I think you might see stereotypes as set in stone when they are not really.
Sure they are stereotypes, but they are not absolute limitations, merely generalizations.
Most of the orcs are evil, but it doesn't mean they all are or need to be.
Some species might have deeper reasons to be good or evil than just cultural ones, but there can always be exceptions.
In short, the alignments in the Bestiary are guidelines for general moral and ethic tendencies.
And in the end, consider that alignment is not a programming.
The game is open. The alignment system is a tool, not a limitation.
Here's the official rule:
While a monster's size and type remain constant (unless changed by the application of templates or other unusual modifiers), alignment is far more fluid. The alignments listed for each monster in this book represent the norm for those monsters-they can vary as you require them to in order to serve the needs of your campaign. Only in the case of relatively unintelligent monsters (creatures with an Intelligence of 2 or lower are almost never anything other than neutral) and planar monsters (outsiders with alignments other than those listed are unusual and typically outcasts from their kind) is the listed alignment relatively unchangeable.Emphasis mine.
As you can see, anything shy of the very dumb or the planar are free to have any alignment you see fit. If they're really dumb or planar, you can still give them the alignment of your choice. However, it should be an abnormal exception, unless you're ditching the concept of absolute alignment in favor of a "gray" game of moral relativity.
The good imp should expect most people to assume he's evil until proven (and even in spite of proving) contrary. Because imps are literal incarnations of evil. They are sapient creatures, and capable of changing their ways. It's just highly improbable and likely to be seen as a diabolical plot to corrupt the innocent and naive.
Anyone who says alignment is immutable is flying in the face of RAW, as provided in the quote above. Alignment is a GM adjudication and serves the purpose of the story.
Billy Goat hit it on the head right here. It's just that sadly, most people tend to skip over that part in a rush to read the monster stat blocks.
what i do is take the first half of the alignment..say hobgoblins are lawful evil..i use lawful as the basis with most tending toward lawful evil.but i use use lawful to descibe there socity in general..this gives intresting varation..
|
In the earliest edition of D&D there was only lawful, neutral, and chaotic. Good and evil were not factors. In fact if you look at early societies their deities fall along those same lines. The Egyptian god, Set, was not evil. He represented strength, power, and war. One pharaoh even took him as his patron god, rather than Horus. Set also represented the chaos of the desert and wilderness. In early societies the line between good and evil was blurred at best. Noble knights could slaughter, rape and pillage peasants at will.
I prefer games based upon law and chaos, with those as themes. I do not like alignments though. Detect Evil has screwed too many good games (Carrion Crown I am looking at you)!
I have notice alot that people are saying monsters should always act according to alignments in book. I find this untrue to the fact that there could always be circumstances that could change a beings alignment. There could always be one that decided to go different route.
Goblins are a example given they could be played as good align characters as well as kobolds.
So how come say a Imp must always take persucution for being a imp. could there not be a divine act of a in world god that could alter the imps perspective.
The GM also has the right to go above the rules and alter anything that makes for a better story and experience. Sure that said Imp would be untrusted and be watched. He should have the right to earn the trust.
Lets break stereotypes in favor of interesting plot lines and stories.
What is everyone's thoughts.
IMO, a fiend (such as an imp) is "always" it's alignment. Said imp can't be redeemed. The oracle shouldn't even bother. Anyone who knows as much about religion as said oracle should know better.
Now where have I seen THIS before >.>
I suppose I can't fault you for keeping up with current events ;)
|
|
I prefer games based upon law and chaos, with those as themes. I do not like alignments though. Detect Evil has screwed too many good games (Carrion Crown I am looking at you)!
When I first started running Carrion Crown I ran it as is, no changes, figuring these guys are masters of the game after all. So when we got to book 3, the PCs did a quick Detect Evil and the bad guy that was supposed to befriend the PCs ping as the ONLY evil character in the camp. Yep they forgot to include an item to hide his alignment. I didn't want to change it, seeing they were the masters after all. By the time we hit book 4 EVERY single character received a major overhaul to be decent and not suck.
The reason I didn't want to change it is it is an AP. I dont want to have to go through and change every NPC to make it decent. I dont have time for that. Yet I had to in the end.
Angels and Asura seem to be the only ones in the Bestiaries called out for "falling/redemption" respectively. Always led me to believe that they are more susceptible to falling/redemption than other outsiders. Plus, I figure falling is more common than redemption since it is much easier to succumb to sin and such than it is to shed it and be a good person.
Also, don't forget Peri, the posterity of fallen angels out for redemption!
I'm a glass-half-full kinda guy; everything in my world is default Chaotic Good.
Except unicorns. They are evil, wicked things that should be smashed out of existence. In a cannon.
Tra-la-la!
In the earliest edition of D&D there was only lawful, neutral, and chaotic. Good and evil were not factors. In fact if you look at early societies their deities fall along those same lines. The Egyptian god, Set, was not evil. He represented strength, power, and war. One pharaoh even took him as his patron god, rather than Horus. Set also represented the chaos of the desert and wilderness. In early societies the line between good and evil was blurred at best. Noble knights could slaughter, rape and pillage peasants at will.I prefer games based upon law and chaos, with those as themes. I do not like alignments though. Detect Evil has screwed too many good games (Carrion Crown I am looking at you)!
Quite right on the L - N -C alignment scheme, but Lawful was pretty much equated with "good" and Chaotic with "evil". A number of creatures were on two of the three columns in this scheme (Goblins were both Neutral and Chaotic). Men were on all three of course...
The ancient world is not as big on the concept of "good" as later (post Christian) periods. The concept of "good" in D&D is largely Judeo-Christian. Meshing the two concepts (L-N-C and G-N-E) gave us the classic 9 alignment system of AD&D. I also seem to remember a six alignment version... can't recall where... Dragon magazine pre AD&D?
*edit* My own game is largely one of Law vs. Chaos btw. My "pseudo Catholic" High Church of Law is LG / LN / LE for example. The conflict between order and chaos is interesting and provides more moral ambiguity.
Could there not be a Imp that was spawn from a result of pure good or chaotic. Perhaps we could call them something else but they would carry a vague appearance similar to that of the evil imp.
I say there should be the
Evil Imp
Chaotic Imp
Good Imp
Lawful ImpSomething along those lines. If evil can make its why can't the others make their own. lol
Good has their own "servitor" sect. Angels have Cassian Angels, Archons have Lantern Archons...etc. I'd imagine that an imp that really wants to become good would eventually transform into those creature. Since it's lawful, probably a lantern archon.
The thing about redeeming fiends is that I feel it works best with a fiend that has sapience and a bit of autonomy (so they can think for themselves and defy their masters), but not a ruling sect like a pit fiend or balor (since they are so filled with evil that it's all but impossible to redeem). Also it helps that they would be the type of fiend that'd spend a great deal of time in the material plane, so that they can be "corrupted" by good's influence easier. That's why I feel that succubi are probably the most commonly redeemed fiends. They are cunning enough to think for themselves and betray a master, and they spend a great deal of time in Material Plane. I'm sure there are some devils and maybe daemons that'd fit the role. I could actually see a Contract Devil and an Erinyes as possible redemption candidates. I've actually always held the belief that Dispater would probably be the one Archdevil that would have enough of a shred of humanity to be redeemed, especially since...
Risen fiends exist just like fallen angels, just sayin'. :)
I knew it wouldn't take long for the summoning ritual to complete and call you into existence ;)
|
I knew it wouldn't take long for the summoning ritual to complete and call you into existence ;)
But srsly, agreed on Dispater. His article in the last(sad faec) issue of Kobold Quarterly* is very interesting.
Also, on the demon side of things, I need to get an "I'm With Ayavah" t-shirt or bumper sticker. (Love that NPC, and really hope WotR touches on that issue)
Can't help but also see the kytons of Zon-Kuthon(and in turn any angels that Shelyn may have inherited from Dou-Bral) being caught in a spiritual tug-of-war more often than most outsiders too...
*Which also gave us Adriel, Angel of Hope's devilish retinue that followed her out of Hell in issue #4, I think.
I'd have to read more on that. Dispater is a very complicated archdevil indeed.
On a similar note, I have Mahabali, a god in my homebrew of redemption, justice, and valor. Whose deep, dark secret expunged from the holy texts of all of his followers is that he was once an asura rana prince.
|
|
I'd have to read more on that. Dispater is a very complicated archdevil indeed.
On a similar note, I have Mahabali, a god in my homebrew of redemption, justice, and valor. Whose deep, dark secret expunged from the holy texts of all of his followers is that he was once an asura rana prince.
Ha, neat coincidence. The goddess of redemption in my homebrew was a risen marilith.
It just feels like a deity of redemption might feel more relatable knowing that they've "been there" so to speak. :)
Which has me really wondering about Sarenrae and her similarity to Peris now....hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......
Also, that Dispater article is well worth your time. Even has information and domains for his ex-wives!(and he's still on decent terms with them!)
I also seem to remember a six alignment version... can't recall where... Dragon magazine pre AD&D?
Mmm. I know that in 1977, there was the "Five Alignments" period -- the Holmes Basic Set (1977) explicitly set out LG, CG, LE, CE, and N, the AD&D Monster Manual (1977) classed all monsters as one of the five, and Gygax's article on alignment in the September 1977 issue of Dragon seemed to assume only those five. But I can't think of a six-alignment period. Unless, hmmm, one counts the mindless monsters in Holmes that had no alignment in their stat blocks as a sixth, in which case you could count Holmes as having six alignments.
I also seem to remember a six alignment version... can't recall where... Dragon magazine pre AD&D?
Mmm. I know that in 1977, there was the "Five Alignments" period -- the Holmes Basic Set (1977) explicitly set out LG, CG, LE, CE, and N, the AD&D Monster Manual (1977) classed all monsters as one of the five, and Gygax's article on alignment in the September 1977 issue of Dragon seemed to assume only those five. But I can't think of a six-alignment period. Unless, hmmm, one counts the mindless monsters in Holmes that had no alignment in their stat blocks as a sixth, in which case you could count Holmes as having six alignments.
That's probably it. Probably just 5 alignments with all the neutrals folded into one group, and the Dragon article I'm thinking of would be the September 1977 issue. The PHB (1978) and DMG (1979) have the full blown nine alignment system. I hadn't thought to check the MM as the earlier work.
Thanks!