Chaotic Evil. What's wrong with it?

[PapaPetro]

I like the way this site puts it down:
https://www.easydamus.com/alignment.html

There is some leeway in interpreting each alignment, say "neutral", which can both represent a guy with no strong convictions, just doing what seems good to get by, and a guy
who gets all philosophical about maintaining balance, preaching moderation and being overtly critical of anything extreme.

When bunched with another alignment, I like to interpret "neutral" as being a blank which dials the other half of the character to 120%.

Similarly, an "evil" character will justify a whole bunch of actions, from the moronic biowarean trope of cackling and being mean to people for no reason, to simply always putting one's self interest first.

I think this variety of interpretation is necessary in the context of building a party. A Chaotic Neutral and a Lawful Neutral would find very little in common and this should serve
as a constant source of interpersonal tension. How to make them work together nonetheless? It's a good breeding ground for some comedy, but you don't always want that.
The logical and easy choice is to confront them with an even greater, extreme Evil, one that would threaten the identity of both of them on a fundamental level.

An interesting mental exercise would be if same could be achieved with an extreme Good. Perhaps the LN character will be offended by the perceived lack of efficiency
and promotion of mediocrity and find some common ground with the turbo-individualistic CN?

Now, the original question was about Chaotic Evil, which I think should be about as obnoxious a thing to fit in a party as Lawful Good.
My preferred approach is to have them both as "necessary evils", with plenty of personal tension due to the extreme nature of such characters,
basically these are guys everyone tiptoes around and grits their teeth because they are needed for a specific purpose, because they either set the tone for the entire ensemble,
or become that guy who sits alone by the campfire.

Of course, fantasy tropes being fantasy tropes, a LG questing paladin is always a tad easier to justify in a party than the CE guy.
What interest would they have in pursuing a noble adventure other than being forced to? Or perhaps just pursuing an own agenda which at the moment aligns with the rest of the party.

Yeah, that's the problem. How in the Nine Hells would a Chaotic Evil character fit in with a party which is comprised mostly of good characters? Either he would conceal his alignment and intentions, or he might be on the path to redemption. Maybe the party paladin agreed to help the Chaotic Evil guy redeem himself and abandon evil.
For example, Keldorn has some interesting dialogue with Sarevok (who is Chaotic Evil) concerning the path he has chosen and the suffering it brought him. Pretty interesting.

Easy. He's a subversive because that's what a chaotic evil person would do: not be honest about their intentions to the group because they are not bound to be honest nor do they morally care.
I would put it at the arbitrary flexibility of Moral Nihilists: you would find these kind people shitty in real life if they were your "friend" or "ally". They justify their evil by not carrying about justification to begin with.
A tenarii demon is a classic metaphysical example of this. You want that walking untrustworthy douchbag in your party?
Also covers flat out pyschos that develop such alien worldviews that the ethical logic is incomprehensible and absurd to others: like the insane guy that thinks killing people will logically turn himself into a deity (Bhaalspawn?)

 

[spectre]

Well, nobody really advertises themselves as a lying douchebag. Especially the lying douchebags. It's a bit different when you've got Baldur's Gate tropes stuck in the back of your head,
where you can always look up the character sheet: a'ight, motherfucker is Chaotic Good so it checks out. Or when everyone just remember alignments from reading the bestiary.

For the sake of more believable character psychology, I wonder how self conscious should in-game characters be about alignment (and a bunch of other things).
There was a time when I was inclined towards treating it more like star signs and horoscopes, but then again we're talking about a game world where spells like
Know Alignment exist, and being of a certain alignment carries mechanical repercussions, so some characters most definitely will.

What I'm getting at here, I think alignment should maybe be less of a permanent label that immediately hits you in the face - That guy over there is evil.
That's all there is to know about their behavior and motivations.
I realize people don't exactly play heroic fantasy for this kind of thing, but that's one way to kill off all the nuance.

Perhaps it could be something that should be discovered over a course of time and always treated with a bit of uncertainty - are all LG paladins created equal?
Will one LG paladin scold another for not being L enough? The other will then berate him for not being G?

This can easily bleed into a similar discussion about professions: This guy is obviously a rogue, see, he's wearing a hood. Y'all watch your pockets.
Then we have this guy: how do we assume he is Lawful Good, how do we know he's even a paladin?
Maybe he's a fallen paladin, or Maybe he's this close to not being able to get up.
He could be just a regular fighter in polished plate armor and a booming voice. They said they cast Bless on us, did all the right motions, but how does getting +1 to ThAC0 even feel like?

 

[PapaPetro]

What's the aim?
That's how you map which metaphysical direction they are going.

 

[boot]

I like the way this site puts it down:
https://www.easydamus.com/alignment.html

There is some leeway in interpreting each alignment, say "neutral", which can both represent a guy with no strong convictions, just doing what seems good to get by, and a guy
who gets all philosophical about maintaining balance, preaching moderation and being overtly critical of anything extreme.

When bunched with another alignment, I like to interpret "neutral" as being a blank which dials the other half of the character to 120%.

Similarly, an "evil" character will justify a whole bunch of actions, from the moronic biowarean trope of cackling and being mean to people for no reason, to simply always putting one's self interest first.

I think this variety of interpretation is necessary in the context of building a party. A Chaotic Neutral and a Lawful Neutral would find very little in common and this should serve
as a constant source of interpersonal tension. How to make them work together nonetheless? It's a good breeding ground for some comedy, but you don't always want that.
The logical and easy choice is to confront them with an even greater, extreme Evil, one that would threaten the identity of both of them on a fundamental level.

An interesting mental exercise would be if same could be achieved with an extreme Good. Perhaps the LN character will be offended by the perceived lack of efficiency
and promotion of mediocrity and find some common ground with the turbo-individualistic CN?

Now, the original question was about Chaotic Evil, which I think should be about as obnoxious a thing to fit in a party as Lawful Good.
My preferred approach is to have them both as "necessary evils", with plenty of personal tension due to the extreme nature of such characters,
basically these are guys everyone tiptoes around and grits their teeth because they are needed for a specific purpose, because they either set the tone for the entire ensemble,
or become that guy who sits alone by the campfire.

Of course, fantasy tropes being fantasy tropes, a LG questing paladin is always a tad easier to justify in a party than the CE guy.
What interest would they have in pursuing a noble adventure other than being forced to? Or perhaps just pursuing an own agenda which at the moment aligns with the rest of the party.

Yeah, that's the problem. How in the Nine Hells would a Chaotic Evil character fit in with a party which is comprised mostly of good characters? Either he would conceal his alignment and intentions, or he might be on the path to redemption. Maybe the party paladin agreed to help the Chaotic Evil guy redeem himself and abandon evil.
For example, Keldorn has some interesting dialogue with Sarevok (who is Chaotic Evil) concerning the path he has chosen and the suffering it brought him. Pretty interesting.

Maybe the Chaotic Evil character is simply a close friend of another character who overlooks their worst traits. Maybe the party needs them just to have a chance at whatever lies ahead. You could come up with reasons and roleplay appropriately.

 

[InD_ImaginE]

Maybe the Chaotic Evil character is simply a close friend of another character who overlooks their worst traits. Maybe the party needs them just to have a chance at whatever lies ahead. You could come up with reasons and roleplay appropriately.

The problem is not a setup, but the execution of an actual CE character in a party dynamic. You can "yadda yadda here is some rapist raider we absolutely need to get shit done due to reason" but what then? How should he acts in social scenario? Etc

In the end of the day there are a lot of way to play CE tho. An irrational revenge obsessed guy that would do ANYTHING to get his revenge including CE stuff can be CE without the guy having to be dysfunctional party member.

 

[Semiurge]

Chaotic Evil only works if you are Joker. THE Joker. Or as Harle Quinn call im: lil pudding~

Yeah, that's the thing, isn't it? The Joker. Singular. The Joker has no social structure he fits into. He doesn't really lead or fit into an organization. He's a lone clown, his only minions being those he has coerced into obedience by intimidation or chemicals. Eventually Batman punches him in the face and he goes back to the funny farm until the next episode. Chaotic Evil entities don't tend to exist in any kind of long-lasting, cohesive social structure. It's the kind of alignment you can be if you are a dragon, and can just burninate the countryside, the peasants, all the people, and their thatched-roof cottages, and not even care. It's not the kind of thing that leads to a future if you're a small, squishy creature that depends on the cooperation of other small, squishy creatures for success.

Are there good dragons in D&D to balance the evil ones? Anyway it seems like there should be because a dragon is a historic symbol of the forces of nature, of the universe itself.

There are.
Silver and gold dragons for example.

And apparently there is a rare chromatic dragon: pink. It's chaotic neutral, likes to tell jokes and its breath weapon is soap. Imagine the derpy-looking dragon's delight in guffawing at blinded adventurers who bump into each other and keep falling on their asses when they slip.

 

[Glop_dweller]

So wouldn't Lalo Salamanca qualify as a chaotic evil character?

There are scenes where he is charming, murderous, generous, benevolent, indifferent, respectful, insulting... each mood furthering his immediate goals. It's not his behavior that is defined by alignment, it is his lack of limits in how he can behave.

 

[PapaPetro]

So wouldn't Lalo Salamanca qualify as a chaotic evil character?

There are scenes where he is charming, murderous, generous, benevolent, indifferent, respectful, insulting... each mood furthering his immediate goals. It's not his behavior that is defined by alignment, it is his lack of limits in how he can behave.

Lawful Evil.
Bigtime Lawful Evil with lots of Charisma.
He wanted Empire for himself and not with God (An Evil Drug Empire). That's a trademark LE red flag.
I can imagine a non-Evil legal marijiana Drug Empire though.
Plus I've always thought Thieves Guilds were cool.

 

[laclongquan]

So wouldn't Lalo Salamanca qualify as a chaotic evil character?

There are scenes where he is charming, murderous, generous, benevolent, indifferent, respectful, insulting... each mood furthering his immediate goals. It's not his behavior that is defined by alignment, it is his lack of limits in how he can behave.

That description sound like Chaotic Neutral than Chaotic Evil.

A real CE doesnt waste time with "generous, benevolent,respectful". The best they can manage is indifferent. Those 3 positive things? No, it's not in their nature to behave even close to that kind.
+++Take Joker for instance. You think he's generous with money? No no, he's just indifferrent to that. You think he's benevolent to someone? No no, he's just a cat toying with that unsuspecting mouse, too bored to launch a strike but wanting to reserve a prey for a rainy day. You think he's respectful to someone (like, Batman for instance)? Naaaaah, he's just toying with that sucker, but faking that just to lure that sucker into showing weakness or opportunities.

This, this is the difficulty with the clowns out there. They want to emulate Chaotic Evil, but the best they can do is Chaotic Neutral. That's why I said they "pose".

 

[Glop_dweller]

That description sound like Chaotic Neutral than Chaotic Evil.

A real CE doesnt waste time with "generous, benevolent,respectful".

Lawful Evil.
Bigtime Lawful Evil with lots of Charisma.

It depends on their goals—and arbitrary mood of the moment. I don't see Lalo as Lawful—or neutral; he has [had] zero respect for the law... and little patience to play along with it even for gains. He does whatever occurs to him that leads toward his immediate purpose (or sometimes long term purposes) all of it usually evil...like eliminating bystanders whom he has no interest in (as a convenience), keeping a look-a-like neighbor; paying for his dental work (to match his own). That's future intent to kill entirely innocent "friends".

Chaotic Neutral (to me at least) implies ruthless, but not generally evil; one that could decide on a whim to let Nacho Varga, Fring, Saul, or other enemy walk free when he had them. Chaotic Neutral is Lord Gro.

 

[PapaPetro]

That description sound like Chaotic Neutral than Chaotic Evil.

A real CE doesnt waste time with "generous, benevolent,respectful".

Lawful Evil.
Bigtime Lawful Evil with lots of Charisma.

It depends on their goals—and arbitrary mood of the moment. I don't see Lalo as Lawful—or neutral; he has [had] zero respect for the law... and little patience to play along with it even for gains. He does whatever occurs to him that leads toward his immediate purpose (or sometimes long term purposes) all of it usually evil...like eliminating bystanders whom he has no interest in (as a convenience), keeping a look-a-like neighbor; paying for his dental work (to match his own). That's future intent to kill entirely innocent "friends".

Chaotic Neutral (to me at least) implies ruthless, but not generally evil; one that could decide on a whim to let Nacho Varga, Fring, Saul, or other enemy walk free when he had them. Chaotic Neutral is Lord Gro.

I didn't like Lalo because I didn't think he was morally justified. I hated him in this scene. This felt metareal (more real than real to me) to me because I felt for that innocent guy and his family; he was not playing their "game" and thus Lalo violated the rules.
You have some good arguments Glop.

He seems to act pragmatically (his own will and not God's good will, or follow someone/thing/gods' will). I would classify chaotic as that: to act unto one's own will/whimsy at an exclusionary level.
Lalo was by all means a fully fleshed out character if you get what I mean.

Under this definition, God (as pretty much everyone knows the concept/moral presupposition of Him) would be say He is Neutral Good in that he places Good (i.e. Himself, His Essence, that which He naturally Is) above above everything. It makes tautological-cicular sense since God would/should/is following His own Will and isn't chaotic or bound by someone else's will to do so. God has Free Will / Freedom / Aseity.
God has rights too. He's American.
...and He knows them.

So using the well understood/mentally (universally) translated concept of God mapped on to Neutral Good as a moral epistemic post for the D&D Alignment system, how would you classify Lalo now? CE? LE? NE? Because I don't think he's good at all (outside of being a groot (good+great) villain).

 

[Norfleet]

I don't see Lalo as Lawful—or neutral; he has [had] zero respect for the law...

I don't know this specific character, but "Lawful" isn't the same as "law-abiding", but rather, orderly. A lawful (evil) character has patterns of behavior that are governed by rules. Rules possibly his own making, but rules nonetheless, and he will strongly trend towards following said rules even if this isn't entirely to his advantage. He believes in certain rules (don't lie, don't kill children, respect holy ground, etc), even if the rest of his behavior deviates wildly from goodness. A Neutral character is more purely pragmatic. He'll lie, cheat, steal, murder, etc., but only if he thinks this will actually benefit him. A Chaotic character acts on bellyfeels and lulz. He'll stab an old lady in broad daylight in front of witnesses just because he thought this was amusing, and the consequences of such an act are entirely secondary. The Joker does shit because it's funny, and doesn't really seem to care if this ends up detrimental to him personally. For obvious reasons, such a character is very difficult to have in a party, especially a good one, since he is essentially a loose cannon that will regularly do things harmful to the party's, or even his own, interests.

Chaotic Neutral (to me at least) implies ruthless, but not generally evil; one that could decide on a whim to let Nacho Varga, Fring, Saul, or other enemy walk free when he had them. Chaotic Neutral is Lord Gro.

Chaotic Neutral is basically insane or entirely impulse-driven. Their impulses don't generally drive them to murder innocents, but that's ultimately the only real difference between them and Chaotic Evil, that the voices in their head telling them what to do are more whimsical than malignant. They're probably more inclined towards vandalism, petty theft, and jaywalking, rather than rape, robbery, and murder. Ultimately the only thing that separates a Chaotic Neutral from Chaotic Evil is that CNs don't actually derive joy from the suffering from others, so they don't tend to be driven to do these things. But they aren't rules-driven, restrained individuals. A Lawful Evil character may enjoy killing people, but he won't do it, even if he can get away with it, because his rules tell him that he needs a reason to do it. Give him that reason and he'll have you flayed alive. A Chaotic Evil character will just kidnap somebody off the streets and flay him alive in a sex dungeon for the lulz. A Chaotic Neutral character just doesn't enjoy such a thing so is never driven to do this, but it's not because of any superior impulse control that he doesn't.

Good/Evil are essentially the nature of the character, and Law/Chaos is how they manage it internally. Lawful characters repress those impulses, Chaotic characters are run by them.

 

[PapaPetro]

Good/Evil are essentially the nature of the character, and Law/Chaos is how they manage it internally.

That's an interesting framing. I have to think about this.
Which metaphysically would map to the soul, and which would map to the spirit?
Like is movement toward Good/Evil and Law/Chaos a noetic or spiritual endeavor or a combined effort?

"Metaphysics" isn't a scary word it just means beyond movement; like moving beyond the concept itself but including the concept too. Think of it as metareal physics.
Like if Movement is to Physics is what MetaMovement is to MetaPhysics (hey that SAT analogia prep finally payed off).
It's just a semio-semantic prefix container (semantics+semiotics) in Linguistic Systems.

 

[Glop_dweller]

I don't know this specific character, but "Lawful" isn't the same as "law-abiding", but rather, orderly. A lawful (evil) character has patterns of behavior that are governed by rules.

Lawful Evil is (by some accounts) someone who would exploit the letter of the law to their own gain (no matter how vicious) —simply because it'll work, and they're left in the clear; quite possibly enjoying the pain that it causes.

By other accounts it's a person who follows some (possibly twisted) quasi-ethical code, which may or might include generally preferring to keep their word if they gave it to someone (or as a show for someone else) whom they respect, and/or if not actually ruinous to themselves, or could possibly renege on their word if the situation is unwitnessed; like a stooge's last payment being a bullet.

Question: Do you agree with this?

 

[Semiurge]

I don't know this specific character, but "Lawful" isn't the same as "law-abiding", but rather, orderly. A lawful (evil) character has patterns of behavior that are governed by rules.

Lawful Evil is (by some accounts) someone who would exploit the letter of the law to their own gain (no matter how vicious) —simply because it'll work, and they're left in the clear; quite possibly enjoying the pain that it causes.

By other accounts it's a person who follows some (possibly twisted) quasi-ethical code, which may or might include generally preferring to keep their word if they gave it to someone (or as a show for someone else) whom they respect, and/or if not actually ruinous to themselves, or could possibly renege on their word if the situation is unwitnessed; like a stooge's last payment being a bullet.

Question: Do you agree with this?

The Man Without A Name doesn't seem particularly lawful to me, he's too independent.

Question: Does your character like taking orders and obeying rules set by others?

If the answer is yes = Lawful
"Maybe", "depends" etc. = Neutral
No = Chaotic

But, rules and codes set by the character itself muddle things a bit. Are they subject to change on a whim? Either way, I'm partial to thinking that it's the relationship with external rules and factors that define a character's alignment.

Another question: Is the character willing to cause harm to others as it completes its objectives?

Same answers apply, only this time it's about whether they're Evil, Neutral or Good, in that order.

My opinion is that most humans are neutral, either LN or TN. Unconditional goodness is a rare virtue, and even just CN hints at sociopathy or other antisocial tendencies, not to mention the Evil territory.

 

[muckguppy]

Stupid is as stupid does

 

[PapaPetro]

What gods do Chaotic Evil gods worship?

 

[Semiurge]

What gods do Chaotic Evil gods worship?

Themselves.

 

[Norfleet]

Lawful Evil is (by some accounts) someone who would exploit the letter of the law to their own gain (no matter how vicious) —simply because it'll work, and they're left in the clear; quite possibly enjoying the pain that it causes.

Weaponization of law is definitely a Lawful Evil behavior, yes. If they're a supporter of the law of the land in their internal rules, they'll most certainly behave this way. But the idea that Lawful is strictly defined as "following the law of the land" is obviously bollocks, as a Lawful Good Paladin is not going to suddenly start obeying a law that requires him to murder a baby every day just because the local law demands it.

By other accounts it's a person who follows some (possibly twisted) quasi-ethical code, which may or might include generally preferring to keep their word if they gave it to someone (or as a show for someone else) whom they respect, and/or if not actually ruinous to themselves, or could possibly renege on their word if the situation is unwitnessed; like a stooge's last payment being a bullet.

Adherence to a code, not necessarily YOUR code, is definitely a Lawful behavior. A character that regularly reneges on their deals is not what would be considered especially lawful behavior, although this should be taken within the context of their wider patterns. A character that has that as a defining trait is probably more Neutral than Lawful, but characters shouldn't be expected to necessarily be paragons of their alignment, either. It's a loose-fit, not a straitjacket.

But, rules and codes set by the character itself muddle things a bit. Are they subject to change on a whim? Either way, I'm partial to thinking that it's the relationship with external rules and factors that define a character's alignment.

Not necessarily externally-imposed, but one that can be DEFINED and is pro-social. If someone's "rules" are nebulous and made-up on the fly by themselves, altered at whim, and for personal "benefit", they are non-lawful. If the rules are fundamentally all antisocial, they're not Lawful, either. These rules may be incongruent with what is accepted by the wider world, but they're still pro-social rules: A code of Omerta, for instance, is still a pro-social rule that promotes the interests of the group at the expense of the individual. A rule where the character eats a baby every Tuesday because the voices in his head told him to do so, isn't. A Lawful character's code of conduct creates an orderly society if it is appiled to everyone, if not necessarily a GOOD one.

What gods do Chaotic Evil gods worship?

Gods don't usually worship other gods. If other gods exist in their pantheon, they're probably trying to overthrow them and seize sole power. Chaotic evil entities don't generally form long-term cooperative relationships.

 

[Glop_dweller]

But the idea that Lawful is strictly defined as "following the law of the land" is obviously bollocks, as a Lawful Good Paladin is not going to suddenly start obeying a law that requires him to murder a baby every day just because the local law demands it.

That would be Lawful Neutral, or Evil.

I agree in principle, but there are interpretations where a lawful neutral character might do just that (and possibly hate it) —because it's the law of the land they are presently in. Respect for the law is (and requires) respect for the people. It may be that a lawful character finds themselves in a village of cannibals, or goblins, or a bandit society, or a cave of neanderthals (past or modern equivalent). This might influence —any— lawful character to some extent, as to what they will do within the demands of the local law; their personal ethics aside.

Most people wouldn't do it... but what if the law pays a debt that (or otherwise) keeps the rest of the population unharmed.
Do you remember the Star Trek episode where they visit a society who is at war with an enemy nation, and both sides have agreed not to use real bombs so long as both sides adhere to a pact of virtual casualties from virtual bombs... where the citizens who are listed as dead, report for euthanasia.

So what happens when the lawful character holds or controls the fate of a condemned in this place. Do they let them escape, or do they turn them in? (...accepting the consequences to others for their choice).

This is also the plot of Logan's Run, where the main character's job is to terminate runners who have been legally summoned to be executed.

The Man Without A Name doesn't seem particularly lawful to me, he's too independent.

He clearly uses the law to his benefit; as in this scene below, where he goads the men to draw guns upon him so that killing them becomes legal; self defense...even though he had already passed them by (and could have dropped the issue, or later shot them all in the back with out risking a fight against four shooters).

 

[Fedora Master]

There is nothing that says alignment and reason don't mix, or that characters have to have a 100% consistent world view. Real people don't even have that.

Drasek Riven, classed as Neutral Evil, still has a soft spot for dogs and is willing to go out of his way to help them for example. Chaotic simply means a rejection of authority and Evil specifies the methods one finds acceptable. The entire Blood War is the result of a disagreement over methods on the Lawful side. Prime Material sentient beings are specifically NOT slaves to the alignment axioms so even a Chaotic Evil character can make rational decisions. Same with Chaotic Neutral. Neither alignments are necessarily self-destructive.

 

[Glop_dweller]

Drasek Riven, classed as Neutral Evil, still has a soft spot for dogs and is willing to go out of his way to help them for example.

Lalo seems —occasionally— the same:


______________________________

We can all agree that the Joker is Chaotic Evil.

 

[Norfleet]

I agree in principle, but there are interpretations where a lawful neutral character might do just that (and possibly hate it) —because it's the law of the land they are presently in.

It's certainly possible to play Lawful Neutral that way, yes. But it's not a strict definition: You don't HAVE to be that way to be Lawful Neutral.

He clearly uses the law to his benefit; as in this scene below, where he goads the men to draw guns upon him so that killing them becomes legal; self defense...even though he had already passed them by (and could have dropped the issue, or later shot them all in the back with out risking a fight against four shooters).

Yeah, but does this represent a consistent pattern of behavior? Hard to say, not enough of a sample size. If rules-lawyering were a consistent facet of his character, this would be a strongly Lawful bent. As a one-shot that simply keeps him personally out of trouble, hard to say if this is an actual guiding tenet.

Prime Material sentient beings are specifically NOT slaves to the alignment axioms so even a Chaotic Evil character can make rational decisions. Same with Chaotic Neutral. Neither alignments are necessarily self-destructive.

Obviously, people don't need to be 100% aligned to an axis to fit the bill. However, Chaotic Evil is still a fundamentally self-destructive alignment: those people have a pronounced tendency to go to prison, because they do not really embrace any pro-social values and therefore are ill-suited to functioning in society: They're forced to wear a mask to function at all, and anytime that masks slips, they go to jail. Which won't generally be too long: an intelligent, non-insane person doesn't generally be chaotic evil in the first place: Being chaotic involves a certain level of impulsiveness that is at odds with intelligence, so someone who is Chaotic Evil probably isn't the sharpest tool in the shed: He will slip up sooner or later, stabbing someone in a fit of pique or something.

 

[Glop_dweller]

About post #64, if you disagree—what with, and how so? There are two observations and one question in that post.

 

[PapaPetro]

Gods don't usually worship other gods

Every god serves but One God. That's a Ontological Fact.