Lawful Evil is more Evil than Chaotic Evil. Discuss.

[Estro Felino]

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.

The topic here is evil.
Do the orders of these bureaucrats consist in evil deeds?

 

[Heyo]

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?

Often, in a system with an old, big bureaucracy, even the top tier is exchangeable, because the power lies in the system itself. The "deep state" will resist change, even when ordered from above.

 

[Heyo]

The topic here is evil.
Do the orders of these bureaucrats consist in evil deeds?

They don't mind. That isn't evil in itself, but it carries the possibility.

 

[Estro Felino]

They don't mind. That isn't evil in itself, but it carries the possibility.

Do you agree with her?

 

[Heyo]

Do you agree with her?

Mostly.

 

[Stonetree]

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.)

I am not familiar with these classifications, which doesn't matter. I just want to mention an individual isn't necessarily Lawful evil or chaotic
evil. Particular acts they commit are evil. That same individual may commit benevolent acts as well. John McCain, who I respect and admire, could not win my vote for President because I feared he would be too prone to use military solutions instead of diplomatic solutions to foreign affairs. I'm just trying to point out that a decent man could make evil or good decisions.

 

[Stevicus]

Often, in a system with an old, big bureaucracy, even the top tier is exchangeable, because the power lies in the system itself. The "deep state" will resist change, even when ordered from above.

Yes, some of that seems steeped in what many might call "tradition." Or just a general, vague perception of "this is how things are done." It might be like a machine operating on automatic, but eventually, some part fails or something needs replenishment, at which point some conscious intervention is required.

Of course, the "deep state" will always be resistant to change, but if they're not flexible or adaptable to some degree, they risk implosion.

 

[Heyo]

Yes, some of that seems steeped in what many might call "tradition." Or just a general, vague perception of "this is how things are done." It might be like a machine operating on automatic, but eventually, some part fails or something needs replenishment, at which point some conscious intervention is required.

Of course, the "deep state" will always be resistant to change, but if they're not flexible or adaptable to some degree, they risk implosion.

"Progress is made, one funeral at a time." - Max Planck
Change is slow and usually by changing the people.

 

[LuisDantas]

I am never quite certain of what D&D alignments are meant to say. In my experience even fiction authors that are specifically using them seem to reach conclusions wildly at odds with mine.

Generally speaking, it is harder to predict chaotic alignments than lawful ones. On the other hand, lawful is presumably the easiest to dissuade and to countermaneuver.

But we must consider the factor of delusion. Many, many people think of themselves as better, more ethical and/or more law-abiding than they truly are.

Beyond that, I am definitely not a believer in the ethical value of law and rules. They are at their very best a very, very poor substitute for moral discernment, and at worst an active obstacle to that.

 

[LuisDantas]

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

Oh, that is a better fit than most others proposed.

He is evil, because he never respects another human being. And he is chaotic, because he does not believe that there is anything else in the world worth of respect either.

 

[Balthazzar]

Is this anything like nonconformist anarchy? Evey individual for himself and living only on their own terms in any given situation? In this sense, It's difficult to deny that all types are equal in evil capacity. A reverse is no different, whether lawful or lawless, depending on individual choices and intent.

 

[Betho_br]

We know very well the difference between "legislation" and "justice".

Legislation is the land of Thrasymachus, the law of the strongest.

Yes, you can hire the best lawyers to respond to an Administrative, Criminal, or any other type of proceeding. If you are aware that the system is polarized and intends to punish you, it is possible to use specific defense strategies.

One of these strategies may include calling witnesses who have authority and respect within the context of the case. To maximize the effectiveness of this approach, it is recommended to select as a witness the immediate superior of the adversary of the authority who will judge the case. It is important that this witness is as close in hierarchy as possible to the judging authority, to avoid exhausting other defense possibilities that may arise in the future.

This strategic choice can help strengthen your position and increase the credibility of your defense in the face of a potentially adverse system.

However, if the "system" is not polarized (e.g., in autocracies, military regimes, or dictatorships), there will be little chance of a successful defense.

1) Imagine that you need someone specific to run for president, but this individual is barred by legislation requiring a "clean record" in the judicial system (no criminal offenses) which prevents them from running. Then, upon reviewing the legislation, you realize that the judge's jurisdiction wasn't competent to adjudicate the cases, thus all cases revert to "square one," including the "clean record" legislation, which also resets to "square one." Consequently, this specific individual decides to run for president, as all reset processes imply, however, there is another legislation stating that Over 75 years do not face legal proceedings

2) Imagine in a legal proceeding you name a witness whom you know to be missing, with no known whereabouts, thereby preventing their testimony in the case, delaying or even hindering the progress of the proceedings...

3) Mixing legislation is the rule of organized crime! Hire an expert citizen with a schizophrenic report to mediate a negotiation with military killers from another State (subject to other laws and codes) who will hire other people to kidnap someone in another State and destroy the corpse in acid in another State. If it starts to cause problems, hire other people who have nothing to do with the previous crime of kidnapping to eliminate those who are witnessing something with some relevance, the crime now becomes another, but falls into the area of defending personal honor.

There are thousands of examples...

 

[Whateverist]

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

Yep lawful is more awful. Hands down.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

I still think that RFK in the '60s was shot by the banking conglomerate also known as the Federal Reserve. His brother as well since both challenged the Federal Reserve.