Lawful Evil or Neutral Evil: "If you must break the law, do so to seize power."

[Zhentarim]

"If you must break the law, do so to seize power. In all other cases observe it."

I liked that saying and added it to my extended signature, but is it lawful evil or neutral evil?

[Elysiume]

Neutral evil. It's clearly not taking law as a driving moral; laws are things to be followed when they further your goals and ignored when you can do so profitably. Observing laws when it's convenient is good sense, but it's not particularly lawful.

[Zhentarim]

Neutral evil. It's clearly not taking law as a driving moral; laws are things to be followed when they further your goals and ignored when you can do so profitably. Observing laws when it's convenient is good sense, but it's not particularly lawful.

Yeah--basically don't pick a fight with a cop, especially if the cop is stronger than you. I pay attention to laws the vast majority of the time because it suits me and my goals of acquiring health, wealth, and knowledge.

Another quote I like is ""There is no right and wrong--only power and those strong enough to seek it."

I see wealth, health, and knowledge as the most important sources of power, so I pursue those three assets aggressively using whatever means are most effective. Sometimetimes that means building parts of the world up around me, sometimes that means tearing them down, but I always try to stay out of the firing line of those stronger than me until I can subvert them.

[Palanan]

I'd call your first quote very definitely Lawful Evil, since there's a strong foundation of respect for the law which is only trumped by the seizure of power--and there's no reason why that can't be justified as a way to better impose the law.

So I'd say it's classic LE, with a specific bit of evil trumping the general adherence to law.

[grarrrg]

Obligatory "Lawful does not mean blindly following all laws. It's more about respect for order and customs."
Even Chaotic characters regularly follow laws, that isn't something special/demanded of Lawful.


"If you must break the law, do so to seize power. In all other cases observe it."

Self contradicting.
"If you must break the law... Don't"???

Make more sense as "always obey the law, unless you are seizing power"

[redking]

That can be lawful evil. Here is a quote from Julius Caesar. “I love treason but hate a traitor.”

[Remuko]

Self contradicting.
"If you must break the law... Don't"???

Make more sense as "always obey the law, unless you are seizing power"

I dont see how the OPs quote and your "makes more sense as" line are literally any different. the only way i can parse reading them, they mean exactly the same thing.

[grarrrg]

I dont see how the OPs quote and your "makes more sense as" line are literally any different. the only way i can parse reading them, they mean exactly the same thing.


"If you must break the law, do so to seize power. In all other cases observe it."

"If you must break the law"
"MUST" as in "if you are required by some means to break the law"

"Do so to seize power"
Since you MUST break the law, only CHOOSE to do so if you gain power.

"In all other cases observe it"
You know, only break the law if you MUST break it. Otherwise don't. Not like you have a choice in breaking it anyway.

[Troacctid]

Trick question. LE and NE are secretly the exact same alignment with no meaningful distinction between them.

[Duke of Urrel]

"If you must break the law, do so to seize power. In all other cases observe it."

Just saying that doesn't make you Lawful or Neutral. What matters is what you do with it.

If you're actually Neutral, you're indifferent to the Law. You break it when you can get away with it, but you observe it whenever breaking it would be too much trouble.

If you're actually Lawful, you sincerely love the order that law provides, but ideally, you don't want to have to obey anybody else's law; you want to be the one who makes the laws that everybody else has to obey. So yes, you may break somebody else's law to seize power, but you always try to find a legal excuse, such as some minor misdemeanor committed by the ruler you're replacing. This is so that you don't diminish your subjects' respect for the law, which you maintain by always presenting yourself as lawful and therefore "stable," "predictable," "reliable," and the "bad guy you know, who is probably better than the bad guy you don't know." If you too obviously break the law yourself – especially one of your own laws – you undermine the general respect for the law, which weakens the effectiveness of the law as the tool that you use to maintain power over your subjects. Since you're Lawful, you actually prefer the convenience of rule by law (especially if it's your law) to the bother of rule by making things up as you go along.

[Daefos]

"If you must break the law"
"MUST" as in "if you are required by some means to break the law"

"Do so to seize power"
Since you MUST break the law, only CHOOSE to do so if you gain power.

"In all other cases observe it"
You know, only break the law if you MUST break it. Otherwise don't. Not like you have a choice in breaking it anyway.

This distinction only works if you assume that the presence of the word "must" means that you're being compelled to do something, and that it is therefore incompatible with choosing to do that thing, but that's nonsense. Even optional activities have prerequisites that must happen. At no point in my life will I ever be required to, say, watch the TV in my house; but if I want to, then I must turn it on. The fact that there is a necessary step to achieve my goal does not suddenly mean that I am not freely choosing to pursue it.

[Malphegor]

I'd argue that this is a code of ethics in and of itself, superceding the law of the land with the law of the self. Personal codes count towards Lawful.

I'd argue this is lowercase lawful uppercase Evil, to use a slightly awkward way of describing alignments that I saw on reddit the other day. Hells, depending on the reason for gaining power and how it is to be used, this could even be lawful Neutral easily imo.

[Promethean]

And here is another reason why people hate alignment as a morality system.

On another note, my 2 cents. This quote can swing both NE and LE, depending on the speaker.

If the speaker is saying this because they view breaking the law(in essence breaking their word to uphold the values of society) as an affront to their ethics, but as necessary evil in a situation where it is the only option to maintain order, then Lawful Evil(heck that isn't even necessarily Evil).

If the speaker is saying this because they don't respect the law on any moral level, but view the wrath of society as dangerous and inevitable to lawbreakers(in essence, it's foolish to temp fate working head on against a powerful adversary when the plan can bend around them), then Neutral Evil(again not necessarily evil, true neutrals with personal motives could pull this off as well)

[Troacctid]

And here is another reason why people hate alignment as a morality system.
Also, incidentally, another reason why 4e's alignment is so much better than the grid.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I think that's just ol' Jul-C dropping a witty line to justify his life, but okay. Still a good quote.

Ambition isn't evil; breaking the law isn't (always) chaotic. This quote could be construed as [evil] ("seizing power for yourself overrides all other concerns"), but it could be construed as [neutral], and if a celestial said it, it would be [good] ("if you are forced to break the law to do what must be done (i.e. [good] things), seize power so that the law no longer contradicts [good]"). It could be [lawful], or it could be [neutral], or even [chaotic]. Since the quote doesn't actually say very much, it could be made to fit any alignment.

The main difference1 between [law] and [chaos] is who sets the (legitimate) rules: the community or the individual2. Extreme [law] is associated with universal morality because the community is maximal. Extreme [chaos], on the other hand, accepts only the individual's conscience as legitimate source of moral authority.

Of course, an individual could choose to follow a moral code that is entirely the same as a given [lawful] community's moral code, and a greater community might provide a moral code that, for a given [lawful] individual, overrides a smaller community's (the reverse I would not see as very [lawful]).

N.B. A similar line of reasoning could be laid out for [good] and [evil], substituting "who sets the rules" for "whose happiness factors into my choices", ranging from "everyone's" ([good]) to "everyone nice's" ([neutral]) to "just my own"([evil]).

1If you're not simply treating aligment as some arbitrary deific political factions, that is.
2Note that "the community sets the law" does not mean that everyone gets a democratic vote--in [lawful evil], moral authority derives from, say, the autocrat's perceived superior ability to make moral judgements on behalf of the community

[Seto]

So, basically Frank Underwood? Neutral Evil.

Longer version: I tend to see Lawful characters not just as people who respect the law, but who believe in it.
Using the law and working inside the system to get what you want doesn't necessarily mean you're lawful, it's just a strategy and a modus operandi. Again, Frank Underwood from House of Cards or Saul Goodman from Breaking Bad, or any of the lawyers from Wolfram & Hart in Angel, exploit the law to the fullest extent, but they don't care a whit about it.

Now the character you quoted could be Lawful Evil, sitting on the "mildly Lawful" side of the spectrum. For example, if they really believe in the law and adhere to it, but in a crisis situation, they simply believe in personal power more. But if they're just following the law out of caution to avoid getting in trouble, and they think it's acceptable to break it each and every time it will make them stronger (because they're taking a risk that they consider worth taking), again, it's not an outlook, just a strategy.
A Lawful character won't break the law out of convenience just because it benefits them. Note that it's not necessarily the law of the land, but any codified set of laws the character strongly adheres to. A Good example is Roy: following his moral tenets, he refuses to kill people "just because it's slightly more convenient that talking to them". But in a crisis situation (fighting Durkula), he can go for the kill because so much is at stake: as he says half-jokingly, "this is different. It's A LOT more convenient." This is consistent with his characterization as a LG character that's more Good than he is Lawful.
So, basically: does your character just think that obeying the law it is wiser than not, or do they believe in it? Is your character ready to break the law everytime they can get power from it, or does it need to be A LOT of power for them to consider breaking the law? If it's the first, you're looking at Neutral Evil. If it's the second, some shade of Lawful Evil who's more Evil than Lawful.

[Zhentarim]

They definately don’t believe in the law in and of itself, but the reward still needs to be HUGE for them to break the law because they’ve seen time and time again that unless you are strong enough to put down the retaliation you will face for breaking the law, the law will put you down.

In MTG color wheel terms, they are definately black/blue, maybe black/blue/green if you consider their profanity (there is nothing sacred) and truth-seeking tendencies...but above all else, they have a growth mindset.

[gkathellar]

This quote can swing both NE and LE, depending on the speaker.

QFT. One-liners do not have an alignment.

Hell, I could see it plausibly coming from someone lawful neutral, or true neutral, depending on the specific connotations and the persona of the speaker. As ExLibrisMortis notes, you could even make a plausible case that someone good might say something of the sort.

[rferries]

Seems classically Lawful Evil to me - like what a tyrannical regent would say before assassinating the rightful heir and later claim the throne for herself in a bloody coup.

A Neutral Evil character would break the law much more casually - even petty shoplifting, if it was the most convenient option at the time.

A Chaotic Evil character might even actively seek out laws to break, just for the thrill of it.