Strip 146 - Alignment Tutorial - Part 12 (Lawful Evil)

12th Mar 2015, 12:00 AM in Corvus Village
first Latest
Average Rating: 5 (1 votes)

first Latest

Permalinks:

Comments:

(You have to be registered at ComicFury to leave a comment!)
dragonbrain 12th Mar 2015, 2:56 AM edit delete reply
dragonbrain
Just one. Could you just sign your name here, here and here?
Zilfallion 12th Mar 2015, 4:00 AM edit delete reply
Zilfallion
"Why certainly, just let me get my pen. Ah, here it is!" -Signs Raxon's name.
Raxon 12th Mar 2015, 8:12 AM edit delete reply
Raxon
Lawful Evil means never having to say all is forgiven.
Disloyal Subject 12th Mar 2015, 1:24 PM edit delete reply
Disloyal Subject
I'm still confused as to why my Lawful Evil and Chaotic Good characters are indistinguishable in all but motive.
Malroth 12th Mar 2015, 4:44 PM edit delete reply
Malroth
in what way are they even remotely similar? A Chaotic good character thinks the rules should go F^%(*& themselves at the best of times and when not actively saving some damsel in distress or buttering up current-orphan/future-Damsel
is pretty much going to get drunk and sing songs about how awsome they are, meanwhile the Lawful Evil character has 500 accountants with hostage famlies going over the countries finances with a fine toothed comb to look for a way to embezzle the royal treasury.
SeriousBiz 13th Mar 2015, 3:21 AM edit delete reply


I admit I'm a bit hazy on the details: Is using your wealth, connections and influence to change laws in your favor with no regard to who suffers from the change a lawful evil, a neutral evil or a chaotic evil act?

I mean, on the one hand, you're not really following even the letter of the law, you're making up your own rules and expecting others to follow them. Morally, you're no different from a petty criminal, you just happen to have the means to get the backing of corrupt lawmakers and, by extension, the law of the land. Changing the law so that you will not be punished for your evil acts meshes well with a mindset that sees laws that expect them to take others into consideration as proof that they're the ones being unjustly oppressed by an evil regime. On the other hand, wanting to make your whims the law must have some pretty heavy lawful motivations behind it, and technically, this is exactly how tyrants act.

As an aside, swindlers remind me of that one commercial in The Simpsons: "How often have you driven by a fire and thought 'How can this benefit me?'" A mindset that is, unfortunately, fairly common in a system where "smart" is often viewed as shorthand for "exploitative and opportunistic".
DragonTrainer 13th Mar 2015, 1:20 PM edit delete reply
DragonTrainer
Depends on your motive and your beliefs. Intentions are everything, afterall. There's a reason why Mens Rea exists.

A Lawful Evil character follows at least some sort of code. If they change the law, it would either have to not go against his personal code or actually reflect his personal code. Doing things on a whim is something a Chaotic character would do.
Malroth 13th Mar 2015, 6:03 PM edit delete reply
Malroth
"Changing the Laws"through existing methods is usually but not always an indicator of a Lawful Alignment, even if the new law is entirely self serving, the very fact that you planned enough to go through with the process indicates you see laws as worthwhile even if only applied to those beneath you.
SeriousBiz 14th Mar 2015, 1:48 AM edit delete reply


Hmm. I'd rather say that intentions are secondary - the effects of your actions are what are actually happening in the world, intentions notwithstanding - but otherwise, fair enough.

Come to think of it, maybe the lawful-chaotic axis represents more your intentions, your own moral code, the limits that you set to yourself, whereas the good-evil axis represents the things you actually do, the methods you use to achieve your goals.

So, essentially, a lawful evil character can basically have the same motivations and intentions as a lawful good character, but it's mainly their actions that set them apart. Contrast a benevolent democratic leader vs. a tyrant. Makes sense to me, though it's not always applicable.
(You have to be registered at ComicFury to leave a comment!)