A question about alignment based armor

[Shinizak]

One thing that I see often enough is an easily home brewed away problem but still an odd one. Why is it that alignment based creatures, such as a balor, has damage reduction that always seems to be weak against the thing it was born to fight against. If you are a creature of pure evil and were sworn to destroy the power of good and all who inhabit it, wouldn't you be a little resilient to it? I could suppose you could say that they are easily susceptible to being cleansed, but that really doesn't make sense if this really the irredeemable creature we hear stories about.

[Cisturn]

Maybe the forces of good and evil, have spent time to make themselves super effective against the other?

[Malimar]

I imagine the root of the answer lies in these (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoodHurtsEvil) tropes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AllergicToEvil).

[Knaight]

On a related note, D&D planes basically assume that you will, for the most part, see those of your own alignment. There are exceptions; such as the war between the lower planes, though that is still various flavors of evil duking it out; and the material plane. Said exceptions tend to work with the assumption that, in most cases, people are more resilient to the conditions they are accustomed to.

[Milo v3]

In my opinion its the same reason undead are weak to positive energy and living people weak to Negative. They are polar opposites.

[ffone]

One thing that I see often enough is an easily home brewed away problem but still an odd one. Why is it that alignment based creatures, such as a balor, has damage reduction that always seems to be weak against the thing it was born to fight against. If you are a creature of pure evil and were sworn to destroy the power of good and all who inhabit it, wouldn't you be a little resilient to it? I could suppose you could say that they are easily susceptible to being cleansed, but that really doesn't make sense if this really the irredeemable creature we hear stories about.

Weeeelll...suppose it worked the other way around (the balor had DR / evil). Then you'd be saying it was stupid that the weapons of angels overcome the DR of other angels, but not of demons and devils, since angels like to kill devils and demons.

Using your wording,

"If you were a creature of pure good and were sworn to destroy the power of evil and all who inhabit it, wouldn't you have the weapons to bypass their defenses?"

This complaint is also an example of a line of thinking common in DnD as well as politics and other areas of RL: "Because my desire / motive is to accomplish X, clearly that's what I'm going to do" ("because this piece of legislation is advertised as / motivated to do X, it will in fact accomplish X"). Demons and devils would PREFER to have DR /evil (well maybe - they fight each other a lot too - but angels would almost certainly prefer DR /good since they fight each other less often) but that doesn't mean they WILL have "evolved" (or however their abilities arise) it.

The DnD designers decided to have offense trump defense in this respect. The reason is probably because having the "oppositely wrong weapon" (attacking an evil guy with an evil sword) is no different than attacking him with a normal (or perhaps +1) sword. Therefore, to differentiate angel vs fiend combat, they pass each other's DR. The basic DnD mechanics don't lend themselves as well to the concept of "especially good defense vs your archnemesis" as they do "especially good offense".

That said, this issue does lead to the funny thing whereby good-aligned PCs gain much more benefit from the wondrous item that grants DR 5/good than the one that grants DR 5/evil (the latter's the Mantle of Faith....I think the former exists but not in SRD/core), even though having the latter would be more "appropriate" (I forget if paladins are prohibited from using any magic item with an [evil] descriptor to its aura or crafting spell).

[kardar233]

Well, I kinda like the "fight fire with fire" idea of having evil outsiders with DR/evil. Makes for more moral ambiguity.

[ericgrau]

I don't think it's a matter of choice. Like fire vs. cold.

Heck if angels were really good optimizers they'd all be neutral alignment to protect them from unholy effects and spells. But, um... I don't think that idea would sit well with the organization.

[Alefiend]

Well, I kinda like the "fight fire with fire" idea...

This is an especially bad cliche to use in a game where you can fight fire (elementals), but generally not with fire (to which they are immune). :smalltongue:

And it's the same principle, too. Does it make sense for a fire elemental to be resistant to cold/water attacks but not to heat/fire?

[Knaight]

And it's the same principle, too. Does it make sense for a fire elemental to be resistant to cold/water attacks but not to heat/fire?

This isn't the same principle at all. In the case of the fire elemental, its more that their environment includes a certain heat and a certain humidity, and moving outside of that range is harmful. Put a penguin in the Sahara, and it will die in short order. Put a python in Antarctica, and it won't last long. Move a dolphin into a jungle, and it's lifespan is severely shortened. The fire elemental is a case of that.

[wayfare]

And, playing off that idea, Imagine living in a place so metaphysically corrupt that living there could kill you. Thats why alignment based DR works the way it does -- because you adapt to where you live.

And heck, demons and devils are natural enemies -- the good aligned entities don't really fight the evil ones often compared to the bloodwar that has be waged since 1st edition.

[The Glyphstone]

This is an especially bad cliche to use in a game where you can fight fire (elementals), but generally not with fire (to which they are immune). :smalltongue:

And it's the same principle, too. Does it make sense for a fire elemental to be resistant to cold/water attacks but not to heat/fire?

Sometimes, you don't need to fight fire with fire.
For everything else, there's Searing Spell. :smallbiggrin:

[Leon]

This is an especially bad cliche to use in a game where you can fight fire (elementals), but generally not with fire (to which they are immune). :smalltongue:

And it's the same principle, too. Does it make sense for a fire elemental to be resistant to cold/water attacks but not to heat/fire?

Fight Fire with Force (Works on almost anything)

[Fizban]

The forces of evil aren't born to fight the forces of good, they're born to fight the forces of not evil. Against not evil things, their damage reduction is quite effective: let's see a netural human, animal, dragon, or magical beast punch through 15 points of DR. Normal good people are also rather screwed. It takes a significant investment of holy power to actually bypass the alignment portion of damage reduction (a bless weapon spell, an 8,000gp weapon with specific enhancements, a rare several thousand gold piece metal alloy, etc), which even most good people don't have. So, the forces of good are also pretty screwed. The only people who regularly beat alignment DR are indeed the people that specifically equip themselves for it, the heroes and crusaders that make it their business to fight demons and devils. Good outsiders, being made of solid goodness, already have the amount of holy power needed to do so without having to go dredging it up form someone else.

Why do good outsiders have DR/evil? Basically the same reason. They aren't necessarily born to fight evil, just made out of sterner stuff than most creatures. Solid goodness is hard to break unless you hit it with it's polar opposite, so the neutral outsiders and normal folks who don't bring the exact equipment have a hard time hurting them, but evil outsiders have the weapons built in.