Lawful doesn’t mean “the law”, it means order and hierarchy. Members of a murderous gang would still be lawful evil, because there is a leader and middle management and entry level goons. They all have a role to play and understand that their success as individuals relies on the success of the group.
Comment on What D&D alignment would my character(s) be?
TheFogan@programming.dev 1 day agoFully agree that, well the actions are blatently evil. Would be evil even if Catherine were actually an animal. I’d say inflicting suffering on any being with no end goal other than to inflict suffering, is kind of 100% the definition of evil.
Where I disagree is the law/chaos axis being based on local laws. IE a paladin doesn’t suddenly become chaotic if he enters an evil nation that demands everyone to take part in sacrificing babies. To me that axis is always on whether you are more rigid in following the rules, you care about the way you get the results, rather than just the end result.
To me I would say, there’s not enough details in the story to gather long term opinions on Natasha, as IMO it’s more of an overarching concept of consistency. So with the information given, I’d rule
NE.
Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 1 day ago
FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 1 day ago
well, it epends on the person’s society and culture that they’re from. Natasha’s, not Catherine’s. If, for example, it was normalized like, say ancient rome- or basically anywhere else more than ~200 years ago- it could still be lawful. A foreign paladin coming from a land that had abolished slaves would be the odd one out; though if they do anything to stop it, they’d tip into neutral or chaotic good.
VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Really, the problem is labeling that axis law-chaos in the first place when it’s really order-chaos. We’re pretty much stuck with it now, though.