I think something a majority of us can agree on is that LE is the least bad of the evils.You've obviously never read 1984. Or Kafka.
Evil is a matter of expression. Any of the three evil alignments can be equally evil, whether they are lawful, chaotic or neither only means they travel different roads to the same end.
I've read 1984 on multiple occasions. I just consider that sort of evil to be the lesser evil compared to a the type of chaotic or neutral evil that seeks only to destroy.
I guess I view LE as using evil as a means to an end, not the end purpose itself (as opposed to NE/CE which are often depicted as having not having much purpose beyond destruction and killing).
I think something a majority of us can agree on is that LE is the least bad of the evils.You've obviously never read 1984. Or Kafka.
Evil is a matter of expression. Any of the three evil alignments can be equally evil, whether they are lawful, chaotic or neither only means they travel different roads to the same end.
I've read 1984 on multiple occasions. I just consider that sort of evil to be the lesser evil compared to a the type of chaotic or neutral evil that seeks only to destroy.
I guess I view LE as using evil as a means to an end, not the end purpose itself (as opposed to NE/CE which are often depicted as having not having much purpose beyond destruction and killing).
"Picture a boot stepping on the throat of the human race forever. That is the Party."
1984 is the essence of the evil of the Borg before Star Trek pulled their fangs in First Contact.
"Picture a boot stepping on the throat of the human race forever. That is the Party."
1984 is the essence of the evil of the Borg before Star Trek pulled their fangs in First Contact.
Right, I just think that's less bad than other options.
Right, I just think that's less bad than other options."Picture a boot stepping on the throat of the human race forever. That is the Party."
1984 is the essence of the evil of the Borg before Star Trek pulled their fangs in First Contact.
1984 is among one of the more depressing books I keep coming back to.
At some point evil is great enough that setting competitions as to which is "worse" is meaningless. You can reach that level of evil no matter which of the three alignments you are.
The book is called 1984 because that is the year the main character: Winston, guessed it to be. He doesn't know and there is no objective way for him to find out. That is how chaotic society has become. Nothing is illegal because there are no laws, but everyone is afraid of drawing the attention of the thought police who punish you for arbitrary thought crimes, it is classic chaotic evil.The system itself, the hierarchy doesn't change. It in fact maintains it's consistent structure by denying people, even itself facts that can distract the hiearchy or lead people to question it. But the process itself is eternal and unchanging. The governing process, the Party itself, is frighteningly stable, because not even it's leadership is exempt from it's checks and balances.. it's not Galt, but the complete opposite.
I see no evidence of "checks and balances" in the book. What I see is the illusion of order emerging from chaos. Kind of like tossing a coin. In the long run you expect heads to come up about 50% of the time, but there is no way to predict each individual coin toss. The underlying processes in 1984 are similarly chaotic, and that gives rise to a kind of emergent order, but even then, the only real social structure is that the strong dominate the weak. There is no way a lawful evil society would be so aimless and inefficient as Oceania, O'Brien literally wastes years monitoring and manipulating Winston for no benefit to the regime, including convincing him to be a traitor to the regime, only to have him killed on a whim for no apparent reason some time after letting him go. When Winston is imprisoned they don't try to extract any useful information, they just torture him to the point of insanity. Meanwhile there is considerable social unrest outside including daily rocket attacks.
I see no evidence of "checks and balances" in the book. What I see is the illusion of order emerging from chaos. Kind of like tossing a coin. In the long run you expect heads to come up about 50% of the time, but there is no way to predict each individual coin toss. The underlying processes in 1984 are similarly chaotic, and that gives rise to a kind of emergent order, but even then, the only real social structure is that the strong dominate the weak. There is no way a lawful evil society would be so aimless and inefficient as Oceania, O'Brien literally wastes years monitoring and manipulating Winston for no benefit to the regime, including convincing him to be a traitor to the regime, only to have him killed on a whim for no apparent reason some time after letting him go. When Winston is imprisoned they don't try to extract any useful information, they just torture him to the point of insanity. Meanwhile there is considerable social unrest outside including daily rocket attacks.
RL dictatorships are often good at suppressing the opposition but seem universally terrible at suppressing corruption. Something that might not have been obvious in 1948 but which we have plenty of knowledge of now. Whether or not Orwell imagined the top brass giving themselves immunity, it'd happen.
Anyway, my take: in AD&D's original alignment system lawful good was the best good, chaotic evil the worst evil, no question. Vikings got to be chaotic good, if barely. Since in most D&D settings since (& PF) there are at least as many lands with chaotic evil tribes as there are lawful evil kingdoms or whatever, the argument about the greater efficiency of LE is null. CE is the most destructive and still the most evil.
That was my impression of AD&D as well. So all my BBEGs were chaotic evil wizards, demons or dragons because they were the most evil. The most heroic characters were lawful good Paladins loosely based on the Knights of the Round Table. Mind you, that was back when I was in high school so I might have a different view if I were to read that stuff now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The most evil....
It is a ritual - held within the apocrypha of the codex of infinite evil - the few lines known to mortals have been whispered...
They go...
start a thread on a forum with the words "Would a paladin fall..."
Don't click the button unless you want your very existence to be imperiled by the evil contained within.
You have been warned.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was half expecting that to say: "Explosive Runes!".
The most evil....
It is a ritual - held within the apocrypha of the codex of infinite evil - the few lines known to mortals have been whispered...
They go...
** spoiler omitted **
Don't click the button unless you want your very existence to be imperiled by the evil contained within.
You have been warned.
Do not fret! There is still hope. A weapon of Law and Good that can overcome the evil!
Not sure what your point is. Are you saying that you must be as chaotic and evil as the Abyss to be considered chaotic evil?Too much of a rigid heirarchical organization for the Abyss, though -- I'd put parts of it in Hades/Grey Waste (PlaneScape for Abaddon) and parts of it in Tartarus/Carceri (what PlaneScape had in between Hades/Grey Waste and the Abyss).
The point is that if someone who is as evil as the Abyss but not as chaotic belongs somewhere closer to Neutral Evil than the Abyss. PlaneScape (and actually AD&D before it) had in-between alignment planes at odd multiples of 22.5 ` to serve as homes for such alignments. The world of Nineteen Eighty-Four belongs in the one between the Abyss and Hades/The Grey Wastes, namely Tartarus/Carceri (slashes separate names for the same thing that changed between 1st and 2nd Edition).
So between chaotic evil and neutral evil? So maybe flips between the two alignments?
^That's pretty much what I said earlier, except since the regimes in Nineteen Eighty-Four are composed of many people and many subgroups, they span both alignments simultaneously, although I would put them closer to Neutral Evil overall since they have enough internal organization to avoid breaking up into warlord fiefdoms.
Fair enough.
Okay, so, as someone who almost exclusive plays evil (as gm and player) I have some thoughts. Chaotic Evils are almost always short lived, and almost always have small effects. Yes this merchant is murdered here, that knight there, this priest found assassinated and placed in an odd area. But the merchant's son inherits, the knight is replaced by a hopeful squire, and the churches gears churn out another priest, and a paladin hunts down and slays the serial killer CE man. Neutral evil is more careful, and lasts longer, he works out how to inherit the shop and enslave the son, the knight is replaced by a squire he promotes, the priest is never attacked for fear of backlash, but his power dwindles as the paladin slowly closes in, and the NE crime mogul eventually slips, or is betrayed, and then imprisoned. Lawful Evil hires the merchant, or drives him out of business and replaces him with a slave, or just buys him out before hiking prices on goods, He blackmails the knight and slowly corrupts the minds of his squires, he outlaws the priests church through long political procedures, and has the Paladin arrested for threats on his person. Lawful Evil is a tree that grows in the concrete crack of society, and shatters it by spreading, incapable of being stopped unless a figure outside of the law steps in, and breaks the layers of deceit and intrigue to actually find the real despot behind a thousand nobles made into puppets.
That's just my opinion though, and only works in high medieval and more complex societies, while NE works best in feudal and CE is nigh on unstoppable in an anarchy
Okay, so, as someone who almost exclusive plays evil (as gm and player) I have some thoughts. Chaotic Evils are almost always short lived, and almost always have small effects. Yes this merchant is murdered here, that knight there, this priest found assassinated and placed in an odd area. But the merchant's son inherits, the knight is replaced by a hopeful squire, and the churches gears churn out another priest, and a paladin hunts down and slays the serial killer CE man. Neutral evil is more careful, and lasts longer, he works out how to inherit the shop and enslave the son, the knight is replaced by a squire he promotes, the priest is never attacked for fear of backlash, but his power dwindles as the paladin slowly closes in, and the NE crime mogul eventually slips, or is betrayed, and then imprisoned. Lawful Evil hires the merchant, or drives him out of business and replaces him with a slave, or just buys him out before hiking prices on goods, He blackmails the knight and slowly corrupts the minds of his squires, he outlaws the priests church through long political procedures, and has the Paladin arrested for threats on his person. Lawful Evil is a tree that grows in the concrete crack of society, and shatters it by spreading, incapable of being stopped unless a figure outside of the law steps in, and breaks the layers of deceit and intrigue to actually find the real despot behind a thousand nobles made into puppets.
That's just my opinion though, and only works in high medieval and more complex societies, while NE works best in feudal and CE is nigh on unstoppable in an anarchy
You're stuck in stereotypes. There is no reason you can't have a self-centered long-lived chaotic evil villain. He simply isn't the short term thinking manaic gibbering idiot that people seem to pigeonhole the alignment into. Batman's Two-Face is a pretty good example. Vandal Savage is another, as is Ras Al Ghul. (Yes, I picked Batman villains, but he generally has the smarter ones.)
Evil is evil. Lawful, Chaotic or somewhere in between just determines how evil is committed.
I find Law Evil to be most effective as evil. The law for them is tool they use to spread evil wide and far. Chaotic evil is less organized and more individualistic thus less far reaching. In the middle you have some law but not the law of the land.
So LE is a corporate CEO that harms others legally. They swindle people out of life savings using the law. The have the power to create the laws. NE is more like organized crime. They break the law but follow their own code or laws. CE is more like gang where there is leader rule through might but no real laws as long tribute is paid.
In the end they could all do the exact same evil just slightly differently. Say they all want traffic prostitution. LE would make slavery and prostitution legal and reap the rewards. NE would do with their own code in place were it may or may not be legal. CE would just do it and keep it hidden. So none more evil than other just their methods differ.
You're stuck in stereotypes. There is no reason you can't have a self-centered long-lived chaotic evil villain. He simply isn't the short term thinking manaic gibbering idiot that people seem to pigeonhole the alignment into. Batman's Two-Face is a pretty good example. Vandal Savage is another, as is Ras Al Ghul. (Yes, I picked Batman villains, but he generally has the smarter ones.)Okay, so, as someone who almost exclusive plays evil (as gm and player) I have some thoughts. Chaotic Evils are almost always short lived, and almost always have small effects. Yes this merchant is murdered here, that knight there, this priest found assassinated and placed in an odd area. But the merchant's son inherits, the knight is replaced by a hopeful squire, and the churches gears churn out another priest, and a paladin hunts down and slays the serial killer CE man. Neutral evil is more careful, and lasts longer, he works out how to inherit the shop and enslave the son, the knight is replaced by a squire he promotes, the priest is never attacked for fear of backlash, but his power dwindles as the paladin slowly closes in, and the NE crime mogul eventually slips, or is betrayed, and then imprisoned. Lawful Evil hires the merchant, or drives him out of business and replaces him with a slave, or just buys him out before hiking prices on goods, He blackmails the knight and slowly corrupts the minds of his squires, he outlaws the priests church through long political procedures, and has the Paladin arrested for threats on his person. Lawful Evil is a tree that grows in the concrete crack of society, and shatters it by spreading, incapable of being stopped unless a figure outside of the law steps in, and breaks the layers of deceit and intrigue to actually find the real despot behind a thousand nobles made into puppets.
That's just my opinion though, and only works in high medieval and more complex societies, while NE works best in feudal and CE is nigh on unstoppable in an anarchy
Two Face is not an effective and long lived bad guy because he is good at it, it's because instead of being killed he is locked away, to be released by those who benefit from his destruction in a mob ruled city, much closer to an anarchist or feudal state than that of a complex and civilized society. Ras Al Ghul is not CE, I would argue him being Lawful Evil, as he works as an organization following a codified set of beliefs, rules, and laws, with a true purpose to his evil.
Evil is evil. Lawful, Chaotic or somewhere in between just determines how evil is committed.
I find Law Evil to be most effective as evil. The law for them is tool they use to spread evil wide and far. Chaotic evil is less organized and more individualistic thus less far reaching. In the middle you have some law but not the law of the land.
So LE is a corporate CEO that harms others legally. They swindle people out of life savings using the law. The have the power to create the laws. NE is more like organized crime. They break the law but follow their own code or laws. CE is more like gang where there is leader rule through might but no real laws as long tribute is paid.
In the end they could all do the exact same evil just slightly differently. Say they all want traffic prostitution. LE would make slavery and prostitution legal and reap the rewards. NE would do with their own code in place were it may or may not be legal. CE would just do it and keep it hidden. So none more evil than other just their methods differ.
I agree on your view of their methods and capability but I would still state that Lawful Evil overcomes Neutral or Chaotic, as, through lobbying and careful politicking he can change what he can do and corrupt a whole society. Meanwhile the crime family of Neutral will eventually be hunted down by the law, their evil at an end, and Chaotic will be easiest caught, as they commonly(though admittedly not always) lack the discipline to cover their tracks effectively, and sometimes don't care to.
Ras Al Ghul is not CE, I would argue him being Lawful Evil, as he works as an organization following a codified set of beliefs, rules, and laws, with a true purpose to his evil.
The organisation however, is modeled on his beliefs and dedicated to his personal nihlistic crusade, which in turn is his personal revenge against the world for the death of his wife. The League of Shadows is nothing more than an extension of Ras Al Ghul's rage and will. He isn't a member because he follows a larger ideal. (many of his members MAY well be lawful because they follow an ideal that's larger than themselves. Ras is clearly the opposite.
Ras Al Ghul is not CE, I would argue him being Lawful Evil, as he works as an organization following a codified set of beliefs, rules, and laws, with a true purpose to his evil.The organisation however, is modeled on his beliefs and dedicated to his personal nihlistic crusade, which in turn is his personal revenge against the world for the death of his wife. The League of Shadows is nothing more than an extension of Ras Al Ghul's rage and will. He isn't a member because he follows a larger ideal. (many of his members MAY well be lawful because they follow an ideal that's larger than themselves. Ras is clearly the opposite.
I disagree based on the fact that Ras Al Ghul has a purpose in mind, that goes far beyond vengeance. He seeks world peace, and has long term plans to do so, and in fact, such long term plans that he has been struggling to complete them for 600+ years. He seeks the destruction of human race, not for joy or vengeance but because he believes it is right.
Okay, so, as someone who almost exclusive plays evil (as gm and player) I have some thoughts. Chaotic Evils are almost always short lived, and almost always have small effects. Yes this merchant is murdered here, that knight there, this priest found assassinated and placed in an odd area. But the merchant's son inherits, the knight is replaced by a hopeful squire, and the churches gears churn out another priest, and a paladin hunts down and slays the serial killer CE man. Neutral evil is more careful, and lasts longer, he works out how to inherit the shop and enslave the son, the knight is replaced by a squire he promotes, the priest is never attacked for fear of backlash, but his power dwindles as the paladin slowly closes in, and the NE crime mogul eventually slips, or is betrayed, and then imprisoned. Lawful Evil hires the merchant, or drives him out of business and replaces him with a slave, or just buys him out before hiking prices on goods, He blackmails the knight and slowly corrupts the minds of his squires, he outlaws the priests church through long political procedures, and has the Paladin arrested for threats on his person. Lawful Evil is a tree that grows in the concrete crack of society, and shatters it by spreading, incapable of being stopped unless a figure outside of the law steps in, and breaks the layers of deceit and intrigue to actually find the real despot behind a thousand nobles made into puppets.
That's just my opinion though, and only works in high medieval and more complex societies, while NE works best in feudal and CE is nigh on unstoppable in an anarchy
yeah, terrorists and Violent Revolutionaries are chaotic evil, they definitely don't have long term or huge consequences...
a chaotic evil character would start to gather crowds exploiting their weakness and lack of wealth and turn the town against the merchants and nobility, destroying them entirely. Getting all the wealth for him and his followers.
you have a very narrow concept of chaotic evil.
lawful evil is the poisonous bud in society, chaotic evil are the barbarian's at the gates.
The Riddler's Lawful Evil.
I'll leave you with that.
Ras Al Ghul is not CE, I would argue him being Lawful Evil, as he works as an organization following a codified set of beliefs, rules, and laws, with a true purpose to his evil.The organisation however, is modeled on his beliefs and dedicated to his personal nihlistic crusade, which in turn is his personal revenge against the world for the death of his wife. The League of Shadows is nothing more than an extension of Ras Al Ghul's rage and will. He isn't a member because he follows a larger ideal. (many of his members MAY well be lawful because they follow an ideal that's larger than themselves. Ras is clearly the opposite.I disagree based on the fact that Ras Al Ghul has a purpose in mind, that goes far beyond vengeance. He seeks world peace, and has long term plans to do so, and in fact, such long term plans that he has been struggling to complete them for 600+ years. He seeks the destruction of human race, not for joy or vengeance but because he believes it is right.
More likely he's suffering from the kind of dementia you get from having lived so long and being so bitter that he simply can't relate to a society that's changed so much from the days of Good Old Ancient Egypt.
Two-Face is more LN in my mind. That it's the Law of the Coin-Flip makes it different. And yes, I said LN, because depending on how that flip lands, he is either Harvey Dent, the Prosecutor of Justice, or Big Harv, the Dark Side.
You want CE in Batman villains? Joker. Or at least many of his forms (since comics can sometimes... stray).
It's very specifically stated that following your own moral code doesn't make you Lawful if it's still against society as a whole. So, while the law of the coin may be Harvey Dent's code, he's still a force of Chaos.
I agree, to be classed as lawful you must follow an objective, universal code, not your own code that conflicts with it.
I agree, to be classed as lawful you must follow an objective, universal code, not your own code that conflicts with it.
That would be one interpretation. Following a well defined code of behavior reliably could be another.
I'd tend to see a guy who decides by flipping a coin or rolling a die as an embodiment of Chaos. One of the other players in today's campaign (unfortunately out for this session) extracted the d20 "answer die" from a magic 8-Ball and uses it to make many decisions for his CN Barbarian. My CN Viking PC's personal theme song is "Snake Eyes" by Amon Amarth, and I often roll dice to decide which hallway we'll explore and make other choices.
I think Chaos is a fine path for the essentially heroic killer who sometimes makes tragically bad decisions or lets emotion, revenge, etc cause him to perform acts most would call Evil. Which side of CN/CE you end up on is probably up to the DM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen people play various alignments including Lawful Good in a "The DM didn't let me be Evil, but I'm doing it anyhow" manner.
One of my current PCs started out as CG but over time "slipped" to CN partially due to the influence of an Evil magic item. He still performs a lot of heroic acts, but he's greedy, boastful, and prone to fits of rage. He's got an ongoing struggle between being a hero or giving in to the temptation of the daemonic powers which have been offered to him. Some see a villain where others see a hero. He's saved towns from terrible monsters, but he's also sacrificed foes to Evil magic for a thrill while in the throes of rage. The same campaign has another CN character who acts more like CG most of the time since he usually agrees to help folks out, rarely asks about rewards, and seems to chafe at dealing with Evil NPCs.
I guess I'm just offering some examples contrary to the usual reputation of CN. Anyhow, I seem to remember a time before all the complications of Good and Evil, back when Chaos was just Chaos - "Blood and souls for Lord Arioch!!!"
Meh. Back then "chaos" was just shorthand for "evil" and "law" for "unflinchingly neutral smug bastards". Seemingly, Good was inexistent.
Hmmm... Two-Face is a weird example as he technically has two alignments, depending on which personality is dominant. That the coin-flip tends to determine which is in charge adds to the issue.
For example both sides may want the Penguin taken down. Harvey Dent (the good side) wants him taken down because he is a criminal. Big Harvey (the bad side as presented in B:TAS) wants Penguin taken down so he can take over his criminal empire. One is LG, the other... NE or CE?
Two-Face is more LN in my mind. That it's the Law of the Coin-Flip makes it different. And yes, I said LN, because depending on how that flip lands, he is either Harvey Dent, the Prosecutor of Justice, or Big Harv, the Dark Side.
You want CE in Batman villains? Joker. Or at least many of his forms (since comics can sometimes... stray).
No he's chaotic because he only believes in chance and he's Evil because he really doesn't care how his coin flips impact others... and generally even when his coins do flip up for his victims, he usually finds a way to interpret that as a lose for them right afterward.
^ Two-Face is clearly Chaotic Evil in my view.
It's very specifically stated that following your own moral code doesn't make you Lawful if it's still against society as a whole. So, while the law of the coin may be Harvey Dent's code, he's still a force of Chaos.
It's very specifically stated that following your own moral code doesn't make you Lawful if it's still against society as a whole. So, while the law of the coin may be Harvey Dent's code, he's still a force of Chaos.Its also stated lawful Good characters don't have to follow an evil society's code.
Something tells me Harvey isn't LG.
By that logic a Paladin in an evil society will become chaotic if he breaks their laws.
It is not her code. It is the paladin code that she adheres to - something that is beyond her and above her.
If it was her code, it would be a code that she created. Instead it is a code that she finds pre-extant and that exists by and of others with or without her.
More than that, however, people are confusing something significant.
There is a difference between legal and Lawful (in the PF alignment sense), though they are slightly related.
Legal actions obey specific laws of specific lands - these things may shift from land to land, and do not necessarily match. This is not inherently Lawful in the alignment sense - countries can have legal codes that yield Chaotic (in this case individualistic instead of communal) preferences and tendencies.
In this case, Individualism and Communalism (this is not the same Communism) - treating an individual or "self" (either their self or another's self) as the highest, instead of the something above the self - differentiates them. Surrendering their right to make their own choice - their own code - makes them Lawful in the alignment sense, bringing honor to someone and something above them. It is not their own code - it is something above and beyond them.
That's where legality is parallel to (but not the same as) alignment Lawful. People who are Lawful have a tendency to obey the laws of the land (the legal codes) because they accept that an authority that has weight over the desires of the individual self, which is opposed to chaotic individuals who tend to reject such structures - but neither that acceptance, nor that rejection is absolute, as such is tempered by the other elements of the alignment and legalities and how those mesh with or clash with what the individual believes in or not. Hence you can have a Lawful-alignment person (such as a paladin) opposing a government, while you have a Chaotic-aligned person with a personal (self-created and maintained) code they adhere to.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've already posted this before, but I feel it still bares repeating.
Since I have my own ideas on alignment I'll use those as a launching point. Law and Chaos are collectivism versus individualism while Good and Evil are compassion versus brutality. Using only fictional examples these are who I'd tie the Evil alignments to.
Lawful Evil: Hydra and its membership, the League of Shadows and its membership (including Ra's al Ghul), Tywin Lannister, Roose Bolton, MCU Wilson Fisk and possibly MCU Loki.
Neutral Evil: Lex Luthor, Ramsay Snow/Bolton, Craster, Walder Frey, Thanos and the Four (Planetary).
Chaotic Evil: The Joker, the Purple Man, Eric Cartman, Nicodemus Archleone, Cersei Lannister, Joffrey, Petyr Baelish and V from V for Vendetta.
Lawful Evil, in my mind isn't "honorable", "cautious" or "logical" evil. It's ruthless and brutal authoritarianism or totalitarianism. Basically its civic/group minded evil. You don't commit atrocities for person gain, sating nihilistic urges, for the cause of freedom or anarchy or lust for power and the freedom to act without fear of any consequences. Instead you commit your atrocities on behalf of and for the sake of the group you serve and or lead. You aren't a greedy robber baron, a petty tyrant whose every stupid whim is law, a brutal warrior with a sense of honor and definitely not some bomb throwing anarchist. If you're a follower you're likely either a loyal Mafia foot soldier or a jack booted thug, often times fascist, thug.
Neutral Evil comes in two main flavors, opportunistic and nihilistic. The former type of Neutral Evil value both the group focus of Law and the individualism of Chaos, to some extant. Neutral Evils of this sort combine genuine service to the group with self indulgence/enrichment. Then you get flat out nihilists, who reject all other philosophies as false and without meaning, along with all existence itself. That's Thanos territory right there.
Chaotic Evil is the desire for freedom either unshackled by personal responsibility, or gained without regard to the methods used to obtain that freedom. Its basically "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" taken out of context and to the nth degree. Chaotic Evil covers abusively self indulgent and decadent nobles, power tripping bullies who think they can just do whatever they want, homicidal maniacs bent on discord who just want to watch the the world burn, Gordon Gekkoesque Objectivist dicks, scheming a&#$+&$s who spread chaos to increase their own power and would gladly watch the world burn if they get to rule the ashes and of course, bomb throwing anarchists. The Abyss is chock full of creeps like these. That and Lolth is just the elven pantheon's version of Cersei Lannister, just without the twin brother to screw on the side and a(n) (ex)husband who once cared for her.
@Agrippa01
Your definition is simple and elegant. It gets to the crux of the differences between alignments quite nicely.
By that logic a Paladin in an evil society will become chaotic if he breaks their laws.It's very specifically stated that following your own moral code doesn't make you Lawful if it's still against society as a whole. So, while the law of the coin may be Harvey Dent's code, he's still a force of Chaos.
it's stated lawful good individuals specifically do not have to follow the rules of a society they deem evil.
I've already posted this before, but I feel it still bares repeating.
Since I have my own ideas on alignment I'll use those as a launching point. Law and Chaos are collectivism versus individualism while Good and Evil are compassion versus brutality. Using only fictional examples these are who I'd tie the Evil alignments to.
Lawful Evil: Hydra and its membership, the League of Shadows and its membership (including Ra's al Ghul), Tywin Lannister, Roose Bolton, MCU Wilson Fisk and possibly MCU Loki.
Neutral Evil: Lex Luthor, Ramsay Snow/Bolton, Craster, Walder Frey, Thanos and the Four (Planetary).
Chaotic Evil: The Joker, the Purple Man, Eric Cartman, Nicodemus Archleone, Cersei Lannister, Joffrey, Petyr Baelish and V from V for Vendetta.Lawful Evil, in my mind isn't "honorable", "cautious" or "logical" evil. It's ruthless and brutal authoritarianism or totalitarianism. Basically its civic/group minded evil. You don't commit atrocities for person gain, sating nihilistic urges, for the cause of freedom or anarchy or lust for power and the freedom to act without fear of any consequences. Instead you commit your atrocities on behalf of and for the sake of the group you serve and or lead. You aren't a greedy robber baron, a petty tyrant whose every stupid whim is law, a brutal warrior with a sense of honor and definitely not some bomb throwing anarchist. If you're a follower you're likely either a loyal Mafia foot soldier or a jack booted thug, often times fascist, thug.
Neutral Evil comes in two main flavors, opportunistic and nihilistic. The former type of Neutral Evil value both the group focus of Law and the individualism of Chaos, to some extant. Neutral Evils of this sort combine genuine service to the group with self indulgence/enrichment. Then you get flat out nihilists, who reject all other philosophies as false and without meaning, along with all existence itself. That's Thanos...
finally someone else who doesn't inflate chaos with insanity.
here's another thing on top of this, I don't believe that lawful is simply collectivist and chaos simply individualist.
They both have different views on how their group and themselves should be or act. AKA they both have beliefs on how a lone agent should act and beliefs on how part of a group should act.
your assessment on lawful on society and chaos on the lone agent are correct so I'll leave those alone.
NOTE: there's are extremes, the 100% paragons of law and chaos in material form.
On lone agents. Lawful alignment believes they should follow their assigned caste goal. If you're a knight, it's your duty to uphold being a knight, if you are a craftsman you should uphold being a craftsman, and like wise, if you're a craftsman, you should NOT try to be a knight, even if trying to become a knight, would ultimately be beneficial to those around you and yourself, trying to move out of your caste level is simply a disruptive and selfish task.
On the group, Chaos believes in exceptional Egalitarianism. Titles mean nothing and everyone is simply what they physically happen to be. People are what they want to be, even names do not mean much and you might pick up a new one that you find more suiting. Property and location are flux, easily changing hands and moving on, etc. A person in a Chaotic society, should find what they're exceptional at, and prioritize improving that, so that society should benefit from many specialists.
As an example Today's society is VERY chaotic, with a myriad of personal choices people weren't able to make a few centuries ago. The simplest one to show, was the ability to buy a new house hundreds of miles away and move there, and for it to actually be your own property. Serfs were really pressured into not moving around, as most of a King, duke, etc standing, was usually more about how many serfs you had than about how much land you "owned".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^The idea that today's society is Chaotic doesn't fit very well with the fact of the rule of due process (rather than rule of whims of a ruler or feudal lord) having ascended relative to previous times (although this seems to have passed its zenith recently, and of course is subject to great regional variation).
^The idea that today's society is Chaotic doesn't fit very well with the fact of the rule of due process (rather than rule of whims of a ruler or feudal lord) having ascended relative to previous times (although this seems to have passed its zenith recently, and of course is subject to great regional variation).
due process assumes all are equal among the law, Caste and Society mean nothing to it, the system is extremely arbitrary when dealing with how important your are. or at least the system is set up to try to make it not care about your status, hence being able to move to other courts. Due process at it's core is extremely egalitarian, and only cares if you did it or not, nothing else matters. It's not 100% chaos, but it is much more on that side than neutral. Preisident is judged in the same way as a guy renting in a basement is. Due process destroys more law and order than it creates.
In fact to point this out, the judges in many cases are a jury of your peers, meaning literally the Law doesn't make the final judgement on guilt.
Not saying bribes and influence doesn't talk, but that isn't due process's fault.
finally, Chaos, does not want people to get away with crimes, they just believe that no one single person should choose another person's fate, and if a single person should do it, then they must do it as impartially as possible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^I wouldn't call due process Chaos. Chaos would be people taking matters into their own hands and taking care of problems without any intervention by any arbiter of due process (in a legal framework or otherwise). This most often makes the news when working as something at least close to Chaotic Evil or Neutral Evil, but non-Evil applications of this are at least theoretically possible.
^I wouldn't call due process Chaos. Chaos would be people taking matters into their own hands and taking care of problems without any intervention by any arbiter of due process (in a legal framework or otherwise).
ugh... no, that.. that'd be evil.
This most often makes the news when working as something at least close to Chaotic Evil or Neutral Evil, but non-Evil applications of this are at least theoretically possible
oh we're in agreement then.
Like serious, a neutral or good 100% chaotic person would seriously have qualms with themselves specifically making who ever wronged them "pay". To do that would 1. Assume he's more important than the other person, and anyone else that may be involved, and 2. remove anyone else's opinion on the matter mute. basically, removing anyone's subjective opinion or individual view point that could heavily weigh on if the person is "guilty".
Chaos exemplified the individual, but only chaotic evil, do it selfishly. the rest of chaos values EVERYONE'S individual self.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
^I wouldn't call due process Chaos. Chaos would be people taking matters into their own hands and taking care of problems without any intervention by any arbiter of due process (in a legal framework or otherwise).ugh... no, that.. that'd be evil.
...
Yeah, shame on all those resistance fighters who shot at Nazis. They were evil for not following the law.
Wait, what?
due process assumes all are equal among the law, Caste and Society mean nothing to it, the system is extremely arbitrary when dealing with how important your are. or at least the system is set up to try to make it not care about your status, hence being able to move to other courts.^The idea that today's society is Chaotic doesn't fit very well with the fact of the rule of due process (rather than rule of whims of a ruler or feudal lord) having ascended relative to previous times (although this seems to have passed its zenith recently, and of course is subject to great regional variation).
Yeah, not following an arbitrary system of "importance in the eyes of the law" is arbitrary and therefore more chaotic than following an arbitrary system of "importance in the eyes of the law".
Wait, what?
Due process at it's core is extremely egalitarian, and only cares if you did it or not, nothing else matters. It's not 100% chaos, but it is much more on that side than neutral. Preisident is judged in the same way as a guy renting in a basement is. Due process destroys more law and order than it creates.
Yeah, requiring that the rule of law be followed and obeyed regardless of one's personal position is much more chaotic than throwing the system to the wind whenever someone with any power feels like it.
Wait, what?
In fact to point this out, the judges in many cases are a jury of your peers, meaning literally the Law doesn't make the final judgement on guilt.
Yeah, it is far more lawful to follow the whims of one person who is probably personally invested in the case over the collective decision of a group of impartial observers whose only goal is to follow the rule of law.
Wait, what?
Not saying bribes and influence doesn't talk, but that isn't due process's fault.
Yeah, a system which is reasonably effective at enforcing the absolute rule of law is less lawful than one that allows anyone with a smidgeon of power to hijack the process for their own ends.
Wait, what?
finally, Chaos, does not want people to get away with crimes, they just believe that no one single person should choose another person's fate, and if a single person should do it, then they must do it as impartially as possible.
Yeah, all those vigilantes, resistance fighters, despotic dictators, serial killers and other people who prefer that their own desires or beliefs( for right or wrong) come before the collective interests of the system or the absolute rule of law...are inherently more lawful than those who impartially follow the rule of law.
Wait, what the everloving [expletive deleted]?
^I wouldn't call due process Chaos. Chaos would be people taking matters into their own hands and taking care of problems without any intervention by any arbiter of due process (in a legal framework or otherwise).ugh... no, that.. that'd be evil.
...
Yeah, shame on all those resistance fighters who shot at Nazis. They were evil for not following the law.
Fullstop
Lawful good already has rules in it that say that they don't have to follow a society's laws they find evil.
so why would any other non-lawful alignment have to either?
besides how is fighting nazi's equivalent for deciding who controls due process.
Rest in order:
Lawful alignment assumes a well ordered society, not due process of law, earlier it was mentioned people are confusing legality and lawfulness, and you are one of them.
there is not requirement, other than to maintain your alignment, you should value other people, and as mentioned earlier in my post, the main determiner for choosing whether to ignore your groups whims is more largly effected by how evil or good you are.
This one seems to not suggest any point, other than trying to maintain your theme.
As again, this is all basically not related to chaos to law at all. I merely pointed out a Strong Neutral Chaotic or Strong Chaotic good's outlook. to clarify, they don't do this for societies benefit, but the benefit of all other concerned parties or individuals, NOT to maintain order but to value people.
more confusion over legality and lawfulness. (a system better at policing it's own legality isn't inherently more lawful than any other system as capable of policing itself)
All of these, are generally Chaotic Evil, when taken as a stereotype. They favor violence over other methods to solve issues. Such as passive resistance(when everyone stops working, killing them and putting them in jail, doesn't solve the issue) as the case of say Gandhi, or a >Enlightened Despot<, who rules absolutely but heavily is influenced by the needs of his people and the advice of his Advisors.
Wait, what, this was actually all a caricature of an argument? Well [expletive deleted].
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You said that this...
...Chaos would be people taking matters into their own hands and taking care of problems without any intervention by any arbiter of due process (in a legal framework or otherwise).
...is evil...
ugh... no, that.. that'd be evil.
Going by your response, any act of taking matters into one's own hands above and beyond the law without intervention by an arbiter of due process is evil. I find it very difficult to believe that random Frenchmen kept an impartial judicial system in their pocket along with a pilfered Luger, so they are probably going to be evil, as a direct result of your stance.
Reductio ad absurdum is fun.