Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Nor'Morgwae 07-07-07, 05:55 AM	Okay, we all know good outsiders are, generally, celestials and evil outsiders are, generally, fiends. Is there a similar name for lawful and chaotic outsiders? I couldn't find one. If there are what are they? If there aren't what would you call them? Also, I don't have many of the monster books (MMs or the like) so if there is a lawful or chaotic equivalent to the celestial and fiendish templates I would love to know where it is.
GawainBS 07-07-07, 06:54 AM	There's the Axiomatic and Anarchic templates from the Manual of the Planes. It's not a real answer to your question, but as an "epitome" of Lawful Neutral outsiders, I'd take Modrons or Formians (maybe Inevitables) and Slaadi as Chaotic Neutral.
ripvanwormer 07-07-07, 08:25 AM	The anarchic (chaotic) and axiomatic (lawful) templates are also in the Planar Handbook. And those are the words I use. Chaotic outsiders are anarchics, and lawful outsiders are axiomatics. A slaad and a lillend are both anarchics, while modrons and formians are axiomatics.
caeruleus 07-07-07, 01:24 PM	That raises a question: Could, say, both archons and devils be referred to as "axiomatics", in addition to being celestials and fiends respectively?
ripvanwormer 07-07-07, 01:58 PM	That raises a question: Could, say, both archons and devils be referred to as "axiomatics", in addition to being celestials and fiends respectively? Yes. If you can lump demons and devils into a single group based on one of their alignment aspects, you can certainly do the same with devils and archons. Demons and devils eternally war with one another; devils and archons have a treaty (the Pact Primeval). You might even refer to devils as "axiomatic fiends" and archons as "axiomatic celestials."
GawainBS 07-07-07, 02:31 PM	Demons and devils eternally war with one another; devils and archons have a treaty (the Pact Primeval). You might even refer to devils as "axiomatic fiends" and archons as "axiomatic celestials." Cool. Where could I find some more info about this?
420 07-07-07, 03:22 PM	The Pact Primeval is detailed in Fiendish Codex II. -420
GawainBS 07-07-07, 03:25 PM	Thanks.
Nor'Morgwae 07-07-07, 06:59 PM	Cool, thanks. I will probably use anarchic and axiomatic as the adjectives (an axiomatic lion, for instance) and generally call them anarchs and axiomats as the noun, following the same convention as celestial and fiend. I like the way they sound. I've been meaning to pick up Planar Handbook for a while anyway.
GawainBS 07-07-07, 07:01 PM	The book is worth it. It contains a few pages about the greatest "setting" ever: Sigil!
Tobias Talco'un 07-07-07, 09:53 PM	If there aren't what would you call them? While Rip is technically correct, I prefer to call them the crazies and the up-tights. :P
sensestaker 07-08-07, 11:14 PM	That raises a question: Could, say, both archons and devils be referred to as "axiomatics", in addition to being celestials and fiends respectively? Justicators (MMIII) are founded on that principle. They are LN outsiders that live solely to fight for Law. Single-minded forces for law, justicators travel the multiverse to punish chaos. In doing so, they accord equal respect to archons and devils and equal hatred to demons and eladrins.
caeruleus 07-09-07, 03:59 AM	Justicators (MMIII) are founded on that principle. They are LN outsiders that live solely to fight for Law. I'm not sure what this has to do with naming conventions.
Bob the Efreet 07-09-07, 04:28 PM	I'm not sure what this has to do with naming conventions. I think it just supports the idea that both archons and baatezu are axiomatics, or whatever word applies to lawful outsiders in general.
caeruleus 07-09-07, 05:47 PM	I think it just supports the idea that both archons and baatezu are axiomatics, or whatever word applies to lawful outsiders in general. Okay. My original question was more about whether the name "axiomatics" can apply to both archons and devils, not just whether they can be grouped together. But perhaps my intent wasn't clear, so the point about justicators is now understood. :)
420 07-09-07, 07:03 PM	Okay. My original question was more about whether the name "axiomatics" can apply to both archons and devils How about this: Justicator/Modron/Formian - "True Axiomatic" Archons - "Axiomatic Celestial" Devil - "Axiomatic Fiend" (And so on...) That naming convention works for most of the natives of the Great Wheel but what do we call the Rilmani? -420
General_Ridley 07-10-07, 12:47 AM	How about this: Justicator/Modron/Formian - "True Axiomatic" Archons - "Axiomatic Celestial" Devil - "Axiomatic Fiend" (And so on...) That naming convention works for most of the natives of the Great Wheel but what do we call the Rilmani? -420 Rilmani-style thingies.
Potato_Dragon 07-12-07, 03:34 AM	I believe Planescape grouped the Modrons, Rilmani, and Slaadi together as "Concordants". And also noted that it was very rare that anyone would need to refer to them collectively in that manner.
ripvanwormer 07-12-07, 09:41 AM	I believe Planescape grouped the Modrons, Rilmani, and Slaadi together as "Concordants". And also noted that it was very rare that anyone would need to refer to them collectively in that manner. Official Planescape didn't have a term for neutral creatures, but Mimir.net used the word "cordants" to describe those three races. They're cordants because the group includes both concordant (lawful) creatures and discordant (chaotic) creatures, as well as the rilmani in between (who are simultaneously concordant/harmonious and disharmonious/the opposition).
Zousha_Omenohu 07-12-07, 11:23 AM	The book is worth it. It contains a few pages about the greatest "setting" ever: Sigil! What exactly makes it "the greatest"? I know that my brother hated the idea of it the minute I described it to him. The whole "if you can't find it in Sigil, it probably doesn't exist" thing didn't really work out for him. That, and that he thought buildings made out of walls of force were stupid.
GawainBS 07-12-07, 11:57 AM	What exactly makes it "the greatest"? I know that my brother hated the idea of it the minute I described it to him. The whole "if you can't find it in Sigil, it probably doesn't exist" thing didn't really work out for him. That, and that he thought buildings made out of walls of force were stupid. Your brother sounds limited in his fantasy. Dragons are ok, but house made out of force not? The fact that something like this exists in Sigil, is why it is so great. For me, Sigil/Planescape is the greatest setting ever because it's a nexus to each and every other setting. (At least, it was in 2nd Ed, be nothing from stopping you playing it that way now. We do.) Also, Planescape has no limit on the possible: talking allyways and Tanar'ri & Baatezu living together and mimirs and...
ripvanwormer 07-12-07, 06:13 PM	What exactly makes it "the greatest"? I know that my brother hated the idea of it the minute I described it to him. The whole "if you can't find it in Sigil, it probably doesn't exist" thing didn't really work out for him. That, and that he thought buildings made out of walls of force were stupid. I can't think of any buildings made of walls of force in official Sigil. And I'm sure there are many things (unique things, mostly) that you can't find there. I think the problem isn't with Sigil, or with your brother, but with that description. But of course Sigil isn't necessarily "the greatest setting ever." It's not everyone's cup of tea. It's the best setting ever for Gawain, who was the one doing the talking, and that's not really an opinion that needs to be picked apart.
Zousha_Omenohu 07-13-07, 01:21 AM	It mentions buildings made of walls of force when describing that almost anything is possible in Sigil. Another was carriages that moved without horses and had continual flames or something on the front (A thinly-veiled D&D car). My brother seems to have a general dislike of the idea of planar stuff. He wants the action to stay on the Material and only encounter outsiders and stuff there, such as battling a summoned demon or defeating extraplanar interlopers like the githyanki. But I doubt he'd be willing to set one foot through a portal. And the sad part is he's not the DM. I am (despite the grim fact that none of the characters I've run have ever advanced beyond Level 2).
Potato_Dragon 07-13-07, 01:49 AM	Official Planescape didn't have a term for neutral creatures, but Mimir.net used the word "cordants" to describe those three races. I realized later that I was probably thinking of "cordants" or "cordians" or something like that. However, I've never been to Mimir.net, so that can't be where I got it from.
ripvanwormer 07-13-07, 02:53 AM	It mentions buildings made of walls of force when describing that almost anything is possible in Sigil. Another was carriages that moved without horses and had continual flames or something on the front (A thinly-veiled D&D car). That doesn't sound familiar. It's certainly not what Sigil's mainly about. People in Sigil get around mainly by foot or on sedan chairs. Most don't even have carriages, let alone cars. There's certainly room for a few force buildings, and even buildings made of ice or fire or flesh or something, but the vast majority are made of wood or stone. If your brother doesn't like the planes, he probably won't like Sigil. It's still fair for someone to say it's the coolest setting ever if that's what they think, even if it's not to everyone's taste.
caeruleus 07-13-07, 10:03 AM	Your brother sounds limited in his fantasy. Why? The issue about Sigil aside, fantasy is not the same as anything goes; if it were, it would no longer be its own genre.
ripvanwormer 07-13-07, 10:18 AM	Why? The issue about Sigil aside, fantasy is not the same as anything goes; if it were, it would no longer be its own genre. True enough. It's not a bad thing to be limited in your fantasy. Some people place greater limitations than others, as their tastes vary. Some people think going around systematically slaughtering every god and other powerful entity in the multiverse is great fun, while others put limits on how powerful their characters are going to get in comparison to everything else, for example.
Zousha_Omenohu 07-13-07, 10:33 AM	That doesn't sound familiar. It's certainly not what Sigil's mainly about. It's on Page 167 of the 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide: To draw an encounter map for Sigil, start with a normal cityscape and add as much magic to the environment as you can. Entertaining illusions, animated "horseless carriages", buildings built from walls of force - anything you can imagine probably exists in Sigil somewhere.
caeruleus 07-13-07, 11:14 AM	It's on Page 167 of the 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide: To draw an encounter map for Sigil, start with a normal cityscape and add as much magic to the environment as you can. Entertaining illusions, animated "horseless carriages", buildings built from walls of force - anything you can imagine probably exists in Sigil somewhere. While it's not explicitly put this way, I take this to mean that you can make Sigil whatever you want, even if it's too weird for the rest of your campaign, not that Sigil should necessarily contain everything imaginable. But then, I've never played in Sigil.
GawainBS 07-13-07, 11:56 AM	On a sidenote: I didn't want to offend any one: it's just that I find it the greatest setting ever. Nothing more, nothing less. :)
ripvanwormer 07-13-07, 12:20 PM	It's on Page 167 of the 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide: Ah. I've never really read through the 3.5 DMG, actually (I use the 3.0 version). It sounds like whoever wrote that didn't bother to read anything about Sigil as it had been described in previous sources.
Millennium 07-13-07, 01:04 PM	The thing about celestials and fiends is that while they certainly may have Lawful and Chaotic alignments, in all cases the emphasis is on the Good/Evil axis: Law and Chaos are basically implementation details. For outsiders drawn from the stuff of Law and Chaos ("Axioms" and "Anarchs" as I call them), I would imagine it's the reverse: the emphasis is on the Law/Chaos axis, with Good and Evil as implementation details. Under this model, an archon is a Celestial but not an Axiom, because the emphasis isn't on Law. However, a Law-emphasizing LG Axiom could very well coexist with the archons, probably relatively peacefully but with a fair amount of unease as each species thinks that the other "misses the point". Similarly, a balor is a Fiend but not an Anarch, but a CE Anarch could theoretically coexist with one (as much as Fiends coexist with anything, that is).
ripvanwormer 07-13-07, 01:50 PM	The thing about celestials and fiends is that while they certainly may have Lawful and Chaotic alignments, in all cases the emphasis is on the Good/Evil axis: Law and Chaos are basically implementation details. This couldn't be further from the truth. The fiends don't emphasize the good/evil axis; their primary foes, as races, are their lawful/chaotic equivalents. The baatezu war machine exists to oppose Chaos. The tanar'ri war machine, while it opposes itself as any chaotic system will, likewise is built around opposing the forces of order. The celestials, though they can't oppose each other violently and remain celestials for long, are much the same. Archons exist as much to further Law as they do to further goodness. They oppose Chaos with no less fervor than they oppose Evil. They don't fight violently against either the eladrins or the baatezu, for the most part; their warlike rage is directed against the tanar'ri, who combine both of their antagonisms. The eladrins are tasked with liberating the helpless from unwanted order as much as from other forms of persecution, and this means they must subtly oppose lawful celestials as much as they subtly oppose the fiends. The eladrins are sneaky and crafty, living whispers who work from the shadows, and violence isn't always necessary for them to do their work. The important thing is that beings of chaotic evil (for example) are equally chaotic and equally evil, and both states are their goal. They seek evil in a chaotic manner, yes, but they also seek chaos in an evil manner. It's the same with every other one of the alignment-based planar races. Eladrins seek chaos as their goal, using good means to do so. Archons seek to further Law, using benevolence as their weapon. Baatezu are just as lawful as they are evil, and neither aspect of their beings is mere "implementation." Both states are their reason for existence. Eladrins are drawn from the stuff of Good, but they're drawn from the stuff of Chaos to an equal degree. There's no reason to give a priority to either.
Zousha_Omenohu 07-13-07, 04:50 PM	And then you've got the rilmani, whose sole purpose in existence is to mess with each. And to Mr. Gawain, I wasn't offended at all. In fact, I think Sigil is very interesting. I wouldn't mind basing a campaign there, but my brother would likely get annoyed. Our D&D is sort of a joint effort between the two of us, since the other players are all friends of his. I just DM (and rather poorly at that), so he has a small say in campaign design. I can overrule him if I so choose, but I choose not to because I don't want the game to derail because of arguments. He's not bad, but if there's one word that describes my brother it's stubborn.
420 07-13-07, 06:14 PM	I just DM (and rather poorly at that), so he has a small say in campaign design. I can overrule him if I so choose, but I choose not to because I don't want the game to derail because of arguments. He's not bad, but if there's one word that describes my brother it's stubborn. I suggest you check out the Save My Game (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/sg) articles. Especially "Players Who Know the Setting Too Well", "Secrecy and Favoritism" and "Clashing Concepts". -420
GawainBS 07-13-07, 06:22 PM	And then you've got the rilmani, whose sole purpose in existence is to mess with each. And to Mr. Gawain, I wasn't offended at all. In fact, I think Sigil is very interesting. I wouldn't mind basing a campaign there, but my brother would likely get annoyed. Our D&D is sort of a joint effort between the two of us, since the other players are all friends of his. I just DM (and rather poorly at that), so he has a small say in campaign design. I can overrule him if I so choose, but I choose not to because I don't want the game to derail because of arguments. He's not bad, but if there's one word that describes my brother it's stubborn. Oh, that's a pity. I still think Sigil is awesome, and your brother is mising lots of great adventures, but if it isn't his mug of ale, who am I to say otherwise? :)
ArcTan 07-14-07, 02:21 AM	The thing about celestials and fiends is that while they certainly may have Lawful and Chaotic alignments, in all cases the emphasis is on the Good/Evil axis: Law and Chaos are basically implementation details. The Blood War gives the lie to this.
yrogerg 07-14-07, 02:27 AM	The Blood War gives the lie to this. If I remember, FCII even makes it clear that Law and Chaos are (true to D&D's history) the oldest cosmological conflict, and that Good and Evil only came to exist as a consequence of the fight between Law and Chaos.
ArcTan 07-14-07, 02:29 AM	It also reinforces the traditional idea that Chaos came first and Law came out to respond to it. Chaos thinks that this makes Chaos older and therefore better; Law thinks that this makes Law newer and therefore better. Also, it seems to be that both books imply that Evil came first as pure Chaos got corrupted (and then Chaotic Evil corrupted Law) and that Good only evolved as a response to Evil.
GawainBS 07-14-07, 06:45 AM	I definitly have to read FCII. I love cosmology.
Zousha_Omenohu 07-14-07, 06:10 PM	I always find it difficult to understand all the complex philosophical interactions that make up the multiverse. I like that each of the planes is representative of one of the various alignments, but all that prehistoric stuff seems confusing. That may be just because I'm uninformed, but I imagine that it would still be confusing.
Millennium 07-14-07, 07:47 PM	The Blood War gives the lie to this. I'm not necessarily sure I agree with this. While the celestials certainly have their differences concerning Law and Chaos, the Good in them seems to override this opposition enough that it doesn't erupt into outright war. Indeed, they even have a set of races -the angels- who can span the Law/Chaos alignment spectrum; there does not seem to be a corresponding fiendish set of races. This would seem to indicate that at least on the celestial side of things, the emphasis is on Good. With the fiends it's certainly trickier, because as you point out, they do spend their time fighting along Law/Chaos lines rather than Good/Evil lines (a fact that suits the celestials just fine). However, if we look at the exemplars of Law and Chaos, we don't see much open warfare between them either. The rilmani doubtless have some role to play in that, but the exemplars themselves seem to prefer cold war to hot. If Law and Chaos are really the emphasis, then why aren't modrons and slaadi big players in the Blood War? You might be able to excuse the celestials for staying out of the Blood War with all their peace-and-harmony Good stuff, but you have the LN and CN examplars, the opposite ends of the Law/Chaos spectrum, also opting out of the violence. The Blood War may have started as pure Law/Chaos conflict: in fact, it probably did. But if it ever was that way, it is now something very different, something that only the fiends seem to have much real interest in carrying on. Why? The only answer I can see here is that it's been tainted, as it were, by Evil. No one else seems to really want to bother with it anymore. My idea of beings with different sets of emphasis goes along with this. Axioms and Anarchs -even LG and CG ones- can play out their parts in the cold war between Law and Chaos (the Cold Blood War?). Some of them may throw in their lot with the fiends, but the rest see this as needlessly excessive or even wasteful: for whatever reason, they fear a truly violent conflict erupting in their home realms.
ripvanwormer 07-14-07, 08:05 PM	No one else seems to really want to bother with it anymore. No, that's incorrect. Just about every outer planar race is involved with it to one degree or another. First of all, just about every outer planar race is involved with the Blood War, not just the fiends. Many celestials battle their polar opposites on the fields of the Blood War (lawful celestials fighting tanar'ri, chaotic celestials fighting baatezu, neutral celestials fighting yugoloths), while others sell arms to both sides of the battle hoping the fiends will kill each other off (this is good versus evil, but it's still an example of celestials involving themselves in the Blood War). Modrons battle tanar'ri and slaadi lay eggs in baatezu, and yes, that means that modrons and slaadi sometimes end up fighting each other on the battlefields of the Blood War as well. Even the gods interfere on occasion, fighting with one side or the other (though they're somewhat careful about this since the fiends destroyed one of them in punishment for meddling). Secondly, there are many ways for Law and Chaos to battle other than simply stabbing each other on a battlefield. Primarily it's a cold war, a war of ideas, a war-dance. Slaadi cause as much trouble and chaos as they can, while formians try to enforce order. Eladrins ferment rebellion while archons crack down on rule-breakers. Even if they don't fight each other directly, this is still a war, and it's definitely a war of order versus discord. This war is every bit as important as the equally cold war between good and evil. Maybe eladrins don't try to disembowel archons for their allegiance to Law, but archons and baatezu aren't trying to disembowel each other either either (since they both obey their treaty, the Pact Primeval). There are skirmishes between eladrins and tanar'ri on a single Abyssal layer, but there are bloody skirmishes between modrons and slaadi whenever they happen to meet, too (for example, when the modrons passes through Limbo during their last procession, they suffered their worst casualties from slaadi berserkers; the slaad lord Chourst also invaded Mechanus once and had to be driven off by Primus himself. This isn't even getting into how bloody things can get when formians and slaadi encounter each other on the Material Plane). There is no sense in which the good-evil conflict is more important than the law-chaos conflict.
Millennium 07-14-07, 11:09 PM	No, that's incorrect. Just about every outer planar race is involved with it to one degree or another. To one degree or another, but there's a massive gulf between the involvement of the fiends and that of everyone else. As I said before, both the Neutral and Good aspects of Law and Chaos seem content to let the war grow cold, with perhaps the occasional skirmish but nothing in the same league as even a mortal war, much less the war between the demons and the devils. There is no sense in which the good-evil conflict is more important than the law-chaos conflict. I didn't say that it was more important on a cosmic scale. I was only pointing out that the celestials and even the Neutral exemplars as we know them seem to have other priorities now. I don't claim to know how or why this happened; I merely point out that the behavior of these creatures is not the behavior of beings for whom the conflict between Law and Chaos is a priority on even remotely the same level as it is for the fiends. I then go on to propose a possible set of Law/Chaos examplars -the Axioms and the Anarchs- to whom the Law/Chaos conflict does take more of a priority.
caeruleus 07-14-07, 11:55 PM	To one degree or another, but there's a massive gulf between the involvement of the fiends and that of everyone else. As I said before, both the Neutral and Good aspects of Law and Chaos seem content to let the war grow cold, with perhaps the occasional skirmish but nothing in the same league as even a mortal war, much less the war between the demons and the devils. The fiends are more involved in the actual physical violence, but that's only because they participate in the Blood War in an evil manner. But there is so much more to the Blood War than the physical violence.
Zousha_Omenohu 07-15-07, 12:29 AM	:mymy: Now it's getting even more confusing!
ripvanwormer 07-15-07, 12:34 AM	I was only pointing out that the celestials and even the Neutral exemplars as we know them seem to have other priorities now. Yes, you were. I was pointing out that this was incorrect. Exactly what priorities would LN or CN outsiders have above the propagation of law and chaos? And the chaotic and lawful celestials do not prioritize the fight against evil above the struggle against law or chaos. Both are equal priorities for them. Your mistake is in equating open violence with commitment to a cause. Evil creatures express their dedication to a philosophy by killing and maiming. Good and neutral creatures may find alternate means. This does not make them less dedicated. The Blood War rages hottest in the Lower Planes because war is the first resort of the evil-hearted and the last resort of the good-hearted. To deduce from this fact that the good-hearted don't consider half of their alignments, half of the forces that make up their bodies and spirits, to be equal in priority is a leap too far.
GawainBS 07-15-07, 04:30 AM	I have problems imagening fiends banding together to promote an evil cause, while I have less, or even no, trouble seeing all celestials banding together to champion a Good cause.
Millennium 07-15-07, 10:19 AM	Yes, you were. I was pointing out that this was incorrect. Exactly what priorities would LN or CN outsiders have above the propagation of law and chaos? The destruction of their own opposites. But as I pointed out, this does not seem to take quite so much priority anymore: they seem to have found other ways to deal with their conflict. In fact, you said it yourself: their priorities have shifted to propagation, to increasing their influence by spreading themselves rather than by destroying the hated Other. And the chaotic and lawful celestials do not prioritize the fight against evil above the struggle against law or chaos. Both are equal priorities for them. Your mistake is in equating open violence with commitment to a cause. Not commitment, but urgency. Violence is the quick path, and at least in the short term it's the easy path. Celestials are willing to employ violence against Evil, even to the point of working together across the Law/Chaos spectrum, because they see it as the most urgent need. They are willing to step back and take a more patient approach with the conflict between Law versus Chaos. This differing sense of urgency indicates to me a clear shift in priorities. Evil creatures express their dedication to a philosophy by killing and maiming. Good and neutral creatures may find alternate means. This does not make them less dedicated. Differing priorities don't necessarily make them less dedicated either. But the celestials clearly treat the Law/Chaos conflict with less urgency, to the point that they're even willing to set it aside for certain periods of time. For the Neutral powers, the conflict between Good and Evil isn't really important, but the war between Law and Chaos is still not their highest priority; spreading their own influence is. The Blood War rages hottest in the Lower Planes because war is the first resort of the evil-hearted and the last resort of the good-hearted. Yet even the good-hearted are quick to do violence against certain opponents in this game. The celestials do make real war, but it's not divided along the lines of Law and Chaos: that conflict has ceased to be the most urgent one in their minds. They may not consider it any less important than the conflict between Good and Evil -urgency and importance are, after all, not the same thing- but they have set their priorities based on what they perceive as the most urgent need.
ripvanwormer 07-15-07, 10:26 AM	That's not important. What's important is that both parts of their alignments are equal priorities. If lawful and chaotic outsiders are able to advance good without compromising the other part of their alignments, they'll work together, because good allows for that. The fiends may do that too under some circumstances (Graz'zt is trying to build an alliance between demons and devils), but evil is different from good. Sometimes evil can be best advanced through internecine carnage and bloodshed, while this isn't true for good. This doesn't mean that law and chaos are less important to good creatures, only that good is more compatible with peace than evil is. It doesn't mean lawful and chaotic celestials will be able to work together in every, or even many, circumstances, either. Their views on what Good means are incompatible in many respects. What eladrins think is good is not always what archons think is good, so they'll often be at odds with one another. In fact, we can calculate exactly how often they'll agree with one another. If we assume that archons believe "good" (what is best, anyway) is the range from Mechanus to Elysium (five planes), and eladrins believe what is ideal is the range from Limbo to Elysium, then they each share only one out of five planes in common. Both groups think their own plane is the highest ideal and everything else is incrementally less ideal. They'll believe the exact same path is the right one only 20% of the time. That's how often they'll be able to cooperate. In other circumstances they'll have mutually exclusive goals, to one degree or another. It's not a matter of not liking one another and not wanting to help - it's just that they're trying for different things. They can't compromise that which makes up the entirety of their essence and nature - for an eladrin to contemplate lawful acts would be as unthinkable as one contemplating evil acts. Precisely as unthinkable. Fiends believe the exact same thing, except the 20% of the time when they believe the same path is best, that only makes them even more jealous and territorial instead of more cooperative. That's the only difference.
ripvanwormer 07-15-07, 10:31 AM	their priorities have shifted to propagation No, that was always their main priority. Open war was always primarily the business of fiends. Other races have always entered into war with less enthusiasm. The greatest champions of the war in prehistory were the obyrith Queen of Chaos and the fallen axiom Asmodeus, the others taking more defensive roles. The shift you're describing didn't exist. Celestials are willing to employ violence against Evil, even to the point of working together across the Law/Chaos spectrum Not normally. They learned their lesson in that regard long ago. Perhaps in emergencies, yes. But axiomatics work together across the Good/Evil spectrum against Chaos as well, and anarchics can do the same. There is no difference in this regard, except that eladrins find tanar'ri less trustworthy allies than they find archons to be. That's the nature of chaos, however. But the celestials clearly treat the Law/Chaos conflict with less urgency No. They clearly do not. They avoid slaughtering one another not because their goals are less urgent, but because it isn't necessary for them to slaughter one another in order to advance these goals. Your equation of urgency and violence remains specious.
caeruleus 07-15-07, 10:50 AM	I have problems imagening fiends banding together to promote an evil cause, while I have less, or even no, trouble seeing all celestials banding together to champion a Good cause. I think I recall reading somewhere that a bunch of celestials (archons, maybe?) decided to get involved in a battle in the Blood War. The demons and devils stopped fighting each other to fight off the good guys together.
GawainBS 07-15-07, 10:54 AM	Nice to know, thanks!
Bob the Efreet 07-16-07, 04:21 PM	For the Neutral powers, the conflict between Good and Evil isn't really important, but the war between Law and Chaos is still not their highest priority; spreading their own influence is. Advancing the influence of law is equivalent to diminishing the influence of chaos.