I just want to jump in here and say that the alignment 'lawful' means 'law-abiding' as much as chaotic means 'illegal'. While they CAN be, they don't HAVE to be.
A normal person doesn't have to be, no, you can do the occasional non-aligned act without repercussions. If you do chaotic things often, though, you aren't really lawful are you?
A lawful character really isn't necessarily law-abiding. Fighting against a rightful chaotic ruler of a country in favor of a lawful ruler can be a lawful action, even if it's against the laws of that country, because it promotes order.
A lawful character really isn't necessarily law-abiding. Fighting against a rightful chaotic ruler of a country in favor of a lawful ruler can be a lawful action, even if it's against the laws of that country, because it promotes order.
If it's done in a lawful manner, yes. And by lawful here I mean the SRD definition, not the legal definition. Special rules may or may not apply to Paladins.
I'm still curious to hear answers to my earlier question though: If a Paladin, in service to a Lawful Good kingdom, is given orders (as part of a military invasion/annexation) to invade another country, would it be lawful and or good to do so?
Would it matter if the invaded country is made up of lawful, good, chaotic, or evil people? Would any other circumstances matter?
I'm still curious to hear answers to my earlier question though: If a Paladin, in service to a Lawful Good kingdom, is given orders (as part of a military invasion/annexation) to invade another country, would it be lawful and or good to do so?
Would it matter if the invaded country is made up of lawful, good, chaotic, or evil people? Would any other circumstances matter?
Yeah, it's absolutely going to depend upon the circumstances of the invasion. And there are circumstances under which some Paladins would go, while others would refuse, and both actions would be within their alignment/vow restrictions.
I'm still curious to hear answers to my earlier question though: If a Paladin, in service to a Lawful Good kingdom, is given orders (as part of a military invasion/annexation) to invade another country, would it be lawful and or good to do so?
Would it matter if the invaded country is made up of lawful, good, chaotic, or evil people? Would any other circumstances matter?
Yeah, it's absolutely going to depend upon the circumstances of the invasion. And there are circumstances under which some Paladins would go, while others would refuse, and both actions would be within their alignment/vow restrictions.
stop with your logic, it has no place in discussions of nerdy pretend dice games
joking aside, yeah, there's a lot of variations in how a paladin can behave. taking the invasion example, if for all you know your king is a decent ruler and the invasion isn't for petty reasons like 'we want more land to build condos' or something similar, it's pretty much up to the paladin whether he decides to take part.
a paladin's god doesn't generally give two hoots about the political side of things; it may be a law in that land, but the paladin is Lawful Good, meaning he holds to a higher standard that transcends whether or not the local law says it's okay to put babies on spikes.
I mean, two members of the paladin class can be completely different and still totally in line with being a paladin and following the code; let's take St. Cuthbert and Pelor f'rex
The paladin of St. Cuthbert's maxim is promote law and order whereever he can, usually by way of blunt force trauma; St. Cuthbert granting paladinhood is kind of like James Bond receiving his 00 status and License to Kill; unless St. Cuthbert's paladin kills an old lady for getting in his way, it's pretty much assumed whatever he hits with his hammer deserved it.
Pelor's paladin is a different animal; being the god of sun and healing, Pelor's paladins and clerics are expected to aid the ill. Pelor's paladins have full rights to smite evil whenever they find it, but you're more likely to find a paladin of Pelor in a city using his lay on hands and other spells to heal the sick rather than in a dungeon cracking skulls
Your lawful evil character should at least keep his word. Rampant lying and killing and the like would fall into chaotic. My general understanding is that lawful evil will work within "the system" to accomplish their own goals, at the expense or detriment of others. While they tend not to specifically or openly break laws, their goals themselves are what defines their evilness. The way they go about achieving them defines lawful vs. chaotic.
Not necessarily; the Lawful Evil character works within the 'system', yes, but it's a perverted code of his own invention. He is no less ruthless than a neutral evil or chaotic evil character, but simply more consistent; all it means is if he lies and kills, you can expect him to do it consistently across a wide variety of situations
This description never sits right with me. You're making up your own "system" or "code of behavior" and then declaring that as long as you stick with that system at all times, you're "lawful" in that you're consistant with your own standards of conduct.
That, to me, seems like saying "My character is totally bat-shit fucking insane and unpredictable and will lie, cheat, steal, rape, pillage, and generally do whatever he wants, but as long as he always acts like that consistantly, he's lawful."
Darth Vader can "alter the deal" because it's within his power to do so. He is the law of the land, and is free to exercise that over those he considers less powerful than him. If he were more "chaotic", he could have blown up Bespin the minute Luke landed, had his X-Wing shot down, chopped off Lando's head instead of simply "altering the deal", etc.
Your lawful evil character should at least keep his word. Rampant lying and killing and the like would fall into chaotic. My general understanding is that lawful evil will work within "the system" to accomplish their own goals, at the expense or detriment of others. While they tend not to specifically or openly break laws, their goals themselves are what defines their evilness. The way they go about achieving them defines lawful vs. chaotic.
Not necessarily; the Lawful Evil character works within the 'system', yes, but it's a perverted code of his own invention. He is no less ruthless than a neutral evil or chaotic evil character, but simply more consistent; all it means is if he lies and kills, you can expect him to do it consistently across a wide variety of situations
This description never sits right with me. You're making up your own "system" or "code of behavior" and then declaring that as long as you stick with that system at all times, you're "lawful" in that you're consistant with your own standards of conduct.
That, to me, seems like saying "My character is totally bat-shit fucking insane and unpredictable and will lie, cheat, steal, rape, pillage, and generally do whatever he wants, but as long as he always acts like that consistantly, he's lawful."
Darth Vader can "alter the deal" because it's within his power to do so. He is the law of the land, and is free to exercise that over those he considers less powerful than him. If he were more "chaotic", he could have blown up Bespin the minute Luke landed, had his X-Wing shot down, chopped off Lando's head instead of simply "altering the deal", etc.
You're missing the forest for the trees dude
Being random/chaotic consistently is still being chaotic
I'd cite the Darth Vader example Horseshoe provided but I think you'd still miss the point
Who has a specific code which stipulates acting chaotically? Can this even exist in real life? That's like having a person act completely randomly, and by chance they just happen to follow the samurai code.
SageinaRage on
0
Options
El SkidThe frozen white northRegistered Userregular
edited December 2007
Chaos = lack of a pattern in behaviour.
Law = behaviour almost always falls within a certain pattern.
So if a generic paladin is faced with an orphan child who is hungry, starving and generally pathetic, they will generally behave in a certain way. If you had some sort of time warp and had the paladin face this child 1000 times in a variety of circumstances but not remember their previous reactions and then plotted the reactions on some sort of hypothetical graph, the points would bunch up something fierce.
Do the same with a chaotic character and the points would be all over the map. Sure, sometimes the barbarian might feed the child to shut them up, but just as often they'd get tired of the whining and hack the child's head off, or strangle the child until it shuts up, or ignore the child entirely...
The worst the paladin would generally do is ignore the child... Because the paladin has a code of conduct. That's what lawful means.
Same for an anti-paladin. The points of data would remain clustered...but more around the "sacrifice the child to dark powers" end of things, not so much the "help the child" end. It's the consistancy that is indicative of lawful behaviour. And "consistantly chaotic" means...the character is chaotic.
Being random/chaotic consistently is still being chaotic
I'd cite the Darth Vader example Horseshoe provided but I think you'd still miss the point
I think you might be missing my point as well. If your character reacts to every situation by "lying and killing", that does not make him lawful. That just makes him evil. Consistancy != Lawful. Consistancy may tend to explicitly exclude chaos, but it does not explicitly include lawfulness.
Yeah, um, this thread is starting to migrate to the land of stupid. Just because of the use of the "what happens to the baby" alignment argument thing, I am someday going to make a game where babies are FUCKING EVIL, like Barbarella the RPG or something.
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 always do so love these "discussions". They almost never get anywhere, and nobody seems to have a common frame of reference to work from. Honestly, people, define the terms you're using BEFORE you use them to argue the definition of ANOTHER term whose interpretation depends entirely on the previous definitions.
Anyway.
The alignments are not "clear". They never have been. They never will be. They are, as every single thing that doesn't have a bunch of numbers attached to it is in these games, DM judgement.
That said, my views on Alignments are as follows.
A Lawful Good character cannot seperate Law from Good. That's not the point. To him, they're functionally the same thing. Please note the capitalizations of Law and Good. Law does not mean "Some petty king made it illegal to dethrone him, so oops." Law means a metaphysical concept of order.
Law and Good together mean a metaphysical attachment to order to promote the wellbeing of all.
Chaos and Good together mean a belief that personal judgement and self-reliance promotes Good.
Law and Evil together mean promoting the self within a self-sustaining system that exists to benefit you.
Chaos and Evil together mean promoting the self with an utter disdain for any rule but that of power.
A Lawful Evil character doesn't "lie consistently". A Lawful Evil character prefers NOT to lie, but rather, to manipulate his words so that he can be deliberately misinterpreted. That still fits within his personal "honor" code, although he may never actually codify such a feeling. Perhaps he recognizes the value of appearing truthful and honest, or perhaps he does genuinely percieve himself as honest and considers it your own personal stupidity for misunderstanding him. In either case, he's out for himself, but he'll milk you for all you're worth. He's also significantly less likely to kill you if you work for him faithfully and do not violate his "standards".
A Chaotic Evil character also doesn't just "lie consistently." He'll say or do literally anything to get his way, and damn it all, it doesn't MATTER who gets hurt in the process. As long as he gets what he wants, everybody else can go to Hell... perhaps literally. He'll kill his own followers if they even momentarily bore him, because frankly, he just doesn't care. He's not one for long-term planning, he's about the now.
A NEUTRAL Evil character, on the other hand, neither is hampered by "false morality" nor is he wasteful as the Chaotic character is. Just as Neutral Good was once given the term "True Good" as a fluff descriptor, Neutral Evil is "true Evil." This character is utterly dedicated to the self without any need for variation. He doesn't need the Lawful character's strong sense of order and security, nor does he need the Chaotic character's driving need for freedom. He is, when it comes right down to it, the scariest alignment of all. Because he adapts intelligently to anything he must.
On the other spectrum we have Good.
Lawful Good means, pretty much by definition, that you believe that a well-ordered system run by good people is either the only or the best way to make the entire world a better place for everyone. This doesn'y necessarily mean that the CURRENT system is the best one. In fact, the current system might be downright terrible! At least, in your mind. Maybe you have a better way. Thus, overthrowing a government is not inherently a "chaotic" act. It's what the chracter does AFTERWARDS that matters... Does the character try to set up a better system, one fairer and more just, one that benefits everyone better via the rule of law and wise governance? Then he's probably Lawful Good.
Chaotic Good, on the other hand, means that you believe that personal judgement and personal strength are critical. To your mind, the system is inherently oppressive, because it limits the best qualities of its best citizens. This doesn't mean that you hate laws, that you believe in overthrowing governments, or that you want to kill authority figures. this simply means that you prefer more "open" societies. Freedom is the watchword here. You might well understand the need for the rule of law, because frankly SOMEBODY has to protect the weak and the helpless. But you don't think that a massive bureaucracy is the best way. People get lost in the cracks. It grinds people to powder. A government complex and massive enough forgets about the PEOPLE it's governing, looking at them as numbers and factions rather than people, and to the Chaotic Good character's mind, that's bad. But a smaller government, one where every man and every woman has a say, is the best way to do it.
A Neutral Good character. Ah, yes, the good ol' "True Good" alignment. A man dedicated to the betterment of all. He understands both the tools the Lawful character uses and the Chaotic character's beefs. He may even agree with both. In the end, though, neither of them matter. It doesn't matter what works best, as long as it works. The Neutral Good character might try to blend both together, or he might disdain both. Either way, he understands that neither is intrinsically better, and that obsessing over the small picture means you never see the bigger one. to the Neutral Good character's mind, it's the process of fixing the world that matters, not the end result. The people you help. The good you do. THAT'S the important part. It doesn't matter who's running things on a large scale, as long as they're good people and they're trying to help. Sure, governments need to change sometimes, but it's not a moral imperative unless the government is inherently corrupt.
These are, of course, just my views, and just my personal examples. honestly, I use my best judgement.
Darth Vader is not LAwful EVil. He's Neutral Evil. PALPATINE is Lawful Evil. But that's just my view.
Darth Vader is not LAwful EVil. He's Neutral Evil. PALPATINE is Lawful Evil. But that's just my view.
YES!
Oh and using a Paladin and a baby makes for a terrible example - a Paladin must be both Lawful and Good, and there's really only one option in that situation.
Oh and using a Paladin and a baby makes for a terrible example - a Paladin must be both Lawful and Good, and there's really only one option in that situation.
Being random/chaotic consistently is still being chaotic
I'd cite the Darth Vader example Horseshoe provided but I think you'd still miss the point
I think you might be missing my point as well. If your character reacts to every situation by "lying and killing", that does not make him lawful. That just makes him evil. Consistancy != Lawful. Consistancy may tend to explicitly exclude chaos, but it does not explicitly include lawfulness.
Baatorians react to every situation with "lying and killing," though the killing may come later rather than sooner. They are an army of demonic lawyers.
And Baatorians lie plenty, so long as it's not written down anywhere. They talk about how wonderful the contract is, and how they're not going to steal the person's soul, and how "they're lawful, of course they can't lie to you." Then once you've signed the thousand page contract, you realize that not a single thing they've said actually matches up with what was in the contract, everything they said to you was a lie, and your immortal soul is now fucked right and proper.
I didn't think devils/Baatezu could DIRECTLY lie, as much as tell you something that was technically true from a certain perspective but would absolutely not be understood for its true meaning.
Like "Of course my contract won't harm you".
No, it won't. Directly. it will, however, allow the demon to geas you anytime it likes, and give him the right to suck out your soul and use it for a toothpick.
But the CONTRACTR won't hurt a bit, nope. It's just a piece of paper, after all.
I didn't think devils/Baatezu could DIRECTLY lie, as much as tell you something that was technically true from a certain perspective but would absolutely not be understood for its true meaning.
Like "Of course my contract won't harm you".
No, it won't. Directly. it will, however, allow the demon to geas you anytime it likes, and give him the right to suck out your soul and use it for a toothpick.
But the CONTRACTR won't hurt a bit, nope. It's just a piece of paper, after all.
No, they can and do speak absolute fabrications all the time. Fuck, otherwise you'd never need to worry about infiltration from Baatezu. You'd just have a guards walking around asking anything if they are/were/are going to be Baatezu (in a properly worded manner).
Words are weapons, and they are constantly using them towards their goal. It doesn't matter if the words are true or not, so long as it furthers their aims.
Well, you did ask if they were lawful, not if they were inherently "good". *L* honestly, I'd consider your average Samurai to be Lawful Neutral. Because technically, your average Samurai, if they're truly following their code and not just stroking their ego with it (which admittedly, many did, almost certainly...), they wouldn't necessarily put themselves into a position to kill the peasant for disrespecting them. And not all of them necessarily WOULD. They would feel bound by their position to punish them somehow, of course, but that's a case of following their code to its letter, not a case of outright maliciousness.
About Baatezu, I was under the impression that in any world where normal people know enough about devils to know whether or not they can lie, Baatezu would know better and would use more... devious methods.
For some reason, I've always had the opinion that Baatezu shouldn't directly lie. Mislead, confuse, even APPEAR to be untruthful, yes. But actually directly lie, at the very least about a contract or deal, no. Intelligent people wouldn't sign the contract... but intelligent people shouldn't deal with infernal powers, anyway.
There are plenty of reasons why an intelligent person would work with infernal powers. It could be that they consider themselves evil enough that they're going to land on the lower planes anyhow, so they've got nothing to lose by signing a contract. It could be that they're simply desperate enough that they perceive that it's worth it by dealing with infernal powers.
Neverwinter Nights 2 and Planescape: Torment also had extremely intelligent characters that made deals with the denizens of the lower planes. Successfully, I might add.
NWN2
Ammon-Jerro is a warlock who's specialty is summoning and binding fiends to his will. Through controlling information and doing his homework, he's able to summon fiends in such a manner that he knows far more than they do when he summons them. Furthermore, he makes sure that he's always has the upper hand by an unassailable margin when dealing with them. He manages to gather enough power through these methods to defeat (or get a draw) the King of Shadows singlehandedly. So, he's pretty successful.
Torment
The Nameless One gains immortality through dealing with one of the Gray Sisters, a denizen of the neutral evil plane. Regardless of how it ended up, he managed to get help from hell with no catch behind it. Sure, he lost his memory, but that was through no fault of Ravel's that it happened.
As far as devils lying, the first layer of Baator has a pillar of skulls upon which go the heads of all the sages whose evil lies caused others to die. Which sort of affirms that self serving lies are part of the portfolio of Lawful Evil.
Oh, I agree that self-serving lies are absolutely LAwful Evil. It's just that, thematically speaking, it seems more appropriate to have someone who deals with devils damn themselves because they thought they were smarter than they were, rather than damn themselves because, gee, they were damned already so may as well go a little farther in the name of kickassery.
Also, Ammon Jerro was only "successful" in the sense of "giving up everything of himself to become a monster and still failing until he got help."
I dunno, it just always seemed to me that Tanar'ri should be the demons that screw you regardless, while Baatezu should be the ones that make you screw yourself.
A Lawful Evil character doesn't "lie consistently". A Lawful Evil character prefers NOT to lie, but rather, to manipulate his words so that he can be deliberately misinterpreted. That still fits within his personal "honor" code, although he may never actually codify such a feeling. Perhaps he recognizes the value of appearing truthful and honest, or perhaps he does genuinely percieve himself as honest and considers it your own personal stupidity for misunderstanding him. In either case, he's out for himself, but he'll milk you for all you're worth. He's also significantly less likely to kill you if you work for him faithfully and do not violate his "standards".
Darth Vader is not LAwful EVil. He's Neutral Evil.
To me you just said everything Darth Vader is, then said actually nuh-uh
Hell yes. Absolutely. They're almost the definition. Duty above all, period.
Right, and they could lop off a peasant's head if they felt for, whatever reason, they weren't being given the proper amount of respect.
I'd say this fact squarely makes Thinatos' character in the OP lawful evil.
Except he's not working within the law of the land, he's working within his own code. I feel that his code determines Evil/Good in this case, and how he chooses to deal with the laws of whatever society he's in and superiors determines how Lawful or Chaotic he is.
Hell yes. Absolutely. They're almost the definition. Duty above all, period.
Right, and they could lop off a peasant's head if they felt for, whatever reason, they weren't being given the proper amount of respect.
I'd say this fact squarely makes Thinatos' character in the OP lawful evil.
Except he's not working within the law of the land, he's working within his own code. I feel that his code determines Evil/Good in this case, and how he chooses to deal with the laws of whatever society he's in and superiors determines how Lawful or Chaotic he is.
Lawful doesn't deal only with the law of the land. Really, I think they made a mistake going with Lawful. "Orderly" may have been better. Look at Monks. They're lawful not because they follow the law of the land, but because they are structured and follow a strict training regiment.
Exactly. That's a great point. For monks it says they are Lawful because the class requires strict discipline.
Says nothing about respecting the laws of king or country.
Thinatos character is very disciplined. He has rules that he feels that he must follow with people of a certain caliber. However, his code, that he feels that he must follow, states that certain people are subhuman, and therefore must be treated as such, with contempt.
Exactly. That's a great point. For monks it says they are Lawful because the class requires strict discipline.
Says nothing about respecting the laws of king or country.
Thinatos character is very disciplined. He has rules that he feels that he must follow with people of a certain caliber. However, his code, that he feels that he must follow, states that certain people are subhuman, and therefore must be treated as such, with contempt.
Thank you for finally getting across what I've been trying to say behind metaphors of Darth Vader
Yeah, the Sith and the Jedi have their own outlooks like any individual person; they are simply 'lawful' organizations since they have a standardized code everyone is expected to follow
Vader doesn't respect his legitimate authority - he tried to get Luke to join him in overthrowing the Emperor, after all - and that's one of the main tenets of Lawfulness.
Also I agree with Inquisitor. Sith = emotionally driven, aka chaotic.
Vader doesn't respect his legitimate authority - he tried to get Luke to join him in overthrowing the Emperor, after all - and that's one of the main tenets of Lawfulness.
Also I agree with Inquisitor. Sith = emotionally driven, aka chaotic.
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.
Thanatos on
0
Options
INeedNoSaltwith blood on my teethRegistered Userregular
Vader doesn't respect his legitimate authority - he tried to get Luke to join him in overthrowing the Emperor, after all - and that's one of the main tenets of Lawfulness.
Also I agree with INeedNoSalt. Sith = emotionally driven, aka chaotic.
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.
Lord Yod on
0
Options
PiptheFairFrequently not in boats.Registered Userregular
edited December 2007
Except Vader consistently followed tradition and was loyal to a fault until his redemption. What the hell movies were you watching?
Posts
2) this is not WoW. Stop treating it as such.
If it's done in a lawful manner, yes. And by lawful here I mean the SRD definition, not the legal definition. Special rules may or may not apply to Paladins.
I'm still curious to hear answers to my earlier question though: If a Paladin, in service to a Lawful Good kingdom, is given orders (as part of a military invasion/annexation) to invade another country, would it be lawful and or good to do so?
Would it matter if the invaded country is made up of lawful, good, chaotic, or evil people? Would any other circumstances matter?
stop with your logic, it has no place in discussions of nerdy pretend dice games
joking aside, yeah, there's a lot of variations in how a paladin can behave. taking the invasion example, if for all you know your king is a decent ruler and the invasion isn't for petty reasons like 'we want more land to build condos' or something similar, it's pretty much up to the paladin whether he decides to take part.
a paladin's god doesn't generally give two hoots about the political side of things; it may be a law in that land, but the paladin is Lawful Good, meaning he holds to a higher standard that transcends whether or not the local law says it's okay to put babies on spikes.
I mean, two members of the paladin class can be completely different and still totally in line with being a paladin and following the code; let's take St. Cuthbert and Pelor f'rex
The paladin of St. Cuthbert's maxim is promote law and order whereever he can, usually by way of blunt force trauma; St. Cuthbert granting paladinhood is kind of like James Bond receiving his 00 status and License to Kill; unless St. Cuthbert's paladin kills an old lady for getting in his way, it's pretty much assumed whatever he hits with his hammer deserved it.
Pelor's paladin is a different animal; being the god of sun and healing, Pelor's paladins and clerics are expected to aid the ill. Pelor's paladins have full rights to smite evil whenever they find it, but you're more likely to find a paladin of Pelor in a city using his lay on hands and other spells to heal the sick rather than in a dungeon cracking skulls
This description never sits right with me. You're making up your own "system" or "code of behavior" and then declaring that as long as you stick with that system at all times, you're "lawful" in that you're consistant with your own standards of conduct.
That, to me, seems like saying "My character is totally bat-shit fucking insane and unpredictable and will lie, cheat, steal, rape, pillage, and generally do whatever he wants, but as long as he always acts like that consistantly, he's lawful."
Darth Vader can "alter the deal" because it's within his power to do so. He is the law of the land, and is free to exercise that over those he considers less powerful than him. If he were more "chaotic", he could have blown up Bespin the minute Luke landed, had his X-Wing shot down, chopped off Lando's head instead of simply "altering the deal", etc.
You're missing the forest for the trees dude
Being random/chaotic consistently is still being chaotic
I'd cite the Darth Vader example Horseshoe provided but I think you'd still miss the point
Law = behaviour almost always falls within a certain pattern.
So if a generic paladin is faced with an orphan child who is hungry, starving and generally pathetic, they will generally behave in a certain way. If you had some sort of time warp and had the paladin face this child 1000 times in a variety of circumstances but not remember their previous reactions and then plotted the reactions on some sort of hypothetical graph, the points would bunch up something fierce.
Do the same with a chaotic character and the points would be all over the map. Sure, sometimes the barbarian might feed the child to shut them up, but just as often they'd get tired of the whining and hack the child's head off, or strangle the child until it shuts up, or ignore the child entirely...
The worst the paladin would generally do is ignore the child... Because the paladin has a code of conduct. That's what lawful means.
Same for an anti-paladin. The points of data would remain clustered...but more around the "sacrifice the child to dark powers" end of things, not so much the "help the child" end. It's the consistancy that is indicative of lawful behaviour. And "consistantly chaotic" means...the character is chaotic.
I think you might be missing my point as well. If your character reacts to every situation by "lying and killing", that does not make him lawful. That just makes him evil. Consistancy != Lawful. Consistancy may tend to explicitly exclude chaos, but it does not explicitly include lawfulness.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
Anyway.
The alignments are not "clear". They never have been. They never will be. They are, as every single thing that doesn't have a bunch of numbers attached to it is in these games, DM judgement.
That said, my views on Alignments are as follows.
A Lawful Good character cannot seperate Law from Good. That's not the point. To him, they're functionally the same thing. Please note the capitalizations of Law and Good. Law does not mean "Some petty king made it illegal to dethrone him, so oops." Law means a metaphysical concept of order.
Law and Good together mean a metaphysical attachment to order to promote the wellbeing of all.
Chaos and Good together mean a belief that personal judgement and self-reliance promotes Good.
Law and Evil together mean promoting the self within a self-sustaining system that exists to benefit you.
Chaos and Evil together mean promoting the self with an utter disdain for any rule but that of power.
A Lawful Evil character doesn't "lie consistently". A Lawful Evil character prefers NOT to lie, but rather, to manipulate his words so that he can be deliberately misinterpreted. That still fits within his personal "honor" code, although he may never actually codify such a feeling. Perhaps he recognizes the value of appearing truthful and honest, or perhaps he does genuinely percieve himself as honest and considers it your own personal stupidity for misunderstanding him. In either case, he's out for himself, but he'll milk you for all you're worth. He's also significantly less likely to kill you if you work for him faithfully and do not violate his "standards".
A Chaotic Evil character also doesn't just "lie consistently." He'll say or do literally anything to get his way, and damn it all, it doesn't MATTER who gets hurt in the process. As long as he gets what he wants, everybody else can go to Hell... perhaps literally. He'll kill his own followers if they even momentarily bore him, because frankly, he just doesn't care. He's not one for long-term planning, he's about the now.
A NEUTRAL Evil character, on the other hand, neither is hampered by "false morality" nor is he wasteful as the Chaotic character is. Just as Neutral Good was once given the term "True Good" as a fluff descriptor, Neutral Evil is "true Evil." This character is utterly dedicated to the self without any need for variation. He doesn't need the Lawful character's strong sense of order and security, nor does he need the Chaotic character's driving need for freedom. He is, when it comes right down to it, the scariest alignment of all. Because he adapts intelligently to anything he must.
On the other spectrum we have Good.
Lawful Good means, pretty much by definition, that you believe that a well-ordered system run by good people is either the only or the best way to make the entire world a better place for everyone. This doesn'y necessarily mean that the CURRENT system is the best one. In fact, the current system might be downright terrible! At least, in your mind. Maybe you have a better way. Thus, overthrowing a government is not inherently a "chaotic" act. It's what the chracter does AFTERWARDS that matters... Does the character try to set up a better system, one fairer and more just, one that benefits everyone better via the rule of law and wise governance? Then he's probably Lawful Good.
Chaotic Good, on the other hand, means that you believe that personal judgement and personal strength are critical. To your mind, the system is inherently oppressive, because it limits the best qualities of its best citizens. This doesn't mean that you hate laws, that you believe in overthrowing governments, or that you want to kill authority figures. this simply means that you prefer more "open" societies. Freedom is the watchword here. You might well understand the need for the rule of law, because frankly SOMEBODY has to protect the weak and the helpless. But you don't think that a massive bureaucracy is the best way. People get lost in the cracks. It grinds people to powder. A government complex and massive enough forgets about the PEOPLE it's governing, looking at them as numbers and factions rather than people, and to the Chaotic Good character's mind, that's bad. But a smaller government, one where every man and every woman has a say, is the best way to do it.
A Neutral Good character. Ah, yes, the good ol' "True Good" alignment. A man dedicated to the betterment of all. He understands both the tools the Lawful character uses and the Chaotic character's beefs. He may even agree with both. In the end, though, neither of them matter. It doesn't matter what works best, as long as it works. The Neutral Good character might try to blend both together, or he might disdain both. Either way, he understands that neither is intrinsically better, and that obsessing over the small picture means you never see the bigger one. to the Neutral Good character's mind, it's the process of fixing the world that matters, not the end result. The people you help. The good you do. THAT'S the important part. It doesn't matter who's running things on a large scale, as long as they're good people and they're trying to help. Sure, governments need to change sometimes, but it's not a moral imperative unless the government is inherently corrupt.
These are, of course, just my views, and just my personal examples. honestly, I use my best judgement.
Darth Vader is not LAwful EVil. He's Neutral Evil. PALPATINE is Lawful Evil. But that's just my view.
!ISIGNUP
YES!
Oh and using a Paladin and a baby makes for a terrible example - a Paladin must be both Lawful and Good, and there's really only one option in that situation.
"Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
Baatorians react to every situation with "lying and killing," though the killing may come later rather than sooner. They are an army of demonic lawyers.
And Baatorians lie plenty, so long as it's not written down anywhere. They talk about how wonderful the contract is, and how they're not going to steal the person's soul, and how "they're lawful, of course they can't lie to you." Then once you've signed the thousand page contract, you realize that not a single thing they've said actually matches up with what was in the contract, everything they said to you was a lie, and your immortal soul is now fucked right and proper.
Like "Of course my contract won't harm you".
No, it won't. Directly. it will, however, allow the demon to geas you anytime it likes, and give him the right to suck out your soul and use it for a toothpick.
But the CONTRACTR won't hurt a bit, nope. It's just a piece of paper, after all.
Hell yes. Absolutely. They're almost the definition. Duty above all, period.
Right, and they could lop off a peasant's head if they felt for, whatever reason, they weren't being given the proper amount of respect.
I'd say this fact squarely makes Thinatos' character in the OP lawful evil.
No, they can and do speak absolute fabrications all the time. Fuck, otherwise you'd never need to worry about infiltration from Baatezu. You'd just have a guards walking around asking anything if they are/were/are going to be Baatezu (in a properly worded manner).
Words are weapons, and they are constantly using them towards their goal. It doesn't matter if the words are true or not, so long as it furthers their aims.
About Baatezu, I was under the impression that in any world where normal people know enough about devils to know whether or not they can lie, Baatezu would know better and would use more... devious methods.
For some reason, I've always had the opinion that Baatezu shouldn't directly lie. Mislead, confuse, even APPEAR to be untruthful, yes. But actually directly lie, at the very least about a contract or deal, no. Intelligent people wouldn't sign the contract... but intelligent people shouldn't deal with infernal powers, anyway.
Neverwinter Nights 2 and Planescape: Torment also had extremely intelligent characters that made deals with the denizens of the lower planes. Successfully, I might add.
NWN2
As far as devils lying, the first layer of Baator has a pillar of skulls upon which go the heads of all the sages whose evil lies caused others to die. Which sort of affirms that self serving lies are part of the portfolio of Lawful Evil.
Also, Ammon Jerro was only "successful" in the sense of "giving up everything of himself to become a monster and still failing until he got help."
I dunno, it just always seemed to me that Tanar'ri should be the demons that screw you regardless, while Baatezu should be the ones that make you screw yourself.
To me you just said everything Darth Vader is, then said actually nuh-uh
Except he's not working within the law of the land, he's working within his own code. I feel that his code determines Evil/Good in this case, and how he chooses to deal with the laws of whatever society he's in and superiors determines how Lawful or Chaotic he is.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
Says nothing about respecting the laws of king or country.
Thinatos character is very disciplined. He has rules that he feels that he must follow with people of a certain caliber. However, his code, that he feels that he must follow, states that certain people are subhuman, and therefore must be treated as such, with contempt.
Thank you for finally getting across what I've been trying to say behind metaphors of Darth Vader
Hi5 arcanis!
that's pretty chaotic
Not like, "oh man I am so angry right now i am just going to go kill stuff for fun!" Though, I am sure some of them are that way.
Also I agree with Inquisitor. Sith = emotionally driven, aka chaotic.
i was talking to my buddies about how 4th edition is discarding the alignment system
and they are like "what! why?!"
and i pointed to this thread
as an example of why
there will still be alignment debates
people will still argue about it
it'll just be less complicated and less relevant
credit where credit is due, jerk!
Neutral Evil:
Vader was NE.