# Is Chaotic evil more evil than Lawful evil?



## Atom Again (Sep 20, 2004)

Before someone replies by saying, "No, just more chaotic", let me make it clear what I'm asking.  Is a chaotic evil person a "worse" person than a lawful evil person? I mean, a lawful evil person at least has some code of conduct, some sense of loyalty, some concept of allegiance and order.  

A chaotic evil person, on the other hand, is loyal to nothing or no one, only him (or her) self.  

Think of it this way.  Tony Soprano = Lawful Evil.  Ted Bundy = Chaotic Evil.  They're both killers, but we all know who's worse...


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 20, 2004)

Atom Again said:
			
		

> Think of it this way.  Tony Soprano = Lawful Evil.  Ted Bundy = Chaotic Evil.  They're both killers, but we all know who's worse...




On the other hand:

Ted Bundy = Chaotic Evil. Adolf Hitler = Lawful Evil.

It's all a matter of degree. No "type" of evil is inherently more evil than any other type of evil in D&D.


----------



## Voadam (Sep 20, 2004)

Nope.

Absolute devotion to the cause of evil is LE.

Randomly evil is CE.

So it is possible to view it as LE able to do more evil and does more evil because it is focused and organized while CE simply does it as opportunity presents itself or for fun on whims which change.

Is group oriented evil better than individually oriented evil?

Is it less damaging to be evil and serve an evil cause than to be evil and only inflict evil on a personal scale?


----------



## CRGreathouse (Sep 20, 2004)

I'll echo Ari: LE is no 'better' than CE.  Both are evil, they just have different methods.

I don't think that LE implies a devotion to evil any more than CE; one could be a devout worshipper of a god of destruction (devoted CE), a psychopath (incedental CE), a tyrant (incedental LE), or a strong believer in a great evil empire (devoted LE), to give but 4 archetypical examples.


----------



## spider_minion (Sep 20, 2004)

That really depends on how you define evil (a surprisingly difficult question to answer).  Character?  Actions?  Body count?

My take on it is that you have to look at the evil individual, rather than the alignment in question.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Sep 20, 2004)

Evil is evil is evil - it just the press you get for it and the spin placed on it.


----------



## ~Johnny~ (Sep 20, 2004)

> Ted Bundy = Chaotic Evil. Adolf Hitler = Lawful Evil.



Whoa. I was about to make that _exact same_ comparison.

Freaky.

And technically speaking (though this isn't how I played it during my first dozen years of D&D), Neutral Evil is just as evil as Lawful or Chaotic. It's just evil without a leaning toward order or madness.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Sep 20, 2004)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Absolute devotion to the cause of evil is LE.



Actually, I was always under the impression that NE was absolute devotion to the cause of evil.  Neutral Evil completely negates the Law/Chaos axis, creating a character that is based _solely_ on the Good/Evil axis, and of course entirely evil.  Whereas a Lawful/Chaotic Evil character would have a second focal principle on the Law/Chaos axis, diluting the character's focus on evil above all else.

I view Good the same way.  Neutral Good being the "goodest" of the three.  With Lawful/Chaotic Good being also swayed by the second axis.

Imagine a cross, with Neutrality at the center, and each point representing an alignment factor.  The x-axis represents Evil <------> Good, and the y-axis represents Lawful <--------> Chaotic.  A force pushes outward from the center toward each terminal axis point.  Any given character is affected by those forces which match his alignment (pushing him towards that point on the cross.)

So the Neutral Good character, only affected by the force of Good, winds up directly on the terminal Good point.  Whereas a Lawful Good character winds up in the upper right corner.  Still as far to the right (Good) as he can be, but seperated from pure Good by the entire length of Lawfulness.


----------



## Dark Psion (Sep 20, 2004)

Chaotic Evil "looks" more evil because it is evil unleashed.

As they say, "The Devil can assume a plesant form", Lawful Evil doesn't always look evil. Al Capone was considered a very nice guy by people in his neighborhood.

I would agree that Neutral Evil is the worst, because where Lawful Evil maybe doing things "for you own good" and Chaotic Evil may simply be insane. Neutral Evil KNOWS it is evil and likes it that way.


----------



## Hjorimir (Sep 20, 2004)

Well, my players tend to think that devils are a bigger problem than demons. Not that they fear one any more than the other.


----------



## Privateer (Sep 20, 2004)

Well, I concider all evils to be on the same level.  How evil one is is defined far more by actions than any particular alignment; you aren't more or less evil for your affilation on the law vs. chaos axis, you're more evil for causing the suffering of others, and all those other nasty things that define D&D's brand of "evil."

All things alike, though, I think I'd rather live next to a LE person than a NE or CE.


----------



## JDJarvis (Sep 20, 2004)

Chaotic evil is just as evial as  Lawful evil 
A chaotic evil person is no  "worse" a person than a lawful evil person.
A lawful evil person has some code of conduct, some concept of allegiance and order , but is still nonethless evildespite being able to understand and appreciate the usefulness of order. The Lawful evil person both serves and uses the system. 

A chaotic evil person, on the other hand, is loyal to nothing or no one, only him (or her) self.   The Chaotic evil person seldom (if ever) commits and evil act because "they were following orders"  .

A wild and impulsive act of evil that is completed under guille or from a stance of overwhelming power is no more horrible then a cold and calculating evil where ones actions are protected or compelled by laws.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Sep 21, 2004)

The chaotic nature of CE makes it more anthema to truth, justice and weal and the common good, by any measure.

Moreover, I would add that Lawful Evil can easily be rationalized in past societies and civilizations.  Many would add that it can be found in current society and civilization as well.

Not so with CE.

CE is not a rational philosophy. CE is so utterly alien that it is, in human terms, essentially an insanity.

By the way, I am not sure that Ted Bundy _necessarily_ qualifies as CE (though I readily admit he may well meet the definition). My point is that he may well qualify as CN.  He had no philosphy of evil, per se, anymore than did Jeffrey Dahlmer.  They simply did murder for personal gratification.

Apart from the serial murderer, who "rates" as CE?  Not an easy question to answer.

Lawful Evil, methinks, presents a very different debate.  While I expect this will inflame more than a few Americans, from my Canadian perspective, I cannot see slavery as anything but an organized evil.

Substitute Adolf Hitler for Jefferson Davis and I think we might have entirely different discussion when comparing the nature of Lawful Evil and CE. 

So, I respectfully dissent. 

Yes, I believe CE is more "evil" than LE as chaos itself, in human terms, is fundamentally disordered and therefore, fundamentally unjust; ergo, more evil.


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Sep 21, 2004)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> While I expect this will inflame more than a few Americans, from my Canadian perspective, I cannot see slavery as anything but an organized evil.



I am American, and agree with you.  But every country has skeletons in its closet, including Canada.  This isn't the place to examine them.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Sep 21, 2004)

I think it's time for my obligatory "There's no such thing as _chaotic_ evil or _lawful_ evil, there's just plain evil. Law and Chaos are not and have never been coherently defined in D&D and, realistically, cannot be coherently defined in a system that includes good and evil" post. There are several reasons for this.

One is that "Good" and "Evil" have a special meaning in the English language that is not properly accounted for by the alignment system. In general, good is the opposite of both evil and of bad. Consequently, a concept like the Platonic form of Good or the G.E. Moore's "good" is specific. There is no lawful form of Good and chaotic form of good. There is only the one form of the Good. Similarly, in Moore's system, the optimific action or belief, etc is aimed at a single and simple good. It doesn't come in lawful and chaotic varieties. Under no real-world interpretation of the good would people say "we're both shooting for good but you also want law and I also want chaos." Instead, they would, quite rightly, say that they disagree about either what _IS_ good or how good ought to be achieved or maximized. Quite simply, good subsumes secondary notions and cannot be included in a two-axis system without wrecking it.

Law and Chaos have their own problems, however, independent of the problems created by including good and evil in a two-axis system. Quite simply, the D&D notions of law and chaos lump together a number of various ideas that are actually completely independent and are sometimes even opposed.
For instance, brainstorming for law will usually yield some combination of the following results: respect for the law of the land, respect for authority, organization, civilization, tradition, honor, order, using a system, honesty, reliability, knights, dwarves
Brainstorming for chaos will usually yield some combo of the following results: individualism, free-spiritedness, shamelessness, disrespect for authority, granting no inherent worth to (or sometimes opposing) honor, tradition, and the law of the land, not using a system, flightiness, entropy, barbarians, elves.
All of these are written into D&D in one way or another and, individually, seem to make sense as oppositions. However, combining them into the mega-concepts of law and chaos does not work because many of the individual elements have no connection to each other or actually oppose each other.

Tradition and positive law, for instance, both tend to fall under the auspices of law while individualism and a lack of respect for the rule of law fall under the auspices of chaos. However, tradition and positive law are actually opposing forces. Societies that depend upon positive law to uphold their institutions tend to be highly individualistic (and highly dependent upon the rule of law). On the other hand, societies that lack a formal legal code typically depend upon tradition to uphold their institutions and tend to have a more collective concept of identity. They also tend to be more primitive. Furthermore, honor is a far more important concept in traditional than in modern societies. (This is recognized in fantasy too--how many barbarians have scoffed at the lack of honor among city-dwellers).
So, based on that simple comparison: Tradition (law) goes with collectivism (also law), barbarians (chaos), lack of positive law (chaos), and honor (law). On the other hand, positive law (law) goes with civilization (law), individualism (chaos), non-honor based societies (chaos), innovation vs. tradition (chaos), etc.

If we wanted to base our comparison on the knight/barbarian dichotomy, we would find a different set of paradoxes. The knight supports the rule of law and civilization, and honor but this will often go against established traditions (how many stories tell of knights destroying indigenous cultures--including their own--based upon the edicts of their sovereigns). The barbarian, on the other hand, believes in the traditional ways of his people, personal honor ("you have insulted my honor..."), and living in harmony with the land. In fact, if one goes back to the law/chaos brainstorm, the only real difference between the paragon of law (the knight) and the paragon of chaos (the barbarian) is which lawful concept--the law of the land or tradition--they tend to uphold and whether they represent civilization or barbarism.

At every stage that you attempt to make logical sense of the law/chaos axis, you will find more problems. The easiest solution to this is to simply recognize that the law/chaos axis is a bunch of nonsense--a random group of ideas strung together without any real concern for whether they actually belong together or not.

As commonly used, chaotic evil types tend to be more destructive of society and lawful evil types tend to be more subversive of society. Increasing chaotic evilness risks anarchy while increasing lawful evilness risks tyranny. (These are not hard and fast distinctions just how they're often used in games. There are plenty or arguments for chaotic evil tyrannies and lawful evil creating anarchy--that's because nobody actually uses law and chaos for exactly the same things and the D&D system uses them for a number of things that actually have no real connection). Whether it's better to live in Rwanda or the Stalinist USSR is an open question. My observation is that it seems to take longer to pick up the pieces after anarchy but that tyranny is more likely to endure for several generations. (Then again, Rwanda's been a mess for pretty much as long as North Korea has been a tyranny so maybe that's not right either). They're both bad.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Sep 21, 2004)

Quite the contrary.

When an example of Adolf Hitler ir just thrown out as an example of which is "more evil", it pretty much smothers meaningful discussion.

The point is whether or not acts in society or in past history would appear to fall within the definition of LE or CE.

If slavery fits the definition of LE  - and in my submission it does, how can you then say the LE is not "less evil" than CE?

I am not sure which society one might point to as CE.  It is, almost by definition, an impossible task.

But that leads you to the understanding that LE, in human terms, is no necessarily all bad and that there are traits within it that are admirable and _redeemable._

Not so with CE.

So yes; CE is "more evil" than LE.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Sep 21, 2004)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> At every stage that you attempt to make logical sense of the law/chaos axis, you will find more problems. The easiest solution to this is to simply recognize that the law/chaos axis is a bunch of nonsense--a random group of ideas strung together without any real concern for whether they actually belong together or not.




A rational point and one I agree with.

At its core - chaos/law is a game concept divorced from the reality of human experience.  As the concepts themselves are used to describe a fantasy game-  that's not a bad thing.  But when you try to import those labels and make sense of them within the real world, it becomes an exceedingly  difficult task, illustrating the truth of your point.

The ridculous extremes to which CE is likened, however, suggest it is an insanity that one cannot reason with and that is unable to recognize mutual self-interest.

As presented, LE appears the lesser of two evils.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Sep 21, 2004)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> I think it's time for my obligatory "There's no such thing as _chaotic_ evil or _lawful_ evil, there's just plain evil.




I'm glad you've brought it out again because I've not seen this argument before and it is a very cogent one. It makes so much sense that I'm tempted to keep a copy


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 21, 2004)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> Quite the contrary.
> 
> When an example of Adolf Hitler ir just thrown out as an example of which is "more evil", it pretty much smothers meaningful discussion.
> 
> ...




I didn't throw out Hitler to "smother" discussion. I tossed him out to suggest that you can have a LE example of someone who's more destructive than a specific CE example. I'm not claiming that someone who's CE _couldn't_ be worse.

Vandalism is CE. That's "less evil" than slavery. Serial killing is CE. That's "more evil" than embezzling, which is LE. Nothing about LE is more or less redeemable than CE. Either someone can be redeemed, and turn away from evil, or they cannot. Neither Lawful or Chaotic has anything to do with that. Evil is evil; the form it assumes is relevant to evil's specific methods, but it is _not_ relevant to the evil's severity.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 21, 2004)

IMC, LE is Death and CE is Corruption.

Neither is "more evil". Both are Damned evil (literally), and that's as bad as it gets.

 -- N


----------



## Shemeska (Sep 21, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Serial killing is CE.




Well.... that depends. A psychopath would be considered CE. I don't think that's up for much debate. A sociopath on the other hand would be, by definition, NE.

CE, LE, or NE are all evil. Only the extent to which they are taken to an extreme makes any one of them in a given instance 'more' or 'less' evil than another. On an even stage they're all evil, just with chaos or law tossed in as flavor, or with NE an absence or balance of law and chaos tossed in as seasoning. The law or chaos is incidental to any argument of whether it's more or less evil.

NE is more 'pure' evil, but it's difficult to judge except on a case by case basis if something is more or less evil. Stalinist purges = LE. Rwandan genocide = CE. Large scale NE is difficult to find in a human society, and it's more likely to be found in fiends, etc.


----------



## Psion (Sep 21, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> On the other hand:
> 
> Ted Bundy = Chaotic Evil. Adolf Hitler = Lawful Evil.




When I first read that, for some reason I read "Al Bundy"


----------



## Steel_Wind (Sep 21, 2004)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Vandalism is CE. That's "less evil" than slavery. Serial killing is CE. That's "more evil" than embezzling, which is LE.




I simply do not agree with these views.

Vandalism is NOT CE. It might be to you, but to liken a misdemeanor property crime with CHAOTIC EVIL is applying an analytical framework we simply do not agree with.

Simlarly, embezzling isn't evil. It's selfish. Its wrongful and clearly unlawful. But EVIL? 

I think when you present a continuum of "evil" that ranges from spray painting graffitti to theft, ritualistic serial murder and the holocaust, your aperture needs significantly more focus.



> Evil is evil; the form it assumes is relevant to evil's specific methods, but it is _not_ relevant to the evil's severity.




This is clearly a point of departure. You and I do not agree on this matter and what appears self-evident to you seems clearly wrong-headed to me.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 21, 2004)

I'll chime in on the side of "neither is more or less evil".  The chaos-law axis can be viewed as being largely a matter of methodology, where the good-evil axis is mostly about results.  If the end result is beneficial, merciful, etc, then it is Good.  And the Detect Good spell doesn't care about how you went about being a nice guy.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 21, 2004)

Vandalism destroys someone else's property, costing them money, possibly substantial emotional injury. How can that not be evil? Is it as evil as murder? Of course not. But evil exists on a continuum, and "less evil" does not equal "not evil." (For the record, though, perhaps I should have said "destruction of property," since I was thinking of actual damage, not spray-painting.)

Same with embezzlement. Where do you think that money's coming from? It's not created out of whole cloth. Every cent that's going to an embezzler is coming out of someone else's pocket. Again, far less evil than murder, but still evil.

You think it unfocused to include all of these? Why? It's all part of the same continuum, even if it's very far apart _on_ that continuum. Bottom line is, anything that causes direct harm to someone else, without _substantial_ mitigating circumstances (and sometimes even with mitigating circumstances) is evil; all that remains is a matter of degree. I don't believe it's possible to discuss the nature of evil without examining the "little evils" as well as the big ones.

Someone else had a good example. The Rwandan genocide vs. Stalin's purges. One's chaotic, ones lawful. But I hardly think one is "less" evil than the other. They're both utterly horrific.

Again, law vs. chaos is simply a discussion of what form the evil takes. It doesn't measure degree.


----------



## Xath (Sep 21, 2004)

Psion said:
			
		

> When I first read that, for some reason I read "Al Bundy"





Sadly, I did as well.  I found myself thinking, _I know he's a jerk and all, but CE?....oh wait..._

But to put in my two cents, I'll side with the "neither is more evil" group.  But it all depends on how you look at evil in your campaign.  Is it a general factor that encompasses 1/3 of the population, or something more specific.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Sep 21, 2004)

It occurs to me that we may be using two different definitions of "evil." I'm using the word to mean simply the opposite of good, or anything harmful. It's a synonym for "bad."

I'm wondering if you're not using "evil" to mean something _worse_ than bad. In other words, by your definition--if I understand you properly--something can be "bad" without being "evil." As I use the term when discussing alignments, there are degrees of "evil," but there's no fundamental difference between "evil" and "bad" or "wrong."

Is that a fair assessment? Are we basically arguing semantics?


----------



## DM_Matt (Sep 21, 2004)

I think that the CE is worse crowd might be thinking that CE = Evil Stupid, and thus unlimitedly violent and unable to be kept in check, whereas LE can be convinced to lay off if they determine their course of action to be impractical, and can be expected to cut a deal and occasionally stick to it.  

I think people are saying that LE--->CE beucase LE to them just means Rational Evil while CE means Irrational Evil


----------



## Sejs (Sep 21, 2004)

Same evil, different packaging. 

Chaotic Evil is Me Evil, Lawful Evil is We Evil.  One is more concerned with the short term, the other with the long term.  Both are just as evil in the end.


----------



## iblis (Sep 21, 2004)

Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Actually, I was always under the impression that NE was absolute devotion to the cause of evil.  Neutral Evil completely negates the Law/Chaos axis, creating a character that is based _solely_ on the Good/Evil axis, and of course entirely evil.  Whereas a Lawful/Chaotic Evil character would have a second focal principle on the Law/Chaos axis, diluting the character's focus on evil above all else.
> 
> I view Good the same way.  Neutral Good being the "goodest" of the three.  With Lawful/Chaotic Good being also swayed by the second axis.
> 
> ...





Precisely. Beat me (and probably others) to it there.

I think of it sometimes in terms of commitment. A Lawful character must be committed to Law. Correspondingly for each of the other 3 (Chaotic, Evil and Good).

Any who aren't truly _committed_ on either axis (or who are committed to the balance between the two, in certain cases) must be considered Neutral.

And as multiple commitments can sometimes conflict with one another and/or confuse the issues (just look at RL for a bit), then the fewer extreme ideological commitments a character has, the more devotedly they should be able to hold to those they do have at any given time.


----------



## Li Shenron (Sep 21, 2004)

In general a lawful (or conservative) person tend to think that chaos (or freedom) is wrong, therefore leaning to evil, while a chaotic person would think that order - at least when arbitrary - is wrong therefore evil.

That's why IMHO who says that LE is more acceptable than CE is most of the time a conservative person who would probably also say that CN is unacceptable as well, and perhaps CG is ok but for freaks.

I am myself quite C in real life, and in fact I tend to do the mistake the other way around, and think LN is arrogant and negative, and LG is boring and stubborn.   

One thing I want to add is that I completely disagree with the ones who say that LE "can be convinced to lay off". To their own extreme, chaos is malleable but unpredictable (so you can actually get a CE drop his plans against you, but you're not guaranteed how long it'll last), while law can be confined but not easily convinced to change its plan.


----------



## Falconnan (Sep 21, 2004)

Well, let me see if I can gum up the works . . .
Which is more *chaotic*, chaotic good, or chaotic evil?
Which is more *lawful*, lawful evil or lawful good?
The answer is a bit disturbing, as is the core question in this thread.
Consider that evil is about the intentional infliction of harm to others, without remorse, and without cause.  We don't mean evil, we mean *Evil.*
Chaos is about not following any set rule.  This does not mean that a chaotic evil creature will always commit an evil act, but it does mean that he will almost always follow the path of least resistance, but cause maximum pain.  On occassion, he may commit a good act, but that is the exception, not the rule.
Law is about sticking to the game plan.  This does *not* mean they follow the rules.  However, a lawful evil creature will apply the law in the most cruel fashion they can as a general rule.

As for the Hitler reference, here's a good example:
LAWFUL EVIL-NATIONAL SCALE:  Communist China--The law is enforced to the point of crushing all freedoms that the state finds inconvenient.  Note that this government really wants a strong and vibrant China.
LAWFUL EVIL-INDIVIDUAL SCALE:  Darth Vader--A natural tyrant who wants to impose his will on the universe, to bring order to chaos.  Note that while willing to kill Luke, he does love his son, and wishes to co-rule with him.
NEUTRAL EVIL-NATIONAL SCALE:  North Korea--This regime is only interested in its own power and survival.  It will sell arms to rogue nations that want to kill innocents to bankroll its own survival, and will starve out its own populace for the same reason.
NEUTRAL EVIL-INDIVIDUAL SCALE:  Sirus Grissom from ConAir.  He enjoys hurting people, but only when convenient, or to send a message.  He likes to be brutal, and in charge.  He likes the evil in him, as sees nothing wrong with it.  On the other hand, he has no personal attachments, though he has ethics: "rapists just above pondscum on the evolutionary ladder . . ."  Not a nice guy, but he has standards nonetheless.
CHAOTIC EVIL-NATIONAL SCALE:  Nazi Germany.  Picked on a socially weak group of people to cast blame.  Killed and tortured for the sake of own personal joy, with no compuction.  Indeed, sought to conquer for the sake of making slaves of other nationalities, while killing off the weaker.  Survival of the fittest via torture is chaotic evil to a tee.  Though organized and efficient, the drives and goals of the regime were chaotic evil.
CHAOTIC EVIL-INDIVIDUAL SCALE:  Ted Bundy may work, but I like Osama bin Laden.  He may have a message, but the message is to kill more.  Kill, kill, kill.  Do this and get rewarded.  Evil, through and through, even if he does not see it.
Evil is evil.  Lawful evil generally has a deeper pool to draw on, but chaotic evil is more prevalent.  Also, neutral evil is just as common.  The government is lawful (good, evil, or neutral is a matter of opinion).  The Soviet government post-Stalin was more or less Lawful Evil.  It lasted a long time, was quite strong, and firmly entrenched.
The mafia is more neutral evil (lawful and neutral tendencies not withstanding).  They have no desire to inflict pain on others, but generally do not care if they do.
Your crack dealers are more chaotic evil.  Its about them, and f*@& anyone who gets in their way.
Which is more evil?  Which causes more pain?  I would argue their all just about as bad as the other, and just as hard to fight.


----------



## Li Shenron (Sep 21, 2004)

I don't think it's a good idea to make examples with RL countries, some people may be seriously offended.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 21, 2004)

Well I'd rather have Reinhard Heydrich as my next door neighbour than Ted Bundy, yup.  So CE is 'worse' than LE on a personal level, probably.  OTOH LEs are much more likely to conquer the world and institute a Thousand Year Reich...


----------



## S'mon (Sep 21, 2004)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> I am not sure which society one might point to as CE.  It is, almost by definition, an impossible task.




Usually anarchy states like Somalia are classified as CE.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 21, 2004)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> I simply do not agree with these views.
> 
> Vandalism is NOT CE. It might be to you, but to liken a misdemeanor property crime with CHAOTIC EVIL is applying an analytical framework we simply do not agree with.
> 
> ...




Naw, he's right and you're wrong.  Acts that do harm to others and aren't balanced by a countervailing good are Evil (in D&D terms); that certainly includes random vandalism (CE), foreclosure on the widow's mortgage (LE) and fraud (NE).  That these are not as evil as genocide or serial killing doesn't make them Neutral acts in D&D terms.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Sep 21, 2004)

Evil is evil is evil, you still are going to hell or be a dung beetle for 1000 years.  The thing that I see in many of these replies is really "what do you fear more, lawful evil or chaotic evil?" not which is greater, interesting when you think about it, because the chaotic evil does come across as more fearful in the night stalker way, where lawful is almost has a understanding of the times tune to it.  Mmmmmm.


----------



## Warden (Sep 21, 2004)

I agree with the arguement that CE or LE (or NE, for that matter) aren't really more evil than the other, but there is something else to consider.

Take Chaos completely on its own: how many of us can truly lead chaotic lives?  Not just impulsive, flying by the seats of our pants, but living without any order or control in our lives whatsoever.  In my opinion, this is impossible as we are mostly lawful beings.  So, in that regard, Chaos is a truly scary form for us as lawful creatures to understand.  When mixed with Evil...we are afraid.

Going back to Ted Bundy as the chaotic evil example, I don't think that's true.  My view of chaotic evil is someone who has complete rage to a point of uncontrolled fury, which Mr. Bundy did not.  He had a compulsion to kill women, yes, but he was rational enough to commit these murders in an organized fashion and spend as much effort avoiding arrest as he did committing his murders.  His knowledge of American law was used in an attempt to outsmart the police and remain at large.  Put it all together and you have lawful evil.  I highly doubt that there are any real-world humans that we can truly classify as chaotic evil.


----------



## diaglo (Sep 21, 2004)

Atom Again said:
			
		

> Before someone replies by saying, "No, just more chaotic", let me make it clear what I'm asking.  Is a chaotic evil person a "worse" person than a lawful evil person? I mean, a lawful evil person at least has some code of conduct, some sense of loyalty, some concept of allegiance and order.





in D&D. evil is evil.

chaos and law are a different concept.

no evil is more evil than any other. NE = LE = CE in the Evil department.


----------



## Li Shenron (Sep 21, 2004)

Warden said:
			
		

> ...how many of us can truly lead chaotic lives? ...but living without any order or control in our lives whatsoever.  In my opinion, this is impossible as we are mostly lawful beings.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




Well this seems to me that you clearly are centering "normality" to being lawful, but is that the right way to do?  

Try to put normality (or average) to True Neutral: the very average man who follows the law except in minor circumstances (if he can get away with it), who would like to live in a society under control of crime but which leaves enough freedom to the citizens, who would definitely not hurt other human beings, but wouldn't either sacrifice his own life, safety or property to help someone who is not a friend or relative.

There was a not uncommon at all trend in early RPG years to think chaotic = crazy, but I really think that if that was true, there would be little sense to play with an alignment axis normal / disturbed / insane   

There's some need of order and some need of freedom in every human being, and even if you're biased towards one of the two, there are very different degrees.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Sep 21, 2004)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Naw, he's right and you're wrong.  Acts that do harm to others and aren't balanced by a countervailing good are Evil (in D&D terms); that certainly includes random vandalism (CE), foreclosure on the widow's mortgage (LE) and fraud (NE).  That these are not as evil as genocide or serial killing doesn't make them Neutral acts in D&D terms.




No, sorry, I'm not wrong. 

D&D has *always* had within it a distinction between a property crime and a crime of wanton violence and cruelty.

The idea of the neutral thief has been embraced by D&D for 30 years.   Indeed, it is even possible for D&D to embrace the possibility of even a neutral good thief.

Where D&D drew the line was at violence and cruelty to other living sentient beings. The assassin in 1st edition is the classic example. That was an individual who killed for money - the "antithesis of weal" to quote EGG.

This is a sensible distinction.  Legal systems throughout the industrialized world draw a vast distinction between property crimes and crimes of violence.

Put bluntly, the group of 12 year olds out egging a house are NOT engaged in a lawful good act.  But this is hardly a few steps up the slippery slope from donning black runed armor and posing for a Frazzetta painting.

Similarly, the bank which forecloses on a defaulting borrower is not engaged in a lawful evil act. At worst it is lawful neutral and is even quite defencibly lawful good when taking a long view of the matter.  To ascribe to the enforcement of a secured lending instrument  a moral equivalency of "evil" is just something we are not EVER going to agree upon, no matter if we write messages to one another for the next 10 years, 3 times a day.

Our viewpoints on these matters are clearly _just not the same._  What is self-evident to you is not in the least self-evident to me.


----------



## diaglo (Sep 21, 2004)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> No, sorry, I'm not wrong.
> 
> D&D has *always* had within it a distinction between a property crime and a crime of wanton violence and cruelty.
> 
> The idea of the neutral thief has been embraced by D&D for 30 years.   Indeed, it is even possible for D&D to embrace the possibility of even a neutral good thief.




the Original D&D assassin found in Supplement II Blackmoor is Neutral.

of course, in Original D&D there are only 3 alignments.

Lawful, Chaotic, and Neutral

edit: and the thief didn't come out until Supplement I Greyhawk... it hasn't been 30 years yet for the thief. but almost...


----------



## Atom Again (Sep 21, 2004)

Falconnan said:
			
		

> CHAOTIC EVIL-INDIVIDUAL SCALE:  Ted Bundy may work, but I like Osama bin Laden.  He may have a message, but the message is to kill more.  Kill, kill, kill.  Do this and get rewarded.  Evil, through and through, even if he does not see it.




Doesn't that depend which side you're on? Osama bin Laden's followers see him as a hero, as a champion of good.  People all around the world cheered when the World Trade Center collapsed.  They believed that Osama had struck a blow against the "evil empire" of the United States.

History is written by the winners.  The only reason we call Osama "evil" is because he's on the other side.  

Were the fighter pilots who atomized Hiroshima and Nagasaki evil? They killed far more people than Osama bin Laden...innocent civilians...


----------



## Modin Godstalker (Sep 21, 2004)

Okay, here is my shot at defining the  alignments.

Chaotic Evil deals with destruction for the sheer joy of it.  

Lawful Evil deals with control of others for personal gain. 

Neutral Evil deals with selfishness.

Chaotic good deals with personal freedom for all unless your actions inhibit the personal freedom of others.

Lawful Good deals with performing actions for a greater good.  Implies that all your actions affect others therfore should be tempered for the greater good.

Neutral Good deals with doing whatever it takes make things better for people.


Neutral.  Not sure how to define this one.

Lawful Neutral  has to do with doing whatever it takes create an efficient running society.  An ant colony would be an example of this.  

Chaotic Neutral  deals with personal freedom no matter what.  This type of person would perform evil acts to further his own personal freedom, but would gain any pleasure out of doing so.


----------



## Voadam (Sep 21, 2004)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> Lawful Evil, methinks, presents a very different debate.  While I expect this will inflame more than a few Americans, from my Canadian perspective, I cannot see slavery as anything but an organized evil.
> 
> Yes, I believe CE is more "evil" than LE as chaos itself, in human terms, is fundamentally disordered and therefore, fundamentally unjust; ergo, more evil.




Ok so organized evil = LE.

So slavery equals LE.

Wouldn't genocide therefore also qualify as organized evil and therefore LE? It is mass evil systematically directed to a purpose besides personal gratification.

Isn't organized genocide on a mass scale worse than a CE mass murder?

and if chaos is fundamentally disordered and therefore (according to you) unjust, it does not follow that lawful evil would be more just, it is simply more consistently unjust (as indicated by the fact that it is lawful Evil).

You have eliminated minor issues from your definition of evil so the question is whether evil done in a lawful alignment manner not as bad as that done in a chaotic fashion. Wouldn't the rational ordered application of evil be worse than a chaotic application by that type of definition?


----------



## WayneLigon (Sep 21, 2004)

Atom Again said:
			
		

> Before someone replies by saying, "No, just more chaotic", let me make it clear what I'm asking. Is a chaotic evil person a "worse" person than a lawful evil person?



It depends on what is worse: immediate or far-reaching evil. But, really, neither of them. 

The Chaotic Evil guy is likely to be more personally destructive, less constrained by any sort of sense of society or that society's laws (especially the unwritten ones). He'll probably win the award for 'most hideous multiple chainsaw murder involving kids, puppies, and nuns'. He'll certainly give into excess and revel in his acts against society to a degree that few can (or would want to) match. 

The Lawful Evil guy is worse on a grander scale. His evil will likely be vastly more structured. He's not going to bother with individual acts of murder unless he's just indulging himself. He's going to create plans and institutions that move against entire societies at a time. He won't be as savage as the Chaotic guy but his overall effect on the world at large will be much worse. He'll create plans that gnaw away at a Good institution for years. 

Who do you have to watch out for? _Neither of them_. The Neutral Evil guy is the worst of the lot, since he has the planning ability of the Lawful guy but isn't constrained. He has the potential for savagery that the Chaotic guy has, but with more finesse. He doesn't have the extra baggage of the chaotic or lawful outlook on things. He just wants to advance the cause of Evil and it doesn't matter how he does it.


----------



## Particle_Man (Sep 21, 2004)

1) Trying to base D&D alignment on real life is tricky, at best.  Many people think that there is no objective way of describing "good" and "evil" in real life, while there is an objective alignment in D&D.  Aside from which, as noted above, the concepts of lawful and chaotic may have contradictions within them.

2) So, looking at them in game terms, all LE, NE, and CE are (or can be) equally evil.  As for which is the most dangerous?  Well, each is listed in the PHB (104-5) as being "the most dangerous alignment you can be", and the only way they could each be the most dangerous is if they were all equally dangerous.  

3) There is a difference between being evil and being committed to the spread of evil, within each alignment, as listed in the PHB.  

4) It seems that there are two lines that can be crossed in alignment.  One is the "care about everyone" (good)/"care only about yourself, friends and family" (neutral)/"care only about yourself" (evil).  The other deals with what you allow yourself to do to those that your don't "Care about".  Thus a merchant who does not give money to a beggar is neutral, because he does not care about him.  A merchant who tortures beggars for fun is evil.

5) In game terms, CE opponents tend to be more "in your face" than LE opponents, who deal with the pc's through minions, etc.  Thus which the pc's despise more depends on their attitude towards their opponents.  Do they prefer their opponents to "face them" or do they like the illusory peace of not being bothered by their opponents until it is (almost) too late?

and of course, YMMV.


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 22, 2004)

*Your own alignment gets in the way*



			
				Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> The chaotic nature of CE makes it more anthema to truth, justice and weal and the common good, by any measure.
> 
> Moreover, I would add that Lawful Evil can easily be rationalized in past societies and civilizations.  Many would add that it can be found in current society and civilization as well.
> 
> Not so with CE.




You are half right.  Lawful evil is a fairly common alignment in RL.  Your basic redneck "kick their ass and take their gas" ultra conservative US citizen, your hardline Communist party member in China or North Korea.... Nazis, Fascists both old and new (ala Serbia, for example), Right wing death squads in Latin America.

But chaotic evil is equally prevalant.  If Lawful evil is typified by the cruel and callous meanie Cop, sticking to the letter of the law and using it to hurt and harm, chaotic evil is the reckless "gangsta" gang banger type, the outlaw biker who rapes and breaks heads without a care, the Cholho who, along with his 15 friends, stomps a mudhole in the behind of anyone who looks at him 'funny'.


It's really pretty simple.  Folks who think chaotic is more evil or law is more evil are betraying their own prejudices.  Did it ever occur to you that you think that way because of your own alignment 


DB


----------



## Nightfall (Sep 22, 2004)

Ari,

I can't believe you use all these "real world" people and yet you refuse to use someone that is as hardcore CE as Vangal OR LE minded as Chardun. You really need to work those in my friend.


----------



## Anabstercorian (Sep 22, 2004)

Well, if you're Lawful in alignment, you'll view Chaotic Evil behavior as more evil than Lawful Evil behavior.  You'll probably even find Chaotic Neutral behavior to be evil.  Vice versa if you're chaotic, naturally.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Sep 22, 2004)

I see neither lawful evil, nor chaotic evil being any more "evil" than the other.

Look at it this way. Neither would do something that the other would not do. They would merely do it for different reasons and or justifications. 

To suggest that the "reasons" behind doing a horrible act can make that act more or less evil is to wander into the realm or realpolitiks, hate crime legislation and other modern day crap which the conversation does not need.

Or to put it more simply if someone intentionally killed and ate a baby would the reason why really matter in determining how evil the person was or would you just warm up the electric chair and invite them to sit down.


----------



## JacktheRabbit (Sep 22, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> You are half right.  Lawful evil is a fairly common alignment in RL.  Your basic redneck "kick their ass and take their gas" ultra conservative US citizen, your hardline Communist party member in China or North Korea.... Nazis, Fascists both old and new (ala Serbia, for example), Right wing death squads in Latin America.
> 
> But chaotic evil is equally prevalant.  If Lawful evil is typified by the cruel and callous meanie Cop, sticking to the letter of the law and using it to hurt and harm, chaotic evil is the reckless "gangsta" gang banger type, the outlaw biker who rapes and breaks heads without a care, the Cholho who, along with his 15 friends, stomps a mudhole in the behind of anyone who looks at him 'funny'.
> 
> ...




Your arguement merely proves how alignments cannot be brought into real life discussion. Your chaotic evil gang banger may be intensely loyal to his gang and willing to risk his life for his fellow gang members. He may also love his mother and do anything to make her happy. Is that Chaotic Evil?

No of course not. Real human behavior cannot be defined by simplistic DnD alignment.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Sep 22, 2004)

Both are equally evil.

Chaotic Evil is more surprising, less predictable, and often more personal. Leopold and Loeb, Albert Fish, Jack the Ripper.

Lawful Evil can have the greater sway, and worse become acceptable to those in its environs. Impersonal. Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Charlie Manson.

And yes, random destruction of someone else's property for no other reason than because you felt like it _is_ evil. Or to put it another way, Chaotic Evil can sometimes qualify for 'Stupid Evil'. For that matter so can Lawful Evil in the 'I was only following orders' sense.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 22, 2004)

DocMoriartty said:
			
		

> Your arguement merely proves how alignments cannot be brought into real life discussion. Your chaotic evil gang banger may be intensely loyal to his gang and willing to risk his life for his fellow gang members. He may also love his mother and do anything to make her happy. Is that Chaotic Evil?
> 
> No of course not. Real human behavior cannot be defined by simplistic DnD alignment.




The alignment system isn't perfect (it could use another level of nuance to make it clearer), but if you think it through clearly, it works.

The gangbanger you describe is evil !  Just because he is evil doesn't mean he can't have any redeeming qualities.  There are thousands of people just like that who love their mothers and everything but will rob, rape, and kill strangers without compunction.  They are chaotic evil.


Let me ask you a hypothetical question of my own.  Is the Lawful Evil WW II Waffen SS trooper who is eaually loyal to his fellow troops, loves his mother and would do anything to make her happy, but also eagerly turns over Jews hiding in his neighborhood when on leave, and shoots Russian P.O.W.'s and civilians every chance he gets, engages in torture of Prisoners, and eagerly participates in burning homes of Russian Civilians in the hopes of creating Libernsraum ('living space') for Germans.... is he evil?

Of course he is.  Evil doesn't have to be cartoon evil any more than good has to be cartoon good.  There is nuance in there but there are also clear ethical boundaries which separate the alignments.

DB


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 22, 2004)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> Both are equally evil.
> 
> Chaotic Evil is more surprising, less predictable, and often more personal. Leopold and Loeb, Albert Fish, Jack the Ripper.
> 
> ...




Just because you are lawful-evil doesn't mean you are a manipulator type, lawful evil has it's ranks of storm-troopers and passive supporters as well.  Your basic Imperial storm trooper from star wars is lawful evil, as is your basic cop or gestapo officer in a fascist society.  Nazi skinheads are arguably lawful evil (at least the more organized ones) as was the old Ku Kux Klan.  Pinkerton strikebreakers back in the 1920's, were Lawful Evil, as were Communist informers in 1930's Soviet Union, or 1970's Cambodia.

Also, destruction of _property_ doesn't necessarily make somebody evil, even if it is wanton.  It is very likely chaotic, but I would say it was only evil if it was likely to seriously harm someone.  Like, burning down somebodies home when they have nowhere else to live, or trashing their car when they have no other way to get to wor, that is evil.  Smashing up a few lawn ornaments you don't like the look of is merely obnoxious, IMHO.

DB


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 22, 2004)

Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> Well, if you're Lawful in alignment, you'll view Chaotic Evil behavior as more evil than Lawful Evil behavior.  You'll probably even find Chaotic Neutral behavior to be evil.  Vice versa if you're chaotic, naturally.





Right, exactly.  People don't realise that RL is just one big D&D game and they are merely showing their alignment !


DB


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Sep 22, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> Just because you are lawful-evil doesn't mean you are a manipulator type, lawful evil has it's ranks of storm-troopers and passive supporters as well.  Your basic Imperial storm trooper from star wars is lawful evil, as is your basic cop or gestapo officer in a fascist society.  Nazi skinheads are arguably lawful evil (at least the more organized ones) as was the old Ku Kux Klan.  Pinkerton strikebreakers back in the 1920's, were Lawful Evil, as were Communist informers in 1930's Soviet Union, or 1970's Cambodia.
> 
> Also, destruction of _property_ doesn't necessarily make somebody evil, even if it is wanton.  It is very likely chaotic, but I would say it was only evil if it was likely to seriously harm someone.  Like, burning down somebodies home when they have nowhere else to live, or trashing their car when they have no other way to get to wor, that is evil.  Smashing up a few lawn ornaments you don't like the look of is merely obnoxious, IMHO.
> 
> DB





For the first part - nowhere did I state otherwise, and used the 'just following orders' example as lawful evil under the stupid evil example, though perhaps 'mindless' or 'thoughtless' would have been a better term.

For the second part, no, I do not agree - causing harm to someone, wether bodily or to property for selfish reasons is evil, though damage to property is arguably less so. Stomping on a kid's sandwich at lunch does him no harm, but it is still a minor evil act.

The Auld Grump


----------



## hero4hire (Sep 22, 2004)

I'd definitely rather have dinner with a LE person, then a CE person. Heck, sometimes I think some of my friends *ARE* LE (you guys know who you are!)
LE can even have admirable goals and ideals but thier methods can be harsh.

I often think of Dr. Doom or Magneto when I think LE.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 22, 2004)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> No, sorry, I'm not wrong.
> 
> D&D has *always* had within it a distinction between a property crime and a crime of wanton violence and cruelty.
> 
> ...




Yes... in D&D you can do evil acts without necessarily being Evil-aligned., just as you can do good acts without being Good aligned.  Actions in D&D break down into morally-Good (usually defined as altruism, pace Ayn Rand), morally-Neutral, and morally-Evil.  Vandalism or theft are not morally-Neutral acts AFAICS.  A typical Neutral person commits lots of minor Good & Evil actions without ever changing Alignment.
So a thief who steals from the rich merchant but avoids violence can be Neutral not Evil, and the rich merchant who occasionally gives a few coins to the poor can be Neutral not Good.  Committing an Evil act, an act which is not morally Neutral, say embezzling money from their Order, causes Paladins to lose Paladinhood but won't necessarily make them Evil-aligned.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 22, 2004)

Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> Well, if you're Lawful in alignment, you'll view Chaotic Evil behavior as more evil than Lawful Evil behavior.  You'll probably even find Chaotic Neutral behavior to be evil.  Vice versa if you're chaotic, naturally.




This thread certainly shows that the Lawful types say CE is worse (possibly even 'insane') and the Chaotic types say LE is worse.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 22, 2004)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> For the second part, no, I do not agree - causing harm to someone, wether bodily or to property for selfish reasons is evil, though damage to property is arguably less so. Stomping on a kid's sandwich at lunch does him no harm, but it is still a minor evil act.




Yup.  Doesn't mean the bully has an Evil alignment in D&D terms, but the act itself is an Evil act not a Neutral act.


----------



## Imagicka (Sep 22, 2004)

Greetings...



			
				Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> I am American, and agree with you. But every country has skeletons in its closet, including Canada. This isn't the place to examine them.



*turns and looks at Steel_Wind* What skeletons do we have?  Everyone loves us!


----------



## billd91 (Sep 22, 2004)

Discussing whether a particular philosophical approach to evil is somehow greater than the other is pretty much meaningless. It all depends on the individual who takes that philosophical approach and applies it to create more or less evil than the other. If a CE character believes that he can create as much suffering as he wants based on his own personal strength, but is actually pretty weak and ineffective, then that's not a lot of evil. Compare him to a LE guy with some principles but who can generate evil on a tremendous scale because of his organizational ability. Now which is more evil? Neither philosophy. It's all in who's wielding it.


----------



## Davek (Sep 22, 2004)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Discussing whether a particular philosophical approach to evil is somehow greater than the other is pretty much meaningless. It all depends on the individual who takes that philosophical approach and applies it to create more or less evil than the other. If a CE character believes that he can create as much suffering as he wants based on his own personal strength, but is actually pretty weak and ineffective, then that's not a lot of evil. Compare him to a LE guy with some principles but who can generate evil on a tremendous scale because of his organizational ability. Now which is more evil? Neither philosophy. It's all in who's wielding it.




Except if it is *MY* philosophy, in which case I *KNOW* it is right and yours is wrong


----------



## Atom Again (Sep 22, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> Nazi skinheads are arguably lawful evil (at least the more organized ones) as was the old Ku Kux Klan.  Pinkerton strikebreakers back in the 1920's, were Lawful Evil, as were Communist informers in 1930's Soviet Union, or 1970's Cambodia.




?????

But that's the problem: Nazi skinheads and KKK don't *think of themselves as evil*.  They think they are the *good* guys.  Same with strikebreakers and communist informers.  They think *we* are the evil ones.

Look at what Hitler wrote about Jews in Mein Kampf.  He didn't write, "I am EVIL! And that's why I want to kill Jews!" No, he wrote, "JEWS are evil, and that's why I want to kill them!"

So isn't the definition just a matter of perspective?


----------



## Atom Again (Sep 22, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> Let me ask you a hypothetical question of my own.  Is the Lawful Evil WW II Waffen SS trooper who is eaually loyal to his fellow troops, loves his mother and would do anything to make her happy, but also eagerly turns over Jews hiding in his neighborhood when on leave, and shoots Russian P.O.W.'s and civilians every chance he gets, engages in torture of Prisoners, and eagerly participates in burning homes of Russian Civilians in the hopes of creating Libernsraum ('living space') for Germans.... is he evil?
> 
> Of course he is.
> DB




In whose opinion? The problem with your statement above is that you are getting into the realm of moral absolutism, the very realm that enables people like Nazis and Osama bin Laden to perpetuate horrific acts, all in the belief that they are *right*.

Are you a moral absolutist? 

To us, the German soldier you describe is evil, but not everyone thinks that.  How about the American soldier who does the same things in Vietnam or Iraq? Is he evil? Or is he a champion of freedom?

It's all a matter of perspective.  Good and evil are not absolutes.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Sep 22, 2004)

Atom Again said:
			
		

> In whose opinion? The problem with your statement above is that you are getting into the realm of moral absolutism, the very realm that enables people like Nazis and Osama bin Laden to perpetuate horrific acts, all in the belief that they are *right*.




Not really. The assumption that only moral absolutism enables horrific acts is in error. Moral relativism has been taught as a means to break down resistance to inflicting such horror in quite a few instances. I believe it was taught in communist nations as a means to break down inhibitions against such things as torture and atrocities. (Since I don't remember my source for that, it might not have been taught (or it may have been intended to simply make way for a new socialist "morality")--however, Richard Wurmbrand's testimony of the tortures he endured amply demonstrates that it was learned anyway and played that role).

One might also point out that, practically speaking, opposing evil requires actually believing that you are *right* to do so.  The people who *actually* fought the Nazis generally believed that what they were doing was right. (In fact, this was the subject of much propaganda--and despite that, I think it is still true). Tell people that there's no such thing as justice and there's no reason to fight the Nazis. Why not just join them? After all, if there is no right and wrong then there's nothing *wrong* with doing so. (And, as Ghenghis Khan testifies, there's something to be said for driving your enemies before you, slaughtering them, ravishing their wives and taking their children into slavery--if it's not wrong, why deny yourself those pleasures if they're available and will, even better, win you the approval of your Nazi friends (which is, morally speaking, just as worthwhile as that of their opponents)). If you want to talk about the Nazis or Bin Ladin being bad, you're either a hypocrite or you're not a moral relativist.



> Are you a moral absolutist?




I won't speak for DrifterBob but it's certainly a defensible position. Far more so than simple relativism. Personally, I'm still undecided between moral objectivism and absolutism.



> To us, the German soldier you describe is evil, but not everyone thinks that.  How about the American soldier who does the same things in Vietnam or Iraq? Is he evil? Or is he a champion of freedom?




Ahh, the classic blunder of the moral relativist--assuming that everyone behaves the same. Unless you believe the now-discredited testimony of certain individuals who claimed to have committed war crimes in the '70s but then backed off of those claims admitting that they never actually did or witnessed what they claimed but were merely reporting things that were told to them (by individuals--some of whom now claim that they were told what to say), neither US soldiers in Vietnam nor in Iraq behaved in the manner DrifterBob described. Yes, there were disgraceful incidents (Mai Lai and Abu Ghraib come to mind) but they pale in comparison to the conduct of the Germans on the soviet front, the conduct of the Soviets themselves (if I recall my Gulag Archipelago correctly, entire divisions were  executed if they were cut off from the chain of command) and others. That's not to say that Americans are saints. (The disgraceful incidents of post WWII America also pale in comparison to Wounded Knee, etc if my history books are accurate). However, the cheap and easy relativism of "they're all the same anyway" is a load of hogwash. People are not all the same. Nations are not all the same. (Even the same nation over different years will not be the same). And their conduct shows it.



> It's all a matter of perspective.  Good and evil are not absolutes.




Is that true? Absolutely? Or is that just your perspective? And, if it is just your perspective, why should anyone else care? (That is, if it's not *right* to seek the truth).


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 23, 2004)

Atom Again said:
			
		

> ?????
> 
> But that's the problem: Nazi skinheads and KKK don't *think of themselves as evil*.  They think they are the *good* guys.  Same with strikebreakers and communist informers.  They think *we* are the evil ones.
> 
> ...





Nearly everybody, except for the most utterly cynical, think of themselves as 'good' in some way or on the 'right' side.  Much evil comes from "ends justify the means" beliefs.  

You don't have to identify yourself as evil to be evil!  If that is your standard then you are going to have very few examples in RL, thats for sure.  No offense, but I think that is an absurd idea.  Hitler was evil regardless of whether he thought he was a bad guy or not.

DB


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 23, 2004)

Atom Again said:
			
		

> To us, the German soldier you describe is evil, but not everyone thinks that.  How about the American soldier who does the same things in Vietnam or Iraq? Is he evil? Or is he a champion of freedom?
> 
> It's all a matter of perspective.  Good and evil are not absolutes.




The American soldiers who performed atrocities such as the MaiLai (sp) massacre were EVIL.  That does not preclude their changing their alignment later, but yes, they were evil.  But as bad as it can be, the American army is not like the SS in WW II.   there are evil people in US army, and hard core combat conditions do tend to promote that, but in the current US army at any rate, there is an effort to combat that.  There are rules in the US army that if something unethical is going on you can refuse to go along with it.  In the SS there is a good chance you would be shot or put into a punishment Battallion.

SS doctrine _wanted_ their troops to be lawful evil.


Now, say, the US army in the Philipines in the Spanish American war in 1904 say, were probably much more like the SS.

Regardless, there are lines that if you cross them, you are evil.

So I suppose in a broad sense, yes, I am a moral absolutist.  I don't care how people justify in their own actions, if they rape, torture, murder (without damn good reasons) then they ARE evil.  Now, can there be extenuating circumstances to specific acts?  Of course.  Torturing a villain to find out where the bomb is before it goes off may be justified in one instance.  Routinely torturing Bosnians because they are Bosnians and you are a Serb, is not justifiyable in any way.  You are evil.


Good and evil are not absolutes, you may not be able to prove them mathematically, but as the man once said about pornography, "you know it when you see it", and you can make common sense judgement calls, which is why we have juries and judges to make decisions on matters of this sort.

DB


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 23, 2004)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> Ahh, the classic blunder of the moral relativist--assuming that everyone behaves the same. Unless you believe the now-discredited testimony of certain individuals who claimed to have committed war crimes in the '70s but then backed off of those claims admitting that they never actually did or (snip) neither US soldiers in Vietnam nor in Iraq behaved in the manner DrifterBob described. Yes, there were disgraceful incidents (Mai Lai and Abu Ghraib come to mind)




You have to be careful here though.  While I emphatically agree that since say the turn of the Century, U.S. troops have not committed as many acts of evil as their equivalents in the Nazi German or Soviet armies, you are actually treading dangerously close to another kind of moral relativism here.  

As Adam was pointing out, people tend to assume they are in the right, their side is 'different' from all others.  Americans are one of the worst practitioners of this kind of thinking for a variety of reasons.

We may not have had Auschwitz, and we may not have had on the books policies of wholesale rape, mutilation and massacres of civilians and P.O.W.'s as the Nazis or the Soviets did, but the idea that Mai Lai was a unique occurance during the Vietnam war, or that U.S. troops didn't commit vast numbers of atrocities, kill civilians, burn homes, kill P.O.W.'s, etc., simply doesn't hold up to historical analysis.    For that matter, you should probably read a little more about WW II, it was hardly the cheerfully patrotic fight against evil it has been painted as in retrospect, certainly many of the troops on the front line had much more mixed feelings about it.

The only thing different about our troops is that they are governed by a democracy and their chain of command is influenced by democratic ideals to some extent, and the military code they live under is influenced by U.S. civil law which is based in democratic values.  Other than that there is no inherent moral superiority.  Maintaining anytthing close to moraly defensible behavior during combat is an immense struggle.  The difference between the US and say, the Nazis or the Japanese Army of WW II, is that we attempted this struggle, and they did not.

DB


----------



## WayneLigon (Sep 23, 2004)

'They don't think of themselves as evil' is, I think, a wash when applied to people who are not traumatized, insane, or not otherwise in control of their actions. I usually counter with 'your Momma raised you better than that'. People know when they do wrong, and they know what they are doing is wrong. They'll come out with the most fantastic justifications for it _later_ in order to escape punishment or embarrasement but at the heart of things they know they did wrong. They just won't admit it. They're gutless, craven cowards.

The CEO who wink wink nudge nudge 'doesn't know' about the deals that will bankrupt the pension plan while filling his pockets at the same time, the guy passing out Ecstacy at the party, they all know what they are doing is wrong. They can say 'I was doing it to strengthen the company', or 'Everyone does it', but they all know in their hearts that what they are doing is wrong, that it hurts others while bettering themselves. They may never admit it, perhaps even to themselves, but they still know.


----------



## Atom Again (Sep 23, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> The American soldiers who performed atrocities such as the MaiLai (sp) massacre were EVIL.  That does not preclude their changing their alignment later, but yes, they were evil.




Says who? It's a matter of perspective.  

BTW, putting "evil" in captial letters doesn't make your statement any more true.


----------



## Atom Again (Sep 23, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> Regardless, there are lines that if you cross them, you are evil. . . .
> 
> Good and evil are not absolutes,
> DB




You contradicted yourself here.  You first state that there are moral "lines", then you admit that good and evil aren't absolutes.


----------



## Morbog of Ghetto D (Sep 23, 2004)

*Am I Evil?*

Evil is as Evil Does.  But...In my campaign (I am DM) Lawful Evil is a more "powerful" evil because they are willing to apply "order" to what they are doing.  They have plans , organization, and the means to enforce discipline.   

I see CE as an alignement for members of the "horde" while leaders would be LE.  Here is my problem....(We play in Greyhawk)  My lead NPC Bad Guys are 
NE (nerull) and Erethnyul (CE) .....They're both pretty darn evil...

Canibalism, human sacrifice, torture, grave robbery...

Evil is evil....just different Methods.


----------



## Davek (Sep 23, 2004)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> 'They don't think of themselves as evil' is, I think, a wash when applied to people who are not traumatized, insane, or not otherwise in control of their actions. I usually counter with 'your Momma raised you better than that'. People know when they do wrong, and they know what they are doing is wrong. They'll come out with the most fantastic justifications for it _later_ in order to escape punishment or embarrasement but at the heart of things they know they did wrong. They just won't admit it. They're gutless, craven cowards.
> 
> The CEO who wink wink nudge nudge 'doesn't know' about the deals that will bankrupt the pension plan while filling his pockets at the same time, the guy passing out Ecstacy at the party, they all know what they are doing is wrong. They can say 'I was doing it to strengthen the company', or 'Everyone does it', but they all know in their hearts that what they are doing is wrong, that it hurts others while bettering themselves. They may never admit it, perhaps even to themselves, but they still know.




I don't accept your argument. In my experience your argument is used by people that really do not want to look at things through someone else's eyes. They are comfortable with their point of view and are unwilling to accept that other points of view exist, let alone may have validity. It is always easier to paint in black and white than in color.

It is true that some people do claim innocence even if they do know, but it is equally true that some people claim innocence because they do NOT know.


----------



## buzzard (Sep 23, 2004)

I will trot out my old swimming pool example again to demonstrate fallacies. 

A person is walking through a neighborhood on a fairly hot day. Nobody is outside almost anywhere. He walks past a house with a swimming pool in the back yard. A young kid has fallen into the pool and obviously cannot swim. The yard has a fence around it saying "No Tresspassing". 

If the person is:
LE- He will stand by the fence and watch as the kid drowns and be amused by it. "Ignored the sign, the little moron, serves him right". Even had there been no fence, he would never have saved the kid (unless it was his own). 
NE- He will look around, and make sure that nobody is looking. If the coast is clear, he may chuck a rock to two to make sure of the desired outcome. 
CE- They will jump the fence and go help the kid shuffle off the mortal coil. They may be a bit careful to make sure nobody is watching. 

Moral of our story- it doesn't really matter which stripe of evil we're talking here, we end out with the same outcome, the dead kid. 

Oh, and Drifter Bob, you might want to be a bit more careful with who you re describing as evil. You've been slandering groups in a way that enters politics. 
buzzard


----------



## S'mon (Sep 23, 2004)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> 'They don't think of themselves as evil' is, I think, a wash when applied to people who are not traumatized, insane, or not otherwise in control of their actions. I usually counter with 'your Momma raised you better than that'. People know when they do wrong, and they know what they are doing is wrong. They'll come out with the most fantastic justifications for it _later_ in order to escape punishment or embarrasement but at the heart of things they know they did wrong. They just won't admit it. They're gutless, craven cowards.
> 
> The CEO who wink wink nudge nudge 'doesn't know' about the deals that will bankrupt the pension plan while filling his pockets at the same time, the guy passing out Ecstacy at the party, they all know what they are doing is wrong. They can say 'I was doing it to strengthen the company', or 'Everyone does it', but they all know in their hearts that what they are doing is wrong, that it hurts others while bettering themselves. They may never admit it, perhaps even to themselves, but they still know.




I really don't think that the Japanese soldiers bayoneting wounded POWs in the fall of Sinagpore, or the Mongol hordes who massacred Chinese peasants in the millions, felt that they were doing wrong 'in their heart of hearts'.  It just came naturally to them as a result of the values they were inculcated with.  Where there is a conflict between different inculcated values, between earlier and later-acquired values - as there must have been for American teenagers in Vietnam, or for many German soldiers on the Eastern Front - then yes, perhaps they did know on some level they were doing wrong, because their actions were not in accordance with certain of their inculcated values.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 23, 2004)

Atom Again said:
			
		

> Says who? It's a matter of perspective.
> 
> BTW, putting "evil" in captial letters doesn't make your statement any more true.




Well the the guys who enthusiastically raped and massacred over 500 civilians at My Lai were Evil (Alignment) according to 3e D&D Alignment rules, yup.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 23, 2004)

buzzard said:
			
		

> Oh, and Drifter Bob, you might want to be a bit more careful with who you re describing as evil. You've been slandering groups in a way that enters politics.




By saying the US army is better than the SS or Stalinist Red Army?    
I suppose if I were a veteran of the Waffen SS I might be offended... on balance though his statements seem unremarkable.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 23, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> For that matter, you should probably read a little more about WW II, it was hardly the cheerfully patrotic fight against evil it has been painted as in retrospect, certainly many of the troops on the front line had much more mixed feelings about it.




Well contemplating the severe risk that you'll be killed or maimed does tend to inculcate mixed feelings... but from everything I've read, including veterans' accounts, I'd say there was quite a remarkable degree of agreement among American service personnel that the enemy was evil and the war worth fighting.  I'm sure not everyone agreed, certainly there was a good deal of pro-German sentiment among German-Americans in the USA, but it seems like most people did to an extent rarely seen before or since.  Of course the Germans also saw WW2 as a patriotic fight against evil (the USSR), and the Russians saw it as a patriotic fight against evil (the Third Reich).


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 23, 2004)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Well contemplating the severe risk that you'll be killed or maimed does tend to inculcate mixed feelings... but from everything I've read, including veterans' accounts, I'd say there was quite a remarkable degree of agreement among American service personnel that the enemy was evil and the war worth fighting.  I'm sure not everyone agreed, certainly there was a good deal of pro-German sentiment among German-Americans in the USA, but it seems like most people did to an extent rarely seen before or since.  Of course the Germans also saw WW2 as a patriotic fight against evil (the USSR), and the Russians saw it as a patriotic fight against evil (the Third Reich).




I've read a lot of first hand accounts of WW II, and the first part of your statement is the key.  People today just don't have a realistic grasp of what war on that scale meant.  According to WARTIME, by Paul Fussell, the average US infantry division in Europe replaced 150% of it's combat troops, and over 250% of it's junior officers from June of 1944 through January of 1945.  That does not include divisions which were 'combat reduced' i.e. destroyed as a unit, as quite a few were, for example a dozen or so at the battle of the bulge.  In other words, a typical unit of 10,000 or so troops, would have gone through 15,000 replacements in that time period.  Think about it.

Since no country in WW II could afford to have the kind of rotation policies developed in later wars, once put into the line, you were there until the end.  The chances of surviving were very slim.  Your only way out was if the war ended, you died, you were maimed (anything less than a cripping injury would get you put back into the line) or you were captured.  

Troops on all sides knew that front line duty was a death sentance.  Most of the Germans were aware they had lost the war from the time of Stalingrad in WW II until the bitter end in 1945.  The Soviets.... well, the Soviets lost 20 million people during the war.... the UK lost so many people so early on that by the time the U.S. came into it, they couldn't afford to fight with the aggressive tactics demanded by U.S. doctrine, leading to conflicts between top Allied generals.  For the U.S., the biggest problems were inexperience especially of leadership, and the horrible replacement system.

I saw a U.S. WWII veteran on the History Channel the other day describing how his unit recieved replacements one day for a destroyed tank company (about 20 tanks).  The replacements turned out to have been trained as infantry and as rear area personell (cooks, clerks etc.).  So they divided them into groups of five, assigned each a tank, gave them a few hours to learn to drive the thing, showed them how to use the radio, allowed them each to fire three rounds, and sent them down the road to face the panzers.  As they followed down the same road that evening, he saw 17 knocked out sherman tanks.

In U.S. infantry units, it was common for the veteran soldiers to refuse to even talk to replacements, who they resented because they died so quickly.

I reccomend reading Paul Fussels Wartime, or watchin the recent film "When Trumpets Fade" which is about the battle for the Hurtgen Forest.

DB


----------



## Atom Again (Sep 23, 2004)

buzzard said:
			
		

> IA person is walking through a neighborhood on a fairly hot day. Nobody is outside almost anywhere. He walks past a house with a swimming pool in the back yard. A young kid has fallen into the pool and obviously cannot swim. The yard has a fence around it saying "No Tresspassing".
> 
> If the person is:
> LE- He will stand by the fence and watch as the kid drowns and be amused by it. "Ignored the sign, the little moron, serves him right". Even had there been no fence, he would never have saved the kid (unless it was his own).
> ...




Utter nonsense.  To suggest that a character of evil alignment in D&D will *always* let an innocent die is to reduce evil characters to caricatures.  

Tony Soprano = Lawful Evil.  What would he do? He'd utter some curse in Italian then go get the kid out of the pool.


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 23, 2004)

S'mon said:
			
		

> By saying the US army is better than the SS or Stalinist Red Army?
> I suppose if I were a veteran of the Waffen SS I might be offended... on balance though his statements seem unremarkable.





Maybe it was my derogatory remarks about klansmen?  We _are_ in a rather far-right political climate here in the US right now....


DB


----------



## buzzard (Sep 23, 2004)

S'mon said:
			
		

> By saying the US army is better than the SS or Stalinist Red Army?
> I suppose if I were a veteran of the Waffen SS I might be offended... on balance though his statements seem unremarkable.




Or you didn't read them all very carefully 

Drifter wrote:
"You are half right. Lawful evil is a fairly common alignment in RL. Your basic redneck "kick their ass and take their gas" ultra conservative US citizen, "

This might have slipped by you. It didn't slip by me. He didn't persist in it, so I don't much care, but it is slamming an end of the political spectrum over a bumper sticker which I find amusing, though of course unrealistic. 

buzzard


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 23, 2004)

buzzard said:
			
		

> Or you didn't read them all very carefully
> 
> Drifter wrote:
> "You are half right. Lawful evil is a fairly common alignment in RL. Your basic redneck "kick their ass and take their gas" ultra conservative US citizen, "
> ...





If you are trying to tell me "kick their ass and take their gas" is both a legitimate political philosophy and a benign, non-evil statement, then you are going to find me quite unsympathetic to your argument.  

I never said you aren't entitled to it, but that is an extreme point of view, and frankly, evil almost by definition.

And I don't think reffering to "ultra conservative" rednecks is particularly much different from the klan or ultra leftwing stalinists.  If you happen to be a stalinist or a nazi yourself, you can love it or lump it for all I care.


DB


----------



## buzzard (Sep 23, 2004)

Atom Again said:
			
		

> Utter nonsense.  To suggest that a character of evil alignment in D&D will *always* let an innocent die is to reduce evil characters to caricatures.
> 
> Tony Soprano = Lawful Evil.  What would he do? He'd utter some curse in Italian then go get the kid out of the pool.




Utter nonsense? That's a quite a bit too harsh. It is an illustrative example which contrasts the different approaches to evil acts. If you can't see it for such, you are not trying. Nowhere do I say the character of a given alignment will act in such a way on a consistent basis. 

Your counter argument isn't about evil, it about evil people ocaissionaly doing good things. Saving the kid is a good act. That's clear to anyone. Saying Tony Soprano would save the kid adds nothing to a discussion of his alignment. Sure maybe he would. Maybe he'd just walk on by and ignore it. However we're talking here about evil acts. what about if it were a kid which he didn't like and had made his life difficult? Think he's save the kid in that circumstance?

Though I did think of a flaw. The LE, as per the example, would probably find a means of trying to prevent others from rescuing the kid. For example playing a stereo loud to prevent cries for help being heard. 

buzzard


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 23, 2004)

buzzard said:
			
		

> Utter nonsense? That's a quite a bit too harsh. It is an illustrative example which contrasts the different approaches to evil acts. If you can't see it for such, you are not trying. Nowhere do I say the character of a given alignment will act in such a way on a consistent basis.
> 
> Your counter argument isn't about evil, it about evil people ocaissionaly doing good things. Saving the kid is a good act. That's clear to anyone. Saying Tony Soprano would save the kid adds nothing to a discussion of his alignment. Sure maybe he would. Maybe he'd just walk on by and ignore it. However we're talking here about evil acts. what about if it were a kid which he didn't like and had made his life difficult? Think he's save the kid in that circumstance?
> 
> buzzard




I agree, it is childish to assume that an evil person always commits evil acts or behaves in a consistently evil manner 100% of the time, just as it is to assume that someone who is evil invariably identifies themselves as such.  Most evil people in RL would tend to think of themselves as essentially good people, or at least, pragmatic in a world of dupes (i.e. neutral).  In DnD, it largely depends on how you view alignment detection spells, and of course with monsters it would be different, but it would be a pretty silly campaign if every single person who is evil consciously identifies that way 100% of the time like say, skeletor from he-man.

Tony Soprano doesn't think of himself as a bad guy, he thinks of himself as a pragmatic individual who 'does what he has to.'  He would very likely rescue a child, but he would also shoot the childs father later on if the guy reneged on a debt, for example.

It's not that you do evil all the time, it's that you will routinely commit evil acts that identifies you as evil.  Are there gray areas?  Of course, and that is what is missing from the current alignment system.  Other games will rate you as say, 80% chaotic, 20% evil, 10% good, or something like that.  Lacking this level of detail, we have to just view this with common sense.


DB


----------



## buzzard (Sep 24, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> If you are trying to tell me "kick their ass and take their gas" is both a legitimate political philosophy and a benign, non-evil statement, then you are going to find me quite unsympathetic to your argument.
> 
> I never said you aren't entitled to it, but that is an extreme point of view, and frankly, evil almost by definition.
> 
> ...




Obviously the humor value of said bumper sticker blows right past you. Attributing evil motives in the face of obviously tongue in cheeck bumper stickers is asinine. 

Sure, there are undoubtedly evil rednecks out there somewhere. In your further elaboration now you've tagged conservatives with the KKK, nazis and any other bogeyman of the moment. While it appears that being diplomatic, isn't a major concern of yours, why don't you try avoiding the conservative label as something associated with evil, if only to not provoke people. I suspect this will fall on deaf ears however. 

buzzard


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 24, 2004)

buzzard said:
			
		

> Obviously the humor value of said bumper sticker blows right past you. Attributing evil motives in the face of obviously tongue in cheeck bumper stickers is asinine.




Obviously, if is meant tongue in cheek, or even as a mean spirited joke, it isn't necessarily an evil motive.  It is still an _evil_ joke, but evil jokes can be funny, are in fact often funnier than 'nice' jokes.  If it is however meant seriously as a heartfelt point of view, which is how I was referring to it in my post, then it is an evil motive.  Are you honestly saying that none of the people who repeat or display slogans like that actually mean it for real?  I can promise you I know plenty of people who do.



> Sure, there are undoubtedly evil rednecks out there somewhere. In your further elaboration now you've tagged conservatives with the KKK, nazis (snip) why don't you try avoiding the conservative label as something associated with evil, if only to not provoke people. I suspect this will fall on deaf ears however.
> buzzard




I didn't say conservatives were evil or that they were equivalent to the KKK or nazis.  I said KKK and nazis were _ultra conservatives_.  They happen to be on that end of the political spectrum pal, like it or not.  Just as Stalinists are _ ultra leftists _, on the far end of the other side of the political spectrum.  You may have some other more poltically correct newspeak for such extremist abberations, but that is what they are.

As for your interpretation, I refer you back to my earlier post about peoples own alignments affecting their interpretation of alignment in general, i.e. lawful people think chaotic alignmens are more evil.   Similarly, people with an evil 'motive' who rationalize it in some way as being benign will tend to resent said motive being described as evil.  That doesn't change the fact that it is, again, by definition.

And as for being diplomatic, with all due respect, for somebody who thinks "kick their ass and take their gas" is real funny, you sure have a thin skin.  I call a spade a spade, if you can't handle that, move somewhere with no free speech.


DB


----------



## Umbran (Sep 24, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> Just as Stalinists are _ ultra leftists _, on the far end of the other side of the political spectrum.




Actually, Stalinists were not really on the left side of the spectrum.  They _said_ they were leftists.  The philosophy they claimed to follow, the doctrine they espoused, were left.  Communism theory is left - but in theory, communism has _no government at all_.  Communism practice, as seen so far, has been right - totalitarian government with all power in the hands of a few individuals.  Stalinists weren't terribly different from fascists.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Sep 24, 2004)

The idea that politics can be mapped on a right/left spectrum is pretty much bunk. It may (though I don't think it does) work for Eurpean politics where there is a tradition of statist conservative parties but in the US, at least, the conservative tradition has more in common with libertarianism in many respects. Similarly, both fascist and socialist governments operated on many of the same philosophies and by many of the same methods. Both require totalitarian collectivism and state ownership. Both were hostile to religion in their most prominent forms. Nazi is short for National _Socialist_. While the thesis that fascism, socialism, and communism are simply different branches of the same family may be informative, there is no right-left or conservative-liberal spectrum that will capture the relevant and important differences.

As for the idea that the KKK and Neo-Nazis are ultra-conservatives, that's nothing more than (frequently repeated) slander. There isn't some convenient dial of conservatism which can be turned from nine to eleven to produce a Neo-Nazi from a libertarian or a KKK member from your typical republican. The reality of political life is far more complex than that. Robert Byrd is probably the most prominent former KKK member. Many observers believe that Republican Bobbie Jindal lost the Louisiana governor's race, in part, because of the dark color of his skin. There is no doubt that some KKK members and neo-nazis also consider themselves conservatives but that just goes to show that there is more to politics than race.

The notion that conservatives are all racists merely one step away from being Nazis or clan members appeals to a certain self-righteous and arrogant set of intelligentsia but has no basis beyond their relentless need to feel superior.


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 24, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Actually, Stalinists were not really on the left side of the spectrum.  They _said_ they were leftists.  The philosophy they claimed to follow, the doctrine they espoused, were left.  Communism theory is left - but in theory, communism has _no government at all_.  Communism practice, as seen so far, has been right - totalitarian government with all power in the hands of a few individuals.  Stalinists weren't terribly different from fascists.




Well, this is a whole nother argument, pretty off topic.... but socialism and 'pure' communism if you will are one thing, but communism in the 20th century has meant marxism, and marxists believe in the "transitional" state with _absolute_ power, the 'dictatorship of the proletariat" which is then allegedly supposed to fade away after being used to destroy the enemies of the people.  In practice it invariably becomes a permanent bureaucratic state.

I agree with you that socialism doesn't necessarly mean big government, but I believe what you are talking about really is libertarian socialism or anarchism.

The point is though marxism does exist on the left end of the political spectrum, it's traditional allies have always been leftists (even if marxists usually turned out to be very bad allies themselves!).  The same can be said for groups on the extreme right.

DB


----------



## S'mon (Sep 24, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> I've read a lot of first hand accounts of WW II, and the first part of your statement is the key.  People today just don't have a realistic grasp of what war on that scale meant.  According to WARTIME, by Paul Fussell, the average US infantry division in Europe replaced 150% of it's combat troops, and over 250% of it's junior officers from June of 1944 through January of 1945.  That does not include divisions which were 'combat reduced' i.e. destroyed as a unit, as quite a few were, for example a dozen or so at the battle of the bulge.  In other words, a typical unit of 10,000 or so troops, would have gone through 15,000 replacements in that time period.  Think about it.




I've read the horrifying memoirs of my grandfather-in-law, a peaceful man who found himself serving as a replacement in a US combat infantry unit in Europe 1944-45 and saw a lot of fighting, most notably in the early part of the Battle of the Bulge when the last German offensive was overrunning their lines (37mm antitank guns vs King Tigers, *ouch*)   - he was very lucky to survive and it really brought home to me the price that generation paid for the freedom of the world.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 24, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> If you are trying to tell me "kick their ass and take their gas" is both a legitimate political philosophy and a benign, non-evil statement, then you are going to find me quite unsympathetic to your argument.




I think in D&D terms "kill them and take their stuff" (which is the same statement) is Evil-aligned if it means an unprovoked attack on somebody, but possibly slipping into Neutral if it means responding to someone else's provocation with an extreme reaction.  I suspect the bumper-stickerers are mostly thinking in the latter terms... either that or you can take our North Sea Oil reserves from our cold dead hands, old bean!    

-Simon, patriotic Brit.


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 24, 2004)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> in the US, at least, the conservative tradition has more in common with libertarianism in many respects.




Yeah, real libertarian.  Putting in the patriot act, demanding prayer in schools, outlawing abortion... thats real libertarian.  Guffaw


DB


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 24, 2004)

S'mon said:
			
		

> I've read the horrifying memoirs of my grandfather-in-law, a peaceful man who found himself serving as a replacement in a US combat infantry unit in Europe 1944-45 and saw a lot of fighting, most notably in the early part of the Battle of the Bulge when the last German offensive was overrunning their lines (37mm antitank guns vs King Tigers, *ouch*)   - he was very lucky to survive and it really brought home to me the price that generation paid for the freedom of the world.





Wow!  A replacement during the Ardennes... He _was_ lucky.  Hats off to your grandfather.  I bet has has some amazing stories to tell.

DB


----------



## S'mon (Sep 24, 2004)

I agree that describing Nazis and the KKK as "ultra conservative" doesn't seem accurate, as well as getting into actual political debate (I don't think saying mass murder is evil is 'political' even on EN World).  Nazis and the KKK are both radical groups, not 'conservative' (Ok I know Conservative, like Liberal, has a different implication in the US) and although some ultra-conservatives are racist, racism is not a necessary tenet of US-conservative belief, which it certainly is for Nazism and for the KKK.  Fascism (Mussolini-style) can be non-racist too, but likewise in many respects bears little resemblance to US extreme-conservatism.    I agree there's no dial you can turn that will necessarily take people from conservative to fascist to Nazi; you can't turn a dial from conservative-royalist-absolute-monarchist either; in fact it's historically been a lot easier for most people to transition from Nazi or Fascist to Trotskyite or Stalinist (or vice versa) since these radical totalitarian systems have far more in common.


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 24, 2004)

S'mon said:
			
		

> I think in D&D terms "kill them and take their stuff" (which is the same statement) is Evil-aligned if it means an unprovoked attack on somebody, but possibly slipping into Neutral if it means responding to someone else's provocation with an extreme reaction.
> 
> -Simon, patriotic Brit.




Right.  And there is no qualifier here.  The sentiment is not "kill them and take their stuff because...".  It also well predates sept 11, I knew guys who had "kick their ass and take their gas" on a t-shirt when I was in the Army back in the 1980's.  

To me, "kll them and take their stuff" is an evil sentiment.  Of course, it is the modus opperandi of may D&D characters!  Perhaps best not to think about that too much.... 


DB


----------



## S'mon (Sep 24, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> Wow!  A replacement during the Ardennes... He _was_ lucky.  Hats off to your grandfather.  I bet has has some amazing stories to tell.
> 
> DB




He died last year, sadly.  I can email you his memoirs if you like, my wife transcribed them before he died - email me at simontmn@ntlworld.com
It's not always clear from them what's going on, but after he died I read the official record of his Division that he had in his house and linking what he described seeing to what's in there it's clear he was at the heart of at a critical point in the last act of WW2.  He was one of those cooks they fed into the meatgrinder to replace losses.


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 24, 2004)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> TNazi is short for National _Socialist_.




Is nationalism a conservative trait or isn't it?


DB


----------



## iblis (Sep 24, 2004)

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> The idea that politics can be mapped on a right/left spectrum is pretty much bunk.




I disagree. I think politics _can_ be mapped on a right/left spectrum, but _isn't_ usually mapped so in any particularly meaningful way, the majority of the time.



			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> It may (though I don't think it does) work for Eurpean politics where there is a tradition of statist conservative parties but in the US, at least, the conservative tradition has more in common with libertarianism in many respects.




*Whereas my reply here originally referred to the liberal tradition in the US, I realise now, in hindsight, that libertarianism has nothing much to do with 'liberalism'. Ahem. My ignorance of the details - or even the terms - of US politics indeed is formidable. *



			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> Similarly, both fascist and socialist governments operated on many of the same philosophies and by many of the same methods. Both require totalitarian collectivism and state ownership. Both were hostile to religion in their most prominent forms. Nazi is short for National _Socialist_. While the thesis that fascism, socialism, and communism are simply different branches of the same family may be informative, there is no right-left or conservative-liberal spectrum that will capture the relevant and important differences.




True, they did indeed operate on many of the same philosophies. IMO however, the thesis (what thesis?) that fascism, socialism and communism are simply different branches of the same family would be stillborn, for they are simply _not_. Socialism, in Marx's view for example, was intended to be the intermediate stage in this progression : capitalism -> socialism -> communism. Fascism, on the other hand, is not even related, except by the fact that opportunistic leaders will use any banner to distract the people's attention from deceit. Speaking of which, 'capitalist democracy' as modern first-world countries experience it, comes complete with significant chunks of socialism. State ownership, as listed above, is one such chunk; public health and education too...though all of these are slipping away, according to some. So maybe one day socialism will release its grasp on pure capitalism - who knows.



			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> As for the idea that the KKK and Neo-Nazis are ultra-conservatives, that's nothing more than (frequently repeated) slander. There isn't some convenient dial of conservatism which can be turned from nine to eleven to produce a Neo-Nazi from a libertarian or a KKK member from your typical republican. The reality of political life is far more complex than that. Robert Byrd is probably the most prominent former KKK member. Many observers believe that Republican Bobbie Jindal lost the Louisiana governor's race, in part, because of the dark color of his skin. There is no doubt that some KKK members and neo-nazis also consider themselves conservatives but that just goes to show that there is more to politics than race.
> 
> The notion that conservatives are all racists merely one step away from being Nazis or clan members appeals to a certain self-righteous and arrogant set of intelligentsia but has no basis beyond their relentless need to feel superior.




Agreed. It's bollocks. It's closed-minded fanaticism, ironically enough - the very thing that said 'intelligentsia' supposedly rail against.

*Final note : In retrospect, I wish I'd never replied to this. Why oh why did I??? (sigh) Hmph.*


----------



## S'mon (Sep 24, 2004)

iblis said:
			
		

> True, they did indeed operate on many of the same philosophies. IMO however, the thesis (what thesis?) that fascism, socialism and communism are simply different branches of the same family would be stillborn, for they are simply _not_. Socialism, in Marx's view for example, was intended to be the intermediate stage in this progression : capitalism -> socialism -> communism. Fascism, on the other hand, is not even related, except by the fact that opportunistic leaders will use any banner to distract the people's attention from deceit.




Fascism may not have much relation to Socialism, but Nazism clearly does - and despite similarities Italian Fascism and German Nazism really have quite different underlying philosophies, though Hitler drew ideas from Fascism (the 'Great Leader' concept especialy) and later on influenced the development of Fascism - eg introducing a racist element that isn't a part of the original Statist fascist concept.  In D&D terms my impression is that Nazism is a lot more classically Evil than Italian fascism necessarily is, though many fascist regimes certainly are clearly Evil.


----------



## The Great Bear King (Sep 24, 2004)

Nazisim is simply a form of Socialism and since Left Wing truly means Socialist Hitler and the Nazi party were simply the bigoted anti-semitic far German left.

While much of true Conservitism is Libertarian, the Neo-conservitives want prayer in public schools. True Conservitism is called Right Wing. So I'll make a line from Left to Right to show you what I mean.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right


Spoiler



99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999


Left
Ron Paul



Spoiler



7777777777777777777777777777777777777777777


Chairman Mao
Barry Goldwater



Spoiler



4444444444444444444444444444444444


Adolph Hitler
P.J. O'Rourke



Spoiler



6666666666666666666666666666666666666666


George Owell
Ben Stein



Spoiler



6666666666666666666666666666666666666666


Joeseph Stailn
Drew Carry



Spoiler



6666666666666


Any one who belives in "trickle down economics"
The Greatful Dead



Spoiler



555555555555555555555555555555555555555


Ralph Nader


----------



## buzzard (Sep 24, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> Is nationalism a conservative trait or isn't it?
> 
> 
> DB




Was Bismark a conservative? He was certainly a nationalist. He was also the one who instituted most of Germany's social programs. Mussolini started as a dedicated socialist, and certainly instituted plenty of social programs. Hitler expanded on the cradle to grave social welfare net of Germany. Not exactly what I'd call in the model of American Conservatives. 

Also, one should keep in mind that Eurpean Conservative VS. U.S. Conservative are usually quite different beasts. Elder Basilisk already got my point across. Saying I'm thin skinned because I don't like slander is an odd comment IMHO. 

buzzard


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 24, 2004)

The Great Bear King said:
			
		

> Nazisim is simply a form of Socialism and since Left Wing truly means Socialist Hitler and the Nazi party were simply the bigoted anti-semitic far German left.




That is a deadly insult to all of the socialists, trade unionists and leftists that Hitler put into the concentration camps.  You people are really, really sick.  I wish to god you would come and say this to my face.

What a load of diarhareha.



DB


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 24, 2004)

buzzard said:
			
		

> Was Bismark a conservative?




of course he was.



> He was certainly a nationalist. He was also the one who instituted most of Germany's social programs. Mussolini started as a dedicated socialist,




Gufffaw!!!!  Tell that to an Italian!



> and certainly instituted plenty of social programs. Hitler expanded on the cradle to grave social welfare net of Germany. Not exactly what I'd call in the model of American Conservatives.
> 
> Also, one should keep in mind that Eurpean Conservative VS. U.S. Conservative are usually quite different beasts. Elder Basilisk already got my point across. Saying I'm thin skinned because I don't like slander is an odd comment IMHO.
> 
> buzzard




You are so ignorant.  Julius Caesar instituited social programs, so did assorted King's of England, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, that has nothing to do with being left wing or liberal or socialist.  Your newspeak is so orwellian I can't believe you can spew it out without choking on it.


DB


----------



## Davek (Sep 24, 2004)

I think the whole concept of 'the political spectrum' is wrong. I see it as more of a line , a continuous line with no beginning and no end, but not infinite. Yup, a circle. Left and right are merely mirror images of each other. The words and descriptions may change, but the results invariable become the same.

I think a more apt examination would look at the relationship between anarchy and government.

By the way, lets try to keep thing civil, before this interesting discussion gets locked.


----------



## Atom Again (Sep 24, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> Yeah, real libertarian.  Putting in the patriot act, demanding prayer in schools, outlawing abortion... thats real libertarian.




Drifter Bob, do a google on "Roe vs. Wade" and you'll learn a few things.


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 24, 2004)

Atom Again said:
			
		

> Drifter Bob, do a google on "Roe vs. Wade" and you'll learn a few things.





Is that a joke?  Enough.  I've had enough bantering with devils.  You are all lawful evil as far as I'm concerned 


DB


----------



## S'mon (Sep 24, 2004)

Davek said:
			
		

> I think the whole concept of 'the political spectrum' is wrong. I see it as more of a line , a continuous line with no beginning and no end, but not infinite. Yup, a circle.




I used a diamond matrix in my PhD (call me Dr S'mon)  - with 2 axes, Romantic vs Pragmatic views of human nature, and Group-Oriented vs Individualist views of human nature.  Totalitarian philosophies would be Romantic & Group Oriented, Liberal-radical philosophies like those of Rousseu typically Individualist & Romantic, Liberal-right philosophies like Locke Individualist & Pragmatic, traditionalist & religious philosophies like Roman Catholicism Group-Oriented & Pragmatic.  I don't think there's a single philosophy that can be classified as 'American Conservatism', though - traditionally one might say they were individualist & pragmatic but now that the religious right is part of mainstream US Conservatism there seems a stronger emphasis on a group-oriented approach.


----------



## WayneLigon (Sep 24, 2004)

Man, I can hear the impending CLUNK from here. Thanks, guys.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 24, 2004)

Example from the SF genre - Star Trek takes a romantic view of human nature, Babylon-5 a pragmatic one.  This doesn't make either show good or evil, though.


----------



## buzzard (Sep 24, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> of course he was.




But my point, which went right past you, was that his philosophy of government, which able to be described as Conservative in a European sense is not in an American sense. You apparently have no grasp of American conservative philosophy beyond a cartoon level. 



			
				Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> Gufffaw!!!!  Tell that to an Italian!




Tell that to a history book. Mussolini started as a Socialist. That is as fact. You can flaunt your ignorance further by disputing this. 



			
				Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> You are so ignorant.  Julius Caesar instituited social programs, so did assorted King's of England, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, that has nothing to do with being left wing or liberal or socialist.  Your newspeak is so orwellian I can't believe you can spew it out without choking on it.
> 
> DB




You accuse me of Newspeak and then you turn around and say that instituting social programs is not socialist. Accusing someone of both ignorance and double speak when you flaunt both to an incredible degree is such alarming hypocracy that I am aghast. 

Of course this likely will get slapped shut by the moderators, but I would like to say that I just wanted people to lay off the politics in the first place. You have completely disregarded that suggestion in contravention to the policies on this site. 

buzzard


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 24, 2004)

buzzard said:
			
		

> Tell that to a history book. Mussolini started as a Socialist. That is as fact. You can flaunt your ignorance further by disputing this.




That doesn't mean that his policies as a leader were socialist.  Ronald Reagan used to be a liberal as a youth, does that mean that he was a liberal president?



> You accuse me of Newspeak and then you turn around and say that instituting social programs is not socialist. Accusing someone of both




As I have pointed out, nearly every monarch, i.e. king or queen over the ages years has instituted social programs of one kind or another.  Does that make them socialists? 



> Of course this likely will get slapped shut by the moderators, but I would like to say that I just wanted people to lay off the politics in the first place. You have completely disregarded that suggestion in contravention to the policies on this site.




Rather than write the response to this that I am itching to write, (and which I would tell in a second if you were here in person to discuss this with in a bar room or something) I am going to recognize something about the internet.

A wize man once told me that arguing on the internet is like entering the special olympics.  Even if you win, you are still retarded.



I would also like to propose a theory, which I will call the Alignment Uncertainty Princple.  This is a variation of Heisenburgs Unceratinty principle, known to students of Quantum Mechanics, which states that you cannot know the true state of observed phenomena, because the act of observing actually changes the phenomena.

I now believe that one cannot understand alignments as presented in D&D, because one's own alignment will get in the way.  Thus if you are lawful, you will percieve chaos as evil.  If you are chaotic, you will percieve law as evil.  If you are yourself evil, you will tend to percieve evil as good, and good as evil  (a manichean outlook)

This is why alignment has been so confusing to those of us who play D&D!


DB


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 24, 2004)

Davek said:
			
		

> I think the whole concept of 'the political spectrum' is wrong. I see it as more of a line , a continuous line with no beginning and no end, but not infinite. Yup, a circle. Left and right are merely mirror images of each other. The words and descriptions may change, but the results invariable become the same.
> 
> I think a more apt examination would look at the relationship between anarchy and government.
> 
> By the way, lets try to keep thing civil, before this interesting discussion gets locked.





I actually agree with this to some extent, though that is due to the simple conventional linear analysis being flawed.  I would break it down on two axis, economic and political.  On the left end of the economic spectrum, collectivism, i.e. communal ownership of all resources.  On the right, oligarchy, roman style aristocratic ownership of all resources by the smallest possible minority.  On the top, big government Imperial dictatorship or absolute monarchy, on the bottom, total democracy, decentralization, federated governance with local autonomy.


DB


----------



## VirgilCaine (Sep 24, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> I agree with you that socialism doesn't necessarly mean big government, but I believe what you are talking about really is *libertarian socialism* or anarchism.




Do you mean anarcho-socialism by this? "Original" "Old Country" libertarianism and not late 20th-century Libertarianism? Or what?


----------



## VirgilCaine (Sep 24, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> That is a deadly insult to all of the socialists, trade unionists and leftists that Hitler put into the concentration camps.  You people are really, really sick.  I wish to god you would come and say this to my face.
> 
> DB




Personally, I think that Nazism is Nationalist Socialism--using socialism on a national scale only...but thats just me.




			
				iblis said:
			
		

> Speaking of which, 'capitalist democracy' as modern first-world countries experience it, comes complete with significant chunks of socialism. State ownership, as listed above, is one such chunk; public health and education too...*though all of these are slipping away, according to some. * So maybe one day socialism will release its grasp on pure capitalism - who knows.




Well those things, and the command agricultural economy for one, here in the U.S. 

But who in the world thinks that state control is slipping away? A person who sees a difference between a "gov't lackey corporation" doing something and an honest to goodness public employee?


----------



## Umbran (Sep 24, 2004)

Drifter Bob:

We are very lucky that the mods have allowed this thread to continue as long as it has.  Discussion with tone such as you have used of late will surely kill this thread deader than Rasputin.  Please keep it civil.  Avoid name calling, foul imagry, insults, and personal attacks upon others.  I don't care how strongly you may disagree, you can be polite about it or we won't talk about it at all.


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 24, 2004)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> Do you mean anarcho-socialism by this? "Original" "Old Country" libertarianism and not late 20th-century Libertarianism? Or what?




of course, small 'l' libertarianism, i.e. the real thing, not the US version which is actually minarchism...


DB


----------



## Drifter Bob (Sep 24, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Drifter Bob:
> 
> We are very lucky that the mods have allowed this thread to continue as long as it has.  Discussion with tone such as you have used of late will surely kill this thread deader than Rasputin.  Please keep it civil.  Avoid name calling, foul imagry, insults, and personal attacks upon others.  I don't care how strongly you may disagree, you can be polite about it or we won't talk about it at all.




Hmmm.. I seem to have noticed a certain amount of name calling toward me.

Either way, I'm not going to try to argue politics here any further.

With regard to the actual thread, I'm sticking to my theory of the Uncertainty of Alignment principle.  Anyone interested in discussing that will find me receptive.

DB


----------



## Umbran (Sep 24, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> Hmmm.. I seem to have noticed a certain amount of name calling toward me.




The fact that others may not have been behaving is _no excuse_ for behaving poorly yourself.  "He hit me first (or also)" is not a viable defense.  

I pointed you out because you seemed the most egregious offender at the moment.  I figured anyone else thinking of poor behavior would take the hint.  If not, they'll deserve what the mods'll give 'em.


----------



## Davek (Sep 25, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I pointed you out because you seemed the most egregious offender at the moment.  I figured anyone else thinking of poor behavior would take the hint.  If not, they'll deserve what the mods'll give 'em.




Next time it might be more fair to direct the suggestion to everyone, not just one individual. I know it would be nice to expect everyone else to learn from the mistakes of others, but realistically it ain't going to happen.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 25, 2004)

Drifter Bob said:
			
		

> With regard to the actual thread, I'm sticking to my theory of the Uncertainty of Alignment principle.  Anyone interested in discussing that will find me receptive.




There's the problem though that the 'holy writ' of the Rulebook definitions varies though, according to the moral beliefs of the people who wrote those definitions.  Gygax-1977 definitions are from a different standpoint than Tweet & co-2000 definitions.  The Gygaxian approach is particularly interesting since Gygax identified Lawful-Good with his Roman Catholicism and thus by definition the 'best' alignment, whereas Chaotic Good is presented as 'tainted', yet as a lapsed Catholic he doesn't seem to actually _like_ LG and the Gord books present Neutrality as the morally-preferable choice!


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Oct 4, 2016)

Voadam said:


> Nope.
> 
> Absolute devotion to the cause of evil is LE.
> 
> ...




Actually, I think absolute devotion to the cause is Neutral Evil.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Oct 4, 2016)

Atom Again said:


> Before someone replies by saying, "No, just more chaotic", let me make it clear what I'm asking.  Is a chaotic evil person a "worse" person than a lawful evil person? I mean, a lawful evil person at least has some code of conduct, some sense of loyalty, some concept of allegiance and order.
> 
> A chaotic evil person, on the other hand, is loyal to nothing or no one, only him (or her) self.
> 
> Think of it this way.  Tony Soprano = Lawful Evil.  Ted Bundy = Chaotic Evil.  They're both killers, but we all know who's worse...




In my mind, lawful or neutral evil are "worse" than chaotic evil, simply because they can do more damage and be far more insidious.

Somebody who is chaotic evil is really just a psychopath. They have no regard for life, the law, others, etc. It's entirely selfish whim with a very sadistic bent that drives them. But they are usually the easiest to spot and counter. Like Geoffrey or Ramsay in Game of Thrones, they don't rise to power, they get it by opportunity and maintain it solely through their personal power. Almost nobody willingly serves such an individual, it's entirely with fear.

Hitler shows how dangerous a lawful evil person can be. He's responsible for far more evil than Bundy. Even a Tony Soprano is responsible for far more death and despair than Bundy.

Hannibal Lecter is somebody I'd pin as neutral evil, and I think he's the most dangerous of the three. He has no problem with random death and destruction, but will happily work within and leverage the construct society has created to make his evil acts possible. Most serial killers probably fall here more than chaotic evil. 

On the other hand, lawful evil people are usually very charismatic. Or at least those that rise to power are. There is a loyalty to those who helped them get to where they are, although that loyalty is based on a certain kind of trust and if that trust is broken they can turn on you very quickly. But they rule through the support of others, which means they are also capable of getting others to perform evil acts for them. 

Neutral evil is one who essentially values evil period. Outward appearances are deceptive, and they can combine the power of society that a lawful evil person can, but the reality is that they will look for any opportunity and take it by whatever means is necessary, even if that's turning against their own. Essentially a neutral evil person is chaotic evil in a lawful evil wrapper. 

Essentially a lawful evil character believes in the structure that society provides and its benefits, but such a structure is not constrained by a simple concept of good and evil. Slavery, oppression, removal of dissidents and those that speak out about the state can be removed by whatever means necessary.

Neutral evil sees the benefit of such a structure in controlling others, but feels no compelling reason to be bound by such a structure themselves. It is simply another tool to be used to accomplish their own selfish goals.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Oct 4, 2016)

Steel_Wind said:


> I simply do not agree with these views.
> 
> Vandalism is NOT CE. It might be to you, but to liken a misdemeanor property crime with CHAOTIC EVIL is applying an analytical framework we simply do not agree with.
> 
> ...




Actually, this is a good point. Now that the comparison is made, I would consider vandalism and embezzling chaotic neutral acts. They aren't good, but they aren't inherently evil either. They are certainly self-serving and unlawful. 

Thanks for that. It clarifies a bunch.


----------



## Ilbranteloth (Oct 4, 2016)

Mouseferatu said:


> Vandalism destroys someone else's property, costing them money, possibly substantial emotional injury. How can that not be evil? Is it as evil as murder? Of course not. But evil exists on a continuum, and "less evil" does not equal "not evil." (For the record, though, perhaps I should have said "destruction of property," since I was thinking of actual damage, not spray-painting.)
> 
> Same with embezzlement. Where do you think that money's coming from? It's not created out of whole cloth. Every cent that's going to an embezzler is coming out of someone else's pocket. Again, far less evil than murder, but still evil.
> 
> ...




Actually, until reading through these posts, I would have probably said the same thing, but now something has made sense to me that clarifies it a bit.

Evil acts are those that deprive another of their freedom - slavery, or the ultimate, death. They are also acts that inflict direct pain and harm to others, like torture, etc. They are evil regardless of the construct of society.

Acts like vandalism are against another, but they are within an artificial construct of society to begin with. In other words, they aren't universal. In a society without money, embezzlement doesn't exist. Sure, it's not a good act, but not quite evil either. It's definitely not lawful. So I think it ends up as chaotic neutral.

In other words, on the good/evil spectrum, neutral is where something lands if it's not good, but not bad enough to be evil. Even damage of property.

In a sense, evil acts are those that are essentially irreversible. You can heal the body after torture, but not the mind. Yes, D&D is a world with resurrection, but death is still final for most. Evil is an act against a person, where neutral is an act against property. 

That's not to say that some acts against property can't be evil, such as desecration of a holy site. But for the most part the merely "bad" crimes would land as chaotic neutral acts.

Likewise, a society that has laws that don't respect the property of others would be lawful neutral. For example, if the crown can take whatever land it chooses, without recompense to the owners, that would be lawful neutral. If they could imprison you indefinitely without cause or charges, I would consider that lawful evil.

You're right, it's part of the same continuum, but it's not the continuum of evil. It's a continuum from good to evil.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Oct 4, 2016)

Remember the old days, when people used to argue about alignment in D&D? Thankfully that's all been sorted out now.


----------



## Max_Killjoy (Oct 4, 2016)

Doug McCrae said:


> Remember the old days, when people used to argue about alignment in D&D? Thankfully that's all been sorted out now.




This thread is from the old days.  

Did WoTC recently put out a necromancy book?


----------



## steeldragons (Oct 4, 2016)

Haven't read the 13 pages of posts [from 12 years ago ], so apologies for any repetition.

To answer the direct thread question, I think Chaotic evil is more.._.dangerous _than Lawful Evil. More unpredictable, less organized, and thus more prone to greater, more careless (and care _free_) evil.

Whereas Lawful evil may be the more _scheming_, more thoughtful, more organized and better understood (perhaps even able to be anticipated) evil.

Chaotic Evil is the evil of Destruction. Lawful Evil is the evil of Oppression.

The LE doesn't have to, or necessarily even want to, destroy anything. They want to exert control over others, build their own personal/selfish power, advance ORDER through their evil. But they can and will destroy if that suits their needs [contributing to building/exerting their own power over others they are inevitably trying to bring about].

The CE doesn't have to, or necessarily want to, oppress anything. They want to wreak destruction of life, of beauty, of morals, of whatever they can get their -literal or figurative- hands on, spread CHAOS through their evil. But they can and will oppress if that suits their needs [contributing to the destruction/chaos they are inevitably trying to bring about].

One is not, necessarily MORE evil than the other, and I think each is equally capable of being just as "scary" and "scheming" and "devastating/destructive" as the other.


----------



## Voadam (Oct 5, 2016)

Ilbranteloth said:


> Actually, I think absolute devotion to the cause is Neutral Evil.




So did Lord Pendragon.

Are you contending that devotion to a cause is not a lawful trait, but neutral?

Absolute devotion seems more archetypally lawful on the Law/Chaos spectrum to me but it is arguable.

So then in your view is someone absolutely devoted to Chaotic Evil lawful, neutral or chaotic on the Law/Chaos spectrum?


----------



## steeldragons (Oct 5, 2016)

Well, by this reasoning, all clerics of any deity of any alignment would have to be lawful.

"Devotion to a cause" comes in any shape or form. The "devotion" -5e paladin subclass title to the contrary- is not where the ethical and moral [alignment] is defined, but "the cause." 

You can be devoted to Chaos...You are hence chaotic. You can be devoted the Neutrality, as old school druids were...and so, you are neutral. 

I suppose the short answer is: Being "devoted" is not intrinsically "lawful," no.


----------



## Caliban (Oct 5, 2016)

I don't think "Evil" is a cause that people actually devote themselves too.   I think Neutral Evil is ultimately the most selfish of the evil alignments because it's evil for it's own sake.  You care about yourself and your own desires and pleasure before anything else.   You may use or hide behind the law, or ignore it altogether depending on the situation.  

Lawful Evil is just as evil, but they prefer working within a structure - whether legal structure (evil bureaucrats, slavers, lawyers, etc.).  They may not be more "evil" in an absolute sense, but they are more dangerous because they are more likely to work as part of a larger group and create institutions to support their goals. 

Chaotic Evil is more dangerous on an individual level.  Then tend to go for the more "hand on" approach to committing evil acts.  The personal touch.   They may lead a group (if they are the charismatic type), or be part of a larger group that caters to their particular world view, but it a tenuous relationship with no sense of loyalty.   They tend to make a power play for leadership or just get bored because things are taking to long and go do something else.  "I was part of a kidnapping ring, but negotiating with the family was taking forever.   I wanted to switch to highway robbery but the other guys objected...so I killed them, killed the hostage, and killed and robbed the hostages family.  Life is good."


----------



## Umbran (Oct 5, 2016)

Voadam said:


> Are you contending that devotion to a cause is not a lawful trait, but neutral?




Wow.  Old thread.

Devotion is neither lawful or chaotic, in and of itself.  It is how that devotion is expressed that would indicate lawfulness or not.  Otherwise, Chaotic Neutral (being devoted to personal freedom, and nothing else) could not exist.

For me, the point is this - the axes are orthogonal.  So, if you are at any of the four extremes, you are a servant of two masters - you are, for example, a servant of chaos, and a servant of evil, both.  And sometimes those things come into conflict.  Sometimes, the most evil thing is *not* also the thing that allows you the greatest amount of personal freedom.  And then, the CE person has a choice - be more evil, or more chaotic.  

The Neutral Evil (nor any neutral) does not care about one of the axes.  The NE will go with the most purely evil choice at every turn, never compromising to be more lawful or more chaotic.


----------



## Red Dragon Gaming (Oct 8, 2016)

As others have said, evil is evil - Law and Chaos are more representative of whether an individual works within a planned structure or more randomly.  Lawful Evil can be a very enduring form of evil, systematically creating evil norms in a society, legislating cruelty into practice.  Chaotic Evil would be more volatile and unpredictable though.


----------

