There's something I still don't get about lawful evil characters

There's something I still don't get about lawful evil characters.
The frequent example used for explaining the alignment is "the dictator".
But dictators make their own rules, and force others to live under them. Now, this whole "make your own rules" sounds more chaotic than lawful. A lawful character follows the rules, a chaotic one breaks them and makes it's own set.
Or maybe there's something I'm not getting right. Do chaotic chars don't believe in any kind of rules, not even ones made by themselves?

lawful evil follow a code and wont break it

the dictator makes his rules and press them on others but he himself would never break his code

a police officer or lawyer can also be evil
the interpret the law the worst way possible to be able to do evil things while still being all legal

lawful evil is : he is not wrong, but he is an asshole

Yeah, I see that a lot too. Not necessarily "dictator," but the example of a LE character being an important leader (corrupt baron or something) that can make up at least some of their own rules. Also doesn't help that most low level LE characters/villains wouldn't be able to do any of that.

With the usual caveats that alignment doesn't really matter and you should just do whatever makes sense to you etc., I think LE means more "is concerned with the public appearance of being lawful" than really about being lawful. Obviously that doesn't fit quite right, but I think it's good enough

Here's the thing: they're making and enforcing rule of law. It's the rule of their law, probably written for the benefit of themselves and their cronies, but it is law, and it is enforced. It's the same kind of order that Klaus Wulfenbach forced upon Europa.

Doing whatever the hell you like for your own benefit without regard to the law would be chaotic evil, much like doing what is right irrespective of the law is chaotic good.

D&D alignment only makes sense for characters in hackney fantasy settings and it's a bad way to explain the behavior of anything with actual human thoughts.

The protagonist experiences evil forces as a monolith, not a collection of individuals. An evil empire trying to bring everything under its domain is lawful. An evil force trying to destroy all order is chaotic. You can find real-world groups that fit the niche - the nazis, some anarchist punks - but in the real world those groups are composed of individuals with bad ideas and piles of hangups, not people who represent some sort of fundamental force of evil. Hitler was emotionally unstable but lead the group that inspired "lawful evil" style empires in fiction.

Klaus was totally right though.

A Chaotic character makes their own rules in the sense that they don't want to get chained down. Likewise, a chaotic character won't really impose these on anyone else, since they're more just being free.

Lawful evil is about imposing structure, building a system and then twisting it for their own gain. If a Lawful evil character isn't at the top of a system, then they'll abuse the rules within it to gather as much power for themselves.

Nazi would be lawful evil, not Chaotic.

>Hitler was emotionally unstable but lead the group that inspired "lawful evil"

I always took it as lawful evil worked in one of two ways.
If the person was in a powerful position, then they could codify law such that it benefits them and their allies, and then maintain and enforce those laws.
Otherwise its more a case of using whatever system of law is in place to your own ends by using very loophole and dirty trick there is.
Like a defence attorney for a criminal outfit, and a tyrant would both be lawful evil.

It works better as "the dictator's right hand" but Lawful doesn't mean "follows law" it's closer to "adheres to a set of principles"

>wont break it
They WILL break it, when doing so profits them. It's Lawful Neutral who don't break the rules.

The sooner you cut the chord and start working alignments out of your mind, the better.

They're inconsistent and difficult to interpret straight, and serve no purpose once you've figured them out. They're a means to no end, but will encourage you to be decisions off them. They describe a very limited an, frankly, uninteresting part of a character's personality.

You'll understand your characters better if you approach then exactly they are, rather than trying to figure out where they lie on some weird and unrelated axis representing weird and uninspiring personality traits.

honestly i think alignments are fine

Insofar as they are something that literally exists as angels and demons. Things that are meant to be absolute representations of an ideal.

humans aren't like that.

>MUH CODE
Lawful does not mean following a code. That's like saying Rance is Lawful because he doesn't rape children or do incest

Lawfulness is about consistency and reliability. Whatever particular code it is you follow, you can be counted on to follow it. This is a necessary trait to anyone who plans to run a prosperous country, even if that prosperity is withheld from poverty-stricken factory slaves and used to fund the never-ending hunger of the nation's war machine.

Most real world dictators don't actually do this. They constantly squeeze the nation for whatever resources are immediately available, making a quick profit while destroying the economy, thus steadily shrinking their income. They have a military that couldn't possibly stand up to an effective invader, and instead just sign treaties with foreign powers and contracts with corporations that allow them to take part in resource extraction in exchange for letting the dictator and his croneys in on a cut that is sizable, but still less expensive than fighting a war (even against the dictator's shitty underfunded military). The only enemy the dictator actually needs to fight are his own unarmed, starving people.

These guys are Neutral Evil, sometimes even Chaotic Evil, but most people imagine they're all basically Hitler even though they're mostly street-level gangsters who happened to have the largest supply of automatic weapons when the local government took a nose dive. Most of the time they do end up shooting the former government in the face, but they're not actually the thing that kills the former government. The former government dies due to incompetence or corruption, and they finish off the dying carcass with a coup more to make a statement to other would-be dictators that there is no vacuum here than to actually remove the current rulers.

Lawful evil ain't about isn't anything to do with a nations laws or the breaking thereof.
A lawful evil character has a code that they follow. Their own personal law and the only one that matters.
For example an honourable bloodknight. Loves fighting, loves killing, but would never kick a man when he's down.

This following of a code is really much more important to the core idea of a Lawful character than whether or not they commit illegal acts.
Chaotic characters by comparison are more about personal freedom. A chaotic evil character is about indulging themselves and their own beliefs regardless of the cost to others, or even because of.

The classic example of the corrupt official who cruelly enforces the laws can actually be played both ways:
If he's doing his job and enjoying the misery it inflicts but also following the law himself that's LE.
But if he's instead enjoying the pain of those who are foolish enough to follow the law while not giving two shits about himself that's CE.

In closing, the alignment system is a guide and don't treat it as an absolute.

What about an Anarchist Barbarian, who believes that every man should be free and choose his own faith.
He has a very strict code, that values liberty and self-rule to the extreme.
Not only when it personally conveniences him, but also when he believes a strangers liberty is violated and will put himself in harm's way to make this right.

Would the alignment of this Anarchist be LN or LG?

Dictator is not the same as Tyrant or Warlord.

Nah, the nazis belonged to the branch of romantics, not the Enlightenment.

Being dedicated to a code of behavior of not being dedicated to codes of behavior is just playing with English syntax. Everyone immediately grasps that you can't qualify as Lawful just by claiming "do whatever comes to mind" is a code. The fact that you can phrase it in such a way that seems contradictory is a quirk of grammar and etymology, not an actual rebuttal.

>That's like saying Rance is Lawful because he doesn't rape children or do incest
That's not so much following a strict code as it is a line Rance refuses to cross. It simply means Rance isn't out of fucks to give, but that by no means makes him honorable.

I think the whole "Lawful" thing would be much more easy to digest if it were called "honorable". We all know that there can be honorable villains and backhanded heroes. So a Honorable-Neutral-Sly axis. Rather than "Lawful" and "Chaotic". But then again, it'd be hard to justify Honor elementals and Slyness elementals.

>He still believes in the "Enlightenment" meme
It's the only era in history that named itself, that should tell you a lot about all the grandiose names that are common for it. It's also these same people who came up with names like "Enlightenment" and "Age of Reason" (Voltaire front and center) that created our image of the Middle Ages as a backwards, superstitious era where Church authorities heavyhandedly suppressed anything even remotely relating to logical thought.

>But then again, it'd be hard to justify Honor elementals and Slyness elementals.

Modrons, Inevitables, and Slaadi were all pretty shitty at inception. They became cooler because later writers and designers had to figure out how to de-shittify them because the fanbase wouldn't stand for major setting elements, even ones they all agreed were bad, simply being excised from the setting completely.

Good -> Altruistic
Evil -> Selfish

Lawful -> Considerate
Chaotic -> Impulsive

>honour elemental

Got you covered.

CATCHPHRASE!

Evil doesn't mean wrong, user.