Inevitable mentioning of Inevitables

[Zincorium]

Alright, so I see people mentioning these things anytime someone even hints about players getting eternal life or otherwise 'breaking the laws of the universe' (possibly the least useful guideline ever).

Why, exactly?

Aside from those in the first monster manual, I have never seen a monster that people just assume to be present in other people's campaigns. If the DM doesn't decide that they exist in the first place, they're not there by default.

Their fluff is more problematic than useful. Who decided that eternal life is a particularly bad thing? Does the deciding party have any say whatsoever on a particular material plane (hint: the gods might have issues with unwanted interference)? Why are certain types of immortality (undead) provided with a 'get off scot free' card?


I can't even remember a pre-3rd ed precident for their existence, so it's not something like portable hole/bag of holding explosion- it's not traditional, and you can't blame it on earlier silly decisions.

Can anyone satisfactorily explain any of this?

[Totally Guy]

Isn't it just a form of balance?

A kobold tries to do Pun Pun? Bam! Inevitables!

We ran a whole special session which pretty much had inevitables screw over the plans of a beguiler that used a magic staff to gestalt himself with sorcerer levels.

[Oslecamo]

Isn't it just a form of balance?

A kobold tries to do Pun Pun? Bam! Inevitables!

This. Inevitables is what keeps the D&D universe running.

Someone tries to bind efreets? BAM inevitables!

Someone tries to create a trap based economy? BAM inevitables!

Basicaly, if players try to a dirty trick, inevitables fall, everybody dies!

I specialy like the campaign module where the party has to stop an inevitable from releasing a destructive god who had been traped by another party long ago. The god will completely reshape reality if released, but since it was captured with cheese, Mechanus decreed for it to be released anyway

[dsmiles]

Inevitables are the logical extensions of modrons (LN residents of Mechanus)from Advanced dungeons and Dragons. Everybody assumes that they exist in each other's campaigns because they assume that everybody plays the standard DnD cosmology.
I, for one, assume that they exist in my campaign, but trying to live forever doesn't seem to attract their attention as much as, say, trying to kill a god and take over his/her portfolio. Eternal life (and undeath) have their own pitfalls that make most sensible people avoid it (most notably, the unending boredom once you've done everything you wanted to do).

[Haven]

I can't even remember a pre-3rd ed precident for their existence, so it's not something like portable hole/bag of holding explosion- it's not traditional, and you can't blame it on earlier silly decisions.

I seem to recall something like the Inevitables in one of the Planescape Monster Manuals in 2e; don't remember the specifics though.

[Temet Nosce]

I'd agree they don't seem internally consistent and honestly I've never used them in a game. If I did however I'd certainly apply them across the board instead of allowing all sorts of excepts (either that or clarify precisely what they respond to).

I also wouldn't use them to punish "tricks". Since that'd be giving the players free EXP (or in the case of Pun-Pun simply meaningless).

[Yrcrazypa]

To rectify Pun-pun, just make a special kind of Inevitable, the Punevitables. Basically Pun-pun, if he were an inevitable, and if there were hundreds of them. I think that would stop one lone Pun-pun, or at least cause the universe to self destruct.

[shadow_archmagi]

Because they're flying robots that fire electric spiked chains from their hands.

WHY WOULD YOU NOT ASSUME EVERYONE USES THEM!?

I'm running a campaign where the PC's were teleported to Mad Wizard Island, and then Mad Wizard was killed by inevitables for screwing with portal magic too much. Now the inevitables consider the PC's "Tainted" and are hunting them.

They were like

"YESSSS WE'RE BEING HUNTED BY CHAINSAW BOTS BECAUSE WE'RE GUILTY OF CRIMES AGAINST EXISTENCE BY ASSOCIATION!"

[Oslecamo]

I also wouldn't use them to punish "tricks". Since that'd be giving the players free EXP (or in the case of Pun-Pun simply meaningless).

Silly boy. Inevitables strike exacly before the players can pull out their cheese.

[SmartAlec]

It's as if SkyNet worked for the Department of Pre-Crime.

Anyhow. Inevitables are just one of those things, you know? If you have Celestials then you probably have Fiends; if you have Slaad, you probably will have Inevitables.

[String]

On the topic of Inevitables: How would you (as players) react to someone who pulled some cheese (for example, trying to do some candles/wishes/efreet bs) immediately dissapearing from existance? The reason would be time-displaced Inevitables, of course. I'm thinking of doing something like thatm, and then having my PCs have to figure out how their completely cheesy friend just disappeared.

[Optimystik]

It's an in-universe way for the DM to say "no" without relying on a particular pantheon. You can always have Obad-Hai or Boccob step in to stop the reincarnating druids, Mind-Switching BBEG or whatever instead. Having a creature in core that exists solely to keep an eye on these sorts of abuses just frees the DM up from relying on stock (or indeed, any) deities.

On the topic of Inevitables: How would you (as players) react to someone who pulled some cheese (for example, trying to do some candles/wishes/efreet bs) immediately dissapearing from existance? The reason would be time-displaced Inevitables, of course. I'm thinking of doing something like thatm, and then having my PCs have to figure out how their completely cheesy friend just disappeared.

You don't even need inevitables for that. Just build a magical flaw/trap into one of the candles that pulls the user bodily into the Far Realm instead of calling an efreet. I mean, which shopkeeper in his right mind would sell a working candle of invocation instead of using it himself?

[Temet Nosce]

On the topic of Inevitables: How would you (as players) react to someone who pulled some cheese (for example, trying to do some candles/wishes/efreet bs) immediately dissapearing from existance? The reason would be time-displaced Inevitables, of course. I'm thinking of doing something like thatm, and then having my PCs have to figure out how their completely cheesy friend just disappeared.

Depends on whether I knew where the DM was so I could have a book explain my feelings to his face or not.

Less jokingly, I'd most likely quit. If a DM was incapable of dealing with players on that level, I don't think I'd trust him enough to keep playing with him. If a player is pulling something that bad it needs to be dealt with OOC. It's not a character issue and sending an in game punishment not only doesn't fix it but creates more problems.

[Oslecamo]

Less jokingly, I'd most likely quit. If a DM was incapable of dealing with players on that level, I don't think I'd trust him enough to keep playing with him. If a player is pulling something that bad it needs to be dealt with OOC. It's not a character issue and sending an in game punishment not only doesn't fix it but creates more problems.

Agreed. Someone who wants to breack the campaign so badly and can't admit anything the DM does against them should just quit D&D alltogheter.

[Lysander]

It's as if SkyNet worked for the Department of Pre-Crime.

Anyhow. Inevitables are just one of those things, you know? If you have Celestials then you probably have Fiends; if you have Slaad, you probably will have Inevitables.

Yeah. If you're going to keep law and chaos as opposes forces in your game it makes sense to have neutral creatures of law and creatures of chaos with their own agendas.

Of course you don't need to have inevitables be cosmic enforcers. Some other type of being could could appear to kick mortal ass when necessary. It could be angels, or even devils that want to keep things running smoothly. Actually, devils opposing magical loopholes that free humans from death and scarcity makes perfect sense doesn't it?

[Optimystik]

Agreed. Someone who wants to breack the campaign so badly and can't admit anything the DM does against them should just quit D&D alltogheter.

What you did there, I see it

[mikeejimbo]

It's as if SkyNet worked for the Department of Pre-Crime.

Scariest crossover fanfic ever.

I like the idea of the Inevitables, myself, but I probably wouldn't include them in my campaign until the players do unsavory things.

[dsmiles]

Alternatively, you could game with more mature players who see cheese for what it is.
Or, as the DM you could work cheese into the campaign so that it eventually works against the characters that caused it.
Remember, the core books are just guidelines, and loopholes are usually intentional so that both players and DM's alike are free to interpret the rules as they see fit.

[Yuki Akuma]

Aside from those in the first monster manual, I have never seen a monster that people just assume to be present in other people's campaigns. If the DM doesn't decide that they exist in the first place, they're not there by default.

They are in the monster manual. So why can't people just assume people include them?

You cannot expect us to divine your own homebrew world - the default assumption is that everyone plays in Greyhawk. There are Inevitables in that campaign setting, so therefore the default assumption is that there are Inevitables in your campaign setting.

Everyone plays D&D differently, true - and we, the Internet as a whole, have no idea what anyone else plays, especially if they don't tell us. So to be safe we make assumptions - such as assuming anyone who doesn't say otherwise is playing "Generic D&D", whatever that entails depending on the edition they're running.

[Zincorium]

Edit:

Complete apologies to Yuki.

I am either insane/have repressed the memories of even seeing them in there.

I will double check myself in the future.

[Yuki Akuma]

No, they're in the freaking first Monster Manual. Please at least TRY to know what you're talking about before telling me I'm wrong.

There are Inevitables in splatbooks. There are also Eladrins, Guardinals, Demons and Devils in splatbooks.

But Inevitables first appeared in the Monster Manual. And are present in the SRD.

[hamishspence]

They were not, however, in the 3.0 MM- they first appeared in 3rd ed in the Manual of the Planes.

Did earlier editions have them in the main monster manual- Maruts and the like?

[dsmiles]

I believe that they were initially published in the 2e Planescape setting, then re-designed in 3.0 Manual of the Planes, then again in the 3.5 MM1.

[Androgeus]

I, for one, assume that they exist in my campaign, but trying to live forever doesn't seem to attract their attention as much as, say, trying to kill a god and take over his/her portfolio

What if someone trys to kill a "God without portfolio"?

[Kaiyanwang]

I believe that they were initially published in the 2e Planescape setting, then re-designed in 3.0 Manual of the Planes, then again in the 3.5 MM1.

Just to say, there are 2 more, and more badass, in Fiend Folio. One punishes who plays with time (to avoid a Phane being relased I guess) and the other who obstacles deities (or something similar).

CR 15-17 IIRC.

[jiriku]

The FF inevitables are seriously badass. If I ever brought an inevitable into a game, I would take one of those two, advance it up to about 30 HD, and optimize the crap out of it. The enforcers of the laws of the universe play hardball, gentlemen.

[Tiki Snakes]

Considering that on some level they are a slightly cheesy "Nu-uh! you can't do that! Rocks Fall!" with stats attatched, there does seem to be a rather... Vocal following for their use and inclusion and so on.

Personally, I dislike the idea that they have any right to enforce anything, and the way that most people seem to suggest that they should be used ("Inevitables fall, Everyone Dies!") is really not interesting to me.

But I think I may have room for a similar concept of creature in my own campaign, because whilst I hate the idea of things being cosmically appointed enforcers of somehow-tangible ideals, I love the idea of NPC's authorititively claiming to be that.

[chiasaur11]

I think one thing that bugs me on this front is, well....

They really don't feel up to the job. The god problems one is CR 17?

By the time you start hunting gods, that should be a cakewalk, I presume.

Plus, even if a DM is going to go "Nuh-uh" to cheese in game, there are so many more fun ways to do it.

(Although I still am fond of the mental image of a wizar with a house full of inevitables incapable of harming him. "If it isn't cockroaches, it's inevitables. Well, such is life. Blueberry scones, anyone?")

[Kaiyanwang]

I think one thing that bugs me on this front is, well....

They really don't feel up to the job. The god problems one is CR 17?

By the time you start hunting gods, that should be a cakewalk, I presume.

Plus, even if a DM is going to go "Nuh-uh" to cheese in game, there are so many more fun ways to do it.

(Although I still am fond of the mental image of a wizar with a house full of inevitables incapable of harming him. "If it isn't cockroaches, it's inevitables. Well, such is life. Blueberry scones, anyone?")

Weel, FF says that they (Varakhut) " hunt down those that attempt to usurp the power of the gods". They are CR 19, so maybe can be considered something like a proceeding for PC of that level for to reach higher level and start to challenge the gods.

That is, I cheked: Quarut CR 17, Varakhut CR 19.

[Oslecamo]

They really don't feel up to the job. The god problems one is CR 17?

It is CR 19. And it can use wish as a SLA. Wich means it can simply wish the wizard and all his creations out of existence.

The CR 17 likes to hunt wizards who abuse wish, and has the tools to do so. Limited wish, time stop, dominate person, locate, teleport whitout error, ect, ect.

Yes, that's right, the forces that be created a monster that apears and rapes anyone who tries to abuse magic, unless said person is epic level already (in wich case the DM pulls out the epic handbook nasties).