Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Taeldrin Laesrash 05-29-05, 09:57 AM	The Monster Manual says, about creature alignment, that a creature whose aignment is 'Always _______' is born with this alignment, and itis part of them. However, it also says that a monster like this can have a different alignment, but it is usually very rare or an exception. Can someone clarify this for me?
Pippa 05-29-05, 10:06 AM	I believe that in a world you yourself are supposed to create, nothing should be impossible. If the story you want to tell needs a creature with an "exceptional" alignment, just do it, I 'd say. When you MM says: "Always Evil" for example, this means the people living in your world know this race as not to mess with, and they must not try to become friends with it or anything like that, and they even might kill that creature on sight. Which doesn't do that exceptional Good bugbear any good.
Planar Wanderer 05-29-05, 10:06 AM	The Monster Manual says, about creature alignment, that a creature whose aignment is 'Always _______' is born with this alignment, and itis part of them. However, it also says that a monster like this can have a different alignment, but it is usually very rare or an exception. Can someone clarify this for me? Basically it means that when you come across the monster it is X alignment. 99.9999...% of the time. I think the caveat of exceptions is there to make it clear that it shouldn't actually stop a DM form throwing in monsters of that type with different alignments (say a redeemed demon that the party have to help out of the abyss) but that it should more or less be a one off and should definatley only be done on a case by case basis (eg. whilst a neutral demon might occur in a campaign, a large city of neutral demons probably shouldn't)
obrysii 05-29-05, 10:31 AM	Yeah. Or if you're the DM, feel free to completely ignore the alignment part. I only use it to get a barring on their standard outlook on life. The group has found more Good chromatic dragons than evil ones, and more Evil metallic dragons than good ones.
captainswift 05-29-05, 11:48 AM	It's always been my interpretation that the only real absolute is when the alignment appears as a creature's sub-type (for instance, demons have the Chaos and Evil subtypes). I've used a neutral (but friendly to the party) blue dragon, a neutral (but less friendly) medusa, and even a good-aligned vampire in my previous campaign. And even with the caveat that demons are immutably chaotic evil, I've had a succubus who was sisterly-protective of one of the PC's (a tiefling) and aided the party on several occasions (though they were wise not to worry about what she was doing when she wasn't with them). Of course, the nature of my setting wasn't quite as good vs. evil as most, so I wasn't as strict with alignment. For the most part, "Always" means exceptions are rare in the extreme, but if the DM has the need for a Lawful Good roper for some reason, he shouldn't feel bound by the normal alignment.
PrinceAzar 05-29-05, 04:32 PM	No, as much as I like Drizzt, people tend to think of "Always" as.... Always = Might be otherwise = Always otherwise In regards to alignments and such.... I know people don't like to hear this, but deviating too much from the set rules kind of kills tradition :weep:
The Listener 05-29-05, 04:41 PM	I tend to think that exceptions to "Always" alignment are truely one in a kind, with one or two individuals who are different in the entire world/plane/whatever. I'd imagine those individuals to be completly alienated from their culture, trapped in their own differences, kicked out from their past life because they aren't like the others, and mistrusted by everyone else because they are "supposed" to be a certain alignment. It'd be a hard life, that's for sure.
PlaidViking 05-29-05, 08:05 PM	Yeah, my favorite example of strange alignment is a Vargoille Paladin.
Da Dinictus 05-31-05, 02:40 AM	Yeah, my favorite example of strange alignment is a Vargoille Paladin. A nigh intelligent flying head? Somehow, the CE-by-nature redeemed Succubus Paladin seems more likely :P
RavinRay 05-31-05, 04:38 AM	Yeah. Or if you're the DM, feel free to completely ignore the alignment part... The group has found more Good chromatic dragons than evil ones, and more Evil metallic dragons than good ones. Which is precisely what Eberron creator Keith Baker emphasizes, that the actions of a being may not seem to match its alignment even though it believes that they do; and there are individuals that just plain go against the grain.
Nadaka 05-31-05, 05:15 AM	4 words "helm of opposite alignment". Always is not always when you have magic to break the rules.
Venom of the Yuan Ti 05-31-05, 05:33 AM	I view it like this. Often xyz 40%=xyz 30%=one step law/chaos or good/evil from xyz 20%=two steps from xyz 9%=Other 1%=Totaly opposed EG orcs, often CE 40%=CE 30%=CN/NE 20%=CG/NN/LE 9%=NG/LN 1%=LG Usually xyz 80%=xyz 15%=one step law/chaos or good/evil from xyz 4%=two steps from xyz 0.9%=Other 0.1%=Totaly opposed Allways xyz 98%=xyz 1.5%=one step law/chaos or good/evil from xyz 0.49%=two steps from xyz 0.009%=Other 0.001%=Totaly opposed
Sybill 05-31-05, 08:05 AM	How I view it: If it says "always," then it means that the creature is born that alignment. Red dragons, in their first wyrmling breath, are evil. Now, if said baby dragon was raised by someone good, they could change their alignment to good eventually. I just rule that always means it is what it is, unless extraordinary circumstances have caused it to be otherwise. But what do I know?
Count Arioch the 28th 05-31-05, 08:45 AM	Never liked the "always" alignments myself. In my game, only outsiders have the "always" type alignments, and only a few of them at that.
snowlynx 05-31-05, 08:59 AM	If it says always, then the creature is almost always that alignment, and the only exception is going to be a creature that grew up under non-normal circumstances or who has some exceptional reason to fight their inner alignment over the course of their life. That being said, I have found no DM that actually follows this "always" alignment thing. This leads to some confusing situations, because the NPCs and players act as if the creature is 'always' a particular alignment, yet somehow many of the creatures are not and the world is oblivious to such exceptions....if you're going to eliminate the 'always' for any creature I suggest making it clear that that's your intent to your players, else you might be really confusing the person in your group that decides to follow Bahutmut or who aims to rid the world of evil dragons....
Novacat 05-31-05, 09:16 AM	Just how many times are we going to give the same theory? If you need the blessing of people in this forum to change the rules as a DM... I'm glad I'm not playing with you. I've completely removed alignments in my game, 'cause they're bull.
CzarGarrett 05-31-05, 09:23 AM	Never liked the "always" alignments myself. In my game, only outsiders have the "always" type alignments, and only a few of them at that. Thats generally the way I go for it too. Outsiders are supposed to be directly reflective of their home planes. On the material plane, there's plenty of variety. Although I do tend to mostly stick with the alignments given, mostly because they make sense.
Rotipher 05-31-05, 01:47 PM	I tend to think of "Always ____" alignments in a metagame context: it's really meant to tell players that they can take it for granted that the creature has one specific alignment, barring clear and decisive evidence to the contrary. The only way an "Always"-aligned creature is going to deviate from the MM's listing, IMC, is if I as DM have deliberately *chosen* to make the creature an exception; a randomly-encountered demon WILL be Chaotic Evil in my games, without question or quibbling. That's why 3E introduced the "Often/Usually/Always" component of alignment listings, in the first place: to distinguish between creatures who deserve to be given the benefit of the doubt, such as humanoids capable of conscious moral choice, and creatures which (again, barring DM fiat) don't merit such hesitancy on the part of PCs. Too often in previous editions of the game, players of paladins and the like got caught in "evil deeds" because they didn't know that the DM felt that, say, orcs didn't (or did!) qualify as "inherently Evil" and deserving of instant death. The qualifyiers added to alignments in the 3rd edition's rules helped to distinguish between monsters as follows: Often -- Highly variable in alignment; don't assume anything about alignment until you've observed this creature's behavior Usually -- Pretty good chance it's alignment X; don't take its alignment for granted (by killing on sight or trusting implicitly), but do be suspicious and ready to respond if its conduct is Evil as expected Always -- Unless there's *clearly* something fishy going on, go ahead and assume it's alignment X as per the MM Note that this places something of a burden on the DM, to make an individual monster's alignment evident to players, given appropriate investigation. You don't have to be blatant about it -- PCs shouldn't find a bugbear proving its evil nature by beating up hapless prisoners for fun, unless you're deliberately setting up an instant fight -- but if the PCs have stumbled across that one-in-a-million red dragon that *isn't* evil, it's your responsibility as DM to make sure they CAN discover it differs from the norm, *before* they're standing over its mangled carcass (and getting unfairly smacked by the powers of Good for an "evil deed" you never gave them a chance to recognize as such).
mvincent 06-02-05, 04:38 PM	4 words "helm of opposite alignment".Oo Oo. I can name that tune in three notes: ;) "Mirror of opposition"