivation and say, "That is not Good," than it is to look at a good act which may have a bad motivation, or a bad act which may have a good motivation, and say, "That is not Evil." It is easier to tell when something has crossed the moral event horizon than when it hasn't, is the point.

But yes, you're right. It is telling that the options are Good, Not Good, Not Good, and Evil, instead of more evenly split.

[Newtonsolo313]

also
good thing done by bad person=> Hillarious
bad thing done by good person=> pretty boring sorta overdone like every comicbook ever

actually evil people acting out of allignment is pretty funny. like affably evil or evil is petty

I'm Not Linking to the TVtropes article BECAUSE IM EVIL MUHAHA

[Dr. Cliché]

We can tell that somebody is "not good." But if a guy who wants to be Evil says he's Evil, can we tell if he's really "Not Evil" and neutral, the way we can tell that a guy who wants to be Good is really "Not Good" and neutral?

Honestly, I think the idea of wanting to be evil is an odd one to begin with.

[Hawkstar]

Honestly, I think the idea of wanting to be evil is an odd one to begin with. Why? Villains have all the best lines, the best armies, and all sorts of cool stuff going for them.

[Dr. Cliché]

Why? Villains have all the best lines, the best armies, and all sorts of cool stuff going for them.

Sure, but how many of those villains actually consider themselves evil?

Contrast that with the forgettable, one-dimensional villains who actually accept that they're evil.

[Hawkstar]

Sure, but how many of those villains actually consider themselves evil?

Contrast that with the forgettable, one-dimensional villains who actually accept that they're evil.

I wouldn't consider Skeletor or Darth Vader to be forgettable.

[Dr. Cliché]

I wouldn't consider Skeletor or Darth Vader to be forgettable.

Darth Vader never called himself evil. He uses the 'dark side' of the force and invites his son to join him (spoiler warning), but he never refers to himself or the emperor as being evil. Nor does he speak of doing what he does in the service of evil. In fact, what he says is "With our combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict, and bring order to the galaxy."

Notice that he makes no reference to doing anything in the name of evil. Indeed, he actually speaks of ending the conflict. What Vader is dedicated to is order. A galaxy under the boot of a dictator is still better than one at war.

If he instead tried to lure Luke with tales of all the puppies they could murder and the atrocities they could commit as a family in the name of being complete bastards, I suspect he wouldn't have aged as well as he did.

As for Skeletor, I'll at least grant you that he's memorable. But let's be honest here - not for the right reasons.

He's remembered for his almost comical, high-pitched voice and for his sheer, over-the-top silliness.

In terms of actual villainy, he falls completely flat because he is incompetent, useless and all his plans fail dismally.

Again, I will grant you that he is definitely memorable. I just can't see anyone looking at him and thinking "This is a reason to be evil! If only I dedicated my life to evil, I too could be constantly defeated by a handful of very buff men!" :smallwink:

[Newtonsolo313]

Darth Vader never called himself evil. He uses the 'dark side' of the force and invites his son to join him (spoiler warning), but he never refers to himself or the emperor as being evil. Nor does he speak of doing what he does in the service of evil. In fact, what he says is "With our combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict, and bring order to the galaxy."

Notice that he makes no reference to doing anything in the name of evil. Indeed, he actually speaks of ending the conflict. What Vader is dedicated to is order. A galaxy under the boot of a dictator is still better than one at war.

If he instead tried to lure Luke with tales of all the puppies they could murder and the atrocities they could commit as a family in the name of being complete bastards, I suspect he wouldn't have aged as well as he did.

As for Skeletor, I'll at least grant you that he's memorable. But let's be honest here - not for the right reasons.

He's remembered for his almost comical, high-pitched voice and for his sheer, over-the-top silliness.

In terms of actual villainy, he falls completely flat because he is incompetent, useless and all his plans fail dismally.

Again, I will grant you that he is definitely memorable. I just can't see anyone looking at him and thinking "This is a reason to be evil! If only I dedicated my life to evil, I too could be constantly defeated by a handful of very buff men!" :smallwink:
Yeah Darth Vader never says that hes evil explicitly. but like he calls it the dark side. The. Dark. Side.
nobody calls there side the dark side if they think they are good

[Dr. Cliché]

Yeah Darth Vader never says that hes evil explicitly. but like he calls it the dark side. The. Dark. Side.
nobody calls there side the dark side if they think they are good

Sorry, but that is simply nonsense.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DarkIsNotEvil

But here's the thing - let's say that the dark side is unanimously thought of as evil. People can (and do) so evil things without considering themselves evil as a result. They will usually think that their actions are for the greater good, or that they're the least immoral option, or that they are justifiable in some other way.

[Red Fel]

Honestly, I think the idea of wanting to be evil is an odd one to begin with.


Sure, but how many of those villains actually consider themselves evil?

Contrast that with the forgettable, one-dimensional villains who actually accept that they're evil.

As I've said, it's not about wanting to be Evil. It's about valuing what Evil values - power as a means and an end, ruthlessness, severity, taking pleasure in the suffering of others, domination by force, manipulation and sadism.

It's like the famous Conan line - when asked what is best in life, he responds, "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women." He doesn't say, "To be Evil," because that's not an answer, but what he expresses - domination by force, inflicting destruction and despair - is a pretty dark desire.

That's the point. Nobody says "I want to be Evil." They say, "I want my enemies to suffer." They say, "I want to achieve my goals, no matter the cost." They say, "The only life worth living is one where blood is spilled on the battlefield."

As an aside, you're not calling me forgettable or one-dimensional, are you?

As another aside: Let's not get into another Star Wars "Is the Dark Side evil?" debate. Before long you get people debating Law and Chaos, and Grey Jedi, and on, and on. Let's all just agree that Thrawn was the best thing to happen to Star Wars and get past it.

[Dr. Cliché]

As I've said, it's not about wanting to be Evil. It's about valuing what Evil values - power as a means and an end, ruthlessness, severity, taking pleasure in the suffering of others, domination by force, manipulation and sadism.

It's like the famous Conan line - when asked what is best in life, he responds, "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women." He doesn't say, "To be Evil," because that's not an answer, but what he expresses - domination by force, inflicting destruction and despair - is a pretty dark desire.

That's the point. Nobody says "I want to be Evil." They say, "I want my enemies to suffer." They say, "I want to achieve my goals, no matter the cost." They say, "The only life worth living is one where blood is spilled on the battlefield."

Sure, I get that.

What I was responding to was the idea of someone actually wanting to be evil.

I think that it's one thing to have evil desires, but quite another to actually identify as evil, if you see what I mean.

[Dr. Cliché]

Okay yes i guess i exaggerated but darth vader shows no signs of self justification he is shown as a classic take over the world villain from a movie not known for use of those sorts of genre defying tropes that dresses in black and is essentially objectively evil even by the setting itself.
He is pretty much textbook evil

He did show justification:

"With our combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict, and bring order to the galaxy."

His justification is that order is better than chaos. Life under the Empire is still preferable to a civil war.

You might not agree with his justification, but it's still there.

In terms of dressing in black, it could simply be a mark of rank/authority - something to make him easily distinguishable from the white stormtroopers.


Also, just to clarify, I'm not saying that Darth Vader isn't evil. I'm saying he doesn't consider himself evil.

[Newtonsolo313]

He did show justification:

"With our combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict, and bring order to the galaxy."

His justification is that order is better than chaos. Life under the Empire is still preferable to a civil war.

You might not agree with his justification, but it's still there.

In terms of dressing in black, it could simply be a mark of rank/authority - something to make him easily distinguishable from the white stormtroopers.

Also, just to clarify, I'm not saying that Darth Vader isn't evil. I'm saying he doesn't consider himself evil.
Lets not go down this route alignment arguments never end well especially when an expert says it will end badly
Allignment arguments lead to the dark side

[Dr. Cliché]

Lets not go down this route allignment arguments never end well esoecially when an expert says it will end badly

Are you sure we can trust the expert though?

Pretty sure he's evil. :smallbiggrin:

[Newtonsolo313]

Are you sure we can trust the expert though?

Pretty sure he's evil. :smallbiggrin:

Well of course he's evil you don't get a phd in lawful evil without being lawful evil

[Red Fel]

Sure, I get that.

What I was responding to was the idea of someone actually wanting to be evil.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SS02GeKuWQ4

Are you sure we can trust the expert though?

Pretty sure he's evil. :smallbiggrin:

"Me, I'm dishonest, and a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest. Honestly it's the honest ones you have to watch out for, you never can predict if they're going to do something incredibly stupid." -Jack Sparrow, Pirates of the Carribean: The Curse of the Black Pearl.


Well of course he's evil you don't get a phd in lawful evil without being lawful evil

"It's Dr. Evil, I didn't spend six years in Evil Medical School to be called 'mister,' thank you very much." - Dr. Evil, Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery.

[Segev]

Honestly, I think the idea of wanting to be evil is an odd one to begin with.

Several good points have been made, but I'd like to add that in any Objective Cosmology where "evil" is an energy that can be detected as well as a set of moral choices, and where there are gods who are undeniably evil, the connotation of "evil" that we have - that being considered such is undesirable - may only be shared by those who are Good in-setting. Just as we (and Good-aligned individuals in-setting) think of "evil" as a label applied to people who are undesirable by nature, the Evil people in-setting may think of it not as "undesirable," but as "strong." And Good, to them, may be "weak." (As a VERY simplified example.)

The drow priestess and the orc warlord will say, "Of course I'm evil. I am strong. I am wise. I know how to get what I want, and I don't let weakness stop me."


In addition, just as a Good cleric wishes to remain in an alignment that keeps his god giving him power, an Evil cleric would want the same.

In 3.5, as well, there was the Evil Incarnate class, which mechanically lost its abilities if the character changed to Neutral alignment. He would definitely want to stay Evil. Just as the paladin wants to stay LG.

[NNescio]

Both Havelock Vetinari and the Auditors of Reality from Discworld are (atypical) examples of LE too, right? Somewhat notable in the sense that they are both quite unselfish in their motivations (other than Vetinari's indulging in torturing mimes).

[Segev]

Both Havelock Vetinari and the Auditors of Reality from Discworld are (atypical) examples of LE too, right? Somewhat notable in the sense that they are both quite unselfish in their motivations (other than Vetinari's indulging in torturing mimes).

Actually, while the Arbiters CLAIM unselfish motivations, their actual behaviors reveal deeply selfish desires to control everything for their own convenience and comfort. "Comfort" is defined, for them, by their superpowered OCD, rather than what normal, non-eldritch entities might care about, but that is still what they're after. To the point that they actively look for excuses to twist the rules to allow them to screw over anything they don't like. Collateral damage is acceptable as long as it follows the rules.

They are excellent pastiches of bureaucrats whose primary concern is in maintaining their own jobs, regardless of how badly their job has to muck up the overall system in order to justify its continued existence and increase in power and prestige.

[Dr. Cliché]

I'm not sure I'd consider the Patrician evil. Not good, certainly, but I don't think he's actually evil.

If anything, he's about as close as you get to a benevolent dictator.


They are excellent pastiches of bureaucrats whose primary concern is in maintaining their own jobs, regardless of how badly their job has to muck up the overall system in order to justify its continued existence and increase in power and prestige.

Makes me think of Chairman Mao's China.

[RedMage125]

If you want to see lawful evil, look up China under Chairman Mao.



Makes me think of Chairman Mao's China.

That's twice now, and both make me think you have not done an in-depth study of Maoism or the CCP.

Sorry, but as someone with a History degree who spent most of his time on 20th Century History (to include a 14 week course on 20th century China), Maoist China at no point resembles Lawful Evil.

Maoism worked in a way that Leninism and Stalinism did not. Mao adapted Marxism to fit his agricultural nation, while Lenin tried to cram his agricultural nation into a Marxist mold (which was designed with a smaller, industrial nation in mind).

Mao's China was Lawful Neutral. At least at first. Yes, the intelligentsia were persecuted, but the proletariat were genuinely raised up. Keep in mind also, that Mao had more support from the people than the Soviets did, because the CCP actually helped the common people during WWII, while Chiang Kai-Shek's government was more focused on hunting down the communists than it was on repelling the invading Japanese army. Let's also not forget what happened in Nanjing (Nanking), which the KMT seemed to do nothing about.

Later in life, Mao went kind of nutters. And a look at the Cultural Revolution (of the infamous Red Books), shows a government that went kind of off the deep end, and would certainly, by D&D standards, be Evil, but lost a great deal of what made it Lawful. During that time, the government would be considered Neutral Evil. The standards and practices that the mob rule was "supposedly" holding on to, in their desire to "purge" their society of undesirables meant little in the face of selfishness and pettiness.

It was a pretty sharp shift. Most of China never felt choked by the yoke of an oppressive dictator, like Soviet Russia did with Stalin. THAT is a Lawful Evil government for you, ruled by a Neutral Evil man. The KGB's omnipresent forces which silenced dissension and the widespread propaganda machine make the USSR a much better example of a "Lawful Evil regime".

/history lesson

[Mith]

As an aside, you're not calling me forgettable or one-dimensional, are you?



1) Thanks for the Eartha Kitt song. That was greatly appreciated.

2) Due to your chosen avatar for all the time I have been on the board, I just realized that I would likely be greatly disappointed by Megamind if I ever saw the movie.

@RedMage125: While that wasn't directed at me, I appreciated the history lesson. 20th century China is far from my strong suit for knowledge about history.

I will go back to my popcorn now.

[Dr. Cliché]

That's twice now, and both make me think you have not done an in-depth study of Maoism or the CCP.

Sorry, but as someone with a History degree who spent most of his time on 20th Century History (to include a 14 week course on 20th century China), Maoist China at no point resembles Lawful Evil.

Maoism worked in a way that Leninism and Stalinism did not. Mao adapted Marxism to fit his agricultural nation, while Lenin tried to cram his agricultural nation into a Marxist mold (which was designed with a smaller, industrial nation in mind).

Mao's China was Lawful Neutral. At least at first. Yes, the intelligentsia were persecuted, but the proletariat were genuinely raised up. Keep in mind also, that Mao had more support from the people than the Soviets did, because the CCP actually helped the common people during WWII, while Chiang Kai-Shek's government was more focused on hunting down the communists than it was on repelling the invading Japanese army. Let's also not forget what happened in Nanjing (Nanking), which the KMT seemed to do nothing about.

Later in life, Mao went kind of nutters. And a look at the Cultural Revolution (of the infamous Red Books), shows a government that went kind of off the deep end, and would certainly, by D&D standards, be Evil, but lost a great deal of what made it Lawful. During that time, the government would be considered Neutral Evil. The standards and practices that the mob rule was "supposedly" holding on to, in their desire to "purge" their society of undesirables meant little in the face of selfishness and pettiness.

It was a pretty sharp shift. Most of China never felt choked by the yoke of an oppressive dictator, like Soviet Russia did with Stalin. THAT is a Lawful Evil government for you, ruled by a Neutral Evil man. The KGB's omnipresent forces which silenced dissension and the widespread propaganda machine make the USSR a much better example of a "Lawful Evil regime".

/history lesson

Sorry, but I think you need to do a lot more research. Mao's China is very much lawful evil - a merciless bureaucracy with no care whatsoever for its people.

First off, Mao was already a Communist lost before he became ruler of China. He didn't take Communism to fit his agricultural nation - he adapted his agricultural nation to fit with Communism.

That was why, during his land-reform, ~4.5 million landlords and well-off peasants were beaten to death and their land given to others. I'm sure it helped his party gain support from the poorer peasants who were then given that land, but this was still an evil act.

Then you have the Great Leap Forward - which pulled China further into communism by making farms and property communal. Peasants were made to give up any cooking utensils they had, to be replaced with communal eating areas. And, at this stage, any notion of helping the common peasants is long gone (almost as if Mao was never interested in helping them - only in gaining their support). Their lives were worsened in virtually every way from the start - being worked to the bone in fields and still not being able to afford sufficient food to feed their families (as they could no longer rent, sell or use their land as collateral for loans).

You also have the Communist Party banning funerals, weddings, local markets, and festivals. So, peasants were afforded no opportunity to vent their grief when a friend or family member died (and so many did die), nor allowed anything that might bring a little joy or relief into their lives.

Then we get onto the actual food shortages. As part of the Great Leap Forward, millions of peasants were taken off farms and put to work either on making iron or in huge government projects (such as large-scale dams and reservoirs). This both created a higher demand for food and also a vast deficiency in food production. The latter was further exacerbated by tradition irrigation and drainage systems being left to disintegrate, and having no one to combat the locusts and other insects that devoured huge swathes of crops.

At this point, the bureaucrats controlling each region began competing with each other in terms of whose region could produce the most food. Not that they actually improved food output (as above, it was way down), but instead they simply fabricated numbers - up to 10 times the actual amount of food grown. And, of course, the "surplus" was then taken out of their peasant's allotted food. They were literally starving their workers in the hopes of getting a promotion or a chance to meet Mao.

Mao himself was no better. In spite of the food shortages, he exported huge amounts of rice and grain abroad, in an attempt to show the world how great Communism was.

During this time, people were reduced to eating the bark off trees (which quickly ran out). Mothers and fathers would sell their own children for pennies or scraps of food. Cannibalism was not unheard of.

And then we get to the killings. Fathers were forced to bury their sons alive, as punishment for stealing handfuls of rice. Workers who failed to meet impossible quotas were beaten to death or banned from the communal canteens (leaving them to starve to death). Anyone disagreeing with the regime, attempting to farm their own land, or attempting to bring the starvations to light was labelled a dissenter (or something to that effect) and brutally murdered by the state.

In total, it's estimated that about 45 million people were killed, starved or committed suicide under Mao's rule.

And I'm sorry, but you don't get to kill 45 million of your own people and be called 'neutral'. What's next? Shall we say that Hitler was a great leader if you ignore the wars and the Holocaust?

Furthermore, Mao's regime had nothing to do with making life better for his people and everything to do with stroking his own ego. Mao wanted his ambitions realised and didn't care how many millions had to die in the process. He viewed his people as nothing more than statistics - things to be spent and expended to further his Communist agenda. Most of his advisers and intermediaries were no better - they cared only for their own positions, starving and beating their workers to death in an attempt to gain favour. When the scale of horror Mao had unleashed was finally revealed, his only concern was in covering up his mistakes and ordering the murder of those who had dared to bring the atrocities of his government into the public eye.

It is also a further example of the banality of evil - when evil becomes so commonplace that murders are just another statistic. The lives of humans are reduced to nothing but numbers on a clipboard. Something to be ticked off by petty bureaucrats with no more emotion than if they were counting grains of rice.

Not only was Mao's China evil, I'd go so far as to say that it was one of the most evil systems of government in the whole of human history.

[Segev]

Due to your [Red Fel's] chosen avatar for all the time I have been on the board, I just realized that I would likely be greatly disappointed by Megamind if I ever saw the movie.

While Megamind and Red Fel have very different approaches on Evil, I don't think you'd be disappointed, as long as you accept that Megamind captures and exemplifies the most important part of being a supervillain:

http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2010/12/15/1225971/679866-hit-megamind.jpg
Presentation!

[Dr. Cliché]

While Megamind and Red Fel have very different approaches on Evil, I don't think you'd be disappointed, as long as you accept that Megamind captures and exemplifies the most important part of being a supervillain:

http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2010/12/15/1225971/679866-hit-megamind.jpg
Presentation!

For some reason, that makes me think of this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxJrjV4PNXA

[RedMage125]

Sorry, but I think you need to do a lot more research. Mao's China is very much lawful evil - a merciless bureaucracy with no care whatsoever for its people.

First off, Mao was already a Communist lost before he became ruler of China. He didn't take Communism to fit his agricultural nation - he adapted his agricultural nation to fit with Communism.
*snip*
Not only was Mao's China evil, I'd go so far as to say that it was one of the most evil systems of government in the whole of human history.

Of course he was already a Communist, that's why he led the CCP.

Much of your focus is on the Great Leap Forward, which was not the beginning. Yes, some people were killed and marginalized, but as a whole, the country saw economic growth for several years until the GLF.

And as far as "Mao's ego", that was really where the Cultural Revolution came into play. And yes, at that point, the government WAS an evil organization.

But not very Lawful.

Even what you detail about the GLF is more Neutral Evil than Lawful. Those in power lied, stole, and harmed others with the sole thought of aggrandizing themselves. The government itself sold food to other nations because looking successful was more important than its people's lives. Don't get so wrapped up in the the idea that a structured government somehow "must" be a Lawful entity, just because they have laws that they enforce. Lawful in alignment means NOTHING in relation to Civil Laws for individuals, and the same goes for organizations.

Contrast to the USSR. While Stalin himself was NE, a great deal of the people, including the higher ups of the government (and the KGB), genuinely believed in their Communist ideology. The USSR focused on oppressing people to maintain order. Dissenters were sent to gulags. It was very Orwellian, with an omnipresent hovering fear.

45 million people killed? Stalin would call that a slow Tuesday.

[Dr. Cliché]

Of course he was already a Communist, that's why he led the CCP.

Much of your focus is on the Great Leap Forward, which was not the beginning. Yes, some people were killed and marginalized, but as a whole, the country saw economic growth for several years until the GLF./QUOTE]

I'm sorry, but you don't get to just sweep 45 million deaths under the rug. Even if the regime does some good, it doesn't change the fact that it was done at the expense of tens of millions of lives.

[QUOTE=RedMage125;21658219]
And as far as "Mao's ego", that was really where the Cultural Revolution came into play. And yes, at that point, the government WAS an evil organization.

But not very Lawful.

Even what you detail about the GLF is more Neutral Evil than Lawful. Those in power lied, stole, and harmed others with the sole thought of aggrandizing themselves. The government itself sold food to other nations because looking successful was more important than its people's lives. Don't get so wrapped up in the the idea that a structured government somehow "must" be a Lawful entity, just because they have laws that they enforce. Lawful in alignment means NOTHING in relation to Civil Laws for individuals, and the same goes for organizations.

I don't know "A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank."

(I've used the 3.5 description because it's a bit more in-depth)

To me, that's a pretty good description of the leaders in Mao's China (though the man himself would almost certainly be NE). The only thing that really causes issue is their fabricating grain/rice production, though you could possibly make an argument to the effect of 'well everyone else is doing it'. Other than that, it would seem to cover their actions better than neutral evil.

That said, I can definitely see where you're coming from. And, of course, it might depend on whether you actually see the above as being a good description of lawful evil. Regardless, I am certainly prepared to give you some ground on this point, as I can definitely see why you'd lean towards neutral evil.


Contrast to the USSR. While Stalin himself was NE, a great deal of the people, including the higher ups of the government (and the KGB), genuinely believed in their Communist ideology. The USSR focused on oppressing people to maintain order. Dissenters were sent to gulags. It was very Orwellian, with an omnipresent hovering fear.

Aside from more people in the USSR believing wholeheartedly in Communism, I'm not really seeing the difference.

Both regimes oppressed people to maintain order and did nightmarish things to anyone they considered a dissenter. Both were pretty Orwellian (though, granted, I'd give the edge to the USSR on that one).


45 million people killed? Stalin would call that a slow Tuesday.

Well, bear in mind that that's about the lowest estimate (I've seen others range from 78 million to 150 million).

Besides which, even if Mao hasn't killed the most people, it doesn't make his actions any less evil.

It would be like a murderer saying "I don't see why I should go to jail - I only killed one person while that bloke last week killed three!" :smallwink:

[Segev]

"Pff. He only murdered and tortured 10 people? I murdered and tortured a thousand. Clearly, he's not evil."

[Hawkstar]

Can we get out of real-world history and politics? This is getting too close to the present.