Xuincherguixe
2007-09-25, 02:11 AM
Originally I was going to write this as a reply to the 4th edition Demons/Devils thread, however it went off spiraling into a totally different tangent, so I decided to post this as a different thread.
I think that a clear definition of what alignment is is needed. Even if it is loose, there shouldn't be so many hard arguments. It is also acceptable in my mind that things like Law and Chaos can mean different things in different settings, but the metaphysical situation is too painful.
I'm not going to make any judgments on Law/Chaos, I just think it's important they are defined.
And of course where alignment goes, outsiders closely follow. But Outsiders can be confusing as well. In said thread, there was an argument about if Succubi make more sense as Devils or Demons. I don't want to have the argument here too, but I bring this up as an example of how hard the alignment questions are. The succubus debate is easily resolved enough if you make a couple rulings.
But Good Outsiders are even harder to figure out. Clear images about what they should be don't form well. The Devil/Demon divide works nicely. One is terrifying because it makes perfect sense, the other makes no sense what so ever and their very nature is counter to human reason. (Well that's one way of doing it at least). But it's hard to figure out where the lines between Chaotic Good and Lawful Good are. Again, because Law and Chaos are so poorly defined.
How I would do things, I would have a flat definition for outsiders and an open one. This means that in one system that you could have a scheming mastermind Demon, and in the other that is against their nature (they could still plan, but not with nearly the same level of intricacy). Alignment may or may not be linked with the traditional outsider types (depending on how one rules), and I might go so far as to drop the Outsider type completely.
I think that the Fae type can reasonably replace what the Chaotic Good type is right now. I can't even figure out where the difference is between the various goods are right now. But squeeze Fae in, and the metaphysics start falling into place. The line between Evil Fae and Demons is blurry as is, and a lot of the Chaotic Good outsiders are pretty Faeish. Angels can get into fights with pixies. The Neutral Outsiders which don't really fit in well can be absorbed into Angel/Devil/Fae/Demon groups, or become something else entirely if it doesn't make sense. (Modrons and Slaad are awesome).
Of course the problem here is that it would take a lot of work to change everything. Therefore I offer this advice instead. Treat the D&D cosmology the way it should. That it doesn't make any sense. Generally things are certain ways, but exceptions exist. Make individual rulings in the ways that are easiest for each of you. Be as consistent as you can.
There, now I've said all the stuff I feel like saying, though looking back I'm not quite sure what my point was. Take of it what you will.
I think that a clear definition of what alignment is is needed. Even if it is loose, there shouldn't be so many hard arguments. It is also acceptable in my mind that things like Law and Chaos can mean different things in different settings, but the metaphysical situation is too painful.
I'm not going to make any judgments on Law/Chaos, I just think it's important they are defined.
And of course where alignment goes, outsiders closely follow. But Outsiders can be confusing as well. In said thread, there was an argument about if Succubi make more sense as Devils or Demons. I don't want to have the argument here too, but I bring this up as an example of how hard the alignment questions are. The succubus debate is easily resolved enough if you make a couple rulings.
But Good Outsiders are even harder to figure out. Clear images about what they should be don't form well. The Devil/Demon divide works nicely. One is terrifying because it makes perfect sense, the other makes no sense what so ever and their very nature is counter to human reason. (Well that's one way of doing it at least). But it's hard to figure out where the lines between Chaotic Good and Lawful Good are. Again, because Law and Chaos are so poorly defined.
How I would do things, I would have a flat definition for outsiders and an open one. This means that in one system that you could have a scheming mastermind Demon, and in the other that is against their nature (they could still plan, but not with nearly the same level of intricacy). Alignment may or may not be linked with the traditional outsider types (depending on how one rules), and I might go so far as to drop the Outsider type completely.
I think that the Fae type can reasonably replace what the Chaotic Good type is right now. I can't even figure out where the difference is between the various goods are right now. But squeeze Fae in, and the metaphysics start falling into place. The line between Evil Fae and Demons is blurry as is, and a lot of the Chaotic Good outsiders are pretty Faeish. Angels can get into fights with pixies. The Neutral Outsiders which don't really fit in well can be absorbed into Angel/Devil/Fae/Demon groups, or become something else entirely if it doesn't make sense. (Modrons and Slaad are awesome).
Of course the problem here is that it would take a lot of work to change everything. Therefore I offer this advice instead. Treat the D&D cosmology the way it should. That it doesn't make any sense. Generally things are certain ways, but exceptions exist. Make individual rulings in the ways that are easiest for each of you. Be as consistent as you can.
There, now I've said all the stuff I feel like saying, though looking back I'm not quite sure what my point was. Take of it what you will.