I like to think of movie or book characters when I roleplay sometimes to help me base a character motive or goal upon and alignment usually will steer me in my choice.
Lawful/Evil in 1E has been hard to put a character to so far.
Any ideas?
Gul Dukat in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.
Well, actually, almost any Cardassian. :D
JG
A lawful evil character uses order and laws to further his or her own ends. It's the archetypal tyrant, seeing no value in individual freedom or choice, believing that s/he knows best, and that the system only exists to make his or her own wishes come true. Individual freedom, empathy, "goodness", all these things are for the naive and the imbecile. The only true value in this world is the value of law and order, and that's where the buck of civilization stops. Chaos is bad, because it represents anarchy, a lack of obedience to the character's own aims and edicts. Everything has to fit into the Order imposed by the Lawful Evil character. If you are not a submissive friend, you are an enemy. Choose your side carefully.
Stannis Baratheon?
RPGPundit
Quote from: Benoist;620060A lawful evil character uses order and laws to further his or her own ends. It's the archetypal tyrant, seeing no value in individual freedom or choice, believing that s/he knows best, and that the system only exists to make his or her own wishes come true. Individual freedom, empathy, "goodness", all these things are for the naive and the imbecile. The only true value in this world is the value of law and order, and that's where the buck of civilization stops. Chaos is bad, because it represents anarchy, a lack of obedience to the character's own aims and edicts. Everything has to fit into the Order imposed by the Lawful Evil character. If you are not a submissive friend, you are an enemy. Choose your side carefully.
Darth Vader.
Uh, most politicians and tyrants.
Here's a mere sprinkling of some well-known historical examples:
Qin Shi Huangdi, 1st emperor of China (of where we get the name "China")
Stalin of USSR
Saddam Hussein of Iraq
But just about any selfish politico using the crushing power of institutionalized law and bureaucracy to further their own ends would qualify. In many ways it's the most historically prevalent (and for me) easiest to image form of evil.
In fiction? Scrooge. Just about all the barristers in Bleak House. etc. It's a very prevalent alignment archetype.
Any of the mafiosi aligned against Don Vito Corleone in The Godfather.
Quote from: RPGPundit;620066Stannis Baratheon?
RPGPundit
Isn't he more LN?
I always go Hitler for LE or Torquemada
Interestingly you might cast some fictional serial killers in the LE mode as well. The ones that have really set patterns and codes Dexter springs to mind as a left field choice but a lot of the bad guys that always get caught due to repetition of choice of victim or MO, so the tooth fairy in Red Dragon, Jigsaw etc etc
Quote from: jibbajibba;620284I always go Hitler for LE
Nah, that dude screams chaotic evil.
Nobody thought of saying Lucifer as an example of Lawful Evil?
Quote from: Benoist;620068Darth Vader.
"I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it further."
Tarkin from the first movie is a far better example.
Quote from: Dan Vincze;620296"I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it further."
Tarkin from the first movie is a far better example.
He's got the authority of the Empire to do this, because in his mind there is no area or planet that should escape the Empire's authority, and he is the special envoy of the Emperor himself in the matter. And his idea from the start is to work with the system to shape it in a way that, in his twisted mind, makes for a better galaxy, cf. talks with Padme about tyranny and "well someone should MAKE THEM agree" in Episode II, the offer to Luke in Empire Strikes Back "Join me, and together we will rule the Galaxy...", how he wants to bring "peace to the Galaxy" in his last exchange with Padme in Episode III, etc.
In the end, it all stems from a selfish need to rule to get what he wants however he wants it. It's Lawful Evil.
I would think lucifer would kind of be cheating.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Old One Eye;620290Nah, that dude screams chaotic evil.
Well.... he gets to power through the system albeit with some pressure but he doesn't mount a bloody copu d'etat. He removed disidents once he is in power but he defines them legally as disidents first.
So he don'e just shoot all the jews and gypsies he defines them as jews and gypsies then he makes it illegal for them to own property etc etc ...until they have no real value then he sends them to the concentration camps and gas chambers where even the genocide is well organised and efficient - lawful evil to me.
(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t116/Ric_Adbur/Character%20Alignments/LawfulEvil.jpg)
(http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k173/PhilotomyJurament/lawful-evil-nazi-alignment-basterds-inglourious-evil-demotivational-poster-1289872671.jpg)
(http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k173/PhilotomyJurament/Demotivation___Lawful_Evil_by_quicksilver22.jpg)
Quote from: RPGPundit;620066Stannis Baratheon?
RPGPundit
Stannis is the epitome of Lawful Neutral (although being corrupted into Evil).
Tywin is Lawful Evil.
JG
Quote from: Benoist;620298He's got the authority of the Empire to do this, because in his mind there is no area or planet that should escape the Empire's authority, and he is the special envoy of the Emperor himself in the matter. And his idea from the start is to work with the system to shape it in a way that, in his twisted mind, makes for a better galaxy, cf. talks with Padme about tyranny and "well someone should MAKE THEM agree" in Episode II, the offer to Luke in Empire Strikes Back "Join me, and together we will rule the Galaxy...", how he wants to bring "peace to the Galaxy" in his last exchange with Padme in Episode III, etc.
In the end, it all stems from a selfish need to rule to get what he wants however he wants it. It's Lawful Evil.
Well, "ends justify the means" is Evil generally. But that could apply to Chaotic or Neutral Evil.
To me, the "Lawful" part implies a sense of discipline which by definition usually comes from an external source, although as with Dexter Morgan, it might be internalized. But most "lawful evil" people in history see themselves as acting in the service of something greater than themselves, like a nation or a religion (however hypocritically practiced).
Put another way, if we were doing one of those D&D "Politics of Hell" scenarios describing how the Devils of Hell actually operated, a Lawful Evil chain of command system obviously benefits those on top, but it also provides a rationalization for the bottom ranks and "middle management." Those folks are convinced that the way Hell works IS the proper and natural order of things, and it only causes problems when you do things otherwise. A Lawful Evil character will certainly backstab to get ahead, but he will still try to work within the system to justify his gains. Starting a simple
coup d'etat (like a Chaotic Evil character) might work, but it would undermine the chain of command, the benefits of which he is seeking to enjoy. If it becomes too obvious that power is only a matter of force, then both his original position and his goal of power are made insecure, since someone bigger and stronger can come along and knock him off in turn.
Just My Opinion.
JG
Quote from: Old One Eye;620290Nah, that dude screams chaotic evil.
Or at most Neutral Evil. The thing about the Nazis was that they had more or less nothing but contempt for institutionalised law - you can tell this from the shenanigans they played with the political process once they got their foot in the door - and they were only too happy to get their way through the threat (or actual unleashing) of mob violence and straight-up murdering people on an ad hoc basis. The Night of the Long Knives was an excellent example of this - Hitler, Himmler and pals didn't wait to get a death warrant on the SA and their other targets, they just killed everyone in a position to challenge their power and then rattled off legal-sounding excuses afterwards. And of course once the Holocaust got underway there was little if any pretence of due process.
The reason Hindenberg and the rest of the Weimar establishment allowed Hitler to get his foot in the door in the first place is that they thought they could use the legal checks and balances to keep him in his place. What they didn't realise was that they were dealing with a crazed wolverine with no compunctions about breaking the law and then rewriting it afterwards to get out of trouble. That's not the behaviour of a character who really believes in Law as a fundamental principle.
EDIT: Oh, another good example I just thought of: Hitler famously encouraged in-fighting amongst his underlings to make sure they were always too busy fighting each other to challenge him, and when a lower-ranking Nazi wrote to him complaining that the guy in charge of one of the local parties was a complete waste of space Hitler didn't move to impose change from the top - he told the guy who wrote him the letter to either arrange an internal coup of the local party himself or quit bothering him about it. The Nazis were quite good at giving the
appearance of having rigid internal discipline and loyalty to Hitler and their ideals (in fact, that's what a lot of their propaganda wants to make you believe - which is precisely why you should question the idea), but when you look inside it's clear they were run on a psychotic might-makes-right basis, which speaks more of Chaos than Law to me.
Quote from: James Gillen;620342Just My Opinion.
JG
And it's totally cool with me. I think one of the problems surrounding discussions about alignment like this is that people get mired in fictional examples and with the erroneous belief that alignments are meant to be these super-rigid concepts one can only interpret in one particular way (it's a bit like debates about what level Gandalf or Aragorn should be in the AD&D game system, in that sense). That's how you get all these debates that actually do not reflect what happens at game tables, in my experience (at least the tables I've played with).
Alignment is supposed to be a support for role playing, and a way to organize the campaign milieu and its inhabitants. Unless you are playing a character with a rigid code of honor, like a Paladin, there's no point in trying to determine what the "correct" alignment of this or that person should really be "officially" - it's a matter of personal interpretation. What matters is that the participants at the table all work with the same line of reference. Even in the case of the Paladin, what actually matters is for the player to understand his code of honor, and how the DM would interpret it in various situations. The key is communication, or "playing the same game," in other words.
To me, Darth Vader is an examplar of the Lawful Evil alignment. It doesn't have to be the case for every AD&Der out there. :)
Quote from: Benoist;620298He's got the authority of the Empire to do this, because in his mind there is no area or planet that should escape the Empire's authority, and he is the special envoy of the Emperor himself in the matter. And his idea from the start is to work with the system to shape it in a way that, in his twisted mind, makes for a better galaxy, cf. talks with Padme about tyranny and "well someone should MAKE THEM agree" in Episode II, the offer to Luke in Empire Strikes Back "Join me, and together we will rule the Galaxy...", how he wants to bring "peace to the Galaxy" in his last exchange with Padme in Episode III, etc.
In the end, it all stems from a selfish need to rule to get what he wants however he wants it. It's Lawful Evil.
No, Vader isn't Lawful Evil. He's Neutral Evil. He takes the Imperial Fleet into an Asteroid field to hunt for the Millenium Falcon, despite heavy losses. He executes Imperial Officers at a whim. He uses the resources at his disposal to further his own interests without concern of how they benefit or don't benefit the Empire. He's largely willing to throw lives, ships, and resources away no matter the cost so he can find his son. He gives his word and breaks it casually.
He may have the power of the Empire at his fingertips, but
at least by Empire Strikes Back the good of the Empire isn't really a concern of his. His own family drama takes precedence and he's willing to do whatever it takes to further his own ends, even if it means throwing star destroyers away hunting one small ship in an Asteroid Field.
Anakin Skywalker may have been Lawful Evil (arguably... he still turns to the Dark Side for personal reasons around his own relationships, not for a vision of a grand Empire), but by the time of the Original Trilogy at the very least, Vader's become Neutral Evil.
Quote from: Benoist;620468Alignment is supposed to be a support for role playing
That's how Alignment works best, but it's pretty clear in that Alignment is, or was, in fact,
supposed to be fairly rigid, hence the Alignment Languages, the ability for only certain alignments to use certain magic items, detect alignment spells, protection from alignment spells, etc. They're objective and real cosmic forces one is Aligned to, and being objective they need to be distinct and well defined, i.e. rigid.
Of course the Alignment system as presented fails to achieve this because there's alot of grey area, which is where the disagreements come from. As a result, it's
best to use them as guidelines rather than as rigid codes of conduct, but that's not how they were
meant to be used.
Vader's a tough one to figure out. It's always hard to quantify Law when you are so high in position that for you there is no Law. Vader's only law really is the will of the emperor. It's pretty clear he demands absolute order from those below him though, even unto their deaths.
He's also hard to pin down because as the movies(4-6) progress he becomes more and more conflicted.
As I pointed out, I think it would be completely pointless to argue about alignment applied on other fictional sources and its application at this or that game table. I'm fine with my interpretations, they are my own, and I've never had issues of alignments ever playing the game. That's where the buck stops with me.
Quote from: Warthur;620361EDIT: Oh, another good example I just thought of: Hitler famously encouraged in-fighting amongst his underlings to make sure they were always too busy fighting each other to challenge him, and when a lower-ranking Nazi wrote to him complaining that the guy in charge of one of the local parties was a complete waste of space Hitler didn't move to impose change from the top - he told the guy who wrote him the letter to either arrange an internal coup of the local party himself or quit bothering him about it. The Nazis were quite good at giving the appearance of having rigid internal discipline and loyalty to Hitler and their ideals (in fact, that's what a lot of their propaganda wants to make you believe - which is precisely why you should question the idea), but when you look inside it's clear they were run on a psychotic might-makes-right basis, which speaks more of Chaos than Law to me.
Again, that sounds VERY much like the way AD&D interpreted the politics of the Archdevils under Asmodeus. Whereas the various demon lords of the Abyss are like rival crime bosses trying to bump each other off in the streets.
JG
Quote from: Benoist;620298He's got the authority of the Empire to do this, because in his mind there is no area or planet that should escape the Empire's authority, and he is the special envoy of the Emperor himself in the matter. And his idea from the start is to work with the system to shape it in a way that, in his twisted mind, makes for a better galaxy, cf. talks with Padme about tyranny and "well someone should MAKE THEM agree" in Episode II, the offer to Luke in Empire Strikes Back "Join me, and together we will rule the Galaxy...", how he wants to bring "peace to the Galaxy" in his last exchange with Padme in Episode III, etc.
In the end, it all stems from a selfish need to rule to get what he wants however he wants it. It's Lawful Evil.
From where I sit, this is indistinguishable from a Chaotic Evil who happens to be in charge. Here Vader purports to "bring order to the galaxy" but it is clear he defines "order" as "what I say goes," the very essence of chaotic leadership.
Of course, I've never much cared for the D&D alignment system, so take anything I say with a grain of salt.
Quote from: Dan Vincze;620638From where I sit, this is indistinguishable from a Chaotic Evil who happens to be in charge. Here Vader purports to "bring order to the galaxy" but it is clear he defines "order" as "what I say goes," the very essence of chaotic leadership.
Of course, I've never much cared for the D&D alignment system, so take anything I say with a grain of salt.
Nah I agree with Ben. Vader uses and manipulates the forces of order to further his own ends. LE
Compare to the Joker (not the Ceasar Romero Joker obviously) who creates chaos and does evil shit because he can and he wants to. He doesn't want to be in charge because he doesn't want there to be an organisation to be in charge of. Remember when he gave Sarine filled ballons to little kids because well because he could.
But the really weirs thing is I find myself posting comments about the alignment of Darth Vader on the internet.... how sad had my life become. can I sink any lower ?
Alignment as personality is annoying since it's so hard to pin down just about anything.
I prefer it as civilization (law) vs. the wild (chaotic) which is pretty clear cut, just go with Call of the Wild and add magic or alignment as what supernatural team you've signed up with, which might not indicate much about your own personality. For example Elric is pretty much the same guy before and after he officially pledges himself to team Chaos by signing up with Arioch.
Vader was Neutral Evil.
His alignment shifted at the end of Jedi, and he was then True Neutral.
Because you can only switch 1 alignment 1 space at a time. :nono:
Ok, I'm convinced: Tywin is certainly a better example of Lawful Evil from game of thrones.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Doctor Jest;620482No, Vader isn't Lawful Evil. He's Neutral Evil. He takes the Imperial Fleet into an Asteroid field to hunt for the Millenium Falcon, despite heavy losses. He executes Imperial Officers at a whim. He uses the resources at his disposal to further his own interests without concern of how they benefit or don't benefit the Empire. He's largely willing to throw lives, ships, and resources away no matter the cost so he can find his son. He gives his word and breaks it casually.
He may have the power of the Empire at his fingertips, but at least by Empire Strikes Back the good of the Empire isn't really a concern of his. His own family drama takes precedence and he's willing to do whatever it takes to further his own ends, even if it means throwing star destroyers away hunting one small ship in an Asteroid Field.
Anakin Skywalker may have been Lawful Evil (arguably... he still turns to the Dark Side for personal reasons around his own relationships, not for a vision of a grand Empire), but by the time of the Original Trilogy at the very least, Vader's become Neutral Evil.
I tend to agree. From childhood through adolescence to adulthood, Anakin/Vader's attitude when it comes to law and chaos is pretty consistent: He obeys or breaks laws/rules/customs when it's convenient for him. When he does obey orders or rules that he doesn't like, he twists them. On top of that, within at most a few hours after he pledges his loyalty to Palpatine he announces to Padme that he wants to overthrow the new emperor.
A better example of Lawful Evil would be all those Imperial officers and soldiers who obey (and expect to be obeyed), and follow the rules -putting the Empire before their own personal gain.
It really boils down to how much disobedience, conniving and backstabbing you think it takes for someone to be non-lawful.
Yeah, I'd agree that Tarkin is probably a better example of Lawful Evil.
RPGPundit
Most samurai (well, most nobles anyway) I would consider lawful evil, as they are willing to put up with a lot of cruelty and inflict serious hardship on those of lower classes in the name of tradition and proper order.