Post/Author/DateTime	Post
goldomark 10-05-07, 07:10 PM	I the last DnD pod-cast, James Wyatt said the Guardinals are no more. Basicly because he doesn't know what they are and what is their role. He also doesn't know where they come from. Its a pity, they where such a cool force of Good and litteraly opposed the Evil Yugoloths. May they rest in peace. It dawned on me when I listen to the cast, but I could be wrong. The designer of 4th edition are making the game to fit what they know and like, not what we like (althought a entire thread on this board was about what players really do like). I understand designers create the game, and are more conserne with crunchy game design then fluff, but it is such a let down to hear that they don't even know the planes.
Taeldrin Laesrash 10-05-07, 07:57 PM	I've seen that gripe before; frankly, I wasn't exactly sure how they operated myself, despite some stuff I made up (Really wish there had been a Good counterpart to Faces of Evil). It looks like we're going to have generic angels for our Good outsiders.
goldomark 10-05-07, 09:33 PM	Most good creatures in any of the monster manual never had a big role in our campaigns, aside from the occasional patron or info giving/flavor NPC. You just can't fight good creatures if the PCs are good (not counting the few corrupt good creatures). We had some Guardinals, not the race itself, be part of a loosely organize groupe, focused on retrieving evil artifacts, from ruins or the hands of mortals and immortals alike. The PCs were part of that organisation. In another game, Guardinals were an important NPC backers/patron for our PCs, in a cosmic battle for the world of Athas! Devils wanted to take over Athas, aided by Yugoloths and especially Psurlons. The Devils wanted to build a huge portal that could penetrate Athas's Grey plane. Levistus had been informed by Dregoth of the huge sun and the Dark Lens of Athas. Levistus thought both the sun and the Lens could melt is icy prison. The Psurlon were useful, in keeping this of Asmodeus's radar, and they already wanted to conquer Athas for themselfs, so convincing them wasn't that hard for the ArchDuke. Guardinals, thinking this was evil, fought Levistus and is Psurlon allies, aided by the Rilmani who thought this could upset the comic balance. So the Guardinals charged us with varius missions to twart that nefarious plan. Archons, Angels, Eladrins, Lammasus, Shedus, Good Dragons, etc, could all have have played the same role. This does not meen their should be less good creatures. Variety is fun.
ArcTan 10-05-07, 10:03 PM	I the last DnD pod-cast, James Wyatt said the Guardinals are no more. Basicly because he doesn't know what they are and what is their role. He also doesn't know where they come from. Its a pity, they where such a cool force of Good and litteraly opposed the Evil Yugoloths. May they rest in peace. It dawned on me when I listen to the cast, but I could be wrong. The designer of 4th edition are making the game to fit what they know and like, not what we like (althought a entire thread on this board was about what players really do like). Well, yes. Who is "we"? I understand designers create the game, and are more conserne with crunchy game design then fluff, but it is such a let down to hear that they don't even know the planes. Okay, tell me what the role of Guardinals is, then. They have even less flavor than Yugoloths. Yugoloths supposedly inflame the Blood War by acting as mercenaries in that conflict to make Evil more Evil. Or something. Whereas Guardinals... *de*-inflame the... *lack* of war between the Archons and Eladrins by... *not* acting as mercenaries. So that Good can become more Good. Or something. Nope, not seeing it. FWIW, there was a very obvious candidate for NE Outsiders -- Angels -- but they chose to make up some new thing instead, leaving Angels in the 3.5 version of the planes as an out-of-place, floating orphan race -- they're not associated with any plane at all, just "Good" in general. They're apparently not "planar" beings as such but servants of the gods. Well, okay, only *Good* gods. Evil gods apparently don't have Angels -- or any dedicated race of servitors at all. Which makes sense, because... I don't know why it makes sense. The actual flavor of Guardinals that I remember -- "We're super-powerful adventurers who wander around having adventures!" wasn't terrible, but it was highly meh. I mean, okay, there's *tons* of people who wander around having adventures. What makes these guys special? The fact that they're anthropomorphic animals? And, er, what the HELL is up with that? The primal expression of untainted and pure Good in the multiverse is... a furry dude with a lion head? WHY?
Thegans 10-05-07, 10:32 PM	Well, yes. Who is "we"? Okay, tell me what the role of Guardinals is, then. They have even less flavor than Yugoloths. Yugoloths supposedly inflame the Blood War by acting as mercenaries in that conflict to make Evil more Evil. Or something. Whereas Guardinals... *de*-inflame the... *lack* of war between the Archons and Eladrins by... *not* acting as mercenaries. So that Good can become more Good. Or something. Nope, not seeing it. FWIW, there was a very obvious candidate for NE Outsiders -- Angels -- but they chose to make up some new thing instead, leaving Angels in the 3.5 version of the planes as an out-of-place, floating orphan race -- they're not associated with any plane at all, just "Good" in general. They're apparently not "planar" beings as such but servants of the gods. Well, okay, only *Good* gods. Evil gods apparently don't have Angels -- or any dedicated race of servitors at all. Which makes sense, because... I don't know why it makes sense. The actual flavor of Guardinals that I remember -- "We're super-powerful adventurers who wander around having adventures!" wasn't terrible, but it was highly meh. I mean, okay, there's *tons* of people who wander around having adventures. What makes these guys special? The fact that they're anthropomorphic animals? And, er, what the HELL is up with that? The primal expression of untainted and pure Good in the multiverse is... a furry dude with a lion head? WHY? Better yet most Eladrins look sort of like elves. Good is a furry dude with a lions head Chaos is a giant frog Furry dude with lions head + giant frog = elf-like person. Then again don't yuggoloth also look like anthromorphic animals?
Shemeska the Marauder 10-05-07, 10:52 PM	Evil gods apparently don't have Angels -- or any dedicated race of servitors at all. Except that's not actually true. There just isn't a single monolithic race of evil divine servitors. Individual evil gods have their own often unique servitors or servitor races. Sung-Chiang for instance has the linqua, Apomps has the demodands, while Set has the Minions of Set, Cegilune effectively has the night hags, Shar has a number of unique servitors, etc etc etc, and they all employ the various fiend races in various capacities depending on what sort of terms they are with the fiendish powers that be. The actual flavor of Guardinals that I remember -- "We're super-powerful adventurers who wander around having adventures!" wasn't terrible, but it was highly meh. I mean, okay, there's *tons* of people who wander around having adventures. What makes these guys special? The fact that they're anthropomorphic animals? And, er, what the HELL is up with that? The primal expression of untainted and pure Good in the multiverse is... a furry dude with a lion head? WHY? Aslan. The archetype of the Lion and Lamb. Nobility. If we're throwing around mythological and cultural archetypes, that one's as transparent as transparent can be. The guardinals represented at once, both a personification of Good as "innocence", and Good as "innocence tarnished and horrified at the existance of Evil, willing to do anything to protect others from its corrupting touch, even to the extent of sullying and harming themselves via self-sacrifice and martyrdom to do so". They had some powerful imagery and symbology surrounding them from the 2e material they originated in, and it's unfortunate that their major 3e flavor text came from the BoED (the transcript of the 3e BoED chat should have suggested this 4e stuff was coming...)
Count Arioch the 28th 10-06-07, 12:38 AM	Ah bugger, I liked the guardinals, and they had a pretty big role in my world too. Arctan: I think you are underestimating the true desire that Archons and Eladrins have to tear each other apart. Keeping them from doing so takes a lot of effort. (Also, I don't know if this is canon, but in my world, guardinals would do stuff to keep the blood war going too, by attacking either demons or devils while disguised as the opposing faction. In a way, they are doing the same thing the yugoloths are doing, except the yugoloths are doing so to profit off it, while the guardinals are doing so to make sure evil doesn't unite.)
Return of the Flumph 10-06-07, 01:03 AM	I think you are underestimating the true desire that Archons and Eladrins have to tear each other apart. Ah yes. Thank the gods someone is there to stop the paragons of benevolence and goodness from tearing into each other like savages. Because that is what would happen if the guardinals weren't around. :rolleyes:
Shemeska the Marauder 10-06-07, 01:29 AM	Ah yes. Thank the gods someone is there to stop the paragons of benevolence and goodness from tearing into each other like savages. Because that is what would happen if the guardinals weren't around. :rolleyes: Except they aren't the paragons of benevolence and goodness. The Archons are just as much paragons of Law as they are of Good, and likewise the Eladrins with Chaos and Good. Good doesn't trump the other ethos they represent. I don't think you'd have Blood War mk.2 if the Guardinals weren't around, but the fiends would benefit greatly if Good were to be as divided as the lower planes.
metatheurgist 10-06-07, 02:14 AM	Sounds like another case of Great Benevolent WotC Leader deciding for us simple Player Peasant that Law and Chaos is too difficult concept for your puny brains to grasp. So in New Peoples DnD there is no Law and Chaos.
Thegans 10-06-07, 03:05 AM	Sounds like another case of Great Benevolent WotC Leader deciding for us simple Player Peasant that Law and Chaos is too difficult concept for your puny brains to grasp. So in New Peoples DnD there is no Law and Chaos. That's kind of stupid since law and chaos is easier to understand than good and evil law = being organized chaos = being spontanious
ArcTan 10-06-07, 03:24 AM	Except that's not actually true. There just isn't a single monolithic race of evil divine servitors. "Monolithic" is what I mean by "dedicated". What's the flavor reason for why Good deities all have access to this one particular race with very particular abilities who are so common as to be iconic in D&D -- the Angels, the Astral Devas and Planetars and Solars -- while Evil deities all have to make their own independent hires? Is this because Good is "unified" and Evil isn't? That sounds suspiciously close to the usual "confusing Good/Evil with Law/Chaos" problem to me.
Count Arioch the 28th 10-06-07, 03:28 AM	Ah yes. Thank the gods someone is there to stop the paragons of benevolence and goodness from tearing into each other like savages. Because that is what would happen if the guardinals weren't around. :rolleyes: Why do you think there's the paragons of benevolence and goodness? An Archon is just as likely to attack a mostly chaotic party as a baatezu is. A Guardinal is just as likely to kill a lawfully oriented party as any tanari. In the eyes of outsiders, mortals are mostly irrelevant and impure. And in fact, unless you have a god to bail you out, you're likely to have your identy erased and your soul consumed. (And let's face it, unless you were something really special in life, the god you worship is probably not going to care much about you in death except as god-fuel.) The afterlife in D&D sucks, as in it sucks to be anyone that isn't a PC.
ArcTan 10-06-07, 03:33 AM	That's kind of stupid since law and chaos is easier to understand than good and evil law = being organized chaos = being spontanious I guess my brain must be pretty puny, then, because I don't understand it. Or, rather, I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't fit very well. It more or less corresponds to "Lawful = Smart, Chaos = Stupid", if you take it completely literally. It would mean that armies of Drow or armies of Demons would be pathologically incapable of ever showing discipline in combat or obeying their superiors, which would in turn make mowing them down in any kind of war situation trivially easy. It creates all kind of paradoxes. Is Adrian Monk from the show Monk Lawful or Chaotic? He's certainly extremely organized in his personal life, but that doesn't make him good at taking orders or following directions -- indeed, it's what *prevents* him from joining the rest of the human race and acting like an ordinary person (and isn't being "different" Chaotic?). Does his tendency to have spontaneous temper tantrums and breakdowns because his daily routine and careful organization has been disrupted make him Chaotic instead of Lawful? Does it make him Chaotic *because* he's Lawful? Questions, questions! See, for a long time I tried to square this circle by heading back to Michael Moorcock and waxing philosophical about how "Law" represents, in some primal sense, the need for Unity and Singularity, and the desire to have one universal Principle animate all things. And "Chaos" represents the desire to violate knowable Principle and to be driven by an ineffable, wholly personal will, and the belief that the universe is an endless profusion of separate wills and forces that are wholly unknowable to each other. Of course, it's hard to write simple monster descriptions around that. And I gradually came to realize that while *some* of the designers shared this belief, all through the history of D&D the majority of what's actually been written about Law and Chaos has been this very nearsighted, muddled "Lawful folk like things to be in order and Chaotic folk like running around and screaming". Which, sad though it may be, *makes sense*, because the highfalutin Moorcockian philosophy translates really poorly into actually deciding "What makes the Pit Fiend different from the Balor?" *Any* set of specific behaviors can be justified as being "Lawful" or "Chaotic" *depending on how you look at it*. You can say a lot of things for having a Kantian vs. having a Nietzschean outlook on life, but the one thing you can't say is that either outlook promotes a particular ethical code in any predictable or reasonable way. A Nazi can just as easily be a Nazi by being a Kantian or a Nietzschean as Gandhi could've been Gandhi by being Kantian or Nietzschean. ...Which is, after all, what Moorcock's Eternal Champion thing is ultimately about, where we find out that the Lords of Law and Lords of Chaos look identical to each other, that the war between Law and Chaos is meaningless, that Law and Chaos themselves are meaningless and Balance is the true good. Etc. As I said on another thread, this is what the Bleakers in Sigil believe -- as an extension of good ol' existentialism, something I find way more reasonable than hardline commitment to Kant or Nietzsche or anyone like that -- and of all the people in Planescape they always seemed to make the most sense.
ArcTan 10-06-07, 03:35 AM	Why do you think there's the paragons of benevolence and goodness? Because they have the Good subtype and the "Always Good" alignment entry? An Archon is just as likely to attack a mostly chaotic party as a baatezu is. A Guardinal is just as likely to kill a lawfully oriented party as any tanari. Wow. I guess that whole "Good/Evil" axis really doesn't mean anything at all then, does it? Might as well just toss it out. And here I thought we were being radical by proposing tossing out Law/Chaos!
Count Arioch the 28th 10-06-07, 03:40 AM	Good and evil doesn't really mean anyting in D&D already. It's Red vs. Blue. Or to be more descriptive, Crazy fundamentalist jihadist psycho versus cartoonish villainy. Which means, it's prefectly logical to think that Lawful good sees chaotic good as faithless infidels that must be converted or destroyed in order to prevent them from teaching their heretical beleifs, and vice-versa. Quite frankly, there's a reason why most people ping somewhere in the neutral range. Then again,I fully and freely admit that in my world, chaos and law are more important than good and evil.
ArcTan 10-06-07, 03:56 AM	Good and evil doesn't really mean anyting in D&D already. It's Red vs. Blue. Or to be more descriptive, Crazy fundamentalist jihadist psycho versus cartoonish villainy. Which means, it's prefectly logical to think that Lawful good sees chaotic good as faithless infidels that must be converted or destroyed in order to prevent them from teaching their heretical beleifs, and vice-versa. See, as much as I snark at the meaninglessness of Law/Chaos in D&D, even I would say that it seems obvious to me that LG would be the one that actually cares about wiping out or conquering CG to prevent heresy, while CG just wants to be free to screw with LG's stuff and get away with it. I mean, if Good/Evil are just mirror images of each other, and *Law/Chaos* are just mirror images of each other, then there really isn't any point. Why have four poles at all? Why not just have a bunch of different warring gods and factions?
Naderion 10-06-07, 08:09 AM	Because there are such entertaining spells like Chaos Hammer and Dictum. Alignment is back from the time when the books encouraged dms and players to use the rules as they fit into their game and not to construct their game around the rules. Alignment is a rough scetch of a system for incorporating a strugle of devine forces into the game. How to use it and if to use it is up to the group. But free and creative thinking by the consumers has somewhat become out of fashion.
sciborg2 10-06-07, 01:41 PM	I'm a little worried, but let's face it - after awhile they are going to run out of ideas and just stick the guardinals in some monster manual to try and boost sales. It's clear they aren't interested in even glancing at the work - both published and fan based - in detailing many, many planar staples. Which I suppose is fine since I just won't buy 4e stuff.
Count Arioch the 28th 10-06-07, 01:54 PM	But free and creative thinking by the consumers has somewhat become out of fashion. One might aruge that free and creative thinking works best when there aren't arbitrary rules that determine what your character can and cannot do. (And before you argue with me about alignment, it doesn't matter. Every DM I have ever played with has used a character's alignemnt to say "You can't do that, it's against your alignment". Every. Single. Dm.)
Thegans 10-06-07, 02:46 PM	I guess my brain must be pretty puny, then, because I don't understand it. Or, rather, I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't fit very well. It more or less corresponds to "Lawful = Smart, Chaos = Stupid", if you take it completely literally. It would mean that armies of Drow or armies of Demons would be pathologically incapable of ever showing discipline in combat or obeying their superiors, which would in turn make mowing them down in any kind of war situation trivially easy. It creates all kind of paradoxes. Is Adrian Monk from the show Monk Lawful or Chaotic? He's certainly extremely organized in his personal life, but that doesn't make him good at taking orders or following directions -- indeed, it's what *prevents* him from joining the rest of the human race and acting like an ordinary person (and isn't being "different" Chaotic?). Does his tendency to have spontaneous temper tantrums and breakdowns because his daily routine and careful organization has been disrupted make him Chaotic instead of Lawful? Does it make him Chaotic *because* he's Lawful? Questions, questions! See, for a long time I tried to square this circle by heading back to Michael Moorcock and waxing philosophical about how "Law" represents, in some primal sense, the need for Unity and Singularity, and the desire to have one universal Principle animate all things. And "Chaos" represents the desire to violate knowable Principle and to be driven by an ineffable, wholly personal will, and the belief that the universe is an endless profusion of separate wills and forces that are wholly unknowable to each other. Of course, it's hard to write simple monster descriptions around that. And I gradually came to realize that while *some* of the designers shared this belief, all through the history of D&D the majority of what's actually been written about Law and Chaos has been this very nearsighted, muddled "Lawful folk like things to be in order and Chaotic folk like running around and screaming". Which, sad though it may be, *makes sense*, because the highfalutin Moorcockian philosophy translates really poorly into actually deciding "What makes the Pit Fiend different from the Balor?" *Any* set of specific behaviors can be justified as being "Lawful" or "Chaotic" *depending on how you look at it*. You can say a lot of things for having a Kantian vs. having a Nietzschean outlook on life, but the one thing you can't say is that either outlook promotes a particular ethical code in any predictable or reasonable way. A Nazi can just as easily be a Nazi by being a Kantian or a Nietzschean as Gandhi could've been Gandhi by being Kantian or Nietzschean. ...Which is, after all, what Moorcock's Eternal Champion thing is ultimately about, where we find out that the Lords of Law and Lords of Chaos look identical to each other, that the war between Law and Chaos is meaningless, that Law and Chaos themselves are meaningless and Balance is the true good. Etc. As I said on another thread, this is what the Bleakers in Sigil believe -- as an extension of good ol' existentialism, something I find way more reasonable than hardline commitment to Kant or Nietzsche or anyone like that -- and of all the people in Planescape they always seemed to make the most sense. Law is not about following orders. Also in the event that Monk's temper tantrums I don't know because I never watched that show. Anyway I think a good way to describe law vs chaos is this situtation. Their are people that need the wiring of thier houses changed because of a problem with the electricity. A lawful person does everything he can to find out how everything works and/ or calls a specialist to help. A chaotic person remembers the last time the specialist was over and decides that he can remember how it was done and fix it himself. IF you need another example imagine two students taking a test The lawful one is the one that studied a little each night. The chaotic one either crammed the night before and/or just decided that he learned enough to remeber it and that he would take his chances. How are those even remotely similar? Also if a person has both lawful and chaotic traits and one does not beat the other doesn't that make them neutral for that part of allignment.
goldomark 10-06-07, 03:13 PM	I'm a little worried, but let's face it - after awhile they are going to run out of ideas and just stick the guardinals in some monster manual to try and boost sales. I totally agree with your assumption. Of course, alot of monsters from 2e could of been converted to 3.5, before 4e was made. So if 5e comes early, alot of monsters might just disappear all together. After all, its very important to have dragons, vampires, demons, etc remade over and over and over again. But maybe I'm pessimistic :raincloud . I like Guardinals because they were a different kind of good NPC. Maybe I'm wrong. ArcTan seems to suggest, the only good monster we need are Angels, any other monsters in the MM should just be adversaries for PCs. And more adversaries make the game fun, to almost quote DnD designers.
nabuchadnysar 10-06-07, 03:59 PM	ArcTan seems to suggest, the only good monster we need are Angels, any other monsters in the MM should just be adversaries for PCs. And more adversaries make the game fun, to almost quote DnD designers. Yes, more monsters meen more fun. Killing is fun. Why botter with useless good guys? PCs should be the only heroes around. Who is this ArcTan? I love I'm already!
IRememberCecil 10-06-07, 06:01 PM	Law is not about following orders. Also in the event that Monk's temper tantrums I don't know because I never watched that show. Anyway I think a good way to describe law vs chaos is this situtation. Their are people that need the wiring of thier houses changed because of a problem with the electricity. A lawful person does everything he can to find out how everything works and/ or calls a specialist to help. A chaotic person remembers the last time the specialist was over and decides that he can remember how it was done and fix it himself. IF you need another example imagine two students taking a test The lawful one is the one that studied a little each night. The chaotic one either crammed the night before and/or just decided that he learned enough to remeber it and that he would take his chances. How are those even remotely similar? Also if a person has both lawful and chaotic traits and one does not beat the other doesn't that make them neutral for that part of allignment. Alignments are about exaltation of certain things. Good is about exaltation of innocence, whereas Evil is the exaltation of those worthy. Law is about exaltation of a group, and Chaos is the exaltation of individuality. If we look at it, Good vs. Evil determines Why, and Law vs. Chaos determines Who. It also generally predetermines the most effective method through which the goal is attained. I actually wrote a large post in a thread about Chaotic Good, where someone was trying to imply that Chaos was Evil and Law Good. It's a little incoherent because I was both addressing their relation to life and explaining how they work in their purest forms. You may disagree with me, but I still remain superior. I've had, what, four years to think about this, and morality always plays a big part in my games, so I've had time to think, redefine and logically deduce some (cogent, IMO) definitions and explanations. Law wants conformity, order and structure. In its most extreme form, movement cannot exist. Since life promotes movement, life will die to ensure the existence of a perfect entity (also, having reached perfection, there is no point in striving for anything anymore). Chaos wants freedom. Its extreme form means the freedom of each particle (as in, the smallest units in existence) to act independently of another. This also does not promote life, since each particle in a lifeform is independent. This makes the existence of Slaadi a bit of a paradox, since they're spawned from pure Chaos. Not to worry, though, because Chaos is also about breaking rules. Good pretty much wants the exaltation of innocence. It wants to protect innocent life to every extent possible. The alignment borderlines on wishful thinking, though, because predators exist and are a part of the food chain. Their goal is probably to eliminate all need, because need can be very dangerous. Evil wants the exaltation of those worthy. Darwinism in its most extreme form. The worthy can be everyone from the physically strongest to the smartest, to the specimen that can survive best inside a volcano. The goal of Evil is to put the strongest into the position of power and enslave, eliminate or subjugate the rest. Being metaphysical entities that are opposed to one another, Good and Evil, Law and Chaos react violently to one another (seen in spells and other such effects). Their exemplars go crazy when encountering one another and cannot be soothed until the other is destroyed or removed from their presence. Okay, and now for individual alignments. Lawful Good is the alignment that serves the sole purpose of protecting and exalting innocence and benevolence. Being a metaphysical entity of Law, it seeks punishment for those who break the code or work actively against it. Neutral Good is the metaphysical entity of pure benevolence. It doesn't actively seek to break the multiversal code of Lawful Good, but will if it has to. Chaotic Good may very well be the most violent and disrespectful of the Good alignments. All it cares about is eliminating Evil so that Good beings can exist in peace. It will break the Law, commit genocide (against fiends, not just anyone), resort to trickery and general asshattery to attain its goal. Lawful Neutral wants conformity, but it also wants people to want it. Believe it or not, morality is purely about choice, and if people do not choose to conform, it means nothing. However, at a certain point, free will ceases to matter in the eyes of the machine that Lawful Neutral is. When, and if, a large majority chooses to become a part of it, the rest must follow, for Lawful Neutral despises rebellion. Neutrality as a metaphysical entity thinks that balance must be preserved, that it's a requirement for the continued existence of the multiverse. Any tip of the scale will be swiftly and brutally dealt with to make an example of those who made the foolish mistake. Chaotic Neutral is individualism in its purest form. Everything has a will of its own and acts accordingly, independently of each other. Collisions are frequent and can range from minute to colossal, to ground-shaking (not literally speaking, because there isn't all that much "ground" in Limbo). These collisions should not be mistaken for malevolence, but individuals with different goals bumping into each other and slowing them down. Lawful Evil is a code of law specifically designed to exalt those who can exploit it. Their ability to exploit their underlings changes as these elite individuals rise and fall within the chain of command. Lawful Evil is a vicious circle of mutual exploitation and power accumulation. Neutral Evil is the alignment of pure pragmatism. Like all Evil alignments, Neutral Evil is about the exaltation of the worthy, and the worthy is them, those they care for and no one else. Neutral Evil individuals will break the law of Evil (and any other law) if they have to, but do not actively seek to do so. Chaotic Evil is individualism combined with Darwinism. Lethal, no? The perceived self-destructive nature of Chaotic Evil is, in fact, its own way of strengthening itself. By rooting out the weak, the strong remain and feed on them to gain strength. Chaotic Evil does not recognize strength in numbers as a strength, merely a hidden weakness. They despise weakness and everyone because they consider themselves the most superior being in the multiverse, and if faced with the inconvenient truth, hate the ones who have proven themselves for the perceived humiliation. Why did I write all this? Because I'm a creative and tortured soul and I simply burst. Comment as you like. I didn't go very deep into Neutral Evil, but they will do anything to get what they want, basically.
Thegans 10-06-07, 07:20 PM	Alignments are about exaltation of certain things. Good is about exaltation of innocence, whereas Evil is the exaltation of those worthy. Law is about exaltation of a group, and Chaos is the exaltation of individuality. If we look at it, Good vs. Evil determines Why, and Law vs. Chaos determines Who. It also generally predetermines the most effective method through which the goal is attained. I actually wrote a large post in a thread about Chaotic Good, where someone was trying to imply that Chaos was Evil and Law Good. It's a little incoherent because I was both addressing their relation to life and explaining how they work in their purest forms. You may disagree with me, but I still remain superior. I didn't go very deep into Neutral Evil, but they will do anything to get what they want, basically. I really don't see how most of this at all contradicts my theory. Sure the law part does but I think both theories can work togehter. The main problem with yours is that people will assume that a person can't be lawful if their working with a group since as you said law is about the exaultation of a group. Anyway I don't think my idea contradicts that since being organized and planning things out makes working in a group easier while being spontanious makes individuality easier.
IRememberCecil 10-06-07, 07:54 PM	I really don't see how most of this at all contradicts my theory. Sure the law part does but I think both theories can work togehter. It doesn't contradict your theory, but it doesn't fully agree with the priorities. My theory considers organization a facilitative quality for the agenda of Law, whereas yours considers it the definitive quality. The main problem with yours is that people will assume that a person can't be lawful if their working with a group since as you said law is about the exaultation of a group. I'm assuming you mean a Chaotic person won't work with a group, which is true to an extent. Chaotic creatures would be mostly avoiding getting into situations of mutual reliance, instead focusing on being individually strong and independent. Anyway I don't think my idea contradicts that since being organized and planning things out makes working in a group easier while being spontanious makes individuality easier. Like I said, facilitative qualities. However, if a group could be found where the members were all spontaneous (which the planar exemplars are not, last time I checked) without being contradictive, then they could still be Lawful. As a side note, the I consider the biggest irony of Law to be that it has more diversity than Chaos. In my campaigns, unless a city or organization's laws are a direct copy of the Law (with an interpretation to determine Good vs. Evil alignment), then they are not Lawful.
Thegans 10-06-07, 08:09 PM	[QUOTE=IRememberCecil;14010490]It doesn't contradict your theory, but it doesn't fully agree with the priorities. My theory considers organization a facilitative quality for the agenda of Law, whereas yours considers it the definitive quality. So basically were focusing on different aspects of the same thing? I'm assuming you mean a Chaotic person won't work with a group, which is true to an extent. Chaotic creatures would be mostly avoiding getting into situations of mutual reliance, instead focusing on being individually strong and independent. Actually not exactly. I'm saying that according to your theory. People will think that one person can't be lawful. Also sorry about that I kind of had a type in the reply that I didn't notice. I forgot the word 'out'. I meant with out a group. Like I said, facilitative qualities. However, if a group could be found where the members were all spontaneous (which the planar exemplars are not, last time I checked) without being contradictive, then they could still be Lawful. Makes sense. As a side note, the I consider the biggest irony of Law to be that it has more diversity than Chaos. In my campaigns, unless a city or organization's laws are a direct copy of the Law (with an interpretation to determine Good vs. Evil alignment), then they are not Lawful. That explains why their are three races of pure law and all chaos gets is a giant frog.
IRememberCecil 10-06-07, 08:33 PM	So basically were focusing on different aspects of the same thing? Yup. Actually not exactly. I'm saying that according to your theory. People will think that one person can't be lawful. Also sorry about that I kind of had a type in the reply that I didn't notice. I forgot the word 'out'. I meant with out a group. One basis for my theory is that morality and ethics are about choice. If you are in a situation that you did not choose to get yourself into, then you are not at fault for being there (and therefore don't take on moral consequences for it). A prerequisite for a choice to be valid is that the choice must have been an informed one. For example if you stand on a snowy mountain and yell without knowing that it can cause an avalanche, then you may be responsible for it, but you aren't morally accountable (possibly stupid, though). That explains why their are three races of pure law and all chaos gets is a giant frog. I found the mechanic for random Slaadi in 3E Monster Manual to be better thought out, though not perfect.
ArcTan 10-06-07, 09:38 PM	Because there are such entertaining spells like Chaos Hammer and Dictum. Alignment is back from the time when the books encouraged dms and players to use the rules as they fit into their game and not to construct their game around the rules. Alignment is a rough scetch of a system for incorporating a strugle of devine forces into the game. How to use it and if to use it is up to the group. But free and creative thinking by the consumers has somewhat become out of fashion. Oh, come on. If you want to encourage "free and creative thinking" you can just say "There's a bunch of different gods/factions/whatever, here's how a faction interacts with an enemy faction, here's how it interacts with an allied faction". Creating one huge, all-encompassing system and then *referencing it repeatedly* in supplements *over and over again* is not a way to encourage creativity. I'm getting sick of the "Older editions encouraged creativity!" thing. It's not really true. Older editions *tried* to define just as much and write just as much down in stone as 3e, if not more. They just did a rather bad job of it and *forced* people to (badly, with no guidance) handwave or houserule ways around the contradictions in the core rules.
ArcTan 10-06-07, 09:45 PM	Law is not about following orders. Also in the event that Monk's temper tantrums I don't know because I never watched that show. Anyway I think a good way to describe law vs chaos is this situtation. Their are people that need the wiring of thier houses changed because of a problem with the electricity. A lawful person does everything he can to find out how everything works and/ or calls a specialist to help. A chaotic person remembers the last time the specialist was over and decides that he can remember how it was done and fix it himself. So Chaos = smart enough to do things himself, Lawful = dependent and needy? Okay, now Law is the Stupid alignment and Chaos is the Cool alignment. You see how this doesn't work? I mean, I know people that are, broadly speaking, very "Lawful" -- very prone to following procedure, very prone to doing things "the right way" -- who are still smart enough to fix something themselves if they know the right way to do it and know that they're competent enough to do it. IF you need another example imagine two students taking a test The lawful one is the one that studied a little each night. The chaotic one either crammed the night before and/or just decided that he learned enough to remeber it and that he would take his chances. So the Lawful one is the one who has a realistic assessment of his own abilities and really wants to pass this course, and the Chaotic one is the one with poor time management skills or doesn't actually care about this course. Wow, sounds like Law is winning now. What about the kid who *knows* this course is of no value to him and is instead hard at work on something that he knows will get him more money and fame -- and *very diligently* applies himself to that at the expense of his schoolwork? (This is a good description of the first generation of computer nerds like Bill Gates.) Are they Chaotic for bucking social norms and expectations and not doing what they're "supposed" to do? Or are they Lawful for having a very clear and obvious goal that's a very rational goal to follow and following it, even if it's not one the rest of the world understands or approves of? I mean, *sheesh*. You do realize that every time you give an example, one of the people in the example is doing something that's actively a bad idea. That's not a good definition for "alignment". No alignment should require you to be stupid, foolish or unwise -- after all, your Int and Wis scores are *entirely separate* from your ethical alignment. (This is why it's SO ANNOYING that there's a stereotype that "Chaotic Neutral = INSANE AND RECKLESS", despite the fact that it's perfectly possible to have CN characters with Wis 22.) At its best, alignment should describe what *goals* people have, not what methods they use to undertake those goals. And it's very hard to divide Law and Chaos on those grounds. (Okay, look, dude, I don't want to be too mean here, but I'm pretty damn sure I've thought this issue through a lot more than you have, at least to the point where I'm not stuck at the level of "Chaotic people never study or prepare for anything", okay?) How are those even remotely similar? Also if a person has both lawful and chaotic traits and one does not beat the other doesn't that make them neutral for that part of allignment.[/QUOTE]
IRememberCecil 10-06-07, 10:01 PM	ArcTan, what I think Thegans means is that Chaotic individuals, being free and creative thinkers, are generally intelligent in the first place ("wolves," to put it into the "sheep vs. wolf perspective"). If you're going to rely on your own judgement instead of that of anyone else, then that's what you need, along with sensibility. Lawful people don't need it, but they do have it, along with tried and true methods that help them through their problems, and if they need help, they're not afraid to seek it. Chaotic people stand alone and will rely on themselves, whereas sheep Lawful people stand together and help each other out. And BTW, I think Bill Gates is and always was Chaotic. The guy made his own path through life and still does.
JulesCARV 10-06-07, 10:49 PM	For what it's worth, I kinda liked guardinals. They could have used a bit more depth, but still basically liked their sort of "benign protective animal totem/heraldic beast" feel. I don't think that the D&D will be ruined forever if they nix guardinals, and I recognize that not everyone shares my aesthetic preferences, but, well, it's a decision I don't like, personally.
Thegans 10-06-07, 11:58 PM	So the Lawful one is the one who has a realistic assessment of his own abilities and really wants to pass this course, and the Chaotic one is the one with poor time management skills or doesn't actually care about this course. Wow, sounds like Law is winning now. What about the kid who *knows* this course is of no value to him and is instead hard at work on something that he knows will get him more money and fame -- and *very diligently* applies himself to that at the expense of his schoolwork? (This is a good description of the first generation of computer nerds like Bill Gates.) Are they Chaotic for bucking social norms and expectations and not doing what they're "supposed" to do? Or are they Lawful for having a very clear and obvious goal that's a very rational goal to follow and following it, even if it's not one the rest of the world understands or approves of? I mean, *sheesh*. You do realize that every time you give an example, one of the people in the example is doing something that's actively a bad idea. That's not a good definition for "alignment". No alignment should require you to be stupid, foolish or unwise -- after all, your Int and Wis scores are *entirely separate* from your ethical alignment. (This is why it's SO ANNOYING that there's a stereotype that "Chaotic Neutral = INSANE AND RECKLESS", despite the fact that it's perfectly possible to have CN characters with Wis 22.) At its best, alignment should describe what *goals* people have, not what methods they use to undertake those goals. And it's very hard to divide Law and Chaos on those grounds. (Okay, look, dude, I don't want to be too mean here, but I'm pretty damn sure I've thought this issue through a lot more than you have, at least to the point where I'm not stuck at the level of "Chaotic people never study or prepare for anything", okay?) I'm saying that chaos is spontanious. If you need a better example think of people with type a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_A) and type b personality. Or if you prefer another example of personality types http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion Also how does not studying imply that they don't have a realistic assessment of their abilities. The majority of school work is a repetition of something already learned and easy to remember if you payed attention to the stuff from last year. I mean back in ancient times people could rememeber entire stories. I don't find it unreasonable that someone could simply remember everything they learned and decided that they don't need to study while another person could be just as smart but decide that they would rather be prepared even though they don't need to be. Also just out of curisosity did you ever look up any of the Save My Game stuff because it seems to agree with my concept of law and chaos? Heres the link to the article and two quotes http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a First of all, let's be clear about one important concept: Lawful does not necessarily mean "adheres to the letter of the law." A law (or body of laws) is merely a rule that a government imposes on those who are subject to its power. A lawful alignment, on the other hand, represents an orderly approach to matters of ethics and personal conduct. Most lawful characters do respect the order that the laws of the realm represent, but adherence to local ordinances is only one way of demonstrating a lawful alignment. To be lawful is to be in favor of conformity and consistency, to act in a systematic and uniform fashion, and to take responsibility. As a lawful person, you establish patterns and precedents and stick to them unless you can see a good reason to do otherwise. Methodical efficiency is your byword, and you believe in the concept of duty. You plan and organize your activities to achieve particular goals, not just to satisfy impulsive desires. You believe a proper way exists to accomplish any goal, though it may not always be the traditional, tried-and-true way. Likewise, you cultivate long-term relationships and endeavor to build trust between your associates and yourself. As a lawful person, you recognize that most laws have valid purposes that promote social order, but you are not necessarily bound to obey them to the letter. In particular, if you are both good and lawful, you have no respect for a law is unfair or capricious. Being chaotic, on the other hand, doesn't necessarily mean you are incapable of adhering to the law. Though chaotic societies may seem disorderly, they exist in abundance. As a chaotic character, you are dedicated to personal and societal freedom. You pursue your dreams and don't try to put limits on your nature. You don't value consistency for its own sake; rather, you respond to every situation as you see fit without worrying about what you did before. The past is the past and the future is uncertain, so you prefer to live in the present. Each situation is new, so planning and procedures are pointless -- in fact, they restrain people from reacting quickly and decisively. You don't get tied up in exclusive relationships because they could hold you back from your destiny -- which might be right around the corner. You are always ready to try new techniques because you believe that experience is the best teacher, and you are always open to discovery. I think the article basically states that chaotic people don't plan things out. Not becuase they can't but because they view it as flaw. ArcTan, what I think Thegans means is that Chaotic individuals, being free and creative thinkers, are generally intelligent in the first place ("wolves," to put it into the "sheep vs. wolf perspective"). If you're going to rely on your own judgement instead of that of anyone else, then that's what you need, along with sensibility. Lawful people don't need it, but they do have it, along with tried and true methods that help them through their problems, and if they need help, they're not afraid to seek it. Chaotic people stand alone and will rely on themselves, whereas sheep Lawful people stand together and help each other out. And BTW, I think Bill Gates is and always was Chaotic. The guy made his own path through life and still does. Basically sort of like Galen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen) being chaotic, and the people that used his methods since as far as they were concerned his methods worked were being lawful. Sure eventually it proved inefficient but it took people a millenia to realise that that the book doesn't have everything.
JulesCARV 10-07-07, 01:43 AM	ArcTan, what I think Thegans means is that Chaotic individuals, being free and creative thinkers, are generally intelligent in the first place ("wolves," to put it into the "sheep vs. wolf perspective"). Side note: it seems to me that if one were to ascribe alignment to animals (which isn't how it's handled in the current D&D rules, but doesn't strike me as completely unreasonable) then both wolves and sheep would probably be lawful, being organized, hierarchical, social animals that exist in herds/packs. Chaos would be more among solitary types, like deer or tigers.
ArcTan 10-07-07, 01:55 AM	I'm saying that chaos is spontanious. If you need a better example think of people with type a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_A) and type b personality. Or if you prefer another example of personality types http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraversion_and_introversion Neither Type A/Type B nor Extroversion/Introversion correspond well to what you're calling Lawful/Chaotic. Type A can stress out about things whether they be stressing out because they care a lot about following other people's rules or care a lot about getting their own way. Extroverts can be very talkative and spontaneous or very talkative and by-the-book. Also how does not studying imply that they don't have a realistic assessment of their abilities. The majority of school work is a repetition of something already learned and easy to remember if you payed attention to the stuff from last year. I mean back in ancient times people could rememeber entire stories. I don't find it unreasonable that someone could simply remember everything they learned and decided that they don't need to study while another person could be just as smart but decide that they would rather be prepared even though they don't need to be. In which case why is that Chaotic? Why is it simply not the rational thing to do? Either way you're making either Law or Chaos be the "alignment of being irrational and self-defeating". Either Chaos is the alignment of being overconfident and not asking for help when you need it, or Law is the alignment of being a wuss and having to *always* ask for help even when you clearly don't need it. Also just out of curisosity did you ever look up any of the Save My Game stuff because it seems to agree with my concept of law and chaos? Heres the link to the article and two quotes http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/sg/20050325a I think the article basically states that chaotic people don't plan things out. Not becuase they can't but because they view it as flaw. Which I don't view as particularly good. I've never seen a group of D&D players who didn't plan things out in a D&D adventure, because that's how you avoid getting killed. Does that mean all D&D parties are Lawful? (FWIW, Bards are a "Chaotic" class and require a pretty fair degree of planning to play well, and are required to work well with groups to be effective at doing anything.) What they're really doing is conflating a whole ton of different things into one overarching "alignment", which can only create paradox after paradox. Being able to work well with others has nothing to do with being a tirelessly unimaginatively methodical person. Being the kind of person who always prepares and has a backup plan has nothing to do with being strictly by-the-book -- indeed, strictly by-the-book people are *bad at making plans*, which is why they rely on the book to provide plans for them. And so on. It's really not very good. Basically sort of like Galen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen) being chaotic and lawful being the people that used his methods since as far as they were concerned his methods worked. Sure eventually it proved inefficient but it tok people a millenia to realise that that the book doesn't have everything. Er, what? Galen had some ideas that people thought were true even though they weren't. How the hell does that make him "both Chaotic and Lawful"?
Count Arioch the 28th 10-07-07, 01:55 AM	And BTW, I think Bill Gates is and always was Chaotic. The guy made his own path through life and still does. If by "making his own path", you mean "stole a product from his former partner and then used his newfound wealth to crush competition and stifle progress", then yes, he did make his own way. Then again, that whole rant I just posted still does indicate Bill Gates is probably chaotic.
ArcTan 10-07-07, 01:57 AM	Side note: it seems to me that if one were to ascribe alignment to animals (which isn't how it's handled in the current D&D rules, but doesn't strike me as completely unreasonable) then both wolves and sheep would probably be lawful, being organized, hierarchical, social animals that exist in herds/packs. Chaos would be more among solitary types, like deer or tigers. "Sociable/Loner" doesn't strike me as a good "alignment". Remember that it's *not* supposed to be a personality trait, but an *alignment*, a set of *ethics*. It's supposed to somehow directly impact how you view right and wrong, not just "I don't feel comfortable going out without a plan" or "I like being spontaneous". It's supposed to be what you *believe* about the *universe* -- it's supposed to be two fundamental *forces* that existed before any conscious beings did. In that light, no, "I like being by myself" and "I like being around other people" is a woefully inadequate definition of Law/Chaos. Again, I HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THIS A LOT. I have as a general rule *tried* to run the Moorcockian Law/Chaos Kant/Nietzsche axis as how I define "Law/Chaos" in D&D games. And at the end of the day I still don't think it works.
Thegans 10-07-07, 02:30 AM	[QUOTE=ArcTan;14012835]Neither Type A/Type B nor Extroversion/Introversion correspond well to what you're calling Lawful/Chaotic. Type A can stress out about things whether they be stressing out because they care a lot about following other people's rules or care a lot about getting their own way. Extroverts can be very talkative and spontaneous or very talkative and by-the-book. In which case why is that Chaotic? Why is it simply not the rational thing to do? Either way you're making either Law or Chaos be the "alignment of being irrational and self-defeating". Either Chaos is the alignment of being overconfident and not asking for help when you need it, or Law is the alignment of being a wuss and having to *always* ask for help even when you clearly don't need it. Which I don't view as particularly good. I've never seen a group of D&D players who didn't plan things out in a D&D adventure, because that's how you avoid getting killed. Does that mean all D&D parties are Lawful? (FWIW, Bards are a "Chaotic" class and require a pretty fair degree of planning to play well, and are required to work well with groups to be effective at doing anything.) What they're really doing is conflating a whole ton of different things into one overarching "alignment", which can only create paradox after paradox. Being able to work well with others has nothing to do with being a tirelessly unimaginatively methodical person. Being the kind of person who always prepares and has a backup plan has nothing to do with being strictly by-the-book -- indeed, strictly by-the-book people are *bad at making plans*, which is why they rely on the book to provide plans for them. And so on. It's really not very good. While bards are suppouse to be chaotic I don't think metagaming afects allignment. Sure bards require a lot of planning from the player but does that really affect the character. Anyway I would suggest that you might be more comfortable with the allegiance system (http://www.d20resources.com/modern.d20.srd/basics/allegiances.php) or the old allignment system from AD&D where allignment was apparently about how you viewed reality. Er, what? Galen had some ideas that people thought were true even though they weren't. How the hell does that make him "both Chaotic and Lawful"? Actually you kind of misread the post. I'll fix it to see if I can get it to make more sense. Anyway I was saying that Galen was chaotic while the people that followed his ideas for a thousand years were lawful.
JulesCARV 10-07-07, 03:03 AM	In general, I agree -- law and chaos are reduced to personality traits rather than enacted values far too often. I just don't get the wolves as chaos, sheep as law thing.
Count Arioch the 28th 10-07-07, 03:14 AM	What we need is a better defined version of law and chaos. In D&D cosmology, law and chaos were the original forces in the unicerse, predating good and evil. It needs to be very well defined. It's not well defined. In fact, it's self contradictory. To quote one of the board's more prominent writers: ...Let's get this out in the open: Law and Chaos do not have any meaning under the standard D&D rules. We are aware that especially if you've been playing this game for a long time, you personally probably have an understanding of what you think Law and Chaos are supposed to mean. You possibly even believe that the rest of your group thinks that Law and Chaos mean the same thing you do. But you're probably wrong. The nature of Law and Chaos is the source of more arguments among D&D players (veteran and novice alike) than any other facet of the game. More than attacks of opportunities, more than weapon sizing, more even than spell effect inheritance. And the reason is because the "definition" of Law and Chaos in the Player's Handbook is written so confusingly that the terms are not even mutually exclusive. Look it up, this is a written document, so it's perfectly acceptable for you to stop reading at this time, flip open the Player's Handbook, and start reading the alignment descriptions. The Tome of Fiends will still be here when you get back. … There you go! Now that we're all on the same page (page XX), the reason why you've gotten into so many arguments with people as to whether their character was Lawful or Chaotic is because absolutely every action that any character ever takes could logically be argued to be both. A character who is honorable, adaptable, trustworthy, flexible, reliable, and loves freedom is a basically stand-up fellow, and meets the check marks for being "ultimate Law" and "ultimate Chaos". There aren't any contradictory adjectives there. While Law and Chaos are supposed to be opposed forces, there's nothing antithetical about the descriptions in the book. Ethics Option 1: A level of Organization. Optimal span of control is 3 to 5 people. Maybe Chaotic characters demand to personally control more units than that themselves and their lack of delegation ends up with a quagmire of incomprehensible proportions. Maybe Chaotic characters refuse to bow to authority at all and end up in units of one. Whatever the case, some DMs will have Law be well organized and Chaos be poorly organized. In this case, Law is objectively a virtue and Chaos is objectively a flaw. Being disorganized doesn't mean that you're more creative or interesting, it just means that you accomplish less with the same inputs. In this model pure Chaos is a destructive, but more importantly incompetent force. Ethics Option 2: A Question of Sanity. Some DMs will want Law and Chaos to mean essentially "Sane" and "Insane". That's fine, but it doesn't mean that Chaos is funny. In fact, insanity is generally about the least funny thing you could possibly imagine. An insane person reacts inappropriately to their surroundings. That doesn't mean that they perform unexpected actions, that's just surrealist. And Paladins are totally permitted to enjoy non sequitur based humor and art. See, insanity is when you perform the same action over and over again and expect different results. In this model we get a coherent explanation for why, when all the forces of Evil are composed of a multitude of strange nightmarish creatures, and the forces of Good have everything from a glowing patch of light to a winged snake tailed woman, every single soldier in the army of Chaos is a giant frog. This is because in this model Limbo is a place that is totally insane. It's a place where the answer to every question really is "Giant Frog". Creatures of Chaos then proceed to go to non Chaotically-aligned planes and are disappointed and confused when doors have to be pushed and pulled to open and entrance cannot be achieved by "Giant Frog". If Chaos is madness, it's not "spontaneous", it's "non-functional". Actual adaptability is sane. Adapting responses to stimuli is what people are supposed to do. For reactions to be sufficiently inappropriate to qualify as insanity, one has to go pretty far into one's own preconceptions. Actual mental illness is very sad and traumatic just to watch as an outside observer. Actually living that way is even worse. It is strongly suggested therefore, that you don't go this route at all. It's not that you can't make D&D work with sanity and insanity as the core difference between Law and Chaos, it's that in doing so you're essentially making the Law vs. Chaos choice into the choice between good and bad. That and there is a certain segment of the roleplaying community that cannot differentiate absurdist humor from insanity and will insist on doing annoying things in the name of humor. And we hate those people. Ethics Option 3: The Laws of the Land. Any region that has writing will have an actual code of laws. Even oral traditions will have, well, traditions. In some campaigns, following these laws makes you Lawful, and not following these laws makes you Chaotic. This doesn't mean that Lawful characters necessarily have to follow the laws of Kyuss when you invade his secret Worm Fort, but it does mean that they need to be an "invading force" when they run around in Kyuss' Worm Fort. Honestly, I'm not sure what it even means to have a Chaotic society if Lawful means "following your own rules". This whole schema is workable, but only with extreme effort. It helps if there's some sort of divinely agreed upon laws somewhere that nations and individuals can follow to a greater or lesser degree. But even so, there's a lot of hermits and warfare in the world such that whether people are following actual laws can be just plain hard to evaluate. I'd like to endorse this more highly, since any time you have characters living up to a specific arbitrary code (or not) it becomes a lot easier to get things evaluated. Unfortunately, it's really hard to even imagine an entire nation fighting for not following their own laws. That's just… really weird. But if you take Law to mean law, then you're going to have to come to terms with that. Ethics Option 4: My Word is My Bond. Some DMs are going to want Law to essentially equate to following through on things. A Lawful character will keep their word and do things that they said they were going to. In this model, a Lawful character has an arbitrary code of conduct and a Chaotic character does not. That's pretty easy to adjudicate, you just announce what you're going to do and if you do it, you're Lawful and if you don't you're not. Here's where it gets weird though: That means that Lawful characters have a harder time working together than do non-lawful characters. Sure, once they agree to work together there's some Trust there that we can capitalize, but it means that there are arbitrary things that Lawful characters won't do. Essentially this means that Chaotic parties order one mini-pizza each while Lawful parties have to get one extra large pizza for the whole group – and we know how difficult that can be to arrange. A good example of this in action is the Paladin's code: they won't work with Evil characters, which restricts the possibilities of other party members. In the world, this means that if you attack a Chaotic city, various other chaotic characters will trickle in to defend it. But if you attack a Lawful city, chances are that it's going to have to stand on its own. Adherence to Self: Not a Rubric for Law Sometimes Lawfulness is defined by people as adhering to one's personal self. That may sound very "Lawful", but there's no way that makes any sense. Whatever impulses you happen to have, those are going to be the ones that you act upon, by definition. If it is in your nature to do random crap that doesn't make any sense to anyone else – then your actions will be contrary and perplexing, but they will still be completely consistent with your nature. Indeed, there is literally nothing you can do that isn't what you would do. It's circular. Rigidity: Not a Rubric for Law Sometimes Lawfulness is defined by people as being more "rigid" as opposed to "spontaneous" in your action. That's crap. Time generally only goes in one direction, and it generally carries a one to one correspondence with itself. That means that as a result of a unique set of stimuli, you are only going to do one thing. In D&D, the fact that other people weren't sure what the one thing you were going to do is handled by a Bluff check, not by being Chaotic. I Fought the Law Regardless of what your group ends up meaning when they use the word "Law", the fact is that some of your enemies are probably going to end up being Lawful. That doesn't mean that Lawful characters can't stab them in their area, whatever it is that you have alignments mean it's still entirely acceptable for Good characters to stab other Good characters and Lawful characters to stab other Lawful characters (oddly, noone even asks if it's a violation of Chaotic Evil to kill another Chaotic Evil character, but it isn't). There are lots of reasons to kill a man, and alignment disagreements don't occupy that list exclusively. Code of Conduct: Barbarian A Barbarian who becomes Lawful cannot Rage. Why not? There's no decent answer for that. Rage doesn't seem to require that you not tell people in advance that you're going to do it, nor does it actually force you to break promises once you're enraged. It doesn't force you to behave in any particular fashion, and noone knows why it is restricted. Code of Conduct: Bard If anyone can tell me why a concert pianist can't be Lawful I will personally put one thing of their choice into my mouth. Music is expressionistic, but it is also mathematical. Already there are computers that can write music that is indistinguishable from the boring parts of Mozart in which he's just going up and down scales in order to mark time. Beating Back Chaos Long ago "Law" and "Chaos" were used euphemisms by Pohl Anderson for Good and Evil, and that got taken up by other fantasy and science fiction authors and ultimately snow-balled into having a Chaos alignment for D&D. If you go back far enough, "Chaos" actually means "The Villains", and when it comes down to it there's no logical meaning for it to have other than that – so the forces of Chaos really are going to show up at your door to take a number for a whuppin at some point. Depending upon what your group ends up deciding to mean by Chaos, this may seem pretty senselessly cruel. If the forces of Chaos are simply unorganized then you are essentially chasing down hobos and beating down the ones too drunk to get away. If Chaos is insanity than the Chaos Hunters in your game are essentially going door to door to beat up the retarded kids. The key is essentially to not overthink it. Chaos was originally put into the fantasy genre in order to have bad guys without having to have black hatted madmen trying to destroy the world. So if Team Chaos is coming around your door, just roll with it. The whole point is to have villains that you can stab without feeling guilty while still having villains to whom your characters can lose without necessarily losing the whole campaign world...
Bob the Efreet 10-07-07, 04:12 AM	Okay, tell me what the role of Guardinals is, then. They do for Good what modrons do for Law. :P FWIW, there was a very obvious candidate for NG Outsiders -- Angels -- but they chose to make up some new thing instead, leaving Angels in the 3.5 version of the planes as an out-of-place, floating orphan race -- they're not associated with any plane at all, just "Good" in general. That's not really new. That's the old 2e (or older, possibly) flavour for aasimon, which just got renamed to angels. Why do you think there's the paragons of benevolence and goodness? An Archon is just as likely to attack a mostly chaotic party as a baatezu is. A Guardinal is just as likely to kill a lawfully oriented party as any tanar'ri. That's a ridiculous view. While I fully support the idea that Law and Chaos are opposed and, in a way, at war, I think the part about whether a character is good or evil tempers how the Law/Chaos conflict is played out. Much like being lawful or chaotic tempers how the Good/Evil conflict is handled.
sciborg2 10-07-07, 09:05 AM	I don't think that the D&D will be ruined forever if they nix guardinals, and I recognize that not everyone shares my aesthetic preferences, but, well, it's a decision I don't like, personally. It's really our personal desires vs. theirs, and they being designers won. This just smacks of a childish move in the ever-irritating canon wars where designer A attempts to rewrite D&D to be closer to their favorite aspect or personal homebrew. This was bad with the continuation of the baernoloth myth when it became fact, thought briefly, in 3e and it's bad now. For the life of me, why announce getting rid of something rather than just leave it out until you can make money off of it. It just smacks of childish glee - 'Now D&D is what I like, and so let's get rid of or dumb down the concepts that never worked for me personally...'
Naderion 10-07-07, 09:37 AM	Since there is no reak core setting, I'm pretty sure we'll see Guardinals again in one of the later MMs, when they run out of ideas. Sure, there are no guardinals in the core/cannon game, but that's true for most creatures in the later MMs of the current Edition.
Taeldrin Laesrash 10-07-07, 10:14 AM	If they do do that, hopefully we won't end up with them being poorly described and scattered haphazardly. We need a good Book of Outsiders, which could have made cosmology issues a lot simpler.
Naderion 10-07-07, 11:25 AM	You mean unlike to the 3rd Ed. Monster Manuals? ;)
Taeldrin Laesrash 10-07-07, 11:27 AM	Exactly unlike the 3E MM. They had to cut 75% of the celestials and all the Yugoloths for space reasons, leaving a very patchy view of the cosmology. I'd've put the exemplars and some other planar creatures in with the Manual of the Planes.
Andyr 10-07-07, 11:29 AM	Listening to that part of the podcast made me sad... It seems from blogs/podcasts that most of the 4E changes are coming from a direction of "I don't know much about the Great Wheel, so let's make something new" and a resulting cull of creatures and planes because the designers didn't know much about them, or care for them. There's ample talent here, at Planewalker, at Paizo, and doubtless at other places who I am sure would have been happy to act in concert with the designers to fill the gaps in their knowledge, and create a 4E complementary to existing lore rather than overwriting it.
Naderion 10-07-07, 02:05 PM	Exactly unlike the 3E MM. They had to cut 75% of the celestials and all the Yugoloths for space reasons, leaving a very patchy view of the cosmology. I'd've put the exemplars and some other planar creatures in with the Manual of the Planes. To all the new players: Back in 2nd Ed. every creature had at least one full page, with the stats and picure only taking up the first quarter of the page. Often three or four times as much information as now. That's what distingueshes an RP-Game from a Tabletop Wargame.
goldomark 10-07-07, 03:33 PM	Listening to that part of the podcast made me sad... It seems from blogs/podcasts that most of the 4E changes are coming from a direction of "I don't know much about the Great Wheel, so let's make something new" and a resulting cull of creatures and planes because the designers didn't know much about them, or care for them. Finally, somebody who understand why I started this thread. When you read Rob Heinsoo's D&D 360 article, he mentions himself that he didn't really play AD&D. Its natural that he doesn't know the Great Wheel or have any emotional attachment to it. But if he doesn't care for it, that does not meen its the case for every adept of the game. I miss designers like Monte Cook. In PS he really tried to unify settings, their histories and alot of other fluff. It really showed a knowledge of the game and a will to appeal to different players. PS was really the apotheosis of DnD. And Naderion is right, monsters had more info back in 2e. It was inspirering plot wise and provided good clues on how to roleplay monsters. Designers didn't just create stats, they imagine alot of information on a creature. Wow! I'm bitter. I really need to stop living in the past.
sciborg2 10-07-07, 05:12 PM	Don't worry about living in the past. Live in the game that worked best for you. Don't buy 4e if you don't like where things are going - so far I don't plan on getting anything coming down the pipeline.
RadicalTaoist 10-07-07, 05:31 PM	For what it's worth, I kinda liked guardinals. They could have used a bit more depth, but still basically liked their sort of "benign protective animal totem/heraldic beast" feel. I don't think that the D&D will be ruined forever if they nix guardinals, and I recognize that not everyone shares my aesthetic preferences, but, well, it's a decision I don't like, personally. Ditto. Unfortunately the whole responsibilities of the Blood War kinda got in that way; reinventing the guardinals as neutral good nature spirits would have been cooler. "We're just here to protect the forests, man." Listening to that part of the podcast made me sad... It seems from blogs/podcasts that most of the 4E changes are coming from a direction of "I don't know much about the Great Wheel, so let's make something new" and a resulting cull of creatures and planes because the designers didn't know much about them, or care for them. There's ample talent here, at Planewalker, at Paizo, and doubtless at other places who I am sure would have been happy to act in concert with the designers to fill the gaps in their knowledge, and create a 4E complementary to existing lore rather than overwriting it. And in fact, I'm thinking it may be *better* if WotC lets them. WotC wants to make 4e their edition of D&D. They may be able to do that very well if allowed to step outside the old ideas. Leave a 4e conversion of the Great Wheel to the fans who like it the most. I always found the bottom-up/top-down (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottom_Up) distinction (as it was used in cognitive psychology with Stanovich's notions of System 1 and System 2 processing) the best way to do a quick-and-dirty parsing of Law and Chaos. Lawful creatures favor extrinsic motivation, solid problem formulation, and sensation of cognitive security. Chaotic creatures favor intrinsic motivation, insightful problem reformulation, and Flow experiences. Three catches though: 1) This doesn't map onto the old notions of Law/Chaos perfectly; it'd be more like throwing them out and slapping the names Law and Chaos on because Top-Down and Bottom-Up don't sound as cool. Not necessarily a bad thing, but semantically inelegant. 2) They're not exactly alignments; they're approaches. Now, that's also not a bad thing; you can make Good/Evil the alignment spectrum that decides what you choose to do and Law/Chaos the alignment spectrum that decides how you go about it and how much you enjoy going about it a particular way. That's something new, and people might not grasp it right away. 3) It took me the better part of my university career as a Cognitive Science major to grasp the theoretical frameworks underpinning these cognitive psychology ideas. We don't want an alignment system that requires a foundation of two full-year courses in cognitive psychology. The fluff could stand to be simplified.
IRememberCecil 10-07-07, 06:28 PM	Missing an Edition I skimmed through the 2nd Edition AD&D rulebook and decided I liked the games I was already interested in a lot more. I didn't see 2nd Edition AD&D as an improvement over Runequest or Champions, so I gave it a miss. Now skip ahead many years via many other non-D&D game systems. *gunshot* Although I didn't play 2nd Edition, I consider it the edition of D&D where some of the best fluff in the history of the game was written. If the writers aren't going to implement it, they can at least base it on some of the established fluff, if only to not alienate customers. I personally am not too much of a diehard fan, but I don't think this is a very good business decision. And CountArioch, the fact that he did steal from and destroy the competition with dirty business is what makes him cool in my eyes. I honestly don't know why, but it does.
Thegans 10-07-07, 07:21 PM	Finally, somebody who understand why I started this thread. When you read Rob Heinsoo's D&D 360 article, he mentions himself that he didn't really play AD&D. Its natural that he doesn't know the Great Wheel or have any emotional attachment to it. But if he doesn't care for it, that does not meen its the case for every adept of the game. I miss designers like Monte Cook. In PS he really tried to unify settings, their histories and alot of other fluff. It really showed a knowledge of the game and a will to appeal to different players. PS was really the apotheosis of DnD. And Naderion is right, monsters had more info back in 2e. It was inspirering plot wise and provided good clues on how to roleplay monsters. Designers didn't just create stats, they imagine alot of information on a creature. Wow! I'm bitter. I really need to stop living in the past. Look on the bright side all you need to do is wait for Monte Cook to make some variant rules ans stats if you decide to switch. Ditto. Unfortunately the whole responsibilities of the Blood War kinda got in that way; reinventing the guardinals as neutral good nature spirits would have been cooler. "We're just here to protect the forests, man." So basically Guardinals - "We protect the forest." Formians - "We conquer the forests." Sladd - "We create and destroy the forests." Yuggoloth- "One,two,three. Um do you mind not bothering me while I count the cannon fodd, um I mean the forest creatures." Rillimian - "Um are we suppouse to be forest based also?" *gunshot* Although I didn't play 2nd Edition, I consider it the edition of D&D where some of the best fluff in the history of the game was written. If the writers aren't going to implement it, they can at least base it on some of the established fluff, if only to not alienate customers. I personally am not too much of a diehard fan, but I don't think this is a very good business decision. And CountArioch, the fact that he did steal from and destroy the competition with dirty business is what makes him cool in my eyes. I honestly don't know why, but it does. Could it be the fact that a lot of people know he stole the stuff but that he became so rich they can't do anything about it?
IRememberCecil 10-07-07, 07:34 PM	Could it be the fact that a lot of people know he stole the stuff but that he became so rich they can't do anything about it? Maybe. I just don't feel the same sense of dislike for him that others seem to do, but respect him for what he's willing to do to get what he wants.
Thegans 10-07-07, 07:41 PM	Maybe. I just don't feel the same sense of dislike for him that others seem to do, but respect him for what he's willing to do to get what he wants. So basically you respect him because as far as the economy and society which is mostly based on the economy are concerned, he won? I'm just trying to figure out what has more money in it. His bank account of the U.S. mint. (or whatever its called). Wait does Bill Gates even live in the United States?
IRememberCecil 10-07-07, 08:53 PM	So basically you respect him because as far as the economy and society which is mostly based on the economy are concerned, he won? Not really. Winning is beside the point to me. I admire the fact that he doesn't let morality or ethics get in his way (or at least he didn't). Personally, I think morality is overrated and somewhat impractical, though an interesting concept and fun to discuss. Of course, you may not feel the same way, and I don't want to clutter up or derail the thread, so I'll just pre-emptively propose to agree to disagree with you (assuming you don't agree).
Thegans 10-07-07, 09:25 PM	Not really. Winning is beside the point to me. I admire the fact that he doesn't let morality or ethics get in his way (or at least he didn't). Personally, I think morality is overrated and somewhat impractical, though an interesting concept and fun to discuss. Of course, you may not feel the same way, and I don't want to clutter up or derail the thread, so I'll just pre-emptively propose to agree to disagree with you (assuming you don't agree). So basically we both agree with the cat girls statement in panel three of this comic (http://www.egscomics.com/d/20050117.html) To make that slightly more on topic would the cat girl count as a slightly abnormal leonal? (The lion type guardinal.)
ArcTan 10-08-07, 12:44 AM	It's really our personal desires vs. theirs, and they being designers won. This just smacks of a childish move in the ever-irritating canon wars where designer A attempts to rewrite D&D to be closer to their favorite aspect or personal homebrew. Well, D&D's original canon *was* just the random crap Gary Gygax essentially came up with for his homebrew. The fact that he was the first person to make a D&D homebrew, thus making his particular homebrew D&D's "official setting", doesn't make anything about that homebrew objectively good.
ArcTan 10-08-07, 12:46 AM	Sladd - "We create and destroy the forests." Which would be great if Slaadi were ever actually portrayed as both creating and destroying things, as opposed to the vast majority of portrayals landing on the "destroying" side. (I mean, Slaadi are a great idea for a particularly scary and icky CE Demon. They didn't do much to make me think of them as Chaotic *Neutral*, though.)
Thegans 10-08-07, 12:58 AM	Which would be great if Slaadi were ever actually portrayed as both creating and destroying things, as opposed to the vast majority of portrayals landing on the "destroying" side. (I mean, Slaadi are a great idea for a particularly scary and icky CE Demon. They didn't do much to make me think of them as Chaotic *Neutral*, though.) Really I was just basing it off of the druidic guardianal that person thought of. Sladdi from what I can are kind of like quasi mindflayers. Mindflayer - Eats your brain for food and plants stuff in it to reproduce Sladdi - Eats you or plants something in you to reproduce.
Taeldrin Laesrash 10-08-07, 01:09 AM	Really I was just basing it off of the druidic guardianal that person thought of. Sladdi from what I can are kind of like quasi mindflayers. Mindflayer - Eats your brain for food and plants stuff in it to reproduce Sladdi - Eats you or plants something in you to reproduce. Which is a big problem, of course. We should have Slaad that are beyond a simple 'Must eat random object' tangent. I like this thread (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=188198&page=1&pp=40); the slaad are still chaotic and a little violent, but at least they've got some more personality.
ArcTan 10-08-07, 01:24 AM	Mindflayer - Eats your brain for food and plants stuff in it to reproduce Sladdi - Eats you or plants something in you to reproduce. Yes. And Mind Flayers are Evil, but Slaadi aren't. For some reason.
Thegans 10-08-07, 01:32 AM	Which is a big problem, of course. We should have Slaad that are beyond a simple 'Must eat random object' tangent. I like this thread (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=188198&page=1&pp=40); the slaad are still chaotic and a little violent, but at least they've got some more personality. http://www.oerthjournal.com/oj22.html That also has a sladdi variant that leads to a chaotic good sladdi. Yet they still have the same problem at the start . Really the sladdi do nothing but eat and reproduce.
ArcTan 10-08-07, 01:45 AM	Really, all the original 1e and 2e morally Neutral species are bad. Modrons, being Lawful Neutral, do nothing of obvious importance for eons on end, until they decide to take a big March that tramples and kills countless innocent beings. Slaadi, being Chaotic Neutral, murder sentient beings on a regular basis to lay eggs in them in behavior that is widely acknowledged to be Evil when the Mind Flayers do the *exact same thing*. And, unlike True Neutral animals, they are *quite* smart enough to know better. And the smarter they get the more Evil they act. Rilmani are True Neutral in the freaky weird annoying sense where they do stuff like help innocent little girls fend off kidnappers until the "rescued innocent girls" quota goes above a certain number, at which point they switch to helping people kidnap girls to make up for it. (Yes, I'm exaggerating.) While this was a cool, disorienting twist when we encountered it in the short story An Ordinary Day, With Peanuts, as the foundation for how a whole race acts it's kind of twisted and not exactly "Neutral". Indeed, this behavior is almost *by definition* creepily Lawful. So I dunno. I may not have a great grasp of the L/C axis, but I don't think *anyone* does, especially the people writing official material.
Thegans 10-08-07, 01:55 AM	Yes. And Mind Flayers are Evil, but Slaadi aren't. For some reason. Slaadi, being Chaotic Neutral, murder sentient beings on a regular basis to lay eggs in them in behavior that is widely acknowledged to be Evil when the Mind Flayers do the *exact same thing*. And, unlike True Neutral animals, they are *quite* smart enough to know better. And the smarter they get the more Evil they act. Really if you go by the theory that Mind Flayers came from the future you would easily claim that they evolved from the Sladdi. The two species are almost identical.
Calmar 10-08-07, 08:08 AM	We have to differentiate between outsiders and mortals here. While a LE tyrant may act more or less like a devil - whether he actually is one or not ;) - I am certain that a LN person definitely does not behave like a formian or a modron does (who are both LN themselves but act very differently). The problem about slaadi is, in my opinion, that pure chaos is so hard to imagine, which ends in having them do things a PC would consider evil. Also, it does not work well in an adventure, if the gray slaad villain randomly decides to end whatever he is doing and to go home instead.
Naderion 10-08-07, 08:30 AM	I think slaads are meant to be just very agressive but not really malicious, greedy or with desire to do harm, as demons are. They may use leathal force to acomplish their goals, but they don't kill and destroy just because they can. Demons would do that at every opportunity. It think it's just that slaads are often depicted as being fiends, though they are not.
LefferDP 10-08-07, 10:07 AM	I was always amused by the school of thought that pure chaos was insane, in that its answer to everything is "giant frog." When the answer isn't "giant frog," opening a door, for instance, it gets aggitated and confused and starts destroying things
ArcTan 10-08-07, 11:55 AM	We have to differentiate between outsiders and mortals here. While a LE tyrant may act more or less like a devil - whether he actually is one or not ;) - I am certain that a LN person definitely does not behave like a formian or a modron does (who are both LN themselves but act very differently). The problem about slaadi is, in my opinion, that pure chaos is so hard to imagine, which ends in having them do things a PC would consider evil. Also, it does not work well in an adventure, if the gray slaad villain randomly decides to end whatever he is doing and to go home instead. "Chaotic" =/= "psychotic". I mean, why *can't* a CN Outsider act the way a CN person would? The real answer is that they never really had a good definition for a CN person, so they kind of handwave things when they want to define the "ultimate expression of Chaos". Whenever they want to make it *interesting* they fall back on "CN characters are total psychopaths, no matter how high their Int and Wis scores may be!" rather than "CN characters like to be left alone and leave others alone and to make their own choices". Slaadi really ought to be the archetype of "people who wander the universe, observing and meddling at times but never interfering on a large scale", not "HORRIBLE FROG THINGS THAT LAY EGGS IN YOUR CHEST".
RadicalTaoist 10-08-07, 11:59 AM	No response to my bottom-up vs. top-down take on Chaos and Law, ArcTan?
ArcTan 10-08-07, 12:16 PM	It sounds a lot like my "Law = Kant, Chaos = Nietzsche" idea, which I stole from Michael Moorcock (who actually came up with a lot of the stuff D&D rips off, and goes into it more thoughtful detail than D&D does). Of course, as you say, it's very hard to work out what this specifically means when you're using it to design "ultimate" Outsider versions of each alignment.
Thegans 10-08-07, 04:47 PM	"Chaotic" =/= "psychotic". I mean, why *can't* a CN Outsider act the way a CN person would? The real answer is that they never really had a good definition for a CN person, so they kind of handwave things when they want to define the "ultimate expression of Chaos". Whenever they want to make it *interesting* they fall back on "CN characters are total psychopaths, no matter how high their Int and Wis scores may be!" rather than "CN characters like to be left alone and leave others alone and to make their own choices". Slaadi really ought to be the archetype of "people who wander the universe, observing and meddling at times but never interfering on a large scale", not "HORRIBLE FROG THINGS THAT LAY EGGS IN YOUR CHEST". Actually I don't think sladdi make good psychopaths. Some traits of psychopaths are 1. Superficial charm and/or average intelligence. 2. Absence of delusions and other signs of irrational thinking. 4. Unreliability. 16. Failure to follow any life plan. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopath#Psychopath_definition) Sure its only four things out of the list but lets see Superficial charm - No Average intelligence - I don't know thier intelligence score since I don't have the book with me but their probably slightly below average. Unreliability - Nope you can trust a sladdi to eat everything in its path or to use anything in its path to reproduce. Sometimes both Failure to follow any life plan - I think eating everything in its path would count as a life plan. Actually its their way of life. I think the word your looking for is either idiot, moron, primitive, jackass, or *******. While I think law and chaos make sense the sladdi really don't do a good job of it. Personally I think the chaotic outsider should have been something like an outsider version of a doppleganger.
Calmar 10-08-07, 06:51 PM	"I mean, why *can't* a CN Outsider act the way a CN person would?" I guess he can. And he probably can behave just as he wants. But he should be of unpredictable. A CN person, as far as i see it, can be anything from a free spirited character who does not care much about the consequences of his actions (but does not really *wish* harm people and tries to avoid it, either) to a uncontrolled psychopath who does not care if someone is hurt by his actions (and therefore is regarded as 'evil' by his surroundings). The way I am going to try to find out what this wierd CN alignment actually is, is by eliminating good, evil and law and checking whats left in the end. So if a LN person my be systematic and logical but still is no machine or hive creature, a CN person should be no frog, either. ;) This proves that the concept of 'chaos' seems to be pretty unimaginable to us - or me, at least -, as there is not even a metaphor for it (unlike on the other hand machines for law and demons or devils for evil). Maybe some of you sages can provide lore of the Xaositects from the Planescape setting to help us get an idea of how D&D views and describes chaos?
ArcTan 10-08-07, 06:53 PM	Xaositects were basically Discordians, but they kept the silly act up *all the time* as opposed to just bringing it up when someone asked "Hey, what does it mean that you're a Discordian?".
Taeldrin Laesrash 10-08-07, 07:06 PM	I kind of wish the slaad were more like the Xaositects. That's what Chaos seems like to me. But basically, yeah, they were very devout Discordians; which has mostly a non-sequiter and lack of organization vibe to it.
Andyr 10-09-07, 05:54 PM	Don't worry about living in the past. Live in the game that worked best for you. Don't buy 4e if you don't like where things are going - so far I don't plan on getting anything coming down the pipeline. I imagine I'll stay with 3.5E for a while--when I switch to 4E, I'll probably adapt the Planescape and newer material to fit, like I did with 3E.
The_Hedgewizard 10-10-07, 11:29 AM	I always imagined Guardinals as being the manifestation of "early" culture's totemistic beliefs, hence the anthropomorphic form, and also their residence on the beastlands in addition to elysium. Archons to me represent highly urban ideas of good, and Eladrins more rural or pagan ideas, what with the fairy-esque flavor about them (although I really think they just should have been fairies). I think it could have worked better if they designers saw it more distinctly like this as well, but I have a weird feeling that Guardinals instead existed in some sort of relation to the "furry" phenomenon.
Naderion 10-11-07, 11:54 AM	The earliest sources about guardinals I know of, are the Planescape Monster Manuals from 1995. They have about 7 pages of mostly text with only small and very short stat blocks. Eladrins even have 8 pages. Since I've seen nothing about them anywhere else (but other planescape books and 3rd Ed. sources), they may have even been created specificly for that setting. I don't know if they have any specific role but being the natives of Elysium.
Shemeska the Marauder 10-11-07, 05:40 PM	The earliest sources about guardinals I know of, are the Planescape Monster Manuals from 1995. They have about 7 pages of mostly text with only small and very short stat blocks. Eladrins even have 8 pages. Since I've seen nothing about them anywhere else (but other planescape books and 3rd Ed. sources), they may have even been created specificly for that setting. They didn't exist prior to the 2e/Planescape work. The upper planes as a whole were virtually devoid of defined inhabitants back in 1e, with only a few of what came to be grouped as the aasimon/angels being named prior to 1988 when the Archons were first described in a pretty slim appendix snuck into the back of the Manual of the Planes. Beyond some scattered aasimon and the late mention of the archons, there were no other major native races of the upper planes defined pre-Planescape for the most part. Eladrin and Guardinals, among others, were created as Planescape finally gave some detail to the upper planes that had, prior to that point, no attention paid to fleshing out their inhabitants and ecologies (and their philosophical/thematic basis).
ArcTan 10-11-07, 06:05 PM	FWIW, the one thing that makes the Slaadi go from CN to CE in my book is their means of reproduction. Sorry, but killing folk and laying eggs in 'em isn't exactly a "Neutral" act in my book. (And killing people wantonly because you don't give a crap about them is not actually *less Evil* than doing it because you enjoy their suffering, even by D&D standards.) I would prefer a version of Chaos that emphasizes "Chaos = the ineffable free will that each creature possesses", not "Chaos = total randomness". One way you could do this would be to turn Slaad reproduction into something you have to accept. Chaotic people who feel bound by their limitations can get the chance to transcend all limitations, internal and external, by being transformed. One reason Slaadi exist and hang around the Prime is to give this option to people. An opposition between Slaadi and Inevitables would also be nice -- Slaadi being the people who *give others* the power to break laws, transcend limits, etc. rather than just going around and being Chaotic themselves, just as Inevitables are more interesting than Modrons because they actually *enforce* laws rather than just standing there being Lawful. Some kind of idea that Slaadi go to people with a very strong desire and offer them the chance to make their wish come true, regardless of the potentially disastrous consequences, would be pretty cool. (They do *not* "twist" the wish to their own ends -- that's what a manipulative Lawful Evil Efreet does. They *actually grant the wish*. This is very important.) Maybe some other thematic link between kinds of Slaadi and kinds of Inevitables, like some Slaadi having the power to erase magically binding contracts and oaths, some having the power to cheat death and grant immortality, etc. And Slaadi who do the opposite of Formians -- who transform whole landscapes just for the hell of it, in ways that are *both* beneficial and destructive (rerouting rivers so that fertile river valleys become deserts and vice versa, etc.) If I wanted to really rescue the idea of Slaadi I would write a bunch of stuff detailing this kind of thing, though I'm not sure it's worth the effort.
Taeldrin Laesrash 10-11-07, 09:32 PM	I think it's very much worth rescuing the Slaad. They could be great if done right. I personally would rather stay towards the side of 'random' chaos. Free will should definately figure in, but it's not a totally overriding thing. I'll second the getting rid of the reproduction. Befitting something so random, they should just emerge at random from raw Limbo or elementstuff. I like the stuff you came up with. Maybe there could be 'muse-type' slaad, who have an aura of inspiration. The comparison to Inevitables gave me another idea. The idea of the Slaad and their frog shape is just okay; but they should be made of everything; tarnished metal came to mind, as well as wood and fire and leather and skin, among other things. Maybe have a Random Slaad Table.
Andyr 10-15-07, 01:32 PM	*snip* Those are some good ideas about the Slaadi. :)
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 10-18-07, 12:25 AM	Superficial charm - No Charisma scores range from 8 (Red) to 18 (Death). So charm is there. Average intelligence - I don't know thier intelligence score since I don't have the book with me but their probably slightly below average. Intelligence scores range from 6 (Red and Blue) to 18 (Death). So intelligence is often there. Unreliability - Nope you can trust a sladdi to eat everything in its path or to use anything in its path to reproduce. Sometimes both A slaad cannot be trusted to do either. They only consciously reproduce during their mating season, and that is nearly universally done on other slaad/slaadi/slaads. Reproduction at other times is accidental. Slaad often eat people simply because people believe that they eat people, and belief is power. Left to their own devices, they are as likely to eat you as have a tea party with you. For obvious reasons, no one likes to talk about the tea parties. Failure to follow any life plan - I think eating everything in its path would count as a life plan. Actually its their way of life. Except they don't eat everything in their path. They don't even eat that often. There are valid criticisms against the slaad. These are not, unfortunately, said criticisms.
Thegans 10-18-07, 01:49 AM	Charisma scores range from 8 (Red) to 18 (Death). So charm is there. Intelligence scores range from 6 (Red and Blue) to 18 (Death). So intelligence is often there. A slaad cannot be trusted to do either. They only consciously reproduce during their mating season, and that is nearly universally done on other slaad/slaadi/slaads. Reproduction at other times is accidental. Slaad often eat people simply because people believe that they eat people, and belief is power. Left to their own devices, they are as likely to eat you as have a tea party with you. For obvious reasons, no one likes to talk about the tea parties. Except they don't eat everything in their path. They don't even eat that often. There are valid criticisms against the slaad. These are not, unfortunately, said criticisms. Mostly I was guessing my copy of the monster manual had the sladdi missing (never let your parents buy books if you know their cheap. I mean the parent not the book) and the sources I could get to didn't make them seem very intelligent. Most of my information on them makes it seem like all they do is try to create more sladd.