If you’ve read this blog with some semblance of regularity (a viewership list that, as far as I know, includes solely my grandmother) you will have noticed a frequent tilt toward politics. I’m not sure what causes my inability to stay away from the topic. I assume growing up in close proximity to Washington there is some sort of ambient osmotic effect whereby the general political haze seeps through my skin only to manifest as firm opinions I lob, water balloon-like (and with about as much general effect) at strangers on the internet. The problem of course lies in that I’m not actually accomplishing anything. Scenario one: my audience already generally agrees with me, meaning my comments are nothing more than masturbatory (sorry grandma!) and meant to validate my opinions. Scenario two: my audience disagrees with me, meaning they’re going to disregard my sources, move goalposts if I approach a point, and/or tune me out entirely.
Given this awareness I occasionally make attempts at rolling back my engagement in non-productive ‘conversations.’ These moods are cyclical. I’ll do well for a while then gradually find myself drifting toward article comment sections, questionable Facebook pages, or really just the entirety of Twitter. I spent last week at the beach with a group of friends and embodied the spirit of the meme reading- me: I’m not going to talk about politics; me after three mimosas: WHERE WAS GONDOR WHEN THE WESTFOLD FELL. I can’t help it. I love it. I’ve never had an interest in being a politician but harbor a pipedream of working on a staff since The West Wing came out 22 years ago.
The mechanisms of government are (to use a loaded term) interesting. But my current kick is more the sociology of the general public. There are a glut of topics to cover here. Voting against self interest, hypocrisy, party or national tribalism (I can’t understand why someone cares more about someone they’ve never met from their own state or country more than a stranger born under a different flag. The government, sure, that’s the point. But the average citizen? I don’t get it). There’s so much to unpack. And I more than likely will at some point. But, to use my second LOTR reference in as many paragraphs, IT IS NOT THIS DAY. I instead will hone in, giant flying eagle summoned by a moth-like, on one particular curiosity; the popular justification of government actions by the citizenry using the ‘well but it’s the law argument.’
As always- bear with me. I’ll bring this back to storytelling in what is for me relatively short order. But let’s start by laying out examples. I had a brief moment where I debated easing into it with a less controversial topic but I’m already emotionally three mimosas into my week so let’s do this. The Second Amendment to the US Constitution reads, ‘A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’ I have Strong Opinions(TM) on this topic and, while I firmly reject the idea that we need an armed populace to somehow serve as a collective check on government overreach, it’s the type of argument I’d rather be having. What I want to call out instead are the arguments opposed to gun control on the grounds that it’s against the Constitution. Genuinely I don’t care.
I realize at a glance this looks crazy. But the Constitutionality argument is to me solely legal quibbling (sorry lawyer friends!) and wholly beside the point. I get why the government (the courts, legislatures, all of those bodies) must obey and enforce the law. But why the general public puts the law itself on a pedestal is beyond me. Our discussions should center on determining the ‘right’ answer and then crafting laws to meet those requirements. Who cares what the Constitution says? Let’s figure out what it should say and then change it. Other examples: Israeli settlement expansion, selective enforcement of traffic violations or drug possession laws, financial reshuffling to avoid income tax. All ostensibly legal, all things that make me raise an eyebrow or a shot glass when defended using the aforementioned legality.
Time for caveats. I know I’m making a reductionist argument. I understand trying to define what is ‘right’ is a rabbit hole. I worry just letting the majority change laws can do terrible harm to those outside of positions of power. I’m not opposed to a robust and functional government and legal system. And I realize some shuffling, semi-sentient chum buckets use similar arguments to oppose rules like mask mandates and equate them to tyranny. But I just want to try and reframe how we think about issues. If you support certain immigration laws because you believe they’re the right approach? Fine, let’s have a discussion about it. If you support immigration laws because they’re the immigration laws? We’re deep into circular logic. Academically I’m told ‘the rule of law’ and, continuing our tour de logical fallacies ‘appeal to tradition’ (argumentum ad antiquitatem) have different effects on different people. Psychologist Jonathan Haidt (a former professor at my alma mater) wrote about disgust and moral response differences based on culture in his book The Righteous Mind. I sometimes disagree with Haidt but I accept the different emotional response triggers we all face. I just don’t necessarily understand them.
My guess is people who use the legality argument to defend actions that feel gross are those who sought to ban Harry Potter books not because of religious objections to glorification of witchcraft but rather because the protagonists were routinely rewarded for flouting authority. So many of our beloved stories feature characters using the structures of the law to wreak harm and havoc. Perhaps these people view them as wrongfully maligned. So, this week’s post: a rundown of some of my favorite lawful-evil characters in stories.
I’ve heard the phrase ‘lawful-evil’; what does it mean?
Quick chat about semantics before we dive in to characters. For those wholly unfamiliar, the phrase ‘lawful evil’ comes from the alignment chart in Dungeons & Dragons, a game first developed in the 70s and seeing a popular resurgence probably tied to the show Stranger Things. I’ve played a few campaigns but am far, far from an expert. So, begging preemptive forgiveness for whatever errors I make. In D&D you traditionally create a character as whom you roleplay for the duration of the game. During creation you select a race (human, dwarf, halfling, elf, tiefling, etc.), a class (warrior, sorcerer, bard, etc.) and an alignment. The alignment doesn’t change anything about your character’s appearance. Rather- as you play the game, your goal is to act as your character would in each situation, not as you (the player) would.
The alignment chart is 3×3 with one axis showing lawful vs. chaotic and the other good vs. evil, giving us nine total alignments (i.e. lawful-good, chaotic-neutral, neutral-neutral [true neutral], etc.). Today I’m looking at just one of those boxes, lawful-evil. Technically lawful-evil characters can follow any sort of code so long as they’re consistent. We may disagree with their moral but that’s beside the point. Anton Chigurh from No Country for Old Men (portrayed disconcertingly by Javier Bardem in the film) relies on his coin flips. Dr. Evil, in a parody of Bond villains, refuses to outright kill Austin Powers and instead locks him a slow-moving death trap with one inept guard and no chance of escape. Agent Smith from The Matrix. Dexter from his titular series. Given my intro however I want to look specifically at characters fitting three narrow criteria:
- Strictly adherent to an external code with the blessing/dictate of legal authorities;
- Devoid of personal ambition (excepting pursuit of positions that make it easier to execute the code indicated in 1); and
- Enjoying broad support from mainstream/powerful/non-evil characters in their stories.
The Rogues’ Gallery
Let’s start with Darth Vader. For simplicity sake I’m going to ignore the prequels and focus on the character as he appears in the original trilogy (A New Hope through Return of the Jedi). Vader derives his moral code from the Galactic Empire and ultimately the Emperor himself. Of course we can argue he should have thought more about his actions, but that’s the point, these are villains. In his mind he was maintaining order and exterminating rebels threatening to overturn the rightful government. We never saw a desire to supersede Emperor Palpatine, and his habit of force-choking admirals derived from anger at failure rather than fear of rival displacement (there are some fun theories on him going off-the-wall after the death of Grand Moff Tarkin with the first Death Star explosion, but more on that in another post). He was a widely respected albeit feared member of the ruling elite. We didn’t see any raised eyebrows on the bridge when he ordered the destruction of Leia’s planet, Alderaan. Pretty easy to picture citizens in some cantina in Coruscant saying ‘that Lord Vader has the right idea about things’ (shades of drunk uncles advocating the nuclear bombardment of the Middle East).
Others: Judge Claude Frollo from Disney’s The Hunchback of Notre Dame. We can use Frollo as a stand in for really any religious zealot/Knight Templar archetype in stories. Determined to root the gypsies from Paris as he fears they’ll corrupt the general public. Convinced he’s acting as the hand of God. Roose Bolton from A Song of Ice and Fire (although clearly benefiting his own house) can publicly claim his betrayal of the Starks was nothing more than service to the Lannisters who, it can be argued, are the rightful rulers (and to whom the Boltons owe ultimate allegiance). The propensity toward flaying nothing more than a time-honored family tradition. The Dai Li from Avatar: The Last Airbender declared their purpose to ‘protect the cultural heritage of Bai Sing Se.’ Their leader had ambition, but the Dai Li themselves believe they’re for the greater good and the citizenry seemed content in their ignorance.
The Queen Undisputed
These villains are legion but my top choice by far (and one of my favorite villains from any story) is Professor Dolores Jane Umbridge from Harry Potter. Umbridge is an evil woman. She forces misbehaving students to carve their sins into their own flesh. She’s cruel, she’s racist. She’s set on making life miserable for those she finds undesirable. Yet what makes her such a wonderful villain (and all the more terrible in reality) is that she’s more a symptom than the primary antagonist. ‘The world,’ Sirius reminds us, ‘isn’t split into good people and Death Eaters.’ Plenty of villains find support from other evil characters. Umbridge draws hers from the mainstream. Fudge is a fool and Percy a prat but both are strongly opposed to Voldemort. Yet each adores Umbridge, the latter describing her as ‘a really delightful woman’ in a letter to Ron. This was a truly repugnant character who enjoyed widespread support in the magical community. All of her actions were to the letter of the law (helped of course by the fact she wrote some of those laws herself).
I’m a good, big government liberal. Far from thinking all laws are bad. But next time you support an action solely based on its legality, make sure you’re not cheering for Umbridge.
Have a good lawful-evil villain, or a favorite villain in general? Want to argue about politics? Let me know in the comments.
Twenty-five Hundred Stories 