PDA

View Full Version : Always doesn't mean always (aka, why does WOTC hate the dictionary)



taltamir
2009-10-23, 05:15 PM
the word "always" has a specific definition in DnD which differs from the dictionary.

EX: "always evil" according to the DnD means: almost always evil, such creatures are created or born evil, but can and occasionally do change their alignment later in life.

P305 in MM1:

Alignment: This line in a monster entry gives the alignment that the creature is most likely to have. Every entry includes a qualifier that indicates how broadly that alignment applies to all monsters of that kind.

Always: The creature is born with the indicated alignment. The creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions.

Usually: The majority (more than 50%) of these creatures have the given alignment. This may be due to strong cultural influences, or it may be a legacy of the creatures’ origin. For example, most elves inherited their chaotic good alignment from their creator, the deity Corellon Larethian.

Often: The creature tends toward the given alignment, either bynature or nurture, but not strongly. A plurality (40–50%) of individuals have the given alignment, but exceptions are common

There is also mention of the "alignment subtype"
Page 310 in MM1:

Good Subtype: A subtype usually applied only to outsiders native to the good-aligned Outer Planes. Most creatures that have this subtype also have good alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has a good alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. A creature with the good subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields were good-aligned (see Damage Reduction, above).
This is repeated in lawful, evil etc with the same text.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-23, 05:22 PM
What's your point? If it's just an observation, it is in fact a useful one. But if you're trying to get at something, you lost me.

sofawall
2009-10-23, 05:24 PM
I agree with above poster. WotC needs both a dictionary and a thesaurus. So?

taltamir
2009-10-23, 05:24 PM
What's your point? If it's just an observation, it is in fact a useful one. But if you're trying to get at something, you lost me.

my point is that always evil does not mean always evil, it just means "usually evil". Keep that in mind next time you come across an "always evil" creature.
Often means "under 50%" and "usually" means a little over 50%.

Shademan
2009-10-23, 05:26 PM
so is there any creatures that are "just evil" ?
like... they can't be good. no matter what bad fan fiction you write they MUST be evil?

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-10-23, 05:26 PM
I agree with above poster. WotC needs both a dictionary and a thesaurus. So?

They need to take it up a level.

Paulus
2009-10-23, 05:26 PM
ah, an alignment thread. Okay. Point taken. noted. Say no more say no more. wink wink. nudge nugde.

And don't mention monks.

KillianHawkeye
2009-10-23, 05:29 PM
so is there any creatures that are "just evil" ?
like... they can't be good. no matter what bad fan fiction you write they MUST be evil?

Please allow me to introduce you to the Succubus Paladin (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a).

Oslecamo
2009-10-23, 05:30 PM
EX: "always evil" according to the DnD means: almost always evil, such creatures are created or born evil, but can and occasionally do change their alignment later in life.

Let's put it this way.

If I was a certfied biologist, and if I was defining the human race, I would need to state somewhere that humans have five fingers in each hand.

But guess what? Some people get their fingers cut. Some are even born with more or less fingers than normal!

So, should I restate my biology book to say that almost all humans have five fingers in each hand, but some of them have acidents or genetic anomalies?

No, because they're just that. Acidents and anomalies. If you want to make a book classifying several life forms, you cannot take in acount every acident/anomaly/mutation that apears if they're only 0,0001% of the whole population.

Basicaly, always something monster that go out of their path are so rare that they should only apear if the DM feels like creating a special NPC, unless you've got a die with ten thousand faces and it rolls a 1.

Mystic Muse
2009-10-23, 05:30 PM
They need to take it up a level.

but we already finished that level!:smallbiggrin:

oxybe
2009-10-23, 05:32 PM
but my wizard gained a level and is currently learning a new level of spells after going up a level in the tower!

taltamir
2009-10-23, 05:33 PM
so is there any creatures that are "just evil" ?
like... they can't be good. no matter what bad fan fiction you write they MUST be evil?

Fan fiction?


Please allow me to introduce you to the Succubus Paladin (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a).


In worlds where magic is common, powerful wizards sometimes use their dweomers to warp and change creatures for their own purposes. However, even more profound changes sometimes stem from the natural forces in the multiverse. One of those forces is love, and love somehow found the succubus known as Eludecia.

She does not talk about what happened, but during one of her many quests to tempt souls and bring them to the Abyss, she met a beautiful angel, and something unimaginable happened -- she fell in love. Eludecia fought against the unfamiliar emotion for a long time but finally realized that she could not win. So she sought out the angel and confessed her feelings for him, though she did not understand them.

When Eludecia asked for help in redeeming herself, the angel was only too happy to accommodate her. After all, the succubus was extremely beautiful, and he could not help but be attracted to her. Furthermore, the accomplishment of redeeming a demon would certainly make him well known in the angelic hierarchy and advance him in his master's service.

Redemption sometimes comes in a flash, but more often it takes years and years of painful work -- and so it was in this case. Born to evil, Eludecia found it hard even to understand goodness, let alone embrace it. However, she persevered until she finally achieved a shaky redemption. She then dedicated herself fully to the cause of good and took on the mantle of paladin, although no deity was willing to be her special patron.

Eludecia knows that she can never purge herself completely of her evil nature without magical aid, but for now, she shuns such help because she is determined to "make it on her own." Thus, she must fight each and every day to avoid slipping back into her evil ways. Thus far, she has succeeded admirably.

Angels apparently only care how physically beautiful you are, not if you really want to be good. Also the gods of good are A-holes.

Frosty
2009-10-23, 05:36 PM
Love hurts. So do Magic Circles against...well, anything, in her case.

taltamir
2009-10-23, 05:39 PM
Love hurts. So do Magic Circles against...well, anything, in her case.

quite a catch there :)...


Good Subtype: A subtype usually applied only to outsiders native to the good-aligned Outer Planes. Most creatures that have this subtype also have good alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has a good alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. A creature with the good subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields were good-aligned (see Damage Reduction, above).
Replicate that for evil, lawful, and chaotic. (they really duplicated this blurb of text with just the alignment changed)..

So she has chaotic evil aligned natural attacks even as a paladin... and is susceptible to magic circle against evil / chaotic due to her subtype (which she retained) AND to magic circle against good and lawful due to her actual alignment.

Shademan
2009-10-23, 05:42 PM
Please allow me to introduce you to the Succubus Paladin (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a).

*twitch twitch*
ffffffffff..... CRAPPIT, HUMANITY!

Paulus
2009-10-23, 05:43 PM
Wouldn't she just fall from associating with herself?

Moriato
2009-10-23, 05:43 PM
So, should I restate my biology book to say that almost all humans have five fingers, but some of them have acidents or genetic anomalies?

I doubt a well-written biology text would ever state that humans always have 5 fingers (if for no other reason than that we have 10. Or 8, if you don't count thumbs. Actually it would just call them digits and avoid that confusion, but I digress)

Texts like that typically don't use words like "always" and "never", and nor should they, just for that reason. If yours did, then yes, absolutely it should be restated.

taltamir
2009-10-23, 05:45 PM
Wouldn't she just fall from associating with herself?

I actually literally burst out laughing out loud from that one... At least this isn't a recursion where a feat / class ability makes someone ineligible for its prerequisites, which makes them lose it which makes them eligible again which makes them get it which makes then ineligible again, repeat...

They also specifically say not a single good god was willing to accept her... so how does she even get paladin powers?

taltamir
2009-10-23, 05:46 PM
I doubt a well-written biology text would ever state that humans always have 5 fingers (if for no other reason than that we have 10. Or 8, if you don't count thumbs. Actually it would just call them digits and avoid that confusion, but I digress)

Texts like that typically don't use words like "always" and "never", and nor should they, just for that reason. If yours did, then yes, absolutely it should be restated.

it will also depends on whether the language it is written in distinguishes between toes and fingers (ex: Hebrew does not; they are either "hand fingers" or "feet fingers")

And yes, a biology textbook who said that is a badly written textbook.

sofawall
2009-10-23, 05:47 PM
I actually literally burst out laughing out loud from that one... At least this isn't a recursion where a feat / class ability makes someone ineligible for its prerequisites, which makes them lose it which makes them eligible again which makes them get it which makes then ineligible again, repeat...

They also specifically say not a single good god was willing to accept her... so how does she even get paladin powers?

The cause of good itself? Like those ideal Clerics.

Moriato
2009-10-23, 05:49 PM
They also specifically say not a single good god was willing to accept her... so how does she even get paladin powers?

Most likely through the little catch in D&D where a cleric or paladin can worship an "ideal" and gain power from it.

You could be a cleric or paladin who worships "goodness" or "law"

Starbuck_II
2009-10-23, 05:50 PM
I actually literally burst out laughing out loud from that one... At least this isn't a recursion where a feat / class ability makes someone ineligible for its prerequisites, which makes them lose it which makes them eligible again which makes them get it which makes then ineligible again, repeat...

They also specifically say not a single good god was willing to accept her... so how does she even get paladin powers?

Only in Faerun do you need a Gode to use Divine magic.
Paladins are Cleric of a Cause (the cause of good and/or smiting evil). They bump uglies.

sofawall
2009-10-23, 05:50 PM
More collaborating evidence for my thesis...

taltamir
2009-10-23, 05:54 PM
Most likely through the little catch in D&D where a cleric or paladin can worship an "ideal" and gain power from it.

You could be a cleric or paladin who worships "goodness" or "law"

Ah yes. I momentarily forgot about that... Why then would any cleric actually worship a god?

If they wanna be smart, worship the ideal of "munchikinism" or just "self actualization" or "magical powers"... or "my freedom to choose"... I get my powers from the ideal of me getting more power.

Frosty
2009-10-23, 05:56 PM
Hmm...if she wants to do good she can like summon Vrocks every day and then kill them! THat'll show the gods she is serious about battling the forces of evil!

Moriato
2009-10-23, 05:57 PM
Ah yes. I momentarily forgot about that... Why then would any cleric actually worship a god?

If they wanna be smart, worship the ideal of "munchikinism" or just "self actualization" or "magical powers"... or "my freedom to choose"... I get my powers from the ideal of me getting more power.

Well it depends on your setting. I think in FR you may not be able to get away with gaining divine power from an ideal.

But even if you can, it's a bad idea, because bad, bad, terrible things happen to those who die in faerun and don't have a patron diety. Peasants and adventurers alike.

Besides, it couldn't hurt to have a being of ridiculous power on your side, even if they aren't paying attention most of the time.

TheCountAlucard
2009-10-23, 06:00 PM
Hmm...if she wants to do good she can like summon Vrocks every day and then kill them! THat'll show the gods she is serious about battling the forces of evil!Not quite; a summoned creature just rematerializes on its home plane when killed.

sofawall
2009-10-23, 06:00 PM
Ah yes. I momentarily forgot about that... Why then would any cleric actually worship a god?

If they wanna be smart, worship the ideal of "munchikinism" or just "self actualization" or "magical powers"... or "my freedom to choose"... I get my powers from the ideal of me getting more power.

Yes, but what domains do those Ideals have? Do they planning and undeath?

Grumman
2009-10-23, 06:02 PM
They also specifically say not a single good god was willing to accept her... so how does she even get paladin powers?
She's a delusional Ur-Priest?

arguskos
2009-10-23, 06:02 PM
Yes, but what domains do those Ideals have? Do they planning and undeath?
Technically, yes, they can be any domains, IIRC.

taltamir
2009-10-23, 06:02 PM
Well it depends on your setting. I think in FR you may not be able to get away with gaining divine power from an ideal.

But even if you can, it's a bad idea, because bad, bad, terrible things happen to those who die in faerun and don't have a patron diety. Peasants and adventurers alike.

Besides, it couldn't hurt to have a being of ridiculous power on your side, even if they aren't paying attention most of the time.

can you then worship "all the gods of good" than?


Technically, yes, they can be any domains, IIRC.

another plus then... you are not restricted by domains, choose ANY domains you like.

arguskos
2009-10-23, 06:05 PM
can you then worship "all the gods of good" than?
In FR, no, you can't. You have to pick a god to worship. You can technically worship an ideal, but then you're considering one of the Faithless (not a good fate) and your afterlife is bad. Not to mention all the theocracies will be most displeased with your existence. Hell, several gods I believe have standing mandates to slay the Faithless.

Bayar
2009-10-23, 06:07 PM
Wouldn't she just fall from associating with herself?

For all I care, she can "associate with herself" whereever, whenever she wants. And If she thinks that she could fall from that, she could join my "cause". I sure wouldnt mind her "association". I'd encourage it. And nurture it like the good and kind god that I am.

Random832
2009-10-23, 06:08 PM
Hmm...if she wants to do good she can like summon Vrocks every day and then kill them! THat'll show the gods she is serious about battling the forces of evil!

I just thought of an awesome character concept: A succubus.... malconvoker. :smallcool:

arguskos
2009-10-23, 06:08 PM
For all I care, she can "associate with herself" whereever, whenever she wants. And If she thinks that she could fall from that, she could join my "cause". I sure wouldnt mind her "association". I'd encourage it. And nurture it like the good and kind god that I am.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:

Sir, I do declare this to be most excellent. I fully support it. :smallamused:

Then again, as the Demon Prince I am, I'm unsure why she turned away anyways. Evil has the best cookies after all.

sofawall
2009-10-23, 06:10 PM
Technically, yes, they can be any domains, IIRC.

Slightly wrong. You can pick any domains, but have to be both thematically appropriate and are subject to DM approval.

KillianHawkeye
2009-10-23, 06:13 PM
Hmm...if she wants to do good she can like summon Vrocks every day and then kill them! THat'll show the gods she is serious about battling the forces of evil!

She can't. Since she "fell" to Goodness, the demons refuse to answer her summons. It's not really in the rules, more like a house rule they decided to apply. But it makes a certain sense.

arguskos
2009-10-23, 06:15 PM
Slightly wrong. You can pick any domains, but have to be both thematically appropriate and are subject to DM approval.
Eh, you can justify ANYTHING. Planning and Undeath? You worship the ideal of death as a great journey to eternal salvation, death is the doorway to another life (undeath).

Considering it's a variant, and always subject to DM approval, it's not really worth saying that there are restrictions. :smalltongue:

Bayar
2009-10-23, 06:18 PM
The heavy domain and the metal domain should be taken together. Rock on, brothers and sisters of the Arockalypse !

Edit @V:

it would make as much sense as an inanimate animated object.

Paralyse an animated object ?

Aldizog
2009-10-23, 06:21 PM
so is there any creatures that are "just evil" ?
like... they can't be good. no matter what bad fan fiction you write they MUST be evil?
There should be. To avoid the "humans in funny makeup" syndrome, at least some monsters need to be something fundamentally different. An outsider or undead that is literally evil incarnate could be quite worth using. And if it those characteristics are essential parts of its nature, there cannot be exceptions.

If you decide that a balor is the *incarnation* of violence for hatred's sake, there cannot be a pacifist balor (it would make as much sense as an inanimate animated object). I'm not saying that every monster needs to be this way. I just think it's a better story and a better world if some are.

sofawall
2009-10-23, 06:22 PM
Eh, you can justify ANYTHING. Planning and Undeath? You worship the ideal of death as a great journey to eternal salvation, death is the doorway to another life (undeath).

Considering it's a variant, and always subject to DM approval, it's not really worth saying that there are restrictions. :smalltongue:

Yes, I know it's easy. You can even justify it under the ideal of "Mix/Max" (I don't have to explain this, do I?)

Just that it wasn't unlimited.


The heavy domain and the metal domain should be taken together. Rock on, brothers and sisters of the Arockalypse !

This is my next character.

KillianHawkeye
2009-10-23, 06:25 PM
An outsider or undead that is literally evil incarnate

I believe Asmodeus (A.K.A. THE DEVIL) is always Evil.

taltamir
2009-10-23, 06:33 PM
Yes, I know it's easy. You can even justify it under the ideal of "Mix/Max" (I don't have to explain this, do I?)

I thought it was min/max... or is there a derivative definition for mix/max?

As for heavy metal domain... would you be wielding an axe and a guitar than? :)

sofawall
2009-10-23, 06:41 PM
I thought it was min/max... or is there a derivative definition for mix/max?

As for heavy metal domain... would you be wielding an axe and a guitar than? :)

Mix/max was a typo, although that would also be fun.

Also, Guitars are axes, duuuude.

good_lookin_gus
2009-10-23, 06:53 PM
She can't. Since she "fell" to Goodness, the demons refuse to answer her summons. It's not really in the rules, more like a house rule they decided to apply. But it makes a certain sense.

I think that's what the percentage chance is meant to show. They can always ask for help, they just won't always get it. The DM can, and probably should, adjust the odds according to circumstance. In her case it would be a 0% (or 1% if your DM is creative) chance.

John Campbell
2009-10-23, 06:53 PM
Wouldn't she just fall from associating with herself?

She's a succubus. I'm pretty sure she can always (whatever that means) find someone else to associate with her so she doesn't have to do it herself.

ericgrau
2009-10-23, 06:54 PM
I believe Asmodeus (A.K.A. THE DEVIL) is always Evil.

Since it's only 1 creature, "always" doesn't apply. He just is evil.

While I think "always" is only technically wrong in this case, it would be great if they were more clear about it. When you read it you don't think there are exceptions. Likewise I never realized there was a difference between "often" and "usually" until I saw the definition list. It works when you see them side by side, but not alone in a monster entry. Even "usually" seems a bit strong. IMO these would be a better match to their definitions, so there's less need to look things up:

"Almost always chaotic evil"
"The majority are chaotic evil"
"Many (but not most) are chaotic evil"

I think all except maybe the last still fits on one line. I wonder if there's a more concise way to say it.

Frosty
2009-10-23, 07:07 PM
Not quite; a summoned creature just rematerializes on its home plane when killed.

But they also can't come back to the material plane for like 99 years? Or was that Devils killed on the material plane only?

And the idea of a Succubus Malconvoker rocks.

"Look, I summoned you to do evil. I'm a freakin Succubus. Of COURSE my aims are evil. Now do what I say."

Curmudgeon
2009-10-23, 07:16 PM
Ah yes. I momentarily forgot about that... Why then would any cleric actually worship a god?
Some abilities are specifically tied to deities. Want the War domain? Great, but you don't get free Martial Weapon Proficiency in a weapon unless it's your deity's weapon. Many spells require a singular deity, such as Hand of Divinity, Weapon of the Deity, and Zealot Pact.

Grumman
2009-10-23, 07:17 PM
She's a succubus. I'm pretty sure she can always (whatever that means) find someone else to associate with her so she doesn't have to do it herself.
Sure, but she's good now. She probably doesn't want to subject them to the energy drain.

technophile
2009-10-23, 07:22 PM
Sure, but she's good now. She probably doesn't want to subject them to the energy drain.
Shoot, that's a simple Protection from Negative Energy away.

taltamir
2009-10-23, 07:23 PM
Since it's only 1 creature, "always" doesn't apply. He just is evil.

While I think "always" is only technically wrong in this case, it would be great if they were more clear about it. When you read it you don't think there are exceptions. Likewise I never realized there was a difference between "often" and "usually" until I saw the definition list. It works when you see them side by side, but not alone in a monster entry. Even "usually" seems a bit strong. IMO these would be a better match to their definitions, so there's less need to look things up:

"Almost always chaotic evil"
"The majority are chaotic evil"
"Many (but not most) are chaotic evil"

I think all except maybe the last still fits on one line. I wonder if there's a more concise way to say it.

To be more concise, how about:
born evil but may change
created evil but may change
created evil and may not change
the majority are evil due to society
the majority are evil regardless of society
sizeable minority

jmbrown
2009-10-23, 07:24 PM
my point is that always evil does not mean always evil, it just means "usually evil". Keep that in mind next time you come across an "always evil" creature.
Often means "under 50%" and "usually" means a little over 50%.

No, they're always born evil. A devil will be created as an evil creature no matter what because it's born from the fiery depths of hell. There have been canon devils that converted to good but their creation is inherently evil.

Always isn't a descriptor passed their initial creation.

taltamir
2009-10-23, 07:25 PM
Sure, but she's good now. She probably doesn't want to subject them to the energy drain.

doesn't that require her to KISS them? there are other ways to be intimate...

Frosty
2009-10-23, 07:26 PM
The kiss is just the EASIEST intimiate act. I believe the MM states that other intimate acts work as well.

ericgrau
2009-10-23, 07:34 PM
To be more concise, how about:
born evil but may change
created evil but may change
created evil and may not change
the majority are evil due to society
the majority are evil regardless of society
sizeable minority

"Sizeable minority are chaotic evil" is perfect for the 3rd case.

Zeta Kai
2009-10-23, 07:35 PM
Wouldn't she just fall from associating with herself?

Only if she talks to herself. If she refrains from internal dialogue & contemplation (a common trait among pallies), then she's okay. :smallamused:

shadow_archmagi
2009-10-23, 07:58 PM
Daleks are Always Evil. No pure dalek has ever questioned his evil.

Agrippa
2009-10-23, 08:00 PM
Come on people, why can't we just say "almost always Evil" and leave it at that? Also Dicefreaks came out with a Nessian (probably a typo) Pit Fiend paladin named Utopias. Sadly the guy is a Lawful Stupid, Stupid Good, Granola Guy, Wide Eyed Idealist, Straw Liberal, Love Freak and Lord Error Prone all crammed into one diabolical-looking Pollyanish form. For all I can remember he even plays guitar and sings folk songs, badly of course. He's Heaven's version of Reg Shoe.

hamishspence
2009-10-24, 03:46 AM
the general rule for touch effects, is that the being can choose to hold them.

So, a Lich who doesn't want to harm you, can shake your hand and you won't get any problems.

But a lich who does want to harm you:

"Bzzz!" as Start of Darkness puts it.

Same applies to succubi.

Possible alignment category name "Mostly Evil"

Now mostly evil is not All evil. :smallbiggrin:

TheCountAlucard
2009-10-24, 03:59 AM
"Look, I summoned you to do evil. I'm a freakin Succubus. Of COURSE my aims are evil. Now do what I say sing those orphans to sleep."Fixed it for you. :smalltongue:

MickJay
2009-10-24, 04:48 AM
When it comes to worshipping stuff, I remember someone stating that a Cleric could grant himself first and second level spells if he was worshiping himself, does anyone remember how exactly was that supposed to work?

Shademan
2009-10-24, 05:11 AM
waitasec. belzebub was a anger/archon whatever that went evil and managed to shake off his good subtype, why can't a succubus paladin manage to do the same?

Omegonthesane
2009-10-24, 05:16 AM
waitasec. belzebub was a anger/archon whatever that went evil and managed to shake off his good subtype, why can't a succubus paladin manage to do the same?

Because that would require houseruling. Technically, all the original baatezu were angels who shook off their Good subtypes, but there's no mechanical way for them to have done so. The Tippyverse would have to rule that the baatezu were always evil rather than falling from grace.

BobVosh
2009-10-24, 05:17 AM
waitasec. belzebub was a anger/archon whatever that went evil and managed to shake off his good subtype, why can't a succubus paladin manage to do the same?

Because he didn't use a magical item, he just did it? It has been several editions since it happened? Bah, don't ask for logic in D&D

hamishspence
2009-10-24, 05:22 AM
Savage Species has rituals which provide mechanical means to shake off a subtype.

Then of course, there are Wish, Miracle, and Alter Reality.

Asmodeus (in BoVD and FC2) casts spells as a 20th level celric- he could have altered himself, then started altering the others.

Or, he could have changed alignment, but not lost subtypes and gained new ones, until the gods altered him, and cast him down.

Either way, it is possible to change the subtypes of a creature without resort to house rules.

Conversely (the evil planetar in Elder Evils) it is possible to be evil, and not have shook off your Good subtype.

Grumman
2009-10-24, 05:54 AM
waitasec. belzebub was a anger/archon whatever that went evil and managed to shake off his good subtype, why can't a succubus paladin manage to do the same?
Good and Evil should not be treated as symmetrical. It should be a lot easier for a good character to fall than for an evil character to overcome their past.


Savage Species has rituals which provide mechanical means to shake off a subtype.
Yeah, but Savage Species sucks.

Shpadoinkle
2009-10-24, 06:42 AM
Hmm...if she wants to do good she can like summon Vrocks every day and then kill them! THat'll show the gods she is serious about battling the forces of evil!

Summoning evil creatures is an evil act. If she did that every day she'd lose her paladin status pretty damn quick.

Yora
2009-10-24, 06:42 AM
waitasec. belzebub was a anger/archon whatever that went evil and managed to shake off his good subtype, why can't a succubus paladin manage to do the same?
Because D&D is written by dozens of different writers, each of them having their own views about how things should be handled, that have not yet archieved general concensus.

AstralFire
2009-10-24, 07:43 AM
Because he didn't use a magical item, he just did it? It has been several editions since it happened? Bah, don't ask for logic in D&D

Because not everything needs a mechanic.

Eldariel
2009-10-24, 08:56 AM
Good and Evil should not be treated as symmetrical. It should be a lot easier for a good character to fall than for an evil character to overcome their past.

I don't think cosmic balance could be maintained if that's the case. Just because the multiverse still exists, the amount of good corrupted and evil purified has to be pretty much equivalent.

Random832
2009-10-24, 09:13 AM
Anyone know any tricks for a Succubus to enter the Malconvoker class before ECL 17 (6HD+6LA/Wiz5)? (Might even make sense to do Sorcerer instead, since Cha is going to be so high without even trying)

Starbuck_II
2009-10-24, 09:19 AM
Summoning evil creatures is an evil act. If she did that every day she'd lose her paladin status pretty damn quick.

Unless she was a Malvokner who is allowed to use evil summon/binding spells without it counting as a evil action.

Grumman
2009-10-24, 10:44 AM
I don't think cosmic balance could be maintained if that's the case. Just because the multiverse still exists, the amount of good corrupted and evil purified has to be pretty much equivalent.
This is incorrect.

First, while it is easier to stay evil, this is balanced by the fact that people actually put some effort into staying good. Most people aren't going to be evil because they support evil, they're going to be evil because it works.

Second, the "cosmic balance" does not necessarily mean that the numbers are identical. After all 400 evil troops aren't going to be as effective as 400 good troops, if the evil troops belong to two opposing warlords. Good is less likely to suffer from infighting, so even being outnumbered 2-to-1 might not be a problem.

Third, it's not a simple equation where good corrupted must equal evil purified to maintain equilibrium. You're forgetting about other sources of recruitment and other sources of losses that are not directly related to losses and recruitment on the other side.

oxybe
2009-10-24, 11:00 AM
Because not everything needs a mechanic.

LIES AND HORRIBLE UNTRUTHS! SHUN THE NON-BELIEVER! SHUUUUUN!

pres_man
2009-10-24, 11:43 AM
Good and Evil should not be treated as symmetrical. It should be a lot easier for a good character to fall than for an evil character to overcome their past.

Why? (and "just because" doesn't count as a reason)

ashmanonar
2009-10-24, 12:08 PM
The kiss is just the EASIEST intimiate act. I believe the MM states that other intimate acts work as well.

You guys are starting to get into dangerous BOEF territory here.

Please continue.

Kris Strife
2009-10-24, 12:17 PM
This is my next character.

Mine as well. Though I'm thinking I'd go Bard/Paladin using the Devoted Performer feat from Complete Scoundrel.

We should totally make a party thats also the world's first heavy metal band.

hamishspence
2009-10-24, 12:33 PM
Why? (and "just because" doesn't count as a reason)

Fiendish Codex 2 has an answer- of sorts.

Evil acts leave a "taint" of corruption- that, once its built high enough (in a lawful character) sends them to Baator after death, no matter how repentant they are, or how much Good they've done since then.

The only way to expunge this taint, is through atonement- generally, giving up whatever material gains you got from the evil act, apologizing to the victims, doing whatever you can to reverse the damage, and doing some kind of "act of atonement" typically a quest, given to you specifically for this purpose.

While, at high levels of corruption, the Atonement spell is supposed to be used, Champions of Valor recommends it be used when there isn't time to roleplay the atonement out- otherwise- with a roleplay session, it can be possible to atone with the deeds alone, not just the "deeds+spell combination".

Champions of Valor has Hercules and his labors being examples of this- an act of atonement- for the killing of his children, while he was mad.

This helps avoid the "evil acts are automatically countered by good acts" situation that tends to hold sway in D&D computer games such as Neverwinter Nights.

Eldariel
2009-10-24, 12:48 PM
This is incorrect.

First, while it is easier to stay evil, this is balanced by the fact that people actually put some effort into staying good. Most people aren't going to be evil because they support evil, they're going to be evil because it works.

Second, the "cosmic balance" does not necessarily mean that the numbers are identical. After all 400 evil troops aren't going to be as effective as 400 good troops, if the evil troops belong to two opposing warlords. Good is less likely to suffer from infighting, so even being outnumbered 2-to-1 might not be a problem.

Third, it's not a simple equation where good corrupted must equal evil purified to maintain equilibrium. You're forgetting about other sources of recruitment and other sources of losses that are not directly related to losses and recruitment on the other side.

It all needs to be a standard though. Imagine the discrepancy that needs to be made up with in other numbers if there's a notable amount of difference between falling good outsiders and redeemed evil outsiders; it's just not workable.

Besides, there's no logic behind the essence of good somehow becoming evil any more easily than the essence of evil becoming good; all such creatures should be utterly incapable of such themselves, thus leaving it up to Mindrapes, Helms of Opposite Alignment and other Wizard Did Its.

So really, it's a function of how many Wizards go around rewriting Outsider minds with Sanctify the Wickeds or Mindrapes or some such.

Starbuck_II
2009-10-24, 12:51 PM
It all needs to be a standard though. Imagine the discrepancy that needs to be made up with in other numbers if there's a notable amount of difference between falling good outsiders and redeemed evil outsiders; it's just not workable.

Besides, there's no logic behind the essence of good somehow becoming evil any more easily than the essence of evil becoming good; all such creatures should be utterly incapable of such themselves, thus leaving it up to Mindrapes, Helms of Opposite Alignment and other Wizard Did Its.

So really, it's a function of how many Wizards go around rewriting Outsider minds with Sanctify the Wickeds or Mindrapes or some such.

Santify the Wicked doesn't work on Evil subtype. Mindrape does. So hire a evil Mindraper to turn evil outsiders good.

Aldizog
2009-10-24, 12:57 PM
waitasec. belzebub was a anger/archon whatever that went evil and managed to shake off his good subtype, why can't a succubus paladin manage to do the same?

The societies aren't symmetrical. Good is more merciful. Whether it's Paradise Lost or D&D, the punishment for an angel deviating from Good is generally to fall in some way. Not death, not mindrape. The punishment for a demon not being sufficiently evil *should* be a whole lot more nasty. As soon as that succubus starts to slip even into "evil with neutral tendencies", her rivals, her superior, a molydeus, or The Abyss itself should take care of matters.

Maybe she is simply killed or wiped from existence. Maybe she is regressed into a dretch unti she learns her mistake. Maybe she is tortured for centuries until she is sufficiently evil again, finally being subject to a mindrape once her torturers feel that her usefulness in the field outweighs the pleasure they gain from torturing her any more. The whole point of demons and devils is that they are the most evil things in existence, far worse than any human society that has ever existed. If that one-in-a-million exception appears, it will be destroyed because it isn't evil enough.

Kylarra
2009-10-24, 01:01 PM
Evil is also a lot less likely to be [vaguely] monolithic than good is, so even if there're more [good] creatures falling than [evil] creatures rising(?) it's not a concentrated force against [good] things. There's all sorts of infighting and backstabbing because evil is more naturally inclined that way.

Grumman
2009-10-24, 01:19 PM
Why? (and "just because" doesn't count as a reason)
Because that's what being good is all about: not taking the easy way out if it would cause too much collateral damage. If faced with a choice between personal hardship and sacrificing the wellbeing of innocent people, the good character's options are limited by his morality, while the evil character can do whatever gives the most plusses.

Serenity
2009-10-24, 01:41 PM
Plus, when the angels fell and became devils or demons or whatnot, they clearly underwent a fundamental change. They didn't become 'Solars with an evil alignment', they became totally different creatures with a totally different subtype. Whereas the Succubus Paladin is...still a succubus, and still has the evil subtype.

hamishspence
2009-10-24, 01:43 PM
The societies aren't symmetrical. Good is more merciful. Whether it's Paradise Lost or D&D, the punishment for an angel deviating from Good is generally to fall in some way. Not death, not mindrape. The punishment for a demon not being sufficiently evil *should* be a whole lot more nasty. As soon as that succubus starts to slip even into "evil with neutral tendencies", her rivals, her superior, a molydeus, or The Abyss itself should take care of matters.

Maybe she is simply killed or wiped from existence. Maybe she is regressed into a dretch unti she learns her mistake. Maybe she is tortured for centuries until she is sufficiently evil again, finally being subject to a mindrape once her torturers feel that her usefulness in the field outweighs the pleasure they gain from torturing her any more. The whole point of demons and devils is that they are the most evil things in existence, far worse than any human society that has ever existed. If that one-in-a-million exception appears, it will be destroyed because it isn't evil enough.

Given that the actual game doesn't follow this precisely (Planescape Torment and Fall-From-Grace, are yet another example of an exception to the rule) I'd say that, yes- the demons would crack down if they found out. But the environment of the Material plane, where a demon, especially an infiltrating demon like a succubus, is the perfect place for demons to "learn new ways"

We've been told that the rules allow for "ascended fiends" in the same way as "fallen angels" - we've seen them in game material- so- they exist- they are just few in number.

My guess is that "infiltrator fiends" probably, due to spending so much time with mortals, and having to disguise their nature and behave like normal people, to get along, are the fiends most likely to shift from evil to non-evil.

Demons with a little mortal blood, are even more likely-

Expedition to the Demonweb Pits has cambions, with a fiend parent and a planetouched (usually tiefling) parent, which number only 90% being of Evil alignment, and described as Often Chaotic Evil.

Yet, by the rules, they are demons- extraplanar outsiders with the Chaotic and Evil subtypes, native to the Abyss.


Plus, when the angels fell and became devils or demons or whatnot, they clearly underwent a fundamental change. They didn't become 'Solars with an evil alignment', they became totally different creatures with a totally different subtype. Whereas the Succubus Paladin is...still a succubus, and still has the evil subtype.

true- but solars/planetars, etc with an evil alignment, do exist.

Falling doesn't always mean change in form and nature.

Same can apply to "rising"

taltamir
2009-10-24, 02:04 PM
Originally Posted by Frosty
"Look, I summoned you to do evil. I'm a freakin Succubus. Of COURSE my aims are evil. Now do what I say sing those orphans to sleep."
Fixed it for you. :smalltongue:

An evil character that is not stupid evil should be pretending to be good. They should sing orphans to sleep, save the needy, and make a name for themselves as great heroic heroes... and then when they get the chance and noone is around and the PROFIT is right, display their evil.

Speaking of a succubus bard... can a bard use perform (lapdance) for their skills? I don't know about you but that would certainly inspire more courage in me than a flute solo.

Aldizog
2009-10-24, 02:05 PM
We've been told that the rules allow for "ascended fiends" in the same way as "fallen angels" - we've seen them in game material- so- they exist- they are just few in number.

Oh, I don't deny that at least some game designers have chosen to make ascended fiends. I was talking about what I think the rules *should* be, not what they *are*.

I just think it's a better game, and a better story, if at least some beings are truly monstrous, irredeemable, and evil incarnate. If "always" does, at least sometimes, mean "always." Doesn't even have to be every category of fiend. Cambions have long been described as having a minority of non-evil examples. Infiltrators like succubi? I don't know. If that's a risk that goes with the job, then their more intelligent and more powerful superiors would keep a very close eye on them, yes? And hunt them down and kill them as soon as they start to slip?

Now, for an ascended fiend to make sense:
1) there needs to be a really good in-game explanation of the motivations
2) there needs to be a really good an in-game explanation of how they escaped the reach of their peers for however many centuries it took to do enough good to outweigh all the evil they had done and actually attain redemption
3) there should be (but doesn't have to be) some celestial that has this as part of its background (similar to Erinyes). Fallen angels are a major part of angelic folkore, ascended fiends are not.
4) the merely neutral examples should be *far* more numerous, but even they should be astonishingly rare.

taltamir
2009-10-24, 02:14 PM
the problem with always meaning always is sapience...
For that to be the case they can't be completely self aware. If they don't have freedom of choice but are aware, then they are not evil, they are merely forced to act evil.

Although, that is overthinking it and you could say that since they are made out of coalesced evil they just are evil... If they become not evil then they are literally unmaking themselves... :)

hamishspence
2009-10-24, 02:15 PM
yes- most are probably "Fall-From-Grace" types- redeemed, but neutral rather than Good, and struggling with their urges to do evil.

Still- given that it is possible to remove the subtype (if difficult) I could see them doing it.

The Abyss is a lot less organized than Baator- hence, possibly, more room for "rebel demons" to slip through the cracks.

Demonomicon of Iggwilv: Malcanthet in Dragon, stresses that the Demon Queen of Succibi feels the closest thing to true sadness, when she thinks about these "lost scions"

oxybe
2009-10-24, 02:16 PM
An evil character that is not stupid evil should be pretending to be good. They should sing orphans to sleep, save the needy, and make a name for themselves as great heroic heroes... and then when they get the chance and noone is around and the PROFIT is right, display their evil.

Speaking of a succubus bard... can a bard use perform (lapdance) for their skills? I don't know about you but that would certainly inspire more courage in me than a flute solo.

yeah, but the exhaustion penalties wouldn't help.

hamishspence
2009-10-24, 02:19 PM
If you believe Champions of Ruin and Exemplars of Evil- many won't even be aware of their evilness, or at least, not enough to admit it to themselves.

You can be an extreme altruist- dedicated to preserving others- and if you commit terrible acts along the way, inspired by "the ends justify the means" your alignment will sink fast.

Ozymandius in Watchmen, might be a possible example.

pres_man
2009-10-25, 07:05 AM
Because that's what being good is all about: not taking the easy way out if it would cause too much collateral damage. If faced with a choice between personal hardship and sacrificing the wellbeing of innocent people, the good character's options are limited by his morality, while the evil character can do whatever gives the most plusses.

I disagree. Taking the "easy way" or making choices that will give you the most "plusses", is actually the neutral path. To be either good or evil, you have to go out of your way to be that. Of course this assumes that there isn't a large portion of evil that isn't really "neutral unnice".

Dervag
2009-10-25, 10:08 AM
I disagree. Taking the "easy way" or making choices that will give you the most "plusses", is actually the neutral path. To be either good or evil, you have to go out of your way to be that. Of course this assumes that there isn't a large portion of evil that isn't really "neutral unnice".This is a very controversial position. Many people we'd classically think of as evil are doing evil things for profit, or because it seems like the simplest way to achieve some practical goal such as "take over ."

Complete indifference to moral concerns is not neutrality, unless we're talking about the indifference of a mindless animal. You don't have to go out of your way hunting for puppies to kick and babies to steal candy from in order to qualify for "evil" by normal definitions of evil, and I don't think there's much evidence that you have to do it to get an evil alignment in D&D.

Now, there are definitely people in the D&D setting who are [i]really evil, who not only commit evil acts for profit, but also do it for fun. They revel in their evilness, and often get rewarded by supernatural evil for doing so... but these inhuman monsters aren't the only kind of evil that exists.

pres_man
2009-10-25, 10:18 AM
This is a very controversial position. Many people we'd classically think of as evil are doing evil things for profit, or because it seems like the simplest way to achieve some practical goal such as "take over ."

Complete indifference to moral concerns is not neutrality, unless we're talking about the indifference of a mindless animal. You don't have to go out of your way hunting for puppies to kick and babies to steal candy from in order to qualify for "evil" by normal definitions of evil, and I don't think there's much evidence that you have to do it to get an evil alignment in D&D.

Now, there are definitely people in the D&D setting who are [i]really evil, who not only commit evil acts for profit, but also do it for fun. They revel in their evilness, and often get rewarded by supernatural evil for doing so... but these inhuman monsters aren't the only kind of evil that exists.

So are you suggesting that neutral is really just "good lite"?

Dixieboy
2009-10-25, 10:28 AM
Please allow me to introduce you to the Succubus Paladin (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a).

Who is a result of magical compulsion who needs to dope herself up on magical goodness or she goes into withdrawal and becomes ev0l.

Dervag
2009-10-25, 10:37 AM
Rely to something earlier that I didn't catch before:
Oh, I don't deny that at least some game designers have chosen to make ascended fiends. I was talking about what I think the rules *should* be, not what they *are*.

I just think it's a better game, and a better story, if at least some beings are truly monstrous, irredeemable, and evil incarnate. If "always" does, at least sometimes, mean "always."My feeling is that there are plenty of individual fiends who qualify for this- who would not ascend to Neutral, let alone Good, even if you gave them all eternity to work with. On their most ethical day they are "only slightly nastier than the hypothetical offspring of Cruella de Ville and Sauron (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0489.html)..." and that's the day when they wonder if something's wrong with them.

But there don't have to be entire species that are like this.

So are you suggesting that neutral is really just "good lite"?Ah, no. I'm suggesting that good is "I will go the extra mile to do the right thing;" that neutral is "I will not go the extra mile, but I will most of the time do the right thing when a moral choice is dropped squarely in my lap, barring unreasonable cost and risk;" and that evil is "I don't give a damn about doing the right thing."
_____

The reason I set things up this way is that I want the alignment scale to roughly match the range of human ethics that actually exists. There are real humans who will deliberately go far out of their way to do the right thing. But there are practically no real humans who will deliberately go far out of their way to do the wrong thing, who will deliberately set things up so as to kick the maximum number of puppies.

So if I want credible evil-aligned human villains, I have to define Evil as something that humans can plausibly be. Which does not include active deliberate puppy-kicking for the sake of being as evil as possible. People, with a very few deeply insane exceptions, just don't do that.

Now, in the darkest depths of evil, there may be fiends who are consciously evil, who work as hard at being evil as some superbly moral person might work at being good. But those fiends are showing a superhuman capacity for evil (which is really saying something). And they are counterbalanced by the celestials, who have an equally superhuman capacity for good (which is also really saying something, given just how saintly some people are capable of being).
_______

The key concept here is that right/wrong is not a purely symmetric idea, with an Evil morality that is exactly opposite and balanced with Good morality, so that to be Evil you have to do deliberate things opposite and balanced with the things a Good person would do. Wrong isn't the opposite of right; it's the absence of right. There are many ways to abandon rightness, such as the desire for profit, hatred of an enemy, self-gratification, and so on.

But those motives don't lead someone into some hypothetical doctrine of Evilism that is the exact opposite of all goodness. On the merely human scale of evil, there is nothing beyond the amorality created by greed, hatred, self-gratification, and such. If anything people actually do is evil, that's got to be evil. And the midpoint between that evil and what we call good isn't someone who does active good half the time and active evil half the time, or someone who doesn't care about doing the right thing at all. It's someone who does care about doing the right thing, but not enough to drive all their actions the way it might drive an extremely moral person.

Starbuck_II
2009-10-25, 10:47 AM
Who is a result of magical compulsion who needs to dope herself up on magical goodness or she goes into withdrawal and becomes ev0l.

Love is a magical compulsion?

Aldizog
2009-10-25, 10:55 AM
But there don't have to be entire species that are like this.

Well, my feeling was that the balors, mariliths, pit fiends, and so on only got to their positions by being 100% pure EVIL. They aren't species as we think of them. "Balor" is more like a position earned by being unswervingly cruel and EVIL over thousands of years, and the Abyss knows what is in the heart of its demons. At least, that's how I'd do it.

EVIL is all-caps to differentiate the "actively tries to hurt others" type from the "acts in own self-interest regardless of helping or hurting others" type or the "justifies actions as being necessary" type.

The Mentalist
2009-10-25, 11:06 AM
Love is a magical compulsion?

Of course. Mechanically it requires you to sacrifice half of your WBL; a permanent nauseated effect whenever the caster is within 100; and if you're male a permanant Feeblemind. No Save, No SR.

Dixieboy
2009-10-25, 11:11 AM
Of course. Mechanically it requires you to sacrifice half of your WBL; a permanent nauseated effect whenever the caster is within 100; and if you're male a permanant Feeblemind. No Save, No SR.

Damnit, i was gonna make a joke like that. :smallfrown:

Starbuck_II
2009-10-25, 11:24 AM
Of course. Mechanically it requires you to sacrifice half of your WBL; a permanent nauseated effect whenever the caster is within 100; and if you're male a permanant Feeblemind. No Save, No SR.

I thought it only made you give up 1/2 your WBL after a marriage.

The Mentalist
2009-10-25, 11:32 AM
That's what they want you to think. :smallwink:

Sorry Dixie.

(In case my girl reads this. NOT A BAD THING!!)

Optimystik
2009-10-25, 12:17 PM
the problem with always meaning always is sapience...
For that to be the case they can't be completely self aware. If they don't have freedom of choice but are aware, then they are not evil, they are merely forced to act evil.

You've nailed the problem perfectly. If you force any race to literally be "always evil," as in 100% of the time, then they are not controlling their actions (in the same way that a tiger that eats an orphan is not controlling his action) and therefore cannot have an alignment. The cleanest way out of that paradox is simply to make "Always != 100.00000%."

Unfortunately, it's not clean at all from a semantic perspective, and that one little qualifying word twists many people into knots. My personal philosophy - just as we have "never say never," we should "never say always" either. Exceptions will always exist, there are no absolutes.

Aldizog
2009-10-25, 12:42 PM
My personal philosophy - just as we have "never say never," we should "never say always" either. Exceptions will always exist, there are no absolutes.
If there are a finite number, though, you certainly can have absolutes. If there are twelve Type VI demons in existence (or 100, or 1000), and they are all evil, then all Type VI demons are evil.

taltamir
2009-10-25, 02:33 PM
Who is a result of magical compulsion who needs to dope herself up on magical goodness or she goes into withdrawal and becomes ev0l.

she fell in love with an angel because he was pretty... he helped her redeem herself because she was pretty... and none of the gods of good accepts her, because no matter how pretty she is, they are still bigots.

Optimystik
2009-10-25, 02:51 PM
If there are a finite number, though, you certainly can have absolutes. If there are twelve Type VI demons in existence (or 100, or 1000), and they are all evil, then all Type VI demons are evil.

Well, that goes without saying - the Lords of the Nine, for instance, will all be LE.

However, this discussion is about racial alignments, and races are not finite, so my statement stands.


*twitch twitch*
ffffffffff..... CRAPPIT, HUMANITY!

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s52/Optimystic8/Alignment_RAEG.jpg

Brought to you by Ragetiem!

taltamir
2009-10-25, 03:15 PM
pfft, nobody EVER understood DnD alignments... they are inherantly self contradictory. The PHB itself flat out says chaos is not insane.. then give examples of a chaotic sorcerer who is so insane, he must wear new clothes every day. and they are crazy clothes too.

Thurbane
2009-10-25, 09:09 PM
Ah, 3.5 - where the horses are square, you can run at full speed backwards, and always means usually. :smallbiggrin:

Optimystik
2009-10-26, 08:44 AM
Ah, 3.5 - where the horses are square, you can run at full speed backwards, and always means usually. :smallbiggrin:

And where death has no penalties and drowning can heal you.

Solaris
2009-10-26, 01:39 PM
Angels apparently only care how physically beautiful you are, not if you really want to be good. Also the gods of good are A-holes.

Of course. Good is pretty, and therefore pretty must be good.
After all, you never see an ice devil paladin.

AstralFire
2009-10-26, 01:52 PM
Of course. Good is pretty, and therefore pretty must be good.
After all, you never see an ice devil paladin.

SHREK SPOILERS
Heh, one of the reasons the original Shrek was so good was because it subverted the common fantasy moral of "you don't have to be pretty to be good... but BECAUSE YOU WERE SO GOOD YOU GET TO BE PRETTY ANYWAY because that's how the world works."

Jayabalard
2009-10-26, 01:52 PM
Please allow me to introduce you to the Succubus Paladin (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a).Yes, that does kind of read like bad fan fiction...


However, this discussion is about racial alignments, and races are not finite, so my statement stands.Actually, there's no reason to assume that races are not finite... so your point does not stand.

Optimystik
2009-10-26, 02:15 PM
Actually, there's no reason to assume that races are not finite... so your point does not stand.

I have yet to come across any truly finite races in D&D. "There are only X members of Y in existence" hasn't been in any sourcebook I ever read. Until I do, there's no reason to believe they are finite, either.

And even if there were, once a race reaches a certain size (however finite) exceptions to the "Always X" rule will inevitably begin to crop up. It's just the nature of fiction for there to be very few absolutes. Solars are good, but you can guarantee the one that's Evil is the one that gets a book written about him.

Doug Lampert
2009-10-26, 02:29 PM
So are you suggesting that neutral is really just "good lite"?Read the alignment definitions in the PHB.

Neutral has scrupples against harming others, but won't neccessarily risk his life to protect total strangers or otherwise give up anything really important to himself just to do the right thing.

If you want to call being unwilling to harm others just to get the most plusses or the most money or the most whatever "good lite" then, yes, neutral is rather CLEARLY defined as good lite by that definition.

Similarly amoral willingness to harm others freely for your own benefit is clearly defined to be evil.

Doug Lampert
2009-10-26, 02:31 PM
pfft, nobody EVER understood DnD alignments... they are inherantly self contradictory. The PHB itself flat out says chaos is not insane.. then give examples of a chaotic sorcerer who is so insane, he must wear new clothes every day. and they are crazy clothes too.

There's no contradiction there. Chaos != insanity does not imply that chaotics cannot be insane.

Obsesive compulsives are pretty well sure to be lawful. But most other forms of insanity are going to be almost always chaotic simply because the mad don't have a consistent code of behavior.

Aldizog
2009-10-26, 02:44 PM
I have yet to come across any truly finite races in D&D. "There are only X members of Y in existence" hasn't been in any sourcebook I ever read. Until I do, there's no reason to believe they are finite, either.

And even if there were, once a race reaches a certain size (however finite) exceptions to the "Always X" rule will inevitably begin to crop up. It's just the nature of fiction for there to be very few absolutes. Solars are good, but you can guarantee the one that's Evil is the one that gets a book written about him.
First, that's why I used the example of Type VI demons, aka balors, from the orginal MM. Finite and defined number. Limited populations are also strongly implied by the backstories of illithid, gith, and some others. They began their existence at a fairly recent point in time; the illithid as a group of refugees from the far future, and the gith as their recently-liberated slaves. While their populations may be indefinite, they are not infinite. There's no reason to suppose, as DM, that illithids of every template and permutation *must* exist. If you are the DM, and you are doing the world-building, you are perfectly within your rights to circumscribe a finite world in which there are six ki-rin, all good, or ten thousand illithid, all evil.

Second, as to the evil solar, you can reconcile the issue of free will with the issue of "always good" by deciding that one a solar is no longer good, it ceases to be a solar. Its form changes and it becomes something else (like an Erinyes). The idea is that goodness is part of its essential being. It's not strictly a creature of bone and blood and brain.

"Always good" and "always evil" are generally used for supernatural creatures such as fiends, celestials, and undead, correct? I think in these cases it's perfectly valid to rule that "goodness" and "evilness" are part of the being to the same degree that "flesh" is part of a human being. Take away that, and you have a very different creature.

Just to clarify: I'm not arguing that there cannot be exceptions. I'm arguing that there don't have to be exceptions.

AstralFire
2009-10-26, 02:50 PM
Finite and infinite are the wrong words to be using here; they are, most importantly, not defined numbers. The values or even the rate at which it approaches infinity varies from group to group.

Optimystik
2009-10-26, 03:02 PM
There's no contradiction there. Chaos != insanity does not imply that chaotics cannot be insane.

It's true that it isn't a contradiction, but it's still laziness on WotC's part. "Chaotics aren't necessarily insane" is the kind of statement that should be followed up with an example of a SANE chaotic, not an INSANE one. After all, a sourcebook's job is to open the players to new ideas, not pigeonhole them into archetypes. That's what I think taltamir was trying to get at with that example.

Rich, by contrast, did a far better explanation on what it really means to be Chaotic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0606.html)than I've ever read in a WotC publication, and he did it all with stick figures.


First, that's why I used the example of Type VI demons, aka balors, from the orginal MM. Finite and defined number. Limited populations are also strongly implied by the backstories of illithid, gith, and some others. They began their existence at a fairly recent point in time; the illithid as a group of refugees from the far future, and the gith as their recently-liberated slaves. While their populations may be indefinite, they are not infinite.

Well, indefinite is what I meant then. With all due respect, I honestly think the effort that went into that particular round of nitpicking could have been better spent elsewhere.

There are good mindflayers too, by the way (check BoED) so your "limited population" litmus still fails to hold water in published D&D works.


There's no reason to suppose, as DM, that illithids of every template and permutation *must* exist. If you are the DM, and you are doing the world-building, you are perfectly within your rights to circumscribe a finite world in which there are six ki-rin, all good, or ten thousand illithid, all evil.

We are discussing what's possible in D&D as a whole, not what's possible at Person X's kitchen table using only his personal houserules.


Second, as to the evil solar, you can reconcile the issue of free will with the issue of "always good" by deciding that one a solar is no longer good, it ceases to be a solar. Its form changes and it becomes something else (like an Erinyes). The idea is that goodness is part of its essential being. It's not strictly a creature of bone and blood and brain.

I wouldn't have a problem with that, except it doesn't happen that way in D&D. If you Sanctify a Balor, you end up with a Sancitified Balor, not an Eladrin. A fallen Solar may eventually become a Baatezu, but he won't turn red immediately; even Asmodeus stayed pretty and kept his feathers for a century or two, if we can believe FC2. A Succubus Paladin doesn't become an Archon, she stays a Succubus. Like it or not, that's how the mechanics play out.

Again, you can rule differently at your kitchen table all you like, but I wasn't aware that was the point of this thread.

hamishspence
2009-10-26, 03:06 PM
This is correct by D&D sourcebooks- Eldar Evils has that Fallen Planetar of Sertruous.

Also, in D&D computer gaming, if I remember my reading of the game guide correctly, the Solar in Planescape Torment is a Fallen Solar.

Its pretty consistant- angels who Fall, especially if they only Fall a short way, stay angels for a while.

The hard part is, by a strict reading of the spell and the template- you can't Sanctify a fiend- the fiend has to find its way to nonevilness on its own, so to speak. Others might be able to teach the fiend of Goodness, but it has to choose to be good itself- Goodness cannot be forced on a fiend, the way it can with other Evil beings.

Jothki
2009-10-26, 03:09 PM
Of course. Good is pretty, and therefore pretty must be good.
After all, you never see an ice devil paladin.

Also, making yourself uglier in exchange for becoming stronger is incredibly evil, while staying away from icky things regardless of the circumstances is incredibly good.

Aldizog
2009-10-26, 03:16 PM
There are good mindflayers too, by the way (check BoED) so your "limited population" litmus still fails to hold water in published D&D works.
I am quite aware of BoED. As has been evident from my posts throughout this thread, I am talking about what I consider makes for a good game and a good story, not trying to build an internally-consistent world out of a hodgepodge of everything that WotC has published. I am saying that illithid are likely a small enough population that a DM can decide "They are all evil in my world" and not really stretch plausibility. Same for, say, red dragons mature adult and older. There's probably only a handful of those.

Limited population is not a litmus test. It is rather a set of conditions under which you can say that incredibly unlikely things *are not likely to have happened.* Saying there are no good individuals if a species has free will and there are 100 million of them doesn't make much sense no matter how oppressive their society is. But if there are 10,000? That's a different matter. They could quite well have killed the few anomalies that popped up. Or maybe not; maybe that incredibly rare good example is still out there; the point is that with a small population, the DM can rule either way and not jar suspension of disbelief.



Again, you can rule differently at your kitchen table all you like, but I wasn't aware that was the point of this thread.
To me that has been the point all along. What use of "always" makes for a better game?

RAW are insufficient for world-building, and they aren't even really designed for it even to the same minimal degree they were in previous editions. The intention of WotC publishing material is not to tell DMs "These are things that should be in your world," but rather to offer things that *might* go into their world. A gameworld isn't "supposed" to include a population of every monster ever published, every template, and every PrC organization. It *always* is a DM decision as to what published material makes it into the world, and that is far more important than "well WotC has published this so that means this is how it is." Sooo... I'm focused on the DM decision of what goes into the world.

I personally like the idea that some creatures are wholly alien and not just "humans in funny makeup." Making "always evil" mean just that, for some creatures, is one means to accomplishing that.

pres_man
2009-10-26, 03:24 PM
Read the alignment definitions in the PHB.

Neutral has scrupples against harming others, but won't neccessarily risk his life to protect total strangers or otherwise give up anything really important to himself just to do the right thing.

If you want to call being unwilling to harm others just to get the most plusses or the most money or the most whatever "good lite" then, yes, neutral is rather CLEARLY defined as good lite by that definition.

Similarly amoral willingness to harm others freely for your own benefit is clearly defined to be evil.

What about amoral willingness to allow harm to come to others?

Optimystik
2009-10-26, 04:30 PM
I am quite aware of BoED. As has been evident from my posts throughout this thread, I am talking about what I consider makes for a good game and a good story, not trying to build an internally-consistent world out of a hodgepodge of everything that WotC has published. I am saying that illithid are likely a small enough population that a DM can decide "They are all evil in my world" and not really stretch plausibility. Same for, say, red dragons mature adult and older. There's probably only a handful of those.

I'm aware of your argument, but I was never talking about your campaign; I was talking about general D&D settings. There are non-evil chromatic dragons and fiends in both Faerun and Greyhawk, and there are beings of every single stripe in Eberron. So when you were saying my point doesn't stand, you weren't even addressing it to begin with.


To me that has been the point all along. What use of "always" makes for a better game?

No use of it at all is my answer.


I personally like the idea that some creatures are wholly alien and not just "humans in funny makeup." Making "always evil" mean just that, for some creatures, is one means to accomplishing that.

But again you run into the paradox. If they are Evil because they physically and mentally cannot exist any other way, then they lack free will, and so cannot have alignment. If they are all Evil because they choose to be, exceptions are still possible (such as, again, aberrations, fiends, and dragons), whether they exist at any one point in time or not.

Aldizog
2009-10-26, 04:54 PM
So when you were saying my point doesn't stand, you weren't even addressing it to begin with.
The only claim I of yours that I take issue with is that "Exceptions will always exist."
That implies that any DM, ever, who defines a given species as "Always evil" is being irrational.

You have since amended this to "exceptions are still possible (such as, again, aberrations, fiends, and dragons), whether they exist at any one point in time or not." Not the same as "exceptions will always exist."

I don't consider "general D&D settings" to have much meaning. Every game I've ever been in has had the DM deciding what is in the world and what isn't, even if it is a version of a published setting.

I would argue that even with free will there are a few ways a DM can set up things such that exceptions might *not* exist:
The population is of a small size relative to the incidence of "good" in that species, such that it is plausible that the society has rooted out any exceptions;
Goodness or evilness is an inherent component of the being's existence;
The being's form is more properly considered a "rank" than a "species," and acts against its alignment will strip it of its rank.

You are perfectly within your rights to say that "always evil" has no applicability in your games, or that world-building using RAW will allow for exceptions in every case. I feel that certain creatures offer more to a game if they do not have exceptions, and so I've offered a few in-game rationalizations for that.

Starbuck_II
2009-10-26, 05:02 PM
The hard part is, by a strict reading of the spell and the template- you can't Sanctify a fiend- the fiend has to find its way to nonevilness on its own, so to speak. Others might be able to teach the fiend of Goodness, but it has to choose to be good itself- Goodness cannot be forced on a fiend, the way it can with other Evil beings.

Agreed. Santify can't be used on evil subtype. Only Mindrape can turn a Fiend good by magic.
Yes, you can Mindrape him into being good.

Optimystik
2009-10-26, 05:14 PM
The only claim I of yours that I take issue with is that "Exceptions will always exist."
That implies that any DM, ever, who defines a given species as "Always evil" is being irrational.

You have since amended this to "exceptions are still possible (such as, again, aberrations, fiends, and dragons), whether they exist at any one point in time or not." Not the same as "exceptions will always exist."

I don't consider that an amendment. If there is free will, some member of that race is going to buck the curve eventually. He might not live to see his 18th (or even his 8th) birthday, but I don't consider it plausible that such aberrations will not exist.

The "at one point in time" merely means that a race that is so dedicated to Evil that it will slaughter offspring that show signs of goodness may at various discrete points in their history end up eliminating them all. That's still not saying that more won't (inevitably) crop up in the future.


You are perfectly within your rights to say that "always evil" has no applicability in your games, or that world-building using RAW will allow for exceptions in every case. I feel that certain creatures offer more to a game if they do not have exceptions, and so I've offered a few in-game rationalizations for that.

Of course I am, and of course it does; that was my point from the beginning. And while I still disagree with your rationalizations, you are quite correct that the DM doesn't need them, and can sculpt his table as he sees fit.

Riffington
2009-10-26, 05:15 PM
The only claim I of yours that I take issue with is that "Exceptions will always exist."
That implies that any DM, ever, who defines a given species as "Always evil" is being irrational.

No, it does not. After all, exceptions will always exist.

Optimystik
2009-10-26, 05:20 PM
No, it does not. After all, exceptions will always exist.

Without exception! :smalltongue:
(I'm aware of the irony, yes.)

Maryring
2009-10-26, 05:32 PM
Come on people, why can't we just say "almost always Evil" and leave it at that? Also Dicefreaks came out with a Nessian (probably a typo) Pit Fiend paladin named Utopias. Sadly the guy is a Lawful Stupid, Stupid Good, Granola Guy, Wide Eyed Idealist, Straw Liberal, Love Freak and Lord Error Prone all crammed into one diabolical-looking Pollyanish form. For all I can remember he even plays guitar and sings folk songs, badly of course. He's Heaven's version of Reg Shoe.
You now made it so I must make a deconstruction of Pollyanna. Thank you.

(And your name sounds familiar. Did I ever DM a game for you here?)

taltamir
2009-10-26, 06:51 PM
SHREK SPOILERS
Heh, one of the reasons the original Shrek was so good was because it subverted the common fantasy moral of "you don't have to be pretty to be good... but BECAUSE YOU WERE SO GOOD YOU GET TO BE PRETTY ANYWAY because that's how the world works."


heh... "you might be ugly, but now that you have done some good deeds you will be beautiful"... ah, fantasy...

Myrmex
2009-10-26, 06:58 PM
Wouldn't she just fall from associating with herself?

Must resist masturbation joke.

taltamir
2009-10-26, 07:41 PM
Must resist masturbation joke.

it has already been made, and then beaten like a monk... err dead horse. by multiple people.

Dervag
2009-10-27, 01:04 PM
I wouldn't have a problem with that, except it doesn't happen that way in D&D. If you Sanctify a Balor, you end up with a Sancitified Balor, not an Eladrin. A fallen Solar may eventually become a Baatezu, but he won't turn red immediately; even Asmodeus stayed pretty and kept his feathers for a century or two, if we can believe FC2. A Succubus Paladin doesn't become an Archon, she stays a Succubus. Like it or not, that's how the mechanics play out.

Again, you can rule differently at your kitchen table all you like, but I wasn't aware that was the point of this thread.I submit that the process by which celestials "fall" and transform into fiends is some kind of exotic epic-level effect that cannot be duplicated by normal means, even such extreme ones as Sanctify the Wicked. The alignment shift is a necessary condition for the species change, but not a sufficient condition.

That doesn't mean the process can be reversed, of course.

Optimystik
2009-10-28, 07:56 AM
I submit that the process by which celestials "fall" and transform into fiends is some kind of exotic epic-level effect that cannot be duplicated by normal means, even such extreme ones as Sanctify the Wicked. The alignment shift is a necessary condition for the species change, but not a sufficient condition.

That doesn't mean the process can be reversed, of course.

If the transformation is immediate, then I agree with you, it should be exotic and very hard to duplicate (even harder than the original fall was.) However, a Solar who spends a long time (on the order of centuries or millennia) being evil should end up becoming a fiend, or at least taking on fiendish traits. That way could be comparatively mundane... as mundane as Solars turning Evil can be anyway.

hamishspence
2009-10-28, 08:06 AM
Solar- or for that matter any Celestial.

As I recall, the early version of Baalzebul was pretty similar to a "normal" archon- except for the compound eyes- but over time he began to morph.

Then Asmodeus morphed him a lot more- into the current overgrown slug form.

The Fallen Planetar in Elder Evils has a snakelike head and skin, under its disguise. It also has different clerical domains to the normal Planetar.

taltamir
2009-10-29, 06:24 PM
because once you become evil, you must also become ugly!

Foryn Gilnith
2009-10-29, 06:32 PM
If there is free will, some member of that race is going to buck the curve eventually. He might not live to see his 18th (or even his 8th) birthday, but I don't consider it plausible that such aberrations will not exist.

What he's saying is that far as the outside world is concerned, that aberration never existed. Sure, logically, theoretically, it would happen; and theoretically there was probably one initial mating pair that can be identified as human. But nobody really cares, and for all practical purposes that race is always evil.


If they are Evil because they physically and mentally cannot exist any other way, then they lack free will, and so cannot have alignment.

How does this intersect with mindless undead? IMO "evil" creatures lacking free will are philosophically neutral but simply happen to be affected by holy word/holy smite/smite evil/et cetera, due to reasons other than mere morality.