1. - Top - End - #4
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grey_Wolf_c's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2007

    Default Re: MitD IV: I Can't Believe it's Not Tarrasque (Please Read the First Post)

    Section 4: Appendices

    This space is for discussion of topics only tangentially related to MitD, but that nevertheless keep coming up

    Section 4a: MitD's Alignment
    Spoiler
    Show
    The best that can be said about MitD's species' alignment is that it is unlikely to be Good, since RedCloak would not have recruited a Good creature to protect the goblin village given his rather dim views on the Good alignment.

    This, however, is a very weak argument, since it can be argued that MitD was not, at the time, Good. Also, consider that MitD's alignment and his species' need not match. As such, knowing MitD's actual alignment brings us no closer to knowing his species' alignment and, thus, for the purposes of this thread, this is a barren path of inquiry.

    The only exception to this is alignment when applied to morality plane denizens (i.e. angels, demons, etc.). Rich commented on this topic in DStP:
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant, Round 4 Commentary
    It's important to note that this doesn't necessarily make Celia right in her views. Heck, they're not even all that consistent, considering she has been known to fly off the handle and zap people from time to time. Because, see, Celia isn't a deva or an angel; she's not an embodiment of Law or Good. She can mistakes and screw up, and she can fail to live up to her own ideals, as she does later when she finds herself cheering while Haley shoots people. She wants to be a pacifist, but she can get caught up in the excitement of battle the same as anyone else.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant, Round 7 Commentary
    The entire point of their organization is to blur the lines between the the three fiendish races (demon, daemon, devil) and depict cooperation where normally one would expect backbiting and betrayal. So here, we have a slightly less neutral daemon, a slightly more chaotic devil, and a slightly more lawful demon (one who went to college with devils, even).
    From the above, we know that angels and demons (unlike other outsiders) are embodiments of their own morality planes. Yes, they can change their alignment, but only slightly, and when doing so it serves the purposes of their other alignment. And even then, it is a very rare and line-pushing experiment. The embodiments of the morality planes are as follows:

    {TABLE]Lawful Evil: Baatezu/Devils|Lawful Neutral: Formians, Inevitables, Modrons|Lawful Good: Archons
    Neutral Evil: Yugoloths/Daemons|True Neutral: Rilmani|Neutral Good: Guardinals
    Chaotic Evil: Tanar'ri/Demons|Chaotic Neutral: Slaadi|Chaotic Good: Eladrin[/TABLE]


    Section 4b: MitD's Scores
    Spoiler
    Show
    It has proven almost impossible to nail down what MitD's scores might be. The general agreement is that his strength must be past 30, his INT must be high (to account for his ability to learn quickly), his Wisdom be low (to account with his innocence and bad judgement) and his Charisma high (to account for the "beautiful" comment).

    However, it is equally likely that he will be a near-epic creature, and as such his scores are going to be all-around high (by human standards).

    Section 4c: The Gates
    Spoiler
    Show
    MitD's inability to "see" the gates is felt by several participants to be a "clue" about MitD (rather than the alternative possibility, Rule of Funny). However, no explanation that ties MitD's species to the gates has been forthcoming, except when contemplating the discarded idea of MitD being part of the Snarl.
    Last edited by Grey_Wolf_c; 2012-01-26 at 07:42 AM.
    Interested in MitD? Join us in MitD's thread.
    There is a world of imagination
    Deep in the corners of your mind
    Where reality is an intruder
    And myth and legend thrive
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Ceterum autem censeo Hilgya malefica est