Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[CognitiveDissonance]

GobbieMarauder brings up an interesting point.

Also,

Erm...

So Good and Evil are not moralistic determinations but actual forces? But animals don't have alignments because they do not make moralistic determinations.
And Good and Evil care about what you did, but not why you did it? But serving Evil unknowingly and unwillingly does not make you Evil.

The first bit is incorrect - there are plenty of animals that hold alignments. They are usually natural animals that have been affected by external forces, but that's not always the case. Aligned beasts are frequently magical, and almost always hold higher intelligence stats. See: Warg, Wyvern, Kraken, Hellcat, Blink Dog, Pegasus. Natural animals are balanced, and therefore are True Neutral. They also usually respond very strongly to alignments, especially their planar influences.

As to the second bit, I find that differs by DM and that's excellent. As described above, I strongly prefer using corruption/influence mechanics when it comes to alignments.

[Girlinhat]

It's also worth noting, that in the DnD/Pathfinder/Planescape/etc setting, there IS true evil.  The planes, by their very existence, are the pure embodiment of their element.  The plane of air is simply open air.  The plane of earth is an infinite underground of dirt, stone, and minerals.  Things which come from evil planes, such as a succubus or imp, are totally devoted to the cause of evil as perceived in the material plane - keep in mind that Material is the core, and all other planes are branched off from it.  There is objective evil.  A succubus cannot have conflicting feelings or altruistic intentions, as they are driven by pure evil.  Even if a succubus loves a mortal, her true intentions will always been to drain the life/sex of them.

THAT SAID, there's plenty of toying around as a GM.  A wizard could be performing experiments and enforce some mortality or positive energy on a succubus and give them some degree of true free thought.  Otherwise, a true demon is always evil.

Similarly, an angel's actions are always done with good intentions.

[Mephisto]

It's also worth noting, that in the DnD/Pathfinder/Planescape/etc setting, there IS true evil.  The planes, by their very existence, are the pure embodiment of their element.  The plane of air is simply open air.  The plane of earth is an infinite underground of dirt, stone, and minerals.  Things which come from evil planes, such as a succubus or imp, are totally devoted to the cause of evil as perceived in the material plane - keep in mind that Material is the core, and all other planes are branched off from it.  There is objective evil.  A succubus cannot have conflicting feelings or altruistic intentions, as they are driven by pure evil.  Even if a succubus loves a mortal, her true intentions will always been to drain the life/sex of them.

THAT SAID, there's plenty of toying around as a GM.  A wizard could be performing experiments and enforce some mortality or positive energy on a succubus and give them some degree of true free thought.  Otherwise, a true demon is always evil.

Similarly, an angel's actions are always done with good intentions.

I don't quite agree with any of this, with the exception of the description of the planes. I'm not saying it's all bad, it's just not the whole truth.

Despite being "Always X", the books say that there are always exceptions. You could find a good succubus. It's just exceedingly rare. Said succubus would be good (alignment) but still be Evil (subtype). This could result in a succubus paladin that receives damage by being splashed with holy water.

[Werdna]

Planes based on 'alignments' is just so painfully cartoon-y.  Succubi all embodying some arbitrary crayon color of evil is just a recipe for creating predictable one-dimensional characters.  Sabine in OotS is a great example of a succubus who actually loves her man, despite being evil.

If an angel's actions are always done with good intentions... well then how did we get Lucifer & Co?  Certainly not from a D&D world, those angels can't escape their little paper crayon straight-jackets! 

[Girlinhat]

DnD is rather cartoony with the planes.  This is by design.  If you don't like it, you can GM it differently, but playing "Read As Written" then yes, the planes are crayon colored black and white.

[scrdest]

Good point. The default setting is basically 'This part is for DMs too lazy to come up with anything decent themselves' and nothing really stops you from home-(over)ruling the parts you deem silly.

[GobbieMarauder]

Angels can Fall, just the same as Paladins do, and Devils can, by the same token, Rise. But at that point they become something fundamentally different.

We have to bear in mind, DnD is a world where the gods are actual beings who have direct impact on the world. Nothing's stopping you from making a character who questions the nature of Good and Evil, but the answer is "Good and Evil are this, because Pelor says so, and if you disagree, Pelor will set you on fire."

[Mephisto]

See also: Pelor, the Burning Hate.

[Wolf Tengu]

Hmm..

Well, I always think that Alignments are more guidelines than anything. I mean, think about it, what not-poorly written character goes around thinking "I'm chatotic evil! I have to go around pillaging horses/women and raping horses/women because that's what I DO!"

I think they're there to give an idea of HOW a character acts, and how the things that have  - which gives a lot of room to move about.

Mind you, I only think like this because I hate it when people fall into the CN trap of "I do whatever I feel like for the lulz! I'm random as hell! DERAILING IS FUN!!" *sound of explosions in the background*. Mind you, this is usually only when the player/NPC has poorly thought out motivations...

Only major problem with this idea is that there are classes that HAVE to have a certain alignments like Paladins or Gods. Oh, and things that are specifically tied to an alignment, there's less leeway there. Oh, and how intent figures into things too...

[CognitiveDissonance]

Hmm..

Well, I always think that Alignments are more guidelines than anything. I mean, think about it, what not-poorly written character goes around thinking "I'm chatotic evil! I have to go around pillaging horses/women and raping horses/women because that's what I DO!"

I think they're there to give an idea of HOW a character acts, and how the things that have  - which gives a lot of room to move about.

Mind you, I only think like this because I hate it when people fall into the CN trap of "I do whatever I feel like for the lulz! I'm random as hell! DERAILING IS FUN!!" *sound of explosions in the background*. Mind you, this is usually only when the player/NPC has poorly thought out motivations...

Only major problem with this idea is that there are classes that HAVE to have a certain alignments like Paladins or Gods. Oh, and things that are specifically tied to an alignment, there's less leeway there. Oh, and how intent figures into things too...

Do people really play CN that way? That makes me sad. I enjoy the occasional CN character myself, but I take it as selfish/unaligned/unaffiliated than DERAIL LOL SO FUNNY. No wonder DM's look at me askew when I pick the alignment...

[Girlinhat]

From what I've seen and heard, people play Chaotic Neutral so they can ignore alignment.  It allows them to do what they want without dealing with alignment fallout - mind you they might have legal or financial fallout, but they can play their character how they want without fretting so much over if they're being perfectly lawful or if they're fighting the power or...

I think newer version of DnD have started to undo alignment, I remember hearing something about how 4e or 5e (aka "D&D Next") have like, 4 alignment choices instead of 9?

Many GMs downplay alignment, and any decent player understands that for their character to act as more than a cartoon character, then they have to act out of alignment, sometimes frequently.

[scrdest]

From what I've seen and heard, people play Chaotic Neutral so they can ignore alignment.  It allows them to do what they want without dealing with alignment fallout - mind you they might have legal or financial fallout, but they can play their character how they want without fretting so much over if they're being perfectly lawful or if they're fighting the power or...

I think newer version of DnD have started to undo alignment, I remember hearing something about how 4e or 5e (aka "D&D Next") have like, 4 alignment choices instead of 9?

Many GMs downplay alignment, and any decent player understands that for their character to act as more than a cartoon character, then they have to act out of alignment, sometimes frequently.

Yes, 4e alignment is Lawful Good -> Good -> Neutral -> Evil -> Chaotic Evil. Which is pretty damn sad IMO, since it makes lawful/chaotic just another good/evil axis and implies that characters that would be Chaotic Good are now somehow less good than YEW VIEHLEHTED THE LAW types.

[Neonivek]

Even if a succubus loves a mortal, her true intentions will always been to drain the life/sex of them

Well that isn't exactly true either. For one being "Evil" does not stop one from making genuine bonds with others, as well it is usually stated in supplements that as long as a being as a intelligence, wisdom, and charisma score that they have a choice. A Succubus CAN change alignment but that is incredibly unlikely.

Mind you in Pathfinder

Chaotic Good

Ahh now if there is evil an alignment that probably SHOULD have more debate but doesn't it is Chaotic Good. Why? Because Robin Hood is used as its exemplar.

You know, the guy who killed, murdered, and mugged people in order to take their money in order to give to the poor. These people often being purely innocent of all crimes and malice.

Anyhow here is the best way to understand Chaotic and Lawful good...

Lawful Good believes that the best way to do good is to follow the law, to be truthful, and to be honest. Chaotic Good believes that the law stands in the way of altruism and isn't above being underhanded if it means that good prevails.

Note though that Lawful Good is allowed to know when the law is malicious and a Chaotic Good is allowed to know when a law is beneficial. In fact a Chaotic Good character who intentionally perverts the law to get things done is perfectly fine.

[Sensei]

I think newer version of DnD have started to undo alignment, I remember hearing something about how 4e or 5e (aka "D&D Next") have like, 4 alignment choices instead of 9?

4e was even dumber than 3.5. It basically made lawful good into "very good" and chaotic evil into "very evil" and got rid of alignments like Lawful Evil and Chaotic Good. DnD Next, currently, has alignments basically copy-pasted from 3.5. It does say that creatures from outer planes are locked into their alignment- "If [a devil] somehow ceased to be lawful evil, it would cease to be a devil."

[Neonivek]

I think newer version of DnD have started to undo alignment, I remember hearing something about how 4e or 5e (aka "D&D Next") have like, 4 alignment choices instead of 9?

4e was even dumber than 3.5. It basically made lawful good into "very good" and chaotic evil into "very evil" and got rid of alignments like Lawful Evil and Chaotic Good. DnD Next, currently, has alignments basically copy-pasted from 3.5. It does say that creatures from outer planes are locked into their alignment- "If [a devil] somehow ceased to be lawful evil, it would cease to be a devil."

Honestly I think 4e could have worked if it made itself a tactical game somehow. Why they never made a 4e tactics supplement (for military campaigns) is beyond me.

As for Devils it is because their very being is made of that alignment, They are not "locked" into the alignment but changing alignment represents a fundamental change in their being to the point where they become something else entirely.

Devils CAN in fact transform into other kinds of devils (same with demons).