Good Aligned Characters

[*rapsam2003]

What's so stupid in Outsiders spawned from their alignment changing forms when their alignment changes? It's perfectly logical. They're not truly alive or granted a full extent of free will. They don't have their alignments because they were raised in a specific culture but because it's the essence of which they're made.

Let's take Erinyes as an example.


They have wings, were originally angels, etc. See Fiendish Codex II for details (the bottom bar on p. 18 titled "Fallen Angels"). Erinyes are creatures that are both are born in the Hells (which is different from other Devils) AND are said to be "hideously beautiful". They are obviously a twisted form of angel. And that's the point.
Even creatures like the Erinyes didn't take on a completely different form, but rather experienced a twisting of their original form. (Note that Erinyes are somewhat outside the normal hierarchy of the Hells.) It takes more than just an alignment change to change a Planar creature's appearance.

To change form, there needs to be 1) a gradual process of corruption/redemption over a LONG time period AND 2) an event which causes that change of form (promotion to a higher form of devil/demon, a god redeeming that creature, etc.). You need both of those things for a change in form.

[*Embersworn]

They no longer can be taken for angels, save for if the individual meeting them is naive enough for the devil to abuse it.
So the form morphed, just not as dramatically as shifting to hamatula.

In a rare case any of them managed to stop being a fiend (dunno how, though, someone casting a forced alignment change on them, lol?) and they ever changed, the Angel version would probably retain the same body and face but with less creep and white wings.

I think the refusal kinda comes from people not remembering that the alignment and what is RPed with a character should go hand in hand. The personality makes the alignment, but the alignment drives the personality.

[*Hydra]

If you looked at my link to BoVD, you'll notice cannibalism is under "fetishes and addictions"...

Why is there a sodding book for that? :blink:

Um, there's not. It's the Book of Vile Darkness, which just happens to cover the concept of evil and has a 2 paragraph section on cannibalism...

I really thought that source book was fairly well known around these parts.

I always found this book and the Exalted deed one pretty terrible and mostly based on a Christian point of view. I'll take Heroes of Horror any time instead :P

[*Ceremorph]

My point is that if somehow a slaad managed to become lawful, they wouldn't turn into a modron on their own. Particularly since Modrons aren't the only beings native to Mechanus; the Formians are there too.

Also to point out the "spawned from the plane"... Aasimon, Baatezu, and Tanar'ri actually (with the exception of Erinyes) require a mortal soul to create. Which is what differentiates them from the Archons, Ancient Baatorians, and Obaryths. Slaad and Modrons still are naturally spawned (although in the case of slaadi, they can be spawned anywhere, not just in Limbo), as are Yugoloths. I've never really seen a viable explanation for eladrins, which are made particularly thorny when there are actual mortal elves who live on Arborea, nor have I seen it defined for Guardinals.

Of course, also a single step is a catastrophic change in any life. It's not like the "I used to be liberal and now I'm conservative" that most of use go through as we age, but rather a total repudiation of core beliefs that are as deeply held as possible for good to change to evil or chaos to law. Even among mortals, the difference between good and evil in the same character is more than "the evil one has a goatee and sometimes kicks puppies". From little things like "Is enslaving someone because you're more powerful than them proper" or "do we torture prisoners and enjoy doing it" to major themes like "do I believe that any enemy of my kingdom should be wiped from the earth in a genocidal spree", you'd literally have an entirely different person across the board. And as I said, that's even more pronounced in outsiders. The shift from CE to CG would be rather massive; the big jump from CE to LG would almost have to be a gradual process that takes centuries if not millenia, not a sudden snap of the fingers and "Hey guys, I think I'm a paladin now!"

[*Altair]

Rule 35. Or some facsimile thereof.

[*Embersworn]

Good luck explaining how a Coatl is good when they use poison which one of the books literally says is evil.

^This requirement of not using poisons is pretty stupid in D&D in general, but pretty sure it does not involve anything like natural inherit attacks creatures are born with. Venomous beasts don't cover their fangs with poison as a conscious choice, you know?

Good luck explaining how magical enchantment and mind control isn't evil but slavery is.

^Because it's a temporary form of magical attack, not a lifetime enslavement? Using Charm Person in an encounter will be just an attack, but if you use mind control spells to keep someone as a slave it's "Evil" act because it's exactly slavery the same way you used whips and shackles.

Good luck explaining that Djinn are ascetic selfless creatures and helpful all the time and don't act like genies since they're good.

A character isn't required to be an ascetic saint to qualify as Good. Where you even found it? Djinni's occassionaly help adventurers and usually aren't this kind of a-holes efreeti and dao are so they qualify into "Good" bracket. Probably very close to "Neutral", but still.

Good luck explaining how unicorns in fact do help the humanoid male adventurers instead of staying away except for an innocent female maiden.

^Why so strange? D&D unicorns aren't 100% identical with RL mythology. Don't have to be. Someone decided that they help good creatures and they do.

Also good luck explaining how a Slaad literally transforms into a Modron if they do something you characterize as lawful.

^They do? Since when? I'm trying to find a sourcebook saying they do. Pretty sure the only morphing descibed in books was on Good<->Evil axis.

Also, purely chaotic creatures like slaadi can even on occasion do something what looks like lawful behavior because random's gonna random.


I'm afraid you're taking things too literal.


The moral absolutism is totally a thing in D&D. A few exceptions in monster manuals who could not be written into any alignment system because they're too weird proves nothing. Monsters that weren't supposed to be playable have often alignments assigned with tactical mechanics in mind - aka what effects are supposed to be working against them.

But it doesn't mean the moral absolutism system isn't here.

You know this proverb about there being an exception from every rule?


As for cannibalism... You can't be even sure if the writer knew, for an example, there's something like a ritual burial cannibalism like "let's eat our dead granpa to show a respect to him".

But then, P&P books are written in mind with a DM ruling out inconsistencies and contradictions, not with taking the book literally.

[*rapsam2003]

If you looked at my link to BoVD, you'll notice cannibalism is under "fetishes and addictions"...

Why is there a sodding book for that? :blink:

Um, there's not. It's the Book of Vile Darkness, which just happens to cover the concept of evil and has a 2 paragraph section on cannibalism...

I really thought that source book was fairly well known around these parts.

As for cannibalism... This is a WoTC 3.0 book so you can't be even sure if the writer was educated enough to know, for an example, there's something like a ritual burial cannibalism like "let's eat our dead granpa to show a respect to him".

As I've said (for the 3rd time now), cannibalism in BoVD specifically mentions ONLY eating one's own kind for pleasure and eating for power. It's specific enough that this shouldn't even be an issue. The whole book is literally defining evil, not defining "this is not evil because X".

[*edmaster44]

Book of Vile darkness is the shit! It's my essential book along with Libris Mortis.

[*Mick64]

You can't pigeon hole all these monsters into the same moral absolutism purely based on human perspectives. To other creatures things you think don't matter at all absolutely do matter.

That's exactly what Moral Absolutism is : Morality exists outside of individual's perception of it. What a certain creature thinks matters does not make it -actually- matter. As far as I know, unless you can find a -book- saying otherwise, then the alignment system has the same standards for every race. Which is why, for example, orcs can be mostly evil. Even an orc who's really nice by orc standards is probably no better then Neutral, not Good.

So good luck explaining how fey are always helpful and caring and selfless and honest, going out of their way to help humans completely contradictory.

You seem to have causality wrong for alignments. Being Good does not make you do Good acts. It's doing Good acts that makes you Good. Alignment is then a "sum" of all your actions (Though I would say that recent actions probably count for more). You don't need to do Good acts all the time to be Good, you just need to do a good proportion more Good acts then Evil acts.

Also good luck explaining how a Slaad literally transforms into a Modron if they do something you characterize as lawful.

As mentioned above, you need a long dedication to Lawful acts to turn from Chaotic to Lawful, not just a single action. And I think outsiders changing type if they drift very far is kinda stupid too, but that's what the lore says.

'm quite baffled at the cannibalism = evil equation.
I'm pretty sure that cannibalism is evil only if you kill someone else for it, and not if you eat the meat of someone who died of natural/other causes.

I agree with you in real life. And reading through BoVD, it seems you are correct. Cannibalism is only Evil (in D&D) if you take pleasure in it. If you are doing it because it's your only choice to survive, it's not Evil.

[*Tomekk]

If you looked at my link to BoVD, you'll notice cannibalism is under "fetishes and addictions"...

Why is there a sodding book for that? :blink:

Um, there's not. It's the Book of Vile Darkness, which just happens to cover the concept of evil and has a 2 paragraph section on cannibalism...

I really thought that source book was fairly well known around these parts.

I know about it, yes, but you just made it sound even more cringeworthy by having it describe why eating another sentient being is not nice... :lol: