Post/Author/DateTime	Post
shades of eternity 06-18-07, 04:18 PM	upper planes "cold war". While It will never be as violent or bloody as the blood war between the tanari and the baatzu, in my game I kinda want to start a cold war that occasionally gets hot between heavens and olympia. Like in the blood wars, I want gods on both sides to basically stay out of it. I want ideas for 1. Philosophical reasons why such conflicts would take place. 2. Key factions. races most likely to be involved in this. 3. Which races would take advantage: lower planar creatures are a given, but who else would make it better/worse. 4. Key places for battles, skirmish and meetings. 5. tactics and concepts used by each side. think this could be fun. and actually lay down some details.
Rerecros 06-18-07, 04:25 PM	This just really wouldn't happen. An Archon and an Eladrin meet eachother, they have a moral debate that goes no where because their beliefs are like hard wired. Then they leave because their natural goodness prevents them from harming others simply for ideological differences.
Archmage_of_Blood 06-18-07, 04:37 PM	This just really wouldn't happen. An Archon and an Eladrin meet eachother, they have a moral debate that goes no where because their beliefs are like hard wired. Then they leave because their natural goodness prevents them from harming others simply for ideological differences. Couldn't have said it better myself.
Yanagita Kunio 06-18-07, 05:41 PM	Well...if it's a Cold War then the issue will be one of non-engagement--hence no or less cooperation, resource-sharing, information-sharing, or collaborative effort. 1. The Upper Planes want different things for people (particularly mortals and petitioners)...that's ultimately what their respective devotions to Lawful, Chaotic, and Neutral Good reduce to. Each side has a vision of "what is the best way to be" that contains a universal element...a hope that everyone would adhere to their values, and thus make the entire cosmos better. A Lawful exemplar like an archon has a different vision of the Ideal than a Chaotic eladrin or a Neutral guardinal. In many cases, each is able to tolerate the dissent of the other by avoidance of the subject--or by focusing on what they have in common, such as direct opposition to the schemes of evil/Evil beings. Things become more difficult when the Good exemplars don't have that common ground. For example, imagine a discussion about the Modrons [LN], between three Good exemplars: an archon would have good things to say about how the modrons provide structure and order to their plane; a guardinal would likely be worried about their aloofness and lack of compassion, but try to see merit and worth in modron achievements; an eladrin would consider them vile, oppressive, and ultimately repressive in a way that invites the taint of Evil. If the slaadi weren't so stylistically presented as Evil-Lite rather than CN, you could invert the opinions: the eladrin would see the most benefit in slaadi actions; the guardinal would have a more measured, situational assessment; and the archon would consider them unproductive, disruptive, and undisciplined in a way that invites the taint of Evil. Taking it farther, if you posed these same three creatures the questions: "Amongst Evil exemplar types, which is the most likely to produce individuals capable of redemption?" you would get equally dialectic answers. An archon would say that the baatezu are the best candidates, as they have the discipline and focus necessary to tread the narrow path to reform; An eladrin would say that a tanarii would be most capable, because their spontaneity and individualism would allow them to seize personal morality and take ownership of it. A guardinal would likely not "choose" between the Evil exemplar types, viewing the drives for redemption as deeply personal, and unquantifiable in terms of explicit traits. Finally, and with the greatest tension, there's the issue of the Good exemplars providing guidance to mortals, yet having fundamentally different messages. Archons advocate greater interdependence, Eladrins more independence.
Sarig the Genie 06-18-07, 06:44 PM	I must admit I really like the idea of a Cold War style tension on the upper planes. Maybe not an arms race, but still, the idea intrigues me greatly.
Lorft2 06-18-07, 06:50 PM	This just really wouldn't happen. An Archon and an Eladrin meet eachother, they have a moral debate that goes no where because their beliefs are like hard wired. Then they leave because their natural goodness prevents them from harming others simply for ideological differences. I personally like the idea that because of their strong opposition, that the debate would never end. A permanent host of Archon and Eladrin gathered in the fields of Elysium whilst the Guardinals mediate, trying to reconcile the two opposing ideals. For as long as there has been the Blood War, there has been the Kindred Debate, forever ebbing and flowing back and forth from ideology to ideal. Sometimes it looks as if the vigorous passion of the Eladrin will prevail and at others the structured logic of the Archon, as of yet neither has. Lorft
Shemeska the Marauder 06-18-07, 07:49 PM	It can be tense, but the exact feelings they have regarding the actions and ideology of the other celestials likely has a wide flux depending on the circumstances and what's at stake. At times the archons and eladrins might see one another as flawed beings, but still beings who benefit the multiverse even if in a sometimes irrational way. At other times they might see the others' actions as well-meaning but dangerous, and something that they must for the sake of others oppose with a firm hand. I'm certain they seek to twist and manipulate one anothers' mortal servants, deities and those deities followers, hoping to advance their own particular version of a perfect Good at the expense of the other. Only on very rare occasions would truly unfortunate violence occur, and usually when the stakes are high and the long-term effects difficult to counteract afterwards. Eladrins have pushed mortals to topple political heirarchies of mortal kingdoms (and other power and ideological structures), and Archons have influenced crusades and conquests, cultural assimilation if it forges a unified, ordered benevolence. They're doing Good, their doing their best to create Good, but they're also pushing Law and Chaos just as firmly and at times things will boil over. They'll regret it when it does, but neither of them want to see anarchy or tyranny, respectively, even if it's there for good intentions. Of course the Guardinals seek to prevent such conflict as much as they can, pitying their celestial cousins' mutual misunderstandings and limitations. The most damage to celestial relations though likely comes from the actions of aasimon who will act to uphold the will of their deific patron, rather than an abstract of Good. They're good, but aasimon/angels don't in any way personify it in the same way the archons/guardinals/eladrin do. Competition for followers between good gods, and cultures that follow one or another can get very ugly very quickly.
navar100 06-18-07, 08:19 PM	An archon would argue with an eladrine just as the paladin would argue with the rogue with the guardinal/cleric intervening. Yet the archon and eladrine will flank the devil/demon while the guardinal buffs and heals them and they all high five each other at the Celestial Tavern. :P
sciborg2 06-19-07, 03:46 AM	I see guardinals' arguing with both sides. This idea that NG is pure good baffles me.:confused:
AngelDust Anderson 06-19-07, 04:43 AM	I see guardinals' arguing with both sides. This idea that NG is pure good baffles me.:confused: I see Neutral good as good that goes both ways. They support law, but only as far as it helps good. They have no problem with some chaos, as long as it does not harm good. -Anderson
Shemeska the Marauder 06-19-07, 06:38 AM	I see guardinals' arguing with both sides. This idea that NG is pure good baffles me.:confused: To an extent definately. I can't imagine the guardinals being hung up on "purity" like the 'loths are with NE, and I can certainly see them being able to incorporate elements of LG and CG into their ethos as useful tools rather than defining elements. They'll use Law or Chaos, but they won't feel beholden to them, however they'll also probably argue with the best of them if someone begins to promote either at the great expense of Good.
SeptimusMagistos 06-19-07, 11:41 AM	The problem would likely be in individualism vs. statism.
shades of eternity 06-19-07, 02:27 PM	yeah, I remember in planescape their were a couple of skirmishes of good vs good, so it's not an impossibility. How about Free Will versus Destiny (err.. Divine Will)? One side believes it is their place to guide mortals and do their best to make the world a better place. The other side believes it is best for mortals to choose their own path- those that choose virtue on their own are of more value than those who were tricked into it. The battle field of the Cold War is the realms of the mortals. The pc's may witness .. oddities. They sometimes will enjoy a mysterious blessing, but then find it equally mysteriously countered shortly there after. The pc's may be manipulated by both sides. The Destiny side isn't just interested in fighting evil. They may want a neutral king overthrown so his Good son can take over. They spread prophetic propoganda about to push the situation into happening. The Free Will side may .. lead (i.e. trick) the pc's into exposing a plot of the Destiny side.. even framing in a way to look like something that needs to be stopped. Yes, hypocritical, but these things tend to be..
Janus Rook 06-19-07, 11:06 PM	Here's my take on an upper planes "Cold War" scenario. Azuziel silently snuck into the dimly lit bedchamber in the Palace of the Court of Stars. He had just dispatched the guards with a ravage designed to keep them unconscious for the rest of the night. As he entered the room this archon came upon his quarry. It was the spirit of the Lama of Silver Lake. His time for reincarnation had not yet come. And as his previous life was spent espousing individual freedoms, he was sent to Morwel's court. This foolish woman was trying to spread the false notion that the chaos that freedom brings is beneficial, whereas Azuziel's own belief in the goodness found in order and hierarchy was wrong. As such he was entrusted with the task to kidnap the Lama's spirit and guide him on the right path back on Mt. Celestia before his next reincarnation. Silent as a cat he pounced on his prey. The spirit tried to scream out but Azuziel whispered softly in his ear, "No harm will come to you I am your friend, I will take you someplace safe, far from the corrupting influences here. As a sign of good faith I will remove my hand, please be silent so we can get out of here." Azuziel did so, but instead of obeying him the Lama's spirit shouted at the top of his lungs. Within moments Krune, the androsphinx champion of Morwel appeared at the doorway. "You had to make this difficult," Azuziel said under his breath. With that he grabbed the spirit and leaped out the window. Not to be deterred Krune chased after this archon and into the wilderness surrounding the castle. Perched on a tree, the Owl guardinal Houie watched the archon make his escape. "I better see what transpires from this," he muttered to no one in particular as he followed in the celestials wake.
The Serge7 06-21-07, 11:18 AM	Dicfreaks (http://dicefreaks.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=6145) has had a number of debates on this subject over the years, the link prior the most recent and thorough. We're currently working under the premise that the three sides of Good function under a Celestial Compact. While this implies a "lawful" approach, in the end, it's not really and seems to have created its own set of conflicts and problems in a manner parallel to the Blood War of the fiends. I have never agreed with the idea of a "cold war" among celestial beings; rather, I've seen a variety of conflicts that are ideological and, on occasion, administrative, but never violent (at least among the celestials themselves).
sciborg2 06-21-07, 07:31 PM	They'll use Law or Chaos, but they won't feel beholden to them, however they'll also probably argue with the best of them if someone begins to promote either at the great expense of Good. I don't see NG as the higest/purest Good. It's simply good with either a focus on balance or an attempt to remove itself from the conflict of Order or Chaos. But NG, to me, can be just as flawed or triumphant as the other two. It may be the case, after all, that the truest, "goodest" god lives in Chronias and looks upon the D&D world to culminate in his plan. Or something...
Adrez Nesnsid 06-23-07, 09:00 PM	This just really wouldn't happen. An Archon and an Eladrin meet eachother, they have a moral debate that goes no where because their beliefs are like hard wired. Then they leave because their natural goodness prevents them from harming others simply for ideological differences. True, but their natural goodness won't prevent them from arguing with each other. Nor will it prevent them from coming to blows if they happen to be on the plane of Ysgard, where there's no permanent or meaningful harm to be done from the encounter (due to the fact that everyone on Ysgard gets fast healing and is automatically resurrected with no level loss if they die).
Red Dragon 06-24-07, 12:35 AM	However, if an actual cold war were to take place, I can see the slaad attempting to "snap up" Ysgard and the formians trying it with Arcadia while the celestials were distracted by other things. This would be horribly bad mojo for the universe in general, and is a strike against it ever happening. The factions may well organize on an intensely personal level (An eladrin rallying a camp to denounce a specific archon, with both having quietly hated each other for millennia, but only now expressing it. The Material plane becomes a quiet battleground, mainly because the Powers That Be would likely spank anyone who tried to fight on Elysium, and because a lot of the NG celestials would refuse to participate. Actual battle would be rare, but propaganda, fueds, withholding of support, and official sanctions against the other side would be the name of the game.
caeruleus 06-25-07, 12:19 AM	It all depends on how the cold war was conducted. All out violence? No, because it wouldn't be a cold war. But they could very well be working ceaselessly to undermine each others' goals in more subtle ways. I'm not sure how the rest of you see this, but I don't think they both share the values of Good and merely differ with respect to Law and Chaos. Law and Chaos affects their very understanding of Good, as I see it, so that archons may not see what the eladrin do as terribly Good. I think of, say, Lawful Good as one unified set of values, rather than a combination of two sets of values.
Darth Syntax 06-25-07, 12:34 AM	From the Archons' standpoint and Eladrin is every bit as reprehensible as one of the Baatezu, just in different ways. Neither of them is as terrible as a demon to be sure, but they are both fundamentally, and ontologically, abhorrent to an Archon. A cold war between the various "good" outsiders is not only possible, its almost a given.
Lina_Inverse 06-25-07, 12:44 AM	This just really wouldn't happen. An Archon and an Eladrin meet eachother, they have a moral debate that goes no where because their beliefs are like hard wired. Then they leave because their natural goodness prevents them from harming others simply for ideological differences. An Eladrin and a tanari meet each other, they have a moral debate that goes no where because their beliefs are hard wired. Then they leave because their natural chaosness prevents them from harming each other simply for ideological differences. Does this argument work? HELL NO. I expect afight. Eladrin hate archons even more than they hate tanari, and you can bet your ass eladrin aren't one whit fond of tanari.
sciborg2 06-25-07, 01:38 AM	That's a nice strawman argument there, seeing as you are equating alignment with something like magnetic poles and completely dismissing Good's ability for tolerance/acceptance and Evil's inability to engender the same qualities. There's a reason there's no Blood War in the Ooper Planes.
Lina_Inverse 06-25-07, 01:59 AM	That's a nice strawman argument there, seeing as you are equating alignment with something like magnetic poles It's a pretty ridiculous arguement yes. But that was the point. Alignments aren't magnetic poles, magnetic poles don't actively try to make the other side not exist. completely dismissing Good's ability for tolerance/acceptance Lawful good is pretty much anathema to tolerance. The forces of conformity are not known for being tolerant. There's a reason there's no Blood War in the Ooper Planes. Not so much outright war, but a cold war yes. They hate each other, but wide scale wholesome slaughter of good beings would be an evil act. So they sit there and glare at each other and get there aggression out by taking it out on the blood war.
Darth Syntax 06-25-07, 02:04 AM	Hate might not be quite the right word. Disgust might work better. A benevolent anarchist and a benevolent legalist are not going to get alone, no matter how good they are; they might not kill each other in a war (although it is possible) but they are going to try very hard to thwart the other side.
Rerecros 06-25-07, 02:27 AM	Lawful good is pretty much anathema to tolerance. The forces of conformity are not known for being tolerant. LE is forceful conformity, LG is all about compassion and self-sacrifice. Not so much outright war, but a cold war yes. They hate each other, but wide scale wholesome slaughter of good beings would be an evil act. So they sit there and glare at each other and get there aggression out by taking it out on the blood war. :eek: You have a very disturbing veiw on angels. :rolleyes: I'm sure they're all sitting on their fluffy clouds of happiness, thinking how they get back on eachother, while taking out whoever gets in their way. Disgust might work better. A benevolent anarchist and a benevolent legalist are not going to get alone, no matter how good they are; they might not kill each other in a war (although it is possible) but they are going to try very hard to thwart the other side. They are beings of light and forgiveness for petes sake. They aren't going to be petty just for a difference of opinion. It's like some protester who spend all his free time working at soup kitchens and a human rights lawyer meeting on the street and dukeing it out to see whos cause is greater judging by who can injure the other more.
sciborg2 06-25-07, 12:19 PM	It's like some protester who spend all his free time working at soup kitchens and a human rights lawyer meeting on the street and dukeing it out to see whos cause is greater judging by who can injure the other more. Thank you. By the Panda, thank you.
caeruleus 06-25-07, 12:26 PM	LG is all about compassion and self-sacrifice. That sounds more NG to me. :eek: You have a very disturbing veiw on angels. :rolleyes: I'm sure they're all sitting on their fluffy clouds of happiness, thinking how they get back on eachother, while taking out whoever gets in their way. They're not "getting back" and they don't "take out whoever gets in their way". And they don't sit on "fluffy clouds of happiness". They see the other side as being fundamentally wrong. Wrong in different ways than the various fiends, but wrong nonetheless. If they're all about promoting their alignments, they won't be content to coexist. It won't necessarily involve outright violence. It could be an ideological war. They are beings of light and forgiveness for petes sake. They aren't going to be petty just for a difference of opinion. It's not like they only differ in which flavor of icecream they prefer. That would be a petty difference of opinion. They differ in their understanding of the very nature of morality! That is anything but petty, it's of primal importance, especially when you're a paragon of one of the alignments. EDIT: I'm sure they're willing to forgive, but only if you're willing to accept that you need "forgiveness", by acknowledging that they're right. It's like some protester who spend all his free time working at soup kitchens and a human rights lawyer meeting on the street and dukeing it out to see whos cause is greater judging by who can injure the other more. As I said above, it need not involve violence. (Seriously, don't you know what "cold war" means?)
Doom_Linnorm 06-25-07, 01:21 PM	Its is the violent nature of sentient creatures itself that even celestials can't be happy-happy-joy-joy all the time. Don't try pinning this on DnD being a violent game because real-life is violent enough that IF celestials were to exist they in real life they would also not be all happy benevolence and probably even less peaceful then their DnD counterparts. But that is besides the point. The reason I think there is not an outright physical war between the upper planes in the core setting (In my setting they actually do have skirmishes but almost never lethal.) is because their good nature probably drives them not to undermine the other but outperform them by improving their own performance. That actually is pretty much like an arms race of "goodness".
Qwicksilver 06-25-07, 03:07 PM	Well first, I think we can take a look at the circumstances that led to our real-world cold war. WW2 began with an alliance between communist and non-communist states because the present threat, Nazism, was looming for eradication of both. Let's not get into the fact that Stalin held pogroms and purges that were as bad as or worse than the holocaust, but for now let's assume that the western powers and Russia were allied because they assumed a greater threat. Now what happens after said threat is removed, the cold war begins as the differences between the previously allied sides becomes much more prominent. This is how I think a cold war between LG and CG would occur, when their main threat, evil, is almost completely eradicated. Let's say that the LG and CG outsiders are united by their mutual understanding that evil poses a threat to both parties, and through some insane planar events, most evil outsiders are greatly diminished. Now it's time for the archons and the eladrin to, not just debate one another, but take real steps towards how the prime material, even the outer planes, are to be structured. I think it would be fully necessary for evil to be diminished in order for archons and eladrin to take more aggressive steps in imposing their creed. Furthermore, I believe that a division amongst Good outsiders would be much more devastating than a division amongst evil outsiders given the fact that good and evil are uneasily balanced as it is, and evil has had to deal with a blood war and good outsiders since their inception. A division amongst good outsiders would considerably weaken them beyond the point where evil can take advantage and arise triumphant. I also want to note that the idea that an archon hates an eladrin just as much as he hates a demon is an error in how their alignment has been set up, at least in my opinion. As some paladin threads have put it, a paladin is good first and lawful second, thus more obligated to honor acts of good than acts of law. The same holds true of lg or cg outsiders, and I think it's implicit that they favor the good component of their alignments secondary to their law/chaos component. An archon can appreciate the fact that a robin hood character is helping the starving villagers of an evil despot by taking from his nobles, but he would much rather send rival nations to overthrow the evil despot. Of course they differ from each individual, but I would say the vast preponderance of good outsiders and paladins favor good over law or chaos.
Yanagita Kunio 06-25-07, 04:11 PM	I think tension is a better concept overall to cover Upper Planar problems. Sort of like interpersonal tension, the "Upper Planes Cold War" is least visible when all parties have a single objective to focus on: archons, guardinals, and eladrin are going to be at their most cooperative when a concrete problem--something they all oppose equally, is clear and present. When it's discovered that the yugoloths are systematically feeding babies to hungry mutated puppies....you're likely to find a collaboratory effort--anywhere between a formal alliance and an individual, "adventuring" team basis--between the celestials. The problem is that things aren't always that simple or that concrete. Modrons and Slaadi have projects and plans, too--and sometimes even the devils and demons have things in the work that aren't immediately indentifiable as "Evil"--and the Upper Planar Scooby Gang isn't quite so unified when the issue isn't saliently "Evil." The eladrins are going to mount up when the modrons conspire to alter a mortal society from nomadism to settled agriculture such that "formal" laws, heirarchies, and property rights come into existence. The archons are going to bust open the armories to keep slaadi from backing a expressionist, "degenerate" artistic movement that questions authority and existing mores is influencing the youth of an otherwise moral, orderly industrial society. Each, however, will give the same rationale for taking action: that way (law or chaos) leads to perdition. And the guardinals will shake their heads and think both parties misguided for focusing on nullifying the impact of the other, then start planning how they're going to mollify the influence of these well-intentioned excesses on those poor mortals.... --- On a seperate note, an opinion: YMMV. One, for my own games I hold that while planars might be condensed thought and belief, that does not mean they are not individuals with their own distinctive perspectives, even within their exemplar type or plane. Nor are types--grouped by planar origin or by speciation "variety" within a plane--perfectly homogenous in how they think or what qualities of "alignment" they manifest more or less. They are not compression-moulded, homogenous packages of alignment with an FDA-card ingredient list on the side. They have their own minds and free will enough to have their own cognitive maps of "what is best for the universe"...which might not even be perfectly concordant with the next same-plane creature they encounter. To an observer, two archons might seem to be "homogenous" in their thought, but that's a result of an external perspective and a lack of appreciation of the internal nuances of Celestian culture and values. A Stoic and a Quaker would likely be moved by the same moral drives such that they'd both be considered "LG," but how they arrive seperately at the same stance is something the two might never iron out through discussion--even as they collaborate to achieve the same morally-justified ends. Furthermore, exemplars also have fallible perspectives such that even the "components" of their alignment sometimes collide. This is SOP amongst chaotics--even the pro-cooperation eladrin are a set of loose-knit affiliations based on overlapping-but-shifting interests--but even occurs among the supposedly "rigid" Lawful types and the supposedly "pure" Neutral types. An archon might--for the right or wrong reasons--arrive at the decision to disobey an order from a superior in the name for the "greater good" or the "greater utility." A devil might assess that the reward for obedience doesn't outweigh the cost in self-preservation. And so forth. While "falls" and alignment shifts might be rare amongst exemplars, it's worth considering that such occurences aren't just the flipping of binary switches: perhaps it's more like reaching a critical mass of cognitive dissonance, or becoming energized enough to not just buzz about in one's shell, but jump whole orbitals....
Orchomenos 06-26-07, 11:36 AM	I think the best example would be Dwarves vs Elves. Dwarves are usually LG, and Elves are usually CG. As a nation, they would send official diplomat to each other and create alliances to fight orcs & goblinoids. However, the elf would quickly grew annoyed in the Dwarven city, with its rigid laws and lack of artistic sense (save for the architecture); the same way, the dwarf would quickly suffer of agoraphoby in the Elven tree city, with everyone eating when they feel so, singing when they feel so, performing some arcane research when they feel so. In an adventurers party, the archetype dwarf and elf would continually pick on each other, anything would reminds them their difference, except when it comes to the actual battlefield; in the end, the goal is to drop the orcs, the mean they use is a secondary question. This would actually be a funny RP experience. Suppose a PC cast a Commune or Augury spell. Both an Archon and an Eladrin appear to answer the question, but seeing each other, they begin to argue, that could eventually become a brawl (if the Eladrin question the Archon's honor), so much that the PCs have to separate each of them... :rofl:
noctivagus 06-26-07, 12:56 PM	Considering this to be a "cold war," a direct Eladrin versus Archon fight isn't really likely. The followers of a LG god fighting the followers of a GC god, on the other hand, is very likely even without the machinations of higher power.
caeruleus 06-26-07, 01:17 PM	Considering this to be a "cold war," a direct Eladrin versus Archon fight isn't really likely. Not necessarily true. While a cold war implies there are no battles between armies, individuals from each side may very well come to blows, it just wouldn't be part of the "official" war. It would be kinda like an American and a Russian getting into an argument and eventually a fight, during the real-world Cold War. Such a fight would not be part of the Cold War. It would just involve two people with ideological differences (related to the Cold War) who happened to get hot-headed. Perhaps celestials are less likely to get hot-headed. Perhaps not. After all, if they were completely non-violent, they wouldn't fight fiends.
Mirtek 06-26-07, 02:13 PM	Does this argument work? Because neither Law nor Chaos include that bringing harm to others if wrong. Good has this as an essential part of it's essence. Lawful good is pretty much anathema to tolerance. With this I agree. LG is the least good alignment and Law and Good are actually opposed to each other, the LG try to bridge this gap, but many fail. They hate each other, but wide scale wholesome slaughter of good beings would be an evil act. So they sit there and glare at each other and get there aggression out by taking it out on the blood war. So you agree that their goodness prevents them from harming each other?
Thegans 06-26-07, 10:05 PM	An Eladrin and a tanari meet each other, they have a moral debate that goes no where because their beliefs are hard wired. Then they leave because their natural chaosness prevents them from harming each other simply for ideological differences. Does this argument work? HELL NO. I expect afight. Eladrin hate archons even more than they hate tanari, and you can bet your ass eladrin aren't one whit fond of tanari. I would expect something more like these two situations. An ealdrin and a tanari meet each other, they have a moral debate that goes no where because their beliefs are hard wired. Then they leave because their natural chaosness makes them realize that the archon and the baatezu in the corner are expecting them to fight. Then they attack the baatezu and kill it. The ealdin flees while the tanari is distracted hoping that it and the archon kill eachother An archon and a baatezu meet each other, they have a moral debate that goes no where because their beliefs are hard wired. Then they realize that they can't fight where they are so the rent the collusem and split the bill to avoid being chaotic. After the fight they take bets on who will attack first an ealdrin or a tanari. The ealdrin and the tanari attack the baatezu. The baatezu reforms in Baator and get a subpoena. The archon is suing the baatezu for not paying him the money for the bet. The baatezu conter sues saying that the archon did not win the bet because they both attacked at the same time, in addition the baatezu adds to his case that the archons use of the legal system is currently lawful evil and that he should get the archons soul to bring to Baator. Needless to say if it was two celestials I would expect them to have the same bet that that dwarfs and the elf in lord of the rings had, except with demons and devils instead of orcs. Then they would brag about whose good side destroyed more evil and have several more bets till they are so overworked that they faint for half a millenia only to continue when they wake back up. With this I agree. LG is the least good alignment and Law and Good are actually opposed to each other, the LG try to bridge this gap, but many fail. The concept of lawful good never made much sense to me. The good King Whatshisname has been assassinated by a goblin assassin leading to a war with the goblins. Prince Youknowwho takes over as king and screws up horribly because he has no idea what hes doing. Because of this screwup he has to drastically increase taxes to the point that almost no one can afford it, in addition he creates a draft because the goblins outnumber the current armed forces. The neutral good wizard shakes his head in fustration remembering the events that lead to the assassination of King Whatshisname when Whathisname sent his clerics to try to civilize the chaotic goblins. The goblins repeatedly killed the cleric embasadors for stealing when they tried to set up a tax system. On a less devastating scale a family with many kids (they probably needed them for the farm) has had a tough year because of crops not growing as well and the king sent a representative to collect taxes. The lawful good tax collector would have to collect the tax crops and convince the family that paying the tax is in everyones best interest while ignoring the fact that a few of the kids will probably starve to death. The chaotic good tax collector could just think screw it the kings treasurer isn't going to notice and then pretend that it already went to the house before.
Return of the Flumph 06-27-07, 06:40 AM	The concept of lawful good never made much sense to me. The good King Whatshisname has been assassinated by a goblin assassin leading to a war with the goblins. Prince Youknowwho takes over as king and screws up horribly because he has no idea what hes doing. Because of this screwup he has to drastically increase taxes to the point that almost no one can afford it, in addition he creates a draft because the goblins outnumber the current armed forces. The neutral good wizard shakes his head in fustration remembering the events that lead to the assassination of King Whatshisname when Whathisname sent his clerics to try to civilize the chaotic goblins. The goblins repeatedly killed the cleric embasadors for stealing when they tried to set up a tax system. On a less devastating scale a family with many kids (they probably needed them for the farm) has had a tough year because of crops not growing as well and the king sent a representative to collect taxes. The lawful good tax collector would have to collect the tax crops and convince the family that paying the tax is in everyones best interest while ignoring the fact that a few of the kids will probably starve to death. The chaotic good tax collector could just think screw it the kings treasurer isn't going to notice and then pretend that it already went to the house before. Sorry to break this to you, but none of the characters in either of your examples were even remotely lawful good. The king and tax collector are lawful neutral at best, possibly with evil tendencies.
Phantom Llama 06-27-07, 07:58 AM	The direction this thread is taking is amusing in the context of this (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=851225) recent thread from the porn dump.
Micheal_Roele 06-27-07, 11:13 AM	Here is what would happen outside of Sigil... An ealdrin and a tanari meet each other.... Initiative. An archon and a baatezu meet each other.... Initiative.
The Serge7 06-27-07, 11:30 AM	Basically.
Witch 06-27-07, 12:25 PM	Here is what would happen outside of Sigil... Initiative. Initiative. As far as I know, the Baatezu and Archons do have agreements about things.
Return of the Flumph 06-27-07, 03:12 PM	Paragons of goodness do not kill each other. A heavenly civil war is a bad idea, and you are bad for liking it.
The Serge7 06-27-07, 09:17 PM	Paragons of goodness do not kill each other. A heavenly civil war is a bad idea, and you are bad for liking it. Basically.
Doom_Linnorm 06-28-07, 04:57 AM	But being bad, is what DMing is all about. :devil:
Orchomenos 06-28-07, 03:06 PM	Paragons of goodness do not kill each other. A heavenly civil war is a bad idea, and you are bad for liking it. That's for sure. I would expect an Eladrin and an Archon to have a good tavern brawl, and awekening next morning in jail. While the Eladrin exclaims: "That was good!", the Archon simply defends himself saying: "He questionned my honnor!" Anyway, most have DR/Evil, so they wouldn't be able to kill each other.
caeruleus 06-28-07, 07:33 PM	Paragons of goodness do not kill each other. A heavenly civil war is a bad idea, and you are bad for liking it. And no one said a word about civil war. :rolleyes:
Wyvern76 06-28-07, 10:25 PM	Lawful good is pretty much anathema to tolerance. The forces of conformity are not known for being tolerant. With this I agree. LG is the least good alignment and Law and Good are actually opposed to each other, the LG try to bridge this gap, but many fail. The lawful good tax collector would have to collect the tax crops and convince the family that paying the tax is in everyones best interest while ignoring the fact that a few of the kids will probably starve to death. I don't think any of you understand what lawful good is really about. It's not about conformity, it's about community. Ever seen Antz? At the beginning, the ants are lawful neutral (except for General Mandible, he's lawful evil) -- all they care about is conformity, everyone's just a cog in the machine, and they don't show any concern for each other's well-being. At the end of the movie, when they cooperate to save each other, they demonstrate true community. As for Thegans' tax collector -- in a proper lawful good society, the taxes would be used to keep people from starving to death. (What, you think that socialized medicine and welfare are chaotic?) As I said above, it need not involve violence. (Seriously, don't you know what "cold war" means?)Riiiight. Because we all know that nobody died in the real-life Cold War. :rolleyes: Wyvern
sciborg2 06-29-07, 12:15 AM	I just don't see Law and Order having the same problems as Good and Evil. Law/Chaos can be reconciled (see Infinite Staircase) whereas Good and Evil are truly polar opposites...now there can be some relativity in what is Good...
caeruleus 06-29-07, 01:39 AM	Riiiight. Because we all know that nobody died in the real-life Cold War. :rolleyes: Sure, people died, but that's not what made it a cold war. This isn't about a recreation of a historical conflict in the Upper Planes. A fantasy nation can have, say, a civil war without it being about economic rights or slavery, even though a real-life civil war involved these things. Keep the concept distinguished from contingent instantiations of it.
Wyvern76 06-30-07, 11:14 AM	Sure, people died, but that's not what made it a cold war. This isn't about a recreation of a historical conflict in the Upper Planes. A fantasy nation can have, say, a civil war without it being about economic rights or slavery, even though a real-life civil war involved these things. Keep the concept distinguished from contingent instantiations of it.Name a real-life example of a cold war that didn't involve violence, then. My point is twofold: 1) There have been plenty of civil wars throughout history, but we only have one historical precedent to refer to when determining what "cold war" involves. 2) If I'd said it can't be a cold war because eladrins aren't communists, you'd have a point. However, I think violence is inherent in the very concept -- after all, it's called cold war, not cold shoulder. You may be able to imagine a scenario where a "cold war" could exist without violence, but that doesn't justify questioning Rerecros' intelligence because he bases his understanding of the term on the meaning of the words and the historical precedent for its usage, instead of your imagination. Wyvern
Adrez Nesnsid 06-30-07, 04:22 PM	I could see an upper planar "cold war" being feasible, but it would be, by far, the most feasible in terms of conflict between Ysgard and Arcadia. Any upper planes closer together than that would most likely have a relationship less like that between the United States and Soviet era Russia, where they're actually in a sort of simmering opposition, but would instead, have a relationship more like that between the United States and France, where they're allied with each other in pretty much any major conflict, but, having said that, most of the people from either country (or plane, in this case), don't really have any respect for the people of the other (or who at least give the appearance of having that sort of opinion). :P
caeruleus 06-30-07, 06:10 PM	Name a real-life example of a cold war that didn't involve violence, then. My point is twofold: 1) There have been plenty of civil wars throughout history, but we only have one historical precedent to refer to when determining what "cold war" involves. 2) If I'd said it can't be a cold war because eladrins aren't communists, you'd have a point. However, I think violence is inherent in the very concept -- after all, it's called cold war, not cold shoulder. Oh please. :rolleyes: First of all, there has been more than one cold war. For examples of other cold wars, look at this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_war_%28general_term%29) Wikipedia article. From that same article, here's a definition: A cold war (or bipolar superpower confrontation) is a state of battle between nations that does not involve direct military action but is pursued primarily through economic and political actions, acts of espionage or conflict through surrogates (proxy wars). So there you are. War implies conflict, but conflict is not always physically violent. You may be able to imagine a scenario where a "cold war" could exist without violence, but that doesn't justify questioning Rerecros' intelligence because he bases his understanding of the term on the meaning of the words and the historical precedent for its usage, instead of your imagination. It had nothing to do with imagination. As should be clear now, I was basing it off the meaning of the term "cold war" (to insist it's like a regular war is like insisting a grapefruit grows on vines because grapes grow on vines). If you're going to claim that you and Rerecros did base your understanding on the term's meaning and on historical precedent, then you should really have first confirmed that the meaning and precedent was there.
Rerecros 06-30-07, 06:54 PM	So there you are. War implies conflict, but conflict is not always physically violent. What?! As soon as a conflict becomes violent and long enough it is called a war. A cold war is still a war, even if it doesn't directly occur on the upper planes. Cold wars involve aiding the side of a war you agree with more. Both archons and eledrins would only involve themselves in conflicts where one side will cause obvious suffering, they would rather see a society where people are content, rather than one they'd agree with.
caeruleus 07-01-07, 04:39 AM	Cold wars involve aiding the side of a war you agree with more. That's one way of having a cold war. It is not a necessary condition of a cold war, and there are other sufficient conditions. Both archons and eledrins would only involve themselves in conflicts where one side will cause obvious suffering, they would rather see a society where people are content, rather than one they'd agree with. I agree that they would want to see a society where people are content. I highly doubt that archons, say, would cause sufferring in a chaotic good society just because it was chaotic good. But they may very well keep tabs on such a society. If they notice, for example, instability leading to problems, they might send an agent (not obviously working for them) to help fix the problem in such a way that leads to a more lawfully structured society (not necessarily fully lawful good, but less chaotic than it was before). The eladrin might be doing similar things to lawful good societies. They might also keep an eye on chaotic good societies to help them in times of need, to better prevent them from shifting to more lawful ways of running things. The celestials would not be at war with any mortals. But the eladrin and the archons have opposing aims, and each would try to undermine the other's aims while promoting their own. This conflict is not a military one, as it involves economic and political action. That makes it a cold war. This conflict need not be all-consuming for either side. They'd want to promote Goodness as much as they'd want to promote Law/Chaos. I'm sure they can even still work together at times. But the type of conflict I described could very well occur between them, and it fits the definition of a cold war.
aelryinth 07-01-07, 07:59 PM	Here's my take on an upper planes "Cold War" scenario. Azuziel silently snuck into the dimly lit bedchamber in the Palace of the Court of Stars. He had just dispatched the guards with a ravage designed to keep them unconscious for the rest of the night. As he entered the room this archon came upon his quarry. It was the spirit of the Lama of Silver Lake. His time for reincarnation had not yet come. And as his previous life was spent espousing individual freedoms, he was sent to Morwel's court. This foolish woman was trying to spread the false notion that the chaos that freedom brings is beneficial, whereas Azuziel's own belief in the goodness found in order and hierarchy was wrong. As such he was entrusted with the task to kidnap the Lama's spirit and guide him on the right path back on Mt. Celestia before his next reincarnation. Silent as a cat he pounced on his prey. The spirit tried to scream out but Azuziel whispered softly in his ear, "No harm will come to you I am your friend, I will take you someplace safe, far from the corrupting influences here. As a sign of good faith I will remove my hand, please be silent so we can get out of here." Azuziel did so, but instead of obeying him the Lama's spirit shouted at the top of his lungs. Within moments Krune, the androsphinx champion of Morwel appeared at the doorway. "You had to make this difficult," Azuziel said under his breath. With that he grabbed the spirit and leaped out the window. Not to be deterred Krune chased after this archon and into the wilderness surrounding the castle. Perched on a tree, the Owl guardinal Houie watched the archon make his escape. "I better see what transpires from this," he muttered to no one in particular as he followed in the celestials wake. I wonder why Morwel had Evil guards around the spirit of the llama. She'd be more likely to kill them then Azuziel did. Oh, wait. You probably forgot the key item about ravages...they are like alchemical Smites. They only affect Evil beings. And from that simple mistake I can see where your other examples are going to deviate. Although this is otherwise a startlingly non-violent way the game might be carried out...the only problem is, the kidnapper is just that...a kidnapper, breaking laws, doing so against the will of the spirit, and so committing an Evil Act for Good ends...which by higher understanding of Good, just isn't going to fly. So while a MORTAL might do something this radical, not understanding the ends, this is, in actuality, a LN character acting against CG, not an LG. He's just deluded into thinkinig he's LG because he's using non-violent means to do this deed. ---- Good forces tolerance on the Lawful, because there are a thousand forms of Law, and only at the Ultimate level do they all become one. So long as all of them advance Good, they are tolerated...hence, tolerance is built into LG, or all the LG Gods and religions would be advancing in lockstep. Secondly, a LG archon and CG eladrin don't see the other as Wrong...they see the other as In Error, and Not Seeing The Basic Truth. Their opposites have their heart in the right place, they just need to be shown the true path. It may lead to oneupsmanship, pranks, contests, debates, but War in The Heavens just isn't going to happen. That doesn't mean that they work together if at all possible, because the faults of the others annoy them to the point of distraction. However, Eladrins and Demons don't get along at all...or Archons and Devils. Both represent ultimate Corruption of what the two alignments stand for, and they understand just how dangerous these unholy versions of their own belief sets are. A Demon may be madness to an Archon, and A Devil Slavery Incarnate...but their Evil versions of themselves are mockeries and signs of what they themselves might become if they give up on their highest of beliefs. Also remember, that while Law/Chaos is definitely going to have some sort of Cold war playing out in the Upper Planes among the most radical individuals, it's equally going to have lots of back door liaisons by those who are attracted to what are extremely noble virtues best espoused by the opposing alignments. Lawful celestials might send word to Chaotics of this little problem that's getting out of control and tied up in debate...and the Chaotics just happen to go handle it. Likewise, the Chaotics may turn up a problem and casually alert Lawfuls to its existence, prompting an immediate crackdown/response. So, if you want the Cold War, just be aware that its opposite number is going to be in full bloom at the high levels, too. Nothing says Morwel couldn't find Heironeous or something fascinatingly noble and self-sacrificing, after all, while Heironeous found the Eladrin queen utterly enchanting and delightfully whimsical despite himself.:angelhide :inlove: ==Aelryinth Evil is Wrong, because Evil flat out shuts down the truth that the Good espouses.
navar100 07-02-07, 12:29 AM	So, if you want the Cold War, just be aware that its opposite number is going to be in full bloom at the high levels, too. Nothing says Morwel couldn't find Heironeous or something fascinatingly noble and self-sacrificing, after all, while Heironeous found the Eladrin queen utterly enchanting and delightfully whimsical despite himself.:angelhide :inlove: ==Aelryinth Opposites attract. It makes sense. The Lawful Good loves the Chaotic Good because she brings spontaneity and surprises to enrich his joy. The Chaotic Good loves the Lawful Good because he brings stability and faithfulness to enrich her safety.
caeruleus 07-02-07, 03:14 PM	Opposites attract. It makes sense. The Lawful Good loves the Chaotic Good because she brings spontaneity and surprises to enrich his joy. The Chaotic Good loves the Lawful Good because he brings stability and faithfulness to enrich her safety. You know, that's true for us mortals, because we need balance in our lives. But the celestials are paragons of their alignments, so I don't think the same reasoning applies to them. It might apply to Hieroneous, because he holds to other ideals, but not Morwel.
Adrez Nesnsid 07-02-07, 10:31 PM	You know, that's true for us mortals, because we need balance in our lives. But the celestials are paragons of their alignments, so I don't think the same reasoning applies to them. Well, it might be worth pointing out that in in the core beliefs article for Wee Jas it states that Wee Jas has an on-again-off-again love interest in a relatively obscure chaotic neutral deity (whose alignment is, therefore, diametrically opposed to her own).
Janus Rook 07-02-07, 11:47 PM	Oh, wait. You probably forgot the key item about ravages...they are like alchemical Smites. They only affect Evil beings. Oh, oops, lol, I actually did forget that, I never use ravages in my games so I totally forgot that, thanks for pointing that out. Ha. Although this is otherwise a startlingly non-violent way the game might be carried out...the only problem is, the kidnapper is just that...a kidnapper, breaking laws, doing so against the will of the spirit, and so committing an Evil Act for Good ends...which by higher understanding of Good, just isn't going to fly. So while a MORTAL might do something this radical, not understanding the ends, this is, in actuality, a LN character acting against CG, not an LG. He's just deluded into thinkinig he's LG because he's using non-violent means to do this deed. I don't think so, in my opinion this spirit is more like a child, in that it doesn't have the ability to make an informed decision based on the "propaganda" in the archons eyes. The archon merely wants to teach the "child" whats going on. Is it evil for a wiccan mother to take her child away from in her eyes a brainwashing devout fundamentalist father? It may not be good but it is certainly not evil. Secondly, a LG archon and CG eladrin don't see the other as Wrong...they see the other as In Error, and Not Seeing The Basic Truth. Their opposites have their heart in the right place, they just need to be shown the true path. It may lead to oneupsmanship, pranks, contests, debates, but War in The Heavens just isn't going to happen. I was merely positing an example where a war in heavens could take place. It isn't a far step to go from a person is in error to a person is wrong. Good says that we should tolerate everyone, not that we need accept what they do. A good priest in a campaign with distant deities could be led to believe that another good priest from another god is going to suffer for his wrong beliefs but still tolerate his religion. I agree that with deities that have avatars roaming the realms it's nigh impossible for their to be a war in heaven, but if the deities sit in their ivory towers guiding their celestial followers through proxy, it becomes far easier to imagine it. So, if you want the Cold War, just be aware that its opposite number is going to be in full bloom at the high levels, too. Nothing says Morwel couldn't find Heironeous or something fascinatingly noble and self-sacrificing, after all, while Heironeous found the Eladrin queen utterly enchanting and delightfully whimsical despite himself. Of course but these things happened in the real cold war too. Heck even good deities could respect the power that evil deities hold, I bet Heironios admires the way Hextor manages to keep his hordes in line without a benevolent leadership.
caeruleus 07-03-07, 01:47 AM	Well, it might be worth pointing out that in in the core beliefs article for Wee Jas it states that Wee Jas has an on-again-off-again love interest in a relatively obscure chaotic neutral deity (whose alignment is, therefore, diametrically opposed to her own). And I was specifically referring to celestials, not deities. Deities have concerns beyond their alignments. They are not personifications of their alignments, which is why I specifically was not talking about them. In the rest of my post, I made an exception for Heironeous. (By the way, that "obscure" chaotic neutral deity would be Norebo.)