Confusing Description: Lawful Evil

"'''Lawful Evil comes in two flavors. They are villains who believe either in keeping order at all costs, or that it's much easier to become ruler of the world by exploiting the existing system than by tearing it down and starting anew. If the villain is supreme ruler of their realm, then they are probably either Lawful Evil or The Caligula. This is the canonical alignment of devils in Dungeons and Dragons. Lawful Evil can be the most dangerous alignment because it represents intentional, methodical and frequently successful evil.

The second type is a baddie with a code of honor that prevents them from doing truly heinous things. The second type tends to either perform a Heel Face Turn or suffer death by redemption. These tend to be reliable allies in an Enemy Mine situation where alignments would fizzle out. The alternative is that they ultimately choose evil over this and cross the Moral Event Horizon.'''" - Lawful Evil

... second type? What do they mean?

I think the second type is somebody confusing Lawful Evil with Noble Demon.

The very first sentence: "Lawful Evil comes in two flavors..." One type is Evil but abides by, and uses, civic law, and the other operates within the confines of a personal law.

Edited the first two paragraphs slightly to reflect the above poster's insights. Does it seem better? (reprinted below for convenience)

Lawful Evil comes in two flavors: The first are those who believe in civic order, and are the villains who believe either in keeping order at all costs, or that it's much easier to become ruler of the world by exploiting the existing system than by tearing it down and starting anew. If the villain is supreme ruler of their realm, then they are probably either Lawful Evil or The Caligula. This is the canonical alignment of devils in Dungeons and Dragons. Lawful Evil can be the most dangerous alignment because it represents intentional, methodical and frequently successful evil.

The second type is a baddie with a code of honor (personal order) that prevents them from doing truly heinous things. The second type tends to either perform a Heel–Face Turn or suffer death by redemption. These tend to be reliable allies in an Enemy Mine situation where alignments would fizzle out. The alternative is that they ultimately choose evil over this and cross the Moral Event Horizon.

Actually, someone can argue that the second type is one villain with one code of honor and nothing more-the part starting with "A variety" hints this, at least.

edited 23rd Oct '10 1:19:59 PM by MagBas

I need the whole "Evil Overlord = Lawful Evil" thing explained. Since the Evil Overlord MAKES the rules to his benefit (unless they are also from his own moral code that he does not cross), he would be Neutral Evil. Another way to say is is that Neutral Evil characters obey the law when it suits them and break it when it doesn't; even if you use the law like an Evil Overlord, since the Overlord is above the law, he's not Lawful aligned, but Neutral.

Evil Overlords can be of any alignment. A Lawful Evil overlord will generally come up with and enforce a regimented system of rules designed not only to enforce his own power but to create a stable empire- at the cost of the free will and happiness of his subjects, of course. A Neutral Evil overlord is just in it for the power and benefits, and will enforce the law or not as it benefits him. A Chaotic Evil overlord is basically The Caligula- whatever his immediate whims are is the law, and if you don't say "how high?" when he says "jump", you'll probably get your head blown off. However, the most successful evil overlords are probably going to be Lawful Evil (or Neutral Evil leaning lawful, like Emperor Palpatine), since they'll be the best suited by temperament at actually running things in a productive and efficient manner.

edited 5th Dec '10 4:18:38 PM by MasterGhandalf

I pretty much forgot about this thread until now, but there's one thing I'd really like to comment on...

"One type is Evil but abides by, and uses, civic law, and the other operates within the confines of a personal law." - Madrugada

... "personal" law? What kind of reasoning is that? If it's a moral code contrary to society's laws, then it's Chaotic Good. (Or maybe Chaotic Evil, if you're referring to a Well-Intentioned Extremist and see evil as their moral alignment.)

At the very least, "lawful" should imply that one is obeying some EXTERNAL law... the idea of someone being "lawful" with respect to "personal laws" strikes me as an inherent paradox.

No, "Chaotic" means that the character is contrary to any form of authority, or at least, to the current form of authority. Having ones own personal code doesn't make you Chaotic anything, at least insofar as Character Alignment tropes can be interpreted. (They're not perfect.)

A Lawful character usually has their own personal code atop the civil one. For example, Captain America usually operates within the law and public trust, but when the Super Registration Act dropped, he joined La Résistance to combat it. He wasn't against authority in general, or even the entire authority—he was against one law that his personal standards disagreed with. And as soon as that law was repealed, he was back on the side of law and order.

Lawful doesn't imply external law. Lex Luthor is lawful evil. Darth Vader is lawful evil. Etc.

Chaotic evil wants to destroy the world, lawful evil wants to rule the world. It is very rare for an evil character to follow civic laws, usually it is their personal order (versus chaos).

edited 27th Dec '10 1:58:40 PM by rodneyAnonymous

Unless my memory is fuzzy, that's not true at all. Goal doesn't mean much to the alignment, more about methodology.

I believe that there are lawful/chaotic goals and also lawful/chaotic methods... but that isn't what I meant exactly: just that "lawful" does not mean "follows external laws" and that imposing your own order is not a paradoxical example of being lawful.

Well, it's possible for both a Chaotic Evil and a Lawful Evil character to want world domination. The pursuit is how it differs, Lawful Evil is more likely to form The Empire and go on a conquering spree. Chaotic Evil is more likely try crashing civilization and then saying they won anyway.

"I believe that there are lawful/chaotic goals and also lawful/chaotic methods... but that isn't what I meant exactly: just that "lawful" does not mean "follows external laws" and that imposing your own order is not a paradoxical example of being lawful." - rodney

Except that you'd be rebelling against the established order by doing so, which is at least somewhat chaotic on its own merits.

Also, "imposing your own order?" Isn't that what power-hungry Neutral Evil characters want to do?

Neutral Evil characters do whatever works. If it means borrowing someone else's order, fine. If it means using their own, sure. If it means allowing a little bit of chaos, alrighty.

Also, chaotic types don't impose their own order, they just destroy the old order. An example would be Cody from Street Fighter: Cody fights, whether the law wants him to or not. He just so happens to pick criminals, whether consciously or subconsciously.

Basically, it's like this: Chaotic characters mostly seek to destroy what exists now. What comes after doesn't matter as much.

This thread expired after 60 days of inactivity.