Compliance Will Be Rewarded: A Guide to Lawful Evil

[Red Fel]

You want a Lawful Disney villain, though? How about Scar? Or Hades? Or the cricket boss from A Bug's Life whose name escapes me?
Or even Rattigan and Yzma?

Disney villains are complicated, because many of them carry the veneer of civility and Lawfulness, but when things go south, they frequently resort to lying, cheating, whatever it takes.

Hades comes close, I think, but like Ursula, it seems more that he's in the business of making deals when it benefits him, rather than following order or tradition. Scar certainly has certain authoritarian undertones, but at the end of the day he's just a lying usurper, and shows nothing particularly Lawful other than a desire for the throne, which is simply the typical Evil desire for power. Yzma's only truly Lawful tendency is her steady employment of an adorable minion. And Rattigan, being based on Moriarty, is in fact quite non-Lawful - a major aspect of the character is the fact that his persona of cultured sophistication and order is a lie, meant to cover up his humble origins and deep-seated coarseness.

I'll give you the cricket, though. Warlords are one thing, but that dude was a general. Very regimented, very severe, he fits the bill nicely. Was his name Hopper?

As for others you've mentioned, I noted the original Frollo - the Archdeacon, not Tony Jay's awesome Judge - in the literature section. Tony Jay's Judge Frollo, however, would totally count as the Zealot. Pocahontas... That guy wasn't necessarily Lawful Evil, just greedy. Princess and the Frog... Hm. Facilier was very contract-based, translating his debts to his "friends on the other side" into debts owed him by rubes, but by the same token he seemed very much interested in subverting those contracts. Even his name suggests that he was constantly in search of the quick, "easy" way.

That said, Keith David is awesome and will forever have my admiration.

[Telonius]

Lawful Evil in Disney? That's kind of hard. Maybe the Gogans in Pete's Dragon? The townsfolk collectively in Beauty and the Beast? The Horned King in Black Cauldron?

EDIT: All the villains in Robin Hood, too, though I don't know that Disney has any kind of exclusive claim on that story. (If I hadn't thought of Umbridge, Alan Rickman would have been the picture for Bad Cop).

[Segev]

When you get into magically-binding contracts, you're still in the Lawful side of things - rather than choice, it's your nature, but it's still binding. In fact, that lands you smack dab into this article's "Alien" description: you do, in fact, follow rules, because you're bound to do so.

Ursula, for instance, didn't break her contract at all. It's not her fault that nobody asked for a clause that forbade Ursula from interfering to prevent them from fulfilling their side of the bargain. Presumably, somewhere in that fine print we don't get to read all of, it mentioned the contract being transferrable with Ursula's approval (thus, King Triton could sign in Ariel's place).

I mean, she didn't even subtly hide the "gotcha" clause; she spoke it with great emphasis in her most sinister voice: "...you belong...to ME." Sure, she went on to fast-talk good and mitigating aspects, but Ariel cannot claim she didn't know what she was signing.

Ursula's just a high-charisma LE who is more than happy to disregard the spirit in order to exploit the letter. Lawful through and through.

[Strigon]

Hades comes close, I think, but like Ursula, it seems more that he's in the business of making deals when it benefits him, rather than following order or tradition. Scar certainly has certain authoritarian undertones, but at the end of the day he's just a lying usurper, and shows nothing particularly Lawful other than a desire for the throne, which is simply the typical Evil desire for power.

I'll admit I'm mostly going off of what their personality strikes me as; I didn't even think about the contracts of Hades when I put him down. But planning the overthrow of the gods over the course of what can only be assumed to be centuries at least strikes me as very Lawful behaviour. Honestly, the two of them just scream LE, with their manipulative ways, the fact that they've always planned one step ahead, and never made important decisions while they're emotional. I can certainly see your point, but I'd have to watch the movies again to be sure.

Besides, Scar seems to me to be an example of a low-Wisdom LE character.

Yzma's only truly Lawful tendency is her steady employment of an adorable minion.

I don't know; everything around her seemed pretty ordered; again, though I'd need to watch the movie to be sure.

And Rattigan, being based on Moriarty, is in fact quite non-Lawful - a major aspect of the character is the fact that his persona of cultured sophistication and order is a lie, meant to cover up his humble origins and deep-seated coarseness.

But isn't alignment based entirely on your actions, ignoring your motivations behind them?
Sure, he went pretty Chaotic at the end, but if you're fighting Chaotic urges to remain Lawful, aren't you still Lawful?

I'll give you the cricket, though. Warlords are one thing, but that dude was a general. Very regimented, very severe, he fits the bill nicely. Was his name Hopper?

Hopper! That's the one!

As for others you've mentioned, I noted the original Frollo - the Archdeacon, not Tony Jay's awesome Judge - in the literature section. Tony Jay's Judge Frollo, however, would totally count as the Zealot. Pocahontas... That guy wasn't necessarily Lawful Evil, just greedy. Princess and the Frog... Hm. Facilier was very contract-based, translating his debts to his "friends on the other side" into debts owed him by rubes, but by the same token he seemed very much interested in subverting those contracts. Even his name suggests that he was constantly in search of the quick, "easy" way.

That said, Keith David is awesome and will forever have my admiration.

Can't take credit for any of those ones; I never mentioned them.

[Orm-Embar]

Impressive. Most impressive.

Quite the resource, too.

[Uncle Pine]

An astounding start for what already looks like the most in-depth guide to the best shade of Evil.

This seriously motivates me to go back to NWN and turn my favourite LN "Bureucrat" Wizard character into a LE one. It'll also help me to better render the LE villain behind the villain behind the villain of my current campaign (no that's not a typo).

A toast to Red Fel!

[Red Fel]

A toast to Red Fel!

To absent friends!



... Another slice, anyone?

By the by, I've updated a few of the archetypes, hopefully resulting in a more clear picture of what I wanted to communicate. I'm also now looking into more resources. The problem isn't that I don't have enough, but rather that I have too many, and I'd be grateful for any suggestions one may have to offer.

[kalasulmar]

But isn't alignment based entirely on your actions, ignoring your motivations behind them?

I would say no. Motivation and method together make up alignment, but I would go so far as to say that you have to possess good intentions and follow through with good behavior to actually be considered good. If you intend to make the world a better place but your actions directly cause the suffering of others, are you truly a good person? Conversely, if you do good deeds out of obligation or because of societal standards rather than because you believe it to be the right thing to do, can you be considered benevolent?

[Madara]

Well, we added a new player to my party recently. I had 1 hour notice to the fact that they were playing a Paladin. Your guide is all I have to clutch to for my survival. Like a life vest thrown over the edge to save me, I can only wonder what I will have to give in exchange for my life to my savior.

[Red Fel]

But isn't alignment based entirely on your actions, ignoring your motivations behind them?

I would say no. Motivation and method together make up alignment, but I would go so far as to say that you have to possess good intentions and follow through with good behavior to actually be considered good. If you intend to make the world a better place but your actions directly cause the suffering of others, are you truly a good person? Conversely, if you do good deeds out of obligation or because of societal standards rather than because you believe it to be the right thing to do, can you be considered benevolent?

I've often expressed it as follows. Good is defined primarily by actions, Evil by intentions. A Good person who regularly performs Evil acts, for whatever reason, will not remain Good for very long, but an Evil person who performs Good acts, provided that he has an agenda, can remain Evil. Take the example of the criminal who operates a charity as a front for his illegal activities; any positive outcome is incidental.

That's not to say motivations are completely irrelevant to a Good character; selfish motivations for Good deeds aren't the most wholesome basis for Goodness. Further, it's not unfair to say that actions reflect mindset - that is, a person who finds it acceptable to engage in a certain course of action, who finds that course of action comfortable and reasonable, is the sort of person who would engage in that kind of action. A person who commits a series of murders isn't Evil because he committed murders, but because he's the kind of person who would; a person who gives to charity doesn't suddenly move from Neutral to Good because he gave one too many times, but because he has become the kind of person for whom it is a natural inclination. Action reflects mindset, and it's the mindset that determines alignment.

Also, if I haven't said it enough, arbitrary alignment is arbitrary.

[Cirrylius]

Hades comes close, I think, but like Ursula, it seems more that he's in the business of making deals when it benefits him, rather than following order or tradition.

When you get into magically-binding contracts, you're still in the Lawful side of things

I think Hades fits the Alien much better than Ursula. Hades is a god, and suffers a set of draconian rules that govern his response because of those responsibilities. All of his machinations involved (fairly) nudging mortal creatures, who don't have those restrictions, or are spirit-of-the-law violations that were already his prerogative. Even his conquest of Olympus was teeeeechnically not outright rebellion- he just let Zeus' problems bite him in the ass, and planned to take over as the only leader who could control the Titans. It was dirty and underhanded, but the Pantheon and its responsibilities would (presumably) have survived.

Ursula had to use a magic contract to force her victims to play fair; once she won, though, her first act was an attempt to brutally and pointlessly murder the protagonists because she hated mer-people and anyone who even accidentally stood in her way.

[Segev]

Ursula had to use a magic contract to force her victims to play fair; once she won, though, her first act was an attempt to brutally and pointlessly murder the protagonists because she hated mer-people and anyone who even accidentally stood in her way.

An LE Tyrant starting her reign by purging her political rivals is still LE. LE can even pointlessly hate, if they like.

It's possible she would have shifted to a more CE style of "do what I want when I want because I want to," but she didn't really exhibit that in the brief time she had to be a powerhouse. Whether she would have been a tyrant-queen or a thug-queen (whose rule amounts to "I like you, so you get to live, until I change my mind") never was really revealed.




This does bring to mind an interesting potential, however: when an LE ruler falls (for whatever reason) and is succeeded by a CE one who simply steps into his position (say an LE tyrant has a CE heir), and the CE ruler is reliant on the Lawful structures his predecessor put in place to get others to obey him, how long until his chaotic nature undermines his authority? Or can an LE organization survive a CE autocrat at its helm?

[Cirrylius]

An LE Tyrant starting her reign by purging her political rivals is still LE. LE can even pointlessly hate, if they like. It's possible she would have shifted to a more CE style of "do what I want when I want because I want to," but she didn't really exhibit that in the brief time she had to be a powerhouse. Whether she would have been a tyrant-queen or a thug-queen (whose rule amounts to "I like you, so you get to live, until I change my mind") never was really revealed.

That's fair. I personally got the vibe that it was her bottomless loathing for mer-people that drove her to pursue both magical contracts and political power, but obviously that's subjective.

how long until his chaotic nature undermines his authority? Or can an LE organization survive a CE autocrat at its helm?

I imagine they'd be fine up until the organization's laws started blocking their way- any duties they slack off on can probably be assumed to be handled by underlings, temporarily or as part of a restructuring of responsibilities."

[mabriss lethe]

I think additional required reading for this guide would be John Wick's "Treachery 101: or 'How to be a sneaky git and not get killed by the other characters.'" presented as Appendix I in L5R 1e's Way of the Scorpion.

[Red Fel]

Alright, folks. Apart from the illustrations and resources section - which I intend to keep updating - I think this bad boy is just about complete. If you haven't re-read it in awhile, I encourage you to go back over it and share your thoughts.

At this point, I'd like to open the thread to any further suggestions as to how I might further refine it. I'd also welcome any questions or brainstorming requests on how to better play LE. My services are at your disposal.

[Madara]

I mean, these guides don't seem to be focused on mechanics, but considering that LE has to watch out for paladins and such....


It'd be nice to know about tools available to manipulate and obfusicate

[atemu1234]

Whooohoo, this is promising ! (and the Giles quote alone makes my day. But do you actually slap a LE tag on him ?) I've never actually played a LE character, but this is a good place to start.
In the wake of the three existing Handbooks, I'll probably try my hand at True Neutral. But now I gotta find a Camus quote for that, too.

Giles was my favourite bit. This is wonderful work.

[Red Fel]

I mean, these guides don't seem to be focused on mechanics, but considering that LE has to watch out for paladins and such....


It'd be nice to know about tools available to manipulate and obfusicate

Admittedly, I'm not as big an expert on crunch. This guide is designed for the roleplay side of things. I specifically avoided using system-specific stuff, so it can be applied to 3.0, 3.5, PF... Whatever.

Really, what you're describing is nondetection, in terms of avoiding notice. But my suggestion isn't that you hide your character's history; rather, you should be so great, so helpful, such a good friend, that the other PCs don't care. And they'll protect you from hostile NPCs, in turn.

As for tricks for manipulation... Well, that tends to get very fact-specific. What kind of character is it? What's the job? That's not the sort of advice you can just give with a broad brush.

[phlidwsn]

By the by, I've updated a few of the archetypes, hopefully resulting in a more clear picture of what I wanted to communicate. I'm also now looking into more resources. The problem isn't that I don't have enough, but rather that I have too many, and I'd be grateful for any suggestions one may have to offer.

While Mab is a great example, as long as you're drawing from the Dresden Files, I think 'Gentleman' Johnny Marcone deserves an honorable mention as well as a paragon of LE.

[Red Fel]

While Mab is a great example, as long as you're drawing from the Dresden Files, I think 'Gentleman' Johnny Marcone deserves an honorable mention as well as a paragon of LE.

Ooh, good call! I'd almost forgotten how much I love that guy. I'd say he's a rather solid example of the Executive, too - cold, ruthless, not above working with the protagonists when it furthers his goals. Good call!

I might as well throw Nicodemus in there, too. Come to think of it, a lot of Dresden baddies are pretty Lawful, aren't they?

[Segev]

Ooh, good call! I'd almost forgotten how much I love that guy. I'd say he's a rather solid example of the Executive, too - cold, ruthless, not above working with the protagonists when it furthers his goals. Good call!

I might as well throw Nicodemus in there, too. Come to think of it, a lot of Dresden baddies are pretty Lawful, aren't they?

Particularly a certain good man. If he's not to gray for your moral pallet, anyway.

[Segev]

Reading the version as it stands now, it's overall well-done, but I have two quibbles:

1) Nicodemus doesn't strike me as LE. He's NE.

Spoiler

Show

This is primarily shown in the exchange he has more than once with Michael and other Sword-bearers. Usually a hostage situation, but sometimes simply a need for one side to trust the other to provide a good or service. Nick will ask why he should go first, and the response is something along the lines of, "Because you know I will keep my word, and we both know you won't."

He isn't CE; he's far too willing to plan and stick to it, and he's willing, when it serves him better than not, to hold himself to a standard. But he's not trustworthy, and he's not about to let rules get in the way of what he desires.

2) I'm not sure NE really is as despicably dismissible to LE as you portray it. Yes, CE is the greatest enemy and most useless impediment to LE, but NE, like LN, can be an oddly kindred spirit. To some degree, NE can actually serve as the "poisonous friend" to LE: willing to cross that line LE finds itself bound to. NE is just as capable of loyalty as LE, too, for the more pragmatic reasons.



As a comment and analysis, I think it's interesting that you center on CG as being "useful" to LE, not their natural hated enemies all the time. Similarly, LG notes that CE need not be their greatest foe (that's actually usually NE); there is something in the CE character that strikes LG as "broken," and thus makes them even more likely targets for redemption than NE.

Meanwhile, CG probably does loathe LE above all other alignments, and CE will tend to view LG as even more disgusting than LE - at least LE has an understandable, non-hypocritical motive.

Which leads me to the strange conclusion that the L side of the ethical axis doesn't hate its diametric opposites the way the C side of the ethical axis will tend to.

[Red Fel]

Reading the version as it stands now, it's overall well-done, but I have two quibbles:

1) Nicodemus doesn't strike me as LE. He's NE.

Spoiler

Show

This is primarily shown in the exchange he has more than once with Michael and other Sword-bearers. Usually a hostage situation, but sometimes simply a need for one side to trust the other to provide a good or service. Nick will ask why he should go first, and the response is something along the lines of, "Because you know I will keep my word, and we both know you won't."

He isn't CE; he's far too willing to plan and stick to it, and he's willing, when it serves him better than not, to hold himself to a standard. But he's not trustworthy, and he's not about to let rules get in the way of what he desires.

Hmm... That's fair, actually. I can cut him based on that ambiguity, I suppose.

2) I'm not sure NE really is as despicably dismissible to LE as you portray it. Yes, CE is the greatest enemy and most useless impediment to LE, but NE, like LN, can be an oddly kindred spirit. To some degree, NE can actually serve as the "poisonous friend" to LE: willing to cross that line LE finds itself bound to. NE is just as capable of loyalty as LE, too, for the more pragmatic reasons.

Not so much dismissable as mercenary. LE could certainly employ NE to do what it could not - assuming LE believed in subverting its rules by proxy, which not all LEs do - but the problem is that there would be the knowledge that if I can hire you, so can my enemies. LE likes trust, after a fashion - it enjoys absolute loyalty and reliability. NE is dangerous, not because it's able to cross lines, but because it can't be relied upon not to cross them. The difference between it and CE, as far as LE is concerned, is that CE is almost explicitly dedicated to crossing those lines, while NE only does so as a matter of convenience.

Perhaps I could go into a bit more detail on that point, I suppose.

As a comment and analysis, I think it's interesting that you center on CG as being "useful" to LE, not their natural hated enemies all the time. Similarly, LG notes that CE need not be their greatest foe (that's actually usually NE); there is something in the CE character that strikes LG as "broken," and thus makes them even more likely targets for redemption than NE.

Meanwhile, CG probably does loathe LE above all other alignments, and CE will tend to view LG as even more disgusting than LE - at least LE has an understandable, non-hypocritical motive.

Which leads me to the strange conclusion that the L side of the ethical axis doesn't hate its diametric opposites the way the C side of the ethical axis will tend to.

Yeah. I think it's worth noting that while LE is basically everything CG loathes in the world, LE can find use in G, the same way anyone can find use in L - having a set of principles, whether moral or ethical, means that someone can appeal to those principles in order to influence you. A wise opponent values enemies who are G or L for that precise reason.

However, C, by its very nature, sees the flaws in L. That reliability may be valuable - and the wise C will respect it - but it comes with a cost that most C are naturally reluctant to pay. In much the same way, E may find use in G, but G is loathe to employ E.

Ironically, LE is one of the most tolerant of alignments for that particular reason. At least, that's how I see it. Not that I'm biased, or anything.

[Svata]

Yeah, ol' Nick is about as trustworthy as a $5 PS4 on Craigslist. And while LE might not care overmuch for NE, from my perspective, NE views LE as a useful ally, in most circumstances.

[BowStreetRunner]

I've often expressed it as follows. Good is defined primarily by actions, Evil by intentions. A Good person who regularly performs Evil acts, for whatever reason, will not remain Good for very long, but an Evil person who performs Good acts, provided that he has an agenda, can remain Evil. Take the example of the criminal who operates a charity as a front for his illegal activities; any positive outcome is incidental.

That's not to say motivations are completely irrelevant to a Good character; selfish motivations for Good deeds aren't the most wholesome basis for Goodness. Further, it's not unfair to say that actions reflect mindset - that is, a person who finds it acceptable to engage in a certain course of action, who finds that course of action comfortable and reasonable, is the sort of person who would engage in that kind of action. A person who commits a series of murders isn't Evil because he committed murders, but because he's the kind of person who would; a person who gives to charity doesn't suddenly move from Neutral to Good because he gave one too many times, but because he has become the kind of person for whom it is a natural inclination. Action reflects mindset, and it's the mindset that determines alignment.

Also, if I haven't said it enough, arbitrary alignment is arbitrary.

There are several problem with your statement. For one thing, you are mixing your ethical models together by attempting to define one thing by actions and another by intentions. Consider the following normative ethical models:

• Virtue Ethics focuses on the inherent character of a person rather than on specific actions.
• Deontological Ethics focuses on a person's duty to act in a manner that respects the rights of others.
• Consequential Ethics focuses on the outcome of an individual's actions more than their intent.
• Relational Ethics focuses on the impact of a person's actions within the context of the relationships between those affected.
• Pragmatic Ethics focuses on the current societal view of right and wrong which evolves over time.

Each model of normative ethics attempts to answer the question "what is right and what is wrong?" in a different manner. You are essentially picking and choosing from the different models entirely depending on the outcome you want, and that just doesn't work. If good is indeed determined by actions and evil by intentions then your paradigm will be thus:

• A person who commits good acts is good.
• A person who has evil intentions is evil.

The problem here is the corollary to the these must therefore be that:

• A person who does not commit good acts is not good.
• A person who does not have evil intentions is not evil.

Now if you assume the absence of good and evil is neutral, you are essentially creating the following alignment model:

• GOOD ACTS + EVIL INTENTIONS = GOOD
• GOOD ACTS + EVIL INTENTIONS = NEUTRAL
• GOOD ACTS + EVIL INTENTIONS = EVIL
• GOOD ACTS + EVIL INTENTIONS = GOOD and EVIL

I don't think that is actually what you intended.

Of course the model gets even more complicated if you take the additional statements you made about a good person who commits evil acts. We can now conclude that:

• A person who commits evil acts is evil.

And then you go and talk about an evil person who commits good acts and completely throw everything into confusion because it assumes that good acts do not make a person good which contradicts your initial supposition that good is defined by actions.

The second problem is that you talk about Good Person who performs evil acts and an Evil Person who performs good acts. This assumes that the person is good or evil at the outset without explaining how they came to be good or evil.

My recommendation is to choose a single normative ethical model and stick with it. Then simply put in a disclaimer that allows people who use a different ethical model to adjust accordingly, replacing actions with intentions and so forth.

[Segev]

I'd almost give "most tolerant" to CN and NE. CE is too hung up on the selfishness and freedom from obligation and responsibility to be "tolerant," unless you mean "they tolerate others' existing, isn't that good enough?" But NE really has few, if any, standards to offend. NE is about making themselves better at any cost (to others), and finds use in both Law and Chaos, and even in Good (for the aforementioned reasons of standards and principles making them manipulable and/or even trustworthy). NE can understand and exploit CE the way LE can NE, and can respect and work with LE because LE is just a little more foolishly willing to let his own rules screw him over. NE can work with LN as long as he knows LN's rules; it's just a matter of exploiting them and strategically ignoring them when LN's back is turned.

NE isn't even really all that offended by LG, though LG finds NE to be probably even worse than CE. CE could be mad or broken; NE tends to be where the true monsters dwell: unrepentant and lacking even a Freudian excuse. NE, on the other hand, sees in LE everything that makes G and L manipulable. Frustrating, at times, because so much has to be done while they're not looking, but if they have something useful, they can be counted on to deliver even if you do your part first. This can be a bit novel to the NE character. (The CE character tends to distrust that LG will do it, unless they specifically know THAT LG person has done it before, for them; CE isn't stupid, but LG is just so alien to them that they have trouble understanding it.)

CN...just doesn't care. Do what you want, and they'll do what they want. Even LN is only offensive when it is actively enforcing things; CN can hang out with LN all day long if LN isn't, won't, or can't do anything about the CN character's whims. CE is dangerous, but that's true of all Evil alignments compared to the morally Neutral ones; Neutral tends to like Good better than Evil just because Good is less likely to actually willfully hurt them. It really is no skin off their backs if you want to tie yourself up in a bunch of pointless regulations.

Ironically, I think the least tolerant alignment is probably TN. Most likely to expect others to follow whatever rules they've adopted without actually being consistent about following them, themselves, and most likely to be offended by evil in others while justifying their own violations of good. TN goes along to get along, but gets comfortable in the personal set of rules they follow vs. breaking. Most likely to view Good as not deluded, but oppressive, because their own consciences tell them on some level that they should be better than they are (where Evil has long since dismissed that as a weakness and see the Good as deluded). But also to view Evil people as something to shun, because they're frankly scary and likely to hurt them.

TN is also the alignment most likely to come up with highbrow justifications for why Good is naïve, Evil is whatever they don't like others doing, Laws are good guidelines (especially for others to follow, except where they personally have made exception), and Chaos and freedom are cool within limits (but anybody who inconveniences them is taking it too far).

I'm sure there's the more TN-as-balance druidic variant that takes a stronger philosophical stance on it, but if anything, that's going to be even LESS tolerant: any tilt towards one extreme or another must be actively counter-balanced, after all.

[kalasulmar]

There are several problem with your statement. For one thing, you are mixing your ethical models together by attempting to define one thing by actions and another by intentions. Consider the following normative ethical models:

• Virtue Ethics focuses on the inherent character of a person rather than on specific actions.
• Deontological Ethics focuses on a person's duty to act in a manner that respects the rights of others.
• Consequential Ethics focuses on the outcome of an individual's actions more than their intent.
• Relational Ethics focuses on the impact of a person's actions within the context of the relationships between those affected.
• Pragmatic Ethics focuses on the current societal view of right and wrong which evolves over time.

Each model of normative ethics attempts to answer the question "what is right and what is wrong?" in a different manner. You are essentially picking and choosing from the different models entirely depending on the outcome you want, and that just doesn't work. If good is indeed determined by actions and evil by intentions then your paradigm will be thus:

• A person who commits good acts is good.
• A person who has evil intentions is evil.

The problem here is the corollary to the these must therefore be that:

• A person who does not commit good acts is not good.
• A person who does not have evil intentions is not evil.

Now if you assume the absence of good and evil is neutral, you are essentially creating the following alignment model:

• GOOD ACTS + EVIL INTENTIONS = GOOD
• GOOD ACTS + EVIL INTENTIONS = NEUTRAL
• GOOD ACTS + EVIL INTENTIONS = EVIL
• GOOD ACTS + EVIL INTENTIONS = GOOD and EVIL

I don't think that is actually what you intended.

Of course the model gets even more complicated if you take the additional statements you made about a good person who commits evil acts. We can now conclude that:

• A person who commits evil acts is evil.

And then you go and talk about an evil person who commits good acts and completely throw everything into confusion because it assumes that good acts do not make a person good which contradicts your initial supposition that good is defined by actions.

The second problem is that you talk about Good Person who performs evil acts and an Evil Person who performs good acts. This assumes that the person is good or evil at the outset without explaining how they came to be good or evil.

My recommendation is to choose a single normative ethical model and stick with it. Then simply put in a disclaimer that allows people who use a different ethical model to adjust accordingly, replacing actions with intentions and so forth.

The problem I have with that train of thought is that while this a game, I am not sure you can keep score on how good you are. Let's face it, if we are really trying to be honest about morality, it is much harder to be a truly good person than to not be. Good and evil are separate entities and can't really be measured in the same fashion.

[Segev]

I'd also say that GOOD ACTIONS + EVIL INTENTIONS = NEUTRAL. What makes these kinds of characters evil is that they also perform evil acts, and since their good acts are done with evil intentions, that doesn't even counterbalance out to "neutral" overall: they're Evil.

Conversely, a guy who'd totally be NE if he thought he could get away with it, but never acts on it, always doing good deeds for all the wrong reasons, will likely actually be neutral. He's probably not going to do good deeds unless it earns him something, but he's also not doing anything evil because it could cost him too much to act on those particular desires in that way.

[Red Fel]

There are several problem with your statement. For one thing, you are mixing your ethical models together by attempting to define one thing by actions and another by intentions. Consider the following normative ethical models:

• Virtue Ethics focuses on the inherent character of a person rather than on specific actions.
• Deontological Ethics focuses on a person's duty to act in a manner that respects the rights of others.
• Consequential Ethics focuses on the outcome of an individual's actions more than their intent.
• Relational Ethics focuses on the impact of a person's actions within the context of the relationships between those affected.
• Pragmatic Ethics focuses on the current societal view of right and wrong which evolves over time.

Each model of normative ethics attempts to answer the question "what is right and what is wrong?" in a different manner. You are essentially picking and choosing from the different models entirely depending on the outcome you want, and that just doesn't work.

I really don't feel like discussing real-world ethics, when, as I've said, arbitrary alignment is arbitrary. I'm approaching this from a more practical standpoint. Can a Good character commit serial murder and still be Good under arbitrary morality? No. Therefore, a Good character is defined by action. Can an Evil character be a philanthropist and still be Evil under arbitrary morality? Yes, provided that he has an Evil agenda that his charity serves. Therefore, an Evil character is defined by intention. No fancy models, no philosophizing, just a practical application of the concepts as handed down from the Wizards on high.

If good is indeed determined by actions and evil by intentions then your paradigm will be thus:

• A person who commits good acts is good.
• A person who has evil intentions is evil.

Incorrect. The accurate reflection of my statements is:

• A person who commits Evil acts is not Good.
• A person who acts based on Evil intentions is Evil.

The problem here is the corollary to the these must therefore be that:

• A person who does not commit good acts is not good.
• A person who does not have evil intentions is not evil.

Even assuming that your initial paradigm was accurate - which, as I've mentioned, is not the case - your contrapositives are malformed. The correct contrapositive of "A person who commits good acts is good" is "A person who is not good does not commit good acts," not "A person who does not commit good acts is not good." Similarly, the contrapositive of "A person who has evil intentions is evil" is "A person who is not evil does not have evil intentions," not "A person who does not have evil intentions is not evil."

More importantly, however, the choice is not binary between Good and Evil. There is a third option - Neutral. It is possible, for example, for a character to be non-Good, and still not be Evil. In many illustrations I've given in the past, an ostensibly Good character who commits Evil acts becomes non-Good. That doesn't mean he is Evil, it means he's not Good. Similarly, an Evil character who engages in Good acts without an ulterior motive may eventually become non-Evil, but that doesn't mean he catapults all the way into Good.

Bringing it back to my paradigm:

• A person who commits Evil acts is not Good. This doesn't make him Evil, it simply means that he isn't Good. Conversely, a person who is Good does not commit Evil acts. That works logically; a Good person does not justify Evil.
• A person who acts based upon Evil intentions is Evil. This is more explicit than the other one. But look at the converse. A person who is not Evil does not act based upon Evil intentions. This makes sense - a Good character does not act based on Evil intentions, and a Neutral character is either amoral or acting out of a sense of balance, not Evil.

Now if you assume the absence of good and evil is neutral, you are essentially creating the following alignment model:

• GOOD ACTS + EVIL INTENTIONS = GOOD
• GOOD ACTS + EVIL INTENTIONS = NEUTRAL
• GOOD ACTS + EVIL INTENTIONS = EVIL
• GOOD ACTS + EVIL INTENTIONS = GOOD and EVIL

I don't think that is actually what you intended.

Your first point is inaccurate. I have repeatedly said that an Evil character can perform Good acts for Evil reasons. That keeps him Evil, not Good. I agree with Segev, committing Good acts for Evil reasons tends to wash, and leaves the Evil character to define his alignment based upon his additional Evil actions. I haven't said that Evil committing Good for an Evil reason is the sole basis for that character to be Evil, but rather that it does not immediately render them non-Evil.

The rest of what you say is just plain confusing. You talk about normative ethical models, when as previously stated, arbitrary alignment is arbitrary.

This is not a guide for being Lawful Evil in real life. This is not the basis for a dissertation on morality or ethics. This is a guide to playing a Lawful Evil character in a fictional cosmology where terms like "Good" and "Evil" are rigidly defined and enforced by cosmic laws as inevitable as gravity. I don't choose a normative ethical model because one has already been chosen by the writers, and whether I agree with it or not, it is the RAW of the land. If we disregard their rules on alignment, there's hardly any point in me even writing this guide, now is there?

[BowStreetRunner]

The problem I have with that train of thought is that while this a game, I am not sure you can keep score on how good you are. Let's face it, if we are really trying to be honest about morality, it is much harder to be a truly good person than to not be. Good and evil are separate entities and can't really be measured in the same fashion.

As for keeping score on how good you are, that is exactly the problem with the D&D alignment system. What happens when a DM does try to keep score and eventually tells you your alignment must change?

You say it is harder to be a truly good person than to not be - define TRULY good as opposed to just good? For alignment purposes is the distinction relevant? Do we now need a Neutral Good and a Neutral Very Good alignment? As for it being harder to be good than not, that should be true. After all, when Good, Neutral, and Evil are the options then 2/3 of the time you should be 'Not Good'. You also have to consider that if working hard at something is a virtue, then by definition being good should be hard, not easy. Doing what's easy may be considered a vice, and definitely in the domain of evil and not good.

When you say good and evil are separate are saying that good and evil are not on a spectrum with good on one side, evil on the other, and neutral in the middle. Instead they are...what? A pair of mutually exclusive descriptors that each has different prerequisites? That of course goes completely against the alignment model in D&D which uses a pair of spectra (Good - Neutral - Evil and Lawful - Neutral - Chaotic) and not just a few descriptors (although it has those too).

I'd also say that GOOD ACTIONS + EVIL INTENTIONS = NEUTRAL. What makes these kinds of characters evil is that they also perform evil acts, and since their good acts are done with evil intentions, that doesn't even counterbalance out to "neutral" overall: they're Evil.

Conversely, a guy who'd totally be NE if he thought he could get away with it, but never acts on it, always doing good deeds for all the wrong reasons, will likely actually be neutral. He's probably not going to do good deeds unless it earns him something, but he's also not doing anything evil because it could cost him too much to act on those particular desires in that way.

You can certainly combine your normative ethical models by stating that both actions and intentions are considered. My point was that if you say actions determine good and intentions determine evil you can create several contradictory and even paradoxical outcomes. If you are going to weigh actions you need to weigh both good actions and evil actions. If you are going to weigh intentions you need to weigh both good intentions and evil intentions.