D&D Mirror Universe

[Bobbyjackcorn]

I agree, this seems like a very good adaptation for the Drow. It's possible that since the Drow are Lawful-leaning elves in descent from typical chaotic leaning elves- that the Drow are elves that refused to descend into chaotic slaughter and madness like their evil-flopped elven ancestors, and were cursed by an evil sun god to banishment from his sight, where they can eek out a communistic society in the vicious underdark, where the brutal nature of their surroundings forces them to create an unbreakable sense of community and societal structure.

[Dusk Raven]

LG outsiders make deals with evil humanoids within society, promising power in exchange for acts of righteousness, like the Vows from BoED.

An interesting deviation from the idea that LG never tolerates evil - here, they try to bribe evil individuals into doing good. Makes one wonder if in this world, instead of scheming to bring evil, devils scheme to redeem evildoers...



As for the Drow, the issue I have with the above is that it turns them from Chaotic Evil to Neutral/Lawful Good... though frankly, I don't think an actual Chaotic Evil society can really exist, even when propped up by divine intervention (as is the case with standard Drow and Lolth). Their canon society is surprisingly structured for being CHaotic, so maybe having structure in the mirror setting isn't as much of a change as their original Chaotic Evil alignment would suggest.

As for their brand of communism, given the way several houses compete within a city, it makes me wonder if they've basically taken the capitalistic "free market" ideal of competing corporations, and applied that to governments. If one House is too strict to its servants, well, there are other Houses willing and able to treat them better if it means stealing them from their rival. Alternatively, perhaps the Houses themselves are more like companies or guilds, with Lolth and her clergy forming a sort of central government that directs the Houses to a common goal, lest their innate competitiveness and free spirit undermine their collective survival. Drow maybe be chaotic and willful, but they know when to work together (in contrast to canon Drow, who often wind up undermining each other even when it would really benefit them to work together). If that all makes sense.

[Bobbyjackcorn]

As for their brand of communism, given the way several houses compete within a city, it makes me wonder if they've basically taken the capitalistic "free market" ideal of competing corporations, and applied that to governments. If one House is too strict to its servants, well, there are other Houses willing and able to treat them better if it means stealing them from their rival. Alternatively, perhaps the Houses themselves are more like companies or guilds, with Lolth and her clergy forming a sort of central government that directs the Houses to a common goal, lest their innate competitiveness and free spirit undermine their collective survival. Drow maybe be chaotic and willful, but they know when to work together (in contrast to canon Drow, who often wind up undermining each other even when it would really benefit them to work together). If that all makes sense.

I dig it, though I feel there is one thing to note: the issue of slavery and subservience in normal drow society.
Free Market Capitalism could work for a CN or CG society, yeah, however we are trying to keep their emphasis on as many cultural staples as possible. The drow have strict castes, chains of command, slavery, and a heavy-handed theocracy. So far as I can tell, the G to E inversion of this isn't free market, it's communistic, or maybe a benevolent dictatorship. The matriarchy still rules, and they rule supreme- but out of veneration, not fear. The E to G inversion for slavery seems to be mandatory acts of communal charity (think getting jury duty). Keep in mind that I agree, communism doesn't quite fit the bill for the drow, but I think that's because they're too proud. In drow canon, they normally speak elven to each other, but only speak in undercommon to other elves, so as to force them to sully their tongue with the language, etc. That makes me believe that their system wouldn't be truly communistic, because communism doesn't typically blend with pride in the self.
I think they'd be strong-willed but good hearted people, living in strict societies out of necessity. They'd be structurally similar to dictatorships, oligarchies, and/or communism, and there'd be a strong authoritarian presence from the church, but it'd also allow room for people's individual selves to thrive and indulge in their inherently chaotic nature.
That's my take anyhow.

[GreatWyrmGold]

So, I've had an idea like this before, but watching the Star Trek original series episode "Mirror, Mirror" made me think - how would a typical D&D world or other fantasy look if all the major race's Good/Evil alignments were flipped? Where once civilization was a noble fortress against the forces of evil, now it's an oppressive force trying to enforce its will on the multiverse. Humans, elves, dwarves, and others alternate between exterminating "barbarian" races and vying with each other for power, while Orcs, Gnolls, Drow, and other races hide in the wilderness and resist their oppressors wherever they can. I wanted to talk about and explore this idea, as the sheer number of possibilities and changes is more than I can plan alone.

I mean, it doesn't have to be that complex. Stories about bringing civilization to savage lands, once seen as the epitome of heroism, are now often seen as stories of selfish conquerors exploiting weaker people because they could. Draw less on heroic fantasy and more on history.

(though I imagine some features, like the Drow penchant for slavery, simply don't work in a Usually Chaotic Good society)

But that's taking out the fun bit!
Take that example. Sure, normal slavery is evil, but we can adjust the details and have an institution much like slavery but not as evil--especially if we see an alternative to contrast it against.
For instance, let's have three societies--call them D, E, and F. F is for failure; they let prisoners (both POWs and criminals) off relatively easy, but their lands are ravaged by strife from bandits and rampant criminality. E takes the opposite extreme--POWs are executed (possibly after interrogation), criminals are locked up for long periods of time and ignored (if not simply executed). It's not hard to see why D might decide to put prisoners to work and give them a chance to prove that they've reformed, that they're not the scum or enemies they were when they were imprisoned. Once they do, they're released. You now have a system which is slavery-like, but which isn't nearly as irredeemable as actual slavery.

I'd suggest more ideas, but most D&D cultures are kept pretty vague (to give DMs creative freedom, I guess), and I don't read much on the cultures of said creatures. The most in-depth I've gone was one argument I was in where I carefully went through the goblin's flavor text to point out that their racial description was little more than describing how they're evil little creeps.
It doesn't help that any interest I might have in making creatures in a given world different than what readers expect them to be is more than fulfilled by making creatures in a given world different than what people in said world expect them to be. It's a lot easier to get specific that way.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

It would be happy sunshine land. All the peoples of the land long ago united to wipe out the evil human and elven empires, and now the minotaurs happily dance with the kobolds, only interrupted by the occasional unicorn attack from deep inside the dryads' forest.

[Morphic tide]

I suppose that I'll try to tackle the Outsider inversion, myself.

Lawful: An important theme of the Good vs Evil contrast, when talking about the Lawful end, is that it's oppressive rule by letter of the law versus benevolent rule by spirit of the law. Devils very nearly never break their laws, it's that their laws are utterly horrible(why do you think there's so many references to fine print?), while the Lawful Celestials will break their laws to solve a horrible thing, then revise the laws broken to be less horrible. The inversion, here, is that the Evil Angels are covered in backstabbing and extreme crime rates as everyone is trying to get as high as they can, with the system being a tool in their arsenal rather than the strictures of their society. The Lawful end is a matter of hierarchy being an accepted fact, rather than an uncomfortable truth like with the normal Chaotic fiends.

The Devils in the mirror-verse adopt a pretty-much Confucian system of government, where the letter of the law is strict, but the law is made by wise, benevolent people who've earned their right to rule by effective management. Horrid laws are followed, but once they've been found to be horrid, they are revised and the wrongs committed made right after the rewriting. Those who alleviate the suffering caused by the problematic laws are still punished, but it's an unfortunate acceptance.

Neutral: A very important thing about how D&D structures Good and Evil is that Good is often focused on the big picture, while Evil is often about the personal picture. Selfishness versus Altruism, where Evil consumes for the self and Good brings plenty to the masses. So the Neutral Evil Celestials are pure and simple sadists, actively desiring nothing but misery of others and making things as aweful for as many people as possible. They seek to destroy empires, not out of desiring chaos, but out of the suffering of the shattered systems. The starving cities, weeping scholars and lost progress are what they want from broken nations.

Meanwhile, the Daemons of the mirror-verse will make things better for particular groups. Summoning a powerful Daemon is a sign that grand bounties will come forth for your tribe. It may come in the form of that group of isolated Elves being beaten down and exploited quite thoroughly, but much good has been done by the group that summoned the Daemon, and the situation is a lowering of the suck in the world because those Elves were *******s. Horrendously brutal means of extracting value from the wicked are entirely okay, and as such it's seen as not only allowed, but expected for Good adventurers to loot everything useful not nailed to the ground more firmly than they can un-nail it, insofar as the oppressive empires are concerned.

Chaotic: The core of the way the Good vs. Evil contrast works with Chaotic appears to be a matter of spontaneous enjoyment versus doing whatever seems to get the job done. So the Chaotic Evil Angels will do anything and everything to get towards what they want, no matter how many people are ruined on the way there, seeking a goal(anything from some ice cream to getting a person they care about back) and giving absolutely no thought to collateral damage.

Meanwhile, the Chaotic Good Demons are akin to the Satyrs of the old Greek myths, basically living a perpetual party and bringing fun to all. The Good involvement is in that they actually work to get rid of stress-causing things so that the party can have even fewer regrets, and people don't have misery outside the parties.

[noob]

The red mages are good casters researching complex magic and grouping for plotting good plans.
Copying your spirit in magical items would no longer be seen as evil(it was evil only because the game devs decided that spells made by evil people are evil).

[Dusk Raven]

I suppose that I'll try to tackle the Outsider inversion, myself.

I really like how you identified certain traits that are overall true of fiends and celestials in standard D&D, and kept those in the new version. Though I'm not sure about the Daemons - my impression of them in standard D&D was that wanted suffering in general, as much of it as possible, and weren't particular about how it happened. Whether it happens to individuals or groups or large areas is irrelevant, the idea seemed to be that they want the sum misery in the world to increase, no matter how. Neutral Evil isn't picky. But I digress.

Lawful: An important theme of the Good vs Evil contrast, when talking about the Lawful end, is that it's oppressive rule by letter of the law versus benevolent rule by spirit of the law. Devils very nearly never break their laws, it's that their laws are utterly horrible(why do you think there's so many references to fine print?), while the Lawful Celestials will break their laws to solve a horrible thing, then revise the laws broken to be less horrible. The inversion, here, is that the Evil Angels are covered in backstabbing and extreme crime rates as everyone is trying to get as high as they can, with the system being a tool in their arsenal rather than the strictures of their society. The Lawful end is a matter of hierarchy being an accepted fact, rather than an uncomfortable truth like with the normal Chaotic fiends.

The Devils in the mirror-verse adopt a pretty-much Confucian system of government, where the letter of the law is strict, but the law is made by wise, benevolent people who've earned their right to rule by effective management. Horrid laws are followed, but once they've been found to be horrid, they are revised and the wrongs committed made right after the rewriting. Those who alleviate the suffering caused by the problematic laws are still punished, but it's an unfortunate acceptance.

This take on Lawful Good is an interesting perspective. Rather than, "The law should be followed, and only broken if it really is the best thing to do," the mindset is "the law is paramount, but the law is supposed to be good and should be modified if that's not the case, rather than violated." It inches a little closer to Lawful Neutral, but the end goal is still goodness rather than just law itself, and the belief seems to be that you can make a perfectly Lawful Good society given wisdom and experience.

Chaotic: The core of the way the Good vs. Evil contrast works with Chaotic appears to be a matter of spontaneous enjoyment versus doing whatever seems to get the job done. So the Chaotic Evil Angels will do anything and everything to get towards what they want, no matter how many people are ruined on the way there, seeking a goal(anything from some ice cream to getting a person they care about back) and giving absolutely no thought to collateral damage.

Meanwhile, the Chaotic Good Demons are akin to the Satyrs of the old Greek myths, basically living a perpetual party and bringing fun to all. The Good involvement is in that they actually work to get rid of stress-causing things so that the party can have even fewer regrets, and people don't have misery outside the parties.

Here, perhaps, we have the reason why evil is dominant in the Mirror Universe - they're better at seeing the big picture. Meanwhile, the Demons are off doing, in the words of The Pathology Guy (whose character generators may be familiar to readers) "Random acts of kindness." There are probably enough demons in the Abyss to form and army capable of destroying all the forces of evil in the world with hordes to spare, but it's hard to get them to focus on anything other than the most immediate Good thing to do. They're certainly helpful when summoned individually, and will aid the cause of Good however they can, but the summoner may find that it's hard to keep them on task when there are starving orphans in the streets. They can be relied upon to do good, but that may be the only thing they can be relied upon.

What about other evil Outsiders, like Nightmares, Efreeti, and Night Hags (or normal, non-Outsider Night Hags, for that matter)? The lower planes are a surprisingly prolific place in terms of intelligent outsiders...

[Bobbyjackcorn]

What about other evil Outsiders, like Nightmares, Efreeti, and Night Hags (or normal, non-Outsider Night Hags, for that matter)? The lower planes are a surprisingly prolific place in terms of intelligent outsiders...

I can't speak for Efreeti or Nightmares, but I think Hags become rather interesting. Their magic and items seem to be based around sacrificing things: people, body parts, souls.
Swapping this from evil to good isn't all about intent (after all it's still evil to steal a persons soul, even if it's for a good cause, right?) but rather about execution. If Outsiders are meant to represent concepts (at least a little?) then I'd say the Mirror Night Hag represents the willingly sacrificial nature of good. They come to the righteous in their time of need, making a trade: they can help the person succeed with powerful magic, but the mortal will have to sacrifice parts of themselves, their life, or even their soul to make the magic work.
I think the most interesting effect of this swap is the implications of the types of magic. Evil outsiders have often represented arcane magic, and utilized it more heavily, while divine is the only kind I've seen good utilize for the most part.
Flipping this means that lots of arcane magic is used for good, and a lot of divine power stems from evil?

[GreatWyrmGold]

Must...resist...urge...to mock...religion...

[noob]

You should rather say religions than religion.

[Dusk Raven]

I can't speak for Efreeti or Nightmares, but I think Hags become rather interesting. Their magic and items seem to be based around sacrificing things: people, body parts, souls.
Swapping this from evil to good isn't all about intent (after all it's still evil to steal a persons soul, even if it's for a good cause, right?) but rather about execution. If Outsiders are meant to represent concepts (at least a little?) then I'd say the Mirror Night Hag represents the willingly sacrificial nature of good. They come to the righteous in their time of need, making a trade: they can help the person succeed with powerful magic, but the mortal will have to sacrifice parts of themselves, their life, or even their soul to make the magic work.
I think the most interesting effect of this swap is the implications of the types of magic. Evil outsiders have often represented arcane magic, and utilized it more heavily, while divine is the only kind I've seen good utilize for the most part.
Flipping this means that lots of arcane magic is used for good, and a lot of divine power stems from evil?

To be honest, I'm not totally sure. Clerics are perfectly capable of being evil, as there are a number of evil gods, yet for some reason divine magic seems more associated with good than with evil. I mean, the Ur-Priest has to be evil even though they could potentially use their power against evil gods.

My impression is that the good outsiders are more aligned with the good gods than the evil outsiders are with evil gods. Most of the evil gods kinda do their own thing in D&D, with goals that don't really involve the demons and devils, while good gods can call upon the various good outsiders. The Demon Lords and Archdevils are not gods, although you sometimes have cases of them associating with evil gods (such as Yheenoghu, "deity" of the Gnolls, whose spells really come from Erythnul).

Most tellingly, demons and devils are independent forces of their own in terms of the struggle between good and evil, while celestials largely are not - though I suspect that's part of the whole "there are more sources of evil than good in the world," largely so players have an endless supply of baddies to kill. On a side note, it's funny how in the mirror universe that's flipped around - most races of the world are good, and yet the prettiest humanoids still are dominant.

You should rather say religions than religion.

Nah, you can mock religion without an S - then you're mocking the idea of religion itself.

[GreatWyrmGold]

You should rather say religions than religion.

If I did do that mockery, I'd either be mocking religion in general or the one religion I understand well enough to feel comfortable mocking. (Not to mention that religions other than that one are basically nigh-powerless minorities where I live. It feels wrong for me to mock them.)

[Bohandas]

If we flipped law and chaos imstead of good and evil Juiblex might become a grey goo

[exelsisxax]

Tiamat: CG dragon goddess of democracy and commune, valiantly defending the Abyss from the unrelenting siege of celestials out to destroy the goodly souls residing in the infinite layers after death.

I mean, if you've got 5 heads eventually you come up with a decision-making process and understand the benefits of altruism, even if selfish. (pretend that she's more like demogorgon than one unified being with 5 pointless heads)

Speaking of demogorgon, CG god of tolerance, cooperation, and big on planning for the future? I feel like he'd be big on avoiding societal collapse(and building collapse). Now all I can imagine is a hippy demogorgon telling everybody how great it is to be chill about stuff and how important sturdy foundations are in building construction.

[Dusk Raven]

I still enjoy thinking about this idea - in fact, it's probably going to be my next project if I DM 5e.

Aside from various details, like figuring out how things change for races... what changes for players? If the players are all monster races (and the odd human, because humans)? What do the players do when the cities are most likely hostile territory and the wilderness is filled with monsters but is weirdly enough the safe part of the world? You can theoretically have this effect in a normal setting if the players visit an evil nation, but I'm not quite as familiar with that concept...

[2D8HP]

...What do the players do when the cities are most likely hostile territory and the wilderness is filled with monsters but is weirdly enough the safe part of the world? You can theoretically have this effect in a normal setting if the players visit an evil nation, but I'm not quite as familiar with that concept...

Off the top of my head, the setting books for the Cities of:

Sanctuary


Lankhmar

and

Bard's Gate

may be helpful.

[Durzan]

Cool Thread!

[Bobbyjackcorn]

I still enjoy thinking about this idea - in fact, it's probably going to be my next project if I DM 5e.

I must admit, I've actually been planning out a pathfinder game with this since I first saw it. I'm glad to see discussion open up a bit again!

Aside from various details, like figuring out how things change for races... what changes for players? If the players are all monster races (and the odd human, because humans)? What do the players do when the cities are most likely hostile territory and the wilderness is filled with monsters but is weirdly enough the safe part of the world? You can theoretically have this effect in a normal setting if the players visit an evil nation, but I'm not quite as familiar with that concept...

I was actually using dungeons as "sanctuary cities" of a kind- good aligned refuges where monstrous adventurers can feel secure- Imitating dungeon ecology with an emphasis on the swapped-alignment monstrous beings's cultures.
And yeah, that means a lot of the map is still hostile space for adventuring creatures that aren't horrifically evil, but isn't that part of the fun of the idea?

[GreatWyrmGold]

The Wilderness isn't evil, it's apathetic. Nature is a danger not because it hates you, or anyone else, but because it will keep existing, no matter how that inconveniences or endangers you.

Dotting the wilderness in your standard D&D game are safe havens (towns and cities), threatened havens (villages, outposts, fortresses, etc), places with some enemies and plenty of loot (dungeons, goblin encampments, etc), and enemy strongholds (drow cities, ilithid citadels, etc). Just reverse that list for evil races and you'll have a good start. You might want to reframe it (dungeons as ruins where monstrous refugees tried to set up shop, goblin encampments as villages and elven villages as encampments, etc), but the same structure should work for both.

[Dusk Raven]

I must admit, I've actually been planning out a pathfinder game with this since I first saw it. I'm glad to see discussion open up a bit again!

I'm glad to hear that this thread has inspired others. If you run it online, I'd be happy to join if you need players. ^^

I was actually using dungeons as "sanctuary cities" of a kind- good aligned refuges where monstrous adventurers can feel secure- Imitating dungeon ecology with an emphasis on the swapped-alignment monstrous beings's cultures.
And yeah, that means a lot of the map is still hostile space for adventuring creatures that aren't horrifically evil, but isn't that part of the fun of the idea?

The Wilderness isn't evil, it's apathetic. Nature is a danger not because it hates you, or anyone else, but because it will keep existing, no matter how that inconveniences or endangers you.

Dotting the wilderness in your standard D&D game are safe havens (towns and cities), threatened havens (villages, outposts, fortresses, etc), places with some enemies and plenty of loot (dungeons, goblin encampments, etc), and enemy strongholds (drow cities, ilithid citadels, etc). Just reverse that list for evil races and you'll have a good start. You might want to reframe it (dungeons as ruins where monstrous refugees tried to set up shop, goblin encampments as villages and elven villages as encampments, etc), but the same structure should work for both.

Never meant to imply that the wilderness itself was "evil" - except in the minds of those civilized races with a Manifest Destiny style attitude, of which I'm sure there would be a few in this mirror setting. What I mean is that the wilderness, in standard D&D, is a haven for evil creatures. Standard D&D has a very "traditional" view of civilization and barbarism, after all, and there are many "savage" races such as goblins, orcs, gnolls, ogres, and giants, who of course live in the areas beyond civilization's reach. Most of the evil civilizations that exist are down in the Underdark, which not only has races like Drow and Duergar, but also has a number of evil aberrations and other creatures. It's even more of a hotbed of evil than the surface is, where there are at least good tribes of barbarian humans... well, supposedly. I've never seen an adventure feature one. But meanwhile, civilized surface races are usually good or neutral - when a nation is evil, usually it's because of an evil tyrant or the influence of an evil religion.

An idea I like for the mirrorverse is that the wilds are still dangerous - after all, the alignment of a hydra is irrelevant when it tries to eat you. A lot of creatures out there are just trying to survive, and that won't change with the mirror setting. In other cases, there are other creatures whose alignments perhaps shouldn't be switched - mostly ones that have no real place in the world other than as monsters for adventurers to fight, like Chokers. But more on that later. In any event, the wilds are still dangerous to the forces of good - but that danger is part of the place's charm, because monsters don't distinguish between refugees and their pursuers. If anything, the hostile company they keep provides good training for tribal warrior and adventurer alike. Quite possibly, adventurers are much more common among the good races, since their lives are dangerous to begin with and there's a constant need for people who are good with spells and/or swords.

Also, I really like the idea of clearing out a dungeon with the intention of using it as a base. I take a bit of enjoyment in minor kingdom/faction building elements in a game, after all. I think a good campaign could be made with the concept of the players clearing out a dungeon to provide a home for a mixed group of humanoid refugees, and then establishing a base and molding the refugees into a proper community and fighting force.

Meanwhile, while people have given some great ideas for what formerly "evil" races would be, there are still a few missing - namely orcs and gnolls. I'll try and devote some time to that later... since gnolls are one of my favorite races, I've got a few ideas for them.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Standard D&D has a very "traditional" view of civilization and barbarism, after all, and there are many "savage" races such as goblins, orcs, gnolls, ogres, and giants, who of course love in the areas beyond civilization's reach.

Then don't frame the conflict that way.
(Besides, there are plenty of "good" races that spend lots of time away from civilization. Elves are the most prominent, but halflings, gnomes, human barbarians, and possibly even small hill dwarf settlements could count.)

Most of the evil civilizations that exist are down in the Underdark, which not only has races like Drow and Duergar, but also has a number of evil aberrations and other creatures. It's even more of a hotbed of evil than the surface is...

There's another possibility—set the game with the Underdark as the Normal World, with the overworld being the World of Adventure.

...where there are at least good tribes of barbarian humans... well, supposedly. I've never seen an adventure feature one.

They show up in the Dragonlance books. And there must be some, for how many barbarians join my parties.

[Dusk Raven]

Then don't frame the conflict that way.
(Besides, there are plenty of "good" races that spend lots of time away from civilization. Elves are the most prominent, but halflings, gnomes, human barbarians, and possibly even small hill dwarf settlements could count.)

I... didn't? I honestly don't know where I described the wilderness as itself being evil/good, other than in the mindsets of those in civilized lands.

Mind you, I think elves are usually described as lurk in otherwise harmonious and stereotypically pretty forests (not everyone's idea of "wilderness"), and halflings and gnomes are more "rural" than wilderness-dwelling. But that's just my interpretation. And I admit I'm more used to the "high elf" archetype than what's usually reserved for "wood elves" in many fantasy worlds.

There's another possibility—set the game with the Underdark as the Normal World, with the overworld being the World of Adventure.

Well, it's not like the Underdark isn't full of dangers as well. It is, however, the most reliable place to find good-aligned civilization in the mirrorverse. So far as I know, in D&D there are very few non-evil sapient races in the Underdark - at least, not in the MM, there may be some in some splatbook somewhere. Anyway, the only ones I can think of are the svirfneblin, who are neutral. This means that in the mirrorverse, organized, civilized evil has no real foothold in the Underdark other than the occasional dwarf outpost which digs too deep as far as the Underdark dwellers are concerned. There are all sorts of monsters, of course, but that's a different sort of threat.

They show up in the Dragonlance books. And there must be some, for how many barbarians join my parties.

Yeah, given the nebulous nature of the rulebooks' description of settings (and I don't know much about most published settings), it's generally left to the DM to figure out where good humanoid barbarians come from. And sometimes people just interpret the Barbarian class to represent a warrior who relies on fury and strength, rather than as a statement about their background. The last Barbarian I was in a party with, after all, was a Dwarf.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I... didn't? I honestly don't know where I described the wilderness as itself being evil/good, other than in the mindsets of those in civilized lands.

I was referring more to the "civilization good, barbarism bad" conflict. It's going to be hard to sell the idea that barbarism isn't bad, so don't frame the "evil" races as barbaric and the "good" races as civilized. Find some other way to frame the conflict, e.g. with prosperous "good races" who can maintain farmland, grand cities, etc, and "evil races" who are constantly struggling against monsters, civil wars, foreign invasions, etc, and hence can't make anything so stable. Think the stable parts of Europe versus the unstable parts of the Middle East.

-snip- This means that in the mirrorverse, organized, civilized evil has no real foothold in the Underdark other than the occasional dwarf outpost which digs too deep as far as the Underdark dwellers are concerned. There are all sorts of monsters, of course, but that's a different sort of threat.

In most D&D settings, the goblins and orcs and whatnot don't live in the same areas as the "good races"; they're separated into "civilized lands" where wild beasts and the occasional wandering monster or war are all you have to worry about, and the hinterlands where adventure can be found. You could get the same feeling in the Underdark, though you might need some new races to serve as the disorganized antagonistic barbarians. Perhaps something undead, or stranded fiends, or some kind of monstrous threat? Or, if you're leaning into the quasi-colonial metaphor mentioned above, you might have some areas of the Underdark contaminated by magical wastes or radiation or something, which spawn monsters and drive good drow mad.

[Dusk Raven]

I was referring more to the "civilization good, barbarism bad" conflict. It's going to be hard to sell the idea that barbarism isn't bad, so don't frame the "evil" races as barbaric and the "good" races as civilized.

It's been done. That seems to be the vibe of a number of Horde races in World of Warcraft, for instance. The concept of the "noble savage" has been around for a long time, as have heroic barbarians... as well as evil civilizations. The trick, I suspect, is not to call it "barbarism" or "civilization" - easy to do when the good races don't particularly act barbaric, nor do the evil races act civilized. Frankly, in history the term "barbarian" has typically been used by people who declared themselves "civilized" to describe anyone who wasn't them. There often wasn't much of a moral difference.

Besides, the trend is not universal. Elves, now being Chaotic Evil, go right past "barbarian" and into "savage." Meanwhile in the Underdark, kobolds and drow are the forces of civilization, amongst other good races. I think it'll be fine, I just like the idea of Chaotic Good "barbarians" fighting against a Lawful Evil "civilization," and that's happens more often in this setting than it does in D&D, especially with the dwarves.

Find some other way to frame the conflict, e.g. with prosperous "good races" who can maintain farmland, grand cities, etc, and "evil races" who are constantly struggling against monsters, civil wars, foreign invasions, etc, and hence can't make anything so stable. Think the stable parts of Europe versus the unstable parts of the Middle East.

In most D&D settings, the goblins and orcs and whatnot don't live in the same areas as the "good races"; they're separated into "civilized lands" where wild beasts and the occasional wandering monster or war are all you have to worry about, and the hinterlands where adventure can be found. You could get the same feeling in the Underdark, though you might need some new races to serve as the disorganized antagonistic barbarians. Perhaps something undead, or stranded fiends, or some kind of monstrous threat? Or, if you're leaning into the quasi-colonial metaphor mentioned above, you might have some areas of the Underdark contaminated by magical wastes or radiation or something, which spawn monsters and drive good drow mad.

I feel like we have different premises in mind, or at least different approaches. My aim is to change as little as possible - primarily the alignment, along with whatever changes are necessary to alter their society to their new alignment while still keeping them the same. I admit, to me, keeping orcs, goblins, etc in the hinterlands is part of the point, because it changes the dynamic of the world itself. From a logistics standpoint, good is at a disadvantage, while evil is a strong thread because of its stability. Well, as much stability as an evil society can actually have, anyway. But evil's weakness is its own moral foundation in this case, rather than the drawbacks of, say, primitive tribes.

Speaking of which! Ideas!

Orcs:
A strong theme in core D&D is that orcs believe that the world is rightfully theirs, and was stolen from them by other races, especially elves. In the mirror world, this becomes true: orcs once had a civilization of their own. Sure, it was tough for them because they weren't as smart as other races, but they built everything they had using their own strength and determination... until of course the elves and dwarves invaded, conquered most Orc lands, and destroyed the remnants of their civilization out of spite.

It has been a long time since then, and though the orcs now live in scattered tribes, they have survived and thrived - indeed, at this point they wouldn't know what to do with their old society if they got it back. Still, the ancient grudges against the invaders who took all they had are what drive them. They seek to reconquer their old territory and cleanse the world of evil. They often ally with other good races, though their racial pride and sense of entitlement sometimes causes friction. Despite this, orcs are brave, dependable, and stalwart allies once befriended.

Gnolls:
Gnolls are the apex predators of the grasslands in which they live, and their society is structured around that fact. They see themselves as caretakers of the natural order and of the land they live on, and most Gnoll tribes have druid who advise the tribe on how to work towards that end. Despite - or perhaps because of - being predators, however, they take a much more subtle approach than the elves, whom the Gnolls see as puritanical, if not insane.

Gnolls constantly compete for dominance, and dislike following anyone who hasn't earned their place. Gnolls thus often find themselves traveling - whether discontent with their leadership or seeking power of their own. They often find themselves aiding other good races - they have a strong sense of justice, perhaps related to their belief in merit. Of course, their ambitious natures mean they constantly strive to either take command, or force those in charge to step up their game in response.

[ReaderAt2046]

Chat Noir of Miraculous Ladybug is a good example of a hero with death powers: his main power is to rot away anything at a touch, including large buildings and pocket dimensions. He's also possibly the kindest and most selfless character in the cartoon. His usual use of his power is to break through bonds and barriers or to create traps by breaking floors or locks.


Perhaps, the drow could be a highly ordered bastion for the good creatures of the Underdark. Within their fortresses, all are welcome to shelter, but you must work. Life is tough in the cavernous deserts underground and everybody must be able to pull their weight. In the halls of the Drow there is always movement. Somebody must be patrolling the walls, tallying the resources, making repairs, scouting the paths or tending the food supplies. The law is strict but fair: Everybody is a slave to the city's needs, but not to the city's wants, and the city must protect and provide for the citizens. Slacking, delaying or obstructing bring harsh punishments, but so does abuse, calling for overwork or exploiting others for your own game. The Houses seethe and bicker, but their ultimate duty is to the city and its people. If a city's council descends into evil, its neighbours will mount an assault until it is either overthrown or razed: The webbed walls must have no cracks. The Drow fortresses are not pleasant places to live, but they are always a refuge for those in need.

I like this. Humans of the real world could never pull it off. "Everyone works for the benefit of the state, because the people are the state, and the good of the state is the good of the people" is what a communist system is supposed to be, but never is. So there must be something in drow (elven) nature that's different from human nature that makes this work.

So now the question is, how can this work for the drow while most societies of surface elves are evil? How is it that elven nature can work either way? If there's a basic difference in the brains of drow and surface elves it is certainly subtle, so if that's the reason the drow succeed in living this way then we need to see a subtle change in basic nature that causes a big change in cultural behavior.

As I noted before, some consequences of the morality flip are minor and some are major, and that's part of the fun. Layers!

Hmm... What about doing the drow as a kind of hyper-feudalistic society? They have the same temptation to madness as surface elves, but they tame it by an incredibly strict, incredibly rigid set of rules and obligations. So common drow are essentially willing slaves to their leaders, because they believe they need that kind of strict obedience to keep their elvish natures controlled. In each generation, the drow leaders choose from among the entire populace those whom they believe to be the most honorable, the most capable of serving their people and not falling into the temptation to abuse the loyalty of their subjects, and appoint them as their heirs. And of course each of the leaders watches the others. It's not a perfect system, but they make it work.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

Orcs:
A strong theme in core D&D is that orcs believe that the world is rightfully theirs, and was stolen from them by other races, especially elves. In the mirror world, this becomes true: orcs once had a civilization of their own. Sure, it was tough for them because they weren't as smart as other races, but they built everything they had using their own strength and determination... until of course the elves and dwarves invaded, conquered most Orc lands, and destroyed the remnants of their civilization out of spite.

It has been a long time since then, and though the orcs now live in scattered tribes, they have survived and thrived - indeed, at this point they wouldn't know what to do with their old society if they got it back. Still, the ancient grudges against the invaders who took all they had are what drive them. They seek to reconquer their old territory and cleanse the world of evil. They often ally with other good races, though their racial pride and sense of entitlement sometimes causes friction. Despite this, orcs are brave, dependable, and stalwart allies once befriended.

Gnolls:
Gnolls are the apex predators of the grasslands in which they live, and their society is structured around that fact. They see themselves as caretakers of the natural order and of the land they live on, and most Gnoll tribes have druid who advise the tribe on how to work towards that end. Despite - or perhaps because of - being predators, however, they take a much more subtle approach than the elves, whom the Gnolls see as puritanical, if not insane.

Gnolls constantly compete for dominance, and dislike following anyone who hasn't earned their place. Gnolls thus often find themselves traveling - whether discontent with their leadership or seeking power of their own. They often find themselves aiding other good races - they have a strong sense of justice, perhaps related to their belief in merit. Of course, their ambitious natures mean they constantly strive to either take command, or force those in charge to step up their game in response.

So the Orcs become an pseudo-elven analogue in terms of attitude? That's cool! I've always liked the uncomfortable (for them) similarities elves and orcs have already so this fits well with my interpretations of things at least.

Hmm... What about doing the drow as a kind of hyper-feudalistic society? They have the same temptation to madness as surface elves, but they tame it by an incredibly strict, incredibly rigid set of rules and obligations. So common drow are essentially willing slaves to their leaders, because they believe they need that kind of strict obedience to keep their elvish natures controlled. In each generation, the drow leaders choose from among the entire populace those whom they believe to be the most honorable, the most capable of serving their people and not falling into the temptation to abuse the loyalty of their subjects, and appoint them as their heirs. And of course each of the leaders watches the others. It's not a perfect system, but they make it work.

Like the vulcans from Star Trek? Maybe they similarly have a time every few years where an individual has to let loose for a day or two (in a controlled environment, preferably) to vent all the repressed chaotic tendencies?

[Dusk Raven]

So the Orcs become an pseudo-elven analogue in terms of attitude? That's cool! I've always liked the uncomfortable (for them) similarities elves and orcs have already so this fits well with my interpretations of things at least.

There are probably some resemblances, yeah. Fitting given that in Tolkein's work, the orcs were once elves. But really, that description came from me looking over the orcs' description in the 3.5 Monster Manual and trying to find something distinctive. As GreatWyrmGold said to earlier (and I kinda want to see the conversation he referenced in that post), racial descriptions are often vague - and often the descriptions for evil races just list off the reasons players won't feel bad upon killing them. But in the middle of the usual evil cliches, it was mentioned that orcs essentially saw everything as being rightfully theirs, something backed up by Gruumsh's description in the PHB. I figured it wasn't too hard to flip that to good, and make it sympathetic in the process. They're symbolic of any real-world culture that was scattered and cast out by invaders...

Like the vulcans from Star Trek? Maybe they similarly have a time every few years where an individual has to let loose for a day or two (in a controlled environment, preferably) to vent all the repressed chaotic tendencies?

Vulcans are who I thought of, too, on reading Reader's description, along with re-reading something jqavins said earlier:

So now the question is, how can this work for the drow while most societies of surface elves are evil? How is it that elven nature can work either way? If there's a basic difference in the brains of drow and surface elves it is certainly subtle, so if that's the reason the drow succeed in living this way then we need to see a subtle change in basic nature that causes a big change in cultural behavior.

Which does remind me of Vulcans. They, after all, have emotions, but keep their largely destructive natures tightly controlled. Drow might be to other elves as Vulkans are to their own violent past selves. (I use their past selves for comparison instead of the Romulans because they, while described as passionate and quick to switch emotions, actually have it together, so they apparently found a way to deal with their emotions in a different way). Other posters have also described systems in which the drow voluntarily work against their own nature.

The main problem I have is that it pushes them more towards Lawful... although to be frank, their society in canon D&D doesn't strike me as something that Chaotic Evil beings would create, it's too structured. Of course, it's also inherently unstable and is being propped up by Lolth. Thus, there is justification to be had for the Mirror drow deliberately having a society that goes against their own nature, because elven nature is destructive and evil. Perhaps they're trying to slowly shift their own instincts into something more productive?



Meanwhile, I'm thinking of actually writing up a "Mirrors & Morality Handbook" (or something) that codifies my interpretation (based on some very good input in this thread) of what a D&D Mirror Universe would be like. Alternatively, I could start a thread, go through the 3.5 Monster Manual (or some other list of creatures) and write up what each are like, post by post, and presenting them for input. I've also written up an analysis of each of the creature types (with the exception of the ones with few or no good/evil creatures, like oozes) and what it means to flip them - and a bit of a rationale as to whether they should be flipped. It's in the spoiler below, because it is long:

Spoiler: Type by Type

Show

Humanoids and Giants:
The entire point of this setting is to flip these around, of course. But it's worth noting that humanoids are ideal for this sort of concept because in most cases their society is the reason they are evil, not their innate natures. An orc raised among humans may be more prone to violence than a typical human, but there's nothing really stopping him from being good. Thus, it was an interesting exercise in trying to keep a culture similar except for the switch from evil to good, or vice versa.

Monstrous Humanoids:
Monstrous Humanoids run the gamut from “Humanoids too tough to fit into the normal humanoid category” (much like Giants) to solitary, one-off encounters like hags. Since the latter type tend to be mostly evil, I wouldn't recommend changing them, as it's a very asymmetrical change. Besides, the premise of this setting seems to be lending itself to a world evil more filled with danger than canon, and it's best not to have too many good-aligned beings partying in the woods between plotting the downfall of evil... because if every evil creature became good and every good creature became evil, the "new evil" would be vastly outnumbered and totally boned.

Aberrations:
A lot of Aberrations are what I call the “Random Encounter Monster” sort: they rarely have any place in a setting other than to act as a natural part of “dungeon ecology” (that is, to act as prey to the apex XP predators known as adventurers). Aberrations of this type that are evil, like Chokers, don't need to be flipped – indeed, being evil is often irrelevant for the role they fill, and seems tacked on at times.

Other aberrations, however, are more troublesome – those that have societies of their own or that try to influence humanoid society. Illithids are a great example. One the one hand, they make great threats for players, but it's just so interesting to imagine them as good-aligned. Zorku laid out a pretty good idea for what they'd be like, and I'm inclined to incorporate that. Since I like Aboleths as well, I could see them being flipped as well, now taking the role of keepers of ancient knowledge or the like. ...Not sure about Beholders, though. Despite having read their entry in Lords of Madness, the most I remember is, “Insane, egomaniacal schemers.” If there's a way to flip that to being good without turning them into comic relief, I don't know it.

Dragons:
Again, “random encounter monster,” but True Dragons have a bit of a diferent problem – they're largely symmetric. As Thunderfist12 mentioned, if you flip True Dragons around not a whole lot really changes, and that's not good with something as iconic as the True Dragons. There is some asymmetry, in that evil dragons tend to be weaker or dumber than their good nemeses, so if those are now good than there's an interesting theme to be had there - where evil is stronger than good as far as true dragons go... but I don't think that's worth flipping their alignments for.

Fey:
Fey are kind of weird in that they can be similar to humanoids, similar to outsiders, or both. Sometimes they are basically nature-oriented humanoids, sometimes they represent nature's beauty or the cold of the north or something like that. Really, there's not much of a common thread other than a vague connection to nature, which in some cases is rather unclear.

The ones who identifiably represent concepts are the troublesome ones, because sometimes their alignments naturally follow from what those concepts are... and sometimes they don't. Nymphs could easily be switched to evil (especially in a world where they most closely resemble an evil race - elves). It's a little harder to switch, say, Redcaps to good. Honestly, this sort of thing is why, as far as I'm concerned, Fey shouldn't have had too much proclivity to good or evil to begin with. They do what they do, and don't really care about good or evil if it doesn't help or harm them personally.

If I were to base the decision of whether or not to switch them on their functional role in a D&D game, then I'd keep them all the same, because they usually fall into the omnipresent “random encounter monster” category - with the caveat that some of them are actually good rather than neutral or evil – which is unusual, I'll hardly complain about nymphs being Chaotic Good.

By the way, the 3.5 Monster Manual contains no evil-by-default Fey, interestingly enough.

Undead:
Undead are a problem for a very different reason – they're all evil, which I disagree with... but turning them all good makes even less sense, perhaps in part them all being evil makes no sense. From what I can tell, they're all evil because the writers say they are. In part, they're universally evil, even the mindless ones, because they “violate the natural order” but... if you'll forgive a bit of a tangent here, that perspective is typical of D&D in that the writers' interpretation of Good is more often skewed towards Law than Chaos. Saying “undead are unnatural and therefore evil and can never possibly be used for good” - that the ends never justify the means, essentially – is part of a belief system that's concerned with the morality of actions, rather than the morality of consequences, that views evil in terms of violating taboos. To be blunt, I believe that the canon view of undead is flawed, because it's not impartial. A Neutral Good perspective would be, perhaps, “Undead are dangerous and should be destroyed when encountered, and you should avoid raising them, but they can potentially be used for good in the right circumstances. Also, people aren't automatically evil for wanting to live beyond death, nor for wanting to serve the cause of good beyond death.” After all, the latter is basically what Deathless are, right?

To tie this back to the setting... saying “undead are always bad” is something that's easy to say when you have a secure position on the world. In this setting, good is not so well-entrenched, and I think the non-lawful forces of good might hold the perspective that surviving and advancing the cause of good is more important than abiding by the “natural order” - which is a concept of Law anyway. They don't like doing so, but desperate times call for desperate measures.

This may be a break from the usual “change only the morality” premise, but I feel it's a justified one. Another change that's less justifiable is the removing the axiom that undead are hostile and incompatable with life... but at least if that's changed, it's easier for Nerull to be good (see the “Gods” section).

Outsiders:
Unlike humanoids, many outsiders which are good or evil have those alignments because they are metaphysical embodiments of good or evil. For that reason, one might think they shouldn't be flipped, because being good or evil is integral to what they are. But I disagree. I think they should be flipped, because when the alignments of outsiders are flipped – and the alignments of the Outer Planes in general – then in a weird way it symbolizes what this setting is, where what good and evil mean are different despite good still being good and evil still being evil, if that makes sense. That, and not flipping them feels kind of odd, to be honest. And also, I've been flipping the alignments of angels and demons for years, so I like the idea anyway.

Anyway, the above applies most strongly to celestials and fiends, of course, but since the alignments of the planes themselves are shifting, any outsiders that are tied to those planes should flip as well (something jqavins mentioned earlier). Bobbyjackcorn proposed a good idea for Night Hags, and I see no reason why similar changes couldn't be done for other denizens of the Outer Planes.

The denizens of the inner planes could perhaps stay the same, although there's not a whole lot of good and evil in there anyway. The only ones that stand out to me are the Djinn and Efreet, and they have the same problem the True Dragons do – they're of opposite alignments yet they're really not that different.

The Planes:
This deserves a side-note. It was noted in the discussion that it was kind of odd to have good-aligned demons with powers of destruction, pestilence, etc. jqavins suggested that perhaps the outsiders are influenced by their home planes. As such, while the Abyss is a good-aligned plane, and home to the embodiments of Chaotic Good, it is still a fundamentally hostile place, and its inhabitants have been shaped by it.

Personally, I would go with the idea that, like in Christian theology, demons and devils were forced there by the angels. But rather than it becoming their prison, it became their refuge, and a source of strength. They survived everything the lower planes could throw at them and adapted, evolved, even taking some of the lower planes' powers as their own. Their situation is thus similar to the good mortal races who often have to live in hostile environments, and as such it sets up a theme for the setting itself – that evil may have the high ground, it may have the best lands to itself, and it may have forced good into hell itself... but good can take every hardship thrown at it and only grow stronger. In a system where heroes grow stronger through conquering challenges, I think it's fitting.

Gods:
You can make a strong case either for or against flipping the alignments of gods, on an individual basis no less. Gods fall into a number of different categories as I'll describe (using the 3rd Edition pantheon).“Racial” deities would by necessity need to be flipped along with the races they patronize. The exceptions are Bahamut and Tiamat, who might remain for reasons given above.

You also have pairs of gods who are essentially moral opposites of each other but are otherwise the same – Heironeous and Hextor, for instance. Kord and Erythnul are also in that boat, although there's also one notable difference – Kord represents physical perfection, Erythnul ugliness. Since a lot of the beautiful/handsome races are now evil, flipping them actually makes sense. Kord becomes a deity of vanity as well as physical domination, and Erythnul represents the idea that ugliness is not inherently evil (a prejudice that still exists in our society).

The real problem, though, are deities who represent specific concepts (like the Fey do). These are harder to flip around to good or evil, unlike, say, fiends and celestials who just generically represent one of the alignments. Canon Nerull, for instance, seeks the death of all life, and that's not really a concept you can keep while making him good. I think those deities, more than any other entity here except the Undead, will require a lot of liberties if they're going to be flipped.

Also, if any deity isn't flipped, they'll probably have to change residences, since their current abode will now be morally opposed to them. It's hardly fitting for Pelor to remain in now-Elysium if he's still good, after all... although I guess Elysium is more sunny than Hades.

...To be honest, you could also make a good case for just inventing a new pantheon, which might even be best for copyright reasons, I dunno.

[Bobbyjackcorn]

Meanwhile, I'm thinking of actually writing up a "Mirrors & Morality Handbook" (or something) that codifies my interpretation (based on some very good input in this thread) of what a D&D Mirror Universe would be like. Alternatively, I could start a thread, go through the 3.5 Monster Manual (or some other list of creatures) and write up what each are like, post by post, and presenting them for input.

I would love to read and contribute to something like that! We could potentially run something similar to the 3.5 forums' build competitions: one person acts as the "referee" with everyone sending their ideas in to that referee for a week/month/however-long-we-decide-to-make-it for review, then the referee posts them all unanimously and we all rate them, choosing the best one as our official canon for that monster.

[Dusk Raven]

Well, I've certainly been procrastinating on this. XP

I guess I'm not totally certain how to structure such a collaborative effort...