Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Elliot22 08-08-07, 05:27 PM	Okay, If Demons and Devils are the living embodyment (sp?) of Evil, and Celestials/Angels are the living Embodyment of Good, what is the Living Embodyment of Neutral in D&D? If Demons and Devils represent LE and CE, and Celestials/Angels are LG and CG, what are LN and CN??? I have been trying to figure this out for a while and wondered if anyone could aid me?
Witch 08-08-07, 05:30 PM	You've got your terms wrong. Angels and celestials aren't the same thing. It's like this: LE: Devils (Fiend) NE: Yugoloths (Fiend) CE: Demons (Fiend) CN: Slaad CG: Eladrin (Celestial) NG: Guardinal (Celestial) LG: Archon (Celestial) LN: Modron/Formian TN: Rilmani
Morwen 08-08-07, 05:53 PM	And the Angels (or Devas) are of any Good alignment :)
Shemeska the Marauder 08-08-07, 07:55 PM	Angels aren't the exemplars of Goodness. They might be good aligned, but they don't embody their alignment in the same way the true celestials (Archons, Guardinals, Eladrin) do. Rather, angels/aasimon embody the will of good aligned deities. They're extensions of their deific patrons, and they serve to act on their behalf, which usually involves good acts since their deities are good, but not always, especially when good gods or pantheons fall into dispute with one another. An angel's service to their divine patron trumps Good in the rare instances that the two conflict.
xdahnx 08-08-07, 08:06 PM	Don't forget THE INEVITABLES (LN) or THE ELEMENTALS (N/TN)
Shemeska the Marauder 08-08-07, 08:12 PM	Don't forget THE INEVITABLES (LN) or THE ELEMENTALS (N/TN) However neither of them are outsiders or represent alignment.
Elliot22 08-08-07, 08:19 PM	Thank you all for your help, I guess I was a lot more off than I thought when it came to the difference between these outsiders, and that is why I came on here and asked for your help. THANK YOU!
Witch 08-09-07, 08:33 AM	For the sake of completeness, I'll also state that I disagree on the status of angels as exemplars of good (I believe they are, and that their service to deities is secondary), but that this has less justification in canon than Shemeskha's view. Also, Shemeskha likely disagrees with me on Formians being LN exemplars, but I think that canon material allows one to argue either way.
Shemeska the Marauder 08-09-07, 08:52 AM	Also, Shemeskha likely disagrees with me on Formians being LN exemplars, but I think that canon material allows one to argue either way. Those on Arcadia can be argued to represent LN/LG, while for those corrupted Formians who accompanied Arcadia's lost third layer that slid into Mechanus, I don't feel that they represent LN given their attitudes and actions. I think they're neither done with their metaphysical slide, and seem destined for Acheron (or based on Ken's article in Dragon, extinction at the hands of a resurgent Modron race now turning the Inevitables against the ants).
Staple 08-09-07, 09:03 AM	In 3.0 there were the Rilmani, Outsiders that were the equivalent of Angels, Celestials, Demons, and Devils, for the alignment of True Neutral. They're in the 3.0 book "Fiend Folio." Unfortunately, I don't think they were carried over into 3.5.
Witch 08-09-07, 09:12 AM	Those on Arcadia can be argued to represent LN/LG, while for those corrupted Formians who accompanied Arcadia's lost third layer that slid into Mechanus, I don't feel that they represent LN given their attitudes and actions. I think they're neither done with their metaphysical slide, and seem destined for Acheron (or based on Ken's article in Dragon, extinction at the hands of a resurgent Modron race now turning the Inevitables against the ants). Could you argue for their slide to LE? I've got an interesting write-up by Alratan on how he believes Formians behave, as LN exemplars, if you're interested. It's not canon, but I don't think there's much canon info on LN Formians in any case. I've also got my own write-up on actually LE Formians, which stresses the vast difference between the two. Staple: nothing says there's no such thing as Rilmani anymore. They're still there - they just need an update. They've also existed for longer than 3.0.
Shemeska the Marauder 08-09-07, 09:33 AM	Could you argue for their slide to LE? I think they're firmly sandwiched between LN and LE, and thus prime candidates for a slide into Acheron. Staple: nothing says there's no such thing as Rilmani anymore. They're still there - they just need an update. They've also existed for longer than 3.0. I'd have to look to see if it stayed in the final article, but I referenced them in the Ecstasy piece in Dragon, during the 3.5 era. And for Staple: they've been around since the 2e Planescape Monstrous Compendium II. Note to self: submit rilmani query to the DI.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 08-11-07, 01:17 PM	You've got your terms wrong. Angels and celestials aren't the same thing. It's like this: LE: Devils (Fiend) NE: Yugoloths (Fiend) CE: Demons (Fiend) CN: Slaad CG: Eladrin (Celestial) NG: Guardinal (Celestial) LG: Archon (Celestial) LN: Modron/Formian TN: Rilmani Technically it's actually the Baatezu and the Tanar'ri that are the exemplars. Devils and Demons as a whole are not the exemplars.
Mirtek 08-11-07, 03:02 PM	Technically it's actually the Baatezu and the Tanar'ri that are the exemplars. Devils and Demons as a whole are not the exemplars. No, Tanar'ri and Baaetezu are just subraces of the examplars. Any demons are CE exemplars, wether they are Tanar'ri or not, just like any devils are LE exemplars, whether they are Baatezu or not.