3.5 Does Always Evil Mean Always?

[ColorBlindNinja]

I was pondering the fact that several creatures happen to always have a particular alignment, and I was wondering if that's always the case.

I've heard people allude to exceptions, but I haven't found anything concrete.

As far as I know, such creatures can't change their alignment via spells like Atonement and Sanctify the Wicked (AKA Holy Mindrape).

Spells like Programmed Amnesia and Mind Rape can be negated, and as far as I know, the only RAW method to change alignment for such creatures is via a Deck of Many Things.

Does anyone know of exceptions to the "Always X alignment" rule?

Is there another way to change the alignment of such creatures?

Thanks!

[Eldariel]

I believe some text says that superrare exceptions exist by nature, but that they are just that: superrare. Wouldn't make much sense for an evil energy elemental (e.g. fiend) though - but there's that canonical Succubus Paladin. Helmet of Opposite Alignment also works.

Perhaps the MM descriptions mentioned this? AFB, can't check.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I believe some text says that superrare exceptions exist by nature, but that they are just that: superrare. Wouldn't make much sense for an evil energy elemental (e.g. fiend) though - but there's that canonical Succubus Paladin. Helmet of Opposite Alignment also works.

Oddly, the article about the Succubus Paladin mentions that her alignment hasn't changed; that should mean that she can't be a Paladin, but are we really expecting WotC to follow their own rules?


Perhaps the MM descriptions mentioned this? AFB, can't check.

I don't recall, I'll check.

Edit:

This is interesting:



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

That would indicate, "yes". However:



This use of the spell does not work on outsiders or any creature incapable of changing its alignment naturally.

So what creatures are incapable of changing their alignment? According to the Monster Manual, such creatures don't exist. :smallsigh:

[Pleh]

RAI would probably say, "always, unless plot" such as a PC or maybe a plot relevant NPC.

Otherwise, consider it impossible.

[Douglas]

Oddly, the article about the Succubus Paladin mentions that her alignment hasn't changed; that should mean that she can't be a Paladin, but are we really expecting WotC to follow their own rules?
Where? I checked the article (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a) and I don't see any such mention. It says she has not used magical aid in changing her alignment, but it does describe her changing alignment the hard way and she is listed as Lawful Good in the stat blocks.

[Red Fel]

If memory serves, "Always X" actually means "99% of the time X, but exceptions exist," although I can't recall a specific citation off of the top of my head.

[OldTrees1]

Monster Manual Pg. 305
Always: The creature is born with the indicated alignment. The creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions.

Aka "Always Evil" does not mean literally always.

The creature is born with the alignment and have a very strong predisposition to stay that alignment. However exceptional individuals(each being unique) and groups(each being rare) exist.

[Calthropstu]

Yes, there are canonical examples, but exceptions can be made by the gm easily enough.
Rule zero: It's a wonderful thing. When it's merely a line on a piece of paper, altering it is simple enough.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Where? I checked the article (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a) and I don't see any such mention. It says she has not used magical aid in changing her alignment, but it does describe her changing alignment the hard way and she is listed as Lawful Good in the stat blocks.

You're right, I must have missed that. The article does say that she suffers a negative level while wielding her +1 holy glaive, but her statblock does say she's LG. Does she still have an evil subtype or something?

[torrasque666]

You're right, I must have missed that. The article does say that she suffers a negative level while wielding her +1 holy glaive, but her statblock does say she's LG. Does she still have an evil subtype or something?

Yeah, she still has the evil, and iirc, the chaotic subtypes.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Yeah, she still has the evil, and iirc, the chaotic subtypes.

So she's Lawful Good, but has an evil subtype... What does that make her alignment? :smallsigh:

Could she change her subtype, perhaps via Savage Species rituals?

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

I'm pretty sure it just means "always starts out evil" but anything can change alignment. BoED has rules for redeeming 'always evil' creatures, but iirc they can't lose the evil subtype if they have it.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I'm pretty sure it just means "always starts out evil" but anything can change alignment. BoED has rules for redeeming 'always evil' creatures, but iirc they can't lose the evil subtype if they have it.

Do you remember where? Because from what I recall, the book claimed that always evil creatures (or it might have been always evil outsiders) can't be redeemed.

[OldTrees1]

So she's Lawful Good, but has an evil subtype... What does that make her alignment? :smallsigh:

Could she change her subtype, perhaps via Savage Species rituals?

Being Lawful Good with the [Evil] and [Chaotic] subtypes makes her alignment Lawful Good.



Do you remember where? Because from what I recall, the book claimed that always evil creatures (or it might have been always evil outsiders) can't be redeemed.

BoED has 2 sections on redemption. They have the mundane process section and the ExaltedMindRape spell. IIRC the latter doesn't work on Fiends(outsiders with the [Evil] subtype) regardless of the alignment of the Fiend.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Being Lawful Good with the [Evil] and [Chaotic] subtypes makes her alignment Lawful Good.

Right, I found something interesting in the MM:



Most creatures that have this subtype also have evil alignments; however, if their alignments change, they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has an evil alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment.

Edit:


BoED has 2 sections on redemption. They have the mundane process section and the ExaltedMindRape spell. IIRC the latter doesn't work on Fiends(outsiders with the [Evil] subtype) regardless of the alignment of the Fiend.

OK, I remembered Sanctify the Wicked referencing the redemption rules, but I might have been mistaken.

Edit 2:

I remember sort of correctly:



Outsiders with the Evil subtype are immune to redemption in this manner.

[KillianHawkeye]

Yes, the Succubus Paladin is Lawful Good, and she still retains her Evil and Chaotic subtypes. This means that, effectively, she counts as every alignment simultaneously for the purposes of spells and other effects that have differing results based on alignment. She is never considered non-good, non-evil, non-lawful, or non-chaotic (because she is all of those things).

She's basically walking an alignment tightrope on both axes. There's a reason that the article about her also includes versions who have fallen back to the side of Evil.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Sanctify the Wicked has Target: One evil creature, and says nothing about not being able to work on anything due to type or subtype.

However, the Sanctified Creature template says it can't be added to outsiders with the evil subtype, but then goes on to name subtypes that are lost by the base creature which are exclusive to outsiders with the evil subtype.

It's really sending mixed signals, and it's been a long time since I had a debate over it. I did find a specific example of a good aligned Succubus (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a) from an official source that I'd been trying to remember, so there's at least a precedent for converting evil outsiders to good in extremely rare circumstances.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Sanctify the Wicked has Target: One evil creature, and says nothing about not being able to work on anything due to type or subtype.

However, the Sanctified Creature template says it can't be added to outsiders with the evil subtype, but then goes on to name subtypes that are lost by the base creature which are exclusive to outsiders with the evil subtype.

It's really sending mixed signals, and it's been a long time since I had a debate over it. I did find a specific example of a good aligned Succubus (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fc/20050824a) from an official source that I'd been trying to remember, so there's at least a precedent for converting evil outsiders to good in extremely rare circumstances.

Yep, according to the MM, Always X creatures can change their alignment; it's rare for them to do so, but possible.

Atonement seems to imply that Outsiders (as well as other undefined monsters) can't change their alignment naturally, but the MM takes precedence here.

[Vaern]

There is actually a lot that suggests that evil outsiders can potentially be good. Most notably, the evil subtype description says that if their alignment changes then they retain the evil subtype and are still treated as evil for the purposes of spells and effects, as well as their actual alignment.
So a devil could theoretically be allowed to become chaotic good, and would then be treated as all of lawful, chaotic, evil, and good. Though they don't gain the subtypes of their actual alignment, so a good devil is still an evil outsider, and whether it could be considered a "good outsider" so well is debatable.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Yes, there are canonical examples, but exceptions can be made by the gm easily enough.
Rule zero: It's a wonderful thing. When it's merely a line on a piece of paper, altering it is simple enough.

This has got to be the single most unhelpful answer you could possibly give.

Q: Does a Druid's animal companion get a share of XP?
A: It's your choice, Rule Zero!

Q: What's the difference between a 1 round casting time and a full round casting time?
A: Whatever you want it to be, Rule Zero!

Q: What are the rules of the game.
A: Anything thing with RULE ZERO!

Typically when people make these threads they want an actual ruling.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to return to my hiatus of collecting every sticker in Birth by Sleep.

[Garktz]

This has got to be the single most unhelpful answer you could possibly give.

Q: Does a Druid's animal companion get a share of XP?
A: It's your choice, Rule Zero!

Q: What's the difference between a 1 round casting time and a full round casting time?
A: Whatever you want it to be, Rule Zero!

Q: What are the rules of the game.
A: Anything thing with RULE ZERO!

Typically when people make these threads they want an actual ruling.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to return to my hiatus of collecting every sticker in Birth by Sleep.

Actually its more like "rules arent clear, cannon says you can, it might fall into dm territory to rule 0 it, so feel free to do it"

[ColorBlindNinja]

Actually its more like "rules arent clear, cannon says you can, it might fall into dm territory to rule 0 it, so feel free to do it"

Except the rules explicitly say it's possible in the MM.

Edit:



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

Edit 2:

If I was satisfied with rule 0 as a solution, I wouldn't have bothered to create this thread.

[Zanos]

It's possible, but you should think long and hard about whether such a creature can and should exist in your campaign. As the entry mentions, they should be unique or extremely rare.

[Crake]

Sanctify the Wicked has Target: One evil creature, and says nothing about not being able to work on anything due to type or subtype.

However, the Sanctified Creature template says it can't be added to outsiders with the evil subtype, but then goes on to name subtypes that are lost by the base creature which are exclusive to outsiders with the evil subtype.

In the case of conflicting signals, I tend to rule toward the side that has multiple indications that it was the intention. In the case of sanctify the wicked, more of the rules point toward it working on outsiders with the evil subtype than not, in fact there is only one line stating that, though it's rather explicit. I do however, find it more likely that a single line was forgotten to be changed during the development process, than all the other stuff, including the notable lines about losing the various lower plane subtypes like baatezu, tanar'ri, and yugoloth, which as you said are exclusive to outsiders with the evil subtype.

Obviously a RAW disfunction, but when everything but one line points toward a certain outcome, I think the RAI is pretty clear, I've even used it on evil outsiders in my games before.


It's possible, but you should think long and hard about whether such a creature can and should exist in your campaign. As the entry mentions, they should be unique or extremely rare.

I definitely gotta agree with this though, if you make it a habit to have gimmick creatures that deviate from the expected norm, like good vampires and demons, then it removes their sense of uniqueness, making each time far less interesting to the players, and also makes it hard for the players to at least have some reasonable sense of expectations for the creatures they come across. Don't be surprised if you throw a good demon at them, and they kill it, assuming it's trying to trick them, and god forbid you do that to a paladin and make them fall, or you'll be getting a bad GM thread about you soon enough :smalltongue:

[ColorBlindNinja]

It's possible, but you should think long and hard about whether such a creature can and should exist in your campaign. As the entry mentions, they should be unique or extremely rare.

True, but it could be a viable solution if being evil, for example, would otherwise be disruptive in a given group; particularly if Paladins are involved.

Also, I will warn that such characters should be role-played with extreme caution, less they become Sues.

[KillianHawkeye]

True, but it could be a viable solution if being evil, for example, would otherwise be disruptive in a given group; particularly if Paladins are involved.

You're going to have a hell of a time convincing any Paladins that your demon or devil PC is actually Good when they still detect as Evil to their special Paladin-senses.

[ColorBlindNinja]

You're going to have a hell of a time convincing any Paladins that your demon or devil PC is actually Good when they still detect as Evil to their special Paladin-senses.

Wouldn't they also detect as good?

[Pleh]

Wouldn't they also detect as good?

Hm. Maybe, but paladins get Detect Evil for free, not Detect Good.

Detect Evil only reports the existence of evil auras. It does not report any simultaneously occurring good auras. The paladin would have to cast a spell or magic item to also see the good aura.

[kellbyb]

Wouldn't they also detect as good?

They would.

[ColorBlindNinja]

They would.

I guess if the Cleric points that out, the poor Paladin's head explodes. :smalltongue:

[Calthropstu]

Wouldn't they also detect as good?
Yes, but paladin's do not get detect good, they get detect evil. They would need a cleric to confirm it. To be fair, if a lawful good succubus came to them asking to be confirmed as good, a paladin would probably fetch a cleric... especially if the succubus was wielding holy magic derived from a good god in the manner of a paladin.
Edit: ninja'd...


Except the rules explicitly say it's possible in the MM.

Edit:



Edit 2:

If I was satisfied with rule 0 as a solution, I wouldn't have bothered to create this thread.

Fair enough. Maybe I should phrase it differently: When the rules themselves disagree, it's literally a call for the gm. It's easy enough to rule zero out the conflict, and there is definitely a conflict here. Since there is multiple canon examples of good and evil flips amongst planar entities, it can be assumed that alignment changes are ultimately possible.
Look at titans for example... though they all used to serve the gods of good and were originally good creatures, they have become divided and there is now a large section of the species living as evil. There are also examples of fallen angels, redeemed fiends... so to think it's impossible rules wise is ludicrous. That being said, it should be a momentous thing when it does happen... something rare enough to garner the attention of truly powerful beings. Some who want to encourage it, and others who want to undo or destroy it.

[Crake]

Yes, but paladin's do not get detect good, they get detect evil. They would need a cleric to confirm it. To be fair, if a lawful good succubus came to them asking to be confirmed as good, a paladin would probably fetch a cleric... especially if the succubus was wielding holy magic derived from a good god in the manner of a paladin.


Yeah, it's not like there are ways to fake magic auras, and it's not like there are ways to conceal the nature of your magic at all.

In all seriousness, for every 1 succubus paladin, or cleric of pelor balor, or whatever, there's thousands, if not millions that fake doing the exact same thing.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Fair enough. Maybe I should phrase it differently: When the rules themselves disagree, it's literally a call for the gm. It's easy enough to rule zero out the conflict, and there is definitely a conflict here. Since there is multiple canon examples of good and evil flips amongst planar entities, it can be assumed that alignment changes are ultimately possible.
Look at titans for example... though they all used to serve the gods of good and were originally good creatures, they have become divided and there is now a large section of the species living as evil. There are also examples of fallen angels, redeemed fiends... so to think it's impossible rules wise is ludicrous. That being said, it should be a momentous thing when it does happen... something rare enough to garner the attention of truly powerful beings. Some who want to encourage it, and others who want to undo or destroy it.

It wouldn't be the first time that fluff and crunch conflict.

It's also worth noting there are rules for what to do if the rules themselves conflict; primary sources trumps secondary ones. In this case, the Monster Manual is the authority on monsters, and thus takes precedence.

Edit:


Yeah, it's not like there are ways to fake magic auras, and it's not like there are ways to conceal the nature of your magic at all.

In fairness, I know of no other way to have two conflicting alignment auras.

[Crake]

It wouldn't be the first time that fluff and crunch conflict.

It's also worth noting there are rules for what to do if the rules themselves conflict; primary sources trumps secondary ones. In this case, the Monster Manual is the authority on monsters, and thus takes precedence.

Edit:



In fairness, I know of no other way to have two conflicting alignment auras.

There are spells you could cast from scrolls to grant yourself the good subtype temporarily, or you could even possess a creature with the good subtype, hell, even just possess a regular good creature, that way when they detect your alignment, they'll detect your evil, and your host's good. There are spells that can also change your aura, you can use Nystul's magic aura on an object to give it whatever aura you want, and then cast misdirection to make your aura appear the same. It's honestly not that hard.

Long story short: No matter the evidence to the contrary, a cleric/paladin is still probably not going to believe you. Even once you've proven yourself time after time, they might still suspect the long con, assuming they didn't try (and possibly succeed) to kill you outright. Hell, even if a paladin killed you, one of the books (I can't remember which one) states that killing an evil outsider is always a good act, so, by RAW, they wouldn't have broken their code, and wouldn't fall.

[Calthropstu]

In fairness, I know of no other way to have two conflicting alignment auras.

I can think of a couple. Demonic possession, for example, wielding aligned magic or having an aligned spell cast on you, opposite aligned equipment... all would reveal opposite auras.
The only way to truly confirm, is to be stripped of all magic auras then alignment detection and truesight to ensure there was no trickery.

[Crake]

I can think of a couple. Demonic possession, for example, wielding aligned magic or having an aligned spell cast on you, opposite aligned equipment... all would reveal opposite auras.
The only way to truly confirm, is to be stripped of all magic auras then alignment detection and truesight to ensure there was no trickery.

Items on your person wouldn't work, because after 3 rounds, you can identify the source of the aura, meaning you'd be able to differentiate between an item's aura, and a wielder's aura. Multiple dispels would still leave a chance of failure to not remove something like mislead, which in and of itself is undetectable, due to the fact that it's replacing your aura (and thus it's own) with that of the object with which you've nystuled, and even all of that wouldn't work against demonic possession at all.

[ColorBlindNinja]

There are spells you could cast from scrolls to grant yourself the good subtype temporarily, or you could even possess a creature with the good subtype, hell, even just possess a regular good creature, that way when they detect your alignment, they'll detect your evil, and your host's good. There are spells that can also change your aura, you can use Nystul's magic aura on an object to give it whatever aura you want, and then cast misdirection to make your aura appear the same. It's honestly not that hard.

Long story short: No matter the evidence to the contrary, a cleric/paladin is still probably not going to believe you. Even once you've proven yourself time after time, they might still suspect the long con, assuming they didn't try (and possibly succeed) to kill you outright. Hell, even if a paladin killed you, one of the books (I can't remember which one) states that killing an evil outsider is always a good act, so, by RAW, they wouldn't have broken their code, and wouldn't fall.



I can think of a couple. Demonic possession, for example, wielding aligned magic or having an aligned spell cast on you, opposite aligned equipment... all would reveal opposite auras.
The only way to truly confirm, is to be stripped of all magic auras then alignment detection and truesight to ensure there was no trickery.

I'd forgotten about possession, but wouldn't evil gear read as evil, not the person carrying it?

Edit:


Items on your person wouldn't work, because after 3 rounds, you can identify the source of the aura, meaning you'd be able to differentiate between an item's aura, and a wielder's aura. Multiple dispels would still leave a chance of failure to not remove something like mislead, which in and of itself is undetectable, due to the fact that it's replacing your aura (and thus it's own) with that of the object with which you've nystuled, and even all of that wouldn't work against demonic possession at all.

More or less what I meant about the gear.

[Crake]

I'd forgotten about possession, but wouldn't evil gear read as evil, not the person carrying it?

More or less what I meant about the gear.

The trick is you combine the gear, or a casting of nystul's magic aura, with the spell misdirection (I can't link to the srd, because it's down right now, but what it basically does is replaces your aura with the aura of an item, which you've manipulated to be whatever you want via nystul's magic aura). Admittedly, the spell comes with a save for whoever's casting the detect spell, but that DC can be pumped up, or even made non-existent if your DM allows the use of the irresistible spell metamagic from kingdoms of kalamar, and a cleric/paladin can never be truly sure they haven't simply failed their save against such a spell. Even dispel magic, as I noted earlier, can fail against that by just not rolling high enough to dispel the spell, so the only surefire method would be disjunction, a 9th level spell. And of course, as mentioned, that would all be for naught if the demon is simply possessing some poor, kind hearted sod. Occams razor basically tells any cleric or paladin that comes across this hypothetical good demon that it's far more likely that it's a ruse than the truth.

[Necroticplague]

Hell, even if a paladin killed you, one of the books (I can't remember which one) states that killing an evil outsider is always a good act, so, by RAW, they wouldn't have broken their code, and wouldn't fall.

BoED seems to contradict this, unless I'm missing something. It's section of violence states something along the affect of 'merely existing and being Evil isn't a capital crime, so it's still Evil to murder random people based on alignment'. Sure, free to stab away if you find out they're actually harming someone, but up until then, it's murder.

[Crake]

BoED seems to contradict this, unless I'm missing something. It's section of violence states something along the affect of 'merely existing and being Evil isn't a capital crime, so it's still Evil to murder random people based on alignment'. Sure, free to stab away if you find out they're actually harming someone, but up until then, it's murder.

It's not killing evil people, it's killing [Evil] outsiders.

I can't actually find the reference though, so it may have just been hearsay in a different thread some long time ago.

Edit: Closest I could find is this part of the BoED under redemption:


Of course, good characters recognize that some creatures are utterly beyond redemption. Most creatures described in the Monster Manual as “always evil” are either completely irredeemable or so intimately tied to evil that they are almost entirely hopeless. Certainly demons and devils are best slain, or at least banished, and only a naïve fool would try to convert them.

It does go on to mention dragons being less of a lost cause, but the point still stands. Even the BoED recommends killing demons rather than tampering with the cosmic forces of evil in an attempt at redemption.

[Drynwyn]

Interesting minor note: One result of always evil meaning "always evil but incredibly rare exceptions exist" is that just as many Lawful Good demons exist as Chaotic Evil demons.

Each layer of the Abyss is infinite, and populated with infinite demons. As such, there are infinite Chaotic Evil demons, and infinite Lawful Good demons. It's just that anywhere you go, it's mostly Chaotic Evil demons.

[Florian]

If I was satisfied with rule 0 as a solution, I wouldn't have bothered to create this thread.

The usual BS. You cannot create any form of in-depth simulation of a fictional world without either using rule zero or using dedicated hardware/software to do so.

@Succubus Paladin:

Both, the BoVD and BoED, practically manage to kill the alignment system by not understanding it, like, at all. The concepts of the "Fallen Angel" and "Redeemed Fiend" are so stupid and they go against anything the Great Wheel cosmology has established as fact. I guess you shouldn't let people from the Bible Belt write stuff about fantasy morality.

[OldTrees1]

Interesting minor note: One result of always evil meaning "always evil but incredibly rare exceptions exist" is that just as many Lawful Good demons exist as Chaotic Evil demons.

Each layer of the Abyss is infinite, and populated with infinite demons. As such, there are infinite Chaotic Evil demons, and infinite Lawful Good demons. It's just that anywhere you go, it's mostly Chaotic Evil demons.

Not necessarily. If a finite number of individuals in an infinite population share a trait, that trait is definitely rare.

[Zanos]

Interesting minor note: One result of always evil meaning "always evil but incredibly rare exceptions exist" is that just as many Lawful Good demons exist as Chaotic Evil demons.

Each layer of the Abyss is infinite, and populated with infinite demons. As such, there are infinite Chaotic Evil demons, and infinite Lawful Good demons. It's just that anywhere you go, it's mostly Chaotic Evil demons.
A set containing 2 and all odd numbers still contains a finite amount of even numbers.

[theNater]

So what creatures are incapable of changing their alignment?
I'm pretty sure that's intended to refer to animals. I forget the exact phrasing, but in the alignment definitions it mentions animals are always neutral by virtue of being unable to make moral judgments or some such.

[OracleofWuffing]

Go ahead and slap me for this one.

If "Always X" means that the creature is born with X alignment, then that just leaves any creature that is not born as an undefined alignment. Now, "Not being born" normally is a significant hurdle, but I don't think D&D was designed to present that issue as a hurdle. I mean, there's other ways to become alive other than being born, right? Being flat-out created, reincarnated, reproduce by mitosis...

[Graypairofsocks]

Interesting minor note: One result of always evil meaning "always evil but incredibly rare exceptions exist" is that just as many Lawful Good demons exist as Chaotic Evil demons.

Each layer of the Abyss is infinite, and populated with infinite demons. As such, there are infinite Chaotic Evil demons, and infinite Lawful Good demons. It's just that anywhere you go, it's mostly Chaotic Evil demons.

Like someone else mentioned their can be a finite set of things contained in an infinite set.


Also you can have 1 infinity that is smaller than a different infinity.

[Pleh]

Go ahead and slap me for this one.

If "Always X" means that the creature is born with X alignment, then that just leaves any creature that is not born as an undefined alignment. Now, "Not being born" normally is a significant hurdle, but I don't think D&D was designed to present that issue as a hurdle. I mean, there's other ways to become alive other than being born, right? Being flat-out created, reincarnated, reproduce by mitosis...

Except monster entries dictate alignment regardless the genesis method of the creature listed. The monster listings don't actually dictate that any given monster is ever born, only sometimes does it dictate that they are always evil regardless their origin.

For example: demons may never be born at all (rather just existing for all time til slain), but they still are "always evil".

In other instances, such as building monsters from scratch, it may be integral to their creation that they always turn out to be evil anyway.

[Feantar]

First, you can also change their alignment without using a minor artifact by that helpful cursed item, the Helm of Opposite Alignment.

Second, maybe the passage about 'any creature incapable of changing its alignment naturally' does not, in fact, refer to Outsiders but non-sentient(Int 2 or less) beings. For example, I cannot cast atonement on a ferret and make it lawful good; or on a zombie and make it chaotic neutral. Or on a golem. etc...

[hamishspence]

The concepts of the "Fallen Angel" and "Redeemed Fiend" are so stupid and they go against anything the Great Wheel cosmology has established as fact.

Actually they have considerable precedent - they predate BoVD and BoED. The general idea is that a fallen angel tends to turn into a fiend - but there can be a period prior to the transformation, where you have an evil-aligned angel with the Good subtype.



In all seriousness, for every 1 succubus paladin, or cleric of pelor balor, or whatever, there's thousands, if not millions that fake doing the exact same thing.

Aside from a few posters asserting this - I haven't seen much evidence that suggests this is standard "in-universe" - D&D fiction, splatbooks, etc. generally doesn't talk about fiends pretending to be redeemed fiends.

[Florian]

Actually they have considerable precedent - they predate BoVD and BoED. The general idea is that a fallen angel tends to turn into a fiend - but there can be a period prior to the transformation, where you have an evil-aligned angel with the Good subtype.

And that is pure BS. The alignment system represents nine "ideal states" where each is capable of forming a "model society" that will actually thrive. Outsider races that are actually formed by the planes instead of living in the planes (ex: Angels vs. Mercane) are created with that knowledge at their core.

Generally speaking, there´s a long tradition of authors not understanding that system and letting their own cultural/religious bias guide them. That´s more or less why we have the upper planes generally being a "reward" and the lower planes depicted as "punishment". Notice how rarely the Law vs Chaos axis, or neutrality as a whole, comes into it.

That in turn leads to the notion of "rise" and "fall" of outsiders, something that a) happens only on the G-E axis and b) simply shows a lack of understanding of the system as it should be.

[KillianHawkeye]

That in turn leads to the notion of "rise" and "fall" of outsiders, something that a) happens only on the G-E axis and b) simply shows a lack of understanding of the system as it should be.

Fallen angels and such have been in the game for decades. That's how we got the Erinyes. Even Asmodeus himself is said to have once been a servant of Law before being corrupted by Evil. And as an idea taken from the Old Testament of the Bible (which was a major source of lore for old-school D&D), it's what we like to call "as old as dirt."

All I'm saying is perhaps the designers aren't the ones who lack understanding of the system here.

[Florian]

All I'm saying is perhaps the designers aren't the ones who lack understanding of the system here.

The alignment system started life based on the works of Morcook. He depicted the struggle of two fundamental cosmic forces (Chaos and Law) with "reality" being the middle/battle ground and people gaining power by being "aligned" to one of those forces.

With AD&D, we had the expansion from 3 to 9 alignments and the topic began to be somewhat murky.
It´s easy to notice the shift from the former C-L struggle to the G-E struggle and how that change was executed.

Take a critical look at that point, because here is where the 4E alignment "line" (LG - G - N - E - CE) actually began. Now tell me who didn't understand the system.

[KillianHawkeye]

You didn't tell me anything I don't already know, and I still think it's you.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I'm pretty sure that's intended to refer to animals. I forget the exact phrasing, but in the alignment definitions it mentions animals are always neutral by virtue of being unable to make moral judgments or some such.

The issue I see with this is that the Monster Manual says that "Always X" alignment creatures can change their alignment. Presumably that would include animals as they are "always neutral".

[RoboEmperor]

Tarrasque is neutral no matter how many genocides it causes

[ColorBlindNinja]

Tarrasque is neutral no matter how many genocides it causes

It genocides good races along with the evil ones, so it balances out. :smallwink:

[Pleh]

It genocides good races along with the evil ones, so it balances out. :smallwink:

Bible belt alignment is crap.

Tarrasque genocides lawful and chaotic socities equally to balance. That's the TRUE alignment neutrality.

[Crake]

Aside from a few posters asserting this - I haven't seen much evidence that suggests this is standard "in-universe" - D&D fiction, splatbooks, etc. generally doesn't talk about fiends pretending to be redeemed fiends.

That's because stories usually have good protagonists and happy endings, and a story where a fiend who was lying about being redeemed, corrupting and desecrating a church before moving on doesn't make for a great story. Usually instead the story goes "fiend is lying, fiend is killed, the end" or "Fiend is the exception, and is in fact redeemed by the actions of the hero, the end". Nobody is gonna read a depressing, tragic story about the standard events of the debauched evil of demons.

Lillitu are demons that are almost entirely based around that very premise, infiltrating churches and corrupting them from the inside, all you're doing is taking that one extra step in saying you're a redeemed fiend when there's the liklihood of someone with true seeing.

[Fouredged Sword]

Another thing to note is that you have more than just opposite side switches. I have a reoccurring NPC who is a CN succubus merchant. She has become disillusioned to the blood war and daemon hierarchy pecking order of power. She no longer cares about causing pain and suffering, or stealing souls for the lower planes.

She is out for number one, money and safety baby.

She is also a dwarf named Richard Johnson. She specializes in procuring personal items for adventurers. Anything under 50lbs that she can find a seller and a buyer for, she move it faster than any competition.

[Crake]

Another thing to note is that you have more than just opposite side switches. I have a reoccurring NPC who is a CN succubus merchant. She has become disillusioned to the blood war and daemon hierarchy pecking order of power. She no longer cares about causing pain and suffering, or stealing souls for the lower planes.

She is out for number one, money and safety baby.

She is also a dwarf named Richard Johnson. She specializes in procuring personal items for adventurers. Anything under 50lbs that she can find a seller and a buyer for, she move it faster than any competition.

Minor nitpick: Demons steal souls for personal use, usually for use as currency for trade and barter. It's devils that steal souls for more communal uses.

[OracleofWuffing]

Except monster entries dictate alignment regardless the genesis method of the creature listed. The monster listings don't actually dictate that any given monster is ever born, only sometimes does it dictate that they are always evil regardless their origin.

Well, I warned you going in to this to slap me for this. :smalltongue:

As quoted earlier, "Always" in the alignment entry has been defined as "The creature is born with the indicated alignment." The definition goes on to explain possibilities that may happen later after the fact, but since that is the only definite in the definition, no. In cases of Always X, the monster entries only dictate what alignment the creature has at birth as per the definition laid in the glossary- which is what "Reading the Entries" refers us to use, and even the wording in that section isn't absolute. While it is a fair expectation that there should be a rule indicating, "If a creature has not been born and has an alignment containing 'always,' one should assume the alignment listed regardless," such a rule was not put down.

So, we have a situation where we can have creatures with undefined alignment (which, yes, isn't really a problem because alignment is free to change change, go ask your DM, undefined situations are kind of hard to find rules for by their very nature), or an implied rule where all creatures with an "Always" alignment entry must have been born (which also isn't really a problem, something being born usually isn't a game changer in terms of game design, but it presents some issues for verisimilitude, on the other hand who's going to argue with the image of a gelatinous cube with a briefcase, a gelatinous cube with a bow on its top, and a smaller gelatinous cube with a teddy bear?).

[zergling.exe]

Well, I warned you going in to this to slap me for this. :smalltongue:

As quoted earlier, "Always" in the alignment entry has been defined as "The creature is born with the indicated alignment." The definition goes on to explain possibilities that may happen later after the fact, but since that is the only definite in the definition, no. In cases of Always X, the monster entries only dictate what alignment the creature has at birth as per the definition laid in the glossary- which is what "Reading the Entries" refers us to use, and even the wording in that section isn't absolute. While it is a fair expectation that there should be a rule indicating, "If a creature has not been born and has an alignment containing 'always,' one should assume the alignment listed regardless," such a rule was not put down.

So, we have a situation where we can have creatures with undefined alignment (which, yes, isn't really a problem because alignment is free to change change, go ask your DM, undefined situations are kind of hard to find rules for by their very nature), or an implied rule where all creatures with an "Always" alignment entry must have been born (which also isn't really a problem, something being born usually isn't a game changer in terms of game design, but it presents some issues for verisimilitude, on the other hand who's going to argue with the image of a gelatinous cube with a briefcase, a gelatinous cube with a bow on its top, and a smaller gelatinous cube with a teddy bear?).

Well let's go to English where we can find out that every creature is born at one point or another.

First, born:
Born (adj): existing as a result of birth.
So if something is birthed, it is born.

Now we look at birth:
Birth (n): the emergence of a baby or other young from the body of its mother; the start of life as a physically separate being.
This tells us that when one thing is separated from another, it is birthed. So an outsider forms from it's home plane and is birthed by it. It is the start of the life of a physically separate being, so it has been born and receivers it's in-born alignment.

[Psyren]

So she's Lawful Good, but has an evil subtype... What does that make her alignment? :smallsigh:

She's Lawful Good, but counts as all 4 for various magical effects.

I'm not sure I understand all the sighing, it's not that complicated. Basically the universe acknowledges what she's trying to do but isn't cutting her any slack for it, which is a pretty good reason why this sort of thing is so rare.

[OracleofWuffing]

Well let's go to English where we can find out that every creature is born at one point or another.
English? Really? That sourcebook's practically plagiarized entirely from excerpts of books from previous incompatible systems that were just selected because they sounded cool at the time, with no regard to balance and little regard to consistency! :smallwink: Joking aside, I don't think that definition is complete without further clarifications, as you're introducing more terminology which isn't defined in the scope of the game. There's whole philosophies about what the start of life is, as well as what it means to be a physically separate being.

A clarification that I already claimed it did not alter game play all that significantly if every creature is considered born. I just can't imagine many people will find it consistent that many different types of births (building constructs, ooze splitting, a soul becoming a ghost, crafting intelligent magic items) would colloquially be referred to with the same word that implies the production of infants. Is it syntactically correct? Yes. Something a significant character might do as a quirk? Definitely. Something a whole not-really-medieval fantasy world whose inspirations have gone out of hand does as it casually goes about it's day? Eeeeeh... Maybe with lots of mind control.

Inspiration for future BBEG hook: Dude wants to become a Lich not for the phenomenal arcane power, but because he wants a second birthday party.

[hamishspence]

Another thing to note is that you have more than just opposite side switches. I have a reoccurring NPC who is a CN succubus merchant. She has become disillusioned to the blood war and daemon hierarchy pecking order of power. She no longer cares about causing pain and suffering, or stealing souls for the lower planes.

Redeemed can be "partially redeemed" - Fall-From-Grace is usually described as a redeemed Succubus - but she's Neutral, not Good.

Lawful Neutral to be precise.

And Eberron had a True Neutral yugoloth ship captain.

[Telonius]

Outsiders are kind of a special case. Demons are pretty much made of Evil-ite and Chaos-ium. That's why they have the [Evil] and [Chaotic] subtypes. They can't get away from that part of their nature. Because they're unitary beings (no separation between body and soul, can't be resurrected without special magic) that matters a bit more than it does to creatures and characters originating on the Material Plane.

Morally, Demons are almost all Chaotic Evil. There are random exceptions, like Eludecia. Those characters might have an alignment of Lawful Good. Their own choice in the matter is going to allow spells that affect Law and Good to affect them. Spells that affect things that are Evil or Chaotic are also going to affect them, because regardless of how they've chosen to act, they're still made of the stuff of Chaos and Evil. Changing their essential nature would be like changing all your electrons into protons: Messy, hard, and as likely to end in a large explosion as it would be to work. The Ritual of Alignment in Savage Species is one (very expensive) way to manage it. Otherwise you'd be in Rule Zero territory.

[hamishspence]

Cambions (Expedition to the Demonweb Pits) are demons that are basically half-fiend half-planetouched (typically tiefling). Despite qualifying as demons (extraplanar outsider, evil and chaotic subtypes, native to the Abyss) less than 50% are Chaotic Evil, and only 90% are some kind of Evil. The remaining 10% are Neutral or Good.

This shows how a little drop of mortal blood (not enough to take them out of the Demon classification) can go a long way.

[Luccan]

Edit:

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



That would indicate, "yes". However:

This use of the spell does not work on outsiders or any creature incapable of changing its alignment naturally.

So what creatures are incapable of changing their alignment? According to the Monster Manual, such creatures don't exist. :smallsigh:

That's not technically what it says, though it seems wrong at first. Firstly, the only creatures specifically called out as not being affected by Atonement are outsiders. There are no listed creatures I know of stated to be "incapable of changing its alignment naturally", but I would think that would count mindless creatures, animals, and anything else with an Int lower than 3 (at which point a creature is not considered intelligent enough to understand right and wrong). Secondly, we know there are multiple magical means of changing alignment. Therefore, even if "Always X" or even "outsider" meant they couldn't change naturally, they could be changed magically and Atonement simply wouldn't function on them.

[ColorBlindNinja]

That's not technically what it says, though it seems wrong at first. Firstly, the only creatures specifically called out as not being affected by Atonement are outsiders. There are no listed creatures I know of stated to be "incapable of changing its alignment naturally", but I would think that would count mindless creatures, animals, and anything else with an Int lower than 3 (at which point a creature is not considered intelligent enough to understand right and wrong). Secondly, we know there are multiple magical means of changing alignment. Therefore, even if "Always X" or even "outsider" meant they couldn't change naturally, they could be changed magically and Atonement simply wouldn't function on them.

This is true, but the MM seems to imply that all "Always X" alignment creatures can change their alignment naturally, it's just rare. That would include undead, animals and constructs, ect.

[Luccan]

This is true, but the MM seems to imply that all "Always X" alignment creatures can change their alignment naturally, it's just rare. That would include undead, animals and constructs, ect.

That's fair. It doesn't specify the creatures must be intelligent. LG Zombie just wants hugs