No, I'm not trying to provoke you. I'd never do that, bad karma. I've seen that done in games, that and reputation. Its a very computer way to do it and I think people are more complex than that. Should've put the word usually in there probably. Didn't mean to come off as rude.
I would say LE but wouldn't argue NE.
I think we're all a bit off on one thing, here, and it's probably be my fault.
Dmitri might react rather violently to those that directly harm his code, but he's not going to outright kill them for breaking it. He only reacts violently if the woman was injured of some sort, but that's mostly because he sees them as "Defiling a Temple of Zura" which is sacrilege to him.
He doesn't use women as an excuse, he honestly practically worships them. Injuring a woman is like burning a church to him.
In the cases of verbal abuse, he directly confronts the offender(s) and politely asks them to apologize, and afterwards, if they disagree, he asks once more, drawing his scythe and making an intimidation check and bringing along an intimidation check. That sort of thing. He would kill them if they continue to berate her as they see it bothers him.
In another case, he doesn't exactly turn off his Sadism and Masochism outside of combat. He considers them passive things. If he ever stabs someone, he twists it in. If he ever slaps someone for impudence, he's got clawed tipped gloves that are guaranteed to leave a mark. If he's impaling a gnoll with a scythe (Somehow) he'd pull it out along with it's intestinal tract.
Everything he does he does, in the majority, for his deity. This is coupled with his Narcissism and awkwardness around men as a result of having 0 social skills with the same sex.
He's not crazy, he's simply very religious in a strange way. There's plenty to him, and I'd be glad to answer questions, as it would flesh out the character more.
If it makes anyone feel any better, he's depressed because his only vice is "All experience with Lust, and no experience with actual love" and as a result of his Narcissism, he won't tell anyone because it'd make him seem less perfect. This would eventually cause a mental breakdown. This doesn't happen till later after serious character development, however, and when he realizes it, his mental clarity goes down-hill.
He's not a mindless killer, unless someone killed a woman, in which case, they better hope it feels good when he peels them like a banana in lemon water.
Yeah I had my buddy look this one over. He thinking LN towards LG. The S&M factor is contained, as in he has control over it. Taking pleasure in an act does not make one evil. He proposed the example of a paladin getting "really into" slaying evil.
He went further talking about how this PC is very disciplined liked a monk with a strict moral code, rational behavior, and a good deal of self control.
He even went so far as to observe this PC's respect towards others and his protectiveness of women show some good decencies.
He had trouble seeing much evil in this character besides some fetishes.
I can personally say that he's most definitely not lawful good.
Slap your friend for that one.
Hard.
He gets way too much satisfaction out of inflicting wounds and receiving them, is far too narcissistic, and pretty much breaks every rule in the paladin handbook with piss-worthy glee.
As for LN, I disagree, as LN's typically adhere to the code of a land as well as their own, and usually aren't near as restricted.
I believe he's either NE or LN.
(Also, a Lawful good worshiping Zura? C'mon man. You sure you're friend just didn't spend the alignment table around and catch the second corner as it span? Slap him again.)
MrSin: I misread. It is only in reference to Clerics, Paladins or other alignment/diety based classes. I still believe NE. He uses the laws of the land to advance his personal goals or the goals of his diety. He openly opposes those same laws if they are in deffiance of his diety. He is Evil. no doubt about that.
Although your character enjoys what he's doing, that alone doesn't make him evil. His actual evil actions are pretty low. Narcissistic doesn't make one evil.
And my friend pointed out that the lawful need to respect legitimate authority is a paladin concept and wouldn't apply to someone like a monk.
Now the case for good is weak, but there is not much evil in him either.
Slap your friend for that one.
This.
Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
He kills out of duty to some evil deity or master. Specifically, to his Chaotic Evil deity and to the tenets her church taught him.
He goes out of his way to inflict maximum suffering while so doing because he takes joy in the suffering of others.
Evil.
Exploring the law-chaos angle a little more, though... how does he feel about promises? If he promised something would he try to keep it under any circumstances? Under most circumstances, but if new s#+@ came to light he might re-evaluate? Only as long as he felt like it?
In the case of women, he would keep promises and be distraught and highly apologetic if he accidentally didn't.
If a guy made a promise, however, he wouldn't be particularlly affected by it. He'd try to do it, if it benefited him, however.
Fact 1: In the case of Religion, he is stupendously religious. He worships the Chaotic Evil deity Zura, Demon lord, and Vampire queen. Worshiped primarily by Cannibals, Vampires, and Succubi.
Fact 2: He is not a Cannibal, and actually dislikes the idea of feasting on the flesh of a fellow human being, or humanoid.
Chaotic Hypocrit
I would put him squarely in the Evil catagory, whether CE or NE is open for debate.... but he's not a good guy. Way too much into causing pain for the sake of pain...
Saying 'but he doesn't hurt women' is irrelevant. What he Doesn't do, has no bearing on the actions that he does do. Even hitler could come up and say 'Hey hey hey... I never ate a BABY!!!'
There's always SOME line a person won't cross... doesn't make them neutral.
But he doesn't go out of his way to create pain nor kill. Nothing about him looks evil to me. It actually seems to me that he leans towards good. Protecter/defender of others, even only half of the population, is points towards good. I wouldn't call him good though due to the way he would go about it. Willingness to torture and excessive violent attacks bring him back down into neutral.
On the Law/Chaos axis, this has nothing to do with the "Laws of the land". This is why I've always said it should be disciplined/chaotic, lawful is a stupid term. If they want an option that included law of the land they should call it law/criminal or rebel. For example, if a paladin would go into a land where something against his code was required by law and he followed it, he would fall due to breaking his discipline. Following said law would make him "unlawful" due to breaking his own code.
This guy on the other hand seems to have a very specific code, which gives him a strong tilt towards "lawful". Now that I think about it he forces his beliefs on others, this pushes him further into lawful. The only things he does that seem chaotic are in responce to someone breaking his code, this pushes him further into lawful in my opionion.
My new vote is Neutral/Lawful, with a tilt towards Lawful/Good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm in the CE or CN camp myself.
Yes he has a set of rules and codes, but his inherent disposition mollifies them, perverts them. At his core, he follows his own whims and will break his own self appointed rules if convenient. That's chaotic if I've ever seen it. Plus there the old stand by that if the player's alignments all over the place, Chaotic is the go to.
As for good or evil, I'd still say he's evil, or at least Neutral. Yes he's not a cannibal, but his enjoyment of death and destruction(The wanton sacrifices of blood) are clearly evil. Now, that his whims exclude certain types of victims(women) and the non-cannibal thing could bump him to Neutral but it would ultimately come down to how he plays out the evil he performs.
So yeah, CE or CN.
The most important answer I'm looking for throughout all of this is whether or not a player would want to have this man in the party.
I mean, the PC's might not like him, for obvious reasons, but would he be enjoyable to play with as a person?
The most important answer I'm looking for throughout all of this is whether or not a player would want to have this man in the party.
I mean, the PC's might not like him, for obvious reasons, but would he be enjoyable to play with as a person?
I'd be okay with him. I'm perfectly fine with evil or chaotics, so long as they don't openly burn orphanges or make life a really big mess, but thats more of a problem with antagonistic players than a characters personality I think.
The most important answer I'm looking for throughout all of this is whether or not a player would want to have this man in the party.
I mean, the PC's might not like him, for obvious reasons, but would he be enjoyable to play with as a person?
One of the most weird & goofy characters I've seen played was a CE Cleric Necromancer who was the parties healer. The player really played up how creepy it all was, sizing up the others for "parts". That party definitely needed him though, and even the LG Paladin didn't mind his creepy antics(Though that was more of a don't ask, don't tell kind of situation) since the necromancer was ultimately saving lives.
IMO sounds like OP's PC would be fun to play with. He's just weird and creepy, but doesn't detract from the players actions(unless their atheists it seems). Granted, he'll likely step on some toes sooner or later, but otherwise sounds like a good PC.
One of the funnier thoughts I had was meeting a female NPC with a higher charisma score than the parties female character. NPC says she needs help, female character says she doesn't like the idea of it.
Everyone has a conversation, and at the end, I happen to be the tie breaker.
"Well, she seems to carry herself in a higher manner than you, and I'm not one to say no to such a pretty young creature."
Then the argument commences.
Ok lets look at a situation I would see it as.
Lets say I am minding my business and this beautiful decides she wants to wreck my day and starts robbing me. She stabs me, but I get lucky and knock her flat out. I feel this guy would come up and enjoy slaughtering me.
He understands codes of conduct and such and even follows them to a degree. He has some obession with women that allows him to release his urges. He reveals in bloodshed. He has pyschopathic urges that he can contain, but he still has them. It feels like he waits for an excuse to release them using his obesssion with women as a trigger.
Since he understands and is slowed by rules and conduct, but can shatter them under the right trigger or urge it would place him as Neautral. Since he uses people for his whims it would place him as evil.
He'd be welcome in most parties I play in. Obviously it depends on the group and the campaign.
Ok lets look at a situation I would see it as.
Lets say I am minding my business and this beautiful lady* decides she wants to wreck my day and starts robbing me. She stabs me, but I get lucky and knock her flat out. I feel this guy would come up and enjoy slaughtering me.
If you were his ally, he would definitely get mad at you for "Being rough" and probably be furious, for the most part, but he wouldn't kill you. He'd probably apologize to the woman, referring to you as a disgusting, brutish, monkey, make sure to rough you up, and then see that the woman's needs were sated (within reason) by giving her some charity.
Though he'd do it, and to anyone in view he'd look like a nice guy, he's just following his woman-worshiping faith, and would probably get some serious kicks out of beating the hell out of you. Unless you killed her, though, he wouldn't kill you.
But that's a very sketchy situation, of course. If he didn't beat you up, he'd probably apologize to Zura directly on your behalf by wounding himself later.
He's tricky.
It's not perfect or as detail, but http://www.proprofs.com/quiz-school/story.php?title=pathfinder-alignment-te st is an alignment test based on 8 questions. Again, not very detailed. Also, there is no one really argueing whether or not Dmitri is Evil. It's more of a debate of the Law/Chaos axis. To me, he sways in the NE range and as he is a devoted worshiper of a CE diety, it makes sense for him to be with-in one alignment step of his diety whether grants him benefits or not.
He is clearly evil! He takes pleasure from, other peoples' pain! Yes that makes you a evil person. Ted Bundy came across as a really nice guy. Maybe Ted wouldn't kill little kids. But since he would take pleasure from torturing and raping women then killing them HE IS EVIL. It's not what you won't do that determines weather you are evil or not but what you are willing to do!
P.S. Sorry for the poor spelling
As far as weather ( I can't remember the other spelling of weather ) He'd be ok to play with, That depends on you. If you and the other players like him then no problem. But if he plays characters that causes you concern try talking to him. Or if you find the things he does disturbing then you should try and distance yourself from him. Always keep your self safe.
He is clearly evil! He takes pleasure from, other peoples' pain! Yes that makes you a evil person. Ted Bundy came across as a really nice guy. Maybe Ted wouldn't kill little kids. But since he would take pleasure from torturing and raping women then killing them HE IS EVIL. It's not what you won't do that determines weather you are evil or not but what you are willing to do!
P.S. Sorry for the poor spelling
I'm pretty sure Dmitri would consider rape one of the most sacrilage, evil things in the world for another person to do involving his beliefs.
He would honestly go out of his way to see that person suffer in a dungeon, peeled of every skin cell they had.
That Rape was just an example. What if it was rape man on man no women invioled?
Back to the point, It's what you do not what you won't do that matters.
One of Dmitri's qualities is his method of intimidation. He doesn't feel much of anything towards men that aren't his allies, and if left alone with the intimidation, he'll get a wicked gleam in his eyes.
That's about the time he gets about 8 circumstance bonuses on his intimidation check... and a very bloody room.
He's actually really good at getting info like this, even without the bonus of torturing.
If a guy made a promise, however, he wouldn't be particularlly affected by it. He'd try to do it, if it benefited him, however.
That sounds more chaotic. Since my original diagnosis was NE with some LE leanings (rather than straight LE) I'm feeling better about that. NE.
Ome redeemable quality (protecting women) does not erase or balance out a reprehensible one (delighting in torture)
A neutrally aligned person COULD use torture as a means to justify the ends (beating a guy half to death and breaking some fingers to find the location of the captured princess and free her)
The good person would not torture
the evil person would do it because he LIKES it.
If you are beginning a torture session with "Please, can I do it??" no amount of opening doors for the ladies is going to change the fact your evil.
If you are beginning a torture session with "Please, can I do it??" no amount of opening doors for the ladies is going to change the fact your evil.
So yeah, we're 100% sure he's on the evil axis, swinging between lawful and chaotic acts.
So I'm ruling as NE at this point.
But he doesn't do it because he likes it. He just happens to enjoy doing it when it needs to be done. There is a huge difference here.
It has been confirmed that he is EVIL. I don't know why people are still arguing that point. Again, we are in conflict of the LAW / CHAOS axis. Torture may be immoral or evil, but is it illegal? Many governments around the world use torture to gather information. Even the Catholic Church used torture to force people to confess to things they may have or have not done.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But he doesn't do it because he likes it. He just happens to enjoy doing it when it needs to be done. There is a huge difference here.
No, no. He definitely likes it. It's like seeing someone handing out coloring books when you're 4 and you're just really polite.
"Can... Can I have one?"
And then you COLOR THE HELL OUT OF IT.
Because it's not confirmed that he's evil any more than it is he is lawful.
On a scale I'd say he's around 55% towards evil. Clearly in the neutral range.
Law chaos axis is much less definite. I'd say he's about 65-75% lawful which means he's borderline neutral or lawful.
From the outside looking into dmitri, I'd agree he passes as neutral, which is great, because he's most certainly not.
Now, let me take a moment to explain here.
He's extremely chivalrous towards women.
Yes, extremely. This is out of respect for his church, and his respect for the women and succubi that raised him growing up.
He enjoys opportunistic sadism and masochism
He does, but all the same, he actively looks for moments where he can do it reasonably in consideration to the people present. He truly loves drawing blood, both for his own fetishes and because it is a way to worship his deity. (He even has the Endurance and Diehard feats)
He enjoys mindless killing
To be mindless is to be out of control and barbaric, and that fact only applies to Dmitri if a woman he's particularly fond of dies in combat (most likely an long-running NPC, a fellow PC, or any woman with a charisma score above 14, it depends on the situation how he'll run with it.)
Dmitri doesn't enjoy mindlessly killing, as death is a final release, which means no more pain, which means no more worship. Blood takes a back-seat to pain, and pain takes a back-seat to lust, and lust takes a back-seat to pleasing women.
He obeys his own laws only
Dmitri takes heavy consideration on his actions based on the local laws, and of course, is not going to openly have sex with anyone in public. The only way he would maim someone and brutally harm them is if they did anything to hurt a lady.
Examples:
Punching a lady = Getting savagely beaten till unconscious.
Verbally abusing a lady = He will recommend that the offender apologize.
Verbally abusing a lady again = He will offer the chance again with an intimidate chec.
Verbally- = He beats the crap out of you, and makes sure to leave at least one good memorable mark.
Killing a lady = All participating offenders are murdered.
The Death of a lady = Savaging ritual where he wounds himself in apology.
Other than that, he obeys all laws that don't conflict with his own code of "Women are more important"
Men-related facts
If Dmitri walks by an alley way, and a man is being mugged for his money screaming for assistance, he will simply keep walking and make passive thoughts about the dagger going in the man's shoulder blade.
If Dmitri walks by an alley way, and a man is mugging a woman for her money, Dmitri will go into that alleyway, and ask that the woman leave, properly wounding the man shortly after she leaves.
If Dmitri walks by an alley way, and sees a woman mugging a woman for her money, he would keep walking, as a small snippet of his code says that he should not meddle in the violent affairs of 2 women.
Dmitri, from the outside, may look as if he's neutral in his acts. From the inside looking out, however, he is certainly evil.
The only reason he looks particularly lawful is because I'm giving specific examples of situations and how he would react. There's plenty of variables, and if we really want to get down to the nit and grit of it, people are going to need to post more well-thought-out "Situations" for me to explain how he would react.
|
I'm not sure that his attitudes towards women really count as a code. You said he grew up around nothing but women and succubi-- no men whatsoever. So in his mind, men simply aren't people. It's not that he treats women well, it's that he treats people well-- and men don't count.
For every scenario you can come up with involving women and men, replace "woman" with "person" and "man" with, I don't know "dog", and see if Dmitri's reaction to that situation doesn't start to look a little more sensible.
As for whether or not he'd be enjoyable to share a party with, I say ABSOLUTELY NOT. With this many bizarre quirks and this elaborate of a backstory, he immediately warps the roleplaying in any encounter he comes across. Suddenly it's not about "how do we get the NPCs to let us cross the bridge" anymore, it's about "what will Joker McScytheSadist do this time and how will he try to justify it and how disturbed will we be by it and why didn't we just play Magic: the Gathering". You'd never be able to shake the feeling of "this guy next to me needs to see a psychiatrist if he wants to play as a character like this", and the guy playing him probably spend a good third of the session trying to explain why Dmitri is doing all these horrific/bizarre/schizophrenic things-- assuming we ever even get to the actual session once all the arguing about alignments is done.
Don't get me wrong, I think he's a compelling character. I think he'd make a great BBEG-- most players I know may not agree on his alignment but they'd all consider it an obligation to slay him once they saw what he's capable of-- but there's a difference between an interesting character and a character that's fun to share a table with.
Same alley, a woman mugging a man?
I'm not sure that his attitudes towards women really count as a code. You said he grew up around nothing but women and succubi-- no men whatsoever. So in his mind, men simply aren't people. It's not that he treats women well, it's that he treats people well-- and men don't count.
For every scenario you can come up with involving women and men, replace "woman" with "person" and "man" with, I don't know "dog", and see if Dmitri's reaction to that situation doesn't start to look a little more sensible.
As for whether or not he'd be enjoyable to share a party with, I say ABSOLUTELY NOT. With this many bizarre quirks and this elaborate of a backstory, he immediately warps the roleplaying in any encounter he comes across. Suddenly it's not about "how do we get the NPCs to let us cross the bridge" anymore, it's about "what will Joker McScytheSadist do this time and how will he try to justify it and how disturbed will we be by it and why didn't we just play Magic: the Gathering". You'd never be able to shake the feeling of "this guy next to me needs to see a psychiatrist if he wants to play as a character like this", and the guy playing him probably spend a good third of the session trying to explain why Dmitri is doing all these horrific/bizarre/schizophrenic things-- assuming we ever even get to the actual session once all the arguing about alignments is done.
Don't get me wrong, I think he's a compelling character. I think he'd make a great BBEG-- most players I know may not agree on his alignment but they'd all consider it an obligation to slay him once they saw what he's capable of-- but there's a difference between an interesting character and a character that's fun to share a table with.
1st bold: You're right on that point. He considers them "Usable"
2nd bold: Actually he's pretty compelling to be with. He takes the backseat "Alright I'm okay with this" in most encounters unless of course a woman is involved, and then what he does is based on what she's done. It's actually not as bad as you'd think.
3rd bold: You have no idea. He's TPK'd entire groups before. In RoTrL I had him become an NPC that directly served under Delvahine with plenty of fluff. Instead of the demons in the chamber, it was this guy, plenty of CR higher than those 3. The best part was he'd met the PC's plenty of times before AND THEY ACTUALLY LIKED HIM. Mind you the story got bended a bit, but I just had to find a way to work him in.
Same alley, a woman mugging a man?
Sees if she's having trouble. If she is: separate the 2, give her some gold, send her on her way. If she isn't, keep walking.
First: I would like to make, is that all cavalier's have a "code" via their order. They can be of any alignment, but certain orders tend to be for characters of certain alignments. Now view his "personal" code the same as one followed by a cavalier.
Second: He performs and delights in evil, irregardless, of how polite he is.
Third: Here are the OFFICIAL alignment definitions as given by the Core Rulebook:
Lawful Evil: A lawful evil villain methodically takes what he wants within the limits of his code of conduct without regard for whom it hurts. He cares about tradition, loyalty, and order, but not about freedom, dignity, or life. He plays by the rules but without mercy or compassion. He is comfortable in a hierarchy and would like to rule, but is willing to serve. He condemns others not according to their actions but according to race, religion, homeland, or social rank. He is loath to break laws or promises.
This reluctance comes partly from his nature and partly because he depends on order to protect himself from those who oppose him on moral grounds. Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.
Some lawful evil people and creatures commit themselves to evil with a zeal like that of a crusader committed to good. Beyond being willing to hurt others for their own ends, they take pleasure in spreading evil as an end unto itself. They may also see doing evil as part of a duty to an evil deity or master.
Lawful evil represents methodical, intentional, and organized evil.
Neutral Evil: A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusions that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn’t have the restless nature or love of conf lict that a chaotic evil villain has.
Some neutral evil villains hold up evil as an ideal, committing evil for its own sake. Most often, such villains are devoted to evil deities or secret societies.
Neutral evil represents pure evil without honor and without variation.
Chaotic Evil: A chaotic evil character does what his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are likely to be poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.
Chaotic evil represents the destruction not only of beauty and life, but also of the order on which beauty and life depend.
Nw with that stated, which do you see him as?
So yeah. Lawful evil.
Erm... All Demon Lords are Chaotic Evil. Their goals are related to murder, torture, destruction, corruption, and they are very likely to take pleasure from it. Zura takes the seduction route if I remember right. Not all are so forward about their goals, better raised by Zura than Jezelda or Pazuzu probably.
Hmm. The aspect of Making a deity is pretty good. I could make the new deity similar to zura, but essentially replace cannibalism with "the worship of women" and keep everything else. Even the bits about the succubi. Could play it off as them being sisters.
Just missing a sexy name...
Even the Succubus class has varied from edition or version. I believe some have been classed a type of devil rather than a demon. Also several examples I have seen have been LE. For a name, how about Sama?
I was thinking along the lines of Lilithaia. A play on words of the name Lilith. Or hell. I could just say Lilith.
A lawful cast out ex-demon lord. It would explain the succubi.
What makes him evil?
Sounds good
What makes him evil?
The sadism, masochism, manipulation of men like tools, worship of demon lords, bloodletting and caring not from where the blood flows. Willingness to destroy and dispoil that which he doesn't like, which happens to include things that are usually neutral, government, and normal interactions in some cultures. Those reasons count?
Ok, let's say you are a highly religious person who reguards angels as godly beings, and very important to you. You are out with your friend who knows this clearly about you, an angel shows up to take something from him. Your friend choses not to give it and creates an altercation in which he gets cut and manages to knock said angel out. You get furious with your friend and yell at him for attacking the angel and not just giving it the item. You appoligise to the angel on his behalf and give the angel what it came for.
This makes you evil?
A little yeah, but opinions vary.