I like how Lawful Evil doesn't necessarily mean they are attached to SOCIETAL laws alone, but their own personal code of conduct. There was a Lawful Evil Fighter in a Campaign I remember named Istvan; the last remaining man of a fallen noble line, a line cursed to forever possess murderous impulses that can only be satisfied with blood and pain. So he works as a mercenary with personal rules to guide his conduct to efficiently fit in as a productive member of society. On the job he was ruthless and brutal, willing to kill and torture the enemy and genuinely sadistic. While off the job he was affable, charming and quite eloquent, engaging in debates of history and theology with other party members. You'd never guess he was even Evil. Basically, being Evil doesn't mean your character needs to be an asshole.
I suppose a Mafia or Yakuza type mafia family would certaily be great for a lawful evil character since they uphold extremely strict hierarchical rules and creeds while not for their country but for their town
There's a strong case to be made for that certainly: Certain criminal organizations do operate along strict hierarchical lines and codes of conduct; the Yakuza come to mind for one. But, as always, there is room for interpretation. I would argue that a lot of real world criminal organizations are Neutral Evil. Yeah, they'll use the law to their advantage; but they'll subvert it and outright break it as soon as it gives an advantage. Like how Capone had some of the best lawyers to represent him in court and exploit existing loopholes in the legal framework, but would also pay off juries, cops, judges and have many of the same murdered. Certainly bribery straddles a middle ground between LE & NE, using the lawyer to use laws to his advantage is firmly LE and killing off obstacles because of its expedience is NE. Actually, a good LE example that comes to mind are the Megacorporations from Shadowrun: they literally create the rules to benefit themselves and put themselves on par, or above, many nations. Sorry, I could ramble on a while with a discussion like this. But I love that you took the time to comment, thank you!
@Fillip mcgee Yeah actually, you could see something like that. Probably my favorite example is from the Fiendish Codex II: Tyrants of the Nine Hells. I forget their name, but its a kind of Devil born from those souls so loyal to their lords and Lawfully aligned that they carried out every order, no matter how vile and evil it may have been. They carry that attitude in the after life and is a reason why Asmodeus gets so many sworn to him: They will never betray him. So a being could be sworn to a good cause, but go to extremes in violence and retribution. Think like Vlad the Impaler: He was incredibly harsh and cruel, but politics were never personal, he was stuck between the Ottoman Empire and The Hungarian. His tenuous position meant maintaining power was paramount, so he went to the extremes in dealing with the Boyars, criminals, the Ottoman Empire, etc. Still regarded as a Hero in Romania, though its under more debate in modern times.
Very much so; they are the embodiment of tyranny after all. "Rules are for the masses. I make the rules, therefore I am above them." very much so describes the Devil mindset. Asmodeus and his cunning use of the law against the Gods and tricking them into giving him his own realm is the absolute height of LE. The thing is with Lawful Evil, as with other alignments: There will always be rules. There has to be order, in this case a rigid hierarchy with underlings to be abused because of the fact they are underlings and the superior has the right. Lots of different ways to describe and express Lawful Evil mindsets!
As someone who likes to write, I have three characters who may be considered lawful evil. The first is an alien prince exiled from his dimension for trying to overthrow his father and take the throne. He has been treacherous and scheming here on Earth for centuries and could almost be considered NE, but his ultimate desire is to claim the throne which he feels is his birthright. He is egotistical, suave, arrogant and vain. Likes to look down on poorer people. The second is his chief enforcer and fixer, who is a former Navy SEAL who became medically disabled and joined this guy's syndicate to get back to the job he enjoys. He is extremely self-disciplined and rarely speaks, but is brutal and remorseless toward those he is sent to "correct". The third is a high-up commander in an anarchist rebel group. Now most of these guys are CE and want to cause sadistic destruction, but this man wants to bring down society in order to rebuild it with himself as the ruler and has nothing but contempt for his bloodthirsty colleagues and superiors. Do these guys sound lawful evil to you?
I would say yes to the first two, but the third, I think, is more Neutral Evil than lawful, for the following reasons: 1) He wants to tear down society and rebuild it with himself at the top. Lawful evil tends to be more thoughtful and precise. While they are not beyond using brute force, they tend to use brute force through structures that are in place. 2) Use of chaotic evil minions. This feeds into the first point, but while having fearlessly crazed cannon fodder is useful, they're hardly consistent and have a harder time laying low than others might. If this is the bulk of what your high up anarchist leader uses, then he's skewing more towards that Neutral evil 'by any means necessary' mindset. 3) He's not the one in charge and is presumably scheming to seize a higher position. There's another fictional example of a faction that has this mindset: Drow from the Forgotten Realms and they're usually Chaotic Evil, what with worshiping Lolth, daily hedonism and murder for fun and/or advancement. While he doesn't so far sound like he's got some heinous vices, I'm anticipating some treachery aimed at his superiors at some opportune time. If you want him to go more CE, maybe emphasize that the cells under his command are more disciplined than their counterparts and act with a level of precision, even taking advantage of the chaos sown by the rest of the Anarchists. He could even be the glue holding everything together; the power behind the throne as it were, actually giving their emphatic and verbose speech slinging leader some kind of credit by putting action behind the words. Or if you're happy with where you have this character, leave him as is. It certainly sounds like a hell of a story!
@@GamersDenLoremaster His minions are more obedient and reliable than the other commanders' troops. That's not to say all are controllable, or even loyal, but the vast majority understand their master's intentions and want their piece of the reward at the end. As for his quarrel with his superiors, he really only answers to one man: the leader and founder of this group, who is hateful and vicious, manipulative and sadistic. The two butt heads frequently as our guy has his own ideas for the future, but his master's contradict his plans. They're like foils and they hate each other, but the leader understands our guy's skill at tactics and waging war, so he begrudgingly lets him do what he wants with the men and turf under his command. Even though they hate each other enough to kill one another. The really ironic thing is that our guy (nicknamed Jack Doe) thinks he is better than his master, even though both are pure evil with no redeeming qualities. Ultimately Jack does betray his master - as expected - but his downfall is that it was expected and his master had already prepared for an attack. All this manages to do is weaken both of their armies to the point the heroes can defeat both. Classic 'house divided against itself' downfall
@@ericcrawford7207 I love it, sounds like a fantastic story and probably a great campaign setting as well! I hope my answer wasn't too long and I appreciate you taking the time!
@The equal is an equal After reading all of this, I would say this character is Neutral Evil, leaning a bit more towards being Lawful from time to time. They may not be wrong about the other, supposedly LG character being so string they're actually LE, or possibly LN. They may be right and there's nothing inherently wrong with that; but it does serve as a bit of background on why they look at "Good" with a great deal of suspicion. But it's that description of "Pacifistic, power hungry coward that wants to control everything and everyone" that sells me on this character being LE to maybe leaning a bit NE themselves. A Pacifistic coward might be described as the person who says: "Oh, so because the (in this case) actual Nazi said and did Nazi things, its okay to fight them? Fighting makes you as bad as them!" Pacifism for the sake of peace and control, if not directly, is still inherently oppressive and has a habit of siding with oppressors because it values law and order over justice, particularly restorative justice with actual accountability. Being a coward tells me this is someone that does everything to habitually avoid direct confrontation. So they manipulate, scheme and work towards maintaining control for the sake of control in the name of 'Law and Order', or 'Peace'. Long term thinking and planning is definitely a more orderly, disciplined trait, while manipulating and moving pieces according to your own designs could go either LE, NE, so it fits. Controlling everything can also go either way, but is weighted a bit more towards LE and fits the theme overall so far. Yeah, I'd say this is LE with a bit of a paranoia regarding "good" in that he believes its secretly self serving.
@The equal is an equal I had a really long answer typed out two times now on this, but each time something came up and I came back to find the page refreshed, or hit backspace and delete the whole thing. This person isn't LE, or NE. Not really. The alignment system isn't perfect and is broadly written, so the alignments end up applying to a wide range of different people, cultures and actions. Murder is pretty reprehensible and still horrible, even when the action could be justified. Given the fact that there is no objective good and evil (I can imagine several people giving me a "Well, you're wrong because..." for the example I gave about murder) and that what is deemed to be moral in one culture will inevitably change on a long enough timeline, I wouldn't really worry about trying to apply something like alignments from these games to real life. They cannot and do not reflect the complexity and vastness of the human experience, nor the array of circumstances surrounding the choices each of us has to make in our day to day lives, or the lives of those around us. What matters, if a person has done wrong, is what they feel and what they do about it. Feel guilty and remorseful about the harm indirectly caused? Good! They suck to feel, but are indications of thought and empathy towards others. Meaning there is desire and impetus for change. That's a good start. But it's only a start. I can apologize again and again for making the same mistake day after day, but at a certain point the words start to feel empty to the person/s you're apologizing to. You may mean them and may genuinely feel bad, but that does little to nothing for the person inconvenienced/wronged by the mistake. A person has to make the effort to do better about the mistake they're making. Myself, for example, can be incredibly forgetful thanks to my ADHD. My mind can go from one thought to the next and get hyper fixated on something to the point that pulling my focus to something else leaves me frustrated and maybe even angry, because this fixation is where my brain wants to be. Pretty rough when it comes to my wife repeatedly asking me to take care of something day in and day out, for both of us. I feel bad, but feeling bad and apologizing does little to keep her from feeling like I don't care enough to hear her. So I got and am getting help, started on medication and taking a few extra steps to try and be better about the myriad different things I other wise lose track of. Am I great at it? Not yet, only been a few weeks. But I'm getting better and that improvement in action has made a world of difference in how we both feel. So no, this lad isn't evil by any stretch based off of this vague-ish description. A little lost, perhaps misguided on applying alignments so strongly to real life, but not evil. Just human. And a seemingly incredibly creative one at that.
I thought “lawful” meant they held onto a personal code and never broke it; always acting in a ‘respectable’ manner, not “follows the law no matter what.”
It can mean both, it just kind of depends on the context. For example, take Oda Nobunaga and the battle of Enryakuji; one of the greatest Bhuddist temples and it's under control of the Ikko Ikki; warrior monks and major gun manufacturers in 1500's. Nobunaga had been defeated at the temple of Ishiyama Honganji by another sect of the Ikko Ikki and it was BAD. He didn't want the same thing to happen here and he needed/wanted to send a message. So, they surrounded Mt. Hiei, slaughtering and driving any villagers they found upwards towards the fortress temple. Then they set the tree line ablaze and burned the temple down, killing anyone who fled from the blaze. Every last man, woman and child; in rebellion or not, Ikko Ikki or not. Those men knew how awful those orders were and carried them out anyways. Not many of them rebelled or dissented in anyway. Some out of loyalty, some out of fear, some because that's just what you did, some out of a mix of the three. The only one to eventually rebel was a General named Mitsuhide Akechi; an avowed Bhuddist, generally more willing to accept surrender from opponents with minimal executions and purportedly his mother had ended up being killed by Nobunaga's forces. I would argue that many of those who loyally and unquestioningly carried out their lords orders, despite the horrific nature of the orders, were Lawful evil.
@@GamersDenLoremaster Individual actions or events don’t determine alignment unless it’s a “character development” moment. I’d say they followed an evil order, but they were in the military which is usually nuetral chaotic since it exists to keep order and peace but by brutally destroying rebellions and foreign threats with extreme prejudice.
@@calebreynolds9183 I'm inclined to disagree with that first part of individual actions or events don't determine alignment, but on lines of semantics: All of a persons actions are individual actions and can lead to character development. Each individual action is a summation of a pattern of behavior and whether it changes or not is part of a larger arc in development. As for the military, well alignment just kind of depends really. Most militaries, particularly professional, modern ones, are more along the lines of lawful, leaning more towards lawful neutral but by no means free of LE, or LG depending on unit commanders. For an older example of a LG-LN military, I would point to Belisarius of the Eastern Roman Empire and his conquest of North Africa. When his troops began seizing supplies after capturing a few towns and smaller cities, he got them back into disciplined order and commanded that they pay for those supplies, as these citizens they were looting were still Roman Citizens, recently liberated, and would be treated as such. But in regards to something of an Honorable, LE character, I actually have a canonical source! From the Fiendish Codex II: Tyrants of the Nine Hells, pg. 126, we have the Narzugon: "Misery defines the existence of a Narzugon. Once great warriors on the Material Plane, they adhered to the letter of the law, regardless of the consequences. In death, they found an eternity in the Nine Hells to be their reward. The same mortal failing that led to their miserable fates holds true even as devils. They follow the letter of their commands, even if the act they perform is distasteful or clearly wrong. Despite their reservations, they follow through and fail only in death. The irony of their predicament is that nothing, aside from their own wickedness, binds them to their duty, and their suffering stems from the realization that their mortal virtue was a sham. Alignment: Narzugons are always lawful evil. They are disciplined and rigid in their outlooks and actions. Ranks of Narzugons march in perfect time, and the massed charges they unleash in the Blood War put any mortal cavalry to shame.
@@GamersDenLoremaster I disagree. The first part- good, neutral and evil- is the generalized morality of any actions you take. Chaotic is more likely to do any number of seemingly random or spontaneous acts, sometimes dipping into the opposite moral ties to do so. The neutrals usually stick firmly in their morality range, and are capable of being semi-spontaneous but they are also prone to being rigid at roughly 50/50 intervals. The lawfuls are the least likely to deviate from their morality. They are devoted to some code or morality or ideal to the point that to betray what they obsessively apply to their behavior is to betray themselves. There’s also the fact that in some guides, the definition of “evil” alignment doesn’t necessarily mean “torturing serial killer.” It refers to the likelihood to be self oriented and self motivated where all your actions are to help you and increase your standings and power, very rarely helping anyone or anything else unless it directly serves you....then they define ‘good’ morality alignment as being someone who is helpful to others more than themselves, and will do things to help people even if they get little to nothing for return. Neutrals commit acts on both ends of the spectrum. “Little bit of good or a little bit of bad?” “How about both?” “Yeah, I like both! Let’s do both!” I’ve also seen D&D morality officially be explained in a contradictory manner where evil is the objective negativity of your actions and overarching goals. This is how so many hardcore D&D players/DMs can argue about whether or not Thanos is chaotic good or lawful evil. He has a strict moral code and a goal to help all life thrive by removing half of the population of the universe, reducing competition but leaving all the resources that once supported almost all of the population....but he also kills half the universe. But he does it humanely and he believes this is the simple math and science of bacteria overgrowth, which could be a convincing argument if you could prove to me that someone as smart as thanos is incapable of realizing that struggle planets could also just...colonize other worlds or be given miraculous technology to help them access more resources. I don’t think the infinity gauntlet can truly create completely new things and it especially can’t on that scale, but I do believe that even if it could create on that scale without first destroying, Thanos wouldn’t have even attempted it. I know it seems silly at surface level to bring this up, but I think it’s important as depending on who is speaking on the Thanos morality alignment, and seeing WHY they are arguing for Chaotic good/Lawful Evil, you’ll likely be able to use that as a means to figure out which edition of D&D they’re playing/are most familiar with.
@@calebreynolds9183 This is an instance where I largely agree with everything you said because alignments in and of themselves are meant to be broad and flexible to be able to fit and mesh with the vast array of complex characters we can create. As for Thanos...Lawful Evil with a heaping helping of delusional. He's not concerned with the cost: Just the results. He believes he's helping and maybe he is, short term regarding resources. But he's not examining the issue of resources and lack thereof closely. As you noted, he's not examining planetary colonization, or technological advancements. He's also not considering what loosing half a population at random does. At best, maybe a planet restructures and the denizens reorganize over shared trauma. At worst, it creates a power vacuum that the traumatized, or already warlike pounce upon to fill in an unrelenting orgy of violence. Not only that, but he's not shy about enacting his plans before he can put people down 'humanely' and flat out executes people en mass via firing squad. And also, side note...kind of, his sudden wiping out half of all people definitely ends up killing over half: during the end credits when Fury & Hill are watching the chaos unfolding, we watch a helicopter crash into a skyscraper...that probably still had people in it. How many surgeries, planes and submarines took a nosedive when important crew went missing? Oh God, how many birthed newborns just went 'poof'? XD He enacts his plan regarding the harm and believing the ends justify the means and believing that the Universe should be grateful to him because he believes he's solved the problem of resource distribution. Lawful Evil to a tee. by the way, let me say thank you for the debate; this has been a lot of fun and a worthwhile exchange! I appreciate having new perspectives to argue with and consider.
It seems like a lawful evil character would only truly thrive in a campaign where the DM has carefully thought out the legal system of every settlement the party encounters..
Sorry for the late reply! It's a bit yes and no. Any alignment can be a bit of a spectrum of outlooks and actions. An Iron fisted, chain of command military character can easily be Lawful Evil without having to delve too deep into legal minutia and back stabbing. On the flip side, a soldier could be looking towards greater position and scheme to make them look bad, or cause a 'friendly fire' incident; either way makes an opening for them to try and step into. A lot of things can be sort of generalized as far as legal code goes. Depending on the setting, players are probably gonna at least be sort of familiar: lots of cultures in different time periods generally weren't fans of theft, murder, rape, or attacking public officials and collected taxes, fielded some kind of law enforcement/protection. And really, how carefully thought out a legal system is can vary widely. The plane of Mechanicus is probably full of minutia, while some tribe of nomads could well be boiled down to "Don't be a dick."
@@GamersDenLoremaster I actually have a Lawful Evil Conquest Paladin. He does not care about the laws of the land, only his own personal laws. His ambition is to become a god-king. He wants to rule a country (or the world) under an iron fist where he is the arbiter of law. Edit: Id say he probably leans more heavily on the Evil of Lawful Evil but he is still Lawful.
Played a few Lawful Evil characters, favorite type was a character who used a backstory trauma as the reason why only he could use the BBEG's McGuffin (BBEG was using a burning crystal of the magic weave to access higher order magic to make an empire), not even for himself, but to deny anyone else using it, even though it could be used for good. He believed in his own view of order and took it upon himself to impose it on the world to assuage his loss. (there was a whole retribution drive backstory against the gods that caused disorder in the magic system which caused both the character's traumatic loss as well as the McGuffin to come into existence in the world, but story didn't go there). Party wanted to stop the BBEG, my guy wanted to take the McGuffin, goals aligned until the BBEG was dead. Betrayed the party (discussed it with DM) when Tim, the Chaotic Good warlock, filled with glee, tried to get the object. It seriously surprised some of the players, as there was a whole plot about uniting the free nations to fight this empire, there was a whole plan about how the object would be used to form a binding treaty - like a type of federal democratic kingdom with the last of a noble bloodline NPC at the head, all of which took up many, many hours and sessions. The party served me until they got in the way of my goals. It ended epic but bittersweet, as the BBEG was dead, half the party was dead, I destroyed the McGuffin rather than not have control which killed the noble as he was tied to it. All the threats were gone, but no one was better off. ... Except maybe for my character, as the crystal not existing still satisfied his goal of denying that level of magic from existing in the world, although not in his preferred way. one of the ways I like to view the alignments is "selfish vs self-less" for evil and good, and "process vs end result" for lawful and chaotic.
I've always pictured him as being Neutral Evil myself, but I can see reasoning for him being Lawful Evil. Certainly a being older than the Byzantine Empire (where the framework for modern law under the Corpus Juris Civilis) would abide by more ancient laws, such as the Unseelie Accords, rather than the laws of human civilization.
Starting a campaign with some friends as a lawful evil half-orc barbarian. Excited to see how I can use lawful evil traits to make our campaign very fun
I'm sure someone else has probably already said it, but. The lawful alignment had nothing to do with legal systems... It means they are ordered in their behaviour, they pay attention to structure, usually have a personal code of conduct and ethics that they hold to as a principle. They will often respect rules but most often by the letter rather than the spirit, especially if if can benefit them from a certain perspective.
I appreciate that perspective and appreciate your point and as far as I know/recall: no one else has pointed that out. I would disagree only in the sense that structure, code of conduct and ethics are also legal things: legal structure, codes of conduct and ethics. A tyrannical regent is, for all intents and purposes, the lawmaker for the land and they see the law and power dynamics as a means of gaining, cementing and enhancing their own power and wishes. to quote the forgotten realms wiki on the LE alignment: Lawful evil characters exploited rules and power structures for their own personal gain. Meaning they would also want to maintain those laws and power structure, or if they do change them: Change them to suit their own needs. And after all: They are the law, aren't they?
@Fillip mcgee Gluttony isn't good, but seeing that impoverishment needs to be dealt with is. Rarely are there laws against anything like gluttony, except in religious aspects or times of extreme famine. It's another situation where a wider context probably needs to be established, but I'll assume there isn't a great deal of famine and it's a matter of distribution for this scenario. Seeing that people are starving due to unfair or poorly managed means of distribution and demanding change is a good thing, even if the person is a glutton themselves. Their motives may be: "I want to eat as much as I like without feeling guilty." may dampen the overall motives, but the net results are still good and make little difference to the starving people who now, in theory, have access to more food thanks to this gluttonous reformer. It's not to say that things will go perfectly with the best intentions: The French Revolution occurred because the 1st & 2nd Estates (the richest 2%; nobles and clergy) were feasting and literally burning money as the 3rd estate (98% of the country) starved to death. Literally, the Absolutist Monarch King Louis XVI spent a fortune funding, supplying and assisting the American Colonies in the Revolution against Great Britain. It had no payoff beyond flipping the British a big middle finger and fueled the Enlightenment thinkers with: "Hey, they threw off a Monarchy. Ours is starving us and burning money, we might as well try if we're gonna die anyways." And tore down the Monarchy. It turned into a bloodbath, with men like Robespierre sending hundreds to the guillotine to keep the revolution alive in the face of enemies within and without, giving rise to Napoleon's rule, but hey.
@Fillip mcgee For the first part of your question, I would say that such a person is probably either LE or NE. If they're using the Law and statistical data to defend themselves while subverting it and exploiting loopholes to their benefit, Lawful Evil. LE clings to legal structure, or creates it. NE will use the same things, but also be willing to destroy those same structures. They can quote and use statistical data and laws to their benefit, but they'll also blatantly break it, or destroy it when it benefits them. For the last, that can be any of the alignments. Chaotic Good might tell the Lawful Good Paladin to quit making excuses about the Law needing to be upheld, or the revers where the LG Paladin tells the CG person to quit whining and bring them evidence. Hell, a Neutral person could tell someone to stop making excuses.
I had the idea of playing a right hand man of a faction group. An intelligent Alchemist who is recreating a drug to allow his faction to rise in power.
@@Keybladeaddict Makes sense to me. It sounds like it'll be a lot of fun. Here's hoping enough of them die before the side effects become apparent; make it kind of a situation where it's a slow burn, building up to a great, karmic conflagration. Actually had this idea for a different take on the wise old mentor trope you see in a lot of fantasy stories. The Old mentor isn't a wizard, but a warrior and a brutal one at that. Famed for his strength and the use of a great axe, he boosts his nigh on peak human strength even further with incredibly potent potions that are literally shredding the remaining years of his life as his body struggles to reknit the tissues and bone fractures together and keep his heart from exploding.
I disagree. Those who follow brutal orders for the purpose of advancing their society/organization or for the 'greater good' are generally lawful neutral. Lawful Evil would use those brutal orders for the purpose of advancing their own selfish goals and advancement more so than the goals of the organization that they follow.
I would say context is important to the actions: For the greater good, of course a Lawful Neutral would be more accepting, even if it were unfortunate and distasteful. Wanting to keep their heads down and blind themselves to whats going on? Lawful evil; or to put it another way: "The Banality of Evil." But again, context is important and you are certainly not wrong by any stretch.
@@GamersDenLoremaster The difference in LN vs LE in this context would be the difference between "It has to be done, for it is the letter of the law" to "fuck them, they die." This is just my sensibility running factions like the Harmonium and Mercykillers from Planescape that occupy the gamut from LG to LE. The factions in planescape often address one philosophical problem, and alignment is the difference in approach.
I realize this is the alignment my twin assassins are… i thought at first they’d be more chaotic good or chaotic neutral. But…. Lawful evil is way more accurate.
So I'm trying out LE for the first time in my dnd campaign she's a human courtesan cultist of Mammon. She makes blood contracts with people making under line deals in turn she uses the political gains from the contracts to boost herself within the government of the realm to further her own gains for status and power/wealth. Following to the contract until she is powerful enough to outwardly spread her evil cultism with her twin sister. I think I'm doing pretty good she wears a mask to conceal true intent but not against hiring people to be put under her boots.
This is great! Mammon is one of my favorite Devil Lords to run overall, what with his emphasis on greed actually adding a layer of obfuscation to mortal cult activities, due to their willingness to exchange contracts for large sums of gold instead of souls. It can cause forces of good to have to move with care and consideration before leveling weighty accusations of being in league with the forces of the Nine Hells. The landlord might just be the kind of Ebenezer Scrooge that's willing to evict the poor on Christmas Day a month after a rent hike just because they're a greedy bastard all on their own. They might be a cultist creating suffering through an exactingly cruel application of the law and reaping a golden harvest for the cult. Either way, if the Righteous want to do anything about them, particularly Lawful Good and Lawful Neutral, they have to tread carefully. In your case with this character, are you leveraging blackmail as well? Great way of getting political influence and moving pieces along. Find out who's been speculating on new mines, have a lord grant you a deed to the land ahead of time, sell the mineral rights with a percentage cut out for yourself to invest in a few merchant caravans and arrange for rival merchants to have unfortunate encounters with bandits who give you a cut of the goods that you can repackage and resell through other routes, or on the black market. Sorry, I get lost in ideas, but feel free to use and spin off any of these.
@@GamersDenLoremaster Wow these are some pretty great idea's really! thanks so much currently had my game session to night with the gals my cultist and her sister have pretty much started to take over a small city my character blackmailing and getting one of the cities magistrates under her finger to boost herself either to a magistrate herself to take the laws and enforce them strictly for her own gains or for the gains of the cult with in her back story her entire family has been cultists of mammon since their grandparents so big line of cultist. DM is actually working on something with me too >:D the party is not going to have a good time. lol
@@cutecupcake8425 Glad to help! If you ever want advice, tips, tricks, ideas, just pop on over and comment! This sounds like an excellent plan overall and would give you quite a bit of leverage. Hell, you could get your own trade organization going too, finding which members are willing to lie cheat and loophole their way to greater riches and slowly induct them to a secret society that then further filters them out to those that would be willing to bind themselves to Mammon and start your own sect of the Cult of Gold.
My favourite pathfinder character, a lawful evil sorcerer 'cursed' to save the world. Classic fighting against one's destiny and plenty of loathing of one's actions... Just don't cross him because he will remember and is VERY petty.
Lol, sure, some politicians. Maybe even a lot. I think more of people like Nick Freeman at Freeman & Co. in Manchester. Dude was nicknamed Mr. Loophole by the press for his cunning ability to exploit technicalities in the law and he trademarked the name. But politicians, lawyers, Kings, Dukes, Cops: All of these are capable of creating, enforcing and exploiting the law to their own benefit and really that's the key: Maintaining the law to their own benefit.
Well technically the law only applies if your caught, that's why proof is so necessary. What I am saying is I never broke the Law if the law could never criminally accuse me and find me guilty. That is what the Law is, breaking the Law means being Guilty and sending me to what ever punishment is sees fit.If it can't find me guilty then I never broke the law. Then when you have amassed enough power. You resign from what ever duties you had that honor bound you from betraying the group or society and then you say "I AM THE LAW" If you are saying I was always betraying them the entire time I was honor bound by amassing power. No I did not betray them I simply had the means to betray someone, everyone has the means to betray someone else. Like a party of warriors with swords. The fact they have swords does not mean they are betraying their fellow allies.
Precisely! Thank you! I was gonna cover that when I talked about the Penultimate LE faction: The Baatezu. The absolute epitome of: "We have a contract and I didn't violate any clauses."
I had a goliath who was lawful evil. I had asked how much xp we'd get for killing these 51 mongrel people we just saved. And 2 of my party, blinded by the xp decided to slaughter them, they were completely defenseless, and died instantly. The way my dm was running things, was like everyone had an experience share, so everyone in the party splits the xp. So I'm reaping the benifits of their actions as well. I didn't kill them, I didn't tell anyone to kill them, so I shouldn't be punished for it, but I still get the xp XD.
In the same campaign, I took over a Werewolf pack, and was going to send the werewolves to their death against the big boss, but the battle happened too fast, and couldn't call them to my aid. Everyone died except for a bird person that was apart of the party, and he's pretty much just hiding in the big boss's dungeon for the rest of his life.
@@gurth-quake1627 Ahh, the old "Technically 'I' did nothing wrong." is absolutely Lawful Evil and I love it. You know what character I think has Done Lawful Evil incredibly well? The Alliance Agent from Serenity. And it's this line that seals it for me: "I'm a monster Mal. What I do is Evil, but it must be done." His cause is making every world a better one and the cost is justified by the goal. Eliminating threats by any means necessary in order to achieve that goal. It's the epitome of "the ends justify the means." Adds a level of depth and nuance to an otherwise LE character.
@@GamersDenLoremaster so, thanos. XD this was my first, and only campaign so far, so I didn't exactly understand lawful evil completely. I could've done so much more with being the pack leader if I just knew more. And you know, my irl personality is lawful evil (I learned this from the video), but I have a soft spot for desperation, good or evil. I'm also afraid of hurting people.
Rules as written? No, the class description states any non-lawful alignment. I do not agree and really haven't since third edition where monks had to be lawful, paladins lawful good and barbarians chaotic. A barbarian from a Lawful Evil society could have the motto of "Might makes right, the Leader commands might, therefore they make the rules, their word is law." And have a detailed structure to their society, where a warriors rank and title are determined by the number of kills they've made and are displayed with scrimshaw necklaces of increasing intricacy. Such a barbarian may go to a city, decide to test whether they have the right to make their laws by picking a fight. If they are beaten by that cities warriors, they would be more include to abide by their rules because "might makes right." And they have just proven themselves.
Apologies, I have two youtube accounts and was on break at work. I hadn't realized I responded to you earlier under my regular, watch stuff account and not The Gamers Den.
Name: Avukicïo Long Tian Alignment: Lawful Evil Race: Dragonfolk I come from across the world, though you wouldn't know that. Throughout my life, I've done many miracles. I've been a priest of Tangluo for a while, teaching people the art of exorcism. Today, I'm a loving stepfather of two adorable children, who have abandoned their abusive father for me. *Two hours later* _Sire, sire, sire!_ What is it now? _Sire, they've caught wind of what you've done._ If they want to arrest the Chairman of the Outer Territories Company, I'm very sure that my coffers will be just the right amount to show the judge my proper standing. Besides, who cares? We're with order and the law, and I represent the natural order of things. _The Empire... they know that you murdered him._ The violinist? _Indeed._ I didn't murder him. He's an artist, a vagabond, a loser. Probably just died of dysentery, or of some disease that he ignored. Besides, we're with the Republic. _The Republic is losing. Badly._ What? Don't the people know what makes them free? _Yeah, but the church is much more popular among the village folk. Our territory's surrounded, remember?_ So, what does that have to do with anything? _The church found out what's going on in the sewers. They know how you brainwashed the masses. It's a well-known miracle that Priest Ðavuk of the Triune Order has resurrected that violinist. He's coming for you now, and he'll soon be able to be a father._ Are you on his side? _Quite frankly, yes. Imperial Guard, seize him!_
They could! It largely depends on their actions and the circumstances around everything. The 1st Crusade with the 'Princes', for example, was a disciplined military force with a great deal of political machinations wrapped up in Religious justifications. The regular troops though definitely were fanatical and the capture of Jerusalem, while lawful, was full of indiscriminate butchery, with descriptions of Crusaders wading ankle deep in blood through the city streets. Generally the extremes of violence through organized means, creeds, etc. could be considered LE. I would also count the Glabados Church from final fantasy Tactics as a Lawful Evil institution: They fomented war between Larg & Goltana with the aim of having them weaken each other enough so that they could step in and be the saviors of the people by using the 'Holy Stones' to create new Zodiac warriors with the strength to end the fighting and be the voice of reason. They used their ability to excommunicate and brand those who opposed them as heretics and worked hard to conceal any of their shady dealings.
@@GamersDenLoremaster I enjoy this concept and have a character idea. Idea would be a church choir boy coming from an especially fanatic city and during adventures, forced into a strange party who rubbed off on them.
I've always wanted to play a complete Karen as an LE character. Complains about everything. Asks to speak to your manager, ruins a lot of fun for other people because they can.
That's the tricky thing with alignments: They're pretty broad in what they cover. But I will say I don't believe the interpretation to be outdated: The forgotten realms wiki, 1st Edition Pathfinder book & wiki and a few other sources make a point of noting tyrannical rulers that draft and use laws and legal systems to suit them. And that LE persons tend to use their obedience to the law as a shield and means of elevating themselves above others morally, as well as social. It's not the ONLY means of being lawful evil, but it tends to be the case. Thanks for challenging my take on it though; ideas in 'conflict' help to sharpen one another! To the extent that this can be in conflict however.
@@GamersDenLoremaster 5e describes says Lawful Evil "...creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order." It says nothing about actual laws. While the totalitarian dictator is LE, so is the Bandit on the road with a sense of loyalty to his band that tells him, "You don't steal from your own" Now he might be surprised when the CE bandit in the same group betrays him later, but by not being the one who betrays, he is Lawful. The Drow, with their rigid hierarchy of strict, totalitarian, rules are LE. But so are the Kobolds who are only bound by a loyalty to the warren without actual laws to guide them.
@@MrGreensweightHist I still make use of them myself, but definitely loosely, since as you noted there are plenty of instances where they are clearly more flexible and don't have the same degree of mechanical effect. But I also play 1E Pathfinder much more, with all those classic spells that have effect on specific alignments. Also, I'm not sure where I got the notion; as in if I had read it in an official source, or landed there on my own; but the Drow always seemed more NE to me. Using the laws when it suited them, but readily abandoning them when it was advantageous to do so. But such is the nature of debating these things. Again, thank you! I hope I'm not coming off too strongly. Your points are very well reasoned and supported.
@@GamersDenLoremaster So I think our different views on it are a case of Pathfinder vs D&D 5e, meaning we're talking about similar, but not the same thing, leading to miscommunication. "I hope I'm not coming off too strongly. " Not at all.
@Gian Man I read over this a few times and I feel this person would be Chaotic Neutral, rather than NE. Feeling like good is a fairytale, or clings to fairytales, isn't necessarily evil. This is just someone incredibly jaded and disillusioned. The ability to switch back and forth between different philosophies implies a mindset of "whatever adapts best to the situation at hand." at best and a "Oh shit, oh shit, oh shit, I will try everything until something works, things are going from bad to worst fast!" at worst. Neither of which is inherently evil, but I would determine that by how extreme they get in their actions. Murdering and backstabbing at the drop of a hat, might be a bit more evil. Being ready to turn on someone because you're reasonably sure they're gonna try and do the same to you (based on personal history) that's just caution.
@Gian Man Either Lawful Neutral, or Lawful Evil and it depends on how extreme the behavior gets and what the letter of the law is. For example, a lawful Neutral plane like The Clockwork Nirvana of Mechanus has literal flying eye machine Modron and all the Modron beings believe that all other order, law and structure are tainted and inferior when compared to theirs. Their machine logic does not allow any room for error, or misjudgment with any such errors being an incomplete dataset. So, a mortal being emulating this would be oppressive, but not necessarily evil. It's not good either and could easily come into conflict with good, or evil characters. Especially when it comes to punishment. They won't be cruel, but it's still punishment being delivered in accordance with the letter of the law. The law is broken, therefore there are consequences. Where they come into being lawful evil is when they get to be cruel. Lawful evil can also be oppressive in it's control, but it does so both as an abuse of and a means of maintaining power. And in the case of those further down the chain of command, it can be a simple desire of not wanting to attract attention, so they simply follow orders (a banality of evil, if you will). They know something bad is happening, but just follow orders and do their best to not think about the consequences of what they do. (That's just human nature in a lot of cases and calling it evil might be harsh, but then again: there can be severe consequences when this is done. But that's a wholly different discussion) The cruelty and extent of punishment, psychological or otherwise, is generally more extreme with LE to send a wider message to society at large; it's not just for the person suffering it: it's a reminder to everyone that the LE person is in control.
@Gian Man That's a great question! Short answer: Yes, absolutely all of these are possible. Long answer: Yes, because they aren't machines. They're (typically) fallible, mortal creatures. They can be kind and loving. They can have families, children and dote on those children. They may even give to the poor and derive a sense of satisfaction from it. But when you steal bread? Well, time for you to face legal consequences. You questioned a LE persons legal authority? Time for a gauntlet to the sternum and possibly half a day in the stockade for impeding an official in their duties. It's a harsh contrast, but it's all too human. Neutral Good is probably fairly logical: At their most broad, they see value in law but also see how laws aren't always the best means of maintaining societal well being and thus can be okay with extralegal means. Chaotic characters can also behave logically. Would it not be a logical conclusion for the common folk to try and rise up against a tyrannical ruler? if they can be randomly punished and/or put to death as a means of trying to impose a heavy handed sense of order, why not rise up? Chaotic good would rob the rich to feed the poor, Chaotic Neutral would rob the rich to feed themselves and a few other folks probably (or be the smugglers bringing in weapons and supplies, for a nice fee.), Chaotic Evil might have been pushed to the brink by repeated punishments and find little meaning in anything other than burning everything down. There's a logic to all of those things, or at least a reasonable progression of events that lead to these moments in characters lives. I will say I tend to think Chaotic Evil is less likely to maintain consistent logic, but even they will realize the value in having allies that aren't likely to stab them in the back (even if it makes no sense to them that they wouldn't).
I like how Lawful Evil doesn't necessarily mean they are attached to SOCIETAL laws alone, but their own personal code of conduct. There was a Lawful Evil Fighter in a Campaign I remember named Istvan; the last remaining man of a fallen noble line, a line cursed to forever possess murderous impulses that can only be satisfied with blood and pain. So he works as a mercenary with personal rules to guide his conduct to efficiently fit in as a productive member of society. On the job he was ruthless and brutal, willing to kill and torture the enemy and genuinely sadistic. While off the job he was affable, charming and quite eloquent, engaging in debates of history and theology with other party members. You'd never guess he was even Evil. Basically, being Evil doesn't mean your character needs to be an asshole.
You mind if I steal this for a LE paladin I'm building?
@@questerousmaximus8110 By all means, go ahead.
@@questerousmaximus8110 i’m curious how this went!
I suppose a Mafia or Yakuza type mafia family would certaily be great for a lawful evil character since they uphold extremely strict hierarchical rules and creeds while not for their country but for their town
There's a strong case to be made for that certainly: Certain criminal organizations do operate along strict hierarchical lines and codes of conduct; the Yakuza come to mind for one. But, as always, there is room for interpretation. I would argue that a lot of real world criminal organizations are Neutral Evil. Yeah, they'll use the law to their advantage; but they'll subvert it and outright break it as soon as it gives an advantage.
Like how Capone had some of the best lawyers to represent him in court and exploit existing loopholes in the legal framework, but would also pay off juries, cops, judges and have many of the same murdered. Certainly bribery straddles a middle ground between LE & NE, using the lawyer to use laws to his advantage is firmly LE and killing off obstacles because of its expedience is NE.
Actually, a good LE example that comes to mind are the Megacorporations from Shadowrun: they literally create the rules to benefit themselves and put themselves on par, or above, many nations.
Sorry, I could ramble on a while with a discussion like this. But I love that you took the time to comment, thank you!
@Fillip mcgee Yeah actually, you could see something like that.
Probably my favorite example is from the Fiendish Codex II: Tyrants of the Nine Hells.
I forget their name, but its a kind of Devil born from those souls so loyal to their lords and Lawfully aligned that they carried out every order, no matter how vile and evil it may have been.
They carry that attitude in the after life and is a reason why Asmodeus gets so many sworn to him: They will never betray him.
So a being could be sworn to a good cause, but go to extremes in violence and retribution.
Think like Vlad the Impaler: He was incredibly harsh and cruel, but politics were never personal, he was stuck between the Ottoman Empire and The Hungarian.
His tenuous position meant maintaining power was paramount, so he went to the extremes in dealing with the Boyars, criminals, the Ottoman Empire, etc.
Still regarded as a Hero in Romania, though its under more debate in modern times.
Lex Luthor and the Kingpin are both great examples of Lawful Evil in my opinion.
Best real life example of LE? Lawyers.
There is another thing about lawful, following there own rules. Example the devils their alignment is lawful evil.
Very much so; they are the embodiment of tyranny after all.
"Rules are for the masses. I make the rules, therefore I am above them." very much so describes the Devil mindset.
Asmodeus and his cunning use of the law against the Gods and tricking them into giving him his own realm is the absolute height of LE.
The thing is with Lawful Evil, as with other alignments: There will always be rules. There has to be order, in this case a rigid hierarchy with underlings to be abused because of the fact they are underlings and the superior has the right.
Lots of different ways to describe and express Lawful Evil mindsets!
I just watched the video on Chaotic Evil and realized I had missed this one. I like it! An all evil campaign would be cool!
As someone who likes to write, I have three characters who may be considered lawful evil.
The first is an alien prince exiled from his dimension for trying to overthrow his father and take the throne. He has been treacherous and scheming here on Earth for centuries and could almost be considered NE, but his ultimate desire is to claim the throne which he feels is his birthright. He is egotistical, suave, arrogant and vain. Likes to look down on poorer people.
The second is his chief enforcer and fixer, who is a former Navy SEAL who became medically disabled and joined this guy's syndicate to get back to the job he enjoys. He is extremely self-disciplined and rarely speaks, but is brutal and remorseless toward those he is sent to "correct".
The third is a high-up commander in an anarchist rebel group. Now most of these guys are CE and want to cause sadistic destruction, but this man wants to bring down society in order to rebuild it with himself as the ruler and has nothing but contempt for his bloodthirsty colleagues and superiors.
Do these guys sound lawful evil to you?
I would say yes to the first two, but the third, I think, is more Neutral Evil than lawful, for the following reasons:
1) He wants to tear down society and rebuild it with himself at the top. Lawful evil tends to be more thoughtful and precise. While they are not beyond using brute force, they tend to use brute force through structures that are in place.
2) Use of chaotic evil minions. This feeds into the first point, but while having fearlessly crazed cannon fodder is useful, they're hardly consistent and have a harder time laying low than others might. If this is the bulk of what your high up anarchist leader uses, then he's skewing more towards that Neutral evil 'by any means necessary' mindset.
3) He's not the one in charge and is presumably scheming to seize a higher position. There's another fictional example of a faction that has this mindset: Drow from the Forgotten Realms and they're usually Chaotic Evil, what with worshiping Lolth, daily hedonism and murder for fun and/or advancement. While he doesn't so far sound like he's got some heinous vices, I'm anticipating some treachery aimed at his superiors at some opportune time.
If you want him to go more CE, maybe emphasize that the cells under his command are more disciplined than their counterparts and act with a level of precision, even taking advantage of the chaos sown by the rest of the Anarchists. He could even be the glue holding everything together; the power behind the throne as it were, actually giving their emphatic and verbose speech slinging leader some kind of credit by putting action behind the words.
Or if you're happy with where you have this character, leave him as is. It certainly sounds like a hell of a story!
@@GamersDenLoremaster
His minions are more obedient and reliable than the other commanders' troops. That's not to say all are controllable, or even loyal, but the vast majority understand their master's intentions and want their piece of the reward at the end. As for his quarrel with his superiors, he really only answers to one man: the leader and founder of this group, who is hateful and vicious, manipulative and sadistic. The two butt heads frequently as our guy has his own ideas for the future, but his master's contradict his plans. They're like foils and they hate each other, but the leader understands our guy's skill at tactics and waging war, so he begrudgingly lets him do what he wants with the men and turf under his command. Even though they hate each other enough to kill one another.
The really ironic thing is that our guy (nicknamed Jack Doe) thinks he is better than his master, even though both are pure evil with no redeeming qualities. Ultimately Jack does betray his master - as expected - but his downfall is that it was expected and his master had already prepared for an attack. All this manages to do is weaken both of their armies to the point the heroes can defeat both. Classic 'house divided against itself' downfall
@@ericcrawford7207 I love it, sounds like a fantastic story and probably a great campaign setting as well!
I hope my answer wasn't too long and I appreciate you taking the time!
@The equal is an equal After reading all of this, I would say this character is Neutral Evil, leaning a bit more towards being Lawful from time to time.
They may not be wrong about the other, supposedly LG character being so string they're actually LE, or possibly LN. They may be right and there's nothing inherently wrong with that; but it does serve as a bit of background on why they look at "Good" with a great deal of suspicion.
But it's that description of "Pacifistic, power hungry coward that wants to control everything and everyone" that sells me on this character being LE to maybe leaning a bit NE themselves.
A Pacifistic coward might be described as the person who says: "Oh, so because the (in this case) actual Nazi said and did Nazi things, its okay to fight them? Fighting makes you as bad as them!"
Pacifism for the sake of peace and control, if not directly, is still inherently oppressive and has a habit of siding with oppressors because it values law and order over justice, particularly restorative justice with actual accountability.
Being a coward tells me this is someone that does everything to habitually avoid direct confrontation. So they manipulate, scheme and work towards maintaining control for the sake of control in the name of 'Law and Order', or 'Peace'. Long term thinking and planning is definitely a more orderly, disciplined trait, while manipulating and moving pieces according to your own designs could go either LE, NE, so it fits.
Controlling everything can also go either way, but is weighted a bit more towards LE and fits the theme overall so far.
Yeah, I'd say this is LE with a bit of a paranoia regarding "good" in that he believes its secretly self serving.
@The equal is an equal I had a really long answer typed out two times now on this, but each time something came up and I came back to find the page refreshed, or hit backspace and delete the whole thing.
This person isn't LE, or NE. Not really. The alignment system isn't perfect and is broadly written, so the alignments end up applying to a wide range of different people, cultures and actions.
Murder is pretty reprehensible and still horrible, even when the action could be justified.
Given the fact that there is no objective good and evil (I can imagine several people giving me a "Well, you're wrong because..." for the example I gave about murder) and that what is deemed to be moral in one culture will inevitably change on a long enough timeline, I wouldn't really worry about trying to apply something like alignments from these games to real life.
They cannot and do not reflect the complexity and vastness of the human experience, nor the array of circumstances surrounding the choices each of us has to make in our day to day lives, or the lives of those around us.
What matters, if a person has done wrong, is what they feel and what they do about it. Feel guilty and remorseful about the harm indirectly caused?
Good! They suck to feel, but are indications of thought and empathy towards others. Meaning there is desire and impetus for change. That's a good start.
But it's only a start. I can apologize again and again for making the same mistake day after day, but at a certain point the words start to feel empty to the person/s you're apologizing to.
You may mean them and may genuinely feel bad, but that does little to nothing for the person inconvenienced/wronged by the mistake.
A person has to make the effort to do better about the mistake they're making.
Myself, for example, can be incredibly forgetful thanks to my ADHD. My mind can go from one thought to the next and get hyper fixated on something to the point that pulling my focus to something else leaves me frustrated and maybe even angry, because this fixation is where my brain wants to be.
Pretty rough when it comes to my wife repeatedly asking me to take care of something day in and day out, for both of us. I feel bad, but feeling bad and apologizing does little to keep her from feeling like I don't care enough to hear her.
So I got and am getting help, started on medication and taking a few extra steps to try and be better about the myriad different things I other wise lose track of.
Am I great at it? Not yet, only been a few weeks. But I'm getting better and that improvement in action has made a world of difference in how we both feel.
So no, this lad isn't evil by any stretch based off of this vague-ish description. A little lost, perhaps misguided on applying alignments so strongly to real life, but not evil.
Just human. And a seemingly incredibly creative one at that.
7:03 Anakin/Darth Vader in a nutshell
I thought “lawful” meant they held onto a personal code and never broke it; always acting in a ‘respectable’ manner, not “follows the law no matter what.”
It can mean both, it just kind of depends on the context.
For example, take Oda Nobunaga and the battle of Enryakuji; one of the greatest Bhuddist temples and it's under control of the Ikko Ikki; warrior monks and major gun manufacturers in 1500's.
Nobunaga had been defeated at the temple of Ishiyama Honganji by another sect of the Ikko Ikki and it was BAD. He didn't want the same thing to happen here and he needed/wanted to send a message.
So, they surrounded Mt. Hiei, slaughtering and driving any villagers they found upwards towards the fortress temple.
Then they set the tree line ablaze and burned the temple down, killing anyone who fled from the blaze.
Every last man, woman and child; in rebellion or not, Ikko Ikki or not.
Those men knew how awful those orders were and carried them out anyways. Not many of them rebelled or dissented in anyway. Some out of loyalty, some out of fear, some because that's just what you did, some out of a mix of the three.
The only one to eventually rebel was a General named Mitsuhide Akechi; an avowed Bhuddist, generally more willing to accept surrender from opponents with minimal executions and purportedly his mother had ended up being killed by Nobunaga's forces.
I would argue that many of those who loyally and unquestioningly carried out their lords orders, despite the horrific nature of the orders, were Lawful evil.
@@GamersDenLoremaster
Individual actions or events don’t determine alignment unless it’s a “character development” moment.
I’d say they followed an evil order, but they were in the military which is usually nuetral chaotic since it exists to keep order and peace but by brutally destroying rebellions and foreign threats with extreme prejudice.
@@calebreynolds9183
I'm inclined to disagree with that first part of individual actions or events don't determine alignment, but on lines of semantics:
All of a persons actions are individual actions and can lead to character development. Each individual action is a summation of a pattern of behavior and whether it changes or not is part of a larger arc in development.
As for the military, well alignment just kind of depends really. Most militaries, particularly professional, modern ones, are more along the lines of lawful, leaning more towards lawful neutral but by no means free of LE, or LG depending on unit commanders.
For an older example of a LG-LN military, I would point to Belisarius of the Eastern Roman Empire and his conquest of North Africa.
When his troops began seizing supplies after capturing a few towns and smaller cities, he got them back into disciplined order and commanded that they pay for those supplies, as these citizens they were looting were still Roman Citizens, recently liberated, and would be treated as such.
But in regards to something of an Honorable, LE character, I actually have a canonical source!
From the Fiendish Codex II: Tyrants of the Nine Hells, pg. 126, we have the Narzugon:
"Misery defines the existence of a Narzugon. Once great warriors on the Material Plane, they adhered to the letter of the
law, regardless of the consequences. In death, they found an eternity in the Nine Hells to be their reward.
The same mortal failing that led to their miserable fates
holds true even as devils. They follow the letter of their commands, even if the act they perform is distasteful or clearly wrong.
Despite their reservations, they follow through and fail only in death. The irony of their predicament is that nothing, aside from their own wickedness, binds them to
their duty, and their suffering stems from the realization
that their mortal virtue was a sham.
Alignment: Narzugons are always lawful evil. They are
disciplined and rigid in their outlooks and actions. Ranks of Narzugons march in perfect time, and the massed charges they unleash in the Blood War put any mortal cavalry to shame.
@@GamersDenLoremaster
I disagree.
The first part- good, neutral and evil- is the generalized morality of any actions you take.
Chaotic is more likely to do any number of seemingly random or spontaneous acts, sometimes dipping into the opposite moral ties to do so.
The neutrals usually stick firmly in their morality range, and are capable of being semi-spontaneous but they are also prone to being rigid at roughly 50/50 intervals.
The lawfuls are the least likely to deviate from their morality. They are devoted to some code or morality or ideal to the point that to betray what they obsessively apply to their behavior is to betray themselves.
There’s also the fact that in some guides, the definition of “evil” alignment doesn’t necessarily mean “torturing serial killer.” It refers to the likelihood to be self oriented and self motivated where all your actions are to help you and increase your standings and power, very rarely helping anyone or anything else unless it directly serves you....then they define ‘good’ morality alignment as being someone who is helpful to others more than themselves, and will do things to help people even if they get little to nothing for return. Neutrals commit acts on both ends of the spectrum.
“Little bit of good or a little bit of bad?”
“How about both?”
“Yeah, I like both! Let’s do both!”
I’ve also seen D&D morality officially be explained in a contradictory manner where evil is the objective negativity of your actions and overarching goals.
This is how so many hardcore D&D players/DMs can argue about whether or not Thanos is chaotic good or lawful evil. He has a strict moral code and a goal to help all life thrive by removing half of the population of the universe, reducing competition but leaving all the resources that once supported almost all of the population....but he also kills half the universe. But he does it humanely and he believes this is the simple math and science of bacteria overgrowth, which could be a convincing argument if you could prove to me that someone as smart as thanos is incapable of realizing that struggle planets could also just...colonize other worlds or be given miraculous technology to help them access more resources. I don’t think the infinity gauntlet can truly create completely new things and it especially can’t on that scale, but I do believe that even if it could create on that scale without first destroying, Thanos wouldn’t have even attempted it.
I know it seems silly at surface level to bring this up, but I think it’s important as depending on who is speaking on the Thanos morality alignment, and seeing WHY they are arguing for Chaotic good/Lawful Evil, you’ll likely be able to use that as a means to figure out which edition of D&D they’re playing/are most familiar with.
@@calebreynolds9183 This is an instance where I largely agree with everything you said because alignments in and of themselves are meant to be broad and flexible to be able to fit and mesh with the vast array of complex characters we can create.
As for Thanos...Lawful Evil with a heaping helping of delusional.
He's not concerned with the cost: Just the results.
He believes he's helping and maybe he is, short term regarding resources. But he's not examining the issue of resources and lack thereof closely.
As you noted, he's not examining planetary colonization, or technological advancements.
He's also not considering what loosing half a population at random does. At best, maybe a planet restructures and the denizens reorganize over shared trauma. At worst, it creates a power vacuum that the traumatized, or already warlike pounce upon to fill in an unrelenting orgy of violence.
Not only that, but he's not shy about enacting his plans before he can put people down 'humanely' and flat out executes people en mass via firing squad.
And also, side note...kind of, his sudden wiping out half of all people definitely ends up killing over half: during the end credits when Fury & Hill are watching the chaos unfolding, we watch a helicopter crash into a skyscraper...that probably still had people in it. How many surgeries, planes and submarines took a nosedive when important crew went missing? Oh God, how many birthed newborns just went 'poof'? XD
He enacts his plan regarding the harm and believing the ends justify the means and believing that the Universe should be grateful to him because he believes he's solved the problem of resource distribution. Lawful Evil to a tee.
by the way, let me say thank you for the debate; this has been a lot of fun and a worthwhile exchange! I appreciate having new perspectives to argue with and consider.
You are a very good narrator!
It seems like a lawful evil character would only truly thrive in a campaign where the DM has carefully thought out the legal system of every settlement the party encounters..
Sorry for the late reply!
It's a bit yes and no. Any alignment can be a bit of a spectrum of outlooks and actions. An Iron fisted, chain of command military character can easily be Lawful Evil without having to delve too deep into legal minutia and back stabbing.
On the flip side, a soldier could be looking towards greater position and scheme to make them look bad, or cause a 'friendly fire' incident; either way makes an opening for them to try and step into.
A lot of things can be sort of generalized as far as legal code goes. Depending on the setting, players are probably gonna at least be sort of familiar: lots of cultures in different time periods generally weren't fans of theft, murder, rape, or attacking public officials and collected taxes, fielded some kind of law enforcement/protection.
And really, how carefully thought out a legal system is can vary widely. The plane of Mechanicus is probably full of minutia, while some tribe of nomads could well be boiled down to "Don't be a dick."
@@GamersDenLoremaster I actually have a Lawful Evil Conquest Paladin. He does not care about the laws of the land, only his own personal laws.
His ambition is to become a god-king. He wants to rule a country (or the world) under an iron fist where he is the arbiter of law.
Edit: Id say he probably leans more heavily on the Evil of Lawful Evil but he is still Lawful.
Played a few Lawful Evil characters, favorite type was a character who used a backstory trauma as the reason why only he could use the BBEG's McGuffin (BBEG was using a burning crystal of the magic weave to access higher order magic to make an empire), not even for himself, but to deny anyone else using it, even though it could be used for good. He believed in his own view of order and took it upon himself to impose it on the world to assuage his loss. (there was a whole retribution drive backstory against the gods that caused disorder in the magic system which caused both the character's traumatic loss as well as the McGuffin to come into existence in the world, but story didn't go there).
Party wanted to stop the BBEG, my guy wanted to take the McGuffin, goals aligned until the BBEG was dead.
Betrayed the party (discussed it with DM) when Tim, the Chaotic Good warlock, filled with glee, tried to get the object. It seriously surprised some of the players, as there was a whole plot about uniting the free nations to fight this empire, there was a whole plan about how the object would be used to form a binding treaty - like a type of federal democratic kingdom with the last of a noble bloodline NPC at the head, all of which took up many, many hours and sessions.
The party served me until they got in the way of my goals.
It ended epic but bittersweet, as the BBEG was dead, half the party was dead, I destroyed the McGuffin rather than not have control which killed the noble as he was tied to it. All the threats were gone, but no one was better off.
... Except maybe for my character, as the crystal not existing still satisfied his goal of denying that level of magic from existing in the world, although not in his preferred way.
one of the ways I like to view the alignments is "selfish vs self-less" for evil and good, and "process vs end result" for lawful and chaotic.
I looked up lawful evil because I took a test and it called me lawful evil. Anyone else lol
Nicodemus from The Dresden Files, is my favorite example of a lawful evil character. He is my reference for what lawful evil is.
I've always pictured him as being Neutral Evil myself, but I can see reasoning for him being Lawful Evil.
Certainly a being older than the Byzantine Empire (where the framework for modern law under the Corpus Juris Civilis) would abide by more ancient laws, such as the Unseelie Accords, rather than the laws of human civilization.
Starting a campaign with some friends as a lawful evil half-orc barbarian. Excited to see how I can use lawful evil traits to make our campaign very fun
I'm sure someone else has probably already said it, but. The lawful alignment had nothing to do with legal systems... It means they are ordered in their behaviour, they pay attention to structure, usually have a personal code of conduct and ethics that they hold to as a principle. They will often respect rules but most often by the letter rather than the spirit, especially if if can benefit them from a certain perspective.
I appreciate that perspective and appreciate your point and as far as I know/recall: no one else has pointed that out.
I would disagree only in the sense that structure, code of conduct and ethics are also legal things: legal structure, codes of conduct and ethics.
A tyrannical regent is, for all intents and purposes, the lawmaker for the land and they see the law and power dynamics as a means of gaining, cementing and enhancing their own power and wishes.
to quote the forgotten realms wiki on the LE alignment: Lawful evil characters exploited rules and power structures for their own personal gain.
Meaning they would also want to maintain those laws and power structure, or if they do change them: Change them to suit their own needs.
And after all: They are the law, aren't they?
@Fillip mcgee Gluttony isn't good, but seeing that impoverishment needs to be dealt with is.
Rarely are there laws against anything like gluttony, except in religious aspects or times of extreme famine.
It's another situation where a wider context probably needs to be established, but I'll assume there isn't a great deal of famine and it's a matter of distribution for this scenario.
Seeing that people are starving due to unfair or poorly managed means of distribution and demanding change is a good thing, even if the person is a glutton themselves.
Their motives may be: "I want to eat as much as I like without feeling guilty." may dampen the overall motives, but the net results are still good and make little difference to the starving people who now, in theory, have access to more food thanks to this gluttonous reformer.
It's not to say that things will go perfectly with the best intentions: The French Revolution occurred because the 1st & 2nd Estates (the richest 2%; nobles and clergy) were feasting and literally burning money as the 3rd estate (98% of the country) starved to death.
Literally, the Absolutist Monarch King Louis XVI spent a fortune funding, supplying and assisting the American Colonies in the Revolution against Great Britain.
It had no payoff beyond flipping the British a big middle finger and fueled the Enlightenment thinkers with: "Hey, they threw off a Monarchy. Ours is starving us and burning money, we might as well try if we're gonna die anyways." And tore down the Monarchy.
It turned into a bloodbath, with men like Robespierre sending hundreds to the guillotine to keep the revolution alive in the face of enemies within and without, giving rise to Napoleon's rule, but hey.
@Fillip mcgee For the first part of your question, I would say that such a person is probably either LE or NE.
If they're using the Law and statistical data to defend themselves while subverting it and exploiting loopholes to their benefit, Lawful Evil. LE clings to legal structure, or creates it.
NE will use the same things, but also be willing to destroy those same structures. They can quote and use statistical data and laws to their benefit, but they'll also blatantly break it, or destroy it when it benefits them.
For the last, that can be any of the alignments. Chaotic Good might tell the Lawful Good Paladin to quit making excuses about the Law needing to be upheld, or the revers where the LG Paladin tells the CG person to quit whining and bring them evidence.
Hell, a Neutral person could tell someone to stop making excuses.
If You Tell A Lawful Evil To Take The Trash Can To The Curb They Will Take An Empty Can Cause You Didn't Say Nothing About The Trash Bag
@stuffisgood Ya lost me
I had the idea of playing a right hand man of a faction group. An intelligent Alchemist who is recreating a drug to allow his faction to rise in power.
Sounds like an opportunity rife with rp for a LE character. Something in the vein of being a combat booster?
@@GamersDenLoremaster Yes a great boost, but heavy drawbacks after. And it's addictive. But they don't need to know that.
@@Keybladeaddict Makes sense to me. It sounds like it'll be a lot of fun. Here's hoping enough of them die before the side effects become apparent; make it kind of a situation where it's a slow burn, building up to a great, karmic conflagration.
Actually had this idea for a different take on the wise old mentor trope you see in a lot of fantasy stories.
The Old mentor isn't a wizard, but a warrior and a brutal one at that. Famed for his strength and the use of a great axe, he boosts his nigh on peak human strength even further with incredibly potent potions that are literally shredding the remaining years of his life as his body struggles to reknit the tissues and bone fractures together and keep his heart from exploding.
I disagree. Those who follow brutal orders for the purpose of advancing their society/organization or for the 'greater good' are generally lawful neutral. Lawful Evil would use those brutal orders for the purpose of advancing their own selfish goals and advancement more so than the goals of the organization that they follow.
I would say context is important to the actions: For the greater good, of course a Lawful Neutral would be more accepting, even if it were unfortunate and distasteful. Wanting to keep their heads down and blind themselves to whats going on? Lawful evil; or to put it another way: "The Banality of Evil."
But again, context is important and you are certainly not wrong by any stretch.
@@GamersDenLoremaster The difference in LN vs LE in this context would be the difference between "It has to be done, for it is the letter of the law" to "fuck them, they die."
This is just my sensibility running factions like the Harmonium and Mercykillers from Planescape that occupy the gamut from LG to LE. The factions in planescape often address one philosophical problem, and alignment is the difference in approach.
Darth Vader is the ultimate lawful evil
I realize this is the alignment my twin assassins are… i thought at first they’d be more chaotic good or chaotic neutral. But…. Lawful evil is way more accurate.
So I'm trying out LE for the first time in my dnd campaign she's a human courtesan cultist of Mammon. She makes blood contracts with people making under line deals in turn she uses the political gains from the contracts to boost herself within the government of the realm to further her own gains for status and power/wealth. Following to the contract until she is powerful enough to outwardly spread her evil cultism with her twin sister. I think I'm doing pretty good she wears a mask to conceal true intent but not against hiring people to be put under her boots.
This is great! Mammon is one of my favorite Devil Lords to run overall, what with his emphasis on greed actually adding a layer of obfuscation to mortal cult activities, due to their willingness to exchange contracts for large sums of gold instead of souls.
It can cause forces of good to have to move with care and consideration before leveling weighty accusations of being in league with the forces of the Nine Hells. The landlord might just be the kind of Ebenezer Scrooge that's willing to evict the poor on Christmas Day a month after a rent hike just because they're a greedy bastard all on their own. They might be a cultist creating suffering through an exactingly cruel application of the law and reaping a golden harvest for the cult.
Either way, if the Righteous want to do anything about them, particularly Lawful Good and Lawful Neutral, they have to tread carefully.
In your case with this character, are you leveraging blackmail as well? Great way of getting political influence and moving pieces along. Find out who's been speculating on new mines, have a lord grant you a deed to the land ahead of time, sell the mineral rights with a percentage cut out for yourself to invest in a few merchant caravans and arrange for rival merchants to have unfortunate encounters with bandits who give you a cut of the goods that you can repackage and resell through other routes, or on the black market.
Sorry, I get lost in ideas, but feel free to use and spin off any of these.
@@GamersDenLoremaster Wow these are some pretty great idea's really! thanks so much currently had my game session to night with the gals my cultist and her sister have pretty much started to take over a small city my character blackmailing and getting one of the cities magistrates under her finger to boost herself either to a magistrate herself to take the laws and enforce them strictly for her own gains or for the gains of the cult with in her back story her entire family has been cultists of mammon since their grandparents so big line of cultist. DM is actually working on something with me too >:D the party is not going to have a good time. lol
@@cutecupcake8425 Glad to help!
If you ever want advice, tips, tricks, ideas, just pop on over and comment!
This sounds like an excellent plan overall and would give you quite a bit of leverage. Hell, you could get your own trade organization going too, finding which members are willing to lie cheat and loophole their way to greater riches and slowly induct them to a secret society that then further filters them out to those that would be willing to bind themselves to Mammon and start your own sect of the Cult of Gold.
My favourite pathfinder character, a lawful evil sorcerer 'cursed' to save the world. Classic fighting against one's destiny and plenty of loathing of one's actions... Just don't cross him because he will remember and is VERY petty.
Points for using "banality of evil ".
So... politicians.
Lol, sure, some politicians. Maybe even a lot. I think more of people like Nick Freeman at Freeman & Co. in Manchester.
Dude was nicknamed Mr. Loophole by the press for his cunning ability to exploit technicalities in the law and he trademarked the name.
But politicians, lawyers, Kings, Dukes, Cops: All of these are capable of creating, enforcing and exploiting the law to their own benefit and really that's the key: Maintaining the law to their own benefit.
@The Gamers Den, ok thank you. That clears a lot of things up.
Well technically the law only applies if your caught, that's why proof is so necessary. What I am saying is I never broke the Law if the law could never criminally accuse me and find me guilty. That is what the Law is, breaking the Law means being Guilty and sending me to what ever punishment is sees fit.If it can't find me guilty then I never broke the law.
Then when you have amassed enough power. You resign from what ever duties you had that honor bound you from betraying the group or society and then you say "I AM THE LAW"
If you are saying I was always betraying them the entire time I was honor bound by amassing power. No I did not betray them I simply had the means to betray someone, everyone has the means to betray someone else. Like a party of warriors with swords. The fact they have swords does not mean they are betraying their fellow allies.
Precisely! Thank you! I was gonna cover that when I talked about the Penultimate LE faction: The Baatezu.
The absolute epitome of: "We have a contract and I didn't violate any clauses."
oh I get it like zamasu from dragon Ball super
I had a goliath who was lawful evil. I had asked how much xp we'd get for killing these 51 mongrel people we just saved. And 2 of my party, blinded by the xp decided to slaughter them, they were completely defenseless, and died instantly. The way my dm was running things, was like everyone had an experience share, so everyone in the party splits the xp. So I'm reaping the benifits of their actions as well. I didn't kill them, I didn't tell anyone to kill them, so I shouldn't be punished for it, but I still get the xp XD.
In the same campaign, I took over a Werewolf pack, and was going to send the werewolves to their death against the big boss, but the battle happened too fast, and couldn't call them to my aid. Everyone died except for a bird person that was apart of the party, and he's pretty much just hiding in the big boss's dungeon for the rest of his life.
@@gurth-quake1627 Ahh, the old "Technically 'I' did nothing wrong." is absolutely Lawful Evil and I love it.
You know what character I think has Done Lawful Evil incredibly well? The Alliance Agent from Serenity. And it's this line that seals it for me:
"I'm a monster Mal. What I do is Evil, but it must be done."
His cause is making every world a better one and the cost is justified by the goal. Eliminating threats by any means necessary in order to achieve that goal. It's the epitome of "the ends justify the means."
Adds a level of depth and nuance to an otherwise LE character.
@@GamersDenLoremaster so, thanos. XD this was my first, and only campaign so far, so I didn't exactly understand lawful evil completely. I could've done so much more with being the pack leader if I just knew more. And you know, my irl personality is lawful evil (I learned this from the video), but I have a soft spot for desperation, good or evil. I'm also afraid of hurting people.
Tuco Salamanca: Chaotic Evil
Lalo Salamanca: Lawful Evil
a barbarian can be a lawful evil?
Rules as written? No, the class description states any non-lawful alignment.
I do not agree and really haven't since third edition where monks had to be lawful, paladins lawful good and barbarians chaotic.
A barbarian from a Lawful Evil society could have the motto of "Might makes right, the Leader commands might, therefore they make the rules, their word is law." And have a detailed structure to their society, where a warriors rank and title are determined by the number of kills they've made and are displayed with scrimshaw necklaces of increasing intricacy.
Such a barbarian may go to a city, decide to test whether they have the right to make their laws by picking a fight. If they are beaten by that cities warriors, they would be more include to abide by their rules because "might makes right." And they have just proven themselves.
Apologies, I have two youtube accounts and was on break at work. I hadn't realized I responded to you earlier under my regular, watch stuff account and not The Gamers Den.
Name: Avukicïo Long Tian
Alignment: Lawful Evil
Race: Dragonfolk
I come from across the world, though you wouldn't know that. Throughout my life, I've done many miracles. I've been a priest of Tangluo for a while, teaching people the art of exorcism. Today, I'm a loving stepfather of two adorable children, who have abandoned their abusive father for me.
*Two hours later*
_Sire, sire, sire!_
What is it now?
_Sire, they've caught wind of what you've done._
If they want to arrest the Chairman of the Outer Territories Company, I'm very sure that my coffers will be just the right amount to show the judge my proper standing. Besides, who cares? We're with order and the law, and I represent the natural order of things.
_The Empire... they know that you murdered him._
The violinist?
_Indeed._
I didn't murder him. He's an artist, a vagabond, a loser. Probably just died of dysentery, or of some disease that he ignored. Besides, we're with the Republic.
_The Republic is losing. Badly._
What? Don't the people know what makes them free?
_Yeah, but the church is much more popular among the village folk. Our territory's surrounded, remember?_
So, what does that have to do with anything?
_The church found out what's going on in the sewers. They know how you brainwashed the masses. It's a well-known miracle that Priest Ðavuk of the Triune Order has resurrected that violinist. He's coming for you now, and he'll soon be able to be a father._
Are you on his side?
_Quite frankly, yes. Imperial Guard, seize him!_
Would a religious fanatic count?
They could! It largely depends on their actions and the circumstances around everything.
The 1st Crusade with the 'Princes', for example, was a disciplined military force with a great deal of political machinations wrapped up in Religious justifications.
The regular troops though definitely were fanatical and the capture of Jerusalem, while lawful, was full of indiscriminate butchery, with descriptions of Crusaders wading ankle deep in blood through the city streets.
Generally the extremes of violence through organized means, creeds, etc. could be considered LE.
I would also count the Glabados Church from final fantasy Tactics as a Lawful Evil institution: They fomented war between Larg & Goltana with the aim of having them weaken each other enough so that they could step in and be the saviors of the people by using the 'Holy Stones' to create new Zodiac warriors with the strength to end the fighting and be the voice of reason.
They used their ability to excommunicate and brand those who opposed them as heretics and worked hard to conceal any of their shady dealings.
@@GamersDenLoremaster I enjoy this concept and have a character idea. Idea would be a church choir boy coming from an especially fanatic city and during adventures, forced into a strange party who rubbed off on them.
I have a lawful evil warlock that runs an MLM for their patron
Just outright dastardly then? Do you also offer to pay businesses in 'exposure' across the Witch Live stream service?
@@GamersDenLoremaster he does now, lol XD
@@seleinathescorpio Glad I could help make a great, terrible character worse.
I've always wanted to play a complete Karen as an LE character. Complains about everything. Asks to speak to your manager, ruins a lot of fun for other people because they can.
Oh, that's a very different kind of evil. I love it!
You're using FAR out dated interpretations.
Lawful has nothing to do with legal systems, and hasn't since 2nd edition.
That's the tricky thing with alignments: They're pretty broad in what they cover.
But I will say I don't believe the interpretation to be outdated: The forgotten realms wiki, 1st Edition Pathfinder book & wiki and a few other sources make a point of noting tyrannical rulers that draft and use laws and legal systems to suit them.
And that LE persons tend to use their obedience to the law as a shield and means of elevating themselves above others morally, as well as social.
It's not the ONLY means of being lawful evil, but it tends to be the case.
Thanks for challenging my take on it though; ideas in 'conflict' help to sharpen one another!
To the extent that this can be in conflict however.
@@GamersDenLoremaster
5e describes says Lawful Evil "...creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order."
It says nothing about actual laws.
While the totalitarian dictator is LE, so is the Bandit on the road with a sense of loyalty to his band that tells him, "You don't steal from your own"
Now he might be surprised when the CE bandit in the same group betrays him later, but by not being the one who betrays, he is Lawful.
The Drow, with their rigid hierarchy of strict, totalitarian, rules are LE.
But so are the Kobolds who are only bound by a loyalty to the warren without actual laws to guide them.
@@GamersDenLoremaster But I agree, they are very broad, and, frankly, I stopped using them now that they have no mechanical necessity attached.
@@MrGreensweightHist I still make use of them myself, but definitely loosely, since as you noted there are plenty of instances where they are clearly more flexible and don't have the same degree of mechanical effect.
But I also play 1E Pathfinder much more, with all those classic spells that have effect on specific alignments.
Also, I'm not sure where I got the notion; as in if I had read it in an official source, or landed there on my own; but the Drow always seemed more NE to me.
Using the laws when it suited them, but readily abandoning them when it was advantageous to do so.
But such is the nature of debating these things.
Again, thank you! I hope I'm not coming off too strongly. Your points are very well reasoned and supported.
@@GamersDenLoremaster So I think our different views on it are a case of Pathfinder vs D&D 5e, meaning we're talking about similar, but not the same thing, leading to miscommunication.
"I hope I'm not coming off too strongly. "
Not at all.
...A politician... you´re describing a politician hah
First!
drat
@@OskeoSmartical It's alright my friend, all the interweb cookies can be yours still!
@Gian Man I read over this a few times and I feel this person would be Chaotic Neutral, rather than NE. Feeling like good is a fairytale, or clings to fairytales, isn't necessarily evil. This is just someone incredibly jaded and disillusioned.
The ability to switch back and forth between different philosophies implies a mindset of "whatever adapts best to the situation at hand." at best and a "Oh shit, oh shit, oh shit, I will try everything until something works, things are going from bad to worst fast!" at worst.
Neither of which is inherently evil, but I would determine that by how extreme they get in their actions. Murdering and backstabbing at the drop of a hat, might be a bit more evil.
Being ready to turn on someone because you're reasonably sure they're gonna try and do the same to you (based on personal history) that's just caution.
@Gian Man Either Lawful Neutral, or Lawful Evil and it depends on how extreme the behavior gets and what the letter of the law is.
For example, a lawful Neutral plane like The Clockwork Nirvana of Mechanus has literal flying eye machine Modron and all the Modron beings believe that all other order, law and structure are tainted and inferior when compared to theirs.
Their machine logic does not allow any room for error, or misjudgment with any such errors being an incomplete dataset.
So, a mortal being emulating this would be oppressive, but not necessarily evil. It's not good either and could easily come into conflict with good, or evil characters. Especially when it comes to punishment. They won't be cruel, but it's still punishment being delivered in accordance with the letter of the law.
The law is broken, therefore there are consequences.
Where they come into being lawful evil is when they get to be cruel. Lawful evil can also be oppressive in it's control, but it does so both as an abuse of and a means of maintaining power.
And in the case of those further down the chain of command, it can be a simple desire of not wanting to attract attention, so they simply follow orders (a banality of evil, if you will). They know something bad is happening, but just follow orders and do their best to not think about the consequences of what they do. (That's just human nature in a lot of cases and calling it evil might be harsh, but then again: there can be severe consequences when this is done. But that's a wholly different discussion)
The cruelty and extent of punishment, psychological or otherwise, is generally more extreme with LE to send a wider message to society at large; it's not just for the person suffering it: it's a reminder to everyone that the LE person is in control.
@Gian Man That's a great question! Short answer: Yes, absolutely all of these are possible.
Long answer: Yes, because they aren't machines. They're (typically) fallible, mortal creatures. They can be kind and loving. They can have families, children and dote on those children. They may even give to the poor and derive a sense of satisfaction from it.
But when you steal bread? Well, time for you to face legal consequences. You questioned a LE persons legal authority? Time for a gauntlet to the sternum and possibly half a day in the stockade for impeding an official in their duties.
It's a harsh contrast, but it's all too human.
Neutral Good is probably fairly logical: At their most broad, they see value in law but also see how laws aren't always the best means of maintaining societal well being and thus can be okay with extralegal means.
Chaotic characters can also behave logically. Would it not be a logical conclusion for the common folk to try and rise up against a tyrannical ruler? if they can be randomly punished and/or put to death as a means of trying to impose a heavy handed sense of order, why not rise up? Chaotic good would rob the rich to feed the poor, Chaotic Neutral would rob the rich to feed themselves and a few other folks probably (or be the smugglers bringing in weapons and supplies, for a nice fee.), Chaotic Evil might have been pushed to the brink by repeated punishments and find little meaning in anything other than burning everything down.
There's a logic to all of those things, or at least a reasonable progression of events that lead to these moments in characters lives.
I will say I tend to think Chaotic Evil is less likely to maintain consistent logic, but even they will realize the value in having allies that aren't likely to stab them in the back (even if it makes no sense to them that they wouldn't).