What arguments would a Lawful Evil use, to justify assassination

[Max Caysey]

So, I'm just wondering if a lawful evil person could justify ordering a hit on someone? And if so, what arguments would be used?

Lets assume you have either a guard captain, mayor, shop keeper or rival noble house, and you wanted end what ever feud you had by ordering an assassination on this person.

Being lawful evil, there is a tendency I would say to adhere to certain rules or codexes... and there there is an inherent proclivity to use the rules to your advantage rather than breaking them... However, lets assume that you don't want to use the legislative body of rules to frame someone and end said persons life/ authority, but rather have this person killed outright.

My issue is, that I'm having a hard time coming up with good examples of why a LE person would justify assassinating someone who is not directly an enemy, but more a nuisance.

I'm asking here, because I'm unsure if my interpretation of LE is too narrow or that I'm simply lacking good ideas/ inspiration.

Any help or suggestions would be great!

Cheers!

[hamishspence]

Lawful is less "follows the law" and more "prizes order and orderliness". LE Thieves Guild leaders exist, for example - and they make a whole career out of breaking the law.

"This person is a threat to the orderliness of this city, even if what they do is technically legal" is the sort of thing a slightly less criminal LE figure might use to justify a hit to themselves.

Or, on a smaller scale, with an annoying next door neighbour "My life is quietly orderly, and this person is disrupting it".

In the movie Hot Fuzz, the bad guys claim that everything they're doing is for "the greater good" of the community when they assassinate people they think of as disruptive - but it's really for "the greater order".

They might be a good example of "LE, not an organization dedicated to profiting from crime, but willing to commit crimes to maintain order".

[Beni-Kujaku]

"Letting this person live will upset the balance of my city. That won't do. Removing them discreetly will make much fewer waves than having them captured and judged. "
"Slaves are necessary, they are by nature inferior to us their masters. Freeing them goes against the natural order. The law of the state is nothing compared to the law of the world."
"Unwritten law is as important or even more than written law. Plots and assassination between noble families are more than feud, they are tradition and the foundation of our system. This is just how justice is implemented among those who are powerful enough to not care about law of state."

[GloatingSwine]

Is it not neater and more orderly to have a disruptive element quietly removed?

[Inevitability]

There's a lot of types of Lawful Evil, and the attitude towards assassination differs between them!

The obvious first point is that the 'law' in lawful evil doesn't necessarily refer to, like, the legal codex of the place. Which is true! Lawful Good paladins entering an evil society will not become predisposed towards acting evil. Your LE character is simply adhering to a very different code than the local lawkeepers, and sees no issue with ordering an assassination.

But I dislike that explanation. It leads into a surface-level understanding of alignment, where having any strong principles moves you towards Law, and the only way to be Chaotic is to just do stuff for no reason. This conflicts with alignment as the game presents it (CG paladins still have a code!) and turns the Law-Chaos action not in a measure of your beliefs, but how strongly you believe them.


So instead, what does Law mean?

An easy interpretation of Law is 'institutions have more positive than negative effects'. Being Lawful means being vaguely (or not-so-vaguely) in favor of centralization, chains of command, and respected authority figures. The Lawful focus on discipline (as opposed to impulsiveness) is because institutions need regularization. A court must rule all accordance to the same laws, just as a mint may not produce coins of inequal weight. This is where the 'Law does not do crime' thing comes from, and indeed anyone vehemently opposed to lawbreaking is almost definitely Lawful. But, of course, being Lawful doesn't mean your favored institution is the local court.

For Lawful Evil, it is often some kind of hierarchy: typically of groups, but sometimes of individual people (LN and LG can and do still support hierarchies, but are less likely to take them as far). The simplest form of hierarchy is 'we are better than them' ('I am better than everyone else' is ultimately Chaotic), but look at human history and you'll find a great variety in sorting algorithms.

(A LE archetype that defies this is the zealot, who lives by a code and will try to enforce this code with no regard for the human cost; zealots can support clerical hierarchies or fall in us/them dichotomies, but it's also possible to have a zealot who genuinely thinks all people are equal. Note that few LE deities in D&D actually take the attitude that all people are equal, though)

Hierarchy-informed attitudes can take any form from the petty "I got my place on the ladder and I'll use it to kick anyone lower down, while sucking up to those higher" to the loyal "My obedience to my master matters more than any 'evil' his commands cause" to the abstract "Some people are better than others, equality is a lie, and society must be changed to reflect this: in this fight 'human rights' are a distraction".

These can then feed into lots of the object-level beliefs associated with Lawful Evil, like "I don't care that people revile me: at least I'm a pure-blooded human", or "The king is cruel, but it's him or anarchy", or "Criminals are subhumans that should all be beheaded with a rusty axe, instead of getting free food and shelter in jail". A lot of Lawful Evil actions come down to addressing some perceived imbalance in the social order: are those below me taking what's not theirs? Am I fulfilling my obligations? Is the order in its entirety jeopardized (note that LE can act against superiors, and easily does so, if the alternative is watching the system crumble!).

--------------------------

So what about this LE character? Well, depending on their specific ideals, assassination might be very easy to justify! Three main categories of justification to look at are:
-Does my target harm the good order of society? Will their death make things right?
-Do those above me want this, explicitly or implicitly? Is it my duty to them to kill the target?
-Has the target failed to act as behooves of them? Does it fall to me to ensure their just punishment?

And hey, maybe this assassination doesn't fit their alignment! That happens: people get emotional, they do things unlike themselves. Unless you're a paladin, long-lasting consequences for breaking your alignment are nonexistent, and assassination is much more Evil than it is Chaotic. If you want to have a LE character order an assassination for petty, personal reasons, and then justify it to themselves, or accept their transgression, I think that could make for a great story.


tldr: LE often sees the world in hierarchical terms, particulars depend on their own ideals; extrajudical assassination can be justified for abstract good order, obedience, or simply a sense of responsibility to punish transgression. Or just have them kill for personal reasons and use that internal conflict for something!

[Malphegor]

What, do you not slay evildoers? This person is evil! They saved a cat from a tree! Do you know how much damage a cat does to local bird populations? Screw the cat, it does more good dead than alive

(disclaimer the points of view of any characters I play may not be shared by me)

[pabelfly]

The justification would be that killing the person is easier and more efficient for you than letting them live, and that removing an impediment to you and your party is of overall a greater benefit for you and your party (and perhaps society) than leaving that impediment alive.

[zlefin]

I'd probably start by looking up some old mob movies. Certain sub-types of mobsters may qualify for LE; and looking up the various reasons they use would work.

I'd note that assassination tends not to end feuds unless one side is wiped out entirely. Taking out a single individual tends not to end feuds. I'd also note that while taking out a shopkeep is fine; taking out a guard captain or a mayor is a big deal and tends to provoke retaliation and investigation.

[Quertus]

I'd note that assassination tends not to end feuds unless one side is wiped out entirely. Taking out a single individual tends not to end feuds. I'd also note that while taking out a shopkeep is fine; taking out a guard captain or a mayor is a big deal and tends to provoke retaliation and investigation.

Nah, it was accidental death - he fell down an elevator shaft, onto some bullets. :smallwink:

[Saintheart]

"Morals? Justice? I am an instrument of a system that preserves order in an uncaring world that is utterly unjust and utterly chaotic, and I promise you the alternative is far worse...

... what's that? You think I'm saying that merely because the system gives me succour and support, and without that system I would be powerless and poor? Why of course those things are true, child, but truth takes on many forms, and that truth does not, in the end, change my status as a mere instrument of the system."

[Darg]

The justification would be that killing the person is easier and more efficient for you than letting them live, and that removing an impediment to you and your party is of overall a greater benefit for you and your party (and perhaps society) than leaving that impediment alive.

That's a chaotic view. Lawful represents order. Easiness and efficiency are secondary to following the code that governs one's life. A lawful evil person would order a hit if the other person is not bound to the same codified rules (lack of citizenship prevents equal protections for example), if it is lawful authority (judge dredd type of scenario), or is a threat to the foundation and upholding of the codified rules if otherwise dealt with through proper channels.

[Thunder999]

Because it's an effective and efficient way to solve the problem.
Sure it's an excessive reaction for a mere nuisance, but that's what being evil is about.

[Venger]

Is there a reason they'd need to justify it? You can do things you know are wrong without faking an argument that they're actually virtuous (shoplifting, littering, not returning your shopping cart to the corral) especially if you've got an Evil alignment.

If you must provide one for whatever reason, the one I usually go with is that death doesn't really exist in dnd. Societally, killing someone in a non-permanent way would probably be viewed more similarly to how vandalism is viewed on earth. If you smash someone's window with a rock, you have to pay to get them a new one and that's the end of it. If the target of assassination is missed by people with $5k, then they'll be un-killed in short order. If not, then evidently their presence isn't missed by people who matter (wealthy people, since those with Lawful alignments tend to be of higher economic class) so it's not that big a deal is one argument the character might use.

[Darg]

Because it's an effective and efficient way to solve the problem.
Sure it's an excessive reaction for a mere nuisance, but that's what being evil is about.

An evil lord where they are the law of the land might do such a thing, hence power of authority by law. But a renegade cop, without permission, killing suspected persons just because it's easier and more efficient than arresting is committing a chaotic action because they aren't respecting legitimate authority. On the other hand, if the cop believes that all criminals they catch must die by their hand according to a deeply held creed, that can be lawful. Killing just because of effectiveness and efficiency is not following any kind of stricture.

[Max Caysey]

Thanks for all the great suggestions so far! Please, keep them coming! :smallbiggrin:



An evil lord where they are the law of the land might do such a thing, hence power of authority by law. But a renegade cop, without permission, killing suspected persons just because it's easier and more efficient than arresting is committing a chaotic action because they aren't respecting legitimate authority. On the other hand, if the cop believes that all criminals they catch must die by their hand according to a deeply held creed, that can be lawful. Killing just because of effectiveness and efficiency is not following any kind of stricture.

The LE person has a plan to further his organization. The goal in short is to amass enough power as to be able to assert a geopolitical influence as that of a state/ kingdom (possibly by force, possibly by forging patens of nobility).

The LE lord feels that the shopkeeper is - by not letting him buy certain goods at a price he wants - standing is his way of his plans for more power faster, would he not be within his alignment to take him out by sending in some special forces guys to dispose of said shopkeeper?

Would that be out of character or too removed from the lawful part of his alignment? The LE lord sees himself as strategist, always making plans. The End State of his Grand Strategy is forging a Kingdom. Would it be within his alignment to justify assassinations on people he felt were impeding his plans? I mean an assassination would in this case not be done randomly but because part of the plan was having access to certain goods for free (in the above example) or more broadly securing the land lines of communication ergo securing supplies for his army and spy network... Is that argument strong enough to support it being a thing this LE character would do?

[Ramza00]

"Morals? Justice? I am an instrument of a system that preserves order in an uncaring world that is utterly unjust and utterly chaotic, and I promise you the alternative is far worse...

... what's that? You think I'm saying that merely because the system gives me succour and support, and without that system I would be powerless and poor? Why of course those things are true, child, but truth takes on many forms, and that truth does not, in the end, change my status as a mere instrument of the system."

Yep the ends justify the means, even if the means are hypocritical / contradictory / full of tension.

By taking an action small amount of increased entropy in the short term, but if all goes according to plan, there is less entropy in the system at a future date. More law, more something the person cares about even if it’s violates other peoples boundaries, sense of goodness, etc, etc. The future goal, the ends, legitimatizes backwards through time all the despicable means I do in order to achieve my goal (Lawful Evil energy rise up.)

Vader will commit treason in order to create a new tradition (treason and tradition are doublets, they have the same language word origin but they split long ago to explain how when “hand overs” occur aka trādō there are multiple outcomes at this key moment.). Vader is still lawful evil even if he assassinate a person, or overturns an entire society and the powers that be which are authorities in that society. There is no real conflict between treason and tradition except when we want there to be conflict and tension.

[Telonius]

There's a lot of types of Lawful Evil, and the attitude towards assassination differs between them!


Obligatory link to the guide (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?448542-Compliance-Will-Be-Rewarded-A-Guide-to-Lawful-Evil).

The LE person is already thinking in terms of power, so that's fine. He wants to get more of it, and the target (whoever it is) is standing in the way. Ideally, LE guy will want to get the target on his side and serving him. If that's not possible, remove him - either stealthily or flashily, depending on whether he wants to make an example or just avoid detection. He'll still go about it the "right way," however he defines that. Give the guy fair warning, inform him of the consequences of non-compliance. He makes the rules, and without consequences for breaking them, it's just chaos - and bad for business. Really, letting the guy go around disrespecting his authority would be the Chaotic thing to do, wouldn't it?

[Marin]

So, I'm just wondering if a lawful evil person could justify ordering a hit on someone? And if so, what arguments would be used?

To be lawful is to have principles you are extremely reluctantly to break and to be evil is to revel in the suffering of others.

You've either got a principle preventing you from ordering the hit or not, y'know? You're already evil, so the actual ethics of what you're doing are irrelevant. If you were neutral maybe there'd be cause for hesitation there, but nope.

But if you want to put a lawful spin on an assassination, the question isn't whether you'd do it but how you'd do it. Lawful characters have standards. Perhaps your character believes that if it's worth doing, it's worth doing right. Maybe that means a symbolic, over the top murder fit for a story instead of hiring the cheapest hitman they can find. Or perhaps they believe you should know why you're being killed before the deed, and insist on it being explained to you prior to your attack.

[Doctor Despair]

I mean, consider the government in 1984. Definitively lawful evil, and they assassinated people -- but they were methodical about it. Dependable, even, once you'd committed a thoughtcrime. Just create consistent circumstances for whom you will assassinate -- the more regimented and procedural, the better. Motivation determines whether it's good or evil (after all, killing Evil people isn't necessarily evil in a standard campaign), but the actual process you follow determines whether you're chaotic or lawful (e.g., doing it on a whim or for convenience vs doing it because your code/law demands it).

[Thunder999]

While a Lawful Evil character could care about actual laws and authority, they really don't have to and many don't. LE is often a suggested alignment for Assassins loyal only to the terms of their latest contract or crime lords after all.

[pabelfly]

That's a chaotic view. Lawful represents order. Easiness and efficiency are secondary to following the code that governs one's life. A lawful evil person would order a hit if the other person is not bound to the same codified rules (lack of citizenship prevents equal protections for example), if it is lawful authority (judge dredd type of scenario), or is a threat to the foundation and upholding of the codified rules if otherwise dealt with through proper channels.

It's not inherently chaotic. Chaotic is "I do what I want and damn the rules". I'm saying that you could claim, "my party and I are doing important things to uphold Law and this person is an impediment to that."

[Max Caysey]

Thanks for all the great comments..

I feel more at ease now ordering the killings of certain key persons in relationship to my alignment. After looking further online it would seem that alignments are not prescriptive whyfore they do not determine that a person cannot act out of character or do things out of spite or anger that might normally be seen as violating one's alignment.

So, I feel generally comfortable doing targeted killings for the advancement of my plans to advance my organization! Lets hope my DM isn't going to hate me, when I kill off npcs who are annoying! :)

Cheers!

[Particle_Man]

As long as you remember that what works for you can also work for your enemies.:smallsmile:

[Crake]

So, I'm just wondering if a lawful evil person could justify ordering a hit on someone?

You're asking the question backward. You should be asking, what justification for assassinations would be considered lawful evil. Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive.

A lawful evil person could use ANY justification for a murder, because them being lawful evil doesn't mean that literally every single one of their actions needs to be strictly lawful evil.

[Max Caysey]

You're asking the question backward. You should be asking, what justification for assassinations would be considered lawful evil. Alignment is descriptive, not prescriptive.

A lawful evil person could use ANY justification for a murder, because them being lawful evil doesn't mean that literally every single one of their actions needs to be strictly lawful evil.

That is a really nice way of framing it... and a very good point!

[Particle_Man]

Please remember to tip your assassin if it is customary.

[darkdragoon]

"You have failed this town. The punishment for failure is death."

[Remuko]

"You have failed this town. The punishment for failure is death."

ah yes the early days CW Green Arrow approach

[loky1109]

ah yes the early days CW Green Arrow approach

Early days Oliver Queen wasn't Green Arrow, but just Arrow. )))

[Remuko]

Early days Oliver Queen wasn't Green Arrow, but just Arrow. )))

actually he was still just called "The Hood" in the show back then, before the Arrow, and then Green Arrow. But I just used the GA name cuz its more recognizable.

[Yogibear41]

The needs of the many out weight the needs of the few. Sacrifice one to save many etc.

[Analytica]

"Valar morghulis."

[Yahzi Coyote]

"The check cashed."

[Rynjin]

"Unwritten law is as important or even more than written law. Plots and assassination between noble families are more than feud, they are tradition and the foundation of our system. This is just how justice is implemented among those who are powerful enough to not care about law of state."

Or, as A Practical Guide to Evil's Praesi would put it: iron sharpens iron.

Mind you, most of them were on the more Chaotic end of the spectrum ("Well if she was incompetent enough to not know what we poisoned all the drinks at the party with and take the antidote beforehand, she deserved to die." - this is an actual event in the story, and not a major one or even a one-off) but the more...sane(?) members of the Dread Empire's nobility believed that constantly sniping at each other (literally and figuratively) was for the greater good as it ensured only the most competent people survived to adulthood and took power.

The Black Knight, Amadeus, is also a perfect example of a more reserved and calculating LE character who has different reasons to kill. For the greater good, to prevent future problems, etc.

Highly recommended reading for those interested in LE perspectives as it is essentially the story of an organization trying to eliminate CE and NE as alignments and make ALL evil Lawful.