Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 demondragonkinggav Sep 27, 2009 22:27:36	Eberron I believe has some things that are different and I was wondering since dragons are not subject to alignments in the same way in other D&D worlds.  So for a campaign I was making I was thinking of having it turn out that the NPC employing the players in a various tasks (which are all added towards an evil ends they are unaware of until near the end of the campaign) is in fact, a fallen Aasimar (evil Aasimar).   I was just wondering if such a thing would make sense in the Eberron world.  Or if that wouldn't fit. I know that whatever the DM says goes; but I wouldn't want to be anything that isn't true to the world itself.
#2 salla Sep 27, 2009 22:30:30	Since there was nothing stopping Aasimars from being evil in the first place, there's certainly no reason you can't have an evil one in Eberron.
#3 moonsword Sep 29, 2009 0:11:03	To clarify that, aasimar (unlike their celestial/angel ancestors, or half-celestials/half-angels) are not required to be good.  A "fallen" aasimar is somewhat atypical, but unlike the special exception a DM has to make for their ancestor, they're not in violation of any general rules. I've always treated monster alignments, even "always", as existing mainly to define the race as a whole.  There are always a few exceptions, but with an "always" alignment, they should be exceedingly rare.  An evil celestial is a traitor, not just to whatever god or organization they serve, but to an entire class of being... but then, there've always been stories about fallen angels and traitors in the courts of the gods.
#4 Aegeri Sep 30, 2009 4:21:51	I should point out again that in 4E terms, angels are unaligned and so it doesn't matter anymore. They can be any particular alignment and angels even serve evil gods now (as they are simply servants of whomever created them).
#5 moonsword Oct 05, 2009 17:49:37	Yes, but aasimar don't exist, per se, in 4e, so I kind of assumed that wasn't what the original poster was talking about.
#6 Cyber-Dave Oct 05, 2009 18:25:05	An angel could still fall in 4e. It is the nature of the fall, and not the ability to fall, that has changed. Angels, in 4e, are not good or evil. What they are is angelic. Angelic means that they serve the gods of the astral sea. If an angel was to stop serving a god of the astral sea, it would fall. How far it falls depends on whether it just stops serving a god of the astral sea, or whether it activly starts serving a powerful entity that is opposed to such a god (read: primordeal, or demon lord). This theological structure is directly supported by the visual depcition of 4e plane-scape. Astral sea on the top. Prime material plane, allone with its parallel reflections (shadowfell and feywild) in the center, and the elemental chaos at the bottom. For an angel to fall in 4e all it needs to do is move towards the ethical paradigm of the prime material realm, one of its parallel reflections, or the elemental chaos. However, this ethical paradigm is not reflected by alignment. There is good and evil in all levels of 4e metaverse. This ethical paradigm is something more ephemral. It is the difference between serving the gods, living your life without attachment to the gods, or opposing the gods. In all of these paradigms, good and evil exist. So, in 4e, angels can still rise and fall. It stands to reason, thus, that 1/2 angels, or 1/4 angels, can rise and fall as well. Eberron is no different in this than any other 4e campaign setting, so far as I can tell. The only difference is that the names of the top, middle, and bottom change slightly. It becomes syberys, eberron, and khyber.