| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There have been coherent philosophies in the real world that sound kind-of evil in D&D alignment terms.
Hobbes' Leviathan argued that people were basically awful and would, given the chance, revert to a state of nature: the "war of all against all". The only way to protect them from themselves was to take away their freedom and have an absolute ruler controlling their lives through fear.
The Sith Lords in Knights of the Old Republic games tended to justify themselves through something reminiscent of Ayn Rand's Objectivism. If you go around helping people like the so-called good guys do, you make them weak and dependent. By leaving people to struggle, they will become strong. (Or they'll die, but that's evolution for you.) Those adventurers who go around defeating the monsters threatening the villagers and ask for no reward in return? They're the real villains.
I find it more plausible if people with ideas like this don't call themselves evil. Just as a neutral good person thinks the law/chaos axis isn't really important, as long as you're good, evil people will largely ignore the whole good/evil axis.
A lawful evil tyrant will talk about order and necessity, not evil. A chaotic evil demon worshipper ("Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law") would just say they believe in freedom. A neutral evil necromancer trying to exterminate an entire kingdom will just say that life is suffering and he's doing them all a favor.
"I'm Lawful Objectivist. Says so on my character sheet."
I'd like to recommend the Easydamus "real alignment" page, easily googled, for a comprehensive take on what Matthew Downie is talking about.
It recently came up at my table. I wound up saying that people tend to regard it like we look at getting a Tarot reading at the ren faire. Some people (paladins) take it very serially. Others dismiss it. The difference is that the paladins of Golarion happen to be right.
My two cents anyway.