Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Lia The Sun Elf Wizard 02-22-08, 05:58 PM	Well, of course all demons are chaotic evil, BUT... Grazzt looks like lawful evil, he didn't kill Iggwilv, his three layers have a kind of order with merchants trading goodies, he has his chosen ones (the females he makes love with them and it looks like he doesn't kill them). Tell me why is he chaotic evil? I thought chaotic evil were creatures with no order at all, with the strongest ruling the weaks. By the way, i think Malchantet is also lawful evil. Anyone who is really a fiendish specialist tell me why these two are in the abyss and not in the nine hells? (please, don't answer like: because all succubi are chaotic evil. I want answers based on the layers they rule and their OWN UNIQUE story). I'd really appreciate :)
bobotheguy 02-22-08, 06:50 PM	Well, if you go by what you said, that choas was "strong rule the weak" think about Grazz'ts constant battles over the other Demonic Princes. Demogorgon, Orcus, Jubilex, and so on and so forth. While yes, it is weird that a chaotic evil being would have a somewhat "order" to his realms, you have to remember that chaotic evil does not imply stupidity. If you have some form of order, that welcomes and encouages Merchants, merchants provide wealth, wealth provides power, and the struggle for power is chaos. A reason why Grazz't would not be in the Nine Hells of Ba'ator, is simply because within the Layers, there is ENTIRELY order (or at least, the perverted evil view of it) While Yes, the Archdevils plot and scheme to gain power, they ultimately serve Asmodeus. Yes, the Archdevils did try to over throw Asmodeus, but during that stage, The Reckoning, Asmodeus proved he could take on EVERY devil. A Demon of Grazz'ts persona would not last long in this type of environment. His retinue of beautiful sex slaves are merely a showcase of his charm and power. The reason why Grazz't was freed by Zagyg, was because he agreed to remain imprisoned on his plane for a set time. No one knows if his imprisonment has elasped or not. Bobo
ArcTan 02-22-08, 07:45 PM	The real answer is that the definitions of Law and Chaos are pretty arbitrary and you can make them fit whatever the hell you want, so both the Archdevils and the Demon Princes run the gamut of personality types but people can come up with specious arguments for why one kind of sensual indulgence is "Chaotic" and the other kind is "Lawful".
ripvanwormer 02-22-08, 08:11 PM	he didn't kill Iggwilv Not for lack of trying. Graz'zt and Iggwilv dueled each other with the intent to kill as soon as Graz'zt managed to escape his bonds (because she was distracted by Tsojcanth's unexpected rebellion). It just so happened that Iggwilv managed to win, destroying Graz'zt's material form before Graz'zt could destroy her. Later on, when Graz'zt used an artifact to break Iggwilv's bonds after she foolishly attempted to summon him again, he was in a much better mood, and not blinded by desperate rage. What's more, he was well-prepared, at the height of his powers, and held all the cards. That time he dragged Iggwilv back to the Abyss with him, keeping her as a hostage to help ensure the good behavior of their half-fiendish son Iuz (though this was complicated by the fact that Iuz didn't trust Iggwilv either and didn't necessarily want to see her freed). Iggwilv was rescued by the nalfeshnee wizard Tuerny a few years later, and she's been free since. Graz'zt and Iggwilv seem to have reconciled to some extent, as Iggwilv now has a tower in Azzagrat which she is permitted to enter and leave at will. The lesson in this is that Graz'zt is an inconstant, emotional creature, prone to wild swings of mood, one moment deciding to kill, the next moment to forgive. He allows merchants some amount of safety in his realm because it is useful to him, but chaotic beings are certainly permitted to issue decrees, or there would be no chaotic rulers. The difference between a chaotic decree and the orderly rule of law is that there's no underlining legal theory or tradition governing what decrees a chaotic tyrant makes. He simply declares whatever arbitrary, mad proclamation he wishes. A lawful ruler is bound by tradition, by the consensus of his advisors, vassals, or people, or by a written constitution. Graz'zt telling his subjects what to do is no different from Demogorgon or Orcus telling their subjects what to do. Yes, the basis of their authority is that they are strong, and their subjects are weaker and frightened of the costs of being caught disobeying. If they don't think they will be caught, or if they think their master will be in a good enough mood to forgive them, they will do exactly as they will. Merchants who dare enter the Abyss should keep that in mind, even in Azzagrat. In fact, Graz'zt's writ of safety for merchants can be seen as a manifestation of his chaotic nature, since it is so at odds with Graz'zt's tendency to hunt and kill intruders of other types. And he can revoke it, make exceptions, or choose not to enforce it at any time, where a devil would be bound by his word and by whatever due process is the norm in Hell's twisted courts. A devil, on the other hand, has the laws and traditions of the Nine Hells as the basis of his or her authority. They do not have to rely on mere strength, and they cannot make exceptions to the letter of the law. Malcanthet, too, relies on her personal strength and power to give her authority as Queen of the Succubi, and it is only her personal power and the power of her lover Demogorgon that allows her to hold this title. The strength of her charisma and charm is just another kind of brute force, really; certainly, it has nothing to do with law. Demogorgon can rid himself of her the moment he tires of her, as he did her predecessor; they have no binding contract between them, and no binding contract is possible in the Abyss. Demons cannot be truly married. Graz'zt and Malcanthet both promote the wild, uncontrolled lustful urges within mortals. They are creatures of corrupt passion. The nature of a succubus is chaotic because succubi are beings of the id, creatures born of taboo and the violation and desecration of social norms. They use lust to undermine and destroy traditions and the stability of the family. Graz'zt is of a similar nature. Devils, on the other hand, are creatures of laws and pacts. They use Faustian contracts as their tools, and are as bound to their agreements as their mortal victims. If a devil uses lust as a tool, she uses it to tempt mortals into entering new bonds, not to dissolve them - they tempt into marriages of convenience with their mortal tools where demons seek only to shatter marriages and other social ties. They use lust as a carrot, where demons use lust as a stick. Devils use lust, in those few circumstances where they find it useful, to forge new chains, while demons use lust to break the ties that bind and to shatter souls and psyches. If Iggwilv had summoned a devil, things would have gone far differently. A devil wouldn't have attempted to kill her as soon as she was distracted, as Graz'zt did, but instead would have continued to fulfill the contract she signed. A devil wouldn't have been able to capture her and drag her off to his plane, either, unless she had agreed to this in the fine print. The difference between evil law and evil chaos is clear.
Lia The Sun Elf Wizard 02-22-08, 08:19 PM	Ok, so we can conclude that even chaotic beings are capable of some order, at least for just brief periods. And second, is there any novel which explain this duel (graz'zt and iggwilv)?
ripvanwormer 02-22-08, 08:37 PM	Chaotic beings are capable of ordering their subordinates around, anyway, though rule by the whims of a mad tyrant feels pretty different from the rule of law. Graz'zt and Iggwilv both appear in Gary Gygax's novels Artifact of Evil, Sea of Death, Come Endless Darkness, and Dance of Demons, but they take place long after the duel in question. In those books, Graz'zt and Iggwilv are fierce rivals, separately pursuing the keys to Tharizdun's prison for reasons of their own. The duel is, however, described in a variety of sources, most recently and in the most detail in Ari Marmell's "Iggwilv's Legacy: The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth," available online: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/duad/20071012
Count Arioch the 28th 02-23-08, 01:12 AM	The real answer is that the definitions of Law and Chaos are pretty arbitrary and you can make them fit whatever the hell you want, so both the Archdevils and the Demon Princes run the gamut of personality types but people can come up with specious arguments for why one kind of sensual indulgence is "Chaotic" and the other kind is "Lawful". We have the correct answer here. In fact, I was only in this thread to say this exact same thing.
Naderion 02-23-08, 04:40 PM	Well, of course all demons are chaotic evil, BUT... Grazzt looks like lawful evil, he didn't kill Iggwilv, his three layers have a kind of order with merchants trading goodies, he has his chosen ones (the females he makes love with them and it looks like he doesn't kill them). Tell me why is he chaotic evil? I thought chaotic evil were creatures with no order at all, with the strongest ruling the weaks. By the way, i think Malchantet is also lawful evil. Anyone who is really a fiendish specialist tell me why these two are in the abyss and not in the nine hells? (please, don't answer like: because all succubi are chaotic evil. I want answers based on the layers they rule and their OWN UNIQUE story). I'd really appreciate :) Chaotic Evil doesn't have to be chaotic stupid.
Urithair 02-27-08, 07:15 PM	If Chaos is always Chaotic then it has become predictable, which is another step towards becoming Lawful, which Chaos doesn't want, so Chaos becomes Lawful to prevent itself from becoming Lawful. Of course, part of Chaos really wants to be Lawful, so it is acting Lawful to be Lawful. Then there is the part of Chaos that is Lawful but still acts Chaotic. This is in no way contradictory (or rather, so is everything else about Chaos so it doesn't matter). If you don't believe me just accept the Slaadi explanation: "One of the aspects of Chaos is paradox because it does not play by any rules, even its own." (Thought I was going to say something like 'pink pancakes' didn't you? That would be typical and expected, and hence not Chaotic)
Isendir 02-27-08, 07:17 PM	If Chaos is always Chaotic then it has become predictable, which is another step towards becoming Lawful, which Chaos doesn't want, so Chaos becomes Lawful to prevent itself from becoming Lawful. Of course, part of Chaos really wants to be Lawful, so it is acting Lawful to be Lawful. Then there is the part of Chaos that is Lawful but still acts Chaotic. This is in no way contradictory (or rather, so is everything else about Chaos so it doesn't matter). If you don't believe me just accept the Slaadi explanation: "One of the aspects of Chaos is paradox because it does not play by any rules, even its own." (Thought I was going to say something like 'pink pancakes' didn't you? That would be typical and expected, and hence not Chaotic) :confused: huh?:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
Urithair 02-27-08, 07:23 PM	:confused: huh?:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: Confused by Chaos? What else did you expect?
CryoSilver 02-27-08, 07:34 PM	If Chaos is always Chaotic then it has become predictable ... If you don't believe me just accept the Slaadi explanation: "One of the aspects of Chaos is paradox because it does not play by any rules, even its own." (snipped for neatness, not dismissively) I agree, yet disagree. Limbo is entirely random, presuming the lack of a strong will imposed on it. Does that make it lawful, because you can predict that you can't predict it? That's just dumb, in my opinion. That's like saying you've solved a problem by admitting that you can't solve it. If Chaos is always Chaotic, then it's Chaos. To say otherwise is to say that Good is Evil because it is intolerant of Evil. I, for my campaign setting, threw out most everything written about Demons and Devils, with the exception of the Blood War. In my campaign world, the demons are really chaotic evil; they exist solely to spread carnage and madness throughout the planes.
Urithair 02-27-08, 07:48 PM	I'm just playing around, ArcTan has the right idea.
ArcTan 02-28-08, 02:01 AM	If Chaos is always Chaotic, then it's Chaos. To say otherwise is to say that Good is Evil because it is intolerant of Evil. The latter paradox actually would work if the plane wasn't called "Good" but called "Tolerant". FWIW, I get what you mean, but it still doesn't work. Chaotic Outsiders in D&D *are* predictable. You *can* predict what they'll do. If you couldn't, they would be pointless enemies (50% of the time they would do something that harmed their power base instead of expanding it).
RtrnofdMax 02-28-08, 03:26 PM	All the good ones are... (Sorry, couldn't help myself)
Naderion 02-29-08, 04:17 AM	It may sound paradox, but this paradox does exist in the real world (and isn't really that strange). Look at real world science like physics, chemistry, or statistics. Complete randomness is the most precise means to archieve overall order. The individual part will behave chaotic, but as a mass, all the individual parts will form a collective order much closer to perfection that any "planed" order will ever archieve. So yes, you could argue that all demons together behave very predictable and orderly, but he individuals can still be chaotic.
Flame_Drake 03-02-08, 01:52 AM	It may sound paradox, but this paradox does exist in the real world (and isn't really that strange). Look at real world science like physics, chemistry, or statistics. Complete randomness is the most precise means to archieve overall order. The individual part will behave chaotic, but as a mass, all the individual parts will form a collective order much closer to perfection that any "planed" order will ever archieve. So yes, you could argue that all demons together behave very predictable and orderly, but he individuals can still be chaotic. Oh, I like that idea, I'm going to need to work that into a campaign. Drake
ArcTan 03-02-08, 08:57 PM	It may sound paradox, but this paradox does exist in the real world (and isn't really that strange). Look at real world science like physics, chemistry, or statistics. Complete randomness is the most precise means to archieve overall order. The individual part will behave chaotic, but as a mass, all the individual parts will form a collective order much closer to perfection that any "planed" order will ever archieve. So yes, you could argue that all demons together behave very predictable and orderly, but he individuals can still be chaotic. This concept -- the idea of emergence -- is why even as a fundamental "primal" sort of cosmic concept, Law and Chaos don't really make sense. (Indeed, Moorcock's Eternal Champion series basically eventually says this -- Law and Chaos are arbitrary and bigoted distinctions created by the Lords of each side to perpetuate their senseless and destructive war, and the Lords of each side turn out to be the *same*.)
Kain_Darkwind 03-03-08, 11:36 AM	Law and Chaos as DnD has envisioned them are ethical concepts, not related to the 'laws of physics' in any fashion. While the terms can be applied to both, they have different meanings and different applications. Which is why demons and slaad can be totally chaotic but still have a singular form, never act lawful, etc etc.
setekh 03-03-08, 08:25 PM	Law emerges from Chaos. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence)
ArcTan 03-04-08, 02:03 AM	Law and Chaos as DnD has envisioned them are ethical concepts, not related to the 'laws of physics' in any fashion. The whole deal with the morphic nature of Limbo and various "axiomatic" vs. "anarchic" spells begs to differ.
Kain_Darkwind 03-04-08, 04:06 AM	The whole deal with the morphic nature of Limbo A plane of belief, not physics. and various "axiomatic" vs. "anarchic" spells begs to differ. And I beg to be illuminated. What spells are you talking about? I didn't notice fly to have the chaotic descriptor.
ArcTan 03-05-08, 04:44 AM	A plane of belief, not physics. This is a convenient phrase that people like to toss around to justify certain inconsistencies even though it doesn't mean anything. Limbo is clearly a real, physical place. You can go there. You can stand in it. Chaos is therefore a real, physical thing in D&D. It can't be a "metaphor" or an "imaginary" place if its existence pre-dates the Prime Material and therefore there were no "physical" people to imagine it was there when it came into being. Even if it is a metaphor, it's a metaphor that's saying the best metaphor for Chaos is a place where everything changes all the time and is unpredictable. Therefore if Demons don't change all the time and are unpredictable -- in their *behavior*, if not their form -- that is, yes, an inconsistency. (Now it's your turn to say that the fact that I point out this obvious fact just shows I have a childish and simplistic view of things without actually providing the larger, more complex understanding of "consistency" that would actually disprove my point.) And I beg to be illuminated. What spells are you talking about? I didn't notice fly to have the chaotic descriptor. Later ones from the Spell Compendium, like a [Lawful] spell that makes all die rolls average out or a [Chaotic] spell that randomly increases or decreases die rolls.
Kain_Darkwind 03-05-08, 11:10 AM	This is a convenient phrase that people like to toss around to justify certain inconsistencies even though it doesn't mean anything. Limbo is clearly a real, physical place. You can go there. You can stand in it. Chaos is therefore a real, physical thing in D&D. It can't be a "metaphor" or an "imaginary" place if its existence pre-dates the Prime Material and therefore there were no "physical" people to imagine it was there when it came into being. Even if it is a metaphor, it's a metaphor that's saying the best metaphor for Chaos is a place where everything changes all the time and is unpredictable. Therefore if Demons don't change all the time and are unpredictable -- in their *behavior*, if not their form -- that is, yes, an inconsistency. (Now it's your turn to say that the fact that I point out this obvious fact just shows I have a childish and simplistic view of things without actually providing the larger, more complex understanding of "consistency" that would actually disprove my point.) The plane is shaped by belief, unless you aren't using the default setting, in which case we are arguing over your homebrew, surely an exercise in futility. Allow me to quote. "The outer Planes are the direction, thought and purpose for such construction" (That of the multiverse) Also, the outer planes are divinely morphic (Limbo being more morphic than others, but morphed with a Wisdom check, the same ability score tied to divine (aka belief based) spellcasting) So, no it is a metaphysical place, not a physical one. You can't fly a spaceship to Limbo. You can't get so tall your head bumps into Limbo. The only way to reach it is via magic that accesses other planes of reality. And more to the point, even if Limbo changes constantly, it is Chaotic Neutrality, not Chaotic Evil. The Abyss, rather than being in constant flux like Limbo, is home to a multitude of different forms, features and places. Thus if demons were to mimic this in consistency, they would have a variety of forms themselves, being very individualized. Which they are. Furthermore, a demon's behavior (if being played as a true exemplar of chaos) is going to reflect an individualistic nature that relies on its own judgments, preferences and whims rather than on some ideal that it is beholden to. You can predict that a demon will do what it wants to do. You can't predict what a demon wants to do though. Later ones from the Spell Compendium, like a [Lawful] spell that makes all die rolls average out or a [Chaotic] spell that randomly increases or decreases die rolls. Do they have names? Although I'm unsure what changing die rolls have to do with ignoring the laws of physics.
For_Mandalore 03-05-08, 01:38 PM	Just thought I'd toss this in, since you happen to be currently discussing chaotic and lawful spells in the sense of chaotic spells messing with the laws of physics. A vast majority of the spells that I have seen, even just in the PH, violate the laws of physics without having the chaotic descriptor. Take the polymorph spell for example; it does not possess the chaotic descriptor yet it allows a character to assume an entirely different shape, changing its mass and even absorbing worn items. If this spell doesn't violate the laws of physics enough for you, there is a more obvious one: wish. With wish, a PC could potentially and easily create a great amount of, oh let's say, barstools. Where did these barstools come from? They did not exist before and clearly are an example of creating new matter. In D&D, we have a host of abilities and properties that subvert, suppress, and otherwise fool around with the laws of physics. We call these collective things magic.
Lincoln Hills 03-05-08, 07:48 PM	Back to "Why do certain demon lords act Lawful?" These two demon lords do enforce order in their domains and among their minions. And why not? Graz'zt doesn't believe in rules for himself... but he does believe in rules for his followers. Forcing demons to obey the rules shows just how powerful he is. And, as a bonus, it offends them and makes them miserable. And making other creatures miserable is the whole point of being a demon. That said, Graz'zt (or any other demon) doesn't use any sort of Lawful principles in determining his own decisions. "Ethics" and "rules" are meaningless noises by his standards - his whim, and his physical limitations, are the only rules that matter. Holding his followers to standards he won't follow himself is hypocritical, but you know what? He can live with that. I disagree with Arioch XXVIII and ArcTan. "Chaos" is not a null-sound. "Law" is not meaningless. However, I'd agree that an empirical definition of either has defied philosophers for centuries, so we're unlikely to settle it on a message board. ;)
ArcTan 03-05-08, 09:11 PM	Philosophers haven't actually been trying to empirically define them for centuries, which is part of why it's pointless. It's not actually an important philosophical concept for anyone not part of a certain subset of fantasy fandom.
Kain_Darkwind 03-05-08, 09:44 PM	Philosophers haven't actually been trying to empirically define them for centuries, which is part of why it's pointless. It's not actually an important philosophical concept for anyone not part of a certain subset of fantasy fandom. As proof the world is coming to an end, I agree with most of what ArcTan has said here. Except the pointless part, it does have a point to those part of the certain subset of fantasy fandom that he mentions.
Olween 03-05-08, 11:56 PM	For me; Lawful should be defined as: the obedience to a code of conduct above individual will. Chaotic, being the opposite, could be defined, as I see it, as 'folowing ones will and decision above a code', in other word, the exact opposite to lawful. Of course, depending if you are good or evil, your will and decision will tend to sacrifice yourself to the greater good or sacrifice the greater good for yourself... Anyway, in this view of 'chaotic', a chaotic character can follow the laws, not for their own sake like a lawful would, but because it serve his objective. A choaitc good character will tend to follow the law of a city, for example, because he does not want to have to fight and hurt good or innocent guards. Likewise, a lawful evil character can follow the laws if they serve his objectives, to avoid getting into unecessary troubles for example, or because the laws are useful to him (help attracting merchants that make him more powerful). The main difference between chaotic and lawful will arise when the laws opposing the objective of the characters, a lawful character will tend to follow them, at least until he can modify them, while a chaotic one will discard them without hesitation. Also, I guess one can imagine the existence of chaotic characters whose objective is chaos itself. In this case, using laws but for the shortest time would be antinomic with their objectives, and they will appear to be truly chaotic...
Lia The Sun Elf Wizard 03-06-08, 12:56 AM	OK... now i'll make things even harder. Is it possible to a demon or devil true love a mortal? True love is a good act. But even good people make some evil acts (though it's rare) and vice-versa.
Awesome_Dude 03-06-08, 09:28 AM	OK... now i'll make things even harder. Is it possible to a demon or devil true love a mortal? True love is a good act. But even good people make some evil acts (though it's rare) and vice-versa. Well, you're wrong about true love being inherently Good, and fiends can indeed love. It's just sort of twisted (mostly just really, really jealous).
For_Mandalore 03-06-08, 10:05 AM	On the whole, I'd say that true love is impossible for a demon or devil that hasn't been subjected to a sanctify the wicked spell. Fiends tend to view things in terms of power. Get power, retain power, decrease the power of others. I will grant that a mortal could probably fall in love with a fiend, though the fiend would be stringing them along and manipulating their feelings.
Kain_Darkwind 03-06-08, 10:30 AM	OK... now i'll make things even harder. Is it possible to a demon or devil true love a mortal? True love is a good act. But even good people make some evil acts (though it's rare) and vice-versa. True love isn't a good act or feeling or anything. It is neutral. Fiends can love, although it often comes out rather weird...like murdering people who offend their lover, etc. And evil people can love even easier than fiends. Nothing about the evil alignment stops one from having things that they care about even more than their own selves.
Mortavier Shadewalk 03-06-08, 01:05 PM	True love isn't a good act or feeling or anything. It is neutral. Fiends can love, although it often comes out rather weird...like murdering people who offend their lover, etc. And evil people can love even easier than fiends. Nothing about the evil alignment stops one from having things that they care about even more than their own selves. I agree. Love in D&D wouldn't fall under "Good" so much as simply being non-selfish. It can even be selfish depending on what they get out of it, although I don't think that it would really be "true" love then.
Nirid 03-06-08, 02:23 PM	I don't know. Depends on what you want to call true love. I'd say 100% pure, selfless love is good. Because in the end that's what D&D basically says good is. Putting someone else's needs and wants before your own. Now it is also completely possible to truly love someone and be possessive, selfish, or greedy about it. If it's selfless love you would act in the manner most consistent with the other person's desire. You wouldn't be a slave, but unless they shared similar outlooks you may end either changing your own beliefs or driving them away with your actions. That of course would lead to the other type of love. The "they are YOURS and no one else's" kind of love. That is where we get into the creepy stalker/kidnapper type situations which would really lend themselves to fiendish behavior. Much like real life examples, fiends would probably have a hard time accepting, or even understanding, the fact that some people don't appreciate that type of attention.
malignor 03-06-08, 03:10 PM	Well, of course all demons are chaotic evil, BUT... Grazzt looks like lawful evil, he didn't kill Iggwilv, his three layers have a kind of order with merchants trading goodies, he has his chosen ones (the females he makes love with them and it looks like he doesn't kill them). Tell me why is he chaotic evil? I thought chaotic evil were creatures with no order at all, with the strongest ruling the weaks. By the way, i think Malchantet is also lawful evil. Anyone who is really a fiendish specialist tell me why these two are in the abyss and not in the nine hells? (please, don't answer like: because all succubi are chaotic evil. I want answers based on the layers they rule and their OWN UNIQUE story). I'd really appreciate :)Personally, I think you should read the Elric of Melnebone series. The Melnebonians were an entire race worshipping and advocating chaos, but they were still organized enough to build kingdoms, train dragons and so on. The big thing about Chaos isn't just chaos for its own sake. It's about freedom. An embodiment of chaotic evil (read: demon) is simply all about freedom and malice. This includes greed, lust and vanity, and the freedom to satisfy these at the expense of others by whatever means available. That said, a ruler's greed can certainly be satisfied by attracting a good economy, and that requires some stability... in the Abyss, stability in the form of slaughtering, charming, or outsmarting all enemies, and having an unapproachable reputation... in short "nobody wants to f*** with Grazz't", so when Grazz't wants merchants, they come. When Grazz't wants peace (likely with assassinations, manipulation, lies, cruelty and con artistry of all manner under the facade) he gets it by hook or by crook, not by vows or rules. Fear, lies and charm are his means. A sort of stable world is sculpted by it, but it is nevertheless evil and chaotic. Grazz't: "Do as you will. Buy, sell, seduce, lie, manipulate. Rip off and play confidence games to your heart's content. Even kill if you wish, but do it quietly and in the darker corners. But don't mess up my house or my hand will reach out and crush you like a ripe fruit." Likely the most powerful beings in the plane are consumed with either terror, lust or admiration of Grazz't. As such, when the toughest guys around are willingly Grazz't's toys, the result looks like "order", but it's more of a pecking order than a designed social structure. When a pack of Vrocks show up to wreak havoc (as is their nature) something likely shows up and either slaughters them outright, or seduces them into non-violence, or beats them into submission.
ArcTan 03-06-08, 03:34 PM	The Eternal Champion series of which the Elric of Melnibone series is a subset eventually points out that Law and Chaos are two sides of the same coin -- that, fundamentally, the split between them is a lie. Also, the main problem with importing the Law/Chaos from Elric or from Three Hearts for Three Lions wholesale is that in those series, it's not really distinguishable from Good/Evil. For most of the Elric series "Good" is Law and "Evil" is Chaos, and only in the more high-minded Eternal Champion books do we find examples of how the opposite can apply.
Kain_Darkwind 03-06-08, 04:57 PM	I don't know. Depends on what you want to call true love. I'd say 100% pure, selfless love is good. Because in the end that's what D&D basically says good is. Putting someone else's needs and wants before your own. Now it is also completely possible to truly love someone and be possessive, selfish, or greedy about it. If it's selfless love you would act in the manner most consistent with the other person's desire. You wouldn't be a slave, but unless they shared similar outlooks you may end either changing your own beliefs or driving them away with your actions. That of course would lead to the other type of love. The "they are YOURS and no one else's" kind of love. That is where we get into the creepy stalker/kidnapper type situations which would really lend themselves to fiendish behavior. Much like real life examples, fiends would probably have a hard time accepting, or even understanding, the fact that some people don't appreciate that type of attention. But alignment doesn't describe how you act and feel towards one person. Rather it suggests an outlook on life. Someone "truly in love" isn't going to be more or less likely to lie, murder, give to charity, conform, rebel, worship a particular deity or demon, etc. All of the positive things in real life are not 'Good aligned' by DnD definitions.
Nirid 03-07-08, 01:24 AM	But alignment doesn't describe how you act and feel towards one person. Rather it suggests an outlook on life. Someone "truly in love" isn't going to be more or less likely to lie, murder, give to charity, conform, rebel, worship a particular deity or demon, etc. All of the positive things in real life are not 'Good aligned' by DnD definitions. Maybe, maybe not. But being unselfish and caring are good by D&D standards. I didn't say that selfless love could only be felt by non-evil characters, I said that it was a good thing in it's own right. Much like you point out, a creature's alignment is a reflection of it's general life outlook. It can do some things that are contrary to it's alignment, but doing them often or in great number may cause an alignment shift. That is why I said that unless the person you loved selflessly had similar mindset you may change alignment. If you are demon and you love a LG cleric selflessly (extreme but bear with me) and you wanted to act in a way that made the cleric happy, how long could you do that without actually changing the way you think yourself? I imagine a fiend could do it for a longer time then a person since it is a part of their fundamental nature. However, given time I imagine a shift to at least neutral would happen.
Lia The Sun Elf Wizard 03-07-08, 12:53 PM	But devils and demons can change alignment? In monster manual it states ALWAYS lawful evil (baatezu) and ALWAYS chaotic evil (tanar'ri). In fiendish codex II says if you make a pact with a devil you can't change your alignment anymore. So.. if mortals can't change alignment when they make a pact like that. Imagine fiends who are born in hell or abyss...
Kain_Darkwind 03-07-08, 01:23 PM	But devils and demons can change alignment? In monster manual it states ALWAYS lawful evil (baatezu) and ALWAYS chaotic evil (tanar'ri). In fiendish codex II says if you make a pact with a devil you can't change your alignment anymore. So.. if mortals can't change alignment when they make a pact like that. Imagine fiends who are born in hell or abyss... There are examples of non-evil fiends in Dungeons and Dragons. Red Shroud's daughter Fall-from-Grace is a non-evil succubus. In Paul Kidd's Justicar series, there was a marilith who turned from evil. The 'always' alignment means that exceptions are rare to the point of being practically unique. I believe the rate was one in a million or billion.
Bruunwald 03-07-08, 03:17 PM	If Chaos is always Chaotic then it has become predictable... Ah, but the fact of unpredictability itself, while predictable and observable as an attribute of a being, culture, or force of nature, does not preclude true chaos on the level of the individual being. That is to say, that one can observe that if a being's essential nature is chaos, it is predictable that the being in question will act in a chaotic way. However, the manner in which the chaotic behavior will manifest itself will remain unpredictable (chaotic). To turn it the other way (for inspection of its undercarriage), I can watch a room full of fiendish monkeys thrash things, build things, break them, slap each other, dance like idiots, get naked, eat, cry, scream, climb the walls, grow wings and swim in urine all day long, and it's a pretty sure bet I can lay money on the good odds that the next thing one of them does will be a chaotic act. That doesn't mean I could have predicted that one of them would shove a dead fish up a red camel's keister.
CryoSilver 03-07-08, 06:25 PM	There are examples of non-evil fiends in Dungeons and Dragons. Red Shroud's daughter Fall-from-Grace is a non-evil succubus. In Paul Kidd's Justicar series, there was a marilith who turned from evil. The 'always' alignment means that exceptions are rare to the point of being practically unique. I believe the rate was one in a million or billion. And since this is the same universe as Drizzt and pals, "one in a billion" means "one in three, or possibly even two, in fact, there's really only five or six actually evil demons, and you can be sure that if he's got a name and isn't a demon prince, he'll soon be a good guy"
Kain_Darkwind 03-09-08, 02:47 PM	And since this is the same universe as Drizzt and pals, "one in a billion" means "one in three, or possibly even two, in fact, there's really only five or six actually evil demons, and you can be sure that if he's got a name and isn't a demon prince, he'll soon be a good guy" I don't follow. Drizzt and pals don't seem to hang out in the company of any good "always evil" creatures.
CryoSilver 03-09-08, 03:37 PM	I was referring to the trend of books to be written about the seemingly countless "exceptions" to the one in a million rule, not any even in particular (never read the Drizzt books).
ArcTan 03-09-08, 08:47 PM	D&D treats exceptions to the Always Evil alignment as very rare. Even in the novels I doubt you could point me out a single example of a Good-aligned Death Knight or Vampire or Lich, for instance, or any Angels, Demons, Devils, Archons, etc. who break their alignments. Drizzt doesn't count. He's just "Usually Neutral Evil", and the point of Usually Evil is that there can be and are exceptions, because those races are Evil due to culture rather than essence. It's no different from having a regular Elf who happens to be Lawful Evil.
Awesome_Dude 03-10-08, 12:52 AM	Drizzt doesn't count. He's just "Usually Neutral Evil", and the point of Usually Evil is that there can be and are exceptions, because those races are Evil due to culture rather than essence. It's no different from having a regular Elf who happens to be Lawful Evil. Isn't it? Drow of the Underdark explains that not all Drow are Neutral Evil; some are Lawful Evil and others are Chaotic Evil. It also suggests that the Drow's Evil is likely hereditary. So from that I'd guess that yes, Drizzt does count.
Kain_Darkwind 03-10-08, 01:25 AM	Isn't it? Drow of the Underdark explains that not all Drow are Neutral Evil; some are Lawful Evil and others are Chaotic Evil. It also suggests that the Drow's Evil is likely hereditary. So from that I'd guess that yes, Drizzt does count. You'd be guessing wrong. As the entire population of good-aligned Eliastree worshiping drow in the Forgotten Realms would show. Drow are humanoids, not bound to any alignment and not listed as 'always evil'. DotU doesn't say they are always evil either.
Awesome_Dude 03-10-08, 08:05 AM	You'd be guessing wrong. As the entire population of good-aligned Eliastree worshiping drow in the Forgotten Realms would show. Oh ****! I forgot that's where the novels take place. (And it's not a small thing to forget either) Drow are humanoids, not bound to any alignment and not listed as 'always evil'. DotU doesn't say they are always evil either. It basically does, yeah. Throughout the entire book, Drow as an entire race is described as wholly Evil, and a sidebar on page 10 which talks about their alignment, only talks about variation on the Law-Chaos axis. Further, under the article on page 15 titled "Instinctive or Cultural?" it tells us that the consensus is that the Drow's Evil is genetic in nature, what with them being basically the children of a Demon Queen.
Kain_Darkwind 03-10-08, 11:14 AM	Oh ****! I forgot that's where the novels take place. (And it's not a small thing to forget either) :mymy: Are you serious? It basically does, yeah. Throughout the entire book, Drow as an entire race is described as wholly Evil, and a sidebar on page 10 which talks about their alignment, only talks about variation on the Law-Chaos axis. Further, under the article on page 15 titled "Instinctive or Cultural?" it tells us that the consensus is that the Drow's Evil is genetic in nature, what with them being basically the children of a Demon Queen. A paragraph was given to both viewpoints and no conclusive answer was given. It states that only a minority believe the cultural, but with no way to test the hypothesis... I just dislike the idea of any living creature other than undead and outsiders having an alignment of 'always'. It doesn't make sense that a creature with free will is bound to an alignment. Furthering the thought, both Forgotten Realms and Eberron don't hold drow to 'always evil', so how can one suggest that 'standard' drow are? The only two supported campaign settings say they aren't.
Awesome_Dude 03-10-08, 11:50 AM	:mymy: Are you serious? Yeah. It's the first time I've failed in a long while so I was quite a bit overdue. I'm laughing, actually. Failing like this is ridiculous. A paragraph was given to both viewpoints and no conclusive answer was given. It states that only a minority believe the cultural, but with no way to test the hypothesis... Maybe so, but you can't disregard their demonic ties which exist on a genetic level. Remove the cultural influence and I'd bet you the Drow would still have that spark of asshattery. However, since we can't actually resolve the bet, we'll just have to make do with a long session of smack-talk. I just dislike the idea of any living creature other than undead and outsiders having an alignment of 'always'. It doesn't make sense that a creature with free will is bound to an alignment. So do I, except replace 'undead' with 'chromatic dragons'. However, I feel that Drow are an acceptable exception. Furthering the thought, both Forgotten Realms and Eberron don't hold drow to 'always evil', so how can one suggest that 'standard' drow are? The only two supported campaign settings say they aren't. That's why we should stick to non-campaign setting specific. The Forgotten Realms and Eberron contradict each other a lot. They also both contradict Core (and DotU, which has declared itself the definitive (non-setting specific) source on Drow, IIRC) because of their reinvention of some of the fluff.
Isendir 03-12-08, 06:10 PM	I thought this was about demons that are/aren't....., but know its about the alignment of some drow......:thinks:
Count Arioch the 28th 03-15-08, 01:03 AM	It's arguable whether demons and devils can love someone. "Love" is simply a chemical reaction in your brain that naturally fades away after a few months. For the sake of this argument, we'll drop the weepy bullcrap about love being some sort of mystical wonderful force and just treat it as an extension to the mating instinct. It's arguable that demons and devils might not have the same mental processes. If their brains work differently than the brains of humans do, it's entirely possible that they are incapable of feeling love. It's regardless of alignment, it's simply biology. (It's even arguable whether devils have brains at all, according to FC2, their body cavities are filled with a squamous material consisting of fetal devils, when they are promoted or demoted the fetus gestates and takes over the form of the previous one. In my game, they just don't experience emotions like humans do but that's a personal ruling.)
Thanael 03-17-08, 01:42 PM	Well perhaps then it's better if we'll not drop the weepy bullcrap and acknowledge that in a world where demons spring from planes of incarnate belief and alignment, love might very well be some sort of mystical force, even more obscure than the myriad other mystical forces, like say magic.
Mortavier Shadewalk 03-17-08, 02:20 PM	(It's even arguable whether devils have brains at all, according to FC2, their body cavities are filled with a squamous material consisting of fetal devils, when they are promoted or demoted the fetus gestates and takes over the form of the previous one. I hated this idea. Thanael has the right of it in my opinion. The planes are formed of incarnate belief. Even if emotions in D&D were simply manipulations of the brain, the fact that they feel anything at all means that a brain isn't what causes devils and demons to feel. Most outsiders are, if not manifestations of the plane itself, then mortals that have taken on that form after death. Remembering feelings from a past life is something that is quite possible in the abyss, even if immensly unlikely for the latter kind. I still argue that love is neither good nor evil. Two demons could feel real love for each other (as unlikely as that may be) and still be just a evil as before. The fact that that evil doesn't extend to one being doesn't diminish their vile nature in any way.
mrcockatoo 03-18-08, 10:18 AM	OK... now i'll make things even harder. Is it possible to a demon or devil true love a mortal? True love is a good act. But even good people make some evil acts (though it's rare) and vice-versa. Yes, my Monk 6 Warlock 6 was Lawful Good, and fell in love with a erineys, take into consideration he was a worshipper of a Solar, cannot remember his name... ^_^ Oh well, back to the story. Well she turned out to become lawful good to, read the description of Always under alignment from the monster manual. "Always: The creature is born with the indicated alignment. The creature may have a hereditary predisposition to the alignment or come from a plane that predetermines it. It is possible for individuals to change alignment, but such individuals are either unique or rare exceptions." MM p. 305 Also read what happens to those who say in Elysium for to long. Thats how she became Lawful Good acuately.
sciborg3 03-19-08, 08:54 AM	I think demons can exhibit lawful traits for the same reason that Fierna can have mercurial emotions or perhaps more importantly that devils can exhibit "chaotic" traits such as innovation and emotion. Fiends can fall in love according to past lore (perhaps present, I haven't read through all of FC2). I think it's fun to think about the distinction between order and chaos, it fits more with theology than philosophy as it was something ancient peoples incorporated into mythology. I wouldn't try basing a moral system around it, though I would say that many religions have preached lawfulness over what we might consider good in the modern day. Faiths today, though still encouraging this lawful nature seem to emphasize good acts (charity, forgiveness, etc) though its open to debate I suppose....but any discussion about that is likely to go against the CoC so I'll stop here. :)
Awesome_Dude 03-19-08, 10:32 PM	I think demons can exhibit lawful traits for the same reason that Fierna can have mercurial emotions That's because she's a woman. That's how they are generally pictured, capable as some may very well be in a position of authority. It's not my fault, by the way. ... such as innovation ... Innovation is a direct consequence of someone's mental capabilities. and emotion. But emotion is a requirement for being able to do and react to anything. Fiends can fall in love according to past lore (perhaps present, I haven't read through all of FC2). They don't answer the question to my recollection. I admit that I could be wrong, but I'm too lazy to check. I think it's fun to think about the distinction between order and chaos, it fits more with theology than philosophy as it was something ancient peoples incorporated into mythology. I wouldn't try basing a moral system around it, though I would say that many religions have preached lawfulness over what we might consider good in the modern day. Faiths today, though still encouraging this lawful nature seem to emphasize good acts (charity, forgiveness, etc) though its open to debate I suppose....but any discussion about that is likely to go against the CoC so I'll stop here. :) If you ask me, it's about stereotypes more than anything. The more you fit into one of the two opposing stereotypes the more you lean towards it. Somewhere in the middle is the guy who can't bring himself to give a crap, or at least not enough to be either Lawful or Chaotic. So the axis is actually numerous axes glued together and forced into a paralleled position with one another and then glued on the Good-Evil axis perpendicularly. On one hand you have the authoritarian types, people who don't like change, whatever, and on the other, anarchists, people who like to stick it to the man, etc. Then there's my interpretation: Zaphkiel, Primus and Asmodeus are the three primary authorities in D&D. They own everything, or so they say. Their word (or the Pact Primeval) is Law. Extending out from them is their hierarchy of creatures that agree with them (that is, every Lawful creature implicitly agrees with them because they own the Lawful portion of alignment; if you disagree with them, you don't get the title of 'Lawful'). Neutral creatures vary in their opinions of them, but Chaotic ones universally dislike them, possibly out of jealousy. That, at least, would symbolize the whole "Chaos spawns order" theory, in that if Chaotic entities managed to topple Lawful rulers, they themselves would become the new Law whereas new resistances would form. It makes the multiverse sound deliciously contradictory in its depiction of violent anarchy yet with a ruling class that polices the masses. And it agrees with Moorcock's assessment that they are in fact only two sides of the same coin.
sciborg3 03-20-08, 12:05 PM	But Fierna isn't a woman - she's a planar lord aka a goddess of Hell/devils in a sense. After all, in many cases worshippers of powerful female goddesses never seemed to have a problem with rampant sexism in history. The contradictory definitions of Law/Chaos don't bother me because they had spice to planar culture. I like to think the Outer Planes is more about the argument and interpretations of beliefs - hence my love of the factions and the idea that parts of the Outer Planes shift over to each other depending on concentrations of belief. Perhaps the Geh...Gelher....er...Demodands believed in the reconciliation of Order and Chaos, but were usurped by the Yugoloths who represent conflict between the two. And so the Blood War was engendered by those wicked(er) fiends.
ArcTan 03-20-08, 08:36 PM	It's arguable whether demons and devils can love someone. "Love" is simply a chemical reaction in your brain that naturally fades away after a few months. For the sake of this argument, we'll drop the weepy bullcrap about love being some sort of mystical wonderful force and just treat it as an extension to the mating instinct. "Love" =/= "romantic love" or "sexual love". Eros may be based on the "mating instinct", but you have a hard argument to make if you claim philia or agape are -- and whatever instincts those *are* based on (reciprocal altruism, kin selection, etc.) they're ones that don't fade nearly as quickly as the mating instinct, and are far more universally applicable.
Awesome_Dude 03-21-08, 02:21 AM	But Fierna isn't a woman - she's a planar lord aka a goddess of Hell/devils in a sense. After all, in many cases worshippers of powerful female goddesses never seemed to have a problem with rampant sexism in history. But she is a chick. She looks like one, behaves like one (sue me!) so wouldn't it be fair to draw the conclusion that she is in fact a woman? The contradictory definitions of Law/Chaos don't bother me because they had spice to planar culture. I like to think the Outer Planes is more about the argument and interpretations of beliefs - hence my love of the factions and the idea that parts of the Outer Planes shift over to each other depending on concentrations of belief. I love mine. They're so poetic and I feel they depict the nature of the releationship between the two fairly well. Law wants to maintain the status quo because it benefits them, Chaos wants to change the status quo because then it will benefit them and Neutrality just wants the balance maintained somehow. Perhaps the Geh...Gelher....er...Demodands believed in the reconciliation of Order and Chaos, but were usurped by the Yugoloths who represent conflict between the two. And so the Blood War was engendered by those wicked(er) fiends. Gehreleths (pure skill right there) and Yugoloths would then represent two approaches to the same means (balance by harmony vs. reciprocal tilting of the scales).
Optimator 03-21-08, 03:39 AM	T Then there's my interpretation: Zaphkiel, Primus and Asmodeus are the three primary authorities in D&D. They own everything Forgive my ignorance, but I've never even heard of this "Primus". Where can I find info on him?
Kain_Darkwind 03-21-08, 11:39 AM	Forgive my ignorance, but I've never even heard of this "Primus". Where can I find info on him? Primus on Planewalker (http://www.planewalker.com/encyclopedia/encyclopedia.php?intEntryID=485) My Primus stats (http://projectdf.phpbbnow.com/viewtopic.php?p=44581#44581)
Awesome_Dude 03-21-08, 01:40 PM	Primus on Planewalker (http://www.planewalker.com/encyclopedia/encyclopedia.php?intEntryID=485) My Primus stats (http://projectdf.phpbbnow.com/viewtopic.php?p=44581#44581) Yup. He sure owns the copyright to the Lawful Neutral alignment.
Kain_Darkwind 03-21-08, 01:42 PM	Yup. He sure owns the copyright to the Lawful Neutral alignment. Well, come 3e, he sort of got kicked to the side in favor of the Formian Scion Queen. Since the formians beat out the modrons for 'iconic LN planar race'
Awesome_Dude 03-21-08, 02:12 PM	Well, come 3e, he sort of got kicked to the side in favor of the Formian Scion Queen. Since the formians beat out the modrons for 'iconic LN planar race' I know. I'm of the 3.5 generation of gamers, but I like the Modrons better. I don't hate the Formians, I just think they're kind of on the Evil side what with their tendency to enslave creatures (enslavement = oppression => Evil).
Kain_Darkwind 03-21-08, 04:01 PM	I know. I'm of the 3.5 generation of gamers, but I like the Modrons better. I don't hate the Formians, I just think they're kind of on the Evil side what with their tendency to enslave creatures (enslavement = oppression => Evil). Which is funny because they've got a hive on Arcadia of all places.
sciborg3 03-21-08, 06:03 PM	behaves like one (sue me!) I don't know any woman who rules over a layer of Hell. Such an accusation might be seen as against the CoC. (hint, hint) Gehreleths (pure skill right there) and Yugoloths would then represent two approaches to the same means (balance by harmony vs. reciprocal tilting of the scales). not really - gehreleths would end the Blood War and unite the fiends, while the yugoloths perpetuate the conflict. This doesn't necessarily mean the baatezu/tanar'ri are being had - I suspect the Lords of Nine and wiser Abyssal Lords recognize the mutual exchange through bloodshed: The baatezu are forced to innovate and change to counter tanar'ri tactics while the tanar'ri are forced to some modicum of discipline. The war could be like a trade.
Awesome_Dude 03-21-08, 06:38 PM	Which is funny because they've got a hive on Arcadia of all places. Yeah. I don't understand why the Archons haven't picked up and tried to drive them away. A bunch of slavers on the doorstep of creatures that, while somewhat conformist in nature, respect the rights of creatures to choose their own destiny is confusing to me. I don't know any woman who rules over a layer of Hell. Such an accusation might be seen as against the CoC. (hint, hint) LOL. not really - gehreleths would end the Blood War and unite the fiends, while the yugoloths perpetuate the conflict. This doesn't necessarily mean the baatezu/tanar'ri are being had - I suspect the Lords of Nine and wiser Abyssal Lords recognize the mutual exchange through bloodshed: The baatezu are forced to innovate and change to counter tanar'ri tactics while the tanar'ri are forced to some modicum of discipline. The war could be like a trade. Possibly. That doesn't really disagree with my thoughts on the issue: Balance is maintained through different means; Gehreleths unify the two sides into a monolithic force whereas Yugoloths keep both sides fighting and ensure no one wins (and of course people tend to take on the qualities of the people they fight over time). Personally I think the Yugoloths are kind of dumb for keeping them fighting, but that may be my distaste for ultra-Darwinism (that is natural selection being artificially sped up).
ArcTan 03-23-08, 05:56 PM	Yeah. I don't understand why the Archons haven't picked up and tried to drive them away. A bunch of slavers on the doorstep of creatures that, while somewhat conformist in nature, respect the rights of creatures to choose their own destiny is confusing to me. Arcadian Formians don't act the same as regular Formians. They treat their slaves -- er, "workers" -- well, joining is supposed to be purely voluntary, the indoctrination within the hive is toned down, etc. It's still a very delicate balance, though, and the presence of the Formians is supposed to be one reason a whole layer of Arcadia was lost to Mechanus (along with the presence of the Harmonium prison camps).
Awesome_Dude 03-23-08, 08:12 PM	Arcadian Formians don't act the same as regular Formians. They treat their slaves -- er, "workers" -- well, joining is supposed to be purely voluntary, the indoctrination within the hive is toned down, etc. It's still a very delicate balance, though, and the presence of the Formians is supposed to be one reason a whole layer of Arcadia was lost to Mechanus (along with the presence of the Harmonium prison camps). That explanation sounds like something the Archons could tolerate.
Sarik 03-23-08, 08:41 PM	Grazz't acts in the lawful way because that's what he *wants* you to perceive of him. But it is another form of 'Deceipt' which is akin to trickery a very chaotic and evil concept within D&D definitions. He decides when he drops the charade, just as he decides when he puts it up. Big woopin 35 of Intelligence to help him there! Bwahah! He fooled us all! Also: Evil can love (in it's own twisted way) but it isn't in our traditional sense and definition of it. Mostly it's out of a sense of need for self-approval or from bonds while participating in agenda furthering. You can witnessed a prime example of it inthe movie: 'Van Hellsing'. The vampires obviously love each other (in some strange way) as well as their children. But it's an evil and demented kind of love and they still harm and hate each other at the same time.
ArcTan 03-24-08, 12:11 AM	Deceit is inherently Chaotic? Well, that sure puts the Baatezu at a disadvantage, doesn't it? ("Say, are you actually an Erinyes in disguise who's come to the mortal plane to sow discord and destruction?" "...Yes. Darn it, you got me.")
DebiHuman 03-25-08, 07:21 PM	My take on this is a bit different. While both chaotic demons and lawful devils may behave in similar manners, the underlying belief which drives them is different. Don't confuse behavior with ideology. A lawful devil demands and commands respect from any devil beneath him always as a matter of due course just as he is supplicant to any devil above him. Related to this is that familial relationships may allow a weaker devil to attain more power than he or she would otherwise deserve. Devils may make long-term alliances for long-term gain. They expect plans to be carried out and to have their agendas met and acknowlege that failure has its consequences. A chaotic demon demands and commands respect only because he is more powerful than the demons below him and is supplicant to any demon above him only because he is weaker. Demons ally with each other only to attain more power. They recognize that any alliance is only temporary and they never expect a truce to last. Demons hate to have their plans foiled but they are just as likely to try to avoid any unpleasant consequences for it. Nevertheless, both demons and devils are keenly aware that the need for more power drives both of them. Gaining more power is probably the most powerful drive for both demons and devils but it isn't the only one. Debby
sciborg3 03-26-08, 11:14 AM	Even though ArcTan doesn't like the L/C axis, I think he had one of the better takes for it regarding the more civilized demons. He said that (forgive any misquoting) demons like Grazz't see Chaos as a goal rather than an inherent state of being. I also recall that it was Order that made at least one "elf" species in Moorcock's Multiverse too complacent and thus too easy to defeat. In some sense a chaotic environment would lead to individuals and species of incredible power via natural selection....which is why I think the tanar'ri will eventually win the Blood War. ;)
Awesome_Dude 03-26-08, 04:13 PM	Even though ArcTan doesn't like the L/C axis, I think he had one of the better takes for it regarding the more civilized demons. He said that (forgive any misquoting) demons like Grazz't see Chaos as a goal rather than an inherent state of being. I also recall that it was Order that made at least one "elf" species in Moorcock's Multiverse too complacent and thus too easy to defeat. In some sense a chaotic environment would lead to individuals and species of incredible power via natural selection....which is why I think the tanar'ri will eventually win the Blood War. ;) I'd place my bet on them too. They've got that whole "strong get stronger by feeding on the weak" thing going for them.
garoka 03-26-08, 05:23 PM	No they arent imps arent evil until they die and meet there master
Awesome_Dude 03-26-08, 05:46 PM	No they arent imps arent evil until they die and meet there master wat
Alter_Boy 03-26-08, 05:50 PM	Graz'zt and Malcthet are both square pegs placed in round holes. Both are clearly Lawful. Until recently, 90% of the evil outsider love has been in the Abyss. Hence, whenever a designer wanted to use a BBEG outsider, it's been plunked in the Abyss. Unlike the Nine Hells (where all the realms are claimed and tightly managed) and the other evil planes (c'mon, how many non-hardcore people know all their names?), the Abyss has been the dumping ground for them. All you have to do is pick an unclaimed layer (Roll 6d100 & 5d10 ;) :P ) and place it there.
ArcTan 03-28-08, 12:26 AM	Even though ArcTan doesn't like the L/C axis, I think he had one of the better takes for it regarding the more civilized demons. He said that (forgive any misquoting) demons like Grazz't see Chaos as a goal rather than an inherent state of being. I also recall that it was Order that made at least one "elf" species in Moorcock's Multiverse too complacent and thus too easy to defeat. In some sense a chaotic environment would lead to individuals and species of incredible power via natural selection....which is why I think the tanar'ri will eventually win the Blood War. ;) ...Except that the Baatezu *aren't* actually very loyal to each other, and seem to consider the basic point of Hell to be backstabbing your peers and superiors to try to climb up the ranks. Hence the fundamental problem here -- a confusion between what it means to be "Chaotic" vs. "Evil". The only Archdevil who ever really seemed to *actually* be loyal to anybody -- Geryon -- gets killed and eaten for it.
Awesome_Dude 03-28-08, 12:35 AM	...Except that the Baatezu *aren't* actually very loyal to each other, and seem to consider the basic point of Hell to be backstabbing your peers and superiors to try to climb up the ranks. Hence the fundamental problem here -- a confusion between what it means to be "Chaotic" vs. "Evil". The only Archdevil who ever really seemed to *actually* be loyal to anybody -- Geryon -- gets killed and eaten for it. Actually, they can't backstab anyone unless they get the opportunity to do it legally. They have their place in the hierarchy until someone higher up says they can have another one (I say 'another' because it may not actually be any better). This is the chief reason for why Asmodeus pretty much cannot be dethroned (the others plot against him, but he can't do anything to them unless they slip up and break His Law (the Pact Primeval?)).
ArcTan 03-28-08, 01:11 AM	Explain how the Reckoning happened at all, then.
wraithstrike 03-28-08, 01:32 AM	Actually, they can't backstab anyone unless they get the opportunity to do it legally. They have their place in the hierarchy until someone higher up says they can have another one (I say 'another' because it may not actually be any better). This is the chief reason for why Asmodeus pretty much cannot be dethroned (the others plot against him, but he can't do anything to them unless they slip up and break His Law (the Pact Primeval?)). Actually it reminds me of drow society except you don't have to be sneaky about it to avoid punishment from whoever is in charge(Asmodeus in this case), except for the fact that if the devil-lord you try to overthrow is stronger than you :( .... I think they are lawful in that they have the patience to wait for a plan even if it takes a couple mortal lifetimes, where as demons try to wait, but they normally want it right now, and that disrupts any plans that could have taken place. I don't think demons have to be chaotic all the time. The can act carefully with their plans. The important thing is for them to bring chaos into the lives of others, which is how glabrezu(sp?) work.
ArcTan 03-28-08, 04:13 AM	So we've gone from "Devils can't lie" to the opposite, "Demons can't think ahead". See? Eventually the depiction of the L/C axis always comes back to "These Int 30 cosmic entities have some glaring mental disability that not even you or I do."
sciborg3 03-28-08, 08:55 AM	Damn I'm starting to agree with ArcTan. :eek:
Kain_Darkwind 03-28-08, 11:44 AM	Damn I'm starting to agree with ArcTan. :eek: I was thinking the same thing. How can it possibly make sense that an immortal (or nearly so) demon lacks the ability to perceive the future? Or that a devil can't even take a crap without permission from their superior, who must get permission from their superior, who passes it all the way up to Asmodeus? I think those portrayals of Law and Chaos are far too simplistic.
Awesome_Dude 03-28-08, 12:23 PM	Explain how the Reckoning happened at all, then. Asmodeus made a new Law and tricked the other gods into recognizing it.
Kain_Darkwind 03-28-08, 03:31 PM	Asmodeus made a new Law and tricked the other gods into recognizing it. Wrong period in Infernal history. The Reckoning, where Mephistopheles and Baazebul drew up sides in Hell, causing all of Hell to go to war against each other. Eventually became an attempt to remove Asmodeus from power. Ended when Asmodeus' double agent Geryon blew his horn and the pit fiends all betrayed their masters. Moloch spit on Asmodeus' face and lost his Lordship to the Hag Countess. Geryon showed absolute loyalty and lost his Lordship to Levistus. Mammon fawned like a sycophant and lost favor with all of the other lords. Baalzebul lost his fly-like form and was turned into a slug. Any of this sounding familiar? Or do you think that Hell's law allowed for civil war in an attempt to dethrone the sitting King?
Awesome_Dude 03-28-08, 04:46 PM	Wrong period in Infernal history. The Reckoning, where Mephistopheles and Baazebul drew up sides in Hell, causing all of Hell to go to war against each other. Eventually became an attempt to remove Asmodeus from power. Ended when Asmodeus' double agent Geryon blew his horn and the pit fiends all betrayed their masters. Moloch spit on Asmodeus' face and lost his Lordship to the Hag Countess. Geryon showed absolute loyalty and lost his Lordship to Levistus. Mammon fawned like a sycophant and lost favor with all of the other lords. Baalzebul lost his fly-like form and was turned into a slug. Any of this sounding familiar? Or do you think that Hell's law allowed for civil war in an attempt to dethrone the sitting King? Oh right. Mephistopheles would then have found a hidden clause that allowed him to do it (and Asmodeus made precautions so it wouldn't happen again). Fiendish Codex II is pretty damn clear that insubordinence (not betrayal, sorry) is not an option, the exception apparently being when you never pledged service in the first place. EDIT: I'll let the above stand, but I found out that Devils, looking out for themselves above all else, will do whatever they can to advance themselves. Of course, betraying your boss will most likely only get you demoted/killed, so it still holds true that insubordinence is not an option unless you can evade punishment somehow and your chances of advancement don't stand to diminish after that.
ArcTan 03-29-08, 11:11 AM	So for Demons, insubordination that does *not* allow them to avoid punishment and that *does* destroy their chances of advancement is acceptable? You know that just means "stupid insubordination", right? You're saying Demons do stupid things that get them killed and Devils don't. (Of course, both major factions of the Reckoning actually did fail, did not evade punishment and did have their chances of advancement diminished, so...)
Awesome_Dude 03-29-08, 11:52 AM	So for Demons, insubordination that does *not* allow them to avoid punishment and that *does* destroy their chances of advancement is acceptable? You know that just means "stupid insubordination", right? You're saying Demons do stupid things that get them killed and Devils don't. (Of course, both major factions of the Reckoning actually did fail, did not evade punishment and did have their chances of advancement diminished, so...) What the hell are you talking about? It's the Evil part of them that makes them insubordinate, not the Lawful part. And incidentally, I could see a Demon doing something suicidal, seeing as they are merely an extention of the Abyss (and thus may not have a conscious in the way that we humans experience it). Not that they're inherently stupid, it's just that they don't really care about anything other than destruction and corruption (different priorities).
ArcTan 03-31-08, 02:11 AM	The post I was responding to said that "insubordinance" wasn't an option for Devils in order to try to argue how Devils are intrinsically Lawful. Then it backpedaled, saying "insubordinance" is okay if you can get away with it. I see nothing Lawful about not doing things that you can't get away with (i.e. that will be prevented by force). I see that as non-Stupid.
Awesome_Dude 03-31-08, 07:26 AM	The post I was responding to said that "insubordinance" wasn't an option for Devils in order to try to argue how Devils are intrinsically Lawful. Then it backpedaled, saying "insubordinance" is okay if you can get away with it. I see nothing Lawful about not doing things that you can't get away with (i.e. that will be prevented by force). I see that as non-Stupid. I'm saying that Devils are even less likely to try anything because they live in a completely totalitarian society that monitors their every move. Demons don't, and even so, all they give a **** about is causing mayhem, so they might give in to short-term pleasure that might get them killed immediately afterwards. In fact, I don't think any of the fiends or celestials have a self-preservation instinct. Hell, Modrons, Formians, the Inevitables and the Slaadi are probably severely lacking in that department too. Devils simply don't derive any particular pleasure from rebelling and thus only do it to attain more power and when it's safe to do so (meaning they can get away with more). So yeah, Intelligence and Wisdom scores aside, all aligned outsiders = irrational (except maybe the Rilmani, and even that's a stretch).
wraithstrike 03-31-08, 08:54 PM	I'm saying that Devils are even less likely to try anything ... Devils don't try things in the open. Devils are more evil than they are lawful, and that is what makes them not follow rules all the time. A demon will stab you in the back. A devil will frame you for something, and convince you best friend to stab you in the back, and will make it appear as though he had nothing to do with it.
Awesome_Dude 03-31-08, 10:11 PM	Devils don't try things in the open. Devils are more evil than they are lawful, and that is what makes them not follow rules all the time. A demon will stab you in the back. A devil will frame you for something, and convince you best friend to stab you in the back, and will make it appear as though he had nothing to do with it. I'll buy that. ArcTan told me that I was basically saying that Demons are stupid ****s when it comes down to it. That's actually true. I was saying that. In fact, so are Devils, Yugoloths, Archons, Guardinals, Eladrins and all the other extremely aligned outsiders.
wraithstrike 03-31-08, 11:08 PM	I'll buy that. ArcTan told me that I was basically saying that Demons are stupid ****s when it comes down to it. That's actually true. I was saying that. In fact, so are Devils, Yugoloths, Archons, Guardinals, Eladrins and all the other extremely aligned outsiders. How are they stupid. Lack of self control, and having an insane amount of selfishness has nothing to do with intelligence., discipline maybe, but not intelligence.
Awesome_Dude 03-31-08, 11:33 PM	How are they stupid. Lack of self control, and having an insane amount of selfishness has nothing to do with intelligence., discipline maybe, but not intelligence. Because they are incapable of seeing things from a different point of view than their own, let alone understand it. And I'm not talking about what we call stubbornness in normal people, but an actual learning disability and in ArcTan's own words "have a glaring mental disability that neither you or I do." They are for the most part incapable of changing or committing actions of an opposed alignment too, except in a few cases, and even so, said "corruption" was brought on by an outside influence. It's like taking only a part of a normal human being's psyche and building an entire personality out of it. What you get, no matter how friendly or helpful it is, is batshit crazy when it all comes down to it.
wraithstrike 04-01-08, 12:21 AM	Because they are incapable of seeing things from a different point of view than their own, let alone understand it. And I'm not talking about what we call stubbornness in normal people, but an actual learning disability and in ArcTan's own words "have a glaring mental disability that neither you or I do." They are for the most part incapable of changing or committing actions of an opposed alignment too, except in a few cases, and even so, said "corruption" was brought on by an outside influence. It's like taking only a part of a normal human being's psyche and building an entire personality out of it. What you get, no matter how friendly or helpful it is, is batshit crazy when it all comes down to it. They are supposed to be the embodiment of evil. Another way to look at them is like an extremely nice/naive person, who is constantly taken advantage of(polar opposite of evil outsiders since they try to take advantage) because they refuse to accept that people will do them for no other reason than greed, even though the world shows them different. Now that I think about it, I guess that would make them have mental issues, since refusing to accept reality is one of my definitions of possible insanity.
Awesome_Dude 04-01-08, 12:35 AM	They are supposed to be the embodiment of evil. Another way to look at them is like an extremely nice/naive person, who is constantly taken advantage of(polar opposite of evil outsiders since they try to take advantage) because they refuse to accept that people will do them for no other reason than greed, even though the world shows them different. Now that I think about it, I guess that would make them have mental issues, since refusing to accept reality is one of my definitions of possible insanity. The way I see it, the fiends are psychopathic to an extreme degree. Conversely, celestials don't even have a shred of Neutrality in them, so they invest themselves so heavily in everyone around them that it's a wonder they can even function given the amount of people that die every day and the Evil that goes on (usually enough to make sensitive people depressed, so imagine what it does to someone who is basically Jesus (i.e. loves and forgives everyone regardless of their faults)). I think their hatred of the opposite side makes for a stronger drive than their disfunctional personalities could by themselves, urging fiends to work together to a limited degree and celestials to go out and fight Evil even when things sometimes look bleak.
Kain_Darkwind 04-01-08, 12:11 PM	(usually enough to make sensitive people depressed, so imagine what it does to someone who is basically Jesus (i.e. loves and forgives everyone regardless of their faults)). Last I checked, a bow of anything slaying and dancing magical greatsword aren't used to forgive anyone regardless of faults. I don't think the astral deva goes around bestowing mercy with its heavy mace.
Awesome_Dude 04-01-08, 01:09 PM	Last I checked, a bow of anything slaying and dancing magical greatsword aren't used to forgive anyone regardless of faults. I don't think the astral deva goes around bestowing mercy with its heavy mace. This would be because of their hatred of Evil driving them to battle against it. Also, forgiving someone who doesn't want to be forgiven (i.e. someone attacking you and others or being a general dickwad) is impossible so my point still holds true. Or, if you still want to contend that violence = lack of forgiveness, celestials don't hate the mortals they kill (a sign that they've forgiven them). Since mortals are not inherently Evil, they're redeemable and thus it makes the celestials sad that they'd rather die than "come to the light" or in some cases that they died before they could redeem themselves. If they said "good riddance, he was a jerk!" then that would be callous and a sign of non-Goodness (in this case Neutrality). Celestials are pure Good and thus not capable of callousness to any degree.
Kain_Darkwind 04-01-08, 01:19 PM	This would be because of their hatred of Evil driving them to battle against it. Also, forgiving someone who doesn't want to be forgiven (i.e. someone attacking you and others or being a general dickwad) is impossible so my point still holds true. Or, if you still want to contend that violence = lack of forgiveness, celestials don't hate the mortals they kill (a sign that they've forgiven them). Since mortals are not inherently Evil, they're redeemable and thus it makes the celestials sad that they'd rather die than "come to the light" or in some cases that they died before they could redeem themselves. If they said "good riddance, he was a jerk!" then that would be callous and a sign of non-Goodness (in this case Neutrality). Celestials are pure Good and thus not capable of callousness to any degree. I'm just saying they aren't Jesus, who espoused utter non-violence. Angels in DnD are as genocidal as the fiends. Not caring is not the same as being evil.
Awesome_Dude 04-01-08, 01:53 PM	I'm just saying they aren't Jesus, who espoused utter non-violence. Angels in DnD are as genocidal as the fiends. I said basically. They differ on a couple of issues. Also, you're wrong. He beat up a bunch of merchants that had turned a temple into a market. Not caring is not the same as being evil. No, but it is the same as being Neutral.
Kain_Darkwind 04-01-08, 04:04 PM	I said basically. They differ on a couple of issues. Also, you're wrong. He beat up a bunch of merchants that had turned a temple into a market. He broke their tables, I'm unaware that he hit them. He also told you that if someone hit you, you were to let them hit you again and if they robbed you, give them your clothes. But hey, I'm Jewish, so I might be missing a few key beatings he dished out. In any case, I don't think any of the great RL religious leaders acted in the manner that DnD's agents of Absolute Good do. Life is a little more sacrosanct when you have only one guy running around casting raise dead or create food and water as opposed to thousands. No, but it is the same as being Neutral. Context is too important here to make blanket statements. Someone might not care how you feel as they are petty mortal failings and still be Good aligned, holding the principles of helping others and avoiding harm to be their ultimate goal (or in angels' case, nature). A Lawful Good angel may punish you for breaking the rules, even if you never agreed to them and weren't hurting anyone by ignoring them.
Awesome_Dude 04-01-08, 07:35 PM	Life is a little more sacrosanct when you have only one guy running around casting raise dead or create food and water as opposed to thousands. No. The value of life does not arbitrarily change. Even if everyone could raise the dead it would be no less sacred to the celestials (and those who actually care about life itself and not just the people they like). Context is too important here to make blanket statements. Someone might not care how you feel as they are petty mortal failings and still be Good aligned, holding the principles of helping others and avoiding harm to be their ultimate goal (or in angels' case, nature). A Lawful Good angel may punish you for breaking the rules, even if you never agreed to them and weren't hurting anyone by ignoring them. I'm pretty sure I was talking about it in the same context as you were. Callousness is a clear sign that you care about others based solely on your personal opinion of them, which is a Neutral trait ("Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships."). Celestials are entirely in-human. To understand how they think means to ignore almost all of your animal instincts. You know how they sometimes portray poetic justice in films to give the audience a sense of satisfaction, for example a girl kicking a rapist repeatedly in the balls and then dismembering him? Celestials would defend the rapist, deal with him afterwards and be outraged the girl's bestiality (though not the girl herself; they're forgiving and care about the girl's moral status).
sciborg3 04-02-08, 11:37 AM	I disagree. Celestials are, if anything, too human. The way I see it, the creators of the guardinals were too good, loved too much to act against evil. They had to make something that loved deeply but were subtly "flawed" enough to put fiends to the sword. Celestials are the most tragic of creatures, because they are constantly losing not just against fiends but against mortal nature. This sensitivity to morality can lead celestials to Fall due to their frustration with mortals. Yet still the whispers among the varied angelic camps continue, that perhaps they should isolate Heaven from all mortals who aren't worthy (aka petitioners) or a mass slaughter of mortal life would allow them to reform (brainwash?) the survivors into something they like. But - and maybe this is inhuman or superhuman - the majority keep fighting, refusing to give up on us. (self pimpage :embarrass - my story Blade of Innocence (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=506269) deals with a lot of this)
DebiHuman 04-02-08, 03:15 PM	Demons are chaotic but you don't have to play them stupidly. Demons don't have to directly attack any more than devils do, but their tactics will differ. Here are the main distinctions that I've used: 1. Most importantly demons will lie outright while devils will not. Devils will avoid the question or misdirect but they don't lie. 2. A demon will break his promise at the slightest whim where a devil will be be very wary of making any promise in the first place because he must keep his promises or suffer the (usually very unpleasant) consequences. 3. Demons have a fluid heirarchy while devils have a rigid caste system. As a result, demons tend to rise and fall quickly while devils tend to remain at the same level for long periods of time. 4. When it comes to using others for personal gain, demons are likely to make an offer early knowing he will use bait-and-switch tactics later. Devils put off making an offer as long as possible knowing they must be true to their word. 5. Demons make and accept excuses for failures while devils strictly enforce the consequences of failure. Chaotic evil isn't more or less stupid than lawful evil unless you play it that way. Debby
Awesome_Dude 04-02-08, 06:35 PM	I disagree. Celestials are, if anything, too human. The way I see it, the creators of the guardinals were too good, loved too much to act against evil. They had to make something that loved deeply but were subtly "flawed" enough to put fiends to the sword. Celestials are the most tragic of creatures, because they are constantly losing not just against fiends but against mortal nature. This sensitivity to morality can lead celestials to Fall due to their frustration with mortals. Yet still the whispers among the varied angelic camps continue, that perhaps they should isolate Heaven from all mortals who aren't worthy (aka petitioners) or a mass slaughter of mortal life would allow them to reform (brainwash?) the survivors into something they like. But - and maybe this is inhuman or superhuman - the majority keep fighting, refusing to give up on us. (self pimpage :embarrass - my story Blade of Innocence (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=506269) deals with a lot of this) Dunno. If you say they're too human, then I'd say that you are a strong believer in humanity (I am too, but only as a collective; individually, we differ too much to make a general statement). Celestials as they are would not even have the capacity to consider leaving the ones in need to their own fates, much less genocide. Sure they're kind of tragic, but they are also strong. Stronger than most of us could ever dream of being. Maybe you wouldn't sacrifice your life to save that of another person you didn't even know, much less if said person were a hobo looking out for himself first (in the Neutral sense, not the Evil kind of out-for-himselfness). The way I see it, a celestial would do it without thinking twice if that was the only way to save him (luckily for mortals they don't need to kill themselves all the time). Since celestials don't possess the capacity for Evil, they would also not kill that famous child that can cure all diseases by dying, nor would they redirect the train to kill the one guy standing on the tracks instead of the five it was initially going to run over. Demons are chaotic but you don't have to play them stupidly. Demons don't have to directly attack any more than devils do, but their tactics will differ. Here are the main distinctions that I've used: 1. Most importantly demons will lie outright while devils will not. Devils will avoid the question or misdirect but they don't lie. 2. A demon will break his promise at the slightest whim where a devil will be be very wary of making any promise in the first place because he must keep his promises or suffer the (usually very unpleasant) consequences. 3. Demons have a fluid heirarchy while devils have a rigid caste system. As a result, demons tend to rise and fall quickly while devils tend to remain at the same level for long periods of time. 4. When it comes to using others for personal gain, demons are likely to make an offer early knowing he will use bait-and-switch tactics later. Devils put off making an offer as long as possible knowing they must be true to their word. 5. Demons make and accept excuses for failures while devils strictly enforce the consequences of failure. Chaotic evil isn't more or less stupid than lawful evil unless you play it that way. Debby I feel like this was partially addressed to me. What I mean isn't that Demons and Devils are stupid, nor that their respective alignments are. I'm saying that all extreme outsiders are fundamentally irrational beings with incomplete personalities. They respresent the very best to the very worst personality traits that humans can possess, and nothing else to balance it out (resulting in thoughts and actions that appear insane to most people). I always vision that old "small angels and devils standing on your shoulder, giving you advice" approach to represent their conscience. A Demon, for example, only has that little devil demon on his shoulder that tells him to keep doing what he does. There's no angel there to counter the devil demon's advice so the Demon doesn't know any better than to just keep destroying and killing. On the flip side, an Archon only has a little angel telling him to keep helping and saving others and no Devil to counter it, so the Archon can never reach a state where he thinks that he's done enough ("enough" would represent a compromise between the two parts), resulting in his own destruction if pushed too far.