Can such a thing exist?
Can such a thing exist?
i think so, though perhaps moreso the Rationals than the Irrationals.
ETA: likewise the Irrationals would be more likely to be Chaotic Evil.
Last edited by glam; 08-14-2010 at 11:57 PM.
Lawful Evil? Like a greedy baron? *cough* gamma *cough*
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
Probably LII's, with maybe some ESE's
I was momentarily Lawful Evil in regards an incident at the coal mines in Obolensk, but that's all in the past now.
What do these signs mean—, , etc.? Why cannot socionists use symbols Ne, Ni etc. as in MBTI? Just because they have somewhat different meaning. Socionics and MBTI, each in its own way, have slightly modified the original Jung's description of his 8 psychological types. For this reason, (Ne) is not exactly the same as Ne in MBTI.
Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function (extraverted sensing) is first and foremost associated with control and expansion of personal space (which sometimes can manifest in excessive aagression, but often also manifests in a capability of managing lots of people and things).
For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.
-Victor Gulenko, Dmitri Lytov
INTj and ESFj are probably the most hypocrite of the types. Lawful Evil suits them pretty well.
Lawful Evil isn't too hypocritical -- it just subverts the law to its own ends. Hypocrisy is more of a recipe for being neutral on either axis (or both). For example, I believe in upholding the law on society at large because it's very beneficial, but I will myself subvert it whenever it's convenient because I don't give a rat's ass about leading by example. I have few personal principles. The law is for the lesser beings. Thus I'm True Neutral, leaning heavily towards teh evulz.
I noticed you're LII yourself. What's your alignment, if I may be so bold as to inquire?
Last edited by Aleksei; 08-15-2010 at 03:33 AM.
What do these signs mean—, , etc.? Why cannot socionists use symbols Ne, Ni etc. as in MBTI? Just because they have somewhat different meaning. Socionics and MBTI, each in its own way, have slightly modified the original Jung's description of his 8 psychological types. For this reason, (Ne) is not exactly the same as Ne in MBTI.
Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function (extraverted sensing) is first and foremost associated with control and expansion of personal space (which sometimes can manifest in excessive aagression, but often also manifests in a capability of managing lots of people and things).
For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.
-Victor Gulenko, Dmitri Lytov
Well, I'm trying to figure out the Royal Apothecary Society in World of Warcraft. Every quest in the game where you're working for them paints them as a very loose conglomerate, with some vague formal structure ("this dude kinda is the head a bit") with individual members doing basically whatever as long as it's in line with the official mission statement of the society--develop a plague to wipe out all living and unliving creatures on the planet.
Compare with the secret police of the same race/civilization (the Forsaken, btw), who have a very, very apparent power structure, reaching all the way up to the faction leader herself.
Could be that they're not Lawful at all, now that I read everything I just wrote, lol...
Well that gets the typical Alpha Rational half-way, which was sort of my point.Lawful Evil isn't too hypocritical -- it just subverts the law to its own ends. Hypocrisy is more of a recipe for being neutral on either axis (or both).
Probably about Neutral on both scales (aka sane).I noticed you're LII yourself. What's your alignment, if I may be so bold as to inquire?
If it's the view that Alphas, when 'evil', are evil because of apathy or negligence, that would seem to go against the considered nature of Lawful types. But I don't see why Alpha individuals cannot be consciously selfish in a systematic manner - it's just that it would seem that Alphas are more prone to internal self-indulgence compared to getting their kicks at the expense of others - and any Lawful system that they would follow would be Neutral or Good. That's a lot of hypotheticals though - especially when Good and Evil can be matters of perception.
Usually the lawful part doesn't mean you follow all the laws of society.... it means you have your own personal subjective system of law you follow. Not all lawful organizations agree with each other.
- You honor your word, believe a deal is a deal
- You belong to organizations with hierarchy (know your place in it)
- You have some law to these organizations which you honor.
The evil part in at least the DnD sense is about self-sacrifice and greater good. An evil character does what's best for themselves at the cost of the rest of the world. A good character is willingly to sacrifice themselves for the greater good.
Neutrality is indifference towards good/evil/law/chaos, not rejection of these philosophies.
A lawful evil alignment can manifest itself in many ways....
- You make deals in order to manipulate/exploit people, oppressing them to it like a ball and chain, using these "deals" to your advantage (loan sharks, slavery, etc)
- You respect authority, not out of respect for the individual, but instead because you hope to overthrow the leadership through cunning manipulation, murder, exploitation of the system and use that position to advance your selfish agenda. You respect authority because you can't reject the system, you hope to use it to your advantage one day.
- You use people below you like pawns, generally believing that their place is inferior to you as it should be, because they are incapable of climbing the social hierarchy they are obviously weak
- You look at chaotic alignments as lesser being, lacking discipline, organization, and structure. You don't look at them as embodying the virtue of freedom, you look at them as being inferior and incapable of discipline/organization.
Lol a couple years back (2002-2004) when I played 3rd edition I had downloaded the alignment books from online and read up on all the alignments in depth.
Basically being a lawful evil char is being a cunning, manipulative, exploitative dominator and/or oppressor. Generally RPing the character is done for the fun of being evil, rather than building up some anti-hero sympathetic reason behind their perceived "evil"... that's more the subject of philosophy and literature, considering complex motives, etc.
I mentioned LII as a possibility because their Ti dominance could mean systematic awareness and their IJ temperament means being more rigid and following procedures, thus fulfilling the lawful element. The Ne creative could manifest itself as being aware of potential ways to exploit other people, Jung I remember would mention that Extroverted Intuitive Types are likely to exhibit exploitative/manipulative behavior sometimes. This could fulfill the evil element.
See what I wrote above, that will let you know what it means at least in the DnD alignment sense rather than the grand objective philosophical definition of good/evil which is nearly impossible to define.
Last edited by male; 08-15-2010 at 03:36 AM.
Maybe a character like Lex Luthor (Smallville), though maybe he's not really "lawful" but merely makes everything look legal and I haven't really watched the show (and obviously the character isn't really evil, but maybe more neutral, well arguably evil, depending), but I think the character seems Alpha NT-ish (very Ti at least). For some reason Ti and "lawful evil" just seem like a wonderful match.
Oh, hey -- Dr. Horrible! ILE, right? I think by the end he was truly evil. Not sure of his place on the Lawful/Chaotic scale, exactly, but you could see how, say, an LII in a similar situation could become Lawful Evil.
Quaero Veritas.
Removed at User Request
Removed at User Request