In this case, Natasha and her friends.
Natasha is one of the “owners” of Catherine, who she decides to treat as a “pet” because she reminds her of a cat (hence the name CATherine). Natasha and her friends invite Catherine into the friend group and they all live together, but Catherine is treated badly there and Natasha makes a plan to kill Catherine.
She doesn’t see Catherine as a person, but as an actual animal, a tool, and a nuisance, and wants to badly mistreat her which ends up traumatizing her.
Fully 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 your own 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.
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.
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.