Tarquin and Drosslmeyer

[CaDzilla]

Don't know if anybody has brought this up before, but Tarquin seems to be a Lawful Evil version of Drosslmeyer from Princess Tutu.

[martianmister]

Drosslmeyer isn't Lawful Evil?

[CaDzilla]

Drosslmeyer isn't Lawful Evil?

I read him as somewhere between CE and CN. He wants the characters to play their roles, but he does it purely for his own entertainment. He also accepts defeat gracefully and moves on.

How do you see him as LE?

[Dr. Gamera]

Drosslmeyer isn't Lawful Evil?

What's Lawful Evil about giving your goddaughter a nutcracker and casting Enlarge on it?



Drosslmeyer from Princess Tutu.

Ohh, wrong Drosselmeyer, never mind.

[Legato Endless]

I read him as somewhere between CE and CN. He wants the characters to play their roles, but he does it purely for his own entertainment. He also accepts defeat gracefully and moves on.

How do you see him as LE?

First, fantastic series that ought to be more well known.

Second, accepting defeat gracefully is not an inherently chaotic trait. Anyone can be petty and whine at a loss at any square of the alignment chart. More importantly, he's a fatalist. He's perfectly at peace with being someone else's character. The other characters can raise up against their lack of freedom, but he doesn't care so long as it's entertaining. That's a tacit acknowledgment of a value system over your own freedom. Second, while he does things for his own entertainment, there's also an underlying dogma to it. He honestly believes tragedy and suffering make an objectively superior work. He's probably more loyal to storytelling conventions than Tarquin, if equally narrow minded in his pursuit of a somewhat more sophisticated ideology.

[137beth]

This has got to be one of the weirdest suggestions of the month.

[Clove]

Drosslmyer loves the telling of stories, made more dramatic by the suffering of others. The story is its own end.

Tarquin loves himself, and sees stories as a means of understanding and thereby controlling his universe. Kind of like science in the real world.

I want to classify Drosslmyer as one of those wacky True-Neutral people. Just because you get satisfaction out of your belief system doesn't make you evil. If Duck found a way to circumvent her fate, Drosslmyer wouldn't be opposed to it so long as it made a good story.

[Legato Endless]

.
I want to classify Drosslmyer as one of those wacky True-Neutral people. Just because you get satisfaction out of your belief system doesn't make you evil.

If your belief system is based on the gleeful infliction of an endless cycle of torment upon others it does. It's predicated on using and abusing people trapped in a prison. That doesn't sound very neutral.

[Finagle]

If anyone had bothered to explain who Princess Tutu was, or the character of Drosselmayer, maybe I'd have an opinion.

*yawn*

[CaDzilla]

If anyone had bothered to explain who Princess Tutu was, or the character of Drosselmayer, maybe I'd have an opinion.

*yawn*

It's an anime. Drosselmeyer is the main villain. Here's the wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_Tutu). And if you don't have an opinion, then why did you post?

[Synar]

Actually, he had an opinion. His opinion seemed to be that you did not provide enough explanations and that it was beneath him to use google (or duck duck go). What? That is technically true.

Beside, you don't need to do evil "for the lulz" to be evil. You can do evil and be evil with perfectly good reasons, or reasons beyond your own personn. See redcloak, for example (even if he may be a poor example, since many will argue that he is acting for himself).

[Clove]

If your belief system is based on the gleeful infliction of an endless cycle of torment upon others it does. It's predicated on using and abusing people trapped in a prison. That doesn't sound very neutral.

I follow you, and agree somewhat. But I also disagree somewhat. It's a gray area.

I wouldn't say his belief system is based on the gleeful infliction of an endless cycle of torment upon others. "Based on" implies to me that he enjoys the torment for torment's sake. I think he enjoys the art of telling stories, and without trials and tests of character the story isn't interesting.

Hence, True Neutral. I'm thinking of the description of True Neutral as it applies to druids. All sorts of suffering occurs in nature, which druids could prevent. You could even relate to prey animals as being born into a system in which they have no choice and are like hostages or prisoners.

But True Neutral druids are in a different moral system.

I remember reading in the second edition players handbook, at the end of the description for True Neutral they simply say something like, "Its a very complex philosophical issue, but for our purposes we simply say it is so different it falls outside of the limited alignment system of this game and call it 'True Neutral'."

[Legato Endless]

I wouldn't say his belief system is based on the gleeful infliction of an endless cycle of torment upon others. "Based on" implies to me that he enjoys the torment for torment's sake. I think he enjoys the art of telling stories, and without trials and tests of character the story isn't interesting.


It's not a trial or a test though. The point is that they suffer and see their hopes and dream tragically fail. There's no passing. He enjoys telling stories. Stories are, to him, properly laced in tragedy. I think trying to delineate a difference here is too fine a distinction. If suffering is the best form of story, and he enjoys telling stories, then he enjoys the infliction in suffering. Just because it's a necessary component rather than some bizarre dedication as an abstraction, which DnD is certainly rife with, doesn't meaningfully change this as far as I can see.



Hence, True Neutral. I'm thinking of the description of True Neutral as it applies to druids. All sorts of suffering occurs in nature, which druids could prevent. You could even relate to prey animals as being born into a system in which they have no choice and are like hostages or prisoners.

My take on Druid true neutrality came from their reverence to nature's apathy. But that's still very different, if that's what you're going with. As far as I've understood it on the alignment axis in regard to this issue:

Good prevents harm.
Neutral does nothing either way largely.
Evil inflicts harm.

Here's my issue. In this metaphor, the Druid standing aloof isn't what Drosslmeyer is doing.

Drosslmeyer is bear-baiting. And then casting resurrection and doing it again and again. That's neutral?

[CaDzilla]

I now agree that Drosselmeyer is lawful, as he has the philosophy: "Happy stories suck, therefore tragedy is awesome"

[Domino Quartz]

I now agree that Drosselmeyer is lawful, as he has the philosophy: "Happy stories suck, therefore tragedy is awesome"

:smallconfused: How does that make him Lawful?

[CaDzilla]

:smallconfused: How does that make him Lawful?

The whole black/white dichotomy is pretty lawful. Though that probably just makes him NE.

[137beth]

The whole black/white dichotomy is pretty lawful. Though that probably just makes him NE.

Pretty sure if he is lawful then he can't also be NE, if you are using the standard D&D alignment system:smallwink: