I would think the classic example of lawful evil is your typical Vizier: out to take the throne for himself. Attempting to overthrow the ruler is not only allowed by lawful evil, it's practically required. It's the difference between lawful evil and lawful neutral.
A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.
This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.
A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.
Vader was NE.
One of the laws of the Sith is that you try to kill your master.
i have found the problem with most alignment debates centers around the perceived disparity between "authority" and "law"
which is why i'm glad they're gone now
Yeah. Good, Neutral, Evil is really all you need to know, when it comes right down to it.
If you want more detail on someone, just observe their behavior.
Inquisitor on
0
Options
PiptheFairFrequently not in boats.Registered Userregular
edited December 2007
Thanatos, that's not actually a "law." It's more along the lines of one of those things that tends to happen when you deal with extremely powerful evil dudes who want more power.
Thanatos, that's not actually a "law." It's more along the lines of one of those things that tends to happen when you deal with extremely powerful evil dudes who want more power.
I don't know enough about star wars to say this definitely or not, but, hypothetically in the sith code it could basically say "If you feel you are strong enough to replace your master, do so"
Pony: I'll take your word for it. Never read fantastic 4, nor seen the movies.
A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with.
No, Vader always looked to someone else for guidance, be that Obi-Wan, Qui-Gonn, or Palpatine, and he never acted against the orders of those he placed above him, though he may have whined about those orders until he was blue in the face.
She is out for herself, pure and simple.
No, Vader wanted to bring order to the galaxy.
She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience.
Vader felt bad about Dooku and even the Sandpeople, and need I remind you:
vader even took tarkin's bullshit, even when he could probably get away with killing the fucker, because it would go against the chain of command and would look badly
he could get away with it, but he didn't do it because he was concerned about the rules as they are
i dunno what you think but i know what i think about that
Man, you keep listing things I haven't watched Pony.
what the hell dude
do you only watch shit with big eyes in it fuck
okay here let's go
bunch more, with what they are from in parenthesis:
Saruman (Lord of the Rings)
Lord Voldemort (Harry Potter)
The Founders of the Dominion (Star Trek: DS9)
Khan Noonien Singh (Star Trek)
Deathstroke (Teen Titans/Nightwing)
Gul Dukat (Star Trek: DS9)
Superman (Red Son)
The Master (Doctor Who)
Chancellor Sutler (V for Vendetta)
Scar (The Lion King)
The Witch (Chronicles of Narnia)
General Zod (Superman)
Thanatos, that's not actually a "law." It's more along the lines of one of those things that tends to happen when you deal with extremely powerful evil dudes who want more power.
I don't know enough about star wars to say this definitely or not, but, hypothetically in the sith code it could basically say "If you feel you are strong enough to replace your master, do so"
This is absolutely what they said throughout the entirety of the Knights of the Old Republic game. It was made eminently clear that you were expected to attempt to kill/replace your master if you are a Sith.
neutral or evil is a matter of perspective i suppose. i lean towards evil
he is meticulous, order-oriented, has a very strict code he follows, adheres to codified social mores and laws even if he doesn't understand them (with the notable exception of his murdering)
he grows as a character, though. starts to empathize with people more and actually care about others and whatnot
so he'd probably shift
which also points out the problem inherent in the alignment system of D&D
neutral or evil is a matter of perspective i suppose. i lean towards evil
he is meticulous, order-oriented, has a very strict code he follows, adheres to codified social mores and laws even if he doesn't understand them (with the notable exception of his murdering)
he grows as a character, though. starts to empathize with people more and actually care about others and whatnot
so he'd probably shift
which also points out the problem inherent in the alignment system of D&D
people change
grow
their life alters them
I think the argument for "evil" in his case is the weakest. D&D establishes that killing people, in and of itself, is not evil. He kills people who have done horrible, terrible things. He unselfishly advances the cause of good. I think you can make a better argument for lawful good than lawful evil.
Thanatos, that's not actually a "law." It's more along the lines of one of those things that tends to happen when you deal with extremely powerful evil dudes who want more power.
I don't know enough about star wars to say this definitely or not, but, hypothetically in the sith code it could basically say "If you feel you are strong enough to replace your master, do so"
This is absolutely what they said throughout the entirety of the Knights of the Old Republic game. It was made eminently clear that you were expected to attempt to kill/replace your master if you are a Sith.
Is this shown anywhere else in Star Wars canon? I haven't played KOTOR.
Thanatos, that's not actually a "law." It's more along the lines of one of those things that tends to happen when you deal with extremely powerful evil dudes who want more power.
I don't know enough about star wars to say this definitely or not, but, hypothetically in the sith code it could basically say "If you feel you are strong enough to replace your master, do so"
This is absolutely what they said throughout the entirety of the Knights of the Old Republic game. It was made eminently clear that you were expected to attempt to kill/replace your master if you are a Sith.
Is this shown anywhere else in Star Wars canon? I haven't played KOTOR.
Aside from the movies, KotOR I & II, and the Zahn novels, I'm really not familiar with the canon, and the movies and Zahn novels aren't too detailed about Sith philosophy.
neutral or evil is a matter of perspective i suppose. i lean towards evil
he is meticulous, order-oriented, has a very strict code he follows, adheres to codified social mores and laws even if he doesn't understand them (with the notable exception of his murdering)
he grows as a character, though. starts to empathize with people more and actually care about others and whatnot
so he'd probably shift
which also points out the problem inherent in the alignment system of D&D
people change
grow
their life alters them
I think the argument for "evil" in his case is the weakest. D&D establishes that killing people, in and of itself, is not evil. He kills people who have done horrible, terrible things. He unselfishly advances the cause of good. I think you can make a better argument for lawful good than lawful evil.
this is true
if we go by the D&D standard, Dexter's really not evil at all, since he's killing evil people. In fact, since he goes out of his way to target evil people exclusively, it's even arguable he's good
he's not doing it selflessly, though. Dexter wants to kill. He has an urge to murder that is extremely powerful. He's good at keeping it restrained, and he channels it only towards bad people, but the main reason he's doing it is to slake his own thirst for killing.
that's not really "good", but I suppose that's arguable.
Ultimately, my metric for alignments of fictional characters is this: If a player came to me with a character with an outlook and personality like that character, what would I say their alignment is?
For Dexter, I'd go with Lawful Neutral, walking the very fine line there.
Thanatos, that's not actually a "law." It's more along the lines of one of those things that tends to happen when you deal with extremely powerful evil dudes who want more power.
I don't know enough about star wars to say this definitely or not, but, hypothetically in the sith code it could basically say "If you feel you are strong enough to replace your master, do so"
This is absolutely what they said throughout the entirety of the Knights of the Old Republic game. It was made eminently clear that you were expected to attempt to kill/replace your master if you are a Sith.
Is this shown anywhere else in Star Wars canon? I haven't played KOTOR.
yes
prior to darth bane's rule of two, it was the unwritten (but heavily practiced) aspect of the Sith code. it was part of the Sith code that the weak were to be used or destroyed by the strong, and if your master was weaker than you, well... the reprecussions are implicit.
once the rule of two is established it is in fact a real component of sith law.
darth sidious killed his master, darth plagueis, for this reason.
neutral or evil is a matter of perspective i suppose. i lean towards evil
he is meticulous, order-oriented, has a very strict code he follows, adheres to codified social mores and laws even if he doesn't understand them (with the notable exception of his murdering)
he grows as a character, though. starts to empathize with people more and actually care about others and whatnot
so he'd probably shift
which also points out the problem inherent in the alignment system of D&D
people change
grow
their life alters them
I think the argument for "evil" in his case is the weakest. D&D establishes that killing people, in and of itself, is not evil. He kills people who have done horrible, terrible things. He unselfishly advances the cause of good. I think you can make a better argument for lawful good than lawful evil.
this is true
if we go by the D&D standard, Dexter's really not evil at all, since he's killing evil people. In fact, since he goes out of his way to target evil people exclusively, it's even arguable he's good
he's not doing it selflessly, though. Dexter wants to kill. He has an urge to murder that is extremely powerful. He's good at keeping it restrained, and he channels it only towards bad people, but the main reason he's doing it is to slake his own thirst for killing.
that's not really "good", but I suppose that's arguable.
Ultimately, my metric for alignments of fictional characters is this: If a player came to me with a character with an outlook and personality like that character, what would I say their alignment is?
For Dexter, I'd go with Lawful Neutral, walking the very fine line there.
Gee, imagine, we're having trouble quantifying a complex character concept within the very narrow spectra the D&D alignment system gives us.
Thanatos, that's not actually a "law." It's more along the lines of one of those things that tends to happen when you deal with extremely powerful evil dudes who want more power.
I don't know enough about star wars to say this definitely or not, but, hypothetically in the sith code it could basically say "If you feel you are strong enough to replace your master, do so"
This is absolutely what they said throughout the entirety of the Knights of the Old Republic game. It was made eminently clear that you were expected to attempt to kill/replace your master if you are a Sith.
Where that is true in the days of the KOTORs, by the time of the galactic civil war a sith code was in place stating that there could only be one sith master and one sith apprentice. Palpatine already had an apprentice when he took annakin under his wing.
That being said "Darth" Vader was never in fact a sith and not subject to the sith code -and then the big however- Vader could most aptly be described as LE throughout episodes III and IV. However, Vader's betrayal of Palpatine was an act of redemption, so to change his alignment to chaotic, he would also change to good or at least neutral.
it was basically laid down by Darth Bane that there would be a master and an apprentice; one to embody power, and one to crave it. And when the apprentice was strong enough, he would seize power and kill his master, and take on an apprentice of his own. Thus there would always be two, and through constant acquiring of power by the master and the apprentice seizing it, the Sith order could operate in secrecy and hone their skills until they eventually destroyed the Jedi
The struggle against and mastery of inner demons however is something that is generally considered to be "good". I agree though, he seems lawful neutral to me.
Another thing I would like to bring up: the issue of a personal code of honor. A lot of people would automatically say this makes a character lawful, something with which I disagree, at least partially.
A wandering samurai duelist who fights his opponents according to the rules of dueling in a quest for personal glory is, in my eyes, chaotic. His actions do not serve society or promote working together with others, and he is a lone wolf, relying on no one else and rendering aid to no one. In fact, the only time he treats someone with respect and fairness is when locked in a battle to the death with them. This pursuit of personal greatness with no reliance on society (in fact, with a back turned to society), even though it incorporates a rigid set of rules by which he fights, is chaotic neutral (not evil, because he does not fight for personal gain, but instead for personal glory, and he would accept defeat as much as victory).
delroland on
EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
I fullheartedly agree and would also like to add that chaos and order are objective. IIts true that that samurai does sound chaotic to me, but I am not part of the wandering-duelist society, in which, he would be considered lawful. A refference to real life is that many of the things we do on a daily basis would not be considered lawful behaviour in say, Iran.
the D&D alignment system is a handy guideline for fictional characters created for D&D
applied to fictional characters outside of D&D, or especially real people, it breaks down swiftly
when it used as part of game mechanics as it was very heavily in 3rd and 3.5 D&D, it gets downright stupid.
Lawful water, people
You can't just say "lawful water" without context, dude. What if we're talking about Planescape? Then such a thing is not only possible, it's downright expected. The entire point of Planescape is that morality, idealogy, and intent all have measurable effects on matter and the planes. But then, Planescape isn't officially a D&D setting anymore so maybe I'm just splitting hairs.
If I didn't like planescape.. does that.... does that make me weird..?
No. You need to be introduced to it in the proper manner. Simply playing through Planescape: Torment won't do it - that's how I learned what's up with it and it just looked like Rifts without cybertech to me. (And I know that's not what it actually is, but still)
Planescape always struck me wrong. It doesn't seem like there should be a "planescape setting" so much as that it should be the "metagame" connection between other settings. But that's just because it seems redundant to have a setting called Planescape and then have other settings such as Forgotten Realms and then say "Oh yeah, technically, FR is a part of Planescape. So is everything else."
Posts
which is why i'm glad they're gone now
Yeah. Good, Neutral, Evil is really all you need to know, when it comes right down to it.
If you want more detail on someone, just observe their behavior.
I don't know enough about star wars to say this definitely or not, but, hypothetically in the sith code it could basically say "If you feel you are strong enough to replace your master, do so"
Pony: I'll take your word for it. Never read fantastic 4, nor seen the movies.
mayor wilkins from buffy the vampire slayer
pretty good example of lawful evil
or lilah morgan from angel
i mean she was a lawyer for christ's sake
No, Vader always looked to someone else for guidance, be that Obi-Wan, Qui-Gonn, or Palpatine, and he never acted against the orders of those he placed above him, though he may have whined about those orders until he was blue in the face.
No, Vader wanted to bring order to the galaxy.
Vader felt bad about Dooku and even the Sandpeople, and need I remind you:
"Padme is dead."
"NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"
Erm, let's see: the Jedi code, the Sith tradition, the order of the Empire, taking orders from Tarkin and the Emperor...
To me, Vader is clearly Lawful Evil.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
vader even took tarkin's bullshit, even when he could probably get away with killing the fucker, because it would go against the chain of command and would look badly
he could get away with it, but he didn't do it because he was concerned about the rules as they are
i dunno what you think but i know what i think about that
what the hell dude
do you only watch shit with big eyes in it fuck
okay here let's go
bunch more, with what they are from in parenthesis:
Saruman (Lord of the Rings)
Lord Voldemort (Harry Potter)
The Founders of the Dominion (Star Trek: DS9)
Khan Noonien Singh (Star Trek)
Deathstroke (Teen Titans/Nightwing)
Gul Dukat (Star Trek: DS9)
Superman (Red Son)
The Master (Doctor Who)
Chancellor Sutler (V for Vendetta)
Scar (The Lion King)
The Witch (Chronicles of Narnia)
General Zod (Superman)
there's just a few
it was the core of darth malak's claim to legitimacy as dark lord of the sith
he was like "revan was weak, so i overthrew him"
and his troops were like "oh okay business as usual"
neutral or evil is a matter of perspective i suppose. i lean towards evil
he is meticulous, order-oriented, has a very strict code he follows, adheres to codified social mores and laws even if he doesn't understand them (with the notable exception of his murdering)
he grows as a character, though. starts to empathize with people more and actually care about others and whatnot
so he'd probably shift
which also points out the problem inherent in the alignment system of D&D
people change
grow
their life alters them
Is this shown anywhere else in Star Wars canon? I haven't played KOTOR.
this is true
if we go by the D&D standard, Dexter's really not evil at all, since he's killing evil people. In fact, since he goes out of his way to target evil people exclusively, it's even arguable he's good
he's not doing it selflessly, though. Dexter wants to kill. He has an urge to murder that is extremely powerful. He's good at keeping it restrained, and he channels it only towards bad people, but the main reason he's doing it is to slake his own thirst for killing.
that's not really "good", but I suppose that's arguable.
Ultimately, my metric for alignments of fictional characters is this: If a player came to me with a character with an outlook and personality like that character, what would I say their alignment is?
For Dexter, I'd go with Lawful Neutral, walking the very fine line there.
yes
prior to darth bane's rule of two, it was the unwritten (but heavily practiced) aspect of the Sith code. it was part of the Sith code that the weak were to be used or destroyed by the strong, and if your master was weaker than you, well... the reprecussions are implicit.
once the rule of two is established it is in fact a real component of sith law.
darth sidious killed his master, darth plagueis, for this reason.
Go figure. :P
Where that is true in the days of the KOTORs, by the time of the galactic civil war a sith code was in place stating that there could only be one sith master and one sith apprentice. Palpatine already had an apprentice when he took annakin under his wing.
That being said "Darth" Vader was never in fact a sith and not subject to the sith code -and then the big however- Vader could most aptly be described as LE throughout episodes III and IV. However, Vader's betrayal of Palpatine was an act of redemption, so to change his alignment to chaotic, he would also change to good or at least neutral.
applied to fictional characters outside of D&D, or especially real people, it breaks down swiftly
when it used as part of game mechanics as it was very heavily in 3rd and 3.5 D&D, it gets downright stupid.
Lawful water, people
it was basically laid down by Darth Bane that there would be a master and an apprentice; one to embody power, and one to crave it. And when the apprentice was strong enough, he would seize power and kill his master, and take on an apprentice of his own. Thus there would always be two, and through constant acquiring of power by the master and the apprentice seizing it, the Sith order could operate in secrecy and hone their skills until they eventually destroyed the Jedi
/Star Wars off
Another thing I would like to bring up: the issue of a personal code of honor. A lot of people would automatically say this makes a character lawful, something with which I disagree, at least partially.
A wandering samurai duelist who fights his opponents according to the rules of dueling in a quest for personal glory is, in my eyes, chaotic. His actions do not serve society or promote working together with others, and he is a lone wolf, relying on no one else and rendering aid to no one. In fact, the only time he treats someone with respect and fairness is when locked in a battle to the death with them. This pursuit of personal greatness with no reliance on society (in fact, with a back turned to society), even though it incorporates a rigid set of rules by which he fights, is chaotic neutral (not evil, because he does not fight for personal gain, but instead for personal glory, and he would accept defeat as much as victory).
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
Nah, I just don't really watch TV much at all, to be honest.
Thanks for the list though. I'd say I knew about half the characters on it.
Light from Death Note is lawful evil
You can't just say "lawful water" without context, dude. What if we're talking about Planescape? Then such a thing is not only possible, it's downright expected. The entire point of Planescape is that morality, idealogy, and intent all have measurable effects on matter and the planes. But then, Planescape isn't officially a D&D setting anymore so maybe I'm just splitting hairs.
there i said it okay
it really is
if it weren't for the fact that planescape is awesome nobody would really give a fuck about alignment
and listen
planescape hasn't been supported officially in like ten years
it belongs to fans now
and i guarentee you they'll make a 4e planescape
outside of planescape though siht like lawful water needs to god damn go
Why did you ever leave me?
Exactly.
Planescape is the only sort of setting where alignment as a game mechanic makes much sense.
On the Prime Material it just doesn't fit... and that's where pretty much all games are set these days.
Alignment is a relic and I'm glad to see it go.
No. You need to be introduced to it in the proper manner. Simply playing through Planescape: Torment won't do it - that's how I learned what's up with it and it just looked like Rifts without cybertech to me. (And I know that's not what it actually is, but still)
musta been that elemental plane of corn.