No love for Neutral alignments in OOTS

[Sir_Leorik]

Hmm. Given that, would Familicide kill any of the future Mind Flayers' human ancestors in the present? Grandfather paradox!

Not enough ancestors. The Mind Flayers in the present are descended from those who came to the past from the future, and those would have to have been descended from the humans who survived in the present for the family trees to continue into the future as Mind Flayers. Paradox resolved You, sir, have been Doctored.

That's not a resolution, that's an illustration. The human ancestors of the future Mind Flayers share the bloodline of the Mind Flayers in the present so they're killed, but the humans killed in the present can't be the ancestors of the Mind Flayers, the survivors must be. So the survivors die and the ones who die don't. That's the very definition of the Grandfather Paradox!

No, no, no! It's not a paradox at all, because we're talking about two fixed moments in time: the rise of the Mind Flayers and their establishment of a star spanning (Crystal Sphere spanning?) empire, which lasts millenia, until the Universe burns itself out. Shortly before that happens, the Illithid Elder Brains (possibly under the direction of the Illithid God-Brain that spawned the Domain of Bluetspur for some unspecified sin against creation) send a fleet of Nautiloids billions of years into the past, where they found the first Illithid Empire, enslave the ancestors of the Gith, conquer worlds, and begin to encroach on the Outer Planes, before the hero Gith rallies her people and overthrows the Mind Flayers. The Githyanki and Githzerai split apart and flee to the Astral Plane and Limbo, respectively, while the Illithids go into a decline, their Empire in ruins.

At this point the Mind Flayers are a shadow of their former self, engaged in plots to extinguish suns, slave trading with the Drow and the Neogi, piracy in various Crystal Spheres, and most importantly, researching new and improved forms of ceremorphosis. Someday humanity will evolve into Mind Flayers, and the process starts all over again.

The two fixed moments are: 1) the evolution of Mind Flayers and their rise to power; 2) the Mind Flayers send a fleet back in time, conquer worlds and then are defeated by Gith and her forces.

Challenge Accepted:
Families 1-3 die.
Families 4-10 live.
Families 4-10 continue reproducing long enough to create Mind Flayers
Mind Flayers travel from the future to the past
Mind Flayers keep reproducing into the present
When Familicide hits, Families 1-3 die before they can create Mind Flayers
Since our Mind Flayers only came from Families 4-10, none of them die
Time Lord grammar sneers at your limited notions of causality!

OOOOH, you meant duplicating Familicide against Mind Flayers specifically instead of extrapolating the Black Dragon-cide that already happened.

Uh...

Familicide may not work on Mind Flayers because of the way they reproduce. Mind Flayers give birth to larvae, which gestate in the briny pool of an Elder Brain, until a suitable host is found for Ceremorphosis. Ceremorphosis involves putting the larvae into the mouth of the host, causing the host to transform into an Adult Mind Flayer in an excruciatingly painful process. Who is the "family" of a Mind Flayer? The Illithid parent who birthed the larvae? The parents of the human host? I think the spell would just shrug it's shoulders and quit while it was ahead.

Hmm I have to dispute a number of these points:

1. Dragons are born with their alignment:
Your thinking about aberrations, undead and fiends shows you have a lot of knowledge of details about D&D origins. All I have it the words of the Monster Manual which says this about "Always" alignments, which dragons are listed with.

So, unless there is something that says otherwise about dragons, Dragons (being "always" of an alignment) are born with it, straight up. Its genetic, since Always alignment is genetic (at least in Core). I don't know where you get that it comes from upbringing or Tiamat's influence, perhaps from a supplement? Those explanations come with "usually" and "often" alignments.

Dragons have souls, unlike Outsiders. They are capable of making ethical and moral decisions on their own. This is elaborated on in Draconomicon. It is stated outright in "Eberron" that the Alignment of any Dragon, Chromatic, Metallic or Gem, is not based on their type, but is an individual choice.

2. Illithids are impossible to destroy, since they already will conquer the future and then will have returned to be defeated in the past.

That's all from Lords of Madness, with supplemental info from the 2E products The Illithiad and Thoughts of Darkness. The Mind Flayers are meant to be Lovecraftian monsters, like the Great Race of Yith or the Mi-Go, who were once great conquerors but have gone into decline and hope to rise again.

I've seen enough time-traveling fiction to know that just because its a logical contradiction according to any temporal logic I've had the pleasure of studying doesn't mean it can't happen in fiction! I will tell you, however, the complexities involved will make you crawl into a corner and become a tax accountant.

That's why I hate time-travel, in pretty much any game or setting I've ever seen it attempted in. There's only one story I can think of where I liked the way it was used, and that's because it was pretty much entirely out of the character's control, so they couldn't create paradoxes.

On the plus side, when the present-day Mind Flayers tried to change history to prevent Gith's rebellion from succeeding (in one of the adventure modules tied to The Illithiad) the PCs were given an opportunity to chase the Illithids back to their base and stop them. There is a sidebar describing the changes to the Material Plane and the Great Wheel if the PCs fail. The adventure describes the present day Illithids as biting off a lot more than they can chew, unlike the future Illithids at the end of Time.

If you're interested in seeing an adventure where time travel plays a large part (including giving the PCs the chance to make minor changes and possibly rewrite history) try to track down the 2E boxed set Castles Forlorn. It is very well written, but it can be tricky to run, what with the Timey-Wimey Ball and everything.

[hamishspence]

Dragons have souls, unlike Outsiders. They are capable of making ethical and moral decisions on their own. This is elaborated on in Draconomicon. It is stated outright in "Eberron" that the Alignment of any Dragon, Chromatic, Metallic or Gem, is not based on their type, but is an individual choice.

Outsiders have souls- it's just that (except in the case of native outsiders) - the soul is much more tied to the body- which means that when the body dies, the soul rapidly diffuses.

[Sir_Leorik]

Outsiders have souls- it's just that (except in the case of native outsiders) - the soul is much more tied to the body- which means that when the body dies, the soul rapidly diffuses.

Let me rephrase that then: Dragons are mortals, with free will. They have an inherent disposition towards Good, Evil or Neutrality, but that's all it is: a disposition. I find it much more likely that a Black Dragon will be True Neutral than a Succubus becoming a Paladin, and the latter has canonically happened.

[hamishspence]

Agreed.

Outsiders without an alignment subtype (like Celia, for example) are likely to be as free-willed as any mortal- but those with one, will struggle to overcome it.

Mortal "inborn tendencies" are likely to exert less pressure.

[Math_Mage]

Creatures with the Evil subtype are suffused with Evil energy to the extent that the rules will treat them as Evil even in the all-but-impossible circumstance that they change alignment. Dragons aren't quite there, even if they're born predisposed to their listed alignment.

[Reddish Mage]

Let me rephrase that then: Dragons are mortals, with free will. They have an inherent disposition towards Good, Evil or Neutrality, but that's all it is: a disposition. I find it much more likely that a Black Dragon will be True Neutral than a Succubus becoming a Paladin, and the latter has canonically happened.

Apparently fiends and intelligent undead also have free-will and canonically have switched alignment. I'm not saying I disagree that there is reason to view dragons as more malleable, I'm just saying it isn't described in Core and I'm not sure whether Eberron meant to re-characterize the Monster Manual or apply it just for that setting (or what it may say in Draconomicon). Should it be more malleable though, it can't be by much for the "always" alignment label to hold (and if Dragons are not born with their alignment it outright contradicts the generalities of the Monster Manual).

Bringing this discussion back to OOTS. Whether or not Dragons in RAW (as opposed to at least Core) have some interesting malleability in alignment there comes to the question of what Dragon alignment tendencies might be in OOTS, and whether that matters.

In my opinion, they could remain almost "always" evil, as I interpret Core, and familicide can still have the effects they have on V's conscience.

But I would also say that, familicide on an "always" evil species could be a good, neutral, or evil act, and it wouldn't change the main purpose of that narrative, which is to get us to think more about the moral significance of actions which in regular D&D games no one actually bothers to give a second thought.

[Mightymosy]

From what I recall, the actions that are "always evil" are highly scattered. Historically they included seemingly random things like poison use in 2nd edition but in 3.5 it seems limited to a very few scattered things like certain necromantic spells.

Of course, I was thinking of core. When you throw in BOVD and BOED you get full blown Kantian ethics (ethics based on universal rules that apply in all situations to all people). Also, ability score damage-dealing poison gets thrown in as evil again.


EDIT: If we take interpret that acts on this list stringently wouldn't this be incompatible with how MANY of the characters in OOTS are given alignments?

Haley couldn't be good for instance, and I would think this would make a lot of neutral characters evil, such as Hank and Jenny from Greysky (if any act of theft is an evil act). Also, the Oracle if anything he does counts as "worship" of Tiamat.

Interesting, Therkla's problem with this list is allowing Qarr to exist, as she doesn't have the necessary motivations for murder to be evil.

Also, isn't that just stupid anyway??? The list, I mean.

I've never played D&D, so whenever I read you guys talking about the alignment stuff, I mostly found it amusing and often philosophically interesting, but in the end, as game rules...come on!

I must admit I almost ROFLED when I read that list, simply because it is so ridiculous

I played DSA a couple times, which I presume to be a direct rip-off of D&D, but that Alignment stuff never came up. For good reason, I imagine.

I mean, tapping into evil energy??? What? WTF is evil energy? And how does that make me evil when I use it for some nice effect?
Allowing fiends to exist is evil? Huh? So you have to hunt down some sentient being in order to not be evil?

Why is using poison, specifically, evil, when killing some guy with a sword supposedly isn't?

I wonder how anyone can take that stuff seriously. I mean, I can discuss games for hours like any nerd, but this stuff just seems so silly it is beyond serious consideration.

[jidasfire]

Also, isn't that just stupid anyway??? The list, I mean.

I've never played D&D, so whenever I read you guys talking about the alignment stuff, I mostly found it amusing and often philosophically interesting, but in the end, as game rules...come on!

I must admit I almost ROFLED when I read that list, simply because it is so ridiculous

I played DSA a couple times, which I presume to be a direct rip-off of D&D, but that Alignment stuff never came up. For good reason, I imagine.

I mean, tapping into evil energy??? What? WTF is evil energy? And how does that make me evil when I use it for some nice effect?
Allowing fiends to exist is evil? Huh? So you have to hunt down some sentient being in order to not be evil?

Why is using poison, specifically, evil, when killing some guy with a sword supposedly isn't?

I wonder how anyone can take that stuff seriously. I mean, I can discuss games for hours like any nerd, but this stuff just seems so silly it is beyond serious consideration.

Once the conversation drifts to black dragons, just back away slowly and run to a safe distance.

[Sir_Leorik]

Also, isn't that just stupid anyway??? The list, I mean.

I assume that you're referring to the guidelines in the supplements Book of Vile Darkness and Book of Exalted Deeds. Those guidelines are just that: guidelines. The actual rules are in the PHB and DMG, with the supplemental stuff in the splatbooks meant to assist DMs who are having difficulty with the Alignment system.

I've never played D&D, so whenever I read you guys talking about the alignment stuff, I mostly found it amusing and often philosophically interesting, but in the end, as game rules...come on!

I must admit I almost ROFLED when I read that list, simply because it is so ridiculous

Gary Gygax didn't think so. He basically ripped the idea off of Michael Moorcock's "Elric" stories, and the concept was fleshed out and expanded between 1977 and 2013. That's right, the Alignment rules have changed over time. They changed from being "sides" that Characters picked in (O)D&D, AD&D and Basic D&D (complete with a secret language for each Alignment, so Characters could identify allies with codes and cant) to more of a philosophical system (albeit one where the philosophers sometimes wield clubs) in 2E, to a system where morality and ethics were based on absolutes, but the Characters had more latitude to express their Alignment in 3.X, to a stripped down system with five Alignments in 4E. The missing Alignments will be making a comeback in D&D Next, sometime next year.

I played DSA a couple times, which I presume to be a direct rip-off of D&D, but that Alignment stuff never came up. For good reason, I imagine.

What is DSA? Is it a tabletop RPG? A CRPG? A JRPG? A MMORPG?

I mean, tapping into evil energy??? What? WTF is evil energy?

"Evil Energy", aka "Negative Energy", aka "Necrotic Energy" in 4E, is the energy source that exists in the void of the Negative Energy (or Material in AD&D/2E) Plane. Negative Energy surrounds all Unlife, penetrating the Undead and binding them into hideous mockeries of life. If the Dark Side of the Force were to see Negative Energy walking down the street, the Dark Side will cross to the other side of the street as soon as possible. Negative Energy is why Xykon, Malack, Durkon, Tsukiko's Wights, Zombies, Ghouls, and Death Knights exist. (But not Deathless, such as the Ghost-Martyrs of the Sapphire Guard.) It is nasty stuff, and in 3.X most spells that use Negative Energy, like enervation, have the Evil descriptor.

(In 4E Necrotic energy has no one source; it can come from Hell, the Abyss, the Elemental Chaos, the Shadowfell, the Natural World, or even the Stars themselves. The Stars lurk in the sky, ever biding their time till the moment when they will open the floodgates for the horrors of the Far Realm. Till then the Stars provide both Radiant and Necrotic spells to Star Pact Warlocks, since any Warlock can choose any Attack Power, even if it is more thematically appropriate to another Pact.)

And how does that make me evil when I use it for some nice effect?

In 3.X casting a spell with the Evil descriptor, animating skeletons or zombies, creating Wights, Ghouls or Mummies or becoming a Lich, are all Evil acts. If you do so for a nice purpose (such as becoming a Baelnorn to guard an Elven Library) you are a Good character committing a single Evil act for a greater cause (which is Neutral). You remain Good Aligned as a result. Most Liches are not Baelnorn or Archliches, they are depraved and greedy.

allowing fiends to exist is evil? Huh? So you have to hunt down some sentient being in order to not be evil?

A Fiend is a specific type of Evil Outsider: Demons, Devils, Daemons (aka Yugoloths), Demodands, Howlers, and Night Hags. Many include the Chaotic Neutral Slaadi in the list of Fiends. (In 4E Slaadi are Chaotic Evil, since the Chaotic Neutral Alignment was eliminated. I think Chaotic Evil suits them better, anyway.) The point isn't that every Good aligned adventurer needs to mount a crusade into the Abyss or the Nine Hells to slaughter Demons or Devils; the point is that when a Fiend is discovered operating in a mortal community (such as Sabine, a Succubus, manipulating a would-be warlord like Nale) Good aligned adventurers have a duty to oppose them and (if possible) kill them. Fiends are the epitome of Evil, with a few rare and notable exceptions (a Succubus who became a Paladin, A'Kin the "friendly Fiend", an Arcanodaemon who is True Neutral, and who became a scribe in Sigil, the City of Doors).

why isusing poison, specifically, evil, when killing some guy with a sword supposedly isn't?

Okay, that one's a good question. It's something a lot of people have raised against the BoED.

I wonder how anyone can take that stuff seriously. I mean, I can discuss games for hours like any nerd, but this stuff just seems so silly it is beyond serious consideration.

Go and find a DM in your area who is willing to run a "Planescape" campaign for you (using either 2E or 3.X rules). If that's not possible, track down the CRPG "Planescape: Torment" and play it. If you still think alignment is silly after playing a tabletop "Planescape" campaign or "Planescape: Torment" then nothing will convince you otherwise.

[Gift Jeraff]

...I'm thinking Lawful Evil. Or possibly Chaotic Good.

Since Rich didn't include him on the list of Neutral characters, you're probably right.

Now to discuss other potentially Neutral characters.

The Bandit King: IIRC, the commentary said he was, at best, Neutral with Evil tendencies? Neutral or Chaotic?

Kaboom Redaxe and the Shadowdancer: I guess they could be Neutral on either axis if Therkla is.

Pete and the cleric of Loki: I kinda like not knowing whether they were Neutral or Evil. I figure they were Chaotic.

[Kish]

Pete and the cleric of Loki: I kinda like not knowing whether they were Neutral or Evil. I figure they were Chaotic.

Pete had an axiomatic bow. He might have just stuck it in his collection (wincing at how it burned his hands to touch), but, if I had to pick an alignment for him it'd likely be Lawful Evil.

[Gift Jeraff]

Ah, didn't remember that detail.

[Tragak]

Since Rich didn't include him on the list of Neutral characters, you're probably right.

I want you to go to TVTropes, Webcomic The Order of the Stick, Characters List. I want you to notice that there are 9 pages full of the characters that The Giant has created since 2003 (Order of the Stick, Team Evil, Linear Guild, Order of the Scribble, Azure City, Greysky City, Empire of Blood, Divine Beings, Others). Now I want you to consider why The Giant really skipped some of them in his comment

[Math_Mage]

I want you to go to TVTropes, Webcomic The Order of the Stick, Characters List. I want you to notice that there are 9 pages full of the characters that The Giant has created since 2003 (Order of the Stick, Team Evil, Linear Guild, Order of the Scribble, Azure City, Greysky City, Empire of Blood, Divine Beings, Others). Now I want you to consider why The Giant really skipped some of them in his comment

Now I want you to recalibrate your sarcasm detector.

[ChristianSt]

What is DSA? Is it a tabletop RPG? A CRPG? A JRPG? A MMORPG?

I think the DSA he means is "Das Schwarze Auge" a German pen&paper-RPG (actually as far as I know the most successfully one in Germany).

In 2006 there was a English translation with the name "The Dark Eye".

Also there are other stuff that play in the universe, like pc-games or novels.

[Oko and Qailee]

Eugene's rudeness, foul language and absentee parenting aside, nothing Eugene has done indicates he isn't Lawful Good. .

I'm sorry to nitpick at this, esp since it was on page 1... buuuuuuuuut

We really don't know much about Eugene AT ALL other than the short backstory about his blood oath. Even then, we don't have evidence he isn't LG, but we also have 0 evidence he is LG.

At least you can argue him burning the note about V's behavior that was meant for Roy is def not a Good or a Lawful act. If anything it's borderline Evil because Eugene is willing to risk the lives of other people solely for the sake of himself moving on.

(before anyone chews me out, I am not saying Eugene is not LG)

[Math_Mage]

I'm sorry to nitpick at this, esp since it was on page 1... buuuuuuuuut

We really don't know much about Eugene AT ALL other than the short backstory about his blood oath. Even then, we don't have evidence he isn't LG, but we also have 0 evidence he is LG.

At least you can argue him burning the note about V's behavior that was meant for Roy is def not a Good or a Lawful act. If anything it's borderline Evil because Eugene is willing to risk the lives of other people solely for the sake of himself moving on.

(before anyone chews me out, I am not saying Eugene is not LG)

We know he's waiting to get into the LG afterlife, and he would have done if it hadn't been for his not completing his Blood Oath. That's a pretty solid piece of evidence.

[Gift Jeraff]

I want you to go to TVTropes, Webcomic The Order of the Stick, Characters List. I want you to notice that there are 9 pages full of the characters that The Giant has created since 2003 (Order of the Stick, Team Evil, Linear Guild, Order of the Scribble, Azure City, Greysky City, Empire of Blood, Divine Beings, Others). Now I want you to consider why The Giant really skipped some of them in his comment

Are you suggesting Rich forget about including Blackwing, even after including his master and the other team pet, including a character as minor as Jenny, and even after the most recent strip (when he made that post) had Blackwing talking?

Either Blackwing is an agent of Chaos, Law, Evil, and/or Good, or Rich is really dedicated to the "everyone forgets about Blackwing" gag. There are no alternatives. None.

[SaintRidley]

We know he's waiting to get into the LG afterlife, and he would have done if it hadn't been for his not completing his Blood Oath. That's a pretty solid piece of evidence.

I might be misremembering, but he could still be waiting to get judged at all (unless I've forgotten a comic of Eugene getting judged). They may have just seen the big red flag of "just gave up on the oath" and kicked him into the Oathspirit waiting room until the oath is fulfilled to bother judging him.

[Sir_Leorik]

I'm sorry to nitpick at this, esp since it was on page 1... buuuuuuuuut

We really don't know much about Eugene AT ALL other than the short backstory about his blood oath. Even then, we don't have evidence he isn't LG, but we also have 0 evidence he is LG.

At least you can argue him burning the note about V's behavior that was meant for Roy is def not a Good or a Lawful act. If anything it's borderline Evil because Eugene is willing to risk the lives of other people solely for the sake of himself moving on.

(before anyone chews me out, I am not saying Eugene is not LG)

Everything I listed for Eugene either comes directly from his behavior towards Roy in the strips (especially in the Celestial waiting area) or from the prequel books, particularly the coda to SoD. The Deva reviewing Eugene Greenhilt's case file deems him to have led a Lawful Good life, but since he never finished his Blood Oath of Vengeance to destroy Xykon, he was barred from Mt. Celestia.

[Sir_Leorik]

Are you suggesting Rich forget about including Blackwing, even after including his master and the other team pet, including a character as minor as Jenny, and even after the most recent strip (when he made that post) had Blackwing talking?

Either Blackwing is an agent of Chaos, Law, Evil, and/or Good, or Rich is really dedicated to the "everyone forgets about Blackwing" gag. There are no alternatives. None.

Hey, Jenny is pretty important, for a minor character! She is one of a select few to get speaking parts in multiple scenes in "Greenhilt: Prince of Denmark"!

[Oko and Qailee]

Everything I listed for Eugene either comes directly from his behavior towards Roy in the strips (especially in the Celestial waiting area) or from the prequel books, particularly the coda to SoD. The Deva reviewing Eugene Greenhilt's case file deems him to have led a Lawful Good life, but since he never finished his Blood Oath of Vengeance to destroy Xykon, he was barred from Mt. Celestia.

Current Alignment doesn't necessarily mean lifetime alignment.

Eugene is behaving very not lawful good from what we have seen, that doesn't mean he should be allowed into celestia if he has been LG his entire life.

It's like, if someone spent 80 years of their life being chaotic evil and then they spend 1 year being perfectly good, odds are they will still go to a CE afterlife even if their current alignment is good.

Eugene could have been LG his entire life and deserve a LG reward, but he has not been very LG at all. Working behind the paladins backs with Shojo, intentionally burning V's letter, those are pretty chaotic if you ask me.

[Gift Jeraff]

I get the feeling Eugene will be reevaluated as True Neutral when he's finally allowed to pass, but it won't be so bad because he'll eventually get to bond with the child who followed in his footsteps and they can complain about Roy to each other for all eternity.

[Reddish Mage]

Gary Gygax didn't think so. He basically ripped the idea off of Michael Moorcock's "Elric" stories, and the concept was fleshed out and expanded between 1977 and 2013. That's right, the Alignment rules have changed over time. They changed from being "sides" that Characters picked in (O)D&D, AD&D and Basic D&D (complete with a secret language for each Alignment, so Characters could identify allies with codes and cant) to more of a philosophical system (albeit one where the philosophers sometimes wield clubs) in 2E, to a system where morality and ethics were based on absolutes, but the Characters had more latitude to express their Alignment in 3.X, to a stripped down system with five Alignments in 4E. The missing Alignments will be making a comeback in D&D Next, sometime next year.

What do you mean by based on absolutes? It seems earlier you are saying that actions carry "good" or "evil" description by meeting strict rule criteria. I.e. theft is evil, which means it is always evil, even if it is a good purpose. However, you complicate this below.

I suppose you could just be saying say that in 3e morality is "absolute" in that good and evil are forces existing out in the multiverse, which I thought was true even in 2e (though perhaps the more true of the planes in 3e). We are dealing with a universe where good/evil/law/chaos are actual competing forces throwing in gods/planes/people/monsters and the like into groups.

In 3.X casting a spell with the Evil descriptor, animating skeletons or zombies, creating Wights, Ghouls or Mummies or becoming a Lich, are all Evil acts. If you do so for a nice purpose (such as becoming a Baelnorn to guard an Elven Library) you are a Good character committing a single Evil act for a greater cause (which is Neutral). You remain Good Aligned as a result. Most Liches are not Baelnorn or Archliches, they are depraved and greedy.

What do you mean "which is Neutral" the act is considered neutral, or the purpose is considered neutral? What if you keep doing these sorts of acts? I also note you implied that doing a single evil act for an evil purpose can be enough to shift alignment.

Can anyone make a definitive ruling about when someone shifts alignment "in D&D"? Isn't it just the case that the DMG is so incredibly unclear that alignment can change quickly or gradually. We are talking about rules that literally recommends alignment change be made gradual for the purpose that PCs don't take alignments on and off like garments so they can use magic items.

[Bogardan_Mage]

No, no, no! It's not a paradox at all, because we're talking about two fixed moments in time: the rise of the Mind Flayers and their establishment of a star spanning (Crystal Sphere spanning?) empire, which lasts millenia, until the Universe burns itself out. Shortly before that happens, the Illithid Elder Brains (possibly under the direction of the Illithid God-Brain that spawned the Domain of Bluetspur for some unspecified sin against creation) send a fleet of Nautiloids billions of years into the past, where they found the first Illithid Empire, enslave the ancestors of the Gith, conquer worlds, and begin to encroach on the Outer Planes, before the hero Gith rallies her people and overthrows the Mind Flayers. The Githyanki and Githzerai split apart and flee to the Astral Plane and Limbo, respectively, while the Illithids go into a decline, their Empire in ruins.

At this point the Mind Flayers are a shadow of their former self, engaged in plots to extinguish suns, slave trading with the Drow and the Neogi, piracy in various Crystal Spheres, and most importantly, researching new and improved forms of ceremorphosis. Someday humanity will evolve into Mind Flayers, and the process starts all over again.

The two fixed moments are: 1) the evolution of Mind Flayers and their rise to power; 2) the Mind Flayers send a fleet back in time, conquer worlds and then are defeated by Gith and her forces.

I don't think you quite understand the nature of the Grandfather Paradox. My grandfather fathered my father and because I exist this is for the sake of argument a "fixed moment in time". I travel back in time before this point and kill my grandfather. Now he can't be present at the "fixed moment in time" when he must be. If you kill every human who shares a bloodline with the Mind Flayers, then neither they nor their descendants can be present for your first "fixed moment in time" to take place. The existence of a "fixed moment in time" does not remove the paradox it creates it.

Familicide may not work on Mind Flayers because of the way they reproduce. Mind Flayers give birth to larvae, which gestate in the briny pool of an Elder Brain, until a suitable host is found for Ceremorphosis. Ceremorphosis involves putting the larvae into the mouth of the host, causing the host to transform into an Adult Mind Flayer in an excruciatingly painful process. Who is the "family" of a Mind Flayer? The Illithid parent who birthed the larvae? The parents of the human host? I think the spell would just shrug it's shoulders and quit while it was ahead.

That, on the other hand, is a potential resolution if valid.

[Porthos]

I might be misremembering, but he could still be waiting to get judged at all (unless I've forgotten a comic of Eugene getting judged). They may have just seen the big red flag of "just gave up on the oath" and kicked him into the Oathspirit waiting room until the oath is fulfilled to bother judging him.

SoD spoilers:

Spoiler

Show

He was judged in the epilogue of SoD

Of course, his alignment could have shifted after he was judged in that scene.

[Mightymosy]

Thanks for your reply! In retrospect my post seems a bit disrespectful, and I certainly didn't mean to insult someone for liking this stuff. So I apologize for that. Your post is rather full of good information, so thanks for that!

I assume that you're referring to the guidelines in the supplements Book of Vile Darkness and Book of Exalted Deeds. Those guidelines are just that: guidelines. The actual rules are in the PHB and DMG, with the supplemental stuff in the splatbooks meant to assist DMs who are having difficulty with the Alignment system.



Gary Gygax didn't think so. He basically ripped the idea off of Michael Moorcock's "Elric" stories, and the concept was fleshed out and expanded between 1977 and 2013. That's right, the Alignment rules have changed over time. They changed from being "sides" that Characters picked in (O)D&D, AD&D and Basic D&D (complete with a secret language for each Alignment, so Characters could identify allies with codes and cant) to more of a philosophical system (albeit one where the philosophers sometimes wield clubs) in 2E, to a system where morality and ethics were based on absolutes, but the Characters had more latitude to express their Alignment in 3.X, to a stripped down system with five Alignments in 4E. The missing Alignments will be making a comeback in D&D Next, sometime next year.

This is something I can get behind. As far as I know D&D was or was evolved from some tabletop war game similar to Warhammer. In such a game it makes sense to have some sides to pick, based on such guidelines - because they simply not that meaningful in a strategic wargame. The problem I have is when you do some "real" roleplaying were morale and ethics can become a lot more complex and reminiscient of real world situations and not just who belongs wo which army. Especially considering the huge discussions that appear here in the forum that are based upon the alignment guidelines and how they relate to real ethical questions.
So, in short, I'm fine with the alignment rules if they determine which color your minis have in a tabletop strategic wargame, but they are in my mind not suitable for serious ethical discussions - unless they just provide a point to start these discussions from, but not as some reference to adhere to.

What is DSA? Is it a tabletop RPG? A CRPG? A JRPG? A MMORPG?

"Das schwarze Auge", which means "The black eye." It was I think the most popular pen & Paper RPG in Germany a while ago. I always thought it was a German invention, until I read about D&D on the GITP forums. Now I think it is basically a copy that was a bit adapted to the german market And so that no one notices they made it so that in DSA you win if you roll low, instead of high, and they didn't use the alignment stuff.

"Evil Energy", aka "Negative Energy", aka "Necrotic Energy" in 4E, is the energy source that exists in the void of the Negative Energy (or Material in AD&D/2E) Plane. Negative Energy surrounds all Unlife, penetrating the Undead and binding them into hideous mockeries of life. If the Dark Side of the Force were to see Negative Energy walking down the street, the Dark Side will cross to the other side of the street as soon as possible. Negative Energy is why Xykon, Malack, Durkon, Tsukiko's Wights, Zombies, Ghouls, and Death Knights exist. (But not Deathless, such as the Ghost-Martyrs of the Sapphire Guard.) It is nasty stuff, and in 3.X most spells that use Negative Energy, like enervation, have the Evil descriptor.

(In 4E Necrotic energy has no one source; it can come from Hell, the Abyss, the Elemental Chaos, the Shadowfell, the Natural World, or even the Stars themselves. The Stars lurk in the sky, ever biding their time till the moment when they will open the floodgates for the horrors of the Far Realm. Till then the Stars provide both Radiant and Necrotic spells to Star Pact Warlocks, since any Warlock can choose any Attack Power, even if it is more thematically appropriate to another Pact.)



In 3.X casting a spell with the Evil descriptor, animating skeletons or zombies, creating Wights, Ghouls or Mummies or becoming a Lich, are all Evil acts. If you do so for a nice purpose (such as becoming a Baelnorn to guard an Elven Library) you are a Good character committing a single Evil act for a greater cause (which is Neutral). You remain Good Aligned as a result. Most Liches are not Baelnorn or Archliches, they are depraved and greedy.

Interesting. Thanks for the insight. But after knowing I still find it disturbingly wrong. Because "negative Energy" still seems to me like a physical force, more like an element than like something you base ethical judgment on. Like with the poison example, why should it matter which kind of elemental force you use to do good or bad? If I kill an enemy with ice damage I am more good than if I were to kill them with fire damage?

If all negative energy spells required reagents like virgin hearts or children's tears or something like that, I could get behind a discussion about how I commit an evi deed for a greater cause. But simply because the energy for the spell came from the stars as opposed to from fire, ice or whatever else? The concept seems silly and misleading to me, I'm sorry.

A Fiend is a specific type of Evil Outsider: Demons, Devils, Daemons (aka Yugoloths), Demodands, Howlers, and Night Hags. Many include the Chaotic Neutral Slaadi in the list of Fiends. (In 4E Slaadi are Chaotic Evil, since the Chaotic Neutral Alignment was eliminated. I think Chaotic Evil suits them better, anyway.) The point isn't that every Good aligned adventurer needs to mount a crusade into the Abyss or the Nine Hells to slaughter Demons or Devils; the point is that when a Fiend is discovered operating in a mortal community (such as Sabine, a Succubus, manipulating a would-be warlord like Nale) Good aligned adventurers have a duty to oppose them and (if possible) kill them. Fiends are the epitome of Evil, with a few rare and notable exceptions (a Succubus who became a Paladin, A'Kin the "friendly Fiend", an Arcanodaemon who is True Neutral, and who became a scribe in Sigil, the City of Doors).

I see. Still, I can't find "allowing to exist" an evil deed. It simply rubs me the very wrong way.
See, I can see that fantasy can be alot about black and white morality, and for a game I'm certainly fine with that. I think we all played games either in real or especially on the PC where "we kill them because they have green skin and fangs and we don't and take their stuff".
The point is, that's okay for a Super Mario kind level of seriousness in entertainment.
When the alignment rules suggest some kind of seriousness and are then used in all seriousness for roleplaying ethic dilemmas that could resemble real world examples, and are used as a reference, that's when I call it inappropiate.

Okay, that one's a good question. It's something a lot of people have raised against the BoED.



Go and find a DM in your area who is willing to run a "Planescape" campaign for you (using either 2E or 3.X rules). If that's not possible, track down the CRPG "Planescape: Torment" and play it. If you still think alignment is silly after playing a tabletop "Planescape" campaign or "Planescape: Torment" then nothing will convince you otherwise.

What's about these RPGs that makes them so great, may I ask?

[SaintRidley]

SoD spoilers:

Spoiler

Show

He was judged in the epilogue of SoD

Of course, his alignment could have shifted after he was judged in that scene.

Looks like I missed it when looking through my copy to post that. Although they sure don't look like they completed judgement once they saw the outstanding Oath.

And very true.

[rs2excelsior]

Again, going back in the discussion a good ways...

Regarding the "Mercenary True Neutral" alignment. I think the title mercenary regiment of Drake's "Hammer's Slammers" series exemplifies this. For those of you who aren't familiar with the series, it is a science fiction story about a future armored regiment that fights for pay. They do their jobs, and are quite good at it... it just so happens their job is killing. They will not wantonly murder civilians in the course of a war (which would make them, in terms of the D&D alignment system as I understand it as a non-D&D-player, Evil), but neither do they limit themselves to worthy "good guy" employers, and will not restrain themselves because they risk collateral damage (which would make them Good). Those who fight do so for the money, yes, but also for their comrades, because they have no other opportunity, and for the reputation of their regiment.

One could easily imagine another regiment, which we shall call "Miller's Killers." These are recruited from released or uncaught psychopaths and serial killers. They want to murder people without having to worry about getting caught (which would put an end to their murdering), and the money is just icing on the cake. They fight the enemies they are hired to fight, but like to sack a town here and there when they get the chance. These are still "kill people for money" mercenaries, but pretty clearly Evil.

While we're at it, let's imagine a third regiment, "Pender's Defenders." These mercenaries hire themselves out to just rulers facing threat of overthrow by evil dictators or freedom-fighting rebels under the heel of an oppressive government. They ask for money to provide equipment and make a living, but still insist on only fighting for causes that are justified. They will never molest civilians, even enemy ones, and will sometimes risk themselves to avoid unnecessary casualties among non-combatants. These are Good mercenaries.

tl;dr It isn't hard to imagine mercenaries who kill for money, yet are Neutral or even Good, not the automatic "Selfish Evil" suggested earlier.

Also, as said before, I don't play D&D, and so perhaps have a less precise understanding of the alignment system. But I was under the impression that Neutral (on either scale) could mean "X on some things, Y on others." For example, someone who was fiercely loyal to one's friends and would die before breaking their word (Lawful) but was at the same time immensely distrustful of all authority figures (Chaotic) would register as Neutral the Law-Chaos axis, or someone who would never, ever create undead or murder another in cold blood (Good) but isn't above theft or actively working against someone else's interests to further their own (Evil) would register as Neutral on the Good-Evil axis. Am I correct on this? If so, this could make a very interesting character. Still a well-defined code of conduct, but not on an extreme end of the chart.

[Sir_Leorik]

Thanks for your reply! In retrospect my post seems a bit disrespectful, and I certainly didn't mean to insult someone for liking this stuff. So I apologize for that. Your post is rather full of good information, so thanks for that!

It's okay, I know you didn't mean any disrespect. There are plenty of RPGs that do not use an Alignment system, including ones published by WotC, such as the various "Star Wars" RPGs. In the WotC "Star Wars" games (d20, RCR and Sage Edition) actions that involved the Dark Side of the Force (or were blatantly evil) would accrue Dark Side points, but unless a character was corrupted by the Dark Side, they wouldn't be considered inherently "evil". Even a Jedi Master as noble as Yoda would have to constantly struggle not to be lured by the Dark Side's call, and even some villains like Grand Admiral Thrawn, Moff Rulf Yage or Boba Fett can have admirable qualities and even act for the greater good.

D&D mostly came out of a house ruled version of the "Fantasy Supplement" for the "Chainmail" tabletop miniatures game. As alluded to here, Arneson was experimenting with having his players control a single miniature through a town, castle and dungeon, which led to Arneson's "Blackmoor" Campaign and Gygax's "Castle Greyhawk" campaign.

In the early days of the OD&D, Alignment was one of several elements that helped mold the personality of a PC, including social class, and religion. The rules were pretty sparse back then. Over the years Alignment has become a way to arbitrate morality in D&D, in a world where gods, Demons, Devils, Angels, Anthropomorphic Frogs, Robots based on the geometric entities from the novel "Flatland", and the mysterious Dark Powers of the Demiplane of Dread, all take an interest in the behavior, philosophy and morality of mortals.

Alignment is meant to be a tool, not a straitjacket. Two Lawful Good Paladins can have markedly different personalities, because they are from different cultures, different religions, different social classes or one is much older than the other. Durkon and Roy disagree over whether a Lawful Good character needs to respect the laws of the Empire of Blood. Haley and Elan have different notions about respect for property rights; Elan feels bad about stealing, while Haley, to put it nicely, does not.

In "Planescape", the adventures take place in the Outer Planes, most commonly the impossible city of Sigil. Sigil is shaped like a torus that is suspended a few feet over an infinitely tall Spire that juts forth from the middle of an infinite plane, The Concordant Domain of the Outlands. The city can not be entered without using "portals", magical doorways that open seemingly at random throughout the city to other Planes. No god can enter Sigil, because they are kept out by the city's ruler, The Lady of Pain. The Lady isn't a ruler in the traditional sense; she is a giant woman, clothed in robes, her serene face surrounded by a mantle of blades, who floats silently through Sigil, sometimes turning her gaze to those who offend her and flaying them alive or banishing them to one of her Mazes. Needless to say the inhabitants of the "Cage" as Sigil is called, keep their distance from her.

At one point Sigil was home to fifteen "Factions", groups who debated various philosophies they believed would lead them to rule the multiverse. Between the Factions, the addition of a bit of gray to the black and white nature of the Alignment system and the awesome artwork by Tony DiTerlizzi, "Planescape" is very fondly remembered. "Planescape: Torment" is a CRPG based on the setting, published by Interplay. The game captures the detail and ambiance of the "Planescape" setting beautifully.