PDA

View Full Version : Inevitable mentioning of Inevitables



Zincorium
2009-11-17, 08:05 AM
Alright, so I see people mentioning these things anytime someone even hints about players getting eternal life or otherwise 'breaking the laws of the universe' (possibly the least useful guideline ever).

Why, exactly?

Aside from those in the first monster manual, I have never seen a monster that people just assume to be present in other people's campaigns. If the DM doesn't decide that they exist in the first place, they're not there by default.

Their fluff is more problematic than useful. Who decided that eternal life is a particularly bad thing? Does the deciding party have any say whatsoever on a particular material plane (hint: the gods might have issues with unwanted interference)? Why are certain types of immortality (undead) provided with a 'get off scot free' card?


I can't even remember a pre-3rd ed precident for their existence, so it's not something like portable hole/bag of holding explosion- it's not traditional, and you can't blame it on earlier silly decisions.

Can anyone satisfactorily explain any of this?

Totally Guy
2009-11-17, 08:13 AM
Isn't it just a form of balance?

A kobold tries to do Pun Pun? Bam! Inevitables!

We ran a whole special session which pretty much had inevitables screw over the plans of a beguiler that used a magic staff to gestalt himself with sorcerer levels.

Oslecamo
2009-11-17, 08:17 AM
Isn't it just a form of balance?

A kobold tries to do Pun Pun? Bam! Inevitables!


This. Inevitables is what keeps the D&D universe running.

Someone tries to bind efreets? BAM inevitables!

Someone tries to create a trap based economy? BAM inevitables!

Basicaly, if players try to a dirty trick, inevitables fall, everybody dies!

I specialy like the campaign module where the party has to stop an inevitable from releasing a destructive god who had been traped by another party long ago. The god will completely reshape reality if released, but since it was captured with cheese, Mechanus decreed for it to be released anyway:smalltongue:

dsmiles
2009-11-17, 08:23 AM
Inevitables are the logical extensions of modrons (LN residents of Mechanus)from Advanced dungeons and Dragons. Everybody assumes that they exist in each other's campaigns because they assume that everybody plays the standard DnD cosmology.
I, for one, assume that they exist in my campaign, but trying to live forever doesn't seem to attract their attention as much as, say, trying to kill a god and take over his/her portfolio. Eternal life (and undeath) have their own pitfalls that make most sensible people avoid it (most notably, the unending boredom once you've done everything you wanted to do).

Haven
2009-11-17, 08:26 AM
I can't even remember a pre-3rd ed precident for their existence, so it's not something like portable hole/bag of holding explosion- it's not traditional, and you can't blame it on earlier silly decisions.

I seem to recall something like the Inevitables in one of the Planescape Monster Manuals in 2e; don't remember the specifics though.

Temet Nosce
2009-11-17, 08:32 AM
I'd agree they don't seem internally consistent and honestly I've never used them in a game. If I did however I'd certainly apply them across the board instead of allowing all sorts of excepts (either that or clarify precisely what they respond to).

I also wouldn't use them to punish "tricks". Since that'd be giving the players free EXP (or in the case of Pun-Pun simply meaningless).

Yrcrazypa
2009-11-17, 08:53 AM
To rectify Pun-pun, just make a special kind of Inevitable, the Punevitables. Basically Pun-pun, if he were an inevitable, and if there were hundreds of them. I think that would stop one lone Pun-pun, or at least cause the universe to self destruct.

shadow_archmagi
2009-11-17, 08:59 AM
Because they're flying robots that fire electric spiked chains from their hands.

WHY WOULD YOU NOT ASSUME EVERYONE USES THEM!?

I'm running a campaign where the PC's were teleported to Mad Wizard Island, and then Mad Wizard was killed by inevitables for screwing with portal magic too much. Now the inevitables consider the PC's "Tainted" and are hunting them.

They were like

"YESSSS WE'RE BEING HUNTED BY CHAINSAW BOTS BECAUSE WE'RE GUILTY OF CRIMES AGAINST EXISTENCE BY ASSOCIATION!"

Oslecamo
2009-11-17, 09:03 AM
I also wouldn't use them to punish "tricks". Since that'd be giving the players free EXP (or in the case of Pun-Pun simply meaningless).

Silly boy. Inevitables strike exacly before the players can pull out their cheese.

SmartAlec
2009-11-17, 09:13 AM
It's as if SkyNet worked for the Department of Pre-Crime.

Anyhow. Inevitables are just one of those things, you know? If you have Celestials then you probably have Fiends; if you have Slaad, you probably will have Inevitables.

String
2009-11-17, 09:23 AM
On the topic of Inevitables: How would you (as players) react to someone who pulled some cheese (for example, trying to do some candles/wishes/efreet bs) immediately dissapearing from existance? The reason would be time-displaced Inevitables, of course. I'm thinking of doing something like thatm, and then having my PCs have to figure out how their completely cheesy friend just disappeared.

Optimystik
2009-11-17, 09:23 AM
It's an in-universe way for the DM to say "no" without relying on a particular pantheon. You can always have Obad-Hai or Boccob step in to stop the reincarnating druids, Mind-Switching BBEG or whatever instead. Having a creature in core that exists solely to keep an eye on these sorts of abuses just frees the DM up from relying on stock (or indeed, any) deities.


On the topic of Inevitables: How would you (as players) react to someone who pulled some cheese (for example, trying to do some candles/wishes/efreet bs) immediately dissapearing from existance? The reason would be time-displaced Inevitables, of course. I'm thinking of doing something like thatm, and then having my PCs have to figure out how their completely cheesy friend just disappeared.

You don't even need inevitables for that. Just build a magical flaw/trap into one of the candles that pulls the user bodily into the Far Realm instead of calling an efreet. I mean, which shopkeeper in his right mind would sell a working candle of invocation instead of using it himself?

Temet Nosce
2009-11-17, 09:32 AM
On the topic of Inevitables: How would you (as players) react to someone who pulled some cheese (for example, trying to do some candles/wishes/efreet bs) immediately dissapearing from existance? The reason would be time-displaced Inevitables, of course. I'm thinking of doing something like thatm, and then having my PCs have to figure out how their completely cheesy friend just disappeared.

Depends on whether I knew where the DM was so I could have a book explain my feelings to his face or not.

Less jokingly, I'd most likely quit. If a DM was incapable of dealing with players on that level, I don't think I'd trust him enough to keep playing with him. If a player is pulling something that bad it needs to be dealt with OOC. It's not a character issue and sending an in game punishment not only doesn't fix it but creates more problems.

Oslecamo
2009-11-17, 09:36 AM
Less jokingly, I'd most likely quit. If a DM was incapable of dealing with players on that level, I don't think I'd trust him enough to keep playing with him. If a player is pulling something that bad it needs to be dealt with OOC. It's not a character issue and sending an in game punishment not only doesn't fix it but creates more problems.

Agreed. Someone who wants to breack the campaign so badly and can't admit anything the DM does against them should just quit D&D alltogheter.

Lysander
2009-11-17, 09:56 AM
It's as if SkyNet worked for the Department of Pre-Crime.

Anyhow. Inevitables are just one of those things, you know? If you have Celestials then you probably have Fiends; if you have Slaad, you probably will have Inevitables.

Yeah. If you're going to keep law and chaos as opposes forces in your game it makes sense to have neutral creatures of law and creatures of chaos with their own agendas.

Of course you don't need to have inevitables be cosmic enforcers. Some other type of being could could appear to kick mortal ass when necessary. It could be angels, or even devils that want to keep things running smoothly. Actually, devils opposing magical loopholes that free humans from death and scarcity makes perfect sense doesn't it?

Optimystik
2009-11-17, 10:04 AM
Agreed. Someone who wants to breack the campaign so badly and can't admit anything the DM does against them should just quit D&D alltogheter.

What you did there, I see it :smallamused:

mikeejimbo
2009-11-17, 11:43 AM
It's as if SkyNet worked for the Department of Pre-Crime.

Scariest crossover fanfic ever.

I like the idea of the Inevitables, myself, but I probably wouldn't include them in my campaign until the players do unsavory things.

dsmiles
2009-11-17, 12:53 PM
Alternatively, you could game with more mature players who see cheese for what it is.
Or, as the DM you could work cheese into the campaign so that it eventually works against the characters that caused it.
Remember, the core books are just guidelines, and loopholes are usually intentional so that both players and DM's alike are free to interpret the rules as they see fit.

Yuki Akuma
2009-11-18, 04:54 AM
Aside from those in the first monster manual, I have never seen a monster that people just assume to be present in other people's campaigns. If the DM doesn't decide that they exist in the first place, they're not there by default.

They are in the monster manual. So why can't people just assume people include them?

You cannot expect us to divine your own homebrew world - the default assumption is that everyone plays in Greyhawk. There are Inevitables in that campaign setting, so therefore the default assumption is that there are Inevitables in your campaign setting.

Everyone plays D&D differently, true - and we, the Internet as a whole, have no idea what anyone else plays, especially if they don't tell us. So to be safe we make assumptions - such as assuming anyone who doesn't say otherwise is playing "Generic D&D", whatever that entails depending on the edition they're running.

Zincorium
2009-11-18, 05:20 AM
Edit:

Complete apologies to Yuki.

I am either insane/have repressed the memories of even seeing them in there.

I will double check myself in the future.

Yuki Akuma
2009-11-18, 05:26 AM
No, they're in the freaking first Monster Manual. Please at least TRY to know what you're talking about before telling me I'm wrong. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/inevitable.htm)

There are Inevitables in splatbooks. There are also Eladrins, Guardinals, Demons and Devils in splatbooks.

But Inevitables first appeared in the Monster Manual. And are present in the SRD.

hamishspence
2009-11-18, 06:14 AM
They were not, however, in the 3.0 MM- they first appeared in 3rd ed in the Manual of the Planes.

Did earlier editions have them in the main monster manual- Maruts and the like?

dsmiles
2009-11-18, 06:52 AM
I believe that they were initially published in the 2e Planescape setting, then re-designed in 3.0 Manual of the Planes, then again in the 3.5 MM1.

Androgeus
2009-11-18, 10:53 AM
I, for one, assume that they exist in my campaign, but trying to live forever doesn't seem to attract their attention as much as, say, trying to kill a god and take over his/her portfolio


What if someone trys to kill a "God without portfolio"? :smalltongue:

Kaiyanwang
2009-11-18, 10:58 AM
I believe that they were initially published in the 2e Planescape setting, then re-designed in 3.0 Manual of the Planes, then again in the 3.5 MM1.

Just to say, there are 2 more, and more badass, in Fiend Folio. One punishes who plays with time (to avoid a Phane being relased I guess) and the other who obstacles deities (or something similar).

CR 15-17 IIRC.

jiriku
2009-11-18, 11:08 AM
:smallbiggrin:The FF inevitables are seriously badass. If I ever brought an inevitable into a game, I would take one of those two, advance it up to about 30 HD, and optimize the crap out of it. The enforcers of the laws of the universe play hardball, gentlemen.

Tiki Snakes
2009-11-18, 11:18 AM
Considering that on some level they are a slightly cheesy "Nu-uh! you can't do that! Rocks Fall!" with stats attatched, there does seem to be a rather... Vocal following for their use and inclusion and so on.

Personally, I dislike the idea that they have any right to enforce anything, and the way that most people seem to suggest that they should be used ("Inevitables fall, Everyone Dies!") is really not interesting to me.

But I think I may have room for a similar concept of creature in my own campaign, because whilst I hate the idea of things being cosmically appointed enforcers of somehow-tangible ideals, I love the idea of NPC's authorititively claiming to be that.

chiasaur11
2009-11-18, 11:41 AM
I think one thing that bugs me on this front is, well....

They really don't feel up to the job. The god problems one is CR 17?

By the time you start hunting gods, that should be a cakewalk, I presume.

Plus, even if a DM is going to go "Nuh-uh" to cheese in game, there are so many more fun ways to do it.

(Although I still am fond of the mental image of a wizar with a house full of inevitables incapable of harming him. "If it isn't cockroaches, it's inevitables. Well, such is life. Blueberry scones, anyone?")

Kaiyanwang
2009-11-18, 11:51 AM
I think one thing that bugs me on this front is, well....

They really don't feel up to the job. The god problems one is CR 17?

By the time you start hunting gods, that should be a cakewalk, I presume.

Plus, even if a DM is going to go "Nuh-uh" to cheese in game, there are so many more fun ways to do it.

(Although I still am fond of the mental image of a wizar with a house full of inevitables incapable of harming him. "If it isn't cockroaches, it's inevitables. Well, such is life. Blueberry scones, anyone?")

Weel, FF says that they (Varakhut) " hunt down those that attempt to usurp the power of the gods". They are CR 19, so maybe can be considered something like a proceeding for PC of that level for to reach higher level and start to challenge the gods.

That is, I cheked: Quarut CR 17, Varakhut CR 19.

Oslecamo
2009-11-18, 12:02 PM
They really don't feel up to the job. The god problems one is CR 17?


It is CR 19. And it can use wish as a SLA. Wich means it can simply wish the wizard and all his creations out of existence.

The CR 17 likes to hunt wizards who abuse wish, and has the tools to do so. Limited wish, time stop, dominate person, locate, teleport whitout error, ect, ect.

Yes, that's right, the forces that be created a monster that apears and rapes anyone who tries to abuse magic, unless said person is epic level already (in wich case the DM pulls out the epic handbook nasties).

jmbrown
2009-11-18, 12:06 PM
Aside from those in the first monster manual, I have never seen a monster that people just assume to be present in other people's campaigns. If the DM doesn't decide that they exist in the first place, they're not there by default.


The inevitables were introduced in the original Manual of the Planes (1987), fleshed out in Planescape, and officially adopted in D&D default canon in 3E's Monster Manual. If you adopt D&D as it appears in the core books including the D&D cosmology, then inevitables exist. Simple as that.


Their fluff is more problematic than useful. Who decided that eternal life is a particularly bad thing? Does the deciding party have any say whatsoever on a particular material plane (hint: the gods might have issues with unwanted interference)? Why are certain types of immortality (undead) provided with a 'get off scot free' card?

Inevitables aren't a product of any god, they're a product of Mechanus which is a plane of absolute neutrality. They adhere to the absolute laws of the universe: all life ends, all oaths are to be upheld, all actions have a reaction and those that escape their fate are to be punished.

Mechanus is a more alien world than any other D&D plane. The inevitables represent pure robotic mentality. They exist only for their purpose. Inevitables go after the grossest malfactors; sentient undead like liches and vampires are their prime targets, not ghouls and wights. They attack high level characters whose broken oaths cause suffering from millions. They bring to justice cosmic criminals escaping punishment for their deeds.


They really don't feel up to the job. The god problems one is CR 17?

By the time you start hunting gods, that should be a cakewalk, I presume.


They're not after gods, they're after mortals. Their fluff states they mostly hunt people from the prime material plane. Dragon Magazine fleshed them out more saying that inevitables have taken years to hunt their enemies. They gain experience, advance in character classes, ally with powerful characters (even adventurers), and do everything they can to make the first strike count. I can't remember much from the Dragon article but I believe their collective consciousness is sent back to Mechanus when they die so every time you kill an inevitable a new one more powerful than the last takes his place.

Saph
2009-11-18, 12:07 PM
Considering that on some level they are a slightly cheesy "Nu-uh! you can't do that! Rocks Fall!" with stats attatched, there does seem to be a rather... Vocal following for their use and inclusion and so on.

I think it's a reaction to the number of people who try to discuss RAW loophole abuses as if they're standard practice (when in real games they're most emphatically not). Custom items, custom traps, infinite loops, etc.

That said, I don't use them for that purpose, for the reason that's already pointed out - they're simply not hardcore enough. I did come up with a more credible enforcement unit, but I've never had the time to write down the stats, and it's kind of pointless since none of my players would be stupid enough to provoke its use. :)

Oslecamo
2009-11-18, 12:48 PM
I can't remember much from the Dragon article but I believe their collective consciousness is sent back to Mechanus when they die so every time you kill an inevitable a new one more powerful than the last takes his place.

In elder evils it's stated that when an inevitable is destroyed in the line of duty a stronger, faster, smarter version is produced.

However there have been cases of six generations of inevitables being sent one after the other after the other to try to correct a certain deed, altough it was quite a cosmic proportions one.


Saph: Let's admit it. If something has stats, it can be defeated. If you want to have an unstopable force then you just state that it does whatever you want and laugh maniacaly when the players ask to see it's stats.

Inevitables follow the credo that justive will be served, but perhaps later than sooner. If one fails, the next one will act more carefully, bide it's time, get levels, make alliances, even create whole organizations in order to fulfill it's mission.

Sure a vanila inevitable isn't that scary, but a marrut with 20 levels of cleric and wizard at the midle of an army of high level NPCs all with pimped out gear to take down the infractor? Isn't that hardcore enough for you?:smallwink:

Random832
2009-11-18, 01:12 PM
Can anyone satisfactorily explain any of this?

Two words: Default cosmology. Unless specified otherwise, Mechanus exists, and has certain creatures that come from it.

That said, it's generally brought up in two situations - when the players are trying to do something really cheesy against the DM's will, and for theoretical stuff (which assumes that _everything_ is in except for stuff specific to settings other than the default) like Pun-pun or the Tippyverse.

dsmiles
2009-11-18, 01:15 PM
@^:
Or Trip, the Kobold Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight.

tyckspoon
2009-11-18, 05:25 PM
Sure a vanila inevitable isn't that scary, but a marrut with 20 levels of cleric and wizard at the midle of an army of high level NPCs all with pimped out gear to take down the infractor? Isn't that hardcore enough for you?:smallwink:

Well, yes, but it's also almost entirely irrelevant that it's a marut at that point. You may as well say the players have drawn the ire of a random halfling or dragon or whatever (which may make more sense anyway, as inevitables "...have a hard time keeping allies for long.")

Personally I think the concept of Inevitables as rocks-fall-made-stats does them a severe disservice. They are far more interesting as tools for world-shaping. Imagine a world where Kolyaruts (the oaths and contracts ones) take their job really seriously. You have a society where people are very, very careful about saying anything that even *sounds* like a promise. Favors and promises may become something like a proper currency- after all, a fundamental part of the universe itself guarantees that they will be honored. Or Zelekhuts could be common, and render mundane prison systems redundant. The presence and activity levels of Inevitables can have major ramifications on a world, far beyond the default of not doing anything unless you annoy the DM.

Oslecamo
2009-11-18, 05:30 PM
The presence and activity levels of Inevitables can have major ramifications on a world, far beyond the default of not doing anything unless you annoy the DM.

Well of course but people barely seem to remember them, despite they being part of the basic cosmology. Everybody discussing angels and demons and everybody doing as they please, but nobody reminds the robots who live to enforce law.

Steward
2009-11-18, 05:37 PM
I think Inevitables should be used to punish cheese as a plot point. If it's just "they appear, roll a new character" and there's nothing the players can really do for a plot thing and then it's really better to just have a talk OOC.

Count Dravda
2009-11-18, 07:05 PM
Personally, I dislike the idea that they have any right to enforce anything, and the way that most people seem to suggest that they should be used ("Inevitables fall, Everyone Dies!") is really not interesting to me.

But I think I may have room for a similar concept of creature in my own campaign, because whilst I hate the idea of things being cosmically appointed enforcers of somehow-tangible ideals, I love the idea of NPC's authorititively claiming to be that.

Yeah, that last part is basically what inevitables are, to me. They're self-righteous jerks: they have appointed themselves to uphold arbitrary laws that might be outdated, out or sync with reality, or never practiced. They might catch genuine villains once in a while (like liches) but they are primarily just another villainous force, even if they destroy in the name of "law" and not "evil."

Which lends them to being used as misguided villains really well. Pandorym has been mentioned a few times (but not by name), since one of the villains was an inevitable named Obligatum VII. I can also imagine a scenario where an inevitable is in a similar role to Miko when she was first sent to bring in the Order of the Stick.

-Count Dravda

RandomNPC
2009-11-18, 09:56 PM
these guys are all kinds of plot points.

1: What if the party is nearby when one starts recruiting help? they are described as willing to accept help, but will disregard the well being, and life, of an ally if they get in the way or fall behind.

2: They are inteligent, anything inteligent can be lied to, and the party has enemies. granted they try very hard to gather facts, but harder than the partys villans trying to frame them?

3: Maybe a "Greater Good" style event went down, actually did some good, but triggered a mass violation, resulting in a horde of inevitables removing a town from the map. Whos the bad guy then?

KillianHawkeye
2009-11-18, 10:13 PM
... Mechanus which is a plane of absolute neutrality.

Mechanus is a plane of absolute Law. /nitpick

Yuki Akuma
2009-11-19, 04:51 AM
It is CR 19. And it can use wish as a SLA. Wich means it can simply wish the wizard and all his creations out of existence.

Sure, except the wizard would get a saving throw, which he's likely to pass if he's a big enough threat to existence to warrant being wished into nothing. (And Wish can't do that - it would just emulate a save-or-die spell.)


Mechanus is a plane of absolute Law. /nitpick

Absolute Lawful Neutrality. :smalltongue:

dsmiles
2009-11-19, 05:39 AM
I still don't particularly use inevitables. They just don't fit in my cosmology. If the gods of law want somebody punished, they're more likely to use adventurers. Adventurers are far more devious in their punishments than just "wishing the bad wizard out of existance."
And it's more fun for the adventurers if they get to do it.
If the adventurers use too much cheese, I just slap down a big cracker and say, "Your cheese or your life!"

Kaiyanwang
2009-11-19, 07:13 AM
Which lends them to being used as misguided villains really well. Pandorym has been mentioned a few times (but not by name), since one of the villains was an inevitable named Obligatum VII. I can also imagine a scenario where an inevitable is in a similar role to Miko when she was first sent to bring in the Order of the Stick.


even if I dont' agree with the "jerkness", is true that they are very good misguided villains. In one of my campaing, Baatezu found a way to penetrate into the "master mold" of inevitables and re-programmed it toward LE. The fun...

Saph
2009-11-19, 07:19 AM
Saph: Let's admit it. If something has stats, it can be defeated. If you want to have an unstopable force then you just state that it does whatever you want and laugh maniacaly when the players ask to see it's stats.

Well, I didn't want an unstoppable force, I just wanted a credible one. Plus it was sort of amusing to work out the answer to the theoretical question: "If you had near-infinite resources, what kind of unit would you produce as a D&D enforcer?" There are several ways of dealing with loopholes in D&D, this is just one of them.

Oslecamo
2009-11-19, 07:29 AM
Sure, except the wizard would get a saving throw, which he's likely to pass if he's a big enough threat to existence to warrant being wished into nothing. (And Wish can't do that - it would just emulate a save-or-die spell.)


It can do that. You just need to choose the dangerous version. Since the inevitable is on the hands of the DM, an the DM is the one who rules if dangerous wishes work as intended or not, well, you get the idea.

But as people have said, this is reserved for the more bastardy players. Other people would get a more fair fight, having to fight their own dominated party members, mass dispelings, ect, ect.

Point is, Inevitables are the only creatures with proper motivation to use their powers to go hunting others who abuse their powers whitout abusing them themselves. They do their job, and then they return to Mechanus for a new assignment, whitout ever going into world conquering/changing delusions or anything like that. They care only about keeping the law. If the laws they follow are wrong is another mather alltogheter, but disobeying orders is for those heretic non LN dudes.:smalltongue:

Saph: Inevitables are very credible threats against nonoptimized players. Against optimized players, you need to optimize the monsters, not only inevitables, but anything else taken straight out of a book. Unless you can point me to a monster who's a challenge to an optimized character whitout you toying around with it's feats/skills/advancement/class levels/items/ect.

See above why use inevitables as the base creatures. they're the embodiment of lawfull neutral(or as other people call it, lawfull stupid. Yes, it's the same thing). A lawfull good uses rules to help others, and a lawfull evil uses them for his own benefit, but a lawfull neutral being lives to serve the rules.