PDA

View Full Version : Where does it point out where always, often and usually mean in terms of alignment?



Mystic Muse
2010-05-19, 08:21 PM
The title says it all. I can't find this in the SRD or in the DMG. anybody care to point out where this is?

Drakevarg
2010-05-19, 08:22 PM
In the Monster Manual, I believe. "Always" means 99% of the time, Usually means like, 66%, and Often is at least 33%.

Mystic Muse
2010-05-19, 08:35 PM
Okay thanks.

Hmm. My plan just might work.

Also, at least according to my copy it doesn't specify percentages. It says more than 50% for Usually, 40-50 for often and "There are exceptions but they're rare" for always.

Drakevarg
2010-05-19, 08:37 PM
Ah. I didn't actually look in the book for those numbers. Just a rough approximation that says essentially the same thing.

Mystic Muse
2010-05-19, 08:54 PM
Ah. I didn't actually look in the book for those numbers. Just a rough approximation that says essentially the same thing.

Yeah. You're right. However, there's one specific passage I'm interested in. It says an always x creature may come from a plane that predetermines their alignment. Would this mean that if the creature were taken off of that plane before they were born (such as with a tarterian dragon) would that affect their alignment or does being native to a plane automatically make you the same alignment as that plane?

Drakevarg
2010-05-19, 08:57 PM
Not nessicarily. After all, if fiends and the like had literally no ability to control their alignment, they'd default to neutral like animals, since they essentially lack moral capacity. They don't do evil for any reason, it's just what they do.

But since they AREN'T neutral, that means that free will is involved. Sure, they grow up in a culture that is utterly and unflinchingly evil, sure they have a genetic disposition towards it, but it would be possible for even a Pit Fiend to decide for whatever reason to be Chaotic Good. It's just almost unheard of, hence the "Always".

Mystic Muse
2010-05-19, 09:01 PM
Ah okay. Hmm. The only problem with my plan is trying to find a Pyroclastic dragon egg, hatching it, and passing the checks I'll need to. Oh yeah, and not attracting the wrath of mama and papa:smalleek: (I have very good reason for wanting a Pyroclastic dragon.)

Drakevarg
2010-05-19, 09:02 PM
(I have very good reason for wanting a Pyroclastic dragon.)

OTHER than the fact that they're awesome?

Yukitsu
2010-05-19, 09:02 PM
Not nessicarily. After all, if fiends and the like had literally no ability to control their alignment, they'd default to neutral like animals, since they essentially lack moral capacity. They don't do evil for any reason, it's just what they do.

But since they AREN'T neutral, that means that free will is involved. Sure, they grow up in a culture that is utterly and unflinchingly evil, sure they have a genetic disposition towards it, but it would be possible for even a Pit Fiend to decide for whatever reason to be Chaotic Good. It's just almost unheard of, hence the "Always".

Free will isn't part of D&D alignments, which is why some mindless things like skeletons are evil.

Mystic Muse
2010-05-19, 09:03 PM
OTHER than the fact that they're awesome?

.......no.

Greenish
2010-05-19, 09:05 PM
Yeah. You're right. However, there's one specific passage I'm interested in. It says an always x creature may come from a plane that predetermines their alignment. Would this mean that if the creature were taken off of that plane before they were born (such as with a tarterian dragon) would that affect their alignment or does being native to a plane automatically make you the same alignment as that plane?Please consult the table below:

{TABLE]d4|result
1|nature
2|nurture
3|both
4|roll again twice[/TABLE]

[Edit]: Realized the horror that is d3 and updated to d4, which is a funny die indeed.

Drakevarg
2010-05-19, 09:06 PM
Free will isn't part of D&D alignments, which is why some mindless things like skeletons are evil.

"Moral capacity" is the exact wording used in the PHB to explain why all animals are True Neutral. Skeletons are evil because they literally RUN ON EVIL. They don't have moral values, its they just happen to be powered by the tears of orphans.

Besides, the only one you need to convince is the DM.

Mystic Muse
2010-05-19, 09:12 PM
Please consult the table below:

{TABLE]d4|result
1|nature
2|nurture
3|both
4|roll again twice[/TABLE]

[Edit]: Realized the horror that is d3 and updated to d4, which is a funny die indeed.

The only problem with the D4 is that it doesn't roll very well.
The only problem with the D3 is it doesn't exist.

I'm hoping to get a Pyroclastic dragon egg by getting rid of the disintegrate ray. SR too. I don't like SR.

Boci
2010-05-19, 09:15 PM
The only problem with the D3 is it doesn't exist.

They do actually, you can buy them in the shops. 6 sided with two 1s, two 2s and two 3s. I just use a d6 personally.

Greenish
2010-05-19, 09:15 PM
The only problem with the D4 is that it doesn't roll very well.Make it from rubber and toss it as hard as you can.

The only problem with the D3 is it doesn't exist.Why you even bother to bring up such a minor detail I'll never know.

Mystic Muse
2010-05-19, 09:17 PM
Why you even bother to bring up such a minor detail I'll never know.

because I can.Mythbusters disproved the double dipping myth.=p


They do actually, you can buy them in the shops. 6 sided with two 1s, two 2s and two 3s. I just use a d6 personally.

was unaware of this.

Yukitsu
2010-05-19, 09:18 PM
"Moral capacity" is the exact wording used in the PHB to explain why all animals are True Neutral. Skeletons are evil because they literally RUN ON EVIL. They don't have moral values, its they just happen to be powered by the tears of orphans.

Besides, the only one you need to convince is the DM.

Eh. Most I've talked to agree that negative energy isn't actually evil. Besides, a lich who is still powered by negative energy can be good aligned, and even be a paladin since it can have a good moral capacity. They aren't evil subtyped or anything like that implying they're powered by evil.

Animals aren't not evil because they don't have a moral capacity, but because they don't act in a good or evil way. They basically just are. They kill things too, but unlike a skeleton which kills to kill, they kill to survive.

Drakevarg
2010-05-19, 09:22 PM
Eh. Most I've talked to agree that negative energy isn't actually evil. Besides, a lich who is still powered by negative energy can be good aligned, and even be a paladin since it can have a good moral capacity. They aren't evil subtyped or anything like that implying they're powered by evil.

Animals aren't not evil because they don't have a moral capacity, but because they don't act in a good or evil way. They basically just are. They kill things too, but unlike a skeleton which kills to kill, they kill to survive.

'scept, y'know, animals DO murder. And fiends "basically just are", too, if they are literally incapable of being good-aligned. They don't act in a good or evil way, they just torture and kill and rape and conquer because that's just how they're made.

Now, if a fiend CAN be good-aligned, then it's more of a bias from their genetics/upbringing.

Mystic Muse
2010-05-19, 09:23 PM
"You cannot be good without the ability to be evil." wish I could remember who said this. It works in reverse too.

SaintRidley
2010-05-19, 09:39 PM
The only problem with the D3 is it doesn't exist.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/D3wiki.JPG

Mystic Muse
2010-05-19, 09:45 PM
okay. Maybe I was wrong.

Yorrin
2010-05-19, 09:54 PM
Now the trick is getting a n00bish DM to believe that such things mean that you can roll a LN Barbarian or a CN Paladin or what have you. It would open up so many more options...

Ravens_cry
2010-05-19, 09:55 PM
Make it from rubber and toss it as hard as you can.

I find shaking it in your cupped hand also works. There are also d12 that are marked with 3 sets of four numerals.

Mystic Muse
2010-05-19, 09:57 PM
Now the trick is getting a n00bish DM to believe that such things mean that you can roll a LN Barbarian or a CN Paladin or what have you. It would open up so many more options...

Well, he's not noobish enough to allow that. Although he is a bit noobish when it comes to power levels of the various classes.

Greenish
2010-05-19, 09:57 PM
I find shaking it in your cupped hand also works.Yeah, or tossing it upwards, or what have you.
There are also d12 that are marked with 3 sets of four numerals.I actually like the tetrahedron though.

Yukitsu
2010-05-19, 11:10 PM
'scept, y'know, animals DO murder. And fiends "basically just are", too, if they are literally incapable of being good-aligned. They don't act in a good or evil way, they just torture and kill and rape and conquer because that's just how they're made.


Killing something for necessity of survival isn't usually called murder. It's why paladins don't have to be vegetarians.

Drakevarg
2010-05-19, 11:13 PM
Killing something for necessity of survival isn't usually called murder. It's why paladins don't have to be vegetarians.

I didn't say "for necessity of survival". I said murder. Animals do murder. Monkeys, dolphins, etc, are known to murder their own kind without any survival-related reason.

Yukitsu
2010-05-19, 11:15 PM
I didn't say "for necessity of survival". I said murder. Animals do murder. Monkeys, dolphins, etc, are known to murder their own kind without any legitmate cause.

Those are an acception, not a norm, nor is "neutral" an always alignment for animals. Or at least, not properly always. Those would be one of those rare evil ones. Kind of like how there are a few good ones that save little Timmy when he falls in a well.

Drakevarg
2010-05-19, 11:15 PM
Those are an acception, not a norm, nor is "neutral" an always alignment for animals. Or at least, not properly always. Those would be one of those rare evil ones. Kind of like how there are a few good ones that save little Timmy when he falls in a well.

Murder isn't the norm for humans, either.

And in regards to DnD alignment, no. The PHB specifically states that animals are incapable of being anything but True Neutral. Not "in almost all cases". Always.

Yukitsu
2010-05-19, 11:19 PM
Where does it say that? All I can find is "always neutral" besides each of them, which doesn't mean always.

People also tend, on the whole to engage in more senseless violence and such than even an "evil" animal, hence the wider variation even though we're considered usually TN.

Drakevarg
2010-05-19, 11:26 PM
PHB, p. 104

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral rather than good or evil. Even deadly vipers and tigers that eat people are neutral because they lack the capacity for morally right or wrong behavior.

Animals and other creatures incapable of moral action are neutral. Dogs may be obedient and cats free-spirited, but they do not have the moral capacity to be truly lawful or chaotic.

I'm not saying I agree with them, I'm just saying that within the guidelines set by the PHB, animals are incapable of moral action, and by logical extension any creature with a non-neutral alignment IS capable of moral action and can thus choose to go against their standard alignment.

Mystic Muse
2010-05-19, 11:28 PM
Unless they are literally fueled by evil or good. In which case they might not have a neutral alignment. In the case of skeletons for example. Although why negative energy is evil is beyond me. Especially since several negative energy spells don't have the "evil" descriptor.

Drakevarg
2010-05-19, 11:29 PM
Unless they are literally fueled by evil or good. In which case they might not have a neutral alignment. In the case of skeletons for example. Although why negative energy is evil is beyond me. Especially since several negative energy spells don't have the "evil" descriptor.

So smite evil works on them, probably. WotC is kinda stupid like that.

But as you said, "One cannot truely be good without the ability to be evil." And vice versa.

Yukitsu
2010-05-19, 11:29 PM
How bout a skeleton? :smallconfused: Or how about any animal with an alignment altering template? Or for a non-aligned plane, a dark creature which makes animals usually neutral evil?

Also, I would argue that they weren't necessarily knowledgeable of random animal murders. (frankly, I've never seen one that wasn't related to territorial disputes where the scientist couldn't disintangle the groupings.)

Drakevarg
2010-05-19, 11:31 PM
How bout a skeleton? :smallconfused:

Also, I would argue that they weren't necessarily knowledgeable of random animal murders. (frankly, I've never seen one that wasn't related to territorial disputes where the scientist couldn't disintangle the groupings.)

I've read up on ones where a monkey would just snatch a baby monkey out of its mother's arms and kill it for ****s-n-giggles. Or dolphins that would beat porposes to death despite the fact that they don't share the same diet or territory.

Edit-Ninja'd:
For an animal with an alignment-altering template, the only ones I know of make them Magical Beasts with an INT of at least 3, making them capable of moral action.

Also, if I decide to kill my neighbor because his fridge is better stocked than mine, I'm a murderer. If a lion does it, it's a "territorial dispute."

To quote Jubal Early, "Does that seem right to you?"

Yukitsu
2010-05-19, 11:38 PM
I've read up on ones where a monkey would just snatch a baby monkey out of its mother's arms and kill it for ****s-n-giggles. Or dolphins that would beat porposes to death despite the fact that they don't share the same diet or territory.

More recent studies found this was when the original father was driven off in apes, and the new monkey will kill the offspring that aren't his own. It's a drive instinct to ensure the mother stops caring for the child such that she can have another child sooner. It's not a random event, but an evolutionarily stable strategy.

Don't know about dolphins and porpoises, and don't really care to study marine life. If it's anything like the human's they've drowned, probably something stupid, like they don't understand other animals don't play the same way they do.


Edit-Ninja'd:
For an animal with an alignment-altering template, the only ones I know of make them Magical Beasts with an INT of at least 3, making them capable of moral action.

Feindish and celestial changes to magical beast, but does not increase their intelligence. The dark lion is given an int of 2, and an alignment of usually neutral evil.


Also, if I decide to kill my neighbor because his fridge is better stocked than mine, I'm a murderer. If a lion does it, it's a "territorial dispute."

To quote Jubal Early, "Does that seem right to you?"

You'll often find territorial disputes end with either injuries, or one side backing off. People are a bit different because we have no obvious ways of telling who's stronger or as the case is, better armed, and thus can't do any obvious dominance displays.

That and most animals won't fight over the best land if they have their own. It's only when they don't have enough to attain the means of survival, or have enough dominance over the other that they aren't likely to clash. The only thing where reciprocated violence is common is a fight for a female, but frankly those are done as fair fights, not one side shooting the other. It is very, very rare for one side to rush in and kill the other without first giving the other time to back off or to fight back. So rare that I can't think of any examples off the top of my head other than plants funnily enough.

Drakevarg
2010-05-19, 11:42 PM
MM, p. 31, under Celestial Creature:

Abilities: Same as the base creature, but Intelligence is at least 3.

And like I edited in my last post before getting ninja'd, if an animal murders for a pragmatic reason its just a survival tactic. If I do the same, I'm a murderer. I call bull****.

lsfreak
2010-05-19, 11:42 PM
I've read up on ones where a monkey would just snatch a baby monkey out of its mother's arms and kill it for ****s-n-giggles. Or dolphins that would beat porposes to death despite the fact that they don't share the same diet or territory.

Yup, primates (iirc, chimpanzees and baboons) and dolphins are the ones I've heard of committing what could potentially be labeled 'murder,' as opposed to lions (for example) killing cubs (reproduction-based reasons) or hyena cubs (reduce competition).

While more ambiguous, a wide variety of predators have been recorded surplus killing, where their prey is slaughtered in large groups, with no apparent cause.

Mystic Muse
2010-05-19, 11:44 PM
Fiendish and Celestial templates change intelligence to at least three. So, yes, they are totally capable of moral action at that point.

Drakevarg
2010-05-19, 11:45 PM
Well, real-world biology aside, in DnD at least, animals are incapable of moral action. Because of this they are True Neutral regardless of their behavior. Therefore logically, any creature with an alignment other than True Neutral is capable of moral action and by extension can choose a nonstandard alignment.

Now, if you don't mind, I need to get to bed...

The Glyphstone
2010-05-19, 11:52 PM
Aren't fiends evil not by upbringing/choice, but because their flesh, blood and soul are literally formed from solidified evilness?

Yukitsu
2010-05-19, 11:53 PM
Aren't fiends evil not by upbringing/choice, but because their flesh, blood and soul are literally formed from solidified evilness?

Sort of. They can however become good aligned. They just remain evil subtyped.

Missed the "at least 3 intelligence" clause in celestial. However, it does remain in the case of a dark creature as well as many forms of undead.

Mystic Muse
2010-05-19, 11:54 PM
Sort of. They can however become good aligned. They just remain evil subtyped.

Which oddly does not prevent them from being Paladins.

Devils_Advocate
2010-05-20, 04:46 AM
After all, if fiends and the like had literally no ability to control their alignment, they'd default to neutral like animals, since they essentially lack moral capacity.
You're making an unjustified assumption about what "moral capacity" means in this context. A creature's alignment describes how it chooses to interact with other sentient beings. As such, a creature with no concept of other sentient beings is unaligned/neutral. It seems likely that this is the sense in which animals (allegedly) lack moral capacity. There are probably other senses that would also work.

Furthermore, suppose that a fiend is both fundamentally evil and capable of deciding what its alignment will be. Given that it's fundamentally evil, what alignment is it going to choose for itself? Well, evil, obviously. Just like being fundamentally good would prevent someone from choosing to be evil (http://www.robandelliot.cycomics.com/archive.php?id=24).

When someone says that a sentient being, rather than e.g. an inanimate object, "can" do something, they often mean this in the special sense that the sentient being could perform the activity if it wanted to. That doesn't necessarily mean that there's actually a possibility that it might do it, as it might be that it will certainly never want to. Thus, taking "can" to mean "might" in this context is equivocation. (I once saw this used in the argument "God cannot be perfectly good and all-powerful, since if He is all-powerful He can sin, but if He is perfectly good He cannot." Doesn't quite work.)

"Free will" is a contradiction in terms, insofar as the term "will" refers to a force that determines one's actions and the term "free" denies any such determination. That you determine your own actions requires that your actions be determined, not undetermined. (http://lesswrong.com/lw/r0/thou_art_physics/) Specifically, it requires that your actions be determined by you. This factor does not serve to make human behavior unpredictable. On the contrary, I predict with a high degree of certainty that you will eat a meal within the next twenty-four hours, not because you are compelled to eat against your will, but because you are compelled to eat by your will, as it is your will that you be fed. You're still "free" to go hungry, in the sense that you could if you wanted to.


They don't do evil for any reason, it's just what they do.
Nothing happens for no reason. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sufficient_reason) Given sufficient evidence, I could accept that a unicorn appeared out of thin air. I could accept that there was no discoverable cause for this event. But it wouldn't occur to me that maybe it had just happened for no reason. Not, interestingly enough, because there's any sort of logical contradiction involved in that notion, but because it's so out of keeping with how we understand the universe to work as to be basically unthinkable. And that's double plus extra true for the idea that some type of event might routinely happen for no reason. (Thus, this is also a major problem for any theory of "free will" that labels choices as "uncaused".)


They don't act in a good or evil way, they just torture and kill and rape and conquer because that's just how they're made.
I'd be interested to know what you think it means to act in an evil way, then.


The PHB specifically states that animals are incapable of being anything but True Neutral. Not "in almost all cases". Always.
No, it doesn't. It implies it, sure, but you're really overstating your case here.


And like I edited in my last post before getting ninja'd, if an animal murders for a pragmatic reason its just a survival tactic. If I do the same, I'm a murderer. I call bull****.
The choices of, say, lions, are made in very different psychological and social contexts than choices made by human beings. That's not a trivial distinction.


Aren't fiends evil not by upbringing/choice, but because their flesh, blood and soul are literally formed from solidified evilness?
But evilness is a quality, not a substance. It's nonsensical to state that a physical object is literally composed of (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PureEnergy)... oh, look, never mind.


Although why negative energy is evil is beyond me.
It isn't. Certain uses of negative energy are arbitrarily labeled "evil" for no apparent reason beyond some writers liking to arbitrarily label things "evil".

Zombies and skeletons are allegedly mindless, Neutral Evil creatures that just unquestioningly follow the commands of whoever controls them. But at most one of those things can be true.

(1) It's not spelled out what "moral action" is supposed to mean, but that barely matters here, because it's clear that for any reasonable meaning that it might have in this context, mindless creatures are incapable of it.

(2) Anything capable of understanding language ought to have an Int score of 1 at the very least. And yet "mindless automatons" under your control can do things that take weeks to teach a dog to do just because you tell them to do them. Unlike with Strength and Constitution, we're provided with no reason why Int Ø should function any differently from Int 0; it just arbitrarily does, and arbitrarily is the one mental ability score that creatures are allowed to not have. (And yet Charisma is required. Charisma. What the frick?)

(3) Blind obedience to a master is Lawful Neutral or arguably just Neutral. It's certainly not necessarily Evil. Zombies pretty clearly have the same general moral and personal attitudes as golems. "A creature’s general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment". Ergo, zombies and golems should have the same alignment. It's not rocket science!

(And if zombies and skeletons are just supposed to interact with alignment-based effects as though they were Evil... well, that's what the Evil subtype is for, innit?)

hamishspence
2010-05-20, 05:10 AM
'scept, y'know, animals DO murder. And fiends "basically just are", too, if they are literally incapable of being good-aligned. They don't act in a good or evil way, they just torture and kill and rape and conquer because that's just how they're made.

Now, if a fiend CAN be good-aligned, then it's more of a bias from their genetics/upbringing.

According to Expedition to the Demonweb Pits (3.5 splatbook), at least 1 type of demon (despite its Evil subtype and extraplanar type) is Often Chaotic Evil, Usually Evil, and "10% are Neutral or Good".

The cambion.

However, the reason for this, is suggested to be that it's mortal parent (a planetouched, usually a tiefling) was not evil.

So, you can have the Evil subtype, be a fiend, and not be Evil.

Savage Species, in its description of "outlooks" for various societies, has "Chaotic/Accepting" - which has as its philosophy, that monsters, even fiends are often victims of their own psychoses, and that it's possible for a fiend to be redeemed.

A ritual in Savage Species allows you to replace the Evil subtype of a creature, with the Good subtype. If the creature is unlucky (fails a Will save) it will die in the process, though.

Greenish
2010-05-20, 05:16 AM
So, you can have the Evil subtype, be a fiend, and not be Evil.Indeed, there was a sample NPC in WotC's pages who was a succubus paladin. She gained a negative level from holding her Holy weapons.

hamishspence
2010-05-20, 05:20 AM
Conversely, there's an angel in Elder Evils which is Evil (but still has the Good subtype)

Having a subtype doesn't make it impossible to be of other alignments, just extremely difficult.

Same applies to "always" for half-fiends and the like. The Epic Handbook mentions a Neutral half-fiend gargoyle who is a shopkeeper.

Lix Lorn
2010-05-20, 11:39 AM
Skeletons are evil because they literally RUN ON EVIL. They don't have moral values, its they just happen to be powered by the tears of orphans.
Hate to jump in, but can I sig that? XD

Zeful
2010-05-20, 11:49 AM
In the Monster Manual, I believe. "Always" means 99% of the time, Usually means like, 66%, and Often is at least 33%.

I took it to mean that: "Without outside interference (Helm of Opposite Alignment, any of the varied spells that change alignment etc.) a creature of the Always Evil will not choose anything other than Evil."

hamishspence
2010-05-20, 12:03 PM
Or "outside interference" that is nonmagical.

Can an Always Evil being be redeemed without magic? If you go by BoED- it can, though it's difficult. Only a Outsider with the Evil subtype can't be redeemed in the fashion it describes (through Diplomacy).

2xMachina
2010-05-20, 12:10 PM
^ How does the Paladin Succubus come about then? Pretty sure it didn't get Helmed.

Mystic Muse
2010-05-20, 12:13 PM
^ How does the Paladin Succubus come about then? Pretty sure it didn't get Helmed.

IIRC She saw an angel she thought was freaking hot and wanted to get with him but she could only do that if she was good aligned. So she repented and became a Paladin.

hamishspence
2010-05-20, 12:15 PM
Chose of its own accord? Sanctify the Wicked?

(Technically, as written, the spell shouldn't work on fiends, since, while the spell description doesn't say it won't work, the template that the spell grants, states specifically that it can't be applied to fiends.)

Maybe it works out as, the creature gaining a new alignment, but not the Sanctified template.

If it doesn't work on fiends though, the fiend itself has to go through experiences which lead it to choose Neutrality or Goodness- you can't just use Diplomacy on the fiend (over a long period) since it doesn't work.

Besides the WoTC succubus, Fall-From-Grace, in Planescape Torment, was LN- and has been mentioned in the later source Demonomicon: Malcanthet, an article in Dragon Magazine, written by the writers of Fiendish Codex 1.

2xMachina
2010-05-20, 12:16 PM
^ I say that counts for redemption through diplomacy.

Or heck, Evil subtypes can choose to be Good without any interference (unless you count seeing something a interference)

EDIT: Ninjaed.
Refering to the post ^ twice

hamishspence
2010-05-20, 12:22 PM
I'd probably go with "player's can't use diplomacy to redeem unrepentant demons" though- only a demon which has, somehow, chose itself to seek redemption- can be redeemed.

The article is here:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a

The important bit:


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.

Mystic Muse
2010-05-20, 12:25 PM
^ I say that counts for redemption through diplomacy.


Probably.

hehe. Looking at the diplomacy tables I'm thinking of doing something very funny in my DM's campaign. (just as a joke and then he'll override it with rule zero)\

The funny thing is using Diplomancy to turn an aspect of Tiamat to indifferent and then to helpful.:smallamused:

Lix Lorn
2010-05-20, 01:18 PM
I disagree with absolutes like 'Always Evil'. That's why I'd go with the 99% model.

Greenish
2010-05-20, 01:25 PM
The funny thing is using Diplomancy to turn an aspect of Tiamat to indifferent and then to helpful.:smallamused:Helpful? Bah, if you're using two checks, you should get up to "fanatical".

Mystic Muse
2010-05-20, 01:31 PM
Helpful? Bah, if you're using two checks, you should get up to "fanatical".

Well, I'm a Paladin, not a bard, so I can't use Glibness*. Although I'm sure there are other methods to get high diplomacy scores.

*I looked for a wand of this or a ring of diplomacy. I struck out.

Greenish
2010-05-20, 01:33 PM
Well, I'm a Paladin, not a bard, so I can't use Glibness*. Although I'm sure there are other methods to get high diplomacy scores.Glibness doesn't do anything for Diplomacy.

Mystic Muse
2010-05-20, 01:34 PM
Glibness doesn't do anything for Diplomacy.

Oh. Don't know why I thought of Glibness.

EDIT: So, how would I pump up my Diplomacy? It's mostly just for this one situation and then I'll suggest to my DM that I put the points and such in a less broken skill or he makes special exceptions for mortal enemies or something.

Drakevarg
2010-05-20, 02:10 PM
Hate to jump in, but can I sig that? XD

Go ahead. Might not be officially accurate, but orphan-power does have comedic value. :smalltongue:

hamishspence
2010-05-20, 02:13 PM
The answer in Libris Mortis was that skeletons, zombies and the like, are animated by nearly mindless, malevolent spirits.

Drakevarg
2010-05-20, 02:14 PM
But that's considerably less amusing.

Jayabalard
2010-05-20, 02:20 PM
The only problem with the D3 is it doesn't exist.
Actually, they do exist, and I'm not talking about a renumbered D6. There was a Dice thread floating around somewhere.

A quick google gave me this: odd sided dice: 3,5,7,9,11,13 (http://www.bearcubmachine.com/gallery/dice/D3toD15)

hamishspence
2010-05-20, 02:21 PM
But that's considerably less amusing.

There is "Atrocity Calls to Unlife"- which means that when evil deeds are done, undead start appearing in the world (spirits slipping through the cracks in reality caused by those deeds)

If spontaneously animated skeletons/zombies can exist, and if making a thousand orphans cry is an atrocity, then one could say that some skeletons/zombies are created by "the tears of a thousand orphans" :smallbiggrin:

Yukitsu
2010-05-20, 03:03 PM
I think my DM must be using those rules, because every time my evil character went anywhere, children's toys sprang to life with bloody tears and a horrible vengeance streak. >_>

Mystic Muse
2010-05-20, 11:34 PM
Well I'm about to plead my case for a Pyroclastic dragon mount to my DM. How does this sound?


Before you say "But they're always evil" I checked in the Draconomicon and Monster manual. In the monster manual it specifically states that a creature of always x alignment may be a consequence of the plane it lives/is raised on. That definitely applies to Pyroclastic dragons since they are always evil but were not created by an evil god( at least that I can find). The only reason I can find that they're even evil is because they'd have to be to survive in Gehenna. The only reason I can find that they even live there is that they only live in volcanic regions.

Drakevarg
2010-05-20, 11:39 PM
What's your DM's viewpoint on alignment anyway? If he's like me and enjoys seeing creatures playing against their standard alignment, it'll be easy. If he's got a hardon for canon, he might be unswayable.

But as for the "needs to be evil to survive on Gehenna"... I think it could work. It IS an entire plane made out of volcano after all. Not a nice place to live. If your dragon is raised outside of that environment it might not be all that hard to render neutral- or even good-aligned.

(Also, I'm officially resisting the urge to glomp you every time I see that avatar. It's painfully kawaii.)

Mystic Muse
2010-05-20, 11:43 PM
Lets see, Chromatic dragons are pretty much completely irredeemable, gods can never change alignments and if I see a chromatic dragon, if it ever antagonizes me I should kill it on sight.

I'm a Paladin of Bahamut which may have something to do with that. Unfortunately that's the best I can answer. Never asked my DM about alignment. However, evil is not kill on sight.

and the volcanoes aren't the bad part. That's what they live in. The problem is an entire plane of Yugoloths. (I think Gehenna is the Yugoloth plane. May be wrong about that.)

Drakevarg
2010-05-20, 11:46 PM
Well, Pyroclastics aren't Chromatic, so that's not a problem. (Out of curiousity, you should ask your DM if Chromatics are actually irredemable, or does your religion simply forbid attempting to do so on account of the major bug Bahamut has up his ass about Tiamat's kids?) Chromatics are evil out of imbred nature given by their goddess, however, while Pyroclastics are, as you say, probably evil out of necessity from living on an evil-aligned plane made out of volcano.

Edit-Ninja'd:

No, the fact that it's a volcano isn't a problem. It's that evil things like the scenery and have an annoying habit of loitering outside the dragon's house.

Mystic Muse
2010-05-20, 11:49 PM
I believe just very very hard. Not sure if Bahamut has a personal problem. I'll ask although I don't expect a reply any time soon.

Any other problems or things I need to ask?

Serpentine
2010-05-21, 12:37 AM
I made this:

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h287/serpentine16/alignmenttables.gif

Drakevarg
2010-05-21, 12:40 AM
Interesting. I'd disagree personally, but I make it a large part of my schtick in DnD to subvert alignment assumptions, so I'm not one to talk. For most people it's probably a fairly apt setup.

Serpentine
2010-05-21, 12:53 AM
This is sort of a normal-world-without-PCs sort of a guide. In actual games, you're more likely to come across and/or notice the ones that are at the opposite end to their expected alignment or on the morality axis than the ones only one step away or on the ethical axis. There have been more Chaotic Neutral succubi and more Good tieflings in my game than Chaotic Evil ones.

Drakevarg
2010-05-21, 01:49 AM
True enough. I've run a campaign where an NPC Paladin was arguably LN or even LE. (He was sent to the city to deal with a necromancer cult. His tactic was "detect evil on everyone. If they ring up evil, arrest and search them. If they have a symbol of Nerull on there person, execute them on the spot." He even openly acknowledged that he had no way of knowing if these people had anything to do with the cult, but it was better to be safe than sorry.)

Ultimately the PCs solved the issue by burning down the chapel they were using as a headquarters.

...

>_>

<_<

...eh, screw it. *glomps Kyuubi.*

Now, off to bed.

hamishspence
2010-05-21, 06:32 AM
in 4E, planar dragons are generally descended from chromatics who migrated to the other planes, and adapted.

It's possible that the same may apply in 3rd ed. I think there were references to that in Dragons of Faerun.

Lix Lorn
2010-05-21, 10:42 AM
I thought Pyroclastics WERE chromatics... there are more varieties than Chromatic and Metallic? DXD

hamishspence
2010-05-21, 11:09 AM
Yup- Metallic, Chromatic, Psionic (MM2), Planar (Draconomicon), Lung (Oriental Adventures) and probably several others, as well as ones that don't really fit anywhere.

Epic Handbook has two in the category "Epic Dragon" (Dragon Magazine has a third) - so maybe "Epic dragon" counts as another category.

Drakevarg
2010-05-21, 04:31 PM
You forgot Crystal.

hamishspence
2010-05-21, 04:32 PM
Crystal dragon is one of the psionic dragons.

Though the official term is Gem Dragon- so that might be a better term.

Drakevarg
2010-05-21, 04:41 PM
Crystal dragon is one of the psionic dragons.

Though the official term is Gem Dragon- so that might be a better term.

I was thinking akin to Amethyst Dragons and whatnot... wait, are those psionic?

(Possible interpretations of your statements:

-Crystal Dragons are a type of Psionic Dragon. The one's you're probably thinking of are Gem Dragons.

-Gem Dragons are a type of Psionic Dragon. They're commonly referred to as Crystal Dragons, so I'm correcting you here.)

hamishspence
2010-05-21, 04:43 PM
I was using "psionic dragons" as a synonym for Gem Dragons (since all gem dragons are psionic)

Crystal dragons are one of the five common races of Gem dragon.

The others are Sapphire, Amethyst, Topaz, Emerald.

And there is an Obsidian Dragon on the WOTC site.

Drakevarg
2010-05-21, 04:47 PM
I see. Makes much more sense then.

Greenish
2010-05-21, 04:49 PM
Yup- Metallic, Chromatic, Psionic (MM2), Planar (Draconomicon), Lung (Oriental Adventures) and probably several others, as well as ones that don't really fit anywhere.

Epic Handbook has two in the category "Epic Dragon" (Dragon Magazine has a third) - so maybe "Epic dragon" counts as another category."Lung dragon" conjures a picture in my mind not entirely unfit for the classification "aberration". That sentence was obviously influenced by far realms.

hamishspence
2010-05-21, 04:55 PM
The word "lung" can be translated as basically meaning "Dragon"- and unlike the others, they don't have "dragon" as a second part of their name.

Instead the names are:

Lung wang
Li lung
Pan lung
T'ien lung
Chiang lung
Tun mi lung

All lung dragons of age Wyrmling, Very Young, and Young are represented using the:

Yu lung (which has only those 3 age categories)

Unfortunately I only know this from Draconomicon, not having Oriental Adventures.

Runeclaw
2010-05-21, 05:28 PM
But evilness is a quality, not a substance.

It's pretty clear that, in the standard D&D world, there does exist a form of mystical energy which is inherently "evil" in nature.


Certain uses of negative energy are arbitrarily labeled "evil" for no apparent reason beyond some writers liking to arbitrarily label things "evil".

Well, the writers are the ones who get to define the setting. Except to the degree to which the DM chooses to change it . . .


Zombies and skeletons are allegedly mindless, Neutral Evil creatures that just unquestioningly follow the commands of whoever controls them. But at most one of those things can be true.

Undead are evil because they are powered by evil energy. We could try to determine what it is about this energy that makes its very existence evil. But we do know, because the books tell us, that this is so.



It's not spelled out what "moral action" is supposed to mean, but that barely matters here, because it's clear that for any reasonable meaning that it might have in this context, mindless creatures are incapable of it.


Right. Mindless undead are not evil because of what they do (although it is worth noting that uncontrolled mindless undead will attack any living thing). They are evil because they are powered by evil energy. It is more a rules mechanic thing than anything else really. It basically means "mindless undead are treated mechanically as if they were evil for all effects and purposes." Easier to just label them evil.

This might be ahve been better reflected by the Evil subtype, as it is with fiends, but that would have slightly different mechanical implications in some cases. Also a fiend with the evil subtype can (very rarely) choose to become good (while retaining the evil subtype that is the result of the connection to inherently evil energy). But a mindless undead cannot so choose, because they are mindless.


Anything capable of understanding language ought to have an Int score of 1 at the very least.[/QUOTE

My computer can understand language (enough to obey simple verbal instructions). Does it have an int score of 1?

[QUOTE]Blind obedience to a master is Lawful Neutral or arguably just Neutral.

Not for an intelligent creature, it isn't. Not if the orders are to do evil. For a mindless undead, sure.


Ergo, zombies and golems should have the same alignment. It's not rocket science!

And they would, too, except that zombies are powered by evil energy.

Or, to put it another way, zombies are powered by an energy which causes other supernatural effects to affect them in the same way that they would affect evil creatures. If you like.


And if zombies and skeletons are just supposed to interact with alignment-based effects as though they were Evil... well, that's what the Evil subtype is for, innit?)

Oops, I think that's what I just said. So, yes, probably that would have been the better way to do it. I think the differences is that a Fiend can change alignment and still retain its Evil subtype, so the distinction is more important there. Mindless undead can't, so there's no need to draw the distinction. Also Fiends are presumably even more purely tied to the evil energies that power them, making some Good effects work more effectively agaisnt them than they do against mere undead.

hamishspence
2010-05-21, 05:33 PM
A fiend can also change its subtype with magic- though this may risk killing the fiend in the process.

So while evil is a part of it- the fiend can have its evil subtype replaced, without automatically dying. It's probably a big shock to the system though.

2xMachina
2010-05-22, 04:20 AM
The Lung Dragons aren't actually pronounced as Lung (the organ).

It's actually based on the Chinese word for Dragon. I think it's pronounced Loung.

Greenish
2010-05-22, 04:28 AM
The word "lung" can be translated as basically meaning "Dragon"- and unlike the others, they don't have "dragon" as a second part of their name.
The Lung Dragons aren't actually pronounced as Lung (the organ).

It's actually based on the Chinese word for Dragon. I think it's pronounced Loung.No amount of facts will stop me from feeling amused. :smallcool:

Devils_Advocate
2010-05-22, 05:33 PM
The answer in Libris Mortis was that skeletons, zombies and the like, are animated by nearly mindless, malevolent spirits.
Animating dead seems like a good idea, then. Better to stick a bunch of malevolent spirits in some walking corpses where you can keep an eye on them and put them to good use than to have them floating around out there doing gods know what, right?

Clearly this is an excellent idea with no possible drawbacks whatsoever. :smalltongue:

In any case, it certainly seems generally less evil than elemental binding, where you stick a probably innocent elemental spirit in a golem or an airship or something. But I suppose that that's stating the obvious.

(Similarly, yanking an evil creature out of its extraplanar home and forcing it to fight for you certainly seems less evil than doing the same thing to a good creature.)


It's pretty clear that, in the standard D&D world, there does exist a form of mystical energy which is inherently "evil" in nature.
But there's a difference between evil (adjective) and evil (noun), e.g. evilness. Saying that something is made out of evilness is like saying that something is made out of redness. An object can be colored red, obviously, but you can't just have a big pile of red, except maybe in the Far Realm.


Well, the writers are the ones who get to define the setting.
Well, yeah, and if they stuck to their own definitions, then everything would be hunky dory.


Undead are evil because they are powered by evil energy.
But they're not really Evil. (Or, alternately, creatures incapable of moral action can be Evil. Individual DMs can choose which parts of the written rules not to use, but they can't use all of them because they're mutually exclusive, is my point.)


This might be ahve been better reflected by the Evil subtype, as it is with fiends, but that would have slightly different mechanical implications in some cases.
Which cases?


My computer can understand language (enough to obey simple verbal instructions). Does it have an int score of 1?
Yes.


Not for an intelligent creature, it isn't. Not if the orders are to do evil.
If you're willing to do whatever you're told, however Good or Evil it might be, how does that make you any more Evil than Good (or vice versa)?


I think the differences is that a Fiend can change alignment and still retain its Evil subtype, so the distinction is more important there. Mindless undead can't, so there's no need to draw the distinction.
But "mindless" undead actually have non-Evil alignment (as their real alignment, rather than their listed alignment). They're not malicious. That seems like a distinction worth making.

Math_Mage
2010-05-22, 10:29 PM
I made this:

http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h287/serpentine16/alignmenttables.gif

Er, to be very pedantic, your Usually Chaotic Evil diagram adds up to well over 100%. Presumably you mean to use 60%, but maybe something like this would match up better with the other "usually" tables:

{table]|C|N|L
E|72|8|2
N|8|6|1
G|2|1|<1[/table]


The answer in Libris Mortis was that skeletons, zombies and the like, are animated by nearly mindless, malevolent spirits.

The answer...to why they're Always Chaotic Evil? I thought it had to do with drawing on negative energy.

Kish
2010-05-22, 10:43 PM
If you're willing to do whatever you're told, however Good or Evil it might be, how does that make you any more Evil than Good (or vice versa)?
If you save fifty people's lives and murder one person, all 51 with no better reason than "I felt like it," will society give you a medal, or throw you in prison? Abdicating your moral responsibility to someone who tells you to do evil things is not a morally neutral action.

A certain famous succubus might blink at a diagram that indicates 0 of Always Chaotic Evil creatures can be Lawful Good.

Superglucose
2010-05-22, 11:33 PM
The only problem with the D3 is it doesn't exist.

Yes, actually, it does exist! It's not a polyhedron but it does exist. It's three slightly curved triangles with flattened surfaces... kind of like if you took a cylinder and then put three flat panels such that they formed a triangle cross-section, and then bent the ends down until they touched.

Mystic Muse
2010-05-22, 11:43 PM
Yes, actually, it does exist! It's not a polyhedron but it does exist. It's three slightly curved triangles with flattened surfaces... kind of like if you took a cylinder and then put three flat panels such that they formed a triangle cross-section, and then bent the ends down until they touched.

........does nobody see the post where I admit I'm wrong?

Drakevarg
2010-05-23, 12:28 AM
........does nobody see the post where I admit I'm wrong?

I get the impression that they're so eager to say "au contraire" that they respond before they're finished reading the thread.

Koury
2010-05-23, 12:32 AM
By the way, d3's are real. Just sayin'

It's a joke! Don't hurt me!

Mystic Muse
2010-05-23, 12:35 AM
By the way, d3's are real. Just sayin'

It's a joke! Don't hurt me!

:smallfurious:

Don't worry, I won't hurt you........Physically.

Serpentine
2010-05-23, 04:28 AM
A certain famous succubus might blink at a diagram that indicates 0 of Always Chaotic Evil creatures can be Lawful Good.This is an approximation. If there are 10,000 succubi, you would need 100 Lawful Good succubi to get over 0.01%, which I would round down to zero. I would not expect there to be 100 Lawful Good succubi in existance at the same time, and one certainly can be rounded down to none. Add to that the passage somewhere (I can't remember where) that, for the "Always" part, non-that alignment individuals are considered "unique", and I reject your criticism :smalltongue:

Er, to be very pedantic, your Usually Chaotic Evil diagram adds up to well over 100%. Presumably you mean to use 60%, but maybe something like this would match up better with the other "usually" tables:

{table]|C|N|L
E|72|8|2
N|8|6|1
G|2|1|<1[/table]I was going to say the same thing to you, but I think you're right. I've changed it to 60 in the original, but I'll look over it again.

Ravens_cry
2010-05-23, 04:44 AM
The lawful good succubus was made that way through magic, specifically a certain cursed item. She didn't turn to good voluntarily, if I remember correctly.

The Rose Dragon
2010-05-23, 05:01 AM
By the way, until 3.5, skeletons were Always True Neutral. In 3.5, the designers suddenly changed them to Always Neutral Evil so smite-happy paladins can annihilate them with impunity.

Ravens_cry
2010-05-23, 05:18 AM
By the way, until 3.5, skeletons were Always True Neutral. In 3.5, the designers suddenly changed them to Always Neutral Evil so smite-happy paladins can annihilate them with impunity.
What would happen if you put the helm of opposite alignment on a skeleton or zombie?

Lix Lorn
2010-05-23, 05:25 AM
If it was a mook, nothing. If it was free willed, it would have opposite alignment. XD

(My games run on the Rule of Cool. Exclusively.)

The Rose Dragon
2010-05-23, 05:26 AM
What would happen if you put the helm of opposite alignment on a skeleton or zombie?

If the skeleton or zombie was True Neutral, it would probably turn them into an extreme alignment, even though it makes no sense.

Then again, it would also do the same thing to animals, so I'm just fine with chalking it up to WotC being WotC. I don't recall the exact mechanics of AD&D, so I can't really comment on that.

Presumably, it would all be fine and dandy if the Helm worked as a Mind-Affecting effect, since undead are immune to those.

Greenish
2010-05-23, 06:56 AM
The lawful good succubus was made that way through magic, specifically a certain cursed item. She didn't turn to good voluntarily, if I remember correctly.If you're referring to Elucidia the succubus paladin (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a), you're not remembering correctly.

Ravens_cry
2010-05-23, 07:16 AM
If you're referring to Elucidia the succubus paladin (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a), you're not remembering correctly.
Ah.
I see.
My mistake
I remember hearing tell of some players did this in-game, slopping the HoOA on a succubus's head and it having failed the will save. I think it was on these here boards.

Greenish
2010-05-23, 07:48 AM
I remember hearing tell of some players did this in-game, slopping the HoOA on a succubus's head and it having failed the will save. I think it was on these here boards.Very possible (and rather amusing), but this is, so to say, a canon example of the not-quite-always.

Kish
2010-05-23, 10:00 AM
This is an approximation. If there are 10,000 succubi, you would need 100 Lawful Good succubi to get over 0.01%, which I would round down to zero. I would not expect there to be 100 Lawful Good succubi in existance at the same time, and one certainly can be rounded down to none.
Well, it goes well with the game terminology then. ("Always," which doesn't actually means "always," translated as: 0 are the diametrically opposed alignment, which doesn't actually mean 0 are the diametrically opposed alignment.)

Serpentine
2010-05-23, 10:52 AM
It was more, "if there are millions of individuals in a species, and individuals of the opposite alignment to the normal one are near-unique or at least extremely rare, it is acceptably accurate to say "0" with the assumption that it's not exactly zero rather than "0.00001"".

Devils_Advocate
2010-05-23, 03:02 PM
If you save fifty people's lives and murder one person, all 51 with no better reason than "I felt like it," will society give you a medal, or throw you in prison?
Society will pretty much by definition attempt to capture individuals guilty of "murder", which is thus distinguished from more acceptable killing. Anyhow, I'm not claiming that impulsively flouting restrictions on behavior doesn't indicate any alignment; it's extremely Chaotic, obviously. But social consensus has no direct bearing on Good and Evil.


Abdicating your moral responsibility to someone who tells you to do evil things is not a morally neutral action.
What if you abdicate your moral responsibility to someone and then they tell you to do evil things?

Neutral creatures can and do perform Evil actions.


If the skeleton or zombie was True Neutral, it would probably turn them into an extreme alignment, even though it makes no sense.

Then again, it would also do the same thing to animals, so I'm just fine with chalking it up to WotC being WotC.
It would make a lot more sense for Neutral alignments to remain unchanged. The opposite of Neutral is still Neutral (http://www.webcomicsnation.com/justinpie/wonderella/series.php?view=archive&chapter=28100), after all.

(As written, the 3.5 HoOA will shift LN, CN, NG and NE characters as well as N characters to the corner alignments, incidentally. It's anti-Neutral on both axes.)

hamishspence
2010-05-23, 03:11 PM
Add to that the passage somewhere (I can't remember where) that, for the "Always" part, non-that alignment individuals are considered "unique", and I reject your criticism :smalltongue:

There's one passage in Savage Species "Either unique or one in a million exceptions"- so they aren't always unique.

MM phrases it as "Either unique or rare exceptions" for beings of Always X alignment.

So, for, say, non-CE succubi, they could be unique, they could be "one in a million" or they could be "rare"- depending on which part of the passage in each book, you are focussing on.



What if you abdicate your moral responsibility to someone and then they tell you to do evil things?

Neutral creatures can and do perform Evil actions.


True- but if you go by Champions of Ruin, a Neutral or Good character who does evil actions on a regular basis, will shift to Evil.

The DMG on "changing alignment" can be interpreted that way, as well.

That said, sometimes Neutral characters can get away with a lot- including multiple murder- before switching to Evil.

Maryring
2010-05-23, 06:21 PM
I'd probably go with "player's can't use diplomacy to redeem unrepentant demons" though- only a demon which has, somehow, chose itself to seek redemption- can be redeemed.

The article is here:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a

The important bit:

So the angel tried to redeem the demon because A: she was hot, and B: he wanted brownie points with the higher ups.

Interesting...

DragoonWraith
2010-05-23, 06:55 PM
Technically, since there are literally infinite succubi, but a finite number of LG succubi, I believe 0% is effectively accurate when describing the proportion of succubi who are LG.


Now the trick is getting a n00bish DM to believe that such things mean that you can roll a LN Barbarian or a CN Paladin or what have you. It would open up so many more options...
Yes, because it is the height of noobery to overlook WotC's stupid arbitrary restrictions in favor of a more interesting and varied game. Yes. Utter noob.

Mystic Muse
2010-05-23, 06:59 PM
Yes, because it is the height of noobery to overlook WotC's stupid arbitrary restrictions in favor of a more interesting and varied game. Yes. Utter noob.

I solve this by not using Alignment at all when I DM 3.5.

Or I would if I had a group to DM 3.5 with.

Lix Lorn
2010-05-23, 07:11 PM
Yes, because it is the height of noobery to overlook WotC's stupid arbitrary restrictions in favor of a more interesting and varied game. Yes. Utter noob.

:smallconfused:
Detect Sarcasm!
(Blown off feet by size of aura)

hamishspence
2010-05-24, 02:57 AM
So the angel tried to redeem the demon because A: she was hot, and B: he wanted brownie points with the higher ups.

Interesting...

Not the best reasons for wanting to redeem somebody- but better than nothing.

Greenish
2010-05-24, 03:32 AM
Technically, since there are literally infinite succubi, but a finite number of LG succubi, I believe 0% is effectively accurate when describing the proportion of succubi who are LG.In the same way that it's accurate to say that there is no life in the universe.

So the angel tried to redeem the demon because A: she was hot, and B: he wanted brownie points with the higher ups.

Interesting...Good (subtype) is not the same as Good (alignment). Besides, doing a good deed for selfish reasons is still a good act.

hamishspence
2010-05-24, 04:36 AM
Depends on the sourcebook- and the deed. BoED suggests that "normally Good deeds" become Neutral when done for selfish reasons.

That said, redeeming an evil being, is a pretty major one.

Devils_Advocate
2010-06-01, 05:54 PM
Well, you can talk about whether Person A would have still helped Person B had there been nothing in it for Person A, but that's purely counterfactual. Often one will be able to construct plausible scenarios in which Person A still would have helped Person B despite a lack of personal gain, and scenarios in which Person A wouldn't have helped Person B because of a lack of personal gain.

All else being equal, a normal person will feel more inclined to do something if it benefits her. That hardly seems non-Good. I suppose that perhaps it works if one takes "selfish" in an absolute sense, to refer to complete disregard for the welfare of others, but in that case perhaps a phrase like "purely selfish" might get the concept across better.

(It would be hard to find someone like that, given how common it is to value the welfare of others as a means to an end -- which is hardly complete disregard, now is it? I have seen "self-interest" contrasted with "selfishness" on this basis. Someone purely selfish in that sense would be very foolish or else have a very strange sort of ideology.

A good choice of ideology to give demons, perhaps, if one thinks that the Planescape version are too organized/human/whatever. D&D seems to tend to make outsiders merely decidedly e.g. Chaotic Evil, if that, rather than extremely so. Maybe because it's hard for a DM to know how to run a creature with an entirely unrelatable and alien psychology. Indeed, it seems to be implied that wholly alien viewpoints are more of an aberration thing, making the vast majority of sapient beings basically human-like in outlook.)


True- but if you go by Champions of Ruin, a Neutral or Good character who does evil actions on a regular basis, will shift to Evil.
:smallconfused: Neutral sapient beings will as a general rule commit both Good and Evil deeds on a regular basis. Probably not extraordinarily Good and Evil deeds (as someone who did those would by definition not be an ordinary Neutral person), but both Good and Evil deeds nonetheless. Everyday, standard Good and Evil deeds.

... Look, do you want a breakdown of the reasons why, say, driving a car is (an everyday, unexceptional level of) Evil? There are a bunch, actually.

Sindri
2010-06-01, 11:57 PM
Wow, this went from rule definition to alignment war fast.
I think that it says in the monster manual that "always" means that the creatures are born/created as that alignment, and few if any have reason or opportunity to change it but nothing prevents them from doing so; the famous succubus was born Chaotic Evil and had no reason to question it or change her outlook while in the Abyss or out eating souls, but when she fell in love she had both the reason and opportunity to repent and did so.
Usually or Often mean that they have some predisposition towards an alignment or their society pushes them in one direction, but it's their own choice in the end. Like how citizens of a totalitarian nation are "usually lawful" because they get killed otherwise, but can choose something else at their own risk.

On the subject of mindless undead as "always evil" I'm pretty sure that that was part of the "necromancy = evil" fanaticism that Wizards was going through when they first made 3.5. That's also why Deathwatch is [evil] even though it simply tells you the relative health of everyone in range, and why healing spells are labeled as Conjuration for no good reason. In my games I make healing and resurrection Necromancy, remove any alignment descriptors that don't make sense, and make mindless creatures either neutral or the same alignment as their creator (for undead and golems, since there isn't much of a difference ethically). Negative energy isn't any more evil that say, fire. Both will kill you if you use them wrong, both are powerful tools, but neither has an intrinsic moral standing. Heck, too much positive energy makes you explode. If you want everything that is designed to kill to be [evil] then fireballs and holy swords are in the same category. If you want to talk about how creating undead involves binding animating spirits against their will and forcing them to do your bidding (which is only mentioned in a few places, and contradicted elsewhere) then every summoning spell ever is [evil]. Pretty soon your Good party is reduced to strong language and marshmallows if they don't want to violate their alignment.


edit:
Always: The creature is born with the given alignment. The creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for such individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or one-in-a-million exceptions.
Nothing prevents them from being a different alignment, but they start out as Evil instead of starting out innocent and society or their own decisions making them Evil. or vice-versa.

Usually: The majority of these creatures have the given alignment. This may be due to strong cultural influences, or it may be a legacy of their origins. For example, most elves inherited their chaotic good alignment from their creator, the deity Corellon Larethian.
Often: The creature tends toward the listed alignment, by either nature or nurture, but not strongly. A plurality (40% to 50%) of individuals have the given alignment, but exceptions are common.

hamishspence
2010-06-02, 02:51 AM
:smallconfused: Neutral sapient beings will as a general rule commit both Good and Evil deeds on a regular basis. Probably not extraordinarily Good and Evil deeds (as someone who did those would by definition not be an ordinary Neutral person), but both Good and Evil deeds nonetheless. Everyday, standard Good and Evil deeds.

Might depend on how big a deed needs to be, to register as a Good deed or an Evil deed.


... Look, do you want a breakdown of the reasons why, say, driving a car is (an everyday, unexceptional level of) Evil? There are a bunch, actually.

Since when do D&D characters drive cars?

Not to mention the fact that if a DM in a campaign featuring 20th century paladins, were to say:

"You drove a car- this contributes to global warming/the deaths of people from pollutants/the risk of others having a car accident- this is an evil act, you Fall"

then the players would probably quit the game. For an act to be "evil" requires more than this.

Fiendish Codex 2 (page 15):


Most mortals are only weakly aligned. They go about their daily business without thinking too much about the big issues, and they rarely take actions dramatic enough to register as good, evil, lawful, or chaotic.

Devils_Advocate
2010-06-10, 06:26 PM
Might depend on how big a deed needs to be, to register as a Good deed or an Evil deed.
"Big" in what sense? For that matter, "Good" and "Evil" in what sense? To my knowledge, no book actually spells out what it means for an act or a creature to be either. We're left to infer definitions consistent with what the books do say, or to toss out some of the things that the books say based on their perceived inconsistency or on other grounds.

You could define "Good" and "Evil" as exceptional, in which case the claim that they are not ordinary becomes a vacuous tautology. But humans can't tend toward no alignment if Neutral is, by definition, what humans generally are. Not to mention that this makes Good and Evil relative to a population, rather than absolute.


Since when do D&D characters drive cars?
Um, they don't. I was assuming that a real person could be accurately described as having some alignment, instead of alignment serving as a factor that compels D&D characters to behave in an unrealistic fashion. This depends on how one runs alignment, obviously.

But if you want to limit the discussion to D&D settings (which of course cuts out loads of fiction as well as the real world), fine. Banal evil exists in any normal human society, be it historical, modern, or fictional; that's pretty much my point. In Eberron, there's elemental binding, for instance. In other settings there will be different things. We could try to work out which evils are routine in most human societies, if you want something broadly applicable. Whatever.

Lix Lorn
2010-06-10, 06:38 PM
Personally, I'd define Evil as causing needless unhappiness or suffering, and good as trying to improve other people's lives for no reason other than to help.

hamishspence
2010-06-11, 11:41 AM
"Big" in what sense? For that matter, "Good" and "Evil" in what sense? To my knowledge, no book actually spells out what it means for an act or a creature to be either. We're left to infer definitions consistent with what the books do say, or to toss out some of the things that the books say based on their perceived inconsistency or on other grounds.

A Good deed is a deed that would cause a Paladin of Tyranny or a Paladin of Slaughter to fall.

An Evil deed is a deed that would cause an Exalted character, a standard Paladin, or a Paladin of Freedom, to Fall.

If the average human "is only mildly aligned" but hardly ever commits a Good or Evil deed, then Good and Evil may be at least partly about outlook rather than acts.

This would mean that an "only mildly evil-aligned" person would hardly ever do acts that "ping" as Evil- but they would do them. Still, their attitude toward other people, more than their actual acts, would be what makes them Evil.

So, humans can "tend toward no alignment" in the sense that an average individual human rarely commits acts strong enough to be "aligned" for mechanical purposes.

And yet, this is not the same thing as "a human tends toward Neutral" since the individual human, while hardly ever committing aligned acts, may have an overall outlook on the world that tends toward any one of the alignments.

BoED states that:

"A good character doesn't just help others or fight evil when it's convenient for him to do so. Even the most generous altruism, when it comes without sacrifice or even serves one's own self-interest, is neutral at best. A character committed to the cause of good champions that cause in any circumstance, often at great personal risk"

This provides an example of "what defines a good act" when the act is altruism, which is normally considered Good, in the PHB- "it must come with sacrifice"

An act which serves one's own self-interest, even if it's an altruistic act, is "neutral at best"

Defining an evil act is a bit harder. BoVD does have a crude example of how "you get someone killed" can be a Neutral act, or a slight evil act that "should probably make a paladin Fall" or a "definitely evil act."

It was strongly dependant on whether the consequences of the act were something the person should have forseen, if they actually did forsee it, and if the motivation for the act was selfish.

If the person forsees that the act can be reasonably expected to lead to people dying, and does it anyway, to preserve their own life- that's Evil. The phrased used was

"Sacrificing others to save yourself is an Evil act. It's a hard standard, but that's the way it is."

The difference between this, and driving a car which might lead to people dying of cancer, is that the deaths from the threatened rockslide have a high probability of happening, and are "reasonably forseeable".

Kish
2010-06-13, 07:17 PM
An Evil deed is a deed that would cause an Exalted character, a standard Paladin, or a Paladin of Freedom, to Fall.
Or a Holy Liberator.

hamishspence
2010-06-14, 01:05 PM
Yup- if a character has "falls for committing evil acts" it becomes necessary for the DM and the player to resolve what constitutes Evil.

Which is one reason to avoid "everybody commits tiny Evil acts every day"- because if rude remarks, or driving a car, become Evil, then playing a character forbidden from doing anything Evil, is a pain.