But the angel came for something your friend was unwilling to give. Then the angel reacted harshly, leading to the physical altercation. Now you have sided with the trouble-maker over your friend and ally.
The sadism
his sadism is stemmed. He doesn't go out to hurt people. He gets permission or waits till he is crossed/attacked. If someone attacked me, I would enjoy inflicting pain on them. Let me be clear if someone hurts me or someone I love, I enjoy seeing them hurt.
masochism
Nothing evil with taking pleasure from your own pain...
manipulation of men like tools
Good manipulates people all the same...
worship of demon lords
chosing to worship someone you don't like is evil, interesting.
bloodletting and caring not from where the blood flows
curing people of illness or disease is evil? (look up bloodletting)
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.
Good heros are often "willing" to destroy and "dispoil" evil, something they don't like. In fact this game is kind of based on that idea...
It's all about context, he clearly and avidly does not randomly attack/destroy/kill anything that he doesn't "need" to.
But the angel came for something your friend was unwilling to give. Then the angel reacted harshly, leading to the physical altercation. Now you have sided with the trouble-maker over your friend and ally.
No my friend was acting harshly by not giving the ANGEL what it was asking for.
Well, I'm just going to leave a block of text I guess.
Theres a big difference in taking pleasure in hurting people for the sake of it and for vengeance. I don't take pleasure in either one of those. Demon Lords are explicitly evil, its not that I don't like them, its that lamashtu demanding babies to be sacrificed and Jezelda wanting her followers to feast upon a fresh killed prey(of your own kin) might be seen as horrendously evil. Bloodletting also means to fight and cuase injury or death(Zura likes bloodshed herself), and when I play good I try not to manipulate people. Good fights evil because evil is going out of its way to do the aforementioned, so it may be slightly more understandable to do it becuase of the obvious immidiate harm than because doing it for the sake of doing it.
The angel and your friend obviously had an issue, the best resolution was to talk about it over a fine desert. I suggest something with strawberries for a good sweet enjoyment.
No my friend was acting harshly by not giving the ANGEL what it was asking for.
Again, by asking, the angel gave your friend a choice. Your friend said no. It's called free will, look it up. By continually trying to get the item in question, the angel is provoking your friend. The difference between proking and persuading is the outcome. Essentually they are one in the same. By knocking the angel out, your friend demonstrated his force of will over the angel's. By scolding your friend and taking the item from him to give to the angel, You have successfully oppressed his free will. Your friend is not evil, but no you are leaning that.
replace angel with starving child and item with apple...
The results are the same. Irregardless of the motives. NPC asks for item (specific to PC or not). PC says no. NPC persists resulting in altercation. NPC isknocked out by PC. You scold PC and take item that PC refused to give willingly from the PC and give it to NPC that started confrontation. You are oppressing the free will of the other PC.
Yes, I'm going to "oppress the free will" of my friend if he is knocking out children asking for food.
And actually oppressing free will is lawful out of the 4 alignments.
An angel that can't take no for an answer is one that is willing to rape or murder.
The angel is the one on the way to falling, not the guy that isn't willing to give over personal property just cause someone else told him to.
Also changing it to 'starving child' and 'apple' is a perfect example of moving the goal posts. In order for that to be an apt comparison the angel would need to be literally in a position of needing the item in question to live, which I highly doubt.
Now on to the guy in question: He seems to not go out of his way to inflict problems and pain on people, but will do so with relish when given the choice. He wants to go his own way and leave people to go their own way. He doesn't go out of the way to help people nor do he seem to go out of his way to hurt people (though if given a reason to do so will hurt them to maximum effect). He worships an evil goddess, but that doesn't make one evil -- receiving power from her does mean he's not good though.
Honestly this guy sounds CN to me.
Moving the goal posts is where one finds where the line is.
I would assume that if the angel comes to me and asks for an item that the angel needs it. Even just being a little religious as I am, I would give it to the angel if I could (the initial comparison was monitary so I would give that).
Does he receive power from her?
Moving the goal posts is where one finds where the line is.
I would assume that if the angel comes to me and asks for an item that the angel needs it. Even just being a little religious as I am, I would give it to the angel if I could (the initial comparison was monitary so I would give that).
Does he receive power from her?
But it wasn't you that was asked, it was your friend that was and the decision is his to make. Not giving it up is his choice, the angel can make its case but simply taking it from him wouldn't be a good act, and attacking him for it would be mugging him.
If you came to me and stated you needed something that I have that's alright, but I am under no obligation to actually give it to you simply because you insist you need it. If you persist and I start to fill threatened I might point out that if you continue to pester me I will respond violently. If you do persist then I react violently but non-lethally I would say you had been fairly warned. If you attack me and I leave you alive but unconscious you should consider yourself lucky.
My understanding is Dmitri is an inquisitor (speaking as to his class). If not he's free to worship as he likes -- people in the real world claim a religion all the time without actually paying attention to everything involved, instead just cherry picking the parts that support their positions. As such I find it hard to believe that a fantasy world wouldn't do the same.
I don't always make alignment questioning topics, but when I do, the character is slightly crazy, yet lawfully evil, and we eventually talk about angels...
My ruling is LE, and a new deity is being specifically for this, as Zura's cannibalism is apparently important to her worship.
So yeah. All hail Lilith, Zura's much more self-entitled sister.
Well said. I believe even with the child/apple instance, that the friend still has the right to say no. If the child attacks, it could be argued that out of depravation cause it to do as such. Even still the friend has a right to defend himself. The goal posts haven't moved, it was the perspective has changed. A goal post is a stationary object, it's the team that moves.
|
I don't know. If the thing the angel needs is a cure for a plague killing another world, or a gem that needs to be destroyed to free the soul trapped inside, or something like that...I think the angel is in the clear to use force. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" and all that, and at some points refusing to give an item can be willfully evil acts of the worst sort. Otherwise, Good is too easily rendered impotent to actually do anything. It'd be like a firefighter being unable to enter a burning building to save someone because the superintendant won't let him in.
One would hope the angel would communicate why he needs that item so much though.
I may not be explaining the angel senerio as I tried, but the starving child one I think is closer to what I was trying to get accross.
Edit: Makaze seems to see the point I was trying to get accross.
I missed Dmitri being an inquisitor, this would make him clearly NE or or CN unless the deity changes as was posted a few posts back. Once it changes to Lilith, he could still be LN.
Well said. I believe even with the child/apple instance, that the friend still has the right to say no. If the child attacks, it could be argued that out of depravation cause it to do as such. Even still the friend has a right to defend himself. The goal posts haven't moved, it was the perspective has changed. A goal post is a stationary object, it's the team that moves.
To move the goal posts is to change the situation after someone has already broken your argument in order to make your argument valid again.
In this case we were given a situation where an angel showed up and demanded someone from someone with apparently no interest in trading for it and persistence in demands when told no -- to put it another way a man walked up to a woman demanded something and didn't take no for an answer.
Now we are being told it was needed to save a life (or multiple lives) -- this doesn't make the act right or good though, just possibly necessary.
Here's the thing though -- good has limits it will not pass in order to obtain its goals. After all that's the major difference between good and evil -- evil will do whatever it takes to achieve what it wants where good will not.
Now in the later situation (the life saving one) not giving the item is neutral -- if the angel really wants it then the angel should offer a trade or seek to borrow instead of just take or have.
As a rule I'm much more likely to loan something for a 'good' cause than I am to simply give it away for the same cause.
Also there is a bit of a difference between an apple, and something of significant value like a potent magic item (as opposed to a minor one like a potion of cure light wounds or at higher levels a wand or some such).
As always the devil is in the details.
People keep confusing lawful with legal.
Lawful is disciplined, steady, and true.
One may follow the laws of his recognized liege lord, but not necessarily the laws of the neighboring fiefdom.
He's made a promise or given his word, if hes lawful he WILL follow through.
That doesn't necessarily mean he's going to follow an agreement or a rule someone else made.
A paladin doesn't necessarily give up his weapon because in the land of the goblin lords, anyone who isnt a goblin isn't allowed to have a weapon.
So whether or not torture or whatever this guy is doing is "legal" is irrelevant.
He doesn't follow a predictable pattern, follows his whims, listens to strange music only he can here.
The Guy is chaotic.
Neutral evil is evil for evils sake.
That's not him.
He's Chaotic Evil with a quirky personality, which makes he all the more chaotic.
|
I don't know. If the thing the angel needs is a cure for a plague killing another world, or a gem that needs to be destroyed to free the soul trapped inside, or something like that...I think the angel is in the clear to use force. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" and all that, and at some points refusing to give an item can be willfully evil acts of the worst sort. Otherwise, Good is too easily rendered impotent to actually do anything. It'd be like a firefighter being unable to enter a burning building to save someone because the superintendant won't let him in.
One would hope the angel would communicate why he needs that item so much though.
Would that make it OK for players to execute or mug good guys to get better gear to better fight evil, that the ends justify the means?
He's made a promise or given his word, if hes lawful he WILL follow through.
That doesn't necessarily mean he's going to follow an agreement or a rule someone else made.
As this guy does.
He doesn't follow a predictable pattern, follows his whims, listens to strange music only he can here.
Just because he is the only one that understands his rules, doesn't mean they aren't there. Once the rules are seen, he is a pretty predictible guy and doesn't follow his own whims at all.
He seems extreemly disciplined to me.
|
|
@Abraham: I agree on Good having limits and devils in details, but I don't think I can get behind labelling withholding aid as neutral as an absolute, especially if it's clear that doing so would allow harm.
Of course that's possibly partly because this is reminding me of a thread from way back where someone tried to stretch Neutral to its limit with "could a N person stand by and watch while happened?" It got a bit scary fairly quick.
Would that make it OK for players to execute or mug good guys to get better gear to better fight evil, that the ends justify the means?
No.
There's a difference between not standing by and just letting evil happen unopposed and going full tilt murderhobo.
Lawful by definition is legal.
Lawful:Conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules
Lawful doesn't always mean ethical or moral. Lawful is generally disciplined and organized (i.e. monk class prerequisite).
If someone comes to take something that's rightfully yours (unless you're using it for evil), that's theft (an act of evil), and if your friend helps that person, that's an act of evil, and if that's the typical attitude, their alignment is also evil.Cannibalism is extremely evil unless they only limit themselves to those who die of natural causes. Enjoying harming and killing is usually evil.
Taking sometthing from someone else is unlawful, not evil. I can't believe how many people confuse the two. It is against most laws to steal. The reason why you stole determines whether or not it is evil.
Cannilbalism is only "evil" in the sight of those who don't understand mostly ancient tribal cultures or people who think that they are "more civilized". Eating the flesh (cannibalism), especially the heart, of a slain warrior was thought to consume the power, soul or ki of that warrior, thus granting the consumer the eaten's power. Just because it is "uncivilized" doesn't make it evil.
|
|
Cannilbalism is only "evil" in the sight of those who don't understand mostly ancient tribal cultures or people who think that they are "more civilized". Eating the flesh (cannibalism), especially the heart, of a slain warrior was thought to consume the power, soul or ki of that warrior, thus granting the consumer the eaten's power. Just because it is "uncivilized" doesn't make it evil.
While I wouldn't classify all* forms of cannibalism as evil, consumption(and destruction) of souls is something that absolutely would be.
*Hannibal Lector, sure, evil. Tibetan monks making medicine from the bones of their dead, no.
Maori (Polynesian tribes) warrior consumed the flesh of their fallen foes believing that they grew in physical or martial prowess by doing so. Monks making medicine from bones is in no way related to cannibalism.
stuff
I find it hilarious that you're making all these 100% black and white pronouncements about all these other people find grey areas being totally and completely evil in your mind, but you think someone who's good, even chaotic good, can torture and kill people for their crimes. The death penalty is neutral at best, I'd say, but if a good society does it grudgingly, I'm not immediately calling that society non-good. Torture, however, has no place in a good person or society's moral code. I think you're tending toward neutral, yourself :)
Overall to the OP, I'd say your character is pretty much true neutral. He doesn't go out of his way to help people, but doesn't go out of his way to harm them in most situations, either. He doesn't lash out at people who don't share his beliefs, except for a couple corner cases. Narcissism and masochism don't have an appreciable effect on determining alignment.
Another note - adherence to a personal code does NOT equal lawful. Everyone besides some insane people have a personal code. Barring insanity that makes one completely unpredictable, it is 100% impossible for someone to not have a personal code. Even the conviction to do whatever you feel like at a given time is a code - in fact that's the textbook definition of Chaotic Neutral. Lawful/Chaotic is the extent to which you worry about following the codes of society.
The argument is going around in circles.
One can not argue specific points and generalities. IE It snows in New England during winter. Point of fact! Well it didn't snow on Jan. 17th so I don't see how you can say it snows in new England during the winter.
An other example This person was going to stab my mother in the face with a knife so I shot him. Not evil. Know change stab in face with kiss on the check. That would make it an evil act. So changing the details matters a whole lot.
In most cases it boils down to intent behind the act.
Another note - adherence to a personal code does NOT equal lawful.
Personal, maybe not. But they follow a code that is specific to them, their history, training/heritage, etc.
Lawful characters will show obediance to authority, but to their authority, not some random "laws of the land" that they travel to. If the laws don't conflict with their true authority, they will respect them.
Their authority is open to interpretation. It could be their god, their leige, a parent, or simply an ideal that they follow.
If there is a law or rule that a lawful person doesn't agree with, he/she would either try to change the law, or leave the land. A chaotic person would overthrow the authority. A neutral person just breaks the law.
Obviously these are the extreme examples and not every chaotic or lawful person has to handle every situation the same way every time.
Even following the code of a specific religion doesn't mean you're specifically lawful, or else there wouldn't be chaotic religions. The personal code of a devoted worshiper of Cayden Cailean is to live free, do good, be brave, and get drunk. Following the code doesn't make him lawful.
Following the laws of the land while you travel would make you chaotic. You can't just willy nilly change how you act due to being in a new area.
Lets say a lawful person is from an area where slavery is against the law. If they, in their travels, went to a place where slavery was allowed, they would not buy a slave (unless to take them out of the land and free them).
If they changed their ideals and decided to get a slave, this would show adaptability and flexibility, two traits of a chaotic person.
|
|
Following the laws of the land while you travel would make you chaotic. You can't just willy nilly change how you act due to being in a new area.
Lets say a lawful person is from an area where slavery is against the law. If they, in their travels, went to a place where slavery was allowed, they would not buy a slave (unless to take them out of the land and free them).
If they changed their ideals and decided to get a slave, this would show adaptability and flexibility, two traits of a chaotic person.
Lawful tend to respect legitimate laws of any land so they would seek to be law abiding while abroad. They may find their homelands laws to be better but they still respect the rule of law. I do not seek to get alcohol in a state that restricts it on sunday even though i can in my home state. i respect that that is the law and obey
|
|
stuffNarcissism and masochism don't have an appreciable effect on determining alignment.
Narcissism is putting yourself as most important to a crazy degree too often, barring you from the altruism needed to be a good aligned character. neutral sure but hard to argue that as a trait of a good character
Narcissism is putting yourself as most important to a crazy degree too often, barring you from the altruism needed to be a good aligned character. neutral sure but hard to argue that as a trait of a good characterstuffNarcissism and masochism don't have an appreciable effect on determining alignment.
No, narcissism is thinking you are better than everyone else. In fact, one's narcissism could even be rooted in the fact that they think they are the best, smartest leader in the world in order to bring peace and prosperity to the inferior masses. Good, and narcissistic.
His Narcissism only applies in men. He considers himself inferior to women.
|
Non-good is obvious. Evil pretty much is, as he does enjoy inflicting pain and does not really care if it happens to innocents.
Pretty much Lawful I would say, as he aims to become the most perfect tool that his church mandates.
No Chaotic person ever wants to become a tool. And no Neutral person pursues it with such a zeal.
I am wondering what would happen if a high-CHA woman asked him to kill a low-CHA woman, especially if the latter is one of his friends (or even a loved one).
So, i'm going to wrap this up, as I'm pretty astute about how I'd play him. This was all to, of course, fix up the character and prune off whatever would most definitely cause him to be disruptive to a party, while at the same time, keep what was golden.
With that...
= Dmitri doesn't harm women unless he absolutely has to.
= Dmitri is Sadistic, as the enemies blood is an offering.
= Dmitri is Masochistic, as his own blood is valuable.
= Dmitri does not enjoy killing, because it ends pain.
= Dmitri seeks positive closure with hostile women.
= Dmitri places himself above other men.
= Dmitri places himself beneath women.
= Dmitri considers his submission the ultimate form of worship.
= Dmitri worships Lilith, exiled sister of Zura.
= Dmitri considers succubi direct daughters of Lilith.
= Succubi to Dmitri are what Trumpet Archons are to Paladins.
= Dmitri obeys Lilith's direct code as his laws.
= Dmitri ritualistically wounds himself if he breaks Liliths Law.
= Dmitri hates public vulgarity, and is rather polite.
= Dmitri openly despises female abominations.
= Dmitri does not support conflict between women.
= Dmitri considers female blood the equivalent of holy water.
= Dmitri views beauty as a ranking system.
= Dmitri doesn't insult women on purpose, but he is blunt.
= Dmitri will wound women if they're willing to be so.
= Dmitri is evil, and does enjoy the finer things in life.
= Dmitri doesn't openly pursue wealth. Simply women, renown, and bloodletting.
= Dmitri is very polite to all people, but his thoughts are vile and evil in the case of men.
= Dmitri places his forms of worship among a hierarchy. See below.
= Obedience and pleasing of Women > Drawing his own blood > Drawing blood.
= Dmitri is extremely charitable to women in need.
= Dmitri is not charitable to the worst-looking male homeless person.
So yeah. There's that. (Considering writing out the Laws of Lilith on another topic. Hmm....)
(Also, to answer your question, he would not kill her. He isn't supportive of women killing women, or the death of women. I know I stated differently earlier, but the new things are concrete and aren't changing.)
Dot.
neutral people dont just break laws.
Just about anyone will follow a law for fear of being punished for breaking it.
A neutral person will disregard what he thinks he can get away with (like a california rolling stop) because he has no care for the law one way or another.
A lawful person will follow laws out of respect for an organized society, not necessarily because he believes the law is right, but rather picking and choosing ones laws is a break down of society in the making.
Structure and discipline is the fiber of a lawful person, not what is legal or illegal, Again a Paladin isn't going to Follow a law that requires him to do foolish things (like a law that out laws paladins)
Devils don't cease to be lawful because they refuse to surrender their weapons to the town guard who order their surrender.
Was that in response to the newly posted code, Pendagast?
Well the fact that you openly state he is evil (though enjoying the finer things in life doesn't make one evil...) means that part of his alignment is set, after that I would suggest neutral as he's not so much focused on destruction as he is on selfishness.
At the same time though, he's selfless when it comes to women, and is rather focused on pleasing his gods.
Would you say Neutral Evil with Lawful Tendencies?
|
|
A lawful person will follow laws out of respect for an organized society, not necessarily because he believes the law is right, but rather picking and choosing ones laws is a break down of society in the making.
With the caveat that the laws (or more exactly the traditions, ie how people have always done things aka the good old ways) of his own culture will be what guides him in all things.
He will try to respect the letter of the law because he definitely does not want to weaken the system (what you said) but the rules of his culture come first.
With that in mind, I really find him bona fide Lawful (even though at first glance, I had pegged him Chaotic).
He had trouble seeing much evil in this character besides some fetishes.
Aside from the whole demon-worshipping thing, sure... (Rolls eyes)
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?
No. This guy is a train wreck clinging to his "treats women well" as a crutch to excuse the rest of his deplorable behavior. Yeah, it's great how enlightened he is in his treatment towards succubi. You know, those demonic entities that seek the destruction of mortals through lust and carnal pleasures twisted to destructive ends. Yeah, that's a tough code to follow....
This is like saying the Joker isn't CE because he occasionally shows Harley Quinn an unintended kindness.
This has been an interesting thread to see how much deplorable behavior is being hand-waved away by one or two (minor) tenets of decent behavior. That makes the character a believable, three-dimensional villain, but he's a villain all the same. If I were a PC in a game, I would LOVE bringing this jerk to justice after he'd been established as an adversary in the game.