Lawful Evil is more Evil than Chaotic Evil. Discuss.

[Eddi]

Washington- FDR- Teddy Roosevelt- JFK-Jefferson-Jackson-truman-bush-nixon.

Thank you!

I didn't recognise Jefferson, Jackson and Truman

 

[Quintessence]

Very true. They are two separate axes. But consider the two axes like a chemical reaction, where ones disposition toward law or chaos "reacts" with the axis of good and evil. To me, the axis of lawfulness "reacts" with the axis of good and evil. It makes good more good, and it makes evil more evil. A chaotic evil person will do evil deeds that suit her own ends, sure. But a LAWFUL evil person goes one step further. Her evil is crystallized into a tablet that hangs over all people.

A chaotic evil person's attitude toward slavery may be "this person is a slave. They are weak and vulnerable and they have no rights. I will take advantage of that state of affairs if it suits my purposes." But a LAWFUL evil individual would say that, "Slavery is a lawful institution which may serve my selfish purposes in many regards. So not only will I take advantage of a slave's lower status when it suits my purposes, but I will ALSO support the institution of slavery itself and participate in efforts to maintain its continuance."

The chaotic evil person will readily take advantage of a slave's predicament. But a lawful evil person will do that PLUS maintain the system of law that keeps the slave IN that predicament. The latter seems more evil to me.

I see your point, though this points out the deep flaws in the trite and oversimplified D&D alignment system.

As I read what you wrote, I think you are introducing a third factor that isn't really represented in the alignment system. You mention that lawful evil somehow imposes upon all people, but that is not necessarily the case. You assume here that this individual has the power or authority to establish or enforce law. What lawfulness means is the individual believes in the rule of law, not that they necessarily have any power or authority to establish or enforce laws. That ability is a third and separate factor from the two alignment axis of good-evil and lawful-chaos that we could call influential-inconsequential or maybe power-powerless. And if we think about things from that standpoint, suddenly a chaotic evil force that is extremely influential and powerful is very much on par with a lawful evil one. You cannot assume the lawful evil (or good) has power and influence just by being lawful. That's not how it works, yeah?

 

[Estro Felino]

Thank you!

I didn't recognise Jefferson, Jackson and Truman

Jefferson is my idol. He is one of the heroes of the 18th century.
He said:
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered.... I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

He wanted to sop lawful evil.

 

[Stevicus]

I don't recognise some of those presidents

Who's who?

Lawful Good: George Washington
Neutral Good: Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Chaotic Good: Theodore Roosevelt
Lawful Neutral: John F. Kennedy
True Neutral: Thomas Jefferson
Chaotic Neutral: Andrew Jackson
Lawful Evil: Harry S Truman
Neutral Evil: George W. Bush
Chaotic Evil: Richard M. Nixon

 

[Stevicus]

Neat chart. Although I disagree that Truman is lawful evil (lawful neutral maybe?). I think Andrew Johnson belongs in that slot (lawful evil). I also think that Jefferson is neutral good, not, true neutral.

Teddy is ABSOLUTELY chaotic good, though.

edit: I also think that Nixon was neutral evil. (Perhaps we've never had a chaotic evil president.)

Another chart I saw put Trump as Chaotic Evil, which might be true.

 

[vulcanlogician]

I see your point, though this points out the deep flaws in the trite and oversimplified D&D alignment system.

Absolutely. My ethical thinking goes above and beyond the D&D alignment system. But the point of the thread is to have fun with ethics via using the D&D alignment system as a lens to discuss how one's disposition toward law and chaos interacts with dispositions toward good and evil. It's silly to consider the D&D alignment system as a foundation for a genuine ethical outlook. But it's fun.

You mention that lawful evil somehow imposes upon all people, but that is not necessarily the case. You assume here that this individual has the power or authority to establish or enforce law.

Even a "powerless" person may bolster the rule of law by his or her participation in it. In the 1950s in the American South, a relatively "powerless" person could participate in an evil system of law by reporting a "colored" person for drinking from a "white's only" fountain. Having power or authority is yet another axis, and I would say it exists independently of one's dispositions toward law and chaos, good or evil.

 

[McBell]

I'm talking about AD&D alignments. Please describe how and/or why you disagree.

Lawful Evil is predictable.
The lawful evil entity has a strict code of conduct.

Choatic Evil has no rhyme or reason other than it is evil.

 

[Heyo]

It seems obvious to me, But what do ya'll think?

The usual disclaimer from moral philosophy: only actions are immoral (evil), not people.

But given the colloquial use, I agree. Systemic evil is inescapable within its reach. It corrupts people to do evil. It normalizes evil.
The only thing that systemic evil has going is that it is predictable. That's why we fear the chaotic evil more than the lawful. It surprises us. 3000 dead people from the 9/11 attacks seem more evil to many than the 100,000 from the Iraq war. The latter were "planned", i.e. foreseeable.

 

[Viker]

Neat chart. Although I disagree that Truman is lawful evil (lawful neutral maybe?). I think Andrew Johnson belongs in that slot (lawful evil). I also think that Jefferson is neutral good, not, true neutral.

Teddy is ABSOLUTELY chaotic good, though.

edit: I also think that Nixon was neutral evil. (Perhaps we've never had a chaotic evil president.)

Don't forget about Andrew Jackson, the Indian Removal Act - Trail of Tears and expansion of slavery. Definitely lawful evil.

 

[Glaurung]

A chaotic evil person's attitude toward slavery may be "this person is a slave. They are weak and vulnerable and they have no rights. I will take advantage of that state of affairs if it suits my purposes." But a LAWFUL evil individual would say that, "Slavery is a lawful institution which may serve my selfish purposes in many regards. So not only will I take advantage of a slave's lower status when it suits my purposes, but I will ALSO support the institution of slavery itself and participate in efforts to maintain its continuance."

In Dragon Ball there's a chaotically evil villain called Kid Buu. This being cannot be controlled or reasoned with. He is incapable of reason. He teleports from inhabited planet to inhabited planet blowing them up and he will not stop until every living thing in the universe has been killed. Buu is chaos incarnate.

Another villain named Frieza on the other hand is lawful evil. He seeks to rule the universe as its emperor. While he is a ruthless murderer, he is mostly rational in his brutality. Unless you are an impediment to his plans he is unlikely to kill you just for laughs. He has got better things to do. Frieza seeks to dominate the universe, not empty it of all life.

In a certain sense, Frieza is more malicious than Buu in that Frieza is a rational actor who chooses to hurt and enslave others. Buu isn't even sapient. He is destructive by instinct rather than choice. But Buu is a far greater evil as left to his own devices he will eventually kill everyone. A universe ruled by a dictator is better than a universe where all civilization has been annihilated. Buu is chaotic evil with planet busting superpowers. Frieza is lawful evil with those same powers.

 

[crossfire]

In Dragon Ball there's a chaotically evil villain called Kid Buu. This being cannot be controlled or reasoned with. He is incapable of reason. He teleports from inhabited planet to inhabited planet blowing them up and he will not stop until every living thing in the universe has been killed. Buu is chaos incarnate.

Another villain named Frieza on the other hand is lawful evil. He seeks to rule the universe as its emperor. While he is a ruthless murderer, he is mostly rational in his brutality. Unless you are an impediment to his plans he is unlikely to kill you just for laughs. He has got better things to do. Frieza seeks to dominate the universe, not empty it of all life.

In a certain sense, Frieza is more malicious than Buu in that Frieza is a rational actor who chooses to hurt and enslave others. Buu isn't even sapient. He is destructive by instinct rather than choice. But Buu is a far greater evil as left to his own devices he will eventually kill everyone. A universe ruled by a dictator is better than a universe where all civilization has been annihilated. Buu is chaotic evil with planet busting superpowers. Frieza is lawful evil with those same powers.

What would Frieza do if his empire got hit by Buu? Would he go insane (like Buu) trying to stop the damage?

 

[wellwisher]

It seems obvious to me, But what do ya'll think?

Lawful evil is worse. The reason is lawful evil means the Government, which has all the power and final say, no longer protects, but makes laws to exploit the citizens and protect the criminals. For example, consider all the loopholes in the IRS tax code that allow the rich to pay less taxes. This is the law. People on the Left then complain about fair share, since this does not seem right, yet nothing changes since law that the leaders promote protects this situation; smoke and mirrors, for donations. The Governing institutions are suppose to be fair and square. But lawful evil get kickbacks based on the tax revenue lost, which then complained about, to deflect blame.

The current law in many Liberal cities says it is OK to steal and shoplift, but it is illegal to defend your store and take down the crooks. Chaotic evil is protected by the law in many Liberal places. This is a reflection of Leadership, making laws to protect its own evil ways. By siding with the chaotic criminals the hope is people will get used it, so crooks at the top can have a different set of rules. Liberalism is the side that speaks of relative morality, allowing chaotic crime and legal crime to be relative to the needs of the crooks.

Law was original made to protect the good citizen from the criminals. Government was there to enforce this. However, shady lawyers and politicians, most of which are also shady lawyers, are in control of the law. They have found ways to make laws to protect their own kind at the expense of the citizens; dual justice. For example, at the beginning of Trump's first term he was spied upon by the Swamp, under Obama and Biden. That was worse than what Nixon had done and had to resign over, since the Swamp used the power of Government Intel Agencies to spy and not just some over zealous campaign aids.

I expected that that law that took down Nixon, would be applied to this modern shady behavior. But the shady lawyers made this a legal virtue of evil for Obama and Biden; dual injustice. This type of legal crime does damage since there was no legal way for Trump to seek protection or compensation from the crooks, since the crooks were the Government. This led to the two years Russian Collusion deflection, put on the tax payers tab, and in the end no crooks went to jail. That is not how law was designed.

We have laws already on the books for immigration, but these were ignored by President Biden and the DNC. The laws were changed via Executive actions, which then victimized the citizens with $billions in expenses they did not request. Among this victimization is the allowing foreign criminals, such as drug gangs and their violent form of chaotic evil, that is ignored by laws made by Government crooks.

Democracy does not work if the crooks make the laws to protect criminal behavior. This is the biggest threat to Democracy since Government has the power to protect it or it override protections, by law or decree. During COVID, disinformation allows the DNC to bully its citizens, under the guise of caring, based on fake science. That time emboldened the crooks.

 

[Stevicus]

Don't forget about Andrew Jackson, the Indian Removal Act - Trail of Tears and expansion of slavery. Definitely lawful evil.

Yes, oddly enough, whoever made that chart put Jackson as Chaotic Neutral, which doesn't really make any sense.

 

[Viker]

Yes, oddly enough, whoever made that chart put Jackson as Chaotic Neutral, which doesn't really make any sense.

Probably because of his reputation of being temperamental, stubborn, aggressive. "Old Hickory".

 

[dybmh]

Systemic evil is inescapable within its reach. It corrupts people to do evil. It normalizes evil.

The system has a mind of its own? Of its own? It, the system's doing the corrupting? Independently? Seems like that's avoiding placing the responsibility on the one's who are making the choices.

 

[Heyo]

The system has a mind of its own? Of its own? It, the system's doing the corrupting? Independently? Seems like that's avoiding placing the responsibility on the one's who are making the choices.

Without trying to anthropomorphize, systems of (semi-) rational agents (humans), like corporations, agencies or governments, behave as if they have intention. That is, of course, the humans in the system acting, but except for the top tier, those humans are interchangeable. The system acts according to its "nature". (The weighted sum of the nature of its parts.)

 

[Estro Felino]

Without trying to anthropomorphize, systems of (semi-) rational agents (humans), like corporations, agencies or governments, behave as if they have intention. That is, of course, the humans in the system acting, but except for the top tier, those humans are interchangeable. The system acts according to its "nature". (The weighted sum of the nature of its parts.)

I have never understood the psychology of "obeying orders".
That is, so many Nazis justified themselves by saying they just obeyed orders.

Which is one of the phoniest and sliest excuses I can think of. Because they did know about the unethical nature of those orders.

If the State had ordered them to jump off a cliff, they would have never done it. So they would have disobeyed orders.
They obeyed orders because it involved others' lives, they couldn't care less about, because they had killed their own soul, so they couldn't feel any emotion such as empathy or pity.

 

[dybmh]

(The weighted sum of the nature of its parts.)

Therefore systems, them self, are not at fault. The nature of the parts determine the weighted sum. If the nature of the parts are benevolent, the weighted sum will also be benevolent?

 

[Stevicus]

Without trying to anthropomorphize, systems of (semi-) rational agents (humans), like corporations, agencies or governments, behave as if they have intention. That is, of course, the humans in the system acting, but except for the top tier, those humans are interchangeable. The system acts according to its "nature". (The weighted sum of the nature of its parts.)

The top tier is what might be in question. In some cases, it might not always be the very top person, as there could be some kind of "evil advisor" in their midst who is really in control, while the top guy is some kind of figurehead or idiot.

It makes me wonder where the "useful idiot" or puppet ruler might be on the alignment chart. Perhaps lawful neutral?

 

[Heyo]

I have never understood the psychology of "obeying orders".
That is, so many Nazis justified themselves by saying they just obeyed orders.

Which is one of the phoniest and sliest excuses I can think of. Because they did know about the unethical nature of those orders.

If the State had ordered them to jump off a cliff, they would have never done it. So they would have disobeyed orders.
They obeyed orders because it involved others' lives, they couldn't care less about, because they had killed their own soul, so they couldn't feel any emotion such as empathy or pity.

Go into any agency with a big bureaucracy. You'll find clerks who are "obeying orders", often without empathy or pity. Bureaucracies attract bureaucrats, and those who didn't have that mindset from the beginning will adapt to the job.