Good and Evil, and the stupid versions thereof

[SiuiS]

I'm honestly not sure what you're getting at. Basing your ethics and/or morality around emotional responses

Full stop.

I didn't say base moral responses on emotion. I said basing morality solely on logic and specifically excluding emotion was probably why adult morality does not jive with young adult morality.

Out of curiosity what culture/religion were you raised in that you thought a wizard could be more powerful than a deity, at a young age? I was raised Christian, so I feel I'm probably missing something cultural here. I'll refrain from further response until you clarify.

We cannot discuss religion on the Giant in the Playground forums, and yes, telling you my own is a violation. I've checked.

I don't need to answer that question to answer the broader question, however. In dungeons and dragons it has always been possible to be stronger than gods. It's also still expected to treat them with reverence. This is an issue for some people because, I believe, they have excised their emotional understanding of divinity.

Speak for yourself. It works perfectly fine for me.

I'm not speaking for myself, actually. I'm addressing years of passive data collection.

How is any of this incompatible with logical thinking?

Nitpick. Logical thinking is a handicap. Logic is a tool. Logic is only one component of rational thought, however. Trying to be rational is good, and generates a generally sympathetic and compassionate individual, within bounds. Trying to be strictly logical ends up with all sorts of false starts, like the vulcans.

An example of those false starts: examining a transsexual woman's body post-Mortem. Exoning bone structure would logically show her as male. Examining blood and tissue would show her as female. Rationally, we would look for more data and get their medical histories.

Also, who gets to decide what is a "healthy" emotional response, and what is a "sickened" one? I would think it would change significantly based on who's assigning the labels.

That's a good question. There are many answers. In this case, I am using societal inertia. The sum total of human understanding on a topic when evaluated for rationality is usually a good rubric. Although sometimes, only because people understand in the general case that the general action is bad, even though they insist in the specific that their doing it when they did was justified.

Although now that I think about it, I think we mean different things when talking about morality. I'm using the following definition: "Whatever gives the best outcome for the largest number of sapient beings". Do you mean something different perhaps? If so please provide your definition, and it might clear up the misunderstanding

I can't discuss religion. Sorry.

Just wonderful, I love it.

I find it funny that only the LG player in that link saw attacking Orcs as an outright Good act. I guess I just feel that it's really hard for most mortal races to be any thing beside N. I mean really what do most of them do beside what a human might. Yes I can understand a few of them favouring something beside N, but even then many of them would be all over the place.

Orcs were originally not that sentient. They were born from wicked soulstuff moulded in fouled clay, and their minds and souls were aligned with forces of chaos, entropy and destruction. It was as accurate to say orcs spontaneously arose from hate and war-urge that accumulated in underground cavern systems and triggered spontaneous generation, as it is to say they are a tribal society of asshats who just don't have a moral system we relate to.

Nowadays, it's different. Kant would be old enough to have grown up with the "orcs are literally evil to the core and cannot be redeemed" system.

I was unaware adventurers could reach through the 4th wall to gain access to the Monster Manual.

Paladin, mate. Paladin.

[hamishspence]

Orcs were originally not that sentient. They were born from wicked soulstuff moulded in fouled clay, and their minds and souls were aligned with forces of chaos, entropy and destruction.

That was one of Tolkien's early concepts - but it never made it into the main LOTR book - which emphasises that they were not created - only twisted from existing life.

[hydroplatypus]

Full stop.

I didn't say base moral responses on emotion. I said basing morality solely on logic and specifically excluding emotion was probably why adult morality does not jive with young adult morality.

Evidently I misunderstood. Likely due to the use of the following phrase

I think the issue is that we've removed the emotional component from morality.

I don't need to answer that question to answer the broader question, however. In dungeons and dragons it has always been possible to be stronger than gods. It's also still expected to treat them with reverence. This is an issue for some people because, I believe, they have excised their emotional understanding of divinity.

Treat them like any other authority figure. In the same way that a soldier might respect his king, even though he could kill that king in single combat with ease. I don't see how the situations are different.

And of course, if the gods act in such a way that they are not deserving of respect/reverence then give them none. The same way you shouldn't respect a leader who is blatantly evil in real life.

I'm not speaking for myself, actually. I'm addressing years of passive data collection.

In my experience logical thinking gives perfectly reasonable conclusions in almost all situations. Evidently we've had different experiences. Please give some examples.

Nitpick. Logical thinking is a handicap. Logic is a tool. Logic is only one component of rational thought, however. Trying to be rational is good, and generates a generally sympathetic and compassionate individual, within bounds. Trying to be strictly logical ends up with all sorts of false starts, like the vulcans.

I think we're using different definitions of logical and rational. I use the two terms interchangeably, so please clarify how you're using them.

Also, the Vulcans are not at all logical. They behave illogically all the time. They just claim to be logical.

That's a good question. There are many answers. In this case, I am using societal inertia. The sum total of human understanding on a topic when evaluated for rationality is usually a good rubric. Although sometimes, only because people understand in the general case that the general action is bad, even though they insist in the specific that their doing it when they did was justified.

the problem is that in many cases the sum total of human understanding changes based on culture. The sum total of human understanding taken across Canada is that gay marriage is perfectly OK. The sum total taken across Saudi Arabia is that it is not. You see how this only makes things more subjective? And if you take it across all humanity as a whole you end up with so many grey areas that it becomes very hard to make any moral statement but the most blatantly obvious.

[Sartharina]

That was one of Tolkien's early concepts - but it never made it into the main LOTR book - which emphasises that they were not created - only twisted from existing life.

But that twisting still moved them beyond 'redepmtion'.

... of course, I've always thought Orcs were giant, malevolent fungus driven by a love of war and carnage, and to deny them that pleasure is a violation of their essence on the highest level.

[hamishspence]

But that twisting still moved them beyond 'redemption'.

Tolkien said that they "might be irredeemable (at least by Elves and Men) but still remain within the Law."

Which meant that torturing them for info, wasn't excusable, and mercy, if asked for, had to be granted:

They would be Morgoth’s greatest Sins, abuses of his highest privilege, and would be creatures begotten of Sin, and naturally bad (I nearly wrote ’irredeemably bad’; but that would be going too far. Because by accepting or tolerating their making - necessary to their actual existence - even Orcs would become part of the World, which is God’s and ultimately good.)~Letter #153

But even before this wickedness of Morgoth was suspected the Wise in the Elder Days taught always that the Orcs were not 'made' by Melkor, and therefore were not in their origin evil. They might have become irredeemable (at least by Elves and Men), but they remained within the Law. That is, that though of necessity, being the fingers of the hand of Morgoth, they must be fought with the utmost severity, they must not be dealt with in their own terms of cruelty and treachery. Captives must not be tormented, not even to discover information for the defence of the homes of Elves and Men. If any Orcs surrendered and asked for mercy, they must be granted it, even at a cost. This was the teaching of the Wise, though in the horror of the War it was not always heeded.~HoME X, Morgoth's Ring

[Sartharina]

Tolkien said that they "might be irredeemable (at least by Elves and Men) but still remain within the Law."

Which meant that torturing them for info, wasn't excusable, and mercy, if asked for, had to be granted:

Torture is never acceptable. Mercy depends on the situation.

[veti]

The good guys don't meekly accept their place, they care for and respect those who should be above them and try to keep them there, power be darned. Evil isn't judged as bad because it's not a valid intellectual choice, it's judged as bad because it's a literally sickened/perverse emotional choice.

At first glance I found the first half of that persuasive and insightful. But the more I think about it, the less convincing it becomes. As always, there's that problematic word "should", which basically prejudges all moral questions and makes everything else redundant.

The second half - well, I saw the problem with that straight away...

That's a good question. There are many answers. In this case, I am using societal inertia. The sum total of human understanding on a topic when evaluated for rationality is usually a good rubric. Although sometimes, only because people understand in the general case that the general action is bad, even though they insist in the specific that their doing it when they did was justified.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how that answers the question. Are you saying that a "healthy" response is one that jives with societal consensus? But then we're talking about subjective morality based on (changing) social norms. I don't have a problem with that premise, but it's one that D&D explicitly and vehemently rejects.

Nowadays, it's different. Kant would be old enough to have grown up with the "orcs are literally evil to the core and cannot be redeemed" system.

It seems to me the author of that strip has a very shaky grasp of Kantian ethics...

[Sartharina]

I'm sorry, but I don't see how that answers the question. Are you saying that a "healthy" response is one that jives with societal consensus? But then we're talking about subjective morality based on (changing) social norms. I don't have a problem with that premise, but it's one that D&D explicitly and vehemently rejects.

Not quite. D&D embraces the morality that is in vogue with the culture it is written in.

[SiuiS]

That was one of Tolkien's early concepts - but it never made it into the main LOTR book - which emphasises that they were not created - only twisted from existing life.

I was talking about early D&D. It was written with what ican only call a simple and anachronistic 'morality' to to facilitate conflict without moral issue unless you wanted moral issue.

Treat them like any other authority figure. In the same way that a soldier might respect his king, even though he could kill that king in single combat with ease. I don't see how the situations are different.

And of course, if the gods act in such a way that they are not deserving of respect/reverence then give them none. The same way you shouldn't respect a leader who is blatantly evil in real life.

That's how I would approach it, but I've recently had a conversation wherein someone said that to an ethos cleric, the gods aren't gods and deserve no more respect than a random songbird. I said the king of England is still a king – and all that entails – even if I'm American, and his response led me to believe he just has a different set of baggage attached to the word god than I do. It was enlightening.

In my experience logical thinking gives perfectly reasonable conclusions in almost all situations. Evidently we've had different experiences. Please give some examples.

Logic is not capable of handling black swan events. Logic is often used to argue against black swan events.

Logic is a tool for inputting data and getting conclusions. What data you put in and how much weight is attached to it, and what use you get out of it, are dictated by emotion more often than not. See any argument about transsexuality, for example. A woman can be logically deduced to be make from bone structure even if logically deduced to be female from every other marker. Which is correct? Both.

I think we're using different definitions of logical and rational. I use the two terms interchangeably, so please clarify how you're using them.

Logic is a process, yes? "If all rocks are brown, and I have a rock, my rock is brown." Rational means "(of a person): able to think clearly, sensibly and logically". Logic is one tool of rational thought. Logic is by it's nature very binary, however, and relying on it exclusively leads to blind spots and disregarding alternate but equally viable answers. This is usually because rationalization takes over, as the truly logical answer is 'I can't say for sure'.

Also, the Vulcans are not at all logical. They behave illogically all the time. They just claim to be logical.

That's my point. They use logic, often quite flawlessly, but are just as susceptible to bad use of a good tool – using the wrong inputs and for the wrong reasons – as anyone else.

They are also a valid and frustrating parallel for many Internet folk. Seemingly calm and directly logical on the surface, emotions, biases and mis/conceptions roiling beneath the surface and rarely acknowledged as actually affecting their process.

[quoye]the problem is that in many cases the sum total of human understanding changes based on culture. The sum total of human understanding taken across Canada is that gay marriage is perfectly OK. The sum total taken across Saudi Arabia is that it is not. You see how this only makes things more subjective? And if you take it across all humanity as a whole you end up with so many grey areas that it becomes very hard to make any moral statement but the most blatantly obvious.[/QUOTE]

At the broadest levels everyone agrees. Don't murder. Don't rape. Don't steal. Don't be a wad. Much like probography, everyone knows the broad strokes but can't niggle down the specifics without something slipping by on a technicality.

... of course, I've always thought Orcs were giant, malevolent fungus driven by a love of war and carnage, and to deny them that pleasure is a violation of their essence on the highest level.

That's pretty much how they work in D&D usually too.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how that answers the question.

'there are many possible valid answers based on a number of factors' is as close to 100% correct as you'll ever get. If that doesn't answer the question sufficiently for you, that's unfortunate, but it still answers the question.

I think you're expecting me to give my personal answer and then defend it as the One True Answer. I try very hard not to do that, and it makes a lot of the assumptions and the default processes based on them fall apart. I figure that's a good thing, as it means we aren't going to follow the default Internet argument template.

It seems to me the author of that strip has a very shaky grasp of Kantian ethics...

I do not disagree. I suspect it was thrown under the bus for humor.

[Angelalex242]

...what, really, is Stupid Good?

If an Emissary of Barachiel decides to convert an orc tribe to goodness...is he an idiot? Particularly because the Emissary has the powers to pull it off.

[veti]

'there are many possible valid answers based on a number of factors' is as close to 100% correct as you'll ever get. If that doesn't answer the question sufficiently for you, that's unfortunate, but it still answers the question.

It's only "correct" in the sense that a statement that has no meaning can't be called "incorrect" - in the same way as "somewhere or other" would be a correct answer to the question "where do you live?" You wouldn't get away with writing that in a term paper, would you? At the very least, you'd be expected to give some examples of those "possible valid answers".

I think you're expecting me to give my personal answer and then defend it as the One True Answer. I try very hard not to do that, and it makes a lot of the assumptions and the default processes based on them fall apart. I figure that's a good thing, as it means we aren't going to follow the default Internet argument template.

You may have a point about the "default internet argument template", I may be trapped by my own expectations here.

[hydroplatypus]

Logic is not capable of handling black swan events. Logic is often used to argue against black swan events.

How would logic be used to argue against black swan events? If you are using logic correctly then you either acknowledge the possibility of black swan events.

Logic is a tool for inputting data and getting conclusions. What data you put in and how much weight is attached to it, and what use you get out of it, are dictated by emotion more often than not. See any argument about transsexuality, for example. A woman can be logically deduced to be make from bone structure even if logically deduced to be female from every other marker. Which is correct? Both.

Your logic appears to go like this:

P1: everyone with bone structure X is male
P2: everyone with other feature Y is female
P3: person A has characteristics X and Y
C1: The person is both male and female
P4: No one can be both male and female at the same time
C2: ERROR: contradiction detected.

The person in question is actually female, thus premise P1 was false. There is no logical problem here, just a faulty premise.

Logic is a process, yes? "If all rocks are brown, and I have a rock, my rock is brown." Rational means "(of a person): able to think clearly, sensibly and logically". Logic is one tool of rational thought. Logic is by it's nature very binary, however, and relying on it exclusively leads to blind spots and disregarding alternate but equally viable answers. This is usually because rationalization takes over, as the truly logical answer is 'I can't say for sure'.

Used properly logic can tackle grey areas similar things. It just takes more effort than the analysis of black and white problems. And yes, in many cases the truly logical answer is "I don't know". Or possibly something like the following: "there is a 92% chance that X is correct". The fact that the average person doesn't say I don't know very often is because a) we generally round high probabilities to yes, and low probabilities to no because it is easier to say. b) because we don't like being uncertain so we claim unjustifiable certainty.

The first is an acceptable distortion of the truth in order to carry on conversation at a reasonable pace. The second is a bias. Neither indicate problems with logic itself.

At the broadest levels everyone agrees. Don't murder. Don't rape. Don't steal. Don't be a wad. Much like probography, everyone knows the broad strokes but can't niggle down the specifics without something slipping by on a technicality.

The problem is that everyone DOESN'T agree on the broad strokes. a few centuries ago lots of people thought it was OK to keep people as slaves. Now we don't. In parts of the middle east, it is seen as highly immoral to not be islamic. The western world disagrees. Homosexuality is another really big point of contention. A century or two ago it was almost universally seen as despicable, while large chunks of the Western world now find it acceptable. Sex before marriage is another thing that has changed recently.

Even look at murder. Entire societies have existed where it was seen as the right of someone of high status to kill people of lower status with absolutely no consequence.

[Jenerix525]

An example of those false starts: examining a transsexual woman's body post-Mortem. Exoning bone structure would logically show her as male. Examining blood and tissue would show her as female. Rationally, we would look for more data and get their medical histories.

P1: everyone with bone structure X is male
P2: everyone with other feature Y is female
P3: person A has characteristics X and Y
C1: The person is both male and female
P4: No one can be both male and female at the same time
C2: ERROR: contradiction detected.

The person in question is actually female, thus premise P1 was false. There is no logical problem here, just a faulty premise.

When deconstructing logic, I find it better to look for contradictory premises, rather than faulty ones.

Personally, I would choose to attack P4, not P1. Or rather, the underlying concept between P(1,2,4), that a person's sex is always internally consistent across all measures. Removing this axiom means that C1 becomes more to the effect of "Person A has both male and female (indicators/traits)." There remain two steps to take to reach the same contradiction as before. Good old P4, and a new P6: "carrying both male and female traits makes one both male and female."

By accepting P6, you accept that it's possible to be both male and female, thereby denying P4.
How an individual defines the boundaries between male and female is none of my business. Accept P4 or P6, I don't care. As long as that or stays exclusive.


Unfortunately, I am somewhat less equipped for the more direct topic of the thread. I have always been driven by cowardice and conformity more than any D&D alignment. Also, having an irrational personality, it's hard to say 'I did good thing because...'.
It's a shame no-one can agree on the 'broad strokes', though. It would be nice to have some sort of standard for 'human rights' or something. Yes, I am aware that that is a relatively new invention, socially speaking, but it seems to me that the general concept of good has been consistent through a lot of cultures. Equality on the other hand, boy is that new. Treat people outside our culture the same as those inside? Why would we do that?

[hydroplatypus]

Personally, I would choose to attack P4, not P1. Or rather, the underlying concept between P(1,2,4), that a person's sex is always internally consistent across all measures. Removing this axiom means that C1 becomes more to the effect of "Person A has both male and female (indicators/traits)." There remain two steps to take to reach the same contradiction as before. Good old P4, and a new P6: "carrying both male and female traits makes one both male and female."

Evidently my brain stopped working for a second, and I forgot that gender is more of a spectrum than a black and white thing. Usually I try to remember things like that.

Personally I would phrase P6 something like this: "If someone has both male and female traits, they are the gender they identify as. If they do not identify as either they are of indeterminate gender."


Regardless, thanks for reminding me of that.

[Sartharina]

I was always under the impression that the brain was not only the largest but also most important sex organ. Transsexual people have brains of a different sex than much of their body, leading to the dysphoria.

[Angelalex242]

How does any of this have to do with the concept of good or evil? You're pretty badly sidetracked.

[Sith_Happens]

...what, really, is Stupid Good?

If an Emissary of Barachiel decides to convert an orc tribe to goodness...is he an idiot? Particularly because the Emissary has the powers to pull it off.

Stupid Good would be if he tried to use the same ability on a fiend (which it doesn't work on).

[Talakeal]

...what, really, is Stupid Good?

If an Emissary of Barachiel decides to convert an orc tribe to goodness...is he an idiot? Particularly because the Emissary has the powers to pull it off.

Imo all good in D&D is stupid good. By RAW purity is the most important thing, and an action is only as good as its darkest component. Thus anyone who is effective or willing to compromise even slightly is labelled evil by RAW. The only people who are truly "good" are ineffectual holy icons who sit in ivory towers refusing to take any action while the world goes to hell around them.

[hamishspence]

Imo all good in D&D is stupid good. By RAW purity is the most important thing, and an action is only as good as its darkest component. Thus anyone who is effective or willing to compromise even slightly is labelled evil by RAW.

Their acts, maybe. Their alignment, not so much. Champions of Ruin states that even Good characters can be "driven to evil" from time to time, the PHB states that good characters can do dubious things now and again (alignment is not a straitjacket) and Heroes of Horror suggests that the character who does Evil deeds for Good ends, is "probably neither good nor evil but a flexible Neutral".

And BOED states that even Good characters can cooperate with Evil ones in fighting a greater evil - as long as they don't simply turn a blind eye to the acts of their allies.

[SangoProduction]

In response to Sartharina

[Sartharina]

Sideous may have been Lawful Evil, but Vader certainly wasn't. He was too chaotic, and his actions fostered and strengthened a rebellion that fractured order.

[hamishspence]

Lawful Evil villains can certainly (through repression) end up unintentionally fostering Chaos.

[Angelalex242]

Nah. Sidious was NE. As the true embodiment of the Dark Side, he could hardly be anything else. Vader, for his part...followed his master's orders. Usually. Except when the Rule of 2 told him not to. It was, after all, his ostensible job to kill his master and replace him as Darth Bane ordained.

[SiuiS]

It's only "correct" in the sense that a statement that has no meaning can't be called "incorrect" - in the same way as "somewhere or other" would be a correct answer to the question "where do you live?" You wouldn't get away with writing that in a term paper, would you? At the very least, you'd be expected to give some examples of those "possible valid answers".

The statement has meaning. It's just not one you like.

If I were writing a term paper I would be committing to a specific concrete concept and selling it. That is neither necessary not worthwhile in this discussion. I am not going to commit to saying X is wrong, Y is right, when that is not true.

If you are using logic correctly

Okay. There's a problem here.

You are right. If one is using logic correctly, then one acknowledges that further variables may exist, that one may need to expand the magnitude of criteria or look one or more degrees distal the core of the system to account for expected chaos, and that one can say with certainty "I don't know".

But that's not how logic is frequently (mis)used. People apply their emotional rationalizations I the template of logical thought and produce ideas that are follow able and seem logical but end up in crazy or just plain wrong places. The reason I do not say "logic when used incorrectly" is because technical definition is not necessarily superior to colloquial definition – that is, how the word is actually used and what it means to a majority of the populace – and also because it opens the way to rationalizing me away. It begins the no true Scotsman fallacy.

If I start with admitting that my premise – which is sound and worth considering – is based on a conditional that requires poor application of a tool, it will not be considered sound and worth considering. One would say "oh, just don't use logic wrong then". This isn't really a problem; no true logistician would make such a mistake!

Except they do. Frequently. Either through blindness, hubris or simple poor communication. The idea that trying to be a human computer will impede your reasoning abilities is sound. In order to transmit that idea I need to package it in a way that gets through the easy defenses of people who are hard wired instinctively to literally reduce new ideas into "like it, accept as true" and "don't like, obviously false, come up with reasons why".

P1: everyone with bone structure X is male
P2: everyone with other feature Y is female
P3: person A has characteristics X and Y
C1: The person is both male and female
P4: No one can be both male and female at the same time
C2: ERROR: contradiction detected.

The person in question is actually female, thus premise P1 was false. There is no logical problem here, just a faulty premise.

It is an example taken from elsewhere (skeptics world or something, actually! You'd expect better...) and not my own. I am gladdened by your end response though.

That a subset of people who define themselves by their capacity to objectively criticize and judge something rather than taking it as given fall prey to rationalizing a personal belief just further highlights my point.

Used properly logic can tackle grey areas similar things. It just takes more effort than the analysis of black and white problems. And yes, in many cases the truly logical answer is "I don't know". Or possibly something like the following: "there is a 92% chance that X is correct".

It's worse than that. Schooling nowadays tends to actually suppress the concept. It's part of why America has issues with math. Sometimes the answer is just a reduced equation but kids are conditioned to look for single integer solutions when they don't exist.

The problem is that everyone DOESN'T agree on the broad strokes.

You didn't list any broad strokes. Those are all pretty specific. And eventually fell by the wayside/are falling by the wayside because the broad strokes are more universal.

Do not kill, do not rape, do not steal is the level of abstraction I'm talking about, not do not eat meat on Tuesdays, do not wear green, do not allow social class A to do Action B.

Even look at murder. Entire societies have existed where it was seen as the right of someone of high status to kill people of lower status with absolutely no consequence.

The existence of a single data point does not make the entire rest of the chart wrong, though. The fact that Rome was a logistical power house does not mean that thinking ancient armies were poorly managed is wrong, but you will still see people say "nuh uh! Look at Rome!" As if it were proof.


Note: highly grosse simplification.

When deconstructing logic, I find it better to look for contradictory premises, rather than faulty ones.

Bravo!

I personally like alignment as is because it allows exploring those mindsets and mentalities without actual travesty. I've had entire campaign arcs suddenly become about the act that elves don't have souls and so aren't much better than goblins. As long as you can come back to reality after, that's fine. Unless the game is about something that doesn't gel with that, of course.

Evidently my brain stopped working for a second, and I forgot that gender is more of a spectrum than a black and white thing. Usually I try to remember things like that.

That sort of unquestioned premise is what I mean by "logic can be wrong". There's always a point where we make assumptions. We don't always make the best assumptions or even for the best reasons. But sometimes those assumptions are so easy and so acceptible at the Socratic dialogue level we don't even consider challenging them.

It gets worse when both prescriptive and descriptive are correct. Och.

How does any of this have to do with the concept of good or evil? You're pretty badly sidetracked.

Being able to look at the sum argument behind logic as sometimes misleading and say, "I understand what you mean" (even if followed by "I disagree") allows a fuller discussion from which one can take a more deep insight. We learn that most models are true and learn to discern which ones to pick as True Now and why.

Imo all good in D&D is stupid good.

I do believe you are correct. No stupid good exists, but as outliers. It's part of the tunnel vision of getting so caught up in the good/evil war you forget basic grey level kindnesses.

Nah. Sidious was NE. As the true embodiment of the Dark Side, he could hardly be anything else. Vader, for his part...followed his master's orders. Usually. Except when the Rule of 2 told him not to. It was, after all, his ostensible job to kill his master and replace him as Darth Bane ordained.

Wouldn't that be chaotic evil? The force is order and harmony and goodness. The dark side is subjugating harmony for personal empowerment and freedom at the expense of others.

[Angelalex242]

Sidious had to be orderly enough to handle the practical matters of running an Empire, and the Dark Side, powerful as he was in it, could only compensate for so much. The Empire was fundamentally successful...as a malevolent dictatorship...but successful nonetheless. He had to delegate much of the actual running of the Empire to others, and that indicate a certain amount of law.

However, he had no respect for the law whatever, except for the fact that he made the law.

Hence, NE.

[Wardog]

Sideous may have been Lawful Evil, but Vader certainly wasn't. He was too chaotic, and his actions fostered and strengthened a rebellion that fractured order.

Anakin/Vader was pretty erratic and chaotic when he was becoming Vader.

And at the end of his life he repudiated everything he stood for and killed his master (and not in the manner Sith are expected to).

But between those two point, he seems to have been pretty consistently "lawful evil", showing loyalty to his master, belief in the Empire, ruthlessly meritocratic in his treatment of Imperial officers, etc.

The only possible exception was his (claimed) desire to replace the Emperor with a father/son duumvirate. But I would say that is the sort of rebellion ("overthrow the government and replace it with a better government") that is compatible with a Lawful alignment. (I've argued that the Rebel Alliance was Lawful for the same reason).

[hamishspence]

It's also the standard operating procedure of devils - scheme against one's superior - undermine them - overthrow them.